forceful call to action:

We must make an explicit commit-ment to formal character education.We must integrate character educa-tion into the fabric of the curricu-lum and into extracurricular activi-ties. We must train teachers in char-acter education — both preserviceand inservice. And we must con-sciously set about creating a moralclimate within our schools.2

Despite the clear national inter-est in character education, manyschools are leery of engaging in sup-plementary initiatives that, al-though worthy, might detract fromwhat they see as their primary fo-cus: increasing academic achieve-ment. Moreover, many schools lackthe resources to create new curricu-lar initiatives. Yet the enhancementof student character is a bipartisanmandate that derives from the very

Character andAcademics: What Good Schools DoThough there has been increasing interest in character educationamong policy makers and education professionals, many schoolshesitate to do anything that might detract from their focus onincreasing academic performance. The authors present evidenceindicating that this may be misguided.

BY JACQUES S. BENNINGA, MARVIN W. BERKOWITZ, PHYLLIS KUEHN,AND KAREN SMITH

JACQUES S. BENNINGA is a professor of education and director of the Bonner Centerfor Character Education, California State University, Fresno. MARVIN W. BERKOWITZis Sanford N. McDonnell Professor of Character Education, University of Missouri, St.Louis. PHYLLIS KUEHN is a professor of educational research, California State Univer-sity, Fresno. KAREN SMITH is principal of Mark Twain Elementary School, Brentwood,Mo. The research described in this article was funded by a grant from the John Temple-ton Foundation, but the opinions expressed are those of the authors.

448 PHI DELTA KAPPAN

site, then Secretary of Education RodPaige outlined the need for such pro-grams:

Sadly, we live in a culture withoutrole models, where millions of stu-dents are taught the wrong values —or no values at all. This culture ofcallousness has led to a staggeringachievement gap, poor health status,overweight students, crime, vio-lence, teenage pregnancy, and tobac-co and alcohol abuse. . . . Good char-acter is the product of good judg-ments made every day.1

And Bob Chase, the former pres-ident of the NEA, issued his own

THE growth of char-acter education pro-grams in the UnitedStates has coincidedwith the rise in high-stakes testing of stu-dent achievement. TheNo Child Left Behind

Act asks schools to contribute notonly to students’ academic perform-ance but also to their character. Boththe federal government and the Na-tional Education Association (NEA)agree that schools have this dual re-sponsibility. In a statement intro-ducing a new U.S. Department ofEducation character education web-

There is some research evidencethat character education programsenhance academic achievement. Forexample, an evaluation of the Peace-ful Schools Project and research onthe Responsive Classroom found thatstudents in schools that implement-ed these programs had greater gainson standardized test scores than didstudents in comparison schools.4 TheChild Development Project (CDP)conducted follow-up studies of mid-dle school students (through eighthgrade) who had attended CDP ele-mentary schools and found that theyhad higher course grades and higherachievement test scores than compar-ison middle school students.5 Lon-gitudinal studies have reported sim-ilar effects for middle school andhigh school students who had par-ticipated as elementary school stu-dents in the Seattle Social Develop-ment Project.6

A growing body of research sup-ports the notion that high-qualitycharacter education can promote ac-ademic achievement. For example,Marvin Berkowitz and Melinda Bierhave identified character educationprograms for elementary, middle, andhigh school students that enhanceacademic achievement.7 These find-ings, however, are based on prepack-aged curricular programs, and mostschools do not rely on such programs.Instead, they create their own cus-tomized character education initia-tives. It remains to be seen whethersuch initiatives also lead to academ-ic gains.

TOWARD AN OPERATIONALDEFINITION OF CHARACTEREDUCATION

We decided to see if we could de-termine a relationship between char-acter education and academic achieve-ment across a range of elementary

schools. For our sample we used theelementary schools that applied in2000 to the California Departmentof Education for recognition as dis-tinguished elementary schools, Cal-ifornia’s highest level of school at-tainment. Eligibility to submit an ap-plication for the California SchoolRecognition Program (CSRP) in 2000was based on the previous year’s ac-ademic performance index (API) re-sults.

However, 1999 was the first yearfor California’s Public School Ac-countability Act (PSAA), which cre-ated the API. Thus, while the statedepartment stated that growth onthe API was the central focus of thePSAA, schools applying for the CSRPin 1999-2000 did not receive their1999 API scores until January 2000,after they had already written and sub-mitted their award applications. Ap-proximately 12.7% of California ele-mentary schools (681 of 5,368 schools)submitted a full application for theaward in 2000. The average API ofthese schools was higher than the av-erage for the schools that did not ap-ply, but both were below the stateexpectancy score of 800. The meanAPI for applicant schools was 751;for non-applicant schools, 612. TheAPI range for applicant schools was365-957; for non-applicant schools,302-958. Hence the sample for thisstudy is not representative of all Cal-ifornia elementary schools. It is a sam-ple of more academically successfulschools, but it does represent a broadrange of achievement from quite lowto very high.

Specific wording related to char-acter education was included for thefirst time in the CSRP applicationin 2000. Schools were asked to de-scribe what they were doing to meeta set of nine standards. Of these, theone that most clearly pertained tocharacter education was Standard 1

core of public education. The pur-pose of public schooling requiresthat schools seek to improve bothacademic and character education.

If it could be demonstrated thatimplementing character educationprograms is compatible with effortsto improve school achievement, thenperhaps more schools would acceptthe challenge of doing both. But un-til now there has been little solid evi-dence of such successful coexistence.

DEFINITIONS ANDRESEARCH

Character education is the respon-sibility of adults. While the term char-acter education has historically referredto the duty of the older generationto form the character of the youngthrough experiences affecting theirattitudes, knowledge, and behaviors,more recent definitions include suchdevelopmental outcomes as a posi-tive perception of school, emotionalliteracy, and social justice activism.3

There are sweeping definitions ofcharacter education (e.g., CharacterCounts’ six pillars, Community ofCaring’s five values, or the CharacterEducation Partnership’s 11 principles)and more narrow ones. Character ed-ucation can be defined in terms of re-lationship virtues (e.g., respect, fair-ness, civility, tolerance), self-orient-ed virtues (e.g., fortitude, self-disci-pline, effort, perseverance) or a com-bination of the two. The state of Cal-ifornia has incorporated character ed-ucation criteria into the applicationprocess for its statewide distinguishedschool recognition program and, inthe process, has created its own defi-nition of character education. Eachdefinition directs the practice of char-acter education somewhat different-ly, so that programs calling themselves“character education” vary in purposeand scope.

FEBRUARY 2006 449

(Vision and Standards). For this stan-dard, schools were required to include“specific examples and other evidence”of “expectations that promote posi-tive character traits in students.”8 Oth-er standards could also be seen as re-lated to character education. For these,schools were asked to document ac-tivities and programs that ensured op-portunities for students to contributeto the school, to others, and to thecommunity.

We chose for our study a strati-fied random sample of 120 elemen-tary schools that submitted applica-tions. These 120 schools were notsignificantly different from the oth-er 561 applicant schools on a vari-ety of academic and demographic in-dicators. For the schools in our sam-ple, we correlated the extent of theircharacter education implementationwith their API and SAT-9 scores —the academic scale and test used byCalifornia at that time.9

The first problem we needed tograpple with was how to define a char-acter education program. We spentconsiderable time discussing an op-erational definition to use for thisproject. After conferring with experts,we chose our final set of charactereducation criteria, drawn from boththe standards used by the CaliforniaDepartment of Education and theCharacter Education Quality Standardsdeveloped by the Character EducationPartnership.10 Six criteria emergedfrom this process:

• This school promotes core eth-ical values as the basis of good char-acter.

• In this school, parents and othercommunity members are active par-ticipants in the character educationinitiative.

• In this school, character educa-tion entails intentional promotion ofcore values in all phases of school life.

• Staff members share responsibil-

ity for and attempt to model char-acter education.

• This school fosters an overall car-ing community.

• This school provides opportu-nities for most students to practicemoral action.

Each of the six criteria addressesone important component of char-acter education. We created a rubricencompassing these six criteria andlisting indicators for each, along witha scoring scale.

CHARACTER EDUCATION ANDACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT

Our study of these high-perform-ing California schools added furtherevidence of a relationship betweenacademic achievement and the im-plementation of specific character ed-ucation programs. In our sample, el-ementary schools with solid charac-ter education programs showed pos-itive relationships between the extentof character education implementa-tion and academic achievement notonly in a single year but also acrossthe next two academic years. Overa multi-year period from 1999 to2002, higher rankings on the APIand higher scores on the SAT-9 weresignificantly and positively correlat-ed with four of our character educa-tion indicators: a school’s ability toensure a clean and safe physical en-vironment; evidence that a school’sparents and teachers modeled andpromoted good character; high-qual-ity opportunities at the school for stu-dents to contribute in meaningfulways to the school and its commu-nity; and promoting a caring com-munity and positive social relation-ships.

These are promising results, par-ticularly because the total charactereducation score for the year of theschool’s application was significant-

ly correlated with every languageand mathematics achievement scoreon the SAT-9 for a period of threeyears. In two of those years, the samewas true for reading achievementscores. In other words, good-quali-ty character education was positive-ly associated with academic achieve-ment, both across academic domainsand over time.

WHAT GOOD SCHOOLS DO

From our research we derived prin-ciples — the four indicators men-tioned above — that are commonacross schools with both thoughtfulcharacter education programs andhigh levels of academic achievement.

• Good schools ensure a clean andsecure physical environment. Althoughall schools in our sample fit this de-scription, the higher-scoring charac-ter education schools expressed greatpride in keeping their buildings andgrounds in good shape. This is con-sistent with what is reported aboutthe virtues of clean and safe learningenvironments. For example, the Cen-ter for Prevention of School Violencenotes that “the physical appearanceof a school and its campus commu-nicates a lot about the school and itspeople. Paying attention to appear-ance so that the facilities are invit-ing can create a sense of security.”11

One school in our sample report-ed that its buildings “are maintainedwell above district standards. . . . Thecustodial crew prides themselves inachieving a monthly cleaning scorethat has exceeded standards in 9 outof 12 months.” And another noted,“A daily grounds check is performedto ensure continual safety and clean-liness.” Each of the higher-scoringschools in our sample explicitly not-ed its success in keeping its campusin top shape and mentioned that par-ents were satisfied that their children

450 PHI DELTA KAPPAN

were attending school in a physical-ly and psychologically safe environ-ment.

All schools in California are re-quired to have on file a written SafeSchool Plan, but the emphases in theseplans vary. While some schools lim-ited their safety plans to regulationscontrolling access to the building anddefined procedures for violations andintrusions, the schools with bettercharacter education programs defined“safety” more broadly and deeply. Forexample, one school scoring high onour character education rubric ex-plained that the mission of its SafeSchool Plan was “to provide all stu-dents with educational and personalopportunities in a positive and nur-turing environment which will en-able them to achieve current and fu-ture goals, and for all students to beaccepted at their own social, emo-tional, and academic level of develop-ment.” Another high-scoring schooladdressed three concerns in its SafeSchool Plan: identification of visitorson campus, cultural/ethnic harmony,and safe ingress and egress from school.To support these areas of focus, thisschool’s teachers were all trained toconduct classroom meetings, to im-plement the Community of Caringcore values, and to handle issues re-lated to cultural diversity and com-munication.

• Good schools promote and modelfairness, equity, caring, and respect. Inschools with good character educa-tion programs and high academicachievement, adults model and pro-mote the values and attitudes theywish the students to embrace, and theyinfuse character education through-out the school and across the curric-ulum. Rick Weissbourd drove homethis point in a recent essay: “Themoral development of students doesnot depend primarily on explicit char-acter education efforts but on the

maturity and ethical capacities of theadults with whom they interact. . . .Educators influence students’ moraldevelopment not simply by beinggood role models — important asthat is — but also by what they bringto their relationships with studentsday to day.”12 The staff of excellentcharacter education schools in oursample tended to see themselves asinvolved, concerned professional ed-ucators, and others see them that wayas well.

Thus one school described its teach-ers as “pivotal in the [curriculum] de-velopment process; there is a highlevel of [teacher] ownership in thecurriculum. . . . Fifty percent of ourstaff currently serves on district cur-riculum committees.” Another schoolstated that it “fosters the belief thatit takes an entire community pullingtogether to provide the best educa-tion for every child; that is best ac-complished through communication,trust, and collaboration on ideas thatreflect the needs of our school andthe community. . . . Teachers are con-tinually empowered and given oppor-tunities to voice their convictions andshape the outcome of what the schoolrepresents.” A third school describedits teachers as “continually encour-aged” to grow professionally and touse best practices based on research.In the best character education schools,teachers are recognized by their peers,by district personnel, and by profes-sional organizations for their instruc-tional prowess and their profession-alism. They model the academic andprosocial characteristics that showtheir deep concern for the well-be-ing of children.

• In good schools students contributein meaningful ways. We found thatacademically excellent character ed-ucation schools provided opportuni-ties for students to contribute to theirschool and their community. These

schools encouraged students to par-ticipate in volunteer activities, suchas cross-age tutoring, recycling, fund-raising for charities, community clean-up programs, food drives, visitationsto local senior centers, and so on.

One elementary school required20 hours of community service, a pro-gram coordinated entirely by parentvolunteers. Students in that schoolvolunteered in community gardensand at convalescent hospitals, andthey took part in community clean-up days. Such activities, while not di-rectly connected to students’ academ-ic programs, were viewed as mecha-nisms to promote the developmentof healthy moral character. Accord-ing to William Damon, a crucial com-ponent of moral education is engag-ing children in positive activities —community service, sports, music,theater, or anything else that inspiresthem and gives them a sense of pur-pose.13

• Good schools promote a caring com-munity and positive social relationships.One school in our sample that ex-emplified this principle was a schoolof choice in its community. The dis-trict had opened enrollment to stu-dents outside district boundaries, andthis school not only provided an ex-cellent academic program for its mul-tilingual student population but al-so worked hard to include parentsand community members in signifi-cant ways. Its Family Math Night at-tracted 250 family members, and itsFamily Literacy Night educated par-ents about read-aloud methods. Par-ents, grandparents, and friends wererecruited to become classroom vol-unteers and donated thousands ofhours.

This particular school also rentedits classrooms to an after-school Chi-nese educational program. The twosets of teachers have become profes-sional colleagues, and insights from

FEBRUARY 2006 451

such cultural interaction have led bothgroups to a better understanding ofthe Chinese and American systemsof education. One result has been thatmore English-speaking students areenrolling in the Chinese after-schoolprogram. And teachers in both pro-grams now engage in dialogue aboutthe specific needs of children. Oneparent wrote a letter to the principalthat said in part, “It seems you areanxious to build up our young gen-eration more healthy and success-ful. . . . I am so proud you are notonly our children’s principal, but al-so parents’ principal.”

Other schools with strong socialrelationship programs provide mean-ingful opportunities for parent in-volvement and establish significantpartnerships with local businesses.They encourage parents and teachersto work alongside students in serv-ice projects, to incorporate diversecommunities into the school curric-ulum, and to partner with high schoolstudents who serve as physical edu-cation and academic mentors. As onesuch school put it, all stakeholders“must play an important and activerole in the education of the child toensure the future success of thatchild.”

CONCLUSION

It is clear that well-conceived pro-grams of character education can andshould exist side by side with strongacademic programs. It is no surprisethat students need physically secureand psychologically safe schools, staffedby teachers who model professional-ism and caring behaviors and who askstudents to demonstrate caring forothers. That students who attend suchschools achieve academically makesintuitive sense as well. It is in schoolswith this dual emphasis that adultsunderstand their role in preparing stu-

dents for future citizenship in a dem-ocratic and diverse society. The be-haviors and attitudes they model com-municate important messages to theyoung people in their charge.

Future research on the relationshipbetween character education and aca-demic achievement should include agreater representation of schools in theaverage and below-average achieve-ment categories. In particular, a studyof the extent of the implementationof character education in schools thatmay have test scores at the low endof the spectrum — but are neverthe-less performing higher than their so-cioeconomic characteristics would pre-dict — would be an important con-tribution to our understanding of therelationship between character edu-cation and academic achievement.

While this was our initial attemptto explore the relationship betweenthese two important school purposes,we learned a good deal about whatmakes up a good character educationcurriculum in academically strongschools. We know that such a cur-riculum in such schools is positivelyrelated to academic outcomes overtime and across content areas. Wealso know that, to be effective, char-acter education requires adults to actlike adults in an environment wherechildren are respected and feel phys-ically and psychologically safe to en-gage in the academic and social ac-tivities that prepare them best for lateradult decision making.

At a time when resources are scarce,we see schools cutting programs andnarrowing curricula to concentrateon skills measured by standardizedtests. Our research suggests that schoolgoals and activities that are associat-ed with good character education pro-grams are also associated with aca-demic achievement. Thus our resultsargue for maintaining a rich curricu-lum with support for all aspects of

student development and growth.

1. U.S. Department of Education, “ED LaunchesCharacter Education Web Site,” www.thechallenge.org/15-v12no4/v12n4-communitiesandschools.htm.2. Bob Chase, quoted in “Is Character Educationthe Answer?,” Education World, 1999, www.education-world.com/a_admin/admin097.shtml.3. Marvin W. Berkowitz, “The Science of Char-acter Education,” in William Damon, ed., Bring-ing in a New Era in Character Education (Stan-ford, Calif.: Hoover Institution Press, 2002), pp.43-63.4. Stuart W. Twemlow et al., “Creating a Peace-ful School Learning Environment: A ControlledStudy of an Elementary School Intervention toReduce Violence,” American Journal of Psychiatry,vol. 158, 2001, pp. 808-10; and Stephen N. Elli-ott, “Does a Classroom Promoting Social SkillsDevelopment Enable Higher Academic Function-ing Among Its Students Over Time?,” NortheastFoundation for Children, Greenfield, Mass., 1998.5. Victor Battistich and Sehee Hong, “EnduringEffects of the Child Development Project: Sec-ond-Order Latent Linear Growth Modeling ofStudents’ ‘Connectedness’ to School, AcademicPerformance, and Social Adjustment During Mid-dle School,” unpublished manuscript, Develop-mental Studies Center, Oakland, Calif., 2003.6. J. David Hawkins et al., “Long-Term Effectsof the Seattle Social Development Interventionon School Bonding Trajectories,” Applied De-velopmental Science, vol. 5, 2001, pp. 225-36.7. Marvin W. Berkowitz and Melinda C. Bier,What Works in Character Education? (Washington,D.C.: Character Education Partnership, 2005).8. “California School Recognition Program, 2000Elementary Schools Program, Elementary SchoolRubric,” California Department of Education,2001. (Data are available from Jacques Benninga.)9. For more detail on the design of the study,see Jacques S. Benninga, Marvin W. Berkowitz,Phyllis Kuehn, and Karen Smith, “The Relation-ship of Character Education Implementation andAcademic Achievement in Elementary Schools,”Journal of Research in Character Education, vol.1, 2003, pp. 17-30.10. Character Education Quality Standards: A Self-Assessment Tool for Schools and Districts (Wash-ington, D.C.: Character Education Partnership,2001).11. “What Is Character Education?,” Center forthe Fourth and Fifth Rs, 2003, www.cortland.edu/c4n5rs/ce_iv.asp.12. Rick Weissbourd, “Moral Teachers, MoralStudents,” Educational Leadership, March 2003,pp. 6-7.13. Damon is quoted in Susan Gilbert, “Scien-tists Explore the Molding of Children’s Morals,”New York Times, 18 March 2003. K

452 PHI DELTA KAPPAN

Copyright NoticePhi Delta Kappa International, Inc., holds copyright to this article, whichmay be reproduced or otherwise used only in accordance with U.S. lawgoverning fair use. MULTIPLE copies, in print and electronic formats, maynot be made or distributed without express permission from Phi DeltaKappa International, Inc. All rights reserved.

Note that photographs, artwork, advertising, and other elements to whichPhi Delta Kappa does not hold copyright may have been removed fromthese pages.

Please fax permission requests to the attention of KAPPAN PermissionsEditor at 812/339-0018 or e-mail permission requests tokappan@pdkintl.org.

k0602ben.pdfJacques S. Benninga, Marvin W. Berkowitz, Phyllis Kuehn, and KarenSmith, Character and Academics: What Good Schools Do, Phi DeltaKappan, Vol. 87, No. 06, February 2006, pp. 448-452.

File Name and Bibliographic Information