Standards in Pre-Service Classes: The New Denominator for Agricultural Teacher Education

Attendees at a December 2003, New Teacher and Administrator Workshop in Kentucky, were divided into two groups: administrators and agricultural teachers with three or less years of experience. Administrators listed the three things most expected of their teachers of agriculture while agricultural teachers listed the three things that they perceived their administrators most expected of them. Administrators listed curriculum alignment, assessment scores, and being a team member as expectations for a successful teaching career and agricultural education program. Agricultural teachers listed winning FFA events, meeting obligations of extended employment and community involvement as some perceptions of administrator expectations. How has agricultural education so broadly missed its role if administrators think so differently from their teachers? Does the era of accountability mean there is no need for a program if agricultural curriculum content is not aligned with state standards and assessed in the manner of its state assessment? Do national curriculum initiatives meet most standards of local agricultural education programs? What is the role of pre-service teacher education in standards based instruction and assessment? Considering the Issues The focus on career preparation has long been a major component of secondary agricultural education. Some experts argue that the mission of agricultural education is to prepare and support individuals for careers (Case & Whitaker, 1998; Phipps and Osborne, 1998). Has the focus on the workplace changed? Has the paradigm shifted from community-based needs to teaching core concepts to improve school and district test scores? Is success measured by meeting local needs or by assessment of state standards? Answering these questions involves looking at existing realities in many of our communities. Agriculture is usually an elective, and states rarely assess things such as employment, postsecondary training, personal growth, and leadership development, hallmarks of an effective agricultural education program. At the same time, administrators are pressured to improve performance in courses required for graduation. Since agricultural instructors often receive additional compensation for extended employment, decision makers may question the wisdom of funding one FTE in agriculture when they could possibly hire two teachers in academic areas covered under state standards and assessment mandates. Can you justify your program as it relates to science, social science, math, reading and writing content? How would you respond to the following scenario? Imagine that you are being considered for a teaching position at a suburban school in your state. There is a Site Based Committee (SBC) that regularly reviews programs and makes recommendations on school programs. Test scores reveal declines in arts and humanities, as well as reading. All other areas show increases at high rates. The SBC members must decide whether to continue your program or add another arts and humanities instructor. You have an opportunity to speak with the SBC about your program to convince them that it should remain in place. In response to the committee's request, you could consider the following things: * Do courses in your program relate in some way to SBC members and what they are likely to consider in making a decision? How can you relate this to the committee? * Has agricultural education contributed to improvement in overall school test scores? If so, how? * Do SBC members understand recent technological changes and educational reform efforts that have made agricultural education more than farming? * What contributions do you, personally, make to the school's instructional team? * What are the specific student academic and personal opportunities that would be lost if your program were dropped? * What are your instructional and program goals and your vision for the future? …