Professional Documents
Culture Documents
sNo. V/oy
DISSERTATION
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
By
sNo. V/oy
DISSERTATION
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
By
Page
LIST OF TABLES v
Chapter
1. INTRODUCTION 1
Statement of the Problem
Purpose of the Study
Research Questions
Definition of Terms
Background and Significance of the Study
Limitations
2. REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE 11
Historical Perspective on Values Education
Popular Concerns regarding Values Education
Contemporary Issues and Programs
Role of the School and Educational Leaders
3. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY 50
Population
Development of the Survey Instrument
Collection of Data
Analysis of Data
4. PRESENTATION OF DATA 58
Introduction
Values Education Programs in Texas Elementary Schools
Community Differences and Adoption of Values Education
Programs
Effects of Interest Groups
Acceptance of Values Education
Effects on Student Behavior
Principals' Acceptance of Values Education
m
Chapter Page
5. SUMMARY, IMPLICATIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS,
AND CONCLUSIONS 98
Summary of Findings
Implications and Recommendations
Conclusions
APPENDIX 122
A. Piaget's Eras and Stages of Logical and Cognitive Development
B. Konlberg's Six Moral Stages
C. List of Validation Panel, Cover Letter, Evaluation Instrument
D. Survey Instrument
E. List of Advisory Panel, Cover Letter, Evaluation Instrument
F. Additional Tables
REFERENCE LIST 145
IV
LIST OF TABLES
Table Page
1. Demographic/Wealth Distribution of Sample Schools 59
2. Location of Sample Schools 59
3. Commercial Programs in Use 61
4. Approaches to Including Values Education in the Curriculum 62
5. Frequency at Which Schools are Using Multiple Approaches 63
6. Chi-Square of School with Values Curriculum to Multiple
Approaches of Values Instruction 64
7. Values Curriculum and Emphasis on Values Education 65
8. Values Curriculum and Board Policy 66
9. Type of Community and Relationship to Values Education Policies . . 67
10. Type of Community and Relationship to Values Education Curriculum 68
11. Type of Community and Relationship to Locally Developed
Curriculum 68
12. Relationship Between Type of Community and Teaching
Values Lessons 69
13. Relationship of School Groups and Schools with Values
Curriculum 71
14. Values Frequency 71
15. Values Emphasis Grades K through 2 73
16. Values Emphasis Grades 3 through 5 73
17. Summary Data on Future Emphasis on Teaching Values 74
18. Tukey Multiple Range Test: Group by Extent Values Are
Emphasized in Grades 3-5 75
19. Summary of Influence Groups Toward Increased Emphasis
on Teaching Values 77
v
Table Page
20. Summary of Groups Influencing the Keeping of Values
Education Out of the Curriculum 78
21. Summary of Opposition Groups to Values Education Curriculum . . . 79
22. Tukey Multiple Range Test: Type of Community by Influence
of Teachers 81
23. Tukey Multiple Range Test: Relationship Between Type of
Community and School Board Influence 82
24. Tukey Multiple Range Test: Relationship Between Type of
Community and Parent and Community Influence 83
25. Tukey Multiple Range Test: Relationship Between Type of
Community and Religious Group Influence 83
26. Acceptance of Values Education Programs 86
27. Type of Community Relationships to Values Program Acceptance
by Parents, Community, and School Board 87
28. Summary of Values Education on Teaching Student Responsibility . . 88
29. Relationship of Schools with Values Curriculum and Values
Emphasis in Grades K-2 and Grades 3-5 90
30. Summary: Principals' Opinions Concerning Teaching Values
in Public Schools 92
31. Summary: Principals' Opinions Concerning Teaching Values and
Maintaining a Free and Democratic Society 92
32. Summary of Principals' Opinions Concerning Teaching Students
About Values 93
33. Relationship of Principals' Attitudes Toward Values Instruction
and Their Perceived Need to Develop in Students a Greater
Sense of Values in Maintaining a Free and Democratic Society . 94
34. T-Test: Comparison of Principals' Beliefs Concerning Teaching
of Values 94
35. Summary of Principals' Opinions About the Benefits of Their
Individual Schools' Values Education Program 95
36. Summary: Principals' Opinions Concerning Continuation of Values
Education Programs 96
VI
Table Page
37. Chi-Square Table for Type of Community by Different Variables . . . 141
38. Chi-Square Table for Groups by Different Variables 141
39. ANOVA Table for Type of Community by Different Variables 142
40. ANOVA Table for Type of Community by Various Variables 142
41. ANOVA Table for Survey Groups by Different Variables 143
42. ANOVA Table for Groups by Different Variables 143
43. ANOVA Table for Survey Groups by Benefits 144
44. ANOVA Table for Type of Community by Benefits 144
vu
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
The problem with most attempts to define values, as with the one above, is that
they contain terms such as society, sub-group, and shared norms. The use of
these terms raises questions such as: Whose values? Whose justice? Whose
morality? Whose family?
Because a consensus definition of values is so difficult, one might think
that instruction about values would be unmanageable. Hence, why should the
term "values education" even find its way into our vocabulaiy much less our
educational literature? However, public opinion polls in the 1970s and again in
the 1980s (Amundson 1991) indicate that 84 percent of parents of school age
children are in favor of the public schools teaching morals and moral behavior. It
seems that while opinionated Americans, diverse and individual as always, have
difficulty agreeing on what values represent in our society, they have little
difficulty in agreeing on the need to examine how we think, feel, and act
regarding issues of right and wrong.
Anyone questioning Americans' fascination with issues concerning values
needs only to observe the media attention given certain events. Recently,
concerns about values, character, and morality have shaped public debate in many
areas. In 1992, former Vice President Dan Quayle addressed a group at a fund
raiser in California and chastised television's portrayal of values, specifically
targeting the character of a television situation comedy for having a child out of
wedlock. This single incident sparked heated debate in support of the vice
president's comments as well as vehement opposition. As a result, Salholz,
Wright, and Crandall (1992, 45) reported in Newsweek that "Dan Quayle seems to
have nudged presidential politics perilously close to something that really matters:
a debate on values and the American family." Politicians who emphasized "the V
word" were commonplace in recent elections, from the president to local sheriffs.
The American public sat stunned over the images of violence flashing on
their television screens in the spring of 1992 following a jury verdict in Los
Angeles. No community had erupted with such emotion and rage in the United
States since the civil rights riots in the 1960s. When the smoke finally cleared in
Los Angeles, an estimated 5,200 buildings were destroyed or damaged, and losses
ranged close to one billion dollars. A staggering number of people were
arrested-almost 17,000. The number of injured soared to 2,383 with 54 deaths
(Salholz, Wright, and Crandall 1992).
Questions were raised through the media across the nation--What has
happened to justice? How can we show such disregard for human life and private
property? What prompts such violent response in our urban areas? What has
happened to our value system in this country? Editorials throughout the United
States called for a return to common values and urged our schools to get involved
in teaching values to a seemingly indifferent generation of youth.
The concern for values and morality seems to have been resurrected in a
culture allegedly consumed with self-gratification and the look-out-for-number-one
mentality. Kirschenbaum observes:
in these 1990s a concern for values and morality is back again. This
concern is spurred on by a national panic over our seeming inability to gain
control over the country's drug problem; is supported by continuing dismay
over crime, the disintegration of the family, teen pregnancy, teen suicide,
and other indications of social upheaval and collapse; and is further fueled
by a belated and reluctant recognition that the unprecedented number of
political scandals throughout the past decade were symptomatic of a virtual
ethical vacuum in government. For these and other reasons, parents,
educators, and community leaders are once again calling for the schools to
become involved with educating our young people about values and morals.
And well they should. (Kirschenbaum 1992, 772)
This recent media attention gives national focus to an issue that has been
brewing in education for a longer time. Advocates from sundry backgrounds such
as politics, education, the clergy, and others have been urging schools to
incorporate values instruction into the curriculum. Numerous advocacy groups
and organizations such as the Child Development Project, the Center for Civic
Education, and the American Institute for Character Education have developed
comprehensive curricula to be used in schools. School districts in Baltimore,
Washington, DC, Houston, and many others have incorporated the teaching of
common core values into their instructional programs. Political leaders from the
United States President and the United States Secretaries of Education to state
governors have called on schools to address the moral condition of America's
students.
When society identifies a social problem, it often demands that schools
provide a remedy. This has been the case with values education. Officials in the
4
Research Questions
The following research questions are addressed in this study:
1. To what extent are commercial or locally developed values programs in
place in Texas public elementary schools?
2. Does the adoption of values education programs differ among
categories of schools based on (a) student demographics and (b) type of
community (rural, suburban, urban)?
3. What special interest groups (school board, school administration,
teachers, parents and community, and religious groups) affect the introduction
into the school curriculum of identified values education programs?
4. What is the extent of school board, parent, and community acceptance
of the identified values education programs?
5. What effects on student behavior do principals attribute to values
education programs?
6. To what extent to principals accept values education programs?
Definition of Terms
The following terms are defined as they relate to this study:
Demographics is a science having to do with statistics of human
populations.
Chapter I students are students who are eligible for or are receiving
instructional support services supplemental to the foundation program through a
Chapter I compensatory funded program. An eligible student is (a) educationally
disadvantaged, (b) neglected or delinquent, or (c) migrant (Texas Education
Agency 1991).
Dropout according to Texas Education Code 11.203, is a student who does
not hold a high school diploma or the equivalent, who is absent from public
school in which he or she is enrolled for a period of 30 or more consecutive days,
and whose attendance within that period at another public, private, or parochial
school cannot be evidenced.
Economically disadvantaged are students who are eligible for free or
reduced-price lunches or are eligible for other public assistance (Texas Education
Agency 1991).
Mobility, for purposes of this study, is calculated as the sum of students
taking the Texas Assessment of Academic Skills (TAAS) who were reported as
enrolled in the district or any district in Texas for two years or less divided by the
total number of students taking the TAAS (Texas Education Agency 1991).
Minority, for groups in this study, is used to describe non-white students
(Texas Education Agency 1991).
Public Education Information Management System (PEIMS) is a system
for electronic data transfer between Texas school districts and the Texas
Education Agency (Texas Education Agency 1991).
Site-based decision making is a process for decentralizing decisions to
improve the educational outcomes at eveiy school campus through collaborative
efforts by principals, teachers, campus staff, parents, and community (Texas
Education Agency 1991).
Texas Assessment of Academic Skills (TAAS) is the criterion referenced
test given to Texas public school students in grades 3-10 (exit level) in reading,
writing, and mathematics (Texas Education Agency 1991).
Values education as utilized in the survey instrument of this research study
is defined as education in the nature of moral thinking and in the skills and
abilities of decision making. Values education is a term used in the broader sense
as all encompassing standards depicting a wide spectrum of behaviors. In the
current literature, values education also may be referred to as moral education,
character education.
The good news, as we will see, is that values education can be done within
the school day, is happening now in school systems all across the countiy,
and is making a positive difference in the moral attitudes and behavior of
students, with the result that it's easier for teachers to teach and students
to learn. (Lickona 1991, 22).
Although values education has been enthusiastically promoted periodically
throughout American school history, it is difficult to ascertain the degree of
influence or the frequency of values education programs within schools. Are
values education programs still in the embryonic stages in schools or have they
evolved into dynamic influences in scope and number? This study is significant
because the extent and importance of values education programs in Texas
elementary schools are investigated.
ABC television reported that approximately 10,000 elementary or
secondary schools in the United States are involved in teaching some type of
values or ethics course (Amundson 1991). Adding new courses or adding units to
existing courses are avenues that schools are using to implement values
instruction. According to a 1991 American Association of School Administrators
(AASA) national survey of school districts, commercial programs mentioned most
often as being used in schools are Quest International, Law in a Free Society, The
Character Education Curriculum, Project Charlie, and StarServe. These programs
are discussed in the literature review in Chapter 2. Based on the review of
literature, the Quest International program is mentioned most frequently
(Amundson 1991). Thesefindingsare reviewed to determine whether they are
consistent with Texas elementary schools and to identify which programs are
found most frequently in Texas elementary school curriculums. This study goes
beyond the scope of the AASA survey.
Limitations
This study is limited to the values education programs surveyed in Texas
elementary schools. No attempt was made to compare other programs in a
school's curriculum with observations of values education programs. No attempt
was made to compare Texas values education programs with programs in other
states or with programs at any grade level other than elementaiy.
Generalizations of the findings of this study also may be limited by the
limitations imposed by survey research methodology, such as respondents' failure
to answer all questions, the threat of misunderstanding questions, and the fact
that nonrespondents become a group about which virtually nothing is known.
CHAPTER 2
11
12
Probably, the first major call for reform of values instruction from its
Puritanical beginnings came with John Dewey in the early 1900s. Values
education, according to Dewey (1964), took on a totally different dimension from
the Puritans and the lessons of McGuffev. Morality and values were viewed as
dynamic processes of social problem solving rather than as a set of prearranged
ideas or habits. Values education was a vehicle to serve democracy. According to
Dewey, the proper way to resolve moral conflicts was to use intelligence or
reasoning (Atkinson and Ogletree 1982; Hersh, Miller, and Fielding 1980; Raths,
Harmin, and Simon 1978). Dewey writes:
Our conceptions of the ethical in education have been too narrow, too
formal, and too pathological. We have associated the term ethical with
certain special acts which are labelled virtues and set off from the mass of
other acts, and still more from the habitual images and motives in the
agents performing them. Moral instruction is thus associated with teaching
about these particular virtues, or with instilling certain sentiments in regard
to them. Ultimate moral motives and forces are nothing more nor less
than social intelligence, the power of observing and comprehending social
institutions, and social power, trained capacities of control, at work in the
service of social interest and aims. (Dewey 1964, 129)
Dewey (1964) believed that children respond and learn from the "hidden
curriculum" (i. e., activities and conditions found in the schools outside of the
formal curriculum). "Even if the teacher introduced concepts like democracy,
justice, respect for others, and human rights, if the classroom and school structure
continued to model and enforce authoritarian social relations, no effective
learning would take place" (Hersh, Miller, and Fielding 1980, 21). Dewey wanted
schools to model cooperation, self-direction, and leadership.
A historical review of values education is incomplete without a discussion
of the work of nineteenth century French sociologist Emile Durkheim. Durkheim
(1961) did not develop a specific model for values instruction, but his writings are
reflected in the work of those following him, particularly Dewey and Kohlberg.
14
ethical, and democratic ideals of the society around him. Piaget taught that
teachers must not separate cognitive thought from feelings because intelligence
operates in both areas of life (Piaget 1965). A child's experiences cause him or
her to move to higher levels of moral development. "Individuals who obey laws
blindly may never develop mature methods for dealing with moral problems and
situations" (Atkinson and Ogletree 1982, 77).
Piaget's studies further expanded the appeal of John Dewey in American
education. For Piaget, child morality remains within the confines of one's private
communal world. His research heavily influenced the later work of Lawrence
Kohlberg.
Lawrence Kohlberg, like Piaget, was a noted psychologist, and not an
educator. However, he was a prominent modern era figure in the field of moral
education. Like Piaget, Kohlberg taught that children develop morally through a
series of stages, much like learning to crawl before learning to walk. He
developed six stages of moral reasoning that are primarily cognitive in nature
(Appendix B). Kohlberg believed that the six stages are consistent with all
cultures and that each stage represents a level of reasoning higher than the one
immediately preceding it. Children do not skip stages of moral development;
however, sometimes they are found "half in one stage and half in another one"
(Kohlberg 1975, 673). As individuals mature or progress through the stages, they
become increasingly able to merge more and different information than they
could at earlier stages. Kohlberg argues that higher-staged reasoning is morally
better than lower-staged reasoning.
17
Kohlberg did not propose that these universal values should be taught directly, but
that these basic values are "embodied in common social institutions such as the
family, the legal system, and the economy." Children learn by participating in
these institutions under the guidance of adults. The "values arise out of the
child's experience of interacting with adults and peers, and operate as conceptual
modes for regulating social interaction" (Reimer, Paolitto, and Hersh 1983, 85).
The aim of education is to develop values and skills in students that will
contribute to their achievement of healthy and self-fulfilling lifestyles. Education
should enhance a student's development in areas of cognitive, social, moral, and
emotional functions (Kohlberg and Moyer 1972). Children develop these
universal values of their society through their interaction with other people.
Kohlberg agreed with Dewey and Piaget that children learn a great deal
about social behavior and moral values from the hidden curriculum. The "hidden
curriculum offers a rich opportunity for educators to involve students in moral
learning" (Hersh, Miller, and Fielding 1980, 150). Children can learn by reading
and discussing social issues, but there is no substitute for involvement and
participation in real-life matters. If educators want students to respect democratic
principles, students should not only study about democracy, but the school should
be a model of democratic practice in action. If educators want students to respect
civil rights, the school and teachers should model respect for civil rights. Schools
have a moral atmosphere that is acquired from the society in which they exist and
offers unique opportunities for problem solving and moral development.
In summaiy, Kohlberg probably was the first to combine principles of
psychology, philosophy, and education squarely on cognitive moral development.
He was instrumental in clearly delineating the influence that social factors and
time have on moral development. Kohlberg "stresses the preeminence of moral
19
reasoning, the background principles and consideration that guide our moral
judgments" (Scheffler 1990, 100). The educational implications for Kohlberg's
theories involve having classroom discussion of moral issues as well as those issues
that effect the every day school environment. Through these discussions, teachers
have opportunities to propose cognitive conflicts which allow them to lead
students into discussions involving higher moral reasoning.
Another major movement with a different approach for values inclusion
into American schools is values clarification. This approach for values education
gained widespread popularity in the late 1960s and throughout the 1970s. Raths,
Harmin, and Simon espoused this approach in their book, Values and Teaching.
Raths and his colleagues were concerned more with the process of valuing than
with the nature of values themselves. Values clarification
is very differentfromtrying to persuade children to accept some
predetermined set of values. It is based on a conception of democracy that
says people can learn to make their own decisions. It is also based on a
conception of humanity that says human beings are capable of being
thoughtful and wise and that the most appropriate values will emerge when
people use those capacities in defining tneir relationships with each other
and with an ever changing world. (Raths, Harmin, and Simon 1978, 38)
Values clarification programs often required that students reflect on the ills
within society and postulate approaches to correct them. Kirschenbaum writes:
As might be expected, values education and moral education began to
reflect these changes in society. Instead of simply inculcating and modeling
values, educators were now encouraged to help students clarify their own
values, learn higher levels of moral reasoning, and learn the skills of value
analysis. Educators were counseled to avoid imposing their own values and
morals on their students. (Kirschenbaum 1992, 772).
Advocates of the values clarification approach were less concerned with the
values students possessed than with helping students learn to formulate useful
values for their existence. Values education proponents argued that students
should be searching for their own guides for living their lives. These individual
20
and possibly impermanent guides were called values. Hersh, Miller, and Fielding
suggested that
one of the aims of values clarification is to help people obtain values that
will enable them to relate to their ever-changing world in a satisfying and
intelligent way. As such, values are not fixed positions or eternal truths.
Rather, they are guides grounded in an individual's personal and social
experiences. (Hersh, Miller, and Fielding 1980, 76)
Raths' values clarification approach addressed the role of teachers.
Teachers were encouraged to refrain from always assuming the role of putting
things into the minds of children, but to assist children in defining things
happening around them.
The meaning here for schools and, more particularly, for the busy
classroom teacher is implicit in the definition. If a person wishes to help
children develop clearer values, he or she must help children use the
process of valuing. That is, we must help children: [a] make free choices
whenever possible, [b] search for alternatives in choice-making situations,
[c] weigh the consequences of each available alternative, [d] consider what
they prize and cherish, [e] affirm the things they might value, [f] do
something about their choices, [g] consider and strengthen patterns in their
lives. As the teacher helps students use these processes, she or he helps
them find values. (Raths, Harmin, and Simon 1978, 47)
Values clarification did not diminish the role of the teacher but placed the
teacher in a position where indoctrination of students was less likely. The
emphasis shifted from "the teacher as the source of moral truth, or from the
teacher as model of the morally educated person, to the teacher as clarifier"
(Wilcox 1988, 250). Instead, teachers used questioning techniques that
encouraged students to develop and seek their own values.
Values clarification advocates promised that students would lead more
personally satisfying and constructive lives and perform better in school. As the
1980s brought additional social and moral problems within society and schools,
the hope of values clarification began to fade. Kirschenbaum (1992), one of the
21
preparing for the future. The support and protection that children once had from
the home and community is eroding" (Agency strategic plan 1992, 1). This
erosion is evident from the following statistics: One-fourth of Texas children are
living in poverty, up from 19 percent in 1979. Forty-five percent of the Texas
student population qualifies for the free or reduced price lunch program,
compared to 39 percent in 1980. Texas ranksfirstin the nation in the number of
births to females age fourteen and younger and second highest in births to
females between the ages of fifteen and nineteen years. Of the approximately
11,000 homeless children in Texas, an estimated 28 percent do not attend school
(Agency strategic plan for the 1992-1998 period 1992).
Alarming as these facts are, they are considerably more understandable in
light of further revealing statistics. In 1990 the National Center on Child Abuse
and Neglect reported that "2.5 million children and adolescents suffer physical,
sexual, and emotional abuse or neglect" (Amundson 1991, 6). The Metropolitan
Life Survey on the American Teacher (1987) reveals that a majority of teachers
and parents agree that parents leave their children alone after school too much,
fail to discipline their children, fail to motivate their children to learn in school,
take too little interest in their children's education, and neglect to see that their
children's homework gets done.
David Elkind, a leading child psychologist, reveals some striking findings
concerning the amount of time parents spend with their children in activities such
as reading, talking, or playing. He found that
working mothers spend only an average of eleven minutes each weekday
doing such things and thirty minutes per day on weekends. Homemaker
mothers . . . spend more time this way, devoting thirty minutes each
weekday and thirty-six minutes each weekend day to their offspring.
Fathers, mostly employed outside the home, spend even less quality time
with their children than working mothers do; they devoted a scant eight
23
schools to develop. We can expect our schools both to help acquaint our
children with certain character traits, and to develop them. And we can
agree that there ought to be such a thing as moral literacy. (Bennett 1988,
Dan Coats, United States Senator from Indiana, suggests that although
schools and parents have a dual role in assisting children with values development,
with the decline of the family unit, schools may be asked to assume a larger role.
As growing numbers of families fail, even more pressure is put on schools.
This is certainly not the ideal place for moral instruction. But the need is
real. If a child's home life doesn't provide discipline and basic moral
teaching, the schools may be his best chance of receiving any of that at all.
(Coats 1991, 21)
Barbara Whitehead, writing in The Atlantic Monthly, also urges action in
addressing the decline of the family.
If we fail to come to terms with the relationship between family structure
and declining child well-being, then it will be increasingly difficult to
improve children's life prospects, no matter how many new programs the
federal government funds. Nor will we be able to make progress in
bettering school performance or reducing crime or improving the quality of
the nation's future work force—all domestic problems closely connected to
family breakup. (Whitehead 1993, 47)
Recently, groups and organizations have come together to discuss values.
Organizations such as Girl Scouts USA, the national 4-H clubs, and the National
Education Association have endorsed a document known as the Aspect
Declaration of Character Education. This document, developed by various
leaders of youth organizations, educators, ethics-education proponents, and
business groups is widely circulated among education groups and state education
departments. It identifies six core values needed in our culture: respect,
responsibility, trustworthiness, caring, justice and fairness, and civic virtue and
citizenship (Viadero 1992).
Educators Respond
While political figures' demands for change often dominate press coverage
of an issue, actual change in educational organizations is significantly affected by
professionals. The "professionalization of reform" in government affects
27
context mark it as less moral than moralistic and less intellectual than didactic"
(Purpel 1994, 311). He calls for putting the end to current moral education
programs because they have failed to be incorporated into the mainstream of
school curricula and, more importantly, because the addition of separate moral
education programs gives the dualistic idea of two kinds of education, one which
is moral and the other where morality is irrelevant.
Purpel advocates moral discourse and analyses as opposed to programs.
The true proponents of moral education are those, in his view, who confront
"primary moral issues, those emerging from barriers to a life of justice, meaning,
community, love, and joy" (Purpel 1994, 311). He suggests that educators start
teaching by example by advocating discourse on issues such as testing, grading,
problematics of excellence, and hierarchy. He stresses that it is not good enough
in these times to try to "pump up those sagging, tired values of liberal capitalism-
reliance on good will, patience, forbearance, and the preservation of the status
quo" (Purpel 1994, 311).
Many claim that one of the major problems in a value directed program is
that moral claims are virtually impossible to verify. They maintain that in a
pluralistic society values are right or wrong, depending on whose point of view is
being expressed (Lockwood 1991). Conventional courses in the curriculum have
validity because they are based on historical evidence or natural truths, as in
science. Morality on the other hand has "no agreed upon methodology for
determining truthfulness" (Harris and Hoyle 1990, 19). These barriers make it
difficult to define morals or values for incorporation into the curriculum.
Some opposition to values education is primarily political. Many
individuals place responsibility on the school to develop students' knowledge and
intellectual abilities. Schools, therefore, should concentrate on cognitive
30
development and leave moral development to the family and the church (Harris
and Hoyle 1990). Some argue that moral development is too closely related to
religion and, therefore, school involvement in these issues comes dangerously
close to crossing the barrier of constitutionally protected separation of church and
state. Because moral education "implies the teaching of what is right and wrong,
there is sure to be conflict between the school and the public at large" (Harris and
Hoyle 1990, 21).
A problem related to values education concerns the fear of indoctrination.
Many opponents believe it is wrong to impose certain values on students. This
concern is the impetus for most values education programs. These opponents
argue that teaching should not be directed toward indoctrination of values
because there is no evidence of corresponding behavior changes of students.
Any program that intends to promote good behavior by teaching values
rests on a shaky foundation. Social scientific research indicates that moral
values play a small role in predicting behavior. (Lockwood 1993, 74)
Consensus is easily reached concerning the virtue of students learning to
become knowledgeable, active, productive, and rational citizens. The manner in
which these virtues are conveyed to children is not easily discerned. However, the
pressure is increasingly mounting-in view of previously cited public opinion polls,
the literature advocating values education, and increased pressure from
government and law enforcement agencies-to establish values education programs
in public schools. Some will continue to argue that schools are asked to do too
much; however, schools are increasingly faced with the demand that instruction in
values is no longer an option.
31
Classifying Values
One issue facing administrators when inaugurating values education
programs is prioritizing which values are to be taught. In 1972, A. P. MacDonald
correlated a list of thirly-six process and outcome values which were identified in
32
which values were emphasized in schools, and which values the principals
considered most important. Values were classified and defined as follows:
Moral values-knowing right from wrong, Cultural/ethnic values-race
awareness and family pride, Spiritual values—belief in God or fate,
Educational values-knowing the practical importance of school, Social
values-knowing how to choose the right friends and activities, and self
values—self esteem. * (Tuck and Albuiy 1990, 120)
Tuck and Albuiy (1990) propose that there is a direct relationship between
values development and success among at-risk youth in school. Several
recommendations were presented as a result of this study. One recommendation
was that school improvement approaches utilize instruction in all of the classified
values. Schools were challenged to develop strategies for student success that
incorporated school, home, and community effort. Strategies for success should
be individualized with consistent long-term goals established. School
administrators should realize that successful programs require financial
commitment to personal training, adequate supervision, small class size, and home
and community outreach efforts (Tuck and Albury 1990).
Kohn (1991), a values education proponent who advocates programs
emphasizing a high tolerance for ambiguity, views school as a place where
prosocial values and behavior are learned. Rather than punishing and curbing
negative behaviors, he favors promoting positive behaviors or prosocial behaviors.
According to Kohn, the school agenda should not teach values but should model
behaviors. "The teacher's presence and behavior, her choice of text, the order in
which she presents ideas, and her tone of voice are as much a part of the lesson
as the curriculum itself' (Kohn 1991, 499).
Quest International
Quest International is an organization that designs comprehensive youth
development programs for families and educators. The organization has
developed and piloted school programs for all grade levels. Their Skills for
Growing program is specifically designed for elementary students. The major
program goals for Skills for Growing are:
[a] To involve parents, school staff, and the community in supporting the
healthy development and success of all children; [b] To provide
opportunities for children to practice good citizenship through cooperative
groupwork and service to others; [c] To promote a healthy, drug-free
approach to life; [d] To celebrate diversity and encourage respect for
others; and [e] To provide support for teachers, parents, administrators,
36
StarServe
StarServe, a nonprofit organization in Santa Monica, California, has
developed materials to encourage elementary and secondary students to provide
service in their communities. Although classroom instruction is not a target of
this program, materials have been developed to introduce students to
opportunities for service in organizations that may be found in the students' town.
Students are also prompted to investigate individual projects in their communities.
This program has been endorsed by President Bush, and uses actors, rock
stars, and athletes to promote volunteerism. The program utilizes audio and
video cassettes to encourage students to become active participants in their
communities (Amundson 1991).
Project Charlie
The Project Charlie curriculum was developed by a suburb community of
Minneapolis, Minnesota, to be used in the local schools as a drug prevention
program. Federal funds were later utilized to launch the current national
program and curriculum. The classroom goals of Project Charlie are
[a] To equip students with social competencies necessary to cope with
interpersonal and intrapersonal pressures, [bl To enhance student self-
awareness and self-esteem, [c] To equip students with the skills necessary
to say no and assertiveness techniques to avoid the pressure to use drugs,
and [d] To increase students' knowledge of the harmful consequences of
chemical use. (Project Charlie 1992, 6)
Although designed as a drug education course, Project Charlie is
considered a values education curriculum because it focuses on the skills,
attitudes, and knowledge that are essential to personal values. The curriculum is
written for elementary school children and includes four units: self-awareness,
relationships, decision-making, and chemical use in society. The curriculum
document, which affirms this commitment to teaching values, clearly states that
40
values are important, necessary, and help to determine our behavior. Basic values
are easily taught within the confines of a curriculum such as Project Charlie (1992,
4). Parents are encouraged to take an active role in discussions with their
children. Materials available for use with the curriculum include student books,
teacher curriculum guides, posters, tee shirts, buttons, videos, and other materials.
The program is designed to be delivered by someone other than the
students' classroom teacher. Parents or other trained individuals are encouraged
to provide instruction.
studies, literature, or contemporary issues; and (4) Programs whose duration was
short term (Schlaefli, Rest, and Thoma 1985, 342-343).
The major conclusions of Schlaefli, Rest, and Thoma's (1985) meta-analysis
reveal that some programs have a positive effect on a measurement of moral
behaviors. They found that programs emphasizing discussions of different moral
dilemmas with a prolonged time for self-reflection produced modest but definite
effects. Programs such as these probably have a theoretical base that is closely
tied to the teaching of Kholberg (1975) and Piaget (1965). Programs using an
academic base of delivery such as the study of humanities and social studies do
not seem to have an effect on the development of students' moral judgement.
Anotherfindingof their study was that adults seemed to produce larger gains in
moral judgement than did students. Thisfindingis significant to educators in
planning the appropriate ages to begin and end school curriculum focused on
values intervention. Anotherfindingthat is pertinent to the school curriculum is
that interventions of longer than twelve weeks have no more impact than
interventions of three to twelve weeks. Programs that do not extend for at least
three weeks tend to be ineffective (Schlaefli, Rest, and Thoma 1985, 346-347).
Certainly additional research is needed to define the critical components of
successful programs.
Sandra Hanson and Alan Ginsburg (1988) studied students and the
relationship of values and student success in high school performance. They have
published theirfindingson two extensive research studies conducted in 1983 and
1989. Much of their research was in private or parochial schools.
Their 1983 study involved 30,000 high school sophomores. The values
examined included religious values, work ethics, educational expectations of the
students, and the educational expectations of the students, parents, and peers
42
(Hanson and Ginsburg 1988). Hanson and Ginsburg discovered that values were
influential to students' success, that
values held by adolescents, their parents and their peers influence high
school outcomes significantly and positively . . . [and] that values affect
school outcomes indirectly through the out-of-scnool behaviors such as time
spent on homework and watching television. (Hanson and Ginsburg 1988,
361)
Hanson and Ginsburg (1988) did not address how a school should
approach placing values instruction into the curriculum; however, they found that
in parochial schools where values instruction occurs along with supportive parent
and peer pressure, students' achievement increases.
Hanson and Ginsburg concluded from their 1983 study that
recently, considerable concern has been voiced over the declining quality of
American education. A number of educators and scholars have suggested
that students attitudes and values may play a critical role in raising the
academic quality of American schools. Ourfindingssupport these
suggestions; when students, their parents, and their peers believe in values
and accompanying behaviors that stress responsibility, students have a
better chance of achieving success in high school. . . Values (and the
efforts they spur) may be more conducive to change and hence may allow
more equality oi opportunity than would be the case if family
socioeconomic status and or students innate ability were the only
determinants of school achievement. (Hanson and Ginsburg 1983, 361)
Ginsburg and Hanson followed their earlier studies with additional
research studies in 1988 and 1989. Again, high school sophomores were utilized
in their study. Theirfindingsconcurred with their earlier study that certain
values, such as high educational expectations, self-esteem, and responsibility,
consistently lead to success in high school (Ginsburg and Hanson 1990, 1-3).
They found that high performers were 43 percent more likely to believe that it
pays to make plans for the future, 163 percent more likely to indicate that they
work hard in school, 131 percent more likely to have a mother who thinks they
should attend college, and 96 percent more likely to have Mends in school who
think well of students with good grades. Another significantfindingwas that
43
students' success-related outcomes were not only academic, but were also critically
linked to behaviors associated with drug use and sexual relations.
Ginsburg and Hanson (1990, 14) discuss certain intervention strategies that
appear to be successful. They suggest that direct instruction of students in values
can prove to be beneficial. Ginsburg and Hanson cite successes in parochial
schools where instruction in morality is part of the formal curriculum. They
support the view that teaching certain values or attitudes should be considered,
because their research identified increased school and vocational success by
individuals from schools where values and morality were taught.
Other successful intervention activities mentioned by Ginsburg and Hanson
(1990) are programs that demand parent and family involvement, particularly in
drug prevention programs. Ginsburg and Hanson point to the success of the High
Scope Preschool Curriculum Project in Ypsilanti, Michigan, which models a
developmental approach to the education of children based on the theories of
Piaget. Cooperative learning approaches to instruction appear to be beneficial in
improving academic performance and in improving relationships among students
from different ethnic backgrounds. Mentoring programs have proven to be
successful in improving students' motivation, attitudes toward education, self-
esteem, and self-confidence (Ginsburg and Hanson 1990, 19, 27).
issue or policy question faced. Rural districts and districts located in the sun belt
tend to be in communities that are more conservative. Individuals in these
communities are more sensitive and restrictive about course content and,
consequently, the zone of tolerance is relatively narrow (Boyd 1979, 97). While
these communities might resist programs such as values clarification that challenge
community values, they might also be more receptive to programs promoting
conservative values than are other communities.
carefully conceived and communicated directions and plans which enable everyone
to participate and be publicly accountable in achieving those plans. Bennis and
Nanus (1985, 96) also observed that it is the leader's responsibility to state and
promote the vision; however, the leader must also be a superb listener. Leaders
must establish formal and informal communication networks and respond to a
multitude of advisers, consultants, and planners from outside the organization, in
addition to others within the organization, who bear their hopes, dreams, and
aspirations.
Another important aspect of leadership relates to organizational skills.
Some refer to this attribute as organizational fluidity. Peters and Waterman, in
their often referenced book, In Search of Excellence, describe organizations that
operate efficiently as having a bias for action. The leadership role in these
efficient companies is occupied by individuals who are capable of communicating
informally, who use devices such as task forces, and who spur the organization
forward with quick action (Peters and Waterman 1982). Programs do not happen
incidentally in school districts. Successful education programs are led by
principals who exhibit these same attributes of successful leadership. Leaders for
change practice site based decision making and promote collaborative decisions
(Thurston, Clift, and Schacht 1993, 127). Effective leaders use the ad hoc task
force as the building block for organizational structure. Ad hoc groups are found
to work best when they consist of teams of volunteers, are of limited duration,
and set their own goals.
Leaders of successful programs, which include values education programs,
generally practice roving leadership. Roving leadership is a key element in the
day-to-day expression of a participative process. Participation is the opportunity
and responsibility for individuals to have a say in their jobs, to have influence over
46
Summary
Values and the concept of teaching values in our schools have historically
created, and continue to create, diversity of opinion as to definition and how they
are acquired and replicated within society. Values are defined by some as
universal, unchanging truths, and by others as changing ambiguous societal norms.
Values education, or the inclusion of values instruction in public schools, is whole-
heartedly endorsed by some and violently opposed by others. This literature
review provides an overview of the thoughts and opinions of educators,
psychologists, researchers, politicians, and others concerning values and values
education, and the theories and published research projects underlying many of
their ideas. Review of the literature points to a need for additional research,
49
particularly in the public school sector, concerning how values are defined in
public schools today and whether or not values are being taught in public schools.
This research study provides descriptive information and research data
about values education programs in Texas elementary schools. Information is
added to the body of literature concerning principals' perceptions of values
education programs in Texas elementary schools with values education programs,
and provides survey information concerning those programs. The research design
of this study is not intended to promote or repress the concepts that values should
or should not be taught in public schools.
CHAPTER 3
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
Population
Elementary school principals from Texas public schools were the target
population for this survey. A stratified random sampling technique was used to
ensure representativeness with respect to properties which form the basis of
classifying units (Miller 1983, 64). A stratified list of elementary school campuses
50
51
in Texas, developed by the Texas Education Agency for the Academic Excellence
Indicator System (AEIS) Report in October 1991, was used to select the sample.
Information for the grouping of school districts on the AEIS report was obtained
from Texas Education Agency Public Education Information Management System
data, information collected on the Texas Assessment of Academic Skills, and from
the State Properly Tax Board.
The stratified list used for this study was the Academic Excellence
Indicator System 1991 Grouping Index of Elementary Schools developed by the
Texas Education Agency. This document includes all elementary campuses in
Texas indexed and ranked according to five demographic variables. These
variables are the percentage of economically disadvantaged students, the
percentage of ethnic students, per student district wealth, the percentage of
limited-English proficient students, and the percentage of mobility. The group
index for each school campus was developed by assigning a factor of 40 percent to
economic disadvantage, 40 percent to ethnic considerations, 10 percent to wealth,
5 percent to limited English proficiency, and 5 percent to mobility. The
demographic groups are described by the Texas Education Agency as follows:
(D percentage of economically disadvantaged students (weighted 40%);
(2) percentage of minority students (weighted 40%); (3) district wealth
(weighted 40%); (4) student mobility (weighted 5%); (5) percentage of
at a
campus level from PEIMS student data. District wealth is calculated by
the State Property Tax Board. Student mobility is the percentage of
students taking the TAAS test who were continuously enrolled in the
school district for less than two years, calculated at the district level.
Schools are placed on a continuum according to their demographics.
(Texas Education Agency 1991)
For this study, the list of indexed schools was divided into four percentage
quartiles based on campus index numbers. On the basis of this index, the
grouping of schools exhibited the following demographics:
52
Group A (l%-25%)
Low percentage of economic disadvantaged students
Low percentage of ethnic populations
High wealth
Low percentage of limited English proficient students
Low mobility
Group B (26% to 50%)
Median to low percentage of economic disadvantaged students
Median to low percentage of ethnic populations
Median to high wealth per student
Median to low percentage of limited English proficient students
Median to low mobility
Group C (56% to 75%)
Median to high percentage of economic disadvantaged students
Median to high percentage of ethnic populations
Median to low wealth per student
Median to high percentage of limited English proficient students
Median to high mobility
Group D (76% to 100%)
High percentage of economic disadvantaged students
High percentage of ethnic populations
Low wealth per student
High percentage of limited English proficient students
High mobility
A telephone survey was administered to 310 elementaiy principals taken
from this list. A random sample of 100 principals of schools from each of the
53
(1985, 88) warn that "a sample of less than about 30 respondents will provide too
little certainty to be practical." The group sizes exceed 30 respondents, but the
sample is so small that results should be very homogeneous to be considered as
having an adequate confidence interval. Sample sizes near 100 should be about
90 percent homogeneous in order to provide a 95 percent confidence level
(Babbie 1973, 376).
assess the instrument for item relevancy, clarity, and appropriateness. Panel
members were asked to complete an evaluation instrument which allowed them to
respond as to the validity of each question on the survey (Appendix C). As a
result of this review by panel members, some formatting changes were made to
the instrument and one question was removed.
Originally, the survey instrument was to be mailed to the sample
population; however a telephone survey was used instead in order to receive a
better response rate. The instrument was modified to accommodate telephone
responses. The revised survey was submitted for review by the university
professor heading the Survey Research Laboratoiy of the University of North
Texas to assess the usability level for telephone collection of data. The
instrument was approved.
The "Survey of Values Education Programs in Texas Public Elementary
Schools" instrument (Appendix D) was then submitted to a second panel. This
panel consisted of two university professors, two elementary principals, and one
high school English teacher. Panel members were asked to assess the instrument
regarding clarity, length of time required for completion, and the format. Panel
members were provided an instrument on which to report their assessment of the
survey (Appendix E). All members responded with a top rating for clarity, length,
and format.
Collection of Data
The survey instrument was given to the Survey Research Laboratoiy of the
University of North Texas for administration to the sample of principals. The
Survey Research Laboratoiy is a professionally operated laboratory, specifically
designed and monitored to assist in telephone survey research projects.
56
Individuals performing the actual phone survey have been trained in the proper
performance and etiquette for conducting research projects. Data were collected
using the survey instrument and were returned for analysis.
The survey instrument was administered to 310 principals from the
previously generated stratified list of principals. Principals were randomly selected
from each group and valid telephone survey results were collected from 77
principals within Group A, 79 from within Group B, 77fromwithin Group C, and
77 from within Group D. The principals were informed that their responses
would be kept confidential and that no school or person would be identified in
any manner. Those administering the survey instrument recorded results by code
number only, and not by name. Due to the successful response rate received in
the original survey of principals, no follow-up activities were necessary.
Analysis of Data
Data for this research were analyzed using standard statistical procedures.
Generally, the first analysis completed in a study such as this is the creation of a
frequency distribution (Kachigan 1986, 42). This analysis yields data as a concise
overview that is not possible from unorganized observations. Relative frequencies
give percentage of responses to survey questions. Cumulative relative frequencies
from the data were derived to show the percentages of the total observations of
the data of a particular value (Kachigan 1986, 32).
In addition tofrequencydistributions, information gleaned from this survey
was examined to determine whether it differed or was related by group
characteristics. In statistical terms, an attempt was made to determine whether
qualitative variables were related to one another. To determine whether the
57
PRESENTATION OF DATA
Introduction
Thefindingsof the study are presented in this chapter. The results are
organized according to the six research questions. The data in this chapter
present the results of the "Survey of Values Education Programs In Texas Public
Elementary Schools" instrument which was administered by telephone to
elementaiy principals in Texas schools. A random sample of public elementaiy
school principals stratified by groups determined by the Texas Education Agency
was drawn. As discussed in Chapter 3, the principals were divided into four
quartiles according to their schools' indexed position on the Academic Excellence
Indicator System 1991 Grouping Index of Elementary Schools developed by the
Texas Education Agency.
The telephone survey technique was used to enhance this study by ensuring
approximately equal sample sizes among the four groups. Five different
demographic criteria were used in developing the index; however, schools in
Group A tended to be high wealth districts with a low percentage of economically
disadvantaged students; schools in Group B tended to be median to high wealth
districts with a median to low percentage of economically disadvantaged students;
schools in Group C tended to be median to low wealth districts with a median to
high percentage of economically disadvantaged students; and schools in Group D
tended to be low wealth districts with a high percentage of economically
58
59
The principals were asked to indicate whether their campuses were located
in an urban, suburban, or rural area. The data in Table 2 indicate that 31.9
percent of the schools sampled were located in urban areas, 26.8 percent were
located in suburban areas, and 39.4 percent were located in rural areas. The
Use of Curricula
Approximately one-third (109 schools) of the principals surveyed reported
that their school had a specific curriculum in place for values education. Of the
109 schools, 43 (40.6 percent) used a commercial program and 63 (59.4 percent)
used a locally developed curriculum. The use of specific commercial programs is
shown in Table 3. A discussion of these commercially developed materials is
provided in Chapter 2 of this study.
The most frequently used materials were from the San Antonio-based
American Institute for Character Education, with programs in 21 of the campuses.
Examination of Table 3 reveals that "other" programs were used by 59 of the
school districts. The drug education program DARE was the most frequently
reported "other" program, with 14 schools reporting its use.
61
Note: Total exceeds 109 because some schools are using more than one program.
Schools
Approach
Number Percent
Added new courses 89 28.7
Added units to existing courses 184 59.4
Encouraged teachers to teach lessons 180 58.1
Provided inservice 163 52.6
Invited special guests to speak 228 73.5
Student volunteer programs 166 53.5
Total 1^010 100.0
Question: How many of the following programs has your school instituted to
teach values to students: added courses, added units, encouraged to teach
lessons, provided inservice, invited special guests, student volunteer programs?
Schools with Schools W/O
Values Values
Number of All Schools Curriculum Curriculum
Approaches Used Frequency Frequency Frequency
0 14 1 13
1 30 2 28
2 40 8 32
3 73 15 58
4 85 47 38
5 65 34 31
6 2 2 0
Total 309 109 200
Without With
Formal Values Curriculum Number Percent Number Percent
Less than 3 approaches 73 37 11 10
More than 3 approaches 127 63 98 90
Total 200 100 109 100
Emphasis
Curriculum
in School More Less Same Row Total
Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent
three years more frequently than did principals from schools without a values
curriculum. This suggests that the schools that placed more emphasis on teaching
values were more likely to adopt a formal values curriculum. Seventy percent of
the schools without a curriculum or values education reported less or the same
emphasis on values instruction, whereas 49 percent of the schools with a values
curriculum reported less or the same emphasis on values instruction in the past
three years.
Policy
Curriculum in -
School Yes No Row Total Percent
No 75 115 190 63.8
Yes 65 43 108 36.2
Total 140 158 298
Percent 46.9 53.1 100.0
Summaiy
Values education occurs in some way in ninety-five percent of Texas
elementaiy schools. Over one-third of the schools have a formal program, either
locally or commercially developed in place. Schools also use a wide variety of
other approaches. Nearly half of the schools are in districts with a policy on
values education. A majority of principals feel their emphasis on values has
remained the same over the past three years, while one-third feel it has increased.
Polity
Yes No
Row
Type Number Percent Number Percent Total Percent
Urban 55 57.0 41 43.0 96 32.7
Suburban 39 50.0 39 50.0 78 26.5
Rural 44 37.0 76 63.0 120 40.8
Total 138 46.9 156 53.1 294 100.0
districts (37% with policies) were significantly less likely than urban districts (57%
with policies) to have adopted policies concerning values education. Schools in
suburban communities (50%) were closer in frequency to urban districts than to
rural districts. The chi-square statistic was also used to identify differences among
schools in rural, suburban, and urban communities and to determine whether they
had a formal values education curriculum. Again, principals of urban schools
(51%) reported having a values curriculum more often than did principals of
suburban (28%) and rural (29%) schools. Results shown in Table 10 reveal that
the percentages of rural and suburban schools that had a values education
curriculum were very similar.
Curriculum
Yes No
Row
Type Number Percent Number Percent Total Percent
Urban 51 51.0 48 48.0 99 32.7
Suburban 23 28.9 60 72.0 83 27.4
Rural 35 29.0 86 71.0 121 39.9
Total 109 36.0 194 64.0 303 100.0
Local Curriculum
Yes No
Row
Type Number Percent Number Percent Total Percent
Urban 36 72.0 14 28.0 50 47.2
Suburban 9 41.0 13 59.0 22 20.8
Rural 18 53.0 16 47.0 34 32.1
Total 63 59.4 43 40.6 106 100.0
Curriculum
Yes No
KOW
Group Number Percent Number Percent Total Percent
A 13 18.0 63 82.0 76 24.6
B 26 33.0 53 67.0 79 25.6
C 31 40.0 46 60.0 77 24.9
D 39 51.0 38 49.0 77 24.9
Total 109 35.3 200 64.7 309 100.0
Note: Chi-square = 19.992, DF = 3, Significance (P) = .00017.
Note: N = 310
72
The principals also were asked to indicate the extent to which values were
emphasized in their schools in grades K through 2 and in grades 3 through 5.
Results are exhibited in Table 15 and Table 16. The highest rated emphasis for
grades K through 2 was "honesty and truthfulness," with a mean score of 6.069.
The highest rated emphasis for grades 3 through 5 was "being dependable and
reliable," with a mean score of 5.825. "Belief in God" had the lowest rated value
emphasis by schools at all grade levels. Although the mean rating was low, it is
noteworthy that 33 percent of the respondents rated "belief in God" as 5 or
higher. This is notable when viewed within the legal constraints of the concept of
separation of church and state.
Analysis of variance was used to test for differences between schools based
on the four demographic groups and size. Values emphasis of schools in grades K
through 2 and grades 3 through 5 were compared by district type of community
and demographic groups. The overall emphasis that the principals perceived that
their schools would be placing on values in the future was compared by type of
community and demographic groups. An overall group mean was determined for
questions 5 and 6 to facilitate the Tukey-HSD procedure in making the
comparisons.
No significant difference was found (Table 39) among urban, suburban, and
rural schools regarding the extent to which the schools were emphasizing values.
The principals were asked if they thought the schools would place more or less
emphasis on values instruction in the future. Again, no significant difference
related to size of the school was evident. However, as revealed in Table 17, 250
principals (81%) believed the teaching of values would receive more emphasis in
the future.
73
Note: N = 310
Note: N = 310
74
Table 18.--Tukey Multiple Range Test: Group X Extent Values are Emphasized
Grades 3-5
Question: To what extent do you feel the following values are emphasized
in your school in grades 3 through 5?
Analysis of Sum Mean
Variance DF Squares Squares F P
Between groups 3 1820.75 606.91 5.1487 .0018
Within groups 223 26287.00 117.87
Group
Mean Group D B A C
55.977 GrpD
*
62.736 GrpB
*
62.913 Grp A
*
63.432 GrpC
Summary
Differences concerning the adoption of values education programs were
evident between school districts based on type and demographics. The urban
school districts were more likely (57%) to adopt board policies addressing values
education. The urban districts were most likely to have developed their own
values curriculum, whereas suburban districts were most likely to use a
commercial curriculum. Poor schools were most likely to have a formal values
curriculum in place. Principals from all of the schools indicated that they believe
values education will receive more emphasis in the future.
76
School board 108 2.15 1.80 61.1 12.0 5.6 4.6 10.2 1.9 4.6
Administration 109 2.23 2.04 64.2 11.0 2.8 3.7 3.7 7.3 7.3
Teachers 109 2.35 1.97 57.8 9.2 10.1 5.5 5.5 4.6 7.3
Parents and
Community 109 2.63 2.02 48.6 12.8 5.5 12.8 7.3 5.5 7.3
Religious
groups 182 2.57 2.04 51.0 11.8 8.8 8.8 4.9 6.9 7.8
and religious groups had in keeping values education instruction out of the
curriculum. Examination of the means shown in Table 20 reveals that the
principals did not report a high level of influence from any of the groups.
However, a significant difference was evident between urban and rural districts on
the degree of influence from the school boards. Using analysis of variance, a
significant difference was found between the mean score reported from urban
principals (3.1321) and the mean score reported from rural principals (2.2027) on
the influence that school boards exerted in keeping values education instruction
out of the curriculum, as shown in Table 23. Results indicate that the principals
believed there was more influence from urban boards than from rural boards on
these issues.
82
(mean 2.6944). The difference between urban (mean 3.2642) and suburban
schools was not as pronounced, but a difference was observed.
School boards, parents and community, and religious groups were the only
groups that exhibited a significant difference between type of community and
influence on keeping values instruction out of the curriculum. No significant
differences (Table 40) were indicated using ANOVA when comparing the
influence of teachers and administrators.
Summary
The elementary school principals reported that teachers had the most
influence toward placing increased emphasis on values education programs. Rural
teachers were viewed as having greater influence than were urban teachers.
Suburban teachers' degree of influence was between the rural and urban teachers
and was not significantly differentfromeither group. Religious groups were
viewed as having the least influence; however, the influence of religious groups
was greater in suburban schools than in rural or urban schools.
85
Type of Community F
(Urban, Suburban, Values P
Rural) by
Parent acceptance .069 .933
Community acceptance .909 .405
Board acceptance .213 .808
Summaiy
Data gathered in this research study show wide support from school
boards, parents, and communities toward current values education programs.
Over 90 percent of the principals reported widespread support from these groups
for values programs in their schools. It should be noted, however, that the values
education curricula in most elementaiy schools tends to focus on behaviors such
as developing good citizenship, promotion of healthy, drug-free lifestyles, and
teaching respect for others and oneself. Curricula addressing these values are
generally non-controversial and readily accepted. A values education curriculum
targeted at more sophisticated and controversial topics such as birth control,
which might be found in secondaiy school curricula, may not garner such strong
support. The principals reported no significant differences in support from rural,
suburban, or urban communities.
As previously discussed in the analysis of Tables 14, 15, and 16, the
principals tended to view schools' emphasis on values to be greater than students'
demonstration of them. A statistical procedure (t-test) was used to test for
significant difference (< .05) between the schools with a values education
curriculum and the degree of emphasis that the schools placed on values in grades
K through 2 and grades 3 through 5. No significant difference was found (Table
29) due to the presence of a school curriculum. Schools emphasize values even if
they do not have a formally adopted values education curriculum. As explained
earlier, schools also use many other approaches to teaching values.
T-Test
Values Emphasis by SD F Value P
Grade
K through 2 10.4 1.31 .718
3 through 5 11.8 1.41 .712
Summary
The principals who had values programs in their schools believed their
programs had a positive benefit on the behavior of students. Overwhelmingly, the
principals indicated that students' responsibility, playground behavior, student-
teacher relationships, and classroom behavior had benefittedfromthe values
education programs offered in their schools. As high as 98 percent of the
principals rated their program as beneficial in at least one of these categories.
However, the schools were emphasizing values, even without a values education
curriculum.
91
Responding to the question "How well do you think your school is doing in
teaching students about values?" 87 percent of the elementary principals gave a
rating of 4 (median index) or higher. As revealed in Table 32, the principals gave
a mean rating of 4.893 to this survey question. This rating indicates that the
principals viewed their schools as giving a middle-of-the-road effort to teaching
93
values. A marked difference was evident between the perceived need for values
(Table 31) and the actual delivery of values instruction in the schools (Table 32).
ANOVA analysis revealed that these perceptions were consistent regardless of
type of community or demographic group (Table 44).
Teaching of values 308 4.89 1.28 2.3 1.9 8.4 18.8 37.0 23.1 8.4
schools and their responses concerning how well they perceived their schools
weredoing in teaching students about values from those who did not favor values
instruction in schools. The results of the t-test are provided in Table 34.
with values education programs were asked if they thought the values education
program in their school was beneficial to students. As shown in Table 35, 100
percent of the principals with a values education program in their school rated the
program's benefits at the median level of higher. The mean rating of 6.31 given
by the principals indicates that they regarded the current values education
programs offered in elementary schools as highly beneficial.
Benefit of Values
Education program 109 6.31 .84 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.8 15.6 29.4 52.3
Question: Would you like to have your school's values education program
continue?
Response Frequency Percent
Yes, it should be continued 108 100.0
No, it should not be 0 0.0
continued
No response 0 00
Total 108 100.0
about the benefits of their schools' values program were compared between
groups for the ANOVA technique. The same technique (ANOVA with Tukey)
was used to note differences between principals from urban, suburban, and rural
schools.
No significant differences (see Table 43, Table 44) were observed between
school principals from different school groups or between principals from different
sized communities concerning their assessment of the benefit obtained by the
students due to the schools' values education program. Principals from within all
demographic groups and from different sized communities rated their schools'
values education programs as being highly beneficial.
Summary
The data from this study are very clear on two important findings: First,
the principals of the Texas elementary schools surveyed believed that values
should be taught in schools. Second, the principals (100%) in schools with values
education programs believed their programs should continue. Ninety-five percent
of Texas elementary principals believed values should be taught in schools.
97
Ninety-eight percent of the principals believed there are benefits to society from
values education. Eighty-seven percent of the principals reported that their
schools were doing at least an average job in teaching values to students. The
principals also reported a marked difference between the perceived need for
values development in schools and the actual delivery of values instruction in the
schools. This need was viewed as greater than the schools that were currently
delivering values instruction.
CHAPTERS
98
99
Summary of Findings
Iickona (1991, 1988, 1986), Wynne (1986), Ryan (1986), and other
proponents of values education programs for the public schools in our country,
could receive mixed signals concerning the condition of formal values instruction
in Texas. Most Texas elementary schools do not have a formal values education
program in place. Only 35 percent of the Texas schools surveyed reported having
a values curriculum. A positive indicator for proponents, however, is the fact that
most of the schools were involved in values instructional activities. Only 4.5
percent of the principals surveyed reported no activities addressing values
development. Over 90 percent of the principals surveyed rated their schools as
above the median on a seven-point scale in the amount of emphasis placed on
basic values such as honesty, respect for ethnic differences, compassion, and
dependability. Most of the principals believed that schools will continue to place
emphasis on values development in the future.
Texas elementary schools are using a variety of strategies for values
instruction. Many of these approaches, which are not included in a formal
curriculum, are referred to as the "hidden curriculum" or, more likely, regular
curriculum supplements. The most common approach for values instruction is to
invite resource persons to come and speak to the students. This approach is
utilized by districts with a formal values education curriculum as well as those
without a curriculum. Elementary schools all across Texas (74%) are reaching
outside their teaching staff to bring individuals into the schools to discuss values
issues. These school personnel may feel inadequate or uncomfortable in
addressing issues concerning values or may be simply allowing "outsiders" to
address controversial issues. Regardless of the reasons, the use of outside guests
is a common occurrence on elementary campuses.
100
Other common approaches used in Texas schools include adding units and
specific lessons to existing instructional programs, providing in-service, and
initiating student volunteer programs. The majority of the surveyed schools
offered values instruction by adding units or specific lessons regardless of whether
there was a formal curriculum at the school or not Seventy-three percent of the
surveyed elementary schools were teaching about values by using three or more
approaches. Ninety percent of the schools with a formal values curriculum were
using three or more approaches in teaching values to students. One approach
which was not utilized in most elementary schools was the addition of specific
courses for values instruction.
Proponents for values education programs must continue their crusade,
however, because most Texas elementary schools do not have a formal values
education curriculum and have not increased their emphasis on values instruction.
Over 70 percent of the schools without a values curriculum reported the same
emphasis or less emphasis during the past three years. Seven percent of the
schools actually reported less emphasis than in previous years. These results are
very similar to the 1991 AASA study on values (Amundson 1991, 32). The AASA
study revealed that 65 percent of the schools in the United States were not
placing increased emphasis on values instruction. Considering all of the attention
values proponents are getting in the media and educational journals, one might
question why this is so.
There are many reasons schools are not placing increased emphasis on
values instruction. One reason, in Texas, is that schools often simply do not have
enough time to incorporate new programs. In recent years, greater emphasis on
testing and accountability for basic courses has been required by the State of
Texas. This testing often limits time for a new or "non-tested" curriculum.
101
Another explanation is that school officials may believe that they are
already stressing values instruction and do not need more emphasis. Findings in
this study show that the principals believed their schools were doing a better than
average job in emphasizing values.
A perception persists among educators that values education continues to
be a controversial topic. Some principals simply may wish to avoid perceived
controversy. Results of this study reveal that this perception may be unwarranted
in most cases, but where this is a problem, it is a big one. Certainly there are
many other possible explanations, but this study reveals that formal values
instruction programs are not found in most Texas elementary schools.
Elementary schools without a formal values curriculum generally are
located in school districts without a formal board policy addressing values
instruction. This has broader implications for grade levels other than elementary.
Districts without specific policies regarding values instruction probably do not
have a formal values curriculum for their middle school and high school campuses
as well. It is noteworthy that 39 percent of the elementary campuses reporting no
formal values curriculum were located in school districts where a formal board
policy addressing values instruction was in place. This may suggest that values
instruction is seen more as a supplement to the formal curriculum than as a
specific component of the curriculum.
Many school districts in Texas, 35 percent of the surveyed schools, have a
functioning formal values education curriculum. These elementaiy schools have
increased emphasis on values instruction during the past three years. Most of
these districts have developed their curriculum at the local level; however, some
districts are using commercially available materials and programs as part of the
local curriculum.
102
The previously mentioned AASA values study (Amundson 1991) noted five
major commercially available programs: Quest International, Center for Civic
Education, American Institute for Character Education, Project Charlie, and
StarServe. These five programs are also being used in Texas. This research study
revealed that almost 7 percent of the schools surveyed were using commercial
materials from the American Institute for Character Education. As noted earlier,
this curriculum is based on the belief that self-esteem promotes responsibility
among students. Another 6 percent of the surveyed schools were using materials
from Quest International. The Quest program places a strong emphasis on family
values and parental involvement to promote student success. The drug education
program DARE, not mentioned in the national study, has extensive use in Texas
schools (5 percent of surveyed schools). With over one-third of all surveyed
districts reporting use of some type of commercially available material, it is
evident that commercial companies will continue to produce and market products
for Texas schools. With this reported level of use of commercial products, there
appears to be a lucrative market for values instructional materials in Texas
schools.
Texas elementary schools may or may not have a formal curriculum for
values instruction, or they may or may not be using commercial products or
programs; but Texas schools most definitely address values as a part of their
instructional programs.
Texas is a large and diverse state. Texas school districts, which reflect this
diversity, range from large urban inter-city districts to small sparsely populated
rural districts, from wealthy property-rich districts to low wealth property-poor
districts. The student population is just as diverse, with students from high and
low socioeconomic areas and families, and many different ethnic populations
103
Urban Schools
Urban schools were the most likely to have a formal values education
curriculum. One possible explanation for this was the relatedfindingthat urban
schools were also most likely to have a board policy addressing values instruction.
Urban schools were the only category in which a majority of the surveyed schools
had both a board policy and a formal values education curriculum. In the
majority of urban schools values were viewed as an issue that was important
enough to incorporate into the regular curriculum. This curriculum is likely to be
locally developed (not unusual considering most urban schools have curriculum
specialists) but sometimes included commercially developed materials. Urban
principals were also more likely than their suburban and rural counterparts to
encourage teachers to teach specific lessons on values. Whether based on need or
perception, principals of the majority of the urban schools viewed values as
something they could not fail to address at school.
Suburban Schools
Values instruction, and specifically a values education curriculum, was less
prevalent in the suburban schools surveyed. Only 28 percent of the suburban
schools reported having a values education curriculum. Districts with a values
104
Rural Schools
Only 29 percent of the rural schools surveyed reported having a values
education curriculum. It is not surprising therefore that the rural schools were
significantly less likely to have board policies addressing values than were urban
schools. Rural boards of education do not tend to take as active a role in
directives concerning curriculum as do their urban and suburban counterparts.
Although an official board polity and values curriculum were absent in most rural
schools, values instruction was not. Seventy-six percent of the rural principals
reported encouraging teachers to teach specific lessons about values. Principals of
rural schools expected values to be taught; however, they did not consider it
necessary to have adopted a formal board policy or curriculum. It was simply
understood that values would be taught.
Some differences among demographic groups were noted in this study
concerning the adoption of values education curricula. However, the schools
surveyed did not vaiy as much according to demographic groups as they did by
105
Teachers
Teachers have the greatest influence in encouraging schools to increase
their emphasis on values education. This additional emphasis may result in a
district that is establishing a formal values education curriculum or one that is just
adding additional units or lessons to the existing curriculum. Teachers have been
veiy active in promoting values education programs and have refrained from
opposing these programs. This indicates that teachers assume part of their role as
a teacher includes addressing the values of their students.
A significantfindingof this study was that teachers from rural districts
influenced their schools' movement toward placing increased emphasis on
teaching values more than teachers from urban districts. The teachers in small
schools do not have to contend with the bureaucratic school organizational
structure found in urban districts. Teachers in rural schools have more
opportunities for informal and formal interaction with decision makers
(administrators or individual board members). Because teachers in rural districts
usually have obtained a higher level of education than most of the board
members, the board members in rural schools rely on the opinions of teachers as
a source of professional input. Rural teachers understand their classroom setting
107
which emphasizes that a strong sense of community, small class size, and close
personal relationship between teacher, student, and family is the perfect setting
for values education delivery.
School Board
The principals did not view the school board as a primary factor in bringing
values education programs into Texas schools. Other groups tend to provide
more impetus for values program development. A significant difference was
noted, however, between the influence of urban boards of education and rural
boards of education in excluding values instruction from the curriculum. This
finding seems paradoxical in that the urban schools were more likely to have a
board-adopted policy concerning values instruction. Clearly, this demonstrates
that the urban boards of education take a more active role in internal curriculum
matters than do their rural and suburban counterparts. Because of the extreme
size and diversity of their districts, urban school boards may believe that values
issues are too important to leave to campus level administrators—a district-wide
emphasis must be stated and utilized.
School Administration
Behind teachers, the school administrators rated themselves as most
influential in promoting increased emphasis on values in their schools. Texas
elementary principals appear to be very involved with the curriculum of their
campuses. The principals surveyed also related having the latitude to emphasize
values programs without undo pressure from their school boards. Principals have
offered little resistance in keeping values education instruction out of the school
curriculum. No significant differences related to size or demographic variables
108
were found among principals concerning values issues in schools. The Texas
principals were very supportive of values education instruction in schools.
Religious Groups
The principals rated religious groups as having the least amount of
influence in encouraging schools to place a greater emphasis on values instruction.
This finding appears to contradict the concerns of researchers who postulate about
the political influence and impact of the religious right. It also gives credence to
conventional thought that the teaching of values is a responsibility of the family
and the church. Schools' involvement in values instruction may be an unwanted
occurrence by some religious groups. This was further validated by the finding
that the influence of religious groups ranks right behind parental influence on
advocating keeping values education out of the school curriculum. It should be
pointed out, however, that this resistance to keeping values instruction out of the
schools received a very low rating from principals. Generally, religious groups
were not reported as having a major impact on values issues in Texas schools.
However, religious groups had a greater impact in suburban districts. As
with suburban parents, suburban religious groups had a greater influence in
resisting values education programs than did rural religious groups. This can be
expected because many of the parents are probably the same individuals
associated with the various religious groups. What is unclear, however, is whether
one's religion influences parental behavior or whether parents use the vehicle of
religion to further their causes. Wherever the impetus lies, suburban groups of
parents and religious organizations were found to be more organized and
proactive than those in rural areas.
the principals surveyed believed that values should be taught in public schools.
They believed that values programs help students develop a greater sense of
responsibility in maintaining a democratic society.
Generally, the elementary principals surveyed believed that their schools
were doing a better-than-average job in teaching values to students. The
principals who perceived an urgent need for schools to teach values rated their
schools as doing a better job of teaching values than did principals who did not
think schools should be teaching values. In most cases, the principals' beliefs were
reflected in their school's curriculum. However, the mean response of principals
on the importance of values education was greater than the mean rating of how
well schools currently were meeting that need. A marked difference was evident
between the perceived need for values development in students and the actual
delivery of values instruction in schools.
The principals believed that they influence the programs on their
campuses, however. Principals of campuses that had increased emphasis on values
instruction perceived themselves as being prominent in influencing the change.
This inference is consistent with thefindingsreported in the literature review
discussing a central role of the principal as being the instructional leader (Bennis
and Nanus 1985; Sergiovanni 1992; Smith and Andrews 1989). As the
instructional leader of a campus, principals are influential players in promoting
those things that are important to the principal and in working to place them in
the campus curriculum.
Ill
curriculum and that numerous commercial materials are available to aid in values
instruction. For research to be meaningful to administrators and other policy
makers, however, some practical, beneficial implications for application should be
identified.
The findings of this research suggest strategies that school administrators
and teachers can consider when approaching values program implementation.
Thefindingsmake it very clear that school teachers and school administrators are
the most influential groups for initiating existing values education programs.
Promoters from within or outside the school system who wish to encourage
schools to move toward adopting values education programs should utilize this
information.
Those wishing to establish values education programs should establish
coalitions with teachers and administrators before advocating values program
implementation. Principals debating on whether to start values programs have the
assurance that their peers support values instruction in schools. With the findings
of this study, policy makers have data to give teachers and administrators to show
that values programs have substantial support from teachers, principals, school
board members, parents, and community in districts with current values programs
in place. Some may wish to compare the reported level of values development of
students in the survey with their perceptions of the developmental level of the
students in other schools.
The site-based decision process required in all Texas schools provides a
strategic vehicle for program implementation. Each school campus in Texas
already has a committee established to study and make recommendations for
campus improvement. Most importantly, according to the findings of this study,
these committees are predominately composed of teachers with representation by
114
One thing needed to help resolve this continuing debate over values
instruction in schools is to implement a longitudinal research study to determine
115
principal's office for bad behavior decreased? This type of hard data is needed to
solidify testimonial records of success from values programs.
The focus of this study was on public elementary schools in Texas. The
status of values education programs in secondaiy schools has not been researched.
It is recommended that a research study such as this be conducted for Texas
secondary schools.
Conclusions
The data collected and analyzed in tins research study provide supporting
information on the status of values education programs in Texas elementary
schools. In the summary offindingsin this study many of the similarities and
differences among schools on various values education issues are discussed, such
as occurrences of values education curricula, influence of pressure groups, district
wealth and student population demographics, community size, and frequency of
commercially available values education materials. Further analysis of the data
supports the following two main conclusions: (a) the preeminent vehicle for
values instruction in schools is through the hidden curriculum, and (b) principals
will significantly influence the development of values education programs in Texas.
Although 94 percent of the principals surveyed in this study reported using
some type of approach in promoting values in their schools, only 35 percent of the
schools had a formal values curriculum. Ryan, Lickona, Dewey, and others have
consistently espoused in their writings that values in our schools are learned in the
hidden curriculum. Meighan (1981) suggests the following working definition of
the hidden curriculum: "all the things that are learnt [sic] during schooling in
addition to the official curriculum." Ryan also describes the hidden curriculum:
Many of education's most profound and positive teachings can be conveyed
in the hidden curriculum. If a spirit of fairness penetrates eveiy corner of
117
prevalent in public schools that the hidden curriculum for values education could
be considered the informal curriculum.
Increasingly, schools are encouraging students to become involved in social
issues outside of school and within the community. Some schools have adopted
grandparents for their classes. Others are actively engaged in fund raising
activities for outside organizations such as the American Heart Association,
American Cancer Society, Hospice, Easter Seals, and many others. Children are
asked to bring food for local food banks, clothing for the homeless, and holiday
baskets for the poor. Many schools have established centers where clothing is
available for the needy within the school. Students are asked to volunteer their
time for clean-up activities, beautification projects, city parades, and
environmental projects. All activities such as these are intentional and aid in the
development of students' personal values (Calabrese 1990; lickona 1991; Ryan
1993).
Recent years have brought a new outreach mission for schools-parenting
education. Specific programs have been developed to promote parental
involvement and to teach parenting skills. Workshops and printed materials are
available on topics such as discipline, monitoring home study of children, building
self-esteem, communication skills, drug and alcohol abuse, and nutrition. Again,
these activities may not be a part of the formal curriculum, but are a component
of the hidden curriculum (Lickona 1991; Ryan 1993; Thomas 1991).
Thefindingsof this research study affirm that values are being taught in
Texas elementary schools, whether intentional or unintentional. The hidden
curriculum of today may become the formal curriculum of tomorrow. Amitai
Etzioni explains:
119
Eveiy teaching act has a moral dimension. Today a lot of teachers require
group assignments as well as individual assignments to emphasize that they
want to teach cooperation. I believe that every year content should be
examined in terms of what value message it sends, but we should also ask
ourselves what message the hidden curriculum is sending. (Berreth and
Scherer 1993, 13)
Finally, the data from this research study show almost unanimous support
among principals in Texas elementary schools for the incorporation of values
instruction in schools. Principals in schools without a values curriculum desire
values instruction to be included in their schools, and 100 percent of the principals
surveyed who were currently in schools with a values curriculum wished to
continue their present values education programs. With this magnitude of
principal support, values education will continue to be a major factor in planning
£ind development of school curricula.
Through the survey of literature and the research data from this study,
principals wishing to implement values education programs have a resource of
useful information. Some items particularly related to principals include the
following:
1. Principals should not assume that values education formation will be
easy; however, much of the assumed resistance for values education may not exist
in their communities. Principals of schools with values programs have
experienced a degree of resistance toward these programs, primarily from parents
and religious groups, but this resistance in Texas elementary schools is perceived
to be relatively minor by elementary principals. However, in the communities
where this occurs it can be a major political issue. Most schools with a values
education program have widespread support for their program, according to the
schools' principals.
120
122
123
124
125
126
127
Panel Members
The following individuals participated in validating the survey instrument.
Date
Dear:
Your assistance is requested in establishing the validity of a survey questionnaire
to be used as a part of a doctoral dissertation at the University of North Texas.
The dissertation is under the direction of Dr. Judy Adkison, Chair, Division of
Educational Administration.
This study will provide descriptive information about values education programs in
Texas elementary schools for policy makers, curriculum directors, and educators.
Data from the survey should give insight into (a) commercially or locally
developed values programs in place in schools; (b) the relationship between
demographics such as district wealth, percentage of economically disadvantaged
students, percentage of ethnic students, percentage of LEP students, and
percentage mobility; and values education programs; (c) the role different interest
groups have in the introduction of values education programs; and (d) the extent
of acceptance by difference groups. A validated questionnaire will be sent to a
random sample of Texas elementary principals.
In assessing validity of this survey instrument, please consider questions for item
relevancy, clarily, and appropriateness. Enter your response on the enclosed
response sheet. Please feel free to mark comments on the questionnaire sheet
also.
Your assistance in this task is greatly appreciated. A self-addressed stamped
envelope is enclosed for your convenience.
Sincerely,
Ron Preston
129
RESPONSE SHEET
Question 1
Not valid should Valid definitely should
not be included 5 be included
Question 2
Not valid should Valid definitely should
not be included 5 be included
Question 3
Not valid should Valid definitely should
not be included 5 be included
Question 4
Not valid should Valid definitely should
not be included 5 be included
Question 5
Not valid should Valid definitely should
not be included 5 be included
Question 6
Not valid should Valid definitely should
not be included 5 be included
Question 7
Not valid should Valid definitely should
not be included 5 be included
Question 8
Not valid should Valid definitely should
not be included 5 be included
Question 9
Not valid should Valid definitely should
not be included 5 be included
Question 10
Not valid should Valid definitely should
not be included 5 be included
Question 11
Not valid should Valid definitely should
not be included 5 be included
Question 12
Not valid should Valid definitely should
not be included 5 be included
Question 13
Not valid should Valid definitely should
not be included 5 be included
130
Question 14
Not valid should Valid definitely should
not be included 5 be included
Question 15
Not valid should Valid definitely should
not be included 5 be included
Question 16
Not valid should Valid definitely should
not be included 5 be included
Question 17
Not valid should Valid definitely should
not be included 5 be included
Question 18
Not valid should Valid definitely should
not be included 5 be included
Question 19
Not valid should Valid definitely should
not be included 5 be included
Question 20
Not valid should Valid definitely should
not be included 5 be included
Question 21
Not valid should Valid definitely should
not be included 5 be included
Question 22
Not valid should Valid definitely should
not be included 5 be included
Question 23
Not valid should Valid definitely should
not be included 5 be included
Question 24
Not valid should Valid definitely should
not be included 2 3 4 5 be included
Question 25
Not valid should Valid definitely should
not be included 2 3 4 5 be included
Question 26
Not valid should Valid definitely should
not be included 3 4 5 be included
Question 27
Not valid should Valid definitely should
not be included 2 3 4 5 be included
Question 28
Not valid should Valid definitely should
not be included 1 2 3 4 5 be included
COMMENTS:
APPENDIX D
SURVEY INSTRUMENT
131
132
1. On a scale of 1 to 7, with 1 representing no need and 7 representing urgent need, how important is the
need for students to develop a greater sense of values in maintaining a free and democratic society?
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NR/DK 9
2. On a scale of 1 to 7, with 1 representing no activity and 7 representing an excellent job, how well do you
think your school is doing in teaching students about values?
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NR/DK 9
6. On a scale of 1 to 7, with 1 representing not at all and 7 representing a high degree, to what extent do
you feel the following values are emphasized in your school in grades 3 through 5?
7. Has your school board developed policies regarding the teaching of values in the school?
Yes, policies have been developed
No, policies have not been developed NR/DK 9
9. On a scale of 1 to 7, with 1 representing less emphasis and 7 representing more emphasis, in the future,
do you believe that teaching values will receive more or less emphasis in the public school?
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NR/DK 9
10. In the past three years, has your school district placed more emphasis, less emphasis, or has the emphasis
remained the same on the formal teaching of values?
more emphasis teaching values
less emphasis on teaching values
emphasis about the same NR/DK 9
11. On a scale of 1 to 7, with 1 representing no influence and 7 representing highly influential, if your district
has placed more emphasis on teaching values, to what extent do you feel the following groups influenced the
change in your school?
School Board
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NR/DK 9
Administration
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NR/DK 9
Teachers
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NR/DK 9
Parents and Community
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NR/DK 9
Religious Groups
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NR/DK 9
12. Which of the following programs has your school instituted to teach values to students?
Yes No NR/DK 9 Added new courses
Yes No NR/DK 9 Added units to existing courses
Yes No NR/DK 9 Encouraged teachers to teach lessons on values, but not added
courses or units to the curriculum
Yes No NR/DK 9 Provided in-service for teachers on teaching values
Yes No NR/DK 9 Invited special guests to speak to your students on values-
centered topics
Yes No NR/DK 9 Student volunteer programs in the community
134
13. On a scale of 1 to 7, with 1 representing no influence and 7 representing highly influential, if your district
has not placed more emphasis on teaching values, to what extent to you feel the following groups have
influenced keeping values education instruction out of the curriculum?
School Board
1 2 3 4 5 6 1 NR/DK 9
Administration
1 2 3 4 5 6 1 NR/DK 9
Teachers
1 2 3 4 5 6 1 NR/DK 9
Parents and Community
1 2 3 4 5 6 1 NR/DK 9
Religious Groups
1 2 3 4 5 6 1 NR/DK 9
14. Does your school have a curriculum for values education?
No, we do not have a values education curriculum (TERMINATE INTERVIEW) Thank
you for your time.
Yes, we have a values education curriculum (CONTINUE INTERVIEW UNTIL THE
END)
15. Which of the following companies' commercially developed materials are you using?
Quest International In Use Not in Use NR/DK 9
Center for Civic Education In Use Not in Use NR/DK 9
American Institute for Character Education In Use Not in Use NR/DK 9
Project Charlie In Use Not in Use NR/DK 9
Star Serve In Use Not in Use NR/DK 9
Other (please name) In Use Not in Use NR/DK 9
16. Is your school using a locally/district developed curriculum for values education?
No, our school does not use a locally/district developed curriculum
Yes, our school is using a locally/district developed curriculum
17. On a scale of 1 to 7, with 1 representing no influence and 7 representing highly influential, to what
extent do you feel each of the following groups resisted or opposed the introduction of the values education
program in your school?
School Board
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NR/DK 9
Administration
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NR/DK 9
Teachers
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NR/DK 9
Parents and Community
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NR/DK 9
Religious Groups
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NR/DK 9
18. Which of the following strategies were used by your school in values education program development
and implementation?
media and publicity campaign Used Not used NR/DK 9
parent committees Used Not used NR/DK 9
values education resource center Used Not used NR/DK 9
needs analysis survey (school staff, parents,
or students) Used Not used NR/DK 9
staff development Used Not used NR/DK 9
consultants from outside the school district Used Not used NR/DK 9
other Used Not used NR/DK 9
135
19. On a scale of 1 to 7, with 1 representing no benefit and 7 representing highly beneficial, do you feel
parents consider your school's value education program to be beneficial for students?
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NR/DK 9
20. On a scale of 1 to 7, with 1 representing no benefit and 7 representing highly beneficial, do you think the
community considers your school's value education program to be beneficial for students?
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NR/DK 9
21. On a scale of 1 to 7, with 1 representing no benefit and 7 representing highly beneficial, do you think the
school board considers your school's value education program to be beneficial for students?
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NR/DK 9
22. On a scale of 1 to 7, with 1 representing no benefit and 7 representing highly beneficial, do you think
your school's value education program is beneficial for students?
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NR/DK 9
23. On a scale of 1 to 7, with 1 representing no benefit and 7 representing highly beneficial, is your school's
values education program helping teach responsibility to your students?
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NR/DK 9
24. On a scale of 1 to 7, with 1 representing no benefit and 7 representing highly beneficial, has your
school's values education program improved students' behavior on the playground?
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NR/DK 9
25. On a scale of 1 to 7, with 1 representing no benefit and 7 representing highly beneficial, has your
school's values education program improved students' relationships with teachers?
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NR/DK 9
26. On a scale of 1 to 7, with 1 representing no benefit and 7 representing highly beneficial, has your
school's values education program improved students' classroom behavior?
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NR/DK 9
27. Would you like to have your school's values education program continue?
Yes, I think it should continue NR/DK 9
No, I think it should not continue NR/DK 9
136
137
PANEL MEMBERS
The following individuals participated in validating the survey instrument.
Dr. Phyllis Hotchkiss
Professor of Education
Midwestern State University
Dept. of Education
3410 Taft Blvd.
Wichita Falls, TX 76308
Mr. Acce Atkison
Elementary Principal
Nocona Elementary School
Box 210
Nocona, TX 76255
Mr. Ron Woods
Elementary Principal
Kidwell Elementaiy School
1200 North Third
Iowa Park, TX 76367
Barbara Vaughn
English Teacher
1203 Rock Street
Bowie, TX 76230
138
Date
Ron Preston
139
RESPONSE SHEET
PLEASE CIRCLE THE SCALE AT THE POINT THAT BEST DESCRIBES
YOUR RESPONSE AS A MEASUREMENT OF VALIDITY FOR THE
SURVEY
1. To what extent do you consider this questionnaire acceptable for its stated
purpose as to clarity?
the instrument the instrument exhibits
exhibits no clarity 1 2 3 4 5 excellent clarity
2. To what extent do you consider this questionnaire acceptable for its stated
purpose as to length of completion?
the time for the time for completion
completion is too 1 2 3 4 5 is acceptable
short
3. To what extent do you consider this questionnaire acceptable for its stated
purpose as to its format?
the format is the format is
totally 1 2 3 4 5 acceptable
unacceptable
Comments:
APPENDIX F
ADDITIONAL TABLES
140
141
Groups A, B, C, D
by
Chi-Square DF P
School policies 5.432 3 .1427
Degree of emphasis 13.003 6 .0429
Added courses 4.231 3 .2374
Added units 10.407 3 .0154
Teach lessons 7.421 3 .0596
Inservice 5.498 3 .1387
Special guests 11.387 3 .0098
Student volunteer 5.389 3 .1453
Values curriculum 19.992 3 .0001
Local curriculum 8.430 3 .0379
142
Groups A, B, C, D
by
F Values P
Values emphasis K-2 2.991 .052
Values emphasis 3-5 5.148 .001
Future values emphasis 1.951 .121
Groups A, B, C, D
by
F Values P
Groups positively influencing
values curriculum:
School board 1.171 .324
Administration .658 .579
Teachers 2.138 .099
Parents and community .534 .659
Religious groups 1.532 .211
Groups keeping values
instruction out of curriculum
School board 4.199 .006
Administration 5.069 .002
Teachers 5.792 .001
Parents and community 5.113 .002
Religious groups 5.032 .002
Groups opposed to existing
values curriculum
School board .275 .843
Administration .931 .428
Teachers 1.592 .195
Parents and community 1.764 .158
Religious groups 2.884 .039
144
Groups A, B, C, D
by
F Values P
How well schools are
teaching values .520 .668
Benefits of values programs 1.690 .173
Agency strategic plan for the 1992-1998 period. 1992. Austin, TX: Texas
Education Agency.
Age-specific arrest rates and race-specific arrest rates for selected offenses. 1990.
Washington: FBI.
Alreck, Pamela, and Robert B. Settle. 1985. The survey research handbook.
Homewood, IL: Irwin.
Amundson, Kristen. 1991. Teaching values and ethics: Problems and solutions.
Arlington: American Association of School Administrators.
Arizona State Department of Education. 1990. Character development in the
90's: A reaffirmation of values. Phoenix, AZ: Arizona State Department of
Education.
Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. 1988. Moral
education in the life of the school. Alexandria: VA: Association for
Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Atkinson, Lillian, and Earl Ogletree. 1982. Teaching morality in the schools.
Illinois Schools Journal. (Special issue): 75-84.
Babbie, Earl R. Survey research methods. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
Bachrach, P., and M. S. Baratz. 1962. The two faces of power. American
Political Science Review 56: 947-952.
Benard, Bonnie. 1993. Fostering resiliency in kids. Educational Leadership 51
(Nov.): 44-48.
Bennis, Warren and Burt Nanus. 1985. Leaders. New York: Harper and Row.
Bennett, William J. 1988. Moral literacy and the formation of character. NASSP
Bulletin (Dec.): 29-34.
Berdie, Doug, John F. Anderson, and Marsha A. Niebuhr. 1986. Questionnaires:
Design and use. Metuchen, NJ: Scarecrow Press.
Berreth, Diane, and Marge Scherer. 1993. On transmitting values: A
conversation with Amiai Etzioni. Educational Leadership 51 (Nov.): 12-15.
Borg, Walter R., and Meredith D. Gall. 1983. Educational research. 4th ed.
New York: Longman.
145
146
Botteiy, Mike. 1990. The morality of the school: The theory and practice of
values in education. London: Cassell Educational Limited.
Boyd, William L. 1979. Value conflicts and curriculum issues. Berkeley, CA:
McCutchan.
Boyer, Ernest L. 1986. Communicating values: The social and moral imperatives
of education. Momentum. 17 September, 6-8.
Calabrese, Raymond. 1990. The school as an ethical and democratic community.
NASSP Bulletin (October): 10-15.
Carmichael, Dottie J., James A. Dyer, and Craig H. Blakely. 1992. Potential
impacts of site-based management on special student populations. Texas
Research 3: 39-56.
Cavazos, Lauro. 1990. Teaching ethics in the public schools. NASSP Bulletin
(October): 1-4.
Character and value education: Teaching strategies. 1990. Frankfort, KY:
Kentucky Department of Education.
Character education curriculum. 1992. San Antonio, TX: Character Education
Institute.
Coats, Dan. 1991. America's youth: A crisis of character. AFA Journal
(November): 18-21.
Copeland, Bonnie, and Maiy Ellen Saterlie. 1990. Designing and implementing a
values education program. NASSP Bulletin (October): 46-48.
Davis, E. Dale. 1984. Should the public schools teach values? Phi Delta Kappan
65 (January): 358-360.
DePree, Max. 1989. Leadership is an art. New York: Doubleday.
Dewey, John. 1964. John Dewev on education. Chicago: University of Chicago
Press.
Downie, Susan. 1989. Ethics, a choice for the future: An interdisciplinary
program. English Journal (September): 28-30.
Durkheim, Emile. 1961. Moral education. New York: The Free Press of
Glenco.
Edgewood I.S.D.. et al. v. Kirbv. et al. 1989. Texas Supreme Court.
Elam, Stanley, Lowell Rose, and Alec Gallup. 1991. The 23rd annual Gallup/Phi
Delta Kappa poll. Phi Delta Kappa (September): 41-56.
147
Elam, Stanley, Lowell Rose, and Alec Gallup. 1992. The 24th annual Gallup/Phi
Delta Kappa poll. Phi Delta Kappa (September): 41-53.
Elkind, David. 1987. Miseducation preschoolers as risk. New York: Alfred A.
Knopf.
The ethics of American youth: A warning and a call to action. 1990. Marina del
Rey, CA: Josephson Institute of Ethics.
Fay, Joseph, and Sol Gordon. 1989. Moral sexuality education and democratic
values. Theory Into Practice 28 (Summer): 211-216.
Fraenkel, Jack R. 1977. How to teach about values: An analytic approach.
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Fineman, Howard. 1994. The four faces of Bill Clinton. Newsweek. 7 February,
16-17.
Ginsburg, Alan, and Sandra Hanson. 1990. Values and success: Strategies for at-
risk children and youth. Washington: Department of Education. ERIC,
ED 329602.
Glickman, Carl, ed. 1992. Supervision in transition. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.
Gould, J., and W. L. Kolb. 1964. A dictionary of the social sciences. New York:
Macmillan.
Graham, Ellen. 1988. Values lessons return to the classroom. The Wall Street
Journal. 26 September, 33.
Hanson, E. Mark. 1985. Educational administration and organizational behavior.
2nd ed. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Hanson, Sandra L., and Alan L. Ginsburg. 1988. Gaining ground: Values and
high school success. American Educational Research Journal 25 (Fall):
334-365.
Harris, Edward, and John Hoyle. 1990. The pros and cons of teaching ethics in
the public schools. NASSP Bulletin (October): 17-23.
Hersh, Richard H., John Miller, and Glen D. Fielding. 1980. Models of moral
education an appraisal. New York: Longman.
Hess, Fritz, and Scott Shablak. 1990. The schools of character project: An effort
to address ethics in schools. NASSP Bulletin (October): 50-57.
Honig, Bill. 1990. Teaching values belongs in our public schools. NASSP
Bulletin (October): 6-9.
House, Ernest. 1974. The policies of educational innovation. Berkeley, CA:
McCutchan.
148
Isaac, S., and Michael W. Isaac. 1984. Handbook in research and evaluation.
2nd ed. San Diego, CA: Edits.
Jendreck, M. P. 1985. Through the maze: Statistics with computer applications.
Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
Joseph, Pamela B. 1986. Like it or not, your schools are teaching values, so
emphasize these. American Schoolboard Journal (May): 35-46.
Kachigan, Sam K. 1986. Statistical analysis. New York: Radius Press.
Kidder, Rushworth M. 1990. Public concerns for ethics rises. The Christian
Science Monitor. 2 Januaiy, 13.
Kirschenbaum, Howard. 1992. A comprehensive model for values education and
moral education. Phi Delta Kappan 73 (June): 771-776.
Kohlberg, Lawrence. 1975. The cognitive-developmental approach to moral
education. Phi Delta Kappan (June): 672-673.
Kohlberg, Lawrence, and R. Moyer. 1972. Development as the aim of education.
Harvard Educational Review 42: 449-496.
Kohn, Alfie. 1991. Caring kids: The role of schools. Phi Delta Kappan (March):
496-505.
Krueckeberg, Donald, and Arthur Silvers. 1974. Urban planning analysis:
Methods and models. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
Law in a free society. 1992. Calabasas, CA: Center for Civic Education.
Lewis, Anne C. 1993. Reinventing government: A continuing conversation. Phi
Delta Kappan (September): 4-5.
Lockwood, A. L. 1993. A letter to character educators. Educational Leadership
(November): 72-75.
Lockwood, A. L. 1991. Character education: The ten percent solution. Social
Education 55: 246-248.
Lickona, Thomas. 1991. Educating for character. New York: Bantom Books.
Iickona, Thomas. 1988. Educating the moral child. Principal (November): 6-10.
Lickona, Thomas. 1976. Moral development and behavior theory, research, and
social issues. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston.
MacDonald, A. P., Jr. 1972. More on the Protestant ethic. Journal of
Consulting and Clinical Psychology 39: 116-122.
149
Ryan, Kevin. 1993. Mining the values in the curriculum. Educational Leadership
(November): 16-18.
Ryan, Kevin. 1988. Moral education in the life of the school. Educational
Leadership (May): 4-8.
Ryan, Kevin. 1986. The new moral education. Phi Delta Kappan (November):
228-233.
Salholz, Eloise, Lynda Wright, and Rebecca Crandall. 1992. A new challenge for
Ueberroth. Newsweek. 18 May, 45.
Scheffler, Israel. 1990. Moral education beyond moral reasoning. New
Directions for Child Development (Spring): 99-102.
Schlaefli, Andre, James R. Rest, and Stephen J. Thoma. 1985. Does moral
education improve moral judgment? A meta-analysis of intervention
studies using the defining issues test. Review of Educational Research 55
(Fall): 319-352.
Sergiovanni, Thomas J. 1992. Moral authority and the regeneration of
supervision. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.
Skills for growing. 1990. Granville, OH: Quest International.
Smith, Wilma F., and Richard L. Andrews. 1989. Instructional leadership how
principals make a difference. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.
Texas Education Agency. 1991. An overview of the academic excellence
indicator system. Austin, TX: Texas Education Agency.
Thomas, Fred L., and Jon I. Young. 1986. An introduction to educational
statistics: The essential elements. Lexington: Ginn Press.
Thomas, Ronald S. 1991. Assessing character education: Paradigms, problems,
and potentials. The gearing House (September/October): 51-55.
Thurston, Paul, Renee Qift, and Marshall Schacht. 1993. Preparing leaders for
change-oriented schools. Phi Delta Kappan (November): 259-265.
Tuck, Kathy, and Aretha Albury. 1990. Values education in the District of
Columbia public schools. Washington: District of Columbia Public Schools.
Viadero, Debra. 1992. Election talk aside, education in values gains momentum.
Education Week (October): 1.
Weick, C. E. 1982. Administering education in loosely coupled schools. Phi
Delta Kappan 27: 673-676.
Whitehead, Barbara. 1993. Dan Quayle was right. The Atlantic Monthly (April):
47.
151