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.

By Katy Grimes

SACRAMENTO — Public contracts should always be subjected to stiff scrutiny. Without public scrutiny and oversight, spending other people’s money is too easy.

But a new Assembly bill would not only increase the amount of money California’s public universities and colleges could spend without adhering to the competitive bid process, but would also exempt state employees from felony charges of corruption.

AB 173 by Assemblywoman Shirley Weber, D-San Diego, was introduced in January. The bill had its first policy committee hearing in February. In April, after making it out of the policy committee, Weber amended AB 173, making major policy changes, including the corruption exemption.

AB 173 is scheduled for the Appropriations committee next, which is a fiscal committee.  The problem is that, with major policy changes, the bill should be scrutinized again in a policy committee.

Will members of the Assembly still vote to pass this bill without proper vetting?

What was changed?

The bill started out merely upping the amount of money university employees could spend without using the competitive bid process. But the amendment exempting state college and university employees from corruption prosecution is truly disturbing.

The bill was amended to read:

California public contract code 10522: “Any officer or employee of the University of California who corruptly performs any official act under this chapter to the injury of the university is guilty of a felony.”

Section 10523: “Any person contracting with the University of California by oral or written contract who corruptly permits the violation of any contract made under this chapter is guilty of a felony.”

Section 10524: “Persons convicted under Section 10522 or 10523 are also liable to the University of California for double the amount the university may have lost or be liable to lose by reason of the acts made crimes by this article.”

Section 10525: “Willful violation of any other provision of this chapter shall constitute a misdemeanor.”

Bill analysis

The only bill analysis was done April 24. Weber’s amendment is dated May 9, so the earlier analysis does not include the changes. The bill is scheduled to be in the Assembly Appropriations Committee May 15.

The analysis says, “Specifically, this bill:

“1) Allows the University of California to award contracts for the acquisition of goods, services, or information technology that have an estimated value of between $100,000 and less than $250,000 to a certified small business or a Disabled Veteran Business Enterprises if UC obtains price quotations from two or more certified small businesses or two or more DVBEs.

“a) This shall only apply to UC if the Regents of the University of California make the provision applicable by appropriate resolution.

“2) Allows the California State University to award contracts for the acquisition of goods, services, or information technology that have an estimated value greater than $5,000 and less than $250,000 to a certified small business or a DVBE if CSU obtains price quotations from two or more certified small businesses or two or more DVBEs.

“3) Allows the California Community Colleges to award contracts for the acquisition of goods, services, or information technology that have an estimated value greater than $5,000 and less than $250,000 to a certified small business or a DVBE if CCC obtains price quotations from two or more certified small businesses or two or more DVBEs.”

AB 173 passed the Assembly Accountability and Administrative Review Committee 12-0, but that was before it was amended.

Those who voted to pass AB 173: Assembly members K.H. “Katcho” Achadjian, Joan Buchanan, Ken Cooley, Jim Frazier, Jeff Gorell, Curt Hagman, Ian Charles Calderon, Bonnie Lowenthal, Jose Medina, Kristin Olsen, Sharon Quirk-Silva and Rudy Salas.

Would these same lawmakers vote to pass AB 173 again, knowing it has had such a dramatic policy change?

By DAVE ROBERTS

If California’s educational system were a student, it would be made to sit on a stool in the corner with a dunce cap on its head.

Nearly one in four Californians is functionally illiterate, about a third of high school students drop out and 70-80 percent of the high school graduates who go on to college require remedial classes in English and math. More than 4.6 million Californians age 25 or older lack a high school degree, ranking the state 48th in the country.

With the K-12 system having dropped the ball, the burden has been placed on the state’s community colleges and adult education programs to provide the knowledge and job skills for those wanting to do more in life than flip burgers or commit crimes.

Unfortunately, as the independent state oversight agency the Little Hoover Commission learned last week, there’s a lack of funding, duplication of resources and confusion over how to meet that need. And with the impending retirement of the Baby Boomers, the need for skilled, educated workers will grow dramatically in the coming years.

“In 2008 the head of the U.S. Department of Education said California has the best adult education system in the country by far,” Patrick Ainsworth, assistant superintendent for the California Department of Education, which oversees adult education, told the commission. “Things were going on that are not in any other state. They wanted to use us as a model. But since then a large portion of our adult education system has been dismantled. We have a shell of what our fomer programs were.”

In the 2008-09 school year, more than 1.2 million Californians were enrolled in adult ed courses, a figure which has been cut in half due to school districts hit by budget cuts transferring funding to K-12 classrooms. The state has more than 350 adult ed schools operating out of more than 1,000 sites such as neighborhood schools and community centers.

The state’s 112 colleges serving 2.7 million students have also had to scale back due to decreased funding. In 2009-10 the colleges were hit by $520 million in cuts, equaling 8 percent of the budget and resulting in 140,000 students being turned away, according to California Community Colleges Chancellor Jack Scott. An additional $290 million in reductions proposed for 2011-12 would result in another 140,000 students losing access due to further course reductions and the elimination of some career training programs.

Functionally Illiterate

“The National Center for Education Statistics says 23 percent of our adult population is functionally illiterate, unable to fill out a job application and manage their affairs,” said Ainsworth. “Pressure from unemployment is driving many people to get retrained. Between the two of us (community colleges and adult ed) we are faced with this gigantic problem of a huge underclass in our state who previously had the commitment to provide a second chance.

“We have equality of opportunity in our country — now that is in question. Do we have that safety net in place? It’s been eroded. Now we are in even worse shape. School districts, one-third of funding has disappeared over the past three years. They are going to make children their first priority [over adult ed]. From an economic development point of view we have to confront this issue. Are we or are we not going to provide a system that gives people a leg up and provides for their futures?”

There were no answers to that question at the 4½-hour commission hearing, but it doesn’t look good.

The problem starts, of course, with K-12 education, which allows students to graduate high school after taking an exit exam that certifies that they can read at a 10th grade level and do math at an 8th grade level. As a result, many graduates are two or more grade levels below what they need when they get to college.

“When someone has graduated from high school and shows up with below two levels of proficiency and you’re telling them they are not college-ready, is that the first time they are hearing it?” Commissioner Victoria Bradshaw asked Constance Carroll, chancellor of the San Diego Community College District.

“Yes, they have been told otherwise throughout their secondary experience,” replied Carroll. “We need to do something about the level of proficiency that high school students achieve. When there’s a gap between 10th-grade proficiency and grade 13 where colleges start, we should put a great deal of effort in bringing those proficienies up to the college level. Almost all of the new jobs require at least a year of post-secondary education. That starts at grade 13, not grade 11. Getting people ready for college and for jobs should be one and the same goal.”

Model Program

The San Diego Community College District is actually a model of what should be happening in post-secondary education. It’s one of the few areas in the state that integrates its colleges and adult education programs. In much of the state, community colleges and adult ed are separate fiefdoms dealing with similar students and with the similar goal of educating and training those seeking a GED or needing to learn English as a second language or gain job skills.

“I worry that California as a state doesn’t have the same integrated approach,” said Carroll. “We have an emergency we are dealing with in remedial problems. Students are not college ready. From my viewpoint after 33 years in California community colleges we have bifurcated systems that are not really integrated with each other, as many of us think they should be.”

As a result, many students are not sure whether they are better off in an adult ed school or community college, finding similar offerings in both. The “one-stop shop” in the San Diego District helps guide them in the right direction, but elsewhere they may be on their own.

Too Many Goals

Another problem is that adult ed programs have been all over the map trying to be all things to all people, which is a luxury that may be no longer affordable in tight budgetary times and with unemployment at 11.7 percent in the state.

“Districts have expanded their services, going into retirement homes, they have gotten so far from their core mission,” said Commissioner Marilyn Brewer. “Classes on wine tasting and how to design t-shirts. They are using state resources to provide those classes when they could be doing basic education and things that could promote emploment.”

Commissioner Eugene Mitchell agreed, saying, “That’s the concern I have. When 90 percent of students aren’t prepared for college you would think for the benefit of the State of California how we would use the capacity for that population. The economic crisis that has beset this country dictates we move in a different direction. People just want to get a job. I don’t have as much heartache over [course] reduction in other directions.”

The commissioners are also concerned that the measurement of success of the programs is inadequate other than just moving students through the system, and that there is not a standardized system of coursework and testing.

Good Job

California Community Colleges Vice Chancellor of Academic Affairs Barry Russell told them, “We are doing a good job of getting more students to completion of these courses. We are moving them to the next level, getting them out of basic skills and into job training at a higher rate than we have had in the past. We are not sure we can measure how much better is this student than the last time.”

Commissioner David Schwarz asked, “Don’t you want to know how your community colleges are doing? Providing the same test? It may be a wake up call or greatly reassuring. At the end of the day you don’t know, other than passing people through, whether their proficiency is increasing. That’s troubling to me. You may be finding they are not doing as well as their counterparts in the Department of Education. You should know that.”

The California Budget Project recently issued a report, “Gateway to a Better Future: Creating a Basic Skills System for California,” which concludes, “T]here is serious need for reform. Discussions are underway in the California Department of Education and the California Community Colleges about how to improve basic skills instruction in both systems and coordinate them more effectively. To date, however, the task of reforming basic skills education has not been addressed with sufficient urgency. The conclusions reached by many experts in the past have been largely ignored. Now there is growing clarity based on research, the experience of other states, and innovative California programs about what works and what does not. The critical next step is to overcome institutional and policy inertia and translate these lessons into practice.”