BILL ANALYSIS Ó
AB 1397
Page 1
ASSEMBLY THIRD READING
AB
1397 (Ting)
As Amended May 28, 2015
Majority vote
-------------------------------------------------------------------
|Committee |Votes |Ayes |Noes |
| | | | |
| | | | |
|----------------+------+--------------------+----------------------|
|Higher |10-3 |Medina, Bloom, |Baker, Chávez, Harper |
|Education | |Irwin, | |
| | |Jones-Sawyer, | |
| | |Levine, Linder, | |
| | |Low, Santiago, | |
| | |Weber, Williams | |
| | | | |
|----------------+------+--------------------+----------------------|
|Appropriations |12-0 |Gomez, Bloom, | |
| | |Bonta, Calderon, | |
| | |Eggman, | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | |Eduardo Garcia, | |
| | |Holden, Quirk, | |
| | |Rendon, Wagner, | |
| | |Weber, Wood | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
-------------------------------------------------------------------
AB 1397
Page 2
SUMMARY: Establishes the California Community Colleges (CCCs)
Fair Accreditation Act of 2015 (Act) and requires the accrediting
agency for CCCs to meet specified operational standards.
Specifically, this bill requires:
1)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 Web site.
5)Preserving all documents generated during an
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
AB 1397
Page 3
period.
9)Providing an institution subject to sanction an opportunity to
appeal the decision and prohibiting appeal panel members from
having a conflict of interest.
EXISTING LAW:
1)Establishes the CCC Board of Governors (BOG) to provide general
supervision over the CCC and requires the BOG to prescribe
minimum standards for CCC formation and operation (Education
Code (EDC) Section 66700).
2)Requires the BOG to develop minimum standards governing academic
standards, employment policies and shared governance; evaluate
CCC fiscal and educational effectiveness and provide assistance
when districts encounter management difficulties; administer
state funding and establish minimum conditions entitling CCC
districts to receive state funds; requires the CCC 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 review and
approve educational programs (EDC Section 70901).
3)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; and, requires the CCC Chancellor's
Office to ensure that the appropriate policy and budget
subcommittees are provided the aforementioned required
information (EDC Sections 72208).
4)BOG regulations (5 California Code of Regulations (CCR) Section
AB 1397
Page 4
51016) require CCCs to be accredited by the Accrediting
Commission for Community and Junior Colleges (ACCJC). However,
BOG recently approved regulatory changes to remove the explicit
requirement of accreditation by the ACCJC. The regulatory
change would provide that accreditation shall be determined only
by an accrediting agency approved recommended by the CCC
Chancellor and approved by the BOG. The Board is authorized to
approve only an accreditor recognized and approved by the United
States Secretary of Education (USDE) under the Higher Education
Act of 1965 acting within the agency's scope of recognition by
the Secretary.
FISCAL EFFECT: According to the Assembly Appropriations
Committee, 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: Purpose of this bill. According to the author, this
bill 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.
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 institutions
and programs, determine the extent to which the standards are met,
and publicly announce their findings. Accrediting agency
membership consists of the accredited institutions and
organizational activities are funded through fees/dues required of
accredited institutions. Under federal law, the USDE establishes
AB 1397
Page 5
"criteria for recognition" of an accrediting agency and publishes
a list of "recognized" agencies. Institutions must be recognized
in order to participate in federal financial aid programs. Under
California law, institutions must be accredited in order to
participate in the Cal Grant Program. Accreditation, and most
commonly regional accreditation, is established by California's
public and independent universities as a requirement for transfer
of educational credits earned by a student at another institution.
Accrediting Commission for Community and Junior Colleges (ACCJC).
ACCJC is the regional accrediting agency for community colleges in
the western region (California, Hawaii, and United States
territories). Commission membership consists of the institutions
ACCJC has accredited. The 19 ACCJC commissioners are elected by a
vote of the presidents of the member-colleges and serve up to two
three-year terms.
ACCJC bylaws govern, among other areas, commission meetings,
responsibilities of commissioners, and the appeal process for
institutions appealing a denial or termination of accreditation.
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.
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.
AB 1397
Page 6
In June of 2014, the Bureau of State Audits (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 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.
Analysis Prepared by:
Laura Metune / HIGHER ED. / (916) 319-3960 FN:
0000543
AB 1397
Page 7