Accjc gone wild
April 18, 2014 Chief Executive Officers to ACCJC
Download 2.61 Mb.
|
- Navigate this page:
- Legislative Bills as of May 11, 2014
April 18, 2014 Chief Executive Officers to ACCJCOn April 18, 2014 Helen Benjamin, Ph. D., the President of the Chief Executive Officers of the California Community Colleges, wrote to the ACCJC with respect to their discussion of “the precarious status of City College of San Francisco (CCSF) in light of four recent events: (1) the April 13th Op-Ed in the San Francisco Chronicle by Commission members suggesting that CCSF ‘seek accreditation anew by applying for ‘candidacy status’; (2) the recognition that CCSF would lose its apportionment if it moved into candidacy status; (3) the receipt of invoices by ACCJC member institutions in the last week indicating a 5% special assessment for legal fees; and, (4) two pending pieces of legislation proposing to allow California's community colleges to seek accreditation from alternative national accrediting bodies.” She noted that “we share grave concern for the educational future of the more than 70,000 students and community members affected by the status of CCSF, as well as for our existing system of regional peer-reviewed accreditation” and that “the lesson from Compton Community College teaches us that we must raise our voice when a college's accreditation is in imminent jeopardy and an alternative path is available.” President Benjamin went on to “request that you use your discretion to extend the accreditation termination date for City College of San Francisco by two years, and continue the college on Show Cause during that time.” She noted that the Commission is allowed to extend the date according to federal regulations and that “As representatives of a majority of ACCJC's member institutions, we believe there is more than ample cause for ACCJC to extend the period for achieving compliance for the benefit of both the students and community served by CCSF, as well as for all ACCJC member institutions. We note two significant institutional reasons to grant CCSF additional time - progress and impact of closure.” President Benjamin made note of the progress that CCSF has made toward “addressing academic, financial and governance concerns.” She noted that not only does this progress allow for the ACCJC to find “good cause” but also that “there is no manner by which CCSF can redirect the more than 70,000 remaining students to other higher education options in the Bay Area.” Benjamin continued: “On or around April 14, ACCJC member colleges received a dues invoice from ACCJC that included a 5% surcharge, which appears to have averaged around $1,000 per college. This surcharge is to pay the legal costs incurred by ACCJC to date relating to CCSF. From the information provided, it appears this is to pay for costs already accrued and not for the significant future costs if one or more legal cases go to trial.” “As the ‘funders’ of ACCJC's legal defense bills, we believe it is critical to exhaust every non-courtroom remedy to minimize our financial exposure as well as any negative impact on students throughout the state.” In short: “Allowing CCSF to complete its significant turnaround benefits the students and community served by the college, the ACCJC, and every institutional member of ACCJC. This is sufficient for ACCJC to find ‘good cause’ pursuant to the federal regulations.” Scott Lay from the CCLC then followed up with the following on April 25, 2014: “To: Chief Executive Officers This morning, Helen Benjamin, president of the Chief Executive Officers of the California Community Colleges, sent the following letter to members of the Accrediting Commission for Community and Junior Colleges. The CEOCCC board encourages similar letters from individual CEOs as our institutions compose the substantial majority of the ACCJC's membership and believes that an expeditious resolution to this matter is necessary.”
As of May 12, 2014 there were a number of bills in the California Legislature related to ACCJC. They include AB 2087 by Ammiano, AB 1942 by Bonta, SB 1068 by Beall, and SB 965 Leno. SB 965 and SB 1068 Beall did not get out of the Senate Appropriations Committee on May 23, 2014. SB 965 may become part of the budget when it is approved. AB 2087 was sent to the Senate Education Committee on May 22, 2014. AB 1942 was sent to the Assembly floor on May 23, 2014. The full language of the bills can be found at www.accreditationwatch.com. AB 2087 was heavily amended on April 24. After amendments were made all that was left was a requirement that the Board of Governors regulations “pursuant to which the board may appoint a special trustee to manage a community college district provide specific benchmarks to indicate the presence of local capacity to resume management of the community college district and clear standards that provide for meaningful consultation by a special trustee with the community college district prior to decisionmaking.” The language of the bill, in part, reads: “The regulations pursuant to which the board of governors may appoint a special trustee to manage the community college district shall include specific benchmarks to indicate the presence of local capacity to resume management of the community college district and clear standards that provide for meaningful consultation by a special trustee with the community college district prior to decisionmaking.” And “The board of governors shall report to the chairs of the educational policy and fiscal committees of both houses of the Legislature, the Director of Finance, and the Governor any corrective action taken by the district and any action taken against the district pursuant to paragraph (3).” AB 1942 was amended on May 6, 2014. The bill would “require the board of Governors, in determining whether a community college district satisfies those minimum conditions, to review the accreditation status of the community colleges within that district. This bill would require the board to establish a task force to review the appropriateness of allowing a community college district to receive state aid, on a limited basis, for a community college within the district that is unaccredited and seeking accreditation. If the task force determines that state aid to be appropriate, this bill would require the task force to recommend conditions for receipt of the state aid, and would require the Chancellor of the California Community Colleges to report on the task force’s findings to the Legislature on or before March 31, 2015.” The bill would also “require a contract with the accrediting agency of the community colleges to comply with various requirements, and to require the accrediting agency to report to the appropriate subcommittees of the Legislature upon the agency's issuance of a decision that affects the accreditation status of a community college and, on a biannual basis, any accreditation policy changes that affect the accreditation process or status for a community college. In particular, the bill language includes: 72208.(a) After January 1, 2015, any agreement with the accrediting agency for the community colleges, as designated by law, shall require the accrediting agency to do all of the following: (1) Establish standards that are relevant and material to the standards required pursuant to federal law, relevant and material to the quality of education of a community college, widely accepted by educators, educational institutions, licensing bodies, practitioners, and employers in the profession or vocational fields for which the community college prepares students, and in compliance with applicable state laws and policies. (2) In evaluating a community college, the accrediting agency shall employ an evaluation team that satisfy both of the following requirements: (A) The evaluation team's membership should proportionately reflect the shared governance structure of community colleges by including faculty, classified employees, and administrative employees of the community colleges. (B) The team shall be independent of the accrediting agency and the community college being evaluated, and the accrediting agency shall establish and ensure compliance with a defined conflict of interest policy. (3) In assessing whether to impose a sanction of show cause or revocation, the accrediting agency shall consider all of the following: (A) The length of time the community college has not been in substantial compliance with the minimum conditions after notification by the accrediting agency. (B) The seriousness of the deficiencies with respect to their impact on the quality of education at the community college. (C) If the accrediting agency intends to impose a sanction more severe than the recommendation of the evaluation team, or finds a deficiency not noted in the evaluation team's report, the hearing on the imposition of that proposed sanction shall be adjourned to afford the community college and the public sufficient time to respond orally and in writing to the accrediting agency before it reaches a final decision. (4) Allow an institution proposed for a sanction of show cause or revocation by the accrediting agency to file an appeal to be heard by an arbitrator or hearing officer mutually agreed upon by the community college and the accrediting agency. The parties shall have the right to present and rebut relevant evidence, to call and examine witnesses, and to present a written argument at the close of the hearing. The accrediting agency shall bear the burden of persuading the trier of facts by clear and convincing evidence that the sanction is reasonable and warranted. (5) The accrediting agency shall provide for public hearings in matters regarding a California community college, including providing adequate public notice of the hearing and opportunity for public participation or comment prior to accreditation decisions. Accrediting agency deliberations regarding accreditation decisions may occur in a closed session meeting following public participation or comment. The accrediting agency shall announce the accreditation decision to the public. (b) (1) An agreement pursuant to subdivision (a) shall require the accrediting agency to report to the appropriate policy and budget subcommittees of the Legislature upon the issuance of a decision that affects the accreditation status of a community college and, on a biannual basis, any accreditation policy changes that affect the accreditation process or status for a community college. (2) The Office of the Chancellor of the California Community Colleges shall ensure that the appropriate policy and budget subcommittees of the Legislature are provided the information required in paragraph (1). (c) For purposes of this section, a sanction of "show cause" occurs if the accrediting agency finds a community college to be in substantial noncompliance with its eligibility requirements, accreditation standards, or policies, or if the community college has not responded to the conditions imposed by the accrediting agency. SB 1068 as amended on May 7, 2014 “would require the board of governors, on or before January 1, 2016, to report to the Legislature (1) the feasibility of creating an independent accrediting agency to accredit the California Community Colleges and 2-year private postsecondary educational institutions for purposes of the federal Higher Education Act of 1965 and state-authorized financial aid, (2) based on a thorough examination of community college accreditation nationwide, a recommendation of whether the state would be best served by using a specified accrediting agency for all California public postsecondary educational institutions, and (3) the potential for using multiple accrediting agencies to ensure that the California Community Colleges are of the highest quality, as provided.” SB 965 was amended on May 1, 2014. It would “for the 2014-15 fiscal year-to and the 2017 18 2015-16 fiscal year, inclusive, would require the board of governors to provide the San Francisco Community College District with revenues, as specified, if, on the effective date of this bill, the board of governors finds that the community college district or a campus of the community college district-was is in imminent jeopardy of losing its accreditation, the board of governors has exercised its authority pursuant to specified provisions, and the institution is in compliance with a regulation requiring it to be accredited by a specified agency. The bill would require the board of governors to additionally provide the San Francisco Community College District with revenues for the 2016-17 fiscal year under the same conditions applicable to the 2014-15 and 2015-16 fiscal years, but only if the Fiscal Crisis Management Assistance Team makes a finding no sooner than April 1, 2016, that the San Francisco Community College District is meeting or exceeding specified fiscal benchmarks.” “The bill would require the Chancellor of the City College of San Francisco to submit a report containing specified information to the appropriate policy and fiscal committees of the Legislature, the Office of the Governor, the Legislative Analyst's Office, and the Department of Finance on or before April 15, 2015, and to submit updates to this report as specified. Because this provision would impose new duties on the San Francisco Community College District, it would constitute a state-mandated local program.” The bill would also make legislative findings regarding the need for a special statute for CCSF. The bill would take effect on passage and signature of the governor in order to take effect immediately. 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:
|