WASC, will they remain relevant?

Accrediters tell Pelosi they won’t give CCSF more time - Extra Credit

Federal government seeking to influence accreditation decisions. Is this the start of the nationalization of accreditation? Will WASC bend?

 

Are you sure? It states here that WASC gave them four more months. ( Dr. Tyler is our former Vice Chancellor. He was at Houston Community College before this gig) I could be totally off. Smarter minds than I might be able to help.


As you may know by now, the ACCJC posted a proposed change to its termination policy yesterday afternoon. Under this proposed policy change, the college can apply for a new designation known as Restoration. If it is determined that we are qualified for this status, accreditation termination would be deferred for two years while we continue the work of meeting the accreditation standards. A team would visit the college within 4 months of accepting our application to determine if we are on track for moving to the Restoration status.
We are pleased that the ACCJC has recognized the extraordinary progress we've made to come into substantial compliance. This proposal shows that the hard work of our faculty, staff, students and administrators, as well as our many supporters, is being recognized.




http://www.ccsf.edu/ACC/Accreditation%20Update_June_12_2014.pdf

 

The posted news story is from May 2014, which is long out of date given the fast-moving legal developments in this case.

First of all, ACCJC did announce new policies in June:

Secondly, it was announced today that a government lawsuit against the ACCJC can go forward, starting in October. So there is no doubt that government is putting the pressure on ACCJC -- but it's the City of San Francisco local government, not the feds.

Yes, Nancy Pelosi may be issuing statements and strongly worded letters, but that's just standard political maneuvering to score points with concerned voters. The City's lawsuit is the real problem for ACCJC.

 

In other words, local government is trying to influence accreditation decisions. That may or may not be a good thing, but it shouldn't really surprise anyone if the City of San Francisco takes the side of San Francisco City College.

 

Oh maybe you didn't know. Nancy Pelosi is a representative for California in the United States House of Representatives.

 

Oh, I know that. In fact, I also know Jackie Speier and Anna Eshoo are US representatives too. And I know that they all teamed up to issue "a joint statement reflecting their anger":

But I also know that an angry "joint statement" from three Congressional representatives is legally meaningless. A lawsuit from the San Francisco City Attorney isn't -- especially after it gets the green light from a Superior Court judge.

 

This is far from nationalization of accreditation system.
This is political hand wrestling.

At times politicians get evolved in accreditation issues. The WASC will create precedence
if they change their decision. Enforcing standards sends a message to the schools.

As we know there are lobbying groups that can offer money and support to politicians.
What WASC did they gave time to the college to fix problems.

I think the college should have applied long time ego for accreditation with the Accrediting Council for Independent Colleges & Schools (ACICS).

This way even if they loose WASC accreditation the students will get accredited degrees , this wil;l by time to get re-accredited with WASC.

 

A point that sometimes gets lost is that ACICS, and ACCSC, COE, ACCET, etc. are not just generic alternatives to the regionals. Each has specific mandates describing the type of school they accredit – and in this they also describe types of schools they won't accredit. From the ACICS Criteria for Accreditation:

From the ACCSC Standards of Accreditation:

A public community college with a wide range of liberal arts and science programs as well as professional programs, and no apparent primacy for career-oriented programs, wouldn't be eligible to apply with either under extensively stated provisions of their current mandates. Further, DOED-recognized accrediting agencies aren't completely autonomous in defining their own mandates: The DOED has a part in this.

 

Realistically, a traditional B&M college or university has exactly one option for getting US DoE-recognized accreditation, and that is the local RA agency. Nothing else is going to work:

- As noted above, NA agencies like ACICS or ACCSC or ACCET or COE can accredit occupational/career programs -- but not traditional academic arts & sciences programs.

- DETC, another NA agency, can accredit programs in a wide variety of subjects, including arts & sciences -- but only if they are distance programs.

- There are six different RA agencies -- but they are each restricted to certain states. So a school would have to move to a different state to become eligible with a different RA agency. That might be feasible for a DL school, but it's not very practical for a traditional B&M school.

So the local RA agency effectively has a monopoly on accreditation of traditional B&M colleges and universities. Maybe it would be good to have more options and competition, but right now there are no practical alternatives.