Federal Legislation Impacting Agricultural Education - Era II Special Thanks to Gary Moore at NC State

Vocational Education Act of 1963 This was a MAJOR piece of federal legislation. It replaced Smith-Hughes Categorical funding for specific vocational disciplines such as agricultural education was abolished. –Funding went to states on the basis of their population in certain age categories. –States decided how to spend the money.

Vocational Education Act of 1963 Expanded the scope of agricultural education to include all areas of agriculture, not just farming. –No longer required “supervised practice on a farm”. The idea was to expand the scope of SAE, not do away with it, but that is what some states did. Expanded the scope of home economics education to include all areas of home economics, not just homemaking.

Vocational Education Act of 1963 Established work study programs for vocational students to provide financial support Eliminated federal supervision/control of vocational programs Funding for vocational education was substantially increased

Sea Grant Program (1966) The National Sea Grant College and Program Act –Established a program (under the Dept. of Commerce) to provide for applied research, formal education and extension for development of marine and Great Lake resources. About 2/3 of the states involved have incorporated these activities in the extension service.

Food and Agriculture Act (1977) A Major Farm Bill Authorized $260 million for Extension Authorized agricultural and forestry extension activities at 1890 institutions –4% of Smith-Lever Funds must go to 1890 institutions –Extension leaders of 1862 and 1890 institutions are to develop a comprehensive state-wide plan for extension

Carl Perkins Act (1984) This was the most significant rewrite of vocational education legislation since Two broad themes –Accessibility to all persons –Improve the quality

Carl Perkins Act (1984) Fifty-seven (57) percent of state funds were allocated to special populations - vocational education was to be accessible to everyone –handicapped (10%) –disadvantaged (10%) –adult retraining (12%) –single parents and homemakers (8 1/2%) –sex bias & stereotyping (3 1/2%) –incarcerated (1%)

Carl Perkins Act (1984) Forty-three (43) percent of state funds were allocated for program improvement –funds were not to be used to maintain existing programs Consumer and Homemaking received special funding but 1/3 had to be spent in economically depressed areas There will be a full time sex equity coordinator and $60,000 is allocated to that

Perkins II (1990) The Carl Perkins Act is rewritten Special populations is still a major focus, Money can be used to support existing programs Academic and vocational education was to be integrated Articulation between secondary and post- secondary institutions

National Agricultural Research, Extension and Teaching Act (1994) Established extension education programs on Native American reservations Provided technical assistance and training in subsistence agriculture to Native Americans and Alaskan natives

National Agricultural Research, Extension and Teaching Act (1994) Provided grants for on-farm education and assistance directed at accommodating disability in farm operations.

School-to-Work Opportunities Act (1994) A variety of programs were established for students to get them more involved with the world of work and post- secondary education Grants were given to some states to develop programs This is for all students Funding is temporary

FAIR Act (1996) Our current farm bill is titled the Federal Agriculture Improvement and Reform Act.Federal Agriculture Improvement and Reform Act –Some people call it the Freedom to Farm Act. Title VIII contains provisions for Research, Extension, and Education –However, because other sections of the bill were so controversial little attention was really paid to this section of the bill. Most extension related items were merely extended. However, there were a few new twists.

FAIR Act (1996) Authority for secondary and 2-year post secondary education in Agriscience and agribusiness are added to the Secretary's food and agricultural education authorities –This was an attempt to transfer national leadership for secondary agricultural education to USDA from USDE –It partially succeeded, language is present in the bill authorizing it--but there is no money to do it, so nothing has happened

FAIR Act (1996) Even though the national leadership for agricultural education did not move (one representative in the house effectively blocked the move) a $500,000 challenge grant program to improve secondary agricultural education has been established under authority of the USDA. –USDE provides national leadership for agricultural education but USDA is providing funds to improve the program

Conclusion Legislation for extension and agricultural education during the past 50 years has been influenced greatly by changing societal and environmental concerns. Federal legislation has often mandated what we are to do. The focus has shifted to helping certain groups of people.