• A A A
  • Primary Navigation

    Press Release from the “Save CCSF” Coalition

    For community members following educational access issues concerning City College of San Francisco’s accreditation status, ILRCSF is posting the press release below.

    ###

    PRESS RELEASE
    For immediate release
    For Wednesday, May 28, 2014

    CONTACT:
    Wendy Kaufmyn: (510) 714-8687
    Tarik Farrar: (510) 388-1690
    www.saveccsf.org

    Save CCSF Coalition asserts that the ACCJC is a failed institution and supports Pelosi/Speier/Eshoo call for new leadership.

    In a recent flurry of exchanges between the Accrediting Commission for Community and Junior Colleges (ACCJC), Representative Nancy Pelosi, and the U.S. Department of Education (USDoE), the ACCJC has made claims that are at best misleading, and at worst intentionally deceptive. The Save CCSF Coalition supports Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi, Congresswoman Jackie Speier and Congresswoman Anna Eshoo’s call that “…new leadership is needed at ACCJC. The Department of Education should also consider whether to recertify ACCJC as an accrediting body.”

    Offered here are just a few of the numerous examples of ACCJC’s failed leadership:

    • The ACCJC claims that they “…moved to withdraw CCSF’s accreditation based on wide-ranging, long-term problems identified by peer institution evaluators through the long-recognized and effective process of peer review.”What they fail to mention is that they are on their own “show cause” sanction for being out of compliance with four USDoE regulations, one of the four being that they violated this principle of peer review. The ACCJC failed to have a reasonable representation of faculty on the CCSF accreditation evaluation team.
    • ACCJC claims that CCSF had “years of notice (nearly a decade) and failed to take effective action.”What they fail to mention is that another one of the four reasons that they are on their own “show cause” with the USDoE is precisely because they did not clearly communicate and identify deficiencies that the institution needed to address in order to come into compliance. Bottom line: the clock did not start in 2006 when ACCJC gave CCSF full accreditation (albeit with some recommendations,) but rather in 2012. The follow-up evaluation team returned in April 2013. So, in fact, ACCJC gave CCSF only 8 months, not 2 years.
    • The ACCJC claims that they cannot give an extension to CCSF; however, recent communications from the USDoE in addition to examination of their own by-laws and USDoE regulations prove otherwise. They can extend the time “for good cause”. What better cause than the 80,000 students who would be denied their right to higher education should CCSF close?
    • ACCJC claims that candidacy status is the only way forward for CCSF; however, they acknowledge that for CCSF to continue to have access to federal resources, the USDoE would need to waive the normal two-year hiatus on eligibility for federal aid. This is by no means a given and is probably one of the many good reasons why CCSF administration has strongly rejected this route. Despite the lack of viability of this option, the ACCJC continues to push for it. Why? To abrogate union contracts?  To avoid the litigation in progress against them?

    Thanks to City Attorney Dennis Herrera, the ACCJC’s actions at this point are moot. A court injunction prevents them from revoking CCSF’s accreditation until the conclusion of a trial which will occur this fall. Herrera claims in his suit that the ACCJC is motivated by a political agenda. They seem hell-bent on proving him right.

    ###

    Speak Your Mind

    *

    Share this post