Suresh Babu speaking at the Symposium in a Ted talk style presentation.

Suresh Babu, professor at the International Food Policy Research Institute, shared his observations of agricultural education and nutrition capacity building in India and Malawi for the last 30 years. Babu emphasized as a country develops and income increases, there is an associated shift in the population’s diet from cereals to protective and fast food. Protective foods are foods that prevent diet related diseases such as leafy green vegetables, citrus, dairy, and meat. Fast foods are highly processed foods that are high in sugar and fat. The dietary shift away from malnourishment results in obesity related diet diseases. In my own experience, I observed a community in India that was in the process of shifting from a diet based on whole grain sorghum roti to white rice. As a young researcher, I collected their stories of increased high blood pressure and diabetes, while wondering if there is a way to prevent what seems to be this inevitable shift? Can we help build a food system with limited malnutrition and limit obesity related diseases simultaneously?

These questions brought me to Babu’s presentation at the InnovATE Symposium in Washington D.C. Nutrition sensitive agricultural innovations have long been proposed to solve the lack of connection between nutrition and increased crop productivity, but the feasibility has yet been seen. Already, existent agricultural extension institutions and their extension agents have been identified as a potential nutrition information source and agent of behavior change for communities. However, for this to occur, extension agents need to be competent in disseminating nutrition information. To ensure sustainable, consistent, and competent extension agents, nutrition needs to be added to the curriculum in nations’ agricultural education institutions. India and Malawi present two very different challenges for increasing institutional capacity for delivering nutrition education at the household level.

India

Malnourishment is high in rural women and children. India’s extension system is public sector, well developed, widespread, and has already been established as effective for disseminating agricultural information, which makes it an ideal communication channel for disseminating nutrition information.

In the 1980s, India’s agricultural curriculum included nutrition education. However, nutrition was removed from the curriculum, subsequently future extension agents acquired only a limited competency in nutrition and nutrition sensitive agriculture.

Institutional level policy change that places nutrition once again within the nation’s agricultural education institutions curriculum would construct the necessary foundation for future sustainable development of nutrition competent extension agents. To further ensure positive changes in diet in India, Babu suggests: (1) increased research in understanding the transfer of information from nation to household level; (2) development of open courses in nutrition readily available on- and offline; (3) increased crop diversity; (4) agricultural development that stresses increased income and nutrition, not just increased production; and (5) focus on nutrition, not just increased caloric consumption.

An improvement in India’s diet can occur when there is institutional capacity development that educates extension agents on nutrition. With the increased capacity development of extension agents in nutrition, they can disseminate nutrition information to rural Indians.

Malawi

Malawi has faced chronic food insecurity for at least the last 25 years. Malawi has not yet developed effective institutional capacity to prevent hunger, but has focused on providing humanitarian aid. A shift needs to occur from hunger relief to hunger prevention through sustainable, resilient agricultural development. In order for this to occur, Malawi needs frequent, high quality agricultural extension. Malawi’s public sector extension system has limited access to resources. As a result, Malawi’s extension system has become pluralistic. The private sector and NGOs are starting to become important suppliers of extension services to rural Malawi. One limitation to pluralistic extension in Malawi is that private partners and NGOs have limited network connections with universities and Malawi’s education system.

To impact food insecurity in Malawi, Babu suggested that NGOs and the private sector focus on increasing Malawi food production through entrepreneurship. This would allow the public sector to focus on nutrition extension. In order for this to be achieved: (1) development of Malawi’s institutional capacity will need effective nutritional curriculum, and (2) institutional capacity for networking between private sector, NGOs, public sector, and educational institutions must be developed.

Institutional Capacity for Nutrition Extension

            India and Malawi are very different countries in terms of the types of food insecurity and diet related diseases they face. However, both countries could benefit from: (1) building policy that supports nutrition extension, (2) developing and implementing nutrition curriculum in agricultural education systems, and (3) creating the next generation of extension agents that are competent in agriculture and nutrition.

Claire Friedrichsen is a PhD student at the University of Florida examining decision-making processes in soil management. She looks at how stakeholders perceive soil management as part of the food system and their perception of how soil health relates to their own food security. Her current research is looking at communities in India and Haiti who are participating in community development programs. 

The post Institutional Capacity to Integrate Agricultural Education and Nutrition in Malawi and India by Claire Friedrichsen appeared first on InnovATE.

For the most part, the HICD challenges revolve around the lack of practical skills. These challenges involve students who upon graduation don’t have the skills to get a job or do the work for which they were hired, members who lack the pedagogical capability to transfer those skills, and the organizational, institutional or systemic infrastructure that inhibit sustained improvements in agricultural education and training (AET). Addressing these challenges initially captivated workshop participants, but they were soon immersed as small groups in the intricacies of storytelling.

Participants were organized in small groups and assigned the task of coming up with solutions to these HICD problems. Some groups co-created iterative, adaptive management projects for collaborative group learning; others moved straight away to implementing technical solutions for improving curriculum and pedagogy. While the challenges and solutions could be individual, organizational, institutional or systemic, it was important to specify not only who benefited, but also who needed to be informed about accomplishments.

Nevertheless, storytelling began by identifying indicators for (what was done) and outcome (what short-term change occurred) indicators. These indicators necessarily involved quantitative measures to compare experiences. Comparisons are critical for measuring (1) progress over time, (2) differences between target groups (gender, ethnicity, etc.), and (3) alternative ways of achieving similar goals. Quantitative measures also facilitated aggregation across multiple projects for donor reporting. However, not all indicators need to be standardized for donor aggregation; customized indicators adapted to local conditions could also be valuable for local learning.

As the afternoon progressed, impact (sustained long-term change) and process (program implementation) indicators were developed and polished. However, discussions among and between groups began noting difficulties in telling their stories. Participants found both contexts and solutions as complex and not amenable to the simplification of quantitative measures. The most precisely measured indicators often failed to meaningfully communicate the valuable lessons learned. Dynamic AET learning processes were rendered lifeless. Indicators of a qualitative nature were necessary. It was further recognized that it is often difficult to predict the consequences of a project. Initially defined indicators may entirely miss unexpected outcomes and impacts, both positive and negative.

Improving the quality of an intervention and how it was achieved involves tailoring the message and being responsive to concerns of the target audience. The lessons learned about how change occurs are very important to local stakeholders. Attention to local priorities in quality assurance (QA) was as critical as informing donors about the extent of progress. Characterizing local processes serves two purposes: providing locally meaningful feedback, and distinguishing between what was replicable and what was unique to the situation.

Communication what a project accomplished goes beyond what can be predicted and pre-packaged for donor consumption. Indeed, the value and sustainability of achievements can be effectively demonstrated through indicators of local confidence and acceptance. Flexibility is required to account for the unexpected. Often, it is not so much the number but the directionality of change that is the indicator. Workshop participants concluded that, on their own, indicators don’t really tell the story. Narratives are needed to supplement static indicators highlighting the qualities of a “sleeping beauty” or recounting one of “Aesop’s” lessons learned.

A visual summary made by Lisa Nelson from See in Colors during the Pre-Symposium Workshop.

Keith M. Moore is retired but continues to contribute to the USAID-funded Innovation for Agricultural Training and Education (InnovATE) project led by Virginia Tech. He has held many positions at Virginia Tech. Most recently he was director for performance assessment for the Office of Research, Education and Development and the director of the InnovATE project.

The post Sleeping Beauty or Aesop’s Fables: Telling the HICD Story by Keith M. Moore appeared first on InnovATE.

Arranging a meeting is a common way to connect with policy makers in many countries. In many cases, the person you meet face-to-face with is not the policy maker themself, but rather a member of their staff.  This can seem disappointing, but your voice still can be heard by using the meeting time wisely to share why agricultural education is important to you, and why it should also be important to them.

It’s important in these meetings to come prepared. This is your opportunity to spotlight your program, campus, or investment. Think about what story you want to tell the policy maker, and come prepared with materials!

Samantha Alvis from the American Public Land Grant Association facilitates a conversation during her session.

Validate Your Connection

When approaching policy makers to discuss agricultural education, the first step is to validate your connection.  Be clear that you are a constituent by letting them know where you live or work, and how you relate to the area he or she represents.

Finding an area of common ground is also a way to build a connection with a policy maker.  Do you have a common alma mater, civic organization, or extracurricular activities?  Mentioning one such connection is a way to get the conversation started and emphasize the idea that you already share a connection.

Finally, it is important to clearly state your objective for visiting with the policy maker.  Your pitch should be concise and connected to a specific action that the policy maker can make. Work to build a relationship with the policymaker or their staff by scheduling visits for different purposes. These could include just informational visits, or invitations to visit your campus or project. Of course, official language through legislation or policy and funding are often two top priorities for a visit.

Share Key Points Quickly

You may only have a few minutes with the policy maker so it is important to have your points planned in advance. Policy makers and their staffers meet with many people in a single day, so it is helpful to make your points memorable by couching them into a story.  Many policy makers like to tell stories while campaigning, so a good story has the possibility of being repeated for wider impact.

When crafting your agricultural education story, make sure it is memorable! A great way to do this is through a leave-behind, i.e. handout. For example, in APLU’s recent Challenge of Change report, there are a number of 1-page vignettes that can be pulled from the report, depending on the state/office visited, that spotlight the work of a specific institution (we really like the Better Bread* story on Page 107). In your stories, include a strong hook, and the title is a great place to start.  Clearly state how the story relates to your objective – in other words, don’t bury the lead.  Answer the question, “What happens if funding is lost in this area?”  Finally, make sure to emphasize economic, social and political impacts at the local, state, national and global levels.

Create a Clear Next Step

To wrap up the meeting, leave the policy maker with a clear action that they can take in order to support agricultural education.

Depending on the timing of your meeting and request, action items could include:

• Letters to specific individuals or entities
• New legislative language or amendment to existing language
• Prerecorded remarks for an event
• Visiting your campus
• Contacting party leaders
• Building a consensus among stakeholders
• Funding

Clearly state how taking action will support your objective and relate to the story you told.  Finish the meeting by summarizing your major points, and answering any questions.  Conclude the meeting by leaving promptly.  Follow up by sending a brief thank-you letter, and any follow-up information that you offered to provide.

Taking the time to meet with policymakers to express the importance of agricultural education, or any cause, is a great way to build a base of support for agricultural education.  Although it might seem intimidating, engaging policy makers is a direct opportunity to influence policy and legislation at the local, state, national and global levels.

*Why do we like the Better Bread story?

• For a U.S. audience, it’s easily relatable–most people eat bread!
• The title is catchy
• This particular story shows how international research and investments can have an impact domestically

Sharing Your Story One Pager

Melanie Miller Foster is an Assistant Professor of International Agriculture at the Pennsylvania State University. Melanie is an enthusiastic team member of Global Teach Ag! Initiative at Pennsylvania State University and the USAID-funded Innovation for Agricultural Training and Education (InnovATE) project. She served as a facilitator for Samantha and Hanan’s session at the InnovATE symposium.

Samantha Alvis is the Director of International Development and Programs for the Association of Public and Land-grant Universities (APLU). She oversees a number of projects and initiatives related to the comprehensive internationalization of APLU member campuses. She also manages APLU’s International Agriculture Section.

Hanan Saab is the Assistant Director for International Issues within the Office of Congressional & Governmental Affairs of the Association of Public and Land-grant Universities (APLU). In this role she leads the association’s advocacy on higher education issues related to immigration and visa policy, study abroad, international education, international agriculture and international development.

The post Telling the Story of Agricultural Education to Impact Policy by Melanie Foster, Samantha Alvis, and Hanan Saab appeared first on InnovATE.

The first thing that caught my attention was the diverse background of the attendees. Many continents such as Asia, Africa, South-America, and North America were represented. Personally, I had the opportunity of meeting people from Nigeria, Ghana, Kenya, Senegal, Armenia, and Costa Rica. More importantly, what stood out to me was the KIND of participants that were gathered in the heart of the nation’s capital to discuss the intersection of policy and practice in AET. The policy makers from USAID and the practitioners from various NGOs, government agencies, and private consultants in the field of AET were in attendance. Having in a room these two main actors (policy makers and practitioners) in the field of AET is no small feat. As a PhD student, I have had the privilege of attending many symposia and conferences, and more often than not, you do not have these two main actors together in the same room.

Pre-Symposium Workshop

The event started on June 7 with a pre-symposium workshop. The workshop was tagged: “HICD Storytelling: From Design to Evaluation and Back Again.” Workshop participants were divided into various groups to discuss the challenges of telling their HICD story through indicators, and then make recommendations for appropriate indicators. Several groups identified rigid indicators set up by the policy makers as a major challenge in effectively and accurately telling the success stories of their various developmental projects. Fortunately, USAID staff were on hand to participate in the discussion and take notes.

Day 1

The opening day of the full symposium featured two plenary sessions and ten concurrent sessions. The morning plenary session, tagged: “Agricultural Innovations Systems: Not Business as Usual” was a panel discussion moderated by Charles Maguire, AET consultant. The moderator together with the panelists discussed the importance of the interconnectedness of the various actors that are involved in agricultural innovation in AET, and ways to achieve a community of practice. This was particularly important considering the fact that too many actors in AET tend to work in isolation, thereby leading to duplication of effort.

The theme of the afternoon plenary session was “Are we moving forward? Gender Transformation and AET” moderated by Becky Williams of the University of Florida. I found this session particularly interesting because of the diverse perspectives the panelists brought into it. One of the panelists, Wanjiru Kamau-Rutenberg, Director of African Women in Agricultural Research and Development (AWARD), discussed how the marginalization of women has negatively affected all of us (both men and women). This is especially true for most African countries, where the main occupation is agriculture, and a large percentage of those involved in agriculture is women. In these countries, many women do not have access to the AET that their male counterparts have access to, thereby making the countries less productive.

Deborah Rubin, Cultural Practice, LLC; Wanjiru Kamau-Rutenburg, African Women in Agricultural Research and Development; and Gretchen Neisler, Center for Global Connections in Food, Agriculture, and Natural Resources, Michigan State University (left to right) speak during the Gender Transformation and AET Plenary session.

Day 2

The second full day featured two plenary sessions and seven concurrent sessions. The morning plenary session titled: “Co-Creating Agricultural Education and Training Systems for Youth Development” was moderated by Glen Shinn of Global Consulting Solutions and Texas A & M University. Again, I enjoyed this discussion because of the rich and diverse perspectives of the panelists. One of the panelists, Miles Sedgwick of Rana Labs and AgriJoven project, shared his experience of working with youths in Guatemala. In his project, he organized video production workshops that trained Guatemalan youths on how to use videos to capture their use of innovation in farming. Since it is easier for Guatemalan youths to influence each other, rather than a foreigner (in this case Miles), the project taught them to make their own videos, and share them on social media. He explained how video production can be a tool for agricultural extension.

To cap off the symposium, Michael Woolcock of the World Bank and Harvard Kennedy School, discussed the need for using Problem-Driven Iterative Adaption (PDIA) as a different strategy for building state capability in education. Adopting the principles of PDIA which include: using local solutions for local problems, while learning from and adapting to the local community, will go a long way in improving policy and practice of AET.

Ibukun “Dami” Alegbeleye is a doctoral student at Virginia Tech in agricultural, leadership, and community education. He is a research assistant for the USAID-funded Innovation for Agricultural Training and Education (InnovATE) project.

The post Impressions from the Intersections of Policy and Practice Symposium by Dami Alegbeleye appeared first on InnovATE.

Dr. Henry Quesada speaks during his session about capacity building for Technical Vocational Education and Training Programs (TVET) pictured above.

ATVET stands for Agricultural Technical and Vocational Education and Training (ATVET). The educational process involves, in addition to general education, the study of technologies and related sciences, and the acquisition of practical skills, attitudes, understanding and knowledge relating to occupations in agriculture.

The question proposed raised concerns not only about teachers’ education in Central America, but the discussion generated after the presentation shifted to compare international examples of how continuing education is perceived and taught regionally even with national standards. I found the discussion particularly interesting, when one discussant compared and contrasted the countries outside Central America that have national standards of education, and teachers across different regions teach the educational materials differently. The problem is the installation capacity through large areas and regions of land because of cultural differences among those regions and people, leading to those differences in teaching. Following that are the issues with national standards for education. Agricultural education has more barriers to pass between national and regional standards because agricultural environments differ in every bio-region. Therefore, national standards can become outdated when focus is diverted from regional growth and opportunities catered to specific problems, to a general, larger national issue.

Before the EARTH workshop, a pre-event survey was used to gather more information about the participants themselves (approximately 35 invitees) comprised of ATVET instructors and administrators, ministry of education and agriculture representatives, and university and NGO partners from Costa Rica, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras and Nicaragua. Out of 19 responses, more than 33% agreed that TVET training and professional development are frequently offered, and the cost of attending them are low.  However, less than 33% agreed that the quality of these programs was high. During the workshop, attendees were asked if there is a need for a regional program for training and certification of educators in TVET, and the feedback from all the focus groups were positive indicating that there is a need for regional programs. So, it is safe to assume that while there are workshops available, there is a demand for regional programs more specific to their economic and environmental challenges.

Programs like the ATVET teacher certificate program are critical to develop teacher value and an importance in education training, as well as education in general. The Central American Educational and Cultural Coordination (CECC) is a Technical Secretariat of the Central American Integration System (SICA). It is working across borders to structure and guide programs in ATVET, facilitating communication and information between government authorities. In areas where educators do not have access to discussion and sharing with other educators and authorities, education is not seen as important and therefore undervalued. This view is detrimental to not only those teachers but to the youth. It undermines education systems because of the inherent institutional crack that trickles down to the students. In addition, ATVET programs in agriculture and agroforestry education are a critical economic driver in developing countries. When agricultural education expands, agricultural production increases in yield, trade, and profit, poverty decreases, food security increases, and education becomes valued as a long term investment. Therefore, ATVET programs should be considered a public good. The public is getting benefits from the educators becoming better in their practice.

Thus, from the presentation, potential pathways to follow are to create opportunities to exchange ideas using face-to-face and online platforms, focus on training and development first, leverage on installed capacity, use success with local evaluation, and meet with CECC-SICA every 6 months as a forum to get support for a regional certificate program. I also believe that building a network with a solid foundation of educators, institutions, and government organizations is a means for increased communication across sectors. All of these pathways to capacity building for TVET programs can ultimately lead to an increase in government and non-government support and creating more value to agriculture education.

A visual summary made by Lisa Nelson from See in Colors during the session.

Ellen Huber is an undergraduate student at Virginia Tech, majoring in Environmental Science. She is a research assistant for the USAID-funded Innovation for Agricultural Training and Education (InnovATE) project.

The post Increasing the Value of Agricultural Educators in Central America by Regional Certificate Programs by Ellen Huber appeared first on InnovATE.