Much is said between the lines of the Gilroy Dispatch, 13 March 2015 page A2 article, “Gavilan College cites improvements.” The absence of any discussion by the college about serving the educational needs of students says much about the misplaced priorities of Gavilan’s decision-makers and those of the Accrediting Commission for Community and Junior Colleges (ACCJC).
Unmentioned also is the enormous amount of limited resources that are required to produce ongoing reports to the ACCJC. The emphasis upon creating and applying one-size-fits-all standardized Student Learning Outcomes (SLOs) is attributed to legal challenges associated with ACCJC’s sanctions estimated to cost millions of public dollars.
Gavilan’s report to the ACCJC features numerous examples of compliance, yet the report excludes awareness of non-compliance. Extensive documentation of ongoing violations of ACCJC standards—which the report claims have been resolved—have been provided to Gavilan College administration, Trustees, and committees in emails and public comments. Yet none of these concerns are mentioned in the report. This leaves the impression that no deficiencies exist. Not divulging unpleasant facts conflicts with ACCJC’s standards I.C.12 and 1.C.13, which mandate “complete, accurate, and honest disclosure” or risk sanctions, up to loss of accreditation.
Gavilan College President Steve Kinsella also chairs the ACCJC.
An example of an apparent missed opportunity to fully disclose is the failure to provide meeting minutes documenting that Gavilan’s administration rejected input related to my program’s SLOs and claimed no obligation to explain why. The dismissal of input without justification is in direct conflict with the ACCJC’s demands to demonstrate that Gavilan College recognizes the central role of faculty, relies upon faculty expertise, and makes use of faculty input. This is just one of many documented instances that indicates Gavilan is not acting in good faith to work with faculty. It also disregards the ACCJC’s reminder to President Kinsella that his and all institutions must meet standards at “all times during the six-year review cycle.”
Gavilan’s upper administration’s top-down leadership style is reflected in the administration’s comments and actions and explains recorded meeting minutes that directly contradict claims within the report, i.e. the college claims but has not provided “full resolution” of the ACCJC’s above-stated recommendations. This is apparent in the college canceling courses without seeking faculty input as to how students would achieve SLOs, nor providing transparent cost analysis of these cuts when part-time faculty is paid a fraction of full-time faculty pay but is held to the same class sizes, or explain why the administration has rejected more than three years of effort seeking to update seriously outdated curriculum and associated SLOs.
The public is being cheated when educational bureaucrats divert exorbitant funds from instruction but are not required to demonstrate how their services benefit students and communities who fund them. The ACCJC needs to disclose and show cost benefits for meeting its requirements. Top administrators, likewise, need to demonstrate how students are benefiting from their services with verifiable data. Students need to have skills and knowledge to find careers to pay off obscene educational debt. These factors make it critical that those charged with managing this effort demonstrate their high costs are justified.
Colette Marie McLaughlin, PhD, has served Gavilan College as Computer Graphics & Design teacher since 2008. She is the Founder of Clean-Up the ACCJC, Starting with Gavilan #CU-ACCJC-SWG, its web page is CleanUpACCJCandGavilan. She may be reached at
co********************@gm***.com
. She wrote this piece for the Dispatch.
