A Manufactured Accreditation
Crisis at City College
of San Francisco?
The downsizing + corporate overhaul of
one of the biggest
community colleges in the U.S.
1
“City College has failed to comply with standards”
2
The ACCJC claims that it must disaccredit and effectively close the
80-year old City College of San Francisco because of “the two-year
rule,” an obscure regulation of the US Department of Education
that was elevated in importance by DOE officials in 2008. This rule
is now interpreted to say that community colleges have just two
years to be judged to have met standards, or be sanctioned.
Detailed citations are located in the speakers notes
Background
Under Attack
• In July 2012, the Accreditation
Commission for Community and
Junior Colleges (ACCJC) puts City
College on “show cause,” a death
row status known to cause
plummeting enrollment and the
departure of faculty and staff;
• In July 2013, the ACCJC re-affirms
its decision to disaccredit and
effectively close the college in
July 2014
3
Under this Sword of Damocles, the College was plunged into a
state takeover, downsizing and a corporate overhaul
• Major downsizing (dubbed “right sizing”), which
in turn will cut permanent base funding
• 29% of part-time instructors laid off;
• Loss of more than one out of five students
overall;
• Switch to a precarious part-time faculty model;
• Cancellation of 228 already-scheduled classes in
spring 2013, so that students suddenly lose their
courses and faculty lose their livelihoods
ACCJC under fire
4
For its persistent threat to close down City College of San Francisco, the ACCJC is now being criticized
from many quarters, including Congresswomen Jackie Speier and Anna Eschoo; the State Auditor’s
office; and even some Republican legislators and the SF Chronicle. The ACCJC now faces a lawsuit
from the City Attorney’s Office and CFT/AFT, multiple legislative actions, and a mass movement.
- Republican state senator Jim Nielsen:
“In all my career … I have never dealt with a more arrogant, condescending and
dismissive individual” than ACCJC’s president, Barbara A. Beno.”
- Nancy Pelosi:
“For the livelihood of the students, the community and the state, the commission
must send in a new evaluation team.”
- SF Chronicle:
ACCJC’s statements “raise serious questions about its credibility and competence.”
Many people find the City College situation puzzling
Accreditation is supposed to protect students
and improve education…
by closing a well-respected school
of nearly 80,000 students?
5
City College: A Top College
6
• April 2007: New York Times asks national researchers to name
leading community colleges in the U.S.
• City College of San Francisco was featured in the top eleven*
7
Nationally, only four community colleges out of
7,000 lost their accreditation in the most recent
year, according to Senator Tom Harkin.*
So, the ACCJC would have us believe:
8
That City College somehow plummeted from being in the top 11…
An inconvenient truth:
CCSF’s student outcomes are superior to ACCJC’s
9
• “A higher percentage of City College students transferred to a four-year
university or earned a vocational certificate within five years than did
students at each of the colleges affiliated with members of the
accrediting commission, as measured by the state’s latest Student
Success Score Card for California community colleges, released on April
15, 2014 [by the state Chancellor’s Office];
• In all, 58 percent of students who entered City College in the 2007-08
school year achieved their goal of transferring or earning a certificate
within five years, the score card shows;
• None of the 12 colleges led by members of the Accrediting Commission
for Community and Junior Colleges — or where commissioners teach,
have been employed, or were graduated from — did as well.”*
--Nanette Asimov, SF Chronicle, facts buried in a web blog after scores of negative newspaper articles
10
IT MAKES NO SENSE…
unless there’s a hidden agenda
“It seems so political…”
11
This presentation suggests some ways to figure out where the
fishy smell is coming from.
Let’s shift the question
The dominant question in the media and officialdom is:
“Has City College met the standards set by the ACCJC?”
T h e p r e s u m p t i o n i s t h a t t h e s t a n d a r d s a r e f a i r, a n d f a i r l y
enforced by an even-handed group of peers.
But we note, “If they can get you asking the wrong questions, they don’t
have to worry about the answers.”
So this presentation examines a different question: Who sets the
standards and their enforcement, and who stands to gain from the ACCJC’s
strikingly aggressive and disproportionate sanctioning of California
community colleges?
12
The accreditation crisis sets up a state takeover
• In July 2013, a mainly Schwartzenegger-appointed state Board of Governors suspends the CCSF elected Board of
Trustees and sets up a state takeover with no end date. The state chancellor immediately installs a “Special
Trustee with Extraordinary Powers” (STWEP), disenfranchising SF voters;
• Saying “we must meet standards to save the College,” the STWEP carries out a corporate overhaul, unilaterally
installing an all-new top new administration, anointing himself as the new Board of Trustees, and eliminating
broader structures for input. All semblance of democratic governance is ended in favor of what is essentially a
suggestion box, delicately named “the Participatory Governance Council,” along with Chancellor’s “listening
sessions;”
• City College’s educational offerings are being narrowed down to job training, with a thicket of new policies and
procedures that squeeze out the most vulnerable students (part-time, older, second chance students) along
with broader content such as ethnic studies, arts, humanities, diversity studies and many non-credit classes.
• The STWEP engages in harsh negotiations to weaken the faculty union, its most weighty opposition, and
imposes harsh permanent pay cuts.
13
Mission Demolished through Double Talk
In August 2012, state-appointed interim Chancellor Pamila Fisher moves rapidly to cut in half the College’s
mission, an overarching statement of funding priorities (and un-priorities, the set up for later cut-backs).
The Bait: The Standard as Written
• “The Board of Trustees should
review the mission on a regular
basis.”
14
The Switch: The Standard in Reality
• The state takeover imposed a new half-sized mission on the
college, to conform with a particular view held by the ACCJC and
corporate and political elites. The ACCJC and City College were
on opposing sides of a battle royal then being fought out in
Sacramento. City College stood for open access comprehensive
community colleges for many kinds of students, as established
by the California Master Plan of 1960. The ACCJC lobbied for a
new vision of much smaller colleges, mainly focused on career
training for young, full-time students, in line with the Little
Hoover Commission and the Student Success Act (SB 1456),
anchored by the California Business Roundtable and its allies.
• In general, Fisher set a tone of shock and awe to intimidate the
still-seated Board of Trustees: "Without dramatic change, there
won't be a college,” Fisher scolded the trustees at 1:30 a.m.
when she feared they might waver. "Time is of the essence. The
accrediting commission made it clear as recently as yesterday
that they are concerned we are not moving quickly enough.”
15
CCSF “CORE MISSION”
POST TAKEOVER
1. Job training (career and technical
education)
2. Completion of associate degrees
3. Transfer to university
Still included in the City College
mission, after a fight:
4. Basic skills, including English as a
Second Language and adult high school
diploma/GED
The above is the precise mission in SB
1456, the Student ‘Success’ Act (2012),
and another elite policy group, the
Little Hoover Commission.
NOW CALLED “PERIPHERAL
Activities,”HALF THE MISSION IS CUT
 Active engagement in the civic and social
fabric of the community;
 Citizenship preparation
 Lifelong learning and life skills (including
elder education)
 Cultural enrichment
 The college offers other programs and
services only as resources allow…
(This is the set-up for getting rid of the relatively
strong specialized student support services that
students, community and faculty have struggled to
build over the last 40 years: Disabled Students
Programs and Services, EOPS, Transitional Studies, the
Resource Centers (Family, Women’s, Queer,
Multicultural, Veterans), SCube, VIDA (by and for
undocumented students), the Book Loan Program,
HARTS (Homeless services), Guardian Scholars, Project
SURVIVE, the Gender Diversity Project, Second Chance,
WAYPASS, the Writing Success Project, Peer Case
Management, and all retention programs.}
The issue as framed by City Attorney’s Office
• Open access, comprehensive
community colleges with room
for all, and strong services to
support their success?
• Or success for a few—young,
full-time students headed for
the corporate workforce?
16
The hyper-active ACCJC
One of seven regional accreditation agencies nationally,
the ACCJC accredits 19% of the nation’s community
colleges, yet:
2003-2008: It issued 89% of all accreditation sanctions
nationwide and sanctioned 66% of California’s community
colleges, while the other six accreditation agencies
sanctioned two percent* of colleges per year on average.
17
“Too lenient” says the D.O.E.
• After the ACCJC handed out 89% of all countrywide accreditation
sanctions against California’s community colleges in 2003-2008,
the US Department of Education said that the ACCJC had been
“too lenient,” and pressed for harsher enforcement of “the twoyear rule,” an existing obscure regulation amped up in 2008.
18
Justifying its extraordinary sanction rate, the ACCJC
cited the two-year rule in a series of
announcements, letters and newsletters
19
• “Congress and the U.S. Department of Education require an accrediting body to allow a ‘substandard
college’ [sic] no more than two years to come into compliance or lose accreditation. The Department of
Education has put all accrediting bodies on notice that they could lose their federal recognition if they
do not apply the rule.”* This “has been one of the single most important changes in
accreditation practice over the past several years.”
[ACCJC Additional Information Pertaining to CFT Complaint]
- ACCJC
20
Is there a new skeleton
in the ACCJC’s closet?
21
Margaret Spellings, Secretary of Education,
a George W. Bush appointee from Texas
22
Spellings championed three major policies while she was in office:
1. No Child Left Behind—standardized testing leading to privatization
of K-12 schools. Since 2009, 4000 K-12 public schools have been closed
with 6000 corporate chain charters opened in their place.
2. Student learning outcomes—a corporate system of ‘management by
objectives’ for postsecondary education, having no educational
research base. Though mandatory SLOs were halted by widespread
resistance from colleges in 2008, yet the ACCJC cited “insufficient
progress” on SLOs as a major reason for dis-accreditation of City
College;
3. The use of “get tough” accreditation as a lever to re-shape
postsecondary education.
Now: Spellings runs the education and workforce
arm of the US Chamber of Commerce, the
biggest corporate lobby group in the US.
SALLY STROUP
23
A lobbyist who ran the Washington office of the University of
Phoenix, and a student loan company official, Stroup then
became assistant secretary of postsecondary education under
Bush, overseeing accreditation and other areas.
Stroup left DOE to work as a congressional staffer on
accreditation and other issues under John Boehner, speaker of the
House and top recipient of campaign contributions from the
student loan industry. Here she crafted industry-friendly
legislation and regulations to direct the DOE.
Now: Executive vice president of the Association of
Private Sector Colleges and Universities, the main lobby
group of the for-profit colleges
In 2006, after extensive industry lobbying described in the new book
Degrees of Inequality, DOE recommended that Congress drop
restrictions on all-on-line colleges, and Bridgepoint and others
exploded in size and profitability
24
VICKIE SCHRAY
Long time leader of accreditation rule-making for US
DOE, Schray departed after 13 years in January
2012 to become vice president of government and
regulatory affairs of Bridgepoint, the nation's second
largest for-profit college. Bridgepoint was called by
Sen. Harkin “a scam, an absolute scam.” According
to the Harkin Report, the estimated compensation
for a Bridgepoint VP is 1-3 million annually in 2009.*
This is not a conflict of interest?
25
ARTHUR ROTHKOPF
26
Former senior VP of US Chamber of
Commerce advising the president of the
Chamber on education and training.
From 2010-2013, Rothkopf was co-chair
of US DOE's NACIQI, in charge of
“assuring the integrity” of accreditation
agencies (he continues to sit on NACIQI,
advocating for industry-friendly
measures).
Currently on the governing board of the Educational Testing “Service,” a
profit-making company that stands to make a killing if the Degree
Qualifications Profile—similar to the Common Core in K-12-- turns into
standardized curriculum and measurement at the community college
level.
California Business Roundtable – Student
Success Act connection; Bill Hauck
•
Chief of staff for Willie Brown. Worked
for Governor Schwarzenegger.
(Schwarzenegger appointed a majority
of the Board of the CCC Governors.)
•
Long-time President of the California
Business Roundtable (Which founded
CCO)
•
7 year Chair of the Board for the
Campaign for College Opportunity
•
Campaign for College Opportunity =
Main endorser of the Student Success
Act of 2012.)
27
Q.E.D.
The people who
manufactured extreme
accreditation sanctions in
California, are now on
the payroll of
corporations and
lobbyists that stand to
gain from the downsizing
of public community
colleges.
28
Lee Fang Graphic: Vidhya Nagarajan for the Investigative Fund at The Nation Institute
We see:
29
Illustration by Kahlil Bendib
We see:
30
31
STUDENT LOAN MARKETING CORPORATION
(Sallie Mae, biggest student loan co.)
• 2001: Set up Lumina Fdn. with
700 million dollars
• Transferred its CEO and four
board members to lead the
foundation
LUMINA FOUNDATION
• A leading funder of ALEC, which
advocates for anti-tax measures and
lower public education revenue
• Gave 1.5 million to WASC to overhaul
accreditation (ACCJC affiliate)
• Gave 450k to ACCJC to pilot the
‘Degree Qualifications Profile’ in 15
California community colleges
• Sponsors journalists and magazines
that trash Ca. community colleges
for being “too big” and
“ungovernable,” with an excess of
local democracy
Like the Gates Foundation, Lumina is a new
breed of “venture philanthropy”
• Its real mission is to create a public opinion and policy
environment favorable to its founding industry—the student loan
industry.
• In a veiled fashion, Lunina pushes for more student loans:
A. It says that 60% of all adults in the US should have degrees by 2025
B. But Lumina also advocates for corporate tax cuts, reducing revenue to
public education--through the American Legislative Exchange Council.
A + B = C, millions more student loans!
32
Predatory for-profit colleges and the student loan industry
33
• Predatory for-profit colleges owned by Wall Street pull down 32 billion a year in federallyguaranteed student aid, bury low-income students under a mountain of debt, leaving them
with no credentials or worthless credentials and destroying their lives (e.g. the University of
Phoenix on-line graduation rate is four percent).
• The DOE recently reported that an astonishing 72% of for-profit colleges produced graduates
who, on average, earned less than a high school dropout who worked full time.
• While students at for-profit colleges are 13% of total higher education enrollment, they
account for nearly half of all student loan defaults.
--New York Times, based on Harkin Report
In 2010-11, the NYT and Huffington Post reported that for-profit colleges
spent 16 million dollars on an “unprecedented” lobbying campaign to kill
34
proposed new (very weak) regulations. The industry hired 14 former members
of Congress and lobbied the White House and DOE aggressively, coordinated
by former Clinton staffer Lanny Davis. The four regulations were scrapped
after a bi-partisan Congressional vote in February 2011.
Today the for-profit colleges and student loan industry have
extremely little regulation, and are fed by a wide-open spigot of
taxpayer money, limited only by the number of students they can
suck in. A former student recruiter testified that in the industry,
this is known as “get the asses in the classes.”
A shocking level of disinvestment
35
The flip side of the same coin is sharply declining
public funding for California community colleges,
and aggressive hyper-regulation by the ACCJC.
The statewide Chancellor’s website counts a stunning
decline of students from 2.9 million in 2008, to 2.1 million
in 2014, with a loss of 24% of all classes—but with hardly a whimper
of protest at this abandonment of low-income and students of color
36
“It is a perpetual cycle of corruption,
because it's federal money that allows
for-profit colleges to buy federal
influence.”*
--David Halperin
Because of our large and affordable public community colleges, the
for-profit colleges now have
less than four percent of two-year
student enrollment in the Bay Area
37
In 2013, the SF Budget and Legislative Analyst found that for-profit career
‘colleges’ are 17 times as expensive as CCSF for similar programs
38
The for-profit ‘colleges’ provide a sub-prime education, with
degraded learning conditions and disastrous graduation rates
• In 2010 and 2012, Senator Tom Harkin and the Senate Health,
Education, Labor and Pensions Committee (HELP), published 2000
pages of exhaustive reports that exposed the for-profits.
• In 2010 and 2011, the Government Accounting Office published
very detailed reports with similar conclusions, after sending
undercover actors to the colleges posing as students.
For example: Instructors report being paid $2000 to teach composition to 75
students on line.
• The University of Phoenix on-line division has a four percent
graduation rate.
39
Who stands to gain
from downsizing community colleges?
• Having a radically over-priced, inferior
product, the for-profit colleges and their
partner—the student loan industry--can only
get a bigger share of California’s huge
market IF they can shrink the nation’s
largest community college system.
40
How lobbyists work
• Two new books provide extremely detailed documentation on how
lobbyists work on behalf of the for-profit ‘colleges’ and student loan
industry. They modify legislation and regulations to be more industryfriendly, changing a phrase this year, a sentence next year:
1. Suzanne Mettler, a political scientist at Cornell, published
Degrees of Inequality in 2014, based on eight years of research and over 30
interviews with Washington insiders
2. David Halperin, a Washington-based journalist and advocate, wrote
Stealing America’s Future in 2013
41
The US has a giant student debt bubble of 1.2 trillion and counting:
An extremely high burden of student loans enriches the loan companies (the
five big banks + Sallie Mae), ruins students’ lives, and leaves the public
holding the bag.
First they came with
predatory home loans
Now they come with
predatory student loans
42
The ACCJC threatens to close City College while hiding behind the
bureaucratic excuse that “We have no choice but to enforce the
two-year rule.” There is so much public outcry, that officials are
now telling the ACCJC to change their tune.
• Minority leader Nancy Pelosi: The commission “must send in a new
evaluation team with a fresh set of eyes and allow a good cause
extension of accreditation.”
• US Department of Education, Lynn Mahaffie (spokeswoman for
Education Secretary Arne Duncan): The ACCJC “has the authority
to reconsider or rescind its termination decision…[and] to provide
an extension for good cause.”
• Congresswoman Jackie Speier: [The ACCJC] “is a rogue operation.
They have dug in their heels like some totalitarian regime. ..
Should this failure of leadership persist, new leadership is needed
at ACCJC."
43
• Just as government is becoming soaked with corporate cash at
all levels—from campaign contributions, to the EPA to the Food
and Drug Administration--so is the integrity of the
accreditation system now deeply compromised.
44
• Hanging in the balance is the future of public education, the future
of California’s large community college system, and of the widely
respected 80-year old City College of San Francisco.
Let’s build a long-haul movement
against privatization and for education justice
• Join the movement to end the down-sizing of public
education and the expansion of for-profit schools;
• Let’s rebuild public education on a
new foundation of education justice;
• Join the movement to Save
City College of San Francisco
What you can do:
Visit these websites
http://www.saveccsf.org/
http://www.aft2121.org/
http://www.cft.org/
45
46
• This slideshow prepared by the Research Committee serving the
movement to Save City College
• Email: Allan Fisher at ResComm11@gmail.com