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.