Accjc gone wild
Letter from ACCJC Accepting Restoration Status
Download 2.61 Mb.
|
- Navigate this page:
- Bonta Legislation Approved
Letter from ACCJC Accepting Restoration StatusOn 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 included. The week of November 16, 2014 will be used for the comprehensive evaluation visit and an October 15, 2014 due date was established for the self evaluation report. And so it goes. Bonta Legislation ApprovedThe Assembly and the Senate passed AB 1942 without a negative vote in late August 2014. The new Education Code language reads: SEC. 2. “Section 72208 is added to the Education Code, to read: 72208. (a) The accrediting agency for the community colleges shall report to the appropriate policy and budget subcommittees of the Legislature upon the issuance of a decision that affects the accreditation status of a community college and, on a biannual basis, any accreditation policy changes that affect the accreditation process or status for a community college. (b) The Office of the Chancellor of the California Community Colleges shall ensure that the appropriate policy and budget subcommittees of the Legislature are provided the information required to be reported pursuant to subdivision (a).” This language was watered down to remove any reference to removing ACCJC as the accrediting agency but it is a first step toward legislative and Chancellor’s Office oversight of ACCJC. 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:
|