Accjc gone wild
Cuesta College – PLACED ON SHOW CAUSE (2012), PLACED ON WARNING (2013)
Download 2.61 Mb.
|
Cuesta College – PLACED ON SHOW CAUSE (2012), PLACED ON WARNING (2013)At its January 10-12, 2012 meeting the Commission issued a Show Cause sanction on Cuesta College. Cuesta College had been on Probation since January of 2010. The College, in 2012, was order to prepare a “Show Cause Report of October 15, 2012" that demonstrates college compliance with Standard 1B (strategic planning, systematic evaluation process, assessment tools), Standard IIIC (regular and systematic planning with regard to technology infrastructure), Standard IIID (long range financial and capital planning strategies), and Eligibility Requirement 19 (Institutional Planning and Evaluation). In short, Cuesta College is being threatened with closing down if they don’t spend more of their resources on compliance with Commission imposed reporting and planning processes rather than on offering more classes and services to students. It seems clear that the Commission is either unaware or doesn’t take into account the extreme underfunding of California’s community over the past several years. Given the lack of prior knowledge that the colleges receive regarding current year or future funding, it would seem that spending extreme amounts of time on planning rather than on how to get through the current year with any academic program at all would be a misplacement of priorities. What the community colleges of California do not need is a Commission demanding that they spend their limited funds on excessive planning and report making. At the January 9-11, 2013 meeting of the ACCJC, Cuesta College was moved from SHOW CAUSE status to Warning. The visiting team recommendations now include:
Again, the recommendations of the ACCJC have little to do with the actual quality of teaching and learning and the institution. Given that the ACCJC keeps preaching outcomes, ironically their actual standards criteria only consider data on inputs. College of the Redwoods - SHOW CAUSE (2012), REMOVE SHOW CAUSE IMPOSE PROBATION“The Accrediting Commission for Community and Junior Colleges, Western Association of Schools and Colleges, at its meeting January 10-12, 2012, reviewed the institutional Self Study Report and the report of the evaluation team which visited College of the Redwoods Monday, October 17-Thursday, October 20, 2011. The Commission also heard testimony presented by President Utpal Goswami. The Commission acted to place College of the Redwoods on Show Cause and to require that the College submit a Show Cause Report by October 15, 2012. The report will be followed by a visit of Commission representatives.” The October 2011Visiting Team was composed of thirteen members only four of whom were faculty members. This is a violation of 34 CFR 602.15(a)(3) as described in the August 13, 2013 letter from the Accreditation Group in the Office of Postsecondary Education. I have learned from various sources that the Visiting Team had not recommended Show Cause as the sanction. As often happens, the ACCJC increased the sanction. Because of the secrecy of the Commission, It is impossible for the public to know why they changed the recommendation of the Visiting Team. The letter from the Commission dated February 1, 2012 stated that “Show Cause was ordered for College of the Redwoods for deficiencies associated with Recommendations 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8 from the 2011 external evaluation team as noted below, and Recommendation 1 from 2008. These 2011evaluation team recommendations incorporate recommendations from past evaluation teams that the college has not resolved, including recommendations made by the 2005 comprehensive evaluation team and one recommendation on planning made by the 1999 comprehensive evaluation team. College of the Redwoods has not demonstrated an ability to address evaluation team recommendations in a manner that is timely, complete and sustained, and has not demonstrated consistent and reliable compliance with Accreditation Standards.” Just as in the case of City College of San Francisco, College of the Redwoods had not received sanctions prior to the SHOW CAUSE decision of 2012. Thus just as in the case of CCSF, the ACCJC was in violation of 34 CFR 602.18(e). The letter went on to state that “The Show Cause Report of October 15, 2012 should demonstrate the institution's compliance with all the requirements of Standard IB; Standards IIA, B and C; Standards III A, B, C and D; and Standard IVB; and Eligibility Requirement 10. The Report should provide explanation and evidence of how the institution meets the Standards noted above and what it has done to resolve the recommendations noted below. The failure of the College to demonstrate in its report full compliance with Commission Standards and Eligibility Requirements will require the Commission, at its January 2013 meeting, to take action to terminate accreditation.” “Recommendation #1 - Student Learning Outcomes In order to meet the standards and improve institutional effectiveness, the team recommends that the college: maintain an on-going, sustainable process of assessing student learning outcomes at the course, program, certificate, and degree levels; promote widespread dialogue on the results of the assessments; and use assessment results to improve programs and institutional processes including resource allocations.” “Recommendation #2 - Strategic Planning In order to attain sustainable continuous quality improvement in institutional planning, the team recommends that the college: integrate its component plans into a comprehensive strategic plan to achieve broad educational purposes and improve institutional effectiveness; establish and assess measurable, actionable goals to improve institutional effectiveness; include educational effectiveness as a demonstrated priority in all planning structures and processes; and promote ongoing, robust and pervasive dialogue about institutional effectiveness;. Recommendation #3 - Course Syllabi and Catalog In order to meet the Standards and Eligibility Requirements, the team recommends that the college ensure that all students receive a course syllabus that specifies student learning outcomes and that program outcomes are published in the college catalog and other relevant college documents. Recommendation #4 - Student Records In order to meet the standard, the team recommends that the college complete the imaging of student records and assure that these records are secure and protected. (Standard IIB.3.f) Recommendation #5 - Employee Evaluation In order to meet the standard, the team recommends that the college consistently apply its policies on employee performance evaluation, ensure that all employees are evaluated at intervals stated in the policies, and include student learning outcomes as a component in evaluation of those working directly with students. Recommendation #6 - Strategic Hiring Plan In order to meet the standard, the team recommends that the college develop and implement a strategic hiring plan which analyzes demographic data to address employee equity and diversity. Recommendation #7 - Professional Development In order to meet the standard, the team recommends that the college develop a comprehensive professional development program which is linked with the college mission and the strategic plan and which encourages opportunities for leadership growth within the college. The program should be regularly evaluated based on needs assessment data, outcomes, and relationship to mission. Recommendation #8 - Board Actions and Communication; Holding President Accountable In order to meet the standard, the team recommends that the governing board act in a manner consistent with its policies and practices, regularly evaluate its policies and practices (emphasis added) revising them as necessary, and demonstrate and widely communicate its actions as being within the policy framework while seeking input on such practices. In addition, the governing board must hold the president accountable for the successful operation of the college within the Board policy and procedure framework. Recommendation 1 (2008) The college should determine a template for student achievement data and related analyses that is to be included in all program reviews and should use the institutional research staff and others knowledgeable about data analyses to guide the faculty and ultimately the college in discussions of what these data show about student success; these discussions should become part of the culture and practice of the institution.” Once again we see the Commission’s attempt to impose a pencil pushers dream of how a college should spend its time. Again no negative finding regarding the quality of education provided. And again we see the improper imposition of the ACCJC in the area of collective bargaining. According to a letter sent to College of the Redwoods on February 11, 2013; “The Accrediting Commission for Community and Junior Colleges, Western Association of Schools and Colleges, at its meeting January 9-11, 2013, reviewed the Show Cause Report submitted by College of the Redwoods, the additional material and presentation by college representatives, and the report of the evaluation team which visited November 5-6, 2012. The purpose of this review was to determine whether College of the Redwoods meets Accreditation Standards at a level sufficient to remain accredited, and whether College of the Redwoods has made changes and improvements required by the Commission action letter of February 1, 2012, which placed the College on Show Cause. The Commission found that College of the Redwoods has resolved many of the deficiencies that were identified in the February 1, 2012 action letter, but has important areas of non-compliance not resolved or fully demonstrated. The Commission acted to remove Show Cause and impose Probation and require the College of the Redwoods to submit a Follow-Up Report by October 15, 2013. The report will be followed by a visit of Commission representatives.” The November 2012 Visiting Team had six members, none of which were faculty members. Once again we see a violation of 34 CFR 602.18(e). The letter to the college continued: “The College's deadline for resolving deficiencies and meeting all Standards has been extended for good cause.” It is not clear how the Commission decides “good cause” for one college but not another. This is a violation of 34 CFR 602. The lines are not drawn to interpret when “good cause” exists and the application has been inconsistent. “The Follow-Up Report should demonstrate that the institution fully resolved the deficiencies associated with Recommendations 6 and 7, meets the requirements of Eligibility Requirement 17 and Standards III.D.1.b and III.D.2.c., has implemented and sustained its new program review, budgeting and planning processes (Recommendations 1, 2, and 2008 Recommendation 1), and now meets all Accreditation Standards.” Note the use of the phrase - “and now meets all.” Among the items listed in the letter, the following are included: “The institution's Show Cause Report documents the College's partial compliance with Standards III.D.1.b and III.D.2.c. and notes that the institution is working to develop realistic plans to maintain financial stability, to increase revenues and reduce expenditures.” “The College has used the State Chancellor's Office "Sound Fiscal Management Self-Assessment Checklist" to identify areas of financial management and stability that still need improvement. The College should complete the work necessary to come into compliance with ER 17, and Standards III.D.1.b and 2.c.” “The Commission has determined that the College is now in compliance with Standards I.A, I.B, II.A, II.B, II.C, III.B, and III.C, portions of III.D, Standards IV.A and IV.B, and Eligibility Requirement 10. The task will be to sustain the new processes and practices, and demonstrate that the institution's complies with all of the requirements of accreditation.” It is quite clear that a different (and perhaps better approach) was used in helping College of Redwoods gain accreditation than the approach used to close down City College of San Francisco. In the case of CCSF there was clearly a will on the part of ACCJC to see CCSF fail. Perhaps CCSF represented the kind of community oriented pro-opportunity college that the ACCJC seems to believe is “no longer realistic.” 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:
|