Tag: Release

  • OfS Access and Participation data dashboards, 2025 release

    OfS Access and Participation data dashboards, 2025 release

    The sector level dashboards that cover student characteristics have a provider-level parallel – the access and participation dashboards do not have a regulatory role but are provided as evidence to support institutions develop access and participation plans.

    Though much A&P activity is pre-determined – the current system pretty much insists that universities work with schools locally and address stuff highlighted in the national Equality of Outcomes Risk Register (EORR). It’s a cheeky John Blake way of embedding a national agenda into what are meant to be provider level plans (that, technically, unlock the ability to charge fees up to the higher level) but it could also be argued that provider specific work (particularly on participation measures rather than access) has been underexamined.

    The A&P dashboards are a way to focus attention on what may end up being institutionally bound problems – the kinds of things that providers can fix, and quickly, rather than the socio-economic learning revolution end of things that requires a radicalised cadre of hardened activists to lead and inspire the proletariat, or something.

    We certainly don’t get any detailed mappings between numeric targets declared in individual plans and the data – although my colleague Jim did have a go at that a while ago. Instead this is just the raw information for you to examine, hopefully in an easier to use and speedier fashion than the official version (which requires a user guide, no less)

    Fun with indicators

    There are four dashboards here, covering most of what OfS presents in the mega-board. Most of what I’ve done examines four year aggregations rather than individual years (though there is a timeseries at provider level), I’ve just opted for the 95 per cent confidence interval to show the significance of indicator values, and there’s a few other minor pieces that I’ve not bothered with or set a sensible default on.

    I know that nobody reads this for data dashboard design tips, but for me a series of simpler dashboards are far more useful to the average reader than a single behemoth that can do anything – and the way HESA presents (in the main) very simple tables or plain charts to illustrate variations across the sector represents to me a gold standard for provider level data. OfS is a provider of official statistics, and as such is well aware that section V3.1 of the code of practice requires that:

    Statistics, data and explanatory material should be relevant and presented in a clear, unambiguous way that supports and promotes use by all types of users

    And I don’t think we are quite there yet with what we have, while the simple release of a series of flat tables might get us closer

    If you like it you should have put a confidence interval on it

    To start with, here is a tool for constructing ranked displays of providers against a single metric – here defined as a life cycle stage (access, continuation, completion, attainment, progression) expressed as a percentage of successful achievements for a given subgroup.

    Choose your split indicator type on the top right, and the actual indicator on the top right – select the life cycle stage on the box in the middle, and set mode and level (note certain splits and stages may only be available for certain modes and levels). You can highlight a provider of interest using the box on the bottom right, and also find an overall sector average by searching on “*”. The colours show provider group, and the arrows are upper and lower confidence bounds at the standard 95 per cent level.

    You’ll note that some of the indicators show intersections – with versions of multiple indicators shown together. This allows you to look at, say, white students from a more deprived background. The denominator in the tool tip is the number students in that population, not the number of students where data is available.

    [singles rank]

    I’ve also done a version allowing you to look at all single indicators at a provider level – which might help you to spot particular outliers that may need further analysis. Here, each mark is a split indicator (just the useful ones, I’ve omitted stuff like “POLAR quintiles 1,2,4, and 5” which is really only worth bothering with for gap analysis), you can select provider, mode, and level at the top and highlight a split group (eg “Age (broad)”) or split (eg “Mature aged 21 and over”).

    Note here that access refers to the proportion of all entrants from a given sub-group, so even though I’ve shown it on the same axis for the sake of space it shows a slightly different thing – the other lifecycle stages relate to a success (be that in continuation, progression or whatever) based on how OfS defines “success”.

    [singles provider]

    Oops upside your head

    As you’ve probably spotted from the first section, to really get things out of this data you need to compare splits with other relevant splits. We are talking, then, about gaps – on any of the lifecycle stages – between two groups of students. The classic example is the attainment gap between white and Black students, but you can have all kinds of gaps.

    This first one is across a single provider, and for the four lifecycle stages (this time, we don’t get access) you can select your indicator type and two indicators to get the gap between them (mode, and level, are at the bottom of the screen). When you set your two split, the largest or most common group tends to be on indicator 1 – that’s just the way the data is designed.

    [gaps provider]

    As a quick context you can look for “*” again on the provider name filter to get sector averages, but I’ve also built a sector ranking to help you put your performance in context with similar providers.

    This is like a cross between the single ranking and the provider-level gaps analysis – you just need to set the two splits in the same way.

    [gaps rank]

    Sign o’ the times

    The four year aggregates are handy for most applications, but as you being to drill in you are going to start wondering about individual years – are things getting gradually worse or gradually better? Here I’ve plotted all the individual year data we get – which is, of course, different for each lifecycle stage (because of when data becomes available). This is at a provider level (filter on the top right) and I’ve included confidence intervals at 95 per cent in a lighter colour.

    [gaps provider timeseries]

    Source link

  • OfS characteristics dashboards, 2025 release

    OfS characteristics dashboards, 2025 release

    The Office for Students releases a surprisingly large amount of data for a regulator that is supported by a separate “designated data body”.

    Some of it is painfully regulatory in nature – the stuff of nightmares for registrars and planning teams that are not diligently pre-preparing versions of the OfS’ bespoke splits in real time (which feels like kind of a burden thing, but never mind).

    Other parts of it feel like they might be regulatory, but are actually descriptive. No matter how bad your provider looks on any of the characteristics, or access and participation, indicators it is not these that spark the letter or the knock on the door. But they still speak eloquently about the wider state of the sector, and of particular providers within it.

    Despite appearances, it is this descriptive data that is likely to preoccupy ministers and policymakers. It tells us about the changing size and shape of the sector, and of the improvement to life chances it does and does not offer particular groups of students.

    Outcomes characteristics

    How well do particular groups of students perform against the three standard OfS outcomes measures (continuation, completion, progression) plus another (attainment) that is very much in direct control of individual providers?

    It’s a very pertinent question given the government’s HE Reform agenda language on access and participation – and the very best way to answer it is via an OfS data release. Rather than just the traditional student characteristics – age, ethnicity, the various area based measures – we get a range of rarities: household residual income, socioeconomic status, parental higher education experience. And these come alongside greatly expanded data on ethnicity (15 categories) and detail on age.

    Even better, as well as comparing full time and part-time students, we can look at the performance of students by detailed (or indeed broad) subject areas – and at a range of levels of study.

    We learn that students from better off (residual income at £42,601 or greater) are more likely to progress to a positive outcome – but so are students of nursing. Neither of these at the level of medical students, or distance learning students – but very slightly above Jewish students. The lowest scoring group on progression is currently students taught via subcontractual arrangements – but there are also detriments for students with communication-related disabilities, students from Bangladeshi backgrounds, and students with “other” sexual orientations.

    In some cases there are likely explanatory factors and probably intersections – in others it is anyone’s guess. Again and again, we see a positive relationship between parental income or status and doing well at higher education: but it is also very likely that progression across the whole of society would show a similar pattern.

    On this chart you can select your lifecycle stage on the top left-hand side, and use the study characteristics drop down to drill into modes of study or subject – there’s also an ability to exclude sub-contractual provision outside of registered provider via the population filter. At the bottom you can set domicile (note that most characteristics are available only for UK students) and level of study (again note that some measures are limited to undergraduates). The characteristics themselves are seen as the individual blobs for each year: mouse over to find similar blobs in other years or use the student characteristic filter or sub-characteristic highlighter to find ones that you want.

    [Full screen]

    The “attainment” life cycle stage refers to the proportion of undergraduate qualifiers that achieve a first or upper second for their first degree. It’s not something we tend to see outside of the “unexplained first” lens, and it is very interesting to apply the detailed student characteristics to what amounts to awarding rates.

    It remains strikingly difficult to achieve a first or upper second while being Black. Only 60 per cent of UK full time first degree students managed this in 2023-24 which compares well to nearer 50 per cent a decade ago, but not so well with the 80 per cent of their white peers. The awarding gap remains stark and persistent.

    Deprivation appears to be having a growing impact on continuation – again for UK full time first degree students, the gap between the most (IMD Q1, 83.3 per cent) and least (Q5 93.1 per cent) deprived backgrounds has grown in recent years. And the subject filters add another level of variation – in medicine the different is tiny, but in natural sciences it is very large.

    Population characteristics

    There are numerators (number of students where data is included) and denominators (number of students with those characteristics) within the outcomes dashboard, but sometimes we just need to get a sense of the makeup of the entire sector – focusing on entrants, qualifiers, or all students.

    We learn that nearly 10 per cent of UK first degree students are taught within a subcontractual arrangement – rising to more than 36 per cent in business subjects. Counter-intuitively, the proportion of UK students studying other undergraduate courses (your level 4 and 5 provision) has fallen in previous years – 18 per cent of these students were taught via sub contractual arrangements in 2010, and just 13 per cent (of a far lower total) now. Again, the only rise is in business provision – sub-contractual teaching is offered to nearly a quarter of non-degree undergraduates from UK domiciles there.

    More than a third (33.14 per cent) of UK medicine or dentistry undergraduates are from managerial or professional backgrounds, a higher proportion than any other subject area, even though this has declined slightly in recent years.

    Two visualisations here – the first shows student characteristics as colours on the bars (use the filter at the top) and allows you to filter what you see by mode or subject area using the filters on the second row. At the bottom you can further filter by level of study, domicile, or population (all, entrants, or qualifiers). The percentages include students where the characteristic is “not applicable” or where there is “no response” – this is different from (but I think clearer than) the OfS presentation.

    [by student characteristic]

    The second chance puts subject or mode as the colours, and allows you to look at the make up of particular student characteristic groups on this basis. This is a little bit of a hack, so you need to set the sub characteristic as “total” in order to alter the main characteristic group.

    [by study characteristic]

    Entry qualification and subject

    Overall, UK undergraduate business students are less likely to continue, complete, attain a good degree, or a positive progression outcome than their peers in any other subject area – and this gap has widened over time. There is now a 1.5 percentage point progression gap between business students and creative or performing arts students: on average a creative degree is more likely to get you into a job or further study than one in business, and this has been the case since 2018.

    And there is still a link between level 3 qualifications and positive performance at every point of the higher education life cycle. The data here isn’t perfect – there’s no way to control for the well documented link between better level 3 performance (more As and A*s, less Cs, Ds and BTECs) and socioeconomic status or disadvantage. Seventy two per cent of the best performing BTEC students were awarded a first or upper second, 96 per cent of the best performing A level students.

    This is all taken from a specific plot of characteristics (entry qualification and subject) data – unfortunately for us it contains information on those two topic only, and you can’t even cross plot them.

    [Full screen]

    What OfS makes of all this

    Two key findings documents published alongside this release detail the regulatory observations. The across-the-board decline in continuation appears to have been halted, with an improvement in 2022-23 – but mature entrants are still around 9 percentage points less likely to continue.

    We get recognition of the persistent gap in performance at all levels other than progression between women (who tend to do better) and men (who tend to do worse). And of the counterintuitive continuation benefits experienced by disabled students. And we do get a note on the Black attainment gap I noted above.

    Again, this isn’t the regulatory action end of OfS’ data operations – so we are unlikely to see investigations or fines related to particularly poor performance on some of these characteristics within individual providers. Findings like these at a sector level suggest problems at a structural rather than institutional level, and as is increasingly being made plain we are not really set up to deal with structural higher education issues in England – indeed, these two reports and millions of rows of data do not even merit a press release.

    We do get data on some of these issues at provider level via the access and participation dashboards, and we’ll dive into those elsewhere.

    Source link

  • Trump administration to release frozen after-school, summer program funds

    Trump administration to release frozen after-school, summer program funds

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

    Dive Brief:

    • The Trump administration will now release the federal funding for after-school and summer programs that districts and states expected to begin accessing July 1 but had been frozen by the Office of Management and Budget, OMB confirmed on Friday.
    • The $1.3 billion for 21st Century Community Learning Centers was under review by OMB to ensure the funding aligned with Trump administration priorities. The weekslong delay had already caused cancellations and other disruptions to summer and school-year student services, according to educators, families, education organizations and lawmakers.
    • Still under OMB review is about $5.6 billion in other K-12 funds, including programs for English learners, professional development, student academic supports, migrant services and adult education. OMB did not provide a time frame for the review or release of those funds.

    Dive Insight:

    In an emailed statement Friday to K-12 Dive, an OMB senior administration official verified the release of the after-school and summer program money and said, “Guardrails have been put in place to ensure these funds are not used in violation of Executive Orders.” The official did not say when the funds would be released to states.

    Earlier this week, OMB said its preliminary findings found the grant programs “have been grossly abused to promote a radical leftwing DEI agenda” — referring to diversity, equity and inclusion initiatives — and directly violate Trump’s executive orders.

    The 21st Century grant money for after-school and summer programming, and the other withheld funds, come from the federal fiscal year 2025 budget, which was approved by Congress and then signed into law by President Donald Trump in March. States and districts typically expect to access the funding in question on July 1 for the upcoming school year.

    Federal Title I funds for low-income schools and districts and money for the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act was released on July 1 as expected.

    The funding hold caused widespread concern among governors, Republican and Democratic senators, parents, education organizations and others calling for the federal government to release the money. Some 24 states filed a lawsuit against Trump, the U.S. Education Department and OMB, calling the funding freeze “contrary to law, arbitrary and capricious, and unconstitutional.”

    Jodi Grant, executive director of the Afterschool Alliance, said in a Friday statement that “working parents in particular are breathing an enormous sigh of relief” with the news of the release of the summer and after-school funds.

    But, she added, the funding delay “caused massive chaos and harm with summer learning programs abruptly shutting down and a large number of afterschool programs canceling plans to open in the fall.”

    The uncertainty caused those programs to fall behind in hiring, outreach, contracting and other work, Grant said. 

    Relief at the funding release also came from David Schuler, executive director of AASA, the School Superintendents Association.

    However, Schuler added, “Districts should not be in this impossible position where the Administration is denying funds that had already been appropriated to our public schools, by Congress. The remaining funds must be released immediately — America’s children are counting on it.”

    Source link

  • 10 GOP senators call on OMB to release frozen K-12 funds

    10 GOP senators call on OMB to release frozen K-12 funds

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

    Dive Brief:

    • Ten Republican senators on Wednesday urged the White House budget director to unfreeze over $6 billion in already appropriated federal education funds that the Trump administration has been withholding.
    • Withholding the funds, which states were to receive July 1, “is contrary to President Trump’s goal of returning K-12 education to the states,” the GOP letter said. 
    • Their plea follows a similar request from the other side of the aisle, made in a July 10 letter from 32 Democratic senators to both the Office of Management and Budget the U.S. Department of Education. 

    Dive Insight:

    In the Republican senators’ letter to OMB Director Russell Vought, they said they want to work with him and U.S. Education Secretary Linda McMahon to ensure all of the federal education dollars “help states and school districts provide students an excellent education.”

    While they said they share concerns about using federal dollars to fund “radical left-wing programs,” they said they don’t believe that’s happening with these funds meant to support after-school and summer programming as well as adult learners. 

    The GOP senators emphasized the money had already won approval from Congress and President Donald Trump through the continuing resolution enacted earlier this year. 

    Other programs at risk — if the funds are not released —  include English learner services, academic supports, migrant student assistance and professional development.

    “We want to see students in our states and across the country thrive, whether they are adult learners, students who speak English as a second language, or students who need after-school care so that their parents can work,” the senators wrote to Vought. “We believe you share the same goal.”

    The signees include Shelley Moore Capito (W.Va.), Susan Collins (Maine), John Boozman (Ark.), Katie Boyd Britt (Ala.), Deb Fischer (Neb.), John Hoeven (N.D.), Jim Justice (W.Va.), Mitch McConnell (Ky.), Lisa Murkowski (Alaska) and Mike Rounds (S.D.). 

    Last week’s letter from 32 Democratic senators charged that OMB and the Education Department are illegally withholding funds. “It is unacceptable that the administration is picking and choosing what parts of the appropriations law to follow, and you must immediately implement the entire law as Congress intended and as the oaths you swore require you to do,” the Democrats wrote to Vought and McMahon. 

    Additionally, 24 states and the District of Columbia on Monday sued Trump, the Education Department and OMB over the funding freeze. Students and schools are already beginning to feel the impacts of the freeze, which has disrupted student programs for summer services and supports for English learners, according to the lawsuit.

    In a July 17 statement to K-12 Dive, an OMB spokesperson said no funding decisions had been made and that it was still reviewing education funding. The spokesperson added that its preliminary findings show the grant programs “have been grossly abused to promote a radical leftwing DEI agenda” and directly violate Trump’s executive orders. 

    The OMB spokesperson said it found examples of funds being used by schools to “promote illegal immigrant advocacy organizations” and “conduct a seminar on ‘queer resistance in the arts.’” 

    The bipartisan calls to unfreeze the funds come as public pushback mounts against the Trump administration over the situation. 

    On Thursday, 600 local, state and national organizations representing districts, teachers, families and students sent a letter to McMahon and Vought urging them to immediately disburse the funds. The “damage has already been done,” the groups said, as K-12 leaders have had to lay off staff, cancel programs, and terminate contracts “that will impact more than 95,000 schools, nearly 55 million K-12 students, and 1.2 million adult learners.”

    Source link

  • Release of NAEP science scores

    Release of NAEP science scores

    UPDATE: After this story was published, the Education Department issued a press release Monday afternoon, July 7, announcing that Matthew Soldner will serve as acting commissioner of the National Center for Education Statistics, in addition to his role as acting director of the Institute of Education Sciences. The job of statistics chief had been vacant since March and had prevented the release of assessment results.

    The repercussions from the decimation of staff at the Education Department keep coming. Last week, the fallout led to a delay in releasing results from a national science test.

    The National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) is best known for tests that track reading and math achievement but includes other subjects, too. In early 2024, when the main reading and math tests were administered, there was also a science section for eighth graders. 

    The board that oversees NAEP had announced at its May meeting that it planned to release the science results in June. But that month has since come and gone. 

    Why the delay? There is no commissioner of education statistics to sign off on the score report, a requirement before it is released, according to five current and former officials who are familiar with the release of NAEP scores, but asked to remain anonymous because they were not authorized to speak to the press or feared retaliation. 

    Related: Our free weekly newsletter alerts you to what research says about schools and classrooms.

    Peggy Carr, a Biden administration appointee, was dismissed as the commissioner of the National Center for Education Statistics in February, two years before the end of her six-year term set by Congress. Chris Chapman was named acting commissioner, but he was fired in March, along with half the employees at the Education Department. The role has remained vacant since.

    A spokesman for the National Assessment Governing Board, which oversees NAEP,  said the science scores will be released later this summer, but denied that the lack of a commissioner is the obstacle. “The report building is proceeding so the naming of a commissioner is not a bureaucratic hold-up to its progress,” Stephaan Harris said by email.

    The delay matters. Education policymakers have been keen to learn if science achievement had held steady after the pandemic or tumbled along with reading and math. (Those reading and math scores were released in January.)

    The Trump administration has vowed to dismantle the Education Department and did not respond to an emailed question about when a new commissioner would be appointed. 

    Related: Chaos and confusion as the statistics arm of the Education Department is reduced to a skeletal staff of 3

    Researchers hang onto data

    Keeping up with administration policy can be head-spinning these days. Education researchers were notified in March that they would have to relinquish federal data they were using for their studies. (The department shares restricted datasets, which can include personally identifiable information about students, with approved researchers.) 

    But researchers learned on June 30 that the department had changed its mind and decided not to terminate this remote access. 

    Lawyers who are suing the Trump administration on behalf of education researchers heralded this about-face as a “big win.” Researchers can now finish projects in progress. 

    Still, researchers don’t have a way of publishing or presenting papers that use this data. Since the mass firings in mid-March, there is no one remaining inside the Education Department to review their papers for any inadvertent disclosure of student data, a required step before public release. And there is no process at the moment for researchers to request data access for future studies. 

    “While ED’s change-of-heart regarding remote access is welcome,” said Adam Pulver of Public Citizen Litigation Group, “other vital services provided by the Institute of Education Sciences have been senselessly, illogically halted without consideration of the impact on the nation’s educational researchers and the education community more broadly.  We will continue to press ahead with our case as to the other arbitrarily canceled programs.”

    Pulver is the lead attorney for one of three suits fighting the Education Department’s termination of research and statistics activities. Judges in the District of Columbia and Maryland have denied researchers a preliminary injunction to restore the research and data cuts. But the Maryland case is now fast-tracked and the court has asked the Trump administration to produce an administrative record of its decision-making process by July 11. (See this previous story for more background on the court cases.)

    Related: Education researchers sue Trump administration, testing executive power

    Some NSF grants restored in California

    Just as the Education Department is quietly restarting some activities that DOGE killed, so is the National Science Foundation (NSF). The federal science agency posted on its website that it had reinstated 114 awards to 45 institutions as of June 30. NSF said it was doing so to comply with a federal court order to reinstate awards to all University of California researchers. It was unclear how many of these research projects concerned education, one of the major areas that NSF funds.

    Researchers and universities outside the University of California system are hoping for the same reversal. In June, the largest professional organization of education researchers, the American Educational Research Association, joined forces with a large coalition of organizations and institutions in filing a legal challenge to the mass termination of grants by the NSF. Education grants were especially hard hit in a series of cuts in April and May. Democracy Forward, a public interest law firm, is spearheading this case.

    Contact staff writer Jill Barshay at 212-678-3595, jillbarshay.35 on Signal, or [email protected].

    This story about delaying the NAEP science score report was written by Jill Barshay and produced by The Hechinger Report, a nonprofit, independent news organization focused on inequality and innovation in education. Sign up for Proof Points and other Hechinger newsletters.

    The Hechinger Report provides in-depth, fact-based, unbiased reporting on education that is free to all readers. But that doesn’t mean it’s free to produce. Our work keeps educators and the public informed about pressing issues at schools and on campuses throughout the country. We tell the whole story, even when the details are inconvenient. Help us keep doing that.

    Join us today.

    Source link

  • Judge orders release of Tufts student Rümeysa Öztürk

    Judge orders release of Tufts student Rümeysa Öztürk

    A federal judge has ordered the immediate release of Tufts student Rümeysa Öztürk, who faces deportation for writing an op-ed critical of Israel. 

    “Her continued detention cannot stand,” said Judge William Sessions III.

    Judge Sessions explained the government provided no evidence Öztürk engaged in violence or any other crimes. “The reason she’s been detained is simply and purely the expression she made,” he said. The judge also warned her detention chills millions of noncitizens from expressing their views “for fear of being whisked away from their home.”

    Below is a statement from FIRE Supervising Senior Attorney Conor Fitzpatrick, praising the order:

    The court rightly found Öztürk’s detention unlawful and an affront to the First Amendment. No one in America — citizen or not — should fear the government’s wrath for speaking their mind.

    Last week, FIRE was joined by a nonpartisan coalition that included the National Coalition Against Censorship, Cato, PEN America, and the Rutherford Institute calling for the release of Ms. Öztürk and all others detained and targeted for deportation based on protected speech.

    Source link

  • Columbia student Mohsen Mahdawi says "justice will prevail" after ICE release (CBS Mornings)

    Columbia student Mohsen Mahdawi says "justice will prevail" after ICE release (CBS Mornings)

    Columbia University student Mohsen Mahdawi spoke with CBS News in his first TV interview since his release from ICE custody. He spent 16 days in detention and now awaits deportation hearings for protesting the war in Gaza.
     

    Source link

  • White House Approves Title IX Final Rule — Rule Release Imminent – CUPA-HR

    White House Approves Title IX Final Rule — Rule Release Imminent – CUPA-HR

    by CUPA-HR | April 12, 2024

    On April 10, the White House Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) announced it had concluded review of the Department of Education’s (ED) final rule to amend Title IX. OIRA review is the final step in the regulatory process, and we expect the ED will issue the final rule any day now. We will send another alert as soon as ED publishes the final rule.

    The ED released the text of the proposed rule on June 23, 2022, though the Federal Register did not officially publish the proposal until several weeks later on July 12, 2022. The agency received over 240,000 comments in response, including CUPA-HR comments seeking clarification on the overlaps between the ED’s proposal with institutions’ existing obligations to address employment discrimination. CUPA-HR also joined comments led by the American Council on Education.

    The Federal Government’s Fall 2022 Regulatory Agenda had set the target release date of the final rule for May 2023, but the Department had to further delay that timeline to review all comments submitted in response to the proposed rule and address them in the final rule. Most recently, the ED indicated a March 2024 release of the final rule in the Fall 2023 Regulatory Agenda.

    CUPA-HR plans to hold a timely webinar on the final rule after publication. In the meantime, CUPA-HR will keep members apprised of additional updates on the Title IX final rule, including completion of the review and publication of the rule.



    Source link

  • White House Approves DOL Overtime Rule – Rule Release Imminent – CUPA-HR

    White House Approves DOL Overtime Rule – Rule Release Imminent – CUPA-HR

    by CUPA-HR | April 11, 2024

    On April 11, 2024, the White House Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) announced it had concluded review of the U.S. Department of Labor’s (DOL) final overtime pay rule. The rule is expected to increase the minimum salary threshold for the executive, administrative and professional (EAP or white collar) employee exemptions to overtime pay requirements under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) regulations. OIRA review is the final step in the regulatory process, and we expect DOL will release the final rule any day now. We will send another alert as soon as the final rule is released.

    On April 4, 2024, CUPA-HR’s president and CEO, government relations team and board members met with officials from DOL and OIRA to express our concerns with the September 2023 proposed rule. The proposal sought to increase the threshold from its current level of $35,568 annually to $60,209 — a nearly 70% increase. DOL also proposed increasing the salary threshold automatically every three years to the 35th percentile of weekly earnings of full-time salaried workers. Finally, DOL proposed that all employers would need to implement these changes within 60 days of the final rule’s release.

    During our OIRA meeting, CUPA-HR reiterated the concerns that were addressed in our comments submitted in November 2023. The comments made the following four recommendations for DOL to consider prior to issuing a final rule:

    1. DOL should not update the salary threshold at this time.
    2. If DOL implements an increase, it should lower the proposed minimum salary threshold and account for room and board.
    3. DOL should not implement automatic updates to the salary threshold.
    4. DOL should extend the effective date of any final rule implementing a higher salary threshold.

    We expect lawsuits challenging the final rule are forthcoming. CUPA-HR will keep members apprised of all updates related to the overtime regulations. Once the new regulations are released, we will plan and share registration information for a webinar. We will also provide an update for members who attend the spring conference in Minneapolis next week.



    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