Pierce Must Act Quickly on Problems : Valley community college needs a plan for answering Accrediting Commission criticism

The importance of California’s community colleges cannot be overstated. They figure, for example, to be an ever more vital bridge between the high schools and the state’s four-year colleges. Among the reasons: There are simply too many incoming freshmen in the state college and university systems who arrive unprepared for the work. Some should undoubtedly enroll first in a two-year program.

And that’s hardly the sole reason. All nine campuses in the Los Angeles Community College District still serve as the front line for a post-secondary education, a door to opportunity for the working poor and for others who have been laid off in mid-career.

So, when we hear that an accreditation renewal for one of our San Fernando Valley community colleges has been placed on hold, we don’t take it lightly. Granted, this is a deferment that does not place Pierce College’s accreditation in immediate danger. And yes, it’s true that the Accrediting Commission for Community and Junior Colleges has never withdrawn accreditation from a public school.

But we don’t find much solace in either fact. Nor are we pleased with the sugarcoated milk-toast response of Pierce’s acting vice president of academic affairs, who said that schools “rarely pass evaluations with flying colors,” adding that it “tells us that there are certain areas that need to be addressed.” We suppose that she is a graduate of Pierce’s little-known associate degree program in understatement.

Well, just in case this is news to anyone, here’s a tip. Our news story used words such as “scathing” and “berated” and “alarm” and “frightening” and “castigated” and “upbraided” to describe the tone of the commission’s evaluation of Pierce. We think that assessment was wholly accurate, and here’s why.

Pierce is raising concerns because of: its revolving door for top administrative posts, such as its six presidents in just 10 years; its apparent inaction during an enrollment decline of nearly 42% since 1982; its scant efforts in marketing the school and recruiting students; a mismatch between offerings and student needs; an apathetic staff that appears to have “given up”; its uncertain financial future and lack of reserves; and because it hasn’t met the commission’s earlier requirements and timetables.

Right now, Pierce officials have a window from May, 1996, through October, 1997, in which to respond in writing to the many concerns raised by the commission. We suggest that a plan of action to correct these problems ought to come no later than the first two months of 1996. Present and future students deserve at least that much in terms of prompt and strong leadership.