: 1 «32-?- ‘fi‘jéw ) 3!?!281‘4'34"

{aw 55.1 ‘

‘4;

u
‘.
X.
..
.
‘

 

,,-_L,L, 44—1, ,

' ’ " IIIIIIIIIII IIII
' I ‘ ‘ 31o!!8|l3l

 

31183

Thielstoeertifgtlutthe

s thesis entitled

I ' PRACTICES OF TEACHERS OF VARYING

. PROFICIENCY IN CONDUCTING PRO-

GRAMS OF SUPERVISED FARMING ,
IN VOCATIONAL AGRICULTURE

“pnflfiiffi”
Raymond Andrew Garner
has been accepted towards fulfillment

of the requirement: for ..
EheDo degree in Educ‘tion

 

Major p eor

Dnte nay 2’ 1951

0-169

 

 

 

PRACTICES OF TEACHERS OF VARYING PROFICIENCY IN
CONDUCTING PROGRAMS OF SUPERVISED FARMING IN
VOCATIONAL AGRICULTURE IN MICHIGAN

By

RAYMOND ANDREW GARNER

A THESIS

Submitted to the School of Graduate Studies of Michigan
State College of Agriculture and Applied Science
in partial fulfillment of the requirements

for the degree of

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

Division of Education

1951

1777'}?

"n
D‘s

'- 3 4
T..e In er .

.e is also a

‘(1
0“
'1
(b
("a
} b
1n

men: 1 :7 DP. Ce:

U. Essa“ d'“‘ 7
“‘&“6 t:;’

\

Jo A

 

 

 

u

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The writer is deeply grateful to Dr. Harold M.
IByram for his patient guidance and helpful criticisms
as this study was planned and carried to completion.
He is also appreciative for the helpful assistance
extended by Dr. Cecil V. Millard, Dr. Clyde M. Campbell,
Dr. Clive R. Megee, Dr. Karl T. Wright and Dr. Troy L.
Stearns. Valuable suggestions were given by Dr. Marvin
D. Glock during the planning of the research. Dr. William
D. Baten offered helpful advice on statistical procedures.

Likewise, he is indebted to the teachers, students,
parents and all others who cooperated so wholeheartedly
in supplying data for this study.

A special debt of gratitude is owed by the writer
to the members of his family. Without their constant
encouragement and assistance, this study could never have

been made.

not, ._-V\
I v Ii

I
”nu on“!

T TV. ’fi""T"
.c A.‘..\\.’JVV my...

91‘

D..1ni:io;

I v

C O .v-‘r" ' v
.I MIL} A“:

 

 

 

TABLE OF CONTENTS

CHAPTER
I. INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
The problem . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Purposes of study . . . . . . . . . . .
The evolving concept of supervised
farming . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Importance of study . . . . . . . . . .
Method of investigation . . . . . . . .
Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
II. PLANNING AND CONDUCTING THE STUDY . . . .
Determining measures of effectiveness
of school programs of supervised
farming . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Validation of measures of effectiveness
Weighting of measures of effectiveness.
Determining counties in Michigan in
which productive enterprises are
important . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Determining Michigan teachers of
vocational agriculture who had
taught three years or longer on

their Jobs . . . . . . . . . . . . .

PAGE

13
19
23
27

27
31
35

41

43

O" . Q-nq

Applicatic
mess to
in 3:31;

Completirg

Conductin

’ “r- 1
Lizubdt.cr

 

 

CHAPTER

Application of measures of effective-

ness to determine schools
in study . . . . . . . .
Completing the selection of
Conducting the interview .
Limitations of the study .
Assumptions . . . . . . . .

III. REVIEW OF LITERATURE . - . .

included

schools .

Studies in which teachers or depart-

ments are grouped . . . .

Studies including more than one phase

of supervised farming . .

O O O O 0

Studies giving special consideration

to difficulties in conducting

supervised farming . . .

Studies relating to a particular

aspect or phase of supervised

farming . . . . . . . . .

Summary . . . . . . . . . .

IV. RECOMMENDED PRACTICES IN SUPERVISED

FARMING O O O O O O O O O 0

V. ANALYSIS OF PRACTICES USED IN CONDUCT-

ING SUPERVISED FARMING . .

iv
PAGE

41+
86
94
109
113
115

117

135

151

156

165

172

247

he..-
- o l

Guiding a
student
Providing
Supervi
Acquainti;
f

* ~
arminc

vagina an;

J

Guidir

c 1
N!

1368831;

Helping s:

 

 

CHAPTER

Guiding and counseling prospective
students . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Providing class instruction on
supervised farming . . . . . . . . .
Acquainting parents with supervised
farming . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Making and using farm surveys . . . . .
Guiding students in setting goals and
measuring efficiency of production .
Helping students to become established
in farming . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Developing favorable parent and son
relationships . . . . . . . . . . . .
Relating class instruction to
supervised farming . . . . . . . . .
Making visits to home farms . . . . . .

Keeping and using records . . . . . . .

VI. SUMMARY, IMPLICATIONS AND SUGGESTIONS

FOR FURTHER STUDY . . . . . . . . . . .
summryoooooooooooooooo
Implications of the study . . . . . . .

Possible future studies . . . . . . . .

BIBLIOGRA PM 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O

APPENDICES

PAGE

249

268

273
279

283

287

292

297
301
310

319
320
330
336
339
353

git.“

.L- 5:331? 0: If.

Completing

ects plus L

1w

|
|
.1. Value Rat 1R5 I
|

TTI
Q. Q

 

TABLE
I.

II.

III.

LIST OF TABLES

PAGE

Summary of Individuals Enrolled in and

Completing Productive Enterprise Proj-

ects plus other Supervised Practice in

Michigan Departments of Vocational

Agriculture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Value Ratings Placed on Eleven Possible

Measures of Effectiveness of School

Programs of Supervised Farming by a

Jury of Twenty-one Experts . . . . . . . 33
Maximum Value Ratings Derived when

Suggested Measures of Effectiveness

were Rated by a Jury of Experts . . . . 37
Maximum Point-values Assigned to

Measures of Effectiveness on the

Basis of the Median Value Rating

Received when the Measures were

Rated by a Jury of Experts . . . . . . . 38
Compilation of Data on School Programs

of Supervised Farming when Measure of

Effectiveness No. I is Applied to

Eighty-four Departments of VOcational

Agriculture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47

rvis

b

of Suoe
Eighty-{cu

cultur:

(A
h.
~F~

 

.-
AV...

7

or supehv ‘

 

Effective
C°3§1laticn

cf Supervi

‘Q. 0

vii

TABLE PAGE
VI. Compilation of Data on School Programs

of Supervised Farming when Measure of

Effectiveness No. II is Applied to

Eighty-four Departments of Vocational

Agriculture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52
VII. Compilation of Data on School Programs

of Supervised Farming when Measure of

Effectiveness No. III is Applied to

Eighty-four Departments of Vocational

Agriculture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56
VIII. Compilation of Data on School Programs

of Supervised Farming when Measure of

Effectiveness No. IV is Applied to

Eighty-four Departments of Vocational

Agriculture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59

IX. Compilation of Data on School Programs

of Supervised Farming when Measure of

Effectiveness No. V is Applied to

Eighty-four Departments of Vocational

Agriculture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63

Effectiveg,

 

 

TABLE

XI.

XII.

XIII.

XIV.

Compilation of Data on School Programs
of Supervised Farming when Measure of
Effectiveness No. VI is Applied to

Eighty-four Departments of Vocational

Agriculture . . . . . . . . . .

Compilation of Data on School Programs
of Supervised Farming when Measure of
Effectiveness No. VII is Applied to

Eighty-four Departments of Vocational

Agriculture . . . . . . . . . .

Compilation of Data on School Programs
of Supervised Farming when Measure of
Effectiveness No. VIII is Applied to
Eighty-four Departments of Vocational

Agriculture . . . . . . . . . .

Compilation of Data on School Programs
of Supervised Farming when Measure of
Effectiveness No. XI 18 Applied to
Eighty-four Departments of Vocational

Agriculture . . . . . . . . . .

Points Received by Eighty-four Michigan

Departments of Vocational Agriculture

on Nine Measures of Effectiveness

viii
PAGE

67

71

75

78

82

2 1'
('1 2
L.

Location in i

()

K1 higan f.

 

TABLE

XVII.

XVIII.

XIX.

XXI.

XXII.

Location in Type of Farming Area of
Michigan Teachers of Vocational
Agriculture on September 1, 1948 . . .

Points Received on Nine Measures of
Effectiveness by Thirteen Schools
in Group I . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Points Received on Nine Measures of
Effectiveness by Thirteen Schools
in Group II . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Extent of Visitation to Beginning

Students Prior to Enrollment for

Purposes of Guidance and Counseling
Categories About Which are Grouped
Reasons Advanced by Teachers for Not
Conferring with Beginning Students
Before Enrollment . . . . . . . . . .
Categories of Methods Used by Teachers
to Introduce Prospective Students to
Supervised Farming . . . . . . . . . .
Practices Used by Teachers in Selection
of Students . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Extent that Boys Not Living on Farms

are Enrolled in Vocational Agriculture

ix
PAGE

88

90

91

250

251

255

260

261

U’fi

S'L.

Q

.‘Y’rs

‘\' I
‘ I

‘1)

F? (1
(D m
W (7;
O O
:7 '3
(D F“
’3 (’0

d
o
m
:1
'3
0

.14

TABLE PAGE
XXIII. Categories of Reasons Advanced by
Teachers for Permitting Students
to Enroll in Classes in Vocational
Agriculture Who do Not Live on a
Farm or Who do Not Have the Use of
Farm Facilities for Conducting
Individual Programs of Supervised
Farming . . .-. . . . . . . . . . . . . 263
XXIV. Categories of Reasons Advanced by
Teachers for Not Consulting with
Prospective Students at the Time of
Registration for Classes . . . . . . . 266
XXV. Practices Used by Teachers in Teaching
the Selection and Planning of Pro-
grams of Supervised Farming . . . . . . 269
XXVI. Days Used in Class to Give Instruction
in Supervised Farming to First-year
Students on Problems Relating to
Selecting and Starting of Programs
of Supervised Farming . . . . . . . . . 270
XXVII. Days Used in Each Advanced Class to
Review Individual Supervised'Farming
Programs of Previous Year and Consider

Revisions for the Coming Year . . . . . 271

r,-.-
[-3

mill. Categories
Teachers
Student
H18 Supe

XIX. Practices

m- Categorie;

107111.

min.

531v.

 

 

xi
TABLE PAGE
XXVIII. Categories of Reasons Offered by
Teachers for Not Requiring Each
Student to Make a Written Plan of
His Supervised Farming . . . . . . . . 273
XXIX. Practices Used by Teachers to Inform
Parents About Supervised Farming . . . 274
XXX. Categories of Reasons Advanced by
Teachers for Not Holding Meetings
of Parents of Beginning Students
Which Have as One of Their Purposes
the Development of an Understanding
of Supervised Farming . . . . . . . . 276
XXXI. Categories of Reasons Advanced by
Teachers for Not Holding Annual
Tours of Supervised Farming Pro-
grams to Which Parents are Invited . . 276
XXXII. Categories of Methods Used by Teachers
to Inform Parents About Supervised
Farming . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 279
XXXIII. Practices of Teachers Relating to Use
of Farm Surveys . . . . . . . . . . . 280
XXXIV. Categories of Reasons Advanced by
Teachers for Not Making a Written

Farm Survey 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O 281

fl'r'n
' I
of...“

323217. Practices
SELtiné l
and U81:

EEK. categories

Teacher:
Student;
PrOduct:
ProJect

r,~Ԥ~.
“Jud“.

Categorie;

TEBChEr:

 

TABLE
XXXV.

XXXVI.

XXXVII.

XXXVIII.

Practices of Teachers Relating to
Setting of Goals and Developing
and Using Standards of Production

Categories of Reasons Advanced by
Teachers for Not Encouraging
Students to Set Up Goals of
Production for Each Production
Project . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Categories of Reasons Advanced by
Teachers for Not Developing
Average Records of Production
Among Students of Their Depart-
ments to be Used for Purposes of
Comparison . . . . . . . . . . . .

Summary of Interviews of Students
and Parents . . . . . . . . . . .

Practices of Teachers in Relating
Classroom Instruction to Super-
vised Farming . . . . . . . . . .

Practices of Teachers Relating to
Home Visits . . . . . . . . . . .

Categories of Reasons Advanced for
Not Notifying Students Previous to
Making Home Visits . . . . . . . .

xii

PAGE
. . 284
O O 284
C O 286
. . 289
. . 298
O O 302

. . 305

3
a
0'4

. Categories

'Q-

“° cateéoriee.

.3

 

 

TABLE
XLII.

XLIII.

XLIV.

XLV.

XLVI.

XLVII.

XLVIII.

Categories of Reasons Advanced by
Teachers for Not Making Farm
Visits Regularly on Saturdays . .

Categories of Reasons Advanced by
Teachers for Not Keeping a Record
of Farm'Visits Other Than That
Required by the School Adminis-
tration . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Practices of Teachers Relating to
Keeping and Using Records . . . .

Categories of Reasons Advanced by
Teachers for Not Having Students
Prepare Project Budgets . . . . .

Categories of Difficulties Expe-
rienced by Teachers in Getting
Students to Keep Complete and
Accurate Financial and Production
Records . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Categories of Methods Used by
Teachers to Secure Good Records .

List of Specialists, Their Positions,
and Productive Enterprises in‘Which
They Were Asked to Judge Importance

xiii
PAGE

310

311

311

313

315

318

366

“I
n

n 7‘ ‘.
“‘C‘H'J ‘ V“. ‘

"F". “AV

Vocational

mam-z Crier

 

In
0
m
'. A
m

xiv
TABLE PAGE
XLIX. Eighty-four Michigan Departments of
I VoCational Agriculture Placed in
Rank Order on the Basis of Points
Received on Nine Measures of

Effectiveness . . . . . . . . . . . . . 367

1. Median Fo' w
Effective:
51196311158;

2' Fractices -;
Supervise;
Sienirica:

GPOUps of

 

 

 

LIST OF FIGURES

FIGURE PAGE
1. Median Point Scores on Nine Measures of
Effectiveness of School Programs of
Supervised Farming . . . . . . . ... . . 93
2. Practices in Conducting Programs of
Supervised Farming in Which There Were
Significant Differences Between Two

Groups of Teachers . . . . . . . . . . . 324

This 13 a

g.)
0‘

teachers or "a“

(5
0-9

supervised 1‘ 31‘;
22.52;- errort in ti
in; answers to tin
lee-ted groups of 1
It.

.itzigan use pract
vised farming that
~ .4 ~ .
o. sapervisors ir.

‘ n

 

CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
THE PROBLEM

This is a study of the practices used by two groups
of teachers of varying proficiency in conducting programs
of supervised farming in vocational agriculture. The
major effort in this study has been directed toward find-
ing answers to two principal questions: (1) Do two se-
lected groups of teachers of vocational agriculture in
Michigan use practices in conducting programs of super-
vised farming that are recommended by teacher trainers
and supervisors in agricultural education? (2) If the
two groups of teachers do not use recommended practices
in conducting programs of supervised farming, what are

the reasons?

PURPOSES OF STUDY

The specific purposes of this study may be stated
as follows:

1. To prepare a statement of practices in con-
ducting programs of supervised farming recommended by
leaders in agricultural education.

2. To devise a method for measuring effective-

ness of programs of supervised farming.

3. To det
teachers, of var:
ream-ended by 18
fixtirg programs I

4. To dis.
Practices in condx
azcrg two groups <
canducting prograr

5- In the

recomendations N:

we conduct of DPC

 

3. To determine the extent that two groups of
teachers, of varying effectiveness, follow practices
recommended by leaders in agricultural education in con-
ducting programs of supervised farming.

4. To discover some of the reasons for variable
practices in conducting programs of supervised farming
among two groups of teachers of varying effectiveness in
conducting programs of supervised farming.

5. In the light of the findings, to present some
recommendations which might bring about improvements in

the conduct of programs of supervised farming.
THE EVOLVING CONCEPT OF SUPERVISED FARMING

The experience provided rural boys enrolled in
the public secondary schools while they engage in farm-
ing activities under the guidance and supervision of
their teachers, has been recognized as an essential phase
of the program in vocational education in agriculture.
Indeed, the framers of the Federal, legislative Act,1
which made this education possible, had in mind the de-

sirability of such training when they included the

 

1 Public No. 347, 64th Congress, S. 703. Approved
February 23, 1917. United States Statutes at Lar e of
the United States of ImerIca, 64€h Congress,‘Vqume'—'
XXXIXT‘PEPt I, PubIIc Laws (Washington: Government Print-
ing Office, 1917), p. 929.

21:3:ch require:
Aplt " ‘ '\
:...s of scan app:

F‘nw: 1

name for dire ct

sitter on a farm

0"

hr at least Six 3

 

 

 

3

mandatory requirement "That in order to receive the ben-
efits of such appropriations . . . such schools shall
provide for directed or supervised practice in agriculture,
either on a farm provided for by the school or other farm,
for at least six months per year . . ."2
As this program of farmer-training developed and
expanded, new ideas and concepts evolved with the re-
sult that more appropriate designations have been adopted
to describe the pattern of training that emerged. At
various times in the history of agricultural education,
that aspect of the training which is carried out on a
farm has been referred to by such terms as project, home
project, project program, supervised farm practice,
supervised practice program, farming program, supervised
farming and supervised farming program. Still, new con-
cepts and new patterns have not eliminated certain funda-
mental elements. The basic structure of the program
remains essentially as it was in the beginning, a cooper-
ative effort between the home and school to provide a
‘highly individualized type of instruction in the pupil's
farm environment. Changes that have come about appear

to have been centered primarily on modifying purposes,
scope and techniques of carrying out the work.

 

2 Ibid., Section 10, p. 934.

ran demonstrate

tne Act when he

7
Qatdch t Rufus k
.- * . 2 p5” ‘_
31:1" “Vhe f
4’ 1319

P12‘1t ‘H A. v. C‘

n s ‘ K.

W + $9 ( r111;
"? pp.

In the early history of vocational agriculture,
the terms ”project" or "home project" were frequently
used words by workers in vocational agriculture when
referring to the farming activities carried out by the
student under the direction of the teacher. A review of

the writings of some of the early leaders in vocational

4 6

agriculture such as Dadisman,3 Heald, Nolan,5 Schmidt,

7 and Storm8 reveals that the term "project"

Stimson,
loomed large in the thinking of these men. Even though

the word does not appear in the Smith-Hughes Act, Dadis—
man demonstrated the tendency to associate the term with

the Act when he wrote "The underlying principles of the

 

3 Samuel H. Dadisman, Methods of Teaching Voca-
tional A riculture (Boston: RIcHard GT Badger, Tfie
Gorfiam Pr ress, 1921), 142 pp.

 

1+F. E. Heald, The Home Project as a Phase of Vo-
cational Agricultural'EHficaEIon, FederaIIBoard To rEVoca-
EIonaI Education,BUIletin No. 21, Agricultural Series No.
3 (Washington: Government Printing Office), 1918, 43 pp.

 

 

5 Aretas w. Nolan, The Teachin of Agriculture
(Boston: Houghton.Mifflin‘Company,I 181 ,‘Ix +_277 pp.

6 G. A. Schmidt, Projects and the Pro ect Method
in Teachi Vocational Angcfilture (New Yor: he Cen-
‘ffiryCo., 926), xxvii + 360 pp.

 

 

7 Rufus W. Stimson, Vocational A ricultural Edup
cation'§¥_HomeT Projects New York: *The MacMIIIan Com-

pany, ml 9) xxxv T4 8 pp.

8A. V. Storm and Kary C. Davis, How to Teach Ag-
riculture (Philadelphia: J. B. Lippincoft Company, “1921),
vI + 434 pp.

Sitt-Eugres Act ha...
1;; the type of ins:
Consequently

her project in a s
heifer or an acre (2.
I

W 3831‘} gained a
legal. requirement c
a: supervised Prac~
Although ma.-
lifltéd Opportmitj

d have 3.

 

 

 

5
Smith-Hughes Act had the project idea in mind in develop-
ing the type of instruction mentioned in the Act."9

Consequently, the practice of a student having a
home project in a single farm enterprise, such as a dairy
heifer or an acre of potatoes "for at least six months
per year," gained acceptance as satisfying the minimum
legal requirement of the Smith-Hughes Act "for directed
or supervised practice in agriculture."

Although many teachers may have recognized the
limited opportunities for learning in such a restricted
program and have encouraged their students to engage in
educational activities in all major enterprises of the
home farm, there are indications that the pattern of the
single home project is still used by many teachers.
Watson reveals this tendency while confessing the ser-
ious shortcomings of the programs of supervised farming
in‘Vermont:

In recent years the programs in Vermont have
ranged from poor to fair with altogether too few
really good ones. Too many boys conducted a project

type of program rather than developing one which was
well balanced and comprehensive in scope.10

 

9 Dadisman, 22. cit., p. 43.

10 Cola D. Watson, "Farming Programs--a Point of
Emphasis," The Agricultural Education Magazine, 18:166,
March, 1946.

Perhaps, the
traier programs of
to an inclination t
qurements than 1"

o-~.l ‘1

muses for the s:

 

3.15:: such may be ..

b.

I beliexr
visors and agrf
Vised practice
a 5“ resume;
a definite pg:

merit? years ago,

9-9
:1
M
(D
ID :'
, .5?

A

m (DP
U a
H

‘r

 

 

6

Perhaps, the failure of some teachers to develop
broader programs of training on the farm can be traced
to an inclination to show more concern for meeting legal
requirements than for providing maximum learning Oppor-
tunities for the students. A state supervisor indicates
that such may be the case when he states:

I believe the general Opinion of state super-
visors and agriculture teachers is that our super-
vised practice program in the past has been meeting
a set requirement of a law rather than accomplishing
a definite purpose in training.

Lane concurred in this viewpoint when, nearly
twenty years ago, he reviewed project development in
vocational agriculture. In so doing, he pointed the
way toward making a greater use of the instructional
possibilities of the experience. The four phases of
project deve10pment as Lane saw them were:

(1) The phase of the project as an applica-
tion of learning rather than as a means of learning.
The project was something tacked on to the course of
study, often, merely to meet the requirements of six
months directed or supervised farm practice . . .
The content was about agriculture, predominantly
informational, and with emphasis on fundamental
principles and science taught as such.

(2) The phase of the project as a purposeful
activity on the part of the learner . . . The work

on a cut-and-dried course of study still held sway
on the main line track, while the project work ran

 

11 L. M. Sasman, "Supervised Practice in Farming,"
Theéégricultural Education Magazine, 5:38, September,

along a sepa
rain line.

(3) T.
efforts were
honored cour:
individual 1:
preceding yea

‘ (Q) T:
prenensive p;
l . . are has
ditirg in w:
Which the ‘33
centered}

When Lane

I~
10r*- 1-
‘5 twe compre

53:13 was
Voicing

mdfmmd t

he he:
#1., ‘
““‘eqéate to p
tfat
a Van!

x

‘

     

along a separate narrow-gage track parallel to the
main line.

(3) The phase of continuation projects . . .
efforts were made, while still pursuing the time-
honored courses of study, to take some time off for

- individual instruction on projects continued from
preceding years.

(4) The present phase of the long-time, com-
prehensive program of farming . . . farming programs
. . . are based on Specific and appropriate types of
farming in which the boy desires to engage and upon
which the instruction, both group and individual, is
centered.1

When Lane Spoke of "continuation projects" and
"long-time comprehensive program of farming" he appar-
ently was voicing the forward thinking of those men who
had found the home project in a single enterprise entirely
inadequate to provide for the farm training of a student;
that such a training program to be adequate must include
a variety of learning experiences in the major enter-
prises of the home farm. Such a comprehensive program,
according to a recent Federal bulletin,13 "aids the in-
dividual student in developing abilities, acquiring

skills, and solving real farming problems on his own

 

12 C. H. Lane, "Review of Problems in Vocational
Education in.Agricu1ture," The Agricultural Education

Magazine, 5:140, March, 1933.

13 W. A. Ross, D. M. Clements, and E. J. Johnson,
Directing Vocational Agriculture Da -School Students in
DeveIopIng TEeIr FarmIfigPro rams, . S. OTfIce of Edfifia-
EIon, Vocational DIvIsIon u e n No. 225, Agricultural
Series No. 56 (Washington: Government Printing Office,
1944), p. 8.

 

 

level, and should
attainment in 1
tin: of the extent

any from the home

£631“, a reconne:

Under <
-
0_f a student <

_a_§ It oevel on.
'. N

1. At
ea:
ex;
it;I

2° CHE
int
88

 

 

8
level, and should lead to a definite goal--satisfactory
establishment in a farming occupation." As an illustra—
tion of the extent to which.the leadership had moved
away from the home project idea over a thirty-year
period, a recommendation appears in this bulletin that:

f stEEEEI'gIg%%%§%i232%12:32:uIEErEEEEEEIdEIREIEEe
15' IthE—m superv'i—S'Ion: *— “—-

 

 

 

 

 

1. At least one major cash project started
early in the student's career, continued,
expanded in scope, and improved in qual-
ity over a period of several years.

2. One or more minor cash projects fitted
into the long- -time program as needed and
as opportunity arises.

3. One or more contributory projects, in-
creasing in number, scope, and quality
in keeping with major and minor projects.

4. One or more improvement projects started
or continued each year for the purpose of
improving the farm or the farm home.

5. Sufficient supplementary farm jobs car-
ried out under the supervision of the in-
structor, to develop the desired skills
and managerial ability. 4

If this pattern of a broadened, comprehensive
program typifies the farm training that currently should
prevail, then it becomes obvious that the single home
project, in itself, should no longer be regarded as af-

fording adequate farm experience for the student but

 

14 Ibid., p. 67.

staid be looked u;
too; cognizance Cf
”Ice tern 'proJecfl
”3 recent

...e individual 1':

On the otne:

(O

C11°12? that the :

1
:13

'-Pervised fem-.1

 

 

9

should be looked upon as a part of a larger program. Cook
took cognizance of such a development when he stated that,
"The term 'project' as used in the beginning of the pro-

gram during recent years has become recognized as a unit
"15

 

in the individual's farming program.

On the other hand it would be highly presumptuous
to infer that the idea of a broad, comprehensive program
of supervised farming has gained complete acceptance.
Perhaps this would be true as an ideal but certainly not
in practice.

Data presented in Table I show a summarization of
the kinds of supervised farming programs conducted in the
departments of vocational agriculture in Michigan over a
five-year period. The percentage of students enrolled in
and completing productive enterprise projects plus other
supervised farming seems to be quite generally accepted
as an indication of a broadened, comprehensive program.
Examination of these data reveals that departments of
vocational agriculture in Michigan had, on the average,

a little over half of their students engaging in this
type of farming activity.

 

15 Glen C. Cook, A Handbook on Teachi ‘Vocational
Agriculture (Danville, IIlinois: IfiEerstate rinters &
Pfiblishers, 1947, Fifth.Edition), p. 278.

 

 

 

 

3.2 .
bulway 0F \'

PRCDUCTIVBIE

surged

DE?!

 

=31“—
v6.“
a Q.
Indiv
2.3er
..3_;,

I ' 0‘
(I ,

(7‘

9.

 

 

10

TABLE I

SUMMARY OF INDIVIDUALS ENROLLED IN AND COMPLETING
PRODUCTIVE ENTERPRISE PROJECTS PLUS OTHER
SUPERVISED PRACTICE IN MICHIGAN
DEPARTMENTS OF VOCATIONAL

   

AGRICULTURE*
Productive
Enterprise
Individuals
Year Enrolled Projects Plus Per Cent

Other Super-
vised Practice

 

1940-41 6884 3724 54.10
1941-42 6813 3903 57.29
1942-43 6741 3801 56.39
1943-44 7188 3497 48.65
1944-45 6306 3777 59.90

 

* From data on file in the Office of Vocational
Education, Department of Public Instruction, Lansing,
Michigan

Pearsonl6 presented data for the United States as
a whole which seem to indicate a trend toward the devel-
0pment of broadened programs of supervised farming com-
pleted over a four-year period by the individuals enrolled
in all-day classes in the United States showed that the
percentage of the students completing productive

 

16 James H. Pearson, Mimeographed Summary, on file

in the U. 3. Office of Education, "Kinds of Supervised
Farm.Practice Programs Completed by Individuals in.All-
Day Classes."

 

xterprise projects
creased from 52.6 7
:2 54.8 per cent 1:.
and continued to i:
Pearson's d'
”Caress has occur
39-?! training for

“.6“
c“V-‘I‘e.

Tabb re;

 

We star
months PQQAII‘E
few years we i
ect° Then ca:
PI‘Gduction
and some
Ye aI‘e

“
A

Eng:

ll
enterprise projects and other supervised practice in-
creased from 52.6 per cent in the school year 1937-38
to 54.8 per cent in 1938-39, to 58.3 per cent in 1939-40,
and continued to increase to 61.1 per cent in 1940-41.

Pearson's data seem to support Tabb's belief that
progress has occurred in the conduct of programs in
farm training for students enrolled in vocational agri-

culture. Tabb relates:

We started out to meet the project-for-six-
months requirement in the Smith-Hughes Act. After a
few years we evolved the idea of more than one proj-
ect. Then came farm practice, consisting of as many
production projecfs as a*boy could well have, whe-
ther related or not, perhaps an improvement project,
and some supplementary practice. It seems that now
we are getting around to the idea that a boy should
have a farming program consisting of such things as
will give him the most valuable training in the kind
of farming he is likely to engage in.

 

In later sections of this report, particularly in
references to related literature, the reader will find
various designations used by writers when referring to
the educational activities in farming carried on by the
student under the direction of the teacher of vocational
agriculture. Perhaps it might provide a better under-
standing of these terms if an attempt were made to show

the time when a particular designation seemed to

 

17W. R. Tabb, "Developing Supervised Farming
Programs," Thegggricultural Education Magazine, 19:51,
September, . '

preicminate among
Necessarily, the I
trations and tneri
Eriods. Roughly

Period 1

Period 11

PEPIOd III

 

 

l2
predominate among workers in vocational agriculture.
Necessarily, the limits of each period are only approx-
imations and there is considerable overlapping between
periods. Roughly the divisions might be:
Period I -- From the introduction of the "home-
project" by R. W. Stimson in 1908
to the passage of the Smith-Hughes
Act in 1917. Possibilities of using

the project as a methog of instruc-
tion began to emerge.1

Period II -- From the passage of the Smith-Hughes
Act in 1917 to 1930. Project idea
was dominant.

Period III -- From 1930 to 1940. Students' directed
training activities commonly referred
to as supervised practice.

Period IV -- From 1940 to present. The designa-

tion supervised farming used to in-
dicate directed farming activities
of the student.

Sanders, one of the first to adopt the term super-

vised farming explains:

. . . the term "supervised farming" is pre-
ferred to "supervised practice" as it seems to be
more expressive of the aims and ideals that are
becoming generally recognized. True, the boy's
supervised practice program consisting chiefly of
production enterprises, improvement projects and
supplementary farm jobs, may fall far short of the
ideal of a farming program, but it represents, or
should represent, at least a small-scale farming
program for the individual engaged in it. Certainly

 

18 A. C. Monahan, and others, A7ricultural Educa-
E YearBooIE

tion in Secondary Schools, The Elevenfl of EHe
NaEIonal Sbciet for the Stfid"3TIEducation, Part‘II
(Blopmig on, lInois: PuBIId‘SchoolPublisHIng'UB.,
1912 1 pp.

 

 

 

this would
four 01" Cf
not true 0.

In the 1
will use the de
pessihle' 8.1""
will demand the
with other desi
describe the cc
0:: by students

Vocational a5 :- i

13
this would be true when the complete program for
fiStreifiemi‘r'eefiiaiioéiafi°221d§r§$néliny3339““

In the remaining pages of this thesis, the writer
will use the designation "supervised farming" whenever
possible; although it should be apparent that occasions
will demand that the term be considered interchangeably
with other designations prevailing at a given time to
describe the educational activities in farming carried

on by students under the supervision of the teacher of

vocational agriculture.
IMPORTANCE OF STUDY

Probably, leaders in the field would be the first
to admit that the programs of supervised farming con-
ducted by teachers of vocational agriculture have not
measured up to the fullest expectations. Occasionally,
the reader will find individuals pointing out outstand-
ing achievements in supervised farming such as was done
by Bradfordao 1

and Howard2 but these instances are rather

 

19 H. W. Sanders, "What Progress Has Been Made in
Planning Supervised Farming?" The Agricultural Education
Magazine, 10:88, November, 1937.

20 H. E. Bradford, "Supervised Practice Trains
Boys for the Business of Farming," The Agricultural Edu-
cation Magazine, 12:10-11, July, 1939.

21 Carl G. Howard, "Teacher Activities in Super-
vised Farming," The Agricultural Education Magazine, 13:

 

"are . Furtnc

teachers and

ticnal aSI‘i c;

I
3.536?

Years ago the

l4

rare. Furthermore, they refer to programs of selected
teachers and not to a cross section of teachers. On the
other hand, there have been numerous references to the
serious inadequacies of the supervised farming programs
as they have existed down through the years.

Only recently a state supervisor observed that
"The supervision of farming programs of all-day students
is probably the weakest phase of our program in voca-

tional agriculture."22

That the problem has been a per-
sistent one is revealed by Magill who wrote nearly twenty
years ago that "Supervised farm practice has been a weak
spot in vocational agriculture . . . we have talked and
written glibly about supervised practice on the one hand

and then have gone supremely on teaching informational

 

agriculture to groups of students."23

About the same time Dickinson voiced a similar
opinion and indicated that the condition was not restricted
to any one area when he wrote: "One of the weakest links

in the chain of teaching vocational agriculture is project

 

8-9, July, 1940; 13:28-29, August, 1940; 13:48-49, Sep-
tember, 1940.

22 H. R. Culver, "Supervising Farming Programs’n
‘¥3% Agricultural Education Magazine, 22:137, December,
9.

23 Edmund c. Magill, "Planning Supervised Farm
Practice," The Agricultural Education Magazine, 6:57,
October, 1933.

15
supervision. This situation is not confined to any

few states, but appears to be common throughout the

Spanton, speaking as Federal agent for the eleven
states in the Pacific region offered support for Dick-
inson's contention that weak programs of supervised
farming existed generally by stating:

In spite of the importance attached to farm
practice by the Smith-Hughes Act, it is a matter of
common knowledge that this phase of vocational edu-
cation in agriculture has never attained as high a
standard of proficiency as is dgsirable or as the
framers of the act anticipated. 5

Observations such as the above would lead us to
believe that weak programs of supervised farming exist
quite commonly throughout the country. Stafford goes
one step further and indicates that weak programs even
exist among students who have a special interest in
farming. He states: ". . . even with selected students,
boys who are definitely interested in preparing to farm,
supervised practice is, all too frequently, a weak link

in our program."26

24 Sherman Dickinson, "Supervising Practice in
Vocational Agriculture," The Agricultural Education Mag-
azine, 5:106, January, 1933.

 

25 W. T. Spanton, "Supervised Farm Practice and
the Smith-Hughes Act," The Agricultural Education Mag -
zine, 5:185, June, 1933.

26 Tal H. Stafford, "How to Improve Supervised

Farming Programs,“ The Agricultural Education Magazine,
19:230, June, 1947.

l6
Fay points his finger at the project and identifies
it with what he believes to be an unsatisfactory program
of supervised farming:

Our present program of supervised practice
leaves much to be desired, consisting too frequently
of only one project, usually so small in scope as to
fail to challenge the boy, or to command Dad's re-
spect, and offeging little chance for practicing
better methods.

Likewise, Dickinson condemned the limiting influ-
ence of the project and eXpressed a very low opinion of
supervised farming programs in general:

The one unique phase of our vocational agri-
culture program has been supervised practice. This,
unfortunately in the early days, was almost univer-
sally spoken and thought of as meaning a "project,"
and to this day we are paying the penalty. The vast
majority of our students who carry on any home prac-
tice at all, still are numbered among the "one-project
boys." We cannot but realize that the most of our
supervised practice is sketchily planned, inade-
quately studied, superficially executed, and miser-
ably accounted. Much splendid work is being done,28
but far too much is of less than mediocre calibre.

The most damning criticism of all was voiced by

Starrak when he sharply declared:

... . supervised farm practice programs are
too often non-existent except in the reports sub-
mitted to the state supervisor. Of course, all
teachers may have one or two supervised farming
practice projects to which they can point with

 

27 Ivan Fay, "It Depends on the Teacher," The gg-
ricultural Education Magazine, 13:91, November, I940.

28 Sherman Dickinson, "Needed.Adjustments and
Direction in Vocational Agriculture," The Agricultural
Education.Magazine, 9:54, October, 1936.

 

pride,
person;
from c«
038 CI;
Superv
grams

riousl.
the co'
me, as
moral ;
our pr.
unless

nine,

17
pride, and a few teachers may have several, but I am
personally convinced from my own observations and
from confessions of teachers themselves that a seri-
ous discrepancy exists between state reports on
supervised practice and the actual supervised pro-
grams in existence on the home farms. If I am se-
riously wrong on this, I would welcome evidence to
the contrary for it is a matter of major concern to
me, as it should be to all involved. Aside from the
moral implications of the discrepancy referred to,
our program cannot attain its maximum efficiency
unless the supervised farm practice is rea% and gen-
uine, rather than imaginary and deceptive. 9

If one can accept the judgments presented by the
men cited, then the quality of supervised farming pro-
grams must be at a low level, indeed. It is not known
to what extent the statements made were based upon ob-
jective evidence. It would seem, however, that all of
these persons have had extensive opportunities to ac-
quaint themselves with the effectiveness of supervised
farming programs in the respective states where they
have been employed as state supervisors or teacher
trainers so their views should carry the weight of in-
formed opinion.

To the writer's knowledge there has been no com-
prehensive study completed which would adequately sup-
port or refute the Opinions stated above. Pearson's
analysis, referred to earlier in this chapter, indicates

that there may be a trend toward enlarging the scope of

 

29 J. A. Starrak, "Our Program-~Good or Poor?"
.2 g gggicultural Education Magazine, 16:9, July, 1943.

I;

the individuz
students but
ficient to r.

How t
Supervised 1‘.
13W “finder:

538;; to £15:

as Complex a
a varietb' of
mg out a s
inter dOeg
‘33 to a CO”
‘e hopes it

Ferns
and mean LU
Pragrams 0“
hactiCes t<
t'ei‘ialliz’ tow
4811; in thi‘.
“19.1

o
ted
‘ 8
Tc. Stq'
“is of
0:
3. tr.
“Peer-
gene 1

18
the individual supervised farming programs carried by
students but obviously such a summary would not be suf-
ficient to reveal the quality of such programs.

How to improve the situation is a problem. If
supervised farming programs generally operate at the
low standards which have been described, it will not be
easy to find a satisfactory corrective. For a problem
as complex as this one appears to be, it would seem that
a variety of approaches will need to be used in order to
work out a satisfactory solution. Consequently, the
writer does not pretend that this study will point the
way to a complete and final solution of the problem, but
he hopes it will help.

Perhaps, if teachers were better informed on ways
and means used by the more able teachers in conducting
programs of supervised farming, they could modify their
practices to set up a pattern which would contribute ma-
terially toward raising their own levels of accomplish-
ment in this important phase of instruction in vocational
agriculture.

As has been stated previously, one of the purposes
of this study has been to determine the extent that two
groups of teachers of varying effectiveness follow rec-
ommended practices in conducting programs of supervised
farming. If practices used by teachers in conducting

superior programs can be clearly pointed up, conceivably

trey might be r
teach ng as we;
11‘ sucn were 1::

faring pro gran

In Ordel
0? the var-ions
133.1115 the pg;
outline or the
MM. A more
inestléatmn ‘
Of this repOrt‘

used in cons-gm

\

 

19
they might be helpful to less effective teachers actively
teaching as well as to others who are preparing to teach.
If such were the case, the general quality of supervised

farming programs might thereby be improved.
METHOD OF INVESTIGATION

In order to provide the reader with a general view
of the various approaches and sources of data used in sat-
isfying the purposes indicated in this study, a brief
outline of the procedures employed is presented at this
point. A more detailed description of each phase of the
investigation will be developed in appropriate sections
of this report. The major divisions of the procedure
used in conducting this study are indicated below:

1. Establishing 5 list gg recommended practices

 

 

 

 

1&3 supervised farming. This has been accomplished by an

 

exhaustive search of the literature to determine prac-
tices recommended by teacher trainers, state supervisors,
and staff members in agricultural education of the voca-
tional division of the U. S. Office of Education. On the
basis of recommendations of these leaders, a list of ten
working principles for conducting supervised farming has

been drawn up. These are presented in Chapter IV.

 

2. Selecting the teachers included $3 the study.
There were three principal considerations kept in mind
in choosing the teachers who cooperated in this study:

(1) mt teac'ner
effective pregra
{2) that the det
““8 appmacn (;
SC far as assoc
SPECS 0f 89:58:“;
the 8: '93 in Se
a.
annual Fin
°f the or:

rent of PL

ALEmS werfi

school Dr
1“ Peculr

a re 12:0 Lu

airlcult 1.

20
(1) that teachers with the more effective and the less
effective programs of supervised farming be determined
(2) that the determination should be based on an objec-
tive approach (3) that the identity of the teachers in
so far as associating them with superior or inferior pro-
grams of supervised farming should be avoided. Briefly,
the steps in selecting the teachers were as follows:

a. A list of items was prepared based on the
annual Final Report of Supervised Practice Program30
of the Office of Vocational Education of the Depart-
ment of Public Instruction in Michigan. All of the
items were possible measures of effectiveness of
school programs of supervised farming. This report
is required of all schools in Michigan which operate
a reimbursable program in vocational education in
agriculture.

b. These items were submitted to five state
supervisors and to two teacher trainers in agricul-
tural education in.Michigan. It was requested of
each of these men that he add any items which could
be obtained from the annual Final Report of Super-
vised Practice Program that in his opinion were sig-

nificant measures of effectiveness of supervised

 

30 See Appendix K.

farming. 53‘.
and experienc.
qualified to
c. A
the? were try
Wiesting 33
grams of 3“;
of the fiVe
ferred to a}
and Super“:
to be ”PE:

famine .

21
farming. By virtue of their positions, background
and experience, it was felt that these men were well
qualified to perform this assignment.

0. A compilation was made of these items and
they were then submitted to a Jury for validation and
weighting as measures of effectiveness of school pro-
grams of supervised farming. The Jury was composed
of the five supervisors and two teacher trainers re-
ferred to above and fourteen other teacher trainers
and supervisors. All of these men were considered
to be expert in their understanding of supervised
farming.

d. The names of Michigan teachers of vocational
agriculture who had completed three years of teaching
in their present positions were determined. ‘Eighty-
four of the 201 schools, maintaining departments of
vocational agriculture in.Michigan in September 1948,
employed teachers who had been on the Job three years
or longer.

e. Capies of the Final Report of Supervised
Practice submitted January 1, 1949; January 1, 1948;
and January 1, 1947 by the eighty-four teachers, who
had completed at least three years of teaching on
the Job where they were employed on September 1, 1948,

were examined. The data summarized on these reports

relate to t:.
school stade
validated t;
trainers we:

1'. '.
in ram or:
the measure
ments we
“Sad Pract

4' Stun:
\

22
relate to the programs of supervised farming of high-
school students only. Measures of effectiveness
validated by the Jury of supervisors and teacher
trainers were applied to these reports.

f. The eighty-four departments were arranged
in rank order on the basis of scores obtained when
the measures of effectiveness of supervised farming
programs were applied to eacthinal Report of Super-
vised Practice Program.

3. Studying the programs 2£_supervised farming

 

.$2 the schools selected. It had been planned to study
the thirteen tOp-ranking and the thirteen bottom-ranking
departments. Before it was possible to complete these
studies, there had been changes in the teaching person-
nel of departments ranking seventh and twelfth from the
tap and eighth from the bottom. It was possible to sub-
stitute departments ranking next in order which meant
that those ranking fourteenth and fifteenth from the
top were included with the top group while the depart-
ment ranking fourteenth from the bottom became a part of
the bottom group. Thus, a total of twenty-six depart-
ments were studied, the number that it was feasible for
the writer to investigate.

Teachers and superintendents were contacted to

secure permission to study their programs of supervised

taming. All 0
to visit each 0
er m intem'ie
tad/or one or t
inatances 1t wa

of the fully.

Certain
“59d rather he
“39o Since to
not be cleany
def‘mitions of
when an offiCia

 

 

23
farming. All of these men cooperated. One day was used
to visit each of the twenty-six departments. The teach-
er was interviewed as well as representative students
and/br one or both of the students' parents. In several
instances it was possible to talk to all three members

of the family. Altogether, 187 home contacts were made.
DEFINITIONS

Certain terms relating to supervised farming, are
used rather frequently by workers in vocational agricul-
ture. Since their meanings, as used in this thesis, may
not be clearly understood by all readers of this report,
definitions of these terms are presented. In instances
when an official definition has been adopted for any of
the terms listed below, it is copied here.

The four definitions that follow are from the
Office of Vocational Education in Michigan.31

Productive enterprise progec : A business venture
for profit, usually limited to a production cycle in a

farm enterprise.

 

31 Final Report of Supervised Practice Program,
Voc. Ed. Form.No. 241 (Lansing, Michigan: State Board
giitontrol for Vocational Education), P. 1. See Appen-
K.

 

 

 

Imp:
crease app:

improve the

24
Improvement ppoject: A project intended to in-

 

crease appreciably the real estate value of the farm, or
improve the efficiency of the farm business.
Supplementary farm ppactice: Practice which has

 

as its purpose development of ability in certain jobs
or practices carefully selected by the teacher in con-
ference with the student.

Placement for farm experience: Placement of a

 

student on a farm-~usually a town boy who is lacking in
farm eXperience--or transfer to a suitable farm of a
student who has too limited facilities on his home farm.

The definitions for the terms which are given L“
below were taken from a bulletin prepared in the U. S.
Office of Education.32

Production project: A business venture for profit
involving a series of farm jobs usually following a pro-
duction cycle in a farm enterprise.

Continuation projec : A project, continued from
year to year, giving considerable repetitive experiences
in a given enterprise.

Contributory projec : A production project in a
student's supervised farming program, the products of

 

32

Ross pp gl., reverse side of front and back
cover. '

rich are co nsuze
or 21:23? project:

Major pro

yields the z:

r
on
“U.

i-‘é Program.

Minor “rc
N

;A““eqv ‘ a
”We: Finds 16

activist
r~ B I“
v»
‘N
firs f0
0 P W
{hat
ucti
“ Gr‘a
£511

25
which are consumed or utilized in the conduct of major
or minor projects.

.EEQEE projec : .A production project which normally
yields the major income in a student's supervised farm-
ing program.

31.1-29.3 projec : A production project which ordi—
narily yields less income than a major project in a
student's supervised farming program, but which may be
fitted into the program so as to utilize and balance
labor more effectively and yield a quick cash return on
a small investment.

'pppg-time supervised farming program: The total
farming program, including project selection, planning,
and development over a period of years on the part of a
student of vocational agriculture as supervised by his
instructor.

The following definitions have been supplied by
the writer:

.EEEE enterprise: A productive undertaking which
consists of the growing for profit of a particular kind
of crop or livestock such as dairy cattle or corn.

VOcational education l2 agriculture: Educational

 

activities relating to training present and prospective
farmers for proficiency in agriculture as a phase of the
instructional program provided through the public school

with financial assistance from the Federal government.

Vocational
king as vocations
Agricu‘l tors

toall types of e

cational agricult

School 1:33

activities in far
Supervision of t:
‘H' s
SVuQent 2-
activities in fa

54.0% rvision of h

Teach n
e; t

teacher ed‘ocatic
to train preser1

Sta .
\tg ii

26

‘Vocational agriculture: A term meaning the same

 

thing as vocational education in agriculture.

Agricultural Education: A broad term referring

 

to all types of education in agriculture including vo-
cational agriculture.

School program pf sgpervised farming: All of the

 

activities in farming carried on by students under the
supervision of their teacher of vocational agriculture.

Student program pf supervised farming: All of the

 

 

activities in farming carried on by a student under the
supervision of his teacher of vocational agriculture.

Teacher trainer: A member of a department of

 

teacher education in a college or university designated
to train present and prospective teachers of vocational
agriculture.

.§E§E§ supervisor: .A person engaged in the admin-
istration and supervision of vocational education in

agriculture on the state level.

' I.\'\?T1
PJO‘.“‘

In this cf.
oping a method {‘0
of supervised far
sawing how this
v.20 were asked t
presented a descz

with was emplob'

lititations of t

tions are stated

DETEE’JviINING
PRC

A8 has in
“4‘13 involved
“”9 effective

{i H“
0; Supemiged f

 

CHAPTER II
PLANNING AND CONDUCTING THE STUDY

In this chapter the procedures followed in devel-

oping a method for measuring effectiveness of programs

of supervised farming are described in detail. After
showing how this method was used to determine teachers
who were asked to co-Operate in this study, there is
presented a description of the interviewing technique
which was employed to gather data from them. Finally,
limitations of the study are pointed out and basic assump-

tions are stated.

DETERMINING MEASURES OF EFFECTIVENESS OF SCHOOL
PROGRAMS OF SUPERVISED FARMING

As has been stated previously, one phase of this 5

study involved a determination of the teachers with the
more effective and those with the less effective programs
of supervised farming. It was desired that this selec-
tion should be made on the basis of recorded data since
it was believed that such an approach would lend to
greater objectivity.

A source of data which is objective in character4
and which showed promise of revealing information that
could be used to measure effectiveness of school pro-

grams of supervised farming is the form.Final Report of

 

 

 

 

 

28
Supervised Practice Program.1 For the purpose of brev- J
ity, this form will be referred to as Form 241 whenever
later references are made to it in this report.

This report_must be filed annually for all Mich-v
igan departments of vocational agriculture with the 0f-
fice of Vocational Education of the Department of Pub-
lic Instruction in Lansing, Michigan. It is a statis-
tical summary of the individual supervised farming pro-
grams conducted by all students enrolled in a given
department of vocational agriculture. It was felt that
an examination and an analysis of these summaries might
reveal information which would reflect the quality of
supervised farming programs reported.

Proceeding on this basis, a list of possible mea-4
sures of effectiveness in conducting school programs of
supervised farming was drawn up. In preparing this list
the writer was able to take advantage of his fairly ex-
tensive experience in supervised farming first as a
teacher of vocational agriculture in high school and
later as a teacher trainer in college. Each measure
was of such character that it could be applied to data
reported on Form 241. The initial list which was pre-

pared is as follows:

 

1 See Appendix K.

Percent
farting who he
Frise projects

Percent
1.2; U30 have c
tive enterpris

Average
cczpleted by q

H

Percent

On p ‘
* «we who, r

8236““

syrise prc

Perce»~

56h

 

29
Percentage of students enrolled in supervised
farming who have completed one or more productive enter-
prise projects and other supervised practice.
Percentage of students enrolled in supervised farm-
ing who have completed both livestock and crOp produc-
tive enterprise projects.

Average number of productive enterprise projects
completed by students enrolled in supervised farming.

Percentage of students enrolled in supervised
farming who, having completed two or more years of super-
vised farming, show at least one continuous productive
enterprise project.

Percentage of students enrolled in supervised
farming who show increasing scope in productive projects
repeated in two or more successive years.

Percentage of students enrolled in supervised
farming completing supervised farming programs.

Since it seemed probable that there might be ad-
ditional measures of effectiveness of programs of super-
vised farming which could be applied to Form 241, it
was decided to solicit suggestions of other possible
measures of effectiveness from the five state supervis-
ors and two of the teacher trainers in vocational educa-
tion in agriculture in Michigan. The names of these men
are listed in Appendix B. It was believed that their
familiarity with Form 241, coupled with their background
and experience, made these men well qualified to sug-
gest other possible measures of effectiveness which
could be applied to data on file in the Office of Voca-
tional Education in the Michigan Department of Public

Instruction.

When t:
s.pe:visor or
suggestions 1“
a fer: such a:
this for; rev:

union the wr11

30

When the information was requested, each state
supervisor or teacher trainer was invited to submit his
suggestions for additional measures of effectiveness on
a form such as appears in Appendix C. Examination of
this form reveals that the preliminary list of measures
which the writer had proposed was presented along with
the request for suggestions of other possible measures
of effectiveness. This listing was made as an aid to the
respondents who, otherwise, might have consumed con-
siderable time writing down many of the same items listed
by the writer.

All of these men suggested at least one additional
measure but there was considerable duplication in the
ideas submitted. When these had been compiled, it was
revealed that five additional measures had been suggested.
They were as follows:

Average number of improvement projects completed
by students enrolled in supervised farming.

Average number of supplementary farm practices
completed by students enrolled in supervised farming.

Percentage of students enrolled in supervised
farming who complete farm placement experience.

Percentage of students enrolled in supervised
farming who complete supplementary farm practice only.

Percentage of students enrolled in supervised
farming with productive enterprise projects which are
important in the county where the department is located.

When these proposed measures were added to the

six previously prepared by the writer, a total of eleven

33552516 3535'
3; Farm 24; 3‘

prggrazs Of 5 s

The nee
obvious before
gested measure
programs of so

for valida“I

tion
In orde
tne measures ,
-ne

centers of

sm’ei'e‘i Drevi

Fired, toéetne
s“Dervisors fr

“1'” .. .

 

was‘inéton. o.

31
possible measures were available that might be applied
to Form 241 to determine the effectiveness of school

programs of supervised farming.

VALIDATION OF MEASURES OF EFFECTIVENESS

The need for further investigation seemed fairly
obvious before it would be possible to use these sug-
gested measures to determine effectiveness of school
programs of supervised farming. For instance, the need
for validation of the measures was apparent.

In order to determine the validity of each of
the measures, the writer turned to a jury of experts.

The members of this jury consisted of the two teacher
trainers and the five state supervisors who had been
surveyed previously when the list of measures was pre-
pared, together with eleven teacher trainers and two
supervisors from other States and one member of the
agricultural education staff of the Office of Education,
Washington, D. C. The fourteen men who served on the
jury, in addition to the seven from Michigan, are listed
in Appendix D.

Each of the twenty-one men was asked to indicate
his judgment of the relative value of the eleven suggested
measures of effectiveness, using the form which appears
in.Appendix E. Examination of this form will reveal that

the respondent was presented six different numbers which

value of eao'r
times. of val
511(6) "ext:
six options ;:
Svyzen to sh
P91331179 V3111

The f;
353 direction

the tp""em3lv'-Oh

letter 850m ;

 

32
he might employ to report his estimate of the relative
value of each measure. These numbers represent a con-
tinuum of values extending from zero (0) "no value" to
six (6) "extremely valuable." It is assumed that these
six options provided ample opportunity for each of the
jurymen to show rather precisely his judgment of the
relative value of the eleven suggested measures.

The form, listing the eleven proposed measures
and directions for evaluating them, was sent to each of
the twenty-one members of the jury, together with the
letter shown in Appendix F. All of the men co-operated
by returning the completed form.

The distribution of the value ratings on the
eleven suggested measures made by the twenty-one mem-
bers of the jury is shown in Table II. On two of the
measures, percentage of students enrolled in supervised
farming who complete farm placement experience (Measure
IX) and percentage of students enrolled in supervised
farming who complete supplementary farm.practice only
(Measure x) there was so little agreement among the
members of the jury, as indicated by the extreme variation
in the ratings reported, that it seemed best to omit
them from further consideration as measures of effec-
tiveness of school programs of supervised farming. Fur-
ther examination of Table II reveals that the jury tended

to be in agreement on the remaining nine measures. A

 

Allfrifllflfllili
Hx x XH HHH> HH> H> > >H HHH HH H
Esauo:

 

cognac: co>°Hufl co amnfiunr .No COHUJQHoHunHQ TJHQAP

mh.vhnm~nflxufl $20.!»Hszag 5N0 szno 4‘ ’3 DZHZMfiA‘.‘ amaHIKRmmnth. END «WESfifivfiuan
\HOO-nfivm .n-Av anulzw>HpHsonm~h~§~nn~ to Mouths-mi: SmHmannw zgm ZAU A~M~HV<1NHN M-AOZHPHC‘: HD.H<>

Hui! anfll‘uflU

33

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

: m m a e a m m a e : csHooz

Hm Hm Hm Hm Hm Hm Hm Hm Hm Hm Hm Hence

m m H m m m H H a H a m

HH m m a sH «H e a 0H HH m a

m m m a H m m m m m a m

m e m o o o s m H H o m

m m m m H H o o o m m H

H m m o o o H H H H o 0

He x xH HHH> HH> H> > >H HHH HH H wersm
OSHQ>

condoms: so>on so mwsdpmm mo soundnflnpmfin

 

magma mZOtMBsz mo Eh. d rm wzgmdm amgmmmbm mo mgcomm
~Hoomnqm ho mmflth—uomhmm mo mama mamHmmom SM 20 Qmojm mczfirdm M55;

HH ands

 

 

notable excep
given by one
tact he did r
Suggested met
ZEI‘C While t1
only one.

In or
ratirgs, line
the centre;
When the rte:
Wilde ratlné
73:19 II thi
Paine Of :1

a Valli?- rat

SHIT:
{‘0
«s ectiven‘
C‘vaq

4‘62”»:
“‘i
C? .
h.
S‘N‘EPVI
u

34
notable exception, however, prevailed in the ratings
given by one member of the jury. It was fairly obvious
that he did not place a very high value on any of the
suggested measures. He rated seven of the measures
zero while the remaining four were given a rating of
only one.

In order to prevent undue influence by extreme
ratings, the median was adOpted as a measure to indicate
the central tendency of each of the distribution of ratings.
When the median was determined for the distribution of
value ratings on each of the measures, it is revealed in
Table II that seven of the measures had a median value
rating of four (4). As the form in Appendix E indicates,
a value rating of four means that a measure was judged
"highly valuable." Two of the measures had a median
value rating of three (3) which means that the measures
were considered "above average value."

Summary. Considering only the eleven measures of
effectiveness presented in this section, it seems fairly
obvious that the jury of experts employed in this study
would place a premium upon productive enterprise projects
in determining measures of excellence of school programs
of supervised farming. In six of the seven measures to
which the jury gave the greatest value in determining

schools with the more effective programs of supervised

It 2;;5
Ltpcrtaht tha1
vised farting
age of St‘ldez‘.

Séler'w'ised fa

cf as».

35

farming, the term "productive enterprise projects" is
clearly stated.

It appears that the jury would also consider it
important that the students complete programs of super-
vised farming that they start since the item "percent-
age of students enrolled in supervised farming completing
supervised farming programs" is the seventh measure
rated "highly valuable" in determining the excellence
of the combined programs of supervised farming in a de-
partment of vocational agriculture. Lesser value is
given by the jury to the measure "average number of im-
provement projects" and to the measure "average number
of supplementary farm practices" completed by students
enrolled in supervised farming.

There was general lack of agreement on the value
of the suggested measures "percentage of students en-
rolled in supervised farming who complete farm placement
experience" and "complete supplementary practice only"
so it seemed advisable to omit them from further consid—
eration as measures for determining effectiveness of

school programs of supervised farming.
WEIGHTING OF MEASURES OF EFFECTIVENESS

After using the jury to validate the nine mea-
sures of effectiveness, it remained to develop a method

of applying them to Form 241 in such a way that greater

 

stander:
treasure

5‘» the

9”!

GEtEI’m‘ine I
pregl‘am 01‘
t-

Table Iv

36
weight could be given to those measures considered most
valuable by the jury. In order to allow for such dif-
ferences, a plan of weighting was devised whereby a
standard point value was assigned arbitrarily to each
measure on the basis of the median rating value received
by the measure when rated by the jury.

The maximum point value which could be allocated
to a school program of supervised farming for any measure
was 100. Theoretically, this point value might have
been given to a school if some suggested measure of ef-
fectiveness had received a median value rating of five
(5) or "extremely valuable" from the jury. Actually,
no measure received a median value rating of five so
under this plan it became impossible for a school to earn
as many as 100 points on any measure. By arbitrarily
assigning a point value of 100 to a median value rating
of five (5) and reducing this pr0portionally as the me-
dian value descended to zero (0), the point values shown
in Table III were derived.

Using the maximum points assigned to each median
value rating in.Table III, it became a simple matter to
determine the maximum number of points which a school
program of supervised farming could receive on any of
the nine measures. These point values are revealed in

Table IV.

Median 1
Rating Re
\

5

MW

37
TABLE III

MAXIMUM VALUE RATINGS DERIVED WHEN SUGGESTED MEASURES
OF EFFECTIVENESS WERE RATED BY A JURY OF EXPERTS

   
    

 

.. __.___ is .. — —~.-n‘m--.~mm¢—“—_‘*r_ “..--...“W ——.~.— —

Median Value Description of Maximum Points

 

Rating Received Value Rating Assigned
5 Extremely Valuable 100
4 Highly Valuable 80
3 Above Average Value 60
2 Below.Average Value 40
1 Limited Value 20
O No Value 0

 

In order to make it clear just how weighting was
taken into consideration in determining the number of
points a school would receive on a given measure, two
illustrations are presented below.

First, if the measure were expressed in per cent,
as most of them were, a percentage of the point value
assigned to a measure was taken to determine the number
of points which a school program of supervised farming
should be given on that measure. For example, in ref-
erence to the measure "Percentage of students enrolled
in supervised farming who have completed one or more
productive enterprise projects and other supervised
practice," School A in Table V, page 47, had 97.14 per

cent of its students enrolled in supervised farming Who

 

II.

III .

IV .

 

38
TABLE IV

MAXIMUM POINT-VALUES ASSIGNED TO MEASURES OF
EFFECTIVENESS ON THE BASIS OF THE MEDIAN
VALUE RATING RECEIVED WHEN THE
MEASURES WERE RATED BY A
JURY OF EXPERTS

 

Median Maximum
Measure of Effectiveness Rating Points
Received Assigned

 

1. Percentage of students en-
rolled in supervised farming
who have completed one or
more productive enterprise
projects and other super- 4 80
vised practice.

II. Percentage of students en-
rolled in supervised farming
who have completed both live-
stock and crop productive 4 80
enterprise projects.

III. Average number of produc-
tive enterprise projects
completed by students en- 4 80
rolled in supervised farming.

IV. Average number of improve-
ment projects completed by
students enrolled in super- 3 6O
vised farming.

V. Average number of supple-
mentary farm practices com-
pleted by students enrolled 3 60
in supervised farming.

VI. Percentage of students en-
rolled in supervised farming
who, having completed two or
more years of supervised farm-
ing, show at least one con-
tinuous productive enterprise 4 80
project.

 

I

 

Measure
__________
VII. Perce

rolle
WCO S
FPOi‘c
ects
SQCQv

Ll. Perc
r011
com;

ing

XI‘ 'Per<
r01

wit

pro

in

Pa:
\
Eeaslre 1

DCIntS

S derlv
OR the r
B

“as the:

Vav‘

“e I't
detepr.
a; .

1 ha:

TABLE IV (CONTINUED)

 

Median Maximum
Measure of Effectiveness Rating Points

Received Assigned

 

VII. Percentage of students en-
rolled in supervised farming
who show increasing scope in
productive enterprise proj-
ects repeated in two or more 4 80
successive years.

VIII. Percentage of students en-
rolled in supervised farming
completing supervised farm- 4 80
ing programs.

XI. Percentage of students en-
rolled in supervised farming
with productive enterprise
projects which are important
in the county where the de- 4 80
partment is located.

 

had completed one or more productive enterprise projects
and other supervised practice. Table IV shows that this
measure had been assigned a point value of eighty (80)
points. By taking 97.14 per cent of 80 the figure 77.71
is derived, the number of points which School A received
on the measure.

When the measure was not expressed in per cent as
was the case with measures III, IV, and'V, the median
value rating was secured and the maximum point value
determined as shown in Table IV. Since these measures

all had a direct relationship to effectiveness of school

program of

greatest am
he point va
value rating
the base pg:

0:: the mea

U)

Refe
“,3
this prOCe:
4»..-

,"
“Merits e:

m .
laCle IV,

40
programs of supervised farming, the school showing the
greatest amount of the measure was arbitrarily assigned
the point value given the measure on the basis of its
value rating. Other schools received proportionally of
the base point value depending on how well they showed up
on the measure.

Reference to Table VII, page 56, illustrates how
this procedure was used in applying the measure "average
number of productive enterprise projects completed by
students enrolled in supervised farming." According to
Table-IV, page 38, 80 is the maximum number of points
which a school could receive on this measure when the
effectiveness of its program of supervised farming is
determined. School DD showed the greatest average num-
ber of productive enterprise projects per student, or
2.76. School DD, consequently, received the maximum
point score of 80 on this measure. School EE, which is
listed immediately below School DD in Table VII, had
only an average of 0.96 productive enterprise projects
per student. School EE, therefore, received proportion-
ally of the base point value, 80 for Measure III, in
the same ratio that its average number of productive
enterprise projects per student (0.96) stood to the
average number of productive enterprise projects per
student for School DD (2.76). Thus, School EE received
27.83 points on Measure III out of the possible 80 points

allocated
tr.e hignes
projects p

derived fc

D5!“
H
04‘

 

41
allocated to School DD for having the department with
the highest average number of productive enterprise
projects per student. In a similar manner points were

derived for other schools.

DETERMINING COUNTIES IN MICHIGAN IN WHICH
PRODUCTIVE ENTERPRISES ARE IMPORTANT

One additional step was necessary before all of
the measures which appear in Table IV could be applied
to Form 241 to determine the effectiveness of the re-
spective school programs of supervised farming in Migh-
igan. It was necessary to determine the productive
enterprises which are important in the various counties
of Michigan before Measure XI could be applied to Form
241.

Specialists at Michigan State College were asked
to supply this information. All of the men consulted
had had numerous opportunities to acquaint themselves
thoroughly with the type of agriculture practiced in all
sections of Michigan. All of these men were, or had
been, extension specialists in agriculture at Michigan
State College. Consequently, their work had brought
them in close contact with the existing patterns of
farming practiced in the State. It is believed that
they are exceedingly well qualified to pass judgment on
the productive enterprises in their fields of specialization

that are 1:
cars of t:
dictive erat
izportance,

In 0
533.1135, 1
to indicate
t'63:”.Y-z‘ise oo-
ti'e mum;

Ari e:
When SevEra;

indire *‘..
CtlJ’

 

42
that are important in the counties of Michigan. The
names of the Specialists, their positions, and the pro-
ductive enterprises on which they were asked to judge
importance, are listed in Appendix G.

In order to provide a basis for common under-
standing, it seemed necessary to present a definition
to indicate the condition under which a productive en-
terprise could be considered important. Consequently,
the following definition for importance was developed:

An enterprise is considered important in a county
when several of the farmers receive, either directly or
indirectly, a substantial part of their income from the
enterprise; when it has been proved to have a place in
the established pattern of farming practiced in a given
area; when it is included in the farming programs of a
majority of the farmers or, if not included in the farm-
ing programs of a majority of the farmers, is adapted
to their farms.

Each specialist was presented with an outline
map of the counties of Michigan upon which he was asked
to indicate the counties in which he felt a given pro-
ductive enterprise was important. Examination of maps
in Appendix J reveals the counties in which the various

productive enterprises were judged important.

hr”. ,_ 3‘3

J..-” \— -

 

 

43
DETERMINING MICHIGAN TEACHERS OF VOCATIONAL AGRICULTURE
WHO HAD TAUGHT THREE YEARS OR LONGER ON THEIR JOBS

Before applying the measures to Form 241 to de—
termine effectiveness of school programs of supervised
farming, it seemed desirable to limit the number of pro-
grams studied to those schools in which the teacher of
vocational agriculture had been employed for three years
or longer in a job which he held on September 1, 1948.
Under this plan nearly all of the students enrolled in
vocational agriculture during the school year, September
1948 to June 1949, would have had their current instruc-
tor as their only teacher of vocational agriculture.
Under such an arrangement it seemed logical to assume
that this teacher of vocational agriculture had been
primarily responsible for the quality of the supervised
farming programs which prevailed in his department and
the influence of a previous teacher would be negligible.

According to an annual directorye

published by
the Office of Vocational Education in the Department of
Public Instruction in Lansing, Michigan, there were 201

departments of vocational agriculture in Michigan during

 

2 Vocational Agricultural Departments 1948-1949,
Office of Vocational Education, Mimeographed Publication
(Lansing, Michigan: Department of Public Instruction,
1948): 5 Pp-

the school
tory lists
tore and th
Usin.
vocational J
Education, 1
those who he
0c“Pied on
It was deter
Category. r:
fa‘mngi as
in Table IV,
PPGVIOUSly,
241 which ea
”'5‘“ and on.
It 13 358mm
farting “‘08;

reported rel.

APPLICANT:

 

 

44
the school year 1948-1949. Among other data, this direc-
tory lists the names of teachers of vocational agricul-
ture and the school in which they were located.

Using a permanent employment file of teachers of
vocational agriculture kept in the Office of Vocational
Education, the names of the men were checked to determine
those who had been employed in the position which they
occupied on September 1, 1948, for three years or longer.
It was determined that eighty-four men fell into this
category. The quality of their programs of supervised
farming, as measured by the nine criteria which appear
in Table IV, page 38, was determined. As indicated
previously, these nine criteria were applied to Form
241 which each of these men had prepared for his depart-
ment and filed with the Office of Vocational Education.
It is assumed that the data relating to the kinds of
farming programs carried and completed by students were
reported reliably.

APPLICATION OF MEASURES OF EFFECTIVENESS TO DETERMINE
SCHOOLS INCLUDED IN STUDY

Examination of the data compiled as a result of
applying the nine measures of effectiveness of school
programs of supervised farming to Form 241, reveals some
significant facts about the kinds of projects and other
farming activities completed by the students enrolled in

the eighty-
studied.
The
1;51:15 the r
in the nine
out previc-t
Dressed 611
Students e;
certain n;
are Presem

Were Cale-3;

45
the eighty-four departments of vocational agriculture
studied.

The data, which were accumulated as a result of
using the nine measures of effectiveness, are presented
in the nine tables which follow. It has been pointed
out previously that each of the nine measures are ex-
pressed either as an average or as a percentage of the
students enrolled in supervised farming who completed a
certain kind of activity. Consequently, the enrollments
are presented on which these percentages and averages
were calculated.

Students enrolled in vocational agriculture and
carrying individual programs of supervised farming
during a given school year have their programs sum-
marized and reported by their teacher on Form 241. This
form is due in the Office of Vocational Education on
January 1 of the year following the time when the farming
programs were carried. Since calculations were made on
the basis of the annual reports submitted on January 1,
1949, the enrollments in departments during the school
year 1947-48 were used with the exceptions of collecting
data on Measure VI, percentage of students enrolled in
supervised farming who, having completed two or more
years of supervised farming, show at least one continuous
productive enterprise project and Measure VII, percentage

of students enrolled in supervised farming who show

 

increasing soopw
retested in two

In the a
seemed desiraol
cftne1945-46
Loved a study c
over a three-ye
ltd productive
as well as tho

V131 showed 1

Table V

J ”'n '
e-é..t) ~f0ur S C

Take x I‘GVeaJ

In~ ..
5636.371, C

in 1947-48 oz;

43m 7
in 194;

f0“n
N departing

 

46
increasing scope in productive enterprise projects
repeated in two or more successive years.

In the application of these two measures it
seemed desirable to calculate percentages on the basis
of the 1945-46 enrollments since this arrangement al-
lowed a study of individual supervised farming programs
over a three-year period to determine those students who
had productive enterprise projects which were continuous
as well as those who had productive enterprise projects
which showed increasing scope.

Table V, for example, shows the enrollment in the
eighty-four schools during the school year 1947-48 while
Table X reveals the same information for the year 1945-46.
In general, one finds substantially larger enrollments
in 1947-48 than in 1945-46. This fact is indicated in
the mean enrollment of 47.89 in 1947-48 as compared to
43.04 in 1945-46. The combined enrollments in the eighty-
four departments increased 11.28 per cent from 1945-46
to 1947-48.

That the number of students enrolled in the eighty-
four departments was quite widely dispersed is indicated
by the range and standard deviation of the enrollments
in both years. The high enrollment in 1945-46 was eighty-
six while the low was twenty. In 1947-48 there was an even
greater spread in enrollments, ranging from a low of six-

teen to a high of 111. In the latter year, as Table V

 

 

 

 

COHPILATI
FARM ‘.'
A”?

£Nr<><t<¢=oawzapmothmms—ommwmwow»/

tr!
(1 I

47
TABLE v

COMPILATION OF DATA ON SCHOOL PROGRAMS OF SUPERVISED
FARMING WHEN MEASURE OF EFFECTIVENESS NO. I IS
APPLIED TO EIGHTY-FOUR DEPARTMENTS OF
VOCATIONAL AGRICULTURE*

        
     
 

._..__ ._____._- _._.—._..._.i -..—H . -.—_—_---—_———__-— fi*~-_ “~*-—"m_-m ._ ...... _ 1-.---. ._

Students with Per Cent with Points

   

 

One or More One or More
Enroll- Productive Productive Meapure
School ment Projects and Projects and
1947-48 Other Other (goiséple
Supervised Supervised 088)
Practice Practice

A 35 34 97.14 77-71
B 33 20 60.61 48.49
C 91 40 43.96 5.17
D 77 40 51.95 1.56
E 46 20 43.48 34.78
F 72 26 6.11 28.89
G 47 41 7.23 69.78
H 48 42 87.50 70.00
I 63 61 96.83 77.46
J 37 22 59.46 47.57
K 36 O 0.00 0.00
L 63 56 88.89 71.11
M 16 8 50.00 40.00
N 26 11 42.31 33.85
0 50 23 46.00 36.80
P 26 23 88.46 70.77
Q 45 27 60.00 48.00
R 65 58 89.23 71.38
S 38 21 55.26 44.21
T 36 12 3.33 26.66
U 6 31 6.11 68.89
v 1 23 56.10 44.88
W 34 19 55.88 44.70
x 91 72 79.12 63.30
Y 48 14 29.17 23.34
Z 4 28 65.12 52.10
AA 7 0 0.00 0.00
BB 56 54 96.43 77.14

 

*MEASURE 0F EFFECTIVENESS NO. I: Percentage of students
enrolled in supervised farming who have completed one or
more productive enterprise projects and other supervised
practice.

 

48
TABLE V (CONTINUED)

_ ,_ _ -——._- .-.. .-_-- .....—

 
 

 
 
  
 

 
 
 

-__-._. -..—.7 ,. _..__. ....” ._-.——..H—- _ » A ......— 11 .~

Students with Per Cent with Points

 

One or More One or More Measure
S 1 Enroil- Productive Productive I
ch00 men Projects and Projects and
1947-48 Other Other (§°:5%ble
Supervised Supervised 083)8
Practice Practice
CC 52 50 96.15 76.92
DD 38 29 76.32 61.06
EB 26 20 76.92 61.54
FF 49 33 67-35 53.88
GG 87 69 79.31 63.45
KB 93 41 44.09 35.27
II 41 31 75.61 60.49
JJ 49 16 32.65 26.12
XX 36 25 69.44 55.55
LL 53 29 54.72 43.78
MM 81 77 95.06 76.05
NN 77 55 71-43 57.14
00 44 35 79.55 63.64
PF 43 35 81.40 65.12
RR 64 51 79.69 63-75
83 55 25 45.45 36.36
TT 26 13 50.00 40.00
UU 42 23 54.76 43.81
VV 35 10 28.57 22.86
WW 35 25 71.43 57.14
xx 6 22 61.11 48.89
YY 6 34 7 .91 59.13
22 24 1g 5 .17 43.34
AAA 47 2 59.57 47.66
BBB 41 21 51.22 40.98
CCC 42 17 40.48 32.38
DDD 21 25 80.65 64.52
EEE 8 29 67.44 53.95
FFF 3 20 52.63 42.10
GGG 47 29 61.70 49.36
HHH 53 32 60.38 48.30
III 39 18 46.15 36.92
JJJ 56 25 44.64 35.71
KKK 30 26 86.67 69.34
LLL 55 40 72.73 58.18
MMM 77 56 72.73 58.18
NNN 111 100 90.09 72.07
000 29 23 79.31 63.45

 

En:
School me
ly~
\
PP?
'QQQ
FHDLR
533
TI
m
Yr'y.v
We'd
XIX
YYY
ZZZ
M41
CCCC
DDD
FF?
\
Total 4:
\
Mean
\
Siesta
SCOWS, Ge}
ermollment:
Ta“:
res'fl.
“(abs tr.é
.1688, ‘

49
TABLE v (CONTINUED)

 
  

  
  
 

“...-. ... l __ .,,-_.._. -I__-...-_-.a_...___.. — _._-_— - -———--- w...i__.__...._. ._._....__.._... .—_.._——._._____.__. -.‘._._

Students with Per Cent with

 

 

 

 

Points

One or More One or More
Enroll- Productive Productive Meapure

School ment Projects and Projects and

1947-48 Other Other (ggigfigle
Supervised Supervised 80)
Practice Practice

PPP 37 17 45.95 36.76
QQQ 46 36 78.26 62.61
RRR 49 34 69.39 55.51
SSS 43 33 76.74 61.39
TTT 36 21 58.33 46.66
UUU 48 43 89.58 71.66
VVV 33 1 42.42 33.94
www 46 31 67. 9 53.21
xxx 54 28 51. 5 41. 8
YYY 30 2% 76.67 61.34
ZZZ 27 29.63 23.70
AAAA 73 54 73-97 59.18
BBBB 26 24 92.31 73.85
CCCC 33 15 45.45 36.36
DDDD 34 25 73.53 58.82
EEEE 38 20 52.63 42.10
FFFF 64 28 43.75 35.00
Total 4023 2573 - 4250.51
Mean 47.89 30.63 63.95 50.60
Sigma 18.61 17.12 - 16.56

 

shows, there were substantially more of the schools with
enrollments of seventy or more than in 1945-46.

Table V has been set up primarily to reveal the
results that were obtained when the measure of effective-

ness, percentage of students enrolled in supervised

farting who
prise proje
plied to t?
eighty-roux
aérioulture
04 Sept trite

As 1

0f Points v

5O
farming who have completed one or more productive enter-
prise projects and other supervised practice, was ap-
plied to the final reports of supervised farming of the
eighty-four schools in which the teacher of vocational
agriculture had been in the position which he occupied
on September 1, 1948, three years or longer.

As described earlier in this chapter, the number
of points earned by any school was determined by taking
a percentage of the total points possible on the measure.
Each of the percentages in the column headed, per cent
with one or more productive projects and other supervised
practice, was multiplied by eighty to derive the point
values indicated in the column headed, points Measure I.
For instance, the point value 77.71 was calculated by
taking 97.14 per cent of eighty.

Considering all of the 4023 students enrolled in
classes in vocational agriculture in the eighty-four
schools, Table V shows that 2573 or 63.95 per cent had
one or more productive projects and other supervised prac-
tice. It is evident, however, that extreme variations
exist in the percentages of students in a school who
completed this type of program. Two of the schools,

K and AA, did not have any students who had completed
this kind of supervised farming program. Some of the
schools, notably A, I, BB, CC, and MM showed up very

51
well on this measure and received very close to the max-
imum number of points available to any school.

Assuming that the data were reliably reported,
it would be impossible for a student to have the compre-
hensive type of farming program recommended by the na-
tional leadership3 and reported on page eight, unless
he could be counted among those with one or more produc-
tive enterprise projects and other supervised practice.
As Table V brings out, there were many students who did
not have this type of farming program.

Information presented in Table VI sheds further
light on the character of the supervised farming pro-
grams which were carried by students in the eighty-four
schools. Here is revealed the results of applying the
measure, percentage of students enrolled in supervised
farming who have completed both livestock and crop
productive enterprise projects, to the final reports
submitted by the eighty-four teachers.

It is shown in Table VI that only 793, or 19.71
per cent of the 4023 students had individual programs

of supervised farming which included both livestock and

 

3 W. A. Ross, D. M. Clements, and E. J. Johnson,
Directing Vocational Agriculture Day-School Students in
Developing Their Farming Ppggrams7"U. S. OffIce 0T Edi:
cation, Vocational Division BuIIetin No. 225, Agricul-
tural Series No. 56 (Washington: Government Printing
Office, 1944), p. 8.

 

Ch},
.. V
V A. a.

FAR.

School

/

UO(L/§,N+<Nl:<dkam:up'voZIZWWQanomeOmb

U 0 (If ’1'?)

52
TABLE VI

COMPILATION OF DATA ON SCHOOL PROGRAMS OF SUPERVISED
FARMING WHEN MEASURE OF EFFECTIVENESS NO. II IS
APPLIED TO EIGHTY-FOUR DEPARTMENTS OF
VOCATIONAL.AGRICULTURE*

 

Students Per Cent Points
Enroll- with Both with Both Measure
School ment Livestock Livestock II
1947-48 and Crop and Crop (Possible
Projects Projects Points 80)
A 35 18 51.43 41.14
B 33 1 3.03 2.42
C 91 26 28.57 22.86
D 77 18 23.38 18.70
E 46 O 0.00 0.00
F 72 6 8.33 6.66
G 47 3 6.38 5.10
H 48 9 18.75 15.00
I 63 36 57.14 45.71
J 37 4 10.81 8.65
K 36 5 13.89 11.11
L 63 O 0.00 0.00
M 16 5 31.25 25.00
N 26 2 7.69 6.15
O 50 O 0.00 0.00
P 26 7 26.92 21.54
Q 45 8 17.78 14.22
R 65 19 29.23 23.38
s 38 6 15.79 12.63
T 36 7 19.44 15.55
U 6 13 36.11 28.89
V 1 2 4.88 3.90
W 34 l 2.94 2.35
X 91 6 6.59 5.27
Y 48 4 8.33 6.66
Z 4 19 44.19 35.35
AA 7 27 34.62 27.70
BB 56 12 21.43 17.14
CC 52 20 38.46 30.77
DD 38 26 68.42 54.74

 

*MEASURE OF EFFECTIVENESS NO. II: Percentage of students
enrolled in supervised farming who have completed both
livestock and crop productive enterprise projects.

School

:35 8 13 E13

“o‘

53
TABLE VI (CONTINUED)

 

 

Students Per Cent Points
Enroll- with Both with Both Measure

School ment Livestock Livestock II

1947-48 and CrOp and Crop (Possible
Projects Projects Points 80)

BE 26 O 0.00 0.00
FF 49 3 6.12 4.90
G0 87 34 39.08 31.26
RH 93 16 17.20 13.76
II 41 12 29.27 23.42
JJ 49 l 2.04 1.63
KK 36 3 8.33 6.66
LL 53 6 11.32 9.06
MM 81 34 41.98 33.58
NN 77 20 25.97 20.78
00 44 6 13.64 10.91
PP 4 15 34.88 27.90
QQ 5 14 24.14 19.31
RR 64 18 28.13 22.50
SS 55 6 10.91 8.73
TT 26 9 34.62 27.70
UU 42 17 40.48 32.38
VV 35 0 0.00 0.00
WW 35 3 8.57 6.86
XX 36 4 11.11 8.89
YY 46 4 8.70 6.96
22 24 0 0.00 0.00
AAA 47 13 27.66 22.13
BBB 41 6 14.63 11.70
CCC 42 2 4.76 3.81
DDD l 0 0.00 0.00
EEE 3 8 18.60 14.88
PEP 38 4 10.53 8.42
GOG 47 7 14.89 11.91
HHH 53 5 9.43 7.54
III 39 10 25.64 20.51
JJJ 56 12 21.43 17.14
KKK 30 20 66.67 53.34
LLL 55 26 47.27 37. 2
MMM 77 4 5.19 4.15
NNN 111 5 4.50 3.60
000 29 2 6.90 5.52
PPP 37 6 16.22 12.98
QQQ 46 23 50.00 40.00
RRR 49 3 6.12 4.90

 

TABLE VI (CONTINUED)

54

 

 

 

 

Students Per Cent Points
Enroll- with Both with Both Measure
School ment Livestock Livestock II
1 47 48 and Crop and Crop (Possible
9 ' Projects Projects Points 80)
SSS 43 9 20.93 16.74
TTT 36 9 25.00 20.00
UUU 48 13 27.08 21.66
VVV 33 0 0.00 0.00
WWW 46 5 10.87 8.70
xxx 54 18 33.33 26.66
YYY 30 20 66.67 53.34
ZZZ 27 0 0.00 0.00
AAAA 73 3 4.11 3.29
BBBB 26 10 38.46 30.77
0000 33 1 3.03 2.42
DDDD 34 0 0.00 0.00
EEEE 38 12 31.58 25.26
FFFF 64 2 3.13 2.50
Total 4023 793 - 1317.47
Mean 47.89 9.44 19.71 15.68
Sigma 18.61 8.77 - 14.18

 

crop productive enterprise projects.

Further examina-

tion of the data reveals that there were only six of

the eighty-four schools in which fifty per cent or more

of the students had both livestock and crop productive

enterprise projects. On the other hand, there were ten

schools in which none of the students included both

kinds of projects in their individual farming programs.

In many other schools relatively few of the students

enterpriv

‘gv- As
H" why-l .
are. \_S*‘

It

FCICCS e;

55

carried both livestock and crop projects. This was evi-
denced by the fact that there were thirty-two of the
eighty-four schools in which fewer than ten per cent of
the students included both livestock and crop productive
enterprise projects in their individual programs of
supervised farming.

It is interesting to find that the sigmas of the
points earned by the eighty-four schools on Measure I
and on Measure II are approximately the same. In the
former case it is 16.56 while in the latter it is 14.18.
Yet the mean number of points received by the schools on
Measure I was 50.6 while the corresponding mean on Mea-
sure 11 was 15.68. Thus, in either instance, the scores
were dispersed about the mean in a similar pattern but
in the case of Measure I there was a much higher mean.
Of course, on either measure, the maximum score possible
was the same.

Examination of Table VII shows the results ob-
tained when the measure, average number of productive
enterprise projects completed by students enrolled in
supervised farming, is applied to the annual reports of
supervised farming filed by the teachers of vocational
agriculture in the eighty-four departments who had taught
three years or longer in the position which they held on
September 1, 1948.

f‘ [717' .-
th'Jlim

" -‘ HT
thLvo*.

School

. macaw»
8EENMN£<C3PJUJSUADWOZZHN¢4HWOW

DD

53

56

TABLE VII

COMPILATION OF DATA ON SCHOOL PROGRAMS OF SUPERVISED
FARMING WHEN MEASURE OF EFFECTIVENESS NO. III IS
APPLIED TO EIGHTY-FOUR DEPARTMENTS OF
VOCATIONAL AGRICULTURE*

 

 

Average Number Points
School Enrollment Productive Measure III
1947-48 Projects Per (Possible
Student Points 80)

A 35 2.14 62.03
B 33 .67 19.42
C 91 1.27 36.81
D 77 1.58 45.80
E 46 .43 12.46
F 72 .57 16.52
G 47 1.02 29.57
H 48 1.29 37.39
I 63 2.16 62.61
J 37 .70 20.29
K 36 .97 28.12
L 63 .92 26.67
M 16 1.50 43.48
N 26 .58 16.81
0 5O .46 13.33
P 26 1.31 37.97
Q 45 1.04 30.14
R 65 1.83 53.04
S 38 1.21 35.07
T 36 .56 16.23
U 36 1.50 43.48
V 41 .80 23.19
W 34 .76 22.03
X 91 .70 20.29
Y 48 .56 16.23
Z 43 1.63 47.25
AA 78 1.65 47.83
BB 56 1.52 44.06
CC 52 1.63 47.25
DD 38 2.76 80.00
EB 26 .96 27.83

 

*MEASURE OF EFFECTIVENESS NO. III: Average number of
productive enterprise projects completed by students en-
rolled in supervised farming.

57
TABLE VII (CONTINUED)

 

 

Average Number Points
Enrollment Productive Measure III
1947-48 Projects Per (Possible
Student Points 80)

FF 49 .78 22.61

CC 87 1.48 42.90

HR 93 .69 20.00

II 41 1.61 46.67

JJ 49 .67 19.42

KK 36 .78 22.61

LL 53 .96 27.83

MM 81 2.40 69.57

NN 77 1.26 36.52

00 44 1.30 7.68

PP 43 1.53 4.35

QQ 58 1.60 46.38

RR 64 1.84 53.33

SS 55 1.11 32.17

TT 26 1.15 33.33

UU 42 1.55 44.93

VV 35 .40 11.59

WW 35 1.03 29.86

xx 36 .81 23.48

YY 46 .87 25.22

22 24 .54 15.65

AAA 47 1.09 31.59
BBB 41 1.07 31.01
CCC 42 .50 14.49
DDD 31 .77 22.32
EEE 4% 1.19 34.49
FFF 1.0 29.86
GGG 7 .9 28.41
HHH 53 .77 22.32
III 39 .92 26.67
JJJ 56 .75 21.74
KKK 30 2.23 64.64
LLL 55 2.13 61.74
MMM 77 .84 24.35
NNN 111 1.01 29.28
000 29 .90 26.09
PPP 37 .70 20.29
QQQ 46 1.52 44.06
RRR 49 .78 22.61
SSS 43 1.65 47.83
TTT 36 1.08 31.30

 

 

 

 

s u
' 1
4 s
o o
4 o \
n o
u o
v u
. n
o o
u v
a -
4 .
. .
V c
r O
o c
a a
o 1
. n
l n
o o
o A
n ,
s a
I o
e n
. c
v n a
a n
t ' .
. 1 D
a u
u 4
a a
u v
- a
. a
o I
v .
< o

 

 

 

58
TABLE VII (CONTINUED)

 

 

 

 

 

Average Number Points

School Enrollment Productive Measure III

1947-48 Projects Per (Possible

Student Points 80)

UUU 48 1.60 46.38
VVV 33 .48 13.91
WWW 46 1.11 32.17
xxx 54 1.59 46.09
YYY 30 2.57 74.49
ZZZ 27 .96 27.83
AAAA 73 1.11 32.17
BBBB 26 1.77 51.30
0000 33 .94 27.25
DDDD 34 .74 21.45
EEEE 38 1.58 45.80
FFFF 64 . 19.13
Total 4023 - 2842.36
Mean 47.89 1.18 33.84
Sigma 18.61 - 14.87

 

A total of 4759 productive enterprise projects was

completed by the students enrolled in these eighty-four

departments. These represent an average of 1.18 produc-

tive enterprise projects per student.

The average num-

ber of projects per student in each of the schools ranged

from four—tenths of a project in school VV to 2.76 proj-

ects per student in school DD.

Table VIII shows the data which were compiled when

the measure, average number of improvement projects

59
TABLE VIII

COMPILATION OF DATA ON SCHOOL PROGRAMS OF SUPERVISED
FARMING WHEN MEASURE OF EFFECTIVENESS NO. IV IS
APPLIED TO EIGHTY-FOUR DEPARTMENTS OF
VOCATIONAL AGRICULTURE*

 

 

Average Number Points
School Enrollment Improvement Measure IV
1947-48 Projects Per (Possible
Student Points 60)
A 35 1.40 19.49
B 33 0.00 0.00
C 91 3.79 52.76
D 77 .56 7.80
E 46 3.39 47.19
F 72 .04 .56
G 47 1.72 2 .94
H 48 1.35 1 .79
I 63 2. 9 34.66
J 37 0.00 0.00
K 36 0.00 0.00
L 63 1.05 14.62
M 16 1.19 16.57
N 26 .27 3.76
O 50 3.72 51.79
P 26 .62 8.6
Q 45 1.73 24.0
R 65 1.95 27.15
S 38 .63 8.77
T 36 ~33 4-59
U 36 3.72 51.79
V 41 .98 13.64
W 34 .68 9.47
X 91 .90 12.53
Y 48 .29 4.04
z 4 .60 8.35
AA 7 0.00 0.00
BB 56 1.70 23.67
CC 52 .15 2.09
DD 38 .32 4.45
EE 26 .27 3.76
FF 49 1.76 24.50
G0 87 2.64 36.75

 

*MEASURE OF EFFECTIVENESS NO. IV:

provement projects completed by students enrolled in

supervised farming.

Average number of im-

60
TABLE VIII (CONTINUED)

 

Average Number Points

School Enrollment Improvement Measure IV

1947-48 Projects Per (Possible

Student Points 60)
HR 93 .26 3.62
II 41 1.56 21.72
JJ 49 .04 .56
XX 36 .14 1.95
LL 53 ~43 5-99
MM 81 4.12 57.35
NN 77 2.01 27.98
00 44 .11 1.53
PP 43 .37 5.15
QQ 58 1.67 23.25
RR 64 .55 7.66
SS 55 0.00 0.00
TT 26 .46 6.40
UU 42 .46 6.40
VV 35 .11 1.53
WW 35 1.74 24.22
XX 36 .25 3.48
YY 46 .04 .56
22 24 .58 8.07
AAA 47 .81 11.28
BBB 41 .05 .70
CCC 42 1.21 16.84
DDD 31 .94 13.09
EEE 43 .74 10.30
FFF 8 .08 1.11
GGG 7 0.00 0.00
HHH 53 .68 9.47
III 39 .82 11.42
JJJ 56 .75 10.44
KKK 30 2.27 31.60
LLL 55 1.55 21.58
MMM 77 .86 11.97
NNN 111 .19 2.65
000 29 .97 13.50
PPP 7 .38 5.29
QQQ 6 3.02 42.04
RRR 49 1.41 1 19.63
SSS 43 .95 13.23
TTT 36 1.28 17.82
UUU 48 4.31 60.00
VVV 33 0.00 0.00
WWW 46 .20 2.78

 

Scoool

XXX
YYY
ZZZ
AAAA
BEES
CCCC
DDDD

F???
Total

Mean

61
TABLE VIII (CONTINUED)

 

 

 

 

 

Average Number Points
School Enrollment Improvement Measure IV
1947-48 Projects Per (Possible
Student Points 60)
XXX 54 .46 6.40
YYY 30 1.20 16.71
ZZZ 27 1.19 16.57
AAAA 73 .27 3.76
BBBB 26 1.50 20.88
0000 33 1.21 16.84
DDDD 34 .18 2.51
EEEE 38 3.03 42.18
FFFF 64 .59 8.21
Total 4023 - 1228.41
Mean 47.89 1.11 14.62
Sigma 18.61 _ - 14.76

 

completed by students enrolled in supervised farming, was
applied to final reports of supervised farming which had
been filed by the eighty-four teachers. A total of 4481
improvement projects had been completed by the students
enrolled in these departments. This figure represents

an average of 1.11 for each of the students. In seven

of the schools, no improvement projects were completed.
The highest average number of improvement projects,

4.31, was completed by the students in school UUU.

Only sixty points could be earned by a school

on the measure, average number of improvement projects

complet
This no
highest
dent.

“V1 ‘7‘

k" p01":

62
completed by students enrolled in supervised farming.
This number was assigned to school UUU for having the
highest average number of improvement projects per stu-
dent. The points received by other schools were reduced
proportionally in the same ratio that their average num-
ber of improvement projects stood to the average number
of improvement projects, 4.31, completed by the students
in school UUU. Table VIII reveals that the point values
earned on the measure did not tend to run very high. The
mean number of points was only 14.62 out of the possible
sixty.

Data presented in Table IX show the results of
applying the measure, average number of supplementary
farm practices completed by students enrolled in super-
vised farming to the reports submitted by the eighty-four
teachers of vocational agriculture who had been in the
positions which they held on September 1, 1948 three
years or longer.

The students enrolled in these eighty-four depart-
ments completed a total of 22,329 supplementary farm
practices. This figure represents an average of 5.55
per student. The average number of supplementary farm
practices per student in each of the eighty-four schools
varied considerably. In three of the schools, the stu-
dents showed none of them. The school with the highest

average number, N, had 29.15 supplementary farm practices

......uOPQRSTUVHXVIZMM

\ AZDCDEFGHIJKLM ECDE

DLCDHLF

 

 

 

63
TABLE IX

COMPILATION OF DATA ON SCHOOL PROGRAMS OF SUPERVISED
FARMING WHEN MEASURE OF EFFECTIVENESS NO. V IS
APPLIED TO EIGHTY-FOUR DEPARTMENTS OF
VOCATIONAL AGRICULTURE*

 

 

Average Number Points

School Enrollment Supplementary Measure V

1947-48 Farm Practices (Possible

Per Student Points 60)
A 35 4.83 9.94
B 33 6.94 14.28
C 91 13.02 26.80
D 77 .82 1.69
E 46 3.43 7.06
F 72 2.07 4.26
G 47 2.77 5.70
H 48 5.73 11.79
I 63 10.65 21.92
J 37 5.11 10.52
K 36 .83 1.71
L 63 5.71 11.75
M 16 0.00 0.00
N 26 29.15 60.00
0 50 21.94 45.16
P 26 1.77 3.64
Q 45 2.76 5.68
R 65 18.14 37.34
S 38 6.16 12.68
T 36 1.64 3.38
U 6 4.33 8.91
V 1 2.98 6.13
W 34 7.85 16.16
X 91 1.59 3.27
Y 48 3.33 6.85
Z 43 3.21 6.61
AA 78 0.00 0.00
BB 56 8.18 16.84
00 52 3.98 8.19
DD 38 .05 6.28
BE 26 .35 8.95
FF 49 3.41 7.02

 

*MEASURE OF EFFECTIVENESS N0. V: Average number of sup-
plementary farm practices completed by students enrolled
in supervised farming.

Sc:.ool

64
TABLE IX (CONTINUED)

 

 

Average Number Points

School Enrollment Supplementary Measure V

1947-48 Farm Practices (Possible

Per Student Points 60)
CG 87 8.86 18.24
RH 93 7.02 14.45
11 41 2.17 4.47
JJ 49 1.00 2.06
XX 36 1.94 3.99
LL 53 1.23 2.53
MM 81 8.53 17.56
NN 77 4.42 9.10
00 44 2.52 5.19
PP 43 1.37 2.82
QQ 58 5-33 10-97
RR 64 2.44 5.02
SS 55 1.75 3.60
TT 26 4.42 9.10
UU 42 9.29 19.12
VV 35 1.31 2.70
WW 35 1.91 3-93
XX 36 1.78 3.66
YY 46 9.98 20.54
ZZ 24 4.88 10.04
AAA 47 3.45 7.10
BBB 41 1.68 3.46
CCC 42 4.86 10.00
DDD 31 19.90 40.96
EEE 4 1.70 3.50
FFF 3 3.58 7.37
GGG 47 1.64 3.38

HHH 53 8.32 17.1
III 39 12.28 25.2

JJJ 56 2.89 5.95
KKK 30 7.03 14.47
LLL 55 6.82 14.04
MMM 77 6.30 12.97
NNN 111 2.66 5.48
000 29 8.66 17.83
PPP 37 1.19 2.45
QQQ 46 5.13 10.56
RRR 49 2. 3 4.80
SSS 43 4. l 9.90
TTT 36 10.69 22.00
UUU 48 21.81 44.89
VVV 33 3.64 7.49

 

65
TABLE IX (CONTINUED)

 

 

 

 

 

Average Number Points

School Enrollment Supplementary Measure V

1947-48 Farm Practices (Possible

Per Student Points 60)
www 4611.59 23.86
XXX 54 2. 06 4.24
YYY 30 l- 23 2-53
ZZZ 27 O. 00 0.00
AAAA 73 6 74 13-87
BBBB 26 6.96 14.33
C000 33 7.39 15.21
DDDD 34 4.97 10.23
EEEE 38 8.95 18.42
FFFF 64 2.20 4.53
Total 4023 - 957.80
Mean 47.89 5.55 11.40

 

per student. This school was allowed the maximum number
of points, sixty, which could be earned on this measure.
The points received by other schools were reduced pro-
portionally according to the ratio that the average
number of supplementary farm practices completed per
student stood to the average number of such practices
carried by the students in school N. Examination of the
points earned by the eighty-four schools reveals that
they tended to run low. The mean number of points re-

ceived by the eighty-four schools was only 11.40.

As
46 were u
student 5

cozpleted

66

As indicated previously, the enrollments in 1945—
46 were used while applying the measure, percentage of
students enrolled in supervised farming who, having
completed two or more years of supervised farming, show
at least one continuous productive enterprise project;
and the measure, percentage of students enrolled in
supervised farming who show increasing scope in pro-
ductive enterprise projects repeated in two or more
successive years.

By referring to records in the Office of Vocational
Education, it was possible to secure the names of students
who were enrolled in vocational agriculture in the eighty-
four departments during the school year 1945-46. With
the use of these names, it was then possible to examine
the three successive sets of Form 241 beginning with
January 1, 1947 to determine the number of students who
had completed: (1) productive enterprise projects which
were continuous and (2) productive enterprise projects
which showed increasing scope.

Table X shows that there were only 852 students
of the 3615 enrolled in the eighty-four departments in
1945-46 who had at least One continuous productive enter-
prise project. They represented 23.57 per cent of the
total. The percentage of students in each department

with at least one continuous productive enterprise project

“J r... Hm I .. .1.

“IV“ “E

AECDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZMROCO

V

J.
I
h
n

AI
V;

C
Soho

TABLE X

COMPILATION OF DATA ON SCHOOL PROGRAMS OF SUPERVISED

FARMING WHEN MEASURE OF EFFECTIVENESS NO. VI IS

APPLIED TO EIGHTY-FOUR DEPARTMENTS OF

VOCATIONAL AGRICULTURE*

67

 

Students with Per Cent with

 

Points
Enroll- at Least One at Least One
School ment Continuous Continuous ?§:::§31VI
1945-46 Productive Productive Points 88)
Project Project

A 45 16 35.56 28.45
B 34 4 11.76 9.41
C 72 20 27.78 22.22
D 31 8 25.81 20.65
E 53 4 7.55 6-04
F 28 2 7.14 5.71
G 39 16 41.03 32.82
H 39 19 48.72 38.98
I 44 19 43.18 34.54
J 28 3 10.71 8.57
K 30 l 3.33 2.66
L 52 15 28.85 23.08
M 44 13 29.55 23.64
N 24 6 25.00 20.00
0 38 2 5.26 4.21
P 29 4 13.79 11.03
Q 33 9-09 7-27
R 56 20 35.71 28.57
s 36 10 27.78 22.22
T 34 6 17.65 14.12
U 7 6 16.22 12.98
V 3 6 13.95 11.16
w 34 4 11.76 9.41
x 64 3 4.69 3.75
Y 33 6 18.18 14.54
Z 20 12 60.00 48.00
AA 65 12 18.46 14.77
BB 62 20 32.26 25.81
CC 59 14 23.73 18.98

 

*MEASURE OF EFFECTIVENESS NO. VI:

Percentage of stu-
dents enrolled in supervised farming who, having com-
pleted two or more years of supervised farming, show at
least one continuous productive enterprise project.

w

(3
.1
C)

on.

«5.1.

'9‘.

(.3;

"VI
.'

‘~‘

3m

AI.\
4"

‘U

P?
f" A
as;
:13.

U0

‘4

7".

W" c
Rk’jc

I
o

.r,‘

/!A

N D
,E- (x) I—<.

3
C
33
T:

(‘1

TABLE x (CONTINUED)

68

 

Students with Per Cent with

Points

 

Enroll- at Least One at Least One
School ment Continuous Continuous ?§:Z:§§i¥l
1945-46 Productive Productive Points 80)
Project Project
DD 40 12 30.00 24.00
BE 28 7 25.00 20.00
or 53 A 7-55 6-04
GG 63 15 23.81 19005
Hg 72 11 15.28 12.22
II 44 12 27.27 21.82
JJ 46 13 28.26 22.61
xx 34 10 29.41 23.53
LL 55 12 21.82 17.46
MM 66 27 40.91 32.73
NN 58 14 24.14 19-31
00 32 13 40.63 32.50
PP 45 13 28-89 23'11
QQ 56 19 33.93 27-14
RR 74 20 27.03 21.62
33 56 12 21.43 17.14
TT 28 9 32.14 25071
VV 34 4 11.76 9-41
WW 33 12 36.36 29009
xx 44 4 9-09 7°27
YY 44 17 38.64 30-91
ZZ 26 o 0.00 0.00
BBB 39 8 20.51 16.41
CCC 31 7 22.58 18.06
DDD 26 4 15-38 12°30
EEE 47 6 12.77 10'22
FFF 26 2 7.69 5-15
GGG 45 7 15.56 12.45
HHH 52 13 25-90 20°00
111 36 11 30-56 24°45
JJJ 39 5 12.82 10.26
KKK 30 13 43.33 34-66
LLL 41 14 34.15 27.32
MMM 63 16 25.40 20032
NNN 65 33 50-77 40°62
000 42 3 7.14 5.71
PPP 39 7 17.95 14.36

 

P‘A
‘14.!
DZ“
“...".

QM

~55

V0
with +

69
TABLE x (CONTINUED)

 

Students with Per Cent with

 

 

 

 

Points
Enroll— at Least One at Least One
School mint2+6 Continuous Continuous ?§:::§:1:I
l9 5- Productive Produc ive
Project Project Points 80)
QQQ 29 12 41.38 33.10
RRR 54 13 24.07 19.26
SSS 4O 18 45.00 36.00
TTT 35 17 48.57 38.86
UUU 57 12 21.05 16.84
VVV 31 3 9.68 7.74
WWW 50 3 6.00 4.80
XXX 46 13 28.26 22.61
YYY 41 13 31.71 25.37
ZZZ 32 6 18.75 15.00
AAAA 44 8 18.18 14.54
BBBB 33 8 24.24 19.39
CCCC 3O 4 13.33 10.66
DDDD 34 4 11.76 9.41
EEEE 24 5 20.83 16.66
FFFF 86 11 12.79 10.23
Total 3615 852 - 1553.60
Mean 43.04 10.14 23.57 18.50
Sigma 13.70 6.05 - 10.11

 

varied considerably. One department showed no students
with this type of program while the school with the best
record on this measure had sixty per cent of its students
with at least one continuous productive enterprise proj-
ect. On the average most of the schools did not receive

a very large proportion of the eighty points which each

was elig
n;:.er c

was 18.5

N

A
V“’ .
11, . .
ing who

:32 of t
PPCducti
SCO;e,

sefier ‘
Crise tr:
{2

h‘éno T

70
was eligible to earn on Measure VI. The mean of the
number of points received by the eighty-four departments
was 18.50.

The poorest showing of all was made on Measure
VII, percentage of students enrolled in supervised farm-
ing who show increasing scope in productive enterprise
projects repeated in two or more successive years. Only
352 of the 3615 students, or 9.74 per cent, completed
productive enterprise projects which showed increasing
scope. In five of the departments, none of the students
showed increasing scope in their completed projects. In
general, the percentage of students with productive enter-
prise projects showing increasing scOpe, was not very
high. This is further brought out in a consideration of
the points earned by each school in relation to the eighty
points which each school was eligible to earn. Table XI
reveals that the mean number of points received by the
eighty-four schools was only 7.85 out of the possible
eighty.

The eighty-four schools made the best showing of
all on the measure, percentage of students enrolled com-
pleting supervised farming programs. It seems well to
point out, however, that completion of a program may
represent varying levels of achievement. For instance,

a completed program of supervised farming might involve

2001

PR r..hu41s

Nyeieu

,Use QN

ABCDBFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZMMQS. .Stb.nat.
., H -

Kw m..m.mw

*AH‘SS

 

71
TABLE XI

COMPILATION OF DATA ON SCHOOL PROGRAMS OF SUPERVISED
FARMING WHEN MEASURE OF EFFECTIVENESS NO. VII IS
APPLIED TO EIGHTY-FOUR DEPARTMENTS OF
VOCATIONAL AGRICULTURE*

 

Students Per Cent
with with 13232:;
Enroll- Productive Productive VII
School ment Projects Projects (Possible
1945-46 Showing Showing Points
Increasing Increasing 80)
Scope Scope

A 45 4 8.89 7.11
B 34 2 5.88 4.70
C 72 6 8.33 6.66
D 31 5 16.13 12.90
E 53 2 3-77 3-02
F 28 1 3.57 2.86
G 39 5 12.82 10.26
H 39 3 7.69 6-15
I 44 10 22.73 18.18
J 28 l 3.57 2.86
K 30 1 3.33 2.66
L 52 5 9.62 7.70
M 44 2 4.55 3.64
N 24 4 16.67 13.34
0 38 2 5.26 4.21
P 29 2 6.90 5.52
Q 33 O 0.00 0.00
R 56 12 21.43 17.14
s 36 4 11.11 8.89
T 34 2 5.88 4.70
U 37 2 5.41 4.33
V 43 2 4.65 3.72
w 34 3 8.82 7.06
x 64 1 1.56 1.25
Y 33 4 12.12 9.70
Z 20 8 40.00 32.00
AA 65 6 9.23 7.38
BB 62 11 17.74 14.19

 

*MEASURE OF EFFECTIVENESS NO. VII:

dents enrolled in supervised farming who show increasing

Percentage of stu-

scope in productive projects repeated in two or more

successive years.

 

 

(I)

(3

£100.

fl
V

DD

Y"'-\

pr:
GS
II
J J
KY.

pp;
1 g .

."
rui

'r

’47
$9:

5213,!

13.24

72
TABLE XI (CONTINUED)

 

Students Per Cent

 

Points
with with

Enroll- Productive Productive Measure

School ment Projects Projects (Possible
1945-46 Showing Showing Points

Increasing Increasing 80)
Scope scope

CC 59 3 5-08 4'06
DD 40 4 10.00 8.00
EE 28 3 10.71 8°57
FF 53 2 3-77 3'02
G6 63 8 12.70 10.16
HH 72 8 11.11 8.89
II 44 8 18.18 14.54
KK 34 4 11.76 9'41
NN 58 10 17.24 13-79
00 32 5 15.63 12050
QQ 56 8 14.29 11043
RR 74 12 16.22 12.98
33 56 3 5.36 4.29
TT 28 l 3057 2'86
UU 57 4 7°02 5'62
VV 34 3 8.82 7-06
YY 44 5 11.36 9.09
22 26 O 0.00 0000
BBB 39 3 7°69 6'15
CCC 31 4 12.90 10.32
DDD 26 1 3.85 3-08
EEE 47 4 8°51 6'81
HHH 52 7°59 6'15
JJJ 39 2 5°13 4'10
LLL 41 11 26.83 21. 6
MMM 63 l 1-59 1°27
NNN 65 10 15.38 12.30

 

.
S hoe;

5335
cccc
DDDD

FPFF
Total
Mean

 

73
TABLE XI (CONTINUED)

 

 

 

 

 

Students Per Cent
with with figigfige
Enroll- Productive Productive VII

School ment Projects Projects (Possible

1945-46 Showing Showing Points
Increasing Increasing 80)
Scope Scope

000 42 0 0.00 0.00
PPP 39 2 5.1 4.10
QQQ 29 5 17.2 13-79
RRR 54 4 7.41 5.93
SSS 4O 9 22.50 18.00
TTT 35 10 28.57 22.86
UUU 57 4 7.02 5.62
vvv 31 2 6.45 5.16
URI 50 2 4.00 3.20
xxx 46 9 19.57 15.66
YYY 41 6 14.63 11.70
ZZZ 32 2 6.25 5.00
AAAA 44 2 4.55 3.64
BBBB 33 4 12.12 9.70
CCCC 30 l 3.gg 2.66
DDDD 34 2 5. 4.70
EEEE 24 2 8.33 6.66
FFFF 86 4 4.65 3.72
Total 3615 352 - 659.09
Mean 43.04 4.19 9.74 7.85
Sigma 13.70 3.08 - 5.83

 

no more than a student carrying and reporting a single

productive enterprise project, a single improvement proj-

ect, a single supplementary farm practice or placement

for farm experience. On the other hand the program

74
carried and reported could be quite comprehensive and
might include, for instance, several productive enter-
prise proJects, improvement projects, and supplementary
farm practices. Conceivably, the extremes in the kinds
of programs completed might be represented by a town
boy pruning a few raspberry plants as a supplementary
farm practice to a farm boy taking over the complete
operation and management of his father's farm.

It is revealed in Table XII that there were 3461
of the 4023 students in the eighty-four schools, or
86.03 per cent, who completed a supervised farming pro-
gram. Several of the schools had 100 per cent completions
while many of the schools showed records with ninety
per cent or better of the students who had completed a
supervised farming program. However, one might conjec-
ture that, with the comparative ease with which a student
can meet the requirement of completing a supervised farm-
ing program, there seems little reason why all depart-
ments of vocational agriculture should not have 100 per
cent completion, or very close to 100 per cent completion
of supervised farming programs by the students enrolled.
The tendency for most of the departments to have
a high percentage of their students enrolled completing
individual programs of supervised farming, is reflected
in the high point scores received on.Measure VIII. The

mean score is 69.23 out of a possible eighty points.

 

CCEPII

PARKE

School

5 macaw;
Ivory NMN‘dGHC/Jfibp‘vOZIHWQHHIQ’UWUOtflb

75
TABLE XII

COMPILATION OF DATA ON SCHOOL PROGRAMS OF SUPERVISED
FARMING WHEN MEASURE OF EFFECTIVENESS NO. VIII IS
APPLIED TO EIGHTY-FOUR DEPARTMENTS OF
VOCATIONAL.AGRICULTURE*

         

Students Per Cent Points

 

Enroll-
Completing Completing Measure VIII
S°h°°l 134?E48 Supervised Supervised (Possible
Farming Farming Points 80)
A 35 35 100.00 80.00
B 33 33 100.00 80.00
C 91 56 61.54 49.23
D 77 5 68.83 55.06
E 46 4 95.65 76.52
F 72 43 59.72 47.78
G 47 41 87.2 69.78
H 48 43 89.5 71.66
I 63 61 96.83 77.46
J 37 37 100.00 80.00
K 36 33 91.67 72.34
L 63 59 93-65 7 .92
M 16 16 100.00 80.00
N 26 26 100.00 80.00
0 50 44 88.00 70.40
P 26 25 96.15 76.92
Q 45 39 86.67 69.34
R 6 59 90-77 72-62
s 3 27 71.05 56.84
T 36 26 72.22 57.78
U 6 36 100.00 80.00
v 1 30 73.17 58.54
H 34 19 55.88 44.70
x 91 72 9.12 63.30
Y 48 42 7.50 70.00
2 4 37 86.05 68.84
AA 7 46 58.97 47.18
BB 56 54 96.43 77.14
cc 52 51 98.08 78.46
DD 38 32 84.21 67.37
BE 26 26 100.00 80.00
PF 49 46 93.88 75.10

 

*MEASURE OF EFFECTIVENESS N0. VIII:
dents enrolled in supervised farming completing super-

vised farming programs.

Percentage of stu-

 

 

Schcol

 

76
TABLE XII (CONTINUED)

Per Cent

       

Students Points

 

Enroll-
Completing Completing Measure VIII
SChOOl 134$E48 Supervised Supervised (Possible
Farming Farming Points 80)

66 87 80 91.95 73.56
RH 93 85 91.40 73.12
II 41 31 75.61 60.49
JJ 49 31 63.27 50.62
xx 36 25 69.44 55.55
LL 53 52 98.11 78.49
MM 81 81 100.00 80.00
NH 77 77 100.00 80.00
00 44 44 100.00 80.00
PP 4g 8 88.37 70.70
QQ 5 6 79-31 63-45
RR 64 58 90.63 72.50
ss 55 41 74.55 59.64
TT 26 17 65.38 52.30
UU 42 36 85.71 68.57
vv 35 25 71.43 57.14
ww 35 32 91.43 73.14
xx 6 25 69.44 55.55
YY 6 42 91.30 73.04
zz 24 24 100.00 80.00
AAA 47 6 76.60 61.28
BBB 41 1 100.00 80.00
CCC 42 33 78.57 62.86
DDD 31 31 100.00 80.00
EEE a 36 83.72 66.98
FFF 8 100.00 80.00
GGG 7 2 89.36 71.49
HHH 53 53 100.00 80.00
III 39 6 92.31 73.85
JJJ 56 5 80.36 64.29
KKK 30 30 100.00 80.00
LLL 55 53 96-36 77.09
MMM 77 59 76.62 61.30
NNN 111 107 96.40 77.12
000 29 27 93.10 74.48
PPP 7 21 56.76 45.41
QQQ 6 7 80.43 64.34
RRR 49 9 100.00 80.00
833 43 40 9 .02 74.42
TTT 36 21 5 .33 46.66
UUU 48 43 89.58 71.66

 

77
TABLE XII (CONTINUED)

   
      

—...-..-—.~_..—___ _ __.. _

Students

__~._.l . ._-—.-._ ...

Per Cent

Points

 

 

 

 

Enroll-
Completing Completing Measure VIII

S°h°°l 1347548 Supervised Supervised (Possible

Farming Farming Points 80)
VVV 3% 28 84.85 67.88
WWW 4 45 97.8 78.26
XXX 54 44 81.4 65.18
YYY 30 30 100.00 80.00
ZZZ 27 24 88.89 71.11
AAAA 73 72 98.63 78.90
BBBB 26 25 96.15 76.92
CCCC 33 28 84.85 67.88
DDDD 34 33 97.06 77.65
EEEE 38 21 55.26 44.21
FFFF 64 52 81.25 65.00
Total 4023 3461 - 5814.36
Mean 47.89 41.20 86.03 69.23
sigma 18.61 16.59 - 10.33

 

Finally, the results of applying Measure XI, per-
centage of students enrolled in supervised farming with
productive enterprise projects which are important in
the county where the department is located, are shown in
Table XIII. There were 2266 of the 4023 students who
Completed productive projects in enterprises which were
judged important. This represented an average of 56.33
per cent. The percentages of the various departments

showed a considerable range, all the way from 97.14 per

 

 

COMPILAT
PAREJJJ
A

School

'

78
TABLE XIII

COMPILATION OF DATA ON SCHOOL PROGRAMS 0F SUPERVISED
FARMING WHEN MEASURE 0F EFFECTIVENESS NO. XI IS
APPLIED TO EIGHTY-FOUR DEPARTMENTS OF
VOCATIONAL AGRICULTURE*

     

Students Per Cent

 

Points
Enroll— with with
man. We (
l9 7- Productive Productive
Projects PrOJects Points 80)

A 35 34 97.14 77.71
B 33 20 60.61 48.49
C 91 53 58.24 46.59
D 77 27 35.06 28.05
E 45 17 6.96 29.57
F 72 32 4.44 35.55
G 47 38 80.85 64.68
H 48 42 87.50 70.00
I 63 61 96.8 77.46
J 37 16 43.2 4.59
K 35 21 58.33 6.66
L 6 44 69. 4 55.87
M 1 6 37.50 30.00
N 25 9 34.62 27.70
0 50 19 38.00 30.40
P 26 12 6.15 36.92
Q 45 21 46.67 37.34
R 65 52 80.00 64.00
3 38 19 50.00 40.00
T 36 9 25.00 20.00
V 6 20 55.56 44.45
v 1 21 51.22 40.98
V 34 17 50.00 40.00
x 91 40 43.96 35.17
Y 48 10 20.83 16.66
2 4 5 81.40 65.12
AA 7 1 52.56 42.05
33 55 30 53.57 42.86
cc 52 15 2 .85 23.08
DD 38 29 76.32 61.06

 

*MEASURE 0F EFFECTIVENESS N0. XI: Percentage of students
enrolled in supervised farming with productive enterprise
projects which are important in the county where the de-
partment is located.

School

79
TABLE XIII (CONTINUED)

 

Students Per Cent Points
Enroll- with with Measure XI
School mint48 Important Important (Possible
l9 7- Productive Productive
Projects Projects Points 80)
EB 26 18 69.2% 55.38
FF 49 19 38.7 31.02
00 87 63 72.41 57.93
HH i3 41 44.09 35.2
II 1 29 70.73 56.5
JJ 49 15 30.61 24.49
XX 36 17 47.22 37.78
LL 53 22 41.51 3 .21
MM 81 75 92.59 7 .07
NN 77 48 62.34 49.87
00 44 29 65.91 52.73
PP 4 23 76.74 61.33
QQ 5 0 58.97 55-1
RR 64 41 64.06 51.25
SS 55 27 49.09 39.27
TT 26 14 53.85 43.08
UU 42 22 52.38 41.90
VV 35 9 25-71 20.57
MW 35 20 57.14 45.71
xx 36 7 19.44 15.55
YY 46 31 67.39 53.91
22 24 12 50.00 40.00
AAA 47 20 42.55 34.04
BBB 41 14 34.15 27.32
CCC 42 16 38.10 30.48
DDD El 23 74.19 59.35
EEE 8 25 58.14 46.51
FFF 21 55.26 44.21
GGG 7 28 59.57 47.66
HRH 53 19 35.85 28.68
III 39 15 38.46 30.77
JJJ 56 21 7.50 30.00
KKK 3O 24 0.00 64.00
LLL 55 1 56.36 45.09
MMM 77 2 54.55 43.64
NNN 111 97 87.39 69.91
000 29 21 72.41 57.93
PPP 37 17 45.95 36.76
QQQ 46 33 71.74 57.39
RRR 49 31 63.27 50.62

 

School

SSS

222
£353
cccc
nnan

£335:
FFPF

Total
MEan

SiEma

cent r01
This Va:

the mean

SChOle

the Sch

80
TABLE XIII (CONTINUED)

 

 

 

 

Students Per Cent Points

Enroll- with with Measure XI

School mi$t48 Importzgt Impartgnt (Possible

19 - Produc ve Pro uc ve

Projects Projects Points 80)
$83 4 33 76.74 61.39
TTT 36 20 55.56 44.45
UUU 48 36 75.00 60.00
VVV 33 10 30.30 24.24
WWW 46 24 52.17 41.74
xxx 54 33 61.11 48.89
YYY 3O 21 70.00 56.00
ZZZ 27 5 18.52 14.82
AAAA 73 44 60.29 48.23
BBBB 26 22 84.62 67.70
0000 33 21 63.64 50.91
DDDD 34 19 55.88 44.70
EEEE 38 15 39.47 31.58
FFFF 64 23 35.94 28.75
Total 4023 2266 - 3716.91
Mean 47.89 26.98 56.33 44.25
Sigma 18.61 15.37 - 14.69

 

cent for School A, down to 18.52 per cent for School ZZZ.
This variation was also reflected in the points earned
on the measure. From a possible maximum of eighty points,
the mean number of points earned by the eighty-four
schools was 44.25.

A summarization of the points earned by each of

the schools on the nine measures of effectiveness together

650. ;
est to
was $01
mean t7

72°75 :

81
with a total of all the points received, is shown in
Table XIV.

The maximum total points possible, had any school
earned a perfect score on every measure, would have been
680. School MM with a total of 451.82 points came clos-
est to realizing this maximum. At the other extreme
was School VV with a total of only 132.86 points. The
mean total points was 266.20. The standard deviation of
72.75 reveals that the scores were quite widely dispersed.

Summary. On the basis of an analysis of the data
compiled when nine measures of effectiveness were applied
to eighty-four departments of vocational agriculture in
Michigan in which the teachers had been employed three
years or longer, the following conclusions seem warranted:

1. There were substantially more students en—
rolled in these departments during the school year 1945-
46 than in 1947-48. In both years there were wide vari-
ations in the school enrollments.

2. Approximately two-thirds of the students en-
rolled in 1947-48 completed one or more productive enter-
prise projects and other forms of supervised practice.

3. About one-fifth of the students enrolled in
1947-48 completed individual programs of supervised
farming which included both livestock and cr0p produc—

tive enterprise projects.

 

WQNZN>HBOM~Q5~Q KO mmzbmdxmz WZHZ 20
WEBBQDUHmOd‘ Q<ZOHB<OO> k0 BZNECmeWQ 2<GHIDHE CDOLNINEOHM. Ma QgHmDnWm W52HON

>Hufi 33H“

 

82

 

 

 

mH.0om »H.mm 00.00 0m.H 0».m »m m mm.mH 00.00 »m.m 00.00. x
00.00H 00.04 0».44 00.» H4.0 0H. 0H »4.0 mo. mm 00.0 0».44 z
00. 000 00.04 40.00 m».m 0H.HH mm. 0 40.mH 0H. mm 00.0 00.44 >
m». 040 04.44 00.00 00.4 00.0H %.m m».Hm M4. 04 00.00 00.00 0
H0. 00H 00.0w 0». »0 0».4 «H.4H 00.4 m. 0H 00.0H 00.00 a
Hm.H4m 00.04 40. 00 00.0 00.00 mm.mH »».m »0.0m mm.mH H0. 44 0
«0.400 00.40 00. m» 4H.»H »0.0m 40. »m 0H. m 40.00 0 .mm 00. H» m
»0.0mm 4m.»m 4m. 00 00.0 »m.» 00. 0 00.40 4H.0m mm.4H 00. 04 0
40.0»0 «0.0m mm.0» 00.0 mo.HH 40.0 00.0 »m.»m 40.Hm »». 0» m
0m.0mm 04.00 04.0» Hw.m Hm.4 0H.04 m».H0 mm.mH 00.0 00. 00 0
H0. H00 0».»m 00.00 40. H 00.00 00.00 0».m H0.0H 0H.0 00. mm 2
mm. 000 00.00 00.00 40.0 40. mm 00.0 »m.0H 04.04 00.00 00.04 2
0». 000 »0.00 00.4» 0».» 00. mm 0».HH m0.4H »0.0m 00.0 HH.H» H
00. 00H 00. 04 40.0» 00.0 00. m H».H 00.0 mH.0m HH. HH 00.0 m
00. mHm 00. 40 00.0w 00.0 »m.0 «0.0H 00.0 mm. 00 00. ».m »m.»4 0
00. 004 04.»» 04.» 0H.0H 40. 40 mm.Hm m9 4m H0.m0 4 04.»» H
0». 000 00.0» 09 H» 0H.0 0m. 0m 0».HH £MH mm. »m 00. 0H 00.0» m
09 HHm 00.40 0». 00 00.0H 00.00 0».0 40. »0. mm 0H.m 0».m0 0
m». 04H 00.00 0». »4 00.0 H».m 00.4 00. «0.0H 00.0 mm.0 m
40. 0H0 »0. mm «9 0» 00. m 40. 0 00.» 0H.»4 04. NH 00.0 0 .4 0
H0. 000 00. 00 09 mm 00. «H 00. om 00.H 00.» 00. m 0».0H 00.H 0
0H. 000 m9 04 mm. 04 00. 0 mm. mm 00.0w 0».mm H0. 0 00. mm »H.m 0
Hm.»mm 4.m4 00. 00 0». 4 H4.0 0N.MH 00.0 04. 0H «4. m 04.04 0
00.004 H». » 00.00 HH. » 04.00 40. 04.0H m9 «0 4H. H4 H».»» 4
Ha HHH> HH> H> > >H HHH HH H
Hence Hoonom
ngmdoz

mmmzm>HBomhhm ho mmmbmdmx HZHZ zo
HMDBADOHmU¢.A<ZOHB¢OQ> ho mazmzam<mmn z<meon mDomIMBEUHN Mm nmfiHMOmm mBZHom

>HN mnmsa

 

 

vavaE
i: 0 .
nthsuaoz H 090%

«QMDZHBZOOV >Hk.flqm<fi

 

83

 

 

 

00.0»0 H0.00 40.0» 00.0 H0.00 49 00 00. 00.00 00.0 0H.00 00
00.00H 00.0H 00.00 00.H »0.» 00.0 04.0 04. 00 00.0 00.04 xx
09 »»0 H».04 4H.0» »0.» 09 00 00.0 00.40 09 00 00.0 4H.»0 33
00. 00H »0.00 4H. »0 00.» H4. 0 0». 0 00.H m9 HH 00.0 09 00 >>
00. 0»0 09 H4 »9 00 00.0 09 HH 0H.0H 04.0 09mm 00.00 H9 04 00
04. 040 00. 0 00. 00 00. 0 H».00 0H.0 04.0 . 0».»0 00.0w as
00.H00 »9 0 40. 00 09 4 4H.»H 00.0 00.0 »H.00 0».0 00.m 00
H0.0H0 09 H0 00.0» 9 0H 00.H0 00.0 00.» 00. 00 00.00 0». 0 mm
04.0H0 0H. 00 04.00 4.HH 4H.»0 »0.0H 00.00 00. 04 H0.0H H0. 00 00
04. 000 00. H0 0».0» 00.0 HH.00 00.0 0H.0 00. 44 00.»0 0H. 00 00
00. 000 09 00 00.00 00.0H 00.00 0H.0 00.H 00.»0 H0.0H 40. 00 00
04. 4H0 »0. 04 00.00 0».0H H0.0H 0H.0 00.»0 00.00 0».00 4H. »0 22
00. H04 »0. 4» 00.00 H0.0H 0». 00 00.»H 00.»0 »0. 00 00.00 00. 0» 2:
00.000 H9 00 04.0» »0.» 04. »H 00.0 00.0 00.»0 00.0 0».04 00
00.»H0 0». »0 00.00 H4. 0 00. 00 00.0 00.H H0.00 0.0 00. 00 mm
0».00H 04. 40 00. 00 09 0 H9 00 00.0 00. 04. 0H 0.H 0H. 00 00
00.0H0 09 00 04. 00 40. 4H 00.H0 »4.4 0».H0 »0. 04 04.00 04. 00 HH
00.0H0 »0.00 0H. 0» 00. 0 00.0H 04.4H 00.0 00. 00 0».0H »0.00 00
00.000 09 »0 00. 0» 0H. 0H 00.0H 40.0H 0».00 00.04 00. H0 04. 00 00
00. 000 00.H0 0H. 0» 00.0 40.0 00.» 00.40 H0. 00 00. 4 00. 00 mm
00. 000 00.00 09 00 »0.0 00.00 00.0 0».0 00. »0 09 0 40.H0 mm
00. 000 00.H0 »0.»0 00. 0 00.40 00.0 04.4 00. 00 4».40 00. H0 00
09 0M0 00.00 04.0» 00. 4 00.0H 0H.0 00.0 00.»4 »».00 00. 0» 00
00.0 0 00. 04 4H.»» 0H. 4H H0.00 40.0H »0.00 00.44 4H.»H 4H. »» mm
H0.00H 00. 04 0H.»4 00.» »».4H 00.0 00.0 00.»4 0».»0 00.0 44
00.000 0H. 00 40.00 00. 00 00.04 H0.0 00.0 00.»4 00.00 0H.00 0

0H.00H 00.0H 00.0» 0».0 40.4H 00.0 40.4 00.0H 00.0 40.00 0

Ha HHH> HH> H> > >H HHH HH H
H0000 Hoonom
ugmdmz

AnmnzHazoov >Hx mqm<a

nohzmnmz

f|ll~‘c

 

«QNDZHBZOOV >HN .9935

n
o o
c O
u
0
0 4
.
o
c O
a e .
o O
u . Q
4 o
. a
o a
s v .
o o
.
o . u
u a o
0 . A
o 0
. o
O a u
u o 0
o o u

84

 

 

 

00.4»H 00.4H HH.H» 00.0 00.0H 00.0 »0.0H 00.»0 00.0 0».00 000
04.H00 00.00 00.00 0». HH »0.00 00.0 H».0H 04. 4» 40.00 40.H0 000
H0.»»0 00.04 0H.00 00. 0H H0.00 49 4 04. 0 00. .0m 09 00 04.H4 xxx
0 .040 4».H4 00. » 00. 0 0m.4 00. 00 0». 0 »H. 0 09 0 H0.00 333
0 .00H 40.40 00. 0 0H. 0 .» 04.» 00. 0 H0. 0H 00.0 40.00 >>>
H». 000 00.00 00. H» 09 0 40. 0H 00. 44 00. 00 00. .0m 00.H0 00.H» 000
H0. 000 0 .44 00. 04 09 00 00. 00 00.00 09 »H 00. H 00. 00 0 .04 ass

00. 00 0 .H0 04.4» 00. 0H 09 00 00.0 00. 0H 09 »4 4». 0H 0 .H0 000
00. 00 00.00 00.00 09 0 00. 0H 00. 4 09 0H H0.00 00. 4 H0.00 000
00.»00 00. »0 40.40 0». 0H 0H. 00 09 0H 40.04 09 44 09 04 H0.00 000
04.0»H m». 00 H4.04 0H.4 00. 4H 04.0 00.0 00. 00 00. 0H 0». 0 000
H0. 00 0. »0 04.4» 00.0 H». 0 09 »H 00. 0H 09 00 09 0 04. 0 000
00. H0 H0. 00 0H.»» 00.0H 00. 04 04. 0 09 0 00.00 00.0 »0.0» 222
4H.000 40.04 00.H0 »0.H 00.00 »0.0H »0. HH 00.40 0H.4 0H.00 :2:
00.400 00.04 00.»» 09 H0 00.»0 40.4H 00.H0 4».H0 0m.» 0H.00 QHH
00.004 00.40 00. 00 40. H0 00.40 »4.4H 00.H0 40.40 4 .0 40.00 000
00.00H 00.00 00. 40 0H. 4 00.0H 00.0 44.0H 4». H0 4H.»H H».00 000
0». 000 »».00 00. 0» 00.0 04.40 0.00 04.HH »0. 00 H0.00 00.00 HHH
09 000 00.00 00. 00 0H.0 00. 00 H.»H »4.0 00. 00 40.» 00.04 :00
09 000 00.»4 04.H» 40.0 04. 0H 00.0 00.0 H9 00 H0.HH 00.04 000
00.0H0 H0. 44 00.00 00.0 0H. 0 »0.» HH.H 09 00 04.0 0H.04 000
40.»40 H0. 04 00.00 H0. 0 00. 0H 00.0 00.0H 0M40 00.4H 00.00 000
00.000 00. 00 00.00 00. 0 00.0H 00.04 00.0H 0 .0 00.0 00.4w 000
40.00H 09 00 00.00 00. 0H 00.0H 00.0H 4m.0H 04.4H H0.0 00.0 000
0».»H0 00.»0 00.00 0H.0 Hm.0H 04.0 0 . H0.H0 0».HH 00.04 000
04.»H0 40.40 00.H0 00.0 0 .0 0H.» 00.HH 00.H0 0H.00 00.»4 40¢
0H.»0H 00.04 00.00 00.0 00.0 40.0H »0.0 00.0H 00.0 40.04 00

HH HHH> HH> H> > >H HHH HH H
H0009 Hoosom
60039602

Homszazoov >Hx 0Hm<a

 

nthzuuoz ll floocom

«QflDZH82000 >HK M4998

a - 4 c o n
o . 4 . . u
1 L a o a .
. _ a . c .
c a . s . ..
o c s u a u
a 4 - u . u
a u 0 ~ 0 n
a C U I ' Q
. n n L o .
. . o . 4 . . ,
o a . H . J
y o \ a a 0
_ . o . H 1 n
o 4 H a o a
H o v u u a
. . . s a I
Q - ‘ 4 I p
A C . 0 _ h
4 H i a u a
H . . v a g
a u 1 o v . H .
. .4 v r v w
. 4 i n 4 .
u u w I p v
. . v 4 u u

 

 

85

 

 

 

 

 

0».0» 00.4H 00.0H 00.0 HH.0H 00.0H 0».4H »0.4H 0H.4H 00.0H semHm
00.000 00.44 00.00 00.» 00.0H 04.HH 00.4H 40.00 00.0H 00.00 :40:
»0.»»H 0».00 00.00 0».0 00.0H 00.4 H0.0 0H.0H 00.0 00.00 0000
»0.0»0 00.H0 H0.44 00.0 00.0H 04.0H 0H.04 00.04 00.00 0H.0 0000
»4.000 0».44 00.»» 0».4 H4.0 00.0H H0.0 04.H0 00.0 0m.0 0000
0H.000 H0.00 00.»0 00.0 00.0H H0.0H 40.0H 00.»0 04.0 0 .00 0000
40.400 0».»0 00.0» 0».0 00.0H 00.4H 00.00 00.H0 »».00 00.0» mmmm
00.»00 00.04 00.0» 40.0 40.4H »0.0H 0».0 »H.00 00.0 0H.00 4444
H4 HHH> HHp H> > 0H HHH HH H
H4000 Hoonom
magmdoz

AQMDZHBZOUV >HN Ends

 

48 com;
project

SUpplem

in 1945
ent rpr

148 830

two Or I
enroll :

PPOGHCt;
importa;
tional E

5
eighty.1
were an;

practICe

effectiv.
placed 11

549% 1

X131”

86

4. On an average, the students enrolled in 1947-
48 completed slightly over one productive enterprise
project, one improvement project, and five and one half
supplementary farm practices.

5. About one out of four of the students enrolled
in 1945-46 showed at least one continuous productive
enterprise project; only one out of ten showed increas-
ing scope in productive enterprise projects repeated for
two or more years.

6. About eighty-five per cent of the students
enrolled in 1947-48 completed a farming program.

7. Somewhat over half of the students completed
productive enterprise projects in enterprises judged
important in the county where their departments of voca-
tional agriculture were located.

8. Extreme variations were apparent among the
eighty-four schools when nine measures of effectiveness
were applied to their final reports of supervised farm

practice programs.
COMPLETING THE SELECTION OF SCHOOLS

After the total points on the nine measures of
effectiveness had been determined, the schools were
placed in rank order with the school accumulating the
highest total of points put in the first position. Table
XLIX in Appendix H shows these ranks.

 

study t
ranging
to comp
teacher
md twe
XX) fro
Dartmen
ranging
from tn
the d8p
bottom
or Conv
Will be
ranking
1
gr°ups .
The 1002
culture
the Dos:

alSo ch

87

As explained in Chapter I, it had been planned to
study the thirteen top-ranking and the thirteen bottom-
ranking departments. However, before it was possible
to complete these studies, there had been a change of
teachers in the departments ranking seventh (School YYY)
and twelfth (School 2) from the top and seventh (School
XX) from the bottom. It was possible to substitute de-
partments ranking next in line which meant that those
ranking fourteenth (School U) and fifteenth (School H)
from the t0p were included with the upper group while
the department ranking fourteenth (School 22) from the
bottom became a part of the lower group. For purposes
of convenience, teachers in the higher ranking schools
will be referred to as Group I while those in the lower
ranking schools will be designated as Group II.

Table XV shows the distribution of these two
groups of teachers by types of farming areas in Michigan.
The locations of the 201 departments of vocational agri-
culture and the eighty-four teachers who had taught in
the positions which they held on September 1, 1948, are
also broken down by areas. A map prepared by the Agri-
cultural Economics Department of Michigan State College
is placed in Appendix I to show the location and kind
of agriculture practiced in each of these type-of-fanming

areas .

LOCATIK
0?

a

Me of
Farming
Area

N

l
2

.p’

N O‘\ U7

9-10-11
12.13‘:
15-16-§

88
TABLE XV

LOCATION IN TYPE OF FARMING AREA OF MICHIGAN TEACHERS
OF VOCATIONAL.AGRICULTURE ON SEPTEMBER 1, 1948

Teachers in

 

 

Type of Total Position Teachers Teachers
FArean8 Teachers Three or Gro:n I Grog;n II
More Years p p
1 21 9 2 3
2 l9 8 1 l
3 13 3 1 0
4 6 0 O 0
5 47 21 2 2
6 l3 7 2 1
7 11 1 2
8 19 11 l 0
9-10-11
12-13-14 52 19 3 4
15-16-17
Total 201 84 13 13

 

The schools located in areas nine, ten, eleven,
twelve, thirteen, fourteen, fifteen, sixteen, and sev-
enteen were grouped together. In general these areas
are represented by that territory in Michigan above a
line from Bay City to Muskegon. Much of the soil in
this part of the state has limited or no agricultural

value
igan
be 86
breai

£1021

teaci
not 1

in b<

and La-
0 awe»
gar}: 1
°7 Pp.

89
value.4 Since the departments in this section of Mich-
igan are quite scattered no particular purpose seemed to
be served by listing the areas separately. Further
breakdown, it was felt, might lead to a positive identi-
fication of a school.

Table XV is presented primarily to show that the
teachers included in either Group I or in Group II are
not confined to any single area of Michigan. Schools
in both groups seem to be quite generally distributed.

The point-scores on each of the measures of effec-
tiveness and the total score on the nine measures are
shown for the schools in Group I and in Group II in Table
XVI and in Table XVII respectively. The median score for
each measure and for the total score were determined for
both groups. As one would expect, the point-scores
earned by schools in Group I tended to run consistently
higher on all measures than those received by the schools
in Group II. These differences are graphically portrayed
in Figure 1. Here it is possible to compare the median
point-scores on each measure for schools in Group I and

Group II as well as all of the eighty-four schools in

 

# J. 0. Veatch, Agricultural Land Classification

and Land T es of Michi an, e gan'SEEte College, Spe-
cIal Bulle n 231, Firs% Revision (East Lansing, Michi-
an: Agricultural Experiment Station, October, 1941),

7 PP-

 

 

H LDOKO 2H. SOOEQW ZWWBmHIE Mm.
mmmzmxwfifiomknfim 0H0 mgbméz MZHZ 20 QEHWDE WEZHOR

H>Ufi Emu—‘8

 

90

 

 

 

 

04 00.»00 00.40 00.0» 0H.0H 04.00 00.4H 00.H0 40.00 00.00 00.0» ssHumz
04 0».000 00.0» 00.H» 0H.0 00.00 0».HH 0».0H 00.»0 00.0H 00.0» m
00 0».040 04.44 00.00 00.4 00.0H H0.0 0».H0 04.04 00.00 00.00 0
»0 00.000 00.»0 00.0» 0H.0H 00.0H 40.0H 0».00 00.04 00.H0 04.00 00
00 00.400 00.04 00.»» 04.H0 00.»0 40.4H 00.H0 4».H0 00.»0 0H.00 4H4
00 40.400 0».»0 00.0» 0».0 00.0H 00.4H 00.00 00.H0 »».00 00.0» 0000
00 00.000 00.H0 »0.»0 00.0 00.40 00.0 04.4 00.00 4».40 00.H0 00
04 00.»00 00.»0 40.40 0».0H 0H.00 00.0H 40.04 00.44 00.04 H0.00 000
00 00.400 00.40 00.0» 4H.»H »0.00 40.»0 0H.»0 40.00 00.00 00.H» m
04 H».000 00.00 00.H» 00.0 40.0H 00.44 00.00 00.04 00.H0 00.H» 0:0
00 00.004 H4.»» 00.00 HH.» 04.00 40.0 04.0H 00.00 4H.H4 H».»» 4
00 00.004 00.40 00.00 40.H0 00.40 »4.4H 00.H0 40.40 40.00 40.00 444
00 00.004 04.»» 04.»» 0H.0H 40.40 00.H0 00.40 H0.00 H».04 04.»» H
H0 00.H04 »0.4» 00.00 H0.0H 0».00 00.»H 00.»0 »0.00 00.00 00.0» :2
04-»40H HH HHH> HH> H> > >H HHH HH H
3005 H.308 Hoonom

IHHOhcm

mmgmdmz

 

H «.5048 2H muHoomom Ema wm
mmngommhm ho Ema NZHZ zo DEMOME mBZHOm

Han mafia

FF AZCIC 2H WQOOIOW ZNELVIHIB Mm
mmmzmerrHOan'mm k0 WMUWDWANMN: MNZHZ 20 QEHWOE WHZHON

HH.-\Pufi ”ABE

91

 

 

 

 

00 00.400 00.00 00.00 00.0 00.00 00.0 40.4 00.00 00.0 00.00 000002
40 00.000 00.04 00.00 00.0 00.0 40.00 00.0 00.00 00.0 40.04 00
40 00.000 00.04 00.44 00.0 04.0 00.00 04.0 00.00 00.0 00.44 3
00 00.000 00.04 00.04 00.0 00.40 00.0 00.0 00.04 00.00 00.0 «0
00 00.000 00.04 40.00 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.00 00.00 00.0 0
00 04.000 00.00 04.04 00.4 00.40 04.0 00.0 00.00 00.00 00.00 000
40 00.000 00.00 00.00 «0.0 00.00 00.4 00.0 00.00 00.0 00.00 0000
00 00.400 00.40 00.00 00.0 00.00 00.0 00.00 00.00 00.0 00.00 000
04 00.000 00.00 00.00 00.0 40.40 00.0 40.4 00.00 00.0 40.00 0
00 00.000 00.00 00.00 00.4 00.40 00.0 00.4 00.00 00.00 00.00 a
00 00.000 40.40 00.00 00.0 40.0 04.0 00.0 00.00 00.0 40.00 00>
04 00.000 04.40 00.00 00.0 00.00 00.0 00. «4.00 00.0 00.00 00
00 00.040 00.00 00.04 00.0 00.0 00.4 00. 00.00 00.0 00.00 m
00 00.000 00.00 40.00 00.0 04.0 00.0 00.0 00.00 00.0 00.00 >>

04-0400 A 00 000> 00> H> 0. 00 000 00 H

09:08 0.390. 00930.
0.00.050 090000.002

;

HH mbomu 2H aoomom zmmfimHmB Hm
mmszHBommmm mo mama QZHZ zo BEE—Hog gun—”om

HE San.

whi<
expi
nun}
the:

C 01.1.

tna‘
date
muck
I.
the
Grey
euro

I an
Pres.
SCOpE
SChOC
for S

fer S

paPISc

92
which the teacher had taught three years or longer. As
explained previously, eighty points were the maximum
number possible on all measures excepting IV and V. On
these two measures sixty points were the most a school
could earn.

Further examination of Tables XVI and XVII shows
that the enrollments in the two groups of schools, using
data from the school year 1947-48, do not appear to be
much different, although they tend to run higher in Group
I. In Group I the highest enrollment was eighty-one and
the lowest twenty-six. Corresponding enrollments in
Group II were seventy-eight and twenty-four. The median
enrollments among the schools were forty-eight in Group
I and thirty-six in Group II.

Certain facts seem to stand out from the data
presented in Figure l.

1. Schools in Group I have a higher median point-
score on all measures than the schools in Group II.

2. The median score for all of the eighty-four
schools on all measures is less than the median score
for schools in Group I but more than the median score
for schools in Group II.

3. Using the median score as a basis for com-

parison, there is a noticeable difference in the relative

0222¢<m Omm_>mw&3m .00 WZJEOOEQ JOOIUW .00

000202000000 .5 00000402 02.: w
3 20 00080 02.00 2300.2 W§5501.__ 3;

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

  

  
  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

9 2.-.. H0 2.50 30.
_ 0050.... ,
.000 304.0 2
Mm HEM Hm. H. H H
0 m0 we Q Ill.
0. E ..H.. [II-l2
”on”. d
.. Illa m
N
... : .5000 2. 0.500000% III: ...».
.. mqooxom 00.50000 «0' I a.
on ,IIIII. _ a DOKO 2. mJOOIUm D 0...
oh {LOB
0‘ AF.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I
III I I I I III III. IIIIII I. I II In I .I II III. .. III..III|IIIIIIII III I I I I I III III. I I I I I I I n
. l
.
.l J .
m . .
I u U
I. II I III: .- n. III II.II II II . -II. . III II.IIIII| I. IIIIIIII IIIIIIIIIIII.... I II .III I - I.III III: . .I . II . II Ir.
— u
n a
g
.
. I n n
I . I 1!--. .. .III... . I .I . . . I“ I- .I. I; .I . I..- . . .I.
. . I I ...» .(I II... I II IIIIiI.
_ . I u
n — n
. . I
V‘ . -
. I .
I I III II l I .I IL a\. «II—JJI JW 0 n IIIII IIIJ P‘I I I III! .III I. IIL.
. f (I I; I. .. . I ....I. I. «In. . . . .
.
_ u
_ _ D
II I. I I n I I I 0 I I . .. . I .Iu I III I. III... . I. E! II III III I II... I
. _ L I .. . _ I I I _ .0 _ . u
. .
. . . I
_ .
u . . III . I
I . .1 .I II. I .. . III. .II . I ... I II . I I. III- I I ”I I 0 I I .I .I ..........
a I
I I. 0 . . .
0 0 0 _ n . .
- n I .
- o I —
. .
I I H II III I IIIII I II III.| I. .II II III I I L III I III I I I.
I I - I - . .
. n 0 . .
.I I I _
—
v I I. "I IIIII - I IIII I . II I I I
. _ _
_
. .
.
u . .
II II 0 I I IIIIII I II I . LI III I I — III I . . IIIII I I.
I I 0 I I
_
I I I I II V. II I III I I II
. 0 I u.
.I \ .q
I. I. III: I( III} IIIIIIIIIIIIIIII. ..II I 1.9. I II. [III IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIIOIIDIIIIII
I II - 0 I lll II " IIIII I o|l I l ‘11- III II I l! 'l
I I
I I
. I I I. .I . . I .
I .\ .. I I I. I
IIIII I I.
. I I. J. sIII I . I I
. I. . I. ..I. I I f I .
- I u I II I -\ I. .1
I. . I. . ... I I
III” I '|.. ' I I‘ ll -\ L
1 I I I ,II.
. . VIEIII I I {ILII MIN .17.. I
I I I ..I I I

 

 

94
proportion of the total possible score that each group
of schools received on the respective measures.

4. In general, it appears that the median point-
scores for the schools in both Group I and Group II
tended to increase or decrease in about the same ratio

from one measure to another.

CONDUCTING THE INTERVIEW

As pointed out at the beginning of this report,
the major effort in this study was directed toward find-
ing answers to two principal questions: (1) Do two
selected groups of teachers of vocational agriculture in
Michigan use practices in conducting programs of super-
vised farming that are recommended by teacher trainers
and supervisors in agricultural education? (2) If the
two groups of teachers do not use recommended practices
in conducting programs of supervised farming, what are
the reasons?

Obviously, the primary source of this information
was the teachers themselves. The personal interview
seemed to be the most feasible technique for gathering
the data needed for this study. The necessity of using
the interview became apparent for a number of reasons.
First of all, since the study was concentrated on two

groups of teachers, namely, those with the more successful

and tho:
vised fa
tion be
of teach
years or
mic the
at large
I
from all
ers, it
View tee:
that all
Supplyiné
hAVe bee:
filling (
Se
in Order
manded 1r
r“Ponder
View tech
81b111ty,
In

“Spanden‘

\5

York: Ha:

95

and those with the less successful programs of super-
vised farming, it was essential that specific informa-
tion be obtained from them and not from the total group
of teachers who had taught in a given situation for three
years or longer. Consequently, this study did not per-
mit the use of a sampling technique to study the group
at large.

In order to assure that data would be obtained
from all members of these two extreme groups of teach-
ers, it seemed necessary to rely upon the personal inter-
view technique. It appeared unlikely, for instance,
that all of the men who cooperated in this study by
supplying information during a personal interview would
have been willing to provide the same information by
filling out a rather lengthy questionnaire.

Secondly, it seemed necessary to use the interview
in order to obtain the numerous personal reactions de-
manded in this study. Parten5 has pointed out that most
respondents would rather talk than write, so the inter-
view technique relieved the informants from this respon-
Bibility.

In the third place, it was desired to give the

respondent an opportunity to reveal certain unstructured

 

5
Mildred Parten, Surve 8, Polls, and Sam les (New
York: Harper & Brothers, PuBIEshers, I950}, p. 56.

Opinions,
"open-end'

and Kenda

Provide a
nearly cc
"Re need
or Our re
Opinions
they bElc

Gc
the inte:

Seen:
leSS
blanj
dant
See .

96
opinions, feelings, and attitudes through the use of the
"open-ended“ or "focused" interview approach. Merton
and Kendall point out that such a nondirective approach
". . . gives the subject an opportunity to express him-
self about matters of central significance to him rather
than those presumed to be important by the interviewer."6
Along the same line Lazarsfeld recognized the need to
provide an opportunity for the informant to give more
nearly complete information on his responses. He says:
”We need more detailed knowledge as to what the answers
of our respondents mean, on what specific points their
opinions are based, in what larger motivational contexts
they belong, etc."7

Good, Barr, and Scates seem to state the case for
the interview rather concisely when they declare:

By means of the interview it is possible to
secure many data that cannot be obtained through the
less personal procedures of distributing a reply
blank. People generally do not care to put confi-
dential information in writing; they may want to
see who is getting the information and receive guar-
antees as to how it will be used; they need the
stimulation of personal contacts in order to be

"drawn out" . . . the interview enables the worker
to follow up leads and take advantage of small clues;

 

6 Robert K. Merton and Patricia L. Kendall, "The

Focused Interview," The American Journal of Sociology,
51: 545, May, 1946.

 

7 Paul F. Lazarsfeld, "The Controversy over Detailed

Infizrviews," The Public Opinion Quarterly, 8:49, Spring,
19 .

 

in c<
to p]
can 1
H;
for gath.
what typ
The valu
type or
of ex;:
"Open qt
LaZal‘si‘e
adapted
the use
adapted
315: Obi
resent I

97

in complex material where the development is likely
to proceed in any dirgction, no prepared instrument
can perform the task.

Having decided to use the interview as the method
for gathering data, a major problem was to determine
what type of questions should be asked of the informants.
The value of the "open-ended" or "focused" interview
type of question in allowing a high degree of freedom
of expression has been indicated. Still, the use of the
"open question" approach, as pointed out by Parten,9

Lazarsfeldlo 11

and Gallup is not a method that is readily

adapted to statistical treatment. 0n the other hand,

the use of a standard list of questions, while easily

adapted to tabulation of answers and a statistical analy-

sis, obviously restricts the responses of the informants.
The questions used in this interview study rep-

resent an effort to combine the advantages of using a

standard list of questions and the Open variety of

 

8 Carter v. Good, A. S. Barr, and.Douglas E. Scates,

The Methodolo of Educational Research New York: D. Ap-
pIeton-Century Company, Incorporated, I9 1), p. 378.

9Parten,'gp. cit., p. 74.

1° Lazarsfeld,‘gp. cit., p. 49.

11 George Gallup, "The Quintamensional Plan of
Question#Design," The Public Opinion Quarterly, 11:388,
Fall, 19 7.

 

 

questio:
reveals
tions, }
and (2)

questio

t0 prov
purpose
that tv
low pra

Cation

Veals t
Bional
corres;
Supervi
810na1
are ter

Chaptel.

98
questions. Examination of the interviewing outline12
reveals that there are, in general, two types of ques—
tions, namely: (1) those seeking factual information
and (2) those asking for opinion-~the "why" type of
questions.

The factual questions are designed, particularly,
to provide information which would help meet one of the
purposes of this study, a determination of the extent
that two groups of teachers of varying proficiency fol-
low practices recommended by leaders in agricultural edu-
cation in conducting programs of supervised farming.

Further examination of the interviewing form re-
veals that the factual questions are grouped under divi-
sional areas. The divisional areas are numbered to
correspond to the numbers of the working principles of
supervised farming developed in Chapter IV. Ten divi-
sional areas appear in the interviewing outline and there
are ten corresponding working principles developed in
Chapter IV that, presumably, embody the recommended prac-
tices in conducting programs of supervised farming in
which there seems to be substantial agreement among the
leadership in vocational agriculture. Consequently, when

the outline was used in interviewing, it was assumed that

 

12 See Appendix A.

each
video
ers e
vise:
tion:

work

We
data
tab:
the:
ment
be c

DPOc

99

each of the questions appearing in a given area, pro-
vided reliable information as to the extent that teach-
ers employed practices in conducting programs of super-
vised farming that were consistent with the recommenda-
tions of expert opinion embodied in the corresponding
working principle appearing in Chapter IV.

Most of these factual questions could be answered
by the words "yes" or "no" or by supplying numerical
data. For this reason the responses were readily adap-
table to tabulation, analysis, and interpretation. Fur-
thermore, they were adapted to limited statistical treat-
ment even though the character of this study seemed to
be of such a nature that the use of complex statistical
procedures was not demanded.

Following the recommendations of Blankenship13

and NORC 14

for conducting surveys and polls, the factual
questions were asked uniformly of all respondents although
there is not complete agreement that such a procedure is

necessary. Cantril, for instance, contends that the

 

13 Albert E. Blankenship, Consumer and o inion
Research (New York: Harper'& BroEEErs, PuEIIs ers, 943),
p. 2;.

14 Interviewin for NORC (Denver: National Opin-
ion Research Center, niversIEy of Denver, 1945), p. 17.

 

relia‘

menta

want»

...-A

dam
ques

and

hH
:3 £7

lOO
reliability of responses is largely determined by the
mental stability of the respondents. He declares:

The extent to which the wording of questions
affects the answers obtained depends almost en-
tirely on the degree to which the respondent's men-
tal context is solidly structured. Where people
have standards of Judgment resulting in stable frames
of reference, the same answer is likely to be ob- 15
tained irrespective of the way questions are asked.

On the matter of determining the degree of stan-
dardization that should operate in the presentation of
questions used in interviewing for fact-finding, Bingham

and Moore advise:

Having determined that your problem is such
that interviews are feasible aids in its solution,
formulate it with the interview procedure in mind.
Ask yourself Just what information you want to ob-
tain. This does not mean that you must shape def-
inite questions to be asked in a certain way. It
means that you should have the general questions
clearly in mind in organized form so that when ans-
wers are given, or an opportunity comes to lead the
conversation toward an answer, you will recognize
it immediately and classigy it under the proper
heading on your outline.

However, neither Cantril's nor.Bingham and Moore's
observations would seem to preclude the use of standard-
ized questions during the interview. Apparently, they
have only taken the position that a standard wording of

 

15
Hadley Cantril, Gau 1 Public Opinion (Prince-
ton: Princeton University Press, 1913), p. .

l6Walter V. Bingham and Bruce V. Moore, How to

Interview (New York: Harper’& Brothers, Publishersj"
evised Edition, 19 l), p. 35.

101
questions is unnecessary. All factors considered, then,
the set-schedule type of questionnaire appeared best
adapted for securing and using the data which would sup-
ply information regarding the practices employed by the
two groups of teachers in conducting programs of super-
vised farming. Actually, if the study had had no fur-
ther objective than to discover the practices used by
these teachers, it is conceivable that there would have
been no reason for the use of the interview technique
except to insure that data would have been secured from
all of the desired informants.

On the other hand, more nearly complete informa-
tion was needed if the other major purpose of this study
was to be realized, that of determining the reasons for
failure to employ certain recommended practices in con-
ducting supervised farming. The mere recording of ob-
jective facts obviously would not suffice if this
purpose was to be realized. Rather, the more personal
thoughts, feelings and attitudes of the respondent
needed to be investigated.

Skott makes some pertinent observations in this
connection when he describes experiences of workers in
the Department of Agriculture in using the interview to
study the reasons for certain states of mind of respond-

ents. He declares:

 

WC‘DEIH'Ij

adva:

dd :1 ”Y.

taln<

_-4-ALA

Kend;
the 1
teae:
COnd;
the :

meht

102
To know that a person approved or disap-
proved of an issue was not enough. It was even more
important to know wh he felt that way. Further-
more, there was a feeling confirmed by interviewing
experience that people can rarely give an unqpali-
fied “yes" or "no" to a significant question. 7
Skott reveals what he believes to be the special
advantage of a full interview as he continued:

Out of the richness of full interview reports
has come the opportunity for obtaining more valid and
more meaningful insights into the attitudes of indi-
viduals and groups than is possipée with the informa-
tion on a polling questionnaire.

Following the same vein of thought Strang main-
tains:

Thus, the interview is an essential technic
for ascertaining the "why" of relationships and the
subjective factors, possipée causes, and meanings
behind objective factors.

The focused interview described by Merton and
Kendall seemed particularly adaptable to this study for
the purpose of discerning the special reasons for the
teachers' failure to use certain recommended practices in
conducting programs of supervised farming. They set forth

the following characteristics of this type of interview:

 

l7 Hans E. Skott, "Attitude Research in the Depart-
ment of Agriculture," The Public Opinion Quartegll: 7:289,
Summer, 1943.

18 Ibid., p. 291.

19 Ruth Strang, "The Interview," Review 23 Educa-
tional Research, 9:501, December, 1939.

 

O

say-Ivor:

film

the C

103

1. Persons interviewed are known to have been
involved in a particular concrete situation . . .

 

2. The hypothetically significant elements,
patterns, and total structure of this situation have
been previously analyzed by the investigator.

3. On the basis of this analysis, the investi-
gator has fashioned an interview guide, setting forth
the major areas of inquiry and the hypotheses which
locate the pertinence of data to be obtained in the
interview.

 

4. The interview itself is focused on the
subjective experiences 88 persons exposed to the
pre-analyzed‘situatlbn.

An attempt was made to incorporate these charac-
teristics into the pattern of interviewing employed to
determine the reasons for failure of teachers to use cer-
tain recommended practices in conducting supervised
farming. The writer believes that a consideration of
the character of the peOple interviewed, the structur-
ing of the study preliminary to the interviewing, and
the guide employed in this phase of the investigation
will reveal many elements in common between the particu-
lar pattern of interviewing used in this study and the
focused interview described by Merton and Kendall.

A type of focused interview was employed because

it showed promise for probing more deeply into the re-
spondent's mind. It seemed that the use of the focused

 

2° Merton and Kendall, pp. cit., p. 541.

 

intel
the i
and 1
view:

irrej

in t
poss
she
the

as t

the
or,
the
and.
mail

fer

sDOn

J

or St

104
interview as a method of investigation not only allowed
the informant ample freedom to reveal his real thoughts
and feelings, but also served as an aid to the inter-
viewer to prevent the introduction of unnecessary and
irrelevant digressions.

Some authorities point out the danger of a bias

in the interview. Parten,21

for instance, indicates the
possibility of a distortion of the returns through what
she refers to as the "human equation." She reveals that
the interviewer may unconsciously ask the questions so
as to secure confirmation of his views.

However, in passing, it seems well to reveal that
the interview should not be singled out as the only method
of research in which there might be a reason to question

the reliability of the responses. Bain,22

and later Stoke
and Lehman,23 reported research which indicated that the
mail questionnaire is peculiarly vulnerable when employed

for the collection of personal information.

 

21 Parten, pp. cit., p. 81.

22 Read Bain, "Stability in Questionnaire Re-
sponses," The American Journal 23 SOCiOlOEY: 37:445,
November, I931.

 

23 Stuart M. Stoke and Harvey C. Lehman, ”Influence
of Self-Interest upon Questionnaire Replies," School and
Society, 32:436, September 27, 1930.

 

infor
manna
were
The v
guesi
slahi
effOJ
mean:
Seem
have
in S]
View}
View.

reap

"Pit
bell.

aprol

105

The writer recognizes that the responses of the
informants in this study could have been biased by the
manner of interviewing. However, special precautions
were taken to insure that the responses would be reliable.
The writer tried especially to avoid the use of leading
questions or questions which might give a particular
slant or partisan position. In so far as possible, an
effort was made to avoid a detailed explanation of the
meaning of the questions. In the few instances when it
seemed necessary to enlarge upon a question in order to
have it understood, the writer tried to bring this about
in such a manner that it could not favor a particular
viewpoint. In this connection Crespi advised the inter-
viewer to avoid statements which are used to inform the
respondent. At the same time he recognized that:

". . . some questions seem to demand placement

in a context in order to have meaning. In such cases
one must frame the preamble so that it does not fagpr
any of the competitive stands regarding the issue.
Throughout the conduct of the interviews, the
writer tried dilligently to conceal his own ideas and
beliefs. In this regard the following advice seemed

aprOpos:

 

24 Leo P. Crespi, "The Interview Effect in P01-
11# ," The Public Opinion.Quarterly, 12:105, Spring,
19 .. .

 

unb
not

tional
sehtati
in the
considv
made d‘
interv
1949.

two he
each t
home 3

Studer
to be

as the
of 1n1

numbe:

106

Don't discuss issues with respondents. As an

unbiased reporter of the opinions of others, you are
not at liberty to disclose your own.

As indicated in Chapter I the teachers of voca-
tional agriculture were interviewed, as well as repre-
sentative students and/hr one or both of their parents
in the twenty-six departments of vocational agriculture
considered in this study. Most of the interviews were
made during the month of August, 1949. The remaining
interviews were completed on Saturdays in the autumn of
1949. A day was spent in each community. Approximately
two hours were required to complete the interview of
each teacher. These visits were followed by visits to
homes to interview students and/or one or both of the
students' parents. It was found that parents seemed
to be able to supply the information needed just as well
as the student. An effort was made to keep the number
of interviews with parents approximately equal to the
number with the students.

The families contacted were determined by placing
the names of students in alphabetical order according
to the grade in high school which they had completed.
Interviews were conducted with the student and/hr one or

both of his parents in every fifth family beginning with

 

25lntervieuing for NORC, pp. cit., p. 13.

the t
neiti

f 3.1711:

tere‘
lati
farm
in f
con;
to 1
the

View

lna

107
the third name from the top. In the few instances when
neither the student nor his parents were available the
family next in line was contacted.

The questions asked of students and parents cen-
tered largely in Areas VI and VII, the former area re-
lating to progress of the son toward establishment in
farming and the latter area to parent-son relationships
in farming. Approximately a half hour was needed to
complete each home-interview. ‘With the time required
to locate families and to drive from one home to another,
the operation involved in completing the necessary inter-
views in a given community required a full day. Indeed,
in a few instances unexpected delays made it necessary
to work in the early evening in order to finish the as-
signment.

Altogether, the writer drove 4111 miles in order
to complete the interviews. In addition, the teachers
of vocational agriculture and representative members of
selected families were interviewed in two other communi-
ties preliminary to the other interviews. This plan was
followed on a trial basis in order to give the inter-
viewer an opportunity to try out and standardize pro-
cedures before interviewing the respondents included in
this study. These trial runs involved an additional 232
miles of travel.

 

ple '
At t
were
res;
Writ
divu
Whil
COUl
SEgm

it w

data
its
all

been

made
data
teas}
°°Pde
diff}
the s
the 1

dipec

108

Excellent cooperation was received from the peo-
ple who were asked to supply information for this study.
At the outset of each interview the purposes of the study
were pointed out. Each informant was assured that his
responses would be kept in strictest confidence. The
writer has exercised extreme precaution so as not to
divulge the exact source of any of the data given him.
While it is possible that an informant, conceivably,
could attempt to identify himself with a particular
segment of data in this report, any inference so drawn,
it would seem, must be highly conjectural. Actually,
the writer would find it necessary to decode most of the
data collected before it is possible to be certain of
its source. Consequently, the investigator believes, in
all sincerity, that the interests of the respondents have
been adequately protected.

While interviewing the teachers the request was
made and granted that an opportunity be given to record
data as they were presented. The interview with each
teacher was obviously too long to be conducted and re-
corded from memory. It did not seem to be particularly
difficult to write down the significant responses and at
the same time maintain a very desirable continuity in
the interviewing process. In this regard the following
direction is provided by NORC:

 

0pp<
clu:
31v:
was

rati

tun

109
You don't need a knowledge of shorthand to
record everything the respondent says in reply to a
free-answer question. In the first place few of the
answers you receive, even after probing, will be longer
than one or two sentences. In the second place, only
a few persons talk so fast that you have trouble keep-
ing up with them.2
The teachers were assured that they would have an
opportunity to examine the interviewing form at the con-
clusion of the interview to ascertain if the information
given had been accurately written down. When the form
was proffered to them, a few of the teachers examined it
rather carefully, some looked it over in a cursory sort
of fashion, while most of them quickly declined the oppor-
tunity to read the material that had been written down.
Interviewing forms were not in evidence during
the home interviews. It was felt that their use might
tend to arouse suspicion. Moreover, since the questions
asked were relatively few, it seemed best to present
them from memory and then take time to record the re-

sponses at the conclusion of the interviews.
LIMITATIONS OF THE STUDY

The writer readily acknowledges certain fairly
obvious limitations of this study. Yet, while recog-'
nizing these limitations, he believes that the findings,

 

26 Ibid., p. 500

 

 

a
A
.
O
a
_,
\
7 e
l I
t
\ I
D
, \
.
.
A
' F
v
\ \
D .

 

 

 

110
if properly interpreted and applied, can make a signifi-
cant contribution to research and practice in agricul-
tural education.

First of all, this study has certain limitations
inherent in the pattern under which it was structured.
From the total of 201 departments of vocational agricul-
ture in Michigan on September 1, 1948, there was made an
intensive study of reports of supervised farming pro-
grams of eighty-four teachers who had been employed in
their present positions for three years or longer. Fin-
ally, the investigation was further delimited by making

a selection of twenty-six teachers from this group of

eighty-four to be studied by personal interviews. Twenty-

six was the number which it was feasible to contact by
this method. Furthermore, these twenty-six schools rep-
resented two extreme groups of teachers: the thirteen
determined to have the more outstanding and the thirteen
found to have the less adequate programs of supervised
farming among the teachers of vocational agriculture
who had taught in the position which they held on Sep-
tember l, 1948 for three years or longer. Findings must
necessarily be interpreted in the light of the number of
schools selected.

It seems well to emphasize that this study was

set up to reveal significant differences in programs of

111
supervised farming between two selected groups of teach-
ers, all of whom have taught three years or longer in
one school. It does not necessarily reflect practices
prevailing among other teachers of this category or the
total papulation of teachers of vocational agriculture.
Neither is it intended that it be assumed that the prac-
tices revealed in this study are necessarily charac-
teristic of the teachers with the more outstanding or
the less adequate programs of supervised farming among
all the teachers of vocational agriculture in Michigan.

It seems well, also, to stress that the findings
of this study are not adapted to extended statistical
treatment due to the limited number of schools inter-
viewed and the nature of the data collected. The writer
holds that if this study had been conducted in such a
manner as to yield only data which could have been read-
ily quantified, one of the major purposes of this study
could not have been realized.

Perhaps, this study may be criticized for a lack
of exactness, particularly in the handling of the sub-
jective responses which.were offered by teachers for
failure to use certain recommended practices of super-
vised farming. Indeed, it is entirely conceivable that
another investigator might have arrived at a different

categorization of the "open" responses gathered in this

 

 

 

112
phase of the study. That a bias could have influenced
the reliability of the responses during the interviews
is likewise recognized as a possible limiting factor in
this investigation. Yet, in spite of these limitations,
the writer believes that a pioneer study of the type out-
lined in this report is warranted: that it has yielded
helpful information and uncovered promising leads for
further investigation.

The data used in this study have been gathered
largely in Michigan. Consequently, they should be in-
terpreted and applied in the light of this limitation.
However, one of the most important divisions of this in-
vestigation, that of developing a method for measuring
the effectiveness of the local program of supervised
farming, conceivably could have application throughout
the United States. It should be apparent that much ef-
fort has been expended on this phase of the study. While
the measures which have been developed, without a doubt,
need further refinement, it is possible that they could
be used in a practical way in other states, even in their
present form.

Finally, in passing, it seems well to point out
that this investigation is limited to a study of programs
of supervised farming conducted by students enrolled in

the day-school program of vocational agriculture.

 

113
ASSUMPTIONS

Certain assumptions believed fundamental to the
realization of the purposes of this study are stated
below. Others are presented at appropriate points in
the context.

1. It is assumed that data relating to the kinds
of farming programs carried and completed by students,
which were submitted by teachers of vocational agricul-
ture on Form 241, are reliably reported. These reports
supplied the data which served as the basis for the se-
lection of the two groups of teachers who cooperated in
this study.

2. It is assumed that the state supervisors and
teacher trainers who cooperated in this study are quali-
fied to select and to weight items from.Form 241 which
are valid measures of effectiveness of school programs
of supervised farming.

3. In the determination of the maximum number of
points that a school could receive on a given measure of
effectiveness, it is assumed that the median is a valid
base point from which to operate. It is further assumed
that the arbitrary assignment of point values on the
basis of this median and the subsequent mathematical cal-

culations, allowed a school to receive a total point score

114
which was a valid measure of that school's relative
standing on effectiveness of its program of supervised
farming.

4. It is further assumed that teachers, pupils,
and parents gave reliable and valid responses to the
questions asked them during the interviews.

5. Likewise, it is assumed that the quality of
the supervised farming programs in effect in a particu-
lar school during the three years preceding the time that
the teachers were selected for this study was due to a
great degree to the influence of the teacher of vocational
agriculture employed in that school during those three
years.

6. Finally, it is assumed that the ten statements
of working principles in conducting programs of super-
vised farming which were prepared, accurately reflect
the thinking of expert opinion on the subject. It is
further assumed that the questions asked during the inter-
views were valid measures of the extent that the teach-

ers were using practices recommended by expert opinion.

 

CHAPTER III
REVIEW OF LITERATURE

The purpose of this chapter is to review research
studies which bear a relationship to this investigation.
Most of the studies cited were completed by graduate
students as a part of the requirement for a Master's
degree. Four doctoral dissertations are included as
well as a few nonthesis studies completed by staff mem-
bers assigned to research in departments of teacher edu-
cation.

Investigations which seem closely related to
this study are reviewed at some length while less con-
sideration is given to those which are only partially
related. In any case, only those parts of a study are
reported which show a connection to this investigation.

The annotated bibliographies of studies in agri- ‘
cultural education have been particularly helpful to the
writer in making known to him what studies have been com-
pleted. These are reported in four separate publications

under the title Summaries 33 Studies ip Agricultural
1

 

Education. It has been the intention of the authors of

 

1 Summaries pf Studies in A icultural Education, '
U. S. Office of Education,'VocEtionaI E3ucatIon.BuIIetIn

 

 

the:
agr:
stu:
and

WEI"

cla
sec
an
of
gro

vhi

Vis

Jec

No.
eI‘n

erg
Edu
01.11
Off
of

P10
ing

116
these summaries to list all known research studies in
agricultural education. With few exceptions, all the
studies relating to supervised farming have been secured
and reviewed. In certain instances no copies of studies
were available.

In preparing this review, the studies have been
classified under four major divisions. In the first
section there are reported those investigations in which
an effort was made to study groups of teachers or groups
of departments of vocational agriculture. Some of these
groups were determined before the collection of data'
while others were set up afterward.

A second section includes those studies on super-
vised farming which might be classified as being general
in character. The investigations grouped under this
heading involved a broad treatment of supervised farming
or at least considered more than one aspect of the sub-

ject. Section three of this review includes those studies

 

No. 180, Agricultural Series No. 18 (Washington: Gov-
ernment Printing Office, 1935), 196 pp.: Supplement No.
l (Danville, Illinois: Interstate Printers and Publish-
ers, 1943), 199 pp.: Supplement No. 2, U. S. Office of
Education, Vocational Divisiontulletin No. 237, Agri-
cultural Series No. 57 (Washington: Government Printing
Office, 1948), 120 pp.: Supplement No. 3, U. 8. Office
of Education,‘Vocational Division.Bulletin No. 242, Ag-
ricultural Series No. 59 (Washington: Government Print-
ing Office, 1950), 61 pp.

 

 

117
which gave special consideration to the difficulties in-
volved in conducting supervised farming. Finally, a
fourth section considers those investigations which re-
late to some particular aspect or phase of supervised

farming.

STUDIES IN WHICH TEACHERS 0R DEPARTMENTS ARE GROUPED

Campbell2 made a study of activities used by

teachers in Wisconsin, Illinois, Minnesota, Iowa, and

Ohio in conducting programs of supervised farming. A
questionnaire was prepared and submitted to 263 instructors
of vocational agriculture. Teachers were selected by
sending a questionnaire to every fourth name in an alpha-
betical list of teachers in each of the states indicated
above. There were 155 instructors who returned the ques-
tionnaire.

The names of the men who returned the inquiry were
then submitted to the head state supervisor in their re-
spective states, with the request that they be divided
into two groups. The first group included the names of

those men who, the state supervisors felt, were doing

 

2 Clyde B. Campbell, "An Analysis of the Activi-
ties of Agriculture Teachers in Conducting Farm Practice,"
(unpublished research problem, University of Minnesota,
Minneapolis. 1939). 139 pp-

118
superior work in conducting supervised farming. These
men, totaling seventy in number, were designated as the
select group. The balance of the names sent to the state
supervisors were considered as the unselected group.

They totaled eighty-five. Nineteen state supervisors
and teacher trainers also checked the questionnaire.

The data reveal that the two groups of teachers
tended to show the same responses in the use of the ac-
tivities listed. When one group of teachers tended to
indicate frequent or little use of an activity, the other
group responded similarly. Actually, there was a much
greater tendency for the two groups of instructors to
show the same degree of use of an activity than there
was for either group to indicate an actual use of an
activity corresponding closely with ratings of the state
supervisors and teacher trainers on the importance of the
activity.

While the selected group showed a greater tendency
to indicate more use of activities that were considered
important by the state supervisors and teacher trainers,
the difference was slight. The unselected group was
found to be in agreement with the state supervisors and
teacher trainers just about as often as the selected

group.

119

A possible explanation for the failure of the two
groups of teachers to show greater differences in their
responses might be that the extremes of either group of
teachers were balanced off by those members of each group
who tended to be much alike in their responses. When one
recognizes that the study was set up to include all teach-
ers of agriculture in the states surveyed, such an ex-
planation might be worthy of consideration. Campbell
indicates that further differentiation of the two groups
might have been in order when he stated that no attempt
was ". . . made to differentiate between the superior,
excellent, or good teachers in the selected group, nor
among the unselected teachers to differentiate between
fair, weak, or poor individuals."3

Campbell also recognized possible limitations to
the method used in selecting the teachers studied. He
acknowledges that it was not objective but was ".
based upon opinion and general information of one man of

a group of teachers in his state."4

Finally, he suggested
the ". . . desirability of establishing an objective
method by which teachers of agriculture may be rated

according to their abilities in farm practice work."5

 

3 Ibid., p. 133.
Ibid., p. 133.
5 Ibid., p. 133.

120

In spite of the shortcomings which Campbell points
out in his study, this investigation seems to have made
a definite contribution to research in agricultural edu-
cation. ‘While mathematical correlations among the groups
which he compared might have been a logical step, pos-
sibly such a treatment of data would have been beyond
the scope of the kind of study which he conducted. All
factors considered, perhaps it could be said that this
investigation was creditably, although not exhaustively,
handled.

Rodeberg6 devised a different pattern but employed
a method similar to the one used by Campbell for dividing
teachers into groups on the basis of the effectiveness
of their programs of supervised farming. He prepared a
list of Montana teachers of vocational agriculture, thirty-
three in number, who had been teaching in a particular
situation for three years or longer. This list was sep-
arated into three groups designated as superior, average,
and poor on the basis of independent ratings of their
programs of supervised farming which were made by the
state supervisor, assistant state supervisor, and the

teacher trainer in vocational agriculture in.Montana.

 

6 Hubert E. Rodeberg, "The Supervised Practice
Program in Vocational Agriculture in Montana," (unpub-
lished Master's thesis, Montana State College, Bozeman,
1942): 97 PP-

121
Ten men were placed in each of the groups labeled supe-
rior and inferior, while thirteen were assigned to the
group designated average.

Rodeberg placed the primary emphasis in his study
on making comparisons among the three groups on such
matters as characteristics of departments and personal
and professional characteristics of the teachers. These
included average enrollments, the proportion of farm and
town boys in classes, the amount of time which the in-
structor spends teaching vocational agriculture, and the
average number of years the instructors had spent in
teaching.

The degree that a given characteristic prevailed
in a group was usually expressed as an average or per-
centage. Consequently, any differences had to be determ-
ined by inspection of the data. The data showed that
the departments rated superior had higher enrollments
and the instructors spent a greater percentage of their
time in teaching vocational agriculture than was the
case in departments rated average or poor. There ap-
peared to be no significant differences in the prOpor-
tion of farm and town boys enrolled in classes nor in the
average years of experience in teaching among the instruc-
tors in the three groups of departments rated superior,

average, and poor.

122

Rodeberg gave less attention to practices used in
conducting supervised farming. The practices considered,
centered largely on those used in acquainting students
with and initiating them into programs of supervised
farming. Notably, the superior group of teachers made
more early fall visits to homes of students.

A rather comprehensive study was conducted just
before the Second World War which had as its purpose an
evaluation of local programs of vocational education in
agriculture. It was carried out through the coopera-
tion of the vocational division of the U. S. Office of
Education and the administrative and teacher training
staffs in all states except two. The results of this
study are reported in a Federal publication.7 Twenty
different aspects of the local programs were evaluated.
In three of these, particular attention was given to
supervised farming.

The report of this project appears to have been
designed as a teaching aid more than as a detailed de-
scription of a research investigation. This may explain

the failure to clearly indicate all the procedures used

 

 

7 An Evaluation of Local Pro rams of Vocational
Education—In AgricfiltufiET U. S. UffIce ofEEducation,
VocationaIEEuIletianO. 240, Agricultural Series No. 58
(Washington: Government Printing Office, 1949), 75 pp.

 

123
in conducting the study. Four hundred local programs of
vocational agriculture were examined but there was no
description of the method used in selecting these pro-
grams except a statement that they were chosen ". .
in such a way as to obtain a representative sample of
departments of vocational agriculture."8 The report fur-
ther indicates that an evaluating committee was appointed
for each participating state but it does not indicate
the qualifications of the personnel which made up the
membership of these committees nor does it describe in
detail the procedures under which they operated while
making evaluations of local departments.

Through contact with members of the committee who
did the actual evaluating, it has been determined that
departments studied in Michigan were selected on the
basis of the best Judgments of the members of the state
supervisory and the teacher-training staffs in vocational
agriculture. An attempt was made to include some of the
better, some about average, and some of the poorer pro-
grams. As nearly as can be determined about twenty pro-
grams were evaluated in Michigan. Most of the teacher
trainers and state supervisors in Michigan participated

in the evaluations although this responsibility was

 

8 Ibid., p. 2.

 

 

124
assigned primarily to two individuals, one a member of
the supervisory staff and the other a member of the
teacher-training staff.

The evaluations were made during visits to the
schools in which the departments of vocational agricul~
ture were located. 0n the basis of observations of the
program and interviews with the instructor and selected
students, the evaluating team, consisting of a teacher
trainer and a state supervisor, placed a rating on each
of the major aspects of the local program of vocational
agriculture. As a guide in making these appraisals,
the evaluating team had the use of the Evaluative Cri-
teria for‘Vocational Education in Agriculture9 prepared
by a national committee of state supervisors and teacher
trainers.

Each major phase of the local program was eval-
uated on the basis of a five-point scale, according to
the pooled judgment of the members of the evaluating
team. The evaluators were instructed to make a rating
which reflected the status of a particular phase of a
local program in respect to what would be found in other

local programs. In passing, it seems well to point out

9 Evaluative Criteria for'Vocational Education in
A riculture (Athens, Georgia: TheUniverSity Press, I910
Egition), 52 pp.

 

125
that they had no knowledge of the kind of local programs
conducted in other schools, than those evaluated, except
that which had come to them as a result of their expe-
riences. Five designations were used in rating the dif-
ferent phases of the local program, namely: very supe-
rior, superior, average, inferior, and very inferior.

It seems fairly obvious that the report of this
project10 was never intended to be regarded as a com-
plete presentation of a research study. Since the de-
scription of procedures used and the analysis and inter-
pretation of data are so limited, it has been very dif-
ficult to review this study as a related research in-
vestigation. ‘While recognizing the value of having a
report of this project presented in a form so abbreviated
that all or specific parts of it can be quickly and eas-
ily read, the research worker will probably regard it as
unfortunate that this study could not have been more
adequately reported.

In spite of the seeming lack of all the necessary
information to adequately assess the findings of this
study, certain Observations regarding it appear to be in

order.

 

10 An. Evaluation 21; Vocational Education in A ri-
culture, 22. c , ......E—

126

First of all, it can be stressed that this was an
evaluative study of 400 local programs of vocational agri-
culture in forty-six states. Thus, it would appear that
the primary focus was on the program rather than the
individuals associated with it even though, obviously,
it would be difficult, if not impossible, to eliminate
the influence of personalities on a program. 'While one
can not be certain, for instance, that investigators had
no intention of appraising teachers while evaluating
local programs, it would seem that more effort would have
had to be made to eliminate the influence of previous
teachers on the program than appears to have been done
in the conduct of this study, if such a purpose could
have been realized.

Secondly, this investigation included not only an
evaluation of the local program of supervised farming
but many other recognized phases of a total program of
vocational agriculture such as Future Farmers of America,
young farmer and adult instruction, farm mechanics in—
struction and equipment and facilities.

In the third place, the evaluators rated each of
the local programs of vocational agriculture after the
collection of data from them. These ratings were made,
apparently, without any clearly defined standards of

classification to serve as a guide. From conversation

127
and correspondence with members of the committee who
gathered the data, the local programs used in Michigan
were not selected in a random manner.

Sweanyll

studied twenty-four departments from a
total of 132 high schools in which vocational agriculture
was offered in Iowa in 1937-38. These twenty-four de-
partments were among the twenty-six in which programs
of supervised farming were shown to be of relatively
high quality on the basis of a study of preliminary re-
ports of supervised farming submitted by teachers of
vocational agriculture to the Department of Public In-
struction in Iowa. Two factors were used to determine
the departments selected: (1) the percentage of students
enrolled in production projects, improvement projects,
and supplementary practices, and (2) the number of proj-
ects per boy.

In so far as can be determined, Sweany is the first
investigator to make a study of departments of vocational

agriculture, selected on the basis of an analysis of the

reports of supervised farming programs which had been

 

11 H. P. Sweany, "Factors Contributing Toward
Superior Programs of Farm Practice for Boys Studying
‘Vocational Agriculture in Iowa High Schools,” (unpub-
léghed Master's thesis, Iowa State College, Ames, 1938),
1 pp.

128
completed by teachers in these departments. However, he
did not clearly indicate the exact procedures that were
used in applying the two selective factors to determ-
ine which schools would be included in his study nor
did he attempt to validate these factors.

Sweany gathered most of his data by means of a
questionnaire which he sent to the teachers in the twenty-
four departments. In addition, he made personal visits
to four schools to obtain supplementary data by use of
interviews with boys who were currently enrolled in the
departments, with parents of students and with the super-
intendent and the principal of these schools. In two
of the four schools he interviewed former students of
vocational agriculture, while in one community he inter-
viewed the banker, and in another, the elevator manager.

Limited use was made of the findings from inter-
views. In describing the procedures employed to report
this phase of his investigation, Sweany wrote:

No effort was made to tabulate the answers of
the different people interviewed. The different
communities suggested different patterns as did the

different classes of individuals intervigwed. Each
community will be written up as a unit.

 

12 Ibid., p. 61.

 

 

129

Among other findings it was brought out in this
study that (1) the majority of the production projects
of students are financed from family resources; (2) con-
siderable variation existed among the schools in the de-
gree that students were permitted to determine the com-
plete management practices used in their production proj-
ects; (3) half of the instructors held meetings with
parents to consider problems involved in conducting
supervised farming; and (4) half or more of the twenty-
four instructors had their students prepare and later re-
vise project plans, make budget estimates, and analyze
completed projects.

Jeppson13 conducted a study which had as one of
its purposes a determination of the importance of selected
activities in supervised farming based on the judgments
of state supervisors, teacher trainers, and teachers of
vocational agriculture. He prepared a list of fifty-
eight activities in supervised farming. The list was
submitted to all state supervisors, head teacher trainers,
and ninety teachers of vocational agriculture reported by

their state supervisors as having been successful in

 

13 Robert B. Jeppson, "A Program of Farm Practice
Supervision for Vocational Agriculture Teachers in Nevada,"
(Special Report, Colorado State College of Agriculture
and Mechanic Arts, Fort Collins, 1940), 77 pp.

130
helping boys develop outstanding programs of supervised
farming. Thirty-eight state supervisors, thirty-three
teacher trainers, and sixty-one teachers responded. These
men were asked to evaluate each of fifty-eight activities
on the basis of its importance.

The following activities were judged "very impor-
tant" by at least three-fourths of the raters: (1) see-
ing there is a satisfactory parent-son relationship; (2)
securing parent cooperation and support; (3).seeing that
boy keeps records of all expenses and income in projects;
(4) helping boy with work at critical periods. Two-
thirds of the evaluators felt that assisting the boy to
keep records of all items was "very important."

Approximately six out of ten of the men indicated
that (1) assisting boy's study and analysis of the home
farm situation and (2) seeing that boy keeps records of
all labor involved in his farm practice program.were
"very important." Substantially fewer of the raters
(forty-two per cent) felt that conducting project tours
with boys and others to evaluate work being done was
"very important." Only one-third of them rated the
keeping of a written supervision record of the boy's farm
practice work as "very important." Helping the boy se-
cure a definite written agreement between him and his

131
parents was considered "very important" by only twenty
per cent of the evaluators.

Perhaps, Jeppson's study would have been more re-
vealing if he had separated the responses received from
the state supervisors, the teacher trainers and the
sixty-one teachers who completed his questionnaire. The
reader of his report may be inclined to wonder whether
these three groups are sufficiently homogeneous to have
treated their responses together.

One of the earlier attempts to study a selected
group of teachers in reference to supervised farming ac-
tivities was made by Swanson}!+ He sent questionnaires
to the state supervisors in ten states with a request
that they be mailed to the ten men considered most suc-
cessful in teaching vocational agriculture and conduct-
ing supervised farming. Fifty-eight men in nine states
returned questionnaires.

Since this study was made during the early stages
of the development of the program of vocational agricul-
ture, it is understandable that a rather restricted con-

cept of the on-farm instructional activities of the

 

14 Herbert B. Swanson, "The Home Project as a
Basis for Supervised Practice in Secondary Vocational
‘Agriculture under the Smith-Hughes Act of 1917," (unpub-
ltghed Master's thesis, Iowa State College, Ames, 1925),
1 pp.

 

132
teacher of vocational agriculture is indicated in the
title of Swanson's investigation, "The Home Project as a
Basis for Supervised Practice in Secondary Vocational Ag-
riculture under the Smith-Hughes Act of 1917." The pur-
pose which he stated for his study, that of "Building an
effective program of supervised practice for secondary
schools in vocational agriculture based upon the home
project," obviously, was not clearly defined. This
seeming failure to adequately point up the major purposes
of his investigation may explain the rather loosely pre-
sented report which appears to have resulted.

Among other findings, Swanson revealed that a
majority of the instructors who responded to his question-
naire (1) required a student to have a home project be—
fore enrolling in vocational agriculture: (2) used either
a verbal or written project agreement; (3) reported that
the boy owned the animals in livestock projects; (4) re-
ported the boy as having full management of his project.

Swanson's study showed considerable variation in
the number of visits which teachers reported they had
made to a pupil's farming program. The visits ranged
from none to thirty during the year and from one to
twelve during the summer. Nine was the modal number of
visits reported for the school year and six in the summer.

Eighteen reported no specific number of visits during the

 

133
school year but indicated they were made "as needed."
Similarly, twelve out of the fifty-eight teachers made
visits "as needed" in the summer.

Deyoe and Masters15 studied a selected group of
thirty departments in Illinois but they confined their
investigation to a special phase of supervised farming,
that of isolating and enumerating some of the practices
used by teachers of vocational agriculture in selecting
and initiating good programs of supervised farming. These
selected departments were believed to have above average
programs of supervised farming on the basis of an examin-
ation of annual reports and the advice of teacher train-
ers and supervisors in Illinois. There was no descrip-
tion of the manner in which the annual reports of super-
vised farming were examined but only a statement that
they were examined.

The teacher was visited and interviewed in each
of the thirty schools. In addition, two first-year
students considered average or above average in their

programs of supervised farming were interviewed and a

 

15 George P. Deyoe with William D. Masters, Prac-
tices and S ecial Factors in Selecting and Initiating
Pro rams of SupervIsea FarfiIn ‘ifi VOcationaI IngcuIEure

r ana,‘IIlinois: DivIsIon offIngcuIEuraI EducaEIon,
University of Illinois, 1950), 20 pp.

 

134

visit was made to the farm home of each to interview the

parents.

The study revealed that ten practices were used by

teachers in half or more of the thirty departments in

selecting and starting programs of supervised farming.

l.

2.

3.

4.

9.

10.

16

Provide class instruction, early in the school
year on selecting and starting programs of super-
vised farming

Utilize activities, sponsored by the F. F. A.
[Future Farmers of America] Chapter, which aid
or motivate students in starting programs of
supervised farming

Use conference periods in school to discuss
supervised farming with individual students

Make pre-enrollment contacts, with prospective
students, which aid in determining enrollments
in vocational agriculture

Make visits to farms, prior to enrollment and/hr
early in the school year, to discuss supervised
farming with boys and parents

Assist students to make estimates of receipts
and expenses of ownership projects under consid-
eration

Guide students to make surveys of home farms to
determine important enterprises, facilities, and
needs as a basis for selecting activities of
supervised farming

Provide a separate class for first—year students

Develop definite business agreements, between boys
and parents, for programs of supervised farming

Hold group meetings with parents early in the
school year to discuss supervised farming

 

16

Ibid., p. 5.

135
While stating their views on the purposes of
supervised farming during interviews, parents tended to
emphasize educational values, while their sons placed
greatest stress on material outcomes. Fifty of the sixty
boys who were interviewed revealed that they had definite

business agreements with their parents.

STUDIES INCLUDING MORE THAN ONE PHASE OF
SUPERVISED FARMING

Peterson17

studied the supervised farming programs
of five schools in New York, all of which were used as
practice teaching centers for prospective teachers of
vocational agriculture. The data were obtained by means
of questionnaires to the 198 boys enrolled in vocational
agriculture in these departments, their parents, and the
seven teachers of vocational agriculture employed in the
five schools. Personal interviews were had with school
officials in the schools where the departments were lo-
cated.

Findings related to this study included: (1)
'Slightly more than one-fifth of the students were town boys;

 

l7 Milo J. Peterson, "Factors Influencing the
Success or Failure of a Selected Number of Supervised
Farming Programs," (unpublished doctoral dissertation,
Cornell University, Ithaca, New York, 1940), 133 pp.

 

 

136
(2) nearly three-fourths of the students had made no
plans for their eventual establishment as farm operators;
(3) only three per cent of the students had any kind of
written agreement; (4) approximately one-fourth of the
students had no assets in farming, either before or
after enrolling in vocational agriculture; (5) almost
three-fourths of the parents reported that the teacher
had not eXplained the purpose of supervised farming work;
(6) nearly all of the parents (ninety-eight per cent)
agreed that a high school boy should have the responsi-
bility for crOps and livestock of his own as a part of
his learning; (7) about six out of every ten boys reported
that they had made no plans whatsoever concerning their
supervised farming nor had a conference with the teacher
in regard to planning and selection of their programs of
supervised farming; (8) one-third of the boys reported
that the teacher had not visited them while about two-
thirds indicated that they had kept records of their
supervised farming.

When one considers that the programs of super-
vised farming included in Peterson's study represented
only a very small segment of the total number of programs,
and that the programs studied could be expected to be
somewhat exceptional since they were a part of schools

used as practice-teaching centers, it is possible that

137
he may have tended to generalize beyond the point that
the limitations of his study would permit. His practice
of expressing data relating to the responses of the
seven teachers as a per cent of the group could give a
distorted picture of this phase of the investigation to
the uncritical reader.

Howard Allen18 made visits to nineteen schools in
New York and to twenty-one in West Virginia for the pur-
pose of studying programs of supervised farming. Thirty—
nine teachers of vocational agriculture and 125 parents
were interviewed. He visited 180 homes.

The programs of twelve teachers were selected and
discussed in some detail. His critical evaluation of
the activities used by teachers in planning seems perti-
nent to this study. In the matter of planning he re-
ported: "Teacher activities aimed specifically toward
planning long-time programs cooperatively were conspic-
uous by their absence."19 His observations regarding

agreements seem relevant:

Efforts to secure agreements with parents
were confined for the most part to whatever the

 

18 Howard B. Allen, "A Study of the Activities of
Vocationa1.Agriculture in Utilizing the Pupils' Home-Farm
Resources for Farm Practice," (unpublished doctoral dis-
sertation, Cornell University, Ithaca, New York, 1932),

15 PD-

19 Ibid., p. 152.

 

 

Ia?!

138

pupilgoarranged at home under pressure of a require-
ment.

Allen reported his study in a smooth, polished
style. His presentation reflected the ability of an un-
usually capable writer. Yet many research workers who
review his study may find themselves coming to the end
of the report asking the question, "What did the investi-
gator find out?" Perhaps, this study might have been
substantially strengthened had Allen worked up a detailed
analysis and interpretation of the data from all of the
cases studied instead of concentrating his attention
largely on only twelve of them.

Robinson21

used a questionnaire check-list to
investigate the efficiency of the supervised farming
programs conducted by boys enrolled in twenty-two depart~
ments in vocational agriculture near Reynolds, Illinois.
Among other results, his findings revealed that (l) ten
teachers of the twenty-two studied, rarely or not at all,
made a survey of enterprises on the home farm.with stu-

dents; (2) twenty out of twenty-two teachers, rarely or

 

2° Ibid., p. 154.

21 Ross 0. Robinson, "Efficiency of Supervised
Farm-Practice Work in Twenty-Two Departments of Vocational
Agriculture Near Reynolds, Illinois," (unpublished Mas-
ter's thesis, Colorado State College of Agriculture and
Mechanic Arts, Fort Collins, 1940), 104 pp.

 

 

139
not at all, had signed a written project agreement; (3)
nine out of the twenty-two teachers rarely had students
make a budget for each project: (4) thirteen out of the
twenty-two teachers, rarely or not at all, examined
project records during home visits.

Robinson's study is unique among all of the in-
vestigations reviewed in this chapter in that his is the
only one in which there was employed a statistical test
of significance to the data collected.

Kirkland22 used a form from the U. 3. Office of
Education to study programs of supervised farming con-
ducted in eighteen departments of vocational agriculture
in Tennessee. This form was carried by the investigator
to each of the eighteen departments and filled out dur-
ing an interview with each student enrolled in vocational
agriculture.

Some of the findings brought out by this survey
were: (1) a large majority of the students had some de-
gree of financial interest in their projects, either as
owners, part owners, or renters. Thirty per cent of the

boys had complete ownership while only six per cent

 

22 James B. Kirkland, "A Study of Supervised Farm
Practice Programs in Certain Schools of Tennessee," (un-
published Master's thesis, University of Tennessee, Knox-
ville, 1936), 66 pp.

 

 

140
had no financial interest in their programs of supervised
farming; (2) somewhat more than half of the students
(57.4 per cent) formulated a long-time program of super-
vised farming at the beginning of the course in vocational
agriculture; (3) the per cent of students engaging in
supplementary farm practices as a part of their programs
of supervised farming, ranged from about fifteen per
cent to 100 per cent.

Kirkland's findings are not very closely asso-
ciated with the stated purpose of his study, namely, "To
determine how the departments of vocational agriculture
in certain schools of Tennessee are planning and con-
ducting supervised farm-practice programs." As is evi-
denced above, the results of his study are stated more
in terms of the existing status of programs rather than
how the programs are planned and conducted.

Eldridge23 listed the following objectives for
his study: (1) to show that there is a need for a more
comprehensive conception of the scope, importance and
efficiency of supervised practice in vocational agricul-

ture in Colorado; (2) to show that supervised practice

 

23 Hubert D. Eldridge, “Determining Methods of
Improving the Supervised Practice Program in Vocational
Agriculture in the High Schools of Colorado," (unpublished
Master's thesis, Colorado State College of Agriculture and
Mechanic Arts, Fort Collins, 1929), 97 pp.

141
in vocational education in agriculture in Colorado could
be improved; and (3) to develop methods of improving
supervised practice in vocational agriculture in Colorado.
By way of a general criticism of this investigation,
Eldridge seemed to lose sight of these stated objectives
as his study unfolded.

Knight24 also used a questionnaire to study the
procedures and practices followed by teachers of vocational
agriculture in Tennessee in conducting programs of super-
vised farming. The questionnaires were submitted dur-
ing sectional conferences of teachers held in June, 1942.
A total of 171 teachers furnished usable data, or approx-
imately eighty per cent of the total number of white
teachers.

This study revealed that approximately two-thirds
of the teachers informed new students concerning super-
vised farming during the first week of school. The most
commonly used techniques to stimulate student interest
in supervised farming and the number of times reported
by the teachers were: opportunity to make money, 57;

comparison of various programs, 42; visits to projects,

 

24 E. B. Knight, "Procedures and Practices of
Tennessee Teachers of Vocational Agriculture in Supervis-
ing Farming Programs of All-Day Students," (Nonthesis
Study, University of Tennessee, Knoxville, 1942), 50 pp.

142

38; fairs, contests, exhibits, prizes, 35; stressing
personal benefits, 24; publicity, pictures, 22; advanced
F. F. A. degrees, 19. A majority of the teachers (159)
relied on personal interviews, largely while visiting
the pupils' homes, to acquaint parents with supervised
farming.

Eight out of ten of the teachers indicated that
their new students had programs of supervised farming
in operation by the end of the first semester. Two-
thirds of the teachers used a written project agreement
only. Eighty-nine teachers used the form which appears
in the supervised farm program record book officially
adopted in Tennessee.

Help from parents or other relatives was men-
tioned most frequently as the method used to finance
the students' programs of supervised farming. Consider-
able variation existed in the percentage of students
having ownership in projects. Two—thirds of the teachers
estimated that fifty per cent or more of their students
had ownership in their programs of supervised farming.
The average number of visits per student, which the
teacher reported having made during the year, ranged
from one to twenty-four with a median of five and three

tenths.

 

143

Abrams25 was another investigator to use the
questionnaire to study programs of supervised farming.
One hundred twenty-two of the 191 teachers in Louisiana
responded to his inquiry which was designed to determine
practices used in the development and supervision of
students' farming programs.

Responses of these teachers indicated that nearly
three-fourths of them worked individually with parents
in building the students' programs of supervised farming.
However, less than half of them (forty-three per cent)
attempted to familiarize parents with the purposes of
supervised farming before the student entered high school.
Most of the teachers (ninety-five per cent) reported
that they used a special program of instruction to launch
students into supervised farming. The time spent in this
activity was reported to range from one week to sixteen
weeks while six weeks was the modal time indicated by
the teachers. Only forty-six per cent of the teachers
reported the use of a general farm survey. "After school"
was the time when most of the teachers said they made

home visits.

 

25 Morris N. Abrams, "The Practices Used in the
DevelOpment and Supervision of Supervised Farming by
Teachers of VOcational Agriculture in Louisiana," (un-
published Master's thesis, Louisiana State University,
Baton Rouge, 1947), 98 pp.

 

 

 

 

 

144

Kilt226 studied twelve departments of vocational
agriculture in‘Western Indiana. One of the purposes of
the study was to discover to what extent certain speci-
fied methods are being used to determine the farm train-
ing needs of the pupil enrolled in vocational agriculture
and to set up and relate his program of supervised farm
study to these training needs. Kiltz' data were gathered
by questionnaires to the 240 boys enrolled in the twelve
departments, by an examination of records in the office
of the State Supervisor of Vbcational Agriculture, and
by personal contacts of the investigator.

He found that approximately forty-five per cent
of the students had not planned for more than one year
of study in supervised farming. He discovered what
seemed to be a common deficiency in that boys did not
broaden their programs of supervised farming to include
a number of crop and livestock enterprises, and they were
not continuing production in the same enterprise for more
than one year. Approximately, three-fourths of the boys
had some degree of ownership in their programs of super-

vised farming. Over half of the teachers studied

 

26 Kenneth‘w. Kiltz, "The Relation.Between the
Supervised Farm Practice Programs and the Farm Resources
of the Boys of Twelve Vocational Agriculture Departments .
in‘Western Indiana," (unpublished Master's thesis, Cornell
University, Ithaca, New York, 1930), 144 pp.

145
(fifty-five per cent) made organized surveys to discover
training needs of their students. Practices of the
teachers in determining the students' programs of super-
vised farming in order of frequency were: (1) conver-
sation with the boy; (2) analysis of the farm with the
boy at school; (3) study of the boy's interest; (4) con-
versation with the boy and his parents. There was con-
siderable variation in the number of home visits made
by the teacher. The average number of visits per student
per year varied from one to seven and a half.

Owen Allen27 submitted a questionnaire to ten
teachers and 205 boys enrolled in their departments for
the purpose of determining the factors which influenced
the type of supervised farming programs which were car-
ried by the students.

From the phrasing which he used to state his
factors, it is a bit difficult to assess the findings
of his study. While they were not clearly pointed up,
the factors which Allen listed suggest some important
considerations in the development of programs of super-

vised farming.

 

27 Owen.w. Allen, "A Study of the Factors Af-
fecting the Supervised Farm Training Programs of Veca-
tional Agriculture Students of the Salt River Valley of
Arizona," (unpublished Master's thesis, Colorado State '
College of Agriculture and Mechanic Arts, Fort Collins,
1937). 77 pp-

146

Bible28 also used the questionnaire to study
factors affecting the development of programs of super-
vised farming. He asked 432 pupils in fifteen schools
in North Central West Virginia and fifty-two of the
eighty-eight teachers of vocational agriculture in.West
Virginia to indicate the relative importance of nineteen
selected factors as they affected programs of supervised
farming.

Bible listed the following factors as those
which were considered of "great importance" by seventy
per cent or more of the students: (1) student's interest
in vocational agriculture; (2) cooperation given by
parents; (3) ownership of farm by father; (4) oppor-
tunity for student to make some money; and (5) the
teacher's influence. The same factors, and in addition
the factors "kind of crops and livestock on home farm"
and "our home farm conditions" were judged "very impor-
tant" by seventy per cent or more of the teachers.

’ In an attempt to determine characteristics of

the supervised farming program in Nebraska, Deems29

28 Bond L. Bible, "Significant Factors in the
Development of a Long-Time Supervised Farm Practice Pro-
gram," (unpublished Master's thesis, The Pennsylvania
State College, State College, 1940), 69 pp.

 

29 Howard H. Deems, "A Study of Selected Aspects
of the Vocational Agriculture Supervised Farming Program.
in Nebraska," (unpublished Master's thesis, University
of Nebraska,.Lincoln, 1950), 97 pp.

147
submitted questionnaires to twenty-three teachers of
vocational agriculture in that state who had been in
the department where they were teaching for five years
or more. All of the questionnaires, except two, were
filled out by the teachers during a visit by the investi—
gator to their schools. Deems supplemented the data from
these questionnaires by securing additional information
from records and reports in the State Department of Vo-
cational Agriculture in Nebraska.

Deems arbitrarily assigned a standard point-value
for each production project, for each improvement proj-
ect, and for each supplementary farm practice completed
by a student. By totaling these points, he was able to
calculate a numerical measure of the size of each stu-
dent's farming program. From these data, he made several
interesting comparisons.

Among other findings, Deems' study revealed that
an enrollment in a department, which included a large
percentage of town boys, was definitely associated with
smaller programs of supervised farming. In contrast
he found that a greater number of hours devoted to a
study of specific problems on supervised farming in the
classroom resulted in a larger average size of each stu-
dent's program of supervised farming. The number and

the length of ferm.visits made by the teacher appeared

148
to influence the size of the supervised farming programs
to only a limited extent, if at all.

From a list of fifteen factors presented by the
investigator, the following three were judged more im-
portant by the twenty-three instructors in motivating
students in the development of a good farming program:
(1) parents take interest and cooperate very well; (2)
boy wants to start farming; (3) boy has a large amount
of money or credit.

Evans30 had questionnaires presented to selected
students in fifty departments of vocational agriculture
in Pennsylvania to determine pupil reactions to the kind
of supervision and visitation which they wished to have
from their teachers. The departments were sampled at
random and six questionnaires were mailed to each teacher
with instructions to have them filled out by two students
whom the teacher rated high in scholarship, two students
judged medium, and two rated low in scholarship.

There appeared to be no significant differences
in the responses made by the students in the three
scholarship groups. Of the 235 students who submitted

 

30 Robert E. Evans, "Pupil Reactions to Project
Visitation and Supervision in Vocational Agriculture,"
(unpublished Master's thesis, The Pennsylvania State
College, State College, 1946), 43 pp.

 

149
questionnaires, at least nine out of every ten of them
preferred that the teacher: (1) completely inform them
concerning the supervised farming program before they
enrolled in vocational agriculture; (2) assist them in
determining projects that best fit their farming situa-
tions; (3) insist that their project records be kept up
to date; (4) check their project records for complete-
ness during each visit; (5) encourage students to have
full ownership of their programs of supervised farming;
(6) offer criticism that will lead to the improvement
of the quality of their livestock and crops.

In general, this study seemed to reveal that
students were ready to cooperate with the teacher and
that they desire his help in carrying out their
individual programs of supervised farming. There was a
notable exception. Only thirty per cent of the students
preferred to have the teacher notify them a few days
before he planned to make a visit.

Shontz31 studied the reactions of former students
to determine some of the strengths and weaknesses of

programs of supervised farming. A list of 574 young men

 

31 David F. Shontz, "Improvement of the Super-
vised Farming Program in Vocational Agriculture Based on
Opinions of Former Students Who Are Now Established in
Farming," (unpublished Master's thesis, The Pennsylvania
State College, State College, 1945), 78 pp.

 

150
considered established in farming was secured with the
help of thirty-three of the thirty-five district super-
visors in vocational agriculture in Pennsylvania. This
list was judged to constitute a representative sample
of the young men engaged in farming in Pennsylvania who
had one or more years of vocational agriculture in high
school. Questionnaires were sent to these young men on
which they were asked to react to certain activities as
they related to the programs of supervised farming which
they carried while in high school.

In general these young men reflected a favorable
attitude toward the work. Eighty per cent or more of
them indicated that (1) their projects were in enter-
prises in which they expected to engage as farmers; (2)
the farming enterprises in their project programs in-
cluded those commonly found in their community; (3) the
teacher gave them assistance during the difficult pe-
riods in carrying out their projects; (4) approved
practices suggested by the teacher were followed; (5)
definite agreements were made with parents concerning
management of projects; (6) students did the majority of
the work on their projects; (7) students had definite
managerial experiences in connection with their projects;
(8) their project program helped them to get started in
farming.

 

151
STUDIES GIVING SPECIAL CONSIDERATION T0 DIFFICULTIES
IN CONDUCTING SUPERVISED FARMING

A few studies have been completed which have had
as one of their primary purposes a discovery of the dif-
ficulties experienced by teachers of vocational agricul-
ture in conducting programs of supervised farming.

Field32 asked thirty-five state supervisors to list the
more common causes of failure among teachers of vocational
agriculture. "Weak in supervised farm practice" was re-
ported most frequently of all causes, or by twenty-nine

of the supervisors. Similarly, when the supervisors

were asked to indicate the type of improvement most
needed by teachers of vocational agriculture as a group,
"supervision of farm practice" was reported thirty-one
times or most frequently of all.33

In an attempt to gain some knowledge of the rel-
ative difficulty of the activities of teachers of vocational

34

agriculture, Thommasson prepared a check-list of

 

32 Albert M. Field, "An Evaluation of Certain
Phases of Theory and Practice in the Supervision of In-
struction in Vocational Agriculture with a Suggestive
Program for Improvement," (unpublished doctoral disser-
tation, Cornell University, Ithaca, New'York, 1929), 354 pp.

33 Ibid., P- 55'
34 M. E. Thomasson, "Difficulties of Teachers,"

(unpublished Master's thesis, University of Minnesota,
Minneapolis, 1930), 151 pp.

152
professional activities that were thought to involve
difficulty. This list was submitted to 126 Negro teach-
ers of vocational agriculture in the states of Virginia,
North Carolina, Georgia, Florida, and Arkansas. One
hundred six teachers returned usable data.

The area of supervised farming, although includ-
ing but nine activities in the total of fifty—eight, had
six ranking among the first fifteen considered of great-
est difficulty. The first four ranks were given to the
following activities: (1) getting parents of each boy
to permit him to keep the net income from his project;
(2) getting the parents of the pupil to allow him to con-
duct his project according to improved farm practice; (3)
getting each pupil to develop a project program that is
large and varied enough to provide sufficient training
in all important local farm jobs; (4) getting the pupils
to keep satisfactory records of their projects. The
activity "getting the pupils to work out their own proj-
ect plans and study outlines" ranked nine, while "secur-
ing freedom for each boy to manage his project himself"
ranked ten.

As one phase of his study to discover the amount,
kinds, and nature of pre-employment training necessary

to conduct supervised farm practice with all-day pupils,

153
Spanton35 asked 267 teachers of vocational agriculture
to indicate on a check-list the degree of importance and
the difficulty in learning to perform each of seventy-
nine activities in supervised farming.

While the findings of his study are too extensive
to be reported in detail in this review, one of his con-
cluding statements on parent-son-teacher relationships -
seemed particularly significant. He asserted:

One of the greatest difficulties confronted
by teachers (especially new or inexperienced teach-
ers) in conducting supervised practice activities
consists in their inability to deal effectively with
human relationship problems which is so essential in
dealing individually and collectively with farm boys
and their parents particularly at the time arrange-
ments are being madg for the pupils' supervised farm
practice programs.3

Wilhoit37 sent a questionnaire to 114 Iowa teach-
ers of vocational agriculture for the purpose of dis—
covering difficulties which they experienced in conduct-

ing supervised farming. Seventy teachers returned this

 

35 W. T. Spanton, "The Pre-Employment Training
of Teachers of Vocational Agriculture to Conduct Super-
vised Farm Practice in All-Day Schools," (unpublished
doctoral dissertation, American University, Washington,
Do 0., 1932). 245 PD.

36 Ibid., p. 206.

37 Samuel F. Wilhoit, "An Analysis of the Diffi-
culties Involved in the Supervision of Projects in Voca-
tional Agriculture," (unpublished Master's thesis, Iowa
State College, Ames, 1927), 113 pp.

 

 

154
survey. The difficulties listed most frequently were:
(1) fathers see no value or lack interest in new ideas
or practices; (2) lack of c00peration between boy and
father; (3) lack of interest on the part of boy; (4)
lack of money to provide and carry out good projects;
(5) pupils keep poor records.

Perhaps Wilhoit's study could have been improved
not only in its organization and execution but also in
its quality of reporting.

Buck38 also used a questionnaire to discover
difficulties of teachers of vocational agriculture. The
questionnaire was sent to 268 teachers in New York,
Tennessee, Texas, and'West Virginia. He received 180
returns from this survey. Responses from these teach—
ers, according to Buck, showed the following to repre-
sent the items of greatest difficulty: (1) to have boy
visit his project with you during school hours on account
of conflicts with studies; (2) to get "man-size" proj-
ects; (3) to get pupils to use data after they are sum-
marized; (4) to get work done in a way that the pupil
will learn most from it; (5) to get project selected on

a business basis.

 

38 John P. Buck, "An.Ana1ysis of Felt Difficul-
ties of Teachers of Vecational Agriculture in Home Proj-
ect‘Work," (unpublished Master's thesis, Cornell Univer-
sity, Ithaca, New York, 1925), 100 pp.

155

Blackburn39 was another investigator to use a
questionnaire to discover difficulties met by teachers
of vocational agriculture in conducting supervised
farming. This study had been so inadequately reported
that it was difficult to comprehend clearly all of the
findings. According to data presented, three-fourths of
the teachers reported that their students did not keep
records. They also indicated that sixty per cent of
their students never kept project accounts up to date.

Adams40 set up the discovery of difficulties en-
countered by teachers of vocational agriculture as a
major purpose of his study. He sent a questionnaire
to 117 teachers in New York. Ninety-seven instructors re-
turned his survey. His study indicated that it is more
difficult to maintain high standards in projects than
to carry out any other phase of supervised farming. The
data also revealed that athletics was the school ac-

tivity which interfered most in conducting programs of
supervised farming. Developing satisfactory farming

 

39 James w. Blackburn, "A Study of the Difficul-
ties Encountered in Supervised Farm Practice in All Agri-
cultural Departments of Massachusetts," (unpublished
problem, University of Massachusetts, Amherst, 1941),

44 pp.

40Wayne W. Adams, "The Launching of VOcational
Agriculture Boys into Supervised Farm Practice Work,"
(unpublished.Master's thesis, Cornell University, Ithaca,
New York, 1931), 71 pp.

   

156
programs for town boys was recognized as another major

problem.

STUDIES RELATING TO A PARTICULAR ASPECT OR
PHASE OF SUPERVISED FARMING

The research studies reviewed in the remaining
pages ofthis chapter relate largely to some single phase
of supervised farming.

Phipps41 made a study which had as one of its
major purposes the discovery of procedures and methods
used by teachers of vocational agriculture in promoting
and motivating programs of supervised farming.' As one
phase of the investigation, a questionnaire was pre-
pared and submitted to 337 teachers of vocational agri-
culture in Illinois. Two hundred eighty-five, or 84.5
per cent of the questionnaires, were returned. The
teachers were not only asked to check the activities they
used but also to indicate the value they placed on them.

Of the thirty-seven promotional and motivating
activities listed, ten were used by at least three-fourths

of the 285 teachers: (1) discussion of opportunities for

 

41
Lloyd J. Phipps, Supervised Farmin Pro rams
in Illinois, University of IIIInoIs EulIeEIn, No. 53,
'CBlIege of Education, Bureau of Research and Service
(Urbana, Illinois: University of Illinois, 1949), 39 pp.

157
profit from farming programs; (2) discussion of oppor-

tunities for learning in connection with farming pro-
grams; (3) showing at fairs; (4) field trips and tours;
(5) discussions of how farming programs help one become

a farmer; (6) participation in judging contests; (7)
discussions of accomplishments of other boys; (8) dis-
cussion of state requirements for supervised farming
programs; (9) newspaper publicity; (10) grading of record
books.

In terms of value placed on the activity, the
ten rating highest were: (1) discussion of opportuni-
ties for profit from farming programs; (2) discussion of
opportunities for learning in connection with farming
programs; (3) field trips and tours; (4) discussion of
how farming programs help one become a farmer; (5) local
community or Future Farmers of America fair; (6) dis-
cussion of accomplishments of other boys; (7) farm shop
activities; (8) use of point systems, awards, and ac-
tivity charts; (9) use of older boys to discuss their
farming programs with beginners; (10) showing at fairs.

It can be seen that some activities, even though
used by most of the teachers, did not show a high value
rating by the instructors. Showing at fairs, for in-
stance, ranked third in terms of use by teachers but was

assigned a value rank of ten; participation in judging

158
contests ranked sixth in use but nineteenth in value;
discussion of state requirements for supervised farming
programs was eighth in use but ranked twenty-second in
value; and newspaper publicity was ninth in use but was
given a rank of only thirtieth in value.

In another part of his study, Phipps visited
eleven schools to conduct interviews with the teachers
and an average of four boys in each department of voca-
tional agriculture. He reported that no attempt was
made to select departments with the best programs.

The factors considered in selection of the eleven
schools were listed but it was not clearly reported how
these factors were used. The boys interviewed in each
department were judged by their instructors to have good
farming programs.

From the boys, Phipps tried to find out what

motivated them to develop their farming programs. 0n
the basis of frequency of mention and intensity of feel-
ings, the following seemed to be the most important:
(1) cooperation of parents; (2) experience with super-
vised farming program by older brother or relative; (3)
Opportunity to farm; (4) Future Farmer of America Pro-
gram; (5) tradition in department or community; (6)

classroom discussion of farming program.

 

 

159

Burger42 made a study of plan and record books
used in conducting supervised farming. He designed a
questionnaire on the subject which was submitted to
fifty professors of agricultural education in the forty-
eight states, Hawaii, and Puerto Rico. Twenty-nine of
these men responded. He also requested copies of plan
and record books used and received materials from thirty-
seven states.

Eleven states used two books, six states used
three or more books while two states had no book at all.
Some of the more prominent features of these books and
the number of states providing space for them were: map
of home farm, 22; long-time plans, 26; and written
agreement, 23. Only three states indicated that oral
agreements were sufficient.

Brakensiek43

attempted to develOp some practical
principles for the improvement of planning and record
books. He analyzed twenty-seven record and plan books

and used a questionnaire to solicit the opinion of fifty

 

42 Warren'W. Burger, "An Analysis of Plan and
Record Books used in Conducting Supervised Farming Pro—
grams," (unpublished Master's thesis, Cornell Univer-
sity, Ithaca, New York, 1947), 84 pp.

43 Irwin L. Brakensiek, "An Analysis of Farm
Practice Books Now in Use and Opinions of Teachers Con-
cerning Them as a Basis for Their Improvement," (unpub-
lished Master's thesis, University of Illinois, Urbana,
1940). 74 pp.

160
teachers of vocational agriculture in Illinois. Among
other findings, he concluded that there is little agree-
ment as to what should be included in a record and plan-
ning book and how it should be organized. In general,
books were criticized for failure to give a picture of
the farming program as a whole, for neglecting educa-
tional outcomes as measured by changes in the boy, and
for not providing space for the student to set up def-
inite goals or objectives.

In a study of parental cooperation in relation

“4 inter-

to improving programs of supervised.farming, Shaw
viewed eighteen teachers and presented a questionnaire
to other instructors of vocational agriculture in North
Carolina. He secured a total of seventy-six completed
questionnaires including those received during the per-
sonal interviews.

He found that only five of the seventy-six teach-
ers were making regular use of meetings to familiarize
parents with the program of vocational agriculture.

Eighteen teachers reported that they used this method

 

uu'William.C. Shaw, "Improving Supervised Farm—
ing Programs in North Carolina by Means of Parental
Cooperation," (unpublished Master's thesis, State College
of Agriculture and Engineering of the University of North
Carolina, Raleigh, 1947), 90 pp.

- A:

-----.. fl M‘. _

161
somewhat while fifty-three revealed that they did not
hold this kind of meeting at all.

Shaw used a substantial portion of his report to
present a plan for a series of meetings to acquaint
parents with the program of vocational agriculture, in-
cluding supervised farming. While purportedly based on
the experiences and recommendations of leaders in the
field of vocational agriculture, it does not stand too
careful examination. One develops the feeling that his
plan is based largely on personal opinion rather than the
ideas of the leaders. Many of his citations are pointed
toward approved techniques for conducting adult meetings
in general. It is questionable whether he can apply these
techniques specifically to his prOposal for conducting a
series of parent-meetings to develop an understanding
of vocational agriculture. He fails to justify the num-
ber and content of the eight meetings which he suggests.
His plan gives the impression of an attempt to superim-
pose a program on parents relating to matters which the
investigator feels they should know about.

Considered on the whole, it is very doubtful
whether Shaw effectively realized the several purposes

which he drew up in his study.

162

Kirkpatrick45 presented a questionnaire to ninety
teachers of vocational agriculture in Oklahoma and exam-
ined seventy-five completed record books from fifteen
schools in an attempt to determine some of the methods
used and difficulties encountered in getting boys to
keep accurate and complete records. The findings reveal
that a majority of the students were not interested in
keeping records and did not keep accurate records. Only
thirty per cent of the teachers made it a practice to
inspect records each time they visited the student's
farming program. Kirkpatrick concludes: "The findings
of this study indicate clearly that teachers of vocational
agriculture are not using effective methods in teaching
project record keeping, accounting, and analysis."46

Wiswall1+7 made a special study of records in the
supervisory office in Idaho to determine the extent of
project visitation by teachers in that state. He found

the average number of visits per boy in a year was six

 

45 Allan G. Kirkpatrick, "A Study of Supervised
Practice Records and Accounts," (unpublished Master's
thesis, Oklahoma Agricultural and Mechanical College,
Stillwater, 1934), 50 pp.

46 Ibid., p. 42.

47 Clinton H. Wiswall, "A Study of Project Super-
vision in Idaho for the Years 1932-1933 and 1933-1934,"
(unpublished Master's thesis, University of Idaho, Moscow,
1936). 45 pp-

 

 

 

163
and one tenth, with a range in average visits from eleven
and four tenths down to two.

Lemon48 seems to have done a rather effective job
of studying thirty-two Ohio teachers for the purpose of
isolating the most effective practices used by teachers
of vocational agriculture while supervising farming
programs of students. Each of four state supervisors
was asked to select eight teachers who were conducting ./
successful programs. These men were visited and inter-
viewed with the aid of a questionnaire.

Most of the teachers made both announced and un-
announced visits. The preferred time of the day for
summer visits was in the morning from seven to ten. Dur-
ing the school year, most teachers preferred to make home
visits after school. The largest number of teachers
desired to make two visits during an evening, each lasting
approximately an hour. The only items included in the
record of farm visits by a majority of the teachers were

name of boy, date of visit, and recommendations.

 

#8 Ralph D. Lemon, ”Farming Program Supervision
of All-Day Students as Conducted by Selected Teachers of
‘Vocational Agriculture in Ohio," (unpublished Master's
thesis, Ohio State University, Columbus, 1946), 63 pp.

 

 

164

In another of the better studies reviewed, Hu1149
evaluated father-son agreements and partnerships exist-
ing among all-day students in vocational agriculture in
North Carolina. One hundred teachers were selected by
random sampling. In addition to asking them to fill
out a questionnaire, he requested them to give the names
of any of their all-day students who had partnership
agreements. The first 106 names received were asked to
participate in his study. Nineteen of these young men
were interviewed while fifty-six returned a question-
naire.

Eighty-six per cent of the teachers were in favor
of written agreements but only sixty-nine per cent indi-
cated that their students had written agreements. Fifty-
six per cent of the fifty-five teachers responding to
the questionnaire indicated that the project agreement
was signed by the student, the father, and the teacher.
The students received all of the income from.fifty per
cent of their projects, and one fourth the income from
twelve per cent of their projects. Fifty-six per cent

of the students favored written project agreements while

 

49 Billy W. Hull, ”A Study of Father-Son Agree-
ments Among Students of Vocational Agriculture in North
Carolina," (unpublished Master's thesis, State College of
Agriculture and Engineering of the University of North
Carolina, Raleigh, 1949), 105 pp.

 

165
twenty-one per cent favored oral agreements. Sixty-one
per cent of the students had written agreements while
thirty-nine had oral agreements. The fathers of forty-
seven per cent of the students had signed an agreement.
Teachers had signed project agreements for forty-two per
cent of the seventy-four boys surveyed. Fifty-one per cent
of the boys planned to farm, twenty-nine per cent were un-

decided while twenty per cent did not plan to farm.
SUMMARY

Before bringing this review to a close, it seems
well to pause briefly to examine the studies reported in
this chapter for the purpose of pointing out, in a gen-
eral way, how those investigations differ from the one
completed by the writer and how the present study makes
a special contribution to research in supervised farming.

In the method of collecting data, a majority of
the investigators relied primarily upon some type of mail
questionnaire. In the main these were designed in such
a way that the respondent could not exercise a great deal
of choice when filling out the questionnaire. A few of
the investigators, such as Rodeberg, Kirkland, Deems,
Lemon, and Shaw, collected data by means of a personal
interview but, as in the case of those who gathered data

by mail, they used a prepared questionnaire while

166
conducting these interviews, which largely limited the
responses of the informants. Seemingly, about the only
apparent advantage of the interview over the mail ques-
tionnaire in these instances, was to insure that the data
would be made available.

Phipps and Sweany employed a type of interview
which seemed to allow the informant considerably more
freedom in making his responses but the interview was
used only in a very limited way in their studies. Deyoe
and Masters, Howard Allen, and workers in the National
Evaluative Study of Local Programs of vocational agri-
culture, made extensive use of the interview. The
study by Deyoe and Masters was confined to one phase of
supervised farming, that of selecting and initiating
programs. The National Evaluative Study, however, was
not even limited to supervised farming but considered
all aspects of vocational agriculture. Furthermore, the
primary emphasis was on programs rather than on teachers
associated with the programs. Allen's study, while con-
fined to supervised farming, was so unstructured and so
general in character that his interviews did not seem to
yield very much in the way of specific findings.

A few investigators examined recorded data, usu-
ally in state reports, primarily to round out and to sup-

plement data secured from other sources. Rodeberg, Sweany,

 

167

Deyoe and Masters, and Deems are examples of such cases.
Wiswall's study, however, was confined almost entirely
to an analysis of data from state reports. Rodeberg,
Sweany, and Deems made considerable use of information
from state sources but for different purposes. Deyoe
and Masters merely indicated that they had examined
state reports but they did not show how they had used
them.

In the present study several approaches were
used to collect data. Special attention was given to the
interview as a means of collecting information. It is
possible that Howard Allen may have conducted as many or
more interviews on supervised farming as the writer but,
outside of Allen, it appears that no other independent
investigator has made such an extensive use of the inter-
view technique while confining his research to supervised
farming. In so far as investigations in supervised
farming are concerned, the present study is apparently
unique in that the interview was conducted in such a way
that it allowed a high degree of freedom in the responses
given by the informant but at the same time provided a
considerable amount of data which could be readily
quantified.

The writer also made extensive use of recorded

data in the present study. It appears that no other

 

 

 

168
independent investigation in supervised farming has
involved quite as detailed and comprehensive analysis of
data from summaries of school programs of supervised
farming as has been included in the present study when
the nine measures of effectiveness were applied to the
final reports of eighty-four schools.

The writer made a limited but seemingly impor—
tant use of the mail questionnaire when this device was
employed to gather and evaluate measures of effective-
ness in supervised farming.

Another important source of data was the liter-
ature. It is believed that the critical examination of
expert opinion which is reported in Chapter IV as a
part of the procedure involved in developing the ten work-
ing principles on conducting supervised farming, repre-
sents the most nearly complete compilation of thinking
on the subject which has been written.

This study is also unique in that it focuses
special attention on two groups of teachers, those in a
selected stratum of eighty-four teachers who were determ-
ined to have the more effective and those found to have
the less effective programs of supervised farming. The
literature does not record any other study in supervised
farming in which two extreme groups of teachers were

segregated on the basis of their programs of supervised

169
farming as revealed in an examination of recorded
data.

Sweany used such data in a limited way to de-
termine thirty teachers in Iowa who had superior pro-
grams. Deyoe and Masters indicated that they examined
state reports in Illinois as one source of information
to reveal teachers with superior programs of supervised
farming.

Rodeberg's efforts to have thirty-three teachers
of vocational agriculture rated superior, average, and
poor on the basis of independent judgments of their
supervised farming programs by two state supervisors
and a teacher trainer, seem to represent the only other
attempt to divide teachers into groups prior to collect-
ing data from them. He, of course, studied all three
groups but with different objectives than were set up
in the present study. In addition, he had a much higher
prOportion of the teachers included in his study who were
classified in his extreme groups than was the case in
the present investigation. Rodeberg included thirty per
cent of the thirty-three teachers in his study in each
extreme group while the present study had only fifteen
per cent of the eighty-four teachers who had been in
their present jobs three years or longer, classified in

either of the extreme groups which were studied. Thus,

170
in summary, it can be stated that Rodeberg's study dif-
fered from the present one in (l) the method of select-
ing teachers to be studied; (2) the objectives of the
study; and (3) the character of the groupings of teachers.

Campbell was another investigator to separate
teachers into groups. He divided teachers into two
groups on the basis of the quality of their programs of
supervised farming as judged by a state supervisor. His
two groups were established from teachers who had re-
sponded to a questionnaire which had been submitted in a
random manner to instructors in four states. It can be
seen that his study differed from the present one, among
other ways, because: (1) his groups did not represent
extremes; (2) his groups were established after data were
collected from teachers; and (3) the teachers were clas-
sified on the basis of the judgment of quality of pro-
grams of supervised farming by a state supervisor.

While no other attempts were made to group
teachers on the basis of the quality of programs of
supervised farming, as one phase of the National Eval-
uative Study, the programs of supervised farming in 400
departments of vocational agriculture were divided into
five groups on the basis of the pooled judgment of the
evaluators who assisted with the study. In Michigan,

at least, the departments examined were not randomly

171
selected but were chosen on the basis of the combined
opinions of state supervisors and teacher trainers. It
becomes apparent that this study also differs from the
present one in many ways, among which are: (1) it con-
sidered all phases of a program of vocational agricul-
ture; (2) it concentrated attention on programs rather
than on teachers; and (3) it grouped departments which
had not been randomly selected on the basis of judgment
after data had been collected from them.

In addition to the unique character of the groups
studied and the method of selecting them, special atten-
tion should be called to the instrument which was de-
veloped in the present investigation for measuring ef-
fectiveness of local programs of supervised farming.
While further study and refinement of this device are
needed, it conceivably could develop into a highly use-
ful aid.

Finally, attention should be called to the effort
which has been made in this study to discover reasons
for the failure of teachers in the two groups to use
certain recommended practices in supervised farming. It
is believed that this is the first attempt made by any
investigator to develop an explanation for the behavior
patterns which exist among teachers while conducting pro-

grams of supervised farming.

CHAPTER IV
RECOMMENDED PRACTICES IN SUPERVISED FARMING

The major effort in this chapter has been cen-
tered on the development of working principles which em-
body recommended practices in conducting supervised
farming in which there seems to be substantial agreement
among the leadership in vocational agriculture. This
purpose has been accomplished, primarily, by an examina-
tion of the literature.

Supervised farming in vocational agriculture is
a comparatively new development in education. In so far
as the writer is able to determine, education in vocational
agriculture represents one of the first organized efforts
on the part of the public school to utilize the student's
home environment as a medium for teaching.

The job of launching into such a relatively un-
charted area in education has been a task commanding the
time and attention of numerous individuals, agencies,
and groups. Writers have devoted entire volumes to a

1. 2.

consideration of the subject. 3 A monthly publication

1 George P. Deyoe, Supervised Farming in Vocational
Agriculture (Danville, Illinois: Interstate PFInters &
PuBIIsfiers, 1945), 502 pp.

 

2 Carsie Hammonds and w. R. Tabb, Your Farmin
Pro ram £Lexington, Kentucky: Trafton PubIIEHing Com-
pany. 9 5). 174 pp-

173
for workers in the profession of teaching vocational
agriculture, The Agricultural Education Magazine,4
scarcely puts out an issue which does not have at least
one article on supervised farming. Administrative agen-
cies, both Federal and state, have published bulletins
dealing entirely with the work.5’ 6’ 7’ 8’ 9 Departments

of teacher education provide both pre-service and in-

service training in supervised farming, and in some

 

3 G. A. Schmidt, Projects and the Project Method
in Agricultural EducationIINew‘York: The Century Co.,
'I926), xxvii + 360 pp.

4 The Agricultural Education Magazine (Danville,
Illinois: Interstate Printers &‘PubIISHers).

 

5 Supervised Farm Practice Planning, Federal Board
for Vocational EducatTonfB-IIIIé'tIn No. 165, Agricultural
Series No. 42 (Washington: Government Printing Office,
1932): 125 pp.

6 Training Teachers in Supervised Farm Practice,
Federal Board for VbcationaIIEducation,‘BuIIetIn No. I65,
Agricultural Series No. 42 (Washington: Government
Printing Office, 1932), 125 pp.

 

7 W. A. Ross, D. M. Clements, and E. J. Johnson,
Directing Vocational Agriculture Day-School Students in
Developing Their.Farming Programs, U. S. OTfIce of Edi:
catIOn,*VOCatIOnaIIDIVIEion BuIIetin No. 225, Agricul-
tural Series No. 56 (Washington: Government Printing
Office, 1944), 72 pp.

8 Supervised Farm Practice, Bulletin No. 250,
Revised (LanSIng, MicRIgan: The State Board of Control
for Vocational Education, 1942), 61 pp.

 

9 Supervised Farmin Programs ig'Vocational Agri-
culture, EuIIeEIn No. 250, evIsed (Lansing, Midnigan:
Department of Public Instruction, 1950), 61 pp.

174
instances go so far as to teach a special course in the
subject. From personal observation, the writer has
found that supervised farming is considered regularly at
local, state, and regional conferences. This mass of
writing and discussion, while seemingly unrelated and
lacking in central purpose at times, has tended to as-
sume rather definite patterns. Numerous ideas and sug-
gestions have been presented, but the writer has found
that these fall rather naturally into the ten statements
of recommended practices which are listed below. Each
statement is offered and then expert opinion is cited
and frequently quoted for the purpose of substantiation.
In the few instances when differences of opinion are
expressed, they are listed also.

1. ‘The teacher V131t3.222.§2§2.2§.§22§ prospe -

tive student in vocational agriculture preceding enroll-

 

ment for purposes of guidance and counseling. Students

 

who have inadequate facilities for carrying on effective

 

programs of supervised farming are discouraged £522.22-
rolling in vocational agriculture. Guidance and counsel—
ing, it seems, are now quite generally recognized as
desirable responsibilities of any teacher, and the in-
structor of vocational agriculture is no exception. In
many reapects he is in a most favorable position to dis-

charge this function for rural boys. The alert and active

 

..¢.: .9

 

175
teacher of agriculture is constantly in contact with
rural people. It seems only natural, therefore, that
his counsel would be welcomed by farm boys when they are
making their educational and vocational decisions.

Humpherys recognized the strategic position of
the teacher of vocational agriculture in this respect when
he averred:

The teacher of vocational agriculture holds a
key position in a rural, high-school area. He, more
than any other school official has his finger on the
pulse of the community. He will come to realize that
not all people on farms are farmers. He becomes in-
timately acquainted with the boys and the parents.

If the teacher is a student of human nature and has
a proper concept of the principles of guidance, he

will influence materially the lives of the boys in

the local community. He will be the means of dis-

couraging some boys from following agriculture as a
vocation. Others through has influence will follow
agriculture as a vocation. _

In the last part of his statement, Humpherys empha-
sized guidance as an important responsibility of the
teacher of agriculture. However, there is always a dan-
ger that the teacher may look upon his contacts with
prospective students as a responsibility of recruitment
of class membership instead of guidance and counseling.
Such an approach, whether motivated by the necessity of

maintaining minimum class enrollments to meet legal

 

10 L. R. Humpherys, "Whither Agricultural Educa-
tion--in Supervised Farm Practice?" The Agricultural
Education Magazine, 9:68, November, 1936.

 

 

MN

176
requirements for reimbursement or any other reason, seems
indefensible.

It is Martin's belief that the student should
have complete freedom in deciding whether to enroll in
or remain in a course in vocational agriculture. He

declared:

In American society the individual has a high
degree of freedom in choosing a vocation. Society
or its institutions do not select stalwart lads and
make them into farmers regardless of individual
preferences. A prevocational guidance program is
planned to aid youth in arriving at an intelligent
choice. The choice once made may be revised . . .
Recruitment programs, on the other hand, may be pri-
marily a means of filling the ranks to meet a false
administrative standard of economy or efficiency.
The prevocational guidance program should be designed
to assure in ividual freedom of choice without co-
ercion . . .

Anderson indicated the need for some sort of
selection when he declared, "Boys who are definitely not
interested in farming should be directed away from voca-

tional agriculture."12

He went ahead to state a case
for careful screening of students who enroll in vocational

agriculture:

 

11 W. Howard Martin, "Guidance Function in Pre-
Enrollment of All-Day Students," The Agricultural Educa-
tion Magazine, 20: 104, December,'I947.

12 C. S. Anderson, "Occupational Interests of
Farm.Boys and Their Significance in Guidance," The A ri-
cultural Education Magazine, 20:109, December,‘I9¥7.

 

177

Generally speaking, we have been too concerned
about numbers, about securing larger eanIIments. A
more carefuI screefiIng of tfie Boys we already‘have
would carry us further on the way to accomplishing
our objective: Namely, that those who study the sub-
ject of agriculture will enter the occupation of farm-
ing. And it may also be a favor to the boy who is
screened, for he, too, does not want to lose valuable
time and educational effort by preparing for a work
that he does not expect to perform . . . But we
must remember that the school is designed for the
pupil, and that a program of vocational guidance
within the school has not really begun to function
effectively until it is directing pupils into and
away from occupational pursgits in keeping with their
real vocational interests.

 

 

As has been stated, a student enrolling in voca-
tional agriculture is required to carry on work in super-
vised farming under the direction of his teacher of agri-
culture. This, in turn, implies that the student has
facilities for this training. Should adequacy of facil-
ities be a determining factor in deciding whether a boy
is to be permitted to enroll in vocational agriculture?
Peterson agreed that it should and recommended: "Entrance
into the course of study in vocational agriculture should
be limited to boys with adequate facilities for conduct-

ing supervised farming programs."14

 

13 Anderson, loc. cit.

1“ Milo J. Peterson, "Some Observations on Super-
vised Farming Programs,“ The Agricultural Education.Mag-
azine, 20:134, January, I948.

178

No attempt was made, however, in the National
Vocational Act to determine adequacy of facilities "for
directed or supervised practice in agriculture."15 It “
seems to have been left largely to the discretion of the
teacher whether the requirement has been satisfied by the
student. As it will be revealed later in this report,
there are those who would devise some means for the
student to satisfy the legal requirement of supervised
farming provided he desired to enroll in vocational ag-
riculture. Other teachers take the position that only
those students should be admitted to classes in voca-
tional agriculture who can demonstrate to the teacher's
satisfaction that they have available adequate facilities
in farming. Mondart would probably lend his support to
the latter group judging from his statement that:

Not all boys entering or enrolled in schools
offering vocational agriculture in Louisiana, or any
other state, can meet the specific provisions of the
National Vocational Education acts. Many of these
boys have no interest in agriculture as a vocation
and do not plan to farm at any time; few are actually
engaged in the business of farming while in day
classes; while some, regardless of their interests,
do not have, and can not obtain necessary facilities

for supervised farming. Administrators of vocational
agriculture, according to law, are legally and morally

 

15 Section 10, Public No. 347, 64th Congress, 3.
703. Approved February 23, 1917. United States Statutes
at Large of the United States of AmerIca, 6455 Congress,
VBlume MIX, Part I, PuBIIc L538 (WasHIngton: Govern-
ment Printing Office, 1917), p. 934.

 

 

179
obligated to exclude these boys from classes organ-
ized and taught by full-time teachers of vocational
agriculture. This necessarily implies selection for
Eiiii‘ifie‘éngflfihfiifié 33°.fiisifiitrfiiiian?l% have

What appears to be a less arbitrary approach to
this problem.of selection is prOposed by other writers.
Such an approach, avowedly would maintain highly selected
enrollments by relying heavily upon a program of guidance
and counseling. Under this plan the teacher visits the
home of the prospective student previous to the time for
enrollment. He learns all he can about the student and
his background. He then informs the student and his
parents about the opportunities and requirements of a
course in vocational agriculture as well as other courses
in high school. With this information the boy is in a
better position to decide for himself whether he should
enroll in vocational agriculture. If a student realizes,
for instance, that he does not have the use of adequate
farm facilities to allow him to gain satisfactory expe-
rience in farming, he will probably decide that he would
do well to elect some other course. Under this arrange-

ment the student would eliminate himself voluntarily from

the work rather than be excluded by the teacher. Perhaps

 

16 C. L. Mondart, "Research in the Selection of
Students of Vocational Agriculture in Louisiana," The
‘ggricultural Education Magazine, 14:14, July, 1941.

180
Olney had such a procedure in mind when he recommended
visits to prospective students and indicated that they
should prove mutually beneficial to the student and
teacher:

Many visits to this prospective pupil must
be made during the summer, previous to the opening
of the next school year, not only to make family
acquaintances, but also to "size-up" the home con-
ditions as to what the pupil might be able to in-
clude in a supervised farming program and to discuss
these possibilities informally with the boy and the
parents, so that both have some forewarning of what
will be expected when the boy enters the class. Some
parts of the program might even be started at once.
0n the other hand, such visits may help a boy de-
cide that the agrifultural program is not the one he
prefers to follow.

In a similar manner Kiltz stressed the value of
pre-enrollment guidance for prospective students:

Some of the individual contacts with the
parents of a boy should be made before he enters
the program of vocational agriculture. Visits at
this time should have a guidance motive. The teach-
er, the parents, and the boy should consider the
latter's interests in and his aptitudes for farm
life as well as his Opportunity, if he should en-
roll in vocational agriculture, to gain directed
experience in farming and the opportunity that he
may have eventually to become established in farm-
ing. Interests and Opportunities in other voca-
tions and professions may also be considered at
this time. During these contacts the parents should

 

17 Roy A. Olney, "Two Essential Activities in
Directing the Planning of Pupils' Supervised Farming
Programs," The Agricultural Education Magazine, 16: 8,
November,.l§43.

181

be fully informed about supervised farTgng and should
be made aware of their relation to it.

Other leaders subscribe to the vital importance
of a program of guidance and counseling for prospective
students by the teacher of agriculture. Byram listed
"Interviewing prOSpective pupils for enrollment in voca-
tional agriculture" as one of the recommended "Activi-
ties of a teacher of agriculture in the area of vocational
guidance."19 Shoptaw declared that:

One of the most vital and perhaps most slighted
summer activities of an agriculture teacher is that
associated with guiding incoming ninth grade boys
into the organization of farming programs which it
is hoped they are to follow through and beyond high
school.2

Cook gave a priority to visits to prospective
students and concluded that "Every prospective student
of vocational agriculture should be visited once and

21

preferably twice during the summer. As one of his

 

18 Kenneth O. Kiltz, "Relating Instruction in
Vocational Agriculture to Farming Programs," The Agri-
cultural Education Magazine, 17:188, April, 1945.

 

19 H. M. Byram, "Increasing the Effectiveness of
Agricultural Education Thru Guidance of Rural Youth,"
The ggricultural Education Magazine, 20:109, December, 1947.

20 LaVan Shoptaw, "The Long-Time Farming Pro-
grfig," The Agricultural Education Magazine, 20:227, June,
9 ..

 

21 Glen C. Cook, "Suggestions on the Time and
Frequency of Farm Visits to All-Day Students of Voca-
tional Agriculture," The Agricultural Education Magazine,
21:86, October, 19485—"

 

.. xi

182
tentative statements of concepts and emerging practices
in supervised farming, Deyoe wrote:

Guidance is provided for prOSpective students
so that enrollments in vocational agriculture con-
sist of persons who are interested in farming and
have facilities available for develogéng satisfac-
tory programs of supervised farming.

A state educational agency outlined four consid-
erations in providing occupational information and gui-
dance before enrollment in classes in vocational agri-
culture:

1. To be vocational, classes in vocational
agriculture should consist of students who have
chosen this field because of interests, aptitudes,
abilities, and opportunities for entering farming
or other agricultural occupations.

2. Effective pre-enrollment guidance should
result in individuals who have the foregoing char-
acteristics, in so far as they can be determined.

3. In pre-enrollment guidance it is assumed
that teachers of agriculture will be particularly
concerned with serving those boys most likely to be
benefitted by training in vocational agriculture.

4. An effective period for this guidance is
during the time of pre-enrollment in high school and
during thg year preceding enrollment in vocational
courses.2

 

22 George P. Deyoe, "Concepts and Emerging Prac-
tices in Supervised Farmi ," The égricultural Education
Magazine, 20:223, June, 19 8.

 

23 The Vocational Teachers' Handbook, Circular
No. 21, (LansIng,Michigan: State Board of Control for
Vocational Education, August, 1940), p. 4.

183

Summary. Visitation to the homes of prospective
students for the purpose of guidance and counseling is
recognized as an important responsibility to be dis-
charged by teachers in vocational agriculture. While
there may not be complete agreement among authorities
relative to what constitutes "adequacy," there appears
to be general agreement among leaders in vocational agri-
culture that students who lack adequate facilities for
carrying on effective programs in supervised farming
should be discouraged from enrolling in classes in vo-
cational agriculture.

2. Organized class instruction relating £3

 

 

supervised farming 33 introduced early 19 the first year

 

 

 

.2; vocational agriculture and repeated at appropriate

 

times throughout the school experience 2f the student.

 

Individual plans for supervised farmigg are develOped

 

 

'21 each student under the guidance 33 the instructor.

 

 

Fundamental to the philosophy indicated in the
above statements is an acceptance of the premise that
supervised farming is a part and parcel of the teaching
and learning processes in vocational education in agri-
culture and not an adjunct to them. Unless one sub-
scribes to such beliefs, classroom activities in super—
vised farming could neither represent learning on the

part of the pupil nor teaching by the instructor.

184
As will be indicated later in this chapter, super—
vised farming is recognized by many as a necessary phase
of the instruction in vocational agriculture. Field,

9

for instance declared:

In its broader sense farm practice is really
an integral part of the total learning experiences of
each student instead of an extra-curricular activity
tacked on to satisfy a requirement. On the one hand
the farm practice experiences serve as a feeder for
problems to be studied in school, and on the other
it serves as a means whereby school-learning activ- 24
ities may find expression in the life of the student.

Probably it is difficult for the uninformed in-
dividual to acquire a thorough understanding of the edu-
cational possibilities of supervised farming. It is a
new type of learning experience for most people. It is
a relatively new development in education. It appears
to represent a rather radical departure from the conven-
tional patterns in education. As explained previously,
it is an evolving phase of education and, likely, it has
been difficult for even the workers who are trained in
the field to fully grasp its scope and meaning. It is
not strange, then, that Fitzgerald saw fit to comment:

. . many of our students in agriculture

have only a slight conception of what the teacher
expects the individual boy to accomplish by the

 

2“ Albert M. Field, "The Long-Time Program of
Farm Practice," The Agricultural Education Magazine, 4:
181, May, 1932.

185

end of Ege four-year agricultural course in high
school.

If this statement is true, it would be natural
to expect that many misconceptions and misunderstandings
would arise concerning the work. Under such circum-
stances the students could not be condemned if they
regarded supervised farming as an operation to be carried
out in a perfunctory sort of manner in order to satisfy
a legal requirement. Stewart recognized the lack of
understanding by many boys of supervised farming and
pointed to a lack of instruction on the subject as the
cause. He observed:

Many boys still think of the supervised
practice work as added items to the school work in-
stead of thinking of it as the basic part of the
school work. Projects furnish Opportunities for the
boy to give full expression to his energies and to
develop manipulative skills. The boy should look
upon them as opportunities. Failure of the boy to
consider the projects in this light is traceable
to lack of instggction and study on plans of super-
vised practice.

Stewart has support when he suggests the need

for more instruction and planning in supervised farming.

 

25 N. E. Fitzgerald, "Suggestions for Orienting
New Students in Classes in Vocational Agriculture," The

'ggricultural.Education Magazine, 3:103, January, 1931.

26 R. M. Stewart, "Project Programs--Launching
Boys into Their Supervised Practice Work," The Agricul-
tural Education Magazine, 6:154, April, 1934.

186

Kiltz would start an instructional program soon after
school opened to develop an adequate understanding of
supervised farming by beginning students in vocational
agriculture. According to him the instruction might

include:

. . . the examination of type cases of suit-
able local programs of supervised farming, the study
of programs of successful state and American farmers,
discussions by older boys in the course who have had
successful programs, and the co-Operative planning

in class of a suitable program for a selected situa-
tion.

Similarly, ShOptaw recognized the need for early

and continuing orientation and guidance for beginning

students in supervised farming.28 In this regard, Deyoe

declared:

. . . it is important to reemphasize that
the activities and problems involved in orienting
students to supervised farming, in selecting their
programs and evaluating them, in setting up and
keeping records, and in making the preliminary plans
. . . should be considered a fundamental part of
class room instruction.29

Cook stressed the importance of developing a

proper understanding of supervised farming by beginning

students when he recommended:

 

27 Kiltz, loc. cit.
28 Shoptaw, loc. cit.

29 Deyoe, Supervised Farming gg‘Vocational Agri-
- culture, 22. cit., p. 324.

 

187
Soon after school opens in the fall the in-
structor should have a series of discussions and
field trips pertaining to supervised farming. This
should be a definite part of the instruction for be-
ginning students and a sufficient amount of time
used to develop proper understandings, attitudes,
appreciation and idealg for comprehensive programs
of supervised farming. 0
Similar techniques have been proposed by others
for developing a clear concept of supervised farming
with students. Fay31 saw real value in project tours
as a means for developing an improved understanding of
supervised farming. Hammonds32 also considered a study
of local illustrations of students' farming programs
useful to beginning students in develOping a clearer
concept of supervised farming. In addition he suggested
the showing of films and photographs of supervised
farming to beginning students.
Schmidt saw great possibilities in classroom
instruction on an individual or small-group basis as a
means of providing the student an opportunity to analyze,

study and plan "his long-time supervised farm-training

 

30 Glen C. Cook, A Handbook on Teaching Vocational
Agriculture (Danville, IIIinoIs: InEErstate‘Printerslfi
Publishers, 1947, Fifth Edition), p. 320.

 

 

31 Ivan G. Fay, "Selling Farming Programs," The
Agricultural Education Magazine, 17:73. October, 1944.

 

32 Carsie Hammonds, Teachi Agriculture (New
York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc., 1950), p. 195.

188
program." He further recommended "that each teacher
devote from one to three class periods per week . . . to
individual and group instruction. . . . Each individual
or small group should be working on the immediate jobs
and problems confronting him or them in their supervised
farm-training programs."33

Kirkland also would allocate a substantial amount
of time to a study of supervised farming. He recommended:
The content of the course of study for the
first-year students should be solely of an orienting
nature until each student has selected his farming
program . . . The orientation study may require
from six to twelve weeks or more depending upon
the teaching methods used and Rho diversity of the
agriculture in the community.3
Along the same line, Deyoe declared that teach-
ers who are the most successful in developing broad
programs of supervised farming with their students,
are using from six to eight weeks during the first part
of the beginning course for problems and activities re-

lated to selecting and starting these programs.35 It is

 

33 G. A. Schmidt, "Supervised Practice and Class-
room Instruction in Vocational Agriculture,“ The Agri-
cultural Education Magazine, 7:87, December, I934.

34 James B. Kirkland, "Suggested Jobs in Organ-
izing and Teaching the First—Year Agriculture Course,"
The ggricultural Education Magazine, 11:126, January,
I939.

35 Deyoe, Supervised Farming gg'Vocational Agr -
culture, 22. cit., p. 180.

 

189
stated in another source that the first day a student
enrolls in vocational agriculture is the time to start
him on the planning of his long-time supervised farming
program.36

Considerable dissatisfaction appears to exist
with the quality of planning done by students. After
examining many project plans Gibson37 concluded that too
frequently they were prepared in such general terms
that the student would gain very little in the way of
specific help from them in executing his farming pro-
gram. Dickinson showed a rather low opinion of the kind
of planning done by students when he stated:

. . . many so-called "working plans" are al-
together inadequate and otherwise unsatisfactory.
They indicate very little thought on the part of
the student who is to carry out the project, and

fail to show sufficient preparation for the work
to be done.38

Sutherland takes the position that planning
places too heavy a demand on the immature abilities of

high school boys. According to him pupils fail to make

good plans because:

36

Ross 2231., 92. cit., p. 3.

37 H. H. Gibson, "A Requirement for Effective
Project Supervision-~the Determination of What Proved
and Up-to-date Practices Are to Be Followed," The Agr -
cultural Education Magazine, 10:209, May, 1938.

38 Sherman Dickinson, "Better Supervised Prac-
tice," The Agricultural Education Magazine, 3:18, August,
1930. "”“”“'

190
We expect 14 and 15-year-old boys, who had
neither the opportunity nor the training to do much
thinking for themselves, to do one of the most dif-
ficult types of thinking of which the human mind is
capable--original planning.39
Pollom, presumably, would go along with this
viewpoint to a certain extent. He pointed out that it
seems unreasonable to expect high—school boys to set
up a comprehensive plan for a farm enterprise before
any steps looking toward its execution are taken. How-
ever, he proposed that it is in order for the student to
prepare a skeleton plan which could be rounded out later
through study by the pupil. According to him, "The proj-
ect plan is the foundation upon which effective teaching
thru the project must be based." Pollom went ahead to
declare: "By all means a plan should not be long.
Short, definite statements as to what the boy proposes
to do and why are sufficient."40
In spite of its shortcomings, planning is not
condemned as an undesirable and unnecessary activity.

Rather, criticisms appear to stem from the extent of

planning that is often demanded and the quality of

 

39 S. S. Sutherland, "Good Project Planning," The
Agricultural Education Magazine, 4:172, April, 1932.

40 Lester B. Pollom, "Project Plans and Their
Relation to Instruction," The Agricultural Education Mag-
azine, 11:58, September, I938.

191

41 stressed the im-

planning that has been done. Howard
portance of the teacher leading the students to set up
and plan good supervised farming programs. Dippold also
emphasized the reSponsibility of the teacher in planning
when he said:

Students Who develop plans for a supervised
practice program require much help from the teacher.
This is obvious because most students have had lim-
ited experiences on the home farms or within the
community. They have established certain habits,
attitudes, and emotional attachment which will
tend to make adjustments difficult. 2

Leaders in the field of agricultural education
seem.to agree that planning of programs of supervised
farming is not an activity to be confined only to be-
ginning students in vocational agriculture. Rather, it
is a continuous process which ". . . must be started
with individual students, preferably before the school
year begins, continued with intensity after school opens,

and gradually developed throughout the years which follow."43

 

41 Carl G. Howard, "Teacher Activities in Super-
vised Farming," The Agricultural Education Magazine, 13:
28, August, 1940. ”_ """“'

42 J. G. Dippold, "Planning Supervised Farming
Activities," The Agricultural Education Magazine, 14:208,
May, 19 2.

 

#3 Ross 322;" _o_p_. cit., p. 37.

192

44 46 47

Deyoe, Ekstrom,"5 Glavin, and Olney gave support

to the idea of continuity in the planning of programs

of supervised farming. Olney urged ample time not only

for planning new programs but also for consideration of

adjustments in programs that are under way. He wrote:

Ample teaching time should be alloted in the

course of study for each year of agriculture for
the directing of work on planning programs of super-
vised farming, and in starting new programs. Also,
time will be needed to consider the programs under
way because certain adjustments and changes will
have to be made to meet unforeseen conditions and
circumstances that are bound to arise in carrying
out the programs. Classroom time used in solving
such problfigs is purposeful teaching and is highly
desirable.

Summary. Judging from the consensus of opinion
expressed in this section, there is a need for organized
classroom instruction to develop an adequate understand-
ing and to plan supervised farming. This instruction

should be made available to beginning students and should

 

44 Deyoe, Supervised Farming gg'Vocational‘gg-

riculture, 32. cit., p. 180.

 

45 G. F. Ekstrom, "Some Principles for Consider-
ation in Organizing Home Practice Work," The Agricultural
Education Magazine, 10:8, July, 1937.

#6 John G. Glavin, "The Place of Continuing Proj-
ects in a Lon -Time Program," The Agricultural Education
Magazine, 11: 9, November, 1938.

 

47 Olney, loc. cit.
48

Loc. cit.

193
continue throughout their experience in vocational

agriculture.

3. Conferences, including students, parents, and

 

the teacher, are held 22 present the aims 2f supervised
farming.

The necessity for close cooperation and under-

 

 

 

 

standing between the school and home might be considered
almost an educational maxim. This seems particularly
true in the matter of conducting programs of supervised
farming. The basic elements which constitute this pro-
gram--the pupil, the parents, the teacher, and the learn-
ing environment on the farm--are such that it is ines-
capable that the home and school become closely asso-
ciated in the proper conduct of this educational activity
by the teacher of vocational agriculture. If the student
is to realize the maximum benefit from this experience,
it seems imperative that a wholesome understanding and
working relationship exist between the home and the
school.

According to Hamlin, a concerted effort must be
made to establish and maintain desirable home and school
relationships. He contended:

. . . we must break down any barriers between
the home and the school and between the community
and the school, which thwart the normal application

of our teachings. No amount of formal supervising
can overcome a basic antagonism toward the school or

194
the teacher. On the other hand with good home and
community relationships, large amounts of our teach-
ings get applied without any particulfig effort on
the teacher's part to bring it about.

Pollom believes that lack of co-operation on the
part of parents has been a great obstacle to the devel-
opment of comprehensive farming programs. He conjectures
that in most cases failure to co-operate can be traced
to a lack of understanding by the parents. He declared:

The greatest obstacle, for the past 20 years
to the development of comprehensive farming programs,
has been the lack of parental co-operation and help.
Perhaps it would be fairer to say lack of parental
understanding of what we are trying to do. Probably
in a majority of cases the parent is not to blame
because he does not understand or co-Operate. Unless
there is a definite, well-planned, thoroughly thought-
thru procedure for acquainting parents with the voca-
tional agriculture program we will chtinue to work
against much unnecessary resistance.

A rather startling statement by Peterson may
provide a partial explanation, at least, for failure of
parents to fully understand and appreciate the meaning
of supervised farming. He asserted that, "A safe and
conservative estimate based on a review of research is
that in at least half of the cases parents do not know

the teacher of agriculture."51

 

49 H. M. Hamlin, "A Philosophy of Supervised
Practice," The Agricultural Education Magazine, 6:104,
January, 1934.

50 Lester B. Pollom, "Parental Understanding
Necessary," The Agricultural Education Magazine, 10:229,
June, 1938.

51 Peterson, loc. cit.

 

195

If what Peterson said is true, it is not sur-

prising that a Federal bulletin would report: "Frequently

instructors have depended too much upon the student to
explain to his parents the purposes of and procedures
followed in conducting the supervised farming program."52

The folly of relying upon such a practice is
pointed out by Cook53 and Hammonds. Hammonds said: "He
[the instructor] should not depend on boys to inform
their parents. Supervised farming is not a simple con-
cept; it takes a teacher a long time to acquire the con-
cept in his training. The beginning boy's understanding
of it is usually very meager."5u

A failure of some teachers to keep in close con-
tact with the farm home may explain some of the academic
planning done by students in supervised farming and ob-
served by Dippold. He stated:

Many plans for supervised farming programs
are too academic. Students may read about various
possibilities for succeeding with these projects and
plan carefully on such a basis. They frequently
forget, however, to analyze completely those home
problems which may inhibit progress. The social and

cultural home environment is always powerful in
effecting changes or readjustments. For instance,

 

52 Ross 23.21".22' cit., p. 31.

53 Cook, g Handbook 22 Teaching'Vocational Agri-
culture, 22. cit., p. 315.

54 Hammonds, loc. cit.

196

the attitude of the parents, their habits, and many
physical facgors of the home situation may disrupt
ideal plans. 5

Any neglect on the part of teachers to develop
wholesome working relationships and a proper understand-

ing of supervised farming with parents seems inexcusable.

58

Cook,56 Fay,57 Wall, and Sasman,59 among others, em-

phasize that it is essential that parents have a good
understanding of the work if significant programs of

supervised farming are to be developed. Sasman maintained:
In the development of a farming program or

any other program affecting youth and parents, one
of the essentials of success is a thoro understand-
ing of it by all concerned . . . If there is going to
be a farming program develOped that is of real sig-
nificance to a boy, a family, or a farm, such a pro-6O
gram must be thoroly discussed before it is started.

Among the methods recommended fer developing

desirable relationships and understanding of supervised

 

55 Dippold, 23. cit., p. 209.

56 Cook, g Handbook 22_Teaching Vocational Agri-
culture, 2p. cit., p. 314.

57 Fay, loc. cit.

58 Stanley Wall, "Developing Long-Time Farming
Programs," The Agricultural Education Magazine, 21:18,
July, 1948.

59 Louis M. Sasman, "Farming Programs in Voca-
tional Agriculture," The Agricultural Education Magazine,
17:88, November, 1944.

60 Ibid., p. 89.

197

farming on the part of parents, the home-farm visit seems

61 believes that

to rank first in importance. Hammonds
nothing can take the place of personal visitation by the
teacher of vocational agriculture in develOping coopera-
tive relationships with parents while Cook declared, "There
is no substitute for such a conference."62
The advantages of a home-farm conference includhlg
the boy, both parents, and the teacher, seem fairly
obvious. It affords an excellent opportunity for the
instructor to become thoroughly acquainted with the
parents and to gain their confidence. It permits the
teacher to learn more about the student's home environ-
ment and the possibilities and limitations of the home
farm as a learning situation. The informal atmosphere
of the home should encourage the parents to talk freely
and frankly. Questions about supervised farming and
vocational agriculture, in general, should be adequately
and satisfactorily answered for the parents. One can
scarcely conceive of a situation more conducive to the

development of mutual understanding and cOOperation be-

tween the home and school than is provided by a conference

 

61 Hammonds, loc. cit.

62 Cook, 5 Handbook 22 Teachigg‘Vocational Agri-
culture, gp. cit., p. 317.

 

 

m

198
when the boy, his parents, and his teacher consider to-

gether his future education and progress in farming.
63

Deyoe and Gibson commended the home—farm conference

as an effective approach for developing parental cooper-
ation in supervised farming. Gibson wrote:

It is recognized, of course, that there is
no substitute for individual home and farm visitation
in bringing about effective parent, instructor, and
pupil relationships. It is thru this medium that
problems in selecting, financing, and supervising
projects can best be discovered and worked out on,
the spot. One of the most inspiring pictures one
can see in connection with the entire program of
agricultural education is that of the instructor
conferring with parents and boys in the field or
around the "conference table" with pencils and paper
in hand working out budgets and financial arrange-
ments and discussing the many problems incident to
selecting and organizing a thorogoing educational64
and business-like program of supervised practice.

Those who are inexperienced at the work might
wonder what type of reception to expect upon a first
arrival at the farm home of a student. It is Pollom's
observation that all degrees of cooperation can be looked
for. He stated:

Dads range in attitudes from those who are

more than enthusiastic to co-operate with the teacher
for the good of the boy, to those who are indifferent

 

 

63 Deyoe, Supgrvised Farmigg'ig'Vocational Agri-

culture, 2p. cit., p.

64 H. H. Gibson, "Use of Group Meetings for
Getting Cooperation of Parents in Supervised Farm Prac-
tice," The Agricultural Education Magazine, 10:148, Feb-
ruary. T9387—

199

and actually obstinate. The teachgg must know
these parents and their attitudes.

In the matter of develOping pleasant working re-
lationships with the home it is recommended that the
teacher not confine his attention strictly to the member
or members of the family unit enrolled in his department.
Olney stressed that it is important that the teacher
". . . know as intimately as possible all the members of
the family."66 Hamlin acknowledged the interdependent
relationship existing among the members of the farm
family and then voiced the criticism that vocational ag-
riculture has too often failed to give proper recogni-
tion to this relationship. He asserted: "It is clear
that the home practice of an individual boy involves
relationships with all the other members of his family."
Hamlin went ahead to declare:

The facts are that we in vocational agricul-
ture have too often overlooked the status of the boy
as a minor member of a family in which the mainte-
nance of wholesome, cooperative relationships is

infinitely more important than anything we may teg$h
the boy about agriculture through a home project.

 

65 Lester B. Pollom, "Where Are We Now and‘Where
Are We Going?" The ggricultural Education Magazine, 10:
105, December, 1937.

66 Olney, loc. cit.
67

 

Hamlin, 2p. cit., p. 105.

200

One or more group meetings with parents are
recommended as a desirable supplement to the home-farm
conference as a means to more adequately acquaint parents
with the aims of supervised farming and their relation
to it. An advantage claimed for this type of meeting is
a saving of time in that the teacher can accomplish
certain things working with a group of parents that
would perhaps require many single visits to individual
farms. This type of meeting is suggested by Cook,68
Deyoe,69 Hammonds,7O and Kiltz.71 It is also recommended
in the most recent bulletins on supervised farming pub-
lished by the Vocational Division of the U. S. Office of
Education72 and the Michigan Office of Vocational Educa-
tion.73

A number of other methods and techniques are

suggested for informing parents about supervised farming.

 

68 Cook, A Handbook g§_Teaching'Vocational Agr -

culture, op. cit., p. 317.

 

69 Deyoe, Supervised Fam ming_ in‘Vocational Agr -
culture, 22. cit., p. 196.

70

 

Hammonds, loc. cit.

71 Kiltz, loc. cit.

72 Ross et al.,._p. cit., p. 32.

73 Supervised Farming Programs in VOcational
figriculture, Op. cit., p. 37.

 

201
A modification of the group meeting of parents indicated
above, is the parent-son banquet which gives special
consideration to developing an understanding of super-
vised farming. Such an approach is suggested by Stewart7#
and Deyoe.75 Among those seeing possibilities in a tour
of programs of supervised farming by parents and sons are

k76 and Hammonds.77 The showing of photographs and

Coo
slides is suggested by Deyoe78 and in a recent bulletin79
as a means of developing a better understanding of super-
vised farming on the part of parents.

Summary. The review of expert opinion cited in
this section has pointed up the need for securing parental
cooperation by the teacher developing an understanding
of supervised farming. The home conference including

the boy, his parents, and his teacher, is recommended as

the most effective means for promoting understanding of

 

74 Stewart, loc. cit.

75 Deyoe, Supervised Farming ig'Vocational Agri-
culture, 22. cit., p. 197.

76 Cook, A Handbook 22 Teachigg‘Vocational Agri-
culture, 22. cit., p. 317.

 

 

 

77 Hammonds, loc. cit.

78 Deyoe, Supervised Farmigg.$g'Vocational Agri-
culture, 22. cit., p. 197.

79 Supervised Farming Programs gg‘Vocational;gg-
riculture, loc. cit.

 

202
supervised farming. Group meetings are also considered
helpful, particularly when they are used to supplement
the home—farm conference. Other approaches for securing
parental understanding of supervised farming include
parent-son banquets, tours of programs of supervised
farming, and showing of photographs and slides.

4. Home-farm surveys are made to reveal needs

 

 

upon which the supervised farming programs can 22 based.

 

It seems apparent that it would be impossible
for the teacher of agriculture to be in a position to
intelligently guide students in the selection, planning,
and execution of his program of supervised farming un-
less he has become thoroughly acquainted with the student
and his home environment. An intimate knowledge of the
pupil, his resources, problems and limitations, should
prove of inestimable value to an instructor.

A teacher trainer gave recognition to the need
for the teacher to know his pupils well when he wrote:

The supervisor must know the trainee, his
objectives, training conditions, and his limita-
tions. If the trainee is to be treated as an indi-
vidual, it is obvious that the instructor must know
him as an individual. The first job of the super-
visor should be to find out everything about the

trainee which may condition or influence his prog-
ress in training. Only by so doing can he know and

help the trainee sense present problems and anticipate

203

future problems. Only in this way will he be pre-
pared to be of maximum assistance.8

Not only is it important for the teacher to be-
come well acquainted with the student and his home-farm
situation, but the student should develop a better com-
prehension and understanding of his own Opportunities
and resources. Deyoe contended:

Before a boy can proceed intelligently in
selecting activities for a program of supervised
farming, he should analyze carefully (with his par-
ents and teacher) the needs and facilities of his
home farm. This involves securing certain infor-
mation about his farm, analyzing it carefully, and
selecting a program of supervised fagTing which is
in keeping with the total situation.

Most authorities recommend surveys of the indi-
vidual home farms by each student as necessary for se-

curing the basic data Which are to be used in planning

programs of supervised farming. Cook,82 Deyoe,83 Ek-
84

strom, and Howard85 are among those who would have

 

80 S. S. Sutherland, "Supervision and Individual
Instruction in Agricultural Education," The Agricultural
Education Magazine, 19:228, June, 1947.

81 Deyoe, Supervised Farming lg'Vocational Agri-
culture, 22. cit., p. 1871

82 Cook, A Handbook on Teaching Vocational Agri-

culture, 2p. cit.7'p. 337. "'

 

 

 

 

83 Deyoe, Supervised Farming gg‘Vocational Agri-
culture, 22. cit., p. 182.

84 Ekstrom, loc. cit.

 

85 Howard, loc. cit.

204
students make surveys of home farms to secure basic in-
formation that would assist the pupil to set up more intel-
ligently his program of supervised farming. The use of
such surveys is also recommended in the most recent pub-
lications on supervised farming of the Michigan Office

of Vocational Education86

and the Vocational Division of
the U. S. Office of Education.87 According to the latter
publication, "Making surveys of farming and farm prac-
tice has an important place in helping a student launch
his supervised farming program."
Hammonds looks upon the making of a survey as a
valuable learning experience. He declared that "Making
a survey is, in itself, an educational process of great
value to those participating in it."88
Olney, however, questioned the use of a formal
survey. He indicated that the use of a formal survey
may serve as a barrier. For this reason he recommended

that the teacher collect information about the farm situ-

ation by means of visits. Olney wrote:

 

86
Supervised Fam ming Programs in Vocational

“Agriculture,'gp. Lit., p.

 

 

87 Ross 339;” _p. £123." p. 43.

88 Carsie Hammonds, "Use Local Surveys to Sup-
plement the Data at Hand for Course Building, Teaching,
Community Planning and Action," The Agricultural Educa-
tion Magazine, 23: 4, July, 1950.“

 

205
On the same visits when the teacher is be-
coming acquainted with and is establishing himself
with the family, he can, by careful planning, easily
acquire and obtain facts about the type of farm bus-
iness on each farm. After several visits he will
have collected enough farm facts that collectively
will make a good survey of the farm business with-
out having to inflict the formal type of survey
blank upon the farmer. The use of the formal sur-
vey may often serve as a barrier in attaining tge
desired intimate personal relationships. . . . 9
Deyoe acknowledges that certain needs can be de-
termined by inspection but he maintains, ". . . if the
analysis of needs is attempted through a more or less
superficial appraisal of the situation, many needs may

be overlooked."90

On the other hand, Hammonds, appar-
ently, would view with skepticism any device, other than
a survey form for obtaining facts about the farm. He
declared: "If the teacher makes a survey, he must use
a survey form that will enable him to obtain the facts
he wants. Talking casually with a few farmers is not
making a survey."91

Seemingly, Hamlin would not share Olney's con-

cern over the use of a formal survey. He says: "The

persons who come into our classes must expect to provide

 

89 Olney, 22. cit., p. 88.

90 Deyoe, Supervised Farming in'Vocational Agri-
culture, op. cit., p. 158.

91

 

 

Hammonds, Teaching Agriculture, op. cit., p. 77.

 

 

206

us with whatever information we need to help them im-
prove their abilities."92 Hamlin advocated that the boys
share in determining the data to be collected and in
constructing the forms to be used in securing the data.93

Summary. Consideration of the opinion expressed
in this section shows authorities are agreed that a sur-
vey of the home-farm situation of every boy enrolled in
vocational agriculture is essential, not only to inform
the teacher but also to help the student analyze his
needs as he selects and plans his program of supervised
farming. The use of a survey form is recommended by
most authorities.

5. Students are encouraged to set up goals of

 

achievement for their progect . The teacher assists the

 

students in deriving standards of efficiency which can

 

 

 

.23 used as guides in setting goals of attainment and in

 

 

evaluating‘progress.

 

Probably, little actual teaching has ever taken
place in which the learner did not recognize a purpose

or aim in the learning. According to Hammonds, "Most

 

92 H. M. Hamlin, "Securing and Using Data for
Diagnosis, Teaching, and Evaluation in Agricultural
Education," The Agricultural Education Magazine, 16:206,
May, 1944.. _'—"—'

93 Ibid., p. 207.

207
learning is for the sake of reaching a goal. So, usu-
ally, one of the first steps in securing economical
learning is to establish a goal in the mind of the
learner." He also observed that, "Generally speaking,
people select and learn those things that lead toward
the attainment of their goals and purposes, their wants."91+

A review of the literature reveals that the
place of production goals in developing programs of
supervised farming, has received considerable attention
in recent years. Deyoe claimed several values to be
obtained when students recognize and set up appropriate
goals of achievement. These are paraphrased below:

1. Students are challenged to achieve on
progressively higher levels.

2. In formulating goals of production, each
student is stimulated to make an intensive study
of the criteria of productive efficiency and of
acceptable levels of attainment under various con-
ditions.

3. Specific objectives emerge which are of
value to the student and to the teacher in planning
an instructional program of a functional nature.

4. The student is motivated to keep accurate
and useful records because he realizes their value in
showing his actual accomplishments and determining
his relative success in achieving his goals.

5. Goals serve a definite function in
helping the student to evaluate his own progress or
growth and determine places where emphasis is needed

 

94 Hammonds, Teaching Agriculture, op. cit., p.

 

18.

208

in successive years if achievemegg on progressively
higher levels is to be attained.

Before a student can intelligently set up a goal
of production for each of the projects in his program
of supervised farming or can evaluate the progress he
has made in previous projects, the necessity for some
kind of "yardstick" or standard becomes obvious. Ham-
monds contended that students do not know what good
production is but they can be taught.96

Deyoe indicated that students can work together
cooperatively under the guidance of the teacher to de-
velop standards. He suggested a number of sources of
data such as the Federal census and data from projects
sponsored by state colleges of agriculture. He stressed
that ". . . records from projects in vocational agri-
culture, when available, constitute an important source
of data which should not be overlooked."97

Deyoe warns, however, that a standard should not

be considered as a single point of reference in the sense

 

95 George P. Deyoe, "The Place of Goals and
Standards of Production in Developing Programs of Super-
vised Farming," The Agricultural Education Magazine, 15:
188, April, 1943. _i

96
p. 185.
97 Deyoe, "The Place of Goals and Standards of

Production in Developing Programs of Supervised Farming,"
.22' cit., p. 189.

Hammonds, Teaching Agriculture, op. cit.,

 

209
that we have a standard bushel or yard. He believes it
would not be very helpful to set a standard uniformly
applicable under all conditions, even though this might
represent a community average. Such a standard, accord-
ing to him, would be unreasonably high for some persons
under some conditions, but much too low for other per-
sons under other conditions, even within the same com-
munity. He feels it might be possible for a class to
agree upon a minimum standard and to arrive at other
points along a scaled standard which would serve: (l)
as a guide in formulating goals of productive efficiency;
and (2) as a measuring stick for evaluating actual prog-
ress toward goals and appraising the level of productive
efficiency actually attained.98

Duck99 believes that students learn the impor-
tance of efficiency when they analyze and compare projects
conducted by classmates to develop standards for measur-
ing performance. Bender stresses the need for boys to

have attainable goals, but indicates that successively

higher goals may be reached in later years as the

 

98 Deyoe, "The Place of Goals and Standards of
Production in DevelOping Programs of Supervised Farming,"
loc. cit.

99 Joe Duck, "Increased Learning Through the Use
of Goals and Efficiency Standards in Farming Programs,"
The Agricultural Education Magazine, 20:198, April, 1948.

210
student develOps in understanding and ability. He de-
clared:

In general, it can be said that efficient
production is enhanced when boys strive for attain—
able goals and when they are assisted 6n working out
ways and means to reach those goals. 0

The desirability of the student establishing suc-
cessively higher goals as he increases his learning in
vocational agriculture and realizes his previous goals,
is indicated in a recent bulletin published by the Mich-

igan Office of Vocational Education.101 102

104

Cook, Stew-

art,103 Tabb, and Gibson looked favorably upon the

practice of students setting up goals. Gibson wrote:

Project interests and results, and the effi-
ciency of project supervision depend largely upon
the clearness of the pupil's project goals, and the
character of the practices which he uses knowingly
and purposefully to achieve his goals. 5

 

lOO Ralph E. Bender, "Securing Good Results in
Producing Pork," The Agricultural Education Magazine,
16:47, September, 1943.

101 Supervised Farming Programs in‘Vocational
Agriculture, op. cit., p. 24.

102 Cook, A_Handbook on Teaching Vocational Agri-
culture, op. cit., p. 147.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

103 Stewart, loc. cit.

104.“. R. Tabb, "Developing Supervised Farming
Programs," The Agricultural Education Magazine, 19:56,
September,'I§46. .

 

105 Gibson, "A Requirement for Effective Project
Supervision-~the Determination of What Proved and Up-to-
date Practices Are to Be Followed," op. cit., p. 208.

211

A recent bulletin106 pointed out that the setting

of individual production goals by the students is an
essential part of the learning process. According to
this publication, the use of efficiency factors and
efficiency standards by the student as an aid to set-
ting his individual production goals, serves: (1) to
aid the student in planning his farming program; (2) to
motivate the student to study and to use approved prac-
tices; and (3) to provide a means for the student to
evaluate the results achieved in his farming program.

Sweany stressed the use of goals as a means to
motivate the student and as a basis to help the pupil
appraise his progress. He said:

. . . goals serve to motivate the student to
have more concern for the results obtained in his
projects and these goals also furnish a basis for
evaluation which students can easily use. Results
obtained in projects are not only measures of effi-
ciency in production but also indicators of student
ability or lack of ability. If goals are set up for
projects and segments of projects, a more thoro
diagnosis may be made to determine where improvement
is possible. These weaknesses should then become
the basis for selection of problems or jobs to de-
velop further abilities which the results indicate
are not well developed. Students will be motivated
to study more thoroly the problems in these areas
because they can see that they have not secured as

 

106 Norman K. Hoover and Henry S. Brunner, Pro-

duction Goals for Livestock Enterprise Projects in’VEE -
EIonaI Agriculture, The Pennsylvania State 001IeEE, Eul-
IeEIn 527(State College Pennsylvania: Agricultural
Experiment Station, 19505, p. 14.

 

 

212
high a performance as they wish or will wish if the
Eggjfiighig Eggtgngzg.i8§ another production cycle

Summary. According to a consensus of the Opinion
cited in this section, goals of achievement have a def-
inite place in the development of programs of supervised
farming. To help the student establish goals in keep—
ing with his abilities and resources, and have some
means of measuring previous progress in supervised farm-
ing, it is recommended that the teacher work with the

students to derive standards of efficiency.

6. Students_present indications of establishment

 

‘ig farming by having projects in enterprises common to

 

 

the home farm. Through earnings and savings from proj—

 

 

ects, they show an accumulation of capital assets in

farming.

When a student is enrolled in vocational educa-

 

tion in agriculture, it is implied that he is preparing
to enter or has entered a vocation--in this case, farm-
ing. From a legal standpoint there is no question at

issue in so far as the vocational status of the student

is concerned, since the National Vecational Education

 

107 H. P. Sweany, "Determining Educational Needs
of Students Thru Analysis of Project Records," The Agri-
cultural Education Magazine, l7:48, September, I944.

213
Acth8 is very Specific on this matter. It is clearly

stated in this document:

. . . that the controlling purpose of such
education shall be to fit for useful employment; that
such education shall be of less than college grade
and be designated to meet the needs of persons over
fourteen years of age who have entered upon or who
are preparing to enter upon the work of the farm or

of the farm home. . .

One of the major objectives of vocational educa-
tion in agriculture is to develop effective ability to
make a beginning and advance in farming.109 There might
be a question as to the extent that students enrolled in
classes in vocational agriculture have achieved this
objective. Nevertheless, according to Hamlin, the oppor-
tunity is present for such students to make material
progress in the direction of establishment. He said:

Boys who use to the full their opportunities
for developing farming programs during the high-
school period may be half-way to establishment when
they are graduated. The period from high-school

graduation to establishment as farm Operii8rs may be
shortened for them by two to four years.

 

108 Section 10, Public No. 347, loc. cit.

109 Educational Objectives in Vocational Agri-
culture, U. S. Office of Education{‘VocationaI Division
Monograph No. 21 (Washington: Government Printing Of-
fice, 1940), p. 3.

110 H. M. Hamlin, A ricultural Education in Com-

munity Schools, (Danville, llinois: Interstate'FFinEers
E PuBIisHers, 1949), p. 234.

 

 

.‘V :t' :-

‘1}4‘

 

2L—

 

214
Hammonds and Tabb offered support for the fore-
going statement when they asserted:

It is often possible through farming programs
built up in high school and continued for a few years
afterward, to be far along toward establishment in
farming when one is still a very young man.

Deyoe pointed out that teachers of vocational
agriculture have a reSponsibility to assist young men to
become progressively established in farming. He revealed
that studies have shown that the students of vocational
agriculture most likely to farm are those who develop
better than average programs of supervised farming. He
went ahead to state:

Capital goods, such as money, equipment,
seed, feed, and livestock, are needed by persons
who strive to climb above the bottom rung of the
so-called agricultural ladder, and superviigd farm-
ing can assist in obtaining these assets.

114

In a similar manner, Cook,113 Parsons, and

115

ShOptaw recognized the possibility of the student

 

111 Hammonds and Tabb, 22. cit., p. 157.

112 Deyoe, Supervised Farming in'Vocational;Ag-
riculture, op. cit., p. 21.

 

 

113 Cook, A Handbook on Teaching Vocational Ag-
riculture, _p. cit., p. 281.

114 D. W. Parsons, "Developing the Boy into
Partnership and Management through his Farming Program,"
The Agricultural Education Magazine, 20:224, June, 1948.

 

 

 

115 Shoptaw, op. cit., p. 232.

215
moving in the direction of establishment in farming
through the accumulation of capital assets from his
program of supervised farming.

Accumulation of capital assets, such as live-
stock and machinery, would presume some previous efforts
in making money by the students. Some might question
the educational propriety of a teacher being associated
with such an activity. Leaders in agricultural educa-
tion, seemingly, do not frown on the practice but feel
that some degree of ownership and an opportunity to earn
money is a desirable feature of the program of super-
vised farming. For instance, Kiltz declared:

There should be some ownership interest in
one or more phases of the program. The activities
in which the boy has ownership interest will be more
interesting and vivid to him and more likely to stim-
ulate a serious effort on his part. Ownership inter-
est is alsg essential to eventual establishment in
farming.

Similarly, Ekstrom recognized definite advantages
in permitting the student to make money from his projects:

While there has been a tendency to place less
emphasis on the matter of financial return from
projects, the monetary feature is important and should
not be overlooked. Some measure of financial inde-
pendence is desired by all peOple. Students are not
immune to this interest. Most of them appreciate an
opportunity to pay for at least some of their per-

sonal expenses, as well as to make further investments
in farming resulting from the increase in livestock

 

116 Kiltz, loc. cit.

216

inveniiries or the actual return from their prod-
ucts.

118 119

Likewise Orr and Sasman point out the de-

sirability of allowing the student to have ownership.

Sasman said:

It is desirable for every one to own some-
thing of his own. There is a pride in ownership and
a sense of responsibility developed thru it which
probably cannot be accomplished in any other way.
Consequently, in working with youth in vocational
agriculture, it is highly desirable that there be
included in the program the development of productixg
enterprises owned entirely or in part by the pupil. 0

It is recommended that the projects in a boy's
program of supervised farming be in enterprises common
to his home farm. Wall, for instance, expressed this
vieWpoint when he said: "The enterprises selected should
be adapted to the farm and should be of the scope and

"121

character to challenge the boy. Similarly, Hammonds

and Tabb declared:

A good farming program fits in well with the
home-farm business. It does not contain enterprises

 

117 Ekstrom, loc. cit.

118 Don M. Orr, "Projects and Supervised Practice
on a Farm," The Agricultural Education Magazine, 16:208,
May, 1944..

119 Sasman, op. cit., p. 88.

120 Loc. cit.

121‘Wall,.9_p_. cit., p. 19.

217
that should not be on that farm or that will seri-
ously interfere with the operation of the farm
business.

Deyoe presented arguments to show that the prac-
tice of a student having projects in enterprises common
to the home farm is sound in preparing him for the type
of farming in which he will be most likely to engage.

He reasoned:

As a rule, a person who engages in farming as
a life work does so in the community in which he is
reared. Furthermore, it is quite likely that he will
make his start on the home farm or on a farm on which
the type of farming is similar. Consequently, it
seems valid to assume that he should prepare himself
for the type of farming represented in the commgggty
in general, and on his home farm in particular.

Summary. The writers and sources cited in this
section agree that establishment in farming is a worthy
objective in vocational education in agriculture. Teach-
ers have a responsibility to aid students in moving to-
ward establishment by helping them to accumulate capital
assets in farming through earnings and savings from in-
dividual programs of supervised farming. Since students,
who enter farming, are likely to start on the home farm
or on a farm on which the type of farming is similar,

the projects in the student's program of supervised

 

122 Hammonds and Tabb, op. cit., p. 28.

123 Deyoe, Supervised Farming ig'Vocational Agri-
culture, op. cit., p. 181.

 

218
farming should be in an enterprise common to the home
farm.

7. Students and parents have developed favor-

 

able relationships in farming.

 

This section is concerned with a determination of
recommendations of leaders in agricultural education on
problems of developing and maintainmng favorable rela-
tionships in farming between a boy and his parents.
Hammonds and Tabb pointed out the importance of good
parent-son relationships when they wrote:

More and more it is becoming clear that, in
one way or another, parents have a great influence
on establishment of their sons in farming. Not
only do they have much to do with the kind of a
farming program that the boy will have while in
high school and the amount of capital he will ac-
quire, but they are a big factor in assisting the
boy financially. Most of the successful farmers
would like to see their sons continue in farming.
Often the parents are able and willing to work out
with their sons some form of partnership, or they
will assist their so? flinancially in renting or
buying another farm. 2

One area where a problem may arise relates to
proper procedures for setting up an agreement between
a boy and his parents as he carries out his program of
supervised farming. Obviously, in an undertaking of this

type, there is a need to consider such items as use of

 

124 Hammonds and Tabb, op. cit., p. 166.

 

219
land, buildings, equipment and livestock, as well as
responsibilities of labor and management.

According to Gibson much of the project financing
is accomplished through the c00peration of parents.
Frequently, he declares, no money changes hands between
the boy and his parents. Gibson does not object to
parents financing a boy's projects but he does feel that
the transaction should be kept on a business-like basis
and should be typical of the procedure which the boy
would follow when negotiating a loan from a bank or some
other source outside the family. He contended:

Merely securing the money, credit, or other
facilities necessary to finance a project is not the
big consideration. From the educational standpoint,
it is of more importance to provide the boy with
every opportunity available for assuming typical
financing responsibilities and to use project-finan-
cing as a means of developing those abilities he will
need to possess later for successful financing of
the farm business as a whole. Unless the boy's fi—
nancial responsibilities can be specifically determ-
ined, and the conditions and methods of securing
credit and repaying loans be clearly understood, the
training the boy gets in project-financing thru
parent co-operation will be negligible.12

Hamlin took a similar viewpoint when he main-

tained:

 

125 H. H. Gibson, "Developing Ability to Finance
a Farm Business: a Major Objective in Vocational Pro-
grams in Agriculture," The Agricultural Education Maga-
zine, 12:l28, January, 1940.

220

A productive project should stand on its own
feet. Animals, feed, and equipment should not be
given a boy as a gift or as pay for work done on the
farm. Complete records should be kept which show
all the expenses incurred which would have been in-
curred had he been farming separately for himself.

. . . Parents should insist on being paid by their
boys for tag contributions they make to their boys'
projects.

Two principal values are held out for the making
of project agreements between parents and son: (1) the
educational training involved, and (2) the clear under-
standing developed between the student and parents.
Hammonds stressed the importance of a clear understand-
ing. He said:

A clear understanding between the student and
the parent (or other landlord) at the beginning of
the program helps prevent misunderstandings later.
With a clear understanding at the beginning, the
student can go ahead with planning what he will do
and how he will do it; he knows what he can do and
what he cannot do.12

Both the advantages of a definite understanding
between parents and the son and the educational value
of the activity are indicated in the most recent pub-

lication on supervised farming by the Michigan Office of

 

126 Hamlin, Agricultural Education in Community

Schools, op. cit., p. 237.

 

127 Hammonds: Teaching Agriculture, op. cit.,
p. 1970 -

221

128 130

Vocational Education as well as by Deyoe,129 Kiltz,

and McCann.131

Foard offered some definite suggestions on the
form which project agreements should take. According to
him:

Agreements should be brief, precise and def-
inite. They should state very clearly the obliga-
tions of all involved individuals and should be
written by the boy and corrected, amended and signed
by a parent and the teacher. Some teachers have pre-
pared very lengthy and complicated legal documents132
that tend to frighten both the boy and the parent.

Apparently, most authorities are not prepared
to take an unqualified position on the exact character
that a project agreement should assume. Deyoe133 stated

134

that written agreements are preferable while Cook said

 

128 Supervised Farming Programs in‘Vocational
Agriculture, op. cit., p. I4.

 

 

 

129 Deyoe, Supervised Farming ig'Vocational;Ag—
riculture, op. cit., p. 228.

130

 

 

Kiltz, op. cit., p. 189.

131 W. H. McCann, "Supervised Farming Agreements
Between Father and Son," The Agricultural Education Mag-
azine, 20:10, July, 1947.

132 J. H. Foard, "Project Agreements Are Essen-
tial," TheAgricultural Education Magazine, 18:31, Sep-
tember, I945.

 

133 Deyoe, Supervised Farming in Vocational Ag-
riculture, op. cit., p. 228. "—

134 Cook, A_Handbook on Teaching Vocational Ag-
riculture, op. cit., p. 344.'—'

 

 

222
they seem desirable. Hammonds135 pointed out several
advantages for a written agreement but then indicated
that his statements do not mean that the agreement has
to be written.

Authorities, seemingly, do not care to take an
unequivocal position regarding the matter of having the
agreement signed by the student, parent, and teacher.

136

Deyoe pointed out that project record books, in most
cases, provide forms for signatures to business agree-
ments. He stated that it seems preferable to have an
agreement which is signed by the parent, the boy, and
the teacher.137 Hammonds and Tabb stated: "A written
understanding may or may not be signed by the student,
parent, and teacher. Policies on this matter differ
among departments."138
The degree of responsibility which a boy is to
assume about the home farm in the management of his pro-

gram of supervised farming may also pose a problem in

parent-son relationships. For example, a student might

 

135 Hammonds, Teaching Agriculture, op. cit.,

 

p. 201.

136 Deyoe, Supervised Farming i§_Vocational Ag-
riculture, loc. cit.

 

 

137 Deyoe, Ibid., p. 230.

138 Hammonds and Tabb: 22- 912': p. 77'

223
be expected, presumably, to introduce certain approved
practices in production he had learned at the school.

Is it in order for him to be given the reSponsibility to
decide what new approved practices should be adOpted as
well as the Opportunity to make other managerial deci-
sions incident to carrying out his program of super-
vised farming? It appears that Hammonds would answer
this question in the affirmative. He indicated that
the student has managerial responsibilities when he said:
If someone else is responsible for the farm-
ing program, it is not the student's program. The
student should do the work himself or arrange with
others for the necessary help. His parents should
neither do the work nor have to remind him.what
needs to be done. It is the student's responsibil-
ity to see that the work is done when it should be
done. The student should know how to do the work.
He should decide what practices egg to be used. (He
may, of course, consult others.)
Parsons also believes that the student should
assume managerial responsibilities. He declared: "A
good supervised farming program in which the boy has
management and a financial interest is essential to com-
plete and motivate his instruction in the vocational

agriculture class."140

 

139 Hammonds, Teaching Agriculture, OP- Cito:
p. 219. 8. -_—

140 Parsons, loc. cit.

 

224

It is recommended in another source141 that
students be permitted to participate in the management
of the farm by being able to introduce approved prac-
tices in a number of enterprises. There is the caution,
however, that the practices should be carefully checked
by the teacher and should be introduced only after care-
ful consideration and counsel with the parents.

Ekstrom142 regards the management of certain
farm enterprises as a step toward farming. While he
concedes that it may be desirable for the student to
segregate such projects as a litter of hogs, the plan
of managing an entire enterprise might be more practi-
cal even though only a small percentage of the returns
might be available to the student.

Deyoe sees real merit in a partnership program
between a boy and his father, in which the son would
assume most of the responsibility and receive a definite
portion of the profits. He said:

More consideration should be given to possi-
bilities for partnerships in important enterprises
on the farm as a part of programs of supervised
farming conducted during the day-school period.

. . . Such undertakings often lead to increased con-
fidence in the boy on the part of the father and

 

141
Supervised Farming Programs in Vocational

Agriculture, _<_>_p_. cit., p. .

142 Ekstrom, loc. cit.

 

 

 

 

225

give the boy experience on a scope comparable

to what he is likely to obtain when he farms for
himself or when he enters into partnership on a
more comprehensive scale.1 3

Along the same line, Tabb declared:

It doesn't make sense to have two poultry
flocks or two flocks of sheep on most farms. It is
better for a boy to have one fifth ownership in a
flock of 50 sheep than complete ownership of 10
not a part of a larger flock. Partnership in enter-
prises tends to evolve into a partnership in the
farm business when the boy gets out of school. 4

Hammonds also recommended enterprise partner-

ships.

To form an enterprise partnership with the
father when the son is ready and capable of doing
so is often a good way to "grow into farming." It
solves many of the financial problems of the son. 145
It also makes for good father-and-son relationships.

The importance of encouraging partnership proj-
ects between parents and son is indicated by Hamlin:

Since about two boys out of five will start
farming with relatives, cooperation with them in
partnership projects and other common undertakings
will help to pggpare them for satisfactory adult
partnerships.

 

143 Deyoe, Supervised Farming in Vocational Ag-
riculture, op. cit., p. 384} "'

144

 

Tabb, loc. cit.

 

145 Hammonds, Teaching Agriculture, op. cit-:
p. 202. ——.

146 Hamlin, Agricultural Education in Community
Schools, op. cit., p. 237. '-_

 

226

Summary. Authorities recognize the importance
of developing and maintaining favorable parent-son rela-
tionships in farming. It is recommended that there be a
business agreement between the parents and son, which
clearly defines the privileges and responsibilities of
each party. In addition to developing a clear under-
standing between the parent and the son, drawing up an
agreement is considered a valuable educational experience.
Leaders in agricultural education seem to prefer that
the agreement be written. An opportunity for the student
to exercise responsibilities of management, not only in
enterprises in which he has ownership but other farm
enterprises as well, is recommended. A father-son part-
nership in one or more farm enterprises is encouraged as
a move in the direction of establishment in farming be-
cause of the prospect of it culminating in the formation
of a partnership in the entire farm business.

8. Much or all Of the classroom instruction_i§

 

 

built around the problems and needs of students in devel-

 

 

 

oping their farming programs.

 

If there is any one characteristic of education
in vocational agriculture which has stood out, it is
probably the attempt which has been made to keep the
instruction on a practical basis. Maltby emphasized this

aspect when he wrote:

227

In vocational agriculture the work begins
in the field and, as the word implies, means train-
ing in the skills and operative jobs to be performed,
training in managerial analysis, and an education in
the use of agricultuflal data as they apply to the
practical problems.

In the minds of some people, presumably, the
prevailing pattern of instruction in vocational agri—
culture represents a most favorable blending of theory in
the form of classroom instruction, on the one hand, and
practice in the form of supervised farming, on the other.

According to Spanton, there have been two distinct
points of view toward the relationship that should exist
between classroom instruction and supervised farming.

He described them as follows:

Early in the history of vocational education
two rather distinct schools of thot developed with
regard to supervised farm practice. One school be-
lieved that supervised farm practice should be the
outgrowth of the classroom instruction, and that
the home project was a device for putting into prac-
tice on the home farm the methods and practices
decided upon in the classroom. Another school held
to the idea that classroom instruction in vocational

agriculture should be based upon the compositinguper-
vised farm practice activities of the pupils.

 

147 R. D. Maltby, "Progress in Supervised Prac-
tice," The Agricultural Education Magazine, 3:155, April,
1931.. -—E

 

148W. T. Spanton, "Supervised Farm Practice and
the Smith-Hughes Act," The Agricultural Education Maga-
zine, 5:185, June, 1933.

228
It appears that Heald would not include himself
among the former group recognized by Spanton. Heald
said:

The project is not required or advised for
the purpose of illustratingoor furnishing an appli-
cation of the principles taught in the course, but
the reverse is true. The successful develOpment
of the project and its improvement in all possible
ways involves problems which can be solved only in
terms of principles and fiacts which may be properly
organized into courses.1 9

One is impressed by the unanimity of opinion on
the question of what is considered to be the proper
relationship between classroom instruction and super-
vised farming. A11 authorities point out the desirability
for a close association between these two phases of edu-
cation, if, indeed, it is prOper to separate them one
from the other.

Hamlin, for instance, indicated that ". . . super-
vised practice should, ideally, be as broad as the course

of study."150

Chesnutt declared that it is generally
accepted as axiomatic that (1) "The core of vocational
agriculture is the student's farming program (2) The

instruction in vocational agriculture should be based

 

149 F. E. Heald, "Project Ideals and Difficul-
tiez," The Agricultural Education Magazine, 6:166, May,
193 ..

150 Hamlin, "A Philosophy of Supervised Practice,"
22. cit., p. 104.

 

 

 

 

229

"151 Cook stated:

upon the students' farming program.
"The supervised farming programs, related information
and activities should be used as a basis for the in-

struction."152

Hammonds emphasized: "Since practice
is necessary to learning, there should be a close re-
lation between the farming programs of students in
vocational agriculture and the course of study."153
Williams indicated the course of study in vocational
agriculture as ". . . essentially a composite of the

programs of the members of the class."154

Smith spoke
of the ". . . close alignment of the teaching with the
actual problems growing out of the pupil's experience
with his home project."155 Peterson stated: "The su-

pervised farming program should be the core of the

 

151 s. L. Chesnutt, "A Plan of Organizing In-
struction," The Agricultural Education Magazine, 18:128,
January, 1946.

152 Cook, A Handbook 22 Teaching VOcational'gg-
riculture, 2p. cit., p. 283.

 

 

 

153 Hammonds, Teaching Agriculture, OP- Cit°:
p. 170. —

154 Arthur P. Williams, "What Constitutes Good
Teaching?" The Agricultural Education Magazine, 7:19,
August, 1934.

155 z. M. Smith, "Experiences with the Home
Project," The Agricultural Education Magazine, 2:89,
June, 1930.

230
"156

entire program of work. Similarly, Field asserted:

. . . farm practice is the beginning, the core, and the
final application of instruction in agriculture."157
Presenting this same point of view Maltby wrote, ". . .

the course of study should be based on the supervised

ll 158

practice program of the pupil . while Wall main-

tained that the teacher's course of study should be

. . . based largely on those things that the students
will be facing in developing their programs."159 Along
the same line, Floyd contended:

The idea which should be kept constantly

in mind is that the instruction of each boy in the
class should be based on the activities in which he
can engage in the type of farming for which he is
receiving training. The training program of each
student takes on a new meaning because it becomes
thelg8re of his course instead of a project tacked
on

Again, Pollom maintained:

If the project, properly used, is an effec-
tive teaching device it would seem that as much of

 

156 Peterson, loc. cit.

157 Field, 100. cit.

158 R. D. Maltby, "Standards in Supervised
Practice," The Agricultural Education Magazine, 1:4,
April, 1929.

 

159 Wall, 23. cit., p. 18.

160 H. C. Floyd, "The Program in Vocational
Agriculture for the High Schools in Louisiana," The
Agricultural Education Magazine, 6:183, June, 1934.

231
our teaching as possible should center around proj-
ects. This means that as much of our day-to-day
class instruction as possible should grow out of the
immediate and giar future needs of boys in their
project work.1

Further emphasis was given in a Federal bulletin
to the close tie-up between classroom instruction and
programs of supervised farming. The importance of giv-
ing attention to individual needs of the student is
stressed.

The content of any course of study in voca-
tional agriculture should be derived largely from
students' needs in terms of supervised farming
programs and the type or types of farming prevail-
ing in the logality, especially the types on their
home farms. 0

A similar instructional philosophy is echoed when
it is recommended in a Michigan publication that:

Instruction should be centered about the
task on the part of the student to determine his
own needs and those of the home farm, and basig on
them, develop his supervised farming program. 3

Sanders has noted several desirable tendencies
when the supervised farming program became the center of
interest and the basis of classroom instruction. "Among

them," declared Sanders, "were an enlarged scope of

 

161 Pollom, "Project Plans and Their Relation to
Instruction, 2p. cit., p. 48.

162 ROSS.EE.§$°’.22° cit., p. 4.

163 Supervised Farming Programs in Vocational Ag-
riculture, 22. cit., p. 29. "‘ "“

 

 

 

232
enterprises, an increase in the number and variety of
enterprises, and a functioning body of subject matter

that was reflected in increased pupil interest, larger

returns, and better farming.l64

There are also recommendations on proper proce-
dures to follow in organizing the instruction in the
classroom in such a way that emphasis is given to super-
vised farming. For instance, in an instructional bul—
letin it is pointed out that:

If the instructor guides and teaches so that
the boys develop broad and continuing programs of
supervised farming, make progress toward establish-
ment in farming, and engage in other meaningful
activities, the setting is provided for selecting
and organigéng course materials for effective
teaching.

Deyoe believes it is necessary to change the pat-
tern of teaching if course materials are to be organized
around programs of supervised farming:

If course materials are to be built around
the programs of supervised farming, it is necessary
to disregard the conventional pattern of teaching
livestock and crop production in separate years.

In other words, the so-called "cross-sectional" plan
is needed because only by this means can the course

 

164 H. W. Sanders, "What Progress Has Been Made
in Planning Supervised Farming?" The Agricultural Edu-
cation Magazine, 10:88, November, I937.

 

 

165 Teaching Techniques and Instructional Plan-
ning for High-School Classes in Vocational Agriculture,

'BfiIIeEIn 29C (Lansing, Michigan: 'Department of Public
Instruction, 1948), p. 13.

 

 

233
of study be made sufficienty flexible to meet the

needs of tge students in develOping their farming
programs.1 9

Still, Deyoe sees little point in the teacher
adopting the cross sectional organization of course
materials unless students have developed broad programs
of supervised farming. He makes his position clear on
this matter as he continues:

It should be emphasized that there is little
point in adopting the cross-sectional or horizontal
organization of course materials unless broad pro-
grams of supervised farming have been developed for
most or all of the students in a class. This seems
almost axiomatic when it is recalled that the main
reason for using such an organization is that it
permits flexibility so that the course content will
have a functional relationghip to the programs of
supervised farm practice.

Summary. Leaders in agricultural education ap-
pear to be unanimous in recommending that classroom in-
struction in vocational agriculture should be based on
problems and needs of students arising from their pro-
grams of supervised farming.

9. The instructor makes supervisory visits 32

 

 

the home farms 2: students throughout the year. Most 23

 

 

these visits come when opportunities for instruction are

 

 

 

likely £9.23 present.

 

166 Deyoe, Supervised Farming in Vocational Agri-

culture, 22. cit., p. 300.

 

 

 

167 Loc. cit.

234

Probably, the primary justification for super-
visory visits by the teacher to the home farm of the
student is to instruct the pupil. Dickinson has indi-
cated that the instructional situation inherent in super-
visory visits affords splendid opportunities for learn-
ing. He wrote: "The setting is ideal-~a job in prog-
ress under natural conditions, the boy responsible for
the job and vitally interested in it, and the teacher
who has helped in the planning of the job." Then he
concluded by raising the question, "What better Oppor-
tunity for teaching could be found?"168

Over and over writers stress the value of the
supervisory visit as a means of teaching. Deyoe, for
instance, stated: "In reality, the home-farm visit,
if properly carried out, is a highly effective form of
individualized instruction."169

Reflecting the same viewpoint, Hammonds said:
"This [the supervisory visit] is the teacher's great
Opportunity to do individual teaching. Supervision is

largely a teaching process. Teaching on the farm is a

 

168 Sherman Dickinson, "Supervising Practice in
Vocational Agriculture," The Agricultural Education Mag-
azine, 5:106, January, 1933. '—

 

169 Deyoe, Supervised Farming in‘Vocational Agri-
culture, 2p. cit., p. 338.

 

235

"170 Similarly, Kiltz

major part of good supervision.

pointed out: "The purpose of the 'visit' of the teacher

of vocational agriculture with the pupil is to teach."171

 

Cook offered the most specific recommendation for
frequency of home visits of any of the writings reviewed.
He declared: "During the summer months the student
should be visited at least once a month and more fre-
quently if possible. Six visits per year should be the
very minimum, with ten to twelve being desirable for
each student.172

Other authorities seem inclined to qualify any
recommendations which they make. Olney felt that the
amount of instruction which can be given and the need
for assistance of the boys should be the basis for vis-
its, rather than any specified number. He concluded
by saying: "Probably each pupil should be visited at

least two or three times each month during the summer,

and a less number of times per month during the school

 

170
p. 220.
171 Kenneth W. Kiltz, "The Teaching Vigit t0

the Farm Boy," The Agricultural Education Magazine, 9:40,
September, 1936.

172 Cook, A Handbook on Teaching vocational Ag-
riculture, 22. cit., p. 3905—_ _- -_-

Hammonds, Teaching Agriculture, up. cit.,

 

 

 

236
year."173 Deyoe indicated that it is unwise to be too
specific with respect to frequency of visitation. "Per-
haps, alfair approximation," he wrote "is an average of
one visit every one or two months, varying in accord-
ance with the needs arising from the program of super-
vised farming and with the ability of the individual

student to cope satisfactorily with situations as they

arise in developing the program."174

Although the writer was unable to find support
for his position, Hamlin seems to question the feasi-
bility of a teacher spending extensive time in home

visitation. He wrote:

In the early days of vocational agriculture,
the prevailing idea seemed to be that the teacher
who traveled the most miles and spent the most time
with his boys on their farms was the best super-
visor of practice. We do not now believe that this
standard is right; we are sure too that it is
financially prohibitive. Individual instruction in
itself is so costly that we have almost none of it
in our schools, relying on group instruction instead
. . . The new type supervisor of practice will have
to be, first of all, an organizer. He must be able
to get things done largely through working with
groups. He I751 not have much time to spend with
individuals.

 

173 Roy A. Olney, "Visiting Farming Programs an
Opportunity for the Teacher,“ The Agricultural Education
Magazine, 19:117, December, 1946?

174 Deyoe, Supervised Farming in‘Vocational Agri-
culture, 22. cit., p. 341.

 

175 Hamlin, "A Philosophy of Supervised Practice,"
2320 Cite, p0 107'

 

 

237

Whether to announce visits in advance appears to
be a moot question. Kiltz believes that it is compar-
atively easy to arrange visits with the boy during the
winter because the teacher has almost daily contact with
the student. In the summer, according to him, visits
can be arranged by the telephone or a visit can be
scheduled during a previous visit. Kiltz objected to a
definite schedule. He maintained:

The use of zadefinite schedule is not very
satisfactory because unforeseen development may con-
flict. The teacher should never bind ihg boy's time
with such a schedule in a busy season. 7

Dickinson granted that there are occasions when it
seems advisable to notify the boy before a visit. In
general, however, he advised the best practice seems to
be to make supervisory visits unannounced. He declared:

It is usually difficult to know just when one
will reach the boy's farm, because of weather con-
ditions, variation in length of visits at other177
projects, and unexpected demands on one's time.

Most authorities, however, lean toward the prac-
tice of having the visit announced. Ross, Clements and

Johnson recommended: "Generally Speaking, students should

be notified in advance with regard to the approximate time

 

176

loc. cit.

Kiltz, "The Teaching Visit to the Farm.Boy,"

177 Dickinson, "Supervising Practice in Vocational
Agriculture," loc. cit.

238
of an instructor's call."178 It is stated in a bulletin
from the Michigan Office of Vocational Education that,
"In order to make these types of farm visits most suc-
cessful, farm visits should be planned and scheduled
ahead of time."179 Cook wrote: "The trend, however, is
toward notifying the student."180

Making notes of each farm visit seems to be a
practice that is generally recommended. Deyoe believes
that memoranda of visits (1) help in planning future
visits; (2) serve as a means of evaluating the prog-
ress of students and the effectiveness of supervision;
(3) provide suggestions for guiding students in replan-
ning programs and making additions; and (4) serve as a
basis for showing use of instructor‘s time.181

The use of a memorandum on supervisory visits

182

is recommended in a Michigan bulletin as well as

 

178 Ross et al., op. cit., p. 68.

179 supervised Farming programs in Vocational Ag-
riculture, _p. cit., p.

180 Cook, A Handbook on Teaching Vocational Agri-
culture, op. cit., p. 393. "‘

181 Deyoe, Supervised Farming in Vocational Agri-
culture, op. cit., p. 350.

182 Supervised Farming Programs in Vocational Ag-
riculture, op. cit., p. 35.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

239
by Dickinson,183 Kiltz,184 and Olney. According to
Olney:

. . . it is essential that the teacher keep
for himself a brief but concise record of progress
and accomplishments on each part of the pupil's
farming program if he is to carry on a continuous
constructive program with the boy . . . Notes should
be made for the teacher's use. The main purpose
of such notes is for the teacher's use in planning
further assistance or help to the pupil8gn advanc-
ing his program on an efficient basis.

Summary. According to authorities cited in this
section, the primary purpose of the supervisory home
visit is to carry on individual instruction with the
pupil. In general, leaders in agricultural education
do not care to Specify a set number of visits that should
be made to a student, although they indicate that these
visits should be made regularly from month to month.
Most authorities recommend that farm visits be announced.
The use of a memorandum of each visit is recommended.

10. Students are led to recognize the value of

 

 

complete and accurate records. Training is provided in

 

keeping and using records.

 

183 Dickinson, "Supervising Practice in Vocational
Agriculture," 22. cit., p. 107.

184

loc. cit.

Kiltz, "The Teaching Visit to the Farm Boy,"

185 Olney, "Visiting Farming Programs an Oppor-
tunity for the Teacher," op. cit., p. 115.

 

__.- .- .. ._.—-_.—_______

 

240
Judging from the opinions of leaders in vocational
agriculture, there is probably no phase of supervised
farming where so much dissatisfaction and uncertainty
exists as in the area of record keeping and use of rec-

ords. A state supervisor wrote: "Project records have

"186

been the nightmare of vocational agriculture. Nearly

twenty years ago, a teacher trainer took a rather dim
view of the status of record keeping. He reported:

We have recently had a good deal of delving
into project record keeping. The gist of the find-
ings to date is that we have made almost no prog-
ress in this respect since 1917, that project
records generally are ggossly inaccurate, incom-
plete, and misleading. 7

More recently another teacher trainer reviewed
the efforts that had been made in his state to improve
the system of project accounting. With a note of fu-
tility he observed:

In Ohio, project accounting has been carried
to the greatest detail probably of any state. The
procedure has been determined following close advis-
ory relationships with the extension specialists in
farm accounting-~men of national reputations. Also,
project books have been carefully analyzed and the
various errors and shortcomings enumerated; courses
have been offered for teachers or discussion groups
have been held at our conferences to the end that

 

186 L. M. Sasman, "Supervised Practice in Farm-
ing," The Agricultural Education Magazine, 5:37, Septem-
ber,.I§32.

187 H. M. Hamlin, "Project Record Keeping," The
Agricultural Education Magazine, 3:122, February, 193I.

 

 

 

 

241
improvement might be made. Yet with all this care
and detail, the best that can be truthfully said
of the situation today is that many teachers do not
direct their boys thru the accounting procedure
correctly and hundreds of the boys fail to bring
their project accounting to an acceptable analysis.
After 25 years of trial and error we do ngg appear
to have the answer. Who has the answer?1

Other cases could be cited to show that there is
evidence of considerable concern by leaders in agricul-
tural education for the low quality of project records
which they believe generally exist.

If record keeping is as bad as it is often pic-
tured, what are the reasons? Bender made an appraisal
of the situation and concluded:

In far too many cases boys are keeping rec-
ords because they have to and the records consist of
a series of estimates or guesses. Undoubtedly, some
of the difficulty can be traced to the fact that
both teacher and students do got realize the use
that can be made of records.1

In spite of the criticism that is directed to-
ward record keeping, in no instance has the writer come
upon a recommendation that the practice be abandoned.
Ekstrom pointed out that, "Almost all, if not all, vo-

cational workers are agreed that records are essential

 

188 W. F. Stewart, "Policies and Needs in Agri-
cultural Education," The Agricultural Education Maga-
zine, 16:189, April, I914.

 

189 Ralph E. Bender, "An Analysis of Swine Proj-
ect Records," The Agricultural Education Magazine, 15:66,
October, 1942.

 

 

 

242

to the farming business and to the supervised practice

work of the vocational agriculture students."190

The present consensus of opinion seems to be that
greater efforts should be made to teach the importance
of good records and then instruct students how to keep
and use records. Hammonds, for instance, said:

Keeping records cannot be Justified unless
the records are useful to those who keep them. Al-
though records are a part of any good farming pro-
gram, students should not be asked to keep them un-
til they see why records should be kept. It is
the responsibility of the teacher to teach the stu-
dents that records ghould be kept and how to keep
them and use them.1

Similarly, Deyoe observed:

In departments where records of supervised
farming are well kept, it is usually found that
record keeping is included as a definitg2 and regu-
lar part of the instructional program.1

Along the same line Cook suggested the desira-
bility of explaining the importance of good records to

students and teaching them how to keep records.193

 

 

190 EkStI'OI'n, £20 Cit.) p. 9’

191 Hammonds, Teaching Agriculture, 09- 01t-:
p. 2050 —

192

Deyoe, Supervised Farming in Vocational Agri-
culture, op. cit., p. 260.

 

193 Cook, A Handbook on Teaching Vocational Agri-
culture, op. cit., p. 383. '"'

 

 

2#3
After pointing out several causes for poor rec-
ords, Kirkland offered some concrete suggestions for
improving them. It can be seen that his ideas, if put
into practice, would necessitate that the teacher use
considerable time in the classroom for instruction in
record keeping. Among Kirkland's suggestions were:

Utilize the summaries of records of former
students in helping newly enrolled students to de-
termine the economic possibilities of certain enter-
prises and to aid them in making an estimated budget
of expenses and receipts of the enterprises selected.

Immediately after newly enrolled students
have started an enterprise they should be taught how
to keep the necessary records . . . involved in con-
ducting the enterprise.

Have regular dates for students to post labor
and cash records in the record books. It is advis-
able to devote a portion of a class period to this
activity every two to four weeks.

Lead the students to analyze the records in
order to determine how efficiently each enterprise
was conducted and to determine what Jobs should be
studied further in order to increagfi the efficiency
of the enterprises in the future.

Making project budgets is recommended as a de-

sirable activity associated with the teaching of record

196 198

keeping. Cline,195 Cook, Deyoe,l97 Duck, Gibson,199

 

194 James B. Kirkland, "What's Wrong with Record
Keeping?" The Agricultural Education Magazine, 17:128,
January,,l945.

 

195 Russell w. Cline, "Why Use Enterprise Budgets?"
The Agricultural Education Magazine, 11:68, October, 1938.

 

 

 

 

244
and Ekstrom are among those looking with favor upon
having students prepare project budgets. Ekstrom wrote:

A desirable set of records for vocational
students should contain a budget based on a study of
local situations, results of projects of former
students, reference data--average group yields for
the community and county, and summaries of the cos

accounting route reports of the extension service}-00

Once students have begun to keep records, it is
recommended that the instructor check them regularly.
In a Federal bulletin, Ross, Clements, and Johnson
stated that students should be provided with a file or
case in the classroom for their project record books
so the books can be available to the instructor and stu-
dents each day for study, recording, and checking.201

Cook recommended that the instructor place a grade in

the student's record book each time the boy is visited.

 

196 Cook, A Handbook on Teaching Vocational Agri«
culture, 0p. Lit., p.‘340. ""

197 Deyoe, Supervised Farming in Vocational Agri-
culture, op. Lit., p. 221.

198 Joe Duck, "Budget Making Is Educationally

Sound," The Agricultural Education Magazine, 21: 75,
October, I948.

 

 

 

 

199 Gibson, "Developing Ability to Finance a Farm
Business: a Major Objective in Vocational Programs in
Agriculture," op. cit., p. 129.

200 Ekstrom, op. cit., p. 9.
201

Ross 23.2l".22' cit., p. 62.
202

Cook,A Handbook on Teaching Vocational Ag-
riculture, 0p. LfE., p. 397.

 

20

2

o
u
l
v
u
I i
. a - D

 

 

 

245
Hammonds, likewise, advised the teacher to examine rec-

ord books. He said:

Check the records for completeness and accu-
racy. If the teacher does not see the records, a
student has ground to assume that records are not
important. A student wants the teacher to see his
records if they are well kept. Seeing the records

on eacB supervisory visit promotes their being well
kept.2 3

Considerable stress is placed upon the importance
of putting the records kept to use. In this regard,
Hammonds declared:

If records are not to be summarized, interp-
reted, and used, they might as well not be kept.
Summarizing records is necessary £0 interpreting
them and to making use of them. 0

Similarly, Ross, Clements, and Johnson observed:

The keeping of project records is of no par-
ticular value unless some use is made of them. In
order to measure progress properly and develop plans
for the future, each student should summarize and
analyze the results of the records on each completed
project in his supervised farming program.2O

Duck206 and Sweany particularly commended analy-

sis of records as a desirable activity for students.

 

203 Hammonds, Teaching Agriculture, op. cit.,

 

p. 221.
204

Hammonds, Teaching Agriculture, 0p. cit.,
p. 210. "’

205 Ross et al., op. cit., p. 61.
206 Joe Duck, "Helping Teachers to Improve Stu-

dents' Farming Records," The Agricultural Education Mag-
azine, 18:6, July, 1945.

246
Sweany said: "The ability to analyze his projects to
determine weaknesses should be developed in every boy."207
Summary. A review of the writings of supervisors
and teacher trainers reveals that there is general dis-
satisfaction with the quality of project record keeping.
It is recommended that students be taught the value of

good records as well as how to keep and use records.

 

207 Sweany, loc. cit.

 

CHAPTER V

ANALYSIS OF PRACTICES USED IN CONDUCTING
SUPERVISED FARMING

In this chapter is presented an analysis of the
practices used by two groups of teachers: (1) those
determined to have the more effective and (2) those
found to have the less effective programs of supervised
farming. Several comparisons are made between the two
groups.

The presentation is divided into ten sections
each corresponding to one of the ten working principles
of conducting supervised farming which have been developed
in Chapter IV. As pointed out previously, an effort was
made to ask questions of the informants which reflected
the extent that teachers were carrying out practices
in conducting supervised farming which were in keeping
with recommendations of expert Opinion. As can be seen
in the interviewing guide,1 the questions were grouped
by areas to correSpond to the ten working principles.
The discussion is designed to reveal not only the extent
that the teachers in the two groups carried out recom-

mended practices, but also the reasons offered by the

 

1 See Appendix A.

248
teachers for any failure to use these practices. For
purposes of simplicity these reasons are categorized and
presented in tables. Then in order that the reader may
be further enlightened on the exact character of each
teacher's response, they are broken down in further de-
tail in the context.

A Chi-square test of significance was applied to
the numbers of the different kinds of responses offered
on each question to determine if there was a significant
difference between the answers provided by the respon-
dents in the two groups.

For purposes of comparison, the hypothesis was
made that the combined responses offered by informants
in Group I were the correct ones. Then a Chi-square test
was applied to determine if the answers of respondents in
Group II deviated from those in Group I more than could
be expected from chance variation. Significance was
tested at the five per cent level.

Since it seems to be generally agreed that the
Chi-square test should not ordinarily be applied to data
in which any cell entry is less than five, an adjusted
value of Chi-square was calculated whenever the expected

numbers were five or less.

249
GUIDING AND COUNSELING PROSPECTIVE STUDENTS

Table XVIII reveals that a much higher percentage
of the beginning students in vocational agriculture were
visited by teachers in Group I than in Group II. While
the percentages of students visited by each teacher in
Group I were not uniformly high, they were still much
higher than those in Group II. Actually, there were
ten of the thirteen teachers in Group II who made no
visits whatsoever to beginning students.

A consideration of the reasons presented by the
teachers for failure to consult with beginning students
prior to enrollment in vocational agriculture brings
out some interesting findings. In Table XIX are cate-
gorized the reasons advanced by teachers in Group I and
in Group II. The reader should keep in mind that all
of the teachers in Group I were following the practice
of conferring with beginning students to some extent.
Consequently, their responses reflect the reasons for
failure to visit selected individuals but not all of
their beginning students.

Seemingly, one of the principal causes for failure
of teachers to confer with beginning students prior to
their enrollment is the concept which they hold toward

the need and character of counseling.

250

 

 

o o om mama s.mm ms :s mmmm

o 0 mm NNN o.mw ms ms 2::

o 0 ms >>> s.ms 5 ms was
m.ss m ss mam s.sm am sm sss

o 0 ss NN :.ss os as xxx

0 o a >> s.~a om mm :2
o.mm m mm as 0.0: m om ac
m.mm ms mm as m.mm ms ms on

o 0 0s w a.mw ms as a

o o m 3 o.oos as as m

o 0 ss 9 m.mm ms :s s

o o as m s.sm m is m

o o m: m m.mm os ms a
umpsms> umpsms> mpcoUSpm empsms> cmpsms> mummuSpm

mucoufipm mucousum
mGsCCswmm wcsccswmm
pcmo pom mo gonadz

mpCMUSQm anamodpm
wusmwswmm Hoonom wCHSCswmm mCHCCswmm mMsmwswmm Hoonom
m a pace mom mo 909852 m n

 

HH gnome H Q5095

 

GZHAmmZDOo 92¢ MUZ¢QHDc mo mmmomMDm mom
Hzmzqqomzm OB mOHmm mBZMQDBm UZHZZHcmm QB ZOHedeHmH> mo Bzmaxm

HHH>X mqmda

 

 

 

251
TABLE XIX

CATEGORIES ABOUT WHICH ARE GROUPED REASONS ADVANCED BY
TEACHERS FOR NOT CONFERRING WITH BEGINNING
STUDENTS BEFORE ENROLLMENT

 

 

 

Category
Group I Group II
Concept of teacher toward counseling 3 8
Use of teacher's time 6 4
Pattern of school organization 3 2

 

For instance, two teachers in Group I and one in
Group II thought that they did not need to confer with
beginning students who came from homes where older
brothers were enrolled in or had been enrolled in voca-
tional agriculture. Another teacher in Group I felt
that the need was not particularly great for conferences
between him and beginning students because his program
"spoke for itself" and the momentum which it had gathered
in the past tended to carry it forward without a great
deal of effort on his part. Two teachers in Group II
could not see a need for counseling beginning students
because their schools were consolidated and they believed
that farm boys progressing through their schools became
sufficiently informed regarding their programs in voca-

tional agriculture and supervised farming. Similarly,

252
two other teachers in Group II explained that they felt
no particular obligations to confer with beginning stu-
dents, one because prospective pupils lived outside the
high school district, and the other because the teacher
believed his primary responsibility rested with his pres-
ent students.

The character of counseling that teachers be-
lieved to be adequate was apparently a limiting influ-
ence on the extent that individual conferences were held
with beginning students previous to their enrollment.
Two teachers in Group II contended that beginning stu-
dents could be counseled best in class work after they
had enrolled because they believed that beginning agri-
culture was largely exploratory. Another teacher went
so far as to hold that counseling with beginning students
need not be on a formal basis but could be accomplished
incidentally through contacts with parents and the pro-
spective pupils.

It is also brought out in Table XIX that problems
attendant to use of the teacher's time accounted for
several of the reasons advanced by instructors for not
conferring with beginning students. Teachers in both
groups indicated that time was a consideration in their
failure to contact beginning students but it was from a

different viewpoint. Teachers in Group I pointed out

253
that limitations of time had prevented their visiting
some of their beginning students while instructors in
Group II cited time as a factor which compelled them to
forego contacts with all or nearly all of their begin-
ning pupils. Teachers in Group I offered reSponsibil-
ities in teaching veterans on an overload basis and at-
tendance at summer school as activities which interfered
with their doing a complete Job of contacting prospective
students. Teachers in Group II did not volunteer any
specific responsibilities which conflicted.

Considerations associated with the pattern of
school organization accounted for a third category of
reasons. Three teachers in Group I reported that there
were a few students with whom they did not confer be-
cause they did not know about these pupils. In these
instances the pupils either lived outside their custo-
mary school service area or they had recently moved into
it.

Two teachers in Group II contended that organiza-
tional procedures in their schools precluded home con-
ferences with prospective students. One of these in-
structors declared that his superintendent was opposed
to any activity which might attract non-resident stu-
dents. In the other instance the teacher held that the

procedure which was followed in his school of counseling

254
prospective students in the spring before they enrolled
in high school obviated the necessity for later coun-
seling by him.

In general, it appeared that the teachers in Group
I recognized the value and desirability of a teacher con-
ferring with beginning students prior to their enroll-
ment in vocational agriculture. Most of them, appar-
ently, made rather concerted efforts to contact prospec-
tive students. In contrast, teachers in Group II made
limited or no attempt to confer with beginning students
prior to their enrollments in vocational agriculture.
Furthermore, with few exceptions, the reasons which they
offered for failure to hold such conferences indicated
that they could see no particular need for preliminary
contacts with beginning students.

Aside from conferring individually with beginning
students to acquaint them with vocational agriculture
and with supervised farming, several other approaches
were used which the instructors felt contributed toward
a better understanding of the program. These are grouped
in Table XX.

In Group I, the activities carried on by the
local F. F. A. [Future Farmers of America] chapter ap-
peared to be particularly helpful. In four of the schools,

prospective students were invited to attend one or more

 

a ‘ III»: hull

‘l

 

 

 

255
TABLE XX

CATEGORIES OF METHODS USED BY TEACHERS TO INTRODUCE
PROSPECTIVE STUDENTS TO SUPERVISED FARMING

 

 

 

Category
Group I Group II
Contacts through F. F. A. 15 2
Contacts through lower grades 13 7
Contacts through publicity 6 0
Contacts through adult groups 5 O
and older students
Contacts through 4-H Clubs 0 3

 

chapter meetings during the school year prior to the
time when they would be likely to enroll in vocational
agriculture. Four other teachers invited prOSpective
students to participate in summer F. F. A. chapter ac-
tivities. In two instances these students were invited
to attend the summer meetings. In another case, the
prospective students were invited to attend and partici-
pate in the local F. F. A. leadership training camp.

One instructor went so far as to hold a June ini-
tiation into the Greenhand degree for students who had
just completed the eighth grade. In the most recent
initiation prior to the interview, twenty—two Greenhands

had been inducted. This teacher reported that each of

256
these students had started one or more production
projects before he was eligible to gain membership.

This instructor, as well as two others who encouraged
students to have projects before enrolling in vocational
agriculture, felt that the experience was highly valu-
able. He contended that an early start was necessary
for a student to build up an inventory adequate to

make a start in farming after graduation from high
school, particularly in livestock. At the same time he
believed that such pre-vocational experience had helped
some boys discover that they did not care for agricul-
ture. Consequently, these students would not enroll

in vocational agriculture the following year.

All three of these teachers encouraged beginning
students to use services provided by the local chapter
of Future Farmers of America. At the same time they
stimulated F. F. A. members to make these services avail-
able to needy students, particularly through giving fi-
nancial aid and by making livestock available.

Three teachers gave special attention to encour-
aging prospective students to exhibit in the displays
at local and county fairs. Another teacher invited
prospective students to participate in the annual F. F.
A. summer project tour. A teacher in a school where

vocational agriculture was not taught in the ninth grade,

257
had organized a Junior F. F. A. Meetings were held every
two weeks as one type of home-room activity. One of the
primary objectives of the organization was to develop a
better understanding of vocational agriculture including
supervised farming.

Other ways in which the F. F. A. was used by
teachers to develop a better understanding of vocational
agriculture and supervised farming included: (1) con-
ducting assembly programs for eighth-grade boys; (2)
forming a team of F. F. A. members to visit rural schools
to explain the program of vocational agriculture; and
(3) assisting with visitation days at the high school
for recent eighth-grade graduates from rural schools.

While it must be recognized that the activities
which were conducted by the F. F. A. were not always
aimed specifically toward the develOpment of an under-
standing of supervised farming, the teachers seemed to
think that these activities had contributed materially
toward a realization of this purpose.

Even though most of the methods which were used
to introduce students to supervised farming, among
teachers in Group I, were rather closely associated with
F. F. A. chapters, there were some other approaches to
this problem. Contacts with lower grade groups repre-

sented an approach which was used rather frequently.

258
These included: explaining the program of vocational
agriculture, including supervised farming, to farm boys
in the eighth or the ninth grade depending upon whether
the first year of vocational agriculture was started in
the ninth or the tenth grade; and contacting rural
eighth-grade students either in rural schools or at the
high school during high-school visitation days for rural
students. Teachers in Group II reported similar contacts
with lower grade groups but, as Table XX shows, to a
considerably lesser extent.

Use of publicity was reported to some extent by
teachers in Group I but not at all by teachers in Group
II to introduce students to supervised farming. These
methods included use of the local newspaper, the school
newspaper, and the sending of letters to students. A
few of the teachers in Group I also reported use of
contacts through fathers attending adult classes and
older students, particularly older brothers, to in-
form prospective students.

As is revealed in Table XX, the special methods
employed by teachers in Group II to bring about a better
understanding of vocational agriculture and supervised
farming, showed some similarity to those in Group I.
However, the number of different activities and the num-

ber of teachers using these activities were considerably

259

fewer. Only two teachers indicated any use of F. F. A.
but three teachers revealed that associations in 4-H
Club had helped to develop a better understanding of
vocational agriculture and supervised farming. Two of
the instructors indicated that they were active 4-H Club
leaders while one felt that his contacts with students
through 4—H Club work had been helpful in developing a
better understanding of his program.

Table XXI shows the reSponses of teachers in the
two groups to three questions dealing with practices
used in the selection of students. With two exceptions
all the teachers in Group I answered in the affirmative
to the question, Are students who enroll in your classes
required to live on a farm or have the use of farm facil-
ities for conducting individual programs of supervised
farming? In contrast, only two teachers in Group II
answered yes to this question. This difference is sig-
nificant.

The data presented in Table XXII shed further
light on the responses to this question. Only two of
the teachers in Group I had five per cent or more of
the enrollment in their departments made up of boys who
did not live on a farm. In Group II, however, all of the
teachers except one had more than five per cent of their

enrollments consisting of boys who did not live on a farm.

260
TABLE XXI
PRACTICES USED BY TEACHERS IN SELECTION OF STUDENTS

   
 
 

   
 

_.. -.—~ ,7.---_— .... -- _ ...... ...... ~-»- -.....»—- ~—-.— —- -— ——~

Group I Group II
Responding Responding

 

Practice

 

 

Yes No Yes No

 

*Are students who enroll in

your classes required to live

on a farm or have the use of

farm facilities for conduct-

ing individual programs of

supervised farming? ll 2 2 11

Do you consult with prospec-
tive students at the time of
registration for classes? 7 6 3 10

*Do you inform beginning stu-

dents that supervised farming

is a required part of the pro-

gram in vocational agriculture

prior to enrollment? l3 0 6 7

 

*Data represent a significant difference at or
above the five per cent level

In two instances, more than half of the enrollment was
composed of boys who did not live on a farm.

Table XXI also reveals the responses of the two
groups of teachers to the question, Do you consult with
prospective students at the time of registration for
classes? The teachers in Group I divided about equally
on this question with seven responding yes and six no.

Three of the teachers in Group II replied in the

261

 

 

m.sm om so mama m.m s mm mmmm
m.mm mm em NNN m.: m we pp:
93 as mm as m; m 3 e3
m.os e em mam m.m m mm ass
m.om m em NN e.ms m om xxx
s.~s 0 mm >> o.m : sw z:
o.sm mm as be m.s s am we
m.s s we ea m.m s mm no
Ta is as w as s em e
0.0m s em 3 o 0 mm m
Mow m mm B O 0 mm H
News” 0 mm 3 O O m+~ I
e.ms es we m o 0 mm a
mmmMMHMo magma so omssoncm mmmMMsMo manna so ooss0hcm
.02 ..AWI: ...WW... .00... .02 ..Nwa. ...WW... .00...
”wwwemwm mpceespm senesz Mwmwemwm meeoesew smeesz

 

 

 

mmDBADOHmO¢ A¢20H9400> ZH Qmflqomzm mm< mzmdm zo GZH>HQ 802 mwom B<me Bzmexm

HHNN mqm¢8

262
affirmative while ten gave no as their answer to this
question. The difference in the responses between the
two groups was not significant.

Table XXI also shows the responses of teachers
in the two groups to the question, Do you inform begin-
ning students that supervised farming is a required part
of the program in vocational agriculture prior to en-
rollment? Teachers in Group I were unanimous in answer-
ing this question in the affirmative while only six of
the thirteen teachers in Group II gave the same response.
This difference is significant.

Table XXIII shows a classification of reasons
advanced by teachers for permitting students to enroll
in their classes who were without farm facilities.
Examination of these reasons reveals that they tend to
fall into certain patterns. For instance, there are
those reasons which tended to emphasize the benefit
accruing to the town boy from enrolling in vocational
agriculture. These reasons included: (1) teacher can't
know whether a town boy will farm; (2) town boys make
use of agriculture whether they farm or not; (3) a study
of agriculture develops an appreciation of agriculture
and farm problems; and (4) boys going into related work

can benefit from training in agriculture.

263
TABLE XXIII

CATEGORIES OF REASONS ADVANCED BY TEACHERS FOR
PERMITTING STUDENTS TO ENROLL IN CLASSES IN
VOCATIONAL AGRICULTURE WHO DO NOT LIVE ON
A FARM OR WHO DO NOT HAVE THE USE OF
FARM FACILITIES FOR CONDUCTING
INDIVIDUAL PROGRAMS OF
SUPERVISED FARMING

   

-_-—.—-— flm- V7.7 ..- —————_ __ — , -“-— ~_ ... _.__ ._—.. _ .——- .--..~—-.._. ,_ ”...-..

Times Reported

 

 

Category
Group I Group II
Benefits to student 1 9
Pattern of administration 1
Character of instruction 0 3

 

A second set of reasons might be classified as
administrative in character. In this category are such
reasons as: (l) town boys could not be legally excluded;
(2) enrollment of town boys is necessary in order to get
large enough classes to qualify for reimbursement; (3)
school administrator demands an equitable distribution
of students in all classes; and (4) enrollment of town
boys may provide another credit which they can work into
their schedules.

A third classification of reasons for permitting
town boys to enroll in vocational agriculture centered
on the belief that ninth grade agriculture was or should

be largely exploratory in character. The men offering

264
this reasoning apparently thought that all boys should be
permitted to enroll in vocational agriculture to learn
about the subject and should not be denied this oppor-
tunity because they did not have the use of farm facil-
ities with which to carry on a program of supervised
farming. Some of the men indicated that they were able
to satisfy the legal requirements for supervised fanming
by having the students perform a few supplementary farm
skills or carry a home-garden project.

The following statement made by one of the teach-
ers seems to embody the reasoning of the most of the
teachers in Group II on the question of permitting town
boys to enroll in their classes.

Vocational agriculture is part of the public
educational system. I do not feel that any town boy
should be excluded. Town boys benefit as much or
more in my classes as others. Some town boys ar-
dently love the country. These boys can have a home-
garden or carry some kind of improvement project or
supplementary practice. Ninth-grade agriculture is
largely an overview of the subject as an occupation.

The work can be more selective beginning with the
sophomore year.

One of these teachers took a point of view on this
question which was somewhat different from the majority
of the teachers in Group II. He declared:

From the standpoint of the teacher, I would
prefer classes with strictly farm boys. From an

administrative standpoint, I can understand why all

boys interested in taking agriculture should be al-
lowed to enroll.

265

The reasons which the teachers offered for fail-
ure to consult with prospective students at the time of
registration are classified in Table XXIV. Those pre-
sented by instructors in Group I seemed quite tenable.
One gathered from the interviews that these men consid-
ered this contact with prospective students as, rela-
tively speaking, of minor importance in so far as they
were concerned. It appeared that there were certain
established administrative procedures of registration
in the six schools where these men were employed which
did not involve the teacher of vocational agriculture
acting in the capacity of counselor to assist beginning
students with their enrollments. Seemingly, these men
were quite satisfied to accept this arrangement.

As Table XVIII indicates, teachers in Group I
had apparently done considerable preliminary work in
counseling with beginning students before registration.
In general, one must be impressed by the favorable
administrative relationships which these teachers ap-
peared to have with their school principals. For in-
stance one teacher commented: "This responsibility is
channeled through the principal. He takes a lot of
pride in our ag department. He offers complete cooper-
ation." Another teacher volunteered: "There is no

reason why I should see these boys at registration. My

266
TABLE XXIV

CATEGORIES OF REASONS ADVANCED BY TEACHERS FOR NOT
CONSULTING WITH PROSPECTIVE STUDENTS AT THE TIME
OF REGISTRATION FOR CLASSES

Times Reported

 

 

Category
Group I Group II
Administrative procedures 4 7
and patterns
Attitude of other teachers 0 4
Attitude and procedures of 3 2
teacher of agriculture

 

principal makes sure that worthy boys who are interested
in agriculture get into my classes." A third teacher
related: "I have a fine working relationship with my
principal. 'Students who really want and need agricul-
ture are guided into it."

The reasons advanced by teachers in Group II for
not consulting with prospective students at the time of
registration for classes does not reveal the same calm
assurance prevailing among these instructors as seemed
to exist among the men in Group I when this subject was
discussed. Some of the teachers appeared to be worried
about this point, and in particular exhibited some con-
cern about relationships with the school administration

and other teachers. One teacher lamented:

267

I have no chance to contact boys at regis-
tration time. The principal is very dogmatic.

There are some indications that he thinks the supe-
rior student should not take agriculture.

Another instructor declared:

I haven't had an opportunity to contact in-
dividual students at registration in the last two
years. In our school there seems to be a trend to-
ward greater emphasis on college entrance courses.
French and Spanish were introduced a year ago. The
other teachers are out after students to teach.

In a similar vein, a teacher deplored the tendency
for other instructors to look upon his work in a dispar-
aging manner. He summed up their attitude by saying:
"Teachers have commented that some of my boys are too
smart to take ag."

The reasons advanced by the seven teachers in
Group II for not pointing out the requirement of super-
vised farming before a student is enrolled in their classes
were not particularly revealing except that these in-
structors did indicate in the main that they felt the
first week of classes was the best time to acquaint
students with this requirement. Obviously, if these
teachers had not contacted their students prior to en-
rollment, as previous data in this chapter indicated was
the case in most instances, then it would have been dif-
.ficult, if not impossible, to inform beginning students

about this requirement of supervised farming before en-

rolling in vocational agriculture.

268
PROVIDING CLASS INSTRUCTION ON SUPERVISED FARMING

Table XXV brings out that teachers in both Group
I and Group II, with one exception, used class time to
give instruction in supervised farming to first-year
students on problems relating to the selecting and start-
ing of programs of supervised farming. The teacher who
did not provide this instruction explained: "Most of my
beginning boys have been in 4-H Club so they are pretty
well oriented to the program. I plan to tell the town
boys about it on an individual basis."

Table XXV also shows that all but two of the
teachers in Group I used the practice of taking begin-
ning students to visit programs of supervised farming of
older boys. On the other hand only five of the in-
structors in Group II followed this practice. This dif-
ference is significant. Ten of the thirteen teachers in
Group I required each student to make a written plan of
his supervised farming program. Only four of the thir-
teen teachers in Group II had their students prepare a
written plan. This difference is also significant.

Although all but one of the teachers professed to
use class time to give instruction in supervised farming
to beginning students, Table XXVI brings out that in-
structors in Group I use much more time for this activity

than those in Group II. In Group I the approximate number

269
TABLE XXV

PRACTICES USED BY TEACHERS IN TEACHING THE SELECTION AND
PLANNING OF PROGRAMS OF SUPERVISED FARMING

   

Group I Group 1;
Practice Responding Responding

 

 

Yes No Yes No

 

Do you use class time to give

instruction in supervised farm-

ing to first-year students on

problems relating to the select-

ing and starting of programs of

supervised farming? l3 0 l2 1

*Do you use class time to re-

view the individual supervised

farming prOgrams of the pre-

vious year and consider revi-

sions for the coming years? 13 O 5 8

*Do you take beginning stu-

dents to visit supervised

farming programs of older

boys? 11 2 5 8

*Do you require each student
to make a written plan of his
supervised farming program? 10 3 A 9

 

* Data represent a significant difference at or
above the five per cent level

of days spent ranged from ten to fifty days with a median
of thirty days. In Group II the range was from none to
twenty days with a median of five days.

Table XXVII discloses that all of the teachers in
Group I, not only used class time to give instruction to

beginning students in supervised farming, but also set

270
TABLE XXVI

DAYS USED IN CLASS TO GIVE INSTRUCTION IN SUPERVISED
FARMING TO FIRST-YEAR STUDENTS ON PROBLEMS
RELATING TO SELECTING AND STARTING
OF PROGRAMS OF SUPERVISED

 

 

 

 

FARMING
W
Group I Group II
School Days School Days

A no F 5
H 20 K O

I 30 T 15

R 25 w 5

U 10 Y 10
DD 30 AA 5
CC 30 JJ 20
MM 30 VV 2
KKK 10 22 2O
LLL 20 PPP 5
QQQ 50 VVV 5
UUU 15 ZZZ lO
BBBB 3O FFFF 15
Median 30 5

 

aside class time to review the individual farming pro-
grams of the previous year and consider revisions for
the coming year. Eight of the thirteen teachers in

Group II did not follow this practice. Of the remain-
ing five teachers in this group only one of them used

271
TABLE XXVII
DAYS USED IN EACH ADVANCED CLASS TO REVIEW INDIVIDUAL

SUPERVISED FARMING PROGRAMS 0F PREVIOUS YEAR AND
CONSIDER REVISIONS FOR THE COMING YEAR

 

 

 

 

Group I Group II
School Days School Days
A 15 F O
H 15 K 2
I 20 T 5
R 3 W O
U 15 Y 0
DD 10 AA 10
GG 15 JJ 0
MM 35 VV 0
KKK 15 22 5
LLL 2O PPP 2
QQQ 30 WV 0
UUU 2O ZZZ O
BBBB 15 FFFF 0
Median 15 O

 

more than five days. All of the teachers in Group I,
except two, used fifteen or more days for this activity.
A consideration of the reasdhs advanced by eight
of the teachers in Group II revealed that six of them
felt that this activity could be hJLdled best on an

individual basis. The other two teachers confessed their

 

 

 

272
own inability to carry out this responsibility because
they could not find time to do it.

Of the two teachers in Group I who did not follow
the practice of taking beginning students to visit farm-
ing programs of older boys, one reported that he had not
had older students with programs which were suitable to
show. The other teacher stated that a school board pol-
icy of requiring a written permit prevented his taking
beginning students to visit the supervised farming pro-
grams of older students.

The reasons advanced by the eight teachers in
Group II seemed somewhat vague, but they indicated that
the teachers had elected to hold any discussions of
programs of supervised farming of older boys in the class-
room. For instance, one of the teachers stated, "It's
just as satisfactory to look over the records of older
boys in the classroom as it is to take the class to the
farm."

. The reasons offered by the teachers for not re-
quiring a written plan are classified in Table XXVIII.

The reasons reported emphasized the unfavorable
effect of this approach on the student. Nine of the ‘
teachers in Group II and two in Group I expressed a be-
lief that their students did not like to make written

plans. The other reasons centered on the teacher. One

273
TABLE XXVIII

CATEGORIES OF REASONS OFFERED BY TEACHERS FOR NOT
REQUIRING EACH STUDENT TO MAKE A WRITTEN
PLAN OF HIS SUPERVISED FARMING

Times Reported

 

 

Category
Group I Group II
Effect on student 2 9
Influence on teacher 1 3

 

teacher in Group I and two in Group II asserted that it
was difficult to carry out the instruction in an effec-
tive manner. A third instructor in Group II frankly ad-
mitted that he had ignored the possibilities of this in-

struction.

ACQUAINTING PARENTS WITH SUPERVISED FARMING

Table XXIX shows the extent that selected prac-
tices were used by the two groups of teachers to inform
parents about supervised farming. Only two of the thir-
teen teachers in Group I held meetings for parents of
beginning students which had as one of their purposes
the develOpment of an understanding of supervised farm-
ing. One teacher in Group II held such a meeting. The
difference between the two groups is not significant.

Further examination of Table XXIX reveals that
eight of the thirteen teachers in Group I followed the

s-

’5

274
TABLE XXIX

PRACTICES USED BY TEACHERS TO INFORM PARENTS
ABOUT SUPERVISED FARMING

   
 
 

Group I

  
 

 

/

Group II /

 

 

 

Practice Responding Respondingf

Yes No ‘Yes No

Do you hold meetings of parents

of beginning students which

have as one of their purposes

the development of an under-

standing of supervised farming? 2 ll 1 12

*Do you hold annual tours of '

supervised farming to which

parents are invited? 8 5 l 12

*Do you take pictures of stu-

dents and phases of their farm-

ing programs and show them to

meetings of parents? 8 5 A 9

 

* Data represent a significant difference at the
five per cent level

practice of holding annual tours of supervised farming
to which parents were invited. Only one teacher in Group
II used this practice. This difference is significant
at the five per cent level.

It is also revealed in Table XXIX that eight of
the thirteen teachers in Group I followed the practice
of taking pictures of students and phases of their farm-
ing programs and showed them to meetings of parents.

Four of the teachers in Group II used this practice.

 

 

 

275
This difference is significant at the five per cent
level.

In Table XXX are classified the reasons offered
by teachers for not holding meetings of parents to in-
form them about supervised farming. Eight of the teach-
ers in Group II and five in Group I believed it would be
difficult to get parents to attend meetings. Only one
of them, an instructor in Group I, had ever tried such
a meeting.

Five of the teachers in Group I and one in Group
II felt that they had met the need for informing parents
about supervised farming through other means. One teacher
in Group I and one in Group II asserted that they were
too busy to sponsor the activity. Another teacher re-
flected a desire to look out for his personal interests
when he declared, "I'm too old for that. If I were
younger I think that kind of meeting could do a lot of
good."

' As revealed in Table XXXI two of the teachers in
Group I and five in Group II did not hold tours of super-
vised farming to which parents were invited because they
did not believe that parents would attend. Conflicting
activities were offered as additional reésons by five
teachers in Group II and three in Group I. Two of the

teachers in Group I stressed that their location near

276
TABLE XXX

CATEGORIES OF REASONS ADVANCED BY TEACHERS FOR NOT
HOLDING MEETINGS OF PARENTS OF BEGINNING
STUDENTS WHICH HAVE AS ONE OF THEIR
PURPOSES THE DEVELOPMENT OF AN
UNDERSTANDING OF SUPER-

VISED FARMING

Times Reported

 

 

 

Category
Group I Group II
Response of parents 5 8
Need for meetings 5 l
Attitude of teacher 1 3
TABLE XXXI

CATEGORIES OF REASONS ADVANCED BY TEACHERS FOR NOT
HOLDING ANNUAL TOURS OF SUPERVISED FARMING
PROGRAMS TO WHICH PARENTS ARE INVITED

Times Reported

 

 

Category
Group I Group II
Response of parents 2 5
Conflict of activities 3 5
Desires of teacher 0 2

 

industrial centers precluded tours including parents,
because most of the fathers worked in the factory so they

could not attend. Two teachers in Group II preferred not

 

 

277

to hold tours which included parents, one because he
thought such a tour would be too large to manage, and
the other because he believed a tour of groups to pro-
cessing plants would be more valuable.

One of the teachers who held annual tours stated
that usually only three or four parents attended because
they were so busy. He still believed that the tours
were worth-while from the standpoint of informing parents
about supervised farming even though so few attended
them. Another teacher from Group I did not eXpect that
parents were going to remain with a tour throughout, but
he was quite satisfied to have them present for a part of
it. He said, "Parents don't always stay for all stOps,
but I often have seventy-five per cent or more of them
who attend two or three stops."

Teachers in both groups were unanimous in recog-
nizing the value of pictures as a medium with which to
acquaint parents with supervised farming, but inability
to take good pictures was the principal reason advanced
by teachers for failure to use this activity. Two teach-
ers in Group I indicated that no camera was available,
while one teacher in Group II stated that he did not
take pictures because the equipment was expensive.

Preparation of colored slides to be shown at par-

ent-son banquets was the most common use which was made

 

 

278
of pictures of supervised farming. Three teachers in
Group I planned to maintain regular displays of pictures
of projects on bulletin boards in their classrooms.
Another teacher made a special use of pictures of farm-
ing programs by preparing a diSplay of them to be shown
at each annual farmers' meeting which was sponsored by a
local service club. A teacher in Group I had his stu-
dents include a picture record of their farming programs
in the F. F. A. scrapbook. In addition, he prepared
special displays of pictures of farming programs which
were exhibited in local business establishments and at
the county fair. He also arranged to have pictures of
supervised farming programs run in the local newspapers.

In addition to asking the teachers to indicate
whether they used the three practices listed in Table
XXIX, the teachers were requested to report any other
methods which they used to inform parents about super-
vised farming. These are summarized in Table XXXII.
Here it is shown that teachers in Group I and in Group
II used similar methods to inform parents about super-
vised farming, but instructors in Group I used them to a
much greater extent. Publicity methods included the use
of the newspaper, radio, and letters to parents. Farm

groups were contacted at parent-son banquets, at meetings

279
TABLE XXXII

CATEGORIES OF METHODS USED BY TEACHERS TO INFORM
PARENTS ABOUT SUPERVISED FARMING

Times Reported

 

 

Category
Group I Group II
Contacts through publicity ll 3
Contacts through farm groups 9 4
Informal contacts 2 0
Service contacts 2 l

 

of service clubs with farmers as guests, and at meetings

of farm organizations.
MAKING AND USING FARM SURVEYS

It is revealed in Table XXXIII that none of the
teachers in Group I or in Group II required their stu-
dents to make a written farm survey. All but one of
the teachers in Group I used some other method to obtain
information about the home farm. Only three of the thir-
teen teachers in Group II reported the use of any method
to obtain this information. This difference is signifi-
cant.

A classification of the reasons which teachers

in Group I submitted for not making a written farm survey

 

 

 

 

 

280
TABLE XXXIII
PRACTICES OF TEACHERS RELATING TO USE OF FARM SURVEYS

 

Responding Responding

 

 

 

Practice
Yes No Yes No
Do you require each student to
make a written farm survey? 0 13 O 13
*Do you use other methods for
obtaining information about
the home farm? 12 l 3 10

 

* Data represent a significant difference at the
five per cent level

is reported in Table XXXIV. These reasons indicate that
the instructors are concerned particularly over the pos-
sible unfavorable reactions of parents and students if a
survey form were used. Teachers in Group II appeared to
be rather concerned about the unfavorable effects on
students of using a survey form but they did not voice
the same concern about its effect on parents as was the
case with teachers in Group I. Five of the men in Group
II believed the survey unnecessary because they felt
themselves to be well acquainted with the community and
its farms. Three of these teachers contended that mak-
ing a written survey was a difficult job and they wouldn't

know how to use the data which were obtained.

281
TABLE XXXIV

CATEGORIES OF REASONS ADVANCED BY TEACHERS FOR
NOT MAKING A WRITTEN FARM SURVEY

Times Reported

 

 

Category
Group I Group II
Reactions of parents 8 0
Reactions of students 2 4
Reactions of teacher 6 9

 

Two of the teachers in Group II granted that a
survey could have some value. One of these teachers

said:

I used a survey form for a couple of years
sometime ago. It gave me some worthwhile informa-
tion but I doubt if they're necessary after you've
been in the community awhile.

The other teacher declared:

A A good ag teacher has got to keep himself up
to date on what's going on in his community. A sur-
vey is very important for a new man. Older men don't
need this information so much.

While none of the teachers in either Group I or
in Group II required each student to make a written farm
survey, other methods were used by teachers to become
acquainted with home-farm resources. Seven teachers in
Group I indicated that they had collected farm data from

students through the use of informal class summaries such

282
as the analyses and the amounts of fertilizers used or
the varieties and the yields of crops grown. Two other
teachers in Group I spoke favorably of information which
they had been able to acquire by having students conduct
farm planning activities in farm management classes in
the eleventh and twelfth grades. Obviously, for most
individuals, the latter data would have been collected
too late in high school to have helped beginning students
in vocational agriculture to plan long-time farming pro-
grams. Two instructors had their students prepare maps
of their home farms while one teacher indicated the use
of soil conservation records whenever the parents were
members of the soil conservation district.

In general, one develops the impression that no
concerted or very thoroughly organized efforts were used
by teachers in Group I to obtain information about the
home farms of their students. Apparently, these teach-
ers preferred to rely primarily upon informal approaches
to secure this information.

Teachers in Group 11 made even more limited ef-
forts to obtain information about the home farms of
their students. Only three of them reported any special

attempts to become acquainted with home-farm resources.

283
GUIDING STUDENTS IN SETTING GOALS AND MEASURING
EFFICIENCY OF PRODUCTION

Table XXXV shows the extent that the two groups
of teachers used two selected practices relating to
setting goals and the develOpment and use of standards
of production. Nine of the thirteen teachers inGroup
I followed the practice of encouraging students to set
goals for each of their production projects. Only three
teachers in Group II observed this practice. This dif-
ference is significant.

Table XXXV also shows that only seven out of the
thirteen teachers in Group I had develOped records of
production among students in their departments to be
used for purposes of comparison. None of the teachers
in Group II had developed records of this type. This
difference is likewise significant.

According to Table XXXVI, the reasons expressed
by the teachers for not encouraging students to set up
goals of production seem to reflect an inability of the
teacher to gain the support of students for this type
of instruction, either because of their lack of interest
or because of their inadequate backgrounds. Five in-
structors in Group II brought up the unfavorable re-
sponse of students as the most frequent reason for

failure to encourage pupils to set up goals. Four teachers

28A
TABLE XXXV

PRACTICES OF TEACHERS RELATING TO SETTING 0F GOALS AND
DEVELOPING AND USING STANDARDS OF PRODUCTION

     

Group I Group II

 

 

Practice Responding Responding
Yes NO Yes NO

 

*Do you encourage your students
to set goals of production for
each of their production proj-

ects? 9 4 3 10

*Have you developed average rec-
ords of production to be used

for purposes of comparison? 7 6 O 13

w—

* Data represent a significant difference at the
five per cent level

TABLE XXXVI

CATEGORIES OF REASONS ADVANCED BY TEACHERS FOR NOT
ENCOURAGING STUDENTS TO SET UP GOALS OF
PRODUCTION FOR EACH PRODUCTION PROJECT

Times Reported

 

 

Category
Group I Group II
Reactions of students 2
Ability of teacher 1

Background of students 1 1

 

 

 

285
in Group II recognized their own inadequacies as the
major reason for failure to encourage students to set
up goals of production.

It is revealed in Table XXXVII that ten teachers
in Group II and two in Group I were concerned because
they had been unable to organize a program for the de-
velOpment and use of production records and keep it func-
tioning smoothly or at all. As Table XXXVII indicates
five of these teachers were concerned about the responses
which they had received from their students in this
program. They complained particularly because the stu-
dents lost interest after the novelty wore off and failed
to complete the records which they had started. On the
other hand, it seemed quite evident that most of the
teachers recognized real merit in a program of develop-
ing and using records of production, but they were some-
what at a loss to know how to proceed in order to get
the best results.

Records of livestock production were more numerous
than records of crop production. Dairy production rec-
ords were the most commonly kept records even though
teachers often indicated that it was difficult to get a
very large percentage of the students in their classes
to keep them. Some difficulty was also expressed with
the problem of motivating students to keep dairy

286
TABLE XXXVII

CATEGORIES OF REASONS ADVANCED BY TEACHERS FOR NOT
DEVELOPING AVERAGE RECORDS OF PRODUCTION AMONG
STUDENTS OF THEIR DEPARTMENTS TO BE USED
FOR PURPOSES OF COMPARISON

   

Times Reported

 

 

Category
Group I Group II
Planning of teacher 2 10
ReSponse of students 3 2
Response of father 1 l

 

production records during the summer months when school
was not in session.

One teacher apparently had been able to bring
about some outstanding accomplishments in the production
of swine as a result of encouraging his students to keep
litter weights. Twenty-six students had taken 56-day
litter weights from litters that had been farrowed dur-
ing the previous year. This teacher stated, "My students
know when they are getting good production. They com-
monly talk in terms of gold, silver, and bronze medals."

Another teacher gave special recognition to stu-
dents who had cows which had produced at least fifty pounds
of butterfat per month or raised a litter of pigs which
weighed at least 400 pounds fifty-six days after birth.

287
HELPING STUDENTS TO BECOME ESTABLISHED IN FARMING

It was decided to turn to students and parents to
get an indication of the extent that the teachers were
carrying out recommended practices in the areas of help-
ing students to become established in farming and of de-
velOping favorable parent and son relationships in farm-
ing. While it is conceivable that the teacher, in some
instances at least, could have a fairly accurate idea
of the responses which the student or one of his parents
might give to the questions which were asked during the
interview, it seemed obvious that the pupil or one of
his parents was in a much better position to supply the
data desired.

This approach, however, precluded the possibility
of getting responses from the teachers which might ex-
plain the failure of the instructors to provide a pro-
gram of instruction which would bring about the recom-
mendations indicated in working principles six and seven
as they are stated in Chapter IV. It is assumed, of
course, that the kind of instruction provided by the
teacher may influence the status of the student in farm-
ing.

In addition to providing minimum responses to
selected questions, the students and parents who were

interviewed, often made additional spontaneous comments.

288
While limitations of space seem to make it inadvisable
to include all of these in this report, some of them
are introduced at appropriate points, largely for the
purpose of personalizing the data presented.

Table XXXVIII summarizes the responses gathered
from students and parents during the interviews. In the
interpretation of this table, it should be pointed out
that certain questions were not asked of selected stu-
dents when it was obvious that the question did not
apply to them. This was particularly true with students
who did not live on a farm. Usually, they did not have
an opportunity to carry a supervised farming program
which included a production project. Consequently, sev-
eral of the questions could not apply so they were not
asked of them.

From an examination of Table XXXVIII it becomes
apparent that a much higher proportion of the students
of teachers in Group I plan to farm than was the case
with students of teachers in Group II. It should be
emphasized, however, as Table XXII reveals, that there
are substantially more town boys or boys with limited
farm facilities in Group II than in Group I. Of the
ninety-six students in Group I, seventy planned to farm
while thirteen planned to enter some other work. Thir-

teen were undecided. In Group II it was revealed that

TABLE XXXVIII

SUMMARY OF INTERVIEWS OF STUDENTS AND PARENTS

289

 

 

Group I Group II
Questions Respondin Responding
Yes No es 0

Does the student plan to farm?1 70a 13 21 26
Are the production and improvement
projects different from the main
kinds of livestocg and crops grown
on the home farm? 18 74 23 53
Does the student'own the produc- a
tion projects? 86 6 57 19
Does the student own anything as
a result of savings grom previous a
production projects? 64 28 27 49
Does the student haVe a part in
deciding how production projects a
are carried out? 87 5 57 19
Is there a business agreement
between parents and student in-
dicating responsibilities of each
party aha how the income is to be a
divided? 84 8 52 24
Is there a written agreement?2 18a 74 O 76
Are there plans made toward devgl- a
oping a father-son partnership? 29 63 9 67
Have there been any changes in'
farming practices as a result 05 a
the student taking agriculture? 84 8 28 48
Is there a special time when it
is preferred that the teacher a
visit? 5 91 14 77
Is it preferred that the teacher
announce his visit before arrival? l 95 3 88
Are records kept up to date?2 50a 42 12 64

 

1 Thirteen in Group I and forty-four in Group II

had not decided whether they would farm.

Question did not apply in cases when students
did not live on a farm or have a production project.

2

a Data represent a significant difference at the

five per cent level.

290
only twenty-one of ninety-one students planned to farm.
Twenty-six had decided not to farm. Forty-four had come
to no decision on this question. These differences are
significant.

It is also brought out in Table XXXVIII that a
higher proportion of the students in Group I had proj-
ects in enterprises which were the same as the main kinds
of livestock and crops grown on the home farm. Seventy-
four students out of the ninety-two in Group I satis-
fied this condition, while fifty-three students out of
seventy-six in Group II had production projects in enter-
prises common to the home farm. However, this differ-
ence is not significant. Here again the reader should
be reminded that a higher proportion of the students in
Group II did not live on a farm. Consequently, these
students, with few exceptions, did not have either a
production or an improvement project, so most of them
were not asked to respond to this question.

It is also revealed in Table XXXVIII that a large
majority of the students in both Group I and Group II
owned their production projects, although there is a
higher proportion of ownership among boys in Group I.
Eighty-six of the ninety-two students in Group I owned
their production projects as compared to fifty-seven

who had ownership in the production projects carried by

291
seventy-six students in Group II. This difference is
significant.

In general parents seemed to be quite happy to
give their sons an Opportunity to have some degree of
ownership in the farm operation although there were a
few exceptions. For instance, one father summed up his
viewpoint on ownership in these words:

Our money all goes in the same pot around
here. When the boys need money they can help them-
selves. We work together and plan together. With
my four boys it would be hard to give them all owner-
ship. They'd be owning everything some day.

Perhaps, the comments of another parent came closer
to typifying the attitude of most of the parents toward
allowing their sons to have ownership. He declared:

I don't believe that every boy should be al-
lowed to earn and spend money as he pleases. That
could be the worst thing that could happen to a lot
of boys. They need the help and advice of older
heads. As they gain in experience and show that
they can earn and use money wisely, they should be
allowed to move ahead gradually toward more owner-
ship.

While Table XXXVIII shows that a majority of the
students in both Group I and Group II indicated owner-
ship in production projects, it also reveals that the
students in Group I had done a better job of saving from
previous production projects than the students in Group
II. Sixty-four of the ninety-two students in Group I
reported ownership from savings from previous projects,

while only twenty-seven out of the seventy-six students

 

 

 

 

292
in Group II had accumulated assets from savings from
production projects. This difference is significant.

No attempt was made to determine a complete in-
ventory of each student although in many instances the
extent of ownership was substantial. Usually, it took
the form of investments in livestock, machinery, cash
crops in storage, or savings in the form of bank depos-
its or government bonds. In two instances, parents had
been disappointed when their sons had invested money in
automobiles. In the main, however, they seemed quite
well satisfied with the way in which their sons had in-
vested their earnings.

DEVELOPING FAVORABLE PARENT AND SON RELATIONSHIPS

Data reported in Table XXXVIII bring out some
interesting facts concerning student and parent relation-
ships in farming. Here it is revealed, for instance,
that in eighty-seven out of the ninety-two families con-
tacted in Group I, the son had a part in deciding how
his production projects were to be carried out. Favor-
able relationships also existed, apparently, among the
seventy-six families included in Group II, with fifty-
seven of the students revealed to have a part in deciding
how their projects were to be managed. There is a sig-

nificant difference between the responses of the two groups.

293

The fine relationships which seemingly existed in
so many of the families is illustrated by the statements
which are reproduced below. One father commented:

He [the son] can take over and do just as
well as I can. Last week I went to Wisconsin. He
looked after our herd of fifteen cows just as good
as if I'd been at home.

Another case shows how far some parents are wil-
ling to go in permitting their sons to assume special
reSponsibility. In this instance, the father related:

My boys are more and more on their own. The
other day they sold their hogs. We'd talked the
matter over and decided it was about time to sell
the pigs but I didn't know the trucker was coming to
get the hogs until he drove into the yard.

Most students, as one would expect, seem to depend
rather heavily upon the advice and help of their fathers.
One boy summed up this feeling quite well when he de-
clared:

I can go ahead and handle my projects just
about as I please but I still like to talk every-
thing over with Dad. After all he's older than I
am.

There were, of course, some evidences of conflict
between parents and their sons. For instance, a mother,
while commenting about a farm which her husband suppos-
edly had purchased for their son, declared:

My husband is one of the old school. He

likes to keep things under his thumb. He says he
bought the farm for our boy but I'm not sure.

294

A son revealed that he and his father did not
always see eye to eye when he asserted:

Dad's ideas don't always square with mine.
I'd like to keep Holstein cows; he wants Durham.
I'd like a tractor; he holds out for horses.

Another son was disturbed when his father resisted
his efforts to introduce certain changes on the farm.
While revealing a show of resignation, he declared:

There's no use trying to do things different
as long as Dad has control of the farm. He has some
awfully stubborn ideas which he brought over from
the old country.

Table XXXVIII shows that eighty-four of the ninety-
two families in Group I had business agreements between
parents and students indicating responsibilities of each
party and how income is to be divided. Only eighteen of
these were written, however, and these were concentrated
almost entirely in three schools. In Group II, busi-
ness agreements between parents and.students were reported
in fifty-two out of seventy-six families but none of
these were written. The differences in the responses
between members of Group I and Group II on these two
questions were significant.

While no attempt was made to probe thoroughly into
the feelings of parents on the subject, they appeared to

regard written agreements as unnecessary. Frequently,

after responding to the question of whether a written

295
agreement was in effect, parents would add such statements
as, "We trust one another" or "Our word is good."

In only twenty-nine of the ninety-two families
polled on the question in Group I had plans been made
toward developing a father-son partnership. There was
even less tendency toward the development of these
partnerships in Group II where only nine of the seventy-
six families had made plans for this arrangement. This
difference is significant.

In many cases, it appeared that parents had never
given any thought, whatsoever, to the formation of a
partnership. There were instances, of course, when par-
ents saw the need for some kind of an arrangement which
would provide an interest for the son in the home farm.
One father said:

A parent has to give a boy some share in the
farming set-up or he won't feel a part of it and
some day he'll pull up and leave home.

Even when the parents were willing to work up
some kind of an arrangement to assist their sons to
become established, it was apparent that they wondered
what was the best way to proceed. A father commented:

It's hard to know whether to buy more land
now. I.work off the farm and if the boy didn't want
to farm later, I'd have too much land.

It became apparent, too, that certain limitations
made it difficult for many parents to do very much toward

 

 

 

 

296
helping their sons to become established in farming.
This showed up particularly in those situations where
the families were tenants. A mother volunteered:

We're on a rented farm. Our boy would like
to farm. The landlord is fine but it's hard for
parents to do what they'd like for their children
under these circumstances.

The size of the farm and the size of the family
appeared to be other influences deterring the formation
of partnerships. A father of a large family declared:

There's no future for B---- here. This farm
is too small. Already there are too many in the
family for the farm to support.

In spite of obstacles, some of the parents were
still making plans to assist their sons to become estab-
lished in farming. A father explained:

We'll need to rent more land if J---- stays
at home. Then, I've got a younger boy who's just
coming into the ninth grade.

There were instances, too, when parents were
rather bitter about the prospect of their sons becoming
farmers. A father of seven children, living on a twenty-
acre farm, declared:

I don't want my boys to be farmers. They
couldn't get a decent start and if they didn't
there's no future in farming. I can't help them.

It takes a lot of money to get set up in farming
tOday c '

There was also an indication that a few parents
of older boys were interested in arranging a partnership

but didn't know how to go about it. When queried about

297
plans for a partnership a mother and father became very
interested. He inquired:

Where can we get more information on how to
set up a father-son partnership? We realize the
need for getting things down in writing. We want
to protect our interests and at the same time look

out for our son's. We've three older boys away from
home.

RELATING CLASS INSTRUCTION TO SUPERVISED FARMING “

Table XXXIX summarizes the extent that teachers
in the two groups followed selected practices in relating
classroom instruction to supervised farming. Twelve of
the thirteen teachers in Group I revealed that they or-
ganized instruction in both livestock and crop enter-
prises in a given year according to the individual needs
of the students in their supervised farming. In con-
trast, only one teacher of the thirteen in Group II set
up his classroom instruction on this basis. This dif-
ference is significant.

Table XXXIX also shows that twelve of the thir-
teen teachers in Group I followed a plan of teaching
which provides instruction at the time when the student
needs it most in conducting his supervised farming. Six
of the thirteen teachers in Group II reported that they
followed such a plan of teaching. This difference is
significant.

 

o
u
I
l
o
\
K-
a .
o x
a
O
o
o
C

 

 

298
TABLE XXXIX

PRACTICES OF TEACHERS IN RELATING CLASSROOM
INSTRUCTION TO SUPERVISED FARMING

   

Group I Group II
Practice Responding Responding

 

Yes .No Yes No

 

*Do you organize your courses in
agriculture to permit instruction
in more than one type of farm
ente rise (both crop and live-
stock in a given year according
to the individual needs of the
students in their supervised farm-

ing? 12 1 l 12

*Do you follow a plan of teaching

which provides instruction at the

time when the student needs it

most in conducting supervised

farming? 12 l 6 7

*Do you visit individual super-

vised farming programs when, or

soon after, the classroom in-

struction is provided to insure

that it will be put to use? 8 5 0 l3

 

* Data represent a significant difference at the
five per cent level

It is also brought out in Table XXXIX that eight
of the thirteen teachers in Group I visited individual
supervised farming programs when, or soon after, the
classroom instruction is provided to insure that it would
be put to use. None of the teachers in Group II visited

299
programs of supervised farming at this time. This dif-
ference is also significant.

The reasons offered by the teachers for not or-
ganizing their courses in vocational agriculture to
permit instruction in both livestock and crop enter-
prises in a given year reflect certain beliefs of the
teachers. Seven of the teachers in Group II contended
that such a pattern of instruction would lead to disorg-
anization. The single teacher in Group I, who did not
use this approach, as well as two instructors in Group
II, were concerned that students might miss or fail to
master important subject matter under a cross-sectional V
plan of organizing instruction. Finally, three teach-
ers revealed that they did not use a cross-sectional
pattern of teaching agriculture because they had not been
trained in this method.

Reasons advanced by the single teacher in Group I
and the seven in Group II for not following a plan of
teaching which provided instruction at the time when
the student needed it most in conducting his program of
supervised farming, showed considerable similarity. These
teachers generally agreed that such a pattern would lack
system and continuity, and the jobs and problems would

tend to pile up when taught seasonally.

300

There was considerable similarity also in the
kinds of reasons advanced by the five teachers in Group
I and the thirteen in Group II for not visiting indi-
vidual supervised farming programs when or soon after
the classroom instruction is provided. Twelve of the
thirteen teachers in Group II, and three in Group I
maintained that they had too many other reSponsibilities
to make visits at this time. Two of the teachers in
Group I stated that it was difficult to visit all stu-
dents, while one teacher in Group II contended that he
had too many students to consider visiting them under
such a pattern.

One of the instructors in Group I placed partic-
ular stress on the importance of a close coordination
between farm visits and the classroom instruction. He
asserted, "If you don't follow up the classroom instruc- V/
tion with a farm visit, you can be pretty sure that the
instruction will not be put to use."

As a means of securing additional data which might
reflect the degree that teachers in Group I and in Group
II carried out practices which brought about a close
relationship between classroom instruction and programs
of supervised farming, parents and students were asked
if there had been any changes in farming practices on
their farms as a result of the student taking vocational

 

 

 

 

 

301
agriculture. Table XXXVIII shows that all but eight of
the ninety-two families responding in Group I reported
one or more changes which had taken place, while only
twenty-eight of the seventy-six families in Group II
indicated changes. This difference is significant.

In a few instances parents and students in Group
II were a bit caustic in their appraisals of the learn-
ing that had taken place as a result of the instruction
in agriculture. A father assessed the learning of his
son by asserting, "If he has learned anything worthwhile
in his classes that he could bring home, he hasn't said
anything about it." When one of the students was asked
whether he had made any changes in his farming as a
result of taking agriculture, he replied, "No, I think
I've helped the work in agriculture more than it has
helped me." In one case a parent could not credit the
teacher with bringing about any changes on his farm as a
result of instructing his son but he seemed to accept
the situation by explaining, ”Our teacher has been busy
with other things in recent years. He's had too many
other things to look after besides teaching agriculture."

MAKING VISITS TO HOME FARMS

Table XL shows the extent that the two groups of

teachers followed selected practices relating to home

302
TABLE XL
PRACTICES OF TEACHERS RELATING TO HOME VISITS

     

Group I Group II
Practice Responding Responding

 

Yes NO Yes NO

 

When school is not in session,

do you usually notify your stu-

dents previous to making home

visits? 4 9 1 12

*DO you make visits regularly
after school? 9 4 l 12

*Do you have a part of the
regular school day set aside
for farm visits? 7 6 1 12

*DO you make farm visits reg-
ularly on Saturdays? 7 6 1 12

Do you keep a record of each

farm visit other than that re-

quired by your school admin-

istration? 6 7 4 9

 

* Data represent a significant difference at the
five per cent level.

visits. Only four of the thirteen teachers in Group I
usually notified students previous to making home visits
when school was not in session. Just one teacher in
Group II made it the usual practice to notify students

prior to making home visits. However, this difference is

not significant.

303

Further information regarding practices of teach-
ers in making home visits is revealed in Table XL. Nine
of the thirteen teachers in Group I reported that they
made visits regularly after school. Only one teacher
in Group II indicated that he made visits regularly at
this time. This difference is significant.

Table XL also reveals that just over half of the
thirteen teachers in Group I had a part of the regular
school day set aside for farm visits. There was only
one teacher in Group II who had a part of the regular
school day which could be used for making fanm visits.
This difference is significant.

It is also brought out in Table XL that seven of
the thirteen instructors in Group I reported that they
made farm visits regularly on Saturdays. Only one of the
teachers in Group II reported such visits. Again, this
is a significant difference.

It is also shown in Table XL that a majority of
the teachers in both Group I and Group II did not keep a
record Of each farm visit other than that required by
their school administration. Only six of the thirteen
teachers in Group I kept these records while there were
four of the thirteen teachers in Group II who maintained
such records. This difference is not significant.

304

It is brought out in Table XLI that five of the
teachers in Group I and four in Group II reported rea-
sons involving the maintenance of schedules as being
primarily responsible for their failure to notify stu-
dents previous to making home visits. These men contended
that they could not follow a definite schedule of farm
visits. A teacher in Group I declared, "For some reason
I can't seem to be able to schedule myself ahead so I
can be at Joe Doak's at two o'clock on a certain Friday."

Home considerations, relating to the student and
his family, evidently had some influence toward keeping
some teachers from notifying students regarding farm
visits. In these instances, the teachers expressed con-
cern that announcements of visits would tend to make the
student and his parents feel obligated to set aside time
for seeing the teacher which they might have used for other
purposes.

Four of the teachers suggested that they regarded
the purpose of the visit as largely inspectional when
they explained that they did not notify students pre-
vious to making visits because they wanted "to see the
real picture" and have an opportunity to look over the
projects without interference from anyone.

Two teachers suggested administrative consider-

ations as reasons for not notifying students. An instructor

305
TABLE XLI

CATEGORIES OF REASONS ADVANCED FOR NOT NOTIFYING
STUDENTS PREVIOUS TO MAKING HOME VISITS

Times Reported

 

 

Category
Group I Group II
Maintaining schedules 5 4
Home considerations 3 3
Purpose of visits 0 4
Administrative considerations 1 l

 

in Group I stated that he visited students by geograph-
ical areas rather than any certain individuals, while
another reported that he was able to conserve travel
when he did not notify students prior to making home
visits.

In contrast to the teachers who did not notify,
three of the four instructors in Group I who followed
the practice of notifying the student previous to making
summer visits, made frequent use of the telephone. They
indicated that the telephone permitted arrangement of
visits at a time that was mutually satisfactory to the
students and the teacher. In defending the practice of
notifying students, one of the instructors pointed out
that it tended "to keep parents from regarding the teacher

as a snooper inStead of a helper."

306

On the question of announcing visits, Table
XXXVIII shows that parents and students were practically
unanimous in feeling that the teacher should not announce
his visit before arrival at the student's home. Only
one family in Group I expressed a preference for a pre-
vious announcement, and only three of ninety-one fam-
ilies in Group II preferred that visits be announced.
Table XXXVIII also brings out that a large majority of
the parents felt that there was no special time when
visits were preferred.

Several interesting comments were volunteered by
parents when farm visits were discussed with them. Quite
frequently parents made a point that it probably would
be difficult for a teacher to maintain a schedule if he
announced his visits in advance. A father reflected:

It must be hard for him [the teacher] to keep
dates. One day he was coming at one o'clock. E----
:aited for him until three but he didn't show up at

In general, remarks by parents in Group I on the
question of timing visits, revealed a fine attitude to-
ward the teacher and farm visits. For instance, a mother
declared, "When a teacher is coming to the farm to help
the boy, anytime that is convenient for him is okeh.“

A father commented, "We can stop work any time.

I can learn too. A farmer should always be glad to pick

up new ideas."

307

In certain instances, there was some indication
that parents felt themselves and their work was on dis-
play, so to speak, when the teacher visited their farms.
A father reacted by saying:

He [the teacher] may not always find things
up in good shape but we're still glad to have him.
We would like to have him come even more than he
does.

Another father took the viewpoint that the teacher
should visit “when things aren't all slicked up." One
other parent responded similarly when he said, "It's bet-
ter for the teacher to catch the boy unawares. Then he
can see exactly how things are." Still another father
reasoned that it was "probably the best time for the
teacher to come when everything doesn't look so good."

There were indications, too, that students had
been diSappointed when the teacher did not visit their
farming programs. In one case a parent said, "S---
would like to have had his teacher see his pigs before
he sold them." Another father in the same community
gave a similar story. He related:

He [the teacher] probably has many things to
do and finds it hard to get out. One year F--- had
his bean field in nice shape. He was disappointed
when the teacher didn't come out to see it.

Conflicts with school and community assignments

and responsibilities included most of the reasons advanced

by teachers for not making home visits after school.

308
Three of the teachers in Group I and four in Group II
reported that most of their students were engaged in
athletics after school and consequently, they were not
available for home visits.

Special school and community assignments were re-
ported as interfering with farm visits by eight other
teachers in Group II. One of these teachers described
his situation in this way:

The teachers in this school have to remain in
the building until four-thirty. I usually have a
few things to take care Of down town. If I visited
projects I would have to do it after supper. I real-
ize that supervised farming is a weak spot in my pro-
gram. I don't feel that I neglect my classroom
work though.

There was an indication, indeed, that several of
the men had rather extensive school and community com-
mitments and assignments. One teacher summed up the
problem by saying:

A teacher, as he gets his roots down into a
community, has to be careful or he will get spread
out in too many directions.

The teachers did not offer very many different
reasons for not using a part of the school day to make
farm visits. Three instructors in Group I and eight in
Group II reported that they were teaching a full day
school schedule of classes. Under this arrangement, they
contended, it was impossible for them to have time set

aside for making farm visits during the school day. Two

 

 

309
teachers in Group I and four in Group II asserted that
they could not consider making home visits with students
during the school day because the pupils would be in
other classes or activities and so they would not be
available.

The reasons which the teachers offered for not
making farm visits regularly on Saturdays are grouped in
Table XLII. In Group I two teachers reported that they
used Saturdays to teach veterans, while two others in
this group, as well as one teacher in Group II, stated
that they used Saturdays primarily to work in their
classrooms.

Among the teachers in Group I who reacted favor-
ably toward teachers making visits On Saturday, one
stated, "If a man wants his program to go, he has to
put in time on Saturday." Another declared, "Saturday
visits are really not work. I enjoy them."

In contrast, a teacher in Group II lamented the
undesirable consequences of his becoming so involved in
his job that he had neglected his family. He said:

Even with the trend toward a forty-hour week,
I don't see how a teacher can do an effective job
without making farm visits on Saturdays. Still,
it's too bad when a man becomes completely tied to
his job. A family man has an obligation to his
home. I neglected my family. One day I woke up

to the fact that my children were grown up and away
from me and I hadn't given much attention to them.

310
TABLE XLII

CATEGORIES OF REASONS ADVANCED BY TEACHERS FOR NOT
MAKING FARM VISITS REGULARLY ON SATURDAYS

Times Reported

 

 

Category
Group I Group II
Other instructional responsibilities 4 ‘ l
Responsibilities of farm family 1 3
Personal and family responsibilities 0

 

Reference to Table XLIII reveals a classification
of reasons advanced by teachers for not keeping a record
of farm visits other than those required by the school
administration. Five teachers in Group I and four in
Group II believed that they were sufficiently acquainted
with the students and their farming programs, thus, rec-
ords of farm visits were unnecessary. Two teachers in
Group I and five in Group II were unable to see any
possible value to such records and pointed out that keep-

ing them would become a task.

KEEPING AND USING RECORDS

Table XLIV summarizes the extent that two groups
of teachers used selected practices relating to keeping
and using records. All teachers in Group I, as well as

Group II, provided special instruction in the correct

311
TABLE XLIII

CATEGORIES OF REASONS ADVANCED BY TEACHERS FOR NOT
KEEPING A RECORD OF FARM VISITS OTHER THAN
THAT REQUIRED BY THE SCHOOL
ADMINISTRATION

   

Times Reported
Category

 

Group I Group II

 

Teacher's acquaintance with the
farm and the student 5 4

Attitude of teacher toward records 2 5

 

TABLE XLIV

PRACTICES 0F TEACHERS RELATING TO KEEPING
AND USING RECORDS

Group I Group 11
Practice Responding Responding

 

 

Yes No Yes No

Do you provide special classroom

instruction in the correct pro-

cedures to follow in keeping and

summarizing project records? 13 0 13 0

Do you have students make proj-
ect budgets? 2 ll 0 13

Do you use class time to analyze
and interpret records? 12 1 ll 2

Have you experienced any diffi-
culty getting your students to
keep complete and accurate fi-
nancial and production records? 13 0 l3 0

 

 

 

 

312
procedures to follow in keeping and summarizing records.
The teachers responded with just about the same uniformity
on the question of whether they had students make proj-
ect budgets, except that their answers were almost en-
tirely in the negative. Only two of the teachers in
Group I had their students prepare budgets while none
of the teachers in Group II followed this procedure.

This is not a significant difference.

Table XLIV also shows that the teachers in Group
I gave nearly the same number of affirmative and nega-
tive responses to the question, Do you use class time
to analyze and interpret records? Twelve of the thir-
teen teachers in Group I responded yes while eleven of
the thirteen teachers in Group II offered yes for an
answer. This difference is not significant. Likewise,
it is also brought out in Table XLIV that teachers in
both Group I and Group II were unanimous in declaring
that they had experienced difficulty getting their stu-
dents to keep complete and accurate financial and pro-
duction records.

The reasons offered by teachers for not having
students prepare project budgets are grouped in Table
XLV. Six of the instructors in Group I and four in Group
II thought that the backgrounds of their students were
too inadequate to do an effective job of budgeting. Four

 

 

 

313
TABLE XLV

CATEGORIES OF REASONS ADVANCED BY TEACHERS FOR NOT
HAVING STUDENTS PREPARE PROJECT BUDGETS

Times Reported

 

 

Category
Group I Group II
Background of students 6 4
Reaction of students 4 7
Influence on Instruction 1 2

 

instructors in Group I and seven in Group II felt that
budgeting would bring about an unfavorable reaction from
students. It was pointed out that in many cases no cash
outlay was involved so the students could see no point
in budgeting. Furthermore, it was held by some teachers
that an abundance of money on many farms in recent years
had made it difficult to get students to recognize the
need for project budgets.

Of the two instructors in Group I who indicated
that they had had students make budgets, one admitted
that he had encountered problems with the procedure. He

declared:

Budgeting seems to make sense to a boy if he b

is borrowing money. Our banker won't lend money to
our students unless they have a budget. On the other
hand, when a kid has a dairy animal and feeds it out
of his Dad's grain bin and hay mow, he can't see much
reason to work up a budget.

314

Three teachers, one in Group I and two in Group
II, were concerned about the effect that budget making
would have on their instructional program. Two of these
men expressed concern about the time required to do the
job while a third believed that valuable subject matter
might be neglected if budgets were prepared.

With only three exceptions, the teachers reported
that they used class time to analyze and interpret proj-
ect records. The single teacher in Group I who did not
use this practice asserted that students are not very
interested in working with the figures involved in carry-
ing out such a procedure. The two teachers who did not
use the practice in Group II contended that the activity
required more time than they had available to give to it.

It can be seen by an examination of Table XLVI
that difficulties reported by teachers in getting stu-
dents to keep complete and accurate financial and produc-
tion records centered primarily on the students. Persons
and influences associated with the students drew limited
attention. In general, teachers in both Group I and
Group II Observed that students do not like to keep
records, and they are often neglectful and forgetful in
keeping their records. In addition, there were two

teachers in both groups who felt that the unfavorable

 

 

315
TABLE XLVI

CATEGORIES OF DIFFICULTIES EXPERIENCED BY TEACHERS IN
GETTING STUDENTS TO KEEP COMPLETE AND ACCURATE
FINANCIAL AND PRODUCTION RECORDS

Times Reported

 

 

Category
Group I Group II
Reactions of students 11 ll
Reactions of parents 2 2

 

attitudes of parents had presented difficulties in get-
ting sons to keep good records.

Quite generally, there seemed to be dissatisfac-
tion among the teachers interviewed with the kind of
records which they had been able to get their students
to keep. One teacher in Group II felt that the trouble
could be traced to the legal requirements for records.
He asserted, "The State demands records but they are in-
accurate. The present system encourages a boy to lie."

Another teacher in Group II, while commenting on
problems of securing accurate financial and production
records speculated, "About fifty per cent of the fig-
ures which are turned in by a boy on his project re—
ports are reliable. Values such as those on pasture,
manure, etc., are often picked out of thin air."

A teacher in Group I Observed:

316

I admire a teacher who does a good job with
record keeping. I don't. I used to have records
out in front of my students all the time but I found
that was a sure way of killing interest in them. I
believe that the kind of records which students keep
is conditioned largely by the parents. When parents
keep good records, boys tend to do the same thing.
I sometimes wonder if we are doing the right thing
to ask boys to keep an enterprise type of record.
Perhaps, we may be asking for something that is pretty

hard to get.

Another teacher in Group I commented, "A lot of
farmers keep records on the back of a calendar and they
can't see much point in doing it any different."

Finally, a teacher in Group II suggests a possible
cause for what he believes to be an unfavorable attitude
toward record keeping by high-school boys. He related:

Generally speaking, students don't like to
keep records. I've tried to find out why and have
about concluded that the teacher doesn't develop
among his boys a feeling of need for records. Maybe,
our thinking is geared to the need of securing rec-
ords from our students which will satisfy the re-
quirement for state reports.

It seems pertinent, at this time, to refer to
Table XXXVIII again to determine from students or their
parents the extent that records were kept up to date.
The data reveal that fifty of the ninety-two boys with
production projects in Group I had kept their project
records up to date. Only twelve of the seventy-six
boys in Group II had up-tO-date project records. This

difference is significant.

317

The data summarized in Table XLVII may offer a
clue as to the reasons for better record keeping by
students in Group I. Here are classified the special
methods used by the teachers interviewed to secure good
records. It is particularly noticeable that teachers
in Group I gave more attention to conducting classroom
activities centered on record keeping. Five of the
teachers used class time to bring records up to date.
Three of these instructors had this reaponsibility taken
care of once a month while the other two had records
posted once a week. Other class methods used by teachers
in Group I to stimulate the keeping of good records in-
cluded: bring records up to date in September and use
two days a month for records and planning during the
school year; supply each student with two copies of a
project book-~student keeps one copy at hOme and the
other at school; post records in John Deere book once a
month in school--student keeps small account books at
home; show best record books of Older boys to beginning
students before their record books are passed out; grade
record books each marking period; and keep record books
in classroom where they are available for reference.

Special awards were used by three teachers in
Group I to stimulate good records. Two of these teachers

allowed points for good records in local awards contests.V/

318
TABLE XLVII

CATEGORIES OF METHODS USED BY TEACHERS
TO SECURE GOOD RECORDS

 

 

 

Category
Group I Group II
Consider records in class work 11 1
Make special awards for records 3 2

 

The third teacher permitted a local business concern to
present special money awards to students who had done the
best work in keeping records Of their production projects.
Only three teachers in Group II reported that they
had used any special techniques to secure good records.
Two teachers allowed points on F. F. A. awards for good

records while one considered records in grading.

CHAPTER VI
SUMMARY, IMPLICATIONS AND SUGGESTIONS FOR FURTHER STUDY

In this chapter the general pattern which was used
to conduct this study is reviewed briefly. This statement
is followed by a summary of the major findings. Next, there
are offered some possible implications of the investiga-
tion, which conceivably, could be useful in future pro-
grams Of supervised farming. Finally, there is a list-
ing of some possible future studies in the area of super-
vised farming.

As pointed out in the opening chapter, this is a
study of the practices used by two groups of teachers
of varying proficiency in conducting programs of super-
vised farming. Among other purposes, answers have been
sought to the questions: (1) Do teachers in the two
groups follow practices which are recommended by leaders
in agricultural education? (2) What are the reasons
for variable practices amOng the teachers in the two
groups in conducting programs of supervised farming?

Eighty-four Michigan teachers of vocational agri-
culture, who had taught three years or longer in the posi-
tions which they held on September 1, 1948, were placed
in rank order by applying nine measures of effectiveness

to recorded data of their local programs of supervised

320
farming. The nine measures of effectiveness were de-
veloped with the assistance of a jury of experts. Thir-
teen teachers determined to have the more effective pro-
grams and thirteen teachers found to have the less
effective programs were interviewed. In addition, from
a total of 187 homes, representative students and/Or one
or both of the students' parents were interviewed.

Preliminary to the interviews, ten statements of
working principles in conducting programs of supervised
farming were developed by an examination of the literature
to determine practices recommended by leaders in agri-
cultural education. The questions asked during the
interviews were designed to reveal the extent that the

teachers were using these recommended practices.
SUMMARY

When the nine measures of effectiveness were ap-
plied tO eighty-four departments of vocational agriculture
in which the teacher had been employed three years or
longer, it was found that a relatively small proportion
of the students had individual programs Of supervised
farming which (1) included both livestock and crop proj-
ects; (2) showed at least one continuous productive en-
terprise project; and (3) revealed increasing scope in

productive enterprise projects repeated for two or more

321
consecutive years. In general, it appears that broad,
comprehensive programs of supervised farming consisting
of continuous productive projects which show increasing
scope, did not prevail in the farming programs of the
students enrolled in the eighty-four departments.

The thirteen teachers found to have the more ef-
fective programs of supervised farming were designated
as Group I. The thirteen teachers determined to have
the less effective programs were referred to as Group
II. A significantly greater number of the teachers in
Group I than in Group II followed the practices listed
below. Few or none of the teachers in Group II observed
these practices. From an examination of the literature
it appears that these practices are recommended by lead-
ers in agricultural education.

1. Visited beginning students preceding their
enrollment in vocational agriculture for purposes of
guidance and counseling.

2. Required students who enroll in classes in
vocational agriculture to live on a farm or have the use
of farm facilities for conducting individual programs of
supervised farming.

3. Informed beginning students that supervised
farming is a required part of the program in vocational

agriculture prior to enrollment in the work.

322

4. Used ten or more days of class time to give
instruction in supervised farming.

5. Used fifteen or more days of class time to
review individual programs of supervised farming of the
previous year and consider revisions for the coming
year.

6. Took beginning students to visit the super—
vised farming programs of older students.

7. Required each student to make a written plan
of his program of supervised farming.

8. Held annual tours of supervised farming to
which parents were invited.

9. Took pictures of students and phases of their
farming programs and showed them to meetings of parents.

10. Encouraged their students to set goals of
production for each of their productive projects.

11. Deve10ped average records of production to be
used for purposes of comparison.

12. Organized instruction in both livestock and
crop enterprises in a given year according to the indi-
vidual needs of the students in supervised farming.

l3. Followed a plan of teaching which provided
instruction at the time when the student needed it most
in conducting supervised farming.

323

14. Visited individual supervised farming pro-
grams when or soon after the classroom instruction was
provided to insure that it would be put to use.

15. Made farm visits regularly after school.

16. Had a part of the regular school day set
aside for farm visits.

17. Made farm visits regularly on Saturdays.

Since these practices were used by a majority of
the teachers who conducted the more effective programs
of supervised farming but by few or none of the teach-
ers who had the less effective programs, it seems rea-
sonable to conclude, within the limitations of this
study, that there is an association between the use of !
these practices and the development of successful pro-M
grams of supervised farming.

The extent to which these practices were used by
the teachers in Group I and in Group II is presented
graphically in Figure 2. The practices are arranged
in descending order according to the number of teachers
in Group I who followed each practice. In so far as
this study is concerned, these are the practices in which
there were significant differences between the thirteen
teachers found to have the more effective programs of
supervised farming and the thirteen found to have the

less effective programs.

 

 

 

is.

324

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

, Group I 3 Upper Bar
Practice Group II 3 Lower Bar
Each x 3 One Teacher
Informed beginning students that supervised x:x x x x.x xzx x x x,x x
farming is reQuired prior to enrollment x x x.x x x
Provided ten or more days of instruction in xzx x x x x xzx x x x x x
supervised farming to first-year students 1 x x x x x
Organized instruction in both livestock and x x x x x.x x x x x x x
crop production each year x
Provided instruction when needed by student x.x x x x xzx x x x x x
in conducting farming program E x x x x x
Visited at least 50 per cent of beginning s x x x x x x x x x x
students prior to their enrollment one
Used fifteen or more days to review programs x x x x x x x x x x
of supervised farming carried previous year one
ReQuired students to live on farm or have F x x x x x x x x x x
use of farm facilities for supervised farming s x
Tack beginning students to visit the pro- x x x x x x x x x x x
grams of supervised farming of older students x.x x x x
Reguired each student to make a written plan h x x x x x x x x
of his program of supervised farming xzx x x
s:x x x x x x x x
Made farm visits regularly after school . x
Encouraged students to set goals of pro— xzx x x x x x x x
duction for each of their productive projects xxx x
Visited supervised farming programs when or x‘x x x xzx x x
soon after the instruction was provided None
Held annual tours of supervised farming to xzx x x x x x x
which parents were invited x
Took pictures of students and phases of their' x xzx x x x x x
farming programs and showed them to parents x:x x x
Developed average records of production with x x x x x x x
students to beused for comparison None
' x x x x x x x
Used a part of the school day for visits x
. f x x x x x x x
Made farm visits regularly on Saturdays x
FIGURE 2

PRACTICES IN CONDUCTING PROGRAMS OF SUFERVISED FARMING IN WHICH THERE
WERE SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCES BETWEEN TWO GROUPS OF TEACHERS

325

Some of the recommended practices were used by
relatively few, if any, of the teachers in both groups.
Practices which were used very little, if at all, by
teachers in the two groups were:

1. Holding meetings of parents of beginning
students which have as one of their purposes the devel—
opment of an understanding of supervised farming.

2. Requiring each student to make a written
farm survey.

3. Notifying students previous to making home
visits.

4. Having students make project budgets.

The fact that teachers in Group I as well as
Group II generally failed to use these four practices
casts doubt on their value and practicability. At the
same time the possibility must be recognized that the
teachers did not use these practices because they had
never been taught how to use them. Actually, the pat-
tern under which participating experiences were provided
for prospective teachers in their pre-service program,
may have been such that it was difficult to offer first-
hand contact with all the recommended activities in car-
rying out programs of supervised farming.

Responses of students and parents were used to

get an indication of the extent that the teachers were

326
carrying out recommended practices in the areas of help-
ing students to become established in farming and of
developing favorable parent and son relationships in
farming. This study revealed that a significantly
higher proportion of the students of teachers in Group
I than in Group II:

1. Planned to farm.

2. Owned productive projects.

3. Had ownership from savings from previous pro-
ductive projects.

4. Had a part in deciding how productive proj-
ects were to be carried out.

5. Developed business agreements with parents.

6. Had made plans toward developing father-son
partnerships.

These data lead one to infer that teachers in
Group I, more than teachers in Group II, were engaging
in practices which contributed toward helping students
to become established in.farming and toward developing
favorable parent and son relationships in farming. _

Categories of reasons for failure of the teachers
to use recommended practices often reflected certain be-
liefs or philosOphies held, or at least expressed, by
the teachers. Specifically, these were apparent when

teachers:

327

1. Indicated no need for visits to prospective
students.

2. Extolled the benefits of vocational agricul-
ture to town boys.

3. Contended that beginning agriculture was
largely exploratory.

4. Declared that planning for supervised farming
should be on an individual basis.

5. Held that parents' meetings were unnecessary.

6. Maintained that instruction including both
livestock and crop enterprises in a given year lacked
system and continuity and led to disorganization and the
omission of important subject matter.

7. Regarded the keeping of records of home vis-
its as unnecessary and a task.

Many of the reasons for failure to use certain
recommended practices revealed concern over the possible
unfavorable reactions of parents and students. These
were evidenced particularly when instructors indicated
the reasons why they did not have their students:

1. Make written plans of supervised farming.

2. Conduct written farm surveys.

3. Set up goals of production.

4. Prepare project budgets.

328

Problems of conflicting activities represented
another category of reasons which was offered rather
frequently by teachers for failure to use recommended
practices. Considerations relating to the use of the
teachers‘ time showed up especially when instructors
explained why they did not:

1. Visit prospective students.

2. Hold project tours to which parents were
invited.

3. Notify students previous to making home
visits.

4. Make home visits after school and on Satur-
days.

Reasons relating to school administrative rela-
tionships, patterns, and policies were in evidence as
the teachers offered explanations for not:

1. Interviewing prospective students.

2. Requiring students to live on a farm or have
the use of farm facilities in order to enroll in voca-
tional agriculture.

3. Consulting with prospective students at the
time of registration.

4. Having a part of the school day set aside for
making farm visits.

329

To some degree teachers recognized their own
inadequacies as reasons for failure to use certain rec-
ommended practices. This was apparent when the teach-
ers presented reasons for failure to:

1. Take pictures of students and phases of their
farming programs.

2. Encourage students to set up production goals
and to develop standards of production.

3. Offer instruction in both livestock and crop
) enterprises in a given year according to the individ-
ual needs of the students in their supervised farming.

Thus, from a consideration of the categories of
reasons presented, it would seem in many instances,
that steps necessary to bring about an adoption of some
of the recommended practices by more teachers in conduct-
ing programs of supervised farming might include:

1. Effecting changes in attitudes and beliefs
which are currently held by instructors.

2. Deve10ping effective techniques by teachers
while working with parents and students in carrying out
recommended practices.

3. Assisting teachers to budget and to plan for
the use of their time.

330
4. Working with school administrators to effec-

tuate a situation which.will allow the introduction of
certain recommended practices.

5. Helping teachers to acquire abilities which
will make them better prepared to carry out recommended

practices.

IMPLICATIONS OF THE STUDY

The implications which follow are based not only
on the findings of this study but also on certain phil—
osophical concepts currently held by the writer. It
should be pointed out that the development of these con-
cepts has been influenced by a number of experiences
which the writer gained primarily while engaged as a
teacher of vocational agriculture, as a teacher trainer

in vocational agriculture, and as a graduate student.
1. Developing §g_1mproved Philosoghy pf Super-
____vised mas-

Major differences in the ideas and concepts of
supervised farming held by the teachers in Group I and
Group II were apparent. These differences were particu-
larly noticeable in regard to the teachers' attitudes
toward (1) the requirements that should be set up for
enrollment in supervised farming; (2) the amount of

classroom instruction that should be offered in supervised

331
farming; and (3) the organization and relationship of
classroom instruction to supervised farming.

Too, there was some evidence to indicate that
differences existed between the recommendations of ex—
pert opinion and the practices which teachers in Group
I actually used in conducting supervised farming. While
the practices employed by teachers in Group I tended to
be those recommended by leaders in agricultural educa-
tion, there were a few discrepancies, notably in the
use of written farm surveys, in the use of written proj-
ect agreements, and in the making of project budgets.

Certainly, it would seem in order to re-examine
current recommendations relating to matters of conducting
farm surveys, notifying students before making home
visits, making written agreements, and preparing project
budgets, to determine if these recommendations are prac-
tical. Perhaps, it might not be out of order to have
an appraisal of all of the beliefs and concepts on super-
vised farming which seem to be currently accepted by
leaders in vocational agriculture. Particularly, if
such an evaluation could be conducted by competent, un-
biased laymen and educators who are not actively engaged
in the field of vocational agriculture, it could point
the way for further improvements in the program and

free the profession from the accusation of attempting to

332
perpetuate the existing pattern. Currently accepted

philosophies which are sound could then be disseminated
with renewed vigor. Beliefs and concepts which are
found wanting could be modified or discarded.

2. Improving Human Relationships i2 Supervised

 

 

Farming.

Throughout this study there have been indications
of problems and misunderstandings which developed as
people associated and worked with one another. These
became apparent in the conflicts which seemingly developed
between some of the teachers of vocational agriculture
and their principals as well as with other teachers when
the question of registration of farm boys for classes
was considered. They were apparent also when parents
criticized the teacher for failure to visit their son's
farming program. It may be possible that the failure of
teachers to make regular contacts with students and
parents, and to solicit their cooperation in worthy
projects such as the holding of parent meetings could be
traced to certain inadequacies which the teachers rec-
qgnize in their abilities to work effectively with other
people. It would appear that this study has revealed
clues of additional needs which.are required by teachers
of vocational agriculture in the area of human relation-

ships.

333

3. Improving the Pre-Service Preparation of Stu-

 

dents ig Training £2.23 Teachers gf‘Vocational Agriculture.

 

 

 

No attempt has been made in this study to evaluate
the effectiveness of the specific training which teachers
have received to prepare them to become capable instruc-
tors in supervised farming. Here again, however, there
seem to be clues of needs that might deserve attention.
For instance, teachers interviewed were unanimous in
recognizing the value of skills in photography, yet
there were several of them who reported that they did
not take pictures of students and phases of their super-
vised farming because they lacked certain basic skills
in photography.

Another area of a possible inadequacy was indi-
cated in the analysis of data associated with the efforts
of teachers to get students to set up goals of produc-
tion and to develop acceptable standards of production.
Here the teachers readily acknowledged lack of abilities
to do an effective job of instruction. Another aspect
of supervised farming in which the teachers readily
admitted inadequacies pertained to develOping effective
abilities in their students to keep good records.

It would seem that the cases cited should point
up the desirability for staff members of colleges en-

gaged in teacher education to be constantly on the alert

33“L
for curriculum changes which would bring about an im-

proved program.

4. Providing Extended Participating Experiences

 

 

 

.ig Supervised Farming for Men Preparing £2 23 Teachers

 

.93 Vocational Agriculture.

 

 

Perhaps, it would be in order to give consider-
ation to the possibility of extending still further the
participating experiences in supervised farming received
by men preparing to be teachers of vocational agriculture.
While the findings of this study can not be interpreted
as an evaluation of the training experiences which are
presently available to prospective teachers, there were
indications that greater opportunities for association
and experience during the pre-service training program
in conducting selected phases of supervised farming would
have been appreciated by some of the teachers. It may
be that present opportunities for the student to gain
extensive experiences in supervised farming during his
pre-service training are somewhat limited. Possibly
an extension of these experiences by providing an oppor-
tunity for students to engage in summer activities under
the supervision of a capable teacher of vocational agri-
culture before they enroll for student teaching and a
fifth-year training program would be justified for pros-

pective teachers of vocational agriculture.

335

5. Improving the Program 2E Ip-Service Education

 

 

 

'ig Supervised Farming.

Findings of this study should afford some stand-
ards by which teachers of vocational agriculture, par-
ticularly in Michigan, should be able to judge the effec-
tiveness of the practices which they are using to con-
duct programs of supervised farming. Conceivably,
many teachers will see fit to adOpt many of the prac-
tices which teachers with the more effective programs
of supervised farming have been using. Possibly, school
administrators will welcome an opportunity to familiar-
ize themselves with these practices and thereby become
better prepared to plan more effectively with teachers
of vocational agriculture as these instructors carry
out their local programs of supervised farming.

6. Developing 32 Improved Method £23 Determining

 

Selected Groups 23 Teachers 25 Programs 22 23 Studied.

A review of the literature has revealed several
instances when research workers have relied upon per-
sonal judgment for the selection of teachers or programs
of supervised farming to be studied. In this investi-
gation, on the other hand, an attempt was made to make
the selection of teachers just as impersonal as possible.
It is believed that the measures of effectiveness of sup-

ervised farming developed in this study could be used

336

effectively in any future investigations when it seemed
desirable to study teachers who have been selected on
the basis of the programs of supervised farming which
they have conducted. ‘While presently it is a rather
protracted procedure to apply all of the nine measures,
there is a possibility that further study and refine-
ment of the device would reveal that application of part
of the measures would accomplish the same result as the

use of all of them.

POSSIBLE FUTURE STUDIES

1. The possibilities of further development
and refinement of the instrument which was devised
for measuring the effectiveness of local programs of
supervised farming, has been suggested. It is believed
that this instrument could have considerable use in most
states as long as the present pattern of reporting programs
of supervised farming is continued.

2. Values of taking vocational agriculture by
town boys should be investigated. A follow-up study of
town boys who have been enrolled in one or more years of
vocational agriculture seems desirable. A personal
evaluation of the benefits, derived from the instruc-
tion, would appear to be a logical approach to the prob-

lem.

337

3. A study of the students who take one or more
years of vocational agriculture and then transfer to
some other curriculum should reveal some very helpful
information which could be used to counsel prospective
students of vocational agriculture.

4. What influence does instruction in super-
vised farming have on the ability of a student to become
established in farming? Are there former students of
vocational agriculture now engaged in farming who acquired
equities in farming which they would not have acquired
through the normal pursuits if they had not taken voca-
tional agriculture? Answers to these questions should
assist materially in establishing a case for supervised
farming.

5. Teachers of vocational agriculture seem to
be constantly faced with the problem of making the most
effective use of their time. A study to determine the
priority of activities of the teacher and the relative
amount of time that should be given to each, including
supervised farming, seems in order.

6. What is the relationship of the teacher's
work load to his ability to conduct effective programs
of supervised farming? What is the influence on super-
vised farming of such factors as size of classes taught,

the number of classes taught, and other work assignments?

338
[Answers to these questions should also shed some light
on the proper amount and use of time in conducting sup—
ervised farming.

7. The necessity for more or less constant so-
cial contacts of the teachers of vocational agriculture
with farm people while conducting supervised farming
seems fairly obvious. Are there special traits of per-
sonality which a teacher should possess in order to do
effective work in supervised farming?

8. Instances appear to be quite frequent when
it seems desirable for the teachers to have access to
rather confidential information in order to do the most
effective work in assisting students to develop their
programs of supervised farming. It would seem useful to
know the attitude of parents toward making confidential
data available to the teacher of vocational agriculture.

9. A comprehensive investigation of supervised
farming from the viewpoint of the parent is a study
that has not been made but it is one which.ahould re-
veal much helpful information.

10. All evidence on the subject seems to indi-
cate that there is great need for studies on the place
and kind of records needed to do effective work in

supervised farming.

BIBLIOGRAPHY
BOOKS

Bingham, Walter'V., and Bruce V. Moore, How 23 Interview.
New York: Harper & Brothers, Publishers, 194I (THIrd
Revised Edition). ix + 263 pp.

Blankenship, Albert B., Consumer and Opinion Research.
New York: Harper & Brothers, Publishers, 1943.
x + 238 pp.

 

 

 

Cantril, Hadley, Gauging Public Opinion. Princeton, New
Jersey: Princeton UniverSItyPress, 1944. xiv +

 

318 pp.
Cook, Glen 0., A Handbook on Teaching Vocational_Agricul-I
ture. DanvIlI§T_IIIIn5Is: *The Interstate Printers

 

 

and Publishers, 1947 (Fifth.Edition). 812 pp.

Dadisman, Samuel H., Methods of Teaching Vocational
Agriculture in Secondary SEhooIs. ‘Bbston: *Richard
G.‘Badger, THE German Press, 1921. 142 pp.

 

 

 

 

Deyoe, George P., Supervised Farming ig'Vocational Agri-
culture. DanvIIIETEIIIInoIs: The Interstate Print-
ers and Publishers, 1943. 502 pp.

 

Evaluative Criteria for Vecational Education i2 Agricul-
ture. Athens, Georgia: The University Press, 1940.
52 PP.

Good, Carter V., A. S. Barr, and Douglas E. Scates, The
Methodology of Educational Research. New York: 5.
gppleton-CentfiryCompany, Incorporated, 1941. xxi +

90 pp-

Hamlin, Herbert M., Agricultural Education in Community
Schools. The Interstate Printers and PfiBlishers,
I949. 487 pp.

Hammonds, Carsie, Teaching Agriculture. New York:
McGraw-Hill Book‘Company,Inc., 1950. vii + 353 pp.

 

Hammonds, Carsie, and W. R. Tabb, Your Farming Program.
Lexington, Kentucky: Trafton PuBIisfiIng Company,
1945. 174 pp.

340

Interviewing for NORC. Denver, Colorado: National
*OpInion‘Research Center, University of Denver, 1946.
ix + 154 pp.

 

 

Monahan, A. C., and others, Agricultural Education in
Secondary Schools, The Eleventh YearbooE of theENa-
tihnal Society f6r the Stud of EducationTPh'f‘t' II.
Bloomington,‘IIIIhdI§? u £3”SchooI‘PdBliéhihg_Co.,
1912. 104 pp.

 

 

 

Nolan, Aretas W., The Teaching of Agriculture. Boston:
Houghton Mifflin Company, I9I8. ix + 277 pp.

 

 

Parten, Mildred, Surveys, Polls, and Samples. New York:
Harper & Brothers, Publishers, I950. in + 624 pp.

Schmidt, G. A., Projects and the Project Method in Agri-
cultural Educatign. New Yor : *The Century C5.,
1926. xxvii + 360 pp.

 

 

Stimson, Rufus W., Vocational Agricultural Education by

Home Projects. *New York: The MacMIIIan 00.,19197
xxxviii + 468 pp.

 

 

Storm, A. V., and Kary C. Davis, How 22 Teach Agricul-
ture. Philadelphia: J. B. LIppincott‘Company,
'I92I. vi + 434 pp.

United StatesAStatutes at Large of the United States of
America, 64th Congrhhs, VOIuEEHXXXIX, Part I, PuhIIc
ans. Washington: Government Printing Office, 1917.
xxiii + 1202 + ccxxxii pp.

 

BULLETINS

 

An Evaluation of Local Pro rams of Vocational Education

"' ‘Ih‘Agriculthre. U. S. OFFICE—of Education, Voca-
‘tIonal‘Divisitn Bulletin No. 240, Agricultural Se-
ries No. 58, Washington: Government Printing Office,
1949. 75 pp.

Deyoe, George P. with William D. Masters, Practices and
Special Factors in Selecting and Initiating‘Programs
of SupervisedFthing ianOCatIOn I AgricuIture.
'Ufbana, IIIInoIs: DIthion or AgrichItural Educa-
tion, University of Illinois, 1950. 20 pp.

 

 

 

 

341

Educational Objectives in Vocational Agriculture. U. S.
Office of Education, Vocational Division MOnograph
No. 21, Washington: Government Printing Office,
1940. 14 pp.

 

Heald, F. B., The Home Project as a Phase of Vocational
AgriculturEIEEducation. Fedhrhl Board—for Vocational
Education, Bulletin No. 21, Agricultural Series No.
2, Washington: Government Printing Office, 1918.

3 Pp-

Hoover, Norman K., and Henry S. Brunner, Production Goals
for Livestock Enterprise Projects in‘VocationaI I -
riouIture. The‘PennsyIvania State—College, Bulle in
527, State College, Pennsylvania: Agricultural Ex-
periment Station, 1950. 20 pp.

 

 

 

Phipps, Lloyd J., Supervised Farmin Programs in Illinois,
University of IIIinois EuIIetin, No. 83, CEIlege of
Education, Bureau of Research and Service, Urbana,
Illinois: University of Illinois, 1949. 39 pp.

Ross, W. A., D. M. Clements, and E. J. Johnson, Directigg
Vocational Agriculture Day-School Students in.Devel-
oping TheirIFarming Programs. U. S. Office—5f Edu-
cation, VocationaI DIVISIOn Bulletin No. 225, Agri-
cultural Series No. 56, Washington: Government
Printing Office, 1944. 72 pp.

 

 

Summaries of Studies in Agricultural Education. U. S.
Office—hf Educatihh,“VocationaI_Education Bulletin
No. 180, Agricultural Series No. 18, Washington:
Government Printing Office, 1935. 196 pp.

Summaries of Studies in Agricultural Education. Sup-
plementINo. I to thhtIOnal Education Bulletin No.

180. Danville, Illinois: Interstate Printers and
Publishers, 1943. 199 pp.

Summaries of Studies in Agricultural Education. U. S.
Office—5f Educatihh,‘VOcational7DivisionEBulletin
No. 237, Agricultural Series No. 57, Washington:
Government Printing Office, 1948. 120 pp.

Summaries pf Studies in ggricultural Education. U. S.
Office of Educatihh,VocationaI“DiviSIonBulletin
No. 242, Agricultural Series No. 59, Washington:
Government Printing Office, 1950. 61 pp.

tilt!

342

Supervised Farm Practice Planning. Federal Board for
‘VocatIOhEIIEdfication, BuIIetin No. 163, Agricultural
Series No. 41, Washington: Government Printing Of-
fice, 1932. 86 pp.

 

 

Supervised Farm Practice. Bulletin No. 250 (Revised),
‘Lansing, Michigan: The State Board of Control for
Vocational Education, 1942. 61 pp.

 

 

 

 

Supervised Farmin Programs in Vocational ggriculture.
‘Builetin 0. 5O (RevisedT,“Lansing, M chigan: ‘De-
partment of Public Instruction, 1950. 61 pp.

Teaching Techniques and Instructional Planning for Hi h-
School CIasses thVOCational AgricultureT_“BhIle n
290. Lansing ‘Michigan:'EDepartment ofiPublic In-
struction, 1948. vi + 49 pp.

 

 

 

Training Teachers in Supervised Farm Practice. Federal
Board for Vocational Education, Builetih No. 165,
Agricultural Series No. 42, Washington: Government
Printing Office, 1932. 125 pp.

 

Veatch, J. 0., Agricultural Land Classification and Land
Types of Michigan. Michigan State CoIIege, SpeciaI
'EhIIEtih 231, First Revision, East Lansing, Michigan:
Agricultural Experiment Station, 1941. 67 pp.

 

UNPUBLISHED MATERIALS

Abrams, Morris N., "The Practices Used in the Development
and Supervision of Supervised Farming by Teachers of
Vocational Agriculture in Louisiana.’ Unpublished
Master's thesis, Louisiana State University, Baton
Rouge, 1947. vi + 98 pp.

Adams, Wayne W., "The Launching of Vbcational Agricul-
ture Boys into Supervised Farm Practice Work." Un-
published Master's thesis, Cornell University, Ithaca,
New York, 1931. 71 pp.

Allen, Howard B., "A Study of the Activities of Teach-
ers of Vocational Agriculture in Utilizing the Pu-
pils' Home-Farm Resources for Farm Practice," Un-
published Doctor's dissertation, Cornell University,
Ithaca, New York, 1932. 215 pp.

343

Allen, Owen W., "A Study of the Factors Affecting the
Supervised Farm Training Program of Vocational Agri-
culture Students of the Salt River Valley of Arizona."
Unpublished Master's thesis, Colorado State College
of Agriculture and Mechanic Arts, Fort Collins, 1937.
77 pp-

Bible, Bond L., "Significant Factors in the Development
of a Long-Time Supervised Farm Practice Program."
Unpublished Master's thesis, The Pennsylvania State
College, State College, 1940. 69 pp.

Blackburn, James W., "A Study of the Difficulties En-
countered in Supervised Farm Practice in All Agri-
cultural Departments of Massachusetts," Unpublished
Master's roblem, University of Massachusetts, Am-
herst, 19 1. 44 pp.

Brakensiek, Irvin L., "An Analysis of Farm Practice
Books Now in Use and Opinions of Teachers Concern-
ing Them as A Basis for Their Improvement." Un-
published Master's thesis, University of Illinois,
Urbana, 1940. ii + 74 pp.

Buck, John P., "An Analysis of Felt Difficulties of
Teachers of Vocational Agriculture in Home Project
Work." Unpublished Master's thesis, Cornell Uni-
versity, Ithaca, New York, 1925. 100 pp.

Burger, Warren W., "An Analysis of Plan and Record
Books Used in Conducting Supervised Farming Pro-
grams." Unpublished Master's thesis, Cornell Uni-
versity, Ithaca, New York, 1947. 84 pp.

Campbell, Clyde B., "An Analysis of the Activities of
Agriculture Teachers in Conducting Farm Practice."
Unpublished research problem, University of Minnesota,
Minneapolis, 1939. vii + 139 pp.

Deems, Howard W., "A Study of Selected Aspects of the
Vocational Agriculture Supervised Farming Program
in Nebraska." Unpublished Master's thesis, Uni-
versity of Nebraska, Lincoln, 1950. viii + 103 pp.

Eldridge, Hubert D., "Determining Methods of Improving
the Supervised Practice Program in Vocational Agri-
culture in the High Schools of Colorado." Unpub-
lished Master's thesis, Colorado State College of
Agriculture and Mechanic Arts, Fort Collins, 1929.
97 ppo

 

 

344

Evans, Robert E., "Pupil Reactions to Project Visitation
and Supervision in Vocational Agriculture." Unpub-
1ished Master's thesis, The Pennsylvania State Col-
lege, State College, 1946. 43 pp.

Field, Albert M., "An Evaluation of Certain Phases of
Theory and Practice in the Supervision of Instruc-
tion in Vocational Agriculture with a Suggestive
Program for Improvement." Unpublished Doctor's dis-
sertation Cornell University, Ithaca, New York,
1929. 354 pp.

Hull, Billy W., "A Study of Father-Son Agreements among
Students of Vecational Agriculture in North Carolina."
Unpublished Master's thesis, State College of Agri-
culture and Engineering of the University of North
Carolina, Raleigh, 1949. v + 105 pp.

Jeppson, Robert B., "A Program of Farm Practice Super-
vision for Vocational Agriculture Teachers in Ne-
vada.” Unpublished Master's special report, Col-
orado.State College of Agriculture and Mechanic
Arts, Fort Collins, 1940. 77 pp.

Kiltz, Kenneth W., "The Relation between the Supervised
Farm Practice Programs and the Farm Resources of the
Boys of Twelve Vocational Agriculture Departments in
Western Indiana." Unpublished Master's thesis, Cor-
nell University, Ithaca, New York, 1930. 144 pp.

Kirkland, James B., "A Study of Supervised Farm Practice
Programs in Certain Schools of Tennessee." Unpub-
lished Master's thesis, University of Tennessee,
Knoxville, 1936. vi + 66 pp.

Kirkpatrick, Allen G., "A Study of Supervised Practice
Records and Accounts.“ Unpublished Master's thesis,
Oklahoma Agricultural.and Mechanical College, Still-
water, 193 . vi + 50 pp.

Knight, E. B., "Procedures and Practices of Tennessee
Teachers of Vocational Agriculture in Supervised
Farming Programs of All-Day Students.“ Unpublished
nonthesis study, University of Tennessee, Knoxville,
1942. 50 pp. .

Lemon, Ralph D., "Farming Program Supervision of All-Day
Students as Conducted by Selected Teachers of Voca-
tional Agriculture in Ohio." Unpublished Master's
ggesis, Ohio State University, Columbus, 1946. vi +

PP-

345

Peterson, Milo J., "Factors Influencing the Success or
Failure of a Selected Number of Supervised Farming
Programs." Unpublished Doctor's dissertation, Cor-
nell University, Ithaca, New York, 1940. 133 pp.

Robinson, Ross 0., "Efficiency of Supervised Farm Prac-
tice Work in Twenty-Two Departments of Vocational
Agriculture Near Reynolds, Illinois." Unpublished
Master's thesis, Colorado State College of Agricul-
ture and Mechanic Arts, Fort Collins, 1940. 104 pp.

Rodeberg, Hubert E., "The Supervised Practice Program
in Vocational Agriculture in Montana." Unpublished
Master's thesis, Montana State College, Bozeman,
1942- 97 PPo

Shaw, William 0., "Improving Supervised Farming Programs
in North Carolina by Means of Parental Cooperation."
Unpublished Master's thesis, State College of Agri-
culture and Engineering of the University of North
Carolina, Raleigh, 1947. vi + 90 pp.

Shontz, David F., "Improvement of the Supervised Farm-
ing Program in Vocational Agriculture Based on Opin-
ions of Former Students Who Are Now Established in
Farming." Unpublished Master's thesis, The Pennsyl-
vania State College, State College, 1945. 78 pp.

Spanton, W. T., "The Pre-Employment Training of Teachers
of Vocational Agriculture to Conduct Supervised Farm
Practice in All-Day Schools." Unpublished Doctor's
dissertation, American University, Washington, D. C.,
1932. vii + 245 pp.

Swanson, Herbert B., "The Home Project as a Basis for
Supervised Practice in Secondary Vocational Agricul-
ture under the Smith-Hughes Act of 1917." Unpub-
lished Master's thesis, Iowa State College, Ames,
1925. 148 pp.

Sweany, H. P., "Factors Contributing Toward Superior
Programs of.Farm Practice for Boys Studying Vocational
Agriculture in Iowa High Schools." Unpublished Mas-
ter's thesis, Iowa State College,.Ames, 1938. 100 pp.

Thomasson, M. E., "Difficulties of Teachers." Unpublished
Master's thesis, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis,
1930. vi + 151 pp.

s v?» 3!... .

 

346

Wilhoit, Samuel E., "An Analysis of the Difficulties In-
volved in th Supervision of Projects in Vocational
Agriculture." Unpublished Master's thesis, Iowa
State College, Ames, 1927. 113 pp.

Wiswall, Clinton H., "A Study of Project Supervision in
Idaho for the Years 1932-33 and 1933-34." Unpub-
lished Master's thesis, University of Idaho, Moscow,
1936. 45 pp. .

PERIODICALS

Anderson, C. 8., "Occupational Interests of Farm Boys
and Their Significance in Guidance," The Agricultural
Education Magazine, 20:107-109, Decemhhh, I947.

 

Bain, Read, "Stability in Questionnaire Responses," The
American Journal 23 Sociology, 37:445-453, NovemBer,
1931.

Bender, Ralph E., "An Analysis of Swine Project Records,"
The Agpicultural Education Magazine, 15:66-67, 78,
OctoBEr,'l942.

, "Securing Good Results in Producing Pork," The
‘ggricultural Education.Magazine, 16:46-47, Septemher,
43.

Bradford, H. E., "Supervised Practice Trains Boys for
the Business of Farming," The Agricultural Education

Magazine, 12:10-11, July, 19397‘

Byram, H. M., "Increasing the Effectiveness of Agricul-
tural Education Thru Guidance of Rural Youth," The

A ricultural Educatioanagazine, 20:108-109, Decem-
her, 1947.

 

Chesnutt, S. L., "A Plan of Organizing Instruction,"

The A ricultural Education.Magazine, 18:128-129,
January, I945.

 

Cline, Russell w., "Why Use Enterprise Budgets?" The Ag-
ricultural Education Magazine, 11:68-69, October, I938.

Cook, Glen C., "Suggestions on the Time and Frequency of
Farm Visits to All-Day Students of Vocational Agri-
culture," The ggricultural Education Magazine, 21:
86-87, Octhhhr, 1948.

347

Crespi, Leo P.,_"The Interview Effect in Polling," The
Public Opinion Quarterly, 12:99-111, Spring, 19KB?

 

Culver, H. B., "Supervising Farming Programs," The 5g-
ricultural Education Magazine, 22:137, Decemher,

1949.

Deyoe, George P., "Concepts and Emerging Practices in
Supervised Farming," The A ricultural Education Mag-
azine, 20:223, 237, June, 948}

 

 

, "The Place of Goals and Standards of Production
in Developing Programs of Supervised Farming," The
Agricultural Education Magazine, 15:188-189, 1923I93,
ApriI}’1943:

 

Dickinson, Sherman, "Better Supervised Practice," The
‘ggricultural Education.Magazine, 3:18, August, I930.

, "Needed Adjustments and Direction in Vecational
hgriculture," The Agricultural Education.Magazine,
9:54-56, October, I936.

 

, "Supervising Practice in Vocational Agricul-
ure," The Agricultural Education Magazine, 5:106-
107, January, 1933;

 

Dippold, J. G., "Planning Supervised.Farming Activities,"
The Agricultural Education Magazine, 14:208-209,
ham—1942.

Duck, Joe, "Budget Making Is Educationnaly Sound," The
Agricultural Education Magazine, 21:75, October, I948.

, "Helping Teachers to Improve Students' Farming
"_"_R€Eords," The Agricultural Education Magazine, 18: -7,
July, 1945. ‘g’—_"”

, "Increased Learning Through the Use of Goals
and Efficiency Standards in Farming Programs," The
Agricultural Education Magazine, 20:192-193 198
A‘flr 1, 1948: ' '

Ekstrom, G. F., "Some Principles for Consideration in
Organizing Home Practice Work," The Agricultural
Education Magazine, 10:8-9, July, I937:

 

‘Fay, Ivan, "It Depends on the Teacher," The Agricultural
Education Magazine, 13:90-91, November, I940.

 

348

, "Selling Farming Programs,“ The Agricultural
'_——Edhcation Magazine, 17:73, 75, OctOter, 1944.

 

 

Field, Albert M., "The Long—Time Program of Farm Prac-
tice," The Agricultural Education Magazine, 4:181-
182, May, 1932.

 

Fitzgerald, N. E., "Suggestions for Orienting New Stu-
dents in Classes in Vocational Agriculture," The
A ricultural Education Magazine, 3:103-104, January,

31.

Floyd, J. C., "The Program in Vocational Agriculture
for the High Schools in Louisiana," The Agricultural
Education Magazine, 6:182-183, 192, June, 1934.

 

 

Foard, J. H., "Project Agreements Are Essential," The
Agricultural Education Magazine, 18:31, 33, Sep-
tember,‘1945.

Gallup, George, "The Quintamensional Plan of Question
Design," The Public Opinion Quarterly, 11:385-393,
Fall, 1947.

Gibson, H. H., "A Requirement for Effective Project
Supervision-~the Determination of What Proved and
Up-to-date Practices Are to Be Followed," Theggg-
ricultural Education.Magazine, 10:208-209f'2I ,
May, 1938.

, "Developing Ability to Finance a Farm Business:
a Majpr Objective in Vocational Programs in Agricgl-
ture, The Agricultural Education.Magazine 12:12 -
129, 1387’January,‘19¢o. '

 

r’ , "Use of Group Meetings for Getting Cooperation
of Parents in Supervised Farm Practice,“ The Agri-
cultural Education Magazine, 10:148-149, FeBruary,
1935.

Glavin, John G., ”The Place of Continuing Projects in a
Long-Time Pro ram," The agricultural Education.Mag-
azine, 11:88- 9, Novemter, 1935.

Hamlin, H. M., "A PhilosOphy of Supervised Practice,"

The A ricultural Education Magazine 6:104-105 107
Sandagy, 1934. , ’ ,

349

, "Project Record Keeping," The A ricultural Edu-
cation Magazine, 3:122, February, 19%1.

 

, "Securing and Using Data for Diagnosis, Teach-
ing, and Evaluation in Agricultural Education," The
Agricultural Education Magazine, 16:206-207, 2157—-
May, 1944.

Hammonds, Carsie, "Use Local Surveys to Supplement the
Data at Hand for Course Building, Teaching, Community
Planning and Action,” The A ricultural Education Mpg-
azine, 23:4, 19, JUIYI_I955%

Heald, F. E., "Project Ideals and Difficulties," TheJQg-
ricultural Education Magazine, 6:166, May, 1934.

Howard, Carl G., "Teacher Activities in Supervised Farm-
ing," The Agricultural Education Magazine, 13:8-9,

July, I940; 13:28-29, August, 1940; 13:48-49, Sep-
tember, 1940.

 

Humpherys, L. R., "Whither Agricultural Education-~in
Supervised Farm Practice?" The Agricultural Educa-
tion Magazine, 9:67-69, November, 1936.

 

 

Kiltz, Kenneth‘W., "Relating Instruction in VOcational
Agriculture to Farming Programs," The A ricultural
Education Magazine, 17:188-189, ApFiI, 945}

 

, "The Teaching Visit to the Farm.Boy," The A r -
cuItural Education Magazine, 9:40-41, Septemher, 1936.

Kirkland, James B., "Suggested Jobs in Organizing and
Teaching the First-Year Agriculture Course," The 5g-
ricultural Education Magazine, 11:126-127, January,
1939-

, "What's Wrong with Record Keeping?" The A ri-
cuItural Education.Magazine, 17:12 , January,'I%45

Lane, C. H., "Review of Problems in Vocational Education

in Agriculture," The Agricultural Education Magazine
5:139-140, Marchj—I933. ’

Lazarsfeld, Paul F., "The Controversy over Detailed In-
terviews--an Offer for Negotiation," The Public Opin-
_ion Quarterly, 8:38-60, Spring, 1944.

I

350

Magill, Edmund 0., "Planning Supervised Farm Practice,"
The Agricultural Education Magazine, 6:57-58, October,

19337

Maltby, R. D., "Progress in Supervised Practice," The
Agricultural Education Magazine, 3:155, 164, April,
I931.

, "Standards in Supervised Practice," The A r -
cuItural Education Magazine, 1:3-4, ApriITII929.

 

Martin, W. Howard, "Guidance Function in Pre-Enrollment
of All-Day Students," The Agricultural Education
Magazine, 20:104-105,'II3{EUecember,1947.

McCann, W. H., "Supervised Farming Agreements between
Father and Son,” The Agricultural Education Magazine,
20:10-11, July, I947.

Merton, RobertuK., and Patricia L. Kendall, "The Focused
Interview, The American Journal pf Sociology, 51:
541-557, May, I946.

Mondart, C. L., "Research in the Selection of Students
of Vocational Agriculture in Louisiana," The A ri-
cultural Education Magazine, 14:14-15, JuIFT' .

Olney, Roy A., "Two Essential Activities in Directing
the Planning of Pupils' Supervised Farmi Programs,”
The Agricultural Education Magazine, 16:8 -89, Novem-
‘BEF{-I943.

, "Visiting Farming Programs an Opportunity for
the Teacher," The Agricultural Education.Magazine,
19:114-115, 117, December, 1946.

Orr, Don M., "Projects and Supervised Practice on a Farm,"
The agricultural Education.Magazine, 16:208-211, May,

Parsons, D. W., "Developing the Boy into Partnership and
Management Through His Farming Program," The Agricul-
tural Education Magazine, 20:224, June, I948.

Peterson,-Milo J., "Some Observations in Superviseanarm-
ing Programs," The figricultural Education Magazine,
20:134, January, I9 .

351

Pollom, Lester B., "Parental Understanding Necessary,"
The Agricultural Education Magazine, 10:229, June,

'19387'

, "Project Plans and Their Relation to Instruc-
tion " The ggricultural Education Magazine, 11:48-49,
57-5 , September, 1938:

, "Where Are We Now and Where Are We Going?" The
Igricultural Education Magazine, 10:104-105, 118,
Decemher,1937}

Sanders, H. W., "What Progress Has Been Made in Planning

Supervised Farming?" The A ricultural Education
Magazine, 17:88-89, November, I944.

Sasman, Louis M., "Farming Programs in Vocational Agri-
culture,‘ The Agricultural Education Magazine, 17:
88-89, NovemBeFT“I944.

, "Supervised Practice in Farming," The A ricul-
tural Education Magazine, 5:37-38, Septemher, I932.

Schmidt, G. A., "Supervised Practice and Classroom In-
struction in Vocational Agriculture," The A ricul-
tural Education Magazine, 7:86-87, DecemBer, I934.

ShOptaw, LaVan, "The Long-Time Farming Pro ram," The
Agricultural Education Magazine, 20:22 -227, 232,
Tune, 1916.“

Skott, Hans E., "Attitude Research in the Department of
Agriculture," The Public Opinion Quarterly, 7:280-
296, Summer, 1943.

 

Smith, Z. M., "Experiences with the Home Project," The
Agricultural Education Magazine, 2:89, June, 1939.

Spanton, W. T., “Supervised.Farm Practice and the Smith-
Hughes Act," The Agricultural Education Magazine,

53185: June: I933.

Stafford, Tal H., "How to Improve Supervised Farming
Programs," The Agricultural Education Magazine, 19:
230, 234, J—_une,—I947. _______

Starrak, J. A., "Our Program--Good or Poor?" The Agri-
cultural Education Magazine, 16:3, 9, July, I943.

 

352

Stewart, R. M., “Project Programs--Launching Boys into
Their Supervised Practice Work," The Agricultural
Education Magazine, 6:154, April, I934.

 

 

Stewart, W. F., "Policies and Needs in Agricultural Edu-
cation," The A ricultural Education Magazine, 16:183,
189, ApriI, 1 4.

 

Stoke, Stuart M., and Harvey C. Lehman, “The Influence
of Self-Interest upon Questionnaire Replies," School
and Society, 32:435-438, September 27, 1930.

 

Strang, Ruth, "The Interview," Review of Educational
Research, 9:498-501, December, I939?

Sutherland, S. 3., "Good Project Planning," The Agri-
cultural Education Magazine, 4:172, ApriI, 1932.

 

 

, "Supervision and Individual Instruction in Agri-
cuItural Education," The Agricultural Education Mag-
azine, 19:228-229, June,'I9472

 

Sweany, H. P., "Determining Educational Needs of Students
Thru Analysis of Project Records,“ The ggricultural
Education Magazine, 17:48-49, Septemher, 1944.

 

 

Tabb, W. R., "Developing Supervised Farming Programs,"
The Agricultural Education Magazine, 19:51, 56, Sep-
tember,”1946.

Wall, Stanley, "Developing Long-Time Farming Programs,"
The Agricultural Education Magazine, 21:18-19, July,
I948?—

Watson, Cola D., "Farming Programs-~a Point of Emphasis,"
The Agricultural Education Magazine, 18:166-167,
March,*l946.

 

Williams, Arthur P., "What Constitutes Good Teaching?"
The Agricultural Education Magazine, 7:19-21, August,

. ‘11!!! l!

APPENDICES

 

APPENDIX A
THE INTERVIEW OUTLINE

The interview outline presented below consists of
a list of questions which were asked of the respondents.
Whenever items marked with an asterisk were answered in
the negative, further questions were presented in an
effort to discover the reasons for failure of the in-
formant to use the practice indicated. Throughout the
interviews an effort was made to follow up any promising
leads by means of further questioning. The questions
are grouped under area headings each of which is numbered
to correspond to ten working principles in conducting
supervised farming. These principles are presented in
Chapter IV.
QUESTIONS FOR INTERVIEW 0F TEACHER:
Area I

1. How do you go about it to acquaint beginning
students with supervised farming?

2. How many of your last class of beginning stu-
dents did you visit preceding enrollment for
purposes of guidance and counseling?

3. If you did not confer with all of your begin-
ning students before enrollment, what were the
reasons?

*4. Are students who enroll in your classes required

u to live on a farm or to have the use of farm fa-
cilities for conducting individual pregrams of
supervised farming?

*7.

Area II
*1.

2.
*3,

Area III
. l.

*2.

*3,

355

How many students enrolled in your agriculture
classes neither live on a farm nor have the use
of farm facilities for conducting individual
programs of supervised farming?

Do you consult with prospective students at the
time of registration for classes?

Do you inform beginning students that super-
vised.farming is a required part of the program
in vocational agriculture prior to enrollment?

Do you use class time to give instruction in
supervised farming to first-year students on
problems relating to the selecting and starting
of programs of supervised farming?

Approximately how many days?

Do you use class time to review individual
supervised farming programs of your students
of the previous year and consider revisions
for the coming years?

Approximately how many days?

Do you take beginning students to visit super-
vised farming programs of older boys?

Do you require each boy to make a written plan
of his supervised farming program?

What methods do you use to acquaint parents
with the aims and purposes of supervised farm-
ing?

Do you hold meetings of parents of begin-
ning students which have as one of their pur-
poses the development of an understanding of
supervised farming?

Do you hold annual tours of supervised farming
programs to which parents are invited?

356

*4. Do you take pictures of students and phases of
their farming programs and show them to meetings
of parents?

Area IV

*1. Do you require each boy enrolling to make a

. written farm survey?

2. Do you use other methods for obtaining informa-
tion about the home farms of your students?
Area V

*1. Do you encourage your students to set up a

. goal of production for each of his production
projects?

2. What records of production are kept by one or
more students in your department?

*3. Have you developed average records of production

. among boys of your department to be used for
purposes of comparison?

Area VIII

*1. Do you organize your courses in agriculture to
permit instruction in more than one farm enter-
prise (both crop and livestock) in a given year
according to the individual needs of the stu-
dents in their supervised farming?

*2. Do you follow a plan of teaching which provides
instruction at the time when the student needs
it most in conducting his supervised farming?

*3. Do you visit individual supervised farming pro-

. grams when or soon after the classroom instruc-
tion is provided to insure that it will be put
to use?

Area IX

*1. When school is not in session, do you usually

. notify your students previous to making home
visits?

*2. Do you make visits regularly after school?

*3,
*4.
.5,

Area X

5.

357

Do you have a part of the regular school day
set aside for farm visits?

Do you make farm visits regularly on Saturdays?

Do you keep a record of each farm visit other
than that required by your school administration?

Do you provide special classroom instruction
in the correct procedures to follow in keeping
and summarizing project records?

Do you have your students make project budgets?

Do you use class time to analyze and interpret
project records?

Have you experienced any difficulty getting your
students to keep complete and accurate financial
and production records?

How do you work with students to secure good
records?

QUESTIONS FOR INTERVIEW 0F PARENT:

Area'VI
1.
2.

Does your sOn plan to farm?

Are any of the productive or improvement proj-
ects in your son's farming program different
from the main kinds of livestock and creps
grown on your farm?

Does your son own the productive projects in
his farming program?

What does your son own that he purchased with
savings from previous productive projects?

What part does your son have in deciding how
his productive projects are to be carried out?

3.

358

Do you have a business agreement with your son
indicating your and his responsibilities and
how the income from the projects is to be di-
vided?

Is this agreement in writing?

4. Have you and your son made plans toward devel-
oping a farm partnership?
Area‘VIII
1. Has your son made any changes in his way of

Area IX
1.

farming because of his instruction in agricul-
ture?

Is there any special time of the day when you
would prefer that your teacher of agriculture
visit you?

Do you like to have your teacher of agriculture
let you know in advance when he is planning a
visit to your farm?

Does your son keep his project records up to
date?

QUESTIONS FOR INTERVIEW OF STUDENTS:

Area'VI
l.
2.

Are you planning to farm?

Are any of the productive or improvement proj-
ects in your supervised farming program differ-
ent from the main kinds of livestock and crops
grown on your farm?

Do you own the productive projects in your
farming program?

What do you own that you bought with savings
from previous productive projects?

Area VII
1.

2.

3.

359

What part do you have in deciding how your pro-
ductive projects are to be carried out?

Do you have a business agreement with your
parents indicating your and their responsibil-
ities and how the income from your projects is
to be divided?

Is this agreement in writing?

4. Have you and your father made any plans toward
develOping a farm partnership?
Area‘VIII
1. Have you made any changes in your way of farm-

Area IX

1.

2.

Area.x

1.

ing because of your instruction in agriculture?

Is there any special time of the day when you

would prefer that your agriculture teacher
visit you?

Do you like to have your teacher let you know
when he is planning a visit to your farm?

Do you keep your project records up to date?

 

.fi M.__.,..o

 

APPENDIX B

MICHIGAN TEACHER TRAINERS AND STATE SUPERVISORS WHO
SUGGESTED POSSIBLE MEASURES OF EFFECTIVENESS OF
PROGRAMS OF SUPERVISED FARMING AND SERVED AS
MEMBERS OF THE JURY OF EXPERTS

Teacher Trainers:

H. M. Byram, Professor of Agricultural Education,
Michigan State College, East Lansing, Michigan

H. P. Sweany, Associate Professor of Agricultural
Education, Michigan State College, East Lansing, Michigan

State Supervisors:

Harry E. Nesman, Chief, Agricultural Education,
Office of Vocational Education, Lansing, Michigan

Raymond Clark, Supervisor, Agricultural Education,
Office of Vocational Education, Lansing, Michigan

Luke M. Kelly, Supervisor, Agricultural Education,
Office of Vocational Education, Lansing, Michigan

Thomas H. Kerrey, Supervisor, Agricultural Edu-
cation, Office of Vbcational Education, Lansing, Michigan

Elmer Lightfoot, Supervisor, Agricultural Education,
Office of Vocational Education, Lansing, Michigan

APPENDIX C

COPY OF THE FORM USED TO SOLICIT POSSIBLE MEASURES OF
EFFECTIVENESS OF SUPERVISED FARMING PROGRAMS

 

The following are suggested as possible measures of
effectiveness of supervised farming programs in vocational
agricultural departments in Michigan. All of these are
obtainable from the annual Final Report of Supervised
Practice Program on file in the Office of Vocational
Education. If in your opinion there are other possible
measures which can be obtained from the Final Report of
Supervised Practice Program, will you add them at the

bottom of the list. Use the reverse side of the sheet
if necessary.

1. Percentage of students enrolled in supervised
farming who have completed one or more produc-

tive enterprise projects and other supervised
practice.

2. Percentage of students enrolled in supervised
farming who have completed both livestock and
crop productive enterprise projects.

3. Average number of productive enterprise projects
completed by students enrolled in supervised
farming.

4. Percentage of students enrolled in supervised
farming who, having completed two or more years
of supervised farming, show at least one con-
tinuous productive enterprise project.

5. Percentage of students enrolled in supervised
farming who show increasing scope in produc-

tive projects repeated in two or more succes-
sive years.

6. Percentage of students enrolled in supervised
farming completing supervised farming programs.

7.
8.
9.
IO.

 

APPENDIX D

LEADERS IN AGRICULTURAL EDUCATION OUTSIDE OF
MICHIGAN WHO SERVED ON JURY 0F EXPERTS

C. L. Angerer, Professor of Agricultural Education,
Agriculture and Mechanical College, Stillwater, Oklahoma

Henry S. Brunner, Professor of Agricultural Edu-
cation, Pennsylvania State College, State College, Penn-
sylvania

R. W. Cline, Professor of Agricultural Education,
University of Arizona, Tucson, Arizona

G. P. Deyoe, Professor of Agricultural Education,
University of Illinois, Urbana, Illinois

G. F. Ekstrom, Professor of Agricultural Educa-
tion, University of Missouri, Columbia, Missouri .

H. C. Fetterolf, Chief, Agricultural Education,
Department of Public Instruction, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania

Ray Fife, Professor of Agricultural Education,
Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio

L. R. Humpherys, Professor of Agricultural Educa-
tion, State Agricultural College, Logan, Utah

W. Howard Martin, Professor of Agricultural Edu-
cation, University of Connecticut, Storrs, Connecticut

Louis M. Sasman, Chief, Agricultural Education,
State Board of Vocational and Adult Education, Madison,
Wisconsin

S. S. Sutherland, Professor of Agricultural Edu-
cation, University of California, Davis, California

H. B. Swanson, Teacher Training Specialist, Office
of Education, Washington, D. C.

W. R. Tabb, Assistant Professor of Agricultural
Education, University of Kentucky, Lexington, Kentucky

John T. Wheeler, Professor of Agricultural Educa-
tion, University of Georgia, Athens, Georgia

APPENDIX E

COPY OF THE FORM SENT TO MEMBERS OF THE JURY

Dear Mr. :

 

Below are suggested measures of effectiveness of
supervised farming programs. All measures would be ap-
plied only to boys who are currently enrolled in all-day
classes in vocational agriculture. Please indicate your
judgment of the relative value of each of these as a
measure of the excellence of the combined programs of
supervised farming of all students in a department by
placing one of the numbers below in the blank preceding
each measure. The relative values of the numbers as
measures of effectiveness are indicated below:

0 - no value 3 - above average value
1 - limited value 4 - highly valuable
2 - below average value 5 - extremely valuable

I. Percentage of students enrolled in super-
vised farming who have completed one or more
productive enterprise projects and other
supervised practice.

II. *Percentage of students enrolled in supervised
*farming who have completed both livestock and
crop productive enterprise projects.

III. Average number of productive enterprise
projects completed by students enrolled in
supervised farming.

IV. Average number of improvement projects com-
pleted by students enrolled in supervised
farming.

V. Average number of supplementary farm prac-
tices completed by students enrolled in sup-
ervised farming.

VI. Percentage of students enrolled in supervised
farming who, having completed two or more
years of supervised farming, show at least
one continuous productive enterprise project.

1|"

364

VII. Percentage of students enrolled in supervised
farming who show increasing scOpe in produc-
tive enterprise projects repeated in two or
more successive years.

VIII. Percentage of students enrolled in super-
vised farming completing supervised farming
programs.

IX. Percentage of students enrolled in super-
vised farming who complete farm placement
experience.

X. Percentage of students enrolled in super-
vised farming who complete supplementary
practice only. (It is assumed that this

measure is inversely related to effective-
ness.)

XI. Percentage of students enrolled in supervised
farming with productive enterprise projects
which are important in the county where the
department is located.

APPENDIX F

COPY OF LETTER SENT TO MEMBERS OF JURY

Dear Mr. :

 

I am making a study of selected supervised farming
programs in Michigan. A necessary preliminary step is to
determine the relative effectiveness of current programs
in operation in the various departments of vocational
agriculture. In order to do this as objectively as pos-
sible, I have turned to the annual Final Reports of Super-
vised Practice Programs on file in the office of the
Michigan State Board of Control for Vocational Education.

I have made a survey of five state supervisors
and two teacher trainers in.Michigan who are familiar
with the annual Final Report of Supervised Practice
Programs and I have secured from them items which can be
Obtained from the reports, which in their judgment are
possible measures of effectiveness of programs of super-
vised farming.

Their reaponses, together with.some which I have
supplied, have been compiled on the enclosed survey form.
I am sending this list to a selected number of state
supervisors and teacher trainers, fourteen in all, in
addition to the seven from Michigan whom I am asking to
serve as members of a jury. I would appreciate it very
much if you could take the few minutes required to help
evaluate these measures.

I am making this study under the guidance of Dr.
H. M. Byram. I have consulted him before soliciting your
c00peration in providing me with expert judgment to eval-
uate this prospective measuring instrument.

Yours sincerely,

Raymond Garner
Assistant Professor of
Rstk Agricultural Education

APPENDIX G

TABLE XLVIII

LIST OF SPECIALISTS, THEIR POSITIONS, AND PRODUCTIVE
ENTERPRISES IN WHICH THEY WERE ASKED

   

Name

T0 JUDGE IMPORTANCE

Position at

Michigan State
College

Productive
Enterprises

 

Graydon L. Blank

Roy E. Decker

Hugh D. Hootman

John M. Moore

George E. Parsons

Associate Professor
of Animal Husbandry
in.Extension

Professor and Head
of Department of
Farm Crops

Associate Professor
of Horticulture in
Extension

Associate Professor
of Poultry Husbandry
in Extension

Assistant Professor
of Dairy Husbandry
inkExtension

Beef, Swine,
Sheep

1ey, Corn, Field

Beans, Potatoes,

Sugar Beets, Soy-
beans, Hay

Tree Fruits,
Small Fruits,
Vegetables, Vine-
yards

Poultry

Dairy

 

 

 

 

mo.aam we. so ms.mo mm.oa mm.mm os.m em.mm sm.mm oa.m ms.mo e
mo.mam am. mo ma.ss om.ma no.0: ms.m mo.m mm.mm om.m so.ms zzz
me.eam em. as oo.om ms.ma Hm.ma oa.m mm.sm mm.mm ms.om ea.sm zz
me.mam ma.mm me.mo me.HH sfl.sm sm.oa mm.mm mm.ms Hm.ma Hm.mm do
mm.mmm ew.me ea.ss ma.ea Hm.mm em.oa so.mm mo. es ea.sa sa.se mm
om.mmm mm.ae ms.es oo. ma oo.om om.m mm.ma m .se ss.oa mm.ao mmm
es.mmm 00.0» mo.ae me. o mm.mm ms.HH ms.ma m .sm oo.ma 00. on m
ms.mem me.se oo.om mm. a mm.mH Hm.m ms.am me. me mm.mm mm. mm a
om.mmm mm.sm om.ms ma.oa mo.ma sm.ma ms.om om.ms mm.am me. me so
mo.mem ma.mo sm.mo oo.mm oo.ms Hm.o mm.m mm.ss mm.mm oa. mm N
mm.sem mo.me mo.ss ms.Hm mm.sm so.ea mm.am ss.ap mm.s ma.mm use
sm.eem 0».»0 mm.os oe.m mm.ma mm.ea ww.om om.Hm a .0 mm. s mmmm
om.mom oo.ae sm.so oo. oo.em mm.e me.s oo.om ss.sm mo.Ho no
mm.sem mm.sm sm.eo ms. H oa.mm om.oa so.me mo. es 00.0: Ho.me ego
me.amm oo.mm oo.om 0».HH sm.mm mm.m as.ma me. as sm.mm sm.ae we»
mm.emm oo.em mo.ms ea.sa sm.mm mm. am ma.sm so. mm mm.mm mm.as m
as. mm oo.op op.as mo.m sm.oa m: 00.00 m.ms. oo.am 00.Hs an:
mm. 0: as.ss oo.om Ha.» ms.mm em. me.ma o.mo sa.as H».»» a
mm.mme oo.eo oo.om sm.am oo.sm as. ea om.am so.em em.mm em.mo use
oo.ome me.ss me.ss ma.ma sm.em mm.am mo.sm Hm.mm as.ms os.ss H
mm.ams so.es oo.om Hm.oH ms.mm mm.sa mm.sm sm.mo mm.mm mo.ms :2
Ha HHH> HH> H> >_ >H HHH HH H
aseoe Hoosom
mmhzmdoz

mmmzm>HBommmm mo mmmbmdmz MZHz zo Qm>Hmomm mBzHom mo mHmdm mm& 20

mmmmo mz<m 2H Qmo¢qm mmDBADonG¢ A<ZOHB<OO> mo mazmzamdmmn z¢UHmOH£ mbomluemuHm

NHAx mnmda

m KHQZMmm<

 

 

 

368

 

me.oem mo.me om.mm em.m Hs.mm 0H.m cs. 0 mm.mm os.sm 00.0: as
Hm.Hem 00.0: em.mm mm.m mm.mm mm. «H as. m so.mm me.mH Hm.ee m
sm.sem Hm.ms mm.mo Hm.o mm.0H om. m om. 0H ms.em mm. sH mm.mm mes
me.mem as.Hs mm.ms om.m om.s om.mu ms.m AH.mm cs. m Hm.mm 333
om. omm oe.om oe.os Hm.e Hm.s mH.me ms.Hm mm.mH oo. o om.om 0
mm. smm mm.me om. s sm.m em.sH sm.mH os.m »H.mm mm.m wH.mm «see
we. mmm ss.om mm. s mm.m me.em mm.mm ms.HH sm.mn Hm.om mm.om HHH
H0.Hem os.sm oo.om s . H oo.om oo.om ms. m Hr.mH mH.o mm. mm 2
mm.mom oo.om 00.0w eo.m em.mm oo.o am. oH ma.me oo.mm oo. es s
em.mom mm.om oo.om mm.m mm.mH om. e me.mH Hm.mm om.s Hm.mm mum
Hm.emm mm.sm ms.ss oo.o Hs.m mm. AH om.mH mo.om mm.m ms.mo ooo
mo.opm mm.mm 00.0w sm.m oo.om mm. m os.m mm.sm oo.o sm.Hm mm
sm.msm mm.Hm Hm.ee mo.e mo.mH as. H H.ms om.m em.mm 0H.me mmmm
em.msm mm.om mm.ms mm.m mo.HH em. o.m sm.s em.Hm ss.os i
om.msm om.Hs am. we mo.m mm.HH mH.mH os.m mm.se mm.mm Hm.me an
Hm.ssm mm. m: mH.mo mo.mH Ho.mm em.s oe.m mo.ms mm. mm we.Hs xxx
mm.ssm Ha. me sH. me an.» mo.mn mm.m mm.em mm.mm mm. o H.sm 33
om.msm Hm. mm so. me mo.m Hm.om em.om em. mm.mm om.m H.mm a»
ms.mmm sm.mm mm.ss 0s.» mo.mm ms.HH mo.sH ao.mm oo.o HH.Hs H
om.mmm mo.mm we.ms 00.: mm.mH mH.m mo.m mm.» ss.om mm.ms oo
Ho.omm me.ee oo.me mm.mm mm.mm oo.mm mm.sH om.H oo.om mo.ms ass
me.mmm mm.mm oo.om mo.m om.mH mm.oe mo.mH mm.mm oo.o mm.mo one
mo.emm ms.mm oo.om om.mH om.mm mH.m mm.H mo.sm Hm.OH am. o oo
0H.mmm mm.oe mm.me mo.m mm.mm om.mm os.mm Hm.om mm.mm SH.mm o
me.mom mm.He 0».0» mm.m HH.mm mw.m mH.m mm.es om.sm mH.mo is
om.on mm.mm me.oo em.eH mw.Hm »H.: ms.Hm ae.me we.mm ms.oo HH
Ho.0Hm mm.Hm om.ms mm.mH mo.Hm mo.m we.» mm.mm m.mm ma.me mm
Ha HHH> HH> H> > >H HHH HH H
Hseoe Hooeom

 

,mmgmGOZ

 

Homeszzoov xHHx mHmae

d
o
c
n
a
v
o
s
o
O
_

o
n

0
v
e
n
o
o
a

i
a
.

b
..
a
.

.lii

369

 

 

os.msH os.om Hs.me oH.e om.sH ms.m mm.m mm.om mm.mH os.om mas
oo.omH oo.o: em.ms oo.o oo.o Hs.H oo.o mH.mm HH.HH oo.o x
Hm.omH mo.me mH.ss mm. s ss.sH oo.o oo.o mm.ss os.sm oo. o as
mm.moH oo.oe os.es oo. s Hs.m oH.oH se.m mo.mm mm.m oa. as 3
oH.soH oo.o: oo.om oo.o oo.o so.oH so.m mo.mH oo.o em. ms NN
em.mmH me.om om.mo mm.oH oo.mH oo.oH em.oH me.sH Hm.m mT mm ooo
mo.moH oo.om mm. so oH. e oo.oH mo.m es.oH es.Hm H.»H Hs.mm one
om.Hom sm.mm so. mm mm. a eH.sH oo.m oo.o »H.mm s.m om.om mm
oo.oom oo.o: sm.mm ms.m oH.HH mH.o so.mH mH.mm om.m mm. as >
mH. om »H.mm o mN.H ms.m sm.m mm.mH oo.om sm.m oT mo x
mo. Hm mm.em oo. om om.m sm.m mm. oH oo.o oo.om mo.m em. as e
oo.on sm.mm NH.ms mm. mm.mH ms. eH mo.m oo.om . H sm.mm m:
so.on sm.mm mm.os mo. so. o oo. s mH.ss oe.mH oo.o ma.em m
mo.sHm ms.sm mm.mm He.m mm.mm mT m mm.H Ho.mm oo.o mm.mm as
ma.sHm so.em mm.Ho oo.o mT m oH.s mm.HH mm.Hm MH.mm oo.ee «as
ms.sHm mm.sm oo.om mH.o He. oH om.m os. Ho.Hm os.HH oo.o: mmm
mm.mHm Hm.e oo.om oo.o mH. o s .s HH.H om.mm ms.m oH.me mam
mo.mmm Hm.m me.ms sm.s os. sH mm.m oo.o mm.sm oo.o ms.me HH
Hm.smm me.ms oo.om os.s Hs.m mm.eH oo.o me.mH ms.m me.ms m
mo.wmm mo.Hm oH.ms mo.m so.o mo.s om.em Ho.mm om.e mm. mm as
se.mmn os.es mo.ss os.s He.o mm.oH Hm.m ms.Hm oo.o ;m noon
oo.omm oo.ss me.Hs em.m me.mH mm.m oo.o Hs.mm Hm.HH ooo
mH.omm Hm.om mm.so oo.o oo.oH Hm.mH em. oH mm.sm ms.m Wm.om oooo
Hm.mmm mo.wm oo.mm om.mH mo.om mo.H or. a om.ms os.mH oT He n
so.omm em.sm sm.mo oo.o so.» mo.m mo. am HH.om mm.eH oo.o: o
eH.mmm so.ms om.Ho sm.H mm.om sm.mH sm.HH mm.sm mH.e mH.mm 22:
om.mmm mo.mm oo.om mH.o oo.om mH.SH ss.m mm.wm em.» om.me rem
Hx HHH>_ HH> H> > >H HHH HH H
Hseoe Hooeom

 

mmhfimfimz

 

HomozHezoov xHHx mHmae

370

 

 

 

om.mmH sm.om sH.sm oo.s Hs.m os.m mm.H mm.HH oo.o om.mm >>
ms.msH mm.mm ms.ss oo.o Hs.m om.s om. mm.oH oo.o om.mm a
ms.mmH ms.sm oo.om oo.o Ho.mm oo.o om. ms.oH mo.H «H.om on
om.ooH sm.sm mm.so oH.m ss.s ms.» oo.o Hm.mH oo.o sm.mm >>>
Ho.moH oo.om ms.sm os.s mH.sH mm.m mm.s mm.oH mm.mH oo.om a
NH.moH oo.oH oo.os os.m sm.sH oo.o so. mm.oH oo.o sm.mm H
om.moH mm.mH mm.mm mm.H em.» oo.m ms.m s.mm oo.o mm.ms xx
mo.ssH mm.sH HH.Hs oo.o oo.mH oo.o sm.oH o.sm oo.o os.mm NNN
so.ssH ms.mm oo.mo ms.m mm.oH mm.s Hm.m mH.mH om.m oo.mm some
Hx HHH> HH> H> > >H HHH HH H
Hseoe Hoosom

mmhfimdmi

 

HomozHHzoov xHHH mHmee

 

APPENDIX I

Type of Farming Areas in Michigan

 

 

  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

   

 

 

LAKE

 
 

 

 

lCorn-ndleeuock

LSuaflOnlmmdflve-uod: 10. CentralPoucomdDah-y

3. SunhumRdekaropc ll. Norma-1m ansth-y
4W.DslrysndTmokCt-upc ILNonhemPonsomanky
iany-ndGcnetan-tning 13.0enanSell—Sumungandl’m'l‘lme
GDIkysndCI-thopu liCsanmnnd Self-Sufism;
7 DIM.HIY.IndSpchICtopu lS.CaItle.I'hy.mdSpang0nku
&Bceaa$ual85eeu.nndbdry lanhycnd

9. Conic. Sheenandl’onac l7. Potatoes. Duh-y. nnde-Time

APPENDIX J

MAPS SHOWING MICHIGAN COUNTIES IN WHICH AGRICULTURAL
ENTERPRISES ARE JUDGED IMPORTANT

 

373

     

MICHIGAN

Shaded areas denote counties in which the dairy enterprise
is judged to be important.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

O!- O n - I .- . . _ I I . v ‘ .‘u . .,.I,, .' ... . ‘ .
.
'.
1-
‘ ' o,"
I o
' t
. .
.
.
. ' Y
Q
7 ', I - ‘
A . \ u w . .
. . I I v
. ' ' h ‘
~~ D
u i ' .
. _ . .
' - .t- 'f
h . ' 7 i . . . I . J . .4
. I , ‘ . . t h
. . .
K . v ‘ . . '
‘ > I I . ' 1"
' .. c o I.
. . - ‘ o. 1‘
. v 3
l . . ’
V- l . I h
A . . ‘l . ’ Q
- .
‘ p
u .. .
.._. - ‘ q .
A . . .
. . ‘
. ‘ .
‘ w
. , ‘ .
a
. f.
‘-. ..
_, '
i \
‘ I
... . . q
. . ..
l O
n
. . .
u ‘ ‘ ' . I
' I. ' . V .
. . ' \ ' I; ‘ ‘
e H ‘ I .
. _ .-
. .
t . v. ‘
.
‘ ‘ ‘ u a
. .~
A .
- . .
..
. I.
. ‘. .
. ' ‘
.
., l I
X
. .
. .
n
' e
l
a
l l .
I c s
I ~ '
. ' _ h ‘
I V I
. .-
. | .
. .
. . ... . .. ... 1 I
7 - ' ,.
V .\ _
. . '
. .
I .
' .
‘ . . , _ _
c
‘.
.
. . . ., . . . . . u - a. <‘ ». .4. p ‘ ' ‘ . l '

 

 

 

 

374

 

  
  
 

Y
- 2
I Iaflmfif‘f‘é
L......_l
imam“: . .. . ..

 
  

MICHIGAN

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Shaded areas denote counties in which the poultry
enterprise is judged to be important.

 

 

 

 

 

.
o
.
u
.
u
. n
v I
~ o
0
a
o .
an o. .
M... . .
on. n
. , ... (or s s
I. .
...
.
. — .
. o
.
...-1". .a.‘
.. \
..,.
\. n
a . ..
-
. e
. .. a
.
. .
..
.
.. .
o .
. a
.
l
r
. ....I .o
u. .'
I.
o.
. . -
o. u
w.
o. v . .
V
I
O
c. C.
o

 

.-

 

 

 

 

 

 

MICHIGAN

375

M1.~"T .
O” | L"!:£P I
% Jfic‘gfi ! imh‘t‘fl
I" l_._. ..L
“1......1..! imcxmAc 1......-

i 43./"\fu's "irgxg

filiflfl a, 9 0 “VP
‘7' mm
Cm?! L5?-
'cmm:Vo"Ix' '1'
mm 4075560 ";;W%
' I WI

"Ice: "5535/: Irma '

9"" ‘mwfvi I

    

FNIIWFMWWum'I" mIoctmG'I °

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

-—.:—--

'2- —-:= —.;I:— -i." -i_._,
-.:'— 'Z_l.—" -l - - ..
tn L333 fIWst—Lucn-MLSMLEJ “new“?
.L— - ' - - _
I

r-—J"-'.‘E—T-J|‘=7ii_

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Shaded areas denote counties in which the beef feeding
enterprise is judged to be important.

vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv

 

CID-IOIIIOOOO""““

|;O:|:IIIII‘II‘(\1!||O!'| 1.4» It

 

 

 

 

 

376

 

$502313 1 r I 744mm: M13254 ?
. . ' 1” I I Iv».
. .L. . ‘ % '"'-"' o
\ k.~Ifian " " am Fifi"! 1:141»:th
. L..._. E" J,
\ ”mm”? ......1. .HACKINAC 1‘... .... ..

...J../ \jzaewefii};
Y?

I
r-"r
m; figs?! 8'”

MICHIGAN

Shaded areas denote counties in which the commercial
beef cattle raising enterprise is Judged to be impor-
tant o

 

 

'Ill sllllfll"

 

 

 

 

 

I“

 

.."

 

 

 

 

III I In. II II
c r
.
o
.. .
.. n p
s
n
. .
. I
. o .
.
e -
. .. .~ .
. u o
‘u-I . .. u
.
. v
~
. . .. z .
s
n . ... .
.
. . .
. .I. .. I
\. . a \ . . I
u . o .
. . . I u
. . . ..
.0 ... .
. s . . .
.C . . ...
. .
.
. u . u .
. o .
\ N u I. .
. 1
. J . . v!
. x . .
. . . I o
.
..-; .. . \
’
u) .
O .
.. .
. a
. a
., up .. .
V
I .
t
A u
o
v .
g A T
. c
. o .A ..
. .
. . o...o
. I . .
\ . . .
k
. . . . ..
.
.
\ . . _
. . . I ‘ .
. . ‘.
g — . .
. V
.
_ . . . . . 9 .
.‘ I .
v
r
m . I. .
u . . .
. .
. . .
.
. .1 . .
.5
. .
.
. . .
o
. .
.
. o
. a
u . -
‘ u

 

 

 

i
V
4
.
u
-
u
.
u
» o
. .
. .
_. i
n ..
.0. I r
. I u
.' I: I. 1.
a
.. . ... o .( .-
. I . .
.
.. c
u .. 1‘
..I
. l
.
. OI~
.
5'
~
~
0
L

 

 

 

 

 

377

 

3t

....”

3

1J-
nu

L. I W" . 112:4:
C '1 L. - “I m4 -I I
- " t----'

 

MICHIGAN :33“, f

   

 

 

Di . . I
memfl: '"ToIIEIéTX “Wrahmrdcb

In I I"

Aha .hzcas'fA-Ihgis}: _immmo

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

—— IONM — CUN‘I’ON Sim
‘— _- Z — r —_ JL —
I»— :L’ $.11; .JL.—-" W’wé‘"
‘ '__ r5553! ° mngm—IELNGJWE
r - - - - - - —-§": fi|

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[mum Lem—#4
'- _-. i’ _T"-II-——’ .JI- .
[——.-—:..'-‘—: - -—.—.._- JE_—. - -.
fly 33:.MW EALO: {among usmwu ...: T
_

Shaded areas denote counties in which the swine enter-
prise is Judged to be important.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

‘
.
..
,n
l
.u ‘fl
I
. t.
,,
.
l
. .

. ..
, '.
I
. ..
O
. ...I..
a
- C
-
...
,.
., ‘
1
..di
I
J
...
;.
.
v
-
.
.
0
.
I
l
f' "
' ‘I. It
, .
.
o
- . c ..
.... . . ....

 

 

 

 

woe

.-o.

 

!

 

378

o
. l (
QWM 1...} r ! Inflow-m“ ’ "1:76;. i}?

 

 

_. 1 ‘-

' .., ...}..f’?" \ ma?
“7.11M; r'fljéfj . “If:

I
. / ._ .. j.
k _J?mi....4 .w figggg ifimnnt '.
\. L.-. g 5“ [.-.—5 — __ —
\ iuamsou . . __ .4. iMACK/NAC _

 

MICHIGAN

, Shaded areas denote counties in which the sheep enter-
prise is Judged to be important.

 

 

 

 

...

..t.

 

 

 

379

 

mas.» ' r‘ -'

are 1c— I InAawm's HM" l-LUCE
. j C I —!
{K L... «55"‘4 MI, Jri‘hcflfi 1 Imgaflw
L...

1
MACK/NAC t... —-- — 1?

(‘NNFT' Damn; ‘.

g 9 K
\ PR 5 U!
Q ? I 'ISIon

 

mm '1____ .,_L_
“f_ (Viv Jorsz'co "mnon- T_PFNA

M 10H I GA N ummuwlm' _1mwmm. 1335M :3}

W’" gmvm: !

    

f-vTN/mrIufirono: MITMUKEE "MIR-5731’ 110500 '
I I

-...._L. . I
MASON LAKE "Fame“ {was lemma/x
|
l i . I
C l . I 0‘
OCEAN/I umAerI MECOSYA Wu hair?»
I I'— '—

 

 

I
...L.
Rm

   

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

v:=':n ___.
° “—4 L.__.EE?=fi_.-JD%:=':-
gem ‘W:r§A—MLT 5“—
‘i’ EFF—’3; : _ ': —
inzimuj- _ Imi‘m3r
.l— _|— _'
I _I_ __!__ _ — __—.a_-
%"T} nemtruwfinim

 

 

E?::::t—--KL:7':'_3:—¥"

'- —" _" "I" " " -—.I=.
gVAN—_ anwmw _—IJAc_u_so_u_‘—!Ww ":10”— '-
-_'_r_—_: -::: _._1 -
Hafiimfflm'mgumie L_Em—wu—: W

—:p__

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

——I—.—-—n—__—I.__—_—.——-

—- ..—....__u‘ '.T.—.—_I:——..:}L—_—_:‘—- _

Shaded areas denote counties in which the wheat enter-
prise is Judged to be important.

 

 

"- \z

’A'

 

 

0“.

 

380

 

 

 

 

MICHIGAN

 

 

 

Shaded areas denote counties in which the oats enter-
prise 13 Judged to be important.

 

- Q ‘ I I ‘ .
1
. . . .
u
.
.
.
I
- .0
|. ~ .
u ~ J
I
' I
. ,..A .-
.
., . ~
. _ I
' r
.
I
I
\
.
' . v
, . ._
. . . .. n
. .. -
.
, c . .

 

..ol ~~ .
" ‘a .
...
n . .
0
..~ .
.,-l' g
l
\
...u
.' ,
.

 

 

381

MICHIGAN

Shaded areas denote counties in which the barley enter-
prise is Judged to be important.

 

.- truce.” f“

   

 

 

- ...

 

 

o
..
-
n.‘
\
-.,

 

 

 

 

382

 

i_ J - -

3:. I . .
fg§§,rfij?gj 50
g;

(’3

MICHIGAN

 

Shaded areas denote counties in which the corn enter-
prise is Judged to be important.

 

 

   

   

 

 

 

 

 

 

   

 

I» . - - _ ' ,.
. - . ‘. . . . ., an . _ . .
. . a l ' ' 0' I ' .
...v. .
‘ O.
s . - '4
- I
.H
.
D ".
\
1
AIna
‘ _ I
.. - K
‘ I
~. . . .
' I _ _ .' .
'. - ' r
I I
I . . ‘ ~
- .
. , .
' i
t- ‘ '
V . _ ‘
n' e o
. .
, .. -. ~ I '
- . l ' ‘. .
._ .. - . ' o . v I '
._' A ‘ . . .- .
I I . .
lb . ,
. I . 0 ‘ I
'Q .
I- , ' u
.. . .n - I ‘
.
. s I ~ . , . ,'
' v - O - . . ' I
u _ ‘ ' 1 ‘ »- ....Q . ‘,
I _ ~ . ‘ . I. . 1 ..
- . . - .
. _ —\ ..
c l s .‘ . n
a ' . - .' . l
. .- . . o
. . -
. I .' . ‘-
'. x. ' ‘
.
'v . fl .
' ' . s I' ~ A ~ .
l I . . ‘
I I.
. _ .
‘ ~ _ s .I I
. - ._ '. ' ' u-
' - l
. 9
' ‘
-.. ... '
. D l ‘ ‘ I
. . - ,
r ‘ > .
| ‘ .
I
t J a
v ( . . ' \ e
' .. .. ' ' ' g - -
' - - - . .
. . _ ‘ .
‘ . 1 . . .
o ‘.
n . ' . . \‘
. I
. I
. _ .
G t I
' - , . J
' I
. , ‘ I. I '. ’
.
I \ .
' .. - u- . ,. .
. . . 'q , ‘ . »' .
_ o
. . .
’ o
' .1 -- .. . - ~ .. '-
" ... . . ‘ . .
' I
\ ~' ,
. _ '
0 ~ . . . - .
0 .-~. .. I -
. .
l I
' . . ‘ ' u o .
, — , . - .
. . . ‘
.
I I
.
I ,
. .
' r
. .
. O I
..Z . . .
-- . . ,- - . .
s A. l .
.
. I
‘ '.
. Iv . .

.. ‘ , -- ~... . _ . ..
. ’I .j . \I c
. I ' \
‘ ‘ ' I . . ' .
- .
n , l '
. .- o

 

 

. -...)

1......1

MACKINAC

 

 

 

bu

------

Immv

Wind/«é

’q

ranch—71%: non-N.

.55-1:60 Hf“,

“TRIM—Ir
oégif mi_

8

383

9‘2?

parkmni .

I”: m:

1-
W!

 

 

:%

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

   

 

 

 

 

 

"m" 1wmi i mi !
Ffigmm-iiar-mmfim 27.2; .1055;-
! 1E3:
..L. L...1:._-
wt: Twang} CURE Yam! .mmc-T
g:—::, 9:}:-
|:_-- O—-——- - &
“@ffii @fi-‘L—h’L I; .
-—?k%muftzwrfl; Edit: ’ .“
T'j‘ —" — --- —— -- __ r“
-- _-r" "_.‘”':}_—_ — ’ ‘ ____-.g;~:'s': m

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

enterprise 18 Judged to be important.

 

ID—- -—‘

 

”EA-Sliv- firm—Tuaanufmfli-I‘

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv

f 3 '*‘ .EjE—Z'Eé':
1&3”me Tum‘ irW|m
1 I

 

L-

I. 1..- 1‘4
ma SDALE

 

wmwc'Tn'mm

I II !|
4 hfir’fiazfiwfimru!
H

Shaded areas denote counties 1n.wh1ch the field bean

 

 

..L—r

 

..vlvl

It"

.-
n

.""

 

 

.0 .... 1“

 

 

'-

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

38‘!»

1| 'LUCE_. ‘— £7

 

 

mm 9 !
IMI'WWMUXITM‘M‘MAmm '
! 1 l

LAKE '-Fa'scew' cu'k: .‘cT'LmbTE

‘ :l 753:-
00 flewfi‘“ WW?“
MICHIGAN Q ' " '

   

“1.5.:

 

I
)o—cE/IE 1 mama MECQW-A , 15m ' MID-LAND -

 

 

 

 

 

 

"A" l- _
. .1 ' -—.;- __. '
orum Wuu amm salami]

 

 

 

 

 

J '
falcon” {sun umv lmanm lumom.
l l

 

-.L. l__-_lr_-_1_-_._
VAN [—wnml trauma-wow MCKsaP .msamuw [WAYNE
.

g . i
ff“ uis- "inloism- iamo: _§uusouilumvu—rm
l i i

'..§.

Shaded areas denote counties in which the potato enter-
prise 13 Judged to be important.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

   

 

 

1 ~. .s.
- . 9 , . .
. I .1- A 1.. .
- .
..
u
l U. ‘
. ' o'
1
. I
. '0
4
>1 '. ~
. ,-
q I u '
I \
n . ‘
. .
' u‘. ‘ O ‘ . l
I "
‘ .o‘ ' ' .
e . . r . .
I .’
. . |
. . ..c'. ' I .‘
i I t .
' ' ' ,-\ . ' ' -
l ‘ - ~
. 1 ‘ n I u. '
l ‘ :4 . .
- I I 4 I .
~.' ’ .
. .. .: ‘ . . .. ' ' .- 1 l ' ‘
. '- . .x. ' . i . '
.... .
t ‘ 1 .
p . ' -'
r ,n, ‘ . ‘ ‘ i
l .
. I
t . I
. "' n n 5.
. ' ‘
‘ . O < o '
u’ I ' .
u .
. I
. ~ I ‘
.

 

 

 

 

 

. ’ , I.
r ‘i
’ x
4 Y ‘
.. . ‘ ; I
1 ‘ .
. ‘ ‘
. ... '
’ , .
a
. ..-
. , ' ‘
‘ A I r ., 'i' .
‘ 1 . o
\‘ . I . I ‘- .
. . - - 1 a ‘
.-
I
,, ,
' ‘ v
‘ .- V - . n-
. .1. ‘ ‘
. ' ‘
n
. . -
‘ .
\ ' . .I
. .
- o
. ‘ ~ ' '
. . ‘ . i
-
‘ a
| . i I
.
.. 1 . 1‘
-
c ‘ .
1 -
c
i
‘v . . .
| 1 .
v I
. ' . .
. .d I
1 ‘
v
“.Io' ' ~ I:
.
. . .,. ~ .... . .
, _ - - - s ,

 

 

 

385

MACK/MAC 15....-

Ema. ‘1‘ «I/ \fnwéwfl
if“)? 05 (W303?

9 I PRISM

' 'lSLl
”an 1__ NJ
jam—co Tpmnoi-TATPEM

' Q J ‘33;
MICHIGAN muff/115“” i ’ ‘3

1_ *iWMUTD'iW'—' :ALW'
9’?" ‘mvtm ' g |

 

  
  

Imtthxmflmmuxftm-mmioctmmm ...
! I . I I
......L._ ..L.-_.I__ .L..,__.J_..

m LAKE Fascmu cm: fawmnam

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

47
I
_.AI_._...+_-.:-- “1
ocauu ammo nzoosm W_.MIMMQ‘:
( r_—-'-_—.|:
: —i:_— .2: _ .—
-—+ norm-4m humor: 54.92“”: _
- —' — —
. ' -_—.."_-_—f_
._I I _._ ...... '
Fran . IONIA alum r
L._J- -4... I—i
auto»: jean" In 1 man»: lumcnml
f‘ !: —__‘ i 'I

 

VAN sun—Tux WW ' "Ffii [Essen °' WWW 'Lj

-1 i I 5 I
/4fl taii‘ ",l n ’93:;me ‘_!7(iL_umui I umw—l-zg'le:

    

 

 

 

Shaded areas denote counties in which the sugar beet
enterprise is Judged to be important.

unlull .AIIII.nnuunulllllluuuInIllunllIllnunuulll

 

 

.
. .
.
._
.. .
. o .
‘ .
t,t.o.h .‘ .o
I o l
o
\ 5....- O . .o .
TK . .
w o .,
I. o
. o
.o.‘ ~. 4
. .. I n ;
v I. . .
...A. I
A
.
u
I
I
I.
r,
.
.
e \
.
u
A
‘
a u
‘
I: 4. .
. .
-

 

 

 

 

 

 

. . ..
s
o.
..
. s
o
o
o . .1.
. o . ..
. .
. ~ o
. I.
.
I
.0 .I l
. o ‘
v
I ' I.
. ‘
In
~ .
,0

 

 

 

:. 3.-
..I .
.
u
. ..
. It...

 

 

 

 

 

386

“To ° I. I" GW’W

3 “""“@'°-' “T‘uvagama-' imfiEh

\'\ Tad-«I J" ”ML..- ..L, W

. i . “1""! !mcxmns\:_ __ -..
@1ij \FM

060 "Parm-
(; 9°13? {7557"
\/ fem“ 'i
00 [if mm firm Twavmoiomfl

MICHIGAN emf/CWW—W

gm imym,‘ 1—chm

#7:”!ng ImmmqammgoctmT
. I ,
m’fi'fig "'Ta's%i TEAJkF-'éfi'a!"mbTEE-hji' °
! I I ' !"
O 0 My
)EEEAM radium Avao iMEW‘i-‘EW hm}

( . I i '
"'i 'Ttbfiui'L-Tmrfiomw 1 .
r-"m .l '— 3' 2",;
our“ F! kulr'imfi- mu —-
I I ._ :fi: :
- -—.: _ —=L-. -.

Fir-J Gaugifig'v- ffi—m "'Tinaum luvmfim
E3

    
   
  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

- i _ i ,
@éfidfi "Intact-Jim w I:—

 

 

 

 

 

 

“ a . “53 —'4| sues 8M- _'70usmE ENAVtm-f

__-— _.t'.::_.-TJTE— --:.- "' ”I

agglu-

 

 

Jl

 

 

 

 

 

Shaded areas denote counties in which the soybean
enterprise is Judged to be important.

........

vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv

 

 

 

 

, ‘ .
I
a
0 I
u
.
v
o
E.,
n
o
I
I
-

 

 

 

, . ....
O
.
‘. a
'
... ,
-. . .
E
«E. ‘
. .. :
O
. .

 

 

 

b
..-
.,.
’1
I.
.

 

 

387

 

 

 

 

 

     

MICHIGAN

Shaded areas denote counties in which the hay enterprise
is Judged to be important.

 

 

 

’ m ”‘4'? 7:;4n

 

 

 

‘..'..'.'.."...l" lulu...-

 

MICHIGAN

em.

_ , I

. ..L. .L.

“BLAKE Tatum can
5.: ' T I

 

1.....1

MAEKINAC

   

 

 
 

Ifihfifi

 

 

 

 

ME.-
€2le .
:3

 

L

 

 

 

 

Wm. Imam 01.7.5135"

 

I I 1
1-. . O i “Y
1% ‘~.4'-—.‘+’s.m. .M’. D

 

 

 

, I
_.L ..L...

{am} . mm

388

   

 

 

o MONTCA‘N |
3&3. I I ....L. We
. ‘ '2': ' ' . .oamu T [Ra-5R
FIFO-in: II'C'UETON .smuls'é' i .
l—“lZI-Zj; I I _,__....I...
;— -s:_ i L,fihmm:.£2fl|
MEGAN—Trina? Tab Ini'cm IuwnoanI- ——_.-— -—I"'

 

 

 

 

 

I I
o 0 _T-_ J
°W'—L'7ITAIWJ -

 

 

 

 

 

 

I— —:I.=_

 

 

IL:__

 

 

"Is—17335.7 I‘m. *fr'nusmu- I mung... firm
I —
I

 

 

 

 

'""JL_,_E=L:=§L—-

Shaded areas denote counties in which the tree fruit
enterprises are Judged to be important.

vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv

 

 

 

'4
u
n
n
b
a
,V
'.

 

I .N I. ' ' . - , . ..
’ n . ‘ ‘
. _.
.
' V .
' o
. V‘ .
' . u ,
I
.
' l
‘ O
,.
A v.
- n
'I
.
.
l
l O
I
.
' I
‘ J
. .
. .
'V
.1
.. .. ’ . . - .
.
1
.

 

 

._. r. ._ ‘
. . , . ......... _...."." '1‘
. Q
. I
I .. .. , _. _.4.
I .
.
. , ‘
I . .-
" ‘ I' _ -
' .. l A ' \ l
u . ._ a. H
... ‘ o o . l
I
’ .
. .- . . . I h“... '
' ,, .
. . '
.« . . '-
- . . ' .‘
-.~. on . ‘
1" .~'
L
I, .
"l I ‘ E. ' ’
- , ‘
I -
. . .
. _ ‘
. ,. .‘
a . .
'0
.
‘ .
' -
. . a...
I . '
V . no ...
... _ -,
,
I
. . . .
.s
.
i~
'
. a
‘ n
.
.'
.. t 4
.
I I
.
. \
" . I ‘ .
l ..
' I
. . 3
~ .-
‘ . . . C C
D
‘ I I ‘ I 9‘ '

 

 

.
.
‘ ' ,-
.
,.
.
.. .
I
4’
i . ‘
I ' Q
.

 

 

389

    
  

I"

9c'_'._i i (N.,/W

o CRAFT. CHIPPEWA _
r” '

iMAEFITv'Ac 15....-.

. I. ‘2
wfij~v/'w~“¥de::f““:n£:>
0 '30
Q 7 ! iISLl ’
Iifihwfifiré
MICHIGAN ‘I '

  
   

:‘ '_' _ - I . ' ' —_ _
FEW-rm. ram—I“. .mtmzw+..osw
l
. I ! I I
é. ..L... . .--. _I.. -1...
WE LAKE rOSCf-iOTA culle— {ammu'IA—nrm
Z l

  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

o'_._q I
_ MONTCILM CRITIC?
_-.L.. __
_ F: '1'":
01:73.4” ‘ ‘3”: ammu

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Inflow—“sun Inmv Imam

 

 

 

_‘-:_-si . I I I
_A Far-"i “sag—meL—mir—Luwz—r ' 4"
é . - I i I
2;... .._._|. __J . _.__.‘____ I _ i -

 

Shaded areas denote counties in which the small fruit
enterprises are Judged to be important.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

‘ ...

 

J.
‘l
t
I
:

.-. c

 

 

v1

 

 

 

 

390

 

Icmppzwaw
HACK/N‘c-L 1b- .. --|

"V M
'./ \ Fem

 

MICHIGAN fig.” fiafismmirm

Flmt'mxrono wzmum .m oomw moo

 

 

 

 

 

 

   

75:37" I what son'—

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Shaded areas denote the counties in which the enter-
prise of vegetables harvested for sale is Judged to
be important.

 

 

 

 

 

‘I...

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

391

 

i mnwrm i TN
. . / I I
n,___'-¢—,5,;|-~--~- 12.39.; risk-mi- i ' .
J , lcmppem .
r' '

\. s..._. . CM"
\ nan/um} . ' ' ‘I
! . F'E"°'J'1 'MACKINAC L—_.¢— _., -

9 ! '45 '
gu/J é;§%fi1_u I::. j::}
n9 thw-JWSEGVWWWFFM {R

' . - I

MICHIGAN mm H . g
.15).” 'wgammm'fimr'
m immi ! i
fwfimezsimmfimimxrmr'
as ! i 1 i j}
,_ .1 '

 

 

 

015‘

(mm! Wt osctau cums {F.,-e, . .‘:.-.
F ! 3‘ "'
V
ocwu "mm MrmfA-WimWfiir-m
I g" ....-
. com mum
rem.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I .
MONTCMM (manor 3"" ’""' .
r'."m;-— r__i_, .5941!
.__, I .oelmuT ' -—-'\
orram IONIA mum amnesia ‘ may"
. | ' ‘
! ! iii.
L_ , 7 _.L jam» {WWI
yuan;- “aunt pumv gunman Ian/mom! . '
E: _ _ 9 I I I
II—
__- ..L" | , | __”L_
_AN mzumawow [new mm [M 1
e _ _ -' .
__']__:—.[ l . I
- - .—_.' .___._._ L... '__.l. .1"
“was: 132mm aw Hummu- lEMVli—T.
_;1 I i i i
—- ——.i.-—-— A... ' ‘
' - L.__-..—1—-

Shaded areas denote the counties in
which th
enterprise is Judged to be important. e grape

   
 

uIH'hullllllullllulllnIllllullllllllllllllflllllll

 

 

r Ami

4.. . [F‘.mr,,:. . ...:
p9 . .,
we ....ui geyE

 

  

 

 

. ...x ... .. ,. z. (It... .. ... . .... . . . .. 1: ...! ,
. . . ..rwdmowfi; £qu . .. g. . . A53 ctv< ...»-..eqanflo .93.. ,1 $27 \ t a 43., r ..., . u, t , , ,, {tr}. 1:. ....éEL, ..s. ~ .p

. x r . . . , .

L

.. a
. ._ I.» «
.... .. .
...,J z r . , ... , w
...

’a‘éLY ,

ROOM USE 0

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

~. / .. J 12C
‘,§ '1- rw, ‘ H1, 5' a ll’
Page 5 . Page 6 Voc. Ed. Form No. 241 I l
. 1-49—1200
SUMMARIZED FINAL REPORT ON OTHER SUPERVISED PRACTICE SUPPLEMENTARY FARM PRACTICES STATE BOARD or CONTROL FOR VOCATIONAL EDUCATION
LANSING, MICHIGAN
No. 'of No. _of
OTHER SUPERVISED PRACTICE NUMBER OF PROJECTS SCOPE FARM CROPS Puplls POULTRY Pupils
(Total Number of Units— '_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Improvement Projects List PraCtiCes Introduced This Year Begun Completed Acres, Heads, etc.) 1' Clean and treat seeds """"""""""""" 43' Cull a HOCk Of poultry Fl NAL REPO RT OF SUPERVISED PRACTICE PROG RAM
CROPS 2 Test seeds for germination - - - - - - - - - ........................ 44. Caponize poultry — - - -' - - - — - - - .......................
1. Corn Improvement 3. Inoculate legume seeds - - - - - - - - - - ....................... 45. Delouse poultry - - - - - - - - - - - ........................
2_ Bean improvement 4. Select an improved variety of seed - - - - - - - ........................ 46. Dress poultry for market — - - - - — - - - ........................
INSTRUCTIONS
3. Potato Improvement 5. Make liay - - - - - - - - - - - - - ........................ 47. Operate a brooder - - . . . . - . . - .
V ‘1 i . 1 ‘ _ - ‘ _ v ,1 . _ ,_
6. Sm, and dust crops _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ________________________ 43. Disinfect broader or he“ house _ - _ _ _ . _ _ _______________________ T ms report IS to be filled out for all—nay and part time students, one copy to be forwarded to the State Department
4' 03“ I“‘““*’“‘“‘“ 7 49 and the other kept in the local department files. The report must be mailed not later than January 1 for the
5. W'liezit Improvement 8 so preceding year’s work.
6. Barley Improvement . DEFINITION OF TERMS
LIVESTOCK FARM MACHINERY AND EQUIPMENT , . , . . . .
7. Productive enterprise prolect: A buSiness venture for profit, usually limited to a production cycle in a farm
9. Ring pigs - — — - - - — - - — - - - ________________________ 51. Operate and adjust farm machinery - - - — - - - . _ .
SOILS I 10 Castrate pigs 52 Construct farm equ'pni nt enterpnse.
, 1; «3,. ~ ‘ - - - - - - - - - - - - - ........................ - 1 e — - < - - - - — - ........................ , . . . . A -
L" S ‘ em“ ‘)"’r‘m Inlprovement prOJect: A prOJect intended to increase appreCiably the real estate value of the farm, 01 improve
11. T. ' ‘ _ _ - _ _ - ________________________ . ' ‘ ~ _ . _ _ _ - _____________ _ . . - - ., . , ,
9. Soil Erosion Control “fat ammals to control external Darasnes 53 Repair farm machinery and equipment ---------- the effic1ency of the farm business. It is usually of greater scope than a “Job” or an “improved pi actice.” Examples .
12. Butcher an animal — - - - - - - - - - - ........................ 54. Oil and repair harness - — - - - - - — - - ........................ ' ‘ ‘ - ' accounts_
10. Planning andcaming m a km, W Wot-a... _ , draining a field, renovating an orchaid, keeping a set of farm
m 13' Dem“ came ' ‘ ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ‘ ----------------------- 55' M“ and p°“'°°“°'e‘e ' ' ‘ ' ' ' ' ' ' ‘ Supplementary farm practice: Practice which has as its purpose development of ability in certain JObS or
I 14- DOCK and castrate lambs - r - - - - - - - ------------------------ 55. Repair and maintain small hand “3°15 - - - - - - - ------------------------ practices carefully selected by the teacher in conference with the student. These jobs or practices are more 1‘6-
Llir'rzEjdnicviiierd ’m N a c r ‘5' Dip and mm“ Shem ' ' ' ' ' ‘ - ' ' - ------------------------ 57- Splice “’95 ' - - - - - - - - - - - - ........................ stricted in scope than improvement projects. Examples: culling the poultry flock, treating oats for smut, dipping
. 21:. i D'JVFil n
16. Trim hooves - - . - - — - - - - - - ........................ 58. sheep.
13. Beef Herd Inmrovemcnt . . .

l 17- Fit and show an animal - - - - - - - - - - 59- Placement for farm experience: Placement of a student on a farm—usually a town boy who 18 lacking in farm
14< Beef Stew Fouling IIHDI’OVCUWM 18' Shear Sheep _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ‘ _ ______________________ FARM BUILDINGS AND EQUIPMENT experience—«Or transfer to a suitable farm of a student who has too limited faCllitiBS on his home farm. The place-
15. Sheep Flock Improvement 19 Ring a bull _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ' _ ment of such students on farms, and the follow—up Of their programs, is a responsibility Of the teaCllel‘ Of agriculture.

' """""""""""" 60. Repair farm buildings - - - - - - - - - - ........................ .
7 w T p ‘ ' v ' ' ' . _ - - _ - -
16. ram]. 1 etc Imprm emen‘. i 20. Apply for registration papers for livestock ........................ 61. Paint farm buildings _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ________________________ FINAL REPORT OF INDIVIDUALS
17. 5- ‘ L . e t 21. Assist an animal at parturition - - - - - - - - ........................ . . _ _‘ , , . . . - -
wme 'nplov men l ‘ . . . 52- Construct farm burldmgs - - ~ - - - - - - ------------------------ 0 Inlelduals carrying prejects and other superVISECl practice begun iii the year preceding and completed during
18. Swine Feeding Improvement ‘ 22‘ Treat animals for disease ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' """""""""""" 63. Build and repair fence - - - - - - - - - - ........................ that year 01‘ during the fiscal year covered by this report. Summary for school as a whole for the preceding
19. Poultry Improvement l 23‘ SCICCt improved breeding StOCk - - I - - _ - - """"""""""""" 64. year.
‘ 4_ ‘ 1 ' - . . . . . . - . - _____ . . . .
20‘ 2 Feed mnerastohvestock ------------------- 55, NOTE: No duplication should be included in numbers reported under a, by C, and d-
25.
FARM MANAGEMENT 26 SOILS
21. Plan and carryout afarm reorganization program based ’ 66_ Test 5011 for acidity - ' _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _____________________ Individuals Carrying Supervised
on recommended farm management practices DAIRY . Practice begun the Year Preceding
22 57- Tes‘ 50“ for plant nutrients ' ' ‘ - - r - - - ------------------------ Type of Supervised Practice . ‘ T .
' 27. Test milk for butterfat - - - - - - - - - - ........................ 68. Apply fertilizer _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ ~ _ _ _ Number Begmnmg Rumba Completing
FARM B TIL ' VG * . , _ . . . . .
23. Coxétrugltiii S 28' Ch” COWS ' ' ' ' ' ' ‘ ' ' ' ‘ ' ‘ ------------------------ 69. Drajn soil - . - . . . . . . . _ . _ ______________________ a. Productive enterprise projects: Different indiViduals enrolled in such
29. Operate and clean milking machine - - - - - - - ........................ 70 Fit 3 seed bed _ _ _ ‘ _ _ _ _ _ .. prOJeCts only _ I ‘ - - — _ I _
24. M ' t ' ' ' """""""""""" . . . . . .
ain enance 30' Clean. am Meet and Whitewash dairy stable _ _ _ _ _ 71 Plow under green manure b, Other superVised practice: lellerellt indiViduals enrolled for:
25_ O h ‘ ' ” ' ' ' ' ' ‘ ' ' -------------------- (1) Improvement prOJCCtS on y - - - - - ’ r
t ers 31. Keep production records - - - — - - — - - - ........................ 72. .
FARM 1MP LEMENTS“ 31 (2) Supplementary farm practice only - - — — - -
25. 73. q _ .
33 (a) Placement for farm experience only — - — - - -
' MISCELLANEOUS d h . d t.
' ~._- '~ ‘ ' r v. - " a . ' i . - ‘ ~ . ' . - - . - - ...- c. Productive enterprise projects an 0t er superVISe prac ice:
NOTE. *Do not duDlZLaLC prciects o. farm build.an or farm implements uhich are Includtd as part of Improvement or productive proiects in agricultural enterp: .ses. HORTICULTURE AND LANDSCAPING 74, Keep farm accounts . . . - - . _ _ . . . Different individuals enrolled in projects plus one or more forms Of
u ' _ .‘ t ” _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
34. Prune trees and shrubs - - - . - - . . - ________________________ 75_ Reform an area _ , _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ________________________ other superVised piactice only
35_ Plant trees and Shrubs _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ‘ ________________________ 75. ~ d. T?) 531- Tore ffiréns of “other supervised practice” only: Different
lI‘l 1V1 uasenro e - ' ‘ ' ‘ ‘ ' ' ' " ' '
36. Graft arid bud trees - - - - - - - - - - ....................... 77.
PLACENIENTS FOR FARM EXPERIENCE 37. Landscape home grounds - - - - - - - - - ........................ 78. TOTAL - - - - -
38 79.
D 1.
Name of Student Size of Farm Type of Farm Placgmeerit P12331111: 39‘ 80‘ . .
Began Closes 40 81 Total number of individuals who had no superVised practice program during preceding year - ....................
41. 82- Total number of individuals enrolled in vocational agriculture for preceding year - - - --------------------
42 83.
Date Superintendent or Principal
thnnl Teacher of Agriculture ..-

 

0%“

 

 

Page 2

AME OF STU ENT
ListA All Students Enrolled
Provide for All Projects

(1)

‘This item refers to course taken by the student during the previous year in school.

 

Page 3

SUMMARIZED FINAL REPORT ON EACH STUDENT’S PRODUCTIVE ENTERPRISE PROJECT OR OTHER SUPERVISED PRACTICE PROGRAM

Other Supervised Practice

Productive Enterprise Projects Project Income Hours
Cou Production Total Total Student's
(Crops. ASH. or Scope (’1 otal Number Bu.. Ttons, Charges Credits Net Actual Improvement Supplementary Farm Placement for
..2 3)‘ Kind of of Unit t—s Lbs, to.) Net Profit Allowed for ‘ Project Income Projects Practices Farm Experience
Enterprise Acres. Heads) Self-Labor ** *** =l-***
(3) (4) (5 ) (6) (7) (3) (9) (10) ( ) (12) (13) (14) (15) (16)

*Int twigs collumn indicate the amount actually received by the student. If student had full ownership the amount would be identical with column 11. If he had a share. the amount
on ess than colum n11.
**Indicate in this column (column 14) the improvement projects carried out by the different individuals. On page 5 of8. this report is a summary of the improvement projects. Examples:
vement is listed as No. 2 on geS; put 2 in colu umn 14 opposite the nam of the student carryiri ean improvement project.
***Indicate supplementary farmpractices not including the practices cam led out by the student in connection with the productive enterprise and improvement projects. by using same
hdo dof marking as used for'm im pro ovement projects in column
****Simply place a mark (X) in this column on the same line opposite the name of each student who was placed on a farm to secure farm experience

Page 4

SUMMARIZED FINAL REPORT ON PRODUCTIVE ENTERPRISE PROJECTS

Total Pupils' Income
Name of Number Total Total Total Tom I
Project 5 Completed Scope Yield Charges Credits Net Paid Self Net Project Students'
for Labor ncome Actual Income

3 4 6 9 10 ii

Stock Feeding

l

 

Complete totals for all columns except 1, 4, and 5.

. If you have projects not listed in Column 1. write the names in the blank spaces near the bottom of Column 1.

In Column 3 give total number of each type of project you have; e. g., Potatoes 5. Corn 3, and so forth.

In Column 4 give number acres of crop and garden projects, number of birds in poultry, and number of animals in animal projects. and so forth.
In Column 6 give total charges or costs for each type of project.

In Column 7 give total credits or income for each type of project.

In Column 8 give net profit on each type of project. Net profit will be negative (~—) when losses exceed profits.

In Column 9 give total amount paid “self" for each type of project.

eseeeew

Column 10 equals Column 8 plus Column 9.