The most recent collective bargaining agreement between United Academics and the University of Oregon went into effect April 15, 2025. This agreement includes substantive changes to many articles in the CBA which necessitate revisions to several unit policies. What follows are highlights of areas units should be aware of and consider as they revise policies. In addition, units should carefully review Appendix 1 and 2 in the new CBA for implementation agreements, unit-policy development guidelines, and the standards and criteria for major reviews.

The Office of the Provost has provided process instructions and templates required for unit policy revisions. 

Article 19 – Career Faculty Review and Promotion

In updating unit policy for Career Faculty Review and Promotion, consider : 

• Such revisions should align unit-level policies with Article 19, remove references to contracts to reflect the expectation of continuing employment, and align classifications and categories with those in Article 15. Units that employ faculty in Limited Duration classifications should revise faculty review policies for relevant classifications and categories consistent with Appendix 2.

Section 3: Career Faculty Performance Reviews

• Supervisors of career faculty members with a position description are to keep position description updated, in consultation with the faculty member
• Reviews should consider lack of resources necessary to perfomance of professional responsibilities that were identified in previous workload discussions

Section 4 & 6: Performance Review Timing and Process

• All performance review conducted during review period of evaluation for merit will be considered
• Personal statements - max of 3 pages
• Criteria limited to "meets" or "does not meet" expectations (for all Career Faculty review types). "Exceeds" expectations no longer in use.

Section 8: Credit for Prior Service

• Career faculty hired from Pro Tem positions will be evaluated for years of credit the by OtP, after consultation with the unit head. May result in full, partial, or no credit towards promotion.
• Faculty reclassified to Career from Pro Tem (Article 15, Section 8) will receive credit when employment was at 0.5 annualized FTE or greater, and faculty met expectations during review

Section 12 and 22: Eligibility for Promotion

• Career instructional and Career research faculty members who have achieved promotion must wait at least five (formerly six) years before initiating the promotion process again. Promotion review will take place the subsequent year.

Article 20 – Tenure-Track Faculty Review and Promotion

In updating unit policy for Career Faculty Review and Promotion, consider: 

• Such revisions should align unit-level policies with Article 20. Each Department or Unit must articulate criteria within their policies that clarify the expectations for faculty activity in research and scholarship.

Section 3: Review Types

• Third-year post-tenure review (3PTR) can now take place in the third year following:
  • a tenure and/or promotion decision (used to be one or the other)
  • a previous 3PTR for associate professors (if promotion to full is not taking place in the same year)
  • following a 6PTR for full professors
• 6PTR for full professorsfollowing a promotion to full decision or following a previous 6PTR

Section 4: Early Review

• Previous "accelerated" review is now called "early" review.

Section 7: Stopping the Clock

• The clock shall be stopped for one year in the two circumstances listed.
  • birth/adoption of child
  • leave of absence or intermittent leave with a duration of 12 weeks or longer as a result of an ADA or FMLA qualifying event. No more than two extensions may be granted for this reason.

Section 9: Review Evaluations and Considerations (Brand New Section)

• Reviews should provide justifications for their conclusion based on the file, previous levels of review, and the unit-level policy. Reviews shall consider any lack of resources necessary to the performance of professional responsibilities that were identified in previous workload discussions (see Article 17, Section 3)

Section 11 & 12: Mid-term Reviews - Purpose, Outcome, Appeals, and Timing

• The outcome of the mid-term review should be either:
  • Contract until the end of P&T review year to allow for possibility of identifying concerns, providing constructive feedback, and appropriate support before the reviewArticle 19 – Career Faculty Review and Promotion
  • A one-year terminal contract in rare cases where the review determines the faculty member will be unable to meet unit-level criteria for P&T by the tenure decision date (two-year contracts are no longer issued)
• Mid-term reviews are to happen halfway between appointment and eligibility of tenure, except those appointed with a P&T date three years or less from the time of their initial appointmentack to Top

Unit-level decisions:

• Are there modifications to the Teaching Evaluation Rubric that clarify the Professional, Inclusive, Engaged, and Research-Informed standards for your context?   
• What does it mean to meet or fall below expectations in each of those four areas, or in other areas specific to your department?   
• Are there additions to these criteria, the conditions that define them, the sources of evidence that will be used, etc. that match your unit’s teaching values and aspirations?

In addition to the considerations above:

• Host a departmental discussion(s) to decide contents of the Teaching Evaluation Rubric. Discuss:
  • What the university’s teaching standards mean in your departmental context. What practices are really important as examples of these categories?
  • From your perspective, what needs to be more clearly defined or more fully captured for UO’s Teaching Evaluation Rubric to work for you?
• Redraft based on departmental discussion.
• Vote at a department meeting and submit faculty-approved policy by your dean-defined deadline using these instructions for submission. 

Resources to facilitate unit conversation and decision-making:

• Invite TEP or a member of the Inclusive Teaching Task Force to help facilitate a departmental conversation (email tep@uoregon.edu)
• Meet with Associate Vice Provost for Academic Affairs Ron Bramhall any Tuesday or Friday, 9-10am, during his online office hours.
• Ask for an instance of the UO Teaching Practices Inventory customized for your department to get a better sense asynchronously of valued teaching practices
• Use "Unit Discussion Guide: Deciding Teaching Criteria" to facilitate conversation about valued teaching practices and how they map to UO teaching standards

Examples of policy documents matched to unit values and context:

• "Mapping a teaching value" traces an aspect of teaching that a hypothetical unit might want to emphasize, mapping that value across multiple policy components, including the Teaching Evaluation Rubric, Peer Review of Teaching Policy, and Peer Review of Teaching Template.
• Examples of Clarifying and Values-Based Revisions to the Teaching Evaluation Rubric: This document collects several examples of teaching aspirations, values, and clarifications that UO units have considered making to Teaching Evaluation Rubric their will submit with their Career and Tenure-Related Faculty Review and Promotion policies.

Read about "professional, inclusive, engaged, and research-informed" teaching:

• An Introduction to Inclusive Teaching
• An Introduction to Research-Informed Teaching  
• Professional, Inclusive, Engaged, and Research-Informed Teaching at UO