The Laboratory Schools in the Year 2000

By Wendell McConnaha
Director of National and International Programs for NALS

I want to talk to you about Laboratory Schools, what we were, what we are and what we must become if we are to continue to exist. But I am not preaching the message of survival. I'm talking to you today about the National Association of Laboratory Schools becoming the single most powerful force in education during the next ten years. To accomplish this we must capitalize on the current educational opportunities and we must support each other. We will all have our individual successes. However, we must make the moves that will allow all of us to go forward as an organization. If we don't capitalize on every opportunity, we will be as the man in the parable who, while walking on the beach, heard a voice say, "Pick up the pebbles and put them in your pocket, and tomorrow you will be both sorry and glad." The man obeyed. He stooped down and picked up a handful of pebbles and put them in his pocket. The next morning, he reached into his pocket and found diamonds, rubies and emeralds. And he was both glad and sorry. Glad that he had taken some--sorry that he hadn't taken more. We can't look back in ten years and wonder if there is something more we could have done, we must decide to act now.

I'm the principal of a laboratory school and I enjoy what I do. I like being a small part of American education and I like the opportunity to speak before groups like this. However, when I discuss a topic such as preserving the laboratory school model into the next century, I feel a little like the minister who speaks to his flock about people who don't attend church. The people needing this message, the Deans of Education and the purveyors of educational reform, are for the most part the audience.  I attended school in the 1950s and 1960s. When I was growing up in Nebraska my father went to work and my mom stayed home. A single parent family in my town meant the father had died. Both of my grandmothers and my great uncle lived in our home until they passed. My aunts, uncles and cousins lived close enough that we often vacationed together as a group. Every member of my extended family ate holiday meals together. We weren't unique; most families stayed geographically and emotionally close.   In these good old days, most schools offered only English, social studies, science and math. Business education, foreign language, art and physical education were in their infant stages. Industrial arts usually meant a vocational agriculture program. This educational approach reminds me of the Chicago restaurant menu that offered a "Choice of Vegetables." I asked the waiter what the vegetables were. "Asparagus," he responded. "But what's the choice?" I asked. He replied, "Do you want it or don't ya?"

Historically, we made the same offer to our students and parents. "Here we are, do you want it or don't ya?" And many of our constituents replied, "We don't want asparagus." Those good old days also included a dropout rate in excess of thirty percent, and less than ten of my 41 classmates went on to college.

From this comfortable, if not educationally perfect, setting the National Association of Laboratory Schools emerged. Now, laboratory schools had been around for many years. They have worn many names, Normal School or Teacher Prep. John Dewey had even used the phrase laboratory school in Chicago as early as 1894. A laboratory for learning, a school affiliated with an institution of higher learning with a primary mission to train teachers and/or create programs. Never has a grander mission been designed.   But just when we felt we were comfortable in our role, society changed and most of us didn't. It was the 1970s and suddenly our city schools reflected a student population coming from single parent families. In those families where a father was present, he spent just over eighteen minutes a day interacting with his kids, and thirteen of those minutes were in a discipline situation. The average American family was now only eating one meal together per week, and society was beginning to look at why we were failing to reach so many of our students.   We developed vocational education, gifted education, special education and a variety of expanded course offerings. We began to counsel children, to teach them about drugs and about sex. We taught them how to drive.

When we found that some couldn't learn because of health problems we started checking their teeth, their eyes, their backs, their ears and their general physical development. When we found that some couldn't learn because of poor nutrition, we began feeding them. First, we fed them lunch, then we fed them breakfast and lunch. When we found that some couldn't learn because they had emotional problems and adolescent doubts, we trained counselors and psychologists to deal with these problems away from home. When we found that some had too much free time, we expanded from three sports for boys only, to eighteen sports for both boys and girls. We offered speech, debate, dramatics, vocal music, instrumental music and clubs to correspond with every subject area. And, while the laboratory schools also accepted all these roles with little questioning, our parent institutions were determining if we were worth the price of admission. You see, a school, which trained prospective teachers, had to reflect all of the special areas and special problems that would be encountered in a "real school." And, in our attempt to do everything we had always done, plus, reflect each of the new programs designed to solve society's ills, many lab schools priced themselves right out of the market. See, we became so like everyone else--we were no longer needed. And, in the staggering budget problems faced by major institutions our biggest value often became the land we sat on; and many of us died.

But not all of us perished. There are still over one hundred laboratory schools alive and well. To assure our leadership position during the next ten years we must do two things: 1) We must look to the unique characteristics which we have to offer, and 2) We must sell ourselves to the broader education community.

Let me begin with the selling of NALS because it is the easiest to explain. Whether one reads A Nation At Risk, Project 2061, or Goals 2000 it is evident that educators, as well as the general population, feel that our current school systems are not adequately preparing our students for entry into the outside world. Educators have expressed the concern that our educational difficulties are a combined result of systems which have become overly bureaucratic, classrooms which are instructionally and technologically out of step with our times, and a general population which has asked the schools to assume an ever greater role in curing the societal ills. The response to this metaproblem has either been to pour more state and federal dollars into a system which is generally viewed as flawed, or, to have single organizations use single approaches which have attacked individual aspects of the total problem (not enough time on task, increase the length of the school day or school year; not a heavy enough curriculum, devise a standardized "core" curriculum). Past studies have addressed the students, teachers, and administrators, with each researcher seeming to fail to understand that repairing isolated parts of the current system is not enough. These various band-aid approaches have ignored the larger reality that they are simply addressing fragments of an entire system gone astray. The result has drained energy from all involved, while creating the impression that significant change is beyond the realm of possibility.

If we are indeed to make a significant change in the way we educate our students, we must look at the entire pattern. The overall strategy must confront all aspects and issues. School structure and organization, teacher and administrator training, school and classroom management, classroom instructional techniques, pedagogy, student learning and assessment must all be reviewed; and if necessary revised, reformed or rejected.  Past attempts to reform the system have failed for several reasons: 1) The bureaucracy within the public schools is too well entrenched. 2) The instructional techniques are slow to change; either in the way they are taught to prospective teachers or in the way these teachers impart this knowledge to their students. And, 3) There is little communication, let alone collaboration, within and between all of the various publics affected by the school reform movement. A system needs to be utilized which is reflective of the general school population, which is free from the bureaucratic encumbrances found within most educational systems, and which is in a position to collaborate with business, higher education, cultural institutions, and other school systems. The National Association of Laboratory Schools is such an entity.

Over 100 laboratory schools are located on the nation's university campuses from Hawaii to New York. Collectively these schools are reflective of educational patterns found in other schools throughout the country. There are large schools and small. There are early childhood centers, elementary schools, middle schools, and high schools. Some of the laboratory schools are private, but most are public. Some of the schools incorporate a single ethnic group, but most are reflective of the racial patterns found within their geographic regions. Most of the laboratory schools work with comprehensive student populations, some work only with special needs students, and others only with the college bound.   In each case, these schools have several advantages over other public or private school systems as one works to incorporate change: 1) The aspect of collaboration with higher education, business, cultural institutions, and surrounding school districts is already well established. 2) Although the laboratory schools are accountable to federal guidelines, state certification agencies, and regional accreditation organizations they are able to develop and implement system and program changes free from the usual bureaucratic encumbrances. And, 3) As recognized developers of curriculum and training sites for the development of prospective teachers, these schools have a long history of strong management and curricular innovation.

I would propose that the Department of Education utilize these laboratory schools, under the direction of the National Association of Laboratory Schools, as the vehicle for implementing and assessing the various educational reforms involved in the Goals 2000 initiative. We have the ability to define the goals, the flexibility to implement change, a current structure which assures collaboration, and a well-defined perspective regarding assessment outcomes.

Now let me address the unique characteristics of NALS. Past attempts at educational reform have often failed, not because the suggested changes were not sound, but, because the educational institutions receiving the proposed innovations were too inflexible to accept them. This educational tendency to hold tight to what has been done in the past will become especially problematic as the Department attempts to implement the next round of educational initiatives. As the Secretary has stated, "So much has happened that it will require much greater change than most Americans expect."

Goals 2000 calls for, "Sweeping, fundamental changes in our educational system. . . Educators must be given greater flexibility to devise challenging and inspiring strategies to serve the needs of a diverse body of students." These "sweeping, fundamental changes" must include new educational materials, new modes of instruction, new methods of organizational governance, new methods of teacher training, and new concepts regarding the assessment of educational success. The public and private school systems as presently constituted are not able to implement changes of this scope in a timely manner. The flexibility to assess everything we are presently doing; to throw out all that is not succeeding; and to install new methods, procedures, and materials at virtually every level is simply foreign to the way most school systems operate.

The laboratory schools exist, however, for just such a purpose. These schools are committed to leadership in the improvement of education through the development of innovative ideas in research, curriculum development, clinical experiences, and in-service training in an experimental school environment. As the coordinating body, the National Association of Laboratory schools recognizes that all schools are different by design. The focus of these individual schools must be responsible to local needs and interests. Therefore, the National Association of Laboratory Schools is continually promoting the implementation of change, not only within the individual laboratory schools, but also through their connections with universities, businesses, cultural institutions, and other school systems within their various locales.

The need for change is apparent. The need to adopt an agent of change which has the flexibility to insure the timely implementation and assessment to a broad-based audience is critical. As the writers of Goals 2000 state, "These goals are ambitious, yet they can and must be achieved. However, they cannot be achieved by our educational system as it is presently constituted. Substantial, even radical changes will have to be made."  To quote Pogo, "We have met the enemy and he is us." We have a plan. We have an organization. We have direction, and we have the leadership to assure success. We must not be afraid to think the big thoughts, to try the big projects, and when we succeed to take the lion's share of the credit. I am tired of being discovered by each new Washington group I speak to. I'm tired of feeling like I'm in a John Wayne movie, as each time I introduce myself as President of the National Association of Laboratory Schools, I hear someone say, "I thought you were dead."  We must understand that we are not only alive, but we are growing. We must recognize that we cannot only offer a way out of our current educational impasse, but that we offer the best way. And we must believe that no one can better perform the unique function that each of our schools do, in fact, no one else can do them at all.