Tag: leave

  • House Introduces Bipartisan Paid Leave Legislative Proposal – CUPA-HR

    House Introduces Bipartisan Paid Leave Legislative Proposal – CUPA-HR

    by CUPA-HR | May 13, 2025

    On April 30, Representatives Stephanie Bice (R-OK-5) and Chrissy Houlahan (D-PA-6) introduced the More Paid Leave for More Americans Act, the result of more than two years of work by the House Paid Family Leave Working Group, which Bice and Houlahan co-chair. The package consists of two parts: the Paid Family Leave Public-Private Partnerships Act and the Interstate Paid Leave Action Network (I-PLAN) Act.

    The Legislation

    The first bill of the package — the Interstate Paid Leave Action Network (I-PLAN) Act — would create a national framework “to provide support and incentives for the development and adoption of an interstate agreement that facilitates streamlined benefit delivery, reduced administrative burden, and coordination and harmonization of State paid family and medical leave programs.” It is intended to help resolve the confusion and inconsistencies across the state programs, in particular for the distribution of benefits to workers who work across state lines. The network will also work to identify best practices from existing state paid leave programs, help states harmonize their policies and resolve conflicts with other states’ programs, and help employees access their benefits.

    The second bill — the Paid Family Leave Public-Private Partnerships Act — would establish a three-year pilot program in which the Department of Labor would provide competitive grants to states that establish paid family leave programs that meet certain criteria. To qualify, states would be required to partner with private entities via Public-Private Partnerships (PPP) and participate in I-PLAN. The state programs would be required to offer at least six weeks of paid leave for the birth or adoption of a new child and provide a wage replacement rate between 50% and 67% depending on the income of the individual. Individuals at or below the poverty line for a family of four must receive 67% of their wages, while individuals earning more than double the poverty line for a family of four must receive 50% of their wages. The maximum benefit a worker can receive is 150% of a state’s average weekly wage.

    Looking Ahead

    Bice and Houlahan are optimistic about the package’s prospects, as both bills do maintain bipartisan support and President Trump has indicated an interest in pursuing a federal paid leave program. That said, it is uncertain if and when the House and Senate labor committees would take up these bills for a markup, which is the first step in getting the bill to a floor vote. CUPA-HR will continue to keep members apprised of updates related to this bill and other paid leave proposals that emerge from Congress.



    Source link

  • Federal Education Cuts and Trump DEI Demands Leave States, Teachers in Limbo – The 74

    Federal Education Cuts and Trump DEI Demands Leave States, Teachers in Limbo – The 74


    Get stories like this delivered straight to your inbox. Sign up for The 74 Newsletter

    Early this month, the U.S. Department of Education issued an ultimatum to K-12 public schools and state education agencies: Certify that you are not engaging in discrimination under the banner of diversity, equity and inclusion, or risk losing federal funding — including billions in support for low-income students.

    The backlash was immediate. Some states with Democratic governors refused to comply, arguing that the directive lacks legal basis, fails to clearly define what constitutes “illegal DEI practices,” and threatens vital equity-based initiatives in their schools.

    After lawsuits from the National Education Association teachers union and the American Civil Liberties Union, the Department of Education agreed to delay enforcement until after April 24.

    But states across the country, both liberal- and conservative-led, are worried about losing other aid: the pandemic-era money that in some cases they’ve already spent or committed to spending.

    The Department of Education has long played a critical role in distributing federal funds to states for K-12 education, including Title I grants to boost staffing in schools with high percentages of low-income students, and emergency relief like that provided during the COVID-19 pandemic.

    Conservative-led states — particularly Mississippi, South Dakota and Arkansas — rely the most heavily on these funds to sustain services in high-need districts.

    The 15 states with the highest percentage of their K-12 budget coming from federal funding in fiscal year 2022 — the latest year with data available from the National Center for Education Statistics — voted for Trump in the 2024 presidential election. Similarly, 10 of the 15 states receiving the highest amounts of Title I funding in fiscal year 2024 also voted for Trump.

    Mississippi and Kentucky have sent letters to the Department of Education expressing concern over halted pandemic aid.

    The clash over federal funding comes even as the future of the Department of Education is murky, given President Donald Trump’s pledge to dismantle the department.

    DEI-related cuts

    In letters to the Department of Education, state officials and superintendents in Illinois, New York and Wisconsin pushed back against the DEI directive.

    New York officials said they would not provide additional certification beyond what the state already has done, asserting that there “are no federal or State laws prohibiting the principles of DEI.” Illinois Superintendent Tony Sanders wrote that he was concerned that the Department of Education was changing the conditions of federal funding without a formal administrative process. Wisconsin Superintendent Jill Underly questioned the legality of the order.

    New York State Department of Education Counsel and Deputy Commissioner Daniel Morton-Bentley noted that the federal department’s current stance on DEI starkly contrasts with its position during Trump’s first term, when then-Education Secretary Betsy DeVos supported such efforts.

    Colorado and California also confirmed they would not comply with the Department of Education’s order.

    While some states with liberal leaders are gearing up for legal battles and possible revocation of funding, conservative-led states such as Florida have embraced the federal directive as part of a broader push to reshape public education.

    In Florida, anti-DEI laws have been in place dating back to 2023. In fact, many school districts and the state education department say they plan to follow the federal department’s directives, noting the similar state laws.

    Pandemic aid cancellations

    In March, the Department of Education abruptly rescinded previously approved extensions of pandemic-era aid, ending access to funds months ahead of the original March 2026 deadline.

    When the Massachusetts governor’s office voiced concern over that decision, the federal department’s reply on social media was blunt: “COVID is over.”

    Sixteen mostly Democratic-led states and the District of Columbia filed a federal lawsuit against the Department of Education and Secretary Linda McMahon, challenging the abrupt rescission of previously approved extensions for spending COVID-19 education relief funds.

    But backlash against abrupt federal cuts to education has not been limited to blue states.

    Mississippi’s Department of Education warned the cuts would jeopardize more than $137 million in already obligated funds, slated for literacy initiatives, mental health services and infrastructure repairs. “The impact of this sudden reversal is detrimental to Mississippi students,” state Superintendent Lance Evans wrote in a letter to McMahon.

    The letter also outlines the state’s repeated — but unsuccessful — efforts to draw down millions in approved funds since February.

    Shanderia Minor, a spokesperson for the Mississippi education department, told Stateline the agency is awaiting next steps and direction about the funds and federal directives.

    In Kentucky, state Education Commissioner Robbie Fletcher told districts — which stand to lose tens of millions in pandemic aid — that abrupt federal changes leave them “in a difficult position,” with schools already having committed funds to teacher training and facility upgrades.

    According to Kentucky Department of Education spokesperson Jennifer Ginn, the state has about $18 million in unspent pandemic aid funds left to distribute to districts. And districts have about $38 million in unspent funds, for a total $56 million that could be lost.

    Lauren Farrow, a former Florida public school teacher, told Stateline that schools that receive Title I money are already underfunded — and the federal threat only widens the gap.

    “Florida is pouring billions into education — but where is it going? Because we’re not seeing it in schools, especially not in Title I schools,” said Farrow. “I taught five minutes away from a wealthier school, and we didn’t even have pencils. Teachers were buying shoes for students. Why is that still happening?”

    Effects in the classroom

    Tafshier Cosby, senior director of the Center for Organizing and Partnerships at the National Parents Union, a parents advocacy group, told Stateline that while most families don’t fully understand the various school funding systems, they feel the impact of cuts in the classroom.

    Cosby said parents are worried about the loss of support services for students with disabilities, Title I impacts, and how debates about DEI may deflect from more urgent needs like literacy and teacher support.

    “We’ve been clear: DEI isn’t the federal government’s role — it’s up to states,” she said. “But the confusion is real. And the impact could be devastating.”

    Today, as a consultant working with teachers across Florida’s Orange County Public Schools — one of the largest districts in the country — Farrow says many educators are fearful and confused about how to support their students under changing DEI laws.

    “Teachers are asking, ‘Does this mean I can’t seat a student with glasses at the front of the room anymore?’ There’s so much fear around what we’re allowed to do now.”

    “There’s no one giving teachers guidance or even basic acknowledgment. We’re just left wondering what we’re allowed to say or do — and that’s dangerous.”

    Amanda Hernández contributed to this report. Stateline reporter Robbie Sequeira can be reached at rsequeira@stateline.org.

    Stateline is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Stateline maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor Scott S. Greenberger for questions: info@stateline.org.


    Get stories like these delivered straight to your inbox. Sign up for The 74 Newsletter

    Source link

  • Unclear legal duties can leave university trustees exposed when things go wrong

    Unclear legal duties can leave university trustees exposed when things go wrong

    Not many university trustees or senior management teams have three hours spare at the moment. If they did, however, they would be well advised to watch last month’s Education Committee meeting of the Scottish Parliament regarding the University of Dundee.

    Regardless of your views on select committees, it’s a timely reminder of how trustee boards and senior management teams need to communicate clearly and work with each other, especially, in circumstances where university finances and governance are also occupying Westminster select committee time, and making guest appearances on Radio 4’s Today programme.

    I have written previously about the merits of a special administration for the higher education sector. I will not repeat those views, save in respect of trustee duties.

    As outlined in the above, where a higher education provider is not incorporated as a company, the legal position on trustee duties and where the higher education provider is in financial difficulty is unclear.

    In circumstances of financial distress, trustees could be facing potential personal liability, so a lack of clarity on legal duties is clearly wholly unsatisfactory in that situation.

    Managing insolvency with special administration

    One way to attempt to mitigate this situation is through a special administration regime. This could be along the lines of the further education process, would assist trustees of a provider in financial distress by making it clear that the Companies and Insolvency legislation would apply to all higher education providers, regardless of whether they are companies or not.

    The trustees, like company directors, would then be aware of the rules of engagement, who should be given priority and how to mitigate the risks.

    In addition, the position of students is not specifically protected in a financially distressed situation, above and beyond their status as creditors, in respect of any claims they might have, particularly if there is a market exit of a provider.

    Special administration, again along the lines of the regime in the FE sector, would assist, by providing for a predominant duty to act in the best interest of students and would enable the trustees to put students at the forefront of their minds in a time of financial distress.

    This supports trustees to focus on the interest of students in a financially distressed situation, and make it clear that acting in the best interests of creditors is secondary to avoiding or minimising disruption to the studies of existing students.

    Protection as a charity

    In a solvent situation, again, the companies legislation will not apply to a non-company, but, assuming that the HE provider is a charity, the charity legislation provides that the charity trustees have ultimate responsibility for the affairs of the charity.

    They must also ensure that the charity is solvent and able to deliver its charitable purposes for the benefit of the public, which is where protection for students tends to come in, assuming that some or all of the charitable objects relate to students.

    The duties of trustees come from the fiduciary nature of being a charity trustee, the legal and regulatory framework as well as the governing documents of the charity.

    The Charity Commission sets out 6 key duties for charity trustees:

    • Ensuring the charity carries out its purposes for the public benefit
    • Comply with the charity’s governing document and the law
    • Act in the best interest of the charity
    • Manage the charity’s resources responsibly
    • Act with reasonable care and skill
    • Ensure the charity is accountable

    The position is clearer where a charity HE provider is solvent, rather than in financial distress.

    But whilst the lack of legal clarity for trustees is legally challenging, what the University of Dundee situation has demonstrated is the practical challenge of the management structures in higher education providers and charities.

    Company vs charity

    The structures of a charity are normally inverse to what you would have in a company. In a company, the board of directors would be both legally and practically responsible for the operations of the company, whether it was solvent or insolvent.

    The board of directors would normally carve up management roles between them, or they may delegate some of those roles outside the board to employees, but they should, and generally do, ensure that non-directors report back to the board, with the directors making the final decisions.

    With most higher education providers, the director equivalents are the trustees, who have ultimate responsibility for the actions of the HE providers, but are normally unpaid volunteers who see themselves more as non-executive directors. The trustees will usually delegate management responsibilities to a management team.

    The fiduciary duty issue with that structure, is that the management team runs the risk of being the equivalent of de facto or shadow directors, to the extent that they are making the ultimate management decisions, with no substantive involvement from the trustees.

    Under the Companies and Insolvency legislation, de facto and shadow directors can be equally liable, in both solvent and insolvent situations, as actual directors.

    The management team members therefore need, to protect themselves from liability, to ensure that the executive decisions in respect of the higher education provider, are made by the trustees.

    The trustees, on the other hand, need to ensure that they have proper oversight of the senior management team and, whilst enabling them to fulfil their roles, that they are aware of the executive decisions that the management team are proposing. Ultimately they are taking responsibility for those decisions so they can be accountable for them.

    The problems arise, as was played out for all to see in glorious technicolour last month, when there is a breakdown of communication between the trustees and management team on the decisions being made and the consequences of those decisions.

    Now, more than ever, trustees need to be completely up to speed on the decisions made so, in the very unlikely event that they appear in front of a select committee, they can fully explain and take responsibility for the decisions made and actions taken.

    Source link

  • Fascism Scholars, Trump Critics Leave Yale for Canada

    Fascism Scholars, Trump Critics Leave Yale for Canada

    As the Trump administration escalates its attack on universities, three fascism scholars and vocal Trump critics are leaving Yale University for the University of Toronto. But their given reasons for crossing the border vary.

    Jason Stanley, Jacob Urowsky Professor of Philosophy at Yale and author of multiple books—including How Fascism Works: The Politics of Us and Them—said he finally accepted Toronto’s long-standing offer for a position on Friday after seeing Columbia University “completely collapse and give in to an authoritarian regime.”

    In a move that has unnerved faculty across the country, Columbia’s administration largely conceded to demands from the Trump administration, which had cut $400 million of the university’s federal grants and contracts for what it said was Columbia’s failure to address campus antisemitism. Among other moves, the Ivy League institution gave campus officers arrest authority and appointed a new senior vice provost to oversee academic programs focused on the Middle East.

    “I was genuinely undecided before that,” Stanley said. Now he’s leaving Yale to be the named chair in American studies at Toronto’s Munk School of Global Affairs and Public Policy. According to the university, the intent is for Stanley also to be cross-appointed to the philosophy department. Two popular philosophy blogs previously reported the move.

    “What I worry about is that Yale and other Ivy League institutions do not understand what they face,” Stanley said. He loves Yale and expected to spend the rest of his career there, he said; while he still hopes for the opportunity to return some day, he’s nervous Yale “will do what Columbia did.”

    Stanley said Toronto’s Munk School “raided Yale” for some of its prominent professors of democracy and authoritarianism to establish a project on defending democracy internationally—an effort that began long before the election.

    Also leaving Yale for the Munk School is Timothy Snyder, author of books including The Road to Unfreedom: Russia, Europe, America, and Marci Shore, author of The Ukrainian Night: An Intimate History of Revolution and other works. Snyder and Shore are married.

    Stanley said Toronto reached out to him back in April 2023, during the Biden administration, and he restarted conversations after the election. He finally took the job Friday. The university told Inside Higher Ed it had been trying to recruit Snyder and Shore for years, saying, “We’re always looking for the best and brightest.”

    Snyder, the Richard C. Levin Professor of History at Yale, will become the Munk School’s inaugural Chair in Modern European History, supported by the Temerty Endowment for Ukrainian Studies. A spokesperson for Snyder said he made his decision for personal reasons, and he made it before the election.

    In an emailed statement Wednesday, Snyder said, “The opportunity came at a time when my spouse and I had to address some difficult family matters.” He said he had “no grievance with Yale, no desire to leave the U.S. I am very happy with the idea of a move personally but, aside from a strong appreciation of what U of T has to offer, the motivations are largely that—personal.”

    But when asked for her reasoning, Shore told Inside Higher Ed in an email that “the personal and political were, as often is the case, intertwined. We might well have made the move in any case, but we didn’t make our final decision until after the November elections,” she wrote.

    Shore, a Yale history professor, will become the Munk School Chair in European Intellectual History, supported by the same endowment as her husband.

    “I sensed that this time, this second Trump election, would be still much worse than the first—the checks and balances have been dismantled,” she wrote. “I can feel that the country is going into free fall. I fear there’s going to be a civil war. And I don’t want to bring my kids back into that. I also don’t feel confident that Yale or other American universities will manage to protect either their students or their faculty.”

    She also said it didn’t escape her that Yale failed to publicly defend Snyder when Vice President JD Vance criticized him on X in January. After Trump nominated Pete Hegseth as defense secretary, Snyder—who has repeatedly excoriated the Trump administration in the media—posted that “a Christian Reconstructionist war on Americans led from the Department of Defense is likely to break the United States.”

    Vance reposted that with the caption “That this person is a professor at Yale is actually an embarrassment.” Elon Musk, X’s owner, responded in agreement.

    ‘They Need to Band Together’

    Leaving for Canada might sound like a futile move, given that Trump has threatened to annex it.

    “That’s why I’m definitely not thinking of it as fleeing fascism; I’m thinking of it as defending Canada,” Stanley said. “Freedom of inquiry does not seem to be under threat in Canada,” he said, and moving there will allow him to be engaged in “an international fight against fascism.”

    Nonetheless, he said it’s heartbreaking to leave the Yale philosophy department. He would consider returning to Yale “if there’s evidence that universities are standing up more boldly to the threats,” he said. “They need to band together.”

    Yale spokesperson Karen Peart told Inside Higher Ed in an email that Yale “continues to be home to world-class faculty members who are dedicated to excellence in scholarship and teaching.” She added, “Yale is proud of its global faculty community which includes faculty who may no longer work at the institution, or whose contributions to academia may continue at a different home institution. Faculty members make decisions about their careers for a variety of reasons and the university respects all such decisions.”

    To be sure, the Yale professors are not the first or only U.S. faculty to accept academic appointments outside the country. European universities, at least, have been trying to recruit American researchers. But before Trump’s re-election, there was a dearth of data on the previously rumored academic exodus from red states to blue, supposedly spurred by conservative policy changes.

    Isaac Kamola, director of the American Association of University Professors’ Center for the Defense of Academic Freedom, said he’s now had conversations with multiple faculty members who are naturalized citizens “and still think that the administration might be coming after them.”

    And while star professors at Ivy League institutions are more likely than other faculty to have the opportunity to leave, Yale law professor Keith Whittington, founding chair of the Academic Freedom Alliance, said he thinks such professors are more likely to take those opportunities now.

    “I’ve seen efforts by high-quality academic institutions in other countries to start making the pitch to American academics,” Whittington said. He noted that even faculty at prestigious and well-endowed universities have concerns that their institution and higher ed as a whole are “not as stable as one might once have thought.”

    He said the Trump administration has targeted specific universities with “quite serious efforts to threaten those institutions with crippling financial consequences if they don’t adopt policies that the administration would prefer that they adopt.” And such a playbook could easily be repeated “at practically any institution in the country,” he said.

    Source link

  • What legacy does Yale-NUS College leave in Singapore?

    What legacy does Yale-NUS College leave in Singapore?

    When Wee Yang Soh was considering his degree options, he felt his choices were limited. The Singaporean had been offered a place to study chemistry at the National University of Singapore (NUS), but he was wary of accepting.

    In his experience, school had felt like he was simply being “trained” to pass exams. “I didn’t want my university education to be like that,” he said. Soh liked the idea of liberal arts education but couldn’t afford the hefty tuition fees charged by the U.S. colleges offering those programs.

    So when, in 2011, NUS announced it would be opening a liberal arts college—the first of its kind in Singapore—in partnership with Yale University, Soh jumped at the chance to apply. He was part of the inaugural cohort of students enrolled at the college, graduating in 2017.

    Four years later, NUS suddenly declared that it would no longer be continuing the partnership, with plans to close the college once all existing students had graduated.

    While Yale-NUS College is not the only international partnership in Singapore that has come to an abrupt halt—having helped develop Singapore University of Technology and Design’s curriculum, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology was shown the door in 2017—it is among the most talked about. This unexpected announcement drew just as much attention, if not more, as the opening of the college had, with rumors swirling about the reasons for the decision.

    Today, as the college enters its final semester before shutting its doors for good, can liberal arts live on in Singapore? And are international partnerships off the table in a country increasingly embroiled in debates about national identity?

    Singapore’s government first began discussing the prospect of a liberal arts college in 2008. Policymakers saw the establishment of one as having multiple benefits—reducing the number of local students going abroad, diversifying pathways within the country’s higher education system and contributing to Singapore’s ambition to become an international education hub.

    So when Yale-NUS College opened in 2013, it seemed like the perfect fit. Unfortunately, this synergy didn’t last.

    “The context changed,” said Jason Tan, associate professor at Nanyang Technological University’s National Institute of Education. “For one thing, there’s no longer any official talk about establishing Singapore as an international education hub.”

    Although Singapore launched the Global Schoolhouse Project in 2002, an initiative that aimed to recruit 150,000 international students by 2015, by the mid-2010s, the numbers remained far below targets and talk of the scheme quieted as public debates around immigration heated up.

    Writing in the academic journal Daedalus in 2024, Pericles Lewis, the founding president of the college, suggested that things had gone a step further: “Singapore has not been immune to the forces of populism and nationalism that have affected most parts of the world,” he wrote.

    For a college in which international students represented about 40 percent of the student population, this was a problem.

    Throughout the college’s life, the governing party “showed itself to be highly sensitive to complaints about benefits reaped by foreigners, and to concerns of middle-class Singaporeans about the accessibility of higher education,” Lewis wrote.

    The institution also became central to debates about academic freedom in Singapore, with the last-minute cancellation of a course focused on protest generating backlash. To some, the college was a site of rare political activism and freedom in Singapore, which was both welcomed and feared, depending on your point of view.

    However, Linda Lim, professor emerita at the University of Michigan, argued that the college had little impact on the state of academic freedom in Singapore more widely.

    “From the beginning it was understood and even explicitly acknowledged that Yale-NUS College would practice and experience academic freedom only within the college walls and premises,” she said.

    “Yale may have flattered itself, or argued to mollify dubious faculty in New Haven, that Yale-NUS College would help advance academic freedom in Singapore—a naïve and neo-colonialist attitude.”

    Moreover, Soh believed claims of heightened student activism at the college were exaggerated, with intense media attention fueling public ire towards the institution.

    “From the first year, the Singaporean public and the government were already pretty afraid that politically motivated actions on campus would pose a problem for Singapore,” he said. “And they kept a very close eye on the college activities, to the point where it felt like a self-fulfilling prophecy.”

    At times, small incidents on campus, such as disagreements over new course curricula, made national news, he said. This “reinforced the idea that the students were political or dangerous and all of that stuff, when, really, everything that happened in college felt, at least to me, incredibly mundane and incredibly small and silly.”

    NUS College, a U.S.-style undergraduate honors college for NUS students, was established in 2022 in place of Yale-NUS College. While this new institution offers a residential experience, small class sizes and some shared curricula, it is a far cry from a traditional liberal arts college.

    Today in Singapore, “there’s more focus on interdisciplinary learning,” said Tan. “Across all of our universities, in one form or another, there’s this concern about future economic needs.

    “The future problems will require all those buzzwords—critical thinkers and flexible, adaptable people and people who possess this interdisciplinary pool of knowledge and so on.

    “That trend has pretty much superseded the excitement over having a liberal arts education for our undergrads.”

    For Lim, the closure of Yale-NUS College was a “cautionary tale” for international higher education institutions “who think they can be a beacon of light in authoritarian countries by collaborating with autocratic governments.”

    The college’s chief legacy, she continued, “is the quality of the students it educated and graduated.”

    Soh is currently undertaking a Ph.D. in the U.S. and credited the college and his professors for inspiring him to do so.

    “I hope to teach in the future as a professor,” he said. “I want my students to be able to treat education as not a stepping-stone to grades or to credentials, but as a way to reformulate how we think about and relate to this crazy world that we live in today.

    “I think the legacy lives on in me, but I can’t say that it lives on in Singapore or in NUS for sure. But I hope it does.”

    Source link

  • Four ways to help students return from a leave of absence

    Four ways to help students return from a leave of absence

    Some students may need to take a leave of absence for their mental health before returning to an institution. Here’s how the institution can help.

    Brothers91/E+/Getty Images

    In the past few years, more students have shared the toll their mental health can take on their academic pursuits. Recent surveys of students who left higher education prior to completing a credential or degree reveal that mental health challenges or stress are primary reasons why they discontinue their education.

    Some learners opt to take a pause, withdrawing from the university for a semester or longer to prioritize their health and wellness.

    To promote student completion and success, institutions can consider formal procedures and initiatives targeted toward easing the transition of re-enrollment after a voluntary mental health leave of absence.

    The background: Colleges have historically offered students the opportunity to temporarily unenroll to address health conditions, but only more recently has that definition expanded to include students’ mental health.

    At some institutions, students who withdrew found it difficult to return. Other institutions prioritized risk mitigation versus student success and pushed learners to withdraw rather than providing solutions.

    “Such policies and practices actually discourage students—not just the student with a mental health condition, but all others—from seeking help,” according to a 2021 report from Boston University and the Ruderman Family Foundation.

    A recent survey from the Princeton Review found 43 percent of colleges and universities now have an official support program in place for students returning from mental health leave of absence.

    However, there is little consistency in policies and practices regarding medical or psychiatric leaves of absence, according to the BU report: “Students are often left to confusing, conflicting information and sometimes, discriminatory policies and practices that make a return to higher education difficult.”

    State policymakers have worked to expand the conditions included in leave-of-absence policies at institutions to recognize mental health difficulties.

    In May 2024, Maryland passed legislation that expanded formal health withdrawal policies at public institutions to include mental health. The legislation also requires institutions to provide partial refunds for students who withdraw for physical or mental health reasons in the middle of the term.

    A 2022 bill introduced to the New York State Legislature would require university systems to review enrollment and re-enrollment policies for students who take extended mental health leaves.

    Students Taking Action

    Active Minds, a youth-led mental health advocacy group, developed a guide for students who are advocating for improved leave-of-absence policies at their institution.

    How to help: Some of the ways institutions assist learners are through:

    • Outlining the return process. The University of Southern California offers a step-by-step outline of the different offices a student must contact to re-enroll. Stanford University also created a Returning to Stanford booklet to answer frequently asked questions.
    • Consolidating resources. Many learners are unaware of the full scope of resources available at the institution. A centralized website, such as this one at Cornell University, can help students during their transition back to campus.
    • Providing coaching services for returners. Institutions, themselves or in partnership with outside organizations, can deliver intentional coaching for skill development and resource coordination to re-enroll learners.
    • Connecting students with peers. Supportive communities can help reconnect students to the institution and affirm their commitments to healthy habits, like engaging in social activities or demonstrating good study behaviors. Georgetown University offers a special support group, Back on the Hilltop, for learners who are returning from a leave of absence or who have recently transferred.

    Do you know of a wellness intervention that might help others encourage student success? Tell us about it.

    Source link

  • CUPA-HR Submits Letter in Response to Paid Leave RFI – CUPA-HR

    CUPA-HR Submits Letter in Response to Paid Leave RFI – CUPA-HR

    by CUPA-HR | January 31, 2024

    On January 31, CUPA-HR submitted a letter in response to the Bipartisan, Bicameral Congressional Paid Leave Working Group’s Request for Information on federal paid leave policy. The letter responds to some of the 10 questions posed by the Working Group to inform them of the role the federal government can play in creating a national paid leave policy.

    CUPA-HR’s letter answers questions on the role of the federal government in incentivizing paid leave, the recommended framework for a federal policy, how to avoid unintended distortions resulting from a paid leave framework, and existing research on the impact of paid leave on job satisfaction and recruitment and retention efforts. In our response, CUPA-HR takes the position that the role of the federal government is to ensure that any federal law or program requires harmonization across federal, state, and local leave laws. The letter recommends a framework in which the federal government establishes national criteria for certain aspects of paid leave policies, including tracking and recordkeeping requirements, while granting states and localities leeway to go beyond the federal requirements for other aspects, such as the types of leave that qualify for wage replacement, the duration of such leave, and the wage replacement level.

    The Paid Leave Working Group issued the RFI in December 2023 and sought diverse stakeholder input on the issue of a federal paid leave policy. Comments were due on January 31, 2023. CUPA-HR will continue to monitor for any updates on paid leave as Congress continues to look for a bipartisan solution.



    Source link

  • December Policy Roundup: Paid Leave Policy, Pregnant Workers Fairness Act Regulations, and Workforce Development Initiatives – CUPA-HR

    December Policy Roundup: Paid Leave Policy, Pregnant Workers Fairness Act Regulations, and Workforce Development Initiatives – CUPA-HR

    by CUPA-HR | January 10, 2024

    Through December and into the new calendar year, federal government leaders kept busy with Congressional hearings and markups, new legislation, and proposed and final rules focusing on issues that may be of significance to higher education HR professionals. CUPA-HR tracked several actions from both Congress and federal agencies on issues including paid family leave, short-term Pell Grants, the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act, and workforce development.

    House Education and Workforce Committee Markup

    On December 12, 2023, the House Committee on Education and the Workforce held a full committee markup on H.R. 6585, the Bipartisan Workforce Pell Act, and H.R. 6655, A Stronger Workforce for America Act.

    The Bipartisan Workforce Pell Act aims to amend the Higher Education Act of 1965, allowing students to use Pell Grants for eight-week or longer educational programs. This bill also establishes quality control measures for Pell initiatives, enabling higher education institutions to participate if they meet specific criteria. The committee voted to move the legislation out of committee with 37 members voting in favor and 8 members voting against the bill.

    The next bill, A Stronger Workforce for America Act, seeks to renew and enhance the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act (WIOA). Originally established in 2014, WIOA has been extended through yearly appropriations since fiscal year 2021. The bill incorporates multiple measures to modernize WIOA, bolstering the country’s workforce development to better equip and retain workers. The bill passed through the committee with bipartisan support; 44 members voted in favor of and only one member voted against it.

    Paid Leave Request for Information

    On December 13, the Congressional Bipartisan Paid Family Leave Working Group published a Request for Information (RFI) for diverse stakeholder input to aid in the expansion of access to paid parental, caregiving, and personal medical leave nationwide. The members encouraged interested stakeholders to submit letters that answer these ten questions on the role the federal government can play in creating a national paid leave program.

    Responses must be submitted by January 31, 2024, and can be directed to [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], and [email protected]. CUPA-HR will continue to track developments and intends to collaborate with associate organizations to submit feedback on an as-needed basis.

    National Apprenticeship System Enhancement Proposed Rule

    On December 14, the Department of Labor (DOL) unveiled a proposed rule to modernize the regulations for Registered Apprenticeship programs. The 779-page proposal focuses on provisions to create “safeguards for apprentices to ensure that they have healthy and safe working and learning environments as well as just and equitable opportunities throughout their participation in a registered apprenticeship program,” while also creating baseline requirements for career and technical education apprenticeships, which would target high school and postsecondary students to programs that align more closely with programs found at institutions of higher education.

    DOL is providing a 60-day comment period for the proposed rule, which will commence once the regulation is posted in the Federal Register. CUPA-HR is analyzing the rule and will coordinate with other higher education associations as needed to file comments.

    Federal Transit Authority General Directive on Assaults on Transit Workers

    On December 20, the Department of Transportation (DOT)’s Federal Transit Administration (FTA) proposed a General Directive to address the ongoing national safety risk concerning assaults on transit workers. Transit agencies falling under FTA’s Public Transportation Agency Safety Plans directive would be instructed to conduct safety risk assessments, identify mitigation strategies, and report discoveries to FTA. Per the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, transit agencies operating in urban areas must collaborate with the joint labor-management safety committees to reduce safety hazards.

    The deadline for submitting comments in the Federal Register is February 20, 2024, but late submissions may be considered. CUPA-HR is working with members and other higher education associations to determine the impact that this directive may have on transportation and HR services at institutions of higher education.

    Regulations to Implement the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act

    On December 27, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) sent its final rule to implement the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act (PWFA) to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) for review prior to its publication in the Federal Register. The final rule will likely look very similar to the proposed rule that was issued in August 2023, which provides a framework for how the EEOC plans to enforce protections granted to pregnant workers under the PWFA.

    The EEOC was tasked by law with finalizing regulations to implement the PWFA by December 29, 2023. Given the missed deadline, OIRA may move quickly on its review of the regulations, and we could see the final rule published sometime between late January and late February. CUPA-HR is continuing to monitor for any updates and will keep members apprised of any new details that may arise in the final rule.



    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