Wherea.

s character education is not new~scientific study

of its efh~ctivenesshas been only sporadically imple-
mented during the past thirtyfive years. Much of tile
application of character education is therefore not
informed by a scientific knowledge base. This article
introduces a scientific perspective on character educa-
tion and a summary of the research base examining the
student impact of schoolbased character education
From this research base, general pnnciples of effective
practice are denved, This in turn is used to offer sugges
1E.es~trc1i tions to practitioners and policy makers for the
improvement of schoolbased character education.

Based Keywords: character education; research; best

tree; character development; effective
Character scisools

Education
C haracter education is not new. In fact, we
can probably date it back at least to Socra-
tes. Even in the United States, it goes back as far
as the founding of the colonies (and likely far
By ther in Native American culture) (McClellan
MARVIN W. BERKOWITZ 1999). But character education has historically
and been a practice and not a science (Berkowitz
MELINDA C. BIER 2002). In other words, there has been an abun-
dance of educational methods and curricula
generated i)Ilt comparatively little research on
its effectiveness,There was a flurry ofinterest in
the first third of the twentieth century (e.g.,
Marein W Berkowitz, a developmental psychologist, is
the Sanford N. McDonnell Irofessor of Character Mu
Cation at the Uoiversit,j of MissouriSt. Louis. Jrcvi
ously, he was the Ambassador Holland Ii. Coors Profes-
sor of Character Development at the US. Air I~orce
Acadenuj and a professor of psijehologi,, at Marquette
University.
Melinda C. Bier is an affiliate assistant professor ofedu
cation at the Uu~versityof MissouriSt. Louis and the
project director of What Works in Character Educa
tion (funded hij the John Templeton Foundation) and
National Character Education Clearinghouse and
Resource Center (Funded by the U. S. Department of
Education). Preciously, she was Program Officer at the
James S. McDonnell Foundation.
NOTE: Supported by a grant from the John Teulpietnll
1oundatinii.
DCI 0.1177/00(12710203260082

72 ANNALS, AAPSS, 591, january 2004

YOIJTI I AS PROP! .E

SteinerAdair, C. I 989. Ilie body politic: Normal female adolescent tlevelopinent and the thvelnpinent of
eating (lisorders. In Making connections: The re/ational worlds of adolesceni girls at Loooa \l/illard
School, edited by C. (4lligan. N. P Lyons. and P J . I laoinei; 162 82. lroy NY: Ennna \Villard School.
S~~llivan, A. 1996. 1roni mentor to loose. In Urban girls: Resisting stereo!ypes, creating identi ies, editrs I by
T
B. J. Leadheater and N. \\ ay, 22649. New York: New York University Press.
latom, B. 1). 1997. Why are all 1/ic black kids u/flog together in the cafeteriar and oilier con rersat ions
about race. New York: Basi Books.
Tlinn , M. 2001 . Balancing thu equation: \Vlieri are women and girls in science, engineering and technology?
New York: National Cot mcii h)r Researelmu \Vomen.
United States I )epartmnent of Education. 2003. When schools stat/ open late: I/ic national (vahmtion of i/me
2/st Century Coonnunitt, Lea rnmgCenters Program: I iiSt tjearJinding.i. Washington, I)C: Covern I net it
Printing Office.
Walker, K. E., J. B. Crossnian, amid R. Haley 2000. lestended service schools: Putting /)rogra?nlning in p/ace.
With V. Fehleratli and C. I. Itolton. lliiladelpliia: Pnblic/Private Aotnres.
\Varcl, J. V 1996. Raising resisters. In Urban girls: Resisting stereotypes, creating u/cot Ote.s, edited by B. J.
Leadheater 111(1 N. Way, 85 99. Ness York: Ness York University Press.
\VFD Inc., NI elpomoene Institnte for \Vomeos I Iealth Research, Cirls Incorporated, and National Assoeia
hon or Cirls and \Vomsien in Sport. 2001). Achieving gender ((/Uit~/ in the gym and on the platjingfiehl.
Watertown, MA: \\ork/Fami!v Directions.
Wolfe, 1.. H. 2001 . Does it have to belike thiis~Teen women ask theirpeers about violence, hate and (h.scriio
maim: Ihe report of the leen %V~nsietiLeaders/np Development Initiativi Sort ey. Washington, I )( 3
:enter for Women Polic~Studies. Retruesed from http://www.centemsvonienpo!icv.oig/reportdossoload.
efm?BeportlD= 1.
~\T~niens Sports Foondation. 1998. The \Voomen ~s Sports Foundation Re port: Sport 011(1 teen pregnancy. East
Meadow, NY: Author
Yonniss, J., J. A. Mc! .eI!am i, and B. Maser. 2001. \o!nntary service, peel groop oriei tation, and civic engage
milent. Jomu rnal of Adolescent Research 16:4.56.
IIESEAIiCII BASEI) CIIAHAC]ER EDUCATION 7:3

Denver Public Schools 1929; Dewey 1909; Griggs 1906; llaviland 1921; MacCuurt
1920) antI even some substantive research on the topic (Ilartshornc and May 1928
1930). Nonetheless, interest in character education waned in the middle third of
the twentieth century, and little research was done. in the past thirtyfive years,
contemporaly researchers have turned their expertise and attention to character
education. hence, a substantial body of information has begun to accrue concern-
nig the effectiveness of character education. This article will examine sonic of what
we now know about effective practice.

What Is Character?
It is difficult to discuss the effectiveness of character education without first
considering its goals. The central goal ofcharacter education is the development of
character in students. Therefore, before we address the research on effective ch~u
acter education, we iieecl to consider what we mean by character and its (levelop
ment. Character can be defined in vanous ways and is indeed used in clifft~rent
ways in common speec1~.\Ve consider someone a character if they act atypically.
We also commonly refer to having character, but sometimes that character is
good or bad. It is unlikely that a school that proposes a charactereducation ini-
tiative is interested in either generating a bunch of characters or promoting the
developiiient of had character in students. What we really mean in this field
when we invoke character is sociomoral competency. Character is the complex set
ofpsychological characteristics that enable an individual to act as a moral agent. in
other words, character is multiflhceted. It is psychological. It relates to moral func
tionmg. In the Brst authors moral anatonly, seven psychological aspects of cliarac
ter are identified: moral action, moral values, moral personality, moral emotions,
moral reasoning, moral identity, and foundational characteristics (Berkowitz
1.997).
This is likely not a complete taxonomy, but it helps to understand that when one
functions (or fails to function) morally, it may be due to any one or sotne set of these
psychological characteristics. For instance, if two equally well off people individu-
ally find a wallet with money and identification in it, and one returns it intact while
the other takes the money and discards the wallet (perhaps even bragging to his or
her kids about how clever it was to take the money), we can imagine many reasons
for these different responses to a moral situation. Person A may have more highly
developed empathy and feel for the person who lost the wallet. Or Person A may
have a heightened sense of moral sensitivity and be more likely to notice that this is
a moral issue to begin with. Or Person A may have more mature moral reasoning
leading to a better understanding of what the right action is. Or Person A may be
better at perspective taking and is able to put himself or herselfin the shoes of the
wallets ossmer, Or Person A may have been raised with a different set of values. Or
Person A mayhave a more highly developed conscience. Or... Or... In fact, it may
bP (Inc to ~onieset of these characteristics. The point is that character is complex,
multifaceted, and psychological and that it comprises the moral side of a person.
74 TIlE ANNALS OF TUE AMERICAN ACADEMY

Each of these characteristics develops over the life span and especially in child-
hood and adolescence (Damon 1988). The predominant impact on this comes
from family (Berkowitz and Gmych 1998; Lickona 1983), but schools can also be a
developmental force (Berkowitz and Grych 2000; Liekona 1991; Gottfredson
2001). For families or schools to influence character development optimally, they
need to understand the complex nature of character and to apply effective princi-
pIes that have been empirically shown to positively impact the development of the
many parts of the moral person.

Does Character Education Work?

This frequently asked question is s/ely difficult to answer, not because there is
not ample research on the topic but because, in a sense, it is the wrong question.
The term charactereducation is applied1 to such a wide array ofeducational initia-
tives that it is difficult to generically answer whether such a mixed set of programs
works,
Character education varies from a limited set of stand-alone and homegrown
lessons to fully integrated, comprehensive school-reform models. Many teachers
and/or schools simply create some lessons or recognition programs for good char-
acter. Others adopt packaged curricula or programs that themselves may vary from
a small set oflessons to a comprehensive school model. Others cobble together ele-
ments of other initiatives, p~lt~tps adopting a packaged classroommanagement
program and overlaying another packaged prevention program with a homegrown
integration of character issues into their literature or social studies curriculum.
And so on.
Furthermore, much of what would count as character education is not even
labeled as such. Service learning, social-emotional learning, and prevention pro-
grains all share significant features with character education and could be consid-
ered forms of character education. For our purposes, if a school-based initiative
targets character development, as we have defined it above, in either its program
design or its outcomes and goals, then it is a form of character education. Indeed,
the field would be well served by a superordinate term that could encompass all of
these more parochial fields: something like positive youth development as a rtil)ric
for character education, service learning, socialemotional learning, and so on.
Unfortunately, the professional organizations that represent each of these
subfields have invested too heavily in their respective names to make such an
integrative move likely.
The best answer to the question ofwhether character education works is to sim-
ply state that quality character education does work. In other words, character edit-
cation can work, but its effectiveness hinges upon certain characteristics. This is
what the rest ofthis article will address: what are the features ofeffective character
education?
RESEARCH-BASE!) Ci!ARACTER EDUCATION

Before we turn to that question, however, it is worthwhile to note tile wide array
of outcomes that have been demonstrated by effective character education. Char-
acter education has been demonstrated to he associated with academic motivation
and aspirations, academic achievement, prosocial behavior; bonding to school,
prosocial and democratic values, conflictresolution skills, moralreasoning matu-
rity, responsibility, respect, self-efficacy, self-control, self-esteem, social skills, and
trust in and respect for teachers. Furthermore, effective character education has
been demonstratedl to meduce absenteeism, discipline referrals, pregnancy, school
failure, suspensions, school anxiety, and substance use. Clearly, when it is effective,
it svorks. \Vhat we need to know is what makes a charactereducation initiative
efh~ctiveor ineffective,

What Works in Character Education?

Most ofwhat follows is the product ofa granmt fmom the Jolini Templeton Founda
ti()n titled What Works in Character Education? The results reported here, how-
ever; are preliminary as that project has not been completed. The results are sup-
plemeruted with work by others, most notably an excellent review by Solomon,
Watson, and Battistich (2001).

Quality ofimplementation
It seems selfapparent, but one of the most critical factors in the effectiveness of
character education is the faithfulness with which it is implemented. Typically, it
falls to classroom teachers to implement character education, and typically, they
are not adec1uately trained to implement it accurately or completely. Research ha.s
consistently demonstrated that fur character education (or any form of interven
tiorm for that matter) to work, it must be fully and accurately delivered (Colby et al.
1977; Kam, Greenberg, and Walls 2003; Solomon et al. 2000). Whereas this point
may seem so obvious that it is not worth repeating, the fact of the matter is that
many programs and program evaluations fail to monitor the level and quality of
implementation and likewise fail to build in adequate safeguards to mnaximize time
likelihood of full imnplementation. Effective character education requires fidelity
in implementation, therefore implementers riced to ensure such fidelity.
A subissue of this concern with implementation quality, arid one that has not
been adequately addressed in the researcii literature, is exposure. Given the high
mobility rates in many schools, quality implementation may still not be effective if
students are not present during implementation. Most researchers do not examine
the levels ofexposure of students in character-education initiatives. While it seems
fur to assume that students with greater exposure will benefit more from character
education than will students with low exposure in the same schools, the relation
ship between exposure and outcomes may not be straightforward (Allen, Philliber,
and lloggson 1990; Solomon, Watson, and Battistich 2001).
76 TIlE ANNAI,S OF T!-IE AMERICAN ACADEMY

Comprehensive, inult~facetedcharacter education

Many effective character-education initiatives represent comprehensive, often
schoolwide or districtwide, multifaceted approaches. Programs such as the Child
Development Project (and its derivative Caring School Community; http://
www.devstu.org; Solomon et al. 2000), Resolving Conflict Creatively Program
(http://www.esrnational.org; Aber et al. 1998), and the Seattle Social Development

Character is the complex set of psychological

characteristics that enable an individual
to act as a moral agent.

Project (Hawkins et ah. 1992) are multicomponent models that include classroom
management, curricular, socialskill training, parent involvement, and/or school
reform elements. This is not to say that monolithic initiatives cannot work; rather,
that comprehensive initiatives seem to be particularly effective, especially when
character is broadly defined and diverse outcome goals are targeted.

Student bonding to school

Under a vamiety of different names (bonding, attachment, belonging, related-
ness, connection, etc.), it has been demonstrated that from preschool through high
school, the emotional attachment ofa student to his or her classroom and school is
a critical mediating factor in the effectiveness of character educatioim (Berkowitz
and Bier forthcoming; Osterman 2000) and of students general engagement in
school (Furrer and Skinner 2003). At the preschool level, 1-lowes and Ritchie
(2002), through a series of studies, have demonstrated that children with more pos-
itive interactions with and more seetmre attachments to their teachers were more
positive, more gregarious, engaged in more complex social play, had demonstrated
more advanced cognitive activity, and showed more ego resiliency. Research on the
Child Developmnent Project (Solomon et al. 2000) has revealed that the effective-
ness of this elementary school program is mediated by the degmee to which stu-
dents come to perceive their classrooms and schools as a caring community. Fimr-
thermore, in an earlier study, they report that students sense of the classroom as a
comnnmnity is significantly related to teachers emuphasis on cooperative strategies
and focums on prosocial values (Solomon et al. 1997).
In middle school, when students perceive their teachers as supporting respect-
1
ful student interactions, having high expectations, being slmpportive and fair, and
RESEARCII-BASEI) CIIARACTEII EDUCATION 77

avoiding a meliance on negative messages andl behavioral rules, the students show
increaseti selfefficacy, selfregumlation, character development, ammdl academid
achievement (Ryan and Patrick 2001; Wentzel 2002). In a series of studies on a
national high school data set, it was demonstrated that attachment to parents and
school were the two mnanm predictors ofreduced risk beltavior (Resimick et al. 1997).
Furthermore, the school predictors of student bonding to school were found to be
positive classroomn management, tolerant (nonliarsh) disciplinamy practices,
involvement in extracurricular activities, smaller schools, good pllysical health, and
avoidance of cigarette smoking (Bonny et al. 2000; MeNeely, Nonnemaker; and
Blum 2002).
Clearly then, when designing and implementing a charactereducation initia-
tive, it is of great importance to intentionally target strmdents phenomnenohogical
perspective of the school (amid classroom) as a caring community and their subse-
quent einoliomial bonding to the school and classroom, as 1)0th a goal and a mea
smmrecl ni mtcome or mediating variable.

Leadership is key
One of tile fictors that practitioners will repeatedly affirmsi is that the school
leader is the most critical individimal in the success or failume of a charactereduca-
tion initiative. Certainly, it is possible to create an islandof sanity within a classroom
in a school that does not meaningfully embrace character education (Urban 2003),
but that serves only the stumderits who pass through that classroom. To positively
impact an entire school, the school pm icipaLs role is essential (l)efloehie and
Williams 2001; Lickona 1991).
The Character Education Partnership identifies three imuiportant aspects of
character: imniderstanding, commitment, action. While these are intended to apply
to the student developmental outcomes of character e(lucatiOfl, tlley can apply to
staff development as well, An effective principal needs to (1) get it, (2) buy into
it, and (3) live it. In other words, leadimug a school of character requires that the
principal first hilly understands what quality character education entails (mnost do
not). Then the principal must really connmnit to this vision and trulywant to make it
happen under his or her watch. Finally, the principal must have the requisite skills
to enact quality character education amid then to live it out both personally and
programmatically.
PATHS (Greenberg et al. 1995), a well-researched character-education pro-
gram, recently reported that principal buy-in (interestlcommitmnent) was one of
two critical factors necessary for effective implementation (Kam, Greenberg, and
Walls 2003). But buy-in is only part of this triumvirate of leadership attributes.
Whereas some identify the task of charactereducation leadership to be largely
exhortation (Mumrphy 2002), others argue that the core function of school leader
ship goes much deeper. Valentine, Triunble, and Whitaker (1997) argue fur leader
competency. Jackson and Davis (2000), in a blueprint for middle school reform,
argime for the principal to be a principal change agent who relies on staffempow-
78 Im: ANNALS OF rIlE Asll:IIIcAN A(:Almuy

ernmemit and dcmnocmatie governance as the path to school impmovemilent amid

stimdent flourishing.
This is pmly wily gmommps like the Character Education Partmiemship (huttp://
www.cluaracter.org) amid the Collaborative for Academniic, Social and Emotional
I ~earnmg (http://www.casel.org) have tamgeted imiitiatives for schoolheader train-
ing. imi St. Loumis, a collaborative of the University of MissouriSt. Louis and the
Cooperating School Distmicts has been offering yearlong academies imi chauacter
ddllcation fur five years (Nance et al. 2003). It is clear to us rilmunimig these acacle
imiies that school leaders need to learn the why (head) amid the how (hamid) but
also often need to dievelop the comntitmmiemit and motivation (heamt) to lead a
dharaeteredlmmdatioml initiative effectiveh~

C/iaracter education is good editcation

In the current climate of highstakes standardized testing in schools, (hlflhlit)~
edumeation is takiumg quite a beating. Schools are skewing their curricula toward the
namrow content of tests, in some cases actually dropping entire subject areas that
are not being tested that year. Schools ame heconting pressure cookers where adults
amid studlcmIts feel oppressed. Teaching is moving toward rote nieniorizationu of
whatever is expected to be on the test.
Character education, on the other hand, entails many of the central tenets of
(~ualitycchmcation. The Hope Foummidation (hittp://wwss~eounimnmsmuitiesofliope.org)
has iclemitifIecl six characteristics of liighperforniing schools, which include having
a shared vision and goals, imsing collaborative teams, and developmg leademship
capacity at all levels, A recent study ofthree atrisk schools that excel academically
(Anccss 2003) identifies the characteristics ofsuccess, which imichudle shared govem
nanee, strong leaclems who empower others, norms of interpersonal respect, close
carimtg relationships among staff and between staff and stmmclemuts, and maximal
opportunities for success for all students. The characteristics identified by both of
these reviews align stromigly with many of the characteristics of comprehensive
charactcr education: student empowerment, constructivist principles, collal)ora
tive learning, opportunities for student reflection, a focmms on the deep and power
fiml truths of himman expcmiemice, and applications of course eomitent to reallife pro-
jects (e.g., serviec lcarning). It is themefore not slmrpnsing that quality character
education turns omit to be good ediumeation imi genemal and that educational reforms
like service learning and constrimctivist edmmcation ame found not only to promote
academic achievement but also to foster student character dievelopulent as well.
Likewise, it is not sumrprising that quality character education results in academnie
gains for students, sonmething that has beeii demuonstrated repeatedily in research
(e.g., Aber, Brosvn, andl I lemirich 1999; Allen et al. 1997; Battistieh anti I long 2003;
Character Education Partnership 2000; Elliott I 993; Flay, Allred, and Ordway
2001; Kiger 2000; Twemlowet al. 2001). All of these studies focus on the academic
effects ofparticimlar characteredtmcation pmogranis; however, a recent stimcly of 1 20
elementary schools iii California used a more genemid definition of (halact(r cdii
BESEAHCH-BASF:D CItARA(:IER EDuCArIoN 79

cation and formnd that quality of character education is significantly related td) stan
dlamdizedl test scomes (Bcnninga et al. forthcoming).

Character education OS primary prevention

In both the scholarly and the practical literatures, a strong distinction is made
between school-based prevention and charactereducation. I-Id)wever, this appears
to be a false dichotonny for two reasons (Berkowitz 2000). First, the two tend to
share many features. Second, character education has been systematically demon
strated to be an effective form of prevemition, especially primary prevention.
Charactereducation programs like the Child Development Project have
repomted significant reductions in violence antI substance use (Battistich et al.
2000). Effective prevention programs such as Life-skills Trainimig (Botvin et a!.
1997) an~IAll Stams (Harrington et al. 2001) incorporate charactereducation dc
niemts. Other prevention programs have been demonstrated to both redluee risky
behaviors and promote positive character clevelopntiemmt (e.g., Allen et al. 1994;
Kam, Greenberg, and Walls 2003; Taylor et al .1999). Clearly, the distinction
between preventioni and character education is murky and character education is
an effective form of primnary preventiomi.

Staff development
Staffinvolvement and conimnitment to character education is critical to effective
implementation, just as it is to all instructional innovations or edumcational reforms
(Ilimide 2003). Kamn, Greenberg, and \Valls (2003) report that immmplememitation of
PATI-IS depended heavily on teacher commitment.
Omie of the vastly underutilized components of quality character education is
staff dlevelopmiient. Typically, this is so either because the delivery systems were
never built into the character education model or because it isjust too expensive (in
terms of 1)0th money and time). Many effective character-edimeation models either
require or strongly recommend staff development or offer it as an option (e.g.,
Child Development Project, Responsive Classroom, Community of Caring, Fac-
ing Ilistory and Ourselves, Learning for Life, Life Skills Training, Reach Out to
Schools).
As with principals, if staffdo not understand the imlitiative, they will likely imple-
ment it ineffectively or reject it for the wrong reasons. If they do not value it, then
they will not implement it effectively (if at all). If they do not know how to imiiple
ment it, then again they will likely imuplement it ineffectively.

Direct skill building

Fronn a variety of theoretical perspectives, the trainimig of interpersonal, emo
tional, and moral skills is critical to effective school-based character development.
The traditional approach to character education (Benninga 1991; Wynne amid Ryan
so TIlE ANNJ~1,SoI~rlIl:AKIEIUCAN Ac:ADEMY

1993) has long relied upon aim Aristotehiami principle that character is fommned in
large pamt through habitual behavior that eventually becomiies internalizedi into vir-
tues (charactem). Traditional socialemotional learning (Greenbemg et al. 1995) has
meliecl upon niome behavioral models of learning audI dcvelopimiemmt and tlierefome
dlependled heavily omi chassroomii lessons that climectly tcach social and emttotional
skills. This same ~ipproach has beemi clominamit in mitch ofthe schoolbased pr~v~mi
tiomi literature (Tappe, GalerUnti, amid Baily 1995).

Character education ha,s been cleinonstrate(l to

be associated with academic motivation and
aspirations, academic achievement, prosocial
behavior, bonding to school, prosocial and
democratic values, conflict-resolution skills,
moralreasoning maturity, responsibility,
respect, self-efficacy, self-control,
selfesteem, social skills, and trust
in and respect ft r teachers.

Fimmthcrmome, it is clear that many of the initiatives amid milodlels that imicompomate
clircet skill training are quite effective. In many cases, direct skill tmainimig is a mod
umle iii a mnord comprehemisivc appmoach to character education (Ilawkimis et al.
2001; Weissberg, Barton, and Shriver 1997). This works particularly well when
trainimmg those skills import which the eomiiprehemisive approach relies, for example,
teaching listemlimtg skills so that coopemativc learning can be effedtive, or teaching
peer comiflictmesolutiomi skills so that class mileetings can be effective.

Parent involvement

More amid more schools are recognizing that they mieed to he proactivc about
incorporating p~trentsinto the life of the school and imito their chilcirens learmiimig iii
gemmeral. Primiciple 10 of the Character Eclimcation Pamtmierships 11 Principlcs of
F ffective Character Edmmcatiomt (Lickona, Schiaps, amid I ~ewis 2003) assemts tI tat
schools miiust recruit paments and commmmnity niemiibers as full partners in the dhar
actcmhuilding effort. CIIARACTERpIus (http://www.csd.org), baSed imi St.
RESEARCI 1-BASEI) d:I lAtiAc:rEli EDUCArIoN SI

Louis, Missouri, explicitly imivolves pitmcmits thrommghoimt the chamacter edlimcatiomi

planning amid implementation process. in CI1ARACTERp1us schools, paremmts,
teachers, amid eomimiunity represemitatives jointly identify and defmne the chamacter
tmaits their schools will emphasize. There is alsd) a hurgeonunig literatumre demsiomi
stratimig the power of pamental involvement in childremis acadeittic achieveimient
and cli aracter developmnent (Patrikakou ct al. forthcoinm g), amid nnamiy character
education programiis bimild in aspects of character education that encourage or
require parental participationi. They have specific parentinvolvemiient comnpd)
nents that engage the p~mrem1tand child in educational activities at home; teachems
then follow up omi these activities in the classroom, strengthening the conneetiomis
between home anti school (e.g., the Child Developmentt Pmoject and Positive
Action). Other charactereducation initiatives would be well served to explicitly
target parent involvement as a necessamy comiiponent of ai i effective ch aractem
education approach.

Student reflection oTt social and inn ral i.s.sue.s

Sizer amid Sizer (1999) emphasize the importamice of students grappling with
moral issues. In fact, the Kohlhergian approach to moral reasoning (Power, IIig-
gins, and Kohlberg 1989; Reimer, Paohitto, amid I-Iersh 1983) is largely predicated
upon the institutionalization ofpeer moral discourse (Berkowitz 1985). A sumbstami
tial hotly ofliterature has demonstrated that progranlmatic peer immoral discourse is
an effective mneans of promoting the development of morahreasomuing capacities.
Furtherniore, Berkowitz and Simuniomis (forthcomiiing) have argued for the integra
ti()n of such strategies in content areas such as sciemice education as a way of lid)1
stering character education amid academic learmiing.
Character education often includes study of moral anti ethical issues, whether
through heroes curricula such as the Giraffe Project or the Raoul Wallenherg Pro-
ject or thrommgh literaturebased character education such as the Ileartwd)odi Pro-
ject, KidzLit, or Voices of Love and Freedom. Research srmggests that a central dc-
mnent in effective use of mntoral content in character education is to employ
echtgogical pmocesses that rely on structured, respectful peer dliscumssiomi of those
1issues. As noted elsewhere in this article, staff development in how to create social
nouns for respectful disagreemmmemit amid socialskills training are imiiportant fur the
effective inclusion of simch peer moraldiscourse eXpcriences.

Adults as role models

One of the mnore elusive aspects of character ediumcatiomi is the impact of adult
l)ehavic)r on student dlevelopmiieflt. We kmiow quite clearly fmont social psycholc~i
how pd)Wdmfnl observing the behaviors ofvahumecl others can lid Ort one~iowmi clevel
opmiient (Bamidura 1977). It is also clear fromut mesearch on professional education
that the primi1~uryinfluence tin the ethics of soontobe )rofessionals (c.g., mneclical
1
studeiits) is the ethical (or tinetltical) behavior of thie professiomials Wild) train theiii
(Pelligrino 1989). Fumrthiermuiore, the research on parenting amid childremis character
 TIlE ANNALS OF TIlE AMERI(:AN ACADEMY

developmnent frequently dlemnomistrates the power of parental role modlehng diii

chiidren~scliamacter, for example, on their altruism (Eiseriberg and Mumssen 1989)
and selfeontmol (Maccoby 1980). Bumt there is little research on this powerful factor
imi schools. One exception is the work by Ryan amid Patrick (2001) whit) report that
teachers who are perceived by students a~expecting respectful relations in the
classroom had students with increased selfmegumlatory skills. Anecdotal evidence
about such a relationship betweemi teacher behavior amid1 student character
aboimnds. Pmincipals repeatedly report that the easiest way to get students to clean
up the debris in the school yard is for the principal to begin to do it daily. Students
soon follow suit without being asked or told to dd) so. Elennemitamy school teachers,
especially at the primniary grades, frequently meport that the easiest way to know
what kind d)f teacher you are is to either watch youmr stumdents playing sc1iooi or ask
one of them to lead a lesson.

Closing Thoughts
It is clear that character education is~umieffective means of promoting both stim
dent sociah/mnoral/emotional dievelopment anti academic achievememit. As one
scrutinizes simceessful character education imiitiatives, it is also clear that (1) charac-
ter edhmcation is goodl education and that (2) character education comes in a wide
variety of forums. Some of those forms are effective and others are not; however,
there is great variety in the formnms of character education that do sumcceed. Never-
theless, it is important to examine those characteristics olefiective character cdiii
cation to identify the activeingredliemits that miiake them work. This discussion has
attempted to highlight sortie of those ingredients: comprehensive, multifaceted
approaches; approaches that target amid succeed at pmomoting student bondimig to
school; committed and informed school leadership; integrating character and aca-
demic education; integrating character education and prevention edmmcation;
annple and appropriate staffdevelopment; direct teaching ofrelevant personal and
social skills; parent involvement; and studemit reflectiomi anti grappling with moral
issues; adumlts modeling good character.
Clearly, more research is mieeded to umndemstand better how and when chamacter
educatiomi is most effective. Nomiethehess, enough is ahmeaciy known to help edumca
tots design effective initiatives that will foster the development of character iii
students.

References
i~her,J. L., J. I,. Brown, and C. C. Ilenrich. 1999. reaching conflict exolutfon: An eJjeclicc .schoolba.sed
approach to rioleoce prevention. New York: National Center Ibr Children in Poverty
Aher, 1.. J., S. NI. Jones, J. L. Brown, N. ChaudiT and F. Samples. 1998. Resolvingcorillict creatively: Evaluat-
ingthe developmental effects ola schoolbased violence prevention program in neighborhood and class-
room context. Dem:elopmnenl and Psmjchopaihologi 10:187213.
1
IIE.Sl:AtICIIBASEI) CIIARACTI.R EDUCAIION 83

Alien, 3.1., C. Kmmpermimimn, .8. Ihilliler, and K. 1 lmrre. 1994. Ir()grammmmnatic prevntioml oladolescent problemi
lelias iors: lIre role of ammtonomn~relatedness, amid volmmmmteer service in the Rems (liii reach Program.
Aomermcam Jomo~mialof Comnmnmimnl,, P.smjelmologm 22:617 38
1
\llemi, 3. P., S. Phill her, S. I Ierrling, amid C. P. Kmipern iimme. 1997. Prevmm tim mg teen pregmmaocy amid academome
%iilmmre: F~xpcriImnntal esli matiomm of a des elopmiiemmtallv based approach. Child I)eme/opmmmeoi 64:729 42.
AIkmm, 3. P 5. Plmillihec amid N. I Ioggson. 1990. Schoolbased preventiomm of teenage ~)megmrarey amid dropom it:
Process evaluation of the miatiomial replication of the Teen Outreach Progran I. Anmeriean Journal of Comn
nmunilmj Psyclmologtj 18:50524.
Ancess, J . 21)03. Beating the odd.s: high schools as iommmnmmi nilies of~ommm mitnmemml . New York: Imaclmmvs d ollegc
Press.
Bandura, A. 1977 ocial harowg tlmeonj. Englewood Cliffi, NJ: Prentice I lall.
Ilattisticli, V. amid S. I long. 2003. I.mmmlmiriog efiects of the ( liikl Developmneimt Project: Secondorder latima
linear growth nmodmhing of~stmmdeimts comimmeetedmiessto selimml, academmiic perform11am cm, minI social adjmmst
mnmm it dimrimig mniddle school. U npnblislud m mmanmmscript, I )evelopmnemmtal Studies ( emitii Oaklamiml, CA.
Battisiicb, V. E. Schaps, NI. Watson, I). Solomoim,amid C. I .ewis. 2000. Efhcts oftlmeChild Developmmient inu
jict omi students drmmg mis) amid oilier prolkmmm behaviors. ilie Jommnmal of Prnnaru, Pmecentioim 21 :7599.
Ilenninga, J . S. 991. Moral and (liaracter edmmeat ion iii tIme mlemimemmtaiy sd immol: An in Iiodmmct iom m . In ,~Iomal,
(liaruelem. amid eim:ic em/mica/ion in time ciemmmintarm~school . (dite(l by 3. S. llin mm imiga. 3 2t). Nmw Ym,rk: liimhm
cr5 College lress.
13cminilmga, J . S., NI. NV. llerkowitz, P. Knelimi, and K. Smnithi. Fortlmconming. Ihe relation ofel maracteredm meal 1)))
10(1 academic achmicvinmemmt. Jommm-mmal of Re.seareim mm C/mamaciem 5.(/mie it ion.
Berkowitz, NI. NV. 1985. The role nfdiscmissiomm in mmioral cdimcat 0mm. In ilIo,si edmmcatiomm: Ilmeormj umir/ app/wa
tiomi , edited by M . W. Berkowitz amd F. Oser, 197217. 1lillsdale, NJ: I,awremmce Erll,ammmn.
1997. rlm commiplete immoral Person: Ammmtonmy amid fhrmnatiomm. 1mm Moral issues jim psmjc/iologmj:
Pem:sonmi/i,st eoimiiibmmtiomm.s to selected prohlemim.s, edited by J. NI. DmmBois, 11 .11 . I ,ammlmami, NI D: 1)mmivem sitv
Inss of Ammierica
2000. Cl maracter edmmeitiomi as pm evmotimmm I. In Immmprom;ing prcremmt iomm effictire,mevs, ImhitiiI by \V. 13.
IIansemi, S. NI. Ciles, and NI. I). Fearnmmw Kenmmcv, 37 45. Creensboro, NC: Iammglewond I3esmarchi.
2002. The sciemiceof character edmicatiomm. 1mm Bm4migimmg in a mmemeem imm e/iaraetem edmccat 1,~mm,mdit,d h,
NV. Damimomi, -1363. lilc, ,Nlto. CA: I looser Imistitmitiomi Press.
Berkowitz, NI. \V., and NI. Bier. Forthicoimmi 1mg. TIn imiterpersomnil roots of(lmmracter edmmcatiom m. Imm
p.st/rlmologi/ aimd ehmamacter mdmmeaj iomm , (di ted by I). K. I~apsh~amid F. C. Power. Smmmmtli llemmd, IN: U imis-em
sitv of Notre Damni Press.
l3mrkowitz, NI. NV., amid 3. Il. Crychi. 199$. Fostering goodmmess: Ieachimig paremits to facilitati chmmlilremis mooral
mlevelopm mmemit. Jommrmma/ of Mom-al I~dmuatiomi27:37191
2000. Earl, el mmraeter devi.lopmmmemmt amid edmmcatiomm. Earlmj I~lmmeainmi((mid flem miopmmmemml I I :5572.
llemkowitz, NI. VI., amid P. Simmmmimomms. Forthicomimimig. Imitegratimig seimmmcc edmmeatiom amid character mdmmcatimim:
lhme mx)le ofpeir discmissi Imi. 1mm Ihme role oJmcmom/ rca.sommimmg Oii .soeio.sciemmtifie issue., ammd m/m.seommrse (mm .sei
(mice edmmcat jomm , cditcd by I). Zeidlim; New York: Kl,mwmr.
Ilomimmv, A. mj:., NI. I. Britto, B. K. Klostermamimi, B. A. I lom rimmng, amid C. B. Slap. 2001). School
diseommmmectmdmmess: Idemmtifving adoleseeimts at risk. Pediatrics 1(16:1(11721
Botvimm, ( . 3., 3. A. Epsteimm, E. Baker, 1. Diaz, nid NI. If llWihliamns. 1997. Schoolbased dmmmg abuse pmevmmm
tiomi with immner city mimmmmritv yommth.Jomirmmal gIG/mild amid Amboie.scemmt Sub.siammre A/muse 6:519
(.ham-acter I~dmmcatiommPartimershimp. 2000. 2000 t~atim,mmalSc/moo/sof (lmamaeterammd Prommmi.siumgIm-ac/ne,. \Vmshm
mngtomm, DC: t.lmaractmr Edmicatiomm Part Iierslmip.
oIbv, A., P.. Kolmlberg, E. Feimton, II. SpcmchcrDnhiimm, amid NI. I ,iehermmiami. 1977. Secommdar,- scl 01)1 mmii iral (liS
cmissiomm programmmmes led by social slmmdies teachers.Jommrmma/ o i/oral Ldumytiomm 6:9(111 I
I )ammmomm, NV. 198$. Time mmmoma/ (bold: ,,Jurt,m m-immg (/oldremm N mmatumat mnora/gmomit/i. New York: Frmm Prmss.
I )ema er Pmmhhic Sclmmols. 1929. G/mamacemethmeatioim jmm time I*mirem- Pub/ic Se/moo/s. Nlommographm mmo. I I. Dmnvmr,
( 0: Demmvmr Pm ibhic Schools.
DmRochme, F.. 1., mmmcl NI. XI. \Vilhiamms. 200]. Glmaraeteredmmeatioum:A gmnthfor.sehioo/adummimmis/m-atocs. I ,ammlimmmm,
NI D; Sea recrow Press.
84 rITE ANNAI.S (iF IlIE AMERICAN ACADEMY

Dewey J. NV 1909. Irincipbe.s of mmmoral edocamiomm. Boston: ilommghton Mifilin.

Eiseimberg, N., and P. Fl. Mmmssemi. 1989. The m-oot,s of prosocial be/mac/or imm c:lnldremm. New Yorh: Cammibridge
University Press.
Elliott, S. N. 1993. Garimmg to /eaimm: A mepomt on time p0.5//ire immmpact 0/a social curricmmimi,mm. (.reenfield, MA:
Nmmm5hieast Ioimndation bir d.hmihdren -
Flay, 13. 13., C. C. Ahlrech, and N. Ordway. 200] - Effects oftime Positive Action Progranm on achnevemmiemit and
discipline: Iwo matcbedcomitroh comnpmmrisons. Prevemmtiomi Science 2:7189.
Im,rrer, C.., amid E. Skimmer. 2003. Sense of reh,mtedmmess as a fimctor in chmildremmN acadeimiic engagement and per
forniance. Jomrmmal of I.ducatiommal P.sycimology 95:1 1862.
Cottfrcdsomi, I). C. 2001. Sc/mool.s amid dc/in quemmcy. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Greenberg, M. I., C. A. Kmmschie, 13. T. Cook, and J. 1. Quamma, 1995. Irouioting emotional comsipeteimce ill
school_aged chmilclrerm: Ihe effects of the PAII-IS curriculum. Demelopmemmt cud P.st c/iopatimology 7:117
1
36.
Criggs. E. II. 1906. Moral cdmmcatiomi. New York: 13. NV Uuehmschm.
I Imrrington, N. C., S. NI. Giles, B. H. Doyle, C. J. Feemmey, and S. C. Ymmrmghlntb. 2(1(11 . Evalumatioum of the All
Stars Clmaracter Educatiomi amid Problemmi Ilehsavior Prevention Prograimm: Iretestposttest cffects on niedi
ator amid ommtcommie varmables for middle school stmmdemits. !leal//m Educatiomm amid Beimam3om 29:53346.
(1artshmcrne, H., and ].I.A. .May. 19281930. Studies iv. the matmmi-c of dma rae/cr. \OiS. 1_S. New Yomk:
MacMillan.
hIavihand, M. S. 1921. Character tmiumimmg in chili/hood. I3ostomm: Small, Maynard, and Co.
Ilawkins,J. I)., 13. F. Cmmtalano, D. M. Morrison,J. ODommnell, 11. 1). Abbott, and L. E. Day. 1992. The Seattle
Social Development Project: Effects ofthe first four years on protective factors and problem behaviors.
Jim Iimeprevcmm/iomm ofantm.soeiai he/mar/or in cbnidm-eu, edited byJ. McCord and R. Trerumbly, 13961. New
York: Gnilford.
I I,mwkins, J. I)., J - Cmmo, K. C. Full, 5. BattinPearson, and II. D. Abbott. 2001 . l.omigtermo effects of tIme Seattle
Smcial Development Intervemmtion on school bonding trajectories. Applied I)em:ebopmmmerm/a/ Sciemmce5:225
36.
Flimmde, E. 2003,August 3. Reflections on reformn: A formiierteacher hooks at school change and the hictors that
shape it. 1mm leacimer.s College Record. Retrieved from http://www.tcrecomd.org/Conteiut.mmsp3k.omitemmtl D=
11183
I lowes, C., arid S. Ritchie. 2002. A moat/er o/trn.O: Coummec/immg tcaciicrs rimid learmiei:s ui the earl, c/mild/mood
1
cla.s.roommm. New York: Thacber~College Press.
Jacksomm, A. NV., amrd C. A. Davis. 2000. lunmimig Pm4mm/.s 2000: I.dueatimmg adolescents imi f/me 21st cen/mmrm/. Ness
\omh: Ieachers College Press.
Kani, C. NI., lvi. ~11Greenberg, and C. I. N%aIls. 2003. Exammmimming this role of i nplenuemitatiomi quality imi schimmol
based prevelmtiomm using 11mm IATlIS Cumrricmilmmmmm. lmcm,emm/ion Sciemmcm: 4:5562.
Kiger, F). 2000. TheTriiies Process TIC: A prehiminamy evaluation ofcla.ssrooni inmipleimieumtatiomm and iimmpact
student achievenment. Edocatiomm 120:58692.
Lickmmna, F. 1983. Rai.simmg good children. New York: I3antamii.
- 199]. Educating for clmamacter. New York: Bantam.

Lickona, P., F.. Schaps, and C. Lewis. 2003. CEP.s Eleremm Primmcip/es of1~ffectiveC/maractcr Edmmca/iomm. \,Vaslm
iogtomi, DC: Character Education Partnership.
Maccohy F.. F.. 1980. Social dece/opummcmmt: P.sijc/molmigical growtim ammd time pare rm/cimild re/a/iomm.s/mip. NessYork:
Flarcmmm miS l3race Jmaanovichm.
MacCmmnms, 3. 1920. Ilmc mmmakimmg ofc/iaractec New Ymmmk: Macmillami.
McClellamm, 13. F. 1999. Mom-aleducation imm Ammmemica: Sm/mool.s ammd f/me .s/mapmmigo[c/iamacterfrommm cm,lommial /immme.s
to time p rcsemmf. New York: Teachers College Prcss.
McNeely, C. A., J. NI. Nnnmiemimakem; and B.N. lllmmmim. 2002. Iromootiimg school coumrmc:tedness: Evimlemice from
the National 1.ongitudimiml Study of Adolescemit Fiealthm.Jounia/ of Scimooi Ilealtim 72:13846.
Mmmrphmy, NI. NI. 2002. Character educa/iomm in Am,merica.s Blmme Ribbomi scimoofs: B~.stpractices Joe mmmcetimmg time
c/ma//emmge. 2mmd ccl. i,armhiamum, MI): Scarecrow Press.
Namice, B., NI. NV. hlerkowitz, I,. McKmsy, P.., amid 1. Proffitt. 2003. A ieadem.shipprogm-amiiforc/iarac/emedmmca
tion . NVaslmingtomi, DC.: Character Edmmcation Partnership.
RESEARCI I-I3ASEI) (.1 IAHACTEII EDUCATION 85

Ostermnamm, K. 2000. Stuudemmts mmcccl hir belommgmmmg in tIme school commmmnmmlmity. Recteuc of Educatiommal Re.seameim
70:323-67.
Patmikmmkomu, E.N., B. I. Weissherg, J. 13. Mamining, S. Reddimig, amid II. J. amid NValbei-g, eds. Fortlucommmimmg.
1
Scboob_flmmnily partumerships: Promnotimug the social, emmiotiommal, moms mmcmmclemnic growth ofchildrcmi. Time LSS
Reeicuc 2.
Pelhigrino, E. 1). 1989. reaching nmechical ethuics: Somne persistent qmlestions mud smmmnc respomuses. Acadeu,mie
Mcdicimme 64:7(11-03.
Powem; F. C., A. H. Fliggins, ansi L. Koblbeig. 1989. Lamvm-encc K.smimlberg.s appioaciu to miioralcdneatiomm. New
York: (.ohunibfa University Press.
Reimsier, J., 1). P. Paolitto, and 13. Il. Ilersim. 1983. Prommmotimmg mmmora/gromvt/m: Froumm Piaget to Ko/mihcmg. 2mid ed.
New York: I ~ongmams.
Resnick, XLI)., P. S. Ilearmnan, R.W. Blummmm, K. E. l3amimsmmmnm, K. NI. ITarris,J.Jonmes,J. Tabor,T. Beuuhirirmg, B. F..
Sieviumg, NI. Shiess. M. Irehmrmd, L. II. Ilearirmgcr, anml J. H. Udry. 1997. Protectimig adolescemits from himmrirm:
Findiuugs fmomim thus, National Longitmmdinal Studyon Adolescent Health .Jominmal oft/me Auncu4cami Medical
Associafiomm 278:823-32.
Ryan, A. M., ammd II. fmmtrick. 2001. The clmmssroommm social emivironmnmeimt arid chamiges in adolesceimts mnotivatimiui
amud eimgagemnent during middle school. Ammmcumcauu Edumca/iommal Rcscarc/m Joummmal .38:4376t).
Sizer, 1. H., and N. F. Sizer. 1999. limestuu/cumt.s (lu-c ucatcimimmg: Sc/moo/.s and flue immoralcomerac/. l3ostonu: Beacomu.
Solomnomi,Ii, V l3attisticlm, I). Kim, and NI. Wmmtson. 1997. Tcmmcherpracticesassociated with stumdemitssenseof
the cla.ssioom as,m comiummmlmnity. Social P.syc/mologt~of Educatioui 1:23567.
Solomoim, I)., V l3attisticb, NI. Watson, E. Schaps, amid (.. Lewis. 2000. A sixdistrict study of educatiomimml
clmamige: Direct and niediated effects of tIme C.hiild Devslopmemmt Project. Social P.sycluology oflsdueamioim
4:3-51.
Solmmmiioim,D., NI. S. Watsomm, amimh V. Battistich. 2001. Temmchimug and school elfects onm mumm)rah/prosocial develop
macmit. 1mm l!amudhookof re.searcbm omm teac/mumug, 4th ed., edited by N. Riehmardsomi, 566603. \ka.sliimmgtomm, DC:
Aumiericami Edmicational Research Association,
rm11)1X, NI. K., B. A. GaherUrmli, amid K. C.. llaily. 1995. 1~oiugtermsminuiplemnuentation of the teenage health
temmchiing rmnmdumles by trmuined teachers: A cisc stumdyJomirmia/ of Sc/uool heal//i 65:41115.
Taylom; A. S., P.. i,cmSciuito, NI. Fox, S. NI. Hubert, and M. Sonkowsky 1999. The ummcmmtouimmgfiictor: Eu:a/uafion
acm-os.s ages immicrgcuicratiomual appuoacim to drng abumse preccumtiou. New You-k: Flaxvorth.
T,venmlow, S. NV,, P. Fonmmmgy, F. Sacco, NI. I,. Gies, H. Evamus, and H. Ewbank. 2001. (.reatimiga peacefmul school
lemurnmingciiviroiimuent: A controlled stuidyofan elennentaly school intervemitiomi to reduce violermce. fumier
icaum Jomsrmma/ of Psychiatry 158:8081(1.
Urbmumi, Fl. 2003. LmJi.N greatest /es,somi.s: 20 t/limugs t/mat oiatfcr. 4thm ed. New You-Ic: Siuiiomm ammud Selmumster.
Valentiimc, J - NV., S. Trinible, amid F. Whitaker. 1997. The middle level prinmcipalshup. In mV/mat cmi rm-emm/ re.seareii
.sa,/.s to f/me uiodd/miem;elpracfitiommem;i.dited bsJ. P.. Irviui,33747. (.olmmmmmbus, OH: Ncmtiommal Middle Sclimmmml
Assmiciatioui.
Weisslmei-g, B. P., II. A. Bartoim, mmmd P. P. Shmi-iver. 1997. Thu., SocimdConmpetence Prommiotioim Progu-mumim for
Ymmmmmmg Adolesceumts. 1mm Puiumuanj prem.eumfiomu ux)rk.s: The Lela Roueiauudfmmxm rd.s, editeuih by C. NV. Ahhmem, mumd
1. P. dSmllotta, 26890. Newbnumy lark, (.A: Sage.
NVeotzel, K. 11. 2002. Are effective teacluers like good pareults? Ieamluimmg styles aumml stmmdemit adjumstmumemit mm
early mclolescemuce. C/i/id I)eceiopumiemif 73:2873(11
\\ymumie, F.. A., amid K. Ryami. 1993. Ileclaimmmimmg omir.seimool.s:A iiammdhookomm /eaciiimmge/iarac/cr. aeademmmie.s, amid
di.scipiumme. New Yomk: Merrill.
 Iwo chmalhc:~ngesfor researchiem-s of sclmoolbased action
to identify effective approaches to preverut probiemum
behavmms and promote positive yommth development and
to support the widespread imnuplemnemitation arid
suistainability of evidencebased preschool throu.mgh high
school pmactiee In this article, the authors describe mute
grated social, emotional, and acadlemie education as a
useful framework for comuceptuahizing schoolbased pos-
itive youth clevehopniemut pi-Og liming. We then meview
findlings fronu selected exemmuplauy studies and research

\~\7li.at\~\7orksjp~ syntheses to support this perspective. We comuchnude with

gtmidehmnes br implementing imutegrmmted social,

Sclix~lI1I3aseI emotional, amid academic leam-numig progi-aumis.

1 1 Kc,jword,s: social and emotional learning; school; cimiI

S ociai anci. siren; prevention

Emotional
ducators and paieiits want children to
Leai ning attend safe, supportive Schools that use
-p
rograms for sound methodis to enhance students academic,
social, emotional, and ethical growth (Learning

~it~ .~vTe Y~th

J~kJ~) First Alliance
students who 2001). In additionreflective
are intellectually to producmg
and
1 f committed to lifelong learning, they want qual
~ eve opmenL ity education that results in students Whdi relate
in socially skilled, respectfrd, and constructive
ways with other young people and adlults;
engage in positive and sale health practices; con-
tribute ethically and responsibly to their peer
By
ROGER P. WEISSBERG Rugem- P Wezssberg is a pr(?fessor of psychologuj arid edo
ann ca/tort at the Uuuivcrsity of Iliiruof,c at C/i/cago (UIC) and
MARY UTNE OBRIEN aLso executive director of the Collaborative for Aca-
aemic, Social, and Euiuotional Learning (CASEL). lie
directs a Natiouual Institute of Mental Iicalth__funded
Prevent jon Reseau-ch Tu-aiuting Program in Urban Gb/i
dren.s Mental Health andAlDS Prevention at UIC. Rep
rescuu tat/ye books include Enhammci mig C.hi Idren s
Weliness (19,97), Establishimig Preventive Services
(1997,), lroniotcng Social and Emotiommai Learning:
Guidelimmes for Educators (1997~,Longterm Trends in
the Well-Being ofChilclren and Adolescents (2003), and
Safe mmn~lSoummicl: Aim Educational Leaders Guide to Evi
denceBased Social and F motionmsl I ~earnimig Irograuuis
(2003). He has received flue NV/hoot V. Grauut Fommnda
tiomu .s fice~jeaiFacmilt,j Scholars Award imu Children N
Menutai Hcult/u, tlue National Meuutai Health Association.,
1)01: Ii). 1177/0002716203261(093

86 ANNALS, AAPSS, 591, January 2004