Search

Those who implement character education initiatives intend for those initiatives to be effective in promoting the development of character. To maximize this likelihood, it is important to consider common problems of implementation and assessment. This article addresses four challenges to effective implementation: (a) what counts as evidence of effectiveness, (b) how to know about such evidence, (c) how to implement with fidelity, and (d) how to align implementation with targeted outcomes. Assessment is critical to addressing the challenge of effective practice. Here, we examine three core areas of assessment in character education: (a) implementation (process evaluation), (b) school climate, and (c) character development (outcome assessment).

The positive development of youth in schools rests heavily on the nature of the educators they learn from. Teacher ethos characterizes teachers’ professional ways of being – how teachers are in relationship with students, staff, and parents, how teachers become and embody their best selves. A teacher’s ethos is a combination of their character, competence, and credibility. Teachers’ ethos creates the context for moral learning in the classroom and can positively impact youth development more broadly through their collective contribution to the school’s ethos. School principals are a powerful determinant of the school ethos as well as the ability of teachers to develop and sustain their professional ethos. The developing ethos of new teachers and the maintenance and renewal of veteran teachers’ professional ethos are critical responsibilities of school leaders. Yet, teacher ethos, at least in the U.S., is an overlooked aspect of school leader effectiveness. In this chapter, we explore the potential consequences this lack of attention may have for teacher retention and the ways a school leaders’ ethos of Servant Leadership, with its rich conception of stewardship, can play a critical role in the development and protection of professional teacher ethos in twenty-first century schools.

The concept of school climate has been an important topic for education and it has been studied extensively over the past several decades. One of the challenges in such a research effort is to develop instruments that effectively and efficiently measure the construct. Literature has documented a number of school climate instruments, most of which target students’ perceptions. A review of recent literature on school climate suggests that it is imperative to assess teachers’ perceptions of school climate. The purpose of this study was to examine the factor structure and reliability of a revised version of a teacher survey instrument designed to measure school climate. Based on the data from a comprehensive character education project implemented in an urban school district in 2007 ( n = 380), 2008 ( n = 305), and 2010 ( n = 277), results of exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis revealed a seven-factor structure across 3 years, indicating a stable factor structure of the revised form. The scales in this abbreviated form demonstrated similar reliability to those of the original form.

When Tim Crutchley and Kristen Pelster were hired as the new principal and assistant principal (respectively) at Ridgewood Middle School in Arnold, Missouri, the school was in a shambles. Serving a mostly poor rural and suburban population, the building was covered in graffiti, the grounds were rotting and rusting, student behavior was unacceptable (it was the only school in the district with a police presence), and academic achievement was abysmal (only one in four students met state standards for communication arts, and less than 7 percent met standards for math). The students knew that the school did not care about them and behaved accordingly.

The concept of school climate has been an important variable in research on quality of school life and student learning. One of the challenges in such a research effort is to develop instruments that could effectively and efficiently measure the construct. The purpose of the current study was to examine the factor structure and reliability of an abbreviated version of the Developmental Study Center’s School Climate Survey. Based on data from a comprehensive character education project implemented in an urban school district in 2007 ( n = 5,914), 2008 ( n = 5,874) and 2009 ( n = 5,149), results of exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses (CFA) revealed a seven-factor structure across 3 years, indicating a stable factor structure of the abbreviated form. The scales in the abbreviated form demonstrated similar reliability to those of the original form.

Values education (alternatively, moral education, character education) is the attempt, within schools, to craft pedagogies and supportive structures to foster the development of positive, ethical, pro-social inclinations and competencies in youth, including around strengthening their academic focus and achievement. Recent research has uncovered evidence of effective practices that apply broadly to schools at different levels and varied contents. Reviews of the empirical research have allowed for the identification of effective practices, including interactional practices, professional development, parental involvement, role modeling, and service opportunities. This article reviews the existing research and presents such a set of research-based effective practices.

Character education is both an age‐old and growing discipline, which attempts to restructure schools to optimally foster the development of the ethical and pro‐social motivations and competencies of students. The key components of evidence‐based quality character education are presented. Then the relevant characteristics of gifted students are explored with the aim of identifying those characteristics that offer the opportunity for the optimal implementation of character‐building practices and structures in schools. Finally, the synergy between gifted student characteristics and character‐building pedagogies are delineated, demonstrating that the unique set of qualities of gifted students offers many rich opportunities for the application of effective character education to gifted education.

This essay comments on articles comprising a Journal of Moral Education Special Issue (September, 2008, 37[3]). The issue was intended to honour the 50th anniversary of Lawrence Kohlberg’s doctoral dissertation and his subsequent impact on the field of moral development and education. The articles were characterised by the Issue editor (Don Collins Reed) as providing a ‘look forward’ from Kohlberg’s work toward a more comprehensive or integrated model of moral functioning. Prominent were culturally pluralist and biologically‐based themes, such as cultural learning; expert skill; culturally shaped and neurobiologically‐based predispositions or intuitions; and moral self‐relevance or centrality. Inadequately represented, however, was Kohlberg’s (and Piaget’s) key concept of development as the construction of a deeper or more adequate understanding not reducible to particular socialisation practices or cultural contexts. Also neglected were related cognitive‐developmental themes, along with supportive eviden...

Any democratic society must concern itself with the socialization of its citizens. This begins in childhood, and schools are critical to this process. The interrelations and roles of educating for character (character education, moral education) and educating for citizenship (citizenship education, civic education) are explored, largely in a North American context. It is argued that citizenship education necessarily entails character and moral formation, but this integration is hindered by negative stereotyping between the two fields. In addition, negative stereotyping between the fields of moral education and character education further complicates attempts at synthesis. Through explorations of each of these domains and their similarities and differences, it is concluded that the role of schools in fostering the development of moral citizens in democratic societies necessitates focus on moral development, broader moral and related character development, teaching of civics and development of citizenship s...

Whereas character education is not new, scientific study of its effectiveness has been only sporadically implemented during the past thirty-five years. Much of the application of character education is therefore not informed by a scientific knowledge base. This article introduces a scientific perspective on character education and a summary of the research base examining the student impact of school-based character education. From this research base, general principles of effective practice are derived. This in turn is used to offer suggestions to practitioners and policy makers for the improvement of school-based character education.

Character education’s history in the United States goes back to the beginning of public schools. The emphasis and profile has waxed and waned, frequently with political trends. The current standards-based environment poses particular threats and challenges to character education. In spite of these pressures, character education continues and—by most measures—is growing. This article (a) defines character and examines the history of character education in U.S. public schools; (b) introduces and contrasts the major approaches: traditional character education, caring, and developmental; and (c) outlines and examines current issues including the relationship of character to citizenship education, the family and school roles in character development, the relationship of church and state, federal and state polices and funding of character education programs, and issues of evaluation and research. Although advocating for character education, the approach here to the issues is descriptive and as impartial as possible.