The "Two-Year Rule": the accrediting agency dropped the ball, bigtime

.....Recently, our two colleges received dismal letters from the accrediting agency—the ACCJC. All of a sudden, we were told that we must satisfy the agency re its recommendations (i.e., we must fix the problems it identified three years ago)—or else. And we’ve gotta do that by October (that’s when we submit our progress reports; the commission meets and makes its decision about our colleges' accreditation status in January of 2009).
.....What’s that all about? Well, it concerns the Department of Education (DoE) and the federally-imposed “Two-Year Rule.” It's been around a while.
.....Here’s an excerpt from an article, by Janet Fulks, in the February issue of the (State Senate's) Rostrum newsletter:

.....At the second annual … Accreditation Institute…, many were surprised to hear about the impact of the “two-year rule” implementation on our accreditation process. The “two-year rule” is a federally imposed mandate that requires accrediting agencies to place a two-year deadline on correction of all recommendations that relate to deficiencies.
.....Following an accreditation visit, colleges usually receive commendations … and recommendations that may be either: 1) recommendations for improvement or 2) recommendations for correcting deficiencies. Since the Accreditation Standards represent the minimum qualifications for accreditation, fulfilling the standards are [sic] not something colleges must attempt to do, but rather are the minimum expected level of performance. If your college has not shown evidence that it meets this minimum expectation, the result will be a recommendation to correct this deficiency.
.....But why haven’t we heard of this short two-year timeline before?
.....When the Accrediting Commission for Community and Junior Colleges (ACCJC) was being reauthorized as an accrediting agency this fall, the reviewers discovered that this rule had not been enforced in the past, even though the federal government had required it for many years. The federal motivation for enacting this rule was to guarantee that students attending a deficient institution had an opportunity to see that corrected during the course of their study so that they did not receive a deficient college education. This is also why, when being accredited for the present year, the visiting team reviews the previous accreditation reports to see that recommendations have been addressed....
.....Many faculty have commented that in the process of reviewing previous accreditation reports to write their current self-study, they found that some of the same problems were still alive and well. Recommendations have often indicated that institutions failed to meet previous recommendations adequately, allowing the deficiencies to extend into the next six-year cycle (and some for two accreditation cycles). In January, the ACCJC sent out a letter explaining that the two-year rule must be enforced and that it requires recommendations be corrected within a two-year period or increasing sanctions will be placed on the institution. ….[My emphasis.]

.....—Some of the recommendations given to our two colleges go back to 1998.

Pictured: Babs Beno, Managing Director of the ACCJC, in 2006, commending our colleges/district for the lovely progress we are making (See Explaining Babs Beno?.)

Beno's seriously odd "commendation," in 2006:
(For Beno, jump to 6:21)



SH*T HITTING FAN (recently in the news):

Splat N:

…Under U.S. DoE regulations, institutions out of compliance with accrediting standards are expected to correct deficiencies within a two-year period…There has been increased pressure recently on regional accrediting agencies to enforce standards following the Spellings Commission Report and subsequent review of all accrediting agencies, including ACCJC/WASC…The National Advisory Committee on Institutional Quality and Improvement of the U.S. Department of Education recently criticized ACCJC/WASC for failure to meet the "two-year rule." The rule requires accrediting agencies to provide no more than two years for an institution to meet standards.

Splat n+1:

…Shasta College has been given a warning by the Accrediting Commission for Community and Junior Colleges (ACCJC) in California…"This is all kind of new and a surprise to us," said Bill Cochran, vice president of academic affairs at Shasta College…But the college is not alone. Of the 109 community colleges in the state, 103 were given warnings or put on probation…" This is not a Shasta College thing -- this is hitting the whole state," Cochran said. [My emphasis.]