• E-mail
• Print
• Comment
• Font Size
• Digg
• del.icio.us
• Discuss article

Developing and Promoting a Vision for Agricultural Education: Whose Job is It?

Posted on: Sunday, 28 December 2003, 06:00 CST

A poster in a high school weight room states: "If you are not getting better, you are getting worse, there is no in-between". This speaks volumes regarding agricultural education programs in regards to facilities, equipment, support, recruitment, and overall program success. It takes continued effort and desire to ensure students are provided the best opportunities to learn and develop for the future. This belief, to provide the best opportunities to learn, is foundational if anyone wants to be a successful teacher or have a successful Agricultural Education program.

Swan and Cano state that if change is to come to Agricultural Education, the local agricultural education teacher must be the catalyst for the change. Programs must continue to adapt and change to meet the needs of students.

Teachers of Agricultural Education have an incredible opportunity to either create a vision and direction for their Agricultural Education program, or they can stand on the side-lines and support changes being brought about by other outside forces or agencies. These changes may include curriculum, CDEs, SAE practices, or facilities. If a teacher expects change in a program, the teacher will not only communicate the expected change, but would also become an active proponent of change. Change will take a strong purposeful effort, but will be worth the investment of time and energy. In return, when those with a vested interest observe their teachers making efforts to improve the Agricultural Education program, the students, parents, and school administration will respond favorably.

Somehow, when one studies the history of Agricultural Education, one also has to look at the history of Career - Technical Education (Vocational Education). Since 1917, Agricultural Education has been intertwined with Vocational Education. Even today, funding for Agricultural Education programs is dependent upon the funding for Career - Technical Education. When studying the history of Career - Technical Education, it is clear to note that outside forces have generally been the "root" for most of the legislative and funding changes.

Basically, Agricultural Education has been guilty of the same, however not to the extent of Career -Technical Education! Agricultural Education has created other venues by which to create and affect change. For example, there have been two national strategic plans created to offer program direction and sustainability for Agricultural Education. These authors maintain however, that a local agricultural education teacher does not need to wait or be dependent upon others to have a vision for change in their Agricultural Education program.

Let us offer an example. In one state, in 1995, there was a proposal by the State Department of Education staff to move Agricultural Education programs towards "AgriScience." The State Department of Education indicated that they were going to change the production-based programs in the state to more science-based programs.

The teacher education team at the state's university was consulted, and it was agreed upon that the teacher education staff would "create" an undergraduate program under-girded in the sciences, while the state department team focused on bringing about the change at the local level. Implementation of the "science- based" curriculum occurred. Three years later, the first set of student teachers reported to their cooperating centers, only to find that they were prepared to teach for a "science-based" curriculum, not the production-based curriculum encountered.

Years later, the "science-based" curriculum proposed by the State Department of Education is yet to exist! Teachers are still being prepared for the "science-based" curriculum. Clearly there is conflict, with cooperating teachers and school administrators chronically reporting that the student teacher and the first and second-year teachers are not adequately prepared to teach the existing high school curriculum. The teacher education team readily agrees with the concerns.

What is the solution? One option is to throw out the "science- based" teacher preparation program. Another option is for the State Department of Education team to "push" the local programs more into a "science-based" program. The third option is this: there are many teachers who graduated in the "science-based" curriculum offered by the state's university. Some of these teachers, instead of focusing on all the production-based content they did not know, did not dwell on that matter. Instead, the "science-based" teachers have taken the bold step and have focused on a program change to teach the content that they do know...science-based agriculture! Currently, those teachers with a vision to change have agricultural education programs which are quickly becoming the envy by those who have chosen not to change.

When you see agriculture programs expanding, retrofitting, upgrading and developing learning laboratories, placing many students in higher education programs, and turning out high quality graduates, do you ever wonder why or how that is accomplished? You may teach in one of these programs, you might be a neighbor to one of these programs, or you just might be a passer-by and notice things are on the upswing. Progress within a high school agriculture program is most often the product of the teacher's belief and effort.

As for implementing positive change for now and the future in your agricultural education program, you need to do a "gut check" often. How does it "feel" to be here? What are the students saying? How is the community responding? Also, you may need to find a different set of "friends" who will encourage change, rather than defeat change before it starts. There was one agriculture teacher who said that once per week he and his neighboring agricultural teacher friends would gather and build each other up, bounce ideas off each other, and support one another. Do you have relationships like this? Perhaps it is time to arrange an encouragement crusade. Can you imagine how each program could benefit from the great ideas coming out of these times together? Does the outing need to be a round of golf or an evening at the VFW? You're professionals; it's your decision to make. Bond and build each other up!

The bottom line is this: if change is to come to Agricultural Education, the local agricultural education teacher must be the catalyst for the change. Agricultural education teachers clearly out number teacher educators, and most definitely out number State Department of Education staff, thus, it is in your hands if Agricultural Education is going to live to see 2020.

"...if change is to come to Agricultural Education, the local agricultural education teacher must be the catalyst for the change."

Benjamin G. Swan is a Graduate Associate in the Department of Human and Community Resource Development at The Ohio State University.

Jamie Cano is an Associate Professor in the Department of Human and Community Resource Development at The Ohio State University.

Copyright National Council for Agricultural Education Nov/Dec 2003

More News in this Category