Accjc gone wild

Trends in Deficiencies Leading to Sanction January 2009 to January 2014

Download 2.61 Mb.

1 ... 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 ... 121

According to the Summer 2014 edition of the ACCJC News, “

There has been a significant drop in colleges that have difficulty with governing board roles and responsibilities that led to sanction, now down to 37.5% and 6 institutions
A large proportion of institutions on sanction – 87.5%, 14 of the 16 – still have not been able to demonstrate that they are integrating their institutional evaluation efforts such as program review to institutional actions such as resource allocation, planning and implementation of needed changes.
Three quarters of those institutions on sanction have not implemented the ACCJC’s standards on student learning outcomes.
About half of the institutions have not been able to demonstrate sound financial management or stability – but the overall number, 8, is lower than in previous years.”

The number of sanctions decreased in January of 2014 but then went up again in June of 2014.

This record indicates that ACCJC standards do not reflect commonly held beliefs on what the standards should be.


COLLEGES ON SANCTION	PROGRAM REVIEW	PLANNING	INTERNAL GOVERNANCE	BOARD	FINANCIAL STABILITY OR MANAGEMENT	Student Learning Outcomes Implementation	Employee Evaluation
2009 SANCTIONS	71%	92%	46%	46%	54%
(N=24)	(17)	(22)	(11)	(11)	(13)
2010 SANCTIONS	68%	89%	42%	58%	58%
(N=19)	(13)	(17)	(8)	(11)	(11)
2011 SANCTIONS	19%	71%	24%	67%	62%
(N=21)	(4)	(15)	(5)	(14)	(13)
2012 SANCTIONS	21%	71%	18%	71%	50%
(N=28)	(6)	(20)	(5)	(20)	(14)
2013 SANCTIONS	28%	64%	20%	68%	52%
(N=25)	(7)	(16)	(5)	(17)	(13)
2013 SANCTIONS	38%	88%	31%	38%	50%	75%	63%
(N=25)	(6)	(14)	(5)	(6)	(8)	(12)	(10)

Download 2.61 Mb.

Share with your friends:

1 ... 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 ... 121