The College is due to provide ACCJC with its arguments as to why the Commission should review its July 3 disaccreditation ruling, part of the process of reversing the decision as laid out by CCSF administration, Special Trustee Agrella, and State Chancellor Brice Harris. This request for review is due to the ACCJC next week, on August 20.
Particularly in light of Tuesday’s communication from the U.S. Department of Education specifically criticizing the ACCJC’s evaluation of City College and clarifying several missteps in a tainted process, it is imperative that CCSF use the review process to put forward all of the reasons the Commission must immediately reconsider its decision.
To address this issue, AFT 2121 has sent a letter, linked here, to the interim chancellor and special trustee. It details the violations in the ACCJC’s evaluation of CCSF and reiterates that they “go to the legitimacy of the evaluation team and the subsequent actions of the Commission.”
While Drs. Agrella and Harris told the college community quite plainly on FLEX day that all documents pertaining to the review would be made available, a new message from accreditation liaison Gohar Momijian has now indicated that the college community will not be permitted to see, let alone have input into, those arguments.
We ask that you take a look at our letter, and then take a moment to email Special Trustee Agrella (email@example.com) and Interim Chancellor Scott-Skillman (firstname.lastname@example.org), urging them to do right by our college and
- include the Department of Education’s finding as well as CFT’s extensive documentation in the April 30th and follow-up complaints as part of CCSF’s request for review, and
- build trust by following through on their commitment to share the review documents with the campus community.
Wondering what the review process is for, according to ACCJC?
“In [submitting the reasons for review], the institution shall identify the basis for its request for review in one or more of the following areas: (1) there were errors or omissions in carrying out prescribed procedures on the part of the evaluation team and/or the Commission which materially affected the Commission’s decision; (2) there was demonstrable bias or prejudice on the part of one or more members of the evaluation team or Commission which materially affected the Commission’s decision; (3) the evidence before the Commission prior to and on the date when it made the decision which is being appealed was materially in error; or (4) the decision of the Commission was not supported by substantial evidence.” (“Policy on Review of Commission Actions” 2)