Tag: holds

  • 6-Year Graduation Rate Holds Steady

    6-Year Graduation Rate Holds Steady

    Almost 44 percent of those who began community college in 2019 graduated within six years.

    Photo illustration by Inside Higher Ed | XiXinXing/iStock/Getty Images

    The National Student Clearinghouse Research Center’s latest report on persistence and retention shows that six-year completion rates held steady from the previous year; 61.1 percent of individuals who started college in 2019 graduated in six years—the same rate as those who began in 2018.

    Completion rates at community colleges have been trending upward for the past several years, rising from 41 percent among the cohort that began in 2014 to 43.9 percent in the 2019 group—although that share has remained stagnant over the past two cohorts. In contrast, completion rates at private four-year institutions have declined; though they still have the highest six-year completion rates over all, they’ve decreased almost three percentage points from their height six years ago.

    Across all institutions, 9 percent of the 2019 cohort—which saw the spring semester of their first year interrupted by the COVID-19 pandemic—haven’t completed their degrees but are still enrolled in their studies, with 57.5 percent of that group now studying at a different institution than where they started. The remaining 29.8 percent have stopped out.

    “Students who started in fall 2019 faced the challenges of the pandemic beginning in their second semester, so the fact that their completion rates remain at recent highs underscores the remarkable strength of our higher education ecosystem,” said Doug Shapiro, NSCRC’s executive director, in a press release. “This stability is built on the day‑to‑day efforts of students and institutions to maintain progress toward credentials in a changing environment.”

    The overall six-year completion rate has remained essentially stagnant over the past several years, but it has improved by seven percentage points in the past decade; only 54.1 percent of the class that began in fall 2009 finished college within six years, the lowest rate of the cohorts tracked in the report.

    Retention has long been a key focus of higher education leaders, but with the so-called demographic cliff looming, some colleges are particularly focused on improving that metric as a means to keep up their enrollment numbers.

    While overall completion rates are high, some groups of students complete at significantly lower rates than others. Only about a third of part-time students from the 2019 cohort graduated in six years, and 30 percent stopped out within their first year in college. Black (44 percent), Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander (44.5 percent) and Native American (45.2 percent) students had the lowest six-year completion rates, although for Black students the rate has increased significantly from 38.7 percent among the 2011 cohort. Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander and Native American students’ completion rates, on the other hand, have declined slightly in the same time frame.

    Completion rates increase with the income level of the student’s neighborhood. Though the lowest-income neighborhoods have the lowest six-year graduation rate, the 2019 lowest-income group was the first to exceed a 50 percent graduation rate, up significantly from 43.1 percent among the 2010 cohort.

    Women have a higher graduation rate than men by about six percentage points, a gap that has been relatively consistent over the cohorts included in the report.

    And students who came into college with dual-enrollment credits had a significantly higher six-year graduation rate than those without, at 71.1 percent.

    Source link

  • Nursing Holds Much Promise for Aspiring Job Applicants

    Nursing Holds Much Promise for Aspiring Job Applicants

    With the dawn of a new year ahead, anyone looking for new opportunities can find one in nursing, with a wealth of job openings currently available.

    Beverly Malone, Ph.D., RN, FAAN

    President and CEO, National League for Nursing

    A persistent shortage of registered nurses (RNs) and licensed practical nurses (LPNs) is at the root of nursing jobs going unfilled, caused by: 

    • An aging nursing workforce, prompting a wave of retirements accelerated by the COVID-19 pandemic
    • The increased demand for healthcare by the aging Baby Boomer generation
    • Job stress and burnout precipitating workforce exits, particularly by nurses with less than two years of experience
    • A shortage of nurse educators, limiting the capacity of nursing programs to admit more qualified applicants

    Among the additional effects of too few nurses are higher levels of medication, safety, and other clinical errors, and potential hospital closures in regions with the lowest ratio of nurses to patients. For example, in June 2023, there were nearly 300 rural hospitals at risk of immediate closure. Texas and Kansas led this trend, with 29 of their hospitals facing imminent shutdown. 

    Both states’ widely dispersed populations meant that the loss of vital healthcare infrastructure would have a devastating ripple effect on local economies, in addition to threatening healthcare access for some of society’s most vulnerable. So, how to address these multiple challenges? 

    Encouraging more nurse educators

    One obvious approach to expand the nursing workforce is to hire more nurse educators to prepare a greater number of nurses for practice. While this goal may sound simple, in reality, it is hard to achieve, given budget constraints and the lack of state, federal, and local funding to support clinical nurses desiring to transition into education. 

    Still, there are so many rewards that come with a career in nursing or nursing education — or both. Yes, it’s more than possible to combine the daily satisfactions of clinical practice with the long-term fulfillment inherent in teaching, mentoring, and preparing outstanding practice-ready practitioners. That remains true whether you become an instructor in academia exclusively or a clinical nurse educator, supplementing your own nursing practice in an academic medical center.

    Nursing itself has become a multi-dimensional field with a number of career pathways, including advanced practice roles. Specialties like nurse-anesthetist or doctor of nursing practice (D.N.P.) often come with welcome higher paychecks and professional status. 

    Plus, with nurses now providing more of the frontline preventative care and chronic disease management in community clinics and through non-traditional healthcare settings, a variety of job opportunities may provide scheduling flexibility that’s compatible with family responsibilities. 

    Nursing education offers an incredible opportunity to engage in research that has the potential to transform the educational landscape for generations. Nurse educators, with their scholarly expertise, are also often at the forefront of nursing and community leadership, tapped to consult in the highest circles of government, public policy, nonprofits, and industry. 

    The sky is the limit. Consider exploring the possibilities of nursing and nursing education, while helping resolve one of today’s most urgent crises: too few healers to provide the healing.

    Source link

  • UN Security Council holds emergency meeting after U.S. airstrikes on Iran (PBS News Hour)

    UN Security Council holds emergency meeting after U.S. airstrikes on Iran (PBS News Hour)







    Higher Education Inquirer : WATCH LIVE: UN Security Council holds emergency meeting after U.S. airstrikes on Iran (PBS News Hour)




    Source link

  • House Education and Workforce Committee Holds Hearing on NLRB and Student Athletes

    House Education and Workforce Committee Holds Hearing on NLRB and Student Athletes

    by CUPA-HR | April 10, 2025

    On April 8, the House Education and Workforce Committee held a hearing titled, “Game Changer: The NLRB, Student-Athletes, and the Future of College Sports.” The hearing focused on the employment classification status of student athletes at institutions of higher education.

    The witnesses at the hearing included Daniel L. Nash, shareholder at Littler; Morgyn Wynne, former softball student athlete at Oklahoma State University; Ramogi Huma, executive director at the National College Players Association; and Jacqie McWilliams Parker, commissioner at the Central Intercollegiate Athletic Association.

    Majority Concerns with Employee Classification

    Republican committee members argued that the classification of student athletes as employees could alter college athletics to the detriment of institutions and student athletes alike. Confirmed by witness testimony, the majority discussed that employee classification for and unionization by student athletes could trigger unintended consequences for the athletes, such as fewer benefits, losing scholarships based on poor performance, having scholarships taxed as taxable income, and losing training support, mental health services, and media and career support. Further, they highlighted that employee classification could strain athletic department resources; McWilliams Parker stated that athletic departments would need to consider whether they could continue to sustain certain sports and provide scholarships to students.

    The majority also discussed the legislative and regulatory landscape surrounding this issue. In his opening statement, Chair Rick Allen (R-GA) discussed the memo from former General Counsel of the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) Jennifer Abruzzo regarding the Biden-era NLRB’s position that student athletes are employees and are afforded statutory protections under the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA). Notably, the memo has since been revoked by the Trump administration’s acting general counsel at the NLRB. Further, in response to questioning from the chair of the full committee, Tim Walberg (R-MI), Nash clarified that existing labor laws are clear that revenue received by an organization is not a factor in determining employee status.

    Representative Lisa McClain (R-MI) also discussed her bill, the Protecting Student Athletes Economic Freedom Act, which would codify into law that student athletes are not employees of institutions, athletic conferences or athletic associations, as a solution to the majority’s concerns.

    Minority Argue for Greater Protections for Student Athletes

    Committee Democrats argued that student athletes require greater protection from exploitation. They argued that student athletes generate revenue for their institutions of higher education, conferences and the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA), but fail to be compensated for their work and the amount of time they commit to their team. The members claimed that classifying student athletes as employees and allowing those athletes to collectively bargain would end the exploitation. Huma’s testimony supported committee Democrats advocating that student athletes should be equally able to benefit financially from the revenue they generate.

    CUPA-HR will monitor for future developments on the status of student athletes as discussed during this hearing and keep members apprised of significant policy updates.



    Source link

  • House Education and Workforce Committee Holds Hearing on FLSA Modernization

    House Education and Workforce Committee Holds Hearing on FLSA Modernization

    by CUPA-HR | March 27, 2025

    On March 25, the House Education and Workforce Subcommittee on Workforce Protections held a hearing titled “The Future of Wage Laws: Assessing the FLSA’s Effectiveness, Challenges, and Opportunities.” The hearing focused on several bills aimed at modernizing the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), including legislation to amend overtime pay requirements on compensatory time and regular rate of pay and to provide clarity on independent contractor status under the FLSA.

    The witnesses at the hearing included Tammy McCutchen, senior affiliate at Resolution Economics; Paige Boughan, senior vice president and director of human resources at Farmers and Merchants Banks (on behalf of the Society for Human Resource Management); Andrew Stettner, director of economy and jobs at the Century Foundation; and Jonathan Wolfson, chief legal officer and policy director at Cicero Institute.

    Compensatory Time

    Committee members and witnesses discussed the Working Families Flexibility Act, which would allow private sector employers, including private institutions, to offer employees the choice of compensatory time or cash wages for overtime hours worked. Currently, the FLSA only allows for employees working for the public sector, including public institutions, to choose compensatory time or cash compensation for overtime hours worked.

    Chair of the Education and Workforce Committee Tim Walburg (R-MI) expressed his support for a bill like the Working Families Flexibility Act, as it would allow employees to choose which form of compensation best suits their needs. On the other side of the aisle, Rep. Mark Takano (D-CA) argued that offering compensatory time is an attempt to force workers to work more hours for free.

    CUPA-HR submitted a letter for the record prior to the hearing in support of the Working Families Flexibility Act. The letter highlights our past support for the legislation as introduced in previous Congresses. It also draws from CUPA-HR President and CEO Andy Brantley’s testimony for a 2013 Workforce Protections Subcommittee hearing in support of compensatory time. In his testimony, he provided examples of instances where employees benefited from the option of such overtime compensation, which he witnessed while working as an HR leader at a large public university.

    Regular Rate

    The hearing also discussed the Empowering Employer Child and Elder Care Solutions Act, which would exclude the value of employer-funded child or dependent care benefits from the regular rate calculation. The FLSA requires that overtime hours are paid at one-and-one-half times the employee’s regular rate of pay, which is an average hourly rate that includes certain types of compensation.

    During the hearing, Rep. Mark Messmer (R-IN) argued that the regular rate calculation that is currently used to determine overtime pay discourages employers from offering certain benefits. McCutcheon stated that legislation like the Empowering Employer Child and Elder Care Solutions Act would encourage employers to offer more benefits as they would no longer face burdensome overtime pay calculations.

    Independent Contractor Status

    During the hearing, committee members and witnesses also discussed the Modern Worker Empowerment Act (H.R. 1319), which would establish a new standard for defining an employee and an independent contractor under the FLSA. Specifically, the legislation would implement language that states workers are employees if the employer controls what work will be done and how it will be done, and workers are independent contractors if the entity under which the worker works does not exercise significant control over how the work is performed, among other things.

    Rep. Kevin Kiley (R-CA), who introduced the bill in early February, stated that the Modern Worker Empowerment Act was needed to ensure protections for independent contractors in the FLSA. Wolfson pointed to a 2019 California law, AB 5, which implemented an “ABC” test for worker classification and stated that businesses stopped working with freelancers as a result of the law. McCutcheon explained that the Modern Worker Empowerment Act provides clarity when determining worker classification status by focusing on who controls the work being done, unlike California’s ABC test which she claimed was too complicated.

    Ranking Member of the Education and Workforce Committee Bobby Scott (D-VA) opposed the Modern Worker Empowerment Act, claiming that workers do not want to be independent contractors and that employers force workers to accept independent contractor status, thus saving employers money.

    The House Education and Workforce Committee will continue to consider these bills as they are reintroduced and marked up during the 119th Congress. CUPA-HR will monitor for future developments on the bills discussed during this hearing and keep members apprised of significant updates.



    Source link

  • Senate holds confirmation hearing for Linda McMahon

    Senate holds confirmation hearing for Linda McMahon

    President Trump’s pick to lead the Education Department, Linda McMahon, will appear today before a key Senate committee to kick off the confirmation process.

    The hearing comes at a tumultuous time for the Education Department and higher education, and questions about the agency’s future will likely dominate the proceedings, which kick off at 10 a.m. The Inside Higher Ed team will have live updates throughout the morning and afternoon, so follow along.

    McMahon has been through the wringer of a confirmation hearing before, as she was appointed to lead the Small Business Administration during Trump’s first term. But this time around the former wrestling CEO can expect tougher questions, particularly from Democrats, as the Trump administration has already taken a number of unprecedented, controversial and, at times, seemingly unconstitutional actions in just three short weeks.

    Our live coverage of the hearing will kick off at 9:15 a.m. In the meantime, you can read more about McMahon, the latest at the department and what to expect below:

    will embed youtube


    Source link

  • Senate Finance Committee Holds Hearing on Paid Leave – CUPA-HR

    Senate Finance Committee Holds Hearing on Paid Leave – CUPA-HR

    by CUPA-HR | November 14, 2023

    On October 25, the Senate Finance Committee held a hearing on federal paid leave. This comes as congressional Democrats and Republicans have shown interest in finding bipartisan consensus for a federal paid leave program. The hearing also provided policymakers and witnesses the opportunity to discuss the promise and drawbacks of paid leave proposals.

    Increasing employee access to paid leave was a primary focus of the hearing. Both sides of the aisle agreed that all workers will need to take leave during their careers without the obligation to juggle work requirements. Policymakers highlighted that 70 percent of Americans want national paid leave and that 72 percent of Americans who are not currently working cite caregiving and family responsibilities as the main reason. To address these issues, Democrats argued for a federally mandated paid leave program, while Republicans worried that a one-size-fits-all program could limit employer-provided paid leave options and be difficult to implement on a wide scale.

    Witnesses Describe Potential Benefits of Federal Paid Leave

    Some of the witnesses discussed the benefits of a federal paid leave program, concluding that better access to paid leave would benefit workers, employers and the economy. Jocelyn Frye, president of the National Partnership for Women & Families, stated that offering paid leave tends to benefit both workers and employers through increased labor force participation (both for women and generally), worker retention, and wage growth. Ben Verhoeven, president of Peoria Gardens Inc., added that investing in paid leave gave him better return on investment than his capital investments, as implementing paid leave increased business growth and employee retention and promotions.

    Objection to a One-Size-Fits-All Leave Program

    Despite these benefits, Elizabeth Milito, executive director of the National Federation of Independent Business’s Small Business Legal Center, said that employers would face trade-offs under a federal paid leave program. Milito argued that employers operating on the same amount of funds but under new federal benefit requirements would be obliged to provide paid leave as a benefit, leading to some employers being unable to provide higher compensation or other benefits like health insurance. Rachel Greszler, senior research fellow at The Heritage Foundation, said that in response to state paid leave programs, some companies choose to send workers to the state program first and then supplement the paid leave benefit to provide 100 percent wage replacement. This creates an administrative burden for the employee, who receives full wage replacement only if they participate in both paid leave programs.

    Republicans and their witnesses also said that a federal program would require flexibility and simplicity to be most effective. Milito and Greszler concurred that most small businesses do not have a qualified HR professional to deal with additional compliance needs. Greszler also stated that the biggest unintended consequence of a one-size-fits-all approach would be a rigid structure that does not work for most employees and businesses. She specified that a carve-out for small businesses or the ability to opt in to a federal program would be most appropriate.

    CUPA-HR continues to monitor for any updates on federal paid leave programs and will keep members apprised of any new developments.



    Source link

  • Senate Holds Markup of the Paycheck Fairness Act, Healthy Families Act and PRO Act – CUPA-HR

    Senate Holds Markup of the Paycheck Fairness Act, Healthy Families Act and PRO Act – CUPA-HR

    by CUPA-HR | June 28, 2023

    On June 21, the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions (HELP) Committee held a markup of three labor bills championed by Democrats: the Paycheck Fairness Act (S. 728), the Healthy Families Act (S. 1664), and the Protecting the Right to Organize (PRO) Act (S. 567). The three bills passed out of the committee by a vote of 11-10 along party lines, demonstrating the challenge these bills will face to be passed into law.

    Paycheck Fairness Act

    The Paycheck Fairness Act aims to address wage discrimination on the basis of sex. More specifically, the bill limits an employer’s defense that a pay differential is based on a factor other than sex, enhances non-retaliation prohibitions, prohibits employee contracts or waivers banning them from disclosing wage information, and increases civil penalties for violations of equal-pay provisions.

    Ranking Member Bill Cassidy (R-LA) introduced several amendments to the proposed Paycheck Fairness Act, including an amendment to substitute the text with the Wage Equity Act. ​​The Wage Equity Act would protect employers’ ability to use bona fide business-related factors other than sex to set workers’ compensation and allow workers to voluntarily disclose their prior salary histories when they choose to do so. The amendment was ultimately defeated by a vote of 9-12, with Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) joining Democrats in voting against the amendment.

    Healthy Families Act

    The Healthy Families Act permits employees of businesses with 15 or more workers to accrue up to seven job-protected paid sick days each year to recover from an illness and provide care to a sick family member, among other health-related activities. For employers with 15 or fewer employees, the bill would allow employees to earn up to seven job-protected unpaid sick days each year to be used for the same purposes. Under the bill, workers would accrue one hour of sick leave for every 30 hours worked, with a cap of 56 hours that may be raised by the employer.

    Cassidy offered two amendments to the bill that would exempt employers from the requirements of the bill if they already offer paid sick leave that is at least as comprehensive as the seven-day requirement or if they are religious employers denying sick leave taken for reasons that violate their religious beliefs. Both amendments were struck down by Democrats.

    PRO Act

    The PRO Act is a massive labor reform bill designed to increase union density. The bill includes several provisions that would overhaul existing labor laws — including the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), the Taft-Hartley Act, and the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act — and may impose burdens on both employers and employees. Such provisions include:

    • codifying the National Labor Relation Board (NLRB)’s Browning-Ferris Industries joint-employer standard;
    • imposing the “ABC test” into the NLRA for classifying employees, making it more difficult for workers to operate as independent contractors;
    • preempting state right-to-work laws that prevent forced unionization;
    • prohibiting arbitration agreements in employment contracts;
    • revoking attorney-client confidentiality for employers; and
    • facilitating secondary boycotts by barring claims against unions that conduct them.

    The PRO Act has been strongly criticized by congressional Republicans over the past several congressional sessions, and committee Republicans offered 35 amendments to modify the current text of the PRO Act. All 35 amendments were ultimately defeated when brought to a vote.

    Looking Ahead

    Despite the passage of these bills through the Senate HELP Committee, they are unlikely to be signed into law. Due to their partisan support, the bills are unlikely to garner enough support to bypass the 60-vote filibuster on the Senate floor and to be considered in the Republican-controlled House.

    CUPA-HR will keep members apprised of future developments on these bills.



    Source link