Progress 09/01/10 to 02/28/14
Outputs
Target Audience:During the project about 50 educators including award-winning teachers from throughout the United States participated in the development of the lessons to complete the project as proposed. Educators included 20 award-winning teachers from kindergarten through unviersity classrooms, all of whom were chosen on a competitive basis. The project also included educators serving as state affiliate coordinators for Project Food, Land & People (FLP), Board directors and staff for Project Food, Land & People, and a select four-member writing team comprised of a retired middle school teacher, two active middle school teachers, and a curriculum specialist in the private sector. These lessons were developed with one of the most outstanding cadre of educators in multi-disciplines ever assembled for the creation of animal agriculture-oriented lessons for middle- and high school students. Most of fhe participants have won awards for meritorious teaching, curriculum development or classroom application from such recognized organizations as the American Farm Bureau Federation, teh USDA Agriculture in the Classroom program, Soil and Water Conservation Districts, Unviersity Extension Services, FFA, 4-H, and others. All of these educators increased their knowledge of animal agriculture, food production, best farming practices, animal welfare techniques, food safety, genetics, greenhouse gases, environmental assessment, and the techiques of advocacy persuasion. The finished lessons will reach about 1.1 million students annually through FLP networking and classrrom delviery. Studenets in all 50 states will have access to the lessons. FLP has affiliates in 30 states. Changes/Problems:We had to change our original timeline and progression of activities due to our drawdown from USDA coming singificantly later than expected. Our rant funding was not made available to us when as we told. Apparently the funds were lost between USDA, NIFA, the Department of the Tresuary, adn the Bank of Richmond. Our start time was delayed by at least six months. As a result, the original scheduling of lesson development activities and processes was negatively impacted for most of the first half of the grant cycle. Also, USDA's withholding of $1,800 from our total grant funding was problematic and the reasoning for it was not properly described to us until late in the process. We were originally told that it was a percentage withheld until completion of the project. This problem demonstrated the difficulties we faced as a small non-profit organization due to the perpetual chanign of contact persons at USDA/NIFA. The project also required significantly more hours from two FLP staff managers due to the complexity of the project. These hours were given as a part of the matching funds and services provided by FLP. What opportunities for training and professional development has the project provided?This project provided training and professional development during the following opportunities and events: (1) About 50 educators including award-winning teachers from throughout the United States participated in a workshop in St. Louis in 2011 that launched the proejct and initiative. All received professional development via professional expert presentations and small group activites. Educators included 20 award-winning teachers from kindergarten through unviersity classrooms, all of whom were chosen on a competitive basis. The project also included educators serving as state affiliate coordinators for Project Food, Land & People (FLP), Board directors and staff for Project Food, Land & People (FLP). Presentations and keynote dicussions were led by an associate professor of poultry sciences from the Unviersity of Georgia; a veterinary medicine and animal psysiology professor from the University of Florida; the CEO of the Animal Agriculture Alliance in Arlington, Virginia; the chair of the Board of Directors for Project Food, Land & People, who is a Cornell graduate and a former education director of the Farm Bureau Foundation and the Agriculture in the Classroom program, an assistant professor of research methods and writing from Southest Missouri State University; an agriculture instructor from Fort Lewis College in Durango, Colorado; the executive director of the National Association of Agrulcutural Educators from Lexington, Kentucky; the director of consumer education from the Arizona Beef Council; and agricultural experts and dairy, beef and swine farmers from Nevada, Kentucky and Missouri. The array of presenations and discussions allowed particpants to increase their knowledge of animal agriculture, food production, best farming practices, animal welfare techniques, food safety, genetics, greenhouse gases, environmental assessment, the techiques of advocacy persuasion, and issues involving dairy and beef cattle, poultry, and swine. (2) Various related workshops provided at the national conferences for both Project Food, Land & People and the Agriculture in the Classroom program during 2011, 2012, 2013 and 2014 provided professional development opportunities for more than 200 educators. These educators included state coordinators of agriculture edcuation programs, teachers in grades K-12 from throughout he United States, and agriculturalists and citizen inerested in the myths and misconceptions of American agirculture. Evalautions from all of these workshops indicated a strong interest in the information and approval of the presenters and presentations. Presenters were executive officers and staff of FLP as well as other educators who had helped develop the lessons. How have the results been disseminated to communities of interest?The results of our survey have been made available to related cohort affiliates. The lessons have been made available to 105 teachers for pilot testing througout the United States. Individual lessons have been used for wokshop purposes to edcuators and program cooridnators attending national conventions for Ag In the Classroom and FLP. The Farm Bureau Federation, Animal Agricultue Alliance, and some University Extension Service offices have been informed of the FLP Animal Ag Initiative and provided descriptions of the lessons and their activities. What do you plan to do during the next reporting period to accomplish the goals?
Nothing Reported
Impacts
What was accomplished under these goals?
The following goals have been met with qualifying information provided, as necessary. (1) Identified critical topics and developed lessons resulting in informed choices, a safe and viable food system, and a sustainable environment; (2) Provided excellent and objective educational materials, including providing workshop attendees information, presentations and slideshows about misconceptions in animal welfare and food production; (3) Disseminated education materials through a network of active state coalitions and other agencies and entities; (Status: This will be accomplished fully once the piloted lessons have undergone the final evaluation by an external consultant using feedback from pilot testing. The pilot testing has been completed.) and (4) Provided learning and leadership opportunities to increase agro-environmental literacy. (Status: Three of the lessons have been used for educational purposes at workshops held at the national conferences for FLP and the Agriculture In the Classroom program. Each workshop was attended by about 50 teeachers and program professioanls. The lessons as a unit also have been promoted at various venues and conferences. The project met its propsed objectives to: (1) recruit and assemble a cadre of outstanding educators and agriculturists at a national writing workshop to develop creative lesson plans including excellent hands-on, interactive activities; (2) survey and interview state contacts with Ag In the Classroom and teachers they recommend to best define potential subjects and themes most needed to address the future of animal agriculture and the balance of information most needed by students; (3) identify agricultural experts, agribusiness leaders, scientists, and other specialists to educate the teachers about animal agriculture (science, practices, issues) and serve as resource people; (4) provide an environment and process that will enable the development of creative, student-centered lessons suitable for use in middle school and high school classrooms; and (5) ensure that the proposed lessons meet state and national standards in science, math, consumer education, career education, agricultural sciences, social studies, environmental sciences, and language arts. Outcomes and results include: (1) Five lesson plans developed via the writing workshop and conference that are substantially complete and ready for refinement critique; (2) Five other lessons plans that are outlined, with a structured framework and generated activities (Status: Under development and being planned is a series of five to seven similar lessons for PreK-Grade 5 teachers and their students. A report about this progress and process is available.) (3) Significant learning gains in animal agriculture and related topics were measured for the group of up to 20 teachers attending the workshop; (4) Results from a topic selections survey of key secondary educators and program coordinators (Status: Available in the full FLP SPECA Final Report to accompany this REEPORT) (5) Educational outreach to thousands of students (Pilot testing has already implemented the lessons and their activities to students in several states. During that process, 105 teachers used an average of three lessons each for teaching purposes. An estimated 5,000 students received beenfits at this stage of the process. When made fully available, an estimated 300,000 students iwll be taught using at least one of these lessons during the first three years of their availability.) This effort also will exact proposal efficiency at its end stage, with the USDA investment from this proposal estimated to reach students at a cost of about 6 cents per student. (Status: This cost estimate of efficiency remains feasible and sound.)
Publications
- Type:
Other
Status:
Other
Year Published:
2013
Citation:
Toward completion of proposed deliverables, the following report: 'Advancing Animal Agriculture: Perceptions and Knowledge About Practices and Production" has been compiled and is available to interested educators, agricultural entities, and other related professionals. The report is too voluminous with accompanying data tables to be provided here. Following is a condensed version.
Perceived Importance of Agriculture
This survey was administered to two groups in a two-part workshop.
Most Significant Findings
Of the 20 teachers surveyed only two knew that it was illegal to feed chickens hormones or administer hormones to chickens. This is a significant misunderstanding that needs to be addressed. Of the 24 program coordinators surveyed only five knew that it was illegal to feed chickens hormones or administer hormones to chickens. This is a significant misunderstanding that needs to be addressed. Of the 44 participants (both teachers and coordinators) not a single individual identified that it was illegal to administer hormones to swine. This is a significant misunderstanding that needs to be addressed.
Other Findings
Most participants seem to be well aware of the processes that are conducted for the health and safety of the animals. Far less known are what practices are conducted for the safety of foods and to make the raising of animals most efficient and economical. Opportunities are available to clarify these areas for consumers. In addition, all areas that indicate DK for Dont Know are opportunities for educators to develop scientifically sound educational materials for agricultural literacy efforts.
Participants were asked to indicate if they thought a given animal producer practice was done to benefit any of seven separate corporate or public sector interests, including the interests of the animals themselves. These interests were (1) health and safety of animals; (2) health and safety of humans working with animals; (3) product nutrition for consumers; (4) food safety; (5) farm/ranch profit; (6) consumer cost; and (7) corporate agribusiness. Each interest was rated independently and coded categorically as follows: 0=no response, 1=primary benefit, 2=secondary benefit, 3=not applicable; 4=do not know. All responses indicating a benefit (whether primary or secondary) were also tallied to determine a numerical scale total for each interest.
Conclusions
Overall, while a small sample, this survey indicates that teachers already engaged in agricultural literacy efforts (these are teachers receiving awards for their ag literacy efforts in their classrooms) and state coordinators of both Ag in the Classroom and Project Food, Land & People are fairly well informed about animal ag practices and the intended beneficiary. Areas where they indicated they did not know or gave no answer of NA are areas that should be addressed with new efforts. The few areas where misunderstandings exist are opportunities for new education efforts.
Teachers not yet reached by ag literacy efforts should be surveyed and the results compared to determine where education efforts need to be concentrated and expanded.
|