Character Education’s Effect on

DisciplineAbigayl Flores

University of Saint Thomas

Spring 2014

Dr. Garcia

Background

•SKY Partnership

•KIPP Character Education Program

•Graduation rates

•KIPP- 95%

•Public Schools- 66.2%

Ch. 1: Introduction

How will implementing a Character Education Program affect discipline issues in a low socio-economic public middle school

according to teacher perceptions?

• Population

• 59.9% At-Risk Students

• 56 Teachers

• No prior character education

• Hypothesis

• Decrease in discipline incidents

Ch. 2: Literature Review Ideal Character Education Models

•Marvin W. Berkowitz and Melinda C. Bier

•Buy-in from the entire faculty

•Students bonding with the school

•caring, respectful, fair, and supportive teachers lead to students demonstrating self-efficacy, self-control, and academic achievement

•Principal should be model of program

•Prevention programming, staff development, parental involvement, and student reflection

Long-Term Character

• Effects through a two year span • 30 in sixth grade and 30 in eighth grade

interviewed on longevity through middle school

• Character traits: honesty, respect, good- health, self-regulatory, conciliatory, responsibility, patience, fairness, affection, self-confidence, benevolence, and courage

• 2 questions per trait • Mostly Correct: Good health,

benevolence, responsibility, and courage • Limitations

• Only 2 questions• History threat • Lack of parental involvement

• Strengths• Set goal

• Implementation includes professional development, coaching, training, and parent involvement

• Random Selection of 64 elementary and secondary schools

• CHARACTERplus Way Schools

• 42% satisfaction and increased to 68% satisfaction

• Schools without program

• 41% satisfaction and increased to 43% satisfaction

• Academic Achievement

• CHARACTERplus school

• 42% at proficient or advanced

• Control school

• 36% at proficient or advanced

• Discipline• CHARACTERplus Way school

• 41% decrease in referrals • fighting, sexist comments, racial

comments, abuse to others, inappropriate sexual contact, vandalism, and stealing

• Control school • 22% increase in referrals

• Bullying • 21% decrease at the middle school

campuses • 28% decrease at the high school

campuses• Strengths

• Large sample size• Reliability of instrument: .88 reliability

• Limitations• Lack of school and district statistics

CHARACTERplus Way

Ch. 3: MethodParticipants

• 750 students• Ethnicity

• Hispanic- 93.5% • White- 3.1% • African American- 2.9% • Asian- 0.3%• Two or more races- 0.3%

• 93.7% economically disadvantaged • 56 teachers

• White- 56.5%• Hispanic- 28.3% • African American-15.2%

• 69.6% female / 30.4% male

Measures• Survey using Likert Scale• Campus Report Card

Design

• Independent variable- implementation of the character education program

• Outcome variable- teacher opinions on discipline and culture

• Threats to Validity

• History threat-changes in student population from the previous year to this current school year

• Maturation threat

• Negative interaction between the teachers biased opinion of the character program and the survey

Procedure• Character strengths: Zest, Grit, Self-

Control with Self, Social Intelligence, Optimism, Curiosity, Self-Control with Others, and Gratitude

• First week of school

• Incorporation of character in daily lessons

• Friday Character Lessons

• “Ganas” Cards

• Shout-Outs

• Campus Report Cards

• At the end of every nine weeks, which occurs in October 2013, December 2013, and March 2014

• Survey

• Anonymous

• March 2014

Data Analysis Plan • Campus Report Cards

• Bar graphs

• Provided by the administration

• Kept in a locked filing cabinet

• Surveys

• Teachers received the surveys in their mailbox and were returned to mine when finished

• Mailbox was checked every morning, noon, and afternoon

• Data charted on an excel spreadsheet to compare quantitative data

• All documentation kept confidential

• Kept in a locked filing cabinet for one year

Ch. 4: ResultsQuestion M SD

1- The campus discipline is fair and not an issue.

2.41 1.37

2- Discipline issues on campus have decreased compared to last year.

2.48 1.26

3- Discipline Issues in my classroom have decreased compared to last year.

2.86 1.24

4- The Character Education Program implemented this year has made a positive change in my students.

2.73 1.28

5- The character strengths discussed every week are well received and implemented by the students.

2.54 1.30

6- My classroom is much better managed this year compared to last year.

3.14 0.79

7- A significant amount of class time is spent re-directing students.

2.96 1.30

8. I frequently find myself sending students outside or to the office.

2.95 1.32

9- Bullying is not an issue on our campus.

2.24 1.05

10- Students are respectful to each other and teachers.

2.68 1.25

• Likert Scale as follows: 1-Definitely Disagree, 2-Mostly Disagree, 3- Neither Agree nor Disagree, 4-Mostly Agree, 5-Definitley Agree

• Overall agreement M was 2.61, mostly disagree

• Lowest agreement, Question 9

• “Bullying is not an issue on our campus”

• Agreement M 2.24, Mostly Disagree

• Highest agreement, Question 6

• “my classroom is much better managed this year compared to last year”

• Agreement M 3.14, Neither Agree nor Disagree

• Lowest SD, 0.79

• Questions 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, and 8

• Minimum and maximum were one and five

• 3 categories: campus discipline, classroom discipline, and character program.

• Lowest agreement: 2.38, overall campus discipline

• Highest agreement: 2.98, classroom discipline.

• DAEP:

• 2012-13: 23 students

• 2013-14: 6 students

• 73.90% decrease

• OSS:

• 2012-13: 102 students

• 2013-14: 57 students

• 44.12% decrease

• ISS:

• 2012-13: 337 students

• 2013-14: 215 students

• 36.2% decrease

ISS OSS DAEP0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

School Year Discipline Comparison

2012-13 Without Character Program

2013- With Character Program

Type of Discipline

Num

ber

of I

ncid

ents

Ch. 5: Discussion

• Marvin W. Berkowitz and Melinda C. Bier• Buy-in

• Survey indicates lack of buy-in• Student emotional attachment to the

school, teachers, and leaders • Retirement of the principal during

the Christmas break• Parental involvement

• Lack of parental component in program

• Smagorinsky, Boggs, Jakubiak, & Wilson

• New teachers need professional development

• New teachers in study, 8, received no extra PD

• Lickona and Edwards • To understand the moral value of the

rules, students must take ownership by helping create the rules (Lickona, 1997)

• Needs are reflected by allowing students to give input in the creation of rules (Edwards, 2000)

• No student input in study • Taiwan Culture Project

• Constant evaluation • Monthly meetings, periodic student

surveys, interviews, and observations • No evaluations of the implemented

program throughout the school year

Hypothesis not supported nor rejected

Strengths• Reliability of the campus report cards

• consistent in its evaluations of discipline

• Survey had a strong content validity

• Only surveyed on the topic of discipline

and culture

• The use of two types of data

• Contribution to the campus initiative of

implementing a character program

Recommendations and Action Planning • Provide ongoing professional development opportunities throughout the school year• More resources provided to • Sending out character lessons earlier in the week • Provide copies needed for lessons• Parental Support • Student Involvement

Limitations• Survey reliability

• Created specifically for study

• Internal history threat to validity

• Changes in student

• Internal maturation

• Negative interaction between teachers’ biased

opinions of the program

• Small sample size

• Lack of Gender and years teaching questions on

survey