# data[].attributes.body
http://accomplishedteacher.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/NBPTS-What-Teachers-Should-Know-and-Be-Able-to-Do-.pdf

# data[].attributes.body
Greatest implication is that at the district level, we will have teachers of widely varying characteristics.

Some things we could know are:
Public district = all teachers have state teacher certification
District would know:
-- how many teachers in the district are National Board Certified
-- how long teachers have been teaching

Psychosocial factors
"A number of characteristics of interest to the designer are associated with learners’ level of psychosocial growth. In general, individuals in the same cohort tend to have similar interests, motivations, relationships to peers, feelings toward authority, and role models. Of course, the characteristics will vary within an age group, but there are more similarities than differences. Designers should consider these characteristics when selecting examples, creating relevancy statements, and making grouping decisions. These characteristics are particularly important when designing attitude lessons and when designing the motivational aspects of a lesson.

Smith, Patricia L.. Instructional Design, 3rd Edition (Page 68). Wiley Higher Ed. Kindle Edition.

-- dealing with learners in young adulthood up to aging adults
-- moral development will likely range from conventional to post-conventional, but will need to help them understand that they will be instruction will be presented to learners who have very conventional moral developments

Could we use the data from this study as our "dummy data" for District ABC
https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ974354.pdf

General question: will the instruction be required of all teachers, offered on a volunteer basis, or offered with compensation?

Could survey teachers to determine:
-- Teachers in the district who include any kind of character education in their curricula
-- Teachers who have participated in continuing education or professional development related to character education

# data[].attributes.headline
Some thngs to possibly think about to analyze the learners.

# data[].attributes.subject
Some thngs to possibly think about to analyze the learners.

# data[].attributes.body
Just brainstorming:

Some things may already be done in the school systems that we can pull reports.
- CSA
- Job satisfaction/safety
- demographics (age, sex, etc)
- Education levels (min requirement)
- Other training/education exp
- Outside the box thinkers/recognitions/successes
- Parent/Teach involvement in community
- View on authority
- learning preferences

Communities information:
- resource school officer
-suspensions due to violence
- relevant news stories
- crime reports in each school district areas
-

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
June 2001 | Number 25
Character Education

Diane G. Berreth and Don Ernst

After a decade of work establishing character education in schools, public support is now widespread. Yet the growth of character education has also led to differences in approaches, in content, and in control. There are concerns and questions about what constitutes quality, who controls content and the values being taught, and how federal, state, and local mandates influence character education.

What is character education? A 1997 report from several education associations and civic groups states that "character education holds that certain core values form the basis of 'good character,' i.e., the kinds of attitudes, beliefs, and behaviors that the school wants from, and is, therefore, committed to teach to, its children" (Council of Chief State School Officers, 1997, p. 3). More recently, the Character Education Partnership (CEP)-a nonprofit, nonpartisan, and nonsectarian organization that supports and promotes the social, emotional, and ethical development in youth-has defined character education as "the deliberate effort by schools, families, and communities to help young people understand, care about, and act upon core ethical values" (Character Education Partnership, 1999).

As schools strive to instill good character in their students, they must also define good character. Kevin Ryan and Karen E. Bolin, authors of Building Character in Schools: Practical Ways to Bring Moral Instruction to Life, have described it as "leading a life of right conduct in relation to self and others; it is values in action" (1999, p. 5). The word "character" is taken from the Greek charassein, meaning "to mark" or "to inscribe upon." Over time the meaning has evolved into "a distinctive mark or sign," and from there grew our conception of character as "an individual's pattern of behavior . . . his moral constitution" (Ryan & Bolin, 1999, p. 5).

Character has three interrelated parts: moral knowing, moral feeling, and moral behavior. Another way of expressing this is to think of good character as knowing the good, loving the good, and doing the good (Lickona, 1991). Each of these aspects of character has implications for the education of young people in modern societies, and the recent concerns about youth violence and disaffection have spotlighted the role of schools and the need for character education.

The goals of building an ethical climate in a school are to support academic achievement, develop a caring community, and provide a safer environment for teaching and learning. Such goals tend to win broad support from those involved in character education-teachers, administrators, parents, community leaders, politicians, and legislators. But educational leaders know that schools are only one facet of character education efforts.

The CEP emphasizes that cooperation is vital as a community attends to the moral development of its youth. Perhaps most crucial is the relationship between school and home and specifically the role of parents and families.

Families and Schools as Partners

Most people recognize that learning to be of good character primarily begins with the family and can only be supplemented by the school, faith community, and the community at large. Parents are children's first moral teachers. Jean Bethke Elshtain, the Laura Spelman Rockefeller Professor of Social and Political Ethics at the University of Chicago, argues that "parenthood is an ethical vocation." Parents, or other primary caretakers, are the most enduring influence on children, and the parent-child relationship is laden with special emotional significance that schools rarely match.

Despite the primary role of parents, schools do have a role in character development-one that many educators believe has become more difficult with changes in our society. Teachers, particularly at the primary level, sometimes feel that they have to start from scratch in the character development of their students, because they are not coming to school with a sense of the importance of moral values. Teachers of young children report spending an increasing amount of time on classroom management.

The Need for Character Education

Thomas Lickona has written eloquently about the need for character education today, citing many reasons for its importance (see box, "10 Reasons Why We Should Teach Moral Values and Develop Good Character"). Among them are a decline in our nation's character and in personal ethics marked by rising employee theft, drunk driving, lying, cheating on tax returns, and cheating on marital partners (Lickona, 1991).

We've also seen young people demonstrating this decline in ethical behavior. In a nationwide survey conducted in 1997, 78 percent of academically successful U.S. high school students admitted to cheating in school. Forty percent of 9th graders said they had already had sexual intercourse, and there has been a concomitant rise in teen pregnancy. Young people rated themselves as significantly more selfish and materialistic than they did in 1970, and there has been an increase in hostility, bigotry, sexual harassment, disrespect, defiance, and peer cruelty (Public Agenda, 1997).

What is the result of this moral decline from the public's perspective? Particularly troubling is evidence that citizens' confidence in public schools is dropping. In the 1994 Public Agenda survey First Things First: What Americans Expect from the Public Schools, conducted of more than 1,000 Americans, their greatest concerns centered on safety and control issues. In the 1995 follow-up survey Assignment Incomplete, Public Agenda found support for public education fragile, with the majority of respondents stating that private schools are safer and do a better job of providing an environment that promotes values such as honesty and responsibility. And in Public Agenda's 1999 survey on parental involvement, Playing Their Parts, the respondents stated that too many youngsters today lack values, character, and basic civility (Public Agenda, 1994, 1995, 1999).

In these surveys, both parents and teachers also reported that the most fundamental and indispensable job for parents is raising well-behaved children who want to learn. For both groups, the same basic lessons-respect, effort, and self-control-emerge over and over as the essentials that every child must master before academic learning can ever begin. These survey results demonstrate high levels of public support for character education. This support, unfortunately, currently outstrips the presence of character education in our schools, despite a renewed focus on the issue over the last 10 years.

What is the state of character education today? In school communities dealing with the subject, educators are focusing on issues of quality, assessment, standards, preparation and professional development for teachers and administrators, and policy support for character education. Included in this focus is attention to differing philosophical and political perspectives.

Quality

The number of character education materials, programs, and approaches available to educators is increasing at a fast pace. As curriculum developers rush to keep pace with the movement and provide curricula, books, posters, videos, and other supplementary materials, educators worry that we may be sacrificing quality for quantity. Although there are high-quality approaches and products available, educators are concerned that many programs and products are superficial, serve only as add-on programs that are not integrated into the regular school curriculum, or have faith bases that are not always readily apparent and may make them inappropriate for public schools.

The shallowness of some character education programs is a special concern. For example, some critics cite "word of the week" programs, in which students are exposed to one term describing a character trait. Many educators worry that such efforts are superficial and overly simplistic. Marvin Berkowitz, Sanford N. McDonnell Professor of Character Education at the University of Missouri at St. Louis, "knows of no research that suggests that posters, signs, and trinkets foster human development" but rather, he believes that "character develops from the quality of human relationships that one experiences. Above all, [educators should] aim for developing a caring culture in their classrooms and schools." Berkowitz is joined in this view by Eric Schaps, president of the Developmental Studies Center in Oakland, Calif., who says he is "quite critical of much of what now happens under the banner of character education. High-quality character education is enormously important both to student success and a healthy society. But the trivial and shallow versions of character education that are now commonplace are at best ineffective."

The key to resolving this issue is a thoughtful adoption process that results in examining character education materials, programs, and approaches with the same care used in adopting other major initiatives. In particular, it is critical to examine evidence of effectiveness and to speak with other schools. Quality character education also requires extensive professional development for all school staff before they begin working with students. The provision of such staff development is one, though not a sufficient, indicator of an approach worth considering for adoption. The CEP provides criteria for quality through its National Schools of Character Awards program and has published Eleven Principles of Effective Character Education that provide the main criteria for selecting those schools designated National Schools of Character ( see box, "Eleven Principles of Effective Character Education").

Assessment

In this era driven by standards and assessment, assessment is critical to the maintenance and success of character education. It is particularly difficult to assess character education, however, because character education is a long-term proposition-it is building for adult character. Political complications must be considered-some parents and organizations object to any nonacademic school measures, arguing that they are subjective. Also, character education is often integrated into other activities, and schools sometimes adopt concurrent programs that have character development components-thus, assessment of specific approaches or programs becomes difficult.

However, most schools that engage in character education do engage in some assessment. In the Wake County Public School System in Raleigh, N.C., schools are required to include a character education component in their comprehensive school improvement plans. They also use surveys to gauge school climate. This kind of evaluation is generally characterized by measures of behavior-increases in attendance and decreases in disciplinary incidents and pregnancies, for example.

Some schools also ask teachers, parents, and students to complete group and self-assessments. An increasing number of assessments are available, and the CEP offers a database that includes ratings of reliability and validity. Visit the Assessment Index at the CEP Web site ( http://www.character.org/search2) for more information.

Assessment is one of the key issues facing the character education movement, and funding for and reporting of evaluations will be a key to the future success of character education in schools.

Standards

Should schools, school districts, or states adopt standards for character education? This is a thorny issue on which educators have not reached a consensus. Some educators believe that character education will not be taken seriously unless standards and assessments are established for it. Others believe that standards are inappropriate for this kind of learning and set it apart rather than integrating it fully into the culture of the school. The standards debate also raises the question of for whom potential character education standards should exist: Schools? Students? Teachers? Mary Williams, professor of education at the University of San Diego and a leading character educator cites one proposed standard for teachers when she says that "teachers will practice and reflect on their role and responsibilities as character educators and values transmitters; communicate high expectations for all students regarding prosocial behaviors, ethical analysis, character development, and the practice of democratic values; and form collaborative partnerships among home, school, and community that involve others in character development efforts." This proposed standard illustrates some of the complexities of potential character education standards: Is the level appropriate for a beginning teacher? By what behaviors would a principal judge this standard in a teacher? Is the focus on teacher behavior rather than student behavior appropriate?

In Cherry Hill, N.J., character education is included in the assessment of principals, teachers, counselors, and administrators. The Cherry Hill Township school district's guidelines for fostering character education in its schools establish character education as part of the district's vision, mission, goals, and they require standards, benchmarks, and assessments. The district provides staff development in character education, including training teachers, principals, and other school personnel on a recurring basis, and it reinforces that character education is a process, not a program, that demands integration into all aspects of the school curriculum, culture, and climate. ( See Character Education Resources for more information.)

In the broader context, academic standards as a whole present a challenge for the growth of character education. Many educators, though supportive, feel overwhelmed by the demands of their state standards. Some of them believe that the emphasis on academic standards and test behavior is taking time and focus away from other important practices such as character education. In such standards-centered environments, some schools are reluctant to undertake any initiatives that don't demonstrate immediate increases in academic achievement. The links between character education and academic achievement are not broadly established, though solid information about the connection is emerging (Battistich, 2000; Elliot, 1999; Flag, 2000).

This situation is exacerbated by national goals and state-level reports that focus solely on the academic side of schools. Sanford McDonnell, chairman of the Character Education Partnership's Board of Directors, recently commented that, "There is nothing wrong with setting the 'academic bar' high enough that all students are expected to engage in serious learning. But we also need to help our educators create a school environment in which students want to learn, and simultaneously, to become better people. That environment is one that has a strong emphasis on character building and on creating a 'sense of community' in the school. A sense shared by both students and adults that they are all respected and have bonded together to achieve common goals" (Personal communication, March, 2001).

Teacher and Administrator Preparation and Professional Development

Schools' efforts to promote good character are also raising issues of how educators' preservice and inservice training is preparing them to teach character education-or how it isn't.

With the increased emphasis on quality, standards, and assessment, there comes the need to provide appropriate training for teachers and administrators, especially if they are to approach character education in a serious, confident manner that inspires support and cooperation. Colleges and universities play a key role in character education; however, very few teacher preparation programs address character development (Character Education Partnership, 1999). Higher education can provide a moral community for teachers and administrators through colleges of education and throughout the larger academic environment. Options include providing coursework in character education, integrating character education throughout the curricula in a systematic manner, and engaging students in thinking about teaching as a moral vocation.

Research indicates that most Americans rank "teaching children values and discipline" highest among issues they consider most important to school reform ( Education Week, 1997). Deans and department chairs of education programs echo this priority; more than 90 percent agree that core values can and should be taught in school (CEP, 1999). Despite this widely acknowledged need, however, these teacher education leaders have not yet put words into action. Fewer than 15 percent of the institutions of higher education responding to the CEP survey address character education directly in their programs. The public wants character education in schools, but teachers and administrators continue to undergo academic preparation that does not delve into this area.

Legislation and Policy Support

The need for preparation becomes clear as many states mandate or encourage character education programs in their schools (see chart, "State Support for Character Education"). And efforts are underway to increase legislation in more states and at the federal level. These efforts raise issues of how much control of the programs should be at the local level, who should specify the core values taught, and how much time schools should spend on character education, as well as related issues such as mandates for school uniforms or "manners." Some state and federal legislative proposals have specified the core moral values to be taught rather than providing for local community input. Other proposed state legislation has named particular programs that have a religious basis from one faith community or another. Such legislation sparks concern related to First Amendment guarantees of religious freedom. Although these efforts may be well-intentioned, they endanger broad-based support for character education in public schools. A nonpartisan consensus across political and faith groups is critical to character education's success.

President Bush has proposed including character education in his No Child Left Behind education package. Numerous legislative proposals around character education are pending in Congress at the time of this writing, and it appears likely that the reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act will include proposals for additional funding for character education as well as provisions for supporting model programs and a system for the sharing of exemplar information.

With the rise in the number of character education legislative initiatives, there is also the potential to confuse teaching about religions, an appropriate role for public schools, with the inculcation of faith, which is an inappropriate role for public schools but a perfectly appropriate one for private, religiously affiliated ones. This potential raises deep concerns among faith communities, especially some faith-based organizations that have been long-time champions of the separation of religion and state, and may lead as well to diminished support for legislative efforts among nonreligious national organizations. Fears of an inappropriate emphasis on religion have also affected broader, public views of character education. Some view it as part of a conservative political message rather than as a nonpartisan effort on behalf of young people that most character educators and the public intend it to be.

The Call for Content and Differing Perspectives

Yet some character education proponents believe that many efforts do not go far enough in teaching core values. Megan M. Farnsworth, a Bradley Fellow at The Heritage Foundation and a former curriculum specialist and teacher in Burbank, Calif., has argued that "there is a deficiency in moral education that has to be addressed just as much as falling test scores." Citing Boston College professor William Kilpatrick, author of the 1992 book Why Johnny Can't Tell Right from Wrong, Farnsworth notes that although schools have always taught students that they need to use their judgment to make ethical decisions, they have not explained that in society there are some moral determinations that preclude individual choice. "We taught our youngsters to reason, but we didn't teach them that there are absolute truths" (Farnsworth, 2001, p. 3).

Farnsworth goes on to describe some examples of schools that focus on a common set of values: "Take Morse Elementary School in Cambridge, Mass. It adopted a Core Knowledge program that provides a rich, content-based curriculum across all disciplines. But to achieve the school's mission of shaping informed and responsible citizens, the staff also adopted a Core Virtues program, a literature-based course that includes discussion of character.

"At the Advantage Schools, a for-profit charter school group operating in New Jersey, Texas, Arizona, and other states, character education is a key part of the school day. They use a 'code of civility' that identifies 10 virtues, including truth, responsibility, respect, fairness. The code is used to support an orderly learning environment and reinforce high academic standards" (p. 2). Some controversy accompanies the view that there is a common set of established core virtues and that character education ought to embrace them. Farnsworth points out that some schools find this approach appropriate for their own needs.

David Purpel of the University of North Carolina, Greensboro, for example, takes a different view of the focus on specific and fixed values of individuals. "The assumption is that our social problems are not so much rooted in the failures of our social, economic, and political structures as they are in the personal attitudes and behaviors of individuals. The thrust of this approach is to move the discussion away from the extremely controversial realm of ideological dispute towards the safer and presumably more consensual realm of desirable personal traits, to convert social and political issues into educational and pedagogical ones, and to focus on stability rather than transformation" (Purpel, 2000, p.1). Purpel is concerned that an overemphasis on fixed and individual character traits neglects the social and political contexts in which the education of students occurs. In addition, there are other major orientations-such as the program for democratic schools reflected in the work of Ralph Mosher, Robert Kenny, and Andrew Garrod (1994) and the notions of teaching for compassion, nurturance, and caring, as reflected in the work of Nel Noddings (1992)-which carry with them quite different but equally strong ideological, political, and cultural assumptions in varying degrees of explicitness.

Character Education Doesn't Stand Alone

Although character education is an idea many see as integral to children's development, it is not the only field engaged in shaping their future. Indeed, it has much in common with many other movements. Certainly, character education resonates with the recent developments in the emerging field of emotional intelligence, or social-emotional learning. "Emotional intelligence," according to Peter Salovy and David Sluyter, "is the ability to perceive emotions, to access and generate emotions so as to assist thought, to understand emotions and emotional knowledge, and to reflectively regulate emotions so as to promote emotional and intellectual growth." Social-emotional learning, popular in a growing number of schools, is an approach that shares considerable content with character education (McKay & Krupa, 2000, p. 14).

Roger Weissberg of the University of Illinois at Chicago and the Collaborative to Advance Social and Emotional Learning (CASEL) says that "good character education and good social-emotional learning have a lot in common, and bad character education and bad social-emotional learning have a lot in common. My reading is that there is a 90 percent overlap between the two, with a slightly different starting point." Sheldon Berman has described this overlap as "bridges to civility" (Berman, 1998, p.1). According to Berman, civility is nurtured through empathy, ethics, and service. He continues, "Research indicates that prosocial behavior and activism are stimulated, not so much by the traditional constructs of efficacy and locus of control but by much deeper sources-the unity of one's sense of self and one's morality, the sense of connectedness to others, and the sense of meaning that derives from contributing to something larger than oneself" (Berman, 1998, p. 2).

Character education and service learning also share many goals. Often, educators and principals who practice character education see service learning as an important component of a complete character education program. On the other hand, service learning advocates can point to the broader democratic skills, knowledge, and experience that service helps to instill. They might view character development as a component of this approach. The reality may be that such a dichotomy exists more at the policy level than at the school level. As policymakers develop character education programs and refine existing policy approaches, it is important that policy gets shaped by a flexible view. Character education and service learning share vital links and also have distinctive strengths that bolster both programmatic objectives. Sheldon Berman noted that "service learning should be used to make real the lessons of character, while character education should be an integral part of the reflection and academic development that form the basis of service learning" (Berman, 2000, p. 5).

The relationship between character education and education for citizenship in a democracy may be a bit more complicated than that between service learning and social-emotional learning. This might be because, as Richard Battistoni writes, "often citizenship gets defined by the insistence on a particular (and singular) language or conceptual approach" (2000, p. 33).

The connections between these pedagogical approaches are not always obvious, but the opportunity for a future confluence of these efforts certainly is possible-and is perhaps even a desirable policy path. Integrating these complementary initiatives is important to developing thoughtful and flexible policy directions in character education. Indeed, a significant policy challenge in the years ahead will be to ensure that voices representing these specific approaches are heard clearly in the debate about the ethical and moral responsibilities in educating children.

John Goodlad (1990) has argued over the years that "teachers must understand the critical role of schools in enculturating the young in a sense of moral justice regarding the right of all to the necessary education." Goodlad further argued that "our society simply cannot afford teachers who fail to understand and assume the moral burden that goes with developing humane individuals within the context of a political democracy." However, as David Purpel (2000, p. 4) has observed, "one of the continuing challenges of any educational program is how to balance the educators' responsibility to have and affirm strong convictions with the responsibility to avoid indoctrination." This issue, of course, is even more intense when we deal with something as serious and profound as character education. Perhaps this perspective can contribute to policy directions that encourage local schools and communities to identify what approach makes the best sense for them. In addition, policymakers and researchers need to explore and understand ways to use the character education debates to advance the character education of children in schools.

The Goals of Education

As policymakers attempt to create supportive policy for the development of character education in schools and communities, they need to balance the focus on both individual character traits and those traits that emphasize community, cooperation, and collective responsibility-in sum, civic character. Political scientist and democratic theorist Amy Gutmann provided a useful perspective on this balance in her 1987 book Democratic Education, "Although inculcating character and teaching moral reasoning by no means exhaust the purposes of primary education in a democracy, together they constitute its core political purpose: the development of 'deliberative,' or what I shall interchangeably call 'democratic,' character." Gutmann continued, "Deliberative citizens are committed, at least partly through the inculcation of habit, to living up to the routine demands of democratic life, at the same time as they are committed to questioning those demands whenever they appear to threaten the foundational ideals of democratic sovereignty, such as respect for persons" (pp. 51-52). Character education may not only help our young people seek the good but also contribute to better schools, communities, states, nations, and the world. Because of this importance, all citizens have a stake in the policy discussions about how we educate children to do good and create a better tomorrow.

While there will always be contention about what constitutes good character and how we might best promote character in our young people, there seems to be consensus on the primacy of educating for more than instrumental and vocational purposes. Can we afford to begin the new century without resolving negotiable differences of opinion that would otherwise retard the movement and diminish the opportunity to develop future generations of principled, empathetic, service-oriented citizens? Advocates of character education say no. Given the momentum of the movement it is likely that character education, and its connection to other forms of moral education, will help us to achieve education's two great goals, as Thomas Lickona (199 3, p. 6) pointed out, "to help people become smart and to help them become good."

1. There is a clear and urgent need. Young people are increasingly hurting themselves and others and are decreasingly concerned about contributing to the welfare of others.

2. Transmitting values is and always has been the work of civilization. A society needs values education to survive and thrive. Historically, this is a role shared by home, school, and faith communities.

3. The school's role as moral educator is even more vital at a time when millions of children get little moral teaching from their parents and values-centered influences are absent from their lives.

4. There is common, ethical ground, even in our value-conflicted society.

5. Democracies have a special need for moral education because democracy is government by the people themselves.

6. There is no such thing as values-free education.

7. The great questions facing both the individual person and the human race are moral questions. Of utmost importance: How should I live my life? How can we live with one another?

8. There is a broad-based, growing support for values education in the schools.

9. Commitment to moral education is essential if we are to attract and keep good teachers.

10. Values education is a doable job.

References

Boston, B. (1997). Their best selves: Building character education and service learning together in the lives of young people. Washington, DC: Council of Chief State School Officers.

Battistoni, R. (2000). Service learning and civic education. In Mann, S., & Patrick, J. Education for civic engagement in democracy: Service learning and other promising practices. Bloomington, IN: ERIC.

Berman, S. (2000). Service learning and character education: One plus one is more than two. Denver, CO: Education Commission of the States.

Character Education Partnership. (1999, April). Teachers as educators of character: Are the nation's schools of education coming up short? Washington, DC: Author.

Education Week. (1997, October 15). News in brief: A national roundup.

Elliott, S. (1999, February). Do social skills enable academic skills? [Online]. Greenfield, MA: The Northeast Foundation for Children. Available: http://www.responsiveclassroom.org/consult_4.htm.

Farnsworth, M. (2001). The other education crisis. Washington, DC: The Heritage Foundation.

Flay, B. (2000). An intensive case study of the Positive Action Program as a comprehensive school reform demonstration program [Online]. Twin Falls, ID: Positive Action. Available: http://www.posaction.com/commfram.html.

Goodlad, J. (1990). Teachers for our nation's schools. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.

Gutmann, A. (1987). Democratic education. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Lickona, T. (1991). Educating for character: How our schools can teach respect and responsibility. New York: Bantam Books.

Lickona, T. (1993, November). The return of character education. Educational Leadership, 51(3), 6-11.

McKay, L., & Krupa, J. (2000, Fall). Character education: Emotional well being for children. Topics. St. Louis, MO: Junior League of St. Louis.

Mosher, R., Kenny, R., & Garrod, A. (1994). Preparing for citizenship: Teaching to live democratically. Westport, CT: Greenwood Publishing.

Noddings, N. (1992). Caring: A feminine approach to ethics and moral education. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

Public Agenda. (1994). First things first: What Americans expect from the public schools. New York: Author.

Public Agenda. (1995). Assignment incomplete: The unfinished business of education. New York: Author.

Public Agenda. (1997). Kids these days: What Americans really think about the next generation. New York: Author.

Public Agenda. (1999). Play their parts: Parents and teachers talk about parental involvement in public schools. New York: Author.

Purpel, D. (2000). Moral outrage in education. New York: Lang.

Ryan, K., & Bohlin, K. (1999). Building character in schools: Practical ways to bring moral instruction to life. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Character Education Resources

ASCD Character Education Network
Promotes the development and implementation of ethical and moral education, assists members interested in the implementation of character education programs by providing access to current and hallmark research within the field, and presents methods of instruction from effective practitioners and facilitates the exchange of information among members.
Contact: Karen Bohlin, Director
Center for the Advancement of Ethics and Character
Boston University
605 Commonwealth Avenue
Boston, MA 02215
Phone: 617-353-3262
Fax: 617-353-4351
E-mail: kbohlin@bu.edu

Center for the Advancement of Ethics
Mary Worlton
Boston University
605 Commonwealth Avenue
Boston, MA 02215
Phone: 617-353-4794
Fax: 617-353-4351
E-mail: mworlton@bu.edu

Character Counts
Josephson Institute of Ethics
4640 Admiralty Way
Suite 1001
Marina Del Rey, CA 90292-6610
Phone: 310-306-1868
Web site: http://www.charactercounts.org

Character Education Partnership
1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW
Suite 1011
Washington, DC 20036
Phone: 202-296-7743
Web site: http://www.character.org

Cherry Hill Public Schools
Office of Curriculum & Instruction
Malberg Administration Building
45 Randoldo Terrace, P.O. Box 5015
Cherry Hill, NJ 08034
Phone: 856-429-5600
Fax: 856-429-7948

Ethics Resource Center
1747 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Suite 400
Washington, DC 20006
Phone: 202-872-4785
Web site: http://www.ethics.org

The Giraffe Project
P.O. Box 759
Langley, WA 98260
Phone: 360-221-7989
Web site: http://www.giraffe.org

Institute for Global Ethics
11 Main Street
P.O. Box 563
Camden, ME 04843-0563
Phone: 800-729-2615
Web site: http://www.globalethics.org

The International Center for Character Education
University of San Diego
Division of Continuing Education
Manchester Executive Conference Center
5998 Alcala Park
San Diego, CA 92110-2492
Phone: 619-260-5980
Web site: http://www.teachvalues.org

Wake County Public School System
3600 Wake Forest Road
Raleigh, NC 27611-1739
Phone: 919-850-1739
Fax: 919-850-8947
Contact: Ann Lee, Character Education Consultant

For Further Reading

Maine Department of Education. (2001). Taking Responsibility: Standards for Ethical and Responsible Behavior in Maine Schools and Communities. Augusta: Author.
For additional resources and information about the report, and about activities and grants focused on character education, visit http://www.state.me.us/education/cep/homepage.htm.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
June 2001 | Number 25 Character Education Diane G. Berreth and Don Ernst After a decade of work establishing character education in schools, public support is now widespread. Yet the growth of character education has also led to differences in approaches, in content, and in control.