FACULTY OF ARTS AND SCIENCE GUIDELINES FOR SESSIONAL LECTURER I TO SESSIONAL

LECTURER II ADVANCEMENT PROCESSES

Contents

Eligibility and Requests for Advancement ................................................................................1

Eligibility .......................................................................................................................................... 1

Special Circumstances: Employment in Multiple Departments ................................................... 1

Courses Taught as Course Instructor or UTFA Member ............................................................. 1

Initiation Process .............................................................................................................................. 1

Early Initiation.............................................................................................................................. 2

Establishment and Membership of the Advancement Committee .............................................2

Classroom Observation .............................................................................................................2

Advance Request for Classroom Observation .................................................................................. 3

Response to the Candidate’s Request for Advancement ............................................................3

Notification to the Dean ............................................................................................................3

Material to be Submitted to the Department by Candidate .......................................................4

Documentation to be Provided to the Advancement Committee by the Department ..................4

Assessment Criteria ..................................................................................................................4

Committee Deliberation and Confidentiality .............................................................................5

Submitting the Recommendation for Dean’s Approval .............................................................5

Notification of the Committee’s Decision to the Candidate .......................................................6

When a Candidate is Advanced ....................................................................................................... 6

When a Candidate is NOT Advanced .............................................................................................. 6

Appeals .....................................................................................................................................6

University of Toronto Advancement Review Panel (ARP) ........................................................7

Eligibility for Future Re-Evaluation .........................................................................................8

ATTACHMENTS: Sample Letters ......................................................................................... 10

Letter to the Candidate in Response to Request for Advancement from SLI to SLII .................... 10

Letter of Transmittal to the Dean communicating the Advancement Committee's decision:......... 11

Decision to recommend advancement ........................................................................................ 11

Decision not to recommend advancement .................................................................................. 11

ATTACHMENTS: Provostial Guidelines: Operationalizing Criteria Related to the

Advancement of Sessional Instructors ..................................................................................... 12

Page 1 of 15

Eligibility and Requests for Advancement

Eligibility To be considered for advancement to Sessional Lecturer II within a specific St. George Arts and

Science department a candidate must:

• Possess an advanced degree or have a demonstrated record of professional accomplishment

• Have taught at least six (6) half courses or the equivalent in the prospective advancing

department as a Sessional Lecturer I.

• Have taught in at least four (4) of the past (6) six years

Special Circumstances: Employment in Multiple Departments • Where a candidate has worked for multiple departments, once the candidate has taught at

least four (4) half courses in the advancing department and has taught at least a total of

two (2) half courses in the other department(s), and has taught in at least four (4) of the past

seven (7) years he/she may be considered for advancement.

• “Other” department includes a single department in another faculty, UTSC, UTM etc.,

or any extra departmental undergraduate program, such as Sexual Diversity Studies.

• Prior to making a written request to initiate the advancement process, the candidate may

request that the Chair of one Department recognize the courses taught in the other

Department(s), for the purpose of determining eligibility for an advancement application with

respect to that Department only.

• Such a request shall be at the candidate's option. The Chair shall give due consideration to

such requests on a case by case basis. Granting of the request is at the sole discretion of

the Chair of the Department to which the request is made. The candidate shall be

informed of the Chair's decision without undue delay. In the event the candidate's

request is denied by the Chair, the reasons therefor shall be provided to the candidate.

Courses Taught as Course Instructor or UTFA Member A maximum of three (3) half or the equivalent as a Course Instructor in Unit 1 may be

included in calculating a candidate's eligibility. A maximum of two (2) FCE or equivalent

taught as a member of UTFA may be included in calculating a candidate's eligibility.

Initiation Process • Candidates are responsible for determining if they meet the eligibility requirements.

• Once a candidate meets the eligibility requirements, the candidate may request the

initiation of the advancement process by letter to the Chair of the employee’s prospective

advancing department. The candidate’s letter must be received no later than September

30 for advancement consideration in the Fall term, or January 31 for advancement

consideration in the Spring term.

January 2018

Page 2 of 15

Early Initiation If a candidate requires only one (1) full course or one half (1/2) course of teaching to meet the

requirements above, (i.e. has taught at least four (4) half courses or two (2) full courses in the

department) and has been in the department for at least three (3) of the last six (6) years, and if the

candidate has then been appointed in a Winter academic session during which the candidate will

reach or exceed the eligibility requirements, the candidate may request early initiation of the

advancement process. The candidate may ask to be considered for advancement during the

appointment in which the eligibility requirements will be achieved. The candidate’s letter to

the Chair requesting early initiation of the process must be received no later than September 30

for F or Y courses, or January 31 for S courses.

On an exceptional basis only, those candidates who meet the eligibility criteria exclusively through

employment in Summer academic sessions may, by letter to the Chair of the employee's prospective

advancing department, request the advancement process be undertaken in a Summer academic

session. In such cases, the candidate's letter must be received not later than May 1 and July 1 for

advancement consideration in the relevant Summer academic session. In the event that sessional

work in the Summer academic sessions is assigned after May 1 for the first Summer academic

session or after July 1 for the second Summer academic session, and that work makes the employee

eligible for advancement for the first time, an employee may request advancement in the Summer

academic sessions by the date the class begins to meet.

Establishment and Membership of the Advancement Committee

The Chair of the Department, or the Principal of the College (in the case of extra departmental

College-based programs in Arts and Science, e.g. Sexual Diversity Studies), chairs the committee.

The other members of the Committee, appointed by the Committee Chair, are as follows:

• Another relevant academic administrator, e.g. Associate Chair, Undergraduate/Program

Director

• Two or three members of the teaching staff. Where appropriate these members may be

drawn from other departments within the Faculty of Arts and Science.

• In addition where possible, a Sessional Lecturer II or Sessional Lecturer III who has been

“advanced” by the Department provided the person agrees to serve.

Where practicable, at least one of the Committee members will have a field of expertise closely

related to the courses the candidate teaches.

Where a candidate will be reviewed under Special Circumstances and teaches in multiple

departments, the Chair is encouraged to select Committee members in a manner that is

representative of the Departments in which the candidate teaches.

Classroom Observation The Chair shall designate a member or member(s) of the Committee to observe the candidate in the

classroom.

Observation of the candidate in the classroom (laboratory, studio etc.) by one or more members

of the Advancement Committee is a critical and requisite part of the advancement process and of

January 2018

Page 3 of 15

the judgment of whether or not a candidate’s teaching is superior.

The observing member(s) of the Advancement Committee shall prepare a confidential written

report for submission to the Advancement Committee. The report should comment explicitly on

whether, in the observing members’ judgment, superior classroom teaching was evidenced.

Advance Request for Classroom Observation If requested, in writing, by the candidate in advance of formal initiation of the advancement

process, the Chair shall, subject to operational requirements, arrange for the classroom observation

to be conducted during the candidate’s final qualifying course(s).

Response to the Candidate’s Request for Advancement The Chair of the advancing department will respond to the candidate in writing (see Attachments

for a sample letter), within ten (10) days of receiving the request to advise the candidate of the

names of the members of the Advancement Committee, the anticipated timing of the

Committee’s review and recommendation to the Dean, and requesting that any reservations to

the membership, including the Chair be registered in writing within two (2) weeks. If so notified,

the Chair will respond to the candidate in writing, providing the final composition of the

Advancement Committee and the anticipated timing of review.

The initial letter must:

• Identify the material to be submitted (see below) by the candidate for the Advancement

Committee’s review and will indicate the date (can be no less than four (4) weeks from the

date of the letter) by which this should be submitted

• Include notification that the evaluation of teaching for the advancement process includes a

classroom observation by one or more members of the Advancement Committee;

the number of classroom observations (1 or 2), the name (s) of the observer (s), and the

date(s) of the observation(s)

• Whether members of the full-time teaching staff who have co-taught with the candidate will

be asked to submit letters regarding contribution of the candidate to the course.

• In departments that routinely require individual candidate interviews, this must also be

noted.

Notification to the Dean

The Chair shall also write to the Dean advising the Dean of the Sessional Lecturer’s request for

advancement and of the final composition of the Advancement Committee. This should be sent to

the Faculty of Arts and Science Human Resources Office at fas.hr@utoronto.ca.

January 2018

Page 4 of 15

Material to be Submitted to the Department by Candidate

• A curriculum vitae, which includes a complete list of all University of Toronto credit courses

taught in the past six (6) years (seven years (7) in the case of employment in more than

one department)

• A teaching dossier which shall include representative course outlines, bibliographies and

assignments

• The initial letter should note the number of course outlines, bibliographies and

assignments to be included in the dossier, which should correspond with the number of

courses used to calculate the candidate’s eligibility for advancement. This should be

consistent from one candidate to another.

• A statement from the candidate indicating how the material in the dossier and/or curriculum

vitae demonstrates the candidate’s currency with and mastery of the subject matter and

superior classroom teaching

Documentation to be Provided to the Advancement Committee

by the Department

The Advancement Committee should receive from the department, copies of available

individual student teaching evaluations and course summary evaluations.

Student evaluations for courses outside the advancing department should also be

considered for those candidates whose eligibility for advancement consideration has been

agreed to by the Department Chair on the basis of teaching in two departments.

Members of the full-time teaching staff who have co-taught with the candidate may also be

asked to submit letters regarding their evaluation of the contribution of the candidate to the

course. The Department should determine whether this will be a normal requirement of its

advancement consideration process.

The candidate’s employment file(s) will also be available to the committee.

Assessment Criteria

In the determination of whether a candidate should be recommended for advancement to

Sessional Lecturer II, departments must consider the following questions in reference to the

Provostial Guidelines: Operationalizing Criteria Related to Advancement of Sessional

Lecturers, and a positive judgment must be made in each case:

A) Has the candidate demonstrated currency with and mastery of the subject matter in all

courses taught by the candidate for the advancing department? (In the case of two-

department consideration, the courses taught in each department must be considered.)

B) Has the candidate demonstrated superior classroom teaching? For superior teaching to

be demonstrated the candidate’s teaching must be judged at a minimum as considerably

better than average teaching within the advancing department, normally within the top third.

The judgment must take into consideration individual and summary course evaluations,

classroom observation, the candidate’s CV, and teaching dossier. If a candidate’s summary

January 2018

Page 5 of 15

course evaluations are below the departmental average and a positive recommendation is made for

advancement, the Chair of the Advancement Committee must supply a substantive and

compelling rationale, based on the committee’s deliberations, which argues for advancement

based on the other criteria. C) Has the candidate demonstrated that he/she has adhered to the following principles in

relation to fair and ethical dealings? An employee shall carry out responsibility for teaching

with all due attention to the establishment of fair and ethical dealings with students, taking

care to be accessible to students for academic consultation, to inform students adequately

regarding course formats, assignments, and methods of evaluation, to maintain teaching

schedules in all but exceptional circumstances, to inform students adequately of any necessary

cancellation and rescheduling of instructions and to comply with established procedures and

deadlines for determining, reporting and reviewing the grades of students.

In performance of their duties, they shall deal fairly and ethically with their colleagues, shall

avoid discrimination, shall not infringe their colleagues’ academic freedom, and shall observe

appropriate principles of confidentiality.

Note: A department should decide on a consistent set of requirements and standards to meet the

above criteria for advancement, and apply them consistently.

Committee Deliberation and Confidentiality

The deliberations of the committee are confidential. The Advancement Committee shall make its

decision solely on the evidence it has before it. The Committee may recommend only whether or

not the candidate is to be advanced to the rank of Sessional Lecturer II. The vote shall be by

signed private ballot and then the Chair of the Committee shall announce the result of the vote to the

Committee. A recommendation to advance the candidate to the rank of Sessional Lecturer II must

be approved by at least four (4) out of five (5) or five (5) out of six (6) members of the

Committee.

Submitting the Recommendation for Dean’s Approval

Recommendations with regard to advancement, whether positive or negative, requires

approval of the Dean. The Chair should prepare a brief letter of transmittal addressed to the Dean,

providing the reasons for the Advancement Committee’s decision.

The Department should submit an Advancement Dossier to Faculty of Arts and Science HR Office

as part of the Recommendation to the Dean and should include:

• A letter of transmittal addressed to the Dean, from the Chair, noting the positive or negative

recommendation of the candidate (See sample letters of transmittal attached.)

• Chair’s report that summarizes the Advancement Committee’s rationale for the decision; the

recommendation should be based on and clearly outline the Assessment Criteria. The Chair’s

letter is confidential to the Dean

• The material the candidate submitted for the review of the Advancement Committee

• All the course evaluations the department provided the Advancement Committee for review

January 2018

Page 6 of 15

• Written and signed classroom observation report(s)

Notification of the Committee’s Decision to the Candidate

Following the approval of the Dean of the Committee’s recommendation, the candidate is to be

advised in writing by the Chair of the outcome of his/her advancement request, by December 31, or

before if possible, for F or Y courses, by April 30 for S courses, and by August 31 for any

advancement process undertaken in a Summer academic session.

When a Candidate is Advanced A candidate who is advanced to the rank of Sessional Lecturer II shall assume that rank for

purposes of consideration for vacancies in the following academic session which are sent to

the pool after the date of the Chair’s letter. They will be entitled to the Sessional Lecturer II rate of

pay in the following academic term.

When a Candidate is NOT Advanced The letter to a candidate advising of an unsuccessful advancement shall contain a summary of the

reasoning and evidence that formed the basis for the decision.

Note: When a Department does not adhere to the timelines for the written communication of the

outcome of the advancement process (positive and/or negative), and where the candidate has

fulfilled of the obligations and requirements in accordance with the advancement process, then the

candidate shall be entitled to be remunerated at the advanced rate for position(s) held in the

subsequent academic term. If the Department delay continues beyond the subsequent academic

term, then the candidate shall continue to be remunerated at the advanced rate until the end of the

academic term in which the written communication of the outcome has been provided to the

candidate.

Appeals 1. A candidate who is NOT advanced to the rank of Sessional Lecturer II may request, by letter

to the Chair of the advancing department within twenty (20) working days of receiving notice

to that effect from the Chair, a meeting with the Dean (or designate) for the purpose of

reviewing the reasons underlying the decision. The meeting with the Dean (or designate) will

be arranged by the Chair without undue delay. The candidate has the right to be

accompanied or represented by a Union official during this meeting.

2. The Dean shall have the authority to amend the advancement decision under review. The

Dean’s (or designate’s) decision shall be conveyed without undue delay to the candidate in

writing, with copies to the Chair of the advancing Department and to the Union.

3. In the event that the candidate is not satisfied with the decision of the Dean (or designate),

the candidate shall have the right to request, within ten (10) working days, through the

Union, an appeal to the University of Toronto Advancement Review Panel. The candidate

must provide a copy of the written submission to the Advancement Review Panel to the

Dean (or designate) so that the Dean (or designate) is able to prepare a response and provide a

copy to the Panel, the candidate, and to the Union.

January 2018

Page 7 of 15

University of Toronto Advancement Review Panel (ARP)

A University of Toronto Advancement Review Panel (ARP) shall be established to

review appealed decisions.

The ARP will be composed of eight (8) full-time faculty members of the University

of Toronto each from a different Department, and one (1) Sessional Lecturer III. The

Union and the University will each propose the names of prospective members until nine

(9) mutually- agreeable names have been identified.

A member of the ARP may not participate in a review originating in a Department

with which the member is affiliated. The Director of the Centre for Teaching Support and

Innovation may be requested to serve in an ex-officio advisory capacity.

The parties shall by mutual agreement designate a Panel Chair. The Panel Chair shall

have the responsibility of selecting three (3) members from the agreed list of members to

comprise the ARP Committee for a given appeal. The Panel Chair shall give due

consideration to such concerns in comprising the ARP Committee. The final composition

of the ARP Committee in a given appeal shall be determined by the Panel Chair.

o It is understood that the Panel Chair may select a designate to act as the Panel

Chair should the Panel Chair be in conflict of interests in respect of certain

members in a given appeal.

When a review is requested, the ARP Committee shall be provided

with:

o The candidate’s original application, including curriculum vitae, teaching

dossier, and statement; and any student evaluations and other documentation

relied upon during the initial proceedings

o The Chair’s letter to the candidate

o A written submission from the candidate.

o Dean’s (or designate’s) written response to the candidate’s submission

o All evidence the Advancement Committee had before it in making its original

decision

Based on its consideration of the above documentation, the ARP Committee will

either confirm the Advancement Committee’s decision or determine that the candidate is to

be advanced to the rank of Sessional Lecturer II.

The ARP Committee’s considerations will be arranged without undue delay, and its

written decision, with reasons, shall be made in as expeditious a manner as possible.

Discussions or representations occurring during this process are without precedent

or prejudice, and may not be relied upon in any subsequent proceeding. The ARP

Committee’s decisions shall be final and binding. Normally, decisions shall be issued

within ten (10) working days of finalizing the decision.

January 2018

Page 8 of 15

Eligibility for Future Re-Evaluation

A candidate who is NOT advanced to the rank of Sessional Lecturer II will be eligible for re-

evaluation after a further two (2) years of employment and a minimum of four (4) further half

courses or the equivalent.

It is understood and agreed that a candidate who is not advanced to the rank of Sessional Lecturer

II remains eligible for appointment at the rank of Sessional Lecturer I. It is further understood

and agreed that the decision not to advance the candidate, in and of itself, will not be considered in

future hiring decisions.

January 2018

Page 9 of 15

January 2018

Page 10 of 15

ATTACHMENTS: Sample Letters To assist with the procedures described in the check list the following draft letters and

language have been prepared.

Letter to the Candidate in Response to Request for Advancement from SLI to

SLII

I am writing in response to your letter requesting consideration for advancement to Sessional

Lecturer II.

I enclose a list of the individuals whom I intend to ask to serve on the Department’s

Advancement Committee. The Faculty of Arts and Science requires that each member of the

Advancement Committee must agree to make his/her decision on "the basis of the evidence

available at the time of the Advancement Committee meeting”. If you have reason to believe

that any member of the Committee, including myself, is not in a position to do so, please indicate

this to me or to the Dean in writing, stating your reasons within two (2) weeks of receiving this

letter.

I intend to immediately begin the process of assembling the documentation to be placed before the

Advancement Committee, with a view to completing this phase by [date]. To assist the

Advancement Committee in its deliberations you are required to submit the following

documentation by [date – no less than 4 weeks within the date of this letter].

A curriculum vitae, which includes a complete list of all courses taught in the past six (6) years

(seven years (7) in the case of employment in more than one department).

A teaching dossier which shall include representative course outlines, bibliographies

and assignments and may include other evidence of superior teaching such as teaching awards.

[Specify the number of outlines, bibliographies, and assignments required by the

Department; this should correspond with the number of courses used to calculate the

candidate’s eligibility for advancement].

A statement how the material in the dossier and/or curriculum vitae demonstrates your currency

with and mastery of the subject matter and superior classroom teaching

As per Appendix A of the CUPE3902 Collective Agreement, a member(s) of the Advancement

Committee will be conducting [insert number (1 or 2)] classroom observations which will take

place on [insert date(s) and time(s)] by [insert name(s) of observers].

[If members of the full-time teaching staff who have co-taught with the candidate will be asked

to submit letters regarding the contribution of the candidate to the course, please indicate

this].

Please feel free to consult me concerning any aspect of these procedures.

I would appreciate your written acknowledgement of this letter. If you have any questions please

do not hesitate to call.

Chair of the Advancement Committee

January 2018

Page 11 of 15

Letter of Transmittal to the Dean communicating the Advancement

Committee's decision:

Decision to recommend advancement

I am writing to convey the recommendation of the Advancement Committee that [name] be

advanced to the rank of Sessional Lecturer II on the basis of his/her superior classroom teaching,

currency with and mastery of the subject matter, and evidence that the candidate has carried out

his/her responsibilities according to the principles of fair and ethical dealings with students and

faculty members, has kept students properly informed of classroom and faculty rules and

regulations and has maintained accessibility to students. I include a summary outlining the

Advancement Committee’s rationale for making this recommendation.

________________________________

Chair of the Advancement Committee

encls.

Decision not to recommend advancement

I am writing to convey the recommendation of the Advancement Committee that [name] not be

advanced to the rank of Sessional Lecturer II. I enclose for your information a summary outlining

the Advancement Committee’s evidence and rationale for making this recommendation and the

candidate's dossier, including the documents required for the advancement review under the

Faculty’s Guidelines.

________________________________

Chair of the Advancement Committee

encls.

January 2018

Page 12 of 15

ATTACHMENTS: Provostial Guidelines: Operationalizing

Criteria Related to the Advancement of Sessional Instructors

In a Letter of Intent (February 2015), the CUPE 3902-Unit 3 and the University agreed to the

development of Provostial Guidelines on operationalizing criteria related to the advancement of

Sessional Instructors.

These Provostial Guidelines are intended to regularize processes and offer consistency in order

to help committees and instructors.

Divisions may develop Divisional Guidelines consistent with the Provostial Guidelines. Copies

of Divisional Guidelines are forwarded to the Provost’s Office and to CUPE 3902-Unit 3.

These Provostial Guidelines speak solely to operationalizing the criteria for advancement

described in Appendix A and Appendix A-2 of the Collective Agreement. They do not

supersede any provisions of the Collective Agreement (e.g., Eligibility, Process, etc.).

1 Operationalizing Criteria for Advancement of Sessional

Instructors:

Letter to the candidate:

The Collective Agreement describes the letter that must be sent to the candidate within ten

working days of receipt of the candidate’s letter requesting advancement. In addition to the

requirements outlined in the Collective Agreement, this letter must specify:

• The number of course outlines, bibliographies and assignments to be included in the

teaching dossier, which should correspond with the number of courses used to calculate the

candidate’s eligibility for advancement;

• The number of classroom observations that will take place (1 or 2), the name(s) of the

observer(s), and the date(s) of the observation(s);

• Whether members of the full-time teaching staff who have co-taught with the candidate will

be asked to submit letters regarding the contribution of the candidate to the course;

• In the case of advancement to Sessional Lecturer III, whether an external review of the

advancement file will be undertaken.

1.1 Currency with the subject matter

“Currency with the subject matter” is defined as regular engagement in the discipline that

supports teaching, including keeping abreast of advances in both content and pedagogy. This

should be demonstrated in relation to the subject matter of all courses taught for the advancing

department1 by the cumulative evidence provided by the following:

1 Throughout these Guidelines, when eligibility for advancement is based on courses taught in two or three

departments, the courses and course subject matters taught in all departments affecting eligibility must be

considered.

January 2018

Page 13 of 15

• the teaching dossier, especially the use of up-to-date reading materials and approaches to

the subject matter (e.g., reading list, textbooks used, assignments and exam questions);

• the teaching statement’s explicit discussion of currency with the subject matter, including

with pedagogical approaches necessary to convey the subject matter effectively to the

specific student body;

• classroom observations that comment explicitly on whether, in the observing member’s

judgment, currency with the subject matter was demonstrated; and where relevant by:

• letters from full-time teaching staff who have co-taught with the candidate that comment

explicitly on whether, in the full-time member’s judgment, currency with the subject matter

was demonstrated.

1.2 Mastery of the subject matter “Mastery of the subject matter” is defined as comprehensive understanding of the subject area

and relevant pedagogical approaches. This should be demonstrated in relation to the subject

matter of all courses taught for the advancing department by the cumulative evidence provided

by the following:

• the teaching dossier, especially materials that demonstrate research-informed teaching and

pedagogy (for example, teaching and pedagogy informed by recent review of the literature);

• the teaching statement’s explicit discussion of mastery of the subject matter, including

mastery of pedagogical approaches necessary to convey the subject matter to the specific

student body;

• the curriculum vitae, including a range of scholarly activities such as publications,

conference presentations, talks, or public lectures related directly to the course subject

matter and relevant pedagogy;

• classroom observations that comment explicitly on whether, in the observing member’s

judgment, mastery of the subject matter was demonstrated; and where relevant by:

• letters from full-time teaching staff who have co-taught with the candidate that comment

explicitly on whether, in the full-time member’s judgment, mastery of the subject matter

was demonstrated.

1.3 Superior classroom teaching

“Superior classroom teaching” is defined as reflective teaching practice that is innovative or

highly effective; stimulates learning; and maintains a positive learning environment appropriate

for the discipline, course and students. This should be demonstrated in all courses taught for the

advancing department by the cumulative evidence provided by the following:

• quantitative and qualitative responses to course evaluations considered in conjunction with

other materials;

January 2018

Page 14 of 15

• classroom observations that comment explicitly on whether, in the observing member’s

judgment, superior classroom teaching was demonstrated;

• the teaching dossier, especially assignments or other materials using innovative or highly

effective approaches to teaching the subject matter;

• the curriculum vitae showing teaching awards where applicable; and, where relevant by:

• letters from full-time teaching staff who have co-taught with the candidate that comment

explicitly on whether, in the full-time member’s judgment, superior classroom teaching was

evidenced.

1.4 Continued currency with the subject matter Demonstrated as in 1.1. in all courses on which SLIII eligibility is based. It is expected that the

candidate will have demonstrated a sustained level of currency in the years since being

advanced to SLII.

1.5 Continued mastery of the subject matter Demonstrated as in 1.2 in all courses on which SLIII eligibility is based, and by previous

teaching in the subject area. It is expected that the candidate will have demonstrated a sustained

level of mastery in the years since being advanced to SLII.

1.6 Continued superior classroom teaching Demonstrated as in 1.3 in all courses on which SLIII eligibility is based. It is expected that the

candidate will have demonstrated a sustained level of superior classroom teaching in the years

since being advanced to SLII.

Use of Course Evaluation Data The course evaluation framework recognizes that students’ learning experiences are a function

of multiple factors. Responses to individual items, composite means, and students’ written

comments should be considered together. Composite means and/or students’ average rating of

the overall quality of their learning experiences in the course must not be the sole evidence used

to meet the criteria for advancement. Data from course evaluations should be considered in the

context of other forms of information and feedback on an instructor’s teaching.