DEAC in Canada - need help ASAP

Usually, it is not that simple. In this case, though, we are dealing with a public entity that is legally obligated to follow their own damn policies.

 

I think what is missing is the intent of the policy. Looking forward to see what the court has to say.

 

This is political.

I see this type of game all the time. turf control.
Organization setting rules and not following the rules exactly by the book. The rules can be bent both ways.
But there are ways to work with this situation.
In UK for example NARIC refuses as a policy to review US degrees that are not RA accredited. Their view is that only RA degree from US can be compared to British degree.

I agree that the organization policy can be challenged, but policy is not a law, and
rules can be multiple things to some one.
For example an officer in organization may see that only RA in USA is really recognized as school comparible in its home country to award degrees The others don't apply.

You can challenge that, but once a similar situation Clark told me, that in his organization basically NA is diploma mill accreditation, and should never accredit degrees.
Go argue, I showed all the legal definitions etc, and the person simply states that trade schools, started their own accreditation to award degrees and that its a scam.
That person had bad experience with graduates of NA schools.

Maybe the court will force them to follow the rules, or maybe they will modify an existing rule, to make it clear that what they mean, that RA from USA = school recognized in its home country to award degrees.

 

Policy is issued under regulation that is given under the Act (ECE Act 2007). So decisions under policies are reviewable in court.

Well, yes Ashworth is a trade school. Under same logic, Ontario Colleges of Applied Arts and Technology are also, ahem, trade schools. They got degree-granting powers more recently than DEAC, and their degrees are still soundly ignored by a big chunk of education establishment. This is not a PhD in Classics for Pete's sake.

I mean, they can easily change the rule to make it RA only, or to rely on WES evaluation for "equivalency". This would be stupid, but they can, and probably will. Until they didn't, though, they are stuck with rules as damn written.
I do not understand why people are suddenly so comfortable with (quasi)governmental abuse. This is North America, not Putin's Russia.

 

...one more thing: they are not simply saying "we refuse to recognise this accreditation". They are giving arguments that are patently false. Eg., they say Ashworth AS is not "recognized in its own province of jurisdiction for practicing Early Childhood Education" (it is) and even that AS degree is not a 2-year degree (it obviously is). You can't make legal decisions on false facts.

 

Please elaborate.

 

What's odd, I think, is that the policy does give CECE leeway beyond accreditation to refuse to accept a program.

They addressed some of those issues in the document Stanislav provided. It's one thing to say "Listen, these are our educational standards, this is what we require. And if we put what we require side-by-side with what Ashworth requires, our standards are higher, so Ashworth isn't acceptable."

The fact that Ashworth doesn't require an internship, for example, could do that.

But the CECE document is oddly worded and seemingly thrown together. As Stanislav notes, it makes some pretty odd statements such as an Associates degree is not a two-year degree and Ashworth is not authorized to train ECE providers in its home state (it is). It does this even when recognizing both its state approval and DEAC accreditation (which, it notes, is USDOE recognized).

I suspect part of the problem is the difference between a degree being "recognized" and a degree being "equivalent."

I can earn a medical degree that is fully recognized by a country (i.e. I can graduate from that school and practice medicine in that country) but is not included in the International Medical Education Directory. So, I might have a medical degree that is recognized by some small country in Africa or Asia, but is not considered equivalent to U.S. based medical education.

It sounds like ECE is trying to say that they are asserting that Ashworth isn't equivalent (and it may not be) to their approved training. But their policy doesn't seem to give them as much wiggle room as they are trying to claim.

The fact that a lawyer took the case tells me there is at least some merit to the thought process that some of us here are employing (remembering that Canada is not as litigious as the US and it isn't as easy to find lawyers willing to engage in frivolous suits).

 

A lawyer think there is merit so there is a fair chance of winning in court. I think when the written rules are confusing, then the judge may look at what was intended by the rules. I read that somewhere in an undergraduate course so zero credibility.

 

It could. If they didn't have criteria 5 to 8 of their policy dealing explicitly with "internship, placement, or professional experience", which explicitly mentions "professional experience" and which would make no freakin' sense if they did require placement as part of the program. It's almost as if they try to pretend their own policy doesn't exist and go by the language of the Regulation instead. Bizarre. Now they try to claim that work with job title "designated ECE" is not relevant for ECE program, which is rubbish.
What seem to have happened that they cranked out the initial refusal based on WES report alone, and when I pointed out they can't do that (WES is not in the criteria and is "not binding to the College"), rather than admit their error, they thrown together a bunch of bogus reasons to back up their initial blunder.

 

Ah. Yes, the judge could. Actually, when the rules are unclear and there are two equally plausible interpretations, the courts tend to go with the regulator because they presumably have specialized knowledge. It's just the rules seem pretty clear in this case, and the denial is based on faulty premises.

 

Yeeessss. They are so proud they are less litigious. That's why people feel they can violate written rules like that. Me not liking.

 

Yes. But that's because the rules for equivalency explicitly list IMED directory. Had they say the degree is to be "recognized in it's own province of jurisdiction", you'd be entitled to recognition on these grounds. And the regulator would know that and would promptly recognize your degree - because it knows you can and will go to court. Benefits of being "litigious". U-S-A! U-S-A!

 

Me not liking either, Stanislav. I've lived in Canada for 63 of my 72 years and I love this country - except for back bacon, poutine, beer and hockey, four things that I know are not good for me. However, it's far from perfect here. I've quite often noted the zealous gate-keeping of some professional organizations. I think a few of the people involved would secretly like to admit nobody from outside Canada to practice, in a misguided attempt to "protect" jobs for long-time Canadians - maybe those here 200 years or more. :smile:

I remember a news story about an African-trained doctor, who came to Canada after successful practice in Finland. She recounted that the provincial Medical Association would not even tell her where she could write qualifying exams. She found out on her own, passed them and is now successfully practicing in Canada.

It's a real mystery to me. Everybody says they want to see new immigrants succeed and contribute, yet we allow ourselves to end up with doctors-turned-cab-drivers and engineers-turned-security gards. (I know one.) This kind of gatekeeping and xenophobia continually hobbles that effort. If you have to sue people into smartening up, so be it - you can bet I'm rooting for your side. :smile:

J.

 

Remember ECE not recognizing the MBA from Heriot Watt University
Edinburgh Business School was listed at one point as top 5 International MBA by economist etc.

Yet ECE evaluated it as AS degree in management. The owner of ECE refused to change his opinion and guidance for many years.

Legal action in this case is justified.
I agree with Stanislav, I just mentioned some of experiences I had.
US DOE needs to do more for recognition of NA Agencies on international and national level.

 

Just to clarify, prior references in this thread to "ECE" or "CECE" were in reference to the College of Early Childhood Educators, an Ontario regulatory body.

I'm assuming that you are referring to Educational Credential Evaluators, a credential evaluation service. I just wanted to make that distinction before the waters here get muddied by these shared similar abbreviations.

But yes, ECE taking such a foolish stance on Heriot-Watt (and flat out refusing to reconsider that opinion) does make them look bad. Though, the only thing likely to make such an opinion matter would be if "looking bad" in that sense actually impacts the business they receive.

As stated earlier, if WES's position is truly that a degree not accredited by an RA is not equivalent to a Canadian degree (and will list this caveat on the report as they did with my DEAC degree) then they will also do it for:

1. PhDs from Rockefeller University (NYS BOR)
2. a Master of Divinity degree from St. Tikhon's Theological Seminary (ATS)
3. PhDs from the Memorial Sloane Kettering doctoral program (NYS BOR)
4. Any of the various Masters programs and the Doctor of Ministry degree from the New York Theological Seminary (ATS)
5. An M.Div. from St. Vladimir's Orthodox Seminary

Throw in any degree from a school accredited solely by ABHE and AARTS.

I'm not saying that's good or bad. And, I suspect, a large number of the people above don't actually care what WES has to say about it. The fact is, with a theological degree the acceptance of your denomination means more than WES's opinion. And if you're a professor at an Ivy League medical school with a degree from Rockefeller I can see one of two things happening: either a school in Canada hires you in which case they consider your degree to be equivalent or you just have to "settle" for being an in-demand medical researcher in the U.S. with experience working at some of the top schools.

Just because something is "harder" to obtain does not mean that it is "better" than the next best option.

 

Update

My friend's attorney made a phone call to the college this Tuesday. Long story short, their counsel is extending an offer on their behalf (on "without prejudice" basis) to register her immediately, subject to conditions and limitations (minor and seemingly random ones). She'll take the offer.
I'll report when the official papers come. I am very curious how they'll treat the diploma recognition issue.

 

Glad to hear that your friend is going to be registered.

 

It's a real shame that it even had to come to that, but good. If this is what it takes, then I'm all for it.

 

Thanks.
According to their Fairness Commission reports, there was precisely one applicant who appealed to the Divisional Court. I assume that's us. Good thing we didn't have to go through with the proceedings.
Also, I see that they had an independent review of their registration practices last year, and the Registrations director has moved on to a similar role with another regulator. Hmmmmm...

 

While some on this board wanted to make this an RA vs. NA battle, it simply wasn't. The College's written rules were liberal enough to allow for an NA degree to be acceptable. If they didn't want that they should have changed the guidelines. The guidelines didn't say that the degree had to be equivalent to a Canadian degree according to WES only that it was awarded by a school with legal authority to function as a college or university in the home jurisdiction. Big difference. Ashworth, love them or hate them, is fully authorized and is accredited by a USDOE recognized accreditor. They aren't RA but they aren't a diploma mill either. And while I'm no expert in Canadian law, I cannot imagine how they could have hoped to prevail in court when they were basically ignoring their own guidelines.

It may prompt a policy change to shift toward RA. Or it may prompt a procedural change to not be so uptight about NA degrees. The broader fallout will be interesting to see. But I'm glad your friend is going to be registered.