Anybody considered legal action against BONs for non-recognition?

[mobileLPN]

Doesn't apply to me as I enrolled prior to the CA cutoff date and would sooner die than live in Kansas. Has anybody ever considered filing suit against a BON for not recognizing an EC education? Since I'm not an attorney, perhaps one could comment. It seems to be a violation of the equal protection clause of the constitution. For example: If you live in a state that doesn't require drivers ed for an initial DL, your license is still valid in a state that does require drivers ed. States, and in particular Boards of Nursing, are charged with protecting the citizens of that state, the burden of proof would be on them to show that EC grads (who take the same licensing exam as any other grads) aren't as well prepared.

Not sure if you'd win or lose, but it might be worth a shot.

Just as an aside. Isn't it a bit ironic that while California doesn't recognize distance learning for nurses, it's the only state to recognize distance learning for lawyers?

[mobileLPN]

I do think Excelsior didn't do themselves any favors by allowing MA's and techs, who have little experience, into the program.

On that, we agree. The prerequisite should be at least EMT-P, LPN, or RT. Perhaps the BONs and excelsior could compromise. Subtract from the 360 hour clinical requirement any verified clinical hours required for the candidates current license. Then, have them do the rest as a GN preceptorship prior to taking the NCLEX.

[Sheri257]

On that, we agree. The prerequisite should be at least EMT-P, LPN, or RT. Perhaps the BONs and excelsior could compromise. Subtract from the 360 hour clinical requirement any verified clinical hours required for the candidates current license. Then, have them do the rest as a GN preceptorship prior to taking the NCLEX.

Good idea, but what a lot of people don't understand is that those clinical requirements are set by law, at least in California. I'm not as familiar with Kansas statutes, but that kind of compromise would require a complete legislative overall of the California statutes.

[RN34TX]

Good idea, but what a lot of people don't understand is that those clinical requirements are set by law, at least in California. I'm not as familiar with Kansas statutes, but that kind of compromise would require a complete legislative overall of the California statutes.

Good point, but I like the previous post about lawyers where you are required to meet federal, not state guidelines for education. When I was an LPN out East, I called the BON and asked about EC being eligible for RN licensure if I were to complete the program there. They said no problem and EC has a great repuation on the East coast. But I was worried because I read the state laws that specifically talked about concurrent theory and clinicals in order to be eligible for licensure. They told me "Well you meet New York's guidelines for RN licensure and it's NLN accredited so you don't need to worry about our requirements." It was true, I knew several EC grads in that state.

It just doesn't make sense to me that in CA a federal accrediting body takes a back seat to a state board, but I guess the law has decided that the individual states will decide who is eligible for licensure in their state.

I know that in these discussions you keep harping on "EC doesn't meet CA requirements for clinicals" which we all know is true so their is no point in repeating it over and over. No one is disputing what their law states, they are disputing it's validity.

Several months ago I posted asking if anyone directly supervised, precepted, oriented, etc. any direct contact with EC grads who could give first hand testimony that EC grads were unprepared, dangerous, incompetent, or if they lacked anything that a traditional new RN had that they did not.

In this big nursing forum, not one response in that matter. There were only people who had positive things to say about them. You pasted one CA nurse who had bad things to say about one EC grad and that was it.

It's not what the law states, we are questioning the validity of the law.

It's like gay marriage, you can harp on and repeat what the law states all you want, but do we blindly accept that the law states that marriage must be between a man and woman period and that's it? That makes it ok because that is what the law reads?

[chris_at_lucas_RN, RN]

it just doesn't make sense to me that in ca a federal accrediting body takes a back seat to a state board, but i guess the law has decided that the individual states will decide who is eligible for licensure in their state.

well, rn34tx, you and i have "met" before (hi! :) ), and i know that you know where i stand, solidly on the ec side of any line. but i have to take issue with one thing here, and i think it is the crux of why the california bon can do what they want, in spite of the "federal" nln position.

it is because the nln isn't "federal," rather it is "national." the nln is a body of state boards of nursing who give their approval--official and respected but not legally binding--to schools of nursing. they look like government, but they are not government. a state's bon is a government agency, and its policies and decisions have the force of law. that's how the ca bon can override an nln decision.

the nln basically has its opinion, but it cannot tell california what to do in its own state about its own nurses because the nln is not a government entity.

however, i believe the answer will be a nationalized or federalized rn license. we already have the start of that--we all take the same exam. the next layer has begun with the nurse licensure compact. here's a list of states that are members. as more states accept each others' nurses' licenses without question or review, we have, in effect, governmental approval.

this is analogous to reciprocity, but it's more organized.

i see california is not a member, but then, neither is new york. right now there are 18 states which are members, with two more who have passed the legislation but not yet enacted it.

[Sheri257]

No one is disputing what their law states, they are disputing it's validity.

Since the topic of the thread is filing a lawsuit, that usually means you have to deal with the existing statutes whether you like them or not, which is why I mentioned it.

I realize that you guys will defend EC no matter what. But I do think it's interesting that another state (Kansas) has come to the same conclusion that California did.

I guess we'll have to see if this becomes a trend with other states, or not.

[mobileLPN]

It is because the NLN isn't "federal," rather it is "national." The NLN is a body of state boards of nursing who give their approval--official and respected but not legally binding--to schools of nursing. They look like government, but they are not government. A state's BON is a government agency, and its policies and decisions have the force of law. That's how the CA BON can override an NLN decision.

Not quite right. I think you're confusing the NLN with the NCSBN. The NLN is indeed a "federally recognized accrediting agency", and it's accreditation does carry with it legal federal recognition. Because of that recogition, It's accreditation policies do indeed carry the force of law.

http://www.ed.gov/admins/finaid/accred/accreditation_pg7.html#nurse

They are right there with north central, middle states, etc. It is interesting to note, that the federal government also recognizes accreditation by the Commission on Collegiate Nursing Education.

It is a fine distinction, the NLN is not a government agency itself, but federal law recognizes it as an authority and requires it's approval for a program to obtain federal funds. They're kind of like JCAHO in that way.

[RN34TX]

well, rn34tx, you and i have "met" before (hi! :) ), and i know that you know where i stand, solidly on the ec side of any line. but i have to take issue with one thing here, and i think it is the crux of why the california bon can do what they want, in spite of the "federal" nln position.

it is because the nln isn't "federal," rather it is "national." the nln is a body of state boards of nursing who give their approval--official and respected but not legally binding--to schools of nursing. they look like government, but they are not government. a state's bon is a government agency, and its policies and decisions have the force of law. that's how the ca bon can override an nln decision.

chris i appreciate the correction and still not completely clear about this but i do know that they serve to approve schools of nursing on a national level. i think it's incredible that a state will turn a blind eye to their expert opinion. it's like a hospital not caring about joint commission accreditation.

[RN34TX]

It is because the NLN isn't "federal," rather it is "national." The NLN is a body of state boards of nursing who give their approval--official and respected but not legally binding--to schools of nursing. They look like government, but they are not government. A state's BON is a government agency, and its policies and decisions have the force of law. That's how the CA BON can override an NLN decision.

Not quite right. I think you're confusing the NLN with the NCSBN. The NLN is indeed a "federally recognized accrediting agency", and it's accreditation does carry with it legal federal recognition. Because of that recogition, It's accreditation policies do indeed carry the force of law.

http://www.ed.gov/admins/finaid/accred/accreditation_pg7.html#nurse

They are right there with north central, middle states, etc. It is interesting to note, that the federal government also recognizes accreditation by the Commission on Collegiate Nursing Education.

It is a fine distinction, the NLN is not a government agency itself, but federal law recognizes it as an authority and requires it's approval for a program to obtain federal funds. They're kind of like JCAHO in that way.

Thanks MobileLPN, that helped clear it up.

[RN34TX]

Since the topic of the thread is filing a lawsuit, that usually means you have to deal with the existing statutes whether you like them or not, which is why I mentioned it.

I realize that you guys will defend EC no matter what. But I do think it's interesting that another state (Kansas) has come to the same conclusion that California did.

I guess we'll have to see if this becomes a trend with other states, or not.

I was only trying to say that there is no point in continually quoting what the law states. We've all been to the CA and Kansas BON websites and read their decisions about EC.

As far as your comment about dealing with existing statutes whether I like them or not, it's not a matter of whether or not I like them. You seem firm on quoting the law as if it is set in stone and does not change and obviously it has, or at least in how it was interpreted. Your own home state had to have laws put into play years ago when CA public schools refused to give credit for prior learning, i.e. they forced LVN's to repeat the entire RN program from beginning to end along with everyone else with no advanced placement options. Just because it's law today does not mean that it can't be challenged and changed tomorrow.

Texas recently reviewed EC as well because of the CA decision but rejected their idea. There may be other states that I do not know about that have done the same thing.

[Sheri257]

I was only trying to say that there is no point in continually quoting what the law states. We've all been to the CA and Kansas BON websites and read their decisions about EC.

You guys repeat the same statements over and over, mostly about how great EC is. You've said the same things about EC dozens of times, not just to me, but to many others on many different threads.

I don't say you're repetitive, or suggest that we already know all the things you've repeatedly stated, and that you shouldn't post them, again.

I'd appreciate the same consideration. If not, to hell with it. I'll say what I want.

[RN34TX]

You guys repeat the same statements over and over, mostly about how great EC is. You've said the same things about EC dozens of times, not just to me, but to many others in many different threads.

I don't say you're repetitive, or suggest that we already know all the things you've repeatedly stated, and that you shouldn't post them, again.

I'd appreciate the same consideration. If not, to hell with it. I'll say what I want.

But you say what you want anyway so what difference would it make? You're not an EC grad, student, ex-student, etc. or work with EC grads so why you are so interested in participating in volunteering your wisdom on CA law and EC I have yet to figure out.

Oh, and did I mention TODAY about how great EC is to everyone??

[mobileLPN]

Many seem to think this issue about EC. It is not. It is about the excessive power that state BONs have. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I've heard that Deaconness isn't approved by the New York state BON. Deaconness is a NLNAC approved program. I would strongly encourage Deaconness grads and students to fight this through legal action, lobbying, whatever. If it takes 10 years or 20 years to change the system, we must begin working now! It won't be cheap, and it won't be easy, but it must be done.

It should be a four pronged approach.

1. Litigation. Lawsuits on every longshot state and federal legal theory imaginable until you find a judge who agrees with you.

2. Lobbying. Our efforts to win the law changing votes of BON members, legislators and the public must be tireless.

3. Excellence. We must constantly critically evaluate ourselves as nurses and as alumni to make sure the message we send is correct. It is not enough to be good, or safe, or competent. We, and our schools, must be excellent. We must generate a reputation for our schools of such excellence that BONs would be embarrassed to consider slandering our program. This means setting the bar on clinical practice, research and education. The more grads we have who have MSN or PhD degrees, the better. The more books published by our grads, the better. The more grads we have TEACHING nursing at traditional schools, the better. You get the idea.

4.Join them. Depending on the state, the governor nominates nurses to the BON. Next time you hear of an opening, call the governors office and suggest an alumni or like minded nurse. Then, publicly lobby for their nomination. We should make it our goal to have grads on the majority of state BONs within 20 years.

Start Today!

"Never underestimate the power of a small group of committed people to change the world. Indeed, it's the only thing that ever has."

- Margaret Meade