Approved 6/4/2002

 

 

MATHEMATICS DEPARTMENT

CRITERIA AND PROCEDURES

for

REAPPOINTMENT, TENURE, AND PROMOTION

ACADEMIC YEAR 2002-2003

 

 

1.      Preface

 

This document sets forth the expectations of quality of instruction, scholarship, and service held by the faculty of the Mathematics Department.  The criteria and procedures contained here in shall be used to determine whether a faculty member eligible for Reappointment, Tenure, or Promotion (RTP) is meeting those expectations (Such a faculty member will be referred to here as a Candidate).  This document also describes the responsibility of the Candidate and of the Department's RTP Committee (DRTPC) in all matters of the RTP process.

 

2. Statements of Responsibility

 

2.1    The Candidate

 

It is the responsibility of the Candidate to be familiar with the expectation of quality, criteria, and procedures in this document.  The Candidate must be familiar with the University Manual especially Appendices 10 and 16 which speak directly to matters concerning the RTP process.  During the first week of fall quarter of a year of eligibility, the Candidate shall notify the DRTPC Chair in writing of the intent to request an RTP action(s) or that no action will be requested.  This notification will be non‑binding.

 

It is the responsibility of the Candidate to furnish the necessary documentation showing that all criteria for the action(s) requested have been met.  This documentation must be specific and verifiable.  All decisions will be based only on material contained in the PAF, the supporting documentation submitted by the Candidate, and on the Candidate's self‑evaluation statement.  Therefore, the Candidate must maintain a complete portfolio of all evidence and documentation supporting the Candidate's requested actions to be made available upon request.

 

The Candidate's self‑evaluation statement is an important part of the information to be used in the RTP decision process.  Here the Candidate should explain how her or his professional activities and documentation decisively show that the Candidate has met the criteria for each area of responsibility.  The Candidate should carefully demonstrate how the documentation establishes the quality of the activity and should not rely solely on quantity of activities.  Candidates for reappointment must discuss their progress toward meeting the criteria for tenure.  All Candidates must discuss progress made on any recommendations for improvement given in the previous RTP cycle.

 

2.2    The DRTPC

 

It is the responsibility of the DRTPC to evaluate the quality of the Candidate's teaching, scholarship, and service activities.  After examining, verifying, and evaluating the documentation in the PAF of the relevant evaluation period and that submitted by the Candidate and in accordance with this document's criteria and procedures, the DRTPC will judge the quality and acceptability of the activities.  This evaluation may involve the solicitation of recommendations of colleagues from off‑campus, in which case, the Candidate may suggest names of such colleagues.

 

Based on this examination and evaluation, the DRTPC will decide whether the Candidate does or does not meet the criteria for the requested action(s) by a simple majority of the DRTPC members eligible to vote on the issue, with abstentions or absences without proxies counting as negative votes.  This may entail multiple decisions, one for each requested action.  The DRTPC will make a

positive recommendation on a requested action(s) if the Candidate was found to meet the criteria and will make a negative recommendation otherwise.  The DRTPC shall explain its decision in writing.  Any minority report shall be part of the DRTPC recommendation.  The DRTPC must also include a discussion of progress made on any recommendations for improvement given in the previous RTP cycle.

 

Since the decision made by the DRTPC is that the Candidate did or did not meet the criteria for the requested action, the DRTPC's written explanation of their decision is a very important part of the information to be used in the RTP decision process beyond the Department.  The clarity and logic of this explanation will assist others in the process and will serve both the Candidate and the Department.  Therefore, the DRTPC must fully and completely explain how its evaluation of the Candidate's activities and documentation led them to the decision they reached.  In this written evaluation, the DRTPC must identify and explain any exceptional qualities exhibited by the Candidate in the areas of teaching, scholarship, and service.

 

The Department Chair may independently submit a written statement regarding the candidate.  This statement is submitted as part of the candidate's evaluation documents.

 

 

3. Statements of Expectations and Assessment in Teaching, Scholarship, and Service

 

3.1  Teaching

 

The faculty of the Mathematics Department recognizes the primary importance of teaching performance among the responsibilities and duties of its members and recognizes the wisdom of promoting a diverse set of learning opportunities for the students of mathematics.  A member is expected to be effective in communicating and elucidating mathematical concepts, to maintain appropriate academic standards, and to engage in additional activities to promote the study and learning of mathematics.

 

The DRTPC will base its assessment of the Candidate's teaching in each of three prescribed areas.  While the evaluation of teaching is essentially qualitative, the Candidate must demonstrate an acceptable level of performance in each these three categories, recognizing that the first of the three is essential. The three categories are:

 

1.   Effectiveness in communicating and elucidating mathematical content:

Documentation must include all peer evaluations, signed letters, student evaluations.  It may also include any other activities and documentation identified by the Candidate as contributing to this aspect of teaching.  The DRTPC will consider all documentation regarding the quality of teaching provided by the Candidate that contributes to the Candidate's effectiveness.

 

2.   Maintaining appropriate academic standards:

Documentation for this area might include, but is not limited to, course content, exams and assignments, and grade distributions.

 

3.   Engaging in additional activities that promote the study and learning of mathematics:

Documentation for this area might include, but is not limited to, supervising student in independent study, master's thesis, or K‑ 12 teachers in the field, or developing and teaching special topic courses.

 

The Candidate's self‑evaluation statement should clearly state his or her principles in and approach to teaching.  Based on a portfolio of supporting documentation including but not limited to course syllabi, exams, course materials, etc., the Candidate should explain how she or he meets the department's criteria for teaching.  (See Appendix I for a partial list of activities that might be appropriate for each of these categories. Some activities may not easily fit into a particular category.  In this case, the Candidate is encouraged to seek the advice of the DRTPC.)

 

Using departmental forms, the Candidate must conduct a minimum of one in‑class student evaluations per quarter, and a minimum of four evaluations per year in the period under consideration, unless their annual assignment is less than four classes.  Summaries of these will be included in the Candidate's PAF.  The Candidate shall discuss these summaries in the self-evaluation, commenting on how they are used and how they influence the Candidate's teaching.

 

A minimum of two peer evaluations of teaching performance shall be conducted in the period under consideration using the DRTP Peer Evaluation Form.  A minimum of one peer evaluation per quarter shall be conducted in at least two different quarters in each academic year.  Peer evaluations shall reflect, to the degree possible, the breadth of courses taught.  The DRTPC is responsible for ensuring that the minimum number of peer evaluations is conducted.  These evaluations do not need to be done by DRTPC members.  Such requests are to be directed to the DRTPC.  The observations shall be for at least two different courses, ideally in different quarters.  The Candidates should discuss these evaluations in their self‑evaluations, commenting on how they use them and how they influence their teaching.

 

While this is the minimum that the Candidate is required to submit, the Candidate should understand that the DRTPC will consider all submitted documentation.  The Candidate may wish to submit student and peer evaluations from additional courses.  In addition to these evaluations, the Candidate is encouraged to submit other documentation of the quality of their teaching.  A list of possible activities that the DRTPC will consider as indication of quality may be found in Appendix  I of this document.

 

3.2 Scholarship

 

This section examines the candidate's generalized scholarship in mathematics, mathematics education, or statistics. Scholarship activities have been organized into six categories, see Appendix II  (Some activities, of course, may not easily fit into a particular category.  In this case, the candidate is encouraged to seek the advice of the DRTPC.).  Ideally, the candidate will participate in a range of activities that embrace several categories.

 

The DRTPC will evaluate the Candidate's performance in each category.  The DRTPC will award 0 to 3 points for Categories I, II, III, V, and VI, and 0 to 3 points for each item in Category IV.  A Candidate who displays no activities in a category will earn 0 points for that category.  Minimal effort will be awarded 1 point, active participation will be awarded 2 points, and exceptional accomplishments will be awarded three points.  More weight will be given to activities that are sustained over the period under review and to those whose scope extends beyond Cal Poly Pomona.

 

3.3    Service

 

The faculty of the Mathematics Department recognizes service as part of the professional responsibility of each of its members.  Active involvement in the work of governance and business of the department, college, or university is expected of each member.  In particular,

this includes participation in departmental meetings.

 

During the beginning of the probationary period, the Candidate will be expected to participate in a variety of committees but without assuming any responsibility.  This will afford the Candidate the opportunity to learn about departmental governance matters.  The Candidate is then expected to become a contributing member on a smaller number of committees of his or her choosing.  Toward the end of the probationary period, the Candidate is expected to have developed enough expertise to chair a committee or assume the responsibility of a department coordinator.  The Candidate is expected to include in his or her service documentation at least one extra-departmental committee (such as an Academic Senate committee or College committee).

 

Service points will be awarded on an annual basis only for each year (or two years in the case of reappointment to the 3rd probationary year) under consideration.  For action requests covering a range of time such as promotions or tenure, the DRTPC will honor the point totals awarded by previous DRTPC.  The Candidate is not expected to perform any service in the first probationary year.

 

1 .   Participation in a department, college, or university committee:

In the first three probationary years, the Candidate may receive service credit for regularly attending committee meetings without contributing.  Credit in this area will not be allowed beyond the 3rd probationary year and cannot be applied more than once to the same committee.  The DRTPC will award 1 point per committee per year.

 

2.   Contributing member in a department, college, or university committee

If a Candidate chooses to serve on a committee beyond one year, the Candidate is expected to become a contributing member sharing the workload of that committee.  Documentation of participation may be written reports, letters from the committee chair,  etc.  Based upon its evaluation of the documentation, the DRTPC will award 0 points if the documentation is not adequate or 2-3 points per committee per year when the documentation is adequate.

 

3.      Chair a department, college, or university committee.,

To receive service credit for this activity, the committee must have been an active committee and the Candidate must submit documentation supporting that activity and the quality of the work of the chair.  The documentation of the activities of a chair of a committee may be minutes of meetings, products developed by the committee, letters from members of the committee, etc.  Based upon its evaluation of the documentation, the DRTPC will award 0 points if the documentation is not adequate or 2-4 points per committee per year when the documentation is adequate.

 

4.   Departmental coordinator:

To receive service credit for this activity, the coordinator must have carried out the defined work and met the responsibilities of the coordinator position.  The Candidate must submit documentation supporting the quality of the work as coordinator.  This documentation may consist of products, schedules, letters, etc. Based upon its evaluation of the documentation, the DRTPC will award 0 points if the documentation is not adequate or 2-4 points per year when the documentation is adequate.

 

5.      Other significant service

The DRTPC will award points for other service activity for which the Candidate documents and requests recognition (see Appendix III for a partial list of this type of Service).  Based upon its evaluation of the documentation, the DRTPC will award 0 points if the documentation is not adequate or 2‑4 points per activity per year when the documentation is adequate, with the score of 4 being reserved for exceptional contributions.

 

4.      The Criteria

 

It is the responsibility of each evaluating body to write a report that clearly explains how the Candidate was evaluated and rated, using the Mathematics Department Criteria for Reappointment, Tenure, and Promotion.  Specifically, the DRTPC will support its recommendation(s) with a written analysis of the Candidate's numerical scores, including an assessment of the quality of the Candidate's achievements.  In this written evaluation, the DRTPC must identify and explain any exceptional qualities exhibited by the Candidate in the areas of teaching, scholarship, and service.

 

The following sections of this document describe the minimum qualifications for each RTP action. In exceptional cases, the quality of achievements in one area may compensate for work that is slightly below the minimum requirements for another area.

 

Requests for early tenure or promotion will not be considered unless the Candidate has completed at least two years of full‑time service at this campus prior to the effective date of tenure or promotion.

 

4.1 Reappointment

 

For reappointment to a third probationary year, the Candidate must be evaluated by the DRTPC primarily in teaching performance.  The Candidate is not expected to perform any service in the first probationary year.  For reappointment beyond a third probationary year, the Candidate must be judged by the DRTPC as progressing satisfactorily toward the expectations for tenure.  If any problems were discussed in earlier evaluations, the DRTPC will expect to see progress made in resolving these problems.

 

4.2    Tenure

 

A Candidate's credited service period for tenure consideration is the number of years from date of hire at this campus plus the number of years for which credit was granted at time of hiring.

 

A probationary faculty member is normally considered for tenure during the sixth year of credited service.  A faculty member may request early tenure prior to the sixth year of credited service.

 

4.2.1 Normal Tenure

 

It is expected that probationary faculty will put most of their effort in the areas of teaching and scholarship.  In each of the years considered in this request, the DRTPC must consider the Candidate's teaching to be acceptable for that year and at a good level of quality that is likely to be maintained.  Progress must be demonstrated in areas where need for improvement was indicated by previous DRTPC.

 

In the area of scholarship, the Candidate must have a record, sustained over several years, of dedicated efforts and achievements.  A minimum of 7 points in the area of scholarship is required.

 

A minimum of 14 points in service is required.

 

Overall, the DRTPC must be convinced that the Candidate's performance will continue at this level, or higher, in future years.  If the Candidate has been promoted to associate professor during the probationary period, it is expected that the level of performance attained prior to that promotion will have been maintained in the period between the promotion and the tenure request.

 

4.2.2 Early Tenure

 

In the area of teaching, a candidate must be judged by the DRTPC as having clearly exceeded the quality of teaching necessary for normal tenure.  In each of the years considered in this request, the DRTPC must consider the Candidate's teaching adequate for that year with comments indicating the performance is at an unusually high level of quality that is likely to be maintained.

 

In the area of scholarship, the candidate must accumulate a minimum of 10 points with activities including publications or successful grant proposals.

 

A minimum of 20 points must be obtained in the area of service with the activities extending beyond the department.

 

4.3 Promotion to Associate Professor

 

Promotion normally will be made only after no remaining SSI's are available within a Candidate's rank promotion earlier than that constitutes early promotion.

 

4.3.1 Normal Promotion to Associate Professor

 

It is expected that probationary faculty will put most of their effort in the areas of teaching and scholarship.  In each of the years considered in this request, the DRTPC must consider the Candidate's teaching to be acceptable for that year and at a good level of quality that is likely to be maintained.  Progress must be demonstrated in areas where need for improvement was indicated by previous DRTPC.

 

In the area of scholarship, the Candidate must have a record, sustained over several years, of dedicated efforts and achievements. A minimum of 7 points in the area of scholarship is required.

 

A minimum of 14 points in service is required.

 

Faculty normally shall not be considered for promotion during the probationary period.  A Candidate may apply for promotion to associate professor before applying for tenure, or apply simultaneously for tenure and promotion.

 

4.3.2 Early Promotion to Associate Professor

 

In the area of teaching, a candidate must be judged by the DRTPC as having clearly exceeded the quality of teaching necessary for normal promotion to associate professor.  In each of the years considered in this request, the DRTPC must consider the Candidate's teaching adequate for that year with comments indicating the performance is at an unusually high level of quality that is likely to be maintained.

 

In the area of scholarship, the candidate must accumulate a minimum of 10 points with activities including publications or successful grant proposals.

 

A minimum of 20 points must be obtained with activities extending beyond the department.

 

A Candidate may apply simultaneously for early tenure and early promotion to associate professor.

 

4.4 Promotion to Full Professor

 

Faculty normally shall not be considered for promotion to full professor unless they are tenured.  A Candidate may apply simultaneously for tenure and promotion to full professor.

 

A Candidate requesting promotion to full professor must have an extensive record of achievements.  There should be a continued involvement in professional development activities, while at the same time, an increased engagement in service activities.  The commitment to teaching must extend beyond the classroom.

 

4.4.1 Normal Promotion to Full Professor

 

In the area of teaching, the candidate must be judged by the DRTPC as having clearly exceeded the quality of teaching necessary for normal promotion to associate professor.  The Candidate must have received consistently very good positive ratings in previous reviews with noted comments indicating the quality of performance is very high and there must be evidence that this level of quality in teaching will be maintained.

 

In the area of scholarship, the Candidate must have a record of scholarship sustained over several years of dedicated efforts and achievements and must accumulate a minimum of 9 points.  It is expected that this record will include publications or successful grant writing.

 

In the area of service, a significant increase in involvement is expected, compared to what is expected from a Candidate for promotion to associate professor.  A Candidate is expected to have assumed positions of leadership and responsibility at the department, college, or university levels.  A minimum of 14 points in service is required.

 

4.4.2 Early Promotion to Full Professor

 

The DRTPC must be persuaded that the strength of the Candidate's achievements compensates for the brief time period.

 

In the area of teaching, the candidate must be judged, by the DRTPC, as having taught with exceptional skills for a number of years.  A Candidate must be judged by the DRTPC as having clearly exceeded the quality of teaching necessary for normal promotion to full professor.  In each of the years considered in this request, the DRTPC must consider the Candidate's teaching exceptional for that year with comments indicating the performance is at an unusually high level of quality that is likely to be maintained.

 

In the area of scholarship, the candidate must have an impressive record of achievements, sustained over several years and must accumulate a minimum of 11 points.  It is expected that this record will include publications and funded grant proposals.

 

In the area of service, a significant increase in involvement is expected, compared to what is expected from a Candidate for promotion to associate professor.  A Candidate for early promotion to full professor must have assumed positions of leadership and responsibility in service activities at the department, college, and university levels, and have been involved in such activities for several years. A minimum of 20 points in service is required.

 

 

5. Procedures

 

5.1    DRTPC Selection

 

The DRTPC shall consist initially of nine (9) and three (3) alternate full‑time, tenured faculty members who will serve for the academic year.  The DRTPC shall be elected in the winter quarter preceding the beginning of service and shall meet during this quarter to select a chair.  Its term of service shall begin in the subsequent spring quarter and last for one calendar year.  The DRTPC is responsible for all issues arising from its recommendation even if they arise after the completion of its term of service.

 

The election of the DRTPC shall be by means of a mail ballot.  The ballot shall contain the names of all full‑time, tenured faculty members able to serve.  The Department Chair is not eligible to serve on the DRTPC in any capacity.  The ballot will be distributed by the Department Chair to all probationary and tenured faculty members of the department and shall contain the instruction, "Vote for nine."

 

Upon completion of the balloting, the vote totals for each individual will be listed in decreasing order.  The twelve individuals with the highest vote totals will be resubmitted to the probationary and tenured faculty again with the instruction, "Vote for nine."  In the event of tie votes in the 12th position, all candidates tied for this position shall be submitted on the second ballot.  Without ratification of the majority of the probationary and tenured faculty the voting process is to be repeated.

 

The nine individuals with the highest vote totals form next year's RTP committee, and the remaining three will serve as alternates.  Any necessary replacements or additions to the initial DRTPC shall be made in a similar manner from the same list during the beginning of the Fall quarter of the committee's year of service.

 

Any member of the initial DRTPC who becomes a Candidate for promotion shall be ineligible to participate in DRTPC committee deliberations concerning promotion or tenure.  In promotion considerations, the DRTPC members deliberating must have a higher rank than the Candidate being considered.  If the initial nine‑member DRTPC has fewer than three members senior in rank to all promotion Candidates, then the DRTPC shall be increased in size by selecting such individuals until there are three members senior in rank to all promotion Candidates.

 

5.2    Duties of the DPTPC Chair

 

The DRTPC Chair shall be responsible for ensuring that the provisions of this document and those of Appendix 16 of the University Manual are carried out.  The DRTPC Chair will be the official overseer of the RTP package for the period between the submission of the package to the DRTPC by the Candidate and the forwarding of the package to the Dean's office.  Specifically, in this period the DRTPC Chair and only the DRTPC Chair shall be responsible for additions to the package or any changes in the content of the package and notification of the appropriate parties of any additions or changes.

 

All eligible Candidates are to notify the DRTPC Chair before the end of the first week of the fall quarter of intent to request an RTP action(s) or that no action will be requested. This notification shall not be binding.

 

5.3    RTP Document Revision

 

Each year the department shall appoint an RTP Document Review Committee.  This committee shall be viewed as an adjunct of the RTP Committee for the sole purpose of proposing changes in departmental RTP criteria or procedures.  The RTP Document Review Committee shall work with the Mathematics Department, the Mathematics RTP Committee, the College of Science RTP Committee, the Dean's office, and other segments of the University involved in the RTP process to produce a document which reflects the University's commitment to quality education.

 

Proposed revisions shall be submitted in writing to all probationary and tenured faculty members of the department.  During the week following this submission, critical comments or alternative proposals may be communicated in writing to the Document Review Committee Chair.  The committee shall subsequently consider such written communications and finalize the proposed revisions.

 

Following the submission of the finalized revision proposals to the probationary and tenured faculty, a department meeting shall be held to discuss the acceptance or rejection of the proposed revisions.  No further changes in the RTP Criteria and Procedures document will be considered after this meeting.  Ratification of the finalized revision proposals on an item by item basis shall take place by means of a written mail ballot.  Adoption of each item shall require the approval of a majority of the probationary and tenured faculty. The RTP document with ratified revisions shall be forwarded to the College RTP Committee and College Dean for review according to the time line provided by the College.

 

5.4 Evaluation of Faculty on Leave

 

The Department Chair and a faculty member who is still eligible for some RTP action and who requests a leave of absence from normal faculty duties will prepare a Memo of Understanding (MOU) detailing activities and conditions of evaluation for RTP purposes during the leave so that existing and appropriate RTP Document criteria will apply.  This MOU, which must be agreed to by the current DRTPC, the Chair, and the Candidate, will detail precisely what is expected of the Candidate for each action still pending.  It is recommended that the Candidate acquire assurances that the work duties associated with the leave will allow for fulfillment of the activities in the MOU.

 

APPENDICES

 

These appendices contain examples of activities the Candidate may choose to document and use in his or her self‑evaluation as evidence that the Candidate has met the criteria for the requested action.  The lists are meant to be suggestive and helpful but not necessarily exhaustive. In some cases, items in one category might be better used by a Candidate in another category or the Candidate may have an activity that does not fit nicely into one the given categories.  The Candidate is always free to seek advice relating to their RTP review and process.

 

Appendix I

 

Examples of skills, activities, and documentation in Teaching to be considered by the DRTPC:  Based on the Candidates own strategies related to teaching, the Candidate should choose which Category under teaching an activity fits best.

 

Ability and willingness to teach courses at a variety of levels

Ability to explain concepts several different ways to fit students needs

Adequate coverage of course syllabus

Additional peer reviews for courses beyond the required minimum

Additional student evaluations for courses beyond the required minimum

Available to help students with mathematics beyond classroom and office hours

Communication of ideas and concepts

Course development notes in xerographic form

Effective in answering students questions

Effective use of a variety of teaching and learning methods

Good presentation techniques at the board

Maintains a positive classroom atmosphere

Motivates the introduction of difficult ideas with examples

Motivate students to study mathematics

Organization of courses

Organization of lecture material

Participate in professionally related student activities

Supervise undergraduate research projects

Supervise master's theses

Supervise student teachers

Use of technology

Use of homework and projects

Use of academic standards, as evidenced by exams and course grade distributions.

Use of small group techniques

 

 

 

Appendix II

 

Examples of activities and documentation in Scholarship to be considered by the DRTPC:

 

I.   Workshops and Seminars

Consistently attending professional meetings

Participating in professional discipline seminars, workshops, summer institutes, and courses

Organizing or leading seminars, workshops, or summer institutes

(The DRTPC will give more weight to activities of longer duration)

 

II.   Presentations

Colloquium addresses

Presentations at contributed paper sessions

Presentations at special sessions

Invited addresses

(The DRTPC will give more weight to presentations at national and international meetings and presentations of longer duration)

 

III.    Service to the Discipline

Holding an office in a professional organization

Organizing a professional meeting or special session

Refereeing or reviewing research articles or books for professional journals

Reviewing grant proposals for state or federal agencies

Reviewing textbooks

Serving on an editorial board of a professional journal

Serving on a committee of a professional organization

 

IV.   Publications

Expository articles

Research articles

Textbooks

Research monographs

(The DRTPC will give more weight to articles published in journals generally recognized as more prestigious, and to texts published by well‑known publishers)

 

V.     Grant Proposals

Cal Poly grants

State and federal government grants

Commercially funded grants

Private foundation grants

(The DRTPC will give more weight to proposals for external grants and for proposal that are funded)

 

VI.    Other Activities

Academic and discipline based software production

Course development notes in xerographic form

Manuals or technical reports of a professional nature

Work in progress

 

Appendix III

 

Examples of Other Significant Service:

 

Advise or mentor undergraduate and graduate students

Hold an office in a professional organization

Make professional presentations to schools, civic groups, or community organizations

Participate in curriculum development

Participate in fund raising activities

Participate in professionally related student activities

Participate in professional consultation of benefit to the university

Participate in special assignments

Serve on a committee of a professional organization

Tutor students in the Mathematics Tutoring Center or Computer Laboratory

MATHEMATICS DEPARTMENT RTP CLASSROOM

PERFORMANCE EVALUATION FORM

 

 

 

 

1.      Candidate's Name:

 

 

2.      Class Visited (MAT/STA Number and Section):

 

 

3.      Time:

 

Date:

 

Quarter:

 

 

4.    Performance Evaluation:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

5.Evaluator's Name/Signature:

 

/