How would you describe the relationship between Extension and Agricultural Education in your community and state?
I recently received an email from Jack Britt, retired Vice President for Agriculture in the University of Tennessee System, inquiring about the “competition” between 4-H and FFA. He grew up in Kentucky where he was a local and district FFA officer but also served as the state 4-H president. In these positions he sensed some “tension” between FFA and 4-H and wanted to know my observations and thoughts. I responded to him but thought others might be interested in learning more about this issue.
It’s Complicated
A common phrase used today to describe a relationship is “It’s Complicated.” That might be a good phrase to use in describing the relationship between agricultural education and extension. In reality, the relationship varies greatly from community to community and from state to state. But don’t take my word for it. George Works and Barton Morgan (1939, p. 92) wrote:
In some areas there has been considerable friction between extension workers and teachers of vocational agriculture, principally because of competing interests in connection with club work. In other instances there has been excellent cooperation. Extension workers have assisted in the development of Future Farmers clubs, and teachers of agriculture have acted as local leaders for 4-H clubs.
I was surprised when I read this statement because 17 years earlier George Works had a very dim view of the relationship. More about that in a bit.
To better understand the relationship between agricultural education and extension, let’s go back in time. In 1914 Congress passed the Smith-Lever Act which established a nationwide system of Extension that included youth work. Many states already had some type of extension program in place. The Smith-Hughes Act of 1917 provided federal funding and leadership for Vocational Agriculture. Again, many states had already established the teaching of vocational agriculture in schools.
After the passage of the two laws, the federal government decided there should be a clear delineation of duties regarding each group. The government did not want duplication of effort or intrusion of one group on the turf of the other group. Accordingly, the federal officials for Extension and Vocational Agriculture met to develop a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU).
The First Memorandum of Understanding
A Memorandum of Understanding was developed by a joint committee of the USDA and the Federal Board for Vocational Education and was approved by both groups on February 15, 1918. The official title of the Memorandum was “Memorandum of Instruction in Agriculture in Vocational Schools and Extension Work in Agriculture.” On February 21, this document was distributed to the state leaders of each group. A copy of the Memorandum can be found at https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=mdp.39015080150157&view=1up&seq=110
The Memorandum was rather mundane. The opening paragraph in the Memorandum stated:
In order that those concerned with the administration of agricultural extension work and those who are concerned with the administration of vocational agriculture instruction may cooperate for the purpose of assisting in securing for the country an effective system of agriculture, the following statements are made…
Most of the Memorandum that followed just reiterated the language and provisions of the Smith-Lever Act and the Smith Hughes Act. It was recognized that each state had a person in charge of extension work and a person in charge of agricultural education and “It is suggested that these two officials determine a plan of cooperation …”
The primary mandate was “… in every case, care be taken to see that work which is supported by federal funds under any of the aforementioned acts will not in any way duplicate or overlap work carried on in the same community when that work is supported in any part from another federal fund.”
What this meant was if a young person involved in extension club working was growing an acre of corn, that same crop project could not also be counted as meeting the supervised home project called for in the Smith-Hughes Act. The young person would need a different project.
The reaction to the 1918 Memorandum was tepid to say the least, especially among the agricultural education community. In an editorial in the Vocational Education Magazine Professor George Works from Cornell called the Memorandum “colorless.” One concern of the school-based agricultural education community was that the education of young people should be the domain of the school, not the extension service. The Memorandum did not address this concern—duplication of effort was the main issue.
Works wrote (1922, p.87) “The present organization really provides a dual educational system for boys and girls in rural communities. The two systems are the public schools and a system of junior extension fostered through the land-grant colleges, with varying degrees of cooperation between the two in different states, but with the attitude of the United States Department of Agriculture strongly against very close cooperation.” Works emphasized “the desirability of having the school system of the state administratively responsible for the whole program of publicly supported education for youth.”
Perhaps the reason Works believed the USDA was “strongly against very close cooperation” was because of a letter sent from Bradford Knapp, Chief of Office of Extension Work in the South, to A. C. True, a high ranking USDA officer in 1917. In this letter Knapp wrote (HIllison, 1996, p, 11). “Mr. Hawkins [Assistant Director for the Federal Board of Vocational Education] begins a discussion for the Smith-Lever Act which shows such lamentable ignorance of extension work and the provisions of the act itself that I most seriously doubt his ability to do anything except present the viewpoint of the Federal Board for Vocational Education…”
It should be obvious there was some friction in the early days of extension and agricultural education between the national leaders of each group.
At the National Society for Vocational Education meeting in 1919 a resolution was passed calling for the consolidation of various youth activities supported by the federal government to be housed in the public school system. See Figure 1 for a copy of the resolution.
Figure 1. Resolution passed at the 1919 meeting of the National Society for Vocational Education.
The Jarvis Study
C. D. Jarvis, an employee of the United States Bureau of Education, conducted a survey of colleges that trained agriculture teachers and state departments of education in October of 1918. One of the four goals of the study was to examine the relationship between teacher training and other educational activities in the state. He concluded (1919, p. 30) “…the working relationship [between agricultural education and extension] is not as close as it should be.”
In the survey Jarvis conducted, one the respondents wrote “Boys’ and girl’ club work should be organized through the public educational facilities already established by law and custom, that is, State Boards of Education, county and city superintendents and public school teachers…It should never have been permitted to develop as something outside of the system of public education.” This opinion was shared by a number of other agricultural education teachers.
However, not everyone held the view of the individual in the previous paragraph. In Oregon it was reported that (Jarvis, 1919, p. 33) “As club work is considered prevocational and its success essential to the work of the secondary school, the men working in agricultural education do all they can to help the work along. Club workers on the other hand do their part in stimulating interest in the vocational work of the secondary school.”
Jarvis reported there was a written agreement In Virginia between the extension service and vocational agriculture administration. Some of the provisions found in the Virginia Memorandum of Agreement included (Jarvis, 1919, p. 33):
- No persons enrolled in a Smith-Hughes class may, while a member of said class, be enrolled in a Smith-Lever club. If such a person be already a member of a Smith-Lever club, he may complete his project after becoming a member a Smith-Hughes class, but he shall start a new Smith-Lever project.
- There shall be a full and mutual cooperation and understanding at all times between the vocational teacher and the county agent. The work or plans of one should not interfere with or discount any plans of the other in their respective fields of work.
- There should be friendly discussions on the agricultural and home economics problems of the county at least once a month.
- The county agent should be recognized as having priority as to all instruction to adult farmers and their families who are not enrolled in vocational classes.
- When differences of opinion arise …the vocational teacher and county agent shall present the situation to the director of vocational education and the director of extension work, respectively for final decision.
It appears Virginia had their act together with very specific guidelines to clarify the relationship between extension and agricultural education.
The Federal Board for Vocational Education Weighs In
In February of 1919 W. G. Hummel, the Assistant Director of Agricultural Education for the Federal Board for Vocational Education spoke to the National Society for Vocational Education (later published as Bulletin No. 31) about “Present and Future Relations of Vocational Agricultural Education and Agricultural Extension.” In Hummel’s presentation he reviewed the legislation leading up to the Smith-Lever Act and the Smith-Hughes Act. He concluded by stating we now have (Hummel, 1919, p. 21) “a country-wide system of agricultural education.”
However, Hummel recognized that the provision of the Smith-Hughes Act requiring all students to have farming projects on the home or school farm could lead to conflict of interest with boys’ and girls’ agriculture club work conducted by the extension service. The solution to the potential problem was three-fold. Hummel said three agreements were needed (Hummel, 1919, p. 25):
- The memorandum of instruction between the U.S. Department of Agriculture and the Federal Board which is a general statement.
- A memorandum of agreement between the State supervisor of vocational agriculture and State director of extension work, which is a general agreement for a state.
- An agreement between the local teacher of agriculture and the local extension worker, usually the county agent, concerning the details of cooperation for that particular community.
The Second Memorandum of Understanding
After a ten year period of trial and error a second Memorandum was prepared and agreed upon on by the Secretary of Agriculture and the Federal Board for Vocational Education on January 19, 1928. In the introduction to the MOU it is stated “..the following Memorandum has been prepared to supersede all previous memoranda.” The title of the document was “Memorandum of Understanding Relative to Smith-Hughes and Smith-Lever Relationships in Agriculture.” This MOU provided much more clarification than the previous MOU. After a general description of “Extension Work in Agriculture” and “Vocational Agriculture Instruction” specific guidelines were provided. Some are:
Adult education “…should be done in accordance with the plans of the extension system and in cooperation with the agent in who is in charge of the extension work of the county. However, it is recognized the agriculture teacher must respond to occasional calls for individual help on the part of farmers within the patronage area of his school, but this type of activity which is not systematic instruction should not be sought and should represent a small and incidental part of his job…Teachers of vocational agriculture or representatives of vocational agriculture work should be invited to participate in all meetings conducted by the extension service for the formulation of county and State agricultural programs. “
“In counties having vocational agriculture departments or schools it is recommended that the cooperative agricultural extension service do not enroll students of vocational agriculture for 4-H Club work.”
“Care should be taken to see that work which is supported by federal funds…not in anyway duplicate or overlap work being carried out in the same community when that work is supported in any part from another Federal fund.”
“In most cases, it is undesirable for Smith-Hughes teachers to act as local leaders of 4-H work.”
“Extension forces, particularly those engaged in 4-H Club work, may well encourage boys and girls of suitable age to take the Smith-Hughes vocational training…”
“Cooperation should be the watchword in all Smith-Hughes and Smith-Lever relationships. This means going beyond the letter of the law and doing what one is not obligated to do.”
The MOU ended with the recommendation that the extension and agricultural education leadership in each state meet periodically to “promote mutual understanding.” A number of states actually did this. In September of 1929 a MOU between extension and vocational education was enacted in Texas. The MOU can be found at https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=mdp.39015067165426&view=1up&seq=3. The MOU was modeled after the federal MOU.
The theme for the September 1929 issue of The Agricultural Education Magazine was “Cooperation with Other Agricultural Agencies.” Articles in this issue describe cooperative relationships between agricultural education and extension at the state or county level in Texas, Ohio, Georgia, Massachusetts, California, Maryland, and New York.
However, not all states developed MOUs. J. D. Blackwell, State Direction of Vocational Education in Maryland, sent out a questionnaire in November of 1929 to all state vocational education directors to ascertain whether or not states were developing MOUs. Responses were received from 42 states. Blackwell learned that 18 states had MOUs but 24 states did not.
The Third Memorandum of Understanding
In 1939 a third document was produced. It was titled “Statement on Relations Relative to Cooperative Extension Work in Agriculture and Home Economics and Vocational Education in Agriculture and Homemaking.”
While this document was similar to the previous documents a few salient points were:
“Cooperation may be best secured by having frequent conferences of representatives of the vocational education and cooperative agricultural extension services at national, State and county levels…”
“Vocational teachers encourage boys and girls of club age to enroll in 4-H club work.”
“County and home demonstration agents and club leaders encourage boys and girls to enroll in vocational classes available to them in the local secondary schools.”
“If boys and girls enroll in both vocational classes and 4-H Clubs, they must carry separate and distinct projects in each activity.”
“Individual assistance to farmers and home makers by vocational teachers is not systematic instruction and should represent only an incidental feature of their work.”
Concluding Remarks
Yes, It’s Complicated. Based on the 1929 Blackwell study we might conclude the MOUs were ignored or not used. However, Lathrop In The History of Agricultural Education of Less Than College Grade in the United States wrote (Stimson and Lathrop, 1942, p. 619-620):
Relationships between vocational agriculture and agricultural extension agencies vary from State to State and within States from community to community. In many communities relationships of teachers and county agents have become closer and more effective. Teachers and county agents in some counties meet periodically.
In my career in agricultural and extension education I have experienced both the good and the bad in relationships between the two groups. When I was a high school student in Texas, I was told that I could not belong to both 4-H and FFA. I don’t know if this was a state rule or a Jack Lacy (my ag teacher) rule.
In North Carolina and in Indiana (I have worked in both states) the first state directors of extension club work and the state directors of vocational education in both states were one and the same (T. E. Browne in North Carolina and Z. M. [Zora Mayo] Smith in Indiana). One of Dr. Smith’s guidelines for extension club work was that “Teachers of agriculture and home economics should serve as local 4-H leaders.” So it would appear that the relationship between extension and agricultural education should be good in those states.
Currently several states have MOUs between Extension and Agricultural Education. Idaho has a MOU related to 4-H and FFA. The 2016 version of the MOU can be found at this link. It has recently been updated.
Historically, the relationship between agricultural education and extension has been complicated in some states and communities. However, it doesn’t have to be. When I was a high school agriculture teacher, I judged 4-H exhibits at the county fair and served on the county beef committee. The county agent, my school, and the four other agriculture departments in the county worked cooperatively to plan a series of adult education programs every year. The meetings would rotate between the various schools with ag programs. We had a good relationship.
Even though the title of this Footnote is “It’s Complicated” it doesn’t have to be. If you are an agriculture teacher or extension agent, you should reach out to your counterpart and work cooperatively. Perhaps that should be the goal for this summer.
Acknowledgement
A big thank you goes to John Hillison, Professor Emeritus at Virginia Tech. When I had problems finding some of these documents, I dropped a note to John and they were in my email inbox the next day. I knew he had them because he wrote “Agricultural Education and Cooperative Extension: The Early Agreements” in the Journal of Agricultural Education in 1996. If you want to learn more about this topic, I recommend you read his article.
References
Hillison, John (1996). Agricultural Education and Cooperative Extension: The Early Agreements. Journal of Agricultural Education, Volume 37, Number 1. DOI: 10.5032/jae.1996.01009.
Hummel, W. G. (1919). Present and Future Relations of Vocational Agricultural Education and Agricultural Extension. National Society for Vocational Education. Bulletin No. 31.
Jarvis, C. D. (1919). Organization for teacher training in agriculture. In Training Teachers of Agriculture Department of the Interior. Bulletin 1919, No 66.
Stimson, R. & Lathrop, F. (1942). History of Agricultural Education of Less Than College Grade in the United States. Vocational Division Bulletin No. 217. Federal Security Agency. U. S. Government Printing Office.
Works, George A. (1922, October). Editorial. Vocational Education Magazine. Volume 1, Number 2.
George A. Works and Morgan Barton. The Land-Grant Colleges. The Advisory Committee on Education, Staff Study No. 10, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, 1939.