Feb. 7, 2014 ACCJC Threatens San Jose/Evergreen Community College District Over SLOs

Feb. 7, 2014 ACCJC Threatens San Jose/Evergreen Community College District Over SLOs

On February 7, 2014 Barbara Beno wrote that on January 8-10, 2014 the ACCJC reviewed the Midterm Report submitted by San Jose City College and “took action to require” the college to complete a Follow-Up Report by March 13, 2014. The Follow-Up “Report should demonstrate that San Jose City College is in full compliance with Standard III.A.1.c.”

An identified pilot program to begin in Fall 2014 and run through Spring 2017

Individual faculty members confirm participation in SLO assessment cycles by self-recording such participation in a Faculty Evaluation page as an additional element of professional development

Classroom faculty include Student Learning Outcomes in class syllabi

On April 12, 2014, the California Community College Academic Senate approved the following resolution:

“2.01 S14 Modify Title 5 To Indicate that California Community Colleges Shall Be Accredited By A Federally Recognized Accrediting Agency

Whereas, California Code of Regulations, Title 5 §51016 currently requires that, ‘Each community college within a district shall be an accredited institution. The Accrediting Commission for Community and Junior Colleges will determine accreditation’;

Whereas, A basic criterion for participation in federal financial aid programs is that colleges are accredited by a nationally recognized accrediting agency, not one specific agency;

Whereas, Naming a specific accrediting agency in Title 5 is problematic because agencies may change their names, merge with other entities, or cease to be recognized, any one of such circumstances requiring a corresponding change to Title 5; and

Whereas, Naming a specific accrediting agency in Title 5 reduces the options California community colleges have to affiliate with an accrediting agency that fits their mission and circumstances³;

Resolved, That the Academic Senate for California Community Colleges work with the appropriate bodies to remove references to one specific accrediting agency in Title 5 and to replace the language with a neutral statement that California community colleges shall be accredited by a regional federally-recognized agency.”
If the above recommendation were enacted, ACCJC would no longer have a monopoly on accrediting California community colleges. There is already a bill in the Legislature that would make this change.
The next day, ACCJC Commissioners Amador, Gornick, and Kinsella authored a diatribe against City College of San Francisco and suggested that CCSF seek new accreditation through “candidacy” status. Up to this point only college centers have been able to seek accreditation as colleges through this procedure. Of course as centers they were already accredited through their districts and their students got credit and the centers were funded. The above commissioners innocently suggested in their statement published on the ACCJC website that if CCSF went through this process “A candidate college is eligible for federal financial aid and state funding; its students' course credits are generally transferrable, and its degrees or certificates are recognized, as long as the college is eventually successful in obtaining accreditation after a period of candidacy. “
Two things should be noted with respect to the signed statement:

1. It came one day after the Academic Senate voted in a near unanimous vote to request that colleges be allowed to opt out of ACCJC jurisdiction; and

2. The level of venom against CCSF illustrated in the statement.
Clearly at this point in history the ACCJC leadership feels threatened by the rising tide against its activities. It is also clear that the leadership of the ACCJC has no interest in sending a Visiting Team out to see what shape CCSF is currently in (in spite of the poor leadership and decision-making of the appointed Special Trustee who is running the district).
The Terrible Three’s description of the removal of CCSF’s accreditation differs somewhat from the facts of the situation. They state that “During its 2012 evaluation by the Accrediting Commission for Community and Junior Colleges (ACCJC), City College was found to be in terrible condition; evaluators noted scores of deficiencies that needed fixing by the college. Problems included deficient student services, outdated instruction guides, antiquated computer systems, and lack of fiscal controls.” Note that there is nothing heard addressing the quality of the education provided to students.
“The college was in a precarious financial position -- laden with $4.6 million in unpaid student fees dating back 10 years, a payroll system that allowed access to 125 people, and a self-insured workers compensation fund that had a $4 million negative balance. Additionally, many internal control weaknesses resulted in overpayments and underpayments of staff salary, employees receiving unverified health and other benefits as well as underreporting of vacation time taken.

While CCSF continued to construct new buildings, many students attended classes in old buildings that were deteriorating due to deferred maintenance. There were also insufficient student resources for library and learning support.” Note that there is no mention of the sources of funding for new buildings as opposed to ongoing maintenance. Again no mention of the quality of education - only the effects of the funding crisis of the community colleges over the preceding years. No fraud was found.
“The independent evaluators found that these and other problems occurred and persisted because CCSF had one of the worst organizational structures among the California community colleges, with decisions often made by committees that were not accountable to anyone, rather than by faculty or administrators responsible for their actions. These deficiencies are cheating students of the education they need and wasting millions of taxpayer dollar.” In fact what bothered the Commission was that there were not enough administrators, faculty and staff had too much power, part-time faculty were treated too well, and too much was being spent on employee compensation. They also did not like the idea that CCSF was continuing to follow the California Master Plan rather than just address transfer and degree students. The college had not lived up to “the new realities.”
“A year later, after having warned and advised the college to make significant improvements while still accredited, the Commission found that very little had been done. The college was still out of compliance with more than 50 accreditation standards. Only two of the 14 recommendations for improvement provided to the college in 2012 had been completed. The college's substandard structure and lack of progress left the Commission no choice but to terminate accreditation.” First the college was given less than a year to improve. The Department of Education found that the ACCJC did not make clear which recommendations were required to be addressed as a part of a two-year rule, and which were just suggestions to improve the college operations. In any case, the Visiting Team did not propose that the college’s accreditation be yanked and the Commission added new accreditation standards to the list that the Visiting Team had found. By the Commission’s own rules, they should have given the college until January of 2014 to address the claims. Instead they proceeded to act in violation of their own procedures.
The paper goes on: “A team of expert peer evaluators (experienced faculty members and college administrators) assesses the school's academics, finances, facilities, technology, and governance. The Commission does not take over, or close, a failing college. Instead, like an auditor, it points out deficiencies and recommends improvements to help a college remain open. Each college determines its own future.” In fact the Department of Education has faulted the Commission for not having a sufficient number of faculty on their teams and will take away ACCJC’s right to accredit colleges if it does not change the practice of administrator dominated teams handpicked by the Commission.
The authors claim that “While some plead that City College simply be given more time to fix its problems, this is not up to the Commission. Congress and the Department of Education have specified that an accrediting body allow no more than two years for a substandard college to come into compliance or lose its accreditation. The "two-year rule" is designed to protect students and taxpayers. In fact, the Department of Education has put all accreditors on notice that they could lose their federal recognition if they do not apply the two-year rule. Without federal recognition of the Commission as an accrediting body, every community college in California could lose access to taxpayer dollars -- federal financial aid for students. Any change to the two-year rule requires Congress to enact a new law.”
The fact is that because of the vagueness of Commission direction, the two-year rule was not in effect because of the failure to make clear what items fell under the two-year rule. It is also true that the Commission is allowed to extend the time under exceptional conditions. Only the ACCJC among all of the regional accreditors has handled the two-year rule in the manner of the ACCJC.
The letter claims that “Since last summer, critical leadership changes have occurred at City College, and the school is beginning to turn things around. However, by their own testimony, City College representatives estimate that it requires up to four years to fully recover.” This statement illustrates the failure of the Special Trustee to defend the college. Many see him as just a tool of the Commission itself and the State Chancellor (a former Commissioner).
And thus the “CCSF could seek accreditation anew by applying for ‘candidacy’ status” statement heard for the first time.
There are still two active lawsuits seeking to overthrow the ACCJC ruling on CCSF and an internal process appeal that the college leaders have now stated that they will pursue with new vigor. As of this date, CCSF is still alive but losing students each semester as the ACCJC continues to attempt to slow the legal processes. There is no evidence that the ACCJC will send out another Visiting Team and re-look at their decision as suggested that they would do by State Chancellor Brice Harris if the college constituents put in the effort to improve.

April 14, 2014 Letter from CCSF Chancellor Tyler to the College Community

In reply to the April 12, 2014 posting on the ACCJC website by the Terrible Three, CCSF Chancellor Tyler noted that the suggestion that the college “apply for ‘candidacy status’ as a mechanism for addressing our current accreditation process. Candidacy would require us to withdraw our current accreditation.” He went out to write that “Let me be clear: we are not considering withdrawing our accreditation. To do so would severely harm our current and future students as we as undermine our current enrollment efforts.”

Tyler summarized that the “we have submitted an appeal to the ACCJC and feel we have a very compelling case for retaining our accreditation. We have an outstanding internal team coordinating this process, including outside counsel with expertise in academic appellate matters. We will take advantage of all of the steps available to an institution such as ours to retain accreditation. We are working diligently and tirelessly to pursue a favorable outcome.”
It now appears that the college leadership is finally taking the ACCJC head on. Perhaps this will also actually mean that “I will continue to do everything possible to keep you fully informed of our efforts.”
He closed by thanking people for “everything you do, every day, to make this a special place that touches so many lives” and reminded everyone that CCSF is accredited, open, and enrolling Summer and Fall students.

Errors seen in commissioners' opinion piece on CCSF funding

On April 21, 2014 the San Francisco Chronicle printed an article by Chronicle writer Nanette Asimov which pointed out the errors in the April 12 open piece by ACCJC Commissioners Amador and Kinsella. She began her article by writing that “The heads of a commission preparing to revoke accreditation from City College of San Francisco were wrong when they recently said the college could receive state funds - and thus stay open - even after losing its seal of approval, state officials said.”

Asimov noted that when Kinsella and Amador encouraged CCSF to “become a candidate for new accreditation and suggesting that life at the college could continue as usual” – that their claims “are contradicted by law, and are therefore wrong or misleading.” She also quoted representatives from the California Community Colleges that contrary to a claim by the Commissioners, a college under the plan outlined by the two cannot receive state funding. Without state funding the college would have to close.
When questioned by Asimov concerning the “discrepancies” in their op-ed, “Amador's spokeswoman sent a statement acknowledging that ‘special state legislation might be needed’ for an unaccredited City College to get any money” – a detail that Amador somehow left out of her article.
Asimov continued: “Another claim by the accreditors - that an unaccredited college can offer federal financial aid to its students - is also wrong, U.S. Department of Education officials said, speaking on background. They cited federal regulations saying it takes two years for a college that has lost accreditation to become eligible to offer such aid. The piece by Amador and Kinsella did not mention the two-year gap.”
Amador stated that "If the college is on track with its improvements, City College could reapply for accreditation as early as 2016," and degrees would be valid.”
“State college officials said the idea that students would even attend an unaccredited college is unrealistic. ‘Would you send your kid to a college that's not accredited?’ said one state college official who declined to publicly criticize the commissioners.”
Asimov continued by pointing at that “At the same time, state Colleges Chancellor Brice Harris and San Francisco Mayor Ed Lee have asked the commission to grant them more time to fix the college. In their piece, Amador and Kinsella said federal law prohibits them from extending the deadline. On Monday, however, federal education officials cited regulations that authorize accrediting agencies to extend such deadlines in ‘good faith.’ “
Commission member Kinsella repeated the distortions mentioned above at the legislative hearings on the Bonta bill. It appears that the exposure of untruths and half-truths does not stop Commission members from repeating them.
For the first time Chancellor Harris finally admitted to the value of the lawsuits filed. He was quoted as saying that the "lawsuit has bought time for the college, and time is what it needs at this point."

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: