
































Microsoft Word - 177-Examining+Student+Involvement+in+the+Total+Program+in+Small+Schools+in+New+Mexico.docx


Easterly et al.  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
  Volume 3, Issue 1, 2022 
  agdevresearch.org 

1. R. G. (Tre) Easterly III, Assistant Professor, University of Florida, 307C Rolfs Hall PO Box 110540, Gainesville, FL 32611-0540, 

tre.easterly@ufl.edu,  https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2807-512X  
2. Frank Hodnett, Professor, New Mexico State University, P.O. Box 30003, MSC 3501, Las Cruces, NM 88003, 

fhodnett@nmsu.edu,  https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3081-4342  
3. Mary Rodriguez, Associate Professor, The Ohio State University, 2120 Fyffe Road, Columbus, Ohio 43210, 

Rodriguez.746@osu.edu,  https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8716-2787  
 

19 

 

Examining Student Involvement in the Total Program in Small 
Schools in New Mexico 

 
R. G. (Tre) Easterly III1, F. Hodnett2, M. Rodriguez3 

 
 

  

Abstract 

The dynamics facing rural development and school policy in New Mexico has limited merging and 
redistricting efforts in small schools in isolated rural communities. This has created a situation where 
small schools exist in several rural communities in the state. These programs often include school-
based agricultural education as a program offering. The dynamics of the schools can impact how the 
total program approach commonly used in agricultural education can be implemented. The purpose 
of the study was to explore how agriculture teachers in small schools in New Mexico developed their 
own institutional polices and worked with the policies established by the school to involve students 
in the total program. A qualitative case study with six teachers was conducted. The themes 
emphasized the nuanced nature of the programs as well as the importance of relationships with 
students, parents, community members, and school staff to implement these programs. The 
teachers faced challenges related to balancing student time and working with athletics for 
scheduling. Successful programs cater to the context of the school and community by getting to 
know the students they serve. Advice and best practices provided by the teachers were discussed. 
Recommendations were provided related to establishing and maintaining relationships. 
 

Keywords 

Rural, school-based agricultural education, United States, case study  



Easterly et al.  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v3i1.177  20 
 

Introduction and Problem Statement 
 
The average student population size for high schools in the United States is 850 students. Over 
the last 50 years, school consolidation in the United States has caused this number to steadily 
increase. Schools with less than 300 secondary students attending school in a district make up 
less than 1% of schools (National Center for Educational Statistics, 2020). This novelty means 
issues surrounding small schools are not a common topic of research. In the Western United 
States, geographic isolation and large distances between programs prevent redistricting efforts. 
The results are schools that exist in small, rural towns with relatively low student populations 
(Lavalley, 2018). Rumberger and Thomas (2000) found larger school sizes led to higher dropout 
rates. However, there are some reports of “U” shaped dropout trends with smaller schools 
having higher incidences of dropouts than moderately populated schools (Bradley & Taylor, 
1998; Foreman-Peck & Foreman-Peck, 2006; Leithwood & Jantzi, 2009; Sawkins, 2002).  
 
For many of these programs in rural western towns, school-based agricultural education (SBAE) 
programs are a logical choice to include in the school curriculum because of the opportunities 
in the communities and interest of the students. SBAE programs are traditionally implemented 
using a total-program approach that includes involvement in classroom instruction, 
involvement in student organizations, and experience, workplace, or service learning through 
supervised agricultural experiences (Croom, 2008; National FFA Organization, n.d.). The 
execution of this model relies on student involvement beyond the time in the classroom 
(Talbert et al., 2014).  
 

Theoretical and Conceptual Framework 
 
Student involvement is essential for SBAE programs. Astin (1999) developed the student 
involvement theory to explain how students engage at secondary institutions. According to 
Astin, student involvement is the quantity and quality of the physical and psychological energy 
that student invest in an experience. By examining various aspects of student life such as living 
on campus, investment in coursework, interaction with faculty/staff, or being involved in 
campus student organizations, Astin was able to draw links between dropout rate and 
involvement. In the theory, student time is considered a resource students choose to devote to 
various activities. Astin postulated that institutional policies have an impact on how much time 
and energy students spend in pursuits that lead towards persistence in college. The theory 
states that the more a student is involved in the overall educational experience, the greater the 
amount of student learning and personal development (Astin, 1999). 
 
For this study, we applied the student involvement theory as a frame through which to explore 
the small secondary schools. This study sought to examine how agriculture teachers in small 
schools structure their agricultural education programs and FFA chapters to utilize the resource 
of student time most effectively. Students have a limit on their time and energy to be involved. 
Further, students balance their investments between family, friends, jobs, and other outside 
factors. Students in agricultural education are also faced with competing engagements in which 



Easterly et al.  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v3i1.177  21 
 

they may choose to invest their time. Institutional policies can have an impact on how students 
devote their time and can impact their success (Astin, 1999).  
 
The research related to school size and extracurricular participation is limited. Leithwood and 
Jantzi (2009) conducted a review of research and found only four studies published between 
1996 and 2007 which found extracurricular participation to be higher among students in 
smaller schools (Coladarci & Cobb, 1996; Crosnoe et al., 2004; Feldman & Matjasko, 2007; 
McNeal, 1999). Since 2007, the research in this area continues to be limited. Regardless of 
school size consideration, SBAE teachers continually rate competences related to student 
involvement in programs including FFA program management, training teams, and 
administering programs as areas of considerable need for their own professional development 
(DiBenedetto et al., 2018).  
 

Purpose 
 
The purpose of the study was to explore how agriculture teachers in small schools in New 
Mexico developed their own institutional polices and worked with the polices established by 
the school to involve students in the FFA. The study was guided by the following overarching 
research question: How do agriculture teachers in small schools in New Mexico make their 
programs successful? 
 

Methods 
 
This qualitative study used case study methodology to explore how agriculture teachers in small 
schools in New Mexico implement agricultural education programs (Bronk, 2012; Merriam, 
2002). Case studies allow researchers to provide a thick, rich description of how teachers in 
small programs implement their programs. According to Bronk(2012), an exemplar case study 
examines programs that exemplify a construct in a highly developed manor. This choice to 
highlight the exemplary programs as individual cases was supported by the research question.  
 
For this study, the population was all SBAE teachers in small programs in New Mexico. Small 
programs were defined as those schools classified as ‘A’ according to the New Mexico Activities 
Association for basketball, which had less than 99 students enrolled in grades 9–12. There were 
40 programs who qualified for this case, 24 of the programs had agricultural education 
programs. The sample for the study yielded six programs which were considered exemplary. 
These programs were determined to be exemplary because they engaged students in the total 
program of agricultural education and have achieved measures of success or recognition 
including peer recognition, service in leadership positions in teacher groups, or other forms of 
accomplishments. The state supervisor of agricultural education was asked to confirm these 
individuals met the criteria of the study.  
 
Six teachers were identified, contacted, and all agreed to participate in the study. Semi-
structured interviews were conducted over the phone and recorded. In person interviews were 



Easterly et al.  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v3i1.177  22 
 

not possible because of the remote nature of the programs and video conferencing was not 
feasible due to limited internet capabilities of some of the schools. The qualitative interview 
guide was developed to explore questions related to decisions teachers make in their programs. 
Questions were also asked to confirm the size of the program and to ensure they met terms of 
the exemplar case. The interviews lasted approximately one hour and all recordings were 
transcribed by hand by the research team. The research team included (a) an assistant 
professor in agricultural education, (b) a professor in extension education, and (c) an associate 
professor in agricultural leadership. Two of the researchers had a working relationship with the 
participants through agricultural education programming. The third researcher was involved in 
the data analysis portion including overseeing the dependability and confirmability audit to 
ensure the findings were connected to the data.  
 
Results were reported using thick, rich descriptions of the participants to allow the reader to 
determine transferability to other settings (Creswell & Miller, 2000). Investigator triangulation 
and member checks were employed to ensure trustworthiness (Lincoln & Guba, 1985). Through 
the triangulation, two themes were combined, and the wording of the themes was refined. 
Member checks provided confirmation of the major themes. Data were analyzed through 
thematic analysis using open coding (Braun & Clarke, 2006).  
 
All six teachers had more than five years of teaching experience and their agricultural education 
student program involvement ranged from 17% to 86% of the total student population. 
Pseudonyms were given to all participants. Angie had been teaching for 12 years total and 10 at 
her current school. Her school had a total of 44 students from 7th–12th grade, 38 of which 
were enrolled in her courses. Beth had been a teacher for ten years and has been in her role for 
just over a year. The school she worked in had 55 students total enrolled in 7th–12th grade, 36 
of which were in her program. Casey had been a teacher for three years in the same program 
with five years of teaching experience. The school had 120 students from 7th–12th grade, of 
which 70 are enrolled in the agricultural education program. Daniel had been teaching for 25 
years, 15 in his program. He has served in a leadership position in the agriculture teachers 
association. The town’s population was 143 people. Because of the remote location of the 
town, students rode a bus from around 70 miles on either side of the school. There were 79 
students enrolled in kindergarten (K)–12; 28 students in his program. Elenore had been 
teaching for 17 years in the same program. The school had 12 students enrolled in 7th–12th 
grade; eight were in the agriculture program. Tom taught in a program with 300 students from 
K–12. There were 50 students in the agricultural education program. He had been teaching for 
31 years and 20 years at the current school.   
 
Subjectivity Statement 
As a research team, we all have a passion for formal and nonformal education of agriculture 
and related topics. All three of us have taught in either the high school, non-formal, and higher 
education settings. However, none of us have had direct experience working in small programs 
as defined in this study. One member of the research team has nine years of work with school-
based agricultural education programs. Another member of the research team has 32 years of 
non-formal education experience and has worked closely with school-based programs. Their 



Easterly et al.  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v3i1.177  23 
 

research as faculty specifically focuses on supporting agricultural educators. While the third 
researcher did not teach in a formal agricultural secondary program, she is familiar with the 
context and brings her passion for rural communities to this work.  
 

Findings 
 
Theme 1: Small programs are unique. To be successful, programs must cater to the school and 
community context. 
The first theme that emerged highlighted how small programs have nuanced differences 
compared to larger schools. One of the most prevalent differences is that the students in the 
school do multiple activities across the school programming. Tom noted, “In a small school, 
every kid plays ball. They're all going to play every sport, also in everything else that's in school, 
drama or our student council or anything else going on, cheerleading. Their time is very 
limited.” They also engage in these many activities with their peers. Angie expressed this by 
saying, “The kids do everything together.” This involvement creates a demand on student time.  
 
Students in these rural areas also had familial obligations that do not mirror those of urban 
areas. In addition to the involvement in school, the students in these schools are expected to be 
involved in family ranches. According to Daniel,  

The majority of the kids are ranch kids. When branding time comes, well, they're out of 
school for three or four days or when gathering comes, they're out of school for three or 
four days or [when] shipping comes, they're out of school for three or four days. They're 
expected to trabajar at the Rancho, you know?  

Beth noted some of her students have a house nearby the school where they stay during the 
week, but go to the family ranch to work on the weekends, making engagement for weekend 
activities difficult. Elenore cast a different view of the ranching lifestyle of her students. She 
noted, “they kind of get ranching a little bit, but the parents don't really talk to them about it 
much. There's a difference between being raised on a ranch and understanding how ranches 
work.”  
 
The constant pull of involvement outside of school and multiple opportunities within school 
puts a strain on students. While providing opportunities to students, the constant pull can have 
negative effects. According to Angie “These kids do everything. They're exhausted. They're 
tired. We pushed them hard academically, they're pushed hard athletically. They don't have a 
break ever.” Even though students are involved in a lot of activities, the agriculture program in 
these schools is typically the only option for elective courses. According to Angie, “I've kinda 
saturated my market. I mean, I'm the only elective and so I can count on one hand how many 
kids I don't have in program.” Similarly, Elenore noted being one of two options students can 
choose for their elective courses.   
 
Despite the demand on time, the teachers see the value of participation and communicate that 
value to students. Daniel urges the students to get involved.   



Easterly et al.  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v3i1.177  24 
 

I tell them you live in [small town] America where the populations are 143 and most of 
those are old people like me, this is your chance to judge, do a little bit of work…get out 
of town and, and meet some people. 

Angie similarly noted she hopes students will be, “willing to take risks” and “get out of their 
comfort zone,” by trying new things in their program.  
 
Even if students are committed to be involved in the agricultural education program, the size of 
these programs places limitations on the scope of the involvement. According to Elenore, 
“When you only have eight kids, you can't really run a lot of contests.” Angie noted, “The kids 
are so busy. Sometimes I have to make decisions, but the kids just don't have time for that. 
They can't do that. That's one more thing. And is that really an important thing for our 
chapter?” 
 
Despite the challenges of a small program, the benefits seem to outweigh the barriers. When 
comparing his experience working in a larger school, Daniel noted, “you go to a little school and 
you think I'm in The Bahamas or Tahiti. It takes as much work. But in reality, it doesn't take as 
much work. And you really, really appreciate that little school.” An additional benefit of the size 
of the program is the close relationships of the students. According to Angie, “The school 
operates like a family.” This family atmosphere extends beyond the school day. Daniel, for 
example, had students stay at his house that is next door to the school on a morning they were 
leaving early for a contest, so they did not have to leave at 4:30 a.m. 
 
Theme 2: Fostering relationships is essential for program success. 
A major theme emerged related to relationships, specifically relationships with administrators, 
coaches, and individuals in the communities. Every participant mentioned how both internal 
and external relationships are necessary for program success. According to Elenore, “Success is 
due to the relationship and support of others. I have really good support from my 
superintendent, and I have excellent support from our school board members and my fellow 
staff members and from our community.” Likewise, Beth acknowledged the importance of 
parental support:   

I have a very, really supportive group of parents right now. And that's a big part too 
know it starts at home with the parents pushing their kids to study or reminding the kids 
to make sure that kids can make practices and contests.  

 
While establishing relationships may not be unique to small programs, there are some 
differences for small programs in rural New Mexico. According to Casey,  

Everything from lifestyle or at the county fair to taking the kids on a conference, you got 
to build those as those relationships, both with the students and with the parents and 
the community. Because once you have that buy in from the communities that are more 
likely to send their younger brother, younger sister into your program, especially in such 
a small school. If mom and dad were in FFA back in their day, they're more likely to send 
their kids to FFA, now or they're going to encourage those kids to enter that project.  

Because of the small nature of the schools these programs operate in, there are demands for 
involvement which lead to relationship building opportunities amongst teachers. Angie noted 



Easterly et al.  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v3i1.177  25 
 

the importance of being aware when other programs have events going on and not trying to 
work against them. She noted,  

It's easy in a small program to put your blinders on and think your program's the only 
one, but it's going take a lot of steps back. These kids are trying to keep a lot of 
programs afloat and if you can recognize that and then work with those other programs 
instead of against them, I think the results are better.  

 
Casey supported students in athletics by volunteering. According to Casey,  

I've always been a sports fan. So I approached the athletic director. I said, hey, if you 
need somebody to keep books or a clock or something for basketball games holler at 
me, I'm more than willing to help. I got to do every single basketball game. . . .I'm able 
to show those kids. I support them through their other activities outside of FFA. I'm able 
to show their parents, you know, I'm not only your ag teacher, I'm also a, a strong 
supporter of your kid. I want them to be successful on and off the court. I want them to 
be successful in my shop, in my classroom.   

 
Tom similarly noted that he helped with the athletic program. According to Tom, “[I] drive the 
bus for them a lot. Go to probably every basketball and football and volleyball game, I'm also 
the announcer at the games and stuff. So I'm very involved in sports. and the kids know it.” This 
involvement helped to build relationships in the school as well as showing the students the 
teachers care about them beyond what they do in their agriculture courses. Casey worked to 
change the culture of the program, shifting from an ‘either or’ approach to a more inclusive 
one.  

I've worked very closely with the athletic director because before I came here it was 
always you do basketball or you do FFA. There is no in between. There were exceptions 
to that rule of course, but that was kind of the culture. I have been working our athletic 
director and basketball coaches. We're too small of a school to make a kid choose. 
(Casey)  

 
Beth noted,  

In a small school you have to share your students and they're going to be, the kids that 
are involved in FFA are going to be the kids that are involved in everything else that's 
available at that school. So it's just really important to develop that relationship with the 
coaches and the parents so that you can make practices work, you can make contest 
work, otherwise your chapter, you're just going to kind of flail around. You're not going 
to get anything really done.  

Although this cooperation was expressed as essential, there was one incident of a breakdown 
of relationship. Elenore reported competing against another program in her school. She stated, 
“The teacher that teaches the media program is equally as enthusiastic and in love with her 
program as I am with mine. And so sometimes the kids get a little pulled … it's very 
challenging.” 
 
Several of the participants noted working early with the school to put FFA events on the 
calendar so teachers and coaches know when to expect students to miss time. Daniel and 



Easterly et al.  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v3i1.177  26 
 

Elenore also noted bringing the school sports schedule to the agriculture teachers meeting to 
plan large FFA events at the state level. Elenore noted, “All of my FFA activities are already on 
our school calendar for next year. And the coach has already come to me the AD and asked me 
when my FFA events are and we don't fight about it.” 
 
The theme of using community support came up less frequently. Casey provided a vivid 
example of partnering with a veterinarian to work with the vet science team. According to 
Casey, “They come out once a week. They spend an hour, two hours with my kids this year and 
they, they try to bring live specimens for the kid to look at.” Angie had a differing thought about 
community involvement noting challenges with delegating tasks and managing volunteers. Beth 
noted the benefit of community support programs make the program visible in the community 
so when they, “can continue to have that community support that we need financially and 
when we want to go do things like if you go to nationals.” 
 
Theme 3: Student buy-in is required for success. 
Student buy-in was expressed to be required for program success by all participants. Elenore 
put this simply by stating, “You can’t have a successful program without good kids.” Several 
themes emerged related to strategies for gaining student buy-in. The most prevalent, was 
showing the students the teacher cares about them. The participants expressed the importance 
of being warm and open because the students can choose to be in their class or program. Even 
as the students in these small schools have limited options for elective courses, the teachers 
still work to create a warm environment for students. According to Daniel, “They can elect to 
take it or they can elect not to take it. And so, I'm not the grim reaper…I'm an entertainer. They 
have fun.” Tom similarly noted, “It is an elective class. They don't have to be there. I had to give 
[them] a reason to want to come. I keep my classes fun. You know, I try to tell them first day of 
class, FFA means fun.” There were also themes of focusing on high expectations for students. 
Beth noted, “I'm a very driven person and I expect a lot from my students. I have very high 
expectations and I hold their feet to the fire.” She shared a story about her first year in the 
program when the students did not perform well at a state contest.  

I made them all go to the awards ceremony even though we weren't anywhere near 
being on the board. And I say, we're going to sit through this and you're going to watch 
every single one of these kids that did well and worked hard walk across that stage and 
you're going to clap for them. And when we got home I said, how does that feel to sit 
there and watch every one of those kids walk across the stage? And they all agreed that 
it wasn't fun. So the next year I said, well next year you need to work really hard so that 
you guys are the ones walking across that stage. 

 
While this direct approach can be effective, it is typically balanced with a more compassionate 
approach. Angie emphasized balance between caring and expectations. She stated,  

To be able to build a program, we have [to have a] healthy student teacher relationship, 
because if you don't have a relationship with a student, then they don’t want to work 
for you. . . . Because they know I care about them as a teacher, they're more likely to 
trust my judgment and want to want to work for me and please me. 

 



Easterly et al.  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v3i1.177  27 
 

The teachers found success in providing opportunities where the students can feel 
accomplished in their work. According to Elenore, “you've got to make it where every single 
one of those kids feels valued and worth something in the program.” Casey accomplished this 
by making his course and programmatic offering more diverse. He noted, “If I could diversify my 
curriculum a little bit more, I was able to retain those students who would have otherwise 
found family, consumer science or computer science or band.” Casey continued to note he 
diversified his program by adding leadership and animal science components to his classes in 
addition to agriculture mechanics. Similarly, Angie noted working towards building a well-
rounded program to value the students’ interests. She did this by finding opportunities for 
students to get involved in areas other than career development events. According to Angie, 
“maybe it is event coordination, banquet coordination or community service …or building 
things in the shop. For us, that's big.” There were also mentions of being humble and open with 
the students. Daniel shared that when he started in the school, he offered humility to earn the 
respect of his students.  

You see [the former teacher’s] boots? I said, those are his boots right there. I had one of 
my boy’s baby shoes I pulled out of my pocket. I said, these are my shoes right here. I'm 
not trying to fill his boots. I just want to grow into my own and we'll grow together.  

 
Advice and Best Practices 
The teachers were also asked to give advice and provide best practices for other teachers in 
small programs. First, participants expressed the need to be patient as they try to build a 
program. Several of the participants noted they were successful when they added things to 
their programs slowly and intentionally. Beth noted when she took over the program, there 
were 15 students doing 10 contests, and not doing any of them very well. “The next year I just 
paired it down I found a couple of people that could help teach me about the contest and 
paired it down and just gave them like five options” (Beth). Once she selected a hand full of 
contests, she told the students: “If you become really successful at these five contests, then 
we'll consider adding another contest.”  
 
Participants felt that the best advice for program management was to determine what was best 
to increase student engagement. The number of contests and how to determine how to choose 
them differed amongst the participants. Tom participated in the most contests working 11 
teams. Daniel reported working with 4–8 contests per year depending on the student interest. 
Angie, Beth, and Casey reported training 4–6 teams with additional leadership development 
events at different times of the year. Elenore worked with 2–3 teams depending on the student 
interest. The participants chose their contests differently. Daniel and Casey reported providing 
sign-up sheets for all contests and identifying what the students wanted to do. Both Angie and 
Beth, focused on specific contests that matched what was taught in their program. When 
working the teams, the teachers all preferred in-person practices. Angie reported the most out 
of school hours in practice having hourlong practices starting at 6:00 a.m. and ending after 
school at 8:00 p.m. with a total of eight practice blocks for each team. Beth similarly noted 
dedicating an hour practice per week for each contest. Instead of individual practices, Tom held 
block practices in the afternoons after basketball practice where students would work on 
various contests independently. The teachers also noted varying strategies with structuring 



Easterly et al.  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v3i1.177  28 
 

officer teams. Some teachers operated officer teams with constitutional positions, others 
utilized a full slate of officers and committee structures. Elenore noted that all students in 
program were essentially officers. Tom noted the positions on the parliamentary procedure 
team were the same as his officer position.  
 
Finally, the participants offered additional advice related to seeking support from other 
agriculture teachers. The participants noted themes of seeking support and being able to help 
younger teachers. Casey, Beth, and Elenore mentioned using community resources and support 
to help. Beth noted her success as a beginning teacher was a result of reaching out to other 
teachers. She noted, “I reached out to the teachers that were more seasoned than me because 
I was first year teacher and just asked for help … I went to workshops and tried to learn as 
much as I could.”  
 

Conclusions, Discussion, and Recommendations 
 
Our study found that agricultural educators in New Mexico employed three main approaches 
for successful programming: catering programs to the school and community context, fostering 
supportive relationships, and developing student buy-in. At first glance, these themes are not 
surprising and could be recommended regardless of program size. However, where the themes 
come to life and hold substantive meaning is how these teachers execute these themes in their 
programs. When talking about their students, the participants did not talk about a lack of 
student engagement, supporting Leithwood and Jantzi’s (2009) findings that students 
participate at higher levels in smaller schools. In fact, the teachers in these programs have to 
balance the issue of overworking the students. The teachers also noted the students tend to 
move in a uniform block rather than separating into identifiable groups. Teachers in small 
schools could benefit from making sure their offerings are diverse enough to meet the interest 
of students and fitting into the community context.  
 
Relationships were deemed critical to program operation. Chief among these relationships was 
the interaction with those in charge of athletics in the school. The teachers in the study worked 
collaboratively to make sure the programs existed symbiotically. To facilitate this relationship, 
we suggest teachers in small schools work to foster a healthy relationship with both internal 
and external stakeholders. Spending time to get to know the context of the school and 
community would greatly support student’s program engagement. A theme emerged related to 
student buy-in being important for success. These teachers worked to build support for 
students through a careful balance of warm, fun openness and high expectations of hard work. 
Developing this balance could be difficult, especially for someone stepping into a new role in a 
small school. Further research could illuminate how teachers establish and maintain this 
balance with their students.  
 
We also inquired about best practices and advice for successful programs. A consensus did not 
exist for specific aspects of program management including number of teams, types of 
practices, and methods for selecting officer teams. Ultimately, participants felt that teachers 



Easterly et al.  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v3i1.177  29 
 

needed to approach program management in the ways that best suited their personal 
preferences and those of the students. This study provides an example of what works for 
successful programs in rural New Mexico and can provide some insight into small programs in 
other states. We recommend that teachers carefully consider the context as they make 
decisions on how to offer components of agricultural education programs. We also recommend 
that agriculture teachers in small schools find ways to work with fellow school staff, 
stakeholders, and students to make programming decisions. Carefully integrating these 
decisions will make the most of students’ commitment of time beyond the classroom, which is 
needed for successful programs (Talbert et al., 2014) 
 
Student involvement theory seeks to explain how students engage in programs (Astin, 1999). 
The findings of this study show students in these small schools are active in most opportunities 
that are available to them. Perhaps because they have fewer opportunities, they felt compelled 
to participate. A qualitative investigation from the student’s perspective could illuminate the 
student decision making process related to participation in school programming. Important 
questions for future investigation could focus on the appropriate level of time commitment for 
students, as well as working with student to develop time-management strategies. The unique 
context of agricultural education programs at small schools warrants specific consideration. 
Decisions related to delivery of agricultural education programs and FFA events at state and 
national levels should consider how those decisions will impact programs with low numbers of 
students. 
 

References 
 
Astin, A. W. (1999). Student involvement: A developmental theory for higher education. Journal 

of College Student Development, 40(5).  
https://www.middlesex.mass.edu/ace/downloads/astininv.pdf  

 
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in 

Psychology, 3(2), 77–101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa  
 
Bradley, S., & Taylor, J. (2001). The effect of school size on exam performance in secondary 

schools. Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, 60(3), 291–324. 
https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-0084.00102  

 
Bronk, K.C. (2012). The exemplar methodology: An approach to studying the leading edge of 

development. Psychology of Well-Being: Theory, Research and Practice, 2(5). 
https://doi.org/10.1186/2211-1522-2-5    

 
Coladarci, T., & Cobb, C. D. (1996). Extracurricular participation, school size, and achievement 

and self-esteem among high school students: A national look. Journal of Research in 
Rural Education, 12(2), 92–103 https://jrre.psu.edu/sites/default/files/2019-08/12-
2_8.pdf  



Easterly et al.  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v3i1.177  30 
 

Creswell, J. W., & Miller, D. L. (2000). Determining validity in qualitative inquiry. Theory into 
Practice, 39(3), 124–130, https://doi.org/10.1207/s15430421tip3903_2  

 
Croom, D. B. (2008). The development of the integrated three-component model of agricultural 

education. Journal of Agricultural Education, 49(1), 110–120. 
https://doi.org/10.5032/jae.2008.01110  

 
Crosnoe, R., Johnson, M. K., & Elder, G. H. (2004). School size and the interpersonal side of 

education: An examination of race/ethnicity and organizational context. Social Science 
Quarterly, 85(5), 1259–1274. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0038-4941.2004.00275.x 

 
DiBenedetto, C. A., Willis, V. C., & Barrick, R. K. (2018). Needs assessment for school-based 

agricultural education teachers: A review of literature. Journal of Agricultural Education, 
59(4), 52–71. https://doi.org/10.5032/jae.2018.04052 

 
Feldman, A. F., & Matjasko, J. L. (2007). Profiles and portfolios of adolescent school-based 

extracurricular activity participation. Journal of Adolescence, 30(2), 313–332. 
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.adolescence.2006.03.004    

 
Foreman-Peck, J. & Foreman-Peck, L. (2006). Should schools be smaller? The size-performance 

relationship for Welsh schools. Economics of Education Review, 25(2), 157–171. 
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econedurev.2005.01.004  

 
Lavalley, M. (2018). Out of the loop. National School Boards Association Center for Public 

Education. https://cdn-files.nsba.org/s3fs-public/10901-
5071_CPE_Rural_School_Report_Web_FINAL.pdf  

 
Leithwood, K., & Jantzi, D. (2009). A review of empirical evidence about school size effects: A 

policy perspective. Review of Educational Research, 79(1), 464–490. 
https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654308326158  

 
Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Sage Publications 
 
McNeal, R. B. (1999). Participation in high school extracurricular activities: Investigating school 

effects. Social Science Quarterly, 80(2), 291–309. http://www.jstor.org/stable/42863901  
 
Merriam, S., & Tisdell, E. J. (2016). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation 

(4th ed.). John Wiley and Sons.  
 
National Center for Educational Statistics. (2020). Digest of education statistics. 

https://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/current_tables.asp   
 
National FFA Organization. (n.d.). Agricultural Education: About FFA. 

https://www.ffa.org/agricultural-education/    



Easterly et al.  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v3i1.177  31 
 

 
Newcomb, L. H., McCracken, J. D., Warmbrod, J. R., & Whittington, M. S. (2004). Methods of 

teaching agriculture (3rd ed.). Pearson/Prentice Hall. 
 
Rumberger, R. W., & Thomas, S. L. (2000). The distribution of dropout and turnover rates 

among urban and suburban high schools. Sociology of Education, 73(1), 39–67. 
https://doi.org/10.2307/2673198  

 
Sawkins, J. W. (2002). Examination performance in Scottish secondary schools: An ordered logit 

approach. Applied Economics, 34(16), 2031–2041. 
https://doi.org/10.1080/00036840210124559  

 
Talbert, B. A., Vaughn, R., Croom, B., & Lee, J. S. (2014). Foundations of agricultural education 

(3rd ed.). Pearson Education, Inc.  
 
 
 
 
© 2022 by authors. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of 
the Creative Commons Attribution license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). 
 


