|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
In your path proposal, please include the following information:
At all levels of evaluation, moderator and raters will be informed of the following DEAL BREAKERS:
The Proposal Evaluation Committee (PEC) should consist of at least two board members and several volunteers. No one who plans to submit a proposal for that year may participate, and everyone who participates must have attended a SpiralHeart camp or be one of our mentors. Evaluation committee members will be chosen by the Board. The PEC will include 3 distinct groups or individuals:
All proposals will be sent to an experienced board member and assistants. Tasks include:
Tier One committee members can work individually or in groups. This Tier allows people who want to be involved but who cannot come to meetings in the Baltimore/DC area to participate in the selection process. Either all or at least three raters will read each proposal blind, complete the Tier One Evaluation Form for Proposals, and record their assessment as well as any notes/rationale they feel important.
The Tier One Evaluation Form includes separate items rated from 1 to 4 (1=unacceptable; 2=not bad but would need a lot of work and revision; 3=good proposal but either needs tweaking or may not be right for this year; 4=excellent and should be accepted for this year’s camp.) These items are used ONLY as a profile or decision-making aid to help raters when they consider their final assessment. After considering their responses to the items as well as other pertinent information (for example, a path that is novel for camp, a path that is closely related to the camp story or intention, or, conversely, a path that is highly similar to one that has recently been done), the rater will assign a final determination:
4 = definitely this should be strongly considered for this year’s camp
3 = a good proposal, could be considered, may need tweaking
2 = a decent proposal but not for this year or needs significant revision; suggest revisions for submission to another year (if
revisions and encouragement to resubmit later are given to the submitters, this information needs to be kept and considered the
following year should the proposal be revised and resubmitted)
1 = reject this proposal
Tier One members will finally return the proposals and their recommendations to the moderator, whose subsequent tasks are outlined above.
The Tier Two group will read each strong proposal as well as recommendations and comments the Tier One committee members have given the moderator. The raters will complete the Evaluation of Facilitators Form to use as a profile to guide discussion. The Tier two group's mandate is to choose the best combination of paths for SpiralHeart. They will not only look for good paths, but also for a good mix of paths: a balance between advanced and basic paths, between more experienced and inexperienced facilitators (so the 2008 camp will be successful, and we will also grow more skilled people for future camps). At least half the paths will be accessible to people with physical disabilities.
The Tier Two group will meet at the March meeting and, after discussion of the full proposals, come to a final decision. Their decisions will be announced at the March meeting, and sent to the moderators along with any information Tier Two would like to pass along to submitters.
The following items are to be scored 1 to 4, with
4=excellent
3=good
2=needs more work and revision
1=unacceptable
1 2 3 4 The facilitators clearly state what they want to do in this path (clarity).
1 2 3 4 Sufficient detail is given for me to have a good understanding of how the facilitators will conduct the path (detail)
1 2 3 4 This path fits well with the camp intention (fit with intention)
1 2 3 4 This proposal is the kind of proposal that works well at camp (fit with community)
1 2 3 4 The daily schedule provides a range of activities
1 2 3 4 What the facilitators propose can be done at Claymont (doability)
1 2 3 4 What the facilitators propose can be done within SpiralHeart’s constraints. (doability)
1 2 3 4 I believe that campers who take this path will develop the skills, or meet the goals, stated in the proposal (efficacy)
Use the space below to include any other elements of your assessment (for example, a novel idea for a path that should work well in our community, etc)
Use the space below to write any comments you would like the moderator to send to the submitters.
Please circle the number that corresponds to your final determination:
4 = definitely this should be strongly considered for this year’s camp
3 = a good proposal, could be considered, may need tweaking
2 = a decent proposal but not for this year or needs significant revision
1 = reject this proposal
The following items are to be scored 1 to 4, with
4=excellent
3=good
2=something more is required
1=unacceptable
1 2 3 4 The facilitators’ prior teaching experience
1 2 3 4 The facilitators’ relationship to the SpiralHeart community
1 2 3 4 The facilitators’ strengths are those necessary for successful facilitation of this path
1 2 3 4 The facilitators’ weaknesses can be accommodated by the mentoring team
1 2 3 4 The community knows and delights in working with at least some of this team
Other elements that may be considered during Tier Two evaluation are:
Use this space for notes during discussion.
Use this space to include comments you would like to send to the submitters.
Final determination (please circle):
Accept for this year’s camp Reject for this year’s camp
Dear _______,
SpiralHeart’s Proposal Evaluation Committee (PEC) wants to thank you for submitting a proposal for Witchcamp 2008. We are sorry to inform you that your proposal was not accepted for this year’s camp.
Our reasons for deciding not to accept your proposal include:
______lack of clarity regarding the path
______ lack of sufficient detail to allow us fully to envision what you proposed
______ no relationship to camp intention
______ past experience indicates this path would not work well with our community
______ insufficient range of activities to hold campers’ interest
______ not able to do this path at the camp facility
______ lack of resources to support this path
______ proposed path does not appear to work towards stated goals or skill development
______ lack of teaching experience
______ facilitator’s strengths do not match those needed for this path
______ mentoring team would not be able adequately to address facilitator challenges
______ interpersonal concerns
______safety or liability issues that were insufficiently addressed
______exclusivity of proposed path
______ proposed path was too similar to paths done in recent camps
(Space for handwritten note that may include comments from the evaluation team)
SpiralHeart and the PEC do want to thank you for offering a proposal for consideration. We look forward to working with you in the future.
Sincerely,
Moderator, PEC
|
|
|