What the Research Actually Says About Which Character Education Programs Work

Author’s note: I’m the CEO and co-founder of The Positivity Project (P2), a character education organization that partners with PreK-12 schools nationwide. What follows isn’t a pitch for any single curriculum, including P2. It’s a framework for evaluation based on implementation research. Different districts applying these questions may reach different conclusions, because their situations are different. That’s the point. Start from what your district needs to succeed – and what will actually help students – rather than what “everyone else is doing.”

Research on character education and social-emotional learning (SEL) programs highlights something important: how well a program is implemented matters more than which program you pick.

A district that picks the “best” program on paper but can’t sustain implementation will often produce weaker outcomes than a district that picks a solid program that teachers actually use consistently over many years.

What the research shows

Durlak and DuPre’s “Implementation matters”, a review of more than 500 studies, found that implementation fidelity matters more than perhaps any other variable to a program’s success. Programs implemented with fidelity produced mean effect sizes two to three times higher than those that weren’t. Durlak and DuPre tracked several implementation dimensions. And two received the most research attention and the clearest ties to outcomes: adherence (doing the program as designed) and dosage (doing the program often enough).

Take dosage: a program used every day gets far more reps with students than one used once a week. And, adherence: the easy programs are the ones teachers actually use as intended. Both dimensions depend on something most procurement processes don’t measure: whether the program is practical enough for real teachers to use week after week.

The same pattern holds for SEL programs specifically: Durlak’s 2011 meta-analysis of 213 school-based SEL programs found that well-implemented programs produced significant effects across all six outcomes measured. Programs with implementation problems achieved them in only two.

This pattern isn’t unique to character education and SEL. The same pattern shows up in reading, math, and physical education research. 

It isn’t even unique to education. For example, a “good” workout routine done regularly builds more strength and endurance than a “perfect” program done sporadically.

It’s just common sense. The program that teachers actually use beats the program that teachers don’t use.

Which means the central procurement question shouldn’t be, “Which program is on a credentialed list?” The central procurement question should be, “Which program is most likely to be implemented well in our classrooms over many years — so that it actually reaches the students it is intended to support?”

Districts that confuse these two questions often end up confusing procurement defensibility (for boards reviewing a program on paper) with implementation durability (for teachers actually using the program).

What this means for district evaluation

Most districts treat research as a credential. They ask: How many studies? What evidence tier? 

These are fair questions to help screen out weak programs. But once a program passes the screen, the more important questions are operational. 

When evaluating a character education/SEL program, districts should ask three primary questions:

1/ How easy is the program for teachers to actually use day to day? Programs that require heavy prep, include long scripted lessons, or demand constant teacher energy often sit on shelves. Low activation energy programs survive. High activation energy programs don’t. Adherence and dosage both depend on this.

2/ Does the program create shared language across the building? When students, teachers, counselors, principals, bus drivers, and families use the same words repeatedly over time, ideas start embedding into the culture of the building itself. Programs that build a common vocabulary take root more deeply than programs that don’t.

3/ Will the program survive leadership and staff turnover? Most procurement systems optimize for year one. Districts should evaluate for year seven. Programs that depend on heroic leadership energy — or on heavily trained staff — may produce strong short-term outcomes but weak long-term durability. New leaders, new teachers, and substitutes need to be able to pick the program up quickly, even without formal training or massive prep time. You don’t want a “personality-dependent initiative” — you want something that’s logical, well-ordered, and survives the people-changes every school and district faces.

These answers determine whether a district produces the outcomes the research says are possible, or whether it spends five years implementing the “best” program weakly.

The most important hour you can spend

If you’re heading into procurement this year, the most important hour you can spend isn’t reading through a curated list of programs. It’s a call to three district admins (or school principals) who, three years ago, picked a program you’re considering — and asking them what’s still happening in their buildings and in their classrooms. Is it actually part of their school culture?

A study or a list can tell you that a program is likely to work. But whether it actually works is decided inside school buildings, in classrooms full of students led by teachers — during the good years and the hard years.

The answer to that hour’s worth of phone calls matters more than the procurement spreadsheet ever will.