Accjc gone wild
El Camino College – PLACED ON WARNING (2013)
Download 2.61 Mb.
|
- Navigate this page:
- Hartnell College – PLACED ON PROBATION (2013)
El Camino College – PLACED ON WARNING (2013)“The Accrediting Commission for Community and Junior Colleges, Western Association of Schools and Colleges, at its meeting January 9-11, 2013 considered the Follow-Up Report submitted by El Camino College and the report of the evaluation team which visited November 14, 2012.” The Commission acted to issue Warning and require El Camino College to submit a Follow-Up Report` by October 15, 2013. The report will be followed by a visit of Commission representatives.” Warning is issued when the Commission finds that an institution has pursued a course deviating from the Commission's Eligibility Requirements, Accreditation Standards or Commission policies to an extent that gives concern to the Commission.” “The Report should demonstrate the College has fully resolved the deficiency noted and Standards cited in the following recommendation: Recommendation 2: The college should immediately define and publish a timeline in respect to how it will develop and implement student learning outcomes at the course, program and degree levels, establish systems to assess student learning outcomes and use the results of such assessments to make improvements in the delivery of student learning, to ensure that the College shall attain, by 2012, the level of Proficiency in the ACCJC Rubric for Evaluating Institutional Effectiveness ---Part III: Student Learning Outcomes.” “With regard to Recommendation 2 above, the team noted that a plan and timeline for SLOs had been developed, but the plan had not resulted in the college attaining the level of Proficiency by fall 2012. It was noted that from 2011 to 2012, the main campus increased course student learning outcome (SLO) assessment from 37% to 55%, and program assessment from 84% to 95%. It was further noted that during the same time period, the Compton Center increased course SLO assessment from 32% to 98%, and program outcomes assessment to 38%. The team report noted that some degree programs have only one student learning outcome. While a particular number of outcomes per degree is not specified by the Standards, it is important to assure that assessment of outcomes fully addresses the range of knowledge and competencies expected of students completing a degree at the College and that results from assessment are sufficiently disaggregated to provide information adequate to fine tune curriculum and instruction, and address other needed changes, in order to increase student learning. The College will need to increase and strengthen its current level and usage of SLO assessment in order to meet the Standards.” Again, the SLOs are understood to be inputs not outcomes. And then comes the hammer: “I wish to inform you that under U.S. Department of Education regulations, institutions out of compliance with standards are expected to correct deficiencies within a two-year period or the Commission must take action to terminate accreditation. The Commission wishes to notify the College that the period of monitoring progress toward fully addressing this area of deficiency has ended. El Camino College must correct the deficiencies noted no later than October 15, 2013 or the Commission will be compelled to act.” As I have frequently stated in this paper, it makes no sense to close a college because it did not satisfy some standard such as failing to full implement SLOs. If the above is true that a college’s accreditation must be terminated if any “deficiency” is not corrected within two years, then the Congress needs to change that policy! Hartnell College – PLACED ON PROBATION (2013)Hartnell College was placed on Probation by the Commission in June of 2013. The college had previously been placed on PROBATION in January of 2007, a WARNING letter in January of 2008, and a fully resolved letter in June of 2009. A midterm report was submitted in January of 2010. The March 18-21 2013 Visiting Team from ACCJC had two faculty members. One was an assistant to the Chair of the Committee (both the chair and the assistant are from Solano College). The other faculty member served as her college’s Basic Skills Initiative Coordinator and as the faculty inquiry lead for the Lumina project. The other eight members of the team were administrators. At the June 5-7, 2013 meeting of the ACCJC the Barbara Beno wrote to the college Superintendent/President Dr. Willard Lewallen that the Commission “considered the Hartnell College Self Evaluation Report, the report of the External Evaluation Team that visited the College March 18-21, 2013, and the supplemental information provided by the College.” The Visiting Team Report was over ninety pages and the Self-Evaluation Report combined with the supplemental report was over three hundred seventy pages, I am not sure how much time they could have spent on this material as they also had to look at such materials from the other twenty colleges under review. I guess it doesn’t take the Commission members long to “consider” the documents or they are incredibly fast readers. As with most college sanctions, the criticisms of the college had nothing to do with the quality of instruction offered nor the value of the college to the student. All criticism had to do with process. The letter went on to state that “The Commission acted to impose Probation and require Hartnell College to correct the deficiencies noted. The College is required to complete two Follow-Up Reports. The first Report is due by March 15, 2014, demonstrating resolution of the deficiencies noted in the 2013 Evaluation Report Recommendations 2, 3, 4, and 12. The second Report is due by March 15, 2015 and should demonstrate resolution of Recommendations 1, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, and 11, and demonstrate that the changes and improvements meant to resolve deficiencies and comply with Eligibility Requirements and Accreditation Standards noted in Recommendations 2, 3, 4, and 12 have been sustained. Both reports will be followed by a visit of Commission representatives.” Beno stated that “However, Hartnell College must correct the deficiencies noted in Recommendations 2, 3, 4, and 12 below no later than March 15, 2014, or the Commission will be required to take adverse action.” “Adverse action” in this context means the removal of accreditation status. So, just as in Compton and San Francisco, Hartnell could lose its accreditation because of perceived failure to satisfy the process demands of the ACCJC. The value of the education to the student is not a consideration. In the March 15, 2014 Follow-Up Report, “Hartnell College must demonstrate that the institution has addressed the recommendations noted above, fully resolved each of the noted deficiencies, and now meets the recommendations, Eligibility Requirements and Accreditation Standards identified in the External Evaluation Team Report.” Although the letter states that the college “must” meet the Commission’s demands, the actual statements by the Visiting Team are called “recommendations.” I am not sure what the team intended as their final recommendation of a sanction is not made public. The Visiting Team observed
They commended the college for
The Commission statement of Probation included the following “recommendations.” Recommendation 2 relates to recommendations that
These all deal with the planning process, not with the education provided to students. Recommendation 3 relates to recommendations that
Again, nothing to do with the educational process itself, just more demands for planning. Recommendation 4 relates to recommendations that
I have spoken to the use of student learning outcomes and the fact that they are not widely accepted as being useful in improving teaching or learning. Many faculty members feel that they are just the latest fad brought forward by groups like ACCJC. Recommendation 12 relates to recommendations that
This is the continuation of the trend of the ACCJC to attempt to direct the elected governing board as to how to act as a board. The letter from Beno continued “The Follow-Up Report of March 2015 should demonstrate that the institution has fully addressed the recommendations noted below, resolved the noted deficiencies, and now meets all recommendations, Eligibility Requirements and Accreditation Standards identified in the External Evaluation Team Report.” Recommendation 1: the team recommends that
A continuation more process work, even to change a long standing mission of a college. Recommendation 5 the team recommends that
Recommendation 6: “In order to fully meet the standard, the team recommends that the college regularly evaluate the contracted library services outlined in the "Memorandum of Clarification" finalized in March 2013. “ Recommendation 7: In order to meet the standard, the team recommends that
The above recommendations attempt to insert the ACCJC into the evaluation of faculty. The evaluation of faculty is a collective bargaining issue in California and by making this demand, the ACCJC is breaking California law. Recommendation 8 relates to recommendations that
This is just another example of the ACCJC’s attempt to increase the number of administrators on a campus. It is no surprise when the Visiting Team is so highly weighted with administrators. No mention is made of increasing the number of full-time faculty. Recommendation 9 relates to recommendations that
Again, more emphasis on planning. No emphasis on the actual educational program offered. Recommendation 10: “To fully meet the standard the team recommends that the college develop a process for regular and systemic evaluation of all Human Resources and Business and Fiscal Affairs policies. “ Recommendation 11: “To fully meet the standards, the team recommends that the college implement and evaluate a governance model and establish a key participatory governance group to provide an avenue for meaningful input into decision-making including but not limited to resource allocation.” A good question given the CCSF situation is whether an effective and true participatory system would meet the ACCJC standards or would they claim, as they have, that such a system does not allow for planning that does not cater to the interests of the parties involved. The Commission then lays down a defensive position for further actiont: “The recommendations contained in the External Evaluation Team Report represent the best advice of the peer evaluation team at the time of the visit, but may not describe all that is necessary to come into compliance.” And then the hammer is laid down against any dissent: “Institutions are expected to take all actions necessary to comply with Eligibility Requirements, Accreditation Standards and Commission policies. The Commission wishes to remind you that while an institution may concur or disagree with any part of the report, the College is expected to use the External Evaluation Report to improve educational programs and services and to resolve issues identified by the Commission.” It is important to keep an eye on what happens at Hartnell College over the next year. Will the ACCJC continue its reign of terror by taking away the accreditation of another college for issues that do not affect the education of the students enrolled? Directory: uploads uploads -> 587 Return function, r i(X) r i(0) r i(1) r i(2) r i(3) 1 0 2 4 6 Thermal Station, I 2 0 1 5 6 3 0 3 5 6 10 uploads -> Department of science and humanities department of mathematics part-a questions and answers uploads -> The Case Against the nypd’s Quota-Driven ‘Broken Windows’ Policing What Is It? uploads -> For want of a nail uploads -> Ownership Models There are two different types of ownership models uploads -> Police Militarization uploads -> City of rising star regular meting thursday, july 14, 2016 uploads -> Township of winfield uploads -> Stop Militarizing Law Enforcement Act of 2014 uploads -> The Black Panther Party’s Ten-Point Program What We Want Now! Download 2.61 Mb. Share with your friends:
|