Accreditation in the Air

‘Tis accreditation season, but what’s it all about, anyway? Are students and faculty responsible for getting the college put on warning? Certainly we’re actively helping getting us OFF warning.  But do you know how PCC actually violated the ACCJC’s standards?

Here’s the down-low on the 9 violations:
 
#1: PCC’s planning processes; need to integrate program review for allocation of resources 
Status: Committees have been working on this since last semester and it continues this year. There’s now a timeline and a revision to PCC’s convoluted planning process. 
 
#2: PCC needs regular evaluation of all employees at regular intervals (because a random sample of 12 files of admin, faulty,classified, adjunct showed 75% of them were missing evaluation documents)
Status: Oops! HR should get this under control.
 
#3: Standardize performance eval proces for adjunct faculty
Status: Oops! HR should get this under control.
 
#4: Follow approved code of ethics in each area; ethics policies are being disregarded or not enforced.
Status: A new committee has been formed on campus to deal with ACCJC ethics review, and for some reason they are in the process of writing another code of ethics. PCC already has ethics policies for each group (Board of Trusteesfaculty ,  classified staffmanagement) and there is nothing wrong with those according to the ACCJC. It’s that, like many polices at PCC, they were not being followed or adhered to. 
 
#5: PCC needs to stabilize administrative structure. 
Status: Ya think?! The faculty senate wrote a resolution on a desire to revert back to divisions. The new president of the college has always been amenable to having a structure that works best for the school. This is underway. 
 
#6: Develop, implement and assess prof. dev. program. 
Status: The ACCJC commented that at the time we didn’t have an approved Professional Development policy, but back in May 2015, a Professional Development policy was created and sent to the Board of Trustees.  There continues to be problems with professional development on campus, though. An ad hoc group developed Flex Day activities for the college, deciding to remove EEO training from the morning session and spending thousands of dollars on their pet project theme “growth mindset”; the new faculty orientations continue to be conducted, ignoring the faculty Senate’s previous voted-on recommendations, and there’s an empty classroom that was formerly for APL (Academy of Professional Learning) that is just sitting there when space is at a premium on campus.
 
#7: Board policies need to be followed in getting input from all constituent groups; transparency is needed, along with collegial communication with Board/President/Senate.
Status:  The Board of Trustees needs to follow their policies, get (and this time listen to!) input from the campus (can anyone say ‘Winter Intersession’?), be transparent and be collegial.  This is one of the main reasons students had to figure out other ways for them to pay attention and host rallies and protests. Because they were not listening, were not transparent and were not collegial, the students and faculty gave the Board of Trustees Votes of No Confidence last semester, and the Board lost a lawsuit for violating the Brown Act. 
(Finally, Pasadena has gotten two new members to the Board of Trustees! Two down, a few more to go!)
 
#8: Evaluate organization structures and processes (integrated planning for institutional development)
Status: This is underway within the administration.
 
#9: Student Affairs and Student Services need to assess its outcomes.
Status: Pathways, eStem, MathPath, are you doing assessment like the rest of the college?
And let’s not forget the issue of “enhanced monitoring”. Two reasons:
 
1. The college is being asked to provide information concerning job placement rates and how job placements are being tracked once students finish their career tech programs. Curious, doesn’t the Office of Institutional Effectiveness take care of this?
2. More than half of PCC’s courses were assessed, but the other 46% or so weren’t. No benchmark was given.
Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: