BILL ANALYSIS Ó
SENATE COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION
Senator Carol Liu, Chair
2015 - 2016 Regular
Bill No: AB 1385
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Author: |Ting |
|-----------+-----------------------------------------------------|
|Version: |July 8, 2015 Hearing |
| |Date: July 15, 2015 |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Urgency: |No |Fiscal: |No |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Consultant:|Olgalilia Ramirez |
| | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Community colleges: accreditation
SUMMARY
This bill prohibits the accrediting agency for California
Community Colleges (CCC) from imposing a special assessment on
CCCs for legal fees related to a lawsuit, unless there has been
an affirmative vote by the majority of the chief executive
officers, or their designees, of all the CCCs.
BACKGROUND
Existing law confers upon the CCC Board of Governor's (BOG) 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) § 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 accreditation.
ANALYSIS
This bill:
1)Prohibits the accrediting agency from imposing a special
assessment on community colleges for the accrediting agency's
AB 1385 (Ting) Page 2
of ?
legal fees for any lawsuit, unless there has been affirmative
vote of the majority of the chief executive officer, of all
the community colleges.
2)Provides that each community college, as represented by its chief
executive office or designee, shall be eligible to cast a vote
on the assessment.
3)Provides that this provision does not apply to the accrediting
agency's activities that are related to private educational
institutions in the state or educational institutions outside
of the state.
4)Provides that this section does not affect the authority of the
United States Department of Education regarding educational
institutions.
5)Sets aside the provisions of this bill if it is determined by the
CCC Chancellor that federal criteria for recognition of an
accrediting agency prohibits a recognized accrediting agency
from complying with the requirements of this bill.
STAFF COMMENTS
1)Need for the bill. According to the author, the assessments
imposed by the Accrediting Commission for Community and Junior
Colleges (ACCJC) to its members to fund legal fees are
unreasonable and excessive. The author notes that following
the decision to terminate the accreditation of City College of
San Francisco, the Accrediting Commission for Community and
Junior Colleges (ACCJC) imposed a 5% special assessment to its
member institution for the 2014-15 fiscal years due to a
significant reduction in its reserves. The author further
asserts that due to ACCJC's "mixed history of abiding by laws
and regulations governing the accrediting process," there is a
need to shield that state from mounting legal costs. This bill
seeks to provide California Community College Chief Executive
Officers the ability to approve or reject special assessments
by their accreditor to cover the accreditor's legal expenses.
2)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
AB 1385 (Ting) Page 3
of ?
institutions and programs, determine the extent to which the
standards are met, and publicly announce their findings.
Under federal law, the United States 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.
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.
3)Accrediting Commission for Community and Junior 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 Accrediting Commission for Community and Junior
Colleges (ACCJC) has accredited; the 19 commissioners are
elected by a vote of the presidents of the member-colleges and
AB 1385 (Ting) Page 4
of ?
serve up to two three-year terms. Commissioners must fall
within the following categories:
a) One representative of the California Community Colleges
(CCC) Chancellor's Office;
b) One representative from the Hawaii community colleges
system office;
c) At least five academic faculty;
d) At least three public members;
e) At least three community college administrators;
f) At least one independent institutional representative;
g) At least one representative of WASC Sr. accredited
institutions;
h) At least one representative of the institutions in the
American Affiliated Pacific Islands.
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.
4)Who evaluates ACCJC standards? The National Advisory Committee
on Institutional Quality and Integrity advises the United
States Department of Education on matters related to
postsecondary accreditation and the eligibility and
certification process for higher education institutions to
participate in Federal student aid programs. Its primary
function is to provide recommendations to the U.S. Secretary
of Education concerning whether accrediting entities'
standards are sufficiently rigorous and effective in their
application to ensure the entity is a reliable authority
regarding the quality of the education provided by the
institutions or programs it accredits. To meet that standard,
AB 1385 (Ting) Page 5
of ?
accrediting entities must demonstrate compliance with all the
criteria for recognition.
5)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 Accrediting
Commission for Community and Junior Colleges (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 ACCJC. There are three
levels of sanctions 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. Most recently the sanctions
imposed on City College of San Francisco have drawn attention
to ACCJC and its accreditation process. The heightened
attention lead to an audit by the California State Auditor,
who on June 26, 2014, issued a report on California Community
Colleges Accreditation. This audit report provided both a
review of the ACCJC and the accreditation process in general,
as well as a more in-depth examination of recent events
related to City College of San Francisco. The report raised
some concerns of the ACCJC and the accreditation process and
made a series of recommendations to address the identified
concerns.
After the release of the State Auditor's report, the
California Community Colleges (CCC) Chancellor's Office
reconvened its Accreditation Task Force consisting of
community college stakeholders. The Accreditation Task Force
is charged with providing input through a report to the
Chancellor's Office regarding the accreditation process,
including addressing the State Auditor's recommendations. The
Accreditation Task Force held its final meeting at the end of
May 2015, and is in the process of finalizing and submitting
its final report later this year. The recommendations from the
taskforce may help shed light on issues and present potential
recommendations for future legislative review and action.
AB 1385 (Ting) Page 6
of ?
Should any statutory changes affecting an accrediting agency
be imposed prior to the receipt of the report and
recommendations of the Chancellor's Office Accreditation Task
Force?
6)Unintended consequences? This bill seeks to change the method by
which fees covering legal costs are imposed on member
institutions of the agency providing accreditation of CCCs. As
previously indicated, accrediting agencies are private,
membership-based, non-profit organizations recognized by the
USDE. While these agencies provide accreditation of public
institutions, they are not themselves public entities. The
ability of the state to enforce statutorily imposed
requirements is severely limited as accrediting agencies could
simply choose not to provide accreditation of community
colleges in California.
This bill would implement a prohibition exclusively applicable
to the accrediting agency for California Community Colleges
and exclusively applicable to its California community college
membership. Federal regulations (34 CFR Section 602.14)
require accrediting agencies to be separate and independent of
other organizations, including groups within its membership.
Can the accreditor be independent if it relies on a favorable
vote of those it accredits to fund activities related to its
duties?
Federal regulations (34 CFR Section 602.18) also require
accreditors to be consistent in applying standards to all of
its member institutions and to make decisions regarding
accreditation on the basis of the agency's published
standards. Would this bill's provisions be perceived as giving
California community colleges greater influence over
accreditation decisions than other colleges in the
accreditor's membership?
The bill already appears to contemplate that it's provisions
may violate federal requirements and grants the Chancellor's
Office the authority to make this determination and set aside
these provisions. Should this committee endorse a bill that
acknowledges it may be in violation of federal law, could
undermine the ability of the accrediting commission to
independently and effectively conduct its work, and
AB 1385 (Ting) Page 7
of ?
potentially compromise California Community College (CCC)
student eligibility for state and federal financial aid or the
transferability of student credits to other accredited
institutions?
7)Prior and related legislation.
AB 1397 (Ting, 2015) requires the accrediting agency for the
CCC to meet specified operational standards. AB 1397 is
scheduled to be heard in this Committee on July 15th.
AB 404 (Chiu, 2015) requires the regional accrediting agency
for the California Community Colleges (CCC) to report to the
CCC Board of Governors (BOG) the date by which the agency's
application for continued recognition is due and requires the
CCC BOG to conduct a survey of community colleges, as
specified, to develop a report, transmitted to specified
entities, that reflects a systemwide evaluation of the
regional accrediting agency. Passed this committee and is
pending in the Senate Appropriations Committee.
SB 1068 ( Beall, 2014) would have required the BOG CCC, by
January 1, 2016, to report on the feasibility of creating an
independent accrediting agency to accredit the CCC and other
2-year private postsecondary educational institutions, and to
make recommendations relative to CCC accreditation. SB 1068
was held on the Senate Appropriations suspense file.
SUPPORT
California Teachers Association
OPPOSITION
Accrediting Commission for Community and Junior Colleges (ACCJC)
Community College League of California
-- END --