# Beginner club starter and editable templates

Version 0.1 · review: draft · untested editorial teaching proposal

These original, AI-assisted materials are for educator review and adaptation. The activities, timings and rubric have not been tested with learners. They supply no accreditation, academic credit, recognition or evidence of teaching effectiveness. Correct classroom arithmetic is not measured charitable impact.

Use paper and fictional examples. No donation, payment, account, public post or personal story is required. Do not ask learners to disclose finances, giving history, beliefs or experiences of receiving help. This pack does not rank named charities or judge people’s motives. It does not change the existing ten-unit course, stored progress or completion criteria.

## Access and local arrangements

Propose a reading group, class or extracurricular activity through the institution’s own process. Using this pack does not register a chapter or establish university, school or Charitology recognition.

Confirm physical and digital access, language, materials, quiet participation and a private route to request an adjustment. Essential figures and readings should be available on paper. Do not require a smartphone, public profile, Values Compass result, account or disclosure of a diagnosis. For a school group, an educator sets age-appropriate supervision and follows the institution’s existing rules.

Learners can pass on speaking, use assigned perspectives and keep their work. If a correction is shared publicly, make it optional, sanitized and subject to the normal editorial process and appropriate permission. Do not collect private learner contact details for this kit.

## Four beginner meetings

Each meeting totals 50 minutes. The proposed ages 14–18 school adaptation requires an educator to adapt language, pace, access and supervision; this is not a validated age-suitability claim. A beginner club can use the same sequence. No prior knowledge, outside speakers, accounts or donations are needed.

### 1. Follow the chain

Timing: 5 welcome; 10 case reading; 15 map; 15 sort claim cards; 5 exit (50 minutes).

Activity: Build the five-stage map. Sort cash, workshops, check results and unmeasured claims. “Unknown” is a useful answer.

Output: A map with one missing link.

### 2. Check the comparison

Timing: 5 revisit; 10 fractions and costs; 15 counterfactual cards; 15 headline repair; 5 exit (50 minutes).

Activity: Calculate output costs and observed change, then compare cards A and B. Use fractions or the worked table if percentages are a barrier.

Output: A corrected headline and a question about evidence.

### 3. Ask who decides

Timing: 5 setup; 10 depth descriptions; 15 assigned moral roles; 15 feedback design; 5 exit (50 minutes).

Activity: Describe depth without grades. Compare welfare and rights/justice questions. Design an accessible route to disagree.

Output: A decision-rights and feedback diagram.

### 4. Revise and hand over

Timing: 5 revisit; 15 fictional proposal; 15 peer questions; 10 revision and handover; 5 exit (50 minutes).

Activity: Use the brief template, hear a challenge and change one part. Retain an unresolved question instead of inventing certainty.

Output: A one-page proposal and a handover card for the next organizer.

Facilitation prompts:

- Ask what the record tells us before choosing an option.
- Ask what else could explain a change.
- Offer assigned perspectives rather than requesting religious, political or family beliefs.
- Discuss an inaccessible invitation without assigning a personal history to a learner.
- Return discussion of motives to mechanisms, missing information and decisions.
- Use exit responses to adapt the next meeting; do not call them evidence of retained learning or charitable impact.

## Working definitions

- **Input:** A resource used, such as cash or staff time.
- **Activity:** Something the project does, such as running a workshop.
- **Output:** A count of delivered work, such as workshops held or people attending.
- **Outcome:** A change in a specified condition or ability. A check result is closer to the activity than an outcome such as being able to make a real journey.
- **Counterfactual:** What would have happened to the same people, over the same period, without the program or decision being considered. It is not directly observed for those people.
- **Impact claim:** A claim about the difference made compared with that counterfactual. An observed outcome alone does not establish it.
- **Proxy:** A measured stand-in for something we care about. Passing a timetable check is not the same as successfully making a journey.
- **Percentage point:** The difference between two percentages: 70% minus 40% is 30 percentage points.
- **Moral lens:** A way of asking what matters and why. The project uses editorial sketches of welfare, rights, justice, care, faith and tradition, future generations, all life and flourishing. These are prompts, not complete accounts of every tradition.
- **Depth:** A description of where an activity aims to act: relief, repair, prevention, structure or source. It is not a grade. A larger number does not mean better or more effective; every level may be needed.
- **Six-source hypothesis:** Story, coordination, vision, attention, status and gatekeepers are proposed sources adopted from Humanity’s Checklist. Their explanatory and practical reach remains a hypothesis, not an established causal map.

## Fictional case: The Riverbend journey-planning project

All details are fictional. Riverbend is an invented town. A community project wants adults who choose to attend to find usable journey information. Its workshops aim to help people plan future journeys. It has not measured whether people reach appointments, find work or experience better wellbeing.

| Recorded item | Fictional record |
| --- | --- |
| Recorded cash spent | $600, including space, printed materials and facilitation |
| Workshops held | 6 |
| People at each workshop | 5 |
| Unique attendees | 30; each attended exactly one workshop |
| People completing both checks | The same 30 attendees |
| Passed the check before the workshop | 12 of 30 |
| Passed the check one week afterward | 21 of 30 |

### Limits of the fictional record

- Unpaid preparation time was not recorded. The $600 is recorded cash spending, not the full economic cost.
- There is no comparison group. A before/after change does not establish how much the workshops caused.
- The check uses a printed fictional timetable. Its accuracy as a measure of practical journey-planning ability has not been established.
- No actual journeys, employment or wellbeing outcomes were measured. Classroom numeracy is not measured charitable impact.
- Invitations were available only in small print. Organizers do not know who wanted to attend but could not access the invitation or session. The figures describe the participating group, not everyone in Riverbend.
- No personal journeys or private difficulties are needed for the exercise. A particular gift’s effect is not identified; other funders and other actors’ responses have not been modeled.

### Card A: an assumption, not evidence

Suppose 18 of these same 30 people would have passed the later check without the workshops, perhaps through other practice or information. This is an imagined alternative, not an observed comparison group. Calculate what follows only if the assumption were true.

### Card B: an assumption, not evidence

Suppose 21 of these same 30 people would have passed the later check without the workshops. This is another imagined alternative, not an observed comparison group. The case gives no basis for choosing A or B as correct.

Neither card establishes what a donor’s gift caused. Do not choose an assumption because its answer looks useful.

## Depth describes; it does not grade

Apply a description to an activity and explain its proposed causal chain. A larger number does not mean better, more effective or more deserving. Every level may be needed. All examples below are fictional.

| Level | Name | Question | Example |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 0 | Relief | Does it meet a need now? | Help someone plan a journey they must make today. |
| 1 | Repair | Does it restore something lost? | Help restore route-planning skills after a disruption. |
| 2 | Prevention | Does it aim to stop a future harm for these people? | Teach route planning to try to prevent future missed journeys. |
| 3 | Structure | Does it change a rule or institution producing a barrier? | Change a transport authority’s timetable-access policy. |
| 4 | Source | Does it address something feeding several kinds of problem? | Try to change whose knowledge institutions respect across transport, education and public services. That proposed connection needs evidence. |

Charitology adopts the proposed sources story, coordination, vision, attention, status and gatekeepers from [Humanity’s Checklist](https://humanityschecklist.org/). They prompt questions about shared narratives, working together, imaginable futures, what gets noticed, what gets admired and who gets to participate or build. Their explanatory and practical reach remains a hypothesis. Naming a source does not establish that an activity changes it.

## Make moral disagreement fair

The project uses editorial sketches of welfare, rights, justice, care, faith and tradition, future generations, all life and flourishing. They are prompts rather than complete descriptions of traditions. Use assigned roles instead of asking learners to disclose beliefs or speak for a group.

A welfare role might ask what additional practical benefit the work creates compared with an alternative use of resources. A rights/justice role might ask who cannot access small-print invitations and who has authority to change that barrier. A check score can inform this disagreement without settling duties, fair access or authority. More than one next step can be well reasoned.

## Fictional capstone brief

Use a short brief of up to two pages, a diagram with an explanation or an equivalent oral presentation. For the beginner club meeting, use the shorter one-page version. Include:

1. A fictional choice and plausible alternative, intended outcome and time period.
2. A causal chain, weakest link, cash costs and missing resource costs.
3. Recorded fictional values, counterfactual assumptions and unknowns.
4. Two fairly represented moral lenses and a disagreement that survives calculation.
5. Missing voices, proposed decision authority and a route for feedback to return.
6. A measure, comparison, review date and revision rule, including how to report inconclusive results and harms.
7. A peer challenge and revision note, with reasons for any challenge not adopted.

Use supplied fictional material unless an educator has prepared and checked another case. Do not interpret worksheet completion, meeting attendance or this rubric as an automatic completion event in the existing course.

## Club roles

- **Facilitator:** Explain the fictional case and invite disagreement without demanding personal disclosure.
- **Access coordinator:** Check formats, room arrangements and participation alternatives. Record arrangements, not private medical details.
- **Timekeeper:** Protect breaks and the planned ending.
- **Notes and handover:** Record material versions, decisions and open questions without attributing private comments or keeping a learner roster.

Roles may rotate or be combined. Describe mechanisms, question claims and give moral frameworks a fair hearing. Do not rank named charities or raise, hold or direct funds in Charitology’s name.

## Editable invitation

Proposed invitation — edit before use

Join a beginner discussion of charity as a system at [locally approved place] on [date and time]. We will use an invented case to ask what changed, what might have happened anyway and whose voice can change a decision. No prior knowledge, donation, account or personal story is required. Paper materials and quiet participation are available; arrange access adjustments through [locally approved route without public disclosure].

This is a proposed local activity using untested draft materials. Participation follows [institution’s eligibility and supervision rules]. It does not register a chapter or establish Charitology or institutional recognition. Contact [organizer role through the locally approved route] with questions. Do not put private contact details in a public copy of this template.

## Proposed draft constitution

### Purpose and draft status

Proposed purpose: study the system of charity through fictional cases, fair moral disagreement and careful reasoning. This editable template is not an official registration or constitution approved by Charitology or an institution.

### Locally eligible membership

Participation is open to people eligible under [institution’s locally applicable rules]. An educator or organizer must set appropriate supervision and access arrangements. No donation, account, public profile, belief statement or personal giving disclosure is a condition of these activities.

### Rotating roles

Rotate or combine facilitator, access coordinator, timekeeper and notes/handover roles by agreement. Record roles rather than private learner details. Agree who can make arrangements and what needs institutional approval.

### Meetings and decisions

Proposed default: announce the next agenda and accessible materials in advance; seek agreement after hearing objections. If agreement is unavailable, record the disagreement and postpone commitments. Confirm [local decision and quorum rules] before adopting them. Nobody is required to state a personal moral or religious view.

### Access and discussion

Offer paper, spoken, written and quiet participation. Participants may pass or use assigned perspectives. Describe mechanisms without judging motives. Do not rank named charities. Request access arrangements through an appropriate private route without recording diagnoses.

### Funds and authority

Default: no funds are raised, held or directed in Charitology’s name. Do not make financial commitments, speak for Charitology or imply an institutional partnership. Any different local activity needs its own authorized process and is outside this starter template.

### Affiliation and recognition

Using the kit does not register a chapter or establish affiliation, accreditation, credit or recognition. A proposed club or name remains subject to the institution’s local approval process and any separately required permission.

### Handover and privacy

Hand over the material version, decisions, reasons, access arrangements, open questions and next owner role. Keep no learner roster for this activity and transfer no private notes, contact lists, personal stories or credentials. Review this draft with the next organizer before use.

## Handover card

Fill in only agreed organizational information:

- Purpose and next meeting. ____________________
- Material title, version and location. ____________________
- Roles to arrange next time. ____________________
- Access arrangements to keep, without private diagnoses or personal stories. ____________________
- Decisions made and their reasons. ____________________
- Open questions and known errors. ____________________
- Next owner role and review date. ____________________
- Commitments or costs already agreed; default: none. ____________________
- Institutional process still needed. ____________________
- Hand over agreed organizational information only: no contact lists, private learner notes, personal stories or account credentials. Include the worked answers and the untested-draft notice. ____________________

[Review this four-meeting starter in the chapter workspace](https://charitology.org/programs/university-chapters/#pw-four-starter), or use its longer six-session fictional example. Review and apply are separate actions; either kit replaces the local workspace only after its discard checks. The existing stored format is unchanged, and neither kit establishes a recognized chapter.

## Optional fictional Charity OS demonstration

The complete activity works on paper. An educator may instead show paper record shapes or an already-authorized fictional demonstration workspace. Do not ask learners to create accounts or enter real student, participant or donor data. This material creates no records, invitations, payments or messages.

- Projects and tasks: manually describe “Review the Riverbend check,” an owner role, completion condition and review date. Completing a task does not show that a program worked.
- Evidence and outcomes: mark 12/30 before and 21/30 later as fictional observations. A stored observation is not a causal conclusion or independently approved finding.
- Evaluation and learning: retain the comparison question, proposed method and unresolved counterfactual. A report or approval does not manufacture evidence or settle values.

Use the ordinary permissions of the existing demonstration setup; no automatic import is implied. Continue on paper if it is unavailable. Service scope: https://charitology.org/for-charities/os-plan/

## Attribution and reuse

Credit: [Charitology (charitology.org)](https://charitology.org/). Original editorial content and authored data are [CC BY 4.0](https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). You may share and adapt them with attribution and a note of changes. Cited sources retain their own rights.

Teaching hub: https://charitology.org/learn/
Existing ten-unit course: https://charitology.org/programs/principles-course/
Textbook: https://charitology.org/record/principles/

The chapter links are reading routes. This pack does not claim an independent review of every chapter’s external citations. Educators should read the selected chapter and check cited originals before teaching its empirical examples.