ing and decision-making strategies such as being able to identify one's moral choices and appraise their consequences (Lickona, 1996).
The increasing violence in American schools, the lack of even basic courtesy and manners exhibited by many children, and the profound failure of many students to articulate a moral or ethical code lead to a turning away from the permissive and non-directional style of the 1960s and 1970s (Lickona, 1997). If anything seemed clear, it was the fact that the new form of character education wasn't working. Indeed, the central premise of today's character education movement, which takes a far more directive and inculcative approach, is that the irresponsible and destructive youth behaviors of violence, dishonesty, drug abuse, sexual promiscuity, and a poor work ethic have a common core: the absence of good character. Today, character education attempts to return to directive instruction in good values and good citizenship (Lickona, 1991, 1997).
A key question that can be asked here is how educators might determine whether the character education programs they have designed are likely to be effective builders of character in students. One answer to this question has been offered by Lickona, Schapps and Lewis (1997) who, based on a comprehensive review of the character education literature, concluded that while there is no single script for what makes character education effective, there are 11 basic principles which should serve as criteria for designing effective character education programs. These 11 principles are:
1. Effective character education programs promote core ethical values as the basis of good character, e.g., honesty, sportsmanship, teamwork, a good work ethic, etc.
2. Effective character education programs comprehensively define character in terms of thinking, feeling, and behavior.
3. Effective character education programs are intentional, proactive, and comprehensive, pr...