Responsibilities of Professional Associations in FQR

March 22, 2013Vancouver BC

Presented by C. Nielsen, CEO, CSMLS

www.csmls.org

Since 1937

• National professional association

• National certification body for all jurisdictions in Canada, with the exception of Quebec

• National prior learning assessment body (FQR) for all jurisdictions in Canada, with the exception of Quebec

• 15,000 members – non profit, supported by members dues

Who is the CSMLS?

www.csmls.org

1960s • Doing qualification recognition • Many from Commonwealth countries – credentials accepted as good

as OR BETTER (Fellowship) than Canadian• No regulation in Canada (yet)

1999• CSMLS begins doing PLA (FQR) for ONTARIO – largest province for

settlement of internationally educated (had previously been conducted by an educator, who trained Canadian MLTs)

• Brought to CSMLS, under contract (free of charge) to the regulator

Where We’ve Been…

www.csmls.org

1999 – three foreign trained MLTs were in positions of influence – were it not for the political will of the Executive Director (British), the Director of Certification (Texan) and the Deputy Registrar for the Ontario College (British) – we may NEVER have consolidated and committed to the development of the PLA program

Currently – regulation in all jurisdictions, except the territories, PEI and BC

Qualification recognition is the responsibility of the provincial bodies designated… so WHY is CSMLS doing this legal process for them?

Regulation in Canada

www.csmls.org

Under the guidance of the Council on National Certification (now the Professional Standards Council - PSC) the CSMLS has the:

• National Competency Profiles - standards• National Certification Examinations – standards• Third party (arm’s length) Education Program

Accreditation – standards• PLA (had been doing assessments informally for decades)

PSC: one member from the regulatory bodies/associations

CSMLS: Major Functions

www.csmls.org

• With a long, collaborative history of setting standards, the provinces and territories decided that it was logical that the national office develop, maintain and offer a national PLA program

• Governance – each member of the CSMLS Board is a general member of the CSMLS, elected by the membership, to serve

• The PSC reports to the Board, who, with few exceptions, adopts the recommendations of the PSC into policy. It is for this reason CSMLS does not have competition for this high-cost process, but collaboration and endorsement for all jurisdictions. It is their policies that are being applied (under contracted arrangements)

CSMLS: Major Functions

www.csmls.org

Since 1999, the process is committed to: Openness, Transparency, Fairness, and Objectivity.

All are very similar to all Fairness Commissioner requirements – when commissioners began to appear, we were not afraid as the values alignment was a great match.

csmls.org/Certification/Certification-Process/IEMLT.aspx

PLA @ CSMLS

www.csmls.org

Requirements for Assessment• Verification of education (quality, not quantity – we do not care if you

went to school for two years or twenty of post secondary – it is not a counting exercise, but a competency-based determination)

• We use third party agency like ICES and WES to authenticate degrees/diplomas

• Certification(s)• Detailed work history (most vulnerable – little penalty for false

documents, difficult to authenticate)• Continuing education (domestic or international)• Proof of language fluency• Self-assessment

PLA @ CSMLS

www.csmls.org

• We assess the internationally educated to the Canadian competency standard

• Each person is an individual (we do not have reciprocity agreements)

• We do not base assessments on length of time spent in education, and believe that competencies can be obtained in many ways

• There are definitely cheaper ways to assess. We believe our method gives the client the best chance at a favourable outcome – as they are viewed not as a snapshot in time (graduation date) but as a whole person, with a breadth of experience that is rarely duplicated

PLA @ CSMLS - Principles

www.csmls.org

• CSMLS has no direct control over regulation or the labour market

• We remind ourselves that the current monopoly (standards, Certification, PLA) are our responsibility to maintain

• If the CSMLS processes no longer meet the needs of the regulators, they can take their business elsewhere or adopt a different standards

• Membership-based organization – about half of the revenue comes from member dues (competing priorities)

Challenges

www.csmls.org

• Uphold the standards set by the PSC, endorsed by the Board

• Advise on Best Practices, changes in immigration, role of the Fairness Commissioners, impact of changes

• Provide high-quality services that meet the needs of regulators

OR they will go elsewhere for service, or create their own

Our contracted relationship with the regulators is an incredible responsibility that we have been given.

Responsibility to Regulators

www.csmls.org

• Use their money wisely

About half of the CSMLS revenue is member dues; we must invest in programs and services that impact membership.

Despite generous funding from the government for research, since 1999, we estimate the subsidy by CSMLS members is about $1 million.

• To have a process that ensures that the international graduate that practices beside them has met the same standard

Responsibility to Members

www.csmls.org

• With the regulators, we have a responsibility to protect the public through standards

• They are not in a position to protect themselves as they are unaware of the complexity of standards

• CSMLS provides an opinion of competence (PLA), coupled with successful certification – is used in the registration process with regulators (except Quebec)

Responsibility to the Public

www.csmls.org

• Use research $ wisely, it is taxpayer funded, we need to respect that

• Take on projects that will enhance programs/delivery/resource

• If a program cannot be sustained, CSMLS will not pilot it. Our reputation rests on confidence. To create a program or service that is not sustainable, or is not reliable, erodes confidence.

• Use reports/frameworks to serve as next research agenda. Don’t shelve them because a project is over. Remain committed.

• Learn from others

Responsibility to Government

www.csmls.org

Participation in: Networks (International Qualifications Network), Conferences (Canadian National Network of Associations of Regulators –

CNNAR, Canadian Association of Prior Learning - CAPLA), Consultations (any level of government), Phone calls (weekly event, as FQR is a hot topic area) Surveys (also weekly)

When CSMLS was creating our policies back in the 90s, someone had to help us – Engineers Canada for example. We have an obligation to Pay It Forward and help the newest participants in FQR.

Knowledge transfer is critical

Responsibility to Other Regulators/Associations

www.csmls.org

• Provide data for our regulatory body partners to meet their compliance objectives

• Continue the dialogue and information sharing

• To maintain the best programs that allow for assessments, with integrity and objectivity

Responsibility to Fairness Commissioners

www.csmls.org

• Despite the credential challenge we have in Canada; (programs for MLTs are not at the University level across the board) without a strong research curricula, CSMLS has become an association that conducts research prior to implementation of standards.

For example:Language proficiency standards were being driven up by regulators, members, etc… became concerned that we had artificially high requirements that were not evidence-based (language fluency is a highly visible, political challenge in Canada) and that CSMLS may face allegations of discrimination.

Responsibility to Research and Data

www.csmls.org

For years we refined language tests accepted (to avoid duplicate tests/costs), set new thresholds for application and validated the high level of language fluency required to read the national exam and work in the field.

Outcome: a two-stage language proficiency requirement that acknowledges that language is obtained over time, and as most clients (90%) must do upgrade training, to delay a technical assessment of their file, and let them know the likelihood of practice in Canada, was unfair to the client.

This research was over five years ago, yet language proficiency remains a hot topic for regulators – and we still provide advice on our journey to validate our language standard.

Responsibility to Research and Data – cont’d

www.csmls.org

It is our duty to:

• Spend resources wisely• Use data to inform decisions• Constantly ask WHY• Remind ourselves of the expectations of Fairness Commissioners and

the public• Share our knowledge with others – even past the completion of a

project!

www.csmls.org – Under ResearchChristinen@csmls.org

Summary

www.csmls.org