Accjc gone wild
Selected Testimony Before Board of Governors on Removing ACCJC from Regulations
Download 2.61 Mb.
|
- Navigate this page:
- Martin Hittelman
- David Morse
- Alesia Messer
- Vice President Baum
Selected Testimony Before Board of Governors on Removing ACCJC from RegulationsTimothy Killikelly (President AFT 2121) The time has come for the accjc's monopoly to end. There is no reason for it. [applause] The actions at CCSF are only really the tip of the iceberg of what has occurred. We have seen that throughout the entire system, the level of sanctions relative to other regional a creditors is off the charts. We hope the removal of ACCJC’s monopoly is not just a symbolic process where we are pressing our dissatisfaction of what is happening in the accreditation of California community colleges but actually the beginning of a process. I am encouraged by hearing the questions that are being asked by the Board of Governors. They really seem to be getting to the heart of the matter to what would actually we would be, what would occur, what would be the transition. They're important questions and I am very happy that you are thinking about this so we can create finally a fair and transparent accreditation process here at the community colleges of California.[applause] >> Alvin Ja >>I never thought I would see the day you would be willing to pull ACCJC as the designated accreditor. I'm a retired blue collar worker and we look at things in terms of how they hit the ground, in terms of practical real life consequences. When up-top shot callers and decision-makers make their calls they have severe consequences down on the ground and I'm a regular citizen and I see the consequences. I was a bus driver streetcar driver and also instructor for those vehicles, and what we always kept in mind was what we called the big picture. What's the big picture? You just don't look in front of your nose. What ACCJC has done is failed to look at the big picture and what is the big picture? In terms of their own by laws, in terms of the federal code of regulations, the purpose of accreditation is very simple, to validate and improve the quality of education. Very simple. Okay. But what ACCJC has done is it's taken the license that recognition has given them and used this power to enforce their own standards that basically have little to do with improving and validating the quality of education. What they have done is concentrate power into a small group of people. They have misplaced the priority into a projection of power, amassing power among themselves for their self serving benefit as opposed to the benefit to students. Basically the feds, when they give accrediting agencies recognition, are endowing them with the public trust. ACCJC has, in terms of it's actual application of their authority, has been against the public trust, and basically they have been building their own self serving empire. [applause] >> Martin Hittelman (Emeritus Professor of Mathematics - Los Angeles Valley College) >> I am glad that the board of governors is finally moving to eliminate the monopoly that ACCJC has had. It's been abusing its authority over the years. ACCJC has claimed to be a voluntary organization and clearly they were not. Their process they say is peer driven. Obviously it's not. The field doesn't agree with many standards they have adopted nor the way they are being interpreted. The ACCJC has been forcing their values on the colleges. One example is GASB 45, the prefunding of retirement benefits. According to what the Chancellor's Office has put out, which is in agreement with BASB 45, colleges are supposed to put their retirement benefits liability on the their books but are not required to prefund it yet ACCJC drives colleges to prefund it through an organization which some of their members help drive. [applause] Faculty are still not convinced that the student learning outcomes methodology is the right thing to do and if you saw the academic senate session that just ended you will see there is a lot of controversy of the value of SLOs and the time it takes and the ridiculousness of its requirement. The ACCJC is constantly calling on trustees to act in certain ways which are contrary to democratic principles and law. The ACCJC has been telling trustees that they should not be speaking out on matters of the colleges (as elected officials are allowed to do) and they have other actions that they are pressing the trustees not to take, possibly because Barbara Beno was fired by a board of trustees. [applause] As far as a solution you might look to the North Central Association of Colleges and Schools. They accredit close by colleges in Arizona and Colorado and New Mexico plus a lot of other colleges. The other is Northwest Commission on Colleges and they accredit Idaho, Nevada and Oregon and could be a good fit. I suggest that you look to see if they're interested in applying for the right to accredit California community colleges. If you followed the People vs. ACCJC trial at all you have heard the whole litany of lack of due process, biased influence, biased summaries to the commission which were not accurate and therefore the commission voted not to follow the recommendation of the ACCJC’s Visiting Team. So in short it's time to get rid of this rogue organization. It's time to [applause] It's time to lift their cloud of secrecy. [applause]
The Academic Senate would like to align with our colleagues that just spoke and the spring 2014 Academic Senate passed resolution 2.0 which called for the Senate to "work with the appropriate bodies to remove references to one accrediting agency in Title V and replace with a neutral statement that California Community Colleges shall be accredited by a regional federal agency." The action under consideration is therefore consistent with the wishes of the faculty of the California Community Colleges as expressed through the position taken by our delegates. We thank the chancellor's office for proposing this change and wishes to express our support. [applause]
Thank you for taking a moment to hear my views delivered on behalf of the 25,000 community college members of the California Federation of Teachers and CFT President Pechtalt regarding agenda item 3.2. I am speaking in favor of this change. As you know the CFT filed a complaint with the U.S. Department of Education the spring before last regarding violations by the ACCJC of accreditation standards and California law and their own policies. Our claims about ACCJC's disregard to their rules drew a reprimand letter from the Department of Education warning the ACCJC to clean up their act and they continue to violate many of the same norms and laws while passing through policies to appear as if the ACCJC is not continuing to be in non-compliance. It continues for instance to field site teams for colleges without resembling balance between administrator and faculty members and compounds the violation for academic for administrators. ACCJC faced a trial in San Francisco where evidence was shown that ACCJC staff recklessly attempted to destroy education for 80,000 students with the SHOW CAUSE sanction and disparate treatment for City College of San Francisco compared to other colleges. We fully expect the judge to order a new review of city college this time conducted in a fair and lawful fashion. The ACCJC is an agency that is out of compliance and out of control. We realize that further steps will need to be taken before another entity might perform the complex work of accreditation of California community colleges but this step is a necessary prerequisite to those other ones. It is past time to end the monopoly over accreditation, exercised by a commission that has shown by its disregard for fairness, for law, for its own policies and for the educational future of 80,000 students that it cannot be trusted and does not deserve to hold that position any longer. I urge you to approve this change to Title V. [applause] >>
I an an English teacher at City College of San Francisco and with the faculty union there. Thank you for your consideration of this new language which our union supports as a first and necessary step. The last time I addressed this body I asked about the disappearance of the task force report. I am pleased to hear more recently that the task force has once again been reconvened and plans to approve and issue the report and addressing the recommendations coming out of the joint legislative audit committee's review of the ACCJC and its practices and missteps. The evidence continues to mount. The ACCJC is not the right accreditor for our colleges and this state's students. The change in language under discussion today speaks to that fact. The ACCJC is not like other accrediting agencies. Its actions, not just at CCSF, have been inappropriate and vindictive and create fear in the colleges and with City College of San Francisco and in the court and growing concern about the ACCJC but they are rarely discussed in public. In 2011 the Research and Planning Group for California Community Colleges issued a report that was two years in the making titled "focusing accreditation on quality improvements." The group was concerned with the soaring level of sanctions in California and at the discontent emerging with ACCJC's approach to the accreditation process. The research noted that "transparent, open and honest opportunities for feedback without fear of retribution are critical to a commission's relationship with member colleges." However it reported "the colleges interviewed found ACCJC generally unreceptive to criticism and expressed a fear of retaliation." I have spoken with community college administrators, board members, faculty, staff and students and not to mention elected officials from all over the state who have grave concerns about the ACCJC's practices and not just at City College. They want City College to succeed as you do and they want the San Francisco's City Attorney's office to win the lawsuit and expose the problems with the ACCJC but they are afraid to say so and they're afraid of retribution from the ACCJC to their colleges. Your board has the happy responsibility to protect our community college system for the millions of students that rely on it every year in San Francisco, in Cupertino, in Compton and Fresno and that means you must be willing to buck the trend with this accreditor, the ACCJC. As such this is a good step. We support it and look forward to more. [applause] John Rizzo. [CCSF Trustee] I will be brief. I am in support of this measure. I'm very glad to see you taking the advice of your auditor, the joint legislative state audit committee. Accreditation is not working in California as we have heard. This is a good fix for it. Thank you. [applause]
>> Vice President Baum. >> I have a question. Is it conceivable we would authorize more than one accreditor for districts? I just wanted to know as a point of information?
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:
|