JVER v29n1 - Emerging Educational and Agricultural Trends and their Impact on the Secondary Agricultural Education Program
Emerging Educational and Agricultural Trends and their Impact on the Secondary Agricultural Education Program
Ralsa Marshall Stewart, Jr.
Gary E. Moore
Jim Flowers
North Carolina State UniversityAbstract
The primary purpose of this study was to identify the emerging trends in education and agriculture and to determine their implications on the secondary agricultural education program. For this study, the researchers did a national solicitation for nominations with 1,160 national agricultural education leaders, state agricultural education leaders, university agricultural educators and agriculture teachers. Fifty education experts and 50 agricultural experts were identified and invited to participate in the study. Three rounds of a Delphi survey were used to identify the emerging trends.
This study identified 12 emerging educational issues and 6 emerging agricultural issues. Educational issues included: Finance and Budget, Teacher Recruitment, Teacher Education, Curriculum, Educational Leadership, Teacher Recognition and Reward, Teaching and Instructional Strategies, Standards, Legislation and Policy, Professional Development, Teacher Attitude, and State Leadership. Agricultural Issues included: Environmental Influences on Agriculture, Technology and Innovation in Agriculture, Food Supply and Safety in Agriculture, Trade Issues in Agriculture, Youth in Agriculture, and Urban Sprawl/Impact on Agriculture.
It was concluded that many of the educational issues have not changed dramatically over the years. Agricultural issues seemed to have broadened from a production focus to issues that deal with agriculture's relationship to society.
Introduction and Theoretical Framework
Each year, a national publication, THE FUTURIST , produces a top 10 forecasts for the year. In 2002, four of their forecasts addressed educational and agricultural issues as follows (World Future Society, 2002, pp. 1-2):
- Future farmers could make more money from air than the land by having one turbine on a quarter of an acre of land. The estimate is that a return of $2,000 per year could be realized versus growing corn, which would bring in a return of $100 per year.
- Schools will solve behavior problems with better nutrition. One school eliminated fights, expulsions and suicides by offering students healthy foods and not allowing them to fill up on junk foods.
- Goodbye textbooks, hello networked learning. Printed and bound textbooks will disappear as more interactive coursework is developed and distributed over the Internet.
- Fish farming will overtake cattle ranching as a food source by 2010. Aquaculture has been the fastest-growing sector of the world food economy over the past decade, while beef production has stagnated.
These forecasts point out the changes that could be occurring in education and agriculture in the future. Whether or not these forecasts are true, the important issue to consider is that change is coming and inevitable.
Herring (1995) stated, "In a dynamic, ever-changing world, I believe that perhaps the great challenge we face in agricultural education is that of anticipating and managing change" (pp. 7-8). He predicted that agricultural education would face challenges in the future in the following areas: agricultural education mission, clientele, delivery system, modernization of supervised agricultural education programs, teacher education programs, in-service education programs, reform of agricultural education instruction, tech-prep, and updating curriculum.
According to Ray Kurzweil, 1999 Medal of Technology winner presented by the World Technology Network, at today's rate of progress, the next 20 years (2003- 2023) will be equivalent to the entire twentieth century in its rate of change. Change and progress will continue to occur at a rapid pace. This was reinforced by Alvin Toffler who indicated that with rapid change students must be taught how to learn, unlearn and relearn (Case, 2003, slides 1-3).
Change is not new. In 1971, the United States Department of Agriculture predicted that there would be more change in the next 30 years than there had been in the past 70 years. Thus they were predicting more change between 1971 and 2000 than had occurred between 1900 and 1971. This prediction of change was focused on how many people would farm, how many people would need to be fed, and how food would be distributed around the world (United States Department of Agriculture, 1971).
There are enormous changes occurring in the nation's agricultural industry. These changes include the lowest commodity prices in the United States in over 40 years, consolidations in agribusiness, and increasing pressures on the livestock, poultry, and dairy industries from environmental advocacy groups. Furthermore, as reported by former Secretary of Agriculture Dan Glickman, ". . . rural America, where most of the agricultural production in the nation exists, does not have the transportation, educational, and communications infrastructure to easily make a shift from the traditional agricultural economy" (Emerging Issues Forum, 2000, p. 13).
There is a need for state and national leaders to focus on emerging trends and issues in education and agriculture. Warmbrod (1986) indicated that agricultural education tends to pay greater attention to the significance and importance of those issues that are researched. This gives greater relevance to the need for identifying those issues and trends in the future. Buriak and Shinn (1993) reported that there was a need for maintaining compatibility with the national priorities for the food and agricultural science system and the educational system and for communicating agricultural education priorities to agencies and organizations which have national responsibilities to plan and budget future research.
Frick (1993) identified a list of agricultural education curriculum subject areas of highest priority to the future of middle grades agricultural education as follows: food safety/consumer relations; leadership/human relations; careers and future of agriculture; agricultural science and experimentation; agricultural vocabulary; and agricultural benefits to the world. This research generated a list of prioritized curriculum needs for one segment of agricultural education instructors. However, it did not take a more global view of issues facing the agricultural education program in the future.
In 1977, Stewart and Shinn reported that there were five areas of greatest importance to agriculture teachers, state supervisors and teacher educators. Those areas were curriculum development, funding, teacher education, teacher shortage and evaluation.
The dynamics that are occurring in the educational and agricultural sectors of the nation create challenges for the agricultural education program. Clearly, the agricultural education program is the intersection between these two sectors. Knowing the environment and being able to adjust to the changes occurring in agriculture and education is critical to the future growth and, in fact, survival of the agricultural education program.
The theoretical foundation for this research is an adaptation of Clarke's "instrumental futurism." (Clarke, 1997). Clarke developed the concept of instrumental futurism to advance the field of information technologies. This concept is intended to assist in the formulation of strategy or policy. This approach can help policy-makers in determining what actions to take, and what forms of monitoring to institute.
Education and agriculture are in a turbulent and challenging time. Education is facing major changes. Heavy emphases on educational reform initiatives like vouchers, charter schools, home schooling, school funding, accountability, testing, and teacher quality are re-shaping the educational landscape. The disparities between rural and urban schools are reaching crisis proportions and the pressure to recruit and retain high quality teachers has reaching a critical point. These factors are substantial and integral to the future of the economy in rural and urban areas. Agriculture is facing major changes. Not only will what farmers grow be different, but also the global impact of how they grow and market their crops and livestock will be significant. Clearly, astute business skills, global understanding and flexibility will be keys to the future of those involved in the agricultural industry.
The purpose of the study was to identify the educational and agricultural trends in the United States to enable leaders of the agricultural education program to make appropriate decisions regarding the future direction of the agricultural education program. These decisions would include, but not be limited to, curriculum direction, marketing efforts, professional development for agriculture teachers, and FFA programming.
This study was needed since there is no recent research that identifies educational and agricultural trends and issues that should be considered in planning for the future direction of the nation's agricultural education program. This begins to close that knowledge gap to assist leaders of the agricultural education program in their future planning.
Purposes and Objectives
The purpose of this study was to identify trends and issues in education and agriculture, and to see what the implications are for the agricultural education program and to develop ideas for future consideration by leaders responsible for the agricultural education program. The two research questions for this study are:
- What are the emerging educational trends in the nation?
- What are the emerging agricultural trends in the nation?
Methods and Procedures
The type of research used in the study was survey research using the Delphi technique (Sackman, 1975). For this study two panels of national experts, one in education and one in agriculture, were used. The study sought to determine the national trends in these two sectors. This design enabled the researcher to develop consensus on a number of issues without face-to-face confrontation (Helmer, 1966). Delphi operates on the principle that several heads are better than one in making subjective conjectures about the future . . . and that experts will make conjectures based upon rational judgment rather then merely guessing" (Weaver, 1971).
When an expert panel has at least 15 members and is truly representative of the expert community, the Delphi method is reliable (Dalkey, Rourke, et al., 1972). Dalkey et al. indicated that a group size of 13 was needed for reliability with a correlation coefficient of .9. Therefore, she recommended a group size of 12 to 15. Sutphin suggested that the sample should be large enough to obtain the amount of expertise necessary to effectively conduct the study. Beyond this number, the sample size should be held to a minimum to reduce cost and an over abundance of data which becomes cumbersome and yields no additional information for the study (Sutphin, 1981).
The agricultural panel was comprised of a cross-section of the agricultural community including commodity leaders, farmers, agribusiness representatives, policy-makers, educators, students and cooperative extension personnel. The educational panel was comprised of a cross-section of the educational community including teachers, school administrators, school board members, policy-makers, educational organization leaders, students, and parents.
The panel was identified through a national nomination process. Over 1,160 state supervisors, university educators, teachers and national staff in agricultural education were contacted via email and asked to nominate up to five experts each in agriculture and in education. Two requests for nominees were conducted with a total of 72 education experts and 70 agricultural experts being nominated. These experts represented the diversity of education and agriculture and the geography of the United States.
Narrowing these nominees to a manageable group of experts was the next challenge. Each nominee had a brief biographical sketch. These nominees were reviewed by the members of the researcher's graduate committee. Based on the needs of the study and nomination information, a group of 50 education leaders and 50 agricultural leaders were selected. The educators were from 26 states and all major geographic regions of the nation. The agriculturists were from 20 states and all major geographic regions of the nation. The nominees were purposefully selected to insure that a wide range of educational and agricultural backgrounds were represented on the expert panel. Some of the nominees were not able to participate and there was some attrition as the study progressed. The final number of participants was 15 for education and 15 in agriculture, which meets the Dalkey, Rourke, Lewis, and Snyder (1972) threshold.
In a Delphi study, multiple questionnaires are used (Ludwig, 1997). The development and the administration of the questionnaires were interconnected. Three rounds of questionnaires were used in the study. The first questionnaire asked the participants to identify up to 10 of the most critical issues facing education and agriculture respectively. The first round identified 264 issue responses in education and 180 issue responses in agriculture. Many of the issues were identified more than one time. Based on the responses and frequency of responses, the researcher collapsed the initial education and agriculture lists to 40 educational issues and 24 agricultural issues. Each issue was a major topic area with a brief description of what that issue area entailed.
The second-round questionnaire was developed by the researcher based on the information collected in the first round. A five-point, Likert-type scale was used by the participants to rate the importance of the issues. Respondents were asked to share comments and suggestions in regards to each item. Two follow-up reminders were conducted via email to increase the response rate. A total of 19 educational issues and 17 agricultural issues emerged based upon the rating given on the five-point Likert-type scale.
The third-round questionnaire asked the participants to rate the importance of the issues on a five-point, Likert-type scale and to rank the items in terms of their importance and impact on agriculture or education respectively (Ludwig, 1997). One follow-up was done via e-mail to maximize the response rate. There was a natural break in the ratings at 4.0. Twelve education trends and six agricultural trends were identified.
Results and Findings
The 19 items presented to the education expert panel in Round 3 are presented in Table 1. The table shows the final ratings and ranking of the panel. Finance and Budget was the highest rated and ranked item (4.64, 1). This was followed by Teacher Recruitment/Retention (4.57, 2). The remaining 10 items that were rated above 4.0 are Teacher Education (4.42, 3), Curriculum (4.28, 4), Educational
Table 1
Mean Scores on Educational IssuesNote . The mean score was determined by the respondents' ratings on a five point Likert scale with 1 = not important, 2 = somewhat important, 3 = important, 4= very important, 5 = extremely important.
Educational Issues M SD Rank Finance/Budget 4.64 .50 1 Teacher Recruitment/Retention 4.57 .65 2 Teacher Education 4.42 .51 3 Curriculum 4.28 .73 4 Educational Leadership 4.35 .76 5 Teacher Recognition/Reward 4.29 .64 6 Teaching/Instructional Strategies 4.29 .86 7 Academic Standards 4.21 .58 8 Legislative/Policy 4.14 .74 9 Professional Development 4.14 .86 10 Teacher Attitude/Morale 4.14 .95 11 State Leadership 4.07 .72 12 Accountability/High Stakes Testing 3.93 1.09 13 Family/Community Involvement 3.93 .62 14 Classroom Management/Discipline 3.86 .86 16 Public Perception/Awareness 3.86 .86 15 Role of Public Education/Public Expectations 3.79 .73 18 Industry Connections/Partnerships 3.79 .83 17 Educational Research 3.64 .80 19 Leadership (4.35, 5), Recognition and Reward (4.29, 6), Teaching/Instructional Strategies (4.29, 7), Academic Standards I4.21, 8), Legislative/Policy (4.14, 9), Professional Development (4.14, 10), Teacher Attitude (4.14, 11) and State Leadership (4.07, 12).
The agricultural expert panel respondents rated and ranked 17 emerging agricultural issues. Environmental Influence on Agriculture was the highest rated and ranked item (4.65, 1). The five other items that were rated above 4.0 or were Technology and Innovation in Agriculture (4.27, 7), Food Supply and Safety in Agriculture (4.18, 2), Trade Issues in Agriculture (4.09, 4), Urban Growth and Sprawl (4.0, 5), and Youth in Agriculture (4.0, 8). The list of the 17 items with their ratings and rankings are found in Table 2.
Table 1
Mean Scores on Agricultural IssuesNote . The mean score was determined by the respondents' ratings on a five point Likert scale with 1 = not important, 2 = somewhat important, 3 = important, 4= very important, 5 = extremely important.
Agricultural Issues M SD Rank Environmental Influence on Agriculture 4.45 .69 1 Technology/Innovation in Agriculture 4.27 .65 7 Food Supply/Safety in Agriculture 4.18 .87 2 Trade Issues in Agriculture 4.09 .70 4 Urban Growth/Sprawl Impact on Agriculture 4.00 .98 5 Youth in Agriculture 4.00 .97 8 Farm Bill Implications 3.83 .98 10 Public Awareness/Understanding in Agriculture 3.82 1.04 6 External Influences/Impacts on Production Agriculture 3.82 1.08 3 Consumer Impact on Agriculture 3.73 .79 9 Water Issues in Agriculture 3.73 .79 12 Federal Regulations Impacting Agriculture 3.73 .79 14 Rural Issues and Agriculture 3.64 .92 11 Research Impact on Agriculture 3.45 .52 16 Changes in Agribusiness 3.45 1.13 13 Alternative Uses for Agricultural Products 3.36 .67 17 Land Issues in Agriculture 3.36 .92 15 In education, there was agreement between the top educational issues per the Likert-scale rating and the overall ranking. In agriculture, there was difference in the rating and the ranking of the top six issues. Technology and Innovation in Agriculture rated second, but was ranked seventh while Youth in agriculture rated sixth, but was ranked eighth. It is also noteworthy that Public Awareness and External Influences ranked sixth and third respectively, but did not rate in the top six.
Conclusions, Recommendations, and Implications
Based on the findings of this study, the following conclusions were drawn:
- Agricultural issues are global in nature and are connected to international trade, public policy, food supply, agricultural awareness, urban growth, and the environment. These themes overlap in many ways and make the future of agriculture difficult and challenging.
- Education issues are linked to public policy, leadership, training and finance. These three areas appear to be overlapping in their nature since they are either caused by or the result of another issue. At the center of most of the issues is the number one issue of finance and budget. This has been a challenge in the past and will probably continue to be in the future.
The results of this study provide some clear signals for state and national agricultural education leaders as they chart the future direction of the agricultural education program. Failure to recognize the signals and to adjust course would be detrimental to the program.
Educational Implications
Finance and budget are clearly the primary concerns of leading educators in the United States. According to Erskine Bowles, "With the inequity of funding that is occurring from school to school based on local taxation, a large segment of our students, especially in rural areas, are not getting the highest quality of education" (Emerging Issues Forum, 2000, p. 12). Furthermore, with a growing student population base, a demand for higher teacher salaries and the trend of greater school choice through the use of vouchers, this issue is not likely to go away. A final complication to the finance and budget issue for agricultural education is the focus on academic standards and testing. Chances are that a great funding emphasis will be focused in that direction thereby reducing the funding for career and technical education programs like agricultural education.
Teacher recruitment and retention have been of concern and although much has been done to increase teacher salaries in many parts of the nation, the issue remains. A significant part of this problem is found in the way teachers are treated. As Brown (2003) indicated there has been a great focus and concern over the years regarding student drop out. However, there is an equal or greater concern regarding teacher dropouts. According to Camp (2002), agricultural education programs nationwide are continuing to have a shortfall in the number of fully qualified teachers prepared to accept available teaching positions. With a growing student population and higher expectations of the education system, finding and keeping qualified teachers is essential.
Teacher education was surfaced as a high priority by the expert panel. This was interesting in light of an earlier study by Connors (1998) that indicated that agriculture teachers and state supervisors saw this as a problem while university educators did not. One could say that the university faculty is not in tune with where the field is. However, this could point to a different concern. Perhaps the expectations that universities are placing on faculty and the tight budgetary times are forcing faculty to make choices that are not recognized by teachers and state supervisors. All of the many educational issues including, but not limited to, recruitment, retention, standards, accountability, high stakes teaching, and reaching diverse audiences intersect in teacher education programs. Preparing students in a manner that not only makes them good teachers, but also good managers of change, is vital. Successful teachers must be prepared to deal with a challenging, ever-changing environment. Agricultural education must have a well-prepared teaching force if it is to thrive in the future.
Not surprisingly, curriculum continues to be a central issue for education. Curriculum, what should be taught, was being debated at the beginning of the 20th century and it is today at the beginning of the 21st century. In the early 1900's there was a push for more curricular rigor and ways for measuring school results. In 2003 there is a push for more curricular rigor and ways for measuring school results. Obviously, it is not a new debate, but it is one that has attention from the federal level with the No Child Left Behind Legislation (United States Department of Education, 2003). There is now a greater emphasis on quality teaching and accountability at the local level. Agricultural education must make sure that its curriculum is current and viable.
Educational leadership is an issue that is of significant importance to the future of education. This issue tends to overlay with several others. Educational leaders must recruit, hire and retain quality teachers. Educational leaders must find ways to address budgetary issues. Educational leaders must assure that good curriculum is being taught and provide leadership and support to teachers to make sure that this is occurring. The agricultural education profession should make efforts to help teachers deal effectively with administrators and work to assure that educational leaders know and understand the value of an agricultural education program.
Teacher recognition and reward is an issue that will continue to be of concern in the future. Teacher salaries have made a considerable leap in recent years (Home School Legal Defense Association, 2002a). However, there continues to be concern in the area for not only appropriate compensation for teachers, but also their treatment as professionals. Teachers should not be viewed as hired help according to former North Carolina Governor Jim Hunt (Brown, 2003). A highly motivated, well-trained agriculture teaching profession is a necessity for agricultural education to grow in the future. This issue has serious implications for the total educational establishment.
Effective teaching and instructional strategies are an issue for the future of education. Quality teaching is critical in today's world of high stakes testing and accountability. One of the pillars of the No Child Left Behind Legislation is identification of proven strategies for increasing student performance (United States Department of Education, 2003). Agricultural education leaders must carefully monitor these developments and finds ways of increasing teacher performance to enhance student learning and to be supportive of the academic goals in the areas of reading, writing, and math.
Standards were an issue at the beginning of the 1900's and they continue to be a high priority today. Reeves (2000) reported that Dewey was advocating many of the same themes in his day that are being promoted today. The question for the agricultural education profession is, how can agricultural education be a part of the solution? This issue should be addressed on a national, state and local level to assure that agricultural education has relevance in today's school environment.
Education has historically been a very political issue. That is not predicted to change over the next few years according to educational experts. Legislation at the federal and state level has influence and impact on the focus and direction of instruction in the school. Legislation and policy tend to point out what will be measured in the school. It is important for agricultural education leaders to recognize that whatever gets measured will get done and if the agricultural education program survives in the future, it will rely in large part on being measured as an essential component of the school. Political activity on the part of the agricultural education program's leadership is vital and must be a part of the future for the program.
Professional development has been identified as a priority issue for the future of education. Assuring that teachers are up-to-date on the latest content and teaching technology is essential. The North Central Regional Educational Laboratory (2002) reported that quality and technology are essential for educational success. Professional development for agriculture teachers is essential to the future of the agricultural education program.
Teacher attitude/morale was perceived by educational experts to be a high priority in the future. Teacher attitude/morale refers to the enthusiasm and excitement that teachers have about their profession. The attitude of a teacher could be influenced by external factors like salary or working conditions. Teachers need to be encouraged and recognized by leaders in the agricultural education program to improve teacher attitude.
State leadership was identified as a key issue for the future. Most states have lost state leadership positions over the past decade. This has reduced the support that teachers receive for professional development and curriculum support. Agricultural education has experienced different situations in different states. State leadership typically drives the development of professional development and curriculum products. The need for state leadership will continue to be major concern for agricultural education leaders.
Agricultural Issues
The environment is a major issue in agriculture. This issue deals with water, air, soil and other factors that have an impact on natural resources and quality of life. As agriculture meets these challenges through the use of biotechnology and the use of improving farming practices, agricultural education needs to assure that its instructional program and professional development activities are aligned with the needs of the industry. Agricultural education can play a major role in the education of the public in regards to these issues if its leaders choose to focus in this arena.
Technology has had a dramatic impact on agriculture over the past century. From having a farmer feed less than 10 people to over 212 is a significant leap forward that is a result of technological advances. These changes have been so rapid in agriculture that often it is difficult for agricultural education to keep pace. Professional development and continuing education for agriculture teachers is vital for agricultural education's future.
Food Supply and Safety is a significant issue for the future of agriculture. The impact of biotechnology is certainly being felt here. If the world is to be fed over the next 50 years, biotechnology will be a significant player. Agricultural education can play a major role in the future of promoting and educating the public in this important area. The students of agricultural education must be informed about food issues so that they cannot only be good producers, but also good consumers.
Agricultural experts indicated that trade issues were a high priority in agriculture. With farm income decreasing and commodity prices at a 40 year low, it is imperative that trade agreements and their long-term impact on the agricultural economy be carefully monitored. Agriculture is more global than ever before and if agricultural education is to successfully compete in the world economy, students and teachers must have a solid grounding in agricultural trade issues.
Agricultural experts indicated that youth in agriculture was a significant issue. This should be viewed as a positive sign for the agricultural education community since it indicates that there is a need for more youth to pursue involvement in agriculture. The fact that agricultural experts see this as a need area indicates that there is a high need for what agricultural education does. Agricultural education should remain loyal to its agricultural base and continue to focus on preparation of students for agricultural careers.
Urban growth and sprawl has become a significant issue for agriculture in the past few years. In 1971, the United States Department of Agriculture forecasted that this would be an issue by the turn of the century, and they were right. With a growing population that is driven heavily by an increasing Hispanic population, the United States finds its cities and towns taking up more and more agricultural land. Agricultural education can have a role in working with future agricultural leaders and agriculture teachers to better understand these issues and become involved in the process. The dividing line between urban and rural America is disappearing and both segments of society must work together to resolve this critical issue.
When one looks broadly at the findings of this study, a case can be made for state and national agricultural education leaders to focus more energy and time on scanning the educational and agricultural environments. Understanding the critical issues facing education and agriculture, and being able to see where the trends are heading is vital to the future success of agricultural education.
Recommendations Based Upon the Research
- One or more of the national organizations in agricultural education should create an educational process for monitoring and keeping national and state leaders updated on emerging agricultural and educational issues.
- One or all of the national organizations in agricultural education should develop a system for gathering data for forecasting trends and issues in agricultural education. This system could be a joint venture between several of the organizations.
- Agricultural education at the national and state levels should develop systems for influencing public policy in education and agriculture. These systems should operate cooperatively and should involve partnerships and alliances with other significant organizations
- The agricultural education profession should conduct research on the priority issues that have been identified in this study. Educational issues, such as, finance and budget, teacher recruitment and retention, and teacher education deserve continued research efforts. Agricultural issues, such as, environmental impact, food supply and safety, and international trade need further research as future curriculum and professional development efforts are developed.
References
Brown, J. (2003). Old problem: Student drop-out rate – new problem: Teacher dropout rate. American Family Association. Retrieved from http://headlines.agapepress.org/archive/2/afa/52003e.asp
Buriak, P., & Shinn, G. (1993). Structuring Research for Agricultural Education: A national Delphi involving internal experts, Journal of Agricultural Education, 34 (2), 30.
Camp, W., Broyles, T., & Skelton, N. (2002). A national study of the supply and demand for teachers of agricultural education in 1999-2001 . (p. 32). Retrieved from http://aaaeonline.ifas.ufl.edu/Reports/teachersupply2002.pdf .
Case, L. (2003). Changes, issues and opportunities . Indianapolis, IN: National FFA Organization. Power Point Presentation slides 1-3.
Clarke, R. (1997). Instrumentalist futurism: A tool for examining I.T. impacts and implications. Retrieved from http://www.anu.edu.au/people/Roger.Clarke/DV/InstFut.html .
Connors, J. J. (1998). A regional Delphi study of the perceptions of NVATA, NASAE, and AAAE members on critical issues facing secondary agricultural education programs. Journal of Agricultural Education, 39 (1), 45-46.
Dalkey, N.; Rourke, D. L.; Lewis, R.; Snyder, D. (1972). Studies in the quality of life . Lexington, Massachusetts: Lexington Books.
Emerging Issues Forum (2000). Shaping our common future . Raleigh, NC: North Carolina State University. pp. 1-13.
Frick, M. (1993). Developing a national framework for a middle school agricultural education curriculum, Journal of Agricultural Education, 34 (2), 81.
Helmer, O. (1966). Social technology . New York: Basic Books, Inc.
Herring, D.R. (1995). Managing change in agricultural education. The Agricultural Education Magazine, 67 (8), 7-8, 22.
Home School Legal Defense Association. (2002). Does spending correlate with achievement? pp. 1-2. Retrieved from http://www.hslda.org/docs/study/ray1997/11.asp .
Ludwig, B. (1997). Predicting the future: Have you considered using the Delphi methodology? Washington, DC: United State Cooperative Extension System. pp. 1-4. Retrieved from http://www.joe.org/joe/1997october.tt2.html .
North Central Regional Education Laboratory. (2002). Schools in the mirror of social context . Retrieved from http://www.ncrel.org/policy/emerg/mirror/htm .p.1.
Reeves, S. (2000). A nation and its schools come of age: Lessons of the century . Bethesda, Maryland: Editorial Projects in Education. p. 1.
Sackman, H. (1975). Delphi critique. Expert opinion, forecasting and group process . Lexington Books.
Stewart, B. R. & Shinn, G. C. (1977). Concerns of the agricultural education profession: Implications for teacher education. Journal of the American Association of Teacher Educators in Agriculture, 23 (3), 19-26.
Sutphin, H. (1981). Positions held by teachers, teacher educators, and state supervisors about selected national issues in agricultural education . Columbus, Ohio: Ohio State University. p. 52.
United States Department of Agriculture. (1971). The yearbook of agriculture 1971 . Washington, DC: Author. pp. xvii-xviii.
United States Department of Education. (2003). No child left behind . Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved from http://www.nclb.org .
Warmbrod, J.R. (1986). Priorities for continuing progress in research in agricultural education . A paper presented at the 35th Annual Southern Region Research Conference in Agricultural Education. North Little Rock, AR.
Weaver, W.T. (1971). The Delphi forecasting method . Phi Delta Kappan, 52(5), 267- 273.
World Future Society. (2002). Top 10 forecasts from outlook 2002 . Bethesda, MD. pp. 1-2. Retrieved from http://www.wfs.org/forecasts.htm .
Author Notes
Ralsa Marshall Stewart, Jr., is Extension Specialist and State Agricultural Education Coordinator in the Department of Agricultural and Extension Education at North Carolina State University, Ricks Hall, #14, Box 7607, Raleigh, NC 27607. Phones: 919.515.4206, 919.515.9060. E-mail: marshall_stewart@ncsu.edu .
Gary Moore is Professor and Director of Graduate Programs in the Department of Agricultural and Extension Education at North Carolina State University, Ricks Hall, #13, Box 7607, Raleigh, NC 27607. Phone: 919.515.1756, 919.515.9060. E-mail: gary_moore@ncsu.edu .
Jim Flowers is Professor and Head of the Department of Agricultural and Extension Education at North Carolina State University, Ricks Hall, #201, Box 7607, Raleigh, NC 27607. Phones: 919.515.1758, 919.515.9060. E-mail: jim_flowers@ncsu.edu .