DEAC in Canada - need help ASAP

Thank you, Dr. Bear! This means a lot.

 

We got a letter with expanded reasons from the College. I attach it here for all to behold - comments are appreciated. I believe they cooked it up post factum to justify the decision they made solely because of WES opinion.

I will have to prepare a detailed response, with all your suggestions. Short comments, by their points:

1. They acknowledge it's recognized in Georgia. Good. This is the only thing that's explicitly required in their policy.
2. WES report is an expert opinion for their "consideration". They claim WES said the degree "does not meet College's entry requirements"; not true - WES of course knows nothing about College's requirements. It was the usual, general-purpose report. And yeah, it was the applicant who actually requested it.
3. Illiterate and irrelevant. CECE policy doesn't require the degree needs to be "widely" acceptable by educational institutions. A couple of facts:
a. Some of the Georgia's technical colleges (https://tcsg.edu/) are COE, some SACS; all offer the exact same ECE programs. They all used to be COE.
b. Kicker: Ontario Colleges of Applied Arts and Technologies (OCAATs; local community colleges the CECE holds up as the golden standard) were not built for transfer, their diplomas were initially terminal credentials. It's not like their credits are universally accepted by Canadian universities for transfer, outside for the prenegotiated "pathways" (articulation agreements). In addition, CECE approves one private career college (Mothercraft College). While their program is highly regarded by local ECE community, their classes are highly unlikely to transfer anywhere other than the few universities with signed articulation.
c. Ashworth has articulation agreements with a few schools; in fact, their students have more transfer options than most OCAAT graduates. This, in addition to colleges that accept NA credits as policy.
4. Bizarre. Of course, I did look at their policy (and used WES online tool) before going ahead with Ashworth.
5. Just states their standard and declares Ashworth doesn't measure up.
6. Nonsense. AC uses standard undergraduate textbooks, so course content is essentially the same. As for semester length, both DEAC and WES Canada declare that this is a two-year program. Plus, they chose to omit additional courses on her Excelsior and South Utah transcript (WES declared both "recognized").
6b. Placement. Their Policy requires no placement as part of degree. Instead, and clearly to compensate, it requires experience earned "through work experience, internship experience or practicum experience". Applicant has 25 years of experience, with all age groups, tremendous breadth of responsibilities. All her supervisors signed highly complimentary letters; all happened right here in Toronto area and easily verifiable. CECE's premise is ridiculous on its face.

In short, they reject it because they feel it in their guts it's not good enough, and because it's not identical to an OCAAT's Diploma. A standard that, applied consistently, will invalidate any and all foreign credentials sent to their attention.

We need to craft a devastating response to this trite nonsense. Dr. Bear graciously offered his expert opinion. Advise is appreciated!

PS: how do I attach a file? The forum says file size limit is 24KB.

 

Here is the file: https://www.dropbox.com/s/wfl4fctwebg08bu/CECE%20communication.pdf?dl=0

 

I had a similar experience with Athabasca University. They accept National Accreditation of Canadian bodies but when it came to accepting At that time DETC, now DEAC they stated that it was bogus accreditation.

I also gave them information about ACE and even gave indications of other accredited schools that accept it both National and Regional Accredited institutions and they still wouldn't barge.

Believe me when I say I wanted to keep fighting it but no matter what they wouldn't barge. So I at least got my monies refunded and so forth, but this place that your trying to get to change their minds is in the same situation. It's a non-winning battle. I usually wouldn't recommend giving up but you need to and although it's hard to swallow you need to focus on pursuing something else. They won't barge no matter what kind of rationale or reasoning you try to surmise.

 

Sounds reasonable, but we don't really have this option. She could lose her job, never regain it (whoever replaces her would be protected by the union), and we will never find another teacher anywhere near that good. Besides, the whole situation is the great injustice.

 

Credit transfer is left up to the institution. The University of Phoenix, which has RA, was specifically excluded by at least a few universities for credit transfer. I was reading an article a few weeks ago following the Corinthian collapse. I think it was a school in Utah that had only recently lifted its ban which appears to have been limited solely to UofP. I'm no UofP fan, but it seems to me that accreditation loses a significant amount of utility when schools just completely write-off schools accredited by the same institution. But hey, story for another day.

The flip side is that I called the registrar at Kings College (Wilkes-Barre) about five years ago and asked if they evaluate credits from NA schools for transfer and they told me yes, but they limit them to 15 (max total credit transfer of 30). So if you have 15 credits from Ashworth and 15 credits from Wherever Community College, you could potentially walk into the program with 30 credits under your belt.

Point is, different colleges have different rules even within the U.S. I can totally understand why a Canadian university might not want to mess around with the tangled mess of accreditation we've created in this country and just simply their process.

Because you're never going to be able to berate a school into accepting transfer credits. A few years ago, Marylhurst stated in a FAQ on the website of their online MBA "Degrees from nationally accredited school do not meet our entrance requirements for the MBA program as this would jeopardize our accreditation." That statement is patently false. It's their right to draw a line in the admissions sand. But they wouldn't lose their accreditation over it. Otherwise Ashford would probably have lost their accreditation years ago. That's to say nothing of the many other schools that have more liberal views toward NA.

I sent an email to Marylhurst. No response. And I'd wager others may had said something too. But now that statement is gone and the admission requirement stands. So, yeah, some of these policies may not be based on reason. And it's a school's right to be unreasonable (to a certain extent).

It's a bit like saying "I asked her out to dinner and she refused. And even though I showed her how I have an awesome job, a great salary, the most awesome hot tub in the county, how both of us love to watch Shark Tank and binge watch Breaking Bad and I have an amazing dental plan, but she just wouldn't go out to dinner with me! She just wouldn't listen to any of my perfectly valid reasons about why we should go out to dinner"

OK, maybe a bit extreme. The point is that there are occasions where a decision is subject to appeal. When it comes to credit transfer (and, to some extent, admissions), however, it is more likely a situation of "no" meaning "no" with no further recourse. That's just something you need to live with.

Now, if the school had a written policy that specifically stated "We accept transfer credits from nationally accredited schools" but then your admissions counselor said "Sorry, we only accept credits from RA schools" that's a different situation.

The situation Stanislav has laid out deals with a government agency (the Ontario College of Early Childhood Educators) which is in the business of regulating a profession (in this case, ECE). They have a written policy which seems to include schools like Ashworth. Now, we can argue that they shouldn't. We can argue that they should rewrite that policy to exclude ECE programs from NA schools, or ECE programs that don't have a clinical component, or ECE programs from any school with more than two vowels in the name. But that doesn't change the fact that the college, like all government authorized regulators, should follow their own policies.

 

Reading the rest of this thread, I ain't got nuthin'. I'd be glad to weigh in, of course, but it sounds like the schools is going against their own written guidelines, and doing so knowingly. You don't need an expert. You need a lawyer.

 

The truth is that RA is what accepted in other countries. (most RA not all)
UK NARIC will not evaluate NA degrees. Only RA degrees will be evaluated as compatible to UK degrees.

So I'm not surprised when in Canada we hear the same.

 

The funny thing is I see evaluation services overseas listing on their website that "In the United States universities receive institutional accreditation from one of six regional accrediting bodies."

That's true. But it isn't a complete picture. One of these services then links to the CHEA website where, three clicks away, any person with a modest grasp of English should be able to see that there are, in fact, other accreditors.

So I'm unsure whether these decisions are truly based upon evaluation (unlikely, after all, Cornell University used to have national accreditation through the NYS Board of Regents), misunderstanding or outdated information. Perhaps a combination of all three.

Whatever the case, it simply means that NA degrees face a similar problem at home and abroad; for many employers and in many situations they are fine. In certain circumstances they will hit an obstacle.

I'd be curious as to how UK NARIC or WES or any other evaluator would treat someone's education where the undergraduate degree was NA but the graduate degree was RA.

I mean, I have a feeling I know how it would turn out. But I can't help but feel it would make the evaluator look a bit silly.

"So, the candidate doesn't have an equivalent bachelors degree but does have an equivalent Masters and Doctorate?"

 

I think DEAC is improving. But that said, they have a huge disadvantage because they cover the exact same ground as the RAs. How can they possibly look like anything but second-rate? For the longest time, no DEAC-accredited school had made the leap to RA. That's beginning to change (AMU broke the ice), but it still begs the question: if DEAC accreditation comes with limitations, why do some schools pursue it instead of RA? The logical answer is that either (a) DEAC accreditation is less rigorous OR DEAC is more perceptive in seeing the accreditable value of such schools.

When DEAC got into accrediting academic schools c. 1980, opportunities for distance-only schools to get accredited were really thin. Extremely so. DEAC was really needed to fill a niche. However, some of the RAs really got into it when a lot of the B&M schools jumped in, and they also began accrediting some of the stand-alones, especially those in the North Central region. As a result, the old stand-bys largely went with the RAs, while the new ones (and a few oldies like CCU and Southwest) went with DEAC. This bifurcation was obvious. In the previous 40 - 80 years, it was the RAs who decided what was and was not a university. That didn't disappear with DEAC coming into the picture. It's been an uphill climb ever since.

A good role for DEAC is to accredit new and small schools offering distance programs, but that will keep DEAC in the shadows of the RAs. A better role would be to evolve into a programmatic accreditor, developing standards and practices used to evaluate and improve DL programs at all kinds of schools. Would schools go for this? Well, accreditation has the same two benefits a college degree has: the development gained from the process and the benefit of the recognition. I'm sure the first could be accomplished. I don't know about the second.

Or DEAC could continue down the path of an institutional accreditor of DL schools, hoping to continue to improve the recognition of its schools and the acceptability of the degrees they issue. Things have improved over the last 35 years. Who knows what the future will bring?

 

I have found that most people do not understand accreditation. They really have little idea of how US accreditation works.

It is likely that their rejection is not based on any measurable deficiency in standards just understanding that most state universities and colleges have RA and RA has more universal acceptance. Once a bureaucrat has dug his or her heals in logic does not necessarily work. I recall people arguing with a state over an issue of accreditation. They did eventually change but it was a long slow process.

It is not so much a quality issue as perception. That change will take time.

 

Thanks for your support. Right now, we'll need to convince the appeals committee that the College got it wrong. We go against the people that are presumed to be experts in this. Not sure what can help, but I can imagine experts won't hurt.

 

When I tried to get my credits to be taken seriously with Athabasca University with regards to the DEAC at the time presented DETC accreditation they said no and even the same when it came to ACE.

I went through the Appeals Process and they still said no. This school that you're trying to get to change their policy won't change it and the Appeals Committee will say no just like Athabasca did.

When it comes to Canadian institutions they will only accept regional accreditation and nothing else. I would have kept fighting but there answer was no and it became a dead issue like a dead horse. There was nothing more that could be done.

This is the same case that you're dealing with. You could get all kinds of experts. Heck, you could even get the U.S. Department of Education to state that it is the same kind of accreditation and the answer will always be the same the two words we all cringe when trying the get something "NO!" Sorry but it's the truth.

 

Athabasca University is not comparable to this situation. Athabasca clearly states that it only accepts transfer credits from U.S. schools that are regionally accredited. By not accepting credits from NA schools, they are following their written policies. ACE is not even an accrediting body. It's a college credit recommendation service that is not recognized by CHEA or the U.S. Department of Education because it's not trying to be an accrediting organization. Many schools don't accept ACE credits unless they're for military training.
Undergraduate Transfer Credit Policy : Athabasca University - Focused on the Future of Learning

 

Unlike Athabasca, CECE is a regulated profession college empowered by Ontario statute. It has the power to decide fate of people on behalf of the good people of our glorious province (people like me). They better do it in a manner that's transparent, objective, impartial and fair. It's the law.

 

Stanislav,

After reading this entire thread, I must needs ask, what were the results?

 

She filed an appeal, and the Review Committee apparently heard it late September. Dr. Bear provided a letter she included with the package. They take their sweet time (5 to 7 weeks) to communicate the decision by mail, so we have no clue what they decided, yet. Grrrr!

 

I do hope you keep us updated.

 

The school board that I once worked for did not accept detc degrees. The appeal process also upheld no detc. Unisa and other commonwealth degrees were accepted. The registrar used a database of accepted institutions. My guess it will be the same with other school boards in Canada.

 

My guess is that you didn't read the first post in this thread.