FOR YEARS NOW, we’ve been saying that our dysfunctional community college district is a kind of microcosm of the Bush Administration. For instance, it is often said that George W and his advisors live in a “bubble,” oblivious to reality. That's not good.Hey, we’ve got a bubble, too!
Consider last Friday’s board forum. Not for the first time, some of our trustees expressed a take on reality according to which the accreditation process is dishonest and biased—that the Accreditation people are somehow in cahoots with faculty. Mr. Tom Fuentes seems to embrace a particularly bold version of the view: the system is phony; it’s fixed by faculty. I’ve heard him say exactly that, though he is usually careful not to say it so plainly when in front of cameras or audiences.
Not sure about Mr. Wagner. Perhaps he embraces a less robust version of the view—something short of a conspiracy theory. Dunno.
Also on Friday, a trustee—and, again, we’ve heard this before—asserted or implied that, among students, there exists substantial FEAR of ACCREDITATION LOSS. Mr. Wagner talked as though the fear is very significant, cuz he was clearly bothered by it.
He even insisted that these fears are encouraged by faculty!
Naturally, if there really were such a phenomenon, then—assuming that our Accreditation is safe, cuz, if it isn’t, we wouldn’t wanna lie about that, would we?—it would be a real problem for us. It would needlessly distract students and maybe even encourage them to get their educations elsewhere. Not good!
Well, if you know anything about the ACCJC (i.e., the Accrediting Commission for Community and Junior Colleges), then you know that there’s virtually no chance that they'll pull our ticket—a college has got to get seriously evil and incompetent for that [see Compton Community College]—though there’s a very real chance of further embarrassing ACCJC wrist-slapping and the investment of further man-hours (in the hundreds) devoted to holding meetings and writing reports.
At last Friday’s forum, a well-regarded classified employee who routinely interacts with students reported that she has not encountered the “fear” phenomenon, not at least to the degree that Mr. Wagner describes. And, speaking for myself, students never express accreditation worries. And they do lots of squawking, I’ll tell you for sure!
In my classes, accreditation does come up sometimes—when, for instance, I explain what a community college “district” is and how it’s run and overseen. (That's good for a student to know.) But this alleged FEAR phenomenon? Well, as far as I can tell—and I do get around—it doesn’t exist. Not to any significant degree, anyway.
Why, then, do Wagner and Fuentes (and other trustees?) suppose otherwise? (Here's a hint: MATHUR.)
Now, I’m not sure how we can get these people to see reality about the honesty and neutrality (observe that I didn’t say the “competence” or the “efficiency”) of the accreditors. If you’ve got any good ideas about that, let us know.
But this other delusion—that (a substantial number of) students fear our loss of accreditation—should be more amenable to a cure. I mean, either this FEAR phenomenon exists or it doesn’t, right? And if those who actually interact with students day after day—like the classified employee—report that DREAD of ACCREDITATION LOSS is not generally exhibited or expressed by students, then, well, Q.E.D.!
So those of you who regularly interact with students, why doncha contact the trustees and let ‘em know the reality of student concerns. YOU'VE GOT POWER! Use it!
Here are the relevant email addresses:
• Board President, David Lang — dlang@socccd.org
• Board VP, Donald P. Wagner — dwagner@socccd.org
• Marcia Milchiker — mmilchiker@socccd.org
• Nancy M. Padberg — npadberg@socccd.org
• John S. Williams — jwilliams@socccd.org
I got the above info at the district website under the heading “Governing board.” If you click on their names, you get a little biographical blurb, usually ending with:
Contact [trustee X] at [his/her] email address: xxx@socccd.org
Oddly, Mr. Fuentes & Mr. Jay don’t give their email addresses, although I’m sure they’d love to hear from you cuz, on Friday, the board was pretty clear about that! My guess is that Fuentes & Jay’s email addresses are:
• Clerk, Thomas A. Fuentes — tfuentes@socccd.org
• William O. Jay — bjay@socccd.org
Good luck!
19 comments:
Chunk,
Wherever could students get the idea that our accreditation was in jeopardy? Could it be the Lariat editorial in December that says exactly that? At least it's not from you. Oh no, you would never do any such thing.
Must have been someone else, then, who said to Wendy at the February 7 accred forum (and then wrote about it on this blog on February 8) "Later, I asked if the board knows that their failure to cease micromanaging would THREATEN OUR ACCREDITATION." (emphasis added so everyone who reads this knows you are challenged by the truth, not speaking it to power.)
8:14 (i.e., Ray):
What I said (at the Forum) was that I always tell my students that we are at no risk of losing our accreditation, and what I said is true.
Are we, however, at risk of embarrassing and graver actions taken against us by the ACCJC? Yes, we are. We're into our third report, this round. And it seems unlikely that we'll be able to avoid going through yet another report process, what with Wagner and Fuentes' defiance.
True enough, I shouldn't use the language of our Accred. being "threatened." (If I said that, it was among faculty, not students, and there certainly are no faculty who fear our loss of Accreditation.)
We do, however, run the risk of a more negative action taken against us, for we could again face (as in fact Saddleback College does face) another site visit. We could also receive a warning. The point is that things could get worse, despite there being no real threat that our ticket might get pulled.
As I explained on Friday, if things continue to go badly, it will be college personnel who will be doing all the work, not the Trustees.
It's funny, Ray, how you refuse to acknowledge the main point made in this post, namely, that some trustees believe that students fear a loss of accreditation, but little such fear exists among students (not sure about the Lariat staff). You know that perfectly well (well, you would if you had students).
Why don't you address the POINT, Ray?
I didn't know Chunk taught at Saddleback...
The POINT is that you lied when you said to the trustees at the forum and in your prior posts about the forum that you, the voice of truth and right, would never say our accreditation was threatened. Oh no, not you. Who ever could be spreading such nonsense? Except you’ve been caught lying and are now squirming pathetically. After all, you said just that about our accreditation not two months ago. (I love the parenthetical, by the way: “If I said that . . . ” If nothing, big guy, you wrote it; it’s there on your February 8 post for the world to see, and it says you were lying then to ask the question or lying on Friday. But there’s no “if” about it.)
The main point of your post, Chunk, is obviously not that the trustees think the students fear a loss of accreditation. The main point has been to beat up the trustees about micromanagement. But that hoary old charge no longer carries any weight and everyone at the forum except the trustee obsessed Chunk Wheeler wants to move on. You’re trying to change the subject, to misdirect readers from your mendacity.
Didn't Ray pen some of those Accreditation reports?
How does the conspiracy theory square that?
Haven't the Accreds pointed out year after year the micro-management issue as being THE issue? What am I missing here?
hmmm, what WERE the complaints the Accreds made when Ray wrote the reports?
Ray? Ray? oh, RAAA-AAAY!
The leftist academics think of the accreds as their Pope. But the truth is the acreeds are also corrupt. How can one ever forget the Kathy H. and Pam F. conspiracy?
Pope?
I just gotta say, people who write ANONYMOUS posts all the time, and accuse Chunk of being a liar, which he certainly is NOT, is really cowardly and classless. Good grief, whatever happened to standing up and speaking up UNDER ONE'S OWN NAME??? Some bloggers wouldn't accept anonymous comments; Chunk is generous to do so. Anon, please go piss up a rope.
Dear Floyd (whoever you might be):
Seems like virtually everyone posts anonymously to this blog. The ID of the poster isn't important, only the content of the post. You carefully ignore that. So Chunk's "certainly NOT" a liar? Well, he said at last Friday's forum and then wrote on this blog that accreditation is not in jeopardy and he has no idea where your trustees got that crazy idea. Silly trustees. Of course, at the February forum he said accreditation was in jeapordy and wrote that on this blog. Have you followed the argument this time? Chunk doesn't get it both ways. He lies, regardless of whether I post anonymously or not.
If you really must have a name, you can call me Patrick. Seems like he's the fall guy for everything the kool aid drinkers on this blog don't like to hear.
PS, Floyd, "Chunk Wheeler" is not his real name, either.
Patrick
I've always thought of Patrick as being a certain kind of fall guy myself...
It's a bit disingenuous, "Patrick," for you to suggest that people don't know who produces this blog. Come on.
take the commentator's point.
Chunk is a straight shooter. No ad hominem attacks coming from him. I think your "lying" comment seems a little over the top, here. This isn't a "you can't handle the truth moment," though it seems like that's what you want it to be.
Fuentes, Wagner, the so-called Old Guard are "Neanderthals & opportunists."
Fuentes is "Mr. Evil."
Mathur is a "rat bastard."
Williams is "not very bright."
Any of that sound the least bit familiar to readers of this blog? But, of course, there are no ad hominem attacks from the straight shooting Chunk.
Oh yes, and I'm supposed to "take the commentator’s point" about anonymous postings from someone calling herself auntie mame?
Do you people even hear yourselves anymore?
""Fuentes, Wagner, the so-called Old Guard are "Neanderthals & opportunists."
Fuentes is "Mr. Evil."
Mathur is a "rat bastard."
Williams is "not very bright." "
All these inidcate that CW is, indeed, a straight shooter. Like saying Bush is a venal incompetent liar. All true.
And you 2:57, are full of shit!
Thanks for making my point, young fellow.
Now run along and help mom with the dishes.
The "old guard" kicks ass unlike you suckass liberals.
How many students does Ray Chandos have enrolled in his classes this semester?
Post a Comment