Dr. John Tummons, a professor of agricultural education and leadership at the University of Missouri returns this week as the guest columnist. Last week he introduced us to several Missouri natives who made a national impact on agricultural education and the FFA. That continues this week. Take it away Dr. Tummons.
Three-circle model
Both Larry Case and Steve Brown reflected on the importance of the three-circle model of Agricultural Education in guiding their work. Case brought up the model as a key piece of his philosophy he brought from Missouri. “I didn’t know any different. That’s the way we did it in Missouri. And it worked”. Case recalled times of friction over the competing priorities within the profession: that FFA had no right to tell Agricultural Education what to do. Case mentioned an FFA Board of Directors meeting where he was trying to get money together for a strategic plan based on the green book. Hearing push back, he drew the 3 circles on a flip chart and pointed to the center portion where all circles overlapped.
“And I said every one of you people in here are Agricultural Educators first and FFA advisor second. And if you can’t make a decision to help support the mother program of education, we won’t have an FFA. We have a vested interest in seeing to it that [the strategic plan] happens. They [FFA Board] passed $75,000, and that was a lot of money in those days to set up and try to do a strategic plan… But anyway, what I think that plan did was codify our beliefs.” (Case)
Figure 1. The Strategic Plan for Agricultural Education
Case reflected on promoting the 3-circle model. “If you’re going to serve those students and take their dues, money and so forth, you got to figure out what they need and serve them. That was the kind of the launchpad where the three-circle model influenced me tremendously.”
Case credits Dr. Steve Brown with promoting the 3-circle model within the profession. “I would tell you this, I would give Steve Brown more of the credit for getting the three-circle model in the literature. Brown set the modern-day terminology that education reformers were using.”
Dr. Steve Brown grew up as a member of the Orrick FFA chapter. Steve earned his BS, MS, and PhD in Agricultural Education at the University of Missouri. Upon completing his BS, Steve taught Agricultural Education for five years in Macon. In 1986, Brown left the classroom to work at DESE as a district supervisor and FFA executive secretary. Bob Chapman served as FFA Executive Secretary for a short time between Hagan and Brown. Brown worked at DESE for 24 years. Brown served for two years as National FFA executive secretary with Dr. Case, then served from 2010-2020 as the last USDE specialist and National FFA advisor.
Dr. Brown also reflected on the importance of the 3 interconnected components of agricultural education as a foundation of his philosophy for the profession. “I think one of the basic things, the grounding I received at the university instruction, was the focus on the three-component model, and I just feel like that has been the building block for most of my career.”
Brown discussed how he expanded the model during his time.
Well, I’m a die-hard believer in the three-component model, but I think that it is critical to truly understand that model, and what it represents, and how it’s to be delivered. And sometimes, how it’s to be delivered changes a little bit, so that is critical. We’ve expanded the classroom part to be contextual, inquiry-based learning, and SAE to include work-based learning and implementation. The same way with leadership and personal development through FFA, PAS and the National Young Farmers. It’s about developing activities and engaging ALL students.
Figure 2. The Three Circle Agricultural Education Model
Dr. Brown was an early adopter of computers and technology; he developed many of the early electronic FFA award applications.
When I served in Missouri, I tried to solve problematic issues. Developing an electronic state degree application followed by the American FFA Degree in Microsoft Excel. Other states (10 to 12) began to use a similar format. Most of them have now graduated from that to AET or developed their own system, but I guess, it was rewarding to be a frontrunner in developing the award applications such as chapter activity, proficiency, choir, band and even the American FFA degree. It all began by National FFA trying to launch two years in a row a stand-alone computerized American FFA degree application with very limited success. And that’s when I said to myself, I think I can do this in Microsoft Excel and National FFA was pleased with the prototypes provided.
National Quality Program Standards
Missouri agricultural education was strongly represented in the development of the National Quality Program Standards for Agricultural Education. As a young teacher, I used the Missouri Program Standards and Quality Indicators (blue book) to improve my program in the early 2000s. Dr. Terry Heiman provides a further description.
The [Missouri] Program Standards and Quality Indicators (blue book) was a collaborative effort by Joint Staff with input from local school administrators. The Program Planning Handbook had been developed earlier and was a precursor to the question of how to describe a quality program.
A common question when meeting with local school administrators and teacher visitations was how to effectively describe what a local program could/should look like. Then the need for self-assessment of local programs in conjunction with advisory committees and school administrators became the focus. To my knowledge this was the first effort to develop a local assessment tool for teachers and schools.
Dr. Case mentioned the formation of the National Quality Program Standards as project of the Council in the September/October 2004 Agricultural Education Magazine (Case, 2004). Case stated the strategic plan called for the development of these National quality indicators for secondary agricultural education programs by May 2005.
Figure 3. National Quality Program Standards document
I asked Dr. Brown about his role in developing the NQPS.
I served on the National Council for Agricultural Education. I and Dr. David Hall on the Council were given the task of trying to develop the National Quality Program Standards. It was Dr. David Hall, (who has passed) and myself who spearheaded the work on that and developed the National Quality Program Standards along with a committee of state leaders and who developed the concepts, and then ask the Council to dig into it and approve it and move it forward.
I think we (Missouri) had an opportunity to influence that or share our things we thought were critical, and so it [Missouri standards] was some of the basis, as well as some work in Ohio and Oklahoma, to develop that… the National Quality Program Standards.
Dr. Heiman confirmed how the Missouri blue book was a foundational document for the NQPS. “The Missouri effort was shared nationally and was used as a base document by many states to develop their own standards and quality indicators. After a few years it became the foundation for the national quality standards. The format and verbiage are very similar.”
I pulled the Missouri Program Standards and Quality Indicators and compared the standards to the 2009 version of the National Quality program standards in Figure 4.
Figure 4. Comparison of Blue book standards and 2009 National Quality Program Standards.
Brown recalled some of the challenges and opportunities in the conversations around the Missouri model feeding into the National Quality Program Standards. “I think one that was challenging and is difficult is the adult components. In Missouri at the time, we had a pretty strong adult program, and so that component was, scrutinized, or difficult for other states.”
Missouri’s Joint State Staff served as a collaborative model for other states to increase communication among leaders.
A lot of states did not have things like that [Joint State Staff], where we worked with the teacher educators, and the State Department of Education, and the Teacher Association to all work hand-in-hand to move things forward.
I always thought that [Missouri] was a good model for states to have a joint group, because if all three entities agree and come to conclusion this is the direction, the way to go, versus… regarding curriculum or any other aspects of agriculture education, it was probably going to happen. The people are in those leadership positions, they have the respect of the profession, and so there’s a tendency to listen to them and what they have to say, and they also have some of the rationale of why they think a particular item is important, and I think it helps younger teachers as well as the profession to understand, yes, this is something we should do.
Missouri compromise- bringing together the different parts of the nation.
I asked Dr. Heiman to reflect on how Dr. Case and Dr. Brown brought Missouri Agricultural Education to the national level.
I think what stands out is Missouri was formed as a compromise state, way back when we became a state. That [compromise] has been one of the attributes of Missourians that work on a national level. They understand you must listen to the North, the South, the East, and the West to come up with the best solutions to whatever’s confronting us. Both of those gentlemen express that and demonstrate that very well. They [Case and Brown] don’t have to have the best ideas, but they can collaborate and find the best ideas that work for the nation.
Dr. Case believed in leading change through recognition.
Part of the philosophy behind trying to lead change is ‘what gets recognized gets done’. We had to broaden the curriculum. We decided somewhere along the line to have a national winner for the Agriscience Teacher of the year, and a national award for the Agriscience Student of the Year. What that did was provide focus for Ag teachers and others across the country to be able to say, ‘You know, I’m getting recognized here for doing something a bit different.’ And of course, that parlayed into now for Stars, you know, at the American degree level. I don’t want to say we used FFA, but the way FFA influenced the direction of our nation was to provide recognition for outstanding achievement, which was our role to do with students, and we just parlayed it over into the teaching part there a little bit, which, that award eventually moved to the teacher’s organization. So that was still trying to keep FFA separate some rather than aggregation.
I asked Dr. Brown for his leadership strategies to help facilitate change.
Brown: Communications includes speaking AND listening. You know, explaining why you want to have a good rationale of why you think that change is important for the advancement of the organization and or Agricultural Education, and then communicating that to state leaders and others, and actually then listening to what they have to say to see if there’s something that you’ve overlooked, or an obstacle that you need to make sure we tackle before making the change.
It’s got to be a two-way communication. Sometimes just listening, sometimes working with state and national leaders, just listening to what they have to say and listening to the challenges that they’re facing, you can also help in helping solve some of those by just listening and then implementing or putting policy in place that will help them address it.
Dr. Heiman worked closely with Dr. Brown for many years. “I think he [Brown] was a great collaborator, and worked for agreed upon goals, outcomes, and looking towards the future. [Brown] identified resources and people that could move FFA forward. I really respect his perseverance and his ability to stay true to the mission.”
Missouri’s six agricultural education districts express the geologic and sociologic differences within our state. Southern Missouri looks pretty southern in its agriculture; farmers and ranchers raise poultry, cattle, hay, timber, rice, cotton, catfish, peaches, pecans, and watermelons. Above the Missouri river, Missouri looks very mid-western with its row crops, hogs, and cattle. Saint Louis was an east-coast city, laid out in its first-generation immigrant neighborhoods. Kansas City was a frontier and cattle town. I can see how serving Missouri Agricultural Education is helpful preparation in leading the national organization. As FFA approaches its 100th anniversary, the legacy of Missouri — its people, its traditions, and its vision — remains central to the story of agricultural education in America.
Figure 5. The Missouri “Power Lunch Group.” Left to Right: Steve Brown (National FFA Advisor 2010-2020), Terry Heiman (MO state director of Ag Ed from 1984 – 2011), Larry Case (National FFA Advisor 1984-2010), Gene Eulinger (served as National FFA Treasurer for four years during the 1990s)
References
Case, L.D. (September, October 2004). Educational standards- A national perspective. The Agricultural Education Magazine 77(2). 6-7