Accjc gone wild


July 21, 2014 ACCJC Decision on Remand



Download 2.61 Mb.
Page73/121
Date13.06.2017
Size2.61 Mb.
#20740
1   ...   69   70   71   72   73   74   75   76   ...   121

July 21, 2014 ACCJC Decision on Remand



And the Charade Continues
On July 21, 2014, Barbara Beno wrote to CCSF’s recently appointed Chancellor Art Tyler and Special Trustee Robert Agrella that the ACCJC “was directed by the independent Appellate Hearing Panel to conduct and complete as soon as reasonably practicable an evaluation of City College of San Francisco's (CCSF) state of compliance with accreditation standards and eligibility requirements as of May 21, 2014. The Commission conducted a review employing a format and methodology developed in accordance with the Hearing Panel's June 12, 2014 decision. The review concluded July 18, 2014. Based upon the evaluation of testimony and documentary evidence provided by CCSF, the Commission determined that CCSF had not established its compliance with standards and thus, that a reconsideration of the Commission's June 2013 action to terminate the accreditation of CCSF was not warranted. The termination decision stands as it was made, and will be implemented in accordance with the June 2013 action.”
The decision by the Commission would not be a surprise to anyone following the so-called “independent” appeal process of the ACCJC. The members of the panel were handpicked by the ACCJC. All had a close relationship with the Commission. Some were former commissioners. The chair has been a speaker a number of ACCJC events. Then the ACCJC – the very people who made the decision to take away CCSF’s accreditation - decided that their original decision was correct up to May 21, 2014.The evidence they relied on was presented by a lawyer appointed by the CCSF Special Trustee who was appointed by Brice Harris - a past Commission Member and Chancellor of the California Community Colleges. Special Trustee Agrella then chose Art Tyler as Chancellor. No new Visiting Team was used to gather the necessary evidence.
The case presented by the new Chancellor and Special Trustee was in accordance with the demands of the Commission and was designed not to offend the Commission. From beginning to end the entire appeal process was a cruel deception.
The letter went on to spell out that the criteria for the sanction of closing the college after a SHOW CAUSE sanction is different from that for other sanctions: “Because CCSF was on Show Cause, the testimony and documentary evidence of CCSF had to demonstrate compliance with standards. Compliance with standards is found when an institution meets or exceeds the Eligibility Requirements, Accreditation Standards, and Commission policies.” In other words, “substantially satisfies” does not apply in such a case as it would for all the other colleges seeking accreditation. This is clearly a double standard of justice.
The standards “not complied with” give evidence as to what the ACCJC would decide if the college administration was foolish enough to seek Restoration instead of going to the courts with an appeal of the decision:

“The Commission found CCSF had not demonstrated its compliance with standards previously noted as deficient in:



I.B Improving Institutional Effectiveness

II.A Instructional Programs

II.B Student Support Services

II.0 Library and Learning Support Services

III.B Physical Resources

III.0 Technology Resources

III.D Financial Resources

IV.B Board and Administrative Organization”
No further detail was provided.
It is clearly unlikely that the College could change the Commission’s mind over the next few weeks - a period in which the college was mostly not in regular session. Given past practice, it is a safe bet that the Commission would decide that the college did not reasonably have a chance of being completely in “compliance” by July 31, 2014 and thus reject the appeal for Restoration Status.
To add to the insult to CCSF, its students, its employees, and the people of San Francisco the Commission claimed that not only did CCSF not comply but “nevertheless, the CCSF did not establish substantial compliance with standards.” All this without any evidence other than that supplied by the tainted CCSF administration.
The CCSF case was so lamely prepared that the ACCJC was able to state that “CCSF's evidence indicated it would take more than a year to achieve compliance in a number of these areas including adequate student and learning support services at each Center, data analysis capability, internal control systems, and finance.” This is the work of the Special Trustee and his appointed administrators. The elected Board, if so empowered - could certainly have more successfully defended its college from the wrath of ACCJC.
Of course the Commission, in an attempt to save itself from legal action, notes that “In accordance with Commission policy, there is one additional administrative remedy available to the College before the termination action is considered final: restoration status. CCSF must submit its application for restoration status by July 31, 2014, the effective date set by the Commission in its June 2013 decision to terminate accreditation.”
The letter ends with “Upon receipt of an application for restoration status, the Commission staff will work to expeditiously review the application letter and Eligibility Report, so that scheduling of the restoration status comprehensive evaluation visit can take place without delay.” Of course they leave out the part about not going forward at all if, in their opinion, there is no reasonable chance of being successful within the given time line.


Letter from ACCJC Accepting Restoration Status

On July 30, 2014, Barbara Beno wrote to Dr. Robert Agrella (Special Trustee) and Dr. Arthur Q. Tyler (Chancellor City College of San Francisco) informing them that ACCJC had accepted CCSF’s application for restoration. The letter noted that the acceptance was based on the amended Eligibility Report that had responded to input from Commission staff “about a small number of items that needed further clarification in order for the Eligibility Report to be complete.”


The letter from Beno stated that “The updated Eligibility Report has been reviewed by Commission staff. The staff review determined that CCSF has addressed all elements of the Eligibility Requirements, setting forth CCSF's compliance with those requirements.”
“Verification of the facts and evidence within the Eligibility Report will be undertaken as a part of the on-site comprehensive restoration status evaluation.”
The letter than offered advice in submitting their evidence which included that citations of specific references be provided including links to the specific sections referenced, appropriate quotes be included, and links should open “reliably.”
The CCSF letter of July 28, 2014 had raised a number of concerns. Some of these concerns were addressed in Beno’s letter. The letter made clear that CCSF remained accredited during the period of review (pending termination). “Upon a successful completion of the comprehensive restoration status evaluation, the college will be accredited, on restoration status.” Restoration status was limited to two years.
The letter makes clear that CCSF will not be evaluated on the same basis as other colleges although the fall 2014 comprehensive evaluation will be performed under 2002 Eligibility Requirements and Accreditation Standards. The review will be based on the standards as applied to colleges on Show Cause. As explained by Beno the double standard works this way: “Compliance with standards means that an institution meets or exceeds the Eligibility Requirements, Accreditation Standards, and Commission policies. By comparison, substantial compliance with standards (the standard for colleges in good accreditation standing to attain reaffirmation of accreditation) means that an institution meets or exceeds the Eligibility Requirements, Accreditation Standards, and Commission policies but for a few deficiencies which can be fully resolved in a short period, generally six to twelve months.” In short, the ACCJC will continue colleges on accreditation on one basis and end accreditation on a harsher basis. This makes no sense at all.
Beno notes that “In the event that restoration status is awarded, then the comprehensive evaluation two years later will utilize the 2014 Eligibility Requirements and Accreditation Standards. Member institutions are also required to maintain currency with policies of the Commission. Notifications of policy changes are distributed to the field, generally twice per year.”
Beno then attempts to explain why no appeal is allowed under the Restoration policy. In short, “no additional review and appeal are granted during the restoration process.” The college will be allowed to submit errors made in the draft team report and address the Commission in secret session (without the knowledge of what is being recommended by the Visiting Team) - a process that in the past has proved to be useless.
CCSF was given three months to finalize its self evaluation report and “the restoration status is a remedy that falls within a short window of time, and the self evaluation report must be finalized in the allotted period.”
Contrary to what happened when the Commission took away the accreditation status at Compton College, “the existence of a Special Trustee with Extraordinary Powers (SWEP) will not disqualify an institution from meeting Eligibility Requirement 3. Of course, the SWEP must demonstrate compliance with standards. Moreover, as the SWEP is inherently a temporary position, compliance with standards during any transition of power to an elected governing board in the restoration period will be important for the college to demonstrate.”
Beno makes clear that the comprehensive evaluation will need to evaluate “both the college's current compliance with standards, and its ability to achieve and/or maintain compliance with the Eligibility Requirements, Accreditation Standards, and Commission policies within a two year restoration period.”
The ACCJC has not yet developed a manual for restoration but “a short manual describing differences in process particular to restoration status comprehensive evaluations will be prepared and presented to CCSF in the next few weeks.” No mention of how this will affect the required timeline was not included.
The week of November 16, 2014 will be used for the comprehensive evaluation visit and to an October 15, 2014 due date was established for the self evaluation report.
And so it goes.




Download 2.61 Mb.

Share with your friends:
1   ...   69   70   71   72   73   74   75   76   ...   121



The database is protected by copyright ©ininet.org 2024
send message
    Main page
evaluation team
academic senate