BILL ANALYSIS Ó
SENATE COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION
Senator Carol Liu, Chair
2015 - 2016 Regular
Bill No: AB 1397
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Author: |Ting |
|-----------+-----------------------------------------------------|
|Version: |July 8, 2015 Hearing |
| |Date: July 15, 2015 |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Urgency: |No |Fiscal: |Yes |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Consultant:|Olgalilia Ramirez |
| | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Community colleges: California Community Colleges
Fair Accreditation Act of 2015
SUMMARY
This bill establishes the California Community Colleges (CCC)
Fair Accreditation Act of 2015 and requires the accrediting
agency for CCCs to meet specified operational standards.
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 establishes the CCC Fair Accreditation Act of 2015 and
requires the accrediting agency for CCCs to meet specified
operational standards. Specifically it:
1)Establishes the following requirements for the accrediting
AB 1397 (Ting) Page 2
of ?
agency's decision making body and visiting teams:
a) Requires each visiting accreditation team to have an
appropriate share of academics and defines academics to
mean a person who is currently, or has recently directly
engaged in a significant manner in postsecondary teaching
or research.
b) Requires the agency to establish and enforce
procedures for the purpose of ensuring that accreditation
team members do not have conflicts of interest and
prohibits any person from serving on a visiting team who
has a conflict of interest defined as any circumstance in
which an individuals' capacity to make an impartial or
unbiased recommendation may be affected by:
i) Paid service in any capacity to the institution
under review.
ii) Servings as, or having a near relative serving
as, a current member, staff member, or consultant of the
agency's decision-making body or the institution's
governing body.
iii) Candidacy for employment at the institution
being evaluated.
iv) A written agreement with an institution that
may create a conflict of interest or appearance of a
conflict of interest with the institution being
evaluated.
v) Having a personal or financial interest in the
ownership or operation of the institution being
evaluated.
vi) Receipt of honoraria, honors, or awards from
the institution being evaluated.
vii) Other personal or professional connections that
would create a conflict of interest or the appearance of
a conflict of interest.
c) Requires a prospective member of a visiting team to
submit an appropriate disclosure form to the agency
AB 1397 (Ting) Page 3
of ?
declaring that he/she does not violate the conflict of
interest criteria. Requires copies of these forms to be
provided to the institution under review.
d) Prohibits revisions from being made by the agency to
a proposed visiting accreditation team report unless the
revision is share with members of the visiting
accreditation team and with the institution under review,
and each is afforded an opportunity to comment on the
revision.
2)Requires all of the following for meetings of the accrediting
agency for CCCs:
a) Members of the public who desire to appear at open
sessions agency meetings must have an opportunity to attend
those portions of the meetings.
b) A sufficient length of time must be allowed for
public comment, and public comment must be allowed prior to
action related to an institution's accreditation.
c) Accreditation decisions must be made by a vote of the
accrediting agency's decision-making body in a public
meeting. The outcome of the vote and minutes from the
meeting must be recorded and posted to the agency's
Internet Web site.
d) Prohibits any officer, employee, representative, or
consultant of the agency with an actual or appearance of a
conflict of interest, as specified, from participating in
discussion and voting.
3)Requires the agency to preserve all documents generated during an
accreditation-related review, including but not limited to,
email correspondence, for no less than 3 years after the
completion of an accreditation review. Requires all reports,
evaluations, recommendations, and decisions documents
generated during an accreditation related review to be related
indefinitely.
4)Requires the agency's accreditation-related decision to be based
on written, published standards in accordance with state and
federal statutes and regulations.
AB 1397 (Ting) Page 4
of ?
5)Establishes the following due process requirements:
a) A community college or a community college district
must be given advance notice of proposed visiting
accreditation team reports so that the college or district
may respond to correct factual errors or dissent from
conclusions.
b) The institution under review must be afforded
adequate time to review the reports at least six weeks
prior to a meeting of the agency's decision-making body at
which a decision relating to the institution's
accreditation is to be made.
c) Any visiting accrediting team recommendation for
action must be shared with the institutions under review at
least six weeks prior to a meeting of the agency's
decision-making body.
d) Any recommendation for action by a person employed or
representing the agency, as specified, must be shared with
the institution at least six weeks before a meeting
relating to the recommendation takes place, as specified.
6)Requires the agency to have a written policy, consistent with
federal law, that does all of the following:
a) Identifies a period for an institution to correct any
deficiencies that have prevented the institution from
receiving full accreditation.
b) Provides criteria for altering that period.
c) The policy must be published, and must provide a
process through which an institution may submit
applications for an extension, even if a decision has
expressly denied such an extension. The application for an
extension and the decision related to the extension shall
be made publically available.
7)Requires all of the following in regards to the agency's appeals
process:
AB 1397 (Ting) Page 5
of ?
a) Provides that when a sanction of probation or a more
serious sanction is issued by the agency's decision making
body an institution shall be given written notice of the
alleged offenses or deficiencies.
b) Provides that the institution must be afforded an
opportunity to submit an appeal of the decision to issue
the sanction.
c) Prohibits a member of an appeal panel with actual
conflict of interest, or the appearance of a conflict of
interest, as specified, from participating in an appeal
that a member of an appeal submitted per the process
described above.
d) Requires a prospective member of an appeal panel to
submit an appropriate disclosure form, signed under penalty
of perjury, to the agency declaring that he/she does not
violate the conflict of interest criteria. Requires copies
of these forms to be provided to the institution making the
appeal.
8)Expands the scope of the crime of perjury thereby imposing a
state-mandated local program and specifies, that no
reimbursement is required by this act pursuant the California
Constitution because the only costs that may be incurred by a
local agency or school district will be incurred because this
act creates a new crime or infraction, eliminates a crime or
infraction, or changes the penalty for a crime or infraction,
or changes the definition of a crime or infraction, as
specified.
9)Specifies that the article is only applicable to accrediting
procedures regarding institutions located in California.
10)Specifies that an agency shall only operate by policies that
comply with the federal criteria for recognition of an
accrediting agency pursuant to the federal Higher Education
Act of 1965 relating to accrediting agency recognition, as
specified.
11)Defines various terms for the purpose of this bill.
12)Makes a variety of legislative findings and declarations
AB 1397 (Ting) Page 6
of ?
regarding the scope and responsibility of the community
college accrediting agency.
STAFF COMMENTS
1)Need for the bill. According to the author, California has a
flawed community college accreditation process and given the
significant role an accreditor has in the success of
California's community colleges it is incumbent upon the state
to ensure that the accreditation process is fair, objective,
and transparent. The author further notes that the United
States Department, the California State Auditor and a
California Superior Court have cited a number of deficiencies
in the processes and determinations of the Accrediting
Commission for Community and Junior Colleges (ACCJC). This
bill seeks to establish processes under which the community
college accreditation agency should operate.
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
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
AB 1397 (Ting) Page 7
of ?
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 ACCJC has accredited; the 19 commissioners are
elected by a vote of the presidents of the member-colleges and
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;
h) At least one representative of the institutions in the
American Affiliated Pacific Islands.
The ACCJC bylaws govern, among other areas, commission
AB 1397 (Ting) Page 8
of ?
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 reviews the accrediting agencies? The National Advisory
Committee on Institutional Quality and Integrity (NACIQI)
advises the United State 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,
accrediting entities must demonstrate compliance with all the
criteria for recognition. Once a recommendation is made, this
process allows for public comment.
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 Commission. There are
three levels of sanction 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,
AB 1397 (Ting) Page 9
of ?
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
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 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.
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 proposes a number of statutory
requirements on the make-up of accreditation visiting teams,
public meeting procedures, maintenance of accreditation review
documents, due process and appeals, policies and procedures.
Arguably, because of the role accrediting agencies play in
oversight of public institutions, there should be additional
transparency in the accreditation process. But does this bill
strike the appropriate balance between transparency,
independence, and objectivity?
Additionally, 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 limited as accrediting
agencies could simply choose not to provide accreditation of
AB 1397 (Ting) Page 10
of ?
community colleges.
This bill makes its provisions applicable only to accrediting
procedures for institutions located in California. Federal
regulations (34 CFR Section 602.18) 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?
Federal regulations (34 CFR Section 602.14) also require
accrediting agencies to be separate and independent of other
organizations, including groups within its membership. Would
these provisions be interpreted to compromise the accreditor's
independence? Would they undermine the ability of the
accrediting commission to independently and effectively
conduct its work?
The committee may also wish to consider:
a) How do these provisions align with current federal
regulations governing accreditation agencies?
b) How frequently do federal regulations change? Are these
statutory provisions flexible enough to be reconciled with
changing federal regulations?
c) Should this committee endorse a bill that could
potentially compromise CCC student eligibility for state
and federal financial aid or the transferability of student
credits to other accredited institutions?
d) Task Force recommendations are expected in the fall.
Shouldn't any statutory changes await the more thorough
review and recommendations of the Task Force?
1)Prior and related legislation.
AB 1385 (Ting, 2015) requires notification to the California
Community College (CCC) Board of Governors (BOG) before an
accrediting agency increases membership fees, special
AB 1397 (Ting) Page 11
of ?
assessments, or other payments charged to a community college.
AB 1385 is pending in this Committee
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
California Community Colleges (CCC) Board of Governors (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 out of 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 California
Community Colleges (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
Bay Area Council
California Federation of Teachers
California Labor Federation
California Teachers Association
Faculty Association of California Community Colleges
State Building and Construction Trades Council of California
OPPOSITION
Accrediting Commission for Community and Junior Colleges (ACCJC)
Community College League of California
-- END --