SAN FRANCISCO COMMUNITY COLLEGE FIGHTS FOR ITS LIFE
By David Bacon
Published in Perspective, the publication of the Community College
Council of the California Federation of Teachers, March 2013
http://cft.org/uploads/periodicals/perspective/CFT_perspective_March2013_R9_lowres.pdf
For the last year, faculty at San Francisco Community College
have been under siege, not just from a newly-hostile administration,
but from an accreditation commission that has threatened the
district's very existence. To protect their institution,
instructors, supported by students and community leaders, have given
up wages, campaigned for ballot measures to secure new funding, and
supported changes to meet more stringent fiscal requirements while
maintaining their vision of community-centered education.
Unfortunately, they have not been met halfway. Instead, AFT
Local 2121 has been forced to fight at a time when cooperation is
needed to save the school. "Our hope was that the college would look
at a long-term plan that would stabilize it," says Alisa Messer,
local union president. "What we have, however, is an administration
that isn't interested in talking with us."
In the spring of 2012, the Accrediting Commission for
Community and Junior Colleges sent a team to San Francisco, as part
of its normal 6-year accreditation cycle. The district, which had
been warned earlier about deficiencies, knew there would be problems.
But SFCC, with 85,000 students and 1650 faculty (1100 of whom belong
to the union), had never been sanctioned. It is the largest public
school system in California, with an annual operating budget of $200
million. But under the impact of cuts in state funding, last year it
had a deficit of $6 million.
In July, commissioners released a set of findings that found
the district deficient in 14 areas, and put it on "Show Cause"
status, the most serious sanction short of shutting down the college
entirely. The commission gave the college credit for a very diverse
faculty and high-quality libraries and counseling. Commissioners
said, however, the college's governance, planning and leadership were
inefficient, and that it had not documented adequately a set of
assessments called "Student Learning Outcomes."
Finally, the commissioners said the district fiscal planning
was poor. Over the past three years of the state's fiscal crisis San
Francisco has endured a $53 million loss in revenue. Nevertheless,
teachers and previous chancellors worked to maintain an adequate and
accessible class level. Layoffs were avoided by temporary cuts and
concessions. But commissioners found there had not been enough cuts
or cancelled classes, that too much (92%) of the budget was spent on
personnel, and that too few administrators were on staff.
Faculty reacted with shock, and community leaders questioned
the need for putting the college itself in danger. California's
community college system Chancellor Jack Scott said it would be a
"disaster" but urged trustees to implement the commission's
recommendations, including cuts to programs and even closing
campuses. Trustee Chris Jackson asked, "Where will the students go?"
Just prior to the release of the commissioner's report, the
union and the district agreed to more emergency measures to meet the
fiscal crisis caused by the loss of state funding. Local 2121 agreed
to a 2.85% wage cut for the 2012-2013 school year. Then faculty and
students hit the road to campaign for state Proposition 30, which
would prevent further funding cuts, and a citywide Proposition A,
intended to plug the hole in the district budget.
The political leaders who place the measure on the ballot,
including district trustee Anne Grier, said in their ballot argument
that funds from Proposition A would be used to: "maintain core
academic courses, including English, math, and science; provide
workforce training, including nursing, engineering, business, and
technology;
provide an education that prepares students for four-year
universities; keep City College libraries and student support
services open; keep technology and instructional support up to date,
and offset State budget cuts."
Proposition A's opponent, the Libertarian Party, tried to use
some of the accreditation commission's arguments to discredit it,
including the charge that 92% of the budget was used for salaries,
and that department heads had too much power.
The district produced budget projections, given to the union
and public, that sought to show the possible results of the passage
of the propositions, as well as their defeat. In the worst case, if
both 30 and A failed, the district projected a shortfall of $24.5
million. Without just Prop. A the hole would the $10 million. But
if both passed, it said, there would be a small surplus of $726,658..
In late October the state community college chancellor
nominated, and the SFCC board approved, the appointment of a "special
trustee." They chose Bob Agrella, past president of Santa Rosa City
College. The board maintained its ability to meet and make
decisions, but Agrella was given the power to veto decisions he
feels jeopardize the school's response to the ACCJC. On November 1
the board hired a new interim chancellor, Thelma Scott-Skillman,
retired president of Folsom Lake College near Sacramento.
Even before voting started, district administrators began
overturning the system of shared governance at the college. At the
meeting where Agrella was hired, it voted to dismantle the structure
that gave departments their autonomy and chairs a voice in faculty
scheduling, giving their functions to administrators. It closed
Bernal Heights state preschool, a center for studying child
development and assisting parents, to save $84,000. All these
changes were made unilaterally, with no consultation or negotiation
with faculty and the union.
Despite the discord, in November voters passed Prop. 30, and
Prop. A won with 78% of the vote. The election did not lead to a new
era of cooperation, however.
In December district negotiators announced that the
administration would impose a 4.4% "annualized" wage cut on faculty,
retroactive to July, when the 2.85% cut took effect. Together they
would effectively cut salaries by 8.8% through next July. The
district refused to bargain, saying the contract gave it the right to
take the action. At first Scott-Skillman attributed the need to
declining enrollment, a predictable product of both the cuts and
questions over accreditation. When union negotiators persisted in
demanding explanations, a new budget projection was produced. On the
line where the predicted income from Proposition A had been listed
previously there was nothing.
After further prodding, the district announced that all
Proposition A money would be used to increase the district's
reserves, and better fund pension liabilities. Administration
claimed that this was a mandate from ACCJC, and that what voters
thought they were voting for was irrelevant.
The San Francisco Labor Council, one of the authors of the
ballot argument supporting Measure A, warned, "San Francisco's labor
leaders and their unions -- and many rank and file members -- helped
organize, finance, and lead the way to secure significant new revenue
sources for the college...despite these significant additional local
and statewide resources generated for CCSF, the District is failing
to engage in constructive contract negotiations and instead proposing
further concessions."
The union filed a grievance, saying the district had no right
under the contract to unilaterally cut salaries, and an unfair labor
practice charge accusing the district of imposing the cuts without
reaching impasse in bargaining. Then, to add fuel to the fire,
Agrella met with the community college board of governors in January,
and told them that these objections were keeping the college from
meeting the ACCJC's list of recommendations by March 15. Agrella
further blamed department chairs for protesting the change in
governance, and everyone in general for trying to protect the
system's nine campuses from closure.
Student trustee William Walker cautions that "the district
has to have the funds necessary to operate, and if we lose our
accreditation what good is the Prop A money?" Nevertheless, he says,
"The college should bring all the stakeholders together, and be as
transparent as possible. Some of he changes being proposed will
change the spirit of the college and affect students. Eliminating
department chairs means that students won't get guidance from people
doing the teaching. Other changes could shrink the college and end
service to communities. But I want students to know that the college
is open and accredited, that their units will transfer to other
institutions, and that we're doing everything we can to comply."
Shanell Williams, urban studies major and president of the
Associated Students at SFCC, was an intern who worked on the Prop. A
campaign. "Many people asked us how we could be sure the college
would use the money for keeping classes and accessibility, and now
the administration is doing what people feared," she says. "Students
are scared about the future of the college, and need to have
confidence that the adaministration will do what it takes to keep the
college open, without squeezing out the most at-risk students or
forcing extreme cuts on the faculty."
Williams also notes that next year students will be affected
by the Student Success Act: "Every student will have to have an
education plan, there will be repeat limits, and a 90-credit cap on
the Board of Governors fee waiver. Now is the time when they need
more student services and support from the administration, but
they're cutting part time counselors and taking other actions that
will be even greater barriers."
On March 15 the district has to report to the ACCJC on the
steps it has taken to meet the commission's recommendations. The use
of those recommendations by district administrators as a
justification for extreme salary cuts gave pause to community college
union leaders across the state. In a letter to the district, 16 CFT
community college local officers warned, "Maintaining the college's
accreditation is paramount...but your actions at the bargaining table
directly threaten this progress and should stop. The CFT will not
stand for accreditation being used by the District as an excuse for
advancing additional, permanent pay cuts and reductions in health
benefits and threatening to impose them if the union doesn't
acquiesce."
Did CCSF get fair treatment from the ACCJC, apart from the
way the district used the process? A number of concerns have been
raised about the process the commission used. The ACCJC accredits
only 5% of the country's higher education institutions, but has
issued 35% of the sanctions. The cost of meeting its
recommendations, made under fear of the sanctions process, absorbs a
larger and larger chunk of district funds, during a time of budget
cuts, and faculty time, as classes themselves are reduced. Even
before it was sanctioned, CCSF had paid almost $140,000 for costs
related to accreditation in the previous year alone.
Once the process started, CCSF was just given 8 months to
comply, and moved directly to a "Show Cause" status without any
intervening steps. Newly-elected trustee Rafael Mandelman says that
meeting the commission's recommendations should be "a collaborative
process that requires a lot of input from students, that has to be
negotiated with employee groups."
Faculty, staff and student groups, however, have generally
been left out of the decision-making process. The commission itself
seems cavalier about its own rules for public input. It requires 30
day notice of all public meetings, and requires statements from the
public to be submitted 15 days beforehand. Yet it announced a
January 9 meeting only four days before, and ignored requests for at
least 12 of its own policies it intended to consider at that meeting.
"It is difficult not to conclude that by the way it neglects
to provide notice to the public of its activities, the Commission
actually seeks to discourage or effectively restrict public
attendance at its meetings," said CFT President Josh Pechthalt in a
letter.
Other faculty groups are also concerned about the commission
process. Jeffrey Michels, chair of the Faculty Association of the
California Community Colleges (FACCC) calls for accreditation reform,
including lengthening the cycle to 8-10 years, involving a wider
range of participants, relying more on cooperation, and avoiding
recommendations that encroach on negotiable issues, among others. In
2009 a task force formed by the State Chancellor's Office urged such
recommendations, "which were largely ignored by the Commission," he
says.
FACCC President Dennis Frisch notes that 27 California
community colleges (25% of the state total) are currently being
sanctioned. Two of them have "Show Cause" orders -- College of the
Redwoods in Eureka and Cuesta College in San Luis Obispo. "Many
faculty," he says, "are openly asking whether the ACCJC has exceeded
thee scope and purpose of its own mission." According to Frisch, the
FACCC may ask for a Joint Legislative Audit Committee audit of the
costs to districts of complying with ACCJC standards and
recommendations.
The Commission itself is not a public agency, but a self-perpetuating
private one, overseen by the Western Association of Schools and
Colleges. It is funded by educational institutions, which have no
input or oversight rights. What gives its recommendations power is
its recognition by the U.S. Department of Education, which will only
fund financial aid at accredited institutions. During the Obama
administration, the department has put pressure on the commission and
others like it to take a harder line on sanctions, concerned that
students aren't receiving an education that enables them to get jobs
and repay loans.
In 2007 the Department sanctioned the commission itself, for
failing to enforce the two-year rule, which requires sanctioned
institutions to come into compliance with commission findings within
two years. Commission President Barbara Beno, former president of
Berkeley's then-Vista College (now Berkeley City College) then warned
districts that time limits would be strictly enforced. "At risk is
the commission's recognition," she told EdSource Today.
Part of that pressure comes from the National Advisory
Committee on Institutional Quality and Integrity, whose chair,
Jamienne Studley, executive director of Public Advocates in San
Francisco, stated, "the accreditors are getting the message loud and
clear." In an interview with Lewis Freedberg, she discounted
criteria such as student-faculty ratios and college curricula and
said, "we are increasingly looking at student outcomes." She
mentioned specifically the time students take to earn degrees, and
how well they do at work afterwards.
"In this worldview education reformers are beginning to look
at higher education like K-12, and propose similar measures," says
Messer. "They're very concerned with the completion rate, and that
we move students through quickly. They increasingly call for
"performance metrics" like the Student Learning Outcomes. You can
see that teacher evaluation tied to them is coming. They see
community colleges as a means to turn out hirable people, or students
for four-year institutions. We see them as institutions serving the
broader community. At CCSF we have that broader conception. Our
students move in and out, they have jobs and kids, some are learning
English-as-a-Second-Language, while others are seniors interested in
lifelong learning. Not everyone is coming for a degree. We need an
accreditation process that takes this diversity into account."
Robert Shireman, director of California Competes in San
Francisco, and former deputy undersecretary of education in the Obama
administration, told Freedberg that although the commission needed
more enforcement tools other than forcing a closure, "At some point
you have to let the hatchet fall."
Comments faculty member and Local 2121 Executive Board member
Allen Fisher, "The source of the Federal government's pressure on the
accreditation commissions' to sanction more colleges [includes] the
very wealthy activists like Bill Gates who represent corporations and
large foundations. Their efforts to 'improve accountability' through
measured outcomes and the demand to push students through faster are
likely to discourage students and limit educational opportunities."
When the district's report to the ACCJC is made on March 15,
Agrella will ask for either an extension of time, he says, or for the
district to be put on probation. Whatever the commission's decision,
it is clear that the teachers, staff and faculty at CCSF have a long
a difficult road to restore their jobs, rights, classes and
educational services to the level that once existed in this city.
Coming in 2013 from Beacon Press:
THE RIGHT TO STAY HOME: Ending Forced Migration and the
Criminalization of Immigrants
DISPLACED, UNEQUAL AND CRIMINALIZED - A Report for the Rosa Luxemburg
Foundation on the political economy of immigration
http://www.rosalux-nyc.org/displaced-unequal-and-criminalized/
With Anoop Prasad on what's wrong with the current immigration reform
proposals in Washington DC
http://www.kpfa.org/archive/id/88447
With Solange Echevarria of KWMR about growers push for guest worker
programs. Advance to 88 minutes for the interview.
http://kwmr.org/blog/show/4156
At the Gandhi-King Youth and Community Conference, Memphis 2011
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U1PXka-Sbq4&feature=player_embedded
See also Illegal People -- How Globalization Creates Migration and
Criminalizes Immigrants (Beacon Press, 2008)
Recipient: C.L.R. James Award, best book of 2007-2008
http://www.beacon.org/productdetails.cfm?PC=2002
See also the photodocumentary on indigenous migration to the US
Communities Without Borders (Cornell University/ILR Press, 2006)
http://www.cornellpress.cornell.edu/cup_detail.taf?ti_id=4575
See also The Children of NAFTA, Labor Wars on the U.S./Mexico Border
(University of California, 2004)
http://www.ucpress.edu/books/pages/9989.html
Entrevista con activistas de #yosoy132 en UNAM
Interview by activists of #yosoy132 at UNAM (in Spanish)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JyF6AJQa9po&feature=relmfu
Two lectures on the political economy of migration
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2GgDWf9eefE&feature=youtu.be
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pd4OLdaoxvg&feature=related
For more articles and images, see http://dbacon.igc.org
--
__________________________________
David Bacon, Photographs and Stories
http://dbacon.igc.org
__________________________________
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
LAAMN: Los Angeles Alternative Media Network
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unsubscribe: <mailto:laamn-unsubscr...@egroups.com>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subscribe: <mailto:laamn-subscr...@egroups.com>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Digest: <mailto:laamn-dig...@egroups.com>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Help: <mailto:laamn-ow...@egroups.com?subject=laamn>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Post: <mailto:la...@egroups.com>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Archive1: <http://www.egroups.com/messages/laamn>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Archive2: <http://www.mail-archive.com/laamn@egroups.com>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/laamn/
<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional
<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/laamn/join
(Yahoo! ID required)
<*> To change settings via email:
laamn-dig...@yahoogroups.com
laamn-fullfeatu...@yahoogroups.com
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
laamn-unsubscr...@yahoogroups.com
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
