The Relationship of Character Education Implementation

• Jacques S. Benninga, Professor of Education and Director of the Bonner Center for Character Education, California StateUniversity, Fresno

Journal of Research in Character Education, 1(1), 2003, pp. 19–32 ISSN 1543-1223Copyright © 2003 Information Age Publishing, Inc. All rights of reproduction in any form reserved.

THE RELATIONSHIP OF CHARACTER EDUCATION IMPLEMENTATION AND ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT IN ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS

Jacques S. BenningaCalifornia State University, Fresno

Marvin W. BerkowitzUniversity of Missouri-St. Louis

Phyllis KuehnCalifornia State University, Fresno

Karen SmithMark Twain Elementary School, Brentwood, MO

Applications from the 681 elementary schools applying for the California Distinguished Schools Award in2000 were randomly selected, evaluated, and scored for character education implementation. Results werecorrelated with both the SAT9 and API rankings over a four-year period from 1999-2002. Schools with highertotal character education implementation tended to have higher academic scores on academic measures for theyear prior to their application, the year of their application and the subsequent two years. Small but positivecorrelations were found between three specific character education indicators and the total character educa-tion score and higher scores on California’s API and the percentage of students scoring at or above the 50th

percentile on the SAT9.

The belief that character education implemen-tation in sch ools is related to academicachievement of studen ts in those schools hasgreat intrinsic appeal. From biblical times, the

purpose of childhoo d education has b een tocultivate b oth the mo ral character and theintellect of youth. In the United States thesedual purposes have permeated schooling since

1-1c02.fm Page 19 Friday, September 12, 2003 11:22 AM

20 Journal of Research in Character Education Vol. 1, No. 1, 2003

colonial times (McCle llan, 1999) and were ofsignificant in terest to the foundin g fathers o fthis nation. Over the past century, progressiveeducators in the m id-20th century and moretraditionalist character educators 50 years laterhave shared the same optimism. For example,John Childs noted in 1950 that

The child who is learning through empiri-cal p rocedures to di scriminate the betterfrom the worse in th e diffe rent mu ndanespheres of h uman a ctivity is, at t he sametime, growing in ca pacity for moral judg-ment. It is in and th rough these varied andinterrelated life activities that the real occa-sions for moral decision arise, and the childgrows in his capaci ty to function as aresponsible moral agent as he grows in hisability to make judgmen ts of the good andthe bad in terms of concrete consequences.Moral be havior is thus a fun ction of theentire experience of the child, and all edu-cation is ine scapably a fo rm o f ch aractereducation. (p. 167)

Ryan and Bohlin (1999) agree. They write,

Where does character education fit into thecurriculum? Th e simple answer is this:everywhere. Since education seeks to helpstudents de velop as persons, ch aracterdevelopment is part and parcel of the wholeenterprise. Teaching, as Alan Tom remindsus, is a moral act. We believe that learningis a moral act as well . . . . Character educa-tion, then, with its twin goals of intellectualand moral development, should be implicitin a ll of th e sc hool’s un dertakings. (pp .93-94)

Logically, experts agree that character edu-cation is th e responsibility of adults (see forexample Cente r for the 4 th and 5th Rs, 2003;Damon, 2002, p. ix; Wynne & Ryan, 1997, p.1). But there is no full consensus on how it is tobe defined, practiced or ev aluated. Berkowitz(1998) has documented this lack of consensus.While the term h istorically has referred to theduty of the older generation to form the charac-ter of the young through experiences affectingtheir attitud es, kno wledge, and behaviors,more recent definitions include developmentaloutcomes such as a po sitive perception o f

school, emotion al literacy, and social justiceactivism. There are sweeping d efinitions ofcharacter education (e. g., Character Coun ts’six pillars, Community of Caring’s five valuesor the Character Education Partnership’s 11principles) and mo re narrow ones su ch asthose used by the specific programs describedin the following paragraphs. Character educa-tion can be defined via relationship virtues(e.g., respect, fairness, civility, tolerance) orperformance virtues (e.g., diligence, self-disci-pline, effort, perseverance) or a combination ofthe two (an onymous reviewer comm ent). TheState of California has include d some charac-ter education criteria into the application pro-cess for its statew ide schoo l recogni tionprogram and in the process has created its owncharacter education definition. Other statesand districts have undoubtedly done the same.Each definition direc ts the practic e of ch arac-ter education. To co mplicate the picture evenmore, mo st character education init iativeseither are not yet objectiv ely evalu ated, orthose evaluation s tend to focus only on theirown specific program’s character-related out-comes. It is unusual to find evaluations relatingcharacter education programs to academic out-comes. But over the past five years some evi-dence of th e relatio nship betw een charactereducation and academic learning has begun toemerge.

Several programs seeking primarily toimprove students’ social attitudes and behav-iors have repo rted po sitive imp acts o n aca-demic performance at the elementary schoollevel. For example, the Peaceful SchoolsProject (PSP) of the Menninger Clinic has asits purpose to reduce disru ptive behaviors. Anevaluation of the PSP (Twemlow, Fonagy,Sacco, Gies, Evans, & Ewban k, 2001)revealed significant gains for the implement-ing elem entary schoo l on the MetropolitanAchievement Te st compared with anon-implementing elementary school.Research on the Responsive Classroom (RC),an approach to integrate soc ial and ac ademiclearning, found in a series of studies (Elliot,1998) th at studen ts in implementing schools


The Relationship of Character Education Implementation and Academic Achievement in Elementary Schools 21

had significantly greater gains in standardizedacademic test scores than did students in com-parison schools.

Other element ary school programs th atfocus on student social attitudes and behaviorshave academic effects that surface only in mid-dle and/or high school. The Child Dev elop-ment Project, one of th e most w idely studiedcharacter education programs, found little evi-dence of academ ic gain during its elementaryschool initiative (Solomon, Battistich, Watson,Schaps, & Lew is, 2 000). How ever, in fol-low-up studies of middl e schoo l students(through 8 th grade) wh o earlier had attendedCDP elementary schoo ls, those students whoattended CDP program schools in elementaryschool had high er course grades an d higheracademic ac hievement test scores than com-parison elementary school students (Battistich& Hong, 2003). Similar effects were reportedfor longitudinal follow-ups of middle and highschool students participating as elementaryschool students in the Seattle Social Develop-ment Project, a longitudinal study to test strat-egies for reducing childhood risk factors forschool failure, drug abuse, an d del inquency(Hawkins, Catalano, Ko sterman, Abbo tt, &Hill, 1999; Hawkins, Guo , Hill , Battin-Pear-son, & Abbott, 20 01). No such positive aca-demic effects w ere found at the elementarylevel du ring implementation of the Seattleproject (Hawkins, Catalano, Morrison, O’Don-nell, A bbott, & Day, 1992). Evalu ations ofPositive Action (PA), a comprehensive schoolreform program, resulted in a similar pattern ofdelayed academic g ains (Flay & Allred, inpress), although an evaluation in 13 of its par-ticipating elementary schools in two states didreveal significant gain s for PA schools on theTerranova and Stanford Ac hievement te sts(Flay, Allred, & Ordway, 2001).

There is evidence as well of the impact ofcharacter education on secondary schoo l stu-dents’ aca demic gains. The Teen Outreac hProgram (TOP) seeks to preven t problembehaviors b y providin g supports for adoles-cents. From a national samp le of 25 h ighschools, an evaluation of TOP (Allen, Philber,

Herring, & Kupermine, 1997) has revealed asignificant decrease in course failure for stu-dents randomly assig ned to its program ascompared to control students. Also, an unpub-lished study of the Com munity of Caring(COC) in six high sch ools (Balicki, 199 1)reported that COC 9 th grade students showedsignificantly higher g ains in school g rades ascompared to no n-COC stu dents. A secondunpublished study on the COC reported simi-lar effects (Scriba Ed ucational Services,1998-1999).

Finally, case studies of successful individ-ual school character education initiatives havebeen rep orted. For examp le, many N ationalSchools of Character, such as Columbine Ele-mentary School (Character Education Partner-ship, 2000 ) report sign ificant academic gainsduring the implementation of character educa-tion.

The argument that quality character educa-tion is good acad emic educa tion is bolsteredby findings that educational interventions withcharacter-related the mes produ ce a ran ge ofeffects that are linked to effectiv e schooling.Although these findings generally are fromprograms that do not claim to be character edu-cation programs, for the most part their focusis on enhancing interp ersonal u nderstandingand prosocial behavior. For example,

• Across Ages, an intergen erational men-toring program, has been shown to posi-tively im pact h igh school attendance(Taylor, LoSciu oto, Fox, Hilbert, &Sonkowsky, 1999),

• the Child Developm ent Project, a totalschool p rogram focusing on prosocialdevelopment, has produced gains in aca-demic mo tivation, bo nding to school,task orientation, and frequency ofself-chosen re ading in elementaryschool (Solomon, et al., 2000),

• a Character Counts! surv ey of over8,400 students receiv ing tha t programfound that students rep orted they “Gethomework done more often” (28% ofthe sample agreeing in 2000 vs. 15%



agreeing in 1998); and they “Cheat less”(35% agreeing in 2000 vs. 26% in 1998)(South Dakota Survey Results, 2000),

• Promoting Alternative Thinking Strate-gies (PATHS), a program pro motingemotional and social competencies, hasincreased blind observers’ reports ofpositive classroom behavior such as fol-lowing ru les, showing interest andenthusiasm, and stayin g on task (Con -duct Pro blems Prevention ResearchGroup, 1999),

• Project Essential, a program to help chil-dren develop integrity and self-respect,has been found to improve overall class-room behav ior in elementary school(Teel Institute, 1998),

• Reach Out to Schools, another socialcompetency program , has reportedlong-term gains in middle school b oys’self-control (Hennessey & Seigle,1998), and

• the Teen Outreach Program has reducedschool suspen sions in h igh school(Allen, et al., 1997).

While ed ucational theorists may support aninherent link between character education andacademic achie vement, and while re centresearch has begun to demonstrate such a linkin the implementation of specific programs, noevidence exists for a bro ader relationship thatspans a range o f character educ ationapproaches in a large sample of schools.

The Research

This study sought to take advantage o f anopportunity to access two l arge sets of dataallowing a direct, objective comparison of therelation between character education and aca-demic ach ievement in California elem entaryschools. In 2000, the California Department ofEducation (CD E) implemented a revisedrubric for the California School RecognitionProgram (CSRP). The CS RP is a competitiveselection process cond ucted by the CD E toreward schools that successfully implement

state priorities (California Department of Edu-cation, 2001a). Schoo ls seeking that recogni-tion subm itted a comprehensive applicatio n,including a complete demographic descriptionand a 12-page, single spaced narrative address-ing nine standards incorporating major themesof state and national policies and researchrelated to effective schools. In that process,applications were evaluated and scores derivedand assigned. The schools were then ranked innumerical order fro m highest to lowest, w iththe highest scorin g schools selected as state-wide nominees, eligible to receive a site vali-dation visit and subsequent award (Californ iaDepartment of Education, 2001b).

Specific wording related to character edu-cation was included in the CSRP fo r the firsttime in 2000. Thu s, scho ols applying fo r th eaward that year were instructe d to describetheir programs in character education. Presum-ably, schools not ad dressing character educa-tion would have difficulty attaining statewid enominee status. Of the n ine standards in th eCSRP application, the one which most clearlycalled for a character educatio n descriptio n,Standard 1 (V ision and Standards), wasweighted double in point value com pared toother stan dards. To receive maximum pointson this standard , schools were informed toinclude “specific exam ples and other evi-dence” that they addresse d in their pro gramvision an d standards “expectations that pro-mote positive character traits in students” (Cal-ifornia Department of Education, 2001c). Oneother standard (#7, Support for Student Learn-ing) was directly related to character educationas well. It required schools to document activ-ities and programs that ensured opportunitiesfor students to contribute to the school, to oth-ers and to the community. Other standards inthe CSRP application were found to have rele-vance to character education. Those included#3 (Curricu lum Content and InstructionalPractices), #4 (T eacher Professionalism), #8(Family Involv ement) and #9 (CommunityConnections). Six hundred and eighty-one ele-mentary schools (out of 5 368 elementaryschools in California) applied for the 20 00



CSRP award. Of that group, 230 schoolsreceived the award. The 681 CSRP elementaryschool app lications submitted for the 20 00award competitio n comprised the populationsampled for this study.

Measures of Academic Achievement Used in the Study

The standardized test administered by th estate of California between 1999 and 2002 wasthe Stanford Achievement Test, Ninth Edition(SAT9). Scores from SAT9 includ ed in ourstudy w ere th e percentag e o f students w hoscored at o r above the 5 0th percentile on th ereading, lang uage, an d mathematics sectionsof the test for the years 1999 through 2002. Inaddition, data for each schoo l inclu ded th eAcademic Perfor mance Index ( API) f or theyears 1999 to 2002, a scale develo ped by theCalifornia Department of Educatio n to rankschools on achievement and to measure theirgain from year to year. The API score isderived through a complex fo rmula using aweighted composite of SAT9 scores, includingthe spelling subscore, a formula-driven reflec-tion of sub-scores of minority groups, anditems developed by the State each year in othersubject areas. Thoug h additional factors w ereadded to the academic p erformance index insubsequent years, for the first years of its cal-culation and reporting (199 9 and 2000), th eresults of the SAT9 con stituted the API. Insubsequent years, test results based on the Cal-ifornia content standards were added with theSAT9 scores to fo rm the overall API. There-fore, after 2001 (but not before) the APIincreasingly reflected assessment of the Statecontent stand ards, while th e SAT9 scoresremained a reflection of the same content dur-ing the fiv e-year period it was adm inistered.The API scores a vailable fro m the State arecomparable from year to year, but not overperiods of two or more years. These dataallowed us a unique opportunity to investigatethe relationship between the measures of char-acter education implementation and measuresof academic performance.

METHODOLOGY

Defining Character Education

Considerable time was spent by the firsttwo authors in developing an operational defi-nition of character education for this project. Inthe end, criteria were selected using a com bi-nation of the Character Educatio n QualityStandards developed by the Character Educa-tion Partnersh ip (2001) and criteria used byCalifornia in its CSRP application. Six criteriawere identified, all but one with two indica-tors. Each of the six criteria addressed oneimportant co mponent of character edu cation:the school promoted core ethical values as thebasis of good character; it involved parents andother community members in its charactereducation initiative; it infused character educa-tion in all aspects of school life; the schoolstaff were involved and modeled good charac-ter; the school fostered a sense of caring; and,it provided opportunities for stu dents to prac-tice moral action. A rubric encompassing thesesix criteria was created and a scoring scale wasdesigned.

The scoring sc ale wa s developed by fo urraters—two professors with extensive experi-ence in character education and two doctoralstudents with years of educational and admin-istrative e xperience—after differences werenoted in interpretation of the criteria/indicatorsin early scoring trials conducted to establishreliability. A scal e (1 - 5 ) and a defin ition foreach of its five levels were created for each ofthe eleven indicators. A low score (1) indicatedno evidence in the school’s application for thatindicator, and a high score (5) indicated co m-prehensive attention by the school to that indi-cator. In combination, the criteria and theircorresponding ind icators in Table 1 becameour working definition of character education.

Selecting the Sample

A to tal of 68 1 elem entary scho ols madeapplication to the State for the CSRP for theacademic year 1999 -2000. Of those, 653 had



available both co mplete applications andachievement scores. Two schools were deletedfrom the data set due to their very extremegains or losses on the State’s Academic Perfor-mance Index (API) between 199 9 and 2000.These two schools were considered outliers forthe purposes of these analyses.

The remaining 6 51 el ementary schools inthe sample were ranked on their 1999 A PIscores and divided into three groups of 217, ahigh-scoring group, a midd le group , and alow-scoring group. In turn, each of thesegroups was rank ed according to th eir gainscores from th eir 1999 to their 2 000 SAT9scores. From each of these six resulting sub -groups, 20 schools were randomly selected forthe scoring and analyses, for a total of 120 ele-mentary schools. This meth od of selectionensured that the sample was representative o fhigh, middle, and low achieving schools fromthe applicant pool, and that the schoo ls ana-lyzed also represented high and low academicachievement gain during the 1999-2000 school

year, the y ear in which they app lied for th eCSRP award.

Characteristics of the Sample

The sample of 120 schools had the follow-ing mean percent of stud ents sco ring at orabove the 5 0th percentile on the SAT9 sub-scores for 1999 and 2000:

These 120 schools w ere not significantly dif-ferent from the rest of the schools that submit-ted applications (but were not selected for thestudy) on the following academic indicators:the API 1999 score (t = -.487, p = .626), theAPI 2000 score (t = -.436, p = .663), and th eAPI growth from 1 999 to 2000 (t = .360, p =

TABLE 1Criteria and Indicators Defining Character Education

1) This school promotes core ethical values as the basis of good character.

1.1) School agreed on core values.1.2) Programs are in place to support school values.

2) In this school, parents and other community members are active participants in the CE initiative.

2.1) Parents have participated in the design and application of the CE initiative.

3) In this school, CE entails an intentional, proactive and comprehensive approach that promotes core values in all phases of school life (i.e., cafeteria, transportation, playground, classrooms, etc.).

3.1) The school is intentional and proactive with regard to CE.

3.2) The school ensures a clean and secure physical environment.

4) Staff share responsibility for CE and attempt to model good character.

4.1) The staff promotes and models fairness, equity, caring and respect and infuses CE.

4.2) Selection criteria and staff development reflect CE.

5) This school fosters an overall caring community as well as in each classroom.

5.1) Policies and practices promote a caring community and positive social relationships.

5.2) The school promotes democratic processes of governance and decision-making.

6) This school provides opportunities for most students to practice moral action.

6.1) Students contribute in meaningful ways.6.2) Curriculum includes collaborative/group activities and

service learning.

1999 2000

SAT9 Reading 62.5% 65.5%SAT9 Language 66.0% 69.8%SAT9 Math 66.2% 72.3%



.719). The sample schools were also not signif-icantly different from the remaining applicantschools on t he follow ing demographic vari-ables: percent of English language learners (t =1.72, p = .086), average parent education level(t = -1.32, p = .187), o r on the percent of cre-dentialed teachers at the school (t = 1.56 , p =.122). Of the 120 schools randomly selected tobe part of our stud y, 40 (33 .3%) w on distin-guished school status in 2000 and 80 (66.7%)did no t. These proportions w ere not signifi-cantly different (chi square = .02 2, p = .881)from those of the total scho ol applicant p ool(34.0% and 66.0% respectively). We can con-clude from these results that the sample of 120stratified-randomly selected schools is a repre-sentative sample of all the schools that submit-ted distingu ished school applicat ions in fall1999 for the 2000 award.

Interrater Reliability Estimates

An extensive time period was devoted tocreating the rubric and its scoring scale and toestablishing reliab ility in scoring the CSRPapplications. In all, before the scoring was ini-tiated on the final sam ple, 22 rando mlyselected school applications were scored, ana-lyzed and discussed by the raters over a 17month period in order to refine the rubric andestablish interrater reliability.

The four raters evaluated the 120 randomlyselected applications on the character edu ca-tion elements in sub-groups of seven app lica-tions. All four raters rated the first 2applications of each sub-group and the resultswere compared and discussed. Score differ-

ences of more than one score po int on thefive-point scale were resolved through discus-sion and w here n ecessary, those items wererescored. The overall score fo r each of thecommonly scored app lications (th e means ofthe 11 scores for each rater) was also tested forsignificance using onew ay ANOVA to deter-mine whether there were overall mean differ-ences in scoring for the fo ur raters, and nosignificant differences were found. These pro-cedures were repeat ed fo r two co mmonlyscored app lications before each rater scoredfive applications ind ependently until all 120applications w ere scored. The applicationsscored in common by all four raters were com-pared and checked for reliability through cor-relations and ANO VA, and discrepant scoreswere discussed and reso lved. In this way, theraters were check ed for drift from the scalethrough d iscussion of the commonly -scoredapplications. Where disagreements werefound, discussions about the ratings occu rredand adjustments were made to ensure thatscorers were all using the rubric with similarunderstanding of the descriptions for each ofthe five rating levels. In all, 20 of the 120applications were scored by all four raters.

As shown in Table 2, interrater reliabilitiesin the form of Pearso n correlations rangedfrom .55 to .66 for the 20 commonly -scoredapplications.

Results for the oneway AN OVA on alltwenty commonly scored applications showedno significant differences in the overall meanscores (2.33, 2.37, 2.43, and 2.57) for the fourraters (F = .35, p = .7 9). Raters’ scores wereconverted to z scores to help account for any

TABLE 2Intercorrelations of Ratings by Rater.

Rater 1 2 3 4

1 - .55* .58* .56*2 .55* - .64* .60*3 .58* .64* - .66*4 .56* .60* .66* -

* p<.01



scale differences raters may have had and the zscores were used in subsequent analyses.

RESULTS

Relationships between Character Education (CE) Scores and Academic Achievement Indicators

In order to look for linear relatio nshipsbetween the CE ratings and academic achieve-ment levels of the 120 sample schools, Pearsoncorrelations were comp uted between total CEscore and each CE indicator and the API scoresand SAT9 su bscores for the 120 sampleschools. Significant correlations are reportedin Tables 3 (API) an d 4 (SAT9). Correlationsapproaching signi ficance (rang ing from p =.053 to p = .09) are also noted. As shown, thesmall positive co rrelations found between CEindicators 3.2 (clean and secure physical envi-ronment), 4.1 (staff promotes and models CE),and 6.1 (students contribute in meaningfulways) and the total CE score for all of the aca-demic ac hievement indic ators were for themost part sign ificant. For all SAT9 scoresexcept the SAT9 reading scores for 2000 and2002 the total CE scores showed small but sig-nificant positive correlations. For these two

reading scores, the correlation approached sig-nificance (p = .070 and .076 respectively). Inaddition, small but significant correlationswere found for several of the SAT9 subscoresand CE indicator 5.1 (policies and practicespromote caring and po sitive so cial relation-ships). Thus, schools with hig her evidence ofcharacter education implem entation in theseareas and with more total character educationoverall tended to have higher academic scoreson all the measures used for the year prior totheir application, the year of their application,and the subsequent two years, although therelationships were not strong.

Relationships between CE Scores and Academic Achievement Gain

In order to determine whether CE scores arerelated to gains on the API or on the percent ofstudents at or above the 50th percentile on theSAT9 subscores, Pearson correlations w erecalculated for the API 1999 to 2000 gain, andfor the SAT9 subscore gains for 1999 to 2000,1999 to 2001, and 1999 to 2002 . Only twosmall bu t significant correlations w ere foundbetween CE indicators and gain scores on theacademic indic ators. A co rrelation of r = .19(p<.05) was found between the gain on SAT9

TABLE 3Pearson Correlations Between CE Indicators and API

CE Indicator API 1999 API 2000 API 2001 API 2002

1.1 Agreed on values1.2 Programs in place2.1 Parents participate3.1 School proactive3.2 Clean/Secure .23* .19* .19* .18*4.1 Staff promotes .25* .20* .24** .25**4.2 Staff development5.1 Caring community (.18) (.17) .18* .21*5.2 Democratic process6.1 Students contribute .26* .21* .23* .23*6.2 Group and SLTotal CE .22* .18* .20* .20*

*p<.05, **p<.01 (p values in parentheses are .053 and .068)



TAB

LE 4

Pear

son

Cor

rela

tions

Bet

wee

n C

E In

dica

tors

and

SA

T9 S

ubsc

ores

CE

Indi

cato

rRe

ad

1999

Read

20

00Re

ad

2001

Read

20

02La

ng.

1999

Lang

. 20

00La

ng.

2001

Lang

. 20

02M

ath

1999

Mat

h 20

00M

ath

2001

Mat

h 20

02

1.1

Agr

eed

on v

alue

s1.

2 Pr

ogra

ms i

n pl

ace

2.1

Pare

nts p

artic

ipat

e3.

1 Sc

hool

Pro

activ

e3.

2 C

lean

/Sec

ure

.18*

(.17)

.19*

(.15)

.25*

*.2

2*.2

0*(.1

7).2

1*.1

9*.2

2*.1

9*4.

1 St

aff p

rom

otes

.20*

(.17)

.23*

.20*

.25*

*.2

1*.2

1*.2

4*.2

6*.2

1*.2

7**

.24*

4.2

Staf

f dev

elop

men

t5.

1 C

arin

g co

mm

unity

(.17)

(.16)

.20*

(.17)

.19*

(.17)

(.17)

.19*

(.16)

(.16)

.18*

(.17)

5.2

Dem

ocra

tic p

roce

sses

6.1

Stud

ents

con

tribu

te.2

8**

.22*

.22*

.20*

.27*

*.2

3*(.1

8).2

0*.2

5**

.23*

.23*

.20*

6.2

Gro

up a

nd S

LT

otal

CE

.18*

(.17)

.20*

(.16)

.22*

.20*

.19*

.20*

.20*

.19*

.22*

.20*

**p<

.05,

**p

<.01

(p

valu

es in

par

enth

eses

rang

e fr

om .0

60 to

.096

and

are

mai

nly

in th

e .0

60-.0

76 ra

nge)

1-1c

02.fm

Pag

e 27

Frid

ay, S

epte

mbe

r 12,

200

3 1

1:22

AM


reading from 199 9 to 2001 and CE indicator3.1 (school is proactive in CE). A negative cor-relation of r = -.20 (p<.05) was found betweengain on the SAT9 language score changebetween 1999 and 200 1 and CE indicator 6.1(students contribute in meaningful ways).Though it seems curious to find a positive cor-relation between gain in reading scores andone CE criterion and a negative correlationbetween gain in langu age score and anotherclosely related CE criterion over the same timeperiod, we have no explanation for this anom-aly in the data. Suffice to state that there appearto be almost n o linear relatio nships betweenCE sc ores and changes in the acad emic gainindicators for these time period s. Perhaps somuch emphasis was put on schools at that timeto produce new programs d esigned to bo ostachievement (a s measured by SAT9 scores)that it wou ld have been difficult to attributeachievement gain to CE programs at thoseschools even had we found positive relation -ships between the two.

DISCUSSION

The results of this research indicate that a com-posite summary sc ore of ch aracter educ ationcriteria is positively c orrelated with academicindicators a cross yea rs. The elem entaryschools in our sample with solid character edu-cation programs defined by our six criteria andtheir eleven indicators not only show positiverelationships with academ ic indi cators thatsame year, but also evidence positive co rrela-tions across the next two academic years.

The results also indicate that certain criteriaidentified as characteristic of quality charactereducation programs in elementary schools arecorrelated with higher scores on California’sacademic performance index (API) and on thepercent of students scoring at or above the 50th

percentile on the SAT9. Over a four-yearperiod from 1999-2002, higher rankings on theAPI and higher scores on the SAT9 w ere sig-nificantly positively correlated with a sum -mary score of character education and three of

our character education in dicators (see Tables3 and 4):

• a school’s ability to en sure a clean andsafe p hysical environment (criterion3.2),

• evidence that its parent s and teachersmodeled and pro moted good charactereducation (criterion 4.1), and

• quality opportunities at the school forstudents to contribut e in mean ingfulways to th e school and its commu nity(criterion 6.1).

In addition, higher ratings on the summaryscore and these same three character educationindicators generally w ere significan tly corre-lated ov er the four-year period with h igherachievement scores (as measured by SAT9) inmathematics and language (except for studentopportunities to contribute to school and com-munity in 2001 and a school’s ability to ensurea safe and clean physical environment in2002). Higher character education scores onthe summary score an d th e th ree in dicatorsalso correlated significantly with hig her read-ing achievement scores in 19 99 and 2001, butnot in 2000 and 2002. It should be rememberedthat the data on character education were avail-able only from the 2000 CSRP applications butthat achievement data were available for otheryears as w ell. Thus the CE scores remaine dunchanged while achievement scores changed.Overall these are promising results, particu-larly because the total character educationscore for 2000 is sig nificantly correlated withevery language achievement SAT9 score andevery mathematics achievemen t SAT9 scorefrom 1 999-2002 and readin g achi evementscores in two of tho se four years. To a lesserdegree, over this four-year period , indicator5.1 (fostering an overall carin g community inthe school and its classrooms) correlated w ithtwo years of API scores (2001, 2002) and fourof twelve SAT9 subscores across the assessedcontent areas, but not co nsistently within th eassessed content areas.



Indicator 3.2: Ensuring a Clean and Secure Physical Environment

Although all scho ols in our samp leaddressed this criterion, the h igher scoringcharacter education sch ools described greatpride in keeping their buildings and grounds ingood shape. This is consisten t with what isreported about the virtues of clean and safelearning environments. For example, the Cen-ter for Prevention of School Violence (2003)notes that, “th e physical ap pearance of aschool and its campus co mmunicates a lotabout the school and its peo ple. Paying atten-tion to appearance so that th e facilities areinviting can create a sense of security.”

One school in our sam ple reported that itsbuildings “are main tained well above districtstandards . . . . The custodial crew prides them-selves in achiev ing a month ly cleaning scorethat has exce eded standards in 9 out of 12months.” A nd anoth er noted that “a dailygrounds check is performe d to ensu re contin-ual safety and cleanliness.” Each of the higherscoring schools in our sample explicitly notedits success in keeping its campus in top shapeand th at its paren ts were satisfied that theirchildren were attending school in a physicallyand psychologically safe environment.

All schools in California are required tohave a written Safe Sc hool Plan on file, butemphases vary. While some schools limit theirsafety plans to regula tions co ntrolling acce ssto the physical plant and define procedures forviolations and intrusions, the better charactereducation sch ools define this criterion morebroadly and more deeply . For example, onehigh scoring school in our sample explainedthat the mission o f its Safe School Plan was,“to p rovide all students with ed ucational andpersonal opportunities in a positive and nurtur-ing envi ronment wh ich will en able them toachieve current and fu ture goals, and for allstudents to be ac cepted at their own social,emotional, and acad emic le vel of dev elop-ment.” Another high-scoring school defined itsSafe School Plan to include three areas offocus: identificat ion of visito rs on campus,

cultural/ethnic harmony, and safe ingress andegress from school. To support these areas offocus this school’s teachers all were trained inconducting classroom meetings, in implement-ing the Community of Caring core values, andin issues related to cultural diversity and com-munication.

Indicator 4.1: Promoting and Modeling Fairness, Equity, Caring and Respect

In high character education/high academicschools st aff model and promote fairness,equity, caring, and respect, and infuse charac-ter edu cation into the school and classroomcurriculum. A recen t essa y drove home thispoint—it’s title was “Moral Teachers, MoralStudents” (Weissbourd, 20 03). The authornoted, “The moral d evelopment o f studentsdoes not depend primarily on explicit charactereducation efforts but on the maturity and ethi-cal cap acities of the adults with wh om theyinteract . . . . Educators influence stu dents’moral development n ot simply by being goodrole models—important as that is—but also bywhat they bring to their relationships with stu-dents day to day . . .” (pp . 6/7). The staff ofexcellent character educa tion sch ools in oursample are treated as professionals and seethemselves as involved, concerned profes-sional educators. They are professio nal rolemodels.

Thus, one school described its teachers as“pivotal in the [curriculum] development pro-cess; there is a high lev el of [teacher] ow ner-ship in the curriculum . . . . Fifty percent of ourstaff currently ser ve on district curriculumcommittees.” Another school stated that it“fosters the belief th at it takes an entire com-munity pullin g togeth er to provide the b esteducation for eve ry child; that is best acco m-plished through communication, trust, and col-laboration of ideas that reflect the needs of ourschool and the comm unity . . . . Teachers arecontinually empowered and given opportuni-ties to voice their convictions and shape theoutcome of what the school represents.” Athird school described its teachers as “continu-



ally en couraged” to grow profession ally anduse best practices b ased on research. In thebest character education schools, teachers arerecognized by their peers, district perso nneland professio nal o rganizations for theirinstructional pro wess an d their professional-ism. They model the academic and pro-socialcharacteristics tha t represent a deep c oncernfor the well being of children.

Indicator 6.1: Students Contribute in Meaningful Ways

Finally, we found that academically excel-lent character education schoo ls provideopportunities for students to contribute inmeaningful ways to the school and its commu-nity. In o ur study, opportunities to contribute(i.e., volu nteering) were distingu ished fromservice learning opportunities. Surprisingly, inour rubric the criterion related to service learn-ing, though assessed (e.g., indicator 6.2), wasnot a significant component of high charactereducation/high ach ievement sch ools. Thosehigh scoring schools did provide opportunitiesand encouraged students to participate in vol-unteer activ ities such as cross-age tutoring,recycling, fund raising for charities, commu -nity clean-up programs, food drives, v isita-tions to local senior centers, etc. One schoolrequired 20 hours of community service, a pro-gram coordinated entir ely by parent volun -teers. Students in that schoo l volu nteered incommunity gardens, at convalescent ho spitalsand fo r commun ity clean-up days. A notherschool wrote an d received a gran t to hire aschool-community coordinator. That personspent part of her work schedule finding oppor-tunities for students to contribute. On thewhole, while these activities are not directlyconnected to students’ academic program s,they seem to be consistent with activities thatpromote a healthy moral character. Accordingto William Damo n, a crucial co mponent ofmoral education is eng aging children in posi-tive activities, be they comm unity serv ice,sports, music, theater or an ything else that

inspires them and gives them a sense of pur-pose (as cited in Gilbert, 2003).

Indicator 5.1: Promoting a Caring Community and Positive Social Relationships

It should not be overloo ked th at indicator5.1, sch ools’ policies or practices promotingcaring communities, was positively correlatedwith some of the SAT9 sub scores and APIscores in 1999, 2001, and 2002. These correla-tions ranged the SAT9 sub scores, but with outregularity. There may be several explan ationsfor these data. First, our scoring scale for item5.1 focused primarily on the positive socialrelations an d carin g com munity that existedbetween the sch ool and p arents, e.g ., parentinvolvement, social functions to bond the fam-ily to the school, etc. Second, it may be that theeffects of positive social relations and caringcommunities may not show immediately. Suchwas the case with dat a reported by the ChildDevelopment Pro ject (Battistich & Hon g,2003) and the Seattle Social Dev elopmentProject (Hawkins et all, 1999, 2001).

CONCLUSION

The results presented here, though modest, arevery hop eful. Most California elementaryschools in our sam ple did not implementresearch-based character education programs.Others were affiliated with established concep-tualizations (e.g., Character Coun ts! or Com-munity of Caring ) that allow considerab leflexibility in implementation. Many schoolscreated their own programs of character educa-tion, relying on rather superficial expectationstied to their classroom management/disciplineprocedures. In this study we found that, thoughcharacter education criteria were stated in th eCSRP application, schools responded to thoseindicators in quite varied ways. Some ignoredcharacter education completely in their writtenapplications an d oth ers had fully developed,well con ceptualized program descriptions. It



appears from this diverse sam ple of schools,that those scho ols addressing th e charactereducation of their students in a serious,well-planned mann er tended also to hav ehigher academic achievement scores.

Acknowledgment: The re search describedin this article was funded by a grant fro m theJohn Templeton Foundation, Radnor, PA. Theauthors gratefully acknowledge the support ofDr. Arthur J. Schwartz of the John TempletonFoundation, the assistance of Ms. Sherry Frittsof California S tate University , Fresno, andcomments from anonymous reviewers.

REFERENCES

Allen, J. S., Philber, S., Herring, S., & Kupermine,G. P. (199 7). Prev enting tee n preg nancy an dacademic fail ure: Exp erimental evaluation o f adevelopmentally ba sed a pproach. Child D evel-opment, 64, 729-742.

Balicki, B. J. (1991). Final report: An evaluation ofthe Community of Caring-In-Schools Initiative.Unpublished paper, The Center for Health Pol-icy Studies.

Battistich, V. & H ong, S. (2003 ). Enduring effectsof the Child Development Project: Second-orderlatent linear growth modeling of students’ “con-nectedness” to sc hool, a cademic pe rformance,and socia l adjustm ent d uring mid dle sch ool.Unpublished m anuscript, Developmental St ud-ies Center.

Berkowitz, M. (1998). Obstacles to teacher trainingin character education. Action in Teacher Educa-tion, 20(Winter), 1-10.

California Department of Education (2001a). Cali-fornia School Recognition Program: 2000 Pro-gram Information. [Online] Accessed A pril 16,2003, h ttp://www.cde.ca.gov/ope/csrp/2000/proginfo.htm

California Department of Ed ucation (2001b). Cali-fornia School Recognition Program: 2000 Basisfor Selection of Distinguished Schools. [Online]Accessed Ap ril 16, 2003 , http://www.cde.ca.gov/ope/csrp/2000/basis.htm

California Department of Education (2001c). Cali-fornia School Recognition Program: 2000 Ele-mentary S chools Program , Elementary S chool

Rubric. [Online] Accessed April 16, 2003, http://www.cde.ca.gov/ope/csrp/2000/elemrubric.pdf

Center for the F ourth and Fifth Rs (2003 ). What isCharacter Edu cation? [On line] Ac cessedAugust 18, 2003, http:/ / www.cortland.edu/c4n5rs/ce_iv.htm

Center fo r Prevention of School Violence. (2003).Facilities. [Online] Accessed August 18, 2003,http://www.juvjus.state.nc.us/cpsv/facility.htm.

Character Educa tion Partne rship (200 0). 2000National Schools o f Charac ter a nd PromisingPractices. Wa shington, DC : Ch aracter Educa-tion Partnership.

Character e ducation quality stand ards: Aself-assessment tool for schools and districts .(2001). Wa shington, DC: Charac ter Ed ucationPartnership

Childs, J. L. (19 50). Education and mo rals: Anexperimentalist philo sophy of ed ucation. NewYork: Appleton-Century-Crofts, Inc.

Conduct Pro blems Prevention Re search G roup(1999). Initial impact of the fast track preventiontrial for conduct problems: II. Classroom effects.Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology,67, 648-57.

Damon, W. (Ed.) (2002 ). Bringing in a new era incharacter e ducation. Stanford, CA.: HooverInstitution Press.

Elliott, S. N. (1 998). Does a classroom promotingsocial skills develo pment en able high er aca -demic functioning among its students over time?Greenfield, MA: Northeast Foundation for Chil-dren.

Flay, B. R. , & Allr ed, C. G. (in press). Long-termeffects of the positive action program. AmericanJournal of Health Behavior.

Flay, B. R., Allred, C. G., & Ordway, N. (2001).Effects of the Positive Action Program onachievement and discipline: Two-matched-con-trol comparisons. Prevention Science, 2, 71-89.

Gilbert, S. (2003). Scientists explore the molding ofchildren’s morals. New York Times, March 18.[Online] Ac cessed Marc h 20, 2003, http://www.nytimes.com/2003/03/18/health/children/18MORA.html)

Hawkins, J. D., Catalano, R. F., K osterman, R.,Abbott, R., & Hill, K. G. (1999). Preventing ado-lescent h ealth-risk be haviors by stren gtheningprotection during childhood. Archives of Pediat-ric and Adolescent Medicine, 153, 226-234.

Hawkins, J. D., Catalano , R. F., Morrison, D. M.,O’Donnell, J., Abbott, R. D., & Day, L. E.(1992). The Seattle Social Development Project:

1-1c02.fm Page 31 Sunday, September 14, 2003 10:39 AM


Effects of four ye ars on prote ctive factors a ndproblem behaviors. In J. McCord & R. Tremblay(Eds.) The Prevention of Antisocial Behavior inChildren. New York: Guilford.

Hawkins, J. D., Guo, J., Hill, K. G., Battin-Pearson,S., & Abbott, R. D. (2001). Long-term effects ofthe Seattle Social Development Intervention onschool bo nding traje ctories. Applied D evelop-mental Science, 5, 225-236.

Hennessey, B. A., & Seig le, P. (1998). Promotingsocial competency in school-aged children: Theeffects of the Rea ch Out to Sc hools competencyprogram. Unpublished pa per, W ellesley Col-lege, Wellesley, MA.

McClellan, B. E. (1999). Moral education in Amer-ica: Schools and the shaping of c haracter fromcolonial times to the present. New York: Teach-ers College Press.

Ryan, K. & Bohlin, K. E. (1999). Building Charac-ter in Schools: Practical Ways to Bring MoralInstruction to Life. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Scriba Educational Services Research & EvaluationTeam. (1998-1999). Teen pregnancy preventionprogram evaluation report. Unpublished report,Community of Caring, Washington, D.C.

Solomon, D., Battistich, V., Watson, M., Schaps, E.,& Lewis, C. (2000). A six-district study of edu-cational change: Direct and mediated effects of

the Child Development Project. Social Psychol-ogy of Education, 4, 3-51.

South Dakota Survey Results, 1998-2000. [Online]Accessed May 2 3, 2003, ht tp://www.character-counts.org/doing/SD2000report-2-findings-stu-dent.htm.

Taylor, A. S., LoSciuoto, L., Fox, M., Hilbert, S.M., & Sonkowsky, M. (199 9). The me ntoringfactor: Evaluation of the Across Ages’ intergen-erational a pproach to drug ab use pre vention.Child & Youth Services, 20, 77-99.

The Tee l Institute (1998 ). Moral cl assrooms: Thedevelopment of character and inte grity in theelementary sc hool. U npublished paper, Tee lInstitute, Kansas City, MO.

Twemlow, S. W., Fonagy, P., Sacco, F., Gies, M. L.,Evans, R., & Ewba nk, R. (2001 ). Cre ating aPeaceful School le arning e nvironment: A c on-trolled study of an ele mentary school interven-tion to red uce violence. American J ournal ofPsychiatry, 158, 808-810.

Weissbourd, R. (2 003). Moral teachers, moral stu-dents. Educational Leadership, 60(6), 6-11.

Wynne, E.A. and Ryan, K (1997). Reclaiming OurSchools: Teaching Ch aracter, Ac ademics, a ndDiscipline, 2 nd Ed. Up per Sa ddle Riv er, NJ:Merrill.


Documents

The Relationship of Character Education Implementation