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