Character and Academics
Character and Academics: What Good Schools Do Benninga, Jacques S; Berkowitz, Marvin W; Kuehn, Phyllis; Smith, Karen . Phi Delta Kappan ;
Bloomington Vol. 87, Iss. 6, (Feb 2006): 448-452.
ProQuest document link
ABSTRACT Despite the clear national interest in character education, many schools are leery of engaging in supplementary
initiatives that might detract from their focus on increasing academic performance. If it could be demonstrated
that implementing character education programs is compatible with efforts to improve school achievement, then
perhaps more schools would accept the challenge of doing both. FULL TEXT
Headnote
Though there has been increasing interest in character education among policy makers and education
professionals, many schools hesitate to do anything that might detract from their focus on increasing academic
performance. The authors present evidence indicating that this may be misguided.
THE growth of character education programs in the United States has coincided with the rise in high-stakes
testing of student achievement. The No Child Left Behind Act asks schools to contribute not only to students’
academic performance but also to their character. Both the federal government and the National Education
Association (NEA) agree that schools have this dual responsibility. In a statement introducing a new U.S.
Department of Education character education website, then Secretary of Education Rod Paige outlined the need
for such programs:
Sadly, we live in a culture without role models, where millions of students are taught the wrong values or no values
at all. This culture of callousness has led to a staggering achievement gap, poor health status, overweight
students, crime, violence, teenage pregnancy, and tobacco and alcohol abuse. . . . Good character is the product of
good judgments made every day.1
And Bob Chase, the former president of the NEA, issued his own forceful call to action:
We must make an explicit commitment to formal character education. We must integrate character education into
the fabric of the curriculum and into extracurricular activities. We must train teachers in character education – both
preservice and inservice. And we must consciously set about creating a moral climate within our schools.2
Despite the clear national interest in character education, many schools are leery of engaging in supplementary
initiatives that, although worthy, might detract from what they see as their primary focus: increasing academic
achievement. Moreover, many schools lack the resources to create new curricular initiatives. Yet the enhancement
of student character is a bipartisan mandate that derives from the very core of public education. The purpose of
public schooling requires that schools seek to improve both academic and character education.
http://ezproxy.snhu.edu/login?qurl=https%3A%2F%2Fsearch.proquest.com%2Fdocview%2F218519891%3Faccountid%3D3783
http://ezproxy.snhu.edu/login?qurl=https%3A%2F%2Fsearch.proquest.com%2Fdocview%2F218519891%3Faccountid%3D3783
If it could be demonstrated that implementing character education programs is compatible with efforts to improve
school achievement, then perhaps more schools would accept the challenge of doing both. But until now there has
been little solid evidence of such successful coexistence.
DEFINITIONS AND RESEARCH
Character education is the responsibility of adults. While the term character education has historically referred to
the duty of the older generation to form the character of the young through experiences affecting their attitudes,
knowledge, and behaviors, more recent definitions include such developmental outcomes as a positive perception
of school, emotional literacy, and social justice activism.3
There are sweeping definitions of character education (e.g., Character Counts’ six pillars, Community of Caring’s
five values, or the Character Education Partnership’s 11 principles) and more narrow ones. Character education
can be defined in terms of relationship virtues (e.g., respect, fairness, civility, tolerance), self-oriented virtues (e.g.,
fortitude, self-discipline, effort, perseverance) or a combination of the two. The state of California has incorporated
character education criteria into the application process for its statewide distinguished school recognition
program and, in the process, has created its own definition of character education. Each definition directs the
practice of character education somewhat differently, so that programs calling themselves “character education”
vary in purpose and scope.
There is some research evidence that character education programs enhance academic achievement. For
example, an evaluation of the Peaceful Schools Project and research on the Responsive Classroom found that
students in schools that implemented these programs had greater gains on standardized test scores than did
students in comparison schools.4 The Child Development Project (CDP) conducted follow-up studies of middle
school students (through eighth grade) who had attended CDP elementary schools and found that diey had higher
course grades and higher achievement test scores than comparison middle school students.5 Longitudinal
studies have reported similar effects for middle school and high school students who had participated as
elementary school students in the Seattle Social Development Project.6
A growing body of research supports the notion that high-quality character education can promote academic
achievement. For example, Marvin Berkowitz and Melinda Bier have identified character education programs for
elementary, middle, and high school students that enhance academic achievement.7 These findings, however, are
based on prepackaged curricular programs, and most schools do not rely on such programs. Instead, they create
their own customized character education initiatives. It remains to be seen whether such initiatives also lead to
academic gains.
TOWARD AN OPERATIONAL DEFINITION OF CHARACTER EDUCATION
We decided to see if we could determine a relationship between character education and academic achievement
across a range of elementary schools. For our sample we used the elementary schools that applied in 2000 to the
California Department of Education for recognition as distinguished elementary schools, California’s highest level
of school attainment. Eligibility to submit an application for the California School Recognition Program (CSRP) in
2000 was based on the previous year’s academic performance index (API) results.
However, 1999 was the first year for California’s Public School Accountability Act (PSAA), which created the API.
Thus, while the state department stated that growth on the API was the central focus of the PSAA, schools
applying for the CSRP in 1999-2000 did not receive their 1999 API scores until January 2000, after they had already
written and submitted their award applications. Approximately 12.7% of California elementary schools (681 of
5,368 schools) submitted a full application for the award in 2000. The average API of these schools was higher
than the average for the schools that did not apply, but both were below the state expectancy score of 800. The
mean API for applicant schools was 751; for non-applicant schools, 612. The API range for applicant schools was
365-957; for non-applicant schools, 302-958. Hence the sample for this study is not representative of all California
elementary schools. It is a sample of more academically successful schools, but it does represent a broad range of
achievement from quite low to very high.
Specific wording related to character education was included for the first time in the CSRP application in 2000.
Schools were asked to describe what they were doing to meet a set of nine standards. Of these, the one that most
clearly pertained to character education was Standard 1 (Vision and Standards). For this standard, schools were
required to include “specific examples and other evidence” of “expectations that promote positive character traits
in students.”8 Other standards could also be seen as related to character education. For these, schools were asked
to document activities and programs that ensured opportunities for students to contribute to the school, to others,
and to the community.
We chose for our study a stratified random sample of 120 elementary schools that submitted applications. These
120 schools were not significantly different from the other 561 applicant schools on a variety of academic and
demographic indicators. For the schools in our sample, we correlated the extent of their character education
implementation with their API and SAT-9 scores the academic scale and test used by California at that time.9
The first problem we needed to grapple with was how to define a character education program. We spent
considerable time discussing an operational definition to use for this project. After conferring with experts, we
chose our final set of character education criteria, drawn from both the standards used by the California
Department of Education and the Character Education Quality Standards developed by the Character Education
Partnership.10 Six criteria emerged from this process:
* This school promotes core ethical values as the basis of good character.
* In this school, parents and other community members are active participants in the character education
initiative.
* In this school, character education entails intentional promotion of core values in all phases of school life.
* Staff members share responsibility for and attempt to model character education.
* This school fosters an overall caring community.
* This school provides opportunities for most students to practice moral action.
Each of the six criteria addresses one important component of character education. We created a rubric
encompassing these six criteria and listing indicators for each, along with a scoring scale.
CHARACTER EDUCATION AND ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT
Our…
