What is a "lab school" and how does it relate to Howard Gardner?

When the Gardner School was founded on 2005, it was envisioned as a small, private, academic school with a specific purpose. HGS would provide a laboratory for educational practice. The basis for this choice was rather simple; HGS had evolved over three decades from a Montessori approach, to a school using alternative methodologies to meet the needs of students struggling in other public and private schools, to , finally, a laboratory school associated with the Education Department of The University of Scranton. Over this time, several interesting developments occurred. First, a rather unique faculty evolved around a core of educators who remained loyal to the school and its mission. Despite low salaries and minimal benefits, this cadre of dedicated teachers grew together and, together, shared a singular set of educational experiences. The strong early Montessori influences and the resulting extensions of the philosophical base that supports small class sizes, trained classroom aides, active learning, and student-centered teaching techniques, have created a singular moment for this school to enter the national debate regarding school reform.

The practice that extends from Maria Montessori to Howard Gardner and his multiple intelligences has both logical and local roots. Gardner was reared in Scranton and his family still has connections to the region. As a youngster Howard Gardner attended local public elementary schools and lived in very supportive Jewish community known as the Hill Section. The importance of education, tradition, and culture fostered in the community echoes in the distinguishing elements of his theory--field and domain. The individual with his or her talents, operates within a domain where those talents are expressed and recognized (the domain), which is finally adjudged to be valued or not by a field representing the community which assesses its value and relevance.

In schools, the theory works well to explain what educators actually experience everyday in their classrooms. Children learn naturally--education is a normal and enjoyable activity. Gardner places the onus of measuring what is learned and its relevance on the field -- teachers and psychometricians in this case--and its instruments (assessments or tests), not on the individuals themselves. In other words, the broader and more varied the assessment, the more likely we can really know what is learned. Gardner work also suggests that a way to be sure how well learning is occurring is to have children apply their learning in another domain. This is the intersection of theory and practice, of relevance and value.

The term lab school has specific meaning within educational circles. John Dewey and his cohorts looked to establish schools attached to schools that prepared teachers for the classroom. The idea was that, like other professions, educators needed a laboratory within which to practice, test their theories, devise methods, and hone skills. The early lab schools focused on research, curriculum development, observation, staff development, and student teaching. In this model the preservice teacher candidate is the focus of the learning program while the children in the classroom were a secondary, albeit important and valued, concern. Today, lab schools have similar roles. They are extensions of college teacher preparation programs and as such focus on practice and pedagogy. In a slight revision of mission, they serve two sets of pupils equally, preservice teacher candidates and the children in their classrooms. The organization that represents the modern lab school is NALS which now has international representation of schools that hold strongly to the need to provide a space for preparing the next generation of educators in a rather progressive, non-political , clinical environment.

As a way to end this posting, consider the reputation of public schools and teachers in the states. NCLB and the standards movement are all about assessment. But what is being assessed? One can argue that schools and educational professionals (teachers and administrators) are the real focus of assessment. And the assessment model being used is the standardized test. In fact, these tests are rather devised as rather rigid and narrowly focused on an agreed upon set of principles or standards. To return to our earlier discussion of Gardner and MI, the more narrowly defined our assessment becomes and the further it is removed from passsing the test of relevance within a domain, the less likely it can measure what it seeks to quantify. The single formatted test used in most standards testing actually informs practice by foisting more workbook, pencil and paper practice and less application of curriculum.
See you next time.