BILL ANALYSIS Ó
AB 1397
Page 1
Date of Hearing: May 20, 2015
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
Jimmy Gomez, Chair
AB
1397 (Ting) - As Amended May 5, 2015
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Policy |Higher Education |Vote:|10 - 3 |
|Committee: | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
|-------------+-------------------------------+-----+-------------|
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
|-------------+-------------------------------+-----+-------------|
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Urgency: No State Mandated Local Program: NoReimbursable: No
SUMMARY:
This bill requires the accrediting agency for the California
Community Colleges (CCC) to meet specified operational
standards, including:
AB 1397
Page 2
1)Requiring each visiting accreditation team to have an
appropriate share of academics.
2)Establishing and enforcing procedures so that accreditation
team members do not have conflicts of interest, as specified.
3)Ensuring that those wanting to appear at open meeting sessions
of the agency have an opportunity to attend, and allowing
sufficient time for public comment.
4)Making minutes of open portions of meetings and accreditation
votes available on the agency's website.
5)Preserving all documents generated during a
accreditation-related review for at least 36 months.
6)Providing a community college district with advance notice of
an accreditation decision and an opportunity to respond.
7)Sharing any accreditation team's recommendation for action
with the district at least six weeks prior to the agency
making a decision on that recommendation.
8)Having a written policy identifying a period for an
institution to correct any deficiencies and criteria for
altering that period.
9)Providing an institution subject to sanction an opportunity to
appeal the decision.
AB 1397
Page 3
FISCAL EFFECT:
To the extent compliance with the above increases the
accrediting agency's operating costs, the accreditation fees
charged by the agency to community colleges may increase. The
additional costs to districts would not be state reimbursable.
COMMENTS:
1)Purpose. According to the author, AB 1397 establishes
reasonable parameters under which any accreditation agency
should operate in the course of overseeing California's
community and junior colleges. The author believes this
legislation creates strong conflict of interest policies,
provides due process to our education institutions and
stakeholders, requires open decision-making, and creates a
meaningful appeals process.
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
AB 1397
Page 4
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.
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) 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
AB 1397
Page 5
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
reduced transparency, reduced employee mobility within CCCs,
and added challenges in overseeing colleges effectively. The
CCC Board of Governors (BOG) took action to remove ACCJC from
the regulatory requirement for CCC accreditation, but will
still require a single accreditor for all colleges.
This bill sets a precedent that the state has a role in the
peer-review and oversight provided by an accrediting agency.
Proponents argue that accrediting agencies play an important
role in oversight of institutions receiving public funding,
and that the public has an interest in fairness in
accreditation. Conversely, the Community College League of
California argues that accreditation is meant to be a
peer-review process, governed by a national standard. The
League argues this bill would make it very difficult for the
agency to comply with federal requirements and attract
qualified staff, visiting team members, or commissioners.
3)Related Legislation. AB 404 (Chiu), awaiting referral in the
Senate, requires the CCC BOG to conduct a survey of the CCC,
including faculty and classified personnel, to develop a
report to be transmitted to the USDE that reflects a
systemwide evaluation of the agency based on criteria used to
determine an accreditor's status.
AB 1397
Page 6
AB 1385 (Ting), pending in the Assembly, prohibits the
accrediting agency for the CCCs from imposing a special
assessment on CCCs for legal fees for any lawsuit, unless
there has been an affirmative vote of the majority of the
chief executive officers, or their designees, of all of the
CCCs.
Analysis Prepared by:Chuck Nicol / APPR. / (916)
319-2081