An Evaluation of a Character Education Program at an Elementary School

by
Joyce Ann King

An Applied Dissertation Submitted to the

Fischler School of Education and Human Services
in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements
for the Degree of Doctor of Education

Nova Southeastern University

2008
 Approval Page

This applied dissertation was submitted by Joyce Ann King under the direction of the
persons listed below. It was submitted to the Fischler School of Education and Human
Services and approved in partial fulfillment of requirements for the degree of Doctor of
Education at Nova Southeastern University.

_______________________________________ ____________________________
Don Lueder, PhD Date
Committee Chair

_______________________________________ ____________________________
E. Ray Dockery, EdD Date
Committee Member

_______________________________________ ____________________________
Maryellen Maher, PhD Date
Executive Dean for Research and Evaluation

ii
 Acknowledgments

I wish to express my sincere gratitude to the following people who have

supported me in the completion of this study.

To my Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, thank you for giving me the faith, courage,

tenacity, and passion to pursue and finish this personal goal.

To my mother, Shirley L. Covington, thank you for instilling the character traits

that allows me to dream big and to make my dreams a reality. Your wisdom gave me the

patience I needed to endure.

To my wonderful husband, Nathan E. King, throughout this process, you were the

sounding board that never grew tried of my conversations. Thank you for knowing when

I needed to take a break from my studies. I greatly appreciate the motivational gifts that

helped me enjoy the journey. As a result of our positive home environment I was able to

stay focus and immersed into this study.

To Mary Sifford, my friend, thank you for proofreading my papers. I will always

cherish the laughs we shared.

To the former school principal and teachers at the research site, thank you for

taking time from your busy school day to complete the interview and surveys that

allowed me to collect the data needed to evaluate this program.

To Dr. Don Lueder and Dr. E. Ray Dockery, I send a heartfelt thank you for your

patience and guidance in helping me to understand the empirical study process. Thank

you for being genuinely committed to helping me produce a quality project. I will always

remember our thoughtful discussions.

iii
 Abstract

An Evaluation of a Character Education Program at an Elementary School. King, Joyce

Ann, 2008: Applied Dissertation, Nova Southeastern University, Fischler School of
Education and Human Services. Anger/Character Education/Evaluation Designs/
Evaluation Procedures/Elementary Schools

The purpose of this applied dissertation study was to evaluate a character education
program at a Southeastern county elementary school. There had been an increasing rate
of office discipline referrals, and the schools leadership team sought ways to deal with
the issue. The team discovered that the school district received a grant from the state that
would allow the school to implement a character education program. The strategy
implemented was the Second Step program.

After the Second Step program had been implemented for several months, the leadership
team decided that it would be important to evaluate the program. The results could be
used to make recommendations to improve the program. The researcher used
Stufflebeams (2003) context, input, process, product model to guide the study.
Quantitative and qualitative data were gathered from various sources.

The data indicated that the number of referrals decreased during the treatment year when
compared with the total number for the previous year. The results showed that the
program was implemented as designed but also indicated that many faculty members felt
the program was forced on them. The program ended in 1 year after the principal left for
a central office position. The data showed that a similar program was also started and
stopped the previous year. The results suggested that there is a pattern of starting and
stopping programs over a brief period of time, which could have a negative effect on the
programs impact. Consequently, it was recommended that the teachers and the principal
should be involved in the selection, development, and planning of future programs. Full
acceptance is less likely to happen if the whole school staff is not involved in the change
process.

iv
 Table of Contents

Page
Chapter 1: Introduction ........................................................................................................1
Description of the Setting ........................................................................................1
Description of the Problem ......................................................................................3
Description of the Second Step Program .................................................................5
Procedures for Implementing the Program ............................................................10
Rationale for Proposing a Program Evaluation .....................................................12
Rationale for Using the Stufflebeam Model ..........................................................13
Description of the Stufflebeam Model ...................................................................17
Research Questions ................................................................................................19

Chapter 2: Literature Review .............................................................................................19

Introduction ............................................................................................................24
Arguments for Character Education ......................................................................26
Arguments Against Character Education...............................................................29
Character Education Programs ..............................................................................30
Second Step ............................................................................................................31
Program Evaluation Models ..................................................................................33
Stufflebeams Research Studies .............................................................................42

Chapter 3: Methodology ....................................................................................................45

Introduction ............................................................................................................45
Data-Gathering Procedures ....................................................................................45
Data Analysis .........................................................................................................47
Limitations .............................................................................................................47
Timeline .................................................................................................................47

Chapter 4: Results ..............................................................................................................49

Introduction ............................................................................................................49
Context Research Question Results .......................................................................49
Input Research Question Results ...........................................................................53
Process Research Question Results .......................................................................55
Product Research Question Results .......................................................................67
Summary ................................................................................................................74

Chapter 5: Discussion ........................................................................................................76

Introduction ............................................................................................................76
Summary of Results ...............................................................................................77
Conclusions ............................................................................................................81
Implications............................................................................................................82
Recommendations ..................................................................................................83
Limitations .............................................................................................................83

References ..........................................................................................................................84

v
Appendixes
A Photo Lesson Cards..........................................................................................88
B Unit Card ..........................................................................................................90
C List of Character Education Programs .............................................................92
D Former Principals and Safe School Coordinators Interview Questions ......103
E Teacher Survey Questions .............................................................................109

Tables
1 Stufflebeams CIPP Model for Formative and Summative Evaluation
Guidance ..........................................................................................................18
2 Timeline ...........................................................................................................48
3 Number of Office Referrals for Prekindergarten Through Grade 5 ................50
4 Number of Office Referrals for Third Through Fifth Grades, 2004-2006 ......68

vi
 1

Chapter 1: Introduction

Description of the Setting

The purpose of this applied dissertation study was to evaluate a character

education program in a Southeastern county elementary school. The county was located

adjacent to a large metropolitan city (American Local History Network, 2007).

Agriculture played an important part in the economic life of the county for over 200

years. In the late 19th and early 20th centuries, textiles were a vital part of the local

economy, especially in the northern portion of the county. However, in recent years, the

local economy has developed a more varied base. The county was considered a popular

place for car racing and was a regional home for many NASCAR legends. The county

had attracted a wide range of new diverse businesses and had a nationally recognized

medical center. The addition of the new biotech research campus attracted scientists and

technologists from around the world.

According to the American Local History Network (2007) the countys

population of approximately 147,000 in 2005 represented a vast increase in the

population over the past 30 years. The racial makeup of the county was 83.26% White,

12.18% African American, 0.34% Native American, 0.91% Asian, 0.02% Pacific

Islander, 2.30% from other races, 0.99% from two races, and 5.05% of the population

were of Latino heritage.

Most residents of the county were Caucasian of Scotch-Irish, German, or

English-Welsh extraction. A minority population of African American residents inhabited

the county, and in recent years, a large influx of Hispanic residents, mostly Mexican, had

arrived in the area, largely in support of the area's agriculture market. Culturally, the

county residents were historically protestant, especially Southern Baptist, Presbyterian,

 2

and Methodist, with a significant number of Lutherans. A Roman Catholic parish was

located in the county, and a small Jewish community resided in the area (American Local

History Network, 2007).

According to the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES, 2005), the

countys school system was considered one of the fastest growing suburban districts in

the area. Due to the growth in housing developments and a diverse and transient

population, the schools were experiencing an enormous amount of growth and were

overcrowded. On an average, the district had grown about 1% per year since 1994. It was

anticipated that this trend would continue for at least the next 10 years. Given the

changing demographics of the districts school-age population and the amount of growth

the district anticipated, the county would continue to face challenges as it planned for

student assignment and how the district could best meet the academic and social needs of

the children.

According to NCES (2005), for the 2004-2005 fiscal year, the participating school

district consisted of 30 schools, including 18 elementary schools (kindergarten through

Grade 5), 6 middle schools (Grades 5-8), 5 high schools (Grades 9-12), and 1 alternative

school (Grades 6-12). The student population was 23,860 and there were 1,423 classroom

teachers. The student-teacher ratio was 21:1. The exceptional education population

consisted of 1,116 English language learners and 3,498 students with individualized

education plans.

This study was conducted at 1 of the 11 elementary schools in the district. The

students in this study were from middle to low socioeconomic homes. During a meeting,

the principal described the school and community. He stated that a majority of

community parents have not completed high school and work for low wages in the local
 3

service centers such as Wal-Mart, Kohls, K-mart, and others. The school was located in

an area where there was minimal community support. The participating school was

comprised of prekindergarten through fifth grade. The student population was

approximately 349 students. The students consisted of 50.1% White, 33.5% African

American, 9.5% Hispanic, 5.l% biracial, and 1.4% Asian. It is a diverse Title I school

with an 85.0% transience rate, 67.0% received free and reduced-price lunches, and 24.0%

of the students receive special educational and counseling services. Approximately 40.0%

of the student population had attended the school since enrolling in prekindergarten. All

students were allowed to receive the benefits of the Title I Program because the national

guidelines indicated that if over 35.0% of the students qualify for the free and

reduced-price lunch program, then all students would be eligible (B. Schultz, personal

communication, September 18, 2004).

Description of the Problem

An unusually large number of office referrals of the schools third, fourth, and

fifth grade students during the 2004-2005 school year created considerable concern with

the staff. According to the principal (B. Schultz, personal communication, September 18,

2004), over 60% of the infractions were for acts of aggression, cheating, lying, stealing,

bullying, negative attitudes, and defiance to authority.

In order to describe the problem and to justify a need for this study, the researcher

reviewed archival data from various school reports and records. School records for the

school years 2002-2003, 2003-2004 and 2004-2005 indicated that the greatest number of

office referrals were for Grades 3, 4, and 5. The data also indicated that disruptive

behavior increased as the students moved to a higher grade level.

The No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act allowed every school district in America
 4

to apply up to 50% of the federal funding they received to any of four grant programs:

Teacher Quality, Educational Technology, Innovative Programs, and Safe and Drug-Free

Schools (SADFS). The North Carolina Department of Education (NCDE, 2007) made

grant opportunities available for local districts to fund character education through the

Safe and Drug-Free Schools program (NCDE). As a result, in 2004, the school district

applied for and was awarded a grant sponsored by the SADFS in North Carolina for

funding under NCLB.

According to a White House (2002) fact sheet, the NCLB Act improved efforts to

keep schools safe and drug-free while ensuring that students, particularly in schools

where violent crimes had been committed, were not trapped in persistently dangerous

schools. Also, as passed in the NCLB Act, states must allow students who attend a

persistently dangerous school or who are subjected to violent crime at school to transfer

to a safe school. Therefore, to create school environments that were safe and drug-free,

the General Assembly of North Carolina enacted a bill requiring each local school board

of education to develop and implement character education instruction.

According to the districts 2005 SADFS grant, the district chose the Second Step

program (Committee for Children [CFC], 2002) because it was known to be a

comprehensive program that attempted to provide direct instruction by incorporating the

teaching of empathy, impulse control, and anger management along with social skills and

problem solving. The Second Step program also integrated the core values recommended

in the Eleven Principles of Effective Character Education developed by the Character

Education Partnership (Lickona, Schaps, & Lewis, 2003). In addition, the Second Step

program was recognized by the U.S. Department of Education as an exemplary program

for intervention.
 5

The grant funds allowed the district to purchase the Second Step program

instructional kits for each school and for a staff member from each school to participate

in four days of training. Grant funds were also used to compensate the trainer from the

CFC, founders of the Second Step program. The training was conducted in Spring 2005,

and the staff members selected for the training were to become the designated trainers for

their school staffs in the 2005-2006 school year. The goal of the grant was to create a

culture that viewed bullying and other forms of harassment as socially unacceptable

behaviors in the schools and to develop responsible and caring students.

Description of the Second Step Program

The Second Step (CFC, 2002) program, sometimes referred to by the authors as

the Second Step Curriculum, was implemented in the target elementary school during the

2005-2006 school year. The Second Step program was a character education program

focusing on violence behavior prevention and intervention. It addressed disruptive

behaviors in prekindergarten through eighth grades. The focus of this study was to

evaluate the program in Grades 3, 4, and 5.

The Second Step program was founded by the CFC in Seattle, Washington,

during the late 1970s. The Second Step program was designed to promote social

competency and reduce childrens social and emotional problems. The teachers taught

students several skills central to healthy social and emotional development, including

empathy (Halberstadt, Denham, & Dunsmore, 2001), impulse control and problem

solving (Crick & Dodge, 1994), and anger management (Eisenberg, Fabes, & Losoya,

1997). Second Step was a school-wide prevention program in that it was taught to every

student in the classroom rather than to selected children. As a primary prevention

program, Second Step addressed basic social skills, problem solving, and conflict
 6

resolution training in classrooms.

The CFC (2002) contended that the Second Step program was a best practice

model, and based on long-term research, that it was an effective primary disruptive

behavior prevention character education program. It had been utilized nationally and

internationally, and had proven to be an effective intervention for decreasing disruptive

behavior (CFC). The Second Step Curriculum kit came with the following items:

1. Administrators Guide--This booklet for administrators and coordinators gave

recommendations for creating a school-wide climate for social-emotional learning,

guiding implementation, and providing ongoing support for the Second Step curriculum

in schools and agencies.

2. Teachers Guide--This was a reference tool. It contained the Review of

Research, explaining the research foundation upon which the Second Step curriculum

was developed. It also contained information for understanding how to present Second

Step lessons in the classroom. In the Appendices section, users could find resources and

reproducible activity masters used throughout the curriculum.

3. The photo-lesson card--The lesson cards presented the student with Second

Step program lessons (see Appendix A). Black-and-white photography was used to help

students stay focused on the social interaction of the characters rather than on extraneous

details such as clothing styles. The lessons were scripted for planning and teaching.

4. Unit cards--Each grade level was divided into three units: empathy training,

impulse control and problem solving, and anger management. A unit card introduced

each unit with information specific to the theme and presentation of that unit (see

Appendix B).

5. Classroom posters--Three posters, Calming Yourself Down, How to Solve

 7

Problems, and What to Do When You are Angry, were meant to be displayed in the

classroom. They were designed to be introduced in specific lessons to provide a visual

reinforcement of the three processes. Blackline activity masters for student copies of the

posters were found in the appendixes of the Teachers Guide.

6. Lesson video--Some lessons included video clips that dramatize and support

the story and discussion section of the lesson. Information for using each clip was

scripted on the specific cards. All video clips for each grade level were contained on one

videocassette.

7. Second Step family overview video--This video promoted awareness of the

Second Step program by describing what happened in the classroom and showing

examples of how the program could be used at home.

The Second Step lessons were typically taught once a week by either the

classroom teachers or counselors who had been trained in how to use the curriculum

(Frey, Nolen, Von Schoiack-Edstrom, & Hirschstein, 2001). Lessons at the early

childhood and elementary levels were focused on black-and-white photo cards that

depicted children in a variety of social-emotional situations. The teacher was provided

with the key concepts, objectives, and suggested lesson script on the back of the

black-and-white photo (Frey et al.). In addition, each lesson included information for

teachers about how to incorporate the lesson into the daily classroom environment by

using a childrens book that exemplified the Second Step concepts. At all grade levels,

the way the teacher organized and managed the classroom would likely affect the Second

Step training the students received (Frey et al.). For example, a teacher who was able to

grasp a teachable moment when two students argued over a seat may foster an

opportunity for greater learning for students than a teacher who ignored or failed to
 8

incorporate aspects of the Second Step curriculum into their teaching. In order to aid

teachers in their use of the curriculum, the Second Step program provided training for

teachers to help describe and model strategies and to think about how to use real life

events to model and practice the skills presented in lessons (Frey et al.).

Overall, the goal of primary prevention efforts was to reach the lives of young

children in families and schools before problems became much more difficult to manage.

The Second Step program was designed to accomplish this by providing students with

formalized instruction in core competencies related to social-emotional skill acquisition

such as empathy, social problem solving and impulse control, and anger management

(Frey et al., 2001). These core competencies are described in the following discussion.

Empathy. Empathy is a process that involves being sensitive to an individuals

changing feelings and being emotionally connected to that other person (Nakamura,

2000). Children who lack empathy often failed to detect another childs mood or

accurately infer another childs intentions (Frey et al., 2001). The Second Step Disruptive

Behavior Prevention Curriculum focused one of its components on empathy as a result of

strong research findings suggesting that aggressive children often had problems

understanding emotional cues and that aggression was found to be negatively correlated

with empathy (Frey et al.). Thus, the program strove to teach students the skills needed to

recognize feelings in self and others, consider others perspectives, and respond

emotionally to others (Frey et al., p. 105). The Second Step program begins with an

emphasis on recognizing and discussing six basic emotions: happy, sad, angry, surprised,

scared, and disgusted. The students were encouraged through pictures, stories, and role

playing to discuss the physical, facial, verbal, and situational cues related to these

feelings (Frey et al.). For example, the students were asked to describe how a young girls
 9

feelings would change when she entered a new school. Other topics for lessons in this

area involved predicting feelings, communicating feelings, change in feelings,

discriminating between accidental and intentional actions, determining fairness, and

individual similarities and differences (Frey et al.).

Problem solving and impulse control. Problem-solving strategies emphasized the

reinforcement of positive social behavior, providing positive adult role modeling,

teaching children skills on how to resist negative peer pressure and how to resolve

conflicts peacefully. According to Hampton, Jenkins, and Gullotta (1996), These were

regarded as the most promising approaches for preventing both alcohol and other drug

use, and disruptive behavior (p. 171). The Second Step Violence Prevention curriculum

adapted the work of Dodge, Pettit, McClaskey, and Browns (1986) social information

processing model to its five-step problem-solving strategy (Frey et al., 2001). The

five-step problem-solving strategy taught students how to (a) identify the problem; (b)

brainstorm solutions; (c) evaluate solutions by asking Is it safe?, Is it fair?, How

might people feel?, or Will it work? (d) select, plan, and try the solution; (e) evaluate

whether the solution worked and what to do next (Frey et al.). The goal of this training

was generalization and the hope that each student would learn to use Second Step

problem-solving skills to deal with everyday problems in their lives. By using these

problem-solving skills, students would be unable to act impulsively.

Anger management. The anger management unit of Second Step was based on the

anger management research of Lochman, Nelson, and Sims (1981) and long-term

follow-up studies of aggressive boys who received instruction in anger-coping strategies

(Frey et al., 2001). According to the long-term evaluation findings, anger management

training was successful in decreasing aggressive behavior while increasing

 10

problem-solving skills (Frey et al.). Thus, the Second Step program taught anger

management strategies such as recognizing anger cues in the body (e.g., feeling hot),

positive self-statements (e.g., self-talk) stress-reduction techniques (e.g., counting

backwards), and identifying personal triggers that arouse intense anger (Frey et al.).

These skills were taught and practiced through role playing, modeling, rehearsal of

techniques and demonstrations in real-life situations.

Procedures for Implementing the Program

In March 2004 the district made contact with the CFC and secured a trainer to

teach Second Step materials for 4 consecutive days to the staff member selected from

each school to be the trainer (B. Schultz, personal communication, March 14, 2004).

During these workshop sessions, the CFC trainer used the Second Step training

manual, which consisted of training modules and included a staff training video to teach

the teacher trainers the Second Step curriculum lessons. In the Second Step training

manual, the training modules were divided into two columns, necessary format and

suggested script. The information contained in the necessary format column was to be

presented to all participants. The text in the suggested script column contained suggested

wording and materials for the presentation. This was not intended to be read verbatim but

was offered as a guide. Trainers were to use their own words whenever possible to

convey the information (CFC, 2002).

The necessary format and suggested script provided questions to be asked of

participants during the training. In the suggested script, possible responses were in

parentheses immediately after each question. In the necessary format, possible responses

were presented in bullet lists (CFC, 2002).

Light bulb icons were occasionally printed to the left of the necessary format.
 11

These indicated that a pertinent trainers tip could be found on the preparation page

accompanying that module. Each light bulb was numbered and corresponded to the

trainers tips of that number. Numbers were consecutive only for the module in which

they were located.

Miniature reproductions of the handouts and transparencies appeared in the

necessary format column of the training. These provided visual reminders of when to use

particular handouts and transparencies.

The CFC (2002) further explained how sections of the Second Step Staff Training

Video for Preschool/Kindergarten-Grade 8 were shown throughout the Second Step staff

training. Based on start-stop format, the video used pause signs to indicate transitions and

when to stop for discussions. In both of the modules where the video was required, the

cues were listed on the preparation page for that module.

The teacher trainers were also provided with two suggested training formats for a

1-day, 7-hour training format and a 3-day separate session format. The CFC trainer

recommended a training room size and the basic equipment and materials needed to

conduct the training at the school sites. Finally, before implementing the Second Step

program, the teacher trainers were advised to meet with the administrative team to clarify

the following questions:

1. Who would teach the lessons and how often?

2. Who would provide ongoing support for the use of Second Step program?

3. What were the plans for evaluation?

4. Had kits been purchased? How many?

5. What were the plans for parent/family involvement?

The SADFS grant indicated that after the March training, the teacher trainers
 12

group met a second time in June 2004 to provide an overview of the school systems

expectations, curriculum, and implementation for the principal. A stipend was also sent to

each teacher trainer to use in their summer planning for implementation at their site. The

Second Step program kits were purchased in 2004 to be ready for implementation in the

2005-2006 school year.

Based on the researchers conversation with the principal (B. Schultz, personal

communication, August 1, 2005) the teachers at the research site decided the lessons

would be taught school-wide twice weekly. The lessons were presented for 30 minutes at

the same time of day on a regular school day. The teachers decided to implement the

program school-wide because they felt a whole school approach would promote

consistent instruction. It was hoped that if the strategies were used throughout the school,

perhaps the students would be more likely to use them inside and outside of the school

setting. The faculty also decided that the Second Step lessons would be presented in

scope and sequence, as each unit and lesson was built upon skills presented in the

previous lesson. It was determined that during regular grade-level team meetings the

teachers would have regular discussions about the lessons strategies, specifically about

what was working and what was not working. Parents and caregivers would be

familiarized with the Second Step program with take-home letters and/or through the use

of a family overview video at Open House Night.

Rationale for Proposing a Program Evaluation

The researcher, who had been an occasional substitute teacher for the school, met

with the principal to discuss the Second Step program. During this conversation, there

was a question as to whether the Second Step program was effective. The researcher then

explained to the principal why an evaluation of the program might be a good idea. The
 13

principal agreed that an evaluation would be helpful. The principal met with the School

Leadership Team members to discuss the researchers study. The researcher then

contacted the superintendent, who also authorized implementation of the study.

The researcher was given permission to collect data as an external evaluator and

had access to the data for the research period. The researchers role was that of an outside

evaluator of the character education program in Grades 3, 4, and 5. The evaluation results

were shared with the appropriate district representatives. The researchers

recommendations to improve the program were indicated by the results of the evaluation.

Rationale for Using the Stufflebeam Model

After reviewing various program evaluation models, the researcher decided

Stufflebeams (2003) context, input, process, and product (CIPP) model would be

appropriate to guide this study. The following is a description of some of the evaluation

models that were reviewed and a rationale for selecting the CIPP model. According to

Fitzpatrick, Sanders, and Worthen (2004), program evaluation can be classified into the

five categories described below:

1. Objectives-oriented approaches, in which the focus was on specifying goals

and objectives and determining the extent to which they have been attained.

2. Consumer-oriented approaches, in which the central issue was developing

evaluative information on products, broadly defined, and accountability, for use by

consumers in choosing among competing products, services, and the like.

3. Expertise-oriented approaches, which depended primarily on the direct

application of professional expertise to judge the quality of whatever endeavor was

evaluated.

4. Participant-oriented approaches, in which involvement of participants

 14

(stakeholders) was central in determining the values, criteria, needs, data, and

conclusions for the evaluation.

5. Management -oriented approaches, in which the central concern was on

identifying and meeting the informational needs of managerial decision makers.

Objective-oriented evaluation approaches. Several evaluation approaches used

goals or objectives as a central focus in the evaluation procedure. These approaches may

be seen, therefore, as further refinements of Tylers approach (Fitzpatrick et al., 2004).

Many people contributed to the evolution and refinement of the objectives-oriented

approach to evaluation since its inception in the 1930s, but the individual credited with

conceptualizing and popularizing it in education is Ralph W. Tyler, for whom the

Tylerian evaluation approach was named. The use of logic models and program theory

also added new insights into how programs could be studied within the Tylerian tradition

(Fitzpatrick et al.).

Consumer-oriented evaluation approaches. Fitzpatrick et al. (2004) revealed that

the consumer-oriented evaluation approach developed by Scriven was predominantly a

summative evaluation approach. Developers of products realized that using Scrivens

concerns and checklists criteria of consumer advocates while the product was being

created was the best way to prepare for subsequent public scrutiny. Thus, the checklist

and criteria proposed by watchdog agencies became tools for formative evaluation of

precut items still being developed.

The importance of consumer-oriented evaluation seemed to have been first

recognized during the mid- and late 1960s as new educational products began to flood the

market. With the influx of federal education funds earmarked for product development

and federal purchases, the market swelled.

 15

Expertise-oriented evaluation. According to Fitzpatrick et al. (2004), the

expertise-oriented approach to evaluation was probably the oldest and most widely used.

The expertise-oriented evaluation depended primarily on professional expertise to judge

an institution. In this type of evaluation, the subject-matter experts observed the

curriculum in action and examined its content and underlying learning theory.

Participation-oriented evaluation. Many of those who contributed to the

development and use of participant-oriented approaches to program evaluation preferred

naturalistic inquiry methods. Stake (as cited in Fitzpatrick et al., 2004) was the first

evaluation theorist to provide significant impetus to this approach in the field of

education. In Stakes countenance framework, he asserted that the two basic acts of

evaluation were description and judgment. Therefore, the countenance structure gave

evaluators a conceptual framework for thinking through the data needs of a complete

evaluation (Fitzpatrick et al.).

Management-oriented evaluation approaches. The management-oriented

approach was meant to serve decision makers. Its rationale was that evaluation is an

essential part of good decision making and that the evaluator could be most effective by

serving administrators, mangers, policy makers, boards, practitioners, and others who

need good evaluative information.

Fitzpatrick et al. (2004) noted that some important contributions to a

management-oriented approach to evaluation were made by Akins UCLA Model and

Stufflebeams CIPP model. As noted above, for the purpose of this study, the CIPP

model by Stufflebeam and Shinkfield was used to guide the research because the CIPP

model is a decision-oriented evaluation approach structured to help administrators make

good decisions in summative evaluations (Fitzpatrick et al.). Stufflebeam (2003) noted

 16

that the CIPP models current version reflected prolonged efforts and a modicum of

progress to achieve the still distant goal of developing a sound evaluation theory.

The CIPP model requires engagement of multiple perspectives and use of a wide

range of qualitative and quantitative methods and triangulation procedures, to assess and

interpret a multiplicity of information. Consequently, the evaluator had to be resourceful

in compiling a wide range of reasonably good information that in the aggregate tells a

consistent, truthful story. The CIPP model advocated engaging multiple observers and

informants with different perspectives.

Involving all levels of stakeholders was considered ethically responsible because

it equitably empowered the disadvantaged as well as the advantaged to help define the

appropriate evaluation questions and criteria, provide evaluative input, and receive and

use evaluation findings. Involving all stakeholders was also seen to be wise because

sustained, consequential involvement positioned stakeholders to contribute information

and valuable insights and inclined them to study, accept, value, and act upon evaluation

findings (Stufflebeam, 2003).

Stufflebeam (2003) defined the CIPP model as a systematic comprehensive

framework for guiding formative and summative evaluations of projects, programs,

personnel, products, institutions, and systems. The model was configured for use in

internal evaluations conducted by the organizations evaluator, self-evaluations

conducted by project teams of individual services providers, and contracted or mandated

external evaluations. The model was employed throughout the United States and around

the world in short-term and long-term investigations, both small and large. Applications

have spanned various disciplines and service areas; including education, housing and

community development, transportation safety, and military personnel review systems.

 17

Description of the Stufflebeam Model

The models core concepts are denoted by the acronym CIPP, which stands for

the four evaluation types within the model: context, input, process, and product

(Stufflebeam, 2003). According to Stufflebeam, the CIPP model could be presented as a

formative and/or summative report (see Table 1 for a summary of the uses of both

formative and summative evaluation). In the formative report, evaluation helps guide the

effort, which includes context, input, process, and product evaluations. Context

evaluations ask what needs to be done. Input evaluations ask how it should be done.

Process evaluations ask is it being done. Product evaluations ask if it is succeeding. The

evaluator submitted interim reports addressing these questions to keep stakeholders

informed about findings, help guide decision making, and strengthen staff work.

On the other hand, in presenting a summative report, the evaluator referred to the

store of context, input, process, and product information and obtained additionally needed

information (Stufflebeam, 2003). A summative evaluation was a synthesis of all the

findings to inform the full range of audiences about what was attempted, done, and

accomplished; the bottom-line assessment of the program; and what lessons were learned

(Stufflebeam). The evaluator used this information to address the following retrospective

questions:

1. Were important needs addressed?

2. Was the effort guided by a defensible plan and budget?

3. Was the service design executed competently and modified as needed?

4. Did the effort succeed?

In summative evaluations, the context evaluation was a comparison of goals and

priorities to assessed needs, problems, assets, and opportunities that were used to help
 18

decision makers define goals and objectives. Input evaluation was a comparison of the

programs strategy, design, and budget to those of critical competitors and to the targeted

needs of beneficiaries.

Table 1

Stufflebeams CIPP Model for Formative and Summative Evaluation Guidance

________________________________________________________________________

Characteristics Formative guidance Summative guidance

________________________________________________________________________

Role Prospective use of model to assist Retrospective use of model to

decision making and quality summarize merit, worth, and
assurance significance

Context Identifying needed interventions Comparison of goals and

Choosing and ranking goals based priorities to needs, problems,
on needs, problems, assets, and assets, and opportunities that
opportunities were assessed

Input Choosing a program or strategy Comparison of strategy, design,

based on assessment of alternate and budget of chosen program
strategies and resources to competitors and to the needs
Examination of the work plan of the target recipients

Process Implementing the work plan based Full description of process

on monitoring and judging Record of costs
activities and evaluative feedback Comparison of actual product to
design

Product Continuing, modifying, adopting,

Comparison of outcomes and
or discontinuing the project based
effects to needs and to
on outcomes and side effects
competitive programs
Interpretation of results
________________________________________________________________________

Note. CIPP = context, input, process, and product.

Process evaluation was a full description of the actual process and record of cost.

It was also a comparison of the designed and actual processes and costs. Product

evaluation is a comparison of outcomes and side effects to targeted needs and, as feasible,
 19

to results of competitive programs. It was an interpretation of results against the efforts

assessed context, inputs, and processes.

Research Questions

The research questions were organized around the four evaluation types contained

in the CIPP model. Each evaluation type had one or more primary questions followed by

a series of secondary questions.

Context questions. These questions sought to determine the perceived issues that

initially established a need for a character education program:

1. What were the identified and perceived issues that initially established a need

for a character education program?

2. Based on archival data, what were the identified issues that initially established

a need for a character education program?

3. What are the safe school coordinators perceptions related to issues that

initially established a need for a character education program?

4. What are the former school principals perceptions related to issues that

initially established a need for a character education program?

5. What procedures were involved in the initial development of the character

education program?

6. Based on archival data, what were the identified procedures used to initially

develop the character education program?

7. What are the safe school coordinators perceptions related to the procedures

used to initially develop the character education program?

8. What are the former school principals perceptions related to the procedures

used to initially develop the character education program?

 20

Input questions. These questions sought to determine the perceptions related to

which character education models were examined, if any, prior to the development of the

character education program being evaluated:

1. Which character education models were examined, if any, prior to the selection

of the character education program being evaluated?

2. Based on archival data, indicate which character education programs, if any,

were examined prior to the selection of the character education program being evaluated.

3. What are the safe school coordinators perceptions related to which character

education models were examined, if any, prior to the development of the character

education program being evaluated?

4. What are the former school principals perceptions related to which character

education models were examined, if any, prior to the development of the character

education program being evaluated?

Process questions. These questions sought to determine perceptions on how the

program was done and how the processes were implemented:

1. Were the various components of the Second Step program implemented as

originally designed?

2. Based on archival data, were the components of the character education

program implemented as originally designed?

3. What are the safe school coordinators perceptions about the implementation of

the various components of the Second Step program?

4. What are the former school principals perceptions about the implementation of

various components of the Second Step program?

5. What are teachers perceptions about the implementation of various

 21

components of the Second Step program?

6. Were the various processes (support systems) implemented?

7. What are the safe school coordinators perceptions of the implementation of the

various processes?

8. What are the former school principals perceptions of the implementation of the

various processes?

9. What are the teachers perceptions of the implementation of the various

processes?

10. What issues or concerns were experienced during the implementation of the

Second Step program?

11. What are the safe school coordinators perceptions about any issues or

concerns experienced during the implementation of the Second Step program?

12. What are the former school principals perceptions about any issues or

concerns experienced during the implementation of the Second Step program?

13. What are the teachers perceptions about any issues or concerns experienced

during the implementation of the Second Step program?

Product questions. Stufflebeam (2003) explained that product evaluation judges

the programs impact, effectiveness, sustainability, and transportability. However,

transportability was not a focus of this study because of the limited size of the study. The

product questions sought to determine any unanticipated effects of the program:

1. What was the impact of the Second Step program on student behavior?

2. Based on empirical data, what impact did the Second Step program have on the

students behavior?

3. What are the safe school coordinators perceptions about the impact of the
 22

Second Step program on the students behavior?

4. What are the former school principals perceptions about the impact of the

Second Step program on the students behavior?

5. What are the teachers perceptions about the impact of the Second Step

program on the students behavioral social?

6. Did the Second Step program meet its goals and objectives?

7. Based on archival data, did Second Step meet its goals and objectives?

8. Does the safe school coordinator perceive that Second Step met its goals and

objectives?

9. Does the former school principal perceive that Second Step met its goals and

objectives?

10. Do the teachers perceive that Second Step met its goals and objectives?

11. Should the various components of the Second Step program be sustained?

12. Does the safe school coordinator perceive that various components of the

Second Step program should be sustained?

13. Does the former school principal perceive that various components of the

Second Step program should be sustained?

14. Do the teachers perceive that the various components of the Second Step

program should be sustained?

15. Were there any unanticipated effects of the Second Step program?

16. What are the safe school coordinators perceptions about any unanticipated

effects of the Second Step program?

17. What are the former school principals perceptions about any unanticipated

effects of the Second Step program?

 23

18. What are the teachers perceptions about any unanticipated effects of the

Second Step program?

 24

Chapter 2: Literature Review

Introduction

This chapter presents a review of literature in several areas that supported the

evaluation of the Second Step program at the target school. These areas include the

educational and governmental society concerns with regard to the escalation of disruptive

student behavior. It also presents arguments that support teaching character education

skills in the schools, arguments against teaching character education in the schools, and

provided a synopsis for some of the most utilized character education programs. A

detailed discussion on studies conducted with Second Step was also presented. Then, this

literature review concluded with a discussion on the various types of program evaluation

and revealed research studies that have utilized the Stufflebeams CIPP evaluation

method.

In a statement introducing a new U.S. Department of Education character

education Web site, then Secretary of Education Paige outlined the need for such

programs:

Sad, we live in a culture without role models, where millions of students

are taught the wrong values or no values at all. This culture of callousness
has led to a staggering achievement gap, poor health status, overweight
students, crime, disruptive behavior, teenage pregnancy, and tobacco and
alcohol abuseGood character is the product of good judgments made
every day. (Benninga, Berkowitz, Kuehn, & Smith, 2006, p. 448)

And Chase, the former president of NEA, issued his own call to action:

We must make an explicit commitment to formal character education. We must

integrate character education into the fabric of the curriculum and into
extracurricular activities. We must train teachers in character education--both
preservice and inservice. And we must consciously set about creating a moral
climate within our schools. (Benninga et al., p. 448)

Teachers across the nation attempted to respond to the challenges of educating students
 25

whose behavior was at risk for success in the classroom. The amount of time spent by

teachers engaged in behavioral management of a few students placed additional

limitations on the amount of quality instructional time for other students in the classroom.

This situation required educators to be trained in pedagogy to address the social and

emotional needs of young learners whose lives were in turmoil and the needs of their

peers who also coped with these challenges in the school setting. Across the country,

teachers were expanding their instructional focus to include programs that taught social

learning but lack the instructional tools and skills necessary for integrating these diverse

content areas into the daily regimen of academic learning (McDonald, 2001). As a result,

more and more school systems have introduced curricula to address this concern. This

curriculum has often been referred to as character education.

Character education has been defined very broadly by the National Commission

on Character Education as any deliberate approach by which school personnel, often in

conjunction with parents and community members, help children and youth become

caring, principled, and responsible (Williams & Schaps, 1999). In the commission report,

the term character was not used to signify a particular philosophy, method, or program,

but was used as an umbrella term that encompassed approaches as diverse as Piagets

cognitive developmental stages, Aristotles Socratic questioning techniques, Deweys

progressive democratic practices, and Noddings ethic of care in community building.

Character education was a national movement for creating schools that foster

ethically responsible and caring young people. Character education programs model and

teach good character through an emphasis on universal values (North Carolina Public

Schools, 2007). Dwyer and Osher (2000) remarked that the foundation of an effective

character education primary prevention and school-wide program included caring staff,
 26

developmentally appropriate programs for all children, trained teachers that supported

positive school classroom behaviors, effective curricula and teaching practices,

family-focused, culturally competent approaches, and a collaborative relationship with

agencies and community organizations.

Overall, researchers and theorists suggested that character education is a key

prevention strategy for youths disruptive behavior. Experts also suggested that by

providing new skills through mentoring and modeling, a young person may adopt new

values and attitudes that do not support disruptive behavior (Frey et al., 2001; Gellert,

1999). There appeared to be a logical path from practical, appropriate social skills to

recognizing feelings to decrease problem behaviors such as verbal threats, fighting, and

aggressiveness. Children who are exposed to appropriate prosocial behaviors, continually

model and practice these behaviors, and experience successful consequences by using

them will be much more likely to use these behaviors when faced with a future difficult

situation. On the other hand, children who have failed to appropriately learn these

behaviors and skills may be more likely to experience frustration and anger will display

disruptive behavior (Frey et al.; Gellert).

Arguments for Character Education

Advocates of character education contended that there has been a need in our

society and in the school to curb disruption and to have citizens and students practice

behaviors that are of a more civil and moral nature than currently is the pattern. They

believed that the practice of violent behavior, lack of respect for others and their property,

lack of remorse, dishonesty, and no clear understanding of the difference between right

and wrong had become an all too common norm in public schools (Riese, 2005). Some of

the risk factors related to disruptive behaviors have been fractured families, poor
 27

parenting (intact as well as broken families), and the wrong kind of adult role models,

precocious sex, disruptive behavior, materialism portrayed in the mass media, and the

pressures of the peer group. Evidence that this hostile moral environment had taken a toll

on our youths character had been found in 10 troubling trends, including rising youth

disruptive behavior, increasing dishonesty (lying, cheating, and stealing), growing

disrespect for authority, peer cruelty, a resurgence of bigotry on the school campus from

preschool through higher education, a decline in the work ethic, sexual precocity, a

growing self-centeredness and declining civic responsibility, self-destructive behavior,

and ethical illiteracy (Hutcheon,1999).

In ever-increasing numbers, students have entered school with a diverse array of

different basic values. Perhaps out of fear of sanctions from the federal government and

parents, public schools have failed to educate American children in basic social values

and morals. Since people have been talking about the importance of character and

personal integrity during the last decade, the current trend of teaching citizenship has

resulted in the introduction of value or character education programs. Findings cited in

Frymier et al.s (1995) research listed character education second in importance only to

the teaching of basic skills. These findings were a culmination of community meeting

discussions held in 36 localities across the country, of which 45% of the participants were

educators and 55% were noneducators. The greatest concerns were expressed by

noneducators.

For some time, there had been a public outcry for a renewal of teaching core

character values that transcended cultural, political, and religious boundaries. With

increased support from the public, more and more states require character education in

schools. Believing this outcry was correct, the new character education movement was
 28

based on the belief that the violent, dishonest, irresponsible, and destructive behavior of

todays youth were the result of the absence of good character. To overcome some of

these barriers, many schools incorporated character education programs to improve

student behavior through teaching prosocial skills (Raymond, 2001).

Programs regarding prevention of aggressive, disruptive behavior have produced

some diverse and basic conclusions. First, prevention means early intervention (Kamps &

Tankersley, 1996). According to Walker, Colvin, and Ramsey (1995), disruptive children

have been identified as early as ages 3 and 4. A second feature necessary for an effective

prevention and intervention program included parental participation (Kamps &

Tankersley). Patterson (1982) suggested that there is a direct relationship among

parenting, family interaction styles, and childrens behavior problems. Third, prevention

and intervention programs in schools have utilized role playing of social interactions

when children are with adults and/or peers.

The goal of such programs had been to decrease incidents of aggression and

increase socially accepted behaviors by combining direct teaching of social skills with the

modeling of appropriate behaviors as relevant situations arose. In addition, cross-setting,

multiple, proactive prevention programs involved a collaborative approach among

families, schools, and community agencies appeared to show the most promise for

helping children change disruptive behavior patterns (Albee & Gullotta, 1997; Kamps &

Tankersley, 1996; Walker et al., 1995).

A limited amount of quantitative research has been done on the effectiveness of

character education programs. Leming (1993) stated that contemporary character

education programs have been evaluated from two basic approaches. First, there was an

informal evaluation that either observed teachers and administrators or collected

 29

anecdotal evidence. In this type of approach, the potential for a biased rating on how

students behaved were great and there was no comparison between students in a character

education program and those who were not. The second evaluation approach described

by Leming used experimental designs which focused on the behavior of students, and

compared program participants with nonparticipants. Leming cited a major experimental

study of the Weber County Character Education Project in Utah that involved 3,000

students and 109 teachers. The 2-year longitudinal study reported a 60% reduction in

disciplinary problems among experimental participants, whereas behavior problems in

the control schools actually increased.

Arguments Against Character Education

Black (1996) believed that most school activities designed to build character have

had little effect on how students acted at school and outside school settings. According to

Lockwood (1997), students who had been in character education programs typically

performed well on assignments such as worksheets or activity booklets, but when it came

to real-life situations, these same students acted as if they had no instruction at all in

honesty, sharing, cooperation, and other character traits. Other studies have reached the

same conclusion.

Lasley (1997) stated that character education is just a panacea for the crisis of

values because parents want the school to accomplish what had not occurred in the home.

He went on to compare character education with drug and sex education. He argued that

children learn more from what they have seen than from what they have heard.

Furthermore, he pointed out that the character education movement was not flawed, but

that American adults were fundamentally flawed and proud of it. His argument was based

on his view that the American media has emphasized the worst in human beings, that
 30

television programming and the commercials have depicted more acts of disruptive

behavior and pro-drug messages than altruistic values, and that the values have been

self-serving to educators. However, his most damaging assessment of character education

was related to schools and teachers. Lasley maintained that the school environment and

the values taught through teacher behaviors were the opposite of what the character

education movement was trying to accomplish. For example, he stated that teachers

ranked students according to their performance-then told them to cooperate. Teachers

told students to respect others, and then called on the boys the majority of the time; and

that teachers advocated critical thinking, then labeled those students who thought

critically as difficult children. To him, the problem was not the children, but with the

adults with whom the children interacted. He noted that values were not taught, but

caught and practiced.

Nash (1997) concluded that the current character education programs were

inadequate to prepare students to live in a culturally diverse society. These arguments

against character education appeared to be in the minority. The scientific community had

suggested that in order to evaluate effectiveness appropriately, a rigorous experimental

design should be employed, as well as evidence of significant deterrent effects, and

replications at multiple sites or in clinical trials (Satcher, 2001). With increased support

from the public, more and more states have required character education in schools.

Character Education Programs

According to the Kentucky Department of Education Dropout Prevention

Resource Guide (2003), numerous commercial character education programs have been

available to enhance and support the school's character education program

but vary greatly in the degree to which they integrate character education into the
 31

classrooms and throughout the school. However, there are indications that many of these

programs positively impact dropout rates, office referrals, school climate, and

achievement. When choosing a preexisting program, schools often selected a program

that included the traits that the school and community felt were most important. A review

of the literature indicated that the programs listed in Appendix C were some of the most

widely used.

Second Step

Second Step has been used in many instances with elementary school children and

evaluated for public information. A sample of these findings is reported below. The

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention funded a one-year study examining the

effectiveness of Second Step on aggression and positive social behavior among

elementary students (Grossman et al., 1997). In this study, 12 schools were paired

to reflect a similar socioeconomic and ethnic makeup. Random assignments were used to

place one school in each pair as the control and the other as the experimental group.

Second and third grade classes were targeted for participation. Trained observers

monitored the students prior to the start of the Second Step lessons and on 12 other

occasions. The observers indicated that the largest decreases in physical aggression and

hostile and aggressive comments (e.g., name-calling, threats) were evident on

playgrounds and in lunchrooms. The teachers and parents found no difference in

interpersonal skills, self-management, irritability, aggressiveness, disruptiveness, or

delinquency between the experimental and control groups. However, the trained

observers noted a positive change in the experimental group (Grossman et al.). Despite

only the observers noting a significant change in behavior, the authors of this study

concluded that the Second Step curriculum led to moderate decreases in aggression and
 32

an increase in neutral and prosocial behavior. In addition, they added that without

the Second Step curriculum, student behavior worsened, became physically and verbally

aggressive over the school year (Grossman et al.).

A year-long study involving 87 students in Grades 3 through 5 was conducted

utilizing the Second Step program to explore the effectiveness of the program

over a longer period of time (Taub, 2002). Taub implemented the Second Step program at

a rural elementary school with a comparison (nonintervention) group being from a nearby

school. Staff members provided the Second Step intervention to the students twice a

week in 30 minutes sessions. Training of school staff was conducted and the program

became an integrated part of the guidance methodology and the culture of the school

(Taub). Merrell (1998) provided methods of data collection that included the use of the

School Social Behavior Scale, an instrument that was completed by the classroom

teachers through observations and specific identified behavior. Data were collected in

three time periods, including just prior to the onset of the intervention, following the

intervention, and one year later after the Second Step intervention had been completed

(Taub). Observers attempted to identify the incidence of three prosocial behaviors and

two antisocial behaviors in students in unstructured settings (Taub). The intervention

school demonstrated remarkable improvement in ratings of social competence and a

decrease in the frequency of disruptive behaviors (Taub). The children exposed to the

intervention also demonstrated an increase in prosocial behaviors, resulting in improved

interaction with peers (Taub).

In a study of schools utilizing the Second Step Curriculum, more than a thousand

second- to fifth-grade students exhibited improved social competence over control

schools. Second Step participants required less adult intervention, displayed less hostility,
 33

and were more likely than non-participants to choose goals that led to a fair outcome for

themselves and others (Frey et al., 2001).

An evaluation of the Second Step curriculum was conducted with 54 third-

through fifth-grade students. Teachers rated childrens social competence and disruptive

behavior, and the researcher observed childrens prosocial and disruptive behaviors.

Compared to the control groups, students who received Second Step lessons increased in

social competence and in following directions. The control group students increased in

disruptive behaviors, program students declined in disruptive behaviors (Taub, 2002). In

the above study program evaluation was utilized as the vehicle for educators and trainers

to provide research-based information to various policy makers, funding agencies, boards

of directors, and other stakeholders. The evaluation provided educators with information

to direct further decision-making towards educational program improvement efforts,

identify what was working well and what was not, reveal problematic areas and their

solutions, and determine the impact the program was having on various clients and

participants.

Program Evaluation Models

Anderson (2000) explained that in education, the origins of program evaluation

go back more than a century. In the 1840s, after 200 years of Puritan influence on

education, the American Common School came under scrutiny. In the mid-1840s, a

conflict between the Boston schoolmasters and the State Board of Education led to the

notion of measurement on the effectiveness of schools and in 1845 the first systematic

school survey, using printed tests, was conducted.

According to Alkin and Christie (2004), some of the most prominent evaluation

methods were studied by Tyler (objective-oriented), Flexner (expertise-oriented), Scriven

 34

(consumer-oriented), Sake (participant or response-oriented), and Stufflebeam

(management-decision oriented).

Tylers objective-oriented evaluation. Alkin and Christie (2004) viewed Tylers

work on the Eight-Year Study as one of the major starting points for modern program

evaluation in the1940s. Tylers main focus was on the specification of objectives and

measurement of outcomes. He rejected the applicability of norm-referenced tests for

program evaluation. He argued that discarding items that were answered correctly by too

many, or too few, respondents does not provide the necessary information about what

students are learning. Tylers point of view had come to be known as objective-oriented

(or objective-referenced) evaluation. The approach focused on the following factors:

1. Formulating a statement of educational objectives.

2. Classifying these objectives into major types.

3. Defining and refining each of these types of objectives in terms of behavior.

4. Identifying situations in which students can be expected to display these types

of behavior.

5. Selecting and trying promising methods of obtaining evidence regarding each

type of objective.

6. Selecting on the basis of preliminary trials the more promising appraisal

methods for further development and improvement.

7. Devising means for interpreting and using the results (Alkin & Christie).

A number of later theoretical works rested heavily on Tylers views of evaluation

and emphasized particularly the methodology as an objectives-based measurement.

Metfessel and Michaels (as cited in Alkin & Christie, 2004) work followed Tylers

evaluation step progression but paid greater heed to expanding the range of alternative
 35

instruments.

Flexners expertise-oriented evaluation. Older than the objective-oriented

approach that had dominated education since the 1930s was the expertise-oriented

approach. McNamara, Erlandson, and McNamara (1999) identified some leading

examples of this time-honored approach: doctorial oral examinations, proposal review

panels, professional reviews of educators performance for decisions concerning

promotion or tenure, peer reviews of articles submitted to refereed professional journals,

site visits of educational programs conducted at the behest of the programs sponsor,

reviews and recommendations of prestigious blue-ribbon panels, and even critique

offered by the ubiquitous experts who exists at least one to every educational system, and

whose reason is to serve in self-appointed watchdog roles.

Flexners expertise-oriented evaluation approach was categorized within four

categories: formal professional review systems, informal professional review systems, ad

hoc individual reviews, and ad hoc panel reviews (Fitzpatrick et al., 2004). To many, the

most familiar formal professional review system was that of institutions such as schools,

universities, and hospitals, such as the Southern Association of Colleges Schools (SACS)

accreditation, the process whereby an organization granted approval to learning

institutions, and Flexners method for examining medical schools.

Scrivens consumer-oriented evaluation. Alkin and Christie (2004) revealed that

Scrivens major contribution was the way in which he adamantly defined the role of the

evaluator in making value judgments. They further noted that Scriven was the first and

only major evaluation theorist to have an explicit and general theory of valuing (Alkin &

Christie, p. 94). Scriven was unequivocal in his position that society requires valuing and

it is the role of the evaluator to do that job. He maintained that there is a science of
 36

valuing and that is evaluation. Alkin and Christie explained that Scriven promoted the

idea that evaluators must make decisions about what is bad and what is good (p. 19).

Scriven noted that the greatest failure of the evaluator is in simply providing information

to decision makers and passing the final judgment on to the nonprofessional. However,

by public interest, Scriven did not restrict the evaluators responsibility simply to clients,

users, or stakeholders, but to all potential consumers. Indeed, he viewed the evaluators

role in valuing as similar to producing a report for Consumer Reports in which the

evaluator determines the appropriate criteria for which judgments are to be made and

then presents these judgments for all to see. As in Consumer Reports, there was the

necessity for identifying critical competitors, that is, competing alternatives. Comparisons

were key in making value judgments, and the evaluator has the responsibility for

identifying the appropriate alternatives. Just as Consumer Reports would identify midsize

cars to be evaluated, so too would the evaluator seek out similar entities for evaluation.

Fitzpatrick et al. (2004) noted that Scrivens concerns and checklists made a

major contribution to this approach with his distinction between formative and

summative evaluation. Scriven stressed that the items in this checklist were necessary.

They included need, market, performance: true field trials, performance: true consumer

tests, performance: long term, performance side effects, performance process,

performance causation, and performance: statistical significance. Komoski was another

contributor to consumer-oriented evaluation. In 1960, Komoski was a leader in

establishing the Educational Products Information Exchange (Fitzpatrick et al.).

Stakes participant-oriented (responsive) evaluation. Stakes (as cited in Alkin &

Christie, 2004) views on responsive evaluation have had a substantial impact on the

evaluation theorists. Stake was a strong advocate of case studies and of the evaluator
 37

producing a thick description (Alkin & Christie). Alkin and Christie pointed out that the

essential components of Stakes responsive evaluation included the following:

1. The belief that there is no true value to anything (knowledge is context bound).

2. The belief that stakeholder perspectives are integral elements in evaluations.

3. The belief that case studies are the best method for representing the beliefs and

values of stakeholders and of reporting evaluation results.

Stake maintained that case study is necessary for context and activity description but

might, for some audiences, be a poor way to judge quality. In other words, Stake believed

that seeing and judging the evaluation regularly are part of the same act and that the task

of evaluation is as much a matter of refining early perceptions of quality as of building a

body of evidence to determine level of quality (Alkin & Christie).

Stake (as cited in Alkin & Christie, 2004) maintained that there are multiple

realities and that stakeholder perspectives need to be represented within the evaluation,

but he just as firmly believed that stakeholders do not participate in the evaluation in the

same way that participant theorists would have them do. He was opposed to stakeholder

participation and asserted that evaluation is the job of the evaluator. However, judgment

is not dependent on those alone. Stake noted that it is the evaluators job to hear the

participants pleas, to deliberate, sometimes to negotiate, but regularly to decide what the

participants interests were (Alkin & Christie).

Stufflebeams management- (decision-) oriented evaluation. Work on the CIPP

model began in 1965 because American public schools found they could not

meaningfully and successfully evaluate their federally supported projects using the

existing gold standard for program evaluations. Stufflebeam and Guba initially developed

the CIPP model as an approach to evaluation focused on the decision-making process.

 38

CIPP is an acronym for four types of evaluation: context, input, process, and product

(Stufflebeam, 2003). Context evaluation involved identifying needs to decide upon

program objectives. Input evaluation leaded to decisions on strategies and designs.

Process evaluation consisted of identifying shortcomings in a current program to refine

implementation. Product evaluation measured outcomes for decisions regarding the

continuation or refocus of the program.

Stufflebeam (2003) described the CIPP model of evaluation as a cyclical process.

The key strategy was to work with a carefully designed evaluation while maintaining

flexibility. According to Stufflebeam, evaluators must view design as a process, not a

product. Evaluations should provide a continual information stream to decision makers to

ensure that programs continually improve their services. To improve services, evaluations

should aid decision makers in allocating resources to programs that best serve clients.

Stufflebeam (2003) often keyed his evaluations to the program evaluation

standards (Joint Committee for Educational Evaluation, 1994). Focusing on four domains

related to practice, the program evaluation standards described the professional standards

by which evaluators should conduct their work. The four domains were utility, feasibility,

propriety, and accuracy. The utility standards were intended to ensure that an evaluation

will serve the information needs of intended users. The feasibility standards were

intended to ensure that an evaluation will be realistic, prudent, diplomatic, and frugal.

The propriety standards were intended to ensure that an evaluation will be conducted

legally, ethically, and with due respect for the welfare of those involved in the evaluation,

as well as of those affected by its results. The accuracy standards were intended to ensure

that an evaluation will reveal and convey technically adequate information about the

features that determine worth or merit of the program being evaluated. Stufflebeam also
 39

believed that evaluations should be grounded in clear contracts. Citing the feasibility

standard of formal contracts, they advised evaluators and clients to reach formal written

agreements that detail what is to be done, how, by whom, and when so that these parties

are obligated to adhere to all conditions of the agreement or formally to renegotiate it (p.

311).

Using Stufflebeams (2003) approach, the evaluator engaged a representative

stakeholder panel to help define the evaluation questions, shape evaluation plans, review

draft reports and disseminate the findings (p. 57). The stakeholder panel was the primary

group with whom the evaluator interfaces regularly. The success of the evaluation could

hinge upon these regular interactions because it is believed that without them, the

evaluation approach would fail. The evaluator kept the panel abreast of the formative

information produced from the evaluation so that decisions about both the program and

the evaluation can be made. Evaluations produced a comprehensive assessment of merit

and program worth.

In sum, Stufflebeams (2003) evaluation approach engaged stakeholders (usually

in decision-making positions) in focusing the evaluation and in making sure the

evaluation addressed their most important questions, provided timely, relevant

information to assist decision making and produced an accountability record. Both

formative and summative information became available to a panel of stakeholders that

promoted use of the evaluation findings. By including multiple stakeholder perspectives,

Stufflebeam increased the possibility that relevant value perspectives were represented,

thus fostering a comprehensive evaluation of program value.

As a logical structure for designing each type of evaluation Stufflebeam proposed

that evaluators follow these general steps (Fitzpatrick et al., 2004):

 40

1. Focusing the evaluation by identifying the major level(s) of decision making to

be served, for example, local, state, or national. For each level of decision making,

projecting the decision situations to be served and describe each one in terms of its locus,

focus, criticality, timing, and composition of alternatives. Defining criteria for each

decision situation by specifying variables for measurement and standards for use in the

judgment of alternatives, and defining policies within which the evaluator must operate.

2. Collection of information by specifying the source of the information to be

collected, specifying the instruments and methods for collecting the needed information,

specifying the sampling procedures to be employed, and specifying the conditions and

schedule for information collection.

3. Organization of information by providing a format for the information that is to

be collected and designating a means for performing the analysis.

4. Analysis of information by selecting the analytical procedures to be employed

and designating a means for performing the analysis.

5. Reporting the information by defining the audiences for the evaluation reports,

specifying means for providing information to the audiences, specifying the format for

evaluating reports and /or reporting sessions, and scheduling information reports.

6. Administration of the evaluation by summarizing the evaluation schedule;

defining staff and resource requirements and plans for meeting these requirements;

specifying means for meeting policy requirements to conduct of the evaluations;

evaluating the potential of the evaluation design for providing information that is valid,

reliable, credible, timely, and pervasive (i.e., will reach all relevant stakeholders);

specifying and scheduling means for periodic updating of the evaluation design; and

providing a budget for the total evaluation program.

 41

Furthermore, Stufflebeam (2003) explained that the relevance for using four types

of evaluation in the CIPP were the following:

1. Context evaluation was used for deciding on the setting to be observed, the

goals associated with meeting needs or using opportunities, and the objectives associated

with solving problems that is for planning needed changes and to provide a basis for

judging outcomes.

2. Input evaluation served for selecting sources of sources support, solution

strategies, and procedural designs that is for structuring change activities and to provide a

basis for judging implementation.

3. Process evaluation provided for implementing and refining the program design

and procedure for effecting process control and to provide a log of the actual process for

later use in interpreting outcomes.

4. Product evaluation determined if the program should be continued, terminated,

modified, or refocused and to present a clear record of effects (intended and unintended,

positive and negative).

Stufflebeam (2003) further asserted that evaluations most important purpose is

not to prove, but to improve--an idea originally put forward by Guba when serving on the

Phi Delta Kappa National Study Committee on Evaluation. Evaluation was thus

conceived primarily as a functional activity oriented in the long run to simulating, aiding,

abetting efforts to strengthen and improve enterprises. However, the model also posited

that if some programs or other services prove unworthy attempts to improve them should

be terminated. By helping stop unneeded, corrupt, or helplessly flawed efforts,

evaluations served an improvement function through assisting organizations to free

resources and time for worthy enterprises (Stufflebeam).

 42

The primary focus of evaluation was to determine the effectiveness of a program

in light of the attainment of pre-set priorities and goals. Evaluation helps document

whether a program is accomplishing its goals or not. It identified program weaknesses

and strengths and the areas of the program that need revision. The Joint Committee on

Standards for Educational Evaluation (1994) defined evaluation as the systematic

investigation of the worth or merit of an object. An evaluation plan may have two

different focuses: formative and summative. A comprehensive evaluation plan should

include both types of evaluation. Formative evaluation was designed to collect data while

a program was being developed with the intention to improve it. Formative evaluation

provides ongoing feedback on how the different components of a program are working

and leads to decisions regarding what needs to be enhanced, what needs to be deleted,

and what needs to be added. Summative evaluation was designed to gather conclusive

data that indicated how effective the overall program was. Summative evaluation resulted

in decisions to continue or not to continue a program.

Stufflebeams Research Studies

Stufflebeam (2003) explained that after the CIPP model was presented at a

national conference in Florida. Hindsman, then director of Southwest Education

Laboratory in Austin, Texas, invited him to test the CIPP model on one of the labs major

projects. Hindsmans lab had been assigned to mount and evaluate a $10 million program

for meeting the educational needs of migrant children. Guba and Hammond also assisted

as researchers in the study. Stufflebeam indicated that the CIPP model was applied

flexibly, active members of the of the migrant community provided more cogent

information on educational and related needs of migrant kids than did experts who had

been studying migrant children, and the influence of decisions required much more than
 43

submission of periodic written reports. The results of the migrant study identified the

migrant programs weaknesses and strengths and provided more insight into the input

evaluation component of the CIPP model (Stufflebeam).

In another study, the CIPP model was used as the framework to identify research

and evaluation priorities for distance education in Nebraska. Rockwell (1999) indicated

that three groups of distance educators participated in the data collection process for the

study. They contributed their ideas for research and evaluation issues that were relevant

in Nebraska and/or ranked the importance of these ideas. The three groups included a

five-member steering committee with interests in distance education both locally,

nationally, and internationally; a Delphi panel composed of 4 representatives from state

colleges, 10 from the University of Nebraska at Lincoln, 3 from the University of

Nebraska at Omaha, 5 from elementary and secondary education, 3 from the University

of Nebraska Medical Center, 4 from states other than Nebraska, 5 who represented

special interests related to distance education, 4 from community colleges, 2 from the

University of Nebraska at Kearney, and 3 from state government; participants in the

state-wide Distance Learning Conference: Communities of Learning that included, but

were not limited to, kindergarten through Grade 12 classroom teachers, technologists,

community leaders, extension educators, instructional designers, media specialists and

librarians, college and university professors, and school board members. According to

Rockwell, a summary of the results indicated that distance educators felt that very

important research and evaluation needs for distance education should focus on

cooperation among institutions, designing the educational experience for the distance

learner, teacher preparation, and educational outcomes. Much research as been done on

the CIPP model for program evaluation, but Stufflebeam (2003) recommended that the
 44

model must be subjected to continued assessment and further development.

 45

Chapter 3: Methodology

Introduction

This chapter describes and discusses the procedures that were used to gather data

to answer the research questions. As indicated earlier, the development of the research

questions were guided by the Stufflebeam (2003) CIPP model.

Data-Gathering Procedures

To answer the research questions, archival, empirical and qualitative data were

gathered from various sources. The qualitative data were gathered through interviews and

surveys.

Archival, empirical, and qualitative data sources. Data were gathered from office

referrals, the Second Step grant request, the Second Step curriculum, the school

improvement plan, the school leadership team minutes, faculty meeting minutes,

professional development minutes, school board minutes, Second Step professional

development minutes, interview questions, and teacher survey questions.

During the context evaluation, archival and empirical data were collected from the

third-, fourth-, and fifth-grade students office referral records from three prior school

years: 2002-2003, 2003-2004, and 2004-2005. This was done in order to establish

baseline data for the students behavior prior to exposure to the Second Step program.

The 2005-2006 data were used to help determine the impact of the program (product

evaluation).

To answer the input questions, archival data were gathered from the school

improvement plan, professional development minutes, faculty meeting minutes, school

board minutes, Second Step curriculum, and the Second Step grant proposal. Reviewing

these documents provided the operational decisions and data that were used to determine
 46

the program features. It also revealed program decision information as to what resources

were available, appropriate strategies to be considered, and other plans under

consideration. Data from these documents presented key elements about the Second Step

programs structure activities, obtaining financial resource support; procedural design,

recruiting of staff, and training of staff were done. Second Step characteristics indicated

what was used to define the curriculum, instructional materials, methods, and practices.

Archival data from these sources also revealed the stakeholders needs, goals, and any

additional resources for the Second Step program.

Interview question procedures. Initially, a telephone call was made to the safe

schools coordinator and the former school principal to request verbal permission to be

interviewed. Then, a cover letter and informed consent form were sent to the safe school

coordinator and former school principal to acquire written agreement for their

participation in the study. The two potential interviewees were provided a stamped,

self-addressed envelope to return the informed consent form. Those who agreed to be

interviewed were contacted to schedule a date, time, and location for the interview.

During the interviews, questions were asked of each participant and anecdotal responses

were hand written by the researcher. Each interview took approximately 45 minutes to an

hour. Interview questions are included in Appendix D.

Teacher survey procedures. A survey (see Appendix E) was used to gather data

from the teachers. As data were only collected from the nine teachers who implemented

the Second Step program in 2005-2006 and some of these teachers were no longer at the

focus school, the researcher contacted the teachers by telephone and e-mail prior to

survey distribution. The Teacher Survey packets were delivered to the school and placed

in the teachers school mailboxes, with directions for the teachers to complete within 5
 47

working days, place in a sealed envelope, and return to a box labeled King in the main

office. For the teachers who were no longer at the focus school surveys were sent through

U.S. Postal Service mail, e-mailed, or faxed. Included in the packet was a cover letter and

a participation letter. Each survey took approximately 45 minutes to an hour to complete.

Data Analysis

Responses from the interviews and surveys were organized by similarities and the

responses were compared among the groups. The archival data were summarized and

compared to the interview and survey responses. The empirical data were compared to

the number of office referrals before implementation of the Second Step program to

empirical data collected after implementation of the Second Step program. The number

of office referrals from 2004-2005 were compared to the number of office referrals from

2005-2006. The number of office referrals was compared by grade levels.

Limitations

Several limitations were identified which may have had an impact on the ability

to generalize the benefits of the Second Step program. Individual personalities, teaching

styles, and methodologies could have affected the instructional delivery of the Second

Step curriculum. In addition, the classroom teachers could also be affected by either their

relationship with the student (positive or negative) or their expectations with regard to the

Second Step program. The researcher was the one to determine similarities in the

responses. Data gathered through surveys could also be a limitation because people may

not have been committed to answering the questions.

Timeline

This study was implemented after approval from Nova Southeastern University. It

took place over a 5-week period during which the former school principal, the safe school
 48

coordinator were interviewed and 7 teachers completed a survey about their use and

perceptions of the Second Step program. The timeline is shown in Table 2.

Table 2

Timeline
________________________________________________________________________

Time period Source Documents and instruments

________________________________________________________________________

Week 1-2 Safe school coordinator Archival data:

Former school principal
Office referrals
Second Step grant request
School improvement plan
School board minutes
Faculty meeting minutes
School leadership minutes
Professional development minutes
Second Step curriculum

Week 3-4 Safe school coordinator Qualitative data:

Former school principal Interview questions
Teachers Teacher survey questions

Week 5 Safe school coordinator Empirical data:

Office referrals
________________________________________________________________________
 49

Chapter 4: Results

Introduction

The purpose of this applied dissertation was to evaluate a character education

program in a Southeastern suburban elementary school. The goal of the program was to

address third-, fourth-, and fifth-grade student behavioral issues and office referrals.

This chapter presents the data that were gathered to answer the stated research

questions. The research questions were organized around the four evaluation types

contained in the Stufflebeam (2003) CIPP model: context, input, process, and product

evaluation. Each research question and related subquestions are presented and followed

by the data related to these questions. The overall results are summarized at the end of the

chapter.

Context Research Question Results

The following questions sought to determine the perceived and identified issues

that initially established a need for a character education program.

Context Research Questions 1 and 2. What were the identified and perceived

issues that initially established a need for a character education program? Based on

archival data, what were the identified issues that initially established a need for a

character education program?

To answer these questions, the researcher called the former principal and visited

the school to collect archival data from the third-, fourth-, and fifth-grade students office

referral records from 3 prior school years: 2002-2003, 2003-2004, and 2004-2005. This

was done in order to establish baseline data for the students behavior prior to exposure

of the Second Step Program. School records for the academic years 2002-2003,

2003-2004 and 2004-2005 indicated the greatest number of office referrals were for
 50

Grades 3, 4, and 5. The data also indicated that disruptive behavior increased as the

students moved to a higher grade level (see Table 3).

Table 3

Number of Office Referrals for Prekindergarten Through Grade 5

_____________________________________________________

Grade level 2002-2003 2003-2004 2004-2005

_____________________________________________________

5 26 111 108

4 17 72 93

3 11 68 82

2 2 10 23

1 0 14 12

Kindergarten 1 9 3

Prekindergarten 0 2 10
_____________________________________________________

Note. Number of school-wide referrals for 2002-2003 = 57, for 2003-2004 =

286, and for 2004-2005 = 331.

Context Research Question 3. What are the safe school coordinators perceptions

related to issues that initially established a need for a character education program? After

making repeated telephone calls and sending repeated e-mail messages to the safe school

coordinator, the researcher did not receive a response.

Context Research Question 4. What are the former principals perceptions related

to issues that initially established a need for a character education program? After

receiving the signed informed consent form, the researcher telephoned the former

principal to schedule a time to conduct a face-to-face interview. Due to limited time and

unexpected meetings that often took the former principal away from the office, the
 51

former principal requested that the researcher conduct a telephone conference interview

instead of a face-to-face interview. Therefore, the researcher and the former principal

were not in the same room when the interview was conducted. During the telephone

conference interview, the researcher used pencil and paper to take notes and the interview

took one hour to complete. The former principal said that some of the issues were poor

behavior, excessive office referrals, and poor parenting. He felt the behavior issues were

related to the low socioeconomic situation of some of the parents.

Context Research Questions 5 and 6. What procedures were involved in the initial

development of the character education program? Based on archival data what were the

identified procedures used to initially develop the character education program?

The researcher contacted the former principal for permission to visit the school to

collect archival data from the Second Step Grant Request, Second Step Curriculum,

Second Step professional development minutes, school board minutes, school leadership

team, school improvement plan, and staff meeting minutes. Information from these

documents revealed that Safe Schools Grant funding allowed the district to purchase the

Second Step program instructional kits for each school and for a staff member from each

school to participate in 4 days of training. Grant funds were also used to compensate the

trainer from the CFC, founders of the Second Step program. The training was conducted

in Spring 2005, and the staff members selected for the training were to become the

designated trainers for their schools staff in the 2005-2006 school year. The goal of the

grant was to create a culture that viewed bullying and other forms of harassment as

socially unacceptable behaviors in the schools and to develop responsible and caring

students. The SADFS grant indicated that after the March training, the teacher trainers

group met a second time in June 2005 to provide an overview of the school systems
 52

expectations, curriculum, and implementation for the principal. A stipend was also sent to

each teacher trainer to use in their summer planning for implementation at their site. The

Second Step program kits were purchased in 2004 to be ready for implementation in the

2005-2006 school year.

These archival documents further revealed that the teachers at the research site

decided the lessons would be taught school-wide twice weekly. The lessons were

presented for 30 minutes at the same time of day on a regular school day (see Appendix

A for a Photo Lesson Card sample). The teachers decided to implement the program

school-wide because they felt a whole-school approach would promote consistent

instruction. It was hoped that if the strategies were used throughout the school, perhaps

the students would be more likely to use them inside and outside of the school setting.

The faculty also decided that the Second Step lessons should be presented in scope and

sequence, as each unit and lesson was built upon skills presented in the previous lesson,

(see Appendix B for a Unit Card sample). It was determined that during regular

grade-level team meetings the teachers would have discussions about the lesson

strategies, specifically regarding what was working and what was not working. Parents

and caregivers were familiarized with the Second Step Program through take-home

letters and through the use of a family overview video on Open House night.

Context Research Question 7. What are the safe school coordinators perceptions

related to the procedures used to initially develop the character education program? After

making repeated telephone calls and sending repeated e-mail messages to the safe school

coordinator, the researcher did not receive a response.

Context Research Question 8. What are the former principals perceptions related

to the procedures used to initially develop the character education program? During the
 53

interview, the former principal stated that there was some resentment toward the program

because it had been forced on the principals and teachers. He said that he thought the

district should have solicited input from the staff so that buy-in would have been

established and personnel would have been more supportive.

Summary. In summary, the context evaluation data collected from the archived

office referrals indicated that disruptive behavior increased as the students moved to

higher grade levels. The qualitative data collected from the former principal indicated the

issues that initially established a need for a character education program were a result of

poor behavior and excessive office referrals, which could be attributed to low

socioeconomic status and poor parenting.

The archival data collected to answer Research Question 5 indicated the first

procedure involved in the initial development of the character education program begun

with securing funds through a SADFS grant. Then the teacher trainers were trained

during the summer prior to program implementation. Each teacher trainer was issued one

set of curriculum materials for each grade level (kindergarten through Grade 5); the

teachers were taught how to use each of the 22 lessons on empathy, impulse control, and

anger management; and they were given recommendations for presenting the program to

the parents. These data also revealed that the principal and some teachers felt the program

was forced on them. As a result, some of the teachers may not have accepted the program

because they were not given a choice in the selection of the character education program.

Input Research Question Results

The following questions sought to determine the perceptions related to which

character education models were examined, if any, prior to the development of the

character education program being evaluated.

 54

Input Research Questions 1 and 2. Which character education models were

examined, if any, prior to the selection of the character education program being

evaluated? Based on archival data, indicate which character education programs, if any,

were examined prior to the selection of the character education program being evaluated.

To answer these questions, the researcher contacted the current school principal

and went to the school to review archival data from the school board minutes, school

leadership team, school improvement plan, staff meeting minutes, and SADFS. Based on

these documents, there was no evidence that school officials considered any other

character education programs prior to the selection of Second Step.

According to the districts SADFS grant, the district choose the Second Step

curriculum because it was known to be a comprehensive program that attempted to

provide direct instruction by incorporating the teaching of empathy, impulse control, and

anger management along with social skills and problem solving. The Second Step

curriculum also integrated the core values recommended in the Eleven Principles of

Effective Character Education developed by the Character Education Partnership

(Lickona et al., 2003). In addition, the Second Step program was recognized by the U.S.

Department of Education as an exemplary program for intervention.

Input Research Question 3. What are the safe school coordinators perceptions

related to which character education models were examined, if any, prior to the

development of the character education program being evaluated? After making repeated

telephone calls and sending repeated e-mail messages to the safe school coordinator, the

researcher did not receive a response.

Input Research Question 4. What are the former principals perceptions related to

which character education models were examined, if any, prior to the development of the
 55

character education program being evaluated? During the interview, the former principal

stated that he did not know; however, he did not believe any other program was

considered.

Summary. The input evaluation data collected to answer Research Question 1

from both archival and qualitative sources revealed that Second Step was the only

character education program the district considered to address the disruptive behavior and

office referrals. The program was chosen because it provided direct instruction in

character education skills and was recognized nationally and internationally as an

effective character education program.

Process Research Question Results

The following questions sought to determine perceptions on how the program was

done and how the processes were implemented.

Process Research Questions 1 and 2. Were the various components of the Second

Step program implemented as originally designed? Based on archival data were the

components of the character education program implemented as originally designed?

To answer these questions, the researcher contacted the current school principal

and went to the school to review archival data from minutes from the school board,

school leadership team, school improvement plan, and staff meeting. Based on archival

data from the school improvement plan the Second Step character education program was

implemented as originally intended

Process Research Question 3. What are the safe school coordinators perceptions

about the implementation of the various components of the Second Step program? After

making repeated telephone calls and sending repeated e-mail messages to the safe school

coordinator, the researcher did not receive a response.

 56

Process Research Question 4. What are the former principals perceptions about

the implementation of various components of the Second Step program? The results for

each of the subquestions in the process research questions are presented below.

When asked if the empathy component of the Second Step program implemented

as originally designed, the former principal stated, Yes, the students could relate to

another persons feelings. When asked if the impulse control component of the Second

Step program implemented as originally designed, the former school building principal

stated, Yes, it was an effective strategy for helping the students to think before

reacting.

When asked if the anger management component of the Second Step program

implemented as originally designed, the former principal stated, Yes, the students

utilized the cool down steps. When asked what his perceptions were about the use of the

black and white photo lesson cards, the former principal stated that he did not know.

When asked what his perceptions were about the use of the videos, the former school

building principal stated that he did not know.

When asked what his perceptions were about the Second Step posters, the former

principal stated that he did not know. When asked which of the strategies he thought were

most beneficial, the former principal stated he thought impulse control was the most

beneficial because it helped the students to make better choices. When asked which

strategies he believed caused the greatest challenges, the former school building principal

stated that he did not know. When asked if the Second Step program assessments were

used as described in the manual, the former principal stated he did not know. Finally,

when asked if the 22 lessons were taught in scope and sequence, the former school

building principal stated that yes, they were taught in scope and sequence to the fourth
 57

grade, but he was not sure about the third and fifth grades.

Process Research Question 5. What are the teachers perceptions about the

implementation of various components of the Second Step program? The researcher

distributed nine surveys to each of the 3 third-, fourth-, and fifth-grade teachers. Seven

completed surveys were returned. By process of elimination, the researcher knew which

teachers from the third and fifth grades did not respond. The results for each of the

subquestions for the process research questions are presented below. The responses from

the surveys were organized by similarities among the groups. The teachers grade level

will be indicated before each response.

The following are responses from the teachers when they were asked if the

empathy component of the Second Step program implemented as originally designed:

1. Grade 3: Yes, at my grade level.

2. Grade 3: Yes, to the best of my knowledge.

3. Grade 4: Yes, the program discussed empathy a great deal.

4. Grade 4: Yes. We used the program as it was designed by the company.

5. Grade 5: Yes, Second Step is a great program that promotes non-bullying and

cooperative strategies.

6. Grade 5: Yes, The teachers followed the scope and sequence of the curriculum

as it was designed by the company.

7. Grade 4: Do not know. Not sure of original design.

The following are responses from the teachers when they were asked if the

impulse control component of the Second Step program was implemented as originally

designed:

1. Grade 3: Yes, at my grade level.

 58

2. Grade 3: Yes.

3. Grade 4: Yes, we talked about controlling impulses.

4. Grade 4: Yes, as far as I know.

5. Grade 4: Yes.

6. Grade 5: Yes. The teachers followed the scope and sequence of the curriculum

as it was designed by the company.

7. Grade 5: I do not know.

The following are responses from the teachers when they were asked if the anger

management component of the Second Step program implemented as originally designed:

1. Grade 3: Yes but its not really what we referred to when dealing with angry

kids.

2. Grade 3: Yes, to the best of my knowledge.

3. Grade 4: Yes, the program did a great job discussing ways to control anger.

4. Grade 4: Yes, to my knowledge role playing was important in all cases.

5. Grade 4: Yes.

6. Grade 5: Yes, we had staff development for the anger management component

led by the counselor.

7. Grade 5: Yes, the teachers followed the scope and sequence of the curriculum

as the anger management component was designed by the company.

The following are responses from the teachers when they were asked for their

perceptions about the use of the black-and-white photo lesson cards:

1. Grade 3: They were fine.

2. Grade 3: It seemed to be effective. It drew the students eyes to the picture. It

signaled to the child that something crucial was in the picture.

 59

3. Grade 4: They are effective.

4. Grade 4: Yes. The cards help me to follow the lesson plan.

5. Grade 4: I like them. I liked the fact that I can show my card and have the

material on the back.

6. Grade 5: The cards were a good guide to use while teaching the lessons. As I

read the plan on my side the students saw a pictured scene of the same problem on their

side.

7. Grade 5: Do not know.

The following are responses from the teachers when they were asked for their

perceptions about the use of the videos:

1. Grade 3: Great visual tool. Idea for visual learners. Class was able to make

connections.

2. Grade 4: They are very effective.

3. Grade 4: Good captivating clips.

4. Grade 4: The videos gave the students real examples.

5. Grade 3: They were fine for the younger kids, but too cheesy for the older

kids.

6. Grade 5: I wish we had more video presentations in the lessons.

7. Grade 5: The videos should have been longer and given more examples/

practice for the students.

The following are responses from the teachers when they were asked what their

perceptions were about the Second Step posters:

1. Grade 3: They were easy to use and teach from.

2. Grade 4: Good visuals

 60

3. Grade 4: The posters were good reminders.

4. Grade 5: The posters were good. Nice to display. It would have been nice for

each class to have a set.

5. Grade 5: The posters were a good reminder of how to be empathetic, how to

think through problems, and how to calm down.

6. Grade 3: They were adequate but could have been more engaging.

7. Grade 4: Not as effective.

The following are responses from the teachers when they were asked which

strategies they thought were most beneficial:

1. Grade 3: Role playing.

2. Grade 4: Role play.

3. Grade 4: Role play.

4. Grade 5: The anti-bully and anger management strategies.

5. Grade 5: How to calm down (impulse control).

6. Grade 4: Videos.

7. Grade 3: I do not know.

The following are responses from the teachers when they were asked which

strategies they believed caused the greatest challenges:

1. Grade 4: Anger management.

2. Grade 5: The anti-bully and anger management. These are current issues with

fifth graders.

3. Grade 3: Impulse control.

4. Grade 4: Role playing--Some students have problems role playing.

5. Grade 4: Day to day implementation teaching about the lessons.

 61

6. Grade 5: Being empathetic.

7. Grade 3: No response.

The following are responses from the teachers when they were asked if the

Second Step program assessments were used as described in the manual:

1. Grade 3: Yes.

2. Grade 4: Yes, we taught directly from the manual.

3. Grade 5: Yes, we assessed some components and turned them in to the

counselor.

4. Grade 4: No, we didnt do assessments as a class.

5. Grade3: No, They might have been used in the counseling sessions.

6. Grade 4: No.

7. Grade 5: No.

The following are responses from the teachers when they were asked if the 22

lessons were taught in scope and sequence:

1. Grade 3: Yes.

2. Grade 3: Yes.

3. Grade 4: Yes.

4. Grade 4: Yes.

5. Grade 4: Yes.

6. Grade 5: Yes, we got them in order. The way it was suggested.

7. Grade5: Yes.

Process Research Questions 6 and 7. Were the various processes (support

systems) implemented? What are the safe school coordinators perceptions of the

implementation of the various processes? After making repeated telephone calls and
 62

sending repeated e-mail messages to the safe school coordinator, the researcher did not

receive a response.

Process Research Question 7. What is the former school building principals

perceptions of the implementation of the various processes? In order to answer this

process research question, the researcher constructed some additional subquestions that

are listed below and are preceded by the former school building principals response to

each subquestion.

When asked who oversaw the program, the former principal responded, the

counselor. When asked what teacher support systems were implemented such as

professional development, the former principal responded, Yes, the teachers participated

in training before implementation.

Process Research Question 8. What are the teachers perceptions of the

implementation of the various processes? The following are responses from the teachers

when they were asked who oversaw the program:

1. Grade 3: Counselor.

2. Grade 3: Guidance Department.

3. Grade 4: Guidance Counselor.

4. Grade 5: The counselor.

5. Grade 4: Principal.

6. Grade 4: Principal.

7. Grade 5: Principal.

The following are responses from the teachers when they were asked what teacher

support systems were implemented, such as professional development:

1. Grade 3: Yes, just the training at the beginning.

 63

2. Grade 3: Yes, I believe we had one in-service opportunity.

3. Grade 4: Yes. We were training during the summer.

4. Grade 5: Yes. We were training during the summer before the program was to

be implemented.

5. Grade 4: Yes, training at the beginning of school.

6. Grade 5: We had an overview orientation and staff development on bullying

and anger.

7. Grade 4. Little training. Mostly a team effort.

Process Research Questions 9 and 10. What issues or concerns were experienced

during the implementation of the Second Step Program? What is the safe school

coordinator perceptions about any issues or concerns experienced during the

implementation of the Second Step program? After making repeated telephone calls and

sending repeated e-mail messages to the safe school coordinator, the researcher did not

receive a response.

Process Research Question 11. What are the former principals perceptions about

any issues or concerns experienced during the implementation of the Second Step

program? When asked if the teachers were involved in implementation discussions as the

plan was carried out, the principal responded, not in a formal setting. When asked if

there were opportunities for the teachers to share concerns and problems, the principal

responded, not in a formal setting. When asked if there were any barriers that he felt

might have impacted the programs success, the principal responded, time restraints.

Process Research Question 12. What are the teachers perceptions about any

issues or concerns experienced during the implementation of the Second Step program?

The following are responses from the teachers when they were asked if they were
 64

involved in implementation discussions as the plan was carried out:

1. Grade 3: No.

2. Grade 4: No.

3. Grade 4: No, the material was just handed over.

4. Grade 5: No, we discussed it on grade level, not school-wide.

5. Grade 3: Yes, just the one time.

6. Grade 4: Yes. On the school level during grade level meetings.

7. Grade 5: Yes. On the school level during grade level meetings.

The following are responses from the teachers when they were asked if they had

opportunities to provide feedback regarding the implementation of the Second Step

program:

1. Grade 3: No, not that I remember.

2. Grade 3: No, I am not aware of any opportunity. But, I am sure we could have

expressed concerns to the guidance.

3. Grade 4: No, we did our best to teach as designed.

4. Grade 4: Yes, we filled out surveys.

5. Grade 5: Yes, There was a feedback form provided near the middle and end of

the year.

6. Grade 4: Yes. During grade level meetings.

7. Grade 5: Yes. During grade level meetings, but not in faculty or district

meetings.

The following are responses from the teachers when they were asked if there were

opportunities for the teachers to share concerns and problems:

1. Grade 4: Yes, on the surveys.

 65

2. Grade 4: Yes, only in teams planning.

3. Grade 5: Yes.

4. Grade 4: No.

5. Grade 3: No, we really did not have time in faculty meeting to discuss it.

6. Grade 3: No, not that I can remember.

7. Grade 5: No.

The following are responses from the teachers when they were asked if there were

any barriers they felt might have impacted the programs success:

1. Grade 3: Yes, time allotments. It was sometimes difficult to find time to

adequately address all of the components. Could this have been dealt with during

guidance more effectively?

2. Grade 5: Yes, time spent to block out the sessions weekly, especially near the

middle and end of the year.

3. Grade 4: Yes, students had problems using real-world situations.

4. Grade 4: Yes. The social skills of low-income students.

5. Grade 4: Yes, teacher buy-in.

6. Grade 5: Yes. Teacher buy-in and their relationship with the student.

7. Grade3: No.

Summary. In summary, the process evaluation data collected from the school

improvement plan to answer Research Question 1 in reference to implementation of the

various components of the program revealed that the Second Step program was

implemented as originally intended. The perceptual qualitative data collected from the

former principal interview and the perceptual qualitative data collected from the teacher

surveys indicated that the components of empathy, impulse control, and anger
 66

management were taught as originally intended. Both the principal and the teachers

indicated that these components helped the students relate to another persons feelings, to

think before reacting, and how to utilize the cool-down steps. To further answer Research

Question 1 in reference to the use of the black-and-white photo cards, videos, or posters

in comparing qualitative data from the interview and survey responses, the former

principal did not mention any perceptions and the teachers had varying perceptions across

the three grade levels. For the black-and-white photo cards, 6 of the 7 teachers surveyed

thought the cards were effective. For the videos, 6 of the 7 teachers expressed that the

videos were fine. Finally, with regard to the posters, 5 of the 7 teachers felt that the

posters were good reminders and visual aids on how to be empathetic, how to think

through problems, and how to calm down. Two of the teachers said they were easy to use

and teach from.

When asked which strategies were the most beneficial in the Second Step

program, the former principal, when interviewed, indicated impulse control and anger

management. This was compared to the teacher survey data in which 3 teachers said role

playing, 2 said anger management and impulse control, 1 said videos, and 1 said they did

not know. For the greatest challenges, the former principal had no opinion. Three of the

teachers noted anger management and impulse control. The other 4 teachers did not

respond. Qualitative data for Research Question 1 on the use of program assessments and

sequence and scope of the 22 lessons revealed the following information. For the use of

program assessments, the results of the former principal interview compared to the

teacher surveys indicated that the former principal did not have a perception and the

teachers had varying responses. Three teachers said the assessments were used and 4

indicated that the assessments were not used. For perceptions on the scope and sequence
 67

of the 22 lessons, the interview results of the former principal revealed that he did not

know, and all 7 teachers indicated that the lessons were taught in scope and sequence.

The qualitative data for Research Question 2 revealed that the former principal

and 4 of the 7 teachers thought the counselor was responsible for the overseeing the

program. The remaining 3 teachers thought it was the principal. Qualitative data from the

former principal interview and the teacher surveys on implementation of the processes

(support systems) revealed that prior to program implementation, the teachers

participated in a summer training. However, they did not have ongoing training.

The qualitative data for Research Question 3 revealed that the former principal

felt the teachers were not involved in implementation and did not have a formal setting to

express concerns. In comparison, 4 of the 7 teachers felt they were not involved in

implementation. Three of the 7 teachers indicated that concerns were expressed during

grade-level meetings. The qualitative data on barriers that might have impacted the

program revealed that the former principal and 2 teachers noted time restraints, 2 teachers

noted no buy-in, and the other 3 teachers gave varied responses.

Product Research Question Results

Stufflebeam (2003) explained that product evaluation judges the programs

impact, effectiveness, sustainability, and transportability. However, transportability was

not a focus of this study because of the limited size of the study. The product questions

sought to determine any unanticipated effects of the program.

Product Research Questions 1 and 2. What was the impact of the Second Step

program on student behavior? Based on empirical data, what impact did the Second Step

program have on the students behavior? To collect the empirical data on student

behavior, the researcher reviewed the office referrals for 2005-2006 after the Second Step
 68

program had been implemented. Table 4 is a comparison of the office referrals for

2004-2005 before implementation of Second Step to the office referrals for 2005-2006

after implementation of Second Step (see Table 4). As indicated in Table 4, overall, the

office referrals dropped from 331 to 265. For the third grade, the referrals dropped 23%

(n = 54), for the fourth grade they dropped 38% (n = 52), and for the fifth grade they

dropped 60% (n = 52).

Table 4

Number of Office Referrals for Third Through

Fifth Grades, 2004-2006
____________________________________

Grade level 2004-2005 2005-2006

____________________________________

5 108 56

4 93 41

3 82 29
____________________________________

Note. Number of school-wide referrals for 2004 = 331

and for 2005 = 265.

Product Research Question 3. What are the safe school coordinators perceptions

about the impact of the Second Step program on the students behavior? After making

repeated telephone calls and sending repeated e-mail messages to the safe school

coordinator, the researcher did not receive a response.

Product Research Question 4. What are the former principals perceptions about

the impact of the Second Step program on the students behavior? When asked if he

believe impulsive and aggressive behavior decreased, the former principal responded,

Yes, because the number of office referrals decreased.

 69

Product Research Question 5. What are the teachers perceptions about the

impact of the Second Step program on the students behavioral social? The following are

the responses from the teachers when asked if they believed impulsive and aggressive

behavior decreased:

1. Grade 4: Yes.

2. Grade 5: Yes, I can only speak for my class and our grade level.

3. Grade 5: Yes. Because I wrote less referrals to the office and there was less

bullying incidents.

4. Grade 4: Yes, it did somewhat.

5. Grade 3: Yes, However, I think it was due to Love and Logic, not Second

Step. Love and Logic (Cline & Fay, 1989) had been implemented the previous year.

6. Grade 3: Yes, This was another way of helping our students have an

opportunity to find solutions to their own problems. It was a tool they could use with

Love and Logic.

7. Grade 4: No, after the lesson, students forgot.

Product Research Questions 6 and 7. Did the Second Step program meet its goals

and objectives? Based on archival data did Second Step meet its goals and objectives?

The researcher reviewed the Second Step grant request, school leadership team minutes,

school improvement plan, and faculty meeting minutes, which indicated that the goal of

the program was to address student behavioral issues and office referrals. None of the

data indicated that the Second Step Program met its goals and objectives

Product Research Question 8. Does the safe school coordinator perceive that

Second Step met its goals and objectives? After making repeated telephone calls and

sending repeated e-mail messages to the safe school coordinator, the researcher did not
 70

receive a response.

Product Research Question 9. Does the former principal perceive that Second

Step met its goals and objectives? When asked if the schools goal to lower disciplinary

referrals were met, the former principal responded, Yes because fewer referrals were

submitted. When asked if he believed the Second Step programs goal and objective of

reducing inappropriate behavior were met, especially in the third, fourth, and fifth grades,

the former principal responded, Yes, there were fewer discipline issues.

Product Research Question 10. Do the teachers perceive that Second Step met its

goals and objectives? When asked if the schools goal to lower disciplinary referrals were

met especially in the third, fourth, and fifth grades, the teachers responded as follows:

1. Grade 3: Yes, due to Love and Logic.

2. Grade 3: Yes, I believe so. In my classroom they were.

3. Grade 4: Yes.

4. Grade 5: Yes.

5. Grade 5: No, overall, I feel like the discipline referrals were higher.

6. Grade 4: No, not to my knowledge.

7. Grade 4: Dont know.

Product Research Question 10 subquestion. Do you [teachers] believe the Second

Step programs goals and objectives of reducing inappropriate behavior were met? The

teachers responded as follows:

1. Grade 3: Yes.

2. Grade 4: Yes, many behaviors were stopped.

3. Grade 4: Yes.

4. Grade 5: Yes, but it should be stressed and ongoing.

 71

5. Grade 5: Yes. The reduction of inappropriate behaviors caused the office

referrals to decrease.

6. Grade 3: No, I think other things were more successful than Second Step.

7. Grade 4: No.

Product Research Questions 11 and 12. Should the various components of the

Second Step program be sustained? Does the safe school coordinator perceive that

various components of the Second Step program should be sustained? After making

repeated telephone calls and sending repeated e-mail messages to the safe school

coordinator, the researcher did not receive a response.

Product Research Question 13. Does the former principal perceive that various

components of the Second Step program should be sustained? When asked which

components for the Second Step program should be sustained, the former principals

response was that he felt that all the components of the program should continue,

especially the components of impulse control and anger management.

Product Research Question 14. Do the teachers perceive that the various

components of the Second Step program should be sustained? The following are

responses from the teachers when they were asked which components for the Second

Step program should be sustained:

1. Grade 4: All.

2. Grade 4: All, but the program has been aborted.

3. Grade 4: I liked them all.

4. Grade 5: I liked the entire program and what it emphasized.

5. Grade 5: I liked them all: empathy, impulse control, and anger management.

6. Grade 3: Character traits.

 72

7. Grade 3: Video and the text illustrations.

Product Research Questions 15 and 16. Were there any unanticipated effects of

the Second Step program? What is the safe school coordinators perceptions about any

unanticipated effects of the Second Step program? After making repeated telephone calls

and sending repeated e-mail messages to the safe school coordinator, the researcher did

not receive a response.

Product Research Question 17. What are the former principals perceptions about

any unanticipated effects of the Second Step program? When asked about there were any

unanticipated effects of the Second Step program, the former principal responded none.

Product Research Question 18. What are the teachers perceptions about any

unanticipated effects of the Second Step program? The following are responses from the

teachers when asked if there were any unanticipated effects of the Second Step program:

1. Grade 3: Not enough time to cram it into the day.

2. Grade 4: None.

3. Grade 4: None to my knowledge.

4. Grade 4: Do not know.

5. Grade 5: Do not know.

6. Grade 5: Do not know.

7. Grade 3: No response.

Summary. The product evaluation empirical data collection results for Research

Question1 in reference to the impact of the program on student behavior revealed that the

office referrals decreased from 2004-2005 prior to program implementation in

comparison to 2005-2006 after program implementation (see Table 4). Qualitative data

gathered from the interview with the former principal revealed a decrease in office
 73

referrals. In comparison, the teacher survey data revealed that 5 of the 7 teachers

indicated a decrease in the office referrals. However, 2 of these teachers noted that the

decrease was due to a previous school program, Love and Logic, not Second Step.

For Research Question 2 of the product evaluation, archival data revealed that the

goal of the Second Step program met its goals and objectives to address student behavior.

Perceptual data from the former principal interview indicated that fewer office referrals

were submitted. In comparison, data collected from the teacher surveys revealed that 5 of

the 7 teachers confirmed that Second Step had met its goals and objectives.

In Research Question 3 of the product evaluation, referring to whether the Second

Step program should be sustained, qualitative data results from the former principal

interview suggested that the program should be sustained, and 5 of the 7 teachers

surveyed indicated all of the components should be sustained. The data collection results

for Research Question 4, asking if there were any unanticipated effects of the Second

Step program, revealed that the former principal noted none, and 4 of the 7 teachers noted

none as well.

At the end of the interview and survey, when the respondents were asked if they

had any questions, suggestions, or comments about the Second Step programs

strengthens and weaknesses, the former principal indicated that one of the programs

strengths was that it gave the students good strategies for impulse control and anger

management. He did not observe any weaknesses and had no recommendations or

suggestions.

All 7 of the teachers mentioned the lesson cards as strengths. Two of the teachers

indicated that one weakness was that the lessons were not practical for their type of

students. When asked if they had any recommendations about the Second Step program,
 74

2 of the teachers responded. One teacher wanted to continue the program on the

fifth-grade level and another wanted to increase the video time with more interactive

student scenarios.

Summary

For the context evaluation, the archival data verified that the school had issues

with student behavior. These data indicated that disruptive behavior increased as the

students advanced to another grade level. The results of the context evaluation further

explained that the SADFS grant provided the funding and revealed the goals of the

Second Step program to address student behavior issues. For the input evaluation, the

archival and qualitative data revealed that no other character education programs were

considered.

For the process evaluation, the archival data indicated that the program was

implemented as originally intended. The qualitative data from the interview and survey

revealed that the 22 components were implemented as originally intended. The former

principal and at least 4 of the 7 teacher respondents thought the Second Step curriculum,

materials, and strategies were effective. But most teachers did not use the assessments

after each lesson. The former principal and several teachers expressed an issue with time

constraints. The qualitative data from the interview and survey indicated there was

confusion about who was responsible for overseeing the program: the counselor or the

former principal. In this evaluation, the survey data revealed that the teachers were

trained, but follow-up discussions to express issues and concerns were not held in faculty

meetings. Instead, the program was discussed during grade-level meetings. Qualitative

data from the interview with the former principal and survey data from the teachers

revealed an issue with buy-in and concern that the program was forced on the former
 75

principal and the teachers.

For the product evaluation, the empirical data indicated a decrease in office

referrals. The qualitative data from the interview and surveys also indicated a perception

of a decrease in office referrals. Archival data from the Second Step Grant, school

leadership minutes, school improvement plan, and faculty minutes confirmed that that the

program met its goal and objective. Qualitative data from the former principal interview

and teacher surveys also revealed the program met its goals and objectives. Qualitative

data from the interview and surveys also revealed that the majority of the respondents

wanted to sustain the Second Step program.

 76

Chapter 5: Discussion

Introduction

The purpose of this dissertation was to evaluate a character education program in

a Southeastern county elementary school. An unusually large number of office referrals

particularly, from the third, fourth, and fifth grades during the 2004-2005 school year

created considerable concern with the staff. Over 60% of the infractions were for acts of

aggression, cheating, lying, stealing, bullying, negative attitudes, and defiance to

authority. The schools leadership team sought ways to deal with the issue and find ways

to implement a character education program to help alleviate the problem. The team

discovered that the school district received a grant from the SADFS program that would

allow the school to implement the Second Step program. Second Step was reported to be

a comprehensive program that attempted to provide direct instruction by incorporating

the teaching of empathy, impulse control, and anger management along with social skills

and problem solving. The Second Step Curriculum also integrated the core values

recommended in the Eleven Principles of Effective Character Education developed by

the Character Education Partnership (Lickona et al., 2003).

The Second Step program was implemented at the focus school in Fall 2005. In

Spring 2006, the schools leadership team decided that it would be important to evaluate

the effectiveness of the program. The researcher was given permission to design and

implement a comprehensive evaluation of the Second Step program. One goal of the

evaluation was to make recommendations based on the results to improve the program.

Stufflebeams (2003) CIPP model was used to guide the study. The acronym

CIPP denotes the four evaluation types in the model: context, input, process, and product.

Archival, empirical, and qualitative data were gathered from various sources. Archival
 77

data were gathered from office referrals, the Second Step grant request, Second Step

curriculum materials, the school improvement plan, and minutes from the school

leadership team meetings, faculty meetings, Second Step professional development

meetings, and school board meetings. Empirical data were gathered from the office

referrals. Qualitative data were gathered from an interview with the former school

principal and survey data were gathered from the teachers.

Summary of Results

For the context evaluation, the archival data verified that the school had issues

with student behavior. The archived office referrals indicated that disruptive behavior

was high and increased as the students moved to a higher grade level. The interview data

collected from the former principal indicated the issues that initially established a need

for a character education program were poor behavior which resulted in office referrals.

The former school principal attributed this in part to low socioeconomic status and poor

parenting.

The Second Step Grant proposal indicated the initial development of the character

education program begun by securing funds through a SADFS grant. Then a selected

group of teachers were trained during the summer prior to program implementation.

These teachers became the teacher trainers. Each teacher trainer was issued one set of

curriculum materials for each grade level (kindergarten through Grade 5). The teachers

were taught how to use each of the 22 lessons on empathy, impulse control, and anger

management and were provided recommendations for presenting the program to the

parents. The interview and survey data also revealed that the former principal and some

teachers felt the program was forced on them by the district. As a result, the principal felt

that some of the teachers may not have fully accepted the program because they were not
 78

given a choice in the selection of the character education program.

For the input evaluation, qualitative data revealed that no other character

education programs were considered. During the former principals interview, he

indicated that the Second Step program was the only character education program the

district had considered to address the disruptive behavior.

For the process evaluation, the archival data indicated that the program was

implemented as originally intended. The qualitative data from the interview and survey

revealed that the 22 components were implemented as originally intended. The former

principal and at least 4 of the 7 teacher respondents thought the Second Step curriculum,

materials, and strategies were effective. But most teachers did not use the assessments

after each lesson. The former principal and several teachers expressed an issue with time

constraints. The qualitative data from the interview and survey indicated that there was

confusion about who was responsible for overseeing the program: the counselor or the

former principal. In this evaluation, the survey data revealed that the teachers were

trained, but follow-up discussions to express issues and concerns were not held in faculty

meetings. Instead, the program was discussed during grade-level meetings. As stated

previously in the context evaluations, qualitative data from the interview with the former

principal and survey data from the teachers revealed an issue with buy-in and concern

that the program was forced on the former principal and the teachers. In summary, the

school improvement plan indicated that various components of the Second Step program

were implemented as originally intended. The perceptual data collected from the

interview with the former principal compared to the perceptual data collected from the

teacher surveys both indicated that the components of empathy, impulse control, and

anger management were taught as originally intended. Both the principal and the teachers
 79

indicated that these components helped the students relate to another persons feelings

and to think before reacting as well as how to utilize the cool-down steps. A majority of

the teachers thought the use of the black-and-white photo cards, the videos, and the

posters were effective.

When asked in his interview which strategies were the most beneficial in the

Second Step program, the former principal indicated impulse control and anger

management. This was compared to the teacher survey data in which 3 teachers said role

playing, 2 said anger management and impulse control, 1 said videos, and 1 said they did

not know. For the greatest challenges, the former principal had no opinion. Three of the

teachers noted anger management and impulse control. The other 4 teachers did not

respond. Qualitative data on the use of program assessments and the sequence and scope

of the 22 lessons revealed the following information. For the use of program assessments,

the results of the former principal interview compared to the teacher surveys indicated the

former principal did not have perceptions and the teachers had varying responses: 3 said

the assessments were used and 4 indicated the assessments were not used. For

perceptions on the scope and sequence of the 22 lessons, the interview with the former

principal revealed that he did not know, but all 7 of the teachers indicated the lessons

were taught in scope and sequence.

The former school principal and teachers were divided about who was responsible

for overseeing the program. The former principal and 4 teachers said the counselor

oversaw the program and 3 teachers said it was the principal. Qualitative data from the

former principal interview compared to the teacher surveys for implementation of the

processes (support systems) revealed that prior to program implementation, the teachers

participated in a summer training, but no ongoing training occurred.

 80

The major issue is not that all the components were implemented as originally

designed, but that it was perceived by some that the Second Step program was forced on

them. This is important because a similar program, Love and Logic, was implemented the

previous year. The qualitative data on what barriers might have impacted the program

revealed that the former principal noted time restraints and in the teacher surveys, 2

indicated time restraints, 2 indicated no buy-in, and 3 did not respond.

The qualitative data from the interview and surveys also indicated perceptions of

a decrease in office referrals. The school improvement plan confirmed that that the

program met its goal and objective. Qualitative data from the former principal interview

and teacher surveys revealed that the program met its goal and objective. Qualitative data

from the interview and surveys also revealed that the majority of the respondents wanted

to sustain the Second Step program.

For the product evaluation empirical data collection results with regard to the

impact of the program on student behavior revealed that the office referrals had decreased

from 2004-2005 prior to program implementation in comparison to 2005-2006 after

program implementation (see Table 4). As Table 4 indicated, overall, the office referrals

dropped from 331 to 265. In the third grade, referrals dropped 35% (n = 54), in the fourth

grade they dropped 44% (n = 52), and in the fifth grade they dropped 51% (n = 52).

Qualitative data gathered from the former principal interview showed that he was

aware that there had been a decrease in office referrals. In comparison, the teacher survey

data revealed that 5 of the 7 teachers felt that there had been a decrease in the office

referrals that were probably a result of the Second Step program. However, the other 2

teachers believed the decrease was due to a previous school program, Love and Logic,

not Second Step. The researcher contacted the former principal and found that the Love
 81

and Logic program (Cline & Fay, 1989) had been implemented the previous year and

ended that year.

The former principal indicated that that the Second Step program had met its

goals and objectives. In comparison, data collected from the teacher surveys revealed 5 of

the 7 teachers felt that the Second Step program had met its goals and objectives. The

former principal suggested that the program should be sustained, and 5 of the 7 teachers

who were surveyed indicated all of the components should be sustained.

At the end of the interview and survey, when the respondents were asked if they

had any questions, suggestions, or comments about the Second Step programs strengths

and weaknesses, the former principal indicated that one of the programs strengths was

that it gave the students good strategies for impulse control and anger management. He

did not observe any weaknesses and had no recommendations or suggestions.

All 7 of the participating teachers mentioned the lesson cards as strengths, and

two of the teachers indicated that one weakness was that the lessons were not practical

for their type of students. When asked if they had any recommendations about the Second

Step program, only 2 of the teachers responded. One teacher wanted to continue the

program for the fifth grade and another wanted to increase the video time with more

interactive student scenarios. It should be noted that the Second Step program was

discontinued at the end of the first year after the principal left to take a position at the

central office.

Conclusions

As reported above, the results indicated that the program was implemented the

way it was designed. However, the support systems were inconsistent, and many of the

staff did not know who was responsible for overseeing the program. The results
 82

suggested there was not an acceptance of the program because the principal and teachers

felt like the program was forced on them. However, the number of office referrals did

decrease when compared with the number of the referrals from the previous year.

Interestingly, 2 of the participating third-grade teachers indicated that a program called

Love and Logic may have had more impact than the Second Step program. The

researcher spoke to the former principal and found that the Love and Logic program was

implemented 2 years previously (Cline & Fay, 1989). The former principal left in May

2006 to become the director of elementary education for the district, and the Second Step

program ended. It appears that the school had a pattern of starting and ending programs in

a brief period of time. For example even though the Second Step program seemed to have

a positive effect on student behavior, it ended in one year and another program, Love and

Logic, end in one year as well. It can be concluded that these programs did not become

part of the ongoing program because they were not implemented long enough.

Implications

In order for a new program to be fully effective and ongoing, the process of

choosing and implementing it should include the people involved. Dufour and Eaker

(1998) supported this notion when they indicated that changes often fail because of the

lack of strong leadership and decisions are made from the top down without buy-in from

the faculty. Leaders often fail to develop a critical level of support before initiating the

change. Furthermore, Huffman and Hipp (2003) noted that in order for change to be

effective, school administrators must participate democratically with teachers by sharing

power, authority, and decision making and by promoting and nurturing leadership among

staff.

Dufour and Eaker (1998) also stated that effective communication is an essential
 83

component of the change process. The importance of communication has been cited as

the one major lesson that has emerged from the extensive research studies on

innovation, and the pathways for communication within an organization have been

described as the veins and arteries of new ideas (Kouzes & Posner, 1987, p. 56). These

change theories further noted that teacher and principals work more collaboratively when

they are engaged in collaborative decision making. Principals are more likely to

experiment if their superintendents take risk and regard failed initiatives as opportunities

to begin more intelligently (DuFour & Eaker). Because the results indicated that Second

Step was ended in one year and another program, Love and Logic, was implemented one

year prior, a pattern of starting and stopping programs over a brief period of time could

have a negative effect on the programs continuity and sustainability.

Recommendations

For future programs, the teachers and the principal should be involved in the

selection, development, and planning. Full acceptance is less likely to happen if the

whole school staff is not involved in the change process. Senge noted that People dont

resist change; they resist being changed (Leadership Now, 2007).

Limitations

Some limitations of this study were that the small sample size only allowed data

to be collected from the former principal and 7 teachers. Further, the principal and

teachers perceived that the program was forced on them, and the safe school

coordinators perspectives were not accessible.

 84

References

Albee, G. W., & Gullotta, T. P. (1997). Primary prevention works. Beverly Hills, CA:
Sage.

Alkin, M. C., & Christie, C. A. (2004). An evaluation theory tree. In M. C. Alkin (Ed.),
Evaluation roots: Tracing theorists views and influences (pp. 13-66). Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage.

American Local History Network. (2007). Welcome to Cabarrus County, NC ALHN.

Retrieved February 24, 2007, from http://cabarrus.NCalhg.org

Anderson, G. (2000, March). Program evaluation in the year 2000 (Universalia

Occasional Paper No. 40). Retrieved March16, 2007, from http://www
.universalia.com/site/files/occas40.pdf

Benninga, J. S., Berkowitz, M. W., Kuehn, P., & Smith, K. (2006). Character and
academics: What good schools do. Phi Delta Kappan, 87, 448-452.

Black, S. (1996). The character conundrum. American School Board Journal, 183(12),
29-31. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. EJ540773)

Cline, F., & Fay, J. (1989). What is parenting with Love and Logic? Retrieved November
28, 2007, from http://www.loveand logic.com/page/0401whatis.html

Committee for Children. (2002). Second Step: A disruptive behavior prevention

curriculum. Retrieved March 22, 2005, from http://www.cfchildren.org/violence

Crick, N. R., & Dodge, K. A. (1994). A review and reformation of social information
processing mechanisms in childrens social adjustment. Psychological Bulletin,
115, 74-101.

Dodge, K., Pettit, G., McClaskey, C., & Brown, J. (1986). Social competence in
children. Monographs of the Society for Research on Child Development, 51(2,
Serial No. 213).

DuFour, R., & Eaker, R. (1998). Professional learning communities at work: Best
practices for enhancing student achievement. Bloomington, IN: National
Education Service.

Dwyer, K., & Osher, D. (2000). Safeguarding our children: An action guide.
Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education and Justice, American Institution
for Research.

Eisenberg, N., Fabes, R. A., & Losoya, N. (1997). Emotional responding: Regulation,
social correlates, and socialization. In P. Salovey & D. J. Sluyter (Eds.),
Emotional development and emotional intelligence: Educational implications (pp.
 85

129-163). New York: Basic Books.

Fitzpatrick, J., Sanders, J., & Worthen, B. (2004). Program evaluation: Alternative
approaches and practical guidelines. Boston: Pearson Education.

Frey, K. S., Nolen, S. B., Von Schoiack-Edstrom, L., & Hirschstein, M. (2001, June).
Second Step: Effects on social goals and behavior. Paper presented at the annual
meeting of the Society for Prevention Research, Washington, DC.

Frymier, J., Cunningham, L., Duckett, W., Gansneder, B., Link, F., Rimmer, J., et al.
(1995). Values on which we agree. Bloomington, IN: Phi Delta Kappa
International.

Gellert, G. (1999). Confronting disruptive behavior. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.

Grossman, D., Neckman, H., Kospell, T., Liu, P., Asher, K., Beland, K., et al. (1997).
Effectiveness of a disruptive behavior prevention curriculum among children in
elementary schools: A randomized controlled trial. Journal of the American
Medical Association, 277, 1605-1611.

Halbertstadt, A. G., Denham, S. A., & Dunsmore, J. C. (2001). Affective social

competence. Social Development, 10, 79-119.

Hampton, R., Jenkins, P., & Gullotta, T. (1996). Preventing disruptive behavior in
America. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Huffman, J., & Hipp, K. (2003). Reculturing schools as professional learning

communities. Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield.

Hutcheon, P. (1999). Building character and culture. Westport, CT: Praeger.

Joint Committee for Educational Evaluation. (1994). Program evaluation standards (2nd
ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Kamps, D. M., & Tankersley, M. (1996). Prevention of behavioral and conduct disorders:
Trends and research issues. Behavioral Disorders, 22(1), 41-48.

Kentucky Department of Education Dropout Prevention Resource Guide. (2003).

Character education: Elementary level. Retrieved May 6, 2006, from http://
www.ihdi.uky.edu/dropout-prevention/viewarticle.asp?ID=62

Kouzes, J., & Posner, B. (1987). The leadership challenge: How to get extraordinary
things done in organizations. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Lasley, T. (1997). The missing ingredient in character education. Phi Delta Kappan, 78,
428-439.
 86

Leadership Now. (2007). Leading thoughts: Quotes on change. Retrieved May 15, 2006,
from http://www.leadershipnow.com/changequotes.html

Leming, J. (1993). In search of effective character education. Educational Leadership,

51(3), 63-71.

Lickona, T., Schaps, E., & Lewis, C. (2003). Eleven principles of effective character
education. Washington, DC: Character Education Partnerships.

Lochman, J., Nelson, W., & Sims, J. (1981). A cognitive-behavioral program for use with
aggressive children. Journal of Clinical Child Psychology, 13, 527-738.

Lockwood, A. T. (1997). Character education: Controversy and consensus. Thousand

Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

McDonald, C. (2001). The relationship between Second Step curriculum and students
office referral, attendance, and academic achievement. Dissertation Abstracts
International, 63 (04), 1261A. (UMI No. 3051820)

McNamara, J. F., Erlandson, D. A., & McNamara, M. (1999). Measurement and

evaluation: Strategies for school improvement. Larchmont, NY: Eye on
Education. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED465808)

Merrell, K. W. (1998). School Social Behavior Scale, 2nd edition: Users guide.
Eugene, OR: Assessment-Intervention Resources.

Nakamura, R. (2000). Healthy classrooms: Motivation, communication, and discipline.

Stanford, CT: Wadsworth.

Nash, R. (1997). Answering the virtuecrats: A moral conversation on character

education. New York: Teachers College Press.

National Center for Educational Statistics. (2005). Cabarrus County schools statistics.
Retrieved October 25, 2005, from http://www.nces.ed.gov

North Carolina Public Schools. (2007). Character education. Retrieved February 23,
2007, from http://www.ncga.state.nc.us

North Carolina Department of Education. (2007). No Child Left Behind. Retrieved April
23, 2007, from http://www.dpi.state.nc.us

Patterson, G. R. (1982). A social learning approach: Coercive family process. Eugene,

OR: Castalia.

Raymond, G. (2001). The academic impact of infusing character education into the
curriculum. Dissertations Abstracts International, 80 (07), 2061A. (UMI No.
3008019)
 87

Riese, S. (2005). The efficacy of a disruptive behavior prevention intervention with

elementary school children. Dissertation Abstracts International, 65 (07), 2491A.
(UMI No. 3138859)

Rockwell, S. K. (1999). Research and evaluation priorities for distance education in

Nebraska: A Delphi study [White paper]. Lincoln: University of Nebraska,
Nebraska Network 21. Retrieved April 18, 2007, from http://digitalcommons
.unl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1010&context=nn21publications

Rust, F. (1993). Changing teaching, changing schools. New York: Teachers College
Press.

Satcher, D. (2001). Youth disruptive behavior: A report of the Surgeon General.

Rockville, MD: Center for Disease Control and Prevention, National Institutes of
Health, and Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration.

Stufflebeam, D. L. (2003, October). The CIPP model for evaluation. Paper presented at
the annual conference of the Oregon Program Evaluators Network, Portland.
Retrieved June 13, 2006, from http://www.wmich.edu/evalctr/pubs/
CIPP-ModelOregon10-03.pdf

Taub, J. (2002). Evaluation of the Second Step disruptive behavior prevention program
at a rural elementary school. School Psychology Review, 31, 186-200.

The White House. (2002). Fact sheet: No Child Left Behind Act. Retrieved February 23,
2007, from http://www.whitehouse.gov/news

Walker, H. M., Colvin, G., & Ramsey, E. (1995). Antisocial behavior in schools:
Strategies and best practices. Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole.

Williams, M., & Schaps, E. (Eds.). (1999). Character education: The foundation for
teacher education. Washington, DC: Character Education Partnership.
 88

Appendix A

Photo Lesson Cards

 89

Photo Lesson Cards 1

1
From Second Step Violence Prevention Curriculum: Trainers Manual: Lesson Cards (3rd ed.), by
Committee for Children, 2002, p. 36. Copyright 2002 by the Committee for Children. Reprinted with
permission of the author.
 90

Appendix B

Unit Card
 91

Unit Card 2

2
From Second Step: A Violence Prevention Curriculum: Grades 4-5 Teachers Guide: Grades 4 Scope
and Sequence (3rd ed.), by the Committee for Children, 2002, p. 69. Copyright 2002 by the Committee for
Children. Reprinted with permission of the author.
 92

Appendix C

List of Character Education Programs

 93

Character Education Programs

1. Character First was a program implemented school-wide that follows a

three-step approach. The program emphasizes, requires, and recognizes acts of good

character throughout the school. This site not only presents specific details about the

programs but it also provides numerous videos, workbooks, and other resources related to

character education. The site is also divided into sections such as faculty training,

elementary and secondary resources.

http://www.characterfirst.com/education/gettingstarted/index.htm Character Training

Institute 520 West Main Street Oklahoma City, OK 73102-2220 (405) 815-0001

2. Character Counts was a national program that has identified and supports 6

pillars of character that include respect, responsibility, trustworthiness, caring, fairness,

and citizenship. Character Counts offers programs to assist in community involvement,

sports success, teacher trainings, and youth at risk workshops. Many other resources

are available at this site. www.charactercounts.org Character Counts National

Headquarters 4640 Admiralty Way, Suite 1001 Marina del Ray, CA 90292-6610 (310)

306-1868

3. The Center for the 4th and 5th Rs was a character education centered facility.

It focuses on developing characteristics such as trustworthiness, respect, responsibility,

fairness, caring, and citizenship. (Implementation of this program in schools has been

shown to affect dropout rates). The center also provides information regarding ways that

teachers can incorporate these areas into the classroom as well as the whole school.

Teachers are mentors of behavior to children (link to mentoring). Moral reasoning,

cooperative learning, ethical reasoning, and conflict resolution are also areas that teachers
 94

can provide character education in the classroom.

http://www.cortland.edu/c4n5rs/char_v.htm#good%20character Center for the Fourth and

Fifth Rs SUNY Cortland P.O. Box 2000 Cortland, NY 13045 (607) 753-2455 E-Mail:

c4n5rs@cortland.edu

4. EduCares ACE (Achievement and Commitment to Excellence) Programs have

been found to reduce dropout rates by 39%. During school-wide workshops for students,

parents, and teachers the program teaches aspects of character development. These

include topics such as attitudinal development, personal management, emotional

intelligence and interpersonal skills. http://www.educarefoundation.com/ace.htm

EduCare Foundation 31225 La Baya Drive, Suite 104, Westlake Village, California,

91362 ( 818 ) 735-6600

5. The Caring School Community Program was focused on incorporating a sense

of community into schools. It also taught aspects of helping, responsibility, service

learning and improving the school climate with activities for students to engage in with

buddies, parents, classroom, or school-wide. This program provided parents with a book

titled Homeside Activities. This resource provides parents opportunities to have

conversations with their children about their education and encourage parents to stay

involved. http://www.devstu.org./csc2001/csc_index.htm. Developmental Studies Center

2000 Embarcadero, Suite 305 Oakland, CA 94606-5300 (800) 666-7270 or (510) 533-

0213

6. CharacterPlus was an approach to character education based on eleven essential

elements. The aspects of broader elements included implementing a character education

policy, community involvement, role modeling, staff development, evaluation of the

 95

effectiveness and maintaining the program over time. The academic aspect of this

program required teaching the traits in the classrooms as part of the curriculum, defining

traits, and providing opportunities for students to learn from their experiences.

http://info.csd.org/staffdev/chared/Process/process.html Character Plus Cooperating

School Districts 8225 Florissant Road St. Louis, MO 63121 (800) 835-8282 or (314)

692-9723 characterplus@info.csd.org

7. Project Wisdom approached character education through on-going

communication about character education traits and themes in the school setting. It also

provided materials for classroom discussions, journals, and quotations. Project Wisdom

4747 Bellaire Blvd., Suite 210 Bellaire, TX 77401-4518 (800) 884-4974 E-mail:

pwteam@projectwisdom.com

7. MegaSkills Education Online was a school-wide program designed to teach

character, decrease discipline referrals, and improve overall school climate. The program

has identified 11 basic concepts that constitute the basic framework of MegaSkills. They

are confidence, motivation, effort, responsibility, initiative, perseverance, caring,

teamwork, common sense, problem solving, and focus.

http://www.megaskillshsi.org/intromegaskills/innerengines.htm

MegaSkills Education Center The Home and School Institute 1500 Massachusetts Ave.,

NW Washington, DC 20005 (202) 466-3633 E-mail: edstaff@megaskillshsi.org

8. Mentoring and role modeling (link to mentoring) for children was an important

part of character education. Teachers, care givers, and the community are visible

examples of the character and values they would like to instill in their students and

children. This aspect of character education has been linked to decreased drop-out rates
 96

http://www.dropoutprevention.org/effstrat/effstrat.htm National Dropout Prevention

Center Clemson University, 209 Martin Street Clemson, SC 29631-1555 (864) 656-2599

E-mail: ndpc@clemson.edu

Character Education Curriculum: These programs all provided specific strategies and

resources for implementing character education curriculum in the classroom.

1. Film Ideas, Inc. is a website that sells videos covering character education and

dropout prevention. Each video has specific information such as What to do when Im

angry?, Cheating, Lying, and Stealing, and Personal Ethics and The Future World,

and Make the ChoiceStay in school. (Decision Making,

http://www.filmideas.com/decision.html.) FILM IDEAS, INC. 308 North Wolf Rd.

Wheeling, IL 60090 (800)-475-3456 E-mail: filmid@ais.net

2. NCPublicSchools.org had a Web site that provide curriculum suggestions and

lesson plans. Incorporated character education into the curriculum of art, science, English

and other subjects. It also lists the activities by grade level.

http://www.ncpublicschools.org/nccep/lp/subjects.html North Carolina Department of

Public Instruction 301 N. Wilmington St. Raleigh, NC 27601 919-807-3300

3. Goodcharacter.com provided free resources related to character education. This

site provides teachers with curriculum guides, and ways to incorporate character

education into sports, service learning and other activities. It also provided information

related to encouraging great group discussions and ways to teach ethics for the

workplace. This site can be searched by grade level. http://www.goodcharacter.com/ Live

Wire Media 3450 Sacramento St. #619 San Francisco, CA 94118 (800) 359-KIDS(5437)

E-mail: info@LiveWireMedia.com
 97

4. PBS Kids Adventures from the Book of Virtues was a cartoon designed for

elementary age students. The cartoon had several characters that were faced with difficult

situations or questions. The wiser characters in the cartoon provided important guidance

about making decisions based on having good character.

http://pbskids.org/adventures/index.html Porch Light Entertainment 11777 Mississippi

Avenue Los Angeles, CA 90025 (310) 477-8400 E-mail: infor@prochlight.com

5. Choose To Win is a program that was implemented school wide. It combined

art and music to teach kids about values and character education. Lloyd Mabrey and

Charlie Gorsuch are the artist and songwriters who use fun methods to teach important

characteristics, such as goal setting, respect, and multicultural sensitivity to children. This

program focused on grades K-6. http://www.doyourbest.com/School_Program.htm Lloyd

Mabrey: 474 W. Scenic, Grand Junction, CO 81503 (970) 241-8637 E-mail:

lmabrey@gj.net

6. Relate for Kids was a program targeted at students in Grades 3-5. It utilized

video, animations, and computer software (link to instructional technology) to convey

messages about talking back, bullying and fighting. It was intended to teach empathy and

impulse control. Relate for Teens is a program addressing the issues of adolescents and

covers issues such as sexuality, social and emotional skill building, and depression. This

site provided success stories and testimonials. http://www.rippleeffects.com Ripple

Effects 333 Bryant St., Suite 110 San Francisco, CA 94107 (888) 259-6618 E-mail:

info@rippleeffects.com

7. The Values In Action Program was a school-wide program in which students

were taught seven core values throughout the school year. Materials were provided for
 98

teachers to apply in the classrooms, and also materials were provided for parents to keep

them up to date and encourage their support.

http://www.ethicsusa.com/via.cfm?page=VIAProgram Values In Action P.O. Box 80208

Rancho Santa Margarita, CA 92688-0208 (949) 888-2670 E-mail: ethicsusa@cox.net

8. Elementary Decision Skills, K-5 was a curriculum guide for elementary schools

by Paula Mirk. It was designed to teach students ethical decision- making skills. (Institute

for Global Ethics

http://www.globalethics.org/ordering/details.tmpl?sku=40005&flag=edu).

9. The S.T.A.R. (Success Through Accepting Responsibility) Program came in

two age appropriate versions; one for kindergarten through 5th grade, the other is for

middle school age students. Both programs focused on teaching responsibility,

preparedness, and friendliness by encouraging students to stop, think, act, and review

their actions to resolve conflicts and solve problems.

http://www.jeffersoncenter.org/STAR.htm Jefferson Center for Character Education P.O.

Box 4137 Mission Viejo, CA 92690-4137 (949) 770-7602 E-mail:

infor@jeffersoncenter.org

10. The Wise Skills program differentiated identification of the skills appropriate

for elementary age and high school age students. It taught these skills within the

classroom setting with examples of inspiring role models and world figures. The

Elementary student program included characteristics such as positive attitude, respect,

citizenship, and personal goals. This program also provided valuable links to career

awareness, and service learning. http://www.wiseskills.com/about.html WiseSkills

Resources P.O. Box 491 Santa Cruz, CA 95061 (888) 947-3754 E-mail:
 99

info@wiseskills.com

11. ASCD Tutorials provided numerous resources for parents and teachers related

to character education. They provide both printed material as well as video files related to

how the programs help students, time strains for teachers, and what makes the programs

work. http://webserver2.ascd.org/tutorials/ They also provided on-line professional

development courses related to respecting others and conflict resolution.

http://www.ascd.org/framepdonline.html Association for Supervision and Curriculum

Development 1703 N. Beauregard St Alexandria, VA 22311-1714 (800) 933-2723 E-

mail: Member@ascd.org

12. Charactered.net provided samples of lessons, activities, and other resources

that can be accessed through a subscription.

http://www.charactered.net/preview/main/menu.asp. National Center for Youth Issues

P.O. Box 22185 Chattanooga, TN 37422-2185 (800) 477-8277

13. Center for Character Development provided specific, creative activities

designed to teach character. Puppet shows, puzzles, and physical activities are some of

the types of activities presented. These activities were most appropriate for elementary

and middle school students. http://www.charactercenter.com/act1/index.htm Center for

Character Development (806) 720-7452 E-mail: ethics@lcu.edu

14. Character Building Stories provided a bibliography of books that teach values

such as, courage, honesty, and respect. It was organized by the character trait and

provided numerous resources for each trait listed.

http://www.usoe.k12.ut.us/curr/char_ed/stories/books.html Utah State Office of

Education 250 East 500 South P O Box 144200 Salt Lake City, Utah 84114-4200
 100

15. All About Respect was a website that has strategies for specific character trait

of respect listed for elementary, middle, and high school students. It discussed eight

strategies for respect in the classroom, respect checklist, and project respect.

http://allaboutrespect.net/ Character Education Center P.O. Box 80208 R.S.M., CA

92688-0208 (800) 229-3455 E-mail: ethicsusa@cox.net

16. CHAMPs and Foundations were instructional programs for teachers. Teachers

used these resources to teach appropriate classroom behavior and set guidelines for

dealing with inappropriate behavior. They not only taught responsible and respectful

behavior, but they also create a safer school environment by reducing misbehavior. A

summary of these and other related programs c be viewed at the Sopris West Products

web site. http://www.sopriswest.com/swstore/product.asp?sku=187 4093 Specialty Place

Longmont, CO 80504 (303) 651-2829 (800) 547-6747 E-mail:

customerservice@sopriswest.com

17. Character Education with Service Learning: Service Learning (link to service

learning) was a way to provide some key aspects commonly included in character

education. For example, Low self-esteem is commonly a characteristic associated with a

student at risk of dropping out of school. Service Learning activities have been found to

successfully increase a students feelings of self-esteem and self-worth, while at the same

time instilling other important traits, such as problem solving skills and responsibility.

http://www.dropoutprevention.org/effstrat/goopre.htm (Duckenfield, M.)

18. Building Ethical Communities through Service Learning was a program from

the School for Ethical Education. The site discussed the many ways that service learning

can be incorporated in character education. For example, students plan service projects in
 101

their community and academic curriculum and personal reflection is encouraged before,

during and after the project. Two of the programs goals were to facilitate increased

leadership and better cooperation skills. This site also had information on memberships,

conferences, and essay contests for students, and additional resources.

http://www.ethicsed.org/programs/bec/ethicalcommunities.htm The School for Ethical

Education 440 Wheelers Farms Rd Milford, CT 06460 (203) 783-4441 (800) 232-0013

E-mail: aknox@ethicsed.org

19. The Giraffe Project was a program that teaches children K-12 altruism and

citizenship. Their slogan was sticking your neck out for the common good. Teaches a

child to do the right thing even when it isnt easy. Part of the K-9 Curriculum focused on

exposure to a story, then students engage in additional research to learn more about the

topic, and then they engage in creative service projects that they design to promote even

more enhanced understanding. This program encouraged finding ways to make a

difference by doing service projects to improve the problems they see.

http://www.giraffe.org/gate.html The Giraffe Project PO Box 759, Langley, WA 98260.

(360)-221-7989 Email: office@giraffe.org

20. Character Education with School Safety: In light of the violent acts of the

recent years, schools initiated a new focus on prevention of violence. Applying character

education has served as a way to teach children skills they need to learn to communicate,

make choices, and relate to others. These programs not only teach character but they also

affect the school climate and make schools safer places for children to learn. (link to

school safety)

21. Dont Laugh at Me was a program designed for Grades 2-5 and 6-8. It
 102

attempts to teach children social and emotional skills such as compassion, conflict

resolution and healthy ways to express feelings. This program also focuses on making

children aware of bullying, ridicule, and disrespect and makes them realize that they can

make a difference by preventing these types of behaviors and making their schools safer.

DLAM: School Programs. http://www.dontlaugh.org/programs.htm . Retrieved from the

World Wide Web on September 9, 2002. Elementary and middle school Operation

Respect 2 Penn Plaza, 23rd Floor New York, New York 10121 E-mail:

info@dontlaugh.org

22. Take a Stand was a program that taught conflict resolution and non-violence.

The program was presented on CD-ROM and video. It provided supplemental materials

such as student workbooks and lesson plans. This research based program was developed

in partnership with the U.S. Department of Justice, the Department of Education, and

MTV. http://www.takeastand.com/ (800) 421-6999 E-mail: info@takeastand.com.

23. Second Step was a comprehensive school based program that used specific

curriculum and classroom activities to teach social skills such as, empathy, impulse

control and other pro-social behaviors that help to prevent violence in schools. These

behaviors have been found to increase positive interactions and improve social skills. The

Second Step program is available for pre-K, elementary, middle and high school students.

This program also offered a video for families called a Family Guide: Parenting

Strategies for a Safer tomorrow to help parents reinforce the skills at home.

http://www.cfchildren.org/ssindepth.shtml Committee for Children 568 First Avenue

South, Suite 600 Seattle, Washington 98104-2804 (800) 634-4449 E-mail:

info@cfchildren.org
 103

Appendix D

Former Principals and Safe School Coordinators Interview Questions

 104

Interview Questions

Participants Position: ___Safe School Coordinator

___ Former School Principal

Context Questions

1. What are your perceptions related to issues that initially established a need for a

character education program?

Please explain your response _______________________________________

_______________________________________________________________

2. What are your perceptions about the procedures involved in the initial development of

the character education program?

Please explain your response________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________

Input Questions

3. What are your perceptions about any character education models examined, if any,

prior to the development of the character education program being evaluated?

Please explain your response ______________________________________

______________________________________________________________

Process Questions

4. Was the empathy component of the Second Step program implemented as originally

designed?

Please explain your response ______________________________________

_____________________________________________________________

5. Was the impulse control component of the Second Step program implemented as

originally designed?
 105

Please explain your response ________________________________________

________________________________________________________________

6. Was the anger management component of the Second Step program implemented as

originally designed?

Please explain your response__________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________

7. What are your perceptions about the use of the black and white photo lesson cards?

Please explain your response _________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________

8. What are your perceptions about the use of the videos?

Please explain your response _________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________

9. What are your perceptions about the Second Step posters?

Please explain your response _________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________

10. Which of the strategies do you think were most beneficial?

Please explain your response _________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________

11. Which strategies do you believe caused the greatest challenges?

Please explain your response _________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________

12. Were the Second Step program assessments used as described in the manual? Yes/

No

Please explain your response_____________________________________________

 106

__________________________________________________________________

13. Were the 22 lessons taught in scope and sequence? Yes/ No

Please explain your response_____________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________

14. Who oversaw the program? ___________________

15. What teacher support systems were implemented, such as professional development?

Please explain your response_____________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________

16. Were the teachers involved in implementation discussions as the plan was carried

out? Yes / No

Please explain your response____________________________________________

________________________________________________________________

17. Did the teachers have opportunities to provide feedback regarding the

implementation of the Second Step Program? Yes/ No

Please explain your response ____________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________

18. Were there opportunities for the teachers to share concerns and problems? Yes / No

Please explain your response_____________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________

19. Were there any barriers that you feel might have impacted the programs success?

Yes / No

Please explain your response_____________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________
 107

Product Questions

20. Do you believe impulsive and aggressive behavior decreased? Yes/ No

Please explain your response_____________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________

21. Were the schools goals to lower discipline referrals met? Yes/ No

Please explain your response_____________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________

22. Do you believe the number of third, fourth and fifth grade office referrals decreased?

Yes / No

Please explain your response_____________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________

23. Do you believe the Second Step programs goal and objectives of reducing

inappropriate behaviors were met?

Please explain your response_____________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________

24. Which components of the Second Step program should be sustained?

Please explain your response_____________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________

25. What are any unanticipated effects of the Second Step program?

Please explain your response_____________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________

26. Do you have any other comments, questions, or suggestions about the Second Step

program?

Please explain your response_________________________________________

 108

________________________________________________________________

27. What were the programs strengths?

Please explain your response____________________________________________

________________________________________________________________

28. What were the programs weaknesses?

Please explain your response ____________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________

29. Do you have any recommendations about the Second Step program?

Please explain your response__________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________
 109

Appendix E

Teacher Survey Questions

 110

Teacher Survey Questions

Directions: Please read the questions and respond with Yes or No and explain your
responses. However, if you are not aware, write Do Not Know. Answering these
questions will be voluntary and anonymous.

Circle Your Grade Level 3 4 5

Context Questions

1. What are your perceptions related to issues that initially established a need for a

character education program?

Please explain your response _______________________________________

_______________________________________________________________

2. What are your perceptions about the procedures involved in the initial development of

the character education program?

Please explain your response________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________

Input Questions

3. What are your perceptions about any character education models examined, if any,

prior to the development of the character education program being evaluated?

Please explain your response ______________________________________

______________________________________________________________

Process Questions

4. Was the empathy component of the Second Step program implemented as originally

designed?

Please explain your response ______________________________________

_____________________________________________________________
 111

5. Was the impulse control component of the Second Step program implemented as

originally designed?

Please explain your response ________________________________________

________________________________________________________________

6. Was the anger management component of the Second Step program implemented as

originally designed?

Please explain your response _________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________

7. What are your perceptions about the use of the black and white photo lesson cards?

Please explain your response _________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________

8. What are your perceptions about the use of the videos?

Please explain your response _________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________

9. What are your perceptions about the Second Step posters?

Please explain your response _________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________

10. Which of the strategies do you think were most beneficial?

Please explain your response _________________________________________

11. Which strategies do you believe caused the greatest challenges?

Please explain your response _________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________

12. Were the Second Step program assessments used as described in the manual?

Yes or No
 112

Please explain your response_____________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________

13. Were the 22 lessons taught in scope and sequence? Yes or No

Please explain your response_____________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________

14. Who oversaw the program? ___________________

15. What teacher support systems were implemented, such as professional development?

Please explain your response_____________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________

16. Were the teachers involved in implementation discussions as the plan was carried

out? Yes or No

Please explain your response____________________________________________

________________________________________________________________

17. Did the teachers have opportunities to provide feedback regarding the implementation

of the Second Step Program? Yes or No

Please explain your response ______________________________________________

18. Were there opportunities for the teachers to share concerns and problems? Yes or No

Please explain your response _______________________________________________

19. Were there any barriers that you feel might have impacted the programs success?

Yes or No

Please explain your response_____________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________

Product Questions

20. Do you believe impulsive and aggressive behavior decreased? Yes or No

 113

Please explain your response_____________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________

21. Were the schools goals to lower discipline referrals met? Yes or No

Please explain your response_____________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________

22. Do you believe the number of third, fourth and fifth grade office referrals decreased?

Yes or No

Please explain your response_____________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________

23. Do you believe the Second Step programs goal and objective of reducing

inappropriate behaviors were met?

Please explain your response_____________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________

24. Which components of the Second Step program should be sustained?

Please explain your response_____________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________

25. What are any unanticipated effects of the Second Step program?

Please explain your response_____________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________

26. Do you have any other comments, questions, or suggestions about the Second Step

programs implementation?

Please explain your response_________________________________________

________________________________________________________________

27. What were the programs strengths?

 114

Please explain your response____________________________________________

________________________________________________________________

28. What were the programs weaknesses?

Please explain your response ____________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________

29. Do you have any recommendations about the Second Step program?

Please explain your response__________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________