Accjc gone wild
January 2009 – January 2012
Download 2.61 Mb.
|
- Navigate this page:
- June 5-7, 2013 Actions
January 2009 – January 2012Top Perceived Deficiencies Causing Sanctions
The ACCJC has been focused on issues of planning, review, and the behavior of local governing boards. There is some question of whether the action of the governing board is a proper or legal item to consider in the evaluation of the individual colleges. The attack by ACCJC on local governing boards has increased significantly over the last year. The Commission noted in the Summer 2012 ACCJC NEWS, that the ACCJC recognized that “In recent years, many external events have created challenge for colleges; funding reductions, changing public policy, turnover due to retirements, changing student populations and needs, and the accountability movement are among them. These are challenging times, and it is the job of a governing board to assure that an institution finds the way to adjust to the external and internal pressures without compromising educational quality and financial integrity. Strong and effective governing boards are critically important to institutional success and survival.” It is nice that the ACCJC recognized these challenges, it would be nicer if they did not use these challenges to attempt to force district to change their mission statements as well as their scope of offerings. June 5-7, 2013 ActionsThe Commission met on June 5-7, 2013. It evaluated the accreditation 46 colleges and institutions. It held a “public session” on June 7th at which public access was severely limited. The Commission also acted on a number of policy changes that had not been properly disclosed prior to the meeting so that interested parties could address the proposed changes. Their action clearly violated 34 CFR 602.23(b). One such action was to approve a new “Statement on the Process for Preserving Confidentiality of Documents Related to Institutional Evaluations.” The new policy reads: “Commissioners, ACCJC committee members, and members of evaluation teams, in the course of reviewing institutions, may be given copies of confidential documents pertaining to ACCJC's business and to the institutions under review. Confidential documents include, but are not be limited to, personal notes by the Commissioners, team and committee members, institutional self-evaluations, team reports, committee reports, institutional audits, letters or memos to or from ACCJC affecting the institution, draft action letters, evidentiary documents provided by an institution, and any documents containing information that would generally be considered proprietary by the institution. Commissioners, team and committee members should consider all documents pertaining to an institution as highly confidential, unless the documents are explicitly identified in writing to the contrary. Accordingly, Commissioners, team and committee members must take reasonable measures to assure the confidentiality of documents in their possession and may only discuss the contents of such documents with anyone required to have the information in connection with the matter under review.” This action was clearly a response to the CFT complaint and was approved in order to keep secret any activity that might be suspect in the eyes of the Department of Education. The ACCJC Bylaws Article V, Section 5 allows the Commission to “adopt, amend, or repeal policies that deal with the internal operations of the Commission and its staff. Actions on such policies may take place at any Commission meeting, in open or closed session, and do not require two readings.” The above Process for Preserving Confidentiality is not limited to Commission and staff but also includes members of evaluation teams. As such it is not an “internal operation” and must have two readings. It only had one and proper notice was not made. The Commission clearly violated its own bylaws in approving this new policy. A major focus of the Commission at its June 2013 meeting appeared to be City College of San Francisco and its previous “SHOW CAUSE” sanction. However, in addition to CCSF, the Commission also reviewed Allan Hancock College, American Samoa Community College, Barstow College, Berkeley City College, Carrington College, Chabot - Las Positas Community College District, Chaffey College, Coastline College, College of Alameda, College of the Desert, College of the Marshall Islands, College of the Siskiyous, College of Micronesia - FSM, Copper Mountain College, Feather River College, Fullerton College, Gavilan College, Glendale Community College, Golden West College, Hartnell College, Hawai'i Tokai International College, Heald College, Imperial Valley College, Laney College, Los Angeles Community College District, Los Angeles County College of Nursing & Allied Health, Los Angeles Harbor College, Los Angeles Mission College, Los Angeles Pierce College, Los Angeles Southwest College, Los Angeles Valley College, Merced College, Merritt College, MiraCosta College, Monterey Peninsula College, Mt. San Jacinto College, Orange Coast College, Palau Community College, Palo Verde College, Peralta Community College District, San Joaquin Valley College, Santa Barbara City College, Santa Monica College, Southwestern College, and West Los Angeles College. How they were able to fully consider all of these colleges and institutions in a three day period is anyone’s guess. If each Commissioner was serious about how they voted they would have been required to at least read the college’s self-evaluation as well as the Visiting Team report on the college for each college up for evaluation. As each self-evaluation runs about 400 pages and each Visiting Team report runs about 60 pages, for the 46 institutions this adds up to about over 20,000 pages of documentation to read over a three day period. Since the proceedings and votes are not made in public or even publically disclosed, it is impossible for me to determine how the Commissioners actually voted and what materials they were given to look over before deciding The ACCJC was clearly in violation of 34 CFR 602.17. The results of sanctions for the June 2013 meeting are shown in the following table. City College of San Francisco’s accreditation was terminated effective July 31, 2014. The College Board of Trustees will immediately be moving forward to request a review of the Commission’s decision. After this review is made, they will then need to decide whether to challenge the decision of the Commission. In that case, a panel will be appointed by the Commission to hear the evidence and render a decision. Out of the twentyone colleges that were up for possible sanction, ten actually received a sanction (47.6%). The ACCJC continues to be out of step with the rest of the nation. 
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:
|