CONTENTS 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