factors influencing supervised agricultural experience

FACTORS INFLUENCING SUPERVISED AGRICULTURAL EXPERIENCE

EARNINGS OF OHIO FFA STATE DEGREE RECIPIENTS AS REPORTED ON

THE OHIO FFA STATE DEGREE APPLICATION

DISSERTATION

Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for

the Degree Doctor of Philosophy in the Graduate

School of The Ohio State University

By

Steven Jon Gratz, B.S., M.S.

* * * * *

The Ohio State University

2004

Dissertation Committee: Approved byDr. James J. Connors, AdviserDr. Robert J. Birkenholz _________________________Dr. Wesley E. Budke Adviser

Department of Agricultural Education

ii

ABSTRACT

There are numerous benefits for agricultural education

students to conduct a supervised agricultural experience

program. One benefit for agricultural education students

who complete a supervised agricultural experience is a

return on their time and/or money invested. The purpose of

this study was to identify factors that influenced the

economic return on a student’s time and/or money invested

in his or her supervised agricultural experience using data

collected from the recipients of the State FFA Degree in

Ohio during the 2002-2003 academic year.

Initial factors considered were classified into three

categories: personal characteristics, school-based

characteristics, and community characteristics. Personal

characteristics included type of SAE, FFA district in which

the student resided, and the gender of the applicant.

School-based characteristics included number of teachers of

agriculture, high school attendance rate, and high school

grade point average. Community characteristics included

county population for teens (ages 15-19), teen poverty

level (ages 15-19), and county per capita income.

iii

Results of the study indicated that there was a

difference in the amount of economic return among males and

females, type of supervised agricultural experience, and

FFA members in different FFA districts throughout the state

of Ohio. Interestingly, these factors were all classified

as personal characteristics, indicating that the factors

affecting the amount of earnings from an FFA member’s SAE

were attributed to their personal characteristics.

iv

DEDICATION

Dedicated to my parents.

J. Richard Gratz

and

Betty L. Gratz (1930-2002)

v

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I wish to thank my adviser, Dr. James Connors, for

assuming the role as my academic advisor at the last minute

and for his patience and encouragement. He has my unending

appreciation for the time and energy he spent in helping me

with this project.

I also wish to thank my confidant, Dr. Jamie Cano, for

his thought-provoking questions and philosophical

discussions, for his encouragement throughout this

experience, and for serving as my adviser during the

initial portion of my graduate studies at Ohio State.

Furthermore, Jamie constantly reminded me of the words of

Goethe, “In reality this kind of work is never finished.

One has to declare it finished when, in accord with time

and circumstance, one has done the utmost.”

I extend a grateful acknowledgment to Drs. Robert

Birkenholz and Wesley Budke for serving on my dissertation

committee. Their penchant for quality work served as a

constant reminder that the persistence of academic

excellence should never be rushed nor forsaken.

vi

My philosophical development in agricultural education

would not have been possible if it were not for the myriad

of agricultural educators from which I had the opportunity

to learn as one of their students. I wish to extend my

gratitude to Kirby Barrick, Jamie Cano, Joe Gliem, Jan

Henderson, Lowell Hedges, Jim Knight, Larry Miller, David

McCracken, L.H. Newcomb, and Robert Warmbrod. Additionally,

in addition to the aforementioned teacher educators,

numerous graduate students influenced me during my decades

of attending The Ohio State University. My appreciation is

extended to former graduate students at Ohio State: Jacquie

Deeds, Barbara (Malpiedi) Kirby, Stacy Gartin, Ed Osborne,

Kerry Odell, Jerry Peters and George Wardlow.

Finally, I wish to extend my thankfulness to Kellie

Warner, Matt Smith, Marlene von Stein, John Torres, Julie

Tyson, Bernadette Siekman, and Brenda Correll for assuming

increased responsibility to make sure the Ohio FFA

Association continued to thrive during my educational

passage. Without your dedication and attention to detail, I

would not have been able to complete this task.

vii

Finally, I am ever grateful to my wife Andrea for her

love and support throughout this endeavor. It is my hope

that I can repay her sacrifices a hundred-fold in the

future, with the exception of increasing my domestic

workload.

viii

VITAE

1983 ............................Bachelor of Science inAgricultural Education, TheOhio State University,Columbus, Ohio

1983-1988 .......................Teacher of agriculture, BigWalnut Local Schools,Sunbury, Ohio

1988-1993 .......................Consultant, AgriculturalEducation Service, OhioDepartment of Education,Columbus, Ohio

1989 ............................Masters of Science inAgricultural Education, TheOhio State University,Columbus, Ohio

1993-1995 .......................Teacher of agriculture,Ridgedale Local Schools,Morral, Ohio

1995-Present ....................Consultant, AgriculturalEducation Service, OhioDepartment of Education,Columbus, Ohio

ix

FIELDS OF STUDY

Major:Agricultural Education

Specializations:Teacher EducationInstructional TechnologyResearch and Statistics

x

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Abstract ............................................... iiDedication ............................................. ivAcknowledgements ........................................ vVitae ................................................ viiiList of Tables ........................................ xiv

List of Figures ....................................... xviChapter 1 ................................................. 1Introduction ............................................ 1Significance of the Study ............................... 4Problem Statement ....................................... 9

Purpose of the Study ................................... 12Research Questions ..................................... 13Definitions of Terms ................................... 14Limitations of the Study ............................... 17Basic Assumptions ...................................... 17

Chapter 2 ................................................ 19Review Of Related Literature ........................... 19Purpose of the Study ................................... 19Research Questions ..................................... 19Introduction ........................................... 20

Supervised Agricultural Experience ..................... 23Inclusion of SAE in the Smith-Hughes Act of 1917 ....... 25Additional Factors of Influence on Education ........... 28Progression of Vocational Education and SAE ............ 30State FFA Degree ....................................... 45

SAE Type ............................................... 49Number of Teachers of Agriculture ...................... 50

xi

Attendance and Grade Point Average ..................... 52Gender ................................................. 55County Population ...................................... 56

Teen Poverty Level ..................................... 56Per Capita Income ...................................... 57Conclusions ............................................ 59

Chapter 3 ................................................ 62Methodology ............................................ 62

Purpose of the Study ................................... 62Research Questions ..................................... 62Research Design ........................................ 64Population ............................................. 64Number of Degree Recipients ............................ 66

Instrumentation ........................................ 66Dependent Variable Measure ............................. 68Data Collection ........................................ 69Data Analysis .......................................... 71

Chapter 4 ................................................ 74

Results ................................................ 74Purpose of the Study ................................... 74Characteristics of the Population ...................... 74FFA Membership ......................................... 75State FFA Degree Recipients by District ................ 76

Age of Applicant ....................................... 77Gender of Applicant .................................... 78Gender of Applicant by District ........................ 79Years in Agricultural Education of Applicant ........... 80Years in Agricultural Education of Applicant by District 81

SAE Type of Applicant .................................. 82SAE Type of Applicants by District ..................... 83Gross SAE Earnings of Applicants ....................... 84Attendance Rate of Applicant ........................... 85Grade Point Average of Applicant ....................... 86

xii

Gross SAE Earnings by SAE Type ......................... 87Gross SAE Earnings by Gender ........................... 91Gross SAE Earnings of Applicant by Number of Teachers ofAgriculture ............................................ 91Attendance Percentage .................................. 92Relationship Between Gross SAE Earnings and High SchoolAttendance Rate ........................................ 92Relationship Between Gross SAE Earnings and Grade PointAverage ................................................ 92Relationship Between Gross SAE Earnings and CountyPopulation (15-19) ..................................... 93Relationship Between Gross SAE Earnings and County PovertyLevel (15-19) .......................................... 93

Relationship Between Gross SAE Earnings and County PerCapita Income .......................................... 94

Chapter 5 ................................................ 95Conclusions, Implications, and Recommendations ......... 95Introduction ........................................... 95

Research Questions ..................................... 95Research Design ........................................ 97Population ............................................. 97Data Collection ........................................ 98Data Analysis .......................................... 99

Summary of Findings and Discussion ..................... 99Research Question 1 ................................... 100

Demographics of the Population ...................... 100Age and Years of Enrollment in Agricultural Education100Attendance Rate and Grade Point Average ............. 100

Type of Supervised Agricultural Experience .......... 101Research Question 2 ................................... 102Research Question 3 ................................... 105Research Question 4 ................................... 106Research Question 5 ................................... 108

Research Question 6 ................................... 111Research Question 7 ................................... 113

xiii

Research Question 8 ................................... 114Research Question 9 ................................... 115Research Question 10 .................................. 116

Conclusions ........................................... 117SAE Type ............................................ 117FFA District ........................................ 117Gender .............................................. 118

Recommendation for Practice ........................... 120

Recommendations for Further Research .................. 121List of References .................................... 124APPENDIX A - Ohio FFA State Degree Minimum Standards .. 135APPENDIX B - State FFA Degree ......................... 137APPENDIX C - Ohio FFA District Map .................... 156

APPENDIX D - Ohio FFA SAE Guidelines .................. 158APPENDIX E - County Economic Data ..................... 162APPENDIX F - Ohio Appalachian Counties ................ 165

xiv

LIST OF TABLES

Page

Table 1.1: SAE Components ................................. 7

Table 3.1: Number and Percent of State FFA DegreeRecipients by District (N = 524)...................... 66

Table 3.2: Conventions Used to Describe Measures ofAssociation. (Davis, 1971)............................ 72

Table 3.3: Level of Measurement for Independent andDependent Variables................................... 73

Table 4.1 Gender of 2003 Ohio FFA Degree Recipientsby FFA District....................................... 79

Table 4.2: Years Enrolled in an Agricultural EducationProgram by FFA District............................... 81

Table 4.3 State FFA Degree Recipients in 2003 by SAEType within FFA District.............................. 83

Table 4.4: Mean, Median, and Standard Deviation ofSupervised Experience Program Gross Earnings ofState FFA Degree Recipients in 2003 by FFA District... 84

Table 4.5: Attendance Rate of State FFA Degree Recipientsin 2003 by District................................... 85

Table 4.6: Mean Grade Point Averages of State FFADegree Recipients in 2003 Applicant by District....... 86

Table 4.7: Median, Mean, and Standard Deviation ofGross SAE Earnings of State FFA Degree Recipientsin 2003 by SAE Type................................... 87

Table 4.8 Gross SAE Earnings of Placement SAEs byDistrict.............................................. 88

Table 4.9 Gross SAE Earnings of EntrepreneurshipSAEs by District...................................... 89

xv

Table 4.10 Gross SAE Earnings of Combination SAEsby District........................................... 90

Table 4.11: Gross SAE Earnings by Gender ................. 91

Table 4.12: Pearson Correlation Coefficients forGross SAE Earnings with Independent Variables......... 92

xvi

LIST OF FIGURES

Page

Figure 2.1: Venn diagram for Agricultural Education ...... 43

Figure 2.2: Venn diagram adapted for the School-to-WorkModel................................................. 44

Figure 2.3: Factors Contributing to SupervisedAgricultural Experience Earnings...................... 61

Figure 4.1: Number of FFA Members in the Ohio FFAAssociation by District (N = 21,247).................. 75

Figure 4.2: Number of State FFA Degree Recipients in2003 by District (N = 524)............................ 76

Figure 4.3: Age of State FFA Degree Recipients in 2003(N = 524)............................................. 77

Figure 4.4: Gender of 2003 State FFA Degree Recipients ... 78

Figure 4.5: Years Enrolled in Agricultural Education(N = 524)............................................. 80

Figure 4.6: Type of Supervised Agricultural ExperienceProgram (N = 524)..................................... 82

Figure 5.1: Factors Contributing to SupervisedAgricultural Experience Earnings..................... 119

1

CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION

During the early part of the century,vocational education was intended tostabilize the American industrialsociety by creating “a school systemthat socialized youth for their neweconomic roles and sorting them intotheir appropriate niches in theexpanding capitalist division of labor”(Kantor, 1986, p. 402).

Agricultural education's foundation revolves around

the supervised agricultural experience (SAE) concept

(Portillo & White, 2001). SAE, according to Barrick et al.

(1992), is “the actual planned application of concepts and

principles learned in agricultural education” (p. 2). Camp

(1999a) defined SAE as the planned, supervised application

of agricultural principles and concepts. Barrick et al.

(1992) indicated that students were to be supervised by

their teacher(s) of agriculture in collaboration with

others who assisted them in the development and achievement

of their educational goals. “The purpose of an SAE is to

2

help students develop skills and abilities leading toward a

career” (Barrick et al., 1992, p. 2).

An SAE program is “the specific learning experiences

that are planned and conducted by an individual student

that contributes to the development of agricultural and

personal skills. A supervised agricultural experience

program is a purposeful set of supervised agricultural

experiences” (Barrick et al., 1992, p. 83).

The implementation of the SAE as a result of the

Smith-Hughes Act (Phipps & Osborne, 1988) necessitated that

students:

1) have ownership,2) utilize management skills,3) keep records,4) take responsibility,5) assume risk, and6) garner profit or loss (Camp 1999b).

Furthermore, Camp (1999b) noted that the reasons for

these early farming programs were:

1) doing to learn,2) earning money,3) allowing exploration of different farm enterprises,4) becoming established in farming,5) improving the family farm business, and6) improving quality of farm life.

Miller (1967), concluded that SAEs provided students

with:

1) occupational experience,2) skill development,3) improved performance, and

3

4) financial earnings.

Although not the exclusive tenet for the development

of the SAE, research supports the development of a

capitalistic society through the ratification of early

federal vocational education acts. Furthermore, “education

has long been touted as a mechanism of economic growth”

(Grubb & Stern 1989, p. 1). A Nation at Risk (1983)

encouraged educational reform predominantly as a means of

improving worldwide competitiveness. According to Grubb and

Stern (1989), the purpose of education was to generate

employment for individuals who were formerly unemployable,

to augment the earnings of educated individuals, to

increase the productivity and earnings of other workers,

and to enhance profits.

During the early part of the century, vocational

education was intended to stabilize the American industrial

society by creating “a school system that socialized youth

for their new economic roles and sorting them into their

appropriate niches in the expanding capitalist division of

labor” (Kantor, 1986, p. 402). Grubb and Stern (1989) wrote

that in 1985, the National Commission on Secondary

Vocational Education reaffirmed the economic value of

vocational education, particularly in a country where

4

eighty percent of the jobs do not necessitate a college

degree. Education is a component of economic growth and

international competitiveness; therefore, the preparation

of the workforce is crucial (Jacobs & Grubb, 2002).

Significance of the Study

Historically, when the economic climate of the United

States strays from its norm, factions of the political

establishment quickly turn toward education as a potential

solution to the obstruction. President Roosevelt did so in

1907, calling for educational reform. Most recently in the

State of Ohio, Governor Bob Taft implemented his solution

to the downturn in the Ohio economy – the Third Frontier.

The Third Frontier, intended to rekindle the economic

growth of the state, provided an investment in education

that resulted in an educational system that directly

aligned with the needs of business and the economy.

Ohio will have a world-class workforceprepared by an integrated system ofeducation and training and aligned withbusiness needs. The quality of Ohio’sworkforce can distinguish Ohio from itscompetitors. Ohio’s primary andsecondary education system comparesfavorably to other states. Ohio’shigher education system is well-regarded. And Ohio’s workforce isnationally recognized for high levelsof productivity and capability. Butmore must be done. Every child muststart school ready to learn. Every

5

child needs to know how to read by theend of third grade. More students mustachieve proficiency levels at everygrade level in all subjects. Morestudents must graduate from highschool, and more must go on to post-secondary education. The highereducation system needs to ensure thatthe knowledge it creates is alignedwith business and economic needs. Thesystem must be integrated and alignedwith our economic development strategy(Taft, 2002, p.12).

Even though nearly a century apart, the same basic

principle advocated by President Roosevelt, of investing in

education to produce a long-term economic turnabout, still

serves as a viable solution. “There are many reasons to

wish for better educational opportunities for American

school children. However, economic considerations—the

productivity growth slowdown and America’s struggle to

remain competitive in the global economy—have provided the

main impetus for reform” (Andelin, Carson, Feuer, Capper, &

Branyan, 1989, p. 10).

Following President Roosevelt’s education initiative

was the Smith-Hughes Act of 1917. A specific aspect of the

Smith-Hughes Act of 1917 was the SAE or home project as it

was commonly referred. There is a myriad of research

extolling the educational benefits provided to students

conducting an SAE. Barrick, Hughes, and Baker (1991)

6

reported that the compilation of past research findings on

aspects of SAE was needed to provide the profession a basis

on which to make decisions and base future research

efforts. Moreover, much research has been conducted on the

benefits of SAE (Dyer & Williams, 1997a).

Students with a high level of SAE participation were

reported to have a higher degree of affective competency

development (work attitudes, values, and habits) than

students with non-SAE participation (Dugan & Sutphin,

1984). This indicated that as the students’ level of

participation in their SAE increased, their work attitude

and habits improved when compared to students not

conducting an SAE.

Mick, Stewart, and Claycomb (1984) described how

students who earned more money from their SAEs were more

likely to be engaged in an agricultural occupation after

graduating from high school. Therefore, students who earned

more money because of their participation in their SAE were

more likely to choose agriculture as a career profession.

Furthermore, “vocational education in particular has always

been promoted for its economic benefits” (Grubb & Stern

1989, p. 1). It is apparent that students who participated

in vocational education contributed to the economy. The

7

economic benefit could have occurred not only during their

vocational education training, but also upon graduation.

Much of the research available can specifically

address nearly every one of the SAE components established

by the SAE Taskforce (Barrick et al., 1992), which was

commissioned by the National Council for Agricultural

Education because of a report from the National Research

Council Committee (1988) on Agricultural Education in

Secondary Schools. The following components defining an SAE

were extrapolated from the results of that study (Table

1.1).

SAE Components1. Conducted outside of the classroom2. Develops agricultural knowledge and skills3. Supervised by an adult4. Designed to meet the needs of the student5. Explores and/or develops career interests6. Requires records to be kept7. Requires an investment of time and or money8. Results in a return on the investment of time and/or

money

Table 1.1: SAE Components (Barrick et al., 1992 p. 5-6, 51)

Stewart and Birkenholz (1991) found that Missouri

teachers of agriculture rated the development of desirable

work habits, development of responsibility, adaptation to

8

needs of students, and development of record keeping skills

as the major benefits of SAEs. Buyck (as cited in Barrick,

Hughes & Baker, 1991) concluded that students who had SAEs

also had higher grades in agricultural education courses.

Research from Graham and Birkenholz (1999) and West

and Iverson (1999) has reported the economic impact that

SAEs have on state and local economies. At the time of

their research involving SAE, Dyer and Osborne (1995)

reported that no experimental research had been conducted

or data been collected pertaining to the benefits of SAE.

Although research supports the quantity of scientific

investigation that has been conducted on the benefits of

SAE, a chasm seems to exist in the totality of SAE

research. There appears to be a void in research on whether

a student’s SAE program results in a return on the

investment of time and/or money. “Educators have studied

evaluation from numerous perspectives but have rarely tried

to determine an economic value or impact for high school

level educational programs” (Cole & Connell, 1993, p. 60).

Miller (1967) wrote that most SAE programs could be

planned so that they would earn money for the student.

Additionally, Miller reported that students could use their

earnings from their SAE upon graduation from high school

either to invest in their future or pursue postsecondary

9

education. According to Cole and Connell (1993),

agricultural education programs had a substantial economic

impact on the community in which they were located. SAEs

have an economic impact in the local community as a result

of the money earned and spent by students conducting

projects (Cole & Connell, 1993).

The study could inform agricultural educators of some

of the variables that influence a return on the investment

in time and/or money from an SAE, which in turn could

assist in the overall impact that an SAE has upon a

student.

Problem Statement

The world’s capitalist countriesexperienced impressive growth of realGDP and real GDP per capita during thelast half of the twentieth century. Inthe United States, real GDP increasedby 450 percent between 1950 and 2000,while population increased by only 80percent. In 2000 the value of goods andservices available to the average U.S.resident was three times greater thanthat of 50 years earlier. Thisexpansion of real output—this economicgrowth—greatly increased materialabundance and lifted the standard ofliving of most Americans. (McConnell &Brue, 2001, p. 323)

According to McConnell and Brue (2001), there has been

tremendous economic growth in the latter part of the 20th

10

century. Our country is dependent upon economic growth and

much of that growth stems from our natural resources, most

significantly, agriculture. According to Fred Dailey

(personal communications, June 10, 2003), director of the

Ohio Department of Agriculture, in Ohio alone, agriculture

provides 74 billion dollars to the state’s economy.

Furthermore, Dailey professed that one of every six jobs in

Ohio relates to the production and processing of

agricultural products. The aforementioned economic impact

of agriculture provides a foundation that validates not

only the educational, but also the economic benefits of

SAEs. Mick, Stewart, and Claycomb (1984) support this

statement through their research, which indicated that

students who earned more money from their SAE were more

likely to enter agriculture as a career profession. The

need for a skilled workforce is not limited to Ohio; the

need for a skilled workforce for the 21st century is a

national, rather than merely a state, interest (Jacobs &

Grubb, 2002).

SAE’s educational underpinnings have historically

provided the basis for its integration into the

agricultural education curriculum, but there appears to be

a more rudimentary principle underlying this postulation.

In his 1907 address to Congress, President Theodore

11

Roosevelt urged major school reform that would provide

industrial education in urban centers and agricultural

education in rural areas (Tanner & Tanner, 1980).

Roosevelt’s crusade was predicated on enhancing domestic

competitiveness in expanding global markets (Hyslop-

Margison, 2001). President Roosevelt’s stance on school

reform contained within it an economic tenor that would

eventually be crafted into the Smith-Hughes Act of 1917.

According to Wirth (1972), vocational education was a major

subject of discussion among American educators during the

first part of the 20th century: schools toiled to meet the

workforce needs coherent with the shift from an agrarian to

an industrialized economic base. Andelin, Carson, Feuer,

Caper, and Branyan (1989) stated that it was erroneous to

blame America’s economic difficulties entirely on the

education system but that the educational system did need

to be redesigned to fit the realities of the post-

industrial world.

According to Andelin et al. (1989), “productive and

gainful employment ranks high among the objectives of

American secondary schools and is the traditional raison

d’etre for vocational education and training” (p. 18). The

study is based upon the premise that SAEs play a

supplementary role by serving as an educational tool that

12

brings to life real-world experiences for participants in

addition to leading to gainful employment. Notwithstanding

the theoretical framework surrounding the educational value

of SAEs, the study deviates from the history of SAE

research and delves into the economic underpinnings of SAE,

and investigates selected factors that influence the

economic impact of SAEs within agricultural education.

Furthermore, the effect and success of SAE involvement

cannot always be quantified (Retallick & Martin, 2003).

Based on this information, it appears that the

exploration of characteristics influencing SAE earnings may

provide supportive information regarding the benefits of

SAEs to students. Furthermore, the examination of SAE

earnings as an underlying principle of the importance of

SAEs may provide important information and affect how

researchers and practitioners approach this issue in the

future.

Purpose of the Study

The purpose of this study was to investigate the

factors related to supervised agricultural experience

earnings of Ohio FFA State Degree recipients as measured on

the Ohio FFA State Degree application. The following

research questions guided the researcher through the study.

13

Research Questions

The research questions of the study were:

1. What are the characteristics of the Ohio FFA State

Degree recipients in 2003, including but not limited

to age, gender, years of agricultural education, type

of SAE, average gross SAE earnings, average grade

point average, and average attendance rate?

2. Are there group differences in gross SAE earnings for

students with different types of SAE programs?


students from different FFA districts?

4. Is there a relationship between the number of

agriculture teachers in a student’s school and his or

her gross SAE earnings?

5. Is there a relationship between students’ rate of high

school attendance and their gross SAE earnings?

6. Is there a relationship between students’ high school

grade point average and their gross SAE earnings?

7. Is there a difference in gross SAE earnings between

male and female students?

8. Is there a relationship between the population of

students’ home counties (ages 15-19) and their gross

SAE earnings?

14

9. Is there a relationship between the teen poverty level

(ages 15-19) of students’ home counties and their

gross SAE earnings?

10. Is there a relationship between per capita income of

students’ home counties and their gross SAE earnings?

Definitions of Terms

This study used two types of definitions: constitutive

and operational. A constitutive definition defines a

construct using other constructs (Kerlinger & Lee, 2000).

An operational definition assigns meaning to a construct or

variable by specifying the activities or operations

necessary to measure it and evaluate the measurement

(Kerlinger & Lee, 2000). The following terms are defined

for this study:

Agricultural Education – for the purpose of this

study, agricultural education was operationally defined as

the study of principles and methods used in producing and

manufacturing products from renewable resources. Barrick et

al. (1992), defined agricultural education as programs of

study that include the development of skills that lead

toward a job in the agricultural industry. Newcomb,

McCracken and Warmbrod (1993), indicated that the content

of an agricultural education program includes the technical

15

areas of agricultural production, agricultural supplies and

services, agricultural mechanics, agricultural products,

horticulture, natural resources, and forestry.

Agriculture – the science or art of the production of

plants and animals useful to humans and the preparation of

these products for human use and marketing (Gove, 1981).

For the purpose of this study, agriculture was

operationally defined as practices used in producing and

manufacturing products from renewable resources.

National FFA - for the purpose of this study, the

National FFA was operationally defined as a youth

leadership organization for students enrolled in secondary

agricultural education programs.

Poverty rate - for the purpose of this study, poverty

rate was operationally defined as the percentage of

individuals between 15-19 years of age living in poverty in

their respective county.

Supervised Agricultural Experience (SAE) - an SAE

program is the actual, hands-on application of concepts and

principles learned in the agricultural education classroom.

Students are supervised by teachers of agriculture in

cooperation with parents, employers and other adults who

assist them in the development and achievement of their

educational and career goals. It is a time honored and

16

tested form of work-based learning (National FFA, 2004b).

For the purpose of this study, supervised agricultural

experience was operationally defined as experiences that

reinforce skills taught in the agricultural education

program at the secondary level. It is an expectation that

each student enrolled in an agricultural education program

complete an SAE annually. For the purpose of this study,

SAEs were divided into three categories.

A placement SAE program is where “students work for

others on a farm or other agricultural business, in school

laboratories beyond regular class time, or in the community

for pay or only for experience” (Barrick et al., 1992, p.

83).

In the entrepreneurship SAE program, students have

ownership and keep financial records to determine returns

to investments. The student plans, implements, operates,

and assumes financial risk in an agricultural business that

includes production and distribution of goods and/or

services (Barrick et al., 1992). “A big part of the U.S.

economy is driven by entrepreneurs, people who follow their

dreams and build their ideas into more than just widgets”

(Omernik, 2002b).

The combination SAE program is the amalgamation of a

placement SAE program and an entrepreneurship SAE program.

17

Teacher of Agriculture – one who plans, delivers, and

evaluates instruction and facilitates the process in

helping students learn about agriculture (Newcomb,

McCracken & Warmbrod, 1993). For the purpose of this study,

agriculture teacher was operationally defined as the

individual responsible for instructing agricultural

education in the local school district.

Limitations of the Study

Self-reported data is subject to concerns of validity;

therefore, the soundness of these data may be limited. Even

though wide-ranging suppositions can be derived from the

conclusions of this study, the outcomes of the inquiry will

strictly be relevant to the population consisting of the

2003 Ohio FFA State Degree recipients. Moreover, there is

no evidence that the data used in this study are

representative of any other population, in the past or

future. Therefore, one cannot generalize the findings

beyond that of the population studied.

Basic Assumptions

This research project contributed to the existing body

of knowledge pertaining to the educational benefits of a

supervised agricultural experience. Furthermore, it

18

supported the premise that educational reform has a deep-

seated economic basis serving at its most basic foundation.

It is this assertion that has provided a theoretical

framework for past and future research related to this

field of study.

19

CHAPTER 2

REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE


The purpose of the study was to investigate the

factors influencing supervised agricultural experience




Research Questions











20


agriculture teachers in a students’ school and his or










SAE earnings?



gross SAE earnings?



Introduction

Ben Franklin once said: “He that hath atrade hath an estate,” meaning thateducation and training contribute to aworker’s stock of human capital—theknowledge and skills that make for aproductive worker. Investment in humancapital includes not only formaleducation but also on-the-job training.Like investment in physical capital,

21

investment in human capital is animportant means of increasing laborproductivity and earnings (McConnell &Brue, 2001, p. 329).

The study focused on identifying factors that affected

student returns on the SAE; therefore, it was imperative to

understand the philosophical background of SAEs and the

relationship of the economic component, in addition to the

overall educational impact of an SAE. Additionally, the

theoretical foundation for the study was built upon the

work of educational philosophers and practitioners such as

John Dewey, Rufus Stimson, and Charles Prosser, who worked

to devise a way to make a more productive American society.

The requisite for a more productive American society

prompted the passage of the Smith-Hughes Act of 1917.

According to Dewey (1938), “...education, in order for

it to accomplish its ends both for the individual learner

and for society, must be based upon experience - which is

always the actual life-experience of some individual...”

(p. 113). Dewey was an advocate of vocational education and

experiential learning. “The only adequate training for

occupations is training through occupations” (Dewey, 1916,

p. 310).

During the early part of the century, vocational

education was intended to stabilize the American industrial

22

society by creating “a school system that socialized youth

for their new economic roles and sorting them into their

appropriate niches in the expanding capitalist division of

labor” (Kantor, 1986, p. 402). In his 1907 address to

Congress, President Theodore Roosevelt urged major school

reform that would provide industrial education in urban

centers and agricultural education in rural areas (Tanner &

Tanner, 1980). “The potential of education is, therefore,

to create employment for some who were previously

unemployable, to increase the earnings of individuals

educated, to increase the productivity and earnings of

other workers, and to increase profits” (Grubb & Stern

1989, p. 19).

Research continues to support the importance of

economics upon educational reform. A Nation at Risk

(National Commission on Excellence in Education, 1983)

encouraged educational reform predominantly as a means of

improving worldwide competitiveness. Grubb and Stern (1989)

wrote that in 1985, the National Commission on Secondary

Vocational Education reaffirmed the economic value of

vocational education, particularly in a country where

eighty percent of the jobs do not necessitate a college

degree. Furthermore, A Nation at Risk reported on the

23

waning economic situation of the United States and the

declining scholastic performance of students.

Supervised Agricultural Experience

The derivation of SAE can be traced to the early 1900s

where its creator, Rufus W. Stimson, initially called it

the project method. In the early 1900s when the project

method was conceptualized, nearly 20 percent of the U.S.

population resided on farms (Camp, Fallon, & Clarke, 1999).

In 1908, Stimson served as the director of the Smith

Agricultural School in Northampton, Massachusetts (Stimson

& Lathrop, 1942). As director of the Smith Agricultural

School, Stimson maintained that students would learn

agriculture at the school and would then apply what they

had learned on their home farms through the use of home

projects.

Stimson wrote in the first booklet of the Smith

Agricultural School that the school would focus its

teachings on learning to do; “it will provide training in

agriculture with a view to practical and profitable

farming...students will be taught to do things by actually

doing them” (p. 586). As the director of the Smith’s

Agricultural school, Stimson insisted that preparing to

farm would be best served at the student’s home farm

24

through supervised projects using the project method of

instruction. Learning by doing is the foundation of

agricultural education. “The idea that students should

apply what they are learning in the classroom in one of

their interest areas is more than a teaching philosophy; it

is the heart and soul of what makes agricultural education

unique and powerful” (Omernik, 2002a).

Barrick et al. (1992) published, through the National

Council for Agricultural Education in cooperation with the

National FFA Foundation, a handbook on supervised

agricultural experience entitled, SAE: Experiencing

Agriculture. Barrick’s work was predicated on the work of

the originator of the project method, Rufus W. Stimson.

According to Camp et al. (1999), this handbook continues to

serve as the primary document used in the profession of

agricultural education today regarding the SAE program.

Barrick, et al. (1992), defined SAE as:

“The actual planned application ofconcepts and principles learned inagricultural education. Students aresupervised by agricultural teachers incooperation with parents/guardians,employers and other adults who assistthem in the development and achievementof their educational goals. Thepurpose is to help students developskills and abilities leading toward acareer” (p. 1).

25

Today, SAEs, as defined by Barrick et al. (1992), have

not forgone their philosophical lineage of authentic

application of agricultural practices through agricultural

education, with a goal that culminates in a chosen

vocation. Although the end goal of gainful employment

immediately after high school is no longer the primary

focus, the teaching of relevant skills through an SAE

continues to serve as a pragmatic instructional tool for

the teacher and the student. The emphasis on occupational

education in high school, according to Jacobs and Grubb

(2002), should not be on obtaining the job-specific, entry-

level skills of traditional vocational education. Jacobs

and Grubb determined that at the secondary level, the

emphasis should be on completing high school, not only with

higher-order competencies, but also with standard academic

skills that are prerequisites for both further education

and employment in the jobs of the modern economy.

Inclusion of SAE in the Smith-Hughes Act of 1917

To understand the significance of the project method

contained within the Smith-Hughes Act of 1917, it is

important to note that during the course of Stimson’s

tenure as the director of the Smith Agricultural School in

Massachusetts, David Snedden was selected as the

26

Commissioner of Education in Massachusetts (McKinney,

1956). Previously, Snedden was a professor of sociology at

Columbia University in New York. Snedden named former

graduate student Charles A. Prosser, who was at the time

serving as a local school superintendent (Prosser School of

Technology, 2003), to serve as the deputy commissioner for

education in charge of vocational education (Stimson &

Lathrop, 1942). Stimson was called upon for expertise on

the project method during the reign of the Snedden-Prosser

administration, and was eventually hired to serve as the

first state supervisor of vocational agricultural education

in Massachusetts (Moore, 1988; Stimson & Lathrop, 1942).

Although Congress passed the Smith-Hughes Act in 1917,

the impetus for the legislation began in 1907 when

President Theodore Roosevelt urged Congress for a major

school reform to provide industrial education in urban

centers and agricultural education in rural areas (Tanner &

Tanner, 1980). Roosevelt’s crusade was predicated on

enhancing domestic competitiveness in expanding global

markets (Hyslop-Margison, 2001). Retracing the historical

events outlined, one can conclude that President

Roosevelt’s appeal for major school reform led to what

would eventually be the Smith-Hughes Act of 1917.

27

Prosser was an advocate of the project method through

his relationship with Rufus Stimson. Prosser “liked the

school and home-farm cooperation idea and began to preach

its general adoption from coast to coast” (Stimson &

Lathrop, 1942 p.587).

In 1912, Prosser became the secretary of the New

Society for the promotion of industrial education (Stimson

& Lathrop, 1942). According to Stimson, Prosser was an

advocate of the project method and began extolling its

benefits throughout the country. Through Prosser’s advocacy

of the project method, “its principles were incorporated

into the Smith-Hughes bill in the provisions requiring

students enrolled in federally aided vocational agriculture

course to undertake at least six months of directed or

supervised practice in agriculture each year” (Stimson,

1942 p. 589). Prosser was instrumental in the authoring of

the Smith-Hughes Act of 1917 (Hyslop-Margison, 2001), and

even included the requirement of the project method as a

requirement to receive the benefits of the appropriations

contained within the law.

...that such schools shall provide fordirected or supervised practice inagriculture, either on a farm providedfor by the school or other farm, for atleast six months per year; that theteachers, supervisors, or directors ofagricultural subjects shall have at

28

least the minimum qualificationsdetermined for the State by the Stateboard, with the approval of the FederalBoard for Vocational Education (Phipps& Osborne, 1988, p. 550).

According to Jacobs and Grubb (2002), the Smith-Hughes

Act of 1917 provided federal support for introducing

innovations in high schools that might otherwise persist in

being wholly academic institutions. Additionally, this was

accomplished in the name of preparing the workforce to

generate individual benefits and higher rates of economic

growth. After the passage of the Smith-Hughes Act of 1917,

Charles Prosser became the first director of the Federal

Board for Vocational Education that was established under

the Act.

Additional Factors of Influence on Education

The study attempted to identify variables that have an

effect on the economic return of students’ SAEs. To that

end, the researcher believed that it was essential to

identify with the establishment of the SAE concept through

federal legislation, but not to trace the myriad of

subsequent legislative acts between 1917 and 1963 that

mainly pertained to the augmentation of appropriations.

29

The next major piece of legislation to impact

vocational education, and inherently the supervised

agriculture experience, was the Vocational Education Act of

1963. The state of our nation’s economy was once again at

the forefront of major legislative reform in education.

Since the passage of the Smith-Hughes Act until the early

1960s, vocational education expanded its presence in

secondary education, but a full-scale crisis erupted in

October 1957, when the Soviets launched Sputnik 1, the

world’s first artificial satellite. According to Garber and

Launius (2002), the launching of Sputnik 1 had a “Pearl

Harbor” effect on public opinion, creating a fictitious

technological gap but providing the impetus for increased

spending for educational programming including technical

education.

As other countries’ advancements in technology gave

the impression of exceeding that of the United States, the

United States began to take notice. In 1958, after Sputnik,

Congress passed the National Defense Education Act of 1958,

whose intent was to improve the quality of elementary and

secondary education, which in due course, led to improved

national security. The focus of the National Defense

Education Act of 1958 was on certain specified areas of

school instructional programs, primarily programs leading

30

to the preparation of workers for highly skilled and

technical occupations.

Although some of the deficiencies of the Smith-Hughes

Act had grown to be apparent, there was also a feeling of

urgency from discontented urban minorities who faced job

obsolescence because of their inferior education and

training (Wirth, 1972). It was evident that America needed

to put more emphasis on foreign language, mathematics,

science, and technology in order to stay competitive

worldwide. With the advent of Sputnik and its resultant

illusion of an educational and technological gap, the first

fundamental revision of vocational education legislation

was readied for President Johnson’s signature in 1963

(Wirth, 1972).

Progression of Vocational Education and SAE

Even though the Smith-Hughes Act provided funding

intended for vocational education in the areas of

agricultural education, trades and industry and home

economics, the Vocational Education Act of 1963 expanded

the capacity and definition of vocational education in the

United States. Amid the Smith-Hughes Act of 1917 and the

Vocational Education Act of 1963 were the George-Reed Act

of 1929, George-Deen Act of 1936, and the George-Barden Act

31

of 1946 that generally authorized additional appropriations

for vocational education; however, the Vocational Education

Act of 1963 significantly transformed vocational education

in contrast to the Smith-Hughes Act of 1917.

Just as the Vocational Education Act of 1917

experienced modifications over the years, so has Rufus

Stimson’s project method. SAE, as it is referred to

presently, has gone by a series of names and acronyms over

the years (Deyoe, 1953; Barrick, et al., 1992). Most

recently, a panel of agricultural educators “said that the

name ‘Supervised Agricultural Experience’ should not be

changed” (p. 6) due to the fact that another name change

may send a message that agricultural education leaders are

uncertain of the future of the SAE (Camp, 1999a).

The Vocational Education Act of 1963 not only expanded

the characterization of vocational education, but also

broadened what encompassed agricultural education.

Specifically related to agricultural education, prior to

1963, vocational agriculture was intended for students who

would exclusively enter production agriculture. The

appropriations contained within the Vocational Education

Act of 1963, provided services to people of all ages in the

community without respect to pre-determined occupational

groupings, authorized funds for the construction of new

32

area vocational schools, and funded demonstration and

research projects. The elasticity of the 1963 Vocational

Education Act enabled the preparation of students for both

farm and off-farm occupations. The 1963 Vocational

Education Act fostered cooperative and pre-employment

laboratory programs, which prepared students for career

training opportunities in off-farm agricultural

occupations. Moreover, the Vocational Education Act of

1963, amended the Smith-Hughes Act in regards to SAE:

“any amounts allotted ... foragriculture may be used for vocationaleducation in any occupation involvingknowledge and skills in agriculturalsubjects, whether or not suchoccupation involves work of the farm orof the farm home, and such educationmay be provided without directed orsupervise practice on a farm” (S. Res.703, 1917).

The Vocational Education Act of 1963 provided for the

expansion of the scale of the supervised program but not

for channeling it merely to the farm. The passage of the

Vocational Education Act of 1963 saw the term agribusiness

become operational.

Since 1963, there were several additional amendments

and the introduction of the Carl D. Perkins Act. The

amendments continued to expand and broadened the definition

of vocational education, provided additional funds,

33

emphasized postsecondary education, overcame sex

discrimination and sex stereotyping and required the

development of long-term state planning. The Carl D.

Perkins Education Act of 1984, provided equal opportunities

for adults in vocational education, aided in the

application of new technologies, strengthened research in

vocational education, and provided services to meet needs

of the disadvantaged.

In 1990, the Carl D. Perkins Vocational and Applied

Technology Education Act was introduced. The 1990 Carl D.

Perkins Vocational and Applied Technology Education Act

provided for the integration of academic and vocational

education and the conception of Tech Prep programs, placed

an emphasis on students making the transition from school-

to-work, and supported business and educational

partnerships.

Eighty-five years after the passage of the Smith-

Hughes Act, the first piece of federal vocational education

legislation, vocational education has evolved from its

original focus on preparing students for work immediately

following high school (Office of Vocational and Adult

Education, 2004). According to the Office of Vocational and

Adult Education (OVAE), United States Department of

Education (USDE) (2004), today’s vocational education (1)

34

incorporates both school-based and work-based learning

business partnerships which are key to successful programs;

(2) emphasizes that for most occupations, postsecondary

education is essential; (3) encompasses postsecondary

institutions up to and including universities; and, (4)

uses more and higher technology.

With national and state school reform efforts focused

on academic achievement, and with the fastest-growing

occupations now requiring some postsecondary education,

vocational education is seeking effective ways to

contribute to these goals (OVAE, 2004). Underlying not only

the Smith-Hughes Act of 1917, but also subsequent acts in

vocational education, was the premise of ultimately

providing learners with the ability to be productive

citizens - denoting the capacity to earn a living.

Consequently, from a legislative perspective, a more

productive society equates to a more vibrant economy, which

would conclude a circular economic explanation, one where

productively employed constituents pay taxes, which support

local, state, and federal governments.

Primary to the productive society inference is the

ability for economic influence. Rufus Stimson promoted the

project method concept as a way for students to practice or

apply what they learned in the classroom on their own farm,

35

from which they were attempting to make a livelihood. The

supposition of Stimson’s project method implied a

productive society through the economic gain on the

student’s farm; therefore, one could infer that successful

projects not only served as a pragmatic form of

instruction, but also ultimately as a basis of revenue for

the student. Furthermore, the student turned graduate, has

the capacity to provide the necessary income for

sustenance. In their book, History of Agricultural

Education of Less Than College Grade in the United States,

Stimson and Lathrop highlighted the economic impact of the

project method. According to Stimson and Lathrop (1942),

“sixty-six boys in 1912...earned from farming as part of

their schooling $9,754.28” (p. 194). Stimson and Lathrop

indicated that the goal of the project method was to

realize gains of 20 percent above the indexes for crops and

livestock for the area. “A safe objective is to put the

graduates as far along in the mastery of standard practices

and in a managerial ability at the age of 28, as the

farmer, without such educational aid finds himself at 45”

(p. 194).

Recent studies in agricultural education have measured

the economic impact of SAEs not only upon the state’s

economy, but also upon the economy of the local community

36

(Retallick & Martin, 2003; Graham & Birkenholz, 1999; and

West & Iverson, 1999). The research on the economic impact

of SAEs has indicated that student SAE earnings provided a

positive return on the local investment in an agricultural

education program (Retallick & Martin, 2003).

Projects, as initially fashioned by Stimson and

reinforced through the Smith-Hughes Act of 1917, primarily

pertained to entrepreneurial production agriculture

projects on the student’s home farm. As vocational

agriculture evolved over the next several decades, projects

failed to reflect the progressiveness of the agriculture

curriculum. Additionally, according to Steele (1997), the

actual practice of SAE has continued to decline.

Agricultural educators face a problem that is dramatic:

changes in agriculture and agricultural education have

caused a lack of focus and direction in SAE (Dyer &

Osborne, 1996).

The National Research Council (1988) recommended that

the relevance and scope of Supervised Occupational

Experience (SOE) be broadened. The directed or supervised

practice in agriculture method gave way to the SAE and

expanded to include not only entrepreneurship, but also

SAEs through placement, improvement, exploration, and

research. Furthermore, with the broadening of the

37

agricultural curriculum, agricultural educators were

confronted with a different type of student compared to

previous students. The observation was that the increased

diversification of students enrolled in agricultural

education adversely affected the quality of the student’s

SAEs. Teachers and teacher educators blamed the type of

student enrolling in agricultural education programs as the

chief cause for the decline in SOE (Flowers, as cited in

Croom, 1991).

Stemming from the report of the National Research

Council, a taskforce was established to assess the state of

the supervised project. The taskforce determined that SAE

was defined as the actual, planned application of

agricultural concepts and principles learned in the

agricultural education classroom (Barrick et al., 1992).

Additionally, the purpose of an SAE was to help students

develop skills and abilities leading toward a career

(Barrick et al., 1992). Continuing to support the early

reasoning of Stimson, students were supervised by teachers

of agriculture, parents, employers, and others involved who

assisted them in the development and achievement of their

educational goals (Barrick et al., 1992).

As a way to provide guidance to the profession, the

handbook on supervised agricultural experience identified

38

components of SAE activities. These components served as

the guiding principles for the development of SAEs for

students enrolled in agricultural education programs (Table

1.1).

Barrick et al. (1992) determined that students’ SAEs

should result in a return on investment in either time

and/or money. A closer analysis of Barrick’s statement,

coupled with the philosophical underpinnings of Stimson’s

project method, would lead one to believe that a return on

investment is vital to a successful SAE.

SAEs have faced a tumultuous journey since a perceived

downslide began after the passing of the Vocational

Education Act of 1963. The downslide may be attributed to

the interpretation of the Vocational Education Act of 1963,

which one may interpret to mean students no longer needed

to have supervised programs. Unfortunately, it appears that

the agricultural education profession has yet to recover

from this interpretation of the Vocational Education Act of

1963. According to the National FFA Organization (1999),

SAEs are not the norm for agricultural education students.

The National FFA Organization (1999) estimated that

approximately half of students enrolled in agricultural

education courses maintained an SAE or claimed membership

in the FFA. “Regardless of the benefits of SAEs and FFA

39

stated in the literature, students continue to pass through

Agricultural Education programs without having SAEs or

record books or being involved in FFA” (Harlin & Weeks,

2001, p. 105).

The agricultural education profession took steps in

response to the recommendations from the National Research

Council (1988). Barrick et al. (1992) provided the

philosophical framework for SAEs in response to the

National Research Council. Agricultural Education’s

Strategic Plan (National Summit on Agricultural Education,

1989) affirmed that SAEs should provide practical real-

world experience in agriculture and develop a positive work

ethic and realistic occupational expectations. Part of this

real-world experience in agriculture is the ability of the

SAE to generate a positive monetary return on the

investment. All teachers should promote the development of

financially risk-oriented SAEs with their students.

Financially risk-oriented SAEs provide agricultural

education students with an element not available through

non-financially risk-oriented SAEs.

The foundation of the study presumes that earnings are

a fundamental component of an SAE. Furthermore, SAE

earnings may serve as an intrinsic motivator from personal

financial gain as well as the ability to be competitive in

40

the FFA’s award and recognition programs. According to Mick

et al. (1984), students who earned more money from their

SAEs were more likely to be employed in agricultural

occupations, thus, reinforcing the importance of financial

gain through an SAE. If factors that positively affect SAE

earnings can be identified, then there is the potential to

increase student SAE earnings.

Eighty-five years after the passage of the first piece

of federal vocational education legislation, vocational

education is evolving from its original focus on preparing

students for work immediately following high school. With

national and state school reform efforts focused on

academic achievement, and with the fastest-growing

occupations now requiring some postsecondary education,

vocational education is seeking effective ways to

contribute to these goals (OVAE, 2004).

In 2003, the Ohio FFA Association approved the

Guidelines and Expectations for SAE Programs in the state

of Ohio (Appendix D). The intent of the guidelines and

expectations for SAE programs was to provide a more

substantial framework with which to guide teachers of

agriculture in the development of SAEs with their students.

The guidelines state that, “the SAE program should

41

contribute to the workforce development and economic

viability of the community” (p. 3).

The success of the SAE concept has been replicated in

other federal legislated acts of Congress. In May 1994,

President Bill Clinton authorized the federal School-to-

Work Opportunities Act. The 1994 Act required that school-

to-work opportunities be planned, supervised, and have some

educational purpose, and help students obtain skills

leading toward a career (Hamilton & Hamilton, 1997). The

School-to-Work Opportunities (STWO) Act assisted states in

integrating school based-learning and work-based learning

with the ability for students to complete a career major.

The State of Ohio recognized the importance of developing

new strategies to better prepare youth for successful entry

into the world of work and to instill in each of them a

desire for lifelong learning (Courtney & Doll, 1998).

Title I: School-to-Work OpportunitiesBasic Program Components - RequiresSchool-to-Work Opportunities (SWO)programs to: (1) integrate work-basedand school-based learning and academicand occupational learning, andestablish effective linkages betweensecondary and postsecondary education;(2) provide students with theopportunity to complete career majors;(3) incorporate specified programcomponents including work-based andschool-based learning and connectingactivities; (4) provide participatingstudents with experience in and

42

understanding of the industry they arepreparing to enter; and (5) provide allstudents equal access to programcomponents and to recruitment,enrollment, placement, and relatedactivities. Mandated through the STWOAct was that all students had equalaccess to School-to-Work (STW)programming (H. Res. 2884, 1994).

The linkages between the strategies within the STWO

Act and agricultural education appeared to be built upon a

similar foundation. Agricultural education has long

incorporated work-based learning, school-based learning and

connecting activities. For nearly fourscore years, the Venn

diagram (see Figure 2.1) has been used to illustrate the

relationships among the three components of agricultural

education– classroom instruction, SAE, and the FFA with

their overlapping positions illustrating all possible

relationships between. Incorporating the three major

components of the STWO Act into the Venn diagram (see

Figure 2.2), it is apparent that the two models give the

impression of being philosophically identical.

43

Figure 2.1: Venn diagram for Agricultural Education

44

Figure 2.2: Venn diagram adapted for the School-to-WorkModel

The school-based learning component of the STWO Act

was designed to hold STW students to the same academic

standards set for all students, and it prepared students

for postsecondary education. Vocational program content,

delivered through the STWO Act, was broad and provided

students with strong experience in and understanding of all

aspects of the industry in which students prepared to enter

45

(Maddy-Bernstein, Matias, Cunanan, Krall, & Iliff, 1995).

Proponents of STW argued that students would attain higher

levels of academic achievement when learning is placed

within the context of the workplace (Miller, 2002).

“If it is to remain viable into the new century,

agricultural education, en toto, including its practical

experience Supervised Agricultural Experience (SAE)

component, must reflect the current reality and trends in

agriculture” (Camp et al., 1999 p. 160). Technological

advancements in agriculture dictate that agricultural

education programs must provide resources for instructing

students. Future workers must possess not only high levels

of problem solving abilities and interpersonal skills, but

also technological skills (Secretary's Commission on

Achieving Necessary Skills, 1990).

State FFA Degree

The National FFA Organization is an establishment that

provides its membership with incentives and awards. The FFA

recognizes students with superior SAE projects through the

FFA proficiency award program (Arrington, 1984) and other

recognition programs and awards, such as the Agri-

entrepreneurship award and degrees of membership in the

FFA.

46

Students enrolled in agricultural education programs

are members of the FFA due to the integral nature of the

FFA, although there is an annual membership fee. The

integral nature of the classroom, SAE, and the FFA (Figure

2.1) serves as a seamless framework of instructional

opportunities for the teacher in instructing students in

agricultural education. Classroom and laboratory

instruction focuses on technical agriculture, leadership,

and personal development. Experiential learning

opportunities through supervised experience and FFA

reinforced instruction, motivated students, and afforded a

means of identifying authentic problems on which to base

instruction (Hughes & Barrick, 1993).

The National FFA sponsors numerous awards and

recognitions in order to recognize students who are

proficient with their SAE. According to Omernik (2002a),

teachers of agricultural education “let them [students]

know they can make money and earn other awards through

SAE.” These awards and recognitions are based primarily

upon the scope and efficiency of the student’s SAE. "The

role of career development events and awards is to motivate

students and encourage leadership, personal growth,

citizenship and career development" (National FFA

Organization, 1995, p. iii). Leising and Zilbert (1985)

47

found that participation in SAEs was significantly

associated with FFA participation, application for FFA

awards and degrees, and FFA membership. Incentives such as

contests, degrees, and awards are not the driving force on

which FFA and supervised experience activities are based,

but serve as reinforcement and motivational tools by

providing recognition to students for exemplary performance

(Hughes & Barrick, 1993).

Students complete award applications in the FFA based

upon personal records that are kept as part of their SAE

program. Students complete a budget or a business plan

prior to the start of their SAE. “By having the students

develop a business plan, they have a much better idea of

whether or not their SAE will be financially viable before

they invest any financial resources” (Omernik, 2002a).

Based upon a financially successful SAE program, students

may apply for proficiency awards or advanced degrees in the

FFA. The FFA has five degrees of active membership: the

Discovery Degree, which is specifically for students below

grade nine; the Greenhand Degree, which is typically for

first-year students; the Chapter FFA Degree designed for

students who have already earned their Greenhand Degree;

the State FFA Degree, intended for FFA members that are

typically in their final two years of high school or

48

beyond; and the American FFA Degrees for students who have

earned the State FFA Degree but are not beyond their 21st

birthday or fourth national convention after graduation

from high school.

The local FFA chapter governs the Discovery Degree,

the Greenhand Degree, and the Chapter FFA Degree; the state

association administers the State FFA Degree, and the

National FFA Organization oversees the American FFA Degree.

Carpenter (as cited in Dyer & Williams, 1997a) found a

positive relationship between SAE size and achievement of

the state FFA degree. Each degree in the FFA builds upon

the accomplishments of the prior degree, ever-increasing

the achievements attained by the FFA member.

For an FFA member to earn the State FFA Degree in

Ohio, the member must meet the minimum standards (Appendix

A) that have been approved by the Ohio FFA Board of

Trustees. The Ohio FFA State Degree is not a competitive

event, but rather a performance-based award. One of the

major performance areas pertains to a student’s financial

earnings. Of the four degrees available to members in the

FFA, only the Discovery and the Greenhand Degrees do not

carry with it required financial earnings. For the Chapter

FFA Degree, FFA members must earn and invest $150; for the

Ohio FFA State Degree, FFA members must have invested

49

$1,000 and earned $3,000 for entrepreneurship SAEs or

$4,000 through a placement SAE, or they must have earned

$3,500 through a combination of entrepreneurship and

placement SAEs. Additionally, students attending a joint

vocational school or career center can meet the financial

requirement of the Ohio FFA State Degree through additional

options as outlined in Appendix A; for the American FFA

Degree, FFA members must earn and productively invest

$7,500.

SAE Type

Camp (1999b) reported that little research exists to

determine the components of SAE. SAEs encompassing the

areas of entrepreneurship, placement, and exploratory are

widely accepted in the field (Hoover & Arrington, 1994),

such is the case in Ohio. Additionally, literature

advocates inclusion of improvement, experimental,

analytical, and volunteerism as valid components of SAE

(Connors, 1992; Grellener & White, 1992; Moore & Flowers,

1993). Camp (1999b) recommended that the SAE areas of

entrepreneurship, exploratory, and placement be replaced

with eight SAE areas: agribusiness entrepreneurship,

agricultural placement, agricultural production,

agricultural research, directed school laboratory,

50

agricultural communications, agricultural exploration, and

improvement projects.

Number of Teachers of Agriculture

“Agriculture teachers teaching in multiple teacher

departments have more positive perceptions regarding

planning activities for SAEs than those who taught in

single teacher departments” (Swortzel, 1996, p.52).

Previous research concluded that teachers in multiple

teacher departments maintained workable student-teacher

ratios, which promoted the continuation of active SAEs

(Boone, Elliot, & Doerfert as cited in Swortzel, 1996).

Teacher understanding of SAE contributes to SAE quality,

and teacher supervision is foremost to having quality SAE

programs (Arrington & Hoover, 1994). Byers (1972) reported

that student supervision was related to the number of

students enrolled in the agricultural education program.

The fewer students enrolled, the greater the likelihood

that students would receive teacher supervision.

Studies confirm the positive relationship between the

amount of teacher supervision and SAE program quality

and/or scope (Arrington, 1981; Harris, 1983; Gibson, 1987;

Anyadoh, 1989). According to Dyer and Williams (1997b),

although there is a positive relationship between the

51

number of teacher visits and SAE program quality, there

were still students who received little or no teacher

supervision.

While the research strongly supports the assertion

that the number of teachers in an agriculture department

influences the SAE program quality or scope, the following

research extends the influence of teachers upon SAEs.

Gibson (1987) found a positive relationship between SAE

program quality and the amount of classroom instruction on

SAE. Additionally, providing teachers with extended

contracts contributes to effective supervision of SAE

programs (Arrington & Hoover, 1994). Knight (1978) learned

that Ohio agricultural education teachers spent 5.5 hours

per week supervising SAE programs in addition to their

normal teaching duties. Lindsey (1978) reported that due to

an increased number of limited-opportunity students

enrolling in agricultural education and a decrease in the

number of students with a farm background, teachers devoted

extra effort and time to ensure that students plan

successful supervised experience programs. Some teachers

found barriers to supervising SAEs, including lack of

release time, large classes, and limited travel funds (Dyer

& Williams, 1997b). Finally, previous enrollment in high

52

school agriculture by the teacher is positively related to

SAE quality (Anyadoh, 1989).

Attendance and Grade Point Average

Participation in school-based leadership, athletics,

and academic clubs predicted an increased likelihood of

attendance in full-time college (Miller, 2003). Higher

attendance rates can be attributed to positive experiences

in school; Gilman (2001) found that positive learning

experiences in after-school activities and programs,

particularly if they are school-based, brought about a more

positive identification with school. Gerber (1996) found

that participation in programs and activities outside of

school increased a student’s academic self-concept, which

can positively affect school performance. According to

Miller (2003), effective teachers built strong

relationships with students, provided opportunities for

students to contribute, and fostered a welcoming

environment. According to Harlin and Weeks (2001), SAE

supporters suggested that SAE involvement might improve

student achievement even though some obstacles exist.

Although relatively little investigation has focused

on the relationship between the scope of SAE projects and

student achievement (Arrington & Cheek, 1990), studies have

53

linked participation in SAE to positive student achievement

in agricultural knowledge (Cheek, Arrington, Carter, &

Randell, 1994; Dyer & Osborne, 1996). Morton (1978) found a

positive relationship between SAE scope and student

achievement gauged by written test scores. Noxel and Cheek

(1988) found that for students enrolled in ornamental

horticulture there was a positive relationship between SAE

scope and student achievement. Buyck (as cited in Hoover &

Arrington, 1994) predicted that students who had SAEs would

have higher grade point averages in agricultural education.

Peer groups with similar interests can have a powerful

influence on the achievement of young people (Eccles &

Barber, 1999; Gerber, 1996). Gibson (as cited in Hoover &

Arrington, 1994) reported a positive relationship between

quality of SAE and grade point average for senior

agricultural education students in Kentucky. Similarly,

there was a moderate, positive correlation between SAE

participation and student achievement in agriscience

programs in Florida (Cheek et al., 1994). Harlin and Weeks

(2001) determined that there were no differences between

male and female academic performance.

Adolescents who participated in extracurricular

activities, school athletics, band and other school

sponsored activities, performed community service, and

54

involved in clubs were highly correlated with school

success, including attendance rates, grade point averages,

and aspirations to continue education beyond high school

(USDE, 1995). Additionally, Camp (1990) discovered that

extracurricular activities were linked more strongly to

academic outcomes than study habits, academic ability, or

family background. Finally, Miller (2003) learned that

participation in extracurricular activities resulted in

increased academic achievement.

Hair, Moore, Hunter, Williams, and Kaye (2001)

reported that work of high intensity had no deleterious

effect on the academic achievement of 14-15 year olds. They

also found that long hours of work during high school

(especially in the senior year), were associated with

higher wages and steadier employment many years after high

school. Reporting contradictory results, Miller (2003)

found that time spent working after school had a negative

association with academic achievement. According to the

United States Department of Labor (U.S. Department of

Labor, 2000), “gaining some work experience during the high

school years is viewed by some as valuable in easing the

transition from school to work. Working too many hours,

however, also is viewed as potentially harmful to academic

studies” (p. 16).

55

Potter (1984) found no significant relationship

between SAE scope and student achievement in a study

limited to handicapped students. Similarly, Tylke and

Arrington (1988) failed to find a positive relationship

between SAE scope and student achievement in livestock

production. Furthermore, the 1998 NRC report (as cited in

U.S. Department of Labor, 2000, p. 68) concluded, “low

intensity employment may support postsecondary educational

outcomes while high-intensity employment may hinder them.”

Twenty or fewer hours of work per week is often used as the

dividing line between high- and low-intensity work.

Gender

In 1996-98, employed male youths worked more hours

than did female youths in both the school and summer months

(U.S. Department of Labor, 2000, p. 34). On the other hand,

Camp (1990), reported that males and females did not differ

significantly in the hours per week that they worked for

pay during their senior year. Landscape and horticultural

services, livestock production, and automotive repair were

some of the industries on the top 10 lists for male youths

that were not on the list for their female cohorts (U.S.

Department of Labor, 2000, p. 18). A large proportion of

self-employed male youths performed lawn care—34 percent in

56

the school months and 64 percent in the summer months.

Additionally, more than 40 percent of the self-employed

female youths were employed in family childcare—47 percent

in school months and 43 percent in summer months (U.S.

Department of Labor, 2000, p. 36).

County Population

In the late 1980s, nearly 20 percent of the workforce

was employed in the agriculture industry in some capacity;

however, only 2.2 percent of Americans resided on farms,

and only half this number reported farming as their main

occupation (National Research Council, 1988). Arrington

(1981) conveyed a positive relationship between SAE program

scope and students living in a rural area.

Teen Poverty Level

Many SAEs occur after school and according to Miller

(2003), these programs did not change students’ experiences

in school, but did provide alternative environments that

were more in tune with students’ interests, motivations and

needs. National Agricultural Workers’ Survey (NAWS)

covering the five years between FY1993 and FY1998 found

that 7 percent of all farm workers were between the ages of

14 and 17 (U.S. Department of Labor, 2000, p. 53). On

57

average, teens that do farm work earned less than $1,000

per year doing agricultural work according to the U.S.

Department of Labor (2000, p. 56).

Per Capita Income

During the school year 1996-98, youths aged 15 to 17

that were employed, worked an average of about 17 hours a

week. Additionally, for this same period, employed youths

aged 15 to 17 worked an average of about 23 hours during

the summer months. Like employment, average hours worked

increased with age (U.S. Department of Labor, 2000, p. 34).

The minimum wage is frequently associated with

adolescent workers initially entering the workforce (U.S.

Department of Labor, 2000, p. 35). In 1998, median earnings

for adolescent workers between the ages of 15 to 17 were

$5.57 per hour combined (U.S. Department of Labor, 2000, p.

35). During the 1996/97 and 1997/98 school months, 9

percent of adolescent workers between the ages of 15 to 17

who were employed in agriculture on a family farm worked

for no pay (U.S. Department of Labor, 2000, p. 36).

According to Cave, Bos, Doolittle, and Toussaint, (as

cited in Jekielek, Cochran, & Hair, 2002), individuals

enrolled in the JobStart program, a program designed to

provide low-skilled dropouts with technical and academic

58

skills, had average earnings that were approximately $400

per year higher when compared to the control group. The

Youth Incentive Entitlement Pilot Projects (YIEPP), a youth

program similar to JobStart and designed to increase labor

productivity of youth, thereby increasing their earnings

potential and improving their lifetime employability, also

showed similar results. According to Farkas, Olsen,

Stromsdorfer, Trask, and Jerrett (as cited in Jekielek,

Cochran, & Hair, 2002), earnings of YIEPP group members,

were higher by approximately $11 per week during the school

year and after the program ($10.48 in the fall of 1981).

Increased earnings after the program were due predominantly

to increased employment and hours worked. The relationship

was twice as large for young men as young women, and larger

for high school graduates than for nongraduates.

Several well-known statistical problems in examining

wages, earnings, and other employment effects make it

difficult to determine the economic value of education

(Grubb, 1999). Pals (1988) stated that employers rated

“helped earn money while in school” at the top of their

perceived benefits. Despite the important intellectual and

political purposes of formal schooling, its economic value

has come to be central (Grubb, 1999). The rhetoric of

investing in education for the economic benefits it will

59

generate in the future dominates state and national policy

(Grubb, 1999).

Conclusions

The research promoting the educational virtues of

supervised agricultural experience is virtually

overwhelming. Researchers in agricultural education have

proclaimed for nearly a century the values of the SAE as an

authentic learning strategy for students enrolled in their

agricultural education programs. The implementation of SAE

programs has extended agricultural education beyond the

typical four-walls of the classroom and into a real-world

borderless educational arena.

Research on the earnings of adolescents has been

conducted less frequently than research pertaining to the

educational benefits of the SAE. SAE continues to be an

area that is being casually reported, more for its benefits

to the at-risk population than for the innate benefits to

the participant.

The study delved into one inherent trait of the SAE

that may serve as its most essential element. John Dewey

(1938) wrote, “for it [education] to accomplish its ends

both for the individual learner and for society, it must be

based upon experience - which is always the actual life-

60

experience of some individual” (p. 113). Previously, Dewey

stated, “the only adequate training for occupations is

training through occupations” (Dewey, 1916, p. 310).

The study begins a new era in SAE research, one that

explores the factors affecting the monetary returns of the

SAE (Figure 2.3). The study categorized the nine factors

that were investigated into three broader categories:

personal characteristics, school-based characteristics, and

community characteristics. Personal characteristics

included type of SAE, FFA district in which the student

resided, and the gender of the applicant. School-based

characteristics included number of teachers of agriculture,

high school attendance rate, and high grade point average.

Community characteristics included county population for

teens (ages 15-19), teen poverty level (ages 15-19), and

county per capita income.

61

Figure 2.3: Factors Contributing to Supervised AgriculturalExperience Earnings.

62

CHAPTER 3

METHODOLOGY

Chapter 3 discusses the methodology utilized in

conducting the research. The methodology is shared in the

ensuing sections: (a) objectives, (b) type of research, (c)

population, (d) instrumentation (e) data collection, and

(f) data analysis.







Research Questions





63


















SAE earnings?



gross SAE earnings?



64

Research Design

The study was a descriptive correlational study that

examined characteristics of the target population (N = 524)

of Ohio FFA State Degree recipients in 2003. The purpose of

the study was to portray accurately the incidence,

distribution, and characteristics of the recipients of the

Ohio FFA State Degree, to explore relationships, and to

formulate a more specific research problem (McCracken,

1998).

Population

The target population for the study was all Ohio FFA

State Degree recipients for the 2002-2003 academic year.

The frame for the study was obtained from the Ohio FFA

Association, Inc. (2003).

This descriptive correlational study included all

individuals who received their Ohio FFA State Degree in

2003. The strength of a census lies in irrefutability. Its

weakness lies in its confinement to a single limited

population at a single point in time (Ary, Jacobs, &

Razavieh, 1985). Additionally, through the utilization of a

census, major threats to external validity found in a

descriptive study, such as frame error, sampling error,

selection error, and non-response error were controlled.

65

For this study, the 524 recipients of the Ohio FFA

State Degree in 2003 served as the frame. Frame error

occurs when there is a discrepancy between the intended

target population and the actual population from which the

sample is drawn. Since a census was used, frame error was

controlled. Sampling error is reflected in the difference

between sample and population measures (Fraenkel & Wallen,

1996). As no sample was selected from the population,

sampling error was not an issue. Selection error exists

when certain subjects have a greater probability of being

included in the sample than others. Since a census was used

for this study, there was no selection error. Non-response

error occurs when respondents fail or refuse to respond

(McCracken, 1998).

The information in Table 3.1 reports the distribution

of the membership of the Ohio FFA Association by district.

The present Ohio FFA district structure (Appendix C) has

been in place since 1995 and was established to provide an

equitable distribution of FFA chapters and FFA members

while attempting to maintain an equal geographical area and

to limit travel time for the teachers.

66

District LocationNumber of Degree

Recipients % 1 Far Northwestern Ohio 39 7.4 2 North Central Ohio 67 12.8 3 Northeastern Ohio 15 2.9 4 Northwestern Ohio 69 13.2 5 Western Ohio 75 14.3 6 Central Northwestern Ohio 99 18.9 7 Central Northeastern Ohio 45 8.6 8 Eastern Ohio 21 4.0 9 Southwestern Ohio 68 12.910 Southeastern Ohio 26 5.0

Total 524 100.0

Table 3.1: Number and Percent of State FFA DegreeRecipients by District (N = 524)

Instrumentation

For the purpose of this study, the Ohio FFA State

Degree application (Appendix A) served as the data-

gathering instrument. Recipient characteristics were

collected from the instrument and included the following:

Age: the reported age of the individual.

Gender: the reported sex of the individual, coded

either as male of female.

Years of Agricultural Education Completed: the

reported number of years of agricultural education program

completed.

SAE Type: the reported SAE type of the recipient,

coded as placement, entrepreneurship, or combination.

67

Gross Income from Placement Supervised Agricultural

Experience: the reported gross earnings from paid hours.

Gross Income from Entrepreneurship Supervised

Agricultural Experience: the reported gross earnings from

entrepreneurial enterprises.

Total Earnings: the reported earnings from Gross

Income from Placement Supervised Agricultural Experience

and Return to Labor and Management Income from

Entrepreneurship Supervised Agricultural Experience.

Percent Attendance: calculated attendance percentage

from the student’s official high school transcript.

Grade Point Average: calculated grade point average

from the student’s official high school transcript.

Additional information was obtained from the

Agriculture Education Teacher directory database (2002-

2003) that is maintained by the Agricultural Education

Service, Ohio Department of Education (2003a). Additional

information included the following:

FFA District: the FFA district in which the student’s

FFA chapter was located.

Number of Teachers of Agriculture: the total number of

teachers of agriculture at the recipients’ school.

County: the county in which the FFA chapter was

located.

68

Additional information was obtained from the Ohio FFA

Membership database, which is maintained by the Ohio FFA

Association, Inc. (2003). The information included:

Number of FFA members in the local FFA chapter: the

total number of FFA members in the recipients local FFA

chapter.

Finally, information was obtained from The Ohio State

University Extension Data Center. The information included:

County population (ages 15-19): population of teens in

the 15-19 year old age group in the county in which the FFA

chapter was located.

County Per Capita Income: per capita income of the

county in which the FFA chapter was located.

Teen Poverty Level (ages 15-19): the poverty level of

teens in the 15-19 year old age group in the county in

which the FFA chapter was located.

Dependent Variable Measure

The dependent variable, gross SAE income, was recorded

from the State FFA Degree applications of the 2003 State

FFA Degree recipients. The dependent variable is a

summation of gross income from placement and gross income

from entrepreneurship. Data for gross income from placement

SAE was collected from page 4 of the State FFA Degree

69

(Appendix A). Data for gross income from entrepreneurship

SAE was collected from page 8b of the State FFA Degree

(Appendix A). Data was recorded from page 4 (placement

income) and from page 8b (entrepreneurship income) of the

State FFA Degree recipients that conducted a combination

SAE.

The dependent variable was a monetary summation of the

State FFA Degree recipient’s earnings from the inception of

his or her SAE program through December 31, 2002. The Ohio

FFA Constitution contains minimum standards (Appendix A),

which requires that an FFA member be enrolled in an

agricultural education program for a minimum of one year

with a minimum of junior class status prior to applying for

the State FFA Degree. Additionally, membership can be

retained in the FFA through the age of 21 or three years

post high school graduation. Therefore, gross earnings

could range from one year to seven years.

Data Collection

The State FFA Degree application (Appendix B) provided

applicants with the capacity to chronicle their

participation in the FFA, school and community activities,

and to document their record of earnings throughout their

SAE program.

70

All information on the State FFA Degree was self-

reported data. This self-reported data was taken directly

from the State FFA Degree applicant’s SAE record books. All

record books were evaluated and checked for transference

accuracy onto the State FFA Degree application by a panel

of teachers of agriculture during a formal evaluation

process. Furthermore, signatures of authenticity are

required from the applicant, his or her parent or guardian,

the teacher of agriculture, the high school’s guidance

counselor, and either the high school principal or the

school superintendent.

Additionally, data pertaining to the applicant’s grade

point average and attendance rate was calculated from the

attached applicant’s transcript that was required as part

of the State FFA Degree application process. The school’s

guidance counselor verified the calculated grade point

average and attendance rate by affixing their signature to

the application.

The data for this study was collected from each of the

524 applications of Ohio’s State FFA Degree recipients,

which was the target population of the study. All data were

entered into a Microsoft Excel worksheet and then converted

to an SPSS 11.0 data file for final analysis.

71

Data Analysis

The data collected for the study were analyzed using

Microsoft Excel and the Statistical Package for the Social

Sciences (SPSS) computer programs. Measures of central

tendency, variability, and effect sizes were rounded to the

nearest 1/100th.

This study was a census; therefore, descriptive

statistics provided measures of central tendency and

variability for organizing, summarizing, and analyzing

differences between groups. Frequency distributions were

generated for the demographic data, including FFA

membership, year in school, age, gender, years of

agricultural education, FFA district of residence, and type

of SAE.

The Pearson product-moment correlation coefficient was

used to summarize the magnitude and direction of the

relationship between selected independent variables and the

dependent variable. Measures of association by Davis (1971)

were used to describe the association and are presented in

Table 3.2.

72

Coefficient Description.70 or Higher Very Strong Association.50 to .69 Substantial Association.30 to .49 Moderate Association.10 to .29 Low Association.01 to .09 Negligible Association

Table 3.2: Conventions Used to Describe Measures ofAssociation. (Davis, 1971)

The level of measurement of the variable determined

the appropriate descriptive statistics (frequencies, means,

and standard deviations) that were used to describe the

population of State FFA Degree recipients in 2003. Level of

measurement used to measure the dependent and independent

variables is presented in Table 3.3.

73

Level of Measurement Independent & Dependent Variables

Nominal Independent Variables:GenderSAE typeFFA district

Ordinal Independent Variables:None

Interval Independent Variables:High school grade point average

Ratio Independent Variables:Age of State FFA Degree recipientNumber of teachers of agricultureCounty per capita incomeTeen population (ages 15-19)Teen poverty levels (ages 15-19)Years in agricultural educationHigh school attendance rate

Dependent Variables:Gross SAE earnings

Table 3.3: Level of Measurement for Independent andDependent Variables

74

CHAPTER 4

RESULTS







Characteristics of the Population

Descriptive profiles of the population of Ohio FFA

State Degree recipients for 2003 are presented in this

section. The Ohio FFA State Degree recipients were

described in terms of age, gender, years of agricultural

education, type of SAE, average gross SAE earnings, average

grade point average, and average attendance rate.

Parameters such as frequencies, percentages, measures of

central tendency, and measures of variability are reported.

Due to the positively skewed distribution of the gross SAE

earnings of the population, the median was reported as an

alternative of the mean.

75

FFA Membership

For comparison purposes only, total FFA membership in

the Ohio FFA is presented in Figure 4.1. At the time of

data collection, membership in the Ohio FFA was 21,247.

Membership ranged from 1,655 FFA members in District 8 to

2,907 FFA members in District 6.

FFA District10987654321

Numb

er of

FFA

Memb

ers

30002800260024002200200018001600140012001000

800600400200

0

1751

2853

1655

2389

2907

21992065

17891690

1949

Figure 4.1: Number of FFA Members in the Ohio FFAAssociation by District (N = 21,247)

76

State FFA Degree Recipients by District

In 2003, the target population of 524 FFA members

received the Ohio FFA State Degree (Figure 4.2). The target

population (N = 524) represented 2.47 percent of the entire

Ohio FFA membership (N = 21,247). For the 524 members

receiving the State FFA Degree in 2003, recipients ranged

from 15 in District 3 to 99 in District 6.

FFA District10987654321

Numb

er o

f Sta t

e FFA

De g

r ee R

ecipi

ent s

120

100

80

60

40

20

0

26

68

21

45

99

7569

15

67

39

Figure 4.2: Number of State FFA Degree Recipients in 2003by District (N = 524)

77

Age of Applicant

For the population of FFA members receiving the Ohio

State FFA Degree in 2003, ages ranged from 16 to 21. The

mode was 17 years of age (Figure 4.3).

Age212019181716

Numb

er o

f St a

t e F F

A D e

g re e

Recip

ie nt s

300

200

100

027

154

238

101

Figure 4.3: Age of State FFA Degree Recipients in 2003 (N =524)

78

Gender of Applicant

Membership in the Ohio FFA Association for the 2002-

2003 academic year was 21,247. Of this population, 14,235

(67%) of the membership were male and 7,011 (33%) were

female (Ohio FFA Association, Inc., 2003). For the

population of FFA members receiving the State FFA Degree in

2003, 327 (62.4%) were male and 197 (37.6%) were female

(Figure 4.4).

GenderFemaleMale

Numb

er o

f St a

t e F F

A D e

g re e

R ec ip

i e nts

400

300

200

100

0

197

327

Figure 4.4: Gender of 2003 State FFA Degree Recipients

79

Gender of Applicant by District

For the population of FFA members receiving the State

FFA Degree in 2003, in District 1, 32 (82.1%) were male, 7

(17.9%) were female. In District 5, 60 (80.0%) were male,

15 (20.0%) were female. In District 9, 32 (47.1%) were

male, 36 (52.9%) were female (Table 4.1).

Gender of FFA MemberFFA District Male Female Total

1 32 7 392 43 24 673 8 7 154 44 25 695 60 15 756 55 44 997 27 18 458 11 10 219 32 36 6810 15 11 26

Total 327 197 524

Table 4.1 Gender of 2003 Ohio FFA Degree Recipients by FFADistrict

80

Years in Agricultural Education of Applicant

The FFA members that received the Ohio State FFA

Degree in 2003 were enrolled in agricultural education from

1.5 to 4.0 years. The distribution had a mean of 3.03

years, and a mode of 2.5 years. Enrollment data indicated

that at the time of application for the Ohio FFA State

Degree, 254 (48.5%) were enrolled for 2.5 years and 213

(40.6%) were enrolled for 3.5 years (Figure 4.5).

Years in Agricultural Education

4.003.503.002.502.001.50

Number of Stat e FFA Deg

r ee Recip ie n

ts

300

200

100

0

49

213

254

Figure 4.5: Years Enrolled in Agricultural Education (N =524)

81

Years in Agricultural Education of Applicant by District

The mean years of enrollment in agricultural education

of FFA members who received the Ohio FFA State Degree in

2003 ranged from 2.88 years in District 4 to 3.17 years in

District 7 (Table 4.2).

FFA District N

Years ofEnrollment

Mean SD7 45 3.17 .5742 67 3.14 .5496 99 3.10 .59810 26 3.08 .5959 68 3.01 .5831 39 2.99 .6645 75 2.99 .5333 15 2.97 .7198 21 2.95 .6314 69 2.88 .578

Total 524 3.03 .588

Table 4.2: Years Enrolled in an Agricultural EducationProgram by FFA District

82

SAE Type of Applicant

For the population FFA members receiving the Ohio FFA

State Degree in 2003, 116 (22.1%) applied with an SAE of

placement only, 151 (28.8%) applied with an SAE of

entrepreneurship only, and 257 (49.0%) applied with an SAE

consisting of a combination of placement and

entrepreneurship (Figure 4.6).

SAE TypeCombinationEntrepreneurshipPlacement

Numb

er o

f St a

t e F F

A D e

g re e

Recip

ie nt s

300

200

100

0

257

151

116

Figure 4.6: Type of Supervised Agricultural ExperienceProgram (N = 524)

83

SAE Type of Applicants by District

The number of FFA members receiving the Ohio FFA State

Degree in 2003 with placement SAEs ranged from one in

District 10 to 26 in District 5. Recipients with

entrepreneurship SAEs ranged from none in District 3 to 37

in District 6. The number of FFA members receiving the Ohio

FFA State Degree in 2003 with a combination SAE ranged from

10 in Districts 3 and 8 to 51 in District 6 (Table 4.3).

FFA SAE TypeDistrict Placement Entrepreneurship Combination Total

1 9 6 24 392 23 18 26 673 5 0 10 154 18 18 33 695 26 14 35 756 11 37 51 997 11 10 24 458 3 8 10 219 9 27 32 6810 1 13 12 26Total 116 151 257 524

Table 4.3 State FFA Degree Recipients in 2003 by SAE Typewithin FFA District

84

Gross SAE Earnings of Applicants

The population receiving the State FFA Degree in 2003

had a mean gross income of $13,125, a median gross income

of $8,284, and a range of $201,915 (Table 4.4).

The population receiving the State FFA Degree in 2003

had mean gross SAE earnings that ranged from $10,081 in

District 7 to $17,024 in District 1. The median gross

income ranged from $5,354 in District 10 to $10,007 in

District 5 (Table 4.4).

Gross IncomeFFADistrict N Median Mean Min Max

1 39 $8,528 $17,024 $1,021 $115,1146 99 $8,635 $14,984 $530 $173,76110 26 $5,354 $14,740 $3,564 $202,4455 75 $10,007 $14,358 $2,050 $83,4529 68 $7,768 $12,732 $3,004 $193,6483 15 $7,300 $11,917 $2,773 $39,1972 67 $8,969 $11,608 $2,212 $69,5714 69 $8,008 $11,104 $2,723 $64,2508 21 $7,129 $10,844 $3,002 $48,1777 45 $8,662 $10,081 $3,425 $27,614

Total 524 $8,284 $13,125 $530 $202,445

Table 4.4: Mean, Median, and Standard Deviation ofSupervised Experience Program Gross Earnings of State FFADegree Recipients in 2003 by FFA District

85

Attendance Rate of Applicant

The FFA members who received the Ohio FFA State Degree

in 2003 attended high school 97.1% (SD = 2.02) of the time.

Average high school attendance rates ranged from 95.74% in

District 8 to 97.73% in District 1 (Table 4.5).

FFA District NAttendance Rate

Mean SD1 39 97.73% 1.675 75 97.41% 1.636 99 97.40% 2.053 15 97.23% 2.424 69 97.14% 1.962 67 97.11% 1.889 68 96.98% 2.0610 26 96.74% 1.947 45 96.52% 2.388 21 95.74% 2.60

Total 524 97.12% 2.02

Table 4.5: Attendance Rate of State FFA Degree Recipientsin 2003 by District

86

Grade Point Average of Applicant

The grade point average for 2003 Ohio FFA State Degree

recipients ranged from 2.00 to 4.14, on a 4.00-point scale,

with a mean grade point average of 3.25 (SD = 0.50). Three

grade point averages exceed the 4.0 grading scale. This was

due to school districts offering advanced placement (AP)

classes that utilized an enhanced grade system where AP

courses have a higher average weight than non-AP courses.

The mean grade point average ranged from 3.09 in District 8

to 3.49 in District 10 (Table 4.6).

FFA District N

Grade PointAverage (GPA)

Mean SD10 26 3.49 0.363 15 3.43 0.371 39 3.31 0.449 68 3.30 0.517 45 3.28 0.482 67 3.26 0.564 69 3.24 0.516 99 3.21 0.545 75 3.11 0.468 21 3.09 0.50

Total 524 3.25 0.50

Table 4.6: Mean Grade Point Averages of State FFA DegreeRecipients in 2003 Applicant by District

87

Gross SAE Earnings by SAE Type

Table 4.7 illustrates the average gross SAE earnings

by the three different SAE types. The means ranged from

$10,089 for placement SAEs to $15,185 for combinations

SAEs. Conversely, the median gross SAE earning ranged from

$6,318 for entrepreneurship SAEs to $9,758 for combination

SAEs. The differences between the mean and the median are

attributed to the positively skewed distribution of the

gross SAE earnings of the population.

Gross EarningsSAE Type N Median Mean Min Max

Combination 257 $9,758 $15,185 $2,723 $173,761Entrepreneurship 151 $6,318 $11,950 $1,021 $202,445Placement 116 $7,968 $10,089 $530 $53,506Total 524 $8,284 $13,125 $530 $202,445

Table 4.7: Median, Mean, and Standard Deviation of GrossSAE Earnings of State FFA Degree Recipients in 2003 by SAEType

88

For the population FFA members receiving the State FFA

Degree in 2003, median gross earnings by district on

placement-only SAE ranged from $5,175 in FFA District 3 to

$9,896 in FFA District 1; the median placement gross SAE

earnings for the population was $7,968 (Table 4.8).

Gross EarningsFFADistrict N Median Mean Min Max

1 9 $9,896 $10,740 $6,365 $17,2996 11 $9,325 $12,762 $530 $53,5065 26 $8,992 $11,444 $2,050 $25,7764 18 $8,542 $10,004 $4,000 $22,0667 11 $7,986 $11,001 $5,707 $27,6149 9 $7,357 $8,067 $3,592 $17,5672 23 $6,684 $9,293 $2,212 $24,615

10 1 $5,869 $5,869 $5,869 $5,8698 3 $5,489 $4,992 $3,760 $5,7273 5 $5,175 $5,489 $2,773 $9,347

Total 116 $7,968 $10,089 $530 $53,506

Table 4.8 Gross SAE Earnings of Placement SAEs by District

89


Degree in 2003, median gross earnings by district on

entrepreneurship SAE ranged from $0 in FFA District 3 to

$7,764 in FFA District 8. The population had median

entrepreneurship gross SAE earnings of $6,318 (Table 4.9)


8 8 $7,764 $8,747 $3,002 $16,3582 18 $7,443 $9,973 $3,129 $42,3956 37 $6,995 $12,068 $3,004 $50,5059 27 $6,805 $16,482 $3,022 $193,6485 14 $6,272 $7,408 $3,110 $17,7944 18 $5,814 $11,045 $3,410 $64,2501 6 $4,881 $4,758 $1,021 $7,8607 10 $4,636 $6,253 $3,425 $11,35710 13 $4,290 $20,757 $3,564 $202,4453 0 0 0 $0 $0

Total 151 $6,318 $11,950 $0 $202,445

Table 4.9 Gross SAE Earnings of Entrepreneurship SAEs byDistrict

90


Degree in 2003, median gross earnings on combination SAEs

ranged from $6,101 in FFA District 10 to $14,576 in FFA

District 5. The population had a median combination gross

SAE earnings of $9,758 (Table 4.10).


5 35 $14,576 $19,303 $4,365 $83,4521 24 $12,321 $22,447 $3,316 $115,1143 10 $11,022 $15,131 $3,957 $39,1972 26 $10,639 $14,787 $3,866 $69,5717 24 $9,679 $11,255 $4,066 $20,8566 51 $9,581 $17,578 $3,050 $173,7614 33 $9,346 $11,737 $2,723 $55,3609 32 $7,896 $10,881 $3,004 $68,0518 10 $7,711 $14,278 $5,495 $48,17710 12 $6,101 $8,960 $3,911 $30,993

Total 257 $9,758 $15,185 $2,723 $173,761

Table 4.10 Gross SAE Earnings of Combination SAEs byDistrict

91

Gross SAE Earnings by Gender

Male FFA members who received the Ohio FFA State

Degree in 2003 had a mean gross SAE income of $15,872 and a

median gross SAE income of $9,800. Females receiving the

Ohio FFA State Degree in 2003 had a mean gross SAE income

of $8,564 and a median gross income of $6,550 (Table 4.11).

Gender ofFFA

Member N Median Mean Min MaxMale 327 $9,800 $15,872 $1,021 $202,445

Female 197 $6,550 $8,564 $530 $53,506Total 524 $8,284 $13,125 $530 $53,506

Table 4.11: Gross SAE Earnings by Gender

Gross SAE Earnings of Applicant by Number of Teachers of

Agriculture

There was little or no association (Davis, 1971)

between the number of teachers of agriculture in the

recipient’s school and their gross SAE earnings. The

Pearson product-moment correlation coefficient was .001 for

the variables (Table 4.12).

92

CorrelationPearson

CorrelationCoefficient (r)

DavisInterpretation

Number of Teachers .001 ---

Attendance Percentage -.029 Negligibleassociation

Grade Point Average -.028 Negligibleassociation

County Population(15-19) -.032 Negligible

associationTeen Poverty Level -.007 ---Per Capita Income .001 ---

Table 4.12: Pearson Correlation Coefficients for Gross SAEEarnings with Independent Variables

Relationship Between Gross SAE Earnings and High School

Attendance Rate

For the population of 524 FFA members receiving the

Ohio FFA State Degree in 2003, there was a negligible

negative association (Davis, 1971) between the recipient’s

high school attendance rate and the recipient’s gross SAE

earnings. The Pearson product-moment correlation

coefficient was -.029 for the variables (Table 4.12).

Relationship Between Gross SAE Earnings and Grade Point

Average

There was a negligible negative association (Davis,

1971) between the recipient’s high school grade point

93

average and gross SAE earnings of the 524 FFA members

receiving the State FFA Degree in 2003. The Pearson

product-moment correlation coefficient was -.028 for the

variables (Table 4.12).

Relationship Between Gross SAE Earnings and County

Population (15-19)


State FFA Degree in 2003, there was a negligible negative

association (Davis, 1971) between county population (15-19)

and the recipient’s gross SAE earnings. The Pearson



Relationship Between Gross SAE Earnings and County Poverty

Level (15-19)


State FFA Degree in 2003, there was little to no

association (Davis, 1971) between teen poverty level (15-

19) of the home county and gross SAE earnings. The Pearson



94

Relationship Between Gross SAE Earnings and County Per

Capita Income


State FFA Degree in 2003, there was little to no

association (Davis, 1971) between county per capita income

and gross SAE earnings. The Pearson product-moment

correlation coefficient was .001 for the variables (Table

4.12).

95

CHAPTER 5

CONCLUSIONS, IMPLICATIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Introduction

There are numerous benefits for agricultural education

students to conduct a supervised agricultural experience

program. One benefit for agricultural education students

who complete a supervised agricultural experience is a

return on their time and/or money invested. The purpose of

this study was to identify factors that influenced the

economic return on a student’s time and/or money invested

in his or her supervised agricultural experience using data

collected from the recipients of the State FFA Degree in

Ohio during the 2002-2003 academic year.

Research Questions





96


















SAE earnings?



gross SAE earnings?



97

Research Design

The study was a descriptive correlational study that

compared characteristics of the target population (N = 524)

of Ohio FFA State Degree recipients in 2003. The purpose of

the study was to portray the incidence, distribution, and

characteristics of the recipients of the Ohio FFA State

Degree, to explore relationships, and to formulate a more

specific research problem (McCracken, 1998).

Population

The target population for the study was all Ohio FFA

State Degree recipients for the 2002-2003 academic year.

The population frame for the study was obtained from the

Ohio FFA Association, Inc. (2003).

The descriptive correlational study included all

individuals who received their Ohio FFA State Degree in

2003. The strength of a census lies in irrefutability. Its

weakness lies in its confinement to a single limited

population at a single point in time (Ary, Jacobs,

Razavieh, 1985. p.338).

Additionally, through the utilization of a census,

major threats to external validity found in a descriptive

study, such as frame error, sampling error, selection

error, and non-response error were controlled. For this

98

study, the frame was the 524 recipients of the Ohio FFA

State Degree in 2003.

Data Collection

The State FFA Degree application (Appendix A) provides

applicants with the capacity to chronicle their

participation in the FFA, school and community activities,

and to document their record of earnings through their SAE.

All information on the State FFA Degree was self-reported

data. A caveat to this self-reported data is that all data

was taken directly from the State FFA Degree applicant’s

SAE record books. All record books were evaluated and

checked for transference accuracy onto the State FFA Degree

application by a panel of teachers of agriculture during a

formal evaluation process. Furthermore, signatures of

authenticity are required from the applicant, his or her

parent or guardian, the teacher of agriculture, the high

school guidance counselor and a local school administrator

(either the high school principal or the school

superintendent).

Additionally, data pertaining to the applicant’s grade

point average and attendance rate were calculated from the

applicant’s high school transcript that was required as

part of the State FFA Degree application process. The

99

student’s guidance counselor verified the reported grade

point average and attendance rate by affixing his or her

signature to the application.

The data for this study was collected from each of the

524 applications of Ohio’s State FFA Degree recipients in

2003, which was the target population of the study. All

data were entered into a Microsoft Excel worksheet and then

converted to an SPSS 11.0 data file for analysis.

Data Analysis

The data collected for the study were analyzed using

Microsoft Excel and the Statistical Package for the Social

Sciences (SPSS) computer programs. This study was a census;

therefore, descriptive statistics provided measures of

central tendency and variability for organizing,

summarizing, and analyzing differences between groups.

Pearson’s product-moment correlation coefficients were used

to summarize the magnitude and direction of the

relationship between variables.

Summary of Findings and Discussion

The following summary of findings relate to the

population of Ohio FFA members who received the State FFA

Degree in 2003. The findings of this study reflect the

100

collective data of Ohio FFA members who received their

State FFA Degree in Ohio in 2003, and are not

representative of any other population.

Research Question 1

Demographics of the Population

Total membership in the Ohio FFA Association at the

time of data collection was 21,247. The target population

(N = 524) represented 2.47 percent of the entire FFA

membership in Ohio (N = 21,247) for the 2002-2003 academic

year. Of the entire Ohio FFA membership, 14,235 (67%) of

the membership were male and 7,011 (33%) were female (Ohio

FFA Association, 2003). For the population covered by the

study, 327 (62.4%) were male and 197 (37.6%) were female.

Age and Years of Enrollment in Agricultural Education

Years of enrollment in agricultural education ranged

from 1.5 to 4.0 with a median of 3.03 and a mode of 2.5.

Ages ranged from 16 to 21 for the population. The mode was

17 years of age (SD = 0.86), and the median was 17.

Attendance Rate and Grade Point Average

The population had a mean attendance rate of 97.1% (SD

= 2.02) and a mean grade point average of 3.25 (SD = 0.50).

101

When comparing attendance rates between sexes, the mean

differences varied by less than one percentage point. Males

attended school 97.2 percent of the time and females

attended school 96.9 percent of the time. Females had a

mean grade point average of 3.37 compared to a mean grade

point average of 3.17 for males, resulting in a modest

difference between the two groups.

There was a difference in attendance rate and grade

point average between SAE types. FFA members with a

placement SAE had a 97.1 percent attendance rate and a 3.04

grade point average. FFA members with an entrepreneurship

SAE had a 97.3 percent attendance rate and a 3.34 grade

point average. FFA members with a combination SAE had a

97.0 percent attendance rate and a 3.28 grade point

average.

Type of Supervised Agricultural Experience

In the population, 116 (22.1%) reported an SAE of

placement only, 151 (28.8%) reported an SAE of

entrepreneurship only, and 257 (49.0%) reported an SAE

consisting of a combination of placement and

entrepreneurship. The population receiving the State FFA

Degree in 2003 had a mean gross income of $13,125 and a

median gross income of $8,284.

102

There was a difference between gross SAE earnings by

SAE types. Individuals in the population with placement

only SAE (N = 116) had a mean gross SAE earnings of $10,189

and a median gross income of $7,968. Individuals in the

population with an entrepreneurship SAE (N = 151) had mean

gross SAE earnings of $11,950 and a median gross income of

$6,318. Individuals with a combination SAE (N = 257) had

mean gross SAE earnings of $15,185 and a median gross

income of $9,758.

The typical FFA member who received the Ohio FFA State

Degree in 2003 was male, 17 years of age, completed three

years of agricultural education, maintained a 3.25 grade

point average, and attended school 97.1 percent of the

time. The typical recipient had an SAE that was a

combination of placement and entrepreneurship experiences,

which resulted in gross earnings of $13,125. The typical

recipient resided in District 6 and was an FFA member in an

agriculture education program that employed one teacher of

agriculture.

Research Question 2

The research found that there were differences in

gross SAE earnings among students with different types of

SAE programs. State FFA Degree recipients in 2003 that

103

conducted a combination SAE earned more money than students

who conducted a placement or an entrepreneurship SAE.

Students who worked in a job placement SAEs were

limited to the total number of hours in which they could

work. According to the U.S. Department of Labor (2000),

adolescents aged 15 to 17 worked an average of 17 hours a

week during the school year and 23 hours a week during the

summer months. Furthermore, minimum wage is frequently

associated with adolescent workers entering the workforce

and in 1998, the median earnings for adolescent workers

between the ages of 15 to 17 were $5.57 per hour (U.S.

Department of Labor, 2000).

The average number of years enrolled in an

agricultural education program for the 2003 Ohio FFA State

Degree recipients was three years. Therefore, students with

a placement SAE could, on average, have earned

approximately $15,000 for the same period. With time being

a variable of limited range, especially for students

attending high school, it is easy to see that wage earning

does have limited possibilities. Additionally, placement

SAE resulted in the least variability in earnings of the

three types of SAEs in the study due to the constraints of

working after the school day.

104

On the other hand, students with entrepreneurship SAEs

had the largest variability in earnings in the study. This

could be attributed to the unlimited earning potential

inherent to this type of SAE. Along with the ability to

earn more money, comes the threat of increased financial

risk. Students with an entrepreneurship SAE assume a

greater financial risk than do students with a combination

SAE and even greater risk when compared to those with a

placement SAE. While this entrepreneurial risk can be

turned into greater financial reward, it can also result in

a greater financial loss. This could be the very reason why

many students elect to participate in a combination SAE.

Here, students possess the ability to generate a steady

flow of income through their placement SAE, while

capitalizing on their ability to maximize their profits

through their entrepreneurship SAEs.

According to Mick et al. (1984), the more money

students earned from their SAE, the more likely they were

to be employed in agricultural occupations. This conclusion

may imply that students who earn more from their SAE may be

more established in their chosen career field. The study

found that students conducting entrepreneurship SAEs

reported larger sums of money than those with combination

or placement SAEs. Future agricultural education

105

researchers should investigate the impact of SAE type on

agricultural education and the economy.

Research Question 3

This study found differences in median gross SAE

earnings for students from different FFA districts. The

difference was rather substantial when comparing Ohio FFA

State Degree recipients in 2003 in District 5, which had a

median gross SAE income nearly 50 percent higher than that

of Ohio FFA State Degree recipients from District 10.

The two districts (Districts 2 & 5) with the highest

median SAE income were also relatively rural and were

considered areas of high agricultural production.

Conversely, the two districts (Districts 8 & 10) with the

lowest median SAE income were also rural, but located in

southeastern Ohio and were all Appalachian counties

(Appendix F).

Research pertaining to SAE did not indicate geographic

data related to earnings on SAE programs. Presently, the

minimum standards for gross earnings for the Ohio FFA State

Degree are $4,000 for placement SAEs, $3,000 for

entrepreneurship SAEs, and $3,500 for combination SAEs.

When comparing high and low performing district median

gross SAE earnings with the number of State FFA Degrees

106

awarded in 2003 (District 5, N = 75; District 10, N = 26),

one might conclude that there is potentially a geographical

bias related to SAE earnings. If a potential inequality

exists within the state’s boundaries, a potential bias may

also exist on the national level as it pertains to the

American FFA Degree and other recognition programs that

incorporate financial statements as part of the evaluation

process.

Research Question 4

The study found that there was little or no

association (Davis, 1971) (r = .001) between the number of

teachers of agriculture employed in the local school and

gross SAE earnings for the population. Since this study

failed to show a relationship between the number of

teachers of agriculture in the recipient’s school and the

recipient’s gross SAE earnings, it failed to support much

of the related research.

Boone, Elliot, and Doerfert (as cited in Swortzel,

1996) concluded that teachers in multiple teacher

departments maintained workable student-teacher ratios,

which promoted the continuation of active SAEs. Although,

“agriculture teachers teaching in multiple teacher

departments have more positive perceptions regarding

107

planning activities for SAEs than those who taught in

single teacher departments” (Swortzel, 1996, p.52), the

study did not find that students from multiple teacher

departments reported an increased economic benefit on their

SAE, when compared to students from single teacher

departments.

While teacher supervision is foremost to having

quality SAE programs (Arrington & Hoover, 1994); the

suggestion that additional teachers of agriculture would

have an economic benefit on students’ SAEs through

additional supervision remains unsupported. Research by

Byers (1972) reported that student supervision was related

to the number of students enrolled in the agricultural

education program. The fewer students enrolled, the greater

the likelihood that students would receive teacher

supervision. Studies confirm the positive relationship

between the amount of teacher supervision and SAE program

quality and/or scope (Thomason, 1965; Arrington, 1981;

Harris, 1983; Gibson, 1987; Anyadoh, 1989), even though

lack of release time, large classes, and limited travel

funds made supervising SAEs difficult (Dyer & Williams,

1997b).

108

Research Question 5

As reported previously, the population had an

attendance rate of 97.1% and median gross SAE earnings of

$8,284. The study determined that there was a negligible

negative association (Davis, 1971) (r = -.029) between high

school attendance rate and gross SAE earnings. Although

this difference was negligible, it must be considered

within the context of the study, which reported only the

applicants’ high school attendance rate. According to the

Ohio FFA Degree Minimum Standards (Appendix A), to qualify

for the Ohio FFA State Degree, applicants must have a

minimum attendance rate of 93%. Therefore, one must use

caution when interpreting this result when considering the

limited range of the high school attendance rate variable.

Additionally, recipients of the Ohio FFA State Degree in

2003 had an attendance rate that exceeded the attendance

rate for the state of Ohio (Ohio Department of Education,

2003b).

In an agrarian society, there is a notion for students

living or working on a farm to periodically be absent from

school in order to perform the work common in the

agricultural industry. Previous research (Flowers, as cited

in Croom, 1991) indicated that broadening of the

agricultural education curriculum affected a different type

109

of student. Opinion was that the diversification of

students enrolled in agricultural education adversely

affected the quality of the student’s SAEs. Teachers and

teacher educators even blamed the type of student enrolling

in agricultural education programs as the chief cause for

the decline in SOE [sic] (Flowers, as cited in Croom,

1991). Additionally, the National Research Council (1988)

recommended that the relevance and scope of Supervised

Occupational Experience (SOE) [sic] be broadened. The

directed or supervised practice in agriculture method gave

way to SAE and was expanded to include not only

entrepreneurship, but also placement, improvement,

exploration, and research. When comparing differences in

SAE philosophy evoked in the Smith-Hughes Act of 1917 and

the present day philosophy according to Barrick et al.

(1992), one may postulate that in earlier days, there was a

tendency for FFA members who were actively involved in

production agriculture to attend school less often,

especially when compared to current FFA members who are

involved more non-production oriented agricultural jobs.

Research supporting higher attendance rates can be

attributed to positive experiences in school. Gilman (2001)

found that positive learning experiences in after-school

activities and programs, particularly if they are school-

110

based, produced a more positive identification with school.

The practice of SAEs can be described as a positive school-

based program, especially if adequate supervision is

provided by the teacher of agriculture. Furthermore,

adolescents who participated in extracurricular activities,

school athletics, band and other school sponsored

activities, performed community service, and participated

in clubs were highly correlated with school success,

including attendance rates, grade point averages, and

aspirations to continue education beyond high school (U.S.

Department of Education, 1995). SAEs, especially those

conducted outside the school day, not only have positive

financial benefits for students, but also may encourage

them to attend school more often than they would without

such involvement. Although this study indicated a slight

negative relationship on student attendance, according to

previous research (Dyer & Osborne, 1996; Cheek, Arrington,

Carter, & Randell, 1994; Noxel & Cheek, 1988; Morton,

1978), one may surmise that attendance rates could be

higher for students enrolled in an agricultural education

program conducting an SAE, compared to students not

enrolled in an agricultural education program.

111

Research Question 6

The study found that the population had a grade point

average of 3.25 and median gross SAE earnings of $8,284.

This resulted in a negligible negative association (Davis,

1971) (r = -.028) between high school grade point average

and gross SAE earnings for the study. This finding

indicated a tendency for FFA members who earned more money

to have a slightly lower grade point average. The results

of this research question were nearly identical to those

found in research question five that pertained to high

school attendance; therefore, a similar conclusion can be

drawn on grade point average and SAE earnings. Again, this

difference was negligible and must also be taken within the

context of the study, which reported only the applicants’

high school grade point average. In accordance with the

Ohio FFA Degree Minimum Standards (Appendix A), FFA members

must have a minimum grade point average of a 2.00 to

qualify for the Ohio FFA State Degree. Although there was a

greater variance for grade point average than attendance

rate, caution should be taken when interpreting this

result.

Overall, FFA members receiving the Ohio FFA State

Degree in 2003 were outstanding students when considering

their high school attendance rate and the high school grade

112

point average. Different results would be expected if the

entire membership (N = 21,247) of the Ohio FFA Association

were surveyed.

Although not using economic SAE data in their

research, studies have linked participation in SAE to

positive student achievement in agricultural knowledge

(Cheek, Arrington, Carter, & Randell, 1994; Dyer & Osborne,

1996). Miller (2003) learned that students had increased

academic achievement when they participated in

extracurricular activities. This may imply that students

who participate in extracurricular activities are more

focused on doing well in school or that academically gifted

students participate in more extracurricular activities.

Miller’s study included activities beyond the scope of the

school day; therefore, one could logically interpret that

SAEs could be categorized as an extracurricular activity.

Morton (1978) found a positive relationship between

SAE scope and student achievement gauged by written test

scores. Noxel and Cheek (1988) found that for students

enrolled in ornamental horticulture, there was a positive

relationship between SAE scope and student achievement.

Buyck (as cited in Hoover & Arrington, 1994) predicted that

students who had SAEs would have higher grade point

averages in agricultural education. Peer groups with

113

similar interests can have a powerful influence on the

achievement of young people (Eccles & Barber, 1999; Gerber,

1996). Gibson (as cited in Hoover & Arrington, 1994)

reported a positive relationship between quality of SAE and

grade point average for senior agricultural education

students in Kentucky. Similarly, there was a moderate,

positive correlation between SAE participation and student

achievement in Agriscience programs in Florida (Cheek et

al., 1994). Finally, according to Harlin and Weeks (2001),

SAE supporters suggested that SAE involvement might improve

student achievement even though some obstacles exist.

Research Question 7

Females in the population had a median gross income of

$6,550 and a mean income of $8,564 (SD = $7,089). Males in

the population had a median gross SAE income of $9,800 and

a mean income of $15,872 (SD = $21,884).

The study found that there was a difference in gross

SAE earnings between male and female students indicating

that males had higher gross SAE earnings than did their

female counterparts. This conclusion supports research from

the U.S. Department of Labor (2000) that concluded that

employed male youths worked more hours than did female

youths in both the school and summer months in 1996-98.

114

While the study did not collect data on the number of hours

worked or the rate of pay, if young males worked more hours

than did young females and hourly wage earnings were

constant, then males would earn more money than would

females.

In following the requirements of the Ohio FFA Degree

Minimum Standards (Appendix A), SAE earnings reported on

the State FFA Degree application must include wages that

have been earned through an agricultural related

experience. According to the U.S. Department of Labor

(2000), “landscape and horticultural services, livestock

production, and automotive repair were some of the

industries on the top 10 list for male youths that were not

on the list for their female peers” (p. 18). Furthermore,

the U.S. Department of Labor (2000) reported that females

had a tendency not only to work in fewer agriculturally

related fields, but also to be employed in child-care more

than males.

Research Question 8

This study established that there was a negligible

relationship (Davis, 1971) (r = -.032) between the

population of students’ home counties (ages 15-19) and

their gross SAE earnings. There was a negligible tendency

115

for students to have higher gross SAE earnings when they

resided in less populated counties. According to Appendix

E, teens (ages 15-19) have a tendency to reside in closer

proximity to places of employment.

From an agricultural perspective, counties with larger

populations are less likely to have areas of traditional

employment in the agricultural industry. Hence, Ohio has

few traditional agricultural education programs in counties

with large populations. However, those counties often have

a small number of non-traditional programs (e.g.,

horticulture, animal care, natural resources, and power

technology). Students could be at a disadvantage if they

live in nonagricultural areas of the state. Since

membership in the FFA in Ohio begins in the ninth grade,

many first year and even second year members have yet to

obtain their license to drive, therefore limiting their

ability to obtain agriculturally related employment in

close proximity to their home.

Research Question 9

This study established that there was no relationship

between county teen poverty levels (ages 15-19) and

students’ gross SAE earnings. Due to the inconclusiveness

of the findings related to the economic variable of teen

116

poverty level, it became evident that the economic

environment does not influence students’ earnings on their

SAE.

This finding is unlike the conclusion drawn in

research question three, which reported that there was a

difference in gross SAE earnings among FFA districts.

Appendix E illustrates that teen poverty levels (ages 15-

19) in Appalachian counties (Appendix F) are higher than in

non-Appalachian counties. This substantiates the concept

that the economic environment of the county does not affect

students’ earnings on their SAE.

Research Question 10

This study established that there was no relationship

between county per capita income and students’ gross SAE

earnings. Since the study did not establish a relationship

between gross SAE earnings and the economic variable of per

capita income, it became evident that the county economic

setting does not influence student SAE earnings on their

SAE. The findings in this research question are similar to

the conclusions drawn in research question nine as it

relates to the economic climate of the county. This

conclusion confirms the notion that the economic setting of

117

the county does not influence student earnings on their

SAE.

Conclusions

Figure 5.1 illustrates the factors that contribute to

the gross SAE earnings of individuals receiving the Ohio

FFA State Degree in 2003. These factors, SAE type, FFA

district, and gender, were all categorized as personal

characteristics, indicating that they are characteristics

that either described the student or existed by student

choice.

SAE Type

The research found that there was a difference in SAE

earnings depending upon what type of SAE the member

selected. A student’s earning potential parallels the

assumption of financial risk when comparing earnings among

the three types of SAEs.

FFA District

In addition, it is obvious that the geographical

region of Ohio in which the FFA member resides limits the

member’s income earning potential. While there was no

relationship between SAE earnings and county population and

teen poverty rates, there was a relationship between SAE

earnings and FFA district location.

118

Gender

The research determined that male and female FFA

members had different levels of income. Males appear to be

more involved in skill development and wage earnings

activities while females seem to be involved in leadership

and personal development activities.

119

Figure 5.1: Factors Contributing to Supervised AgriculturalExperience Earnings

120

Recommendations

It is important to note that the study describes a

very specific population and therefore has limitations

regarding inferences toward other populations. However, the

following recommendations should help agricultural

educators as they pursue further research pertaining to the

variables surrounding the factors that contribute to SAE

earnings. Furthermore, the study should also assist in

adding to the body of knowledge concerning supervised

agricultural experience programs.

Recommendation for Practice

The results of the study gave rise to the following

recommendation that should be carefully considered for

implementation by teachers of agriculture in Ohio. Teachers

of agriculture should constantly pursue SAE programs that

reflect the diversity of their membership and community.

Teachers should instruct their students about the economic

implications affiliated with the type of SAE selected.

Entrepreneurship SAEs carry with them a great threat of

risk but also have the potential for a greater economic

return. At the other end of the SAE spectrum are placement

SAEs that have limited earning capabilities but also

reflect the least amount of personal financial risk.

121

Students should be advised that agricultural career

opportunities vary by geographic region of the state.

Agricultural opportunities and earning potential are

different in rural, urban, and suburban areas of Ohio.

While larger population areas may offer more earning

potential, they may be limited in the type of agricultural

occupations available to students.

Recommendations for Further Research

In addition to the recommendation for practice, the

study recommends that research surrounding the economic

aspects of SAE be further investigated.

1. Requirements for the Ohio FFA State Degree should be

further studied to determine if it is geographically

equitable within Ohio. The study determined that there

was a difference in gross SAE earnings among FFA members

that resided in different districts. Appendix C

illustrates that the districts in Ohio are

geographically different which might suggest that the

difference in SAE earnings could be based upon

socioeconomic factors not controlled for on the State

FFA Degree. These differences could also have

implications for FFA members applying for the American

122

FFA Degree and other recognition programs that consider

student earnings.

2. Agricultural education researchers should team with

researchers in agricultural economics to measure the

economic impact of agricultural education programs on a

local and state level. The study of economic impact, as

it pertains to the complete agricultural education

program, could provide information that may be used to

justify and potentially increase local, state, and

federal support.

3. Longitudinal studies should be conducted on Ohio FFA

State Degree recipients to determine the equity of the

financial requirements of the Ohio FFA State Degree

given the economic variations of the diverse

geographical regions of the state.

4. Limitations on SAE earnings need to be further

investigated to determine the extent of the association

among SAE earnings, grade point average, and attendance

rates. Although the study found a negligible negative

association among SAE earnings, grade point average, and

attendance rates, further research should evaluate the

effects of the FFA’s reward system as it relates to the

academic achievements of its membership.

123

5. Further exploration is needed in the area of gender

differences regarding SAE earnings, academic

achievement, and SAE type.

6. No differences were identified when analyzing selected

county-based variables and SAE earnings. This indicates

that other factors, not included in this study, may

affect SAE earnings of FFA members. Further research

should be undertaken that investigates and identifies

the nature of these contributing factors.

124

LIST OF REFERENCES

Agricultural Education Service, Ohio Department ofEducation (2003). Agriculture Education Teacherdirectory database (2002-2003), Columbus, OH.

Andelin, J., Carson, N., Feuer, M., Capper, J., & Branyan,G. (1989). Performance standards for secondary schoolvocational education. Science, education, andtransportation program. Office of TechnologyAssessment, Congress of the United States, WashingtonD.C.

Anyadoh, E. B. (1989). The relationship between selectedfactors and supervised occupational experience scoresin Ohio. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, The OhioState University, Columbus.

Arrington, L. R. (1981). Relationship of length ofvocational agriculture teacher contract to supervisedoccupational experience program scope and FFA chapteractivity level. Doctoral dissertation, The Ohio StateUniversity, Columbus, OH.

Arrington, L. R. (1984). Teacher summer employment and theactivity level of an FFA chapter. The Journal of theAmerican Association of Teacher Educators inAgriculture, 25(1), 48-53.

Arrington, L. R., & Cheek, J. G., (1990). SAE scope andstudent achievement in agribusiness and naturalresource education. Journal of Agricultural Education31(2), 55-61.

Arrington, L. R., & Hoover, T., (1994). SAE researchfindings. The Agricultural Education Magazine, 67(5),9-11.

Ary, D., Jacobs, L. C., & Razavieh, A. (1985). Introductionto research in education (3rd ed.). Orlando, FL:Harcourt Brace College Publishers.

125

Barrick, R. K., Arrington L, Hefferman, T., Hughes, M.,Moody, L. Ogline, P., et al. (1992). Experiencingagriculture: A handbook on SAE. Alexandria, VA:National Council for Agricultural Education.

Barrick R. K., Hughes, M., & Baker, M. (1991). A review andsynthesis of research on supervised experience inagriculture. Columbus, OH: The Ohio State University,Department of Agricultural Education. (ERIC DocumentReproduction Service No. ED340900).

Beard, W. P. (1948). Teaching conservation, a guide innatural resources education. Washington: AmericanForestry Assn.

Byers, C. W. (1972). The relationship of selected variablesto the supervision provided students of vocationalagriculture by their teachers. Unpublished doctoraldissertation, The Ohio State University, Columbus.

Camp, W. G. (1990). Participation in student activities andachievement: A covariance structural analysis. TheJournal of Educational Research, 83(5), 272-278.

Camp, W. G. (1999a). SAE Y2K. The Agricultural EducationMagazine (6), 6-7.

Camp, W. G. (1999b). Origins of SAE. Retrieved December 12,2003, from Virginia Tech University Web site:http://www.aged.vt.edu/sae/presentations.htm

Camp, W., Fallon, M., & Clarke, A. (1999). Supervisedagricultural experience: Revisiting supervisedagricultural experience. Proceedings of the 26th AnnualNational Agricultural Education Research Conference,Orlando, FL, 26, 159-175.

Cheek, J. G., Arrington, L. R., Carter, S., & Randell, R.S. (1994). Relationship of supervised agriculturalexperience program participation and studentachievement in agriculture. Journal of AgriculturalEducation, 35(2), 1-5.

Cole, R.L., & Connell, D.P., (1993). The economic impact ofOregon agricultural science and technology programs.The Journal of Agricultural Education, 34(1), 60-67.

126

Connors, J. (1992). Volunteerism as SAE. The AgriculturalEducation Magazine, 65(6), 18-20.

Courtney, D.S. & Doll. V.W. (1998). A planning Guide forDesigning Worksite Externships for Educators. StateUniversity Education Deans School-to-Work SystemIntegration Project. Dayton, OH.

Croom, B. D. (1991). (1994). Non-occupational supervisedexperience. The Agricultural Education Magazine,64(6), 15-16.

Croom, B. D., & Flowers, J. L. (2000). The image factor:Perception of the FFA organization by members and non-members. Proceedings of the 27th National AgriculturalEducation research Conference, Orlando, FL, 27, 391-402.

Davis, J. A., (1971). Elementary survey analysis. EnglewoodCliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Dewey, J., (1916). Democracy and education; an introductionto the philosophy of education. New York: TheMacmillan Company.

Dewey. J., (1938). Experience and education. New York: TheMacmillan Company.

Deyoe, G. P. (1953). Farming programs in vocationalagriculture. Danville, IL: Interstate Printers andPublishers, Inc.

Dugan, P. A., & Sutphin, H. D. (1984). The affective workcompetency development of vocational agriculturestudents involved in SAE programs in New York state.Paper presented at the Eastern Region Annual ResearchConference in Agricultural Education, Sturbridge, MA.(ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED255676).

Dyer, J. E., & Osborne, E. W. (1996). Developing a modelfor supervised agricultural experience programquality: A synthesis of research. Journal ofAgricultural Education, 37(2), 24-32.

Dyer, J. E., & Osborne, E. W. (1995). Participation insupervised agricultural experience programs: Asynthesis of research. Journal of AgriculturalEducation. 36(1), 6-14.

127

Dyer, J. E., & Williams, D. L. (1997a). Benefits ofsupervised agricultural experience programs: Asynthesis of research. Journal of AgriculturalEducation, 38(4), 50-58.

Dyer, J. E., & Williams, D. L. (1997b). Supervision ofSupervised Agricultural Experience Programs: Asynthesis of research. Journal of AgriculturalEducation, 38(4), 59-67.

Eccles, J. S., & Barber, B. L. (1999). Student council,volunteering, basketball, or marching band: What kindof extracurricular involvement matters? Journal ofAdolescent Research, 14, 10-43.

Fraenkel, J. R,. & Wallen, N. E. (1996). How to design andevaluate research in education. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Garber, S. J., & Launius, R. D. (2002) A brief history ofthe national aeronautics and space administration.[Online] http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/factsheet.htm

Gerber, S. B. (1996). Extracurricular activities andacademic achievement, Journal of Research andDevelopment in Education, 30, 42-50.

Gibson, G. L. (1987). Factors associated with thesupervised occupational experience programs ofKentucky vocational agriculture seniors. Unpublisheddoctoral dissertation, The Ohio State University,Columbus, OH.

Gilman, R. (2001). The relationship between lifesatisfaction, social interest and frequency ofextracurricular activities among adolescent students,Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 30, 749-768.

Gove, P. B. (Ed.). (1981). Webster's third newinternational dictionary of the English language.Springfield, MA: C. & G. Merriam.

Graham, J., & Birkenholz, R. (1999). Changes in MissouriSAE programs. Proceedings of the 26th NationalAgricultural Education Research Conference, Orlando,FL, 26, 172-180.

128

Grellener, D., & White, J. (1992). Supervised agriculturalexperiences in the 21st century – Cutting edge orobsolete? The Agricultural Education Magazine, 65(6),21-23.

Grubb, W. N. (1999). The economic benefits of sub-baccalaureate education: Results from nationalstudies. CCRC Brief, 2 (ISSN 1526-2049).

Grubb, W. N., & Stern, D. (1989). Separating the wheat fromthe chaff: The role of vocational education ineconomic development. University of California,National Center for Research in Vocational Education.Berkeley, CA.

H. Res. 2884, 103rd Cong., PL 239, School to workopportunities act (enacted). Retrieved December 2,2003 from North Carolina State University’s Web site:http://www.cals.ncsu.edu/agexed/sae/smithugh.html.

Harlin, J. & Weeks, B., (2001). FFA status of selectedagricultural education enrollees in Oklahoma.Proceedings of the 20th Annual Western RegionAgricultural Education Research Conference, Carmel,CA, 20, 94-106.

Hair, E. C., Moore, K. A., Hunter, D., Williams, & Kaye, J.W. (2001). Clark Youth Development OutcomesCompendium. Child Trends.

Hamilton, S. F., & Hamilton, M. A. (1997). When isworking work-based? Phi Delta Kappan, 78(9), 676-686.

Harris, D. E. (1983). Vocational agriculture teachercharacteristics and their relationship to perceptionsof SOE importance, attitudes toward supervision, andquality of supervised occupational experienceprograms. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, The OhioState University, Columbus.

Hoover, T., & Arrington, L. R. (1994). SAE researchfindings. The Agricultural Education Magazine, 67(5),9-11.

Hughes, M., & Barrick, R. K. (1993). A model foragricultural education in public schools. Journal ofAgricultural Education, 34(3), 59-66.

129

Hyslop-Margison, Emery J. (2001). An assessment of thehistorical arguments in vocational education reform.Journal of Career and Technical Education, 17(1).

Jacobs, J., & Grubb, N. W., (2002). Implementing the“education consensus”: The federal role in supportingvocational-technical education. Paper prepared for theOffice of Vocational and Adult Education, USDE.Contract No. ED-99-CO-0160.

Jekielek, S. M., Cochran, S., & Hair, E. C. (2002)Employment programs and youth development: Asynthesis. Child Trends, Product Number #2002-11.

Kantor, H. (1986). Work, education, and vocational reform:The ideological origins of vocational education, 1890-1920. American Journal of Education, 94, 401-426.

Kerlinger, F., & Lee, H. (2000). Foundations of behavioralresearch (4th Ed.). NY: Harcourt College Publishers.

Knight, J. A. (1978). Why vocational agriculture teachersin Ohio leave teaching. Unpublished doctoraldissertation, The Ohio State University, Columbus.

Leising, J. G., & Zilbert, E. E. (1985). Factors associatedwith supervised occupational experience in Californiavocational agriculture programs. The Journal of theAmerican Association of Teacher Educators inAgriculture, 26(2), 56-64.

Lindsey, S. J. (1978). Supervised occupational experiencesin production agriculture for students with limitedopportunity. Unpublished master's thesis, The OhioState University, Columbus.

Maddy-Bernstein, C., Matias, Z. B., Cunanan, E. S., Krall,B. T., & Iliff, L. (1995). A school-to-work resourceguide: Focusing on diversity. National Center forResearch in Vocational Education. Berkley, CA.

McConnell, C., & Brue S., (2001). Economics (15th ed.) NewYork: McGraw-Hill.

McCracken, D. J. (1998). Agricultural education 886 classnotes. Ohio State University, Columbus.

130

McKinney, J. (1956). This I remember, American VocationalJournal, 31 (9).

Mick, J. H., Stewart, B. R., & Claycomb, D. M. (1984). Jobplacement as influenced by the agricultural backgroundof vocational agriculture graduates. The Journal ofthe American Association of Teacher Educators inAgriculture, 25(3), 60-65.

Miller, B. M., (2003). Critical hours: After schoolprograms and educational success. Brookline, MA:Miller Midzik Research Associates.

Miller, T. R. (1967). Supervised practice in vocationalagriculture: A student handbook. Danville, IL: TheInterstate Printers & Publishers, Inc.,

Miller, V. R. (2002). The role of career and technicaleducation in high school. Office of Vocational andAdult Education, U.S. Department of Education.Washington D.C.

Moore, G. E. (1988). The forgotten leader in agriculturaleducation: Rufus W. Stimson. The Journal of theAmerican Association of Teacher Educators inAgriculture, 29(3), 50-58.

Moore, G., & Flowers, J. (1993). Strengthening programsthrough an expanded model for SAE. The AgriculturalEducation Magazine, 66(1), 18-20.

Morton, R. (1978). The relationship between the quality ofsupervised occupational experience programs andachievement of students in vocational agriculture.Unpublished doctoral dissertation, The Ohio StateUniversity, Columbus.

National Commission on Excellence in Education. (1983). Anation at risk. Washington DC: Author.

National FFA Organization, (1995). Agricultural proficiencyaward handbook. Alexandria, VA; FFA Supply Service.

National FFA Organization, (1999). FFA Advisors: Making aDifference, 7(9). Indianapolis, IN.

131

National FFA Organization (2004a). About the FFA. RetrievedJanuary 2, 2004 from the National FFA Web site:http://www.ffa.org/about_ffa/index.html.

National FFA Organization (2004b). Agricultural ProficiencyAwards. Retrieved January 3, 2004 from the NationalFFA Web site: http://www.ffa.org/programs/proficiency/index.html

National FFA Organization (2004c). FFA Statistics.Retrieved January 2, 2004 from the National FFA Website: http://www.ffa.org/about_ffa/html/ffa_statistics.htm#General.

National Research Council. (1988). Understandingagriculture: New directions for education. WashingtonDC: National Academy Press.

National Summit on Agricultural Education. (1989). Thestrategic Plan for agricultural education. WashingtonDC: Author.

Newcomb, L. H., McCracken, J. D., & Warmbrod, J. R. (1993).Methods of teaching agriculture. Danville, IL:Interstate.

Noxel, S., & Cheek, J. G. (1988). Relationship ofsupervised occupational experience program scope tostudent achievement in ornamental horticulture. TheJournal of the American Association of TeacherEducators in Agriculture, 29(4), 24-30.

Office of Vocational and Adult Education (2002). The CarlD. Perkins vocational and technical education act,public law 105-332: What is vocational-technicaleducation? Retrieved January 3, 2004 from the Officeof Vocational and Adult Education Web site:http://www.ed.gov/offices/OVAE/CTE/ perkins.html.

Office of Vocational and Adult Education (2004). Career andTechnical Education. Retrieved January 7, 2004 fromthe Office of Vocational and Adult Education Web site:http://www.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ovae/pi/cte/index.html

Ohio Department of Education (2003a). Career-Technical andAdult Education Glossary. Retrieved January 2, 2004

132

from the Ohio Department of education Web site:http://www.ode.state.oh.us/ctae/Office/dictionary.asp

Ohio Department of Education (2003b). Committed to successfor all in Ohio schools: 2002-2003 annual report oneducation progress in Ohio. Columbus, OH: OhioDepartment of Education.

Ohio FFA Association, Inc. (2003). Ohio FFA associationmembership database (2002-2003), Columbus, OH.

Omernik, J. M. (2002a). SAE brings learning to life. (2002,January). FFA Advisors Making a Difference.

Omernik, J. M. (2002b). Teaching entrepreneurship with SAE.(2002, January). FFA Advisors Making a Difference.

Pals, D. A. (1988). The value of supervised occupationalexperience programs as perceived by students. Journalof Agricultural Education, 29(2), 32-39.

Phipps, L.J., & Osborne, E.W. (1988). Handbook onagricultural Education in public schools. (5th ed.).Danville, IL: Interstate.

Portillo, M. T., & White, J. D. (2001). An assessment ofprogram factors influencing california FFA proficiencyaward participation. Proceedings of the 20th AnnualWestern Region Agricultural Education ResearchConference, Carmel, CA, 20, 108-120.

Potter, O. B. (1984). Supervised occupational experienceprograms and achievement of students mainstreamed inOhio vocational agriculture programs. Unpublisheddoctoral dissertation, The Ohio State University,Columbus.

Prosser School of Technology, (2003). History. RetrievedJanuary 15, 2004 from the Prosser School of TechnologyWeb site: http://www.prossertech.org/history.htm

Retallick, M.S., & Martin, R.A., (2003). A longitudinalstudy of the economic impact of supervisedagricultural experience in Iowa. Proceeding of the 30th

National Agricultural Education Research Conference,Orlando, FL, 30, 147-158.

133

Secretary's Commission on Achieving Necessary Skills.(1990). What work requires of schools: A SCANS reportfor America 2000. Washington, DC: United StatesDepartment of Labor.

Steele, R. (1997). Analysis of the continuing decline inuse of supervised agricultural experience (SAE) in NewYork State. Journal of Agricultural Education, 38(2),49-58.

Stewart, B. R., & Birkenholz, R. J. (1991). Outcomes ofchanging supervised agricultural experience programs.Journal of Agricultural Education, 32(3), 35-41.

Stimson, R. W., & Lathrop, F. W. (1942). History ofAgricultural Education of Less Than College Grade inthe United States. United State Government PrintingOffice: Washington DC.

Swortzel, K. (1996). Perceptions regarding planningactivities and supervision strategies for supervisedagricultural experience programs. Journal ofAgricultural Education 37(2), 47-55.

Taft, R. (2002). Jobs and prosperity: Ohio’s strategy forthe third frontier. Columbus, OH: Governor’s Office,State of Ohio.

Tanner, D., & Tanner, L. (1980). Curriculum development:Theory into practice. New York: Macmillan.

Tylke, R. J., & Arrington, L. R. (1988). The relationshipof supervised occupational experience program scope tostudent achievement in livestock production. TheJournal of the American Association of TeacherEducators in Agriculture, 29(3), 28-33.

United States Department of Education. (1995).Extracurricular participation and student engagement,National Center for Education Statistics (June, pp. 1-2).

United States Department of Labor, (2000). Report on theYouth Labor Force. Retrieved January 3, 2004, from theUnited States Department of Labor Web site:http://www.bls.gov/opub/rylf/rylfhome.htm.

134

West, D., & Iverson, M. (1999). Economic impact ofsupervised agricultural experience programs inGeorgia. Proceeding of the 26th National AgriculturalEducation Research Conference, Orlando, FL, 26, 148-156.

Wirth, A.G. (1972). Education in the technological society.San Francisco: Intext Educational Publishers.

135

APPENDIX A

OHIO FFA STATE DEGREE MINIMUM STANDARDS

136

137

APPENDIX B

STATE FFA DEGREE

138

139

140

141

142

143

144

145

146

147

148

149

150

151

152

153

154

155

156

APPENDIX C

OHIO FFA DISTRICT MAP

157

Ohio FFA District Map

158

APPENDIX D

OHIO FFA SAE GUIDELINES

159

Guidelines and Expectations for SAE Programs in Ohio

1. Supervisiona. Supervision of a student’s SAE program is to be

provided by the teacher of agriculture, aparent/guardian, and/or the student’s employer.

b. It is recommended that an teacher of agricultureobserve and evaluate each student’s SAE program.Additional visits may be made depending on the natureof the student’s SAE program or other special needsthe student may have.

c. The supervisory visit to the student’s SAE program bythe teacher of agriculture includes meeting with theparent/guardian and/or the student’s employer.

d. The teacher of agriculture shall maintain evidence ofthe supervisory visit. Evidence should include writtenreport of what was observed, suggestions forimprovement, a review of the student’s SAE recordbook(s), and photographs of the SAE program. A copy ofthe written supervisory visit report is to be given tothe student. Each visit report is to be maintained inthe agriculture department files for future referenceand evidence of student progress.

e. It is recommended that the teacher of agriculturespend a minimum of 80% of their extended programmingtime in instructional activities with students. Thismay include individual or group SAE relatedinstruction, reviewing SAE record books, and/orconducting on-site SAE supervisory visits.

2. SAE Criteriaa. The student’s experience program is be related to

those industries served by agriculture education.Those industries include agriculture, horticulture andnatural resources. It should compliment the student’soccupational interests. It should include technical,academic and employability skills as found in thestate approved Agricultural and Environmental Systemscontent standards, model academic standards and coreITAC.

b. A student’s SAE is considered appropriate when thestudent is able to answer “yes” to question i. and“yes” to either question ii or iii.i. Does the supervised experience involve the

application of technical agriculture andemployability skills?

and

160

ii. Does the supervised experience contribute to theproduction and/or initial processing of anagricultural, horticultural, or natural resourceproducts?

oriii. Does the supervised experience provide a service

for the agriculture, horticulture and/or naturalresources industries?

c. Refer to the Environmental and Agricultural Systemslist of occupational titles to help determine if thestudent’s supervised experience is related to arecognized occupation.

3. Experiencea. The student’s supervised experience should include

practical, hands-on, activities that can lead to entryand advancement in an agricultural and naturalresources career area.

b. The experience program includes technical skilldevelopment in a career cluster related to agricultureand natural resources ranging from production tomarketing of products, services, and the developmentof employability skills necessary for successfulemployment leading to career advancement.

c. An approved cooperative training plan, business planand/or plan of practice is to be developed by thestudent, in cooperation with the teacher ofagriculture, parent/guardian, and/or employer to allowthe student to reach his/her potential based uponavailable resources and student needs.

d. The student is to be given the opportunity to self-evaluate their experiences and skill development andreceive feedback from the teacher of agriculture,their parent/guardian, and/or employer on theirprogress.

e. The student is to maintain an individual career andtechnical education portfolio including a record booklisting the financial records of the program, skillsand competencies developed, and leadership developmentactivities in which the student participated. Therecord book(s) should include a section on analyzingthe records for reflection of past accomplishments andfuture planning purposes

4. Program

161

a. The SAE program should contribute to the workforcedevelopment and economic viability of the community.

b. SAE programs will primarily be conducted outside ofdesignated class time. However, double-block, year-long classes in comprehensive high schools, and in-school laboratory time in career centers can becounted as part of a student’s SAE program.

c. Teacher of agriculture shall maintain detailed recordsof each student’s SAE program and supervisory visits.It is recommended that an annual report of allstudents’ SAE programs be presented to the localschool board, school administrators, advisorycommittee, and other interested parties. At a minimum,the report should include a connection back to theknowledge and skills as found in the local programcourse of study.

d. The student should demonstrate a steady increase inthe knowledge and skills gained over time.

e. The student should demonstrate increasedresponsibility in directing their SAE program overtime.

162

APPENDIX E

COUNTY ECONOMIC DATA

163

County (district)Population*Ages 15-19

Poverty Level*Ages 15-19

Per CapitaIncome*

Adams (9) 1,979 (62) .235 (03) $18,725 (65)Allen (4) 8,551 (14) .153 (22) $24,869 (28)Ashland (2) 4,528 (30) .121 (38) $21,806 (53)Ashtabula (3) 7,278 (18) .183 (11) $22,430 (45)Athens (10) 8,302 (16) .213 (06) $19,805 (59)Auglaize (4/5) 3,602 (37) .080 (61) $26,477 (18)Belmont (10) 4,625 (27) .207 (07) $22,307 (47)Brown (9) 3,096 (46) .157 (20) $22,307 (48)Butler (9) 27,158 (04) .088 (54) $28,718 (10)Champaign (6) 2,862 (54) .109 (44) $25,970 (22)Clark (9) 10,699 (10) .158 (19) $26,136 (21)Clermont (9) 12,861 (07) .093 (52) $29,899 (07)Clinton (9) 3,246 (43) .117 (42) $27,458 (14)Columbiana (3) 7,749 (17) .172 (14) $21,481 (54)Coshocton (8) 2,800 (55) .142 (29) $22,147 (49)Crawford (2) 3,288 (41) .143 (27) $23,296 (41)Cuyahoga (3) 89,960 (01) .182 (12) $33,483 (01)Darke (5) 3,810 (34) .104 (46) $25,449 (27)Defiance (1) 3,184 (44) .085 (59) $25,624 (25)Erie (2) 5,522 (22) .130 (35) $29,921 (06)Fairfield (7) 8,550 (15) .088 (55) $30,207 (05)Fayette (9) 1,966 (63) .145 (25) $23,505 (40)Franklin (7) 74,374 (02) .142 (28) $32,361 (02)Fulton (1) 3,250 (42) .075 (64) $26,827 (16)Gallia (10) 2,421 (58) .243 (02) $22,704 (44)Guernsey (8) 2,953 (49) .220 (05) $20,211 (58)Hancock (4) 5,372 (23) .095 (51) $29,447 (08)Hardin (4/6) 2,971 (48) .144 (26) $20,677 (57)Henry (1) 2,367 (59) .088 (56) $25,462 (26)Highland (9) 2,924 (50) .168 (17) $19,635 (60)Hocking (10) 2,002 (61) .177 (13) $21,081 (56)Holmes (8) 3,398 (38) .200 (08) $19,057 (63)Huron (2) 4,321 (33) .119 (40) $23,989 (37)Knox (7) 4,759 (26) .138 (32) $22,308 (46)Lawrence (10) 4,476 (31) .261 (01) $19,096 (62)Licking (7) 10,875 (09) .102 (49) $26,239 (20)Logan (10) 3,342 (40) .124 (37) $26,343 (19)Lorain (2) 20,223 (06) .129 (36) $27,594 (13)Madison (6) 2,906 (51) .119 (41) $24,145 (35)Marion (6) 4,474 (32) .149 (23) $24,256 (33)Medina (3) 10,595 (11) .059 (67) $30,271 (04)Mercer (4/5) 3,351 (39) .083 (60) $24,320 (31)Miami (5) 7,223 (19) .101 (50) $28,685 (11)Montgomery (5) 38,629 (03) .147 (24) $30,453 (03)

164

Morgan (10) 1,110 (66) .234 (04) $18,944 (64)Morrow (8) 2,334 (60) .142 (30) $19,613 (61)Muskingum (8) 6,517 (20) .185 (09) $24,294 (32)Noble (10) 1,033 (67) .170 (16) $15,403 (67)Ottawa (1) 2,868 (53) .087 (58) $29,280 (09)Paulding (4) 1,572 (65) .104 (47) $21,123 (55)Perry (10) 2,623 (57) .184 (10) $16,899 (66)Pickaway (7) 3,705 (35) .132 (34) $21,959 (51)Preble (5) 3,169 (45) .103 (48) $23,852 (39)Putnam (4) 2,876 (52) .063 (66) $25,934 (23)Richland (7) 9,001 (13) .155 (21) $24,241 (34)Ross (7) 4,952 (24) .171 (15) $22,096 (50)Sandusky (2/4) 4,535 (29) .104 (45) $23,885 (38)Seneca (4) 4,881 (25) .109 (43) $22,809 (43)Shelby (2) 3,616 (36) .091 (53) $26,634 (17)Stark (3) 26,446 (05) .138 (31) $26,828 (15)Tuscarawas (3) 6,489 (21) .133 (33) $21,840 (52)Union (6) 2,686 (56) .068 (65) $25,903 (24)Washington (10) 4,621 (28) .165 (18) $23,165 (42)Wayne (3) 9,052 (12) .119 (39) $24,785 (29)Williams (1) 2,973 (47) .087 (57) $24,736 (30)Wood (1) 12,465 (08) .076 (62) $27,757 (12)Wyandot (4) 1,674 (64) .076 (63) $24,085 (36)*Rank for this study is in parenthesis

165

APPENDIX F

OHIO APPALACHIAN COUNTIES

166

Appalachian Counties in Ohio

Documents

factors influencing supervised agricultural experience