0.1 Character education: a critical analysis; robert tatman, stacey  (Page 2/16)

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.