Australian National University interim vice-chancellor Rebekah Brown (middle) and chancellor Julie Bishop (right). Picture: Martin Ollman.
Australian National University (ANU) staff feel “fundamentally disconnected” from the university’s leadership, a group of academics told a federal governance inquiry on Wednesday.
Please login below to view content or subscribe now.
The University of Technology Sydney (UTS) vice-chancellor has been asked whether he would consider an alternative restructure plan written by his own academics, at a NSW government hearing on Friday.
Please login below to view content or subscribe now.
For decades now, professors have been complaining about the futility of asking students to write term papers, otherwise known as a research paper. In theory, research papers teach students how to gather a large body of information, weigh conflicting interpretations and come up with their own ideas about the subject, all while honing their writing skills.
But the reality is very different. The prose is usually terrible and the ideas a bad rehash of class lectures. Grading these essays is pure torture. Anecdotally, I’ve heard many say that evaluating papers is the worst part of teaching. If Dante had known about grading, he would have added a new circle of hell where the damned have to grade one bad paper after another for all eternity.
And now we have AI, or “artificial intelligence,” in the form of ChatGPT, Grok, Gemini and a host of other platforms. Submit a prompt, and these programs spit out an essay that, aside from the occasional hallucination, is actually pretty good. Grammatical mistakes are rare; there’s a thesis, evidence and organization.
Even worse, using AI for schoolwork is rampant in both K–12 and higher ed. As James D. Walsh puts it in his now-infamous New York magazine article, “Everyone Is Cheating Their Way Through College.” And it’s nearly impossible to catch cheaters, especially now that the airless, robotic prose that’s often a marker of an AI-written essay can be masked by programs that promise to “unlock truly human-like AI text.”
What to do? If you have a large class, interviewing students about their essays to ensure they didn’t use AI is impractical, and randomly choosing students to interview could lead to charges of bias. Besides, suspecting everyone of plagiarism destroys the class atmosphere.
My solution has been to replace the final research paper with a creative project.
Instead of a detailed prompt or instructions, I give my students very wide latitude to do, as the phrase goes, whatever floats their boat. Nonetheless, I still set a few parameters. They have to tell me several weeks in advance what they have in mind. They can’t take a piece of paper, draw a line across it and say, “Behold: my interpretation of Hamlet.”
I have only two hard rules: The project must reflect a good-faith effort to interpret something we’ve read in class, and they have to hand in a brief description of what they tried to accomplish. For those willing (most are), the students present their projects to the class during the period allotted for the final exam. Other than that, they do what they want—and I’ve gotten amazing results.
When I was teaching the literature of terrorism, one student happened to be going to New York for spring break, so she went to the Sept. 11 memorial and interviewed people. Another student composed a rock opera based on Thomas Kyd’s Elizabethan play The Spanish Tragedy. A group put together a postapocalyptic performance of King Lear on the heath, using the university’s loading docks for their stage. I’ve gotten raps, short stories, children’s books, parodies performed and written, musical compositions, and paintings.
For example, a student produced this project for my last Shakespeare class (reproduced with the student’s permission):
Created by Teresa Cousillas Lema
This pencil drawing represents the student’s response to Al Pacino’s delivery of Shylock’s “Hath not a Jew” speech in Michael Radford’s 2004 film, The Merchant of Venice. The three images represent the different emotions Shylock displayed over the course of his speech: rage, sadness, determination.
For the background, this student wrote out Shylock’s speech, thereby committing it (she told me) to memory. But this project represents more than a pretty picture: It demonstrates a profound response to Shakespeare’s words and Pacino’s delivery of them.
This project accomplished nearly the same goals a term paper is supposed to accomplish: reflecting on the material and responding to the play both emotionally and intellectually. As a final payoff, while most students forget about their term papers seconds after they submit them, I’m guessing this student will remember this one and carry forward a deep appreciation of Shakespeare.
Granted, switching to creative projects does not entirely eliminate the possibility of using AI to cheat. Students could still resort to AI if they want to produce anything that involves writing (e.g., a screenplay or a short story), or, for visual projects, they could use an AI art generator. But the opportunity to create something they’re invested in, as opposed to responding to the professor’s essay topics, reduces the incentive to not do the work. The project is something the student wants to do rather than something they have to do.
Yet there is something lost. When the creative project replaces the research paper, students will not have the experience of sorting through multiple and contradictory interpretations. They won’t learn about literary theory and different approaches to literature. And they won’t learn how to write critical prose.
In short, in my discipline, replacing the research paper with a creative project means moving away from teaching English majors how to be literary critics, and that’s not small. It means reorienting the undergraduate English major away from preparing our best students for graduate school and more toward historically informed response.
Nonetheless, it makes no sense to continue with an evaluation method that just about everybody agrees has long since lost its value. So I suggest abandoning the essay for another method that not only accomplishes nearly the same aims but, in the end, brings joy to both student and teacher.
Peter C. Herman is a professor of English literature at San Diego State University.
Louisiana Governor Jeff LandryLouisiana Governor Jeff Landry announced that his state will join six other Southern university systems in creating an alternative accrediting body, marking a significant departure from established higher education standards. Through an executive order, Louisiana becomes the seventh state to participate in the Commission for Public Higher Education, which launched in June with university systems from Florida, Georgia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee and Texas.
The new commission is currently seeking expedited approval from the U.S. Department of Education to serve as an official accreditor responsible for maintaining quality standards at colleges and universities. This development represents a direct challenge to the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools Commission on Colleges, the traditional accrediting body that currently evaluates institutions across Louisiana and ten other Southern states including Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas and Virginia.
The formation of this alternative accrediting body stems from growing tensions between conservative politicians and established accreditors. These conflicts have centered on traditional accreditors’ standards related to diversity, equity and inclusion initiatives, as well as their requirements for safeguards designed to limit external political influence in public higher education governance.
Landry’s executive order establishes a Task Force on Public Higher Education Reform charged with developing recommendations for implementing the new commission. The task force will specifically focus on creating a pilot program for dual accreditation, allowing Louisiana schools to maintain authorization from both the new commission and the Southern Association simultaneously.
The governor highlighted the ideological motivations behind the move in his announcement.
“This task force will ensure Louisiana’s public universities move away from DEI-driven mandates and toward a system rooted in merit-based achievement,” Landry said.
Florida Governor Ron DeSantis, who helped launch the original commission, articulated similar sentiments when announcing the new accreditor in June.
“[The Commission for Public Higher Education] will upend the monopoly of the woke accreditation cartels, and it will provide institutions with an alternative that focuses on student achievement, rather than the ideological fads that have so permeated those accrediting bodies over the years,” DeSantis declared.
The practical implementation of this new accrediting system faces a significant hurdle, as U.S. Department of Education approval is mandatory before any institution accredited solely by the new commission can receive federal financial aid. This requirement could potentially affect students’ access to federal funding programs if the transition is not handled carefully.
The composition of Louisiana’s new task force reflects the governor’s significant influence over the state’s higher education leadership structure. With the exception of Commissioner of Higher Education Kim Hunter Reed, every task force member has been directly appointed by Landry or his conservative legislative allies. The task force includes Board of Regents Chairwoman Misti Cordell, University of Louisiana System Board Chairman Mark Romero, LSU System Board Chairman Scott Ballard, Southern University System Board Chairman Tony Clayton, Louisiana Community and Technical College Systems Chairman Tim Hardy, Senate Education Committee Chairman Sen. Rick Edmonds, and House Education Committee Chairwoman Rep. Laurie Schlegel.
Additionally, Landry has appointed his executive counsel Angelique Freel and Commissioner of Administration Taylor Barras to the task force, with the option for them to send designees in their place. The governor retains the authority to select three additional task force members, further consolidating his influence over the group’s composition and direction.
This level of gubernatorial control over higher education governance represents a recent shift in Louisiana’s political landscape. Last year, Landry successfully advocated for legislative changes that granted him direct appointment power over the chairs of the state’s five higher education boards, positions that were previously elected from within the boards’ memberships. An earlier version of this legislation would have extended Landry’s authority to include direct hiring of university system presidents, but this provision was ultimately removed due to concerns that such concentration of political power could jeopardize existing accreditation status.
The task force operates under a compressed timeline that reflects the urgency Landry places on this initiative. The group must convene its inaugural meeting no later than August 31 and maintain a regular schedule with meetings occurring at least once every two months. The task force faces a deadline of January 30, 2026, to submit its comprehensive recommendations for implementing the new accrediting system in Louisiana.
This audio is auto-generated. Please let us know if you have feedback.
Dive Brief:
Teens’ postsecondary plans are shifting, with just 45% of students in grades 7-12 seeing a two- or four-year college as their most likely next step in 2024, according to a new survey from national nonprofit American Student Assistance. That’s down from 73% in 2018.
Over the same period, interest in nondegree education pathways like vocational schools, apprenticeships and technical boot camp programs more than tripled, from 12% in 2018 to 38% in 2024, the ASA survey found.
Regardless of their goals after high school, the results show that students mainly view postsecondary education as the path to a good job, the report’s authors wrote.
Dive Insight:
School counselors are aware of the increasing variety of postsecondary options, which comes with an increased responsibility to be knowledgeable about how these pathways work.
At Garner Magnet High School in North Carolina, Stephanie Nelson and her colleagues utilize the “Three E’s” — enrollment, enlistment, employment and entrepreneurship. She said she has senior meetings with students to get an idea of what they’re interested in, which helps guide what their next steps should be.
“We’re helping to offer internships and job shadowing in a variety of fields so that students can kind of weigh their strengths and weaknesses or their likes,” said Nelson, a counselor at the high school.
Steve Schneider of Sheboygan South High School in Wisconsin has been a school counselor for 25 years. He’s noticed that while counselors and students have caught up to the benefits and importance of these alternative pathways, there is still a stigma when students don’t follow the traditional college path after high school.
The ASA survey found that more than 9 in 10 teens have discussed post-high school plans with their parents, but nearly a third of teens said their parents disagreed with their plan to join a nondegree program. According to survey responses, more teens said their parents disagreed with pursuing a non-college path (30%) than skipping a formal postsecondary path altogether (21%).
“I think everyone’s initial response is, ‘Oh, that’s a waste of potential, you should go on to school,’” Schneider said. He added that the conversation with parents about alternative options can be challenging, but it is important to advocate for what the student wants while ensuring both sides understand where the other is coming from.
He said the social stigma can often be systemic, especially if there are only resources being put into college as a postsecondary pathway — such as AP courses and dual credit courses — but not enough career and technical education courses and opportunities to explore whether these other pathways are a good fit.
The survey also found that teens feel more prepared to make plans for the future, with 82% reporting they are confident in future-planning resources, an increase from 59% in 2018.The biggest increase was at the middle school level, which rose 30 percentage points from 2018.
Diana Virgil is a high school counselor at Daleville High School in Alabama, where she works alongside a career coach to prepare students to start thinking about their post-secondary options. She emphasized the importance of starting before students are in 12th grade to make sure that they are working toward these goals throughout their high school career.
“We always start the question off as, ‘What does your lifestyle look like for you? What do you want your lifestyle to look like in the future?’ We try to gauge from there, and then we start going into the career assessments,” she said. “Since we are small, that is the advantage. You get to know more about their background, their upbringing, and why they’re interested. And I think that has really just been a driving force for us.”
ASA’s survey report recommends starting as early as middle school to help teens assess their interests and strengths through hands-on, work-based learning. Schools should also provide data and transparency on workforce outcomes to best equip students to plan for their future, ASA said.
The survey’s sample included 3,057 students in grades 7-12.
Correction: A previous version of this story used the wrong first name for school counselor Steve Schneider. We have updated our story.
I read Susan Blum’s Ungrading as a first-year graduate student and was immediately smitten. At the same time, COVID-19 forced many seasoned instructors to grapple with assessing their students, making alternative assessment more mainstream. My first attempt at alternative assessment didn’t go very well. I failed to appreciate the value of clear expectations and the inescapable necessity that my students needed to walk out of my class with a grade. I struggled to make my system transparent, to emphasize growth over perfection, and to implement a good rubric. For the next four years, I used Kevin Gannon’s grading contract to implement more structure and Barbara Schapiro’s ‘third space’ to reflect on what worked for me and my students. My system improved. Now, as a fifth-year graduate student approaching completion of my degree, I use contract grading. Each assignment has 1-10 points, with a total of 100 points. Each point corresponds to a specific objective and is graded complete/incomplete. In my more recent students’ evaluations, students say they are less stressed, they are more motivated, and they understand assignment expectations at the beginning of the semester.
My Journey in Alternative Grading: From Curiosity to Clarity
The first time I stood in front of 20 bored freshmen, all alone, teaching a course I had designed, also all alone, I was teaching a general education writing and speaking course at the University of Iowa. After using traditional grading the first semester, I turned to alternative assessment in the second. In brief, my students received a complete/incomplete grade for any given assignment and then a cumulative midterm and final grade. I wanted to deemphasize grading entirely, but in retrospect the flaws were glaring. Halfway through the semester, in the middle of class, a student burst out in confusion and frustration, “Where did my grade even come from?” What a good question. My first system failed to appreciate the value of clear expectations and the inescapable necessity that at the end of the day my students needed to walk out of my class with a grade.
As a first-year graduate student, I had read Susan Blum’s Ungrading and was immediately smitten. Blum (2020) argues that grades provide minimal feedback, they deemphasize learning, and what they actually measure is inconsistent (10-14). I came to alternative assessment alongside many other instructors as COVID-19 forced seasoned instructors to grapple with assessment policies. In 2021, a Faculty Learning Community formed at the University of Iowa to address assessment practices and, spurred on by their work, in 2023 the University changed their grading policy page to include alternative assessment (“Grades: Undergraduate Policies”).
During the next four years, I implemented Barbara Schapiro’s (2009) ‘third space,’ which takes into account what benefits both me and my students (423-439). I took a more structured approach, first using Kevin Gannon’s contract and Asao Inoue’s labor-based grading model and eventually designing my own contract. I struggled to make contract grading transparent, to emphasize growth over perfection, and to implement a good rubric. But the system improved. Now, as a fifth-year graduate student approaching completion of my degree, I use a blend of labor-based, or specifications, grading, and contract grading. In specifications grading “the instructor designates bundles of assignments that map to different letter grades” and in contract grading “each student signs a contract indicating what grade they plan to work towards” (“Alternative Approaches to Assessment”). In evaluations, students say they are less stressed, they are more motivated, and they understand assignment expectations better.
Despite the flaws in my first grading system, it taught me that I functioned better in a classroom when I use alternative assessment, and I have maintained some semblance of the complete/incomplete system ever since. Traditional grading felt too subjective, based on a sliding scale of bad, average, or great. As a TA, I even received rubrics with that language. As much as it was my job to teach students to write, I also felt the grading system disadvantaged those students who came in with subpar high school educations and less writing experience. I wanted to design a system that addressed those problems.
Gannon’s Contract Grading: A Transparent Framework
Kevin Gannon’s (2022) grading contract (see Figure 1) heavily influenced my third semester of teaching. In Gannon’s model, students begin with a B- and achieving, or failing to achieve, specific requirements raise or lower their grade. His system was easy to explain and students responded positively. When I introduced Gannon’s system, I used the word ‘labor’ a lot. In Asao Inoue’s (2022) labor-based grading model, he defines labor as “the engine that runs all learning. You can’t learn without laboring” (76). But, on my own, I doubted whether I could evaluate a student’s labor when it mostly took place outside of the classroom. I aimed, therefore, to bring the writing process further into the classroom, including proposals, drafts, and revisions. I especially wanted students to understand that the ‘final’ assignment was anything but. Usually written in one to three weeks (if not one to three days), ‘final’ assignments are first thoughts, or, if we’re lucky, second thoughts. Drafts and revisions help students embrace what Gannon (2020) calls “not-yetness,” the recognition that they are still learning and the goal is not perfection (146).
Figure 1:Gannon’s Contact System
Grade
Number of Non-Participation Days
Number of Late Assignments
Number of Ignored Assignments
B-minus
0-4
0-4
0
C-minus
5-6
5
1
D-minus
more than 6
6 or more
more than 1
Despite the overall success of the system, I had problems. Students were still demotivated by a lack of clear expectations. Because everything was graded complete/incomplete, three-sentence reading responses held the same weight as thousand-word essays, making it unclear how much time I expected them to spend on a given assignment. My assignments also didn’t have detailed enough rubrics and some students felt quality didn’t matter.
My Grading Design and Process
At this point, I started teaching general education in literature, which had different grading expectations. Needing to change my system anyway, I created a contract with 100 points, each assignment assigned 1-10 points (See supplementary materials). I like this system. I’m still using it two years later.But my first go-around had only middling success. The system seemed straightforward to me, but my students were confused, as nearly all of them pointed out in their evaluations. Although students understood what the assignments were, my rubrics were sparse – perceptive readers might notice this as a reoccurring problem.
So, here’s how I fixed it: On the first day of class, I explain my system and give everyone a copy of the contract, which I ask them to fill out with their desired grade. Being in physical contact with the contract helps them understand it better and immediately establish a goal for the semester. I explain the larger purpose of the contract, but I also boiled the system down to some simple numbers: if a student successfully completes all the main assignments and three revisions, they get an A.
And, at long last, I have a functioning rubric. I still grade each point complete/incomplete. For simple assignments like reading responses, where I just want students to get their thoughts down, it’s a simple question of “Did you do the assignment?” For more complicated assignments, I assign each point an objective, and each objective introduces a new skill or concept. For example, in an eight-point paper, I assign four points to close reading (See Figure 2). The objectives build from including close reading consistently in the paper to synthesizing the new skill they’re learning (close reading) with the class content (monster theory). The objectives become more difficult and the final objective requires the most subjective grading. But overall, the system allows the students to see whether they’re meeting requirements even before I’ve given them a grade, and the system highlights what skills or content they are struggling with.
Figure 2: Analysis Rubric
1 point
Close reading throughout the paper that addresses specific, quoted moments from your song
1 point
Close reading that makes an argument about why those specific moments are there throughout the paper
1 point
The paper addresses monstrosity as we have discussed it in class (i.e. have you told us what the monster is a metaphor for?
1 point
Analysis heavily relies throughout on an argument about monstrosity that goes beyond ‘monster as metaphor.’
Conclusion
I find alternative assessment highly effective. Even though I recently received the comment, “Never do contract grading again,” student evaluations are overwhelmingly positive and more often sound like, “So helpful, literally my favorite thing ever.” Stress reduction and increased motivation appear frequently in evaluations. But more than that, alternative assessment taught me how to be a teacher. Improving my grading system required me to create clearer rubrics, state the purpose of my lessons, design assignments that gave my students more agency, and provide more concrete methods of measuring participation. This meant a lot of big changes at once, but alternative assessment can be implemented in much smaller steps, like using it for one assignment or rewriting one rubric. Now that I have a good system, I’m working on those smaller steps, like making assignments more time effective and integrating revisions more effectively. Implementing alternative assessment was really hard, but I hope as more teachers take it up, there will be more resources for those who want to take the plunge.
Sarah Barringer is a graduate student at the University of Iowa. Her dissertation, “Transmasculine Narratives in Medieval Literature,” argues that transmasculine characters in medieval literature allowed medieval audiences to imagine a gender that comprised both feminine and masculine elements. She teaches general education in literature courses at the University of Iowa on monstrosity and identity.
Inoue, Asoa. Labor-Based Grading Contracts: Building Equity and Inclusion in the Compassionate Writing Classroom. University Press of Colorado, 2022.
Schapiro, Barbara. “Negotiating a Third Space in the Classroom.” Pedagogy: Critical Approaches to Teaching Literature, Language, Composition, and Culture 9, no. 3 (2009): 423-439.
On the first Sunday in July, Ipswich runs a free music festival at Christchurch Park.
It’s a great experience for Ipswich – it’s one of few times in a year where the town is full and busy.
Anyone from an Ipswich secondary school will likely have fond memories – meeting their friends on Hippie Hill – seeing multiple people you know all at once, getting into mosh pits, going on the Booster. The list goes on.
But despite my advocacy for Ipswich, I once found myself anxious to attend. Earlier in my apprenticeship, I had difficult experiences at work with a frequent performer at this festival.
This is something which, nearly six years after the ordeal ended, I am still coming to terms with.
Something which has helped me a great deal is the idea of exposure therapy. This is the act of revisiting certain ideas and places from a new reference point.
The intent is that it neutralises any bad associations with an idea or place by creating new associations. Over time, more neutral or even good experiences will outnumber the bad ones.
It’s like treating grief as a ball in a jar, where the jar grows around the ball over time. The pain is still there when the ball hits the jar, though the ball is much less likely to hit the expanding insides of the jar.
Along these lines, I approached the 2024 Ipswich Music Day with a fresh perspective. Seeing the band in the programme made me reflect on the rhetoric around being an apprentice and how it’s positioned alongside other options.
No alternative
I would argue that apprenticeships are not an alternative to university, at least not in all cases. Whilst it is a clear-cut alternative in some cases, such as advanced apprenticeships, it is more complex for Higher and Degree apprenticeships.
In these cases, it is debatable – on the one hand, these apprentices can attain qualifications at the equivalent level of a degree without attending a university.
In others, such as in my own personal experience, going to university was a core part of my experience – my qualification was a degree accredited by a university.
Gaining an academic education is what drew me to my degree apprenticeship, along with the opportunity to meet other students and experience (and create) a stimulating academic environment with them.
The difference in my case was that I wanted to apply what I had learned much more immediately and meaningfully – doing this would allow the knowledge to be retained more easily for me.
Maybe my experience is not universal – I can’t claim to know what other students’ experience has been like.
Nevertheless, I did my best to gain a fulfilling student experience, which was easier to achieve when I lived locally.
Whilst I did attend the university Film Society and meet up with friends, I did not have the “full” experience – I wasn’t living away from home, and I didn’t have as much free time to study and discover my interests. This is because much of the free time was consumed by a full-time job.
On paper, it does appear to be mostly work with some study release thrown in. This only accounts for the official contact hours, respectively from the employer and the university. To do well as a degree apprentice, you need to be willing to invest time in serious, self-paced academic study outside of the allotted contact hours. From my experience, this was as much as the time I spent at work.
If people who have chosen these options with the express intention of not going to university realise that they have to go to one, then they’re going to dislike the experience or drop out altogether.
Therefore, a contradiction presents itself:
Why is an option promoted as an “alternative to university” when half of it involves going to university?
The common resolution to this contradiction for policymakers and marketers is to just diminish or hide the role of the university as much as possible.
Then, the purpose of the apprenticeship is perceived as solely a means of gaining employment, rather than for its educational merit – university, within this paradigm, is viewed as a distraction or an obstacle to be traversed in order to accomplish solely career-focussed success
But the problem with the approach is disengagement, both socially and academically.
Making the most of it
For me, making the most of the educational aspects of the apprenticeship is as important as making the most of the position of employment.
The goal of an apprenticeship is to start from nothing and to gain experience in a given domain – my own experience shows that the creation of a virtuous cycle of learning is essential in gaining this experience:
The root of the contradiction is a separation between the experience of studying for a degree and the other aspects of university education. These other aspects are often overlooked, of which I have some first-hand experience.
When I have made genuine efforts to engage with every aspect of the experience, I am told that I should have gone to university full-time or that I am spending too much time focussed on academics at the expense of my professional work.
Seeing the band in the Ipswich Music Day programme made me reflect on an approach to resolve the contradiction of promoting degree apprenticeships to people who don’t want to go to university. This solution arguably comes from a change in definitions.
The band defines itself on their website as being “alt-rock”. Alternative rock is a broad genre of rock defined by the fact it is influenced from a diversity of independent music genres.
It is defined as an alternative to forms of rock that were becoming mainstream, such as arena rock – it is a different approach to the common genre of rock. Alt rock is not an alternative to rock as a whole – jazz and classical music are not considered “Alt Rock” for this reason.
We can see that alt-rock doesn’t describe a genre separate from rock. Its approach is different, with alt-rock defining a range of heterophonic subgenres.
Likewise, it can be argued that we should consider arguing for “alt-uni”. This terminology would reflect the fact that degree apprenticeships are alternative to the mainstream of full-time university education, but are not an alternative to university as a whole.
It’s still uni
Arguably, degree apprentices bring a range of learning approaches and knowledge to universities, such as through their professional training.
When I have previously suggested this idea, some argued that “alt-degree” would be a better term, as it focuses on the approach to the degree rather than the university.
But I believe the approach to a degree should be the same for all students, and this expectation contributes to the challenges of completing a degree apprenticeship.
The definition of what this alternative approach would constitute may vary amongst apprentices. Some debate is definitely due, though I would say that the following are important to the definition of alt-uni:
Every second of university experience matters – an apprenticeship is finite, and we have less time than full-time students. This means careful evaluation of the experience to get the best outcome, academically and socially
We can immediately and meaningfully apply both academic and professional work to improve the world
There is the need to establish new precedents over accommodation, socialisation and engagement with university [youth] culture
We can provide positive role models for studentship unencumbered by student debt, as a means of encouraging the reduction of student debt to ensure that the best options are available for all types of student
We approach university similarly to students on scholarship. We have effectively been given a scholarship that covers our full loans. I would argue that apprenticeships should seek scholars across the university to inspire each other
We cannot socialise as much as other students, but socialisation with them is valuable. This is especially true for apprentices of school-leaver age
Degree apprenticeships are not an alternative to university when a university education is involved.
Instead, just as alt-rock is not an alternative to rock, they should be conceived as an alternative approach to university (“alt-uni”).
This approach necessarily requires intentionality, balancing a university life with professional work. Done right, it will create a more inclusive, experience-rich education that values both theory and practice.
On July 21, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) announced a final rule permitting the Secretary of Homeland Security to authorize 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. The rule creates a framework under which DHS may implement permanent flexibilities under specified conditions, start pilot procedures with respect to the examination of documents, or react to crises similar to the COVID-19 pandemic.
Simultaneously, DHS published a notice in the Federal Register authorizing an alternative document examination procedure. This provides employers who are participants in good standing in E-Verify with the option to remotely examine their employees’ identity and employment authorization documents via a live video interaction.
Background
Under current law, employers are required to physically examine an individual’s identity and employment authorization documents within three business days after an individual’s first day of employment. In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, DHS introduced temporary flexibilities in March 2020, enabling employers to remotely review these documents. This virtual inspection was to be succeeded by a physical examination within three business days once normal operations resumed. These flexibilities, extended multiple times, are set to expire on July 31, 2023.
Due to the success of temporary changes to document verification procedures implemented at the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, DHS issued a Request for Public Input (RPI) on October 26, 2021, concerning remote document examination. This move initiated a discussion on whether these leniencies should be extended permanently. After examining the comments responding to the RPI, DHS proposed a framework on August 18, 2022, empowering the Secretary to extend these flexibilities. CUPA-HR submitted comments in response to the RPI (see here) and proposal (see here) encouraging DHS to move forward expediently and ensure that a remote review process remains available following the end of the COVID-19 Flexibilities.
Details of the Alternative Procedure
From August 1, 2023, eligible employers can start using the alternative procedure as outlined in the Federal Register notice. The conditions include: (1) restricting participation to E-Verify participants in good standing; (2) broadening document retention requirements to include clear and legible copies of all Form I-9 documents; (3) requiring E-Verify training on fraud awareness and antidiscrimination; and (4) holding a live video interaction after the employee transmits a copy of the document(s) to the employer.
Employers participating in E-Verify, who created a case for employees whose documents were examined during the COVID-19 flexibility period (March 20, 2020 to July 31, 2023), can opt for the new alternative procedure from August 1, 2023 to satisfy the required physical examination of the employee’s documents for that Form I-9. Conversely, employers not enrolled in E-Verify during the flexibility period must complete a physical examination in-person by August 30, 2023 as outlined in the Agency’s May 4 announcement.
What’s Next
Looking ahead, DHS continues to expand its efforts to streamline employment verification procedures. As part of this endeavor, the department is gearing up to roll out a pilot program offering a remote examination option not just to E-Verify-enrolled employers but also to a broader category of businesses. This pilot program is expected to inform decisions about a comprehensive expansion of the remote examination option.
Simultaneously, DHS is preparing to issue a new edition of Form I-9. Dated August 1, 2023, the new form will become the standard for all employers starting November 1, 2023. Until then, employers can still use the previous edition dated October 21, 2019, through October 31, 2023. It’s important to note, however, that if an employer chooses to utilize the 2019 edition in conjunction with the new alternative remote inspection procedure, they must mark “alternative procedure” in the Additional Information field in Section 2 of Form I-9.
According to DHS, more details about the new Form I-9 and the pilot program will be disclosed in the near future. CUPA-HR will continue to monitor these developments and keep members apprised as they are announced.
In the latest development on Julie Su’s contentious nomination for secretary of the Department of Labor (DOL), Sen. Joe Manchin (D-WV) appears unlikely to vote in favor of Su when her nomination reaches a floor vote in the Senate. Recent news reported that Manchin may be seeking alternative candidates for the position, though no names have been publicly revealed at this time. Given the current 51-49 Democratic majority in the Senate, however, Manchin’s potential opposition means Democrats cannot afford to lose any additional support for the nomination.
The odds may be further stacked against Su as Sens. Krysten Sinema (I-AZ) and Jon Tester (D-MT) have yet to reveal whether they will support Su’s nomination. Although Manchin, Sinema and Tester all caucus with Democrats, they face reelection in 2024 in Republican-leaning states, leaving them in a precarious position as Republicans are seemingly united in opposing Su.
Nomination Hearing and Committee Vote
On April 19, the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions (HELP) Committee held a hearing on Su’s nomination to serve as secretary of labor. During the hearing, Republicans and Democrats discussed Su’s performance as the secretary of California’s Labor and Workforce Development Agency (LWDA), including her involvement in the agency’s handling of COVID-19-related unemployment insurance payments. Republicans on the committee pointed to the widespread COVID-19 unemployment insurance (UI) fraud paid out by the state. On the other side of the aisle, Democrats defended Su’s record. With regard to the UI fraud, Democrats held that California’s statistics were low in comparison to other states.
The hearing also focused on several key labor and employment issues that Su will work on as secretary of labor. On the topic of independent contractor classification, Republicans again focused on Su’s work at the LWDA, calling attention to her role in California’s Assembly Bill 5 law. The law establishes an ABC test, which is a three-pronged test used to classify workers as either employees or independent contractors. Republicans expressed concerns over whether Su would try to implement an ABC test through DOL regulations. In response, Democrats clarified that the ABC test is not included in the DOL’s new proposed rulemaking and that the DOL has previously stated that it lacks the legal authority to implement this test for classifying independent contractors.
Another issue area raised by Republicans was that of joint employment. Although her support for the joint employment standard was questioned, Ranking Member Bill Cassidy (R-LA) testified that Su has committed to not pursue changes to the joint employer standard if she is confirmed. Su said she understands the importance of the franchising model, stating that there is no plan currently on DOL’s fall or upcoming spring regulatory agenda to change the standard. Notably, she did not say whether there would be a rulemaking on the joint employer issue after the upcoming spring regulatory agenda.
A week after the hearing, the Senate HELP Committee voted to move Julie Su’s nomination to serve as secretary of labor out of committee and to a full Senate floor vote. The committee vote was divided along party lines, with 11 Democrats voting in favor and 10 Republicans voting against her nomination, foreshadowing the trouble she may face to be confirmed by the full Senate.
Next Steps
Given Manchin’s likely opposition and the narrowly divided Senate, Su’s confirmation as secretary of labor by the full Senate is still uncertain. If Sinema or Tester also commits to opposing Su, Su will likely not have the votes to be confirmed. As a result, Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) has yet to announce when the vote on Su’s nomination will hit the Senate floor.
In the meantime, Su will continue to serve as the acting secretary of labor in the absence of a person confirmed into that position. As a reminder, there are no limitations on the functions of an acting secretary, leaving Su with full authority over the DOL while her nomination is pending. That being said, anticipated rulemakings from DOL, such as the FLSA overtime rule and the independent contractor classification rule, may be held back from publication as a result of Su’s drawn-out nomination process.
CUPA-HR will keep members apprised of any major personnel or regulatory updates from DOL.
On August 18, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) published in the Federal Register its anticipated Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (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. Interested stakeholders can submit comments on the NPRM through October 17.
Under current law, employers are required to physically examine an individual’s identity and employment authorization documents within three business days after an individual’s first day of employment. The proposed rulemaking, however, 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.
As explained in the NPRM, the proposal does not directly allow employers or agents acting on the employer’s behalf to use such alternative examination options, but instead would create a framework under which the Secretary would be authorized to extend the flexibilities. The Secretary would be authorized to implement the alternative 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.
The DHS is issuing this rulemaking following the success of temporary changes to document verification procedures implemented at the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic. In March 2020, the DHS’s Immigration and Customs Enforcement deferred its physical examination requirements for Form I-9 and relaxed its enforcement. Employers were allowed to review documents through video, fax or email so long as they also retained copies of the documents. The policy proved successful and was extended several times, but is currently set to expire October 31, 2022. It may still be extended as the agency pursues this rulemaking.
In December 2021, CUPA-HR submitted comments to the DHS in response to the agency’s Request for Public Input on remote document examination. In its comments, CUPA-HR reported the results of the survey it conducted of member institutions’ experiences with the agency’s Form I-9 flexibilities. CUPA-HR members reported positive experiences with the changes and said they did not run into challenges with implementation. Respondents strongly supported a permanent option for remote document examination and said the policy provides numerous benefits for higher education institutions, including providing more flexibility for remote work, reducing the time needed to complete document verification and reducing institutions’ paperwork burden. Respondents also criticized physical document examination as overly burdensome.
CUPA-HR plans to submit comments on the NPRM and will likely ask members for their input in the coming weeks.
