Rules and Regulations

Appendix II—Contract-Based Faculty Guidelines

Overview

Introduction

This document lays out policy and procedures relating to part-time and full-time instructional-track (IT) faculty (also referred to as “contract-based” and “Non-Tenure Eligible”) in the School of Arts & Sciences (SAS) and the Hajim School of Engineering & Applied Sciences (Hajim). This group of instructional track faculty are experts in delivering strong educational experiences. With a focus on pedagogy and the student experience, IT faculty dedicate their efforts to instructional activities.

General Guidelines for Promotion and Reappointment

Guidelines for the promotion and reappointment for IT faculty emphasizes evidence of best practices of pedagogy, dedication to delivering a top-quality student experience, and a commitment to reflective teaching practices. The three pillars of Instructional Work, Service, and Other Engagement are the basis of evaluation for reappointment and promotion and should be documented in annual activity reports, chair reports, and the candidate’s promotion portfolio.

The policies and procedures in this document reflect the fact that the instructional track position is distinct from the tenure track position and thus has its own standards for reappointment and promotion. While these guidelines layout the path for promotion, IT faculty may choose to stay at rank and not pursue promotion without negative consequences. Additionally, IT faculty may go up for promotion, not receive promotion, and continue at current rank subject to reappointment guidelines and pursue promotion again at a future date. Chairs/directors and faculty should familiarize themselves with these and faculty handbook promotion and reappointment guidelines.

Pillars

Three pillars create the components of the instructional track faculty member’s professional identity:

1. Instructional work
2. Service
3. Other Engagement

Instructional work typically includes, but is not limited to, teaching, tutoring, and/or mentoring students; developing, redesigning, enhancing courses, curricula and other educational materials; grounding educational work in best pedagogical practices; creating a positive educational environment that encourages student growth; and reflecting on one’s practice.

Service typically includes a wide range of activities that vary from one department to another and are established in faculty contracts and through discussion with the unit chair/director. Department chairs and program directors should ensure that across all faculty members within their unit, there is equitable access to and expectations for service work.

Typical faculty service activities include, but are not limited to, the following: committee work at the departmental, school or university level; participating in university or school governance; improving program quality, reputation and operational efficiency; student academic or career advising; advising a student group, team or internship program; faculty mentoring; linking the professional skills of members of the faculty and students to the world beyond the campus; representing the University in public forums or with the media; and service to the faculty member’s professional societies, such as reviewing articles, organizing professional conferences, or serving a professional organization in a leadership capacity.

Other engagement that directly or indirectly enriches pedagogical work. This typically includes, but is not limited to, scholarship, creative work, advising, administrative work, program assessment, professional development (e.g., Teaching Center workshops), attending conferences, community-engaged projects, investigating specialized knowledge as it relates to your teaching (e.g., GenAI), and other engagement with the field.

Ranks

Assistant Professor

Expectations at this level:

• Demonstration of successful performance in instructional work.
• Participation in service work.
• Other engagement that directly or indirectly enriches pedagogical work.

Contract details:

• The initial default contract length is three years. A shorter term may be offered in limited circumstances: when the position was intentionally structured as shorter-term, or when there are documented performance concerns.
• Full reappointment review is required for the first contract renewal.
• Subsequent assistant professor default contracts lengths of four years.
• Eligible for streamlined reappointment after the first reappointment.
• Eligible to be considered for promotion after six years at rank or equivalent experience.

Associate Professor

Expectations for promotion to and reappointment as associate professor:

• Sustained record of excellence across instructional work, as well as a reflective stance that supports growth.
• Meaningful and ongoing contributions to service work.
• Other engagement that directly or indirectly enriches pedagogical work.

Contract details:

• Default contract length is five years. A shorter term may be offered in limited circumstances: when the position was intentionally structured as shorter-term, or when there are documented performance concerns.
• Streamlined reappointment between contracts assuming satisfactory annual activity report reviews by chairs/directors.
• Eligible to be considered for promotion after six years at rank or equivalent experience.

Full Professor

Expectations for promotion to and reappointment as full professor:

• Ongoing record of excellence, reflection and growth in instructional work, service, and other engagement. In addition, the full professor embodies a level of expertise and vision that integrates their work across these three pillars, thus serving as a role model or mentor for others in their educational communities.

Contract details:

• The default contract length is five years. A shorter term may be offered in limited circumstances: when the position was intentionally structured as shorter-term, or when there are documented performance concerns.
• Streamlined reappointment between contracts assuming satisfactory annual activity report reviews by chairs/directors.

II. Reappointment

There are two processes for reappointment: a full review and a simplified streamlined process. The full review is used for the first reappointment and may be requested for subsequent reappointments by the chair/director or faculty member. The simplified streamlined process is typically used for an established faculty member with an ongoing record of strong performance. For either the full or streamlined review, the chair/director initiates the process for reappointment.

Initiation of Reappointment Process and Timeline for Full and Streamlined Processes

• Chairs/directors are expected to provide their faculty with annual reviews and make the faculty aware of options for streamlined or full reappointment review.
• The chair/director is responsible for letting the candidate know they are eligible for reappointment and initiate the process at least 20 months prior to contract end date.
• Reappointment materials must be submitted to the Dean’s office 16 months before the end of a faculty member’s current This allows time for the review of materials by the Dean’s office, construction of a contract renewal or written notification of non-renewal one year before the contract end date, as required by the University Faculty Handbook. Example timeline for a contract ending on June 30, 2027:
  • November 1, 2025: Chair/director initiates process
  • March 15, 2026: Case due to Dean’s office
  • June 30, 2026: Notice of decision whether the contract is renewed is given to the candidate.

Full Reappointment Review Process

Required materials to be submitted by the candidate:

• Annual activity reports since the beginning of the current appointment
• Course evaluations since the beginning of the current appointment
• Current CV

Committee make-up:

• The committee should be composed of three faculty from the home department/program, with at least two IT voting members. Committee members must be above the rank of the individual being reviewed. An additional IT faculty member at the candidate’s rank may participate but may not vote.
• If a department/program does not have sufficient numbers of eligible faculty, then a chair/director may serve on the committee. Alternatively, IT faculty from outside the department/program who are familiar with the candidate’s instructional work may serve on the committee.
• Tenure track faculty from the candidate’s department/program can be on the committee instead of IT faculty if the candidate requests it.

Documentation of review:

• The committee writes a recommendation based on the submitted materials and their understanding of the candidate’s relevant activities.
• The chair/director reviews the committee recommendation and materials and provides a statement of agreement with the committee or makes a different recommendation. If reappointment is recommended, this should include suggested duties for the renewal contract.
• Materials and recommendations are submitted to the Dean’s office for review.

Streamlined Reappointment Process

Eligibility:

• The streamlined review process can be used:
  • Following the first reappointment (i.e., may not be used for first reappointment)
  • When performance has been consistently strong
  • If faculty member agrees to streamlined review

Required materials:

• Current CV to be submitted by the candidate
• Streamlined attestation form provided by deans’ office to be completed by the candidate and the chair/director
• Chair/Director letter of support, which includes:
  • Proposed duties
  • Courses taught with enrollment counts and connection to the curriculum

III. Promotion

Initiation of Promotion Process and Timeline

• Chairs/directors are expected to provide their faculty with annual reviews for promotion eligibility as part of the regular performance review cycle.
• The chair/director is responsible for letting the candidate know they are eligible for promotion based on their time in their current rank, discussing their readiness, initiating the review process for promotion, and sharing school and department/program guidelines for the process.
• If a chair/director recommends that an eligible faculty member not go up for promotion, the chair/director should discuss gaps and provide recommendations on how to address these gaps. If the faculty member disagrees with the chair’s/director’s recommendation, they may appeal to the dean.
• Promotion materials must be submitted to the Dean’s office prior to the end of the current academic year. Promotions take effect at the beginning of the upcoming academic year.

Required materials submitted by candidate:

• Annual activity reports since the beginning of the appointment at current rank.
• Course evaluations since the beginning of the appointment at current rank.
• A current CV.
• A cover letter that reflects on their time in the current rank, highlights relevant best practices in pedagogy, and discusses goals. This should be a unified narrative of a faculty member’s identity that spans across the pillars and time.

Letters of support:

• Three confidential letters of support from University of Rochester faculty members above the current rank of the candidate. An external letter writer may be possible upon the request from the Additional letters are welcome and may come from faculty of all ranks, staff, and community members.
• Letter writers may not be on the review committee.
• The candidate should be included in the process by providing a list of potential letter writers.

Committee make-up:

• The committee should be composed of three faculty from the home department/program, with at least two IT voting members. Committee members must be above the rank of the individual being reviewed. An additional IT faculty member at the candidate’s rank may participate but may not vote.
• If a department/program does not have sufficient numbers of eligible faculty, then a chair/director may serve on the committee. Alternatively, IT faculty from outside the department/program who are familiar with the candidate’s instructional work may serve on the committee.
• Tenure track faculty from the candidate’s department/program can be on the committee instead of IT faculty if the candidate requests it.

Documentation of review:

• The committee writes a recommendation based on the submitted materials, the letters of support, and their understanding of the candidate’s relevant activities.
• The chair/director reviews the committee recommendation and materials and provides a statement of agreement with the committee or makes a different recommendation. If reappointment is recommended, this should include suggested duties for the renewal contract.
• Candidate materials and the review committee’s and the chair’s/director’s recommendations are submitted to the Dean’s office for review. The Dean’s office then makes a recommendation to the Provost.

IV. Other Contract-Based Faculty (as defined in faculty handbook) with Primary Teaching Responsibilities

In addition to those on the instructional track, full-time faculty who have primary teaching responsibilities hold functional titles such as lecturer and senior lecturer. To distinguish from the instructional track, these are referred to as ‘teaching track faculty’. These individuals are hired to teach for a limited term without expectation of other service to the department or University. Those who hold the title of lecturer and senior lecturer may be considered for conversion to the instructional track, with appropriate length of service, positive review and appropriate recommendation from their department chair.

Adjunct faculty appointments remain for those individuals contracted to teach on a per course basis. These appointments may also be used for individuals with independent professional careers and for whom formal affiliation will mutually benefit the department and the individuals.

Faculty holding research appointments (e.g., scientist, engineer) may teach courses and supervise undergraduate research in their areas of expertise; as in the past, these instructional contributions will be recognized through the additional title of lecturer.

Conversion of teaching appointments is an administrative process. Conversion does not automatically carry a salary increase, which would need to be justified separately.

V. Suggested Wording for Referee Letter Requests

The following letter templates contain suggested wording to aid in the solicitation of internal letters of support for promotion to Associate Professor of Instruction and promotion to Professor of Instruction.

Associate Professor of Instruction Letter Template (doc)

Professor of Instruction Letter Template (doc)

VI. Eligibility for SAS/Hajim Committee Service

IT faculty have broad rights as full participants in the undergraduate affairs of their departments and in the undergraduate-related activities in SAS and Hajim. They may be involved with graduate education, with a stronger emphasis on master’s-level training than doctoral mentorship¹.

¹ IT faculty may work with graduate students but must petition the University Office of Graduate Education and Postdoctoral Affairs prior to inclusion in committees for PhD qualifying exams or PhD thesis defenses. Please see University Graduate Studies Regulations.

Faculty have all the obligations and privileges described in the faculty handbook unless otherwise noted in this document.