Bill Description: House Bill 226 establishes that any member of a community college district may notify the State Board of Education, attorney general or prosecuting attorney that a member of the community college’s board of trustees does not reside in the district. The State Board of Education, attorney general or prosecuting attorney shall have the authority to investigate and if it is found that the trustee does not reside in the district then the board shall replace the trustee within thirty days. House Bill 226 also gives unelected bureaucrats in the State Board of Education emergency governing authority over a community college if the required accreditation organization, the Northwest Commission on Colleges and Universities (NWCCU), threatens to sanction or revoke a community college’s accreditation. This would have the effect of making accreditation with the NWCCU mandatory for all community colleges in Idaho, therefore establishing a monopoly for the NWCCU. Finally, House Bill 226 would establish that if a community college ceases to operate the control of its property and assets shall be assumed by the unelected officials in the State Board of Education, who would hold the assets in trust until the college resumes operation or it is replaced with a successor. House Bill 226 would reduce accountability and transparency by taking away authority from community colleges' locally elected board of trustees. It would also establish a precedent of unequal treatment between four-year public universities and community colleges.
Rating: -8
Does the bill reduce or eliminate layers of bureaucracy allowing universities to be more flexible, improve feedback mechanisms, and decentralize decisions to the individual level? Conversely, does the bill create or increase layers of bureaucracy?
House Bill 226 would allow the SBOE to assume governing authority over and seize the assets and property of a community college and would result in making accreditation mandatory, therefore increasing bureaucratic regulatory burdens on community colleges. Under House Bill 226, the State Board of Education (SBOE) would be able to assume governing authority over a community college if the NWCCU threatens to sanction or revokes a community college’s accreditation. The SBOE requires all public four-year institutions and community colleges that voluntarily seek accreditation to be accredited by one institution, the NWCCU. Thus, House Bill 226 would have the effect of exclusively requiring community colleges to be accredited by the NWCCU and comply with any demand it imposes, to avoid a sanction or lose governing authority of the institution. Community colleges and four-year public universities currently seek accreditation on a voluntary basis. But accreditation is already a condition of receiving federal dollars, such as Pell grants, making accreditation a necessity for many institutions of higher education. Regardless, this new regulation would make accreditation from one accreditation institution mandatory, thus granting the NWCCU a monopoly on accrediting all community colleges in the state of Idaho and stifling the independent decision making of community colleges board of trustees.
(-1)
House bill 226 would increase the state's control over community colleges by establishing that any member of a community college district may notify the State Board of Education, attorney general or prosecuting attorney that a member of the community college’s board of trustees does not reside in the district. The State Board of Education, attorney general or prosecuting attorney shall have the authority to investigate and if it is found that the trustee does not reside in the district then the board shall replace the trustee within thirty days.
(-1)
Does the bill create more transparency or accountability of public institutions of education? Conversely, does the bill decrease transparency and accountability in public education institutions?
This bill decreases accountability in public institutions of education by usurping governing authority from the board of trustees of community colleges and giving this authority to the SBOE if the NWCCU threatens to sanction or revoke a community college’s accreditation. Currently community colleges are governed by an elected board of trustees that makes independent decisions according to the will of voters.
Local authorities own community colleges; the state does not.
(-1)
This bill further decreases accountability in public institutions of education by giving authority of the property and assets of community colleges that cease to operate to unelected bureaucrats in the SBOE. Currently community colleges are governed by an elected Board of Trustees, which makes independent decisions according to the will of voters. House Bill 226 eliminates this local control by handing authority to the SBOE if accreditation of the college is revoked. For years, appointed officials in the SBOE have failed to hold public universities and community colleges across the state accountable to their core mission — the pursuit of knowledge and protecting academic freedom —and enabled them to continue ideological pursuits under diversity, equity and inclusion programs.
(-1)
House Bill 226 decreases transparency in public institutions by forcing community colleges to be accredited by the NWCCU and comply with all of the organization’s demands to avoid sanctions or lose their assets and property and their authority to govern themselves. Accreditation is currently voluntary, but under House Bill 226 community colleges are forced to comply with the demands of the NWCCU, a private institution. The NWCCU does not make its members' votes publicly available and is not subject to the will of voters when establishing criteria for degree granting authority.
(-1)
House Bill 226 requires community colleges to be in good standing with the accrediting institution for two years before governing authority of the college is returned to the locally elected board of trustees. This reduces accountability in public institutions long term by giving the state authority over community colleges which belong to local authorities and are supposed to be subject to voters in the community.
(-1)
Does the bill remove barriers to entry thus incentivizing entrepreneurship, and increasing the supply side of education services in the marketplace? Conversely, does the bill create or increase barriers to entry?
House Bill 226 would effectively make accreditation mandatory instead of voluntary for community colleges in Idaho. Accreditation is the foremost barrier to entry in the market for colleges and universities, by enabling a single provider to use licensing to thwart competition. The SBOE has given one accreditor, the NWCCU, a monopoly on accreditation in Idaho by requiring all public four year universities and community colleges to be accredited by it if they voluntarily seek accreditation. This crowds out other accreditation options and limits innovation and experimentation in higher education. House Bill 226 exacerbates this problem.
(-1)
House Bill 226 only applies to community colleges and not four year public universities. This establishes an exclusive and discriminatory barrier to entry for community colleges.
(-1)
