377

sNo. V/oy

A DESCRIPTIVE STUDY OF VALUES EDUCATION PROGRAMS IN

TEXAS PUBLIC ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS

DISSERTATION

Presented to the Graduate Comical of the

University of North Texas in Partial
Fulfillment of the Requirements

For the Degree of

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

By

Rondall Preston, B.A., M.Ed.

Denton, Texas
May, 1995
 377

sNo. V/oy

A DESCRIPTIVE STUDY OF VALUES EDUCATION PROGRAMS IN

TEXAS PUBLIC ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS

DISSERTATION

Presented to the Graduate Comical of the

University of North Texas in Partial
Fulfillment of the Requirements

For the Degree of

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

By

Rondall Preston, B.A., M.Ed.

Denton, Texas
May, 1995
 Preston, Rondall, A Descriptive Study of Values Education Programs in
Texas Public Elementary Schools. Doctor of Philosophy (Education
Administration), May, 1995, 151 pp., 44 tables, reference list, 106 titles.
The purpose of this study was to provide descriptive information about
values education programs in Texas elementary schools for policy makers,
curriculum directors, and educators. Insight into this contemporary issue is
augmented by exploring (a) commercially or locally developed values programs
that are in place in schools, (b) the relationship between student and school
district demographics and values education programs, (c) the role that different
interest groups have in the introduction of values education programs, and (d) the
extent to which values education programs are accepted by different groups.
A telephone survey was administered to 310 elementaiy school principals in
Texas to obtain descriptive data concerning values education programs in the
state. The following generalizations emerged from this study: (a) Principals
related that the values education programs in their schools are beneficial to
students and are supported by parents, community, school boards, and by the
school administration, (b) School teachers and school administrators are the most
influential groups for initiating existing values education programs, (c) The
preeminent vehicle for values instruction in schools is through the hidden
curriculum. Ninety-four percent of the principals surveyed in this study reported
using some type of approach with students to promote values in their schools.
Finally, a longitudinal study to investigate the long-term benefits for values
education programs was recommended.
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page
LIST OF TABLES v
Chapter
1. INTRODUCTION 1
Statement of the Problem
Purpose of the Study
Research Questions
Definition of Terms
Background and Significance of the Study
Limitations
2. REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE 11
Historical Perspective on Values Education
Popular Concerns regarding Values Education
Contemporary Issues and Programs
Role of the School and Educational Leaders
3. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY 50
Population
Development of the Survey Instrument
Collection of Data
Analysis of Data
4. PRESENTATION OF DATA 58
Introduction
Values Education Programs in Texas Elementary Schools
Community Differences and Adoption of Values Education
Programs
Effects of Interest Groups
Acceptance of Values Education
Effects on Student Behavior
Principals' Acceptance of Values Education

m
Chapter Page
5. SUMMARY, IMPLICATIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS,
AND CONCLUSIONS 98
Summary of Findings
Implications and Recommendations
Conclusions
APPENDIX 122
A. Piaget's Eras and Stages of Logical and Cognitive Development
B. Konlberg's Six Moral Stages
C. List of Validation Panel, Cover Letter, Evaluation Instrument
D. Survey Instrument
E. List of Advisory Panel, Cover Letter, Evaluation Instrument
F. Additional Tables
REFERENCE LIST 145

IV
 LIST OF TABLES

Table Page
1. Demographic/Wealth Distribution of Sample Schools 59
2. Location of Sample Schools 59
3. Commercial Programs in Use 61
4. Approaches to Including Values Education in the Curriculum 62
5. Frequency at Which Schools are Using Multiple Approaches 63
6. Chi-Square of School with Values Curriculum to Multiple
Approaches of Values Instruction 64
7. Values Curriculum and Emphasis on Values Education 65
8. Values Curriculum and Board Policy 66
9. Type of Community and Relationship to Values Education Policies . . 67
10. Type of Community and Relationship to Values Education Curriculum 68
11. Type of Community and Relationship to Locally Developed
Curriculum 68
12. Relationship Between Type of Community and Teaching
Values Lessons 69
13. Relationship of School Groups and Schools with Values
Curriculum 71
14. Values Frequency 71
15. Values Emphasis Grades K through 2 73
16. Values Emphasis Grades 3 through 5 73
17. Summary Data on Future Emphasis on Teaching Values 74
18. Tukey Multiple Range Test: Group by Extent Values Are
Emphasized in Grades 3-5 75
19. Summary of Influence Groups Toward Increased Emphasis
on Teaching Values 77

v
Table Page
20. Summary of Groups Influencing the Keeping of Values
Education Out of the Curriculum 78
21. Summary of Opposition Groups to Values Education Curriculum . . . 79
22. Tukey Multiple Range Test: Type of Community by Influence
of Teachers 81
23. Tukey Multiple Range Test: Relationship Between Type of
Community and School Board Influence 82
24. Tukey Multiple Range Test: Relationship Between Type of
Community and Parent and Community Influence 83
25. Tukey Multiple Range Test: Relationship Between Type of
Community and Religious Group Influence 83
26. Acceptance of Values Education Programs 86
27. Type of Community Relationships to Values Program Acceptance
by Parents, Community, and School Board 87
28. Summary of Values Education on Teaching Student Responsibility . . 88
29. Relationship of Schools with Values Curriculum and Values
Emphasis in Grades K-2 and Grades 3-5 90
30. Summary: Principals' Opinions Concerning Teaching Values
in Public Schools 92
31. Summary: Principals' Opinions Concerning Teaching Values and
Maintaining a Free and Democratic Society 92
32. Summary of Principals' Opinions Concerning Teaching Students
About Values 93
33. Relationship of Principals' Attitudes Toward Values Instruction
and Their Perceived Need to Develop in Students a Greater
Sense of Values in Maintaining a Free and Democratic Society . 94
34. T-Test: Comparison of Principals' Beliefs Concerning Teaching
of Values 94
35. Summary of Principals' Opinions About the Benefits of Their
Individual Schools' Values Education Program 95
36. Summary: Principals' Opinions Concerning Continuation of Values
Education Programs 96

VI
Table Page
37. Chi-Square Table for Type of Community by Different Variables . . . 141
38. Chi-Square Table for Groups by Different Variables 141
39. ANOVA Table for Type of Community by Different Variables 142
40. ANOVA Table for Type of Community by Various Variables 142
41. ANOVA Table for Survey Groups by Different Variables 143
42. ANOVA Table for Groups by Different Variables 143
43. ANOVA Table for Survey Groups by Benefits 144
44. ANOVA Table for Type of Community by Benefits 144

vu
 CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION

America is at a crossroads of great national opportunity and danger.

All of us, working together, must seize the opportunity to repair our
nation's rent social fabric and ideals, and to save our endangered future.
We can succeed, but only if enough Americans mobilize and spark a
decade-long crusade, beginning today, to leave no child behind. (Marian
Wright Edelman 1991)
The concept of values has no common definition, and no singly derived
consensus definition of values has been obtained. However, it is not difficult to
find many scholarly attempts. For example Gould and Kolb define values as
broad, fundamental norms which are generally shared by members of a
society or sub-group, and which serve to integrate as well as to guide and
channel the organized activities of the members, in part by giving rise to
complexes of derivative norms regulating functionally important areas of
life. (Gould and Kolb 1964, 744)

The problem with most attempts to define values, as with the one above, is that
they contain terms such as society, sub-group, and shared norms. The use of
these terms raises questions such as: Whose values? Whose justice? Whose
morality? Whose family?
Because a consensus definition of values is so difficult, one might think
that instruction about values would be unmanageable. Hence, why should the
term "values education" even find its way into our vocabulaiy much less our
educational literature? However, public opinion polls in the 1970s and again in
the 1980s (Amundson 1991) indicate that 84 percent of parents of school age
children are in favor of the public schools teaching morals and moral behavior. It
seems that while opinionated Americans, diverse and individual as always, have
difficulty agreeing on what values represent in our society, they have little
difficulty in agreeing on the need to examine how we think, feel, and act
regarding issues of right and wrong.
Anyone questioning Americans' fascination with issues concerning values
needs only to observe the media attention given certain events. Recently,
concerns about values, character, and morality have shaped public debate in many
areas. In 1992, former Vice President Dan Quayle addressed a group at a fund
raiser in California and chastised television's portrayal of values, specifically
targeting the character of a television situation comedy for having a child out of
wedlock. This single incident sparked heated debate in support of the vice
president's comments as well as vehement opposition. As a result, Salholz,
Wright, and Crandall (1992, 45) reported in Newsweek that "Dan Quayle seems to
have nudged presidential politics perilously close to something that really matters:
a debate on values and the American family." Politicians who emphasized "the V
word" were commonplace in recent elections, from the president to local sheriffs.
The American public sat stunned over the images of violence flashing on
their television screens in the spring of 1992 following a jury verdict in Los
Angeles. No community had erupted with such emotion and rage in the United
States since the civil rights riots in the 1960s. When the smoke finally cleared in
Los Angeles, an estimated 5,200 buildings were destroyed or damaged, and losses
ranged close to one billion dollars. A staggering number of people were
arrested-almost 17,000. The number of injured soared to 2,383 with 54 deaths
(Salholz, Wright, and Crandall 1992).
Questions were raised through the media across the nation--What has
happened to justice? How can we show such disregard for human life and private
property? What prompts such violent response in our urban areas? What has
happened to our value system in this country? Editorials throughout the United
States called for a return to common values and urged our schools to get involved
in teaching values to a seemingly indifferent generation of youth.
The concern for values and morality seems to have been resurrected in a
culture allegedly consumed with self-gratification and the look-out-for-number-one
mentality. Kirschenbaum observes:
in these 1990s a concern for values and morality is back again. This
concern is spurred on by a national panic over our seeming inability to gain
control over the country's drug problem; is supported by continuing dismay
over crime, the disintegration of the family, teen pregnancy, teen suicide,
and other indications of social upheaval and collapse; and is further fueled
by a belated and reluctant recognition that the unprecedented number of
political scandals throughout the past decade were symptomatic of a virtual
ethical vacuum in government. For these and other reasons, parents,
educators, and community leaders are once again calling for the schools to
become involved with educating our young people about values and morals.
And well they should. (Kirschenbaum 1992, 772)
This recent media attention gives national focus to an issue that has been
brewing in education for a longer time. Advocates from sundry backgrounds such
as politics, education, the clergy, and others have been urging schools to
incorporate values instruction into the curriculum. Numerous advocacy groups
and organizations such as the Child Development Project, the Center for Civic
Education, and the American Institute for Character Education have developed
comprehensive curricula to be used in schools. School districts in Baltimore,
Washington, DC, Houston, and many others have incorporated the teaching of
common core values into their instructional programs. Political leaders from the
United States President and the United States Secretaries of Education to state
governors have called on schools to address the moral condition of America's
students.
When society identifies a social problem, it often demands that schools
provide a remedy. This has been the case with values education. Officials in the
 4

Reagan and Bush administrations and in many states, as well as curriculum

experts in the education profession, have recommended a variety of courses of
action to the public schools. However, past experience with attempts to provide
values curriculum, such as values clarification, has shown that such efforts often
meet significant resistance (Kirschenbaum 1992) from national and local pressure
groups which mobilize to remove the programs from the schools. At the local
level such pressure groups can be especially threatening. When locally based
groups, working to guard traditional values, object to a new program, their tactics
may include direct contact with individual teachers or administrators to force them
to abandon the program, whispering campaigns, especially in small communities,
and large confrontations in a campaign to discredit it (Wirt and Kirst 1992, 99).
Faced with competing pressure groups, school officials often seek to avoid
conflict by making no controversial changes in their programs. Community
interests wishing to prevent open discussion of controversial issues sometimes
control polity through a process of non-decision making in which inflammatory
issues, such as values, are kept off the official agendas (Bachrach and Baratz
1962). Consequently, educators often pretend the issue does not exist.
How are schools responding to this increased attention to values
education? To what extent has the school curriculum incorporated the writings of
proponents for values instruction? Do most school districts in Texas currently
offer formal instruction in core values? While investigating sources of information
on these and other questions concerning values education in Texas, a void in
current research and literature became evident. This area of research merits
exploration and is a topic of current interest to educators. A comprehensive
research study of values education programs in Texas was warranted.
 Statement of the Problem
The problem of this study was to determine the extent of adoption of
values education programs in public elementary schools in Texas and to identify
community and organizational influences on their adoption.

Purpose of the Study

The purpose of this study was to provide descriptive information about
values education programs in Texas elementary schools for policy makers,
curriculum directors, and educators. Insight into this contemporary issue may be
augmented by exploring (a) commercially or locally developed values programs
that are in place in schools; (b) the relationship between demographics such as
district wealth, percentage of economically disadvantaged students, percentage of
ethnic students, percentage of limited English proficient (LEP) students, and
percentage of mobility, and values education programs; (c) the role of various
interest groups in the introduction of values education programs; and (d) the
extent to which these programs are accepted by various groups.

Research Questions
The following research questions are addressed in this study:
1. To what extent are commercial or locally developed values programs in
place in Texas public elementary schools?
2. Does the adoption of values education programs differ among
categories of schools based on (a) student demographics and (b) type of
community (rural, suburban, urban)?
3. What special interest groups (school board, school administration,
teachers, parents and community, and religious groups) affect the introduction
into the school curriculum of identified values education programs?
 4. What is the extent of school board, parent, and community acceptance
of the identified values education programs?
5. What effects on student behavior do principals attribute to values
education programs?
6. To what extent to principals accept values education programs?

Definition of Terms
The following terms are defined as they relate to this study:
Demographics is a science having to do with statistics of human
populations.
Chapter I students are students who are eligible for or are receiving
instructional support services supplemental to the foundation program through a
Chapter I compensatory funded program. An eligible student is (a) educationally
disadvantaged, (b) neglected or delinquent, or (c) migrant (Texas Education
Agency 1991).
Dropout according to Texas Education Code 11.203, is a student who does
not hold a high school diploma or the equivalent, who is absent from public
school in which he or she is enrolled for a period of 30 or more consecutive days,
and whose attendance within that period at another public, private, or parochial
school cannot be evidenced.
Economically disadvantaged are students who are eligible for free or
reduced-price lunches or are eligible for other public assistance (Texas Education
Agency 1991).
Mobility, for purposes of this study, is calculated as the sum of students
taking the Texas Assessment of Academic Skills (TAAS) who were reported as
enrolled in the district or any district in Texas for two years or less divided by the
total number of students taking the TAAS (Texas Education Agency 1991).
Minority, for groups in this study, is used to describe non-white students
(Texas Education Agency 1991).
Public Education Information Management System (PEIMS) is a system
for electronic data transfer between Texas school districts and the Texas
Education Agency (Texas Education Agency 1991).
Site-based decision making is a process for decentralizing decisions to
improve the educational outcomes at eveiy school campus through collaborative
efforts by principals, teachers, campus staff, parents, and community (Texas
Education Agency 1991).
Texas Assessment of Academic Skills (TAAS) is the criterion referenced
test given to Texas public school students in grades 3-10 (exit level) in reading,
writing, and mathematics (Texas Education Agency 1991).
Values education as utilized in the survey instrument of this research study
is defined as education in the nature of moral thinking and in the skills and
abilities of decision making. Values education is a term used in the broader sense
as all encompassing standards depicting a wide spectrum of behaviors. In the
current literature, values education also may be referred to as moral education,
character education.

Background and Significance of the Study

The focus of this study is on the current status of values education
programs that are presently available or developing in public elementaiy schools
in Texas. Some literature implies that a movement currently exists in the United
States emphasizing a rebirth of values education programs.
 8

The good news, as we will see, is that values education can be done within
the school day, is happening now in school systems all across the countiy,
and is making a positive difference in the moral attitudes and behavior of
students, with the result that it's easier for teachers to teach and students
to learn. (Lickona 1991, 22).
Although values education has been enthusiastically promoted periodically
throughout American school history, it is difficult to ascertain the degree of
influence or the frequency of values education programs within schools. Are
values education programs still in the embryonic stages in schools or have they
evolved into dynamic influences in scope and number? This study is significant
because the extent and importance of values education programs in Texas
elementary schools are investigated.
ABC television reported that approximately 10,000 elementary or
secondary schools in the United States are involved in teaching some type of
values or ethics course (Amundson 1991). Adding new courses or adding units to
existing courses are avenues that schools are using to implement values
instruction. According to a 1991 American Association of School Administrators
(AASA) national survey of school districts, commercial programs mentioned most
often as being used in schools are Quest International, Law in a Free Society, The
Character Education Curriculum, Project Charlie, and StarServe. These programs
are discussed in the literature review in Chapter 2. Based on the review of
literature, the Quest International program is mentioned most frequently
(Amundson 1991). Thesefindingsare reviewed to determine whether they are
consistent with Texas elementary schools and to identify which programs are
found most frequently in Texas elementary school curriculums. This study goes
beyond the scope of the AASA survey.

Also reported are principals' perceptions of coaMonal and individual

influences on policies concerning values education. Principals realize that
curriculum changes involve persons who differ regarding their views on what must
be done. Hanson (1985, 77) comments on coalitions that contribute to the
direction taken by a system:
Coalitions are collections of individuals and groups united on the basis of
common interests . . . coalitions are strategic devices to improve their
bargaining leverage against others in the struggle to protect or enlarge
control over domains, policies, or resources.
The results of this study will help educators who are planning changes to values
education or similar programs to anticipate potential road blocks and sources of
support within a community.
A final outcome of this study arefindingsrelated to vertical equity
concerning placement of values education programs in Texas public school
districts. "The concept of vertical equity asserts that all students, regardless of
personal characteristics, should have the same access to a good education"
(Carmichael et al. 1992, 39). This is especially pertinent in Texas, where equity
issues infinancingpublic schools are still being resolved. In the landmark court
case Edgewood v. Kirbv. the Texas state funding system was declared
unconstitutional due to equity issues regarding the distribution of state education
funds. The Texas Supreme Court clearly identified disparities in the quality of
programs offered in property rich and property poor districts.
High-wealth districts are able to provide for their students broader
educational experiences including more extensive curricula, more up-to-
date technological equipment, better libraries and library personnel,
teacher aides, counseling services, lower student-teacher ratios, better
facilities, parental involvement programs, and drop-out prevention
programs. They are also better able to attract and retain experienced
teachers and administrators. The differences in the quality of educational
programs offered are dramatic. (Edgewood v. Kirbv 1989)
Within this educational and political setting, it is important to investigate
factors such as district wealth, community elements, and student demographics
and to observe any relationship with the frequency and success of values
 10

education programs in Texas. Findings of this nature can help educators to

predict the variables that are successful. These same variables can provide
assistance in the planning of successful programs in other areas of the school
curriculum.

Limitations
This study is limited to the values education programs surveyed in Texas
elementary schools. No attempt was made to compare other programs in a
school's curriculum with observations of values education programs. No attempt
was made to compare Texas values education programs with programs in other
states or with programs at any grade level other than elementaiy.
Generalizations of the findings of this study also may be limited by the
limitations imposed by survey research methodology, such as respondents' failure
to answer all questions, the threat of misunderstanding questions, and the fact
that nonrespondents become a group about which virtually nothing is known.
 CHAPTER 2

REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE

A review of the literature concerning values education reveals, as one

would expect, the discussion of diverse and complex issues. This review is
primarily limited to issues and research associated with values education as it
relates to public schools in America. There is no universally accepted definition
of values or values education. The concept of values, as discussed by various
authors and researchers in this literature review, may be defined differently by
each one individually. This review is an attempt to present values and values
education within the context of each individual's expression of what values and
values education means. The literature is discussed in four broad categories:
historical review of values education in American public schools, popular concerns
regarding values education, contemporary issues and programs pertaining to
values curriculum, and the role of the school and educational leaders in values
instructional programs.

Historical Perspective on Values Education

Much of the controversy surrounding values education would not have
been possible in the early days of the American educational system. Our
country's earliest schools were established under a Massachusetts law passed in
1647, Ye Old Deluder Satan Act. This law clearly established moral instruction as
an aim of education. The law, which stated "that old deluder Satan flourished on
ignorance, was aimed at establishing schools that would deliberately foster
morality. The academic learning transmitted in such schools was inextricably

11
 12

bound up with religious doctrine" (Association for Supervision on Curriculum

Development 1988, 9). Schools were expected to teach the theological values of
the Puritans. This emphasis was carried forward into the early beginnings of the
Republic. Religion was a major influence in the lives of most Americans in the
eighteenth century, and public schools exhibited this influence by including
prayers, Bible readings, and devotionals as part of the regular school day. A July
4th oration delivered in Boston in 1798 exemplifies the belief that moral as well as
academic instruction was required to develop American citizens.
It is highly important that every order and class of citizens exert themselves
in the cultivation of those sentiments and principles on which rest our
political happiness and national existence. Knowledge and religion are the
supports of a republican government. The means of education, and moral
ana religious instruction, ought therefore to engage our serious and
vigorous attention. (Hersh, Miller, and Fielding 1980, 15).
Another example of the strong relationship between religious and moral
influences on education in our nation's beginnings is seen in textbooks of this
period. McGuffev's Readers, perhaps the most notable textbooks in the 1800s,
were based on moral and spiritual values. "Two types of values can be
recognized: 1. terminal values, those concerned with life goals, such as salvation;
and 2. instrumental values, those concerned with guides for conduct, such as
honesly" (Atkinson and Ogletree 1982, 75). Terminal values were taught in
schools by emphasizing the instruction of instrumental values. "More than half
the lessons in McGuffev's Readers have values as their dominant theme, with
salvation and righteousness as the most frequently mentioned life goals, and piety,
kindness, and patriotism as the most frequently occurring preferred modes of
conduct" (Atkinson and Ogletree 1982, 75). Approximately 120 million copies of
McGuffev's Readers were used in American public schools between 1836 and
1920.
 13

Probably, the first major call for reform of values instruction from its
Puritanical beginnings came with John Dewey in the early 1900s. Values
education, according to Dewey (1964), took on a totally different dimension from
the Puritans and the lessons of McGuffev. Morality and values were viewed as
dynamic processes of social problem solving rather than as a set of prearranged
ideas or habits. Values education was a vehicle to serve democracy. According to
Dewey, the proper way to resolve moral conflicts was to use intelligence or
reasoning (Atkinson and Ogletree 1982; Hersh, Miller, and Fielding 1980; Raths,
Harmin, and Simon 1978). Dewey writes:
Our conceptions of the ethical in education have been too narrow, too
formal, and too pathological. We have associated the term ethical with
certain special acts which are labelled virtues and set off from the mass of
other acts, and still more from the habitual images and motives in the
agents performing them. Moral instruction is thus associated with teaching
about these particular virtues, or with instilling certain sentiments in regard
to them. Ultimate moral motives and forces are nothing more nor less
than social intelligence, the power of observing and comprehending social
institutions, and social power, trained capacities of control, at work in the
service of social interest and aims. (Dewey 1964, 129)
Dewey (1964) believed that children respond and learn from the "hidden
curriculum" (i. e., activities and conditions found in the schools outside of the
formal curriculum). "Even if the teacher introduced concepts like democracy,
justice, respect for others, and human rights, if the classroom and school structure
continued to model and enforce authoritarian social relations, no effective
learning would take place" (Hersh, Miller, and Fielding 1980, 21). Dewey wanted
schools to model cooperation, self-direction, and leadership.
A historical review of values education is incomplete without a discussion
of the work of nineteenth century French sociologist Emile Durkheim. Durkheim
(1961) did not develop a specific model for values instruction, but his writings are
reflected in the work of those following him, particularly Dewey and Kohlberg.
 14

Durkheim, who considered values to beframedwithin a social context,

believed that in order for a society to function, a system of prohibitions must exist
that governs the behavior of individuals. The value system of society develops
from the collection of rules followed by individuals. The goal of education, then,
is to insure children's moral development through discipline, attachment to group,
and autonomy (Durkheim 1961).
Durkheim believed that children have a capacity for altruism that can be
developed through education. One goal of education was to develop this altruism.
Above all we must give the child the clearest possible idea of the social
groups to which he belongs. It is here that the role of the educator is most
important. If the child were left to himself he would conceive of the
groups in which he is implicated only imperfectly and very late. (Durkheim
1961, 228)
Schools should teach children about the society around them. Through this
learning process children develop an understanding of the ethical value system of
the society in which they live.
Durkheim's (1961) philosophy influenced the teaching of Dewey and
Kohlberg through the concept that morality cannot be solely a matter of personal
opinion without considering the social implications that always exist. "Durkheim
takes seriously the possibility of deliberately teaching morality to students" (Wilcox
1988, 250).
Jean Piaget (1965), a Geneva born psychologist, is noted as one of the
most influential scholars in the field of child psychology. His work, which
appeared in the United States beginning in the 1950s, has greatly influenced our
thinking toward the rearing of young children. Piaget's primary focus was on
describing the cognitive processes for intelligence in different stages of child
development (Appendix A). His studies of moral development in children
evolved from his studies on cognitive development.
 15

Piaget's (1965) research consisted of laborious clinical observations of

children in a variety of situations and settings. Piaget observed a child's approach
to a problem, watched how the problem was solved, then questioned the child to
get further insight into the reasoning behind his or her decisions. He began
studying children's moral judgment in an effort to understand how children orient
themselves in the social world (Reimer, Paolitto, and Hersh 1983). Based on his
observations Piaget identified three moral developmental stages that are closely
linked to cognitive developmental stages. In the blind obedience stage, a child's
idea of what is right or wrong is based simply on what his or her parents permit
or forbid the child to do. In the interpretation of the rules stage, the child learns
that the spirit rather than the letter of a rule is more important and makes
subjective value judgments. In the interpretation of the act stage, the child
develops a sense of personal and ethical responsibility for his or her behavior
(Fraenkel 1977, 52).
Piaget argued that teaching values is not something you state in a lesson
but something you model-it is practicing what you preach. An example is in the
teaching of democratic values. "How are we to bring children to the spirit of
citizenship and humanity which is postulated by democratic societies? By the
actual practice of democracy at school? It is unbelievable that at a time when
democratic ideas enter into every phase of life, they should have been so little
utilized as instruments of education" (Piaget 1965, 366).
As Piaget's (1965) theories gained support among psychologists in the
United States, his thinking shaped recommendations on values instruction in our
schools. His ideas about children acquiring codes of morality when they were
intellectually ready were new to this country. These codes of morality are found
within the confines of a child's communal world and include the moral, social,
 16

ethical, and democratic ideals of the society around him. Piaget taught that
teachers must not separate cognitive thought from feelings because intelligence
operates in both areas of life (Piaget 1965). A child's experiences cause him or
her to move to higher levels of moral development. "Individuals who obey laws
blindly may never develop mature methods for dealing with moral problems and
situations" (Atkinson and Ogletree 1982, 77).
Piaget's studies further expanded the appeal of John Dewey in American
education. For Piaget, child morality remains within the confines of one's private
communal world. His research heavily influenced the later work of Lawrence
Kohlberg.
Lawrence Kohlberg, like Piaget, was a noted psychologist, and not an
educator. However, he was a prominent modern era figure in the field of moral
education. Like Piaget, Kohlberg taught that children develop morally through a
series of stages, much like learning to crawl before learning to walk. He
developed six stages of moral reasoning that are primarily cognitive in nature
(Appendix B). Kohlberg believed that the six stages are consistent with all
cultures and that each stage represents a level of reasoning higher than the one
immediately preceding it. Children do not skip stages of moral development;
however, sometimes they are found "half in one stage and half in another one"
(Kohlberg 1975, 673). As individuals mature or progress through the stages, they
become increasingly able to merge more and different information than they
could at earlier stages. Kohlberg argues that higher-staged reasoning is morally
better than lower-staged reasoning.
 17

Atkinson and Ogletree summarize Kohlberg's stages:

First, the child believes that adults are the arbiters of morality, the
authorities who determine right and wrong. His only motivation not to
disobey rules is his fear of getting caught. Second, the child develops an
awareness that morality has something to do with human relations and
needs. There is an understanding of reciprocity. Next, the child
understands the golden rule, and has the ability to mentally place himself
in the other person's position to gain understanding. Finally, concern for
others is expanded to a wider scale. One begins to have a concept of
society, law, and one's role with a larger social and legal system. However,
this stage is still a morality shaped by external expectations. (Atkinson and
Ogletree 1982, 78)
Kohlberg's (1975) stages of moral development cannot be equated with age
because some individuals move much faster through the stages than others. Only
25 percent of American adults reach the final stages. Kohlberg has not found
subjects (other than philosophers) who have reached the level of a stage 6
conception of morality (Reimer, Paolitto, and Hersh 1983, 81).
Kohlberg's theories of moral development have significant implications on
values education programs. The most significant implication, perhaps, is that
"progression through the stages is a natural development that teachers can further
by presenting students with moral dilemmas" (Fraenkel 1977, 59). The role of the
teacher is to assist students in moving through the stages of moral development.
The teacher must "play a deliberate role that involves teacher valuing, teacher
criticizing, and teacher evaluating" (Wilcox 1988, 251). Teachers must be careful
not to indoctrinate, but to direct students toward understanding through
participation of the ten universal moral issues discussed in the following
paragraph.
Kohlberg believed that the ten universal moral issues that are common to
all human societies are: (a) laws and rules; (b) conscience; (c) personal roles of
affection; (d) authority; (e) civil rights; (f) contract, trust, and justice in exchange;
(g) punishment; (h) the value of life; (i) properlyrightsand values; and (j) truth.
 18

Kohlberg did not propose that these universal values should be taught directly, but
that these basic values are "embodied in common social institutions such as the
family, the legal system, and the economy." Children learn by participating in
these institutions under the guidance of adults. The "values arise out of the
child's experience of interacting with adults and peers, and operate as conceptual
modes for regulating social interaction" (Reimer, Paolitto, and Hersh 1983, 85).
The aim of education is to develop values and skills in students that will
contribute to their achievement of healthy and self-fulfilling lifestyles. Education
should enhance a student's development in areas of cognitive, social, moral, and
emotional functions (Kohlberg and Moyer 1972). Children develop these
universal values of their society through their interaction with other people.
Kohlberg agreed with Dewey and Piaget that children learn a great deal
about social behavior and moral values from the hidden curriculum. The "hidden
curriculum offers a rich opportunity for educators to involve students in moral
learning" (Hersh, Miller, and Fielding 1980, 150). Children can learn by reading
and discussing social issues, but there is no substitute for involvement and
participation in real-life matters. If educators want students to respect democratic
principles, students should not only study about democracy, but the school should
be a model of democratic practice in action. If educators want students to respect
civil rights, the school and teachers should model respect for civil rights. Schools
have a moral atmosphere that is acquired from the society in which they exist and
offers unique opportunities for problem solving and moral development.
In summaiy, Kohlberg probably was the first to combine principles of
psychology, philosophy, and education squarely on cognitive moral development.
He was instrumental in clearly delineating the influence that social factors and
time have on moral development. Kohlberg "stresses the preeminence of moral
 19

reasoning, the background principles and consideration that guide our moral
judgments" (Scheffler 1990, 100). The educational implications for Kohlberg's
theories involve having classroom discussion of moral issues as well as those issues
that effect the every day school environment. Through these discussions, teachers
have opportunities to propose cognitive conflicts which allow them to lead
students into discussions involving higher moral reasoning.
Another major movement with a different approach for values inclusion
into American schools is values clarification. This approach for values education
gained widespread popularity in the late 1960s and throughout the 1970s. Raths,
Harmin, and Simon espoused this approach in their book, Values and Teaching.
Raths and his colleagues were concerned more with the process of valuing than
with the nature of values themselves. Values clarification
is very differentfromtrying to persuade children to accept some
predetermined set of values. It is based on a conception of democracy that
says people can learn to make their own decisions. It is also based on a
conception of humanity that says human beings are capable of being
thoughtful and wise and that the most appropriate values will emerge when
people use those capacities in defining tneir relationships with each other
and with an ever changing world. (Raths, Harmin, and Simon 1978, 38)
Values clarification programs often required that students reflect on the ills
within society and postulate approaches to correct them. Kirschenbaum writes:
As might be expected, values education and moral education began to
reflect these changes in society. Instead of simply inculcating and modeling
values, educators were now encouraged to help students clarify their own
values, learn higher levels of moral reasoning, and learn the skills of value
analysis. Educators were counseled to avoid imposing their own values and
morals on their students. (Kirschenbaum 1992, 772).
Advocates of the values clarification approach were less concerned with the
values students possessed than with helping students learn to formulate useful
values for their existence. Values education proponents argued that students
should be searching for their own guides for living their lives. These individual
 20

and possibly impermanent guides were called values. Hersh, Miller, and Fielding
suggested that
one of the aims of values clarification is to help people obtain values that
will enable them to relate to their ever-changing world in a satisfying and
intelligent way. As such, values are not fixed positions or eternal truths.
Rather, they are guides grounded in an individual's personal and social
experiences. (Hersh, Miller, and Fielding 1980, 76)
Raths' values clarification approach addressed the role of teachers.
Teachers were encouraged to refrain from always assuming the role of putting
things into the minds of children, but to assist children in defining things
happening around them.
The meaning here for schools and, more particularly, for the busy
classroom teacher is implicit in the definition. If a person wishes to help
children develop clearer values, he or she must help children use the
process of valuing. That is, we must help children: [a] make free choices
whenever possible, [b] search for alternatives in choice-making situations,
[c] weigh the consequences of each available alternative, [d] consider what
they prize and cherish, [e] affirm the things they might value, [f] do
something about their choices, [g] consider and strengthen patterns in their
lives. As the teacher helps students use these processes, she or he helps
them find values. (Raths, Harmin, and Simon 1978, 47)
Values clarification did not diminish the role of the teacher but placed the
teacher in a position where indoctrination of students was less likely. The
emphasis shifted from "the teacher as the source of moral truth, or from the
teacher as model of the morally educated person, to the teacher as clarifier"
(Wilcox 1988, 250). Instead, teachers used questioning techniques that
encouraged students to develop and seek their own values.
Values clarification advocates promised that students would lead more
personally satisfying and constructive lives and perform better in school. As the
1980s brought additional social and moral problems within society and schools,
the hope of values clarification began to fade. Kirschenbaum (1992), one of the
 21

early proponents of values clarification, believes values clarification declined

because America faced larger social ills than values clarification could overcome.

Popular Concerns Regarding Values Education

The advocates of values instruction in schools usually arm themselves with
statistics which, in their opinion, point to a culture of young people living in a
values-deficient society. According to FBI statistics, in the ten-year period
between 1978 and 1988, rape arrests for thirteen- and fourteen-year-old males
doubled. In the twenty-year period between 1968 and 1988, statistics revealed a
53 percent increase among youth in all violent crime—murder, rape, robbery, and
assault (Age specific arrest rates 1990). Louis Harris polls reveal that by age
thirteen, 20 percent of U.S. teenagers have experienced their first sexual
encounter. The average age at which teens become sexually active is sixteen years
(Amundson 1991, 6). In 1989, a National Institute of Drug Abuse study revealed
that 60 percent of high school seniors had used alcohol and 19.7 percent had used
an illegal drug within the past 30 days (Amundson 1991, 6). Foul language
permeates the youth culture in music, literature, movies, and increasingly, on
television. The results of a Harvard study reporting that 59 percent of urban
teachers and 40 percent of rural teachers face swearing and obscene gestures are
not surprising (The ethics of American youth 1990). Probably the most alarming
statistic of all is the rising suicide rate of young people. The teen suicide rate in
the United States has risen 300 percent during the last thirty years (Lickona 1991,
19).
Texas shares these national problems. Statistics on Texas school children
from the Texas Education Agency indicate that "more and more children are in
real life situations in which the focus is on simple survival, rather than on
 22

preparing for the future. The support and protection that children once had from
the home and community is eroding" (Agency strategic plan 1992, 1). This
erosion is evident from the following statistics: One-fourth of Texas children are
living in poverty, up from 19 percent in 1979. Forty-five percent of the Texas
student population qualifies for the free or reduced price lunch program,
compared to 39 percent in 1980. Texas ranksfirstin the nation in the number of
births to females age fourteen and younger and second highest in births to
females between the ages of fifteen and nineteen years. Of the approximately
11,000 homeless children in Texas, an estimated 28 percent do not attend school
(Agency strategic plan for the 1992-1998 period 1992).
Alarming as these facts are, they are considerably more understandable in
light of further revealing statistics. In 1990 the National Center on Child Abuse
and Neglect reported that "2.5 million children and adolescents suffer physical,
sexual, and emotional abuse or neglect" (Amundson 1991, 6). The Metropolitan
Life Survey on the American Teacher (1987) reveals that a majority of teachers
and parents agree that parents leave their children alone after school too much,
fail to discipline their children, fail to motivate their children to learn in school,
take too little interest in their children's education, and neglect to see that their
children's homework gets done.
David Elkind, a leading child psychologist, reveals some striking findings
concerning the amount of time parents spend with their children in activities such
as reading, talking, or playing. He found that
working mothers spend only an average of eleven minutes each weekday
doing such things and thirty minutes per day on weekends. Homemaker
mothers . . . spend more time this way, devoting thirty minutes each
weekday and thirty-six minutes each weekend day to their offspring.
Fathers, mostly employed outside the home, spend even less quality time
with their children than working mothers do; they devoted a scant eight
 23

minutes to their kids each weekday and only fourteen minutes on

weekends. (Elkind 1987, 24)
Statistics such as these are utilized by values education proponents to
summon society to take action. Increasingly, these calls are focused on our
nation's school systems, which are urged to consider values education programs.
The calls are coming from politicians, columnists, clergy, educators, and other
groups. This literature review contains references from politicians, newspaper
editors, and others that might not be found in many research reviews. They have
been included because almost all authors writing about values education have
cited them. The impetus for values education programs in modern day schools
appears to be emerging from various organizations and individuals.

Reagan and Bush Administration Influences

The Republican administrations of Ronald Reagan and George Bush,
through spokesmen such as former Secretary of Education William Bennett,
encouraged schools to expand opportunities to teach values. Lewis (1993, 4),
writing of the prior republican administrations, recalls that "at first it (Department
of Education) was the Far Right and an ideological, moralistic agenda that
assumed control of the department." Schools were viewed as a place to reduce
antisocial behavior, including drug use and violence, and to produce responsible
citizens (Bennett 1988).
William J. Bennett (1988, 30), former U. S. Secretaiy of Education, writes
that character formation begins in the home, "starting in the earliest childhood
years," but school must help. Bennett remarks that schools must not be diverted
by those who warn that values education instruction is too complex.
The first mistake is to say that we cannot agree on values. Well, we cannot
agree on everything. There are hard cases. But we can agree on the basic
traits of character we want our children to have, and that we want our
 24

schools to develop. We can expect our schools both to help acquaint our
children with certain character traits, and to develop them. And we can
agree that there ought to be such a thing as moral literacy. (Bennett 1988,

Bennett feels that society can develop a substantial definition of moral

literacy.
It seems . . . that this is why many teachers entered the profession in the
first place-because they thought they could make a positive difference in
the lives of students, in the development of their character, to make them
better as men and women as well as to help develop their skills. We must
have teachers and principals who not only state the difference between
right and wrong, but who make an effort to live that difference in front of
students. (Bennett 1988, 30-31)
Lauro F. Cavazos (1990, 2), former U. S. Secretary of Education, also
rebukes those who assume that as a society we have no common values. He also
attacks value-neutral curricula as helping to create a "generation of young people
ignorant of any moral heritage." The purpose of values instruction in schools is to
nurture "in all our children; regardless of their cultural heritage, race, or religion;
that ethical conscience that must be developed for them to function as full citizens
in this democracy."

Clinton Administration Influences

The Clinton Administration appears to be advocating programs that are
different from those of prior administrations, even though it is too early to assess
adequately what the new educational emphasis will be and its relationship to
values education. The current educational agenda calls for revamping of the
Chapter I program and expansion of the Head Start program (Lewis 1993).
President Clinton appears to advocate a hands-off approach for schools and
values. In his State of the Union address in January 1994 he declared, "we can't
renew our country until we realize that governments don't raise children, parents
do" (as quoted in Newsweek by Fineman 1994, 16).
 25

Other Advocates for Values Education

Edward Wynne (1986), a university professor and values education
advocate, describes the great tradition in transmitting moral values. The
transmission of values has been a dominant educational concern throughout
civilization, with great acceptance until our modern schools removed it from the
curriculum. Wynne calls for schools to return to the "great tradition" found in
ethnographic studies of ancient as well as modern cultures. Included in the great
tradition are developing good habits of conduct as contrasted with moral concepts;
telling the truth in face of evident temptation, being polite, and obeying legitimate
authority. He argues that children's moral conduct needs persistent and pervasive
reinforcement. The traditions of previous civilizations teach us that the most
important and complex moral values were transmitted through persistent and
intimate person-to-person interaction. These civilizations had a pessimistic
opinion about the perfectibility of human beings and about the feasibility or value
of breaking with previous socialization patterns (Wynne 1986, 6-7). Certainly this
advocacy for schools to instruct its youth in values is not new. Aristotle
emphasized the role of individuals learning to be moral. He called for moral
"habituation through training and education" (Nyberg 1990, 602).
The authors of articles in major publications such as The Wall Street
Journal espouse the return of values lessons to the classroom. In a September 26,
1988 article, Graham points out that
the task of building character has fallen to teachers largely because nobody
else is doing the job. The American family is fragmented. The influence
of religion continues to decline. The lessons taught on television are often
the wrong ones. Add it all up, and today's children have been left
rudderless in a turbulent world. (Graham 1988, 33)
 26

Dan Coats, United States Senator from Indiana, suggests that although
schools and parents have a dual role in assisting children with values development,
with the decline of the family unit, schools may be asked to assume a larger role.
As growing numbers of families fail, even more pressure is put on schools.
This is certainly not the ideal place for moral instruction. But the need is
real. If a child's home life doesn't provide discipline and basic moral
teaching, the schools may be his best chance of receiving any of that at all.
(Coats 1991, 21)
Barbara Whitehead, writing in The Atlantic Monthly, also urges action in
addressing the decline of the family.
If we fail to come to terms with the relationship between family structure
and declining child well-being, then it will be increasingly difficult to
improve children's life prospects, no matter how many new programs the
federal government funds. Nor will we be able to make progress in
bettering school performance or reducing crime or improving the quality of
the nation's future work force—all domestic problems closely connected to
family breakup. (Whitehead 1993, 47)
Recently, groups and organizations have come together to discuss values.
Organizations such as Girl Scouts USA, the national 4-H clubs, and the National
Education Association have endorsed a document known as the Aspect
Declaration of Character Education. This document, developed by various
leaders of youth organizations, educators, ethics-education proponents, and
business groups is widely circulated among education groups and state education
departments. It identifies six core values needed in our culture: respect,
responsibility, trustworthiness, caring, justice and fairness, and civic virtue and
citizenship (Viadero 1992).

Educators Respond
While political figures' demands for change often dominate press coverage
of an issue, actual change in educational organizations is significantly affected by
professionals. The "professionalization of reform" in government affects
 27

curriculum decisions in public schools. The introduction of sex education has

been cited as "a particularly blatant example of the professionalization of
curriculum reform" (Boyd 1979, 90). Curriculum scholars and local administrators
have begun to delineate positions and implement values education programs.
The Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development (ASCD), a
major professional organization for educational practitioners and researchers,
launched an investigation into the status of moral education in the United States.
The ASCD Panel on Moral Education, in its report, Moral Education in the Life
of the School, describes moral education as being the "living legacy of our nation."
Some of the panel's recommendations are that
1. Everyone involved in American education must renew commitments
promoting moral education in the schools.
2. Partnerships of parents, business, racial, religious groups, and others
should be formed to support the school's efforts to develop morally mature
citizens.
3. Schools should address behavioral concerns in addition to cognitive
instruction.
4. Moral education must include instruction in socialization skills, critical
thinking, and decision making.
5. Research on what works in moral education should be conducted.
6. Major attention should be given to moral education in teacher inservice
activities.
These recommendations were formulated as a bench mark or starting place for
schools considering implementing values education programs in the United States.
A prominent advocate of schools' involvement in values education, Thomas
Lickona (1991), has developed indicators and strategies for implementing values
 28

education programs. Lickona calls for a comprehensive approach to values

instruction that includes having teachers model and stress strategies through their
roles as caregivers who treat students with love and respect Lickona advocates
creating a social climate that involves helping students grow in respect, recognize
values in each other, practice moral discipline with rules, and model democratic
processes through shared decision making within the school organization and the
classroom. The curriculum should stress values through academic subjects,
literature, and opportunities for personal expression and debate. Conflict
resolution should be a primary goal in discipline management that stresses
expression rather than violence. Students should be encouraged to participate in
community service projects with involvement from all community resources,
especially parents.
Schools inevitably teach good or bad values in everything they do. Every
interaction, whether part of the academic curriculum or the human
curriculum of rules, roles, and relationships, has the potential to affect a
child's values and character for good or for ill. The question is not
whether to do values education but whether to do it well. (Lickona 1991,
69-70)
The proponents of values oriented curricula in our schools are growing in
number and influence. The preponderance of current values education literature
is written by advocates for values education; however, others question the
direction some schools are heading with their programs.
David Purpel (1991), a University of North Carolina professor, questions
what he terms the "neoconservative" influence. He views most of the current
values education programs as just an "old-fashioned bag of virtues-hard work,
perseverance, respect for authority, delay of gratification, obedience, endurance
and courage" (Purpel 1994, 311). Programs focused on these virtues avoid what
he refers to as critical examination of "social, historical, political, and cultural
 29

context mark it as less moral than moralistic and less intellectual than didactic"
(Purpel 1994, 311). He calls for putting the end to current moral education
programs because they have failed to be incorporated into the mainstream of
school curricula and, more importantly, because the addition of separate moral
education programs gives the dualistic idea of two kinds of education, one which
is moral and the other where morality is irrelevant.
Purpel advocates moral discourse and analyses as opposed to programs.
The true proponents of moral education are those, in his view, who confront
"primary moral issues, those emerging from barriers to a life of justice, meaning,
community, love, and joy" (Purpel 1994, 311). He suggests that educators start
teaching by example by advocating discourse on issues such as testing, grading,
problematics of excellence, and hierarchy. He stresses that it is not good enough
in these times to try to "pump up those sagging, tired values of liberal capitalism-
reliance on good will, patience, forbearance, and the preservation of the status
quo" (Purpel 1994, 311).
Many claim that one of the major problems in a value directed program is
that moral claims are virtually impossible to verify. They maintain that in a
pluralistic society values are right or wrong, depending on whose point of view is
being expressed (Lockwood 1991). Conventional courses in the curriculum have
validity because they are based on historical evidence or natural truths, as in
science. Morality on the other hand has "no agreed upon methodology for
determining truthfulness" (Harris and Hoyle 1990, 19). These barriers make it
difficult to define morals or values for incorporation into the curriculum.
Some opposition to values education is primarily political. Many
individuals place responsibility on the school to develop students' knowledge and
intellectual abilities. Schools, therefore, should concentrate on cognitive
 30

development and leave moral development to the family and the church (Harris
and Hoyle 1990). Some argue that moral development is too closely related to
religion and, therefore, school involvement in these issues comes dangerously
close to crossing the barrier of constitutionally protected separation of church and
state. Because moral education "implies the teaching of what is right and wrong,
there is sure to be conflict between the school and the public at large" (Harris and
Hoyle 1990, 21).
A problem related to values education concerns the fear of indoctrination.
Many opponents believe it is wrong to impose certain values on students. This
concern is the impetus for most values education programs. These opponents
argue that teaching should not be directed toward indoctrination of values
because there is no evidence of corresponding behavior changes of students.
Any program that intends to promote good behavior by teaching values
rests on a shaky foundation. Social scientific research indicates that moral
values play a small role in predicting behavior. (Lockwood 1993, 74)
Consensus is easily reached concerning the virtue of students learning to
become knowledgeable, active, productive, and rational citizens. The manner in
which these virtues are conveyed to children is not easily discerned. However, the
pressure is increasingly mounting-in view of previously cited public opinion polls,
the literature advocating values education, and increased pressure from
government and law enforcement agencies-to establish values education programs
in public schools. Some will continue to argue that schools are asked to do too
much; however, schools are increasingly faced with the demand that instruction in
values is no longer an option.
 31

Contemporary Issues and Programs

Regardless of one's beliefs concerning the extent to which schools should
incorporate values instruction into the curriculum, it is a fact that teaching is a
values-oriented process.
The teaching of values, in feet, is unavoidable. All the activities in which
teachers engage~the books they ask students to read, the seating
arrangements they establish, the topics they choose to discuss, the manner
in which they discuss them, the films andfilmstripsthey select, the speakers
they invite, the movies and plays they recommend, the assignments they
give, and the examinations they prepare—all . . . suggest that they consider
some ideas, events, individuals, and behaviors more important than others
for students to consider. (Fraenkel 1977, 1-2)
The reality of the school setting defines the extent and the emphasis of
how values are viewed in a school district. Many school districts remain silent or
neutral. Others, such as Baltimore County Schools, have developed
comprehensive position statements such as the following:
All education is infused with values. The ultimate goal of education is the
ositive influence of student behavior, and each student's values guide and
Eelp determine that behavior. In the process of teaching, the teacher's
values are demonstrated to the students. In every class and throughout the
school-indeed, throughout the school system—values are demonstrated
through actions, procedures, policies, and attitudes from the board of
education, to the superintendent and his staff, to the principal and
teachers, to the cafeteria workers, bus drivers, and to the students.
(Copeland and Saterlie 1990, 48).
Literature on the role of the school and educational leaders where values
education programs are considered to be a desirable part of the school curriculum
are examined in this section. The literature reveals diverse thought about the
classification of values.

Classifying Values
One issue facing administrators when inaugurating values education
programs is prioritizing which values are to be taught. In 1972, A. P. MacDonald
correlated a list of thirly-six process and outcome values which were identified in
 32

prior research by Rokeach (1973), with measures of rigidity, authoritarianism, and

ambiguity tolerance. His studies indicate that values correspond to personality
characteristics which can be broadly classified as follows:
1. High cognitiverigidityplaces a higher value on being capable, clean,
honest, logical, obedient, polite, responsible, and self-centered, and a lower value
on broad-mindedness. These values are significantly associated with placing a
higher value on family security and salvation, and a lower value on an exciting life.
2. High authoritarianism places a higher value on being ambitious, clean,
obedient, and polite, and a lower value on being broad-minded. These values are
associated with valuing a comfortable life, family security, national security,
salvation, and social standing, and with placing a lower value on equality.
3. High tolerance for ambiguity places a higher value on being broad-
minded and imaginative, and a lower value on being ambitious, capable, clean,
obedient, polite, and responsible. High tolerance for ambiguity is negatively
associated with desires for having a comfortable life, family security, national
security, and salvation (Mink 1979).
Proponents for values education programs often differ as to which list of
MacDonald's (1972) personality characteristics they favor for inclusion in values
education programs. All positive values are considered as having importance; with
close scrutiny most programs or points of view can be aligned with one of
MacDonald's classifications.
Tuck and Albury (1990), in a study of the status of administrator, student,
teacher, and parent values in the District of Columbia Public Schools, classified
values for use in their survey instrument. Principals were asked to assess students'
values according to which they were weakest in, which they were strongest in,
 33

which values were emphasized in schools, and which values the principals
considered most important. Values were classified and defined as follows:
Moral values-knowing right from wrong, Cultural/ethnic values-race
awareness and family pride, Spiritual values—belief in God or fate,
Educational values-knowing the practical importance of school, Social
values-knowing how to choose the right friends and activities, and self
values—self esteem. * (Tuck and Albuiy 1990, 120)
Tuck and Albuiy (1990) propose that there is a direct relationship between
values development and success among at-risk youth in school. Several
recommendations were presented as a result of this study. One recommendation
was that school improvement approaches utilize instruction in all of the classified
values. Schools were challenged to develop strategies for student success that
incorporated school, home, and community effort. Strategies for success should
be individualized with consistent long-term goals established. School
administrators should realize that successful programs require financial
commitment to personal training, adequate supervision, small class size, and home
and community outreach efforts (Tuck and Albury 1990).
Kohn (1991), a values education proponent who advocates programs
emphasizing a high tolerance for ambiguity, views school as a place where
prosocial values and behavior are learned. Rather than punishing and curbing
negative behaviors, he favors promoting positive behaviors or prosocial behaviors.
According to Kohn, the school agenda should not teach values but should model
behaviors. "The teacher's presence and behavior, her choice of text, the order in
which she presents ideas, and her tone of voice are as much a part of the lesson
as the curriculum itself' (Kohn 1991, 499).

Kohn (1991, 505) favors programs that include components such as

cooperative learning that does not rely on grades or other motivators, the use of
literature-based reading programs that stimulate discussion about values and
 34

caring, a prosocial approach to classroom management where teachers develop

loving relationships with students, and other activities such as grouping students of
different ages to work together and having students volunteer for community
service projects.
Edward Wynne (1986) discusses how a district's philosophy should
correspond to the transmitting of values in a school. He urges schools to address
philosophical issues such as whether schools really make important differences in
the lives of students; whether teaching is a job with limited duties or requires
unusual dedication; and whether students should be expected to work hard at
learning schoolwork and appropriate values, regardless of whether or not they like
it (Wynne 1986). A school's philosophy should propel the school toward its
resolution for values taught in the formal curriculum as well as for the total school
experience.
Calabrese expresses the same vision in terms of schools developing into
ethical democratic communities.
Schools can be ethical democratic communities through member
commitment to each other's welfare. Schools as ethical democratic
communities are places where justice prevails; where equity is cherished;
where integrity is a driving force in all relationships; where foil
participation is an expectation; where inclusion is a norm; that distributes
resources equitably; and that allow members' recourse to redress
grievances. (Calaorese 1990, 12)
This broader view depicts schools as social organizations that are directly
immersed in the socialization of our populace. Schools as social organizations
therefore should prepare young people for participation in democracy, they should
prepare young people to enter the work force, and they should prepare young
people to interact with other young people.
 35

Commercial School Values Curricula

Many school districts currently have educational programs that promote
values. The AASA critical issues report, Teaching Values and Ethics, outlines
examples of some of the programs that schools in the United States have initiated
to teach values in schools. In the report Amundson (1991) discusses the results of
values surveys from independent sources, as well as a survey of the AASA
membership specifically. The eighteen question survey used in the AASA study,
entitled "Teaching Values and Ethics . . . Your Help Please," addresses the issues
of why values and ethics should (or should not) be taught, the connection between
home and school in teaching values, the extent to which schools have always been
teachers of values and ethics, and how schools are currently teaching ethics and
values. Amundson (1991, 22) explains that, "although the survey was not a
scientific sample, it does provide an excellent indication of how a number of
thoughtful school leaders have dealt with this subject in their schools and school
districts. Five frequently used, commercially available programs identified in the
AASA report are discussed to show the approaches schools are tiying.

Quest International
Quest International is an organization that designs comprehensive youth
development programs for families and educators. The organization has
developed and piloted school programs for all grade levels. Their Skills for
Growing program is specifically designed for elementary students. The major
program goals for Skills for Growing are:
[a] To involve parents, school staff, and the community in supporting the
healthy development and success of all children; [b] To provide
opportunities for children to practice good citizenship through cooperative
groupwork and service to others; [c] To promote a healthy, drug-free
approach to life; [d] To celebrate diversity and encourage respect for
others; and [e] To provide support for teachers, parents, administrators,
 36

and others involved in the program through effective materials,

comprehensive training, and follow-up services. ^Skills for growing 1990,
23)
The program uses theoretical approaches and research from several
disciplines to form five main units taught in grades kindergarten through five.
Unit one, Building a School Community, is designed to help students feel
comfortable and valued as members of the classroom and the school community.
Unit two, Growing as a Group, encourages students to use interpersonal skills in
relating to others. Unit three, Making Positive Decisions, helps students learn
how to make positive and responsible decisions and to say no to harmful
decisions. Unit four, Growing Up Drug-Free, promotes a healthy lifestyle by
informing students of the harmful effects of tobacco, alcohol, and other drugs.
The last unit, Celebrating You and Me, encourages students to respect themselves
and others. These units are supported with numerous materials including
supplemental books, articles, videos, posters, stuffed animals, and charts.
The Quest program emphasizes parental involvement by stressing the fact
that parents are their children's primary teachers and that parental involvement is
a key factor in student success. Parents are involved through shared homework
assignments, parent meetings, participation in introductory workshops, and
involvement with all school activities. The program's emphasis on family values
and open communication is designed to improve relationships among parents,
students, and teachers.

American Institute for Character Education

The American Institute for Character Education was founded in 1942 by
Russell C. Hill with the publication of the Freedom Code, a list of standards for
individuals to live by. A two million dollar grant in 1969 supported the
 37

development of the Character Education Curriculum (CEC) for elementary and

secondary schools. Between 1980 and 1990, the CEC curriculum was placed in
fifty-thousand classrooms (Character education curriculum 1992).
The Character Education Curriculum is based on the belief that self-
esteem promotes responsibility among students. By teaching children the basic
traditional values, the curriculum promotes the following outcomes:
Children should be able to: [a] Resist the influence of gang participation;
[bl Prevent experimentation and abuse of drugs, alcohol, and other harmful
substances; [c] Develop good self-esteem; [d] Develop respect forrightsof
others; [e] Distinguish between right and wrong; [f] Use self-discipline to
achieve goals; [g| Work together cooperatively; [n] Identify the rights and
obligations of citizens; [i] Develop decision-making and problem-solving
skills; [j] Assume responsibility for their behavior; [k] Resist negative peer
pressure; and jl] Maximize the use of their time and talents. (Character
education curriculum 1992, 4)
The curriculum materials are provided in a kit which consists of teachers'
guides, classroom materials, stories to be read to the class, questions to be used
for discussion, and parent materials. Most of the activities are taught in small
discussion groups. All materials are provided to teachers because teachers cannot
be expected to find ways, throughout their busy days, to raise self-esteem, teach
critical thinking, help students set goals, and emphasize respect for the rights of
others in addition to teaching their academic subjects (Character education
curriculum 1992, 3).
Children are encouraged to discuss lessons with their parents, and teachers
are provided with materials to report positive comments about students to their
parents. Parents are also provided with lists to use for discussion of values at
home with their children to help strengthen family relationships.
 38

Center for Civic Education

The curriculum developed by the Center for Civic Education was designed
to help students develop civic competence and civic responsibility. This program
was originally developed by the State Bar of California, but is currently
administered by the United States Department of Justice, Office of Juvenile
Justice and Delinquency Prevention. The elementaiy and secondary curriculum,
called Law in a Free Society, is designed to
[a] Promote increased understanding of American constitutional democracy
and its fundamental values and principles; [b] Develop the skills necessary
to participate as informed, effective, and responsible citizens; and
[c] Increase the willingness of students to use democratic procedures when
making decisions and managing conflicts. (Law in a free society 1992).
This curriculum centers on the concepts of authority, responsibility, justice,
and privacy. The authority component teaches students how societies are
organized and governed, develops respect for authority, and develops skills in
participation in politics. The responsibility component encourages classroom
discussion on individual responsibility and on dealing with daily lifetime
responsibilities. The justice component involves discussion of fairness and
includes studies on the values and principles embodied in the United States
Constitution and Bill of Rights. The privacy component fosters sensitivity to
privacy issues and identifies the skills necessary for resolving conflicts.
Many experts in education, politics, the environment, international
relations, and ethnic diversity assisted in developing the curriculum. The objective
of the curriculum is to define the fundamental civic values necessary to be an
American. The set of curriculum materials contains student books, a teacher's
edition,filmstrips,and audio cassettes. A curriculum framework is provided to
suggest places in the regular curriculum that these materials can best be utilized.
Extensive teacher training is a recommended component of this program.
 39

StarServe
StarServe, a nonprofit organization in Santa Monica, California, has
developed materials to encourage elementary and secondary students to provide
service in their communities. Although classroom instruction is not a target of
this program, materials have been developed to introduce students to
opportunities for service in organizations that may be found in the students' town.
Students are also prompted to investigate individual projects in their communities.
This program has been endorsed by President Bush, and uses actors, rock
stars, and athletes to promote volunteerism. The program utilizes audio and
video cassettes to encourage students to become active participants in their
communities (Amundson 1991).

Project Charlie
The Project Charlie curriculum was developed by a suburb community of
Minneapolis, Minnesota, to be used in the local schools as a drug prevention
program. Federal funds were later utilized to launch the current national
program and curriculum. The classroom goals of Project Charlie are
[a] To equip students with social competencies necessary to cope with
interpersonal and intrapersonal pressures, [bl To enhance student self-
awareness and self-esteem, [c] To equip students with the skills necessary
to say no and assertiveness techniques to avoid the pressure to use drugs,
and [d] To increase students' knowledge of the harmful consequences of
chemical use. (Project Charlie 1992, 6)
Although designed as a drug education course, Project Charlie is
considered a values education curriculum because it focuses on the skills,
attitudes, and knowledge that are essential to personal values. The curriculum is
written for elementary school children and includes four units: self-awareness,
relationships, decision-making, and chemical use in society. The curriculum
document, which affirms this commitment to teaching values, clearly states that
 40

values are important, necessary, and help to determine our behavior. Basic values
are easily taught within the confines of a curriculum such as Project Charlie (1992,
4). Parents are encouraged to take an active role in discussions with their
children. Materials available for use with the curriculum include student books,
teacher curriculum guides, posters, tee shirts, buttons, videos, and other materials.
The program is designed to be delivered by someone other than the
students' classroom teacher. Parents or other trained individuals are encouraged
to provide instruction.

Effects of Values Education on Students

As evidenced in this review of the literature, much has been written and a
variety of different opinions have been expressed concerning the effects of values
and values education in our society. Educators, psychologists, and researchers
have suggested that the attitudes and values of students are important to the
educational achievement of students. Is there any evidence that education can
have an influence on students' values or moral development? Recent studies
suggest that some values education programs are effective (Ginsburg and Hanson
1990; Schlaefli, Rest, and Thoma 1985).
Schlaefli, Rest, and Thoma (1985) published a meta-analysis of intervention
studies designed to stimulate development of moral judgement. They investigated
and reported the results onfifty-fivestudies using the Defining Issues Test, a
multiple choice test derived to measure moral judgement (Schlaefli, Rest, and
Thoma 1985). They categorized the programs that they studied into four groups:
(1) Programs that emphasize peer discussion of controversial moral dilemmas;
(2) Programs that emphasize personal psychological development and intense self-
reflection; (3) Programs that emphasize the academic content of humanities, social
 41

studies, literature, or contemporary issues; and (4) Programs whose duration was
short term (Schlaefli, Rest, and Thoma 1985, 342-343).
The major conclusions of Schlaefli, Rest, and Thoma's (1985) meta-analysis
reveal that some programs have a positive effect on a measurement of moral
behaviors. They found that programs emphasizing discussions of different moral
dilemmas with a prolonged time for self-reflection produced modest but definite
effects. Programs such as these probably have a theoretical base that is closely
tied to the teaching of Kholberg (1975) and Piaget (1965). Programs using an
academic base of delivery such as the study of humanities and social studies do
not seem to have an effect on the development of students' moral judgement.
Anotherfindingof their study was that adults seemed to produce larger gains in
moral judgement than did students. Thisfindingis significant to educators in
planning the appropriate ages to begin and end school curriculum focused on
values intervention. Anotherfindingthat is pertinent to the school curriculum is
that interventions of longer than twelve weeks have no more impact than
interventions of three to twelve weeks. Programs that do not extend for at least
three weeks tend to be ineffective (Schlaefli, Rest, and Thoma 1985, 346-347).
Certainly additional research is needed to define the critical components of
successful programs.
Sandra Hanson and Alan Ginsburg (1988) studied students and the
relationship of values and student success in high school performance. They have
published theirfindingson two extensive research studies conducted in 1983 and
1989. Much of their research was in private or parochial schools.
Their 1983 study involved 30,000 high school sophomores. The values
examined included religious values, work ethics, educational expectations of the
students, and the educational expectations of the students, parents, and peers
 42

(Hanson and Ginsburg 1988). Hanson and Ginsburg discovered that values were
influential to students' success, that
values held by adolescents, their parents and their peers influence high
school outcomes significantly and positively . . . [and] that values affect
school outcomes indirectly through the out-of-scnool behaviors such as time
spent on homework and watching television. (Hanson and Ginsburg 1988,
361)
Hanson and Ginsburg (1988) did not address how a school should
approach placing values instruction into the curriculum; however, they found that
in parochial schools where values instruction occurs along with supportive parent
and peer pressure, students' achievement increases.
Hanson and Ginsburg concluded from their 1983 study that
recently, considerable concern has been voiced over the declining quality of
American education. A number of educators and scholars have suggested
that students attitudes and values may play a critical role in raising the
academic quality of American schools. Ourfindingssupport these
suggestions; when students, their parents, and their peers believe in values
and accompanying behaviors that stress responsibility, students have a
better chance of achieving success in high school. . . Values (and the
efforts they spur) may be more conducive to change and hence may allow
more equality oi opportunity than would be the case if family
socioeconomic status and or students innate ability were the only
determinants of school achievement. (Hanson and Ginsburg 1983, 361)
Ginsburg and Hanson followed their earlier studies with additional
research studies in 1988 and 1989. Again, high school sophomores were utilized
in their study. Theirfindingsconcurred with their earlier study that certain
values, such as high educational expectations, self-esteem, and responsibility,
consistently lead to success in high school (Ginsburg and Hanson 1990, 1-3).
They found that high performers were 43 percent more likely to believe that it
pays to make plans for the future, 163 percent more likely to indicate that they
work hard in school, 131 percent more likely to have a mother who thinks they
should attend college, and 96 percent more likely to have Mends in school who
think well of students with good grades. Another significantfindingwas that
 43

students' success-related outcomes were not only academic, but were also critically
linked to behaviors associated with drug use and sexual relations.
Ginsburg and Hanson (1990, 14) discuss certain intervention strategies that
appear to be successful. They suggest that direct instruction of students in values
can prove to be beneficial. Ginsburg and Hanson cite successes in parochial
schools where instruction in morality is part of the formal curriculum. They
support the view that teaching certain values or attitudes should be considered,
because their research identified increased school and vocational success by
individuals from schools where values and morality were taught.
Other successful intervention activities mentioned by Ginsburg and Hanson
(1990) are programs that demand parent and family involvement, particularly in
drug prevention programs. Ginsburg and Hanson point to the success of the High
Scope Preschool Curriculum Project in Ypsilanti, Michigan, which models a
developmental approach to the education of children based on the theories of
Piaget. Cooperative learning approaches to instruction appear to be beneficial in
improving academic performance and in improving relationships among students
from different ethnic backgrounds. Mentoring programs have proven to be
successful in improving students' motivation, attitudes toward education, self-
esteem, and self-confidence (Ginsburg and Hanson 1990, 19, 27).

Role of the School and Educational Leaders

Community Characteristics and Controversial

Curriculum Change
School administrators operate within a zone of tolerance, where they are
free to exercise their professional judgement without arousing local conflict. The
magnitude of this zone varies according to the type of community and the type of
 44

issue or policy question faced. Rural districts and districts located in the sun belt
tend to be in communities that are more conservative. Individuals in these
communities are more sensitive and restrictive about course content and,
consequently, the zone of tolerance is relatively narrow (Boyd 1979, 97). While
these communities might resist programs such as values clarification that challenge
community values, they might also be more receptive to programs promoting
conservative values than are other communities.

Role of Principals in Implementing Values Education

This review of the literature could not be complete without examining the
role of educational leaders. Effective school studies have consistently emphasized
that campus principals must take an active part in school improvement. The
central role of the principal has been viewed as that of building manager,
administrator, politician, change agent, and instructional leader (Smith and
Andrews 1989). If values education programs are to be successful in our schools
they must include the hands-on involvement of campus principals. Researchers of
educational literature discuss many of the competencies necessary for successful
leadership. Recent studies of leadership provide insights into the role of the
administrator in shaping the values of the organization (Bennis and Nanus 1985;
DePree 1989; Peters and Waterman 1982).
A primary leadership quality for educational leaders is having a focused
vision. By focusing attention on a vision, a leader operates on the emotional and
spiritual resources of the organization, on its values, commitment, and aspirations
(Bennis and Nanus 1985, 92). Max DePree (1989, 15) states that an
organization's momentum is derived from a clear vision of what the corporation
ought to be, from a well-thought-out strategy to achieve that vision, and from
 45

carefully conceived and communicated directions and plans which enable everyone
to participate and be publicly accountable in achieving those plans. Bennis and
Nanus (1985, 96) also observed that it is the leader's responsibility to state and
promote the vision; however, the leader must also be a superb listener. Leaders
must establish formal and informal communication networks and respond to a
multitude of advisers, consultants, and planners from outside the organization, in
addition to others within the organization, who bear their hopes, dreams, and
aspirations.
Another important aspect of leadership relates to organizational skills.
Some refer to this attribute as organizational fluidity. Peters and Waterman, in
their often referenced book, In Search of Excellence, describe organizations that
operate efficiently as having a bias for action. The leadership role in these
efficient companies is occupied by individuals who are capable of communicating
informally, who use devices such as task forces, and who spur the organization
forward with quick action (Peters and Waterman 1982). Programs do not happen
incidentally in school districts. Successful education programs are led by
principals who exhibit these same attributes of successful leadership. Leaders for
change practice site based decision making and promote collaborative decisions
(Thurston, Clift, and Schacht 1993, 127). Effective leaders use the ad hoc task
force as the building block for organizational structure. Ad hoc groups are found
to work best when they consist of teams of volunteers, are of limited duration,
and set their own goals.
Leaders of successful programs, which include values education programs,
generally practice roving leadership. Roving leadership is a key element in the
day-to-day expression of a participative process. Participation is the opportunity
and responsibility for individuals to have a say in their jobs, to have influence over
 46

the management of organizational resources based on their own competence and

their willingness to accept problem ownership. No one person is an expert at
everything (DePree 1989, 41-42). Administrators must be attentive to their system
because they are the glue that holds loosely coupled systems together (Weick
1982, 675-676). To accomplish this function, administrators must get out of their
office and spend lots of time one-on-one with workers-both to remind people of
central visions and to assist them in applying these visions to their own activities.
Supporting this reasoning, Lickona (1988) encourages active involvement of
administrators in values education program implementation.
One problem that school leaders face in implementing a program such as
values education is getting the public aligned behind the program's goals. Bennis
and Nanus (1985, 120-121) refer to this role of active leadership as management
of meaning or meaning through communication. In order for any program to be
successful, the organization must recognize opposition within the organization. It
is of utmost importance to open the channels of communication within an
organization's internal culture. Successful decision making is participative and
encourages a bottom-up flow of ideas aimed at generating consensus around all
issues. This means that all people who effect or are affected by a decision have a
say in the decision. One outcome of organizations' demonstration of such a
collegial style of operation is that power, influence, and status are based on
recognition rather than hierarchical position.

DePree (1989), who elaborates on the inclusive leadership style, describes

an institution as a place of fulfilled potential and leaders as thinking of themselves
as owing to the institution. Modeling of values-based leadership styles should be
perceived as a component of the values education program in a school.
 47

Being faithful is more important than being successful. If we are

successful in the world's eye but unfaithful in terms of what we believe,
then we fail in our efforts at insidership.
Corporations [schools] can and should have a redemptive purpose.
We need to weigh the pragmatic in the clarifying light of the moral. We
must understand that reaching our potential is more important than
reaching our goals.
We need to become vulnerable to each other. We owe each other
the chance to reach our potential.
Belonging requires us to be willing and ready to risk. Risk is like
change, it's not a choice.
Belonging requires intimacy. Being an insider is not a spectator
sport. It means addmg value. It means being fully and personally
accountable. It means foregoing superficiality.
Last, we need to be learners together. The steady process of
becoming goes on in most of us throughout our lifetimes. We need to be
searching for maturity, openness, and sensitivity. (DePree 1989, 61)

Supervisory Role In Values Education

The supervisory function of leadership is another very important aspect of
values education. Just as values and morality are contemporary issues concerning
the instructional program, recent researchers have examined the role of values
and morality in supervision. In his essay Moral Authority and the Regeneration
of Supervision. Sergiovanni (1992) defines sources of authority. He delineates five
broad sources of authority as being bureaucratic, psychological, technical-rational,
professional, and moral. The pinnacle of supervisory practice is defined by moral
practice. Sergiovanni defines this moral source of authority in the following
terms:
Moral Authority-Felt obligations and duties derived from widely
shared community values, ideas, and ideals. Teachers respond to shared
commitments and interdependence.
Assumptions-Schools are professional learning communities.
Communities are defined by their center of shared values, beliefs, and
commitments. In communities what is considered right and good is as
important as what works and what is effective. People are motivated as
much by emotion and beliefs as by self-interest. Collegiality is a
professional virtue.
Supervisory Strategy-Identify and make explicit the values and
beliefs that define the center of the school as community. Translate these
values and beliefe into informal norms that govern behavior. Promote
 48

collegiality as internally felt and morally driven interdependence. Rely on

ability of community members to respond to duties and obligations. Rely
on the community's informal norm system to enforce professional and
community values.
Consequences-Teachers respond to community values for moral
reasons. Their practice becomes collective, and their performance is
expansive and sustained. (Sergiovanni 1992, 209)
Sergiovanni (1992) advocates that our society bond with increased
collegiality into learning communities. Institutions of these communities have the
moral obligation to serve through the communities' value norms that guide
behavior to reach valued ends. External supervision is no longer needed within
systems such as these; self introspection by the individual is all that is required.
In this section, leadership has been discussed from various perspectives.
Each generation seems to provide scholars who articulate their particular
definition or point of view. Consensus for depicting qualities of leadership may
be difficult to attain; however, one thing is evident-without effective leadership,
programs and organizations are destined to failure.

Summary
Values and the concept of teaching values in our schools have historically
created, and continue to create, diversity of opinion as to definition and how they
are acquired and replicated within society. Values are defined by some as
universal, unchanging truths, and by others as changing ambiguous societal norms.
Values education, or the inclusion of values instruction in public schools, is whole-
heartedly endorsed by some and violently opposed by others. This literature
review provides an overview of the thoughts and opinions of educators,
psychologists, researchers, politicians, and others concerning values and values
education, and the theories and published research projects underlying many of
their ideas. Review of the literature points to a need for additional research,
 49

particularly in the public school sector, concerning how values are defined in
public schools today and whether or not values are being taught in public schools.
This research study provides descriptive information and research data
about values education programs in Texas elementary schools. Information is
added to the body of literature concerning principals' perceptions of values
education programs in Texas elementary schools with values education programs,
and provides survey information concerning those programs. The research design
of this study is not intended to promote or repress the concepts that values should
or should not be taught in public schools.
 CHAPTER 3

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

In this study, data were collected through a telephone survey of Texas

elementary school principals. A survey makes it possible to measure what
individuals know, what they like and dislike, and what they think (Alreck and
Settle 1985). There are advantages and disadvantages with this form of research.
Survey techniques provide advantages such as providing respondents with privacy,
confidentiality, and convenience (Alreck and Settle 1985; Isaac and Isaac 1984);
allowing more persons to be contacted from wide geographic areas; and assuring
that each respondent receives the same set of questions stated in the same way
(Isaac and Isaac 1984). Disadvantages of using surveys include costs which are
sometimes substantial (Alreck and Settle 1985; Isaac and Isaac 1984); a threat of
question misunderstanding (Alreck and Settle 1985; Isaac and Isaac 1984); and the
possibility that respondents may not answer all of the questions (Alreck and Settle
1985; Isaac and Isaac 1984). Using correct survey procedures such as measuring
the instrument for clarity, avoidance of technical terms, keeping the instrument as
brief as possible, and avoidance of biased or leading questions can minimize these
disadvantages (Borg and Gall 1983).

Population
Elementary school principals from Texas public schools were the target
population for this survey. A stratified random sampling technique was used to
ensure representativeness with respect to properties which form the basis of
classifying units (Miller 1983, 64). A stratified list of elementary school campuses

50
 51

in Texas, developed by the Texas Education Agency for the Academic Excellence
Indicator System (AEIS) Report in October 1991, was used to select the sample.
Information for the grouping of school districts on the AEIS report was obtained
from Texas Education Agency Public Education Information Management System
data, information collected on the Texas Assessment of Academic Skills, and from
the State Properly Tax Board.
The stratified list used for this study was the Academic Excellence
Indicator System 1991 Grouping Index of Elementary Schools developed by the
Texas Education Agency. This document includes all elementary campuses in
Texas indexed and ranked according to five demographic variables. These
variables are the percentage of economically disadvantaged students, the
percentage of ethnic students, per student district wealth, the percentage of
limited-English proficient students, and the percentage of mobility. The group
index for each school campus was developed by assigning a factor of 40 percent to
economic disadvantage, 40 percent to ethnic considerations, 10 percent to wealth,
5 percent to limited English proficiency, and 5 percent to mobility. The
demographic groups are described by the Texas Education Agency as follows:
(D percentage of economically disadvantaged students (weighted 40%);
(2) percentage of minority students (weighted 40%); (3) district wealth
(weighted 40%); (4) student mobility (weighted 5%); (5) percentage of

at a
campus level from PEIMS student data. District wealth is calculated by
the State Property Tax Board. Student mobility is the percentage of
students taking the TAAS test who were continuously enrolled in the
school district for less than two years, calculated at the district level.
Schools are placed on a continuum according to their demographics.
(Texas Education Agency 1991)
For this study, the list of indexed schools was divided into four percentage
quartiles based on campus index numbers. On the basis of this index, the
grouping of schools exhibited the following demographics:
 52

Group A (l%-25%)
Low percentage of economic disadvantaged students
Low percentage of ethnic populations
High wealth
Low percentage of limited English proficient students
Low mobility
Group B (26% to 50%)
Median to low percentage of economic disadvantaged students
Median to low percentage of ethnic populations
Median to high wealth per student
Median to low percentage of limited English proficient students
Median to low mobility
Group C (56% to 75%)
Median to high percentage of economic disadvantaged students
Median to high percentage of ethnic populations
Median to low wealth per student
Median to high percentage of limited English proficient students
Median to high mobility
Group D (76% to 100%)
High percentage of economic disadvantaged students
High percentage of ethnic populations
Low wealth per student
High percentage of limited English proficient students
High mobility
A telephone survey was administered to 310 elementaiy principals taken
from this list. A random sample of 100 principals of schools from each of the
 53

identified quartiles was generated to produce a list of 400 potential respondents.

Calls were then placed to principals within each quartile until approximately 75
valid survey responses were received from within each group.
As is necessary with any indexed list of schools based on weighted
demographics, caution was used in assigning group characteristics to individual
schools within a particular group. For example, an individual school campus with
an extremely high percentage of economically disadvantaged students indexed at
40 percent actually may have a low student mobility factor indexed at 5 percent,
yet be considered in a grouping of schools indexed for high percentage of
economically disadvantaged students and high mobility. The overall demographics
of the group are consistent; however, individual school characteristics may differ
from the group characteristics.
One problem encountered in survey research is in determining a suitable
sample size. A sample of 310 represents approximately 10 percent of the total
population of 3,091 elementary school principals in Texas.
it is seldom necessary to sample more than 10 percent of the population to
obtain adequate confidence, providing that the resulting sample is less than
about 1,000, and larger than the minimums noted earlier (100). Thus, for a
population of 1,000 units, the experienced researcher would probably
consider a sample size of about 100 or so. For a population of 5000 units,
the minimum practical sample would be 100 or so, and the maximum
would be approximately 500, or 10 percent. (Alreck and Settle 1985, 89)
Sample size may be even smaller when surveying a homogenous population
(Berdie, Anderson, and Niebuhr 1986). Krueckeberg and Silvers (1974, 110-115)
provide formulas for determining approximate sample size. The calculated sample
size using these formulas is 352. Thus, the sample size of 310 falls within
accepted practice for a population of 3,091.
Caution must be taken however when analyzing data between the groups
A, B, C, and D where the sample size drops to seventy-five. Alreck and Settle
 54

(1985, 88) warn that "a sample of less than about 30 respondents will provide too
little certainty to be practical." The group sizes exceed 30 respondents, but the
sample is so small that results should be very homogeneous to be considered as
having an adequate confidence interval. Sample sizes near 100 should be about
90 percent homogeneous in order to provide a 95 percent confidence level
(Babbie 1973, 376).

Development of the Survey Instrument

A draft survey instrument was developed for this study. The literature
review and the research questions provided the basis for the development of items
on the survey instrument. Broad categories and definitions of values on the
survey instrument were taken from a survey administered in District of Columbia
area schools (Tuck and Albury 1990). The placement of values into broadly
defined categories is widely supported in research. Lickona (1991) categorizes
values in terms of religious or spiritual values, social values, moral values, and
self-respect and self-responsibilily values. Ryan (1988) refers to categories of
social, moral, and educational values in discussing moral education in the school.
MacDonald (1972), in his noted classification of terminal values, certainly alludes
to similar categories, though termed differently; for example, he lists equality
values-brotherhood and opportunity for all; family values-taking care of family;
social values-respect for others; self-respect values-promoting self-esteem; and
wisdom values-understanding and learning.
The draft survey instrument was submitted to an advisory panel to obtain
face validity for the completed survey. The panel consisted of two university
professors, two independent school district curriculum specialists, and one
education service center curriculum specialist. The panel members were asked to
 55

assess the instrument for item relevancy, clarity, and appropriateness. Panel
members were asked to complete an evaluation instrument which allowed them to
respond as to the validity of each question on the survey (Appendix C). As a
result of this review by panel members, some formatting changes were made to
the instrument and one question was removed.
Originally, the survey instrument was to be mailed to the sample
population; however a telephone survey was used instead in order to receive a
better response rate. The instrument was modified to accommodate telephone
responses. The revised survey was submitted for review by the university
professor heading the Survey Research Laboratoiy of the University of North
Texas to assess the usability level for telephone collection of data. The
instrument was approved.
The "Survey of Values Education Programs in Texas Public Elementary
Schools" instrument (Appendix D) was then submitted to a second panel. This
panel consisted of two university professors, two elementary principals, and one
high school English teacher. Panel members were asked to assess the instrument
regarding clarity, length of time required for completion, and the format. Panel
members were provided an instrument on which to report their assessment of the
survey (Appendix E). All members responded with a top rating for clarity, length,
and format.

Collection of Data
The survey instrument was given to the Survey Research Laboratoiy of the
University of North Texas for administration to the sample of principals. The
Survey Research Laboratoiy is a professionally operated laboratory, specifically
designed and monitored to assist in telephone survey research projects.
 56

Individuals performing the actual phone survey have been trained in the proper
performance and etiquette for conducting research projects. Data were collected
using the survey instrument and were returned for analysis.
The survey instrument was administered to 310 principals from the
previously generated stratified list of principals. Principals were randomly selected
from each group and valid telephone survey results were collected from 77
principals within Group A, 79 from within Group B, 77fromwithin Group C, and
77 from within Group D. The principals were informed that their responses
would be kept confidential and that no school or person would be identified in
any manner. Those administering the survey instrument recorded results by code
number only, and not by name. Due to the successful response rate received in
the original survey of principals, no follow-up activities were necessary.

Analysis of Data
Data for this research were analyzed using standard statistical procedures.
Generally, the first analysis completed in a study such as this is the creation of a
frequency distribution (Kachigan 1986, 42). This analysis yields data as a concise
overview that is not possible from unorganized observations. Relative frequencies
give percentage of responses to survey questions. Cumulative relative frequencies
from the data were derived to show the percentages of the total observations of
the data of a particular value (Kachigan 1986, 32).
In addition tofrequencydistributions, information gleaned from this survey
was examined to determine whether it differed or was related by group
characteristics. In statistical terms, an attempt was made to determine whether
qualitative variables were related to one another. To determine whether the
 57

observed frequencies differed significantly from the expected frequencies of

occurrence, the chi-square statistic was used (Borg and Gall 1983, 559).
Another statistical test, the t-test, was used to measure differences between
independent means of interval data. The t-test was used to determine if
significant differences occurred from expected norms when two variables were
compared (Borg and Gall 1983, 544).
A final statistical analysis was made using analysis of variance. Some of the
data from this study were amenable to comparisons that vaiy on more than one
variable. This statistic, which tests the presence of a relationship between
variables (Kachigan 1986, 273), was particularly useful in measuring differences
between demographic groups in the study.
The data analysis of survey results are presented in tables and script,
followed by an explanation of responses. Presentation of each statistical measure
is followed by a summary of findings.
 CHAPTER 4

PRESENTATION OF DATA

Introduction

Thefindingsof the study are presented in this chapter. The results are
organized according to the six research questions. The data in this chapter
present the results of the "Survey of Values Education Programs In Texas Public
Elementary Schools" instrument which was administered by telephone to
elementaiy principals in Texas schools. A random sample of public elementaiy
school principals stratified by groups determined by the Texas Education Agency
was drawn. As discussed in Chapter 3, the principals were divided into four
quartiles according to their schools' indexed position on the Academic Excellence
Indicator System 1991 Grouping Index of Elementary Schools developed by the
Texas Education Agency.
The telephone survey technique was used to enhance this study by ensuring
approximately equal sample sizes among the four groups. Five different
demographic criteria were used in developing the index; however, schools in
Group A tended to be high wealth districts with a low percentage of economically
disadvantaged students; schools in Group B tended to be median to high wealth
districts with a median to low percentage of economically disadvantaged students;
schools in Group C tended to be median to low wealth districts with a median to
high percentage of economically disadvantaged students; and schools in Group D
tended to be low wealth districts with a high percentage of economically

58
 59

disadvantaged students. Examination of Table 1 reveals that the survey sample of

310 was evenly distributed among the four groups. The total population of
elementary school principals in Texas in 1991 was 3,091 (Texas Education Agency
1991).

Table l.-Demographic/Wealth Distribution of Sample Schools

Group Frequency Percent

A 77 24.8
B 79 25.5
C 77 24.8
D 77 24.8
Total 310 100.0

The principals were asked to indicate whether their campuses were located
in an urban, suburban, or rural area. The data in Table 2 indicate that 31.9
percent of the schools sampled were located in urban areas, 26.8 percent were
located in suburban areas, and 39.4 percent were located in rural areas. The

Table 2.--Location of Sample Schools

Location Frequency Percent

Urban 99 31.9
Suburban 83 26.8
Rural 122 39.4
No Response 6 1.9
Total 310 100.0
 60

sample of principals responding to the survey represented a good cross-section of

schools in Texas based on multiple demographic variables.

Values Education Programs in Texas Elementary Schools

Research Question 1: To what extent are commercially or locally
developed values programs in place in Texas public elementary schools?
Responses to five items were analyzed in order to answer the first research
question. The principals reported on the use of commercially and locally
developed curricula, other approaches to teaching values, adoption of board polity
on values education, and whether emphasis on values had changed in the past
three years.

Use of Curricula
Approximately one-third (109 schools) of the principals surveyed reported
that their school had a specific curriculum in place for values education. Of the
109 schools, 43 (40.6 percent) used a commercial program and 63 (59.4 percent)
used a locally developed curriculum. The use of specific commercial programs is
shown in Table 3. A discussion of these commercially developed materials is
provided in Chapter 2 of this study.
The most frequently used materials were from the San Antonio-based
American Institute for Character Education, with programs in 21 of the campuses.
Examination of Table 3 reveals that "other" programs were used by 59 of the
school districts. The drug education program DARE was the most frequently
reported "other" program, with 14 schools reporting its use.
 61

Table 3.~Commercial Programs in Use

Schools reporting programs

Source
Number Percent
American Institute for
Character Education 21 16.4
Quest International 17 13.2
Project Charlie 13 10.1
DARE 14 10.9
StarServe 12 9.4
Center for Civic Education 6 4.7
Other 45 35.2
Total (Only schools 128
reporting values
curriculum)

Note: Total exceeds 109 because some schools are using more than one program.

Approaches Other Than Formal Curriculum

The principals were asked if their schools were using any of six surveyed
approaches to including values in the curriculum. The frequencies reported for
these programs by the surveyed schools are shown in Table 4.
The more extensive an approach was, the less likely it was to be adopted.
An extensive array of approaches were in use. Most schools (73.5%) had invited
guests to speak to students on values-centered topics. Less than one-third of the
schools had added courses to their schedules. Except for the addition of courses
into the curriculum, over half of the principals reported instituting the remaining
five alternatives. It is noteworthy that 29 percent had added specific courses to
the crowded elementary school curriculum.
 62

Table 4.--Approaches to Including Values Education in the Curriculum

Schools
Approach
Number Percent
Added new courses 89 28.7
Added units to existing courses 184 59.4
Encouraged teachers to teach lessons 180 58.1
Provided inservice 163 52.6
Invited special guests to speak 228 73.5
Student volunteer programs 166 53.5
Total 1^010 100.0

Note: Some schools used more than one approach (N = 310).

As shown in Table 5 schools were using multiple approaches to teaching

values. Only 14 schools (4.5%) reported using none of the approaches for values
instruction. Seventy-three percent of the schools were using 3 or more combined
approaches for purposes of promoting values in their schools. Ninety-four percent
of the schools with a values education curriculum were using 3 or more
approaches, while 64 percent of the schools without a values curriculum were
using 3 or more approaches. This indicates that the schools were actively involved
in values education, 64 percent of the schools without a values curriculum were
using 3 or more approaches to stress values. A question can be raised here
concerning the definition of values curriculum by some principals. It seems that if
schools are actively involved with activities promoting values, some type of
curriculum would be in place. It appears that some of the schools were involved
in values instruction activities without addressing these activities in a formal
curriculum.
 63

Table 5.—Frequency with which Schools Are Using Multiple Approaches

Question: How many of the following programs has your school instituted to
teach values to students: added courses, added units, encouraged to teach
lessons, provided inservice, invited special guests, student volunteer programs?
Schools with Schools W/O
Values Values
Number of All Schools Curriculum Curriculum
Approaches Used Frequency Frequency Frequency
0 14 1 13
1 30 2 28
2 40 8 32
3 73 15 58
4 85 47 38
5 65 34 31
6 2 2 0
Total 309 109 200

Most school campuses (73%) included 3 or more of the approaches

discussed for some type of values emphasis. The 3 most popular approaches were
inviting special guests, adding units to existing curriculum, and encouraging the
teaching of individual lessons on values. A significantfindingusing chi-square is
that the schools with a values curriculum were more likely to use 3 or more
approaches for values emphasis. The data in Table 6 reveal that 90 percent of the
schools with a values curriculum were using 3 or more approaches to values
instruction. Only 63 percent of the schools without a values curriculum were
using 3 or more approaches to values instruction.
 64

Table 6.--Chi-Square of Schools with Values Curriculum to Multiple Approaches

of Values Instruction

Without With
Formal Values Curriculum Number Percent Number Percent
Less than 3 approaches 73 37 11 10
More than 3 approaches 127 63 98 90
Total 200 100 109 100

Note: Chi-square = 24.856, DF = 1, Significance (P) = .0000.

Emphasis Schools Are Placing on Values

To determine the degree of emphasis that schools place on values
education, respondents were asked whether their districts had placed more
emphasis, less emphasis, or about the same degree of emphasis on values
education in the last three years. Over half of the principals (54.2%) reported no
change in emphasis, whereas 36.5 percent reported an increase, and 7.1 percent
reported a decrease in emphasis placed on values education.

The Effect of Values Emphasis on Having a Curriculum

Slightly more than a third (37.5%, N = 113) of the schools had placed
more emphasis on values education in the last three years. Half (50.1%) of the
principals with values curricula, but only 29.9 percent of those without values
curricula, reported an increased emphasis on values education (Table 7).
The chi-square statistical test was used to determine if significant
differences existed between schools with a formal curriculum for values instruction
and those without one in the degree of emphasis placed on values instruction by
the school in the past three years. Principals in schools with a values education
curriculum reported increased emphasis on values instruction during the past
 65

Table 7.~Values Curriculum and Emphasis on Values Education

Emphasis
Curriculum
in School More Less Same Row Total
Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent

No 58 29.9 14 7.5 14 7.2 122 62.9

Yes 55 50.9 8 7.4 45 41.7 108 100.0

Total 113 37.4 22 7.3 167 55.3 302 100.0

Note: Chi-square = 13.85, DF = 2, Significance (P) = > .00098.

three years more frequently than did principals from schools without a values
curriculum. This suggests that the schools that placed more emphasis on teaching
values were more likely to adopt a formal values curriculum. Seventy percent of
the schools without a curriculum or values education reported less or the same
emphasis on values instruction, whereas 49 percent of the schools with a values
curriculum reported less or the same emphasis on values instruction in the past
three years.

The Effect of School Policies on Having a Curriculum

The relationship between having a values policy and having a specific
curriculum is shown in Table 8. Nearly half (46.9%) of the 298 principals
responding to the item on school policies were in districts with a board policy on
values education. However, the effect of such policies was not clear. Having a
policy in place did not insure that schools adopted a values curriculum. However,
schools with a curriculum were more likely to be in districts with a values policy
(60.2%, N = 65) than in districts with no policy.
 66

Table 8.--Values Curriculum and Board Policy

Policy
Curriculum in -
School Yes No Row Total Percent
No 75 115 190 63.8
Yes 65 43 108 36.2
Total 140 158 298
Percent 46.9 53.1 100.0

Note: Chi-square = 11.85, DF = 1, Significance (P) < .00057

Summaiy
Values education occurs in some way in ninety-five percent of Texas
elementaiy schools. Over one-third of the schools have a formal program, either
locally or commercially developed in place. Schools also use a wide variety of
other approaches. Nearly half of the schools are in districts with a policy on
values education. A majority of principals feel their emphasis on values has
remained the same over the past three years, while one-third feel it has increased.

Community Differences and Adoption of Values

Education Programs
Research Question 2: Does the adoption of values education programs
differ among categories of schools based on (a) student demographics, and
(b) type of community (rural, suburban, urban)?
The chi-square statistic was used to determine if the adoption of values
education policies by school boards differed among urban, suburban, and rural
communities. Forty-five percent of the schools surveyed were in districts that
adopted policies related to values instruction. As reported in Table 9, chi-square
analysis disclosed a difference among urban, suburban, and rural schools. Rural
 67

Table 9.~Type of Community and Relationship to Values Education Policies

Polity
Yes No
Row
Type Number Percent Number Percent Total Percent
Urban 55 57.0 41 43.0 96 32.7
Suburban 39 50.0 39 50.0 78 26.5
Rural 44 37.0 76 63.0 120 40.8
Total 138 46.9 156 53.1 294 100.0

Note: Chi-square = 9.507, DF = 2, Significance (P) = < .00861.

districts (37% with policies) were significantly less likely than urban districts (57%
with policies) to have adopted policies concerning values education. Schools in
suburban communities (50%) were closer in frequency to urban districts than to
rural districts. The chi-square statistic was also used to identify differences among
schools in rural, suburban, and urban communities and to determine whether they
had a formal values education curriculum. Again, principals of urban schools
(51%) reported having a values curriculum more often than did principals of
suburban (28%) and rural (29%) schools. Results shown in Table 10 reveal that
the percentages of rural and suburban schools that had a values education
curriculum were very similar.

Variables Related to Type of Community

Examination of Table 11 reveals that schools in urban districts were most
likely to develop their own curriculum, whereas suburban districts were most likely
to use a commercial program. Data in Table 11 show a significant difference
 68

Table 10.--Type of Community and Relationship to Values Education Curriculum

Curriculum
Yes No
Row
Type Number Percent Number Percent Total Percent
Urban 51 51.0 48 48.0 99 32.7
Suburban 23 28.9 60 72.0 83 27.4
Rural 35 29.0 86 71.0 121 39.9
Total 109 36.0 194 64.0 303 100.0

Note: Chi-square = 15.451, DF = 2, Significance (P) = > .00044.

Table 11.—Type of Community and Relationship to Locally Developed Curriculum

Local Curriculum
Yes No
Row
Type Number Percent Number Percent Total Percent
Urban 36 72.0 14 28.0 50 47.2
Suburban 9 41.0 13 59.0 22 20.8
Rural 18 53.0 16 47.0 34 32.1
Total 63 59.4 43 40.6 106 100.0

Note: Chi-square = 7.000, DF = 2, Significance (P) = > .03019.

among communities in preference for a locally developed curriculum. Most

schools in urban districts (72%) used a locally developed curriculum, whereas 41
percent of suburban and 53 percent of rural schools used their own curricula. A
chi-square statistic again was used to compare these data.
As previously discussed and reported, principals of schools were asked if
their schools placed more emphasis, less emphasis, or about the same emphasis on
 69

teaching of values. No significant differences were found between the three

variables and type of community (urban, suburban, rural). Results are shown in
Table 37.
No significant differences (Table 37) related to type of community were
found in implementing the six instructional alternatives (question 12), except for
"encouraged teachers to teach lessons on values, but not added courses or units to
the curriculum." While the majority of all school districts used this alternative
method of instruction (Table 12), urban and rural schools were more likely than
were suburban schools to encourage teachers to teach lessons on values.

Table 12.-Relationship Between Type of Community and Teaching

Values Lessons

Encouraged to Teach Lessons

Yes No
Row
Type Number Percent Number Percent Total Percent
Urban 62 78.0 17 22.0 79 32.0
Suburban 43 60.0 29 40.0 72 29.1
Rural 73 76.0 23 24.0 96 38.9
Total 178 72.1 69 27.9 247 100.0

Note: Chi-square = 7.818, DF = 2, Significance (P) = .02006.

Variables Related to School Groups

A chi-square test was used to test for differences between schools based on
demographic group measures other than type of district. As discussed in Chapter
3, the schools were divided into four groups based on demographic characteristics
of the school campuses. The same comparisons for groups were used in
chi-square tests as in the results for size, as presented earlier in this chapter.
 70

Group data were compared based on emphasis on values, different approaches to

teaching values, existence of a school values policy, existence of a values
curriculum in the school, and existence of locally developed curriculum. The chi-
square tests revealed no significant differences (Table 39) among the four groups
on measures except for some approaches to teaching values. Wealthy schools
were less likely to add new courses and to bring in special guests than were
schools in other groups.
However, as shown in Table 13, a significant difference was evident
between the groups that had a values education curriculum. Group D schools
were the most likely to have a values education curriculum in place. A direct
progression from lowest to highest was evident from Group A (18%), to Group B
(33%), to Group C (40%), to Group D (51%) in the occurrence of values
curriculum. As stated previously, Group A schools tended to be high wealth with
low numbers of economically disadvantaged students, whereas Group D schools
tended to be low wealth with high numbers of economically disadvantaged
students. Group B and Group C fell in between the extremes.

Principals' Responses to Student Values

Development in Schools
Principals believe their students are developing most values. Respondents
were asked to indicate the extent to which students in their schools had developed
11 values. A review of Table 14 reveals that the highest mean score (5.547) of the
11 values was the value "pride in one's race or culture." The principals rated all
11 values as being above the median rating (4.000), thus indicating their belief
that students had developed values to some extent beyond no development at all.
All values except "treating others justly" were rated above 5.0(H). Thirty-one
respondents chose not to answer concerning their "belief in God."
 71

Table 13.~Relationship of School Groups and Schools With Values Curriculum

Curriculum
Yes No
KOW
Group Number Percent Number Percent Total Percent
A 13 18.0 63 82.0 76 24.6
B 26 33.0 53 67.0 79 25.6
C 31 40.0 46 60.0 77 24.9
D 39 51.0 38 49.0 77 24.9
Total 109 35.3 200 64.7 309 100.0
Note: Chi-square = 19.992, DF = 3, Significance (P) = .00017.

Table 14.«Values Frequency

Question: On a scale of 1 to 7, with 1 representing not at all and 7 representing to a high

degree, to what extent do you feel students in your school have developed the following
values (appropriate to their age)?
Percentage
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NR MEAN SD
Honesty 00.3 01.0 06.1 16.8 38.1 28.4 09.0 00.3 5.133 1.09
Treat others justly 00.3 01.6 09.0 19.0 41.0 21.3 07.7 00.0 4.935 1.13
Belief in God 01.9 03.2 03.5 09.0 16.5 23.9 11.0 31.0 5.178 1.47
Respect ethnic 00.3 03.9 04.8 18.4 27.1 30.0 14.2 01.3 5.176 1.28
Citizenship 00.0 00.6 06.1 17.4 35.8 27.1 12.3 00.6 5.201 1.10
Compassion 00.0 00.3 08.1 15.5 35.8 27.4 12.3 00.6 5.195 1.12
Intellect growth 00.0 00.6 10.6 20.6 32.6 23.9 11.3 00.3 5.026 1.18
Respect oneself 00.0 01.3 07.7 19.7 28.1 31.6 11.3 00.3 5.152 1.17
Standing up 00.0 02.3 05.5 13.5 35.8 28.1 13.2 01.6 5.236 1.16
Pride in race 00.0 01.0 02.6 10.6 30.0 36.8 18.1 01.0 5.547 1.05
Dependable 00.0 01.0 07.7 23.5 33.2 25.5 08.7 00.3 5.010 1.12

Note: N = 310
 72

The principals also were asked to indicate the extent to which values were
emphasized in their schools in grades K through 2 and in grades 3 through 5.
Results are exhibited in Table 15 and Table 16. The highest rated emphasis for
grades K through 2 was "honesty and truthfulness," with a mean score of 6.069.
The highest rated emphasis for grades 3 through 5 was "being dependable and
reliable," with a mean score of 5.825. "Belief in God" had the lowest rated value
emphasis by schools at all grade levels. Although the mean rating was low, it is
noteworthy that 33 percent of the respondents rated "belief in God" as 5 or
higher. This is notable when viewed within the legal constraints of the concept of
separation of church and state.
Analysis of variance was used to test for differences between schools based
on the four demographic groups and size. Values emphasis of schools in grades K
through 2 and grades 3 through 5 were compared by district type of community
and demographic groups. The overall emphasis that the principals perceived that
their schools would be placing on values in the future was compared by type of
community and demographic groups. An overall group mean was determined for
questions 5 and 6 to facilitate the Tukey-HSD procedure in making the
comparisons.
No significant difference was found (Table 39) among urban, suburban, and
rural schools regarding the extent to which the schools were emphasizing values.
The principals were asked if they thought the schools would place more or less
emphasis on values instruction in the future. Again, no significant difference
related to size of the school was evident. However, as revealed in Table 17, 250
principals (81%) believed the teaching of values would receive more emphasis in
the future.
 73

Table 15.~Values Emphasis Grades K through 2

Question: On a scale of 1 through 7, with 1 representing not at all and 7 representing to a

high degree, to what extent to you feel the following values are emphasized in your school
in grades K through 2?
Percentage
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NR MEAN SD
Honesty 00.3 00.0 02.3 03.5 18.1 29.4 40.0 06.5 6.069 1.04
Treat others justly 00.3 00.3 02.6 06.8 13.5 33.5 36.5 06.5 5.986 1.10
Belief in God 21.6 04.8 03.2 07.1 12.9 08.7 11.0 30.6 3.791 2.29
Respect ethnic 00.3 00.6 05.5 07.1 15.2 30.6 32.9 07.7 5.815 1.24
Citizenship 00.3 00.3 02.9 05.5 17.7 30.6 36.1 06.5 5.955 1.11
Compassion 00.3 01.0 01.9 04.2 23.5 27.1 35.2 06.8 5.913 1.12
Intellect growth 00.3 00.3 01.6 09.7 22.3 28.1 31.0 06.8 5.803 1.12
Respect oneself 00.3 00.3 03.2 07.7 17.1 31.9 32.9 06.5 5.869 1.14
Standing up 00.3 01.3 05.5 11.6 27.4 22.3 24.5 07.4 5.481 1.26
Pride in race 00.3 00.6 01.9 09.7 23.2 25.5 31.9 06.8 5.779 1.16
Dependable 00.3 00.3 03.2 07.1 23.9 26.8 31.9 06.5 5.800 1.15

Note: N = 310

Table 16.~Values Emphasis Grades 3 through 5

Question: On a scale of 1 through 7, with 1 representing not at all and 7 representing to a

high degree, to what extent to you feel the following values are emphasized in your school
in grades 3 through 5?
Percentage
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NR MEAN SD
Honesty 00.6 00.0 03.5 10.3 22.6 26.1 34.5 02.3 5.770 1.20
Treat others justly 01.0 00.6 03.5 10.3 20.3 29.0 33.2 01.9 5.737 1.26
Belief in God 23.2 04.5 05.2 07.4 11.9 11.3 11.3 25.2 3.793 2.28
Respect ethnic 00.6 02.3 04.5 11.3 20.3 27.1 31.6 02.3 5.620 1.34
Citizenship 00.6 00.0 03.9 07.7 20.3 32.3 32.9 02.3 5.818 1.16
Compassion 00.6 00.3 03.5 11.9 21.3 28.7 31.0 02.6 5.699 1.22
Intellect growth 00.6 01.0 03.2 13.5 22.9 24.8 31.6 02.3 5.640 1.27
Respect oneself 00.6 01.3 02.9 11.0 19.0 30.6 32.3 02.3 5.736 1.25
Standing up 00.6 00.6 04.2 09.7 22.6 30.0 29.4 02.9 5.681 1.22
Pride in race 00.6 01.0 02.6 10.0 20.0 30.0 33.2 02.6 5.778 1.21
Dependable 00.6 00.0 02.9 08.7 22.9 29.0 33.5 02.3 5.825 1.16

Note: N = 310
 74

Table 17.~Summaiy Data on Future Emphasis on Teaching Values

Question: On a scale of 1 to 7, with 1 representing less emphasis and 7

representing more emphasis, in the future, do you believe that teaching values
wul receive more or less emphasis in the public school?
Value Frequency Percent Mean SD
1 06 01.9
2 06 01.9
3 16 05.2
4 24 07.7
5 70 22.6
6 107 34.5
7 73 23.5
No Response 08 02.6
Total 310 100.0 5.51 1.36

Using analysis of variance, a significant difference was found between

Group D and Groups A, B, and C concerning the extent to which values were
emphasized in schools in grades 3 through 5. The Tukey-HSD procedure results,
shown in Table 18, designate which groups differed at the jj < .05 level. The
group mean scores indicate that the principals from schools in Group A, Group B,
and Group C placed more emphasis on the 11 values given than did the principals
from Group D. This is especially interesting in light of the finding that Group D
schools were more likely to have a curriculum in place. No other significant
differences (Table 40) were found between groups when compared by emphasis
on values in grades K through 2, and principals' perceptions of future emphasis on
values instruction.
 75

Table 18.--Tukey Multiple Range Test: Group X Extent Values are Emphasized
Grades 3-5

Question: To what extent do you feel the following values are emphasized
in your school in grades 3 through 5?
Analysis of Sum Mean
Variance DF Squares Squares F P
Between groups 3 1820.75 606.91 5.1487 .0018
Within groups 223 26287.00 117.87
Group
Mean Group D B A C
55.977 GrpD
*
62.736 GrpB
*
62.913 Grp A
*
63.432 GrpC

Note: *Denotes pairs of groups significantly different at the p = .05 level.

N = 310.

Summary
Differences concerning the adoption of values education programs were
evident between school districts based on type and demographics. The urban
school districts were more likely (57%) to adopt board policies addressing values
education. The urban districts were most likely to have developed their own
values curriculum, whereas suburban districts were most likely to use a
commercial curriculum. Poor schools were most likely to have a formal values
curriculum in place. Principals from all of the schools indicated that they believe
values education will receive more emphasis in the future.
 76

Effects of Interest Groups

Research Question 3: What special interest groups (school board, school
administration, teachers, parents and community, and religious groups) affect the
introduction into the school curriculum of identified values education programs?
As previously stated, 35.2 percent of the principals reported having a values
education curriculum in their schools, and 36.5 percent of the principals reported
increased emphasis on the teaching of values in the past three years. This
research question was used to examine data concerning the influence that school
boards, school administrators, teachers, parents and community, and religious
groups exhibited in schools with values education programs or in schools with
increased emphasis on values instruction. Three survey items specifically targeted
this research question.
Examination of Table 19 reveals that the principals rated teachers as
having the most influence (mean score of 6.03) in producing change toward an
increased emphasis on teaching values. Almost three-fourths (74%) of the
principals gave a rating of 6 or 7 on teacher influence. Religious groups were
rated as having the least influence (mean score of 3.80), followed by school board
members (mean score of 4.54). The principals tended to rate religious group
influence at the extremes. Twenty-three percent gave a rating of 1, and 25
percent gave a rating of 6 or 7. All mean scores for each group were above the
median value of 4.0, except for religious group. This indicates that all of the
groups, with the exception of religious groups, were perceived as somewhat
influential in advocating change for values instruction in the schools.
 77

Table 19.~Summary of Influence Groups Toward Increased Emphasis on

Teaching Values

Question: On a scale of 1 to 7, with 1 representing no influence and 7 representing

highly influential, if your district has placed more emphasis on teaching values, to what
extent do you feel the following groups influenced the change in your school?
Value Rating (Percent)
Influences N Mean SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
School board 114 4.54 1.7 7.9 7.9 7.9 18.4 25.4 21.9 10.5
Administration 115 5.83 1.2 0.0 0.9 4.3 8.7 20.0 28.7 37.4
Teachers 115 6.03 1.2 1.7 0.0 2.6 3.5 18.3 28.7 45.2
Parents and
Community 115 5.05 1.3 1.7 2.6 7.8 18.3 31.3 22.6 15.7
Religious
groups 101 3.80 2.0 22.8 7.9 13.9 14.9 15.8 11.9 12.9

Some Schools Are Not Increasing Emphasis on Values

A different pattern of influence exists in keeping values education out of
the schools. Sixty-one percent of the principals surveyed reported that their
schools were not emphasizing values instruction to a greater extent or the
emphasis on values instruction had remained the same in the past three years.
Results given in Table 20 show that parents and community (mean 3.45) and
religious groups (mean 3.29) were viewed as having the greatest influence in
keeping values education instruction out of the curriculum. All groups received a
mean rating which was less than the median mean rating of 4.0, thus indicating
that the principals did not believe that any of the groups had exerted a great deal
of influence in keeping values instruction out of the curriculum. A rating of one
was the most frequent response of principals in all groups.
 78

Table 20.~Summary of Groups Influencing Keeping Values Education Out of the

Curriculum

Question: On a scale of 1 to 7, with 1 representing no influence and 7 representing

highly influential, if your district has not placed more emphasis on teaching values, to
what extent do you feel the following groups influenced keeping values education
instruction out of the curriculum?
Value Rating (Percent)
Influences N Mean SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
School board 182 2.68 2.01 47.8 11.0 7.1 13.2 8.2 5.5 7.1
Administration 185 2.70 1.94 43.8 13.0 11.4 11.4 8.6 5.9 5.9
Teachers 184 2.68 1.95 45.1 12.0 11.4 10.9 9.8 3.8 7.1
Parents and
Community 187 3.45 2.21 32.6 11.2 7.5 11.2 13.9 11.2 12.3
Religious
groups 182 3.29 2.34 39.0 11.5 7.7 5.5 11.0 9.9 15.4

Schools With Values Education Curriculum

Thirty-five percent of the principals surveyed reported that their schools
had a values education curriculum. As previously reported, the principals believed
that teachers had the greatest influence on values education emphasis in the
schools. The responses of principals who had a values education curriculum in
their schools when asked to identify the groups that opposed the implementation
of values education into the curriculum are reported in Table 21. There was very
little difference in the mean scores of the five groups, thus indicating equal
influence in opposition to the values curricula. The low mean score of all groups
indicates that the principals did not perceive a great amount of opposition to
implementing a values education curriculum in their school.
 79

Table 21.--Summary of Opposition Groups to Values Education Curriculum

Question: On a scale of 1 to 7, with 1 representing no influence and 7 representing

highly influential, to what extent do you feel each of the following groups resisted or
opposed the introduction of the values education program in your school?
Value Rating (Percent)
Opposition
Groups N Mean SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

School board 108 2.15 1.80 61.1 12.0 5.6 4.6 10.2 1.9 4.6

Administration 109 2.23 2.04 64.2 11.0 2.8 3.7 3.7 7.3 7.3

Teachers 109 2.35 1.97 57.8 9.2 10.1 5.5 5.5 4.6 7.3

Parents and
Community 109 2.63 2.02 48.6 12.8 5.5 12.8 7.3 5.5 7.3

Religious
groups 182 2.57 2.04 51.0 11.8 8.8 8.8 4.9 6.9 7.8

Other Variables Influencing an Increased Emphasis

on Values Education Programs
Analysis of variance was used to test for differences between demographic
groups (A, B, C, D) and to determine the degree of influence from the school
board, school administrators, teachers, parents and community, and religious
groups related to values education issues in the school districts surveyed. Data
from survey questions pertaining to these community groups were used for the
ANOVA technique to measure differences between school demographic groups.
No significant differences (Table 41) were found between school principals
from different school groups and their responses concerning the degree of
influence from the school board, administration, teachers, parents and community,
and religious groups in placing an increased emphasis on school values programs.
There also were no significant differences (Table 41) reported between school
groups and the opposition to the values education curriculum in place at various
 80

school campuses. No significant differences were observed between school groups

in the school districts where emphasis on values education had decreased.
Analysis of variance was used to test for differences between the responses
of principals from different types of communities (urban, suburban, rural)
concerning the degree of influence from the school board, school administrators,
teachers, parents and community, and religious groups on values education issues
in the surveyed school districts.
As reported in Table 19, the principals considered teachers to be highly
influential in encouraging their schools to place higher emphasis on teaching
values, particularly in the past three years. Rural teachers were viewed as exerting
more influence than urban teachers in placing a greater emphasis on teaching
values. Results reported in Table 22 show a significant difference between the
mean (6.3478) response regarding rural teachers as opposed to the mean (5.6977)
response regarding urban teachers. Suburban teachers were viewed as falling
between these two extremes.
The teachers group was the only group that exhibited a significant
difference in the comparison between community type and influence on placing
more emphasis on teaching of values in the schools. No significant differences
(Table 40) were indicated using ANOVA when comparing the influence of the
school board, administration, parents, and religious groups.

Variables Influencing Schools Where Emphasis on

Values Education Had Not Increased
Sixty-three percent of the principals reported that their schools were not
placing an increased emphasis on the teaching of values. These principals were
asked the degree of influence the school board, administration, teachers, parents,
 81

Table 22.~Tukey Multiple Range Test: Type of Community X Influence

of Teachers

Question: On a scale of 1 through 7, with 1 representing no influence and

7 representing highly influential, if your district has placed more emphasis
on teaching values, to what extent do you feel teachers influenced the
change in your school?
Analysis of Sum Mean
Variance DF Squares Squares F P
Between groups 2 9.41 4.70 3.3608 .038
Within groups 111 155.50 1.40
Group
Mean Group Urban Suburban Rural
5.6977 Urban
6.0000 Suburban
6.3478 Rural
*

Note: * Denotes pairs of groups significantly different at the j) = .05 level.

N = 304.

and religious groups had in keeping values education instruction out of the
curriculum. Examination of the means shown in Table 20 reveals that the
principals did not report a high level of influence from any of the groups.
However, a significant difference was evident between urban and rural districts on
the degree of influence from the school boards. Using analysis of variance, a
significant difference was found between the mean score reported from urban
principals (3.1321) and the mean score reported from rural principals (2.2027) on
the influence that school boards exerted in keeping values education instruction
out of the curriculum, as shown in Table 23. Results indicate that the principals
believed there was more influence from urban boards than from rural boards on
these issues.
 82

Table 23.--Tukey Multiple Range Test: Relationship Between Type of

Community and School Board Influence

Question: On a scale of 1 through 7, with 1 representing no influence and

7 representing highly influential, if your district has not placed more
emphasis on teaching values, to what extent do you feel the school board
influenced keeping values education instruction out of the curriculum?
Analysis of Sum Mean
Variance DF Squares Squares F P
Between groups 2 29.36 14.68 3.80 .024
Within groups 175 676.07 3.86
Group
Mean Group Rural Suburban Urban
2.2027 Rural
2.8627 Suburban
3.1321 Urban *

Note: *Denotes pairs of groups significantly different at the p = .05 level.

N = 304.

A significant difference was also evident in the degree of influence from

parents and community in keeping values education instruction out of the
curriculum. As shown in Table 24, the principals in suburban schools reported a
higher degree of opposition or resistance (mean 4.1273) from parents and
community in establishing a values education curriculum than did the principals in
rural schools (mean 2.9054).
Respondent schools from suburban communities that had not placed more
emphasis on values instruction reported the influence of religious groups toward
values education curricula more than did their rural and urban counterparts. As
revealed in Table 25, the principals in suburban schools reported a significantly
 83

Table 24.~Tukey Multiple Range Test: Relationship Between Type of

Community and Parent and Community Influences

Question: On a scale of 1 to 7, with 1 representing no influence and 7

representing highly influential, if your district has not placed more
emphasis on teaching values, to what extent do you feel parents and
community influenced keeping values education instruction out of the
curriculum?
Group
Group Mean Rural Urban Suburban
Rural 2.9054
Urban 3.3704
Suburban 4.1273 *

Note: *Denotes pairs of groups significantly different at the p = .05 level.

N = 182.

Table 25.~Tukey Multiple Range Test: Relationship Between Type of

Community and Religious Group Influence

Question: On a scale of 1 to 7, with 1 representing no influence and 7

representing highly influential, if your district has not placed more emphasis on
teaching values, to what extent do you feel religious groups influenced keeping
values education instruction out of the curriculum?
Group
Group Mean Rural Urban Suburban
Rural 2.6944
Urban 3.2642
Suburban 4.0755 *

Note: *Denotes pairs of groups significantly different at the j) = .05 level.

N = 177.

higher degree of opposition (mean 4.0755) from religious groups in establishing a

values education curriculum in their school than did principals in rural schools
 84

(mean 2.6944). The difference between urban (mean 3.2642) and suburban
schools was not as pronounced, but a difference was observed.
School boards, parents and community, and religious groups were the only
groups that exhibited a significant difference between type of community and
influence on keeping values instruction out of the curriculum. No significant
differences (Table 40) were indicated using ANOVA when comparing the
influence of teachers and administrators.

Variables Influencing Schools with a Values

Education Curriculum
Many of the school principals surveyed reported having a values education
program with a formal values education curriculum for instruction in place in their
school. The level of opposition to the values education programs by various
groups is reported in Table 21. In schools from different sized communities with
a values education curriculum, no significant differences in opposition to values
curriculum were observed from groups such as teachers, school administration,
school boards, parents and community, and religious groups. Results of analysis
of variance statistics concerning these variables are shown in Table 40.

Summary
The elementary school principals reported that teachers had the most
influence toward placing increased emphasis on values education programs. Rural
teachers were viewed as having greater influence than were urban teachers.
Suburban teachers' degree of influence was between the rural and urban teachers
and was not significantly differentfromeither group. Religious groups were
viewed as having the least influence; however, the influence of religious groups
was greater in suburban schools than in rural or urban schools.
 85

Some districts had not placed increased emphasis on values instruction.

Parents and community and religious groups were viewed by principals as having
the most influence in keeping values programs from being incorporated into the
schools. Principals in suburban schools reported a higher degree of resistance
from parents and community and religious groups in establishing values education
curriculum than did principals in rural schools. No significant differences were
found in relation to demographic groups (wealth, economic disadvantaged, etc.)
and degree of influence by school board, administrators, teachers, parents, and
religious groups.

Acceptance of Values Education

Research Question 4: What is the extent of school board, parent, and
community acceptance of the identified values education programs?
Thirty-five percent of the school principals surveyed reported having a
values education curriculum in their school. Three survey questions were used to
obtain data concerning the principals' opinions about the degree of acceptance
toward these values education programs by the school board, parents, and
community. Their responses provided insight into the success and acceptance of
values education programs currently offered in Texas elementary schools.
Results given in Table 26 indicate overall acceptance (mean 5.57) by
parents in the schools that had a values education program. Ninety-four percent
of the principals gave a rating of 4 (median index) or higher when asked to give
their opinion on the degree of parent acceptance of the values education program
in their school. Almost 27 percent of the principals gave a rating of 7, indicating
that they had received a veiy positive and favorable response from parents
regarding values education programs in their schools.
 86

Table 26.--Acceptance of Values Education Programs

Question: On a scale of 1 to 7, with 1 representing no benefit and 7 representing

highly beneficial, do you feel parents, community, and the school board consider your
school's values education program to be beneficial for students?
Value Rating (Percent)
Groups N Mean SD 1
Parents 108 5.57 1.20 0.9 0.0 4.6 9.3 32.4 25.9 26.9
Community 108 5.38 1.28 1.9 0.0 6.5 11.2 29.9 30.8 19.6
School board 108 5.77 1.17 0.9 1.9 0.0 9.4 20.8 37.7 29.2

The data in Table 26 also indicate an overall acceptance (mean 5.38) by

the community in the schools with a values education program. Ninety-two
percent of the principals gave a rating of 4 (median index) or higher when asked
for their opinions on the degree of community acceptance of the values education
program in their schools.
Further review of Table 26 indicates an overall acceptance (mean 5.77) by
the school board in the schools that had a values education program. Ninety-
seven percent of the principals gave a rating of 4 (median index) or higher when
asked for their opinions on the degree of school board acceptance of the values
education program in their schools.
Acceptance of the programs was so high that one would assume that there
would be no significant difference with other variables, such as type of community.
To gain this assurance, an ANOVA measurement was performed to assess the
relationship between type of community and the degree of acceptance of values
programs by parents, community, and the school board. Results are shown in
Table 27. No significant differences were noted.
 87

Table 27.—Type of Community Relationship to Values Program Acceptance by

Parents, Community, and School Board

Type of Community F
(Urban, Suburban, Values P
Rural) by
Parent acceptance .069 .933
Community acceptance .909 .405
Board acceptance .213 .808

Summaiy
Data gathered in this research study show wide support from school
boards, parents, and communities toward current values education programs.
Over 90 percent of the principals reported widespread support from these groups
for values programs in their schools. It should be noted, however, that the values
education curricula in most elementaiy schools tends to focus on behaviors such
as developing good citizenship, promotion of healthy, drug-free lifestyles, and
teaching respect for others and oneself. Curricula addressing these values are
generally non-controversial and readily accepted. A values education curriculum
targeted at more sophisticated and controversial topics such as birth control,
which might be found in secondaiy school curricula, may not garner such strong
support. The principals reported no significant differences in support from rural,
suburban, or urban communities.

Effects on Student Behavior

Research Question 5: What effects on student behavior do principals
attribute to values education programs?
The principals of schools that had values education programs were asked to
rate the benefit of the program on teaching responsibility to students, improving
 88

playground behavior, improving students' relationships with teachers, and

improving classroom behavior. Another objective of this research question was to
determine if schools with a values education program differed from schools
without a values education program in the degree of emphasis placed on specific
values. A statistical measure (t-test) was used to test for significant differences
between schools with a values curriculum and the emphasis the elementary
schools place on values development.
The results shown in Table 28 indicate that the principals of schools with
values education programs reported that their schools' programs were very
effective in helping to teach responsibility to students. An overall mean rating of
6.06 indicates broad acceptance and agreement on the benefits of values
education programs presently taught in elementaiy schools toward teaching
responsibility to students. Ninety-eight percent of the principals gave a rating of 4
(median index) or higher when asked to rate their schools' values education
programs in helping to teach responsibility to students.

Table 28.~Summaiy of Values Education on Teaching Student Responsibility

Question: On a scale of 1 to 7, with 1 representing no benefit and 7 representing

highly beneficial, has your school's values education program improved students'
responsibility, playground behavior, student-teacher relationships, and classroom
behavior?
Value Rating (Percent)
Improvements in N Mean SD
4
Student responsibility 109 6.06 1.07 0.9 0 0.9 7.3 12.8 37.6 40.4
Playground behavior 108 5.60 1.22 1.9 0 4.6 3.7 35.2 28.7 25.9
Student/teacher 108 5.63 1.08 0.9 0 2.8 8.3 27.8 39.8 20.4
relations
Classroom behavior 108 5.58 1.09 0.9 0 3.7 7.4 29.6 39.8 18.5
 89

One of the tenets of effective schools describes the importance of a

positive school climate. Playground behavior is a major factor in the elementaiy
school climate. A review of Table 28 reveals that the elementary principals from
schools with values education programs affirmed that the schools' values
education programs were very beneficial (mean 5.60) in improving behavior on
the playground. Ninely-four percent of the principals gave a rating of 4 (median
index) or higher when asked to rate their schools' values education programs in
improving students' behavior on the playground.
A key component of a positive classroom instructional environment is the
relationship between teacher and student A positive teacher-student relationship
helps motivate students to learn. Further examination of Table 28 reveals that
the principals in schools with values education programs reported improved
student relationships with teachers. The mean score of 5.63 indicates a high level
of benefit attributed to values education programs in elementaiy schools toward
improving student-teacher relationships. Ninety-six percent of the principals gave
a rating of 4 (median index) or higher when asked to rate their schools' values
education programs in improving students' relationships with teachers.
Another school climate factor involves the behavior of students in the
classroom. Positive student behavior in the classroom is necessaiy to promote
student learning, as well as student safely. Ninely-five percent of the principals
gave a rating of 4 (median index) or higher when asked to rate their schools'
values education programs in improving students' classroom behavior (Table 28).
The mean rating of 5.58 indicates that the principals recognized a benefit from
the schools' values education programs in improving students' behavior in the
classroom.
 90

As previously discussed in the analysis of Tables 14, 15, and 16, the
principals tended to view schools' emphasis on values to be greater than students'
demonstration of them. A statistical procedure (t-test) was used to test for
significant difference (< .05) between the schools with a values education
curriculum and the degree of emphasis that the schools placed on values in grades
K through 2 and grades 3 through 5. No significant difference was found (Table
29) due to the presence of a school curriculum. Schools emphasize values even if
they do not have a formally adopted values education curriculum. As explained
earlier, schools also use many other approaches to teaching values.

Table 29.~Relationship of Schools With Values Curriculum and Values Emphasis

on Grades K-2 and Grades 3-5

T-Test
Values Emphasis by SD F Value P
Grade
K through 2 10.4 1.31 .718
3 through 5 11.8 1.41 .712

Summary
The principals who had values programs in their schools believed their
programs had a positive benefit on the behavior of students. Overwhelmingly, the
principals indicated that students' responsibility, playground behavior, student-
teacher relationships, and classroom behavior had benefittedfromthe values
education programs offered in their schools. As high as 98 percent of the
principals rated their program as beneficial in at least one of these categories.
However, the schools were emphasizing values, even without a values education
curriculum.
 91

Principals' Acceptance of Values Education

Research Question 6: To what extent do principals accept values education
programs?
A final objective of this research project was to obtain data concerning the
degree of acceptance of values education programs by elementary principals in
Texas. The survey targeted the views of principals concerning their individual
attitudes toward the societal benefits of values education programs, their opinions
regarding the need to teach values in schools, their assessments of how well their
schools were doing in teaching students about values, and their sentiments about
continuation of existing values education programs in their schools.
Another objective of this research question was to obtain data to
distinguish differences between principals' attitudes toward values education based
on the type of community of the school they worked in, the demographic group of
their school campus, and from their personal beliefs. This information will be
beneficial in anticipating influences that affect the implementation of values
education programs or values instruction in schools.
The elementary principals were asked if they believed that values should be
taught in the public schools. Responses to this question, shown in Table 30,
reveal that almost 95 percent of the principals surveyed believed that values
should be taught in public schools.
A vast majority of the principals surveyed not only believed that schools
should teach values, but viewed values as an important aspect in maintaining a
free and democratic society. Almost 98 percent of the principals surveyed gave a
rating of 4 (median index) or higher when asked to indicate the need for students
 92

Table 30.--Summaiy: Principals' Opinions Concerning Teaching Values in Public

Schools

Question: In your opinion, should values be taught in public schools?

Frequency Percent
Yes, values should be taught 294 94.8
No, values should not be taught 10 3.2
No response 6 1.9
Total 310 100.0

to develop a greater sense of values in maintaining a free and democratic society.

The principals' mean rating of 6.32 (see Table 31) signifies a sense of urgency
regarding this concept.

Table 31.--Summary: Principals' Opinions Concerning Values and Maintaining a

Free and Democratic Society

Question: On a scale of 1 to 7, with 1 representing no need and 7 representing urgent

need, how important is the need for students to develop a greater sense of values in
maintaining a free and democratic society?
Value Rating (Percent)
N Mean SD
1
Response to need 309 6.32 1.07 .6 1.0 .6 2.6 14.6 19.4 61.2

Responding to the question "How well do you think your school is doing in
teaching students about values?" 87 percent of the elementary principals gave a
rating of 4 (median index) or higher. As revealed in Table 32, the principals gave
a mean rating of 4.893 to this survey question. This rating indicates that the
principals viewed their schools as giving a middle-of-the-road effort to teaching
 93

values. A marked difference was evident between the perceived need for values
(Table 31) and the actual delivery of values instruction in the schools (Table 32).
ANOVA analysis revealed that these perceptions were consistent regardless of
type of community or demographic group (Table 44).

Table 32.~Summaiy of Principals' Opinions Concerning Teaching Students About

Values

Question: On a scale of 1 to 7, with 1 representing no activity and 7

representing excellent job, how well do you think your school is doing in
teaching students about values?
Value Rating (Percent)
N Mean SD

Teaching of values 308 4.89 1.28 2.3 1.9 8.4 18.8 37.0 23.1 8.4

Approximately 95 percent of the principals surveyed indicated that they

believed values should be taught in schools. These principals often perceived an
urgent need for students to develop a greater sense of values in maintaining a free
and democratic society. A t-test for independent samples was used to identify a
significant difference between principals whofavoredvalues instruction in schools
and their response to the need for students to develop a greater sense of values in
maintaining a free and democratic society from those who did not favor values
instruction in schools. Results of the t-test are provided in Table 33.
The principals who believed that values should be taught in schools were
more likely to maintain that their schools were doing a better job of teaching
students about values. A t-test for independent samples was used to identify a
significant difference between the principals who favored values instruction in
 94

Table 33.~Relationship of Principals' Attitudes Toward Values Instruction and

Their Perceived Need to Develop in Students a Greater Sense of Values in
Maintaining a Free and Democratic Society

Question: On a scale of 1 to 7, with 1 representing no need and 7 representing

urgent need, how important is the need for students to develop a greater sense
of values in maintaining a free and democratic society?
Group Mean t-value 1-tail Probability
1 6.3379
1.86 .032
2 5.7000

Note: Group 1 Principals believe values should be taught in schools. Group 2

Principals believe values should not be taught in schools. N = 303.

schools and their responses concerning how well they perceived their schools
weredoing in teaching students about values from those who did not favor values
instruction in schools. The results of the t-test are provided in Table 34.

Table 34.--T-test: Comparison of Principals' Beliefs Concerning Teaching of

Values

Question: On a scale of 1 to 7, with 1 representing no activity and 7

representing excellent job, how well do you think your school is doing in
teaching students about values?
Group Mean t-value 1-tail Probability
1 4.9283
2.17 .015
2 4.0000

Note: Group 1 Principals believe values should be taught in schools. Group 2

Principals believe values should not be taught in schools. N = 303.

The survey instrument asked specific questions of the principals from

schools with a values education curriculum in place. The principals of schools
 95

with values education programs were asked if they thought the values education
program in their school was beneficial to students. As shown in Table 35, 100
percent of the principals with a values education program in their school rated the
program's benefits at the median level of higher. The mean rating of 6.31 given
by the principals indicates that they regarded the current values education
programs offered in elementary schools as highly beneficial.

Table 35.~Summaiy of Principals' Opinions About the Benefits of Their

Individual Schools' Values Education Program

Question: On a scale of 1 to 7, with 1 representing no benefit and 7

representing highly beneficial, do
doy^ou think your school's values education
program is beneficial for students?
Value Rating (Percent)
N Mean SD

Benefit of Values
Education program 109 6.31 .84 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.8 15.6 29.4 52.3

As noted in Table 35, the principals of schools with values education

programs reported them as highly beneficial for the students of their schools. As
reported in Table 36, this favorable response continued when the principals were
asked if they would like to continue the current values education program in place
at their school. One hundred percent of the principals reporting a values
education program in their schools indicated that they wanted to continue the
program.
Analysis of variance was used to test for differences between principals in
demographic groups (A, B, C, D) and their responses concerning the benefits of
the schools' values education programs. Data from the principals' responses
 96

Table 36.~Summaiy Data: Principals' Opinion Concerning Continuation of

Values Education Programs

Question: Would you like to have your school's values education program
continue?
Response Frequency Percent
Yes, it should be continued 108 100.0
No, it should not be 0 0.0
continued
No response 0 00
Total 108 100.0

about the benefits of their schools' values program were compared between
groups for the ANOVA technique. The same technique (ANOVA with Tukey)
was used to note differences between principals from urban, suburban, and rural
schools.
No significant differences (see Table 43, Table 44) were observed between
school principals from different school groups or between principals from different
sized communities concerning their assessment of the benefit obtained by the
students due to the schools' values education program. Principals from within all
demographic groups and from different sized communities rated their schools'
values education programs as being highly beneficial.

Summary
The data from this study are very clear on two important findings: First,
the principals of the Texas elementary schools surveyed believed that values
should be taught in schools. Second, the principals (100%) in schools with values
education programs believed their programs should continue. Ninety-five percent
of Texas elementary principals believed values should be taught in schools.
 97

Ninety-eight percent of the principals believed there are benefits to society from
values education. Eighty-seven percent of the principals reported that their
schools were doing at least an average job in teaching values to students. The
principals also reported a marked difference between the perceived need for
values development in schools and the actual delivery of values instruction in the
schools. This need was viewed as greater than the schools that were currently
delivering values instruction.
 CHAPTERS

SUMMARY, IMPLICATIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS,

AND CONCLUSIONS

The purpose of this study was to explore (a) commercially or locally

developed values programs that are in place in schools; (b) the relationship
between demographics such as district wealth, percentage of economically
disadvantaged students, percentage of ethnic students, percentage of limited
English proficient students, and percentage of mobility; and values education
programs; (c) the role of various interest groups in the introduction of values
education programs; and (d) the extent to which these programs are accepted by
various groups.
A questionnaire was developed and was administered using a telephone
survey to 310 elementary principals in Texas. Data gained from this survey were
reviewed and statistical procedures were used to further sort and analyze
accumulated information.
This chapter includes a summary of the results of the research into values
education programs in Texas public elementary schools. The chapter begins with
a summary of thefindingsof the values education questionnaire administered to
elementary principals. The next section contains suggestions of possibilities for
future research in the area of values education and implications for current
practice. The closing section provides conclusions gleaned from this research
study of values education programs.

98
 99

Summary of Findings
Iickona (1991, 1988, 1986), Wynne (1986), Ryan (1986), and other
proponents of values education programs for the public schools in our country,
could receive mixed signals concerning the condition of formal values instruction
in Texas. Most Texas elementary schools do not have a formal values education
program in place. Only 35 percent of the Texas schools surveyed reported having
a values curriculum. A positive indicator for proponents, however, is the fact that
most of the schools were involved in values instructional activities. Only 4.5
percent of the principals surveyed reported no activities addressing values
development. Over 90 percent of the principals surveyed rated their schools as
above the median on a seven-point scale in the amount of emphasis placed on
basic values such as honesty, respect for ethnic differences, compassion, and
dependability. Most of the principals believed that schools will continue to place
emphasis on values development in the future.
Texas elementary schools are using a variety of strategies for values
instruction. Many of these approaches, which are not included in a formal
curriculum, are referred to as the "hidden curriculum" or, more likely, regular
curriculum supplements. The most common approach for values instruction is to
invite resource persons to come and speak to the students. This approach is
utilized by districts with a formal values education curriculum as well as those
without a curriculum. Elementary schools all across Texas (74%) are reaching
outside their teaching staff to bring individuals into the schools to discuss values
issues. These school personnel may feel inadequate or uncomfortable in
addressing issues concerning values or may be simply allowing "outsiders" to
address controversial issues. Regardless of the reasons, the use of outside guests
is a common occurrence on elementary campuses.
 100

Other common approaches used in Texas schools include adding units and
specific lessons to existing instructional programs, providing in-service, and
initiating student volunteer programs. The majority of the surveyed schools
offered values instruction by adding units or specific lessons regardless of whether
there was a formal curriculum at the school or not Seventy-three percent of the
surveyed elementary schools were teaching about values by using three or more
approaches. Ninety percent of the schools with a formal values curriculum were
using three or more approaches in teaching values to students. One approach
which was not utilized in most elementary schools was the addition of specific
courses for values instruction.
Proponents for values education programs must continue their crusade,
however, because most Texas elementary schools do not have a formal values
education curriculum and have not increased their emphasis on values instruction.
Over 70 percent of the schools without a values curriculum reported the same
emphasis or less emphasis during the past three years. Seven percent of the
schools actually reported less emphasis than in previous years. These results are
very similar to the 1991 AASA study on values (Amundson 1991, 32). The AASA
study revealed that 65 percent of the schools in the United States were not
placing increased emphasis on values instruction. Considering all of the attention
values proponents are getting in the media and educational journals, one might
question why this is so.

There are many reasons schools are not placing increased emphasis on
values instruction. One reason, in Texas, is that schools often simply do not have
enough time to incorporate new programs. In recent years, greater emphasis on
testing and accountability for basic courses has been required by the State of
Texas. This testing often limits time for a new or "non-tested" curriculum.
 101

Another explanation is that school officials may believe that they are
already stressing values instruction and do not need more emphasis. Findings in
this study show that the principals believed their schools were doing a better than
average job in emphasizing values.
A perception persists among educators that values education continues to
be a controversial topic. Some principals simply may wish to avoid perceived
controversy. Results of this study reveal that this perception may be unwarranted
in most cases, but where this is a problem, it is a big one. Certainly there are
many other possible explanations, but this study reveals that formal values
instruction programs are not found in most Texas elementary schools.
Elementary schools without a formal values curriculum generally are
located in school districts without a formal board policy addressing values
instruction. This has broader implications for grade levels other than elementary.
Districts without specific policies regarding values instruction probably do not
have a formal values curriculum for their middle school and high school campuses
as well. It is noteworthy that 39 percent of the elementary campuses reporting no
formal values curriculum were located in school districts where a formal board
policy addressing values instruction was in place. This may suggest that values
instruction is seen more as a supplement to the formal curriculum than as a
specific component of the curriculum.
Many school districts in Texas, 35 percent of the surveyed schools, have a
functioning formal values education curriculum. These elementaiy schools have
increased emphasis on values instruction during the past three years. Most of
these districts have developed their curriculum at the local level; however, some
districts are using commercially available materials and programs as part of the
local curriculum.
 102

The previously mentioned AASA values study (Amundson 1991) noted five
major commercially available programs: Quest International, Center for Civic
Education, American Institute for Character Education, Project Charlie, and
StarServe. These five programs are also being used in Texas. This research study
revealed that almost 7 percent of the schools surveyed were using commercial
materials from the American Institute for Character Education. As noted earlier,
this curriculum is based on the belief that self-esteem promotes responsibility
among students. Another 6 percent of the surveyed schools were using materials
from Quest International. The Quest program places a strong emphasis on family
values and parental involvement to promote student success. The drug education
program DARE, not mentioned in the national study, has extensive use in Texas
schools (5 percent of surveyed schools). With over one-third of all surveyed
districts reporting use of some type of commercially available material, it is
evident that commercial companies will continue to produce and market products
for Texas schools. With this reported level of use of commercial products, there
appears to be a lucrative market for values instructional materials in Texas
schools.
Texas elementary schools may or may not have a formal curriculum for
values instruction, or they may or may not be using commercial products or
programs; but Texas schools most definitely address values as a part of their
instructional programs.
Texas is a large and diverse state. Texas school districts, which reflect this
diversity, range from large urban inter-city districts to small sparsely populated
rural districts, from wealthy property-rich districts to low wealth property-poor
districts. The student population is just as diverse, with students from high and
low socioeconomic areas and families, and many different ethnic populations
 103

speaking many different languages. To adequately research Texas schools, some

consideration must be given to this diversity. Researching the adoption of values
education programs required further insight to how different variables such as
community size and other demographic factors influenced the adoption of values
education programs in Texas schools. The significantfindingsconcerning values
program adoption and the relationship to urban, suburban, and rural schools are
as follows:

Urban Schools
Urban schools were the most likely to have a formal values education
curriculum. One possible explanation for this was the relatedfindingthat urban
schools were also most likely to have a board policy addressing values instruction.
Urban schools were the only category in which a majority of the surveyed schools
had both a board policy and a formal values education curriculum. In the
majority of urban schools values were viewed as an issue that was important
enough to incorporate into the regular curriculum. This curriculum is likely to be
locally developed (not unusual considering most urban schools have curriculum
specialists) but sometimes included commercially developed materials. Urban
principals were also more likely than their suburban and rural counterparts to
encourage teachers to teach specific lessons on values. Whether based on need or
perception, principals of the majority of the urban schools viewed values as
something they could not fail to address at school.

Suburban Schools
Values instruction, and specifically a values education curriculum, was less
prevalent in the suburban schools surveyed. Only 28 percent of the suburban
schools reported having a values education curriculum. Districts with a values
 104

curriculum were more likely to use a commercially developed program. This is

somewhat unusual in that many suburban districts have curriculum specialists on
staff. Perhaps most suburban districts havefinancialresources to purchase
previously developed curricula, or maybe teachers and parents of suburban
students are more aware of the outside programs that are available and have the
influence and ability to get these commercial programs included in the curriculum.
Values instruction did not appear to be as necessary or as urgent to the principals
in suburban schools as in urban schools. However, principals in suburban schools
reported that religious groups were most effective in suburban schools in keeping
formal values education programs out of the curriculum.

Rural Schools
Only 29 percent of the rural schools surveyed reported having a values
education curriculum. It is not surprising therefore that the rural schools were
significantly less likely to have board policies addressing values than were urban
schools. Rural boards of education do not tend to take as active a role in
directives concerning curriculum as do their urban and suburban counterparts.
Although an official board polity and values curriculum were absent in most rural
schools, values instruction was not. Seventy-six percent of the rural principals
reported encouraging teachers to teach specific lessons about values. Principals of
rural schools expected values to be taught; however, they did not consider it
necessary to have adopted a formal board policy or curriculum. It was simply
understood that values would be taught.
Some differences among demographic groups were noted in this study
concerning the adoption of values education curricula. However, the schools
surveyed did not vaiy as much according to demographic groups as they did by
 105

type of community. On most variables, group relationship was not a significant

factor.
One very significant finding, however, was that the schools in Group D
(low wealth and high percentage of low income students) were more likely to have
a values education curriculum than were the schools in other groups. A
significant discrepancy was evident between Group D and Group A (high wealth
and small percentage of low income students) schools. Fifly-one percent of the
Group D schools had a values curriculum, compared to just 18 percent of the
Group A schools. Values programs were not as prevalent in rich schools with rich
students as in poor schools with poor students. Certainly the need for values
instruction should not be predicated by the wealth of the school district or of its
students. This raises the question: Does society view poor students as more
problematic and as requiring institutional instruction in values due to the
uncertainty that poor students' families will promote values? Hopefully, school
boards and school administrators are not targeting low wealth schools for values
intervention because the schools are located in the poor neighborhoods of town.
This study also revealed more similarities than differences in the principals'
responses. Few community or demographic differences were found in the
principals' evaluations of students' attainment of the identified values. Most of
the principals, regardless of the school district, considered their students'
attainment of values to be at or above an appropriate level for their age. The
elementary principals believed that most of their school's students were
developing a socially acceptable degree of moral standards. Important values for
today's students include honesty, belief in God, pride in one's race, and
citizenship. This contrasts with media depictions of gang violence and juvenile
crime.
 106

Public schools, by their veiy nature of being a public governmental entity,

are thrust into the arena of politics. Local political manifestations arise through
organized pressure groups galvanized around single issues. Often, these groups
use previously established avenues to get their messages conveyed. A
measurement of the influence that interest groups in most communities (school
board, school administrators, teachers, parents, and religious groups) have on
values education in local schools was explored in this study.

Teachers
Teachers have the greatest influence in encouraging schools to increase
their emphasis on values education. This additional emphasis may result in a
district that is establishing a formal values education curriculum or one that is just
adding additional units or lessons to the existing curriculum. Teachers have been
veiy active in promoting values education programs and have refrained from
opposing these programs. This indicates that teachers assume part of their role as
a teacher includes addressing the values of their students.
A significantfindingof this study was that teachers from rural districts
influenced their schools' movement toward placing increased emphasis on
teaching values more than teachers from urban districts. The teachers in small
schools do not have to contend with the bureaucratic school organizational
structure found in urban districts. Teachers in rural schools have more
opportunities for informal and formal interaction with decision makers
(administrators or individual board members). Because teachers in rural districts
usually have obtained a higher level of education than most of the board
members, the board members in rural schools rely on the opinions of teachers as
a source of professional input. Rural teachers understand their classroom setting
 107

which emphasizes that a strong sense of community, small class size, and close
personal relationship between teacher, student, and family is the perfect setting
for values education delivery.

School Board
The principals did not view the school board as a primary factor in bringing
values education programs into Texas schools. Other groups tend to provide
more impetus for values program development. A significant difference was
noted, however, between the influence of urban boards of education and rural
boards of education in excluding values instruction from the curriculum. This
finding seems paradoxical in that the urban schools were more likely to have a
board-adopted policy concerning values instruction. Clearly, this demonstrates
that the urban boards of education take a more active role in internal curriculum
matters than do their rural and suburban counterparts. Because of the extreme
size and diversity of their districts, urban school boards may believe that values
issues are too important to leave to campus level administrators—a district-wide
emphasis must be stated and utilized.

School Administration
Behind teachers, the school administrators rated themselves as most
influential in promoting increased emphasis on values in their schools. Texas
elementary principals appear to be very involved with the curriculum of their
campuses. The principals surveyed also related having the latitude to emphasize
values programs without undo pressure from their school boards. Principals have
offered little resistance in keeping values education instruction out of the school
curriculum. No significant differences related to size or demographic variables
 108

were found among principals concerning values issues in schools. The Texas
principals were very supportive of values education instruction in schools.

Parents and Community

Parents were viewed as having the greatest influence on keeping values
education instruction out of the school curriculum. Their level of resistance was
rated fairly low; however, they were rated as exerting a greater amount of
influence than other groups. Parents have not been influential in advocating to
school principals that an increased emphasis should be placed on values
instruction. Parents appear to be hesitant in advocating values instruction at
school. They are not necessarily opposed, just cautious. This is probably
compounded by the dynamics of getting a curriculum approved and in place in a
school district. Parents are at a disadvantage in writing or finding a curriculum
and having the opportunity to present it to school administrators or school boards
for implementation. In many school districts, parents may have more influence in
getting things removed from the curriculum than in getting things placed into the
curriculum. Traditionally, family values are taught to children under parental
guidance, and parents may feel that school intervention might contradict their
teachings.
Parental resistance to values instruction is greatest in suburban schools.
The reasons for this were not investigated in this study. Some possible reasons
might be that (a) suburban parents are more politically motivated, (b) it may be
more convenient for suburban parents to take an active role in their children's
education, or (c) suburban schools may seek parental input more than other
schools. There are many possible reasons that warrant further investigation.
 109

Religious Groups
The principals rated religious groups as having the least amount of
influence in encouraging schools to place a greater emphasis on values instruction.
This finding appears to contradict the concerns of researchers who postulate about
the political influence and impact of the religious right. It also gives credence to
conventional thought that the teaching of values is a responsibility of the family
and the church. Schools' involvement in values instruction may be an unwanted
occurrence by some religious groups. This was further validated by the finding
that the influence of religious groups ranks right behind parental influence on
advocating keeping values education out of the school curriculum. It should be
pointed out, however, that this resistance to keeping values instruction out of the
schools received a very low rating from principals. Generally, religious groups
were not reported as having a major impact on values issues in Texas schools.
However, religious groups had a greater impact in suburban districts. As
with suburban parents, suburban religious groups had a greater influence in
resisting values education programs than did rural religious groups. This can be
expected because many of the parents are probably the same individuals
associated with the various religious groups. What is unclear, however, is whether
one's religion influences parental behavior or whether parents use the vehicle of
religion to further their causes. Wherever the impetus lies, suburban groups of
parents and religious organizations were found to be more organized and
proactive than those in rural areas.

Principals' Perceptions of Values Education

A major part of this study was devoted to obtaining data concerning
principals' attitudes and perceptions on values education. Ninety-five percent of
 110

the principals surveyed believed that values should be taught in public schools.
They believed that values programs help students develop a greater sense of
responsibility in maintaining a democratic society.
Generally, the elementary principals surveyed believed that their schools
were doing a better-than-average job in teaching values to students. The
principals who perceived an urgent need for schools to teach values rated their
schools as doing a better job of teaching values than did principals who did not
think schools should be teaching values. In most cases, the principals' beliefs were
reflected in their school's curriculum. However, the mean response of principals
on the importance of values education was greater than the mean rating of how
well schools currently were meeting that need. A marked difference was evident
between the perceived need for values development in students and the actual
delivery of values instruction in schools.
The principals believed that they influence the programs on their
campuses, however. Principals of campuses that had increased emphasis on values
instruction perceived themselves as being prominent in influencing the change.
This inference is consistent with thefindingsreported in the literature review
discussing a central role of the principal as being the instructional leader (Bennis
and Nanus 1985; Sergiovanni 1992; Smith and Andrews 1989). As the
instructional leader of a campus, principals are influential players in promoting
those things that are important to the principal and in working to place them in
the campus curriculum.
 Ill

Assessment of Current Values Education Programs

Over one-third of the elementary schools surveyed in this study reported
that their schools have a values education curriculum. The concluding portion of
this summary offindingsincludes reports on these programs and the level of
acceptance of the programs by the parents, school boards, communities, and
principals.
Clearly, most of the elementary campuses in Texas do not have a formal
values education curriculum. However, one-third of the three thousand
elementaiy schools in Texas means that over one thousand school campuses
currently have a values education curriculum. This corresponds to an average of
four campuses in each of the 254 counties in Texas. Values education is alive and
well in Texas public schools.
The principals surveyed reported that values programs are receiving rave
reviews from the stakeholders on the campuses where they are found. The
principals believe that parents, community, and school board members are pleased
by current programs. Over 90 percent of the principals rated the degree of
acceptance by parents, the community, and the school board at above the median
on a seven-point scale. This level of broad-range support was evident regardless
of the community size or campus grouping.

With this type of documented acceptance, it appears that values education

programs will continue to be included in elementary curricula. Assuming that
success breeds success, and considering the pedagogical attention values education
is getting nationally, the number of schools adopting formal values education
programs should continue to increase in the future.
Why do principals report such favorable results from their values education
programs? What are some evidences of success? The principals reported seeing
 112

positive results of their programs through changes in students' behaviors. Ninety-

eight percent of the principals reported that students had increased their level of
personal responsibility. Ninety-four percent of the principals reported improved
playground behaviors due to values education. Ninely-six percent of the principals
reported that teachers and students had improved relations since a values program
was incorporated in their schools. Ninety-five percent of the principals reported
improved classroom behavior. One hundred percent of the principals in schools
with values education programs believed that the programs in their school should
be continued. In actuality, it does not matter if a values program is truly
responsible for such glowing changes in student behavior; if principals have such
overwhelmingly positive perceptions that these changes in student behavior are
due to a values program, values programs will naturally be considered as most
beneficial.
Improved student responsibility, improved student behaviors, improved
relationships-these are mystical buzz words that are attractive to any community,
school board, school administrator, or parent. Innovations spread by word of
mouth from school administrator to administrator; and from urban, to suburban,
to small town, and finally to rural schools (House 1974). If Texas elementary
principals continue to give such glowing testimonials to the benefits of values
education programs, values programs will surely continue to gain acceptance in
public schools.

Implications and Recommendations

This research study was designed to provide information about the status
and magnitude of values education in Texas elementary schools. Information
gained from this study shows that many schools are currently teaching a values
 113

curriculum and that numerous commercial materials are available to aid in values
instruction. For research to be meaningful to administrators and other policy
makers, however, some practical, beneficial implications for application should be
identified.
The findings of this research suggest strategies that school administrators
and teachers can consider when approaching values program implementation.
Thefindingsmake it very clear that school teachers and school administrators are
the most influential groups for initiating existing values education programs.
Promoters from within or outside the school system who wish to encourage
schools to move toward adopting values education programs should utilize this
information.
Those wishing to establish values education programs should establish
coalitions with teachers and administrators before advocating values program
implementation. Principals debating on whether to start values programs have the
assurance that their peers support values instruction in schools. With the findings
of this study, policy makers have data to give teachers and administrators to show
that values programs have substantial support from teachers, principals, school
board members, parents, and community in districts with current values programs
in place. Some may wish to compare the reported level of values development of
students in the survey with their perceptions of the developmental level of the
students in other schools.
The site-based decision process required in all Texas schools provides a
strategic vehicle for program implementation. Each school campus in Texas
already has a committee established to study and make recommendations for
campus improvement. Most importantly, according to the findings of this study,
these committees are predominately composed of teachers with representation by
 114

the campus administration. A positive recommendation from this committee

toward establishing a values education program would be powerful indeed. Why
start, as many advocates do, with the school board when the most influential body
may be in one's local school campus?
Chapter 2 of this study provides a review of a variety of viewpoints on the
national debate concerning whether values should be taught in public schools.
This debate suggests that values education is a very controversial topic and should
be approached cautiously. According to the findings of this study, principals tend
to believe that values education is not so controversial. The principals,
overwhelmingly (over 90 percent), believed that the values education programs in
their schools benefit students and are supported by parents, community, school
boards, and by the school administration. One hundred percent of the principals
in this study with a values program in their school responded that they wanted to
continue their current values program.
Ninety-five percent of the principals in this study believed that values
should be taught in public schools. Yet, only one-third of the schools in this study
had a formal values curriculum. The research indicates that relatively little
resistance has been observed during values curricula implementation in districts
that have moved forward toward establishing values education programs. The
idea that values education in Texas schools is a controversial topic may be a myth.
Perhaps it is time for principals who believe that values should be taught in public
schools to move forward and openly encourage values program implementation.
However, use of a low key approach may be the tactic of choice in order to avoid
controversy generated by a formal program.

One thing needed to help resolve this continuing debate over values
instruction in schools is to implement a longitudinal research study to determine
 115

the effects of values instruction. A study such as the High/Scope Educational

Research Foundation's fifteen year study of the Periy Preschool Projects needs to
be implemented for values education. The Perry study has clearly demonstrated
the importance of creating learning opportunities at an early age (Benard 1993,
47). Much of the recent emphasis for early childhood intervention programs are a

result of Benard's study.

A longitudinal study of values programs on student behavior will provide
concrete data concerning the long-term benefits for problems such as drug use,
delinquency, teen pregnancy, and school failure. Data need to be gathered to
document whether elementary values programs show lifetime benefits in an
individual's earnings, marriage and family success, and commitment to civil
responsibility.
A significantfindingof this study is that principals report increased positive
behavior from students in areas such as personal responsibility, playground
behavior, student/teacher relationships, and classroom behavior. The problem
with these data is that they are testimonial-using only the principals' perceptions
of behavior modification. Hard data is needed to validate the principals' opinions.
Although some studies have been published (Ginsburg and Hanson 1990;
Schlaefli, Rest, and Thoma 1988), additional study is needed to investigate
evidences of behavior changes in students. Questions to be considered include
the following: Is there documented data showing that playground referrals to the
principal's office for bad behavior are down? Has the actual number of student
conflicts with teachers decreased? Are students getting to school on time? Has
attendance actually increased? Are students' grades better? Have tardies
decreased? Has there been documented evidence that classroom referrals to the
 116

principal's office for bad behavior decreased? This type of hard data is needed to
solidify testimonial records of success from values programs.
The focus of this study was on public elementary schools in Texas. The
status of values education programs in secondaiy schools has not been researched.
It is recommended that a research study such as this be conducted for Texas
secondary schools.

Conclusions
The data collected and analyzed in tins research study provide supporting
information on the status of values education programs in Texas elementary
schools. In the summary offindingsin this study many of the similarities and
differences among schools on various values education issues are discussed, such
as occurrences of values education curricula, influence of pressure groups, district
wealth and student population demographics, community size, and frequency of
commercially available values education materials. Further analysis of the data
supports the following two main conclusions: (a) the preeminent vehicle for
values instruction in schools is through the hidden curriculum, and (b) principals
will significantly influence the development of values education programs in Texas.
Although 94 percent of the principals surveyed in this study reported using
some type of approach in promoting values in their schools, only 35 percent of the
schools had a formal values curriculum. Ryan, Lickona, Dewey, and others have
consistently espoused in their writings that values in our schools are learned in the
hidden curriculum. Meighan (1981) suggests the following working definition of
the hidden curriculum: "all the things that are learnt [sic] during schooling in
addition to the official curriculum." Ryan also describes the hidden curriculum:
Many of education's most profound and positive teachings can be conveyed
in the hidden curriculum. If a spirit of fairness penetrates eveiy corner of
 117

a school, children will learn to be fair. Through the service of teachers,

administrators, and older students, students learn to be of service to others.
By creating an atmosphere of high standards, the hidden curriculum can
teach habits of accuracy and precision. Many aspects of school life, ranging
from homework, assignments to sporting events, can teach self-control and
self-discipline. (Ryan 1993, 18)
If a hidden curriculum exists in our schools for values education, a natural
question arises-Is the hidden curriculum intended or unintended? Several natural
or unintended values can be learned in school by allowing students to perform
common tasks such as collecting papers in the class, leading the class to lunch,
and carrying the absentee records to the office. Simple tasks such as these do
wonders for children's self-esteem and promote personal responsibility. Students
model the behaviors exhibited by their teachers through attributes such as
courtesy, fairness, respect for human rights, and justice. Many of the democratic
principles used to govern in our society are first practiced in our elementary
schools through classroom elections for simple jobs such as class officers and class
favorites. Even though unseen, values are constantly being learned and promoted.
Thefindingsof this research study reveal that principals perceive much of
the hidden curriculum for elementaiy schools to be intended or manipulative.
Despite the absence of a formal curriculum, many actions are being taken in
public schools to teach values to our students. Speakers are brought into schools
to discuss issues such as drug and alcohol use, gang violence, prevention of
sexually transmitted diseases, race relations, and respect for civil law and those
enforcing the law. Clearly, these types of activities are designed to create a
common positive value system for these issues within students. Many of these
same issues and others are being taught in lesson extensions and class discussions
by teachers. According to the principals, teachers believe values should be taught
and are teaching them, with or without a curriculum. These activities are so
 118

prevalent in public schools that the hidden curriculum for values education could
be considered the informal curriculum.
Increasingly, schools are encouraging students to become involved in social
issues outside of school and within the community. Some schools have adopted
grandparents for their classes. Others are actively engaged in fund raising
activities for outside organizations such as the American Heart Association,
American Cancer Society, Hospice, Easter Seals, and many others. Children are
asked to bring food for local food banks, clothing for the homeless, and holiday
baskets for the poor. Many schools have established centers where clothing is
available for the needy within the school. Students are asked to volunteer their
time for clean-up activities, beautification projects, city parades, and
environmental projects. All activities such as these are intentional and aid in the
development of students' personal values (Calabrese 1990; lickona 1991; Ryan
1993).
Recent years have brought a new outreach mission for schools-parenting
education. Specific programs have been developed to promote parental
involvement and to teach parenting skills. Workshops and printed materials are
available on topics such as discipline, monitoring home study of children, building
self-esteem, communication skills, drug and alcohol abuse, and nutrition. Again,
these activities may not be a part of the formal curriculum, but are a component
of the hidden curriculum (Lickona 1991; Ryan 1993; Thomas 1991).
Thefindingsof this research study affirm that values are being taught in
Texas elementary schools, whether intentional or unintentional. The hidden
curriculum of today may become the formal curriculum of tomorrow. Amitai
Etzioni explains:
 119

Eveiy teaching act has a moral dimension. Today a lot of teachers require
group assignments as well as individual assignments to emphasize that they
want to teach cooperation. I believe that every year content should be
examined in terms of what value message it sends, but we should also ask
ourselves what message the hidden curriculum is sending. (Berreth and
Scherer 1993, 13)
Finally, the data from this research study show almost unanimous support
among principals in Texas elementary schools for the incorporation of values
instruction in schools. Principals in schools without a values curriculum desire
values instruction to be included in their schools, and 100 percent of the principals
surveyed who were currently in schools with a values curriculum wished to
continue their present values education programs. With this magnitude of
principal support, values education will continue to be a major factor in planning
£ind development of school curricula.
Through the survey of literature and the research data from this study,
principals wishing to implement values education programs have a resource of
useful information. Some items particularly related to principals include the
following:
1. Principals should not assume that values education formation will be
easy; however, much of the assumed resistance for values education may not exist
in their communities. Principals of schools with values programs have
experienced a degree of resistance toward these programs, primarily from parents
and religious groups, but this resistance in Texas elementary schools is perceived
to be relatively minor by elementary principals. However, in the communities
where this occurs it can be a major political issue. Most schools with a values
education program have widespread support for their program, according to the
schools' principals.
 120

2. Texas elementary principals report that values development and

teaching of values can occur in many different settings and situations. The nature
of values development falls within a social web or social environment with many
different influences. Therefore, principals should involve students in practical and
responsible extracurricular activities such as sports, student government, student
organizations and clubs, publications, and community projects.
3. Principals who wish to establish new programs should seek help from
their peers, parents, teachers, and the community. Teachers' approval and
support will probably prove to be a powerful influence on program success.
4. Principals have many tools available, some commercially available, to
assist in values instruction. Using outside speakers is a proven avenue of values
instruction. Use of cooperative learning helps to increase students' appreciation
of others and is effective in developing their ability to work with others. Some
commercial programs have extensive materials available such as posters, books,
and teachers' lesson plans.
5. Principals need to carefully evaluate the values education programs to
be incorporated in their schools. Pertinent data need to be collected and
accumulated to document the specific behavior outcomes of these programs.
Values education program results need solid documentation in order to establish
validity.
6. Principals who believe that values must be taught in public schools
should remember that they should model their beliefs. Principals can be very
effective role models by establishing high standards of respect and responsibility
and offering corrective moral feedback when students demonstrate a lack of moral
development. Teaching values and learning about values will never be as effective
as modeling them~"do unto others as you would have them do unto you."
 121

In conclusion, this study provides extensive data concerning the status of

values education programs, particularly in elementary schools in Texas. The data
collected can be tabulated, analyzed, and evaluated, but more importantly is its
utilization by educational stakeholders.
 APPENDIX A
PIAGEFS ERAS AND STAGES OF LOGICAL AND COGNITIVE
DEVELOPMENT

122
 123

Era I (Ages 0-2) The era of sensorimotor intelligence

Stage 1. Reflex action.
Stage 2. Coordination of reflexes and sensorimotor repetition.
Stage 3. Activities to make interesting events in the environment reappear.
Stage 4. Means/ends behavior and search for absent objects.
Stage 5. Experimental search for new means.
Stage 6. Use of imagery in insightful invention of new means and in recall of
absent objects and events.
Era II (Ages 2-5) Symbolic, intuitive, or prelogical thought
Inference is carried on through images and symbols which do not maintain logical
relations or invariances with one another. "Magical thinking" in the sense of
?a} confusion of apparent or imagined events with real events and objects and
(b) confusion of perceptual appearances of qualitative and quantitative change
with actual change.
Era III (Ages 6-10) Concrete operational thought
Inferences carried on through systems of classes, relations, and quantities
maintaining logically invariant properties and which refer to concrete objects.
Substage 1. Formation of stable categorical classes.
Substage 2. Formation of quantitative and numerical relations of invariance.
Era IV (Ages 11 to adulthood) Formal operational thought
Inferences through legal operations upon propositions or "operations upon
operations." Reasoning about reasoning. Construction of systems of all possible
relations or implications. Hypothetico-deductive isolation of variables and testing
of hypotheses.
(From L. Atkinson and E. Ogletree, 'Teaching Morality in the Schools," Illinois
Schools Journal. Special Issues, p. 79, 1982)
 APPENDIX B
KOHLBERG'S SIX MORAL STAGES

124
 125

Level and Stage

Level I Preconventional
Stage 1 Heteronomous Morality
Social Perspective of Stage: Egocentric point of view. Doesn't consider
the interests of others or recognize that they differ from the actor's;
doesn't relate two points of views. Actions are considered physically
rather than in terms of the psychological interests of others. Confusion
of authority's perspective with one's own.
Stage 2 Individualism, Instrumental Purpose, and Exchange
Social Perspective of Stage: Concrete individualistic perspective.
Aware that everybody has his own interest to pursue and that these
conflict, so that right is relative (in the concrete individualistic sense).
Level II Conventional
Stage 3 Mutual Interpersonal Expectations, Relationships, and Interpersonal
Conformity
Social Perspective of Stage: Perspective of the individual in
relationships with other individuals. Aware of shared feelings,
agreements, and expectations which take primacy over individual
interests. Relates points of view through the concrete Golden Rule,
putting yourself in the other guy's shoes. Does not yet consider
generalized system perspective.
Stage 4 Social System and Conscience
Social Perspective of Stage: Differentiates societal point of view from
interpersonal agreement or motives. Takes the point of view of the
system that demies roles and rules. Considers individual relations in
terms of place in the system.
Level III Post-Conventional or Principled
Stage 5 Social Contract or Utility and Individual Rights
Social Perspective of Stage: Prior to society perspective. Perspective of
a rational individual aware of values and rights prior to social
attachments and contracts. Integrates perspectives by formal
mechanisms of agreement, contract, objective impartiality, and due
process. Considers moral and legal points of view; recognizes that they
sometimes conflict and finds it difficult to integrate them.
Stage 6 Universal Ethical Principles
Social Perspective of Stage: Perspective of a moral point of view from
which social arrangements derive. Perspective in that of any rational
individual recognizing the nature of morality or the fact that persons
are ends in themselves and must be treated as such.
(From T. Lickona, Moral Development and Behavior Theory. Research, and
Social Issues. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, 1976), pp. 34-35.
 APPENDIX C
LIST OF VALIDATION PANEL, COVER LETTER, EVALUATION
INSTRUMENT

126
 127

Panel Members
The following individuals participated in validating the survey instrument.

Dr. Orbry Holden

Professor of Education
University of Texas
Dept. EDAD
EDM Building 310
Austin, TX 78712-1291
Dr. Bruce Meeks
Professor of Education
University of North Texas
EDAD Dept.
UNT P. O. Box 13857
Denton, TX 76203-3857
Dr. Linda Speak
Assistant Superintendent for Curriculum
Galena Park ISD
Box 565
Galena Park, TX
Barbara Tilker
Director of Curriculum
Wichita Falls ISD
P. O. Box 2570
Wichita Falls, TX 76307
Michael Gandy
Associate Director for Curriculum
Region DC Education Service Center
301 Loop 11
Wichita Falls, TX 76305
 128

Date

Name of Panel Member

Address

Dear:
Your assistance is requested in establishing the validity of a survey questionnaire
to be used as a part of a doctoral dissertation at the University of North Texas.
The dissertation is under the direction of Dr. Judy Adkison, Chair, Division of
Educational Administration.
This study will provide descriptive information about values education programs in
Texas elementary schools for policy makers, curriculum directors, and educators.
Data from the survey should give insight into (a) commercially or locally
developed values programs in place in schools; (b) the relationship between
demographics such as district wealth, percentage of economically disadvantaged
students, percentage of ethnic students, percentage of LEP students, and
percentage mobility; and values education programs; (c) the role different interest
groups have in the introduction of values education programs; and (d) the extent
of acceptance by difference groups. A validated questionnaire will be sent to a
random sample of Texas elementary principals.
In assessing validity of this survey instrument, please consider questions for item
relevancy, clarily, and appropriateness. Enter your response on the enclosed
response sheet. Please feel free to mark comments on the questionnaire sheet
also.
Your assistance in this task is greatly appreciated. A self-addressed stamped
envelope is enclosed for your convenience.
Sincerely,

Ron Preston
 129

RESPONSE SHEET

PLEASE CIRCLE THE SCALE AT THE POINT THAT BEST DESCRIBES

YOUR RESPONSE AS TO THE VALIDITY OF THE QUESTION TO BE
INCLUDED IN THIS SURVEY

Question 1
Not valid should Valid definitely should
not be included 5 be included
Question 2
Not valid should Valid definitely should
not be included 5 be included
Question 3
Not valid should Valid definitely should
not be included 5 be included
Question 4
Not valid should Valid definitely should
not be included 5 be included
Question 5
Not valid should Valid definitely should
not be included 5 be included
Question 6
Not valid should Valid definitely should
not be included 5 be included
Question 7
Not valid should Valid definitely should
not be included 5 be included
Question 8
Not valid should Valid definitely should
not be included 5 be included
Question 9
Not valid should Valid definitely should
not be included 5 be included
Question 10
Not valid should Valid definitely should
not be included 5 be included
Question 11
Not valid should Valid definitely should
not be included 5 be included
Question 12
Not valid should Valid definitely should
not be included 5 be included
Question 13
Not valid should Valid definitely should
not be included 5 be included
 130

Question 14
Not valid should Valid definitely should
not be included 5 be included
Question 15
Not valid should Valid definitely should
not be included 5 be included
Question 16
Not valid should Valid definitely should
not be included 5 be included
Question 17
Not valid should Valid definitely should
not be included 5 be included
Question 18
Not valid should Valid definitely should
not be included 5 be included
Question 19
Not valid should Valid definitely should
not be included 5 be included
Question 20
Not valid should Valid definitely should
not be included 5 be included
Question 21
Not valid should Valid definitely should
not be included 5 be included
Question 22
Not valid should Valid definitely should
not be included 5 be included
Question 23
Not valid should Valid definitely should
not be included 5 be included
Question 24
Not valid should Valid definitely should
not be included 2 3 4 5 be included
Question 25
Not valid should Valid definitely should
not be included 2 3 4 5 be included
Question 26
Not valid should Valid definitely should
not be included 3 4 5 be included
Question 27
Not valid should Valid definitely should
not be included 2 3 4 5 be included
Question 28
Not valid should Valid definitely should
not be included 1 2 3 4 5 be included
COMMENTS:
 APPENDIX D
SURVEY INSTRUMENT

131
 132

SURVEY OF VALUES EDUCATION PROGRAMS IN TEXAS

PUBLIC ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS

School Code Number Group Number 1 2 3 4

Hello, my name is The University of North Texas Survey Research Lab is conducting a
survey of elementary school principals and your name was randomly selected. The purpose of the survey is to
determine the extent to which values education programs have been incorporated into elementaiy school
curriculums in Texas. The questions I want to ask you concern your perceptions about values education
programs and your school's experience in teaching values. The information will be used as the basis of a
research report. The questions I want to ask you will take only a few minutes. All of your answers will be
kept confidential; no school or person will be identified in any manner.

1. On a scale of 1 to 7, with 1 representing no need and 7 representing urgent need, how important is the
need for students to develop a greater sense of values in maintaining a free and democratic society?
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NR/DK 9

2. On a scale of 1 to 7, with 1 representing no activity and 7 representing an excellent job, how well do you
think your school is doing in teaching students about values?
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NR/DK 9

3. Is your school located in an urban, suburban, or rural community?

Urban
Suburban
Rural NR/DK 9
4. On a scale of 1 to 7, with 1 representing not at all and 7 representing to a high degree, to what extent do
you feel students in your school have developed the following values (appropriate to their age)?
Honesty and truthfulness 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NR/DK 9
Treating others justly 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NR/DK 9
Belief in God 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NR/DK 9
Respect for different ethnic
groups or cultures 1 2 3 4 5 7 NR/DK 9
Responsible citizenship 1 2 3 4 5 7 NR/DK 9
Having compassion for others 1 2 3 4 5 7 NR/DK 9
Desire for intellectual growth 1 2 3 4 5 7 NR/DK 9
Respect for oneself 1 2 3 4 5 7 NR/DK 9
Standing up for one's beliefs 1 2 3 4 5 7 NR/DK 9
Pride in one's race or culture 1 2 3 4 5 7 NR/DK 9
Being dependable and reliable 1 2 3 4 5 7 NR/DK 9
5. On a scale of 1 to 7, with 1 representing not at all and 7 representing to a high degree, to what extent do
you feel the following values are emphasized in your school in grades K-2?

Honesty and truthfulness 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NR/DK 9

Treating others justly 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NR/DK 9
Belief in God 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NR/DK 9
Respect for different ethnic
groups or cultures 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NR/DK 9
Responsible citizenship 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NR/DK 9
Having compassion for others 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NR/DK 9
Desire for intellectual growth 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NR/DK 9
Respect for oneself 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NR/DK 9
Standing up for one's beliefs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NR/DK 9
Pride in one's race or culture 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NR/DK 9
Being dependable and reliable 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NR/DK 9
 133

6. On a scale of 1 to 7, with 1 representing not at all and 7 representing a high degree, to what extent do
you feel the following values are emphasized in your school in grades 3 through 5?

Honesty and truthfulness 2 3 4 5 6 7 NR/DK 9

Treating others justly 2 3 4 5 6 7 NR/DK 9
Belief in God 2 3 4 5 6 7 NR/DK 9
Respect for different ethnic
groups or cultures 2 3 4 5 6 7 NR/DK 9
Responsible citizenship 2 3 4 5 6 7 NR/DK 9
Having compassion for others 2 3 4 5 6 7 NR/DK 9
Desire for intellectual growth 2 3 4 5 6 7 NR/DK 9
Respect for oneself 2 3 4 5 6 7 NR/DK 9
Standing up for one's beliefs 2 3 4 5 6 7 NR/DK 9
Pride in one's race or culture 2 3 4 5 6 7 NR/DK 9
Being dependable and reliable 2 3 4 5 6 7 NR/DK 9

7. Has your school board developed policies regarding the teaching of values in the school?
Yes, policies have been developed
No, policies have not been developed NR/DK 9

8. In your opinion, should values be taught in the public schools?

Yes, values should be taught
No, values should not be taught NR/DK 9

9. On a scale of 1 to 7, with 1 representing less emphasis and 7 representing more emphasis, in the future,
do you believe that teaching values will receive more or less emphasis in the public school?
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NR/DK 9

10. In the past three years, has your school district placed more emphasis, less emphasis, or has the emphasis
remained the same on the formal teaching of values?
more emphasis teaching values
less emphasis on teaching values
emphasis about the same NR/DK 9

11. On a scale of 1 to 7, with 1 representing no influence and 7 representing highly influential, if your district
has placed more emphasis on teaching values, to what extent do you feel the following groups influenced the
change in your school?
School Board
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NR/DK 9
Administration
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NR/DK 9
Teachers
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NR/DK 9
Parents and Community
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NR/DK 9
Religious Groups
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NR/DK 9
12. Which of the following programs has your school instituted to teach values to students?
Yes No NR/DK 9 Added new courses
Yes No NR/DK 9 Added units to existing courses
Yes No NR/DK 9 Encouraged teachers to teach lessons on values, but not added
courses or units to the curriculum
Yes No NR/DK 9 Provided in-service for teachers on teaching values
Yes No NR/DK 9 Invited special guests to speak to your students on values-
centered topics
Yes No NR/DK 9 Student volunteer programs in the community
 134

13. On a scale of 1 to 7, with 1 representing no influence and 7 representing highly influential, if your district
has not placed more emphasis on teaching values, to what extent to you feel the following groups have
influenced keeping values education instruction out of the curriculum?
School Board
1 2 3 4 5 6 1 NR/DK 9
Administration
1 2 3 4 5 6 1 NR/DK 9
Teachers
1 2 3 4 5 6 1 NR/DK 9
Parents and Community
1 2 3 4 5 6 1 NR/DK 9
Religious Groups
1 2 3 4 5 6 1 NR/DK 9
14. Does your school have a curriculum for values education?
No, we do not have a values education curriculum (TERMINATE INTERVIEW) Thank
you for your time.
Yes, we have a values education curriculum (CONTINUE INTERVIEW UNTIL THE
END)
15. Which of the following companies' commercially developed materials are you using?
Quest International In Use Not in Use NR/DK 9
Center for Civic Education In Use Not in Use NR/DK 9
American Institute for Character Education In Use Not in Use NR/DK 9
Project Charlie In Use Not in Use NR/DK 9
Star Serve In Use Not in Use NR/DK 9
Other (please name) In Use Not in Use NR/DK 9

16. Is your school using a locally/district developed curriculum for values education?
No, our school does not use a locally/district developed curriculum
Yes, our school is using a locally/district developed curriculum

17. On a scale of 1 to 7, with 1 representing no influence and 7 representing highly influential, to what
extent do you feel each of the following groups resisted or opposed the introduction of the values education
program in your school?
School Board
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NR/DK 9
Administration
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NR/DK 9
Teachers
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NR/DK 9
Parents and Community
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NR/DK 9
Religious Groups
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NR/DK 9

18. Which of the following strategies were used by your school in values education program development
and implementation?
media and publicity campaign Used Not used NR/DK 9
parent committees Used Not used NR/DK 9
values education resource center Used Not used NR/DK 9
needs analysis survey (school staff, parents,
or students) Used Not used NR/DK 9
staff development Used Not used NR/DK 9
consultants from outside the school district Used Not used NR/DK 9
other Used Not used NR/DK 9
 135

19. On a scale of 1 to 7, with 1 representing no benefit and 7 representing highly beneficial, do you feel
parents consider your school's value education program to be beneficial for students?
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NR/DK 9

20. On a scale of 1 to 7, with 1 representing no benefit and 7 representing highly beneficial, do you think the
community considers your school's value education program to be beneficial for students?
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NR/DK 9

21. On a scale of 1 to 7, with 1 representing no benefit and 7 representing highly beneficial, do you think the
school board considers your school's value education program to be beneficial for students?
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NR/DK 9

22. On a scale of 1 to 7, with 1 representing no benefit and 7 representing highly beneficial, do you think
your school's value education program is beneficial for students?
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NR/DK 9

23. On a scale of 1 to 7, with 1 representing no benefit and 7 representing highly beneficial, is your school's
values education program helping teach responsibility to your students?
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NR/DK 9

24. On a scale of 1 to 7, with 1 representing no benefit and 7 representing highly beneficial, has your
school's values education program improved students' behavior on the playground?
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NR/DK 9

25. On a scale of 1 to 7, with 1 representing no benefit and 7 representing highly beneficial, has your
school's values education program improved students' relationships with teachers?
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NR/DK 9

26. On a scale of 1 to 7, with 1 representing no benefit and 7 representing highly beneficial, has your
school's values education program improved students' classroom behavior?
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NR/DK 9

27. Would you like to have your school's values education program continue?
Yes, I think it should continue NR/DK 9
No, I think it should not continue NR/DK 9

Thank you for your time.

 APPENDIX E
LIST OF ADVISORY PANEL, COVER LETTER,
EVALUATION INSTRUMENT

136
 137

PANEL MEMBERS
The following individuals participated in validating the survey instrument.
Dr. Phyllis Hotchkiss
Professor of Education
Midwestern State University
Dept. of Education
3410 Taft Blvd.
Wichita Falls, TX 76308
Mr. Acce Atkison
Elementary Principal
Nocona Elementary School
Box 210
Nocona, TX 76255
Mr. Ron Woods
Elementary Principal
Kidwell Elementaiy School
1200 North Third
Iowa Park, TX 76367
Barbara Vaughn
English Teacher
1203 Rock Street
Bowie, TX 76230
 138

Date

Name of Panel Member

Address
Dear:
Your assistance is requested in establishing the validity of a survey
questionnaire to be used as a part of a doctoral dissertation at the University of
North Texas. The dissertation is under the direction of Dr. Judy Adkison, Chair,
Division of Educational Administration.
This study will provide descriptive information about values education
programs in Texas elementary schools for policy makers, curriculum directors, and
educators. Data from the survey should give insight into (a) what commercially or
locally developed values programs are in place in schools; (t>) what is the
relationship between demographics such as district wealth, percent of
economically disadvantaged students, percent of ethnic students, percent LEP
students, and percent mobility; and values education programs; (c) what role
different interest groups have in the introduction of values education programs;
and (d) what is the extent of acceptance by different groups. A validated
questionnaire will be sent to a random sample of Texas elementary principals.
In assessing validity of this survey instrument, you are a member of a
panel assessing the instrument as to clarity, length of completion, and survey
format. Enter your response on the enclosed form marked response sheet.
Please feel free to mark comments on the questionnaire sheet also.
Your assistance in this task is greatly appreciated. A self-addressed
stamped envelope is enclosed for your convenience.
Sincerely,

Ron Preston
 139

RESPONSE SHEET
PLEASE CIRCLE THE SCALE AT THE POINT THAT BEST DESCRIBES
YOUR RESPONSE AS A MEASUREMENT OF VALIDITY FOR THE
SURVEY

1. To what extent do you consider this questionnaire acceptable for its stated
purpose as to clarity?
the instrument the instrument exhibits
exhibits no clarity 1 2 3 4 5 excellent clarity
2. To what extent do you consider this questionnaire acceptable for its stated
purpose as to length of completion?
the time for the time for completion
completion is too 1 2 3 4 5 is acceptable
short
3. To what extent do you consider this questionnaire acceptable for its stated
purpose as to its format?
the format is the format is
totally 1 2 3 4 5 acceptable
unacceptable

Comments:
 APPENDIX F
ADDITIONAL TABLES

140
 141

Table 37.--Chi-Square Table for Type of Community by Different Variables

Survey Question 3 by 7, 10, 12, 14, 16

Type of Community (Urban,

Suburban, Rural) by
Chi-Square DF P
School policies 9.508 2 .0086
Degree of emphasis 8.769 4 .0671
Added courses 4.894 2 .0865
Added units 1.463 2 .4811
Teach lessons 7.818 2 .0200
Inservice 2.880 2 .2369
Special guests 3.015 2 .2213
Student volunteer 5.097 2 .0781
Values curriculum 15.451 2 .0004
Local curriculum 7.000 2 .0301

ble 38.-Chi-Square Table for Groups by Different Variables

Survey Question 3 by 7, 10, 12, 14, 16

Groups A, B, C, D
by
Chi-Square DF P
School policies 5.432 3 .1427
Degree of emphasis 13.003 6 .0429
Added courses 4.231 3 .2374
Added units 10.407 3 .0154
Teach lessons 7.421 3 .0596
Inservice 5.498 3 .1387
Special guests 11.387 3 .0098
Student volunteer 5.389 3 .1453
Values curriculum 19.992 3 .0001
Local curriculum 8.430 3 .0379
 142

Table 39.--ANOVA Table for Type of Community by Different Variables

Survey Question 3 by 5, o, 9

Type of Community (Urban,

Suburban, Rural) by
F Values P
Values emphasis K-2 .320 .727
Values emphasis 3-5 .846 .430
Future values emphasis 2.100 .124

Table 40.--ANOVA Table for Tyipe of Community by Various Variables

Survey <Question 3 by 11, 13, 17

Type of Community (Urban,

Suburban, Rural) by
F Values P
Groups positively influencing
values curriculum:
School board .578 .562
Administration .596 .552
Teachers 3.360 .038
Parents and community .138 .871
Religious groups 2.346 .101
Groups keeping values
instruction out of curriculum
School board 3.801 .024
Administration .276 .759
Teachers .969 .381
Parents and community 5.201 .006
Religious groups 5.704 .004
Groups opposed to existing
values curriculum
School board 1.143 .322
Administration 1.150 .320
Teachers 1.025 .362
Parents and community .761 .469
Religious groups 1.479 .232
 143

Table 41.--ANOVA Table for Survey Groups by Different Variables

Survey Groups by Questions 5, 6, 9

Groups A, B, C, D
by
F Values P
Values emphasis K-2 2.991 .052
Values emphasis 3-5 5.148 .001
Future values emphasis 1.951 .121

Table 42.--ANOVA Table for Group by Different Variables

Survey Groups by Questions 11, 13, 17

Groups A, B, C, D
by
F Values P
Groups positively influencing
values curriculum:
School board 1.171 .324
Administration .658 .579
Teachers 2.138 .099
Parents and community .534 .659
Religious groups 1.532 .211
Groups keeping values
instruction out of curriculum
School board 4.199 .006
Administration 5.069 .002
Teachers 5.792 .001
Parents and community 5.113 .002
Religious groups 5.032 .002
Groups opposed to existing
values curriculum
School board .275 .843
Administration .931 .428
Teachers 1.592 .195
Parents and community 1.764 .158
Religious groups 2.884 .039
 144

Table 43.--ANOVA Table for Survey Groups by Benefits

Survey Groups by Questions 2, 22

Groups A, B, C, D
by
F Values P
How well schools are
teaching values .520 .668
Benefits of values programs 1.690 .173

Table 44.--ANOVA Table for Type of Community by Benefits

Survey Groups by Questions 2, 22

Type of Community (Urban,

Suburban, Rural) by
F Values P
How well schools are
teaching values .181 .834
Benefits of values programs 2.414 .094
 REFERENCE LIST

Agency strategic plan for the 1992-1998 period. 1992. Austin, TX: Texas
Education Agency.
Age-specific arrest rates and race-specific arrest rates for selected offenses. 1990.
Washington: FBI.
Alreck, Pamela, and Robert B. Settle. 1985. The survey research handbook.
Homewood, IL: Irwin.
Amundson, Kristen. 1991. Teaching values and ethics: Problems and solutions.
Arlington: American Association of School Administrators.
Arizona State Department of Education. 1990. Character development in the
90's: A reaffirmation of values. Phoenix, AZ: Arizona State Department of
Education.
Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. 1988. Moral
education in the life of the school. Alexandria: VA: Association for
Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Atkinson, Lillian, and Earl Ogletree. 1982. Teaching morality in the schools.
Illinois Schools Journal. (Special issue): 75-84.
Babbie, Earl R. Survey research methods. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
Bachrach, P., and M. S. Baratz. 1962. The two faces of power. American
Political Science Review 56: 947-952.
Benard, Bonnie. 1993. Fostering resiliency in kids. Educational Leadership 51
(Nov.): 44-48.
Bennis, Warren and Burt Nanus. 1985. Leaders. New York: Harper and Row.
Bennett, William J. 1988. Moral literacy and the formation of character. NASSP
Bulletin (Dec.): 29-34.
Berdie, Doug, John F. Anderson, and Marsha A. Niebuhr. 1986. Questionnaires:
Design and use. Metuchen, NJ: Scarecrow Press.
Berreth, Diane, and Marge Scherer. 1993. On transmitting values: A
conversation with Amiai Etzioni. Educational Leadership 51 (Nov.): 12-15.
Borg, Walter R., and Meredith D. Gall. 1983. Educational research. 4th ed.
New York: Longman.

145
 146

Botteiy, Mike. 1990. The morality of the school: The theory and practice of
values in education. London: Cassell Educational Limited.
Boyd, William L. 1979. Value conflicts and curriculum issues. Berkeley, CA:
McCutchan.
Boyer, Ernest L. 1986. Communicating values: The social and moral imperatives
of education. Momentum. 17 September, 6-8.
Calabrese, Raymond. 1990. The school as an ethical and democratic community.
NASSP Bulletin (October): 10-15.
Carmichael, Dottie J., James A. Dyer, and Craig H. Blakely. 1992. Potential
impacts of site-based management on special student populations. Texas
Research 3: 39-56.
Cavazos, Lauro. 1990. Teaching ethics in the public schools. NASSP Bulletin
(October): 1-4.
Character and value education: Teaching strategies. 1990. Frankfort, KY:
Kentucky Department of Education.
Character education curriculum. 1992. San Antonio, TX: Character Education
Institute.
Coats, Dan. 1991. America's youth: A crisis of character. AFA Journal
(November): 18-21.
Copeland, Bonnie, and Maiy Ellen Saterlie. 1990. Designing and implementing a
values education program. NASSP Bulletin (October): 46-48.
Davis, E. Dale. 1984. Should the public schools teach values? Phi Delta Kappan
65 (January): 358-360.
DePree, Max. 1989. Leadership is an art. New York: Doubleday.
Dewey, John. 1964. John Dewev on education. Chicago: University of Chicago
Press.
Downie, Susan. 1989. Ethics, a choice for the future: An interdisciplinary
program. English Journal (September): 28-30.
Durkheim, Emile. 1961. Moral education. New York: The Free Press of
Glenco.
Edgewood I.S.D.. et al. v. Kirbv. et al. 1989. Texas Supreme Court.
Elam, Stanley, Lowell Rose, and Alec Gallup. 1991. The 23rd annual Gallup/Phi
Delta Kappa poll. Phi Delta Kappa (September): 41-56.
 147

Elam, Stanley, Lowell Rose, and Alec Gallup. 1992. The 24th annual Gallup/Phi
Delta Kappa poll. Phi Delta Kappa (September): 41-53.
Elkind, David. 1987. Miseducation preschoolers as risk. New York: Alfred A.
Knopf.
The ethics of American youth: A warning and a call to action. 1990. Marina del
Rey, CA: Josephson Institute of Ethics.
Fay, Joseph, and Sol Gordon. 1989. Moral sexuality education and democratic
values. Theory Into Practice 28 (Summer): 211-216.
Fraenkel, Jack R. 1977. How to teach about values: An analytic approach.
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Fineman, Howard. 1994. The four faces of Bill Clinton. Newsweek. 7 February,
16-17.
Ginsburg, Alan, and Sandra Hanson. 1990. Values and success: Strategies for at-
risk children and youth. Washington: Department of Education. ERIC,
ED 329602.
Glickman, Carl, ed. 1992. Supervision in transition. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.
Gould, J., and W. L. Kolb. 1964. A dictionary of the social sciences. New York:
Macmillan.
Graham, Ellen. 1988. Values lessons return to the classroom. The Wall Street
Journal. 26 September, 33.
Hanson, E. Mark. 1985. Educational administration and organizational behavior.
2nd ed. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Hanson, Sandra L., and Alan L. Ginsburg. 1988. Gaining ground: Values and
high school success. American Educational Research Journal 25 (Fall):
334-365.
Harris, Edward, and John Hoyle. 1990. The pros and cons of teaching ethics in
the public schools. NASSP Bulletin (October): 17-23.
Hersh, Richard H., John Miller, and Glen D. Fielding. 1980. Models of moral
education an appraisal. New York: Longman.
Hess, Fritz, and Scott Shablak. 1990. The schools of character project: An effort
to address ethics in schools. NASSP Bulletin (October): 50-57.
Honig, Bill. 1990. Teaching values belongs in our public schools. NASSP
Bulletin (October): 6-9.
House, Ernest. 1974. The policies of educational innovation. Berkeley, CA:
McCutchan.
 148

Isaac, S., and Michael W. Isaac. 1984. Handbook in research and evaluation.
2nd ed. San Diego, CA: Edits.
Jendreck, M. P. 1985. Through the maze: Statistics with computer applications.
Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
Joseph, Pamela B. 1986. Like it or not, your schools are teaching values, so
emphasize these. American Schoolboard Journal (May): 35-46.
Kachigan, Sam K. 1986. Statistical analysis. New York: Radius Press.
Kidder, Rushworth M. 1990. Public concerns for ethics rises. The Christian
Science Monitor. 2 Januaiy, 13.
Kirschenbaum, Howard. 1992. A comprehensive model for values education and
moral education. Phi Delta Kappan 73 (June): 771-776.
Kohlberg, Lawrence. 1975. The cognitive-developmental approach to moral
education. Phi Delta Kappan (June): 672-673.
Kohlberg, Lawrence, and R. Moyer. 1972. Development as the aim of education.
Harvard Educational Review 42: 449-496.
Kohn, Alfie. 1991. Caring kids: The role of schools. Phi Delta Kappan (March):
496-505.
Krueckeberg, Donald, and Arthur Silvers. 1974. Urban planning analysis:
Methods and models. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
Law in a free society. 1992. Calabasas, CA: Center for Civic Education.
Lewis, Anne C. 1993. Reinventing government: A continuing conversation. Phi
Delta Kappan (September): 4-5.
Lockwood, A. L. 1993. A letter to character educators. Educational Leadership
(November): 72-75.
Lockwood, A. L. 1991. Character education: The ten percent solution. Social
Education 55: 246-248.
Lickona, Thomas. 1991. Educating for character. New York: Bantom Books.
Iickona, Thomas. 1988. Educating the moral child. Principal (November): 6-10.
Lickona, Thomas. 1976. Moral development and behavior theory, research, and
social issues. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston.
MacDonald, A. P., Jr. 1972. More on the Protestant ethic. Journal of
Consulting and Clinical Psychology 39: 116-122.
 149

Marshall, Catherine, and Gretchen B. Rossman. 1989. Designing qualitative

research. Newbury Park: Sage.
Meighan, R. 1981. Sociology of education. Eastbourne: Holt, Rinehart, and
Winston.
Miles, Matthew B., and A. Michael Hubennan. 1984. Qualitative data analysis:
A sourcebook of new methods. Newbury Park: Sage.
Miller, Delbert C. 1983. Handbook of research design and social measurement.
4th ed. New York: Longman.
Mink, Oscar G., James Shultz, and Barbara Mink. 1979. Developing and
managing open organizations. Austin, TX: OHRD Associates.
Molnar, Alex. 1990. Judging the ethics of ethics education. Educational
Leadership (November): 73-74.
Noddings, Nel. 1991. Values by deliberation or default. The Gearing House
(May/June): 320-322.
Nyberg, David. 1990. Teaching values in school: The mirror and the lamp.
Teachers College Record 91: 595-611.
O'Brien, Shirley. 1986. For parents particularly: An oak drop-leaf table of values.
Childhood Education 62: 292-294.
Peters, Thomas J., and Robert H. Waterman, Jr. 1982. Insearch of excellence:
Lessons from America's best run companies. New York: Harper and Row.
Piaget, Jean. 1965. The moral judgement of the child. New York: Free Press.
Project Charlie. 1992. Edina, MN: Storefront Youth Action.
Prothero, James. 1990. Fantasy, science fiction, and the teaching of values.
English Journal (March): 32-34.
Purpel, David E. 1991. Moral education: An idea whose time has gone. The
Clearing House (May/June): 309-312.
Raths, Louis E., Merril Harmin, and Sidney B. Simon. 1978. Values and
teaching. 2nd ed. Columbus: Charles E. Merrill.
Reimer, Joseph, Diana Paolitto, and Richard H. Hersh. 1983. Promoting moral
growth from Piaget to Kohlberg. 2nd ed. New York: Longman.
Rich, John Martin. 1991. The conflict in moral education: Teaching principles or
values? The Qearing House (May/June): 293-296.
Rokeach, M. 1973. The nature of human values. New York: Free Press.
 150

Ryan, Kevin. 1993. Mining the values in the curriculum. Educational Leadership
(November): 16-18.
Ryan, Kevin. 1988. Moral education in the life of the school. Educational
Leadership (May): 4-8.
Ryan, Kevin. 1986. The new moral education. Phi Delta Kappan (November):
228-233.
Salholz, Eloise, Lynda Wright, and Rebecca Crandall. 1992. A new challenge for
Ueberroth. Newsweek. 18 May, 45.
Scheffler, Israel. 1990. Moral education beyond moral reasoning. New
Directions for Child Development (Spring): 99-102.
Schlaefli, Andre, James R. Rest, and Stephen J. Thoma. 1985. Does moral
education improve moral judgment? A meta-analysis of intervention
studies using the defining issues test. Review of Educational Research 55
(Fall): 319-352.
Sergiovanni, Thomas J. 1992. Moral authority and the regeneration of
supervision. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.
Skills for growing. 1990. Granville, OH: Quest International.
Smith, Wilma F., and Richard L. Andrews. 1989. Instructional leadership how
principals make a difference. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.
Texas Education Agency. 1991. An overview of the academic excellence
indicator system. Austin, TX: Texas Education Agency.
Thomas, Fred L., and Jon I. Young. 1986. An introduction to educational
statistics: The essential elements. Lexington: Ginn Press.
Thomas, Ronald S. 1991. Assessing character education: Paradigms, problems,
and potentials. The gearing House (September/October): 51-55.
Thurston, Paul, Renee Qift, and Marshall Schacht. 1993. Preparing leaders for
change-oriented schools. Phi Delta Kappan (November): 259-265.
Tuck, Kathy, and Aretha Albury. 1990. Values education in the District of
Columbia public schools. Washington: District of Columbia Public Schools.
Viadero, Debra. 1992. Election talk aside, education in values gains momentum.
Education Week (October): 1.
Weick, C. E. 1982. Administering education in loosely coupled schools. Phi
Delta Kappan 27: 673-676.
Whitehead, Barbara. 1993. Dan Quayle was right. The Atlantic Monthly (April):
47.
 151

Wilcox, Ray T. 1988. Indoctrination is not a four-letter word. The Clearing

House (February): 249-252.
Wirt, Frederick M., and Michael W. Kirst. 1992. The politics of education
schools in conflict. 3d ed. Berkeley, CA: McCutchan.
Wynne, Edward A. 1986. The great transition in education: Transmitting moral
values. Educational Leadership 43: 4-9.
Wynne, Edward A., and Herbert J. Walberg. 1986. Character building:
Transmitting values in schools. Curriculum Review 26: 18-22.