by Conrad Scott-Curtis
This week, San Francisco City Attorney Dennis Herrera’s suit against the ACCJC has gone to trial in San Francisco Superior Court. The suit, filed in August of 2013, alleges that ACCJC, the accrediting agency for California’s 112 community colleges and 72 community college districts, acted improperly in putting CCSF on Show-Cause status in July of 2012 and in deciding, in July of 2013, to deny accreditation to CCSF, effective summer of 2014.
Specifically, Herrera’s lawsuit alleges, among other things, the following: ACCJC denied CCSF due process as outlined in ACCJC’s own manual of operations and required by the US Department of Education; CCSF did not assure sufficient numbers of faculty on the accreditation visiting team; the accrediting agency acted with political motivation having to do with the Student Success Act—which CCSF strongly opposed—when they moved to close down CCSF; and ACCJC engaged in a conflict of interest when the visiting team to CCSF included Peter Crabtree, husband of the head of the agency, Barbara Beno.
In 2012, when ACCJC placed the college on show cause, one of the justifications was that the school had made insufficient progress on several recommendations from their 2006 accreditation, which they received without sanction. The status of the word “recommendation” is at issue in this week’s court case, with Deputy City Attorney Ronald Flynn arguing that the term is ambiguous in that it doesn’t specify whether the college failed to meet standards or simply needed improvement (SF Gate, 10/30). Flynn went on to point out that when the Department of Education (DOE) in August of 2013 issued a report finding ACCJC in violation of several accrediting-agency standards, one of the problems cited was that the ambiguity of the term “recommendation” affects “the ability of the agency to provide colleges with due process.”
As further background to this article, it should be noted that the DOE’s report also found the following:
- the ACCJC does not have a policy to ensure sufficient numbers of faculty members on visiting teams (CCSF’s team included only one), and
- ACCJC created at least the appearance of conflict of interest by allowing the director’s husband to serve on an accreditation visiting team.
The DOE’s letter also directed that “in order to avoid initiation of an action to limit, suspend or terminate ACCJC’s recognition [as a sanctioned accrediting agency], ACCJC must take immediate steps to correct the areas of non-compliance identified in this letter.”
Also at issue in determining whether CCSF received required due process from ACCJC is whether the college was given sufficient opportunity to respond to notice that the commission had voted to place the school on show-cause status. Some of the argument and testimony this week has revolved around whether edits made to the visiting team’s report by Barbara Beno, technically a staff member of ACCJC and not an evaluator, went too far in changing the visiting team’s findings and were not communicated to the college in a timely manner. During the development of the court case, information came out that the visiting team had voted unanimously (15-0) to place CCSF of probation, a sanction less serious than show cause.
CFT, Herrera, and the DOE are not alone in their criticism of ACCJC. On June 26 of this year, the California State Auditor issued a critique of ACCJC in its Report on Community College Accreditation. It confirmed numerous problems with first raised in CFT’s complaint to the DOE, including that ACCJC
- is inconsistent in applying accreditation standards to different colleges,
- lacks transparency in its decision-making process
- needs to improve the appeals process when schools are sanctioned
- does not observe accepted accreditation standards in composing site-visit teams, and
- sanctions colleges at a much higher rate—54.5% v. 12.4%—than other accreditation agencies do.
While we await the end of the trial and the decision of the SF Superior Court, it might be worthwhile to revisit the timeline of ACCJC’s actions regarding CCSF, along with responses by other parties.
2006. CCSF accredited by ACCJC without sanction.
March 2012. Accrediting team visits CCSF. Later, they vote 15-0 to place CCSF on probation, a step below show-cause status.
July 2012. ACCJC places CCSF on show-cause status, the most severe status short of denying accreditation. The designation requires that CCSF demonstrate, or show cause, why they should not be disaccredited.
Oct. 2012. Special Trustee Arguella appointed by the state chancellor’s office to oversee CCSF.
Spring 2013. CFT files a complaint with the U.S. Department of Education concerning ACCJC.
July 2013. ACCJC votes to deny accreditation to CCSF, effective July 31, 2014
July 2013. After the commission’s decision, enrollment dropped by nearly 15% and has continued to fall.
August 2013. The Department of Education validates CFT’s complaint against ACCJC.
August 2013. SF City Attorney files suit to keep CCSF open.
Sept. 2013. CFT sues ACCJC.
Dec. 2013. Judge Curtis Karnow in SF Superior Courts hears arguments by the SF City Attorney and CFT to keep CCSF open until the suits filed in August in September are heard.
Jan. 2, 2014. Judge Karnow issues an injunction keeping CCSF open through trial.
June 26, 2014. The California State Auditor issues a critique of the ACCJC in its Report on Community College Accreditation.
September 19, 2014. The Superior Court rejects ACCJC’s arguments for dismissal of the lawsuit.
October 27, 2014. The CFT lawsuit and People of CA v. ACCJC go to trial in SF Superior Court in front of Judge Karnow.
State Budget (non-) News
At this point, we are waiting the governor’s first budget proposal for the 2015-16 academic year, which will come out in January of 2015.
It’s worth noting, though, some of the recommendations from the CCC State Chancellor’s office for the budget. These include a request for a 2.1% COLA, along with another $55,000,000 meant, in part, to help districts cover the increased costs of CalSTRS contributions.
The chancellor’s office is also requesting $70,000,000 to hire more full-time faculty statewide. Last year’s Assembly showed interest in funding more full-time hires, but seemed stuck on how to structure such an allocation. This year’s chancellor’s proposal recommends funding schools based on the ratio of classes taught by full-time faculty to classes taught by part-time faculty.