Table Of ContentCONTENTS
LISTOFCONTRIBUTORS vii
PREFACE ix
INTRODUCTIONTOVOLUME12:BRIDGINGTHEGAP
BETWEENTHEORY,RESEARCHANDPRACTICE
StuartReifel 1
THEEARLYHISTORYOFCHILDDEVELOPMENT
LABORATORYPROGRAMS
NancyE.Barbour 9
THECHILDREN’SCENTER’SSURVIVALBRINKMANSHIP,
PERSISTENCEANDCREATIVITY
MacH.BrownandNancyK.Freeman 31
THEDILEMMAOFLINKINGTHEORYANDRESEARCH
WITHPRACTICEANDINNOVATIONINCHILD
DEVELOPMENTLABORATORYPROGRAMS
MellisaA.Clawson 51
ANINSIDEPERSPECTIVEOFPARADIGMSHIFTSIN
CHILDDEVELOPMENTLABORATORYPROGRAMS:
BRIDGINGTHEORYANDPROFESSIONALPREPARATION
AndrewJ.Stemmel,LynT.HillandVictoriaR.Fu 89
RECONCEPTUALIZINGTHECHILDDEVELOPMENT
LABORATORYSCHOOL
CarolBersaniandPamelaHutchins 113
v
vi
BRIDGINGTHEGAPTHROUGHCOMMUNITY
COLLABORATION:ANEVOLVINGROLEFORCHILD
DEVELOPMENTLABORATORYPROGRAMS
DianeM.HormandSusanD.G.Warford 141
FUNDINGDILEMMAS:TOWARDSUSTAINABLEAND
CREATIVEFINANCINGINCHILDDEVELOPMENT
LABORATORYPROGRAMS
CherylA.Wright 165
THECHANGINGPROFILEOFTEACHING,RESEARCHAND
OUTREACHACTIVITIESINLABSCHOOLPROGRAMS
BrentA.McBrideandJenniferBaumgartner 181
AUTHORINDEX 201
SUBJECTINDEX 205
LIST OF CONTRIBUTORS
NancyE.Barbour PaulH.JonesChildDevelopmentCenter,Kent
StateUniversity,Ohio,USA
JenniferBaumgartner UniversityofIllinois,Urbana,IL,USA
CarolBersani PaulH.JonesChildDevelopmentCenter,Kent
StateUniversity,Ohio,USA
MacH.Brown USC,CollegeofEducation,UniversityofSouth
Carolina,USA
MellissaA.Clawson DepartmentofEarlyChildhoodEducation,
UniversityofMaineatFarmington,USA
NancyK.Freeman USC,CollegeofEducation,UniversityofSouth
Carolina,USA
VictoriaR.Fu HumanDevelopment,VirginiaPolytechnic
Institute&StateUniversity,Blacksburg,USA
LynnT.Hill HumanDevelopment,VirginiaPolytechnic
Institute&StateUniversity,Blacksburg,USA
DianeM.Horm HumanDevelopmentandFamilyStudies,
UniversityofRhodeIsland,Kingston,USA
PamelaHutchins PaulH.JonesChildDevelopmentCenter,Kent
StateUniversity,Ohio,USA
BrentA.McBride UniversityofIllinois,USA
StuartReifel DepartmentofCurriculum&Instruction,
UniversityofTexas-Austin,USA
AndrewJ.Stremmel Family&ChildDevelopment,Virginia
PolytechnicInstitute&StateUniversity,
Blacksburg,USA
vii
viii
SusanD.G.Warford ChildDevelopmentCenter,UniversityofRhode
Island,Kingston,USA
CherylA.Wright Child&FamilyDevelopmentCenter,Department
ofFamily&ConsumerStudies,Universityof
Utah,SaltLakeCity,USA
PREFACE
Thecaseforchilddevelopmentlaboratoryprogramshasneverbeenmorepressing
thanitisatthistime.Thethree-partmissionoffacilitatingandsupportingteaching,
research, and outreach activities has guided the activities of child development
laboratoryprogramssincetheirinception.Althoughtheseprogramscontinuetobe
importantplayersinthechilddevelopmentandearlychildhoodeducationarenas,
many are being asked to provide justification for their continued existence. In
recentyearscampuseshavereconsidered,reconceptualized,andrestructuredthe
waysinwhichtheselaboratoryprogramsfitwithintheagendasandmissionsof
the universities where they are located, the local communities surrounding the
universities,andthechilddevelopmentandearlychildhoodeducationprofessions
ingeneral.
We are pleased to offer this edited volume as a way to examine emerging
issuesandchallengesfacingchilddevelopmentlaboratoryprogramsnationwide
astheyseektosolidifytherolestheyplaywithinthechilddevelopmentandearly
childhoodeducationfields.Drawingupontheexpertiseofprofessionalsworking
withsuchprograms,eachchapterpresentsacriticalissue/problemrelatedtothe
effectiveandproductivefunctioningofchilddevelopmentlaboratoryprograms.It
wasourchallengetopresentacollectionofpaperswhichcanfacilitatedialogue
among professionals who focus on the ways in which child development labo-
ratoryprogramscancontinuetheirimportantcontributionstowardthegeneration
of new knowledge in child development and early childhood education, as well
assupporttheprofessionaldevelopmentofstudentspreparingforcareersinthese
fields. Each of the stories offered here provides compelling evidence that such
programsareviableandnecessaryonourrespectivecampuses.
ix
INTRODUCTION TO VOLUME 12:
BRIDGING THE GAP BETWEEN
THEORY, RESEARCH AND PRACTICE
Stuart Reifel
WhenBrentMcBrideandNancyBarbourapproachedmewithaproposalforan
AdvancesinEarlyEducationandDayCarethemevolumeonchilddevelopment
laboratory schools, I was eager to pursue the topic with them. This Advances
serieshasalwaysbeendedicatedservingasaforumtofurtheringtheknowledge
baseonallaspectsofearlyeducation,broadlydefined.Thedisciplinaryrootsof
the field are necessarily interdisciplinary, reflecting the range of disciplines that
are relevant to us, including sociology, psychology, policy studies, curriculum
studies, history, and related fields. A fair amount of our existing knowledge
base was generated in campus laboratory programs, which were designed to
be interdisciplinary, as Barbour shows us in her chapter in this volume. At the
sametime,Iamawareofsomeoftheturmoilandtransformationthathasshaken
campus child development programs over the past two decades (Keyes, 1991);
venerable programs have closed, converted from nursery schools to child care,
altered to reflect communities beyond the ivory tower of campus, or asked to
do things that they had never done in the past. What might a special volume on
campuslaboratoryprogramsforchildrentellusaboutthestateofknowledge,and
thestateofthefieldofearlychildhoodeducationandcare?
McBrideandBarbourapproachedtheirprojectwiththeenthusiasmofscholars
whoareweddedtotheconnectionsthatcanbemadebetweentheoryandpracticein
laboratory schools. Both have longstanding connections with laboratory schools
BridgingtheGapBetweenTheory,ResearchandPractice:TheRoleofChild
DevelopmentLaboratoryProgramsinEarlyChildhoodEducation
AdvancesinEarlyEducationandDayCare,Volume12,1–8
©2003PublishedbyElsevierLtd.
ISSN:0270-4021/doi:10.1016/S0270-4021(03)12012-5
1
2 STUARTREIFEL
in their institutions, McBride as Director of the Child Development Laboratory
at the University of Illinois at Urbana/Champaign and Barbour as Research and
Professional Preparation Coordinator of the Paul H. Jones Child Development
Center at Kent State University. Both are active members and former presidents
oftheNationalOrganizationofChildDevelopmentLaboratorySchools,andboth
havepragmaticunderstandingsofthemanycomplicatedconnectionsbetweenthe
worldsofearlychildhoodpracticeandhighereducation.WhatIdidnotknowuntil
thisprojectbegantocoalescewashowremarkablyattunedthesescholarsaretothe
particularsofthevarietyoflaboratorycontextsthatexistacrosstheU.S.andaround
theworld.McBrideandBarbourwereuniquelysuitedtooverseethisvolume.
McBride and Barbour also knew that I was a sympathetic editor to approach
onthetopicoflaboratoryschools.AsanundergraduateatStanfordUniversityI
hadmyfirstexperiencewithyoungchildrenasaresearchassistant,takingyoung
children to a “game room” for research at the Bing Nursery School. I stayed on
as an assistant teacher at Bing for six quarters, during which time I completed
my master’s degree. (In their chapter in this volume, Bersani and Hutchins
spokedirectlytome:“Manyofuslearnedhowtoteachyoungchildreninthese
settings,”p.114.)Fromthere,ImovedtoNewYork,whereIwasheadteacherfor
two years in a laboratory pre-school affiliated with Teachers College, Columbia
University. I spent the following year directing a demonstration kindergarten
program at Southern Oregon State College, before beginning doctoral study at
UCLA. There, I was asked to prepare a bibliography on campus laboratories
(Reifel,1980),allowingmetoputmyownprofessionalexperienceinabroader
perspective.Ialsoconductedmydissertationresearchintheearlychildhoodunit
oftheCorinneM.SeedsUniversityElementarySchoolatUCLA.WhenImoved
toTheUniversityofTexas,someofmyresearchwasdoneincollaborationwith
a teacher at the Human Ecology Child and Family Laboratory (e.g. Reifel &
Yeatman, 1993), and my work with the Campus Child Care Center, as a setting
for demonstration and research, continues to this day (Briley, Reifel & Paver,
1997).Whilenotallofmyprofessionalexperiencehadbeenincampuslaboratory
programs,Ihavehadgenerousexposuretolaboratoriesforyoungchildrenacross
thecountry.
Forallmyexperiencewithchilddevelopmentandothercampuslaboratories,
IwasnotpreparedforallIwouldlearnfromMcBrideandBarbourinthecourse
of our work on this volume. My last look at the literature of laboratory schools
(Reifel,1980),includingbothchilddevelopmentandeducationalprogramsatcol-
legesanduniversities,wasduringaperiodoftransitionforlaboratoriesandearly
childhoodresearch.Laboratoryprogramswerejustonesettingwheresignificant
inquirycouldoccur,andsomearguedthatcampusschools,astheyexisted,were
ill suited as settings where many issues could be investigated (Goodlad, 1975).
IntroductiontoVolume12 3
Longstanding notions of laboratory school missions and functions, including
research, training, demonstration and dissemination, were being challenged by
social,politicalandintellectualperspectivesthatquestionedtherelevanceofcam-
pusresearchfor“therealworld,”anddeniedthelegitimacyofanythingthatcould
beseenasa“model”program.Researchcould,andshould,bedoneatanyschool;
serious models of early education did exist independent of higher education
campuses. Perhaps most important, funding to support campus laboratories and
their“unique”missionswasdifficulttomaintain;manylaboratoriesthatexisted
30or40yearsagoarenolongerinexistenceintheiroriginalforms.Thechapters
in this volume illustrate how these issues have played out over the past quarter
century.
Nancy Barbour sets the stage for the volume by presenting a history of child
study institutes and their laboratories, as settings where the science of child
developmentcouldbeconducted.SheshowshowseminalthinkerssuchasJohn
Dewey and Lawrence Frank conceptualized laboratory schools, not as model or
demonstrationcenters,butasplaceswhereacademicscholarscouldsystematically
investigate children’s growth and development. Barbour looks closely at three
leading laboratory institutes, how they negotiated their missions, and how those
missionstransformedwiththeinfluencesoffundingandacademicleadership.The
Merrill-PalmerInstitute,aprivatelyfundedcenterfortrainingchilddevelopment
specialists and conducing research, offered no degree programs, but served as
a setting where students from other institutions could learn about children. The
Institute of Child Welfare (now the Institute of Human Development, with its
Harold E. Jones Child Study Center) at the University of California, Berkeley,
also offered no degree programs, but served as a research, training, and service
setting for faculty in education, psychology, sociology, and other disciplines.
TheChildStudyCenteratYaleUniversitywasalsointerdisciplinary(medicine,
education,psychology,etc.),withafocusondiagnosis,therapy,andresearchon
children’sdevelopment.These,andotherleadingcentersforchilddevelopment,
wereinasensedesignedasenginesforgeneratingknowledge.Equallyimportant,
they were academic units that were to be a base for seeking funding, to allow
child development to maintain itself financially in higher education. Barbour
showshowthefatesoftheselaboratorieshaveplayedoutovertime,astheyare
guidedbydifferentvisionsandasfundingsourcesfluctuate.
Thenextchapter,byFreemanandBrown,providesacasestudyofacontempo-
rarylaboratoryundersiege.Theseauthorstellastoryofanestablishedprogram
thatreinventeditselfinthecontextofahighereducationsettingwhereresources
(physicalspaceandfunding,inthiscase)wereamajorissue.Thepracticalface
ofoperatingaprogramforresearchandteaching,longtakenforgrantedbythose
who participated in the laboratory’s activities, encountered a sobering challenge
4 STUARTREIFEL
fromthepowersthatdecideaboutcampusresources.Laboratoryaffiliatesrallied
to recreate the program, with a combination of private service providers and
campusacademiccommitment.Thepowerfulroleoflaboratoryparentsappearsin
thisstory,asdoesthecomplicatedmatterofkeepingachildren’sprogramfunded.
Muchofthisstoryechoesformethetalewetoldofestablishinganon-laboratory
children’s center, where the context of early childhood practice was created by
campus politics, the program’s operating policies, the physical setting, program
dimensions,and(notincidentally)publicrelations(Briley,Reifel&Paver,1997).
Anyprogramforyoungchildren,laboratoryornot,seemscurrentlytonegotiate
itselfinawebofcampuslifethatisnotmentionedinthehistoricalliterature.
The next three chapters illustrate how unique each child study laboratory
context is. Earlier literature on laboratories tends to speak in general about
missionsanddesiredoutcomes(e.g.Caswell,1949;Dewey,1972).Onehundred
yearslater,wearehearingmuchmoreaboutwhatittakestoimplementamission
and obtain outcomes. Clawson brings to life questions about implementation of
alaboratoryprogramwithherdescriptionofacampusnurseryintransition.Her
model for self-study includes both conceptual dimensions (vision, mission), as
well as practical matters (staffing, finances). She describes how self-study can
raise many discontinuities that need to be addressed, about how a program can
balance its missions (including kinds of observation and participation, and how
researchcanbedone)withtheresourcesithas(funding,trainedstaff).Self-study
can help restructure a program, but equally important are discussions that allow
laboratoryparticipantstorevisitandclarifytheirmissions.
Stremmel et al. describe their efforts to restructure their existing human
development laboratory based on a vision of bridging theory and practice. How
does the three-part mission of research, teaching, and service change when the
knowledge base for the field changes? Stremmel and colleagues tell of how
they re-envisioned their laboratory school as a community where participants
collaborateonresearchandteaching.Theirvisionbuiltontheexistingprogram,
anditmergedwithgraduateeducationthatisdesignedtoprepareactive,reflective
teachers; a new approach to staffing was central to the new vision. Drawing on
Reggio Emilia as a model (Edwards, Gandini & Forman, 1998), the laboratory
community includes teachers, children, parents, and faculty. Again, the process
ofrevisiting,andup-dating,laboratorypracticeisemphasized.
BersaniandHutchinsalsodescribethetransformationofachilddevelopment
laboratory,inthiscaseaprogramhousedinacollegeofeducation.Theirvision,
which also built on the Reggio Emilia model, took into account contemporary
effortsofschoolreform.TheHolmesGroup(1990)anditsideaforaprofessional
development school (PDS) motivated a discussion of how the laboratory could
educate children, prepare teachers, develop teachers, and serve as a setting for
