Character education and student discipline in selected elementary

Transcription

Atlanta University Center
DigitalCommons@Robert W. Woodruff Library, Atlanta
University Center
ETD Collection for AUC Robert W. Woodruff Library
5-1-2004
Character education and student discipline in
selected elementary schools
Bonita J. Senior-Gay
Clark Atlanta University
Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.auctr.edu/dissertations
Part of the Educational Leadership Commons
Recommended Citation
Senior-Gay, Bonita J., "Character education and student discipline in selected elementary schools" (2004). ETD Collection for AUC
Robert W. Woodruff Library. Paper 1913.
This Dissertation is brought to you for free and open access by DigitalCommons@Robert W. Woodruff Library, Atlanta University Center. It has been
accepted for inclusion in ETD Collection for AUC Robert W. Woodruff Library by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@Robert W.
Woodruff Library, Atlanta University Center. For more information, please contact [email protected].
CHARACTER EDUCATION AND STUDENT DISCIPLINE IN
SELECTED ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS
A DISSERTATION
SUBMITTED TO THE FACULTY OF CLARK ATLANTA UNIVERSITY
IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR
THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF EDUCATION
BY
BONITA J. SENIOR-GAY
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATIONAL LEADERSHIP
ATLANTA, GEORGIA
MAY 2004
©2004
BONITA J. SENIOR-GAY
All Rights Reserved
ABSTRACT
EDUCATIONAL LEADERSHIP
SENIOR-GAY, BONITA J.
B.A. MORRIS BROWN COLLEGE, 1978
M.A. CLARK ATLANTA UNIVERSITY, 1996
Ed.S. CLARK ATLANTA UNIVERSITY, 2003
CHARACTER EDUCATION AND STUDENT DISCIPLINE IN
SELECTED ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS
Advisor: Dr. Ganga Persaud
Dissertation dated May 2004
This study examines the inclusion of character education and its impact on student
discipline in a metro Atlanta school district. Character education influence on student
discipline is associated with accompanying variables. Therefore, it was necessary to
examine the relationship among character education, building leadership, teacher's role,
subject taught, amount of time, staff development, socioeconomic status of school,
parental involvement, teacher's race, racial make-up of class, and student discipline
while controlling for teacher demographics.
Teacher perceptions concerning character education and student discipline were
surveyed by a 74-item questionnaire in a systematic random sample in six metro Atlanta
elementary schools. Analysis of the Pearson Correlation revealed a significant
relationship between character education, teacher's role, parental involvement,
socioeconomic status of school, racial make-up of class, and student discipline. In
1
contrast, no significant relationship was found between building leadership, subject
taught, amount of time, staff development, teacher's race, and student discipline.
A Factor Analysis of building leadership, character education content, staff
development, parental involvement, and teacher's role was placed in the same factor, but
student discipline stood alone. In a Regression Analysis of the data, free and reduced
lunch as well as character education were the only significant predictors of student
discipline.
The conclusion is that since character education improves student discipline,
schools should invest in a character education curriculum, carve daily time for character
education along with other school courses, monitor and evaluate the level of
implementation of character education programs, and provide the necessary resources
that will enable classroom educators to help young people acquire a sense of social
responsibility.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
An educational endeavor of such magnitude could only be brought to actuality by
a vast number of supporters, far too many to list. However, I want to highlight a few.
First, I would like to send praises to God (Hallelujah), who is the head of my life,
for putting this dream in my heart as well as helping it manifest into the physical world.
I am especially grateful to Dr. Persaud, my distinguished chairperson, who guided
me through the dissertation process with his insightful scholarly knowledge. I must also
express gratitude to Dr. Dixon, Dr. Gregory, Dr. Carter, and Dr. Turner for serving on my
committee. Your feedback, guidance, and support were invaluable. I find it extremely
difficult to convey my sincere appreciation to Dr. Bradley, Dr. Tucker, and Dr. Williams
for believing in me when I did not believe in myself. Your words of encouragement were
instrumental in my decision to pursue a doctorate in education.
My loving appreciation is extended to my family, especially my precious sons,
Edward and Kornelius, and friend, Robert, for their unconditional love, tolerance, and
understanding.
Finally, I would like to give a special thanks to my supporters, Vonda, Yolanda,
Eugenia, Yvonne, Marilyn, Oteal, Mae, Amey, and Anita.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
ii
LIST OF FIGURES
vi
LIST OF TABLES
vii
CHAPTER
I.
II.
INTRODUCTION
1
Purpose of the Study
6
The Problem in Context and Background of the Problem
6
Description of Edward County's Systemwide Program
13
Board of Education Policy
13
Code of Conduct Rules
15
Substantive Rules
16
Procedural Rules
16
Character Education
18
Significance of the Study
21
Research Questions
22
Summary
22
REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE
24
Character Education and Student Discipline
24
Character Education and Building Leadership
29
Character Education and the Role of the Teacher
32
Character Education and Staff Development
35
iii
Table of Contents (continued)
CHAPTER
III.
IV.
Page
Character Education and Parental/Community Involvement
38
Character Education and Race
42
How This Study Differs
44
Summary
45
THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK
47
Definition of Variables
47
Relationship Among the Variables
50
Null Hypotheses
52
Scope and Limitation
53
METHODOLOGY
54
54
Research Questions
55
Description of the Setting
55
Data Collection Procedures
57
Sampling Procedures
57
Instrumentation
58
Statistical Application
60
Delimitations
61
Working with Human Subjects
62
Summary
62
IV
Table of Contents (continued)
CHAPTER
V.
PaSe
ANALYSIS OF THE DATA
64
Demographics of Teachers From the Six Edward County
Schools
VI.
66
Analysis of Null Hypotheses
72
Summary
OJ
SUMMARY, FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND
RECOMMENDATIONS
87
Summary
°'
Findings
95
Conclusions
Recommendations
APPENDIX
A.
Letter to Colleagues Requesting Their Participation in
The Study
109
B.
Questionnaire
'*°
C.
Correlation Table
I17
D.
Frequencies
REFERENCES
1 1Q
Il7
140
LIST OF FIGURES
Page
FIGURE
1.
Obedience Discipline Model
7
2.
Responsibility Discipline Model
9
3.
Generic Discipline Model
9
4.
A Brief History of Character Education in Georgia
19
5.
48
6.
Original School Population (Large System)
59
VI
LIST OF TABLES
Page
TABLE
1.
Metro Atlanta Elementary Schools, 10/31/01
2.
Character Traits to be Taught As Mandated by State Law:
O.C.G.A. 20-2-145
3.
11
20
Demographic Characteristics of Teacher Population
for Gender
66
4.
Teachers By Race
67
5.
Racial Make-up of Teachers* Classes
67
6.
The Percentage of Students on Free and Reduced Lunch
68
7.
Time Spent on Character Education Curriculum
69
8.
Teacher Specialty Subject Area
70
9.
The Mean Responses of Dependent and Independent
Variables
10.
71
Relationship Between Character Education Content
and Student Discipline
11.
73
Relationship Between Teacher's Role and Student
Discipline
12.
74
Relationship Between Building Leadership and
Student Discipline
75
vii
List of Tables (continued)
Page
TABLE
13.
Relationship Between Staff Development and
Student Discipline
14.
76
Relationship Between Subject Taught and
Student Discipline
15.
76
Relationship Between Amount of Time Spent on
16.
77
Relationship Between the Percentage of Students on
Free and Reduced Lunch in the School and
Student Discipline
17.
78
Relationship Between Parental Involvement and
Student Discipline
18.
79
Relationship Between Teachers' Race or Racial
Make-up of Class and Student Discipline
80
19.
Racial Make-up of Class and Student Discipline
81
20.
Factor Analysis Results for Student Discipline
82
21.
Regression for the Relationship Between Character
Education Content and Student Discipline
viu
84
CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
"Intelligence plus character—that is the goal of true education."
Martin Luther King, Jr. (The Reporter, 2000, p. 28)
Twenty-first century school systems of America are challenged by a plethora of
problems many of which tend to reflect societal ills. The greatest of these concerns is
classroom discipline. Public school employees have reported that there is a visible
increase in the presence of guns, physical violence, and a distressing and concomitant
student indifference. Joining educators in the belief that discipline problems are of
paramount importance is the general public, which has ranked discipline as the third
largest problem facing public schools, superseded only by a lack of proper financial
support and drug abuse (Bear, 1998; Denig, 1996; National Education Association
[NEA], 1985). At least a quarter of the respondents of a Gallup poll from 1954-1984
viewed disciplinary concerns as the most perplexing problem in schools. Similarly, for
the past 20 years, other Gallup polls have shown that the general public sees discipline as
a troubling problem confronting the nation's more than 15,000 school districts (Hartzell
1992; O'Reilly, 1991). Discipline is considered to be a continuing and fairly serious
problem that affects the quality of education (Elam et ah, 1996; NEA, 1985).
The National Center for Educational Statistics (1998) found that more than half of
U. S. public schools reported experiencing at least one criminal incident in the school
year 1996-97, and one in ten schools, a minimum of one serious violent crime during that
school year. Other findings were as follows:
• 57% of public elementary and secondary school executives
reported that one or more incidents of crime/violence that were
reported to the police or other law enforcement officials had
occurred in their school during the 1996-97 school year.
• 10% of all public schools experienced one or more serious violent crimes
(murder, rape or other type of sexual battery, suicide, physical attack or fight
with a weapon, or robbery) that were reported to police or other law
enforcement officials during the 1996-97 school year.
• Physical attacks or fights without a weapon led the list of reported crimes in
public schools with about 190,000 such incidents reported for 1996-97; 116,000
incidents of theft or larceny were reported along with 98,000 incidents of
vandalism. These less serious or nonviolent crimes were more common than
serious violent crimes, with schools reporting about 4,000 incidents of rape or
other type of sexual battery, 7,000 robberies, and 11,000 incidents of physical
attacks or lights in which weapons were used.
• While 43% of public schools reported no incidents of crime in 1996-97, 37%
reported from one to five crimes and about 20% reported six crimes or more.
Discipline problems have not only increased, but they have become more violent.
For instance, in response to surveys which indicated that a significant percentage of
primary and secondary schools had reported that violence, misbehavior and drug use
hindered the educational process, President Bush and the nation's governors created a
comprehensive strategy to reform America's schools. As a result of this reform agenda,
the sixth National Education Goal was established. The sixth goal states: "By the year
2000, every school in America will be free of drugs and violence and will offer a
disciplined environment conducive for learning" (White, Curry, & Stedman, 1994).
Underlying student misbehavior is an internal lack of principles and character
values; a moral decline. This erosion of character traits in the young has brought the
issues of morals and religion back on the societal reform agenda for education. However,
the practice of religion in public schools is a violation of the U. S. Constitution.
It is well documented by national laws such as the First Amendment, that there
exists a constitutional separation of church and state. Alexander and Alexander (1992)
reprints Amendment I of 1791:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of
religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or
abridging ofthe freedom ofspeech, or of the press; or the
right ofthe people peaceably to assemble, and to petition
the Governmentfor a redress ofgrievances, (p. 841)
The First Amendment was formulated by our forefathers: James Madison,
Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, Roger Williams, and others because they had first-
hand experience of what happens when a government adopts one form of religion over
another. In England, their homeland, widespread persecution was effectuated if the
townsmen did not worship the specified Christian sect. Residents of the country were
denied full citizenship unless they abided by the official national faith (American Civil
Liberties Union, 1995), Due to this bitter experience, the founders of America insisted
on building a wall of separation between church and state. They believed that the
intermingling of the two institutions would only bring about similar problems that clearly
existed in their mother country. Moreover, contrary to popular belief or misinformation,
men like Mason, Madison, Jefferson, Franklin, and Williams were deeply religious
persons, but for our country's sake, they kept the two apart.
Today, 86.2% of Americans consider themselves Christians, and most are not so
determined to permanently remove religious thinking and rituals from public schools as
are the politicians and the scholars of history and law (Parachini 1995; American Civil
Liberties Union, 1995). These pro-religious individuals are quite vocal about the need
for teaching ethics in school and see a relationship between religion and morality. In
fact, these advocates feel that the elimination of religious practices and teaching in public
schools leads to lowered morality among students (O'Reilly, 1991).
Since this country's political foundation is erected on religious freedom for all
regardless of religious background, or lack thereof, this principle has lead to our current
struggle over how classroom educators can teach moral reasoning skills/values and still
honor the laws of this land. Schaeffer (1999), the Executive Director and CEO of the
Character Education Partnership (CEP) in Washington, D. C, puts it this way:
They do so through a long-term solution that will transcend
the quick-fixes that are being bandied about. We need to
give up the band-aid approach and look to long-term
solutions such as character education, (p. 2)
William Kirkpatrick sums the concern up by saying:
In addition to the fact that Johnny can't read, we are now
faced with the more serious problem that Johnny can't tell
right from wrong. (Jones, 1998, p. 15)
A national coalition of individuals and organizations—The Character Education
Partnership (CEP)—defines character education as a continuous process of aiding young
people in developing good character, i.e., knowing, caring about, and acting on core
ethical values such as fairness, honesty, compassion, responsibility, and respect for self
and others. Advocates of character education argue that this program can help decrease
school violence and juvenile crimes, reduce fights and vandalism, lower suspension rates,
and increase academic achievement (Field, 1996; Glazer, 1996; Huffman, 1993,1994;
Lickona, 1993, 1977; Lockwood, 1993; Rayan, 1996; Schaefer, 1999; Thayer, 1995).
A main goal of education in addition to the mastery of basic skills, is for students
to become productive citizens in our society. In doing so, schools must provide an
environment that supports the growth of a pupil's character. Classroom students should
no longer spend time in surroundings where character takes a back seat (Lickona, 1989).
The purpose of this study is to examine Character Education Programs in metro
Atlanta Elementary Schools and to determine their impact on improving students'
conduct. Specifically, this investigation studied several variables associated with the
implementation of character education such as building leadership, character education
content, teacher's role, subject taught, amount of time, staff development, SES of school,
race, and parental involvement.
The Problem in Context and Background of the Problem
The goal of this study is to examine the inclusion of character education and its
impact on student discipline. More specifically, this examination focuses on the
relationship among student discipline, character education, building leadership, teacher's
role, subject taught, amount of time, staff development, socioeconomic status (SES) of
school, parental involvement, and ethnicity of students and teachers in a metro Atlanta
School District.
Currently, educators have adopted discipline plans to combat the U.S. schools'
third largest issue; however, these procedures only produce temporary conformity from
pupils. The vast majority of these programs center around rules and punishment. The
Obedience Model (Figure 1) is used most often because the desired results are immediate
(Curwin & Mendler, 1988).
When a rule is broken,
Principle: Do what I (the teacher or the administrator) want.
When a student misbehaves (breaks a rule):
Punishment is the primary intervention:
1.
External locus of control
2.
Done to student.
Examples:
1.
Threats.
2.
Scoldings.
3.
Writing "I will not
4.
Detentions.
5.
Writing student's name on chalkboard.
" 500 times.
Student learns:
1.
Don't get caught.
2.
It's not my responsibility.
Figure 1. Obedience Discipline Model
elementary schools use a variety of punishments such as the removal of privileges,
detention, and isolation. These methods of control produce a 53% success rate (Geiger,
2000). Other methods used are time-out, threats, warnings, taking no action, reprimands,
planned ignoring, body language, explanations, lowering/raising the voice, pausing, and
moving closer to the student.
In conjunction, these behavior modification strategies either offer the one
alternative intervention for teachers when a rule is violated or the lockstep approach that
outlines a specified intervention for violation number one, another for violation two, and
so on. However, under this either/or choice discipline plan, teachers may be challenged
by special circumstances that do not fit the model or even worse, redesign the program
themselves by developing an external locus of control (Curwin & Mendler, 1988).
Even though rules and consequences are central to all discipline plans, managing
student behavior through the use of consequence and principle is much more
advantageous in reaping long-term behavior change. The key connection between rules
and principles is that rules should be established naturally from principles while, at the
same time, enforcing a rule provides an opportunity for learning higher level principles
such as being respectful, caring about others, and being prepared. Simply put, obedience
models are not as popular as responsibility models which are strongly recommended to
motivate student behavioral success (Figures 2 and 3) (Curwin & Mendler, 1988).
Main Goal: To teach students to make responsible choices.
Principle: To learn from the outcomes of decisions.
When a student misbehaves (breaks a rule):
Consequences:
1.
Internal locus of control.
2.
Done by student.
3.
Logical or natural.
Examples:
1.
Developing a plan describing how you will behave without breaking the
rule when you are in a similar situation.
2.
Practicing appropriate behavior in a private meeting with the teacher.
Student learns:
\.
I cause my own outcomes.
2.
I have more than one alternative behavior in any situation.
3.
I have the power to choose the best alternative.
Figure 2. Responsibility Discipline Model
Goals: What the program will accomplish.
Principles: Emphasis on general attitude and behavioral guidelines model by teachers.
Students1 exposure to and encouragement of learning while in class.
Rules: What are enforced every time they are broken.
Enforcement or intervention: What happens when a rule is broken.
Student (Incidental learning): What the student learns as a result of the enforcement or
intervention
Evaluation: How well the program goals are being met.
Figure 3. Generic Discipline Model
10
Indeed, the widely utilized obedience models have been proven incapable of
yielding responsible and self-disciplined school citizens. On the other hand, the
responsibility model expands the obedience protocol to incorporate both rule violation
consequences and lifelong principles, thereby substantiating a main goal of education.
Sound discipline techniques are a major factor in increasing on-task instructional time, a
crucial factor in learning. Not surprisingly, the term discipline is derived from the Latin
word discipline*, which means instruction (Alderman, 2001).
The Edward County School System in metro Atlanta, Georgia, has a detailed
systemwide discipline policy/program that incorporates Curwin and Mendler's (1988)
higher learning responsibility model. It provides the entire district with common
expectations for student behavior and clear guidelines for dealing with misbehavior. The
task instructional time, a crucial factor in learning. Not surprisingly, the term discipline
system stands very firm in its expectations of student behavior. In spite of clear
guidelines, Edward County elementary schools are experiencing student misconduct and
the amount of disciplinary infractions varies greatly among the 49 elementary schools as
seen in Table 1. Some school office referrals are as low as zero per school year while in
this same district, other school office referrals reach numbers as high as 281 per school
year. Classroom disruptions continue to occur leading to the administering of
consequences delineated earlier as well as office referrals. In the year 2001, more than
2,508 office referrals were made by Edward County elementary teachers. Further,
11
Table 1
Metro Atlanta Elementary Schools, JO/3I/O1
%of
Number of
Reduced and
Discipline
Stanford 9
Enrollment
Free Lunch
Referrals
M
F
School 1
410
99.76
62
44
School 2
848
93.04
208
School 3
608
92.93
School 4
785
School 5
Gender
Achievement
Informal
Scores
Hearings
18
28%
0
135
73
20%
7
130
91
39
30%
1
91.97
50
35
15
26%
0
730
90.82
65
56
9
24%
1
School 6
661
89.56
9
6
3
31%
0
School 7
530
87.17
281
223
58
27%
2
School 8
918
85.40
84
72
12
43%
1
School 9
880
83.84
119
94
25
31%
5
School 10
528
82.01
63
54
9
48%
0
School 11
520
78.85
115
81
34
35%
3
School 12
691
76.56
271
195
76
31%
1
School 13
754
74.27
105
86
19
42%
0
School 14
598
74.25
95
75
20
41%
3
School 15
524
73.33
91
67
24
70%
0
School 16
638
68.81
145
120
25
32%
1
School 17
474
66.67
80
57
23
35%
0
School 18
578
58.13
30
18
12
54%
0
School 19
680
56.47
13
13
0
58%
0
School 20
552
55.98
61
47
14
48%
3
School 21
768
51.63
74
64
10
55%
1
School 22
589
50.42
63
54
9
64%
0
School 23
489
47.24
42
38
4
72%
1
School 24
747
45.52
54
35
19
54%
1
School 25
585
34.36
5
3
2
61%
0
Elementary School
12
Table 1 (continued)
%of
Number of
Reduced and
Discipline
Enrollment
Free Lunch
Referrals
M
School 26
524
34.35
11
8
School 27
828
30.31
14
School 28
725
28.97
School 29
673
School 30
Stanford 9
Gender
Achievement
Informal
Scores
Hearings
3
62%
0
12
2
69%
0
30
26
4
--
0
19.91
30
26
4
68%
0
851
17.74
100
86
14
77%
1
School 31
603
14.16
5
4
1
--
0
School 32
612
7.84
3
3
0
82%
0
School 33
960
7.40
3
2
1
74%
0
School 34
646
7.12
8
7
t
74%
0
School 35
826
6.78
19
15
4
--
0
School 36
828
4.47
6
6
0
73%
1
School 37
825
3.88
48
41
7
71%
1
School 38
959
3.65
6
5
1
82%
0
School 39
650
2.77
24
16
8
78%
0
School 40
803
2.62
12
9
3
89%
0
School 41
706
2.55
6
5
1
79%
0
School 42
766
2.48
--
--
--
74%
1
School 43
930
2.15
5
5
0
81%
0
School 44
805
2.11
18
14
4
75%
0
School 45
735
1.77
16
13
3
78%
0
School 46
927
1.73
1
I
0
80%
0
School 47
771
.65
1
I
0
81%
0
School 48
927
.43
1
1
0
80%
0
School 49
--
--
--
--
--
34%
--
Elementary School
F
13
Edward County's Office of Discipline explained that the published numbers are lower
than the actual office referrals due to the fact that minor offenses are not included in the
Georgia Department of Education's Discipline Action Auxiliary System Summary
Report (Lani, 2002). In addition, 34 informal hearings were conducted for extremely
serious violations such as weapons possession and chronic and/or repeat offenses.
Informal hearings are considered to be school court.
Description of Edward County's Systemwide Program
The Edward County School System has high expectations for its learning
environments. These academic organizations view the establishment of clear, fair, and
effective discipline procedures as a crucial part of its function. As a result, Edward
Schools take seriously the responsibility of establishing and maintaining safe learning
institutions for all students as reinforced in The Code ofConduct and Discipline
Handbook which outlines the expectations for pupil conduct and explains to all
stakeholders what happens when rules are violated. Contained within this Discipline
Handbook are the four major areas of behavior management: (a) school board policy on
student discipline, (b) code of conduct rules, (c) student responsibility cycle, and
(d) disciplinary procedures for bus conduct.
Board of Education Policy
In order to support all students' right to learn, it is the policy of the Board of
Education that each school develop an age-appropriate student code of conduct
14
expectations. Further, the code must adhere to state laws as well as State Board of
Education rules along with the following:
•
Standards for student behavior that states that all students are to exhibit
behavior that will facilitate a learning environment, students are encouraged to
respect each other and school system employees in addition to any other
persons attending school events. The school discipline plan should motivate
students to follow behavior policies adopted by the Board and follow local
schools' rules and regulations.
•
Support processes are designed to consider the severity of the disciplinary
infraction. In addition, support services which may assist students in
improving and assessing their own behavior are available.
•
Progressive disciplinary processes are developed to ensure that consequences
are in direct proportion to the degree and severity of the offense.
•
Encouragement of parental involvement processes are in place whereby
parents, guardians, teachers and school administrators work cooperatively
together to enhance student behavior and scholastic performance.
A requirement of the school code of conduct is that a disciplinary action be listed
and defined for any infraction. Also, the code of conduct pamphlet is distributed at the
beginning of each school year to each student and the student's parents or guardian. To
ensure receipt of this communication, parents/guardians are requested to sign and
promptly return the consent form back to the school. This code of conduct booklet is also
kept in the school office and in each classroom.
15
In addition, if there is a student who repeatedly and substantially interferes with
the teacher's ability to manage his or her classroom, the teacher may file a report with the
principal. At this time, the procedure outlined by Georgia law O.C.G.A. 20-2-737-738
begins and students that violate state or federal laws as specified in O.C.A.A. 20-2-1184
are reported to the police and district attorney. Lastly, the superintendent, according to
policy, provides procedures and guidelines deemed necessary for the implementation of
both laws.
Code of Conduct Rules
Edward County Schools, as socializing institutions, center their discipline
programs around the idea that each student is working towards self-management and
controlling his or her own conduct. Nonetheless, the system acknowledges and accepts
that adult intervention is both desirable and necessary at certain times. To minimize
problem behavior, teachers and administrators must intervene quickly to maintain a well-
disciplined school.
To assist each school in maintaining a positive school climate, a code of conduct
governing student behavior and discipline has been established by the Board and the
superintendent. These codes of conduct are grouped into four areas: (a) Substantive
Rules, (b) Procedural Rules, (c) Removal of Dangerous Students, and (d) Related Federal
Regulations.
16
Substantive Rules
Rule 1: Students may not disrupt or interfere with school operations.
Rules 2/3: Damage, alteration or theft of school or private property by students is
prohibited.
Rules 4/5: Assault or battery (physical or verbal) or abusive language to a school
employee or student is prohibited.
Rule 6: Harassment or acts of bigotry are unacceptable.
Rule 7: Students may not sexually harass another person.
Rule 8: Students shall not possess weapons and dangerous instruments.
Rule 9: Alcohol and other drugs/psychoactive substances are not permitted.
Rule 10: Students shall not disregard school rules; state, federal and/or local
laws; directions or commands.
Rules 11-17: The following behaviors are not tolerated: (a) unexcused absences;
(b) inappropriate dress and grooming; (c) tobacco use;
(d) gambling; (e) sexual misconduct/sexual offenses; (f) bullying; and
(g) disrespect towards employees, students and/or others.
Rule 18: Poor school bus behavior is prohibited.
Procedural Rules
To maintain order and discipline, school authorities may (Rules 1-8):
• Conduct personal searches.
• Conduct automobile searches.
• Conduct locker searches.
17
• Seize illegal materials.
• Investigate and exercise disciplinary sanctions.
• Use reasonable measures to maintain proper control, i.e., parent conferences,
student court, mediation, detention, in-school suspension, Saturday Opportunity
School, out-of-school suspension, and reasonable force to restrain or correct
students.
• Devise a disciplinary and behavioral correction plan for chronic disciplinary
problem students.
• Use informal hearings (grades K-5), disciplinary hearings (grades 6-12), or
Tribunal Hearing referrals (school court).
Rules 9-14:
• Allows the use of due process.
A. Nature, scheduling and conduct of hearing
B. Appeal rights
C. Group hearing
D. Appeal to Georgia Board of Education
Rule 15:
• If the situation warrants, an emergency suspension will be ordered without
notice of a hearing.
Removal ofDangerous Students
• Students who pose an immediate and substantial threat may be removed as
applicable under state or federal law.
18
Related Federal Regulations
• The Code of Conduct shall honor the Federal Individuals with Disabilities
Education Act, Section 504 or the Federal Rehabilitation Act of 1973, or the
Federal Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990.
In conclusion, to promote the self-management of young people, Edward Schools
accept the responsibility of helping pupils acquire appropriate behavior as they develop
into mature members of society. As a result, the code of conduct outlining student
expectations was established. These disciplinary guidelines detailed the standard of
conduct, means of reporting misconduct, and possible disciplinary sanctions as shown in
the Elementary School Student Responsibility Cycle (A Code of Conduct and Discipline
Handbook, 2002).
Character Education
Even though a systemwide discipline plan can help deter some of the inevitable
disciplinary problems associated with school organizations, a more potent component is
needed to teach higher levels of learning whereby students make connections between
rules and life-long principles. As mentioned by Curwin and Mendler (1988), educators
and the general public concurred with this idea. In the state of Georgia with nearly 1,900
schools, former Governor Roy Barnes stated the following: "Lack of discipline is one of
the biggest problems facing education" (Shorthouse, 2000, p. 34). Therefore in 1999,
then Governor Roy Barnes mandated that all Georgia schools teach 27 character traits by
signing HB605, the Improved Student Learning Environment and Discipline Act (Figure
4).
19
Religion in Public Schools
(Values) 1640-1960
Schools outlawed; students still have religious
freedom
(Thou shall
not moralize
I
I
Thou shall
moralize
\
Value Clarification 1960 -1980
J
Lost Popularity
V
National Trend for Character Education 1980
/
k
Character Education Partnership (CEP)
Georgia State Board of Education
(1991)
1997 General Assembly HB 393
"Encouraged" Implementation"
Carl Von Epps
Georgia Department of Education GDOE
"Values and Character Education
Implementation Guide" (1997)
I
GAGL Law / Governor R. Barnes
IHB+B605(I999)
Local School Systems
FCBOE (P. Guillory SS Director)
County Schools
"Infused through curricula: Career Technology, Art,
Health, P.E., & SS, Literature
♦Main source of implementation
Principals / Counselors
Optional to Enrich Supplement
Figure 4. A Brief History of Character Education in Georgia
Local Decision
(not a mandate)
20
This state law links character education to discipline—implicitly acknowledging the
relationship of character, discipline, conduct, and the learning environment (Parson,
2000).
As a result of this law, Edward Schools have, in addition to its code of conduct
policy, a systemwide character education program. Twenty-seven traits are incorporated
into specified subjects: (a) Physical Education/Health, (b) Art, (c) Career Technology,
(d) Social Studies, and (e) Literature (Table 2). Teachers of these subjects prepare
Table 2
Character Traits to be Taught As Mandated by State Law: O. C.G.A. 20-2-145
Citizenship
Respect for Others
Respect for Self
Tolerance
Cheerfulness
Perseverance
Patriotism
Compassion
Diligence
Courage
Kindness
Self-Control
Loyalty
Generosity
Virtue
Respect for the natural environment
Courtesy
Cleanliness
Respect for the creator
Cooperation
Punctuality
Honesty
Creativity
Fairness
School Pride
Sportsmanship
Patience
21
lessons as outlined in their subject curriculum guide. In addition, principals have the
autonomy to include other support programs as do school counselors. Some schools do a
lot with character education while others implement precisely what is detailed in the
curriculum handbook (Guillory, 2002).
According to an Edward County School's brochure (1996), good character is not
formed automatically, but comes about over time through a sustained process of teaching.
Edward Schools state that character education is "The long term process by which
positive personality traits are developed, encouraged, and reinforced through example,
study (history and biography of the great and good), and practice (emulation of what has
been observed and learned" (p. 2).
Significance of the Study
The ability of schools to deal with student misbehavior effectively is an ongoing
concern. Research indicates that discipline programs do have an impact on student
disciplinary problems. Most importantly, when these programs expand to teach lifelong
principles that are infused in the character education curriculum, the impact is even more
substantial. Thus, this investigation of character education in a metro Atlanta School
District is a pertinent and necessary step in the evaluation of its impact on student
disciplinary problems. This study will augment the existing body of literature concerning
character education value to students. The associated variables of building leadership,
character education content, teacher's role, subject taught, amount of time, staff
development, SES of school, race of students and teachers, and parental involvement
22
should not be overlooked because their influence can make a difference on measuring the
effectiveness of character education and its ability to provide a positive learning climate.
Research Questions
This study will be guided by the following research questions.
1.
Is there a relationship between character education and student discipline?
2.
Is there a relationship between the teacher's role and student discipline?
3. Is there a relationship between building leadership and student discipline?
4.
Is there a relationship between staff development and student discipline?
5.
Is there a relationship between subject taught and student discipline?
6.
Is there a relationship between the amount of time spent on character
education and student discipline?
7.
Is there a relationship between the SES of the school and student discipline?
8.
Is there a relationship between parental involvement and student discipline?
9.
Is there a relationship between race and student discipline?
Summary
The investigation presented in this paper concerns the influence of Georgia's
mandated Character Education Program on student disciplinary problems. The study
sought to answer nine research questions regarding the relationship between the
dependent variable, student discipline, and the following independent variables:
(a) character education, (b) teacher's role, (c) building leadership, (d) staff development,
and (e) parental involvement. Additional demographic nominal and ordinal variables
23
such as subject taught, amount of time, socioeconomic status of students, and race of
teacher/student were also used to probe the problem of this study.
Chapter I introduces the topic of character education. Character education is the
act of deliberately teaching character traits such as tolerance, loyalty, respect for the
creator and for the natural environment, kindness, honesty, self-control, cleanliness, etc.
The push for character education is the result of a decline of goodwill toward the
academic curriculum and the human curriculum. There is a deterioration of respect for
the institution of learning and its purpose, while at the same time, a greater disrespect for
parents, teachers, student-to-student interaction, and other legitimate authority figures.
This investigation is designed to search out answers to this alarming phenomenon as
outlined in this paper.
CHAPTER II
REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE
The following pages review the literature through selected empirical studies,
which relates to the purpose of this investigation along with significant variables that may
affect character education's impact on student discipline. In addition, other applicable
theoretical research is included. The independent variables for this study are character
education, building leadership, teacher's role, subject taught, amount of time, staff
development, SES of school, race of students, and parental involvement. Student
discipline is the dependent variable.
The review of the literature is presented in this order: Character Education and
Building Leadership, Character Education and the Role of the Teacher, Character
Education and Staff Development, Character Education and Parental/Community
Involvement, and Character Education and Student Discipline.
Schaeffer (1999) recommends that educators and reform advocates give up the
numerous band-aid student discipline approaches designed to curb disruptive and violent
behavior in today's schools. He contends that turning to such quick-fix, knee-jerk
solutions are just another reactive response. He strongly advocates that schools, parents,
the community, teachers, administrators, and society seek out a much more rewarding
24
25
long-term solution, preferably character education. He states that "We must focus on the
root causes of violence and anti-social behavior and take the methodical and important
steps to create school environments where these types of behavior cannot thrive—where
they can be detected and thwarted early on" (Schaeffer, 1999, p. 2).
A Baltimore newspaper reported that in a single high school, 1,200 students were
suspended in one afternoon last school year: 50 were expelled on another evening, 500
students were arrested during the school day, and four were killed violently (Jones,
1998). In a broader sense, a nation-wide poll done by the Report Card on the Ethics of
American Youth (1998), showed that more than 20,000 middle school and high school
students expressed a distressing disconnection between what they say and what they do
which is an indication that they lack an intrinsic barometer so vital to making good
choices. Schaeffer (1999) and Lickona (1996) point out that there is a need for the youth
population to exercise moral conduct because it goes against their intrinsic nature. Of
these 20,000 students, 97% say, "It is important for me to be a person with good
character." But at the same time, 92% of high school students admit to having lied to
their parents in the last 12 months, 70% admit having cheated on an exam, 47% admit
having stolen something from a store, 45% say they believe a person has to lie or cheat
sometimes in order to succeed, and 36% say they would be willing to lie if it would help
them get a good job. Furthermore, 27% say they have stolen something from a friend
(Jones, 1998).
Character education experts, Rayan and Bohlin (1999), stress that students must
be encouraged to be intellectually honest by grounding their value education discussion
26
in facts and by respecting the religious significance attached to certain moral issues
related to friendship, family, health, work, love, sex, drugs, leisure time, personal taste, or
politics (Kirchenbaum, 2000). If not, the trend that this new generation is bent on selfdestruction will continue.
The Eleventh Annual Gallup Survey rated discipline as the number one problem
according to the last eleven annual surveys focusing on schools (Smith, 1981). In a study
done by Hughes (1982), the participating subjects placed the blame for disruptiveness on
home, school, society, and students. Similarly, an investigation by Aksoy (1999)
revealed that the top five causes of discipline problems include family problems,
disinterest of the parents toward their children's education, parents' negative attitudes and
behaviors, and over-crowded classrooms.
Since public practice of religion is outlawed in schools, character education has
surfaced in the national dialogue as a way to instill values in out-of-control students. For
example, Mound Fort Middle School in Ogden, Utah, witnessed a drastic reduction in the
number of fights in the halls following their use of character education (Pack, 2000).
This turnaround is of great import to troubled schools everywhere. Pack (2000) also
explored intervention methods used by six elementary classroom teachers, emphasizing
the strategies found useful in dealing with students who exhibited behavior problems. In
this qualitative study, one-on-one interviews with teachers on how they proactively and
reactively got students to have good conduct were done. Several themes emerged from
an analysis of the data. These themes were: school climate, classroom management, the
stress of student misbehavior, chronic behavior problems, student discipline, the role of
27
the parents, proactive measures, intervention methods, and character education. The
findings were that character education might be the most significant proactive measure
designed to encourage proper behavior and discourage inappropriate behavior.
Kennedy (2000) conducted an examination of 28 character education programs in
middle schools in the state of Georgia using documented analysis of the character
education curricula. Principals from 28 of 34 school districts completed the Middle
School Character Education Questionnaire developed by the researcher. Data were
analyzed with frequency distribution and percentages. The results showed that all school
systems have not implemented character education programs as mandated by the Values
and Character Education Implementation Guide developed by the Georgia Department of
Education in 1997. However, in those schools that have instituted character education
programs, there was a decrease in negative behavior and discipline referrals. Moreover,
there was an increase in student test scores and a more positive school climate was noted.
As the research suggests, the necessity of teaching character development in
schools has been prompted by the moral decay currently being shown by students.
Tattner (1998) conducted research on the impact of teaching values such as respect and
self-control on the conduct of students using a Student Character Survey developed by
D. Wangaard. This instrument contained 72 statements expressing an opinion regarding
four constructs: honesty, respect, diligence, and self-control. Two groups, an
experimental group (5th and 7th levels), received two 4-week treatments on respect and
self-control, and a control group (6lh and 8th levels), in which no treatment was
administered were involved in the study. Participants scored a pretest and a posttest. A
28
comparison between the two using the t-tests for paired samples was compiled. The
analysis of the study showed a level of significance resulted with the experimental group
with both constructs of respect and self-control.
A related quantitative and qualitative investigation was conducted by Antis
(1997). In this study, an experimental school received treatment and a control school
received no treatment. The study asked, "Do character education programs impact the
ethical understanding, ethical sensibility, and ethical behavior of elementary aged
children?" The treatment given to the experimental group was a multicultural, ethics
education program entitled the Heartwood Curriculum, along with other character-related
initiatives used to infuse the concepts of value development into the total school
environment. The respondents were students in grades 1-6 from a semi-rural district in
western Pennsylvania. Further, parents and teachers were surveyed to obtain their
perception of the impact of character education and the teaching of values. Data
collection methods were a pretest and posttest, a teacher survey, a parent survey, direct
observation, and student and faculty focus groups. Findings showed that students
exposed to character education initiatives exhibited a significant increase in accordance
with principles of right or good conduct when compared with their peers at the control
school. Not surprisingly, both parents and teachers concurred with these analyses.
A similar conclusion was also drawn by Olsen (1995). His study indicated that
character education is needed in today's schools to improve student conduct and
empower the school systems to aid in the development of moral and ethical youngsters
29
to help prepare them to live responsibly. Other researchers such as Crowder (2001);
Gervais (2001); Jackson (1993); Jacobi (1997); Rosser(1997); Smith (1997);
Stoppleworth (2001); Tucker (2000); and Van Heest (1994), support the need for
character education as a means of instilling moral motivation in America's youth in order
to bring about more acceptable social behavior.
Character Education and Building Leadership
According to Kaplan (1995), an administrator's duty is to provide leadership to
school people and school programs. These leaders seek to enhance the learning
environment and scholastic achievement of all pupils within a safe, secure, and caring
learning atmosphere. Therefore, in order to maintain this safe school setting, principals
enact appropriate legal practices regarding student discipline which is considered a short-
term, knee-jerk, reactive method. In contrast, implementers of character education wish
to install a more workable long-term, proactive technique entitled character education;
but its success or failure in the learning environment is strongly connected to the
commitment it is given by the school leader. Likewise, Schaeffer (1999), the Executive
Director and CEO of the Character Education Partnership (CEP) in Washington, D. C,
and DeRoche (2000) state that strong leadership is a vital component in schools with
successful programs. Major support is needed through the highest levels of the school
administration.
Freado's (1997) research was aimed at determining what strategies of the process
for inclusion of a comprehensive character education program are considered by
principals to be important. In order to find schools with comprehensive programs, the
30
Eleven Principles Survey (EPS) of Character Education Effectiveness was administered
as phase one. Next, seven schools with an overall average score were selected to
participate in the second phase of the study in which principals were asked to score the
importance of 16 strategies according to a Likert Scale. Interviews were also conducted
to clarify and confirm the responses. Even though all elements of the process were rated
as important by the majority of principals, several stand out as essential. They were
(a) the leadership of the principal and the collaboration with all stakeholders, and (b) the
use of consensus building as a decision-making technique when adding character
education to the school's program.
Researcher Williams (1999) did an investigation to determine if there was a
relationship between the independent variable, leadership styles of Kanawha County
Schools (KCS) principals, and the dependent variable of implementation levels of
character education programs. The population and sample of the study were 87
principals. The Leadership Behavior Description Questionnaire, Character Education
Assessment Checklist, and Demographic Survey of KCS Principals were the instruments
used to extract the data. The respondents completed the instruments in an October staff
meeting. The information was analyzed by the Statistical Product and Service Solution
Package (SPSS). The following tests were used: a linear regression, t-test, frequency
distribution, and a Scheffe's post hoc. Results from the t-test showed no significant
relationships. However, the linear regression as measured by the LBDQ-Self, revealed
that there was a significant relationship; it indicated that as the principals' initiating
31
structure score (their preferred leadership style) increased, there were significantly higher
levels of implementation of character education.
When East (1996) investigated high school principals' perceptions of character
education programs in South Carolina, he found that these administrators viewed
character education as a legitimate school function and noted that it could be an effective
deterrent to school violence and discipline problems. This conclusion was derived from
126 public high school principals who completed a comprehensive survey developed by
the researcher. The independent variables were (a) principals' personal and professional
characteristics, (b) principals' level of acceptance of the principles of character education,
(c) principals' level of training in the principles of character education, (d) principals'
perceptions of character education as a legitimate function of public high schools, and
(e) principals' perception of character education as an effective means of addressing the
problems of discipline and violence in the public high school. Character Education was
the dependent variable. East's (1996) study showed a relationship between the variables
of building leaders, school discipline and character education.
McQuaide (1996) looked at the role of principals in selecting character education
programs for their school. The context of this examination was in five counties of
western Pennsylvania elementary and middle schools. The administrators responded to a
questionnaire. The major finding revealed that 65% believed it is the public school's
responsibility to teach students good character traits; but there was disagreement among
the principals about the necessity of implementing a formal program. Further, 37% of
area principals reported using a character education program in comparison to the
32
national average of only 20%. Most significant, according to this study, were the
decisions regarding the use or non-use of character education programs which are most
often made by the building principal, even though school boards, the central office,
faculty, and/or community groups sometimes initiate or participate in the decisionmaking processes. Lastly, principals who adopted a formal values teaching curricula
improved discipline from the program's use; however, there is a need for more program
evaluations on the impact of character education on student behavior.
Character Education and the Role of the Teacher
Teachers can be extremely special people in the eyes of their students,
significantly impacting their lives. Classroom educators play a major role in guiding
students into becoming well-rounded individuals. In a real sense, in addition to
academics, educators share the responsibility for creating/instilling the moral fiber of
children in schools today more than ever. Thus, acceptable modeling is necessary along
with an appropriate environment and experiences. With such an influential role, teachers
have the unique and powerful ability to promote moral development and value education
in a knowledgeable and reflective way through their everyday behavior and thought
(Tyree, Vance, & McJunkin, 1997). Kant (1983) revealed that the role of the moral
educator is to raise students' levels of moral reasoning and as a result, enable them to
function at the highest level of which they are developmentally capable. Character and
value education become moral education in action; much of the information of moral
development comes from the cognitive developmental theories of Piaget (1932) and
33
Kohlberg (1969). Simply put, the role of the teacher is overwhelmingly important as
seen in the following statement by Schaeffer (1999):
Some educators and school administrators may erroneously
believe that developing the character of our children is not
their job. But the reality is they will be shirking their
responsibility if they turn out children who are 'brain
smart' and not 'heart smart.' (p. 2)
Laud (2000) investigated how five teachers nurture character. These teachers
were selected by their administrator according to established criteria. Through numerous
observations and interviews, themes were manifested by means of the cross-profile
analysis and in light of the literature such as how teachers cared for others and how the
teachers nurtured their students' capacity to care for their peers. The major findings of
this research were that there was a shift of focus from the type of strategies used to the
qualities the teachers possessed, significance of the teachers' role in nurturing character,
how these teachers stressed achievement over character, the difficulty of this topic,
unintended adverse effects of teachers' desire to care, and the teachers' knowledge of
developmental theories.
In further studies, Wells (1998) explored the thinking of 30 teachers on the role of
the teacher as moral educator. The views were analyzed on the basis of several criteria,
one of which was the nature of moral knowledge. Seven models emerged from the
subjects' views: (a) The Character Education Model, (b) The Civics Model, (c) The
Philosophy Model, (d) The Personal Influence Model, (e) The Social Justice Model,
34
(f) The Process Model, and (g) The Anti-Moral Education Model. The results showed
that models one through three base the teachers' role as moral educator on an
authoritative and normative perception of the good that the young should initiate. The
last four models base the role of the teacher on a subjective, relative, and privatized view
of the good, neither normative nor authoritative, and therefore, provided the teacher and
student no basis for formal reflection of behavior. The study suggests that these
differences may indicate a shift from society viewing good in terms of transcendent
virtues to viewing the good in terms of values, which are a matter of preference.
The theoretical basis for the teachers' role resides in the work of Lickona (1997)
and other investigators. He contends that educational reform in nearly all cases comes
down to a teacher and a classroom full of youngsters. With such a crucial role, the
delivery of value education and its outcomes in the classroom setting rest upon classroom
educators' shoulders. Consequently, teachers must possess a clear understanding of what
character education is. Character education is the deliberate effort to teach selected
virtues to classroom students. Each of these virtues has three parts: moral knowledge,
moral feeling, and moral behavior. Teachers must help young people to develop values
internally such as justice, honesty and patience, to appreciate their importance, to
motivate them to want to possess them, and to practice them in their day-to-day conduct.
Only after a thorough understanding of a comprehensive concept of value building are
teachers ready to design a comprehensive instructional program. A program of such
magnitude must encompass the total moral life of the classroom and school.
35
Anderson (2000) states that the classroom is the arena to reinforce, model and
actively produce positive character traits on a day-to-day basis; therefore, the classroom
educator is central to students' character development. Further, she advocates that the
processes within the classroom setting are critical. Additionally, research reports over
many decades reveal that people chose teaching as a career because they wanted to
positively impact the lives of children. Most were concerned that the young become
good people (Ryan, 1993).
Participants from the Jefferson Institute's Foundations of Ethics in Western
Society which aims to help teachers in their role as facilitators of character formation
among students, found among them core concerns about the purpose of schools in
character education:
•
How do we get students to take themselves and their soul seriously?
• How do we make behavioral controls intrinsic, rather than extrinsic?
• How do we get students to like doing the right thing?
•
What means can schools use to habituate students to doing the right thing?
Gecan and Mulholland-Glaze (1993) indicated that Plato's and Aristotle's ideas
had answers for just about everything—specifically, the application of Aristotle's
teaching on the nature of happiness, the gathering of virtue through repetition, and the
importance of practical wisdom to ones home and work life.
Character Education and Staff Development
One of the successful strategies to integrate moral teachings into schools is staff
development. In order for this program to be of maximum service to students, it must be
36
incorporated into all segments of school life by the school personnel. Weaving character
education into the classroom does take time and effort; consequently, the training of
teachers and administrators is essential to the implementation process and should
continue as new staffjoin the school (Schaeffer, 1999). DeRoche (2000) supports this
training by stating that faculty members must be adequately prepared for their role as
champions in character education.
The work of Wynne (1994) discusses the characteristics of schools with better
"character activities." These schools made changes to become more humane and
communal. Further, colleges of education can play important roles in socializing teachers
and providing in-service training to educators. Wynne (1994) states:
I can identify manifold ways in which the intensification of
the values of individualism and egalitarianism have
affected the way we treat our students and the curriculum
materials we put before them. And, in the end, these
values—mediated through college-trained teachers—help
to shape elementary and high school students and their
institutional environment, (p. 6)
As stated previously, several variables can affect the outcome of the character education
initiative on student discipline: strong leadership, broad faculty, and parent commitment.
To reiterate, in-service work and a faculty willing to walk the extra mile for the success
of the moral development of the young is a noted hallmark. Williams (2000), DeRoche
(2000) and Leming (1999) concur with this major school of thought by stating that the
37
teachers' knowledge and commitment to this reform effort has been a critical component
in the program's effectiveness.
The expertise of faculty and staff as a result of staff development is a worthy
aspect of character education to be pursued by school leaders. A study by Englund
(1996) was aimed at identifying attitudes toward twelve core values and the significance
of developing these values through the school curriculum and environment. A multimethod approach involving a triangulation design, an observational case study along with
a quantitative and qualitative mechanism, formed the data collection devices. The sample
for the investigation consisted of parents, staff, and students. Data were triangulated to
increase validity. Findings indicated that teachers must be provided with continuous, indepth character education training. Further, it was determined that there was a high level
of agreement among all three groups in reference to the 12 core ethical values and the
importance and need for character education in both the curriculum and environment.
A great deal has been written about character education and its role with regard to
affecting students' awareness of the moral values needed to achieve positive social
interaction when faced with the perplexing nature of human personalities and the natural
occurrences encountered by day-to-day living. For example, what emerged from
Stanhope's (1992) research of a compilation of character education literature from 1929
to 1991 is that out of 1,492 journal articles reporting on this subject, the majority (1,414
or 95.2%) fell within four themes: 1,176 articles were on the role of the school. The
second highest of 141 articles dealt with the influence of religious beliefs and traditions.
Thirdly, 72 journals reported on the local and national community organizations with an
38
overall mission of teaching virtuous behaviors to youngsters. Finally, the family and its
role covered 32 of the 1,414 journal articles. Clearly, the significance of the character
building of students in the United States is well documented as seen in Chapter II over
several areas. However, these studies failed to include SES of students and the ethnicity
of the teacher and the student.
Character Education and Parental/Community Involvement
Lickona (1996) states that the family is the most significant influence on a child's
character, and schools alone cannot ftilly compensate for family failure in this scenario.
Nonetheless, conscientious efforts must be made by schools, families, churches, and
communities to aid boys and girls in understanding, internalizing, and acting upon
universal values, some of which include respect, responsibility, honesty, fairness,
integrity, compassion, self-control, and moral courage.
In addition, Schaeffer (1998) details the 11 essential principles for principals to
use for the establishment of an effective character education program. One of the 11
principles is that schools should develop partnerships with parents and community.
Character education experts Kevin A. Ryan (1993) and Karen E. Bohlin (1999) advocate
parental involvement also. Alarmed theorists opine that the absence of parental
participation will only impede the success of teaching virtuous behaviors to young
people.
Similarly, DeRoche (2000) adds that one of the ten critical factors that make a
strong character education program is the role of the parent and community. He states
that the most successful programs are those that form quality partnerships with parents,
39
agencies, organizations, groups, and students. Moreover, Van Orden (2000) conducted a
study of 125 school principals' perceptions of support and collaboration for the
implementation of a character education program in elementary schools located in Los
Angeles County. The student enrollment ranged from 5,000 to 25,000. The findings of
this examination established that home support was vital. In addition, cooperation among
schools and community was viewed as a critical link to the success of any endeavor to
enhance character building. Principals also stated that they believed character education
would help address issues of discipline, civility, and respect.
Similar results surfaced from Thomas' (2001) qualitative investigation designed
to study the impact of a community-based rites of passage character education process
entitled, "Servant Warrior Leader" in Austin, Texas. Seven students and their parents, a
teacher and administrator, and a community-based facilitator participated in this study.
Respondents disclosed that this character education program is a preventive process that
provides values that transform youngsters by arming them with better resources and tools
to help diminish the forces that would destroy them, while at the same time, allow for a
personal evolvement to the fullness of humanity to occur. The link between character
education, student behavior, and parental involvement is evident by the works of the
aforementioned scholars.
Bauer (1991) did an ex post facto study to determine if specific variables derived
from the literature were related to student character development. The major finding
revealed that parental involvement and school activities were strongly connected with
40
character development. It suggested that involving parents at school enhances the
character building of youngsters.
Keene (2001) investigated the idea that the parent is the leader in the family
(primary teachers of children) and parental behavior greatly affected the children. The
instrument used was the Hyde School Character Education Process for the purpose of
determining its impact on eleven alumni parent participants, personally and
professionally. Data were collected by means of Hyde terminology, interviews and staff
observation. Participants' definition of their parental leadership behavior for their
children emerged as an ongoing commitment to behave according to one's most decent
and ethical values, to pursue one's own unique potential, and to help others do the same.
They desired behaviors that contribute to the community, that are of value to others, and
lastly, virtues most fulfilling to themselves. It was found that when parents exhibit these
behaviors in the home, students have a support system for entering the classroom with
prerequisite skills so necessary to adequately function in large settings such as the
classroom.
Delorme (1996) discussed a national random-sample telephone survey of 327
school principals and superintendents to find out "what's really troubling our schools?"
The study was conducted by Spectrum Center, a nonprofit educational and behavioral
development research study center. The results showed that school troubles stem from
two sources—the lack of social and emotional skills of children and a lack of parental
involvement, support and encouragement in the home. Subsequently, schools can
certainly do more to try to foster parental involvement and work to strengthen families
41
and communities. As far as a remedy for poor social and emotional skills, the proactive
resolution of character education has shown impressive results (SchaerTer, 1999).
Parental involvement is so crucial to students' success that the state of Texas
required parental training programs. Hence, Scott (1990) examined the level at which
Texas elementary schools were implementing the state mandate for parental training
seminars and to determine if these programs were responsible for improved student
academic performance, student attendance, and student discipline. The sample
population was the top five percent of 4,155 elementary schools gaining the highest
number of scaled score points on the Texas Educational Assessment of Minimum Skills
Test. The methodology for this investigation was the use of two surveys mailed to 208
schools. The data were reported through descriptive analysis from the 161 responses.
Based on the analyzed data, 67 schools reported having parental programs in place.
Furthermore, the study showed that a sizeable proportion of the participating schools
(a) believed that home/school relations were important enough to establish policy for
parent/teacher communications and (b) that parents do make a difference in the areas of
student discipline, grades and attendance. Additionally, Aksoy (1999), in his study of
classroom teachers' management and student discipline skills, identified the top five
discipline causes as family problems, disinterest of the parents toward their children's
education, parents' negative attitudes and behavior toward their children, the affects of
violence presented on television and other media, and over-crowded classrooms.
42
Character Education and Race
Character education and race and whether or not the race of public school
youngsters have any bearings on student discipline is an interesting phenomenon to
probe. Rose (1998) conducted a study that examined the influence of regular church
attendance on character education. Needless to say, stronger character education skills is
linked to fewer student discipline concerns. A 25-item character education questionnaire
was used to gather the data. Forty-six elementary school students in Sumter, South
Carolina were selected from a total of 891 students in grades pre-kindergarten through
grade five. The racial make-up of students was 53% European, 46% African American,
and 1% other. Results showed that background variables such as age, race, gender,
church attendance, and parental education do have a positive impact on the character of
today's youth as well as moral development in school, home, and community.
Additionally, developing a positive self-esteem in students determines how well the
aforesaid variables interact among each other.
An investigation by Mason (1993) looked at the influence of a planned character
education program in literature classes located in rural North Mississippi using Romeo
and Juliet to determine if it would result in greater development in student character.
Four 9th grade English classes from four high schools yielded 128 participants that were
randomly assigned to either a control or experimental group without regard to
intelligence, gender or race. There were no significant differences between the groups
taught character education versus the group taught traditional instruction; nor were there
any significant differences on the variables of schools attended or gender. However,
43
there was a significant difference between the black and white subjects involved in this
examination.
Smith (1997) investigated the effects of character education on the self-esteem of
gifted and nongifted 5th and 6th grade African-American students. The population
sample was derived from three elementary schools and one middle school in a suburban
school district. A total of 177 students in 11 classrooms took part in this study. The
sample was then divided into an experimental group (six classrooms) which received the
character education treatment and a control group (five classrooms) which did not receive
character education instruction. The Piers-Harris Children's Self-Concept (Piers, 1984),
an 80-item pencil and paper, yes-no test revealed a statistically significant difference
between the self-esteem of the gifted and nongifted 5th and 6th grade African-American
students who participated in the character education curriculum with regard to self-
esteem than those who did not. In essence, the teaching of character education can
increase the self-esteem of gifted and nongifted African-American students, therefore
decreasing the level of chaos and disorder in public schools.
On the other hand, Yu's (2002) research surrounding ideology, politics, and
character education took a critical look at the character education movement in the
United States. He used a literature review and document analysis to probe at
sociocultural discourses. Yu concluded that the character education movement is a way
for the ruling class to restore the social order—a long-standing tradition assigned to
schools which are expected to impart social stability, political stasis, and cultural
preservation promoted by the conservative power elites to reinforce the status quo.
44
Character education basically maintains the tradition of virtue ethics and is presented as
politically neutral, while ignoring important issues such as gender, race, class, and
culture. Yu further states that the fundamental school structure and culture which is
driven by content-oriented, standards-based, and test driven policies leaves little or no
room for a piercing school reform that includes all ethnic groups. Transformative school
reform that includes an alternative moral education would be a more suitable fit in a
culturally diverse society in which multiple races coexist.
How This Study Differs
Prior value building studies focused on a combination of independent variables
such as classroom management, school climate, role of the parents, intervention methods,
character education curricula, school activities/literature, role of teachers and parents,
level of implementation, and the leadership styles of administration. The majority of
these empirical studies exercised the quantitative methodology approach, next was
qualitative and the least of the three studies used mixed-methodology. Within these
examinations, the participating sample populations consisted of students, parents,
teachers, and principals in varying numbers and combinations.
In contrast, this investigation looked at combinations of nine independent
variables to determine their significance on the influence of character education on
student discipline: (a) character education, (b) building leadership, (c) teacher's role,
(d) subjects taught, (e) amount of time, (f) staff development, (g) SES of school,
(h) parental involvement, and (i) race. Furthermore, this study was done in a Georgia
school district to assess its character education program implemented as a result of
45
legislation (HB 605) signed into law by former Governor Roy Barnes in 1999. Statistical
data were used to derive the current Georgia-mandated character education program's
impact on the dependent variable of student discipline. A 74-item questionnaire was
administered to selected schools by means of the systematic random procedure. The
researcher utilized the quantitative approach.
Summary
This chapter presented the voices from other researchers about their investigations
of character education and student discipline. The studies described herein provide more
data about the impact of character education on student discipline and the many variables
that support the infusion of character values into the general education curriculum.
The review of the literature in this chapter suggests that a more potent reform
program is needed such as character education to combat the growing rate of students
who violate basic school and classroom rules. This idea is upheld both from a theoretical
and an empirical standpoint. Schaeffer (1999) as well as Lickona (1996), among others,
recognize the significance that character education has on students' behavior.
Several tentative conclusions based on the studies discussed in this chapter are
listed below:
1.
Discipline is seen as a big issue by educators and the public. An annual
Gallup survey rated discipline as the number one problem facing schools
today.
2.
Character education is seen as a long-term solution that can instill lifelong
values in our students.
46
3.
There are many character education programs on the market, but how
effective are these models in reversing the problem of students who exhibit
poor behavior?
4.
Once a character education program is implemented, the program's success or
failure is contingent on a number of variables, e.g., building leadership,
teacher's role, professional development, and parental involvement.
CHAPTER III
THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK
The focus of this study was to examine the inclusion of character education and
its impact on student discipline. The relationship among the independent variables of
character education, building leadership, teachers' role, subject taught, amount of time,
staff develop, SES of school, parental involvement, and ethnicity of teachers and students
on the dependent variable of student discipline was investigated to determine its influence
on student behavior.
The above processes are pertinent as the theory of this investigation is that
discipline is likely to be influenced by the character education program. However, if
discipline is not affected by character education, the following variables might offer
explanations (Figure 5).
Definition of Variables
Dependent Variable
Student discipline: refers to teachers' opinions about students' conduct, number
of time rules are broken and the number of office discipline referrals. (Questionnaire
items 1 -13; 44-64)
47
48
INDEPENDENT VARIABLES
Building Leadership
Character Education Content
Teacher's Role
DEPENDENT VARIABLE
Subject Taught
Student Discipline
Amount of Time
Staff Development
SES of School
Parental Involvement
Race
Figure 5. Relationship Among the Variables
49
Independent Variables
Character education: refers to infused curriculum which emphasizes positive
personality traits such as tolerance, courage, loyalty, cheerfulness, compassion, kindness,
generosity, courtesy, cooperation, honesty, fairness, patience, self-control, virtue, and
cleanliness that are developed, encouraged, and reinforced through example, study, and
practice by the classroom teacher. (Questionnaire items 24-31)
Amount of Time: refers to the number of minutes spent on character education
lessons per day/unit. (Questionnaire items 42-43; 65)
Building Leadership: refers to teachers' opinions on the overall involvement of
the principals with the character education program as seen through support resources
and activities. (Questionnaire items 24-23)
Parental involvement: refers to teachers' opinions in reference to the active
participation of parents/guardian as evidenced by the number of phone communications,
parent conferences, parent visits as well as parent volunteers and PTSA attendances.
(Questionnaire items 38-41)
Race: refers to populations sharing the same physical traits, same ancestry, and
same activities. (Questionnaire items 67, 73)
Socioeconomic Status (SES) ofStudents: refers to whether the teachers taught in
a school where the students' socioeconomic status was high, middle, or low as indicated
by the number of free and reduced lunches. (Questionnaire item 66)
50
Staffdevelopment: refers to the training sessions provided to teachers in order to
enhance the delivery of character building lessons to students. (Questionnaire items 3233)
Subject Taught: refers to the subjects in which character education is infused
such as Physical Education, Health, Career Technology, and Social Studies.
(Questionnaire item 74)
Teachers' role: refers to persons who teach the prescribed content of the
character education curriculum as mandated by Georgia state law in 1999.
(Questionnaire items 34-37)
It is expected that character education will influence students' discipline. The
other related variables of building leadership, teachers' role, subject taught, amount of
time, SES of school, parental involvement, and ethnicity of teachers and students also
impact character education's influence on student behavior. In order for character
education to directly affect student discipline, a look at the other variables is necessary as
they contribute to creating positive student conduct.
According to Kaplan (1995), an administrator's duty is to provide leadership to
school people and school programs. The aim of these leaders is to require scholastic
achievement of all students within a safe, secure, and caring school setting. When school
leaders are strongly committed to the implementation process of a character education
program, the results are impressive. Dr. Jacquelyn C. Woods, Principal at Alfred Blalock
Elementary School in Atlanta, Georgia, puts character first. Dr. Versels, Director of the
51
Character Education Project, credited Blalock with having the best character education
program of five pilot schools participating in the project. More profoundly, Dr. Blalock's
elementary school significantly improved school climate and reduced school violence. In
addition, Principal Woods stated that committed administrators and teachers set the stage
for the school's success. Likewise, Principal Bill Morris of Lakeside Middle School in
Evans, Georgia, cited similar results: "We have enjoyed the benefits of improved
standardized test scores and significantly lowered disciplinary referrals requiring
administrative attention" (The Reporter, 2000, p. 26).
The interrelation of the role of the teacher is a crucial part of this equation as well.
Tyree, Vance, and McJunkins (1997) state that with such an influential role, teachers
have a powerful ability to promote student morality. Indeed, these educators should be
given staff development, as character education is a fairly new state mandate and
weaving character education into the classroom takes time and effort. This training is
essential as faculty members must be adequately prepared for their role as champions in
character education (DeRoche, 2000).
More importantly, parental involvement is connected to improving discipline
through character education as well as the aforementioned variables. In the words of
Linda C. Schrenko (State Superintendent of Georgia Schools): "We realize that no one
can be successful if we do not work with our businesses, community leaders, and most of
all our parents who are our children's first and most important teachers" (The Reporter,
2000, p. 17). Accordingly, Schaeffer (1998) and DeRoche (2000) explained that the most
successful programs are those that form quality partnerships with parents, agencies,
52
organizations, groups, and students. Furthermore, the variables of social economic status,
amount of time spent on character education instruction, and the subjects it is taught in
will also be compared and analyzed to ascertain probable influence.
Null Hypotheses
HOI:
There is no significant relationship between Character Education
Content and Student Discipline
HO2:
There is no significant relationship between Teachers' Role
and Student Discipline.
HO3:
There is no significant relationship between Building Leadership
HO4:
There is no significant relationship between Staff Development
HO5:
There is no significant relationship between Subject Taught and
Student Discipline.
HO6:
There is no significant relationship between Amount of Time
HO7:
There is no significant relationship between the percentage of
Students on Free and Reduced Lunch in the school and Student
Discipline.
HO8:
There is no significant relationship between Parental Involvement
53
HO9:
There is no significant relationship between Teachers' Race
or the Racial Make-up of the Class and Student Discipline.
Scope and Limitation
First, this project is limited to teachers in selected elementary schools in the
Edward County School System. Second, the research is limited to data retrieved through
completed and returned questionnaires. Finally, the sample population was selected by
the systematic random method which yielded nine schools; however, only six of the nine
schools completed and returned the questionnaire.
CHAPTER IV
METHODOLOGY
This examination set out to determine the extent by which the state of Georgia's
mandated Character Education Program is impacting the behavior of elementary students
in a metro Atlanta school district. In order to investigate this problem, the quantitative
method was employed as it revealed unequivocal statistical data as a result of collected
information derived from the finalized survey instrument. The 74-item questionnaire was
developed by the researcher along with a committee of experts. It was then used to direct
the gathering of the specified data needed to address the research questions that guided
this study.
The research procedures exercised in this study are outlined in this chapter.
Explanations of the research design and procedures are presented in the following order:
description of the setting, data collection procedures, sampling procedures, and
instrumentation.
The aim of this research project was to determine the impact of Georgia's
Character Education Curriculum on student discipline. A questionnaire developed by the
researcher and approved by a team of experts was administered to certified classroom
teachers.
54
55
Research Questions
The following questions guided the direction of the collection of data:
1.
Is there a relationship between character education and student discipline?
2.
Is there a relationship between teachers' role and student discipline?
3.
Is there a relationship between building leadership and student discipline?
4.
Is there a relationship between staff development and student discipline?
5.
Is there a relationship between subject taught and student discipline?
6.
Is there a relationship between the amount of time spent on character
education and student discipline?
7.
Is there a relationship between the SES of the school and student discipline?
8.
Is there a relationship between parental involvement and student discipline?
9.
Is there a relationship between race and student discipline?
Accordingly, these questions were then correlated with demographic information
to determine if teachers vary in any predictable way as far as the teaching of character
education content and whether this variation could affect the outcome of student
disciplinary problems. The demographic variables under examination were gender, race,
racial composition of class, SES, time spent on character education, curriculum, and
teacher specialty subject area.
Description of the Setting
The research project was conducted in six of the nine randomly chosen
elementary schools in Edward County, Georgia. Each school is required by the state of
Georgia to teach a character education program which consists of 27 character traits.
56
These traits are taught in specified subjects such as career technology, literature, social
studies, physical education, health, and art. These traits are:
Citizenship
Respectfor Others
Respectfor Self
Tolerance
Cheerfulness
Perseverance
Patriotism
Compassion
Diligence
Courage
Kindness
Self-Control
Loyalty
Generosity
Virtue
Respect for the natural
Courtesy
Cleanliness
Cooperation
Punctuality
Honesty
Creativity
Fairness
School Pride
environment
Respect for the creator
Sportsmanship
Patience
This metro Atlanta School System has 49 elementary schools. By means of the
systematic random sampling method, nine schools were identified for the data collection
phase. The researcher contacted the central district office to request permission to study
the nine primary schools. Once approval was granted, the researcher contacted the
administrator of these schools to request permission to administer the survey instrument
to their classroom teachers, preferably immediately following a faculty meeting. Six
schools agreed to participate in the study.
57
Data Collection Procedures
Edward County School System has a total of 49 elementary schools. In order to
collect data for the independent variable of socioeconomic status, each school was first
ranked according to its reported free and reduced lunch percentages from the highest
number to lowest. Next, a systematic random procedure was utilized. The first school on
the list was chosen and then every other sixth school was selected to be a part of this
research project. This method is thought to be more trustworthy than simple random
sampling (Vogt, 1999). Each teacher received the questionnaire and a letter of
explanation. Next, the questionnaire was administered in nine elementary schools to
certified classroom teachers. Depending on the preference of the building leader, the
instrument was administered either by the researcher, the school principal or a delegate.
Two of the nine schools declined participation. One school returned their surveys too
late to be included in the study. Equally important, each respondent was assured that
individual schools and participants would remain anonymous. Distribution and
collection of the instrument commenced on April 3,2003, and ended on June 13,2003, a
ten-week period. After repeated contacts, a total of six schools responded, yielding a
total of 179 returned surveys, Moreover, 37 surveys were returned too late to be included
in the analysis.
Sampling Procedures
Using the list of FCBOE elementary schools, 49 elementary schools were
identified. The systematic random method was employed. First, the schools were ranked
by SES. The investigator then selected the first school on the list and, thereafter, every
58
other sixth school, producing a total of nine schools as the sample population. With the
principal's approval, the teachers within the nine elementary schools were asked to
complete the questionnaire regarding the character education program implemented at
their school (Figure 6).
Instrumentation
This study's instrument was developed as a result of collaboration between the
researcher and a committee of experts. In creating this instrument, the principal
investigator compared question items with the content of several scholarly studies'
instruments on the topic of student discipline and character education. Additionally, the
questionnaire was subject to the scrutiny of the doctoral chairperson and committee.
After several revisions, the finalized instrument was approved for distribution.
This questionnaire was constructed to gather information about the impact of the
Character Education Curriculum on student disciplinary problems in Edward County,
Georgia elementary schools. The instrument contained 74 questions to assess the study's
research problem. Sixty-four questions were used to obtain information on student
discipline, building leadership, character education content, teacher role, subject taught,
amount of time, staff development, and parental involvement. The remaining 10
questions were used to gather demographic information, which consisted of gender, race,
SES, specialty of subjects, teachers' experience, grade level taught, and age.
59
ORIGINAL ELEMENTARY SCHOOL POPULATION
Large System
Number of Elementary Schools
49
Schools Systematically Randomly Selected
9
42
30
Teachers
37
Teachers
26
Teachers
Teachers
TOTAL PARTICIPANTS
285
TOTAL RETURNED
223
TOTAL USED
179
Participated
Declined
Figure 6. Original School Population (Large System)
23
Teachers;.
38
Teachers
60
Statistical Application
The Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) was used to summarize the
data collected in this study. The following statistical procedures were used: Pearson
Correlation, Frequency, Crosstab, Factor Analysis, and Multiple Regression. The
Pearson Correlation procedures tested whether there is linear relation between
variables—a measure of linear association between two variables. Values of the
correlation coefficient range from -1 to 1. The sign of the coefficient indicates the
direction of the relationship, and its absolute value indicates the strength, with larger
absolute values indicating stronger relationships. A Frequency analysis provides general
information regarding the number of occurrences a value occurs in a variable. The
Frequencies procedure provides statistics and graphical displays that are useful for
describing many types of variables. Crosstab statistics are used to show the measure of
association based on chi-square. The value ranges between 0 and 1, with 0 indicating no
association between the row and column variables and values close to 1 indicating a high
degree of association between the variables; it is a measure of association based on chisquare. The Cramer's V and Kendall's tau statistics are used on variables that have
nominal and ordinal characteristics, respectively. Each can attain a value of 1 for tables
of any dimension. Factor analysis attempts to identify underlying variables, or factors,
that explain the pattern of correlations within a set of observed variables. Factor analysis
is often used in data reduction to identify a small number of factors that explain most of
the variances observed in a much larger number of manifested variables. Factor analysis
can also be used to generate hypotheses regarding causal mechanisms or to screen
61
variables for subsequent analysis (for example, to identify col linearity prior to performing
a linear regression analysis). A Multiple Regression estimates the coefficients of the
linear equation, involving one or more independent variables, that best predict the value
of the dependent variable.
The information presented in this chapter includes demographic information on
the population sample and the results and analysis of the statistical tests applied to the
null hypotheses.
Delimitations
This study was confined to the following: (a) the number of elementary schools
for the school year 2002-2003, whereby nine of 49 schools were systematically and
randomly chosen; (b) the local school's implementation level of the state's mandated
Character Education Program; (c) the dependent variables of student discipline; (d) the
independent variables of building leadership, Character Education content, teachers' role,
subject taught, amount of time, staff development, SES of school, parental involvement,
and race; (e) the moderating variables of teacher gender, age, grade level taught, years of
experience, education level, and racial composition of classes; (f) data from the study's
instrument from the school year 2002-2003 only; and (g) selected teachers honesty and
conscientious effort in providing accurate information when completing the 74-item
survey.
62
Working with Human Subjects
The human subjects for this research project were certified elementary classroom
teachers in a metropolitan school district. When permission was sought and gained from
the doctoral committee, the school system, and the principal of the designated nine
schools to proceed with the data collection phase of the study, the researcher then stated
as well as wrote to each respondent that their participation was needed but also that it was
totally voluntary. Moreover, the researcher guaranteed anonymity to each participant and
school. It was explained to the subjects that a copy of the findings would be available
upon completion.
Summary
This chapter described the scholarly quantitative inquiry undertaken by the
researcher in order to address the purpose of this study. Therefore, the following steps of
the research methodology were included: (a) research design; (b) description of the
setting; (c) instrumentation; (d) working with human subjects; (e) sampling procedures;
(f) data collection; and (g) statistical analysis.
The research procedure involved the ethical collection of data by means of a selfreported survey instrument whereby participants were assured anonymity. The sample
population was devised using the systematic random method yielding nine schools, which
totaled 179 classroom teachers. Of the nine selected schools, six completed and returned
the survey instrument via school mail. These teachers represented a cross-section of
characteristics of the population of a metro Atlanta school district under study.
63
The statistical procedures selected to summarize the data collected in this study
was the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS). The results of the following
statistical tests—Pearson Correlation, Frequency, Factor Analysis, Crosstab Kendall's
tau, Cramer's V, and Multiple Regression—are presented in Chapter V.
CHAPTER V
ANALYSIS OF THE DATA
The focus of this study was to determine the extent to which the current character
education curricula are producing positive changes in student behavior. This chapter
presents an analysis of data obtained from six Edward County schools in the metro
Atlanta area.
In order to analyze the impact of character education curricula, a survey was
administered to the teachers. The data were analyzed in hypotheses 1 through 9. The
survey items were grouped to represent Student Discipline (items 1-13), Building
Leadership (items 14-23), Character Education Content (items 24-31), Teacher's Role
(items 34-37), Subject Taught (item 74), Amount of Time (item 65), Staff Development
(items 32-33), Percentage of Students on Free and Reduced Lunch (item 66), Parental
Involvement (items 39-41), Racial Make-up of Class (item 67), and Teachers' Race (item
73).
The response choices were assigned numerical values as follows: (5) Always;
(4) Most Times, (3) Sometimes, (2) Rarely, and (1) Never. The demographics questions
choices were assigned numerical values based on the nominal or ordinal order in which
they appeared on the survey.
The Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) was used to summarize the
data collected in this study. The following statistical procedures were used: Pearson
64
65
Correlation, Frequency, Crosstab, Factor Analysis, and Multiple Regression. The
Pearson Correlation procedures test whether there is linear relation between variables—a
measure of linear association between two variables. Values of the correlation
coefficient range from -1 to 1. The sign of the coefficient indicates the direction of the
relationship, and its absolute value indicates the strength, with larger absolute values
indicating stronger relationships. A Frequency analysis provides general information
regarding the number of occurrences a value occurs in a variable. The Frequencies
procedure provides statistics and graphical displays that are useful for describing many
types of variables. Crosstab statistics are used to show a measure of association based on
chi-square. The value ranges between 0 and 1, with 0 indicating no association between
the row and column variables and values close to 1 indicating a high degree of
association between the variables—a measure of association based on chi-square. The
Cramer's V and Kendall's tau statistics are used on variables that have nominal and
ordinal characteristics respectfully. Each can attain a value of 1 for tables of any
dimension. Factor analysis attempts to identify underlying variables, or factors, that
explain the pattern of correlations within a set of observed variables. Factor analysis is
often used in data reduction to identify a small number of factors that explain most of the
variance observed in a much larger number of manifest variables. Factor analysis can
also be used to generate hypotheses regarding causal mechanisms or to screen variables
for subsequent analysis (for example, to identify collinearity prior to performing a linear
regression analysis). A Multiple Regression estimates the coefficients of the linear
66
equation, involving one or more independent variables, that best predict the value of the
dependent variable.
The information presented in this chapter includes demographic information on
the population sample and the results and analysis of the statistical tests applied to the
null hypotheses.
Demographics of Teachers From the Six Edward County Schools
The following tables provide the demographic breakdown data of the 179 teachers
from the six Edward County Schools. This data were collected from the survey used in
this study. As far as gender, males comprised 11.2% of the population, and females
comprised 84.9% (Table 3).
Table 3
Demographic Characteristics of Teacher Population for Gender
Gender
Frequency
Percent
Male
20
11.2%
Female
150
84.9%
7
3.9%
179
100%
Missing
Total
The following tables provide the demographic breakdown data of race of the
teacher, racial make-up of the classes, socioeconomic status, amount of time teachers
spent on character education curriculum, and teachers* specialty subject area. As far as
67
teacher ethnicity, blacks comprised 43.6% of the population, whites comprised about
48%, and no responses comprised 7.3% of all teachers surveyed (Table 4). The racial
composition of the classes taught by the teachers surveyed were blacks 56.4% of the
population, whites 24.3%, Hispanics 14.1%, and no responses 3.9% of all teachers
surveyed (Table 5).
Table 4
Teachers By Race
Gender
Frequency
Percent
Black
78
43.6%
Asian
1
.6%
White
86
48%
1
.6%
13
7.3%
179
100%
Frequency
Percent
Black
101
56.4%
White
45
24.3%
Hispanic
26
14.1%
Missing
7
3.9%
179
100%
Hispanic
Missing
Total
Table 5
Racial Make-up of Teachers' Classes
Gender
Total
68
Of the 179 teachers that responded to the percentage of students on free and
reduced lunch, 30.7% indicated that less than 50% of the students in their classes were
comprised of free and reduced lunch students, and that 62% of the teachers indicated that
more than 50% of the students in their classes were comprised of free and reduced lunch
students (Table 6).
Table 6
The Percentage ofStudents on Free and Reduced Lunch
Percent of Free and Reduced Lunch
Frequency
Percent
34
19.0%
11 to 20%
4
2.2%
21 to 40%
9
5.0%
41 to 50%
8
4 5o/o
51 to 60%
13
73o/o
61 to 70%
12
6.7%
71 to 80%
23
12.8%
81 to 90%
24
13.4%
91 to 100%
39
21.9%
Missing
y
7.3%
179
1Oo%
Below 10%
Total
69
The following tables provide the demographic breakdown of amount of time
spent on character education curriculum and teacher's specialty subject area. As far as
time spent in teaching the character education curriculum, 5% indicated they spent time
daily, 8.4% at least three to four times a week, 32.4% at least one or two times a week,
28.5% once or twice a month, and 21.8% rarely (Table 7). The breakdown of the
teacher's specialty subject area is as follows: 60.9% of the teachers indicated their
specialty subject area as English Languages/Reading, 20.7% as Math/Science, and 7.3%
as Social Studies (Table 8).
Table 7
Time Spent on Character Education Curriculum
Time Spent
At least 50 minutes daily
Frequency
9
Percent
5.0%
At least 50 minutes once or twice a week
58
32.4%
At least 50 minutes once or twice a month
51
28.5%
Rarely
39
21.8%
7
3.9%
179
100%
Missing
Total
70
Table 8
Teacher Specialty Subject Area
Specialty Subject Area
Frequency
Percent
Math/Science
37
20.7%
Social Studies
13
7.3%
109
60.9%
English Languages/Reading
Art
5
2.8%
PE and Health
4
2.2%
11
6.1%
179
100%
Missing
Total
Table 9 provides the descriptive means of the independent and dependent
variables. The mean scale ranges from 1 to 5. The respondents choices were assigned
numerical values as follows: (5) Always, (4) Most Times, (3) Sometimes, (2) Rarely, and
(1) Never.
The mean response for building leadership is 2.9, which indicates that teachers
sometimes perceive that the principal works with teachers to implement character
education effectively. The mean response for character education content is 3.0, which
indicates that teachers sometimes perceive that activities and practice are being
adequately taught to the students. The teachers' role mean response is 3.5, which
indicates that teachers perceive themselves, in most cases, as good character role models
for their students to follow. The staff development mean response is 2.9, which indicates
that teachers perceive, in most cases, that their schools provided training and workshops
71
Table 9
The Mean Responses ofDependent and Independent Variables
Descriptive Statistics
Std.
Mean
Deviation
N -
Building Leadership
2.9615
1.0912
179
3.0796
1.0059
179
Teacher's Role
3.5754
.8421
179
Subject Taught
2.4022
1.1042
179
Amount of Time
3.4190
1.2755
179
Staff Development
2.9302
1.1765
179
5.26
3.25
179
2.6704
9893
179
Teachers' Race
1.42
.70
179
Racial Make-up of Class
1.18
.72
179
3.5376
.5749
179
Teachers* Gender
1.07
.38
179
Teachers' Age
3.77
2.12
179
Grade Level
3.87
2.12
179
Teachers' Experience
3.24
1.68
179
Teacher's Education Level
1.48
.69
179
The Percentage of Students on Free and Reduced
Lunch
Student Discipline
72
to prepare teachers about character education. The parental involvement mean is 2.6,
which indicates that teachers perceive teachers in most cases that parents and teachers
work together. The student discipline mean response is 3.5, which indicates that teachers
sometimes perceive students as easy to control and come to class fully prepared for
assignments
Analysis of Null Hypotheses
In this study, there were nine hypotheses dealing with variables to be examined
and tested. Each hypothesis is stated separately in order to anticipate the type of analysis
that is required. The calculated values were compared to the p probability tables at the
0.05 confidence levels of significance (95% probability) to determine whether the null
hypotheses would be accepted or rejected. If the calculated value was greater than the
table value, the null hypothesis was accepted. If the calculated value was less than the
table value, then the null hypothesis was rejected. The analysis was done based on the
following design models. The dependent variable is student discipline. The independent
variables are building leadership, character education content, teacher's role, subject
taught, amount of time, staff development, the percentage of students on free and reduced
lunch, parental involvement, teachers' race, and racial make-up of classes. The
moderating variables are teachers' race, racial make-up of classes, subject taught, and the
percentage of students on free and reduced lunch. Hypotheses 1, 2,3,4, and 8 were
analyzed using the Pearson correlation procedure. Hypotheses 5, 6, 7, and 9 were
analyzed used using Crosstab Cramer's V and Kendall's tau statistics because of the
nominal (teachers' race, racial make-up of classes, subject taught) and ordinal variables
73
(the percentage of students on free and reduced lunch, and amount of time spent on
teaching character education curriculum). A Factor analysis procedure having a
dependent variable, independent variable, and moderator variable was used to search out
associated links among the nine variables. Finally, a Multiple Regression procedure
having a dependent variable, independent variables, and moderate variables was done to
extract which variables, if any, were predictors of the dependent variable of student
discipline.
HOI:
There is no significant relationship between Character
Education Content and Student Discipline
A Pearson Correlation was used to determine if there was any significant
relationship between the between character education content and student discipline. The
results of the Pearson Correlation are shown in Table 10.
Table 10
Relationship Between Character Education Content and Student Discipline
Student Discipline
Correlation
Tl85
Sig. (2-tail)
.013*
N
♦Significant at the .05 confidence level (95% probability)
179
The results of the Pearson Correlation as shown in Table 10 indicates that
character education content is significantly related to student discipline. The correlation
coefficient value of 0.185 being significant at the 0.013 level which is less than the tested
74
significance level of 0.05; therefore, the null hypothesis is rejected. This means that the
implementation and support of character education content exists in harmony with
student discipline. However, the data do not show a cause and effect, only a correlation.
HO2: There is no significant relationship between Teacher's Role
A Pearson Correlation was used to determine if there was a significant
relationship between teacher's role and student discipline. The results of the Pearson
Correlation are shown in Table 11.
Table 11
Relationship Between Teacher's Role and Student Discipline
Student Discipline
Teacher's Role
Correlation
[231
Sig. (2-tail)
.002*
N
179
The results of the Pearson Correlation as shown in Table 11 indicate that teacher's
role is significantly related to student discipline. The correlation coefficient value of .231
being significant at the .002 level is less than the tested significance level of .05;
therefore, the null hypothesis is rejected. This means that there is a positive relationship
between teachers' role in the use and instruction of character education and student
discipline. However, the data do not show a cause and effect, only a relatedness.
75
H03:
There is no significant relationship between building leadership
and student discipline.
relationship between building leadership and student discipline. The results of the
Pearson Correlation are shown in Table 12.
Table 12
Relationship Between Building Leadership and Student Discipline
Student Discipline
Building Leadership
Correlation
XJ89
Sig. (2-tail)
.238
N
179
The results of the Pearson Correlation as shown in Table 12 indicate that building
leadership is not significantly related to student discipline. The correlation coefficient
value of .089 being significant at the 0.238 level is greater than the tested significance
level of .05; therefore, the null hypothesis is accepted. This means that the principal
emphasis on character education in the classroom and curriculum is not significantly
related to student discipline.
HO4:
There is no significant relationship between staff development
relationship between staff development and student discipline. The results of the Pearson
Correlation are shown in Table 13.
76
Table 13
Relationship Between StaffDevelopment and Student Discipline
Student Discipline
Staff Development
Correlation
107
Sig. (2-tail)
.155
N
179
The results of the Pearson Correlation as shown in Table 13 indicate that staff
development is not significantly related to student discipline. The correlation coefficient
value of. 107 being significant at the . 155 level is greater than the tested significance
level of .05; therefore, the null hypothesis is accepted. This means that staff development
activities do not show a correlation with student discipline.
HO5: There is no significant relationship between subject taught
The Crosstab Cramer's V statistic was used to determine if there were any
significant relationship between subject taught, a nominal variable, and student
discipline. The results of the Cramer's V statistic are shown in Table 14.
Table 14
Relationship Between Subject Taught and Student Discipline
Student Discipline
Subject Taught
Correlation
J50
Sig. (2-tail)
.617
N
179
77
The results of the Cramer's V statistic as shown in Table 14 indicate that subject
taught is not significantly related to student discipline. The correlation coefficient value
of .350 being significant at the .617 level is greater than the tested significance level of
.05; therefore, the null hypothesis is accepted. This means the area in which a teacher
specializes or enjoys does not correlate with student discipline.
HO6: There is no significant relationship between amount of time
The Crosstab Kendall's tau statistic was used to determine if there was any
significant relationship between amount of time spent on character education, ordinal
variable, and student discipline. The results of the Kendall's tau statistic are shown in
Table 15.
Table 15
Relationship Between Amount of Time Spent on Character Education and Student
Discipline
Student Discipline
Amount of Time Spent on Character
Correlation
-0.016
Education
Sig. (2-tail)
.798
N
179
The results of the Kendall's tau statistic as shown in Table 15 indicate that
amount of time spent on character education is not significantly related to student
discipline. The correlation coefficient value of-0.016 being significant at the 0.798 level
is greater than the tested significance level of .05; therefore, the null hypothesis is
78
accepted. This means that amount of time spent on character education does not have a
significant effect on student discipline.
HO7: There is no significant relationship between the percentage of
students on free and reduced lunch in the school and student
discipline.
The Crosstab Kendall's tau statistic was used to determine if there was any
significant relationship between the percentage of students on free and reduced lunch in
the school, an ordinal variable, and student discipline. The results of the Kendall's tau
statistic are shown in Table 16.
Table 16
Relationship Between the Percentage ofStudents on Free and Reduced Lunch in the
School and Student Discipline
Student Discipline
The percentage of students on Free and
Correlation
-.205
Reduced Lunch in the School
Sig. (2-tail)
.000
N
179
The results of the Kendall's tau statistic as shown in Table 16 indicate that the
percentage of students on free and reduced lunch in a school is significantly related to
student discipline. The correlation coefficient value of -.205 being significant at the
0.000 level is less than the tested significance level of 0.05; therefore, the null hypothesis
is rejected. This means that there is an inverse or negative correlation with free and
79
reduced lunch and student discipline. The test revealed that the fewer students in school
on free and reduced lunch correlates with better student discipline.
HO8: There is no significant relationship between Parental Involvement
relationship between the parental involvement and student discipline. The results of the
Pearson Correlation are shown in Table 17.
Table 17
Relationship Between Parental Involvement and Student Discipline
Student Discipline
Correlation
232
Sig. (2-tail)
.002*
N
179
The results of the Pearson Correlation as shown in Table 17 indicate that parental
involvement is significantly related to student discipline. The correlation coefficient
value of .232 being significant at the 0.002 level is less than the tested significance level
of 0.05; therefore, the null hypothesis is rejected. This means that schools that have
strong parental involvement seem to have an orderly school environment with fewer
breaks in rules by learners. However, the data do not show a cause and effect.
HO9: There is no significant relationship between teachers' race
or the racial make-up of the class and student discipline.
80
The Crosstab Cramer's V statistic was used to determine if there was any
significant relationship between teachers' race and the racial make-up of the class (both
nominal variables) and student discipline. The results of the Cramer's V statistic are
shown in Table 18.
Table 18
Relationship Between Teachers' Race or Racial Make-up of Class and Student
Discipline
Student Discipline
Teachers' Race
Correlation
.316
Sig.
.963
Correlation
.409
Sig.
.046*
N
179
The results of the Crosstab Cramer's V statistic as shown in Table 18 indicate that
teachers* race is not significantly related to student discipline. The correlation coefficient
value of .316 being significant at the .963 level is greater than the tested significance
level of .05; therefore, teachers' race does not affect student discipline. On the other
hand, the racial make-up of the teacher's class is significantly related to student
discipline. The correlation coefficient value of .409 being significant at the .046 level is
less than the tested significance level of .05; therefore, the null hypothesis is rejected.
This means that the racial make-up of the class has a significant correlation with student
81
discipline. The data show that classes with a majority white or Hispanic composition
have fewer student discipline problems. However, the data do not address a cause and
effect factor (Table 19).
Table 19
Racial Make-Up ofClass and Student Discipline
Student Discipline (Mean)
White
3.8603
Black
3.2008
Hispanic
3J692
A Factor analysis of all variables—Building Leadership, Character Education
Curricula, Staff Development, Parental Involvement, Teachers' Role, Teachers'
Experience, Teachers' Age, Teachers' Education Level, Teachers' Race, Percentage of
Students on Free and Reduced Lunch, Racial Make-up of Class, Teachers' Gender,
Amount of Time Spent on Character Education, Grade Level, and Teachers' Specialty
Subject Taught—was associated with Student Discipline. This test was used to
determine if there were any variables with which student discipline could be associated.
The Factor analysis design assumes that all variables are independent, unlike the
regression analysis design that defined Student Discipline as the dependent variable. The
results of the Factor analysis are shown in Table 20.
The results of Factor analysis in Table 20 indicate that when the variables interact
simultaneously, Character Education Curricula, Teachers' Role, Building Leadership,
Staff Development, Parental Involvement, Teachers' Education Level, Teachers' Race,
82
Table 20
Factor Analysis Results for Student Discipline
Rotated Component Matrix
Factor
Factor
Factor
Factor
Factor
1
2
3
4
5
—
—
Building Leadership
.846
Character Education Curricula
.847
Staff Development
.846
.754
Teachers' Role
Student Discipline
_.
__
~
-
--
-
-
-
~
-
-
.687
—
--
—
~
-
.878
.891
-
Teachers' Experience
Teachers' Age
—
.864
Teachers' Specialty Subject
—
.557
.551
Teachers' Education Level
—
-
-
—
-
-
-
Amount of Time on Character Education
—
--
.403
Teachers' Gender
—
-
.695
Grade Level
—
Teachers' Race
~
-
-
.695
-
.441
-
The Percentage of Students of Free and
Reduced Lunch
Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.
Rotation Method: Varimax with Kaiser Normalization
Coding of gender: (1) Male; (2) Female
—
—
—
.888
.683
83
Teachers' Gender, Amount of Time Spent on Character Education, Grade Level, and
Teachers' Specialty Subject; they are not related to Student Discipline. When all
variables are treated as independent variables there is no association, and that they are not
the underlying variables, or factors, which explain the pattern of correlations. The Factor
Analysis is used to determine which variables are related or associated with each other
when all variables are treated independently and are allowed to associate freely.
A Stepwise Multiple Regression procedure was performed to determine if any of
the nine variables were predictors of student discipline. This procedure used a design
model where the dependent variable was student discipline and all other variables were
treated as independent variables. There was a relative impact of each of the independent
variables on student discipline. A Stepwise Multiple Regression test to determine if a
significant relationship existed between student discipline, the dependent variable, and
the independent and moderating variables: Building Leadership, Character Education
Content, Teachers' Role, Subject Taught, Amount of Time Spent on Character
Education, Staff Development, The percentage of students on Free and Reduced Lunch,
Parental Involvement, Teachers' Race, and Racial Make-up of Class. The Multiple
Regression is used to test the design model were Student Discipline is the dependent
variable and all other variables are treated as independent variables. This model was
used to determine which of the independent variables were predictors of student
discipline. The Factor analysis is different from the regression statistic in that it does not
identify a dependent variable in the design model that allows for free association. The
results are displayed in Table 21.
84
Table 21
Regression for the Relationship Between Character Education Content and Student
Discipline
Multiple Regression
Predictor
Beta
R
R2
F
Sig.
The Percentage of Students on Free
-.321
.313
9.8
19.285
.000*
13.8
14.030
and Reduced Lunch
.198
.371
.000*
Note: Variables not in equation: Building Leadership, Time Spent of Character
Education, Teacher's Role, Teacher's Age, Racial Make-up of Class, Teachers' Gender,
Teachers' Race, Teachers' Specialty Subject, Staff Development, Parental Involvement,
Teachers' Experience, Teachers' Education Level, and Grade Level.
The data show the percentage of students on Free and Reduced Lunch has a
significant influence on predicting student discipline. The multiple R was 0.313 and the
R2 was 0.098. Thus, 9.8% of the variance that occurred for student discipline was
attributed to the percentage of students on Free and Reduced Lunch. The F-Ratio of
19.285 is significant at p=0.000 < 0.05 level indicating that there is some significant
relationship with student discipline and the percentage of students on free and reduced
lunch. The data show that Character Education Content has a significant influence on
predicting student discipline. The multiple R was 0.371 and the R2 was 0.138. Thus,
13.8% of the variance that occurred for student discipline was attributed to the use of the
Character Education Content. The F-Ratio of 14.030 is significant at p=0.000 <0.05 level
85
indicating that there is some significant relationship with Character Education Content
and student discipline. The fewer students on free and reduced lunch seem to predict a
more disciplined student. The infusion of Character Education Content has some
indication that it can positively impact student discipline. The results of the Multiple
Regression also indicate that there is an 87% unexplained variance in student discipline,
which means that there are other lurking variables or factors that also have effect or
influence on predicating student discipline.
Summary
This chapter presented the statistical analysis of the data obtained by comparing
the responses of 179 teachers for six Edward County metro Atlanta area schools. The
nine hypotheses of the study were tested using the Statistical Package for the Social
Sciences (SPSS), and the procedures used were Frequency, Crosstab, Pearson
Correlation, Factor Analysis, and the Regression statistical procedures. The results of
these statistical procedures revealed that six of the hypotheses were rejected and five
were accepted.
The results show that there is a significant correlation between teachers'
perception of Character Education Content, Teachers' Role, Free and Reduced Lunch,
Parental Involvement, and Racial Make-up of Class, and Students* Discipline. It is
important to note that the correlation procedure treats its variables independently in a
one- to-one relationship to determine any correlation. The Factor Analysis analyzes all
the variables simultaneously. The Factor Analysis indicates that there is not a significant
commonality with student discipline and the other variables used in this study when
86
introduced in a design model interacting simultaneously. The Factor Analysis attempts to
identify underlying variables, or factors, that explain the pattern of correlations within a
set of observed variables. It is important to note that the correlation statistic and the
Factor analysis are used to indicate a correlation and not to determine cause or effect.
In the beginning of this chapter, the researcher indicated that the focus of this
study was to determine the extent to which the current Character Education Curricula is
producing positive changes in student behavior. A Multiple Regression was performed to
determine if any variables used in this study were capable of predicting the outcome of
Student Discipline. The results show that the percentage of students on Free and
Reduced Lunch has the most significant effect on student discipline along with Character
Education Content. The fewer students on free and reduced lunch, the more certain the
prediction of a disciplined student environment.
The infusion of Character Education
Content has some indication that it can positively impact student discipline. The results
of the Multiple Regression also indicate that there is 86.2% unexplained variance in
student discipline, which means that there are other variables or factors that also have
effect or influence on predicting Student Discipline.
Chapter VI presents the findings, conclusions, implications, and recommendations
based on the results of this study.
CHAPTER VI
SUMMARY, FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The intent of this chapter is to report the summary, findings, conclusions, and
recommendations of this six-part investigation. The purpose of this research study was to
determine the extent to which Character Education is having a positive effect on student
discipline in a metro Atlanta school district using the responses of a character education
student discipline questionnaire from teachers of grades K-5 who were systematically and
randomly selected in eight elementary schools.
Summary
The investigation reported here was based on the theories of Lickona (1997),
Ryan (1993), Schaeffer (1999), Williams (1992), and others who recognized the
significance of Character Education and its influence on student discipline. Because lack
of discipline is one of the biggest problems facing education, both educators and the
public are searching for powerful solutions. Specifically, the state of Georgia now has a
law entitled The Improved Student Learning Environment and Discipline A ct, which links
character education to discipline, implicitly acknowledging the relationship of character,
discipline, conduct, and the learning environment (Parson, 2000). This study focused
attention on that relationship.
87
88
In Chapter I, the problem of the study was discussed. Public school employees
and the general public ranked discipline as the third largest problem facing public schools
today, superseded only by a forever shrinking budget and drug abuse. President Bush
and the nation's governors established a sixth national goal to combat these problems.
This goal was determined to free the institutions of learning of student disciplinary
problems, violence, and drug abuse.
Religious instructions are a violation of the First Amendment; therefore, teaching
right from wrong from that perspective is prohibited. To minimize youngsters'
disciplinary violations, value education curricula surfaced which later evolved into the
current character education programs now mandated by the state of Georgia. Thus, the
purpose of this study was to examine character education programs in metro Atlanta
elementary schools and to determine their impact on student discipline.
A closer look at the Edward County School District in Atlanta, Georgia, showed
that a countywide discipline program is in place. This plan has reduced the number of
pupil conduct issues; however, concerned school officials and the general public rallied
for methods that would instill long-term self-discipline practices in students which could
remain with them as they develop and move into adulthood. As a result, the Edward
County School System established a character education program in which 27 traits are
infused into the curricula as seen in their subject curriculum guides throughout grades K12. How well these values influence student behavior is central to this discussion.
hi Chapter II, a review of literature was done. This review included information
on the dependent variable, student discipline, and nine other independent variables—
89
character education, building leadership, role of teacher, subject taught, amount of time,
racial make-up of students and teachers, staff development, and parental involvement.
Each of these factors was thought to have an impact on classroom discipline. Advocates
such as Amis (1997), Bohlin (1999), Kennedy (2000), Lickona (1997a), Olsen (1995),
Pack (2000), Rayan (1996), Schaeffer (1998), Smith (1997), and others support the need
for character education in school as an avenue for instilling moral behavior in America's
youth. Moreover, character education supporters such as East (1996), Freado (1997),
Schaeffer (1998), and Williams (1992) are quite vocal about what makes a successful
character education school. It must have unwavering leadership, a vital component,
through the highest levels of the school's administration. The program's success or
failure is strongly connected to the commitment it is given by the building leaders.
Central to the discussion is the important role teachers play as the face-to-face
implementer of character values. Teachers are extremely special people in the eyes of
their students, significantly impacting their lives. With such an influential role, teachers
have the unique and powerful ability to promote moral development and value education
in a knowledgeable and reflective way through their everyday behavior and thoughts. At
their best, teachers enable youngsters to function at the highest level of which they are
developmentally capable. The empirical works of Laud (2000) and Wells (1998) as well
as from great thinkers such as Lickona (1996) and Schaeffer (1999) concur with the
notion that the classroom is the arena to model, reinforce and actively produce positive
character traits on a day-to-day basis to students under the leadership of the classroom
teacher.
90
The work of DeRoche (2002), Englund (1996), Schaeffer (1998), Stanhope
(1992), Williams (1992), and Wynne (1994) argued that in order for character education
to be of maximum service to students, it must be incorporated into all segments of school
life by the school faculty. Therefore, the training of teachers and administrators is
essential to the implementation process and should continue as new staffjoin the school.
Faculty members must be adequately prepared through in-service training for their role as
champions in character education. Teacher knowledge and commitment to this reform
effort is a critical component of the program's effectiveness.
Parental involvement also increases the effectiveness of a character education
program. Indeed, the family is the most significant influence on a child's character, and
schools alone cannot fully compensate for family failure in this scenario. Alarmed
theorists (Aksoy, 1999; Bauer, 1991; Bohlen, 1999; Deloeme, 1996; DeRoche, 2002;
Keene, 2001; Lickona, 1996; Rayan, 1996; Schaeffer, 1998; Scott, 1990; Thomas, 2001)
state that the absence of parental participation will only impede the success of teaching
character traits to children. Keene's (2001) investigation showed that the parent was the
leader in the family and parental behavior greatly affected children. Without this support
system, children do not enter the classroom with the crucial prerequisite skills so
important to their functionality in large settings such as the classroom. Moreover, Scott's
(1990) study revealed that parents do make a difference in the area of student discipline,
grades, and attendance.
This study differs in the sense that it probed at two new factors—the
socioeconomic and race variables and their impact on student discipline. Additionally, it
91
examined the character education programs in a Georgia school district. Also, it
attempted to evaluate the new character education program mandate by Georgia's
General Assembly in 1999.
In Chapter III, the theoretical framework was discussed. It proposed to
investigate the inclusion of character education in a metro Atlanta school district to
ascertain its impact on student discipline. It is theorized by many great thinkers that a
character education program influences student disciplinary problems in a positive way.
Variables that may affect this relationship between student discipline and character
education were examined as well. The association, if any, among character education,
building leadership, teacher's role, subject taught, amount of time, staff development,
socioeconomic status of student, parental involvement, and ethnicity of teachers and
students on the dependent variable of student discipline was researched to determine its
impact.
The definition of each factor was presented in this section. Also, the relationship
among the variables was outlined. Finally, a figure was displayed to clearly exhibit the
relationship of variables with one another as discussed in the theory interwoven
throughout this research project.
In Chapter IV, the methodology used in the study was discussed. In order to
investigate the problem of the study, the quantitative method was chosen. Statistical data
were collected by means of a finalized 74-item survey tool. The researcher, along with a
committee of experts, developed the instrument. It was then used to guide the gathering
of data needed to address the problem of the study.
92
The setting of the study was in a metro Atlanta school system which has 49
elementary schools. The method used to distribute the questionnaire to the sample
population was the systematic random procedure. This resulted in eight schools being
selected for the study. One hundred seventy-nine questionnaires were completed and
returned to the researcher. Once returned, the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences
(SPSS) was used to summarize the data. The following statistical tests were chosen:
Pearson Correlation, Frequency, Crosstab, Factor Analysis, and Multiple Regression.
In Chapter V the results of the statistical tests were discussed. The teacher
population surveyed was 179: 84.9% females; 11.2% males; 3.9% no response.
Teacher's ethnicity: 43.6% black; 48% white; .6% Asian; .6% Hispanic; 7.3% no
response. Student's ethnicity: 56.4% black; 24.3% white; 14.1% Hispanic; 3.9% no
response.
The number of students on free or reduced lunch reflected the following: 30.7%
of teachers indicated that less than 50% of the students in their classes were receiving
free or reduced lunches; 62% of the teachers indicated that more than 50% of their
students received free or reduced lunches; and 7.3% did not respond.
The amount of time teachers spent on character education was as follows: 21.8%,
rarely; 28.5%, once or twice a month; 32.4% at least one or two times a week; 8.4%, at
least three to four times a week; and 5% spent time daily. The breakdown of teacher's
specialty subject area was as follows: 60.9%, choice subject was Language Arts, 20.7%
math, 7.3% social studies, 2.8% art, 2.2% physical education and health, and 6.1% did
not respond.
93
The descriptive means of the independent and dependent variables were displayed
in Table 9. This table provided the means, standard deviation, and total number of
participants as well as the mean scale range which was 1 -5: (5) Always, (4) Most Times,
(3) Sometimes, (2) Rarely, and (1) Never. For example, the means for the independent
variable of the percentage of students on free and reduced lunch was 5.26, and standard
deviation of 3.25. It had the highest mean as well as the highest standard deviation. In
essence, the socioeconomic status of many of the sample student population was
indicated as low. The other eight variables' means ranged from 3.5 to 2.6, which means
that teachers sometime perceive that building leadership, character education, teacher
role, staff development, parental involvement, and student discipline help student conduct
concerns. Furthermore, there were nine null hypotheses in this study. By means of the
Pearson correlation and the Crosstab Cramer's V and Kendall's Tau tests, a significant
relationship was found between character education, teacher's role, free and reduced
lunch, parental involvement, racial make-up of class, and student discipline. On the other
hand, no significant relationship was found between building leadership, staff
development, subject taught, amount of time, teachers' race, and student discipline.
Finally, a Factor analysis and the Stepwise Multiple Regression procedures were
performed on the data. The results of the Factor analysis indicate that when all variables
interact simultaneously—Character Education, Teacher's Role, Building Leadership,
Staff Development, Parental Involvement, Teacher's Education Level, Teachers' Race,
Teachers' Gender, Amount of Time Spent on Character Education, Grade Level and
Teachers' Specialty Subject—are not related to student discipline. When all variables are
94
treated as independent variables, there is no association and they are not the underlying
variables, which could explain the pattern of correlations.
Similarly, the Stepwise Multiple Regression test revealed that the percentage of
students on free and reduced lunch has a significant influence on predicting student
discipline. The Multiple Regression was 0.313 and the R2 was 0.098. Thus, 9.8% of the
variance that occurred for student discipline was attributed to the percentage of students
on free and reduced lunch. Also, character education has a significant influence on
predicting student discipline; 13.8 of the variance was attributed to this factor. Therefore,
both free and reduced lunch and the character content variable are predictors of student
discipline.
In Chapter VI, the summary findings were delineated as well as the conclusions
and recommendations of the research project. The study found that 84.9% of the
respondents were female, 11.2% were male, and 3.9% did not respond; 43.6% were
black, 48% were white, .6% were Asian, .6% were Hispanic, and 7.3% did not respond.
The racial make-up of the classes were 56.4% black, 24.3% white, 14.1% Hispanic, and
3.9% did not respond. The number of students on free and reduced lunch were 30.7%
below 50% on free and reduced lunch, 62.0% above 50% on free and reduced lunch, and
7.3% did not respond.
The participants responded to a 74-item instrument. The results were presented in
the findings section of this chapter. These findings produced some interesting trends
which may be worthy of consideration by educators. The variables of character
education, teacher's race, number of students on free and reduced lunch, parental
95
involvement, and race of student significantly impacted student discipline. On the other
hand, the variables of building leadership, amount of time spent on character education,
and staff development were found to be insignificant based upon teachers' perception.
Findings
Five statistical tests were used to compute the data reported from 179 surveys
completed and returned. The Pearson ^correlation coefficient was chosen to point out
statistically significant relationships in hypotheses 1, 2, 3,4, and 8 at the .05 level of
significance. The Crosstab Cramer's V and Kendall's Tau procedures were used for
hypotheses 5,6, 7, and 9 to determine statistically significant relationships between
nominal and ordinal variables at the .05 level of significance. A factor analysis test, to
determine which of the nine variables are related or associated with each other when all
variables are treated independently and are allowed to associate freely, was conducted. A
Stepwise Multiple Regression procedure was done to see which variables were predictors
of student discipline. This statistical test was used to determine if a significant
relationship exists between the dependent variable and the independent and moderating
variables, subsequently showing which of the independent variables are predictors of
student discipline. In essence, this study was designed to test nine hypotheses that were
restatements of the research questions that guided this investigation.
HOI:
There is no significant relationship between Character Education
Content and Student Discipline.
According to the results of the surveys by means of the Pearson correlation test,
there is a significant relationship between the implementation of character education and
96
student discipline. The correlation variable of 0.185, which is significant at the 0.13
level, is less than the tested significance level of .05, which suggests that the
implementation of Character Education does impact student discipline.
HO2:
There is no significant relationship between Teachers' Role
The results of the Pearson correlation statistical procedure revealed that there is a
positive relationship between teachers' role in the use and instruction of character
education and student discipline. The correlation value of .231, which is significant at
the .002 level, is less than the tested significance level of .05.
HO3:
There is no significant relationship between Building Leadership
This relationship was not significant as it had a correlation of .089, which is
significant at the .238 level, a figure greater than the tested significance level of .05. The
results of surveys indicated that nearly 60% of the teachers perceive that administrators
do not discuss with teachers how best to infuse the character traits to be taught in the
regular curriculum. This trend continued for all survey items pertaining to building
leadership (items 14 - 23). Therefore, the principal's support of Character Education in
the classroom is not significantly related to student discipline.
HO4:
There is no significant relationship between Staff Development
The finding indicates that staff development activities for Character Education
does not necessarily promote positive student discipline outcomes. The results of the
97
Pearson correlation test showed a correlation value of .107, which is significant at the
.155 level, and thus greater than the tested significance level of .05.
The above stated finding could be attributed to the fact that teachers were asked
for their perception of the effectiveness of staff development in lieu of how many hours
of training they have actually participated in. The mandate to teach character education
is new and still in its developmental stage in the metro Atlanta school district. Thus, the
district is in the process of determining what its character education program will look
like. The first step was to infuse the 27 traits into the curriculum; however, at the time,
there were no supporting materials or system-wide staff development courses for
classroom teachers. Depending on the principal's preferences, local schools may or may
not adopt a package character education program. Currently, the traits are listed in the
curriculum but lack specific resources and teaching materials to carry out character
education instruction to youngsters. This program is still being formulated.
HO5:
There is no significant relationship between Subject Taught and
Student Discipline.
The results of the Pearson correlation showed a correlation value of 0.350, that is
significant at the .617 level, which is greater than the tested significance level of 0.05.
Therefore, there is not a significant relationship between subject taught and student
discipline. As the foregoing suggests, the subject a teacher teaches does not impact
student discipline in a positive way.
A possible reason for this finding is that a student who lacks values will attempt
to misbehave in any setting; the classroom in which subjects are taught is no exception.
98
As the research revealed, character values have to be taught regularly and on a long-term
basis. Values are learned like the more objective subjects of math or science and should
be introduced comprehensively throughout the school. Presently, the metro Atlanta
school system is in the early stages of development; the implementation level is low and
inconsistent. Consequently, the low implementation factor could definitely alter the
impact of the independent variable of subject taught on the dependent variable—student
discipline.
HO6:
There is no significant relationship between Amount of Time
The amount of time spent on character education does not have a significant
effect on student discipline according to the results of the Kendall's Crosstab tau
statistical procedure. A correlation value of-0.016 is significant at the 0.798 level, which
is greater than the tested significance level of 0.05.
A probable reason for this result is that the metro Atlanta school district is still
working out its implementation process. Filtering the curriculum support materials down
to the local school and ultimately to the classroom teacher has not yet been completed.
Thus, there was no systematic procedure in place to designate when to teach character
education traits, nor how many hours a day to devote to this subject.
HO7:
There is no significant relationship between the percentage of
Students on Free and Reduced Lunch in the school and Student
Discipline.
99
The results from Kendall's tau statistical procedure indicated that there is an
important relationship between SES of the school and discipline. The correlation
coefficient value of-0.105 was significant at the 0.000 level is less than the tested
significance level of 0.05. The lower the number of students receiving free and reduced
lunch, the higher the correlation to better student discipline. In contrast, the higher the
number of students on free and reduced lunch was linked to increased disciplinary
concerns.
HO8:
There is no significant relationship between Parental Involvement
The Pearson correlation value of 0.232, which was significant at the 0.002 level,
is less than the tested significance level of 0.05, which means that schools that have a
strong parental involvement program appear to have a more positive student discipline
climate.
HO9:
There is no significant relationship between Teachers' Race
or the Racial Make-up of the Class and Student Discipline.
The Crosstab Cramer's V statistical value of 0.316 proved to be significant at
.409, which is greater than the tested significance level of 0.05 and indicates that a
teacher's race is not significantly related to student discipline. However, the racial make
up of the class showed a related significance with student discipline. This conclusion is
based on the correlation value of .046, which is significant at the .046 level, which in turn
is less than the tested significance level of 0.05. Therefore, this data show that classes
100
with a majority white or Hispanic composition have fewer student discipline problems.
On the other hand, majority African-American classes have more inappropriate behavior.
A Factor analysis of all variables—Building Leadership, Character Education
Curricula, Staff Development, Parental Involvement, Teachers' Role, Teachers'
Experience, Teachers' Age, Teachers' Education Level, Teachers* Race, The Percentage
of Students on Free and Reduced Lunch, Racial Make-up of Class, Teachers' Gender,
Amount of Time Spent on Character Education, Grade Level, and Teachers' Specialty
Subject Taught—was associated with student discipline to determine which variables
were related or associated with each other when all variables are (by scientific
agreement) treated independently and are allowed to associate freely. The results have
indicated that when these variables interacted simultaneously, there were no free
associations and they are not the underlying variables or factors that explain the patterns
of correlations.
The results of the Stepwise Multiple Regression procedure, in which student
discipline was the dependent variable and all other variables were treated as independent
variables, revealed that the percentages of students on Free and Reduced Lunch have a
significant influence on predicting student discipline. Furthermore, the test unveiled that
the infusion of character education can positively impact student discipline as well as
become a predictor of student behavior.
Taken as a whole, these results suggest that schools should look at ways to
integrate the income levels of students. Grouping a large number of students on free and
reduced lunch together appears to be a prelude to continuous disciplinary issues, while on
101
the other hand, schools with small numbers of students on free and reduced lunch reap
the benefits of having well-disciplined classrooms. As far as the ethnicity of students in a
classroom goes, the results indicate that grouping all African-American students together
creates higher numbers of negative behavior. With this information, school districts
should look at developing policies to evenly group students of different races throughout
the school system. Cultural diversity and desegregation is a possible solution to this
social situation.
On the positive side, the findings affirmed that it is worthy and beneficial for
educational leaders to adopt and implement a character education program. Also, the
results from the sample population of teachers revealed that a character education
curriculum does influence student behavior in a positive way, even though full
implementation of character education in this district is not yet a reality.
Conclusions
The thrust of this research project was to determine if character education is
making a difference on student disciplinary problems in a metro Atlanta school district.
Additionally, the study centers on the impact of character education on student discipline
and delineates the following variables: Building Leadership, Character Education
Content, Teachers' Role, Subject Taught, Amount of Time, Staff Development, SES of
School, Racial Make-up of Class or Race of Teacher, and Parental Involvement. The
study's questionnaire revolved around these factors; however, to learn more about the
subject profiles, subjects were asked to provide information on the following:
102
1.
Grade level taught
2.
Gender
3.
Age
4.
Experience
5.
Education Level
6.
Race
7.
Subject Preference
It was concluded, based on the analyzed statistical data retrieved from the
instrument (in which four hypotheses were rejected and five were accepted), that there is
a significant correlation between 1, 2, 7, and 8, and an insignificant relationship between
3, 4, 5, 6, and 9. The findings show that teaching character education exists in harmony
with better classroom discipline. Students in general are easier to control and allow for
an orderly classroom where values such as fairness, honesty, compassion, responsibility,
and respect for self and others are taught. Teachers use stories, games, and everyday
activities to help build student character. Also, teacher's role, parental involvement,
racial make-up of class (majority white or Hispanic), and free/reduced lunch (low
percentage only) were strongly related to good student discipline. However, five
hypotheses were accepted and determined to have an insignificant influence on student
discipline: staff development, building leadership, subject taught, amount of time, and
teacher's race. These results are in contrast to the literature and may be attributed to the
fact that teachers were asked for their perception of these factors. Further, an alarming
fact emerged from this investigation. It was found that there were no support materials
103
distributed to teachers with the goal of teaching character traits. The traits were merely
listed in the curriculum guide next to the original course requirements, but no new
resources were referred to or disseminated to allow for the building administrator to
support and evaluate the character education program. Just as surprisingly, there were no
staff development training sessions planned nor any specified hours or time allotted to the
subject. Teachers basically emphasized the traits as much as they could—some schools
did more by adding activities or additional materials, while others followed the
curriculum guide, which only lists the traits to be taught. The above described
occurrences could explain why the variables in the study scored insignificant.
Several conclusions can be drawn from this investigation based upon the
aforementioned results. One such conclusion is that the character education programs in
the curriculum improve student discipline. The process of helping students develop fine
character, which includes knowing, caring about, and acting on internalized value traits
such as fairness, honesty, compassion, responsibility, and respect for self, is supported
throughout the literature. As a result, character is now on the nation's radar screen as an
essential subject along with the three Rs. While it takes time and effort, teachers seem to
feel that character education is especially helpful in addressing behavioral problems.
The role of the teacher was statistically significant when examining the results of
the survey. Dedicated professionals imparting values were perceived as important to the
process of building the character of the student. This influence cannot be overlooked.
Due to the current legislation, it is the responsibility of school faculty to guide youth in
104
the development of universal values. Today's educator is quite aware of their crucial role
as indicated by the responses collected from the investigation's instrument.
One of the most compelling facts to emerge from the questionnaire was the
influence of socioeconomic status on student discipline. Schools with large numbers of
students receiving free and reduced lunch experienced a higher disciplinary problem rate
than schools with low numbers of students receiving free and reduced lunch. Perhaps
this can be attributed to the fact that economically deprived students do not get the home
support necessary for entering school with a well adjusted learning perspective. It is
possible that their self-esteem or self-image has been harmed by a lack of the fulfillment
of their basic needs. A family with less money is unequipped to provide an adequate
home environment, as can a family with a comfortable income level. Many of these
children feel disconnected and alienated by a weakening in their home environment as
well as from the community. Subsequently, more discipline violations may be
manifested in students who are living in impoverished conditions.
Based on the returned data, the race of the class is significantly linked to student
behavior. For example, majority white or majority Hispanic students tend to have fewer
behavioral problems. In contrast, majority African-American students tend to have
greater conduct problems.
Survey item 67 showed that 56.4% of the students with disciplinary problems
were black, 23.4% were white, 14.1% were Hispanic, and 7% declined to answer. A
possible reason for this result is that African Americans have adopted the Anglo-Saxon
105
culture and there is a psychological resentment at the root of their rebellion in America's
public schools that tend to teach majority European history and culture.
Recommendations
As a result of the research process and according to the Pearson Correlation test,
the variables of character education, role of teacher, parental involvement, socioeconomic
status of students, and ethnicity of class were found to be significantly related to student
discipline. More specifically, the Stepwise Multiple Regression test revealed that the
variables of percentage of students on free and reduced lunch as well as the character
education content were predictors of student discipline. Effectively implementing
character education in regard to student discipline in public schools and teachers'
perception of character education impact on student discipline is crucial to how well
character education affects discipline. Schools that help the faculty and staff understand
the urgency of addressing behavioral problems through teaching core values are found to
be more successful. Comprehensive character education programs in schools can impact
student discipline to the extent that a decline in the frequency of disciplinary issues can
be observed.
As a result of this research, the following recommendations and practical
suggestions for practitioners with respect to character education in the area of student
discipline are suggested:
Further Research
1. It is recommended that in future studies concerning Character Education,
influence on student discipline include qualitative data. This investigation did
106
not examine teacher action by means of observations; it only interpreted how
teachers responded on a questionnaire.
2.
It is recommended that a replication of this study, utilizing a revised
instrument, be done with the student population.
3.
It is recommended that this study be done in schools that have a local
character education program, in addition to the minimum required State of
Georgia Program.
4.
It is recommended that a study be done on the level of implementation of
Character Education in Georgia's elementary, middle, and high schools by
examining the local school's curricula and teachers' weekly lesson plans.
5. It is recommended that a study be done to identify other variables that impact
the influence of character education on student discipline.
B. Practical Suggestions for Practitioners
With respect to character education influence on discipline, it is suggested that:
1.
Regarding high numbers of students receiving free and reduced lunch being a
predictor of increased disciplinary problems, school systems should provide
special training for teachers on the social condition of poverty with the desired
goal of raising teacher awareness of the serious affect poverty has on children
living in low-income conditions. As the result of the training sessions,
teachers would be more capable of showing empathy in understanding for
their students. In addition, these concerned teachers should be propelled to
seek out suitable instructional methods that would give children of poverty a
107
feeling of success in school, and in return, fewer disciplinary problems will
occur. Moreover, regarding the socioeconomic influence on student discipline
seen in low income students only, the implementation of a school uniform
policy whereby all students wear the same clothes, could combat the influence
that low socioeconomic status has on student discipline. This policy could be
mandatory only for schools with high numbers of free and reduced lunch
populations. In addition, small class size can further counteract the impact of
poverty on students in American classrooms.
2. Regarding character education's significant influence on student discipline,
administrators should inform teachers with discipline problems to teach
character education in lieu of administration assigning in and out-of-school
suspension. Additionally, administrators should conduct follow-up visitations
to confirm that character education is being taught in the classroom of
teachers that are experiencing behavioral problems.
3. Regarding parental involvement's significant influence on student discipline,
schools can develop activities that parents really respond to. Further, schools
should plan scheduled meetings at the homes of parents and to mutual
neighborhood facilities to promote a partnership between parents, students,
the community, and schools. Increased parental involvement was found to be
significant to student discipline. Faculty members can make one positive call
to parents per child per month and invite the parent to their classrooms,
spotlighting them as "Parent Of The Day."
108
4.
In regard to teachers' role, which was significantly linked to student
discipline, administrators should provide teachers with user-friendly character
education teaching units, and should emphasize the importance of the
teacher's role that determines whether or not pupils practice character
education principles inside and outside of the school setting.
5.
Regarding ethnicity as an influence on student discipline, only majority
African-American classrooms experienced increased numbers of student
disciplinary infractions, not whites or Hispanics. Schools should design Afrocentric programs that build up African-American children (e.g., Men of
Distinction, Rites of Passage, I am Somebody, mandatory daily black history
lessons). Additionally, school personnel need to stand up and voice their
support for more positive imaging of African Americans in the curriculum in
lieu of ignoring the politically correct fact that African-American children
from grades K-12 are taught curricula that virtually ignore their rich past.
Furthermore, history books make brief references to African American
contributions and repeatedly start African-American history at its lowest
point—temporary enslavement—instead of its significance and powerful
history that dates back thousands of years. Finally, Africa is always portrayed
as a poor continent; in fact, many African cities are equivalent to American
cities. Facts such as these are virtually unknown to African Americans. The
aforesaid changes may serve as an indirect solution to discipline problems in
reference to the influence of ethnicity.
APPENDIX A
Letter to Colleagues Requesting Their Participation in the Study
May 6, 2003
Dear Colleague:
I am a 5th-grade teacher in the Fulton County School System at S. L. Lewis Elementary
School completing requirements for a doctoral degree at Clark Atlanta University under
the direction of Dr. Ganga Persaud, Educational Leadership Department (404-880-6015).
Based on my 22 years as an educator, I believe the teaching of universal character traits
(values) could have a great influence on student disciplinary problems.
I need your assistance in conducting a study of the Character Education Program and its
impact on student discipline. The purpose of this investigation is to determine the extent
to which the current Character Education curricula is producing positive changes in
student behavior.
You have been selected to participate in the study by means of a systematic random
sampling method, and your responses to the attached questionnaire is very important to
its success. Please take a few minutes to respond; all information will remain
confidential.
I appreciate very much your willingness to assist me in this study. The results of this
research study will be available to you upon request. Again, let me thank you in advance
for your time and contribution.
Respectfully,
B. J. Senior
5th-Grade Teacher
S. L. Lewis Elementary School
109
APPENDIX B
QUESTIONNAIRE
Teachers' Opinion About the Character Education Program
Dear Teacher:
I am a teacher in the Fulton County School System, and I am conducting research as a
requirement for a degree program.
Please help me collect data on the Character Education Program by completing the following
items on this questionnaire. Please provide your opinions truthfully as your anonymity is
assured. The data you provide will be treated as group data and you, your school or county
will not be identified
On the following sections, please check one for each item:
1 = Never; 2 = Rarely;
3 = Sometimes;
4 = Most Times;
5 = Always
1
A. In my class, students:
1.
Are easy to control.
2. Allow for the structuring of an orderly classroom.
3. Talk back when issued consequences.
4. Misbehave during work assignments.
5. Get into fist fighting.
6. Come to class fully prepared for assignments.
7. Clown around, horseplay or act out when they are not
supposed to.
110
2
3
4
5
Ill
Appendix B (continued)
1
B.
The school discipline plan:
8. Is implemented by teachers effectively.
9. Is implemented by administrators effectively.
10. Is helpful to teachers in the instructional process.
11. Is a documented system for dealing with students who
violate school rules.
12. Facilitates the prompt write-up of students who violate
school rules to be sent to the office to be managed.
13. Ensures that administrators assist teachers promptly in
discipline students.
C.
The principal:
14. Uses teachers' ideas on how best to implement character
education.
15. Reviews with teachers how the character education program
can help to improve students' discipline.
16. Asks teachers to identify students with weak character
and/or discipline problems.
17. Checks that teachers specify the character traits to be taught
to such students.
18. Discusses with teachers on aspects of the character
curriculum that could enhance specified character traits of
discipline problem students.
19. Discusses with teachers how best to infuse the character
traits to be taught in the regular curriculum.
20. Facilitates teachers in securing resources necessary for
teaching the character education program effectively.
21. Ensures that adequate time is provided for character
education.
2
3
4
5
112
1
22. Reviews with teachers the extent to which the character
education program has improved students' discipline.
23. Utilizes the results of evaluation for improving the method
of teaching the character education program.
D.
To what extent would you say the Character Education
curriculum:
24. Supports the teaching of the 27 virtues adequately.
25. Provides realistic activities that show students how to
practice the character traits.
26. Provides activities for especially motivating discipline
problem students to acquire the traits.
27. Facilitates teaching for high order thinking skills to
discipline problem students.
28. Makes it easy for teachers to integrate the character
education lessons into such subjects as P.E. and health.
education lessons into such subjects as Language Arts and
reading.
education lessons into such subjects as Art.
education lessons into such subjects as Math and science.
E.
To what extent were staff development activities:
32. Appropriate for preparing teachers to teach character
education.
33. Effective in showing teachers practically how to infuse the
character education into the regular curriculum.
F.
To what extent would you say that:
34. Teachers use stories, games, and everyday activities to help
build students' character.
2
3
4
5
113
1
2
3
4
5
35. Teachers display the character education values in their
relations with each other.
36. Teachers display the character education values in their
relations with students.
37. Discipline problem students feel they can openly talk with
teachers about problems that bother them.
38. Discipline problem students' parents attend teacher/parent
conferences for improving students' performance.
39. Discipline problem students' parents work with teachers in
implementing character education.
40. Parents at PTSA meetings support the character education
program.
41. Parents of academic or discipline problem students attend
PTSA meetings.
42. The time allotted to teaching character education is adequate
for engaging students in everyday character issues.
43. The time allotted to teaching character education is adequate
for infusing the character traits while teaching the regular
curriculum.
In this section, please use the following scale for responding:
l=None; 2 = A few;
3 = Some;
4 = Most;
G. As a result of the Character Education Program,
students of my class have improved significantly
44. Self-control
45. Courtesy
46. Tolerance
47. Honesty
48. Self-diligence
5 = All
1
2
3
4
5
114
1
49. Perseverance
50. Respect for others
51. Cooperation
52. Fairness
53. School Pride
H. As a result of the Character Education Program, how
many students who were discipline problem cases can
now:
54. Demonstrate understanding of the definition of the character
traits as taught.
55. Practice the character traits as taught in class in relation to
other students.
56. Analyze and evaluate a fictional story that demonstrates the
character traits.
57. Evaluate their own effectiveness when practicing the
character traits.
58. Evaluate the effectiveness of others when they practice the
character traits.
59. Construct new dimensions of character traits they can
practice.
I.
As a direct result of character education, in your
estimation, as compared to the beginning of the school
year, how many students in your class:
60. Who were below grade level are now performing at grade
level.
61. Who lacked the motivation to learn have improved
significantly.
62. Who were sent to the office for discipline were no longer
being sent.
2
3
4
5
115
1
2
3
4
5
63. Who had discipline problems have improved to the level of
well behaved students.
64. Who had attendance problems have improved their
attendance to the level of regularly attended students.
J.
Demographic Data - Please provide the following:
65. How much time is spent in teaching the Character Education Curriculum? (check one)
1.
At least 50 minutes daily
2.
At least 50 minutes 3 to 4 times a week
At least 50 minutes once or twice a week
At least 50 minutes once or twice a month
3.
4.
5.
Rarely
66. The proportion of my class on Free and Reduced Lunch is: (check one)
1.
2.
4.
Below 10%
41 to 50%
7.
71 to 80%
8.
11 to 20%
51 to 60%
81 to 90%
5.
3.
21 to 40%
6.
61 to 70%
9.
91 to 100%
67. The racial make-up of my class is predominantly: (check one)
1.
White
3.
2.
Hispanic
Black
4.
Asian
68. The grade level I am teaching is: (check appropriate one)
1.
Pre-K
4.
2.
Grade 2
K
3.
Grade 5
Grade 3
Grade 1
7.
5.
6.
Grade 4
69. Select Gender (check appropriately):
1-
Female
2.
Male
116
70. Select Age (check appropriately):
1.
18-25
2.
26-30
3.
5.
41-45
6.
46-50
7.
31-35
4.
51 or above
36-40
71. Selec t Experience (check appropriately):
1.
1-2 Years
2.
3-5 Years
3.
4.
11-15 Years
6-10 Years
5.
16-20 Years
6.
21 Years or above
2.
MA Degree
72. Select Education Level:
1.
3.
College Degree & Teacher Certification
ED.S. or Above
73. Select Race:
1.
White
2.
Black
3.
Hispanic
4.
Asi
74. Which subject do you feel you are more of a specialist and hence enjoy teaching (check
one):
1.
2.
English Language/Reading
Social Studies
3.
Math/Science
4.
Art
5.
PE & Health
APPENDIX C
Correlation Table
Table Cl
Pearson Correlation Matrix
Student Discipline
Teacher's Role
Correlation
.185
Sig. (2-tail)
.013*
N
179
Correlation
Sig. (2-tail)
N
Building Leadership
Correlation
Sig. (2-tail)
N
Staff Development
Correlation
Sig. (2-tail)
N
Subject Taught
Correlation
Sig. (2-tail)
N
Amount of Time Spent on Character Education
Correlation
Sig. (2-tail)
N
The Percentage of Students on Free and Reduced
Lunch in the School
Correlation
Sig. (2-tail)
N
117
.231
.002*
179
.089
.238
179
.107
.155
179
.350
.617
179
-0.016
.798
179
-.205
.000
179
Correlation
Sig. (2-tail)
.002*
N
179
.232
118
Appendix C (continued)
Student Discipline
Teachers' Race
Correlation
.316
Sig. (2-tail)
N
.963
Correlation
Sig. (2-tail)
.409
N
179
179
.046*
APPENDIX D
Frequencies
Q1
Cumulativ
Valid
Frequency
Valid
Percent
Percent
e Percent
Missing
1
.6
.6
.6
Never
3
1.7
1.7
2.2
Rarely
15
8.4
8.4
10.6
Sometimes
48
26.8
26.8
37.4
Most Times
95
53.1
53.1
90.5
Always
17
9.5
9.5
100.0
179
100.0
100.0
Total
Q2
Frequency
Valid
Missing
Percent
3
Valid
Cumulativ
Percent
e Percent
1.7
1.7
1.7
Never
1
.6
.6
2.2
Rarely
13
7.3
7.3
9.5
Sometimes
41
22.9
22.9
32.4
Most Times
94
52.5
52.5
84.9
Always
27
15.1
15.1
100.0
179
100.0
100.0
Total
Q3
Frequency
Valid
Percent
Valid
Cumulativ
Percent
e Percent
Missing
3
1.7
1.7
1.7
Never
6
3.4
3.4
5.0
Rarely
27
15.1
15.1
20.1
Sometimes
68
38.0
38.0
58.1
Most Times
66
36.9
36.9
95.0
100.0
Always
Total
9
5.0
5.0
179
100.0
100.0
119
120
Appendix D (continued)
Q5
Valid
Frequency
Valid
Missing
Percent
1
Cumulativ
Percent
.6
.6
e Percent
.6
Never
2
1.1
1.1
1.7
Rarely
4
2.2
2.2
3.9
Sometimes
21
11.7
11.7
15.6
Most Times
56
31.3
31.3
46.9
Always
95
53.1
53.1
100.0
179
100.0
100.0
Total
Q6
Percent
Frequency
Valid
Valid
Cumulativ
Percent
e Percent
Missing
3
1.7
1.7
Never
2
1.1
1.1
2.8
Rarely
26
14.5
14.5
17.3
Sometimes
53
29.6
29.6
46.9
Most Times
88
49.2
49.2
96.1
7
3.9
3.9
100.0
179
100.0
100.0
Always
Total
1.7
Q7
Frequency
Valid
Missing
Percent
Valid
Cumulativ
Percent
e Percent
2
1.1
1.1
1.1
Never
10
5.6
5.6
6.7
Rarely
29
16.2
16.2
22.9
Sometimes
89
49.7
49.7
72.6
Most Times
47
26.3
26.3
98.9
100.0
Always
Total
2
1.1
1.1
179
100.0
100.0
121
Q8
Cumulativ
Valid
Frequency
Valid
Percent
Percent
e Percent
Never
1
.6
.6
.6
Rarely
8
4.5
4.5
5.0
Sometimes
53
29.6
29.6
34.6
Most Times
99
55.3
55.3
89.9
Always
18
10.1
10.1
100.0
179
100.0
100.0
Total
Q9
Frequency
Valid
Percent
Valid
Cumulativ
Percent
e Percent
Never
3
1.7
1.7
1.7
Rarely
16
8.9
8.9
10.6
Sometimes
53
29.6
29.6
40.2
Most Times
86
48.0
48.0
88.3
Always
21
11.7
11.7
100.0
179
100.0
100.0
Total
Q10
Valid
Frequency
Valid
Missing
Percent
1
Cumulativ
Percent
.6
.6
e Percent
.6
Never
2
1.1
1.1
1.7
Rarely
17
9.5
9.5
11.2
Sometimes
62
34.6
34.6
45.8
Most Times
81
45.3
45.3
91.1
Always
16
8.9
8.9
100.0
179
100.0
100.0
Total
Q11
Valid
Frequency
Valid
Percent
Percent
Cumulativ
e Percent
Never
7
3.9
3.9
3.9
Rarely
10
5.6
5.6
9.5
Sometimes
44
24.6
24.6
34.1
Most Times
73
40.8
40.8
74.9
Always
45
25.1
25.1
100.0
179
100.0
100.0
Total
122
Q12
Valid
Never
Rarely
Frequency
Percent
Valid
Percent
Cumulativ
e Percent
4
2.2
2.2
2.2
18
10.1
10.1
12.3
40.2
Sometimes
50
27.9
Most Times
27.9
81
45.3
45.3
Always
85.5
26
14.5
14.5
100.0
179
100.0
100.0
Total
Q13
Valid
Frequency
1
Percent
.6
Never
3
Rarely
Sometimes
Missing
Valid
Percent
Cumulativ
e Percent
.6
.6
1.7
1.7
2.2
22
12.3
12.3
14.5
58
32.4
Most Times
32.4
46.9
71
39.7
39.7
Always
86.6
24
13.4
13.4
100.0
179
100.0
100.0
Total
Q14
Valid
Missing
Frequency
4
Percent
2.2
Valid
Percent
2.2
Cumulativ
e Percent
2.2
Never
10
5.6
Rarely
5.6
7.8
20
11.2
Sometimes
11.2
19.0
56
31.3
Most Times
31.3
50.3
68
38.0
38.0
88.3
21
11.7
11.7
100.0
179
100.0
100.0
Always
Total
123
Q15
Frequency
Valid
Missing
Percent
Valid
Cumulativ
Percent
e Percent
6
3.4
3.4
3.4
Never
10
5.6
5.6
8.9
Rarely
33
18.4
18.4
27.4
Sometimes
58
32.4
32.4
59.8
Most Times
57
31.8
31.8
91.6
100.0
Always
Total
15
8.4
8.4
179
100.0
100.0
Q16
Frequency
Valid
Missing
Percent
6
3.4
Valid
Cumulativ
Percent
e Percent
3.4
3.4
Never
18
10.1
10.1
13.4
Rarely
37
20.7
20.7
34.1
Sometimes
51
28.5
28.5
62.6
Most Times
49
27.4
27.4
89.9
Always
18
10.1
10.1
100.0
179
100.0
100.0
Total
Q17
Valid
Missing
Never
Frequency
Percent
Valid
Cumulativ
Percent
e Percent
8
4.5
4.5
4.5
18
10.1
10.1
14.5
Rarely
35
19.6
19.6
34.1
Sometimes
59
33.0
33.0
67.0
Most Times
46
25.7
25.7
92.7
Always
13
7.3
7.3
100.0
179
100.0
100.0
Total
124
Q18
Valid
Valid
Missing
Frequency
Percent
Cumulativ
e Percent
6
3.4
3.4
Never
21
11.7
11.7
Rarely
15.1
33
18.4
18.4
33.5
65.9
3.4
Sometimes
58
32.4
32.4
Most Times
49
27.4
27.4
Always
93.3
12
6.7
6.7
100.0
179
100.0
100.0
Total
Q19
Valid
Missing
Frequency
Percent
Valid
Percent
Cumulativ
e Percent
6
3.4
3.4
3.4
Never
20
11.2
11.2
14.5
Rarely
36
20.1
20.1
Sometimes
34.6
51
28.5
28.5
Most Times
63.1
52
29.1
29.1
Always
92.2
14
7.8
7.8
100.0
179
100.0
100.0
Total
Q20
Valid
Missing
Never
Frequency
Valid
Percent
Percent
Cumulativ
e Percent
7
3.9
3.9
3.9
20
11.2
11.2
15.1
31.3
Rarely
29
16.2
16.2
Sometimes
49
27.4
27.4
58.7
Most Times
60
33.5
33.5
Always
92.2
14
7.8
7.8
100.0
179
100.0
100.0
Total
125
Q21
Valid
Missing
Valid
Frequency
Percent
Percent
Cumulativ
e Percent
6
3.4
Never
22
12.3
12.3
Rarely
15.6
34
19.0
19.0
Sometimes
34.6
38
21.2
21.2
55.9
Most Times
58
32.4
32.4
88.3
21
11.7
11.7
100.0
179
100.0
100.0
Always
Total
3.4
3.4
Q22
Valid
Valid
Frequency
Cumulativ
e Percent
6
Percent
3.4
3.4
3.4
Never
29
16.2
16.2
Rarely
19.6
38
21.2
21.2
40.8
Sometimes
46
25.7
25.7
Most Times
66.5
48
26.8
26.8
93.3
Always
12
6.7
6.7
100.0
179
100.0
100.0
Missing
Total
Percent
Q23
Frequency
Valid
Missing
Valid
Percent
Percent
Cumulativ
e Percent
8
4.5
4.5
4.5
Never
26
14.5
14.5
19.0
Rarely
36
20.1
20.1
39.1
Sometimes
51
28.5
28.5
Most Times
67.6
44
24.6
24.6
92.2
Always
14
7.8
7.8
100.0
179
100.0
100.0
Total
126
Q24
Valid
Missing
Frequency
Percent
10
Valid
Cumulativ
Percent
e Percent
5.6
5.6
5.6
Never
11
6.1
6.1
11.7
Rarely
30
16.8
16.8
28.5
Sometimes
72
40.2
40.2
68.7
Most Times
47
26.3
26.3
95.0
9
5.0
50
100.0
179
100.0
100.0
Always
Total
Q25
Frequency
Valid
Percent
Valid
Cumulativ
Percent
e Percent
Missing
6
3.4
3.4
3.4
Never
8
4.5
4.5
7.8
Rarely
30
16.8
16.8
24.6
Sometimes
60
33.5
33.5
56.1
Most Times
65
36.3
36.3
94.4
Always
10
5.6
5.6
100.0
179
100.0
100.0
Total
Q26
Valid
Frequency
Valid
Percent
Percent
Cumulativ
e Percent
Missing
6
3.4
3.4
3.4
Never
8
4.5
4.5
7.8
Rarely
36
20.1
20.1
27.9
Sometimes
58
32.4
32.4
60.3
Most Times
59
33.0
33.0
93.3
100.0
Always
Total
12
6.7
6.7
179
100.0
100.0
127
Q27
Valid
Missing
Frequency
Percent
Valid
Cumulativ
Percent
e Percent
7
3.9
3.9
Never
5
2.8
Rarely
2.8
6.7
24
13.4
13.4
Sometimes
20.1
75
41.9
41.9
Most Times
62.0
51
28.5
28.5
Always
90.5
17
9.5
9.5
100.0
179
100.0
100.0
Total
3.9
Q28
Valid
Missing
Frequency
Percent
Valid
Cumulativ
Percent
e Percent
8
4.5
4.5
4.5
Never
9
5.0
5.0
9.5
Rarely
22
12.3
12.3
Sometimes
21.8
61
34.1
34.1
Most Times
55.9
67
37.4
37.4
Always
93.3
12
6.7
6.7
100.0
179
100.0
100.0
Total
Q29
Valid
Missing
Frequency
Percent
Valid
Percent
Cumulativ
e Percent
7
3.9
3.9
Never
3.9
12
6.7
6.7
Rarely
10.6
21
11.7
11.7
Sometimes
22.3
60
33.5
33.5
55.9
Most Times
64
35.8
35.8
91.6
15
8.4
8.4
100.0
179
100.0
100.0
Always
Total
128
Q30
Valid
Missing
Frequency
Percent
Valid
Cumulativ
Percent
e Percent
9
5.0
Never
9
5.0
5.0
Rarely
10.1
28
15.6
15.6
Sometimes
25.7
63
35.2
35.2
Most Times
60.9
55
30.7
30.7
Always
91.6
15
8.4
8.4
100.0
179
100.0
100.0
Total
5.0
5.0
Q31
7
3.9
Valid
Percent
3.9
Never
12
6.7
6.7
Frequency
Valid
Missing
Percent
Cumulativ
e Percent
10.6
3.9
Rarely
31
17.3
17.3
27.9
Sometimes
65
36.3
36.3
64.2
Most Times
52
29.1
29.1
93.3
Always
12
6.7
6.7
100.0
179
100.0
100.0
Total
Q32
Valid
Missing
Frequency
6
Percent
3.4
Valid
Percent
3.4
Cumulativ
e Percent
3.4
Never
19
10.6
10.6
Rarely
14.0
26
14.5
14.5
Sometimes
28.5
70
39.1
39.1
67.6
Most Times
43
24.0
24.0
Always
91.6
15
8.4
8.4
100.0
179
100.0
100.0
Total
129
Q33
Frequency
Valid
Missing
Percent
Valid
Cumulativ
Percent
e Percent
7
3.9
3.9
3.9
Never
18
10.1
10.1
14.0
Rarely
30
16.8
16.8
30.7
Sometimes
65
36.3
36.3
67.0
Most Times
47
26.3
26.3
93.3
Always
12
6.7
6.7
100.0
179
100.0
100.0
Total
Q34
Frequency
Valid
Percent
Valid
Cumulativ
Percent
e Percent
Missing
2
1.1
Never
2
1.1
1.1
2.2
Rarely
16
8.9
8.9
11.2
Sometimes
60
33.5
33.5
44.7
Most Times
69
38.5
38.5
83.2
Always
30
16.8
16.8
100.0
179
100.0
100.0
Total
1.1
1.1
Q35
Frequency
Valid
Percent
Valid
Percent
Cumulativ
e Percent
Missing
3
1.7
1.7
Never
4
2.2
2.2
3.9
Rarely
7
3.9
3.9
7.8
Sometimes
49
27.4
27.4
35.2
Most Times
86
48.0
48.0
83.2
Always
30
16.8
16.8
100.0
179
100.0
100.0
Total
1.7
130
Q36
Valid
Missing
Frequency
Percent
Valid
Percent
Cumulativ
e Percent
3
1.7
1.7
1.7
Never
4
2.2
2.2
3.9
Rarely
7
3.9
3.9
7.8
44
24.6
24.6
Most Times
32.4
88
49.2
49.2
Always
81.6
33
18.4
18.4
100.0
179
100.0
100.0
Sometimes
Total
Q37
Valid
Missing
Valid
Frequency
Never
Percent
Percent
Cumulativ
e Percent
3
1.7
1.7
1.7
8
4.5
4.5
6.1
15.6
Rarely
17
9.5
9.5
Sometimes
68
38.0
38.0
Most Times
53.6
67
37.4
37.4
Always
91.1
16
8.9
8.9
100.0
179
100.0
100.0
Total
Q38
Valid
Missing
Frequency
Percent
Valid
Cumulativ
Percent
e Percent
5
2.8
2.8
Never
2.8
12
6.7
6.7
Rarely
9.5
42
23.5
23.5
Sometimes
33.0
67
37.4
37.4
Most Times
70.4
42
23.5
23.5
Always
93.9
11
6.1
6.1
100.0
179
100.0
100.0
Total
131
Q39
Valid
5
2.8
Valid
Percent
2.8
19
10.6
Rarely
10.6
13.4
50
27.9
Sometimes
27.9
41.3
65
36.3
Most Times
36.3
111
32
17.9
17.9
95.5
8
4.5
4.5
100.0
179
100.0
100.0
Missing
Never
Frequency
Always
Total
Percent
Cumulativ
e Percent
2.8
Q40
Valid
Missing
Valid
Frequency
Percent
Percent
Cumulativ
e Percent
5.6
10
5.6
56
Never
15
8.4
Rarely
8.4
14.0
26
14.5
14.5
Sometimes
28.5
62
34.6
34.6
Most Times
63.1
52
29.1
Always
29.1
92.2
14
7.8
7.8
100.0
179
100.0
100.0
Total
Q41
Valid
Missing
Frequency
Valid
Percent
Percent
Cumulativ
e Percent
5
2.8
Never
2.8
2.6
28
15.6
15.6
18.4
Rarely
77
43.0
Sometimes
43.0
61.5
43
24.0
Most Times
24.0
85.5
20
11.2
11.2
96.6
6
3.4
3.4
100.0
179
100.0
100.0
Always
Total
132
Q42
Valid
Missing
Valid
Frequency
Percent
Percent
Cumulativ
e Percent
6
3.4
3.4
Never
13
7.3
Rarely
7.3
10.6
43
24.0
24.0
34.6
68.2
3.4
Sometimes
60
33.5
Most Times
33.5
47
26.3
Always
26.3
94.4
10
5.6
5.6
100.0
179
100.0
100.0
Total
Q43
Valid
Missing
Frequency
Percent
Valid
Percent
Cumulativ
e Percent
6
3.4
3.4
3.4
15
8.4
8.4
Rarely
11.7
38
21.2
21.2
Sometimes
33.0
64
35.8
Most Times
35.8
68.7
44
24.6
Always
24.6
93.3
12
6.7
6.7
100.0
179
100.0
100.0
Never
Total
Q44
Valid
Frequency
Valid
Percent
Cumulativ
e Percent
3.9
7
Percent
3.9
Never
8
4.5
4.5
Rarely
6.4
34
19.0
Sometimes
19.0
27.4
79
44.1
44.1
Most Times
71.5
45
25.1
25.1
96.6
6
3.4
3.4
100.0
179
100.0
100.0
Missing
Always
Total
3.9
133
Q45
Valid
Missing
Valid
Frequency
Percent
7
Percent
3.9
3.9
Cumulativ
e Percent
3.9
Never
7
3.9
3.9
Rarely
7.8
29
16.2
16.2
Sometimes
24.0
66
36.9
36.9
Most Times
60.9
62
34.6
34.6
95.5
8
4.5
4.5
100.0
179
100.0
100.0
Always
Total
Q46
Valid
Missing
Valid
Frequency
Percent
Percent
Cumulativ
e Percent
7
3.9
3.9
3.9
Never
8
4.5
4.5
8.4
Rarely
33
18.4
18.4
Sometimes
26.8
69
38.5
38.5
65.4
Most Times
52
29.1
29.1
Always
94.4
10
5.6
5.6
100.0
179
100.0
100.0
Total
Q47
Valid
Frequency
Valid
Cumulativ
e Percent
7
Percent
3.9
3.9
3.9
Never
11
6.1
6.1
10.1
Missing
Percent
Rarely
27
15.1
15.1
Sometimes
25.1
66
36.9
36.9
Most Times
62.0
58
32.4
32.4
94.4
Always
10
5.6
5.6
100.0
179
100.0
100.0
Total
134
Q48
Frequency
Valid
Missing
Percent
Valid
Cumulativ
Percent
e Percent
7
3.9
3.9
Never
10
5.6
5.6
9.5
Rarely
26
15.6
15.6
25.1
Sometimes
76
42.5
42.5
67.6
Most Times
53
29.6
29.6
97.2
5
2.8
2.8
100.0
179
100.0
100.0
Always
Total
3.9
Q49
Valid
Frequency
Valid
Percent
Percent
Cumulativ
e Percent
Missing
7
3.9
3.9
Never
7
3.9
3.9
7.8
Rarely
35
19.6
19.6
27.4
3.9
Sometimes
71
39.7
39.7
67.0
Most Times
54
30.2
30.2
97.2
100.0
Always
Total
5
2.8
2.8
179
100.0
100.0
Q50
Frequency
Valid
Percent
Missing
7
3.9
Valid
Cumulativ
Percent
e Percent
3.9
3.9
Never
7
3.9
3.9
7.8
Rarely
31
17.3
17.3
25.1
Sometimes
60
33.5
33.5
58.7
Most Times
61
34.1
34.1
92.7
Always
13
7.3
7.3
100.0
179
100.0
100.0
Total
135
Q51
Valid
Percent
Valid
Percent
Cumulativ
e Percent
Missing
7
Never
3.9
3.9
7
Rarely
3.9
3.9
27
7.8
15.1
15.1
22 9
39
Sometimes
64
Most Times
35.8
35.8
65
58 7
36.3
36.3
95 0
100.0
Always
Total
9
5.0
5.0
179
100.0
100.0
Q52
Valid
Missing
Frequency
Percent
Valid
Percent
Cumulativ
_e Percent
8
Never
4.5
4.5
6
4.5
Rarely
3.4
3.4
27
7.8
Sometimes
15.1
15.1
71
22.9
Most Times
39.7
39.7
58
62.6
32.4
32.4
9
95.0
5.0
5.0
179
100.0
100.0
100.0
Always
Total
Q53
Missing
Frequency
Percent
Valid
Percent
Cumulativ
e Percent
8
Never
4.5
6
Rarely
3.4
3.4
33
7.8
Sometimes
18.4
18.4
64
26.3
Most Times
35.8
35.8
57
62.0
Always
31.8
31.8
11
93.9
6.1
6.1
179
100.0
100.0
100.0
Total
4.5
4.5
136
Q54
Valid
Missing
Frequency
Percent
9
Valid
Percent
5.0
5.0
Cumulativ
e Percent
5.0
Never
12
6.7
6.7
11.7
Rarely
44
24.6
24.6
Sometimes
36.3
67
37.4
37.4
73.7
Most Times
43
24.0
24.0
97.8
4
2.2
2.2
100.0
179
100.0
100.0
Always
Total
Q55
Valid
Frequency
Valid
Missing
Percent
Percent
Cumulativ
e Percent
9
5.0
5.0
5.0
Never
11
6.1
6.1
Rarely
11.2
40
22.3
22.3
33.5
Sometimes
72
40.2
40.2
73.7
Most Times
41
22.9
22.9
96.6
6
3.4
3,4
100.0
179
100.0
100.0
Always
Total
Q56
Frequency
Valid
Missing
Percent
Valid
Cumulativ
Percent
e Percent
9
5.0
5.0
5.0
Never
11
6.1
6.1
11.2
Rarely
35
19.6
19.6
30.7
Sometimes
66
36.9
36.9
67.6
Most Times
50
27.9
27.9
95.5
100.0
Always
Total
8
4.5
4.5
179
100.0
100.0
137
Q57
valid
Missing
Frequency
Percent
Valid
Percent
5.0
Cumulativ
e Percent
9
5.0
Never
11
6.1
Rarely
6.1
11.2
40
22.3
Sometimes
22.3
33.5
69
38.5
Most Times
38.5
72.1
45
25.1
25.1
97.2
5
2.6
2.8
100.0
179
100.0
100.0
Always
Total
5.0
Q58
Valid
Missing
Frequency
Percent
Valid
Percent
Cumulativ
e Percent
9
5.0
Never
5.0
5.0
12
6.7
6.7
11.7
Rarely
35
19.6
19.6
Sometimes
31.3
67
37.4
Most Times
37.4
68.7
48
26.8
26.8
95.5
8
4.5
4.5
100.0
179
100.0
100.0
Always
Total
Q59
Valid
Missing
Frequency
Percent
Valid
Percent
Cumulativ
e Percent
10.6
19
10.6
Never
15
8.4
Rarely
8.4
19.0
42
23.5
Sometimes
23.5
42.5
70
39.1
39.1
Most Times
61.6
30
16.8
16.8
98.3
3
1.7
1.7
100.0
179
100.0
100.0
Always
Total
10.6
138
Q60
Valid
Frequency
Valid
Cumulativ
17
Never
Percent
9.5
22
Rarely
12.3
12.3
46
21.8
Sometimes
25.7
25.7
47.5
64
Most Times
35.8
35.8
25
83.2
14.0
14.0
97.2
100.0
Missing
Always
Total
Percent
9.5
5
2.8
2.8
179
100.0
100.0
ePercen
9.5
Q61
Valid
Missing
Frequency
Percent
Valid
Percent
Cumulativ
e Percent
15
Never
8.4
8.4
8.4
14
Rarely
7.8
7.8
49
16.2
Sometimes
27.4
27.4
69
43.6
Most Times
38.5
38.5
82.1
27
15.1
15.1
5
97.2
2.8
2.8
179
100.0
100.0
100.0
Always
Total
Q62
Frequency
Cumulativ
e Percent
18
Never
10.1
34
10.1
Rarely
19.0
19.0
29.1
48
Sometimes
26.8
26.8
55.9
48
Most Times
26.8
26.8
25
82.7
14.0
14.0
6
96.6
3.4
3.4
179
100.0
100.0
100.0
Always
1
Valid
Percent
Percent
10.1
Total
139
Q63
Frequency
Valid
14
Percent^
7.8
7.8
27
7.6
Rarely
15.1
15.1
46
22.9
Sometimes
25.7
25.7
63
48.6
Most Times
35.2
35.2
26
83.8
14.5
14.5
3
98.3
1.7
1.7
179
100.0
100.0
100.0
Missing
Never
Always
Total
_Percent
Q64
Valid
Missing
Frequency
Percent
Valid
Percent
Cumulativ
e Percent
16
Never
8.9
30
Rarely
16.8
16.8
49
25.7
Sometimes
27.4
27.4
56
53.1
Most Times
31.3
31.3
84.4
24
13.4
13.4
4
97.8
2.2
2.2
179
100.0
100.0
100.0
Always
Total
8.9
REFERENCES
A Code ofConduct and Discipline Handbook. (2002). Atlanta, GA: Fulton County
Board of Education.
Alderman, I. (2001). In good discipline, one size doesn't fit all. Teachingfor
Excellence. Retrieved May 10, 2002, from www.eddigest.com:B8-4.
Alexander, K., & Alexander, M. D. (1992). American Public School Law (3rd ed.).
St. Paul, MN: West Publishing Company.
Aksoy, N. (1999). Classroom management and student discipline in elementary schools
ofAnkora (Turkey). Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Cincinnati.
American Civil Liberties Union. (1995). Religion in the public schools: A joint
statement ofcurrent law. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.
Anderson, D. (2000). Character education: Who is responsible. Journal of
Instructional Psychology, 27(3), 139-142.
Antis, J. (1997). An evaluation ofthe effect ofa character education program on the
ethical understanding, ethical sensibility, and ethical behavior ofelementary
children. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Duquesne University.
Bauer, R. (1991). Correlates ofstudent character development in a small high school
(rural schools). Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Baylor University.
Bernard, D. R. (1997). In pursuit of the moral school. Journal ofEducation, 33-44.
140
141
Bohlen, K. (1999). An analysis ofmoral motivation: Literacy profiles andpedagogy.
Digital Dissertation Abstract (UMI No. 9942379). Retrieved June 9, 2002, from
http://wwwlib.umi.com/disseration/fullcit/9942379.
Butler, D. (Ed.). (2000, Winter). Character Education. The Reporter. (Available from
the Georgia Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development,
University of Georgia, G2 Aderhold Hall, Athens, GA 30602).
Character Education Pamphlet. (1996). Atlanta, GA: Fulton County Board of
Education.
Choper, J. H. (1997). The intertwined relationship between the religion clauses ofthe
Constitution and America education Sacramento: The President's Coalition on
Academic Freedom. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 424613).
Curwin, R. L., & Mendler, A. N. (1988). Packaged discipline programs: Let buyers
beware. Educational Leadership, 46(2\ 68-71.
Curwin, R. L., & Mendler, A. N. (1989). We repeat, let the buyer beware: A response
to Canter. Educational Leadership, 46(6), 83.
Dannells,M. (1997). From discipline to development: Rethinking student conduct in
higher education. Washington, DC: ERIC Clearinghouse on Higher Education.
(ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 10891997).
Delorme, K. (1996). What's really troubling our schools. Thrustfor Educational
Leadership, 25(5), 15.
142
Denig, S. (1996). Discipline in public and religious elementary and secondary schools:
A comparative analysis. Paper presented at the Annual Conference of the
American Educational Research Association, New York, New York.
DeRoche, E. (2000, January). Creating a framework for character education. ERIC
Clearinghouse on Higher Education. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service
No. ED 5160).
East, R. (1996). South Carolina public high school principals 'perceptions ofcharacter
education programs. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of South
Carolina.
Englund, K. (1996). Toward an ethics education program: A case study ofcreating the
thoughtful school (character education and development). Unpublished doctoral
dissertation, Northern Arizona University.
Field, S. L. (1996). Historical perspective on character education. The Educational
Forum, 60, 118-123.
Freado, R. (1997). Implementing a comprehensive character education program.
Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Pittsburgh.
Gall, M. D., Borg, W. R., & Gall, J. P. (1996). Educational research (6th ed.). White
Plains, NY: Longman Publishers USA.
Geiger.B. (2000). Discipline in K through 8th grade classrooms. Education, 727(2),
383.
Glazer, S. (1996). Teaching values. Congressional Quarterly Researcher, 6(23% 529552.
143
Gottfredson, D. G. (1989). Developing effective organizations to reduce school
disorder. In O. C. Moles (Ed.), Strategies to reduce student misbehavior.
Washington, DC: Office of Educational Research and Improvement, U.S.
Department of Education.
Gottfredson, D. G. (1989). School organization leadership and student behavior:
Strategies to reduce student misbehavior. In O. C. Moles (Ed.), Strategies to
reduce student misbehavior. Washington, DC: Office of Educational Research
and Improvement, U. S. Department of Education.
Guillory, P. (2002). Fulton County Schools, Atlanta, Georgia. Telephone Interview.
Gushee, M. (1984). Student discipline policies. ERIC Clearinghouse on Educational
Management. (ERIC Digest Report No. 12).
Hartzell, G. (1992). The principal and discipline: Working with school structures,
teachers, and students. Clearing House, (55(6), 376-380.
Haynes, C. A. (1991). Teacher's guide to study about religion in public schools.
Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company.
Helms, E., Hunt, G., & Bedwell, L. (1999). Meaningful instruction through
understanding student values. (Available from the Educational Research Service,
Arlington, VA).
Hoekema, D. A. (1994). Campus roles and moral community. In place ofin love
pursuits. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.
Huffman, H. A. (1993). Character education without turmoil. Journal ofEducational
Leadership, 5/(3), 24-26.
144
Hughes, B. (1982). A comparison ofthe perceptions ofparents, teachers, andprincipals
concerning the causes andpossible solutions to student discipline in the public
elementary schools. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Peabody College for
Teachers of Vanderbilt University.
Jackson, R. W. 91993). An analytical approach to values in our educational system for
the student at risk population for the young maturing adult students at the high
school level (at risk). Digital Dissertation Abstract (UMI No. 9414227).
Retrieved June 9, 2002, from www.dissertation/fullcit/9414227.
Jacobi, K. L. (1997). Character education: Developing and implementing an elementary
education program. Digital Dissertation Abstract (UMI No. 9718133). Retrieved
June 9, 2002, from http://wwwlib. umi.com/dissertation/fullcit/9718133.
Jones, R. (1998). Lookingfor goodness, (Available from the Educational Research
Service, Arlington, VA).
Keebler, A. (1993). Reweaving society's fabric: A critical hermeneutic approach to
moral development in American schools. Unpublished doctoral dissertation,
University of San Francisco.
Keene, P. O. (2001). Midlife development: Emphasis on leadership. Digital
Dissertation Abstract (UMI No. 3019565). Retrieved June 9,2002, from
http://wwwlib.umi.com/dissertation/fullcit/3019565.
Kennedy, K. (2000). Character education programs in Georgia middle schools.
Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Georgia.
145
Kohn, A. (1996). Beyond discipline: From compliance to community. (Available from
the Georgia Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development,
University of Georgia, G2 Aderhold Hall, Athens, GA 30602).
Lani,R. (2002). E-mail.
Laud, L. (2000). How good teachers nurture character. Unpublished doctoral
dissertation, Columbia University Teachers College.
Lewis, A. C. (1995). Religion seen in Washington schools. Washington Correspondent.
Lickona, T. (1989). The lasting legacy of family values. PTA Today, 15, 14-16.
Lickona, T. (1996). Teaching respect and responsibility. Reclaiming Children and
Youth, 5(3), 143-151.
Lickona, T. (1997a). The case for character education. Tikkun, 12(1), 22-28.
Lickona, T. (1997b). The teacher's role in character education. Journal ofEducation,
199(2), 63-81
Lockwood, A. L. (1993). A letter to character educators. Journal ofEducational
leadership, 5/(3), 72-75.
Mason, J. W. (1993). A study of a planned character education program in 9th grade
literature classes in rural north Mississippi using Romeo and Juliet (ninth-grade
Shakespeare). Digital Dissertation Abstracts (UMI No. 9406656). Retrieved
March 17, 2003, from http://wwwlib.umi.com/disserations/rullcit/9406656.
McFarland, S. T. (1997). The necessity and impact of the proposed religious equality
amendment. Brigham Young University Law Review, 360(3), 627-644.
146
McQuaide,J. (1996). The school principal and character education. Unpublished
doctoral dissertation, University of Pittsburgh.
National Education Association (NEA). (1985). Discipline in the schools. Three
decades ofpublic opinion polling. (ERIC Report No. ED 274760).
Olsen, J. (1995). Teacher perceptions ofstudent behavior after implementation ofa
kindergarten through sixth grade character education program. Unpublished
doctoral dissertation, University of Arkansas.
O'Reilly, R. C. (1991). Equal access, mergers and the education-religion mix (Report
No. ED 023367). Omaha, Nebraska: Presented to the National Conference of the
Professors of Educational Administration. (ERIC Document Reproduction
Service, No. 336869).
Pack, E. (2000). Proactive measuresfor elementary classroom discipline. Unpublished
master's thesis, The University of Regina (Canada).
Parachini,A. (1995). Prayer in school: An international survey. American Civil
Liberties Union of Southern California, U. S. Department of Education.
Parson, B. (2000). Character education: Character education and alternative education.
The Reporter. (Available from the Georgia Association for Supervision and
Curriculum Development, University of Georgia, G2 Aderhold Hall, Athens, GA
30602).
Prothrow-Stith, D. B. (1991). Deadly consequence. New York. HarperCollins.
147
Risinger, C. F. (1993). Religion in the social studies curriculum (Report No. ED
363553). Bloomington, IN: ERIC Clearinghouse for Social Studies/Social
Science Education. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 363 553).
Rose, K. W. (1998). A resource guide for developing self-esteem and character in our
children and youth. Digital Dissertation Abstract (UMI No. 9921597). Retrieved
March 17, 2003, from http://wwwlib.umi.com/dissertations/fullcit/99zi597.
Ryan, K. (1993). Why a center for the advancement of ethics and character? Journal of
Education, 775(2), 1-12.
Ryan, K. (1996). Character education in the United States: A status report. Journalfor
a Just and Caring Education, 2( 1), 75-84.
Schaeffer, E. F. (1998, September). Character crisis and the classroom. Thrustfor
Educational Leadership. (Available from the Educational Research Service,
Arlington, VA).
Schaeffer, E. F. (1999). It's time for schools to implement character education.
(Available from the Educational Research Service, Arlington, VA).
School prayer: Just a minute. (1994). Economist, 337(7879), 32.
Scott, A. (1990). Parent training programs in selected Texas elementary schools.
Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Baylor University.
Shorthouse, N. (2000). Character education: Character education and alternative
education. The Reporter. (Available from the Georgia Association for
Supervision and Curriculum Development, University of Georgia, G2 Aderhold
Hall, Athens, GA 30602).
148
Slowinski, J. (1997). Practical guide to church and state issues involving public
education. Washington, DC: U. S. Department of Education.
Smith, J. D. (1997). The effects of character education on the self-esteem of gifted and
non-gifted fifth-grade and sixth-grade African-American students. Digital
Dissertation Abstract (UMI No. AATN9816229). Retrieved June 6, 2002, from
http://wwwlib.umi.com/dissertaions/fullcit/9816229.
Stanhope, R. (1992). Character education: A compilation of literature in the field from
1929 to 1991. Digital Dissertation Abstract (UMI No. 9319150). Retrieved
June 9, 2002, from http://wwwlib.umi.Com/dissertation/fullcit/9319150.
Starling, N. (2001). A narrative inquiry ofconflict resolution programs in a south
Georgia county's school. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Georgia Southern
University.
Stern, M. D. (1994). Religion andpublic schools: A summary ofthe law [Pamphlet].
U. S. Department of Education, American Jewish Congress Washington, DC.
Stoppleworth, L. O. H. (2001). An ethnographic study of participants' perceptions of
character education including students, teachers, club sponsors, administrators,
and community support people. Digital Dissertation Abstract (UMI No.
3025154). Retrieved June 9, 2002, from http://wwwlib.umi.com/dissertation/
fullcit/3025154.
Tattner, N. (1998). An investigation ofimproved student behavior through character
education with a focus on respect and self-control. Unpublished doctoral
dissertation, University of Central Florida.
149
Thayer,J. (1995). Character: A state initiative. Character Educator, 3(2), \-8.
The Code ofConduct and Discipline Handbook. (2002). Atlanta, GA: Fulton County
Board of Education.
Thomas, M. (2001). Character education in action: A case study ofthe effectiveness of
one community-based rites ofpassage process in Austin, Texas. Unpublished
doctoral dissertation, Texas A & M University.
Tucker, S. A. (2000). The effects of a character education program on the understanding
of ethics of fourth graders at Lakeview Academy, a non-denominational collegepreparatory day school: A case study. Digital Dissertation Abstract (UMI No.
995049). Retrieved June 9, 2002, from http://wwwlib.umi.com/dissertation/
fullcit/995049.
U. S. Department of Education. (1997). Principal/school disciplinarian survey on
school violence. The National Center for Educational Statistics (Report No.
FRSS63).
Van Heest, T. D. (1994). Moral education (ethics, moral conduct). Digital Dissertation
Abstract (UMI No. 1358455). Retrieved April 21, 2002, from http://wwwlib.umi.
com/dissertaion/fullcit/1358455.
VanOrden. (2000). Character education: A study ofelementary school principals'
perceptions among school districts within Los Angeles County with populations of
5,000 to 25,000. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Azusa Pacific University.
150
Vollmer, M. L., Drook, E. B., & Hamed, P. J. (1999). Partnering character education
and conflict resolution. Kappa Delta Pi Record. (Available from the
Educational Research Service, Arlington, VA).
Wells, M. (1998). Teacher educator's conceptions ofthe responsibility ofteachers as
moral educators. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Boston University.
White, L., Curry, D., & Stedman, J. (1994). Violence in schools: An overview. CRS
Report for Congress. U. S. Library of Congress, Congressional Research Service.
Williams, K. P. (1992). Why Johnny can't tell rightfrom wrong: Moral illiteracy and
the casefor character education. New York: Simon & Schuster.
Williams, T. (1999). The relationship between the principals' preferred leadership
styles and levels of implementation ofcharacter education programs in Kanawha
County Schools (West Virginia). Unpublished doctoral dissertation, West
Virginia University.
Wynne, E. (1994). The revival of deterrence and student discipline. Curriculum
Review, J3(8), 3-7.
Yu,T. (2002). Ideology, politics, and character education: A critical analysis. Digital
Dissertation Abstract (UMI No. 3059849). Retrieved March 17, 2003, from
http://wwwlib.umi.com/disserations/fullcit/3059849.

Character education and student discipline in selected elementary

Transcription

Similar documents

2012_Trifold copy

DISCIPLINEfROM4-12 - James Dobson

Brochure - Gate City Church

Assertive Discipline: Lee Canter

Dominador Tomines - College of Chiropodists of Ontario

Brain Smart Start: From Chaos to Calm

KAGAWARAN NG EDUKASYON DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

So how do you strengthen your determination muscle?

May 2016 - Mesquite ISD