Report 2013-123 Recommendation 8 Responses

Report 2013-123: California Community College Accreditation: Colleges Are Treated Inconsistently and Opportunities Exist for Improvement in the Accreditation Process (Release Date: June 2014)

Recommendation #8 To: Community Colleges Chancellor's Office

To allow colleges flexibility in choosing an accreditor, the chancellor's office should assess the potential costs, risks, and feasibility of creating a new independent accreditor.

Annual Follow-Up Agency Response From January 2018

The Chancellor's Office gathered input related to this recommendation from a broad range of California community college stakeholders through discussions at Consultation Council as well as in other meetings with stakeholders. In addition, Chancellor Harris convened the Accreditation Task Force to make specific recommendations on improving the accreditation process for California community colleges. In late September 2015, the Task Force released its report which contains recommendations to the Board of Governors (report can be found at http://californiacommunitycolleges.cccco.edu/Portals/0/reports/2015-Accreditation-Report-ADA.pdf). The recommendations included numerous ways in which ACCJC could improve its effectiveness as an accreditor. In November 2015, the Task Force recommendations were presented to the Board of Governors and adopted. As part of the Board's action, the Chancellor's Office was directed to work with and support efforts by the CEO Board to develop a path forward for CCC accreditation. Central to these efforts were two workgroups: Workgroup I which focused on steps that can be taken to improve ACCJC; and Workgroup II which was charged with developing strategies to better align CCC accreditation with that of four-year institutions, including possibly joining the same commission. These workgroups presented their final reports to the Board of Governors in September 2017, and made a recommendation to retain ACCJC as our system's accreditor (see reports, attached). The recommendation to retain ACCJC as our system's accreditor was based on substantial progress by ACCJC to respond to and address concerns raised by the Chancellor's Office, CEO Workgroups, and colleges. Examples include, selection of a new president to lead ACCJC, revisions to the accreditation process, revisions to selected standards, much improved communication with the colleges, and a collaborative and constructive engagement with stakeholders.

California State Auditor's Assessment of Annual Follow-Up Status: Fully Implemented

Although the Chancellor's Office's work group did not specifically consider the creation of a new accreditor, it did consider several different options for college accreditation and recommended that a long-term goal should be to have a single accreditor for all higher education institutions. In our judgment, this is responsive to our recommendation.

Annual Follow-Up Agency Response From October 2016

The Chancellor's Office gathered input related to this recommendation from a broad range of California community college stakeholders through discussions at Consultation Council as well as in other meetings with stakeholders. In addition, Chancellor Harris convened the Accreditation Task Force to make specific recommendations on improving the accreditation process for California community colleges. In late September 2015, the Task Force released its report which contains recommendations to the Board of Governors (report can be found at http://californiacommunitycolleges.cccco.edu/Portals/0/reports/2015-Accreditation-Report-ADA.pdf). These recommendations included a proposal to develop a plan to find a new accreditor for the California Community Colleges. The recommendations also included numerous ways in which ACCJC could improve its effectiveness as an accreditor. In November 2015, the Task Force recommendations were presented to the Board of Governors and adopted. As part of the Board's action, the Chancellor's Office was directed to work with and support efforts by the CEO Board to develop a path forward for CCC accreditation. Central to these efforts are two workgroups: Workgroup I which is focusing on steps that can be taken to improve ACCJC; and Workgroup II which is charged with developing strategies to better align CCC accreditation with that of four-year institutions, including possibly joining the same commission. These workgroups' efforts are ongoing and appear to be the most viable strategy currently available to establish an improved model of accreditation for the California Community Colleges. The Chancellor's Office is working in close collaboration with both Workgroups. Information about these efforts can be found at: http://www.ccleague.org/i4a/pages/index.cfm?pageID=3882 .

California State Auditor's Assessment of Annual Follow-Up Status: Not Fully Implemented

Annual Follow-Up Agency Response From October 2015

The Chancellor's Office gathered input related to this recommendation from a broad range of California community college stakeholders. This was accomplished through discussions at Consultation Council as well as in other meetings with stakeholders. In addition, Chancellor Harris convened the Accreditation Task Force to make specific recommendations on improving the accreditation process for California community colleges. In late September, the Task Force released its report which contains recommendations to the Board of Governors (report can be found at http://californiacommunitycolleges.cccco.edu/Portals/0/reports/2015-Accreditation-Report-ADA.pdf). Central to these recommendations is proposal that the Chancellor's Office develop a plan to find a new accreditor for the California Community Colleges. One option would be for the Accrediting Commission for Community and Junior Colleges to be merged with the WASC Senior College and University Commission. The Task Force recommendations were presented to the Board of Governors as an informational item on September 20, 2015, and will go before the Board as an action item in November 2015. If the Board takes action to adopt the Task Force recommendations, the Chancellor's Office will reach out to the ACCJC and attempt to schedule meetings to discuss moving forward with the proposed changes.

California State Auditor's Assessment of Annual Follow-Up Status: Not Fully Implemented

1-Year Agency Response

The Chancellor's Office has been gathering input related to this recommendation from a broad range of California community college stakeholders. This is being accomplished through discussions at Consultation Council as well as in other meetings with stakeholders. In addition, Chancellor Harris convened an Accreditation Task Force to make specific recommendations on improving the accreditation process for California community colleges. The Task Force report will be completed in Fall 2015 and we anticipate that it will address numerous issues, including the feasibility of creating a new independent accreditor as noted in this recommendation from the State Auditor.

California State Auditor's Assessment of 1-Year Status: Pending

6-Month Agency Response

The Chancellor's Office is in the process of conducting legal and policy analysis related to this recommendation. In addition, this recommendation will be discussed with the Task Force on Accreditation when they meet on 1/29/15. The Chancellor's Office will also seek input from the colleges about this proposal through Consultation Council and other venues. Based on this research and input, the Chancellor's Office will determine an appropriate course of action.

California State Auditor's Assessment of 6-Month Status: Pending

60-Day Agency Response

The Chancellor's Office is in the process of conducting legal and policy analysis related to this recommendation. In addition, the Chancellor's Office will also seek input from the colleges about this proposal. Based on this research and input, the Chancellor's Office will determine an appropriate course of action.

California State Auditor's Assessment of 60-Day Status: Pending

All Recommendations in 2013-123

Agency responses received are posted verbatim.