ACCJC Not Budging
By Patrick Fitzgerald
Unmoved by fresh evidence, the Accrediting Commission for Community and Junior Colleges affirmed its 2013 decision to revoke City College’s accreditation leaving the alternative, untested and possibly more stringent path of “restoration” the sole recourse for retaining accreditation.
“While I don’t think this news was a surprise, it is deeply disappointing,” Interim Chancellor Susan Lamb wrote in an Aug. 5 email. She acknowledged the sincere and significant efforts made by the City College community to address the accreditation deficiencies and urged “each of us to channel our passion and our energy into the current restoration process.”
Alternate Restoration Route
The revocation letter from the commission’s President Barbara Beno dated Aug. 5 has no immediate impact as the alternate restoration process postpones the commission’s final decision to January 2017.
In the meantime, City College must produce a self-evaluation report by August 2016 and demonstrate compliance with the standards during an October 2016 evaluation.
There will be no additional review or repeal granted to City College during the restoration process. However, the school will have a right to review a draft of the evaluation team’s findings to check factual errors, submit a written response and appear before the commission prior to a final decision.
Quality Education
Lost in translation in these highly complex arguments is a fact expressed by Mike Meyer, a computer science student.
“Coming from a low socio-economic background, I am able to get a pretty much free college education that’s helpful to many students in my same position,” Meyer said.
The standard’s deficiencies cited by the accrediting commission are primarily about City College’s finances, governing structure and student services. Yet, the 2014 Student Success Scorecard, published by the California Community College Chancellor’s office, declares City College eight percent above the statewide average for certificate completions and transfers to four-year universities.
A “Holistic” Review
Previously, Superior Court Judge Curtis Karnow in The People v. ACCJC on Feb. 17, issued a final injunction. Karnow instructed the accrediting commission to review, clearly identify and provide evidence as of June 2013 of any deficiencies in a “holistic” written report during a March 27 hearing.
Still, Karnow’s use of the word “holistic” became an area of dispute.
The college argued it meant providing previously denied evidence, if warranted, given the amended report. The commission interpreted holistic more narrowly, referring to supplemental information not previously included that addressed only 10 additional deficiencies mentioned in the amended report.
In addition, the commission was instructed by Karnow to provide City College the right to testify before its review meeting. On July 8, Lamb, Academic Senate President Lillian Marrujo-Duck, Board of Trustees President Rafael Mandelman, State Special Trustee Guy Lease and General Counsel Steve Bruckman presented oral and written comments to the accrediting commission in Sacramento.
Interrelated Standards and Noncompliance
Lamb argued in written testimony that the standards “in some respects are closely interrelated” and together with new information and previous information submitted should cause the commission to “reconsider and ultimately reverse the termination action.”
She acknowledged the college would not have been in complete compliance but the number and severity of outstanding violations would not merit termination.
Lamb also noted for the record that the commission had not fulfilled its injunction obligations, not clearly identifying deficiencies or providing evidence in support of its conclusion.
Nevertheless, the accrediting commission wrote that it was the preponderance of the violations that warranted termination.
City College will now work to resolve all outstanding compliance issues with an eye on the August 2016 written self-evaluation report.
Contact a reporter
Send an email to: Patrick Fitzgerald