INFORMATION TO USERS This manuscript has been reproduced from the microfilm master. UMI films the text directly from the original or copy submitted. Thus, some thesis and dissertation copies are in typewriter face, while others may be from any type of computer printer. The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted. Broken or indistinct print, colored or poor quality illustrations and photographs, print bleedthrough, substandard margins, and improper alignment can adversely affect reproduction. In the unlikely event that the author did not send UMI a complete manuscript and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if unauthorized copyright material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion. Oversize materials (e.g., maps, drawings, charts) are reproduced by sectioning the original, beginning at the upper left-hand corner and continuing from left to right in equal sections with small overlaps. Each original is also photographed in one exposure and is included in reduced form at the back of the book. Photographs included in the original manuscript have been reproduced xerographically in this copy. Higher quality 6" x 9" black and white photographic prints are available for any photographs or illustrations appearing in this copy for an additional charge. Contact UMI directly to order. University Microfilms international A Bell & Howell Information C o m p an y 300 N orth Z e e b R oad. Ann Arbor. Ml 48106-1346 USA 313/761-4700 8 0 0 /5 2 1 -0 6 0 0 Order N um ber 9513139 M ichigan agriscience teachers' perceptions o f th e im pact o f th e Standards for Excellence on restructuring local agriscience program s Showerman, Randy James, Ph.D. Michigan State University, 1994 UMI 300 N. Zeeb Rd. Ann Arbor, MI 48106 MICHIGAN AGRISCIENCE TEACHERS’ PERCEPTIONS OF THE IMPACT OF THE STANDARDS FOR EXCELLENCE ON RESTRUCTURING LOCAL AGRISCIENCE PROGRAMS By Randy Jam es Showerman A DISSERTATION Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department of Agricultural and Extension Education 1994 ABSTRACT MICHIGAN AGRISCIENCE TEACHERS’ PERCEPTIONS OF THE IMPACT OF THE STANDARDS FOR EXCELLENCE ON RESTRUCTURING LOCAL AGRISCIENCE PROGRAMS By Randy Jam es Showerman The vocational agricultural education programs in Michigan have been updated and revised over the past four years. The change that has occurred reflects the current and anticipated status of the agricultural industry in Michigan, in addition to emphasizing the science of agriculture through application. The restructuring from vocational agriculture to agriscience and natural resources education was facilitated by guidelines found in the Standards for Excellence (Michigan Department of Education, 1990). The Standards for Excellence was developed to ensure quality programs for Michigan secondary school students who are interested in agriculture and natural resources. Also included as part of the restructuring process was teachers’ completion of 86 hours of inservice instruction. The writer's purpose in this study was to determine the effect of the Standards for Excellence on restructuring local agriscience programs in Michigan secondary schools, as perceived by Michigan’s agriscience teachers. The research also was Randy Jam es Showerman conducted to determine agriscience teachers’ perceptions of the restructuring process. The results showed that Michigan’s agriscience teachers perceived that change had occurred in the secondary programs in the areas of student services, support and assistance they received, facilities and equipment, advisory committees, and overall support for the program. Negligible perceived change w as reported in funding availability. In addition, agriscience teachers perceived the restructuring process a s a positive move. To my beloved wife, Pat, whose support and love helped make this possible, and to my children, Emily, Abigail, and Thomas. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I would like to thank my major professor, Dr. Carroll (Jake) Wamhoff, for his assistance with this dissertation, guidance, and friendship throughout my doctoral program. His support will always be remembered and appreciated. I would also like to thank my doctoral committee, Dr. Harrison Gardner, Dr. Kirk Heinze, and Dr. Peggy Riethmiller. The advice and support from this committee were greatly appreciated. My thanks and appreciation are extended specifically to Diane Veriinde for her friendship and assistance in my research and doctoral program. v TABLE OF CONTENTS Page LIST OF TABLES........................................................................................................ x LIST OF F IG U R E ................................... xvi Chapter I. INTRODUCTION...................................................................................1 Background........................................................................................... 1 Statement of the P ro b lem ................................................................... 7 Purpose of the S tu d y............................................................................ 8 Research Q u e stio n s............................................................................ 8 Definition of Terms ............................................................................ 10 Limitations........................................................................................... 12 A ssum ptions....................................................................................... 12 II. REVIEW OF LITERATURE............................................................... 14 Introduction......................................................................................... 14 The Educational Crisis in the United States ................................... 14 Educational Reform ............................................................................ 18 School Restructuring..........................................................................22 Educational Standards ..................................................................... 30 The Change Process ....................................................................... 40 The Concept of Perceptions .............................................................49 A Brief History of Agricultural E ducation......................................... 52 Conceptual and Operational Frameworks for the S tu d y ............... 63 Chapter S um m ary.............................................................................. 66 III. METHODOLOGY .............................................................................. 69 Introduction.........................................................................................69 Pre-Experimental Design ................................................................. 69 vi Overview of the Research Q u e s tio n s ................................................ 70 V a ria b le s.................................................................................................. 71 D ependent Variables ................................................................ 71 Independent V a ria b le s ..............................................................72 Extraneous V a ria b le s ................................................................72 Validity.......................................................................................................73 Internal Validity........................................................................... 73 External V alid ity ......................................................................... 73 F ace V alidity................................................................................75 Content Validity ......................................................................... 75 Reliability.................................................................................................. 75 The Population .......................................................................................76 Reducing Sampling B i a s .......................................................................76 Fram e Error ................................................................................ 76 N onresponse E rr o r .................................................................... 77 Selection B ia s ............................................................................. 77 Instrument D evelopm ent.......................................................................77 Data Collection .......................................................................................79 Data Analysis .........................................................................................80 IV. FINDINGS................................................................................................82 R esearch Question 1 ........................................................................... 82 R esearch Question 2 ........................................................................... 83 R esearch Question 3 ........................................................................... 83 R esearch Question 4 ........................................................................... 84 R esearch Question 5 ........................................................................... 85 R esearch Question 6 ........................................................................... 86 R esearch Question 7 ........................................................................... 87 R esearch Question 8 ........................................................................... 88 R esearch Question 9 ........................................................................... 89 R esearch Question 10 .........................................................................91 Multiple Regression Analysis ............................................................. 95 Open-Ended C o m m e n ts.....................................................................100 S u m m ary ................................................................................................ 101 V. CONCLUSIONS, IMPLICATIONS, RECOMMENDATIONS, AND REFLECTIONS............................................................................103 R esearch R esearch R esearch R esearch R esearch Question Question Question Question Question 1 2 3 4 5 ......................................................................... 103 .................................................................. 104 ......................................................................... 104 ......................................................................... 105 ......................................................................... 106 vil Research Question 6 ........................................................................ 106 Research Question 7 ........................................................................ 107 Research Question 8 ........................................................................ 107 Research Question 9 ........................................................................ 108 Research Question 10 ...................................................................... 109 Recommendations for Further Research .......................................109 Reflections .......................................................................................... 110 APPENDICES A. Letter of Approval From the University Committee on Research Involving Human Subjects ............................................. 113 B. Survey Instrum ent................................................................................ 114 C. Supplemental Materials for Survey In stru m en t............................... 130 D. First Cover Letter .............................................................................. 138 E. Postcard R e m in d e r............................................................................139 F. Second Cover L e tte r............................................................................ 140 G. Third Cover L e tte r................................................................................ 141 H. Fourth Cover L e tte r.............................................................................. 142 I. Statem ents Regarding Philosophy Statement: Supplementary Tables ...................................................................... 143 J. Statem ents Regarding Student Services: Supplementary Tables ......................................................................145 K. Statem ents Regarding Support and A ssistance for the Agriscience and Natural Resources Teacher: Supplementary Tables ......................................................................148 L. Statem ents Regarding Improvement to Facilities/ Equipment: Supplementary Tables ................................................151 M. Statem ents Regarding Changes to Advisory Committee: Supplementary Tables ...................................................................... 154 viii N. Statements Regarding Funding Availability: Supplementary Tables ....................................................................157 O. Statements Regarding School Personnel Support: Supplementary Tables ....................................................................159 P. Teacher C om m ents........................................................................... 161 REFERENCES........................................................................................................164 ix LIST OF TABLES Table Page 1. Research Questions, Types of Tests, and Related Survey Items .....................................................................................................70 2. Teachers' Perceptions of the Local Agriscience Philosophy Statement in Relation to Other Related Statem ents ................................ 82 3. Use of the New Agriscience Philosophy Statem ent in the Development, Design, Implementation, and Evaluation of the Local P ro g ra m ...................................................................................................83 4. Teachers’ Perceptions of Various Statem ents Regarding Student S e r v ic e s .............................................................................................. 84 5. Teachers’ Perceptions of Various Statem ents Regarding the Support and Assistance They Received ............................................... 85 6. Teachers’ Perceptions of Various Statem ents Regarding Facilities and E q u ip m e n t.................................................................................86 7. Teachers’ Perceptions of Various Statem ents Regarding Advisory C om m ittees........................................................................................87 8. Teachers’ Perceptions of Various Statem ents Regarding the Availability of F u n d s ................................................................................... 88 9. Teachers' Perceptions of Various Statem ents Regarding Support From School Personnel for the Program ...................................... 89 10. The Agriscience and Natural Resources Education Restructuring Process Is a "Quick-Fix" Solution................................................................... 89 11. The Standards for Excellence W as of Value During the Restructuring P r o c e s s ..................................................................................... 90 x 12. The Only Reason for Restructuring the Program W as for the Added Cost Funding ......................................................................................90 13. The Change to Agriscience Was a Positive M o v e ...................................... 91 14. The Standards for Excellence Encouraged the Review Committee to Update the Existing Philosophy S ta te m e n t........................ 91 15. Gender of Agriscience T e a c h e rs ................................................................... 92 16. Age of Agriscience T e a c h e rs.................................................................... 92 17. Years of Teaching A griculture.................................................................. 93 18. Teaching Location ...........................................................................................93 19. Teachers’ involvement in the Development and/or Writing of the Michigan Agriscience and Natural Resources Core Curriculum ............. 94 20. Teachers’ Involvement on the Standards for Excellence Development C om m ittee............................................................................... 94 21. Whether Teachers Lived in the Community in WhichThey Taught . . . . 22. Number of Formal Meetings Held During the Restructuring Process 95 . . 95 23. Multiple Regression on Whether the Agriscience and Natural Resources Education Restructuring Process Was a "Quick-Fix" Solution ............................................................................................................96 24. Multiple Regression on Whether the Standards for Excellence Was of Value During the Restructuring Process ................................................ 97 25. Multiple Regression on Whether the Only Reason for Restructuring the Program W as for Added Cost Funding ................................................ 98 26. Multiple Regression on Whether the Change to Agriscience Was a Positive M o v e .............................................................................................. 99 27. Multiple Regression on Whether the Standards for Excellence Encouraged the Review Committee to Update the Existing Philosophy Statement ..................................................................................100 xi 28. The Local Agriscience and Natural Resources Education Program Philosophy Statement Is Consistent With the District’s/LEA’s Philosophy Statement .................................................................................143 29. The Local Agriscience and Natural Resources Education Program Philosophy Statement Is Consistent With the Michigan Agriscience and Natural Resources Education Philosophy S ta te m e n t...................... 143 30. The New Philosophy Statement Was Used in Developing Program G o a ls ............................................................................................................. 143 31. The New Philosophy Statement Was Used in Designing Program Content .........................................................................................................143 32. The New Philosophy Statement Was Used in Implementing the P rogram .................................................................................................. 144 33. The New Philosophy Statement Was Used in Evaluating the P rogram .................................................................................................. 144 34. Guidance Personnel in the Local School District Provide Students With Information Regarding the Agriscience and Natural Resources P rogram .........................................................................................................145 35. Guidance Personnel in the Local School District Encourage Students to Enroll in Agriscience and Natural Resources Educa­ tion Program ................................................................................................145 36. Guidance Personnel in the Local School District Inform Students That the Agriscience and Natural Resources Education Curricu­ lum Will Meet Other Graduation Requirements Such as Science . . . . 145 37. Guidance Personnel in the Local School District Advise Students About the Opportunities in the Agriscience the Natural Resources Industry ........................................................................................................ 146 38. A Variety of Agriscience and Natural Resources Opportunities Are Provided for Students to E xplore................................................................ 146 39. Enrollment Policies Are Flexible to Permit Easy Entry and Exit From the Agriscience and NaturalResources Education P rogram ................... 146 40. The Curriculum Addresses the Requirements of Special Needs S tu d en ts.........................................................................................................147 xii 41. The Curriculum Is Relevant to All Populations...........................................147 42. I Attend Courses, Workshops, and Conventions Related Activities That Provide Technical Inservice in the Area of Agriscience and Natural Resources Education .................................................................... 148 43. I receive Support From the School Administration.....................................148 44. I Use a Comprehensive List of Community R e s o u rc e s ............................148 45. I Utilize the Local Agriscience and Natural Resources Education Advisory C om m ittee...................................................................................... 149 46. I Promote the Agriscience and Natural Resources Education Program to Community Members ..............................................................149 47. I Participate in Regional Meetings for Agriscience and Natural Resources Education T e a c h e rs.................................................................. 149 48. I Participate in the State Teacher Associations for Agriscience and Natural Resources Education T e a c h e rs ............................................ 150 49. I Actively Seek New Knowledge and Ideas by Reading Professional P ublications................................................................................................... 150 50. Storage Space Is Provided for Equipment, Instructional Materials and Supplies ................................................................................................. 151 51. An Agricultural Library Is Available for Student Use ................................ 151 52. The Agriculture Program Receives the Total Amount of Added Cost Funds Generated Based on Student Enrollm ent......................................151 53. Instructional Materials Are Available for a Variety of Learning E x p erien ces................................................................................................... 152 54. Current Resource Materials Are u s e d ......................................................152 55. Current Textbooks Are used ........................................................................152 56. Equipment in the Department Complements the Course Offerings . . . 152 57. Supplies in the Department Complement the Course Offerings ............ 153 58. A Library Is Maintained and Kept C u r r e n t....................................................153 59. Land Laboratory Facilities C hanges ............................................................. 153 60. The Local Advisory Committee Includes Representatives From Agribusiness ...................................................................................................154 61. The Local Advisory Committee Includes Representatives From Production A g ricu ltu re...................................................................................154 62. The Local Advisory Committee Includes R epresentatives From the High School Teaching S t a f f ..................................................................... 154 63. The Local Advisory Committee Includes Former Students ................... 155 64. The Local Advisory Committee Includes P arents ................................... 155 65. Advisory Committee Members Are Appointed for Staggered Terms . . 155 66. The Advisory Committee Meets a Minimum of Three Times P er Y e a r ..................................................................................................................... 155 67. The Local Advisory Committee Includes Representatives From Production A g ricu ltu re..................................................................................... 156 68. The Local Advisory Committee Includes Representatives From the High School Teaching S ta f f ............................................................................ 156 69. The Local Advisory Committee Includes Former Students ......................156 70. The Local Advisory Committee Includes Parents ................................... 156 71. Funds Are Provided for Upgrading Program Facilities............................... 157 72. Funds Are Provided for Upgrading Equipment .......................................... 157 73. Funds Are Provided for Upgrading Instructional Materials ......................157 74. Funds Are Provided for an Extended Contract for the Agriscience and Natural R esources Education T e a c h e r ................................................ 157 75. Funds Are Provided for FFA A ctivities.......................................................... 158 76. Funds Are Provided for Professional Activities for the Agriscience and Natural Resources Education T e a c h e r................................................158 77. The High School Teaching Staff Support the Agriscience and Natural Resources Education P ro g ra m ...................................................... 159 78. Administration Recognize the FFA a s an Integral Part of the Instructional P ro g ram ..................................................................................... 159 79. The High School Teaching Staff Recognize the FFA a s an Integral Part of the Instructional P ro g ra m ..................................................................159 80. Administrators Actively Attend FFA Activities...............................................160 81. Other Teachers Encourage Enrollment In the Agriscience and Natural Resources Education P ro g ra m .......................................................160 82. Administrators Encourage Enrollment in the Agriscience and Natural Resources Education P ro g ra m ...................................................... 160 xv LIST OF FIGURES Figure Page 1. Shift From Educational Reform to Educational R estru ctu rin g.................. 64 2. Elements of the Agriscience Change P ro c e s s ............................................. 65 3. Local Restructuring (Operational Fram ew ork)............................................. 67 xvi CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION Background On August 26,1981, Secretary of Education Terrence Bell established the National Commission on Excellence in Education. He charged the Commission to evaluate the quality of education that children in the United States were receiving. At the Commission's first meeting, President Reagan addressed the importance of education to the nation, stating, "Certainly there are few areas of American life as important to our society, to our people, and to our families as our schools and colleges" (National Commission on Excellence in Education, 1983, p. 6). In April 1983, the Commission published A Nation at Risk: The Imperative for Educational Reform. According to this document, the American educational system was in grave trouble and major restructuring was in order. Following the publication of A Nation at Risk, a number of additional reports were generated. One such report was published by the National Commission on Secondary Vocational Education (1984), which was responsible for examining the role and function of secondary vocational education. The National Commission assumed that other studies had not adequately addressed vocational education. The 1 2 Commission also assum ed that those who are closest to the students would best understand what educational alternatives should be provided for the most useful reforms. In The Unfinished Agenda, the National Commission (1984) recommended that both general and vocational education leaders restructure their curricula and programs to integrate concepts and upgrade the instruction that students were receiving. During the November 1985 Michigan Governor's Conference on Agriculture, one of the 16 workshop sessions focused on agricultural education. In the summary of the conference proceedings, it was stated that: A revised, dynamic and futuristic agricultural education program at all levels, K-12, must be a goal in every one of the over 530 school districts if Michigan is to continue to be strong agriculturally and competitive in the national and international arena, (p. 85) It was recommended that a state leadership council on agricultural education be established and funded to study and make recommendations to the governor and legislature for strengthening and reestablishing agricultural education and the Future Farmers of America (FFA) in Michigan. In the fall of 1986, Michigan’s Governor Blanchard established the Task Force on the Revitalization of Agriculture Through Education and Research. On Septem ber 1,1988, the Task Force submitted its report to the governor. One of its recommendations was to create an Agricultural Institute of Michigan (AIM), whose primary purpose would be to serve as a resource and provide grants to local educational agencies for the support of curriculum development, career aw areness, business/education partnerships, and student leadership. The Michigan Council on Vocational Education prepared A Report on the Status and Future Direction of Vocational-Technical Agricultural Education in Michigan (Bobbitt & Warmbrod, 1987). In the report, it was recommended that vocational agricultural programs be revised and updated. The restructured programs were to reflect the current and anticipated status of the agricultural industry in Michigan, in addition to emphasizing the science of agriculture through application. In 1982, the board of directors of the Michigan Association of Teachers of Vocational Agriculture (MATVA) appointed a committee called Agriculture in the Year 2000 to focus on the direction that vocational agriculture education should take in the future. The board believed that the committee should forge a partnership with Michigan State University and the Michigan Department of Education to provide leadership and direction for agriculture education. The committee held a series of meetings with various groups as well as MATVA members to identify the problems and needs of agriculture education. Following these meetings, the committee recommended that a major new thrust was needed in the programs and curricula that were being taught in Michigan secondary schools. Program restructuring was needed to update resources and facilities, and the subject matter of instruction needed to be broadened and emphasize the "why" of agriculture, not just the "how." As a result of national and state studies, the Michigan Department of Education granted a contract to the Department of Agricultural and Extension 4 Education at Michigan State University in 1989, to develop a new curriculum and design a restructuring process for Michigan's secondary agricultural education programs. The new curriculum was designed to use agricultural and natural resources content and experiences as a context for integrating principles and concepts from many disciplines. For example, the new curriculum focused on using content as a means for helping students leam to think critically; improve basic skills such a s reading, writing, and arithmetic; and solve problems. These concepts and principles were to be applied in the areas of agriscience/ agribusiness and natural resources. Following the development of the basic core curriculum units, leaders of vocational agriculture program in Michigan began a restructuring (change) process in order to gain official recognition by the Michigan Department of Education for their programs as agriscience and natural resources programs. A portion of the change process was outlined in Standards for Excellence (Michigan Department of Education, 1990). The guidelines included in the Standards for Excellence were developed through a literature review process and evaluated by a panel of experts who served as an ad hoc committee to the curriculum project. The primary goal of the guidelines was to ensure quality programs for Michigan students who are interested in agriculture and natural resources. The review and restructuring process outlined in the Standards for Excellence report was designed to be community based and to combine the expertise of community members, 5 educators, counselors, administrators, and staff. Specific objectives of the Standards for Excellence were to provide information to local personnel for redirecting their agricultural education program to m eet the present and future needs of agriscience and natural resources students, serve as a model for reviewing existing programs and a s a guide for new or expanding programs, provide direction for program improvement, and provide direction for financial support. Following the publication of this report, secondary agriculture teachers and their administrators attended a six-hour inservice session on how to u se the standards in the restructuring process. The Standards for Excellence report entailed four major phases: (a) Preparation, (b) Review, (c) Action Plan, and (d) Implementation. The preparation phase consisted of the selection and training of key leaders and educational representatives for each local program-review committee. The program-review committee w as to consist of at least nine members, a s follows: an agricultural education teacher; a counselor and/or general education teacher; support service personnel; two representatives of agencies, business, industry, or labor; one current or former student; one parent of a current or former student; one current board-approved advisory committee member; state staff; and others. In addition to serving a s a committee member, the agricultural education teacher w as to compile the recommended resource materials. The review phase consisted of a two-step process. During the first step, each committee member independently reviewed the support materials and observed the program in operation. During their observations, committee members were to use the guidelines contained in the following eight major sections of the Standards for Excellence to review the local program: Section III: Philosophy Section IV: Secondary Instructional Program Section V: Student Services Section VI: Instructional Staff Section VII: Facilities and Equipment Section VIII: Advisory Council and Community Involvement Section IX: Finance Section X: School Personnel Each of the preceding sections contained quality-indicator statements that were to be used to direct the program-review process. The committee members individually rated various aspects of the local program as "Strong," "Adequate," or "Below Standard," using the quality-indicator statements. A "Strong" rating indicated the program was strong regarding that point and that it was above standards. An "Adequate" rating meant that the program was at an acceptable level regarding this statement but that a change might be recommended. Items ranked as "Adequate" met standards. A rating of "Below Standard" meant that change was needed in that area and that the program did not meet the established standards. 7 In the second step of the review phase, committee members completed thefinal standards guide together, using the above-mentioned rating system. The agriculture teacher was responsible for completing two further sections of the Standard for Excellence: Section 1-Community and Section 11-Population. In the action plan phase, the committee developed an action plan for improving and upgrading the agricultural education program. The action plan was based on the ratings made using the quality-indicator statements. This document wassubmittedtoschool administrators, agricultural advisory board members, and the state supervisor of agricultural education or his/her representative. During the implementation phase, the program was to be redirected and upgraded by following the recommendations contained in the action plan. This w as the last phase of the three-year process; after this phase w as completed, the cycle was to begin again. Restructuring also included at least 86 hours of professional inservice training for agriscience teachers. Upon completing the Standards for Excellence guidelines and inservice training, and using the Michigan agriscience and natural resources curriculum, agriscience teachers could submittheir programs for official recognition by the Michigan Department of Education as being restructured to agriscience education. Statement of the Problem Agricultural education leaders in Michigan have taken serious steps by recognizing the need to change, preparing to change, developing plans, and A&- 8 implementing the new direction for programs. Educators at the local level, as well as those form Michigan State University and the Michigan Department of Education, understand the importance of an evaluation process to determine the success of reform and to improve future reform efforts in agricultural education for Michigan. Four years have passed since the restructuring process began. Now parents, teachers, administrators, and teacher educators wonder whether change has occurred. The present study was undertaken in an attempt to answer that question. Purpose of the Study The writer’s purpose in this study was to determine the effect of the Standards for Excellence on restructuring local agriscience programs in Michigan secondary schools, as perceived by Michigan’s agriscience teachers. The research also was conducted to determine agriscience teachers’ perceptions of the restructuring process. Research Questions The following questions were posed to guide the collection of data for this study: 1. To what degree do Michigan agrisdence teachers perceive the local agriscience philosophy statement to be consistent with other related statements? 2. To what extent do Michigan agriscience teachers perceive that the new philosophy statement, as stated in the Standards for Excellence, was used 9 in the development, design, implementation, and evaluation of their local programs? 3. What are Michigan agriscience teachers’ perceptions of various statem ents regarding student services both before and after restructuring? 4. What are Michigan agriscience teachers' perceptions of various statem ents regarding the support and assistance they received both before and after restructuring? 5. What are Michigan agriscience teachers’perceptions of various statem ents regarding program facilities and equipment both before and after restructuring? 6. What are Michigan agriscience teachers’perceptions of various statem ents regarding advisory committees both before and after restructuring? 7. What are Michigan agriscience teachers' perceptions of various statem ents regarding availability of funds both before and after restructuring? 8. What are Michigan agriscience teachers’perceptions of various statem ents regarding support from school personnel for the program both before and after restructuring? 9. What are Michigan agriscience teachers' perceptions of various statem ents regarding the restructuring process? 10. Is there a relationship between selected characteristics of Michigan agriscience teachers and their perceptions of various aspects related to the Standards for Excellence? 10 Definition of Terms To facilitate an understanding of this report, several term s commonly used in agriscience and natural resources education are defined in the following pages. Agricultural education. The discipline concerned with formal education in and about agriculture. Agricultural education program. A formal educational program in Michigan secondary schools that centers on agriculture. Agricultural educator. A professional who is certified to teach agriculture and natural resources classes In Michigan secondary schools. Agriscience. A term used to describe secondary agricultural programs in Michigan after restructuring. Agriscience and natural resources education. The application of agricultural and natural resources principles and practices to th e teaching of science to elementary, middle school, and high school students. Agriscience teacher. A professional who is certified to teach the agriscience and natural resources curriculum and has com pleted the restructuring process. Educational reform. The requirem ents m andated by the Michigan Legislature to improve the state’s educational system. Future Farm ers of America (FFA). The student leadership organization that is an integral part of Michigan agriscience and natural resources education programs. 11 Michigan agrisdence and natural resources curriculum. The name selected by Michigan secondary agricultural teachers and educators from Michigan State University and the Michigan Department of Education to represent the new curriculum focus in Michigan. Perceptions. Differentiations in an individual's perceptual field, leading him/her to recall certain events over others at a given time. Quality-indicator statements. The statements found in the Standards for Excellence, describing or designating an aspect of instruction or an attribute that is required (Raths & Preskill, 1982). Restructuring process. The rethinking of what has been done in the past, determining what works, and changing what does not work. It means looking at something from new dimensions and then making the changes necessary to bring all elements in line with the new vision (Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development [ASCD], 1991). SAE programs. Supervised agricultural experience programs, which are an integral part of the Michigan agriscience and natural resources education programs. These programs focus on hands-on learning experiences that students complete, which reinforce classroom instruction. Standard. A specific level, either qualitative or quantitative, that has been set for a criterion (Raths & Preskill, 1982). 12 Standards for Excellence. A set of guidelines designed to assist in the restructuring of vocational agricultural programs into agriscience and natural resources programs. Vocational agriculture education. Classes formerly taught in secondary schools that provided opportunities for students to prepare for, or advance in, occupations requiring knowledge of and skills in agriculture. Limitations This study w as limited to 116 agriscience and natural resources teachers in Michigan who had completed the restructuring process before June 10,1993. The teachers must have completed one year of teaching and have taught during the 1993-94 school year. The study was also limited to the desired goals, objectives, and quality-indicator statements pertaining to Michigan agriscience and natural resources education programs, as found in the Standards for Excellence (Michigan Department of Education, 1990). It is possible that maturation and history could have influenced the perceptions teachers held regarding the restructuring process. Assumptions The researcher assumed that the responses to the survey questionnaire were an accurate portrayal of Michigan agriscience and natural resources teachers' perceptions regarding the restructuring process in Michigan. The researcher also assumed that the respondents had gone through the restructuring 13 process and understood both process and content. It w as further assum ed that participation in and completion of restructuring were the foundation for perceptual change. All respondents held a vocational and/or teaching certificate, and it w as assum ed that they had completed or were working toward completion of the required 86 hours of professional inservice education. All respondents had completed the Standards for Excellence. It w as further assum ed that they had participated on a formal review committee during the restructuring process and that th e atm osphere in Michigan w as such that change would be adopted. Finally, the researcher assum ed that an individual's perceptions are influenced by his/her interaction with external forces and that one's perceptions are important factors influencing his/her behavior. CHAPTER II REVIEW OF LITERATURE Introduction This chapter contains a review of literature related to the topics of interest in this study. The chapter is organized into the following sections: the educational crisis in the United States, the education reform movement, school restructuring, educational standards, the change process, the concept of perceptions, a brief history of agricultural education, and the conceptual and operational frameworks for the study. The Educational Crisis in the United States That the nation's schools have serious problems and are in trouble is a point of view upon which many commissions and study groups have agreed. For instance, the areas of concern and criticism that have been cited include the following: 1. The inadequacy and inappropriateness of school curricula, which are characterized by traditional subject matter or life skills. 2. The apparent decline in achievement, a s manifested in national standardized tests (the ACT and SAT). 14 15 3. The quality and performance of teaching staff (poor training and lack of accountability). 4. The inadequacy of vocational and technical education programs (program quality is questioned). 5. Compulsory attendance laws. 6. Isolation of high schools from other youth-serving, educational, and socializing institutions. 7. Program inflexibility and lack of individualized instruction (Passow, 1977). America’s educational position in the world was once unchallenged; this is no longer true. The report A Nation at Risk: The Imperative for Educational Reform by the National Commission on Excellence in Education (1983) identified several indicators of decline in the United States educational system. These include: 1. About 13% of all 17 year olds in the United States can be considered functionally illiterate. 2. The average achievement of high school students on most standardized tests is now lower than it was 26 years ago when Sputnik was launched. 3. Students’ scores on the College Board’s Scholastic Aptitude Test (SAT) declined from 1963 to 1980. 16 4. Many 17 year olds do not possess the higher-order intellectual skills. One reason for reappraising the quality of education in the United States is the economic turmoil the nation has experienced. This upheaval has led to serious recession and severe unemployment (Passow, 1988). In describing the risk the nation faces, the National Commission on Excellence in Education (1983) stated: Knowledge, learning, information, and skilled intelligence are the new raw materials of international commerce and are today spreading throughout the world as vigorously as miracle drugs, synthetic fertilizers, and blue jeans did earlier. If only to keep and improve on the slim competitive edge we still retain in world markets, we must dedicate ourselves to the reform of our educational system for the benefit of all-old and young alike, affluent and poor, majority and minority. Learning is the indispensable investment required for success in the "information age" we are entering. (P. 7) The National Science Board’s Commission on Precollege Education in Mathematics began the executive summary of its 1983 report with this statement: The nation that dramatically and boldly led the world into the age of technology is failing to provide its own children with the intellectual tools needed for the 21st century. . . . Already the quality of our manufactured products, the viability of our trade, our leadership in research and development, and our standards of living are strongly challenged. Our children could be stragglers in the world of technology. We must not let this happen; America must not become an industrial dinosaur. We must not provide our children a 1960s education for a 21st century world, (p. v) One element in educational reform has been the press to compete in world markets. The Kettering Foundation (Brown, 1973) identified several "conditions" that it saw affecting secondary schools and educational reform: 17 1. The boom in education ended; costs of operating a high school doubled, while the student population decreased. 2. There w as a teacher surplus, where before there had been a teacher shortage; this fact affected teacher education, inservice training, and the quality of teachers and teaching. 3. The decade 1962 to 1972 was one of innovation and experimenta­ tion that "had little or no lasting effect on the content of school programs or the quality of teaching and learning" (p. 10). 4. High schools are "beleaguered institutions" with high rates of tardiness, violence, and vandalism, a s well a s declining achievement. In the Report Card on American Education-A nd Howto Raise the Grade. Daggett (1993) wrote: Of even greater concern than how U.S. students in 1993 are doing in comparison to previous generations or international students should be how they are doing in comparison to the skills, knowledge, and behaviors needed to function as citizens, workers, and lifelong learners in contemporary society. The greatest challenge in American education today is closing the gap between the competencies students leave high school with and the competencies they need for success in the real world. We live in a global economy, and the skills, knowledge, and behaviors needed to function and remain competitive in our increasingly sophisticated and technological world are far greater than those needed by previous generations. Therefore, while American students may be the best educated in the history of the nation, they are also the worst off in term s of being prepared for the world in which they will live. (p. 6) Changes in the work place, family structure, employment patterns, social relations, economic conditions, and international relations, combined with 18 conditions in the schools, have focused people’s attention on education as it affects and is affected by other aspects of society (Passow, 1988). Educational Reform In the 1990s, the educational system in the United States faced many obstacles and challenges. A number of national reports have identified areas of concern in both vocational and general education. Perceptions of education, access, equity, curriculum, teacher education and recruitment, standards and accountability, articulation, leadership, business and community involvement, and practical learning are some of the problems and challenges that have been cited (National Commission on Secondary Vocational Education, 1984). Between 1983 and 1985, state legislatures enacted more than 700 statutes stipulating what should be taught, when it should be taught, and how it should be taught. The purpose of this m ass legislation and the bureaucratic m andates that followed w as to control and regulate local teachers and schools (Hammond & Barnett, 1988). In a 1985 interview, Ernest Boyer, president of the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching, told a writer for the Christian Science Monitor that "the wave of regulatory intervention w as destroying the spirit of the people in the classroom." He added, "teachers felt they had more responsibilities and less authority, less recognition, [and] less empowerment to do the work" (Bencivenga, 1985, p. 23). 19 No fewer than five national reports condemned the inefficiency of the web of legislation. Those reports were issued by the Holmes Group, the Cam egie Task Force on Teaching a s a Profession, the National Governors’ Association, the Education Commission of the States, and the Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development (Futrell, 1989). Sizer (1990) underscored the need to move away from top-down regulation a s a m eans for school improvement. Rather, he said, decentralization of authority to the persons closest to the students is essential. Equity claimed a central position in discussions regarding school reform. In a 1988 publication, Boyer urged that educational quality be expanded to cover all students in all schools. He believed that school reform w as failing in inner cities because the diagnosis w as wrong. He said that formulas for more homework, more testing, more requirements for graduation work best for schools that already are successful and for students who are bound for college. But it is unfair and unrealistic to require troubled students in urban ghettos to take additional math or foreign language courses, without additional guidance or support. The Education Commission of the States (1991) held interviews with local educators, state political leaders, and state agency staff to discover obstacles to educational reform. Interviewees identified the following impediments to reform: 20 1. Too many people are content with maintaining th e status quo, an educational system b ased on n eed s of a bygone time and not a vision of a system that will prepare students for participation in tomorrow’s world. 2. People working in the schools question w hether there is a real, long­ term commitment to major reform. 3. Innovators need rewards and support; they seldom get either. 4. Reform efforts do not spread easily from pilot sites to other schools in the state. 5. School and policy leaders are confused by the growing num ber of reform efforts and question how th ese efforts fit with one another and pertain to their schools. 6. Too few educators know how to lead reform efforts effectively, and too few policy m akers know how to create a system th at supports reform. 7. A large gap exists between advocates of reform, who believe the educational system is flawed, and others, including the general public and many educators, who believe their local school is fine and question the need for change. 8. A dequate m easures of progress in student learning and system reform do not exist. Orlich (1985) identified two factors that work against th e reform of education. The first is a strong tradition of intuitive wisdom am ong educators— and a strong tradition am ong politicians of meddling with the professional asp ects 21 of teaching. The second Is that there Is a rather weak empirical knowledge base in the schools. Educational reform efforts are attempts to change the status quo. What is needed, however, is a national moratorium on reform so that educators and local policy makers can analyze their own problems. Each school district should study its own situation and then implement a carefully researched, wellcoordinated, and well-funded plan for specific improvement (Orlich, 1989). Educational reform plans usually include the following three assumptions: 1. Public schools in the United States are doing an inadequate job of ensuring that students have mastered the content and acquired the skills that a student should have upon graduation. 2. The poor performance of American schools can be corrected through the types of structural changes proposed in educational reform plans. 3. Increasing the amount of testing, or changing the structure of the tests used, is a necessary component of any educational reform plan (Cunning­ ham, 1991, p. 238). In High School: A Report on Secondary Education in America, published by the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching, an agenda was presented for action to improve the nation’s secondary schools (Boyer, 1983). The report identified 12 themes that provide a framework for reform: 1. Clarifying goals. 2. The centrality of language. 22 3. The curriculum a s a core. 4. Transition to work and learning. 5. Service: the new Carnegie unit. 6. Teachers: renewing the profession. 7. Instructing: a time for learning. 8. Technology: extending the teacher's reach. 9. Flexibility: patterns to fit purpose. 10. The principal a s leader. 11. Connections. 12. Excellence: the public commitment. With regard to school reform, Timar and Kirp (1989) stated: The school reform movement has created a whole new body of rules governing the activities of teachers, students and administrators. For students, there are rules about participation in sports and other extracurricular activities, about how much and what kind of homework must be done, and about how many times students may miss school before they fail their courses. Then there are rules about what kinds of courses students must take, about how much class time should be devoted to teach subject each day, and about which topics m ust be covered in each class. For teachers, there are rules about placement on career ladders and about eligibility for merit pay. (p. 506) School Restructuring In the Education Commission of the States (1991) report entitled Restructuring the Education System: A Consum er's Guide, four main reasons w ere given for why fundamental, comprehensive design of school system s is needed: 23 1. New ty p es o f students. Today’s schools are serving a more diverse population than their current design effectively allows. 2. New social and econom ic dem ands. The American economy has changed rapidly. A rapidly changing job market calls for new kinds of knowledge, skills, and attitudes and much higher levels of literacy than ever before. Complex social problems call for new forms of citizen participation in community, state, and national affairs. Much of what schools teach is unrelated to the world students must enter. 3. New know ledge about learning. In the last 30 years, researchers have learned much about the nature of human learning that throws into question a number of current educational practices. Researchers have found, for instance, that learning should be an active, engaging, collaborative process. Many schools, however, make learning a passive, unengaging, isolated experience. Evidence has shown that all children can learn whatever they are motivated to learn and are given the right opportunities to learn. But much of contemporary schooling rests on the outdated assumption that only a few students have the intelligence to do high-level work. 4. T he current education system is not producing satisfactory results. Evidence abounds that unacceptably large proportions of students do not know what they need to succeed in the future, do not understand much of what they learn in school, cannot apply that knowledge in their daily lives, do not respect learning, and have not learned how to learn. There is also evidence that 24 disproportionate num bers of poor and minority young people receive an education that is of little benefit to them or society. Restructuring schools to renew interest, to give birth to new ideas, and to take advantage of local conditions has been hailed a s the innovation that will provide leadership toward educational reform (Mojkowski, 1991). David (1991) stated: Two key features distinguish restructuring from previous reform efforts: It is driven by a focus on student performance, based on the premise that all students can and m ust learn at higher levels; and it is a long-term commitment to fundamental, systemic change. T hese features mark restructuring a s a significant departure from previous improvement effortsand embody a challenge greater than any the system h as faced before. In the past, reforms have tried to change one piece at a time in a system of many interlocking pieces. Restructuring, however, tackles all the pieces. That restructuring mustdo so becom es clear when one considers the following questions: What do w e want students to know and be able to do? What kinds of learning experiences produce th e se outcom es? What does it take to transform schools into places w here this happens? Who is responsible for ensuring that the desired results are achieved? There is growing consensus in the field on broad answ ers to the first two questions. The third question —what does it take?—is w here the real challenge begins. What does it take at every level of the system , and how can accountability be distributed accordingly? (p. 11) Restructuring su ggests a thorough, even radical, overhaul and redirection of the entire system —a systematic, rather than a partial or piecemeal, attack on 25 the admittedly serious problems being faced: inadequate levels of student achievement; too many dropouts; an ill-prepared labor force, inadequately trained to bolster American competitiveness in the world markets; and a growing number of youths who are disconnected from society, placed at risk because of the disintegrative forces of poverty, drugs, and changes in th e patterns of family life, both economic and social (Hansen, 1989). Hansen continued by identifying ten strategies related to school restructuring: 1. Raising stated standards. 2. Effective school approaches (cooperative goal setting, cooperative strategic planning, creation of a safe and disciplined instructional climate, strict attention to promoting "engaged time" as a student response, careful alignment of curriculum and assessm ent, and collection and use of detailed school and student "profiles" to ensure that the entire program is solidly "data based"). 3. Early intervention (devising programs that catch students earlier in life and absorb a majority of their waking hours). 4. Distance education (freeing the process from the constraints of time, space, and isolation). 5. Professional renewal (restructuring the teaching profession). 6. Control by the community. 7. Finance (correction of inequitable financing). 8. Partnership between business and industry. 26 9. Empowerment of teachers. 10. Schools of choice (competition always drives out the bad and the mediocre and encourages the excellent—automatic restructuring!). In 1989, the National Governors Association developed a framework for school restructuring similar to that recommended by many experts. The restructuring process would include the following (O’Neil, 1990): 1. Curriculum and instruction must be modified to support higher- order thinking by all students. Use of instructional time needs to be more flexible, learning activities must be made more challenging and engaging, and student grouping practices should promote student interaction and cooperative efforts. 2. Authority and decision making should be decentralized so that the most educationally important decisions are made at the school site. Teachers, administrators, and parents should setth e basic direction of the school and determine strategies and organizational and instructional arrangements needed to achieve them. 3. New staff roles must be developed so that teachers may more readily work together to improve instruction and so that experienced and talented teachers can support beginning teachers, plan and develop new curriculums, or design and implement staff development. Greater use of paraprofessionals should be considered. And principals will need to provide the vision to help shape new school structures, lead talented teachers, and take risks in an environment that rewards performance rather than compliance. 27 4. Accountability sy stem s must clearly link rewards and incentives to student performance at the building level. Schools must have more discretion and authority to achieve results and then be held accountable for results. States must develop m easures to assess valued outcomes of performance of individual schools and link rewards and sanctions to results. Gottfredson and Gottfredson (1990) noted that those attempting to restructure a school system must address nine issues: (a) perspective, (b) goals, (c) inertia, (d) coherence, (e) objectives, (f) design choice, (g) norms, (h) quality control, and (i) persistence. They also indicated that school systems are composed of groups of people in interaction who work with and through each other to accomplish the educational goals of the organization. These groups must cope successfully with the above-mentioned issues to improve schools in the system and reduce dropout and otherforms of adolescent problem behavior. Schlechty (1990) noted that restructuring goes far beyond mere improvement. School improvement means enhancing how the present rules, roles, and relationships are followed. Restructuring goesfurther-it is a challenge to do something that has never been done before. In addition, those in positions of educational leadership must use their authority to create a system in which people are encouraged to think and act in a purposeful manner. When educators realize that their business is student progress and their profit, student teaming, school improvement will become a reality. 28 Wayson, Mitchell, Pinnell, and Landis (1988) identified the following characteristics of restructured schools: 1. They are not rigid; they are flexible and relaxed. 2. They are not punitive; they accentuate the positive. 3. They are not elitist; they welcome and encourage all students. 4. They do not have a narrow curriculum limited to the basics; they offer a varied curriculum that is flexible and adapted to students' needs. 5. They are not test-driven; their students do achieve well because they teach higher-order thinking processes. 6. They do not rely on packaged programs; they do rely on their staffs' commitment and creativity. 7. They do not have authoritarian principals; rather, they have principals who have a vision of what the school should be and the determination to accomplish that mission. 8. They recruit and keep staff m em bers on the basis of merit and have procedures for removing those who do not contribute to the school's mission. 9. They have intensive staff development. 10. They know what they are trying to accomplish and have w ays of assessing how well they are doing and of correcting any shortcomings they detect. 11. They believe in them selves and their students and hold them selves responsible for instructing all children. 29 12. They put student welfare above all other concerns. 13. They have a structure that fosters decision making and problem solving by staff members as groups, not as individuals. 14. They have a "cheerleader" who generates staff enthusiasm and participation and who solicits support from outsiders. 15. They celebrate their successes and give recognition to staff and students for their achievements. According to the Education Commission of the States (1991), advocates of restructuring define the desired results in many ways, but in general these results include: 1. Far g reater student learning in terms of what students learn, how well they understand what they learn, and how well they can apply their knowledge in, outside of, and beyond school. 2. Vastly different roles and working conditions for teachers to bring about those changes in teaching and learning. 3. Major shifts in leadership, administration, and community relations to bring about those changes in teaching and learning. 4. New forms of education policy, politics, and coalitionsto create and sustain environments in which innovation, continuous improvement, and a focus on quality are the rules, not the exceptions. From their review of school-effectiveness studies conducted in 35 states, Bancroft and Lezotte (1985) concluded that focusing improvement efforts on a 30 single school is crucial. Establishing a building-based improvement team composed of teachers and administrators accelerates school improvement efforts. Bancroft and Lezotte noted that the implementation of school improvement takes from three to five years; short-term implementation plans are not successful. The implementation of school improvements requires massive and intensive staff development efforts. Frantz (1990) noted that more effective partnerships must be formed among parents, business and industry, and schools. Such partnerships would ensure that schools are meeting the needs of everyone who has a vested interest in America’s future. Vigorous public dialogue is the key to the type of systemic change that is needed in the educational system. Such conversation can spark fresh ideas connecting issues to citizen concerns, create new visions of what is possible, cause people to rethink values behind policies, give citizens faith in the process of policy making, and focus attention on what is good for the community as a whole. A broad-based public and private coalition can be the catalyst for carrying out these conversations and for formulating and implementing a comprehensive plan to make America’s educational system worthy of its children (McKeman, 1992). Educational Standards The question of educational standards has been of great concern since the inception of public education (Wentling, 1985). Program standards and measures 31 are used in accountability system s that are used to determ ine whether educa­ tional goals and objectives are being met. Standards are designed for a s s e s s ­ ment of programs to estim ate their quality and strengths, and to identify area s for improvement. M easures are those variables used to describe or quantify perform ance (Michigan Department of Education, 1991). Campbell and Panzano (1985) noted that a determination of what constitutes quality education is influenced by a person’s present knowledge and opinions. Therefore, what is "good" today may not b e good a year from now. in general, school context and process and educational outcom es remain the sam e; specific standards of quality related to th ese com ponents change. Consequently, defining th e nature of quality m akes assessm en t difficult. Popham and G rasso (dted in G rasso, 1979) stated that assessin g the merit or worth of education is an essential com ponent of systematic educational evaluation. According to Cory and Rokisek (1982), pressure for standards h as typically em anated from (a) an increased dem and for accountability in education, (b) the need to justify the existence of certain programs in a time of declining enrollments, (c) modifications in state certification requirements, (d)the perceived inadequacy of current accreditation guidelines and instruments, and (e) an increased involvement of state departm ents conducting on-site reviews. Dugger (1981) stated that th e purpose of educational standards is to serve a s models for schools, districts, and states that wish to develop, adopt, or refine guidelines for th e improvement of their programs. 32 In the National Center for Research in Vocational Education’s report entitled Towards Excellence in Secondary Vocational Education-lmplementation Standards (Wentling, 1985), it was noted that there are three primary levels of governmental control over standards: (a) the federal level orthe U.S. Department of Education, (b) the state level or the state board that retains authority for administering federal vocational funds, and (c) the local level or local educational agencies. According to the National Center, the u se of state-sponsored standards policies is the most effective m eans of enhancing excellence in vocational education for the following reasons: 1. State policy may not allow total curriculum flexibility; it should be able to permit local districts to modify the standards to m eet their particular needs. The state-level policy will be able to coordinate the curriculum of all vocational programs so that students will be leaving school with a "core” of knowledge and skills. In the end, a local policy may be overly responsive to local curriculum needs, and a federal policy might be too restrictive when the standards are in need of modification. 2. If the state modifies its evaluation system s to reflect the program standards and similar types of evaluation information are being collected from all vocational programs, it is likely that the data will be useful not only to state decision makers but also to local administrators and educators. Evaluation use may be enhanced atdifferent aggregate levels when the variability across districts is reduced. 33 3. Articulation would be positively affected by a state-level policy. Secondary and postsecondary programs would benefit from a common curriculum based on shared standards. A local-level policy runs the risk of having too much variability across districts, and it would not be able to improve articulation with other postsecondary programs in the state. A federal policy would have little chance of increasing the efficiency and efficacy of articulation. Its distance from classroom or lab is too great. 4. A state-level standards policy has a good chance of ensuring that special needs students are not negatively affected by the implementation of program standards. The state would be better able than local districts to ensure that these students have equal access to programs. Once again, a federal policy, although likely to enhance program access, would only exacerbate the belief that the federal government is too visible in the schools. 5. The most efficient and effective level at which to administer a program standards policy is the state level. A federal-level policy would be mired in bureaucracy and thwarted by understaffing. A local-level policy, which may have the least amount of bureaucracy, would still, however, result in a variation of policy-administration practices. 6. Compliance with a standards policy would likely be higher at the state level than at any of the other levels of implementation. If the state develops a reasonable set of regulations that minimizes the administrative burden at the local level, compliance with the policy may be increased. Individuals at the local 34 level might tend not to comply with a local policy. Although a federal policy would ensure compliance, the distance and local and state resistance to federal intervention moderate the degree of compliance. In the report Creating Visions and Standards to Support Them Restmcturing the Educational System (Education Commission of the States, 1992b), it was stated that: Diverse business, education and professional organizations have joined the call for an education system based on clear standards for students. Standards are being promoted as an essential component of changing education systems because they provide the common base that makes reform meaningful. They serve as the anchor to link changes in curriculum, teacher preparation, instructional methods and assessment. Reaching agreement on standards is a complex but necessary task. In addition, standards serve as a too! to judge how well education systems are performing. They provide a guide by which to hold systems accountable for how well students do. (p. 5) The Commission also noted that caution is needed when designing and implementing standards. Standards create a framework that helps a vision succeed, but they also must: 1. Allow flexibility. Standards should be broad enough to allow teachers flexibility in how they run their classroom and students flexibility in how they learn. 2. Be tailored to th e local level. Standards adopted at the state or national level should be considered and adopted locally, then personalized to reflect local reform efforts. 35 3. E ncourage creativity. Standards should helpteachers define their curriculum, but should not be so restrictive as to stifle creative ideas and teaching methods. The Secretary's Commission on Achieving Necessary Skills (1992) noted four criteria that clear and high standards of performance should meet: 1. They must be publicly and widely discussed and locally set; educators, trainers, employers, labor organizations, and the public at large should fully understand the standards. 2. Teachers and trainers must know what they are expected to accomplish. 3. Students, workers, and parents must understand what is expected of them. 4. School systems and government should know what is required of them. Brannon (1985) identified six criteria for a diverse and broad-based approach to the attainment of "excellence” through the use of standards and evaluation results. "Quantity and quality are elements of excellence, effective and efficiency are often used as evaluation measures, and equity and satisfaction relate to people concerns” (p. ix). Quality is evaluated through observations that are converted into words; therefore, such evaluation is subjective and can be estimated. Quantity can be measured through numbers under the aegis of objectivity. Often, measurements of quantity are substituted for judgments of 36 quality because such measurements are consistent with others' m easurements of the sam e object taken at another time, and can be divorced from the evaluator. Effectiveness traditionally has been defined as the degree to which prescribed goals or objectives are attained or intentions are reached. Efficiency is the ratio of input to output, assuming consistent qualities for both. The common term used for efficiency is productivity. The guideline for achieving efficiency is to choose the process requiring the least input to produce the sam e product. Equity and satisfaction are examples of high needs. Both equity and satisfaction are indicators of quality. These two concepts have encouraged evaluation of how special populations are served and how well they perform. Magisos (1984) listed seven criteria that should be incorporated in the development of standards: 1. A common core of learning. 2. Stiffer requirements. 3. Improved teaching. 4. More intensive learning (time on task). 5. Improved program management. 6. Partnerships between school and business. 7. A balance between quality and equity. The Education Commission of the States (1992a) recommended the creation of new, higher standards for what students should know and be able to 37 do. Those standards should be reflected in the curriculum. Suggested ways to do this included: 1. Create 21st-century achievement standards as expressed in the American Association for the Advancement of Science’s Science for All Americans. 2. Develop "common-core" policy documents, which establish broad outcome categories across subject areas and support active learning and critical thinking. 3. Develop curriculum frameworks and guidelines. Such documents would bring coherence to major subject matter. Zusman and Lawson (cited in Riedel, Tischler, & Myers, 1974) determined that there is a set of underlying assumptions needed to support the development of quality indicators. These assumptions, which take into account the relative, judgmental, and changing nature of the definition of quality, include: 1. Indicators of "quality" education can be characterized and rated. 2. Definition of quality education, as expressed through indicators, depends on present knowledge and opinion. 3. Definition of quality education, as expressed through indicators, changes as the scope of provider responsibility changes. 4. Decisions regarding adequacy of particular educational structures and appropriateness of particular processes and programs are influenced by 38 decision makers’ value system s and judgments and are therefore ultimately subjective. When developing quality indicators, normative and empirical approaches should be used. Normative standards are based more on a body of knowledge than on actual practice. Empirical standards are based on actual practice—what takes place in educational programs and courses. A blend of the normative with the empirical is the recommended approach to developing indicators of quality (Campbell & Panzano, 1985). Campbell and Panzano (1985) determined that there were three predominant approaches to quality assessm en t in vocational education: structural, process, and outcome. The structural approach focuses on aspects of the organization that influence the quality of education. This approach includes such variables aspersonnel, facilities, equipment, formal organizational structure, and policies. The authors claimed that two major assum ptions underlie the structural approach. The first is that it is possible to m easure "good," and the second is that quality of education will improve with a change to better-qualified staff and improved physical facilities and organizational structure. Process approaches use criteria-oriented methods and individual studies to examine activities involving the teacher, students, materials, and their interaction. With a process approach, such things as "hands-on" equipment, time, teaching methods, and/or clarity of objectives would be examined. Process evaluation (review) would be used to detect problems in program design and implementation to 39 provide information for formative decision making and to develop databases for long-range planning (Stuffiebeam, cited in Grasso, 1979). Outcome approaches to assessing quality determine whether or not the desired results have been achieved. This approach focuses primarily on the elements of competency dealing with basic skills, problem-solving skills, career awareness, and so on. An assessm ent model w as identified by Drewes, Nerden, Lawrence, and Oglesby (1975). This model incorporated the structural, process, and outcome approaches to program review and involved the following evaluation process: 1. P ro c e ss evaluation—reviews operations of programs and the teaching-learning process a s a whole. 2. Product evaluation—m easures and interprets attainments at the end of courses and programs to asse ss intermediate goal attainment. 3. Context evaluation-identifies unmet needs and unused opportuni­ 4. Input evaluation-identifies and a ssesses the merits of various ties. structural variables such as staff, organization, and physical facilities. 5. Impact evaluation—examines intended and unintended results of vocational education, such as employee satisfaction and post-program placement. 6. Pairw ise evaluation-exam ines pairwise interrelationships of the evaluation types listed previously. 40 Educational standards are necessary for excellence in education. Attwood (1984) noted that: Excellent vocational technical programs are made up of students who are ready to learn, motivated teachers with high morale who are also expert in their technical fields and in teaching methodology, a physical environment that contains up-to-date equipment for simulating on-the-job experiences, and for most programs, a collaborative relationship with industry that makes possible well supervised, industry based educational experiences, (p. 26) The Change Process Change in education is becoming more and more commonplace, and numerous changes that are occurring affect the ways schools and school personnel function (Lunenburg & Omstein, 1991). Change is a never-ending process. Bondi (1989) identified several questions that must be answered in order to have a clear understanding of the change process in the educational environment: 1. What causes a school to change? 2. Why do innovations nearly always fail in some schools? 3. Why do some schools never attempt to make changes? 4. What factors are significant in making a school either a high risk or a low risk for an innovation attempt? 5. What is the profile of an innovative school? Change is not synonymous with innovation. According to Miles (1964), change is any alteration in someone or something. An innovation has unique qualities, such as novelty or deliberations. 41 Bennis (1966) noted that seven types of change are commonly found in formal organizations such a s schools: (a) planned change, (b) indoctrination, (c) coercive change, (d) technocratic change, (e)interfactional change, (f) cumulative change, and (g) natural change. The literature on change contains a num ber of m odels pertaining to th e change process. Bondi (1989) concluded that there are four stereotypical models from other types of institutions that are of interest to educational planners. T hese models include: 1. A griculture-uses a change-agent approach by having county agents go into the field to dem onstrate new techniques of farming. 2. M edical-uses research in approaching change. The diffusion of medical change proceeds from clinical research to developm ent to dissemination. 3. Business—u se s the incentive approach of reward to encourage change. 4. Military—u se s authority to enforce change. This is a pushing strategy. The process model approach to change h as been used in education. This is a three-step change model that involves (a) unfreezing an old pattern, (b) changing to a new one, and (c) refreezing the new pattern. The process model is based on the notion of opposing forces that create varying am ounts of pressure on a situation. When forces are equal, the situation d o es not change; but when 42 forces are added or subtracted, the pressure becom es unequal and change occurs (Kurt, 1951). Another model of change in education consists of a five-stage adoption process (Lionberger, 1960): 1. Awareness stage: The individual learns of the existence of the new idea but lacks information about It. 2. Interest stage: The individual develops interest in the innovation and seeks additional information about it. 3. Evaluation stage: The individual makes mental application of the new idea to his/her present and future situation and decides whether or not to try it. 4. Trial stage: The individual actually tries the new idea on a small scale in order to determine its utility in his/her own situation. 5. Adoption stage: The individual uses the idea continuously. Rogers (1983) conceptualized the adoption process as an innovation decision-making process encompassing five stages: 1. Knowledge is the aw areness of an innovation. 2. Persuasion is the attitude about the innovation. 3. Decision is the action that guides the adoption or rejection of the innovation. 4. Implementation is the action of putting the innovation into practice. 43 5. Confirmation is the action of looking for additional information about the innovation. Lippftt, Watson, and Westley (1958) focused on the relationship between the change agent and the client system and identified seven stages In this relationship: 1. A need to change is developed. 2. A change relationship is established. 3. The client system's problem is diagnosed. 4. Goals and alternatives routes of action are examined. 5. Intentions are transformed into action. 6. The change is generalized, and stability is achieved. 7. A terminal relationship is achieved. Fullan’s (1991) model of a successful change process includes seven elements: 1. Change takes place over time. 2. The initial stages of any significant change involve anxiety and uncertainty. 3. Ongoing technical assistance and psychological support are crucial. 4. Change involves learning new skills through practice and feedback. 5. The most fundamental breakthrough occurs when people cognitively understand the underlying conception and rationale with respect to why the new way works better than the old way. JC . 44 6. Organizational conditions make it more or less likely that the process will succeed. 7. Successful change involves pressure through interaction with peers a s well a s administration leaders. Lionberger (1960) listed 12 conditions that affect change: 1. Practices compatible with existing ideas and beliefs are m ost likely to be adopted quickly. 2. The user m ust perceive a need for the new practice. 3. Cost is a factor—the higher the cost, the greater the barrier to adoption. 4. An easily dem onstrable innovation may be more quickly adopted than others. 5. Social groups influence adoption rates in that social norms can becom e barriers to adoption. 6. Neighbors exert influence on adoption rates. 7. Satisfied u sers do not change much. 8. Social changes influence adoption-a change in social norms can reduce barriers to an innovation. 9. Group p ro cesses can effectively advance an educational program. 10. Personal beliefs and values may either speed or retard change. 11. Som e people are more prone to change than others due to individual differences. 45 12. Formal education is associated with adoption—the greater the level of education, the higher the likelihood of adoption. Lionberger added that these factors often interact with each other, making it difficult to make predictions based on any one factor. The speed with which an innovation is adopted is determined by its perceived benefits. According to Rogers (1983), these benefits can be m easured by the following criteria: 1. Relative advantage-the degree to which an innovation is perceived a s better than the ideas it supersedes. 2. Compatibility—the degree to which an innovation is perceived a s being consistent with existing norms, values, and beliefs, past experiences, and needs of potential adopters. 3. Complexity—the degree to which an innovation is perceived a s difficult to understand and use. 4. Trialability-the degree to which an innovation may be experimented 5. Observability-the degree to which the results of an innovation are with. visible to others. Martin, Rajasekaran, and Void (1989) indicated that teach ers’ age, experience, and educational level affected their attitudes toward change. Christiansen and Taylor (1966) said that the implementation process can be m ade to work most effectively when implementors consider the individual 46 characteristics of teachers, teacher values, and aw areness of the development and implementation process. Finch and McGough (1991) noted that, for any educational change to be successful, teachers must become full partners in the change process. Therefore, teachers should not only be knowledgeable about a particular change, they must also understand the way change can improve instruction and learning. Mohr (1978) concluded that adoption of an innovation is a factor of interactive effects based on the function of benefits, costs, resources, and risk. The Council of Chief State School Officers developed a policy statement in 1989 that identified essential principles to guide elementary and secondary educators through effective changes. These principles include: 1. A vision of expected student performance is needed. 2. Educators must believe that all students can meet high standards. 3. Families play an essential role in learning. 4. Linkages among school and social services are needed to provide support for students. 5. Systemic change must be integrated and comprehensive within schools. 6. Equity and excellence must be achieved for all. 7. An investment of time and Financial resources is necessary for professional development. 47 8. Education, employment, and economic development are interde­ pendent. 9. Legal and financial support systems are required at the federal, state, and local levels. McClelland (1968) listed eight barriers to change in education: 1. Despite rapid social change, forces favoring the status quo in education remain as strong a s ever. 2. There are no precise goals for educational institutions. 3. There is no established systematic approach in the educational process. 4. Teacher education programs have failed to develop the skill and knowledge needed for innovations. 5. Teachers have failed to develop in themselves the habits of scholarship necessary to stay abreast of the knowledge explosion. 6. Evaluation and revision based on feedback are absent in education­ al institutions. 7. Many educators are reticent, suspicious, and fearful of change. 8. Complex management and funding problems always cost more than simple divisible problems. Rogers (1965) depicted the barriers to change in this manner: 1. There is no profit motive for being an innovator in education. 48 2. There is no corps of change agents in education comparable to extension agents in agriculture. 3. Educational innovations are less dear-cut in their advantage over the existing ideas they are to replace. 4. Innovation decisions in education may not be an individual matter, and the norms, stated uses, and formal structure of the system affect the process of diffusion. Acceptance of ideas is the real carrier of change; emotional, human resistance is the real barrier to change. Spicer (1967) observed that people resist change if the change threatens their basic security, if the change is not under­ stood, and if the change is imposed on them. In writing about resistance to change, Watson (cited in Bennis, 1966) said that all of the forces that contribute to individual or sodal-system stability are key sources of resistance to change. Forthe individual, these forces indude homeostasis, habit, dependence, and self­ distrust. For the sodal system, sources of resistance indude conformity to norms, vested interests, and rejection of outsiders. lannaccone and Lutz (1970) said that politics is an important fador in educational change. They saw politics as probably the most important fador in determining the course of American education. Gee (1986) indicated that conformity to norms is one of the greatest barriers to change. The fad that schools have traditionally been only readive in educating students for gainful employment is another reason that change is often 49 difficult; there is an inherent risk in educating students for a future that is difficult to predict. Klein (1967) stated that resistance to change may have a functional effect. It protects the organization against random change, which may b e harmful; it protects the system from take-over by vested interests; and it may ensure that unanticipated consequences of a change be spelled out and thus possibly avoided. An aw areness of the political dimensions of change, th e natural tendency of individuals to resist change, and the fact that change is a continuing process suggests that change is not a haphazard process but one that is the result of a concerted effort to influence the educational environment (Bondi, 1989). The Concept of Perceptions It is difficult to distinguish between perception and meaning. O sgood (1953) stated: "One could remark with equal appropriateness their facial expressions [of a group of persons] are perceived differently by two m en of opposed attitude or that these expressions m ean different things to them" (p. 194). Perception is usually thought of a s being on the input side of the behavioral equation, w hereas meaning is thought of a s being on th e output side. Schramm (1955) noted that perception is an interpretive process, and meaning is the consequence. This view supported Hartley and Hartley's (1952) point that an individual’s direct contact with an object or event is then invested in the percept of them: 50 If objects are recognized in terms of their usefulness to the individual, they are equally imbued with values and emotional connotations. As we have . . . indicated, exposure to objects and situations often involves simulta­ neously experienced emotional statuses-w hether in one’s self or in an individual of great importance to one's self. This feeling is then invested in the percept of the object or event, (p. 253) Allport's (1955) definition of perceptions w as based on the impressions that objects make on a person—the way things look, sound, feel, taste, or smell. Allport added that perception also involves an understanding of meaning or a recognition of the object. Combs and Snygg (1959) noted that personal meaning and experiences regarding a concept or an idea play a role in an individual's perception of that concept or idea. Instead of focusing on perceptions of objects or events, the authors examined perceptions from a larger perspective—the perceptual field. The perceptual field is an individual's personal and unique field of aw areness, which is responsible for all percepts. Combs and Snygg continued by stating that the opportunities for perception can be divided into two classes: (a) the physical surroundings (geographic and geologic features), man-made items, and the world of nonhuman things, and (b) the socialite environment, including the interaction with others and self. Sherif and Sherif (1956) asserted that what an individual attends to, at a given time, is analyzed in term s of external and internal factors. External factors include intensity, size, novelty, repetition, contrast, movement, and change of object and events, as well a s social influences (instructions, suggestions, group pressure, and group participation). Internal factors could be considered 51 momentary set, personal interest, motives (hunger, thirst, and so on), and state of mind, in addition to social factors (positive or negative). Selective inattention was the term Sullivan (1953) used in describing individual-designated selective perceptions: By selective inattention we fail to recognize the actual import of a good many things we see, hear, think, do and say, not because there is anything the matter with our zones of interaction with others but because the process of inferential analysis is opposed by the self-system. Clear recognition of the implications of matters to which we are selectively inattentive would call for basic change in an established pattern of dealing with the sort of interpersonal situation concerned; would make us either more or in some cases less, competent, but in any case different from the way we now conceive ourself to be. Good observation and analysis of a m ass of incidents selectively overlooked would expand the self-system, which usually controls the contents of aw areness and the scope of the referential processes that are fully useful in communicating with others. The ever-iterated miracle of selective inattention explains the faith we have in unnumbered prejudicial verbalisms, "rationalizations** about ourself and others, (p. 374) Combs, Richards, and Richards (1976) noted that personal meaning gives direction to an individual's actions, choices, and behaviors. Personal meaning is found within an individual’s perceptual field, which has four dimensions: 1. The perceptual field is fluid or constantly changing. This allows the individual to respond to new or changing conditions in the environment. 2. The perceptual field has stability as a result of imposing order and meaning on the environment. 3. The perceptual field has direction. It is always organized and meaningful; perceptions are never m asses of meaningless stimuli. 52 4. The perceptual field has a figure-ground characteristic; that is, at any given time, certain aspects of the field are brought into a clear figure or are seen with greater intensity than other aspects of one’s field. This is called the process of differentiation. Perceptions result form a complex interaction among incoming information, past experience, and current attitudes. Developing perceptions is a process of becoming aware. This process helps individuals incorporate past knowledge or information with current inputs (Hilgard & Atkinson, 1967). Krech, Crutchfield, and Ballachey (1962) stated that individuals will determine their own perceptions. Data are perceived and interpreted in term s of the individual’s own needs, emotions, personality, and previous experience. A Brief History of Agricultural Education Agriculture w as first taught formally in the United S tates in Georgia in 1733. At that time, colonists were trying to learn native methods of cultivation, in addition to identifying the crops and techniques best suited to their new hom es (Moore, 1987). In the first half of the 19th century, som e schools offered instruction in agriculture. But for the most part, agriculture w as taught principally by parents, who passed along to their offspring the knowledge needed to take over the family farm (National Research Council, 1988). The Morrill Act, which w as passed in 1862, developed the foundation for formal education in agriculture at the postsecondary level. This act provided 53 funds for the support and maintenance of state colleges where citizens could receive education in agriculture. The Morrill Act established the Land Grant philosophy (Tenney, 1977). In agricultural education programs a tth etu m of the century, the em phasis w as on teaching the science of agriculture, not agricultural production. Educators viewed instruction in agricultural science a s a way to make education relevant to rural life (National Research Council, 1988). High school programming included agronomy, laboratory and field work, rural engineering, and farm mechanics (Crosby, 1912). During that time, vocational agriculture began to develop the philosophy that characterizes it today. In 1909, the U.S. Office of Experiment Stations published a report on high school agriculture education, which stated that the programming should not be narrowly focused on just vocational education, but should be developed to enhance students' life for the future (True, 1929). In 1917, the Smith-Hughes Act, also known a s the Vocational Educational Act, w as passed. The act committed federal dollars to the development of vocational agriculture programs in secondary schools. T hese programs were designed to replace the general agriculture programs that existed before the act w as passed. The Smith-Hughes Act w as intended to prepare young boys to becom e or to work as farmers. The goal w as to provide a curriculum that w as more relevant to their needs than the academic programs provided in many schools. Vocational agriculture programs consisted of three major components: 54 classroom instruction, youth leadership, and home (supervised) projects (National Research Council, 1988). In 1928, the Future Farmers of America (FFA) was founded. The FFA grew out of boys’ and girls’ clubs of the early 1900s and soon became an integral part of high school vocational agriculture. The purpose of the FFA was to provide opportunities for economic, political, and civic leadership (National Research Council, 1988). In 1963, Congress passed a new vocational education act (Public Law 88210), which reshaped vocational agriculture and altered its relationship to other vocational programs. This federal legislation emphasized the special needs of women, minority groups, and handicapped and disadvantaged students (National Research Council, 1988). The Carl Perkins Act of 1984 was of concern to agricultural education. The act deemphasized some of the effects of the 1963 law by expanding the measures of success to include "basic employment competencies," instead of employment alone. The act emphasized program improvement, innovation, and development instead of maintenance (Case, 1985). In 1988, the National Research Council released a report entitled Understanding Agriculture. New Directions for Education. This report stated that major revisions were needed within vocational agriculture. The National Research Council recommended that the relevance and scope of curricula, SAEs, and the FFA be broadened. It also recommended that programs be upgraded to 55 prepare students more effectively for the study of agriculture in postsecondary schools and colleges and for current and future career opportunities. Enrollments in Michigan’s secondary vocational agriculture programs rose from approximately 12,500 students in 1962 to a high of almost 15,000 students in 1977, and then declined to approximately 8,400 students in 1988-a 44% decrease. During the sam e period, enrollments in all secondary vocational education programs decreased 21%; total secondary school enrollments decreased 23%. In addition to the decreased enrollments, the number of secondary vocational agriculture teachers also declined. From 1962 to 1986, the number of Michigan teachers decreased from 210 to 188—a 10.5% decline. The number of vocational agriculture students per teacher declined from 71 to 44—a 38% decrease. The number of vocational agriculture students per department decreased from 81 in 1977 to 41 in 1986-a 49% decrease (Bobbitt &Warmbrod, 1987). Among the workshops at the 1985 Governor's Conference on the Future of Michigan Agriculture was one titled "The Crisis in Agriculture Education" (Completion. 1985). During this workshop, presentations were made and discussions held to point out the declining number of agricultural education programs in Michigan and the need to develop a plan to restore agricultural education at all levels. Participants called for the creation of a counci) to study ways to strengthen agricultural education in Michigan. In response to this request, Governor Jam es Blanchard issued Executive Order 196-16 on October 56 10,1986, establishing the Task Force on the Revitalization of Agriculture Through Research and Education. The Task Force was charged to: 1. Recommend to the governor an overall plan that would finance the revitalization of agriculture through research and educational programs. 2. Make recommendations to the governor on methods for integrating agricultural concepts and principles with agricultural research and education in ongoing curricula. 3. Make recommendations to the governor regarding the development of scientific and professional expertise in the field of agricultural research and education. 4. Make recommendations to the governor on how to attract and financially assist, where necessary, academically superior students who are interested in the agricultural and food system at both the undergraduate and graduate levels (Wink, 1988). The recommendations of the Governor’s Task Force were submitted in a report entitled Partnerships for a Progressive Future (Michigan Department of Agriculture, 1988). The Task Force recommended that the state of Michigan adopt the following programs: 1. Agricultural Institute of Michigan (AIM). Purpose: Fund, guide, and support statewide and locally based agricultural education programs. 2. Focus on Excellence in Education and Decision Making (FEED). Purpose: Educate and employ Michigan's best and brightest citizens. 57 3. Competitive Research on Program Priorities (CROPP). Purpose: Maintain Michigan's competitive edge through targeted research. 4. Future of Michigan Agriculture. Purpose: Develop a futuristic, long- range plan to guide the development of Michigan’s food and agriculture industry. The Michigan Council on Vocational Education commissioned a study on the status and future direction of vocational-technical agriculture education in Michigan. The overall goal of the study was to provide information and recommendations to be used in the development of a long-range planning process for the revitalization of vocational-technical agriculture education in Michigan. Summary statements regarding secondary agricultural education in Michigan included: 1. Programs in the secondary schools are primarily vocational in 2. Programs are a part of the federal-state system of vocational nature. education, with priority for policy and program development, improvement, and revision. 3. Student enrollment and the number of programs are on a decline. 4. Programs no longer include adult education as a major component. 5. Little articulation is offered between local high schools and area centers, or between postsecondary and secondary programs. 6. Individuals involved in the programs see a need for revision and reform in the programs. 58 7. The purpose for instruction needs to be broader than and in addition to the purpose of current vocational agriculture programs. The recommendations from the aforementioned study relating to program restructuring were a s follows: Purposes for Instruction in Agriculture: The purposes for offering instruction in and about agriculture in the public schools of Michigan should be redefined to include purposes broader than and in addition to the purposes of vocational education in agriculture. In addition to preparation for entrepreneurship and employment in occupations requiring knowledge and skill in agriculture (food, agriculture, and natural resources), purposes for instruction in and about agriculture include (a) understanding and appreciation of the nature and importance of food, agriculture, and natural resources in our economy and society (agriculture literacy); (b) knowledge of occupational and professional opportunities in food, agriculture, and natural resources; and (c) preparation for advanced study of food, agriculture, and natural resources in colleges, universities, and other postsecondary institutions. Clientele: Clientele who receive instruction in and about agriculture should be expanded to include, at least potentially, all students in grades K through 12 in addition to persons who are anticipating or expect to be engaged occupationally in the agricultural industry. Broadened purposes for instruction in and about agriculture lead to new and different clientele to be served. 59 Policy: 1. One policy issue must be considered before the nature of the future direction of agricultural education in the secondary schools of Michigan can be determined. That question is: What purposes are to be served by instruction in and about agriculture in the public schools in Michigan? If the response to that question is that only "vocational" purposes are to be served, revision and reform of the current vocational agriculture program is the focus. If the response to that question is the adoption of purposes that are broader than "vocational purposes," the agenda for reform and revision is more difficult and comprehensive. 2. Preservice and inservice teacher education programs must be revised and updated in accordance with the redirecting and revision in agriculture education that will be implemented. 3. The development of instructional and curriculum materials and personnel development demand high priority when concerted efforts for reform and redirection are initiated. 4. If progress toward redirection and reform is to occur, some person or agency must assum e aggressive leadership to initiate the study, debate, and formulation of proposals for policy and program change required for a new future for public school education in agriculture in Michigan. In 1982, the board of directors of the Michigan Association of Teachers of Vocational Agriculture (MATVA) appointed a committee to focus on the direction that vocational agriculture should take. The board believed that the committee 60 should forge a partnership with Michigan S tate University and th e Michigan Departm ent of Education to provide leadership and direction for agricultural education. This committee w as nam ed Agriculture in the Y ear2000. In 1984-85, the committee held a series of meetings with representatives of various groups and MATVA m em bers to identify the problems and n eed s of agricultural education. The committee recom m ended that a major thrust w as n eeded in the curriculum that w as being taught in Michigan secondary schools. The subject m atter of instruction needed to be broadened and to em phasize the "why" of agriculture, rather than the "how." To address the recom mendations m ade in the aforementioned reports, the Michigan Department of Education funded the Agriscience and Natural R esourc­ e s Curriculum Development Project in th e fall of 1988. The project w as based on a three-year plan. During this time the following activities w ere to take place: 1. Curriculum development. 2. Curriculum dissemination. 3. Program review. 4. Articulation at two- and four-year institutions. 5. Public relations (promotion). The new curriculum w as designed to u se agricultural and natural resources content and experiences a s a context for integrating principles and concepts from many disciplines. For example, the curriculum focused on using content a s a m eans for thinking critically; improving basic skills such a s reading, writing, and 61 arithmetic; and problem solving. The development process was to include three phases: (a) writing of curriculum materials, (b) curriculum review by secondary teachers, and (c) curriculum review by content experts. During this phase, 15 guides were to be developed, 4 in the core area and 11 in the advanced/ specialized area, as follows: Core Area: Natural Resources and Michigan Agriculture Animal Science Plant Science Business Management and Marketing Advanced/Specialized Area: Advanced Animal Small Animal Equine Science Greenhouse Landscape Design/Construction Floriculture Advanced Plant Science Conservation Forestry Ecology Advanced Business Management/Marketing After two years of curriculum development, the Michigan Department of Education discontinued funding for the project. At this writing, the last five advanced/specialized areas have yet to be completely developed. To disseminate the core curriculum, many workshops were conducted. These workshops were designed to explain the use of the curriculum guides to content teachers. All agricultural teachers in Michigan received a free copy of the four core-area curriculum guides. 62 No formal dissemination plan was developed for the advanced/specialized guides. Schools that were interested in using the guides were to purchase them through Michigan State University. Thus far, very few schools have purchased the guides. It w as critical that schools complete the restructuring process to change from vocational agriculture to agriscience and natural resources education. This process was outlined in the Standards for Excellence (Michigan Department of Education, 1990). The Standards, for Excellence entailed four phases: 1. Preparation. 2. Program review. 3. Action plan development. 4. Implementation of action plan. Teachers attended a six-hour inservice session on this restructuring process. To support the program review process, three individuals were employed a s specialists by Michigan State University. Funding for the specialists was provided by the state legislature. The specialists’ role was to assist teachers in the completion of the Standards for Excellence and to work with schools to establish new programs. It was Michigan State University's intention to employ these specialists from October 1990 through June 1994, but due to the tight state budget their employment was terminated March 31,1992. School system s were expected to complete the restructuring process by the end of the 1992-93 school year. 63 Conceptual and Operational Frameworks for the Study It Is Important to develop a clear understanding of the difference between school reform and restructuring; change does occur with both. The literature review showed that school reform was a reaction to the poor quality of education that students in the United States were receiving. Reform grew from the passage of legislative mandates and increased educational requirements. School restructuring w as a shift in paradigm due to the slow improvement of America’s schools. This educational movement was based on local and state control. School restructuring entailed systematic change of the educational system. Figure 1 illustrates the shift that occurred from educational reform to educational restructuring. Change is a process that involves several steps. Each step is affected by innovation factors as well as personal and school factors. Innovation factors include relative advantage, compatibility, complexity, trialability, observability, cost, and the Standards for Excellence. Personal and school factors affecting change include values, previous practice, perceived need, school characteristics, educational levels, personal characteristics, the social system, and unknown characteristics. Figure 2 represents the change process and its relationship to personal, school, and innovation factors. The operational framework for this study was based on the S tandards for Excellence and a review of related literature. It was developed to provide 64 Inadequate Curriculum Lack of Flexibility Status quo Decline in Achievement Tests and Skills I Lack of Accountability Low Quality Program s Change in Student i Ed EDUCATIONAL REFORM - legislative m andates - core curriculum - increased graduation standards - state and federal b ase 1Question I of I Commitmentj Limited Partnership Confusion I Lack of Rewards I I | j EDUCATIONAL RESTRUCTURING - student performance - system atic change - cooperative in nature - empowerment • curriculum and program modification - decentralization of authority - accountability • community and state based T Partnership I I - B usiness | I - Industry - Community ^ ' group | New Staff Roles . Flexible 4 _______________ • G reater Student I Learning | . i 1 1________________ i Figure 1: Shift from educational reform to educational restructuring. 65 Innovation Personal/School Factors Factors Affecting Affecting Change Change Knowledge — ► (Exposed) < * - - relative advantage - values Persuasion - previous practice - compatibility (Attitude) * — - perceived need - complexity Decision - trialability — - adoption - rejection - alterations - school characteristics (Choice) - observability Implementation - cost - educational level (Put to use) - personal characteristics - Standards For Excellence Confirmation (Reinforcement) - social system - unknown characteristics Figure 2: Elements of the agriscience change process. 66 direction to the study. Figure 3 shows the operational framework for the research questions. Chapter Summary A number of national and state studies have indicated that America’s schools were not meeting the needs of students and society. The educational system had been charged with developing a new, dynamic, and futuristic educational process. To facilitate this change, state and federal m andates have been forced on the current system. This educational reform has caused confusion and misunderstanding. Recent studies have indicated that educational restructuring is necessary. Restructuring involves more than just reform; it requires a comprehensive review of the programs. The review process must include a set of m easurable standards that are used to determine whether educational goals and objectives are being met. Standards should be designed to estimate the quality and strengths of programs and to identify a rea s that need improvement. Standards should serve a s a model for programs needing a new focus. When developing new program direction, a plan to change is needed. To have an innovation adopted, a well-designed change model is essential. The model may consist of a three- to seven-stage process. Rogers (1983) conceptualized the adoption process a s an innovation-decision process with five stages: knowledge, persuasion, decision, implementation, and 67 Standards for Excellence Agriscience and Natural Resources Program Restructuring Teacher and School Characteristics Philosophy Use of Philosophy Statement Restructuring Process Student Services School Personnel Support for the Program Teacher Support and Assistance Funding Facilities and Equipment Advisory Committee Variety of Land Lab Figure 3: Local restructuring (operational framework). 68 confirmation. Whichever model is selected, it is critical that individual and school characteristics be kept in mind. The agricultural education programs in Michigan have completed the process of restructuring from vocational agriculture to agriscience. The restructuring process was outlined in the Standards for Excellence. This study was undertaken to determine the effect of the Standards for Excellence on restructuring local agriscience programs, as perceived by Michigan agriscience teachers. CHAPTER III METHODOLOGY Introduction The methods and procedures used In this study are explained in this chapter. Sections include pre-experimental design, overview of the research questions, variables, validity, reliability, population, reducing sampling bias, instrument development, data collection, and data analysis. Pre-Experimental Design This descriptive survey used a one-shot case study, pre-experimental design. In discussing this design, Campbell and Stanley (1963) stated, "Much research in education today conforms to a design in which a single group is studied only once, subsequent to some agent or treatment presumed to cause change" (p. 6). The design is represented as follows: X O The one-shot case study is used as a minimum reference for guiding future research studies. The design does not control threats to internal validity stated by Campbell and Stanley (1963). However, because descriptive research seeks 69 70 only to explore phenomena and gain new insights into current events in life, the use of the one-shot case study design was appropriate for this study. Overview of the Research Questions Table 1 shows the research questions of the study, the types of tests used in analyzing the data for each question, and the items from the measuring instrument that were used to obtain the data pertaining to each question. Table 1: Research questions, types of tests, and related survey items. Related Survey Items Research Question Type of Test 1. To what degree do Michigan agriscience teachers perceive the local agriscience phi­ losophy statement to be consistent with other related statements? Means and standard deviations Survey items 2-4 2. To what extent do Michigan agriscience teachers perceive that the new philosophy statement, as stated in the Standards for Excellence, was used in the development, design, implementation, and evaluation of their local programs? Means and standard deviations Survey items 5-8 3. What are Michigan agriscience teachers' perceptions of various statements regarding student services both before and after re­ structuring? Means, standard deviations, and ttests Survey items 3542 4. What are Michigan agriscience teachers' perceptions of various statements regarding the support and assistance they received both before and after restructuring? Means, standard deviations, and 1tests Survey items 4350 71 Table 1: Continued. Research Question Related Survey Items Type of Test 5. What are Michigan agriscience teachers' perceptions of various statements regarding program facilities and equipment both be­ fore and after restructuring? Means, standard deviations, and ttests Survey items 51-59 6. What are Michigan agriscience teachers' perceptions of various statements regarding advisory committees both before and after restructuring? Means, standard deviations, and t~ tests Survey items 6676 7. What are Michigan agriscience teachers' perceptions of various statements regarding availability of funds both before and after restructuring? Means, standard deviations, and 1tests Survey items 7782 8. What are Michigan agriscience teachers' perceptions of various statements regarding support from school personnel for the pro­ gram both before and after restructuring? Means and standard deviations Survey items 8388 9. What are Michigan agriscience teachers' perceptions of various statements regarding the restructuring process? Means and standard deviations Survey items 90a, 91, 95, 97 10. Is there a relationship between selected characteristics of Michigan agriscience teachers and their perceptions of various aspects related to the Standards for Excellence? Means, frequencies, standard deviations, and multiple regres­ sion Survey items 90a, 95. 97, 104106, 108, 115, 116, 122, 124 Variables Dependent Variables The dependent variables for this study were a s follows: Research Question 1: Local philosophy statem ents consistent with other related statem ents. Research Question 2: Use of new philosophy statement. 72 Research Question 3: Perceptions of various statements regarding student services. Research Question 4: Perceptions of various statements regarding support and assistance the agriscience teacher received. Research Question 5: Perceptions of various statements regarding program facilities and equipment. Research Question 6: Perceptions of various statements regarding advisory committees. Research Question 7: Perceptions of various statements regarding avail­ ability of funds. Research Question 8: Perceptions of various statements regarding support from school personnel for the program. Research Question 9: Perceptions of various statements regarding the restructuring process. Independent Variable The independent variable for all of the research questions was the restructuring of Michigan agricultural education programs. The two levels of the independent variable were before restructuring and after restructuring. Extraneous Variables The extraneous variables for this study included personal characteristics of the subjects and characteristics of their schools. The personal characteristics of the subjects included gender, age, years teaching, years in current position, involvement in development of curriculum, involvement in development of the Standards for Excellence, and whether they lived in the community in which they taught. School characteristics included type of school (comprehensive high 73 school, career center, or comprehensive high school that w as a designated career center), and number of restructuring m eetings that w ere held during the restructuring process. T hese variables w ere used only for the regression analyses. Validity Internal Validity This one-shot c ase study design had w eak n esses in the a re a s of history, maturation, selection, and mortality. The researcher could not determ ine the difference between the effect of the Michigan Agriscience and Natural R esources S tandards for Excellence and the possible effects of the history or the maturation of the respondents, thus leaving a possible threat to internal validity. By conducting a cen su s of all agriscience and natural resources educators in Michigan, the researcher controlled the threat to selection. Mortality w as controlled for by having 100% of the agriscience teach ers respond to the survey. External Validity Bracht and G lass (1968) identified certain threats to external validity that w ere addressed in this study. They placed the threats to external validity into two classes: population and ecological. Differences betw een the experimentally accessible population and the target population were the first potential threat to population validity. This w as controlled by conducting a cen su s of all Michigan agriscience teachers. B ecause all agriscience teach ers w ere surveyed, the target and experimentally accessible populations were the sam e. 74 The interaction of personalogical variables and the treatment w as not a threat in this study because there w as no active independent variable. The independent variable w as the restructuring of Michigan agricultural education programs. The restructuring process w as based on the Standards for Excellence. All of the agriscience teachers were familiar with that publication. The threat of multiple treatment effects w as not present in this study because the subjects received no active treatment. The subjects’ use of the Michigan Agriscience and Natural Resources Standards for Excellence w as the only naturally occurring treatment. Another potential threat to the study w as the Hawthorne effect b ecause the agriscience teachers knew the questionnaire was part of a research study. R esponses may have been altered because the questionnaire w as distributed by the Department of Agricultural and Extension Education at Michigan State University, the sam e department that developed the Michigan Agriscience and Natural R esources Standards for Excellence. This may have caused the educators to give the standards more positive ratings than they might otherwise have done. This w as also the reason why novelty and disruptive effects w ere a threat in this study. The restructuring of the programs with the Standards for Excellence w as completed in June 1993. Educators might have responded differently to the survey questions because of the novelty of the restructured program. 75 Experimenter effect w as another threat to this study. The researcher developed and administered the questionnaire and w as also involved in the development of the Standards for Excellence. Therefore, th e subjects might have altered their responses on the questionnaire due to this factor. Posttest sensitization, interaction of history and treatm ent effects, m easurem ent of the dependent variable, and interaction of time of m easurem ent and treatment effects were not present in this study because no active treatm ent w as given to the subjects. The questionnaire sought only the teachers’ perceptions regarding the Standards for Excellence and the restructuring process. Face Validity Face validity of the instrument w as established by a panel of professionals in the area of agriscience and natural resources. The questionnaire w as edited and changed to reflect their suggested improvements. Content Validity The instrument w as evaluated for content validity by a panel of experts who were familiar with agriscience and natural resources education. Changes were m ade to improve the clarity and reduce the ambiguity of certain questions. Reliability Reliability of the instrument was established with a random sam ple of 14 Michigan agriscience teachers. Reliability w as calculated using Cronbach’s 76 coefficient alpha procedure in the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS/PC+). Reliability coefficients ranged from .733 to .981. The Population The target population for this study was all Michigan agriscience teachers in the school year 1993-94 who had completed the restructuring process and had more than one year of teaching experience. Because there were only 116 agriscience teachers in Michigan during 19939-94 who satisfied the aforemen­ tioned criteria, a census of all teachers was conducted. Therefore, the experi­ mentally accessible population of 116 teachers was also the target population for the survey. All 116 teachers returned a completed questionnaire, for a 100% response rate. Reducing Sampling Bias Erame Error Frame error for this study was controlled by cross-checking the nam es of agriscience teachers in the directory of Michigan agricultural educators with agricultural education faculty from the Department of Agricultural and Extension Education at Michigan State University. The list was also checked with the Agricultural Education Supervisor from the Michigan Department of Education. The purpose of this cross-check was to ensure that individuals on the list had not retired and that no teachers had unintentionally been deleted. 77 Nonresponse Error Nonresponse error w as controlled by using Dillman’s (1978) total design method. Three follow-up telephone calls and mailings w ere made, and replacem ent questionnaires were provided. No further follow-up w as necessary to control for nonresponse error because all 116 educators responded to the survey. Selection Bias By conducting a census of all 116 agriscience teachers, selection bias w as eliminated from this study. This avoided the possibility of certain teachers having a better chance than others of receiving a survey. Instrument Development The survey instrument (Appendix B) and corresponding supplementary pages (Appendix C) used in this study were developed by the researcher and David Krueger by studying other instruments intended to m easure demographic characteristics and attitudes toward changes. A written questionnaire, to be administered to all agriscience teachers, w as selected a s the m easurem ent instrument. The questionnaire consisted of the following ten parts: Part I—Written Philosophy, Part ll-C hanges in Secondary Instructional Program, Part III—Effect on Student Services, Part IV—Support and Assistance for the Agriscience and Natural Resources Teacher, Part V-lmprovement to Facilities/Equipment, Part V l-C hanges in Advisory Committees, Part Vll-Fundlng Availability, Part VIII- 78 School Personnel Support, Part IX—General Restructuring, and PartX -Personal Data (Demographics). Each of these sections corresponded directly to those included in the Michigan Agriscience and Natural Resources Standards for Excellence. Part I and Parts III through X pertained directly to the research questions for this study. Part I measured the respondents' perceived agreement with statements related to the local programs’written philosophy statement for the agriscience and natural resources program. This section contained one yes-no question and seven statements to which teachers responded using a 6-point Likert-type scale, ranging from 1 (Firmly Disagree) to 6 (Firmly Agree). Part III measured the respondents’ perceived agreement with statements regarding student services both before and after restructuring. A before-andafter 6-point Likert-type scale was used, ranging from 1 (Firmly Disagree) to 6 (Firmly Agree). Part IV measured the respondents' perceived agreement with statements regarding support and assistance for the agriscience teacher both before and after restructuring. The sam e 6-point double Likert-type scale used in Part ill was used in this section. Part V of the questionnaire measured the respondents’ perceived agreement with statements regarding improvement of facilities and equipment both before and after restructuring. The sam e 6-point double Likert-type scale used in previous sections was used in this part. Questions 60 through 65 in Part 79 V were yes-no questions designed to determine what was included in the land laboratory both before and after restructuring. Part VI measured the respondents' perceived agreement with statements regarding advisory committees both before and after restructuring. The 6-point double Likert-type scale used in previous sections was used in this part, as well. Parts VII and VIII dealt with the respondents’ perceived agreement with statements regarding funding and school personnel. Both parts used the abovementioned 6-point double Likert-type scale that measured perceptions both before and after restructuring. Part IXused a single 6-point Likert-type scale to measure the respondents’ perceived agreement with statements regarding general restructuring concerns. This part also contained six check-off items to determine which phases of the restructuring process the respondents had used. Teacher demographic and personal data, as well as school characteristics, were collected in Part X of the instrument. Data Collection Data were collected by personally distributing the questionnaire at an annual agriscience teachers’ conference called Operation Synergism on September 23, 1993. The agriscience teachers who did not attend the conference received the questionnaire by mail. Cover letters (Appendix D) and questionnaires were sent out during the last week in September 1993. A reminder postcard (Appendix E) followed seven days later. After two weeks, a 80 telephone reminder and another questionnaire were mailed to nonrespondents. A total of three follow-up telephone reminders and mailings with cover letters (Appendices F through H) were sent along with replacement questionnaires. All educators in the target population eventually responded to the survey. Data Analysis Responses to the survey instruments were analyzed using the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS/PC+). The data were analyzed using frequencies, means, and standard deviations. Statistical tests used in the study included the 1-test, the Wilcoxon signed-ranks test, and multiple regression. The tests used in analyzing the data for each research question were shown in Table 1. The .05 alpha level was established as the criterion for statistical significance. These statistical tests were used only as a tool to assist in decision making and examining the findings in detail. Because the study was a census, the results of these statistical tests were not used to draw inferences. A post hoc panel of agriscience teachers established the criteria for determining the level of change that had occurred as a result of restructuring by comparing the changes in mean scores for teachers’ perceptions of selected items both before and after restructuring. The following levels of change were established: 81 Mean Change Level of Change .76 and above .51 to .75 .26 to .50 .11 to .25 .01 to .10 Very strong change Substantial change Moderate change Low change Negligible change CHAPTER IV FINDINGS Findings based on the analysis of responses to items in the survey instrument are reported in this chapter. In the following pages, each research question is restated, followed by the results pertaining to that question. Research Question 1 To what degree do Michigan agriscience teachers perceive the local agriscience philosophy statement to be consistent with other related statements? Agriscience teachers agreed that the local agriscience education philosophy statem ent w as consistent with related statem ents, a s indicated by a mean of 5.179 on the 6-point Likert-type scale (Table 2). The m eans and standard deviations of all statem ents about the local philosophy statem ent in relation to other related statem ents are shown in Appendix I, Tables 28 and 29. Table 2: Teachers’ perceptions of the local agrisdence philosophy statement in relation to other related statements. Mean 5.179 Standard deviation .627 82 83 R esearch Question 2 To what extent do Michigan agriscience teachers perceive that the new philosophy statement, as stated in the Standards for Excellence, was used in the development, design, implementation, and evaluation of their local programs? The agriscience teach ers slightly agreed that the new philosophy statem ent w as used in restructuring their programs, a s indicated by a m ean of 4.312 on th e 6-point Likert-type scale (Table 3). The m eans, standard deviations, and 1-values for all statem ents about the u se of the new philosophy statem ent are shown in Appendix I, Tables 30 through 33. Table 3: Use of the new agriscience philosophy statem ent in the develop­ ment, design, implementation, and evaluation of the local program. Mean 4.312 Standard deviation 1.017 R esearch Question 3 What are Michigan agriscience teachers' perceptions of various statements regarding student services both before and after restructuring? There w as a positive, m oderate overall change in agriscience teach ers’ perceptions of various statem ents regarding student services, a s indicated by the m ean moving from 3.623 before restructuring to 4.015 after restructuring (Table 4). After restructuring, agriscience teachers slightly agreed with statem ents that related to students receiving information regarding the program, exploration 84 opportunities, flexibility in enrollment policies, and relevance of the curriculum. Teachers slightly disagreed with statements about guidance personnel encouraging students to enroll in the program, that students are informed that agriscience courses will meet other graduation requirements, and that students are provided with information about opportunities in the agricultural and natural resources industry. The means, standard deviations, and 1-values for ail statements about student services are shown in Appendix J, Tables 34 through 41. Table 4: Teachers’ perceptions of various statements regarding student services. Mean SD Before restruct. 3.622 1.033 After restruct. 4.014 .883 i-Value Sig. of 1 4.97 .000* *p < .05. Research Question 4 What are Michigan agriscience teachers’ perceptions of various statements regarding the support and assistance they received both before and after restructuring? There was a positive, low overall change in the perceptions of agriscience teachers regarding the support and assistance they received from administration and state associations, as indicated by the mean moving from 4.664 before restructuring to4.900 after restructuring (Table 5). After restructuring, agriscience 85 teachers slightly agreed with statements related to the use of community resources, promotion of the program, and participation in regional and state teacher associations. Teachers agreed with statements about attending technical courses, workshops, and conventions, as well as seeking new knowledge and ideas from professional publications. The means, standard deviations, and 1valuesfor all statements about support and assistance are shown in Appendix K, Tables 42 through 49. Table 5: Teachers’ perceptions of various statements regarding the support and assistance they received. Mean SQ Before restruct. 4.664 .846 After restruct. 4.900 .747 t-Value Sig. o ft 3.96 .000* *P < .05. Research Question 5 What are Michigan agrisdence teachers’ perceptions of various statements regarding program fadlities and equipment both before and after restructuring? There was positive, low overall change in agriscience teachers’ perceptions of various fadlities and equipment, as indicated by the mean moving from 3.952 before restructuring to 4.177 after restructuring (Table 6). After restructuring, agriscience teachers slightly agreed with statements related to storage space, funds received based on enrollment, current resource materials 86 and textbooks used, and equipment and supplies complementing course offerings. Teachers slightly disagreed with statements about availability of an agricultural library. The means, standard deviations, and t-vaiues for all statem ents about fadlities and equipment are shown in Appendix L, Tables 50 through 58. Table 6: Teachers' perceptions of various statements regarding fadlities and equipment. Mean 5D Before restruct. 3.952 .846 After restruct. 4.177 .794 t-V/alue 4.01 Sig. o ft .000* < .05. Research Question 6 What are Michigan agriscience teachers’ perceptions of various statements regarding advisory committees both before and after restructuring? There w as a positive, substantial overall change in agriscience teachers' perceptions of various advisory committee statements, as indicated by the mean moving from 4.032 before restructuring to 4.573 after restructuring (Table 7). After restructuring, agriscience teachers agreed with statem ents that the advisory committee included representatives from agribusiness, that the committee made recommendations on program improvement, and that the committee supported the program. Teachers slightly agreed with statements that the advisory 87 committee included representatives from production agriculture, former students, and parents, and that the committee reviewed the program. T eachers slightly disagreed with statem ents related to the advisory committee including representation from high school teaching staff, m em bers being appointed for staggered terms, the committee operating within written policies and bylaws, and the committee meeting a minimum of three times per year. The m eans, standard deviations, and 1-values for all statem ents about advisory committees are shown in Appendix M, Tables 60 through 70. Table 7: Teachers’ perceptions of various statem ents regarding advisory committees. Mean 20 Before restruct. 4.032 1.081 After restruct. 4.573 .801 1-Value 6.03 Slg. of 1 .000* *p < .05. Research Question 7 What are Michigan agrisdence teachers’ perceptions of various statements regarding availability of funds both before and after restructuring? There w as a negligible change in agriscience teachers’ perceptions of various statem ents regarding the availability of funds, a s indicated by the mean moving from 3.790 before restructuring to 3.881 after restructuring (Table 8). After restructuring, agriscience teachers slightly agreed with statem ents related 88 to funds being provided for upgrading instructional materials and professional activities. Teachers slightly disagreed with statements about funds being provided for upgrading facilities/equipment, for FFAactivities, and for an extended contract. The means, standard deviations, and 1-values for all statements about the availability of funds are shown in Appendix N, Tables 71 through 76. Table 8: Teachers’ perceptions of various statements regarding the availability of funds. Mean SB Before restruct. 3.790 •w After restruct. 3.881 t-Value Sig. o ft 944 1 1 1.087 1.32 ,191 Research Question 8 What are Michigan agriscience teachers’ perceptions of various statements regarding support from school personnel for the program both before and after restructuring? There was a positive, moderate overall change in agriscience teachers’ perceptions of various statements regarding support from school personnel for the program, as indicated by the mean moving from 3.612 before restructuring to 3.924 after restructuring (Table 9). After restructuring, agriscience teachers slightly agreed with statements related to high school teaching staff support, administration and teaching staff recognition that the FFA is an integral part of the program, and that administrators encourage students to enroll in the program. Teachers slightly disagreed with statements about administrators attending FFA 89 activities and other teachers encouraging students to enroll in the program. The means, standard deviations, and 1-values for all statements about support from school personnel for the program are shown in Appendix O, Tables 77 through 82. Table 9: Teachers’ perceptions of various statements regarding support from school personnel for the program. Mean 3D Before restruct. 3.612 1.082 After restruct. 3.924 1.051 t-Value Sig. of 1 4.39 .000* *J2 < .05. Research Question 9 What are Michigan agriscience teachers' perceptions of various statements regarding the restructuring process? Teachers were asked whether the agriscience and natural resources education restructuring process was a "quick-fix* solution. The mean response was 2.790, which was Disagree on the 6-point Likert-type scale (Table 10). Table 10: The agriscience and natural resources education restructuring process is a "quick-fix" solution. Mean 2.790 Standard deviation 1.297 90 Teachers also were asked whether the Standards for Excellence had been of value during the restructuring process. The mean response was 4.500, which was Slightly Agree on the 6-point Likert-type scale (Table 11). Table 11: The Standards for Excellence was of value during the restructuring process. Mean 4.500 Standard deviation 1.176 Teachers were asked whether the only reason for restructuring the program was for the added cost funding. The mean response was 2.810, which was Disagree on the 6-point Likert-type scale (Table 12). Table 12: The only reason for restructuring the program was for the added cost funding. Mean 2.810 Standard deviation 1.323 Teachers also were asked whether the change to agriscience was a positive move. The mean response was 5.000, which was Agree on the 6-point Likert-type scale (Table 13). 91 Table 13: The change to agriscience was a positive move. Mean 5.000 Standard deviation 1.163 Teachers were asked whether the Standards for Excellence encouraged the review committee to update the existing philosophy statement. The mean response was 4.376, which was Slightly Agree on the 6-point Likert-type scale (Table 14). Table 14: The Standards for Excellence encouraged the review committee to update the existing philosophy statement. Mean 4.376 Standard deviation 1.309 Research Question 10 Is there a relationship between selected characteristics of Michigan agriscience teachers and various aspects related to the Standards for Excellence? Eight demographic items were selected from the survey instrument based on information gathered from the literature review and focus group meetings held with the faculty in the Department of Agricultural and Extension Education at Michigan State University. Responses to these items were analyzed and used in a multiple regression analysis to determine whether relationships existed 92 betw een the independent demographic variables and the dependent variables: w hether or not th e restructuring process w as a "quick-fix" solution, w hether or not th e S tandards of Excellence w as of value, whether or not the only reason for restructuring the program w as for added cost funding, w hether or not th e change to agriscience w as a positive move, and whether or not th e Standards for Excellence encouraged the review committee to update the existing philosophy statem ent. Almost 75% of the agriscience teachers in the population indicated they w ere m ales. About 25% of the teachers were fem ales (Table 15). Table 15: G ender of agriscience teachers. G ender Frequency Percent Male 86 74.1% Fem ale 30 25.9% The reported mean ag e of the agriscience teachers w as 40.72 years. The minimum w as 23 years, and the maximum w as 65 years (Table 16). Table 16: Age of agriscience teachers. Age of respondents Mean £Q Minimum Maximum 40.72 9.24 23 65 93 The reported mean for number of years teaching agriculture was 15.5 years. The minimum was 1 year, and the maximum was 37 years (Table 17). Table 17: Years of teaching agriculture. Years of teaching Mean 5D Minimum Maximum 15.5 9.25 1 37 Teachers were asked whether they taught in a comprehensive high school, a career center, or a comprehensive high school that was a designated career center. Sixty-two percent of the teachers said they taught in a comprehensive high school. 28% indicated they taught in a career center, and 10% said they taught in a comprehensive high school that was a designated career center (Table 18). Table 18: Teaching location. Teaching Location Frequency Percent Comprehensive high school 72 62% Career center 32 28% Comprehensive high school designated career center 12 10% Teachers were asked whether they had been involved in the development and/or writing of the Michigan agriscience and natural resources core curriculum. 94 Fifty-two percent reported that they had been involved in either developing or writing the curriculum (Table 19). Table 19: Teachers' involvement in the development and/or writing of the Michigan agriscience and natural resources core curriculum. Involvement in developing and/or writing curriculum Frequency Percent 60 52% Teachers also reported their involvement on the Standards for Excellence development committee. Eleven percent of the respondents indicated they had been involved on this committee (Table 20). Table 20: Teachers' involvement on the Standards for Excellence develop­ ment committee. Involvement on the Standards for Excellence development committee Frequency Percent 13 11% Teachers were asked whether they lived in the community in which they taught. Sixty-eight percent of the teachers reported that they lived in the community in which they taught (Table 21). 95 Table 21: Whether teachers lived in the community in which they taught. Residence Location Frequency Percent Live in the community 79 68% Do not live in the community 37 32% Teachers reported on the number of formal restructuring meetings their schools had held. Twenty-four percent reported holding four formal restructuring meetings, w hereas 26% had held three meetings and 20% had held two meetings (Table 22). Table 22: Number of formal meetings held during the restructuring process. Number of Committee Meetings Frequency Percent 1 8 7% 2 23 20% 3 30 26% 4 28 24% 5 14 12% 6 or more 13 11% Multiple Regression Analysis A multiple regression analysis w as conducted on the variables related to Research Question 10. The analysis w as conducted to determine whether a 96 relationship existed betw een the eight independent variables and th e dependent variable, whether the agriscience and natural resources education restructuring process was a "quick-fix" solution. It w as found that 2% of the variance w as explained by th e independent variables; none of the independent variables w as significant at th e .05 level (Table 23). Table 23; Multiple regression on w hether th e agriscience and natural resources education restructuring process w as a "quick-fix" solution. Independent Variables Beta Intercept 1-Value 2.310 G ender .045 -.365 Age of respondents .046 .227 Y ears of teaching -.149 -.709 Teaching location .003 .029 Involvement in development/writing of the curriculum .003 .028 Involvement on Standards for Excellence committee .020 .161 Live in community in which teaching .067 .579 Formal committee meetings .027 .232 R2 = .02. A multiple regression analysis also w as conducted to determ ine w hether a relationship existed betw een the eight independent variables and the dependent variable, whether the Standards for Excellence was of value during the 97 restructuring process. It w as found that more than 10% of the variance w as explained by the independent variables. Involvement in th e developm ent and writing of the curriculum had a low negative relationship to the dependent variable and w as significant at the .05 level. No other independent variable w as significant (Table 24). Table 24: Multiple regression on whether the Standards for Excellence w as of value during the restructuring process. Independent Variables Beta Intercept t-Value 4.504 G ender .007 .064 Age of respondents .165 -.838 Y ears of teaching -.048 -.238 Teaching location -.038 -.328 Involvement In development/writing of the curriculum -.229 -2.556* Involvement on Standards for Excellence committee .005 .048 Live in community in which teaching .099 .895 Formal committee meetings .069 .616 *p < .05; R2 = .11. A multiple regression analysis w as conducted to determ ine w hether a relationship existed between the eight independent variables and the dependent variable, whether the only reason for restructuring the program was for added 98 cost funding. It w as found that less than 10% of the variance w as explained by the independent variables. None of the independent variables w as significant at the .05 level (Table 25). Table 25: Multiple regression on whether the only reason for restructuring the program w as for added cost funding. Independent Variables Beta Intercept Gender t-Value 1.931 -.034 -.285 .102 .509 Years of teaching -.151 -.739 Teaching location -.002 -.015 .069 .579 -.131 1.084 .026 .234 -.195 -1.713 Age of respondents Involvement in development/writing of the curriculum Involvement on Standards for Excellence committee Live in community in which teaching Formal committee meetings R2 - .08. A multiple regression analysis was conducted to determine whether a relationship existed between the eight independent variables and the dependent variable, whether the change to agriscience is a positive move. It w as found that more than 5% of the variance was explained by the independent variables. None of the independent variables w as significant at the .05 level (Table 26). 99 Table 26: Multiple regression on whether the change to agriscience was a positive move. Independent Variables Beta Intercept Gender t-Value 2.110 -.127 -1.057 .121 .597 Years of teaching -.336 -1.609 Teaching location -.040 -.344 .014 .122 Involvement on Standards for Excellence committee -.075 -.613 Live in community in which teaching -.048 -.423 .037 .324 Age of respondents Involvement in development/writing of the curriculum Formal committee meetings R2 = .06. The final multiple regression analysis was conducted to determine whether a relationship existed between theeight independent variables and the dependent variable, whetherthe Standards forExcellence encouraged thereviewcommittee to update the existing philosophy statement It was found that 15% of the variance was explained by the independent variables. The number of committee meetings held during the restructuring process showed a moderate relationship to the dependent variable and was significant at the .05 level. independent variable was significant at the .05 level (Table 27). No other 100 Table 27: Multiple regression on whether the Standards for Excellence encouraged the review committee to update the existing philosophy statement. Independent Variables Beta Intercept 1-Value 2.395 Gender -.106 -.837 .128 .597 Years of teaching -.159 -.721 Teaching location -.067 -.536 Involvement in development/writing of the curriculum -.054 -.430 .177 1.370 -.066 -.553 .366 2.971* Age of respondents Involvement on Standards for Excellence committee Live in community in which teaching Formal committee meetings *p < .05: R2 = .15. Open-Ended Comments Michigan agriscience teachers were given space on the questionnaire to provide written comments about the restructuring process and/or implementation of the curriculum. A sample of the comments is shown below. Comments were categorized into positive, negative, and general statements. A complete list of all comments from respondents is provided in Appendix P. 10 1 Positive Comments: "I felt it w as important to review our program.” "Any time an administrator is forced into reviewing a program is a wonderful opportunity for teachers to obtain improvements and to show off their successes." "Time well spent." "We are actively working on integrating agriscience with other area s in hope of having it becom e part of a core program." Negative Comments: "The materials need to be streamlined to becom e more user friendly." "There is no teeth in It. Not much changed. process.” It w as done to p lease funding "Restructuring didn’t really change us a lot. W e have clustered and FFA h as helped." "Improve inservices; m ake them more science and lab oriented and less production oriented." General Comments: "This process is only a s good or valid a s you make it." "We need continued inservices." "It w as a good and needed experience." Summary The analysis of data from this research showed that restructuring had had a positive influence on the local agricultural education program. Agriscience teach ers agreed that restructuring from vocational agriculture to agriscience had 102 been a positive move and that the process was as important as the change that occurred. Through multiple regression analysis, it was found that the variance between the independent variables and the dependent variables could not be explained. A complete summary of the conclusions, implications, and recommenda­ tions of this study is presented in Chapter V. CHAPTERV CONCLUSIONS. IMPLICATIONS, RECOMMENDATIONS. AND REFLECTIONS Based on the findings presented in Chapter IV, the following conclusions, implications, and recommendations were formulated for each research question. The writer’s reflections conclude the chapter. Research Question 1 To what degree do Michigan agriscience teachers perceive the local agriscience philosophy statement to be consistent with other related statements? Conclusion: Agriscience teachers agreed that the local agriscience philosophy statement is consistent with the district’s/LEA’s and the state’s agriscience and natural resources philosophy statements. Recommendation: States considering restructuring should develop a state-level philosophy statement to be used as a guide at the local level. District, LEA, and local agriscience philosophy statements should be reviewed regularly to maintain consistency with the state philosophy statement. Implication: The state-level philosophy statement can be used as a model for developing congruent philosophy statements atthe local level. The state-level 103 104 philosophy statem ent that is generated could be used a s a model for other disciplines, a s well. Research Question 2 To what extent do Michigan agrisdence teachers perceive that the new philosophy statement, as stated in the Standards for Excellence, was used in the development, design, implementation, and evaluation of their local programs? Conclusion: The agriscience teachers slightly agreed that the new philosophy statem ent w as used in the development, design, implementation, and evaluation of the agriscience program. Recommendation: Agriscience teachers should continue to use the agriscience philosophy statem ent to further enhance program revision and evaluation. Implication: If agriscience teachers are expected to use the agriscience philosophy statement, they must be introduced to the philosophy early in their careers. The agriscience philosophy statem ent can be used in directing future program development and evaluation. Research Question 3 What are Michigan agrisdence teachers* perceptions of various statements regarding student services both before and after restruduring? Conclusion: Agriscience teachers perceived a m oderate positive overall change in student services after restructuring. 105 Recommendation: Restructuring or a similar process should occur every three years in order to keep student services personnel up to date and interested in the agriscience program. Statewide inservice sessions for student services personnel would help in this regard. Implication: As agriscience teachers continue to restructure their programs, an aw areness of the role and importance of agriscience is created. This, in turn, increases the need for enhanced student services. Without enhanced student services, students will not have an understanding of the opportunities available to them in agriscience. Research Question 4 What are Michigan agriscience teachers’ perceptions of various statements regarding the support and assistance they received both before and after restructuring? Conclusion: Agriscience teachers perceived a low positive overall change in the support and assistance they receive due to restructuring from administration and state associations. Recommendation: Teachers need to communicate more closely with administration and state associations in order to develop a better understanding of their n eeds and the assistance they require. Implications: Individuals involved in the restructuring process need to understand that change is a slow process and that, overtime, positive results will occur. Program review should take place continuously in order to enhance communication among all stakeholders. 106 Research Question 5 What are Michigan agrisdence teachers' perceptions of various statements regarding program fadlities and equipment both before and after restructuring? Conclusion: Agrisdence teachers perceived a low positive overall change in fadlities and equipment after restructuring. Recommendation: As agrisdence programs change, funds need to be allocated for fadlities and equipment in order to bring programs in line with the agriscience philosophy and industry standards. Implications Change is a slow process. Individuals involved in restructuring need to realize that, overtime, positive results will occur. Facilities and equipment must change as the agriscience program is implemented. Without continuous improvement in fadlities and equipment, students will not be prepared to use the advanced technology of the future. Research Question 6 What are Michigan agriscience teachers' perceptions of various statements regarding advisory committees both before and after restructuring? Conclusion: Agriscience teachers perceived a substantial overall positive change in advisory committees after restructuring. Recommendations: Advisory committee members should represent the broad spectrum ofthe agriculture and natural resources industry. The committee should be involved in planning and conducting the restructuring process and in future review efforts. 107 Implication: If the advisory committee does not have a broad representa­ tion of members and is not involved in the restructuring or review process, the agriscience program will reflect only the philosophy and opinions of the agriscience teacher. Research Question 7 What are Michigan agriscience teachers* perceptions of various statements regarding availability of funds both before and after restructuring? Conclusion: Agriscience teachers agreed that funds are provided for instructional materials and professional activities but not for program facilities and equipment, FFA activities, or an extended contract. Recommendation: Special funds are needed for program facilities and equipment. The agriscience teacher should work closely with administration and the community to increase the financial support for FFA activities and an extended contract. Implication: Without proper facilities and equipment, students will not gain experience with the technology needed to make them productive members ofthe agricultural and natural resources industry. If the FFA is an integral part ofthe total agriscience program, students will have a broader educational experience. Research Question 8 What are Michigan agriscience teachers* perceptions of various statements regarding support from school personnel for the program both before and alter restructuring? 108 Conclusion: Agriscience teachers perceived a moderate positive overall change in support from school personnel for the program after restructuring. Recommendation: Agriscience teachers should continue to involve other school personnel in an advisory role to enhance the local program. Implication: Through partnerships with other school personnel, agrisdence content can be infused throughout the entire school. Research Question 9 What are Michigan agrisdence teachers* perceptions of various statements regarding the restructuring process? Conclusions Agriscience teachers agreed that the Standards for Excellence was a valuable tool during the restructuring process. Teachers disagreed that the reason for restructuring was just for additional funds. Agrisdence teachers agreed that the change to agrisdence w as a positive move. They slightly agreed that the Standards for Excellence encouraged the updating of the agrisdence program's philosophy statement. Recommendations: The Standards for Excellence should be used a s a tool during restructuring in the future, as well a s during program evaluation. The Standards for Excellence should be reviewed and updated periodically. Implication: The Standards for Excellence is a useful tool for a compre­ hensive review of agrisdence and natural resources programs. It can also be used a s a model for other disdplines to use during a restructuring or review process. 109 Research Question 10 Is there a relationship between selected characteristics of Michigan agrisdence teachers and their perceptions of various aspects related to the Standards for Excellence? Conclusion: There was little relationship between selected characteristics of Michigan teachers and various aspects related to the Standards for Excellence. In other words, such characteristics as gender, age of respondents, years teaching, teaching location, involvement on writing teams, living in the community in which they teach, and number of formal committee meetings held had little relationship to respondents’ perceptions of various aspects related to the Standards for Excellence. Recommendations for Further Research The following recommendations, which arose directly or indirectly from this study, are made for future research in this area: 1. A longitudinal study should be conducted to determine Michigan agriscience teachers' perceptions of the effect of restructuring five years from now. 2. A qualitative study should be conducted of teachers, students, administrators, and community members to further determine the effect that restructuring has had on the agriscience program, school, and community. 3. An analysis should be conducted, comparing the change process that occurs in school restructuring with the change process that takes place in business and industry. 110 Reflections This study w as undertaken to determine th e effect of the Standards for Excellence on restructuring local agriscience programs in Michigan secondary schools, a s perceived by Michigan's agriscience teachers. The Standards for Excellence w as the restructuring tool that w as used a s the framework for change. The researcher also used the Standards for Excellence a s a guide in developing this study. The findings from this study support and enhance concepts that were identified in the literature review. Restructuring of Michigan's agriscience programs w as a process that required the raising of stated and performed standards. The standards that were reviewed and evaluated involved the agriscience teacher a s well a s administrators, parents, business personnel, community members, and other teaching faculty. Such involvement w as supported by Magisos (1984). The partnership that was developed empowered the community to direct the focus of the program. Individuals were challenged to develop and implement a program that would have a long-term commitment to fundamental systemic change. To achieve lasting change, individuals directly involved in the program must have a vested interest in its success. The Standards for Excellence enabled members of the local community to overhaul and redirect the entire agriscience program. To make restructuring meaningful, a system of accountability must be used. Standards can be designed to establish a base for quality education for all 111 agriscience students. These standards can be used as a tool to evaluate how well the program is functioning and to identify needed improvements. This concept was supported by the Michigan Department of Education (1991). As agriscience programs are restructured, the standards that are in place today must be reviewed and updated regularly. Campbell and Panzano (1985) indicated that standards are influenced by present knowledge and opinion. The Standards for Excellence provided a framework for change. Fullan (1991) noted that the change process takes place over a long period of time and that the initial stages of change entail anxiety and uncertainty. Many questions need to be answered during this stage: 1. Why is it necessary to change agricultural education to agriscience? 2. What will be involved in the change process (Standards for Excellence)? 3. Will the new focus on agriscience succeed or fail at the local level? 4. What factors will affect the process? 5. What will the new programs look like? 6. What new training will teachers need? For change to occur, ongoing technical assistance is crucial. Agriscience teachers need to learn new skills and acquire further knowledge to address the requirements of the new program. Facilities and equipment will need to be updated, as well. Pressure to redirect the programs has come from the teachers’ peers, administrators, community leaders, and state agencies. Agrisdence 112 teachers understand why restructuring is essential for the future and are willing to make systemic change. Issues such a s desire to maintain the status quo, teachers' lack of skills and knowledge, fear of change, politics, and funding are all barriers that need to be addressed in order for a complete restructuring to take place. Agriscience teachers in Michigan perceive that change has occurred. It is important to note that additional changes will be needed In the future. Support from local communities, school districts, Michigan State University, and the Michigan Department of Education will continue to be important. APPENDICES APPENDIX A LETTER OF APPROVAL FROM THE UNIVERSITY COMMITTEE ON RESEARCH INVOLVING HUMAN SUBJECTS 113 M IC H IG A N STATE U N I V E R S I T Y Stptamber 14, 1993 TO: R adyShnN M i Dm Knm» 410 Agriculture Hall RE: IRB #: 93-430 TITLE: AN INVESTIGATION OF THE AGRISCIENCE AND NATURAL RESOURCES EDUCATION CURRICULUM AND THE RESTRUCTURING PROCESS REVISION REQUESTED: N/A CATEGORY: 1-C APPROVAL DATE: September 13, 1993 The Univeraity Committee on Reeeercb Involving Human Subject!’ (UCRIHS) review of this project u rnmpletr. I am pleaaad to adviae that the right* and welfare of the i w tub)ecu appear to be adequately protected and method! to obtain informed content are appropriate. Therefore, the UCRIHS approved thia project including any reviakm liaterl above. Renewal: UCRIHS approval ia valid for one «~»L* ~ y e a r , hegiwiim with the approval date ehown above. Invaeligaion planning to continue a project beyond oae year rauat uae the encloeed form to teak updated certification. There ia a maximum of four auch expedited reaewala poenble. Inveatigatora wiahing to continue a project beyond that time need to eubtnit it again for complete review. Reviakm*: UCRIHS must review any changee in procedure* involving human aubjecta, prior to initiation of the change. If thia i* done at the time of renewal, pleaae uae the eodoe'd form. To reviee an approved protocol at any other time during the year, eeod y i written mqueet to the UCRIHS Chair, mquaating revived approval and referencing the prpjecl'a IRB # and title. Include in your mqueet a deacnption of the change and any revived inatnimenta, conaent forma or advertiaemaoU that am applicable, the year, pleaae outline the propoeed mviaiooa in a letter to the Commiltee. OFFICE OF RESEARCH A M D G R A D U A TE STUDIES ■Mtak M icftigei SM rUnfyersry Should either of die following aria* during foe coume of the work, inveatigatora muet notify UCRIHS promptly: (I) pmhlame (unexpected aide effocta, complaint*, etc) involviag human aubjecta or (2) changee in the reeearch enviroamant or new information indicating gmatar riak to the human aubjecta than eaiatad whan the protocol waa pmviouaty reviewed and approved. If wn can be o f any future help, pleaae do not beaitate to contact ut at (SI7) 355-2180 or FAX (317) 336-1171. 225 AdmmoW bor BuMMg £munmg, Michion 48S24-1ME Sincerely, S I7/3U -2W FM 517/336-1171 . Wright. UCRIHS Chair DEW:pjm cc: N SU ttw eem M -iew ft a g u * < * p e r iM y ia M b M n Dr. Carroll H. Wanfooff APPENDIX B SURVEY INSTRUMENT 114 An Investigation of the Agriscience and Natural Resources Education Curriculum and the Restructuring Process s r M / L K I C H I G A N ARRISCIENGE & NATURAL RE S O U R C E S B D U C U B C B I A T I . C U L O N U M Michigan S ta te University Agricultural & Extension Education 115 An Investigation of 1f» Agrtsetaneo and Natural Resources Curriculumand Raatruduring Procaaa BACKGROUND; Over the past three years agricultural education in the state of Michigan has gone through dramatic reform. Extensive time and effort has been devoted to the development of the Michigan Agriacience and Natural Resources Education curriculum. This reform has been made possible through efforts of local agrisdence instructors, business and industry, MSU, MDE and others. PURPOSE: By carefully and honestly filling out this questionnaire, you will be providing valuable information that will assist in the future direction of the Michigan Agrisdsnca and Natural Resources Education curriculum and program reform. It Is critical that the information provided is factual. Your confidential response by no means will have a negative effect. The information being gathered will be used to improve future program development. BIBECTIONSt Answer each question ss accurately as you can. Many questions can be answered by circling the item that best describes your opinion or situation. A few questiona will require a written response. If you do not understand a question please ask Randy Showerman or Dave Krueger for assistance. All answers will be kept completely confidential. Example 1: Please indicate the extant to which you agree or disagree with each of the following statements. If you Firmly Disagree, circle 1 If you Disagree, drde 2 If you Slightly Disagree, drde 3 If you Slightly Agree, circle 4 If you Agree, circle 5 If you Firmly Agree, circle 6 FD D SD SA A FA 1 2 3 4 8 6 I enjoy teaching agrisdence. (The respondent agrees with the statement. I Example 2: Please indicate to what extent you use/or used the following verbs during the educational process. If you Never used, drde 1 If you Seldom used, drde 2 If you Sometimes used, drde 3 If you Often used, drde 4 If you Always used, drde 5 Before Restructuring N S S O O A 1 1 2 3 4 i 2 ..,'3 \ 4 ', «•' After Rsstructuring N S SO O Debate Identify 1 2 3 3 A 4 . 5 4 B 116 Hava you flono through iho "Restructuring Proeooo1 *? (Chock ono) Ym _____ No (Hyou hovo QflJgono through tho Rostnicturing Proeow plo«Mrespond only to portions of the questions rotated to "Before Reetructurkig.") Pert I- Written Phlosophy 1. Does your district hove e written philosophy ststement for the egriscience end neturel resources program? (Check one) Yes No If "NO" skip to question #9. What ere your perceptions of various statements in relationship to philosophy? Please indicate your level of agreement with the following comments. (PD - Firmly Disagree; D - Disagree; SD - Slightly Disagree; SA - Slightly Agree; A - Agree; FA » Firmly Agree) FD D SD SA A FA 1 2 3 4 S 6 2. The Agriscience and Natural Resources Education program philosophy statement Is consistent with the district*a/LEA's philosophy statement. 1 2 3 4 B 6 3. The Agriscience and Natural Resources Education Program philosophy statement is consistent with the Michigan Agrisctance and Natural Reaourees Education philosophy Statement. 1 2 3 4 8 6 4. The Standards for Excellence encouraged the review committee to update the existing philosophy statement. 1 2 3 4 9 8 4 5. The new philosophy statement was used in developing programgoals. 1 2 3 4 8 8 6. The new philosophy statement was used in designing programcontent. 1 2 3 4 6 8 7. The new philosophy statement was used in implementing the program. 1 2 .3 4 8 6 8. The new philosophy statement was used in evaluating the program. 117 Part II - Changu in Secondary Instmetlonal Program PlaaM indicata what courao titlaa wara uaad in your school's coursa catalog or coursa listing bafora and aftar restructuring and if you ara utilizing the basic and/or sdvancad curriculum guides aftar restructuring. EkH Courss Thlaa Before Restructuring Cam Course TMas After Restructuring Course BMlS AdvewceJ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ Saiifi Advanced □ Non-Ag: (List) □ □ □ Non-Ag: (List) Second Semester Course TMee Before Restructuring Cam Non-Ag: (List) figunt Non-Ag: (List) □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ 118 10. Whan teaching, to what extent do you perceive ualng the following Agriseience and Natural Reaources Curriculum Guidea? (Enter the appropriate percentage.! Natural Reaources and Michigan Agriculture (1001 Plant Science (2001 Animal Science (300) Business Management and Marketing (400) Landscape Design and Construction (AS200C) Advanced Floriculture (AS200D) Advanced Animal Science (AS300A) Equine (AS300B) Small Animal Science (AS300C) 11. % % % % % % % % % Please indicate what type of credit your courses receive before and after restructuring. (Check all that apply) Before Restructuring 12. After Restructuring General Education__________________ Vocational Education_________ _____ Science____________________________ Mathematics_______________________ Speech_____________________________ Economics_________________________ Business___________________________ Other____________________ _____ In your classroom instruction, when evaluating students, pleaae indicate to what extent you perceive you used/use the following verbs from Bloom's Taxonomy: (N - Never; S -Seldom; SO - Sometimes; O - Often; A - Always) Btfflrt Rtttnictlfrtna N S S O O A After Restructuring N S S O O A 1 2 3 4 B Apply................ 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 Appraise.............. 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 6 Collect.............. 1 2 3 4 6 1 2 3 4 S Define................ 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4- 8 Demonstrate........... 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 Describe.............. 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 V Design.............. 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 1 2 3 3 4 4 5 5 Evaluate.............. 1 Examine.............. 1 2 2 3 4 5 3 4 6 1 2 3 4 8 Explain.............. 1 2 3 4 8 1 2 3 4 6 List................. 1 2 3 4 5 119 13. Please indicate to what extent you parcaiva you uaad/uaa tha following instructional methods during tha educational process. (N - Never; S -Seldom; SO - Sometimes; O - Often; A - Always) Before Restmclurina N S SO 0 A 1 2 3 ' 4 8 1 2 8 ' 4 3 1 2 , 3 .. 4.. ■ ' 4 1 2 8 • 3 1 .2 3 4 8 1 2 4 \ :8‘< 3 1 2 3 4 8 1 2 3 4 ■ 8 1 2 3 4 8 1 2: 3 4 8 1 2 4 8 3 1 2 4 8 3 4 1 2 6 3 1 2 3 4 8 1 2 6 3 4 1 2 4 3 6 3 1 2 4 8 3 1 2 • 4:■ 8 1 2 3 A 6 14. After Restructuring N S SO 0 .................... Casa Study.......................... .......................... Field Trips.......................... . . . Interactive Telecommunications . .. .................... .............................Role Play ............................ . . Supervised Agricultural Experiences . ............................. Writing.................................................... 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 6 8 8 8 6 6 6 8 5 8 5 6 6 6 6 8 6 5 6 Please indicate if your curriculum was approved by the following groups before and after restructuring. (Check all that apply) Before Restructuring 15. Problem Solving.................... 1 1 1 V 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 A After Restructuring Vocational Committee ____ Curriculum Committee ____ Science Committee ____ Administration ____ School Board ____ Agriscience Advisory Committee ____ Other (Please specify)____________________ Was your curriculumofficially articulated with other postsecondary programs before and after Restructuring?: (Check all that apply) Before Restructuring MSU Community Colleges After Restructuring ____ ____ 120 16. Pleat* Indicate to what extent you perceive you were/are integrating concept* and principle* taught in: IN ■ Never; S •Seldom; SO - Sometime*; O - Often; A ■ Always) Stfga ReitnirtUrtofl N S SO O A 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 17. 2 '3 2 3 2 3 2 3 3 2 2 3 3 2 2 3 .2: 3 2 3 2 . 3 ■ 8 ■8-. '8 ' S' 6 8 A- ' 8 : 4 ' 8 ... 4 : 6: 4,; . 8 . 4 4 4■4 4 4 4 After Reatmcturlno N S SO O A ..............................Business..................... ..................... Communications . . . . ........................... Economics............... ........................ English............... ..............................Fin* Arts ............. ........................ Health ............... .................... Mathematics........... ...................... Reading............. ...................... Science............. .................. Social Sciences . . . . Other ((Please Soeeifv) ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 ' 2 ' 2 ,2 2 2 2 2 .2 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 ■4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 8 8 8 5 5 5 5 5 6 6 8 Pleaae indicate to what extent you perceive you were/are using information suggested from the Michigan Department of Education. (N - Never; S -Seldom; SO - Sometimes; 0 - Often; A - Always) Before Rcimicturinfl N S S O O A 1 2 3 .4 8 1 2 1.3;-: 4 8 1 2 a 3 -4 1 2 3 4 8 :4 1 2 ' 3 .■ 8 1 2 3 4 6 1 2 4 8 3 1 -2.. 3 4 . 5 1 .2 4 3 8 1 :\2; 3 4 8 1 2.. 3 4 8 1 2 3 4 8 1 2 3 :4 8 1 2 '3 4 ■ ■ ■8 1 2 8 3 48 1 2 3 4 8 1 2 3 1 2 3 .•4-::. 8 1 2 3 4 81 2 3 4 8 1 2 3' ■4- .'.8 : 1 2 3 - 4-.:;, 8-. 1 2 3 ! ■4 8 I After Restructuring N S S O O A .....................Agricultural Marketing....................... .... Animal Anatomy and Physiology . . . . ............Animal Ganatlcs and Breeding............... . . . . Domestic Animal* and Products . . . . . . . Economics &Natural Resource in Ag Impact of Society on ANR &Animal Welfare ........................Land Measurement........................... . . . Livestock Selection and Evaluation . . . .............. Plant Nutrition........................... ..................Soil and Plant Structure...................... 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 t 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 22 2 2 2 2 2 :2 2 2 2 2 2 2 ■2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 4 6 ■4 5 4 5 4 5 4 5 4 8 4 6 4 8 4 8 4 6 4- 8 4 6 4; 8 4 8 4 ■ ■5 4 6 4■ ■ 8. 5 .4 4 8 5 4 4 B 4 8 4 8 121 What arayour perceptions of various statements in relationship to tha FFAand SAEbefore and after restructuring? Flaaaa indicate your level of agreement. (FD « Firmly Disagree; D - Disagree; SD - Slightly Disagree; SA - Slightly Agree; A - Agree; FA - FirmlyAgree) FD D SD SA A FA 1 2 3 A FD m BSI S. 1 2 3 ' 4 B S 19. 1 3 . A S S 20. 2 12 3 A B B 1 2 3 A B 21. S 22. 23. 1 2 After Beetmeturlna D SD SA A FA 3 A BS 24. 1 2 3 A BS 25. 1 2 3 A BB 26. 1 2 3. B B 27. The local FFAchapter is an integral and intracurrieuiar part of the instructional program. The local FFAchapter has a written Programof Activities that is integral to the Agriseience and Natural Resources curriculum. The local FFAchapter is provided scheduled class time Inwhich members participate in chapter activities. The local FFAchapter has a process to record Individual student participation inFFAactivities. The local FFAchapter conducts monthly chapter meetings. What percent of the students in your Agriculture programwere/are involved inthe FFA? %Before Restructuring %After Restructuring 8 3 B 6 5 8 SAE All students are encouraged to have an SAEprogram. SAEprograms engage students in activities that ara related to their career objectives. SAEprograms engage students in activities that are related to the instructional program. SAEprograms count toward credits for graduation. 3 8 4 5 6 2 .3 2 3 2 2 2 2 2 A B 3 3 A B 3 A 8 3 . A 8 3 4:- ' 6 A 8 3 A SAEprograms htdudo actflvW ee 1 2 "2 »A-;,'S;: :..S: 2S 1 '3 '3; 29 1 2 '3f -4T B'J* 30. 1 2' 3 - A: ''B*VB 31. 1 2 3 A B B 32. 1 2 /3:.- -=A:>VB::^ 33. 34. Collections ANRCommunications Mentoring/Shadowing Ag Production Ownership Ag Business Placement What percent of tha students in your Agriculture programhad/have an SAEproject? %Before Restructuring %After Restructuring 1 1 1 t 1 1 B S B 6 8 ■s.- 122 Port U • Effect on Student Stylo— What are your perception* of various statements Inrelationship to tha affect on student services before and after restructuring? Please indicate your level of agreement. Blfgrt WfttniQMdPft FD D SO SA A PA 1 2 3 : 4^ :8 1 3 1 2 1 2 1 2 2 35. Guidance personnel in the local school district provide students with information regarding the Agriscience and Natural Resources Education program. 1 2 3 4 5 4 8 :; S- 36. Guidance personnel inthe local school district encourage students to enroll in Agrisdence and Natural Resources Education programs. 1 2 3 4 5 6 3 4 8 6 37. Guidance personnel inthe local school district informstudents that the Agrisdence and Natural Resources Education curriculum will meet other graduation requirements such as science. 1 2 3 4 8 6 3 4 8 6 36. Guidance personnel in the local schod district advise students about the opportunities in the Agriscience and Natural Resources Education industry. 1 3 4 5 6 3 :S After Restructuring FD D SD SA A FA 2 S 4 8 6 39. Avariety of agrisdence and nstural resources opportunities are provided for students to explore. 1 2 3 4 8 6 4 3 6 40. Enrollment policies are flexible to permit easy entry to and exit from the Agrisdence and Natural Resources Education program. 1 2 3 4 5 41. The curriculumaddresses the requirements of special needs students. 1 2 3 4 * '• 6 4 6 6 42. The curriculumia relevant to all populations. 1 2;: - 3 4 6 8 6 5 v -6 123 Part IV- Support and Aaatatanoa for tha Agrladanca and Natural Resources Taachar What arayour perceptions of various statements in relationship to the support and assistance tor the Agriculture and Natural Resources teacher before and after restructuring? Please indicate your level of agreement. (FD “ FirmlyDiaagree; D - Disagree; SD - Slightly Disagree; SA - Slightly Agree; A - Aorae; FA ■ FirmlyAgrael —BtfOT Bfttnisturins FD D SD SA A FA After W eatmcturtno FD D SD SA A FA 1 2 S 4, S S 43. Iattend courses, workshops, and 1 convention related activities that provide technical inservice inthe area of Agrisdence and Natural Resources Education. 1 2 3 4 6 S 44. I receive support fromthe school administration. f 2 1 2 3 4 8 S 46. I use a comprehensive list of community resources. 1 2 3: 4 8 8 46. 1 2 3 4 8 8 47. 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 4 3 3 4 S 6 1 .2 3 4 6 6 I utilize the local Agrisdence end Natural Resourcea Education advisory committee. 1 2 3 4 8 8 I promote the Agrisdence and Natural Resources Education programto community members. 1 2 3 4 8 6 8 S 48. I participate in regional meetings for Agrisdence and Natural Resources Education teachers. t .2 3 4 8 6 8 <'8 49. I partidpata inthe state teacher associations for Agrisdence and Natural Resources Education teachers. 2 .:3 4 8 8 ,3 '8 60. 2 3 Iactively seek new knowledge ‘1/ :2 :v-3 and ideas by reading professional publications. *4 2 8 6 124 tat V- Improvamsnt to FooW tioe/Epulpmont What are your percopttooi of various statements in relationship to improvement to facilities and equipment before and aftar restructuring? Pleaae indicate your level of agreement. (FD * Firmly Disagree; D - Disagree; SD - Slightly Disagree; SA - Slightly Agree; A - Agree; FA - FirmlyAgree! FD D SD SA A fter Restructuring FD D SD SA A FA A FA 1 2 3 4 '8 61. 1 2 3 "-4- 8 82. 1 2 3 ^4;% 8 8 83. 1 2 3 4 8 8 64. 1 2 3 ■4 8 8 66. 1 2 1 2 3 3 4-'. 8 4" '8 8 88. 8 87. 1 2 3 4-' 8 68. 1 2 ■:3 8 8 ' 8 59. Storage space iaprovided for equipment, instructional materials and supplies. Anagricultural library is available for student use. The Agriculture programreceives the total amount of added cost funds generated based on student enrollment. Instructional materials sre available for a variety of learning experiences. Current resource materials are Current textbooks are used. Equipment inthe department complements the course offerings. Supplies inthe department complement the course offering. Alibraryis maintained and kept current. 1 2 3 4 8 1 ;2 3 4 8 .8 1 2 3 4 S 3 1 2: 3 4 6 6 6 8 1 2 3 4 1 1 2 2 3 3 4 8 8 4 .8 8 1 2 3 4 8 8 1 2 3 4 8 8 n** Im*h '-W'Tltorv Includes: Bifpfl ntimiCtUFlng VOS ____No Yes ____No Yes ____No Yes ____No Yes ____No Yes ____No 60 61. 62. 63. 64. 65. Animal Facilities Greenhouse Nursery Floral Shop Natural Resources Ares Cropland 8 After Restructuring ____Yes ____No ____Yes ____No ____Yss ____No ____Yes ____No ____Yss ____No ____Yes ____No 125 Part VI- Changes inAdvisory Committees W hat arayour perceptions of various statements inrelationship to changes inthe advisory committee before and after restructuring? Please indicate your level of agreement. (FD - Firmly Disagree; D - Disagree; SD - Slightly Disagree; SA - Slightly Agree; A - Agree; FA - FirmlyAgreel FD D SD SA 1 2 3 A FA 4 S 6 FD D SD SA 66. The local advisory committee includes representstivee from agribusiness. 1 2 3 4 A FA 8 S 1 2 3 4 6 6 67. The local advisory committee includes representatives from production agriculture. 1 2 3 4 6 6 1 2 3 4 6 6 68. The local advisory committee includes representatives fromthe high school teaching staff. 1 2 3 4 8 6 1 2 3 4 8 6 69. The local advisory committee includes former students. 1 2 3 4 8 6 4 8 6 1 2 3 4 6 6 1 2 3 70. The local advisory committee includes parents. M. Advisory committee members are appointed for staggered terms. 1 2 3 4 8 8 72. The advisory committee meets a minimumof 3 times per yean 1 2 3 4 8 6 1 2 3 4 8 8 73. The advisory committee operates within the frameworkof written policies and bylaws. 1 2 3 4 6 6 1 2 3 4 6 6 74. Tha advisory committee reviews tha Agrisdence and Natural Resources Education program. 1 2 3 4 8 6 1 '■2 3 4 8 6 75. . 1 2 3 :4 8 6 76. The advisory committee makes recommendations to improve the Agrisdence and Natural Resources Education program. The advisory committoe actively supports the Agrisdence and Natural Resources Education program. 126 tat V M• Funding Availability What ara your perceptions of various statements in relationship to funding availability and school personnel support before and after restructuring? Please indicate your level of agreement. Before Restructuring FD D SO SA A FA 2 3 A B. 9 - 77. 1 ~2 3 A B ■9 78. 1 3 A 3 1 2 a 6 78. ' 3 A 2 3 A B 6 81. 2 3 A S S 82. 1 2 1 1 . ■ ■ ■ *" ' « 80. Funds are provided for upgrading programfacilities. Funds are provided for upgrading program equipment. Funds are provided for upgrading instructional materials. Funds are provided for an extended contract for the Agriscience and Natural Resources Education teacher. Funds are provided for FFA activities. Funds are provided for professional activities for the Agriscience and Natural Resources Education teacher. 6 ■9 1 2 1 2■3 4 B 6■ 1 2 3 A 6 • 1 2 3 A 6 6 1 2 3 ' A 8 6 1 2 3 3 4 A S 6- Part V IM• School Personnel Support 1 2 3 A 1 2 3 A 1 2 3 AO S 85. 1 3 4- 86. 2 1 2 1 2 1 3 S S S S 84. ,1 I' K A 83. S 6 87. 88. The high school teaching staff support the Agriscience and Natural Resources Education program. Administration recognize the FFA as an integral part of Die instructional program. The high school teaching staff recognize the FFAas an integral part of the instructional program. Adminiatraters actively attend FFAactivities. Other teachers encourage enrollment in the Agrisdence and Natural Resources Education program. Administrators encourage enrollment in tha Agrisdence and Natural Resources Education program. 1 2 1 2 3 4 B 6 3 A S 8 6 1 2 3 AS 1 2 3 A 2 3 A 5 2 3 A 1 1 S S 6 S 6 127 PMIX- General Reeuucturing Whit are your parcaptians of various atatemants in relationship to tha general restructuring process? Pfaasa indicate tha extant to which you agree or diaagree with each of tha following atatemants. (FD - Firmly Diaagree; D - Disagree; SO - Slightly Disagree; SA - Slightly Agree; A - Agree; FA ■ Firmly Agree) FD D SD SA A FA 1 , 2 3 8 • 1 2 3 6 S 90.a. 1 2 3 4 1 ' 2' 3 4 1 '2 3 A- 8 * 92. 1 2 3 4 8 6 93.a. 1 2 3 4 8 • 93.b. 1 2 3 4 8 6 94. 1 2’ 3 4-' 6 1 2 -4:- 3 1 . 2 • .3 1 3 4 4 4 6 • 90.b. 6 91. 96. ■ 6: 8 89. 96.a. 8 96.b. S 97. There is time to implement the Agrisdence snd Natural Resources Education curriculum. The Agrisdence and Natural Resources Education restructuring procaaa is a 'quick-fix* solution. The Agrisdence and Natural Resources Education curriculum has made a positive difference inthe local Agricultural Education Program. The Standards for Excellence was of value during tha restructuring process. The Agrisdence and Natural Resources Education curriculum project was developed fromthe grsssroots. MSU, AH personnel provided support for the development of the restructuring programand curriculumproject. MDE-OCTE personnel provided support for the development of the restructuring programand curriculum project. There are too many competing demands to infuse the Agrisdence and Natural Resources Education curriculuminto my local district. The only reason for restructuring the programwas for the added cost funding. The 86 hours to qualify to teach tha Agrisdence and Natural Resources Education curriculumwas of great assistance. Additional inservica hours should be required in the future. The change to agrisdence is a positive move. During the restructuring process, which phases were used7 (Check sHthat apply) 98. 99. 100. 101. 102. 103. Preparation Review Action Flan Implementation The ReviewCommittee members visited and observed the local agricultural education programinaction. The ReviewCommittee reviewed the support materials. Pan X- Personal Data (PsmoyapMce) 104. Gender (Check one) a. _____Male b. ____Female 105. Age of respondent: (include this year) ___________________years. 106. How many years have you been teaching agriculture? (Include thia year)____________yrs. 107. Ptaaae indicats the number of years incurrent teaching position; (Include this year).____________yrs. 128 108. Do you teach in a: (Check one) e._____comprehensive high school (go to question 110). b. _____career center (go to question 108). c. _____comprehensive high school that is a designated career center (go to question 109). 109. If you teach in a career center, what ia your specialty area? (Check all that apply) a. ____Floriculture b. ____Greenhouse c. Landscape d._____Ag Mechanics e. _____ Agrisdence f._____ Forestry 110. What percent of the day are you teaching Agrisdence and Natural Resources?___________ \________% 111. Oo you consider yourself a; (Check one) a. ____Production Agricultural Instructor b. ____Horticulture Instructor c. _____ Agrisdence Instructor d. ____Ag Mechanics Instructor 112. Please Indicate your highest degree completed. (Check one) a. ____High School Diploma b. ____Assodate's c. ____Bachelor's d. ____Masters e. ____Specialist f. _____Ph.D. g. ____Postdoctoral 113. Please indicate your current certification. (Check one) a. Secondary Provisional Certificate with Vocational Endorsements b. _____Permanent (Continuing) Certificate with Vocational Endorsements c. _____Temporary Vocational Authorization d. _____Full Vocational Authorization e. _____Annual Authorization 114. Please indicate if you are involved on any of the following distrietwide committees: (Check all that epply) a. _____Vocational Committee b. _____CurriculumCommittee c. _____Science Committee d. _____MathCommittee e. _____School Improvement f. _____ Negotiation Committee g. _____Other (Please specify) ___________ 115. Were you involved inthe development and/or writing of the Michigan Agriscience and Natural Resources Core Curriculum? (Check one) Yes No (Pisses continue on beck cover) 129 116. Were you Involved or did you serve on the Standards For Excellence development committee? (Check one)_____Yes No 117 . Please indicate the dockhours of inserviee/shadowing completed over the last three years. 118 . Do you currently have an FFAAlumni Chapter? (Check one) 119. Yes No Didyour advisory committee serve as your reviewcommittee? (Check one) 120. Yes No Is your FFAAlumni snd Advisory Committee the same group? (Check one) Yes No 1 21 . Is your advisory committee approved by the school administration? (Check one) Yes No 1 2 2. Do you live inthe community in which you teach? (Check one) 123. Yes _____No Your school district is considered: (Check one) a. 124. Hrs. Rural b. Urban c. Suburban During the restructuring process, how many formal committee meetings did you hold7 (Check one) a. _____one b. ___ two c. _____three d.____four e.____five f. _____ six or more 126. Howmany students are in your high school? ___________________ students. 12 6 . Please address any concerns or comments regarding the restructuring process and/or implementation of the Agrisdence and Natural Resources Education curriculum. Include any reaction toward modification of the curriculumor the Standards For Excellence. Thank you tor competing this quomttonnain. APPENDIX C SUPPLEMENTAL MATERIALS FOR SURVEY INSTRUMENT 130 Key Points * Instrument is long. * Instrument contains BEFORE and AFTER Question * Agriscience = Horticulture and Production Agriculture 131 SCALE * If you feel the question should be yes or no but is on a scale YES = (All the time) Firmly Disagree YES = (Most of the time) Agree NO = (Never happens) Firmly Disagree NO = (Most of the time) Disagree "At w hat level?" "Always a degree?" 132 Example 4: 10. When teaching, to what extent are you using the following Agriscience and Natural Resources Curriculum Guides? (Enter the appropriate percentage.) Natural Resources and Michigan Agriculture (100) _____% Plant Science (200) % Animal Science (300) % Business Management and Marketing (400) % Landscape Design and Construction % Advanced Floriculture (AS200D) % Advanced Animal Science (AS300A) % Equine (AS300B) % Small Animal Science (AS300C) % "PERCEPTION 133 Example 3: 11. Please indicate w hat type of credit your courses receive before and after restructuring. (Check all that apply) B efo re R e stru ctu rin g A fte r R estru ctu rin g _____ G eneral E ducation V o c a tio n a l E ducation _____ S c ien ce_______________ _____ M a th e m a tic s _____ S p eech _____ E conom ics _____ Business _____ O th e r "ACTUAL 134 Example 2: Please indicate to what extent you use/or used the following verbs during the educational process. If you Never used circle 1 If you Seldom used circle 2 If you Sometimes used circle 3 Before Restructuring N S SO O A 1 1 2 2 3 3 4 4 5 5 If you Often used circle 4 If you Always used circle 5 After Restructuring N S SO O A Debate Identify 1 1 2 2 PERCEPTION 3 3 4 4 5 6 5 6 135 Example 1: Please indicate the extent to which you agree or disagree with each of the following statements. If you Firmly Disagree circle 1 If you Disagree circle 2 If you Slightly Disagree circle 3 ED__D 1 2 SD SA A FA 3 4 5 6 If you Slightly Agree circle 4 If you A gree circle 5 If you Firmly Agree circle 6 I enjoy teaching agriscience. (The respondent agrees w ith th e sta tem en t.) PERCEPTION 136 * Perception is a combination of attitudes and experiences about "something"; therefore, all questions should be answered! * ANSWER ALL QUESTIONS PLEASE ANSWER EACH "FIVE AND SIX" POINT SCALE QUESTION WITH YOUR OWN PERCEPTION, NOT ACTUAL PRACTICE! APPENDIX D FIRST COVER LETTER 138 September 23, 1993 1- Dear 2-: Secondary agricultural education programs in Michigan have experienced drastic changes over the past several years. Currently, programs have completed restructuring to become Agriscience and Natural Resources programs. Part of this restructuring process included the adoption of the Michigan Agriscience and Natural Resources Curriculum. As a member of the agricultural education profession in Michigan, your use of and opinions about the curriculum and restructuring process are important. In order to improve the quality of Michigan's Agriscience and Natural Resources Programs, the return of your completed questionnaire is very important. You indicate your voluntary agreement to participate by completing and returning this questionnaire. You may be assured of complete confidentiality. The questionnaire has an identification number for mailing purposes only. This is so that we may check your name off of the mailing list when your questionnaire is returned. Your name will never be placed on the questionnaire. The results of the final questionnaire will be shared with the officers and members of the Michigan Association of Agriscience Educators, the Michigan Horticulture Teachers Association, and the Michigan Department of Education. Please return your completed questionnaire by October 8. 1993. in the enclosed self-addressed stamped envelope. Thank you for your assistance. Sincerely, Carroll H. Wamhoff Chairperson, AEE RS/dlv Dave Krueger Michigan FFA Foundation Executive Director Randy Showerman Instructor APPENDIX E POSTCARD REMINDER 139 Dear John: Last week you were mailed a Michigan Agriscience and Natural Resources Curriculum survey. If you have already completed and returned the survey, please accept our sincere thanks. If not, please do so as soon as possible. The return of your completed survey is important in order to determine teachers' perceptions of the Michigan ANR Curriculum and restructuring process. The opinions of Michigan teachers will be used to improve future curriculum development activities. If by some chance you did not receive the survey, or it got misplaced, you will receive another survey within the next two weeks. Sincerely, Dave Krueger & Randy Showerman APPENDIX F SECOND COVER LETTER 140 October 11, 1993 1~ Dear 2~: Two weeks ago you were mailed a questionnaire on Secondary Agricultural Education programs in Michigan. As of this writing, your response was not among the returned questionnaires. If you have returned the questionnaire, please disregard this letter. As a member of the agricultural education profession in Michigan, your use of and opinions about the curriculum and restructuring process are important. In order to improve the quality of Michigan Agriscience and Natural Resources Programs, the return of your completed questionnaire is very important. You indicate your voluntary agreement to participate by completing and returning this questionnaire. You may be assured of complete confidentiality. The questionnaire has an identification number for mailing purposes only. This is so that we may check your name off of the mailing list when your questionnaire is returned. Your name will never be placed on the questionnaire. We appreciate your help in completing the enclosed questionnaire and returning it in the enclosed envelope by October 15, 1993. Your response will provide essential information that will assist us in developing a viable and contemporary agricultural education program for the coming decade and beyond. If you have any questions concerning this survey form or study, please call Randy Showerman or Dave Krueger at (517) 355-6580. Thank you for your assistance. Sincerely, Carroll H. Wamhoff Chairperson, AEE RS/dlv Dave Krueger Michigan FFA Foundation Executive Director Randy Showerman Instructor APPENDIX G THIRD COVER LETTER 141 October 25, 1993 1- Dear 2-: Two weeks ago you were mailed a second questionnaire on Secondary Agricultural Education Programs in Michigan. As of this writing, your response was not among the returned questionnaires. If you have returned the questionnaire, please disregard this letter. As a member of the agricultural education profession in Michigan, your use of and opinions about the curriculum and restructuring process are important. In order to improve the quality of Michigan Agriscience and Natural Resources Programs, the return of your completed questionnaire is very important. You indicate your voluntary agreement to participate by completing and returning this questionnaire. You may be assured of complete confidentiality. The questionnaire has an identification number for mailing purposes only. This is so that we may check your name off of the mailing list when your questionnaire is returned. Your name will never be placed on the questionnaire. We appreciate your help in completing the enclosed questionnaire and returning it in the enclosed envelope by October 23, 1993. Your response will provide essential information that will assist us in developing a viable and contemporary agricultural education program for the coming decade and beyond. If you have any questions concerning this survey form or study, please call Randy Showerman or Dave Krueger at (517) 355-6580. Thank you for your assistance. Sincerely, Carroll H. Wamhoff Chairperson, AEE RS/dlv Dave Krueger Michigan FFA Foundation Executive Director Randy Showerman Instructor APPENDIX H FOURTH COVER LETTER 142 November 8, 1993 1Dear 2-: Two weeks ago you were mailed a third questionnaire on Secondary Agricultural Education Programs in Michigan. As of this writing, your response was not among the returned questionnaires. If you have returned the questionnaire, please disregard this letter. As a member of the agricultural education profession in Michigan, your use of and opinions about the curriculum and restructuring process are important. In order to improve the quality of Michigan Agriscience and Natural Resources Programs, the return of your completed questionnaire is very important. You indicate your voluntary agreement to participate by completing and returning this questionnaire. You may be assured of complete confidentiality. The questionnaire has an identification number for mailing purposes only. This is so that we may check your name off of the mailing list when your questionnaire is returned. Your name will never be placed on the questionnaire. We appreciate your help in completing the enclosed questionnaire and returning it in the enclosed envelope by November 15, 1993. Your response will provide essential information that will assist us in developing a viable and contemporary agricultural education program for the coming decade and beyond. If you have any questions concerning this survey form or study, please call Randy Showerman or Dave Krueger at (517) 355-6580. Thank you for your assistance. Sincerely, Carroll H. Wamhoff Chairperson, AEE RS/dlv Dave Krueger Michigan FFA Foundation Executive Director Randy Showerman Instructor APPENDIX I STATEMENTS REGARDING PHILOSOPHY STATEMENT: SUPPLEMENTARY TABLES 143 Table 28: The local Agriscience and Natural Resources Education program philosophy statement is consistent with the district's/LEA's philosophy statement. Mean 5.15 8 Standard Deviation .664 I Table 29: The local Agriscience and Natural Resources Education program philosophy statement is consistent with the Michigan Agriscience and Natural Resources Education Philosophy statement. Mean Standard Deviation 5.188 .607 1 | Table 30: The new philosophy statement was used in developing program goals. 1Mean | Standard Deviation 4.400 1 ___________________ Table 31: The new Philosophy statement was used in designing program content. D Mean U Standard Deviation 4.318 1.026 144 Table 32: The new philosophy statement was used In Implementing the program. I Mean | Standard Deviation 235 4. 1.109 I | Table 33: The new philosophy statement was used in evaluating the program. Mean_____________ Standard Deviation 4.294_________________ I 1.173 APPENDIX J STATEMENTS REGARDING STUDENT SERVICES: SUPPLEMENTARY TABLES 145 Table 34: Guidance personnel In 'the local school district provide students with information regarding the agriscience and natural resource program. Before After Mean 3.509 4.117 £12 1.370 1.300 £-Value 5.98 Sig. of i .000* 1 I 1 * E < .05 Table 35: Guidance personnel in the local school district encourage students to enroll in Agriscience and Natural Resources Education programs. 1 1 Before | After Mean 3. 166 3 .803 £12 1. 306 1.320 Value 6.91 Sig. of £ .000* 1 I 1 * E < -05 Table 36: Guidance personnel in the local school district inform students that the Agriscience and Natural Resources Education curriculum will meet other graduation requirements such as science. r Mean £12 £—Value Sig. of £ | Before 3.326 1.594 4.56 .000* I After 3.861 1.662 * E < -05 146 Table 37: Guidance personnel In the local school district advise students about the opportunities in the Agriscience and Natural Resources Education industry. Mean Before 2.647 After 3.088 SB 1.279 1.394 £-Value 6.26 Sig. of £ 1 .000* I I * E < .05 Table 38: 1 A variety of agriscience and natural resources opportunities are provided for students to explore. 1 Before Mean 3.627 SB 1.210 | After 4.678 1.208 Value 4.85 Sig. of £ I .000* I 1 * E < -05 Table 39: Enrollment policies are flexible to permit easy entry and exit from the Agriscience and Natural Resources Education program. Mean Before After * E < .05 3.764 4.068 SB 1.581 1.543 %rValue 3.75 Sig. of £ R .000* I I 147 Table 40: The curriculum addresses the requirements of special needs students. Before After Mean 4.167 4.382 £12 1.235 1.161 t-Value 4.05 Siq. of £ 1 .000* 1 I * E < .05 Table 41: The curriculum is relevant to all populations. Before After * E < .05 Mean 4.274 4.686 £12 1.170 1.053 £-Value 5.36 Sig. of £ | .000* I I APPENDIX K STATEMENTS REGARDING SUPPORT AND ASSISTANCE FOR THE AGRISCIENCE AND NATURAL RESOURCES TEACHER: SUPPLEMENTARY TABLES 148 Table 42: I attend courses, workshops, and conventionrelated activities that provide technical inservice in the area of Agriscience and Natural Resources Education. Before After Mean 5.127 5.392 £12 1.166 .924 £-Value 2.83 Sig. of £ | .000* I 1 * E < .05 Table 43: I receive support from the school administration. Before After Mean 4.735 4.794 £12 1.151 1.261 £-Value Sig. of £ 1 .52 .604 I H Table 44: I use a comprehensive list of community resources. Mean Before 4.284 After 4.500 * E < .05 £12 1.093 1.012 £-Value Sig. of £ .359 .001* 149 Table 45: I utilize the local Agriscience and Natural Resources Education Advisory committee. Before After Mean 4.029 4.588 £12 1.452 1.172 t-Value Sig. of £ 4.84 .000* * E < .05 Table 46: I promote the Agriscience and Natural Resources Education program to community members. Before After Mean 4.617 4.941 £12 1.081 1.003 Jfe-Value 3 .86 Sig. of £ .000* | 1 1 £ < .05 Table 47: X participate in regional meetings for Agriscience and Natural Resources Education teachers. Before After * E < .05 Mean 4.735 4.921 £12 1.364 1.158 t-Value 2.18 Sig. of £, 1 .032* I I 150 Table 48: I participate in the state teacher associations for Agriscience and Natural Resources Education teachers. Before After Mean sa t “Value 4.784 4.823 1.487 1.46 Sig. of £ .649 1.452 1 1 1 Table 49: I actively seek new knowledge and ideas by reading professional publications. r 1Before | After * E < .05 Mean 5.00 5.245 sa 1.143 .999 Value 4.48 Sig. of £ .000* APPENDIX L STATEMENTS REGARDING IMPROVEMENT TO FACILITIES/ EQUIPMENT: SUPPLEMENTARY TABLES 151 Table 50: Storage apace la provided for equipment, instructional materials and supplies. Before After Mean 3.970 4.117 £12 1.323 1.374 £-Value 1.60 Sig. of £ .112 Table 51: An Agricultural library isi available for student use. Before After Mean 3.715 3.990 £12 1.431 1.418 £-Value Sig. of £ 3.85 .000* * E < .05 Table 52: The Agriculture program receives the total amount of added cost funds generated based on student enrollment. Before After * E < .05 Mean 3.224 4.588 £12 1.226 1.187 £-Value Sig. of £ 4.85 .000* 152 Table 53: Instructional materials are available for a variety of learning experiences. Before After Mean 4.225 4.588 jfc“Value 4.85 1.226 1.189 Sig. of £ .000* * E < .05 Table 54: Current resource materials are used. Before Hean 4.588 .989 After 4.941 .742 £-Value SB 5.00 Sig. of £ .000* * E < .05 Table 55: Current textbooks are used. Before Hean 3.861 After 4.158 SB £-Value Sig. of £ 1.421 1.481 2.69 .008* * E < .05 Table 56: Equipment in the department complements the course offerings. Before After * E < -05 Hean 4.089 4.356 SB 1.209 1.171 £-Value 2.61 Sig. of £ .010* 153 Table 57: Supplies in the department complement the course offerings. Before After Hean 4.118 4.306 £12 1.098 1.120 £ -Value 2.24 Sig. of £ .028* * E < .05 Table 58 A library is maintained and kept current. Hean Before |After 3.754 3.921 £-Value 1.270 1.340 2.26 Sig. of £ .026* * E < .05 Table 59: Land laboratory facilities changes. Before N % A1fter Z r Value Sig. of £ —1.690 .091 .024* .735 .317 .003* .424 Animal Facilities 34 29.3% N 39 Greenhouse Nursery Floral Shop 52 26 27 44.8% 22.4% 61 27 52.5% 23.2% Nat Res Area Crop Land 65 23.2% 56% 28 75 24% 64.6% -2.242 -.338 -1.000 -2.934 59 51% 54 46.5% -.800 *E < .05 % 33.6% 1 1 APPENDIX M STATEMENTS REGARDING CHANGES TO ADVISORY COMMITTEE: SUPPLEMENTARY TABLES 154 Table 60: The local advisory committee Includes representatives from agribusiness. Before After Mean 4.642 5.183 SU 1.459 .912 £-Value 5.07 Sig. of £ .000* * E < .05 Table 61: The local advisory committee includes representatives from production agriculture. Before After Mean 4.204 4.622 SR 1.827 1.563 £-'Value 3.53 Sig. of £ .001* * E < *05 Table 62: The local advisory committee includes representatives from the high school teaching staff. 1 1 Before | After * E < *05 Mean 3.175 3.969 SR 1.756 1.811 £-Value 6.06 Sig. of £ .000* 155 Table 63: The local advisory commit-tee includes former students. Before After Hean 4.340 4.979 sn 1.547 1.172 £-Value 4.78 Sig. of £ .000* * E < .05 Table 64: The local advisory committee includes parents. Before After * E < Mean 4.229 4.697 £12 1.732 1.452 £-Value 3.76 Sig. of £ .000* -05 Table 65: Advisory committee members are appointed for staggered terms. | | Before Mean 3 .526 | After 3.915 £12 1.762 1.724 £-Value 3.35 Sig. of £ .001* * E < *05 Table 66: The advisory committee meets a minimum of three times per year. Before After * E < *05 Mean 3.500 3.946 £12 1.677 1.527 £-Value 4.00 Sig. of £ .000* D H 1 156 Table 67: The local advisory committee includes representatives from production agriculture. Before After Mean 3.500 3.946 £12 1.677 £-Value 4.00 Sig. of £ .000* 1.527 1 1 1 * E < .05 Table 68: The local advisory committee includes representatives from the high school teaching staff. 1 t-Value Mean Sig. of £ £12 1 Before 1 4.157 4.778 1.587 After 5.86 .000* * E < .05 Table 69: The local advisory committee includes former students. 1 Before | After Mean 4.505 5.031 £12 1.450 1.036 £-Value 5.31 Sig. of £ .000* * £ < .05 Table 70: The local advisory committee includes parents. 1 1 Before | After * E < .05 Mean 4.821 5.168 £12 1.360 .996 £-Value 3.23 Sig. of £ .002* 1 1 I 157 Table 71: Funds are provided for upgrading program facilities. Before Mean 3.485 After 3.663 SB 1.331 1.416 t-Value 1.63 Sig. of £ .106 Table 72: Funds are provided for upgrading equipment. MEAN Before After 3.673 3.792 STANDARD DEVIATION 1.274 1.321 T-VALUE SIGN. OF T 1.28 .203 Table 73: Funds are provided for upgrading instructional materials. Before After Mean SB 3.990 4.158 1.179 £-Value 1.94 Sig. of £ .055 1.223 Before After Mean 3.660 3.490 £12 1.940 2.018 £-Value Sig. of £ i H • Q\ * Table 74: Funds are provided for an extended contract for the Agriscience and Natural Resources Education teacher. .104 APPENDIX N STATEMENTS REGARDING FUNDING AVAILABILITY: SUPPLEMENTARY TABLES 158 Table 75: Funds are provided for FFA Activities. Before After Hean 3.240 3.470 £12 1.724 1.823 £-Value Sig. of £ • .009* 2.67 * E < .05 Table 76: Funds are provided for professional activities for the Agriscience and Natural Resources Education teacher. Before After Mean 4.720 4.740 £12 1.092 1.252 £-Value .180 Sig. of £ .856 APPENDIX O STATEMENTS REGARDING SCHOOL PERSONNEL SUPPORT: SUPPLEMENTARY TABLES 159 Table 77: The high school beaching staff support the Agriscience and Natural Resources Education program. Before After Mean EE t-Value Sig. of £ 1 4.107 4.588 1.160 .937 5.40 .000* 1 I * E < .05 Table 78: Administration recognize the FFA as an integral part of the instructional program. Mean Before After 3.941 4.323 £12 1.610 1.536 £-Value 3.26 Sig. of £ .002* * E < .05 Table 79: The high school teaching staff recognize the FFA as an integral part of the instructional program. Mean Before After * E < .05 3.715 4.058 £12 1.550 1.521 £-Value Sig. of £ 1 4.32 .000* 1 I 160 Table 80: Administrators actively attend FFA activities. 3.068 1.659 1.702 t-Value VI SD * 1 Before | After Mean 3.019 • 1 Sig. of £ .654 Table 81: Other teachers encourage enrollment in the Agriscience and Natural Resources Education program. Before After Mean SD 3.158 3.475 1.198 1.238 t-Value 4.42 Sig. of £ .000* H 1 * E < .05 Table 82: Administrators encourage enrollment in the Agriscience and Natural Resources education program. Mean Before After * E < .05 3.752 4.039 SD 1.260 1.256 Value 2.93 Sig. of £ I .004* 1 I APPENDIX P TEACHER COMMENTS 161 Teacher's Comments "The technical hours have been very beneficial. It helps get teachers released." "We are actively working on integrating agriscience with other areas in hope of having it become part of a core program." "I have 100 science students and approximately 50 agriscience students, so agriscience is not where I can spend most of my time — but I still attend all of the meetings etc. of agriscience teachers. We need time to implement all of the changes — time during the school day." "We need continued inservice. One day would be better than the two days in September. We need one in the fall and one in late winter. We need to continue to have teachers sharing with teachers on things that worked for me'." "I felt it was important to review our program." "Restructuring didn't really change us a lot. clustered and FFA has helped." We have "The support of MSU and FFA has been great! We only use the floriculture curriculum (and it needs to be rewritten). The other curriculum guides seem to be written toward a particular area. For example, the business needs to be made generic for all areas. Not that much has changed since restructuring, except for clustering with the landscape/greenhouse program, which was dictated to use anyway by the school." "I believe the switch to agriscience was long overdue, but with my particular setup of two hours ag classes, one 8th grade and two regular science, I was incorporated already to some extent using agriscience principles into my curriculum before this "switch" was made." "Improve inservice, make them more science and lab oriented and less production oriented." "Overall, it is a positive step forward. State support would make it much more effective. Full articulation with Ferris and HSU for ag science programs will help the process and encourage higher level of high schoolers to enter our field." "Any time an administrator is forced into reviewing a program is a wonderful opportunity for teacher to obtain improvements and to show off their successes." "Time well spent." 162 "The materials need to be streamlined to become more user friendly." "More communication with school administrators to let them know (from MSU) what we are dong and that it is time consuming. Teacher release time may be in order." "There is no teeth in it. Not much changed. please the funding process." It was done to "If you decide that additional hours are needed, seek the support and/or approval of the MAAE Board of Directors. Do not mandate." "I applaud the intention and general outline of the process. It allows for individuality on the local level, but to be honest I don't feel that it did much else for positively growing programs (other than eat up some of our already previous time)." "I do not feel that the added cost money that was or is designated for our restructured program is going to our program. It is being absorbed by the district. People from the state level should put a stop to this." "Many of the improvements were not due to restructuring per say but restructuring opened eyes so changes happens. Much of our improvement was due to project pals." "Restructuring didn't really change us alot. clustered and FFA has helped." We have "It was a good and needed experience." "We don't see our added cost money, why does it go to I.S.D.?" "Put some teeth in how added cost dollars are spent at local school." "This process is only as good or valid as you make it." "I was really excited. I knew GOOD program without having to was needed for a GOOD program. than the first and most of the implementing the restructuring exactly what I needed for a take ten years to see what This year is alot better reason is from completing and process1" "The restructuring process was good in that it facilitated a comprehensive look at the local Agriscience program. I would like to see the implementation phase expanded from a three to a five year process. Could possibly have a shortened current status form to fill out at start of third year." 163 "I felt Standards For Excellence was a tool that helped during the restructuring process." "The Agriscience curriculum needs to be reviewed." "Development of the review teams helped to open the eyes of the other teachers in my school." "I hope we can review the program in the next three years. This will help to keep the program up-to-date." "The inservice workshops need to address the curriculum not technical training." "A great deal of change took place." REFERENCES REFERENCES Allport, F. H. (1955). Theories of perception and the concept of structure. New York: John Wiley & Sons. Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development (ASCD). (1991). Restructuring America’s schools. Alexandria, VA: Author. Attwood, M. L. (1984). Excellence in postsecondary vocational education. In S. H. Magisos (Ed.), Excellence in vocational education: Four levels, four perspectives. Columbus: ERIC Clearinghouse on Adult, Career, and Vocational Education, The Ohio State University. Bancroft, B. A., & Lezotte, L. W. (1985). Growing use of effective schools model for school improvement. Educational Leadership. 42, 23-27. Bencivenga, J. (1985, April 12). Tightening the agenda for U.S. schools. The Christian Science Monitor, p. 23. Bennis, W. G. (1966). Changing organization. New York: McGraw-Hill. Bennis, W., Benne, K., & Chin, R. (1985). The planning of change. New York: McGraw-Hill. Bobbitt, F., & Warmbrod. J. R. (1987). A report on the status and future direction of vocational-technical agriculture education in Michigan. Lansing: Michigan Department of Education. Bondi, W. (1989). Curriculum development. A guide to practice. Columbus, OH: Merrill Publishing. Boyer, E. L. (1983). High school: A report on American secondary education. Princeton, NJ: Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching. Boyer, E. L. (1988). An imperiled generation: Saving urban schools. Princeton, NJ: Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching. 164 165 Bracht, G. H., & Glass, G. V. (1968). The external validity of experiments. American Educational Research Journal. 5, 437-474. Brannon, D. R. (1985). Towards excellence in secondary vocational educationUslng evaluation results. Columbus: The Ohio State University, National Center for Research in Vocational Education. Brown, F. B. (1973). The reform of secondary education: A report to the public and the profession (National Commission on the Reform of Secondary Education, Kettering Foundation). New York: McGraw-Hill. Campbell, D. T., & Stanley, J. C. (1963). Experimental and ouasi-experimental designs for research. Boston, MA: Houghton-Mifflin. Campbell, P. B., & Panzano, P. (1985). Toward excellence in secondary voca­ tional education-Elements of program quality. Columbus: The Ohio State University, National Center for Research in Vocational Education. Case, L. D. (1985). Planning vocational agriculture programs under the Carl D. Perkins Vocational Education Act of 1984. The Agricultural Education Magazine. 58(1). 7-8. Christiansen, J. E., & Taylor, R. E. (1966). The adoption of educational innova­ tions among teachers of vocational agriculture. Columbus: The Ohio State University. Combs, A. W., Richards, A. C., & Richards, F. (1976). Perceptual psychology: A humanistic approach to the study of persons. New York: Harper & Row. Combs, A. W., & Snygg, D. (1959). Individual behavior: A perceptual approach to behavior. New York: Harper & Row. Completion, survival, a nd profitability. (1985). Proceedings of the 1985 Gover­ nor’s Conference on the Future of Michigan Agriculture, Lansing, Ml, November 19-20, 1985. Cory, E. D., & Rokisek, H. J. (1982). A process for vo-ed teachers. School S to p . 9(42), 45-46. Council of Chief State School Officers. (1989). Restructuring schools. Washington, DC: Author. 166 Crosby, D. J. (1912). Agriculture in public high schools. In Yearbook of the Department of Agriculture. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agricul­ ture. Cunningham, G. K. (1991). Educational testing and educational reform: Some misconceptions. Contemporary Education. 62(4), 238-242. Daggett, W. R. (1993). Report card on American education-And how to raise the grade. Schenectady, NY: International Center for Leadership in Education. David, J. L. (1991). What it takes to restructure education. Educational Leadersbip, 46(8), 11-15. Dillman, D. (1978). Mail and telephone surveys: The total design method. New York: Wiley-lnterscience. Drewes, D. W., Nerden, J. T., Lawrence, J. E. L., & Oglesby, E. H. (1975). Questions in vocational education career and vocational education (Pro­ fessional Development Report No. 18). Raleigh: North Carolina State University. Dugger, W. E., Jr. (1981). Standards for industrial arts program. Reston, VA: American industrial Arts Association. Education Commission of the States. (1991). Restructuring the education system: A consumer’s guide (Vol. I). Denver, CO: Author. Education Commission of the States. (1992a). Building a framework for educa­ tion reform. State Education Leader. 11, 2. Education Commission of the States. (1992b). Creating visions and standards to support them-Restructuring the educational system . Denver, CO: Author. Finch, C. R., & McGough, R. L. (1991). Administering and supervising occupa­ tional education. Prospect Heights, IL: Waveland. Frantz, N. R., & Miller, M. D. (Eds.). (1990). A context for change: Vocationaltechnical education and the future. Lexington, KY: University Council for Vocational Education. Fullan, M. G. (1991). The new meaning of education change. New York: Teachers College Press, Columbia University. 167 Futrell, M. H. (1989). Mission not accomplished: Educational reform in retroGaff, J. (1983). General education today: A critical analysis of controversies. practices and reforms. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Gee, J. (1986). Resistance to reform in legal ethics instruction. (ERIC Docu­ ment Reproduction Service No. ED 266 702) Gottfredson, G. D., & Gottfredson, D. C. (1990). Achieving school improvement through school district restructuring. Baltimore, MD: The Johns Hopkins University. Grasso, J. T. (1979). Impact evaluation in vocational education: The state of the art. Columbus: The Ohio State University, National Center for Research in Vocational Education. Hammond, L. D., & Barnett, B. (1988). The evolution of teacher policy. Santa Monica, CA: Rand Corporation. Hansen, K. H. (1989). The anatomy of "restructuring": Strategies for reforming American education. Portland, OR: Northwest Regional Educational Laboratory. Hartley, E. L., & Hartley, R. E. (1952). Fundamentals of social psychology. New York: Alfred A. Knopf. Hilgard, E. R., & Atkinson, R. C. (1967). Introduction to psychology (4th ed.). New York: Harcourt, Brace & World. lannaccone, L., & Lutz, F. (1970). Politics, power and policy The governing of local school districts. Columbus. OH: Merrill. Klein, D. (1967). Some notes on the dynamics of resistance to change: The defender's role. In G. Watson (Ed.), Educational concepts for social change. Washington, DC: COPED, NTL. Krech, D., Crutchfield, R. S., & Ballachey, E. L. (1962). Individual in society. New York: McGraw-Hill. Kurt, L. (1951). Field theory in social science. New York: Harper-Torch Books. Lionberger, H. (1960). Adoption of new ideas and practices. Ames: Iowa State University Press. 168 Lippitt, R., W atson, J., & Westley, B. (1958). The dynam ics of planned change. New York: Harcourt, Brace, & World. Lunenburg, F. C., &Omstein, A. C. (1991). Educational administration: Con­ cepts and practices. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth. Magisos, J. H. (1984). Excellence in secondary vocational education. In J. H. Magisos, M. L. Attwood, S. Imel, & R. P. H ughes (Eds.), Excellence In vocational education: Four levels, four perspectives (Information Series No. 287). Columbus: The Ohio S tate University, National C enter for R esearch in Vocational Education. Martin, R. A., Rajaeskaran, B., & Void, L. (1989). A national study to determ ine the role of bioscience/biotechnologv in the study of agriculture a s per­ ceived by vocational agriculture instructors. P ap er presented at the 60th Annual National Agricultural Education R esearch Meeting, Orlando, FL. McClelland, W. A. (1968). The process of effective change. Washington, DC: G eorge Washington University. McKernan, J. R. (Governor of Maine). (1992). Introduction. 1991-92 report of the Educational Commission of the S tate s. Boulder: Educational Com­ mission of the States. Michigan Department of Agriculture, Governor’s Task Force on th e Revitalization of Agriculture Through Education and R esearch. (1988). Partnerships for a progressive future. Lansing: Author. Michigan Department of Education. (1990). Standards for excellence. Lansing: Author. Michigan Department of Education, Vocational-Technical Education Service. (1991). A handbook for restructuring vocational-technical educational programs. Lansing: Author. Miles, M. B. (1964). Educational innovations: The nature of the problem. New York: Teachers College P ress, Columbia University. Mohr, L. B. (1978). Determinates of innovations in organizations. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Michigan. 169 Mojkowski, G. (1991). Developing leaders for restructuring schools: New habits of mind and heart (U.S. Department of Education). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. Moore, J. A. (1987). New wine in old bottles? Agricultural Education Magazine. SQ(4), 6-6. National Commission on Excellence in Education. (1983). A nation at risk: The imperative for educational reform. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. National Commission on Secondary Vocational Education. (1984). The unfin­ ished agenda: The role of vocational education in the high school. Columbus: The Ohio State University, National Center for Research in Vocational Education. National Research Council, Committee on Agricultural Education in Secondary Schools. (1988). Understanding agriculture: New directions for educa­ tion. Washington, DC: National Academy Press. National Science Board Commission on Precollege Education in Mathematics, Science and Technology. (1983). Educating Americans for the 21st century: A report to the American people and the National Science Board. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing office. O’Neil, J. (1990). Piecing together the restructuring puzzle. Educational Leadership. 4Z, 4-10. Oriich, D. C. (1985). The dilemma of strong traditions and weak empiricism. Teacher Education Quarterly. 12. 23-32. Oriich, D. C. (1989). Education reforms: Mistakes, misconceptions, miscues. Phi Delta Kapoan. 512-520. Osgood, C. E. (1953). Method and theory in experimental psychology. New York: Oxford University Press. Passow, H. A. (1977). The future of the high school. Teachers College Record. Z 9 ,16-31. Passow, H. A. (1988). Reforming schools in the 1980’s: A critical review of the national reports. New York: Columbia University. 170 P aths, J., & Preskill, H. (1982). R esearch synthesis on summ ative evaluation of teaching. Educational Leadership. 29(4), 310-313. Riedel, D. C., Tischler, G. L., & Myers, J. K. (1974). Patient care evaluation In mental hearth programs. Cambridge, MA: Ballinger Publishing. Rogers, E. M. (1965). Innovations: R e se a rc h d e sig n a n d field stu d ie s. Colum­ bus: The Ohio S tate University, R esearch Foundations. Rogers. E. M. (1983). Diffusion of innovations. New York: Free P ress. Schlechty, P. C. (1990). P aper presented at th e Michigan School Restructuring Conference, Detroit, Ml. Schramm, W. (1955). The process and effects of m ass communication. Urbana: University of Illinois Press. Secretary’s Commission on Achieving N ecessary Skills, U.S. Department of Labor. (1992, April). Learning a living: A blueprint for high performance: A SCANS report for America 2000. Washington, DC: Author. Sherif, M., & Sherif, C. W. (1956). An outline of social psychology. New York: Harper & Brothers. Sizer, T. R. (1990). P aper presented at the Michigan School Restructuring Conference, Dearborn, Ml. Spicer, E. (1967). Human problems in technological change. New York: Wiley. Sullivan, H. S. (1953). The interpersonal theory of psychiatry. New York: W. W. Norton. Tenney, A. W. (1977). The FFA at 50--A golden p ast-A bright future. Alexan­ dria, VA: FFA. Timar, T. B., & Kirp, D. L. (1989). Educational reform in the 1980’s: L essons from the states. Phi Delta Kappan. 504-512. True, A. C. (1929). A history of agricultural education in the United States: 1785-1925. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. United S tates Departm ent of Labor. (1992). Learning and giving: A blueprint for higher performance. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing office. 171 Wayson, W. W., Mitchell, B., Pinnell, G. S., & Landis, D. (1988). Up from excel­ lence: The Impact of the excellence movement In schools. Bloomington, IN: Phi Delta Kappan Educational Foundation. Wentling, T. L. (1985). Towards excellence In secondary vocational educatlonImplementatlon standards. Columbus: The Ohio State University, National Center for Research In Vocational Education. Wink, L. B. (1988). Partnerships for a progressive future. Lansing: Michigan Department of Agriculture.