Wherea.scharacter educationis not new~scientific studyof its efh~ctivenesshas been only sporadically imple-mentedduring the pastthirty—five years. Muchof tile

application of character education is therefore notinformed by a scientific knowledge base.This articleintroduces a scientificperspectiveon charactereduca-tion and a summaryof the researchbaseexamining thestudent impact of school—based charactereducationFrom this researchbase,generalpnnciplesof effectivepracticeare denved,This in turn is usedto offer sugges—

1E.es�~trc1i— tions to practitioners and policy makers for theimprovementof school—basedcharactereducation.

Based Keywords: character education; research; besttree; character development; effective

Character scisools

Education

C haractereducationis not new. In fact, wecan probably date it back at leastto Socra-

tes. Evenin the United States, it goes backasfaras the founding of the colonies(and likely far—

By ther in Native American culture) (McClellanMARVIN W. BERKOWITZ 1999). But character educationhas historically

and been a practice and not a science(BerkowitzMELINDA C. BIER 2002).In otherwords, there hasbeenan abun-

dance of educational methods and curriculagenerated i)Ilt comparatively little research onits effectiveness,There was a flurry ofinterest inthe first third of the twentieth century (e.g.,

Marein W Berkowitz, a developmentalpsychologist, isthe Sanford N. McDonnell I’rofessor of Character Mu—Cation at the Uoiversit,j of Missouri—St. Louis. J’rcvi—ously, he was the Ambassador Holland Ii. Coors Profes-sor of CharacterDevelopment at the US. Air I~orceAcadenuj and a professor of psijehologi,, at MarquetteUniversity.

Melinda C. Bier is anaffiliate assistantprofessor ofedu—cation at the Uu~versityof Missouri—St. Louis and theprojectdirector of “What Works in Character Educa—tion (funded hij the John Templeton Foundation) and“National Character Education ClearinghouseandResourceCenter” (Funded by the U. S. Department ofEducation). Preciously,shewas Program Officer at theJames S. McDonnell Foundation.NOTE: Supportedby a grantfrom theJohnTeulpietnll

1oundatinii.

DCI 0.1177/00(12710203260082

72 ANNALS, AAPSS, 591, january2004

YOIJTI I AS PROP!.E

Steiner—Adair,C. I 989. Ilie bodypolitic: Normal femaleadolescenttlevelopinentand theth’velnpinent of

eating (lisorders. In Making connections:The re/ational worlds of adolesceni girls at Loooa \l/illardSchool,edited by C. (4lligan. N. P Lyons. and ‘P J . I laoinei; 162 82. l’roy NY: Ennna\Villard School.

S~~llivan, A. 1996. 1”ronimentorto loose.In Urbangirls: Resistingstereo!ypes,creatingidenti ies,editrsI byB. J. LeadheaterandN. \\

Tay, 226—49.New York: New York University Press.

latom, B. 1). 1997. “Why areall 1/ic black kidsu/flog togetherin thecafeteriar’ and oilier conrersations’about race. NewYork: Basi’ Books.

Tlinn , M. 2001 . Balancingthu’ equation:\Vlieri’ are womenandgirls in science,engineeringandtechnology?

New York: NationalCot mcii h)r Researelmu \Vomen.

United StatesI )epartmnent of Education.2003. Whenschoolsstat/openlate: I/ic national(‘vahmtion of’ i/me2/stCenturyCoonnunitt,LearnmgCentersProgram:I iiSt tjearJinding.’i. Washington,I )C: CovernI netitPrintingOffice.

Walker, K. E., J. B. Crossnian,amid R. Haley2000. lestendedserviceschools’: Putting /)rogra?nlning in p/ace.With V. Fehleratliand C. I. Itolton. l’liiladelpliia: Pnblic/Private‘A’otnres.

\Varcl, J. V 1996. Raisingresisters. In Urban girls: Resistingstereotypes,creatingu/cotOte.s’,edited by B. J.Leadheater111(1 N.Way, 85 99. Ness’York: Ness’York University Press.

\VFD Inc., NI elpomoeneI nstitnte for \Vomeo’sI Iealth Research,Cirls Incorporated,andNational Assoeia—

hon or Cirls and \Vomsien in Sport. 2001). Achievinggender(‘(/Uit~/ in thegymandon the platjingfiehl.

Watertown,MA: \\ork/Fami!v Directions.Wolfe, 1.. H. 2001 . “Does it haveto belike thiis~”Teenwomenask their peersaboutviolence,hateand(h.s’criio—

maim: ‘I’he report of the ‘leen %V~nsietiLeaders/np DevelopmentInitiativi’ Sort ey. Washington, I )( 3:enterfor WomenPolic~Studies.Retrues’edfrom http://www.centem’svonienpo!icv.oi’g/reportdoss’oload.

efm?BeportlD=1.

~\T~nien’sSportsFoondation.1998. ‘The \Voomen~s’SportsFoundationReport: Sport 011(1teenpregnancy. EastMeadow,NY: Author

Yonniss,J., J. A. Mc! .eI!ami, andB. Maser.2001.\‘o!nntary service,peel’grooporiei tation,andcivic engage—milent. Jomurnal of AdolescentResearch16:4.56.

IIESEAIiCII BASEI) CIIAHAC]’ER EDUCATION 7:3

DenverPublicSchools1929;Dewey1909; Griggs 1906;llaviland 1921; MacCuurt1920) antIevensomesubstantiveresearchonthe topic(Ilartshornc andMay 1928—

1930).Nonetheless,interest in character educationwanedin the middle third of’the twentieth century, and little research wasdone. in the pastthirty—five years,contemporaly researchershaveturned their expertise and attention to charactereducation. hence,a substantialbodyof information hasbegunto accrueconcern-nigthe effectivenessof charactereducation.Thisarticle will examinesonicof whatwe now know about effectivepractice.

What Is Character?

It is difficult to discuss the effectivenessof character educationwithout firstconsideringits goals.Thecentral goalofcharactereducationis the developmentof’character in students.Therefore,beforeweaddress theresearchon effectivech~u’—acter education, we iieecl toconsiderwhat wemeanby characterand its (levelop—ment. Character can be defined in vanouswaysand is indeed usedin clifft~rentways incommonspeec1~.\‘Ve considersomeone“a character” if they actatypically.We alsocommonly refer to “having character,” but sometimesthat character is“good” or “bad.” It is unlikely that a schoolthatproposesa character—educationini-tiative is interested in either generatinga “bunch of characters”or promoting thedevelopiiient of “had character” in students. What we really mean in this fieldwhenweinvokecharacterissociomoralcompetency.Character is the complex setofpsychologicalcharacteristics thatenablean individual to actasa moral agent.inotherwords, character is multiflhceted. It ispsychological.It relates to moral func—tionmg.In the Brst author’s moral anatonly,seven psychological aspectsof cliarac—ter are identified: moral action, moral values,moral personality, moral emotions,moral reasoning, moral identity, and foundational characteristics (Berkowitz1.997).

Thisis likely nota completetaxonomy,but it helps tounderstandthatwhenonefunctions(or fails to function) morally, it maybe dueto any oneor sotnesetof thesepsychologicalcharacteristics. For instance, if two equally welloff peopleindividu-ally find a wallet with money andidentification in it, and one returns it intact whiletheother takes the moneyand discards the wallet (perhaps evenbragging to his orher kids abouthow cleverit was to take the money),wecan imagine manyreasonsfor thesedifferent responses toa moral situation. PersonA may have more highlydevelopedempathy and feel for the personwho lost the wallet. Or PersonA mayhavea heightened senseof moralsensitivityand be more likely to noticethat this isa moral issueto begin with. Or Person A mayhavemoremature moral reasoningleading to a better understanding of whatthe right action is. Or Person Amay bebetter at perspectivetaking and isableto put himselfor herselfin the shoesof thewallet’sossmer, Or PersonA mayhavebeenraisedwith a different set of values.OrPerson Amayhavea more highlydevelopedconscience.Or... Or... In fact, it maybP(Inc to ~oniesetof thesecharacteristics. The point is thatcharacteris complex,multifaceted,andpsychologicaland that it comprisesthe moralside of’ a person.

74 TIlE ANNALS OFTUE AMERICAN ACADEMY

Eachof thesecharacteristicsdevelopsover the life spanand especiallyin child-hood and adolescence(Damon 1988). The predominant impact on this comesfrom family (Berkowitz andGmych 1998; Lickona 1983),butschoolscanalso beadevelopmentalforce (Berkowitz and Grych 2000; Liekona 1991; Gottfredson2001).For families or schoolsto influencecharacter developmentoptimally, theyneedto understand the complexnature of character and to applyeffectiveprinci-

pIesthathavebeen empirically shown topositively impactthe developmentof the

manypartsof the moral person.

DoesCharacterEducationWork?

This frequently asked question is s/ely difficultto answer,notbecausethereisnot ample research on the topic butbecause,in a sense,it is the wrongquestion.The term charactereducationisapplied1 to sucha widearrayofeducationalinitia-tives that it isdifficult to genericallyanswerwhethersuch amixed setof programs“works,”

Character education varies from a limited set of stand-aloneand homegrownlessonsto fully integrated, comprehensiveschool-reform models. Many teachersand/or schools simply createsomelessons or recognition programs forgoodchar-acter. Others adopt packagedcurricula or programs that themselvesmayvaryfroma smallsetoflessons toa comprehensiveschool model. Otherscobbletogetherele-ments of other initiatives, p~l’t~tpsadopting a packagedclassroom—managementprogram and overlayinganother packagedpreventionprogram with ahomegrownintegration of character issues into theirliterature or social studiescurriculum.Andso on.

Furthermore, much of what would count as character educationis notevenlabeledas such. Servicelearning, social-emotional learning, and prevention pro-grains all sharesignificant features withcharacter educationandcould be consid-ered forms of character education. For ourpurposes,if a school-basedinitiativetargets character development,aswehave defined it above, in either its programdesign orits outcomesand goals,thenit is a form of character education. Indeed,the field would be well servedby a superordinate term that couldencompassall ofthesemoreparochial fields: somethinglike positiveyouthdevelopmentasa rtil)ricfor character education, service learning, social—emotional learning, and so on.Unfortunately, the professional organizations that represent each of’ thesesubfields have invested too heavilyin their respective namesto make such anintegrative movelikely.

Thebest answer to thequestionofwhethercharacter educationworks is to sim-ply statethat quality charactereducationdoeswork. In otherwords,characteredit-cation canwork, but its effectivenesshinges upon certaincharacteristics. This iswhat the rest ofthisarticle will address:what arethefeaturesofeffectivecharactereducation?

RESEARCH-BASE!)Ci!ARACTER EDUCATION

Beforeweturn to that question,however,it isworthwhile to note tile widearrayof outcomesthathavebeen demonstratedby effectivecharactereducation. Char-acter educationhasbeendemonstratedto he associatedwith academicmotivationand aspirations, academicachievement,prosocial behavior; bonding to school,prosocial and democraticvalues,conflict—resolution skills, moral—reasoning matu-rity, responsibility, respect, self-efficacy,self-control, self-esteem,socialskills, andtrust in and respectfor teachers. Furthermore, effectivecharacter education hasbeendemonstratedlto m’educe absenteeism, disciplinereferrals, pregnancy,schoolfailure,suspensions,schoolanxiety,andsubstanceuse.Clearly, whenit is effective,it svorks. \‘Vhat we need to know is what makesa character—educationinitiativeefh~ctiveor ineffective,

WhatWorks in CharacterEducation?

Most ofwhatfollows istheproduct ofa granmt fm’om theJolini Templeton Founda—ti()n titled “What ‘Works in CharacterEducation?” The results reported here,how-ever; are preliminaryasthat project has not been completed.The results are sup-plemeruted with work by others, most notably an excellent review by Solomon,Watson,and Battistich (2001).

Quality ofimplementation

It seemsself—apparent,but one of themostcritical factorsin theeffectivenessof

character educationis the faithfulnesswith which it is implemented.Typically, itfalls to classroom teachers toimplement character education, andtypically, theyarenotadec1uatelytrainedto implementit accurately or completely. Researchha.sconsistently demonstratedthat fur character education (or any form of interven—tiorm for thatmatter) to work, it mustbefully andaccurately delivered (Colby etal.1977; Kam,Greenberg, andWalls 2003; Solomonet al. 2000).Whereasthis pointmay seemso obviousthat it is not worth repeating, the fact of the matter is thatmany programs andprogram evaluations fail to monitor the level and qualityof’implementation and likewise fail to build in adequatesafeguardsto mnaximize timelikelihood of full imnplementation. Effective character educationrequires fidelityin implementation, therefore implementersriced to ensure suchfidelity.

A subissueof this concernwith implementation quality, arid one that has notbeen adequately addressedin the researcii literature, is exposure. Given the highmobility rates in manyschools,quality implementation maystill not be effectiveifstudents arenotpresentduring implementation. Most researchers donotexaminethe levelsofexposureof studentsin character-educationinitiatives. While it seemsfur to assumethat studentswithgreater exposure willbenefit more from charactereducationthanwill students with low exposurein the sameschools, therelation—ship betweenexposureand outcomesmaynot bestraightforward (Allen, Philliber,and lloggson 1990;Solomon,Watson, and Battistich 2001).

76 TIlE ANNAI,S OF T!-IE AMERICAN ACADEMY

Comprehensive, inult’~facetedcharactereducation

Manyeffectivecharacter-educationinitiativesrepresentcomprehensive,oftenschoolwideordistrictwide,multifacetedapproaches.Programssuchasthe ChildDevelopment Project(and its derivative Caring School Community;http://www.devstu.org;Solomon et al. 2000), ResolvingConflict CreativelyProgram(http://www.esrnational.org;Aberet al. 1998),andthe SeattleSocial Development

Characteris thecomplex setofpsychological

characteristicsthat enablean individual

to actas amoral agent.

Project(Hawkinset ah. 1992)aremulticomponentmodels thatinclude classroommanagement,curricular,social—skill training,parentinvolvement,and/orschool—reform elements.This is notto saythat monolithicinitiativescannotwork; rather,that comprehensiveinitiatives seemto be particularlyeffective, especiallywhencharacteris broadlydefinedand diverseoutcomegoals aretargeted.

Studentbondingto school

Undera vam’iety of dif’ferent names (bonding,attachment,belonging,related-ness,connection,etc.),it hasbeendemonstratedthat from preschoolthrough highschool,theemotionalattachmentofastudent tohisorherclassroomandschoolisa critical mediatingfactor in the effectivenessof charactereducatioim(Berkowitzand Bier forthcoming;Osterman2000) andof students’generalengagementinschool (Furrer and Skinner 2003). At the preschoollevel, 1-lowes and Ritchie(2002),throughaseriesof studies,havedemonstratedthatchildrenwith morepos-itive interactionswith and moreseetmreattachmentsto their teacherswere morepositive,moregregarious,engagedinmorecomplexsocial play,haddemonstratedmoreadvancedcognitiveactivity,andshowedmoreegoresiliency.Researchon theChild DevelopmnentProject(Solomonetal. 2000)hasrevealedthat theeffective-nessof this elementaryschool programis mediatedby the degm’eeto which stu-dents cometoperceivetheir classroomsandschoolsas a“caringcommunity.”Fimr-thermore,in an earlierstudy,theyreport thatstudents’senseof theclassroomasacomnnmnityis significantly relatedtoteachers’emuphasison cooperativestrategiesandfocumson prosocialvalues(Solomonet al. 1997).

In middle school,whenstudentsperceivetheirteachersas supportingrespect-ful

1 studentinteractions,havinghigh expectations,beingslmpportiveandfair, and

RESEARCII-BASEI) CIIARACTEII EDUCATION 77

avoiding a m’elianceon negativemessagesandl behavioralrules,the studentsshowincreaseti self—efficacy, self—regumlation, characterdevelopment,ammdl academid’achievement(RyanandPatrick2001;Wentzel 2002). In a seriesof studieson anational highschooldataset,it wasdemonstratedthat attachmentto parentsandschoolwerethetwo mnanmpredictors ofreducedrisk beltavior(Resimicketal. 1997).Furthermore,theschoolpredictors ofstudentbondingto schoolwerefoundto bepositive classroomnmanagement,tolerant (nonliarsh) disciplinamy practices,involvementin extracurricularactivities,smallerschools,goodpllysicalhealth,andavoidanceof cigarettesmoking(Bonny et al. 2000; MeNeely, Nonnemaker; andBlum 2002).

Clearlythen,when designing andimplementinga character—educationinitia-tive, it is of greatimportanceto intentionallytargetstrmdents’phenomnenohogicalperspectiveof the school (amid classroom)as acaringcommunityandtheir subse-quenteinoliomial bondingto theschoolandclassroom,as1)0th a goalanda mea—smmrecl ni mtcomeor mediatingvariable.

Leadershipis key

One of tile fictors that practitionerswill repeatedlyaffirmsi is that the schoolleaderis the mostcritical individimal in the successor failum’e of a character—educa-tion initiative. Certainly,it ispossibletocreatean islandof sanitywithinaclassroomin a schoolthatdoesnotmeaningfullyembracecharactereducation(Urban2003),but that servesonly the stumderitswho passthrough thatclassroom.To positivelyimpact an entire school, the school pm icipaLs role is essential(l)efloehie andWilliams 2001;Lickona 1991).

The CharacterEducationPartnershipidentifies three imuiportant aspectsofcharacter:imniderstanding,commitment, action.While theseareintendedtoapplyto thestudentdevelopmentaloutcomesof charactere(lucatiOfl, tlley canapplytostaffdevelopmentaswell, An effectiveprincipal needsto (1) “getit,” (2) “buy intoit,” and(3) “live it.” In otherwords,leadimugaschoolof characterrequiresthat theprincipal first hilly understands whatqualitycharactereducationentails(mnostdonot).Thenthe principalmust reallyconnmnitto thisvisionandtrulywantto makeithappenunderhis orherwatch.Finally, theprincipal musthavethe requisiteskillsto enactquality character educationamid then to live it out bothpersonally andprogrammatically.

PATHS (Greenberget al. 1995), awell-researchedcharacter-educationpro-gram, recentlyreportedthatprincipal“buy-in” (interestlcommitmnent)wasoneoftwo critical factorsnecessaryfor effectiveimplementation(Kam, Greenberg,andWalls 2003). But buy-in is only part of this triumvirate of leadershipattributes.Whereassomeidentify the task of character—educationleadershipto be largelyexhortation(Mumrphy 2002),othersarguethat the core functionof schoolleader—shipgoesmuchdeeper.Valentine,Triunble,and Whitaker(1997) arguefur leadercompetency.Jacksonand Davis (2000), in a blueprintfor middle schoolreform,argimefor the principalto bea “principal changeagent”who relieson staffempow-

78 ‘I’m: ANNALS OF’ ‘rIlE Asll’:IIIcAN A(:Almuy

ernmemit and dc’mnocm’atie governanceas the path to school impm’ovemilent amidstimdentflourishing.

This is pm’’ly wily gm’ommps like the CharacterEducationPartmiem’ship(huttp://www.cluaracter.org)amid the Collaborativefor Academniic, Social and EmotionalI ~earnmg(http://www.casel.org)have tam’getedimiitiatives for school—headertrain-ing. imi St. Loumis, a collaborativeof the University of Missouri—St. Louis and theCooperatingSchoolDistm’icts has beenoffering yearlongacademiesimi chau’acterd’dllcation fur five years(Nanceet al. 2003). It is clear to us rilmunimig theseacacle—imiies that school leadersneed to learn the why (“head”) amid thehow (“hamid”) but

also often needto dievelop the comntitmmiemit and motivation (“heam’t”) to lead ad’haraeter—edlmmd’atiomlinitiative effectiveh~

C/iaracter educationis good editcation

In the current climate of high—stakesstandardizedtesting in schools,(hlflhlit)~

edumeationis takiumg quitea beating.Schoolsareskewingtheir curriculatowardthenam’row content of’ tests,in somecasesactually droppingentire subjectareasthatare notbeing testedthatyear.Schoolsam’e hecontingpressurecookerswhereadultsamid studlc’mIts feel oppressed. Teaching is moving toward rote nieniorizationu of’whateveris expected to be on the test.

Charactereducation,on the otherhand, entails manyof’ the central tenets of

(~uality c’chmcation. The Hope Foummidation (hittp://wwss~eounimnmsmuitiesofliope.org)has iclemitifIecl six characteristics of liigh—perf’orniing schools, which include havinga shared vision and goals, imsing collaborative teams,and developmg leadem’shipcapacityat all levels, A recent study of three at—risk schools that excel academically(Ancc’ss 2003) identifies the characteristics of’success, which imichudle shared govem’—

nanee,strong leaclem’s who empower others, norms of interpersonalrespect,closecarimtg relationships among staf’f and between staff and stmmclemuts, and maximalopportunitiesfor success f’or all students. The characteristics identified by both ofthesereviews align stromigly with manyof the characteristicsof comprehensivecharactc’reducation:studentempowerment,constructivist principles, collal)ora—tive learning, opportunities for student reflection, a foc’mms on the deep and power—fiml truths of himmanexpc’m’iemice, and applications of course eomitent to real—life pro-jects (e.g., serviec’ lc’arning). It is them’efore not slmrpnsing that quality charactereducationturns omit to be good ediumeation imi genem’al and that educationalreformslike service learning and constrimctivist edmmcation am’e found not only to promoteacademic achievementbut also to foster student character dievelopulent as well.

Likewise, it is not sumrprising thatquality character educationresults in ac’ademniegains for students,sonmething that has beeii demuonstrated repeatedily in research(e.g., Aber, Brosvn, andl I lemirich 1999;Allen et al. 1997;Battistieh anti I long 2003;CharacterEducation Partnership 2000; Elliott I 993; Flay, Allred, and Ordway’2001; Kiger 2000; Twemlowet al. 2001). All of these studies focus on the academiceffects of particim lar character—edt mcation pm’ogran is; however, a recent stimcly of 1 20elementaryschools iii California usedamoregenem’id’ definition of (‘hal’ac’t(’r cdii—

BESEAHCH-BASF:DCItARA(:’I’ER EDuCA’rIoN 79

cation and f’ormnd thatqualityof character educationis significantly related td) stan—dlam’dizedl test scom’es (Bcnninga et al. forthcoming).

CharactereducationOS primary prevention

In both the scholarlyand the practical literatures, a strong distinction is madebetweenschool-basedpreventionandcharactereducation.I-Id)wever, thisappearsto be a falsedichotonnyfor two reasons (Berkowitz2000). First, the two tend tosharemanyfeatures. Second,character educationhasbeensystematicallydemon—stratedto bean effectiveform of prevemition,especiallyprimaryprevention.

Character—educationprograms like the Child Development Project haverepom’ted significant reductionsin violence antIsubstanceuse(Battistich et al.2000). Effective preventionprogramssuchas Life-skills Trainimig (Botvin et a!.1997)an~IAll Stam’s (Harringtonet al. 2001)incorporatecharacter—educationdc—

niemìts.Otherpreventionprogramshavebeen demonstratedto both redlueeriskybehaviors andpromotepositive characterclevelopntiemmt(e.g., Allenet al. 1994;Kam, Greenberg,and Walls 2003; Taylor et al .1999). Clearly, the distinctionbetweenpreventioniand character educationis murky andcharactereducationisaneffectiveform of primnarypreventiomi.

Staffdevelopment

Staffinvolvementandconimnitmenttocharactereducationis criticaltoeffectiveimplementation,just asit is to all instructional innovationsor edumcationalreforms(Ilimide 2003). Kamn, Greenberg,and \Valls (2003)reportthat immmplememitationofPATI-IS dependedheavily on teachercommitment.

Omie of the vastlyunderutilizedcomponentsof quality character educationisstaffdlevelopmiient.Typically, this is soeitherbecausethe delivery systemswereneverbuilt intothecharactereducationmodelor becauseit isjusttooexpensive(intermsof 1)0th moneyandtime). Manyeffectivecharacter-edimeationmodelseitherrequireor stronglyrecommendstaffdevelopmentor offer it as anoption (e.g.,Child DevelopmentProject,Responsive Classroom,Communityof Caring,Fac-ing Ilistory and Ourselves,Learning forLife, Life Skills Training,ReachOut toSchools).

As withprincipals,if staffdo notunderstandtheimlitiative, theywill likely imple-mentit ineffectivelyor rejectit for thewrongreasons.If theydo notvalueit, thentheywill not implementit effectively (if at all). If theydo not know howto imiiple—mentit, thenagaintheywill likely imuplementit ineffectively.

Direct skill building

Fronn avarietyof theoretical perspectives,the trainimigof interpersonal,emo—

tional,andmoralskills is critical toeffectiveschool-basedcharacterdevelopment.

Thetraditionalapproachtocharactereducation (Benninga1991;Wynneamid Ryan

so TIlE ANNJ~1,SoI~’’rlIl: AKIEIUCAN Ac:ADEMY

1993) has long relied upon aim Aristotehiamiprinciple that characteris f’om’mned inlarge pam’t throughhabitualbehaviorthat eventually becomiies internalizedi into vir-tues (charactem’). Traditional social—emotional learning (Greenbem’g et al. 1995) hasm’eliecl upon niom’e behavioral models of’ learning audI dcvelopimiemmt and tlieref’om’edlependled heavily omi chassroomii lessons that clim’ectly tc’ach social and emttotionalskills. This same~ipproachhasbeemi clominamit in mitch of’the school—based pr~’v~’mi—

tiomi literature (Tappe,Galer—Unti, amid Baily 1995).

Character educationha,s’ beencleinonstrate(lto

beassociatedwith academicmotivationand

aspirations, academic achievement,prosocial

behavior,bondingto school,prosocialand

democraticvalues,conflict-resolutionskills,

moral—reasoningmaturity, responsibility,

respect,self-efficacy, self-control,

self—esteem,social skills,andtrust

in andrespectft r teachers.

Fimm’thc’rmom’e, it is clearthatmany of theinitiativesamidmilodlels that imicom’pom’ateclirc’et skill trainingarequite effective. In many cases,directskill tm’ainimig is a mod—

umle iii a mnord’ comprehemisivc appm’oachto charactereducation(Ilawkimis et al.2001; Weissberg,Barton, and Shriver 1997). This works particularlywell whentrainimmg thoseskills import which the eomiiprehemisiveapproachrelies, forexample,teachinglistemlimtg skills so that coopem’ativc’ learningcanbe effed’tive, or teaching

peercomiflict—m’esolutiomi skills sothat classmileetingscanbeeffective.

Parent involvement

More amid more schoolsarerecognizingthat they mieed to he proactivc’ aboutincorporatingp~trentsinto the life of theschooland imito theirchilciren’s learmiimigiii

gemmeral. Primiciple 10 of the CharacterEclimcationPam’tmiership’s 11 Principlc’s ofFff’ective CharacterEdmmcatiomt (Lic’kona, Schiaps,amid I ~ewis2003) assem’ts tI tat“schoolsmiiust recruitpam’entsandcommmmnityniemiibersasfull partners in thed’har—ac’tc’m’—huilding effort.” CIIARACTERpIus (http://www.csd.org), baSed imi St.

RESEARCI1-BASEI) d:I lAtiAc:’rEli EDUCA’rIoN SI

Louis, Missouri, explicitly imivolves pitm’cmits thrommghoimt the cham’acteredlimcatiomiplanningamid implementationprocess.in CI1ARACTERp1usschools,paremmts,teac’hers,amid eomimiunityrepresemitativesjointly identifyanddefmnethecham’actertm’aits their schools willemphasize.Thereis alsd)a hurgeonunigliteratumredemsiomi—stratimig the power ofpam’ental involvementin childremi’s acadeitticachieveimientandcli aracterdevelopmnent(Patrikakouct al. f’orthcoinm g), amid nnamiy charactereducationprogramiisbimild in aspectsof character educationthat encourageorrequire parental participationi.They have specific parent—involvemiientcomnpd)—nentsthat engagethep~mrem1tandchild in educationalactivitiesat home; teachem’sthenfollow up omi theseactivities in theclassroom,strengtheningtheconneetiomisbetween homeanti school(e.g., the Child DevelopmenttPm’oject and PositiveAction). Othercharacter—educationinitiatives would be well served to explicitlytargetparentinvolvementas anecessam’ycomiiponentof ai i effective charactem’—educationapproach.

Studentreflection oTt socialand innral i.s.sue.s

Sizeramid Sizer(1999)emphasizetheimportamiceof students’“grappling” withmoral issues.In fact,the Kohlhergianapproachto moral reasoning(Power,IIig-gins, andKohlberg1989; Reimer,Paohitto,amid I-Iersh 1983) is largelypredicatedupon theinstitutionalizationofpeermoraldiscourse(Berkowitz1985).A sumbstami—tialhotly ofliteraturehasdemonstratedthatprogranlmaticpeerimmoraldiscourseisaneffectivemneansof promotingthe developmentof morah—reasomuingcapacities.Furtherniore,BerkowitzandSimuniomis(forthcomiiing)havearguedfor theintegra—ti()n of suchstrategiesin contentareas suchas sciemiceeducationas a wayof lid)1—steringcharacter educationamid academiclearmiing.

Charactereducationoftenincludesstudyof moralanti ethical issues,whetherthroughheroescurriculasuchastheGiraffe Projector the RaoulWallenhergPro-jector thrommghliterature—basedcharacter educationsuch asthe Ileartwd)odiPro-ject,KidzLit, orVoicesof LoveandFreedom.Researchsrmggeststhatacentraldc-mnent in effective use of mntoral content in charactereducationis to employ

1echtgogicalpm’ocessesthat relyon structured,respectfulpeerdliscumssiomiof thoseissues.As noted elsewherein this article,staffdevelopmentin howtocreatesocialnounsfor respectfuldisagreemmmemitamid social—skillstrainingare imiiportant fur theeffectiveinclusionof simchpeermoral—discourseeXpc’riences.

Adultsasrole models

One of the mnore elusive aspects of character ediumcatiomi is the impactof’ adultl)ehavic)ron studentdlevelopmiieflt. Wekmiow quite clearlyfm’ont socialpsycholc~i

how pd)Wd’m’fnl observing the behaviors ofvahumecl others canlid’ Ort one~iowmi clevel—opmiient (Bamidura1977). It is alsoclear fromut m’esearchon professionaleducationthat theprimi1~uryinfluencetin theethicsof soon—to—be1)rofessionals(c’.g., mneclicalstudeiits)is theethical(or tinetltical) behaviorof thie professiomialsWild) traintheiii(Pelligrino 1989).Fumrthiermuiore,the researchonparentingamid childremi’scharacter

TIlE ANNALS OF’ TIlE AMERI(:AN ACADEMY

developmnentfrequently dlemnomistrates the power ofparental rolemodlehngdiii

chiidren~scliam’acter, forexample,on theiraltruism (Eiseriberg and Mumssen 1989)andself—eontm’ol (Maccoby1980).Bumt thereis little researchon thispowerful factorimi schools.Oneexceptionis thework by Ryanamid Patrick (2001)whit) report thatteacherswho areperceivedby studentsa~expecting respectfulrelationsin theclassroom had studentswith increasedself—m’egumlatory skills. Anecdotal evidenceabout such a relationship betweemi teacher behavior amid1 studentcharacteraboimnds.Pm’incipalsrepeatedlyreport thattheeasiestwayto getstudentsto cleanup thedebrisin theschoolyardis for the principalto beginto do it daily. Studentssoonfollow suitwithoutbeing askedor told to dd) so. Elennemitam’yschoolteachers,especiallyat the primniary grades, frequentlym’eport that the easiestway to knowwhatkind d)f teacheryou areis to eitherwatchyoumr stumdentsplayingsc1iooior askoneof themto leada lesson.

ClosingThoughts

It is clearthatcharactereducation is’’~umi effectivemeansof promotingbothstim—dent sociah/mnoral/emotionaldievelopment anti academic achievememit. As onescrutinizessimceessfulcharactereducation imiitiatives, it is also clear that (1) charac-teredhmcationis goodleducationandthat (2) character educationcomesin a widevarietyof forums. Someof thoseforms areeffectiveandothers arenot; however,thereis greatvariety in the formnmsof character educationthatdo sumcceed.Never-

theless,it is important to examine thosecharacteristicsol’efiective character cdiii—cationto identify the “activeingredliemits” that miiake them work.This discussionhasattemptedto highlight sortie of those ingredients: comprehensive,multifacetedapproaches;approachesthat target amid succeedat pm’omoting studentbondimig toschool; committedandinformedschool leadership; integrating character and aca-demic education; integrating character education and prevention edmmcation;annpleandappropriatestaffdevelopment;directteachingofrelevantpersonalandsocialskills; parentinvolvement;andstudemitreflectiomianti grapplingwith moralissues;adumlts’ modeling good character.

Clearly, more researchis mieededto umndem’stand better how andwhen cham’actereducatiomiis most effective.Nomiethehess,enoughis ahm’eaciyknown to helpedumca—tot’s designeffective initiatives that will foster the developmentof character iiistudents.

Referencesi~her,J. L., J. I,. Brown, and C. C. Ilenrich. 1999. ‘reachingconflict exolutfon:An eJj’eclicc .school—ba.sed

approach to rioleoceprevention.New York: NationalCenterIbr Children in Poverty

Aher,1.. J., S. NI. Jones,J. L. Brown, N.ChaudiTandF. Samples.1998. Resolvingcorillict creatively:Evaluat-

ingthedevelopmentaleffectsola school—basedviolencepreventionprogramin neighborhoodandclass-

room context. Dem:elopmnenlandPsmjchopaihologi110:187—213.

IIE.Sl’:AtICII—BASEI) CIIARACTI”.R EDUCA’I’ION 83

Alien, 3.1’.,C. Kmmpermimimn’, .8. I’hillile’r, and K. 1 lm’rre. 1994.I’r()grammmmnaticprev’ntioml oladolescentproblemile’lias iors: lIre role of ammtonomn~çrelatedness,amid volmmmmteer servicein the‘R’ems (liii reach Program.

AomermcamJomo~mialofComnmnmimnl,,P.smjelmologm122:617 38

\llemi, 3. P., S. Phill her, S. I Ierrling, amid C. P. Kmipern iimme. 1997.Prev’mmtim mg teenpregmmaocyamid academome

%iilmmre: F~xpcriImn’ntal es—limatiomm of a deselopmiiemmtallvbased approach.Child I)eme/opmmmeoi64:72942.AIk’mm, 3. P 5. Plmillihec amid N. I Ioggson. 1990.School—basedpreventiommof teenage~)megmrareyamid dropom it:

Processevaluationof the miatiomial replicationof’ the TeenOutreach Progran I. AnmerieanJournalof Comn—

nmunilmj Psyclmologtj 18:505—24.

Ancess,J . 21)03.Beatingtheodd.s: high schools as i’ommmnmmi nilies of~‘ommmmitnmemml. New York: ‘I’m’aclmm ‘vs d ollegcPress.

Bandura,A. 1977 ocial h’arowgtlmeonj.EnglewoodCliffi, NJ: PrenticeI lall.Ilattisticli, V. amid S. I long. 2003. I”.mmmlmiriog efiects of the( liikl DevelopmneimtProject:Second—orderlati’ma

lineargrowth nmodm’hingof~stmmdeimts’ ‘comimmeetedmiess’’to selimml, academmiic perform 11am cm’, minI social adjmmstmnm’m it dimrimig mniddle school.Unpnblislu’d m mmanmmscript, I )evelopmnemmtalStudies( emiti’i Oaklamiml, CA.

Battisiicb, V. E. Schaps,NI. Watson,I). Solomoim,amid C. I .ewis.2000.Efh’cts of’tlme Child Developmmient i’nu—

ji’ct omi studentsdrmmg mis)’ amidoilier prolk’mmm behaviors.‘ilie Jommnmalof Prnnaru,Pmecentioim21 :75—99.Ilenninga, J . S. 991. Moral and (‘liaracter edmmeation iii tIme m’lemimemmtaiysd immol: An in I iodmmct iom m . In ,~Iomal,

(‘liaruelem’. amid eim:ic em/mica/ionin time ciemmmi’ntarm~school. (‘dite(l by 3. S. lli’n mm imiga. 3 2t). Nm’w Ym,rk: ‘li’im’hmcr5 College l’ress.

13cmin ilmga, J . S., NI. NV. llerkowitz, P. Knelimi, and K. Smnithi. Fortlmconming. ‘I’he relation ofelmaracteredm meal 1)))

10(1academicachmic’vi’nmemmt. Jommm-mmalof Re.seareim mm C/mam’aciem’5.(/mieit ion.

Berkowitz, NI. NV. 1985.The role nfdiscmissiomm in mmioral cdimcat 0mm. In ilIo,si edmmcatiomm:‘I’lmeormj umir/ app/wa—tiomi , edited by M . W. Berkowitz amd F’. Oser, 197—217. 1lillsdale, NJ: I,awremmc’e Erll,ammmn.

1997. ‘rlm’ commiplete immoral Person: Ammmtonmy amid fhrmnatiomm. 1mm Moral issues jim psmjc/iologmj:

Pem:sonmi/i,steoimii—ibmmtiomm.s to selectedprohlemim.s, edited by J. NI. DmmBois, 11 —.11 . I ,ammlmami, NI D: 1)mmivem sitvI’n’ss of Ammieric’a

2000.Cl maracter edmmeitiomi aspm evm’otimmm I. In Immmprom;ing prc’remmt iomm effi’ct ire,mevs, I’m hiti’i I by \V. 13.II ansemi, S. NI. Ciles,and NI. I). F’earnmmw Kenmmcv, 37 45. Creensboro, NC: ‘I’am mglewond I3esm’archi.

2002.The sciemiceof characteredmicatiomm. 1mm Bm4migimmg in a mmemeem imm e/iaraetem’edmccat1,~mm,m’dit,’d h’,NV. Damimomi, -13—63. l’ilc, ,Nlto. CA: I looser Imistitmitiomi Press.

Berkowitz, NI. \V., and NI. Bier. Forthicoimmi 1mg. TIn’ imiterpersomnil roots of(‘lmmracter edmmcatiomm. I mmp.st/r’lmologi/aimd ehmamacterm’dmmeajiomm , (‘di ted by I). K. I~apsh’~amid F. C. Power. Smmmmtli llemmd, IN: U imis-em—sitv of Notre Damni’ Press.

l3m’rkowitz, NI. NV., amid 3. Il. Crychi. 199$.Fosteringgoodmmess:‘I’eachimig paremits to facilitati’ chmmlilremis mooralmlevelopmmmemit. Jommrmma/ of Mom-al I~dmu’atiomi27:371—91

2000.Earl’, elmmraeter devi.lopmmmemmt amid edmmcatiomm. Earlmj I~lmmeainmi((mid flem m’iopmmmemml I I :55—72.llemkowitz, NI. VI’., amid P. Simmmmimomms. Forthicomimimig. Imitegratimig seim’mmcc’ edmmeatiom amid character m’dmmcatimim:

‘l’hme mx)le ofpei’r discmissi Imi. 1mm ‘I’hme role oJmcmom/rca.sommimmgOii .soeio.sciemmtifieissue.’,ammdm/m.seommrse(mm .sei—(‘mice edmmcatjomm , c’ditcd by I). Zeidli’m; New York: Kl,mwm’r.

Ilomimmv, A. mj:., NI. ‘I’. Britto, B. K. Klostermamimi, B. ‘A’. I lom rimmng, amid C. B. Slap. 2001). Schooldiseommmmectm’dmmess: Idemmtifving adoleseeimtsat risk. Pediatrics 1(16:1(117—21

Botvimm, ( . 3., 3. A. Epsteimm, E. Baker,‘1’. Diaz, nid NI. If ll—W’ihliamns. 1997.School—baseddmmmg abuse pmevm’mm—

tiomi with immner city mimmmmritv yommth.Jomirmmal gIG/mild amid Amboie.scemmtS’ub.siammr’eA/muse6:5—19

(‘.ham-ac’ter I’~dmmcatiommPartimershimp. 2000.2000t~atim,mmalSc/moo/sof (lmamaeterammdPrommmi.siumgI’m-ac/ne’,. \Vmshmmngtomm, DC: t’.lmaractm’r Edmicatiomm Part I ierslmip.

oIbv, A., P.. Kolmlberg, E. F’eimton,II. Spc’mchc’r—Dnhiimm, amid NI. I ,iehermmiami. 1977.Secommdar’,- sc’l 01)1mmii iral (liS

cmissiomm programmmmesled by social slmmdies teac’hers.Jommrmma/o i/oral Ldumytiomm6:9(1—11 II )ammmomm, NV. 198$.Timemmmom’a/ (‘bold: ,“,Jurt,m m-immg (‘/oldremm N mmatumat mnora/gm—omit/i. New York: Frm’m’ Prm’ss.I )emaer Pmmhhic Sclmmols.1929.G/mam—ace’methmeatioimjmm time I*’mirem- Pub/icSe/moo/s.Nlommographm mmo. I I. Dm’nvm’r,

( 0: Demmvm’r Pm ibhic Schools.Dm’Rochme,F’.. 1”., mmmcl NI. XI. \Vilhiamms. 200].Glmaraeteredmmeatioum:Agmnth’for.sehioo/adummimmis/m-atocs.I ,ammlimmmm,

NI D; SearecrowPress.

84 ‘rITE ANNAI.S (iF ‘I’lIE AMERICAN ACADEMY

DeweyJ. NV 1909.I’rincipbe.sofmmmoraledocam’iomm.Boston: ilommghton Mifilin.Eiseimberg, N., and P. Fl. Mmmssemi. 1989. Them-oot,sof prosocialbe/mac/orimm c:lnldremm.New Yorh: Cammibridge

University Press.Elliott, S. N. 1993.Garimmgto /eai—mm: A m—epom—ton timep0.5//ire immmpact0/a socialcurricmmimi,mm.(‘.reenfield, MA:

Nmmm5hieast I”oi mndationbir d‘.hmihdren -

Flay, 13.13., C. C. Ahlrech, and N.Ordway. 200] - Effects oftime PositiveAction Progranm on achnevemmiemitanddiscipline: Iwo matcbed—comitroh comnpmmrisons.PrevemmtiomiScience2:71—89.

I”m,rrer, C’.., amid E. Skimmer. 2003.Senseof reh,mtedmmessas afimctor in chmildremmN acadeimiicengagementand per—forniance. JomrmmalofI.’ducatiommalP.sycimology 95:1‘18—62.

Cottfrcdsomi, I). C. 2001.Sc/mool.samid dc/inquemmcy.New York: Cambridge University Press.

Greenberg, M. ‘I’., C. A. Kmmschie, 13.T. Cook,and J. 1’. Quamma, 1995. I’rouioting emotionalcomsipeteimceill

school_agedchmilclrerm: ‘I’he effectsof the PA’I’I-IS curriculum. DemelopmemmtcudP.st1

c/iopatimology7:117—36.

Criggs. E. II. 1906.Moral cdmmcatiomi.New York: 13. NV Uuehmschm.I Imrrington, N. C., S. NI. Giles, B. H. Doyle, C. J. Feemmey,and S. C. Ymmrmghlntb.2(1(11 . Evalumatioumof the All

StarsClmaracter Educatiomi amid Problemmi Ilehsavior PreventionPrograimm: I’retest—posttest c’ffectson niedi—atoramid ommtcommie varmables for middle schìool stmmdemits. !leal//m Educatiommamid Beimam3om29:533—46.

(1artshmcrne, H., and ].I.A. .May. 1928—1930. Studiesiv. the matmmi-c of dmarae/cr. \‘OiS. 1_S. New Yom’k:MacMillan.

hIavihand, M. S. 1921.Charactertmiumimmgin chili/hood. I3ostomm: Small, Maynard,andCo.

Ilawkins,J. I)., 13. F. Cmmtalano,D. M. Morrison,J. O’Dommnell, 11.1). Abbott, and L. E. Day. 1992.The SeattleSocialDevelopmentProject: Effectsofthe first four yearson protective factorsand problem behaviors.Jim ‘I’ime prevcmm/iommofantm.soeiaihe/mar/orin cbnidm-eu,edited byJ. McCord and R. Trerumbly, 139—61.New

York: Gnilford.I I,mwkins, J. I)., J - Cmmo, K. C. Full, 5. Battin—Pearson,and II. D.Abbott. 2001 . l.omig—termo effectsof tIme Seattle

Smcial Development Intervemmtion on schoolbonding trajectories.AppliedI)em:ebopmmmerm/a/Sciemmce5:225—36.

Flimmde, E. 2003,August 3. Reflectionson reformn: A formiierteacherhooks atschoolchangeandthehictors that

shapeit. 1mm leacimer.sCollegeRecord.Retrieved from http://www.tcrecom’d.org/Conteiut.mmsp3k’.omitemmtl D=11183

I lowes, C., arid S. Ritchie. 2002.A moat/ero/trn.O:Coummec/immg tcaciicrs rimid learmiei:sui theearl,1

c/mild/moodcla.s.roommm.New York: Thacber~College Press.

Jacksomm,A. NV., amrd C. A. Davis. 2000.l’unmimigPm4mm/.s2000:I’.dueatimmgadolescentsimi f/me21st cen/mmrm/.Ness’\‘om’h: ‘I’eachers College Press.

Kani, C.NI., lvi. ~11Greenberg,and C. ‘I’. N%’aIls. 2003.Exammmimming this’ roleof i nplenuemitatiomi quality imi schimmol—basedprevelmtiomm using11mm’ I’ATl—IS Cumrricmilmmmmm. l’m’cm,emm/ionSciemmcm:4:55—62.

Kiger, F). 2000.TheTriiies ProcessTIC: A prehiminamy evaluation ofcla.ssrooniinmipleimieumtatiomm and iimmpactstudent achievenment.Edocatiomm 120:586—92.

Lickmmna, ‘F’. 1983. Rai.simmg good children.New York: I3antamii.- 199]. Educatingfor clmam’acter.New York: Bantam.

Lickona, ‘P., F’.. Schaps, andC.Lewis.2003.CEP’.sEleremmPrimmcip/esof1’~ffectiveC/maractcrEdmmca/iomm.\,Vaslm—

iogtomi, DC: CharacterEducation Partnership.Maccohy F’.. F’.. 1980.Socialdece/opummcmmt:P.sijc/molmigicalgrowtimammd time parerm/—cimildre/a/iomm.s/mip.Ness’York:

Flarcmmm miS l3race Jma’anovichm.MacCmmnms, 3. 1920. ‘I’lmc mmmakimmgofc/iaractecNew Ymmm’k: Macmillami.McClellamm, 13. F. 1999.Mom-aleducation imm Ammmem’ica:Sm—/mool.sammd f/me.s/mapmmigo[c/iam’acterfrommm cm,lommial/immme.s

to timeprcsemmf. New York: TeachersCollegePrcss.McNeely,C.A., J. NI. Nnnmiemimakem; and B.N’. lllmmmim. 2002.I’romootiimg schoolcoumrmc:tedness:Evimlemice from

the National 1.ongitudimiml Study of’ Adolescemit Fiealthm.Jounia/of ScimooiIlealtim 72:138—46.

Mmmrphmy, NI. NI. 2002.Charactereduca/iommin Am,merica’.sBlmmeRibbomiscimoofs:B~.stpracticesJoemmmcetimmg timec/ma//emmge.2mmd ccl. i,armhiamum, MI): ScarecrowPress.

Namice, B., NI. NV. hlerkowitz, I,. McKmsy, P..,amid ‘1’. Proffitt. 2003.A ieadem.’shipprogm-amiiforc/iarac/em’edmmca—

tion. NVaslmingtomi, DC’.: Character Edmmcation Partnership.

RESEARCI I-I3ASEI) (‘.1 IAHACTEII EDUCATION 85

Ostermnamm, K. 2000.Stuudemmts’ mmcccl hir belommgmmmgin tIme schoolc’ommmmnmmlmity. RecteucofEducatiommalRe.seameim

70:323-67.Patm’ikmmkomu, E.N., B. I’. Weissherg,J. 13. Mamining,S. Reddimig,amid II. J. amid NValbei-g, eds. F’ortlucommmimmg.

Scboob_flmmnilypartumerships:Promnotimugthe social,emmiotiommal, moms1

mmcmmclemnic growth of’c’hildrcmi. TimeLSS

Reeicuc2.Pelhigrino, E. 1). 1989.‘reachingnmechicalethuics: Somnepersistentqmlestionsmud smmmnc’ respomuses.Acadeu,mie

Mcdicimme64:7(11-03.Powem; F’. C., A. H. Fliggins, ansi L. Koblbei’g. 1989.Lamvm-enccK.smimlberg.sappioaciuto miioralcdneatiomm.New

York: (‘.ohunibfa University Press.Reimsier, J., 1). P. Paolitto, and 13. Il. Ilersim. 1983.Prommmotimmgmmmora/gromvt/m: FroummPiagetto Ko/mihcmg.2mid ed.

New York: I ~ongmams.

Resnick, XLI)., P.S. Ilearmnan, R.W. Blummmm, K. E. l3amimsmmmnm, K. NI. ITarris,J.Jonmes,J. Tabor,T. Beuuhirirmg, B. F’..Sieviumg, NI. Shiess’. M. Irehmrmd, L. II. Ilearirmgcr, anml J. H. Udry. 1997.Protectimig adolescemitsfrom himmrirm:Findiuugs fm’omim thus, National Longitmmdinal Studyon AdolescentHealth .Jominmal oft/meAuncu4camiMedical

Associafiomm 278:823-32.Ryan,A. M., ammdII. f’mmtrick. 2001.Theclmmssroommm socialemivironmnmeimt aridchamigesin adolesceimts’ mnotivatimiui

amud eimgagemnentduringmiddle school.Ammmcu’mcauu Edumca/iommalRcscarc/mJoum’mmal‘.38:437—6t).Sizer,‘1’. H., and N. F. Sizer. 1999.limestuu/cumt.s(lu-c ucatcimimmg:Sc/moo/.sand flue immoral comerac/. l3ostonu:Beacomu.

Solomnomi,Ii, V l3attisticlm, I). Kim, and NI. Wmmtson. 1997.Tcmmcherpracticesassociatedwith stumdemits’senseofthe cla.ssi’oomas’’,m comiummmlmnity. SocialP.syc/mologt~of Educatioui 1:235—67.

Solomoim, I)., V l3attisticb, NI. Watson, E. Schaps,amid (‘.. Lewis. 2000.A six—district study of educatiomimmlclmamige: Direct and niediated effectsof tIme C’.hiild Devs’lopmemmtProject. Social P.sycluologyoflsdueam’ioim

4:3-51.Solmmmiioim,D., NI. S. Watsomm,amimh V. Battistich. 2001.Temmchimug and schoolel’fectsonm mumm)rah/prosocial develop—

macmit. 1mm l!amudhookofre.searcbmomm teac/mumug,4th ed., editedby N’. Riehmardsomi, 566—603.\ka.sliimmgtomm, DC:Aumiericami Edmicational Research Association,

rm11)1X’, NI. K., B. A. Gaher—Urmli, amid K. C’.. llaily. 1995. 1~oiug—termsminuiplemnuentation of the teenagehealthtemmchiing rmnmdumles by trmuined teachers: A cisc stumdyJomirmia/ of Sc/uoolheal//i 65:411—15.

Taylom; A. S.,P.. i,cmSciuito, NI. Fox, S.NI. Hubert, and M. Sonkowsky1999.Theummcmmtou’immgfiictor:Eu:a/uafionacm-os.sages’immicrgcuicratiomualappuoacimto drng abumsepreccumtiou.New You-k: Flaxvorth.

T’,venmlow, S. NV,, P. F’onmmmgy, F. Sacco,NI. I,. Gies,H. Evamus,and H. Ewbank. 2001.(‘.reatimiga peacefmulschoollemurnmingciiviroiimuent: A controlled stuidyofan elennental’yschoolintervemitiomi to reduceviolermce.fumier—

icaum Jomsrmma/ ofPsychiatry 158:808—1(1.Urbmumi, Fl. 2003.LmJi.’N greatest/es,somi.s:20 t/limugst/mat oiatfcr. 4thm ed. New You-Ic: Siuiiomm ammud Selmumster.Valentiimc, J - NV., S.Trinible, amid ‘F. Whitaker.1997.The middle levelprinmcipalshup. In ‘mV/mat cmirm-emm/ re.seareii

.sa,/.sto f/meuiodd/m’iem;elpracfitiommem;i.’ditedbs’J. P.. Irviui,337—47. (‘.olmmmmmbus, OH: Ncmtiommal Middle SclimmmmlAssmiciatioui.

Weisslmei-g, B. P., II. A. Bartoim, mmmd ‘P. P. Shmi-iver. 1997. Thu., Socimd—ConmpetencePrommiotioim Progu-mumim forYmmmmmmg Adolesceumts.1mm Pu—iumuanj prem.’eumfiomuux)rk.s: TheLelaRoueiauudfmmxmrd.s,editeuih by C. NV. Ahhmem, mumd‘1’. P. dSmllotta, 268—90.Newbnumy l’ark, (‘.A: Sage.

NVeotzel, K. 11. 2002.Are effective teacluerslike goodpareults?‘I’eam’luimmg stylesaumml stmmdemit adjumstmumemit mmearly mclolescemuce.C/i/id I)eceiopumiemif73:287—3(11

\\‘ymumie, F’.. A., amid K. Ryami. 1993. Ileclaimmmimmg omir.seimool.s:A iiammdhookomm /eaciiimmge/iarac/cr. aeademmmie.s, amid

di.scipiumme.New Yom’k: Merrill.

Iwo chmalhc:~ngesfor researc’hiem-s of sclmool—basedaction

to identify effectiveapproaches to preverut probiemumbehavmm’sandpromotepositive yommth development andto support the w’idespreadimnuplemnemitation aridsuistainability of evidence—basedpreschoolthrou.mghhighschoolpm’actiee In thisarticle,theauthorsdescribemute—gratedsocial, emotional, and acadlemieeducation as ausefulframeworkfor comuceptuahizingschool—basedpos-itive youth clevehopniemut pi-Og liming. ‘We then m’eviewfindlings fronu selected exemmuplauy studies andresearch

\~\7li.at\~\7orksjp~ synthesesto support thisperspective.We comuchnudewithgtmidehmnes br implementing imutegrmmted social,

Sclix~l—I1I3aseI emotional, amid academicleam-numig progi-aumis.

1 1 Kc,jword,s: social and emotional learning; school; c’imiI—

Sociai anci. siren; prevention

EmotionalL ducatorsand pai’eiits want children toeaining attend safe, supportive Schools that use

-p f soundmethodisto enhancestudents’academic,rograms or social,emotional,andethicalgrowth (Learning

~it~ Te Y~th First Alliance 2001). In addition to producmgJ~kJ~) .~v studentswho are intellectually reflective and1 f committedto lifelong learning,theywant qual—

~ eveopmenL ity educationthat resultsin students Whdi relate

in socially skilled, respectfrd,and constructiveways with other young people and adlults;engagein positiveandsalehealthpractices;con-tribute ethically and responsiblyto their peer

ByROGERP. WEISSBERG

Rugem-P Wezssbergis apr(?fessorofpsychologuj aridedo—ann ca/tortat the UuuivcrsityofIliiruof,c at C/i/cago (UIC) and

MARY UTNE O’BRIEN aLso executivedirector of the Collaborative for Aca-a’emic, Social, and Euiuotional Learning (CASEL). liedirects a Natiouual Institute of Mental Iicalth__fundedPreventjon Reseau-chTu-aiuting Program in Urban Gb/i—dren’.sMental HealthandAlDSPreventionat UIC. Rep—

rescuutat/ye books include Enhammci mig C’.hi Idren‘sWeliness (19,97), Establishimig Preventive Services(1997,), l’roniotcng Social and Emotiommai Learning:Guidelimmesfor Educators(1997~,Long—term TrendsintheWell-BeingofChilclrenandAdolescents(2003),and

Safemmn~lSoummicl: Aim EducationalLeader’sGuideto Evi—dence—BasedSocial andFmotionmsl I ~earnimig I’rograuuis(2003). He has receivedflue NV/hoot V. Grauut Fommnda—tiomu‘.s fice—~jeai’Facmilt,j ScholarsAward imu Children N

MenutaiHcult/u,tlueNationalMeuutaiHealth Association’.’,

1)01: Ii). 1177/0002716203261(093

86 ANNALS, AAPSS, 591, January2004