Conrad Scott Curtis
The accrediting agency for California Community Colleges, the Accreditation Commission for Community and Junior Colleges (ACCJC), has long been the subject of controversy on the part of a range of community-college constituents, stakeholders, and outside observers, including faculty groups, classified staff organizations, administrators, the Chancellor’s office, and the U.S. Department of Education.
In response to this rising tide of criticism, the CCC Chancellor’s office this year appointed a Task Force on Accreditation to study the ACCJC and make recommendations to the Chancellor and Board of Governors. Their report was released on August 28 with significant findings, including
- The ACCJC’s level of sanctions imposed on colleges was “inordinately high” compared with the nation’s other regional creditors;
- The ACCJC has “consistently failed to meet” reasonable expectations of transparency, collegiality, and valuing improvement over compliance;
- The ACCJC has failed to “maintain . . . consistency with federal accreditation mandates and regional accreditation peers”; and
- “The California Community College system and its member institutions have lost confidence in the ACCJC.”
In fact, the task force recommends that the colleges and system transition to another accreditor, one in keeping with the national model of a single agency to oversee both four-year and two-year institutions. The western region of the country, the area served by ACCJC for two-year schools, is the only region of six in the country that divides oversight between two agencies.
In an indication that criticism of ACCJC has gone mainstream, the commission’s members include the state’s Vice-Chancellor of Academic Affairs, two district presidents, three VP’s of local districts, and three faculty members. The report has been endorsed by the Community College League of California. Moreover, the report comes on the tails of widespread recognition of the need for increased scrutiny of the agency:
- The San Francisco City Attorney filed a suit against ACCJC that resulted earlier this year in a State Superior Court ruling that the agency broke four laws in its decision to close CCSF;
- A report issued by California’s Joint Legislative Audit Committee in June of last year criticized the agency for its CCSF decision, for its levels of secrecy, for its disproportionate rate of sanctions compared to other accrediting agencies, and uneven treatment of colleges it oversees;
- Earlier this year, the State Community College Board of Governors opened the door to a new accreditor, removing language from Title 5 of the California Code of Regulations that had given the ACCJC sole authority over accreditation of the state’s community colleges;
- A state bill sponsored by Assemblymember Phil Ting (D-SF), AB 1937, to make the ACCJC more transparent and accountable passed the Assembly and cleared committee in the Senate.
In its own words, the task force recommends that “the Chancellor’s Office should evaluate possible accrediting agencies for the California Community Colleges . . . and . . . bring a recommendation for action to the Board of Governors by Spring 2016.”
We don’t yet know the outcome of the recommendations, or a timetable for transition should another agency be adopted. Clearly, though, the task force findings and recommendations open the door to a fundamental change in oversight of California Community Colleges.
[The task-force report can be viewed here.]