Tag: Fall

  • Do transgender student athletics fall under DOGE Subcommittee jurisdiction?

    Do transgender student athletics fall under DOGE Subcommittee jurisdiction?

    This audio is auto-generated. Please let us know if you have feedback.

    Do transgender student athletes’ involvement in girls’ and women’s sports — an issue that has recently jeopardized schools’ federal funding — fall under government efficiency and oversight? That question starkly divided lawmakers among party lines in a nearly 4-hour hearing on Wednesday held by the Delivering on Government Efficiency Subcommittee, a newly-formed subcommittee of the House Committee on Oversight and Accountability. 

    The DOGE Subcommittee hearing — meant to discuss the politically charged issue of Title IX and transgender student rights that has taken center stage under the Trump administration — quickly deteriorated to repeated gavel-banging, a motion to adjourn the meeting, disagreement over the committee’s purpose, arguments over lawmakers’ allotted speaking times, and discussions of differences in male and female elbow-joint anatomy and muscle mass. 

    The subcommittee was created to oversee “federal civil service, including compensation, classification, and benefits; federal property disposal; government reorganizations and operations, including transparency, performance, grants management, and accounting measures generally,” according to the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform’s rule book. 

    Witnesses included two cisgender female athletes advocating for athletic teams without transgender students, the chair for the USA Fencing Board of Directors, and the CEO of National Women’s Law Center, a nonprofit organization that advocates for LGBTQ+ rights.

    Republican lawmakers, who have called for less federal oversight of education and a return of that power to the states, said the hearing was necessary because it related to Title IX, a federal law meant to prohibit sex discrimination in federally funded education programs. 

    “It’s an important issue that biological men stay out of women’s sports,” said Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, chair of the committee and Republican from Georgia. 

    Rep. William Timmons, R-S.C., said the hearing was meant to “shine a light not only on the integrity of women’s sports,” but also on how institutions like USA Fencing and others may be misusing their authority to “push controversial policies that violate basic human rights and disregard their Congressionally-authorized mission.”

    “This is what happens when you allow God to be pushed out of everything,” added Rep. Eli Crane, R-Ariz. 

    Democratic lawmakers at the hearing, however, said it was a waste of the subcommittee’s time and did not fall under the body’s jurisdiction, which instead includes issues like proposed cuts across the government. 

    “This subcommittee could be focusing on the layoffs that President Trump has executed: over 200,000 firings of federal employees,” said Rep. Stephen Lynch, D-Mass. “That does affect the efficiency of our government programs.” 

    Rep. Robert Garcia, D-Calif., concurred, saying the subcommittee has “never really talked about government efficiency or any serious legislative work,” and that he was “surprised that this subcommittee is not apparently in charge of policing women’s sports.” 

    Witnesses at a DOGE Subcommittee hearing raise their hands in oath

    Stephanie Turner, left, a fencer who refused to compete against a transgender athlete, and Payton McNabb, right, a former North Carolina high school volleyball player injured by a transgender opponent, are sworn in during the hearing held by the Delivering on Government Efficiency Subcommittee at the U.S. Capitol on May 7, 2025, in Washington, D.C.

    Kayla Bartkowski/Getty Images via Getty Images

     

    DOGE impacts on K-12

    The DOGE Subcommittee is among the latest in a series of efforts by the Trump administration and Republicans to cut back on what they say are instances of abuse, fraud and waste in the government. Its formation is an extension of similar efforts conducted by the Department of Government Efficiency, also referred to as DOGE. 

    Those efforts have had major implications for the K-12 sector in recent months, including gutting the Education Department by laying off more than 1,300 employees, closing or significantly reducing its offices, canceling grants entirely or retracting grant competitions, and proposing a 15% cut to the department’s funding. 

    The reduction in expenses from DOGE’s efforts is also expected to put a strain on K-12 finances, according to a Moody’s report released in April. 

    Among DOGE cuts were seven of the Education Department’s 12 local offices for the Office for Civil Rights, leaving schools with reduced oversight of civil rights compliance. Those offices were in charge of investigating allegations of Title IX violations — the subject of the hearing Wednesday — for half of states. 

    Source link

  • What happens when tyrants fall from power?

    What happens when tyrants fall from power?

    “The despot is dead. Long live … er, who?“

    Unlike kings or queens, dictators and autocrats find it helpful not to have a clear successor or rival who might soften their hold on power.

    Much as that iron-fisted ruler may be loathed, their abrupt departure from the throne can bring significant risk of subsequent turmoil. They have created a system that puts them alone at the centre of power.

    The White House in March was very quick to deny that President Joe Biden was pressing for regime change when he said that his Russian counterpart, Vladimir Putin, should not remain in power.

    There is no shortage of countries in recent decades where fallen autocrats have left a power vacuum all too quickly filled by chancers, thugs and weird ideologues, or simply some drab toady of the old regime.

    Covering tyranny

    As a reporter, it was impossible for me not to get caught up in the excitement after popular unrest had driven out yet another long-serving despot in power so long that they had forgotten who was serving whom. It really is exhilarating.

    During a long career as a journalist, I reported in a number of countries where autocratic, often staggeringly corrupt, leaders were forced unwillingly out of office. Sometimes, I’ve been there at the moment, more often to report on the aftermath.

    The first time was just over 30 years ago in Bangladesh, whose military dictator Hussain Ershad had lost power in the face of mass protests. And in a rarity for the impoverished country, whose relatively short period of independence had been marked by violence and assassinations, the leader’s downfall had been almost bloodless.

    By the time I arrived in Dhaka, crowds were cheerfully marching through the capital’s streets. The two people who would dominate Bangladeshi politics until today — the widow of one assassinated leader and the daughter of another — were happily giving interviews to visiting journalists, promising a new era for their country.

    Since then, Bangladesh’s economy has indeed grown. But the country’s politics remain plagued by autocratic leadership, corruption and a drawn-out feud between those two women.

    The lingering influence of despotism

    In the Philippines, a reporter colleague liked to tell stories about joining a crowd streaming through the Malacanang presidential palace, vacant after President Ferdinand Marcos and his wife Imelda fled the country in the face of a People’s Power revolt in 1986 following more than 20 years of rule marked by excess and rampant graft.

    This month, their son was elected president with little to offer by way of a platform beyond the promise of a return to those “halcyon days” when his parents were in charge some four decades earlier.

    In neighbouring Indonesia, the family of President Suharto, who led another Southeast Asian kleptocracy into near financial ruin until he was forced to step down in 1998 after more than 32 years of iron rule, continues to try to get back into politics. Suharto’s downfall came with mass protests, violence and fears the giant archipelago would split apart. The country has largely recovered, but some of the elites established during the Suharto years remain a powerful influence.

    Later, I was involved in reporting on the “colour” revolutions of former Soviet states, including Georgia and Ukraine. In both cases, infectious enthusiasm for change and the end of the old regimes did not take all that long to sour.

    The leader of the 2003 Georgian revolution, Mikheil Saakashvili, eventually fled into exile. He is now back in his country where he was jailed on charges of abuse of power.

    Sidelining of opposition

    Ukraine struggled to find a competent leader after casting aside the old guard from the Soviet era with its Orange Revolution, which began the following year.

    Paradoxically, and very unexpectedly, it has taken this year’s Russia’s invasion of Ukraine to reveal a leader of commanding stature in President Volodymyr Zelenskiy, a former comedian.

    In many of these countries and others ruled by long-serving autocracies, the incentive is for leaders to crush any emerging threat to their hold on power. Rising political stars are sidelined, opponents are exiled, jailed or killed and domestic news coverage is limited to the official line.

    And Russia? Rumours abound that Putin, ever tightening his control during more than 20 years in power, is seriously ill or even faces a coup. As with the likes of Suharto or Marcos, Putin took office when his country was lurching through economic crisis. He was a bit dull. Unlike his predecessor, Boris Yeltsin, Putin didn’t make a habit of rolling up drunk.

    He was smart, focused on the economy, not in thrall to Russia’s plundering oligarchs and able to bring stability to the lives of ordinary Russians exhausted and disoriented by the collapse of the Soviet Union. He became hugely popular.

    But there was a sense that his inner circle didn’t quite trust that popularity. By most accounts, Putin would easily have won a second term in the 2004 presidential election. But the Kremlin could not resist making sure the deck was stacked in his favour. He won 71.9% of the vote.

    What would Russia be like post-Putin

    Putin has run the country ever since, either as president or prime minister. Such is the state’s grip on Russian media that it is not really possible to be sure how popular Putin may be now. One recent poll suggested his star, which had started to look a bit faded, has brightened considerably since the invasion of Ukraine.

    His government is clearly in no mood to put that popularity up for too much public scrutiny, throttling the remaining independent Russian media and introducing a law to hand long prison terms to those who openly oppose the war on Ukraine.

    Prominent Russians who might credibly challenge Putin’s grip on the country live abroad, are in prison or dead. His most recent serious opponent, Alexei Navalny, is looking at years in a Russian prison. It isn’t all that clear, either, whether the bulk of Russians would prefer Navalny as their next leader.

    If Putin is no longer in office for whatever reason, who would be in the running to replace him?

    It seems very unlikely that the current political elite would readily allow a reformer to sweep them from power. Quite possibly, the average Russian — sympathetic to the view that the West has for years been treating their country with contempt — would prefer stability, a job and some international prestige.

    When Russia faced revolution more than a century ago, an estimated 10 million people died after the autocrat Tsar Nicholas II was removed from power.

    Perhaps that’s why Biden officials were so quick to rule out regime change. Better the devil you know than the devil you don’t.

    Questions to consider:

    • If you were working for local media in Moscow, how would you write about the war in Ukraine?

    • Do you think your country’s mainstream media can be relied on to be factual in reporting? Why?

    • If the current leader of your nation loses power, how peaceful do you think the aftermath will be?

    Correction: The editor’s note at the top of the story was changed to correct the date the article was originally published.

    Source link

  • Most Higher Ed Employees Received Raises This Year, but Salaries Still Fall Short of Pre-Pandemic Pay

    Most Higher Ed Employees Received Raises This Year, but Salaries Still Fall Short of Pre-Pandemic Pay

    by CUPA-HR | April 8, 2025

    New research from CUPA-HR shows that median pay increases for most higher education employees in 2024-25 remained strong, although they have dropped from the historically high increases seen in the previous two years. And although raises this past year for most employees outpaced inflation, they are still being paid less than they were in 2019-20 in inflation-adjusted dollars.

    The largest gap between pre-pandemic inflation-adjusted salaries and current salaries is for tenure-track faculty (who are paid 10.2% less), followed by non-tenure-track teaching faculty (paid 7.6% less). The smallest gap is for staff (paid 2.8% less).

    Some of the other key findings from an analysis of CUPA-HR’s higher ed workforce salary survey data from 2016-17 to 2024-25:

    • Staff employees continued to receive some of the highest pay increases compared to other workforce areas.
    • Non-tenure-track teaching faculty received a 3.2% salary increase, which is lower than last year’s high but still among the largest increases seen in recent years.
    • For the third consecutive year, tenure-track faculty received the lowest salary increase of all employee categories (2.6%). Across the nine years of data analyzed, tenure-track faculty salaries have not once exceeded the rate of inflation. This essentially means that — in real dollars — they have received salary decreases for the past decade.

    Explore this data and more in CUPA-HR’s newest interactive graphic.



    Source link

  • Nvidia, Microsoft Stock Fall in Wake of New AI Model From DeepSeek (Bloomberg Podcasts)

    Nvidia, Microsoft Stock Fall in Wake of New AI Model From DeepSeek (Bloomberg Podcasts)







    Higher Education Inquirer : Nvidia, Microsoft Stock Fall in Wake of New AI Model From DeepSeek (Bloomberg Podcasts)




    Source link

  • Canadian study permit approvals fall far below cap targets

    Canadian study permit approvals fall far below cap targets

    Canadian study permit approvals are on track to fall by 45% in 2024, rather than the 35% planned reduction of last year’s controversial international student caps, new IRCC data analysed by ApplyBoard has revealed.  

    “The caps’ impact was significantly underestimated,” ApplyBoard founder Meti Basiri told The PIE News. “Rapidly introduced policy changes created confusion and had an immense impact on student sentiment and institutional operations.  

    “While aiming to manage student numbers, these changes failed to account for the perspectives of students, and their importance to Canada’s future economy and communities,” he continued.  

    The report reveals the far-reaching impact of Canada’s study permit caps, which were announced in January 2024 and followed by a tumultuous year of policy changes that expanded restrictions and set new rules for post-graduate work permit eligibility, among other changes.  

    For the first 10 months of 2024, Canada’s study permit approval rate hovered just above 50%, resulting in an estimated maximum of 280,000 approvals from K-12 to postgraduate levels. This represents the lowest number of approvals in a non-pandemic year since 2019. 

    Source: IRCC. Disclaimer: Data for 2021-Oct 2024 is sourced from IRCC. Full-year 2024 figures are estimates extrapolated from Jan-Oct 2024 and full-year 2021-2023 IRCC data. Projections may be subject to change based on changing conditions and source data.

    “Even from the early days of the caps, decreased student interest outpaced government estimates,” noted the report, with stakeholders highlighting the reputational damage to Canada as a study destination.  

    “Approvals for capped programs fell by 60%, but even cap-exempt programs declined by 27%. Major source countries like India, Nigeria, and Nepal saw over 50% declines, showing how policies have disrupted demand across all study levels,” said Basiri.  

    Following major PGWP and study permit changes announced by the IRCC in September 2024, four out of five international student counsellors surveyed by ApplyBoard agreed that Canada’s caps had made it a less desirable study destination. 

    Though stakeholders across Canada recognised the need to address fraud and student housing issues, many had urged the federal government to wait until the impact of the initial caps was clear before going ahead with seemingly endless policy changes.  

    At the CBIE conference in November 2024, immigration minister Marc Miller said he “profoundly disagreed” with the prevailing sector view that the caps and subsequent PGWP and permanent residency restrictions had been an “overcorrection”.

    Post-secondary programs, which were the primary focus of the 2024 caps, were hit hardest by the restrictions, with new international enrolments at colleges estimated to have dropped by 60% as a result of the policies.  

    While Canada’s largest source destinations saw major declines, the caps were not felt evenly across sending countries. Senegal, Guinea and Vietnam maintained year-over-year growth, signalling potential sources of diversity for Canada’s cap era.   

    The report also highlighted Ghana’s potential as a source destination, where approval ratings – though declining from last year – remain 175% higher than figures from 2022. 

    Rapidly introduced policy changes created confusion and had an immense impact on student sentiment

    Meti Basiri, ApplyBoard

    The significant drop in study permit approvals was felt across all provinces, but Ontario – which accounted for over half of all study permit approvals in 2023 – and Nova Scotia have seen the largest impact, falling by 55% and 54.5% respectively.

    Notably, the number of study permits processed by the IRCC dropped by a projected 35% in 2024, in line with the government’s targets, but approval rates have not kept pace.

    When setting last year’s targets, minister Miller only had the power to limit the number of applications processed by the IRCC, not the number of study permits that are approved.  

    The initial target of 360,000 approved study permits was based on an estimated approval rate of 60%, resulting in a 605,000 cap on the number of applications processed. 

    Following new policies such as the inclusion of postgraduate programs in the 2025 cap, Basiri said he anticipated that study permit approvals would remain below pre-cap levels.  

    “While overall student numbers may align with IRCC’s targets, the broader impact on institutional readiness and Canada’s reputation will be key areas to watch in 2025,” he added.  

    Source link

  • First-year student enrollment spiked 5.5% in fall 2024

    First-year student enrollment spiked 5.5% in fall 2024

    This audio is auto-generated. Please let us know if you have feedback.

    Dive Brief: 

    • Enrollment of first-year students grew 5.5% in fall 2024 compared to the year before, representing an increase of about 130,000 students, according to a final tally from the National Student Clearinghouse Research Center. 
    • The figure is a striking reversal from the clearinghouse’s preliminary findings in October, which erroneously reported a decline in first-year students. Earlier this month, the clearinghouse said the early data contained a research error and suspended its preliminary enrollment reports, which use different methodologies to determine first-year student counts than the research center’s reports on final enrollment figures. 
    • College enrollment overall grew 4.5% in fall 2024 compared to the year before, according to the final data, rebounding to levels seen before the coronavirus pandemic caused widespread declines. 

    Dive Insight: 

    The new data is promising for higher education institutions, many of which have weathered steep enrollment declines in the wake of the pandemic. 

    “It is encouraging to see the total number of postsecondary students rising above the pre-pandemic level for the first time this fall,” Doug Shapiro, the research center’s executive director, said in a Wednesday statement. 

    Undergraduate enrollment surged 4.7% this fall, representing an increase of about 716,000 students. Graduate enrollment likewise spiked 3.3%, representing an uptick of about 100,000 students. 

    All sectors enjoyed enrollment increases. For-profit, four-year institutions had the largest enrollment growth, with headcounts rising 7.5% in fall 2024 compared to the year before. Public two-year institutions and public primarily associate-degree granting baccalaureate institutions, or PABs, saw similar levels of growth — 5.8% and 6.3%, respectively. 

    Enrollment also increased at four-year nonprofits. Overall headcounts grew 3.8% at private colleges and 3.1% at public institutions. 

    Older students largely drove the growth in first-year students. Enrollment of first-year students from ages 21 to 24 surged 16.7% in fall 2024, while headcounts of students 25 and older spiked by a whopping 19.7%. 

    Enrollment of younger first-year students also increased, though the growth was more muted. 

    Headcounts of 18-year-old students grew 3.4%. However, this group of first-year students has still not recovered to pre-pandemic levels, Shapiro said in a statement.

    Similarly, enrollment of first-year students ages 19 to 20 increased 4.5%. 

    Two-year public colleges and public PABs enjoyed strong increases in their first-year student population, with 6.8% and 8.4% growth, respectively. However, for-profit, four-year colleges saw the largest increase, 26.1%, according to the new data. 

    Headcounts of first-year students also spiked at four-year nonprofits, rising 3.3% at public institutions and 2.8% at private colleges. 

    Shapiro addressed the research center’s methodological error during a call Wednesday with reporters. The erroneous preliminary report found that first-year enrollment had declined by 5% — over 10 percentage points lower than what the final data showed. 

    “I think our sensitivity to abnormally large changes was somewhat reduced because we had a host of kind of ready explanations for why we might be seeing these declines,” Shapiro said, citing issues with the federal student aid form, growing concerns with student debt and changes in the labor market.

    The research center staff has been investigating its other publications to see if the issue crept into them. 

    So far, they discovered that the flawed methodology also impacted a February 2024 report on transfer students. The clearinghouse will correct that data when it issues its next transfer report in February. 

    The research center previously announced that the error affected other reports in its “Stay Informed” series, which shares preliminary enrollment data. It has halted those reports — which launched at the height of the pandemic — until it vets a new methodology.

    Source link

  • Freshman enrollment up this fall; data error led to miscount

    Freshman enrollment up this fall; data error led to miscount

    Freshman enrollment did not decline this fall, as previously reported in the National Student Clearinghouse Research Center’s annual enrollment report in October. On Monday, the NSC acknowledged that a methodological error led to a major misrepresentation of first-year enrollment trends, and that first-year enrollment appears to have increased.

    The October report showed first-year enrollments fell by 5 percent, in what would have been the largest decline since the COVID-19 pandemic—and appeared to confirm fears that last year’s bungled rollout of a new federal aid form would curtail college access. Inside Higher Ed reported on that data across multiple articles, and it was featured prominently in major news outlets like The New York Times and The Washington Post.

    According to the clearinghouse, the error was a methodological one, caused by mislabeling many first-year students as dual-enrolled high school students. This also led to artificially inflated numbers on dual enrollment; the October report said the population of dually enrolled students grew by 7.2 percent.

    “The National Student Clearinghouse Research Center acknowledges the importance and significance of its role in providing accurate and reliable research to the higher education community,” Doug Shapiro, the center’s executive director, wrote in a statement. “We deeply regret this error and are conducting a thorough review to understand the root cause and implement measures to prevent such occurrences in the future.”

    On Jan. 23, the clearinghouse will release another annual enrollment report based on current term estimates that use different research methodologies.

    The Education Department had flagged a potential issue in the data this fall when its financial aid data showed a 5 percent increase in students receiving federal aid. In a statement, Under Secretary James Kvaal said the department was “encouraged and relieved” by the clearinghouse’s correction.

    Source link

  • Fall and Rise | HESA

    Fall and Rise | HESA

    Fall and Rise

    The question I am getting more often than any other these days is: “what are you hearing about cuts at colleges and universities?” And my answer for the most part has been: “damned if I know.”

    The reason for my confusion is that publicly available details are few and far between. The HESA Towers team has been scouring the public record for details on institutional budget announcements; by our count, only 34 universities or colleges have so far announced anything concrete about their 25-26 budget plans and/or any planned cuts as a result of changing international student numbers. It’s possible more have been announced internally but just not caught the notice of the local press; we’ll be doing a lot more digging over the next couple of weeks. My guess is that many institutions are trying to avoid bad headlines by simply not going public about any plans to cut…but of course in the process, they are making it harder to convey to the public the magnitude of the downsizing being forced on the sector.

    (This is a really interesting version of the Tragedy of the Commons!).

    Some additional problems with the data: such information as one can glean from public sources is often skimpy and inconsistent: sometimes you get a figure for “loss of anticipated revenue,” sometimes you get a “projected deficit” (which sometimes is for 24-25, and other times for 25-26, and whether the figure is for operating budget or total budget take a bit of digging). Sometimes the numbers of programs being cut are announced but the identity of the programs is secret. Often you see that there will be budget cuts of $X million but there is no clarity about where those cuts will come from or the timeframe for the return to budget balance. In terms of job “cuts” as near as we can tell only five institutions have announced specific numbers for layoffs which have actually so far occurred, for a total of 214 lost jobs. You may have seen higher estimates from other sources, but these seem to include data on jobs which “will be affected” and it’s not 100% clear how many of these are permanent jobs which will be eliminated vs. permanent posts which will not be filled, or contract jobs which will not be renewed. All of these nuances may sound petty, but it’s really hard to get meaningful numbers unless you get this stuff right.

    The story of how universities and colleges deal with the sudden loss of international student income (and the long-term consequences of provincial disinvestment) is the biggest and most consequential story in Canadian postsecondary education this century. How we deal with this collectively will shape the sector for over a decade, maybe even out to 2050. The HESA Towers team is working hard to document what is happening and help the sector make sense of fast-moving events and respond appropriately. So today I want to tell you about two initiatives we’re launching.

    The first is a Retrenchment Watch, which will follow developments in institutional cutbacks not just in Canada, but around the world (albeit with a particular focus on the anglosphere). Higher education probably hit peak public funding around the globe over a decade ago, but what we’re now seeing is an actual contraction of the sector as a whole, happening via an un-coordinated set of decisions made by individual institutions according to local imperatives. Understanding how this is happening is of great importance, not just for posterity but for present-day decision makers. And we’ll be making this information freely available to all via Retrenchment Watch.

    For the moment, the Retrenchment Watch is extremely bare bones, but we’ll be filling it out very quickly over the next few weeks, with the Canadian institutions first. If you want regular updates on who is cutting what as well as some basic pattern analysis, please fill out this form, and we’ll get you signed up to our newsletter so you’re always up-to-date.

    The second is what we are calling “The Recovery Project.” We know that institutional leaders aren’t just thinking about surviving cuts, they’re also thinking about how to position their organizations to thrive in the aftermath. To help them, we’re launching a subscription research project looking at universities and colleges around the world who have faced serious financial sustainability problems over the past three decades and examining how they turned their fortunes around. In a crisis, there’s no time to re-invent the wheel: with this research institutions can understand better what works, when and why. By spreading the cost of research collectively across many institutions, we can offer this premium product—which involves monthly reports and webinar sessions for all members—at a huge discount to individual schools (and if your school is a member of the University Vice-President’s Network, we’ll be offering an even bigger discount).

    If you’re interested in joining this project, my colleague Tiffany MacLennan has been working to bring this information together. Email her at [email protected] and we’ll get back to you ASAP with a prospectus.

    There’s no disguising how the sector is taking a beating right now. It will recover. The only question is how quickly, and which institutions will be at the forefront.

    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

  • Pay Increases for Higher Ed Employees Sharply Improve, But Still Fall Short of Inflation Rate – CUPA-HR

    Pay Increases for Higher Ed Employees Sharply Improve, But Still Fall Short of Inflation Rate – CUPA-HR

    by CUPA-HR | April 3, 2023

    New research from CUPA-HR has found that although employees across the higher education workforce saw the most substantial pay raises in 2022-23 than in the past several years, they are still being paid less than they were in 2019-20 in inflation-adjusted dollars.

    Some of the key findings from an analysis of CUPA-HR’s higher ed workforce salary survey data from 2016 to 2023:

    • This academic year, raises for higher ed employees were the largest seen in the past seven years, and all position types (administrators, professionals, staff and faculty) received an increase of at least 1.11 percentage points compared to the previous year.
    • Tenure-track and non-tenure-track teaching faculty continue to receive the smallest pay increases of any higher ed employee category. In 2022-23, tenure-track faculty saw a median pay increase of 2.9 percent and non-tenure-track faculty saw an increase of 3.2 percent. Tenure-track faculty salary increases have not kept pace with inflation since at least 2015, and non-tenure-track salary increases last met or exceeded inflation in 2016-17, meaning full-time faculty in general continue to be paid less every year in inflation-adjusted dollars.
    • Staff, which is typically the lowest-paid category of higher ed employees, saw the biggest raises this academic year at 5.3 percent (up from 2.9 percent in 2021-22).

    Explore this data and more in CUPA-HR’s newest interactive graphic.

    CUPA-HR Research

    CUPA-HR is the recognized authority on compensation surveys for higher education, with its workforce surveys designed by higher ed HR professionals for higher ed HR professionals and other campus leaders. CUPA-HR has been collecting data on the higher ed workforce for more than 50 years, and we maintain one of the largest workforce databases in existence. CUPA-HR also publishes numerous research publications and interactive graphics highlighting trends and issues around higher ed workforce planning, pay equity, representation of women and racial/ethnic minorities and more. Learn more about CUPA-HR research.



    Source link