Former student says Camosun should have EQA designation revoked

A former Camosun College student feels that the college should have its Education Quality Assurance (EQA) designation revoked due to a response he received from Camosun when he asked for a partial tuition refund last year. EQA designations are administered by the provincial government’s Ministry of Advanced Education, Skills and Training. 

In 2016, Camosun first-year Post-Degree Diploma in Business Administration-Accounting student Justin Lee noticed that the college was charging the same amount for 42-hour courses as it was for 56-hour versions of the same courses, specifically Finance 210, Business 140, and Accounting 111. Lee filed a complaint in June 2016; on December 15, 2017, the college changed the wording of its Fees and Financial Policies and Procedures policy, adding the word “generally” before the statement that Camosun calculates tuition on a cost-per-hour basis (the number of hours in a course determines its credit value, says Camosun vice-president of education John Boraas).

The college also added in a paragraph to the policy stating that standard course hours may vary because some courses are online, some have online and in-person components (referred to as “blended” courses), and some are in person with no online component.

Lee feels he was overcharged roughly $270 by Camosun for the time between June of 2016 and December of 2017, when the college changed the wording of its policy. Lee wrote to Boraas in February of 2018 asking for a partial tuition refund; Boraas wrote back denying his request, citing the revised Fees and Financial Policies and Procedures policy. Lee feels that Boraas citing the revised policy is grounds for having Camosun’s EQA designation revoked.

Lee points to section 6.3.3 of the Education Quality Assurance Policy and Procedures Manual, which says that conduct “by the Institution, or its principals or major shareholders, that is likely to damage the interests or reputation of British Columbia’s post-secondary education system or that is in conflict with the public good” is considered when the ministry gives institutions EQA designations. It also states that “current or past practices of the institution that show a lack of integrity or unethical conduct in relations with students…” is considered as part of receiving the designation. 

Lee feels that Camosun’s response to his request for a partial tuition refund is not in compliance with these two clauses, because the new wording in Camosun’s policy was not yet in place when he paid those tuition fees.

“There was a period of 18 months where [Camosun’s] policy was unchanged,” says Lee. “Clearly they were in non-compliance with [their policy], at least as it was represented on the website.” 

Lee calls Boraas’ written response “completely disingenuous and without substance.” 

Boraas says there is not much he can do or say to that and stresses that the college is not in the wrong here.

“The only answer that I think would be seen in the light that is wanted is to say that we’re in the wrong,” says Boraas. “And we’re not. We’ve been clear from the beginning of our approach and our interpretation. Delivering a course in a different format has never—or ever will—result in it being considered as a different course.” (Boraas adds that Lee had access to additional supports online.)

Boraas says that he has looked into whether or not the college has acted appropriately, and he has found that it has.

“[I’ve] been assured that our approach has been quite reasonable, that because of the room for misinterpretation that was argued with the student, we further clarified our approach. The provincial [ombudsperson] office then agreed that our wording is fair and clear.”  

Lee says it was Boraas’ written response that made him want to go after Camosun’s EQA designation. 

“When I received that response, it really changed my mind as to whether or not I should pursue [Camosun] potentially losing their designation, because I strongly feel that they should be held accountable for their actions,” he says.

In the letter to Lee, Boraas reiterated that credit hours form the basis of tuition, but it wasn’t the answer Lee was hoping for.

“I asked [Boraas] to address my concerns for all the months that they had not done anything while the policy was still unchanged,” says Lee. 

Lee says that Boraas cited the new policy; Boraas, however, says that both the new and the old policies have been cited in this matter. According to Boraas, the college feels that the old wording was clear as well but updated it anyway in the interest of clarity; at this point, he can’t think of anything else that can be done. 

“Our view is that practice was consistent with our previous wording as well; we just have updated the wording to make it even clearer. Our position is that our old wording was perfectly acceptable in this context as well,” says Boraas. 

Boraas says that Camosun was not required to change the wording in the policy, but that the college always improves clarity where it can. 

“We weren’t required to make any change; we, indeed, chose to,” says Boraas. 

But even though Lee feels Camosun used new policies to explain why the incident happened before the policies were put in place, Boraas says that is “not what we did.”

“No, I don’t see anything wrong with updating a policy,” says Boraas.

Lee took his concerns to the Ministry of Advanced Education, Skills and Training but says he was told that there was no way for students to get their money back if the college doesn’t want to give it back. (A spokesperson for the Ministry said that because this is a matter between Camosun and Lee, they were unable to comment.)

“Which is why I’m so concerned with accountability on the part of the college,” says Lee. 

Lee says that he hasn’t heard from the Ministry since April 17; the Ministry can ultimately decide whether his complaint will be upheld.

“I had asked the Ministry to give me a written response detailing the decision and why they had come to that conclusion, which they never provided at any time,” says Lee. 

Lee says that if the college wants to make it right, they should refund students who have been overcharged. 

“They should refund any student that’s been affected by this overcharge between June of 2016 and December 15, 2017,” says Lee. “That’s the time period where they clearly represented one thing on their website and in fact their policy, as they claimed, was something completely different.”  

Lee says that the college was in compliance with its policies once it changed them.

“They are then in compliance,” says Lee, “after the policy [was changed.]”

Boraas says that the college is not going to give Lee a refund.

“We’ve already declined that,” he says. “That’s been communicated to Justin.”

Lee has opened a complaint with the BC ombudsperson against the Ministry of Advanced Education regarding what he sees as its failure to enforce EQA standards.

Camosun College is currently one of 259 post-secondary institutions in British Columbia that has EQA status.

Correction: We originally stated that Justin Lee noticed the college was charging the same amount for 42-hour courses as it was for 56-hour versions of the same courses in November 2017; it was actually June 2016 when he first raised concerns over this. At one point in the story, we also said that Lee said Boraas cited the old policy when in fact Lee told us that Boraas cited the new policy. We also said that Lee said that Boraas reiterated in his letter that credit hours form the basis of tuition. According to Lee, this was actually the first time Boraas had told him that. We apologize for the mistakes.