2) Dialogue Foundations (Freire → Practice)

Freire’s dialogic method rejects the “banking” model (teacher deposits, student receives). In practice, it means co-investigation: facilitators and learners interrogate reality together, then act to transform it. Below is a concrete scaffold you can deploy tomorrow in homes, clinics, and micro-schools.

2.1 Problem-Posing Prompts

Convert lived frictions into prompts with three parts: situation → tension → agency.

Template
SITUATION: What's happening here? (short, concrete)
TENSION: Why does this matter? (stakes, blockers, inequities)
AGENCY: What could we try? (actions learners can actually take)

Example (Family Budget & Food):
S: Our food bill spiked 18% in three months.
T: Healthier choices seem pricier; meal stress is rising.
A: In one week, can we design a 5-meal plan under £X, test two swaps, and log outcomes?

2.2 Dialogic Cycle (45–75 minutes)

1. Code the reality (10’): Observe artifacts (receipts, photos, clinic data) without judgement. What patterns do we see?
2. Name the tension (10’): Who is affected and how? What’s invisible? What’s within our control?
3. Propose actions (10’): Generate options; mark feasibility (time, cost, risk).
4. Choose a micro-experiment (10’): Pick one test; define success metrics; assign roles.
5. Plan evidence (5’): What will we record (photos, numbers, quotes) and where (shared log)?
6. Close with care (5’): Check energy; name supports needed; confirm safeguarding steps if relevant.

2.3 Roles & Power Practices

• Facilitator as co-investigator: Ask, don’t prescribe; surface alternatives; ensure quieter voices are heard.
• Boundary-keeper: Timebox; guard psychological safety; enforce consent (opt-in, opt-out, no retaliation).
• Cataloguer: Tag moments to the Skills Graph (communication, data, craft, care, safety, ethics).

2.4 Safeguarding & Inclusion (non-negotiables)

• Consent & privacy: Written consent for photos/data; anonymise when publishing; clinic data never shared without legal basis.
• Do-no-harm: Risk assessments for physical tasks; clinician sign-off for health interventions; clear escalation routes.
• Access: Provide low-literacy variants (visuals/icons), language support, mobility accommodations, sensory-safe spaces.
• Equity: Proactively invite marginalised voices; compensate participation where appropriate.

2.5 Dialogue Logs (proof stack)

Each meeting creates a proof unit: timestamp, prompt, decisions, roles, next actions, and links to evidence.

2.6 Minimal Tech Stack (Shopify-friendly)

• Shared log: A simple page/Google Doc or Shopify blog sub-page with date-stamped entries.
• Artifact gallery: Upload images with alt text and short captions (what changed, for whom).
• Credential link: Reserve a URL for each learner’s proof page (will house VCs in Part 3).

3) Dialogue & Project Design

Dialogue without projects risks drifting into endless talk. Freire stressed praxis: reflection and action intertwined. Here we translate problem-posing prompts into short, bounded projects that produce artifacts, skills, and measurable improvements. This section gives you project blueprints, facilitator scripts, and pacing guides.

3.1 Project Blueprint Structure

3.2 Family Projects (home & neighbourhood)

• Meal Cost Optimisation: Collect receipts, compare swaps, design a 5-meal plan, publish photos + price breakdown.
• Energy Audit: Record appliance usage, design a savings checklist, test one change, show before/after bills.
• Story Archive: Interview elders, capture 3–5 oral histories, publish in a family zine with QR codes.

3.3 Clinic Projects (health literacy & peer care)

• Medication Navigator: Co-design simple visual guides for common meds; test clarity with peers.
• Movement Club: Design a 10-min routine, track adherence with 5 peers, publish before/after well-being logs.
• Clinic Wayfinding: Map confusing areas, design signage prototypes, test with patients.

3.4 Micro-School Projects (multi-age, studio style)

• Water Quality Test: Collect samples, use simple kits, publish graphs, design info posters.
• Neighbourhood Map: Co-create an accessibility map (ramps, hazards), present to local council.
• Mini-Enterprise: Design, make, and sell a product (e.g., crafts, apps), log budget, publish results.

3.5 Facilitator Script (90-min project session)

1. Warm-up (5’): Reconnect to last session; quick go-round (“one thing we noticed”).
2. Problem recap (10’): Review lived issue, confirm tension & agency.
3. Plan actions (15’): Break into roles, sketch timeline, assign responsibilities.
4. Build sprint (40’): Work hands-on; facilitator circulates asking “what are we noticing?”.
5. Evidence capture (10’): Record photos, logs, quotes, numbers in shared log.
6. Debrief (10’): What worked, what’s unclear, what to test next week?

3.6 Artifact Menu (evidence & outputs)

• Visuals photos, infographics, diagrams
• Texts zines, blog posts, reports, scripts
• Data tables, charts, dashboards
• Objects prototypes, crafts, kits
• Performances plays, demos, podcasts

Each artifact must carry caption + alt text stating: (1) what changed, (2) for whom, (3) how we know.

3.7 Weekly Cadence (6-week lab)

3.8 Inclusion Checks (each project)

• Ask: “Whose voices are missing?” → invite, or document absence.
• Check accessibility: mobility, sensory, literacy, language.
• Compensate labour: vouchers/stipends where appropriate.
• Document risks + mitigation before launch.

✅ Next in Part 3: Skills Graph & Verifiable Credentials — competency schema, JSON examples, proof page template.

4) Skills Graph & Verifiable Credentials

Every project produces evidence, but without a map and portable credential, learning stays invisible. A Skills Graph tags each action to competencies, and W3C Verifiable Credentials (VCs) make them portable — shareable across family, school, clinic, and workplace.

4.1 Skills Graph (core categories)

4.2 Mapping Skills During Projects

• Cataloguer role tags actions to clusters in real-time (see Section 2.3).
• Each log entry adds nodes/edges in the Skills Graph (e.g., “Meal Plan → Data Analysis + Care”).
• By week 6, learners see a visual skills constellation from their projects.

4.3 Verifiable Credential Basics

A Verifiable Credential (VC) is a tamper-evident digital statement about a learner’s skill, anchored by the W3C VC standard. It can be held in a learner’s wallet app or simply published as a signed JSON file on a proof page.

{
  "@context": [
    "https://www.w3.org/2018/credentials/v1"
  ],
  "id": "https://made2masterai.com/vc/12345",
  "type": ["VerifiableCredential", "SkillCredential"],
  "issuer": "https://made2masterai.com",
  "issuanceDate": "2025-09-14T12:00:00Z",
  "credentialSubject": {
    "id": "did:example:learner123",
    "skill": {
      "name": "Data & Analysis",
      "description": "Gathered, charted, and interpreted water quality data in community project",
      "evidence": "https://made2masterai.com/proofs/water-project"
    }
  },
  "proof": {
    "type": "Ed25519Signature2018",
    "created": "2025-09-14T12:00:00Z",
    "verificationMethod": "https://made2masterai.com/keys/issuer#key-1",
    "proofPurpose": "assertionMethod",
    "jws": "eyJhbGciOiJF..."
  }
}

4.4 Proof Page Template (Shopify-safe)

Each learner receives a unique proof page where artifacts, logs, and credential JSON are linked. This can be a hidden Shopify page or sub-URL.

<article class="card">
  <h2>Proof Log — [Learner Name]</h2>
  <p>This page collects verified artifacts and credentials issued during the Freire Lab.</p>

  <h3>Artifacts</h3>
  <ul>
    <li><a href="/cdn/artifacts/water-chart.png">Water Quality Chart (Week 3)</a></li>
    <li><a href="/cdn/artifacts/safety-survey.pdf">Safety Survey Report (Week 4)</a></li>
  </ul>

  <h3>Verifiable Credentials</h3>
  <pre>{ JSON VC pasted or linked }</pre>
</article>

4.5 Safeguards for Credentialing

• Consent: Learner (or guardian) must approve credential issuance and public display.
• Privacy: Use pseudonymous IDs (DID or code) when publishing publicly.
• Accessibility: Proof pages should include alt text, captions, and simplified summaries.
• Equity: Do not charge learners for receiving their own credentials.

4.6 Why VCs Matter

• Move beyond grades: learners hold concrete, portable proof of what they did.
• Families & micro-schools: issue credentials that employers or colleges can verify.
• Clinics: issue participation credentials (e.g., health literacy, peer support) without exposing sensitive data.
• Employers: verify outcome-based skills instead of only relying on degrees.

✅ Next in Part 4: Assessments & Rubrics — practical scoring guides, moderation protocol, and evidence tagging.

5) Assessments & Rubrics

In a Freire lab, assessment must honour praxis—reflection + action. We therefore evaluate observable outcomes (artifacts, services, improvements), the reasoning trail (logs, decisions), and community impact (feedback, accessibility), not recall alone. This section provides ready-to-use rubrics, moderation protocols, and evidence tagging.

5.1 Outcome Types We Assess

• Artifact quality: clarity, usefulness, accessibility, safety.
• Method quality: problem framing, data handling, risk controls, ethics.
• Learning behaviours: collaboration, care, persistence, reflection.
• Impact signals: before/after metrics, user feedback, adoption.

5.2 Master Rubric (4-level scale)

5.3 Quick Rubrics (context-specific)

Family Project — Meal Cost Optimisation

Clinic Project — Movement Club

Micro-School — Water Quality Test

5.4 Evidence Tagging (for the Skills Graph & VCs)

Tag every artifact/log with structured labels to connect outcomes to the Skills Graph.

evidence:
  id: ev-2025-09-14-001
  project: "Water Quality Test"
  date: "2025-09-14"
  artifact: "/cdn/artifacts/water-chart.png"
  tags: ["Data & Analysis","Communication","Ethics & Safety"]
  metrics:
    ph_mean: 7.2
    sample_n: 10
  accessibility:
    alt: "Bar chart of pH readings across 10 locations"
    reading_level: "Simple"
  privacy:
    consent: "on-file"
    pii: false

5.5 Self / Peer / Coach Triangulation

• Self-assessment: learners score themselves against the Master Rubric and write a short reflection (“What surprised me?”).
• Peer review: two peers score and provide 2× “plus” and 1× “next step”.
• Coach assessment: facilitator scores with references to specific evidence items (IDs/links).

5.6 Moderation & Reliability

1. Calibration session (20’): All facilitators score 2 sample artifacts independently; discuss variances; agree anchors.
2. Double-marking (sample 10–20%): Second assessor checks selections where stakes are higher (credentials, stipends).
3. Rubric drift check: Quarterly review against exemplars; update language if misinterpreted.
4. Bias audit: Compare scores by demographic and role distribution; address inequities.

5.7 Exemplars (anchor library)

Maintain 3–5 exemplars per project type at levels 2–4 with short rationales so new facilitators can align quickly.

5.8 Converting Results into Credentials

1. Complete rubric → capture level per dimension.
2. Aggregate → map “Proficient/Exemplary” to specific skills in the Graph (e.g., Data & Analysis).
3. Attach evidence IDs → artifact links + log excerpts.
4. Issue VC → insert skills + evidence URLs into the JSON (see Part 3).

5.9 Safeguarding & Inclusion in Assessment

• Consent & privacy: Only publish evidence with documented consent; anonymise by default for minors/clinic contexts.
• Accessibility: Rubrics in plain language + icon version; allow oral submissions; translation where needed.
• Equity: Offer alternative demonstration modes (audio, video, model) to reduce bias against literacy or disability.

5.10 Assessment Forms (copy-paste)

<form class="card" aria-label="Freire Lab Assessment">
  <h3>Freire Lab Assessment</h3>
  <label>Learner:<input type="text" name="learner" required /></label>
  <label>Project:<input type="text" name="project" required /></label>
  <label>Assessor Role:
    <select name="role"><option>Self</option><option>Peer</option><option>Coach</option></select>
  </label>
  <label>Dimension Scores (1–4):<input type="text" name="scores" placeholder="Framing=3, Method=3, Artifact=4, ..." /></label>
  <label>Evidence IDs:<input type="text" name="evidence" placeholder="ev-..., ev-..." /></label>
  <label>Comments:<textarea name="comments"></textarea></label>
  <p class="note">Submit to facilitator for moderation. Do not include personal health data.</p>
</form>

✅ Next in Part 5: Community Labs — governance, partnerships, risk models, and publishing rules.

6) Community Labs

A Community Lab is the infrastructure where Freire projects run at scale. It can be a library, clinic, faith hall, micro-school, or even a digital hub — but it needs governance, partnerships, risk models, and publishing rules. This section shows how to structure labs that are safe, inclusive, and effective.

6.1 Governance Framework

6.2 Partnerships

• Local councils: Access to facilities, policy input, small grants.
• Clinics & hospitals: Health literacy and peer-support projects (with oversight).
• Libraries: Host project archives, provide digital access points.
• Small businesses: Offer real-world challenges (inventory, design, marketing).
• Universities: Connect researchers to grassroots problems; provide validation and feedback.

6.3 Risk Model (traffic-light)

6.4 Publishing Rules

• Transparency: Publish project charters, rubrics, and outcomes openly unless consent restricts.
• Anonymisation: Never publish identifiable health or minor data without explicit legal clearance.
• Accessibility: Every artifact must include alt text, captions, and plain-language summary.
• Equity: Ensure publishing rights belong to learners; no exploitation for institutional marketing.
• Archiving: Store proof pages under consistent URLs (e.g., /proofs/<id>).

6.5 Lab Kit (Shopify-safe)

Each lab should host a minimal “kit” page with:

1. Calendar → Dialogic sessions, project sprint weeks, showcase dates.
2. Repository → Log links, artifact galleries, exemplar rubrics.
3. Proof Pages → Learner/project credential pages.
4. Funding Tracker → Incoming grants, stipends issued.
5. Safeguarding Notice → Local contact + escalation policy.

6.6 Inclusion Protocol

• Accessibility audit at lab entry (ramps, signage, sensory space, translation).
• Child protection checks where minors participate.
• Sliding-scale stipends to reduce exclusion by income.
• Anonymous feedback channel for reporting safety/bias issues.

6.7 Digital Extensions

Not every community has a physical hub. Digital extensions can ensure reach:

• Hybrid sessions: Video dial-in with screen-shared logs + live captioning.
• Shared boards: Miro / Figma / Shopify blog comments for artifact drafts.
• Proof galleries: Curated, consent-cleared uploads under lab domain.
• Verification: Remote issuance of Verifiable Credentials via signed JSON (see Part 3).

✅ Next in Part 6: Funding & Stipends — multi-rail payment logic (bank, vouchers, gift cards), and optional Bitcoin/Lightning pathways with compliance notes.

7) Funding & Stipends

Freire labs require more than passion — they need fair stipends and sustainable funding. This section builds a funding model with multi-rail payments (bank, vouchers, prepaid, digital rails) and optional Bitcoin/Lightning pathways, wrapped in compliance and safeguarding rules.

7.1 Why Stipends Matter

• Equity: Participation should not depend on disposable income.
• Recognition: A stipend signals that labour and learning are valuable.
• Retention: Paid learners are more likely to sustain engagement across projects.
• Scaling: Transparent stipend models attract grants and local sponsors.

7.2 Multi-Rail Payment Logic

7.3 Stipend Rules (baseline)

1. Proof first: Stipends issued only after artifact submission + log entries (evidence IDs).
2. Flat + bonus: Flat base per week (e.g., £15–25) plus small bonuses for exemplary outcomes.
3. Transparency: Publish stipend schedule in advance; learners know what is rewarded.
4. Cap: No learner can receive more than 150% of base without steering group approval.
5. Audit trail: All payments logged in funding tracker (date, amount, rail, learner ID).

7.4 Stipend Tracker (HTML snippet)

<table aria-label="Stipend Tracker">
  <thead><tr><th>Date</th><th>Learner</th><th>Project</th><th>Amount</th><th>Rail</th><th>Evidence ID</th></tr></thead>
  <tbody>
    <tr><td>2025-09-20</td><td>Learner A</td><td>Meal Plan</td><td>£20</td><td>Voucher (Tesco)</td><td>ev-2025-09-20-003</td></tr>
    <tr><td>2025-09-21</td><td>Learner B</td><td>Water Test</td><td>£25</td><td>Bank Transfer</td><td>ev-2025-09-21-007</td></tr>
  </tbody>
</table>

7.5 Bitcoin / Lightning (optional rail)

For labs serving learners across borders or in regions with limited banking, optional Bitcoin/Lightning rails can add resilience. Use only where legal, with clear disclosure:

• Explain volatility + conversion options (e.g., auto-convert to stable currency).
• Use custodial wallets for minors (guardian-controlled) or educational testnets for practice.
• Keep stipend values small and bounded; treat as micro-incentives, not salary.
• Publish a Bitcoin rail policy alongside bank/voucher rails.

7.6 Safeguarding in Funding

• Consent: Signed agreement before issuing any stipend; guardian approval if under 18.
• Privacy: Never publish full payment details; only learner ID + amount.
• Equity: Use sliding-scale bonuses to avoid advantaging already-resourced learners.
• Audit: Quarterly financial transparency to the steering group + community report.

7.7 Funding Sources

• Grants: Education, health, civic innovation funds.
• Micro-donations: Community members donate small amounts; Shopify plugin can handle recurring donations.
• Sponsorship: Local businesses sponsor projects; receive anonymised outcome reports.
• Service contracts: Council or clinic pays lab for outcomes (e.g., health literacy, youth engagement).
• Self-funding: Labs reinvest from mini-enterprise projects (see Part 2 & 5).

7.8 Example Funding Flow (diagram text)

[Donors/Grants] → Lab Funding Pool → (Steering Group Approval) → Learner Stipend Issuance
      ↓                                        ↓
  Transparency Log                    Evidence ID + Rail Entry
      ↓                                        ↓
   Community Report ←—— Audit Trail ——→ Verifiable Credential Proof Pages

✅ Next in Part 7: Case Studies — family, clinic, and micro-school exemplars with before/after metrics and artifacts.

8) Case Studies

Theory is only persuasive when people see it working. These case studies show Freire labs in action: a family running a household project, a clinic boosting health literacy, and a micro-school co-creating civic value. Each documents setup → action → outcomes → evidence.

8.1 Family Lab — Meal Cost Optimisation

8.2 Clinic Lab — Movement Club

8.3 Micro-School Lab — Water Quality Test

8.4 Cross-Case Insights

• Dialogue first: Every project began with lived tension → agency framing.
• Proof matters: Artifacts, logs, and proof pages legitimised outcomes beyond the group.
• Credentials: Each case issued at least one Verifiable Credential, linking skills to evidence.
• Stipends: All projects paid small stipends (vouchers, bank transfers) tied to evidence IDs.
• Equity: Safeguards ensured participation across age, literacy, and mobility differences.

✅ Next in Part 8: FAQs — short, unambiguous answers for setup, safeguarding, funding, and credentials.

9) FAQs

Clear answers prevent drift and confusion. This FAQ gives straight, short responses on setup, safeguarding, funding, and credentials. All responses are designed to be copy-pasted into parent, clinic, or community handbooks.

9.1 Setup & Structure

Q: How many learners per lab?

Around 6–12 is optimal; small enough for voices, big enough for roles.

Q: How long does a project run?

1–3 weeks, within a 6-week cycle.

Q: Do we need special tech?

No. A shared doc, photos, and a basic page for proof logs are enough.

Q: Who leads the lab?

A trained facilitator — but always as co-investigator, not lecturer.

9.2 Safeguarding & Inclusion

Q: Can minors participate?

Yes — only with guardian consent, supervision, and risk checks.

Q: How do we handle sensitive health data?

Do not collect identifiable data unless under formal ethics approval.

Q: What if literacy is low?

Use icons, oral logs, photos, and translations to ensure access.

Q: How do we prevent exclusion?

Offer stipends, accessibility support, and multiple ways to contribute.

9.3 Funding & Stipends

Q: Who pays stipends?

Funding pool from grants, micro-donations, or sponsors; approved by the steering group.

Q: How much is a stipend?

£15–25 per week base, plus small bonuses for exemplary outcomes.

Q: When are stipends issued?

After artifacts and logs are submitted with evidence IDs.

Q: Can we pay in Bitcoin?

Yes — only if legal, with volatility disclosure, and guardian control for minors.

9.4 Credentials

Q: What is a Verifiable Credential?

A tamper-evident JSON file proving a skill, issued under the W3C standard.

Q: Who issues credentials?

The lab (via facilitator or data steward), anchored to artifacts and logs.

Q: How do learners use them?

They can share proof pages with employers, schools, or communities.

Q: Can credentials replace grades?

No — but they complement them by showing evidence of action.

9.5 Community Labs

Q: Do labs need formal approval?

No — green/amber projects can run under community rules; red projects need ethics sign-off.

Q: Where do we host labs?

Libraries, clinics, schools, community halls, or digital spaces.

Q: What if we lack funding?

Start with volunteer labs, small projects, and free tools; scale as grants arrive.

Q: How do we publish results?

Upload artifacts with alt text + captions; publish proof pages with anonymisation if needed.

9.6 Scaling & Future

Q: How do we scale labs?

Federate: small labs linked by shared rubrics and proof galleries.

Q: Can labs connect internationally?

Yes — via digital extensions; VCs travel across borders.

Q: What happens if a lab fails?

Document the failure openly; treat it as a learning artifact; issue credentials for resilience skills.

Q: How do labs stay sustainable?

Diversify funding: grants, micro-donations, service contracts, and mini-enterprises.

✅ Next in Part 9–10: Templates & Execution Framework — copy-paste templates and a 6-Week Freire Lab Launch schedule.

9) Templates

Running a Freire Lab requires consistent forms. Below are ready-to-use templates for project setup, dialogue logs, assessments, stipends, and credential proof pages. All templates are text/HTML snippets — no external plugins required.

9.1 Project Charter

<article class="card">
  <h3>Project Charter</h3>
  <label>Project Title:<input type="text" name="title" /></label>
  <label>Prompt:<textarea name="prompt"></textarea></label>
  <label>Situation / Tension / Agency:<textarea name="sta"></textarea></label>
  <label>Team Roles:<textarea name="roles"></textarea></label>
  <label>Timeline (weeks):<input type="number" name="weeks" min="1" max="6" /></label>
  <label>Safeguards:<textarea name="safeguards"></textarea></label>
</article>

9.2 Dialogue Log

<article class="card">
  <h3>Dialogue Log</h3>
  <label>Date:<input type="date" name="date" /></label>
  <label>Prompt:<textarea name="prompt"></textarea></label>
  <label>Decisions:<textarea name="decisions"></textarea></label>
  <label>Roles:<textarea name="roles"></textarea></label>
  <label>Evidence IDs:<input type="text" name="evidence" placeholder="ev-..." /></label>
  <label>Risks + Safeguards:<textarea name="risks"></textarea></label>
  <label>Next Actions:<textarea name="next"></textarea></label>
</article>

9.3 Rubric Sheet

<article class="card">
  <h3>Rubric Assessment</h3>
  <label>Learner:<input type="text" name="learner" /></label>
  <label>Project:<input type="text" name="project" /></label>
  <table>
    <thead><tr><th>Dimension</th><th>Score (1–4)</th></tr></thead>
    <tbody>
      <tr><td>Problem Framing</td><td><input type="number" min="1" max="4" /></td></tr>
      <tr><td>Method & Evidence</td><td><input type="number" min="1" max="4" /></td></tr>
      <tr><td>Artifact Quality</td><td><input type="number" min="1" max="4" /></td></tr>
      <tr><td>Collaboration</td><td><input type="number" min="1" max="4" /></td></tr>
      <tr><td>Impact</td><td><input type="number" min="1" max="4" /></td></tr>
    </tbody>
  </table>
  <label>Comments:<textarea name="comments"></textarea></label>
</article>

9.4 Stipend Form

<article class="card">
  <h3>Stipend Form</h3>
  <label>Date:<input type="date" name="date" /></label>
  <label>Learner ID:<input type="text" name="learner" /></label>
  <label>Project:<input type="text" name="project" /></label>
  <label>Amount:<input type="text" name="amount" /></label>
  <label>Rail:
    <select name="rail">
      <option>Bank Transfer</option>
      <option>Voucher</option>
      <option>Prepaid Card</option>
      <option>Mobile Wallet</option>
      <option>Bitcoin (optional)</option>
    </select>
  </label>
  <label>Evidence ID:<input type="text" name="evidence" /></label>
  <label>Authorised by:<input type="text" name="authoriser" /></label>
</article>

9.5 Credential Proof Page

<article class="card">
  <h3>Proof Log — [Learner Name]</h3>
  <p>This page collects verified artifacts and credentials issued during the Freire Lab.</p>

  <h4>Artifacts</h4>
  <ul>
    <li><a href="/cdn/artifacts/example1.png">Meal Plan Chart (Week 2)</a></li>
    <li><a href="/cdn/artifacts/example2.pdf">Safety Survey Report (Week 4)</a></li>
  </ul>

  <h4>Verifiable Credentials</h4>
  <pre>{ JSON VC pasted or linked }</pre>
</article>

9.6 Weekly Checklist

[ ] Dialogue session logged
[ ] Project artifact submitted
[ ] Rubric assessment complete
[ ] Evidence IDs tagged
[ ] Stipend approved
[ ] Credential issued
[ ] Proof page updated

✅ Next in Part 10: Execution Framework — the 6-Week Freire Lab Launch OS with week-by-week schedule and facilitator checklists.

10) Execution Framework — 6-Week Freire Lab Launch

Here is a complete 6-week launch framework for a Freire Lab. Families, clinics, and micro-schools can copy this cadence directly. Each week mixes dialogue, project action, reflection, and evidence capture — with stipends and credentials tied to outputs.

10.1 Week-by-Week Schedule

10.2 Weekly Facilitator Checklist

WEEK [#]
[ ] Dialogue log updated
[ ] Safeguards checked
[ ] Artifacts collected (with alt text/captions)
[ ] Rubric scored (if midpoint or final)
[ ] Evidence IDs tagged in Skills Graph
[ ] Proof page updated
[ ] Stipend form filled (if week 6)
[ ] Credential JSON issued (if week 6)

10.3 Launch Calendar (example)

Use this structure to schedule lab activities in any calendar app (Google, Outlook, Shopify plugin).

• Tuesday evening: 60–75 min dialogue (problems, roles, reflection).
• Saturday morning: 2–3 hr build sprint (artifact work, testing, evidence capture).
• Week 5 showcase: Invite families, clinicians, local council reps, or peers.
• Week 6 close-out: Celebrate; issue credentials; approve stipends; publish proof pages.

10.4 Scaling Beyond 6 Weeks

• Rotate facilitators to prevent burnout.
• Archive each cycle as a proof library.
• Federate: multiple labs share rubrics + proof galleries, forming a learning commons.
• Iterate funding: apply for larger grants with evidence from cycles 1–2.

10.5 Guardrails

• Safeguarding first: All labs must follow consent, supervision, and data rules.
• Equity: Sliding-scale stipends; accessibility audits every cycle.
• Privacy: Anonymise proof pages if learners request it.
• Transparency: Publish community reports every cycle.

✅ End of framework. Labs are now equipped to co-create knowledge with dialogue, projects, rubrics, credentials, and funding.

🔗 Interlink: Education Engine — skills graphs, credentials, and stipend trackers.

Confucian Community Framework

Though this blog has centred on Freire, we close with a Confucian overlay. Why? Because both Freire and Confucius insist: learning is communal, not solitary. Where Freire speaks of dialogue, Confucius speaks of ritual and family order. Together, they give us a framework to stabilise labs beyond experiments.

Principles

• Family order: Treat every lab as an extended family. Roles are clear, duties shared, respect mutual.
• Ritual: Begin and end sessions with small repeated acts (greetings, reflections, thank-yous) that make learning sacred.
• Education: Every artifact is both skill and virtue — competence + character.
• Leadership: Facilitators lead by service, not dominance; steering groups act as wise elders.
• Virtue ethics: Stipends and credentials are not bribes but affirmations of effort, care, and honesty.
• Harmony in conflict: Disagreements are expected; ritual dialogue ensures they refine, not fracture.
• Community health execution: Every lab must improve community well-being — safety, literacy, health, dignity.

Overlay with Freire

Freire gives us the engine (dialogue, projects, VCs). Confucius gives us the form (ritual, roles, virtue). Together: a lab that both liberates and sustains.