Accjc gone wild
CFT Complaint to Department of Education July 26, 2013
Download 2.61 Mb.
|
- Navigate this page:
- ACCJC Information to the Field - July 2013 – An Unlikely Story
CFT Complaint to Department of Education July 26, 2013On July 26, 2013 the California Federation of Teachers filed a complaint with the Department of Education and the ACCJC based on the ACCJC’s and the Department of Education’s responses to an amendment to the CFT earlier complaint. The amendment to the original complaint contained, in the words of the CFT, “charges of various new violations of Federal Regulations that had occurred since the filing of the April 30 complaint. Among these charges was the allegation that “ACCJC's new policy to shred documents related to institutional evaluations was a violation of their duty to maintain complete and accurate records of institutional evaluations and reviews as prescribed by 34 CFR 602.15(b).” The ACCJC claimed that the amendment was untimely. The CFT wrote that “We appreciate the DOE's email of July 23, indicating that the ‘Amendment’ submitted by CFT and AFT 2121 dated July 1, 2013 will be considered in connection with DOE's review of ACCJC for re-recognition. We understand that DOE practice is not to accept "amendments." Nonetheless, we feel the issues raised in the Amendment are sufficiently serious so as to merit the filing of a separate Complaint incorporating the substance of the Amendment. Our conclusion is furthered because of the letter from ACCJC dated July 16, 2013, in which ACCJC asserts that the CFT's July 1, 2013 complaint was "untimely." It was not "untimely." We believe that ACCJC's unwarranted rejection of the July 1 complaint as "untimely" evidences the Commission's practice of refusing to respond to complaints as Federal regulations require.” The July 26th CFT complaint added one new complaint to those submitted on July 1, 2013. The new claim is that “ACCJC has violated and continues to violate 34 CFR section 602.23(c)(1), by failing to review in a ‘timely, fair and equitable manner’ the ‘Amendment’ Complaint filed against it by the CFT and AFT Local 2121 on July 2, 2013, the same "amendment" submitted to the ACCJC.” ACCJC Information to the Field - July 2013 – An Unlikely StoryWithout mentioning the July 1, 2013 amendment to the CFT complaint, the ACCJC sent out the following: “DATE: July 26, 2013 TO: Chief Executive Officers of ACCJC Member Institutions CC: Accreditation Liaison Officers SUBJECT: Additional Information from CFT Complaint The Commission wishes to respond to all elements of the complaint against ACCJC filed by the California Federation of Teachers and others (CFT). The Commission Executive Committee's May 30, 2013 response to CFT focused on, and addressed, the substantive claims made in the complaint. The Commission has now developed information concerning the other claims in the complaint, which is presented in a document titled “Additional Information from the CFT Complaint.” The document discusses these other elements in the CFT complaint and the basis for the Commission's earlier determination that they were not material or that they did not accurately present or describe ACCJC policies, procedures, purposes or actions.” The July response (“Additional Information Pertaining to Executive Committee Report on the CFT Complaint.”) was in response to the Department of Education demand that they answer the CFT complaint more fully than they had in their earlier seven page reply (although they did not admit that to the persons who received the note). In any case, the new report followed earlier replies to complaints with a series of vague and often misleading comments. Of course some of the replies are statements such as “For approximately 50 years of ACCJC accreditation practice in the Western Region, recommendation has been the term that refers to both the citation of standards - Eligibility Requirements (ERs), Accreditation Standards (Standards), and Commission policies, (together commonly referred to as standards) - about which action is taken, and to the recommendation for how an institution can address the issue raised. Recommendations stem from the findings, analysis and conclusions in a team report, wherein the team identifies the college's deficiencies in meeting standards. “This misses the point made by CFT that “recommending” and “demanding” are two different things. The use of the word “can” does not equate to the word “must.” An interesting comment in the report comes in the context of “recommend”: “Recommendations from the ACCJC are of two types: either ‘to meet the standard’ or ‘to increase institutional effectiveness’. Recommendations to meet the standard are given when the institution has a deficiency in meeting standards. Recommendations to increase institutional effectiveness (to improve) are given when the institution may meet the level of a particular standard, but additional effort would bring the institution to closer alignment with expectations of institutional effectiveness.” I am not sure where this distinction appears in the ACCJC policy or whether many colleges are aware of this distinction. It certainly does not appear in the letters to the colleges regarding the decision on the college accreditation. The report goes on the state: “In most ACCJC comprehensive evaluation reviews, some deficiency in meeting standards is found. Institutions are required to address all recommendations and to demonstrate they have come into compliance with standards. When the deficiencies rise to a particular level of concern, a sanction is assigned in accordance with the Policy on Commission Actions on Institutions.” This is a strange statement given the often made comment in the letters to the college that “I wish to inform you that under U.S. Department of Education regulations, institutions out of compliance with Standards or on sanction are expected to correct deficiencies within a two-year period or the Commission must take action to terminate accreditation. X College must correct the deficiencies noted or the Commission will be required to take adverse action.” The report has the interesting statement that “Beginning in 2008, the ACCJC shifted its interpretation of this regulation. Whereas prior to that time, the Commission had applied the regulation to deficiencies noted as a part of a sanction, it was clarified during the 2007 U.S. Department of Education recognition review of ACCJC that regulatory intent was for the language "not to be in compliance with any standard" to apply to all deficiencies in compliance with standards. Further, the time requirement for an institution to "come into compliance within a period not to exceed two years" began to run when the deficiency was first noted as such.” The problem here is whether there are any “deficiencies” if a college is not given any sanction. This is what happened at City College of San Francisco when it received accreditation year after year and then suddenly was to be held to suggestions made by a visiting team many years before. I was also interested in the statement “As mentioned in the CFT complaint, there is a regulatory provision for a good cause extension of the two year limit for an identified deficiency. However, the good cause extension is far from an entitlement; it is applicable in limited circumstances, such as when the deficiency will be fully resolved upon an action by an external body which has the authority to do so.” Again CCSF comes to mind given their good faith effort to meet demands under the short time-line allowed. Given time the Visiting Team report indicated that the so-called “short comings” would be corrected. The above statement when combined with the often made statement that “The recommendations contained in the Evaluation 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. Institutions are expected to take all action necessary to comply with Eligibility Requirements, Accreditation Standards, and Commission policies” is in direct conflict with the recognition that many colleges are out of compliance but still maintain accreditation - often without any sanction at all. This is an example of one possible cause of the lack of consistent decisions made by the Commission. The “may not describe all that is necessary to come into compliance” directly contradicts the need to advise colleges of a requirement to make changes. The July reply to the CFT complaint lays out what the Commission believes are the issues raised by the CFT and the order of the reply: “The voluminous materials provided by CFT carry several themes that are repeated multiple times through the complaint. This Additional Information document is organized into six sections as follows:
1. Inaccurate Underlying Assumptions a. The action letters show Barbara Beno's opinion of CCSF. b. Barbara Beno is a key actor in the decision-making of the Commission. 2. General Conflict 3. Spousal Conflict 4. Revealing Confidential Information 5. Advocacy Conflict
1. Inaccurate Underlying Assumptions a. There was no confidential recommendation from the team. b. The Commission inappropriately applied a new standard when considering the CCSF financial requirements. c. There are improprieties in the sanctioning of CCSF for not pre-funding Other Post-Employment Benefits (OPEB) liabilities through an irrevocable trust. d. CCSF was found deficient because it obtains grant funding.
I am sure that the CFT will file a reply to the ACCJC comments on how wrong the complaint is. I will add their comments when they are released. In the meantime, I have the following comments on a few aspects of the ACCJC “reply.” Most of the “evidence” presented is a statement that says that the Commission does things correctly. As an example of this type of argument: “The ACCJC does not follow a practice of graduated sanctions. In accordance with its Policy on Commission Actions on Institutions, the Commission reviews the status of an institution in meeting ERs, Standards, and Commission policies and, in cases when it is warranted, assigns a sanction that best reflects the institution's standing relative to compliance with standards. While it is not common for the situation of a college to have significantly declined since the previous external evaluation, there have been instances when the ACCJC has found serious deficiencies in meeting standards where previous indications had been an institution was aligning itself to standards. In like turn, institutions which have been on a serious sanction may come into full compliance with standards by the next external review and are removed from any sanction, rather than somehow having to ‘move down the sanction ladder." How is one to determine if the above claim is true? The discussion and decision of the Commission is made in secret and the participants are sworn to secrecy. Where is the evidence that they proceed in compliance with their policy? How can we judge when a sanction is warranted if we do not know what happened in the secret sessions? Secrecy about how decisions are actually made by ACCJC is the name of the game as indicated by the statement that “One of the hallmarks of ACCJC accreditation practice is that Commissioners do not act solely to ratify team reports. Instead, institutional reports and evidence, previous reports and action letters, and testimony and documentation provided by the college Chief Executive Officer, as well as the team reports and recommendations are reviewed and considered by the Commission before it takes action on the accredited status of institutions. It should be noted that these same voluminous review materials, comprising multiple copies of the originals held securely on file by the ACCJC, must be collected and shredded upon conclusion of each meeting.” No one could read all of the material for 21 colleges! How does one know which Commissioners vote on a sanction and how much these Commissioners have actually studied the documents? How does one challenge the sanctions if the records are shredded? Here is the type of answer given to serious charges: “Institutional evaluations are conducted by peer evaluators who are professionals in the field. They apply standards consistently and fairly to all institutions.” How is this even possible given all the various teams and the sometimes limited training the teams receive? How does one determine that this statement is true when peer evaluators are told not to disclose any information on what happened during the working of the Visiting Team nor disclose what the Visiting Team recommended for a sanction level? Another: “While institutions under review may have deficiencies in complying with one or more standards that another institution under review also has, the combination of deficiencies and the level of impact on an institution will vary. Consideration of sanctions is based upon the individual case of an institution given all of the deficiencies and related evidence. This practice is appropriate to the review of an institution's accredited status and does not demonstrate an inappropriate disparity of approach toward certain institutions.” In short, ACCJC is judging that their practice is “appropriate” and does not lead to inconsistency of application of standards. On the basis of the above quote, inconsistency of application is inevitable. This inconsistency is a violation of 34 CFR 602.18. And another claim without evidence: “Not all deficiencies result in sanctions. Most colleges will have citations to limited deficiencies in recommendations as a part of their review. However, when the level of deficiencies has warranted a sanction, the sanction has been issued.” How can this be proved when the process of issuing sanctions is done in a cone of silence? As I learned early in life, “saying something is true doesn’t make it true.” And saying something is true doesn’t prove it is true. The report also includes suggestions from the Council of Higher Education Accreditation (CHEA) on how to answer the critics of the United States method of using private self-appointing accrediting agencies to determine when colleges shall receive sanctions or be shut down. The purpose of CHEA is to provide national advocacy for the current mode of accreditation in the United States. It is dedicated to defeating any attempt by Congress to develop a European-style governmental based accreditation system in the United States. The report from the ACCJC incorporates the CHEA argument that is then used to speak out against those who would criticize aspects of the current accreditation format. The report makes the claim that Barbara Beno has no role in the determination of the level of sanction imposed on colleges. The report states that “Over her tenure as Commission President, Dr. Beno has signed more than 500 letters, entailing several communications to each of the ACCJC member institutions. While this activity has resulted in her familiarity with the accredited status of the member institutions, the letters are not a reflection of her views of any institutions but instead document the actions of the Commission as to the institutions, and the Commission's directions for information to be included or emphasized in the action letters. The member institutions are aware of this role (communicating the Commission actions) of the ACCJC President, and are aware the letters are not the President's own views reflected in writing. Team members invited to participate in external evaluation visits are aware of this role of the ACCJC President, and are aware the letters reflect the decision of the Commission.” It is interesting that none of the people that I have spoken to, either on teams or on the campuses, understands that Beno does not play a decisive role in the decision making of the Commission. As an example, college presidents have described to me how Beno has called them directly and demanded that they make certain changes. The report goes on to make the remarkable statement that “As President of ACCJC, Barbara Beno holds an important position as spokesperson for the Commission, as manager of the accrediting agency, and as implementer of accrediting activities. However, her role does not include participation in the Commission's decisions on the accredited status of institutions. She and her staff are present during Commission deliberations in a support capacity: supporting meeting logistics, taking notes of Commission actions, locating and identifying specific portions of reports or evidence when called upon by Commissioners, referring to Commission policies and procedures when questions arise, responding to requests of the Commission Chair, and ensuring the process follows an orderly progression to its conclusion. Neither the President nor other staff participate in the discussions of evaluative content, nor do they vote in actions on institutions. The Commission decisions are based upon the Commission's examination of an institution's self-evaluation report and evidence, the team report and recommendations, and previous reports since the last comprehensive evaluation, if any. The Commission also considers any supplemental information presented by the institution's CEO, and the confidential recommendation of the team as to a disposition of the review. The ACCJC President's role does not include any participation in the actions on institutions.” I do not believe that the above statement is true. I am sure that it will come out in the testimony of the Commission members before the Department of Education that the above statement is not true. The statement contradicts everything that is known about the operation of the Commission in determining sanction levels. One last note for all colleges to understand: “It should be noted that ACCJC has not sanctioned CCSF for failure to pre-fund its OPEB liability through an irrevocable trust. Additionally, it has placed no obligation or burden on CCSF to utilize an irrevocable trust.” 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:
|