Overview of Laboratory Schools and Developmental Research Schools in the United States
History of the Development of Laboratory Schools
The following excerpts are from unpublished manuscripts written by: Ted Rodgers, University of Hawaii, Lynn McCarthy and Albert Bertani, National Louis University for the National Association of Laboratory Schools (NALS). Additionally, the first one was also given as an address to the Annual Conference of NALS in 1986. These excerpts were selected for inclusion in this report on the 1999 review of the Florida Developmental Research Schools because first, it was deemed appropriate by the reviewers to provide a context for the uniqueness of the DRS as it relates to the national perspective. Secondly, what was written in these excerpts a decade ago, closely parallels the findings, and conditions noted by the reviewers for this report and helps to place the Florida DRS in a national context.
Excerpt from: Laboratory Schools: Blue Print for Success Ross A. Neilsen, University of Northern Iowa, Presentation to the Annual Conference of NALS, Chicago, 1986.
Campus laboratory schools have been operated and supported by teacher education institutions throughout the nation for more than a century. Many laboratory schools began their operation as a "model school" to serve a normal school in the preparation of teachers. Later, these normal schools developed into teachers colleges, preparing educational personnel at both the elementary and secondary levels.Laboratory schools flourished, first as "training schools" and later as "campus schools." In the 1950s the conditions, which had been so favorable for these schools, began to change, and in many instances the schools were trapped in operational and philosophical webs that strangled and threatened their very existence. Over the period 1960?1980 nearly half of the nation's laboratory schools were either closed or reduced in scope as they became caught in situations, frequently not their own doing, to which they were unable to respond. The last two decades, however, has been a period of relative stability. Some institutions have modified or closed laboratory schools but, at the same time, others have initiated the establishment of new ones. Now there is an awakening interest and recognition of need for the unique contributions that laboratory schools can make to the professional preparation of teachers and to improving the quality of teacher education programs. Founded upon the new and expanding knowledge base of professional education, laboratory schools must structure clinical and laboratory experiences that will serve as a foundation for, and complement the study of curriculum.
Excerpts from: Research In Laboratory Schools, Ted Rodgers, University of Hawaii, circa 1987.
Historical Overview of Research in Laboratory Schools
One can mark several general functional phases in the history of the laboratory schools:
1850-1900 Phase 1 the Laboratory School is seen as a model school in which future teachers "could observe model teaching by master teachers, model discipline and the newest equipment" (MacPherson and McGee, 1982).1900-1930 Phase 2 the Laboratory School is seen as a laboratory for researchers in psychology and pedagogy "comparable to other scientific laboratories" (Dewey, 1956) and like "any other such laboratory it has two main purposes: (1) to exhibit, test, verify and criticize theoretical statements and principles, (2) to add to the sum of facts and principles in its special line (Dewey, 1896)
1930-1975 Phase 3 the Laboratory School is seen as a teaching practice site and as "a college preparatory school that was occasionally, but not primarily, experimental" (McPherson and McGee, 1982).
1975-Present the Laboratory School is envisioned as a multifunctional center linked to a network of similar centers, within which, critical inquiries in education can be undertaken and from which pedagogical results can be diffused.
Most commentators feel that the Laboratory School at the University of Chicago established by John Dewey in 1896 was the most research focused and successful of all laboratory schools (McPherson & McGee, 1982). This laboratory school was unique in that it unequivocally rejected the claim on the laboratory school as a normal school or a department for the training of teachers and instead maintained that "only the scientific aim, the conduct of a laboratory comparable to other scientific laboratories can furnish a reason for the maintenance by the university of an elementary school" (Dewey, 1902). It was further unique in that it was designed to test a specific set of theories ?those of Dewey regarding the education of children and youth. It was unlike most laboratory schools, before or since, in that it responded, more or less exclusively, to research inquiries of academic departments within the university rather than to the needs or interests of a normal school. Inquiry was the operational theme not only for researchers but also for teachers and students as well. Sarason (1971) noted that few other schools, laboratory or public, have accorded teachers, administrators and parents the respect that was salient at the Chicago Laboratory School.
There are several aspects of the Chicago Laboratory School's success that may be useful to keep in mind as we consider the potential of the laboratory schools to become future centers for educational research. Among these are the strong leadership of a dedicated educator, a body of specific theory as focus for research inquiries, strong involvement of university academic departments in laboratory school based research, inquiry as a school pervasive theme, and an inherent respect for the contributions of teachers, administrators, parents and students.
A number of studies (cited in Kelley, 1970) have been conducted during the 20th century of the count and kind of laboratory schools. A few of these studies give some sense of the research functions, or lack thereof, of the nation's laboratory schools. A 1930 study by Eubank reported that only three of 76 laboratory schools polled reported any experimental activity. Hutton, in a comment on a 1934 study, concluded that the predominant laboratory school functions were student teaching (95.4%) and observation (94.5%) and that few laboratory situations were used for experimentation (reviewed in Wenkert, 1983). Wenkert also cited some less often reviewed studies which suggest that "a much higher proportion of the lab schools were involved in experimentation during the period than indicated by the Eubank or Williams study." One such study suggests that approximately 27% of 213 reporting laboratory schools said they engaged in experimentation. The problems of sampling, self reporting and definition make all of these results difficult to interpret. Whatever the earlier numbers showed, laboratory school commentators in the 1960s began to talk increasingly about the importance of the laboratory school as a research center. Blackmon (1968) reported a discernible trend toward more use of the (college controlled laboratory) schools for research studies by both the university professors and the laboratory school faculty members." In comment on a survey of 32 laboratory schools in 30 states, Cappa (1972) reported that two thirds of the respondents considered research as one of the unique functions of the college controlled laboratory school. A more political statement of this new found enthusiasm for research in the laboratory schools was provided by McGeoch (1971) who noted that in recent years research has been ardently embraced as the way to salvation for the campus school."
Excerpts from: Laboratory Schools In Transition, Lynn McCarthy and Albert Bertani, National Louis University , circa 1987.
Cycles Of History
Laboratory Schools have experienced cycles of change throughout their history (Duea 1976, Hutton 1965, Van Til 1969). When many laboratory schools were founded in the early 1900s, they were designed to serve as laboratories where innovative programs and practices would bridge educational theory to classroom practice. Experimentation in the delivery of curriculum and instruction was expected and encouraged. Teachers College at Columbia University maintained three laboratory schools ? two centering on teacher training and one on curriculum development and experimentation. By the 1940s, laboratory schools were firmly established for teacher training on college and university campuses.
During the late 1950s and through the 1960s, a crisis of confidence occurred regarding laboratory schools. Teacher preparation programs became more interested in conducting experimentation and training in the "real world" rather than in what was considered the isolated and unrealistic world of the laboratory school. Laboratory schools were perceived as unrealistic environments enrolling the gifted children of academics. Consequently, laboratory schools were not perceived as reflecting the realities of school organization and student characteristics found in public schools. Due to this perception, laboratory schools fell out of vogue as appropriate settings for student teaching experiences. Therefore, teacher training programs turned to the public schools as more relevant and appropriate settings. Laboratory schools were forced to reassess their purpose for existence just as college administrators began to reexamine the reason for having a laboratory school.
During the retrenchment period of the 1970s, budget constraints seriously affected the future of laboratory school operations. By combining the perceived high cost of operating a laboratory school with the issue of irrelevance, laboratory schools became vulnerable targets in the budgetary process. It was easy for ax wielding administrators to save the college or university hundreds of thousands of dollars by eliminating a laboratory school. Coincidentally, research and publishing was fast becoming a priority for schools and colleges of education. Hence, laboratory school faculty members were expected to teach a full-time load on a daily basis and research and publish to ascend the ladder of promotion and tenure.
Although many laboratory schools were forced to close during this rapid period of upheaval, some were able to respond quickly and make the changes necessary for survival. Other schools, searching for a place in the changing environment, tried to become everything to everybody. They became sites for: clinical teaching activities, research, curriculum development, inservice education, multiethnic education, special education serving a variety of exceptionalities, early childhood programs, demonstration centers for production of video tapes, and laboratories for assessing staffing and organizational schemes. Laboratory schools often did not have a clear sense of purpose in determining their mission. Rather they attempted to "stay alive" by responding to all of the pressures from external forces. Faculty, staff, administration, programs, physical space, and financial resources became stressed and overextended.
It is important to note that clear direction was not forthcoming from the college or university because their purpose and mission was also in a state of dynamic change. Therefore, laboratory schools, which must serve the college, were not able to direct their own plan or have clear counsel and assistance from the college or university regarding purpose and direction. As we enter the 1990s, a new era is heralding the return of the laboratory school as an important force in education and teacher training.
Laboratory Schools Return As Clinical Schools
The reform movement has impacted every level of education. Elementary and secondary schools as well as colleges and universities have been forced to re-evaluate and redesign programs. As teacher education addresses quality control issues in teacher preparation programs, old models are being overhauled and new models are emerging. Laboratory schools are rallying with a new sense of direction and purpose as "clinical schools." John Goodlad (1984) proponent of the clinical schools model, in his book, Place Called School characterized clinical schools as learning laboratories where teachers assume responsibility for teaching elementary and/or secondary students teachers. Teachers in clinical schools not only serve as cooperating teachers for student teachers; they also contribute to the entire concept of training teachers through participation in the prestudent teaching observations, teaching of methods courses, and supervising student teaching experiences. Thereby, teachers in clinical schools assume a major portion of the responsibility for developing the necessary knowledge base foundation for prospective teachers.
While the concept of clinical schools appears to be new, it is really a recycling of one of the early and primary functions of laboratory schools. Unique demands will be placed on any school planning to serve as a clinical school. Teachers can burn out easily with the demanding role of teacher plus teacher educator. Some schools will not have enough teachers modeling innovative teaching methods. Since clinical schools will also serve as demonstration centers, visitors will be omnipresent for observation. Additionally, if clinical schools are to serve as learning laboratories, they must be prepared to model the best research based teaching methods available.
On-going faculty development is critical for teachers in the clinical school model. Teachers must be willing to explore new instructional methods and model these methods to a classroom of students. Working with undergraduate students also requires special skill in assisting adult learners. Teachers can expect to expend considerable time and energy nurturing undergraduates who demonstrate potential as future teachers. The demands of these mentoring relationships will require additional training and support if teachers are to contribute to this important professional mission
Conditions Essential to the Effective Functioning of Laboratory and Developmental Research Schools
The excerpts above document well that the concept of and need for laboratory and developmental research schools has been evident for over a century. The National Association of Laboratory schools identifies the following as essential conditions that long experience has consistently shown to be critically important to the effective functioning of these schools:
1. Autonomy Over the School's Program, Curriculum, and Research.In order to experiment with and conduct research on alternative organizational structures, teaching techniques, and curriculum, the laboratory school must have complete freedom from the constraints of typical codes and regulations. This consideration is necessary because of the very different nature of the mission of laboratory schools. Laboratory schools without such assurances of autonomy eventually find they must constantly apply for exceptions to codes and regulations which take time and, when they are not granted, often result in unacceptable compromises. In addition the time lost and the hampering of the ability to respond quickly to new techniques and practices of teaching are counter to the "avant garde" purpose of laboratory schools. By their nature and structure, laboratory schools have the necessary freedom to change rapidly as needs arise. This is vital to the preparation of quality personnel for the teaching profession.
2. Need for Facilities and Resources that Exceed Those Required to Operate Standard Schools.
Laboratory schools must provide many services beyond those typically required of a regular public school. The demands on laboratory schools differ, depending on the extent and reach of the school's program. Laboratory schools have a rather comprehensive program, which includes among other things, training and demonstration, and they serve as a site for program development and research studies. Lab schools need to be models of what good education should be, based upon educational research and practical experience. Typically they have a smaller class size than regular schools and they have facilities for research and development and additional personnel that would not normally be found in standard public schools. Experience has shown that the services and programs offered by laboratory schools cannot be replicated in school districts because they require resources and facilities beyond those normally provided by district schools. Frequently, serious pressures are placed on the school directors either to provide the same resources to all district schools or to assure that the designated laboratory school conforms to the characteristics of the other district schools. Laboratory schools on college and university campuses, on the other hand, can and dare to be different as they reflect the futuristic training mission of their parent institutions. It is contended that it is better to train teachers in a setting that demonstrates what is possible and is on the horizon, rather than in a setting that demonstrates what has been in place for sometime.
3. Importance for Close Proximity to the College/University Campus.
Those colleges and universities that have closed or moved their clinical experiences away from the campus have found that transportation has become a serious problem. That is, the extent to which the lab school is used for teacher training, research, and demonstration is often undermined if the students and professors must travel away from campus to the designated public school and juggle their schedules in order to accommodate the longer travel time. The cost factor in terms of providing transportation for both students and university supervisors is usually much greater than the perceived savings gained in closing a lab school and the quality of controlled experience is diminished. The lab school's function as a teaching and research facility is thus unduplicated.
4. Need for Controlled Clinical Experiences.
Accrediting agencies for teacher preparation such as NCATE are calling for highly articulated controlled laboratory experiences for teacher preparation institutions. A laboratory school for education majors and education research, permits elements of control similar to the chemistry, biology or physics labs for those majors. The medical profession provides residence intern experience for medical doctors in teaching hospitals. Some clinical experiences for teachers can be arranged in public schools, but not with the same level of control, coordination and ease afforded in a laboratory school.
In recent yeas there have been a variety of attempts to move the laboratory school concept to public schools that are in close proximity to colleges and universities that are engaged in preparing teachers. These experiments have been titled, Professional Development Schools, Partnership Schools, Teaching Centers, Goodlad Schools and Curriculum Research Centers. In each of these models, one or more of the above listed conditions or necessary attributes of a laboratory school have been compromised. Thus the effectiveness of providing an easily accessible site for educational research, controlled clinical field experiences, autonomy in decision making and control over the quality of the model have been lessened. The main reason for this is, public schools do not have as their primary mission, research, modeling best practice, working closely with the development of pre-professionals and the dissemination of best practice. Instead, public schools by their charge and historical mission are focused on educating the students who reside in their district.
A similar view may be taken in comparing general community hospitals with university based teaching hospitals. In the later, the mission and a co-primary reason for existence is to provide a clinical laboratory for the advancement, merging, identification, and dissemination of best theory, research and practice through the development of the next generation of professionals. This all goes on while providing model care for patients under the best of conditions. General, community hospitals, on the other hand, are concerned only with the care of patients. Laboratory schools on university campuses compare in much the same way with neighborhood public schools.
A lack of adequate resources including funds for attracting model faculty, who not only are skilled teachers of children, but of teacher candidates and have a demonstrated knack for finding, developing, and applying research is a major deficit for clinical/research schools. Lack of commitment in providing adequate space, facilities and equipment and support services are all too often the reasons that laboratory schools are eliminated or are marginal resulting in attempts being made to transfer the services to the public schools. It is all a matter of priorities. Organizations vote with their budgets. The items that are fully funded are viewed by decision-makers as higher priorities.