Whereas, Judge Karnow found in the case of The People vs. ACCJC that “20 U.S.C. § 1099b (a) includes a list of requirements to be imposed on accrediting associations such as ACCJC. This list includes: ‘(6) such an agency or association shall establish and apply review procedures throughout the accrediting process, including evaluation and withdrawal proceedings, which comply with due process procedures ...’ These review procedures must provide for adequate written specification of identified deficiencies at the institution or program examined and for sufficient opportunity for a written response, by an institution or a program, regarding any deficiencies identified by the agency or association to be considered by the agency or association prior to final action in the evaluation and withdrawal proceedings. See 20 U.S.C. §1099b (a)(6)(A)(ii), (B)(ii);”
Whereas, Judge Karnow’s noted that “in 34 C.F.R. § 602.18, the U.S. Secretary of Education set forth the criteria for ensuring consistency in decision-making. An accrediting agency meets the requirement in 34 C.F.R. §602.18 if it meets five conditions, including if the accrediting agency: ‘(e) 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’;” and
Whereas, Judge Karnow’s order included that “If CCSF opts in then, within 40 calendar days of service of CCSF's opt in notice, ACCJC must prepare a written report that clearly identifies any deficiencies in City College's compliance with accreditation standards as of June 2013 (Written Report). For each such deficiency, the Written Report must set forth the evidence as of June 2013 which supported the finding of deficiency. The Written Report must be publicly available;”
Resolved, That the Academic Senate for California Community Colleges call upon the Accrediting Commission of Community and Junior Colleges (ACCJC) to henceforth follow a procedure that includes the provision that each written report to a college that involves a sanction includes the evidence which supports any deficiencies found.
Note: 20 U.S.C. stands for United States Code regarding Higher Education; C.F.R stands for Code of Federal Regulations
2017 - 18: The CCCCO Workgroups 1 and 2 have been involved in recommending many changes. An update will be presented at the Accreditation Institute.