july the agricultural august volume 77 education issue 1 · by gary moore t here were six men of...

JulyAugust

Volume 77Issue 1

The Agricultural

EDUCATIONM A G A Z I N E

Changing Purposes

of Agricultural Education

2 The Agricultural Education Magazine

EDITORIAL

What is Our Purpose?By Jamie Cano

Having never been a student ofagricultural education in high school,and upon entering my first high schoolteaching assignment, I was totally lost.However, in no time at all, I was ableto “function” as a first year teacher ofagriculture. Granted that I had obtainedmy B.S. and M. S. degrees prior to myfirst teaching assignment, I quickly re-alized that what I had learned in col-lege was not really what I needed to orwanted to be teaching.

I clearly remember one late fallafternoon sitting in my principal’s of-fice complaining that the curriculum Iwas teaching was boring, not only tome, but most likely to my students. Theprincipal’s response was pointed, yeton target. My principal responded:What are you going to do about it?Great question! I had no answer toprovide as I was “expecting” my prin-cipal to tell me what I should be teach-ing; after all, he is the principal!

During my holiday break that yearin 1985, I began to think about whatwas the “purpose” of my classroominstruction. Yes, I did have a core cur-riculum to follow, and yes, I did havethe resources from the National FFAOrganization, and the concept of SAEwas still foreign to me. Sitting at homeon my Apple IIe computer, I recall viv-idly how I began to piece together“semesterized” courses to teach.

After my holiday break, in Janu-ary, 1986, I approached the principalwith what I perceived to be my solu-tion to the “boredom” that I was facingin the classroom. I proposed eight dif-ferent semesterized courses.

I started to teach the “new” cur-riculum to my students immediately!WOW…what a difference itmade...not only in my attitude towardsteaching, but also in my student’s atti-tudes towards learning. The agricul-tural education program, no excuse me,the vocational agriculture program, atmy high school was thus transformedto serve what I believed was the pur-poses of my instruction.

Anyone who lived through andtaught in the 1980s, 1990s, can tell youthat the two decades were full of chal-lenges and forces in education and ag-riculture. As a result, the first “revo-lutionary” report on agricultural edu-cation was published in 1988 with theNational Research Council’s Under-standing Agriculture: New Direc-tions for Education. The purposeof the report was to offer recommen-dations regarding the goals for instruc-tion in agriculture; the subject matterand skills that should be stressed in cur-ricula for different groups of students;and, policy changes needed at the lo-cal, state, and national levels to facili-tate the new and revised agriculturaleducation programs in secondaryschools.

The ensuing results at the locallevel as a direct consequence of theNational Research Council’s report isstill debated today. Granted however,the report did cause lots of discussionand some changes within AgriculturalEducation programs in this country.Following the National ResearchCouncil’s report, a second report wasissued in 2000. The second report en-titled: The National Strategic Planand Action Agenda for AgriculturalEducation, was also widely dissemi-nated and discussed. Again, as with

the Understanding Agriculture: NewDirections for Education, the ensu-ing results at the local level as a directconsequence of The National Strate-gic Plan and Action Agenda for Ag-ricultural Education is still debatedtoday.

Today, four years post the sec-ond national report on Agricultural Edu-cation, one may wonder why the ques-tion of what is the purpose of Agricul-tural Education is still being raised. Onewould venture to guess that the Smith– Hughes Act of 1917 created our pur-pose, and that subsequent legislationhas further defined or refined our pur-poses.

However, why does AgriculturalEducation continue to let legislators dic-tate our purposes? If one takes a his-torical tour of legislation which has di-rectly impacted Agricultural Education,it would be easy to conclude that lawsissued down from Congress have beenthe main vehicle for changes in Agri-cultural Education. How much longercan we as a profession allow others todictate what we believe ought to beour purposes? Perhaps it is time for acohort group of agricultural educatorswho share a common vision for a na-tional scope and direction for agricul-tural education to rise and shine! It isalways stated that the “third time’s thecharm!”

Jamie Cano is an AssociateProfessor at The Ohio StateUniversity and is Editor of TheAgricultural Education Magazine.

3 July - August 2004

Theme: Changing Purposes ofAgricultural Education

CONTENTS

Editorial: What is Our Purpose? ........................................................................... 2By Jamie Cano, Editor

Theme Editor Comments:The Blind Man, the Elephant, and Agricultural Education ...................... 4By Gary Moore

Theme Articles:Questioning our Purpose ....................................................................... 6By Rob Terry

California’s Road to Defining the Purpose ofAgricultural Education ............................................................................. 9By Cary J. Trexler and Lisa A. Leonardo

Agricultural Education....EOE? .............................................................. 12By Jodie Moffitt

Dumping Grounds ................................................................................ 15By Barry Croom and Gary Moore

Food to Me: A Farm-to-Table Program forMiddle School Children ........................................................................ 19By Chris Cassel, Joseph Miller, Todd Biddle,and Michael Benner

Agricultural Education = Agricultural Literacy ....................................... 23By Kimberly A. Bellah, James E. Dyer, andGlen R. Casey

Do You Believe in the Future of AgriculturalEducation? ............................................................................................ 25By Tim J. McDermott and Neil A. Knobloch

Authors writing for the July -August 2004 issue of TheAgricultural EducationMagazine discuss the everchanging purposes ofAgricultural Education.

SubscriptionsSubscription price for The Agricultural EducationMagazine is $10.00 per year. Foreign subscriptions are$20.00 (U.S. currency) per year for surface mail, and $40(U.S. currency) foreign airmail (except Canada). Ordersmust be for one year or longer. We can accept up to a threeyear subscription. Refunds are not available. Please allow4 - 6 weeks delivery of first magazine. Claims for missingissues cannot be honored after three months from date ofpublication, six months for foreign subscriptions. Singlecopies and back issues less than 10 years old are availableat $5 each ($10.00 foreign mail). All back issues areavailable on microfilm from UMI University Microfilms,300 North Zeeb Road, Ann Arbor, MI 48106. UMIUniversity Microfilms telephone number is (313) 761-4700. In submitting a subscription, designate new orrenewal and provide mailing address including ZIP code.Send all subscriptions and requests for hard copy backissues to the Business Manager: James H. Smith, Texas TechUniversity, Box 42131, Lubbock, TX, 79409, Phone (806)742-2816, FAX: (806) 742-2880.E-mail: [email protected].

Article SubmissionArticles and photographs should be submitted to theeditor or theme editors. Items to be considered forpublication should be submitted at least 90 days prior tothe date of the issue intended for the article or photograph.All submissions will be acknowledged by the Editor. Noitems are returned unless accompanied by a written request.Articles should be typed double-spaced, and includeinformation about the author(s). One hard copy and oneelectronic copy of the article should be submitted. A recent,hardcopy photograph should accompany the article unlessone is on file with the editor. Articles in the magazine maybe reproduced without permission but should beacknowledged.

EditorDr. Jamie Cano, Associate Professor, Department of Humanand Community Resource Development, The Ohio StateUniversity, 208 Agriculture Administration Building,2120 Fyffe Road, Columbus, OH, 43210, Phone (614) 292-6321, FAX: (614) 292-7007.E-mail: [email protected]

Publication InformationThe Agricultural Education Magazine (ISSN 07324677)is the bi-monthly professional journal of agriculturaleducation. The journal is published by the AgriculturalEducation Magazine, Inc. and is printed at M&DPrinting, 515 University Avenue, Henry, IL61537.

Periodicals postage paid at Ames, IA 50010 andadditional offices.


The Blind Man, the Elephant, and AgriculturalEducation

THEME EDITOR COMMENTS

By Gary Moore

There were six men of IndostanTo learning much inclined,

Who went to see the elephant(Though all of them were blind),

That each by observationMight satisfy his mind.

The first approached the elephant,And, happening to fall

Against his broad and sturdy side,At once began to bawl,

“God Bless me! But the elephantIs very like a wall.”

The second, feeling of the tuskCried, “Ho, what have we here,So very round and smooth and

sharp?To me ’tis mighty clear,

This wonder of an elephantIs very like a spear!”

The third approached the animal,And happening to take

The squirming trunk within hishands,

thus boldly up and spake:“I see,” quoth he, “the elephant

Is very like a snake.”

The fourth reached out an eagerhand,

And felt above the knee;“What most this wondrous beast is

likeIs mighty plain” quoth he,

“’Tis clear enough the elephantIs very like a tree.”

The fifth who chanced to touch theear,

Said: “E’en the blindest manCan tell what this resembles most

Deny the fact who can,This marvel of an elephant

Is very like a fan!”

The sixth no sooner had begunAbout the beast to grope,

Than, seizing on the swinging tailThat fell within his scope,

“I see,” quoth he, “the elephantIs very like a rope.”

And so these men of IndostanDisputed loud and long,Each in his own opinion

Exceeding stiff and strong,Though each was partly in the right,

And all were in the wrong!

The Blind Men and theElephant, John G. Saxe

The Purpose of AgriculturalEducation

If one were to ask six guidancecounselors, principals, or people on thestreet corner about the purpose of ag-ricultural education, one might get asmany answers as the men who felt ofthe elephant. Even those in the profes-sion may have a difference of opinionabout the purpose of agricultural edu-cation. Let’s explore some of the pos-sible answers we might get.

The purpose of agricultural edu-cation is to prepare people for work.The Smith-Hughes Act, the foundinglegislation for our field clearly stated inregards to vocational agriculture, “thecontrolling purpose of such educationshall be to fit for useful employment.”Furthermore, this is the primary pur-pose identified in the national missionstatement for agricultural education,“Agricultural education prepares stu-dents for successful careers and a life-time of informed choices in the globalagriculture, food, fiber, and natural re-sources systems” (The Council, 2004).So it is very plain that the purpose ofagricultural education is to preparepeople for work.

The purpose of agricultural edu-cation is to reinforce academic skillsand prepare students for higher edu-cation. In the opening section of thePresident’s plan for the reauthorizationof the Perkins legislation, one finds thestatement, “…every U.S. student needsto complete high school with a high levelof academic skills and be prepared totake advantage of education and train-

THE PURPOSES OFAGRICULTURAL EDUCATION

♦♦♦♦♦To prepare people for work♦♦♦♦♦To reinforce academic skills and prepare students for higher education♦♦♦♦♦To serve speical needs students♦♦♦♦♦To promote agricultural literacy♦♦♦♦♦To promote the development of leisure time♦♦♦♦♦To provide an alternative for students who do not do well in school


November – December 2004 IssueTheme: Professional Measurement

As a teacher, how do I know that I am making a difference in the profes-sion? What can I use as a teacher to show that I am making a differenceto the students that I teach? How can I as a teacher, verify to my admin-istrators, that my program is of high quality? How does a beginning teacher,as opposed to a veteran teacher, begin to mange his/her time to ensurethat all aspects of the program are carried out, yet still have personaltime?

Theme Editor: MeeCee BakerR. D. #2, Box 2125Port Royal, PA 17082Email: [email protected]: (717) 527-2050

Articles Due to Theme Editor: September 15, 2004Articles Due to Editor: October 1, 2004

ing beyond high school.” (UnitedStates Department of Education,2004) Clearly the administration be-lieves the purpose of secondary voca-tional education is to help teachacademic skills and get students readyfor post-secondary education wherethey can learn work skills.

The purpose of agricultural edu-cation is to serve special needs stu-dents. The Carl Perkins Act of 1984called for 57% of the state allocationsfor vocational education to be spenton special populations. Vocational edu-cation was specifically directed towork with the disadvantaged, handi-capped, adults who need retraining,single parents, displaced homemakers,and the incarcerated. This legislationcoupled with the IDEA Act (Individu-als with Disabilities Education Act) of1975, which brought aboutmainstreaming has shifted the focusof vocational education to serving spe-cial populations.

The purpose of agricultural edu-cation is to promote agricultural lit-eracy. In 1988 the National ResearchCouncil’s report, Understanding Ag-riculture: New Directions for Edu-cation, suggested, “all students shouldreceive at least some systematic in-struction about agriculture beginning inkindergarten or first grade and con-tinuing through twelfth grade.” Withthe changing demographics of Americaand the fact that less than two per-cent of the population lives on farms,this is where agricultural educationneeds to focus its efforts.

The purpose of agricultural edu-cation is to promote the developmentof leisure time interests (avocationalskills). Some students enroll in agricul-tural education to learn more aboutflowers, horses, agricultural mechan-ics, etc. They do not plan to pursuecareers in these areas nor study themin college. Yet, they enjoy the content

and may use what they learn as ahobby. This is certainly a legitimatereason for taking an agriculturalcourse.

The purpose of agricultural edu-cation is to provide an alternative forstudents who do not do well in school.Can you spell D-U-M-P-I-N-G G-R-O-U-N-D? Unfortunately, there aresome educators who believe that agri-cultural education is a dumping groundfor the incorrigible, unmotivated,troublemakers of the school. Whatmakes the matter worse is that someagriculture teachers operate agricul-tural education programs that rein-forces this notion!

The real question is does Agricul-tural Education have to be one or theother or should it be all of the above(with the possible exception of the last

National Research Council.(1988). Understanding agriculture:new directions for education. Wash-ington, DC: National Academy Press.

Saxe, John G. The Blind Men andthe Elephant (1942). in Woods, RalphL. (Ed.) Treasury of the Familiar, NewYork: Grolier. 1942. p. 8-9

Smith-Hughes Act. ON-LINE:http://www.cals.ncsu.edu/agexed/sae/smithugh.html. (2004)

The Council. http://www.teamaged.org/aged.htm (2004)

United States Department of Edu-cation. (2004) The Carl D. PerkinsSecondary and Technical EducationExcellence Act Summary of Major Pro-visions. http://www.ed.gov/policy/sectech/leg/cte/04blueprnt.doc (2004)

Gary Moore is a Professor atNorth Carolina State University


Questioning Our Purpose

THEME ARTICLE

“I’m not an answering machine,I’m a questioning machine. If we haveall the answers, how come we’re insuch as mess?” — Douglas Cardinal,architect.

It seems that over the past fewyears professional Agricultural Educa-tors and other interested parties haveundertaken several efforts to define ourpurpose – Who are we? Who do weserve? What do we do? How do wedo what we do? What is our future?So, after years of investigation, inputfrom literally hundreds of people andthe expenditure of over a million dol-lars, why do we need to have an issueof The Agricultural Education Maga-zine with a theme that asks, “What isthe purpose of Agricultural Education?”Don’t we know by now that the pur-pose of Agricultural Education is agri-cultural literacy?

What’s the Difference?

Let’s get this straight from the start…The “agricultural literacy” focus andthe “vocational” focus are very differ-ent. With a vocational focus, the goalsof the program are to prepare studentsfor specific careers related to agricul-ture. The outcome is a graduate whois ready to go to work or continue his/her education in a particular field inagriculture. With an agricultural literacyfocus, the educational goal is to exposethe learner to the symbiotic relation-ship they have with agriculture. Theoutcome is someone who has knowl-edge and accurate perceptions aboutagriculture. Put another way, a voca-tional approach to agriculture teaches

students how to grow corn while a lit-eracy approach to agriculture teachesstudents how corn is grown and howthe growing of corn impacts them.

How Did We Get Here?

So, where did this agricultural lit-eracy versus vocational training debatecome from anyway? History tells usthat when federal support for the teach-ing of agriculture in public schools wascreated with the Smith-Hughes Act,vocational preparation was the focus.

The act stated that it was forpeople “who have entered upon or whoare preparing to enter upon the workof the farm.” Subsequent legislationexpanded that vocational function to in-clude “off-farm” agricultural jobs anddirected the training to students withspecial needs. Strict adherence to thevocational agriculture model calls forstudents to identify a career path inagriculture and then select courses to

prepare them for that career. Studentsconducted a Supervised OccupationalExperience Program (SOEP) to pro-vide more individualized, specific vo-cational training.

I remember as a freshman in highschool having to identify an agriculturalcareer path in my FFA record book. I,like almost everyone in that class, se-lected “production agriculture.” Dale,who sat down the row from me wantedto know what to put if he wanted to bea race car driver. According to the“vocational” model, my teacher shouldhave counseled Dale to select a dif-ferent career or a different class.

During this same time period, thepercentage of Americans engaged inproduction agriculture was shrinking.Today, estimates of the number ofpeople involved in farming and ranch-ing range from 1% - 2% of our popu-lation. While a much greaterpercentage of our workforce can becounted in careers “related” to agri-culture, the relationship of those relatedcareers to the curriculum taught in highschool agriculture classes is debatable.

On the other hand, there is no ar-guing the fact that all of us interact withagriculture, no matter how narrowly orbroadly you define it, on a daily basis.The abundant availability of agriculturalproducts for a multitude of purposes iscritical to our way of life today. Astrong case can be made for peopleunderstanding basic concepts of agri-culture on the basis of consumerawareness. Furthermore, consideringthe fact that in our system of gover-nance citizens have the opportunity toimpact policy, it is in the best interestof agriculturists that people are agri-culturally literate. Even Dale, the fu-

By Rob Terry

Today, estimatesof the numberof people in-volved in farm-ing and ranch-ing range from1% - 2% of ourpopulation.


ture race car driver, should take agri-cultural literacy classes!

Want More Clarity?

In 1988, nearly 16 years ago, theCommittee on Agricultural Educationin Secondary School of the NationalResearch Council’s Board on Agricul-ture concluded, “The focus of agricul-tural education must change” (p. 2).The report of the committee, Under-standing agriculture: New directionsin education (1988), went on to say,“Much of the focus and content ofmany vocational agriculture programsis outdated.” (p. 3)

Responding to the changes in popu-lation dynamics and changes in agri-culture, efforts were made to updatethe labeling and even the content ofvarious aspects of Agricultural Educa-tion programs. For example, Super-vised Occupational Experience

Programs (SOEP) became SupervisedAgricultural Experiences (SAE). Justas vocational agriculture is differentfrom agricultural literacy, SAE is dif-ferent from SOEP. In fact, SOEP isvocational training while SAE is agri-cultural literacy exploration.

The most recent quest of introspec-tion by our discipline was the “Rein-venting Agricultural Education for theYear 2020” project. The outcome ofthat multi-year, national endeavor wasThe National Strategic Plan and Ac-tion Agenda for Agricultural Education(The National Council for AgriculturalEducation, 2000). The vision articu-lated in that document says: “Agricul-tural education envisions a world whereall people value and understand the vi-tal role of agriculture…” (p. 3). Thatvision is a vision of agricultural literacy!

Why is This So Hard to FigureOut?

Okay, in all honesty, I do under-stand that there are several reasons wehave not wholeheartedly embraced anexclusive focus of agricultural literacyfor our discipline. Among these rea-sons is our relationship with other “vo-cational” education programs.Divorcing our program from the voca-tional education family would have hugeimplications for us and the other ca-reer and technical education divisions.Longstanding support and leadershipstructures would certainly be severedand it would be inappropriate for us tocontinue to tap into traditional, legis-lated funding sources that have beenprovided to Agricultural Education fordecades.

On the other hand, is it not obviousthat our future is something different

than our past? Do we not already seeourselves as something more than vo-cational education?

We have long touted the fact thatmany graduates of our program pur-sue higher education rather than en-tering the workforce. More and moreof the curriculum materials being de-veloped for Agricultural Educationcomes from sources other than thoseused by other career and technical edu-cation programs. In fact, some of themost popular new course titles thatdraw large numbers of students intolocal Agricultural Education programshave a distinct agricultural literacy fo-cus.

“The focusof agriculturale d u c a t i o nmust change”

How many students who take wild-life management classes in high schoolplan to pursue careers related to thatarea? How many will use the con-cepts they learn in hobbies related to

If our programis vocational,then why do ourp r o f e s s i o n a lgroups nolonger hold theirc o n f e r e n c e swith other voca-tional educa-tors?


WEBMASTER

that area?

Want more examples of how wein Agricultural Education see ourselvesas different from other vocational ar-eas? If our program is vocational, thenwhy do our professional groups nolonger hold their conferences withother vocational educators? Why haveAgricultural Education programs onseveral university campuses movedfrom divisions of career and technicaleducation to new homes in colleges ofagriculture? While the common threadthat existed between agricultural edu-cation and vocational education hasbecome frayed, why do we continueto look for excuses to hold on?

What could we be with an agricul-tural literacy purpose?

At the start of this article, I quotedrenowned architect Douglas Cardinal.While he has won much acclaim forhis designs of buildings, he has alsobeen instrumental in designing othersystems. In fact, he developed themaster plan for education in Alberta.He says his approach in architecture,as well as in life, is to identify the needsof humans and develop systems to bestserve those needs. To discover needsand create systems, we must ask ques-tions. Therefore, as we think aboutthe purpose of Agricultural Education,I propose we consider these questions:

♦ Are we satisfied that the vastmajority of all students havelittle or no exposure to agriculture and how it impacts all ofus in so many ways?

♦ What if we could create agricultural education programsthat appeal to a broader rangeof students’ interests and

needs?

♦ What if students could explorethe diversity of agriculture andexperience it, individually, under the supervision of theirteacher rather than just focusing on one particular careerarea?

♦ What could agricultural education become if we pursuedfunding and support for an agricultural literacy focus, independent of the stipulations thatgo with the current vocationaleducation funding?

What would move our disciplineforward, increased focus upon voca-

Rob Terry is a Professor at theUniversity of Missouri.

tional training or increased focus onagricultural literacy development?

To find answers, we must first askquestions. In my opinion, when we askquestions about the purpose of Agri-cultural Education, we will find the an-swer is agricultural literacy.

Students working in an agriscience laboratory. How have thepurposes of agricultural laboratories changed over the years?


California’s Road to Defining the Purpose ofAgricultural Education

By Cary J. Trexler and Lisa A. Leonardo

There is growing debate aboutthe purpose and future direction of ag-ricultural education in California. TheUniversity of California at Davis re-cently conductd a survey of agricul-ture teachers, state department ofeducation consultants, and teacher edu-cators about the future of agriculturaleducation. The study found mountingtension about the underlying purposeof agricultural education, e.g. shouldAg Ed focus on meeting college-prepacademic requirements or focus oncareer-technical (vocational) prepara-tion.

This tension is rooted in the historyof agricultural education. In 1917 theSmith-Hughes Act provided permanentfederal funding to the states that “cre-ated a system of vocational educationof broad scope” (True, 1929). Voca-tional agriculture was one of three ar-eas included in the original legislation.The Act intended vocational educationto provide practical instruction in agri-culture, trade, industrial, and home eco-nomics subjects for the purpose ofpreparing those of non-college age foruseful employment (Smith-Hughes Act,1917).

Throughout the years, agriculturaleducation remained steadfast to its vo-cational roots until the report A Nationat Risk was released 1983. The re-port claimed U.S. public education wasin peril and used as evidence standard-ized test comparisons with other coun-ties (National Commission onExcellence in Education, 1983). Toremedy this “dismal performance” byU.S. schools, the report recommended:

State and local high schoolgraduation requirements be strength-ened and that, at a minimum, all stu-dents seeking a diploma be requiredto lay the foundations in the FiveNew Basics by taking the followingcurriculum during their 4 years ofhigh school: (a) 4 years of English;(b) 3 years of mathematics; (c) 3years of science; (d) 3 years of so-cial studies; and (e) one-half yearof computer science. For the college-bound, 2 years of foreign languagein high school are strongly recom-mended in addition to those takenearlier. (National Commission on Ex-

cellence in Education, 1983).

Across the nation a call soundedto reform public schools. Californiaadopted new graduation standards andacross the state agricultural educationprograms enrollments plummeted froma high of over 50,000 in the late 70’s toa low 30,109 by 1988. Many arguethat decline resulted because studentswere no longer able to fit agriculturecourses into their schedules. Agricul-tural educators were faced with tre-mendous pressure to reorganize theircurriculum to meet the increased aca-demic requirements.

Many programs faced eliminationbecause of under enrollment. Tocounter the potential demise of pro-grams, many in California agriculturaleducation began to integrate academicrequirements into their existing courses,thereby satisfying local graduation re-quirements (e.g., an Animal Sciencecourse received science graduationcredit). This shift toward academicswas further solidified as many agricul-ture education courses were approvedby the University of California (UC)as admissions requirements.

The UC is designed to accept onlythe top 12.5% of the states graduatingseniors and, as a result, has very rigor-ous academic entrance requirements.To meet these standards, courses likeAgricultural Biology were developedto satisfy UC laboratory science re-quirements. As much of California’scurriculum has transformed (i.e., re-ceive graduation credit and UC admis-sion credit), agricultural educationenrollments have moved upward, with

The studyfound mount-ing tensionabout the

underlyingpurpose ofagriculturaleducation...

THEME ARTICLE


an all time high of 54,055 students in2003. Certainly the move toward aca-demic credit for agriculture courses isnot the only reason for this upswing.Many industrial technology courseshave moved under the direction of ag-riculture departments because thereare few shop teachers being creden-tialed in the state. In many schoolsagriculture is the only viable career-based elective remaining.

Even though agricultural educationin the state appears to be in good stead,current legislation (Senate Bill 1795)seeks to make the stringent UC en-trance requirements the standard forall California students. Such a movecould further decrease possibilities ina student’s schedule by allowing onlytwo elective courses in a four-year highschool career. This requirement wouldlimit even further the average lengthof time students spend in an agricul-ture program, currently those enrolledspend approximately one and half yearsin agriculture classes.

As almost a myopic view of aca-demics drives the California educationalsystem, the days of a four-year se-quenced course of study in agricultureappear to be over for most students.To counter this trend, many schoolshave designed course for first yearagriculture students that satisfy eithera graduation or UC entrance require-ment. As they progress further in theprogram, however, the likelihood ofadvanced courses meeting an aca-demic requirement often decrease.

As California has moved to to-wards academics, many agriculturaleducation programs now maintain dualtracks: a vocationally oriented courseof study (e.g., Agricultural Mechanicsand Ornamental Horticulture) and acollege-prep academic one (e.g., Ag-

ricultural Biology and Agricultural Sci-ence Core I & II). Enrollment dataprovided in 2002 Table 1. sheds insightinto the enrollment and courses offeredin statewide.

With these dual tracks, haveCalifornia’s programs begun to definethe “two” purposes of agricultural edu-cation? Conflict between these twopurposes has become quite apparentin the study mentioned at the begin-

ning of this article. University of Cali-fornia at Davis researchers askedteachers do define the “top 10 mostcritical issues facing California agricul-tural education over the next 10 years.”Over 80% of the teachers reported thatmeeting an academic requirement wasa critical issue for them. Conversely,about 30%, were concerned about los-ing the vocational orientation for whichagricultural education was originallydesigned. One teacher summarized the

Statewide Student Enrollment in Agricul-tural Education Courses, 2002

Subject Area Student Enrollment % Periods Taught %

Ag Mechanics 24 26Ag Core I 24 21Ornamental Hort 14 13Animal Science 7 8Other Ag 6 7Ag Biology 8 7Ag Core II 7 7Ag Bus Mgt 4 5Plant/Soil Science 3 3Forestry/NR 2 2

Source: CDE, R-2 Report, 2002

Table 1


spirit of the group:

“We have the ability to be aca-demic, but many students who take Agare not heading for that 4 year univer-sity. If we are focused to become com-pletely academic, we lose a great groupof kids that are truly vocational andbenefit from those type of classes.”

This tension between meeting theacademic and vocational needs of stu-dents is reflected in many agriculturaleducation departments as they struggleto maintain enrollment and developcurriculum that meets academics stan-dards mandated by the state’s legisla-ture. One agriculture teacherlamented:

I agree that Ag. Ed. needed tochange and reflect more science andimprove on the use of all core subjectareas [from the California ContentStandards in e.g., mathematics, English,and science]. However, in the increas-ing climate of academics we appear tobe moving away from the vocationaltraining.

California has often reflected fu-ture trends in agricultural education. Asthe state moves toward academics, ei-ther as a way to serve the college-bound student or as a way foragricultural education to fit into the in-creasingly academic public school, howcan we continue to meet the needs ofall students? Or should we? Not allstudents will be best served by prepar-ing for a four-year degree and mostcareers today do not require a post-secondary degree.

On the other hand, many of thestudents who will help create a newagri-food system will require college.Much has changed since the passageof the Smith-Hughes Act, but agricul-

tural education has been able to adaptmore readily to the changing world thanthe other “traditional” vo-tech areas.As we adapted, the tension betweenthe original purpose and now the dualpurposes of agricultural education di-rectly effect the future of the profes-sion.

References:

California Department of Educa-tion. (2001). R-2 program enrollmentreport. Agricultural Education Unit:Sacramento, CA. ON-LINE: http://www.calaged.org/R2/index.htm (May14, 2004).

National Commission on Excel-lence in Education. (1983). A nationat risk. United State Department ofEducation. ON-LINE: http://www.ed.gov/pubs/NatAtRisk/risk.html(May 14, 2004).

Lisa A. Leonardo is a GraduateStudent Researcher at the Univer-sity of California, Davis

Smith-Hughes Act. ON-LINE:http://www.cals.ncsu.edu/agexed/sae/smithugh.html (May 18, 2004).

True, A.C. (1929). A history ofagricultural education in the UnitedStates: 1785-1925. Washington, D.C.:U.S. Department of Agriculture, U.S.Government Printing Office.

Cary J. Trexler is an AssistantProfessor at the Universityo fCAlifornia, Davis

A preservice teacher talks to elementary students regardingthe agricultural sciences and agricultural literacy. What

should be agricultural education’s role in agricultural literacy?


THEME ARTICLE

Agricultural Education...EOE?

By Jodie Moffitt

When I was in my early teens,I began looking over the classified adsin the local newspaper, always hopingthat perfect part-time job would bethere staring up at me. As I browsedthese job openings, most of which I wasnot qualified for, I became aware thatmost of them were followed with theletters EOE. One day I finally got cu-rious enough to ask my dad, “Whatdoes EOE mean at the end of a jobadvertisement?” This was my first ex-perience with Equal Opportunity Em-ployers. It seemed logical to me thatthe same opportunities should be opento everyone as long as they were ca-pable of doing the job. Does agricul-tural education create equal opportu-nity employees? Are we giving every-one the skills they need to be a capableemployee?

As inclusion becomes morepopular, educators have been challengedwith teaching students with learningdisabilities in regular classrooms. Thesestudents are noticeably different interms of their academic ability in rela-tion to their peers. They require moreplanning and more transition servicesin order to have a productive life afterhigh school. It is our learning disabledstudents who could possibly benefitmost from the things agricultural edu-cation has to offer. Career and techni-cal education has the potential to givestudents concrete skills that they canuse in the job market and hopefully havean equal opportunity at employment.Unfortunately, not all career and tech-nical education is created equal whenit comes to preparing disabled students

abilities Act of 1990 ensures that dis-abled persons have access to all publicaccommodations, employment, trans-portation, and other government ser-vices (Public Law 101-336).

One of the most well known lawsin education is the Individuals with Dis-abilities Education Act. This law wasoriginally signed in 1975 as the Educa-tion for all Handicapped Children Act.We are currently operating under thelaw as it was amended in 1997. IDEAguarantees a free and appropriate edu-cation for everyone with physical ormental disabilities. It helps fund theextra costs of educating disabled peopleand requires that each child being edu-cated using IDEA funds have an Indi-vidualized Education Plan (IEP) thatoutlines the goals of his or her educa-tion (IDEA’97). The Carl D. PerkinsAct of 1998 provided more funds forincluding special populations in all as-pects of Career and Technical Educa-tion (Public Law 105-332).

Despite efforts to make finding ajob easier, people with disabilities havea hard time finding and obtaining em-ployment. If they do, it is often onlypart-time and low paying. Only threeout of ten adults with disabilities ages18 to 64 are employed full or part timecompared to eight out of ten adultswithout disabilities (NOD 2000). Sixty-seven percent of people with disabili-ties who are not employed say theywould rather be employed, and onestudy even found that less than half oftheir sample of disabled people whocurrently had a job was employed fulltime (Harvey 2001). Reviews of stud-ies on the efficacy of career and tech-nical education in helping disabled stu-dents successfully find employmentrepeatedly showed that general careerand technical education was not enough

Career andtechnical edu-cation has thepotential togive studentsconcrete skillsthat they canuse in the jobmarket andhopefully havean equal op-portunity atemployment.

for jobs after high school.

There are four important federallaws that require us to provide an ap-propriate education for our studentswith disabilities (Wonacott 2001). Sec-tion 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of1973 requires that any program thatreceives federal funding cannot dis-criminate against anyone based solelyon their handicap or disability (PublicLaw 93-112). The Americans with Dis-


to improve job marketability (Wonacott200 1, Harvey 2001, Shapiro and Lentz1991).

What can agricultural educationdo to improve the employability of ourstudents with learning disabilities?Equal opportunity employers hirepeople who are capable of doing thejob. Our disabled students are able andwilling to do many things. We have toteach them and allow them to practicethe skills that will make them a capableemployee. Students who had trainingin occupationally specific career andtechnical education courses on aver-age had better post school employmentoutcomes, even if the job they acquiredwasn’t related to the trade in whichthey were trained (Shapiro and Lentz2001).

Research has shown that partici-pating in career and technical educa-tion classes reduces disabled students’risk of dropping out and increases thelikelihood that they will be employedafter high school (Wonacott 2001).Harvey concluded that career andtechnical education made a “significantdifference in post-school employmentfor students with disabilities when itwas occupationally specific and di-rected at labor market needs” (2001).

Almost sixty percent of studentswith disabilities have taken career andtechnical education classes, a muchhigher rate than non-disabled students(Harvey 2001). We have the opportu-nity to see the same students returnyear to year in hopes of gaining moreknowledge in a particular area. Thisgives students, parents, and teachersthe chance to focus on what intereststhe student most and where he or shewill fit best into those labor marketneeds.

Supervised Agricultural Experi-ence (SAE) is a great way to providespecial education students with indi-vidualized practice in real world agri-culture. Since most agricultural teach-ers require an SAE project of their stu-dents anyway, this is an excellent op-portunity to make sure students withlearning disabilities have a chance topractice skills rather than simply re-ceive classroom instruction.

Placement SAE projects offer

on-the-job training and could possiblylead to a job after high school. And donot rule out entrepreneurship SAEprojects for special education studentseither! According to the National Or-ganization on Disability (NOD), peoplewith disabilities are twice as likely asthe general population to be self-em-ployed. For example, a student in anurban area might consider starting apet sitting business as an SAE project,which could continue as post schoolemployment.

Wonacott outlines several char-acteristics of successful career andtechnical education that improves dis-abled students’ post-school employ-ment potential: proactive, individualized,accommodating, driven by the studentand parents, and continued assessment(2001). Communication between stu-dents, parents, and teachers is essen-tial to making sure the student’s agri-cultural education program is what heor she wants and needs.

Be proactive by constantlysearching for Placement SAE oppor-tunities and businesses that may bemore accommodating to students withlearning disabilities. Daughtry and Relf(1995) explain the importance of com-munication between educators andemployers when finding opportunitiesfor learning disabled students in thehorticulture industry. This growing in-dustry has many jobs that are minimumskilled, manual labor. Many employersin this industry are willing to hire dis-abled students but feel as if they needmore information on training and work-ing with those types of employees.

Just as I did as a teenager, learn-ing disabled students often look throughclassified ads in the newspaper hopingto find employment. And just as I did,

Research hasshown that par-ticipating in ca-reer and techni-cal educationclasses reducesdisabled stu-dents’ risk ofdropping outand increasesthe likelihoodthat they will beemployed afterhigh school.


THEME ARTICLE

they often find they do not have theskills that make them capable of ap-plying for those jobs. It does not mat-ter if the advertisement ends with theletters EOE. Equal opportunity em-ployers will not hire someone who can-not do the job. Studies have shown thatlearning job specific skills, rather thanjust a general overview of job tasks, ismore beneficial to students with dis-abilities when it comes time to find ajob.

Giving them the opportunity toactually practice real world situationsis more helpful in the long run. Eventhough many students find jobs unre-lated to their training in vocationalclasses in high school, they can stillbenefit from those job skills. We havea tremendous resource in all of our stu-dents in agriculture education, includ-ing those with mental and physical dis-abilities. With careful, individualizedplanning, agricultural educators cangive every student an equal opportu-nity to develop skills they will need topursue a career in agriculture after highschool.

References

Daughtry, Lillian H. and P. DianeRelf. 1995. “The Transition of Individu-als with Disabilities from School intothe Horticulture Industry.” The Agri-cultural Education Magazine Vol. 67,February 1995, p. 20.

Harvey, Michael. 2001. “The Ef-ficacy of Vocational Education for Stu-dents with Disabilities ConcerningPost-School Employment Outcomes: AReview of the Literature.” Journal ofindustrial Teacher Education 3 8, no.3 (Spring 200 1). http://scholar.lib.vt.edu/eiournals/JI’I’E/v38n3/harvey.fitmi

IDEA’97 http://www.ed.gov/of-fices/OSERS/Policy/IDEA/index.html

National Organization on Disabil-ity (NOD). www.nod.org. “EconomicFacts About People with Disabilities inthe United States.” http://ww,w.nod.org/conteiit.cfm?id= 14

Public Law 93-112. RehabilitationAct of 1973, Section 504 http://spot.pcc.edu/osd/504.htm

Public Law 101-336. Americanswith Disabilities Act of 1990. http://w w w . j a n . w v u . e d u / l i n k s /ADAq&a.html

Public Law 105-332. Carl D.Perkins Act of 1998 - Bill Summaryhttp://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquerv/z?d105 :HRO1853 :TOM/ : /bs s /

Jodie Moffitt is an AgricultureInstructor at Griffin MiddleSchool, Concord, NC.

d105query.html

Shapiro, Edward S. and FrancisE. Lentz Jr. 1991. “Vocational techni-cal programs: follow-up of students withlearning disabilities.” Exceptional Chil-dren 58, no. 1:47 (13)

Wonacott, Michael. 2001. “Stu-dents with Disabilities in Career andTechnical Education.” ERIC Digestno. 230. EDO-CE-01-230. http://e r i c a c v e . o r g /docgen.asp?tbl=digests&ID=115

A teacher works with a small group of students in ahorticulture laboratory. Related to special needs students,

what active role should agricultural education play in meetingthe needs of special needs students?


THEME ARTICLE

Dumping Grounds

By Barry Croom and Gary Moore

The stories about Mr. Watson1are legendary.

During the unit of instruction onwelding, students in his class weldedthe tines of the garden tiller to a sup-port post in the agriculture shop. WhenMr. Watson tried to take it outside foruse by his horticulture classes later, hefound that he couldn’t budge it. Onanother occasion, students took theagricultural mechanics textbooks in hisclassroom and sawed them up usingthe table saw in the agriculture shop.Students also locked him in the horti-cultural storage shed, and he was fi-nally released after two hours when apasserby heard the sound of him beat-ing on the doors of the shed.

Somewhere along the way, stu-dents gave him the nickname “hubcap”.The origin of this nickname comes fromstudents placing rocks inside the hub-caps to his personal automobile. Youcan imagine what this sounded like driv-ing down the highway. Eventually,“Hubcap” Watson couldn’t cure thisobvious mechanical problem, and even-tually sold the car because of it.

Old Hubcap had acquired aunique reputation at his school. Manystudents took his classes because it wasan easy period during the day whenthey could kick back and avoid strenu-ous mental activity. Conversely, somestudents avoided his classes becausethey did not offer the challenge andrigor they desired. “Hubcap” Watson’sclassroom had become the dumpingground for the students who would notbehave appropriately in other classes.

One of the worst things that canhappen to an Agriscience program isfor it to become a dumping ground forincorrigible and lazy students in aschool. Agriscience programs are notsome type of in-school suspension pro-gram that happens to have an agricul-tural motif. Agriscience is a bona fidepart of the curriculum in many schoolsand should be treated as such.

Certainly the framers of voca-tional education had strong concernsabout who should be enrolled in voca-tional education courses.

“The Federal Board desires toemphasize the fact that vocationalschools and classes are not fosteredunder the Smith-Hughes Act for thepurpose of giving instruction to thebackward, deficient, incorrigible, orotherwise subnormal individuals; bythat such schools and classes are tobe established and maintained forthe clearly avowed purpose of giv-ing thorough vocational instructionto healthy, normal individuals to theend that they may be prepared forprofitable and efficient employment.Such education should command thebest efforts of normal boys andgirls.” (Federal Board for VocationalEducation, 1917, p. 17)

Much has changed since the Fed-eral Board for Vocational Educationpublished those guidelines in BulletinNumber 1. In most cases, career andtechnical education programs haveadapted readily to include special popu-lations in education. The purpose of thisarticle is not to focus on the educationof students with special needs, for theyshould be welcome in everyAgriscience program. To exclude themis a grave injustice and not in the besttraditions of the teaching profession.

We must serve all students who enterour classrooms. Instead, the purposeof this article is to attack the premisethat Agriscience programs are suitable“dumping grounds” for the incorrigibleand lazy students within a school.

While some students are placedin Agriscience programs by some ad-ministrative action, the majority of stu-dents are in the classroom because ofthe reputation of the agriculture instruc-tor. Even if the Agriscience teacherwho served in the program before youdid not do a good job, there comes apoint when the responsibility for the

program becomes your own. As a col-league of ours often says, “After fouryears as an agriculture teacher, you getthe type of students you deserve.”

Incorrigible students are exasper-ating to the teacher and other students,and can often be a danger to them-selves and others in the class. Studentmisbehavior becomes very importantwhen one considers the type of envi-ronment in which instruction occurs.The Agriscience program in a schoolis unique from other academic pro-grams because there are multiple learn-

We mustserve all

students whoenter our

classrooms.


ing environments such as classrooms,laboratories, and greenhouses. Studentsare taught the use of power tools thatcan cause serious injury if used improp-erly. Agricultural chemicals and pesti-cides that are used in the instructionalprogram and can cause injury if stu-dents fail to heed safety warnings. Stu-dents enter the program with varyingdegrees of skill in using power tools andagricultural equipment, and in handlinglivestock.

In most cases, the Agrisciencecourses are electives. While many stu-dents take courses because of a seri-ous interest in agriculture, some stu-dents take the course hoping to avoida rigorous academic experience. In theunique environment of the Agriscienceprogram how does a teacher becomeinsulated from the risk of becoming adumping ground for every social prob-lem in a school?

A short-term solution to the prob-lem is become involved politically withinthe school. Agriscience teachers whoingratiate themselves to the adminis-tration and work to establish relation-ships based primarily on personality aredoomed to eventual failure. Today’sschool administrators are focused onmeasurable accountability, and teacherperformance is valued more than the“good old boy” network.

The Teacher Is The Key

Good Teaching

There are a number of things thatcan effectively insulate the agriscienceprogram from “dumping ground” sta-tus. One of the methods by which ateacher can reduce the risk of dump-ing ground” status is to be the bestteacher possible. The best teacherswork constantly to improve their teach-

ing skill and actively research new andbetter ways to help students learn. Goodteachers know how to teach studentsand are restless with methods that donot yield results. Good teachers knowthe content they teach, and design in-structional activities that teach this con-tent in an interesting and relevant man-ner. (The Southeast Center For Teach-ing Quality, 2004)

individual student learn the material ina manner consistent with their learn-ing style. The best teachers respect andcare about their students. (The South-east Center For Teaching Quality, 2004)

Challenging and Rigorous Instruction

The best teachers attract studentswho are motivated by challenging andrigorous learning experiences. Studentswho are looking for a free ride insteadof a high quality learning experienceeither drop the class or conform to theteacher’s standard of academic per-formance. Young people are quite ca-pable of rising to a reasonable level ofacademic expectation. Accordingly,teachers should implement strategiesthat attract serious students of agricul-ture.

Some teachers start each yearwith a “tough love” type of lecture thatgoes something like this:

“The bestdefense againststudent misbe-havior is awell-plannedand well-ex-ecuted lessonpresented by anenthusiasticteacher.” RoyEubanks, Retired AgricultureTeacher, North Lenoir HighSchool, Kinston, NC

Individualized Instruction

The best teachers also recognizethe importance of individualized instruc-tion and are successful in teaching adiverse population of students. Learn-ing is an individual process, and goodteachers try to find ways to help the

“This course is not re-quired for graduation. Thismeans that you should be inthis course because you havean interest in agriculture. Ifyou don’t have an interest inagriculture, you should go seeyour guidance counselor im-mediately and get out of thiscourse. This course is goingto be fun and exciting, but itwill be lots of work. We willhave homework, papers towrite, projects to completeand rigorous tests.”

The teacher then follows this upby passing out a rigorous course sylla-bus with a list of topics to be taught,assignments and grading procedures.Homework is then assigned for the nextday. Students with a tendency to goof


off get the message very quickly thatagricultural education is not acakewalk.

Attracting good students meansproviding a high quality lesson for eachclass period. Teach from “bell to bell”in every class. Five minutes of free timein a class period will yield almost eighthours of free time in that class by theend of a semester. Research tells usthat the best teachers are task-oriented.(Rosenshine and Furst, 1971) Focuson student learning. Give the impres-sion that the most important thing inthe world is that the students learn whatyou are teaching at that moment. Stu-dents can tell when the teacher is boredor disinterested in the lesson.

Don’t apologize or make excusesfor giving homework or requiring stu-dents to take notes. Schools aren’tamusement parks, they are places forlearning, and learning takes effort.Some Agriscience teachers do not givehomework, coordinate meaningful labactivities, or administer many tests. Yet,these same teachers wonder why theirprogram is a dumping ground.

Use laboratories for learning, notproduction assembly lines. The primaryfocus of Agriscience laboratories is toteach students. Too many labs havebecome production facilities wheremonetary income is generated for theAgriscience program, but very little stu-dent learning is generated.

In keeping with a rigorous aca-demic schedule, it is important that stu-dent be accurately graded on the workthey do. Grade inflation is a huge prob-lem in schools; so do not hesitate togive students the grades they earnthrough their efforts. Do not hesitateto flunk students who fail to meet ac-ceptable academic standards. If lazystudents can easily pass a class, then

the teacher’s expectations of the stu-dents are too low.

One of the most important thingsthat a teacher can do is to show thestudents that he or she respects themenough to give 100 percent effort ev-eryday in the classroom. Students rec-ognize good teaching when they expe-rience it. Once students recognize thatthe agriculture teacher is serious aboutproviding a quality program, studentsinterested in agriculture careers willenroll in courses. If the teacher is lazy,the students will soon model this be-havior.

responsible behavior, commitment to acommon goal, effective communica-tion, and cooperation. Establish andmaintain a high quality supervised ag-ricultural experience (SAE) programthat addresses the aspirations and ca-reer goals of students. Visit studentsas part of the SAE program and de-velop good working relationships withparents and students.

Recruitment

The prudent agriculture teacherwill not leave future enrollment tochance, and will aggressively recruitgood students. Students who are inter-ested in agricultural careers or whohave a sincere interest in improvingtheir agricultural knowledge and literacyare fair game for the agricultureteacher’s recruitment efforts. Not allstudents are academically gifted, butthat should not be the determining fac-tor in recruiting the student.

Communicate with the GuidanceCounselors

Develop a good working relation-ship with guidance counselors. Showthem examples of the rigor in thecourses you teach. If guidance coun-selors do not know that the Agriscienceprogram is a quality learning experi-ence for students, then the teacher hasno cause for complaint about the influ-ence of the guidance department in stu-dent enrollment. Effective teachers areproactive in working with guidancecounselors.

Set the Tone Early

Effective teachers send a letterto incoming students to welcome theminto the program. This letter shouldsend the message that the Agriscienceclass will be interesting and exciting,

“Have some-thing for thestudents to do,or they willdo somethingto you.”Walter Jones, VeteranAgriculture Teacher atSouthwest Edgecombe HighSchool, Pinetops, NorthCarolina.

Develop high quality FFA expe-riences for students. Engage them inleading the FFA chapter through ac-tivities that teach the importance of


but will require the very best effortsof students. This letter should alsopoint out that FFA membership and par-ticipation in the SAE program are alsoexpected of every student. Parents willsee this letter and most likely will bemore willing to be partner with you intheir child’s education.

How We Are Measured

A former principal of one of theauthors once said, “Agriculture teach-ers are only as strong as their weak-est link.” We are often measured bythe actions of a very few poor teach-ers in the profession. Legislators,school board members, policy-makersoften point to the few teachers whodo not perform adequately in the class-room and use them as examples ofhow agriscience programs fail toachieve their purpose. They use our“weakest links” to describe who weare. The principal whose currentAgriscience program is a dumpingground for every misbehavior problemin the school might just expect thesame from your program when he orshe becomes your principal. We arein the age of accountability in educa-tion. It is the challenge of theAgriscience teaching profession toencourage every teacher to establisha legacy of quality instruction and aprofessional and responsible attitudetoward the students we serve.

References

Federal Board for VocationalEducation. (1917). Statement of poli-cies. (Bulletin Number 1). Washing-ton, DC: U.S. Government Printing Of-fice.

Rosenshine, B. and Furst, N.(1971). Research on teacher perfor-mance criteria. In B.O. Smith (Ed.).

Research in Teacher Education. PP27-72. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: PrenticeHall.

The Southeast Center For Teach-ing Quality. (2004). Every Child’sTeacher Core Standards for NorthCarolina’s Teachers. Retrieved June 2,2004 from http://www.teachingquality.org/resources/html/blanford.htm

Gary Moore is a Professor atNorth Carolina State University.

Avoiding DumpingGround Status

1. Provide good teaching2. Individualize your in-

struction3. Use challenging and rig

orous instruction4. Recruit good students5. Communicate with

guidance counselors6. Set the tone early

Footnote

1 This is an actual teacher whosename has been changed to protect hisidentity.

Barry Croom is an AssistantProfessor at North Carolina StateUniversity


By Chris Cassel, Joseph Miller, Todd Biddle, and Michael Benner

Food to Me: A Farm-toTAble Program forMiddle School Children

With the publication of the Na-tional Research Council’s report Un-derstanding Agriculture: New Direc-tions for Education1, national, state,and local K-12 initiatives have forged anew vision of agricultural education2.This new vision embraces a mission thatis broader than traditional vocationalprograms and includes systematic in-struction at all levels of the school sys-tem.

Critical to the success of this mis-sion is the creative integration of food/fiber production, processing, nutrition,marketing, and other related topics intopre-secondary curricula.3,4 To help ad-dress this need, we designed and imple-mented a nine-week (one marking pe-riod) program to engage middle schoolstudents and to foster an understand-ing of the interdependence of agricul-ture, the environment, and humanneeds. Characteristics of the program,Food and Me, include:

♦ A focus on first-hand, experiential learning that utilize theSchool’s rich agricultural resources;

♦ A curriculum that stimulatesstudents’ interest and createsa high level of motivation;

♦ A storyline that builds conceptual understanding over timethrough a logical sequence ofrelated activities;

♦ Explicit connections to otherareas of the middle schoolcurriculum,

♦ Partnerships with middleschool teachers.

About Milton Hershey School andthe Agricultural and Environ-mental Education Program

Milton Hershey School (MHS)is a private, residential, pre-K-12school founded in 1909 by chocolateindustrialist Milton S. Hershey(www.mhs-pa.org). MHS now servesalmost 1,300 racially diverse boys andgirls and provides a home and an edu-cation free of cost for these childrenwhose families are in financial andsocial need.

Through the Agricultural andEnvironmental Education (AEE) Pro-gram at MHS, students engage in ap-plied and experiential learning projectsthat address not only agricultural andenvironmental literacy, but all aca-demic subjects. In addition, the pro-gram provides a context for studenthome activities and therapeutic inter-vention. Students, teachers, and staffhave access to resources managedthrough four centers: HorticulturalCenter, Environmental Center, AnimalCenter, and Dairy & Foods Process-ing Center. Each of these centers,coupled with the general agricultureoperations that support them, utilizesa dedicated staff, facilities, and landlaboratories to educate children in astandards-based system.

Enduring Understandings and

Curriculum Design

Learning goals are threefold: 1)students will learn that even if theydon’t live in a rural environment, theyare linked to the land and agriculturalpractices through the food that they eat,2) students will learn that our societyutilized a wide range of modern agri-cultural practices for food productionand that these practices have an im-pact on our environment, and 3) stu-dents will learn that there are severalsteps and numerous people involved inthe production process of getting foodfrom the farm to the table.

The Food and Me curriculum isdesigned as a series of program-longstrands (horticulture, animal science,dairy & foods processing, environmen-tal science, and general agriculture)that integrates concepts defined by theMHS AEE standards and benchmarks.Each week of the program, studentsare engaged in projects and/or activi-ties in each of the vertical strands. Thisrotation is intended to maintain a highlevel of student interest while allowingstudents to see connections betweenour AEE Centers and “the bigger pic-ture” of agricultural systems.

In addition to these verticalstrands, we designed horizontal themesto engage students in a learning cyclethat includes lessons to help studentsfocus, explore, reflect, and apply theirknowledge (Figure 1). Lessons ad-dressing food processing were designedas one of these horizontal themes andare intended to show students that 1)there is a wide variety of processingmechanisms (e.g. heat, chemical) and,2) agricultural commodities are usedfor the production of both food and non-

THEME ARTICLE


food products. In addition, lessons onfood processing are linked to a lessonon food safety, emphasizing that theprocess by which foods move fromfarm to table must be safe and reliable.

Horticulture Strand

The Horticulture strand providesthe context for students to investigatethe origin and processing of fruit andvegetable crops, as well as the cyclingof matter in ecosystems. Students con-sider: nutrient cycling in the field, theinterdependence of organisms, the lifecycle of plants, the path from field totable, and processing of agriculturalproducts for increased shelf life. Dur-ing the introductory horticulture lesson,students construct a hydroponics/aquarium system designed to accom-modate germinating seeds, as well as,freshwater fish.

In subsequent lessons, studentsplant seeds in the system and discuss awide range of seed-based agriculturalproducts (e.g. cereals, oils, chocolate,and coffee). During the weeks in whichthe seedlings are developing, studentsvisit the AEE apiary to explore the re-lationship between insects and plants,as well as, the AEE orchard to harvestapples and discuss marketing strategies.Lastly, students focus on food preser-vation as they prepare peach jam fromfruit harvested in the orchard. This les-son is intended to link directly to activi-ties in other vertical strands that addressfood processing, e.g. milling and mak-ing butter. Projects and activities in thehorticulture strand are tightly connectedto topics explored in the environmentalstrand (described below).

Environmental Science Strand

In the environmental sciencestrand, students further explore their

hydroponics/aquarium systems by con-ducting chemical tests to determine therelative concentrations of nitrogen, po-tassium, and phosphates in soil andwater. Multiple test days allow studentsto see changes over time and to dis-cuss ramifications with respect to pre-dicted plant growth. These activitiesconnect to lessons in other strands thataddress soil fertility and nutrient man-agement. Additional classroom-basedenvironmental strand activities include:

♦ sources of common foods(plant vs. animals) and the interdependence of plants, animals and people5;

♦ building connections betweenraw and processed food items;

♦ origin of agricultural commodities used in food processing:

♦ the impact on transportationrequirements and energy consumption.

Animal Science Strand

The animal science strand is de-signed around a research project inwhich students investigate the rate ofweight gain in two groups of chicks:one group is raised on a medicatedchicken feed while the other group israised on an unmedicated feed. Priorto utilizing a traditional scientificmethod model, students learn breedcharacteristics of the birds, health re-quirements, housing requirements,equipment used for chicken care, andhow to handle and sex the birds.

After students generate a hypoth-esis, they randomly assign twenty birdsto one of two treatment groups (withequivalent cumulative starting weights).Rate of weight gain is calculated after

a four-five week growth period. Dur-ing the four-five week period, studentsare engaged in additional activities thatrelate to their research project. In onelesson, students become familiar withthe constituents of a chicken’s diet andeating behavior of the bird. Other ac-tivities continue to highlight parallels inhuman and livestock diet and nutritionby examining the digestive system. Stu-dents review system relationshipsthrough discussion, models, and dissec-tion. In addition, students explore:

♦ the nutrient value of chickenfecal matter and how farmersutilize these nutrients to increase soil fertility;

♦ the pathogen Salmonella andits prevention when preparinga cooked egg using food industry standards;

♦ how to objectively evaluatepropaganda regarding farmingpractices and animal rights.

In this final lesson, students seekto “win the mind and not the argument”by responding to a hypothetical criticin an emotionally-charged dialog.

Dairy & Foods Processing Strand

The Dairy and Foods Processingstrand provides the context for studentsto investigate not only the origin andprocessing of dairy products, but alsofood chemistry. Specifically, this strandhelps students to develop a deeper un-derstanding of how matter cyclesthrough ecosystems by giving themfirst-hand experiences with the majorbiological macromolecules. An intro-ductory tour of the MHS dairy allowsstudents to see the characteristics ofdairy cows and the operation of a milk-ing plant. In subsequent lessons situ-


THEME ARTICLE

ated at the dairy laboratory, studentsgain concrete experiences with chemi-cal tests6 that are used to determinethe presence of macronutrients (car-bohydrates, fats, and proteins). Theseactivities connect to the animal sciencestrand by expanding the conversationabout the chemical composition of food.In the final activities in this strand, stu-dents learn how processing of agricul-tural products exploits our ability tomanipulate food components by: 1) pre-cipitating casein for the production ofwhite glue and 2) removing fats froma cream emulsion for the productionof butter.

General Agriculture Strand

The general agriculture strandprovides the context for students to in-vestigate:

♦ the sequence of productionsteps and the necessary resources (and careers) required to take a raw food fromthe field to the consumer;

♦ historical and projected worldpopulations and implicationsfor our finite agricultural resources, and;

♦ the processing of grains tomake flour.

By combining classroom-based7and field-based activities, studentslearn that components of processedfood come from a wide range of com-modities and represent a world-widefood system that is addressing theneeds of an exponentially growingpopulation. Activities addressing gen-eral agriculture are integral to twoFood and Me horizontal themes: 1)“How can we sustain our harvests?”and, 2) “Applying what we know to

understand food processing.”

The culminating activity for Foodand Me participants is a celebratoryluncheon prepared by the school’s chefand designed to include ingredients forwhich the students had gained first-hand knowledge. This meal – togetherwith the chef’s overview of ingredientorigins and preparation – completes thefarm-to-table program.

Program Assessment and Conclu-sions

The Food and Me program wasdesigned to be implemented during ourmiddle school “activity period.” Al-though students enrolled in activity pe-riod programs are not individually as-sessed or graded, we were interestedin documented student learning for usein informal program assessment. To-wards this end, we developed a num-ber of classroom assessment strate-gies, including:

♦ background knowledge probesto serve as pre- and post-program assessments

♦ daily “one-minute papers” inwhich students respond to thequestion, “What was the mostimportant thing that youlearned during this class?”

♦ direct observation of studentactivities and dialog

This documentation has allowedus to chart progress towards agricul-tural literacy, as well as towards morepositive attitudes regarding agriculturaland environmental education amongmiddle school children.

The Food and Me program rep-resents only one of many AEE pro-

grams designed to offer a more com-prehensive approach to learningthrough land use, animals, plants, andrelated resources for all students, frompre-kindergarten through grade 12. Inaddition to meeting agricultural andenvironmental standards and bench-marks, our integrated and experientialprogramming supports learning in alldisciplines and is consistent with ourunderstanding that knowledge is con-textually situated and is fundamentallyinfluenced by the activity, context, andculture in which it is used8. This ex-panded purpose of agricultural educa-tion – to provide an applied and authen-tic context across content areas – sup-ports gains in student achievement,motivation, work habits, and responsi-bility.9

References

1 National Research Council.1988. Understanding Agriculture:New Directions for Education. Wash-ington, DC: National Academy Press.

2 The Council. 1997. Reinvent-ing Agricultural Education for theYear 2020. Washington, DC: The Na-tional Council for Agricultural Educa-tion.

3 Brown, W.B. and R. Stewart.1993. Agricultural Education in theMiddle School. Journal of Agricul-tural Education 34: 17-23.

4 Frick, M.J. 1993. Developing aNational Framework for a MiddleSchool Agricultural Education Curricu-lum. Journal of Agricultural Educa-tion 34: 77-84.

5 Project Food, Land, and People.2000. Resources for Learning. SanFrancisco, CA: Food, Land & People.


6 National Science ResourcesCenter. 2002. Food Chemistry. Wash-ington, DC: National Academy of Sci-ences.

7 Project Food, Land, and People.2000. Resources for Learning. SanFrancisco, CA: Food, Land & People.

8 Committee on Learning Re-search and Educational Practice, Na-tional Research Council (Bransford,J.D., A.L. Brown, and E.E. Cocking,

Chris Cassel, Joseph Miller, ToddBiddle, and Michael Benner areteachers at Milton HersheySchool, 503 Meadow Lane, P. O.Box 830, Hershey, PA 17033

eds). 2000. How People Learn:Brain, Mind, Experience, andSchool. Washington, DC: NationalAcademy Press.

9 Conroy, C., et. al. 1999. Agri-culture as a rich context for teachingand learning, and for learning math-ematics and science to prepare for theworkforce of the 21st century. Pro-ceedings of the Transitions from Child-hood to the Workforce Teaching andLearning Conference, Ithaca, NY.

Figure 1: Vertical strands and horizontal (i.e. learning cycle) elements thatconnect Food and Me student activities and projects.


Agricultural Education = Agricultural Literacy

By Kimberly A. Bellah, James E. Dyer, and Glen R. Casey

In early America, settlers weretotally dependent upon their foodsource. If they produced their ownfood, they knew how to grow it, whereto sell it, and how to process and pre-serve it so that it remained safe forconsumption. If they did not producetheir own food, they knew where tofind the most reliable source, both inquality and quantity. They knew be-cause their lives depended upon thisknowledge.

Although most agriculturalistswould argue that little has changed inour dependency upon a reliable sourceof quality food, most would also agreethat the vast majority of Americansknow very little about today’s food andfiber system. Simply put, the majorityof Americans seem to be agricultur-ally illiterate.

Webster defines literacy as be-ing knowledgeable in a particular sub-ject or field, in this case, agriculture.Webster also defines education as theprocess of developing that knowledge.IF we accept those definitions, whatwe do in agricultural education at themiddle and secondary levels is to de-velop students into agriculturally liter-ate citizens. If so, agricultural educa-tion equals agricultural literacy. How-ever, the agricultural education profes-sion has been slow to embrace agri-cultural education as an agricultural lit-eracy program.

Research indicates conflictingresults in the level of agricultural lit-eracy. Rural students, despite their

backgrounds, lack understanding ofagricultural concepts concerning foodproducts (Meischen & Trexler, 2003).While Northwestern elementary teach-ers appreciate agricultural curriculum,their perceived lack of time to imple-ment it tempers their enthusiasm(Balschweid, Thompson, & Cole,1998).

Trexler and Suvedi (1998) dem-onstrated that principals were initiallymore positive about utilizing agriculturalliteracy programs as a method forteaching scientific concepts than weretheir teachers. When urban elemen-

developing those skills was one thatemployed agriculturally oriented, expe-riential activities (Mabie & Baker,1996). Interestingly, much of the bodyof research in agricultural literacy isfocused at the elementary and middleschool levels – not the secondary level.

In the late 19th century, and forover three-quarters of the 20th century,agricultural education was primarilytargeted at students who were alreadypresumed to be agriculturally literate –those who already had an agriculturalbackground. In the latter part of thecentury, however, education in agricul-ture shifted to include students with noprevious agricultural experience. Withthe release in 1988 of the NationalResearch Council’s report, Under-standing Agriculture: New Direc-tions for Education, the need waspronounced that “all students shouldreceive at least some systematic in-struction about agriculture beginning inkindergarten or first grade and continu-ing through twelfth grade.” As a pro-fession, we are making some progresstoward this goal, though some wouldargue that it is only a fraction of whatis possible.

The program Reinventing Agri-cultural Education for the Year 2020clearly indicates that not only shouldagricultural literacy be part of everystudent’s education from kindergartenthrough high school, and beyond, butalso that agricultural education mustserve as the torchbearer in that effort.However, many would argue that wefall far short of accomplishing that goal– at the elementary, secondary, andpost-secondary levels.

In elementary schools, the agri-cultural literacy role has been largely

The agricul-tural educa-tion professionhas been slowto embrace ag-ricultural edu-cation as anagriculturalliteracy pro-gram.

tary students were observed learningscience process skills, the methodshown to have the greatest effect on

THEME ARTICLE


relegated to the Ag in the Classroomprogram. At the secondary level andpost-secondary levels, little to no ef-fort is expending in teaching studentsabout agriculture as an agricultural lit-eracy program. Most agricultural edu-cation departments at colleges and uni-versities still focus on the traditional roleof preparing high school agricultureteachers, with agricultural literacy ef-forts as a fringe activity supported bygrants and not yet institutionalized.

Agricultural literacy must beviewed as lifelong learning and regu-larly partner with both campus educa-tors and industry. However, to do someans a conscious effort must bemade to focus educational efforts intoa literacy-producing program. Thislikely means that permanent fundingmust be in place, especially in the formof faculty to coordinate this program.Likewise, the repackaging of agricul-tural education will likely only materi-alize as successful agricultural literacy

and awareness projects are recognizedfor their value to the university as awhole, and are then institutionalizedwith state and industry support.

Should the primary focus of ag-ricultural education be agricultural lit-eracy? If agricultural education equalsagricultural literacy, the answer seemsclear. In this day and age, the two areone and the same. If high school ag-ricultural education programs, alongwith teacher education institutions, failto incorporate literacy components atall levels of education, the need for re-authorizing Carl Perkins funds will bea null issue.

References

Balschweid, M. A., Thompson,G. W., & Cole, R. L. (1998). Theeffects of an agricultural literacy treat-ment on participating K-12 teachersand their curricula. Journal of Agri-

cultural Education, 39(4), 1-10.

Mabie, R., & Baker, M. (1996).A comparison of experiential instruc-tional strategies upon the science pro-cess skills of urban elementary students.Journal of Agricultural Education,37(2), 1-7.

Meischen, D. L., & Trexler, C. J.(2003). Rural elementary students’ un-derstanding of science and agriculturaleducation benchmarks related to meatand livestock. Journal of AgriculturalEducation, 44(1), 43-55.

National Council for AgriculturalEducation. (2000). Reinventing agri-cultural education for the year 2020:Creating the preferred future. Alex-andria, VA: National Council for Agri-cultural Education.

National Research Council.(1988). Understanding agriculture:New directions for education. Wash-ington, DC: National Academy Press.

Trexler, C. J., & Suvedi, M.(1998). Perception of agriculture as acontext for elementary science teach-ing: A case of change in Sanilac County,Michigan. Journal of AgriculturalEducation, 39(4), 28-36.

Kimberly A. Bellah is a GraduateAssociate at the University ofFlorida

James E. Dyer is an AssociateProfessor at the University ofFlorida

Glen R. Casey is a Professer atCalifornia Polytechnic StateUniverstiy, San Luis Obispo

Agricultural education must be viewed as lifelong learning andregularly partner with all agencies within the community

in an effort to serve all people.


Do You Believe in the Future of AgriculturalEducation?

By Tim J. McDermott and Neil A. Knobloch

Do we dare say that every onewho subscribes to The AgriculturalEducation Magazine “believes in thefuture of agriculture” (National FFAOrganization, 2004), yet agriculturaleducation’s future will be determinedas you read this article. Agriculturaleducation is facing difficult challengesas the United States focuses on its na-tional education system. The profes-sion is at a crossroads in planningwhere the future will take us. It is criti-cal that the profession chooses a paththat will help ensure continued and fu-ture success.

Not of Words, But of Deeds?

In 1988, the National ResearchCouncil called for reform in agriculturaleducation based on innovative pro-grammatic leadership at state and na-tional levels to address the concernsabout the declining profitability and in-ternational competitiveness of Ameri-can agriculture, as well as concernsabout declining enrollments, instruc-tional content, and quality in agricul-tural education programs. Today, manyof these same issues continue to existlike a plague on agricultural education.Current educational policy makers havequestioned the value and necessity ofagricultural education. The future ofagricultural education rests in the handsand minds of its stakeholders, teach-ers, and leaders. In this article, weshare three findings from a study con-

ducted in Washington, D.C., and strat-egies that can be carried out in localcommunities to invest in agriculturaleducation’s future.

The Promise of Better DaysThrough Better Ways

Revitalized efforts are underwayon the national scene to combat thechallenges facing the profession. TheNational Council for Agricultural Edu-cation (NCAE) is taking the first stepsto inform key leaders on Capitol Hillof the value of agricultural education.This is encouraging to see because arecent study (McDermott & Knobloch,2003) found that national leaders,stakeholders, and policy makers did notmatch the national strategic initiativesfor program and policy opportunitiesin agricultural education.

In visiting with key informants,three conclusions emerged from afour-month study in Washington, D.C.First, programmatic changes areneeded at the state and local levels,and more focus is needed on policychanges at the state and national lev-els. National leaders, stakeholders, andpolicy makers highlighted changesneeded in programs, policies, and bud-gets at the state and federal levels re-garding agricultural education, yet littlehas been done regarding these needsin the profession’s strategic plans.

Second, communication andfunding initiatives need to be estab-lished using clear channels of commu-nication between national leaders inagricultural education and policy mak-ers in Washington, D.C. At the timeof this study, the NCAE organized

strategies to conduct congressional vis-its while policy makers expressed a needto know more about agricultural edu-cation activities and proposals.

Finally, literacy and awarenessof agricultural education are the mainissues that national stakeholders viewedas important for the future of agricul-tural education. Stakeholders can be apowerful influence for agricultural edu-cation. The presence of the stakehold-ers can help in building relationshipswith policy makers on Capitol Hill.However, if agricultural education doesnot continue to build the knowledgebase and relations with stakeholders,the support of stakeholders could be indanger.

Leadership From Ourselves andRespect from Others

Interestingly, the findings of whatleaders, stakeholders, and policy mak-ers in Washington, D.C. thought aboutagricultural education have strikingsimilarities with what needs to be donein local communities throughout theU.S. Implementing the recommenda-tions from the national research studyat the local level will present excitingopportunities for agricultural education.

First, leaders, stakeholders, andpolicy makers that influence educationin local communities should be identi-fied. A school and community analysiscan help identify formal and informalleaders who have a stake in the localeducational program and likely influencethe policies that help shape local edu-cational programs. Communicationsand relationships will need to be estab-lished to develop mutual respect and

THEMTHEME ARTICLEEARTTICLEGENERAL ARTICLETHEME ARTICLE


understandings.

It is important to identify localpolicy makers. Local school boardmembers and administrators influencelocal policies, and they should be in-cluded in planning of an agriculturaleducation program. In a time whenschool budgets are being stretched, it isessential for a program to understandthe expectations of the policy makersand what will influence their fundingdecisions. Local school policy makerswill be the individuals who have the firstdecision if agricultural education pro-grams will continue to be viable.

Stakeholders of the local agricul-tural education programs are far reach-ing. Nearly anyone in the local com-munity can be considered a stakeholderin the local agricultural program. Thisgroup can be difficult to identify andinclude in planning, managing, and mar-keting the local program. However, itis necessary to consider the numerouspoints of view that stakeholders haveof the agricultural education program.On the national level, stakeholders arelobbyists and directly impact wherefunding federal dollars are spent. Atthe local level, stakeholders are just asimportant to agricultural education. Thestakeholders can be a program’s bestallies as long as they are included in theorganization and activities of the pro-gram. On the othe

july the agricultural august volume 77 education issue 1 · by gary moore t here were six men of...

Documents