Accjc gone wild
California Joint Legislative Audit Committee – Action on August 21, 2013
Download 2.61 Mb.
|
- Navigate this page:
- Backgound for Call
California Joint Legislative Audit Committee – Action on August 21, 2013Call for State AuditOn August 21, 2013, the California Joint Legislative Audit Committee (JLAC) approved Senators Beall and Nielsen's call for a state audit to examine the practices, financial and programmatic implications resulting from unilateral actions initiated by the Accrediting Commission for Community and Junior Colleges (ACCJC), the accrediting agency for California Community Colleges. The call included the direction to the State Auditor to “answer the following questions as they relate to ACCJC accreditation for the period from 2009 through 2013. The audit would use a sample of at least three California community colleges chosen by the State Audit's Office and include two colleges that have been sanctioned by ACCJC. 1. For the three selected community colleges, determine the following:
2 Identify trends in the number, percentage and types of sanctions imposed on California Community Colleges when compared to other regions. To the extent possible, determine the reasons for significant variations. 3. Identify the number of consultant contracts entered into by ACCJC, who the contracts were with, the purpose(s) of the contracts, the contract amounts and the entities responsible for payment. 4. Identify any state and federal public meeting laws, requirements and policies that apply to ACCJC. Provide any changes that have occurred in these public meeting laws, requirements and policies between the period of 2009 through 2013. Determine whether ACCJC has complied with relevant public meeting laws and policies. 5. Provide information regarding ACCJC's policies for retaining documents relating to community college accreditations, and provide any changes that occurred in these policies between the period of 2009 through 2013. 6. Identify and assess any other issues that are significant to the process for accrediting community colleges.” Senator Nielsen gave a strong opening statement regarding the problems with ACCJC, mentioning at one point that "Senator Beall and I met with President Barbara Beno in my office. In all my career, in my thousands of meetings with agency individuals -- representatives, secretaries, etc. -- I have never dealt with a more arrogant, condescending and dismissive individual...." Dr. Frank Gornick, an ACCJC commissioner, and Krista Johns, ACCJC vice president of policy and research, appeared to testify in opposition. Their arguments against the audit focused on the idea that the USDOE investigation/ review should suffice. They claimed that Dr. Beno did not appear at the hearing as she had other ACCJC business to attend to. The Community College Chancellor's office did not testify. The California Community College Independents, the California Federation of Teachers, the California Teachers Association, and the Faculty Association of California Community Colleges all testified in support of the audit. The final vote of the committee was a bipartisan vote of 10 Yes, 1 No, and 3 Abstains. Backgound for CallThe background for the call included information regarding the Title V regulation 51016 requirement that community colleges in California are to be accredited by ACCJC. It went on to note that “According to the ACCJC website, its accreditation authority is provided "by [fee-paying] member institutions that have voluntarily joined a regional association to improve educational quality." Some California community colleges have spent tens of thousands of dollars in state revenue to fund ACCJC. As a U.S. Department of Education recognized accreditor, ACCJC decisions affect campus eligibility for federal Title IV student financial aid and other federal grants and contracts. ACCJC accreditation standards are used to assess college success "in providing high quality education" and "focus a good deal on institutional practices that support student completion of certificates and degrees." To ensure its decisions and evaluation teams are fair and unbiased, the Commission self-regulates itself and "holds itself accountable for good practice by evaluating and assessing its own ability to make fair and unbiased decisions on accreditation." [ACCJC: Twelve Common Questions and Answers about Regional Accreditation].” The background information notes that “A "governmental function" is defined as an act which is so “Intimately related to the public interest" as to mandate performance by the government, and require either the exercise of discretion in applying government authority or the use of value judgments in making decisions for the government [Martin v. Halliburton, 2010 U.S. App. LEXIS 18698 (5th Cir. Tex. Sept, 7, 2010)1, As an accrediting agency for state community colleges that fall under the authority of the governor and state legislature, ACCJC, by performing a government function, is accountable for decisions it makes intended for the general public good.” The background information documents the disparate number of ACCJC sanctions as compared to other accreditation agencies. It also goes into the climate created by ACCJC: “A highly critical and documented assessment of ACCJC by retired community college math professor Martin Hittelman illustrates a climate of arrogance and secrecy [ACCJC Gone Wild]. The California Federation of Teachers (CFT) recently released its 298-page ACCJC public comment response to the severe sanctions executed at San Francisco City College. The comprehensive document includes charges and supporting evidence that ACCJC President Barbara Beno engaged in improper conflicts of interest; disregarded and/or violated state and federal laws, policies and regulations; denied due process; imposed policies that violate or circumvent employee contracts; violated ACCJC procedures by applying costly sanctions to colleges- such as 'Show Cause' that is sanctioned prior to a campus closure -without first applying less egregious sanctions, such as a 'Warning' or 'Probation;' enacted systemwide policies and programs in conflict with state policy that lacked legislative oversight or approval; and threatened reprisals of faculty and administrators.” The background to the request for an audit included information that “Under 34 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 602.10 and 602.13, an accrediting agency is required "to be able to demonstrate that its standards, policies and accreditation decisions are widely accepted in the United States by educators and educational institutions, licensing bodies (if appropriate), practitioners, and employers of graduates for accredited institutions and programs." Unfortunately, ACCJC policy discourages consideration of a college's compliance with state and federal laws and agencies. As written in the ACCJC Team Evaluator Manual (page 23, August 2012), "[Accreditation] recommendations should not be based on the standards of governmental agencies, the legislature, or organizations."” “ACCJC wields enormous power to materially and adversely affect colleges, but there appear to be serious questions whether it affords colleges appropriate due process. There are also concerns whether ACCJC-issued sanctions bear any reasonable relationship to the commission's Standards or Requirements being scrutinized. Furthermore, ACCJC is required to assure that constituencies represented at the colleges it evaluates are adequately represented by the site-visit evaluation teams. However, it appears ACCJC has not met this requirement -with some constituencies disproportionately represented or not represented at all - and materially affecting campus review outcomes.” “Since community colleges are required to comply with ACCJC "requests, directives, decisions and policies" [ACCJC: Eligibility Requirements for Accreditation], the commission has unilaterally imposed numerous community college policy changes resulting in financial obligations that have not been reviewed or approved by the California State Legislature, ACCJC has also increasingly criticized the state's community college statutory "shared governance" process, and distinct from assessing the educational quality of an institution, has sanctioned campuses for deficiencies in governing board practices growing from 46% of sanctioned campuses in 2009 to 71% of sanctioned campuses in 2012 [ACCJC News, Summer] 2012].” “Beginning in 2002, ACCJC implemented a 10-year timeline requiring community colleges to develop Student Learning Outcomes (SLO) to assess student achievement "bearing in mind that grades are not the best evidence of student learning" [ACCJC: Assessment of Student Learning Outcomes]. The SLOs are included in the assessment of instructional programs, student services, financial aid and student orientation. Numerous faculty, staff and administrative hours are dedicated to SLOs, detracting time away from educating students and operating campuses. Since ACCJC is self-regulated and self-assessed, there is little independent evidence, if any, that the SLO mandate has resulted in improved teaching, program accountability, or an increase in student academic achievement.” “The imposition of SLOs for student orientations, administration of financial aid, student services and instructional programs has created new costly administrative positions, programs and structures. Examples include the accumulation of college SLO coordinators, SLO analysts and SLO advisory committees; SLO workshops, evaluations and trainings; and new campus administrative centers such as the Planning, Research and Institutional Effectiveness (PRIE) division at Sacramento City College. Distinct from SLO-imposed obligations, colleges also pay expenses for ACCJC visiting teams; consultants; special trustees; additional administrative personnel and other related costs.” The conclusion is that “Overwhelming evidence appears to indicate that ACCJC has exceeded its authority in the accreditation of California's two-year, associate degree public colleges. This evidence includes: the disparate number of California community colleges being sanctioned; disregard for state laws governing community colleges and contractual agreements; imposing costly and unnecessary policies without the approval or oversight of the state legislature; and creating campus climates whereby limited resources are being redirected to comply with compulsory ACCJC directives by funding new administrative functions and positions.” 2013-123 AUDIT SCOPE AND OBJECTIVES - Accrediting Commission for Community and Junior Colleges - Community College Costs and Nonstate-Approved PoliciesThe audit by the California State Auditor will provide independently developed and verified information related to the Accrediting Commission for Community and Junior Colleges (ACCJC) and its accreditation of California Community Colleges (community colleges) for the period 2009 through 2013 and will include, but not be limited to, the following: 1. Review and evaluate the laws, rules, and regulations significant to the audit objectives. 2. For a selection of three accredited community colleges, including two that the ACCJC has sanctioned, to the extent possible determine the following: (a) Whether the ACCJC accreditation process was conducted consistent with applicable state laws and regulations and was applied consistently among colleges. Further, assess the extent to which ACCJC policies comply with applicable state requirements. (b) Whether ACCJC accreditation policies changed and, if so, whether these changes had fiscal or other impacts. ( c ) How the ACCJC's accreditation process incorporates measures of educational quality - for example student achievement -and whether the ACCJC's use of such measures is reasonable and effective. (d) Whether the ACCJC's recommendations or requirements comply with applicable state laws and regulations. (e) Whether the ACCJC has required any of the selected colleges to take action that was inconsistent with applicable laws or policies, including with respect to the colleges' governance structure. (f) What changes, programs, or additional activities has each community college undertaken during the 2009 through 2013 period to address requirements imposed by ACCJC? (g) The additional costs incurred by each of the community colleges in making changes or undertaking new or additional activities to comply with any requirements imposed by ACCJC. 3. To the extent possible, determine whether there are discernable trends in the number, percentage, and types of sanctions imposed on community colleges subject to adverse action by the ACCJC compared with actions taken by other accrediting organizations in the United States, and identify the factors contributing to any significant variations. 4. Identify any state or federal open-meeting laws, and any changes to those laws, that applied to ACCJC from 2009 through 2013 and whether it complied with any such laws during that period. 5. To the extent possible, describe ACCJC's policies, and any changes to those policies, in effect between 2009 and 2013 for retaining documents relating to community college accreditations. 6. To the extent possible, identify the number, contractor identity, purpose, and value of consultant contracts entered into by ACCJC, and the entities responsible for payment. 7. Identify and assess any other issues that are significant to the process for accrediting community colleges. 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:
|