BILL ANALYSIS Ó
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|SENATE RULES COMMITTEE | AB 1385|
|Office of Senate Floor Analyses | |
|(916) 651-1520 Fax: (916) | |
|327-4478 | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
THIRD READING
Bill No: AB 1385
Author: Ting (D), et al.
Amended: 7/8/15 in Senate
Vote: 21
SENATE EDUCATION COMMITTEE: 6-3, 7/15/15
AYES: Runner, Block, Leyva, Mendoza, Pan, Vidak
NOES: Liu, Hancock, Monning
ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 62-18, 6/4/15 - See last page for vote
SUBJECT: Community colleges: accreditation
SOURCE: Author
DIGEST: 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.
ANALYSIS: 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 §
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.
AB 1385
Page 2
This bill:
1)Prohibits the accrediting agency from imposing a special
assessment on community colleges for the accrediting agency's
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 (USDE) 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.
Comments
1)Need for the bill. According to the author, the assessments
imposed by the 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 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 CCC 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
AB 1385
Page 3
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. 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 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)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
AB 1385
Page 4
serve up to two three-year terms. Commissioners must fall
within the following categories:
a) One representative of the 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; and
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
USDE 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,
accrediting entities must demonstrate compliance with all the
criteria for recognition.
AB 1385
Page 5
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 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 CCC 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 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.
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
AB 1385
Page 6
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 implements a prohibition exclusively applicable to
the accrediting agency for CCCs and exclusively applicable to
its California community college membership. Federal
regulations (34 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Section
602.14) require accrediting agencies to be separate and
independent of other organizations, including groups within
its membership. This bill's provisions may raise concerns
regarding whether or not the accreditor can 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. Arguably, this bill's provisions could 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 its provisions
may violate federal requirements and grants the Chancellor's
Office the authority to make this determination and set aside
these provisions.
Related Legislation
AB 1397 (Ting, 2015) requires the accrediting agency for the CCC
to meet specified operational standards. AB 1397 passed out of
the Senate Education Committee and is currently pending in the
Senate Appropriations Committee.
AB 404 (Chiu, 2015) requires the regional accrediting agency for
the CCC to report to the CCC BOG the date by which the agency's
application for continued recognition is due and requires the
AB 1385
Page 7
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 the Senate Education Committee and is pending in
the Senate Appropriations Committee.
FISCAL EFFECT: Appropriation: No Fiscal
Com.:NoLocal: No
SUPPORT: (Verified 7/30/15)
California Community College Independents
California Labor Association
California School Employees
California Teachers Association
Golden Gate Restaurant Association
OPPOSITION: (Verified 7/30/15)
Accrediting Commission for Community and Junior Colleges
Association of California Community College Administrators
Community College League of California
MTI College
North Orange County Community College District
WASC Senior College and University Commission
ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 62-18, 6/4/15
AYES: Achadjian, Alejo, Travis Allen, Bloom, Bonilla, Bonta,
Brown, Burke, Calderon, Campos, Chang, Chau, Chiu, Chu,
Cooley, Cooper, Dababneh, Daly, Dodd, Eggman, Frazier,
Cristina Garcia, Eduardo Garcia, Gatto, Gipson, Gomez,
Gonzalez, Gordon, Gray, Grove, Roger Hernández, Holden, Irwin,
Jones, Jones-Sawyer, Levine, Linder, Lopez, Low, Maienschein,
Mayes, McCarty, Medina, Mullin, Nazarian, O'Donnell,
Patterson, Perea, Quirk, Rendon, Ridley-Thomas, Rodriguez,
Salas, Santiago, Mark Stone, Thurmond, Ting, Wagner, Weber,
Williams, Wood, Atkins
NOES: Baker, Bigelow, Brough, Chávez, Dahle, Beth Gaines,
Gallagher, Hadley, Harper, Kim, Lackey, Mathis, Melendez,
AB 1385
Page 8
Obernolte, Olsen, Steinorth, Waldron, Wilk
Prepared by:Olgalilia Ramirez / ED. / (916) 651-4105
8/13/15 13:47:25
**** END ****