BILL ANALYSIS                                                                                                                                                                                                    Ó



                                                                  AB 1942
                                                                  Page  1

          Date of Hearing:   April 29, 2014

                       ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON HIGHER EDUCATION
                                 Das Williams, Chair
                    AB 1942 (Bonta) - As Amended:  April 10, 2014
           
          SUBJECT  :   Community colleges: accreditation.

           SUMMARY  :   Requires the California Community Colleges (CCCs)  
          Board of Governors (BOG) to establish minimum operating  
          conditions for CCCs to receive state apportionment; removes the  
          requirement that CCCs be accredited; adds six additional  
          appointees to the BOG; and, establishes numerous requirements on  
          accrediting agencies that provide accreditation of CCCs.    
          Specifically,  this bill  :  

          1)Would require the BOG to establish: (a) minimum conditions for  
            state apportionment that are relevant and material to federal  
            law and quality of education, are widely accepted by educators  
            and specified other entities, and are consistent with state  
            laws and policies; and, (b) standards that show these  
            conditions have been met. 
             
          2)Requires the BOG to comply with the Administrative Procedures  
            Act and seek and consider input, in establishing minimum  
            conditions, from CCC districts, students, and academic and  
            nonacademic employees.

          3)Provides that accreditation status is not dispositive of the  
            determination of compliance, but that the BOG may give due  
            consideration to the accreditation status by a federally  
            recognized accrediting agency of compliance with minimum  
            conditions, unless the BOG finds good cause not to rely on the  
            accreditation status.  Provides that "good cause" includes:

             a)   The accrediting agency's failure to comply with written  
               policies or procedures in the course of evaluation;

             b)   Finding or determination by the US Department of  
               Education (USDE) that the accrediting agency has failed to  
               comply with the Criteria for Recognition of Accrediting  
               Agencies by the US Secretary of Education; 

             c)   The accrediting agency's failure to comply with federal  
               or state laws or regulations in the course of evaluation;    








                                                                  AB 1942
                                                                  Page  2

                

             d)   A conflict of interest, or the appearance of a conflict  
               of interest, on the part of the accrediting agency in the  
               course of evaluation; 

          4)Requires the BOG to conduct an independent investigation to  
            determine compliance with minimum conditions prior to  
            determining a CCC district has failed to meet conditions.
             
          5)Requires the BOG to, before finalizing determination of a CCC  
            district's compliance with minimum conditions, publically  
            provide the basis of the determination and provide an  
            opportunity for the district to respond and the public to  
            comment.

          6)Adds to the BOG six additional members, three appointed by the  
            Senate and three appointed by the Assembly. 

          7)Authorizes the BOG to designate a federally recognized  
            accrediting agency to accredit CCCs; provides that the  
            accrediting agency currently designation by BOG regulations  
            shall remain in place until this authority is exercised.   
            Requires the designated accrediting agency to base accrediting  
            decisions solely on compliance with the minimum conditions  
            established pursuant to the aforementioned provisions and  
            requires all of the following:

             a)   The accrediting agency to make available to a CCC the  
               minimum conditions and requirements for demonstration of  
               compliance established pursuant to the aforementioned BOG  
               standards;

             b)   Accrediting agency compliance with Bagley-Keene Open  
               Meeting Act for all meetings relating to the accreditation  
               of a CCC;

             c)   Disclosure of all CCC accreditation related documents  
               pursuant to the California Public Records Act; 

             d)   The Accrediting agency is required to preserve all  
               documents for at least 10 years, and reports, evaluations,  
               recommendations, and decisions indefinitely.     

             e)   The accrediting agency to disclose salaries and benefits  








                                                                  AB 1942
                                                                  Page  3

               of employees involved in CCC accreditation, any member  
               charges imposed on a CCC, incomes derived from a CCC, and  
               expenditures for activities related to CCC accreditation.

             f)   Prohibits accrediting agency governing board members  
               from being nominated by officers or employees of the  
               accrediting agency; and prohibits governing board terms  
               from being longer than two consecutive three-year terms;

             g)   The accrediting agency to have a neutral and objective  
               conflict of interest policy;

             h)   Accreditation evaluation teams:

               i)     To consist of 50% teachers of community colleges,  
                 and 50% to include nonsupervisory, non-managerial  
                 academic employees, classified employees, and  
                 administrative employees of a community college; and, 

               ii)    To be independent of the accrediting agency and the  
                 college being evaluated and neither a member of the  
                 governing body or employee of the accrediting agency  
                 during the prior six years or a near relative of either.

             i)   In assessing sanctions, requires consideration of the  
               length of time of substantial compliance, seriousness of  
               deficiencies with respect to impact on quality of  
               education; 

             j)   The accrediting agency to provide the CCC all documents,  
               including but not limited to, evaluations and  
               recommendations at least 14 days in advance of any meeting  
               regarding the accreditation of the institution;

             aa)  The accrediting agency to provide the CCCs and the  
               public with reasonable opportunity to present written and  
               oral evidence and argument in regard to the accreditation  
               decision;

             bb)  Sanctions decisions to be supported by findings and  
               conclusions;

             cc)  If an accrediting agency intends to impose a sanction  
               more severe than that recommended by the evaluating team,  
               or finds a deficiency not noted in the evaluation team  








                                                                  AB 1942
                                                                  Page  4

               report, the hearing on imposing the sanction to be  
               adjourned (and taken up at a subsequent hearing) to provide  
               the CCCs sufficient time to respond to the accrediting  
               agency before a decision; 

             dd)  The college to be provided time to satisfy compliance  
               prior to a sanction that would revoke or suspend  
               accreditation is imposed; and,

             ee)  The accrediting agency to participate in an appellate  
               proceeding, with specified procedures, rights, and grounds  
               for appeal, before an arbitrator, hearing officer or a  
               panel appointed by the CCC Chancellor's Office (CCCCO), as  
               specified.  Requires the accrediting agency to present  
               facts that support the recommended actions.  Allows the CCC  
               to submit new evidence to support compliance.  Requires the  
               CCC to be deemed accredited for no less than two semesters  
               following the issuance of the decision by the appeals  
               committee.  Requires the appeals hearings to be open to the  
               public.

          8)Provides that provisions requiring due process procedures and  
            compliance with the Bagley-Keene Open Meeting Act are  
            declarative of existing law and apply to all pending  
            accreditation proceedings.

          9)Provides that this bill does not affect accrediting agency  
            activities relative to private educational institutions or  
            public institutions operating outside of this state.  Provides  
            that this bill does not affect the authority of USDE.

          10)Provides for severability of provisions, should any portions  
            of the law be held invalid.

           EXISTING LAW:

           1)Establishes the BOG to provide general supervision over the  
            CCC and requires the BOG to prescribe minimum standards for  
            CCC formation and operation (Education Code §66700); 

          2)Requires the BOG to develop minimum standards governing  
            academic standards, employment policies and shared governance;  
            evaluate CCC fiscal and educational effectiveness and provide  
            assistance when districts encounter management difficulties;  
            administer state funding and establish minimum conditions  








                                                                  AB 1942
                                                                  Page  5

            entitling CCC districts to receive state funds; review and  
            approve educational programs; and, carry out other functions  
            as provided in law (EDC §70901);  

          3)BOG regulations (5 CCR §51016) require CCC to be accredited by  
            the Accrediting Commission for Community and Junior Colleges  
            (ACCJC).

           FISCAL EFFECT  :   Unknown

           COMMENTS  :   Purpose of this bill  .  According to the author,  
          "Higher education accreditation ensures that colleges provide an  
          education that meets acceptable levels of quality.   
          Accreditation of a college is required for students to be  
          eligible to receive state and federal financial aid. The ACCJC  
          was appointed as the accreditor for CCC. ACCJC is authorized to  
          operate by the USDE and is the only accrediting agency for CCCs  
          due to current state regulations. 

          ACCJC requires CCCs to meet a significantly higher number of  
          standards than is required by federal law. While the federal  
          government requires that colleges meet 9 basic standards, ACCJC  
          demands compliance with nearly 50.  In addition, ACCJC has  
          issued sanctions at a rate substantially higher than accrediting  
          entities throughout the nation.  In 2009, the ACCJC accounted  
          for 44% of the total sanctions given to all higher education  
          institutions in the nation.  Many of these sanctions have been  
          inconsistent between the community colleges ACCJC accredits.   
          For example, City College of San Francisco failed to meet 9 out  
          of 11 standards identified by the ACCJC and now it is on the  
          verge of being disaccredited; however 2 other colleges failed  
          all 11 standards and were only given a warning.

          The federal government has recognized the need for change on  
          this issue.  On January 28, 2014, USDE notified ACCJC it was in  
          violation of 15 federal regulations, including those concerning  
          due process, notification of accrediting decisions, and review  
          and enforcement of standards.  

          Existing law does not require standards for due process,  
          transparency or accountability of accrediting entities. For  
          example, existing law does not require any notice, to the public  
          or the community college under review, disclosing accreditor  
          evaluations or reasons for sanctions.   In addition, California  
          regulations only allow one accrediting entity.  Without  








                                                                  AB 1942
                                                                  Page  6

          competition and minimum required standards for public  
          transparency, ACCJC will be allowed to continue to have a  
          negative impact on community colleges, making it difficult for  
          students to attain an affordable education. The standards in  
          this bill are necessary to ensure that CCCs are receiving a fair  
          and proper accreditation, based on standards that accurately  
          reflect the state's goals."

           Background on accreditation  .  Accreditation is a voluntary,  
          non-governmental peer review process used to determine academic  
          quality.  Accrediting agencies are private organizations that  
          establish operating standards for educational or professional  
          institutions and programs, determine the extent to which the  
          standards are met, and publicly announce their findings.  Under  
          federal law, USDE establishes the general standards for  
          accreditation agencies and is required to publish a list of  
          recognized accrediting agencies that are deemed reliable  
          authorities on the quality of education provided by their  
          accredited institutions.  There are three basic types of  
          accreditation:

          1)Regional Accreditation: There are six USDE-recognized regional  
            accrediting agencies. Each regional accreditor encompasses  
            public, the vast majority of non-profit private (independent),  
            and some for-profit postsecondary educational institutions in  
            the region it serves. California's regional accrediting agency  
            is separated into two commissions: ACCJC and the Senior  
            College and University Commission (WASC-Sr.). 

          2)National Accreditation: National accreditation is not based on  
            geography, but more focused to evaluate specific types of  
            schools and programs. National accreditation is designed to  
            allow nontraditional colleges (trade schools, religious  
            schools, certain online schools) to be compared against  
            similarly designed institutions.  Different standards and  
            categories are measured, depending on the type of institution.  
             

          3)Specialized/Programmatic Accreditation:  Offered by  
            accrediting agencies that represent specific fields of study,  
            these agencies do not accredit entire colleges but instead  
            accredit the programs within colleges that prepare students  
            for the specific field or industry.  In most cases,  
            specialized accreditation alone does not enable participation  
            in state and federal financial aid programs.








                                                                  AB 1942
                                                                  Page  7


          As noted, accreditation is regulated by the federal government;  
          institutional accreditation is a requirement for participation  
          in federal financial aid programs.  Under federal regulations,  
          accrediting agencies are required to meet general outlined  
          standards, but specific processes and quality standards are left  
          to each accrediting agency to determine.  

          Some states have established standards regarding accreditation  
          recognition for the purpose of state-level regulation and state  
          financial aid programs; and, it appears that some accrediting  
          agencies participate in state-level requirements.  However, an  
          accrediting agency's decision to participate in state-level  
          standards is unrelated to their federal recognition.  

           ACCJC  .  ACCJC is the regional accrediting agency for community  
          colleges in the western region (California, Hawaii, and U.S.  
          territories).  Commission membership consists of the  
          institutions ACCJC has accredited; the 19 ACCJC commissioners  
          are elected by a vote of the presidents of the member-colleges  
          and serve up to two three-year terms.  Commissioners must fall  
          within the following categories:

          1)One representative of the CCC Chancellor's Office;  

           2)One representative from the Hawaii community colleges system  
            office;  

           3)At least five academic faculty; 

           4)At least three public members;  

           5)At least three community college administrators;  

           6)At least one independent institutional representative;  

           7)At least one representative of WASC Sr. accredited  
            institutions;  
                
          8)At least one representative of the institutions in the  
            American Affiliated Pacific Islands;  
                 
           ACCJC bylaws govern, among other areas, commission meetings,  
          responsibilities of commissioners, and the appeal process for  
          institutions appealing a denial or termination of accreditation.  








                                                                  AB 1942
                                                                  Page  8

           ACCJC bylaws may be amended by a majority vote of the  
          Commissioners.  Under ACCJC bylaws, the President (Chief  
          Executive Officer) is appointed, and may be removed, by the  
          Commissioners.  The President is responsible for general  
          supervision, direction, and control of ACCJC operations.  

           Section 1:  BOG minimum standards and accreditation  .  Under  
          current regulations, BOG relies on accreditation by ACCJC to  
          ensure that CCCs have met the minimum educational quality  
          standards required to receive state apportionment funding.   
          Section 1 of this bill would require the BOG to, instead,  
          establish specific minimum standards and would require the BOG  
          to evaluate CCCs against those standards to determine  
          eligibility for apportionment funding.  The BOG would be  
          authorized to rely, to a limited degree, on accreditation;  
          however, only if the accrediting agency agrees to various  
          statutory requirements (See: Section 3: Requirements on  
          accrediting agencies).  Accreditation would no longer be  
          required if the CCC otherwise meets the new BOG standards.  In  
          regards to Section 1 of this bill, the Committee should  
          consider: 

           1)Should the state continue to fund unaccredited CCCs  ?  This  
            bill would effectively allow an unaccredited CCC to continue  
            to receive state apportionment funding.  However, under  
            existing provisions of federal and state law, an unaccredited  
            CCC would be ineligible for financial aid programs.  It is  
            also likely that students at an unaccredited CCC would have  
            difficulty transferring credits earned to other colleges and  
            universities.  

           2)Should CCCs be required to undergo accreditation and a BOG  
            quality process  ?  This bill would require BOG to establish  
            minimum standards for receipt of apportionment funding and  
            would allow BOG to rely on accreditation to determine  
            compliance only when an accrediting agency has agreed to the  
            requirements outlined in Section 3 of this analysis.  As  
            previously indicated, the ability of California to mandate  
            accreditation agency activities is severely limited as  
            accreditation is regulated by the federal government.  

            In speaking with accrediting agency representatives, Committee  
            staff understands that it is very unlikely that an accrediting  
            agency would agree to the terms outlined in this bill.  In the  
            event no accrediting agency meets the requirements of the  








                                                                  AB 1942
                                                                  Page  9

            bill, CCCs would need to prove compliance with BOG minimum  
            standards through a process established by BOG.  Accreditation  
            is required for participation in federal and state financial  
            aid programs and, generally, for transfer of credits to other  
            higher educational institutions; it would still be necessary  
            for CCC to retain ACCJC accreditation for these purposes. 

            Currently there is one CCC at serious risk of losing  
            accreditation: City College of San Francisco.  Yet, under the  
            provisions of this bill, the other 111 CCCs, whom are not  
            currently at risk of losing accreditation, would likely be  
            required to continue their ACCJC accreditation as well as  
            undergo this new BOG review process.  An accreditation review  
            is a significant and time-consuming process; the Committee  
            should consider the impact on CCC operations if colleges are  
            required to undergo a full institutional accreditation process  
            by, essentially, two accrediting agencies: ACCJC and, under  
            the provisions of this bill, BOG.  

          The author and Committee may wish to consider striking Section 1  
          of this bill and, instead, requiring the BOG/CCCCO to establish  
          a Task Force to report to the Legislature on the circumstances  
          under which it may be appropriate to allow a CCC that has lost  
          (and is seeking to regain) accreditation to retain eligibility  
          for apportionment funding, on a limited term basis.   
          
           Section 2:  BOG membership.   This bill would expand the BOG  
          membership from 16 to 22 voting members; adding three members  
          appointed by the Senate Rules Committee and three appointed by  
          the Speaker of the Assembly.  The policy rationale for this  
          change is unclear.  

          In the absence of a clear rationale for this change, the author  
          and Committee may wish to consider removing Section2 from the  
          bill.
          
           Section 3:  Requirements on accrediting agencies .  This bill  
          would allow CCC governing boards to choose their own accrediting  
          agency, and would establish numerous requirements on an  
          accrediting agency recognized by the BOG to accredit CCCs.  The  
          Committee should consider:     
           
          1)Competition in accreditation  .  This bill would allow CCC  
            governing boards to choose their own accrediting agency, so  
            long as that accrediting agency is recognized by the USDE.  As  








                                                                  AB 1942
                                                                  Page  10

            previously outlined, while the federal government sets base  
            requirements for accrediting agencies, each agency is provided  
            broad authority to establish standards and the processes for  
            measuring those standards.  The author argues that ACCJC  
            standards are higher than other accrediting agencies and CCCs  
            should be allowed to shop for alternative accreditation  
            options.  However, the Committee should consider if  
            competition among accreditors would result in a race to the  
            bottom in regards to accreditation standards.  Are lower/fewer  
            quality standards in the best interest of California's  
            students and economy?  

            It should be noted that California and Hawaii are the only two  
            states in the nation with two regional accrediting agencies:   
            ACCJC for community colleges and WASC Sr. for universities.   
            The California Master Plan for Higher Education establishes  
            clear requirements for integration and collaboration between  
            CCCs and our public universities.  It may be appropriate to  
            evaluate whether this current process serves the state's  
            needs, or whether a single regional accrediting agency would  
            better meet California's higher education goals.

           2)Accrediting agencies as public entities  .  This bill  
            establishes numerous requirements on an accrediting agency  
            providing accreditation of CCCs.  The requirements include the  
            composition of review committees, the standards by which CCCs  
            are evaluated, document retention, Bagley Keene open meeting  
            requirements, Public Records Act requirements, independent  
            appeal process requirements, among other requirements.  As  
            previously indicated, accrediting agencies are private  
            membership-based non-profit organizations recognized by the  
            USDE.  While these agencies provide accreditation of  
            institutions receiving public funding, they are not themselves  
            public entities.  

            Certainly a strong argument can be made that, because of the  
            role accrediting agencies play in oversight of institutions  
                                                    receiving public funding, there should be additional  
            transparency in the accreditation process.  The ability of the  
            state to enforce these requirements, however, is virtually  
            non-existent.  Accrediting agencies could simply choose not to  
            provide accreditation of colleges in California; this would,  
            as previously outlined, effectively eliminate CCC student  
            eligibility for state and federal financial aid, and place at  
            risk the transferability of student credits to other higher  








                                                                  AB 1942
                                                                  Page  11

            education institutions. 

            As previously outlined, accrediting agency operations are  
            largely determined by their President and commissioners, whom  
            are elected by the accredited college presidents.  With 112  
            CCC members of ACCJC, there appears to be an opportunity for  
            CCCs who are dissatisfied with ACCJC operations and leadership  
            to work to enact changes to ACCJC policies and standards. 

          The author and Committee may wish to consider striking Section 3  
          of the bill and, instead requiring the accrediting commission  
          providing accreditation of CCCs to report to the Legislature  
          regarding accreditation decisions affecting CCCs, and, on a  
          biannual basis, policy changes affecting the accreditation  
          process.  In the event that ACCJC refuses to comply with this  
          requirement, the CCCCO, who maintains a representative on ACCJC,  
          could be required to transmit this information to the  
          appropriate Legislative policy committees. 

           REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION  :   

           Support 
           
          California Federation of Teachers
          California Labor Federation
          California School Employees Association
          California Teachers Association
          Los Angeles College Faculty Guild
          Peralta Federation of Teachers
          San Francisco Community College Federation of Teachers
          San Jose/Evergreen Federation of Teachers
          San Mateo Community College Federation of Teachers

           Opposition 
           
          Chief Executive Officers of the California Community Colleges
           

          Analysis Prepared by  :    Laura Metune / HIGHER ED. / (916)  
          319-3960 













                                                                  AB 1942
                                                                  Page  12