�鶹��Ѱ�����

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]
• ):��Instructional,��Research,��and��Clinical��Faculty

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 �鶹��Ѱ�����System requirements (as described in the���鶹��Ѱ�����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 �鶹��Ѱ�����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 “��ڴڱ𳦳پ�����” 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 ���𳾲����’s performance.

Primary unit criteria��for promotion from Assistant Teaching Professor to Associate Teaching Professor should include criteria for meeting the standard of “���ܳ���������ڳܱ�” 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 �鶹��Ѱ�����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 “���ܳ���������ڳܱ�,” 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 �鶹��Ѱ�����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 �鶹��Ѱ�����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 �鶹��Ѱ�����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 ���𳾲����’s teaching using at least three distinct measures of effectiveness and performance; an evaluation of the faculty ���𳾲����’s service; an evaluation of the faculty ���𳾲����’s performance of any other duties specified in the faculty ���𳾲����’s letter of appointment; and a demonstration of the faculty ���𳾲����’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 ���𳾲����’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 ���𳾲����’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 ���𳾲����’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 ���𳾲����’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�����𳾲����’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 ���𳾲����’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.