THE IMPACT OF CHARACTER EDUCATION PROGRAMS

1
THE IMPACT OF CHARACTER EDUCATION PROGRAMS
ON STUDENT DISCIPLINE REFERRALS IN TEXAS PUBLIC
SCHOOLS
A Dissertation Proposal
by
Rebecca Ramirez Morrison
April 2006
2
Table of Contents
Chapter I. Introduction
Statement of the Problem Purpose of the
Study Research Questions
Hypothesis Chapter II. Review of the
Literature History of Character
Education Opposition to Character
Education Federal / State Regulations on
Character Education Chapter III.
Methodology Research Methodology
Research Design Subjects of the Study
Analysis of Data
3
Introduction

• The public increasingly demands that schools
  take a more
• active role in fostering the character
  development of their
• students
• Proponents of character education maintain that
  the inaction
• of schools and the inability of many parents to
  model and
• teach values to children have created a values
  vacuum in
• youth and this vacuum has allowed attitudes and
  behaviors
• to develop that are negatively impacting
  schools and society
• in general (Collins Henjum, 1999).
• Bulach (2002) believes there is a need in our
  society and in the
• school setting to curb violence and to have
  citizens and students
• practice behaviors that are of a more civil and
  moral nature than
• currently exists.

4
Statement of the Problem
Due to the increase in student discipline
problems and the American societys response to
address this issue, legislation has been passed
at the federal and state levels to teach
character education. Many school districts have
implemented character education programs but have
not yet assessed the influence on their student
discipline. As demands for outcome accountability
become more pronounced, it is essential to
determine whether character education programs
have a statistically measurable influence on
student discipline.
5
Purpose of the Study

• Examine whether character education programs
  influence
• student discipline
• Texas public school districts who submitted the
  Texas Education
• Agency (TEA) Character Education Program
  Survey for the years
• 2002-2003, 2003-2004, and 2004-2005
• Focus of the study will examine the number of
  student discipline
• incident referrals reported to TEA through the
  Public Education
• Information Management System (PEIMS).
• Specific attention will be given to the three
  classifications identified
• by districts on TEA Character Education Program
  survey which are
• character education, character plus, and no
  character program.

6
Research Questions

• Is there a difference in the percent of
  discipline incident referrals
• reported to Texas Education Agency between
  2002-2003, 2003-
• 2004, and 2004-2005 for Texas public school
  districts that
• implement a character education program?
• Is there a difference in the percent of
  discipline incident
• referrals reported to Texas Education Agency
  during 2002-2003,
• between Texas public school districts that
  implement a character
• education program, a program that is
  designated as character
• plus and districts that do not implement
  any type of program?

7
Research Questions
3. Is there a difference in the percent of
discipline incident referrals reported to
Texas Education Agency during 2003-2004,
between Texas public school districts that
implement a character education program, a
program that is designated as character
plus and districts that do not implement any
type of program? 4. Is there a difference in
the percent of discipline incident
referrals reported to Texas Education Agency
during 2004-2005, between Texas public
school districts that implement a character
education program, a program that is designated
as character plus and districts that do
not implement any type of program?
8
Hypotheses
H1 There is a statistically significant
difference in the percent of discipline
incident referrals reported to Texas Education
Agency between 2002-2003, 2003-2004, and
2004-2005 for Texas public school
districts that implement a character education
program. H2 - There is a statistically
significant difference in the percent of
discipline incident referrals reported to Texas
Education Agency during 2002-2003 between
Texas public school districts that
implement a character education program,
a program that is designated as character plus
and districts that do not implement any
type of program.
9
Hypotheses
H3 - There is a statistically significant
difference in the percent of discipline
incident referrals reported to Texas Education
Agency during 2003-2004 between Texas public
school districts that implement a
character education program, a program
that is designated as character plus and
districts that do not implement any type of
program. H4 - There is a statistically
significant difference in the percent of
discipline incident referrals reported to Texas
Education Agency during 2004-2005 between
Texas public school districts that
implement a character education program, a
program that is designated as character plus
and districts that do not implement any
type of program.
10
Significance of the Study

• Recent studies on character education programs
  target the
• implementation of specific programs or the
  perception of the
• success of a character education program by
  students, teachers,
• administrators, and parents
• The current study will provide additional
  research in examining
• the impact of character education programs on
  student discipline
• through the quantitative data collection of
  student discipline
• incident referrals reported to TEA.
• Knowledge gained from the study will contribute
  to the states and
• districts awareness of the effectiveness or
  lack of effectiveness
• of character education programs utilized
  within Texas public schools.
• The study may serve as a guideline for further
  research in the
• evaluation of targeted initiatives by
  measuring the success of a
• character education program.

11
Assumptions

• School district responses to TEA Character
  Education Survey for the three years is accurate
  and represents fairly the categorization of
  character program group
• Student discipline PEIMS data reported is
  accurate and reliably represents the student
  discipline records of the districts to be studied

Delimitations

• Study will be delimited to 171 Texas public
  school districts who responded to TEA Character
  Ed. Program survey for 2002-2003, 2003-2004, and
  2004-2005.
• Responding districts identified themselves into
  a category character ed. program, character
  plus program, and no character ed. program.
• Study does not address the quality of programs
  utilized or implementation practices.
  Additionally, district disciplinary management
  policies and practices will not be evaluated or
  assessed.

12
Limitations

• Researcher is unable to control for the
  idiosyncrasies of disciplinary practices for
  districts included within the study
• Findings of study may or may not be transferable
  to other Texas public school districts
• Results of study may not predict the impact of
  character ed. programs on student discipline in
  the future or in other states.

13
Definition of Terms

• Character
• Character Education
• Character Plus
• Discipline
• Disciplinary Action Code
• Disciplinary Action Reason Code
• Disciplinary Incident Number
• Ethics
• Morals
• Public Education Information Management System
  (PEIMS)
• Student Discipline Incident Referral
• Values

14
Review of Literature
History of Character Education

• History of character education reaches as far
  back as colonial times. Values were based on
  Christian principals. (Lickona, 1991)
• 1800s McGuffey Reader was staple text for schools
  in U.S. Text included heroic and patriotic tales.
  (Field, 1996)
• Early 1900s Childrens Morality Code. Good
  character clubs formed in elementary and
  secondary schools (Mulkey, 1997 and Field, 1996)
• WW II character education was renamed to
  social education (Field, 1996)
• 1966 Moral dilemma theory (Leming, 1993)
• 1990s Josephson Institute of Ethics

15
Review of Literature (cont.)

• Lickona (1993) reports 3 reasons for rise in
  interest of character education
• What is good character? By what moral compass do
  we steer our course? (A.T. Lockwood, 1997)
• Need for a definition of character education
  (A.L. Lockwood, 1997)
• Opposition to Character Education
• Activities designed to build character have
  little effect (Black 1996)
• Another cure-all for the crisis of values because
  parents failed to do it at home (Lasley, 1997)
• Teachers taught values through their actions
  which were opposite of what the character ed.
  programs are trying to accomplish (Lasley, 1997)

16
Review of Literature (cont.)
Opposition to Character Education (cont.)

• Movement is a collection of didactic teaching
  (Kohn, 1997)
• Yu (2004) believes character ed. should be part
  of the school culture and not a separate program.
• Lockwood (1993) and Leming (1993) conclude
  research base is disparate and inconsistent.
  There is no research to show a direct connection
  between values and behavior.
• Federal Regulation on Character Education
• No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 Section 5431
  Partnerships in Character Education Program
• Funding for Character Ed. programs began in 1995
  during Clinton presidency.
• President Bush in 2001 presented Communities of
  Character program

17
Review of Literature (cont.)
State Regulations on Character Education

• 2001- 77th Texas Legislature passed House Bill
  946
• Texas Education Code 29.906 Character Ed.
  Program
• Character Plus programs
• TEA mandated through TEC 29.906 to report
  annually the data regarding the impact of
  character ed. programs on student discipline and
  academic achievement
• TEA must also report the number of districts that
  have implemented character ed. program that meets
  criteria to be identified as a Character Plus
  school.
• TEA Comprehensive Annual Report on Texas Public
  Schools

18
Review of Literature (cont.)
State Regulations on Character Education (cont).
Comprehensive Annual Report on Texas Public
Schools
CEP Character Ed. Program
19
Review of Literature (cont.)

• Office/Student Discipline Referrals

• Evaluation of office discipline referrals may be
  an index to assess school discipline needs and
  monitor effects of reform efforts (Horner, 2000)
• Fields (2004) reports discipline referrals
  attributed mostly to mild forms of classroom
  misbehavior
• Approximately four out of ten students have had
  at least one disciplinary referral in their
  school years (Fields, 2004)
• Johnson (2004) cited more than four in ten
  teachers said they spent more time disciplining
  than teaching.
• Seven out of ten middle/high school teachers
  stated their schools have serious problems with
  discipline (Johnson, 2004)

20
Research Methodology

• The study will be quantitative utilizing
  descriptive measures. A descriptive study makes
  no attempt to change behavior or condition but
  measures things as they are (Gall, Gall, Borg,
  2003).

Research Design

• Research design for the study will be
  causal-comparative.
• Causal-comparative research involves comparing
  two or
• more groups in order to explain existing
  differences
• between them on some variable(s) (Johnson,
  2000).

21
Research Design

• First hypothesis will be tested utilizing a
  within-groups design.
• One-way repeated-measure design
• IV Time (3 levels 02-03, 03-04, and 04-05)
• DV avg. of discipline incident referrals
  for Texas public school districts that
  implemented a character
  education program.
• Norusis (2004) describes the ratio scale as
  a measurement whereby a larger or smaller value
  can be compared with one another. The
  distinction between interval and ratio scales is
  seldom, if ever, important in statistical
  analyses
• (p. 77).

22
Research Design

• Second hypothesis will be tested utilizing a
  between-groups design.
• One-way analysis of variance (ANOVA)
• IV Group type (character ed., character
  plus,
• or no character program)
• DV avg. percent of discipline incident
  referrals for each of the groups for
  2002- 2003.
• Third and fourth hypotheses will also be tested
  utilizing the ANOVA for 2003-2004 and 2004-2005,
  respectively.

23
Subjects of the Study

• Target population all Texas public school
  districts and charter schools
• Sample all public school districts and charter
  schools that responded to the TEA Character
  Education Program survey for 2002-2003,
  2003-2004, and 2004-2005.

Instrumentation

• Public Education Information Management
  System
• Validity Reliability PEIMS data system is
  defined by established set of guidelines,
  procedures, and definitions. Uniformity of data
  standards further sustains reliability and
  consistency of information.

24
Data Collection and Recording

• Data will be obtained from the Texas Education
  Agency. All data to be utilized in study is
  considered public information as defined by
  Government Code 552.002
• Database for the three years of study will be
  established using the Statistical Package for the
  Social Sciences (SPSS 12.0)

25
Analysis of Data

• Descriptive statistics for each of the comparison
  groups in the study will be completed
• Inferential statistics will also be utilized to
  draw conclusions about the population.
• General linear model, repeated measures, and
  ANOVA
• Alpha level will be established at .05 to
  determine whether to reject the null hypotheses
• Multivariate test Wilkss ?, follow-up pairwise
  comparison using paired samples t test
• ANOVA F test post hoc procedures will be
  conducted to evaluate pairwise differences among
  the means

26
Questions
Summary
Committee members, thank you for your continued
support, guidance, and dedication to my
dissertation study.