Faculty Handbook

Reference: ST-007
Repository: SydTek_Scholars_Canon
File: FACULTY_HANDBOOK.md
Checked: 2026-10-24T00:07:53.705Z
Website edition: 2

The source bytes match the current GitHub file hash checked for this release. This verifies the copied document’s identity, not the accuracy of every assertion or institutional accreditation.

Git blob SHA:
64daf1b79fdb7f19edfc8da290a4f30dc9ba38b9
SHA-256:
9de5d2d4948f0e58c32e8ad47eb7801e6873768c72093815a0b343590fd501b9

Optional: original GitHub file and history · Exact source blob

Existing authorship, source notices and licenses remain applicable. This website copy grants no additional AI-training or commercial-use license.

FACULTY_HANDBOOK.md

SydTek Scholars Canon
Accreditation Readiness Framework
Chunk 20 of 50
Status: Draft
Owner: President / Academic Director
Version: 1.0

⸻

PURPOSE

Establish expectations, responsibilities,
review procedures, instructional standards,
portfolio review duties, Spanish evidence review,
AI-use expectations, and accreditation-aligned
faculty practices for SydTek Scholars.

⸻

FACULTY MODEL

SydTek Scholars uses a lean faculty model:
Academic Director
Adjunct Faculty Reviewers
Subject-Matter Reviewers
Portfolio Reviewers
Parent-Supported Instruction
AI-Assisted Learning Support

⸻

FACULTY RESPONSIBILITIES

Review Student Work
Verify Learning Outcomes
Review Portfolio Evidence
Support Grade Advancement
Review High School Transcript Evidence
Support Spanish Evidence Review
Support AI / Digital Literacy Review
Provide Academic Feedback
Document Faculty Review Notes

⸻

FACULTY QUALIFICATIONS

Preferred:
Bachelor Degree Or Higher
Teaching Experience
Subject Expertise
Curriculum Review Experience
Faith-Aligned Educational Mission Fit
Technology Comfort
Portfolio Review Ability

⸻

FACULTY REVIEW AREAS

Bible / Covenant Studies
Reading / English
Writing
Mathematics
Science
Social Studies
Spanish
AI / Digital Literacy
Portfolio Review
Service Learning

⸻

FACULTY REVIEW PROCESS

Step 1
Student submits portfolio evidence.
Step 2
Parent verification is reviewed.
Step 3
Faculty reviewer checks learning outcomes.
Step 4
Faculty reviewer records feedback.
Step 5
Academic Director confirms advancement readiness.
Step 6
Registrar records completion.

⸻

AI USE POLICY FOR FACULTY

Faculty may use AI for:
Drafting feedback
Rubric support
Lesson planning
Portfolio organization
Progress summary drafting
Intervention planning
Faculty may not use AI to:
Replace human review
Fabricate student evidence
Assign grades without review
Approve work not submitted
Bypass academic judgment

⸻

SPANISH REVIEW REQUIREMENT

Faculty review must verify Spanish evidence where applicable:
Vocabulary Sheet
Oral Recording
Reading Practice
Writing Sample
Presentation Artifact
Portfolio Evidence

⸻

FACULTY DOCUMENTATION

Faculty Review Notes
Portfolio Review Forms
Progress Recommendations
Intervention Recommendations
Transcript Credit Notes
Spanish Evidence Notes
Annual Review Summary

⸻

ACCREDITATION ALIGNMENT

Cognia Standard 2
Learning Capacity
Cognia Standard 3
Resource Capacity
Evidence Produced:
Faculty Handbook
Faculty Qualifications
Faculty Review Notes
Student Feedback
Portfolio Review
Transcript Review
Spanish Evidence Review
Academic Oversight

⸻

EVIDENCE FOLDER

/faculty/
faculty_handbook.md
faculty_qualifications.md
faculty_review_template.md
portfolio_review_form.md
spanish_review_form.md
ai_use_policy.md
annual_faculty_review.md
faculty_roster.md

⸻

COMPLETION CHECKLIST

[ ] Faculty Roles Approved
[ ] Faculty Qualifications Approved
[ ] Review Process Approved
[ ] AI Use Policy Approved
[ ] Spanish Review Requirement Approved
[ ] Portfolio Review Form Created
[ ] Faculty Roster Created
[ ] Board Approval Recorded