Character education is understood as an educational reform movement concerned with the moral and ethical development of public school students within the pedagogical context of a formal character education program. Character education is used interchangeably in the current research with moral education and values education. In the Character Education Manifesto, Ryan, Bohlin, and Thayer (1996) maintained that “authentic educational reform in this nation begins with our response to the call for character” (¶ 2). Combining brevity with profundity, Martin Luther King expounded that, “Intelligence plus character – that is the true goal of education” (United States Department of Education [USDE], 2006, Introduction section). Secretary of Education Margaret Spellings echoed this sentiment decades later by noting that education at its best should both expand the mind and build character (USDE). Preceding both King and Spellings by several millennia, Socrates wrote that, “The right way to begin is to pay attention to the young, and make them just as good as possible” (Dorn, 2003, p. XVII).

Huffman (1995) defined character education as “planned and unplanned things that adults do to nurture the development of moral values in youngsters” (¶ 2). More globally, character education constitutes an educational reform movement that addresses the “complex and significant challenge of facilitating positive character in today’s youth” (Cornett & Chant, 2000, Abstract section, ¶1). Brown and Moffett (1999) referenced the alignment of the head and heart in education noting that educators should be “making an enduring commitment to ensuring that the total child (including his or her civic, emotional, physical, and spiritual needs) is at the heart of the school renewal process” (p. 1). State and local support for values-enriched educational experiences comes from a variety of sources with several states mandating prosocial values as prerequisites for graduation (Lasley, 1997). Demonstrating the importance of character education initiatives, Lasley asserted that, “Teachers, administrators, and even parents resonate to the idea of teaching students the core values deemed essential for cultural survival” (p.654).

Character education enjoyed continued world-wide growth in the late 1990s (Lockwood, 1997; Nash, 1997). Forty-seven states and the District of Columbia had received character education funding through the U.S. Department of Education Partnerships in Character Education Pilot Project, and awards of $37 million were made in the late 1990s to support communities organize character education responses to their own most compelling issues (Sherblom, 2003). At the turn of the century, character education efforts received renewed impetus through a mandate in the reform legislation known as the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (USDE, 2001). Addressed at the federal level in a far-sweeping reform measure, character education is now being associated with a highly qualified teaching staff, accountability and testing, annual yearly progress, and constitutionally protected prayer provisions. Through NCLB, the reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, then-President George W. Bush requested an increase of funds for character education grants to states and districts to train teachers in methods of incorporating character-building lessons and activities in the classroom (USDE, 2001).

Principals from across the country possessed a federally funded mandate to incorporate character education as an integral part of schools’ educational program (USDE, 2001). “Character education has been championed by President Bush and Education Secretary Rod Paige. The Education Department has backed character education programs with $25 million in grants this fiscal year” (Latzke, 2003, ¶ 1). One of the six goals of the USDE is to “promote strong character and citizenship among our nation’s youth (Strategic Plan 2002-2007)” (USDE, 2006, ¶ 1). State educational agencies incorporate character education into school improvement plans, state standards, official state policies such as the Quality Character Education component of Michigan’s State Board of Education, and the inclusion of character efforts in school plans for Safe and Drug-Free Schools and Communities (USDE, 2006). State education agencies’ also added to principals’ responsibilities to educate students in the character domain. Character education efforts at the state level combined with the national endeavor as outlined by NCLB to frame the direction schools were to follow to ensure compliance. Governmental directives outlined district requirements for character education programs, and incentives for district compliance as well as consequences for noncompliance.

A character education effort at the state level was exemplified in a brief issued by Florida’s Council for Education Policy Research and Improvement (2001) that connected character education and academic achievement. The brief purported that character education was one way whereby student academic achievement is improved. The Council for Education Policy (2001) also noted that 49 states are currently “defining their education future through the setting of rigorous academic standards, use of high stake assessment and the adoption of accountability outcome measures” (p. 1). The plan for academic achievement, however, must go beyond the triad of standards, assessment and accountability. The Council for Education Policy (2001) called for the necessity of schools to assume the dual responsibilities of student academic achievement and student character improvement without violating church and state boundaries and without infringing upon parents’ rights in raising their children. The Council noted that the educational system must support not only the development of good students but also students who become productive people and contributing citizens.

Smart and Good High Schools, a national study of American high schools, concluded, first, that a national consensus exist in America regarding the need for character which they define as doing our best work, doing the right thing, and living a life of purpose (Lickona & Davidson, 2005). Secondly, the report surmised that Smart and Good HighSchools educate for character that includes both performance character and moral character. According to Lickona and Davidson (2005), the report’s significance is evidenced at various levels including the distinction between performance character and moral character, its focus on the utilization of all aspects of school life for both performance and moral character, and the creation of a school’s ethical learning community.

The ethical learning community, intended to develop collective responsibility for excellence and ethics, incorporates students, parents, the wider community, faculty, and staff. These constituents are to support and challenge each other in the dual areas of performance and character development, that is, the encouragement for everyone to do their best work and be their best ethical self. Subsumed under the faculty and staff component of the ethical learning community is the professional ethical learning community where faculty, staff, and administrators focus on continuous self-development and ongoing improvement of those practices needed to develop both performance and moral character (Lickona & Davidson, 2005).

Fullan (2001) noted that moral purpose is on the ascent in both schools and businesses, and indicated that the “best teachers integrate the intellectual, emotional, and spiritual aspects of teaching to create powerful learning communities” (p. 27). Lickona (1993) claimed that character education was making a comeback in American schools with a growing consensus that “schools cannot be ethical bystanders” (p. 6). For Houston (1998), promoting both civility and goodness constitutes the essential work of public school leaders.

From a historical perspective, character education is as old as education itself, and comprises one of the two great goals of schools: helping people become smart and helping them become good (Lickona, 1993). Lickona observed that the early 1990s birthed the “beginnings of a new character education movement, one which restores ‘good character’ to its historical place as the central desirable outcome of the school’s moral enterprise” (p. 7). For Covey (1990) the purpose of character education is “to achieve a better balance between the development of character and intellect” (p. 92). Covey expounded on the danger of instilling knowledge without character noting that it does not make good instructional sense to focus on purely intellectual development without also focusing on a student’s internal character development. Covey warned: “As dangerous as a little knowledge is, even more dangerous is much knowledge without a strong principled character…Yet all too often in the academic world, that’s exactly what we do by not focusing on the character development of young people” (p. 89).

The dawn of the new century saw character educators enjoying a renaissance of literature which advocated for the school’s mission to promote and conduct character education programs. Proponents of school character efforts found new programs in the first decade of the new millennium to continue the momentum built in the eighties and nineties. The focus on character education in public schools is not inconsequential. Glanzer (1997) explained that, “By giving attention to character education, public educators communicate both that there are timeless and transcendent moral values and that they desire good children as well as intelligent children” (p. 9). According to Huffman (1993), values education is an inherent part of the teaching process. For example, teachers imply values to their students by the classroom rules that are established, literature topics discussed, and how teachers relate to students.

Berkowitz and Bier (2005) noted that, “For a society to endure, it must socialize each generation of youth to embody the virtues and characteristics that are essential to that society’s survival and prosperity” (p. 64). As to the school’s role, Berkowitz and Bier (2005) wrote that, “Schools, as social institutions, have long understood their sacred trust to help form each future generation of citizens” (p. 64). Noddings (2005) asserted that, “Children are moral beings; therefore, we must provide character education programs” (p. 12). Bennett (1991) exhorted schools to teach character, “If we want our children to possess the traits of character we most admire, we need to teach them what those traits are” (p. 133). Etzioni (2002) noted three principles of character education the first of which is that, “Values education is a crucial part of public education that should be fostered in schools” (p. 114). Strengthening this view, Etzioni (2002) noted that, “schools should make the development of good character one of their primary responsibilities” (p. 114). Etzioni’s (2002) second principle is that, “Character-building is at the root of upholding values” (p. 114). The final principle is that, “Character education should imbue students with the full range of school experiences – the human curriculum as well as the academic curriculum” (p. 115).

The concern over America’s moral condition is prompting a reevaluation of the school’s role in teaching values (Lickona, 1993). The growing interest in character education had three causes: (a) the decline of the family; (b) troubling trends in youth character; and (c) recovery of shared, objectively important ethical values (Lickona, 1993). Schools are forced to deal with many problems other that curricular and programmatic ones. Monthly statistics dealing with attacks, shakedowns, robberies, attempted suicides, and gun-related crimes reflect a growing need for school-wide character education interventions. The need for character is readily visible in all areas that character education addresses. Daily school management maladies such as tardies, disrespect, insubordination, and violence lead to the larger issues of the loss of instructional time, attrition of personnel, costs of increased security staff and surveillance, and the emotional and educational well-being of students. Losses even extended to human lives in the nineties decade. Matera (2001) reported that:

Most baby boomers who grew up in the 1950s, ‘60s, ‘70s and ‘80s cannot recall reading about, much less experiencing a single shooting incident at an American secondary educational facility…In contrast, consider that the National School Safety Center recorded 236 homicides and suicides on school campuses or school buses between 1992 and 1998 (p. 5).

Understandably, “Most Americans will tell you that character education is a good idea. According to pollsters, 90% of us want schools to teach core moral values” (Matera, 2001, p. 191). Huffman (1993) noted that values education is an intrinsic component of the teaching process for teachers “can’t establish classroom rules, relate to kids, or discuss a piece of literature without communicating values” (p. 24). Teachers convey values by how they treat students and by what they allow in their classrooms. This conveyance of values is especially important because of the connection between moral values and bad behavior. Kilpatrick (1992) cautioned that, “In addition to the fact that Johnny still can’t read, we are now faced with the more serious problem that he can’t tell right from wrong” (p. 14). Thus, Wynne (1986) recommended and called for the “deliberate transmission of moral values to students” (p. 4).

Berkowitz (1999) understood this growing interest to be a character education renaissance because local communities and grass roots parents’ coalitions are imploring schools and civic leaders to support the development of character in our youth. Damon (1998), Lickona (1993), and Wynne and Ryan (1993) all saw character education as a moral mandate to fight the deteriorating state of youth in our society. Educational associations at the national level also endorsed character education in schools. The National Association of Secondary School Principals (1996) noted that schools must boldly and unapologetically teach students about such key virtues such as honesty, dependability, trust, responsibility, tolerance, respect, and other commonly-held values important to Americans.

In the tradition of Dewey, education “defined the business of the educator as being the task of insuring that the ideas acquired by children and youth are so acquired that they become moving ideas, motive forces in the guidance of behavior” (Forisha & Forisha, 1976, p. 12). Ryan (1993) noted that, “While the development of a child’s character is clearly not the sole responsibility of the school, historically and legally schools have been major players in this arena” (p. 16).

Schools by nature nurture moral development because, according to Huffman (1995), “curriculum, teaching methodologies, student-teacher relations, extracurricular activities…are all value-laden” (¶ 5). Value-free schools are therefore impossible.

Important steps taken by schools to educate for character include a focus on disciplinary codes that convey values, classroom rules and curricula where teachers reinforce values, and extracurricular activities in which coaches and sponsors address values through established rules for participants (Huffman, 1995).

“Character education is not a quick-fix program; it is a part of school life” (Anderson, 2000, p. 139). Concerning the persons who are responsible for reinforcing the common core character traits, Anderson (2000) understood the classroom to be the strategic place where positive character traits could be reinforced, modeled, and practiced. Thus, teachers are “central to character education” (Anderson, 2000, p. 139). Effective pedagogies require lessons to have character education embedded within instructional processes. According to Anderson (2000), the school-wide implication is that, “character education cannot be taught as a separate curriculum, but must be entwined in all curriculums” (p.140). Rivers (2004) explained that the intended audience for his discussion on character education essentials was “those who are considering character education as a meaningful part of their pedagogical objectives” (p. 247).

Doyle (1997) noted that a value-free school does not exists, and that, “The issue is not whether or not a school will have values, but what those values will be. Like or not, schools shape character (¶ 14). This shaping entails a dual focus of thinking critically and behaving virtuously. For Doyle (1997), practice brings improvement in both realms, however: the most important form of practice is the exercise of being a good person. It includes such simple things as being accurate, honorable, and punctual; respecting teachers, classmates, and self: such behavior builds on the inner logic of scholarship and academic mastery – hard work, honesty, integrity. (¶ 27)

Anderson (2000) associated an effective school as one where “the essence of character education is embedded throughout the curriculum and school building” (p. 139). Expanding on this concept, Anderson (2000) understood research and pedagogy as driving the design of “effective lessons that have character education embedded within their processes” (p. 139).

Myriad reasons exist for the incorporation of character education in public schools. Josephson (2002) of the National Association of State Boards of Education (NASBE) noted that schools: cannot escape the fact they are inextricable engaged in character education. It’s impossible to be value neutral. What schools do and do not do, what they permit and what they prohibit, how they handle bullying, racial slurs, and cheating will have a lasting impact on youngsters. (p. 41)

Brendtro, Brokenleg, and Van Bockern (1990) defined a successful school in terms of creating and teaching a core group of values: “A successful school, like a successful business, is a cohesive community of shared values, beliefs, rituals and ceremonies. The community celebrates its saga by telling the stories of heroes and heroines who embody the core values of the community” (Brendtro et al., 1990, p. 31). Peterson and Skiba (2001) noted that “although both family and religious institutions may have more primary roles in the process, few deny that the schools may also have a role here” (p. 169). Schools convey values purposely or not (Henley, Ramsey, & Algozzine, 1999). According to Lindgren (2003), the “U.S. experience with character education …has suggested it can alter a school’s culture, something that translates into higher (academic) achievement because teachers, rather than spending all their time on discipline, can now get on the job with teaching” (p. A8).

One vital component of a child’s education at school is values learning. Matera (2001) noted that, “Most Americans will tell you that character education in schools is a good idea. According to pollsters, 90% of us want schools to teach core moral values” (p. 191). Delattre and Russell (1993) purported that, “The development of good character cannot be separated from the basic purposes of education - to lead persons out of ignorance and helplessness so that they have the chance to lead positive, purposeful, productive lives for themselves” (p. 42). For Kilpatrick (1992), “Schools are or can be, one of the main engines of social change. They can set the tone of society in ways no other institution can match” (p. 226). Schools are in an opportunistic position to teach character and should make character education part of their campus and district plan for reform and improvement. For Kilpatrick (1992), “The core problem facing our schools is a moral one. All the other problems derive from it. Hence, all the various attempts at school reform are unlikely to succeed unless character education is put at the top of the agenda” (p. 225). In terms of school reform, Kilpatrick (1992) asserted that “even academic reform depends on putting character first” (p. 225).

The importance of character education cannot be overstated. Doyle (1997) noted that “values are the engine that defines and drives culture” (¶ 4), and that “just as children must learn to read, they must learn to be good. Like faith, morality must be acquired. The social and psychological restraints imposed by culture are what dissuade children from ‘bad’ behavior and incline them toward good” (¶ 7). Doyle (1997) also poignantly wrote that to “abandon education’s historic mission to shape character - to fail to try to turn boys into men and girls into women- flies in the face of history and reason” (¶ 10). Secondly, for Doyle (1997) there are good and bad values, as well as right and wrong values. Unfortunately, schools have the potential to shape character for the better or for the worse.

For Lunenburg and Ornstein (2000), “The crux of the issue can be simply stated: Should schools teach a set of values as a framework for determining, or at least influencing, subject content and its organization, broad issues and tasks, or what belief systems and attitudes should guide students’ actions?” (p. 472). Lunenburg and Ornstein (2000) advocated for schools implementing a values-centered curriculum. Schools will impact students’ character regardless if efforts are unwitting or purposefully tied to the school’s overall educational program. A disorderly school will influence students negatively just as an orderly school will influence in a positive direction (Etzioni, 1998b). Schools become better places for everyone when they are civil and caring human communities that promote, teach, celebrate and hold students and staff accountable to the values on which good character is based (Etzioni, 1998b).

According to Ryan et al. (1996), “True character education is the hinge upon which academic excellence, personal achievement, and true citizenship depend” (¶ 2). In terms of organizational management, 85% of principals studied identified ‘non-academic student behavior’, including discipline and drugs, as “significant and highly significant problems or issues in organizational management” (DiPaola & Tschannen-Moran, 2003, p. 52). However, a variety of school and student benefits have been associated with effective character education programming. For example, research demonstrating positive results of character education implementation also demonstrated a positive correlation between a school’s culture and climate and the behavior of students that is related to 16 sets of character traits (Lunenburg & Bulach, 2005). In another study, a significant positive relationship between student achievement and character scores was demonstrated (Lunenburg & Bulach, 2005). Consequently, according to Lunenburg and Bulach (2005), a school interested in high performance must make character education an integral component because a meaningful relationship exists between a school’s culture/climate, character behavior, and student achievement. “This character education program, if it is to be successful, must involve the entire school community, that is, all faculty, students, parents, and all other citizens” (Lunenburg & Bulach, 2005, p.5.2).

Thus, varied and multiple benefits provide schools ample motivations for both campus and district-wide character education implementation. Supportive groundwork for substantiating the importance of instituting character education includes the positive impact on student academic achievement, student behavior, and school-related behaviors. Determination of positive program results for character education in schools is important since, “Character education…ought to be about public, measurable, and explicit virtues with real-life, practical consequences. Character education at its best is not private and it is not for its own sake” (Rivers, 2004, p. 258). Though such determinations provide program evaluators a unique set of challenges, the level of impact made by a school’s character efforts can help counter the assertion that assertion that it is difficult to measure whether or not consistent and proper character education can help enhance academics (Achen, 2004). In the What Works in Character Education project found that several primary positive outcomes of character education included the reduction of sexual behavior, increased socio-moral cognitive development, problem solving skills, and emotional competency, the reduction of violence, aggression, and drug use, and improved academic achievement (Character Education Partnership, 2003).

The 2005 Comprehensive Annual Report on Texas Public Schools reported that, “About 45 % of districts surveyed reported improved local grades, and nearly 40 % reported improved standardized tests scores…Just over 66 % of districts reported fewer discipline referrals, and almost 39 % reported improved attendance” (Texas Education Agency, 2006, p. 145). According to Harms and Fritz (2001), “Research suggests a correlation between the teaching of character education of youth and its positive ethical results throughout the United States” (¶ 1).

In lieu of the three aforementioned benefits that justify character education’s inclusion in school programs, specific goals are now outlined for character education programming and planning. Character education is everything that a school does that influences the character of their students, and includes the school’s deliberate effort to help people understand, care about, and act upon core ethical values (Lickona, 1991a). In terms of the character expectations that people have on their own children, Lickona (1991a) understood that parents want their children to “be able to judge what is right, care deeply about what is right, and then do what they believe to be right-even in the face of pressure from without and temptation from within” (p. 8).

Ryan’s (2003) suggested that if schools would take back their responsibility to help students gain a moral compass and form good habits, then schools could have greater academic achievements and simultaneously meet their responsibilities as educators of students’ character. The promise residing in the education of students’ character is the promise that academic goals can be attained as character goals are accomplished as noted by Ryan (2003):

Teachers must help students see that the hard, often tedious work of school is the stuff of their own character formation…Teachers must confidently make them the promise, however, that while doing this hard work of forging good character, they will be able to achieve the academic goals we have set for them. (¶ 16)

School administrators implementing character education initiatives will find both academic and character goals accomplished.

Achen, P. (2004, October 27). Ethics education strives to make character count; Proponents say programs increase discipline and enhance learning. The Houston Chronicle.Retrieved March 30, 2005, from http://web.lexis-nexis.com

Anderson, D. R. (2000). Character education: Who is responsible? Journal of Instructional Psychology, 27(3), 139-141.

Bennett, W. (1991). Moral literacy and the formation of character. In J. S. Benninga (Ed.), Moral, character, and civic education in the elementary school (pp. 131-138). New York: Teachers College.

Benninga, J. S., Berkowitz, M. W., Kuehn, P., & Smith, K.(2003). The relationship of character education implementation and academic achievement in elementary schools. Journal of Research in Character Education, 1(1), 19-32.

Benson, P. L., Roehlkepartain, E. C., & Sesma, A. (2004, March). Tapping the power of community. Search InstituteInsights and Evidence, 2(1), 1-14.

Berkowitz, M. (1999). Building a good person. In M. M. Williams & Schaps (Eds.), Character education: The foundation for teacher education (Report of the Commission on Character Education). Washington, DC: Character Education Partnership / Association of Teacher Educators.

Berkowitz, M., & Bier, M. (2005). Character education: A study of effective character education programs shows that full parent involvement is a must. Educational Leadership, 63(1), 64-69.

Berreth, D., & Scherer, M. (1993). On transmitting values: A conversation with Amitai Etzioni. Educational Leadership, 51(3), 12-15.

Brendtro, L., Brokenleg, M., & Van Bockern, S. (1990). Reclaiming youth at risk:Our hope for the future. Bloomington, IN: National Education Service.

Brooks, B. D., & Freedman, M. S. (2002). Implementing character education. San Diego: Educational Assessment Publishing Company.

Brown, J. L., & Moffett, C. A. (1999). The hero’s journey: How educators can transform schools and improve learning. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.

Bulach, C. R. (2002b). Comparison of character traits for JROTC student versus non-JROTC students. Education, 122(3), 559-563.

Character Education Partnership (CEP). (2003, October). New research documents positive effects of character education. PR Newswire. Retrieved March 12, 2005, from http://web.lexis-nexis.com.unx1.shsu.edu:2048/universe/document

Cornett, J., & Chant, R. (2000, September). Educating youth for decency and virtue: Law-related education and its implication for character education. Journal of Humanistic Counseling, Education & Development, 39(1), 26-32. Retrieved March 5, 2005, from http://web6.epnet.com.unx1.shsu.edu:2048

Council for Education Policy Research and Improvement. (2001). Recommendations for Inclusion as strategic Imperatives for K-20 Long Range Planning. Tallahassee, FL: Department of Education.

Covey, S. R. (1990). Principle-centered leadership. New York: Simon & Schuster.

Damon, W. (1998). Handbook of child psychology (5th ed.). New York: J. Wiley.

Delattre, E., & Russell, W. (1993). Schooling, moral principles, and the formation of character. Journal of Education, 175(2), 42-50.

DiPaola, M., & Tschannen-Moran, M. (2003, March). The principalship at a crossroads: A study of the conditions and concerns of principals. NASSP Bulletin, 87(634), 43-65.

Dorn, M. (2003). Weakfish – bullying through the eyes of a child. Canada: Safe Havens International.

Doyle, D. P. (1997). Education and character: A conservative view. Phi Delta Kappan, 78(6), 440-443.

Elias, M. J. (2006). The connection between academic and social-emotional learning. In M. J. Elias & H. Arnold (Eds.), The Educator’s Guide to Emotional Intelligence and Academic Achievement. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

Elkind, D., & Sweet, F. (2004). You are a character educator. Today’s School: Shared Leadership in Education, 5(2), 16-22.

Etzioni, A. (1998a, February). How not to discuss character education. Phi Delta Kappan, 79(6), 446-448. Retrieved May 31, 2004, from http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?action=print&docID=500133131

Etzioni, A. (1998b, May). On a character education inventory. The School Administrator Web Edition. Retrieved September 25, 2003, from www.aasa.org/ publications/sa/1998_05/Etzioni.htm

Forisha, B. E., & Forisha, B. E. (1976). Moral development and education. Lincoln, NE: Professional Educators.

Frye, M., Lee, A. R., LeGette, H., Mitchell, M., Turner, G., & Vincent, P. F. (Eds.). (2002). North Carolina Character Education Informational Handbook and Guide. Retrieved April 15, 2004, from http://www.ncpublicschools.org/charactereducation

Glanzer, P. (1997). Virtue 101: The strengths and limitations of character education. Colorado Springs, CO: Focus on the Family.

Harms, K., & Fritz, S. (2001, December). Internalization of character traits by those who teach character counts! Journal of Extension, 39(6). Retrieved May 29, 2005, from http://www.joe.org/joe/2001december/a4.html

Henley, M., Ramsey, R., & Algozzine, R. (1999). Teaching students with mild disabilities (3rd ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

Huffman, H. (1993). Character education without turmoil. Educational Leadership, 51(3), 24-26.

Huffman, H. (1995). The unavoidable mission of character education. School Administrator, 52(8), 6 - 11. Retrieved October 15, 2004, from http://www.questia.com

Josephson, M. (2002, Autumn). Character education is back in our public schools [Electronic version]. The State Education Standard, 40-45.

Kilpatrick, W. (1992). Why Johnny can’t tell right from wrong. New York: Touchstone.

Lasley II, T. J. (1997). The missing ingredient in character education. Phi Delta Kappan, 78(8), 654-655.

Latzke, J. (Dec 1, 2003). Study suggests character education boosts academics, too. The Associated Press State & Local Wire. Retrieved March 3, 2005, from http://web.lexis- nexis.com.ezproxy.lib.uh.edu/universe/printdoc

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

Lickona, T. (1991b). Character education: Does character education make a difference? Retrieved May 24, 2004, from http://www.usoe

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

Lickona, T., & Davidson, M. (2005). Smart & good high schools: Integrating excellence and ethics for success in school, work, and beyond. Cortland, NY: Center for the 4th and 5th Rs (Respect & Responsibility).

Lindgren, A. (2003, September 29). McGuinty wants schools to offer ‘character education: Goal is to create safer environment. The Ottawa Citizen. Retrieved March 30, 2005, from: http://web.lexis-nexis.com.ezproxy.lib.uh.edu/universe/document?m=78a17654d85466be8f

Lockwood, A. L. (1997). Character education: Controversy and consensus. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

Lunenburg, F. C., & Ornstein, A. C. (2000). Educational administration. Stamford, CT: Wadsworth/Thomson Learning.

Lunenburg, F. C., & Bulach, C. R. (2005, July). A process for creating high performing schools. Paper presented at annual meeting of the National Council of Professors of Educational Administration, Washington, DC.

Matera, D. (2001). A cry for character. Paramus, NJ: Prentice Hall Press.

Matthews, B. E., & Riley, C. K. (1995). Teaching and evaluating outdoor ethics programs. Vienna, VA: National Wildlife Federation (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED401097).

McIllhaney, Jr., J. S., & Lickona, T., (Eds.). (1996). National Guidelines for Sexuality and Character Education. Austin, TX: Medical Institute for Sexual Health.

Murphy, M. M. (1998). Character education in America’s Blue Ribbon Schools. Lancaster, PA: Technomic.

Nash, R. J. (1997). Answering the virtuecrats: A moral conversation on character education. Advances in Contemporary Educational Thought Series, Vol.21. New York: Teachers College Press.

National Association of Secondary School Principals (1996). Breaking ranks: Changing an American institution. Reston, VA: Author.

Noddings, N. (2005). What does it mean to educate the whole child? Educational Leadership, 63(1), 8-13.

Peterson, R., & Skiba, R. (2001, July/August). Creating school climates that prevent school violence. The Social Studies, 92(4), 167-175.

Reetz, L. J., & Jacobs, G. M. (1999). Faculty focus on moral and character education. Education, 120(2), 208- 212.

Rivers, T. M. (2004). Ten essentials for character eductation. The Journal of General Education, 53(3-4), 247-260.

Rusnak, T. (1998). An integrated approach to character education. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

Ryan, K. (1993). Mining the values in the curriculum. Educational Leadership, 51(3), 16-18.

Ryan, K. (2003, January). Character education: Our high schools’ missing link. Education Week on the Web, 22(20), 35-48. Retrieved April 28, 2004, from http://www.edweek.org

Ryan, K. A., Bohlin, K. E., & Thayer, J. O. (1996). Character education manifesto. Boston, MA: Center for the Advancement of Ethics and Character (CAEC). Retrieved October 2, 2005, from http://www.bu.edu/education/

Schulman, M., & Mekler, E. (1994). Bringing up a moral child: A new approach for teaching your child to be kind, just, and responsible. New York: Academic Press.

Sherblom, S. A. (2003). Issues in conducting ethical research in character education. Journal of Research in Character Education, 1(2), 107-128.

Shriver, T., & Weissberg, R. (August 16, 2005). No emotion left behind. New York Times On-line. Retrieved August 16, 2005, from http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/16/opinion/16shriver.html

Skinner, R. (2004). Character education. Education Week on the Web. Retrieved July 2, 2004, from http://www.edweek.org/context/topics/issuespage.cfm?id=112

Texas Education Agency (2005). 2005 comprehensive annual report on Texas public schools: A report to the 79th legislature from the Texas Education Agency. Retrieved April 24, 2006, from http://www.tea.state.tx.us/ research/pdfs/2005_comp_annual.pdf

U. S. Department of Education. (2001). No Child Left Behind [Electronic version]. Washington, DC: Office of Elementary and Secondary Education.

U. S. Department of Education. (2006). Character education…our shared responsibility. Office of Safe and Drug-Free Schools [Brochure]. Retrieved July 24, 2006, from www.ed.gov/admins/lead/character/brochure.html

Viadero, D. (2003). Nice work. Education Week, 22(33), 38-41.

Wynne, E. A. (1986). The great tradition in education: Transmitting moral values. Educational Leadership, 43(4), 4-9.

Wynne, E. A., & Ryan, K. (1993). Reclaiming our schools: A handbook on teaching character, academics and discipline. Columbus, OH: Merrill Books.