Accreditation News and Events 2013-2014

in the matter of CCSF's accreditation, ACCJC violated 10 federal regulations, a federal statute and committed procedural errors and due process violations, as well as violating or inconsistently applying its own standards. It argues that the accrediting agency lacks transparency in how it applies its standards, its selective use of evaluation team recommendations and who it allows into meetings that are supposed to be public. More broadly, the complaint questions the ACCJC's treatment of all California community colleges. --- AFT Higher Education Web site, ¶4

• The Commission's recent show cause decision for CCSF was based upon a mischaracterization of CCSF's major recommendations in 2006.
• There was a conflict of interest to have included the husband of the ACCJC President on the March 2012 visiting team to CCSF.
• No confidential recommendation was provided by the Evaluation Team to the Commission when it imposed sanction.
• The Commission improperly applied the section of Standard III.D that requires an institution to show that it has taken into account its long- and short-term financial liabilities.

The subcommittee concluded that "the allegations in the Complaint are without merit."

As WASC-ACCJC is recognized by the Secretary of Education, the concerns of the CFT about the Commission are taken seriously. The CFT provided a voluminous narrative and substantial documentation concerning these issues to both the Commission and Department simultaneously. Before a final compliance determination is made, I am requesting that WASC-ACCJC provide a full and documented response to the complaint by July 8, 2013. This response must include any new and related information and documentation from the June 5-7, 2013, Commission meeting, the Commission's response to the complaint, and any other information and documentation, not already provided in the CFT complaint materials, that the Commission deems relevant regarding the issues raised.

• 34 CFR § 602.15(a)(3): The agency has academic and administrative personnel on its evaluation, policy, and decision-making bodies, if the agency accredits institutions.

• 34 CFR § 602.15(a)(6): The agency has clear and effective controls against conflicts of interest, or the appearance of conflicts of interest, by the agency's- (i) board members; (ii) commissioners; (iii) evaluation team members; (iv) consultants; (v) administrative staff; (vi) other agency representatives.

• 34 CFR § 602.18(e): The agency meets this requirement if the agency provides the institution or program with a detailed written report that clearly identifies any deficiencies in the institution's or program's compliance with the agency's standards.

• 34 CFR § 602.20(a): If the agency's review of an institution or program under any standard indicates that the institution or program is not in compliance with that standard, the agency must immediately initiate adverse action against the institution or program; or require the institution or program to take appropriate action to bring itself into compliance with the agency's standards within a time period that must not exceed ... two years, if the program, or the longest program offered by the institution, is at least two years in length.

In a press release on the same day, the ACCJC indicated that it "will be responding formally to the Department's letter and will, of course, make necessary policy changes to appropriately address the Department's concerns. The ACCJC response to the Department's findings will be submitted as part of its recognition review with the National Advisory Committee on Institutional Quality and Improvement in December 2013."

• "[T]he ACCJC feels that the USDE's finding that the review boards had insufficient academics may be mistaken; nevertheless, ACCJC is still reviewing the USDE Letter to determine what changes, if any, might be appropriate to resolve the issue."

• "The ACCJC is currently reviewing USDE regulations and its own internal policies [regarding conflict of interest, and the perception of conflict of interest] and will make any changes it deems appropriate to resolve this issue."

• "The ACCJC believes that the team report ... and the team recommendations adequately identifies any deficiencies in compliance.... Nevertheless, the ACCJC is currently reviewing its internal policies and will make any changes it deems appropriate to resolve this issue."

• "The USDE Letter states that the ACCJC indicated to CCSF in 2006 that it was not in compliance with the ACCJC's Accreditation Standards, and thus triggered the two-year rule. We are currently reviewing this issue, but our initial impression is that the USDE Letter incorrectly interprets the applicable correspondence between ACCJC and CCSF in 2006, as well as ACCJC's policies."

In the conclusion of the memo, the ACCJC indicated that it "does not consider any of the USDE's findings to be unresolvable."

• "ACCJC in 2012 misrepresented its actions of 2006, when it made recommendations for improvement, as if it had identified deficiencies, when it had not."

• "ACCJC violated state and federal conflict of interest laws."

• "ACCJC blocked students, faculty and the media from public meetings and destroyed public documents."

• "ACCJC publicly undermined the democratically elected Board of Trustees empowered by San Francisco voters to manage the college."

• "ACCJC sanctioned the college when students and faculty exercised their first amendment rights and challenged the outcome of the evaluations."

• "ACCJC advised districts, including CCSF, that they had to "prefund" future liabilities for retiree health benefits, by depositing huge sums into an irrevocable trust — money steered away from instruction."

• "ACCJC illegally held a meeting where it disaccredited CCSF in June 2013, when its own policy required that it not decide CCSF's status until January 2014."

• A temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction restraining the ACCJC from any action pursuant its decision related to CCSF's accreditation status pending trial.
• A declaration that the ACCJC has violated its duty by deciding to de-accredit CCSF other than in the manner required by law, and without substantial evidentiary support.
• A peremptory writ of mandate "commanding respondent ACCJC to vacate and set aside its decision to de-accredit CCSF, and to re-evaluate CCSF's status in the manner required by all applicable laws, regulations, and policies."

"The Accrediting Commission for Community and Junior Colleges (ACCJC) cannot comment at this time on accreditation matters related to the City College of San Francisco (CCSF) as the College has entered into a due process of Review with the Commission, and there is litigation brought by third parties against the ACCJC concerning its evaluation and accreditation decision on CCSF.

The ACCJC believes these third-party lawsuits are without merit. They all rest on similar premises that are, in fact, weak. It is important to note that the City College of San Francisco itself is not involved in these suits. The College has stated that it subscribes to ACCJC standards, and is working to come into compliance with standards. These lawsuits are politically motivated and do not align with the real efforts to assure CCSF's future accreditation, but rather distract from those efforts."

The Academic Senate for California Community Colleges (ASCCC) values the peer review process of self-reflection and improvement known as accreditation. Since local academic senates have Title 5-mandated roles within the accreditation process, the ASCCC sees its primary responsibility as helping colleges to meet the adopted standards for which they will be held accountable and to generate comprehensive and forthright assessments of progress toward the standards. The ASCCC's main tool for supporting colleges is the annual Accreditation Institute, through which faculty and other colleagues are encouraged to learn about and address the standards and recommendations from the Accrediting Commission for Community and Junior Colleges. Additionally, the Academic Senate shares accreditation information and provides support through local college visits and regional presentations. As a professional matter, in support of the ideal of a fair and meaningful accreditation process, the ASCCC's secondary responsibility is to recommend and advocate for improvements to the accreditation standards and processes by providing thoughtful feedback and input to all accreditation participants.

The body of delegates also adopted resolutions requesting changes to ACCJC practices (2.02, 2.03, 2.04, 2.08, 2.10), suggested edits and additions to the pre-draft Revised Standards (2.05, 2.06, 2.09, 2.11), and extending the deadline for CCSF to meet accreditation requirements due to unique legal issues (2.07).