Last week a self-evaluation form was sent via email to students, staff and faculty to gather feedback on the college’s performance in anticipation of the college’s reaccreditation visit from the Accrediting Commission for Community and Junior Colleges (ACCJC) next year.
Since accreditation status is vital to the college’s functionality, some are unhappy with the early October deadline for feedback submission before the draft is finalized.
“From the senate’s perspective, more time should have been given,” said Academic Senate President Eduardo Cairo. “This document is way too important to be able to thoroughly review, analyze [and] determine what should or should not be in there.”
The draft includes the standards of the college’s mission, student learning programs and services, resources, and leadership governance.
“While more time is always preferable, all campus members are working diligently so we meet the submission deadlines set by the ACCJC,” wrote Interim Dean of Instructional Support Matthew Jordan by email. Jordan also noted the past year of the self-evaluation was “productive and collaborative.”
Students are encouraged to leave feedback as well since “the input from all constituent [groups are] absolutely important to the self-study,” Senior Vice President Robert Bell wrote in an email.
Due to the form’s voluntary response, there’s concern about exactly who will respond since “there is still a sense of a fear on this campus,” said Cairo.
If the college manages to lose its accreditation, enrollment numbers will likely drop due to its impact on students. Mainly, the degrees earned from an unaccredited college would not be accepted by any university. Students who depend on financial aid would be out of luck as only students are accredited colleges can receive financial aid.
In the event that PCC fails to live up to the ACCJC’s standards, upcoming graduates will be spared since “any such decision would not be immediately effective,” and “any 2015 graduates would be unaffected,” Bell said.
The deadline for feedback is October 13 and the final draft will be submitted to the ACCJC on December 15. A visitation team from the ACCJC will visit the main campus next March and decide the college’s accreditation status in June.
- Video games, its culture, needs to patch itself to be respected - November 26, 2019
- Courier Convos: Reporting on Religion - November 11, 2019
- Courier Convos: Dispelling Magical Misconceptions - October 24, 2019
But like, who cares?
Miller gladly headed campus dubious dealings with his admin cohorts for the past admin. The only changes to the admin is minus one president and plus a couple of new VPs. Nothing has changed. There isn’t a NEW admin.
The only break for PCC is the upcoming Rose Parade. Your leader will be MIA focused on Tournament lists of to dos.
Well, looking in our history books, Mussolini also received a vote of no confidence, also was removed from office—but it was quite a long while before all the troubles ended.
It’s the nature of a machine to want to preserve itself, honor itself, even when it’s clear that the machine has failed.
The machine will concern itself with appearance, not with repair.
Too bad.
What the previous commenters fail to understand (or do understand but choose to ignore) is that the self eval is a formal document with specific guidelines and tasks that need to be addressed for accreditation. It is not designed to be treated as a manifesto. I worry that if the previous authors had their way then the document would be reduced to a rambling diatribe written from a cabin in the woods.
With Rocha gone there is no clear target for these tin foil conspiracists to aim their anger, so instead they accuse and attack anyone who disagrees with their views and tactics. It is this type of residual hatred and irrationality that will do the most damage to our campus. It is faculty fighting faculty that will drag Is down. We have a new leader and new administrators. Let’s move forward together through this final phase and remember what the purpose of this self-eval is: the continued success of our students.
The Admin, and its remaining bobble-head clique are desperately hoping that “Move-on” slogans will do the trick. Rocha’s gone, but they are still stuck here–and not trusted. They hope that sing-song Pollyanna stories can help them pretend it wasn’t so bad after all. They would like to whitewash the record to try to cover the mess. They may call for warm hugs around the campfire and perhaps shed a few tears, take an injured pose. (It worked when we were 7, right?)
Rocha’s gone for what he did.
When all that he’s done is acknowledged, and corrected, then we may “move forward.”
Good lord that will never happen and you know it. The tight-knit band of combatants on campus lack the ability to know when to pull back. They are so entrenched in an us vs. them mentality there will be no end. And even if this was possible, the self-eval is not the place to do it. They are beyond the reach of rationality and will not be happy until they’ve brought the whole place down in flames.
It’s human nature to want to polish the debacle of the last 4 years. Who wouldn’t want to pile on the fluff, glue on glitter, and hope no one will notice? But it’s our responsibility to write directly, put in the truth without the bs.
Pretending all is well fools no one in Accreditation.
Denying the past is no foundation for moving forward.
Time to “man-up”.
Period.
Amen!
“Move on”? “Oh, you don’t like that I’ve been kicking you in the teeth for the previous four years? Let’s just move on!”
You don’t get to pretend that what happened never happened. “Move on already”‘s hysteria (“combatants,” “entrenched,” “beyond the reach of rationality,” “brought the whole place down”) can’t sugar-coat the harm that this administration had been part of for the previous four years. Don’t forget that they were on Rocha’s bus, too.
“tin foil conspiracists”? How blind are you? The past year has overwhelmingly shown that the previous four years’ worth of complaints and criticisms of our administration were more than warranted. The “irrationality” you cite is in fact fully rational and in no way approaches doing the amount of damage to the campus already done by our own administration.
All of the people on Rocha’s “bus” are still in place and running the show, so how much has really changed?
Personally, I’m not really sure how much has changed…A smile goes a long way, but actions speak louder than words and smiles in this case.
Even though Rocha is long gone, the lies and creepy vibes continue. Former devotees of the deposed despot still pay homage to their Great Leader’s vision. It may be from force of habit, or it may be that they want to put the most positive spin on their participation in his “Great Leap Forward”.
Like the anti-vaccine crowd, like the Creationists, this bunch want to show “Both sides” of the issues. In this fluffy self-eval report, (latest draft,) they even say that the 92% vote of No Confidence in Rocha was just “some” on campus “disagreeing.”
What a hoot!
The problem isn’t so much the deadline. The problem is that the group who is overseeing PCC’s accreditation process has HEAVILY EDITED to paint a very rosy picture of what’s happened at PCC. There’s not much of a fine line between duplicitousness and neutrality and the final editors of this document have crossed that line.
People need to be very vigilant and expect and demand100% transparency from this group. The report as it is presents a very one-sided account, which is surprising coming from a communications professor who should know the ins and outs of debating both sides of an issue.