Nomination

Benefits to participating in the project:

Showcase a new, emerging, and/or promising program.
Share practices with other adult education programs and practitioners.
A video capturing the highlights of the top two scoring programs is created.
All qualifying program nominations are published on the CAEP website.
All qualifying program nominations are recognized at the annual CAEP Summit.
Stories and videos may be highlighted at conferences throughout California and distributed to local, regional, and state officials.

How to participate in the project:

Nominations must highlight a California Adult Education Program (CAEP) approved program area and may be submitted by any CAEP funded agency during the open nomination period. This year’s nomination period is April 21, 2021 – August 6, 2021. All nominations will be reviewed for completeness and for how closely they address the rubric criteria stated on the nomination form. Incomplete nominations and nominations that do not address the rubric criteria will not be considered.

To get started, go to the Request Support page on the CAEP website (caladulted.org) and register as a new user or login to the website. Once logged in, click on the box that says Submit Nomination.

Advancing CA Adult Education Program Nomination Process:

CAEP TAP invites nominations of new, emerging, and promising programs operating within the California Adult Education Program field that have some measure of success and may be replicable for other CAEP agencies.
Nominations are accepted during the open nomination period - April 21, 2021 – August 6, 2021
Nominations are completed online. Successful nominations are those that align to the rubric criteria.
Once nominations have closed as published on the CAEP website, a group of readers will independently score each submission.
Once scoring is completed and within six weeks of the close of the nomination period,

Letters of congratulations are sent to the program lead and the nominator.
Letters of regret are sent to those program leads/nominators who did not meet the criteria.

For the successful programs, after the initial congratulatory letters are sent, CAEP TAP staff contact the program leads and secure their permission to publish their story. The program lead must send back the original permission form signed and dated. They also review and approve the story that is to be posted on the website.
Once permissions have been secured, a certificate is created and is presented to the program lead at the annual CAEP Summit.

For the two programs who received the two highest scores:

CAEP TAP creates videos highlighting their success. The videos are produced and are added to the CAEP website here.
To promote the videos and celebrate the learners, the two top scoring programs(s), their program lead, and their nominator will be invited to attend the annual CAEP Summit.
The top two programs will also receive an agency booth at the CAEP Summit.

Advancing California Adult Education Program Nomination Evaluation Rubric

		3	2	1	0
1.	There is a comprehensive program overview.	The overview provides a brief, but complete description of the nominated program. Description includes each of the following: an approved CAEP program area, aligned state priority, and the 5W’s + How.	The overview provides a brief, but sufficient description of the nominated program and includes a description of some of the following: an approved CAEP program area, aligned state priority, and the 5W’s + How.	The overview provides a minimal description of the nominated program and lacks a description of several of the following: an approved CAEP program area, aligned state priority, and the 5W’s + How.	There is no program overview presented
2.	A problem of practice or purpose for the program is identified.	The problem of practice is thoroughly described including how the need for the program was established.	The problem of practice is somewhat described including how the need for the program was established.	The problem of practice is minimally described including how the need for the program was established.	No problem of practice or purpose is provided.
3.	There is a stated response to how the program helps to address the problem of practice.	The response comprehensively describes how the program addresses the problem of practice.	The response somewhat describes how the program addresses the problem of practice.	The response minimally describes how the program addresses the problem of practice.	There is no stated response.
4.	There are features identified that make this program unique.	This section fully describes new, emerging, or promising features that may positively affect the adult education field.	This section somewhat describes new, emerging, or promising features that may positively affect the adult education field.	This section minimally describes new, emerging, or promising features that may positively affect the adult education field.	There are no identified features that make the program unique.
5.	Program and student outcomes, as a result of implementation, are stated and supported by data.	Program and student outcomes are clearly laid out and supported by qualitative and quantitative data.	Program and student outcomes are somewhat laid out and supported by qualitative and quantitative data.	Program and student outcomes are minimally laid out and supported by qualitative and quantitative data.	No outcomes are listed and data is missing.
6.	A picture depicting the program has been provided.			A picture featuring the program is included.	No picture is included.
7.	The nominated program is replicable in other settings.	Based on the nominated program description, the program seems highly replicable.	Based on the nominated program description, the program seems somewhat replicable.	Based on the nominated program description, the program seems minimally replicable.	The nominated program is not replicable.

*Target Score for inclusion in the Advancing CA Adult Education database with 2 readers is 22, with 3 readers is 33, with 4 readers is 44, and so on.