Responsibilities of Professional Associations in FQR March 22, 2013 Vancouver BC Presented by C. Nielsen, CEO, CSMLS

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?

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…

– 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

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

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

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 CSMLS

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 CSMLS

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 CSMLS - Principles

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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! – Under Research Summary