Don't Throw the Baby out with the Bathwater!

Forty years ago as I was preparing to become a teacher, I received instruction about how to build a course of study for a vocational agriculture program and was required to develop one for a selected community utilizing the principles I had learned. The curriculum developed was intended to be heavily focused on preparing the students for the world of work, be relevant to the agriculture in the community in which the school was located, be sequential in its approach, and to have students' occupational experience programs and FFA experiences to be closely connected as well. Soon after graduating, I accepted my first teaching position and proceeded to actually create a course of study for a four-year program. It was an interesting process as I did a community survey and met with my advisory council and students in an effort to determine the nature, depth, and sequence of the content to be taught throughout the four years of the program. Of course, I had the state guidelines, my own experience and education, and the previous course of study for the school where I was to be teaching. All of that provided the basis from which to build the curriculum. The process was challenging and took a significant amount of effort and time. For example, there were some topical areas where I had almost no experience and very little background. In addition, there just seemed to be more things to teach than time would allow. Like most beginning teachers, I suppose, I simply tried to make the best decisions I could and then relied on the advisory council to coach me through the process such that I would be able to connect my instructional program to the community and student needs and aspirations while satisfying the demands of the state for vocational agriculture programs. Since those early years in my career, I have observed some incredible changes in the focus, nature and direction of instructional programs for agricultural education. Most recently, we have observed a huge movement to make sure that the curriculum for our programs addresses all kinds of state and national education standards. This has required a very serious look into the content being taught in our programs. Since agriculture is essentially applied science, Biology seemed to be a content area where the early efforts in cross-walking the standards in many states were productive. In fact, right here in Arizona an effort was launched in the early 90s, which ultimately qualified the graduates of our agricultural education programs to have their earned agricultural education credits accepted as science credits by the state's university system. With the added pressure of accountability associated with the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) legislation, agricultural education programs are now identifying science, math and language arts standards that can be met through our regular instructional programs. Once considered purely elective courses to meet high school graduation requirements, agricultural education programs have been systematically trying to figure out how to be a part of the solution for obtaining higher student achievement scores, which are primarily measured through science, math and reading tests. At the same time, we have been trying to find a way to maintain our identity. This has created significant angst and frustration throughout the profession. My thoughts in this area are somewhat philosophical. I would suggest that we rely on the principles that guide the curriculum development process. …