BILL ANALYSIS �
SENATE COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION
Carol Liu, Chair
2013-2014 Regular Session
BILL NO: SB 1068
AUTHOR: Beall
AMENDED: March 24, 2014
FISCAL COMM: Yes HEARING DATE: April 30, 2014
URGENCY: No CONSULTANT:Daniel Alvarez
SUBJECT : Community colleges: accreditation.
SUMMARY
This bill permits 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.
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 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 permits 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, by January 1, 2016, to report on the feasibility of
creating an independent accrediting agency to accredit the
SB 1068
Page 2
CCCs and other two-year private postsecondary educational
institutions for the purposes of complying with federal law,
and state authorized financial aid. More specifically, this
bill:
1) Permits a community college district to designate a
federally recognized accrediting agency to accredit
community colleges under its jurisdiction, to the extent
authorized by federal law.
2) Requires the accrediting agency for community colleges
designated in regulations (Accrediting Commission for
Community and Junior Colleges, ACCJC) remains the
accrediting agency until the governing board of a
community college district exercises its discretion under
#1 above.
3) Requires the accrediting agency designated in # 1 above
to comply with the following requirements:
a) Documents related to accreditation of a
community college are subject to public disclosure
pursuant to the California Public Records Act.
b) Must obtain approval from the Board of
Governors (BOG) of the California Community Colleges
before implementing a new accreditation policy or
procedure that increases costs for a community
college, community college district, or the state.
c) Not charge a community college or community
college district for costs unrelated to the
accreditation process, including, but not limited to
attorney fees.
1) Specifies # 1, 2, and 3 above does not affect the
accreditation status of a community college on January 1,
2015.
2) Clarifies #1, 2, and 3 above does not apply to the
accrediting agency's activities that are related to
private educational institutions in the state or
educational institutions outside of the state.
3) Provides that the provisions identified above are
severable.
SB 1068
Page 3
4) Requires the BOG by January 1, 2016, to report to the
Legislature on the feasibility of creating an independent
accrediting agency to accredit the California Community
Colleges and other two-year private postsecondary
educational institutions for purposes of compliance with
Title IV of the federal Higher Education Act, and state
authorized financial aid. The bill specifies the
independent accrediting agency would be separate from
state government and funded by fees or dues paid by
postsecondary educational institutions seeking
accreditation from the agency.
STAFF COMMENTS
1) Need for the bill . According to the author's office,
from 2007 to 2012, over 63 percent of community colleges
in California had been sanctioned by the Accrediting
Commission for Community and Junior Colleges (ACCJC),
compared to other regions where their sanctions rates
have ranged from zero to six percent. Several
controversial factors have arisen over the accrediting
process in California including implementation of new
policies and procedures that were not publicly addressed
by state policy makers, increased community college
accreditation fees that are used for other purposes
unrelated to accreditation, denied access to campus
reports, and regulations falsely claiming that
accreditation is "voluntary" when no other alternatives
are available. There is a monopoly occurring in
California and our community colleges are suffering
drastically.
2) Accreditation is required to receive state appropriations
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
SB 1068
Page 4
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. 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
SB 1068
Page 5
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 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
meetings, responsibilities of commissioners, and the
appeal process for institutions appealing a denial or
termination of accreditation. The ACCJC bylaws may be
SB 1068
Page 6
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.
1) 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.
2) State Auditor Report estimated for June 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.
SB 1068
Page 7
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 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?
1) Requirements on accrediting agencies . This bill
establishes various requirements on an accrediting agency
providing accreditation of CCCs. The requirements
include adhering to the California Public Records Act,
obtain prior approval from the BOG before implementing a
new accreditation policy or procedure, and not charge for
costs unrelated to accreditation. 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. 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. The ability of the state to
enforce these requirements is virtually non-existent.
Accrediting agencies could simply choose not to provide
accreditation of community colleges in California; this
would effectively eliminate CCC student eligibility for
state and federal financial aid, and place at risk the
transferability of student credits to other institutions.
SB 1068
Page 8
2) Is competition in selecting an accreditor in the best
interest of the state and students? This bill would allow
community college governing boards to choose their own
accrediting agency, so long as that accrediting agency is
recognized by the USDE. The author indicates there is a
monopoly occurring in California and our community
colleges are suffering drastically and that due to a
higher sanction rate than other regions of the country,
CCCs should be allowed to shop for alternative
accreditation options. What is also generally missing
in the discussion is a broader understanding of how the
quality of California community colleges compare to other
community colleges in this country. As previously
outlined, while the federal government sets base
requirements for accrediting agencies, each agency is
given broad authority to establish standards and
processes for measuring those standards. The federal
government does not keep a record of the similarities and
differences between those standards, but rather requires
all agencies to demonstrate their standards are
sufficiently rigorous to ensure the agency is a reliable
authority regarding the quality of education.
In light of this, the committee should consider if
competition among accreditors would result in a community
college district selecting the path of least resistance
(or in this case institutional quality), which may not
necessarily be the highest, most rigorous quality
reviewer in regards to accreditation standards. In
addition, there are six other regional accreditors,
allowing a community college district to select their
accreditor arguably could create a scenario where every
CCC district and college would have to meet significantly
different standards -- setting up a situation where both
students, parents, and the public could not reasonably
compare one community college to another creating
unnecessary confusion. Are potentially lower quality
standards and ensuing confusion in the best interest of
California's students and economy?
In addition, California, through statute, cannot
unilaterally allow any accrediting body to accredit its
colleges - federal regulations maintain that an
accrediting agency must demonstrate that its accrediting
activities cover a State, a region, or the United States.
SB 1068
Page 9
It would seem that an outside regional accrediting body
would need to obtain federal approval prior to being
allowed to accredit California's community colleges.
Given the potential for unintended consequences related
to the possible use of multiple accreditors of California
community colleges - public and student confusion over
standards and interpretation of "quality", the lack of
potentially useful audit recommendations, and strong
possibility that the federal government may not even
approve the use of current regional accreditors, staff
recommends striking Section 1 of the bill.
3) Additional review and examination . The bill also requires
the BOG to report on the feasibility of creating an
independent accrediting agency, as specified. Expanding
the scope of the report may provide useful information
moving forward. It should be noted that California and
Hawaii are the only 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 further California's higher education goals.
Staff recommends amendments to expand on the required
report to also include a thorough examination by the BOG
of accreditation across the country and make
recommendations as to (a) whether California would be
better served from a single accreditor for the state's
community colleges by utilizing WASC Sr., and (2) examine
the possibility of multiple state accreditors as a means
to ensure the highest quality of California community
colleges.
SUPPORT
California Community College Independents
San Mateo County Community College District
OPPOSITION
None on file.
SB 1068
Page 10