1. 2013 State Reports 43 States Reporting Debra Spielmaker, Project Director National Agriculture in the Classroom June 23, 2014

2. 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?

3. 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

4. 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

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

6. 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. 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,

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

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

9. Q9 & Q11: Budgets 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

10. 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

11. Q10b: State dollar funding for 2013 budgets 16 states, 2013 (20 in 2012) reported some state funding NY & MT reported 100% state funding

12. Q23: Do you perceive that your program is:

13. 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 http://agclassroom.org/state/ summaries/index.htm

14. 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 publisher 1. 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)

15. Q14: What do you typically measure when evaluating programming?

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

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

18. 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)

19. 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

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

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

22. 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.htmhttp://agclassroom.org/state/summaries/index.htm

23. Inputs, Outputs & Outcomes

24. Vision Agriculture 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.