Accjc gone wild
Los Angeles Valley College – PLACED ON WARNING (2013)
Download 2.61 Mb.
|
- Navigate this page:
- The decision on the accredited status of a college is made by the Commission. ” The recommendations contained in the letter include: “C ollege Recommendation 1
- College Recommendation 2
- College Recommendation 4
- College Recommendation 7
- District Recommendation 1
Los Angeles Valley College – PLACED ON WARNING (2013)At its June 5-7, 2013 meeting of the ACCJC, LA Valley College was placed on WARNING. The ACCJC Visiting Team included two faculty members out of the ten members of the team. One faculty member had previously been a college president and the other is from Early Childhood Education. I have heard from faculty members at LA Valley College that, on the whole, the Visiting Team was not well prepared nor were they well trained for the visit. Because of the secrecy involved in the process, I am not aware of what recommendation on the level of sanction was forwarded to the Commission. The Commission letter to the college dated July 3, 2013 stated that the “Commission acted to issue WARNING and ask that Los Angeles Valley College correct the deficiencies noted. The College is required to complete a Follow-Up Reports by March 15, 2014, demonstrating resolution of the deficiencies in meeting Accreditation Standards noted in College Recommendations 1-8 and District Recommendation 1. The Report will be followed by a visit of Commission representatives.” The Commission letter claimed that “Warning is issued when the Commission finds that an institution has pursued a course deviating from the Eligibility Requirements, Accreditation Standards or Commission policies to an extent that gives concern to the Commission. The Commission may require an institution to correct its deficiencies, refrain from certain activities, or initiate certain activities. The Commission will specify the time within which the institution must resolve deficiencies, and may require additional reports and evaluation visits.” How is the policy to give a WARNING SANCTION when a deficiency rises to “an extent that gives concern to the Commission” consistently applied across colleges. This standard for decision making is clearly vague and thus violates federal requirements. “The Follow-Up Report of March 2014 should demonstrate that the institution has fully addressed the recommendations noted below, completely resolved the noted deficiencies, and now meets all Eligibility Requirements, Accreditation Standards, and recommendations identified in the External Evaluation Team Report.” This means that the entire External Evaluation Team Report is now incorporated into the demands of the ACCJC. This seems to contradict the statement by the ACCJC regarding my complaint that “Evaluation teams complete a confidential recommendation regarding institutions prior to the completion of their on-site visit. It is made clear to evaluation teams that this is a recommendation only, from team to Commission; it does not carry any decisional weight. The decision on the accredited status of a college is made by the Commission.” The recommendations contained in the letter include: “College Recommendation 1: In order to achieve sustainable continuous quality improvement, the team recommends that the college use ongoing and systematic evaluation and planning to refine its key processes and improve student learning. The team recommends that the processes: Provide learning and achievement data on students enrolled in all delivery formats. Fully evaluate indicators of effectiveness and make improvement based on findings. Assure systematic analysis of data to inform decisions.”
The team recommends that the college evaluate its institutional planning process, including hiring decisions, and ensure planning practices are integrated and aligned with resources “ “College Recommendation 3: In order to fully meet the Standards, the college must assess and align SLOs at the course, program, and institutional levels and use the results to improve student learning and institutional effectiveness “ “College Recommendation 4: The team recommends that the college develop a formal definition of correspondence education that aligns with the U.S. Department of Education regulations and Commission policy and a process for determining the differences in practice between correspondence education and distance education “ “College Recommendation 5: To fully meet the Standards, the college should ensure that records of complaints are routinely maintained as required by the Policy on Student and Public Complaints Against Institutions “ “College Recommendation 6: To fully meet the Standards, the college should ensure that all employee performance evaluations are conducted in a timely basis in accordance with the employee contracts “ College Recommendation 7: The team recommends that the college, in collaboration with the district, put measures in place to ensure the effective control and implementation of the bond program and that decisions related to facilities are aligned with institutional).” “College Recommendation 8: To fully meet the Standards, the college should establish appropriate management and control mechanisms needed for sound financial decision-making. The institution should ensure that it has sufficient cash flow and reserves to maintain stability with realistic plans to meet financial emergencies and unforeseen occurrences and to ensure long-term financial stability. The team recommends that the President effectively control budget and expenditures “ “With regard to College Recommendation 8, the Follow-up Report should also address the concerns of the Financial Reviewers regarding efforts the College is taking to reduce deficit spending and improve internal financial controls.” “District Recommendation 1: In order to meet the Standards, the team recommends that the Chancellor and Board put accountability measures into place to ensure the long-term fiscal stability and financial integrity of the college” It is not clear to me what the distinction between “should”, “recommends” and “to fully meet the Standards” is. Are “shoulds” and recommendations required to be addressed in order to receive accreditation? 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:
|