Chief Barnes will be giving a pro-arming presentation and then there will be public comment, deliberations and a vote. It will likely be a very close vote. The item will likely be addressed sometime between 4:30 pm and 6:00 pm. Speakers will likely be limited to one minute.

Please wear red, which is both our school’s color and it symbolizes the blood of victims of police violence. If you just show up wearing red that will help. Speaking is even better. You only need to identify yourself and say you are against the arming of campus cops.

Read about a local example of police murder by campus cops:
Raheim Brown, 20, murdered by Skyline High cops in 2013

These CCSF students, along with faculty and other stakeholders from all over California, traveled across country to Washington DC to offer three minutes each of public comment at the NACIQI hearing on ACCJC.
.
The moving and powerful testimony (to be posted soon on saveccsf.org website) extended most of Wednesday afternoon and demonstrated substantial non-compliance of ACCJC with federal regulations. Much of the testimony challenged the claim that ACCJC enjoys “wide acceptance” by educators. The few questions asked of commenters largely focused on the concern about what would happen if ACCJC were removed.
. 
The last comment by Bruce Boyden, a Commissioner from Compton, ended close to 6:00 pm. The meeting was adjourned (one hour late) with discussion postponed until the following morning. 
. 
In past years the discussion has been robust and fruitful. This time there was no discussion whatsoever. Within 5 minutes of opening the meeting the motion to recommend an 18 month extension of ACCJC’s authority was moved, seconded and passed. If you blinked you might have missed it.
.
The recommendation was consistent with the problematic staff analysis report. In a departure of style and content from previous reports, it appeared to whitewash lack of ACCJC compliance. For example, contrary to the 2013 report (as well as the Secretary of Education’s 1/4/2016 Appeal Decision) the 2017 report determined that the number of support letters were “compelling to demonstrate wide acceptance.”
.
In addition to the fact that the letters were extorted from member institutions – one of ACCJC’s standards requires institutions to comply with ACCJC requests or risk loss of accreditation – their criteria for “wide acceptance” is suspect. According to a legally required survey on ACCJC’s performance, the Academic Senate for California Community Colleges (ASCCC) responded as follows:
.
DOE Regulation                AGREE                      DISAGREE
602.12 (b)                              63.1%                             23.8%
602.16(a)(1)(ii)                      64.8%                             29.2%
602.16(a)(1)(iii)                     60.4%                             32.0%
602.17 (a)                              63.0%                             30.0%
602.18 (c)                              54.4%                             34.3%
602.20 (b)                              58.0%                             32.6%
602.25                                    56.5%                             37.1%
.
It appears that 60% approval is considered “wide acceptance” by NACIQI.
.
While the outcome is not a victory, neither is it a defeat. The ACCJC continues to be on a short leash with the DOE and we will remain strong in our fight for fair accreditation and defending public education.
.. 

The ACCJC is once again going before NACIQI in a fight for their survival.
This is our opportunity to FINALLY put this rogue agency out of business!
INSTRUCTIONS for submitting request to make oral comment at NACIQI meeting

Deadline is February 15, 2017 to submit request to make oral comment INSTRUCTIONS for submitting request to make oral comment at NACIQI meeting

Be sure to sign the PETITION: ACCJC Does Not Speak For Me
Ask your friends at other community colleges to sign as well. And your sister and your brother and anyone you meet.

Please donate online to help fund this effort!
Or you can send a check made out to
Save CCSF Coalition
1249 Hayes St.
San Francisco, CA 94117

The Brief Story:
The ACCJC gets its authority from the US Department of Education (DOE). Many of you are aware that, spurred by the CFT complaint filed in April 2013, the DOE issued a letter to the ACCJC identifying 15 federal regulations with which the ACCJC was out of compliance. They were given a year to come into compliance, essentially putting them on their own “show cause.”

The ACCJC will come before a NACIQI (National Advisory Committee on Institutional Quality and Integrity) hearing this February. NACIQI will consider various documents including ACCJC’s report, a staff analysis report, and written third party comments. Oral third party comments will be allowed at the hearing. Then NACIQI will then make a recommendation to the DOE as to whether or not to reauthorize the ACCJC.

A More Detailed Story:
Click here for a more detailed explanation of how the renewal process for an accrediting agency works and where the ACCJC is in this process.

The ACCJC is once again going before NACIQI, a committee of the USDE in a fight for their survival. 

This is our opportunity to FINALLY put this rogue agency out of business!

PUBLIC COMMENT TO DELIST ACCJC IS OPEN – Deadline is November 14, 2016

In a very bizarre development, the hearing of ACCJC before the US Department of Education (USDE) on the issue of their reauthorization has been rescheduled from December 2016 to February 2017.

This is very unusual and we can only speculate as to the reasons. It is noteworthy that the decision of ACCJC on CCSF’s Restoration Status will be known by that date.

In the meantime, the public comment period has opened!  Please submit your written comment by the deadline of November 14, 2016.

INSTRUCTIONS for submitting written comment

And please consider joining our delegation that will fly out to Washington, D.C. in February 2017 to submit oral comment. Our delegations that went in December 2013 and December 2015 were influential in the ACCJC currently being on the harshest status short of de-authorized. If you are interested please contact Wynd Kaufmyn

The Brief Story:
The ACCJC gets its authority from the US Department of Education (DOE). Many of you are aware that, spurred by the CFT complaint filed in April 2013, the DOE issued a letter to the ACCJC identifying 15 federal regulations with which the ACCJC was out of compliance. They were given a year to come into compliance, essentially putting them on their own “show cause.”

The ACCJC will come before a NACIQI (National Advisory Committee on Institutional Quality and Integrity) hearing this December. NACIQI will consider various documents including ACCJC’s report, a staff analysis report, and written third party comments. Oral third party comments will be allowed at the hearing. Then NACIQI will then make a recommendation to the DOE as to whether or not to reauthorize the ACCJC.

A More Detailed Story:
Click here for a more detailed explanation of how the renewal process for an accrediting agency works and where the ACCJC is in this process.