In Phase 1, which opens June 23, 2018, and closes December 21, 2018, Competitors will submit proposals for the competition using an online form. In their proposals, competitors will detail how they will use technology, and especially the apps from the Adult Literacy XPRIZE teams stage, to increase access to adult education for all learners.
All proposals will be judged by at least five peer reviewers along five scoring criteria: potential for impact, innovation, feasibility, scalability, and durability. Peer reviewers’ scores will be normalized to ensure fairness. Based on the scores from the peer review, up to 100 teams will move on to a review by an expert panel of judges. The expert judges panel will award an equal share of $500,000 to up to 50 competitors as a milestone prize.
While all competitors are required to submit a Phase 1 proposal, performance in this phase of the Communities Competition does not bear on the scoring or results of Phase 2.
Criterion 1: IMPACT
Description: Is the proposed approach likely to reach a significant number of new and existing learners? Will the proposed approach increase access to both adult basic education and ESL for a sizable portion of the adult learner population in this community? Does the proposed approach present new opportunities to learners who otherwise would not access educational resources? How does the team propose to expand its current footprint and reach both more learners and a more diverse learner population?
|0||The proposed solution will distribute the apps to an insignificant number of learners. The proposed approach is unlikely to increase access to adult basic education or ESL and is also unlikely to provide new tools and resources to already enrolled learners.|
|1||The proposed solution will reach a small number of learners with the Adult Literacy XPRIZE apps. It will provide new tools and resources to learners already enrolled in adult literacy programs, but will not reach new learners in significant numbers.|
|2||The proposed approach will reach a moderate number of NEW learners with apps and other tools, and will increase the cost-effectiveness of providing services to existing learners.|
|3||The team proposes an approach that will plausibly provide the Adult Literacy XPRIZE apps and other educational services to a significant number of adult learners who otherwise would not attain it, while also providing new tools (the apps) and resources to already enrolled learners in a cost-effective way.|
|4||The proposed approach is likely to distribute the Adult Literacy XPRIZE apps to a large portion of adult learners in this community. It is likely to increase access to both adult basic education and ESL for a SIZABLE population of learners.|
|5||The proposed approach is very likely to dramatically increase access to adult basic education and ESL, reaching large numbers of learners who otherwise would not obtain educational services and improving the efficiency with which services and resources are provided to learners in existing programs.|
Criterion 2: INNOVATION
Description: Is the proposal innovative? Does the proposal offer a compelling vision for the use of technology to increase access to adult basic education and ESL? Does the proposed approach make use of technology to improve both the efficiency and effectiveness of adult education services? Does the team innovate in its approach to marketing, learner outreach, volunteer recruitment, and other means of growing its reach?
|0||The proposed approach does not make use of the Adult Literacy XPRIZE apps or other technologies and does not offer a realistic plan to innovate along other aspects of adult education services.|
|1||The proposed approach makes only nominal use of the apps from the Adult Literacy XPRIZE or other technologies in improving access to adult literacy services. The approach does not greatly innovate on aspects of learner outreach, volunteer recruitment, or models.|
|2||The proposed solution incorporates the Adult Literacy XPRIZE apps or other accessible technologies to moderately increase access to basic literacy education and ESL for adult learners.|
|3||The team proposes realistic and achievable innovations in EITHER the use of technology or recruitment / business / educational model innovations to expand access to adult basic education for all learners.|
|4||The team proposes important and achievable innovations in BOTH the use of the Adult Literacy XPRIZE apps and other technologies AND recruitment / business / educational model innovations to expand access to adult basic education for all learners.|
|5||The team proposes a highly innovative and transformational approach to increasing access to adult basic education and ESL using the Adult Literacy XPRIZE apps and other readily available and accessible technology, innovations in learner outreach and marketing, and innovations to business and / or pedagogical models.|
Criterion 3: FEASIBILITY
Description: Has the team demonstrated the skills, capabilities, and past achievements to deliver the proposed solution successfully? Has the team set audacious yet achievable goals considering its resources, community size, and experience? Does the project plan demonstrate a realistic understanding of the tasks and costs to implement the proposed solution? Has the team demonstrated how it will measure its own success?
|0||The proposal offers an impractical / unrealistic project plan. The team lacks the capabilities to deliver the proposed solution.|
|1||The proposal provides an incomplete project plan. The team has basic abilities but lacks necessary capabilities to deliver the proposed solution at full success.|
|2||The proposal present a practical and realistic project plan. The team has the necessary capabilities to deliver the proposed solution successfully.|
|3||The proposal outlines a detailed, measurable, and feasible project plan with a well thought-out budget. The team is accomplished, has a record of success, and is highly likely to be able to deliver the proposed solution successfully.|
|4||The proposed project plan is realistic, achievable, and informed by successful past efforts (whether those of the team or of other examples). The team is experienced, accomplished, and has demonstrated success in activities related to the project plan.|
|5||The proposed project plan demonstrates a high level of sophistication and understanding of the tasks and effort needed to achieve remarkable gains. The proposal is led by a team of seasoned experts who have achieved remarkable results in the past.|
Criterion 4: SCALABILITY
Description: Could this approach be effective at scale? Will the approach scale efficiently and cost-effectively? Is it replicable in other contexts, circumstances, and communities? Could it become a model for other communities and organizations? Is the competing team well positioned to help scale this approach?
|0||The proposed approach is unlikely to be effective or successful, even at a small scale.|
|1||Not scalable. The proposed approach may be effective in its local community or at a small scale, but is limited in its capacity to expand or be replicated in other communities.|
|2||The proposed approach is highly likely to be effective at a small scale, and has potential to scale or be replicated in other communities, but at significant costs or only through significant changes in approach.|
|3||The approach is effective and the team presents a credible, although uncertain, argument that it can be scaled over time. The approach is highly likely to be replicable by other organizations and communities.|
|4||Scalable. The team offers a persuasive case that its approach is highly scalable and replicable. The team is well-positioned to lead this effort.|
|5||Highly scalable. The proposed approach could definitely be scaled in an efficacious, efficient, and cost-effective way. The team is well-positioned to lead this effort.|
Criterion 5: DURABILITY
Description: Does the team propose an enduring solution that will last beyond the timeline of the Communities Competition? Does the proposal offer a plan to continue to support the proposed approach and to incorporate it fully into the competitor’s existing practices and processes?
|0||The proposal offers a temporary solution that will not survive beyond the close of the Communities Competition and/or will require continuous support beyond reasonably available means.|
|1||The proposal offers a solution that could persist, but did not propose a plan for making the solution sustainable beyond a short period of time.|
|2||The team proposed a solution that could plausibly persist beyond the close of the Communities Competition and offered a plan for garnering additional support to make the solution sustainable.|
|3||The proposal offers a long-term solution that will increase access for adult learners in this community and provided a method of sustaining the work.|
|4||The team provided an actionable and realistic plan to make its solution sustainable beyond the close of the Communities Competition.|
|5||The proposal demonstrates a clear plan AND existing support to ensure the solution is sustained enduringly beyond the close of the Communities Competition.|