MENTORING SECONDARY STUDENTS TOWARDS VIRTUE IN A CATHOLIC SCHOOL: A PILOT PROGRAM
 
INTRODUCTION 
 
There is little doubt of the positive influence that nonparental, adult, role models have on shaping the character of young people (Bowers et al, 2012; Engelen et al., 2018; Johnson et al., 2016) – yet, this is not undisputed (Carr, 2023). As grown adults, we likely all remember who that person was for us when we were young. For me, it was a Dominican priest and educator, Fr. Dennis Zusy, O.P., who taught me Logic and Philosophy of Science while I attended St. John Vianney Theological Seminary in Denver, Colorado. I was young, 23, fresh out of college. But the impression Fr. Zusy made on me has lasted a lifetime. Not only did he teach me the rules of logical thinking, but he helped form me in what it means to be a “good person” and into a man of God with a heart for Jesus. He was a mentor to me. And I will never forget him.
 
Mentoring has played an important role in education over the centuries (Vierstraete, 2003). We first encounter the term “mentor” in Homer’s Odyssey. Mentor is Odysseus’s friend placed in charge of his son, Telemachus, while Odysseus sails off to fight in the Trojan War. The relationship between them was one of trusted advisor, teacher, friend, and wise person. According to Shea (1997), history offers us many examples of mentor and apprentice relationships, some of which include: Socrates and Plato, Albert the Great and Thomas Aquinas, Hayden and Beethoven, and Freud and Jung. In each case, mentoring played a role in the human development of the individual. However, it is not entirely clear from these examples which constituent elements of the human person were, or were not, impacted. Such knowledge would require further analysis.
 
Of particular interest to me is mentoring that impacts the moral dimension of young people, especially the type of mentoring that takes place in Catholic schools. This is not to discount the importance of other aspects of human development (social, emotional, intellectual, and spiritual). All are important for individual flourishing. Furthermore, this is not to discount the importance of other school types in the virtue formation of its students. However, it is my belief that Catholic schools, in a very particular way, draw together into a coherent framework all facets of what it means to be a complete human being (Matties, 2006). Catholic schools place Christ and His Church at the center. Jesus is the perfect model of what it means to be most fully human. And His Church, guardian of truth and administer of the sacraments (e.g., Baptism, Eucharist, and Confession, etc.), provide moral guidance and spiritual nourishment for students sojourning along the way.
 
It is with this in mind, considering both the importance of mentoring to education, especially as it relates to students’ moral character formation, and the importance of having such mentoring programs take place in Catholic schools, that I decided to pilot a mentoring program in a Catholic school of which I serve as Principal. While mentoring has always happened in a natural and organic way since the school’s existence, via academic and nonacademic interactions in the school building, as well as off-campus service projects and athletic coaching, no formal mentoring program has ever taken shape. Geographically, the school is located in southwest, Florida, in the town of Ave Maria, and was founded in 2007 with a mission to be a Catholic, classical school where students encounter Christ and pursue excellence in all things. It currently serves 410 coed students in preK-4 to 12^th-grade (4 years old to 18 years old) with 56 staff (34 teachers). Out of the 410 total student body, 124 students are in secondary school (9^th – 12^th-grade, or 14 years old to 18 years old). The mentoring program was designed with these students in mind.
 
The mentoring program was designed to provide each secondary student with the personalized attention of a caring adult. Each student was assigned an adult mentor (teacher or administrator), forming small groups of 7-8 students per mentor. Mentor groups met monthly during lunch, throughout the school year, with meetings lasting approximately 40 minutes. The meetings adhered to virtually any form with the intentional purpose of building relationships. It was believed that once trusting relationships were built with students, over time, this would allow for individualized mentoring conversations designed to help each student know him or herself, set goals, cultivate interests, foster potential, reflect, acquire perspective on life’s ups and downs, and ultimately grow in virtue. The goal was to help students along the road to authentic freedom so they can fully flourish.
 
Only five months into the program, an important question arose in regard to the effectiveness of the mentoring intervention. This question came about after mentors met with one another to discuss various aspects of the program. Do students feel loved by their teachers? In an informal, anonymous survey given to 31 seniors, students were asked to respond to the prompt: I know [fill in the blank] teachers at RJDA love me: a) all; b) most; c) some; d) one or two; or e) none. Nineteen students said, “all,” 10 said, “most,” and 2 said, “some.” No one said one, two, or none. One student who voted “some” wrote “I say some because I only know some.” The other who voted “some” had only positive things to say about the teachers. The comments were beautiful and reflected a group of young adults who have come to know the love of Christ in their Catholic school through their teachers. However, many questions remain unanswered. Is it working? Are students growing in virtue? Flourishing? The purpose of this paper to offer a critical evaluation of my school’s mentoring program.
 
LITERATURE REVIEW 
 
Before embarking upon a comprehensive review of the literature on mentoring, especially mentoring that occurs in Catholic schools, it is important to have clarity with regard to some key definitions.
 
Definitions 
 
Mentoring
 
Mentoring can be described as a personal relationship in which a more experienced faculty member acts as a guide, role model, teacher, and advocate of the student. The mentor provides the student with advice, knowledge, counsel, challenge, and moral support, as the student seeks authentic freedom in living a fully flourishing life (Johnson, 2003). Mentoring plays an important role in shaping the student’s moral character, instilling values, and – later – helping to inform the wisdom of his or her decisions (Barondess, 1997). According to a study conducted by Bowers et al. (2012), mentoring relationships between youth and important nonparental adults (mentors) help shape adolescent development, resulting in youth with more confidence, optimism, and positive attitudes about the future; as well as results that indicated more positive changes in character, such as possessing a moral compass, having integrity, and being more socially aware. Youth intuitively understand the powerful influence of mentors in promoting character development (Johnson et al, 2016).
 
Character
 
A tremendous amount of research has been done on character over the last century. In the field of personality psychology alone, almost 2,000 articles and 500 books were published on character in a span of only fifty years (Bleidorn, 2015). At the heart of the character definition debate is the person-situational context of character. Is character merely a phantom phenomenon adaptable to the situation in which one finds him or herself? Or is character more or less stable over time and situation? According to the Jubilee Center (2017; 2022), character can be defined as a sub-set of stable, personality traits that can be formed within a person, are morally evaluable, and guide human conduct (Kristjansson, 2013). The formation of character is one of the primary aims of education (as well as the learning of content knowledge). The multiple dimensions of character include the following four main categories: moral, intellectual, civic, and performance character (Shields, 2011).  
 
Virtue
 
Virtue, in general, can be defined as a set of character traits that enable a person to respond well in a given situation; they are stable character dispositions or good habits within a person (JCVV, 2017; 2022). According to Aristotle, virtue can be learned and gained through practice. Virtues are human excellences that allow one to live life at its best. This often manifests itself in different ways (depending on the virtue) as “hitting the mark,” or what Aristotle calls the mean between extremes. For example, the courageous person is not a coward, nor foolhardy, but one who can stand his ground when appropriate (Kucukuysal & Beyhan, 2011). A courageous person does not become courageous in one act, but repeatedly over time by acting courageously. Virtue, thus, is an acquired pattern of behavior that guides the person to act in a predictable and excellent way (Boyd & Timpe, 2021). According to Boyd and Timpe (2021), virtue has been defined by Aristotle, Plato, Cicero, Augustine, and Aquinas to include the moral, intellectual, and practical virtues, as well as cardinal and theological virtues. 
 
Character Education
 
Character education is all of the implicit and explicit activities that aid young people’s growth in character and virtue (JCCV, 2017; 2022). According to the Jubilee Centre’s Framework for Character Education (2017; 2022), character education, whether occurring within the family, classroom, school, or other institutions, is designed to equip young people with the intellectual tools necessary to be critical thinkers and make wise decisions (phronesis) on their own. The ultimate aim of character education is to create an environment which allows for human flourishing within a democratic society. According to Berkowitz (2022), character education is an umbrella term that includes the formation of human goodness, as well as the intentional nourishing of all character components mentioned above (see Shields, 2011). It should not be thought of as constrained, only, to a specific subject taught explicitly in schools, but ought to include “caught, taught, and sought” approaches that permeate a school’s ethos and culture (Fullard & Watts, 2020).
 
Arthur and Kristjansson (2022) offer some helpful clarification on what it means for character education to be “sought.” This is helpful in understanding why mentoring becomes so important at the secondary schooling level (which is the focus of this paper). At an early age, young children [if fortunate] are often apt to internalize good moral habits through taught and caught approaches. They gain virtue knowledge by listening to their parents or teachers. They are amenable to reproof and correction. They quickly learn what is right or wrong by watching and mirroring role models (again, parents and teachers). However, at some point, usually when students enter secondary school, they no longer are as “open” to learning about virtue by hearing and seeing and no longer accept what is told to them at “face value.” Rather, as pointed out by the authors Arthur and Kristjannson, secondary students begin to critically reflect on values they were taught in elementary school, and decide which (values) are important to them and their own human flourishing. “They now learn the value of moral goods ‘sought,’ in addition to simply being ‘caught’ and ‘taught’ and advance towards the stage of full autonomous virtue, which Aristotle calls phronetic” (p. 4). 
 
Once this “sought” element is activated, I believe mentoring becomes the all-important provision necessary in a successful character education program offered in secondary schools. The mentor, as it were, thus becomes the pupils’ guide in their search of virtue. As mentioned above, character education, according to the Jubilee Centre (2017; 2022), seeks to equip students with the intellectual tools needed to be phronetic thinkers, as they strive to become flourishing and virtuous citizens within society. And while I believe this understanding of character education ought to be rooted in Christian values as found in the Gospels (see the rich young man, Lk 18: 18-30), and is best operationalized in faith-based schools, the Jubilee definition rooted in Aristotelian virtue ethics offers the “best definition” that can be applied most universally in schools in general. That said, the Jubilee definition of character education is not without criticism (Watts and Kristjansson, 2023). For example, there are some who believe that character education should be better paired with the promotion of what has become popularized as social emotional learning (SEL) (see the National Guidelines on Character and Social-Emotional Development, 2022). 
 
Despite the overlap, there are clear differences that should be pointed out (Peterson and Arthur, 2023. According to Peterson and Arthur, it is not clear from the outset if SEL is even concerned with the promotion of character (see definition above). Character education is focused on the promotion of phronetic thinking, seeking the good life, and human flourishing, whereas SEL is concerned more with “life skills” and of emotional self-management. Moreover, SEL draws on the importance of promoting prosocial behavior and forming positive relationships with others, also known as positive education (Seligman et al., 2009). And while SEL and positive education produce many of the benefits of Aristotelian virtue ethics, SEL and positive education do not focus on the same thing as Aristotelian character education. Other examples to character education include Confuciansim and those provisions based on behavioral outcomes only (Watts and Kristjansson, 2023). For the purpose of this paper, character education will be viewed through the lens of an Aristotelian understanding.
 
Human Flourishing
 
Human flourishing refers to the ancient Greek term, eudaimonia, used by Aristotle, to describe the highest good aimed for in life (Wolbert, de Ruyer & Schinkel, 2015). According to Wolbert, de Ruyter and Schinkel (2015), while human flourishing, referred to as eudaimonia, is often translated as “happiness,” the term goes beyond the popular understanding, regularly synonymous with pleasure. Rather, human flourishing has an enduring value in the soul, which manifests itself in a truly virtuous person. As Thomas Aquinas (1953) makes clear in his Summa Theologica, human flourishing ought to be properly understood as directed towards one’s ultimate end, finis ultimus (Theron, 2018). According to Theron (2018), for Thomas, this finis ultimus is ultimate beatitude or the divine vision, which is only to be realized in eternity. True flourishing, thus, can never be fully realized on earth. One can only attain a mere approximation of flourishing by living the earthly beatitudes (see Jesus’s Sermon on the Mount, Matt: 5-7), or a virtuous life.
 
Phronesis
Phronesis is otherwise known as practical wisdom, good sense, or sound judgment. According to the Jubilee Centre (2017; 2022), phronesis is a higher-order, intellectual virtue that enables one to deliberate practically and enact proper and good decisions when two or more virtues compete with each other. I.e., it allows one to figure out the right thing to do when one “gets stuck” in particular, moral situations (Kristjansson, 2021). Originally coined by Aristotle, phronesis has become the gold standard associated with character education (JCCV, 2017; 2022). Moreover, it is one of the most widely written about concepts in character education. In a recent publication, Kristjannson and Fowers (2023) declare that despite the fact that different theorists use different characterizations to talk about phronesis (Burbules, 2019; Hursthouse, 2006; and Smartwood, 2020), there is commonality in its understanding, i.e., phronesis can be defined as a meta-virtue that helps orchestrate the other virtues (e.g., moral) that ultimately results in prudential decision-making. 
 
Key Mentoring Models
 
Having defined key terms and concepts that will be used throughout this paper, it is now important to look at mentoring models, especially mentoring that occurs within Catholic schools. The following six models will be explored: LifeCompass Program for Character & Leadership Model, Emmaus Model, House System Model, Life Teen Model, HIPS Model, and Don Bosco’s Preventive System Model. Each model will help provide a framework upon which an effective mentoring program for secondary students in Catholic schools can be built and later analyzed (such as the pilot program which has served as the focus of this study). Models are helpful in that they create a clear path to knowledge, play an important part in helping us to make sense of what we know, allow us to understand and learn from existing practice, enable critique, and application to one’s own model (Mershon & Shvetsova, 2019). After each model is briefly described, in the next section, I will offer a critical examination of each.
 
LifeCompass Program for Character & Leadership Model 
 
The first mentoring model that comes to mind is a model used at Montrose School. Montrose School is an independent, Catholic school for girls in grades 6-12, located in Massachusetts. The school’s mentoring program is a key feature of its LifeCompass Program for Character & Leadership model. At Montrose, each student has her own personal mentor, who functions as the girl’s life coach and head of her success management team. Formal and individualized mentor meetings occur 6-8 times per semester, informal meetings occur frequently throughout the year, and mentors meet with parents twice per year. Such partnering with parents is important, as parents are the primary educators of their children. Parents are the ones primarily responsible for both their child’s moral and spiritual upbringing. Additional components of LifeCompass include a well-defined, liberal arts curriculum, student involvement in student life, leadership, and service, and how Montrose partners with parents. One of the main goals of the LifeCompass model is to help students develop the necessary habits of mind, heart, character, and practical wisdom, so they can set forth a clear vision, chart the appropriate course, and navigate life’s ups and downs, both the challenges of life and opportunities toward a definite purpose (https://www.montroseschool.org/character/overview). 
 
Emmaus Model
 
Similar to Montrose’s LifeCompass model, Pang (2012) offers a Christological framework, modeled after the Emmaus story, for relational mentoring of secondary students in a Catholic school with a Catholic Junior College in Singapore as the site of practice. This model consists of the following four movements: receiving, blessing, breaking, and giving. The movement to receive is realized in the “practice of holy friendship.” As Pang (2012) relates, this friendship is not a “covenant of niceness,” but a “covenant of truth” whereby the teacher-mentor helps guide the student to discern the truth of who he or she is in the eyes of God. Teacher-mentors receive their students by offering them the friendship of God made visible in the Eucharist. This can be likened to the way Christ received His apostles in the Emmaus story when He broke bread with them at table. A key component to receptivity is fidelity – students need to know that the teacher-mentor is there for them before the mentor can earn the young person’s trust. In this way, there is a mutual reciprocity to receiving. It was because of Jesus’ faithful sticking with His apostles on their journey to Emmaus that they invited Him to stay with them. Of course, the movement to receive is also intimately connected with blessing, breaking, and giving. Only after Jesus and His apostles mutually received each other were they able to partake in the blessing, breaking, and giving of the Bread.
 
House System Model
 
A model of mentoring that is becoming increasingly popular in American Catholic schools is the House System. In this model, students are divided into cross-grade groups, assigned a teacher-mentor, given a team identity, and partake in various, communal-building activities (house lunches, team competitions, etc.). According to Brennan (2012), the House system, by establishing unified divisions in schools, nurtures an atmosphere of closeness and intimacy. The House system allows students to feel supported, especially in larger school environments, where alienating effects on students are often quite profound. As Oxley (1994) and Green (2006) relate, larger school sizes often lead to poor school culture, increased absenteeism, decrease in extracurricular activities or school involvement, increase in student misbehaviors, and overall feelings of increased anxiety and depression in students (Forsthoefel, 2018). By organizing schools into house systems, mentors can assist in student development by providing them with much-needed personal attention, pastoral care, and an overall humanistic experience in which students feel wanted, needed, and given the space to grow in virtue and flourish. Brenan (2012) conducted a study in 2010, in Most Holy Trinity Catholic School, confirming the above-mentioned, positive characteristics of a school’s house system’s impact in creating a stronger sense of community and enhanced Catholic identity.
 
Life Teen Model
 
While originating as a Catholic parish-based ministry in the mid-1980’s in Mesa, Arizona, the Life Teen model of relational ministry has found its way into over 1,600 Catholic parishes and related schools across 24 countries (https://lifeteen.com/about/mission-ministry). The Life Teen model is a Eucharist-centered movement that leads middle and high school teenagers into a deeper relationship with Jesus and His Church. Life Teen is often manifested, or operationalized, in the celebration of special, charismatic Masses, and youth group nights that follow. However, the model of Life Teen is regularly employed as a form of mentoring in Catholic schools. According to Life Teen, the model consists of the following four components: 1) contact (everyone); 2) connect (most); 3) care (some); and 4) challenge (a few). To contact others means to reach out to every teen, regardless of whether you teach them or not, or whether or not they are in your mentoring group. This can take the form of simple smile or “hello.” To connect with students is to show interest in them, going to their plays, games, and having lunch with them. At this level, mentoring relationships begin to form in a more natural, organic way. Caring allows for trust and respect to be built between mentor and students. Lastly, once trust is gained, mentors are able to challenge students to deeper faith, a life of virtue, human flourishing, and the “next great thing.”
 
HIPS Model
 
Another mentoring model I would like to examine is the one employed by the Notre Dame seminary. The Notre Dame seminary is located in the Archdiocese of New Orleans in the heart of New Orleans, Louisiana. The mentoring model is based on an integrated formation model that focuses on the following four areas: human, intellectual, pastoral, and spiritual (or HIPS). The purpose of human formation is to develop the personal and interpersonal qualities that allow each seminarian’s personality to develop after that of Jesus Christ. It is an interactive process in which the mentor facilitates personal growth of the mentee through listening, speaking, and goal setting. With intellectual formation, the seminarian is taught about the Catholic intellectual tradition and learns to appreciate all that is true, good, and beautiful. For pastoral formation, the seminarian learns and understands how to be an evangelist imbued with the charity of Christ, filled with a missionary spirit, and possessing pastoral competence. Lastly, spiritual formation seeks to establish a foundation within each student for a life-long transformative relationship with Jesus Christ and His Church and celebrated with the sacraments. Employing the HIPS model, the mentor meets frequently with each seminarian, drawing out the virtues associated with each area of formation (https://nds.edu/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/Formation-Handbook-2021-2022.pdf).
 
Don Bosco’s Preventive System Model
 
The final mentoring model to be explored, one in which much of my school’s mentoring program is modeled after (given the Salesian spirit of our school), is based on Don Bosco’s Preventive System. According to Don Bosco (Braido, 1999), the Preventive System is based on the following principles: faith, reason, and loving kindness. In this system, or model, rules and regulations are made known to the students. But rather than enforcing them from the position of some “distant authority,” the mentor-teacher seeks to act as a “friend” to his or her mentees while being present amongst them during non-instructional hours, breaks, sporting events, and recreational activities. In this way, the mentor- teacher is able to earn the trust of his or her mentees while building rapport with them and instructing them in the Catholic faith. Additionally, the preventive system, or mentoring model, of Don Bosco allows for the mentor-teacher to impact his or her mentees from a whole-child perspective, including meeting the social and emotional needs of his or her mentees, assisting mentees with the intellectual demands placed on them, and helping to shape their moral and virtue development (Gonsalves, 2011). Similar to the Emmaus model, this mentoring model seeks to develop mentees in a more naturalistic way, as opposed to setting rigid and formal guidelines. The mentor acts as a natural guide along his or her mentees’ difficult terrain of adolescence while assisting in their overall need for human flourishing.
 
Critical Examination 
 
Having explored each of the above-mentioned mentoring models, it is important to take a closer look at each one from the perspective of what makes the model most effective. In other words, which model, or aspects thereof, contributes most to the virtue formation of secondary students in Catholic schools? Despite the conclusions of the benefits of mentoring, the literature contains no uniform consensus in regard to what makes for the most effective mentor and mentoring program (Welch, 1996). What aspects of a mentoring relationship contribute most to the mentee’s development? According to Braido (1999), the effective mentor in a Catholic, secondary school should possess the following characteristics: be present to his or her mentees every chance given, be of upright moral character, give mentees ample time and liberty to run, play, and be at leisure while being in their midst, encourage mentees to frequent the sacraments, and morally encourage mentees each day. Moreover, the effective mentoring program include those that have a clear sense of vision, mission, and purpose, maintain regular contact between mentor and mentee, and those that create an environment conducive for the mentee’s growth in virtue. Effective mentoring relationships must be grounded in love and mutual respect between mentor and mentees (Abiddin & Hassan, 2012). Given the mentor and mentoring qualities just listed, how do the models measure up?
 
Montrose Academy’s mentoring program, its LifeCompass Program for Character & Leadership, offers students an integrative and holistic framework for developing practical wisdom or phronesis (Handa, 2023). As defined above, phronesis enables one to enact good decisions when deliberating between opposing choices. As Bohlin and Kris (2018) describe, the LifeCompass program’s mentoring model equips its students with the skills needed to make such wise choices. Through mentoring meetings and coaching conversations, mentors teach their mentees the following reflective strategies for developing practical wisdom: 1) first recognize your instinctive, or gut, reaction; 2) pause and reflect on the situation, keeping in mind one’s goals or aspirations; and 3) recalibrate and respond in a way that matches your aim, vision, or life’s compass. At Montrose Academy, mentors are trained in this method, as they take their mentees through deliberative thinking regarding various, life situations: How am I feeling right now? Why? What do I know? What do I need to know? What do I need to do? (Bohlin, 2022). According to its founder, the LifeCompass mentoring model is very effective in helping mentees deal with conflict while leading them towards practical wisdom. Their program possesses a clear vision and purpose and is very much Salesian (Don Bosco) in spirit. I.e., mentors very much walk with their mentees along life’s challenges. However, I believe the program can be more explicit regarding how it uses a Catholic lens to offer guidance to students.
 
The concept of “walking with students” is also at the heart of the Emmaus mentoring model. However, unlike the LifeCompass model, the Emmaus model is clear about its use of a Christological and accompaniment approach to mentoring, proving a clear model for how to disciple someone (Henritz, 2019). Pope Francis (2019), in his Apostolic Exhortation Christus Vivit, uses the story of the Road to Emmaus (Lk 24:13-35) as the model to be embraced in Catholic youth ministry. He uses this model to illustrate a three-step model of accompaniment. First, it is important that mentors learn to listen to the young while not passing judgment; second, mentors must lead their mentees to interpret the events in their lives in light of Scripture; and third, mentors must not force their mentees along a particular path to virtue, but rather invite them (237). The power in this mentoring model is multifaceted. Central to this model is that mentors learn to meet mentees where they are on their life’s journey. Just as Jesus allowed his disciples to “set the agenda” (as He inquired into their downcast faces), mentors allow their mentees to do the same. Moreover, the Emmaus model also allows for mentor-mentee relationships to develop naturally in the due course of time just as Jesus listened to his disciples on the road. The model also is clearly rooted in Sacred Scriptures. The downside to this model, however, is that it is loosely structured.
 
The House System mentoring model has been around since ages past, often under the form of British boarding schools. It often conjures up mental images of Harry Potter and its “houses”: Gryffindor, Slytherin, Ravenclaw, and Hufflepuff. The question is: What advantages or disadvantages does this model offer mentoring? According to Cornwall (2018), there are many advantages to this model. Some include: a sense of camaraderie, opportunities to develop leadership skills amongst students, a sense of inclusion, belonging, and engagement, the ease in transition of new students, and schoolwide advantages such as giving schools an advantage in both recruitment and retention. Many schools, especially secondary schools, have adopted this model, including my own. And reasons for success vary (Zoeller, 2018). Most notably, within Catholic secondary schools, house systems offer the benefit of spiritual formation, virtue support, academic motivation, and mentoring opportunities (Weisenberger, 2016). Such opportunities allow mentors to assist teens when faced with the pressures of test performance, increased uses of social media, bullying, and drug use (Posniak, 2013). Given all the advantages I have personally witnessed, however, house systems, if not well purposed, offer little more than a “fun way” of structuring games and activities for students.
 
The Life Teen model is a potentially powerful approach to mentoring students. This model, while finding its place in Catholic schools, is much more prevalent as a form of youth ministry in Catholic parishes (such as Life Teen Masses, youth groups, etc.). Its power relies, almost exclusively, on the transformative power of events (e.g., Steubenville and LifeTeen conferences, World Youth Day, etc.) (O’Malley, 2018). According to O’Malley (2018), these events happen on a large scale and often result in the moving of one’s affections, albeit superficially, through personal experience, but have little power to follow up when the emotional experience wanes away. And while these “big events” offer value in the form of provoking life’s ultimate questions in the heart of the teen: Who am I? What is my destiny? Etc. These events, and the Life Teen model, often fail to support the teen in the daily struggle of the “day-in and day-out” walk of discipleship. This model can prove effective when seen less as producing high-energy, one and done events that play on students’ affections momentarily and more as an opportunity to grow consistent and committed relationships with students that endure over time. It is in this everyday walk of discipleship that real virtue and holiness is formed. When viewed in this way, the Life Teen model can be a real advantage for the student (Nielson, 2011).
 
The HIPS model of mentoring (human, intellectual, pastoral, and spiritual) provides a balanced approach to student formation. Originally outlined by John Paul II (1992) in his document Pastoro Dabo Vobis on priestly formation, these four areas can be easily applied to secondary school students in Catholic schools. Each area (human, intellectual, pastoral, and spiritual) provides a lens for which students can be guided. Personally, I like this model as it addresses each aspect of what it means to be a fully educated and well-rounded human being. Moreover, this model can help provide students with the skills needed, not only to grow in virtue, but to live effective, purposeful, and self-motivated lives. Each area can be used by the mentor when meeting with mentees to set goals, providing a clear framework for discussion. The benefit to such “guard rails” is that mentor / mentee conversations are less likely to derail into meaningless chatter or one-sided formation, e.g., only talking about one’s social or emotional experience in school (human) or how one is doing academically (intellectual). The downside to using this model is that mentoring discussion can appear “too rigid” or forced as if one is trying to merely “check a box” during a meeting. Mentoring should be more organic and natural whereby students are guided based on their greatest area of need (regardless of what that may be).
 
The last mentoring model to examine is Don Bosco’s Preventive System. The implementation of this model has been realized all over the world (see previous studies of the preventive system conducted in India by D’Souza, 2015; in South Korea by Yoon, 2020; and in England by Dickson, 2006, to name a few). Don Bosco’s Preventive System places emphasis on being present with students, not only during instructional hours (or set mentoring times), but during non-instructional hours, breaks, in the hallways, during lunch, and recreational activities. By being a friend in their midst, the mentor is able to build a rapport with his or her mentees, encouraging them to be more apt to open up and willing to accept the challenges placed on them by their mentor (Gonsalves, 2011). Once an authentic relationship of mutual trust and love is formed between mentor and mentee, the intellectual, moral, and spiritual development of the mentee is more easily shaped. Don Bosco’s model of prevention seems to me to be the perfect model of what true mentoring ought to be. It gathers in itself, in many ways, all previous models discussed thus far: LifeCompass, Emmaus, the House System, Life Teen, and HIPS, as an overarching philosophy. Nevertheless, structure is needed to make Bosco’s system an actionable mentoring model.
 
Research Questions 
 
I was able to apply such structure to my pilot mentoring program using Don Bosco’s Preventive System as a theoretical framework. The structure of the program was reviewed with teacher-mentors at the beginning of the school year and was carried out with both faithfulness and regularity. The mentoring program that was designed consisted of the following three parts: 1) mentoring meetings with students over lunch; 2) mentoring meetings with parents; and 3) frequent discussion with the student support team and campus minister. Monthly mentoring meetings with students served as a springboard for mentoring activities off campus. In some cases, mentor groups would have lunch off campus and go to the chapel together; in other cases, mentor groups would play soccer or kickball, watch a movie together, or go on an outing to the botanical gardens. In all cases, the purpose of the mentoring program was designed to provide students with 1) personalized attention; 2) ensure that no student felt “left behind;” and 3) to assist students in becoming the best version of themselves, helping them to grow in both virtue and human flourishing (see Appendix A for mentoring program). However, given the newness of the pilot program, it was important to evaluate the program’s effectiveness. As such, the following research questions were addressed in this study:
 

1. What key aspects of the school’s mentoring program have been most beneficial in helping secondary students (grades 9-12) to:
2. grow in character or virtue,
3. grow in holiness, 
4. flourish?

 

1. How have the key aspects, identified in question one, of the school’s mentoring program been effective in helping secondary students (grades 9-12) to:
2. grow in character or virtue, 
3. grow in holiness, 
4. flourish?

 

1. In what ways can the school’s mentoring program be improved and why? What key elements can be:
2. modified, 
3. added, or 
4. removed to increase the mentoring program’s effectiveness?

 
METHODOLOGY
 
Participants
 
The participants for this study included 130 secondary students in grades 9-12, divided into seventeen mentoring groups of approximate equal size (7-8 students / group). Ten groups consisted of eight students and seven groups consisted of seven students. Effort was made to compose each group of a heterogenous mixture of freshmen (9th-grade; 14–15-year-old), sophomores (10th-grade; 15-16-year-old), juniors (11th-grade; 16-17-year-old), and seniors (12th-grade; 17-18-year-old). In some cases, groups consisted of a fair balance of each class level; in other cases, some groups did not exhibit such a balance. For example, one group consisted of two freshmen, two sophomores, two juniors, and two seniors; nine groups consisted of a mixture of three class levels; seven groups consisted of a mixture of only two class levels. Genders were also separated; that is, mentoring groups were composed of either male students, entirely, or female students, entirely (with the exception of one group that contained male and female students). Male mentoring groups were assigned a male administrator or teacher as a mentor; female groups were assigned a female administrator or teacher as a mentor (with the exception of two groups that consisted of female students with a male mentor). Mentor group assignments were carefully thought out, so as to create cohesive, student groups with a chosen mentor that seemed to be a “best fit” with the group. It was thought that male mentors would more easily connect with male students and female mentors would more easily connect with female students. Mentors included administrators and teachers with various teaching assignments across grades 6-12. No grammar school (K-5) teacher was selected as a mentor. Every secondary student (grades 9-12) was assigned a mentor. In two cases, where teachers left mid-year for various reasons, additional teacher-mentors were brought on to cover these groups.
 
Setting
 
The setting for this research study was a preK-12 Catholic, classical school located in Ave Maria, Florida, a small town located approximately thirty miles east of Naples, Florida. The school was founded in 2007 with approximately 160 students by Catholic entrepreneur and philanthropist Thomas Monaghan as an independent, Catholic school that – essentially – functions as a “feeder school” to Ave Maria University (also founded by Thomas Monaghan), located only blocks away. Central to the school’s mission is its faith life that consists of daily Mass, frequent Confession, adoration of the Blessed Sacrament, and rosary processions. Its academic program is rooted in the study of the Great Books, Latin, grammar, geography, writing, philosophy, and theology, to name a few. Students focus on the acquisition of knowledge by reading original works whenever possible. Students study not only individual academic subjects but also essential truths that transcend each subject. The curriculum is integrated and structured divided into three stages of learning (the Trivium) that align with the developmental period of the child (grammar: K-5; logic: 6-8; and rhetoric: 9-12). The school has a rich arts program (fine arts, music, and drama), as well as a competitive sports program (football, volleyball, cross country, basketball, and soccer) and vibrant student life (pro-life club, model UN, and robotics). The school was founded on the spirit of St. John Bosco and thus has always placed an emphasis on the importance of being “close” with students. While not being a Salesian school, such a school spirit has always lent itself to natural mentoring; however, no formal mentoring program was ever put in place until now. 
 
Design
 
This study used a qualitative program evaluation with a case study design. Case studies are a common evaluation design often used to gather an in-depth understanding, or provide rich detail, within a particular program setting (Crowe et al., 2011). In this case, the particular program being evaluated was the mentoring program established in my school. It is beneficial to have such a detailed understanding so as to determine what worked well in the program and what adjustments need to be made in the future. According to a Case Study Evaluation Approach (2024), by collecting qualitative data, case study evaluations allow the researcher to capture nuances in the program that can often be overlooked or not easily captured by quantitative data alone. Case study approaches allow you to create a full and complete picture of what occurred in the implementation of the program. However, a limitation of using a program implementation case study design is that findings may not be generalizable to broader contexts. In my case, this limitation is perfectly acceptable as I desire to know the effectiveness of the mentoring program in my school setting, as described above. Nevertheless, I believe this research study may still be of use to other teachers and leaders in the field, especially those interested in starting a mentoring program, or learning more about how to make their current program more effective. Overall, a program evaluation with a case study design seemed to provide me with the best way to answer the “what happened” question as the result of the school’s mentoring program, as well as afford me with actionable steps for improving it in the future.
      
According to Yin (2009), it is a common misconception that case study designs should only be used in the exploratory phase of an investigation, whereas other methods (surveys, histories, and experiments) should be used by way of follow-up, in a hierarchical array, as they provide more well-rounded descriptions and offer explanations or causal links. However, an expanding body of research has clearly shown that case study methodology can serve as an important form of quasi-experimental theory test in the social sciences, providing researchers with much explanatory power (A.S. Lee, 1989; Bitektine, 2008; Keil, 1995; Langley, 1999; Markus, 1983; Ross & Staw, 1993; Shane, 2000). Some of the most famous case studies have been explanatory in nature (for example, Allison and Zelikow’s, 1999, Essence of Decision: Explaining the Cuban Missile Crisis). Other examples of case studies used for explanatory purposes can be found in Yin, 2009, chapters 4-7. Moreover, case study designs are deemed most appropriate to for use in research studies when the following conditions are met (a) the type of research questions are in the form of how and why; (b) the researcher does not have complete control over behavioral events; and (c) the focus is on contemporary events (Yin, 2009). And while there is overlap with these criteria and other research methods (experiment, survey, archival analysis, history, etc.), and while multiple methods can be used in tandem within a study, it is my belief that a case study design was the best fit design for explaining the overall effectiveness of my school mentoring program in its impact of students’ growth in virtue, holiness, and human flourishing.
 
Procedure
 
Sampling and Data Collection
 
For this study, both purposive and random sampling was used. According to Balbach (1999), case study evaluations often use purposive samples. The reason is that such samples ensure that meaningful data can be collected from reliable sources and from multiple perspectives, data that can reveal what occurred, why it happened, and what relationships exist between observable phenomena. Random sampling helps eliminate bias giving all participants an equal chance at being chosen (Moore & McCabe, 2006). My sample consisted of four students and two teacher-mentors. To select the students, teacher-mentors were asked to suggest names of students from each grade level they felt would be suitable for the study, students they felt could provide different perspectives, rich, meaningful, and reliable data. After receiving the list of students, I randomly selected students from each grade level (grades 9-12). In total, my final sample consisted of four students: one from each grade level; two were males, two were females. Teacher-mentors were selected purposively and randomly (male and female). Once selected, I asked permission of the teacher-mentors, as well as the students and parents of students selected, if they were comfortable and willing to participate in such a study (Appendix D). Participant information of the study was also provided (Appendix C). Ethics approval from the University of Birmingham was received before any data was collected (Appendix B). As alluded to, the inaugural mentoring program occurred over the course of the 2023-24 school year. Data was collected at the end of the school year.
 
In order to collect data, semi-structured interviews were conducted. According to the Jubilee Centre for Character and Virtue’s (no date) Character Education Evaluation Handbook for Schools, semi-structured interviews contain only a few pre-determined questions, listed within a discussion guide, that allows for flexibility in asking follow-up questions, such that the research questions can be more fully explored. It is not uncommon for such interviews to start with general questions, then move to more specific questions, then back to more general questions (Rapley, 2001). According to Agee (2009), the secret of good, qualitative research lies in asking good questions. The initial questions are often broad and overarching, then develop into sub-questions that probe more deeply into the area of study. The goal is to get interview participants to think reflectively about the study while building rapport with them (Mears, 2017; Cohen, Manion & Morrison, 2007). For example, what makes them say what they say, why do they think the way they think, or feel the way they feel. 
 
For this study, I interviewed six people in person, one from each student group, as well as two teacher-mentors, using a semi-structured format (Appendix E), in 40–60-minute sessions after school hours. My phone’s recording app was used to record the entirety of each interview. For the first research question, attention was paid to understanding the key aspects of the mentoring program’s effectiveness with regard to growth in virtue, holiness, and human flourishing. The second question focused on understanding how these key aspects were impactful. This question afforded me with the opportunity to delve deeper with each interviewee. “Tell me more” was a prompt that was often used. “Why do you feel that way?” “Can you give a specific example?” “What virtues do you feel like you grew the most in?” “How do you feel like you were able to grow in holiness?” “In what aspects do you feel like you were able to flourish as a result of the mentoring program?” (see Appendix E for full list of questions). The last question focused on what elements of the mentoring program could be modified, added, or deleted to make the mentoring program more effective. This last question was evaluative in nature meant to identify specific examples of program improvement. Overall, the size of this sample pool was limited by the time I had available to gather and analyze data. Ideally, with additional time, I would have liked to have interviewed, at least, one boy and girl each grade level. 
 
Data Analysis and Interpretation
 
While data was being transcribed verbatim after each interview, I began to think about points of agreement and disagreement, as well as potential emergent themes, among respondents, that offered explanation for the impact, or lack thereof, of the mentoring program – specifically in regard to helping students grow in virtue, holiness, and flourishing overall. As more information was transcribed, my ideas were continually refined. Additionally, I paid careful attention thinking about key elements of the mentoring program that could be added, deleted, or modified to improve the program’s effectiveness. Such a thematic analysis approach allowed me to focus on significant elements with regard to the effectiveness of the mentoring program (Cohen, Manion & Morrison, 2007). Once I became familiar enough with the data, after transcribing all of the interviews and rereading the transcripts, I formalized my thoughts by creating a table of data extracts with key phrases and sentences of interest followed by the application of codes to the phrases and sentences of data collected (Dawadi, 2020). Once codes were determined, I was then able to combine the codes to form various overarching themes (Braun & Clarke, 2006). After reviewing the themes, I reread the transcripts considering the data set as a whole and kept only those themes that seemed relevant to the entire study. Lastly, I was able to bring these themes to bear by answering the research questions.
 
Due to the limited time available for data collection, I was only able to interview the students and teachers selected via purposive and random sampling (method mentioned above); therefore, no opportunities allowed me to either confirm or disconfirm specific information brought up by the interviewees outside of each interview, explore new paths of interest, nor were any additional data collection methods used (e.g., use of surveys, observations or artifact gathering). The overall goal was simply to determine whether there was a link between the intervention (mentoring program) and observed effects (growth in virtue) and offer some general, explanatory conclusions. Nevertheless, despite not having any preconceived notions in regard to the net effectiveness of the end result of the program, it would be naïve to think that I would be able to analyze and interpret data as an outsider, especially since it was I who developed the program in the first place.
 
Ethics
 
As this research study involved the participation of human subjects, all reasonable steps were taken for their protection. Permission from the University of Birmingham’s Institutional Review Board (IRB) was obtained. Since interviews were conducted, informed consent forms were given to, reviewed by, and signed by the adults participating in the study (Appendix D). Furthermore, minors participating in the study were also given an informed consent form whereby they and their parents were required to sign (Appendix D). The informed consent form used explained the study, including what the participant would be asked to do, who would know about the study, the duration and location of the study, potential risks, benefits, and guarantees of privacy / confidentiality (Cohen, Manion and Morrison, 2007). Added steps were taken to ensure participant confidentiality. For example, identifiable information in all transcripts and the final report were redacted and pseudonyms used, audio recordings recorded to my phone were password protected, and at the end of the study all audio recordings were destroyed. Finally, each participant in the study was given the option to remove themselves, at any point up to one week after the interview was conducted, if they ever felt uncomfortable. 
 
Limitations
 
It is important to point out that a number of limitations exist in any study. I believe the major limitation in this study was in the qualitative method employed. Given more time, a mixed methods approach, such as including quantitative data (e.g., in the form of a survey or questionnaire) would be much more preferable, providing me with more reliable, as well as a much wider range of date collection and analysis. While qualitative data collection in the form of interviews is helpful in providing rich and meaningful data, it simply lacks generalizability power forcing one to generalize to the larger group that simply is difficult to do. It is nearly impossible to say that one student from a group of 25-30 students is a fair representation of the entire group. As mentioned above, the limitation in using one method (qualitative) as opposed to two (quantitative and qualitative) was due to time. Quantitative methods could have been used instead of the qualitative approach taken; however, I felt that such an approach would have given me only a superficial look at the effectiveness of the program. To counteract the weakness in sample representation, I used both a purposive and random sample, as described above, and felt like the students and teachers chosen offer accurate reflections about the program as a whole. Yet, there is logically no way to be sure. Follow up data collection can be used in order to gain a more complete picture of the effectiveness of the mentoring program.
 
RESULTS & DISCUSSION
 
The present study addressed three questions regarding a pilot mentoring program for secondary students conducted in a preK-12 Catholic classical school located in Ave Maria, Florida: RQ 1) What key aspects of the school’s mentoring program were most beneficial in helping students (9-12) grow in virtue, holiness, and human flourishing; RQ 2) How were these aspects, identified in question one, most beneficial; and RQ 3) In what ways can the school’s mentoring program be improved and why? Data analysis occurred via three phases after the six interviews were conducted, recorded, and transcribed. 
 
The first phase was a familiarization phase, which involved listening to the recordings again and highlighting initial points of interest. The main purpose of approaching the data in this way was to become immersed in the whole dataset (Chamberlain, 2015). This step allowed me to become fully acquainted with the depth and breadth of the content, as well as to allow initial findings to emerge. The second phase of data analysis included careful coding of the data using NVivo coding software. A code in qualitative research is “most often a word or short phrase that symbolically assigns a summative, salient, essence-capturing, and / or evocative attribute for a portion of language-based or visual data” (Saldaña, 2009, p. 3). A large number of codes emerged (n= 60). Finally, phase three involved the identification of broader level themes. According to Braun and Clarke (2006), “a theme captures something important about the data in relation to a research question and represents some level of patterned response or meaning within the data set” (p. 10). Transcripts were reread and aggregated codes began to shed light on potential themes. While thinking about the themes, key concepts, identified in the literature review, were brought to bear on the final determination of themes. Particular attention was paid to what the participants saw as most important.
 
Emergent Themes
 
Three themes and ten sub-themes emerged from the analysis of the six interviews conducted (see mind-maps below, Figures 1-3). Each theme offered an overall “best response” to each research question. For example, the first theme was that relationships between mentors and mentees are perceived to be the most beneficial in helping secondary students grow in virtue and holiness. There were four aspects of relationships that were commonly discussed: A1) contact, A2) connection, A3) care, and A4) challenge. The second theme was that modeling is perceived to be the best method for effectively leading students in virtue and included the two subthemes of B1) teacher to student and B2) peer to peer. Lastly, the third theme was that greater intentionality is needed to improve the mentoring program and included the four subthemes of C1) mentor fit / selective groups, C2) standardized format, C3) more one-on-one time, and C4) natural setting. Each of the themes and subthemes will be presented and discussed below, as well as linked to literature (where appropriate) and each of the research questions. I will conclude the paper with a summary of the findings, strengths and limitations, and recommendations for future research. 
The following pseudonyms were used whenever quoting participants (quotes are in italics): male teacher (Sam); female teacher (Jen); 9^th-grade, female student (Elena); 10^th-grade, female student (Joanne); 11^th-grade, male student (Elijah); and 12^th-grade, male student (John). Additional pseudonyms were used for other students and teachers mentioned by interviewees.
 
Theme A: Relationship
 
Research question one asked: “What key aspects of the school’s mentoring program have been most beneficial in helping secondary students to grow in virtue, holiness, and flourish?” The theme of relationship between mentor and mentee was the recurrent idea that arose from interviews in response to this question. One of the teacher participants (Jen) was adamant about the importance of building relationships with students as foundational to their growth in virtue and holiness (as she mentioned the word relationship 34 times during the interview); however, all participants either directly, or indirectly, referenced this idea as “key” to the mentoring program’s success. Another teacher participant (Sam), spoke about the importance of relationship in the following way: “And so the more you allow those relationships to develop and the more you allow yourself to enter into lives of teenagers and witness to something real about the lived discipleship of Christ, the more they are drawn into that life themselves.” When asked about his understanding of the mentoring program, one of the student participants (Elijah) said, “My understanding of the mentoring program was that this teacher [mentor] wants to have a more personal relationship with me and what’s said there, they can help you out with any situation in your life and give advice.” Another student participant (Joanne) said that she got pretty close to her mentor pretty fast and that it was a “good relationship.” While it has always been important for the school to foster relationships with secondary students, and this has happened – for the most – in a more natural and organic way (retreats, athletic events, etc.), it was clear from the interviews that one of the key benefits of the mentoring program was it that it facilitated relationship building between students and teachers.
 
Theme A1: Contact
 
It became clear from the interviews that the first level of relationship building with students is contact. Contact is necessary for a connection to develop; once a connection is formed, a caring relationship can develop; and once a caring relationship is developed, secondary students can thus be challenged to lives of greater virtue and holiness. Contact happens naturally from the moment students enter a teacher’s classroom. It’s not something that’s avoidable. As Jen (teacher) shared, at a very basic level, the mentoring program “forced the contact.” Students were grouped cross-sectionally as mixed groups (9-12) and assigned a mentor teacher. Students did not have any say over which students would be in their group or who their mentor teacher would be. As discovered through the interviews, this “forced contact” had mixed reviews. One of the student participants, Elena, thought the group dynamic was “fun.” “It was all my favorite people.” Another student participant, John, said that the mentor group’s, “Overall chemistry was definitely not there at first. And even near the end of it, you weren’t really talking that much to everyone else. So…the games really helped bring everyone together and it’s not like you’re forcing them to talk.” Elijah (student) agreed with John that forced contact between mixed groups was likely not optimal. “So, I feel like a senior would get more out of being with another senior; they’d be able to really, really engage. And with freshmen, they’re not always as mature. In this case, I think it would be better if you had freshmen with freshmen, than having to mix that.” Nevertheless, it was clear from the interviews that in order to build relationships between teacher and students (and amongst students), contact is first necessary.
 
Theme A2: Connection
However, as gleaned from the interviews, in order for any meaningful relationship to grow beyond initial contact, a connection must form between the teacher-mentor and student(s). A connection can be likened to an initial spark, a common ground, or similarity between people that often results in the emergence of friendship. Each participant interviewed believed connection to be a key ingredient in helping students grow in virtue and holiness. When discussing a connection that one of the participants had with his mentor, who also happened to be his football coach, Elijah (student) said, “A lot of it depends on how you’re already kind of friends with them. That helps out so much that I was friends with him already. But definitely, I feel [bad] for other students who may not have been as close with their mentor.” Joanne (student) discussed the importance of there being a connection between students within the mentor groups. “I think people would probably talk more…because if it’s one person, like if it’s two friends, then they’re likely to feel more comfortable to go to off-campus activities together outside of school.” And also, between mentor and students, “I mean, it’s obviously a lot easier to talk if you’re comfortable with the teacher.” Forming a bond between mentor and mentee, and within the group, is critical to the formation of caring relationships. As Jen (teacher) stated, “If there isn’t a prior connection within the group, between mentor and mentees, if the group isn’t close enough, then they cannot move into care together.” Connection is the springboard to deeper and more meaningful relationships. It is only when students feel connected to an adult are they, then, willing to take the risk of letting themselves be loved and love in return.
 
Theme A3: Care
 
The interviews also revealed the importance of developing caring relationships between mentor and mentee. As Sam (teacher) recounts, “Once students know that you love them, care for them, and you are really interested in their growth as a person, and they get to see that you do care, and you’re serious about this faith that you’re revealing, [then, and only then, are you able to earn their] trust.” Once you earn their trust, adolescents are more apt to allow themselves to be challenged to virtue and holiness. As Jen (teacher) also shared, “If you try to challenge them before they know you care about them, you’re just a judge that’s telling them they’re doing something wrong. But once they know that you care about them, when you call them to higher virtue, they know you’re doing it honestly.” However, developing a caring and trusting relationship within a formal mentorship program is not always easy. “You can’t force somebody, like I can show them all day long that I care about them, but I can’t make them care back. And that has to happen organically,” revealed Jen (teacher). In order to address the artificial construct of formal mentoring, and create a more natural setting, off-campus and after-hour activities were encouraged amongst mentor groups. Students found these activities beneficial and enjoyable. Elijah (student) mentioned, “We went to Tropical [Smoothie] one time. It was really fun.” Joanne (student) also recounted, “We watched the Elf movie in [our mentor’s classroom], and she brought pizza, and we made gingerbread houses. So, it was really fun…” One-on-one interactions between mentor and mentee also helped build trust and care. “I was able at least minimally, with one of them [student], to play a very active role in communication with teachers on grades, and communication with parents, trying to help a situation. And I think for that student, it gave an advocate,” said Sam (teacher).
 
Theme A4: Challenge
 
The end goal of the mentoring program is for the mentor to be in a position to challenge students to virtue and holiness. As brought to light from the interviews, this only happens once, via contact and connection, students feel that you, as a mentor, really care about and are interested in them. As Jen (teacher) shared, “And then the deeper you go, then once that relationship builds, you can actually challenge them to be better,” And also reminded me, “But real care and challenge relationships…they also take time.” Sam (teacher) also warned, “Here’s what doesn’t work. What doesn’t work is some kind of lecture on virtue. Like that doesn’t work for teenagers. It does work for younger kids. But…it doesn’t work with teenagers.” That’s why building relationships that lead to challenge is so important (and also difficult). Yet, despite the difficulty involved in building trusting relationship with students, Elijah (student) felt that the mentoring program did provide an opportunity for him and other students to be challenged to virtue. When asked by me, “Did you feel like it [the mentoring program] presented an opportunity for you to be challenged to grow in your own personal pursuit of goodness and holiness?” Elijah (student) responded, “Yeah, yeah, so one of things that I remember that came up in conversation was about our prayer life. So that was a really big thing that we’d go around talking about, like how we’ve been doing so far, what can we do to be better…” Joanne (student) responded to a similar question about challenges made by her mentor, “Oh yeah, like she would make sure we were doing the right things, and she would ask us what we were up to, and she would make sure we were not doing anything super bad.” Reaching this level of “challenge” in the mentoring program was vital to its success.
 
Discussion of Theme A: Relationship
 
The results above support the necessity of developing a relationship with secondary students if they are to be challenged to growth in virtue, holiness, and human flourishing. The literature confirms this as well (Garringer and Jacovy, 2007), and as seen above in the various mentoring program models: LifeCompass Program for Character & Leadership, the Emmaus model, the House System model, the LifeTeen model, the HIPS model, and Don Bosco’s Preventive System model. Critical to each model is the need to bond with high school students. E.g., the LifeCompass model emphasizes formal, individualized mentoring as an avenue for relationship building (Handa, 2023; Bohlin and Kris, 2018; and Bohlin, 2022); the Emmaus model focuses on the practice of “holy friendship” as mentor and mentee walk side-by-side in their mentoring relationship (Pang, 2012); the House System model formalizes smaller groups or “houses” within larger school settings for the purpose of assisting students in feeling supported (Brennan, 2012; Cornwall, 2018; and Weisenberger, 2016); the LifeTeen model uses the four C’s (contact, connection, care, challenge) to “reach” teenagers and challenge them in their faith (Nielson, 2011). The four C’s became key subthemes as revealed in this study. The HIPS model focuses on human, intellectual, pastoral, and spiritual formation, as the backbone for guiding students; and Don Bosco’s Preventive System places importance on being “present” to students, being in their midst, if they are to be led to a higher calling of holiness (Gonsalves, 2011). Regardless of model, it was clear that developing “relationships” was the primary aspect of the school’s mentoring program most beneficial to students striving for virtue.
 
Further, vital to building the mentor-mentee relationship is the importance of nourishing this relationship in a natural and organic way. This came up multiple times across participants. Anecdotally, this appears to have been achieved with relative success. My observations of movie nights, kickball games, a trip to the botanical gardens, etc., revealed real bonds that formed between mentors and mentees. There was a clear tension, however, when comparing the need to institutionalize a formal mentoring program to ensure meetings take place with the need to ensure that meetings do not seem “forced” or “awkward” whereby conversations might emerge out of a natural, relational dynamic between mentor and mentee. I think Sam, a seasoned veteran teacher at the school, brings to light most clearly the need for relationships to be natural, such as connecting with students in the hallways or sports field. “It’s not what happens in the classroom. Everything is about what happens in the hallway. It happens when you’re coaching them in soccer or basketball…” Sam (teacher) continues, “So when you meet someone on the sports field, especially when they’re not completely checked into your class, and they love this sport and they’re good at it…you have an opportunity to plant all sorts of seeds, like I’m so proud of your success, I really think you’re doing a great job…” Therefore, key to developing a successful mentoring program, built on relationships that can lead to challenging students towards growth in virtue, is to include activities where you can meet students on their terms, on the field (as it were), so they can come to realize you are truly vested in their lives and not just “checking some box” as part of a formal mentoring program.
 
Theme B: Modeling
 
The theme of being a witness, or the concept of role modeling, best illustrates “how” students can be led to virtue within the school’s mentoring program (in response to RQ2). Two subthemes emerged which best describe ways that modeling effectively serves students: teacher to student and peer to peer.
 
Theme B1: Teacher to Student
 
Once a relationship built on trust, between mentor and mentee, has been firmly established, the teacher as role model (or witness) to students seems to be the best path forward towards authentic mentoring. It seems unlikely if the mentor is not pursuing a life of virtue him- or herself, can he or she genuinely challenge students to pursue such a life of their own. Thus, the idea of the mentor being a model or witness is very important and became very apparent with the students interviewed. When asked about “some of the people you look up to in terms of your own personal pursuit of virtue and holiness,” each of the four students identified their mentor. Elijah (student) said, “Definitely one of those big, big people is Mr. Shall (pseudonym; Elijah’s mentor). He’s definitely up there. I mean…he’s been helping out with football for the past couple of years, and we’ve definitely grown in friendship. We’re definitely pretty close. So, he’s one of the people that I, for sure, look up to; ask advice.” Interestingly, here we see the clear connection between athletic coach and mentor and how the two roles, in this case, complimented each other. Another student, John, found his mentor to be a helpful role model. When asked, “Was there some kind of adult you connected with and found helpful in your personal growth in becoming a better person,” John (student) said, “I’d say Mr. James (pseudonym; John’s mentor who also happened to be his humanities teacher) was pretty great. I think I had the strongest connection with Mr. James because he would ask you, how are you doing, would show interest in your hobbies. He knew the students and that helps you build trust with him…”
 
In John’s (student) case, we can see the benefit of the mentor also being the mentee’s teacher. Relationship building and role modeling (witnessing) is much easier when the mentee sees their mentor with greater frequency (such as when the mentor is a teacher and / or coach). Jen (teacher) mentioned this too. “I know it was really hard on Brandy (pseudonym). She didn’t teach a couple of her students. She literally didn’t teach and never saw [them.] She only saw them ten times this whole year. And that cannot inherently be a mentor relationship.” Joanne (student) confirmed the importance of the mentor being the mentee’s teacher. When asked, “So do you feel like you were able to connect with Mrs. Carroll (pseudonym),” Joanne (student) responded, “I totally did. She’s a great teacher. Like from the beginning I was in her math class. We became really close, and you felt like the care was there. She really had a vested interest in us. Even outside the mentor group.” 
 
Theme B2: Peer to Peer
 
Equally important to the impact of the teacher-mentor model is the effect of students serving as role models to other students in the mentor group. This concept came up with several of the students, most notably, with Elena (the 9^th grade student who was interviewed). When asked about adults that she looks up to, Elena (student) mentioned two of the senior girls in her group. “Amy and Aliana (pseudonyms), and all those seniors. They really helped [me]. And I would just talk to her [Amy] ‘cause I did a lot of sports with her this year. And so, we talked a lot about life, faith, and all of that. It’s great. They were great role models.” And in another place, Elena (student) said, “I’m going to use Amy [again]. I was with her the whole entire year. And so, I felt like the group helped us find mentors in seniors. Like with Aliana and Amy, especially like Lianne (pseudonym; a 9th grade student in the same mentor group) and I, we look up to Amy a lot.” John (student) also found inspiration in one of his mentor peers, but in his case, it was a student in his same grade (12^th grade). When asked about “Some of the people you up to, that is, someone that you want to emulate,” John (student) said, “Daniel James (pseudonym; 12^th grade student in the same mentor group), he’s a great guy. I want to try to be like that. He’s super virtuous. I try my best, but I’m definitely not at the point that he is. He’s just on top of his game right now. When you have peers that you could look up to as role models and say, ‘Oh, I want to be like you,’ that just makes it more real, it’s someone who’s close to your age.” Elena (student) and John (student) brought out an important aspect of the school’s mentoring program. Peer to peer role modeling can be just as powerful, if not more so, than teacher to student, when modeling desired student behaviors (Backett-Milburn and Wilson, 2000; Bandura, 1977; Burmaster, 2002; Svenson and Burke, 2005). 
 
Discussion of Theme B: Modeling
 
The results above clearly show how beneficial role modeling (witnessing) can be in leading students to virtue (whether teacher to student or peer to peer). The literature confirms this as well (Goren and Wright, 2006; McDonald, Ashenden, Grove, Bodein, Cormack and Allsop, 2000 and Visser, 2004). Each program model, as described in the literature review, places much importance on modeling. The Emmaus model, for example, uses Jesus himself as the role model par excellence in witnessing to students (Pang, 2012). Additionally, there was no better role model than St. John Bosco himself. His Preventive System was modeled after his desire for he and his brother priests to serve as models for the boys under his care (Braido, 1999). LifeCompass, the House System, LifeTeen, and HIPS, all embrace similar role modeling. However, regardless of the mentoring model, the ability to act as a role model to students is the most powerful method in leading them to virtue. As Sam (teacher) relates, “You have to be about forming the kids, giving witness to the truth, living a life of holiness, role modeling for them, challenging them to grow when necessary, proposing the way of the good, the true, the beautiful, all of that has to be there.” Or in another place, Sam (teacher) says, “I think the teacher has to witness to a virtuous life and there has to be some way in which there is an expectation for the students to be challenged…” 
 
Mentor modelling has always been seen by educators, parents, and visitors as a strength of the school’s provision. However, our approach is not without blemish. Lukily, all the students interviewed had excellent mentors that served as role models. However, in some cases, this was not always the case. As Elena (student) shared with me, “Like my friend Gwen (pseudonym), she was just like roaming the halls because she didn’t really have a mentor. I forgot who the mentor was because she left. So, she didn’t really have her group. And they would be like, well, mentor group, time to go outside.” In such cases, such “lost” students did not flourish as intended. Instead of being “led out” by the teacher-mentor with clear goals in mind, which is the literal meaning of the word education (educere in Latin, which means to lead out), they wondered about aimlessly.
 
The above illustrates the importance of the teacher as “witness” (or role model) to the education and formation of the student (Graham, 2024). Students (humans), by nature, are drawn to authority figures via imitation. This is what Graham calls mimetic force. And so, the teacher’s life, by example, is pedagogical. It is the teacher, or rather Catholic teacher, as model or witness, that has a grave responsibility to witness to the face of Christ. “Evidently, the Catholic school teacher participates in a very special form of Christian witness for he reflects the face of Christ as Teacher in a direct way to his students” (Graham, 2024, p. 66). The student, in turn, is free to either accept or reject this witness. This is what Guissani (2019) calls The Risk of Education. That is, secondary students can ultimately reject virtue and a call to holiness. Virtue, or the call to holiness, is not something that can be forced on adolescents. It must be proposed by the teacher. Adolescents, in turn, can freely choose virtue (or reject it). That is why a mentoring program must be crafted with much care and intentionality, which is the focus of the next section.
 
Theme C: Greater Intentionality
 
Research question three asked, “In what ways can the school’s mentoring program be improved and why? The theme of greater intentionality emerged as the broad response with the following, specific subthemes rising to the fore: 1) mentor fit / selective groups; 2) more one-on-one time; 3) standardized format; and 4) natural setting. Since some of these themes have already been mentioned above, they will be treated to a lesser extent in the section that follows.
 
Theme C1: Mentor Fit / Selective Groups
 
The importance of having the “right” mentor and carefully selecting groups that best seem to “gel” was talked about by all participants. Jen (teacher) was adamant about the necessity of having a “connection with the group.” According to Jen (teacher), if the mentor group isn’t close enough, then reaching levels of “care” and “challenge” become much more difficult. The answer, for Jen (teacher), is for “mentors to select their students a little bit more so there’s a previous relationship.” Sam (teacher) was hesitant to say there should be a hard and fast rule on the makeup of groups, but suggested that the person coordinating the mentoring program “should be encouraged to talk to the various faculty involved… [and ask them] if there are particular students they want in their group?” He went on, “It should probably be female faculty with girls, male faculty with boys and a diversity of grades.” Regarding mentor fit, Sam (teacher) felt “having some real intentionality” is important. “And then hopefully, if there’s a connection, a real connection there, then keeping that the same from year to year to allow the group to grow.” Joanne (student) agreed that having the right mentor is essential. “I mean, it’s obviously a lot easier to talk if you’re comfortable with the teacher.” She also felt the importance of having at least one or two previous friends in the group. “If it’s one person, like if it’s two friends, then you’re going to feel more comfortable… to go to things outside of school.” Elijah (student) agreed on the importance of having the “right” mentor and mentor group. “He was definitely a really, really big factor (referring to his mentor being the “right” guy).” And “It definitely was nice to have a few buddies in there.” John (student) thought that having a subgroup of a few friends would provide even greater accountability.
Theme C2: More One-on-One Time
 
Critical to forming relationships built on trust and care whereby the mentor can challenge his or her mentees to greater virtue is finding more one-on-one time. As Jen (teacher) shared, “Care relationships are difficult to develop in large group settings. What I found successful is catching a student in the hallway or maybe if it’s an event, such as a retreat, sitting next to them at breakfast, or if it’s organized free time, sitting next to them while they’re making a rosary or playing frisbee with them.” It is in those moments that the mentor can initiate deeper conversation with his or her mentee. As Jen (teacher) continues, “Usually, they (referring to students) are going to hide until somebody asks them. And so, I think those care relationships come in those opportunities where you can talk to them individually in a way that doesn’t feel uncomfortable.” Jen (teacher) offered a great example, “I know Catherine (pseudonym) really well, and I’ve had a lot of really good conversations with her. And so, at her senior banquet I was able to tell her, ‘You, your family, your whole life is pushing you towards materialism. You are going to have to intentionally choose virtue and it’s going to be a hard choice.” These “difficult” conversations cannot just happen with mentees in a group setting, or with a mentee the mentor has not taken the time to really get to know well, personally. Thus, crafting a mentoring program where there is intentional time for more one-on-one interaction, in a natural setting, is important. Both Elena (student) and Elijah (student) agreed that a “more frequent touchpoint” would be important, encouraging the mentor teacher to look out for their mentees more “throughout the week, throughout the day.” “I think that would be very, very special for sure,” said Elijah (student).
 
Theme C3: Standardized Format
 
Another important aspect of the mentoring program is having a standard format for all students to experience. While the students interviewed all seemed to have a great experience, they recognized that this was not necessarily the case for others. As Joanne (student) shared, “Well, the groups were nice and all that, but it’s also kind of different because each teacher has their own way of doing their mentor group. So, if I talk to my friends, some groups were really fun, or they’d go get lunch outside of school. And I knew other groups that just stayed in and asked the same questions every single mentor group.” Elena (student) also acknowledged that mentor experiences were varied with some better than others. “Mrs. Burton (pseudonym) was replaced by Mrs. Endo (pseudonym) and the group never got fixed. And so, they would be doing nothing.” When asked if the mentor meetings should be more structured, all participants agreed that more structure would be beneficial. As Jen (teacher) explains, “No small group ever meets with no intention of what the small group is going to cover, because that’s just very awkward. And so, the leader has to have in mind what they want to cover. Perhaps, having a topic in mind and some formulated questions.” Sam (teacher) agreed that structure is important but stressed that there has to be opportunities for unstructured “fun” as well. “I think there has to be some kind of activity, fun, hang out, coupled with some kind of seminar and conversation to the mentor lunches. So, I guess I would probably want something more back and forth between activity and conversation that’s structured.” Sam (teacher) also warned about mentor meetings defaulting into lecturing about virtue. The minute they feel “you’re forcing something on them. The immediate is… I don’t want it.”
 
Theme C4: Natural Setting
 
Lastly, the theme of having a mentoring program structured in such a way where it feels natural, and unforced, was of utmost importance. One of the initial requirements of the mentoring program was for mentors to keep a log of their interactions with mentees and to communicate “regularly” with parents (once a quarter). Jen (teacher) felt this expectation created an environment that was more forced. “It should be more natural than that. So, it felt too bureaucratic and too forced to impose some sort of tracking. And that inherently makes it feel like a box to check. And so, I think that set a weird tone for the mentorship, you’re like ‘Why are we doing this?’ Is it just to say we have connected with every student? That was uncomfortable.” Jen (teacher) also felt that having scheduled individual mentor meetings (similar to LifeCompass) would not work. “I don’t think individual scheduled time would work because it needs to be more natural and organic than that.” Hence, the antidote to the feeling of forced relationships is more off-campus activities, more time to connect with students in a natural setting. John (student) agreed. When asked about what could be done to improve the mentoring program, he said, “So more, more kind of off-campus activities that are just leisurely.” The off-campus activities did, in fact, happen, but all agreed that they should happen with more frequency and with more allotted time. Elijah (student) felt like there should be more time for group sports activities, so did John (student). Elena (student) enjoyed when multiple groups got together for outings. “I felt like it was really good bonding when they have those little collaborations, like going to the botanical gardens, that was good.”
 
Discussion of Theme C: Greater Intentionality
 
The final research question sheds much light on what can be done to improve the mentoring program. All participants agreed that the program needs to be approached with greater intentionality. Specifically, there needs to be greater intention to ensure the mentor selected is the “right fit” and that the group dynamic facilitates the greatest level of connection. When a connection is established, as the interviews revealed, it makes it much easier for the mentor to move into a caring relationship with the mentee and to challenge him or her to virtue and a greater call to holiness. Failure to pay careful attention to properly grouping mentor and mentees may end up in the mentor group “falling flat” and not being as effective in accomplishing its goals.
 
Further, there needs to be greater intention to ensure there is more one-on-one time between mentor and mentee and that there are plenty of opportunities in a natural setting to nurture these “care” relationships. As interviews made clear, this one-on-one time is essential, but cannot be forced. For example, Jen (teacher) explained how these one-on-one relationships naturally happen in camp, “If I bring students to camp or anything because it’s a natural environment where I’m not trying to teach them… that is where they can really open up.” One-on-one time is not always easy to achieve in a school setting. That is why off-campus activities are essential. Off-campus activities (camp, retreats, etc.) create proper “space” in a natural setting to build mentor-mentee relationships that can further lead to virtue.
 
Moreover, despite the difference between mentoring style and experiences each student is bound to have within the mentoring program, it is important to standardize the format as much as possible to ensure student experiences are similar. This idea was a recurrent theme as found in interviews. By nature, secondary students are keenly aware when their fellow classmates are not having the same experience as them. Some mentees had “good” and “reliable” mentors while other mentees had mentors that failed to show up to meetings or simply did not form connections with their mentees. Standardizing the format will help fix the disparity felt by mentees in their mentoring experience and offer a greater chance at overall success. Justice demands an equal opportunity for student growth in virtue. 
 
The above-mentioned improvements are all important. But, as Sam (teacher) reminded me, “Like this was a zero to one. So, we did it. Let’s not forget…existence is a good. I’m talking about my 14^th year here. I waited 14 years. So, like when I say that, I really don’t want to underplay how important that is. To just get started.” I agree. Given that this was the first year of the school’s mentoring program, there are many successes to celebrate. And it’s hard to quantify the impact a mentor can have on the life of a student. For Sam (teacher), he still remembers the mentor he had when he was in high school. “My mentor was given to me in freshmen year, and I stayed with him all four years. He was a great guy; he helped me get my first job. I will always remember that.” It is stories like this that inspire me to work with greater intentionality to improve the school’s mentoring program.  
 
CONCLUSION
 
Strengths & Limitations
 
The research study presented in this paper posed a number of strengths and limitations. On the one hand, the qualitative nature of the study allowed for an in-depth examination of the key benefits of the mentoring program, as well as areas for improvement. As it turned out, the interviewees selected were all “strong” (part of this was because of the purposive nature of the selection; nevertheless, the final selection was random). The two teachers and four students interviewed provided detailed descriptions which allowed for deeper insights into the mentoring program. Such insights allowed me to gain a more holistic look into the mentees’ inner experience of the program (Rahman, 2016). However, on the other hand, the qualitative study conducted provided only a limited look into the mentoring program as a whole. As previously mentioned, the mentoring program consisted of over 130 high school students (9-12) divided up into over fifteen groups of 7-8 students / group. A small sample size of four students interviewed can hardly be representative of the entire student body. A quantitative study would have allowed for a broader snapshot of the student body participating in the mentoring program, affording more “objective” data supported by statistical analysis. Given the freedom of time, a mixed methods study would have provided the best of both worlds – deeper, subjective insights into the mentoring program coupled with a more positivistic approach to the measuring of a wider array of variables. 
 
Future Research
 
Work has already been done to improve the school’s mentoring program. Greater effort has been put into carefully crafting mentor groups decreasing the number of “unqualified” mentors while carefully constructing groups of 12-13 students. Mentor lunches will be more formalized as “seminar lunches” with specific topics for discussion. Quarterly off-campus activities will become part of the “normal” school day. A follow-up study would prove beneficial as I look to continue to improve the school’s mentoring program with the hope of leading my own students to virtue, holiness, and human flourishing. Additional studies would provide guidance for those schools looking to implement their own mentoring program. As Garringer and Jucovy (2007) tells us, running an effective mentoring program is never easy, but well worth the effort. That said, it is important schools implement mentoring programs that have been proven effective via research, if they hope to achieve their desired results.
 
In conclusion, this paper focused on the evaluation of a pilot mentoring program in a preK-12 Catholic school, geared towards leading secondary students to virtue, holiness, and human flourishing. Three questions were asked: 1) What key aspects were most beneficial in helping secondary students (9-12) grow in virtue holiness, and human flourishing; 2) How were these aspects most beneficial to students; and 3) In what ways can school’s mentoring program be improved and why? To answer these questions, six interviews were conducted: two with teachers (one male and one female) and four with students (one student from each grade: two females, one from grade 9, one from grade 10; and two males, one from grade 11, one from grade 12). Interviews were recorded, transcribed, and coded using NVivo software. Coding revealed answers to each question in the form of emerging themes and subthemes. Each theme and subtheme were presented and discussed with references made to the literature, where applicable, and to the mentoring models as outlined in the literature review (LifeCompass, Emmaus, House System, LifeTeen, HIPS, and Don Bosco’s Preventive System). 
 
For the first question, “relationship” was the recurrent theme that seemed best to address the key benefit of the mentoring program. The school’s mentoring program helped facilitate relationship building between mentor and mentees. It was pointed out how important it is for the “right” mentor to be with the “right” group in order for a meaningful connection to be established. Once such a connection is established, then, and only then, can a trusting and caring relationship develop. This is the key moment. When the mentee feels that his or her mentor truly cares for him or her, will he or she then be open to challenge – i.e., to a higher call to virtue and holiness. In answer to research question two, once trust has been established, the best way to present that “call” to students towards higher virtue is through modeling (or witnessing). Whether this happens between teacher and student or between peer and peer, students need to see an authentic life of virtue and holiness being lived. In answer to question three, several suggested improvements were brought up to help better the mentoring program: more opportunities for one-on-one time and off-campus activities, the creation of a more natural “feel” or setting to avoid the program trying to force relationships, and a standardized format to ensure students are benefiting equally from the program. In the end, it is important for the mentoring program to be approached with greater intentionality.
 
Overall, I think my school’s mentoring program was effective in helping students grow in virtue, holiness, and human flourishing. As Sam (teacher) reminded me, it was the “first step in the right direction.” Time will be the true measure of how effective the mentoring program ends up becoming. Moreover, it is difficult to say which mentoring model is “best” for running an effective mentoring program in schools. I think each model (LifeCompass, Emmaus, House System, LifeTeen, HIPS, and Don Bosco’s Preventive System) offers its own unique advantage. The most effective mentoring program in a Catholic school should take the best of each model: individual mentoring (LifeCompass) that includes a teacher-mentor who serves as a role model (Emmaus), with carefully constructed groups that allow for meaningful and caring relationships to develop (LifeTeen), where all aspects of human formation  (human, intellectual, pastoral, and spiritual) are taken into account (HIPS), and where the mentor remembers to be the face of Christ amongst his or her mentees (Don Bosco’s Preventive System).
            
 
References
 
 
Abiddin, N.Z. and Hassan, A. (2012) ‘A review of effective mentoring practices for mentees   development’, Journal of Studies in Education, 2 (1), pp. 74-89.
 
Agee, J. (2009) ‘Developing qualitative research questions: A reflective process’, International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 22 (4), pp. 431-447.
 
Allison, G. and Zelikow, P. (1999) Essence of Decision: Explaining the Cuban Missile Crisis. 2^nd edn. Reading, MA: Longman. 
 
Aquinas, T. (1953) Summa Theologica. Fathers of English Dominican Province (trans.). New York, NY: Benziger Bros.
 
Arthur, J. and Kristjansson, K. (2022) ‘Some clarifications on ‘character sought’ as an essential part of character education, The Jubilee Centre for Character & Virtues Insight Series, pp. 1-8.
 
Backett-Milburn, K. and Wilson, S. (2000) ‘Understanding peer education: Insights from a process evaluation’, Health Education Research, Theory & Practice, 15 (1), pp. 85-96.
 
Balbach, E (1999) Using case studies to do program evaluation. Available at:
http://www.pointk.org/resources/files/ProgramEvaluation.pdf (Accessed 9 July 2024)
 
Bandura, A (1977) Social Learning Theory. Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
 
Barondess, J.A. (1997) ‘On mentoring’, Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine, 90, pp. 347-349.
 
Berkowitz, M. W. (2022) ‘Implementing and assessing evidence-based character education’, Journal of Education, 202 (2), pp. 191-197.
 
Bitektine, A. (2008) ‘Prospective case study design: Qualitative method for deductive theory testing’, Organizational Research Methods, 11 (1), pp. 160-180.
 
Bleidorn, W. (2015) ‘What accounts for personality maturation in early adulthood’? Current Directions in Psychological Science, 24 (3), pp. 245-252.
 
Bohlin, K. (2022) ‘The practical wisdom framework: A compass for school leaders’, Journal of Education, 202 (2), pp. 156-165.
 
Bohlin, K. and Kris, D.F. (2018) How to build practical wisdom? Available at:
https://info.montroseschool.org/blog/building-a-life-compass-how-to-navigate-lifes-challenges-and-opportunities (Accessed 9 July 2024)
 
Bowers, E.P., Geldhof, G.J., Schmid, K.L., Napolitano, C.M., Minor, K. and Lerner, J.V. (2012) ‘Relationships with important nonparental adults and positive youth development: An   examination of youth self-regulatory strengths as mediators’, Research in Human Development, 9 (4), pp. 298-316.
 
Boyd, C.A. and Timpe, K. (2021) The Virtues: A Very Short Introduction. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
 
Braido, P. (1999) ‘Prevention, not repression. Don Bosco’s educational system’, Salesian Online Resources. Available at: http://www.salesian.online/archives/17634 (Accessed 9 July 2024)
 
Braun, V. and Clarke, V. (2006) ‘Using thematic analysis in psychology’, Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3 (2), pp. 77-101.
 
Brennan, M.C. (2012) ‘Fostering community through the house system at Most Holy Trinity Catholic school’, Catholic Education: A Journal of Inquiry and Practice, 15 (2), pp. 325-356.
Burbules, N.C. (2019) ‘Thoughts on phronesis’, Ethics and Education, 14 (2), pp. 126-137.
 
Burmaster, E. (2002) Youth to youth: A review of peer program theoretical underpinnings, forms, functions, and process- and outcome-related findings 2001-02. A literature review, Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction.
 
Carr, C. (2023) ‘The hazards of role modeling for the education of moral and / or virtuous character’, Philosophical Inquiry in Education, 30 (1), pp. 68-79.
 
Case Study Evaluation Approach. (2024) Available at:
 https://www.evalcommunity.com/career-center/case-study-evaluation-approach/ (Accessed 9 July 2024).
 
Chamberlain, L. (2015) Exploring the out-of-school writing practices of three children aged 9-10 years old and how these practices travel across and within the domains of home and school. An unpublished PhD thesis, The Open University, England.
 
Character & Social-Emotional Development National Guidelines. (2022) Available at: 
https://character.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/04/CSED-Natl-Guidelines-2022.pdf (Accessed 21 July 2024)
 
Cohen, L., Manion, L. and Morrison, K. (2007) Research Methods in Education. 6^th ed. New York, NY: Routledge.
 
Cornwall, G. 92018) ‘How being part of a ‘house’ within a school helps students gain a sense of belonging’, KQED. Available at:
https://www.kqed.org/mindshift/50960/how-being-part-of-a-house-within-a-school-helps-         students-gain-a-sense-of-belonging (Accessed 9 July 2024)
 
Crowe, S., Cresswell, K., Robertson, A., Huby, G., Avery, A. and Sheikh, A. (2011) ‘A case study approach’, BMC Medical Research Methodology, 11 (100), pp. 1-9.
 
Dawadi, S. (2020) ‘Thematic analysis approach: A step-by-step guide for ELT research practitioners’, Journal of NELTA, 25 (1-2), pp. 62-71.
 
Dickson, W.J. (2006) ‘Prevention or repression’, Journal of Salesian Studies, 14, pp. 148-160.
 
D’Souza, L. (2015) A Study of the Educational Approach of Don Bosco as Implemented in the Schools of Western India. Doctoral Thesis. University of Baroda, Vadodara. Available at:   http://dspace.hmlibrary.ac.in:8080/jspui/handle/1/993 (Accessed 9 July 2024)
 
Engelen, B., Thomas, A., Archer, A., and van de Ven, N. (2018) ‘Exemplars and nudges: Combining two strategies for moral education’, Journal of Moral Education, 47 (3), pp. 346-365.
 
Forsthoefel, K. E. (2018) ‘Mentoring strategies for the support of high school students experiencing anxiety and depression: A case study of two Catholic high schools’, Honors Theses, 155, pp. 1-90. 
 
Francis, P. (2019) ‘Christus vivit’, A Post-Synodal Apostolic Exhortation of the Holy Father Francis to Young People and the Entire People of God [Online]. Available at:
 https://www.vatican.va/content/francesco/en/apost_exhortations/documents/papa-                  francesco_esortazione-ap_20190325_christus-vivit.html (Accessed 9 July 2024)
 
Fullard, M. and Watts, P. (2020) ‘Leading character education in schools: An online CPD programme’, The Jubilee Centre for Character & Virtues. Available at:
https://www.ufv.es/wp-content/uploads/2023/06/Micheal-Fullard_CPD_Report.pdf (Accessed 9 July 2024)
 
Garringer, M. and Jucovy, L. (2007) ‘Building relationships: Effective strategies for providing quality youth mentoring in schools and communities’, The Hamilton Fish Institute on School and Community Violence & The National Mentoring Center at Northwest Regional Educational Laboratory. Washington, DC: George Washington University.

Giussani, L. (2019) The Risk of Education. Quebec, Canada: McGill-Queen’s University Press.
 
Gonsalves, P. (2011) Educating for a Happy Life in Don Bosco’s Way: A Study Guide for Parents, Educators and Youth Leaders of Different Faiths. Mumbai: Don Bosco Institute of Technology and Don Bosco Communications.
 
Graham, E.T. (2024) Modeling the Master: Luigi Giussani, Rene Girard & the Role of Imitation in Catholic Education. Atlanta, GA: Pontifex University Press.
 
Green, D.G. (2006) ‘Welcome to the house system’, Educational Leadership, 63 (7), pp. 64-67.
 
Handa, M. C. (2023) ‘The leading wisdom development framework: An integrated roadmap for cultivating a sense of purpose and meaning’, Journal of Advanced Academics, 34 (1), pp. 32-67.
 
Henritz, B. (2019) ‘The road to Emmaus: A model of accompaniment’, The Archdiocese of Galveston-Houston.  Available at: 
https://www.archgh.org/news-data/texas-catholic-herald/henritze-the-road-to-emmaus-a-model-of-accompaniment/ (Accessed 9 July 2024)
 
Hursthouse, R. (2006) ‘Practical wisdom: A mundane account’, Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, 106, pp. 285-309.
 
John Paul II, P. (1992) ‘Pastores dabo vobis’, A Post-Synodal Exhortation to the Bishops, Clergy and Faithful on the Formation of Priests in the Circumstances of the Present Day. Available at:
https://www.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/en/apost_exhortations/documents/hf_jp-                  ii_exh_25031992_pastores-dabo-vobis.html (Accessed 9 July 2024)
 
Johnson, W.B. (2003) ‘A framework for conceptualizing competence to mentor’, Mentor, Ethics &  Behavior, 13 (2), pp. 127-151.
 
Johnson, S.K., Buckingham, M.H., Morris, S.L., Suzuki, S., Weiner, M.B., Hershberg, R.M., Fremont, E.R., Batanova, M., Aymong, C.C., Hunter, C.J., Bowers, E.P., Lerner, J.V. and Lerner, R.M. (2016) ‘Adolescents’ character role models: Exploring who young people look up to as examples of how to be a good person’, Research in Human Development, 13 (2), pp. 126-141.
 
Jubilee Centre of Character & Virtues. (no date) Character Education: Evaluation Handbook for Schools. Available at:
https://www.jubileecentre.ac.uk/character-education-/character-education-evaluation-handbook-for-schools/ (Accessed 9 July 2024)
 
Jubilee Centre of Character & Virtues (2017) A Framework for Character Education in Schools. Available at: 
 https://uobschool.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/Framework-for-Character-Education-    2017-Jubilee-Centre.pdf (Accessed 9 July 2024)
 
Jubilee Centre of Character & Virtues (2022) The Jubilee Centre Framework for Character Education in Schools. Available at:
https://www.jubileecentre.ac.uk/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/Framework-for-Character-           Education-2.pdf (Accessed 9 July 2024)
 
Keil, M. (1995) ‘Escalation of commitment in information systems development: A comparison of three theories’, Academy of Management Journal, 38 (2), pp. 348-352.
 
Kristjansson, K. (2021) ‘Twenty-two testable hypotheses about phronesis: Outlining an educational research programme’, British Educational Research Journal, 47 (5), pp. 1303-1322.
 
Kristjansson, K. and Fowers, B. (2023) ‘Phronesis as moral decathlon: Contesting the redundancy thesis about phronesis’, Philosophical Psychology, 37 (2), pp. 279-298.
 
Kucukuysal, B. and Beyhan, E. (2011) ‘Virtue ethics in Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics, International Journal of Human Sciences’, 8 (2), pp. 43-51.

Langley, A. (1999) ‘Strategies for theorizing from process data’, The Academy of Management Review, 24 (4), pp. 691-710.
 
Lee, A.S. (1989) ‘A scientific methodology for MIS case studies’, MIS Quarterly, 13 (1), pp. 33-50.
 
Life Teen Mission (no date) Available at: https://lifeteen.com/about/mission-ministry (Accessed 9 July 2024).
 
Markus, L. (1983) ‘Power, politics and MIS implementation’, Communication of the ACM, 26 (6), pp. 430-444.
 
Matties, G. (2006) ‘Pursuing coherence and conviction in Christian university education’, Canadian Menonite, 10 (2), pp. 6-7.
 
McDonald, J., Ashenden, R., Grove, J., Bodein, H. Cormack, S. and Allsop, S. (2000) ‘Youth for youth: A project to develop skills and resources for peer education’, Final Report. National Centre for Education and Training on Addiction (NCETA), Adelaide.
 
Mears, A. (2017) ‘Puzzling in sociology: On doing and undoing theoretical puzzles’, Sociological Theory, 35 (2), pp. 138-146.
 
Mershon, C. and Shvetsova, O. (2019) Formal Modeling in Social Science. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.
 
Montrose School Overview (no date) Available at:                                                                     https://www.montroseschool.org/character/overview# (Accessed 9 July 2024)
 
Moore and McCabe. (2006) Introduction to the Practice of Statistics. Available at:
 https://web.ma.utexas.edu/users/mks/statmistakes/RandomSampleImportance.html (Accessed 9 July 2024)
 
Nielson, J. (2011) ‘Youth ministry done well for the benefit of the Church’, TGC. Available at:
https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/article/youth-ministry-done-well-for-the-benefit-of-the-       church/ (Accessed 9 July 2024)
 
Notre Dame Seminary Graduate School of Theology Formation Handbook (2021-22) Available at:
https://nds.edu/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/Formation-Handbook-2021-2022.pdf (Accessed 9 July 2024)
 
O’Malley, T. (2018) ‘Discipleship isn’t as exciting as youth ministry makes it seem’, Church Life Journal.  Available at: https://churchlifejournal.nd.edu/articles/discipleship-isnt-as-exciting-as-youth-ministry-makes-it-seem/ (Accessed 9 July 2024)
 
Oxley, D. (1994) ‘Organizing schools into small units: Alternatives to homogenous grouping’, Phi Delta Kappa, 75 (7), pp. 521-526.
 
Pang, A.K.M. (2012) ‘Mentoring in a Catholic high school: The movement to receive’, Lumen et Vita, 2, pgs.1-9.
 
Peterson, A. and Arthur, J. (2023) ‘Viewing social emotional learning through a character education lens, Jubilee Centre of Character & Virtues Insight Series, pp. 1-7.
 
Posniak, H. (2013) ‘The importance of pastoral care: A caring, sharing way to education’, The Independent. Available at:
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/education/schools/the-importance-of-pastoral-care-a-     caring-sharing-way-to-educate-8494596.html (Accessed 9 July 2024)
 
Rahman, M. S. (2016) ‘The advantages and disadvantages of using qualitative and quantitative approaches and methods in language ‘testing and assessment’ research: A literature review’, Journal of Education and Learning, 6 (1), pp. 102-112.
 
Rapley, T.J. (2001) ‘The art(fulness) of open-ended interviewing: Some considerations on analyzing interviews, Qualitative Research, 1 (13), pp. 303-323.
 
Ross, J. and Staw, B.M. (1993) ‘Organizational escalation and exit: Lessons from the Shoreham Nuclear Power Plant’, Academy of Management Journal, 36 (4), pp. 701-731.
 
Saldana, J. (2009) The Coding Manual for Qualitative Researchers. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.
 
Seligman, M. E. P., Ernst, R. M., Gillham, J., Reivich, K., & Linkins, M. (2009). Positive education: Positive psychology and classroom interventions. Oxford Review of Education, 35(3), 293–311.
 
Shane, S. (2000) ‘Prior knowledge and the discovery of entrepreneurial opportunities’, Organization Science, 11 (4), pp. 448-472.
 
Shea, G.F. (1997) Mentoring. Menlo Park, CA: Crisp Publications.
 
Shields, D.L. (2011) ‘Character as the aim of education’, Phi Delta Kappan, 92 (8), pp. 48-53.
 
Smartwood, J. (2020) ‘Can we measure practical wisdom’, Journal of Moral Education, 49 (1), 71-97.
 
Svenson, G. and Burke, H. (2005) ‘Formative research on youth peer education program productivity and sustainability’, Youth Research. Working Paper No. 3.
 
Theron, S. (2018) Thomas Aquinas on Human Flourishing. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
 
Vierstraete, S.M. (2003) The role of catholic school principals in mentorship programs in Minnesota. Doctoral dissertation, The University of South Dakota. UMI No. 3085447.
 
Visser, M.J. (2004) ‘Implementing peer support in schools: Using a theoretical framework in action research’, Journal of Community & Applied Social Psychology, 14 (6), pp. 436-454.
 
Watts, P. and Kristjansson, K. (2023) ‘Character Education’, in Curren, R. (ed.) Handbook of Philosophy of Education. New York: Routledge, pp. 172-184
 
Weisenburger, B. (2016) ‘ResponsiveEd schools implement house systems to encourage camaraderie and friendly competition’, ResponsiveEd Newsroom. Available at:
https://responsiveed.com/responsiveed-blog/2016/12/14/responsiveed-schools-implement-    house-system-to-encourage-camaraderie-and-friendly-competition/ (Accessed 9 July 2024)
 
Welch, O.M. (1996) ‘An examination of effective mentoring models in the academy’, Paper presented at  the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New York: NY, April 8-13, 1996.
 
Wolbert, L.S., de Ruyter, D.J. and Schinkel, A. (2015) ‘Formal criteria for the concept of human flourishing: The first step in defending flourishing as an ideal aim of education’, Ethics and Education, 10 (1), pp. 118-129.
 
 Yin, R. K. (2009) Case Study Research: Design and Methods. 4th edn. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.
 
Yoon, M. (2020) The Effectiveness of the Preventive System Approach through the Lens of Character Education: An Exploratory Case Study. Doctoral Thesis. University of San Francisco. Available at: https://repository.usfca.edu/diss/521
 
Zoeller, D.J. (2018) Student social and spiritual development within U.S. Catholic schools with house systems: A study of administrator and house mentor perceptions. Doctoral dissertation, Spalding University. UMI No.10980147.