|
April 2002
|
|
|
Contents
Editor's PageThis issue's "Editor's Page" is kind of "Webby," and what could be more appropriate for a Web-based journal like JOE? JOE's New LookBy the time you've gotten here, I hope at least some of you have noticed JOE's new look. What's new about it? It's leaner, cleaner, and less cluttered. Something I especially like about it is that the baby hasn't been thrown out with the bathwater. That is, it's still recognizably a journal site and still recognizably JOE--same JOE blue and same JOE logo. The look isn't drastically different. It's just better. (One of my design colleagues at Purdue would say that the site's "equity" has been maintained.) But the look isn't the only or even the best thing about the redesigned site. Ohio State's Robyn Ness, JOE Web developer, has also reorganized the site to anticipate the needs of our different audiences: JOE readers, both longtime and one-time; prospective authors; reviewers; institutional representatives; and board members. The menu on the left groups the site's pages into sections that take these audiences to what we think they want to see. And gone are the numerous (11!) and somewhat willy-nilly links on the main body of the JOE home page. In their place are five links that let readers see the current issue of JOE; search the JOE archives by term or phrase, or by issue; subscribe (or unsubscribe) to JOE; and make a comment to the editor. Cleaner look. Simpler and clearer structure. Audience orientation. Easier navigation. JOE exists on the Web, and we try to make JOE work on the Web, too. If you have any suggestions to further improve the site, you can contact me at the address below or, better yet, contact Robyn Ness at robyn@joe.org. Comment on the CommentaryThe author of the Commentary in this month's issue, "Global in Our Backyard," writes that she hopes that "we are growing to see that international Extension exists in everyone's backyard and that JOE can provide a forum for exchanging ideas that improve the ability of Extension professionals to be responsive to local issues that have global impact and to global issues that require local action." We hope so, too. The wide-ranging articles in JOE certainly make it a forum for sharing ideas, but it's the Discussion Forum that gives Extension professionals the opportunity to exchange ideas--and so far you aren't doing it. There were two entries in the February issue's Discussion Forum. One was a compliment. The other posed a question: "If someone you knew were intent on starting a career with CES, what would you tell them?" No one answered. We'll continue doing what we can to make the JOE Discussion Forum a going concern. That's yet another way to "make JOE work on the Web." But we could use your help. Laura Hoelscher, Editor Global in Our BackyardBarbara G. Ludwig Today the world is changing faster than it ever has before. We see evidence in news reports and in our own lives. Sometimes these changes can seem overwhelming. Change can also be promising and exciting as we look at problems in a way that empowers us to do something about them. As a long-time Extension employee and educator, I've seen our job as helping people understand alternatives, the social and economic costs of interventions and likelihood of success. We work to create programs that help people improve their lives. One constant throughout my career and the career changes I've made is my interest in internationalization of Extension and higher education. I see wonderful opportunities ahead of us to contribute to the changes that will be happening around the world. In our College, we have a special commitment to our Extension clientele across the state and our students on all campuses to help them develop a global perspective. This is echoed in words of the draft 21st Century Report (ECOP, 2001) that talks about the "changing faces of America" and explains how "globalization touches every American." The new millennium brings new challenges. This will include bringing disciplinary backgrounds to bear in international and local settings. Three ExamplesAt a state Extension advisory committee the last week in January, we were discussing Extension and research programming and what we should emphasize to elected officials and state leaders. Not present on the initial list of top 10 topics was any item related to global or international. Not surprising, you might say. A team of clientele looking at agricultural priorities suggested we should highlight what we are doing related to global markets. The dynamics of developing countries, markets, and management of uncertainty is a reality for our agricultural leaders. Extension professionals will find themselves challenged and pushed by those on the cutting edge to become more skilled at integrating global concepts into local programming. We may see this trend first in the economics of trade, but it is true in other areas as well. Purdue University last fall focused its annual Extension conference on globalization. I had a chance to listen to Extension educators during breakout sessions. They talked of the barriers that exist of time, money to travel, and concerns about what clientele will think. They also expressed uncertainty about where international fits with all the other priorities they hear about from Extension leaders. These barriers are no different from those identified by agents in Ohio and Arizona (Ludwig, 1999; Knight, Elliot, & Krenzer, 1999) or by Extension directors (Ludwig, 2000). Purdue Extension staff also talked about changes in perspective that happen as a result of travel. One specialist indicated, "Once you've gone to a foreign country you see things differently when you return . . . and do different kinds of programming." Another added, "It's humbling how much we can learn as we travel." Mary Lynn Thalheimer, who is responsible for Ohio State's 4-H International Program cited some of the best teachable moments she has observed. With her permission, I share them here.
It Is Time . . .Our vision of international Extension is growing beyond the concept of Extension educators having an assignment to work in a developing country. There is an awareness of the need to help clientele look at issues related to the environment, the global marketplace, health and wellness, and how we use technology from a global perspective. I recently heard a wonderful example: think about the speed of the stagecoach versus a train, a car, or a rocket ship. We moved through those technologies in fewer than 150 years. Now, think about what the future will bring as other technological breakthroughs occur. We are living in a very small world and can't isolate ourselves from what's happening around the globe. Mad cow and hoof and mouth disease in Europe had an impact on local county fairs. September 11th taught us still other lessons. The events of the past months raise our awareness of that connection. By mid-century, it is predicted that the average U.S. citizen will trace his or her ancestry not to Europe, but to Asia, Africa, the Hispanic world, or the Pacific Islands. Global is becoming a part of local, and education and support for clientele will have to be delivered within a culturally sensitive framework. Cross-cultural competency will make Extension professionals more effective locally and also open to them the possibility of personal professional growth through involvement in a project or study tour. "I learned if you go to a foreign country where you don't speak the language, speaking more loudly doesn't help," remarked an agent following his first trip. Ask anyone who has traveled, and you will hear a story. A Worldwide NetworkFor those of us working for Extension in the U.S., it is important to remember that we are part of a web of Extension professionals located around the globe who are also reaching out to a broader community where shifting priorities demand new approaches. In the United States, land-grant universities have Extension outreach functions. In other parts of the world, the connection between the university and advisory (Extension) service providers are less formal, and Extension is viewed as a process. Last fall I participated in a European Seminar on Extension Education (ESEE) that focused on sustainable development. The experience challenged my perspectives and increased my appreciation of the work we have ahead. The issues faced by Extension professionals range from safe food and water supplies to contested land use and the loss of viability in rural communities. An aging population, housing issues, and desire for financial security don't end at the borders of North America. There is an organization called AIAEE, the Association for International Agricultural and Extension Education, based here in the U.S. whose annual meeting brings together Extension professionals from across the globe. The organization has a Web site http://ag.arizona.edu/aiaee/ and publishes a newsletter http://ag.arizona.edu/aiaee/newslett.htm and a journal http://ag.arizona.edu/aiaee/Journal.htm. The presentations made by conference participants and networking that is an inherent part of the conference offer great personal and professional experiences. This year's conference will be held in Durban, South Africa, but 2003 finds participants gathering in Raleigh, North Carolina. Consider AIAEE or other organizations that involve international participants to learn more about current issues affecting all Extension professionals as well as innovative teaching and technology approaches. Gaining International ExperienceMark Twain wrote: Travel is fatal to prejudices, bigotry and narrow-mindedness. . . . Broad, wholesome, charitable views of (human beings) and things cannot be acquired by vegetating in one corner of the earth all of one's lifetime. Not everyone will have the opportunity to travel, but through participation in organizations and conferences, visiting Web sites, and reading journals horizons can be expanded. Other approaches are as simple as offering to host international visitors. Inviting a visiting graduate student who is an Extension professional in another country to spend a day in the county and participate in an Extension advisory committee would be a good start. The visitor gets to see democracy in action, and advisory committee members begin to learn about similar problems and aspirations. Involving clientele in study tours, finding out about sister city projects, or volunteering to assist with a short-term international development project are other approaches. Most universities offer a variety of study abroad programs, but many youth going to college never see this as a possibility for them. Inviting local college students who have participated in study abroad to talk with older 4-H youth and parents about what they've gained is a wonderful starting point. International study abroad and internship programs encourage the exchange of ideas, build lasting friendships, and give graduates an advantage when job hunting. Closing ThoughtsIn the 1980's and 1990's, the concepts of international Extension and developing countries were always linked. In the winter of 1985, the Editor's Page in the Journal of Extension (JOE) http://www.joe.org/joe/1985winter/ed1.html commented on the need for "international Extension." Roger Lawrence talked about the dilemma he felt as the editor in how to respond to articles submitted from developing countries about work in those countries. There was a desire to recognize the creative and productive work being done, but an understanding that for the majority of readers what was happening elsewhere in the world was not their focus. A new challenge exists for the editors and contributors of our journal in 2002. Thanks to its electronic distribution, JOE has already become an international journal read and used by professionals around the world. I hope we are growing to see that international Extension exists in everyone's backyard and that JOE can provide a forum for exchanging ideas that improve the ability of Extension professionals to be responsive to local issues that have global impact and to global issues that require local action.
|
|
Continuing professional development for employees is critical to meet the demands and expectations of the evolving workplace. This article provides an overview of the professional development model used by Ohio State University Extension in a systems context and its application in changing organizations. The model is applicable in examining the professional development provided by an organization for all personnel, while the types of development may vary based upon job roles.
The entry stage can be characterized as the initial phase of employment, when the essential motivators for development include understanding the organization, the organizational structure and culture, and skills essential to perform the job. Organizations are frustrated by the seemingly inordinate amount of time required to supervise newcomers (Beeler, 1994). New employees may feel overwhelmed with all the information regarding the organization, their job duties, and the operational policies and procedures. Focus should be placed on developing easy-to-use tools for managers and new employees to help them do their jobs. Extension wants new employees to develop skills quickly to a level at which they can perform their work efficiently and effectively.
Ohio State University Extension has developed a multi-layered structure to address initial professional development needs. This program structure includes a peer mentoring program, identification of professional support teams, leadership coaching, and orientation/job training programs.
Peer Mentoring Program
The peer mentoring program has been designed by Extension employees for their co-workers. A mentor is defined as a trusted adviser, friend, and teacher, and should be a peer who is a non-evaluator. All potential mentors are required to participate in a training session prior to being selected. Critical to the mentor/protégé relationship is an early start after hiring, having similar jobs, and developing familiarity with each other, agreed-upon goals, mutual trust, and confidentiality.
To help in creating mentoring pairs, each potential mentor/protégé is asked to complete a bio-sketch form that includes information about background, experience, work-related interests, non-work interests, specializations, hobbies, family, etc. An evaluation is conducted at 3- and 12-month intervals to assess satisfaction with the pairing and the process.
One of the biggest struggles for county mentoring participants has been the distance between mentor and protégé. Others mention difficulty with the time commitment, although the majority of pairs indicate they meet six or more times during the year.
Within the last 4 years, more than one hundred mentor/protégé partnerships have been created. Although the mentoring pair is established for the first year of an employee's career, many of the relationships have continued beyond that point. New staff members indicate that the experience provides temporary support until they are able to become more familiar with other co-workers and find links to personally chosen mentors within the organization.
Professional Support Teams
OSU Extension has a formal structure of support for each county Extension agent. This support team consists of:
The county agent's support team has responsibilities to:
District support teams have additional roles related to the Extension mentoring program, including the selection and training of the initial mentor pool and the pairing of a mentor with a protégé.
Leadership Coaching
County Extension agents have the opportunity to participate in an Action Leadership Retreat, which is a 2-day program designed for individuals with 1 to 3 years of experience. This assessment workshop is a developmental experience for these employees focused on 12 behavioral anchors. The behavioral anchors include:
Peer coaches have been assigned to individuals who have participated in the Action Leadership Retreat. The coaches assist in keeping employees focused on the professional development plans made during the retreat, serve as a sounding board, and provide the employees with a set time to focus on each of the behavioral anchors and themselves as professionals. The coaches work with the staff member for a 14-month year period. Performance is assessed with a 360-degree feedback process at the beginning and end of that time to identify areas of growth.
Orientation/Job Training
The current methods of orientation include presentations of information about the organization and employee roles through written materials, statewide orientation sessions, and on-going core training workshops. Training programs are also offered in core job skill areas of:
Training sessions are provided for professional staff during the first 2 years on the job to assist them in developing these core competencies. In addition, all staff are provided with training in their subject-matter area and in computer technology.
Another on-the-job training program, Learning the Ropes, has been developed for the first 2 weeks of an agent's job. The training topics were identified through surveying new and experienced agents. During this training program, new professionals meet with support team members to:
Ohio State University Extension will continue to support new employees through this multi-layered structure. Initial experiences with these processes have demonstrated that this support helps to meet the employees' need to be successful--and to be recognized for that success.
The second component of the model is the colleague stage. During this stage, the individual grows in professional knowledge, independence, and autonomy in carrying out the job role. Individuals seek to build at least one area of expertise for which he or she is recognized by colleagues and shares through service on committees or by assuming special assignments or tasks. The individual may seek further development in this stage through formal educational training, such as enrollment in a 2-year degree program, undergraduate program, or graduate school (Rennekamp & Nall, 1993).
Personnel may remain in this developmental stage for many years, particularly if their job role remains consistent. Some additional motivators for these individuals include:
Knowle's concept of andragogy assumes that adults desire self direction and tend to be self directed as they mature (Knowles, 1980). Tough and other adult educators have identified that many adults pursue self-directed learning projects throughout their lives related to both job roles and personal interests. Some research also indicates that though adults may practice self direction in some aspects of their lives, they may not always carry it over to learning (Kerka, 1994). Thus, as professional development is designed within an organization, planners cannot rely simply on self-directed learning to achieve individual development or organizational effectiveness.
In-Service Education
OSU Extension has expanded in-service training substantially in the last 10 years to respond to the rapidly changing needs of employees for specialized development. In order to effectively meet the needs of the public, the individual professional must have a higher level of technical expertise now than was needed previously. In the early 1980's, 25 in-service programs were provided annually by the organization, generally ranging from 1 to 3 days in length.
In 1998, OSU Extension offered over 75 highly specialized in-service programs. Each in-service was coordinated by an individual or team of professionals from within the organization. Coordinators are encouraged to use a sounding board or committee of individuals who are potential participants to insure relevance of the program. Though content experts from OSU or other universities often present in-service programs, many of the programs include sessions based upon peer sharing or peer teaching. Sometimes this is accomplished by providing unstructured time for networking, dialogue, and problem solving among participants.
New delivery approaches include:
Examples of training conducted in 1998 include:
Professional Development Funding
Several types of funding support have been provided to enable self-directed learners to identify developmental needs and to obtain resources to participate in external development programs. Some examples include:
Specialization Funds
$65,000 is available annually to support individualized professional development plans focused on enhancement of specialized areas. Responsibilities include the development of educational programs, materials, and reciprocal teaching among peers within a close geographical area. To receive funding, individuals must submit plans that are reviewed by an administrative team.
Support for Professional Association Involvement
Under this plan, individual unit administrators are encouraged to allocate a minimum of $500-700 per individual annually to attend a national/international professional association meeting. If the faculty/staff member is presenting a workshop, an additional $300 is available once a year to support participation. Individuals may use work time to participate in professional association annual meetings. State associations provide $2000 annually on a competitive basis for individually proposed professional development.
The concept of providing professional association support has also been extended to office support personnel. They have developed their own professional association, Chi Epsilon Sigma, and through fund raising, have established professional development scholarships. Extension Administration provides $7500 in competitive funds annually to fund individual or team proposals outlining plans for professional development. A committee of support staff with the assistance of staff development professionals review the proposals and award the funds.
Formal Education
As employees of the university, all personnel are eligible to enroll in undergraduate or graduate education with a fee waiver. OSU Extension implements policies providing flextime and flexible scheduling as well as short term sabbaticals to enable employees to take advantage of this benefit.
Professionals who reach the counselor and advisor stages are often ready to assume additional responsibility for others in the organization. To accommodate these developmental needs, individuals often seek to develop areas of expertise beyond those they currently possess. Characteristics of these stages include movement from independent contribution to a focus on interdependence and the ability to work through others.
Other outcomes include greater responsibility in decision making and problem solving and the ability to represent the organization both internally and externally. They often seek self renewal and enhanced training, opportunity to serve in formal training roles, job enrichment, career counseling, and temporary assignment to special projects. They may also chair committees or assume other leadership roles in order to use their expertise and influence.
In order to tap individuals' expertise and desire to contribute to the organization, OSU Extension has developed several opportunities for professionals in these career stages. To address the development needs within these stages, career development retreats, an assessment center for leadership, mentoring and trainer roles, and organizational sounding boards have been used.
Life and Career Renewal Retreats
It is common for individuals to experience "peaks and valleys" throughout their careers. Hagberg (1982) describes this journey using a Job Lives Model. This model demonstrates the experiences and choices individuals face through skill building, career change, job change, self renewal, treading water, and inner kill. Organizations that recognize the need to maintain a healthy workforce often provide opportunities for employees to reflect and dialogue about their career progress and satisfaction.
A 2-day life and career renewal retreat was developed for self-exploration, discovery, and personal reflection on work/life issues. The goals of this program are to:
The retreat includes:
During the last 5 years, approximately 150 program and support professionals have chosen to participate. Some participants leave with a confirmation that things are good as they are, while others begin to take steps to enhance or alter their career direction and satisfaction.
Mentoring and Trainer Agent Roles
A unique feature of the formal mentoring program is the District Mentoring Contact. The District Contact helps to facilitate and monitor the progress of each mentor/protégé pair in his or her 16-19 Extension units. Contacts are responsible for:
Mentoring Contacts work to assist mentors with information about upcoming events and programs to share with their protégés and to become aware of problem situations as they arise.
The protégé/mentor can inform the District Contact if the process isn't working, and a new mentor will be assigned. When a new mentor has been selected, the District Contact is informed of the new pairing. The process of initial contact and periodic monitoring will begin again with the new pair.
Many individuals in the counselor and advisor stages voluntarily serve as trainer agents in on-the-job training and internship programs. They use their experiences and effectiveness as partners with human resources and administration to guide and direct new employees.
Assessment Center for Leadership
An assessment center is a comprehensive, standardized procedure in which situational exercises and job simulations are used to evaluate individual employees for various job roles (Thornton, 1992). Individuals are evaluated on their performance on the exercise by a team of trained assessors.
In 1985, OSU Extension developed an assessment center to assist in the analysis of current managerial abilities and future training needs of Extension county chairs. The assessment center incorporates seven exercises that enable participants to demonstrate skills on the fifteen job-related dimensions of:
Assessor selection and training is an essential part of the assessment center process. Experienced professionals who have reached the counselor and advisor stages often have the knowledge and are very capable and willing to serve as assessors. The assessor not only observes and evaluates participants, but assists the participants in integrating the results into their daily work environment and in developing a professional development plan based upon the behavioral dimensions and potential learning opportunities.
The emphasis of this assessment center has been developmental. Individuals participate in this process within the first 6 months of their appointment to the county chair role. The center has gained national recognition, with more than 400 individuals participating from 25 different states.
Organizational Sounding Boards
It is often difficult to gain employee input in large, complex organizations. OSU Extension has chosen to develop sounding boards. The sounding boards provide an opportunity for employees, in the counselor and advisor stages to:
A county chair sounding board is comprised of five county administrative leaders who are in the later stages of their career. They meet via teleconference several times annually with a state human resource leader to discuss processes and procedures that affect employees and to determine effective marketing and communication strategies.
The synergy of this model as implemented by OSU Extension is evident in the manner in which peer teaching, mentoring, dialogue, sharing, and coaching contribute to the growth of others while at the same time encouraging personal growth. Though traditionally the organization has dedicated proportionately more resources to the Colleague stage, priority attention is being placed upon the entry stage, counselor, and advisor stages to aid in assimilation and retention of personnel. As new employees are hired with prior career experience, emphasis needs to be given to support systems and processes for identification of professional development needs and subsequent guidance to appropriate developmental opportunities.
Beeler, C. (1994). Roll out the welcome wagon: Structuring new employee orientations. Public Management. August, pp. 13-17.
Dalton, G., Thompson, P., & Price (1977). The four stages of professional careers: a new look at performance by professionals. Organizational Dynamics, 6 (1):23.
Grimm, J. (1996). Orientation: The first important thing you do. The American editor. April-May, pp.12-14.
Hagberg, J. & Leider, R. (1982). The inventurers: excursions in life and career renewal. Addison-Wesley: Reading, MA.
Kerka, S. (1994). Self directed learning. Myths and realities series. Columbus, OH: ERIC clearinghouse on adult, career and vocational education.
Knowles, M. (1980). The modern practice of adult education: From pedagogy to andragogy. (2nd edition). New York: Cambridge Books.
Kowalski, T. (1988). The organization and planning of adult education. Albany: State University of New York Press.
Rennekamp, R. (1988). A career development model for 4-H professionals. A final report of the 4-H professional research and knowledge base projects. Columbus, OH: The Ohio State University, p.24-54.
Rennekamp, R. & Nall, M. (1993). Professional growth: A guide for professional development. Lexington, KY: University of Kentucky Cooperative Extension Service. Publication IP-34.
Thornton, G. C. III (1992). Assessment centers in human resource management. Addison-Wesley: Reading, MA.
Karen DeBord
Associate Professor
Department of Family and Consumer Sciences
North Carolina State University
Raleigh, North Carolina
Internet Address: Karen_Debord@ncsu.edu
Mary Ann Matta
Graduate Student
Department of Human Development and Family Studies
University of North Carolina at Greensboro
Greensboro, North Carolina
Parent education is an essential component of Extension family life programs (Merkowitz, Jelley, Collins, & Arkin, 1997) and has been a part of Extension programming for many years. But the demand for parenting education is growing in communities and has been identified as an important national priority (Kagan, 1995). Although parenting education been a field of study and practice for decades, the professionalization of parenting education is gaining attention as questions arise such as:
Parenting education is "an organized, programmatic effort to change or enhance the child-rearing knowledge and skills of a family system or a child care system (Arcus, 1993). Even with "organized programmatic efforts," however, a coherent system of family-oriented services and a broad public and institutional commitment to strengthen families is needed (Weiss, 1990). In 1996, Nick Carter's report, See How We Grow, provided a comprehensive overview of the complexity of parenting education. Carter suggested that parenting education needs an "infrastructure to help the field move forward."
On at least two occasions, researchers have suggested a sequence of steps critical in the development of the professional status of a field of study (East, 1980; Czaplewski & Jorgensen, 1993). These steps can be applied to the professionalization of parenting education. The steps are:
Parenting education, as a profession, is challenged by several unique factors. First, parenting education is not a single field of study. It is embedded in many fields of study (psychology, human development, nursing, education, ministry, medicine). Second, because of the embeddedness of the literature, there is not a centrally agreed upon body of knowledge or set of competencies for parenting educators. And third, a professional preparation system does not exist that prepares parenting educators (NPEN, 2000).
There have been many discussions about the knowledge base for parenting education, but not until recently has anyone introduced a framework (DeBord, Bowers, Goddard, Kirby, Kobbe, Mulroy, Myers-Walls, & Ozretich, 2001) to edge the field towards recognized competencies. The most recent framework recognizes six content and six process areas. The content areas parallel the National Extension Parenting Education Model. They include an in-depth knowledge in the areas of:
The process areas presented by DeBord et al., include:
A few national organizations (National Council on Family Relations, Family Support America, and the National Parenting Education Network) have been exploring the professionalization of the field of parenting education. However, one approach has not been forwarded as the best method to build the field.
Several states lead the nation in defining parenting educator competencies and the systems that support the profession. One of these is Minnesota, which has a 75-year history of developing quality parenting educators (Palm, personal communication, 1999) and requires an advanced degree as a qualification to become a parent educator.
Texas features a system called "Texas ROPER" (Texas Registry of Parenting Education Resources). ROPER has identified core competencies and has posted a Web site with self-learning modules for parenting educators <http://www.unt.edu/cpe/module1/pre.htm>.
North Carolina has formed consortia of over 30 parenting education organizations and agencies, and is seeking to understand what parenting educators need in the form of a professional credential. As part of the work of the North Carolina Parenting Education Network (NCPEN), there is great interest the systems that support high-quality parenting education.
In building the field of parenting education, it is critical to recognize that there are many other systems that influence policy and changes to the profession. The term "systems" is used here to describe large infrastructures (national, state, or local) that either work with one another or separately to deliver services and programs to children and families. In working to shape the field of parenting education, the first overarching question becomes: How can multiple systems work together to prepare competent parenting educators and employ the most competent to work with parents?
Identifying multiple systems that affect parenting education is the first step toward a systemic professionalization of the field and the step that was selected as a starting point when conducting the research described here. To develop a system for preparing competent parenting educators, it is important to analyze the functions of the parenting educator and the relationships among the various organizations within a system.
NCPEN identified several components that frame a system of professional parenting educator preparation (DeBord, Sloop, & Bazemore, 2001). These are depicted in Figure 1. The components include:
Figure 1.
Parenting Educators System for Professional Development
DeBord, K., Sloop, S., & Bazemore, S. (2001). Professional Development Systems for Parenting Education. North Carolina Partnership for Children Annual Smart Start Conference. |
To further investigate professional development linkages and systems of parenting education, an exploration of the idea and concerns of parent educators in North Carolina was undertaken.
Using the framework depicted in Figure 1, it was anticipated that the shared insights of parenting educators could help refine the systems approach and provide direction for researchers and policy makers working to assure high-quality parenting education for all families. With a defined professional development systems framework, researchers and practitioners can work to move the field forward while designing systems that can meet the needs of professionals in parenting education.
Parenting educators from six locations across North Carolina were assembled into focus groups to discuss key needs for parenting educators. Using a list of volunteers from a statewide Fatherhood Conference, contacts through Head Start, and Cooperative Extension Family and Consumer Educators, counties were identified based on their willingness to host a focus group within the given time frame with an emphasis on recruiting three separate rural and three urban. Identified group leaders sent invitations to other parent educators in their community networks and scheduled a comfortable site in which to gather.
In all focus groups, parenting educators were invited for the purpose of providing insight and information about the needs of parenting educators in North Carolina. A graduate student and an Extension professor conducted the focus groups with these convenient samples over a 2-month period in the fall of 2000. Each focus group lasted approximately 1 1/2 hours, with an informal discussion according to the themes suggested in Figure 1. The questions that were posed are based on Figure 1 and include dimensions of each component.
Scope
Collective Vision
Knowledge and Trends
Partnerships and Networking (Systems)
Professional Development
Community Collaboration, Diversity of Systems, People
Families
Across the six focus group locations, a total of 59 parenting educators participated in the voluntary groups. Every participant who attended was female. The participants were employed by various agencies, including Head Start, Cooperative Extension, child abuse organizations, Parents as Teachers, community colleges, Family Resource Centers, preschool programs, and literacy programs. Three of the locations were urban, and three of the locations were rural. Most were active parenting educators, and a few (4) were supervisors who hire parenting educators.
Their comments are summarized by the themes associated with the posed questions based on the model (Figure 1) as essential components to building a parenting education system. What emerged was an integration of the components as opposed to a hierarchy of components.
Scope of the Field
Parenting educators described parents with phrases such as: "There is a stigma attached to parenting education, and parents see parenting education as something they need when they have done something wrong."
When probed about how people in the community perceive and understand parenting education, participants defined the complexity of what they do with comments such as: "There is so much to be addressed (like insurance, budgeting, child support, taking care of the home, etc.) to make families self-sufficient . . . so many related issues that it is overwhelming . . . and there are so many partners."
Collective Vision
When asked to discuss a vision for parenting education, the focus turned to their immediate needs and their experiences during their daily work. This resulted in a practical vision to make the public aware more that parenting education is available, to get more community organizations involved, to recognize parenting educators, and to evaluate parenting education more effectively.
Advertising to create larger awareness about parenting education was noted repeatedly as a key tactic. Participants noted that marketing programs is made more difficult by the challenge of reaching "illiterate and Spanish-speaking families."
To encourage greater participation by parents, educators suggested that, "We need incentives for parents to enroll in and attend parenting education. Perhaps a coupon or voucher for free child care and then eventually a voucher for college tuition for their child would be a 'carrot' to offer." To collectively work towards such a vision, groups said that we need to overcome some of the obstacles parents experience now such as transportation by offering a "one-stop location with all the agencies in one place, or a mobile service van."
One group offered a vision of recognizing people in the field as parenting educators who have related degrees such as psychology, education, child development, and sociology. Coupled with this, it was their feeling that we need to recognize experience with children and families, and recognize those who are parents, "Like a mom who has successfully raised five kids may be very astute [as a parenting educator]." In working towards this vision, participants said, "We need some criteria for parenting educators that includes experience and ongoing training. Training should include information on adult learners, learning styles, management of learning groups, group dynamics, strategies for how to teach, teaching 'tricks,' and how to use group rules."
One group of participants called for more evaluations concerning the effectiveness of parenting education. For example, they suggested that educators ask parents how often they have used the principles they learned.
When asked how parenting educators could work collectively toward the visions, participants focused on training for parent educators, especially regarding adult learning. Some indicated a need for more tools to work with different parent personalities, some wanted to learn more about group dynamics, and others wanted to know how to keep the attention of a diverse group of people. Other participants mentioned making parenting education a state policy so that more funding would be available to parenting education or for parenting education to be mandated, for example, in cases in which parents are getting divorced.
Knowledge and Trends
Parenting educators said that they keep their professional knowledge current through:
Even with this degree of ongoing learning, parenting educators said they need more information that pertains to particular cultures of parents, such as Spanish-speaking, hearing impaired, illiterate, and those with children with special needs. Similarly, they noted the need for videotapes that were reality-based and multi-cultural, and dealt with other areas such as adolescence or ADHD.
Partnerships and Networking
Participants agreed that networking within their community is critical to their work. Several parenting educators attend other meetings that link to their work; however, they noted that this degree of networking is time consuming but imperative to their work. They indicated that networking helps to:
Professional Development
When asked how to prepare parenting educators for this profession, participants almost always emphasized the combination of experience and education. They made positive comments regarding a parenting educator credential. One person stated the value as, "I could use a credential as a way to hire people." Another said that having a credentialing process is "one way to monitor what is going on." Another said, "There are so many credentialing systems, but I like one that focuses on parenting education."
Participants seemed interested in a parenting educator credential, hoping it would bring them professional recognition, affect their pay scale, or help them obtain benefits from their employers such as health and retirement plans. One person commented "tie this to a [salary] compensation modeling [it] after T.E.A.C.H, an educational scholarship program for child care providers that provides bonuses upon course completion." Another suggested: "There could be a testing out system for those who are already doing this." Pointing to the need to bring entities together into a total system for professional development, one person commented: "NCPEN needs to be aware of other initiatives already out there but which are disjointed."
Community Collaboration, Diversity of Systems and People
Although participants described a variety of methods to determine parents' needs (parent surveys, checklists, reviewing evaluation data, monitoring progress), to be effective with parents, they emphasized that building rapport is an essential component. One focus group noted that diversity among parents can be a strength of the parenting education program. They emphasized respecting parents for who they are. One participant noted, "You can't be judgmental. There are no right or wrong parents."
Families
Logistics such as transportation, time and resources, personal safety, and supporting parents in meeting their goals are among the greatest challenges parent educators identified. Moving a parent toward his or her own goals and creating a sense of personal empowerment is difficult, particularly "when one parent wants to learn and the other doesn't, [and] when parents argue [the challenge is even greater]."
Other noted areas of parenting education included:
Parenting educators involved in focus groups concentrated their comments on their daily work with parents. They rarely noted or had seriously considered the larger picture of parenting education. They were aware of some efforts being made in the area of professional development of parent educators, but perceived that they were disjointed. There was a common fervor among participants about the possibility of grounding the profession in a set of shared competencies and a networked system to assure that parents are guided by sound information and skilled trainers.
Based on their comments and their focus on family needs as their center, Figure
1 was revised. The revision depicts the interrelatedness of the systems (Figure
2). Families are supported by competent professionals and integrated systems
shaped by supportive policy, a shared vision, professional ethics, and committed
leaders in the profession. Figure 2 is meant to reflect a greater integration
of components of the system.
Figure 2.
Components in Building a Professional Parenting Education System
 DeBord, K. & Matta, M. A. (2001) |
Participants' answers to discussion questions correspond closely with the principles of family life education (Arcus, Schvaneveldt, & Moss, 1993). These principles emphasize meeting the needs of the family throughout the life span. They also focus on use of many professions necessary to work together to meet the needs of families. These principles further emphasize that qualified educators are crucial to the successful realization of the goals of family life education.
Empirically, there are clear implications for the field of parenting education and its development into a licensed, professional discipline. Clearly, parenting education as a professionally recognized discipline is still emerging. There are few, if any, institutions of higher education that offer degrees in parenting education. There are few resources supporting the development of a professional development credential for parenting educators.
Parenting educators contribute long hours with little pay or benefits, but steps need to be taken to assure that educators are recognized as having professional status. The first of these steps is to continue to include parenting educators in shaping the field. Doherty (2000) emphasizes a collaborative model whereby input is generated from families and communities regarding their needs in building bodies of knowledge. Subsequent steps may be to move parenting education toward East's (1980) and Czaplewski and Jorgensen's (1993) model of professional development while getting input all along the way from practitioners as well as families.
Cooperative Extension is in a prime and unique position to advance the field of parenting education. Extension, already fully integrated in over 3500 counties throughout the nation, can use this information to locally affect parenting educational programming by ensuring that they are developing an integrated system to serve families and that attention is paid to those who serve in the parenting educator role.
Many Extension Family and Consumer Educators are beginning to form local parent educator networks to build their local infrastructures to support parents as well as the professionals delivering services. Together, those who currently work with families can build the field while monitoring those ensuring that they have qualifications to address individual needs, appropriately refer families for needed services, and teach parents using multiple outreach methods while applying research-based literature about child and family development.
One approach is to work collectively through Extension to build the infrastructure and capacity of the Extension educator workforce. Applying some of these recommendations in a system as large as extension can be the first step towards a total system across the nation. Some recommendations to consider include:
Arcus, M. E., Schvaneveldt, J. D., & Moss, J.J. (1993). The nature of family life education. In M. E. Arcus, J. D. Schvaneveldt, & J. J. Moss (Eds.), Handbook of family life education: Foundations of family life education, Vol. 1. Newbury Park: Sage.
Czaplewski, S. R. & Jorgensen, S. R. (1993). The professionalization of family life education. In M. E. Arcus, J. D. Schvaneveldt, & J. J. Moss (Eds.), Handbook of family life education: Foundations of family life education, Vol. 1. Newbury Park: Sage.
DeBord, K., Bowers, D. Goddard, W., Kobbe, A. M., Kirby, J., Mulroy, M., Myers-Walls, J., Ozretich, R. (2001). Preparing parenting educators: The complexities, the competencies, and the challenges. Rochester, NY: National Council on Family Relations.
DeBord, K., Sloop, S., Bazemore, S. (2001). Professional development systems for parenting education. North Carolina Partnership for Children Annual Smart Start Conference.
Doherty, W.J. (2000). Family sciences and family citizenship: Toward a model of community partnership with families. Family Relations, 49, 319-325.
East, M. (1980). Home economics: Past, present, and future. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Hildreth, G. J. & Sugawara, A. I. (1993). Ethnicity and diversity in family life education. In M. E. Arcus, J. D. Schvaneveldt, & J. J. Moss (Eds.), Handbook of family life education: Foundations of family life education, Vol. 1. Newbury Park: Sage.
Kagan, S. L. (1995). The changing face of parenting education. Adapted from: On building parental competence: The nature of contracts and commitments. The challenge of parenting in the 90's. Washington, DC: The Aspen Institute. Available at: http://www.ed.gov/databases/ERIC_Digests/ed382406.html
Merkowitz, R. F., Jelley, K., Collins, E, Arkin, C. F. (1997). Backpack buddies: A newsletter series for parents. Journal of Extension [On-line]. 35(5). Available at: http://www.joe.org/joe/1997october/iw3.html
NPEN (2000). National Parenting Education Network [On-line]. Available at: http://www.npen.org/
Weiss, H. B. (1990). Beyond parens patriae: Building policies and programs to care for our own and others' children. Children and Youth Services Review, 12, 269-284.
Zoline, S. S. & Jason, L. A. (1985). Preventive parent education for high school students. Journal of Clinical Child Psychology, 14(2), 119-123.
Okechukwu M. Ukaga
Executive Director
Northeast Minnesota Sustainable Development Partnership
University of Minnesota
Cloquet, Minnesota
Internet Address: ukaga001@tc.umn.edu
Mike R. Reichenbach
Extension Educator and Assistant Professor
University of Minnesota Extension Service
Adjunct Assistant Professor
Departments of Forest Resources and Wood and Paper Science
Cloquet Forestry Center
Cloquet, Minnesota
Charles R. Blinn
Extension Specialist and Professor
University of Minnesota Extension Service
Department of Forest Resources
University of Minnesota
St. Paul, Minnesota
Deborah M. Zak
District Director, NW District
University of Minnesota Extension Service
Crookston, Minnesota
William D. Hutchison
Professor and Extension Entomologist
University of Minnesota Extension Service
Department of Entomology
University of Minnesota
St. Paul, Minnesota
Nancy J. Hegland
Extension Educator and Professor
University of Minnesota Extension Service
Faribault, Minnesota
In its 1999 report, the Kellogg Commission on the Future of State and Land-Grant Universities recommended that universities organize their resources to better engage and serve their clientele. "In the end, the clear evidence is that, with the resources and superbly qualified professors and staff on our campuses, we can organize our institutions to serve needs in a more coherent and effective way; Éwe can do better" (Kellogg Commission on the Future of State and Land-Grant Universities, 1999). This call is particularly relevant to the Cooperative Extension Service, given its long history of public outreach, engagement and service (Phipps & Osborne, 1989; Lansdale, 1986; Cochrane, 1979).
One challenge Extension faces in addressing this issue is a dichotomy that often exists between campus-based and field-based faculty. This includes differences in approaches for determining clientele needs, areas of focus, operational support mechanisms, and procedures for reporting to and evaluation by administrators. In this article, "campus-based faculty" refers to faculty with and without formal Extension appointments, but who all have strong ties to, and greater identification with, the university through departments. "Field-based faculty" refers to faculty with ties to the university through county or local Extension partners.
Beginning in the spring of 1998, the University of Minnesota Extension Service began an in-depth process to revisit its purpose and impact, and to identify organizational changes that should be made to create a more effective educational delivery system (Casey, C., letter to University of Minnesota Extension faculty and staff from the Interim Dean and Director of the University of Minnesota Extension Service, July 24, 1999). Within this context, a major issue addressed was how to build successful campus and field faculty teams in order to better meet clientele needs.
This question is not only of interest to the Extension Service, but also within many other settings at several universities. For example, at separate multi-university workshops hosted by the University of Nebraska and by the North Dakota State University, participants wrestled with the issue of building successful campus-field faculty teams (Ukaga, personal communication, January 6, 2000). Oregon State University created an institutional framework for building campus-field faculty teams by redefining scholarship, giving field faculty professional academic ranks, and adopting the same promotion and tenure process for both campus and field faculty (Schauber et al., 1998; Weiser, 1994).
This article explores the educational and research roles of campus and field faculty at the University of Minnesota and the unique attributes and obstacles of their respective working environments and identifies opportunities for building appropriate teams to more effectively address educational needs. We believe that similar opportunities exist elsewhere within the United States.
The issues, challenges, and benefits associated with creating campus-field faculty teams were identified from the following Minnesota sources:
Information from the campus faculty perspective was initially collected in 1999 through individual face-to-face interviews of selected campus faculty. The interviewees were asked in an open-ended fashion to provide their thoughts on unique differences between campus and field environments ("What is it about the environment for campus faculty that field faculty may not understand?"). A summary of all ideas was generated and given to several campus faculty reviewers to critique and comment on. Based on input from the reviewers, the summary was revised.
Information about the field faculty environment was summarized based on data collected through a telephone survey of 84 Extension field faculty by Extension Administrative Fellows (Hutchison & Hegland, 1999). Both summaries were combined into a white paper reviewed by a focus group of campus and field faculty participating in a University of Minnesota professional development workshop. Information from the focused discussions was used to crosscheck and augment data from the previous interviews and surveys.
Data revealed some interesting commonalities and differences among campus- and field-based faculty with regard to their working environment (Table 1). These observations have implications for how we build and maintain successful campus-field faculty teams.
While both campus- and field-based faculty are interested in solving problems, factors such as the types of staff hired, work responsibilities, and evaluation systems result in different approaches to the development and dissemination of knowledge.
Table 1.
Summary of Responses from University of Minnesota Campus- and Field-Based
Faculty Regarding Factors Associated with Their Respective Work Environments
|
Factor |
Campus-Based Faculty |
Field-Based Faculty |
|
Supervision |
Hired by and answer to academic departments, not Extension. |
Hired by Extension with direct involvement by the local advisory committee or similar local board. |
|
Appointment |
Most have split appointments with research and/or teaching. Most have no Extension appointment. Some have little interest in applied research or outreach. The Extension component for some faculty is less than 50%. |
Usually have full-time Extension appointments with little research responsibility. |
|
Evaluation |
Performance evaluation systems vary from department to department. The evaluations are performed by academic department heads who hold a split appointment with Extension or by committees comprised of other campus-based faculty. |
Performance is based on non-formal Extension outreach teaching activities. Extension personnel perform the evaluations. |
|
Publications |
Extension publications and presentations may count less in the evaluation system than refereed journal articles and teaching credit classes. |
Refereed journal articles are counted in the evaluation process but are not necessarily required for promotion. |
|
Extension Articles, Presentations |
Not required to produce a specific number of Extension articles or offer a set number of presentations per year. |
Development of Extension articles and informal outreach presentations is the centerpiece of the work. |
|
Research |
Developing and maintaining a research program (e.g., grants, graduate students, publications) that is targeted to needs is critical. |
Developing and maintaining a research program is not required. Grants are required only to support local initiatives that build on the existing work of county-based faculty. |
|
Promotion and Tenure |
Research productivity is critical to survive the promotion and tenure process. Some are hired with little or no Extension experience. Promotion and tenure is granted through an academic department. The promotion and tenure process generally requires demonstrated leadership at the state, regional and national level. |
Outreach and informal teaching experience is the focus of field faculty work and is often a requirement for employment and promotion. Many new staff have little or no research interest or experience other than graduate research projects. Although the trend is to hire persons with advanced degrees, field faculty may be hired without such a degree. Field faculty do not generally have tenure. Promotion is granted through Extension. Promotion requires demonstrated leadership in informal education in one or a few counties. |
|
Direction for Work |
They have considerable freedom to select area(s) where they invest their time. They make those selections based on needs identified, personal interest, research agenda, expertise, funding, and collaborators. |
They have considerable freedom to select area(s) where they invest their time. They make those selections based on needs identified, personal interest, local needs assessment, expertise, funding, and collaborators. General direction may come from the local Extension committee or board. |
|
Work Focus, Scholarship |
Generally more narrowly focused in their number of areas of expertise as compared to field faculty. However, they may have considerable in-depth, science-based, knowledge in that more limited area(s) of expertise. |
Scholarly activity tends to be that of integration as defined by Boyer (1990). |
|
Funding |
Many educational programs are not Extension funded but are supported by third parties. |
Costs of educational programs are paid in a variety of ways including county support for office and travel, county or state support for salaries, federal support for benefits, and grants for specific targeted projects. |
|
Travel |
Travel to state, regional, national, and international activities is important. Outside funding is important to augment limited travel budgets. |
Travel budgets are often limited especially for out of county or target-area travel. |
|
Teaching, Event Scheduling |
On-campus teaching has a set schedule that may conflict with travel to the field during the academic year. |
Teaching credit classes may not be permitted for some field faculty due to federal restrictions for use of funds. |
Field Faculty
Results from the 1999 telephone survey of field faculty (n=84) indicated, that for the majority of the discipline-based specializations, there was a healthy relationship between most field-based Extension educators and their respective campus faculty contacts (Hutchison & Hegland, 1999). Several field-based faculty also mentioned good working relationships with faculty at regional research and outreach centers in Minnesota
Of the three organizational features that support programming efforts at the county level, interaction with campus faculty ranked highest, followed by specialization support (i.e., discipline specialty group) and regional clusters (i.e., partnerships with nearby counties to pool educator resources). In response to an open-ended question, "What factor or resource in Extension best supports your work?," campus-based faculty and field-based Extension educator colleagues were mentioned equally as often. Other factors frequently mentioned included research-based information and specialization training, both of which also rely on campus faculty involvement.
Campus Faculty
The survey of campus faculty provides additional insights into how successful campus-field faculty interactions can be developed and the following ideas about how to build a good working relationship with field faculty:
In response to, "What changes would improve the relationship with field faculty?," campus faculty suggested the following strategies:
Additional focus groups and personal interviews with campus faculty provided several suggestions that field faculty can use to build successful one-time or long-term relationships with campus faculty:
Our results indicate that both campus faculty and field faculty will continue to benefit by working together. The roles for the two faculty groups are very complementary, and, by working together, they can create much stronger research and outreach programs. Successful working relationships can be formed and maintained by recognizing the many ways in which faculty are complementary while also being aware of each other's constraints.
Field faculty can be a significant link for campus faculty in identifying current and emerging research needs through their vast network of contacts and day-to-day association with on-the-ground clients. In addition to identifying the "needs," field faculty know who is most interested locally in the work being done (which can help with the process of identifying cooperators and potential sources of funding). They can also help make contacts that can provide input to campus faculty to steer the research direction to make sure that it meets local needs.
Field faculty can help facilitate local groups, which can be very difficult for campus faculty to do because of factors such as distance, time conflicts, and travel budget constraints. Keeping campus faculty member(s) informed and involved makes it easier for them to participate in those projects. In many cases, they could not participate otherwise.
A primary role of field faculty is to work in teams to provide educational leadership for programs that meet significant needs of youth and adults in communities. These field faculty work primarily with locally identified programs based on local needs. The success of these programs often depends on the involvement of campus faculty in providing research-based information, program design and delivery.
Whether the goal is to bring field needs to campus faculty or to seek local assistance for delivering campus programs, communication between the supervisors of campus and field faculty can help build field-campus faculty teams. This means that universities should include a connection between those supervisors. This is happening at the University of Minnesota through monthly meetings of Department Heads and Extension District Directors.
Recently, the Department Heads for Forest Resources and Fisheries, Wildlife and Conservation Biology suggested that field-based faculty should be experts in one or more subject areas related to their work (Ek & Perry, 2000). Building this depth of expertise will help field faculty increase opportunities for interaction with campus faculty. Further, Perry suggested that field faculty should seek out those campus faculty who are "synthetic" By synthetic, he meant faculty who have demonstrated scholarship ability or expressed interest in areas of integration and application (Boyer, 1990). This may make it easier to develop effective campus-field faculty teams.
In summary, regardless of a university's current organizational structure, improved campus and field faculty interaction can be achieved if all faculty:
Ultimately, the success of the collaborative effort will depend in large part on the degree to which there is a shared vision for the organization (Senge, 1990; Minarovic & Mueller, 2000). After all, "a shared vision is an organization's foresight that is bound together by a common purpose or goal," and "an organization's visioning process can slow down or stop if diverse views overcome the programming focus and cause conflict" (Minarovic & Mueller, 2000).
Boyer, E. (1990). Scholarship reconsidered: Priorities of the professorate. Special report. Princeton, NJ, The Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching.
Cochrane, W. W. (1979). The development of American agriculture. University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis, MN.
Ek, A. & J. Perry (2000). Outreach Program Retreat, University of Minnesota College of Natural Resources, Jun 19-20, 2000. Cloquet Forestry Center, Cloquet, MN.
Hutchison, W. D. & N. J. Hegland (1999) Extension educator telephone survey-1999. Unpublished Memo, 25 pp. University of Minnesota Extension Service, St. Paul, MN.
Kellogg Commission on the Future of State and Land-Grant Universities (1999). Returning to our roots: the engaged institution. National Association of State Universities and Land-Grant Colleges, Washington DC.
Lansdale, B. M. (1986). Master farmer: Teaching small farmers management. Westview Press. Boulder, CO.
Minarovic, R. E. & J. P. Mueller (2000). North Carolina Cooperative Extension Service professionals' attitudes toward sustainable agriculture. Journal of Extension [On-line]. 38(1). Available at: http://www.joe.org/joe/2000february/a1.html
Phipps, L. J. & Osborne, E. (1989). Handbook on agricultural education in public schools. Danville, IL: The Interstate Printers and Publishers.
Senge, P. M. (1990). The fifth discipline. Doubleday, NY.
Schauber, A., Aldrich-Markham, S., Olsen, J., Gredler, G, Olsen, P.,& & Reichenbach, M. (1998). Defining scholarship for county Extension agents. Journal of Extension [On-line]. 36(4). Available at: http://www.joe.org/joe/1998august/iw1.html
Weiser, C. J. (1994). The value system of a university: rethinking scholarship. College of Agricultural Sciences, Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR.
Mitzi Stumpf
State Extension Associate
North Carolina State University
Raleigh, North Carolina
Internet Address: mitzi_stumpf@ncsu.edu
Karla Henderson
Professor and Chair
Internet Address: karla@email.unc.edu
Karen Luken
Research Associate
Deb Bialeschki
Professor
Mary Casey II
Research Assistant
Department of Recreation and Leisure Studies
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
Chapel Hill, North Carolina
Inclusion involves creating environments where all people feel they are welcome and can access meaningful involvement. Because 4-H serves a broad spectrum of youth, people with disabilities should be included in the myriad of programs offered. Disability should not be a deterrent to any young person or adult volunteer who wishes to be involved with 4-H.
The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) of 1991 mandates that programs accommodate people with disabilities. The ADA specifies that no one shall be denied opportunities, segregated, or otherwise discriminated against based on their disabilities. The outcomes of this law are yet to be fully articulated and enforced, but the implications for the need for inclusion for people with disabilities are clear. This article describes the rationale for inclusive 4-H programs and presents some preliminary information about the efforts being undertaken in North Carolina to facilitate inclusive 4-H programs.
Many people have impairments (i.e., a temporary or permanent diminishment in strength) in their physiological functioning (e.g., they need to wear eyeglasses) that may be inconvenient but do not interfere with their ability to manage their lives. Disability, on the other hand, is the inability to perform one or more major life activities of self-care, range of motion, manipulation, communication, learning, working, cognitive processing, or maintaining relationships (Dattillo & Williams, 1999).
Disabilities may include a wide range of developmental, psychiatric, and physical problems that may be chronic or acute. A handicap is a limitation that varies from situation to situation based on the environment and the individual (Dattillo & Williams, 1999). For example, a person who uses a wheelchair may be handicapped in some sports, but generally would not be handicapped when playing video games.
Other terms are associated with disabilities that may be useful to understand. Stereotypes are often associated with disabilities. Stereotypes generally involve the beliefs that people associate with characteristics about certain groups. Stereotypes may be positive or negative and may be somewhat accurate or entirely inaccurate (Dattilo & Williams, 1999). Prejudice involves the development of a judgment, irrespective of that individual's rights, that may lead to damage in some way. Discrimination involves making a distinction categorically rather than individually about a person and then acting differently toward that person than someone not in that same category. Nega
