Blazing New Trails - Connexions

Distinguishing Practices for Administrators 201
Both elementary and secondary school reform are topics of current literature (Karns,
2010; Kuo, 2010). Kuo (2010) reviewed the next phase in reforming American high schools
and found that reform efforts should include the following: smaller size high schools and
increased sense of personalization, belonging, and safety; comprehensive change in overall
focus, curricula, student support services, and professional development; structural and
instructional integration that make the transition from high school to career or college
seamless; and drastically improving the nation’s lowest performing high schools. In addition,
the National Secondary School Principals Association emphasized the importance of rigor,
relevance, and relationships to successful secondary schools adding to this current knowledge
base of what makes a school successful. However, illumination of practices and processes that
influence successful school reform is needed since many school reforms fail (Cuban et al.,
2010). To assist practicing and future administrators in leading school reform, the
academically exemplary educational laboratory settings at a regional university were
reviewed to determine the organizational and instructional practices that were developed and
sustained overtime that contributed to students’ academic success.
THE CONTEXT OF THE STUDY
This regional university was founded as a Teachers’ College. The legislature believed
that a state-supported institution of higher learning was needed to upgrade the lagging
educational system and to bolster growth and advancement in the region. The 35 th Legislature
on April 4, 1917, created provisions for locating a normal school. Senators along with the city
leaders fought and won the battle to establish a Teachers’ College (Craddock, 1973).
Teachers’ Colleges, converted normal schools that trained high school graduates in the norms
or standards for teaching, were founded as free-standing education schools with the purpose
of preparing teachers for careers in education and were not intended as traditional research
universities (Davis, 2007; Haberman & Stinnet, 1973; Lucas, 2006; Rudolph, 1962; Thelin,
2004).
In September 1923, this regional college opened and moved away from the title
“Normal College.” Craddock exclaimed, “With the new name came a new birth in spirit” (p.
9). From its inception, this regional university embraced educational laboratory (lab) settings
with a twofold mission: (1.) to better prepare teacher educators, and (2.) to provide an
exemplary instructional program for children where theory is modeled for teacher candidates
(Hallman, 2001).
Over the years, the College of Education established and implemented six educational
lab settings to fulfill the mission: a demonstration school, a nursery school, a kindergarten
program, an early childhood laboratory (serving children two months through five years of
age), an early childhood laboratory linked to a district/university charter elementary school,
and an early childhood laboratory associated with an independent university charter
elementary school serving kindergartners through fifth grade children.
The educational lab settings achieved excellence as reported by many parents of
students who attended the labs. This excellence was voiced by a parent of two children who
attended the Early Childhood Laboratory.
It was the premier site. We were blessed to have it. I knew it at that time; I know it
today. When you walk into another world and think about your child going into care
of some kind or school of some kind . . . to think that we had this. It was incredible. It
was the premier. You don’t do better than what we had.