Wednesday, August 24, 2011

What the accrediting agency recommended to our colleges

     AS YOU KNOW, at each college, drafts of follow-up reports—to recently issued Accreditation recommendations—are being circulated. Obviously, in these reports, the colleges seek to satisfy the ACCJC (the accrediting body) that they have responded adequately to their recommendations.
     Both colleges have been given a "warning," so this is serious, accred-wise.
     Oddly, at least at Irvine Valley College, members of the college community seem to have been given only three days to provide feedback. (LDA sent out the draft on the 22nd of August. She wrote: "Please send all comments to myself and Dean Werle ... by Friday 8-25-11.")
     I offer the following as a reminder of the recommendations. Both Irvine Valley and Saddleback Colleges received six “district” recommendations. I list them below. (IVC also received a single college recommendation, listed at the end)*:
District Recommendation 1: The teams recommend that the chancellor develop and implement both a strategic short-term and long-term plan that is inclusive of the planning at the colleges and that this planning structure drive the allocation of district resources for the colleges, …ATEP, and the district….

District Recommendation 2: The teams recommend that the district and the colleges develop and implement a resource allocation model driven by planning that includes all district funds and is open, transparent, inclusive, and that is widely disseminated and reviewed/evaluated periodically for effectiveness….

District Recommendation 3: The teams recommend that the college, district administrators, faculty and staff develop a communications process among the entities on key issues of district-wide concern including academic calendar, planning, ATEP …, technology and building priorities….

District Recommendation 4: The teams recommend that the Board of Trustees widely communicate the results of its self evaluation process annually and use this as the basis for improvement….

District Recommendation 5: The teams recommend that the Board of Trustees develop a clearly defined policy for a code of ethics which must include dealing with violations of the Board‘s code of ethics….

District Recommendation 6: The teams recommend that the district provide a clear delineation of its functional responsibilities, the district level process for decision making and the role of the district in college planning and decision making. The district should perform a regular review of district committees, conduct an assessment of the overall effectiveness of services to the colleges and communicate the results of those reviews….
For Irvine Valley College, this recommendation was added:
College Recommendation 6: Although the college and its constituent groups have achieved a collegial working relationship with the current president to address issues with a new optimism, the college does not have this same type of relationship with the district leadership and the Board of Trustees. While some progress has been made and policies have been developed, the team feels that Recommendations 7 and 8 … of the 2004 visiting team Accreditation Team have not been fully met.
Babs
2004 IVC Evaluation Report Recommendations  7 & 8:
7. [DEFINING ROLES] Consistent with the recommendations of the 1998 team, the 2004 team recommends that the Board of Trustees, District leadership and College leadership define, publish, adhere to, regularly evaluate, and continuously improve the respective leadership roles and scopes of authority of college and district constituent groups and governance committees in meaningful, collegial decision-making processes….

8. [REDUCE HOSTILITY & DESPAIR] Consistent with the recommendations of the 1998 team, the 2004 team recommends that the Board of Trustees, chancellor, presidents, administrators, managers, faculty senates and unions, classified senates and unions, and students come together and take measures to reduce the hostility, cynicism, despair, and fear that continue to plague the college….
• See IVC’s Accreditation documents here.

• See Saddleback College’s Accreditation documents here.

*Source: recently distributed draft of IVC follow-up report

9 comments:

Anonymous said...

Does everyone agreed that IVC "achieved a collegial working relationship with the current president to address issues with a new optimism"?

That may have been true back then, but certainly not now, not with the current leadership. We should admit the problem and confront it in my humble opinion.

Anonymous said...

The 2004 Accreditation Self Study can be found here along with other college and accreditation resources: http://www.ivc.edu/accreditation/Pages/college.aspx

Roy Bauer said...

Yes, that link works. Oddly, at the college website, if one clicks "Accreditation 2010" on the opening page, one does not go to the page you refer to. Evidently, one needs to click "college resources" in order to get there. And how is anyone supposed to know that?
Are they trying to hide it? Is that it?

Anonymous said...

The accreditation folks will be interested in the inaccessibility of having the full college community read the draft in order to raise concerns, questions, offer suggestions or concur with what is stated and supposedly supported by docs. I understand that Saddleback has until the 2nd for feedback to its Steering committee.

Anonymous said...

I also understand that Saddleback saw drafts of the report as it was being written and they were given time for comment on sections of the report. IVC had that opportunity in the past. Is the current draft just released at IVC the first time the college has had a chance to review it? During the first week of instruction when classified and faculty are overwhelmed? If so, why?

Anonymous said...

It's a very old story - we all know it.

Anonymous said...

"Are they trying to hide it? Is that it?"

Yeah, that's it. /snark

Anonymous said...

Eight months ago, and 100 miles down the road from you, we were on probation (which is worse than warning) in ten different areas--none of which, by the way, were about teaching or learning, and all of which were about administration, the BoT, and the climate of fear and intimidation on campus. Sounds familiar, no?

Our faculty union (full disclosure: I'm one of the worker bees in the union) did what was necessary to run a political campaign and elect a new Board majority which promptly brought out the old president and hired a really good interim who turned things completely around.

In July, we were fully re-accredited--and all this happened in less than a year.

So if your admin is covering up (and, apparently, they are), and if the accreds sniff it out and do something about it, and if you can find a real leader, and if everyone pitches in, then maybe the conditions for positive change in the SOCCCD will be in place.

There are lots of "if's" in that last sentence, but even a grizzled old cynic like me is flat-out amazed by what's happened--and it took a LOT of work--down here.

Don't mourn; organize!

Anonymous said...

We have had good administrators and bad ones. Fortunately, the bad ones usually move on before action has to be taken to remove them. But our students are being ignored (classes cut) and our rights are being violated (programs and curriculum). The taxpayers are being ripped off (MRC). We have been lied to (audit) and tricked (EC). I hold out hope that Rocky is still a good administrator, but even that hope is fading as he ignores Rome burning. It is time to start thinking about a vote of no confidence. I have no confidence in the vpres, whatsoever. Clever like a fox, but sorely lacking in integrity. NO CONFIDENCE!

Roy's obituary in LA Times and Register: "we were lucky to have you while we did"

  This ran in the Sunday December 24, 2023 edition of the Los Angeles Times and the Orange County Register : July 14, 1955 - November 20, 2...