Accjc gone wild
Imperial Valley College – PLACED ON WARNING (2013)
Download 2.61 Mb.
|
- Navigate this page:
- College of Marin – REMOVED FROM WARNING (2013)
- Fresno City College – REMOVED FROM WARNING (2013)
- Antelope Valley College – Midterm Report (2013)
Imperial Valley College – PLACED ON WARNING (2013)At its meeting of June 5-7, 2013, the ACCJC placed Imperial Valley College on WATCH. The letter to the Superintendent/President of the college stated that “The College is required to complete a Follow-Up Report by March 15, 2014. The College must demonstrate resolution of the deficiencies noted in the 2013 Evaluation Report Recommendations 1, 7, and 8. The Report will be followed by a visit of Commission representatives.” The Visiting Team had ten members of which only one was a faculty member. The letter went on to state that “The Follow-Up Report of March 2014 should demonstrate that the institution has fully addressed the recommendations noted below, resolved the deficiencies, and now meets all Eligibility Requirements, Accreditation Standards, and recommendations identified in the External Evaluation Team Report.” “Recommendation 1: In order to fully meet the Standard, the team recommends that the College consistently link the institutional goals and objectives detailed in the Educational Master Plan with operational plan goals and resource allocations, including technology resources, in order to assess progress toward meeting institutional goals. In addition, the College should establish a planning calendar that identifies all planning activities, committees, and the roles of various College plans, and includes institutional effectiveness assessment and improvement cycles. “ “Recommendation 7: In order to meet the Standard the team recommends that faculty and others directly responsible for student progress toward achieving student learning outcomes, have as a component of their evaluation, effectiveness in producing those outcomes.” “Recommendation 8: In order to meet the Standard, the team recommends the College develop a financial strategy that will result in balanced budgets that have ongoing revenues to meet or exceed its ongoing expenditures without the use of reserves; maintain the minimum prudent reserve level; and address funding for its long term financial commitments and its retiree health benefits costs. “ How the Commission differentiates the above recommendations that resulted in a WATCH and the same recommendations for CCSF that resulted in a decision to deny accreditation is not clear from its guidelines. Beno continues with the often made statement: “I wish to inform you that under U.S. Department of Education regulations, institutions out of compliance with Standards or on sanction are expected to correct deficiencies within a two-year period or the Commission must take action to terminate accreditation.” And so she continues; “Imperial Valley College must correct the deficiencies noted in Recommendations 1, 7, and 8 above no later than March 15, 2015, or the Commission will be required to take adverse action.” This is the threat that all colleges fear and the ACCJC uses as much as possible. College of Marin – REMOVED FROM WARNING (2013)College of Marin was removed from WARNING at the January 9-11, 2013 meeting of the ACCJC. They were ordered to prepare a Midterm Report by October 15, 2013. The letter from the Commission dated February 11, 2013 indicated that “the Midterm Report should demonstrate the college’s sustained level of effort and progress in program review, planning, and resource allocation and in student learning outcomes assessment and use of the results in program planning and resource allocation for improvement. The Report should also forecast where the College expects to be by the time of the next comprehensive evaluation.” I have not seen the forecast statement before. Fresno City College – REMOVED FROM WARNING (2013)At the January 9-11, 2013 meeting of the ACCJC, the Commission removed Warning and reaffirmed the full accreditation of Fresno City College. A Follow-Up Report is to be submitted by October 15, 2013. By that date (less than one year from the receipt of the letter from the ACCJC). At that point the college must “demonstrate that the institution has addressed the recommendation noted below, fully resolved the deficiencies, and now meets Accreditation Standards.” How is it possible, given what the ACCJC has publically stated that some districts must have no deficiencies if they are to receive full accreditation, that Fresno City College must address its deficiencies? “District Recommendation 1 In order for the colleges and District to fully meet the intent of the previous recommendation, the State Center Community College District must engage in continuous, deliberative, and timely dialog with all District stakeholders to coordinate long term planning and examine the impact on all the stakeholders of the planned increase in the number of colleges and the future roles of the centers. This includes creating, developing, and aligning district and college plans and planning processes in the following areas: strategic planning, facilities planning, technology planning, organizational reporting relationships of centers, locations of signature programs, funding allocation, and human resources and research capacity. “ Antelope Valley College – Midterm Report (2013)At the January 9-11, 2013 meeting of the ACCJC, Antelope Valley College was directed to submit a Follow-Up Report in conjunction with the Midterm Report. This Follow-up Report is to be submitted by October 15, 2013. The February 11, 2013 letter from Dr. Beno stated that “The Follow-Up Report should demonstrate that the institution has addressed the recommendations noted below, resolved the deficiencies, and now meets Accreditation Standards.” I am not sure how there can be deficiencies when a college has not received a sanction at any level. The “recommendations” include: “Recommendation 1: In order to comply with the standards, it is recommended that the college modify its processes to create documentation and other forms of evidence that can be used to reveal the college's progress toward implementation of Student Learning Outcomes (SLOs) and assessment of those outcomes. More specifically, the team recommends that to show compliance with the standards that the college:
Recommendation 2: To meet the standards, to raise the quality of instructional programs, and to instill a culture of evidence across the college the team recommends the following practices be institutionalized:
Recommendation 4: To comply with the standards, it is recommended that the college, when making its short-range financial plan, e.g., the annual budget of the college, consider its long-range financial obligation to pay the cost of the GASB 45 - Other Post- Employment Benefits (OPEB) as the costs are incurred instead of delaying payment to some future date. Specifically, the college is encouraged to prepare a comprehensive plan to prevent disruption of services offered to students by paying the Annual Required Contribution (ARC) determined using generally accepted accounting principles into an irrevocable trust fund at the amount equal to the actuarially determined Annual Required Contribution. “ Again we see a lack of clarity regarding what is required and what is a view of what might help the college improve. We also see that the college is “encouraged” to fully fund the GASB obligation – something that is not required by law and would put the college in a negative financial situation. In an article appearing in the Victor Valley Daily Press on September 4, 2013, Opinion Page Editor Steve Williams discussed the visit to Victor Valley College by the ACCJC. The sites “an ACCJC staff analysis of the school’s annual fiscal report, according to a letter sent to Interim VVC President Peter Allan” AVVC has been placed in financial category R, “and the school is now, according to the letter, receiving a “more in-depth analysis” by the ACCJC’s financial reviewers.” No notice of this letter was either on the college’s website or on the ACCJC website. Category R is the lowest category (severe risk). “The letter to Mr. Allen lists three reasons for the ACCJC’s financial review” based on its R category rating. “Excessive Salary/Benefits as a proportion of expenses” is the top item. The other two are “Significant unfund enrollment” and the Fiscal Crisis & Management Assistance Team report of July 2012. 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:
|