BILL ANALYSIS �
SENATE COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION
Carol Liu, Chair
2013-2014 Regular Session
BILL NO: AB 1942
AUTHOR: Bonta
AMENDED: June 18, 2014
FISCAL COMM: Yes HEARING DATE: June 25, 2014
URGENCY: No CONSULTANT:Daniel Alvarez
SUBJECT : Community colleges: accreditation.
SUMMARY
Requires an agreement between each California community
college (district) and the accrediting agency for the
California Community Colleges regarding (a) public
participation at agency meetings, (b) prohibition of
requiring persons to identify themselves, as specified, (c)
provision of 14-day notice of a meeting, as specified; (d)
preservation of all documents related to an accreditation
for at least 6 years; and (e) delineation of a path to
compliance when imposing a sanction of revocation or show
cause.
Requires the California Community Colleges (CCCs) Board of
Governors (BOG) to review accreditation when determining
compliance with minimum operating conditions for CCCs to
receive state apportionment; requires specified reporting
on accreditation policies and decisions.
BACKGROUND
Existing law confers upon the Board of Governors of the
California Community Colleges 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) Section 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
AB 1942
Page 2
accreditation.
ANALYSIS
Establishes requirements of the accrediting agency for the
California Community Colleges regarding (a) public
participation at agency meetings, (b) prohibition of
requiring persons to identify themselves, as specified, (c)
provision of 14-day notice of a meeting, as specified; (d)
preservation of all documents related to an accreditation
for at least 6 years; and (e) delineation of a path to
compliance when imposing a sanction of revocation or show
cause.
Requires the California Community Colleges (CCCs) Board of
Governors (BOG) to review accreditation when determining
compliance with minimum operating conditions for CCCs to
receive state apportionment; requires specified reporting
on accreditation policies and decisions. More
specifically, this bill:
1) Requires the 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.
2) 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.
3) Requires the CCC Chancellor's Office to ensure that
the appropriate policy and budget subcommittees are
provided the aforementioned required information.
4) Requires, after January 1, 2015, an agreement
(contract) between the accrediting agency and each of
the California Community Colleges to include all of
the following provisions:
a) Requires the accrediting agency to afford
AB 1942
Page 3
public participation for all meetings regarding
the accreditation process. All persons shall be
permitted to attend those meetings. The
accrediting agency must provide an opportunity
for the public to directly address each agenda
item before or during the agency's consideration
of the item.
b) Requires the accrediting agency from
prohibiting criticism of its policies, programs,
or services, or any acts or omissions of the
accreditor, relating to the accreditation process
or status for a community college.
c) Specifies it is the intent of this agreement
that the accrediting agency's proceedings
relating to the accreditation process be
conducted openly.
d) Specifies that no person shall be required,
as a condition to attend a meeting of the
accrediting agency to register his or her name,
to provide other information, to complete a
questionnaire, or similar document, as specified.
e) Requires the accrediting agency to provide
notice of a meeting relating to the accreditation
process to any person who requests that notice in
writing. Notice shall also be given on the
accrediting agency Internet Web site at least 14
days in advance of the meeting, as specified.
5) Requires the accrediting agency to ensure all
documents generated related to accreditation be
preserved for no less than 6 years, as specified.
6) Specifies that the Legislature recommends that the
accrediting agency, when imposing a sanction of
revocation or show cause to the maximum extent
feasible, delineate a path to compliance with
specificity, and allow time in a manner that complies
with the accrediting agency policies and federal
guidelines.
STAFF COMMENTS
AB 1942
Page 4
1) Need for the bill . According to the author's office,
this bill restores fair accreditation practices to
California's community colleges, the largest system of
higher education in the United State, serving 2.4
million students annually. This bill accomplishes
these tasks by increasing public participation in the
accreditation process, increasing accountability on
the accrediting agency, and ensuring that the
Legislature has some oversight on the accreditation
process by increasing reporting requirements by the
accrediting agency.
2) Accreditation is required to receive state
appropriations (funding) and to be eligible for
federal and state financial aid programs.
Accreditation is a method used in this country to
generally: (1) assure quality, (2) provide access to
government funding, (3) generate stakeholder support,
and (4) facilitate credit transfer for and to
educational institutions.
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 U.S. 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.
AB 1942
Page 5
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 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.
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.
1) Accrediting Commission for Community and Junior
AB 1942
Page 6
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.
The ACCJC bylaws govern, among other areas, commission
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.
2) 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 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, including Show
Cause. With the exception of Compton College in 2004,
all have retained accreditation. As of February 2014,
there were 12 California community colleges on Warning
status, one community college (Hartnell College) on
Probation status and one community college on Show
Cause status-City College of San Francisco.
AB 1942
Page 7
3) Requirements on community colleges and accrediting
agency and possible unintended consequences . The
ambiguity of this bill presumably requires all
community colleges (districts) to have an agreement
(contract), with the accrediting agency, that includes
numerous provisions ranging from public participation
for all meetings regarding the accreditation process
to long-term preservation of documents.
Respectful public discourse, by and large, is a
healthy and positive necessity to insure the public is
informed of actions related to the accreditation of a
public institution; as such, it should be noted that
federal regulations governing accrediting agencies
require that the public have access to among other
things, specified materials describing the types of
accreditation, and the standards and procedures it
uses whether to grant, reaffirm, restrict or terminate
accreditation, and provide for third-party comments
concerning an institution's or program's
qualifications for accreditation or preaccreditation,
how this is accomplished is generally left to the
discretion of the accrediting agency.
This bill by requiring the accrediting agency to enter
into an agreement (contract) with each community
college, the accrediting agency loses its autonomy.
Accreditors are required to be independent bodies for
federal recognition. It appears that the provisions in
this measure may be in conflict with federal
regulations.
While an argument can be made that, because of the
role accrediting agencies play in oversight of public
institutions, there should be additional transparency
in the accreditation process. However, an equal
argument can be made that the strength of the
peer-review process should not be jeopardized or
compromised because accreditation is a voluntary,
non-governmental peer review process used to determine
academic quality.
As was mentioned at a prior hearing of this Committee,
confidentiality between the accrediting agency and
AB 1942
Page 8
community colleges is an element of the process before
formal action is taken; this "give and take" during an
accreditation review process is an important facet -
preventing outside pressures, prejudices, or
misinterpretations from being inserted - thereby
limiting a "jump to conclusions" that may be based on
a subset of information that could harm an
institutions' view in the public's eye.
However, it should also be noted, as with the
accreditation process itself, it is hoped that the
ACCJC could use some continued self-examination and
internal discussion to review its practices of
required public participation in its proceedings, and
reform its practices to provide meaningful and
reasonable implementation of the federal regulation.
Only by this self-evaluation and analysis can the
ACCJC continue to garner the confidence of the public
and quite possibly the federal government in its
endeavors.
Finally, this measure by requiring agreements between
the accrediting agency and each community college
"opens the door" for insertion of other "items" in an
agreement that conceivably have limited relationship
to the academic quality or accreditation, thereby
leaving the public with an uneven understanding about
what process or requirements are at play. An effective
accreditation process should strive to maintain and
support public confidence in the system, which
hopefully fosters the underlying instruction of
students and leads to higher quality community
colleges.
The stakes are too high to jeopardize an accrediting
agency's status with the federal government; leaving
California without a federally approved accrediting
body and effectively eliminating CCC student
eligibility for state and federal financial aid, and
place at risk the transferability of student credits
to other institutions.
4) Related legislation .
AB 1942
Page 9
a) SB 965 (Leno), this bill provides the San
Francisco Community College District with a
revenue stream, in an attempt to stabilize and
maintain a predictable funding base, over three
years as the college works to restore student
enrollment and maintain accreditation. This bill
was held on the Senate Appropriations suspense
file.
b) SB 1068 (Beall), this bill originally
permitted a community college district to
designate a federally recognized accrediting
agency to accredit community colleges under its
jurisdiction. In addition, the bill requires the
Board of Governors of the California Community
Colleges (CCC), by January 1, 2016, to report on
the feasibility of creating an independent
accrediting agency to accredit the CCCs and other
two-year private postsecondary educational
institutions for the purposes of complying with
federal law, and state authorized financial aid.
This bill was held on the Senate Appropriations
suspense file.
c) AB 1199 (Fong), this bill essentially
establishes a loan program for community colleges
under specified accreditation sanctions. This
bill requires the Board of Governors (BOG) of the
California Community Colleges (CCC) to adopt a
revenue funding formula that provides CCC
districts under specified accreditation status
(probation or "show cause"), a second year of
declining enrollment revenue relief, provided
certain conditions are met, and the district must
pay back the second year of declining enrollment
revenue in equal installments over the following
two years. This bill was held in Senate
Education at the request of the author.
d) AB 2087 (Ammiano), this bill requires the
regulations that describe the conditions under
which the Board of Governors may appoint a
special trustee to manage a community college
district must include specific benchmarks to
AB 1942
Page 10
indicate the presence of local capacity to resume
management of the community college district and
clear standards that provide for meaningful
consultation by a special trustee with the
community college district prior to
decisionmaking. This bill is awaiting hearing in
the Senate Appropriations Committee.
e) AB 2247 (Williams), this bill requires all
campuses of every public and private
postsecondary education institution in California
that receives state or federal financial aid
funding to make available on the institution's
website the following accreditation documents:
the institution's institutional accreditation
visiting team reports and the institutional
accreditation agency action letters, as
specified. This measure passed this Committee on
a 7-0 vote on June 18, 2014.
5) State Auditor Report estimated for June 26, 2014 . In
2013, the Joint Legislative Audit Committee approved
an audit by the California State Auditor to
independently develop and verify information related
to the Accrediting Commission for Community and Junior
Colleges (ACCJC). The scope of the audit will
examine ACCJC and its accreditation of California
Community Colleges for the period 2009 through 2013
and will include, but not be limited to, a review of
three accredited community colleges, including two
that the ACCJC has sanctioned, and to the extent
possible determine the following:
a) Whether the ACCJC accreditation process was
conducted consistent with applicable state laws
and regulations and was applied consistently
among colleges. Further, assess the extent to
which ACCJC policies comply with applicable state
requirements.
b) How the ACCJC's accreditation process
incorporates measures of educational quality- for
example student achievement-and whether the
ACCJC's use of such measures is reasonable and
AB 1942
Page 11
effective.
c) Whether the ACCJC has required any of the
selected colleges to take action that was
inconsistent with applicable laws or policies,
including with respect to the colleges'
governance structure.
d) To the extent possible, describe ACCJC's
policies, and any changes to those policies, in
effect between 2009 and 2013 for retaining
documents relating to community college
accreditations.
It would seem that the audit may be informative on
possible issues and present potential recommendations
for future legislative review and action; is it
prudent to pursue legislation that may presuppose
outcomes, without the benefit of an audit analysis by
the State Auditor?
Given the Comments provided under # 5, # 6 and # 7
above, staff recommends amendments that on page 5,
strike lines 37 through 39, and strikes pages 6 and 7.
SUPPORT
Adjunct Faculty United AFT/CFT
Cabrillo College Federation of Teachers
California Community Colleges Independents
California Federation of Teachers
California Labor Federation
Coast Federation of Educators
Faculty Association of California Community Colleges
Peralta Federation of Teachers
OPPOSITION
None on file.