accreditation watch -featuring accjc gone...
TRANSCRIPT
ACCJC GONE WILD
By Martin Hittelman
September 3, 2015
Martin Hittelman is a retired community college faculty member. He is a Professor Emeritus of Mathematics at Los Angeles Valley College and President Emeritus of the California Federation of Teachers. He is a former member of the California Community College State Academic Senate Executive Committee, former President of the CFT Community College Council, and a former Vice President of the California Federation of Labor.
Updated versions of ACCJC Gone Wild and other documents can be found at www.accreditationwatch.com.
Martin Hittelman can be reached at [email protected]
Note: In many sections of this paper, items have been bolded in order to add emphasis.
Table of Contents
ACCJC GONE WILD1
Table of Contents3
Introduction13
What is ACCC and How Has It Gone Wrong?13
ACCJC Violations Confirmed by U.S. Department of Education14
Student Learning Outcomes16
Widely Accepted Criteria16
High Rate of Sanctions17
ACCJC Sanctions from 2011 to 201518
Major Reasons for ACCJC Sanctions22
Vagueness in Requirements and Micro-Managing22
Secrecy in ACCJC Operations23
ACCJC and Advocates24
Methods Used in Gone Wild24
AB 1385 AND HISTORY AS OF April 28, 201525
SUMMARY OFAB 138525
EXISTING LAW:26
COMMENTS REGARDING ACCREDITATION:26
ACCJC.27
ACCJC budget and special assessments.27
ACCJC controversy.28
Background on City College of San Francisco (CCSF).28
Bureau of State Audits (BSA) review of ACCJC.29
ACCJC lawsuit.29
CCC CEO Request.29
CCSF and SB 860.30
CCSF current status.30
Purpose of this bill.30
Federal criteria for recognition.30
Related legislation.31
Prior legislation.31
Chapter 1: Higher Education Accreditation33
ACCJC and WASC34
Violations of the Code of Federal Regulations34
WASC35
Quality Assurance, Continuous Improvement, or Compliance36
Application Process for Accreditation Agencies to Receive Reaccreditation37
Staff Analysis of an Accrediting Agency's Application38
Hearing Before the Advisory Committee39
“National Advisory Committee on Institutional Quality and Integrity (NACIQI)39
Chapter 2: The ACCJC in Action45
New Appeal Process Controlled by the ACCJC46
College Ability to Plan, Prepare Reports, Review47
Sanctions Criteria48
Chapter 3: ACCJC’s Extreme Number of Sanctions50
2003-200850
2011-201250
U.S. Department of Education Pressure50
Sanctions at January 2012 meeting51
June 8-10, 2011 Sanctions52
January 10-12, 2012 Sanctions52
June 6-8, 2012 Sanctions53
January 9-11, 2013 Sanctions54
2003-15 Actions on California Community Colleges54
Sanctions 2003-200854
Sanctions 2011 - 201556
January 2009 – January 201259
Top Perceived Deficiencies Causing Sanctions59
June 5-7, 2013 Actions60
Accreditation Agency Sanctions 201362
January 2014 Common Deficiencies63
ACCJC Actions of January 8-10, 201463
ACCJC SANCTIONS OF JANUARY 2014 – A NEW DIRECTION?64
ASCCJC Actions of June 201465
Trends in Deficiencies Leading to Sanction January 2009 to January 201467
Chapter 4 Problems With ACCJC69
Out of Touch With California Educational Environment70
Public Disclosure and Retaliation70
Student Success is Accrediting Agencys Primary Mission71
Chapter 5 History of Complaints Against ACCJC73
Hittelman Letter of November 21, 2001 on Standards73
October 13, 2008 Hittelman Letter to ACCJC74
December 2008 ACCJC Reply Filled with Errors77
CCA/CTA Correspondence March 200979
CTA Letter March 200980
California Community Colleges Task Force Oct. 200981
Recommendations to ACCJC from Task Force81
ACCJC Response to Concerns of Chancellor Scott and the Task Force Jan. 201282
The RP Group Findings of February 201183
CFT letter of January 8, 2013 Concerning Failure to Obey Timelines86
Hittelman Complaint/Comment of April 30, 201387
ACCJC Response of May 31, 201388
June 26, 2013 Hittelman Response88
Attacks on Board of Trustee Members89
Los Angeles Southwest College91
Ventura College91
Hittelman THIRD PARTY COMMENT FORM92
June 28, 2013 Response from ACCJC93
July 25, 2013 ACCJC Reply to Hittelman Complaint and Hittelman analysis93
October 1, 2013 Hittelman Request for Information95
City College of San Francisco - PLACED ON SHOW CAUSE (2012), ACCREDITATION REMOVED (2013)97
Resolution of the Academic Senate of the California Community Colleges.101
CFT Complaint Filed on April 30, 2013102
ACCJC Response to CFT Complaint102
May 30, 2013 Accrediting Commission Perfunctory Response to CFT Complaint/Comment103
Letter to Chronicle of Higher Education by Commissioner Frank Gornick105
CFT Statement on CCSF Loss of Accreditation107
Statewide Community College Chancellor Brice Harris July 3, 2013 Statement on Appointment of Special Trustee108
Parallel to Compton College110
July 8, 2013 CFT Remarks to the Board of Governors110
Statewide and CCSF Student Success Scorecards 2014113
CFT Complaint to Department of Education July 26, 2013115
ACCJC Information to the Field - July 2013 – An Unlikely Story115
Accreditation Group finds ACCJC out of compliance – August 13, 2013120
ACCJC Press Release of August 13, 2013122
Letter from AFT Local 2121 to Scott-Skillman and Agrella123
August 16, 2013 Letter from Beno to Agrella on Confidentiality of Review Process125
August 19, 2013 Agrella Letter to the College Community128
Save CCSF Coalition Complaint of August 19, 2013.129
CFT letter to Brice Harris August 19, 2013131
CFT CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT OF SEPTEMBER 24, 2013132
Save CCSF Rally - November 7, 2013135
California Joint Legislative Audit Committee – Action on August 21, 2013138
Call for State Audit138
Backgound for Call139
2013-123 AUDIT SCOPE AND OBJECTIVES - Accrediting Commission for Community and Junior Colleges - Community College Costs and Nonstate-Approved Policies141
San Francisco City Attorney files Law Suit August 22, 2013142
ACCJC Press Release of August 23, 2013 on SF Attorney Suit143
Trustee of Coast Community College District Support of Complaint August 20, 2013144
Letter from State Superintendent of Public Instruction to ACCJC, September 17, 2013145
ACCJC Press Release on Superintendent Tom Torlakson's Letter146
September 5, 2013 Letter from Academic Senate to Department of Education147
September 10, 2013 Complaint by the League of United Latin American Citizens148
Complaint of September 25, 2013 by the San Mateo County Community College District150
October 7, 2013 Letter from San Mateo Chancellor Galatolo151
October 8, 2013 Letter from Beno to Dr. Bonnie Dowd Requesting Help152
Oct. 24, 2013 Chancellor’s with Opposing Views154
ACCJC Commissioner Kinsella Writes154
San Mateo Chancellor Galatolo Replies154
Save CCSF Coalition Files November 4, 2013 Lawsuit156
Academic Senate for California Community Colleges Addresses ACCJC Issues159
Visiting Team Reports and Privacy163
Commission Composition164
CFT and S.F. City Attorney File for Preliminary Injunction – Nov. 24, 2013169
CFT Memorandum of Points169
S.F. Injunction Information171
Harris letter to Herrera of January 2, 2014172
Superior Court Judge Karnow Issues Preliminary Injunction January 2, 2014173
ACCJC January 13, 2014 Misleading Press Release175
Department of Education Staff Report on ACCJC – November 2013180
§602.13 Acceptance of the agency by others.182
§602.18 Ensuring consistency in decision-making185
January 28, 2014 Letter to Beno from Department of Education189
Sections Violated by ACCJC as noted in letter and [remarks by Dept. of Education staff]190
Chapter 6 ACCJC in 2014195
January 2014 Meeting of the ACCJC196
Lack of Transparency - CFT Letter of January 9, 2014199
Report on ACCJC Meeting of January 10, 2013200
Structure of Payment to ACCJC201
Some of the Changes202
New Policy On Complaints Against ACCJC203
Policy on Commission Actions on Institutions203
Policy on the Right and Responsibilities of the Commission and Member Institutions203
Policy on Access to Commission Meetings204
Review of CCSF Removal of Accreditation Decision205
Letter from Saginor to Agrella205
March 3, 2014 Save CCSF Answers ACCJC Claims to Dismiss Case207
March 2014 Letter from Congressmembers to Secretary of Education Duncan208
January 2014 ACCJC Meeting - Has Anything Really Changed?210
Cabrillo College - Reaffirm Accreditation211
ACCJC Threatens San Jose/Evergreen Community College District212
San Mateo Community College – Reaffirm Accreditation213
Victor Valley College - Remove Probation, Reaffirm Accreditation215
Solano College – Remove Warning and Reaffirm Accreditation217
Woodland Community College - Continue on Warning217
College of the Sequoias – SHOW CAUSE to WARNING219
Cuyamaca College - Reaffirm Accreditation219
Grossmont College - Reaffirm Accreditation222
Cuesta College - Removed from Warning, Reaffirmed Accreditation222
Honolulu Community College – Removed from Warning, Accreditation Reaffirmed222
El Camino College - Removed from Warning223
January 2014 Revised Standards223
Hittelman Statement to the ACCJC on Standards Revision226
January 2014 Increased College Dues228
Feb. 7, 2014 ACCJC Threatens San Jose/Evergreen Community College District Over SLOs228
On April 12, 2014, the California Community College Academic Senate approved the following resolution:230
April 14, 2014 Letter from CCSF Chancellor Tyler to the College Community233
Errors seen in commissioners' opinion piece on CCSF funding233
April 18, 2014 Chief Executive Officers to ACCJC234
Legislative Bills as of May 11, 2014235
May 20, 2014 letter from BOG to ACCJC - the Smoking Gun?238
May 27, 2014 Rejection of Reconsideration of CCSF Sanction240
May 30, 2014 Resolution by California State Legislature243
2014 Visiting Teams Light on Faculty Representation243
2014 ACCJC External Evaluation Teams244
June 11, 2014 - ACCJC Announces Proposed Language on Terminating Accreditation253
CCSF Appeal Hearing Decision June 12, 2014255
The Decision256
Preliminary Considerations257
Basic Contentions258
Bias of the Panel259
Declaration of Brice Harris In Support of Herrera Law Suit June 10, 2014261
July 21, 2014 ACCJC Decision on Remand263
Letter from ACCJC Accepting Restoration Status265
June 2014 Sanctions – Inconsistent Results267
June 2014 ACCJC Sanctions267
Los Angeles Valley College - Continue Warning268
Los Angeles Mission College - Remove Warning and Reaffirm Accreditation269
Barstow Community College - Remove Warning and Reaffirm Accreditation271
Ohlone College - Reaffirm Accreditation271
Hartnell College - Remove Probation, Issue Warning273
Moreno Valley College - Reaffirm Accreditation275
Orange Coast College - Remove Warning and Reaffirm Accreditation277
Coastline Community College - Remove Warning and Reaffirm Accreditation278
Evergreen Valley College - Probation278
San Jose City College - Probation279
Cerritos College - Warning279
West Valley College - Warning281
Victor Valley College - Probation282
Golden West College - Continue on Warning284
Palo Verde College - Probation286
Los Angeles Southwest College - Remove Warning and Reaffirm Accreditation288
Lassen Community College - Reaffirm Accreditation288
Norco College - Reaffirm Accreditation289
June 26, 2014 California Bureau of State Audits (BSA) Report291
New Commissioners - July 1, 2014292
Gloria Romero292
July 16, 2014 Judge Rejects ACCJC’s Attempt to Slow Down Legal Case293
July 28, 2014 CCSF Leadership Applies for Restoration Status293
Letter from ACCJC Accepting Restoration Status296
Bonta Legislation Approved297
October 10, 2014: Judge again rejects ACCJC attempt to stop trial297
Proposed Change to Board of Governors' Regulation on Accreditation298
October 14, 2014: CCSF Submits Accreditation Self Evaluation Report299
Community College Consultation recommends removal of ACCJC in Board of Governors Regulations299
October 22, 2014 CEOs to Beno and Herrera300
The People v. ACCJC Goes to Trial October 27-31, 2014302
Oct. 31, 2014 ACCJC: WHAT’S EDUCATION GOT TO DO WITH IT?! By Alvin Ja308
IN WHO’S INTERESTS: PUBLIC, OR ACCREDITING COMMUNITY?308
QUALITY OF EDUCATION NOT RELEVANT TO ACCREDITATION STANDARDS309
UNFAIRNESS OF COMMISSIONER SELECTION/ELECTION309
THE CONCEPT OF TEST VALIDITY309
ABUSE OF THE PUBLIC TRUST310
FEDERAL REGULATIONS: KEYS TO THE KINGDOM WITH A LICENSE TO KILL310
OPPRESSIVE, UNSCRUPULOUS, AND ABOVE-THE- LAW310
MEMBER INSITITUTIONS, CCC CHANCELLOR’S OFFICE & BOARD OF GOVERNORS311
EDUCATION COMMUNITY311
November 15, 2014 Plenary Session of the Academic Senate for California Community Colleges312
“Student Learning Outcomes and Faculty Evaluations (Approved Nov. 15, 2014)312
“Accreditation Evaluation Teams and Commission Actions (Approved November 15, 2014)313
“Faculty Participation on ACCJC External Review Committees (Approved November 14, 2014)313
“Freedom to Choose (Referred to ASCCC Executive Committee for Consideration)315
November 17, 2014 Board of Governors Meeting316
Removal of ACCJC mention in BOG Regulations316
Selected Testimony Before the Board of Governors on Removing ACCJC from Regulations317
Return of CCSF Trustees to Power320
Selected Summary Testimony Before the California Community College Board of Governors321
November 17, 2014 People’s Motion to Amend Complaint330
November 21, 2014 Memo from Beno to Chief Executive Officers with respect to Team members332
December 2, 2014 People’s Case Summary333
A.The ACCJC Engaged In Unlawful Acts And Should Be Found Liable Under The Unlawful" Prong Of The UCL333
B. The ACCJC Engaged In Unfair Acts And Should Be Found Liable Under The "Unfair" Prong Of The UCL.334
C. The ACCJC's Accreditation Activities Are Business Practices Within The Meaning Of Section 17200.334
D. The ACCJC's Attempts To Shield Itself From. Judicial Review And Immunize Its Conduct From Liability Continue To Fail.334
II. THE COURT CAN AND SHOULD VACATE THE ACCJC'S TAINTED DECISIONS334
a. City College is Highly Successful At Educating Students335
b. The ACCJC Exaggerates The Issues At City College.335
3. The Relief Sought Is Not Mooted By The Restoration Policy.335
December 2, 2014 ACCJC’s Case Summary335
2. The ACCJC did not violate the UCL in the Composition of the ACCJC's Evaluation. Team or Show Cause Team.336
a) Peter Crabtree's presence on the Evaluation Team was not "unlawful" as a violation of either 34 C.F.R. section 602.15(a)(6) or the ACCJC's own policies.336
d) There is no evidence that the number of academics on either the Evaluation Team or Show Cause Team was "unfair."336
b) Dr. Beno's conduct as the reader of the Show Cause Report was not unfair to CCSF337
a) The ACCJC's use of the term "recommendation" was not unlawful or unfair.337
b) CCSF was afforded every opportunity required by the DOE regulations and ACCJC policies to review and comment on the deficiencies relied upon by the Commission.337
B. The Remedy Sought by the City Attorney Is Unmanageable and improper.337
DECEMBER 10, 2014 Oral Arguments in The People vs. ACCJC337
December 18, 2014 Summary of CFT Complaint Against ACCJC339
Out of Compliance339
Inconsistent Decision Making341
Inconsistent Fiscal Standards341
Continue to Violate Conflict of Interest Requirements342
Hearing Panel Bias343
Appeals Process Violated345
Chapter 7 ACCJC in 2015346
January 7-9, 2015346
Deficiency Number and Sanction January 2015347
Letters from ACCJC to Colleges based on January 7-9, 2015 actions350
College of the Sequoias - Removed from Warning and Reaffirmed Accreditation350
Crafton Hills - Warning351
San Bernardino Valley College - Warning352
E-Mail from San Bernardino Valley College Academic Senate President Jeremiah A. Gilbert353
Los Medanos College - Reaffirmed Accreditation355
Contra Costa College - Reaffirmed Accreditation357
Long Beach City College - Accreditation Reaffirmed358
El Camino College- Accreditation Reaffirmed359
Cuesta College - Accreditation Reaffirmed359
Other Colleges360
American Samoa Community College (ASCC)- SHOW CAUSE360
Deficiencies and Sanction Comparison – June 2014, January 2015362
November 16-20, 2014 RESTORATION EVALUATION REPORT366
False Relief to CCSF371
January 16, 2015 Tentative Decision in People vs. ACCJC372
Personnel Costs and Long-term Liability374
Deficiency And Noncompliance374
Conflict of Interest376
ACCJC Press Statement376
January 20, 2015 Board of Governors removes ACCJC from Regulations377
January 27, 2015 Compton College Eligibility Letter filed377
Feb. 3, 2015 Responses to Tentative Decision in The People vs. ACCJC378
SF City Attorney Injunctive Terms379
February 2, 2015 Letter from CCSF Chancellor Tyler380
ACCJC Responses of February 3 and 5, 2015382
ACCJC TERMS OF INJUNCTION383
AFT 2121 Amicus of February 3, 2015384
Feb. 17, 2015 Final Decision in The People Vs. ACCJC386
Cartoon from February 2015 CCC Perspective387
Feb. 26, 2015 Letter from Barbara Beno388
Feb. 23, 2015 Appointment of Guy Lease as CCSF Special Trustee396
2015 External Visiting Teams Fail to Meet Academic Senate 40% Faculty Representation397
March 27, 2015 ACCJC Suffers Another Court Loss409
Academic Senate for California Community Colleges on ACCJC written reports410
May 4th, 2015 Letter to Ted Mitchel regarding SLO use411
May 11, 2015 Letter from U.S. Dept. Of Education to Richard Sterling412
May 30, 2015 - CCSF Decision Point Approaching413
June 4, 2015 AB 1397 (Fair Accreditation Act of 2015)415
June 3-5, 2015 ACCJC Meeting417
June 3-5, 2015 ACCJC Actions on Institutions418
June 29, 2015 Letters to Colleges regarding ACCJC Actions of June 3-5, 2015419
Laney College -WARNING419
Merritt College - PROBATION421
College of Alameda - PROBATION423
Berkeley City College - WARNING424
Pasadena City College - PROBATION425
Mission College - WARNING427
Palo Verde College - WARNING429
Butte College - Accreditation Reaffirmed431
Palomar College - Reaffirmed Accrediation432
Santa Rosa Junior College - Reaffirmed Accreditation432
Los Angeles Valley College - Removed WARNING and REAFFIRMED ACCREDITATION434
West Valley College - REMOVED WARNING AND REAFFIRMED ACCREDITATION434
Deficiencies and Resulting Sanctions June 2014 – June 2015435
2015 List of College Unmet Standards437
June 18, 2015 Appeals Court Denies Community College Accrediting Commission’s Objections443
ACCJC Sanctions on Colleges: 2011-2015444
July 2, 2015 Letter to Colleges Regarding Composite Financial Index446
July 8, 2015, CCSF Before ACCJC COMMISSION HEARING449
August 15, 2015 ACCJC Affirmation of CCSF Decision to Terminate Letter451
August 2015: ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS RECEIVED WHILE THE INJUNCTION PROCESS WAS PENDING453
August 28, 2015 Task Force on Accreditation Report457
Preface457
Accreditation Under the Accrediting Commission for Community and Junior Colleges457
Ideal Attributes of an Accrediting Organization458
Findings & Recommendations462
Concluding Statement of the Task Force463
Chapter 8 Sanctions on Colleges – A Picture of Inconsistent Decisions Before 2014464
Compton College - DENIAL OF ACCREDITATION (2005)465
College of the Sequoias – PLACED ON SHOW CAUSE (2013)469
Diablo Valley College – PLACED ON SHOW CAUSE (2009), REMOVE SHOW CAUSE AND PLACED ON PROBATION (2010), REAFFIRMED ACCREDITATION (2011)470
Cuesta College – PLACED ON SHOW CAUSE (2012), PLACED ON WARNING (2013)474
College of the Redwoods - SHOW CAUSE (2012), REMOVE SHOW CAUSE IMPOSE PROBATION474
Solano Community College – PLACED ON WARNING (2012), PLACED ON PROBATION (2013)478
Bakersfield College – REAFFIRM ACCREDITATION (2013)479
Merced College – REMOVE WARNING AND REAFFIRM ACCREDITATION (2013)480
West Hills College District - ACCREDITATION REAFFIRMED (2011)480
Los Angeles Mission College – WARNING (2013)485
Los Angeles Pierce College – ACCREDITATION REAFFIRMED (2013)487
San Diego Mesa College – ACCREDITATION REAFFIRMED (2011)488
Fullerton College – REMOVE WARNING AND MOVE TO ACCREDITATION (2012)489
College of Marin – ACCREDITATION REAFFIRMED (2013)490
Shasta College – PLACED ON PROBATION (2012)490
Los Angeles Southwest College – PLACED ON PROBATION (2012), REMOVED FROM PROBATION AND PLACED ON WATCH (2013)492
Los Angeles Valley College – PLACED ON WARNING (2013)494
Copper Mountain College – ACCREDITATION REAFFIRMED (2013)496
Woodland Community College – PLACED ON WARNING (2013)496
Yuba College – PLACED ON WARNING (2013)498
Barstow Community College – CONTINUED ON WARNING (2013)501
Victor Valley College – PLACED ON PROBATION (2012)502
Gavilan College – ACCREDITATION REAFFIRMED (2013)503
Ventura County Community Colleges PLACED ON PROBATION (2012), ACCREDITATION REAFFIRMED (2013)504
Peralta Community College District Colleges – PLACED ON WARNING (2012), WARNING REMOVED AND REAFFIRMED ACCREDITION (2013)505
Coast Community College District – PLACED ON WARNING (2013)505
Imperial Valley College – PLACED ON WARNING (2013)507
College of Marin – REMOVED FROM WARNING (2013)508
Fresno City College – REMOVED FROM WARNING (2013)508
Antelope Valley College – Midterm Report (2013)508
El Camino College – PLACED ON WARNING (2013)510
Hartnell College – PLACED ON PROBATION (2013)511
West Los Angeles College – PLACED ON WARNING (2012) , ACCREDITATION REAFFIRMED (2013)515
Los Angeles Harbor College – REMOVE PROBATION AND REAFFIRM ACCREDITATION (2013)518
Modesto Junior College – PLACED ON PROBATION (2012)519
Chapter 9: Corporate Interests519
The Corporate Roots of the Attack on Community Colleges519
The Lumina Foundation and the ACCJC522
Chapter 10 Conclusion524
ACCJC Appeals Procedure Manual528
34 Code of Federal Regulation (CFR) – Relevant Sections534
Index541
Introduction
What is ACCC and How Has It Gone Wrong?
The Accrediting Commission for Community and Junior Colleges (ACCJC) is the accreditation agency for the Community Colleges of California. It currently works as a part of the Western Association of Schools and Colleges (WASC).
Barbara Beno, a former college president whose contract was not renewed by the college district in which she had served, has been the President of the ACCJC since August of 2001. The president of the Commission is a staff position. During her term as President the ACCJC has changed from being a collegial accrediting agency that helps its colleges to satisfy accreditation standards by offering training and assistance to both visiting teams and college constituencies to one that issues sanctions with a vengeance. The Commission operates in secret and applies its standards in an arbitrary and inconsistent manner. It disregards the public policies of California. In addition questions regarding conflict of interest on the part of Commission members and staff have been raised on numerous occasions. Due to the secretive processes of the ACCJC, it is difficult to substantiate how Commission members might be voting even when a conflict of interest arises. In fact, there is not even a public record of how the nineteen individual commissioners vote on the sanctions of the colleges.
Commission members are currently elected from a slate produced by the Commission. As one person wrote me “It was a while ago and may not be of any interest to you, but I was asked to serve on a selection committee for ACCJC board members. Talk about a slate! I walked in and was told who we would recommend and why. It was clearly done on the basis of reward and punish! Beno may have changed the policies since then—but I bet the fundamental features of the process remain the same.”
ACCJC Violations Confirmed by U.S. Department of Education
On August 13, 2013 the ACCJC received a letter from the U.S. Department of Education stating the finding that the ACCJC was out of compliance with the Education Secretary’s Criteria for Recognition in their handling of the removal of accreditation from City College of San Francisco in June of 2013. This is just one indication of the pattern of abuse that has occurred over the years. This letter is described in detail under the City College of San Francisco section of this paper.
The letter of August 13, 2013 informed Barbara Beno that "the Accreditation Group has found that some aspects of the agency's accreditation review process do not meet the Secretary's Criteria for Recognition (CFR). Specifically, the Accreditation Group has determined that the ACCJC is out of compliance with 34 C.F.R. §§602.15(a)(3), 602.15 (a)(6), 602.18(e), and 602.20(a) of the Secretary's Criteria for Recognition."
The Accreditation Group limited its review to an evaluation of what happened at City College of San Francisco but I have documented the above violations at a number of other community colleges in California in this paper (ACCJC Gone Wild). In addition to the violations cited by the Accreditation Group, I have also documented here violations related to the following sections of 34 CFR:
602.13 Acceptance of the agency by others.
602.15 Administrative and fiscal responsibilities
602.16 Accreditation and preaccreditation standards.
602.17 Application of standards in reaching an accrediting decision
602.18 Ensuring consistency in decision-making.
602.19 Monitoring and reevaluation of accredited institutions and programs.
602.20 Enforcement of standards.
602.21 Review of standards.
602.23 Operating procedures all agencies must have.
602.25 Due process
In January of 2014, the Department of Education determined that ACCJC had violated the following sections of the Criteria for Recognition:
§602.12(b)§602.13 §602.15(a)(3)§602.16(a)(1)(i)
§602.16(a)(1)(ii)§602.16(a)(1)(iii) §602.17(a)§602.17(f)
§602.18(e)§602.19(b) §602.20(a)§602.20(b)
§602.21(c)§602.25(a-e) §602.26
The letter further stated that ACCJC would lose its ability to accredit colleges if it did not meet these requirements by January of 2015.
President Beno and the Commission members have, since Beno took over, conducted a reign of terror in which any sign of disloyalty to the ACCJC or difference with any of their policies is met with threats of more severe sanctions. In some cases, actual sanctions have been levied against colleges where criticisms of the Commission itself have occurred. As one CEO told me, it is “Beno’s way or the highway.” As a result, most college administrators and faculty are afraid to speak out against the excesses of the ACCJC. Even visiting team members have been unwilling to step forward and expose abuses for fear of hurting the chances of their home institutions. In June of 2013 the ACCJC stepped up its muzzling of both visiting team members and Commission members by passing an additional series of policy changes that require non-disclosure of Commission proceedings.
The ACCJC has directed colleges to implement “transparent decision making, honest dialogue and widespread dissemination of internal college documents.” The ACCJC itself does not live up to that standard.
As Joanne Waddell, AFT 1521 President, stated at a June 6, 2014 rally in Sacramento on June 6: “In Los Angeles we are facing an accreditation review that will waste our time and taxpayer money on ACCJC obsessions unrelated to the quality of education.” “At a time when we are trying to rebuild our course offerings and programs after years of budget cuts, an accreditation review process run this way, to satisfy out-of-touch bureaucrats instead of helping our students get the best education possible, is the last thing we need.”
The goal of accreditation, according to the United States Department of Education, "is to ensure that education provided by institutions of higher education meets acceptable levels of quality." In the Special Edition of the February 2001 ACCJC News it is pointed out that “In achieving and maintaining its accreditation a higher education institution assures the public that the institution meets standards of quality, that the education earned there is of value to the students who earn it, and that employers, trade or professional-related agencies and other colleges and universities can accept a student’s credentials as legitimate.”
Contrary to its own claims, the ACCJC does not value colleges for their quality of instruction, but instead the ACCJC issues sanctions that are based on the successful performance of excessive documentation and data gathering, reviews of policy and procedures, and adherence to education practices that are not based on scientific studies.
According to the ACCJC, accredited institutions are required to meet or exceed a set of rigorous standards including:
· Institutional Mission and Effectiveness (Standard I);
· Student Learning Programs and Services (Standard II);
· Resources (Standard III); and
· Leadership and Governance (Standard IV).
Article 1, Section 2 of the ACCJC Bylaws makes clear that the intent of the Commission is to require that colleges have “clearly defined objectives appropriate to higher education; has established conditions under which their achievement can reasonably be expected; appears in fact to be accomplishing them substantially; it is so organized, staffed, and supported that it can be expected to continue to do so; and demonstrates that it meets ACCJC’s Eligibility Requirements and Accreditation Standards.” In short, the role of the ACCJC, as seen by the ACCJC, is to force colleges to spend enormous quantities of time demonstrating that they are properly (in the eyes of the Commission) organized and have established the required conditions. The ACCJC rarely looks at the quality of education offered or the results of the students of the college under review. The emphasis on process leaves less time for colleges facing an accreditation decision to spend on efforts to actually offer quality programs of instruction.
Student Learning Outcomes
Some of the demands of ACCJC, such as Measurable Student Learning Outcomes (SLOs), are not recognized as model standard practices by the majority of college educators. This is a violation of 34 CFR 602.13. This fact is illustrated by faculty resistance to the imposition of the measurable student learning outcome methodology. Despite the opposition to the busy work required under SLOs, faculty members are forced to perform them under the threat of sanction. Even so, a large number of sanctions are based on the failure of a college to fully implement SLOs. This just illustrates the lack of general acceptance of this standard.
SLO’s are written to describe what specific knowledge and skills a student should have and be able to demonstrate at the conclusion of a course, program, and/or degree. SLO’s are to be used to provide data collection to measure student academic success. The implementation of SLOs requires considerable work and effort. In addition to the normal tests given by instructors to determine how well a student is doing in a class and what grade should the student earn, SLO’s are used to determine whether the specific “outcomes” have been achieved. The data from the SLO’s is then supposed to be used to determine whether the classes are successful in terms of student success .There has, to this point, been no objective study of the use of SLOs in improving instruction.
The problem with SLO’s in the eyes of many instructors is that they do not lead to better teaching and learning and are a very big waste of time. Instead they tend to lead to a standardized curriculum that does not address the full needs of the students. Such important elements as motivation, critical thinking, interest, creativity, and the ability to learn on one’s own are difficult if not impossible to measure with SLO’s – and as a result become less important in the minds of those who would rate educational quality based on SLOs. In short, many faculty members resist doing SLOs not just because of the work involved, but also that they do not provide insights into how to improve instruction.
Widely Accepted Criteria
34 CFR 602.13 require that an accrediting agency “must be able to demonstrate that its standards, policies, and accreditation decisions are widely accepted in the United States by educators and educational institutions, licensing bodies (if appropriate), practioners, and employers of graduates for accredited institutions/programs.” The ACCJC is out of compliance with this fundamental requirement. Their approach to governance, planning, coordination, SLOs, fiscal responsibility, and research is not widely accepted either in the California community colleges or across the nation. This accounts for much of the high level of sanctions inflicted on the colleges by the ACCJC.
I have found no evidence that suggests that the ACCJC has attempted to demonstrate that its standards, policies and decisions are widely accepted. To the contrary, concerns voiced by the Academic Senate of the California Community Colleges, a host of both state and federal legislators, faculty unions, Community College Boards of Trustees, the California Community College Consultation Council, and the RP Group underlines the general opposition to their policies and practices. The lack of wide acceptance was included in the concerns of the Department of Education in their evaluation of ACCJC.
The ACCJC discourages any consideration of how the college meets state and federal requirements. This disinterest in California and federal law and practice is emphasized in the ACCJC Team Evaluator Manual. On page 23 of the August 2012 Manual it advises that “Recommendations should not be based on the standards of governmental agencies, the legislature, or organizations.”
The actual quality of the education offered is not a consideration. In addition, the ACCJC has attempted to micro-manage colleges by using accreditation as the tool to force colleges to change their budgeting and governing patterns to fit the ACCJC’s vision of how a college should operate. In the case of Northern Marianas College (Saipan North Marianas Islands), the Commission has even attempted to force change in their trustee composition.
Some of the arguments used by the Commission to support ACCJC sanctions against City College of San Francisco and several other colleges question the very mission of the community colleges in California. A goal of ACCJC’s interpretation of its standards seems to be to reduce open access to a wide variety of programs and students in the name of reduced resources. In short, the Commission is attempting to change the very mission of community colleges through ACCJC’s ability to sanction. This action is clearly in conflict with Federal Regulation 34 CFR 602.17(a)(1).
High Rate of Sanctions
From 2003 to 2008 the six United States regional accrediting bodies issued a total of 126 sanctions to community colleges in the United States. 112 of these were issued by the ACCJC under Beno’s direction. ACCJC has continued to be out of step with the other accrediting agencies. From June 2011 to June 2012 the ACCJC issued forty-eight of the seventy-five sanctions (64%) issued nationwide. The community colleges in California represent about 19% of the community colleges accredited nationally. In short, the 19% of the colleges nationwide that are under ACCJC generated 64% of the national sanctions.
In 2013 the ACCJC continued its assault on California’s community colleges when it sanctioned 10 out of 23 (43.4%) colleges before it in January of 2013 and 10 out of 21 (47.6%) colleges in June of 2013. Their action included putting College of Sequoias on SHOW CAUSE (the college must prove that it should not have its accreditation removed) and removed the accreditation from City College of San Francisco effective July 2014. This large number of sanctions is an indication that their policies and the way they apply them are out of step with what is happening in the internationally recognized outstanding community colleges of California.
Dan Walters, on February 16, 2014, wrote in the Fresno Bee that “For several years, those who run California's 100-plus community colleges have complained that the commission that makes all-important accreditation evaluations has been excessively aggressive, even nit-picking. There have even been off-the-record complaints that evaluators for the Accrediting Commission for Community and Junior Colleges, an offshoot of the Western Association of Schools and Colleges, were settling personal scores from their own days as community college faculty and administrators. The complaints arose as the commission issued highly critical reports on district after district, and as local college officials, worried about the immense financial consequences of losing accreditation but also dealing with cutbacks in state support, scrambled to respond.”
On July 8, 2015, City College of San Francisco Interim Chancellor Lamb spoke to the ACCJC regarding the situation in the state. In her words: “I am seeing good colleges, not just City College, who help students be successful through excellent programs and student services, being placed on sanction, and threatened with Termination based on minor institutional process flaws. We do not believe the so called Two Year Rule was intended to be used when colleges are given recommendations for improvement or cited for minor deficiencies by the visiting teams. What was once a peer evaluation process and a process toward meeting standards and achieving excellence, seems to have become a process of compliance and enforcement that overlooks the outstanding achievements in student success measures in favor of punishing a college for such violations as the Board of Trustees failing to review its mission statement in a given year.”
ACCJC Sanctions from 2011 to 2015
ACCJC SANCTIONS from 2011 - 2015
California Community Colleges
Actions
Actions
Actions
Actions
Actions
Actions
Actions
Actions
Actions
June 2011
Jan. 2012
June 2012
Jan. 2013
June 2013
Jan. 2014
June 2014
Jan. 2015
June 2015
Bakersfield College
RA
Barstow College
W
W
RA
Berkeley City College
W
W
RA
W
Butte College
RA
Cabrillo College
RA
Canada College
RA
Cerritos
W
RA
Cerro Coso Community College
RA
City College of SF
SC
T
RES
Coastline
W
RA
College of Alameda
W
W
RA
P
College of Marin
W
RA
College of Redwoods
SC
P
RA
College of the Canyons
RA
College of San Mateo
RA
College of the Siskiyous
W
RA
College of Sequoias
SC
W
RA
College of the Desert
RA
Columbia College
W
W
RA
Contra Costa College
RA
Copper Mountain College
RA
Crafton Hills College
W
Cuesta College
SC
W
RA
RA
Cuyamaca College
RA
Cypress College
W
RA
DeAnza College
RA
Diablo Valley College
RA
El Camino College
W
RA
RA
Evergreen Valley
W
RA
P
RA
Feather River College
RA
Foothill College
RA
Fresno City
W
RA
Fullerton College
W
RA
Gavilan College
RA
Glendale College
RA
Golden West
W
W
RA
Grossmont College
RA
Hartnell College
W
RA
Imperial Valley
W
W
RA
Irvine Valley College
RA
Lake Tahoe College
RA
LA Harbor College
P
RA
LA Mission
W
RA
LA Pierce College
RA
LA Southwest College
P
W
RA
LA Trade Tech College
RA
LA Valley College
W
W
RA
Laney College
W
W
RA
W
Lassen College
RA
Long Beach City College
RA
Los Medanos College
RA
Mendocino College
RA
Merced College
W
W
RA
Merritt College
W
W
RA
P
Mira Costa
P
RA
Mission College
P
W
Modesto Junior College
P
P
RA
Moorpark College
P
P
RA
Moreno Valley College
RA
Mt. San Jacinto College
RA
Norco College
RA
Ohlone College
RA
Orange Coast College
W
RA
Oxnard College
P
P
RA
Palo Verde College
P
P
RA
P
W
Palomar College
RA
RA
Pasadena City College
P
Porterville College
RA
Reedley College
W
RA
Rio Hondo College
RA
Riverside College
RA
Saddleback College
RA
San Bernardino Valley College
W
San Diego Miramar
W
RA
San Joaquin Delta College
RA
RA
San Joaquin Valley
W
RA
San Jose City
P
RA
P
RA
Santa Ana College
RA
Santa Barbara City College
RA
Santa Rosa Junior College
RA
Santiago Canyon College
RA
Shasta College
P
RA
Sierra College
W
RA
Skyline College
RA
Solano College
W
W
RA
Southwestern College
RA
Taft College
RA
Ventura College
P
P
RA
Victor Valley College
P
P
P
RA
P
RA
West Hills Coalinga
RA
West Hills Lemoore
RA
West Los Angeles
W
RA
West Valley College
W
RA
Woodland
W
W
RA
Yuba
P
W
RA
Total Sanctions
12
15
15
12
9
4
11
3
7
Total RA
7
7
6
14
12
13
12
14
14
Total Actions
19
22
21
26
21
17
23
17
21
Percent Sanctions
63.2%
68.2%
71.4%
46.2%
42.9%
23.5%
47.8%
17.6%
33.3%
W = Warning
P = Probation
SC = Show Cause
T = Termination
RA = Restored or Reaffirmed Accreditation
RES = Restoration Status
Clearly, the ACCJC has become a rogue agency.
According to the ACCJC, its accreditation process provides assurance to the public that the accredited member colleges meet their Standards and that "the education earned at the institutions is of value to the student who earned it; and employers, trade or profession-related licensing agencies, and other colleges and universities can accept a student's credential as legitimate." Contrary to this claim, the emphasis of ACCJC has not been on the value of the education to the student or to the colleges and universities that would accept the credits earned. Rather it has been on compliance with the ACCJC standards (the majority of which do not directly address the quality of education that students receive).
The California Community Colleges Student Success Scorecard tracked students for six years through 2011-12. Many of the colleges which ranked highest on the scorecard in the various categories have recently been given sanctions by the ACCJC. Other colleges with low ranking have not. One typical example is City College of San Francisco which was had its accreditation revoked in June of 2013. CCSF ranked fourth among the colleges in the state in the percentage of students who were underprepared for college but still achieved 30 units of transfer work over the six years tracked. It also ranked high in other categories. CCSF is a great college for students and the ACCJC is set on closing it. It is clear, from looking at the scores at the various colleges, that the ACCJC has not successfully developed a methodology for considering academic quality and success. The scores on the California Community College Student Success Scorecard can be found on the California Community College website.
In fact, when the colleges of Special Trustee Agrella and Temporary Chancellor Scott-Skillman (who were brought in the make CCSF right), CCSF scores higher in many categories.
Folsom Lake College (Scott-Skillman)
Santa Rosa College (Agrella)
CCSF
Full Time Equiv. Students
5,400
9,700
32,600
Persistence
68.6%
62.3%
75.2%
Completion
45.6%
53.1%
55.6%
Career Tech Ed
49.9%
54.5%
49.5%
30 units
70.3%
69.8%
72.5%
Remedial (Math/English/ESL)
23/35/7
15/27/12
18/43/52
% FT Faculty
69.4%
58.2%
71.4%
Major Reasons for ACCJC Sanctions
According to their own published reports, the following were the reasons given for the ACCJC sanctions
COLLEGES ONSANCTION
Program Review
Planning
Internal Governance
Board Roles and Responsibilities
Financial Stability or Management
Student Learning Outcomes Implementation
Employee Evaluation
2009
71%
92%
46%
46%
54%
(N=24)
(17)
(22)
(11)
(11)
(13)
2010
68%
89%
42%
58%
58%
(N=19)
(13)
(17)
(8)
(11)
(11)
2011
19%
71%
24%
67%
62%
(N=21)
(4)
(15)
(5)
(14)
(13)
2012
21%
71%
18%
71%
50%
(N=28)
(6)
(20)
(5)
(20)
(14)
2013
28%
64%
20%
68%
52%
(N=25)
(7)
(16)
(5)
(17)
(13)
2014
38%
88%
31%
38%
50%
75%
63%
(N=16)
(6)
(14)
(5)
(6)
(8)
(12)
(10)
2015
58%
75%
42%
78%
50%
83%
67%
(N=12)
(7)
(9)
(5)
(9)
(6)
(10)
(8)
Source: ACCJC NEWS Reports
In the Spring/Summer 2015 edition of ACCJC NEWS it is reported that “For the 12 colleges on sanction, it remains a challenge to regularly perform data driven program review and a challenge to use data on educational quality to drive planning and improvement. A large percentage of the institutions on sanction have not implemented the ACCJC’s Standards on student learning outcomes.”
None of the above areas of concern should be used as a reason for denying accreditation and effectively closing down a college as was done in the cases of Compton and the City College of San Francisco.
Vagueness in Requirements and Micro-Managing
In addition, the ACCJC policies and letters to colleges are vague as to what is actually required of a college and what is merely a recommendation being suggested to improve the college. This vagueness was cited as one of the ACCJC violations in the August 13, 2013 letter from the Accreditation Group of the U.S. Department of Education. The level of vagueness on the part of ACCJC has been duplicated around the state of California.
Most recently, the ACCJC has entered a stage of micro-managing of district-level operations through sanctions on the colleges of multi-college districts. This includes attempting to dictate to college governing boards how they should operate and how district chancellors should operate in relation to local college presidents. It has even gotten to the point where Beno is calling college presidents and district chancellors on the telephone and demanding changes be made immediately or harsh sanctions will follow. A record of these direct conversations are not publically available in contradiction to the requirements of 34 CFR 602.15(b)(2).
Carl Friedlander (President of the Community College Council (CCC), writing in the March 2013 issue of the CFT’s Community College Council Perspective, called for the ACCJC to “stop using the threat (or fact) of accreditation sanctions to undermine California's system of locally elected board of trustees. Providing training to trustees about accreditation and their role in it is a good thing. However, it is an affront to democracy to tell trustees that they put at risk the accreditation of the colleges they were elected to represent if they speak out on issues they care about or communicate with a wide range of individuals, constituencies and interest groups rather than relying almost exclusively on the perspective of their district's chancellor/ superintendent.”
“These kinds of behaviors by ACCJC leadership compound the problem of the federal pressures and make many faculty feel that accreditation in California today has almost nothing to do with "peer and professional review" and is instead about ACCJC spearheading an aggressive (and, many believe, misguided) "reform" agenda. Spearheading a "reform" campaign is not the business of an accrediting commission.”
Secrecy in ACCJC Operations
The ACCJC operation is cloaked in secrecy with all involved required to sign a pledge that they will not reveal the inner workings of the college visiting teams or how the ACCJC itself operates in determining what level of sanctions to impose. The minutes of their meetings are not made public. After the visiting team issues its report, all actions of the ACCJC are done out of the public view. The votes on sanctions by the Commission are never disclosed. Even the meetings of the ACCJC are held in places and at times difficult for the public to find out about or attend and comment. The time for public input is agendized for the third day of their meetings - after the decisions on sanctions have been made. The ACCJC limits public discussion at their three day meetings to a total of 15 minutes and only allows 20 members of the public into their meetings. The lack of public access to ACCJC information is stunning. The Commission has paid little attention to its own timelines for posting the agendas for their meetings or for posting the resulting actions of the Commission, including even where their meetings will be held. In June of 2013, important policy proposals were not made available until the time of consideration and attendance by the public was strictly curtailed. As a result of this behavior on the part of the ACCJC, due process rights of colleges are barely available. This is a violation of 34 CFR 602.25.
It is now becoming commonplace for the ACCJC to impose sanctions that are much harsher than those suggested by the visiting teams. The latest such incidents occurred at the January 9-11, 2013 meeting when the Commission placed Northern Marianas College and College of the Sequoias on SHOW CAUSE in contradiction to what the visiting teams had suggested. One wonders what has happened to the recognition of the work of “peers” in the accreditation process. It also puts into question either a lack of training of visiting team members or a vagueness in the requirements for different levels of sanction. Either of these cases would be a violation of 34 CFR Section 602.
In short, the ACCJC has become, in words taken from a report by the National Advisory Committee on Institutional Quality and Integrity (NACIQI) on accreditation agencies, “unnecessarily intrusive, prescriptive, and granular in ways that may not advance system goals nor match institutional priorities, and is costly in resources such as time, funds, and opportunity.”
ACCJC and Advocates
Carl Friedlander in his Perspective column of March 2013 addressed the role of ACCJC as follows: “ACCJC's singular focus should be ensuring that standards are met. Yet President Beno, along with other ACCJC staff, serves on the Advisory Board for the Campaign for College Opportunity (CCO). The work of CCO is controversial within the system. There should be a firewall between ACCJC staff and the boards of community college advocacy organizations. It is similarly inappropriate for ACCJC to take positions on legislation affecting the community colleges, as the Commission has recently done. Returning to Lumina its $450,000 grant for "exploring use of the Degree Qualifications Profile and Tuning at community colleges in California" would be another way ACCJC could clarify that the Commission is about ensuring standards, not spearheading a reshaping of community college education.”
A group calling itself “California Competes” filed a Petition for Writ of Mandate in the Superior Court of California, County of San Francisco in 2013 whose object was to reduce community college academic senate participation in the development of academic and professional matters. The Writ was denied by the judge in the case and his decision has been appealed. Among the financial backers of California Competes is the Lumina Foundation for Education. California Competes used as evidence of the dysfunction caused by the California Board of Governors’ 23 year regulations was that “nearly a quarter of California's community colleges currently are under sanction by the ACCJC, and most of the 27 colleges under sanction were cited for problems with leadership, decision-making and clarity of roles.” The intersection of the work of the ACCJC and California Competes to narrow the scope of community college education and decrease faculty influence is notable.
Methods Used in Gone Wild
This document has been prepared by reading the non-secret portions of visiting team reports, publications of the ACCJC, sanction letters to colleges, and confidential discussions with persons on the college campuses and on visiting teams with direct knowledge concerning the behaviors of the ACCJC and its President Barbara Beno. It also includes exchanges of correspondence between President Beno on behalf of the ACCJC and interested parties such as the California Community College Chancellor, California Federation of Teachers, and the Community College Association of the California Teachers Association. The study by the RP Group and the California Legislative Audit of ACCJC were also important to the discovery of abuse.
In going through the Visiting Team Reports and the Commission letters to the colleges it becomes clear that the judgments are not made on a consistent basis. This is a violation of 34 CFR 602.18. The inconsistency is a result of vaguely stated requirements for the different levels of sanctions, the often inadequate training of Visiting Team members, the lack of adequate faculty membership on Visiting Teams, and bias on the part of the Commission itself. These issues are pointed out in the sections that follow.
This document is intended to expose how the ACCJC actually operates.
It is sad that the ACCJC has added to college woes. The colleges have enough to worry about without also being required to exist under the yoke of the ACCJC and its micro-managing sanctions. Beno claims that the accreditation by the ACCJC is voluntary. This is not currently true for California’s community colleges but the ACCJC monopoly may end with action by the California Community College Board of Governors in January of 2015. The colleges are by current California regulation required to join the ACCJC. The fact that membership is not voluntary is a violation of federal requirements.
Something must be done concerning the ACCJC and its abusive posturing - and sooner rather than later.
Marty Hittelman
Retired Community College Faculty member
AB 1385 AND HISTORY AS OF April 28, 2015
AB 1385 BILL ANALYSIS for Hearing on April 28, 2015
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON HIGHER EDUCATION - Jose Medina, Chair
Analysis Prepared by:Laura Metune / HIGHER ED. / (916) 319-3960
SUMMARY OFAB 1385
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 rntitling CCC districts to receive state funds; requires the CC 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.
COMMENTS REGARDING ACCREDITATION:
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 ordered 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.
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.
Analysis Prepared by:Laura Metune / HIGHER ED. / (916) 319-3960
Chapter 1: Higher Education Accreditation
The goal of accreditation, according to the United States Department of Education, “is to ensure that education provided by institutions of higher education meets acceptable levels of quality.” This is in stark contrast with the emphasis of the ACCJC. For example, in the law suit against the ACCJC filed by the City of San Francisco on page 11 of the ACCJC's objections to Plaintiff's evidence in opposition to ACCJC's motion for summary adjudication concerns ACCJC response to the reference to the Student Success Scorecard was: "This information is submitted to support the position that the college provides a quality education, which is not relevant to whether the college met the accreditation standards or eligibility requirements at the time the Commission made its decisions in 2012, 2013. This position really attacks the standards by which the college was measured."
Accrediting agencies in the United States are private educational associations of regional or national scope. “The U.S. Department of Education does not accredit educational institutions and/or programs. However, the Secretary of Education is required by law to publish a list of nationally recognized accrediting agencies that the Secretary of Education determines to be reliable authorities as to the quality of education or training provided by the institutions of higher education programs they accredit.” Applications for recognition as an accreditation agency requires that an application with the U.S. Department of Education, a review by the National Advisory Committee on Institutional Quality and Integrity, and a final decision made by the Secretary of Education. The Accrediting Agency Evaluation Unit located within the Office of Postsecondary Education within the Department of Education deals with reviews of accreditation agencies and acts as a liaison with these agencies. It provides support to the National Advisory Committee on Institutional Quality and Integrity.
ACCJC and WASC
The Accrediting Commission for Community and Junior Colleges (ACCJC) is the accreditation agency for the community colleges of California. It currently works under the Western Association of Schools and Colleges (WASC). Each of the three Commissions of WASC is reviewed periodically for renewal of recognition by the US Department of Education (USDOE). WASC itself is currently required to come into compliance with national standards within 12 months of their 2012 request for continued recognition.
The ACCJC’s status as a federally approved accrediting agency was renewed by the Secretary of Education in December of 2007 for a five year term. Their next review came up in the Fall of 2013. The decision of the Department of Education is expected in early 2014.
As I point out in this report, the ACCJC should not be authorized to continue as they are now functioning. The Department of Education has taken a first step in that direction by issuing a letter in August of 2013 requiring the ACCJC to make changes in the way that they operate or be removed from the list of accreditation agencies.
Violations of the Code of Federal Regulations
This paper describes the many abuses of the ACCJC including their violations of the Code of Federal Regulations (34 CFR)). In particular, the ACCJC has been in violation of 34 CFR 602 by not having adequate staff , resources, and time to realistically consider the number of institutions that they review at each meeting; the lack of adequate training of visiting team members; the lack of controlling conflicts of interest or the appearance of conflicts of interest; the lack of maintenance of complete and accurate records including the destruction of important documents; the lack of an effective method of consideration by the Commission members; attempting to change the missions of the colleges; the lack of consistency in enforcing standards and determining levels of sanction; the lack of clear standards as illustrated by the variance in sanctions recommended by visiting teams and the eventual sanction levied by the Commission; the lack of clarity to colleges as to the reasons for a sanction being given and what improvements are required; failure to involve all of the college’s relevant constituencies (including the collective bargaining agents) in the campus interviews; failure to take into account comments and complaints before making sanction decisions; failure to respond in a timely and complete manner to third party comments and complaints against the ACCJC; a lack of unbiased judgments regarding complaints against the ACCJC; a lack of due process in their proceedings; a failure to provide reasonable time for colleges to make necessary adjustments; a failure to properly balance the number of faculty and administrators on visiting teams; and timely filing of its decisions. Each of these violations of federal requirements is documented in this paper and are reasons to deny the continued use of ACCJC as an accreditation agency.
WASC
The WASC Corp