BILL ANALYSIS Ó SENATE COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION Carol Liu, Chair 2013-2014 Regular Session BILL NO: AB 1942 AUTHOR: Bonta AMENDED: June 18, 2014 FISCAL COMM: Yes HEARING DATE: June 25, 2014 URGENCY: No CONSULTANT:Daniel Alvarez SUBJECT : Community colleges: accreditation. SUMMARY Requires an agreement between each California community college (district) and the accrediting agency for the California Community Colleges regarding (a) public participation at agency meetings, (b) prohibition of requiring persons to identify themselves, as specified, (c) provision of 14-day notice of a meeting, as specified; (d) preservation of all documents related to an accreditation for at least 6 years; and (e) delineation of a path to compliance when imposing a sanction of revocation or show cause. Requires the California Community Colleges (CCCs) Board of Governors (BOG) to review accreditation when determining compliance with minimum operating conditions for CCCs to receive state apportionment; requires specified reporting on accreditation policies and decisions. BACKGROUND Existing law confers upon the Board of Governors of the California Community Colleges the ability to prescribe minimum standards for the formation and operation of community colleges and exercise general supervision over the community colleges. (Education Code § 66700 and § 70901) As such, regulations (Title 5 California Code of Regulations (CCR) Section 51016) have been adopted to require each community college within a district to be an accredited institution - with the Accrediting Commission for Community and Junior Colleges (ACCJC) determining AB 1942 Page 2 accreditation. ANALYSIS Establishes requirements of the accrediting agency for the California Community Colleges regarding (a) public participation at agency meetings, (b) prohibition of requiring persons to identify themselves, as specified, (c) provision of 14-day notice of a meeting, as specified; (d) preservation of all documents related to an accreditation for at least 6 years; and (e) delineation of a path to compliance when imposing a sanction of revocation or show cause. Requires the California Community Colleges (CCCs) Board of Governors (BOG) to review accreditation when determining compliance with minimum operating conditions for CCCs to receive state apportionment; requires specified reporting on accreditation policies and decisions. More specifically, this bill: 1) Requires the BOG, in determining if a CCC district satisfies the minimum conditions for receipt of apportionment funding, to review the accreditation status of the CCCs within that district. 2) Requires the accrediting agency for CCCs to report to the appropriate policy and budget subcommittees of the Legislature upon the issuance of a decision that affects the accreditation status of a community college and, on a biannual basis, any accreditation policy changes that affect the accreditation process or status for a CCC. 3) Requires the CCC Chancellor's Office to ensure that the appropriate policy and budget subcommittees are provided the aforementioned required information. 4) Requires, after January 1, 2015, an agreement (contract) between the accrediting agency and each of the California Community Colleges to include all of the following provisions: a) Requires the accrediting agency to afford AB 1942 Page 3 public participation for all meetings regarding the accreditation process. All persons shall be permitted to attend those meetings. The accrediting agency must provide an opportunity for the public to directly address each agenda item before or during the agency's consideration of the item. b) Requires the accrediting agency from prohibiting criticism of its policies, programs, or services, or any acts or omissions of the accreditor, relating to the accreditation process or status for a community college. c) Specifies it is the intent of this agreement that the accrediting agency's proceedings relating to the accreditation process be conducted openly. d) Specifies that no person shall be required, as a condition to attend a meeting of the accrediting agency to register his or her name, to provide other information, to complete a questionnaire, or similar document, as specified. e) Requires the accrediting agency to provide notice of a meeting relating to the accreditation process to any person who requests that notice in writing. Notice shall also be given on the accrediting agency Internet Web site at least 14 days in advance of the meeting, as specified. 5) Requires the accrediting agency to ensure all documents generated related to accreditation be preserved for no less than 6 years, as specified. 6) Specifies that the Legislature recommends that the accrediting agency, when imposing a sanction of revocation or show cause to the maximum extent feasible, delineate a path to compliance with specificity, and allow time in a manner that complies with the accrediting agency policies and federal guidelines. STAFF COMMENTS AB 1942 Page 4 1) Need for the bill . According to the author's office, this bill restores fair accreditation practices to California's community colleges, the largest system of higher education in the United State, serving 2.4 million students annually. This bill accomplishes these tasks by increasing public participation in the accreditation process, increasing accountability on the accrediting agency, and ensuring that the Legislature has some oversight on the accreditation process by increasing reporting requirements by the accrediting agency. 2) Accreditation is required to receive state appropriations (funding) and to be eligible for federal and state financial aid programs. Accreditation is a method used in this country to generally: (1) assure quality, (2) provide access to government funding, (3) generate stakeholder support, and (4) facilitate credit transfer for and to educational institutions. 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, the U.S. Department of Education (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: a) 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. AB 1942 Page 5 California's regional accrediting agency is separated into two commissions: the Accrediting Commission for Community and Junior Colleges (ACCJC) and the Senior College and University Commission (WASC-Sr.). b) 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. c) 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. 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. 1) Accrediting Commission for Community and Junior AB 1942 Page 6 Colleges (ACCJC) . The 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 commissioners are elected by a vote of the presidents of the member-colleges and serve up to two three-year terms. The ACCJC bylaws govern, among other areas, commission meetings, responsibilities of commissioners, and the appeal process for institutions appealing a denial or termination of accreditation. The 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. 2) Accreditation of California community colleges . After an initial accreditation, colleges must have their accreditation reaffirmed every six years. This process includes a self-study, a site visit by a team of peers, a recommendation by the visiting team and an action by the ACCJC. In addition to these core components, colleges must submit a midterm report every three years and annual progress reports. The college/district may also have to submit follow-up reports and host visits as required by the Commission. There are three levels of sanction prior to termination of accreditation: Warning, Probation, and Show Cause. Follow up reports and accreditation visits are required to retain full accreditation. Many California community colleges have faced various levels of accreditation sanctions, including Show Cause. With the exception of Compton College in 2004, all have retained accreditation. As of February 2014, there were 12 California community colleges on Warning status, one community college (Hartnell College) on Probation status and one community college on Show Cause status-City College of San Francisco. AB 1942 Page 7 3) Requirements on community colleges and accrediting agency and possible unintended consequences . The ambiguity of this bill presumably requires all community colleges (districts) to have an agreement (contract), with the accrediting agency, that includes numerous provisions ranging from public participation for all meetings regarding the accreditation process to long-term preservation of documents. Respectful public discourse, by and large, is a healthy and positive necessity to insure the public is informed of actions related to the accreditation of a public institution; as such, it should be noted that federal regulations governing accrediting agencies require that the public have access to among other things, specified materials describing the types of accreditation, and the standards and procedures it uses whether to grant, reaffirm, restrict or terminate accreditation, and provide for third-party comments concerning an institution's or program's qualifications for accreditation or preaccreditation, how this is accomplished is generally left to the discretion of the accrediting agency. This bill by requiring the accrediting agency to enter into an agreement (contract) with each community college, the accrediting agency loses its autonomy. Accreditors are required to be independent bodies for federal recognition. It appears that the provisions in this measure may be in conflict with federal regulations. While an argument can be made that, because of the role accrediting agencies play in oversight of public institutions, there should be additional transparency in the accreditation process. However, an equal argument can be made that the strength of the peer-review process should not be jeopardized or compromised because accreditation is a voluntary, non-governmental peer review process used to determine academic quality. As was mentioned at a prior hearing of this Committee, confidentiality between the accrediting agency and AB 1942 Page 8 community colleges is an element of the process before formal action is taken; this "give and take" during an accreditation review process is an important facet - preventing outside pressures, prejudices, or misinterpretations from being inserted - thereby limiting a "jump to conclusions" that may be based on a subset of information that could harm an institutions' view in the public's eye. However, it should also be noted, as with the accreditation process itself, it is hoped that the ACCJC could use some continued self-examination and internal discussion to review its practices of required public participation in its proceedings, and reform its practices to provide meaningful and reasonable implementation of the federal regulation. Only by this self-evaluation and analysis can the ACCJC continue to garner the confidence of the public and quite possibly the federal government in its endeavors. Finally, this measure by requiring agreements between the accrediting agency and each community college "opens the door" for insertion of other "items" in an agreement that conceivably have limited relationship to the academic quality or accreditation, thereby leaving the public with an uneven understanding about what process or requirements are at play. An effective accreditation process should strive to maintain and support public confidence in the system, which hopefully fosters the underlying instruction of students and leads to higher quality community colleges. The stakes are too high to jeopardize an accrediting agency's status with the federal government; leaving California without a federally approved accrediting body and effectively eliminating CCC student eligibility for state and federal financial aid, and place at risk the transferability of student credits to other institutions. 4) Related legislation . AB 1942 Page 9 a) SB 965 (Leno), this bill provides the San Francisco Community College District with a revenue stream, in an attempt to stabilize and maintain a predictable funding base, over three years as the college works to restore student enrollment and maintain accreditation. This bill was held on the Senate Appropriations suspense file. b) SB 1068 (Beall), this bill originally permitted a community college district to designate a federally recognized accrediting agency to accredit community colleges under its jurisdiction. In addition, the bill requires the Board of Governors of the California Community Colleges (CCC), by January 1, 2016, to report on the feasibility of creating an independent accrediting agency to accredit the CCCs and other two-year private postsecondary educational institutions for the purposes of complying with federal law, and state authorized financial aid. This bill was held on the Senate Appropriations suspense file. c) AB 1199 (Fong), this bill essentially establishes a loan program for community colleges under specified accreditation sanctions. This bill requires the Board of Governors (BOG) of the California Community Colleges (CCC) to adopt a revenue funding formula that provides CCC districts under specified accreditation status (probation or "show cause"), a second year of declining enrollment revenue relief, provided certain conditions are met, and the district must pay back the second year of declining enrollment revenue in equal installments over the following two years. This bill was held in Senate Education at the request of the author. d) AB 2087 (Ammiano), this bill requires the regulations that describe the conditions under which the Board of Governors may appoint a special trustee to manage a community college district must include specific benchmarks to AB 1942 Page 10 indicate the presence of local capacity to resume management of the community college district and clear standards that provide for meaningful consultation by a special trustee with the community college district prior to decisionmaking. This bill is awaiting hearing in the Senate Appropriations Committee. e) AB 2247 (Williams), this bill requires all campuses of every public and private postsecondary education institution in California that receives state or federal financial aid funding to make available on the institution's website the following accreditation documents: the institution's institutional accreditation visiting team reports and the institutional accreditation agency action letters, as specified. This measure passed this Committee on a 7-0 vote on June 18, 2014. 5) State Auditor Report estimated for June 26, 2014 . In 2013, the Joint Legislative Audit Committee approved an audit by the California State Auditor to independently develop and verify information related to the Accrediting Commission for Community and Junior Colleges (ACCJC). The scope of the audit will examine ACCJC and its accreditation of California Community Colleges for the period 2009 through 2013 and will include, but not be limited to, a review of three accredited community colleges, including two that the ACCJC has sanctioned, and to the extent possible determine the following: a) Whether the ACCJC accreditation process was conducted consistent with applicable state laws and regulations and was applied consistently among colleges. Further, assess the extent to which ACCJC policies comply with applicable state requirements. b) How the ACCJC's accreditation process incorporates measures of educational quality- for example student achievement-and whether the ACCJC's use of such measures is reasonable and AB 1942 Page 11 effective. c) Whether the ACCJC has required any of the selected colleges to take action that was inconsistent with applicable laws or policies, including with respect to the colleges' governance structure. d) To the extent possible, describe ACCJC's policies, and any changes to those policies, in effect between 2009 and 2013 for retaining documents relating to community college accreditations. It would seem that the audit may be informative on possible issues and present potential recommendations for future legislative review and action; is it prudent to pursue legislation that may presuppose outcomes, without the benefit of an audit analysis by the State Auditor? Given the Comments provided under # 5, # 6 and # 7 above, staff recommends amendments that on page 5, strike lines 37 through 39, and strikes pages 6 and 7. SUPPORT Adjunct Faculty United AFT/CFT Cabrillo College Federation of Teachers California Community Colleges Independents California Federation of Teachers California Labor Federation Coast Federation of Educators Faculty Association of California Community Colleges Peralta Federation of Teachers OPPOSITION None on file.