Existing law establishes the California Community Colleges, under the administration of the Board of Governors of the California Community Colleges, as one of the segments of public postsecondary education in this state. Existing law specifies the duties of the board of governors, including, among other duties, establishing minimum standards for the formation of community colleges and districts. Under existing regulatory authority, the board of governors requires each community college to be accredited.

This bill would prohibit the accrediting agency from imposing a special assessment on community colleges to pay for the accrediting agencys legal fees for any lawsuit unless there has been an affirmative vote of the majority of the chief executive officers, or their designees, of all of the community colleges. The bill would excuse compliance with this prohibition if the Chancellor of the California Community Colleges determines that the accrediting agencys compliance would violate federal law. law, as specified.

Existing law establishes the California Community Colleges, under the administration of the Board of Governors of the California Community Colleges, as one of the segments of public postsecondary education in this state. Existing law specifies the duties of the board of governors, including, among other duties, establishing minimum standards for the formation of community colleges and districts. Under existing regulatory authority, the board of governors requires each community college to be accredited.

This bill would prohibit the accrediting agency from imposing a special assessment on community colleges to pay for the accrediting agencys legal fees for any lawsuit unless there has been an affirmative vote of the majority of the chief executive officers, or their designees, of all of the community colleges. The bill would excuse compliance with this prohibition if the Chancellor of the California Community Colleges determines that the accrediting agencys compliance would violate federal law.

Existing law establishes the California Community Colleges, under the administration of the Board of Governors of the California Community Colleges, as one of the segments of public postsecondary education in this state. Existing law specifies the duties of the board of governors, including, among other duties, establishing minimum standards for the formation of community colleges and districts. Under existing regulatory authority, the board of governors requires each community college to be accredited.

This bill would require the accrediting agency designated by the board of governors to notify the board of governors before increasing membership fees, special assessments, or other payments charged to a community college or community college district, and state in the notification the reasons for, and the amount of, the increase. prohibit the accrediting agency from imposing a special assessment on community colleges to pay for the accrediting agencys legal fees for any lawsuit unless there has been an affirmative vote of the majority of the chief executive officers, or their designees, of all of the community colleges.

Existing law establishes the California Community Colleges, under the administration of the Board of Governors of the California Community Colleges, as one of the segments of public postsecondary education in this state. Existing law specifies the duties of the board of governors, including, among other duties, establishing minimum standards for the formation of community colleges and districts. Under existing regulatory authority, the board of governors requires each community college to be accredited.

Existing law establishes the California Community Colleges, under the administration of the Board of Governors of the California Community Colleges, as one of the segments of public postsecondary education in this state. Existing law specifies the duties of the board of governors, including, among other duties, establishing minimum standards for the formation of community colleges and districts. Under existing regulatory authority, the board of governors requires each community college to be accredited.

This bill would declare the intent of the Legislature to enact legislation that would increase the transparency and fairness of the accreditation process for community colleges.

 THIRD READING  

Bill No: AB 1385

Author: Ting (D), et al.

Amended: 7/8/15 in Senate

Vote: 21

SENATE EDUCATION COMMITTEE: 6-3, 7/15/15

AYES: Runner, Block, Leyva, Mendoza, Pan, Vidak

NOES: Liu, Hancock, Monning

ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 62-18, 6/4/15 - See last page for vote

SUBJECT: Community colleges: accreditation

SOURCE: Author

DIGEST: This bill prohibits the accrediting agency for California Community Colleges (CCC) from imposing a special assessment on CCCs for legal fees related to a lawsuit, unless there has been an affirmative vote by the majority of the chief executive officers, or their designees, of all the CCCs.

ANALYSIS: 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 § 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.

This bill:

1. Prohibits the accrediting agency from imposing a special assessment on community colleges for the accrediting agency’s legal fees for any lawsuit, unless there has been affirmative vote of the majority of the chief executive officer, of all the community colleges.

2. Provides that each community college, as represented by its chief executive office or designee, shall be eligible to cast a vote on the assessment.

3. Provides that this provision 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.

4. Provides that this section does not affect the authority of the United States Department of Education (USDE) regarding educational institutions.

5. Sets aside the provisions of this bill if it is determined by the CCC Chancellor that federal criteria for recognition of an accrediting agency prohibits a recognized accrediting agency from complying with the requirements of this bill.

Comments

1. Need for the bill. According to the author, the assessments imposed by the ACCJC to its members to fund legal fees are unreasonable and excessive. The author notes that following the decision to terminate the accreditation of City College of San Francisco, the ACCJC imposed a 5% special assessment to its member institution for the 2014-15 fiscal years due to a significant reduction in its reserves. The author further asserts that due to ACCJC’s “mixed history of abiding by laws and regulations governing the accrediting process,” there is a need to shield that state from mounting legal costs. This bill seeks to provide CCC Chief Executive Officers the ability to approve or reject special assessments by their accreditor to cover the accreditor’s legal expenses.

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 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: the 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.

3. 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:

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; and

8. 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 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 evaluates ACCJC standards? The National Advisory Committee on Institutional Quality and Integrity advises the USDE 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.

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 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 ACCJC. There are three levels of sanctions 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, who on June 26, 2014, issued a report on CCC 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 CCC 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 2015, 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.

6. Unintended consequences? This bill seeks to change the method by which fees covering legal costs are imposed on member institutions of the agency providing accreditation of CCCs. 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 severely limited as accrediting agencies could simply choose not to provide accreditation of community colleges in California.

This bill implements a prohibition exclusively applicable to the accrediting agency for CCCs and exclusively applicable to its California community college membership. Federal regulations (34 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Section 602.14) require accrediting agencies to be separate and independent of other organizations, including groups within its membership. This bill’s provisions may raise concerns regarding whether or not the accreditor can be independent if it relies on a favorable vote of those it accredits to fund activities related to its duties.

Federal regulations (34 CFR Section 602.18) also 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. Arguably, this bill’s provisions could be perceived as giving California community colleges greater influence over accreditation decisions than other colleges in the accreditor’s membership.

The bill already appears to contemplate that its provisions may violate federal requirements and grants the Chancellor’s Office the authority to make this determination and set aside these provisions. 

Related Legislation

AB 1397 (Ting, 2015) requires the accrediting agency for the CCC to meet specified operational standards. AB 1397 passed out of the Senate Education Committee and is currently pending in the Senate Appropriations Committee.

AB 404 (Chiu, 2015) requires the regional accrediting agency for the CCC to report to the CCC BOG the date by which the agency’s application for continued recognition is due and requires the CCC 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 the Senate Education Committee and is pending in the Senate Appropriations Committee.

FISCAL EFFECT: Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: No Local: No

SUPPORT: (Verified 7/30/15)

California Community College Independents

California Labor Association

California School Employees

California Teachers Association

Golden Gate Restaurant Association

OPPOSITION: (Verified 7/30/15)

Accrediting Commission for Community and Junior Colleges

Association of California Community College Administrators

Community College League of California

MTI College

North Orange County Community College District

WASC Senior College and University Commission

ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 62-18, 6/4/15

AYES: Achadjian, Alejo, Travis Allen, Bloom, Bonilla, Bonta, Brown, Burke, Calderon, Campos, Chang, Chau, Chiu, Chu, Cooley, Cooper, Dababneh, Daly, Dodd, Eggman, Frazier, Cristina Garcia, Eduardo Garcia, Gatto, Gipson, Gomez, Gonzalez, Gordon, Gray, Grove, Roger Hernández, Holden, Irwin, Jones, Jones-Sawyer, Levine, Linder, Lopez, Low, Maienschein, Mayes, McCarty, Medina, Mullin, Nazarian, O’Donnell, Patterson, Perea, Quirk, Rendon, Ridley-Thomas, Rodriguez, Salas, Santiago, Mark Stone, Thurmond, Ting, Wagner, Weber, Williams, Wood, Atkins

NOES: Baker, Bigelow, Brough, Chávez, Dahle, Beth Gaines, Gallagher, Hadley, Harper, Kim, Lackey, Mathis, Melendez, Obernolte, Olsen, Steinorth, Waldron, Wilk

Prepared by: Olgalilia Ramirez / ED. / (916) 651-4105

8/13/15 13:47:25

**** END ****

SENATE COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION

Senator Carol Liu, Chair

2015 - 2016 Regular

Bill No: AB 1385

Subject: Community colleges: accreditation

SUMMARY

This bill prohibits the accrediting agency for California Community Colleges (CCC) from imposing a special assessment on CCCs for legal fees related to a lawsuit, unless there has been an affirmative vote by the majority of the chief executive officers, or their designees, of all the CCCs.

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:

1. Prohibits the accrediting agency from imposing a special assessment on community colleges for the accrediting agency’s legal fees for any lawsuit, unless there has been affirmative vote of the majority of the chief executive officer, of all the community colleges.

2. Provides that each community college, as represented by its chief executive office or designee, shall be eligible to cast a vote on the assessment.

3. Provides that this provision 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.

4. Provides that this section does not affect the authority of the United States Department of Education regarding educational institutions.

5. Sets aside the provisions of this bill if it is determined by the CCC Chancellor that federal criteria for recognition of an accrediting agency prohibits a recognized accrediting agency from complying with the requirements of this bill.

STAFF COMMENTS

1. Need for the bill. According to the author, the assessments imposed by the Accrediting Commission for Community and Junior Colleges (ACCJC) to its members to fund legal fees are unreasonable and excessive. The author notes that following the decision to terminate the accreditation of City College of San Francisco, the Accrediting Commission for Community and Junior Colleges (ACCJC) imposed a 5% special assessment to its member institution for the 2014-15 fiscal years due to a significant reduction in its reserves. The author further asserts that due to ACCJC’s “mixed history of abiding by laws and regulations governing the accrediting process,” there is a need to shield that state from mounting legal costs. This bill seeks to provide California Community College Chief Executive Officers the ability to approve or reject special assessments by their accreditor to cover the accreditor’s legal expenses.

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:

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: the Accrediting Commission for Community and Junior Colleges (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.

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 Accrediting Commission for Community and Junior Colleges (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:

1. One representative of the California Community Colleges (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.

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.

4. Who evaluates ACCJC standards? The National Advisory Committee on Institutional Quality and Integrity advises the United States 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.

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 ACCJC. There are three levels of sanctions 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, 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 California Community Colleges (CCC) 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 2015, 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 seeks to change the method by which fees covering legal costs are imposed on member institutions of the agency providing accreditation of CCCs. 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 severely limited as accrediting agencies could simply choose not to provide accreditation of community colleges in California.

This bill would implement a prohibition exclusively applicable to the accrediting agency for California Community Colleges and exclusively applicable to its California community college membership. Federal regulations (34 CFR Section 602.14) require accrediting agencies to be separate and independent of other organizations, including groups within its membership. Can the accreditor be independent if it relies on a favorable vote of those it accredits to fund activities related to its duties?

Federal regulations (34 CFR Section 602.18) also 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?

The bill already appears to contemplate that it’s provisions may violate federal requirements and grants the Chancellor’s Office the authority to make this determination and set aside these provisions.  Should this committee endorse a bill that acknowledges it may be in violation of federal law, could undermine the ability of the accrediting commission to independently and effectively conduct its work, and potentially compromise California Community College (CCC) student eligibility for state and federal financial aid or the transferability of student credits to other accredited institutions?

7. Prior and related legislation.

AB 1397 (Ting, 2015) requires the accrediting agency for the CCC to meet specified operational standards. AB 1397 is scheduled to be heard in this Committee on July 15^th.

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 CCC 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 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 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

California Teachers Association

OPPOSITION

Accrediting Commission for Community and Junior Colleges (ACCJC)

Community College League of California

-- END --

ASSEMBLY THIRD READING

ATR Bill Id:AB 1385

Author:(Ting)

As Amended Ver:May 5, 2015

Majority vote

SUMMARY: Prohibits the accrediting agency for California Community Colleges (CCCs) from imposing a special assessment on CCCs for legal fees for any lawsuit, unless there has been an affirmative vote of the majority of the chief executive officers, or their designees, of all of the CCCs. Specifically, this bill:

1. Prohibits the CCC accrediting agency from imposing a special assessment on CCCs for the accrediting agency’s legal fees for any lawsuit, unless there has been an affirmative vote of the majority of the chief executive officers, or their designees, of all of the CCCs.

2. Provides that each CCC, as represented by its chief executive officer, or his or her designee, shall be eligible to cast a vote on the assessment.

3. Provides that this provision 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.

4. Provides that this section does not affect the authority of the United States Department of Education regarding educational institutions.

5. Sets aside the provisions of this bill if it is determined by the CCC Chancellor that federal criteria for recognition of an accrediting agency prohibits a recognized accrediting agency from complying with the requirements.

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 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 (Education Code 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 (Education Code Sections 72208).

4. BOG regulations (5 California Code of Regulation Section 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 BOG is authorized to approve only an accreditor recognized and approved by the United States Secretary of the Department of Education (USDE) under the Higher Education Act of 1965 acting within the agency’s scope of recognition by the Secretary.

FISCAL EFFECT: Unknown. This bill is keyed non-fiscal by the Legislative Counsel.

COMMENTS: Purpose of this bill. According to the author, CCCs are being "forced to pay hundreds of thousands of dollars to fund the ACCJC’s legal bills" following its decision to terminate the accreditation of City College of San Francisco (CCSF). The author notes that CCCs were assessed a 5% special assessment for 2014-15; ACCJC is expected to issue a similar assessment in 2015-16 for CCSF-associated legal fees. The author also argues, Judge Karnow "ultimately ruled that the ACCJC had violated the due process rights of CCSF when they departed from the ACCJC’s evaluation team findings and identified 10 additional deficiencies without providing details to the college or affording them to opportunity to respond before the ACCJC made the decision to revoke their accreditation." The author notes that, even though ACCJC was found to have violated the law, CCCs, and ultimately the state, are forced to fund the legal defense or face the threat of loss of accreditation. The author believes that if ACCJC continues to take such actions, the state will be forced to continue to fund ACCJC legal defenses. This bill is designed to ensure CCCs, and ultimately California taxpayers, are not forced to fund ACCJC legal costs without the approval of the majority of CCC chief executive officers.

Federal criteria for recognition. The USDE provides recognition of accrediting agencies. In order for an institution to participate in federal financial aid programs an institution must be accredited by a recognized accrediting agency. Accrediting agencies are required pursuant to federal regulations to meet several outlined criteria for recognition, including requiring the accrediting agency to be separate and independent, meaning, among other requirements, that the agency develops and determines its own budget with no review or consultation with any other entity or organization (34 Code of Federal Regulation Section 602.14(b)(5)). An alternative approval by the USDE Secretary is available, but that alternative also requires the agency to have budgetary and administrative autonomy (34 Code of Federal Regulation Section 602.14(d)(3)).

Analysis Prepared by: Laura Metune / HIGHER ED. / (916) 319-3960 FN: 0000271

Date of Hearing: April 28, 2015

ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON HIGHER EDUCATION

Jose Medina, Chair

ABPCA Bill Id:AB 1385

Author:(Ting) – As Amended Ver:April 15, 2015

SUBJECT: Community colleges: accreditation

SUMMARY: Prohibits the accrediting agency for California Community Colleges (CCCs) from imposing a special assessment on CCCs for legal fees for any lawsuit, unless there has been an affirmative vote of the majority of the chief executive officers, or their designees, of all of the CCCs. Specifically, this bill:

1. Prohibits the CCC accrediting agency from imposing a special assessment on CCCs for the accrediting agency’s legal fees for any lawsuit, unless there has been an affirmative vote of the majority of the chief executive officers, or their designees, of all of the CCCs.

2. Provides that each CCC, as represented by its chief executive officer, or his or her designee, shall be eligible to cast a vote on the assessment.

3. Provides that this provision 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.

4. Provides that this section does not affect the authority of the United States Department of Education regarding educational institutions.

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 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 CCR Section 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 U.S. Secretary of Education (USDE) under the Higher Education Act of 1965 acting within the agency’s scope of recognition by the Secretary.

FISCAL EFFECT: Unknown

COMMENTS: 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 "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.

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. 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.

ACCJC budget and special assessments. ACCJC's primary sources of revenues for operating expenses are derived from dues assessed to each member institution. ACCJC's budget committee recommends dues to the Commission as a whole, and Commissioners vote on the amount of dues each January.   The ACCJC budget is approved first by the Committee, and then sent to the Commission for approval.   The member institutions are notified, usually in March or April each year, regarding budget.  Dues are set 18 months in advance; the dues for the 2015-16 fiscal year were set in January 2014. Due amounts range from about $6,000 to $35,000, depending on the number of full-time equivalent students enrolled at an institution. Special assessments are issued in order to cover extraordinary expenses that were not anticipated and could not be planned for, and that may exceed fiscal reserves.  ACCJC indicates that it has issued special assessments in approximately three cases.  Special assessments are set at a percentage (depending on budgeting needs) of an institution's dues. As a condition of accreditation, all member institutions are required to pay special assessments and dues.

ACCJC controversy. 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. Under the leadership of then-Chancellor Jack Scott, the group made a series of recommendations largely designed to focus ACCJC on institutional improvement rather than compliance. In a written response to Chancellor Scott's recommendations, ACCJC defended current standards and practices and made suggestions of how the CCCCO could assist colleges in meeting ACCJC's requirements.

Background on City College of San Francisco (CCSF). In July of 2012, CCSF was placed on "Show Cause" status by ACCJC. The ACCJC visiting team found, among other deficiencies, that the college had insufficient cash flow and reserves to maintain financial stability and no realistic plans to meet financial emergencies and unforeseen circumstances. The institution was provided one year to establish compliance with accrediting standards. In September of 2012, the CCC Chancellor's Office and the Fiscal Crisis & Management Assistance Team (FCMAT) released an audit of fiscal stability and management controls. The audit found that CCSF was near fiscal insolvency resulting from poor financial decisions and lack of accountability. In October 2012, CCC Board of Governors (BOG) appointed Robert Agrella as special trustee under limited powers to assist CCSF in achieving sound financial management.

In July of 2013, ACCJC voted to terminate accreditation effective July 31, 2014, subject to review and appeal. ACCJC found that of the 2012 recommendations, CCSF fully addressed only two, nearly addressed one, and eleven were inadequately addressed. Also in July, FCMAT released a second review which found that the 2012 recommendations had not been fully implemented. Following the ACCJC decision to revoke accreditation, on July 9, 2013, BOG voted to authorize a Special Trustee to assume full management and control of the district. In November 2013, Arthur Tyler was named Chancellor of CCSF. To date, the CCSF governing board does not have management authority over the district.

In June 2014, despite significant concerns raised by the public, CCC leaders, the CCC Chancellor, and Legislators over the serious impact to students and the San Francisco community, the ACCJC appeal panel upheld the decision to terminate accreditation. In July, ACCJC informed CCSF of their option to apply for "restoration status" – a status created by the Commission for the purposes of allowing CCSF to continue to be accredited while it works to achieve accreditation standard compliance; and in January 2015, CCSF was granted "restoration status" by ACCJC. Under restoration status, CCSF will remain accredited and have two years to come into full compliance with all ACCJC eligibility requirements, standards and policies. CCSF is scheduled to be reviewed by ACCJC in January 2017. ACCJC notes that during this time, CCSF will have access to ACCJC technical assistance and training processes.

Bureau of State Audits (BSA) review of ACCJC. In June of 2014, the 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.

ACCJC lawsuit. In August 2013, San Francisco City Attorney Dennis Herrera filed two legal actions regarding the ACCJC decision to revoke CCSF accreditation. The first sought to enjoin ACCJC from effectively closing CCSF, the second sought to require the CCC BOG to evaluate college standards and eligibility, rather than relying on accreditation. In regards to the second action, largely based on prior statutory language requiring the CCC BOG to establish minimum standards, the Legislature acted in 2014 to amend statute to require CCC BOG to review the accreditation status of an institution.

In the case against ACCJC, People ex. rel. Herrera v. ACCJC, Case No CGC-13-533693, Superior Court Judge Curtis E.A. Karnow issued a preliminary injunction in January 2014 blocking ACCJC from implementing the termination of CCSF accreditation. Full arguments in this case were presented in the fall of 2014; during arguments all parties generally agreed that at the time of accreditation revocation CCSF faced serious financial and other problems and was not in full compliance with accreditation standards. The central legal issues surrounded whether the state's unfair competition law (UCL) applied and was violated when ACCJC took action to terminate accreditation. ACCJC presented a series of defenses claiming that the suit was altogether barred. The judge generally rejected those defenses and, in a final Statement of Decision issued February 17, 2015, found that CCSF was warranted some relief. Specifically, the judge ordered ACCJC to allow CCSF to respond to the 2013 basis for termination, then requiring ACCJ to take action, consistent with law, to rescind or reaffirm the 2013 termination. According to Judge Karnow, "under federal law it is ACCJC, and not this court, which exercises its discretion with respect to accreditation decisions."

CCC CEO Request. According to information provided by the author, Committee staff understands that on April 25, 2014, the President of the CEOs of the CCCs wrote to ACCJC requesting the Commission to use its power to provide SFCC a "good cause" extension in order to allow the college to come into compliance with accreditation standards. The letter also appears to raise concern regarding the special assessment to fund ACCJC legal fees, noting "as the funders of ACCJC's legal defense bills, we believe it is critical to exhaust every non-courtroom remedy to minimize our financial exposure as well as any negative impact on students throughout the state."

CCSF and SB 860. In the 2014-15 Budget Act education trailer bill, SB 860 (Committee on Budget and Fiscal Review), Chapter 34, Statutes of 2014, the Legislature provided SFCC with additional funding, for three fiscal years, as the college works to restore student enrollment and maintain accreditation. For 2014-15, the district received funding equal to the amount it received in the 2013-14 fiscal year, in 2015-16 and 2016-17 funding is to be reduced by five, and 10% respectively. SB 860 requires the CCSF Chancellor to provide ongoing reporting and, in order to receive the third year of funding CCSF is required to meet benchmarks related to fiscal management and controls. In 2014-15, CCSF received an approximately $38.5 million in apportionment stability funding, as provided under the formula established in SB 860.

CCSF current status. On April 15, 2015, CCSF Chancellor Tyler submitted the first report as required pursuant to SB 860. According to the report, the Chancellor and the Special Trustee has instituted administrative reorganizations, has focused on restoring declines in student enrollment, and has established a long-term fiscal stability plan. The Chancellor and Special Trustee agree that CCSF has demonstrated an ability to meet all accreditation standards and eligibility requirements within the two year restoration timeline established by ACCJC.

Purpose of this bill. According to the author, CCCs are being "forced to pay hundreds of thousands of dollars to fund the ACCJC’s legal bills" following its decision to terminate the accreditation of CCSF. The author notes that CCCs were assessed a 5% special assessment for 2014-15; ACCJC is expected to issue a similar assessment in 2015-16 for CCSF-associated legal fees. The author also argues, Judge Karnow "ultimately ruled that the ACCJC had violated the due process rights of CCSF when they departed from the ACCJC’s evaluation team findings and identified 10 additional deficiencies without providing details to the college or affording them to opportunity to respond before the ACCJC made the decision to revoke their accreditation." The author notes that, even though ACCJC was found to have violated the law, CCCs, and ultimately the state, are forced to fund the legal defense or face the threat of loss of accreditation. The author believes that if ACCJC continues to take such actions, the state will be forced to continue to fund ACCJC legal defenses. This bill is designed to ensure CCCs, and ultimately California taxpayers, are not forced to fund ACCJC legal costs without the approval of the majority of CCC chief executive officers.

Federal criteria for recognition. As previously outlined, the USDE provides recognition of accrediting agencies. In order for an institution to participate in federal financial aid programs an institution must be accredited by a recognized accrediting agency. Accrediting agencies are required pursuant to federal regulations to meet several outlined criteria for recognition, including requiring the accrediting agency to be separate and independent, meaning, among other requirements, that the agency develops and determines its own budget with no review or consultation with any other entity or organization (34 CFR §602.14(b)(5)). An alternative approval by the USDE Secretary is available, but that alternative also requires the agency to have budgetary and administrative autonomy (34 CFR §602.14(d)(3)).

Committee staff, in consulting with the USDE, understands that the requirements of this bill may be in conflict with USDE criteria for recognition. An accrediting agency deemed noncompliant with criteria for recognition could be order to correct deficiencies or have their recognition discontinued by the USDE. If ACCJC were to have its recognition withdrawn by USDE, the accreditation status – and the ability of students to receive federal and state financial aid, and to transfer educational credits to four-year universities – of all CCCs would be threatened.

Recommended amendment. Should the Committee desire to move forward with legislation addressing this matter, the Committee should consider amending the bill to specify that the provisions of this bill are not binding if it is determined by the CCC Chancellor that federal criteria for recognition prohibit a recognized accrediting agency from complying with this requirement.

Related legislation.

AB 404 (Chiu) was approved by this committee on April 7, 2015, and requires the CCC BOG to conduct a survey of the CCC, including faculty and classified personnel, to develop a report to be transmitted to the USDE that reflects a systemwide evaluation of the agency based on criteria used to determine an accreditor's status.

AB 1397 (Ting) is pending in the Assembly Higher Education Committee. This bill would require the accrediting agency for CCC to provide an opportunity for public comment prior to taking action related to the accreditation status of a community college.

Prior legislation.

AB 1942 (Bonta), Chapter 382, Statutes of 2014, required 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; required 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 CCC and, on a biannual basis, any accreditation policy changes that affect the accreditation process or status for a CCC; and, required the CCCCO to ensure that the appropriate policy and budget subcommittees are provided the aforementioned required information.

AB 2247 (Williams), Chapter 388, Statutes of 2014, required all campuses serving California students of public and private postsecondary educational institutions that receive state or federal financial aid funding to post institutional accreditation documents on the institution's website.

SB 1068 (Beall) of 2014, which was held in the Senate Appropriations Committee, would have required CCC BOG, by January 1, 2016, to report on the feasibility of creating an independent accrediting agency to accredit the CCCs and other 2-year private postsecondary educational institutions, and to make recommendations relative to CCC accreditation.

REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION:

Support

California Labor Federation

Faculty Association of California Community Colleges

Opposition

Accrediting Commission for Community and Junior Colleges

Community College League of California

Analysis Prepared by: Laura Metune / HIGHER ED. / (916) 319-3960