Category: Department of Education

  • Last Email From A Worker at the US Department of Education

    Last Email From A Worker at the US Department of Education

    This graphic is part of an email from a US Department of Education official who was recently fired without good cause.  Our experiences with this dedicated public servant were always excellent, something we cannot say about others in the DC crowd. The graphic displays a number of important measures that have been enacted by ED-FSA (Federal Student Aid) over the last six years–and one giant failure, general debt relief for more than 30 million citizens. We wish the best for those Department of Education workers who remain, and who may see their jobs made more difficult, privatized, or moved to other agencies. The work cannot be easy for anyone–especially those who care about the folks they serve–the consumers and their families who are less likely to receive justice in the coming months and years. 

    Related link:

    Department of Education workers brace for Trump to shut agency down: ‘Everybody is distraught’ (UK Guardian)

    Department of Education contract cuts spur ‘chaos and confusion’ (The Hill)

    The Department of Education’s History Shows It is Essential (Time)

    Source link

  • What’s in a name? That which we call a university…

    What’s in a name? That which we call a university…

    by Rob Cuthbert

    In England the use of the title ‘university’ is regulated by law, a duty which now lies with the regulator, the Office for Students (OfS). When a new institution is created, or when an existing institution wishes to change its name, the OfS must consult on the proposed new name and may or may not approve it after consideration of responses to the consultation. The responsible agency for naming was once simply the Privy Council, a responsibility transferred to the OfS with the Higher Education and Research Act 2017. For existing older universities where legislative change is needed, the Privy Council must also still approve, but will only do so with a letter of support from the OfS. The arrangements were helpfully summarised in a blog by David Kernohan and Michael Salmon of Wonkhe on 8 April 2024, before most of the recent changes had been decided.

    That which we call a university would probably not smell quite as sweet if it could not use the university title, and with its new power the OfS has made a series of decisions which risk putting it in bad odour. In July 2024 it allowed AECC University College to call itself the Health Sciences University. Although AECC University College was a perfectly respectable provider of health-related courses, this name change surely flew in the face of the many larger and prestigious universities which had an apparently greater claim to expertise in both teaching and research in health sciences. The criteria for name changes are set out by the OfS: “The OfS will assess whether the provider meets the criteria for university college or university title and will, in particular: …  Determine whether the provider’s chosen title may be, or may have the potential to be, confusing.” It is hard to see how that criterion was satisfied in the case of the Health Sciences University.

    Even worse was to come. In 2024 Bolton University applied to use the title University of Greater Manchester, despite the large and looming presence of both Manchester University and Manchester Metropolitan University. And the OfS said yes. If you google the names Bolton or Greater Manchester University you may even find the University of Bolton Manchester, which is neither the University of Bolton nor the University of Manchester, but is “Partnered with the University of Bolton and situated within the centre of Manchester” – indeed, very near the Oxford Road heartland location of Manchester and Manchester Metropolitan universities.

    This is rather more confusing and misleading than University Academy 92, founded by a group of famous football team-mates at Manchester United, formed in August 2017 and based near Old Trafford. Wikipedia says that “the approval by the Department of Education (DoE) to allow UA92 the use of ‘University Academy 92’ was questioned with critics claiming the decision to approve the use of the name makes it ‘too easy’ for new providers to use ‘university’ in a new institution’s name”. This criticism continues to have some merit, but a high-profile football-related initiative, now broadened, is perhaps less likely to cause any confusion in the minds of its potential students. It may be significant that it was created at the same time as the HERA legislation was enacted, with government perhaps relaxing its grip in the last exercise of university title approval powers before the Privy Council handed over to the OfS. UA92 was and continues to be a deliverer of degrees validated by Lancaster University. In 2024 the OfS the University of Central Lancashire applied to be renamed the University of Lancashire, despite the obvious potential confusion with Lancaster University. And the OfS said yes.

    It was not ever thus. The Privy Council would consult and take serious account of responses to consultation, especially from existing universities, as it did after the Further and Higher Education 1992 when 30 or so polytechnics were granted university title. A massive renaming exercise was carefully managed under the Privy Council’s watchful eye. As someone centrally involved in one such exercise, at Bristol Polytechnic, I know that the Privy Council would not allow liberties to be taken. The renaming exercise naturally stretched over many months; the Polytechnic conducted its own consultations both among its staff and students, but also much more widely in schools and other agencies across the South West region. Throughout that period, in a longstanding joke, the Polytechnic Director playfully mocked the Vice-Chancellor of Bristol University by suggesting that the polytechnic might seek to become the ‘Greater Bristol University’. It was a joke because all parties knew that the Privy Council, quite properly, would never countenance such a confusing and misleading proposal.

    How would that name change play out now? In the words (almost) of Cole Porter: “In olden days a glimpse of mocking was looked on as something shocking, now heaven knows, anything goes.”

    Rob Cuthbert is the editor of SRHE News and Blog, and a partner in the Practical Academics consultancy. He was previously Deputy Vice-Chancellor and professor of higher education management at the University of the West of England.

    Author: SRHE News Blog

    An international learned society, concerned with supporting research and researchers into Higher Education

    Source link

  • What now for the US Department of Education?

    What now for the US Department of Education?

    What happens now with the US Department of Education now that Elon Musk claims that it no longer exists? It’s hard to know yet, and even more difficult after removing career government workers that we have known for years.  

    We are saddened to hear of contacts we know, hard working and capable people, in an agency that has been understaffed and politicized. 

    We also worry for the hundreds of thousands of student loan debtors who have borrower defense to repayment claims against schools that systematically defrauded them–and have not yet received justice.   

    And what about all those FAFSA (financial aid) forms for students starting and continuing their schooling? How will they be processed in a timely manner?

    Without funding and oversight, the Department of Education looks nearly dead. But with millions of poor and disabled children relying on Title I funding and IDEA and tens of millions more with federal student student loans, it’s hard to imagine those functions disappearing for good.  

    Let’s see how much slack is taken up by private enterprise and religious nonprofits who may benefit from the pain. With student loans, much of the work has already been contracted out. It would not be out of the question for the student loan portfolio to be sold off to corporations who could profit from it. And that may or may not require Congressional approval.  

    Source link

  • Elon Musk says US Department of Education no longer ‘exists’ (MSNBC)

    Elon Musk says US Department of Education no longer ‘exists’ (MSNBC)







    Higher Education Inquirer : Elon Musk says US Department of Education no longer ‘exists’ (MSNBC)




    Source link

  • Higher Education Inquirer Investigating White House, DOGE Communications

    Higher Education Inquirer Investigating White House, DOGE Communications

     
     
    The Higher Education Inquirer (HEI) is investigating email communications between the White House and DOGE regarding the US Department of Education Federal Student Aid (FSA).  HEI has been using FOIA responses for a number of years to expose corruption in the US higher education business. The White House has 20 days to acknowledge receipt. We will let you know if and when we get any responses from the White House.  

    Source link

  • U.S. Department of Education’s Trump Appointees and America First Agenda

    U.S. Department of Education’s Trump Appointees and America First Agenda

    Rachel
    Oglesby most recently served as America First Policy Institute’s Chief
    State Action Officer & Director, Center for the American Worker. In
    this role, she worked to advance policies that promote worker freedom,
    create opportunities outside of a four-year college degree, and provide
    workers with the necessary skills to succeed in the modern economy, as
    well as leading all of AFPI’s state policy development and advocacy
    work. She previously worked as Chief of Policy and Deputy Chief of Staff
    for Governor Kristi Noem in South Dakota, overseeing the implementation
    of the Governor’s pro-freedom agenda across all policy areas and state
    government agencies. Oglesby holds a master’s degree in public policy
    from George Mason University and earned her bachelor’s degree in
    philosophy from Wake Forest University. 

    Jonathan Pidluzny – Deputy Chief of Staff for Policy and Programs 

    Jonathan
    Pidluzny most recently served as Director of the Higher Education
    Reform Initiative at the America First Policy Institute. Prior to that,
    he was Vice President of Academic Affairs at the American Council of
    Trustees and Alumni, where his work focused on academic freedom and
    general education. Jonathan began his career in higher education
    teaching political science at Morehead State University, where he was an
    associate professor, program coordinator, and faculty regent from
    2017-2019. He received his Ph.D from Boston College and holds a
    bachelor’s degree and master’s degree from the University of Alberta. 

    Chase Forrester – Deputy Chief of Staff for Operations 

    Virginia
    “Chase” Forrester most recently served as the Chief Events Officer at
    America First Policy Institute, where she oversaw the planning and
    execution of 80+ high-profile events annually for AFPI’s 22 policy
    centers, featuring former Cabinet Officials and other distinguished
    speakers. Chase previously served as Operations Manager on the
    Trump-Pence 2020 presidential campaign    , where she spearheaded all event
    operations for the Vice President of the United States and the Second
    Family. Chase worked for the National Republican Senatorial Committee
    during the Senate run-off races in Georgia and as a fundraiser for
    Members of Congress. Chase graduated from Clemson University with a
    bachelor’s degree in political science and a double-minor in Spanish and
    legal studies.

    Steve Warzoha – White House Liaison

    Steve
    Warzoha joins the U.S. Department of Education after most recently
    serving on the Trump-Vance Transition Team. A native of Greenwich, CT,
    he is a former local legislator who served on the Education Committee
    and as Vice Chairman of both the Budget Overview and Transportation
    Committees. He is also an elected leader of the Greenwich Republican
    Town Committee. Steve has run and served in senior positions on numerous
    local, state, and federal campaigns. Steve comes from a family of
    educators and public servants and is a proud product of Greenwich Public
    Schools and an Eagle Scout. 

    Tom Wheeler – Principal Deputy General Counsel 

    Tom
    Wheeler’s prior federal service includes as the Acting Assistant
    Attorney General for Civil Rights at the U.S. Department of Justice, a
    Senior Advisor to the White House Federal Commission on School Safety,
    and as a Senior Advisor/Counsel to the Secretary of Education    . He has
    also been asked to serve on many Boards and Commissions, including as
    Chair of the Hate Crimes Sub-Committee for the Federal Violent Crime
    Reduction Task Force, a member of the Department of Justice’s Regulatory
    Reform Task Force    , and as an advisor to the White House Coronavirus
    Task Force    , where he worked with the CDC and HHS to develop guidelines
    for the safe reopening of schools and guidelines for law enforcement and
    jails/prisons. Prior to rejoining the U.S. Department of Education, Tom
    was a partner at an AM-100 law firm, where he represented federal,
    state, and local public entities including educational institutions and
    law enforcement agencies in regulatory, administrative, trial, and
    appellate matters in local, state and federal venues. He is a frequent
    author and speaker in the areas of civil rights, free speech, and
    Constitutional issues, improving law enforcement, and school safety. 

    Craig Trainor – Deputy Assistant Secretary for Policy, Office for Civil Rights 

    Craig
    Trainor most recently served as Senior Special Counsel with the U.S.
    House of Representatives Committee on the Judiciary under Chairman Jim
    Jordan (R-OH)    , where Mr. Trainor investigated and conducted oversight of
    the U.S. Department of Justice, including its Civil Rights Division,
    the FBI, the Biden-Harris White House, and the Intelligence Community
    for civil rights and liberties abuses. He also worked as primary counsel
    on the House Judiciary’s Subcommittee on the Constitution and Limited
    Government’s investigation into the suppression of free speech and
    antisemitic harassment on college and university campuses    , resulting in
    the House passing the Antisemitism Awareness Act of 2023. Previously, he
    served as Senior Litigation Counsel with the America First Policy
    Institute     under former Florida Attorney General Pam Bondi, Of Counsel
    with the Fairness Center, and had his own civil rights and criminal
    defense law practice in New York City for over a decade. Upon graduating
    from the Catholic University of America, Columbus School of Law, he
    clerked for Chief Judge Frederick J. Scullin, Jr., U.S. District Court
    for the Northern District of New York. Mr. Trainor is admitted to
    practice law in the state of New York, the U.S. District Court for the
    Southern and Eastern Districts of New York, and the U.S. Supreme Court. 

    Madi Biedermann – Deputy Assistant Secretary, Office of Communications and Outreach 

    Madi
    Biedermann is an experienced education policy and communications
    professional with experience spanning both federal and state government
    and policy advocacy organizations. She most recently worked as the Chief
    Operating Officer at P2 Public Affairs. Prior to that, she served as an
    Assistant Secretary of Education for Governor Glenn Youngkin and worked
    as a Special Assistant and Presidential Management Fellow at the Office
    of Management and Budget in the first Trump Administration.     Madi
    received her bachelor’s degree and master of public administration from
    the University of Southern California. 

    Candice Jackson – Deputy General Counsel 

    Candice
    Jackson returns to the U.S. Department of Education to serve as Deputy
    General Counsel. Candice served in the first Trump Administration as
    Acting Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights, and Deputy General Counsel,
    from 2017-2021. For the last few years, Candice has practiced law in
    Washington State and California and consulted with groups and
    individuals challenging the harmful effects of the concept of “gender
    identity” in laws and policies in schools, employment, and public
    accommodations.     Candice is mom to girl-boy twins Madelyn and Zachary,
    age 11. 

    Joshua Kleinfeld – Deputy General Counsel 

    Joshua
    Kleinfeld is the Allison & Dorothy Rouse Professor of Law and
    Director of the Boyden Gray Center for the Study of the Administrative
    State at George Mason University’s Scalia School of Law. He writes and
    teaches about constitutional law, criminal law, and statutory
    interpretation, focusing in all fields on whether democratic ideals are
    realized in governmental practice. As a scholar and public intellectual,
    he has published work in the Harvard, Stanford, and University of
    Chicago Law Reviews, among other venues. As a practicing lawyer, he has
    clerked on the D.C. Circuit, Fourth Circuit, and Supreme Court of
    Israel, represented major corporations accused of billion-dollar
    wrongdoing, and, on a pro bono basis, represented children accused of
    homicide. As an academic, he was a tenured full professor at
    Northwestern Law School before lateraling to Scalia Law School. He holds
    a J.D. in law from Yale Law School, a Ph.D. in philosophy from the
    Goethe University of Frankfurt, and a B.A. in philosophy from Yale
    College. 

    Hannah Ruth Earl – Director, Center for Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships

    Hannah
    Ruth Earl is the former executive director of America’s Future, where
    she cultivated communities of freedom-minded young professionals and
    local leaders. She previously co-produced award-winning feature films as
    director of talent and creative development at the Moving Picture
    Institute. A native of Tennessee, she holds a master of arts in religion
    from Yale Divinity School.

    AFPI Reform Priorities

    AFPI’s higher education priorities are to:

     Related links:

    America First Policy Institute Team

    America First Policy Initiatives

    Source link

  • Department of Education Issues Report on Diversity and Opportunity in Higher Education – CUPA-HR

    Department of Education Issues Report on Diversity and Opportunity in Higher Education – CUPA-HR

    by CUPA-HR | October 18, 2023

    On September 28, 2023, the Department of Education released a report titled “Strategies for Increasing Diversity and Opportunity in Higher Education.” The report was issued in response to the Supreme Court’s June 2023 ruling against affirmative action in college admissions and it outlines ways institutions and states can adapt to prioritize improved accessibility to educational opportunities for underserved students.

    The Report

    In an introductory message for the report, Secretary of Education Matthew Cardona emphasized the enduring commitment to equal opportunity and student body diversity in higher education on behalf of his department and the president’s administration. While condemning the Supreme Court’s decision on affirmative action, Cardona pledged the Department of Education’s and the Biden administration’s support in promoting inclusivity and equity and stimulating long-term prosperity.

    The Department of Education’s report centers around four areas that the administration believes institutions should consider when working to promote diversity and opportunity on campus: student recruitment, admissions, financial aid and student retention. The report focuses mostly on promoting diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) initiatives in these areas to ensure underserved students have an equitable opportunity to be admitted into and succeed in postsecondary programs.

    Relevant to higher education HR, the report discusses the need for improved training of admissions officers and other employees to ensure consistent, equitable evaluations of applicants.

    Moving Forward

    Prior to the release of the Supreme Court’s affirmative action decision, stakeholders also raised concerns regarding the impact such a decision could have on hiring and employment decisions as well as programs or initiatives focused on creating diverse and inclusive workplaces that align with institutional values. The decision to strike down race-based affirmative action in admissions practices could leave employers open to future legal challenges regarding their hiring decisions and other diversity programs.

    CUPA-HR endorses efforts to promote inclusive communities on campuses across the nation. The government relations team continues to track developments impacting these efforts and will inform members of updates as they become available.



    Source link

  • Biden Administration Releases Spring 2023 Regulatory Agenda – CUPA-HR

    Biden Administration Releases Spring 2023 Regulatory Agenda – CUPA-HR

    by CUPA-HR | June 26, 2023

    On June 14, the Biden administration released its Spring 2023 Unified Agenda of Regulatory and Deregulatory Actions (Regulatory Agenda), providing the public with an update on the regulatory and deregulatory activities under development across approximately 67 federal departments, agencies and commissions. This release serves as the first Regulatory Agenda for the 2023 year, setting target dates for regulatory actions in the coming year.

    CUPA-HR’s government relations team has completed a thorough review of the Spring 2023 Regulatory Agenda and put together the following list of noteworthy proposed actions for members.

    Department of Labor

    Wage and Hour Division — Defining and Delimiting the Exemptions for Executive, Administrative, Professional, Outside Sales and Computer Employees

    According to the Regulatory Agenda, the Department of Labor (DOL)’s Wage and Hour Division (WHD) has again delayed the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) to address changes to the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA)’s overtime pay requirements to August 2023. The WHD first announced their intention to move forward with the NPRM in the Fall 2021 Regulatory Agenda, stating its goal “to update the salary level requirement of the section 13(a)(1) exemption [under the FLSA].”

    As a reminder, changes to overtime pay requirements have been implemented through regulations under both the Obama and Trump administrations. In May 2016, the Obama administration’s DOL issued a final rule increasing the salary threshold from $23,660 to $47,476 per year and imposed automatic updates to the threshold every three years. However, court challenges prevented the rule from taking effect, and it was permanently enjoined in September 2017. After the Trump administration started the rulemaking process anew, the DOL issued a new final rule in September 2019 raising the minimum salary level required for exemption from $23,660 annually to $35,568 annually. This final rule went into effect January 1, 2020, and remains in effect today.

    Since the regulation’s reintroduction in the Fall 2021 Regulatory Agenda, CUPA-HR has participated in several DOL listening sessions and has sent letters to the DOL expressing concerns with the timing of the rulemaking. In a recent letter, CUPA-HR joined other associations in calling for the Department to postpone or abandon the anticipated overtime rulemaking, citing concerns with supply chain disruptions, workforce shortages, inflation, and shifting workplace dynamics.

    Wage and Hour Division — Employee or Independent Contractor Classification Under the Fair Labor Standards Act

    In August 2023, the WHD anticipates issuing a final rule to amend the current method for determining independent contractor status for workers.

    On October 13, 2022, the DOL published an NPRM to rescind the current method for determining independent contractor status under the FLSA. The current test, finalized by the Trump administration in 2021, has two core factors of control and investment with three additional factors (integration, skill and permanency) that are relevant only if those core factors are in disagreement. The Biden rule proposes a return to a “totality-of-the-circumstances analysis” of multiple factors in an economic reality test, including the following six factors, which are equally weighted with no core provisions:

    • the extent to which the work is integral to the employer’s business;
    • the worker’s opportunity for profit or loss depending on managerial skill;
    • the investments made by the worker and the employer;
    • the worker’s use of skill and initiative;
    • the permanency of the work relationship; and
    • the degree of control exercised or retained by the employer control.

    Employment and Training Administration — Strengthening Wage Protections for the Temporary and Permanent Employment of Certain Aliens in the United States 

    The DOL’s Employment and Training Administration (ETA) has moved the “Strengthening Wage Protections for the Temporary and Permanent Employment of Certain Aliens in the United States” proposed rule to the list of long-term actions to be taken by the agency, anticipating a release of the NPRM in June 2024. According to the listing in the regulatory agenda, the NPRM will seek to establish “a new wage methodology for setting prevailing wage levels for H-1B/H-1B1/E-3 and PERM programs consistent with the requirements of the Immigration and Nationality Act.”

    The upcoming NPRM will likely amend the Trump administration’s final rule that was scheduled to take effect on November 14, 2022, but was subsequently vacated by a federal court in June 2021. The new proposal will take into consideration the feedback it received in response to a Request for Information (RFI) on data and methods for determining prevailing wage levels “to ensure fair wages and strengthen protections for foreign and U.S. workers.”

    CUPA-HR filed comments in opposition to the Trump administration’s regulations on the issue and in response to the Biden administration’s RFI.

    Department of Education

    Office for Civil Rights — Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Sex in Education Programs or Activities Receiving Federal Financial Assistance 

    In October 2023, the Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights (OCR) plans to release its highly anticipated Title IX final rule. The rulemaking would finalize the June 2022 NPRM to roll back and replace the Trump administration’s 2020 regulations while simultaneously expanding protections against sex-based discrimination to cover sexual orientation, gender identity, and pregnancy or related conditions.

    CUPA-HR filed comments in September 2022 in response to the NPRM. In our comments, we brought attention to the possible impact the proposed regulations could have on how higher education institutions address employment discrimination.

    On May 26, the Department of Education published a blog post stating that the release of the anticipated Title IX final rule will be delayed until at least October 2023. The final rule was previously targeted in the Fall 2022 Regulatory Agenda for May 2023. The department stated that they need additional time to review the 240,000 comments they received in response to the Title IX proposed rule.

    Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Sex in Athletics Education Programs or Activities Receiving Federal Financial Assistance

    The Department of Education also plans to release the Title IX final rule for student eligibility in athletic programs in October 2023. The rule would finalize the NPRM that was released by the Department in April 2023.

    Under the NPRM, schools that receive federal funding would not be permitted to adopt or apply a “one-size-fits-all” ban on transgender students participating on teams consistent with their gender identity. Instead, the proposal allows schools the flexibility to develop team eligibility criteria that serves important educational objectives, such as fairness in competition and preventing sports-related injuries. The Department further explains that the eligibility criteria must take into account the sport, level of competition, and grade or education level of students participating, and the criteria would have to minimize harm to students whose opportunity to participate on a team consistent with their gender identity would be limited or denied.

    The NPRM received over 150,000 comments addressing support for and concerns with the NPRM. Again, the Department must review all comments before issuing a final rule to implement these regulations, which may lead to a further delay.

    National Labor Relations Board

    Joint Employer

    In August 2023, the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) plans to release its anticipated final rule to amend “the standard for determining whether two employers, as defined under the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), are a joint employer under the NLRA.”

    On September 7, 2022, the NLRB issued an NPRM on the joint employer standard. The NPRM establishes joint employer status of two or more employers if they “share or co-determine those matters governing employees’ essential terms and conditions of employment,” such as wages, benefits and other compensation; work and scheduling; hiring and discharge; discipline; workplace health and safety; supervision; and assignment and work rules. According to the NLRB’s press release, the board “proposes to consider both direct evidence of control and evidence of reserved and/or indirect control over these essential terms and conditions of employment when analyzing joint-employer status.”

    Department of Homeland Security

    U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement — Optional Alternative to the Physical Examination Associated With Employment Eligibility Verification (Form I-9) 

    According to the Regulatory Agenda, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) plans to issue a final rule in August 2023 that would finalize the agency’s proposed rule aiming to “revise employment eligibility verification regulations to allow the secretary to authorize alternative document examination procedures in certain circumstances or with respect to certain employers.”

    On August 18, 2022, the DHS published its NPRM on optional alternative examination practices for employers when reviewing an individual’s identity and employment authorization documents required by the Form I-9, Employment Eligibility Verification. If finalized, the proposed rulemaking would create a framework under which the secretary of Homeland Security could allow alternative options for verifying those documents, such as reviewing the documents via video, fax, or email rather than directly allowing employers and agents to use such alternative examination options. According to the NPRM, the secretary would be authorized to implement the alternative examination options in a pilot program if they determine such procedures would offer an equivalent level of security, as a temporary measure to address a public health emergency declared by the secretary of Health and Human Services, or a national emergency declared by the president.

    CUPA-HR filed comments in response to the DHS NPRM in October 2022. The comments were supportive of the Department moving forward with the NPRM, but cautioned against requiring secondary, in-person review of I-9 documents after virtual inspection and once an employee is in-person on a regular and consistent basis; issuing training for document detection and/or anti-discrimination training that may be offered at a high cost without proper vetting, and requiring institutions to be enrolled in E-Verify to participate in the alternative options.

    On a related noted, on May 4, 2023, the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) announced it will provide employers with 30 days to reach compliance with in-person Form I-9 requirements after the COVID-19 flexibilities sunset on July 31, 2023. ICE previously introduced temporary flexibilities in response to the COVID-19 pandemic in March 2020, allowing employers to review employees’ identity and employment authorization documents remotely, rather than in person. This virtual inspection was to be followed by a physical examination within three business days after normal operations resumed. With the new final rule set for earliest release in August 2023, employers will likely have to resume traditional Form I-9 examination practices until the new final rule goes into effect.

    U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services — Modernizing H-1B Requirements and Oversight and Providing Flexibility in the F-1 Program

    In December 2023, the DHS’s United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) plans to release an NPRM to “amend its regulations governing H-1B specialty occupation workers and F-1 students who are the beneficiaries of timely filed H-1B cap-subject petitions.” The NPRM will specifically propose to “revise the regulations relating to ‘employer-employee relationship’ and provide flexibility for start-up entrepreneurs; implement new requirements and guidelines for site visits including in connection with petitions filed by H-1B dependent employers whose basic business information cannot be validated through commercially available data; provide flexibility on the employment start date listed on the petition (in limited circumstances); address ‘cap-gap’ issues; bolster the H-1B registration process to reduce the possibility of misuse and fraud in the H-1B registration system, and clarify the requirement that an amended or new petition be filed where there are material changes, including by streamlining notification requirements relating to certain worksite changes, among other provisions.”

    CUPA-HR continues to monitor these regulations and will keep members apprised of any significant updates.



    Source link

  • Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act Reauthorization Prospects for the 118th Congress – CUPA-HR

    Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act Reauthorization Prospects for the 118th Congress – CUPA-HR

    by CUPA-HR | February 15, 2023

    In the 118th Congress, bills will likely be introduced to reauthorize the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act (WIOA), which includes programs used by community colleges and other higher education institutions pursuing their own workforce development agendas. Passed in July 2014, the WIOA is the primary federal law to increase access to and coordination between workforce development and other related programs. This blog post provides context on what the WIOA accomplishes and highlights recent attempts to reauthorize the law.

    Background

    There are four major components to the WIOA:

    • Title I includes programs related to workforce development activities and authorizes three formula grants through federally-funded, state- and locally-administered delivery systems that are administered by the Department of Labor.
    • Title II enacts the Adult Education and Family Literacy Act (AEFLA), which authorizes programs for adult education up to the secondary level, as well as English training, and is administered by the Department of Education.
    • Title III amends the Wagner-Peyser Act, which authorizes the Employment Service formula grant program that is essential to the WIOA for planning and accountability purposes.
    • Title IV amends the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 and provides funding to state agencies to support employment-related services to individuals with disabilities, among other smaller programs.

    The WIOA originally funded its programs from fiscal year 2015 to fiscal year 2020 after most WIOA programs went into effect July 2015. Appropriations authorization for the WIOA was set to expire after fiscal year 2020, but Congress has extended authorization through the annual appropriations process since fiscal year 2021. Despite the extended authorization, Congress has tasked itself with producing a reauthorization of the WIOA that will extend appropriations for another five or more years and help modernize its workforce development programs. We will likely see reauthorization legislation in the House and/or Senate before the current term ends in 2025.

    WIOA Reauthorization Attempt in the 117th Congress

    In the 117th Congress, House Education and Labor Committee Chair Bobby Scott (D-VA) and 17 committee Democrats introduced the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act of 2022 (H.R. 7309, “WIOA reauthorization bill”) and sent it to the House floor for a vote. According to a Congressional Research Service (CRS) report on H.R. 7309, the bill “would retain the general structure and systems established by the WIOA” and would “authorize appropriations for fiscal years 2023 through 2028, increasing funding for existing systems and establishing several new programs.” The CRS report specifies that the WIOA reauthorization bill focused mostly on amending Title I of the law.

    On May 17, 2022, the House passed the WIOA reauthorization bill and sent it to the Senate where the bill stalled in the Senate Help, Education, Labor and Pensions (HELP) Committee until the 117th Congress adjourned. The WIOA reauthorization bill passed the House among mostly partisan lines with 216 Democrats and four Republicans voting in favor of the bill and 196 Republicans voting against it.

    House Republicans criticized Scott and other Democrats on the Education and Labor Committee for failing to collaborate with Republicans to create a bipartisan bill prior to its introduction and during the committee markup. Prior to its final House vote, Education and Labor Committee Ranking Member Virginia Foxx (R-NC) spoke out against the bill on the House floor stating that the Democrats’ bill did not create a workforce development system that prepares workers for in-demand skills.

    Potential for WIOA Reauthorization Attempts in the 118th Congress

    Given a divided House and Senate, both chambers will have to work together to pass any meaningful legislation for a WIOA reauthorization. Democrats and Republicans may be incentivized to produce a consensus WIOA reauthorization bill to address the record labor shortages and resulting open positions that employers are struggling to fill across the country. With Foxx now serving as the chair of the House Education and the Workforce Committee and her interest in WIOA reauthorization during the last Congress, we believe she and other House Republicans will introduce a new bill, though it’s unknown whether they’ll be able to come to an agreement with Democrats in both the House and Senate to finalize and pass a new reauthorization bill.

    Without knowing how or when Congress will consider WIOA reauthorization, we are more certain of members who may be House champions of such a bill. In addition to Full Committee Chair Foxx and Ranking Member Scott, House Higher Education and Workforce Development Subcommittee leaders Burgess Owens (R-UT) and Frederica Wilson (D-FL) will be involved in WIOA reauthorization bills that are introduced in this Congress. Less certain is where new Senate HELP leaders Bernie Sanders (I-VT) and Bill Cassidy (R-LA) will stand on this particular issue given the Senate’s lack of action in the last Congress and each senator’s new ascension to top leadership positions of the HELP Committee.

    CUPA-HR will monitor WIOA reauthorization bills this Congress and keep members apprised of any new developments.



    Source link