Reappointment & Promotion Guidelines

1. References

• Titles, Roles, Appointment, Evaluation, Reappointment and Promotion of Non-Tenure-Track Faculty in Teaching, Librarian, Clinical and Supplemental Positions Policy. Effective July 1, 2026. [referred to as campus policy]
• Regent Law, Article 5.C.3(C): Instructional, Research, and Clinical Faculty
• Regent Policy 5: Faculty
• Administrative Policy Statement (APS) 5008: Faculty Performance Evaluation
• APS 5053: Multi-Year Contracts for Instructional, Research and Clinical Faculty
• APS 5060: Faculty Appointments
• APS 1009: Multiple Means of Teaching Evaluation

2. Definitions and Acronyms

Refer to campus policy.

• Primary Unit Head – Department Chair or Program Director, as the academic leader and supervising administrator of faculty within a primary unit
• PUEC – Primary Unit Evaluation Committee
• TP-FLRC – Teaching Professor First Level Review Committee
• FTE – Full Time Equivalent
• TQF – Teaching Quality Framework

3. Roles and Responsibilities

Refer to campus policy.

Teaching professor-track faculty members, a classification including job titles of Assistant Teaching Professors, Associate Teaching Professors, Teaching Professors, specialize and primarily engage in teaching.

Scholars in Residence are supplemental faculty appointments. Unlike tenured and tenure-track faculty and teaching professor-track faculty, career expertise or experience is a defining element of qualifications for a Scholar in Residence position, as specified in APS 5060.

4. Policy

According to campus policy, primary units are responsible for defining and setting the written criteria for meeting the standards of performance for reappointment and promotion of non-tenure-track faculty in their unit, including teaching professor-track faculty and supplemental faculty (e.g., Scholars in Residence).

The Dean or the Dean’s Designee (hereafter called “the Dean”) has final approval authority for primary unit reappointment and promotion policy, procedures, and criteria documents. Revisions to primary unit policy must be reviewed by the CEAS Office of Faculty Advancement, approved by the department/program and the Dean, and then finalized through a formal vote before the primary unit review process commences.

The policies, procedures, and criteria described in this document are subject to Board of Regents and CU System requirements (as described in the CU Boulder Office of Faculty Affairs website). Each policy and rule is to be applied in a manner consistent with Regent Laws and Policies. Primary unit procedures should align with the established college procedures. Overarching policies and procedures (e.g., Regent Law, Regent Policy, Administrative Policy Statements) generally supersede this college document and primary unit criteria. In cases of conflict, the CEAS Office of Faculty Advancement will consult with the CU Boulder Office of Faculty Affairs on how to proceed and will provide guidance to primary units.

Each department/program must establish written criteria for reappointment and promotion, which should define criteria to meet campus standards for teaching and other components of an individual’s evaluation (e.g., leadership and service). Evaluation components are defined by the merit formula in the letter of appointment.

Primary unit criteria for reappointment must define what constitutes effective performance in each component of evaluation. For successful reappointment, teaching professor-track and Scholars in Residence are expected to demonstrate “effective” performance in all components of their annual merit formula. Reappointment will be based on the instructional needs of the unit the faculty members are serving as well as the faculty member’s performance.

Primary unit criteria for promotion from Assistant Teaching Professor to Associate Teaching Professor should include criteria for meeting the standard of “successful” in teaching. Per campus policy, teaching “success” typically carries the expectation that the individual has made significant contributions to pedagogy, curriculum, and student learning, in the classroom and for the primary unit.

Primary unit criteria for promotion from Associate Teaching Professor to full Teaching Professor should include criteria for a “record of excellence”. Per campus policy, a “record of excellence” carries the expectation that the individual has made a major positive impact in the disciplinary unit (e.g., on pedagogy and curriculum) and on its students, typically one that extends to considerable impact at CU Boulder generally and a role in national or international contributions related to the individual’s focus of teaching or related to curriculum or pedagogy.

The standard of “record of excellence” exceeds the standard for “successful,” which exceeds the standard for “effective,” as defined in the primary unit criteria.

5. Promotion Timelines

Teaching professor-track faculty member holding the position of Assistant Teaching Professor will typically be eligible to be considered for promotion to the rank of Associate Teaching Professor after a period of six years of continuous appointment at the rank of Assistant Teaching Professor in a 50% or greater appointment. Promotion is not simply determined by time in rank. An Assistant Teaching Professor must meet the primary unit criteria to be considered for a promotion to Associate Teaching Professor.

Teaching professor-track faculty holding the position of Associate Teaching Professor who have been excellent teachers and members of the university community are typically eligible to be considered for promotion to the rank of Teaching Professor after at least three years of continuous appointment in a 50% or greater appointment as Associate Teaching Professor. Promotion is not determined by time in rank; promotion to Teaching Professor must demonstrate a record of excellence per primary unit criteria.

Up to three years’ credit towards promotion to Associate Teaching Professor or Teaching Professor, based on previous academic service, may be awarded by the primary unit with Dean concurrence at the time of initial appointment. Years of credit are awarded based upon courses previously taught and the standard annual teaching course load of the primary unit (e.g., five to six courses per year). The number of years of credit toward promotion should be stated in the offer letter.

6. Employment Contract Eligibility and Term Length in CEAS

Teaching Professor-Track

Assistant Teaching Professor, Associate Teaching Professor, and Teaching Professor positions are term limited appointments, which may be appointed to a multi-year contract. Typical contract length is between one and five years, as permitted by state law. A multi-year appointment does not automatically convey, or obligate CU Boulder to provide a multi-year contract. Faculty in these positions where the individual is in good standing and holds at least a 50% FTE of teaching are typically eligible for an employment contract in addition to their offer letter. Faculty in these positions that do not hold at least a 50% FTE of teaching must remain at-will employees.

Assistant Teaching Professor, Associate Teaching Professor, and Teaching Professor positions in which the individual holds at least a 50% FTE of teaching are typically eligible for an employment contract in addition to their offer letter. Assistant Teaching Professor, Associate Teaching Professor, and Teaching Professor positions that do not hold at least a 50% FTE of teaching will remain at-will employees.

New faculty members appointed at the Assistant, Associate, or Teaching Professor ranks will typically be appointed for a 3-year term, contingent on program and teaching needs in the primary unit and approval by the Dean.

Faculty members in good standing and who meet or exceed primary unit criteria for reappointment as Assistant Teaching Professor, are typically reappointed for a 4-year term, contingent on program and teaching needs in the primary unit and approval by the Dean.

Faculty members in good standing and who meet or exceed primary unit criteria for promotion to Associate Teaching Professor or Teaching Professor, are typically reappointed for a 5-year term, contingent on program and teaching needs in the primary unit and approval by the Dean.

If the primary unit votes to reappoint a faculty member when primary unit criteria are not fully met, the primary unit may reappoint for a shorter term, typically 1 year, to correct problems in performance. In this case, the primary unit must create a performance improvement plan that is in place prior to the new academic year. The performance improvement plan should address the concerns highlighted in the reappointment review. Another evaluation should take place that would result in either a multi-year reappointment or non-renewal of the position.

Scholars in Residence

Scholars in Residence are supplemental faculty appointments. Unlike tenured and tenure-track and teaching professor-track faculty, career expertise or experience is a defining element of qualifications for a Scholar in Residence position, as specified in APS 5060.

All supplemental faculty appointments are only eligible for at will employment. Scholars in Residence may be appointed on a semester-to-semester or academic year basis, or for multi-year appointments for up to four years at a time.

New Scholars in Residence are typically appointed for a 3-year term, contingent on program and teaching needs in the primary unit and approval by the Dean. Scholars in Residence who meet or exceed primary unit criteria for reappointment may be appointed for up to a 4-year term, contingent on program and teaching needs in the primary unit and approval by the Dean.

Termination

In accordance with Regent Law, Article 5.C.4(C), a non-tenure-track faculty member may be terminated subject to CU Boulder campus policies and the terms of the individual’s letter of offer or employment agreement. Teaching professor-track faculty and Scholars in Residence may be terminated in accordance with Regent Policy 5.F.1 and the CU Boulder campus policy on academic program discontinuance.

7. Merit Formula

Teaching professor-track faculty are hired to fulfill a primary unit’s instructional mission. As such, teaching is the primary weighting and means of evaluation. Per campus policy, the annual merit formula for a teaching professor-track position should consist primarily of teaching, with a service component of not more than 20%. Appropriate exceptions may be made for a service component of more than 20%.

Within CEAS, the standard annual merit formula and workload weightings for teaching professor-track faculty members are 80% teaching and 20% leadership and service. Within CEAS, teaching professor-track faculty members may voluntarily allocate up to 10% of their workload weightings from Teaching to scholarly and creative work for annual merit evaluations and reappointment and promotion; however, this voluntary election for merit evaluation does not alter the standard teaching load required by the unit.

8. College Requirements and Procedures for Reappointment and/or Promotion of Teaching Professor-Track Faculty

The college submission requirements, templates, and annual deadlines are included in the CEAS Teaching Professor-Track Faculty Reappointment and Promotion Process Guidelines, which are updated annually and sent out by the CEAS Office of Faculty Advancement.

Teaching professor-track faculty are reviewed for reappointment during the last year of the appointment period. Promotions are non-mandatory reviews.

Nomination for Promotion

Cases considering promotion should also include a letter of nomination from the Primary Unit Head or the committee within the primary unit that performs annual or other reviews of faculty (e.g., executive committee). There should be an additional supporting letter from a colleague or collaborator (which may be from outside the unit or campus) that nominates the faculty member to be evaluated by the unit for the action of promotion. The faculty candidate should suggest possible letter writers, as can the PUEC.

*Primary Unit Criteria

The primary unit must establish written criteria for reappointment and promotion, which should include criteria for teaching, leadership and service, and scholarly and creative work (if faculty have voluntarily included this within their merit formula).

Reviews for reappointment and promotion must include an evaluation of the faculty member’s teaching using at least three distinct measures of effectiveness and performance; an evaluation of the faculty member’s service; an evaluation of the faculty member’s performance of any other duties specified in the faculty member’s letter of appointment; and a demonstration of the faculty member’s continued currency in the field.

Within CEAS, multiple measures of teaching evaluation include:

• Tailored primary unit-specific or the college developed versions of the Teaching Quality Framework (TQF) Evaluation Summary form and rating key, with the final evaluation and rating form completed by the Primary Unit Evaluation Committee (PUEC);
• Normed student feedback from the FCQ summaries and student narrative sections (required by APS 1009) from all courses taught since the last review, or, when a faculty member is seeking promotion, all courses taught since the last promotion (or from time of hire if not previously promoted);
• At least two additional measures. Within CEAS, this typically includes peer evaluations of teaching and/or classroom interviews of students to support the TQF evaluation. Additional measures are described in APS 1009 (see Appendix A) and campus policy (Titles, Roles, Appointment, Evaluation, Reappointment and Promotion of Non-Tenure-Track Faculty in Teaching, Librarian, Clinical and Supplemental Positions Policy, see 6.C).
• Primary units may have additional required measures of teaching evaluation per their criteria.

Measures of service typically include leadership and service that have an impact on the Primary Unit, and may also have a positive impact on college, campus, or national and international communities, and outreach to communities and partners beyond the university. Leadership and service statements typically detail the faculty member’s role and provide evidence of impact from their role.

Candidate Preparation of Materials

Candidates are responsible for preparing their portion of materials for review (e.g., up-to-date c.v., sourcing evidence for the TQF (e.g., ensuring external classroom reviews of courses as required, syllabi, etc.) and, when required by the primary unit criteria, providing a self-evaluation; a teaching statement; a service statement; a statement on scholarship or creative work, if scholarship or creative work is a component of the faculty member’s merit formula at the time of promotion review); and ensuring these materials are complete and accurate at the time the review commences. Within CEAS, the candidate’s teaching statement should provide reflection and assess their success in each of the applicable TQF dimensions. The candidate’s leadership and service statement should describe the faculty member’s role and evidence of impact from these activities.

Clarification requests may occur throughout the review process to address factual errors, but these targeted requests for additional information are not an avenue to challenge or negotiate a recommendation. Candidates can also initiate factual updates during the course of the review process.

Review by Primary Unit

The primary unit is composed of the faculty members of a department or program authorized to vote on matters of appointment, reappointment, and promotion and with no conflicts of interest. Primary unit criteria should specify voting-eligible faculty members based upon rank and action.

The unit review includes the PUEC recommendation and report, the vote of the eligible faculty, and the recommendation and report of the Primary Unit Head.

Candidates will receive updates on the status of their review when the unit-level review is completed, and, as applicable, when the full review process concludes.

Primary Unit Evaluation Committee (PUEC) and Report

This subgroup of 2-5 faculty members within the primary unit is elected or appointed, as specified in the primary unit policies and procedures, who meet primary unit requirements for voting eligibility for these actions. The PUEC is responsible for assisting the candidate in assembling their dossier, completing the TQF evaluation, evaluating the dossier, and providing a recommendation and report. They provide a written report that provides a summary of the candidate’s dossier, and their recommendation and evaluation of the candidate based upon primary unit criteria with regard to (a) teaching performance, (b) leadership and service, and, as applicable, (c) scholarly and creative work. They present the candidate’s case, their evaluation, and their recommendation to the voting-eligible faculty of the primary unit.

The written report and recommendation of the PUEC becomes part of the dossier.

If a unit does not have enough eligible voting faculty to convene a PUEC, the unit leaders should supplement the PUEC membership in consultation with the Dean.

Primary Unit Review and Vote

The primary unit is charged with evaluating the record as contained within the dossier and making a recommendation. Primary units need a minimum of five eligible voting faculty members for the review and voting process. In small departments/programs without five eligible voting members, the primary unit should supplement the voting membership in consultation with the Dean, which should be noted in the Primary Unit Head report. Eligible voting members must be allowed to review the entire dossier before they are asked to vote on the case. Votes should be recorded in the categories of ‘for’ the proposed action, ‘against’ the proposed action, or ‘abstain’. For faculty undergoing review for promotion at the same time as reappointment, units should include and report two separate votes for each action. Quorum must be met. Unless further limited by unit bylaws or primary unit criteria and procedures, units should follow Robert’s Rules of Order, where a majority (more than half) of eligible voting faculty cast a vote. Excused absences should be limited to faculty members who are on leave and unable to participate in the review and vote. The Primary Unit Head should not vote but be present during the discussion by the primary unit to record the discussion and rationale within their letter.

Report of the Primary Unit Head

The Primary Unit Head should write a recommendation (in the form of a report), in addition to the PUEC report, on the actions taken by the primary unit. This includes a brief overview of the voting-eligible faculty members, confirmation of meeting quorum, the results of the vote(s), reasons for the recommendation, and an explanation of any dissenting opinion as expressed in the vote(s). The report should include a description of the review and voting process that was followed. The Primary Unit Head should then indicate their assessment and recommendation on the proposed action, before listing the overall total vote of the primary unit, including their own. Unless further limited by unit bylaws or primary unit criteria and procedures, a positive recommendation by the voting-eligible faculty requires that the total sum of positive votes exceeds the total number of negative votes by at least one vote.

Abstentions are considered neither positive nor negative (i.e., neutral) but do count towards meeting quorum.

Per campus policy, only positive recommendations for promotion move from the unit to college level.

After each primary unit follows its approved, written process for conducting reappointment and promotion evaluation, the primary unit will submit the completed dossier, verifying that the dossier is complete based on primary unit criteria requirements and the CEAS Teaching Professor-Track Faculty Reappointment and Promotion Process Guidelines, with a draft offer letter as a separate document to CEAS Office of Faculty Advancement.

Review by College

Reappointment cases include additional Dean-level review along with the primary unit recommendation, in which a final written determination is made regarding the proposed action.

Cases with positive unit-level recommendations for promotion include additional Dean-level review for review of the written committee process and concurrence with the primary unit recommendation. Promotions are first reviewed by the Teaching Professor First Level Review Committee (TP-FLRC), which is convened to serve as the Dean’s Review Committee, to review and provide a recommendation on the case. Members of the TP-FLRC are teaching professor-track faculty at the appropriate rank who are appointed by the Dean. Procedurally, the TP-FLRC will follow Robert’s Rules of Order regarding voting procedure and quorum. The CEAS Office of Faculty Advancement, TP-FLRC, or Dean may request additional information or clarification from the unit on the case or return the case to the unit if a procedure was not followed, resulting in a procedural error. If criteria are deemed to have not been met, the Dean will decline the promotion, and the faculty member’s appointment at their current rank will continue if reappointment is approved.

The college process, submission requirements, templates, and annual deadlines are included in the CEAS Teaching Professor-Track Faculty Reappointment and Promotion Process Guidelines.

9. Appeals

Appeal of Non-Renewal of Appointment

Employees must be notified by the Primary Unit at least six weeks prior to the appointment end date in the letter of offer whether (a) the appointment will be renewed; (b) the appointment will not be renewed; or (c) a renewal is still pending.

In cases where a non-favorable vote to reappoint is rendered, the Primary Unit Head will issue a formal notice of non-favorable vote.

Teaching professor-track faculty members who believe that they have been denied reappointment unfairly, by a process that has been arbitrary, capricious, retaliatory, inconsistent with the treatment of peers in similar circumstances, or based on personal malice, may appeal the non-renewal.

Appeals must be submitted in writing via email to the Dean within seven (7) calendar days of receiving the non-renewal notice from the Primary Unit Head.

The primary unit will immediately forward all dossier and review materials for the case to CEAS Office of Faculty Advancement and the Dean, including all evaluation letters.

The Dean may, at their discretion, seek advice from an advisory committee, typically an ad hoc committee composed of members of the Administrative Council and/or TP-FLRC. The Dean will review the appeal expeditiously while the teaching professor-track or Scholar in Residence is still a member of the university community. For the appeal, the Dean’s review will include the stated rationale for the appeal, in conjunction with the primary unit’s recommendation, including the Primary Unit Head and PUEC reports and full body of evidence considered by the unit. Following the review, the Dean will issue a written decision regarding the appeal within thirty (30) calendar days of receiving the appeal. The faculty member may also request a Boulder Faculty Assembly (BFA) grievance advisor or a review of their appeal by the BFA Grievance Advisory Committee. Per campus policy, the Dean serves as the final authority in cases of appeal of non-renewal or appointment of teaching professor-track faculty and Scholars in Residence.

Appeal of Non-Promotion

In cases where a non-favorable vote to promote is rendered, and the faculty candidate has not withdrawn their case from consideration at the unit-level, the Primary Unit Head will issue a formal notice of non-favorable vote.

Teaching professor-track faculty members who believe that they have been denied promotion unfairly, either because the recommendation was unfair (arbitrary, capricious, retaliatory, based on personal malice, and/or inconsistent with treatment accorded to the non-tenure-track faculty member’s peers in similar circumstances) or the review process featured procedural errors of sufficient magnitude to affect the outcome, may appeal the decision. Appeals must be submitted in writing via email to the Dean within seven (7) calendar days of receiving the notice of non-favorable vote.

The primary unit will immediately forward all dossier materials to CEAS Faculty Advancement, including all evaluation letters.

The Dean has the discretion to seek advice from an advisory committee. This committee will review the full body of evidence considered by the unit in the dossier, in addition to the faculty member’s appeal, including the stated rationale for the appeal. After the committee completes this review and an advisory vote, an advisory letter and recommendation will be sent to the Dean.