Character education is good educati

Character education is good education
In the current climate of high-stakes standardized testing in schools, quality
education is taking quite a beating. Schools are skewing their curricula toward the
narrow content of tests, in some cases actually dropping entire subject areas that
are not being tested that year. Schools are becoming pressure cookers where adults
and students feel oppressed. Teaching is moving toward rote memorization of
whatever is expected to be on the test.
Character education, on the other hand, entails many of the central tenets of
quality education. The Hope Foundation (http://www.communitiesofhope.org)
has identified six characteristics of high-performing schools, which include having
a shared vision and goals, using collaborative teams, and developing leadership
capacity at all levels. A recent study of three at-risk schools that excel academically
(Ancess 2003) identifies the characteristics of success, which include shared governance,
strong leaders who empower others, norms of interpersonal respect, close
caring relationships among staff and between staff and students, and maximal
opportunities for success for all students. The characteristics identified by both of
these reviews align strongly with many of the characteristics of comprehensive
character education: student empowerment, constructivist principles, collaborative
learning, opportunities for student reflection, a focus on the deep and powerful
truths of human experience, and applications of course content to real-life projects
(e.g., service learning). It is therefore not surprising that quality character
education turns out to be good education in general and that educational reforms
like service learning and constructivist education are found not only to promote
academic achievement but also to foster student character development as well.
Likewise, it is not surprising that quality character education results in academic
gains for students, something that has been demonstrated repeatedly in research
(e.g., Aber, Brown, and Henrich 1999; Allen et al. 1997; Battistich and Hong 2003;
Character Education Partnership 2000; Elliott 1993; Flay, Allred, and Ordway
2001; Kiger 2000; Twemlow et al. 2001). All of these studies focus on the academic
effects of particular character-education programs; however, a recent study of 120
elementary schools in California used a more generic definition of character education and found that quality of character education is significantly related to standardized
test scores (Benninga et al. forthcoming).
Character education as primary prevention
In both the scholarly and the practical literatures, a strong distinction is made
between school-based prevention and character education. However, this appears
to be a false dichotomy for two reasons (Berkowitz 2000). First, the two tend to
share many features. Second, character education has been systematically demonstrated
to be an effective form of prevention, especially primary prevention.
Character-education programs like the Child Development Project have
reported significant reductions in violence and substance use (Battistich et al.
2000). Effective prevention programs such as Life-skills Training (Botvin et al.
1997) and All Stars (Harrington et al. 2001) incorporate character-education elements.
Other prevention programs have been demonstrated to both reduce risky
behaviors and promote positive character development (e.g., Allen et al. 1994;
Kam, Greenberg, and Walls 2003; Taylor et al. 1999). Clearly, the distinction
between prevention and character education is murky and character education is
an effective form of primary prevention.
Staff development
Staff involvement and commitment to character education is critical to effective
implementation, just as it is to all instructional innovations or educational reforms
(Hinde 2003). Kam, Greenberg, and Walls (2003) report that implementation of
PATHS depended heavily on teacher commitment.
One of the vastly underutilized components of quality character education is
staff development. Typically, this is so either because the delivery systems were
never built into the character education model or because it is just too expensive (in
terms of both money and time). Many effective character-education models either
require or strongly recommend staff development or offer it as an option (e.g.,
Child Development Project, Responsive Classroom, Community of Caring, Facing
History and Ourselves, Learning for Life, Life Skills Training, Reach Out to
Schools).

Hasil (Bahasa Indonesia) 1:

Pendidikan karakter adalah pendidikan baikDalam iklim saat ini taruhan tinggi standar pengujian di sekolah, kualitasPendidikan adalah mengambil pemukulan cukup. Sekolah membuat kurikulum mereka terhadapsempit isi tes, dalam beberapa kasus yang benar-benar menjatuhkan seluruh pelajaran yangtidak sedang diuji tahun itu. Sekolah menjadi kompor tekanan mana orang dewasadan siswa merasa tertindas. Pengajaran itu bergerak ke arah hafalan penghafalanapa pun diharapkan akan di tes.Pendidikan karakter, di sisi lain, memerlukan banyak ajaran Pusatpendidikan yang berkualitas. Yayasan harapan (http://www.communitiesofhope.org)telah mengidentifikasi enam karakteristik berkinerja tinggi sekolah, yang meliputivisi bersama dan tujuan, menggunakan kolaborasi tim, dan pengembangan kepemimpinankapasitas di semua tingkatan. Sebuah studi terbaru tiga sekolah berisiko yang unggul secara akademis(Ancess 2003) mengidentifikasi karakteristik sukses, yang meliputi bersama pemerintahan,pemimpin yang kuat yang memberdayakan orang lain, norma-norma interpersonal hormat, menutuphubungan yang penuh kepedulian antara staf dan di antara staf dan siswa, dan maksimalkesempatan untuk sukses untuk semua siswa. Ciri-ciri yang diidentifikasi oleh keduaulasan ini sejajar dengan banyak Karakteristik dari komprehensifkarakter pendidikan: mahasiswa pemberdayaan, prinsip-prinsip konstruktivis, kolaboratifbelajar, kesempatan untuk refleksi siswa, fokus pada yang mendalam dan kuattruths of human experience, and applications of course content to real-life projects(e.g., service learning). It is therefore not surprising that quality charactereducation turns out to be good education in general and that educational reformslike service learning and constructivist education are found not only to promoteacademic achievement but also to foster student character development as well.Likewise, it is not surprising that quality character education results in academicgains for students, something that has been demonstrated repeatedly in research(e.g., Aber, Brown, and Henrich 1999; Allen et al. 1997; Battistich and Hong 2003;Character Education Partnership 2000; Elliott 1993; Flay, Allred, and Ordway2001; Kiger 2000; Twemlow et al. 2001). All of these studies focus on the academiceffects of particular character-education programs; however, a recent study of 120elementary schools in California used a more generic definition of character education and found that quality of character education is significantly related to standardizedtest scores (Benninga et al. forthcoming).Character education as primary preventionIn both the scholarly and the practical literatures, a strong distinction is madebetween school-based prevention and character education. However, this appearsto be a false dichotomy for two reasons (Berkowitz 2000). First, the two tend toshare many features. Second, character education has been systematically demonstratedto be an effective form of prevention, especially primary prevention.Character-education programs like the Child Development Project havereported significant reductions in violence and substance use (Battistich et al.2000). Effective prevention programs such as Life-skills Training (Botvin et al.1997) and All Stars (Harrington et al. 2001) incorporate character-education elements.Other prevention programs have been demonstrated to both reduce riskybehaviors and promote positive character development (e.g., Allen et al. 1994;Kam, Greenberg, and Walls 2003; Taylor et al. 1999). Clearly, the distinctionbetween prevention and character education is murky and character education isan effective form of primary prevention.Staff developmentStaff involvement and commitment to character education is critical to effectiveimplementation, just as it is to all instructional innovations or educational reforms(Hinde 2003). Kam, Greenberg, and Walls (2003) report that implementation ofPATHS depended heavily on teacher commitment.One of the vastly underutilized components of quality character education isstaff development. Typically, this is so either because the delivery systems werenever built into the character education model or because it is just too expensive (interms of both money and time). Many effective character-education models eitherrequire or strongly recommend staff development or offer it as an option (e.g.,Child Development Project, Responsive Classroom, Community of Caring, FacingHistory and Ourselves, Learning for Life, Life Skills Training, Reach Out toSchools).

Hasil (Bahasa Indonesia) 2:

Pendidikan karakter adalah pendidikan yang baik
Dalam iklim saat ini berisiko tinggi standar pengujian di sekolah-sekolah, kualitas
pendidikan adalah mengambil cukup pemukulan. Sekolah skewing kurikulum mereka terhadap
konten sempit tes, dalam beberapa kasus benar-benar menjatuhkan seluruh bidang studi yang
tidak sedang diuji tahun itu. Sekolah menjadi tekanan kompor di mana orang dewasa
dan siswa merasa tertindas. Pengajaran bergerak menuju menghafal dari
apa yang diharapkan untuk berada di tes.
Pendidikan karakter, di sisi lain, memerlukan banyak prinsip utama
pendidikan yang berkualitas. The Hope Foundation (http://www.communitiesofhope.org)
telah mengidentifikasi enam karakteristik sekolah berkinerja tinggi, yang termasuk memiliki
visi dan tujuan bersama, menggunakan tim kolaboratif, dan mengembangkan kepemimpinan
kapasitas di semua tingkatan. Sebuah studi baru-baru ini tiga sekolah berisiko yang unggul secara akademis
(Ancess 2003) mengidentifikasi karakteristik keberhasilan, yang meliputi tata kelola bersama,
pemimpin yang kuat yang memberdayakan orang lain, norma menghormati interpersonal, dekat
hubungan peduli antara staf dan antara staf dan siswa, dan maksimal
kesempatan untuk sukses bagi semua siswa. Karakteristik diidentifikasi oleh kedua
ulasan ini menyelaraskan kuat dengan banyak karakteristik yang komprehensif
pendidikan karakter: pemberdayaan siswa, prinsip-prinsip konstruktivis, kolaboratif
belajar, kesempatan untuk refleksi siswa, fokus pada yang mendalam dan kuat
kebenaran dari pengalaman manusia, dan aplikasi tentu saja konten untuk proyek kehidupan nyata
(misalnya, KKN). Oleh karena itu, tidak mengherankan bahwa karakter kualitas
pendidikan ternyata pendidikan yang baik pada umumnya dan bahwa reformasi pendidikan
seperti KKN dan pendidikan konstruktivis ditemukan tidak hanya untuk mempromosikan
prestasi akademik tetapi juga untuk mendorong pengembangan karakter siswa juga.
Demikian juga, tidak mengherankan bahwa hasil pendidikan karakter yang berkualitas di bidang akademik
keuntungan bagi siswa, sesuatu yang telah dibuktikan berulang kali dalam penelitian
(misalnya, Aber, Brown, dan Henrich 1999; Allen et al 1997;. Battistich dan Hong 2003;
Pendidikan karakter Partnership 2000; Elliott 1993; Flay, Allred, dan Ordway
2001; Kiger 2000;. Twemlow et al, 2001). Semua studi ini berfokus pada akademik
efek program karakter-pendidikan tertentu; Namun, sebuah penelitian terbaru dari 120
sekolah dasar di California menggunakan definisi yang lebih generik pendidikan karakter dan menemukan bahwa kualitas pendidikan karakter secara signifikan terkait dengan standar
nilai tes (Benninga et al. yang akan datang).
Pendidikan karakter sebagai pencegahan primer
Dalam kedua ilmiah dan literatur praktis, perbedaan yang kuat dibuat
antara pencegahan berbasis sekolah dan pendidikan karakter. Namun, ini tampaknya
menjadi dikotomi palsu karena dua alasan (Berkowitz 2000). Pertama, dua cenderung
berbagi banyak fitur. Kedua, pendidikan karakter telah sistematis menunjukkan
menjadi bentuk efektif pencegahan, terutama pencegahan primer.
Program Karakter-pendidikan seperti Proyek Pengembangan Anak telah
melaporkan penurunan yang signifikan dalam kekerasan dan substansi digunakan (Battistich et al.
2000). Program pencegahan yang efektif seperti Pelatihan keterampilan-hidup (Botvin et al.
1997) dan All Stars (Harrington et al. 2001) memasukkan unsur-unsur karakter-pendidikan.
Program pencegahan lain telah dibuktikan untuk kedua mengurangi berisiko
perilaku dan mempromosikan pengembangan karakter positif (misalnya , Allen et al 1994;.
Kam, Greenberg, dan Walls 2003; Taylor et al, 1999).. Jelas, perbedaan
antara pencegahan dan pendidikan karakter adalah keruh dan pendidikan karakter adalah
bentuk efektif pencegahan primer.
Pengembangan staf
keterlibatan staf dan komitmen untuk pendidikan karakter sangat penting untuk efektif
pelaksanaan, seperti itu adalah untuk semua inovasi pembelajaran atau reformasi pendidikan
(Hinde 2003). Kam, Greenberg, dan Walls (2003) melaporkan bahwa pelaksanaan
JALAN sangat tergantung pada komitmen guru.
Salah satu komponen sangat kurang dimanfaatkan pendidikan karakter kualitas
pengembangan staf. Biasanya, ini begitu baik karena sistem pengiriman yang
tidak pernah dibangun ke dalam model pendidikan karakter atau karena terlalu mahal (di
baik dari segi uang dan waktu). Banyak model-pendidikan karakter yang efektif baik
memerlukan atau sangat merekomendasikan pengembangan staf atau menawarkan sebagai pilihan (misalnya,
Proyek Pengembangan Anak, Kelas Responsif, Komunitas Peduli, Menghadapi
Sejarah dan Diri Sendiri, Belajar untuk Hidup, Life Skills Training, Reach Out untuk
Sekolah ).