Accjc gone wild
OPPRESSIVE, UNSCRUPULOUS, AND ABOVE-THE- LAW
Download 2.61 Mb.
|
- Navigate this page:
- MEMBER INSITITUTIONS, CCC CHANCELLOR’S OFFICE BOARD OF GOVERNORS
- EDUCATION COMMUNITY
- November 15, 2014 Plenary Session of the Academic Senate for California Community Colleges
- “Student Learning Outcomes and Faculty Evaluations (Approved Nov. 15, 2014)
OPPRESSIVE, UNSCRUPULOUS, AND ABOVE-THE- LAWACCJC has created and applied requirements and policies that are oppressive and unscrupulous: At the June 7, 2013 “Public” Session, ACCJC added a new Policy Element #9 to their Policy on Institutional Integrity and Ethics. This new Policy Element states: “9. The institution makes complete, accurate and honest disclosure of information required by the Commission, and complies with Commission requests, directives, decisions and policies. The institution acknowledges that if it fails to do so, the Commission may act to impose a sanction, or to deny or revoke candidacy or accreditation.”
“A member institution has the responsibility to acknowledge that specialized accrediting agency recognition , local governmental requirements and/ or collective bargaining agreements, in and of themselves, do not abrogate or substitute [for] institutional and employee obligations to comply with Eligibility Requirements, Accreditation Standards, and Commission policies.” According to this policy, ACCJC dictates and policy take precedence over Federal Regulation, local law, and labor contracts. These two policy requirements combine to give ACCJC unrestrained dictatorial life and death power over the institutions that it accredits. It is because of this unrestrained power that Robert Agrella, CCSF’s Super Trustee, did not include the findings of ACCJC non-compliance from the 8/13/2013 Department of Education determination letter as part of CCSF’s Review/Appeal of Termination argument . ACCJC’s unaccountability and arrogance and resultant unfairness has been evidenced by its legal briefs arguing for safe harbor, immunity, and for its claims of lawful and proper conduct despite its violations of federal Regulations. MEMBER INSITITUTIONS, CCC CHANCELLOR’S OFFICE & BOARD OF GOVERNORSACCJC needs a major reform of its leadership and Bylaws, Requirements, Standards and Policies. All member institutions, State Chancellors Office & Board of Governors need to work on removal of the rogue power elite that currently controls ACCJC. After such ouster of the Power Elite for cause, pursuant to its Bylaws, it needs to institute a major overhaul of its Bylaws, Requirements, Standards, Policies to remove rules that only further power projection and discipline that have nothing to do with improving or validating educational quality. ACCJC was put on notice by Department of Education for being unable to show that its standards, policies, procedures, and decisions are widely accepted by educators. EDUCATION COMMUNITYUnscrupulous ACCJC practices have been exposed in Court. Dissatisfaction with ACCJC practices has gathered strength and momentum. Educators should submit letters expressing non-acceptance of ACCJC practices and decisions so that ACCJC’s Petition for Renewal of Recognition will be denied next year—UNLESS ACCJC is able to achieve a miraculous revolution in integrity which would to enable it to make internal reforms. Successful internal reform that achieves the return to its stated purpose of “improving and validating the quality of education” should be the only reason to allow ACCJC to get its Recognition renewed—the ONLY reason. November 15, 2014 Plenary Session of the Academic Senate for California Community CollegesThe Academic Senate for California Community Colleges met on November 13-15, 2014 met in a plenary sessions with hundreds of faculty participating. They discussed a number of academic and professional issues including those revolving around the work of the Accrediting Commission for Colleges and Junior Colleges (ACCJC). The discussions of ACCJCs were directed at the vagueness of the letters sent to colleges after actions taken at the ACCJC January and June meetings, the amount of wasted time involved in preparing college reports for ACCJC visiting teams, the value of the student learning outcomes (SLOs) requirements of the ACCJC, and support for City College of San Francisco (CCSF). Three resolutions were approved by the voting body and one was sent to the Executive Committee for possible action. The resolutions were: “Student Learning Outcomes and Faculty Evaluations (Approved Nov. 15, 2014)Whereas, Standard III A.6 of the Accreditation Standards# adopted in June 2014 by the Accrediting Commission for Colleges and Junior Colleges (ACCJC) states, The evaluation of faculty, academic administrators, and other personnel directly responsible for student learning includes, as a component of that evaluation, consideration of how these employees use the results of the assessment of learning outcomes to improve teaching and learning; Whereas, The Academic Senate for California Community Colleges, in its 2004 paper The 2002 Accreditation Standards: Implementation#, has stated its opposition to the use of student learning outcomes (SLOs) as a basis for faculty evaluation, noting the potentially negative impact on evaluation as a collegial peer process, on academic freedom, and on local bargaining authority, and further affirmed in Resolution 2.01 F08 Opposition to Using SLOs in Faculty Evaluation "That the Academic Senate for California Community Colleges affirm its opposition to including the attainment of student learning outcomes as an aspect of individual faculty evaluations"; Whereas, College personnel experience an inability to reach consensus regarding how to interpret Standard III A.6, which causes confusion about the impact on performance evaluations, including evaluations for faculty; and Whereas, The assessment of student learning and professional development of faculty are academic and professional matters, and engagement in professional development, such as practices identified in numerous ASCCC publications and by the ASCCC Professional Development Committee, is an established and valued component of evaluation; Resolved, That the Academic Senate for California Community Colleges recommend that Standard III A. 6 of the Accreditation Standards, adopted in June 2014 by the Accrediting Commission for Community and Junior Colleges (ACCJC), be interpreted for faculty as follows and disseminate this interpretation to local colleges, system partners, and the ACCJC: Faculty are responsible for using the results of the assessment of student learning to participate in college processes to evaluate student achievement at the course, discipline, and college-wide scale as appropriate. Faculty should engage in professional growth and development that improves teaching and learning. The active participation of faculty in these collegial processes may be a factor in the evaluation of faculty; however, the results of assessments of learning outcomes are not a basis for faculty evaluation.” 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:
|