CityCollege

Will City College of San Francisco be shut down? That’s the worry after the president of the Accrediting Commission for Community and Junior Colleges granted the school eight months to make tough financial and leadership decisions or lose its accreditation, and subsequently its public funding. What’s ahead for the largest college in San Francisco and its 90,000 students?

Interview Highlights

CORRECTION: The transcript originally attributed two quotes from Nanette Asimov to Dr. Pamila Fisher. We regret the error. The below transcript has been updated and is correct.

Nanette Asimov, Education Reporter for the San Francisco Chronicle, on how City College needs to improve:

“City College was praised in this report for being very student-centered. And that is really what every person at City College will tell you that they kind of want to do what is great for students and what they’ve done is let go of a lot of administrators, they’ve chopped from the top, as students sometimes say, they’ve been very instructor-centered. They try to do what is best for students and in so doing, they seem to have lost their way, in terms of running the school, keeping it as small as it should be, given the drastic reduction of millions of dollars in state resources. They just haven’t wanted to, apparently, face reality.”

“They try to give everybody a voice in decision-making and when everybody’s got a voice, really, nobody’s got a voice. So, it takes them months, if not, years to do simple decision making —- whether to cut something, or change a program, or hold someone accountable. It just takes them so long and that was one of the major problems for getting any of these other things done.”

“They have until October 15th to come up with an action plan to fix something that they haven’t been able to fix in, really, more than six years. Six years ago was when the problems were first identified officially, but they had been years in the making. So now, they’ve got to do it in a very short timeframe and the question is, how will they get that done? Now they’re going to bring in, this month, a fiscal crisis assistance team from the state that might be — you can imagine them ordering City College people around and them having to make a lot of cuts.”

Dr. Pamela Fisher, Interim Chancellor of San Francisco City College, on next steps for the school:

“Ninety-two percent of our costs are in personnel and that is much larger than the state average with respect to personnel costs. So we’re going to have to address personnel costs. The number of people we have, the compensation, the way people are compensated for certain kinds of work, the reassigned times — there are a lot of issues there that relate to or contribute to that 92 percent.”

“The state has redefined the mission of community colleges. We are doing our darn best to still be all things to all people and the state has essentially said, ‘You can’t do that anymore.’ So that means our Board of Trustees and our campus leadership are going to have to make some priority decisions about what programmatic things are most critical to the city of San Francisco, and do more of some and less of others.”
 
John Rizzo, President of the Board of Trustees of City College of San Francisco, on the school’s ability to recover:
 
“We’ve done this before. To say we are at the brink of losing accreditation, really, is a wild exaggeration. It’s not what the report says. It’s kind of as if you’re wheeled into a hospital with a broken leg and your bone is sticking out. Can you die from that? Yeah, you can die from that, but it’s not going to happen because the doctor will be responsible, and that’s where we are. You know, before this report came out, we started to take action.”
 
Bill Shields, who called into the show, on what City College’s situation says about education funding:
 
I just think it needs to be emphasized that we have been tightening our belts. We’ve turned away 10,000 students. Twice recently the teachers’ union who has voted to take a paycut. We’ve cut everywhere we can. We haven’t replaced people who have retired, and I do think it speaks to something that Alisa [Messer] has said that I think this is a signature moment, a bellwether moment in our society: will we fund public education adequately? For instance, we’re going to be coming to the voters of San Francisco in the fall, asking for them to vote for a parcel tax to help us, and statewide for Jerry Brown’s tax.
 
John Rizzo, President of the Board of Trustees of City College of San Francisco, on the idea of raising student fees:
 
“We have no control over the fees — over student fees. That’s totally controlled by the state Legislature. The local boards have no control over it. It’s unfortunate.”

Guests:
Pamila Fisher, interim chancellor of City College of San Francisco
Nanette Asimov, higher education reporter for The San Francisco Chronicle
John Rizzo, president of the Board of Trustees of City College of San Francisco
Hal Huntsman, Math teacher at City College of San Francisco and former Academic Senate president (2008-2010)
Lena Carew, Attended City College from 2006 to 2011 before transferring to UC Berkeley. Founder, Students Making a Change
Alisa Messer, English teacher at City College and President of the American Federation of Teachers, Local 2121

  • William Walker

    Thank you for covering such an important topic.  It is great that perspectives from the CCSF leadership are covered on this show.  I am saddened that there is no student representative on this panel.  90,000 students are affected.  Why is that?  Please be sure to explore student perspectives during the show.  

    There are a number of meetings that the City College of San Francisco Community are planning.  They can be found in a number of places, including the college home page (http://www.ccsf.edu), a Facebook group created to Save City College of San Francisco (http://www.facebook.com/groups/445019278865649/), and my blog (http://ccsfwill.blogspot.com).

    Please ensure that listeners are aware that the college will not shut down.  It is important that the community mobilize and discuss how the college move forward and how the State of California should fully fund educational resources like CCSF that place the underemployed back into the workforce with valuable skills.  This is no small feat and is very essential in economic downturns such as the one we are facing.

    City College of San Francisco is a valuable resource.  It is where students of all backgrounds are welcome to learn, gain skills and eventually enter the workforce.  Community involvement and input in the accreditation process will ensure we can achieve our mission in serving the broader San Francisco community.

    • ForumProducer

      Lena Carew, who attended City until 2011 is on the show. Her name, as well as Hal Huntsman’s, were not on the guest list at the start of the show because they were confirmed late in the production process.   We value the student perspective and welcome calls, comments, and insight from many more.

      • Fully engaged faculty member

        Why the last minute change? Why didn’t you have the CURRENT academic senate president as a guest? I just learned that President Saginor was initially invited and scheduled for this program. Late last night she was informed by phone that she was beng replaced on thr show by a past senate president. What happened here?

      • capo

        Lena Carew, Hal Huntsman and “Terry” the “SF resident and taxpayer” – aka Sue Homer, represent one faction at the college.  Seems they wanted an opportunity to bash their colleagues and Forum gave them what they wanted – a forum.  Other than Alissa Messer, there were no voices on the panel actually representing a majority of CCSF faculty and students.  Karen Saginor, current Academic Senate President, and William Walker, student trustee, should have been on the panel as they were elected by students and faculty at CCSF to represent them.  Huntsman was not only voted out as president of the senate, he is no longer on the executive council and will never be elected again.  It was akin to having George W. Bush on the program to defend the Obama administration.  Shame on KQED – I won’t be contributing in any more fund drives!

  • Bill Shields

    The accreditation commission has a neoliberal, shock doctrine political agenda, as revealed in their track record of loving for-profit private colleges and coming down hard on public institutions. After years of savage budget cuts, related extreme cost-saving measures and self-imposed wage cuts by our unionized workforce, now comes the commission to attack City College’s core function. Their conclusion? We need to cut teachers’ pay and hire more high-paid administrators. What should we expect from a commission that used to include faculty and administrators and now includes only administrators?
      We are defending public education as a public right and a proper use of our tax dollars and the line has now been drawn here in San Francisco – we are saying this far and no farther in the assault on the legacy of the New Deal. Please join us this Monday night at 6 p.m. at the LGBT center for a mass meeting to begin the Battle to Save City College
       Bill Shields
       Chair, Labor and Community Studies
       AFT 2121 member
       City College of San Francisco

    • Chereon

      It seems that the argument “other institutions have gutted their teaching staffs, lowered their standards and shifted teaching to temps and TAs” is supposed to be acceptable, but I’m rooting for the college to keep their teachers and standards and stop this relentless race to the bottom here in CA.

      Nowhere in this program have I heard that academic standards are the issue, so why threaten the accreditation of the college? This doesn’t make sense to me.

    • frequentshopper

      Yet another tenured teacher wanting to rally students to fight for them so their pay won’t be cut while the part time teachers are laid off, their classes are canceled by department chairs regardless of enrollment numbers, and according to the report, against administrative policy, and students are left holding the bag, not able to take the classes they need. I think they took this maneuver from the Republican playbook. Get students to fight for something which is against their interest. The interests of tenured teachers and students diverge when the real choices are made that have to me made to meet the budget. We are not the Federal Government which can print money.

      This elitist SF attitude that the only reason CCSF is having more trouble than any other large community college is because we are the most concerned about the well being of the students is BS. 

      Once in a blue moon someone will refer to alleged teacher pay cuts. I read somewhere it was a token 1% and had only lasted a year. Spell out these alleged teacher pay cuts you refer to. How much and for how long? Are they still in effect?

      I have friends in the private sector who took 20% pay cuts and an increased workload. These people are in a bubble.

      It’s funny to hear teachers argue that they are not in the bottom 1% of performance, only in the bottom 2% cause more community colleges will get bad grades next year. So if a student gets an F they can say hey, I heard more students wil get Fs next year so it is OK.

      • a faulty member

        The reduction in pay has not been uniform.  Some, whose overload was cut, HAVE received over 20% reduction; some have lost their jobs altogether!  (That’s 100%.)  Meanwhile, our contract, which specifies that we will be in the top half of the Bay Area community college pay (reasonable for SF), has not been met for years, as we have paid more for health care and taken both a step freeze (for which some of us are still paying) and a pay cut.  But faculty pay is NOT the issue.  We will take the cuts that are needed, if needed.  But what IS at issue is what you want the community colleges to do for the public.  One major difference between CCSF and the other cc’s (since everyone insists on pointing out that the State budget cuts have applied to all cc’s) is that,unlike most of them, we offer a complete non-credit program, something that is being eliminated around the state as adult education is chopped from the k-12 budgets.  Non-credit does not pay as well per student as credit.  Now, if we don’t care about our non-credit, our adult education, students — just hang them out to dry —  change the MISSION of the college — then we could probably look as good fiscally on paper as some of the districts that have not (yet) received sanctions from WASC.  Is that what we as a community want?  It’s what the State is dictating, but at CCSF we have resisted, protecting as many programs for students as we can, though making some heartbreaking cuts nonetheless.  We have spent the past year(s) looking for places to save money.  We have saved a LOT!  But if we want to make sure that high-school dropouts, non-native English speakers, the unemployed who need retraining, and seniors are served, then we need to stand up for adequate funding and stop blaming some mysterious, inspecific “inefficiency” or ostensible “high pay” for the hard-working faculty and staff!!!

    • Aagus

      Bill, thanks for this comment and for your contribution to the program.  You are right on!!!

  • Blah

    The woman who just spoke has the same mindset that caused this problem to begin with.  The issue RIGHT NOW is not wether or not the issue lies with state government; it is however about how CCSF plans to fix the issue at hand.  Quit passing the blame, and do what is right for the community to keep the college open.  Quit living in your bubble.

    • Aagus

      Which students do YOU want to throw out on their ears?

  • catherine L

    Dave I – stop focusing on “Isn’t CCSF the only one having this problem.” It isn’t just CCSF – those huge changes they’re talking about called the Student Success Task Force and now SB1456 AND the huge enrollment from the current depression are like tidal waves that have overwhelmed the community colleges. 

    CCSF really does serve SO many communities, and they will need to make choices but please please turn the conversation to solutions and stop generalizing about spending and budgets.  

    CCSF does an amazing job retraining many of us who already have our BA but who need skill updates.  Teachers are great and dedicated.  Focus on the huge benefit that CCSF gives to the whole Bay Area.  This deserves another program.

    • Amerdesfrag

      We need more solutions for students who have had to deal with 
      lack of services and improve programs by giving quality education and evaluate these programs so student’s have more choices and are marketable in the future. 

  • Kerry

    I’m a former City College of SF student who was fortunate enough to transfer to UC Berkeley. I benefited greatly from many programs at CCSF (including student employment) and consider it a formative part of my academic and personal development.

    I often wonder why CCSF isn’t more proactive about reaching out to alumni such as myself for fundraising purposes. I am constantly pursued by UC Berkeley and other schools I have previously attended. They continue to reach me, in spite of a name change and numerous address changes.

    What is CCSF doing to reach out to the alumni body? I would gladly support CCSF over UC Berkeley because I believe CCSF’s impact is broader and more impactful.

    • William Walker

      Please email ccsfwill@gmail.com. I am in the process of working with a group that wants to begin an alumni network.

      William Walker, CCSF Student Trustee

  • Bbeno

    Dave:  The Evaluation Team Report has three recommendations that deal directly with the academic quality of the institution, Recommendations 3,4 and 5.  The report indicates that the institution has not been regularly conducting reviews of student achievement and other aspects of quality of educational programs, something that has been required for decades. In addition, the institution has not done the work required to identify intended student learning outcomes, to assess that learning, and to use the results to improve pedagogy. This requirement is a decade old.  The college is not able to show that it meets standards for educational quality without implementing these sorts of reviews for internal quality assessment.

    Barbara Beno, President
    ACCJC

  • Rhet

    I find it bizarre that CCSF’s computer labs were hacked by Chinese and Russian hackers and remained hacked for 10 years before anyone noticed.

    Has there been any responsibility taken for students’ personal information having been stolen?

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/14/city-college-of-san-franc_n_1206578.html

  • I was the academic senate president at another Bay Area community college for several years, I have have co-chaired several accreditation teams at my college, and I have attended many workshops on the accreditation process.

    In order to understand what is going on here you must look at some history, specifically at the changes to the accreditation criteria during the past decade – shifts that are radical in significant ways – and at the increasing numbers of colleges that have been sanctioned in relationship to a controversial standard based on something called “student learning outcomes.” 

    While the increase in the number of sanctioned colleges _might_ tell us something about the colleges, it may also tell us something about the ways in which the accreditation process itself has changed.

    Regarding the former, there is no question that education in general and the community college system in particular has been terribly stressed by the continuing and serious budget cuts of the past four years. These institutions have already taken a terrible hit and this has been reflected in loss of large numbers of part-time faculty and staff, and the college are already unable to meet current need… and the system anticipates even worse reductions this coming year. 

    Regarding the latter, growing out of a movement related to (but not exactly the same as) the “no child left behind” thinking, accreditation has taken a hard right turn into very new and very strange territory in which institutions are being judged and sanctioned on the basis of criteria that are tremendously controversial and which mark a radical change in how accreditation is accomplished.

  • I strongly second the comment being made right now by the fellow from the Marin CC fellow relative to the accrediting body. THIS is the big story here. 

  • Eric

    SF Muni, the Asian Art Museum, etc.  Are there any city run institutions that aren’t mis-managed?  CCSF sounds like more of the same old thing.

    • catherine L

       Not sure if you want to know this but… CCSF is not a city -managed institution.  The City has one commission related to CCSF (just started in 2011). Community colleges are managed much more from a local board level and at the state level. 

      • Eric

        Ok, I understand.  But I was thinking in a more generic sense that most government and non-profit civic institutions in S.F. seem to be mis-managed.  Often the same people cycle through the senior positions across these institutions.

        • Aagus

          While there are problems with how to handle the reality of underfunding by the State, “mismanaged” is not a accurate assessment.  When an institution is on a starvation budget and then it is blamed for having trouble adjusting, you need to consider whether the budget and not the institution is at fault.  You have to decide what your priorities are.  If you want a top-heavy administration, you will side with the accreditation report.  I hope it is obvious the many ways in which the report effectively contradicts itself, since it both wants less spending on personnel and yet wants more administration — the only way to accomplish which is to cut faculty and staff, thus ill-serving students.  Let’s be clear here.

  • Fully engaged faculty member

    Why wasn’t the current Academic Senate President, Karen Saginor, a guest on the program? I just called the senate office and learned that President Saginor was initially scheduled as a guest and then informed late last night that she was being replaced by former president Hal Huntsman. Ms. Saginor has been the senate president for a couple years (elected to represent the faculty in academic and professional matters) and was the co-chair of the CCSF Accreditation Steering Committee. She is a wealth of information. What happened? Why the last minute change?

    • Aagus

      I, too, am disturbed by this.  Karen is truly a well-informed spokesperson whose only contribution was unfortunately limited to her phone call into the program.  I cannot understand the substitution.

  • frequentshopper

    The report found that the department heads had not followed the instructions that administration claimed they gave. That classes with the fewest number of students enrolled should have been the ones canceled. Instead the department chairs (who are also teachers) canceled the classes based on seniority of the teacher. This is teachers doing what is best for teachers, not what is best for students! This is cronyism in action. Why are the administrators not cracking down on department chair misconduct? This is just one example, the tip of the iceberg, of what many department heads and deans are doing that they are not supposed to that hurts students. What exactly does the Dean of Liberal Arts do? She told me all she does is the budget (in my opinion not doing a very good job at that BTW). Who’s job was it to make sure the classes were canceled based on the number of students enrolled, not cronyism? All CA community colleges have to deal with limited resources and do. CCSF has compassion for tenured teachers, not for students or non tenured or part time or retired teachers.

    • Workforce Education

      Cuts should not just be based on number of enrolled students. Some highly successful workforce programs can only enroll 25-30 students based on instructor:student ratio requirements within their respective industry. There are waiting lists for these programs but enrollment must be based on the labor demands and industry training standards. Workforce education programs at CCSF are highly successful because they measure success, place students into the job market, and maintain accreditation within their respective industry accreditating institutions. These programs are virtually invisible to the administration, Board of Trustees and apparently KQED, the Chronicle and the ACCJC.

    • CCSF faculty

      I believe that the AFT2121 union has an influence over which professors can be terminated. Seniority lists are routinely circulated so all faculty know where they stand on the list: first in, last out.

    • Aagus

      Letting part-time teachers go is NOT cronyism, though it is unfortunate and one of the reasons why we at CCSF have worked so hard to increase the number of tenure-track faculty through upgrading.  And the classes of those laid off get reassigned to teachers with greater seniority, not just dropped from the curriculum, as frequentshopper seems to assume, so students are still served.  Meanwhile, low-enrolled classes are not being scheduled for the next semester and some were actually dropped DURING the spring semester, which caused untold chaos in the lives of both students and faculty.  It would help if frequentshopper knew more about what he/she is talking about.

    • Fully Engaged Faculty Member

      Frequent shopper, the department chairs were specifically directed by senior administration to schedule and cancel as they did. Several protested and were directed to proceed —- emphatically. The group that advocates most for student interests overall are the department chairs…..at least that is my experience.

  • Lenny Carlson

    I am a CCSF faculty member. It’s very important that everyone — particularly students and the larger community — understand that CCSF IS STILL OPEN AND STILL ACCREDITED, and will continue to be. Registration for Fall, 2012 classes is open and ongoing. The constituent groups at the school will come together and resolve these issues.

    I was also surprised and disappointed at the absence from the show of Academic Senate President Karen Saginor. She is articulate and knowledgable about the situation, and should not have been replaced at the last minute.

    Lenny Carlson
    Music Department 

  • Diane

    Dear SFCC,

    Welcome to our world! 
    The institution where I teach has been on and off sanctions for years.
    Several years ago we too were put on “show cause.”  The institution spent hundreds of thousands
    of dollars on consultants and a “special trustee” (Tom Henry), who personally
    netted over $100K per year for several years, and that was for part time
    consulting to “help” the college fix its alleged shortcomings – none of which
    were related to the quality of instruction. 
    ACCJC later removed us completely from all sanctions, then recently put
    is back on sanctions for completely new items, such as a lack a “code of ethics!”

    The bottom line is that the accreditation process, at least
    for colleges in the western region, has become an un-winnable game, as the
    rules will simply change in every new round of accreditation.  The only folks who win this game are
    consultants who magically arrive to “save the institution,” and fatten their
    wallets at tax-payers’ expense in the process, and the WASC/ACCJC power brokers
    who operate without any accountability. Beno didn’t participate in your show
    because she does not have to; she and ACCJC answer to no one – ironic considering
    that “accountability” is an embedded part of ACCJC rhetoric. Rest assured, once
    your institution is on ACCJC’s radar, it will manage to find new flaws you’ll
    need to fix, as the careers of this new breed of consultants and
    quasi-governmental bureaucrats only exist if they keep finding “problems” for
    you to “address.”

    Meanwhile, private for-profit colleges rake in millions of
    dollars in tax-payer money in the form of federally subsidized loans and
    grants, and while their success and retention rates are notoriously abominable
    in comparison with CA community colleges, ACCJC does not see fit to hold them to
    any of the ever-changing standards to which CA community colleges are
    held.
    Does SFCC have real issues to
    address?  I’ll bet it does; so does every
    college in the state of California. However, there are two real stories here: 1) the “cash cow” and “career path” that is “accreditation;” 2) the
    relentless effort to put public institutions out of business and funnel tax
    dollars to for-profit schools, which is a trend that education historian Diane
    Ravitch has been meticulously documenting. The best way to do this is to somehow
    “prove” that public colleges are doing a bad job, which justifies shifting tax
    money to private colleges.
    Your AFT
    president, who says that this is an issue about funding priorities, and a
    caller who questioned WASC and ACCJC’s intentions and the integrity of the
    accreditation process, are asking the right questions.  Having spent years as a faculty leader in “accreditation
    hell,” I would encourage you to thoroughly address the commission’s concerns,
    but do not ignore the other political realities at the heart of the
    accreditation game.

    My condolences, SFCC, and welcome to the club!

    • William Walker

      Which school?

    • PKly

      What is worse is the fact that many of the people on accrediting teams (i.e. go out and access colleges in the name of WASC) are also consultants!!!  I kid you not.  Is it any wonder that so many school are on warning or worse?  You got it right: a team goes out puts a school on warning, their pals go in and make $100K or more writing some lame report, then they switch places.  If some investigative reporter wanted to do a real story THAT would be the story!!!  The corruption goes right to the top of WASC!

  • Sbeemer

    The quotation on the site (above) about everyone having a voice resulting in no one having a voice is misattributed to Dr. P Fisher, when in fact it was said by Nanette Asimov.

    •  Nanette Asimov apparently has a problem with people having a voice.  I guess she prefers her slanted reporting to be taken as the truth.

  • What is most revealing about this program is that Current Academic Senate President Karen Saginor was pulled from the show at the last minute and replaced by former Senate President Hal Huntsman.  Apparently, KQED wanted someone who was in favor of the recommendations by the accrediting board – so much for “journalism” in the US.  Nanette Asimov has had it out for CCSF for years and Pamela Fisher was brought in supposedly to just cover while a new chancellor is sought.  Seems instead this is a hatchet job with Fisher at the helm and the media ready to blow the alarms so she can get the job done.

  • Sara McKinnon

     Nanette Asimov stated “They try to give everyone a voice in decision-making and when everyone’s got a voice, really, nobody’s got a voice. So, it takes them months, if not, years to do simple decision-making….”

    It is not that they “try” – this system of decision-making is called shared governance and was legislated in AB 1725 way back in 1988. Every CCC is required to follow it.   It is also very much part of the ACCJC’s Standard IV which states:

    Faculty and administrators have a substantive and clearly defined role in institutional governance and exercise a substantial voice in institutional policies, planning, and budget that relate to their areas of responsibility and expertise. Students and staff also have established mechanisms or organizations for providing input into institutional decisions. [IV.A.2.a]  

  • Stephan Johnson

    I have one simple question the answer to which will probably go a long way to explaining the level of distrust and acrimony noted in both the accreditation team’s report and Trustee Walker’s insightful comments:

    The caller who identifies herself as ‘Terry’ at 38:51 into the broadcast sure sounds a lot like Sue Homer, teacher of Political Science, close advisor of Students Making a Change, ally of Hal Hunstman, as well as Trustees Ngo and Jackson. 

    In fact, I would go further and swear, on the basis of years of hearing Professor Homer speak in many different venues, that that is her calling in as ‘Terry’. So the question is, if that is indeed her, why on earth would she call in using a different name and not identify herself openly?

    Is there any wonder that there’s a huge level of mistrust at CCSF?

  • dirq

    This program is completely leaving me in the dark in terms of explaining to me what the problem is. 

         Here are the disconnects I’m having:
         First of all, the facts- the report apparently says that the school provides an excellent education- which it does. 

    So, my question is, what the bleep is the problem?  They’re spending too much money paying to get good teachers?  They don’t have enough administrators–a laughable complaint?!?
      
        The state gives them an allowance, right?  So what’s the problem?  They spend it how they spend it, and as long as they serve the students well, which the report freely admits, what problem could anyone possibly have?

    Here’s what I’m hearing:
        “They don’t want to face the situation”
        “They need to pull together”
       
        What the bleep do these terms mean?  They get their allowance, and they spend it as they see fit, and so long as their students are served, the what is the problem? 

    What am I missing here?

  • Why is it a problem that 92% of CCSF’s budget goes to personnel?  What should they be spending their money on, landscaping?  Electricity?  It seems to me it is VERY efficient for a college to be spending such a small percentage of their budget on costs other than personnel.

  • Wow – “Terry” didn’t identify herself as a CCSF faculty member and also part of the coalition that includes Huntsman and Lena Carew.  They have an agenda and apparently they don’t care if the college closes down if they can’t get what they want.

  • PKly

    In the last two cycles WASC has put 67% of community colleges on warning or worse.  They have imposed an unfunded mandate to the tune of tens of million of dollars.  

    WASC is out of control and should be replaced as the accrediting agency on the west coast.  There is NOTHING that says the 113 community colleges of California has to stay with this ridiculous, pointless organization.

    Do you want to know what is worse?  Often times the people who do the site visits at one school are the same ones hired as consultants to fix a WASC imposed problem at another school.  You thought lobbying in Washington was bad, the citizens of this state should be outraged at the revolving door of consultants.  

    WASCs redflags are bankrupting schools and at the same time making former administrators rich.  Ask John Rizzo how much CCSF is going to pay in consultant fees to try to address the WASC report.  Then someone should investigate who these consultants are.  

    It should be illegal to be on a site visit team and also get paid as a consultant to address WASC mandates at any school!

    Reaffirmed 
    January

    1.       DeAnza
    College

    2.       Foothill
    College

    3.       Lake
    Tahoe Community College

    4.       Mt. San Jacinto College

     

     Reaffirmed June:

    1.       Defense
    Language Institute-FLC

    2.       Feather
    River College

    3.      Guam Community College

    4.       College of the Siskiyous

    5.       Cypress College

    6.       Fullerton
    College

    7.       San Joaquin Delta College

    8.       MiraCosta
    College

    9.    
      Irvine
    Valley College

    10.    Saddleback
    College

    11.    Taft
    College

     

     

    Warning 
    January:

    1.       Columbia
    College

    2.       Fresno
    City College

    3.       Reedley
    College

    4.       Solano
    Community College

    5.       College
    of Marin

    6.       Evergreen
    Valley College

    7.       San
    Diego Miramar College

     

    Warning January:

    1.       Barstow
    College

    2.       Hawai’i
    Tokai International College

    3.       West
    Los Angeles College

    4.       Berkeley
    City College

    5.       College
    of Alameda

    6.       Laney
    College

    7.       Merritt
    College

    8.       Merced
    College

     

     

     

    Probation January

    1.       Modesto
    Junior College

    2.       Shasta
    College

    3.       Moorpark
    College

    4.       Oxnard
    College (warning >> probation)

    5.       Ventura
    College (warning >> probation)

    6.       Northern
    Marianas College

    7.        San
    Jose City College

    8.        Palo
    Verde College

     

    Probation
    June:

    1.       Los
    Angeles Harbor College

    2.        Los
    Angeles Southwest College

    3.       College
    of Micronesia-FSM

    4.       Victor
    Valley College

    5.       Moorpark
    College (continued)

    6.       Oxnard
    College (continued)

    7.       Palo
    Verde College (continued)

    8.       Ventura
    College (continued)

     

     

    Show
    Cause January

    College
    of the Redwoods

    Cuesta
    College

     

    Show
    Cause June

    City
    College of San Francisco

     

     

     

    45 total colleges:

     

    15 on affirmed: 
    (33%)

    15 on warning: (33%)

    12 on probation (26.6%)

    3 on show cause (6.6%)

  • Warren

    I live near City College’s main campus and feel committed to the school for both the benefits to the entire city, and my neighborhood in particular. I–and I expect some other neighbors–would be willing to contribute a reasonable amount in order to do our share in helping keep it a high-quality institution (and to keep the track facility open to the public!) The funding cuts are tragic and I very much want to see funding restored… but there are also alumni and neighbors who I think would pitch in if asked… and the cumulative effect of many people helping could make a difference.

Sponsored by

Become a KQED sponsor