SpiralHeart 2009 Path Selection Process

SpiralHeart is seeking path proposals from groups of two or more prospective facilitators. All facilitators should have attended two SpiralHeart witchcamps. We're looking for at least four paths, at least one of which is Elements of Magic and at least one of which is Iron Pentacle.

Your proposal should have answers from your team to the 8 "About the path" questions, and answers from each team member to the 5 "About the facilitators" questions.

About the Path

1. How would you summarize your path in one paragraph?
2. Is this proposal for Elements of Magic?
3. Is this proposal for Iron Pentacle?
4. Who would benefit from this path, and what will they learn? Is this a basic level course or an advanced class? If there are prerequisites, what are they?
5. What tools will you use? (For instance: trance, journaling, small group work.)
6. What might a typical day look like in your path?
7. What difficulties would your path present for people with physical disabilities? What accommodations can you make?
8. Would your path require special space (e.g., private space for a path on sex magic)?

About the Facilitators

1. In what years have you attended SpiralHeart camp? Other Reclaiming Witchcamps?
2. What is your teaching experience (Reclaiming and other)?
3. Please give us a two or three paragraph bio, as it might be published on the web site for camp.
4. Please identify your strengths and challenges as facilitators.
5. Please give your contact information: email address, physical address, telephone number.

EVALUATION PROCEDURE

At all levels of evaluation, moderator and raters will be informed of the following DEAL BREAKERS:

1. There are not at least two path facilitators for the proposed path.
2. A proposer has not attended at least two SpiralHeart camps.
3. Past experience with a proposer indicates the person is disruptive to the camp, with no evidence of real change.
4. Safety concerns or liability issues that are not satisfactorily addressed.
5. The path is not in harmony with the Reclaiming Principles of Unity.

People Involved

The Proposal Evaluation Committee (PEC) will consist of a group of people chosen by the Board. 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. The PEC will include 4 distinct groups or individuals:

• Coordinator: The coordinator
  • receives the path proposals,
  • weeds out proposals submitted by problem campers, or asks an experienced advisor to do so,
  • distributes the answers to About the Path to Tier One, and
  • collates the answers from Tier One and provides them to Tier Two.
• Advisor: Someone, preferably a Board member, familiar with past problems we have experienced with individuals and situations in order to weed out proposals that are unacceptable because of them.
• Tier One: a committee who will evaluate proposals blind (not knowing the identity of the proposal's facilitators). This group is most available to people who want to volunteer but live at too great a distance to attend meetings without great difficulty.
• Tier Two: a small group who will meet at our February/March meeting to make the final determination. Tier Two members should be prepared to discuss any rejections with the proposers in conversation (in person or over the phone), with specific feedback, and not rely on a written response.

Suggested Process

Coordinator

All proposals will be sent to the Coordinator. The Coordinator will:

• Remove any proposal with a known Deal Breaker, with assistance from the Advisor if need be.
• Code each proposal (assign an identification number) and keep a master list of submitters and their code.
• Make blinded copies of each proposal (copies that are coded via number but WITHOUT facilitator contact and experience information).
• Send blinded proposals to the Tier One committee members. If there is a reasonable number of proposals, all Tier One people can read all proposals. If there are too many proposals for this to be feasible, the moderators will randomly assign each proposal to at least three raters.
• After Tier One people have returned their recommendations, the moderators will:
• Mark each proposal as one of the following:
• strong proposal: at least half the Tier One raters gave the proposal 3 or higher
• weaker proposal: a majority of the Tier One raters gave the proposal 1 or 2
• very weak proposal: a majority of the Tier One raters gave the proposal a 1
• make copies of full proposals (including facilitator information), add the ratings and comments from Tier One, and send them to the Tier Two group marked as above.
• After the February/March meeting, send letters of acceptance or rejection to submitters of all proposals (draft of rejection letter is at the end of this proposal)

Tier One

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 coordinator, whose subsequent tasks are outlined above.

Tier Two

The Tier Two group will choose four paths (or the number set at the January meeting), including at least one Elements of Magic path and at least one Iron Pentacle path (unless in its judgment there are too few acceptable proposals to do so). In general, Tier Two will select paths rated as strong proposals (at least half of Tier One gave the proposal 3 or higher) in preference to proposals rate weaker or very weak. Tier Two 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 upcoming 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 February/March meeting and, after discussion of the full proposals, come to a final decision. Their decisions will be announced at that meeting, and sent to the Coordinator along with any information Tier Two would like to pass along to submitters.

Evaluation of proposal rating form (Tier One)

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 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 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

Evaluation of facilitators rating form (Tier Two)

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:

• Have community members recently or repeatedly asked for this path?
• Is the proposing facilitator someone who was previously turned down and deserves a chance?

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

Personal Notification of Rejection

SpiralHeart is committed to discussing any rejections with the proposers in conversation, with specific feedback, either in person or over the phone. Only when that is not possible (or not wanted by the proposer) will we rely on a written response.

We want the proposers to know what needs to change to have a better chance of future acceptance. Even in cases (which we hope never to face) where proposers have behaved at odds with the Reclaiming Principles of Unity or have had issues of unreliability or irresponsiblity, we hope to communicate our concerns in a way that keeps open the possibility of change and of future work within the community.

Some Possible Reasons for Rejecting a Proposal

______lack of clarity regarding the path
______ lack of sufficient detail to allow us fully to envision what you proposed
______ 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
______ safety or liability issues that were insufficiently addressed
______ exclusivity of proposed path
______ proposed path was too similar to paths done in recent camps

Back to Home Page