2013 State Reports 43 States Reporting

Debra Spielmaker, Project DirectorNational Agriculture in the Classroom

June 23, 2014

State Report Background

State reports assist Agriculture in the Classroom (AITC) state directors, National AITC leaders, USDA staff, and researchers with annual benchmark data to determine impacts, funding, and program priorities.

It’s a pain, but Tonya is right!

Don’t resist Willie It wasn’t that bad?

Q1: Resource Development

Please list, by title, any classroom resources (instructional units, CDs, DVDs, maps, posters, etc.) that were developed or revised by your AITC program staff this past year. This question captures AITC state resource data for the NALCM.

38 (88%) states reported they had developed resources in 2013

41 (95%) states 2012 38 (90%) states in

2011

Q2: Educational Standard Correlations

If you listed resources for Question 1, were the resources aligned or correlated to state or national education standards?

22 reported: All 16 reported: Most 5 reported: None

Q3: Estimated number of teachers contacted/trained face-to-face statewide with AITC programs, curriculum, or other resources, 2009-2013.

0-.5 hours

1-2 hours

3-5 hours

6-10 hours

11-20 hours

20-30 hours

30+ hours

0

10,000

20,000

30,000

40,000

50,000

60,000

70,000

47,651

59,253

9,102

2,604589 222 972

20092010201120122013

Q4, 5 & 7: The estimation of the number of students reached statewide through their teachers, directly through AITC staff and volunteers with AITC programs, curriculum, or other resources.

K-6

Teac

her

7-12

Tea

cher

K-6

Direct

AIT

C

7-12

Dire

ct A

ITC

Volu

ntee

r -

500,000

1,000,000

1,500,000

2,000,000

2,500,000

3,000,000 2,636,252

797,108

1,402,223

257,584

1,334,456

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

Total number of students reached in:

2009 - 42 states: 5,199,441

2010 - 44 states: 5,598,190

2011 – 42 states: 5,641,025

2012 - 43 states: 6,009,045

2013 – 43 states: 6,471,621,

Q6: Estimate the number of volunteers who conducted or assisted with AITC programs.

Volunteers -

5,000

10,000

15,000

20,000

25,000

30,000

35,000

40,000

45,000

50,000

24,326 26,204

31,041 29,048

41,825 43,998 2008 (42 Reports)

2009 (42 Reports)

2010 (44 Reports)

2011 (42 Reports)

2012 (43 Reports)

2013 (43 Reports)

Q8: Number of pre-service teachers contacted or trained with AITC.

0-.5 hours

1-2 hours

3-5 hours

6-10 hours

11-20 hours

21-30 hours

30+ hours

-

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

3,000

3,500

4,000

4,500

2,465

4,359

3,709

117 76 5 36

2009 (42 Reports)2010 (44 Reports)2011 (42 Reports)2012 (43 Reports)2013 (43 Reports)

Total number of pre-service teachers reached in:

2009 – 42 states: 8,867

2010 – 44 states: 10,243

2011 – 42 states: 9,352

2012 – 43 states: 10,058

2013 – 43 states: 10,767

Q9 & Q11: Budgets

Budget Total Grant Total $-

$2,000,000

$4,000,000

$6,000,000

$8,000,000

$10,000,000

$12,000,000 11,072,896

1,036,010

2009 (42 Re-ports, 21 re-ceived grants)2010 (44 Re-ports, 26 re-ceived grants)2011 (42 Re-ports, 22 re-ceived grants)

Budget Range 2012: $3,800 - $2,198,765 Grant Range 2012: $350 - $202,300

Budget Range 2013: $5,000 - $2,597,991 Grant Range 2013: $2,000 - $186,400

Q10a: Funding sources for state AITC 2013 budgets. No state receives direct federal on-going dollars outside of a grants.

22 (50%) reported 100% private funding (49% in 2012)

16 (37%) reported state and private funding (42% in 2012)

3 states reported they received federal funds for 2013 programs 3-15% of 2013 budget

Q10b: State dollar funding for 2013 budgets

16 states, 2013 (20 in 2012) reported some state funding

NY & MT reported 100% state funding

3-25% 26-50% 51-75% 76-100% -

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

2012

2013

Q23: Do you perceive that your program is:

Inadequately funded to carry out program goals (we are meeting less than 25% of our program goals)

Poorly funded to carry out program goals (we are meeting 50% or less of our program goals)

In need of more funding to carry out program goals (we are meeting 50% - 75% of our program goals)

Adequately funded to carry out program goals (we are meeting 75% - 100% of our program goals)

Well-funded, we have more funding than we know what to do with (we are meeting more than 100% of our program goals)

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20

Total number of states reporting funding perception

Rating

Q12: List the titles (up to five) of the lesson plan(s) you use most often with teachers/students to convey an agricultural literacy message. This/These should be your favorite go-to lesson(s).

33 states noted lessons plans they most often used with teachers. Titles and links can be

found in the 2013 State Report Booklet, online: http://agclassroom.org/state/summaries/index.htm

Q13a: Have you created a state specific children's book on agriculture?

Q13b: If yes, did you self-publish or use a publisher?

Q13c: What is/are your book titles?

9 reported self-publishing, 2 used a publisher1. Arizona (publisher)

2. Arkansas (self)

3. California (self)

4. Florida (self)

5. Maine (self)

6. Michigan (self)

7. Montana (self)

8. Oklahoma (self)

9. Oregon (self)

10. Tennessee (self)

11. Virginia (publisher)

Q14: What do you typically measure when evaluating programming?

Other

Effects on student academic test scores

Perceptions of agricultural practices among student participants

Gains in agricultural knowledge among student participants

Usefulness of provided classroom resources

Perceptions of agricultural practices among teacher participants

Gains in agricultural knowledge among teacher participants

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35

Frequency

Q15: What type of evaluation methods are you using to determine program impact?

Other

Correlation methods between surveys and other measured outcomes such as state test scores

Student pre/post surveys

Anecdotal narratives

Post survey or evaluations

Pre/post survey or evaluations

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35

Frequency

Frequency

Q16: As the state contact for AITC, please rate what you perceive are your program strengths and weaknesses. (0 = nonexistent, 1 = weak, 2 = developing, 3 = satisfactory, 4 = strong)

**Social networking

*Recruitment and volunteer training

Newsletter preparation

*Instructional resource development for educators (lesson plans and other paper-based/pdf classroom media)

Developing online learning modules or courses

Grant writing

**Conducting STEM workshops

**Working directly with 6-12 students

**Secondary in-service professional development (6-12)

*Pre-service programming

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3

Score

Correlation with perceptions concerning adequate funding *p < .05**p < .01

Q17: As the state contact for AITC, please rank what you would like to develop or what is developed in your state program.(0 = not interested, 1 = some interest, 2 = interested but need training, 3 = doing this but we should put forth a greater effort in this area, 4 = our program already does this successfully)

Social networking

*Recruitment and volunteer training

Newsletter preparation

**Instructional resource development for educators (lesson plans and other paper-based/pdf classroom media)

Developing online learning modules or courses

Grant writing

Conducting STEM workshops

Working directly with 6-12 students

*Secondary in-service professional development (6-12)

**Pre-service programming

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5

Score

Correlation with perceptions concerning adequate funding *p < .05**p < .01

Q16 & 17: There was a positive correlation between the level of perception regarding program strengths and desired programming on all variables at p < .01.

• Pre-service programming• Elementary in-service professional development (K-5)• Secondary in-service professional development (6-12)• Working directly with K-5 students• Working directly with 6-12 students• Career education professional development• Conducting STEM workshops• Fundraising• Grant writing• Applications of technologies to improve programming• Developing online learning modules or courses• Measuring student agricultural literacy• Instructional resource development for educators (lesson plans

and other paper-based/pdf classroom media)• Instructional resource development for educators (media beyond

paper/pdfs: classroom ready kits, maps, posters, games, etc.)• Newsletter preparation• Student resource preparation (readers, books, kits, etc.)• Recruitment and volunteer training• Electronic resource development• Social networking

Q18: Describe your state program structure and/or supervision.

Other (describe organizational structure and oversight/supervision)

No outside or internal program oversight committee or advisors

An internal organization supervisor

An internal advisory group comprised of people within the organization

Program Advisory Council that is not a Board of Directors, comprised of a diverse and engaged cross-section of stakeholders

Board of Directors

State Department of Education

State Department of Agriculture

Higher Education (state funded)

Private Organization (Farm Bureau, Association)

Private Foundation

Foundation - nonprofit, 501(c)3

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Frequency

Q19-22: Describe how your AITC structure affects or impacts your ability to work with:

education policymakers

formal K-12 educators

grants

funders

0 5 10 15 20 25

Easy Somewhat EasySomewhat Difficult DifficultOur program doesn't work with this element

Q24-25: Outputs and Outcomes

Accomplishment (output): achieving the completion or fulfillment of something

Impact (outcome): to have an immediate and strong (measurable) effect on something or somebody related to program goals or objectives

To see state accomplishments and impacts, review the state summaries website: http://agclassroom.org/state/summaries/index.htm

Inputs, Outputs & Outcomes

VisionAgriculture is valued by all.

Mission

Increasing agricultural literacy through K-12 Education.

Agricultural Literacy An agriculturally literate person understands and can

communicate the source and value of agriculture as it affects our quality of life.