.....As you know, our two colleges recently received letters from the Accrediting Commission (ACCJC). Each college was informed that it has been “out of compliance” with accrediting standards for longer than the two years allowed by the Department of Education. (It's been three years.)
.....Accordingly, each college must “completely” resolve “concerns” by October 15 of 2008—that's less than 8 months from now. (See IVC letter and Saddleback letter.)
.....The “concerns” are expressed in the following recommendations:
Irvine Valley College:.....Well, exactly no one wants the colleges to lose their accreditation.
Rec 6: “The Board of Trustees cease involvement in college and district operations….”
Rec 7: “…define, …regularly evaluate, and continuously improve the…leadership roles and scopes of authority of…constituent groups…in…collegial decision-making processes.”
Rec 8: “[All groups]…come together and take measures to reduce the hostility, cynicism, despair, and fear….”
Saddleback College:
“College” Rec 3: “…develop…student learning outcomes….”
“District” Rec 5: “The Board of Trustees cease their involvement in college and district operations….” [SC Rec 5 is similar to IVC Rec 6 and essentially includes IVC Rec 7—“leadership roles…and scopes of authority”.]
“District” Rec 6: “[All groups]…come together and take measures to reduce the hostility, cynicism, despair, and fear….] [Essentially, this is the same as IVC Rec 8, but this recommendation specifies the need for “greater administrative stability and empowerment at the college….”]
.....Obviously, faculty, trustees, administrators, students, classified employees, et al.—we’re all in this together.
.....It is my intention to establish a forum to discuss how we might save ourselves from disaster. I do hope that members of the district community will write us to offer their sincere and thoughtful suggestions. —DtB
(I should add that, according to reliable sources, board President Don Wagner has expressed a sincere willingness and even enthusiasm for working together with faculty to deal with our accreditation predicament.)
13 comments:
How can we to overcome these problems in 8 short months?
Only a bold move will do. Luckily, there is a measure that would go very far in addressing most if not all of the ACCJC’s concerns:
1a. Remove Raghu Mathur from the office of Chancellor.
1b. Immediately establish a transparent and honest search for a new Chancellor.
I don’t see how anything short of that will do. This time, the ACCJC means business.
As was the case with my Bored, your Bored is not only dysfunctional but works in a manner that is cross purposeful to its mission of educating students. As an outsider I can see that your Board Four are frustrated politicians and use their seats as grandstands for their larger world views.Unable or unwilling to win seats at the national of state wide level they act as if their little College District were something more than it is.
A school board is a policy making body. It's not the U.S. Congress.
I'll repeat the quote:
"First God made idiots,that was for practice.
Then He made school boards."
Samuel Clemens
How do we satisfy the ACCJC now, after all of these years, after all of the games by Mathur and the board?
They've finally put us behind the 8 ball.
They'd rather we lose our accreditation than send Mathur, the ultimate Yes Man, packing.
That man has been a DISASTER for this district. A total DISASTER.
How do we show the ACCJC that we're working on overcoming "administrative instability"--now that Mathur has canned Kopecky!
These people are gonna get our tickets pulled.
Kopecky wasn't the problem with ATEP. Mathur is the problem with ATEP.
I don't think it's an exaggeration to say that the single limiting factor associated with the ability of the two colleges to establish and maintain a collegial attitude with the Board of Trustees is the current chancellor of the district.
I am convinced that, if the Board were to serve the chancellor notice on Monday, a spirit of euphoria, one contagious enough to engender more than a modicum of good will toward the current Board of Trustees, would occur immediately.
It is a widely held belief that the environment of despair and fear alluded to in both letters from the accreditation commission is directly linked to the current chancellor. And it is also a widely held belief that, were he gone, things would change immediately.
While we are on this subject, I would like to commend the faculty and the classified staffs at both colleges for creating for our students an atmosphere which does not belie the sadness, dismay, and discouragement which often characterizes our own perceptions of the environment in which we work.
When you are in the middle of a maelstrom such as the one we have found ourselves for the past 10 years, it is easy to opt out, or to attack, or to treat others as you are being treated. Fortunately, our students remind us daily of who we are, what we value, and the kinds of people we aspire to be.
Because of the faith of our students and their love for our colleges, the faculty and our colleagues in classified positions have continued to make our colleges places of academic integrity and academic inquiry, places where excellence is rewarded, even though our own rewards are limited to those rewards we experience as we work with students and each other.
I appreciate the fact that the Board publicly recognizes the fine work done by the faculty at both colleges: the real test of their respect for us and their confidence in our ability lies with their decision to serve the students, the college administrations, the faculty and the classified staff by bringing us the leadership we deserve.
Replacing the current chancellor is more than a choice: it is a fiduciary responsibility, a fiduciary responsibility the Board should act on now.
Hallelujah, halleluja, 4:21! You're better than my favorite televangelist, Jimmy Swaggart.
It will take more than the removal of the Chancellor. There also needs to be an overhaul of District staff; start by getting rid of some of the overpaid managers and administrators that spend most of their time protecting his image and authority.
It's so telling that NO information has come from the Chancellor's office about the accreditation report. You can bet if the report was glowing instead of damning, the Marketing department would be working overtime writing press releases congratulating the Chancellor and the Board on what a fine job they've done. Makes you wonder what they are doing.
You said it perfectly, Torabora. Our board likes to think of themselves as senators rather than a step above dog catchers.
Bravo! - and on a weekend too!
This is much much mroe than we've heard from anyone in Admin or district.
Thanks.
We need to hear more.
I fear they will wait until summer and then do something drastic when most of us are gone.
Don Wagner, sincere? Show me the proof, please.
Wagner - Contrite? Sincere? Enthuisastic?
I'll believe it when I see him take back some of the awful stuff he's said. He can begin with the librarians.
Retribution and retaliation continue to live in SOCCCD. Just since the Accred team was here, the Board has allowed Raghu to drive out Rich McCullough, to scape-goat Park Ranger Bob. Who's next? Some say Raghu's got his sights set on Glen because Glen's defied him too many times. Raghu doesn't get it, the board doesn't get it--ACCJC gets it! Some members of our board would consider it a victory to shut down our district. Ah, what idiots elected that group.
Post a Comment