Accjc gone wild
December 18, 2014 Summary of CFT Complaint Against ACCJC
Download 2.61 Mb.
|
- Navigate this page:
- Out of Compliance
December 18, 2014 Summary of CFT Complaint Against ACCJCOn December 18, 2014, the CFT filed a complaint against the Accreditation Commission for Community and Junior Colleges (ACCJC) for violations of federal requirements for recognition and included Third Party Comments with regard to the ACCJC. The complaint and Third Party Comment were submitted by the Law Offices of Robert J. Bezemek for the California Federation of Teachers (CFT), AFT Local 2121, CFT President Joshua Pechthalt, AFT 2121 Local President Tim Killikelly, Past Community College Council President Carl Friedlander, Community College Council President Jim Mahler, and a number of past presidents of AFT 2121 (Alisa Messer, Gus Goldstein, Allan Fisher, Rodger Scott, and Ed Murray). The CFT represents, through its local unions, the faculty at 30 of the 72 California community college districts. These 30 districts include more than 50 California community colleges. AFT Local 2121 represents the 1,500 academic employees employed by City College of San Francisco. The complaint was filed in compliance with Federal law and ACCJC Complaint Procedures. Federal law allows the public to file complaints against a recognized accreditor with the Department of Education. (34 CFR 602.32(b)(3)). In addition 34 CFR 602.32(b)(2) allows the public to submit comment to the Department of Education in regard to an accrediting agency=s continued recognition by the Department. Out of ComplianceThe current CFT Complaint Aalleges that the ACCJC has engaged, and continues to engage, in a number of violations of federal requirements, such as to indicate it lacks the capacity, competence and knowledge to serve as a recognized reliable accreditor. This Complaint alleges that the ACCJC is out of compliance with the following 34 CFR regulations: 602.14, 602.14(b)(3), 602.15(a)(1), 602.15(a)(2), 602.15(a)(6), 602.16(a)(v), 602.18(a), 602.18(b), 602.18( c), and 602.18(d)@ The complaint goes beyond how ACCJC has treated City College of San Francisco (CCSF) and includes AACCJC=s procedures, policies and actions which adversely affect all California community colleges accredited by the ACCJC, and unfairly place at risk the continued accreditation of these California institutions, thereby threatening the opportunities of hundreds of thousands of students to continue their education at California community colleges.@ Actually, the number of students attending California’s community colleges each year is around 2 million. The CFT complaint runs through a number of acts and omissions of the ACCJC. These include: “(1) ACCJC acts inconsistency in determining Financial Capacity of colleges for accreditation evaluations puts at risk the continued accreditation of each of California=s 112 community colleges, and interferes, or threatens to interfere, with the continued employment, and/or compensation, of tens of thousands of faculty employed at these colleges; and, interferes, or threatens to interfere, in the rights of labor organizations and employees under the Educational Employment Relations Act (Cal. Government Code section 3540 et seq.), and interferes, or threatens to interfere, in the educational opportunities of hundreds of thousands of students. This violates section 602.18(b). (2) ACCJC lacks a reasonable basis for determining that information it relies upon for making accrediting decisions is accurate. In particular its Aaverage norm@ for college expenditures for personnel costs, which it has announced is 80%, is not accurate. In reality, the statewide average is higher, and the average for urban located colleges and large colleges is even greater. The ACCJC=s reliance on an inaccurate average violates section 602.18(d). (3) ACCJC applies a norm to assess fiscal stability while looks at the percentage of a college=s unrestricted general fund which is spent on employee compensation (wages and benefits). ACCJC applies the same norm, 80%, regardless of the scope of operations of the college. However, statistics published by the Chancellor=s Office of the California community colleges confirms that the percentage figure is higher for colleges which have a greater scope of operations, or which are located in urban areas. In using the same norm of 80%, ACCJC violates 602.16(a)(v). (4) ACCJC=s lack of an adequate, competent and knowledgeable administrative staff interferes in the consistent application of fair evaluation standards and requirements, and threatens the continued accreditation of California=s community colleges, and the educational opportunities of hundreds of thousands of students. This violates section 602.15(a)(1) and (2). (5) ACCJC=s failure to have written and published specifications of requirements for obtaining good cause extensions of the Atwo year rule@, and ACCJC=s basing of decisions to extend the two year rule on policies which are not published, threatens the continued accreditation of California=s 112 community colleges, and the educational opportunities of hundreds of thousands of students. This violates section 602.18(a) and ( c). (6) ACCJC=s lack of an adequate, competent and knowledgeable administrative staff interferes in the consistent application of ACCJC standards for extending the time for colleges to come into compliance with ACCJC standards and requirements. This violates section 602.15(a)(1) and (2). (7) ACCJC=s failure to adopt and implement guidelines and controls to assure that each member of its decision making bodies, including its Appeals Panel, avoid actual or apparent conflicts of interest, interferes in the rights of the residents of San Francisco, 80,000 students of City College of San Francisco, and more than 1,500 faculty, and the students and faculty of the community colleges throughout the State, to have fair accreditation reviews by the ACCJC, and to assure that the regional accreditor for California has integrity. This violates 602.14(b)(3), 602.14, and 602.15(a)(6). (8) ACCJC=s adoption of an Appeals procedure which fails to afford its hearing panel sufficient authority to make independent decisions violates sections 602.25(f)I1)(iii), and 602.15(a)(1) and (2). (9) ACCJC=s adoption of a revised complaint policy which does not comply with federal requirements interferes in the rights of the public to submit complaints to the ACCJC, regarding the ACCJC, and violates 602.23(c)93).@ 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:
|