BILL ANALYSIS Ó
AB 404
Page 1
Date of Hearing: April 29, 2015
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
Jimmy Gomez, Chair
AB
404 (Chiu) - As Amended April 13, 2015
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Policy |Higher Education |Vote:|12 - 0 |
|Committee: | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
|-------------+-------------------------------+-----+-------------|
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
|-------------+-------------------------------+-----+-------------|
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Urgency: No State Mandated Local Program: NoReimbursable: No
SUMMARY:
This bill:
AB 404
Page 2
1)Requires the regional accrediting agency for the California
Community Colleges (CCC) to report to the CCC Board of
Governors (BOG) after the National Advisory Committee on
Institutional Quality and Integrity (NICIQI) has notified the
agency of the date by which the its application for continued
recognition is due.
2)Requires the CCC BOG to conduct a survey of the CCC, including
faculty and classified personnel, to develop a
report-reflecting a systemwide evaluation of the accrediting
agency based on criteria used to determine an accreditor's
status-to be transmitted to the United States Department of
Education (USDE) and NICIQI.
FISCAL EFFECT:
Minor one-time General Fund cost (around $50,000) for the
Chancellor's Office of the CCC to develop and conduct the
survey, summarize the survey data, and prepare the required
report.
COMMENTS:
1)Purpose. According to the author, "there has been a historical
lack of accountability for an accrediting agency overseeing
the CCCs. This deficiency is due to fear of retribution,
scarce local resources, and the absence of a pathway for CCC
and other local stakeholders to provide meaningful feedback
during an accrediting agency's performance review process for
continued accreditation recognition." The author notes that
AB 404
Page 3
in past NACIQI reviews of CCC's accrediting agency, there has
not been a strong voice for the CCC system as a whole;
further, the CCC system does not currently have a method for
soliciting feedback from colleges, faculty, and other
stakeholders. The author believes that increasing
participation in the accrediting agency review process will
increase accrediting agency's accountability.
2)Background. 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 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. 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.
USDE relies on NACIQI, an 18-member committee appointed
equally by the Secretary of Education, House of
Representatives, and the Senate, to review accrediting
agencies and advise the Secretary on whether an accrediting
agency is a reliable authority regarding the quality of the
education provided by the institutions it accredits.
There are six USDE-recognized regional accrediting agencies.
AB 404
Page 4
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; The Accrediting Commission for Community
and Junior Colleges (ACCJC) is the regional accrediting agency
for community colleges in the western region (California,
Hawaii, and U.S. territories).
Between 2003 and 2008, ACCJC had placed 37% of CCCs on
"sanction" (at risk of losing accreditation). A study of
other regional accreditors showed that during this same time,
the percentage of community colleges being sanctioned ranged
from 0 to 6%. The large number of penalties for community
colleges under ACCJCs jurisdiction led community college
leaders, faculty, and staff to, through the CCC Chancellor's
Office (CCCCO) Consultation Council, review and make
recommendations regarding ACCJC's actions.
In June of 2014, the BSA released an audit of ACCJC's
application of the accreditation process. The audit was
conducted at the request of the Joint Legislative Audit
Committee (JLAC) following concerns among several legislators
over the ACCJC decision to terminate accreditation for City
College of San Francisco (CCSF). The BSA audit includes a
series of recommendations to improve CCC accreditation; among
the recommendations supported by CCCCO, BSA recommended the
CCCCO facilitate improved communication between CCCs and
ACCJC. BSA also recommended allowing CCCs flexibility to
choose an accrediting agency; the CCCCO responded that this
recommendation should not be pursued as it could lead to
AB 404
Page 5
reduced transparency, reduced employee mobility within CCCs,
and added challenges in overseeing colleges effectively. The
CCC BOG took action to remove ACCJC from the regulatory
requirement for CCC accreditation, but will still require a
single accreditor for all colleges.
3)Related Legislation. AB 1397 (Ting), pending in Assembly
Higher Education, requires the accrediting agency for CCC to
provide an opportunity for public comment prior to taking
action related to the accreditation status of a community
college.
Analysis Prepared by:Chuck Nicol / APPR. / (916)
319-2081