PROMISING PRACTICES for CHARACTER EDUCATION and EDUCATIONAL LEADERSHIP a Report of the Kern Partners for Character and Educational Leadership

Home , Character education

PROMISING PRACTICES FOR CHARACTER EDUCATION AND EDUCATIONAL LEADERSHIP A Report of the Kern Partners for Character and Educational Leadership

Ariel Tichnor-Wagner Boston University Hardin Coleman Boston University Karen Bohlin Montrose School Deborah Farmer Kris Montrose School

About the Authors

Ariel Tichnor-Wagner, Ph.D., is a lecturer in Educational Leadership and Policy Studies at Boston University Wheelock College of Education and Human Development. With a deep commitment to identifying and leveraging policies, programs, and practices that promote the academic and social-emotional development of youth from historically marginalized communities, her research focuses on education policy and program implementation centered on social emotional learning, global competence, and civic education. She is the author of the books Becoming a Globally Competent Teacher and Becoming a Globally Competent School Leader, and her research has been published in various scholarly and practitioner outlets.

Hardin L. K. Coleman, Ph.D., is a professor of Counseling Psychology and Applied Human De- velopment at Boston University Wheelock College of Education and Human Development, faculty director of the Center for Character and Social Responsibility, and Dean Emeritus of the College. He is a scholar, educator, counselor, and leader who works in university, local, national, and international contexts to support positive educational outcomes for all children. He is an internationally recognized researcher, educational leader, and speaker.

Karen Bohlin is director of the LifeCompass Institute, head of the Montrose School, senior scholar at Boston University’s Center for Character and Social Responsibility, and a veteran educator who has taught at the middle, high school and university level. She was formerly an assistant professor of Education and director of Boston University’s Center for Ethics and Character, and has advised state departments of education and ministries of education around the world. She is the author and contributing author of several books, including Teaching Character Educa- tion Through Literature: Awakening the Moral Imagination (Routledge 2005), Building Character in Schools (Jossey-Bass 1999), and Happiness and Virtue: Beyond East and West: Toward a New Global Responsibility (Tuttle 2012). Her professional development work focuses on leading with practical wisdom and educating the heart.

Deborah Farmer Kris is the associate director of the LifeCompass Institute. In addition, she serves as a parenting columnist and consultant for PBS Kids for Parents, writes about education for MindShift (an NPR education blog), and is an associate scholar at Boston University’s Center for Character and Social Responsibility. Over the course of her career, Deborah has taught nearly every K-12 grade and worked as a school administrator. Her writing has been featured in The Washington Post, and she is the co-author of the book Building Character in Schools: A Resource Guide.

iii Acknowledgments

Our team would like to first and foremost thank the Kern Family Foundation for its generous support of the Kern Partners for Character and Educational Leadership (KPCEL), the creation of this report, and all of the activities highlighted in it. We would also like to thank all of the teams from the following institutions who participated in the KPCEL programming in 2019 and 2020 and contributed their valuable time, experience, and expertise: Arizona State University, Boston College, California State University Fresno, Common Sense Education, Doral Lead- ership Institute, Intellectual Virtues Academy, Lipscomb University, Medical College of Wis- consin, Montrose School, North Central College, Open Sky Education, Samford University, Santa Clara University, Seton Education Partners/Brilla School Network, St. Mary’s University of Minnesota, University of Minnesota, University of Missouri St. Louis, University of North- ern Iowa, University of Oklahoma, University of Tennessee, and Wake Forest University. We are grateful for the character education experts who presented at our three convenings, including Angela Duckworth, Tyler Vanderweele, Robert McGrath, Tenelle Porter, Marvin Berkowitz, David Walker, Jacquie Bryant, Louise Dubé, Marc Brackett, and Thomas Lickona. We also thank Maryellen Madaio for making the three convenings happen and our project managers, Emma Gleckel and Edith Ortiz, for all of their assistance in this work.

iv 1 Introduction

How can approaches to character education be systematically developed and integrated into educational leadership programs and PK-12 schools? How do we know that these approaches are leading to desired improvements? These questions were at the heart of the yearlong work of the Kern Partners for Character and Educational Leadership (KPCEL). With generous support from the Kern Family Foundation and facilitated by a team from Boston University and the Montrose School LifeCompass Institute, 20 teams—representing higher education institutions, K-12 schools, and nonprofits across the United States committed to integrating character edu cation approaches—convened for six in-person and virtual meetings between June 2019 and June 2020. The goals of these convenings were for all partners to: a) gain a deep understanding of how to integrate character education into and assess character education in educational leadership programs; b) receive resources, research, and models of excellence in character education and school leadership; c) develop programs and practices to implement in their educational leader ship programs; and d) share promising practices emerging across unique contexts. Our year together resulted in insights on approaches that are showing promise of working for developing and integrating character education into educational leadership programs in higher education and K-12 institutions. In addition, we learned how intentionally planned networked experiences can promote the exchange of valuable ideas and inspiration for implementing and sustaining similar character education visions and approaches. The purpose of this report is twofold: to share promising practices that higher education and education leadership participants have successfully adapted to local contexts; and to share the improvement science processes that guided development and implementation.

What is Character Education? Why Does it Matter for Educational Leadership? Education in its fullest sense is “inescapably a moral enterprise – a continuous and conscious effort to guide students to know and pursue what is good and what is worthwhile” (Ryan et al., 1996. At its core, character education is the intentional, structured ways in which schools foster the moral, prosocial development of students (Berkowitz et al., 2012; McGrath, 2018). Or as Kevin Ryan (2002) writes, “You can think of character education as teaching children to know

1 the good, to love the good, and to do the good.” It’s about helping students develop the habits—or virtues—that enable them to thrive academically and in relationships with others. There is not one prescribed method for infusing character education into school-based settings or one clear set of outcomes that all character education initiatives espouse. However, effective approaches do tend to address a holistic vision of human flourishing—including intellectual, civic, moral, and performance virtues—and the skills, habits, and mindsets necessary to move toward this aim (Jubilee Centre for Character and Virtues, 2017). These character education approaches also foster a caring school community that engages all faculty and staff in modeling and teaching the core ethical values that character education espouses (Lickona et al., 2007; McGrath, 2018). In essence, outcomes of character education are holistic in nature, tending the head, heart, and hand in ways that deepen agency and ultimately allow for human flourishing. Moreover, these outcomes permeate across the ethos of a school. Educational leadership is crucial for intentionally integrating character education into the ethos of schools. When it comes to building school culture and climate around any new reform, school leaders play the important roles of setting the vision, gathering resources, and building capacity of staff -- all of which help to create change to instructional practices (Leithwood et al., 2004; Tichnor-Wagner, 2019). The same holds true for character education initiatives. As Berkowitz & Bier (2004) found “leadership is key” to running effective character education initiatives. The authors explain:

Leading a school of character requires that the principal first fully understands what quality character education entails…Then the principal must really commit to this vision and truly want to make it happen under his or her watch. Finally, the principal must have the requisite skills to enact quality character education and then to live it out both personally and programmatically. (p. 77)

The requisite set of knowledge, dispositions, and skills that school leaders need to integrate character education into all aspects of school life points to the need for leaders to have intentional training, as commitment and capacity do not develop overnight. Central to this training is education in practical wisdom, or what Aristotle called phronesis. Leadership in character education does not require simply theoretical knowledge, but a capacity to apply that wisdom to particular individuals and groups of individuals in particular contexts under particular circumstances. In other words, school leaders need the practical wisdom to read and assess each person, situation, and case to adjudicate and make professionally wise choices when goods come into conflict. For example, how do we address disciplinary issues with both fairness and compassion and how do we adjudicate and determine what is best for each student and adult without descending to mere compliance to rules on the one hand, or laxness on the other? Practical wisdom helps school leaders make decisions day to day within a clear framework aimed at student flourishing (Bohlin & Farmer Kris, 2018; Kris & Bohlin, 2020).

Promising Practices for Character Education and Educational Leadership 2 While exemplar programs exist, the extent to which educational leadership programs across the United States intentionally and systematically address character education has not yet scaled across a critical mass. Although a growing science of character education demonstrates “what works” in character education (see, for example, Berkowitz & Bier, 2004; Berkowitz et al., 2012; Character Lab; Jubilee Centre for Character & Virtues), there is still a need to understand how leaders can adapt what works within and across unique educational settings and how to best prepare school leaders to cultivate a culture of character within their unique school contexts.

A Report of the Kern Partners for Character and Educational Leadership 3 2 The KPCEL Improvement Process

A Networked Improvement Community Approach to Character Education The KPCEL adopted improvement science principles to address the dual needs of local ad- aptation and spread of character education through a leadership lens. Improvement science seeks to understand what works, for whom, and under what conditions. It is a context-specific, data-driven methodology that builds capacity for bringing about sustainable systems change. Three questions undergird the improvement process: 1) What are we trying to accomplish? 2) How will we know if a change is an improvement? 3) What changes can we make that will result in an improvement? (Langley et al., 2009). A networked improvement community (NIC) is a learning community intentionally designed around improvement science principles, wherein site-level teams come together around a common aim, are guided by a deep understanding of the problem and the system that produced it, utilize improvement science methods to devise and implement solutions, and share knowledge gained across network members to accelerate learning and the scaling of promising innovations (Bryk et al., 2015). The improvement science process that we utilized drew upon models from the Institute for Healthcare Improvement (IHI) and the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teach- ing. Improvement teams determined a site-specific problem of practice, conducted root cause analyses to understand the system producing the problem, wrote an aim statement, developed a change idea that addresses the root cause of that problem of practice, and tested the change idea through Plan-Do-Study-Act (PDSA) cycles. PDSA cycles are iterative, rapid, cycle tests to see if proposed changes lead to improvements; these rapid, cycle tests are meant to be integrated into the daily work of practitioners. Core to our model of adult learning was pairing improvement science methodology with rich character education content, including presentations from esteemed character education experts and curated character education resources. This approach gave our partners: a) core knowledge in character education that each individual could directly apply to their practice, which Douglas Engelbart describes as “A-level learning”; b) a process for applying that within an institution, or “B-level learning”; and c) a structure for sharing knowledge across institutions, or “C-level learning” (Bryk et al., 2015).

4 Figure 1 Individual and Collective NIC Learning

Note. Adapted from Bryk et al. (2015).

KPCEL Members KPCEL members included teams from 20 institutions, representing secular universities, Chris- tian colleges, K-12 private and charter schools, and nonprofit organizations supporting K-12 schools with character-related resources. Because the focus of the KPCEL was on educational leadership, the majority of teams came from educational leadership programs that trained future and current school leaders. In addition, teams from college-wide coalitions, K-12 schools, a medical school, and educational nonprofits provided a wider lens for building knowledge on how character education can be infused and assessed across a range of educational contexts. Teams varied in their institutions' prior experience with character education. For example, some educational leadership programs had been steadily building character education into their respective programs for years. For other teams, this was their first time intentionally thinking through how to develop and implement character education. What the teams shared was a commitment to character education.

KPCEL Activities The KPCEL convened three times as a whole group (the first two held in person at Boston University and the third one online via Zoom due to the COVID-19 pandemic). Between each whole group convening, teams attended webinars in smaller groups for training and technical support in applying improvement science methodologies. Overall, team participation rates remained high across all in-person and virtual events between June 2019 and June 2020. Out of the six KPCEL convenings and webinars (described in detail below), 75% of teams attended at least five and just about 50% attended all six. The first convening focused on conceptual knowledge of flourishing, practical wisdom, and character virtues, and how researchers have assessed these in different contexts. Then, teams brainstormed problems of practice related to character education within their respective institutions. Here, it became clear that partners were at different stages of developing or implementing

A Report of the Kern Partners for Character and Educational Leadership 5 programs of character education. Some problems of practice articulated the need for building the infrastructure within which character education could work. These problems of practice articulated, for example, the need for common understandings, visions, and plans around character education. The problems of practice included:

 how to build a comprehensive plan based on a common definition of character that educates (educational leadership) candidates, assesses practice, and supports successful program implementation;.  how to expand faculty knowledge, ownership, and growth in character development; and  how to become much more intentional, explicit, and systemic about integrating and assessing character education meaningfully in our educational leadership development programs.

Other problems of practice focused on changes to specific, concrete processes and practices in character education within an existing, supportive infrastructure. Examples of these types of problems of practice included:

 how to create systematic curricular changes that actively and intentionally embed character education into the master’s degree principal preparation program;  not having an embedded assessment in its character education program; and  teachers not receiving feedback on their own character growth goals, and a lack of resources to measure (and identify) areas of virtue growth.

Between convenings, teams virtually met during webinars to determine root causes of their problems of practice, identify aim statements, brainstorm practical measures to determine if they were making improvements, and develop change ideas that would help reach the specific aims. Common root causes underlying the teams’ problems of practice included institutional policies (e.g., lack of alignment with existing strategic plans, a culture of “silos” within higher education institutions), resources (e.g., time to collaborate, inquire, or find, align, and create resources), and people (e.g., lack of faculty expertise in character education, capacity of faculty to do the work, communication gaps). Because institutional policies often cannot be immediately addressed or fall out of the locus of control of faculty members to change, aim statements addressed realistic goals related to resources (e.g., the creation of learning activities and curricular resources) and people (e.g., forging a shared understanding among faculty around character education). During the second webinar, teams were also introduced to the concept of practical measurement as a way to test, using proximal “just-in time” data, the extent to which aims were being met. Teams identified a range of measures they might use, including perception surveys, self-evaluations of learning modules, analyzing student work, and dispositional rubrics.

Promising Practices for Character Education and Educational Leadership 6 Table 1 Sample Team Aims Team Aims  All faculty develops an understanding of the character education framework, including what character education is and is not by June 2020.  Articulate a clear vision and shared language for formative leadership at by spring 2020 Building  Define leadership competencies that can be adopted across all lead- Foundations ership training programs and a measurement rubric for these competencies by fall 2021.  School of Education faculty will participate in professional development and gain knowledge regarding character formation, related school and family practices, and research in character development and related activities.

 Specific outcomes and related measures to assess positive character development will be identified for four programs/courses by January 2020. Developing  In an effort to resource adults to expand knowledge, ownership, and Resources individual development with regard to Character Initiatives (Adult Formation, specifically), we will create or source and align one to three takeaway materials for staff for all late winter and spring formation sessions.

 One hundred percent of educational leadership programs will have incorporated evidence-based character education information and competency training to cultivate educational leaders who are equipped to lead effective schools for learning and development.  By summer 2021, at least 50% of our leadership development courses and program modules will explicitly teach, address, and/or assess Implementing some aspect of character development. Programs and  By fall 2021, program faculty will intentionally embed the eight Practices practices of principled innovation within two-thirds of coursework through videos, reflection tools, auto/self ethnographic research, self-narratives, and signature assignments.  By April 2020, 100% of faculty will have engaged in at least one coaching conversation with students to help them develop practical wisdom as they navigate their academic growth and/or participation in the school community.

The second convening centered on the practical application of character education, with presentations from experts operating educational leadership programs focused on character and educators in K-12 schools leading character education initiatives. During the afternoon work- shop, teams had an opportunity to flesh out their change ideas, receive feedback from other teams, and plan for the first round of PDSA cycles. Between the January convening and April

A Report of the Kern Partners for Character and Educational Leadership 7 meeting, teams who felt ready were tasked with conducting the “Do” phase of PDSA cycles, carrying out their plans and measuring if their change ideas were leading to improvements. Practical measures that teams used captured both qualitative and quantitative data. Qualitative measures included collecting reflective writing from students, focus groups with participating students, and observations of faculty discussions. Quantitative measures included, for example, documenting the number of character education activities and learners reached when doing curriculum mapping, participation numbers, and surveys from students or faculty who participated in character education learning opportunities. Surveys measured character outcomes (e.g., empathy, intellectual humility) or perceptions of the experience. In the midst of conducting PDSA cycles and developing character education initiatives, the COVID-19 pandemic hit. This public health crisis disrupted teams’ plans in various ways: pressing pause on implementing certain change ideas until the fall; halting programs midway through; and shifting the modality of content delivery. The April webinar provided teams an opportunity to share progress to date, celebrate successes, troubleshoot challenges, and—for those teams who had collected data—conduct the “Study” and “Act” portions of the cycle. Although many teams described ways that the pandemic altered their plans, they also were persistent in pushing plans along. For the third convening, the KPCEL network came together virtually to present to one another how they applied the improvement process at their own institutions, promising processes and practices in building the foundations for and implementing character education initiatives, and commitments for next steps for individual and collective action. Table 2 shows the timeline of activities and content covered, explaining how capacity building in character education content and improvement science processes were weaved throughout.

Table 2 KPCEL Activities Character Improvement Date Education Content Science Methods Convening 1: Character Education: What are We Aiming for and How Do We Measure It? What Builds Character  Developing norms, com- Angela Duckworth, Character munication channels, and Lab, University of Pennsylvania shared common aims of the Why Practical Wisdom Matters NIC Karen Bohlin, LifeCompass  Identifying a problem of June 2019 Institute practice Measuring Character Tyler Vanderweele, Harvard University Robert McGrath, VIA Institute on Character Tenelle Porter, University of California, Davis

Promising Practices for Character Education and Educational Leadership 8 Webinar 1: Understanding the System: Root Causes and Aims September 2019  Determining root causes of problem of practice  Identifying aim statements Webinar 2: Practical Measures and Change Ideas  Refining aim statements  Determining practical mea- November 2019 sures for tracking improvements  Identifying changes that will help achieve aims January 2020 Convening 2: What Successful Programs Look Like & How They Stay on Track What Successful Programs Look Like  Finalizing character educa- & How They Stay on Track tion change to implement Marvin Berkowitz, University  Introducing PDSA cycles of Missouri–St. Louis  “Planning” for Character Education & Measurement implementation David Walker, University of Alabama Practical Wisdom in Action Jacquie Bryant, Intellectual Virtues Academy Deborah Farmer Kris, LifeCompass Institute Webinar 3: PDSA Cycle Check-in  Sharing team progress, April 2020 including successes and challenges regarding implementation Convening 3: Reporting on Best Practices and Next Steps The Sweet Spot: Where Social-  Team presentations on Emotional Learning, Civics and sharing and scaling charac- Character Education Meet ter education practices Podcast featuring special guests  Sustaining character edu- Louise Dubé, iCivics, and Marc cation: Small group discus- June 2020 Brackett, Yale sions on ongoing challeng- Ryan Symposium Roundtable es, root causes, and next Hardin Coleman, Karen Bohlin, steps and Deborah Farmer Kris Reflections on the Impact of Leadership in Character Education Remarks by Thomas Lickona, Center for the 4th and 5th Rs

A Report of the Kern Partners for Character and Educational Leadership 9 Importantly, the improvement process was constantly iterated on throughout the year to adjust to how ready KPCEL members felt their institutions were to begin implementing character education initiatives. While the original intent of the KPCEL was to focus on assessing character education in the context of educational leadership programs, it became clear after the first convening that many teams were still in the process of developing character education initiatives and did not feel ready to broach the conversation of assessment. Therefore, we modified the NIC aim from “100% of NIC members will have clear, high-quality character education assessment plans in place for students and/or graduates” to “100% of NIC members will have clear, high-quality character education program implementation and/or assessment plans in place for students and/or program graduates.” Relatedly, many teams were in the process of building the foundation upon which character education initiatives could grow and did not feel ready to implement PDSA cycles to test innovative character education designs. As such, we did not require all teams to conduct PDSA cycles and present on the results. For those teams still in the development stage, teams took that time to lay the foundations by, for example, creating working groups to come up with a shared definition of character education. In addition, during the improvement science webinars, we intentionally, though not perfectly, grouped teams based on the problems of practices and aims that teams were addressing.

KPCEL Resources In addition to providing character education content and the structured facilitation of a networked experience, the KPCEL NIC supported participants by curating resources. The Mon- trose School LifeCompass Institute created a page devoted to KPCEL character education resources and invited colleagues in the field to contribute. The institute’s curated list provides over 100 entries—many with live links—to recommended articles, reports, books, centers, and tools for school leaders. These resources can be found at https://www.montroseschool.org/lifecompass/kpcel-resources. Additionally, the KPCEL NIC utilized an array of improvement science protocols to guide thinking, planning, and analysis, many of which were adopted or adapted from the IHI.1 These tools included fishbone diagrams to conduct root cause analysis, driver diagrams for planning solutions that address the root causes and the aim, and PDSA cycle planning sheets.

1 Versions of these tools can be found free of cost at the IHI website: http://www.ihi.org/resources/Pages/default. aspx.

Promising Practices for Character Education and Educational Leadership 10 3 What We’re Learning: Promising Practices for Integrating and Assessing Character Education

Key Findings Across Team Cases Teams who presented at the final convening in June 2020 shared a range of promising practices that span the phases of implementation: building foundational will and capacity within an institution to adopt character as a learning outcome; developing programs, processes, and practices; and implementing and iterating on those programs, processes, and practices. Appendix A provides case studies of how individual teams engaged in the improvement process, descriptions of their change ideas, and emerging findings of what may work in their unique contexts. Below, we synthesize promising practices that teams developed and tested, as articulated in Appendix A, along with common challenges that emerged across diverse institutional sites. Then we discuss the potential of the NIC structure in building individual and collective capacity for developing and implementing character education approaches that support education leaders in higher edu cation and K-12 schools.

Building the Foundations Promising Practice 1: Convene Dedicated Teams. Having people with the capacity to engage in character work is critical, particularly people who have the time, commitment, and knowledge to build programs out. Hiring new faculty or bringing faculty together from various departments are strategies that teams used to build faculty and staff capacity. For example, the team from Wake Forest University started in June 2019 with a staff of two. The Wake Forest team was able to expand that staff to six, which created the capacity to build a robust research and evaluation team for character education courses and initiatives being developed and implemented. The University of Alabama recruited team members from across the university with different areas of expertise. The Alabama team spent the whole first half of the year training team members in developing virtue ethics character education knowledge among team members and planning for the project ahead with school superintendents. Outcomes included developing

11 team cohesion, enhancing team character education knowledge, and creating character education material. Promising Practice 2: Create a Shared Vision of Leadership That Includes Character. Multiple teams took the time to develop a clear vision and definition of what character education meant, bringing together multiple stakeholders to arrive at common understanding. To create these vision statements, some universities have created cross-disciplinary teams or working groups. As one example, the Boston College team drafted a shared vision of leadership that included “shared commitments to developing educational leaders who:

 Are informed by an understanding of purpose and a moral imperative to provide each and every child with substantive opportunities to learn and grow as whole people within nurturing communities;  Link theory, practice, and evidence through continual reflection to inform change based in responsible actions to increase the life chances of all students, further equity, and promote the common good;  Grow and benefit from being part of a community of learners from diverse backgrounds; and  Approach problems of practice holistically in the contexts from which they emerge and leverage knowledge and practice to produce high impact change and purpose, and engage in a process of continual reflection to solve problems of practice as they emerge.”

Promising Practice 3: Develop Character Education Knowledge Among Faculty and Staff. A number of teams successfully built foundations for infusing character education by intentionally building the knowledge base of faculty and staff. This process included providing or creating character education resources and providing professional learning opportunities. Before the pandemic interrupted their work, Lipscomb University had begun the process of internally and externally vetting character education resources that faculty, including adjunct faculty, could use when teaching courses in the Educational Leadership Program. In addition, they planned to create screencast videos to introduce adjunct faculty to the “instructional shifts in the curriculum regarding new standards, content, and character development.” The educational leadership department at Samford University aimed to expand faculty knowledge of character education. The department provided opportunities for faculty to attend presentations and convenings with character education experts and receive books and articles focused on character education for discussion. The majority of faculty participated in at least one of the character learning activities they provided, and faculty responses on survey feedback indicate that their awareness regarding character education had increased. Promising Practice 4: Align Character Education Learning Outcomes and Curricu- lum Maps. Multiple teams explicitly mapped out where character education learning outcomes

Promising Practices for Character Education and Educational Leadership 12 would be taught through curricular alignment and mapping exercises. These alignment activities resulted in changes to curriculum and programs of study in ways that infused or enhanced character outcomes for educational leaders. For example, the team from North Central College’s Master of Education in Educational Leadership program created a culminating Culture of Character (CoC) project for the comprehensive administrative internship. In this program project, leadership candidates evaluate a PK-12 school’s culture, focusing on how it fosters character, and design an initiative that helps advance that school’s culture of character. Through a self-assessment, the team realized that for leadership candidates to successfully complete this culminating project, they needed “carefully sequenced coursework that has intentionally infused character education in classroom activities, assignments, and assessments.” To respond to this need, the team developed programmatic learning outcomes (PLOs) focused on leadership virtues, leader character development, and practical wisdom, along with moral, ethical, servant, and transformational leadership styles. In the end, they created a CoC Curriculum Map that articulated where in the eight Master Course Outlines character education outcomes would be introduced and practiced and successfully demonstrated that the learning outcomes were weaved throughout the program sequence.

Implementing Character Education Programs and Practices Promising Practice 5: Embed Character within Leadership Courses. A next step to these alignment activities is the teaching of character within leadership courses. At Arizona State Uni- versity (ASU), the team from the Leadership Pathways Program within the Educational Leader ship and Innovation Division at the ASU Mary Lou Fulton Teachers College embedded the eight practices of principled innovation (PI) into the principal internship. They created a series of short videos addressing PI and the role of the principal. They also produced a set of reflective questions, which the students responded to after watching the video. The questions were incorporated into five of the 15 modules in the online principal internship course. Outcomes show the promise of this approach to embedding character as 100% of students successfully connected the content videos with PI practices. Promising Practice 6: Create Singular Learning Opportunities for Students Targeting Specific Character Outcomes. Some teams created specific learning opportunities focused on character outcomes, including character reflection exercises for students or activities outside of a traditional course of study. For example, the team from Wake Forest University designed an intervention with planned booster activities to see if that could have a measurable impact on key virtues of character. Students from Wake Forest University and Winston-Salem State University participated in a joint tour of the International Civil Rights Museum and post-tour discussion to commemorate the 60th anniversary of the sit-ins to desegregate lunch counters in Winston-Salem. Pre- and post-surveys of students and student focus groups suggested that the experiences enhanced the following character virtues: empathy, cross-cultural understanding, civic orientation and self-efficacy, and racial/ethnic identity.

A Report of the Kern Partners for Character and Educational Leadership 13 Promising Practice 7: Create Protocols and Provide Ongoing Training. A handful of teams used PDSA cycles to refine protocols and routines designed for K-12 educators to cultivate character virtues in students. Montrose School, a private school for girls in grades 6-12, focused on training faculty to more effectively coach students in practical wisdom. They refined the LifeCompass Coaching Conversation Protocol, which helps students reflect, recalibrate, and respond in ways that help them work towards their goals, and trained teachers in reflective listening strategies and on the coaching protocol. A faculty survey revealed that nearly all teachers implemented the protocols and found the protocols helpful. The survey also revealed that over half of the teachers noted that the protocols helped students develop the desired character disposition of taking ownership in developing solutions to the challenges they face.

Common Challenges Whether building the foundations for character education within their institutions or developing and iterating on programs, practices, and protocols, KPCEL members reported ongoing challenges as they continued to push character education initiatives forward in their respective institutions. These challenges reflected the root causes of problems of practice that teams identified in earlier meetings, particularly pertaining to people and resources. Regarding people, numerous KPCEL members pointed to the challenges of building buy-in for character education across stakeholders in diverse institutions, developing faculty and staff capacity for designing, delivering, and assessing character education approaches, and including a range of stakeholders into the initiative: tenure, tenure track, and adjunct faculty, staff that supports students, coaches, and new and veteran faculty. Regarding resources, KPCEL members pointed to reduced funding and the need for external funding as a challenge to reaching character education goals. Time also remained a perennial challenge. Particularly in educational leadership programs, it remained difficult to determine where to fit in character education given numerous competing demands. In addition, assessment remained an explicitly stated challenge. At the end of the third convening, a number of KPCEL members did not yet feel comfortable with measuring impact or creating a system of measurement for how effectively character is being taught. Another member noted that their team did not have the “time or expertise to assess the efficacy of character education.” Measurement was also a challenge in the implementation of PDSA cycles, as a number of teams, primarily those in the beginning stages of building foundations, did not collect formative data. Finally, the pandemic introduced a new challenge for multiple teams: adapting resources for online and asynchronous learning and readjusting plans in the wake of school closures and remote learning. As one team reflected, “Like many universities, our biggest challenge has been trying to maintain our programming and research studies in the wake of COVID-19. Our program works best in settings that allow for in-person interaction. Therefore, we are looking for different ways to continue our work in a meaningful way using a virtual platform.” This situation also exemplifies how teams also showed resiliency and patience in reaching their character edu

Promising Practices for Character Education and Educational Leadership 14 cation aims. As the Seton Education Partners/Brilla School Network team shared about their shift to creating takeaway character resources for staff to help students cope with pandemic-in- duced trauma, “This is possible and urgent as our onboarding is virtual for the first time in [our] history and includes both synchronous and asynchronous formation.”

The Potential of the Networked Improvement Community Approach Surveys and feedback from participants after each convening suggested that the KPCEL NIC provided members a space for improving their understanding of character education and its connection to educational leadership and capacity for using improvement science methods to drive changes.2 Surveys given to KPCEL members prior to the first convening and after the third convening found that nearly all respondents consistently agreed or strongly agreed that they understood what character education is. Respondents also reported changes to the depth of understanding of character, with 36% of survey respondents strongly agreeing that they understood what character education is prior to the first convening and 68% strongly agreeing after the third. Similarly, there was a positive uptick from the pre-convening survey to the final survey regarding respondents’ understanding of how to prepare leaders to a) develop character education approaches (from 39% to 86% agreeing or strongly agreeing) and b) implement character education in their schools (from 36% to 86% agreeing or strongly agreeing). The percentage of survey respondents who agreed or strongly agreed that they understood NICs jumped from 8% to 61%. Surveys also provided insights into how the NIC structure helped teams develop and implement character education approaches within their unique institutions. Over 90% of survey respondents strongly agreed or agreed that collaborating in an improvement team within their institution and collaborating across institutions helped lead to improvements and 91% strongly agreed (61%) or agreed (30%) that being a part of the KPCEL network helped their team meet their aims. KPCEL NIC activities that the majority of participants found “very helpful” included time to hear from other teams and time to collaborate with their respective teams; 82% found having opportunities to connect with other network members was “very helpful.” KPCEL members valued the KPCEL structure as it allowed them to learn from one another through the sharing of ideas, resources, and experiences. “Networking” came up as a major strength after each convening. It became clear throughout the year that certain aspects of getting like-minded folks “striving to integrate character into education” together were particularly beneficial; the structured opportunities for collaboration and “sharing progress and struggles” provided a deeper form of connection. In addition, participants appreciated learning with and from peers working on similar problems of practice within their institutions and experts in the field. As one participant noted in the post-convening 3 survey, “The opportunity to share ideas

2 We collected four surveys throughout the year: a pre-convening survey (n = 28), post-convening 1 survey (n = 17, 54 attendees), post-convening 2 survey (n = 20, 45 attendees), and post-convening 3 survey (n = 23, 44 attendees). Surveys included open- and close-ended questions on character education understanding, implementation of character education approaches and assessment, understanding of improvement science, and the strengths and areas of improvement for the convenings. The post-convening 3 survey also asked questions on the KPCEL experience overall.

A Report of the Kern Partners for Character and Educational Leadership 15 with others who are doing this work has been fabulous. I’ve also loved the opportunity to learn from the expert speakers who have such varied experience and backgrounds.” As a testament to this collaboration, we also witnessed teams borrowing frameworks and protocols from one another throughout the year.

Table 3 What KPCEL Members Found Helpful About the NIC Percentage of survey respondents reporting “helpful” or “very helpful” Time to hear from other teams 95% Time to collaborate with our team 95% Identifying a problem of practice 81% Writing an aim statement 81% Conducting PDSA cycles 61% Conducting a root cause analysis 57%

Furthermore, the KPCEL NIC provided an accountability mechanism for doing the work. Amid busy schedules and competing demands, KPCEL members appreciated having dedicated time to dig into character education work. Members also appreciated being held accountable to one another, as they shared updates at webinars and during convenings. As a KPCEL member shared in the post-convening 3 survey, “I found the direct instruction in the webinars and the accountability of having to report on our work in webinars and/or convenings were the most significant levers. I wish these were continuing, as they really fueled our program improvement.” The improvement science process was not for everyone. Some KPCEL members believed that the structure wasn’t “a great match” for their work. Others recognized that the timeline of implementing a PDSA cycle in 12 months simply wasn’t “realistic,” depending on where teams were in their journey. That being said, while nearly all teams crafted aim statements, less than half of teams implemented PDSA cycles. While most KPCEL participants did find improvement science resources and activities helpful (e.g., identifying a problem of practice, conducting a root cause analysis, writing an aim statement, conducting PDSA cycles), they found those activities less helpful than opportunities to connect, collaborate, and hear from one another. Regardless of whether teams exactly followed improvement science methodologies, the KPCEL NIC made progress towards the overall aim across the board. Eighty-six percent of respondents reported that they had a fully developed plan or are implementing character education approaches. Thirty-six percent were fully implementing, 41% were in the early stages of implementing, and 9% had a fully developed plan ready to be implemented. Furthermore, 86% of respondents either achieved (41%) or partially achieved (45%) their aims. In the spirit of im-

Promising Practices for Character Education and Educational Leadership 16 provement, multiple participants described their planning and implementation as ever-evolving. Two participants stated:

 “We have crafted the foundation of our aim statement, which is to establish a lexicon for character education. We are now at the stage in which we will disseminate this information to the rest of the university.”  “I think our (and I would imagine some others’ at least) implementation has been ‘fly- ing the plane while it’s being built.’ So we’re implementing approaches while still in the planning stage in some ways...”

Finally, KPCEL members were overwhelmingly sustaining the work, with clearly articulated next steps that build upon what they created, implemented, and achieved over the past year. As institutional teams, they committed to adapting and scaling promising protocols and practices (e.g., adding more character videos and content to principal training modules, offering full trainings on protocols to new faculty and ongoing mini-training to all faculty), implementing the courses, cohorts, and practices that they (re)designed, and measuring the impact of their programs in cre- ative ways, such as participatory action research and reliable rubrics aligned to their program’s character education learning objectives. As individuals, KPCEL members committed to a range of actions as well, including: a) publishing the character education approaches they developed and implemented; b) personal learning, reflection, and intentionality; c) continuing the work that their team began; and d) including more people in the work (e.g., offering course development workshops to faculty, engaging adjuncts to participate in the work).

A Report of the Kern Partners for Character and Educational Leadership 17 4 Future Directions

What We Still Need to Know: Implications for Further Research All the programs and institutions participating in the KPCEL NIC held strong commitments to character education. The teams represented a range of institutions and diverse geographies, and trained school leaders to work in a variety of community contexts. However, for character education to be scaled across K-12 schools, it is important to understand the state of character education in educational leadership programs beyond this network. What is the appetite for catalyzing this work? Where are the synergies with what programs are already doing? What are the challenges that would need to be addressed for character education to be infused as part of educational leadership programs? Another important, related issue is sustainability, particularly sustainability in the absence of resources. Many, though not all, of the teams who participated had generous funding from the Kern Family Foundation. Because of the current financial climate and budget shortfalls faced by nearly all institutions of learning, it will be important to understand the impact of funding on character education initiatives and the ways initiatives can survive and thrive in the absence of funding and faculty and staff capacity. Future research might focus on understanding the long-term impacts of programmatic and curricular changes on aspiring school leaders. While the improvement science approach measures proximal outcomes and iterates changes, once teams have fully developed character education approaches in place, a next step is understanding how these approaches translate to the K-12 spaces where program graduates work. What dispositions, knowledge, and skillsets do graduates carry with them? To what extent do they prioritize character amid numerous competing demands? Importantly, what types of measures should researchers use to assess the long-term impact on leaders’ character traits and commitments?

What We Still Need to Do: Implications for Practical Action Learn Collectively about Character Education Assessment While assessing character education in the context of educational leadership programs was the initial charge and goal of convening the KPCEL partners, we quickly learned that the majority

18 of teams were focused on developing and fine-tuning the ways in which they would integrate character education into their programs. As such, the need remains to build out common tools for assessing character education implementation and efficacy in the context of educational leadership programs.

Differentiate for Teams at Different Stages Teams joined the KPCEL NIC from different places—both geographically and in terms of implementation phase. The latter refers to the extent to which teams were ready to implement change ideas or take crucial initial steps to build foundations. Throughout the year, participants expressed a desire to network specifically with others in similar contexts. As such, an important next step of the KPCEL NIC is to create pathways for teams that provide specific supports at whatever implementation phase they are currently situated.

Sustain the Infrastructure The networked approach that created a sustained space for sharing, collaborating, and connect- ing experts with practitioners benefitted KPCEL partners in various ways. The benefits included the germination of new ideas, cross-institutional collaborations, capacity for continuous improvement, and a way to keep initiatives on track. As such, we aim to sustain and iterate the NIC infrastructure to collectively incorporate the teaching of character into the culture, climate, and curriculum of universities and colleges, educational leadership programs, and K-12 schools and, ultimately, support human flourishing.

A Report of the Kern Partners for Character and Educational Leadership 19 References

Berkowitz, M. W., & Bier, M. C. (2004). Research-based character education. The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 591(1), 72–85. Berkowitz, M. W., Althof, W., & Bier, M. C. (2012). The practice of pro-social education. In P. M. Brown, M. W. Corrigan, & A. Higgins-D’Alessandro (Eds.), The handbook of prosocial education (pp. 71–90). Rowan & Littlefield Publishers.

Bohlin, K. E. (2014). Virtue: An argument worth rehearsing. Journal of Character Education, 10(1), 53–59.

Kris, D.F., & Bohlin, K. E. (2020). Stress tests of character. Montrose School. https://www.montrose school. org/life-compass/stress-tests-of-character#:~:text=Stress%20Tests%20of%20Character %20helps,them%20with%20agility%20and%20courage Bohlin, K. & Farmer Kris, D. (2018, October 4). What it means to build a life compass. LifeCompass Blog. https://info.montroseschool.org/blog/building-a-life-compass-how-to-navigate-lifes-challenges-and-opportunities

Bryk, A. S., Gomez, L. M., Grunow, A., & LeMahieu, P. G. (2015). Learning to improve: How America’s schools can get better at getting better. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press. Character Lab. https://characterlab.org Jubilee Centre for Character and Virtues. https://www.jubileecentre.ac.uk/

Jubilee Centre for Character and Virtues. (2017). A framework for character education in Schools. https://www.jubileecentre.ac.uk/527/character-education/framework Langley, G. J., Moen, R. D., Nolan, K. M., Nolan, T. W., Norman, C. L., & Provost, L. P. (2009). The improvement guide: A practical approach to enhancing organizational performance (2nd ed.). John Wiley & Sons.

Leithwood, K., Louis, K. S., Anderson, S., & Wahlstrom, K. (2004). Review of research: How leader ship influences student learning. Retrieved November 1, 2017, from https://conservancy.umn.edu/bit- stream/handle/11299/2035/CAREI?sequence=1

Lickona, T., Schaps, E., & Lewis, C. (2007). CEP’s eleven principles of effective character education. Char- acter Education Partnership. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED505086.pdf

20 McGrath, R. E. (2018). What is character education? Development of a prototype. Journal of Character Education, 14(2), 23–35. Ryan, K., Bohlin, K. E., & Thayer, J. O. (1996). Character education manifesto. Boston University Wheelock College of Education & Human Development Center for Character & Social Re- sponsibility. https://www.bu.edu/ccsr/about-us/partnerships/character-education-manifesto/

Ryan, K (2002). The six E’s of character education. Ethics, 13(1). Tichnor-Wagner, A. (2019). Globally minded leadership: A new approach for leading schools in diverse democracies. International Journal of Education Policy and Leadership, 15(2).

A Report of the Kern Partners for Character and Educational Leadership 21 Appendix A KPCEL Team Case Studies

Building the Foundations 1. Boston College, Lynch School of Education and Human Development 2. Lipscomb University, Educational Leadership Program 3. North Central College, Master of Education in Educational Leadership 4. Samford University/Hope Institute Partnership 5. Seton Education Partners/Brilla School Network

Implementing Character Education Programs and Practices 1. Arizona State University, Mary Lou Fulton Teachers College 2. Montrose School and the LifeCompass Institute 3. Wake Forest University, Program for Leadership and Character

22 Boston College, Lynch School of Education and Human Development Building Integrated, Formative Educational Leadership Programs Team Members: Martin Scanlan, Melodie Wyttenbach, Kate Soules

Context Our Masters in Educational Leadership and assorted professional development offerings are spread across different units, including the Roche Center for Catholic Education Catholic Leadership Cohort, Lynch Leadership Academy (LLA), and Educational Leadership and Higher Education (ELHE). Our audience includes practicing and aspiring educational leaders across school sectors and levels (i.e., PK-12, school, and school system). The school has a longstanding commitment to formative education expressed in the school mission. However, disparate understandings of formative character leadership exist among stakeholders.

Problem of Practice How do we coordinate across diverse leadership programs to develop a shared vision of formative character education? How can we create synergies that leverage strengths of each unit (Roche, LLA, ELHE) in the formative development of educational leaders?

Aim By May 1, 2020, leaders and stakeholders of the three diverse leadership programs (Roche, LLA, and ELHE) will progress toward the goal of creating stronger programs that share a language and commitment to formation by drafting a shared vision of formative character education. How this vision fits with each program’s distinct identity, mission, and audience, and how this vision points toward tangible ways to collaborate will be clarified.

Change Idea We drafted shared visions of leadership. Our learning goals can be articulated by our identified shared commiatments to developing educational leaders who: • are informed by an understanding of purpose and a moral imperative to provide each and every child with substantive opportunities to learn and grow as whole people within nurturing communities;

Continued on next page

A Report of the Kern Partners for Character and Educational Leadership 23 • link theory, practice, and evidence through continual reflection to inform change based in responsible actions to increase the life chances of all students, further equity, and promote the common good; • grow and benefit from being part of a community of learners from diverse backgrounds; • approach problems of practice holistically in the contexts from which they emerge; • leverage knowledge and practice to produce high impact change and purpose; • engage in a process of continual reflection to solve problems of practice as they emerge; and • support a collaborative approach and shared assessment of formative/character education for leadership program that is transferable across sectors (public, private, charter).

Findings We began making curricular changes contributing toward the shared goal of creating stronger programs that share a language and commitment to formation. These curricular changes are can be seen in the following examples: • Developed multimedia case studies. In our capstone course in Educational Leadership, we developed one multimedia case study. We also identified several school leaders in LLA whose equity impact initiatives could serve as future case studies. • Piloted use of simulations. In our Educational Reform course in Educational Leader- ship, we piloted the use of four different simulations. This arrangement set the stage for investigating this modality as a new tool to support leaders in their formative character leadership skills. • Redesigned course. We redesigned the Educational Leadership course “Ethics and Equi- ty in Education” to emphasize a focus on formation. • Designed the Masters in Educational Leadership for Catholic School Leaders: We created a new five-semester cohort model for aspiring administrators in Catholic schools. This Catholic Leadership Cohort scaffolds leaders in developing and utilizing the following qualities as a compass: being humble, adaptable, joyful, visionary, and attentive. • Recrafted Alumni Integration. We redesigned our initiatives to support and engage alumni in ways that build bridges across the discrete units of the ELHE, the LLA, and the Roche Center for Catholic Education, emphasizing our shared values of advancing the common good through ongoing leadership formation.

Promising Practices for Character Education and Educational Leadership 24 Next Steps and Reflections • Summer 2020:  Host online Leadership through Crisis Professional Learning Community (PLC).  Offer Roche Center Virtual Book Club: Racial Justice and the Catholic Church (200 Catholic educators enrolled nationally).  Offer Superintendent Professional Learning Community (13 superintendents from archdiocese gather weekly to discuss reopening plans, navigating legislation). • Fall 2020:  Introduce one multimedia case study in ELHE Masters capstone course.  Begin offering the Roche Scholars Masters in Educational Leadership Program  Implement Emmaus Virtual Academies (following the successful pilot phase that occurred in 2019).  Begin adapting online ethics course for other units, explore potential for broader dissemination. • Spring 2021:  Develop one to two new collaborative multimedia case studies between LLA and ELHE.

A Report of the Kern Partners for Character and Educational Leadership 25 Lipscomb University Educational Leadership Program Team Members: Lance Forman, Robin Cayce, and Kesha Walrond

Context The Educational Leadership Program redesign started in January 2019 and updated the program to current standards and key areas of school leadership. In addition to alignment with the Professional Standards for Educational Leaders (PSEL) and the Tennessee Instructional Leadership Standards (TILS), the program includes a focus on: • character development • business acumen • conflict management

Problem of Practice The team explored character, focusing on creating a framework for character development, allocation of resources, and alignment with all faculty.

Aim One hundred percent of Lipscomb EDLD full-time and adjunct faculty will have a shared understanding of how character education is embedded into the Educational Leadership curriculum and will have a library of resources to support instruction by August 2020.

Change Idea Internal vetting of resource list (Educational Leadership Team). An immediate challenge we noted was creating a list of quality resources to teach character education in the Educational Lead- ership Program. This list was particularly important because there are only three full-time faculty members in the Educational Leadership Department. These three faculty members have been deeply involved in the character education curriculum development and framework, but a large number of our courses are taught by adjunct faculty. Providing adjuncts with a list of quality resources to use in class to teach character development and relate the virtues and traits to school leadership was very important. External vetting of resource list (Thought Council). When we began the process of program redesign in January 2019, we convened a thought council of current leaders at the local and state level to help us understand the current landscape of schools and challenges that school leaders face. The input from the council led to the integration of business acumen, conflict management, and the creation of two new courses to be included in the program. The Educational Leadership team recognized the importance of reconvening the thought council to review the new curriculum and integration of character education into the courses.

Promising Practices for Character Education and Educational Leadership 26 Create screencast videos to train adjunct faculty (Educational Leadership Team). Most of our adjunct professors teach the same courses every semester. In fact, many of them have taught in the program for several years. The adjunct team is very familiar with Lipscomb University, our expec- tations, and the leadership curriculum. This particular change idea pertains to the program redesign and the importance of making sure all adjuncts are aware of the instructional shifts in the curriculum regarding new standards, content, and character development. The screencast videos serves as an introduction to the course, syllabus, objectives, key assignments, and character integration. This is particularly important as new adjunct professors are brought on board or as courses are shared between the current adjunct team. Launch Training Modules for Adjuncts (Educational Leadership Team).

Actions and Findings The PDSA cycle was impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic shutdowns at Lipscomb University. The faculty and students were dismissed from campus in mid-March 2020 and did not return until August 24, 2020. This situation, specifically, impacted the external vetting of the resource list and the screencast recordings for the courses. We were not able to convene the thought council; a virtual convening was not an option because most of the thought council consisted of district-level executive directors who were navigating a crisis with the school closures and remote learning. Sim- ilarly, we were not able to record the screencast videos because we did not have access to the mar- keting and A/V team on campus to conduct the recordings. Both of these steps have been pushed to the fall 2020 semester. One of our team members, Dr. Robin Cayce, is involved in the Master’s in Character Education Program with the University of Birmingham. This work has been invaluable for the team as Dr. Cayce has brought many resources and ideas to help build a resource list. Dr. Cayce built an initial resource list late in the fall 2019 semester, comprised of books, articles, websites, and other materials, and aligned the resources to character traits and courses in the program. Additionally, Dr. Cayce developed a list of key assignments for each course and character trait. These assignments are culminating assignments for each course, providing opportunities for students to reflect on their character development or apply the character elements in authentic ways pertaining to school leadership. The resource list and key assignments were reviewed by the Educational Leader ship Team in the spring 2020 semester and finalized in June 2020. The Educational Leadership Department will build a library of character education texts, (recommended through the KCPEL sessions and the Character Education Master’s Program, in the College of Education. This library will be available to all Educational Leadership faculty as they plan for each course in the program.

The faculty training was originally scheduled as a face-to-face session with all full-time and adjunct faculty. Due to the campus restrictions with the COVID-19 pandemic, this training will be shifted to an online session via Zoom for the fall 2020 semester.

A Report of the Kern Partners for Character and Educational Leadership 27 Next Steps and Reflections The KCPEL sessions and associated convenings have been extremely helpful in reaching the goals for our PDSA plan. The opportunities to network and hear from experts in the field has been invaluable as we have walked along this journey. We started with just an idea of character development and school leadership and have gathered so much information over the past year through KCPEL to build a bank of resources to help our faculty with planning for and teaching character education to aspiring school leaders. Assessing character education has been at the forefront of our thinking since beginning this work with KCPEL. We are presented with a unique challenge in that we have very limited, if any, observations of the candidates in their school setting. All of the interaction between faculty and students happens in the classroom setting on campus or in virtual Zoom rooms with our online candidates. We decided to focus assessments on practical wisdom (discernment) and require students to relate their understanding of character and their own character development through reflections, authentic experiences, and assignments to apply their learning to school-based scenarios and problems of practice. Additional work and interrater reliability will be required in the future to ensure that the rubrics for these assignments are accurately targeting the ideals of character development and the learning objectives in the course. Lastly, the thought council will provide valuable feedback on the objectives and content from the courses to ensure that the outcomes of the courses match the requirements of PSEL and TILS standards and the authentic experiences of school leadership. The thought council will be convened as soon as possible to provide feedback that assists in program revisions and continual improvement.

Promising Practices for Character Education and Educational Leadership 28 North Central College Master of Education in Educational Leadership Team Members: Kathy Black, Kathleen King, and Maureen Spelman

Context North Central College (NCC) is located in Naperville, Illinois. The Master of Education in Edu- cational Leadership program features a curriculum infused with research-based character education instruction. This program was designed to help candidates become effective leaders for PK-12 schools while meeting Illinois principal endorsement requirements. Candidates learn what it takes to promote a culture of character in their future school while also mastering strong management and operational skills. A generous, multi-pronged grant from the Kern Family Foundation enables the NCC Educational Leadership program to recruit and provide scholarships to applicants who are underrepresented in administrative ranks, currently work in underserved communities, or demonstrate a commitment to fostering a culture of character in a PK-12 school setting. NCC is committed to making the program accessible to populations in underserved regions of Illinois.

Problem of Practice In order to assure the preparation of future leaders adept at promoting school cultures of character, the NCC Educational Leadership program designated a Culture of Character (CoC) project for the comprehensive administrative internship. Leadership candidates will effectively evaluate a PK-12 school’s culture—especially focusing on how it fosters character—and design an initiative that takes the school “where it is at” and advances the school’s ability to develop a CoC. This initiative will be documented and assessed as part of the culminating program portfolio. The problem of practice lies in the construction and assessment of the CoC project. How do we define and assess a CoC project in the administrative internship that allows leadership candidates to apply their learning to a PK-12 school setting in a meaningful way?

Aim By June 2021, all NCC Educational Leadership interns will design a CoC initiative that reflects the needs of their internship partner school. The initiative will be assessed through the evidence provided in the internship portfolio artifacts for Project 5, meeting competency in at least 75% of the required indicators.

A Report of the Kern Partners for Character and Educational Leadership 29 Change Idea A self-assessment revealed that in order to meet the stated Aim, candidates need to experience a program of carefully sequenced coursework that has intentionally infused character education in classroom activities, assignments, and assessments. To achieve the Aim, program faculty needed to come to consensus and infuse a progression of core leadership virtues, develop aligned programmatic learning outcomes (PLOs), and complete a program curriculum map identifying where each outcome and sub-outcomes will be introduced, practiced, and implemented. The redesigned program will be grounded in program-specific leadership virtues, the development of leader character, and cultivating practical wisdom. The curriculum will also target four leadership styles that support CoC: moral, ethical, servant, and transformational. The prerequisite will be coming to agreement regarding the CoC PLOs and granular sub-outcomes. The next step will involve mapping the sub-outcomes through the course sequence to ensure the facilitation of a developmental progression to determine where each would be introduced, practiced, and implemented. Then, the eight Master Course Outlines (MCOs) will continue to be revised accordingly.

Findings Our tasks involved not only mapping the CoC sub-outcomes, but also examining and align- ing course activities, assignments, and assessments to ensure that the PLOs have been threaded throughout the curriculum. As the MCOs were revised, the team carefully articulated, amplified, enhanced, and aligned the existing program structure and good work already in place. At each step along the way, it became apparent that this process was cyclical and often iterative. The CoC curriculum map and the eight revised MCOs follow a new format and clearly demonstrate that the CoC PLOs and sub-outcomes have been threaded throughout the program curriculum. The revised MCOs amplify and enhance the character education and virtue ethics elements that were in the original program.

Next Steps and Reflections We are not yet at the point of being able to assess the accuracy of predictions. However, we hy- pothesize that the redesigned educational leadership program will continue to undergo changes, adaptations, and revisions during and beyond the initial pilot implementation. We need to plan and engage in a formal study to assess implementation. The participatory action research process continually alternates between inquiry and action. The cyclical or spiraling process of action research aligns well to our current process, which is unfolding in stages that involve planning, implementation, data gathering, data analysis, reflection, and then a return to planning. In addition, student voice and assignment products will provide a rich opportunity to inform ongoing revisions as gaps are revealed and successes are noted. Each cycle of data collection will inform the faculty of the need for revisions to courses, activities, assignments, and/or assessments. This iterative process will allow changes to be made as the program evolves over time in response to each new set of data. An additional feature of participatory action research is that it is often a social process that requires collaborative conversations and co-production of knowledge. Thus, it would seem to be a good fit for our next steps.

Promising Practices for Character Education and Educational Leadership 30 Samford University/Hope Institute Partnership Character and Competence Team Members: Kara Chism and Jodi Newton

Context The educational leadership department in the Orlean Beeson School of Education at Samford Uni- versity in Birmingham, Alabama, is in the initial stages of its character journey. The School of Edu- cation enjoys a partnership with The Hope Institute and has been engaged in its Hope Leadership Academy (HLA) for K-12 school leadership teams. Two of the educational leadership faculty have studied and worked directly with HLA, developing the program and supporting the school participants. The subject of character education has been discussed broadly, and multiple graduate students in the department are researching character education. Character education content has been added to some coursework in support of existing standards and outcomes. The faculty has agreed to include a focus on character education, expressed a desire to be involved, and wanted to have our students become educators for character development. Faculty from other parts of the university, including educational leadership, teacher education, and human development, have shown interest as well. The next step is to expand the knowledge base and understanding of faculty.

Problem of Practice Desired Result Samford University Orlean Beeson School of Education will be known for its character education. Faculty and students will have individual character goals and independently work on their own character formation. Students who graduate from Samford programs will understand character development and how to impact schools and families to best engage youth in character development. Educator preparation and family studies programs will be infused with character education, and it will undergird all interactions and our programs. Graduates will lead their schools and family agen- cies in character development with adult models and practices that support a culture of character. The partnership with the HLA will be strengthened, and all faculty will be involved. Faculty will be attracted to the School of Education because of its strong emphasis on character development. The School of Education will make a difference at Samford University and for the schools and families in our area.

Aim By June 2020, faculty knowledge of character formation will be improved to prepare the School of Education to become infused with character development.

A Report of the Kern Partners for Character and Educational Leadership 31 Change Idea We focused on faculty knowledge and attitudes that contribute to a positive change in the culture in the School of Education to embody character development. We predicted that as faculty increase their knowledge of character development, readiness to infuse character development into all aspects of the school culture will also increase. To see if changes led to improvements, we collected a character and culture survey and feedback forms from development events.

Findings We have seen School of Education faculty engagement in awareness of character development. Faculty have engaged in the following events: • James Arthur of the Jubilee Center presented at Samford University for K-12 Partners, Hope Institute facilitators, and School of Education faculty. • Character education reading has been shared, with interested faculty being provided books (mailed to their homes during the COVID-19 pandemic) and PDFs (by email) for discussion and feedback. • A two-day convening of higher education partners with interest in character development, led by Dr. Thomas Lickona and Dr. Marvin Berkowitz, took place. • Around a theme of character and competence, the school has taken steps to become a school of character, model strong character, change practices and curriculum, and infuse character into the school. It is a school-wide effort. Faculty have provided feedback related to these events. Positive responses indicate enhanced awareness. The majority of faculty have been involved in some aspects of this work

Next Steps and Reflections Under the leadership of Dean Anna McEwen, next steps include: 1) the administration of the culture survey, which is currently in revision; 2) the review of core values; 3) curriculum change; 4) faculty engagement in intentional activity to model character and inspire candidates; 5) infusion of core values and character/virtue development; and 6) continued professional growth. Factors that led to success include: • leadership of a new dean who is invested in moral development, including the theme of character and competence; • broad-based faculty interest and desire to ensure students and candidates experience character growth as a part of our programs; • partnerships with other universities (i.e., Kern Partners for Character Education and Leadership); and • partnership with Hope Institute and the passion for character development within the faculty. Moving forward, time and funding to continue the work is the greatest need.

Promising Practices for Character Education and Educational Leadership 32 Seton Education Partners/Brilla School Network Character Initiatives at Brilla Public Charter Schools Team Members: Jolleen Wagner, Luanne Zurlo, and Zoranlly Castillo

Context In the fall of 2013, Brilla College Prep proudly opened its doors and welcomed our inaugural class of 203 students in kindergarten and first grade. The school will grow one grade per year until we reach K-8. In the fall of 2017, Brilla’s second school, Brilla Veritas, welcomed 120 kindergarten students, and will also grow to serve students in grades K-8. Both schools are located in the Bronx, New York, community of Mott Haven. In August 2020, we will open two new Brilla Schools: Brilla Pax and Brilla Caritas in the University Heights neighborhood of the Bronx. Each school will open with 90 kindergarteners, add one grade level per year, and serve grades K-8 in 2028. Dignity, morality, intentionality, and facilitation are the driving forces underpinning our Character Initiatives philosophy. In understanding there are moral truths, honoring each person’s freedom, and calling all to a flourishing life, these driving forces are core to our work: dignity, morality, facilitation, and intentionality. At the beginning of our work with the KPCEL, character education buy-in is high, adult formation content is strong, and adult formation content is planned in advance (short term) and responsive.

Problem of Practice To resource adults to independently expand knowledge, ownership, and individual development of Character Initiatives.

Aim In an effort to resource adults’ opportunities to independently expand knowledge, ownership, and individual development of Character Initiatives (Adult Formation specifically), we will create or source and align one to three takeaway materials for staff for all Spring 2020 and Fall 2021 formation sessions.

A Report of the Kern Partners for Character and Educational Leadership 33 Change Idea To support the requests that we received for strong, digestible resources, handouts, and takeaways for staff members to continue formation on their own after the facilitated sessions, we created a plan to source and create complimentary materials for facilitated sessions. Unfortunately, this idea was scheduled to be executed and measured during the Spring semester of the 2019–2020 academic year and had to be adjusted and adapted because of the COVID-19 pandemic. Our intent was to create or source and align one to three takeaway materials for staff members for all Spring 2020 and Fall 2021 formation sessions. These sessions were usually in person, which would have allowed us to measure use and impact in the following ways:

Findings Given the unexpected and rapidly changing realities that occurred in the Spring semester of the 2019–2020 academic year because of the COVID-19 pandemic, we found ourselves pivoting from regularly paced and scheduled in-person formation sessions to largely “as needed” and responsive formation sessions facilitated virtually. With the above problem of practice and change idea in mind, we intentionally curated and aligned post-session resources for the Supporting Students Through Grief session delivered to 30+ staff in mid-April. These resources included three digital guides for speaking with students experiencing grief. Each resource was strategically mentioned during the training, emailed to participants at the conclusion of the training, and referenced as a resource for use during two staff meetings after the fact. Seven staff members without prior training in grief reported the resources were helpful as they prepared for conversations accompanying children. One staff member (trained in grief counseling)

Promising Practices for Character Education and Educational Leadership 34 reported one of the three resources was helpful as he accompanied a parent who was accompanying her child through the loss of his father. Three of five school leaders expressed gratitude for these resources and shared a desire to utilize these resources with their staff moving forward. Though the data is largely qualitative, staff members seemed grateful and articulated a desire for further utilization of resources. We expect the majority of resources will be received as high leverage and helpful to the majority of staff. That said, we also expect the resources, though high leverage, will fulfill only temporary needs or desire for staff to continue formation on their own post-facilitated sessions. Outside of facilitation, the majority of staff members will lack the time to pursue such resources in a thorough way that contributes to deepening their knowledge.

Next Steps and Reflections Because we have been planning the onboarding of new and returning staff for the 2020–2021 academic year, we have been using the above problem of practice and change idea to intentionally curate and align both pre- and post-session resources. In one part, this situation is possible and urgent as our onboarding is virtual for the first time in Brilla’s history and includes both synchronous and asynchronous formation.

A Report of the Kern Partners for Character and Educational Leadership 35 Arizona State University, Mary Lou Fulton Teachers College Leadership Pathways Team Members: Cristy Guleserian, Carl Hermanns, Daniel Liou, Patricia Marsh, and Eoline Cary

Context The Leadership Pathways Program is part of the Educational Leadership and Innovation Division in the ASU Mary Lou Fulton Teachers College. Our focus is to prepare educational leaders to serve as principals, assistant principals, deans, and district office personnel who are able to successfully lead our schools today, tomorrow, and in the future. The Leadership Pathways Program offers two options: a campus immersion in-person pathway and a fully online pathway. The 14-month campus immersion program serves approximately 30 students from greater Phoenix and rural areas in Ari- zona. The two-year online program admits approximately 60 new students per year from throughout the United States and abroad. ASU is in its third year of implementing the Kern Character Education grant. Working closely with faculty, staff, and grant personnel, the grant has facilitated the development and ongoing implementation of the College’s Principled Innovation (PI) initiative in the Leadership Pathways program as well as in the teacher preparation and educational studies programs. Currently, the Leadership Pathways program is embarking on a major redesign that will focus on PI and the future of learning and leadership.

Problem of Practice Our problem of practice consists of two parts: (a) expanded faculty ownership of the PI initiative and (b) systematic curricular changes that actively and intentionally embed character education into the Leadership Pathways Program’s coursework. Our problem of practice affects our program faculty and academic associates, the future education leaders we are educating, the people who they are mentoring at their school sites (or organizations), and the K-12 students, families, and communities with whom they work. We have some building blocks in place, such as a faculty champion, changes to our three-week summer intensive learning sequence (three courses), and planning days dedicated to the review and revision of all remaining courses in the Leadership Pathways program, with a focus on our college’s PI initiative. Although these are good starts, the targeted problem of practice involves having more than a few faculty members be the owners and drivers for exploring, digging deeply into PI and the character assets, and ensuring character education is intentionally and incrementally infused into the Leadership Pathways Program. The first step in addressing the problem of practice will be to embed the PI principles and eight practices into the principal internship. Additionally, we will generate a curriculum map/matrix of our complete sequence of courses, which will identify specifically where character assets are introduced and enhanced.

Promising Practices for Character Education and Educational Leadership 36 Aim We will graduate educational leaders who are committed to self-transformation and able to bring together their school communities to (re)humanize education. By Fall 2021, program faculty will intentionally embed the eight practices of principled innovation within two-thirds of coursework through videos, reflection tools, auto/self-ethnographic research, self-narratives, and signature assignments. To begin the process, we will embed PI principles and practices into the year-long principal internship through videos and accompanying reflective questions, enabling students to learn about PI and make the connection between PI and their daily actions as a principal intern.

Change Idea Our change idea involves creating three to four videos, each eight to 10 minutes in length, related to PI and the role of a principal, along with using reflective questions. These materials are being embedded within the internship to allow students to be introduced to PI and make the connection with PI principles and practices as it relates to the principalship. We chose to implement the plan in the spring 2020 semester in the online principal internship course with 20 students, focusing on PI in five of the 15 modules. An initial module focuses on an introduction to the PI framework, character assets, PI principles, and the eight PI practices. Students were asked to read text about PI and write a one-page reflection describing how one of the PI principles resonated with them and related to their school setting and their internship. The second and third videos focused on Emerging Bi- linguals and Multilingual Students and Search and Seizure and Due Process, respectively. Following the videos, using reflective questions, students were asked to prepare a one-page reflection making the connection between the content of the video and one or more of the eight PI practices. Because of the COVID-19 situation, we were unable to complete the additional two videos; however, they will be completed this summer.

Findings The outcomes were very promising with 100% of the students able to provide salient responses that linked the content videos with the eight PI practices. However, we discovered it is somewhat confusing for some of the students to learn about PI, make connections with PI principles, and then to add the eight PI practices all within one module. We had two instructors in the course: the primary instructor is a member of the ASU KPCEL project team and the second instructor is a high school principal on the Apache Reservation. The primary instructor shared the videos with PI team members, Leadership Pathways colleagues, the course instructional designer, and the 15 leadership coaches who support the interns during their full-year internship. The second instructor reported that she found herself referencing the PI materials in discussions with colleagues at her school.

A Report of the Kern Partners for Character and Educational Leadership 37 Next Steps and Reflections As a result of the PDSA cycle, we will add three additional videos connected to PI to the year-long internship to deepen student understanding of PI. We will also add the Decision Making Process Chart to both the campus immersion (in person) and the online program. One of the videos will be dedicated to introducing PI and its relevance to school and community-based leadership. One of our faculty, Dr. Ronald Beghetto, created a video linking PI to his book, Big Wins, Small Steps for use with aspiring leaders. Additionally, to address the confusion that some of the students encountered when being introduced to multiple aspects of PI in the internship, we have moved the introduction of PI and principles to an earlier course (EDA 501 Leadership Competencies) and are seeking ways to deepen the understanding of PI throughout the entire program by identifying a PI practice to be added to six of the additional courses as part of our program curriculum matrix.

Promising Practices for Character Education and Educational Leadership 38 Montrose School & The LifeCompass Institute Team Members: Katie Elrod, Lisa Derendorf, Mary Jo White, Ellen Baker, Deborah Farmer Kris, and Karen Bohlin

Context Founded in 1979, Montrose School in Medfield, Massachusetts, has a 40-year history of helping young women “cultivate intellect and character, leadership and service, faith and reason.” Led by Dr. Karen Bohlin, Montrose, which was honored as a National School of Character in 1999 and 2017, strives to promote the highest levels of learning through character development. Founded in 2018, The LifeCompass Institute (LCI) provides educators with a vision and practical tools for effectively integrating character education into schools, including a theoretically grounded and adaptable framework for modeling, coaching and teaching practical wisdom.

Problem of Practice How can we train our faculty to more effectively coach students in practical wisdom and help students develop a compass that will help them navigate life’s challenges and opportunities?

Aim By April 1, 100% of faculty will use our newly developed Coaching Conversations Protocol in at least one mentoring conversation with a student.

Change Idea If we want to help our students develop practical wisdom, we must first focus on building adult capacity. These actions will include: • developing, iterating, and refining our Coaching Conversation Protocol, which builds on the LifeCompass Framework and helps students identify their aim and reflect, recalibrate, and respond in a way that helps them move toward their goals; • training teachers in reflective listening strategies and the coaching protocol; • conducting follow-up training, including whole faculty, small group, and written remind- ers; and • collecting feedback that will allow us to further refine the protocol and improve our professional development.

A Report of the Kern Partners for Character and Educational Leadership 39 Findings According to an April 25, 2020, survey of all Montrose School faculty: • 91% had participated in a coaching training session. • 87% had utilized the Coaching Conversation Protocol in at least one mentoring session with a student. • 76% said they were familiar or very familiar with the protocol, 20% said they were somewhat familiar, and 4% said they were not familiar. • 100% of teachers who had used the protocol described it as “very helpful” or “moderately helpful.” In open-ended responses, over half the teachers noted that the Coaching Conversation Protocol helped students stay in the driver’s seat as they developed solutions to challenges they were facing.

Next Steps and Reflections Based on the survey data, we ran an additional training session the following week (over Zoom) for teachers who had missed a training or who wanted a refresher. Based on the survey feedback, in 2020–2021 we plan to: • offer a full training to new faculty and record it to share with faculty who might join at various points in the year; • offer monthly mini-trainings to all faculty to keep this protocol in the forefront of their thinking; • develop additional situation-specific protocols that build on the Coaching Conversation Protocol, aimed at supporting practical wisdom at different ages and stages (e.g., middle school; navigating social conflict; college counseling; academic goal setting; online interactions); and • continue to refine the protocol for LCI professional development and for distribution to school leaders around the country.

Promising Practices for Character Education and Educational Leadership 40 Wake Forest University Program for Leadership and Character Team Members: Michael Lamb and Sara Etz Mendonca

Context The Wake Forest University Program for Leadership and Character in Winston-Salem, North Caro- lina, serves undergraduate students as well as graduate students in various professional programs. Beginning in 2018, the Commencing Character course was designed to foster character development by integrating Aristotelian virtue ethics with commencement speeches. Beginning in 2019, Professional Responsibility and Leadership and Character in the Professions courses, with a focus on character virtues, were taught in the law school. Campus-wide programming has included speakers, discussion groups, workshops, and theater productions. The university also has a Leadership and Character Scholars program, which includes 10 students/year.

Problem of Practice Given that we developed a new university-wide character program beginning Fall 2019 and did not have scholarly experts on staff to conduct rigorous empirical assessment of various student populations (including undergraduate, graduate, and professional students), we did not start the year with a comprehensive plan for assessment. Our initial problem was how to identify the best measures to assess character development outcomes in a university context and develop or recruit the right staff to improve program design, conduct publishable scholarly research, and assess the effects of our program across various student populations.

Aim To assess the impact of a single exemplar intervention and booster activities on key outcomes related to character.

Change Idea Because we had only been assessing the impacts of a semester-long course, we sought to test whether a singular intervention, with planned booster activities, could have a measurable impact on key virtues of character. This test addressed the initial concern of how to assess various character programs that we offer. We invited students from Wake Forest University and Winston-Salem State University (WSSU), a local HBCU, to participate in a joint experience to commemorate the 60th anniversary of the sit-ins that brought together students from both universities to desegregate lunch counters in Winston-Salem. They participated in a joint tour of the International Civil Rights Museum and post-tour discussion. We used pre- and post-event survey measures to assess empathy, intellectual humility, cross-cultural understanding, civic orientation, self-efficacy, and racial/ethnic identity. We also gathered qualitative evidence from interviews with faculty and staff leaders and students after the intervention.

A Report of the Kern Partners for Character and Educational Leadership 41 Findings Some preliminary results from the survey measures include the following. Character virtues inspired by exemplars included: (1) courage, (2) justice, (3) sense of purpose, and (4) humility. • Empathy. Students reported that they better understood the experiences of others. • Intellectual Humility. Students reported that they understood the key is to listen. • Cross-Cultural Understanding. Wake Forest students wanted to interact and get to know the WSSU students and reported that they were happy to feel “uncomfortable” because that is when change happens. • Civic orientation/Self-efficacy. Students felt inspired to join recent protests realizing they could personally make a difference through action. • Racial/ethnic identity. Students scored significantly higher post-test on measures indicating that they understand better the distinctiveness of their racial identity.

Next Steps and Reflections We are preparing data from the intervention for publication and are already in discussions about how we can expand this program, either by repeating the same activity or broadening the inter action between Wake Forest and WSSU students to include an event that would take place in the fall and continue throughout the year. We have full and complete support from the administration at Wake Forest University, which makes it easier for us to implement various character education approaches. In addition, we have highly capable and motivated staff who work hard to put our vision into practice and are able to assess the empirical results. Like many universities, our biggest challenge has been trying to maintain our programming and research studies in the wake of COVID-19. Our program works best in settings that allow for in- person interaction. Therefore, we are looking for different ways to continue our work in a meaningful way using a virtual platform.

Promising Practices for Character Education and Educational Leadership 42