Identifying Tennessee school-based agricultural education student growth and program accountability metrics

Ashton Street; Christopher Stripling; John Ricketts; Nathan Conner; Christopher  Boyer

doi:10.37433/aad.v2i2.91

Authors

Ashton Street University of Tennessee, USA
Christopher T. Stripling University of Tennessee, USA https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5045-3492
John C. Ricketts Tennessee State University, USA https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0559-5803
Nathan W. Conner University of Nebraska-Lincoln, USA https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0063-4110
Christopher Boyer University of Tennessee, USA https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1393-8589

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v2i2.91

Keywords:

Delphi method, total program, performance evaluation, SBAE

Abstract

Over the years, accountability in education has transformed from the primary focus being the school as a whole to the individual teacher. The purpose of this study was to determine the metrics Tennessee school-based agricultural education teachers perceive as indicators of excellent total programs (classroom instruction, FFA, SAE), and a modified Delphi study was used to seek a consensus. The following nine metrics were retained: (a) pesticide certification, (b) program of activities, (c) number of students participating in CDEs, (d) chapter community service hours, (e) total number of FFA activities, (f) number of CDEs coached, (g) at least one proficiency at regional level, (h) one American degree every 3 years, and (i) percentage of students with SAE. Overall, the metrics agreed upon are narrow in focus and all but one is a record of activity and not direct measures of students’ knowledge or skills. As a result, the measures do not include student growth or value-added scores or authentic assessments of 21st century skills. Additional research is needed to further investigate the metrics that should be used to measure a school-based agricultural education program’s success in Tennessee and across the nation.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

Buchanan, R. (2015) Teacher identity and agency in an era of accountability. Teachers and Teaching, 21(6),700–719. https://doi.org/10.1080/13540602.2015.1044329

Conner, N. W., Gates, H., & Stripling, C. T. (2017). Identifying international agricultural concepts for secondary agricultural education curriculum. Journal of Agricultural Education, 58(1), 118–130. https://doi.org/10.5032/jae.2017.01118

Firestone, W. A. (2014). Teacher evaluation policy and conflicting theories of motivation. Educational Researcher, 43(2), 100-107. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X14521864

Glover, T. A., Reddy, L. A., Kettler, R. J., Kurz, A., & Lekwa, A. J. (2016). Improving high-stakes decisions via formative assessment, professional development, and comprehensive educator evaluation: The school system improvement project. Teachers College Record, 118(14), 1–26. https://doi.org/10.1177/1534508418811589

Johnson, T. D., & Mitchell, A. (2014). Guidance for Carl D. Perkins grant recipient [Policy Manual]. Division of Post-Secondary and Career Education. https://jnc.dc.gov/sites/default/files/dc/sites/osse/publication/attachments/Guidance%20MASTER%20POLICY%20MANUAL%20%20FINAL%20Rev%209.16.13.pdf

Lavigne, A. L. (2014). Exploring the intended and unintended consequences of high-stakes teacher evaluation on schools, teachers, and students. Teachers College Record, 116(1), 1–29. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/284184049_Exploring_the_Intended_and_Unintended_Consequences_of_High-Stakes_Teacher_Evaluation_on_Schools_Teachers_and_Students

Lundry, J., Ramsey, J. W., Edwards, M. C., & Robinson, J. S. (2015). Benefits of career development events as perceived by school-based, agricultural education teachers. Journal of Agricultural Education, 56(1), 43–57. https://doi.org/10.5032/jae.2015.01043

National FFA Organization. (2019). Agricultural Education–About FFA. The National FFA Organization: https://www.ffa.org/agricultural-education/

Phipps, L. J., Osborne, E. W., Dyer, J. E., & Ball, A. (2008). Handbook on Agricultural Education in Public Schools (6th ed.). Cengage Learning.

Reform Support Network. (2013). Measuring teacher matters: What different ways of looking at student results tell us about teacher effectiveness. https://www2.ed.gov/about/inits/ed/implementation-support-unit/tech-assist/measuring-teaching-matters.pdf

Shinn, G. C., Briers, G., & Baker, M. (2008). Forecasting doctoral-level content in agricultural education: Viewpoints of engaged scholars in the United States. Journal of Agricultural Education, 49(1), 121–131. https://doi.org/10.5032/jae.2008.01121

Terry, R. D., & Osborne, E. (2015). Fundamental dimensions and essential elements of exemplary local extension units. Journal of Agricultural Education, 56(2), 43-63. https://doi.org/10.5032/jae.2015.02043

Touchstone, A. J. L. (2015). Professional development needs of beginning agricultural education teachers in Idaho. Journal of Agricultural Education, 56(2), 170–187. https://doi.org/0.5032/jae.2015.02170

Warner, L. A., Stubbs, E. Murphrey, T. P., & Huynh, P. (2016). Identification of the competencies needed to apply social marketing to extension programing: Results of a Delphi study. Journal of Agricultural Education, 57(2), 14–32. https://doi.org/10.5032/jae.2016.02014