Federal Legislation Impacting Agricultural Education and Extension - Era I.

Federal Legislation Impacting

Agricultural Education and

Extension -Era I

Precursors

Burkett-Pollard Bill (NE) (1906)– sought federal aid for the teaching of

agriculture in normal (teacher training) schools

Clay-Livingston Bill (GA) - 1907– sought federal aid to establish an agricultural

high school in each congressional district in the United States

Precursors

Nelson Amendment (1907) – Amendment to the Morrill Act of 1890– provided $5,000 for five years, $25,000

annually after five year to land-grant colleges for general support.

– One special provision of the amendment opened the door to prepare teachers of agriculture . . .

Nelson Amendment

money could be used “for providing courses for the special preparation of instructors for teaching the elements of agriculture and the mechanical arts.” – summer school sessions for teachers were

utilized extensively (especially elementary teachers)

– some 4 year teacher training in agriculture started

Precursors

Smith-Lever Bill (1912)– goal was to establish the extension service

The Great Compromise– The supporters of vocational

education would support the Smith-Lever Bill. In return, a Commission on National Aid to Vocational Education would be created to study the need for federal funding for vocational education.

Federal $Smith-Lever Act (1914)

–established the extension serviceSmith-Hughes Act (1917)

–provided federal funds to support vocational education in the public schools

Smith-Lever Provisions

“there may be inaugurated in connection with the (land-grant) college or colleges...agricultural extension work which shall be carried on in cooperation with the United States Department of Agriculture…”

Smith-Lever Provisions

“...in any State in which two or more such colleges have been or hereafter may be established, the appropriations hereinafter made to such State shall be administered by such college or colleges as the legislature of such State may direct”

Smith-Lever Provisions

“That cooperative agricultural extension work shall consist of the giving of instruction and practical demonstrations in agriculture and home economics to persons not attending or resident in said colleges in the several communities, and imparting to such persons information on said subjects through field demonstrations, publications, and otherwise”

Smith-Lever Provisions

Each state was to receive “...$10,000 of which shall be paid annually…”

Additional funds were to be disbursed to states on the basis of “the rural population of each State bears to the total rural population of all the States”– Note: Legislators in the Midwest wanted the act to

say farm population. The South had a much larger rural population than farm population.

Smith-Lever Provisions

A state could not receive the additional funds “...until an equal sum has been appropriated for that year by the legislature of such State, or provided by State, county, college, local authority, or individual contributions from within the State, for the maintenance of the cooperative agricultural extension work provided for in this Act.”

Smith-Hughes Provisions

The first paragraph of the Smith-Hughes Act contained four statements:– 1. “to provide for the promotion of vocational

education;”• The word “promotion” is misleading, a more correct

word would be “establishment”.

Tidbit: Since the person (Charles Prosser) who wrote the bill was Director of the National Society for the Promotion of Industrial Education, the word promotion might allude to this organization

Smith-Hughes Provisions

– 2. “to provide for cooperation with the States in the promotion of such education in agriculture and the trades and industries;”

• This statement defined what made up vocational education. Why is home economics not mentioned? The word home economics appears 17 other times in the Act. It is believed by some that home economics was not included in the earlier drafts of the bills. Legend has it that Prosser’s wife made him include home economics. The fact that it is missing here gives credence to that legend.

• Trades and industries covered a broad range of jobs.

Smith-Hughes Provisions

– 3. “to provide for cooperation with the States in the preparation of teachers of vocational subjects;”

• There was much concern over the supply of qualified teachers. Two different paths were taken in regards to vocational teacher training:

– Agriculture and Home Economics went with a 4 year college degree as a requirement. At that point in time, few public school teachers had four year degrees. This was designed to assure a quality, well-educated teacher and enhance the status of of the field.

– Trade and Industries chose to pull teachers out of industry. The belief was the master craftsman made the best teacher.

Smith-Hughes Provisions

– 4. “and to appropriate money and regulate its expenditure.”

• This wording as to the purpose of an act is a little strange. It should be self evident.

Smith-Hughes Funds Provided money to pay salaries of

– teachers, supervisors, and directors of agricultural subjects

• Tidbit: Director is an unusual word until one notes that agricultural schools had been established prior to Smith-Hughes in Massachusetts. The person in charge of these schools was a Director. Since Prosser had been associate superintendent for vocational education in Massachusetts, this wording isn’t that strange at all.

Smith-Hughes Funds Provided money to pay salaries of

– teachers of trade, home economics and industrial subjects (but no more than 20% of the total money allocated for this purpose could be spent in the area of home economics)

Smith-Hughes

Tidbit: Teachers who received their salaries from the Smith-Hughes Act were often called “Smith-Hughes teachers” to distinguish them from teachers in schools not receiving Smith-Hughes funding. Agriculture and home economics was taught in many other schools but not all schools received Smith-Hughes monies because of limited funds.

Tidbit: State supervisors of each vocational subject were given authority over the teacher trainers. Federal level supervisors checked the qualifications and approved of the hiring of teacher educators. Many universities became very dependent upon federal funds to pay vocational teacher educators. When this funding was abolished it created shock waves in many states and institutions of higher education.

Smith-Hughes Funds

Providing money for teacher training

Smith-Hughes Funds

The states did not have to use all the provisions of the act. For example, if there were no agriculture programs, it didn’t have to ask for the agriculture money. However:– Before a state could receive monies for salaries

for any vocational teacher, it must first accept the teacher training monies. This indicates the federal government was serious about training teachers.

Smith-Hughes Funding Specific amounts of money were allocated to each

vocational discipline:– Agricultural appropriations were based on each state’s

rural population– Home economics appropriations were based on each

state’s urban population– Trade and industrial appropriations were based on each

state’s urban population

There was to be a 50-50 federal-state match on all salaries

Smith-Hughes Act - Agriculture

– “...under public supervision or control...”– “...controlling purpose...shall be to fit for

useful employment…”– “...shall be of less than college grade…”– “...meet the needs of persons over fourteen years of

age who have entered upon or who are preparing to enter upon the work of the farm or of the farm home…”

• Question: Does the previous phrase also mean adult education?

Smith-Hughes - Agriculture

– “...that such schools shall provide for directed or supervised practice in agriculture, either on a farm provided for by the school or other farm, for at least six months per year”

• This was interpreted to mean that each student (including adults) is to have a “project” (crops or livestock).

• If the teacher is to supervise it, then the teacher will need to be employed during the summer. This is the basis for 12 month employment of agriculture teachers.

Smith-Hughes Funds Provided money to create a “Federal Board for

Vocational Education for the administration of this act and for the purpose of making studies, investigations, and reports to aid in the organization and conduct of vocational education”

• Question: Why did Congress create a special board to administer vocational education?

• Answer: They were afraid to turn vocational education over to the entrenched education bureaucrats who had been classically educated.

Memorandum of Understanding

In 1918 a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) was established between federal officials responsible for vocational agriculture and for extension.

This MOU was revised from time to time. A brief description of each program was

provided, then specific duties of each were outlined.

Memorandum of Understanding

Unless the activity is specifically related to classes taught, the agriculture teacher is not to do extension activities. However, it is recognized there may be isolated instances where the agricultural teacher is called upon by farmers in the school district. This should represent a “small and incidental” part of the job.

Memorandum of Understanding

Teachers of vocational agriculture or representatives of vocational agricultural work should be invited to participate in all meetings conducted by the extension service for the formulation of county and State agricultural programs.

Memorandum of Understanding

The extension service should not enroll vocational agriculture students in 4-H.

Services should not overlap.

Plumbing in the 1920s

1 out of 10 farm homes had water indoors 1 out of 2 farm homes had sinks 1 out of 64 farm homes had a water closet,

the rest had outhouses Most laundry

was done outside

George-Reed Act - 1929

Provide additional financial support for vocational education

Money was equally divided between agriculture and home economics– Ag money based on farm population– Home economics money based on rural population

Funds were used to hire subject matter specialists in agriculture at the federal level

Ag Ed Enrollments

0

50000

100000

150000

200000

250000

300000

350000

1918 1923 1928 1933 1938 1943 1948

DayPart-TimeEvening

George-Barden Act (1946)

Increased funding for vocational education Indicated federal funds could be used to

support travel associated with the Future Farmers of America and the New Farmers of America

Money could be used on vocational guidance