|
SCANDAL AT GCC!
by Roger Bowerman, Accreditation
Coordinator
OK, I know it is a cheap trick,
but now that I have your attention, you can read about the issues facing
Glendale Community College during the next 20 months before the 2010
accreditation team visits our campus. As Accreditation Coordinator, it
is my goal to help this campus face the new realities of accreditation,
and therefore appreciate that each and every one of us holds the future
of this institution in our individual and collective hands.
The changes in accreditation are real. The process itself has been
transformed over the last 12 months, and previously accredited
Institutions are now being forced to "show cause," or face loss of
accreditation— which ultimately means they would have to close their
doors. I know this sounds alarmist, but all one needs to do is visit the
WASC website
www.acswasc.org/ to see the
fundamental shift in the accreditation process.
In fact, there are currently several schools on warning. I, for
one, do not wish to see GCC added to this list. I trust you share this
goal.
The Department
of Education
I would first
like to dispel any rumors that new accreditation standards are a product
of the current administration at GCC. In truth, this shift in
accreditation is the culmination of nearly a decade of pressure from the
Department of Education to induce greater accountability in the
accreditation of educational institutions. While many of us rail—and
rightly so— against a corporate approach to educational evaluation, it
is precisely this approach to educational oversight that has captured
the imagination of legislators at both state and federal levels.
The impact has been increased efforts by the Department of
Education to overhaul the existing peer-driven accreditation process and
replace it with a federal agency that would threaten the institutional
independence of every public college and university in the country. Like
lawyers and physicians, college educators currently have a system of
self regulation, insuring that it is fellow educators who come and
evaluate our institution.
This historic right, however, has come under attack.
WASC's
accreditation
The leadership of
the Western Association of Schools and Colleges (WASC) have battled
leadership in the Department of Education, as well as powerful federal
legislators, in order to maintain the current peer-driven accreditation
process. But WASC (like all other regional educational associations) is,
itself, accredited. Last year was WASC's turn to come under scrutiny.
In its final evaluation, WASC was found to fall below standards in
one crucial area: the issuance of the infamous "two year letters." In
the mid 1990s, Congress responded to a crucial shortcoming in the
college accreditation process and instituted a procedure to force
compliance. While WASC thought it was conforming to this important piece
of legislation, during its last accreditation it was found to be out of
compliance. As a result, WASC has abandoned its previous policy and
adopted a much more aggressive stance.
Two Year
Letters
It was apparent in
the 1990s that the existing accreditation system did not force
institutions to respond to shortcomings in their standards before
another accreditation visit six years later. This meant that students
could be graduating from institutions that had not met basic standards
of education for that student's entire undergraduate education. Congress
and the Department of Education found this unacceptable.
Their answer was the Two Year Letter.
Envisioned as a means of forcing compliance upon colleges that had
failed to address shortcomings during accreditation, the Two Year Letter
has come to symbolize a fundamental shift in the power of accrediting
agencies. No longer can colleges ignore suggestions for six years. No
longer can educational institutions wait for three to four years before
reading their accreditation recommendations and deciding to make
changes. Now, any shortcoming will be accompanied by a letter stating
how quickly that shortcoming must be addressed before the accredited
institution will be subject to sanctions.
Past GCC
Accreditation
What is even more
troubling in this process is the current retroactive interpretation of
the Two Year Letter utilized by WASC. If an institution has been cited
in a previous accreditation visit, then the institution must address
that shortcoming by the next visit—it does not have the luxury of a Two
Year Letter. In essence, WASC considers the previous problem an unsent
Two Year Letter that must be addressed before the six years between
visits.
This means that GCC must have addressed all warnings from the 2002
accreditation report before we undergo our accreditation visit in spring
of 2010. If we have any ongoing faults, we will immediately be placed
under sanctions by WASC.
Linkage
Our single most
important shortcoming—one where GCC was found lacking in both 1996 and
2002 —is linkage. Educational institutions must develop an educational
plan that is based on evidence of student success, and then use the
findings of that plan to guide budgeting decisions. This goal is
rational, considering that colleges exist to educate our students.
Despite the good work we do educating students at GCC, we have
traditionally budgeted without concrete linkage to student success. We
have instituted Program Review that is based upon student success
information, and has recently been modified to incorporate insights from
Student Learning Outcome assessments. We have worked to develop
Educational Master Plans that are used to help inform budget priorities.
But we have yet to formulate a realistic method of utilizing Program
Review and the Educational Master Plan to shape final budget decisions,
or to inform reactions to budget problems as they arise.
We could have
a scandal
So, the original
title of this article could end up a prophesy. If GCC can not address
the problem of linkage over the next year, there could be serious
consequences in the spring of 2010. That is why it is essential that we
all participate in campus-wide efforts to address issues relating to our
budget. Input at the departmental and divisional level is central.
Attendance and participation in budget town halls is another means of
affecting our future. And, finally, when the call comes to participate
in the accreditation self-study, you can directly help GCC and avoid a
scandal.
&
back to top
|
|