United States

Department of Cooperative Agricutture

Agricultural

Cooperative Education

Service

ACS Task Force:

Service

Report 35 Final Report
Task Force Members:

Agricultural Cooperative National Council of Farmer

Service Cooperatives

John R. Dunn

Kris R. Green

Tracey L. Kennedy

Tammy M. Meyer

Galen W. Rapp

John H. Wells

James R. Baarda

Dorothy J. Fisher

Jack H. Armstrong

Agricultural Cooperative Service

Service Report 35

July 1993
Contents

Executive Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iv

Part I. A Vision for Cooperative Education ...................................... .l

Why Cooperative Education?. .................................................... 1

Better Cooperatives.. .......................................................... .2

Appreciation of Options ..................................................... .2

Business, Economic, and Public Policy Environment.. ........

What Is Cooperative Education?. .............................................. .3

The Vision for Cooperative Education.. ..................................... .5

Part II. Assessing the Present Environment .................................... .5

What Has Changed in the Environment for

Cooperative Education?. ............................................................ .

Existing Strengths ..................................................................... .9

Cooperative Education Tradition ........................................ .9

Institutions.. ........................................................................ 1 0

Resource Materials.. ......................................................... .l 0

Rural Revitalization ............................................................ 11

Renewed Public Interest in Education .............................. .ll

Who Are Cooperative Education Audiences?. ......................... 12

Elementary Students and Schools .................................... 12

High School Students and Schools .................................. .12

Universities, Students, and Researchers ......................... .14

Education Support Organizations.. ................................... .15

Cooperatives.. ................................................................... .16

Cooperative Members ....................................................... 16

Cooperative Directors.. ..................................................... .16

Cooperative Employees ................................................... .17

Other Audiences.. ............................................................. .17

State Cooperative Councils.. ............................................ .18

How Have Cooperative Audiences Changed? ....................... .18
Part III. identified System Needs ................................................... .20

Motivation and Funding ............................................................ 21

Motivation for Privately Conducted Education ................. .21

Funding for Privately Conducted Education.. ................... .22

Motivation for Public Education ......................................... 22

Funding for Public Education.. .......................................... .23

Sense of Cooperative Community.. .................................. .24

Technology and Materials ........................................................ 24

Audience-Specific Materials ............................................. .24

Availability of Materials ..................................................... .25

Technologies ...................................................................... 25

Part IV. Blueprint for Change .......................................................... 26

The Message of Cooperative Education.. .............................. ..2 7

What Are the Priorities for Change? ....................................... .28

How Can We Bring About the Necessary Changes? ............. .31

Part V. A Three-Front Plan for Strengthening

Cooperative Education ................................................................... 34

FRONT I: Making the Investment ........................................... .34

Update and Expand Materials Base.. ............................... .34

Educate the Educators ...................................................... 35

Performance-Related Research.. ..................................... .36

FRONT II: Improving National Coordination ........................... .36

FRONT III: Expanding the Base of Support.. .......................... .37

APPENDIX: STUDY PLAN AND PANEL PARTICIPANTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
Executive Summary

In 1991, a Task Force on Cooperative Education began a study

on improving the cooperative education system in the United

States. In this joint study by USDA’s Agricultural Cooperative

Service (ACS) and National Council of Farmer Cooperatives

(NCFC), information and opinions were gathered from cooperative educators, organizations, and institutions throughout

the Nation.

The Vision

From this study, the Task Force developed the following Vision

for Coopera tiue Edttca tion:

Every individual in the United States should have enough knowledge about the coopera tiue form of business enterprise to know its

general distinguishing characteristics, to assess its appropriateness

to meet economic and socinl needs, and to recognize cooperatives’

purposes and benefits. Every cooperative member should have

enough knowledge about the cooperative form of business enterprise

to know his or her responsibilities toward the cooperative and what

is expected in the way of control, finance, and patronage.

Three-Front Plan

The Task Force proposes a Three-Front Plan for bringing

renewal and regeneration to the cooperative education system. The plan involves making the upfront investment in educational materials and infrastructure, improving national-level

coordination, and aggressively marketing cooperative education to key educational decisionmakers.

FRONT I- Making the Investments involves redevelopment of

the resource base- materials and human expertise-for providing cooperative education. It calls for expanding, updating,

and redesigning basic educational materials, establishing a

program to educate the educators, and conducting a program

iv
of research on the performance of cooperative education programs. An infusion of public and private resources is necessary to complete this critical base phase.

FRONT II- Improving Nafional Coordination involves developing structures, functions, and modes of communicatitn to

improve coordination of the diverse components of the cooperative education system. One aspect is the creation of a

national clearinghouse for improving the widespread availability and use of materials and programs.

FRONT III- Expanding the Base of Support involves establishing an aggressive marketing campaign directed at the leaders

in cooperatives and educational institutions to demonstrate

the value of investment in cooperative education. The campaign calls for one-on-one peer contacts using the results of

performance-related research, knowledge of the improved

materials base, and a renewed national commitment to coordination.

Other Findings and Highlights

Why Cooperative Education? Three primary purposes for cooperative education were identified: (1) Setting the stage for successful cooperatives; (2) Providing everyone with enough

knowledge about the cooperative form of business enterprise

to make an informed assessment of a cooperative as an option;

and (3) Providing sufficient understanding to responsible

individuals and public policymakers to assure continued support for the cooperative form of business enterprise.

The Changing Education Environment Over the past two

decades, the environment for cooperative education has

changed in several significant ways. These include changes in

the nature of cooperatives and cooperative business, audience

demographics, resource constraints, philosophy of cooperaV
tive leaders, public perception of the value of cooperative education, technological advances, and preference of many organizations for investing in internal education programs.

How Have Cooperative Education Audiences Changed? A number of changes in the audiences for cooperative education

were no(ed: a decline in numbers of students with farm backgrounds; an aging member base of traditional agricultural

cooperatives; growth of urban audiences; growth in variety of

uses of cooperatives in non-agricultural settings; blurring of

the distinction between rural and urban audiences, emergence

of self-interest as a motivating force; increased demands on

the time of both students and educators; increased technological sophistication; and questioning attitudes of the general

populace.

Strengths of the Present System The present system has several

strengths that will be of value in the future. These include a

continuing widespread dedication to cooperative education, a

basic institutional structure capable of implementing needed

educational innovations and improvements, an array of materials and programs currently available, public interest in the

rejuvenation of rural America, and renewed interest in public

education.

Little Overlap Found Contrary to common perceptions, the

Task Force found little overlap in effort among the cooperative

education providers. In fact, there is a remarkable level of

coordination and assignment or acceptance of roles. Most

organizations or institutions serve specific and well-defined

audiences with specialized programs geared to those audiences.

What Message Should Cooperative Education Deliver? The basic

orientation for cooperative education must be one of self-interest: How individual interests can be better served through

vi
group action. Recipients of cooperative education must be

shown how the cooperative form of organization can personally benefit them. Cooperatives must be presented as an effective

organizational option within the American business system.

While many topics need to be covered within a complete cooperative education program, they must be constantly linked back

to cooperative principles in their most basic and easily understood form.

What Are Priorities for Changing Materials? Materials must be

individualized both in use and message, with a focus on

hands-on activities and approaches. They must be adaptable

to short learning periods. Messages must be simple and practical. Control by the end-user, in terms of how and when the

materials are used, cannot be compromised. The core of materials used in cooperative education will include traditional

written materials and visuals, videos, and software for personal computers. These media and technologies are widely

available, highly adaptable, relatively simple to learn and use,

and flexible in terms of the timing and duration of use.

Providers of materials and programs should focus resources

on filling gaps in current offerings using these mainstream

technologies.

How Should Materials Be Targeted? Except for some special situations, the basic content and materials for cooperative education are relatively well defined and developed. However,

depending on a single format or presentation for a given topic

will not be sufficient in the future. Materials must meet the

unique needs of specific audiences. Unless educational materials and programs carry the appropriate message to identified

audiences, the effectiveness of cooperative education will be

diminished.

Who Will Be the Educators? Essential to cooperative education

is a core of educators knowledgeable in cooperatives and

vii
cooperative issues. An extensive investment in training this

vital educator core is required. Key educator groups should be

targeted, including county or State Extension personnel, secondary-level teachers of agricultural education, general business and social studies, university teachers in agribusiness

and business, and education specialists within cooperatives.

Ag and Non-Ag Efforts Must Be Merged. The nearly automatic

assignment of cooperative education by schools and universities to agricultural departments or programs must change.

Cooperatives are not limited to agriculture. The segregation

between agricultural and non-agricultural cooperative education cannot be maintained. Bridges must be built between

agricultural and other segments of our educational system.

Collaborative research and curriculum development is also

required.

The National Materials Clearinghouse. Lack of knowledge of

availability of materials and programs was repeatedly identified as a problem constraining teaching of cooperative concepts. A central clearinghouse function is needed to collect

and widely disseminate information and descriptions of cooperative education tools, programs, and other resources available from all segments of the cooperative community. The system would need to be constantly updated and include

materials relating to all types of cooperatives. A speakers

bureau function could also be maintained. Funding, broadbased support, and cooperation will be necessary.

Elementary and Secondary School Programs. The primary goal

of cooperative teaching in elementary and middle schools is to

introduce students to the term “cooperative” and show basic

benefits that may be achieved from cooperation. At the secondary level, a fuller description of cooperatives is possible,

as a part of business, economics, or social studies programs.

Teaching techniques may include working examples,

VIII
practicums, and hands-on acquaintance with local cooperatives. Any new burden upon public education systems

imposed by the addition of courses or units on cooperative

education competes for an already critically limited pool of

time and resources. Support for teacher training, purchase of

school materials, and other support by cooperatives and their

associations will be required. This approach has been used by

cooperative organizations in some States to place ACS’

“Understanding Cooperatives” in secondary schools. At the

elementary school level, NCFC’s “Business in Our Town”

could be handled the same way.

Llniversity Level Progmms. At the university level, cooperative

topics should be included in courses that address business,

economics, management, accounting, or organizational subjects. In some instances, separate courses on cooperatives are

appropriate. Expanded cooperative education at the university level will require more appropriate teaching materials,

introduction into nonagricultural areas, and a major familiarization of faculty with the role and importance of cooperative

businesses. Research is an integral part of the university educational mission and should also be expanded beyond the traditional agricultural economics curricula.

Youth and Educator Groups. Cooperative education planning

must involve the many organizations that support educational

institutions or groups of students, including adults. Examples

are FFA, 4-H, National Vocational Agricultural Teachers

Association, National Association of County Agricultural

Agents, Ag in the Classroom, farm organizations, and various

committees on special areas of education. These organizations

are extremely active in the education of youth and play an

important role in establishing priorities in public school curriculum development.

ix
Education Within Cooperatives. Successful cooperatives have

leaders, members, and employees who understand their roles

and obligations within the cooperative setting. Directors are

the single most critical audience for cooperative education,

because the survival of the cooperative depends on their ability to make complex decisions in some very specialized areas.

Employees must also understand the cooperative, because

they are the primary direct contact with members. Only if

cooperatives themselves are committed will educational investments

be made and programs conducted and only then will the benefits of

education be realized by the cooperative.

Critical Role of Sta te Cooperative Councils. A considerable

amount of cooperative educational work done outside individual cooperatives is conducted or facilitated by State cooperative councils. State councils are uniquely positioned to

communicate with and influence all parties to the cooperative

education process. Because of the critical role they play on

behalf of their own members in the cooperative community,

State councils must be strongly supported and their needs

given high priority.

How Can We Bring About the Necessary Changes? The basic

challenge is to induce those who should be involved with

cooperative education to become involved. Individuals, institutions, or cooperatives have the incentive to become involved

in cooperative education when it contributes to achieving

their goals. Out of this, we define two strategies for increasing

involvement in education: (1) establish, encourage, or otherwise promote the adoption of goals supportive of cooperative

education; or (2) demonstrate how cooperative education contributes to achieving existing goals.

Cooperatives Must Provide Support. Unless cooperatives themselves are motivated to provide privately conducted education, whether by cooperatives themselves or through organiX
zations they fund, few other efforts will be successful.

Motivation for cooperative education must be clear and

strong, or it will not be translated into funding for specific

cooperative education projects and programs.

xi
Cooperative Education

Task Force: Final Report

PART I: A VISION FOR COOPERATIVE EDUCATION

Any set of ideas and prescriptions designed to inspire

and guide must begin with a vision of what should exist at the

end of the journey. The Task Force is guided by a vision of

cooperative education-what it should be at and after the turn

of the century, and, more importantly, what changes would be

seen in the educated populace as a result of cooperative education. We hope all involved in cooperative education see

some part of the vision in their work.

Why Cooperative Education?

What justifies spending precious resources on cooperative education? Why are individuals, organizations, and institutions committed to education specifically about cooperatives? What justifies a call for further cooperative education

efforts in the face of restricted resources at all levels of the

business and education communities?

Before a vision for cooperative education can be defined

and justified, the purposes of cooperative education should be

identified and accepted with commitment. Full agreement by

everyone involved in cooperative education is not required.

Each audience for and provider of cooperative education will

have its specific purposes. However, several overall purposes

of cooperative education were identified in the task force

meetings and deliberations. The more important purposes are

listed here. They define a mission for cooperative education

broad enough to reflect many differing views of education,

but specific enough to include the limited goals and focus of

highly individual programs.
Better Cooperatives The character of the cooperative

business enterprise, based on the voluntary association of

individuals with a common specific business or economic

purpose, places great responsibility on members, directors,

and management to know the essential principles of

cooperatives and understand how principles translate into

successful cooperative decisionmaking and business conduct.

Cooperatives cannot provide services and income to users,

their primary purpose, unless they are operated in a

businesslike fashion with the full support of knowledgeable

members, directors, and management.

One purpose of cooperative education, particularly that directed to members, directors, management, and outside professional

advisors, is to set the stage for successful cooperatives.

Appreciation of Options Without a knowledge of what

cooperatives are, how they operate, and what they can do for

individuals, those who have a need for goods and services

cannot assess the benefits of a cooperative business enterprise

as one of the ways they may meet their needs. While the

general population is aware of sole proprietorships,

partnerships, and corporations as ways to organize and

conduct business in a market economy, many have had little

or no exposure whatsoever to the cooperative business

enterprise. If individuals and businesses do not know what

cooperatives are, their structure, and what they do for

members, they will be limited in their search for ways to

satisfy economic needs.

A second purpose of cooperative education is to provide eve yone with enough knowledge about the cooperative form of business

enterprise so they can to make at least a preliminary, informed

assessment of the cooperative approach as a possible option.

Business, Economic, and Public Policy Environment

Cooperatives, like all other businesses and institutions,

operate within business, economic, and public policy

2
environments. These environments may be very specific as in

the case of a particular law regulating or governing

cooperatives, or general as in the character of a market in

which cooperatives function. In any case, environments may

be greatly affected by what is known and believed about

cooperatives by business persons, the public, potential users,

and public policymakers.

A third goal of cooperative education is to provide sufficient

understanding to responsible individuals and public policymakers to

be sure the cooperative form of business enterprise is not disadvantaged by lack of understanding.

What Is Cooperative Education?

For this report, cooperative education is defined as teaching that emphasizes understanding of the cooperative form of

business enterprise. Cooperative education is the process by

which we affect the relationship between the individual and

the cooperative organization in a way that supports and

advances the success of the cooperative endeavor. It is a set of

activities, actions, and programs designed to enhance an individual’s knowledge of and attitudes toward cooperatives and

the use of a cooperative approach to solve economic, business,

and social problems. Cooperative education is more than promotional or informational activities, job skills training, or general member relations activities. It is not simple, basic financial or business strategy training, although in cooperatives

such training, by necessity, incorporates and implements

cooperative principles and concepts. In fact, such training frequently provides the setting for cooperative education.

Because training on many different subjects integrates cooperative ideas, those involved in such activities, in fact, carry out

cooperative education.

Cooperative education activities and programs are

designed to help individuals understand the unique principles, structures, and practices that distinguish cooperative

3
organizations from other types of businesses and how these

characteristics translate into benefits for user-owners. Since

preservation of these unique characteristics is necessary if the

user-owner benefits orientation of the cooperative is to be

maintained, cooperative education is necessary for any cooperative organization.

The primary reasons for cooperative education are (1) to

facilitate, encourage, and foster the cooperative characteristics

of the organization and (2) to ensure a broad-based understanding of the cooperative form of business as a recognized

organizational option in a wide variety of circumstances.

Cooperative education is essential to ensure that an organization continues to operate in a manner consistent with basic

cooperative principles.

Cooperative education has three main components:

1. Explain unique characteristics of the cooperative organizations compared with other forms of business organization,

2. Identify benefits derived from those unique characteristics, and

3. Guide decisions within the context of a cooperative’s

unique characteristics, thereby preserving the benefits flowing

from those characteristics.

Many types of educational activities conducted within

the cooperative setting are called cooperative education.

However, a distinction should be drawn between education

relating strictly to the business operations of the cooperative,

technical aspects of operations, and general laws and regulations affecting all businesses, and education regarding matters

unique to the cooperatives. Most cooperative education activity includes both.

The conceptual separation of cooperative education from

other forms of training and education within an organization

should in no way imply the need to separate cooperative education from the other education activities conducted by the

firm. In most cases, such a separation would be neither practi4
cal nor wise. Cooperative education can and should be transported on the more general education vehicle. At the very

least, it should be invited along for the ride.

The Vision for Cooperative Education

Where do we want cooperative education to be in the

near future? What do we seek as providers and financiers of

cooperative education? Given our goals for cooperative education, we establish this vision statement for cooperative education in the United States:

Every individual in the United States should have

enough knowledge about the cooperative form of business enterprise to know its general distinguishing

characteris tics, assess its appropriateness to meet economic and social needs, and recognize cooperatives’

purposes and benefits. Eve y cooperative member

should have enough knowledge about the cooperative

form of business enterprise to know his or her responsibilities toward the cooperative and what is expected in

the way of control, finance, and patronage.

This statement has as its corollaries a public and private

commitment to cooperative education, school systems at all

levels geared to provide such information to students, and

educational materials widely distributed and appropriate to a

wide range of audience needs. These corollaries are evident in

the remaining discussion of cooperative education.

PART II: ASSESSING THE PRESENT ENVIRONMENT

What Has Changed in the Environment for Cooperative

Education?

In recent years, the environment for cooperative education has significantly changed in several ways. These include

changes in the nature of cooperatives and cooperative busi5
ness, audience demographics, resource constraints, philosophy of cooperatives leaders, public perception of the value of

cooperative education, technological advances, and the growing preference of many organizations for investing in internal

cooperative education programs.

Cooperatives have been forced by the competitive environment, financial institutions, and accepted business practices to examine all activities and operations in terms of return

on investment. The definition of cooperative firms has

changed. Some differences between cooperative and noncooperative firms have become less distinct as cooperatives

increasingly become involved with nontraditional business

alliances, such as joint ventures among cooperatives and with

investor-oriented firms. The way cooperative education is

approached and its value to the organization may have been

affected by these developments.

Public resources devoted to cooperative education have

diminished on nearly all fronts over the last two decades. This

trend is related to demographic changes, budget crises at all

levels of government, and the resulting conversion of many

institutions to a focus on income-generating activities.

University involvement in teaching cooperative topics

has declined considerably While a few universities continue

to offer full courses on cooperatives, many others have

replaced full courses with segments of courses devoted to the

topic. Where there were segments, there now may be nothing.

University faculty with cooperative expertise-typically marketing or agribusiness specialists-are not being replaced as

they retire. Rather, their staff positions are being reassigned to

other, more visible fields within the universities. Public

schools, especially with agricultural education curricula, are

devoting less to cooperatives as the agricultural student base

declines. As with universities, specialized expertise in cooperatives is not being replaced. No adequate, concerted effort is

underway to bring that training to present agricultural education teachers.

6
Within the public school and university system, emphasis on cooperatives has been generally confined to the agricultural components of the education system. General business

education has rarely included cooperatives as a component of

their curriculum or a topic within their courses. Emphasis on

the investor-owned firm structure is increasingly favored over

other forms of business. Thus, while we have witnessed an

increasing interest in pursuing business education, particularly at the MBA level, cooperative topics have been bypassed.

Resources devoted by cooperatives to cooperative education is more problematic. Much of the so-called “cooperative

education” is, in fact, general orientation, business training,

technical training, job skills training, or member and public

relations. Because the term “cooperative education” is often

used to mean training different from that discussed in this

report, the amount of cooperative funds devoted to such education is unknown. Of some concern has been the apparent

“internalization” of cooperative education investment by

cooperatives. Cooperatives may be devoting a smaller portion

of their expenditures on education to programs offered by

outside groups involved with cooperative education, such as

the State cooperative councils or national groups providing

educational services, although this, too, is difficult to assess.

The reasons for this internalization of cooperatives’ education

expenditures are many and varied, yet, two themes are dominant-the desire to control the timing, content, and presentation of programs and materials; and the loss of a sense of community and common interest in education among the Nation’s

cooperatives. With the extremely difficult adjustments faced

by cooperatives during the 198Os, the concepts of investment

in the long-run health of the cooperative community via

investment in education were often dominated by the need to

merely survive.

These trends have caused many institutions and organizations involved in cooperative education to struggle for survival as well. An atmosphere of competition has created the

7
appearance, to some observers, that there is considerable

overlap and duplication of efforts by different provider

groups and institutions. Such observations, the Task Force

found, are decidedly untrue. There is little overlap in effort

among the cooperative education providers. In fact, there is a

remarkable level of coordination and assignment or acceptance of roles. Most organizations or institutions serve specific

and well-defined audiences and specialized programs geared

to those audiences. Thus, while many groups are involved in

the general area of cooperative education, there is very little

overlap in function between the groups. Although there continues to be room for improvement in coordination, the cooperative education community shares a common purpose.

Where stresses exist between providers, it is more a function

of each group struggling to remain financially able to serve in

its accepted and defined role, rather than a result of groups

attempting to expand their roles into other areas. For groups

financially capable of expanding, there remain many voids or

gaps to be filled in the cooperative education market.

Information technologies have changed rapidly.

Cooperative educators must compete with numerous other

media and messages. Computer and video technologies have

completely reshaped the methods and strategies for reaching

contemporary audiences. Information technologies and technologically based formats have evolved so rapidly that often a

particular system is obsolete before most of the mainstream

population has been introduced to it.

This presents significant challenges to educators and

developers of educational materials. With a movement back to

the educational basics and limited resources available, these

groups must carefully choose materials in which to invest.

They must invest in durability in an atmosphere that can easily render their choices wrong. Educators cannot afford to be

highly experimental as they chose appropriate method for the

audience and the subject.
Social change and economic pressures have directed

cooperative leaders toward a more technocratic and bottomline orientation. For many, cooperative education has become

a tool for improving sales or calming a restive membership.

Within the education sector, a similar shift is seen. Much of

the philosophical driving force behind cooperative education

has been supplanted by a pragmatic allocation of limited

resources to areas of most immediate and measurable payoff.

Recognition of and adaptation to this trend by providers of

educational materials and programs are essential.

Existing Strengths

The environment for cooperative education, however, is

not bleak. Response to cooperative education needs should

build upon the present foundation. Several key strengths are

identified as a starting point for much of the Task Force’s

encouragement, strengths that may be tapped in every future

education activity.

Cooperative Education Tradition Cooperatives in this

country, particularly in agriculture, bring a long and

illustrious tradition of cooperative education. This tradition is

maintained in institutions and among individuals and

cooperatives who have been part of cooperative education.

Recognition continues among many within the cooperative

community that cooperative education is of true importance

to the long-term interests of cooperative organizations. The

need to increase investment in cooperative education is

generally accepted, and the dedication to cooperative

education by many cooperative leaders is real and focused.

One of the major, but unmeasurable strengths upon which any

continuing cooperative education thrust can draw is

widespread dedication to it. Institutions, cooperative

organizations, and individuals contain a collective pool of

commitment. Although not always expressed, and often

9
diminished by lack of funding or facilitating support, this

interest should not be neglected. We should not wax nostalgic

upon the days when cooperative education had higher

visibility and a greater number of people involved in

programs, institutions, and within cooperatives. Many

declines in cooperative educational resources are recent

enough that dedication remains, and renewal can occur under

the right circumstances and with the right incentives.

lnsfitutions The Task Force found a basic institutional

structure, public and private, capable of implementing needed

educational innovations or improvements. This is not to say

changes aren’t required, but it does indicate that much

groundwork for effective education is in place to make

revitalization possible, permitting educators to concentrate on

developing programs rather than on the laborious task of

establishing new institutions.

Public education institutions include school systems of

all kinds. The challenge is not to create entirely new structures, but to inject cooperative education into existing systems. Other public institutions provide support and services

for cooperatives. The challenge for these institutions is to

adapt to the continually changing educational needs of the

cooperative community and the general public.

Institutions used for cooperative education by private

providers include State cooperative councils and national

organizations with educational missions. All have educational

traditions and are capable of responding to current and developing needs in cooperative education, given support and

direction.

Those dedicated to improving cooperative education can look to

many existing institutions as a strength from which to expand.

Resource Materials The extensive discussions of the need

for more and different educational materials in the Task Force

Report should not obscure the fact that one of the strengths of

10
the present cooperative education “system” is the collection of

materials and array of programs now available or soon to be

made available. Some of these are noted by way of example in

discussion of resources and needs for specific audiences,

summarized below. Institutions, cooperatives, and school

systems need not start from scratch. The challenge for those

who prepare materials or conduct programs is to be sure all

available information is used, and then take the most efficient

steps to expand its usefulness.

Cooperative education can, without long delay, draw upon the

work already done in preparation of cooperative materials, incorporating as it does to varying degrees, the substance, design, and creativity of educators at many diflerent levels of education. This base

can be used to prepare other information, materials, and programs as

needed.

Rural Rejuvenation The growth of public awareness and

interest in the rejuvenation of rural America and the rural

economy presents a strong argument for a major cooperative

education initiative. The cooperative form of business is a

highly effective method for accomplishing many rural

development goals. This method stresses self-help and citizen

involvement and investment.

Renewed Public Interest in Education Renewed public

interest in education should be viewed as an opportunity for

injecting new cooperative education initiatives into the school

systems. It is an opportunity to broaden the audience beyond

the strictly agricultural focus of the past. As attention is turned

to the store of knowledge our young persons should be given to live

productive andfulfilling lives, a knowledge of cooperative business

enterprise should be an essential part of the public education

agenda. Any new funding sources or redirection of emphasis

on subjects should be monitored closely and, where possible,

be influenced to include cooperative education.

11
Who Are Cooperative Education Audiences?

Educational goals, techniques, materials, and funding

differ according to recipients. Task Force panelists emphasized

the need to design activities for each audience. Educators

themselves may also be audiences. The Task Force has identified the major audiences of cooperative education. Special

needs and the current status of materials and programs appropriate to each audience are addressed later.

Elementary-Level Students and Schools Elementary and

middle school students can learn the basics of cooperation in

connection with several subjects within the curriculum. At

this level, the primary goal is to introduce students to the term

“cooperative” and show elementary benefits that may be

achieved from cooperation in an organized business.

Cooperatives are best described in a setting in which students

learn about the ways we do business in a market economy.

The schools (school systems, administration, and teachers) themselves are audiences for cooperative education. In

most cases, school personnel must be taught about cooperatives. Further, materials are needed for effective teaching, and,

as recipients, teachers and others are audiences for whom specially designed efforts must be made.

Little cooperative education is conducted in elementary

schools (all levels prior to high school). Some material is available to support cooperative education, but is of a localized

nature. A teaching resource package, including a new video

on four ways of doing business, called “Business in Our

Town,” is available from the National Council of Farmer

Cooperatives. It serves most needs for basic teaching materials. Direct assistance from cooperatives will be necessary to

place these and other appropriate materials in local schools.

Secondary-Level Students and Schools AS with

elementary education, both high school students and schools

12
are audiences for cooperative education. A greater amount of

cooperative education is present in high schools, although

mostly limited to agricultural education programs. At this

level, a fuller description of cooperatives is possible within

general business, social studies, or economic classes. Effective

teaching techniques include working examples, practicums,

and hands-on acquaintance with local cooperatives. High

school students often focus on specific areas of interest.

Cooperative subjects may be tailored to special programs,

such as vocational agricultural programs. However, students

in all programs are suitable for cooperative education.

The greatest challenge for cooperative education in elementary and secondary schools is motivating school systems

to include cooperative topics. Three considerations will determine its success.

First, any material or encouragement for cooperative

education must fit into a school system’s curriculum.

Curriculum requirements should be studied for each school

system to see how cooperative education can best be adopted.

Within this context, teachers must be given enough information and supporting material so they can teach the elements

with limited preparation.

Second, the instigation of education must also be targeted to those most likely to influence its acceptance and implementation. Whether the primary targets are teachers, local

administration, or State administration will depend upon each

State’s characteristics. For the most part, the main burden of

encouraging cooperative education will fall on cooperatives in

the local area.

Third, a major effort will be required to expand cooperative education at the high school level beyond agriculture. The

vision for cooperative education suggests such an expansion,

but the separation of many agricultural programs from the

remainder of the system makes transfer difficult in most situations. Support for teacher training, purchase of educational

13
materials, and other support may be required to follow up on

motivating cooperative education.

Cooperatives and their associations will bear the burden

of this support. The ACS self-contained course

“Understanding Cooperatives” fills the need for innovative

education at this level. With the support and encouragement

of cooperatives and State councils, units of “Understanding

Cooperatives” have been placed in secondary schools in several States. Continued and expanded support of this nature is

needed.

In summary, cooperative education will only be included in

the public school systems if individuals within the system are convinced of its value in the general curriculum, appropriate materials

are available, and widespread and intensive efforts are made by cooperatives and their associations to support and implement its adoption.

Universities, Students, and Researchers In most cases,

cooperative education at the university level is tied

specifically to course work. Not all majors require courses in

which cooperative topics are appropriate. However,

cooperative topics should be included in courses that address

business, economics, management, accounting, or

organizational subjects. In some instances, separate courses on

cooperatives are appropriate. The level of presentation will, of

course, vary widely depending on the course level and

purpose. Cooperative education is also needed in graduate

and professional schools.

Research is usually considered to be an integral part of

the university educational mission. University researchers are

audiences for material on cooperatives and they, in turn, generate products that can become integrated into teaching roles.

As in teaching, university research on cooperatives should be

expanded beyond the traditional agricultural economics curricula.
Cooperative education at the university level varies from

entire courses to no coverage at all. For the most part, cooperative topics are covered only in the agricultural schools and

not as part of more general business, accounting, and economic curricula. Teaching materials on cooperatives are limited,

save for individual interest by professors, to the textbook,

Cooperatives in Agriculture.

Expanded cooperative education at the university level

will require more suitable teaching materials, introduction

into nonagricultural areas, and a major familiarization of faculty with the role and importance of cooperative businesses.

Teaching materials must be tailored to course work. The

need for a full text on cooperatives is limited, because seldom

will a full course on cooperatives be offered outside agriculture. Under ideal circumstances, each textbook on business,

economics, or other related subjects would contain material on

cooperatives that is relevant to the text subject. Lacking that,

short addenda to existing texts may be appropriate. Resource

materials on cooperative topics that can be incorporated into

more general courses must be made more widely available.

The challenge is, as with other school systems, to motivate the university system to include cooperative topics as

part of its instructional system. Also as with other school systems, the burden will fall on cooperatives themselves, working

through whatever channels are appropriate in the system to express

their desires for cooperative education.

Funding is important, particularly in research. If cooperatives expect cooperative research to occur, they must determine how to support the educational system and researcher to

make that resource commitment possible.

Education Support Organizations Cooperative education

planning must involve the many organizations that support

educational institutions or groups of students, including

adults. Examples are FFA, 4-H, National Vocational

Agricultural Teachers Association, National Association of

15
County Agricultural Agents, Ag in the Classroom, farm

organizations, and various committees on special areas of

education. These organizations are extremely active in the

education of youth and play an important role in establishing

priorities in public school curriculum development. They also

become audiences for cooperative education depending upon

what they do for educators, schools systems, or students.

Cooperatives Cooperatives, themselves, are audiences for

cooperative education when they engage an educational

activity and establish a demand for materials, programs,

courses, or funding. Cooperatives’ educational activities and

their needs vary widely. As examples, cooperatives may have

director, member, and young farmer programs; participate in

youth programs; distribute information about cooperatives;

participate in State cooperative council activities; or have

programs designed for public information about cooperatives.

Cooperative Members Successful cooperatives typically

have members who understand their obligations to the

cooperative in governance or control, financial obligations,

and patronage. An appreciation for these obligations is

conveyed through educational activities. The narrower subject

of cooperative education, the special characteristics of

cooperative business enterprises, is often combined with

marketing information and programs aimed at developing

loyalty and expressing benefits to members. Education for

members depends on the cooperative’s specific member

education goals. Members may receive education through the

cooperative itself or programs associated with outside groups

or through more general educational activities. In either case,

cooperative members are a distinct audience for education.

Cooperative Directors Cooperative businesses place specific

and unique responsibilities on directors. Because of their

importance for the survival of cooperatives and their highly

16

s
specialized training needs, directors are a critical audience for

cooperative education. However, director training needs are

not all the same. While some skills, knowledge, and duties are

common to all cooperatives, specific needs depend on

cooperative size, complexity, type of business, and structure.

In addition, cooperatives vary widely in their commitment to

director education. Directors may receive education at a range

of levels from a variety of providers.

Programs for directors vary widely in complexity, sophistication, and level of attendance. Many cooperatives draw on

outside education such as State cooperative councils, the university system, and national organizations to conduct programs.

Two motivational needs exist for director education. The

first is at the cooperative level. Some cooperatives are heavily

committed to educating directors; others are not. Many directors are eager to attend educational programs, while others

never spend the time or effort to attend. Only ifcooperatives

themselves (the directors as policymakers) are committed to director

education will it be conducted and the benefits of educated directors

be realized.

Cooperative Employees Cooperative employees work for a

unique organization. Their effectiveness may be increased

substantially if they fully understand that uniqueness and act

accordingly. Some cooperatives go to great lengths to provide

this education. Others make little effort to distinguish their

organization from any other. The variation in employee

education is great, depending on the type and wishes of the

individual cooperative. Cooperatives must identify the unique

characteristics of their organization as a subject for employee

knowledge and training.

Other Audiences A range of other audiences with special

needs for cooperative education may include policymakers,

professional specialists such as accountants and lawyers, and

17
the general public. Each presents special challenges in how

they are reached and what form educational programs and

materials should take.

State Cooperative Councils Considerable cooperative

education work outside individual cooperatives is conducted

or facilitated by State cooperative councils. Within the group

of State councils, a wide range of educational methods,

funding, and audiences exists. It is not possible to identify any

uniform need for educational materials or programs by

councils. However, because of the role they play on behalf of

their members in the cooperative community, needs of State

cooperative councils as an audience for cooperative education

efforts by others is given high priority.

How Have Cooperative Education Audiences Changed?

A number of changes in the audiences for cooperative

education were noted during the course of Task Force deliberations. Generally, they relate to numbers of participants within each audience, changes in the backgrounds of recipients,

changing attitudes and expectations, and competition for individuals’ time for educational activities.

One significant change in the audience for cooperative

education relating to farmer cooperatives is the decline in the

size of a traditional primary audience-students from farm

backgrounds. The number of farm students entering various

agricultural or agribusiness fields of study has clearly

declined. However, there is a continued interest in agricultural

and food system topics by students with nonfarm backgrounds. The typical agricultural student of the past may have

had some association with the cooperative idea through his or

her farm family’s involvement. The typical urban or nonfarm

student has no such familiarity.

Demographic changes are in evidence among agricultural cooperatives. The membership base of the traditional agri18
cultural cooperatives is aging. The generation moving into

control of the farming sector lacks the zeal for cooperatives,

patience for long-run benefits, or knowledge of what markets

may be like without cooperatives.

Urban audiences have grown and with them, use of

cooperatives in their daily lives. However, outside of the education within some consumer, housing, and other organizations, the nonfarm audience is largely untouched by cooperative education. Cooperatives have never been a part of any

general curriculum. The audience among urban and nonfarm

individuals is large. Their needs for cooperative education are

more varied than for the traditional recipient. The broad range

of circumstances under which cooperatives may be used, wide

range of membership interests, and greater variety of forms

such cooperatives may take, distinguish this audience group

from the traditional farmer audience.

Overall, characteristics of the typical audience member

for cooperative education have changed considerably-less

farm or rural and more nonfarm or urban; less farm, more

non-farm. Further, the distinction between the rural and urban

components of the audience, as well as between geographic

division, has been blurred. For all the diversity in the United

States, common cultural exposure and experience have grown,

largely a result of the influence of a common media and entertainment system. Nationally, the 15-to-30 year old group of

residents is extremely small, resulting in overcapacity in our

education system. This will be somewhat alleviated with the

aging of the so-called “second baby boomlet.” But, this will

likely bring some fundamental changes in education philosoPhY.

The typical audience member for cooperative education

presents a greater challenge to the educator. Self-interest is

more dominant than the common good philosophy traditionally associated with cooperative efforts. For cooperative education, this needs to be recognized, accepted, and accommodated.

19
The greatest challenge in reaching most potential audiences for cooperative education is winning the competition for

the individual’s time in our school systems-both the student

and teacher. People have increasing demands on their time

and less willingness to commit large blocks of time to any particular endeavor. Many have argued that the problems associated with this unwillingness is compounded by a declining

attention span. Thus, educators are challenged with problems

of both willingness and ability for certain types of educational

activity.

Similar challenges face nonstudents. Employees, members, and directors have limited time for educational activities.

Each program must compete effectively with myriad other

activities.

The contemporary audience is more technologically

advanced. It expects technology to make things interesting

and encourage them to be involved. It wants technology to

take the drudgery out of learning. It associates information

technology with entertainment and fun.

Finally, the contemporary audience is questioning, sometimes to the point of being cynical. Any effective cooperative

education program must be of the highest quality, based on

proof, not promises, explanation, not preaching. The changes

in audience characteristics are mirrored in the changing characteristics of educators themselves. Teaching tools must be

designed with the needs and traits of both the students and

educators in mind.

PART III: IDENTIFIED SYSTEM NEEDS

Each audience and cooperative education provider has

certain specialized requirements. Many were identified in the

surveys and panel discussions. They are detailed in the following sections of this report.

However, several “system” needs were identified and

discussed during the Task Force’s study. These were usually

20
expressed as general concerns or goals for the overall cooperative education effort in the United States.

From these discussions, it was evident that the current

state of cooperative education contains some strengths

through which continuing and future cooperative education

can be invigorated. These may be specific to audiences or

providers or more general.

Motivation and Funding

Several needs were identified as concerns for most audiences and providers. They included concerns for general support for cooperative education and indicated the need to

devote more resources to cooperative education. If the vision

of cooperative education is to be fulfilled, these broader needs

must be met.

Motivation for Private/y Conducted Education “Privately

conducted education” refers to cooperative education

conducted by cooperatives themselves or through

organizations they fund, such as national organizations

involved in cooperative education or State cooperative

councils. The education may be directed toward the

cooperatives and their associated audiences (members,

directors, management, employees) or may be broader

educational activities. In any case, such education will not be

conducted without the commitment of cooperatives

themselves. The level of commitment will depend on

motivation. The motivation for privately conducted education

is based on differing views of education and its role in the

success of cooperatives. Some of the historic support for

cooperation has been lost with the passing of the generations

whose survival depended upon cooperatives. Also lost was

the commitment to cooperative education that necessarily

accompanied that zeal. Motivation, often based on

profitability calculations, has been lacking where the benefits

21
of cooperative education were not clearly articulated or

proven.

A high level of cooperative education, supported by

cooperatives, requires considerable motivation. The Task

Force heard calls for renewed dedication to cooperative education and a focus at the cooperative level on motivation for

providing or supporting it.

The consensus was that unless cooperatives themselves are

motivated to provide privately conducted education themselves or

through organizations they fund, few other efforts will be successful.

Funding for Privately Conducted Education Closely

associated with motivation is the need for funding of

privately conducted cooperative education. Without funds,

little can be done. Funding for these programs comes almost

exclusively from resources dedicated to that purpose by

cooperatives themselves. Programs and materials come

directly from the cooperative. Educational activities

conducted by State cooperative councils or national

organizations are funded by cooperatives through dues or

fees.

The Task Force saw the close connection between motivation and funding. Motivation for cooperative education must be

clear and strong, or it won‘t be translated into funding for specific

cooperative education projects and programs. In addition, motivation by various participants will determine where and for

what purpose funds will be supplied.

Motivation for Public Education Public education that

includes cooperative concepts, at all levels of the public school

system, will not exist without a motivating force to be sure

cooperative topics are included in subjects at appropriate

times.

Any effort to encourage public education systems to

include cooperative topics must be tailored to things relevant

to the school system. School systems have broad missions

22
around which their activities and course work is designed.

The value of cooperative education must be demonstrated in

the context of how public education systems work, what their

goals are, and what they need in return.

While the overall value of cooperative education may be

broadly stated, efforts in schools to encourage cooperative

education must be carefully directed within each system. This

includes subject matter and persons to contact. Cooperative

education must correspond to particular subject matter covered within a school system’s curriculum. It must be shown

how cooperative education relates to specific topics the school

is required to teach and how cooperative education materials

or programs satisfies those specific needs.

At the same time, the public value of cooperative education must be demonstrated. In some systems the importance

of the cooperative form of business enterprise may be evident.

In most, however, it will be necessary to educate the system

about the importance of cooperatives and, more directly, the

importance of cooperative education to the general student

population.

Finally, public education on cooperatives will not take

place unless cooperatives convince the public that it should be

part of the public education system. Motivation and encouragement must come from cooperatives, individually and

through appropriate organizations.

Without private commitment to cooperative education and its

transfer to the public, cooperative education will not find a significant place in the American public school systems.

Funding for Public Education Any new burden on public

education systems imposed by the addition of cooperative

education courses or units competes for an already critically

limited pool of time and resources. If cooperative topics are to

be added, the public education systems’ predicament must be

recognized and alternatives that adapt to and accommodate

these limitations explored.

23
Although direct contribution by cooperatives to fund

public education on cooperatives is limited, alternatives may

include providing materials to school systems at cooperatives’

expense to avoid additional direct outlays by the public. This

approach has been successfully used by cooperative organizations in some States where ACS’s “Understanding

Cooperatives” has been placed in secondary schools. A similar

approach at the elementary school level with NCFC’s

“Business in Our Town” is recommended. In addition, materials and subject matter may be designed so that other related

school system needs are met at the same time cooperative topics are included. Packages that cover general business subjects

for the system, for instance, could include cooperative subjects.

Acknowledgement of the limited public resources available for

cooperative education must be part of any plan to include the subject

in public education systems at any level.

Sense of Cooperative Community In all discussion panel

meetings, panelists indicated that cooperative education will

be strengthened immeasurably if all types of cooperatives

recognize their common interest and the collective benefit

received from effective cooperative education. Although

variation exists in emphasis, forums, and purposes of

education among types of cooperatives, a great common core

of educational principles, needs, and benefits was found. Only

if the sense of community in cooperative education is clearly

identified and tapped will the full vision of cooperative

education be within reach.

Technology and Materials

Audience-Specific Materials Except for some specialized

situations, the basic content and materials for cooperative

education are well defined and have been developed in many

ways over the years. However, any program, set of materials,

24
or other activity involving cooperative education must be

tailored to the individual audience and circumstances, as well

as to the individual instructor. Who provides the needed

resources and how finely honed the packages should be

depends on needs and circumstances. Unless educational

materials and programs are designed to carry appropriate

messages to identified audiences and education providers, the

value of cooperative education will be diminished.

Availability of Materials In addition to educational materials

designed for varied audiences and education providers,

panelists and survey respondents emphasized that

appropriate materials should be widely available.

Material should be both available and easily accessible so

requests can be quickly filled. This suggests pools of available

materials ready for use under a wide variety of circumstances.

When materials are accessible, both duplication and the per

unit cost of producing materials are reduced.

In summary, easily accessible material on cooperative education will not only increase the ease and efficiency of existing eclucational activities, but also facilita te new programs.

Technologies and Media The Task Force heard considerable

discussion about the need to use the best technology available

for contemporary cooperative education. But, the most

advanced technology may not always be the most

appropriate.

The core of materials used in cooperative education will

include written materials and visuals, videos, and computerbased packages for personal computers. These materials will

stand alone or be packaged in integrated teaching modules.

Educators and students alike will avoid technologies that

require a substantial investment in learning the technology.

While the Task Force believes more sophisticated technologies

provide potential for creating innovative and exciting teaching materials and methods, it is essential at this juncture to

25
focus resources on doing a complete job with a given set of

mainstream technologies. Advances in educational technologies

should not be mistaken for advances in education. Emphasis should

be placed on quality media and technologies that are widely available, highly adaptable, relatively simple to learn and use, and completelyflexible in terms of the timing and duration of use.

Filling the gaps in current offerings of these mainstream

technologies should be the primary developmental effort of

material and program designers. Many topics and audiences

remain untouched in terms of video presentation. Use of simulations and computer game approaches are just beginning to

demonstrate their usefulness. At the same time, material

developers should keep abreast of new and emerging developments in media technology.

PART IV. BLUEPRINT FOR CHANGE

To make the necessary changes occur, the Task Force proposes a long-term strategy for revitalizing the national effort

in cooperative education. It is designed to gradually change

the present trends and establish momentum toward greater

commitment and improve effectiveness in our cooperative

education programs.

The blueprint for an improved cooperative education

program has three strategic dimensions: preparation, provision, and promotion. We need to prepare our cooperatives,

institutions, and educational professionals to meet the training needs of tomorrow. Cooperatives, their organizations, and

supporting organizations must provide the materials and programs to make sure this training happens. The concepts and

importance of cooperative education must be promoted to

those who can influence its adoption.

Segregation of cooperative education between its agricultural and nonagricultural components cannot be maintained.

The agricultural parts of the cooperative education system

have led the way in promoting public programs for coopera26
tive education, but this history has left much of the present

system isolated from and out of touch with the needs of the

nonagricultural component of the cooperative community

Nonagricultural cooperatives, while generally strong on cooperative education within individual organizations, need to

support and promote cooperative education in the public

arena.

The Message of Cooperative Education

The basic orientation for cooperative education must be

one of self-interest: Serving individual interests through group

action. Recipients of cooperative education must be shown

how the cooperative form of organization can benefit them

personally and be meaningful in their daily lives.

An essential message in all levels of cooperative education is the role played by cooperatives within the contemporary business system. Cooperatives must be presented as an

organizational option within the American business system

with some specific attributes and applications. Cooperatives

must be presented as a method for solving economic problems...a tool for making things happen. Audiences must be

shown how cooperative business principles can be applied to

their individual situations.

Cooperative principles provide the primary message for

cooperative education. While many topics should be presented within a complete education on cooperatives, the message

should be constantly tied back to principles in a form that is

clear and easily understood.

The user- and member-driven focus of the cooperative

form of business must be maintained. User responsibility in

decisionmaking, planning, financing, and control must always

be stressed.

27
What Are the Priorities for Change?

Materials must be designed to meet the needs of specific

audiences or types of audiences. Recipients of cooperative

education will quickly lose interest in materials not sharply

focused to their individual requirements or circumstances.

What this means for material developers and providers is that

depending on a single presentation or a specific topic will not

be sufficient. If, for example, the topic is director rights and

responsibilities, different versions should be developed for

several audiences, including directors, managers, youth, and

members. Each version should present a different perspective,

with examples and details designed for that perspective.

Materials must be individualized both in use and in message. Distance learning, small group methods, or one-on-one

learning will be of increasing importance in some circumstances. Materials and systems that constrain the

educator/facilitator or the audience in terms of timing or content will lose out to those that don’t. Materials and programs

must be built using technologies that allow the individual

user to have complete control over the timing or schedule of

use. Dependence on linkages to larger systems is undesirable.

Material and program developers must focus on handson activities and approaches. Case studies, computer games,

simulations, contests, and other approaches that get education

recipients involved are favored. Many concepts are best

taught within the context of real problems and situations.

Strictly theoretical presentations have little appeal.

Materials and programs must adapt to short learning

periods. Messages must be simple and practical. Programs

must be segmented to make them easy to pick up and put

down. The end-user must maintain maximum control.

An important part of improving the materials and programs available for cooperative education involves modernizing the images. Materials need to reflect a contemporary view

of daily life, business, and agriculture, avoiding sexist and

stereotypical images.

28
Many organizations, especially cooperatives, want materials that carry their logos or are specific to their individual

organizations. This suggests a strategy of developing sets of

base materials that can be adapted and reproduced by individual groups. Adaptation guides to suit specific audiences or

purposes should be an integral part of the basic sets.

Essential to the widespread growth of cooperative education is a core of educators knowledgeable in, and capable of

providing training on cooperatives and cooperative issues. An

extensive effort in training this vital educator core is required.

This effort will represent the primary investment in the cooperative education infrastructure-the investment in human

capital. Four key educator groups can be targeted for this

training or retraining effort: County or State extension personnel; secondary-level teachers of agricultural education; general business and social studies, university teachers in agribusiness and business; and education specialists within

cooperatives.

The nearly automatic assignment by schools and universities of cooperative education to agricultural departments or

programs must change. Cooperatives are not limited to agriculture. Bridges must be built between agricultural and other

segments of our educational system, especially in the fields of

business, economics, and sociology. Collaborative research

and curriculum development is required.

A major challenge facing both providers and users of

education materials is bringing the two groups together.

Knowledge of availability of material and programs was

repeatedly identified as a problem constraining the teaching

of cooperative concepts. In part, this is a problem of materials

simply not being offered for certain types of audiences.

However, it appears that the larger problem is an institutional

one. Materials are available, yet their availability has not been

sufficiently promoted.

The need to improve awareness of the range of educational tools and programs available throughout the country

29
and to increase widespread access to tools and programs will

require a concentrated effort by organizations and institutions

involvedein the production and distribution of cooperative

education materials. The current approach is fractionalized

and incomplete, operated by each producer/provider, each

reaching out to specific segments of the total audience. The

full system of material production and distribution lacks coordination and leaves many audiences and potential audiences

inadequately served. As a result, some audiences are missed

while other efforts are duplicated. The distribution of materials is incomplete.

A national coordinating clearinghouse is needed. The

purpose of the proposed clearinghouse would be to collect

information and descriptions of cooperative education tools,

programs, and other resources available from all segments of

the cooperative community. The information would be readily

available to all cooperatives, educational institutions, and

organizations involved in cooperative education. An on-line

computerized database system could be used to catalogue

existing tools, programs, and materials, receive information of

new offerings as they become available, and publicize the

availability of materials. Most important, the proposed system

would enable cooperative education providers to scan the

complete set of offerings to determine the existence of materials or programs suiting their needs and assist in obtaining

them.

The clearinghouse could also provide a speaker bureau

function. The list of available quality speakers for a range of

topics and audiences could be maintained, providing many

cooperatives and educators with a ready source of the type of

presenters they need for their educational programs.

Two requirements are absolutely essential to the viability

of the clearinghouse that includes participation by all components of the cooperative community. First, the system would

need to be constantly updated to ensure that at any point in

time, all that is available will be on the system. Second, merely

30
focusing on one component, such as agricultural cooperatives,

would partially duplicate some existing efforts-though perhaps improving upon them-without substantially contributing to the expansion and coordination so badly needed by the

total community.

The “clearinghouse” function envisioned by the Task

Force is a substantial undertaking. The mission statement of

National Council of Farmer Cooperatives mandates that

NCFC serve “as an educational resource center, central clearinghouse and coordinator to stimulate use of those educational and training materials and ideas that are available through

cooperatives, educational institutions, and others in all parts

of the country.” The mission, along with current activities

such as publication of the “Educational Resources Guide” that

lists educational materials,programs, and courses, may provide the institutional framework for the serious need for information exchange and resulting efficiency in cooperative education.

However, to fully satisfy the needs identified by the Task

Force, significant expansion of present activities will be

required. Funding, broad-based support, and cooperation will

be necessary.

How Can We Bring About the Necessary Changes?

Cooperative education doesn’t just happen. Somewhere

along the line, someone has to decide to participate in cooperative education-to provide it, encourage it, or make use of it.

The basic problem in cooperative education today is how to

encourage those who should be involved with cooperative

education to make a positive decision to do so. The true issue

is incentives.

In the most general terms, individuals, institutions, or

cooperatives have the incentive to become involved in cooperative education when they perceive involvement will contribute toward the achievement of their goals. Out of this, we

31
define two strategies for stimulating more involvement in

education: (1) We can establish, encourage, or promote adoption of goals that support cooperative education, or (2) We can

alter the perception of how cooperative education can contribute to the achievement of existing goals.

The first strategy involves a range of possibilities including performance evaluation criteria at the personnel and organizational level. For example, a cooperative manager might

have a performance standard that specifies a cooperative education program for all new employees will be conducted.

Another approach includes training or certification standards

for holding certain positions, such as cooperative directors.

For example, a cooperative could require that a newly elected

board member complete a director training program offered

by the cooperative council in that State within the first year of

his or her term. Covenants could be attached to loans,

employment agreements, or marketing agreements that

require some acceptable level of education or training. An

example might be a requirement written into the terms of a

loan from CoBank to qualify for a loan. The cooperative

would be required to send its board or management team

through an intensive cooperative education course.

Fundamental to the first strategy is explicit recognition of

the goals of each significant party to the cooperative education process and how the process relates to those goals. This

represents the “how” of getting cooperative education on the

priority list. It is the carrot on the stick. For example, the

objective of the banker is to make loans with a high probability of repayment. When an educated board increases the likelihood of timely loan repayment, the bank has incentive to

encourage education. When new board members perceive that

cooperative education will give them more influence over the

cooperative’s decisions, they will be more likely to seek training. When the cooperative’s management is directed to carry

out an extensive member education program, it will have

more incentive to increase investment in education.

32
The second basic strategy involves doing a better job of

relating cooperative education activities to the existing goals

of individuals and organizations involved with cooperatives.

This strategy is really the mirror image of the first. We are concerned with measuring the performance of cooperative education programs related to the established goals of the individual or organizations involved.

In the past, the contribution of cooperative education to

the goals of cooperatives and individuals involved with them

has often been widely alleged and treated as gospel truth.

Today we are challenged to put some meat on those claims.

Unsupported rhetoric won’t effectively sell the cooperative

education idea. Contemporary leaders and decisionmakers

want proof.

Managers may want proof that by educating the employees, cooperative profitability will be increased. The banker

may want some concrete measure of how an educated board’s

ability to make sound business decisions will be improved by

cooperative education. We may want to know if a young couple program actually results in increased support or future

leadership development of the cooperative. Will an extensive

youth program have a future payoff in terms of participation

in cooperative activities?

In basic terms, we need tangible measures of the effect of

cooperative education programs. Many cooperatives today

view money spent on education as an expense, not an investment. To change that perception, we must become capable of

spelling out-in concrete terms they will appreciate-the payoff to that investment.

In considering these two strategies, there are two basic

questions:

1. CREATING INCENTIVES: How can we build demand

for cooperative education into the incentive structure of the

relevant parties?

2. MEASURING PERFORMANCE: How can we directly

measure the contribution of cooperative education to the goals

33
of cooperative organizations and individuals involved in

them?

A substantial dedication of public and private resources

for research on how we can accurately measure performance

of cooperative education with respect to various organizational and personal goals of participants in the cooperative and

cooperative education system is required. These measurements must be made. Then we can accurately and objectively

demonstrate the payoff to cooperative education and the issue

of creating incentives will take care of itself.

PART V. A THREE-FRONT PLAN FOR

STRENGTHENING COOPERATIVE EDUCATION

The Task Force proposes a three-front plan for renewing

the cooperative education system. The plan involves constructing a public-private partnership for strengthening a

resource infrastructure for cooperative education and promoting its adoption. Conceptually, we must look at cooperative

education as a product that must be designed, developed, and

sold to a specific customer base. Critical to this concept is the

development of demand for cooperative education, by students, educators, and the cooperatives themselves.

FRONT I: Making the Investment

Front 1 involves the redevelopment of the resource base,

materials, and human expertise for providing cooperative

education. The basic product must be redesigned and promotional materials developed to support marketing of the product. Advance funding is needed to stimulate this critical ongoing effort. All currently available materials must be assessed.

Update and Expand Materials Base Materials must be

updated or developed that are based on current teaching

methods and reflect contemporary images. Basic materials

34
should be adaptable to the range of cooperative organization

types, not limited to specific industries such as agriculture.

Where appropriate, materials must be more basic and to the

point, less focused on promotion of a philosophy, and less

demanding of a person’s time and attention, Materials must

become more sophisticated to satisfy the audience. Materials

must be flexible enough so they can be used in a variety of

settings and educational environments, and adapted by

individual organizations to meet their specific needs.

Audiences that need particular focus are cooperative

directors, nonfarm students and adults, and cooperative

employees. While some good director training programs and

materials do exist, several voids are evident, particularly at

the local and consumer cooperative levels. Materials directed

at nonfarm cooperative members, potential members, and students are generally nonexistent. Materials for cooperative

employees are often inadequate and tread lightly on purely

cooperative education aspects of training.

Educate the Educators Knowledge about cooperatives and

the ability to extend the knowledge base needs to be

reestablished among key educator groups throughout the

country. New educators must be added to the ranks of those

trained in and teaching the cooperative form of business. A

coordinated program for training small business advisors and

State and county extension agents-both agricultural and

nonagricultural business specialists-needs to be established.

This group will be critical in future efforts for developing both

rural and urban America. They must have a working

knowledge of the cooperative as a development tool.. The

program must be coordinated at the national level if it is to

achieve economy of scale and be effective.

Agricultural education teachers need to become better

trained in cooperatives. Programs for earning Continuing

Education Units in cooperative education must be expanded

and promoted. Promotion and training must be expanded to

35

Y
encourage use of existing teaching packages, such as the

Agricultural Cooperative Service’s “Understanding

Cooperatives.”

Educators in business and agribusiness at both the secondary

and university level need to be educated on and encouraged to incorporate the cooperative form of business into their courses.

Appropriate materials for the general business curricula must

be made available. At the university level, interest in and content of classroom teaching are greatly influenced by the content of academic research conducted by university staff.

Therefore, research needs to be encouraged within the business and management departments paralleling that done

within many agricultural business and economics departments. Funding for research and establishment of research

focus groups or consortia are needed.

Performance-Related Research Research is required on

how cooperative education contributes to the achievement of

various organizational goals and objectives. Given the

findings of this research, promoters and advocates of

cooperative education will have a much more solid base upon

which to make their case to the cooperative managers and

directors, educational leaders, and other key decisionmakers.

Solid research findings will allow presentation of objective

facts. A major investment of public and private research

money is required to carry out this critical research.

FRONT II: Improving National Coordination

National level coordination must constantly be pursued.

Without diligent attention, natural forces lead to fragmentation. Leaders of organizations involved in producing and providing educational materials and programs must dedicate

themselves to improving and maintaining a coordinated, integrated system. Certain national-level forums, such as the

National Institute on Cooperative Education and the national

36
clearinghouse for cooperative education materials and programs, can serve as catalysts for bringing together various

groups involved in cooperative education.

No existing structure brings together all components of

the cooperative education system. The Task Force believes it is

imperative that some method of communication and exchange

be devised to associate and link all cooperative education

interests with appropriate segments of the public education

system.

FRONT III: Expanding the Base of Support

Cooperative education must be aggressively supported

by cooperative leaders. Supported by the tools and research

described in Front I and renewed national support evidenced

by Front II developments, the real marketing job can begin.

While there are many audiences and decisionmaker

groups that can make a true contribution toward the encouragement of cooperative education, the real impetus must

come from cooperatives themselves. Unless operating cooperatives fully believe in and support cooperative education

efforts, it is difficult to maintain the argument that cooperative

education is of any value. We must get the leaders of these

critical organizations to fully embrace the concepts and

importance of cooperative education. In the future, that foundation should be laid early in their careers.

Cooperative managers and board chairpersons need to

invest themselves in the principles and purposes of cooperative education. These individuals will have the greatest influence on investment and involvement by cooperatives in cooperative education programs. They must be convinced that it is

in their best interest as individuals and as organizational leaders to give full support to cooperative education. A general

manager or board chair dedicated to the goals of cooperative

education will see that the job gets done. These individuals

must be the targets of a concentrated marketing effort by lead37
ers of educational organizations and institutions, bolstered by

the research findings that clarify the payoff to investment in

education.

While there are many approaches which can be effective

in reaching managers and board chairpersons, the most effective is a strong one-on-one presentation by a respected peer. A

core of managers and directors willing to serve as promoters

and primary salespersons for cooperative education needs to

be identified and coordinated, each equipped with the necessary information and support to visit fellow managers and

directors. Similar direct approaches need to be made to key

individuals in positions to influence the content and direction

of curricula and training programs in the universities and secondary schools.

This three-front plan does not promise immediate results,

but sets a course for change that will serve the needs of cooperative education over the next 10 years. Cooperatives are in

business to serve the long-term needs of their members. We

must bring that same long-term perspective to designing our

future cooperative education system.

38
APPENDIX I

The Cooperative Education Task Force is a joint research

project between USDA’s Agricultural Cooperative Service

(ACS) and National Council of Farmer Cooperatives (NCFC)

to assess the projected needs and issues for cooperative education programs. This project combine NCFC’s implementation

of two education grants-one from CENEX and another from

MS1 Insurance Foundation. It presented an opportunity to

make efficient use of time and money toward a common goal.

Identified objectives of the project were:

l Evaluate printed materials, visual and electronic

teaching tools, and instructional programs widely used in

cooperative education;

l Study the needs for integrated learning systems to

educate members, directors, managers, students, and the general public on an individual basis;

l Evaluate the need for methodology to determine the

success or value of cooperative education programs to cooperative businesses;

l Determine the groups that require cooperative education, how to coordinate efforts of cooperative educators, and

examine appropriate delivery methods;

l Identify groups requiring cooperative education to

meet structural business changes;

l Explore methods needed to blend existing educational

programs and materials through use of emerging technology;

and

l Establish priorities to better allocate public and priva te research devoted to cooperative education.

Survey: The first stage of the project was a mail survey

conducted among selected cooperative and professional educators to determine current practices and project future issues

in cooperative education. About 1,300 questionnaires were

sent out in February 1992. They were divided into five groups:

General, Cooperative Employees, Educators, Universities, and

39
State Councils. Results were sent to ACS for analysis and tabulation.

Focus Groups and Panel Discussions: The second stage

of this project was a series of regional panel discussions during 1992.

April 20, 21 - Minneapolis, MN

April 23, 24 - San Francisco, CA

May 11,12 - Kansas City, MO

May 14,15 - Atlanta, GA

Each focus group included 20 persons selected by region

and interest area. Preliminary results of the survey were used

to identify topics and guide discussion. Regional meetings

were specifically designed to meet requirements of the

CENEX grant. State cooperative councils were involved in

participant selection as well as all other phases of the project.

A special focus group met before each panel discussion focusing on special topics such as youth and young adult education.

Blue Ribbon Panel: Several major issues were discussed

by a “blue ribbon” panel at the National Institute on

Cooperative Education (NICE), July 20-23, in Denver, CO.

Panelists were: Curtis Anderson, Bruce Anderson, Douglas

Johnson, and Carlyle Teague.

40
Focus Group and Panel Participants

Minneapolis, MN

April 20-21,1992

0. Glenn Webb (moderator)

GROWMARK, Inc.

Tunnel Hill, IL

Michael J. Abildtrup

Farmers Cooperative Elevator Company

Iowa Falls, IA

Bruce Anderson

Cornell University

Ithaca, NY

Neil Anderson

AgriBank - FCB

St. Paul, MN

Joan Behr

Wisconsin Dairies Cooperatives

Baraboo, WI

Dave Belina

Land O’Lakes, Inc.

Minneapolis, MN

Frank Blackburn

Minnesota Association of Cooperatives

St. Paul, MN

John Croft

GROWMARK, Inc.

Bloomington, IL

41
Robert Cropp

University Center for Cooperatives

Madison,.WI

Paul Day

Minnesota Department of Education

St. Paul, MN

Dean Denhart

Countrymark Cooperative, Inc.

Indianapolis, IN

Everett Dobrinski

St. Paul Bank for Cooperatives

Makoti, ND

Ed Ellison

Harvest States Cooperatives

Elbow Lake, MN

David Erickson

Wisconsin Federation of Cooperatives

Madison, WI

Allen Gerber

Minnesota Association of Cooperatives

St. Paul, MN

Mike Gustafson

Cass County Electric Cooperative, Inc.

Kindred, ND

Cathy A. Hamlett

Pennsylvania State University

University Park, PA

42
Ann Hoyt

University Center for Cooperatives

Madison, WI

Douglas Johnson

CENEX

Sidney, MT

Patrick O’Donnell

National Grape Co-operative Association

Westfield, NY

Bill Perry

Milk Marketing, Inc.

Strongsville, OH

Brian H. Schmiesing

Southwest State University

Marshall, MN

Del Schmidt

Harvest States Cooperatives

St. Paul, MN

Susan Tigner

Harvest States Cooperatives

St. Paul, MN

Elaine Tobin

South Dakota Farmers Union

Huron, SD

43
San Francisco, CA

April 23-24,1992

Curtis Anderson (moderator)

Sunkist Growers, Inc.

Van Nuys, CA

David Aeilts

South Dakota Wheat Growers Association

Aberdeen, SD

John Annaloro

California Credit Union League

Pomona, CA

E. Kim Coontz

Center for Cooperatives

Davis, CA

, Steven W. Easter

Blue Diamond Growers

Sacramento, CA

Richard Fenwick

CoBank

Denver, CO

Bonnie Fish

Twin Pines Foundation

Berkeley, CA

Valerie Foster

North Coast Cooperative

Eureka, CA

44
Bob Holloway

CENEX/Land O’Lakes Agronomy Co.

Medical Lake, WA

David H. Kirkpatrick

Nat’1 Economic Development & Law Center

Berkeley, CA

Gene Lundquist

Calcot, Ltd.

Bakersfield, CA

Bill Peal

Pendleton High School

Pendleton, OR

Harry Rolfi

Mid-Valley Cotton Growers, Inc.

Tipton, CA

Leland H. Ruth

Agricultural Council of California

Sacramento, CA

Robert Scherer

National Cooperative Business Association

Washington, D.C.

Jerry Siebert

University of California - Berkeley

Berkeley, CA

Theresa Steig

Puget Consumers’ Co-op

Seattle, WA

45
Hank Wallace

California State University

Chico, CA

Herschel Weeks

Oregon State University

Corvallis, OR

John Welty

California Tomato Growers Association

Stockton, CA

Karen Zimbelman

Training & Consulting

Arcata, CA

Kansas City, MO

May ll-12,1992

Michael Cook (moderator)

University of Missouri

Columbia, MO

Bruce Bainbridge

Colorado State University

Fort Collins, CO

David G. Barton

Kansas State University

Manhattan, KS

Dennis Blick

CoBank

Wichita, KS

46
Jerry Bottinger

Owner of Bottinger Farms

Denton, KS

Theresa Carbrey

New Pioneer Co-op Fresh Food Market

Iowa City, IA

David Carter

National Farmers Union

Denver, CO

Billy L. Conner

Texas Agricultural Cooperative Council

Austin, TX

Charles L. Cramer

University of Missouri

Columbia, MO

Philip Dukes

Farmers Cooperative Association

Marathon, IA

Kirk Edney

Texas Education Agency

Austin, TX

Robert Ferguson

MFA, Inc.

Columbia, MO

Keith Heim

Farm Service Cooperative

Harlan, IA

47
Robert E. Lee

Kansas Farmers Service Association

Hutchinson, KS

Joseph A. Lieber

Kansas Cooperative Council

Topeka, KS

Jim Magnuson

Iowa Institute for Cooperatives

Ames, IA

Daryl Meyer

Brown County Cooperative

Hiawatha, KS

Bill J. Ohlemeier

Kansas Electric Cooperatives, Inc.

Topeka, KS

Walter L. Patterson, Jr.

Nebraska Cooperative Council

Lincoln, NE

Myron D. Schmidt

Associated Milk Producers, Inc.

Newton, KS

Lee Schmucker

Kansas Credit Union Association

Wichita, KS

Rich Sipe

Farmland Industries, Inc.

Liberty, MO

48
Eliza Strode

Oberlin Co-op Bookstore

Oberlin, OH

Michael Turner

University of Nebraska

Lincoln, NE

Atlanta, GA

May 14-15,1992

Jim Loftis (moderator)

Gold Kist Inc.

Atlanta, GA

John L. Adrian

Auburn University

Auburn University, AL

Ronald C. Atkinson

University of Georgia

Athens, GA

William R. Clayton

CoBank

Atlanta, GA

Magid A. Dagher

University of Arkansas at Pine Bluff

Pine Bluff, AR

Carroll H. Gilbert

Southern States Cooperative, Inc.

Richmond, VA

49
Dunn LeDoux

Louisiana FFA Foundation

Denham Springs, LA

Barbara Lewis

Clemson Extension Office

Allendale, SC

Alan Mathewson

Sevananda Natural Foods Co-op Grocery

Atlanta, GA

Genia McKee

HEAD Corp./Central Appalachian Peoples Federal Credit

Union

Berea, KY

Thomas J. McNutt

Ohio Council of Cooperatives, Inc.

Hilliard, OH

David 0. Miller

Nationwide Mutual Insurance Company

Newark, OH

Rubert W. Prevatt

Florida Southern College

Lakeland, FL

James Reeder

Maryland & Virginia Milk Producers

Cooperative Association, Inc.

Reston, VA

50
Donald M. Robinson

Pennsylvania Council of Cooperatives

New Holland, PA

Alice Smith

Georgia Department of Education

Atlanta, GA

Dave Snyder

Ashland High School

Ashland, OH

Hal E. Tatum

National Association of County Agricultural

Agents

Atlanta, GA

Carlyle Teague

Cooperative Council of North Carolina

Raleigh, NC

W.R. Walker, Jr.

Hathaway FFA

Iowa, LA

Lionel Williamson

University of Kentucky

Lexington, KY

51
U.S. Department of Agriculture

Agricultural Cooperative Service

P.O. Box 96576

Washington, D.C. 200906576

Agricultural Cooperative Service (ACS) provides research,

management, and educational assistance to cooperatives to

strengthen the economic position of farmers and other rural

residents. It works directly with cooperative leaders and Federal

and State agencies to improve organization, leadership, and

operation of cooperatives and to give guidance to further

development.

The agency (1 ) helps farmers and other rural residents develop

cooperatives to obtain supplies and services at lower cost and

to get better prices for products they sell; (2) advises rural

residents on developing existing resources through cooperative

action to enhance rural living; (3) helps cooperatives improve

services and operating efficiency; (4) informs members,

directors, employees, and the public on how cooperatives work

and benefit their members and their communities; and (5)

encourages international cooperative programs.

ACS publishes research and educational materials and issues

Farmer Cooperatives magazine. All programs and activities are

conducted on a nondiscriminatory basis, without regard to race,

creed, color, sex, age, marital status, handicap, or national origin.

/

.