Running head: CHARACTER EDUCATION

Character Education

Carolyn R. Frasier
Group Counseling 732
University of Wisconsin-River Falls

Running head: CHARACTER EDUCATION

Character education is defined by the United States Department of Education as a

learning process that helps students and adults in a school community to understand, care about
and act on core ethical values such as respect, justice, civic virtue and citizenship, and
responsibility for self and others (Character Education, 2009).
Historically, theologians, philosophers, politicians, and educators have long concerned
themselves with character, morality, and values such as honesty, compassion, loyalty, respect
trust, responsibility, and others (Sanchez, 2004-2005). Sanchez (2004-2005) stated that within
the last 300 years, the main purpose of the American and non-American educational institution
has been in the area of character education. In America in the 1840s, Horace Mann, one of the
great education reformers helped to improve instruction in the classroom nationwide, advocating
that character development was as important as academics in American schools (Character
Education, 2009). Prestwich (2004) stated that character education in the 20th century has gone
through several transformations, falling out of popularity in the 1960s through the 1980s. In the
1980s, Lawrence Kohlberg set the stage for use of moral dilemma stories in the classroom, a
technique known as the moral judgment approach (Prestwich, 2004). Kohlberg expanded the
work of Jean Piaget, and developed six stages of moral development (Prestwich, 2004).
Character education as it is known today began to appear in the 1990s. During this time,
the creation of character education programs became a movement, supported by a sense of crisis
regarding the character of our young people (Prestwich, 2004). A 1991 book by Thomas
Lickona, Educating for Character, reintroduced the idea that there is a set of common beliefs
and values upon which all people can agree (Character Education, 2004). A year later, the
Josephson Institute of Ethics developed the Aspen Declaration of Character Education with six
principles (Lickona, 1993), known as Character Counts! which is widely used today.

Running head: CHARACTER EDUCATION

Today, school counselors are in a unique position to promote social responsibility and
good character development in all students (Britzman, 2005). Counselors usually teach this
through classroom guidance. Group counseling serves to go beyond classroom guidance and
provide the opportunity for students with specific difficulties in character to spend more time
gaining the skills necessary to develop fundamental character. Britzman (2005) stated that
although counselors must embrace diversity and respect differences in values, unhealthy student
behaviors could be prevented by determining ethical values that are necessary to ensure an
optimal learning environment and student achievement. The values, decided on, could be taught,
enforced, advocated for, and modeled in a preventative and proactive manner (Britzman, 2005).
During group, counselors can facilitate students in developing a positive strong character
within themselves and recognizing positive character in others. As counselors and role models,
we can give students the knowledge they need to socially develop, as well as academically
succeed. Moral character plays a central role in helping schools create safe and caring
environments, prevent peer cruelty, decrease discipline problems, reduce cheating, foster social
and emotional skills, develop ethical thinking, and produce democratic citizens (Performance
Values, 2008).
Bierma (2006) stated:
School counselors often find themselves in the moral business. Students may hit, lie,
cheat, steal, bully, tease and show general disrespect. Many studies have proven that
students can improve their moral thinking. Other studies have shown that moral
thinking often correlates with moral behavior. The school counselor must help the
student with their moral thinking and monitor their moral behavior. (p.1)
Small groups would help students look at moral thinking on a deeper level. Bierma (2006)

Running head: CHARACTER EDUCATION

suggested that the school counselor can assist students advance their moral thinking by
concentrating on the cognitive process. A character education group would help focus on the
students feelings, a good way for the student to gain a greater sense of empathy, which usually
contributes to a higher level of moral thought, and can eventually lead to more consistent moral
behavior (Bierma, 2006).
A small group is a good place to look at interpersonal feelings and skills. Issues of trust
and concern for others should be talked about. By discussing and debating issues of character
the students views on values are solidified (Bierma, 2006). Sanchez (2004-2005) suggested that
perhaps the most important revelation on values is that they are not innate, but must be taught,
and learned through practice in a conducive environment which a small group can provide.
Clouse (2001) mentioned that todays character education allows for more student participation.
Rather that being told to be respectful or to cooperate with other students, they are encouraged
through discussion or role playing of real or imagined conflicts to better handle situations
(Clouse, 2001). Giving students the opportunity to think of ways to solve their own
interpersonal problems is more effective (Clouse, 2001). Examining and understanding values in
a small group is the first step in helping students analyze the implications for their own lives, and
allow them to embrace and practice them (Sanchez, 2004-2005).
School districts are encouraging students to understand and embrace values. Close to
home, the 2009 Minnesota Statute of Character Development Education (120B.232) reads: The
legislature encourages districts to integrate or offer instruction on character education including,
but not limited to, character qualities such as attentiveness, truthfulness, respect for authority,
diligence, gratefulness, self-discipline, patience, forgiveness, respect for others, peacemaking and
resourcefulness (Minnesota Statutes, 2009, p.1).

Running head: CHARACTER EDUCATION

Even though character education programs are being implemented, an often overlooked
aspect of character education is its evaluation in both the program and the behaviors to be
measured (Sanchez, 2004-2005). I could not find research specific to the use of character
education in groups, so I will look at research as it pertains to the whole school.
Project Wisdom Inc. is an independent, nonpolitical for-profit organization founded in
1992 to provide schools with character education materials (Program Evaluation, 2009). A web
based survey was conducted in 2004 on the impact of Project Wisdom on the school climate in
schools that use their character education material and found (a) decreased incident of student
teasing and/of bullying; (b) decreased discipline referrals to the office; (c) school climate affected
in a positive way; (d) positive impact on teacher morale; (e) increased students self awareness,
social awareness, self management, relationship skills, and responsible decision making; and (f)
stimulated student conversation about character issues (Program Evaluation, 2009).
A 2000 evaluation of South Carolinas four-year character initiative reported significant
improvements among both students and adults (How Do We Know, 2009). In surveys of
administrators, the study found that 91% reported improvement in student attitudes, 89%
improvement in student behavior, 60% reported improvement in academic performance, and
more than 65 % reported improvement in teacher and staff attitudes, since implementing
character education (How Do We Know, 2009).
In three separate studies in a time period of almost 20 years, the Development Studies
Center in Oakland, CA documented many positive outcomes for students who have attended
elementary schools that implemented its Child Development Project (CDP). Research showed
that students in CDP schools are more pro-social (helpful and cooperative), better at resolving
interpersonal conflicts, more concerned about others, and more committed to democratic values

Running head: CHARACTER EDUCATION

(Character Education Partnership, 2009).

The What Works in Character Education (WWCW) report was an effort to uncover and
synthesize existing scientific research on the effects of K-12 character education (Berkowitz &
Bier, 2005). Among the numerous findings, two that were particularly relevant were that
character education affects much, and it lasts. There was evidence that academic performance
improved, desirable behaviors increased, and social-emotional and pro-social capabilities
improved. There was evidence of sustained and even delayed effects of character education,
displaying itself into middle school and/or high school.
The What Works Clearinghouse (WWC) has looked at 93 studies of 41 programs in
2005-2006. Of these, 18 studies of 13 programs met their evidence standards, 7 without
reservations, and 11 with reservations. Student outcomes were measured in 3 domains; behavior,
academic, achievement and knowledge, attitudes and values. A Positive Action Program had
positive effect (++) on behavior and on academic achievement. The purpose of the program was
to promote character development, academic achievement, and social-emotional skills and to
reduce disruptive and problem behavior (Character Education, 2007).
Although the little research in character education is positive and promising, further
research is necessary to properly put into perspective the evaluation of character education
programs (Sanchez, 2004-2005). It is worth the effort because preventative initiatives such as
character education groups can help students develop strong character, increase achievement,
and achieve a healthy school climate (Britzman, 2005). At present we have borrowed from the
past to advance the future. As more character education programs are put in place and refined
throughout our nation, the future gives us reason to hope for an even better world to come
(Clouse, 2000, p.28).

Running head: CHARACTER EDUCATION

References
Berkowitz, M. and Bier, M. (2005). What works in character education. Character
education partnership. Retrieved from
http://www.positiveaction.net/doc_print.asp?lvl=3&ID1=6&ID2=600&ID3=808
Bierma, J. (2006). Moral development stages. Retrieved from
http://mis.spps.org/counselors
Britzman, J. (2005). Improving our moral landscape via character education: An
opportunity for school counselor leadership. Professional School Counseling,
8(3), 293-295.
Character education. (2004). Retrieved from http://www.edweek.org/rc/issues/charactereducation
Character education. (2007). What works clearinghouse. Retrieved from
http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/reports/character_education/topic/
Character educationour shared responsibility. (2009). Retrieved from
http://www.ed.gov/admins/lead/character/brochure.html
Clouse, B. (2001). Character education: Borrowing from the past to advance the future.
Contempory Education, 72(1), 23-28.
Lickona, T. (1993). The return of character education. Educational Leadership, 51(3), 6-11.
Minnesota Statutes. (2009). Character development education. Retrieved from
https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/?id=120B.232
Performance Values. Why they matter and what schools can do to foster their
development. (2009). Character education partnership. Retrieved from
http//www.character.org/performance values

Running head: CHARACTER EDUCATION

Prestwich, D. (2004). Character education in Americas schools. School Community
Journal, 14(1), 139-150.
Program Evaluation. (2009). Executive summary. Retrieved from
http://www.projectwisdom.com
Sanchez, R. (2004-2005). Facing the challenge of character education. International
Journal of Social Education, 19(2), 106-111.