Accjc gone wild
Resolution of the Academic Senate of the California Community Colleges
Download 2.61 Mb.
|
- Navigate this page:
- CFT Complaint Filed on April 30, 2013
- ACCJC Response to CFT Complaint
Resolution of the Academic Senate of the California Community Colleges.At the Fall 2010 Meeting of the Academic Senate, delegates voted to approve the following resolution: “Whereas, City College of San Francisco is a vital multi-cultural, multi-campus community college and has been an essential part of the city of San Francisco since 1935; Whereas, City College of San Francisco has always sought to provide much needed support for those in its community that have been historically left out; Whereas, City College of San Francisco has always served as a statewide model of strong faculty participation in college governance and also a model for developing and maintaining appropriate salaries and benefits for both their full- and part-time faculty; and Whereas, City College of San Francisco values the knowledge and strength of its own faculty as they seek to resolve their accreditation issues through a strong and fair shared governance process drawing in all appropriate stakeholders; Resolved, That the Academic Senate for California Community Colleges acknowledge City College of San Francisco’s efforts to maintain its multi-cultural, multi-campus structure and its shared governance process; and Resolved, That the Academic Senate for California Community Colleges acknowledge the leadership of the faculty in their efforts to solve their accreditation issues.” CFT Complaint Filed on April 30, 2013On April 30, 2013, the California Federation of Teachers (CFT) and its City College San Francisco (CCSF) affiliate, AFT 2121, filed a complaint and “third party comment” protesting ACCJC’s action placing CCSF on SHOW CAUSE. The CFT attempted to file the complaint at the Novato office of the Commission but the people working there refused to receive the complaint or even time stamp the complaint and threatened to call the police if the CFT representative’s did not leave the office. The CFT left the office but left the complaint at the office. The staff then locked the door to the office and pulled the shades closed. The complaint was directed at “the abuse of authority by the Accrediting Commission for Community and Junior Colleges in performing the functions entrusted to it by the U.S. Department of Education, and the California Legislature. The Commission has violated nearly every Federal regulation which guides it, disregards its own policies, misrepresents its actions or legal requirements, fails to respect the law and public policy of the State, violates Federal common law due process and California common law fair procedure, and acts arbitrarily, capaciously, unfairly and inconsistently in evaluating colleges and districts throughout the State, thereby harming colleges, students, faculty and staff, boards of trustees and ultimately the People. And that is how it evaluated City College of San Francisco in June 2012.” The complaint can be found at the CFT website www.cft.org. ACCJC Response to CFT ComplaintOn May 10, 2013, Sherrill Amador sent a letter to Community College Chancellors, Presidents, and ALOs (Accreditation Liaison Officer). The letter was clearly a response to the complaint filed by CFT. One section of the letter was titled “The ACCJC Response to Recent Events.” It noted that the CFT filed it complaint on April 30, 2013. It did not note that the ACCJC would not receive the complaint in their office as their office was “private property.” The letter stated that “The complaint alleges, in part, the ACCJC engaged in irregularities when it evaluated and placed City College of San Francisco on "show cause" on July 2, 2012. While the complaint was presented in a format similar to legal complaints, the ACCJC does not operate as an administrative review court. The agency has a formal Policy on Complaints Against the Accrediting Commission for Community and Junior Colleges, which sets forth the manner in which complaints are handled. The ACCJC will follow that Policy in reviewing the CFT complaint. After it concludes its review, the ACCJC will issue a formal report of its findings and a copy of that report will be provided to the complainant. Until the ACCJC's report is issued, the ACCJC will not comment on the merits or substance of any of the allegations in the complaint. To do so would prejudge its formal review.” And then the letter goes on to prejudge. The letter made no mention of my more general complaint filed electronically on the same day with regard to the operation of the ACCJC generally and with respect to all of the community colleges evaluated. Although the letter states that it will “not comment on the merits or substance,” it went on to state that “The member institution has not complained about any aspect of the ACCJC review process, which resulted in the institution being placed on a sanction known as "Show Cause." To the contrary, chief administrators of CCSF have consistently and publically supported the findings of the visiting team and the decision of the Commission.” I guess this is not a comment on the complaint in the eyes of the ACCJC. It is just reporting that the current short-term administration and Special Trustee are not fighting for CCSF to survive. It also assumes that the college is another name for the administration. The letter went on to argue that “The standards, policies, and procedures followed by the ACCJC in its evaluation of CCSF are the same standards, policies, and procedures it employs when it reviews all of its accredited institutions. These standards and policies were developed in consultation with the member institutions of ACCJC, and represent those institutions' collective and shared ideas for practices that lead to quality higher education. The standards and policies of the ACCJC are the result of a voluntary process of peer review that has been ongoing in California since the creation of the ACCJC over 50 years ago. ACCJC's standards, policies, and procedures are under continual scrutiny from the United States Department of Education, which has consistently found that ACCJC is a reliable authority for the accreditation of community colleges in the Western Region.” This is clearly an argument that ACCJC is pure and clean. This is an obvious attempt to prejudge the well documented CFT complaint. The volunteer nature of the ACCJC affiliation by colleges is clearly not true given California law that required community colleges in California to use the ACCJC for its accreditation. The “collectively developed” standards and policies is not consistent with the recent history of the ACCJC. Later in this paper I discuss specifically how the ACCJC has attempted to impose its values on faculty union/district negotiations. 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:
|