Tag: Early

  • Re-capturing the early 80s | HESA

    Re-capturing the early 80s | HESA

    Most of the time when I talk about the history of university financing, I show a chart that looks like this, showing that since 1980 government funding to the sector is up by a factor of about 2.3 after inflation over the last 40-odd years, while total funding is up by a factor of 3.6.

    Figure 1: Canadian University Income by source, 1979-80 to 2022-23, in billions of constant $2022

    That’s just a straight up expression of how universities get their money. But what it doesn’t take account of are changes in enrolment, which as Figure 2 shows, were a pretty big deal. Universities have admitted a *lot* more students over time. The university system has nearly doubled since the end of the 1990s and nearly tripled since the start of the 1990s.

    Figure 2: Full-time Equivalent Enrolment, Canada, Universities, 1978-79 to 2022-23

    So, the question is, really, how have funding pattern changes interacted with changes in enrolment? Well, folks, wonder no more, because I have toiled through some unbelievably badly-organized excel data to bring you funding data on this that goes back to the 1980s (I did a version of this back here, but I only captured national-level data—the toil here involved getting data granular enough to look at individual provinces). Buckle up for a better understanding of how we got to our present state!

    Figure 3 is what I would call the headline graph: University income per student by source, from 1980-81 to the present, in constant $2022. Naturally, it looks a bit like Figure 1, but more muted because it takes enrolment growth into account.

    Figure 3: University income per student by source, from 1980-81 to the present, in constant $2022

    There’s nothing revolutionary here, but it shows a couple of things quite clearly. First, government funding per-student has been falling for most of the past 40 years.; the brief period from about 1999 to 2009 stands out as the exception rather than the norm. Second, despite that, total funding per student is still quite high compared with the 1990s. Institutions have found ways to replace government income with income from other sources. That doesn’t mean the quality of the money is the same. As I have said before, hustling for money incurs costs that don’t occur if governments are just writing cheques.

    As usual, though, looking at the national picture often disguises variation at the provincial level. Let’s drill one level down and see what happened to government spending at the sub-national level. A quick note here: “government spending” means *all* government spending, not just provincial government spending. So, Ontario and Quebec probably look better than they otherwise would because they receive an outsized chunk of federal government research spending, while the Atlantic provinces probably look worse. I doubt the numbers are affected much because overall revenues from federal sources are pretty small compared to provincial ones, but it’s worth keeping in mind as you read the following.

    Figure 4 looks at government spending per student in the “big three” provinces which make up over 75% of the Canadian post-secondary system. Nationally, per-student spending fell from $22,800 per year to $17,600 per year. But there are differences here: Ontario spent the entire 42-year period below that average, while BC and Quebec spent nearly all that period above it. Quebec has notably seen very little in terms of per-student fluctuations, while BC has been more volatile. Ontario saw a recovery in spending during the McGuinty years, but then has experienced a drop of about 35%. Of note, perhaps is that most of this decline happened before the arrival of the current Ford government.

    Figure 4: Per-Student Income from Government Sources, in thousands of constant $2022, Canada and the “Big Three” provinces, 1980-81 to 2022-23

    Figure 5 shows that spending volatility was much higher in the three oil provinces of Alberta, Saskatchewan, and Newfoundland & Labrador. All three provinces spent virtually the entirety of our period with above-average spending levels but the gap between these provinces and the national average was quite large both in the early 1980s and from about 2005 onwards: i.e. when oil prices were at their highest. Alberta of course has seen per-student funding drop by about 50% in the last fifteen years, but at the same time, it is close to where it was 25 years ago. So, was it the dramatic fall or the precipitous rise that was the outlier?

    Figure 5: Per-Student Income from Government Sources, in thousands of constant $2022, Canada and the “Oil provinces”, 1980-81 to 2022-23

    Figure 6 shows the other four provinces for the sake of completeness. New Brunswick and Nova Scotia were the lowest spenders in the country for most of the period we’re looking at, only catching up to the national average in the mid-aughts. Interestingly, the two provinces took two different paths to raise per-student spending: Nova Scotia did it almost entirely by raising spending, while in New Brunswick this feat was to a considerable extent “achieved” by a significant fall in student numbers (this is a ratio, folks, both the numerator and the denominator matter!).

    Figure 6: Per-Student Income from Government Sources, in thousands of constant $2022, Canada and selected provinces, 1980-81 to 2022-23

    An interesting question, of course, is what it would have cost to have kept public spending at 1980 per-student levels. And it’s an interesting question, because remember, total spending did in fact rise quite substantially (see Figure 1): it just didn’t rise as fast as student numbers. So, in Figure 7, I show what it would have cost to keep per-student expenditures stable at 1980-81 levels both if student numbers had stayed constant, and what it would have meant in practice given actual student numbers.

    Figure 7: Funds required to return to 1980-81 levels of per-student government investment in universities, Canada, in millions of constant $2022

    Weird-looking graph, right? But here’s how to interpret it. Per-student public funding did fall in the 80s and early 90s. But it rose again in the early aughts, to the point where per-student funding went back to where it was in 1980, even though the number of students in the system had doubled in the meanwhile. From about 2008 onwards, though, public investment started falling off again in per-student terms, going back to mid/late-90s levels even as overall student numbers continued to rise. We are now at the point where getting back to the levels of 1980-81, or even just 2007-08, would require a rise of between $6 and $6.5 billion dollars.

    Anyways, that’s enough sunshine for one morning. Have a great day.

    Source link

  • What Early Education Teachers Need to Know About Technology 

    What Early Education Teachers Need to Know About Technology 

    Early childhood educators are responsible for the positive development, health, and well-being of many children, making critical the appropriate use of technology in those settings.

    Michelle Kang

    CEO, National Association for the Education of Young Children (NAEYC)

    Alissa Mwenelupembe

    Managing Director of Early Learning, NAEYC

    When we were children — and even when our own children were little — educational television shows like “Sesame Street,” “Mr. Rogers’ Neighborhood,” and “Reading Rainbow” provided time-limited relief for busy parents and an opportunity for children to learn.  

    Now, screens are ubiquitous as adults carry them in pockets and purses, and the content coming from those screens has changed considerably to become more interactive, brighter, and more likely to encourage continued engagement with the screen. It’s no longer as straightforward as turning off the corner television set. 

    The research on children and technology is ongoing, and the American Academy of Pediatrics has declined to set recommended screen time hours for children — not because unlimited screen time is good, but because not all screen time is equal. 

    For parents, this presents an individual challenge, but for early childhood educators, it is magnified across a whole program, where teachers are responsible for the positive development, health, and well-being of many young children at once. 

    What is appropriate? 

    A guiding rule is that the use of technology in an early childhood education setting, whether in a center, home, or school, should be in service to developmentally appropriate practices around learning. 

    That takes professional judgment by early educators who, through expertise and experience, can identify the value of incorporating active, hands-on technology into activities based on the readiness of the children and whether it will support their learning.  That also means early educators must have appropriate training, support, and digital literacy themselves. 

    Any technological engagement by children should support creativity and/or cognitive and social development. Special consideration should be given to how it can help create equity, particularly by using translation and assistive technology supports to engage with multi-language learners or children with identified disabilities. 

    One great example of technology use in a preschool classroom was from a teacher who shared a story with the National Association for the Education of Young Children (NAEYC) of assigning a classroom job of “journalist” to one of the preschoolers in her integrated special education classroom. The child would document the day by taking photos on a tablet, and then report on one of the pictures during the closing circle. It’s interactive, sparks conversation, inspires creativity, and is adaptable to different developmental levels. 

    What are some guidelines? 

    NAEYC and the Fred Rogers Center for Early Learning and Children’s Media issued a technology and interactive media position statement in 2012. While it is on the docket for a renewal and refresh, the fundamentals still hold even as technology has advanced. 

    Early childhood educators should:  

    • Select, use, integrate, and evaluate technology and interactive media tools in intentional and developmentally appropriate ways, giving careful attention to the appropriateness and the quality of the content, the child’s experience, and the opportunities for co-engagement. 
    • Provide a balance of activities in programs for young children, recognizing that technology and interactive media can be valuable tools when used intentionally with children to extend and support active, hands-on, creative, and authentic engagement with those around them and with their world. 
    • Prohibit the passive use of screens in early childhood programs for children younger than two, and discourage passive and non-interactive uses with children ages two through five. 
    • Limit any use of technology and interactive media in programs for children younger than two to those that appropriately support responsive interactions between caregivers and children and that strengthen adult-child relationships. 
    • Provide leadership in ensuring equitable access to technology and interactive media experiences for the children in their care and for parents and families. 

    There is no one-size-fits-all way to address technology in early education programs, even and especially as technology expands to include AI. However, well-prepared and supported educators using their professional judgment will remain the critical link between children and safe, effective engagement with technology.

    Source link

  • 15 Red Flags Early in a Relationship (2024)

    15 Red Flags Early in a Relationship (2024)

    So you go out on a first date, then, a second, then a third. And this person seems perfect – maybe even too perfect. There’s a good chance they’re just perfect for you. But there’s also a chance there’s something you’re missing. So let’s explore some potential red flags for the date that just seems that little bit TOO perfect.

    Red Flags in a Relationship

    15. They’re overly charismatic.

    Example: “Whenever we’re out, they always seem to charm everyone, but I can’t shake the feeling that it’s all just an act.”

    Excessive charm can mask a person’s real intentions. While it’s easy to be captivated by someone who always seems to say the right thing, this charm may be a distraction from deeper issues like dishonesty or manipulation. Charismatic individuals may use their likability to avoid accountability or prevent you from noticing problematic behavior. It’s crucial to assess if the charm is genuine or simply a tool for control.

    14. Lack of depth in conversations.

    Example: “Every time I try to talk about something meaningful, they quickly change the subject to something light and superficial.”

    Surface-level conversations are common when you’re just getting to know someone, but if they consistently avoid deeper topics, it could signal emotional unavailability. If they steer clear of meaningful discussions about emotions, values, or future plans, it may indicate that they’re not interested in building a true connection. This lack of depth may prevent the relationship from growing and leave you feeling emotionally unfulfilled.

    13. Inconsistent stories.

    Example: “Last week they said they grew up in the city, but now they’re talking about how much they loved growing up on a farm.”

    If someone’s stories frequently change or they struggle to remember details about past experiences, it can be a sign that they’re fabricating or embellishing parts of their life. These inconsistencies could point to dishonesty or manipulation, as they may be trying to create an image of themselves that isn’t real. Pay attention to whether their stories align with what they’ve previously said or if there are glaring contradictions.

    12. They’re overly agreeable.

    Example: “No matter what I suggest, they always say ‘yes,’ but I’m starting to wonder if they have any opinions of their own.”

    While it can feel nice when someone agrees with you, constant agreement could indicate that they are trying too hard to gain your approval or avoid conflict. People who always go along with whatever you say might lack their own sense of self or be hiding their true thoughts and feelings. Disagreements are natural in any healthy relationship, and someone with genuine opinions won’t always mirror yours.

    11. They avoid personal questions.

    Example: “Whenever I ask about their family or past, they dodge the question or give vague answers.”

    Deflecting or avoiding personal questions, especially about their past, can be a major red flag. This type of behavior might suggest that they are hiding something significant, such as past mistakes or unresolved issues. Open communication is essential in building trust, and someone who refuses to share basic details about their life may not be ready for a genuine connection.

    10. They’re too quick to commit.

    Example: “After just two weeks of dating, they were already talking about moving in together and planning a future.”

    If someone pushes for a serious relationship too quickly, it can feel flattering at first but often signals deeper issues. Fast-tracking commitment can be a strategy to secure control or trust before you’ve had the chance to truly know each other. Healthy relationships take time to develop; rushing can prevent you from noticing potential red flags or from establishing a solid foundation based on mutual understanding.

    9. Excessive flattery.

    Example: “They constantly tell me how amazing I am, but sometimes it feels like they’re just trying to win me over too quickly.”

    Compliments are nice, but when someone showers you with praise all the time, it can feel insincere or overwhelming. Excessive flattery is sometimes used to lower your defenses and make you more trusting before they reveal less favorable aspects of their personality. Be cautious if the flattery feels more like a manipulation tactic than genuine admiration, especially if it’s aimed at gaining your trust too quickly.

    8. They’re too smooth or polished.

    Example: “Everything they say and do seems rehearsed, like they’re performing rather than being real with me.”

    Someone who always appears perfect or seems too polished in their behavior may be putting on a facade. While it’s natural to want to make a good first impression, perpetual perfection is unsustainable and often hides flaws or insecurities. Authentic people are willing to show their vulnerable side, make mistakes, and be real, whereas overly smooth individuals may be masking their true selves.

    7. Lack of close long-term relationships.

    Example: “When I asked about their friends, they mentioned a lot of acquaintances, but no one they’ve known for more than a year.”

    If someone doesn’t have any close, long-standing friendships, it may indicate that they struggle with maintaining meaningful relationships. People with a pattern of brief or superficial connections might have trouble being vulnerable, resolving conflicts, or showing empathy. Healthy relationships, both romantic and platonic, are built on trust, respect, and longevity—lack of such relationships could be a red flag.

    6. They’re secretive about their life.

    Example: “They never tell me where they’ve been or what they’re doing, and their phone is always off limits.”

    Secrecy is often a sign of deception or withholding information. If they are vague about their daily activities, background, or who they spend time with, it could mean they’re hiding important aspects of their life from you. Open and transparent communication builds trust, and someone who keeps too much of their life hidden may be protecting a side of themselves they don’t want you to know about.

    5. They’re always the victim.

    Example: “Every story they tell about past relationships ends with how they were wronged, and never what they might have done wrong.”

    When someone consistently portrays themselves as the victim in past relationships or other life situations, it might suggest they have trouble taking responsibility for their actions. While it’s natural to encounter hardships, if they blame everyone else for their problems without acknowledging their own role, it could indicate a pattern of deflection and lack of accountability. Look for balance in their stories, where they own up to their mistakes.

    4. They tell unrealistic life stories.

    Example: “They claim to have met celebrities and traveled the world, but a lot of the details just don’t add up.”

    Stories that seem exaggerated or too good to be true can be a red flag. People who feel the need to embellish their experiences may be insecure about their real selves or trying to craft a more appealing persona. Overly dramatic or fantastical accounts may suggest that they are not being truthful, and it’s important to gauge if their life stories match up with reality.

    3. They have had a lot of sudden life changes.

    Example: “They’ve switched jobs three times this year and recently moved cities without much explanation.”

    While change is a natural part of life, frequent and abrupt shifts—such as changing jobs, moving homes, or cycling through friend groups—can indicate instability. Consistency in personal and professional life often reflects a level of responsibility and commitment. Sudden, unexplained changes could signal that they are running away from unresolved issues or struggling to maintain stability.

    2. They’re reluctant to introduce you to others.

    Example: “Despite dating for months, they still haven’t introduced me to any of their friends or family.”

    If someone is hesitant to introduce you to their family, friends, or colleagues, it could indicate they are hiding you from parts of their life or that they’re not serious about the relationship. Being part of each other’s social circles is a natural progression in a healthy relationship, and reluctance to do so may suggest they have something to hide or aren’t fully committed.

    1. They have perfectionist tendencies.

    Example: “They expect everything to be flawless, from how the apartment is arranged to how I dress, and it’s starting to feel exhausting.”

    Perfectionism can indicate underlying control issues or deep insecurities. If they hold themselves—and you—to impossibly high standards, it can lead to stress, frustration, and disappointment. No one is perfect, and striving for flawlessness can prevent authentic connection. Healthy relationships embrace imperfections and allow both partners to be human without fear of judgment.

    What about Green Flags?

    Okay, so those are our red flags. But what are the green flags showing you’ve found the one? Well, I show you the green flags to look out for in this article.


    Chris

    Dr. Chris Drew is the founder of the Helpful Professor. He holds a PhD in education and has published over 20 articles in scholarly journals. He is the former editor of the Journal of Learning Development in Higher Education. [Image Descriptor: Photo of Chris]

    Source link

  • Overtime and Title IX Final Rules Targeted for Early 2024 Release in Fall Regulatory Agenda – CUPA-HR

    Overtime and Title IX Final Rules Targeted for Early 2024 Release in Fall Regulatory Agenda – CUPA-HR

    by CUPA-HR | December 12, 2023

    On December 6, the Biden administration released the Fall 2023 Unified Agenda of Regulatory and Deregulatory Actions, providing the public with an update on the regulatory and deregulatory activities under development across approximately 67 federal departments, agencies and commissions. This release is the second and final regulatory agenda for 2023, and it sets target dates for upcoming regulatory actions mainly for the first half of 2024.

    CUPA-HR has highlighted the following items from the Fall 2023 Regulatory Agenda for members to be aware of as we enter the new year. As a reminder, these target dates are not a guarantee, but they provide insight into when we can possibly expect the regulations to be published. CUPA-HR’s government relations team will continue to monitor for any updates on the following regulations and others that may impact the higher education space.

    Department of Labor

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

    According to the Fall 2023 Regulatory Agenda, the Department of Labor (DOL)’s Wage and Hour Division (WHD) has targeted April 2024 for release of the final rule to update the Fair Labor Standards Act’s overtime pay regulations. The final rule seeks to increase the minimum salary threshold required for white-collar professionals to maintain exempt status under the FLSA.

    On September 8, WHD released a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) to update the salary threshold. The NPRM increases the minimum salary threshold from its current level of $35,568 per year ($684 per week) to $60,209 annually ($1,158 per week), which amounts to a nearly 70% increase.* Additionally, WHD proposes to automatically increase the salary level every three years by tying the threshold to the 35th percentile of full-time salaried wages in the lowest wage census region. DOL indicated in the proposed rule that it is considering implementing an effective date in the final rule that could come as soon as 60 days after the final rule is published to the public.

    CUPA-HR was joined by 49 other higher education associations in submitting comments in response to the NPRM. In our comments, we raised concerns with the timing of this increase, the size of the proposed increase, the implementation of automatic updates, and the timeline for regulatory compliance that WHD anticipates. Our comments were informed by a CUPA-HR member survey, in which over 300 members provided feedback on their concerns with and thoughts about the proposal. For ongoing updates, visit CUPA-HR’s FLSA Overtime page.

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

    The Fall 2023 Regulatory Agenda indicates that WHD anticipated releasing the FLSA independent contractor rule in November 2023. The final rule has been at the White House Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) for review since September 28, 2023, and once the agency finishes its review, the rule will be published.

    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.
    • The degree of control exercised or retained by the employer.

    Employment and Training Administration — Revising Schedule A to Include Updating Occupations in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM)

    The regulatory agenda indicates that DOL’s Employment and Training Administration (ETA) aimed to issue a Request for Information (RFI) in November 2023. According to the notice in the agenda, ETA is seeking input from the public “on whether Schedule A serves as an effective tool for addressing current labor shortages, and how the Department may create a timely, coherent and transparent methodology for identifying STEM occupations that are experiencing labor shortages in keeping with its requirements under the Immigration and Nationality Act … to ensure the employment of foreign nationals does not displace U.S. workers or adversely affect their wages and working conditions.”

    The RFI was sent to OIRA for review before publication on November 11, 2023, and will likely be released to the public soon.

    Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

    Regulations to Implement the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act

    In December 2023, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) plans to issue a final rule to implement the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act (PWFA). The rule will create a framework for the EEOC on how to enforce protections granted to pregnant workers under the PWFA. For a detailed analysis of the proposed rule on implementing the PWFA, please see CUPA-HR’s blog post.

    In December 2022, the PWFA was signed into law through the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2023. The law establishes employer obligations to provide reasonable accommodations to pregnant employees so long as such accommodations do not cause an undue hardship on the business, and makes it unlawful to take adverse action against a qualified employee requesting or using such reasonable accommodations. The requirements of the law apply only to businesses with 15 or more employees.

    Unlike the other regulations with target dates, the PWFA final rule has a statutory deadline for publication, which is December 29, 2023. Given this upcoming deadline, we will likely see the EEOC publish this rule soon.

    Department of Education

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

    According to the regulatory agenda, the Department of Education (ED) anticipates releasing the highly anticipated Title IX final rule in March 2024. 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.

    The new March target deadline marks the third time ED has delayed the issuance of the Title IX final rule. The rule was originally targeted for release in May 2023, but ED subsequently pushed the target date back to October 2023 via a blog post, when it became clear that the department would not meet the May timeline. Since ED missed the October timeline, they have faced increased pressure from Congressional Democrats and other advocacy groups to publish the final rule as soon as possible. While it’s not a guarantee ED will be able to publish the final rule in March 2024, the increased pressure will certainly motivate the department to move quickly.

    CUPA-HR plans to hold a webinar to inform members of the final rule’s new requirements once the final rule has been published. Details to come.

    Office for Civil Rights — Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Sex in Education Programs or Activities Receiving Federal Financial Assistance: Sex-Related Eligibility Criteria for Male and Female Athletic Teams

    Similar to the Title IX final rule above, ED plans to issue a final rule on student eligibility in athletic programs under Title IX in March 2024. 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 serve 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 proposal. ED must review all comments before issuing a final rule to implement these regulations, which is the likely cause of delay for both this rulemaking and the broader Title IX final rule.

    Department of Homeland Security

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

    On October 23, the Department of Homeland Security’s U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) issued a proposed rule that aims to improve the H-1B program by simplifying the application process, increasing the program’s efficiency, offering more advantages and flexibilities to both petitioners and beneficiaries, and strengthening the program’s integrity measures.

    Prompted by challenges with the H-1B visa lottery, USCIS has prioritized a proposed rule to address the system’s integrity. The proposed rule is aimed at strengthening the lottery registration process and preventing fraud, and it makes critical revisions to underlying H-1B regulations. For a detailed summary of what the H-1B proposal includes, see CUPA-HR’s blog post.

    The NPRM is open for public comment until December 22, 2023. The Fall 2023 Regulatory Agenda included the regulations, but it did not provide a timeline for issuing the final rule, likely because the comment period is still open for the NPRM.

    U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services — Fee Schedule and Changes to Certain Other Immigration Benefit Request Requirements

    In April 2024, USCIS anticipates issuing a final rule to adjust the fees charged by the agency for immigration and naturalization benefit requests.

    USCIS published an NPRM on this issue in January 2023. The comprehensive proposal has implications for both employment-based and family-based filings, but certain provisions would have significant impacts for higher education employers. Specifically, the proposed rule includes a provision to fund the Asylum Program with employer petition fees, which would be a $600 fee paid by any employers who file either a Form I-129, Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker, or Form I-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker. Additionally, the proposed rule seeks to increase almost all employment-based and employment-based “adjacent” filing fees. For more information on the details of this proposed rule, see CUPA-HR’s blog post.

    On March 13, 2023, CUPA-HR joined the American Council on Education’s comments in response to the NPRM. The comments address higher ed-specific concerns with the proposal to increase fees for immigration and naturalization benefit requests, including concerns about the impact the increased fees will have on international scholars and institutions’ ability to hire nonimmigrant workers, including H-1B workers.

    U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services — Petition for Immigrant Worker Reforms

    The regulatory agenda shows that USCIS plans to issue an NPRM in August 2024 that will “amend its regulations governing employment-based immigrant petitions in the first, second and third preference classifications.” According to the posting, the proposed rule would “codify current policy guidance and implement administrative decisions regarding successorship-in-interest and ability to pay; update provisions governing extraordinary ability and outstanding professors and researchers; modernize outdated provisions for individuals of extraordinary ability and outstanding professors and researchers; … implement reforms to ensure the integrity of the I-140 program; and correct errors and omissions.”

    U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services — Modernizing Regulations Governing Nonimmigrant Workers

    In October 2024, USCIS plans to issue an NPRM to update employment authorization rules for dependent spouses of certain nonimmigrants and to increase flexibilities for nonimmigrant workers. CUPA-HR plans to monitor for any updates to this rule as it may apply to H-1B or other relevant nonimmigrant visas used by institutions.

    Department of State

    Pilot Program to Resume Renewal of H-1B Nonimmigrant Visas in the United States for Certain Qualified Noncitizens

    In February 2024, the Department of State plans to begin a pilot program to “resume domestic visa renewal for qualified H-1B nonimmigrant visa applicants who meet certain requirements.” The department will issue a notice in the Federal Register that will describe pilot program participation requirements and will provide “information on how those falling within the bounds of the pilot program may apply for domestic visa renewal.” The pilot program has been at OIRA since October 17, meaning the pilot notice could be published sooner than anticipated.

    * The discrepancy between our figure of $60,209 and the DOL’s preamble figure of $55,068 arises from DOL’s own projections based on anticipated wage growth. The DOL’s proposed rule is rooted in 2022 data (yielding the $55,068 figure), but a footnote in the NPRM confirms that the salary threshold will definitely change by the time the final rule is issued to reflect the most recent data. Our comments, aiming to respond to the most probable salary threshold at the time a final rule is released, references the DOL’s projected figure for Q1 2024, which is $60,209. We do not believe DOL will be able to issue a final rule before Q1 2024, so we are incorporating this projected figure into our response to the NPRM. In essence, our goal is to provide members with a clearer picture of the likely salary figure when the final rule comes into play.



    Source link