Accjc gone wild
Accreditation Group finds ACCJC out of compliance – August 13, 2013
Download 2.61 Mb.
|
- Navigate this page:
- ACCJC Press Release of August 13, 2013
Accreditation Group finds ACCJC out of compliance – August 13, 2013On August 13, 2013 Kay Gilcher, the Director of the Accreditation Group of the Office of Postsecondary Education, wrote to Barbara Beno informing her that “the Accreditation Group has found that some aspects of the agency's accreditation review process do not meet the Secretary's Criteria for Recognition. Specifically, the Accreditation Group has determined that the ACCJC is out of compliance with , 602.15 (a)(6), 602.18(e), and 602.20(a) of the Secretary's Criteria for Recognition.” This was in response to complaints filed by the CFT, myself, and six others. The 34 CFR sections noted are some of the same ones that I have noted. The Accreditation Group did not go into other possible violations that were not directly related to the case of City College of San Francisco. However, Gilcher pointed out that “The Department noted other issues raised in the complaints submitted and considered those in the course of its review. To the extent issues identified by the staff from the complaints have not been discussed above, they are issues which the staff concluded were either not related to the Secretary's Criteria for Recognition or were found to be compliant with the Secretary's Criteria for Recognition within the context of this review. As the agency has submitted a petition for recognition to the Department, a complete review of all sections of the Secretary's Criteria for Recognition will be conducted in that context and it is possible that areas of non-compliance could be found that were touched on in the complaints but not identified as such by the staff in reviewing the complaints.” An example of such an issue might be the clear inconsistency in application of policy when giving sanctions. This is a violation of 34 CFR 602.18. The Accreditation Group (which reviews accreditation agencies for compliance with the rules of the U.S. Department of Education) found that the ACCJC had failed to comply with Criteria for Recognition in four basic areas: The first related to the ACCJC’s lack of adequate faculty representation on the Visiting Teams for City College of San Francisco and the lack of clarity regarding the composition of visiting teams in ACCJC policy. The letter called for more faculty on the Visiting Teams in accordance with federal requirements. In fact, as stated in the Gilcher letter: “The agency does not have a specific policy on the composition of on-site evaluation teams.” The lack of adequate representation on Visiting Teams has been present on most Visiting Teams as I have noted in this paper. This is a violation of 34 CFR 602.15. The second failure to comply related to conflict of interest requirements. The Accreditation Group found that the presence of Beno’s husband on the CCSF visiting team had “the appearance of” a conflict of interest which violates national standards. The Accreditation Group also raised issues regarding the propriety of Commission members and staff representation on Visiting Teams. This has been an issue not just at CCSF but also on many college visiting teams. This is a violation of 34 CFR 602.15. The third violation related to the agency statement that has two types of recommendations - “to meet the standard” or “to increase institutional effectiveness.” The letter went on to state that “what is not clear is how the recommendations are differentiated between those two types and how an institution, an evaluation team, the Commission, or the public is to know the difference.” The truth is that they do not understand the difference. This also speaks to the inconsistency of judgments made by the ACCJC. This is a violation of 34 CFR 602.18. The letter from Gilcher went on to point out that “In the Executive Committee report of the agency's own review of the CFT complaint, the agency states the following: ‘It is accurate that the 2006 Report found that the institution met sufficient numbers of standards to have its accreditation reaffirmed. However, the 2006 report also included eight "major recommendations." When the Commission met and considered the 2006 Report at its Commission Meeting on June 7-9, 2006, it considered two of the "recommendations" to be serious enough to require that the institution take corrective action and provide the Commission with a Progress Report.’ And, later in the same section of the report: ‘The Evaluation Report (the "2012 Report") of the team that visited the institution in March of 2012 documented that, between 2006 and 2012, the situation at CCSF had deteriorated dramatically, and many of the areas which were noted only as "recommendations" in the 2006 Report had deteriorated to the extent that they had become serious deficiencies in 2012.’ “This summary alone reflects the difficulty to ascertain what a recommendation represents- an area of noncompliance or an area for improvement.” This has been the case in many colleges in addition to CCSF as pointed out in this paper. The fourth violation cited also involved the different uses of the term “recommendation” by the ACCJC. Again it is not clear when they mean that a college has a deficiency in meeting a standard or that the college meets the standard but could use additional effort in the area. If it is the first, the two year rule applies. If it is the second, it does not apply as no “deficiency” has been found. The ACCJC is not consistent in the application of the word “recommendation.” The Accreditation Group pointed out that “it appears that the Commission continues to implement the required enforcement timeframe only after the agency has imposed a sanction on an institution.” At that point they give two years to implement the change back to the time of the first mention by a visiting team. “In its response, the agency states that the recommendations included in the 2006 Commission action letter to CCSF to reaffirm the institution's accreditation and require a follow-up report needed to be resolved within a limited timeframe. As excerpted above, the Commission considered two of the recommendations ‘serious enough’ to require interim reports (a progress report in 2007, a focused midterm report in 2009, and a follow-up report in 2010). And, the agency stated in the 2012 Commission action letter to CCSF that part of the reason for the show cause order was the failure of the institution to correct areas of noncompliance cited in 2006. The agency cannot treat an issue serious enough to require reporting and to be part of the rationale for a show cause order, but not serious enough to enforce the timeframe to return to compliance, as required by federal regulation.” “The Commission has not demonstrated appropriate implementation of this regulation.” In conclusion the letter states that “The Department finds that ACCJC does not meet the requirements of the sections cited above. Section 496(1) of the Higher Education Action of 1965, as amended, 20 U.S.C. §1099(b)(1), requires the Department to initiate adverse action when it determines that a recognized accrediting agency fails to meet the Criteria for Recognition. Alternatively, the Department may allow the accrediting agency a limited timeframe, not to exceed 12 months, to come into compliance. Therefore, we have determined that in order to avoid initiation of an action to limit, suspend or terminate ACCJC’s recognition, ACCJC must take immediate steps to correct the areas of non-compliance identified in this letter. Please provide your response to the specific sections in this letter, within your response to the draft staff analysis of the agency's petition for recognition to the Accreditation Group.” ACCJC Press Release of August 13, 2013The ACCJC responded to the Accreditation Group decision with the usual disdain that they show toward any complaint filed against them. The press release stated that “The ACCJC is provided an opportunity to respond to the Department's review of information and documentation during the recognition process later this fall, and will be doing so. There will be some correction of errors of fact, and some provision of explanatory information.” “It also appears the Department has developed a new requirement that is not included federal regulations or in the Guidelines for the Secretary's Recognition of Accrediting Agencies. The letter suggests that accreditors must ensure "reasonable representation" of academics and administrators on evaluation teams, in terms of the number of each on a team. The Department's directions to accreditors remain vague, and will require clarification.” They say this without regard to the vagueness of their policy and applications of policy illustrated in the Department’s findings above. The Commission continues to defend its use of the word “recommendation” as sometimes meaning a “deficiency” and at other times just a suggestion to improve. Then the ACCJC claims that “The Department's letter suggests the need for possible revisions of ACCJC policies or procedures as follows: Definition of "reasonable representation" of academics and administrators on evaluation teams. Added conflict of interest policy language prohibiting spouses of Commission staff or Commissioners from serving on evaluation teams. Helping the public and others understand that recommendations provided by the Commission to member institutions stating "in order to improve, the college should take certain actions" are different from recommendations stating "in order to meet the standards, the college should take certain actions." Not only are revisions necessary but the ACCJC should also suspend all of their current sanctions that were soiled by the ACCJC violations and redo them in accordance with federal standards. Finally the ACCJC notes that it will take its pound of flesh by looking at terminating colleges earlier “in future reviews of institutions in the Western Region.” The letter concludes with “The Commission will be responding formally to the Department's letter and will, of course, make necessary policy changes to appropriately address the Department's concerns. The ACCJC response to the Department's findings will be submitted as part of its recognition review with the National Advisory Committee on Institutional Quality and Improvement in December 2013.” The mention of the National Advisory Committee on Institutional Quality and Improvement is their attempt to tell the Accreditation Group that they may not have the final word on the fate of the ACCJC. There is clearly no limit to the ACCJC’s belligerence. 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:
|