The sixth module of my MA in Character Education (2022-25) was about leadership. This was my opportunity to articulate a vision for leading character education at my school.
I had already critiqued my school’s approach to character education – especially its rewards policy – in several previous essays. Now, I had to think about what I would do differently if I were in charge. The module was assessed via a recorded presentation, delivered as if to staff at my school, along with some written reflections on my leadership style. Below you’ll find the presentation, the slides, the transcript, and my reflections.
Regarding the title, we’d been having some problems with behaviour in the toilets. This was perhaps because when using the toilets, students are relatively unsupervised. But what we do when no one is looking is arguably the essence of character (Principle 5), hence my tongue-in-cheek title: character is what we do in the toilets. I used this topical issue as a springboard to reinvigorate our approach to character education.
My school was now working with two character education frameworks: not only PRIDE (Proactive, Responsible, Inquisitive, Determined, Engaged), but also Responsible Behaviours (Honest, Kind, Considerate, Brave, Respectful, Gratitude). The first aim of my presentation was to hammer home the difference between these two sets of virtues. The Responsible Behaviours are moral virtues, whereas PRIDE is a mix of performance and intellectual virtues. Moral virtues are intrinsically valuable; performance and intellectual virtues are only instrumentally valuable (see Key concepts). Determination, for example, is valuable only if you are determined to be honest, kind, considerate, etc. If you are determined to damage the toilets, then determination has no value whatsoever.
The Responsible Behaviours were a welcome addition to our character education programme. But a simple list of moral virtues wouldn’t solve the toilet problem. If students are to behave well when no one is looking, those virtues need to be internalised. The problem was that the primary means of promoting good behaviour at my school was (and still is) a points-based reward system – and rewards have been shown to undermine the internalisation process. So, the second aim of my presentation was to argue for a shift away from extrinsic rewards toward strategies that promote internalisation – namely, social affirmation, belonging, role modelling, and empathy.
That’s the content of the presentation. In the accompanying reflections, I wrote about the style with which I aimed to deliver it – namely, that of a servant leader. There are eight dimensions of servant leadership: empowerment, standing back, accountability, forgiveness, courage, authenticity, humility and stewardship. This style of leadership is thought to align particularly well with the goals of character education.
I thought so too – at the time. But I’ve since developed one reservation. A servant leader is meant to lead from behind the scenes. The issue is that when such a leader leaves, the organisation can be thrown into turmoil. I’ve experienced one such departure, and it was painful. Only after the leader had left did it become clear how much they had been doing – when the work ceased and no one was ready to fill the void. A good leader, I now think, should not only serve but also actively build capacity – leaving the organisation stronger and more self-sustaining than when they arrived.