BILL ANALYSIS �
AB 1942
Page 1
Date of Hearing: April 29, 2014
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON HIGHER EDUCATION
Das Williams, Chair
AB 1942 (Bonta) - As Amended: April 10, 2014
SUBJECT : Community colleges: accreditation.
SUMMARY : Requires the California Community Colleges (CCCs)
Board of Governors (BOG) to establish minimum operating
conditions for CCCs to receive state apportionment; removes the
requirement that CCCs be accredited; adds six additional
appointees to the BOG; and, establishes numerous requirements on
accrediting agencies that provide accreditation of CCCs.
Specifically, this bill :
1)Would require the BOG to establish: (a) minimum conditions for
state apportionment that are relevant and material to federal
law and quality of education, are widely accepted by educators
and specified other entities, and are consistent with state
laws and policies; and, (b) standards that show these
conditions have been met.
2)Requires the BOG to comply with the Administrative Procedures
Act and seek and consider input, in establishing minimum
conditions, from CCC districts, students, and academic and
nonacademic employees.
3)Provides that accreditation status is not dispositive of the
determination of compliance, but that the BOG may give due
consideration to the accreditation status by a federally
recognized accrediting agency of compliance with minimum
conditions, unless the BOG finds good cause not to rely on the
accreditation status. Provides that "good cause" includes:
a) The accrediting agency's failure to comply with written
policies or procedures in the course of evaluation;
b) Finding or determination by the US Department of
Education (USDE) that the accrediting agency has failed to
comply with the Criteria for Recognition of Accrediting
Agencies by the US Secretary of Education;
c) The accrediting agency's failure to comply with federal
or state laws or regulations in the course of evaluation;
AB 1942
Page 2
d) A conflict of interest, or the appearance of a conflict
of interest, on the part of the accrediting agency in the
course of evaluation;
4)Requires the BOG to conduct an independent investigation to
determine compliance with minimum conditions prior to
determining a CCC district has failed to meet conditions.
5)Requires the BOG to, before finalizing determination of a CCC
district's compliance with minimum conditions, publically
provide the basis of the determination and provide an
opportunity for the district to respond and the public to
comment.
6)Adds to the BOG six additional members, three appointed by the
Senate and three appointed by the Assembly.
7)Authorizes the BOG to designate a federally recognized
accrediting agency to accredit CCCs; provides that the
accrediting agency currently designation by BOG regulations
shall remain in place until this authority is exercised.
Requires the designated accrediting agency to base accrediting
decisions solely on compliance with the minimum conditions
established pursuant to the aforementioned provisions and
requires all of the following:
a) The accrediting agency to make available to a CCC the
minimum conditions and requirements for demonstration of
compliance established pursuant to the aforementioned BOG
standards;
b) Accrediting agency compliance with Bagley-Keene Open
Meeting Act for all meetings relating to the accreditation
of a CCC;
c) Disclosure of all CCC accreditation related documents
pursuant to the California Public Records Act;
d) The Accrediting agency is required to preserve all
documents for at least 10 years, and reports, evaluations,
recommendations, and decisions indefinitely.
e) The accrediting agency to disclose salaries and benefits
AB 1942
Page 3
of employees involved in CCC accreditation, any member
charges imposed on a CCC, incomes derived from a CCC, and
expenditures for activities related to CCC accreditation.
f) Prohibits accrediting agency governing board members
from being nominated by officers or employees of the
accrediting agency; and prohibits governing board terms
from being longer than two consecutive three-year terms;
g) The accrediting agency to have a neutral and objective
conflict of interest policy;
h) Accreditation evaluation teams:
i) To consist of 50% teachers of community colleges,
and 50% to include nonsupervisory, non-managerial
academic employees, classified employees, and
administrative employees of a community college; and,
ii) To be independent of the accrediting agency and the
college being evaluated and neither a member of the
governing body or employee of the accrediting agency
during the prior six years or a near relative of either.
i) In assessing sanctions, requires consideration of the
length of time of substantial compliance, seriousness of
deficiencies with respect to impact on quality of
education;
j) The accrediting agency to provide the CCC all documents,
including but not limited to, evaluations and
recommendations at least 14 days in advance of any meeting
regarding the accreditation of the institution;
aa) The accrediting agency to provide the CCCs and the
public with reasonable opportunity to present written and
oral evidence and argument in regard to the accreditation
decision;
bb) Sanctions decisions to be supported by findings and
conclusions;
cc) If an accrediting agency intends to impose a sanction
more severe than that recommended by the evaluating team,
or finds a deficiency not noted in the evaluation team
AB 1942
Page 4
report, the hearing on imposing the sanction to be
adjourned (and taken up at a subsequent hearing) to provide
the CCCs sufficient time to respond to the accrediting
agency before a decision;
dd) The college to be provided time to satisfy compliance
prior to a sanction that would revoke or suspend
accreditation is imposed; and,
ee) The accrediting agency to participate in an appellate
proceeding, with specified procedures, rights, and grounds
for appeal, before an arbitrator, hearing officer or a
panel appointed by the CCC Chancellor's Office (CCCCO), as
specified. Requires the accrediting agency to present
facts that support the recommended actions. Allows the CCC
to submit new evidence to support compliance. Requires the
CCC to be deemed accredited for no less than two semesters
following the issuance of the decision by the appeals
committee. Requires the appeals hearings to be open to the
public.
8)Provides that provisions requiring due process procedures and
compliance with the Bagley-Keene Open Meeting Act are
declarative of existing law and apply to all pending
accreditation proceedings.
9)Provides that this bill does not affect accrediting agency
activities relative to private educational institutions or
public institutions operating outside of this state. Provides
that this bill does not affect the authority of USDE.
10)Provides for severability of provisions, should any portions
of the law be held invalid.
EXISTING LAW:
1)Establishes the BOG to provide general supervision over the
CCC and requires the BOG to prescribe minimum standards for
CCC formation and operation (Education Code �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
AB 1942
Page 5
entitling CCC districts to receive state funds; review and
approve educational programs; and, carry out other functions
as provided in law (EDC �70901);
3)BOG regulations (5 CCR �51016) require CCC to be accredited by
the Accrediting Commission for Community and Junior Colleges
(ACCJC).
FISCAL EFFECT : Unknown
COMMENTS : Purpose of this bill . According to the author,
"Higher education accreditation ensures that colleges provide an
education that meets acceptable levels of quality.
Accreditation of a college is required for students to be
eligible to receive state and federal financial aid. The ACCJC
was appointed as the accreditor for CCC. ACCJC is authorized to
operate by the USDE and is the only accrediting agency for CCCs
due to current state regulations.
ACCJC requires CCCs to meet a significantly higher number of
standards than is required by federal law. While the federal
government requires that colleges meet 9 basic standards, ACCJC
demands compliance with nearly 50. In addition, ACCJC has
issued sanctions at a rate substantially higher than accrediting
entities throughout the nation. In 2009, the ACCJC accounted
for 44% of the total sanctions given to all higher education
institutions in the nation. Many of these sanctions have been
inconsistent between the community colleges ACCJC accredits.
For example, City College of San Francisco failed to meet 9 out
of 11 standards identified by the ACCJC and now it is on the
verge of being disaccredited; however 2 other colleges failed
all 11 standards and were only given a warning.
The federal government has recognized the need for change on
this issue. On January 28, 2014, USDE notified ACCJC it was in
violation of 15 federal regulations, including those concerning
due process, notification of accrediting decisions, and review
and enforcement of standards.
Existing law does not require standards for due process,
transparency or accountability of accrediting entities. For
example, existing law does not require any notice, to the public
or the community college under review, disclosing accreditor
evaluations or reasons for sanctions. In addition, California
regulations only allow one accrediting entity. Without
AB 1942
Page 6
competition and minimum required standards for public
transparency, ACCJC will be allowed to continue to have a
negative impact on community colleges, making it difficult for
students to attain an affordable education. The standards in
this bill are necessary to ensure that CCCs are receiving a fair
and proper accreditation, based on standards that accurately
reflect the state's goals."
Background on 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, 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:
1)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: ACCJC and the Senior
College and University Commission (WASC-Sr.).
2)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.
3)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.
AB 1942
Page 7
As noted, accreditation is regulated by the federal government;
institutional accreditation is a 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.
Some states have established standards regarding accreditation
recognition for the purpose of state-level regulation and state
financial aid programs; and, it appears that some accrediting
agencies participate in state-level requirements. However, an
accrediting agency's decision to participate in state-level
standards is unrelated to their federal recognition.
ACCJC . 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 ACCJC 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:
1)One representative of the CCC Chancellor's Office;
2)One representative from the Hawaii community colleges system
office;
3)At least five academic faculty;
4)At least three public members;
5)At least three community college administrators;
6)At least one independent institutional representative;
7)At least one representative of WASC Sr. accredited
institutions;
8)At least one representative of the institutions in the
American Affiliated Pacific Islands;
ACCJC bylaws govern, among other areas, commission meetings,
responsibilities of commissioners, and the appeal process for
institutions appealing a denial or termination of accreditation.
AB 1942
Page 8
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.
Section 1: BOG minimum standards and accreditation . Under
current regulations, BOG relies on accreditation by ACCJC to
ensure that CCCs have met the minimum educational quality
standards required to receive state apportionment funding.
Section 1 of this bill would require the BOG to, instead,
establish specific minimum standards and would require the BOG
to evaluate CCCs against those standards to determine
eligibility for apportionment funding. The BOG would be
authorized to rely, to a limited degree, on accreditation;
however, only if the accrediting agency agrees to various
statutory requirements (See: Section 3: Requirements on
accrediting agencies). Accreditation would no longer be
required if the CCC otherwise meets the new BOG standards. In
regards to Section 1 of this bill, the Committee should
consider:
1)Should the state continue to fund unaccredited CCCs ? This
bill would effectively allow an unaccredited CCC to continue
to receive state apportionment funding. However, under
existing provisions of federal and state law, an unaccredited
CCC would be ineligible for financial aid programs. It is
also likely that students at an unaccredited CCC would have
difficulty transferring credits earned to other colleges and
universities.
2)Should CCCs be required to undergo accreditation and a BOG
quality process ? This bill would require BOG to establish
minimum standards for receipt of apportionment funding and
would allow BOG to rely on accreditation to determine
compliance only when an accrediting agency has agreed to the
requirements outlined in Section 3 of this analysis. As
previously indicated, the ability of California to mandate
accreditation agency activities is severely limited as
accreditation is regulated by the federal government.
In speaking with accrediting agency representatives, Committee
staff understands that it is very unlikely that an accrediting
agency would agree to the terms outlined in this bill. In the
event no accrediting agency meets the requirements of the
AB 1942
Page 9
bill, CCCs would need to prove compliance with BOG minimum
standards through a process established by BOG. Accreditation
is required for participation in federal and state financial
aid programs and, generally, for transfer of credits to other
higher educational institutions; it would still be necessary
for CCC to retain ACCJC accreditation for these purposes.
Currently there is one CCC at serious risk of losing
accreditation: City College of San Francisco. Yet, under the
provisions of this bill, the other 111 CCCs, whom are not
currently at risk of losing accreditation, would likely be
required to continue their ACCJC accreditation as well as
undergo this new BOG review process. An accreditation review
is a significant and time-consuming process; the Committee
should consider the impact on CCC operations if colleges are
required to undergo a full institutional accreditation process
by, essentially, two accrediting agencies: ACCJC and, under
the provisions of this bill, BOG.
The author and Committee may wish to consider striking Section 1
of this bill and, instead, requiring the BOG/CCCCO to establish
a Task Force to report to the Legislature on the circumstances
under which it may be appropriate to allow a CCC that has lost
(and is seeking to regain) accreditation to retain eligibility
for apportionment funding, on a limited term basis.
Section 2: BOG membership. This bill would expand the BOG
membership from 16 to 22 voting members; adding three members
appointed by the Senate Rules Committee and three appointed by
the Speaker of the Assembly. The policy rationale for this
change is unclear.
In the absence of a clear rationale for this change, the author
and Committee may wish to consider removing Section2 from the
bill.
Section 3: Requirements on accrediting agencies . This bill
would allow CCC governing boards to choose their own accrediting
agency, and would establish numerous requirements on an
accrediting agency recognized by the BOG to accredit CCCs. The
Committee should consider:
1)Competition in accreditation . This bill would allow CCC
governing boards to choose their own accrediting agency, so
long as that accrediting agency is recognized by the USDE. As
AB 1942
Page 10
previously outlined, while the federal government sets base
requirements for accrediting agencies, each agency is provided
broad authority to establish standards and the processes for
measuring those standards. The author argues that ACCJC
standards are higher than other accrediting agencies and CCCs
should be allowed to shop for alternative accreditation
options. However, the Committee should consider if
competition among accreditors would result in a race to the
bottom in regards to accreditation standards. Are lower/fewer
quality standards in the best interest of California's
students and economy?
It should be noted that California and Hawaii are the only two
states in the nation with two regional accrediting agencies:
ACCJC for community colleges and WASC Sr. for universities.
The California Master Plan for Higher Education establishes
clear requirements for integration and collaboration between
CCCs and our public universities. It may be appropriate to
evaluate whether this current process serves the state's
needs, or whether a single regional accrediting agency would
better meet California's higher education goals.
2)Accrediting agencies as public entities . This bill
establishes numerous requirements on an accrediting agency
providing accreditation of CCCs. The requirements include the
composition of review committees, the standards by which CCCs
are evaluated, document retention, Bagley Keene open meeting
requirements, Public Records Act requirements, independent
appeal process requirements, among other requirements. As
previously indicated, accrediting agencies are private
membership-based non-profit organizations recognized by the
USDE. While these agencies provide accreditation of
institutions receiving public funding, they are not themselves
public entities.
Certainly a strong argument can be made that, because of the
role accrediting agencies play in oversight of institutions
receiving public funding, there should be additional
transparency in the accreditation process. The ability of the
state to enforce these requirements, however, is virtually
non-existent. Accrediting agencies could simply choose not to
provide accreditation of colleges in California; this would,
as previously outlined, effectively eliminate CCC student
eligibility for state and federal financial aid, and place at
risk the transferability of student credits to other higher
AB 1942
Page 11
education institutions.
As previously outlined, accrediting agency operations are
largely determined by their President and commissioners, whom
are elected by the accredited college presidents. With 112
CCC members of ACCJC, there appears to be an opportunity for
CCCs who are dissatisfied with ACCJC operations and leadership
to work to enact changes to ACCJC policies and standards.
The author and Committee may wish to consider striking Section 3
of the bill and, instead requiring the accrediting commission
providing accreditation of CCCs to report to the Legislature
regarding accreditation decisions affecting CCCs, and, on a
biannual basis, policy changes affecting the accreditation
process. In the event that ACCJC refuses to comply with this
requirement, the CCCCO, who maintains a representative on ACCJC,
could be required to transmit this information to the
appropriate Legislative policy committees.
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION :
Support
California Federation of Teachers
California Labor Federation
California School Employees Association
California Teachers Association
Los Angeles College Faculty Guild
Peralta Federation of Teachers
San Francisco Community College Federation of Teachers
San Jose/Evergreen Federation of Teachers
San Mateo Community College Federation of Teachers
Opposition
Chief Executive Officers of the California Community Colleges
Analysis Prepared by : Laura Metune / HIGHER ED. / (916)
319-3960
AB 1942
Page 12