Is SAE Meeting the Needs of Today's Students?

Is SAE meeting the needs of today's students? The answer to this often asked question, from my observation is, yes! And no. I know that you are already thinking that this article will not answer the question that I have heard asked since I entered agricultural education as a major in 1974. Allow me to further explain... Over the past five years, while serving the National FFA Organization as Teacher Services Specialist for SAE-Based Activities, I have had the opportunity to travel to more than 30 states to meet with agricultural education teachers and students. I have been lucky to have spent time in many agricultural education departments while in these states and I have tried to listen carefully to discussions, questions, and challenges about Supervised Agricultural Experience programs. I hear teachers tell me that there is little or no opportunity for their students to become involved in SAE and that they feel that SAE has long outlived its usefulness. I also hear teachers tell me that the SAE program is the most vital experience provided in their program and that it is what keeps them fresh and enthusiastic about their future in agricultural education. Additionally, I hear that SAE is what separates us from other disciplines - and this is used conversely as an argument both for and against offering SAE. What is the difference, as far as SAE commitment and philosophy, between the following two actual examples I encountered over the past couple of years? Teacher A is a small rural school agricultural education instructor who expressed to me that the reason he could not conduct SAE programs for more than a very few of his students was that there are precious few opportunities for SAE's for his students like those that would be available in a large urban or suburban area. Teacher B is an agricultural education instructor teaching in a city of about 120,000, who said that the reason he had abandoned SAE is that it is set up only for the students in small rural communities and did not consider the lack of opportunity found in the urban situation. I believe that the answer to the question is simple - there is little or no difference between the sentiment toward SAE for Teacher A and Teacher B. They both believe that the value of the SAE has expired, that it is not for everyone and is in fact, not an intra-curricular part of the Agricultural Education program. Now what about the two other teachers, again with very real situations, I encountered over the same time frame? Teacher C is an agricultural education instructor in one of our nations largest urban centers. He tells of the fact that the program he and his colleagues conduct relies heavily on the experiences offered to each and every one of their several hundred students. Even given the number of students, he feels badly that at times he cannot match up all the SAE experiential opportunities with the students, because there are simply far too many opportunities available for the number of students. Teacher D teaches in a rural community of about 800 residents in an area where production agriculture still is the primary use of the bulk of the land, although most of the farms and ranches are much larger. Not many of his students come off the farm. This instructor not only has all of his students involved in SAE, he has seen several of them recognized in the highest venues as national finalists in proficiency awards and even in the Stars Over America program. He indicates that placement of additional students would be easy based upon the opportunity in his community. Here again, I believe that there is little to no difference between the sentiments toward SAE for Teacher C and Teacher D. These teachers see the value. They view it as an essential aspect of the agricultural education program, vital to the development of each and every student in their program. Now, let's look at the differences between the two pairs of examples. It would seem that there are certainly some major differences in philosophy. …