1A Manufactured Accreditation Crisis at City College

of San Francisco?

The downsizing + corporate overhaul ofone of the biggest

community colleges in the U.S.

2“City College has failed to comply with standards”

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

3Background

• 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

Under this Sword of Damocles, the College was plunged into a state takeover, downsizing and a corporate overhaul

• 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

Under Attack

4ACCJC under fire

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.”

5Many 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?

6City College: A Top College

• 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.*

8So, the ACCJC would have us believe:

Down to #6996?

That City College somehow plummeted from being in the top 11…

9An inconvenient truth:CCSF’s student outcomes are superior to ACCJC’s

• “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

11“It seems so political…”

This presentation suggests some ways to figure out where thefishy smell is coming from.

12Let’s shift the question

The dominant question in the media and officialdom is:

“Has C i t y Co l l ege met the s tanda rds se t by the ACC JC?” The p resumpt ion i s tha t the s tanda rds a re fa i r , and fa i r l y en fo rced by an even -handed g roup o f pee rs .

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?

13The 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.

Mission Demolished through Double TalkIn 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.”

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.”

14

Cutting in half the college mission

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 preparationLifelong 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.}

15

16The 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?

17The 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.

18“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 two-

year rule,” an existing obscure regulation amped up in 2008.

19Justifying its extraordinary sanction rate, the ACCJC cited the two-year rule in a series of announcements, letters and newsletters

• “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

But who was behind the ever-harsher enforcement of the two-year rule?Let’s take a look at DOE leadership, 2008

21Is there a new skeleton in the ACCJC’s closet?

22Margaret Spellings, Secretary of Education, a George W. Bush appointee from Texas 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.

23SALLY STROUP

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

24In 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

25VICKIE 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?

26ARTHUR ROTHKOPF

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.

27California 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.)

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

Q.E.D.

29We see:

A Revolving Door

Illustration by Kahlil Bendib

30We see:

Regulatory CaptureThe fox guarding the hen house

Corporations infiltrating the government agencies that are supposed to regulate

them

31The Lumina Foundation, child of

Student Loan Marketing Corporation

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

32Like 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

2025B. 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!

33• Predatory for-profit colleges owned by Wall Street pull down 32 billion a year in

federally-guaranteed 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

Predatory for-profit colleges and the student loan industry

34In 2010-11, the NYT and Huffington Post reported that for-profit

colleges spent 16 million dollars on an “unprecedented” lobbying

campaign to kill 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.”

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 whimperof protest at this abandonment of low-income and students of color

A shocking level of disinvestment

36

Corruption“It is a perpetual cycle of corruption, because it's federal money that allows for-profit colleges to buy federal influence.”*

--

David Halperin

37Because of our large and affordable public community

colleges, the for-profit colleges now have less than four percent of two-yearstudent enrollment in the Bay Area

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

39The 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.

40Who 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.

41How 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 industry-friendly, 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

42The 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

43

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."

44• 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.

• 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.

45Let’s build a long-haul movementagainst 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/

46

• This slideshow prepared by the Research Committee serving the movement to Save City College

• Email: Allan Fisher at ResComm11@gmail.com