Following is a complaint in accordance with the Policy on Complaints Against ACCJC.

Transcription

1 November 17, 2014 The Accrediting Commission for Community and Junior Colleges 10 Commercial Boulevard, Suite 204 Novato, CA U.S. Dept of Education Post Secondary Education, Accreditation Group, 1990 K St. NW Washington DC 2006 Dear Staff at ACCJC and Dept of Education Accreditation Group, Following is a complaint in accordance with the Policy on Complaints Against ACCJC. We have the following six complaints: 1) ACCJC violated Due Process requirements in the CCSF Review. 2) The composition of the Appeal Hearing Panel (regarding City College of San Francisco) violated federal regulations regarding conflict of interest and due process. 3) The Appeal Hearing Panel established general principles which contradict Dept of Education regulations. 4) The decisions of the Appeal Hearing Panel violated federal regulations and DOE determinations in the areas of conflict of interest, clear instructions and inclusion of academics in evaluation and decision making teams. 5) The ACCJC persists in violating the spirit and letter of DOE regulations and directives. 6) ACCJC is not a reliable authority as to the quality of education or training. As to how we have been aggrieved, ACCJC violations of Dept of Education ( DOE ) regulations and requirements have resulted in: * Enormous cost and damage to the San Francisco Bay Area s largest educational institution. The actions of ACCJC have deeply worsened the financial challenges of CCSF. Student enrollment has plummeted. Extra funds have been needed to try to counter the negative and false publicity and misinformation. Extra public funds have been needed for lawyers defending ACCJC. All taxpayers are paying for this. * Enormous damage to the reputation of City College of San Francisco (CCSF). This has resulted in confusion in the public and demoralization among many students, faculty and staff. Faculty who used to be proud of working for CCSF have been demoralized by the misinformation and confusion. Some faculty have resigned or retired early due to the added stress and work. Many students have dropped out due to the confusion. Many other students have transferred to other colleges, requiring them to spend additional time and money commuting to distant colleges. Major reference documents for this complaint are as follows, with links to the online sources embedded. * Hearing Panel Report of the ACCJC in the matter of Appeal of City College of San Francisco * Secretary s Recognition of Accrediting Agencies (Part 602 ) of College Accreditation in the United States 1

2 * Letter DOE to ACCJC ( ) * Letter DOE to ACCJC ( ) * Letter DOE to ACCJC ( ) Complaint 1. ACCJC violated due process requirement in the CCSF review. There are three elements to this complaint: * the review and appeal process takes too long * ACCJC imposed secrecy requirements in contradiction with their own written policy * ACCJC prevented CCSF community from contributing to the review and appeal requests. A) The review and appeal process takes too long. ACCJC requires a time consuming review before appeal of a decision to terminate or deny accreditation. The decision to terminate accreditation was taken in June It was not until June 2014 that the review and appeal process was complete. As the DOE analyst said in the review of ACCJC in January 2013, This two-step process could take over a year to complete, which does not ensure that the process from commission action to appeal decision is carried out expeditiously. B) ACCJC imposed secrecy requirements in contradiction with their own written policy. ACCJC Policy on Review of Commission Actions mandates confidentiality in the letter from the Review Committee to the agency. The policy does NOT mandate confidentiality in the request for review. However ACCJC arbitrarily and after-the-fact imposed a gag order to prevent the CCSF community from seeing the review request being submitted. The announcement was made by Special Trustee Robert Agrella on August 19, 2013, a few days AFTER he and California Community College Chancellor Brice Harris had promised transparency at college convocation day. Chancellor Brice Harris and I publicly stated that the review letter would be placed on the college s website. However subsequent to voicing this opinion we were informed by ACCJC that all materials submitted to ACCJC are to be treated as confidential. (Agrella letter ) ACCJC violated its own written policy by demanding confidentiality on a review request which should have been transparent to all. C) ACCJC prevented CCSF community from contributing to the review and appeal requests. Special Trustee Agrella was appointed to lead an institution with which he had no experience. By his own admission at the Board of Governors, Special Trustee Agrella had no appreciation or understanding of CCSF s deep connections with the community. He was not at CCSF during the period under review leading to the Show Cause decision ( ). Tragically, the previous leader of CCSF had been forced to depart abruptly due to a serious medical emergency (brain tumor). Yet ACCJC imposed a restriction that allowed only Trustee Agrella and his selected leadership to write and submit the request for review of the ACCJC decisions. They effectively denied the CCSF education community, with decades of experience and insight into the real situation at CCSF, the opportunity to contribute to the request. ACCJC prevented CCSF faculty members from even seeing 2

3 the request for review of a decision which could turn their lives upside down. There is no mention of this requirement in the ACCJC Policy. It was done arbitrarily and in violation of the most basic standards of transparency. The ACCJC verbal requirement for confidentiality unfairly constrained the input for a review to the opinions and beliefs of people who were philosophically opposed to questioning or criticizing ACCJC. As shown in his August 19 letter to the CCSF College Community, Trustee Agrella declined to include the most powerful evidence in the request for review. He believed that questioning or complaining about unfair ACCJC practices amounted to an attack on the Commission. He believed that DOE Accreditation Group Director decisions and instructions to ACCJC were arguments. In short, the people whom ACCJC mandated to exclusively represent CCSF did not believe in critically questioning or challenging ACCJC even when the highest education authority in the country determined that ACCJC was violating regulations. Complaint 2. The composition of the Appeal Hearing Panel violated regulations regarding Conflict of Interest and Due Process. US Dept of Education regulation (f) requires accrediting agencies to provide due process for institutions which receive adverse decisions. This includes a fair and impartial review before an independent panel subject to the Conflict of Interest policy. Of the five person panel selected by ACCJC, at least two including the chairperson should have been disqualified. Their past association and statements provide clear evidence they had conflict of interest and were not impartial. Mr. William McGinnis was appointed by ACCJC to be Chairperson of the Appeals Hearing Panel. Mr. McGinnis is a close associate of the ACCJC President, Dr. Barbara Beno. Mr. McGinnis and Dr. Beno have been doing joint presentations for several years including one they made to the Board of Trustees at City College of San Francisco in July 2012 after the Show Cause decision was publicized. In conflict of interest forms for the Butte College District where he is a trustee, Mr McGinnis acknowledged he has a conflict of interest because he works as a consultant for ACCJC. Mr. Mc Ginnis publicly expressed his views and bias before the appeal even began. Following news that the California Federation of Teachers (CFT) had filed a complaint against ACCJC with the Dept of Education, the San Francisco Bay Guardian quoted Mr. McGinnis in July 2013 saying That process of fighting accreditation won t succeed, it just forestalls the problem. In contrast with the view of Mr. McGinnis, the letter from the Director of the Dept of Education Accreditation Group confirmed key elements of the complaint: Based on a review of the information and documentation, the Accreditation Group has found that some aspects of the agency s accreditation review process do not meet the Secretary s Criteria for Recognition. Specifically, the Accreditation Group has determined that the ACCJC is out of compliance with 34 CFR (a)(3), (a)(6), (e), and (a) (page 1, Letter DOE to ACCJ C ) Mr. McGinnis perception that challenging the fairness of a decision amounts to fighting accreditation shows his bias. His statement that it won t succeed further shows that he had his mind made up long before the appeal panel was formed. Dr. Erlinda Martinez is another Appeal Hearing Panel member who was neither impartial nor independent. In an October 2013 letter from Dr. Martinez and two other college leaders in support of ACCJC she wrote: 3

4 In reaction to decisions that have been made by the ACCJC, there has been recent criticism of and resistance to the ACCJC from entities that are composed primarily of faculty members... Rancho Santiago Community College District does not agree with those opinions and fully supports the decisions, policies, and procedures of the ACCJC. (Oct. 14, 2013 letter to NACIQI) This letter was known to ACCJC staff but not known to the general public until received after a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request to the Dept of Education. (A copy of the letter in support of ACCJC is attached.) The Hearing Panel was supposed to impartially consider whether ACCJC had over-reached or come to a decision in error. As indicated in this letter, Dr. Martinez had made up her mind six months before the Appeal Hearing Panel commenced. Clearly someone who has written that she fully supports the decisions, policies and procedures of ACCJC is unsuitable for a body required to be impartial and independent. Her statement was known to ACCJC and confirms that she was neither independent nor neutral. CCSF representatives challenged the appointment of Mr. McGinnis and another member of the panel, Mr. Joseph Richey. The ACCJC rejected these challenges and appointed them all (McGinnis, Richey and Martinez) anyway, violating CCSF s right to due process and a fair and impartial hearing. Complaint 3. The Hearing Panel established general principles which contradict Dept of Education regulations. In its report, the Appeals Hearing Panel begins with Preliminary Considerations. They say, Before addressing the contentions raised by CCSF in this hearing, it is appropriate to acknowledge some general principles that apply to the operations and review performed by accrediting organizations. The general principles are then summarized to be: * accrediting agencies are to be afforded considerable deference * accrediting agencies must have flexibility...a rigid or uniform application is not expected. It should be noted that these general principles are not national standards or guidelines. They have been created by this specific Appeal Hearing Panel. It should also be noted that the appeal hearing is not a legal body. After all, what kind of legal body would it be where one side selects the judge and jury? In light of this, it is curious that the hearing panel report makes dozens of references to legal court rulings and almost none to Dept of Education regulations. Perhaps this is because Dept of Education regulations convey a very different foundation for evaluating whether or not the decisions of the ACCJC were reasonable and fair. In contrast with the general principles asserted by the ACCJC selected Appeal Hearing Panel, the Dept of Education regulations regarding accreditation require due process including a hearing panel that is independent (Reg ), that makes decisions that are widely accepted (Reg ) and that ensures consistency in decision-making (Reg ). 4

5 By emphasizing deference and flexibility, the Hearing Panel showed their bias and disregard for national accreditation regulations. Complaint 4. The Hearing Panel violated federal regulations and DOE directives and determinations The Appeal Hearing Panel violated federal regulations and directives of the Director of the DOE Accreditation Group in three areas: * Requirement to clearly identify deficiencies * Requirement to control against conflict of interest and appearance of conflict of interest * Requirement to include academics in evaluation and decision making bodies. A) Appeal Hearing Panel ignored requirement to clearly identify deficiencies In August of 2013 the Director of the DOE Accreditation Group determined that: By using the term recommendation to mean both compliance with standards and areas for improvement, the agency does not meet the regulatory requirement to provide a detailed written report that clearly identifies any deficiencies in the institution s compliance with the agency s standards. ( page 4, Letter DOE to ACCJC ) The Appeal Hearing Panel ignored this decision and echoed ACCJC as follows: In summary, the evidence did not support a conclusion that CCSF was confused or misled in 2006 about its compliance obligations or the risk it assumed by ignoring them, and certainly not because the concerns identified by the Commission in 2006 were described as recommendations as opposed to deficiencies. (Hearing Panel Report, page 6) The report of the Appeal Panel places great emphasis on the statements of new administrators who were appointed after the Show Cause and Terminate decisions. These opinions need to be critically evaluated in light of the fact that none of these administrators were at the college during the period under question: Spring 2006 to Spring To understand whether CCSF administration was confused or misled one would need to hear the opinions of the people who were in leadership of CCSF during the period in question. The Hearing Panel did not listen to nor request to hear from any of these people, again revealing their bias. If they had done this, they would have learned from on site administrators that the Show Cause decision was very surprising and perplexing. Dr Fred Chavarria, former US Marine and long time teacher and administrator who was Dean of Behavioral and Social Sciences at the time has stated The Show Cause decision by ACCJC caught everyone by surprise. Not only had CCSF been highly praised in the review of 2006, they had submitted follow up reports as requested with all reports accepted without problem. In contrast, the reports of Deep Springs College and Victor Valley College had been rejected by ACCJC in According to confidential personal testimony, even members of the 2012 CCSF Evaluation Team were surprised when CCSF was placed on the most extreme sanction, Show Cause. This perception, in sharp contrast with the claims of ACCJC and their devotees, was detailed in the lengthy complaint filed with the Dept of Education by the faculty union. They argued that the 5

6 accreditation status and situation was assumed to be normal and the Show Cause decision was unwarranted, unprecedented and a shock. The essential point that previous deficiencies and the overall accreditation status was not clearly identified, as required, was confirmed by the highest authority in the country, the Director of the Accreditation Group at the Dept of Education. B) The Hearing Panel ignored the requirement for ACCJC to control against actual or appearance of Conflict of Interest in evaluation teams DOE determined that ACCJC violated the Conflicts of Interest Policy in the establishment of the 2012 and 2013 Evaluation Teams. In contradiction, the Hearing Panel dismissed the complaints about conflict of interest in members on the 2012 and 2013 Evaluation Teams. In justifying their decision the Hearing Panel quoted at length from the ACCJC explanation : this conflict would only exist if there was an avenue... to exploit the situation for personal or professional financial gain. (referenced in Letter DOE to ACCJC ) The Hearing Panel gave their support to this statement by saying Notwithstanding the contrary subsequent opinions of DOE staffers (which are not the product of a rule-making process and, hence, remain opinions), the Hearing Panel does not find the Commission s interpretation of the former version of the policy to be unreasonable. In contradiction, the Director of the USDOE Accreditation Group stated clearly: there does not have to be an opportunity for financial gain by an individual for there to be the appearance of a conflict of interest. Section (a)(6) of the Secretary s Criteria for Recognition requires not just clear and effective controls against conflict of interest, but also against the appearance of conflicts of interest. The appearance of conflict of interest is present if there is a potential for the personal interests of an individual to clash with fiduciary duties. Personal interests includes not only financial gain but also such motives as the desire for professional advancement and the wish to do favors for family and friends. (Letter DOE to ACCJC ) Remarkably, the Hearing Panel characterized the letter from the Director of the Accreditation Group as the opinion of a DOE staffer. Evidently the ACCJC and Hearing Panel believe that directives from the Director of the Accreditation Group at DOE are opinions and can be disregarded when they are not the product of a rule-making process. On the contrary, the letter conveyed a decision and requirement for ACCJC. Unlike the recommendations of ACCJC (which sometimes actually means requirement ), the determination of the DOE Director was clear and explicit: ACCJC must take immediate steps to correct the areas of non-compliance identified in this letter. (page 5, DOE letter to ACCJC ) C) Appeal Hearing Panel dismissed DOE Regulation regarding academic representation The Hearing Panel also dismissed the complaints about lack of academic personnel on the 2012 and 2013 CCSF Evaluation Teams. They expressed the view that academic teacher representation is unimportant as follows: applicable federal regulations do not contain any definition of academic personnel, or of the term faculty, something one would expect if this was a matter of serious concern. Nor do the regulations 6

7 specify any required minimum number or ratio between academic and administrative representatives on evaluation bodies, or even mandate reasonable representation of both categories. While undoubtedly well intentioned and not inherently unreasonable, the communication from DOE in August, 2013 is simply an after-the-fact expression of opinions of its staff with respect to what they believed to be desirable, not a statement of what was required by the applicable regulations, expressly or otherwise. (Hearing Panel report p16-17) The Hearing Panel goes on to question the wisdom of the DOE regulation anyway. They state: given the emphasis on the complicated and often technical organization, operations, and financial issues which figures prominently in the evaluation of CCSF s status, it is difficult to understand what higher or better judgments might have been supplied by individuals with expertise in direct student instruction. (Hearing Panel Report, p17) In contrast, the Accreditation Director instructed ACCJC as follows: Section (a) (3) of the Secretary s Criteria for Recognition requires that if an agency accredits institutions, as the ACCJC does, then it must have academic and administrative personnel on its evaluation, policy, and decision-making bodies. The criterion expects a good faith effort by the agency to have both academic and administrative personnel reasonably represented. One academician on an evaluation team comprised of eight and sixteen individuals, as was the case for the April 2013 and March 2012 evaluation teams, respectively, of CCSF, is not reasonable representation. The agency must demonstrate that it ensures that both academic and administrative personnel are adequately represented on its evaluation teams. Instead of acknowledging that ACCJC evaluation teams did not have sufficient academic personnel, the Hearing Panel suggested the matter was not important. The Appeals Hearing Panel was supposedly led by people who are expert in the process and requirements of Accreditation. However they seemed to not understand that ACCJC is required to follow federal regulations and an official letter from the Director of the Accreditation Group is not a DOE staffer opinion. Complaint 5. ACCJC persists in violating DOE regulations and directives ACCJC continues to violate the spirit and letter of regulations and requirements to avoid conflict of interest and operate with transparency. Over four years ago, in August 2010, DOE advised ACCJC that they were out of compliance with federal requirements regarding conflict of interest and lack of transparency in the selection of Agency commission members. They were told: the Commission s processes and procedures by which Commissioners are selected do not meet the Secretary s Criteria for Recognition. (Letter DOE to ACCJC ) In August 2013 DOE advised ACCJC they were out of compliance regarding conflict of interest and composition of the Evaluation Teams for CCSF in 2012 and At that time ACCJC was told 7

8 The Department finds that ACCJC does not meet the requirements of the sections cited above...the Department may allow the accrediting agency a limited timeframe, not to exceed 12 months, to come into compliance. Therefore we have determined that in order to avoid initiation of an action to limit, suspend or terminate ACCJC s recognition, ACCJC must take immediate steps to correct the areas of non-compliance identified in this letter. (Letter DOE to ACCJC ) Following hearings of the National Advisory Committee for Institutional Quality and Integrity (NACIQI) in January 2014 DOE stated that ACCJC is out of compliance with 15 regulations and requirements including: * Acceptance of the agency by others * Consistency in decision making * Providing due process * Conflict of interest And more. DOE Acting Assistant Secretary Dann-Messier underscored the seriousness of the situation as follows: I wish to remind you that if ACCJC does not (come into full compliance), the Department may be compelled to limit, suspend or terminate ACCJC s recognition. (Letter DOE to ACCJC Jan 28, 2014) Complaint 6. ACCJC is not a reliable authority as to the quality of education or training. According to the Dept of Education s principal document on accreditation, Accreditation in the United States : The goal of accreditation is to ensure that education provided by institutions of higher education meets acceptable levels of quality... [accrediting agencies are] to be reliable authorities as to the quality of education or training ( Accreditation in the United States, p1) We contend that ACCJC is not a reliable authority as to the quality of education. We contend that ACCJC has changed its mission from ensuring acceptable levels of quality to enforcing a different agenda and set of priorities which have little or nothing to do with quality of education. The evidence of this can be seen by examining the quality of education at CCSF. Documentation includes: * student success data as compiled by the office of the state community college chancellor, * public acceptance shown in public vote and * individual student comments. A) Student Success Data is shown in the chart below. The data presented is taken from the publicly available website of the California Community College Chancellor s Office: The data shows the statewide numbers compared with CCSF and Butte College over the last recorded period 2006/7-2012/3. In other words, the data represents a lengthy period of time, not just one year. The data represents the actual student success over the exact period where the ACCJC has alleged that CCSF was not meeting standards which are supposed to relate to education quality. Butte College was selected for comparison because that is the college where the Chairperson of the 8

9 Appeal Hearing Panel comes from. As shown, Butte College is performing below state average while CCSF is performing above state average. CALIFORNIA COMMUNITY COLLEGE STUDENT SUCCESS # Full Time Equiv Students Persistence (Enroll first 3 consec terms) 30 Units Complete Completion (Degree, Certif or Transfer) Statewide 1.11 M 70.5% 66.5% 48.1% Butte College 10.8 K 70.1% 66.3% 44.9% CCSF 32.9 K 78.1% 73.6% 56% B) Public Acceptance CCSF is the only community college in the city of San Francisco. With nine campuses and over one hundred off -campus teaching sites, the college has a huge impact on the city with nearly 100,000 students (credit and noncredit, many part time) before the crisis began. Over the decades, and as a result of conscious reachout policy, the college has truly taken the college into each and every community. As a result of the Show Cause sanction in June 2012, and in the belief that finances were a big part of the problem, the city included a resolution to financially support CCSF with a temporary property tax increase. The measure was included with the November 2012 vote. This was a challenging gauge of public support for the college. Remarkably, the measure to increase property tax to support CCSF passed with 72.9% voting in favor. C) Student Acceptance Finally, we offer the personal testimony of one highly successful CCSF student, Josh Biddle, as evidence that CCSF has been meeting and exceeding acceptable levels of quality. The testimony is from the only California community college transfer student to win the award at University of California at Berkeley as the top undergraduate student of the year in He is now completing his training to become a medical doctor at UCSF. He wrote: When I transferred to UC Berkeley it didn t take me long to realize the gift I d been given by attending City College.... The only reason I was able to excel at UC Berkeley, and now excel at UCSF, was because of the foundation I received at City College.... Because the ethos at City College is one of collaboration and cooperation I was perfectly suited to reach out to my fellow students and to support them on their journey as I asked them to do the same for me... Revoking the accreditation of CCSF is unconscionable. I love City College and will be eternally grateful for the opportunity it gave me to become the person I didn t even realize I could be. 9

10 The complete testimony is enclosed with other key documents and should be read in full as one ponders what it means that the college he is speaking of has been deemed unacceptable by ACCJC. ACCJC argues that it is simply following standards. However the standards of ACCJC were created with little or no input from teaching faculty, students or the authentic public. By the authentic public we mean members of the community including students, parents and family rather than retired college chancellors pretending to represent the public. The standards were largely created by the ACCJC commission and bodies which violated regulations of the Dept of Education as noted in the 2010 letter from DOE to ACCJC. We contend that ACCJC has created standards that have little or nothing to do with quality of education. This has resulted in ACCJC becoming a dysfunctional organization. It is not a reliable authority as to the quality of education. The situation with CCSF is not unique. The problem has existed for many years and has only come to a climax with the CCSF situation. CONCLUSIONS. ACCJC continues to violate the spirit and letter of federal regulations required of authorized accrediting agencies. ACCJC has violated requirements for fair treatment and due process toward CCSF at every step of the process: from the selection of commission members (criticized by DOE in 2010) to the selection of Evaluation Team Members (criticized by DOE in 2013) to the selection of Hearing Panel members in spring The creation, proceedings and decisions of the Appeal Hearing Panel exemplify the failure to follow federal regulations and directives of the DOE Director. According to ACCJC policy the decisions of an Appeal Hearing Panel are not subject to review. However because the Hearing Panel was created and acted in violation of DOE regulations and DOE Director directives, we believe the decisions of this Appeal Hearing Panel should be considered null and void. We urge the Dept of Education to follow through on their warning to limit, suspend or terminate the authorization of the ACCJC. This is not an academic or bureaucratic debate. The dysfunctional decisions and policies of ACCJC are damaging tens of thousands of people NOW. We look forward to receiving a positive response to our concerns and complaints. Contact information is at the bottom. 10

11 Yours for the betterment of higher education and accreditation, Maria Crispi CCSF student Alycia Kaplan CCSF student Wendy Kaufmyn CCSF engineering instructor Heather Rose Lacy CCSF graduate (current SFSU grad student) Richard Sterling Public (engineer, UC Berkeley (retired)) Bie Tan CCSF mathematics instructor (retired) Contact information: USPS mail: R. Sterling at 450 North Civic Drive, Walnut Creek, CA Phone Enc. * Letter DOE to ACCJC ( ) * Letter DOE to ACCJC ( ) * Letter DOE to ACCJC ( ) * Oct 14, 2013 Letter to NACIQI by Chancellor Martinez and others. *Testimony of former CCSF student Josh Biddle * Agrella letter to CCSF community August The report of the Appeal Hearing Panel and DOE regulations published as College Accreditation in the United States are easily found online using the official titles provided on page one of this complaint. 11