The move to get a new accreditation plan in place could take a decade, while the state’s 2.1 million community college students look for guidance in a complex system.

The fatal action for the Accrediting Commission for Community and Junior Colleges was its challenge to City College of San Francisco. The commission in 2012 began raising concerns about financial and governance practices at the college and at one point threatened to revoke the college’s accreditation, landing the two parties in court.

City College has acknowledged its precarious financial position and its revolving door of administrators. The school has pruned expenses and tightened its finances, according to a bond filing issued earlier this year.

Which leaves the state with a black eye in terms of accreditation of community colleges. Is the accreditation commission being punished for doing its job? Or was it unfairly severe in its application of standards?

Need for Accreditation

Accreditation is crucial for most institutions as it is required to access federal student loan money.

The state’s community colleges have seen a decline in enrollment over the past five years and faced an $18 million revenue decline in 2014, although state legislation propped up the San Francisco Community College District — of which the City College is part of — through additional funding last year.

The commission has been on the radar of the California Community Colleges Board of Governors for over a year.

In a report issued by a review committee from the community colleges board, the fate of the accreditation board was sealed.

From the report:

“Between 2009 and 2013 the ACCJC issued 143 sanctions out of the 269 accreditation actions it took. This sanction rate is approximately 53 percent, compared to approximately 12 percent sanction rates within the other six regional accreditors. The quantity and frequency of sanctions issued by the ACCJC, in conjunction with other controversial actions and practices of this accreditor, have led to frequent calls for reform of the accrediting process from member institutions of the ACCJC.”

The accreditation commission responded with a four–page announcement of new practices and noted that as of 2014, there were 30 percent fewer benchmarks required for approval.

“The new standards will be the basis for comprehensive institutional evaluations for reaffirmation of accreditation beginning spring, 2016,” a spokesman for the commission said.

The commission also announced it would host annual conferences for schools to receive input and answer questions about the accreditation process. The first conference is to be held in October 2016.

RELATED – State agency struggling to police for-profit colleges

The commission is part of the Western Association of Schools and Colleges, one of six regional groups in the U.S. that are charged with ensuring higher education institutions adhere to standards that begin at the federal level. The accreditors are overseen by administrators at the U.S. Department of Education and a board called the National Advisory Committee on Accreditation and Institutional Eligibility.

In addition to angering the state community college board of governors, the accreditation commission in California has drawn the ire of teachers unions and their powerful allies. The California Federation of Teachers filed a lawsuit against the commission to keep the San Francisco City College open and registered a complaint with the U.S. Department of Education against the commission.

The American Federation of Teachers said the commission has “failed to focus on improving learning and academic achievement.”

Democratic U.S. Reps. Nancy Pelosi, Jackie Speier and Anna Eshoo called the ACCJC’s actions “outrageous.”

The commission is accused in one complaint of “extensive financial and political relationships with advocacy organizations and private foundations representing for‐profit colleges and powerful student lender interests.”

The commission accepted a $450,000 grant from the Lumina Foundation for Education, a group that has endeavored to change community college education and create a more universal accreditation system. Some onlookers have noted what they call the libertarian roots of Lumina.

But the practice of accreditation stems from federal regulation, which has increased in recent years. Community colleges in the U.S. collectively spend up to $6 billion to keep in compliance, according to a Vanderbilt University study. The study also listed 29 categories that colleges and universities are subject to monitoring and reporting.

Community colleges are subject to review every six years.

Steve Miller can be reached at 517-775-9952 and avalanche50@hotmail.com.

“Proposed by state Democrats, SB707 passed the Senate in a 23-12 vote in June sending it to the Assembly where it cleared in a largely partisan 54-24 roll call in September, moving it to Brown’s desk,” as Guns.com recounted. “Despite widespread resistance to the bill by state and national gun rights groups that included threats of litigation and 40,000 opposition letters delivered to Brown’s office last week, the governor was not swayed.”

The change upended prior state law, which had not circumscribed the gun rights of permit holders. “Those with concealed-weapons permits had previously been allowed to enter a college or university campus with weapons at will,” the International Business Times observed. State Sen. Lois Wolk, D-Davis, introduced the bill in an effort to close what she called a loophole in the 1995 Gun Free Schools Act, which “prohibits a person from possessing a firearm in a place that the person knows, or reasonably should know, is a school zone, unless with the written permission of certain school district officials,” as the Vallejo Times-Herald noted.

California already boasted one of the strictest regimes in the country for regulating guns. “The new law bolsters existing restrictions in the state that prohibit the possession of a firearm within 1,000 feet of a school or college campus without written permission from administrators, and comes less than two weeks after a gunman opened fire at Umpqua Community College in Roseburg, Oregon, killing nine people and wounding nine others,” Bloomberg Politics reported. Oregon was one of eight states to legalize so-called “campus carry.”

College crisis

A recent spate of shootings has ratcheted up the fight over whether popularizing concealed carry would increase or decrease public safety. “The fight over whether guns should be allowed on college campuses is gaining prominence nationally. Advocates argue that students may be able to help prevent crimes such as mass shootings and rapes, but gun control supporters counter that throwing firearms onto campuses with young people, alcohol, mental health issues and strongly held beliefs on controversial topics is a dangerous mix,” the Sacramento Bee noted.

Both critics and supporters have attempted to determine how shooters and potential shooters would respond to knowledge of the new restrictions. Firearms Policy Coalition president Brandon Combs argued that the response would be opportunistic one. “Criminals will know that their intended victims are totally vulnerable when they’re on California school grounds because SB707 will ensure that they’re defenseless against a violent attack,” he said. But in most states with concealed carry, “an applicant must be at least 21 to obtain a concealed-carry license, which rules out most undergraduates at many universities,” The Washington Times observed.

The politics of opposition to the law have not always conformed to traditional expectations. In a critical analysis, the Firearms Policy Coalition noted that California’s law enforcement lobby responded to the introduction of SB707 “by offering their full support — in exchange for preservation of existing exemptions for law enforcement retirees. They later cut deals to add in even more special exemptions, including for retired police reservists. Combs believes that this is blatantly unconstitutional,” it added.

Concealed carry has taken on special significance at colleges and universities in part because schools independently maintain their own security staff — not always with great rigor. A recent report revealed that California’s Community College system, the nation’s largest system of higher education at 113 campuses, “does not require schools to have security or training plans that address active shooter scenarios,” according to Guns.com.

National reverberations

In the midst of the presidential campaign season, California’s approach to campus carry has become a touchstone for partisan debate. On the campaign trail, Republican candidates like former Florida Governor Jeb Bush have argued that the urge to enact new gun restrictions in the wake of mass shootings is the wrong response,” Bloomberg Politics noted. “Democrat Hillary Clinton, meanwhile, decried Bush’s response.”

A bill working its way through the Legislature would open up the accreditation process for California community colleges to ensure greater transparency and require more consistent application of academic standards. Assembly Bill 1397 by Assemblyman Phil Ting, D-San Francisco, would require community college accreditation meetings to be open to the public, force accreditation teams to adopt new conflict of interest guidelines and ensure that sanctioned colleges have a clear path to appeal their cases.

“We need education to be the great equalizer in our society but that role is compromised when education standards are enforced unfairly, arbitrarily, and in secret,” Ting said in a press release. “We need these reforms to end abuses of power from our accreditor. Sweeping change is needed that put the needs of our students first.”

CA’s community college accreditation process

Technically, anyone can start their own college or university in California. However, education officials limit federal student aid and scholarship funds to accredited schools.

“Accreditation is the recognition that an institution maintains standards requisite for its graduates to gain admission to other reputable institutions of higher learning or to achieve credentials for professional practice,” the U.S. Department of Education explains on its website. “The goal of accreditation is to ensure that education provided by institutions of higher education meets acceptable levels of quality.”

Neither the state nor federal education departments directly handle accreditation, rather independent non-profit entities, often consisting of college professors and administrators, step in to review colleges. That makes the accreditation process an almost quasi-governmental function: the review, which is mandated by law, is frequently guided by public employees, but is formally governed by the guidelines and rules of a private organization.

Consequently, California’s 112 community colleges are dependent on accreditation by the Accreditation Commission on Community and Junior Colleges to receive state funds. If a community college is not granted a seal of approval by the ACCJC every six years, it loses most of its funding. In recent years, the ACCJC has come under fire from the California State Auditor, the U.S. Department of Education and a California Superior Court for its practices.

Controversial decision to revoke CCSF’s accreditation

Asm. Phil Ting

Critics of the accreditation process say that officials use their non-profit status to evade public scrutiny and enforce their demands on public colleges.

In 2014, the Bureau of State Audits published its audit of the accreditation process, which had been requested by the Joint Legislative Audit Committee. According to a legislative analysis, the audit’s findings included:

• Inconsistent application of the accreditation process with some colleges granted more time to address problems;
• Deficiencies in the appeals process with colleges banned from presenting new evidence during an appeal;
• Lack of transparency in accreditation decision-making.

The audit was driven in part by the ACCJC’s controversial decision in 2013 to revoke City College of San Francisco’s accreditation. Its accreditation team found CCSF deficient in a dozen areas, ranging from seemingly trivial issues such as failing to “revise the college’s mission statement” to serious questions about the college’s ability to accurately report financial information.

Yet, the ACCJC’s decision-making itself raised questions as students, faculty and even members of the media were excluded from the committee meeting to decide the college’s fate.

“Accreditation should be about protecting our needs while going to college to get ahead,” said Shanell Williams, who served as a student trustee at City College of San Francisco. “When accreditation decisions are made in secret, our voices are silenced and our futures are put at risk.”

CCSF’s accreditation ultimately led to litigation, which concluded with Superior Court Judge Curtis Karnow ruling that ACCJC broke the law. Among the court’s findings: The committee failed to adequately address conflicts of interest by commissioners, did not include enough academics on its site visit and violated federal regulations on accreditation.

“The state has the authority to regulate accreditation processes, and the recent CA Superior Court verdict confirms this fact,” wrote Timothy Killikelly, president of the American Federation of Teachers, Local 2121, the union of professors at City College of San Francisco. “AB1397 proposes reasonable reforms to the community college accreditation process to ensure that the values of fairness, objectivity, consistency and transparency guide accreditation procedures.”

AB1397 brings more transparency and accountability

Those problems led Ting to introduce AB1397, which he says will “bring the community college accreditation process into compliance with state and federal laws.” Specifically, the legislation will:

• Ban evaluation teams from including anyone affiliated with the commission or the college under review;
• Adopt a legal right of appeal for sanctioned colleges;
• Require public access to ACCJC meetings and guarantee that meeting minutes are posted online.

Ting’s legislation has received support from educators that have long sought reforms to the accreditation process.

“The accreditation process should ensure that the ACCJC is basing their decisions on accurate information,” said Mike Claire, president of the College of San Mateo, who has experience with the college accreditation review process. “Thus, our system of peer-based accreditation should welcome transparency in the decisions regarding the accredited status of our community colleges.

He added, “Ironically, what we ask of our students in the classroom and of our colleges is neither encouraged nor desired by our accreditor when assessing a college to ensure it meets accreditation standards.”

Conservative college subject to accreditation review

Larry Arnn

Earlier this month, the bill passed the state Assembly on a 61-18 vote, with a majority of Republicans opposed. Although California Republicans are largely opposed to Ting’s accreditation reforms, conservative-leaning higher education institutions could ultimately be beneficiaries of a more transparent college accreditation process.

Hillsdale College, a private college in south-central Michigan, has shunned all federal funds – including financial aid and grants – to secure its independence. That independence is currently being threatened by the college accreditation process.

“In the ’60s the federal government designated them (independent accrediting agencies) as the pathway to eligibility for the federal money,” Larry Arnn, president of Hillsdale College told the Wall Street Journal. “None of that means beans to us, but now the accrediting agencies are living under standards the Department of Education gives them.”

By Chris Reed

Will 2013 be the year that unionized faculty members at UC, CSU and the state’s community colleges finally figure out the threat that online education poses to their futures? If it is not this year, it is coming sometime soon. The same dynamics that have killed Borders, Tower Records and travel agencies, made newspapers far less lucrative and shaken up dozens of industries — easy, free/cheap online access to content and information — threaten bricks-and-mortar higher education.

“Look at the music industry. It’s been completely overturned by the Internet. My vision of the world is that everywhere will be like the music industry, but we’ve only seen it in a few places so far. Journalism is in the midst of the battle. And higher education is probably next,” is how George Mason University economist Tyler Cowen, an online education visionary, puts it.

Yes, K-12 is likely to live on in its present form because of the role schools play in the socialization process. Yes, Ivy League universities will continue to serve in their role as de facto gatekeepers for entry into Wall Street and high finance. But in Silicon Valley, the value that is placed on traditional credentials in most of the U.S. isn’t nearly as consistently strong. It is understood that learning can happen lots of ways, and hardly just in a formal classroom. Steve Jobs, Bill Gates, Mark Zuckerberg? All college dropouts. This is not lost on the rest of California’s elites.

Jerry Brown on the bandwagon

Now more and more online education is free, and the power of education apps on iPads and other devices is becoming more obvious, and people have realized how much great educational content there is on YouTube. At the very least, we seem sure to move toward a model in which online learning is a big part of traditional education because of its efficiency and low cost.

And guess who agrees this is a great idea?

“Quoting poet Robert Frost on the benefits of innovative thinking, Gov. Jerry Brown said Tuesday that three unusual math classes offered this spring at San Jose State University hold out hope for resolving one of California’s most troublesome problems: overcrowded classes.

“‘Online is part of the solution,’ Brown told a roomful of educators at San Jose State before quoting from a 1939 essay in which Frost said, ‘Originality and initiative are what I ask for my country.’

“Although online courses have been part of college curricula for years, the three new ones – at $150 each — suggest a new and possibly cheaper direction for students, California State University and Silicon Valley.”

But when will unions figure out that convenient and inexpensive inevitably eventually means fewer well-paying jobs? When will unions figure out that the U.S. student-loan debacle also feeds the crisis atmosphere around the old bricks-and-mortar norm?

For reasons I can’t comprehend, none of this has sunk in. The UC faculty associations, the CSU faculty union and the California Community Colleges faculty union don’t seem to grasp that if good and improving higher education is free or dirt-cheap online, if a conventional degree loses its gatekeeper status in many jobs, and if huge student loan defaults keep making headlines, the status quo could wither quickly.

Cowen and many other educators, economists, philanthropists and futurists have been writing about online education for years, especially its disruptive possibilities. By contrast, read the coverage of Jerry Brown’s push to have San Jose State and Udacity team up in offering online courses on the CSU faculty union website. It suggests that this could somehow be a good thing for faculty:

“CFA President Lil Taiz agrees on the importance of asking questions about student success:

“She said, ‘It’s good the CSU is actually testing out these methods and starting on a small scale. We must find out which online tools work well (or not), for what kinds of students, and for what kinds of subject matter. There is a lot to unpack in the pedagogy.’

“CFA and CSU managers have met on how the terms of work in the first semester of the pilot accord with the faculty contract.

“’You can’t have quality learning conditions for students—online or in a classroom—without professional working conditions for the faculty. Our contract is an important piece of making sure we have fairness, equity, and quality in all aspects of CSU teaching.’”

Clueless and oblivious in the faculty lounge

Wow. The lessons of recent history don’t appear to have sunk in at all with UC, CSU and CCC faculty if profs think online education’s arrival and increasing acceptance bodes well for them.

When Jerry Brown talks about the need for UC, CSU and CCC to be more efficient, he may not be talking only about pushing students to graduate in as little time as possible and not dawdle on campus. He may actually want them to become more efficient in the way other information businesses have become efficient — by taking full advantage of technology.

When will we see this trigger the modern equivalent of a Luddite reaction?

Soon, I suspect. When the liberal governor of California’s enthusiasm for online learning sinks in, the Lil Taizes of the Golden State will have no choice but to think about its long-term implications.