Tag: risk

  • Juggling risk and convenience in cross border payments

    Juggling risk and convenience in cross border payments

    The globalised education landscape continues to grow. According to ICEF Monitor, the volume of students studying abroad is expected to reach more than 9 million by the year 2030. And for education sectors around the world, international students are a major financial pillar. For example, in the 2021/22 academic year, non-EU students generated almost £9bn in tuition for UK universities.

    Pursuing academic goals abroad is an exciting prospect for students. However, the financial intricacies of international tuition payments can quickly turn to stress in the face of unpredictable currency fluctuations, communication hurdles, and complex administrative procedures. Meanwhile, for education institutions there is a fine art to balancing the need for secure and compliant cross-border transactions, with demand from students, their families, and agents for a seamless, user-friendly payments experience.

    The risks behind international tuition payments

    Handling cross border payments can be a tightrope walk for education institutions. When it comes to Gen Z and Gen Alpha, there’s an expectation that any sort of payment will be digital first, and seamless. However, there are several inherent risks to cross border transactions that finance teams can’t ignore.

    Topping the list would be payments fraud and scams. From phishing to fake agents, students are susceptible to schemes that lead to misdirected funds and enrolment issues – a threat that continues to escalate in the age of AI deepfakes.

    Currency volatility can surprise students and institutions alike. In the time between a student calculating their fees, and initiating a payment, the whims of the market can increase costs. For the institution, this can equate to payments arriving short, especially if intermediaries have deducted fees along the way.

    The challenge of managing international anti-money laundering (AML) and know your customer (KYC) regulations is another consideration. Plus, manual process for reconciliation and other administrative tasks can lead to errors, delays and financial discrepancies. The headaches for students and finance teams are real.

    Digital natives want seamless experiences

    Today’s international students expect cross-border payments to mirror modern eCommerce platforms. They want to make a payment online, from any device in a their method of choice, from bank transfers to e-wallets.

    Fast processing and real-time tracking are critical. For many international students, tuition fees are a major investment, and they want to see their funds are on track to reach their destination on time.

    Handling cross border payments can be a tightrope walk for education institutions

    Most of all, international payments should look and feel like local transactions. Payment platforms should accommodate diverse backgrounds for clear communication and support multiple currencies so students and their families know exactly how much their payment will cost. Even better if they get real-time rates.

    Failure to meet these demands can have real repercussions. Students are an institution’s greatest ambassador, and any negative experience can tarnish reputation and influence enrolment decisions.

    Find balance with the right payment provider

    Harmony between risk management and user convenience is increasingly critical for education institutions, and the best place to start is by partnering with a payment provider you can trust. Experienced international payments specialists offer robust fraud detection and compliance support, instilling confidence in students and institutions alike.

    Platforms that offer clear, up-front information about fees, exchange rates, and payments processes goes a long way towards building trust with students and their families. Combine this with advanced technology that delivers real-time tracking, and integration with financial systems for automated reconciliation, and your institution is well positioned to succeed in the digital age.

    To discover how Convera can help you offer a seamless payment experience for your international students, and reduce administrative burden for your teams, please get in touch here.

    About the author: Joanne McChrystal, originally from Ireland, is an alumna of Sheffield Hallam University, UK and the University of Economics in Vienna, Austria. With nearly three decades in financial services and a deep expertise in international payments, she has lived and worked across four European countries. Now, as the global head of education at Convera, Joanne drives forward initiatives that support educational institutions and their partners globally. She is fervently committed to facilitating seamless student journeys through innovative technology and robust partnerships.

    Source link

  • As Recession Risk Rises, Don’t Expect 2008 Repeat (opinion)

    As Recession Risk Rises, Don’t Expect 2008 Repeat (opinion)

    Months into the second Trump administration, clear trends are reshaping the higher education landscape. Economic uncertainty stemming from inconsistent tariff policies has left businesses and consumers grappling with unpredictability. Meanwhile, efforts by the administration and congressional leadership to overhaul federal funding for higher education, including cuts to research grants and proposed cuts to Pell Grants and student loans, have created significant challenges for the sector.

    The U.S. economy contracted slightly in the first quarter of 2025, with the administration’s erratic and unpredictable policies amplifying recession risks. These fluctuations have led some to draw comparisons to the 2008 Great Recession, particularly regarding public higher education. While some lessons of that recession for higher education, such as those related to state appropriations, remain relevant, others may not apply due to the administration’s unique policies and priorities.

    Since the 1980s, economic downturns have increasingly impacted public higher education, primarily due to state budget cuts. During the 1980 recession, state educational appropriations per full-time-equivalent student dropped by 6 percent but recovered to pre-recession levels by 1985. In contrast, during the 2008 Great Recession, funding fell by nearly 26 percent, and most states never fully restored funding to pre-recession levels before the COVID-19 pandemic once again disrupted budgets in 2020. This prolonged recovery left public institutions financially weakened, with reduced capacity to support students.

    More than a decade after the Great Recession, public institutions were struggling to regain the level of state funding they once received. This prolonged recovery significantly affected student loan borrowing. The Great Recession weakened higher education systems as states shifted funds to mandatory expenses and relied on the federal student loan system and Pell Grants to cover a growing share of students’ educational costs. As a result, when states reduce funding, students and their families shoulder more financial responsibility, leading to greater student loan debt.

    During the Great Recession, public institutions were operating with reduced funding and downsizing, even as rising joblessness drove more people to enroll in college. Before 2008, total enrollment in degree-granting institutions was about 18.3 million, but by 2011–12, it exceeded 21 million. This period marked the emergence of the modern student loan crisis. Public institutions, already strained by reduced funding, faced the dual challenge of accommodating more students while maintaining quality. For many students, especially those pursuing graduate degrees, borrowing became a necessity. The economic downturn exacerbated these trends, further entrenching reliance on debt to finance education.

    A future recession could have an even more pronounced impact on public higher education, particularly in terms of state funding. The recently passed House budget bill, which proposes substantial cuts to higher education and Medicaid, exacerbates this risk by forcing states to prioritize addressing these funding shortfalls. Consequently, as legislatures shift resources to more immediate needs, both states and students may find themselves unable to rely on federal aid to support education. Long-standing research indicates that states will prioritize health-care funding over higher education. This pattern suggests that recent state investments in higher education could be rolled back or significantly reduced, even before a recession takes hold.

    The financial pressures on public institutions are already evident. Some systems are considering closing branch campuses, while others are cutting programs, laying off staff or grappling with declining enrollments. In addition, public regional institutions are particularly at risk, as they depend heavily on state funding and serve many of the students most vulnerable to financial challenges. If a recession occurs, these institutions may face severe and rapid downsizing.

    Following downsizing, a key consideration is whether a future recession will lead to an enrollment rebound similar to that seen during the Great Recession. This issue can be analyzed through two key factors: (1) the severity of joblessness and (2) the availability of grants, scholarships and loans, as well as the repayment structures of those loans.

    During the 2008 crisis, unemployment peaked at 10 percent, double the pre-recession rate, with a loss of 8.6 million jobs. Higher unemployment historically benefits higher education as individuals seek to retool their skills during economic downturns. Economists predict that under the current administration, unemployment could rise from 4.1 percent to between 4.7 percent and 7.5 percent, though projections are uncertain due to volatile policies. While higher unemployment might lead more people to consider enrolling in college, proposed changes to financial aid policies could significantly dampen such trends.

    The House’s One Big Beautiful Bill Act introduces stricter eligibility requirements for Pell Grants, such as tying awards to minimum credit-hour thresholds. Students would need to enroll in at least 30 credit hours per year for maximum awards and at least 15 credit hours per year to qualify at all. Furthermore, the bill eliminates subsidized student loans, meaning students would accrue interest while still in school. This change could add an estimated $6,000 in debt per undergraduate borrower, increasing the financial burden on students and potentially deterring enrollment.

    On the repayment side, the proposed Repayment Assistance Plan would replace existing income-driven repayment options. Unlike current plans, RAP bases payments on adjusted gross income rather than discretionary income, resulting in higher monthly payments for lower-income borrowers. Although RAP ensures borrowers do not face negative amortization—which is important for borrowers’ financial and mental distress—the 30-year forgiveness timeline is longer than that of current IDR plans, and the lack of inflation adjustments makes it less appealing than current IDR plans. Together, these changes could discourage potential students, particularly those from low-income or disadvantaged backgrounds, and depress graduate student enrollment.

    The bill also introduces a risk-sharing framework that requires institutions to repay the federal government for a portion of unpaid student loans. This framework, based on factors such as student retention and default rates, could influence enrollment decisions. Institutions might avoid admitting students who pose financial risks, such as those from low-income backgrounds, with lower precollege performance or nonwhite students, thereby restricting access and perpetuating inequities. Alternatively, some institutions may opt out of the student loan system entirely, further limiting opportunities for those who rely on federal aid.

    Recent executive actions pausing international student visa interviews will hinder the ability to recruit international students and eliminate the potential for these students to help subsidize low-income domestic students. As a result, institutions have fewer resources to support key groups in the administration’s electoral base without burdening American taxpayers. These actions not only increase the cost of higher education but also appear inconsistent with a fiscally conservative ideology.

    Mass layoffs in the Department of Education have delayed financial aid processing and compliance and hindered institutions’ ability to support more low-income students during an economic downturn. These personnel play a critical role in ensuring that state higher education systems receive the funding needed to expand access for low-income students. During the last recession, their efforts were essential to fostering student success, but under the current administration, the federal government continues to be an unreliable partner.

    While lessons from the Great Recession may offer some insight for public higher education during a future recession, the financial context and the priorities of the administration and congressional majority leadership differ significantly. Unlike the Great Recession, the next economic downturn may not lead to a surge in higher education enrollment. Without proactive measures to protect funding, expand financial aid and increase opportunity, public higher education risks reduced capacity and declining student outcomes. These changes will likely undermine higher education’s role as a pathway to economic mobility and societal progress.

    Daniel A. Collier is an assistant professor of higher and adult education at the University of Memphis. His work focuses on higher education policy, leadership and issues like student loan debt and financial aid; recent work has focused on Public Service Loan Forgiveness. Connect with Daniel on Bluesky at @dcollier74.bsky.social.

    Michael Kofoed is an assistant professor of economics at the University of Tennessee, Knoxville. His research interests include the economics of education, higher education finance and the economics of financial aid; recent work has focused on online learning during COVID. Connect with Mike on X at @mikekofoed.

    Source link

  • How Oversight Failures in VA-Approved Education Programs Put Thousands at Risk (Michael S. Hainline)

    How Oversight Failures in VA-Approved Education Programs Put Thousands at Risk (Michael S. Hainline)

    I know this all too well. As a former military police officer who trained as a truck driver in 2016 under a VA-approved program, I was exposed to dangerous, poorly maintained equipment that ultimately caused me to lose the use of my right arm for over a year, a disability I will carry for life. 

    Despite repeated complaints to the program staff and the assigned State Approving Agency (SAA), the official body responsible for oversight, my concerns were dismissed, and no corrective action was taken until years later — and only after significant evidence surfaced.

    Unsafe Equipment Ignored

    During my class, veteran student Mike and I, and non-veteran students Dustin & Richard, discovered that the landing gear on the 1977 Stoughton trailer assigned for training was missing an axle and four wheels. I reported this to the staff, who admitted the equipment was faulty but took no timely corrective action. A veteran student later informed me that the school replaced the landing gear on a similar 1987 Great Dane trailer sometime after our class ended, contradicting official reports submitted to the VA and state approving agencies that claimed no issues existed.

    To confirm these claims, I located the trailer used in program advertising and compared photos taken during and after our training. The landing gear had indeed been replaced—freshly painted and altered, as confirmed by Great Dane Trailers’ manufacturer. 

    The trucks used for training showed similar problems. According to Vehicle Identification Numbers, three trucks had modifications—such as frame cutting between tandem axles—that Daimler Trucks North America (the manufacturer) neither recommended nor approved. Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration guidelines were not followed, creating additional safety concerns, per conversations with the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration. 

    Systemic Oversight Failures

    These issues highlight a broader problem: the State Approving Agencies, under contract with the VA, are failing to provide adequate oversight and ensure program quality. The VA Office of Inspector General’s 2018 report (OIG Report #16-00862-179) found that 86% of SAAs did not sufficiently oversee educational programs to ensure only eligible, high-quality programs were approved. The report estimated that without reforms, the VA could improperly pay out $2.3 billion over five years to subpar or fraudulent institutions.

    Alarmingly, the VA Veterans Benefits Administration (VBA) is restricted in its ability to question or audit the reports submitted by SAAs. There is no mechanism for veterans to challenge or appeal SAA findings, effectively leaving veterans powerless within a system that is supposed to protect them.

    Veteran Service Organizations’ Silence

    I sought help from veteran service organizations but found little interest in addressing these critical problems. The American Legion initially responded to my outreach in 2017, engaging in conversations and phone calls. However, within months, communication ceased without explanation. Attempts to meet with American Legion leadership and their legislative contacts, including Dr. Joe Wescott—an influential consultant on veterans’ education—were unsuccessful. Dr. Wescott dismissed concerns about the integrity of the SAA’s targeted risk-based reviews, citing that schools typically fix problems before SAAs visit, and failed to investigate conflicts of interest between report authors and SAA officials.

    At the 2024 American Legion convention, a planned meeting between a fellow veteran and Legion leadership was abruptly canceled. Meanwhile, other veteran groups such as Veterans of Foreign Wars (VFW), Disabled American Veterans (DAV), and Veterans Education Success (VES) showed engagement, but the American Legion and Student Veterans of America remained unresponsive.

    The American Legion’s own 2016 Resolution #304 warned of the exact issues I and countless other veterans have endured: deceptive practices by some education providers, poor accreditation standards, and underfunded and understaffed SAAs unable to enforce proper oversight.

    A Cycle of Scandal

    Congressional staff admitted privately that veterans’ education legislation rarely progresses without support from key players like Dr. Wescott and the National Association of State Approving Agencies (NASAA), whose leaders have repeatedly declined to meet with veterans raising concerns. These complex relationships between SAAs, VA officials, veteran groups, and legislators perpetuate a “cycle of scandal” that leaves veterans vulnerable and taxpayers footing the bill.

    In 2023, a combat veteran attending the same program I did reported similar frustrations: only one of three trucks was roadworthy, severely limiting practical training time for a full class of students. Despite numerous documented complaints, the NASAA president refused to meet or discuss these issues.

    The Human Cost

    Beyond financial waste and bureaucratic failures, real human harm occurs. My injury, caused by training on unsafe equipment, robbed me of a year of mobility and continues to affect my life. Thousands of veterans have lost their G.I. Bill benefits, incurred debt for worthless or limited degrees, or been misled about their job prospects after completing programs approved by the very agencies meant to protect them.

    The internet is rife with investigative reports exposing waste, fraud, and abuse in VA-approved programs. Headlines like “School Scammers Are Robbing Veterans and the Government Blind” and “For-Profit Colleges Exploit Veterans’ G.I. Bill Benefits” are far too common.

    A Call for Reform

    Despite these glaring failures, meaningful reform remains elusive. The VA OIG report and numerous investigations call for increased accountability, transparency, and cooperation between the VBA, SAAs, veteran service organizations, and Congress. Veterans deserve a system that genuinely safeguards their education and wellbeing.

    My fellow former veteran students and I have organized online and turned to media outlets to break the silence. It’s time for the public and policymakers to hear our stories—not just slogans and “catchy” legislative titles that fail to restore lost benefits or improve program quality.

    We veterans demand change—because we have earned more than empty promises and a broken system that leaves us behind.

    Michael S. Hainline is a veteran and advocate living in Pensacola, Florida. He served in active duty and reserve military components and now works to expose the failures of oversight in VA-approved education and job training programs. He can be reached at hainline1962@gmail.com.

    Source link

  • Trump’s Deportation Database Puts Students at Risk – The 74

    Trump’s Deportation Database Puts Students at Risk – The 74

    School (in)Security is our biweekly briefing on the latest school safety news, vetted by Mark Keierleber. Subscribe here.

    Tennessee state Sen. Bo Watson wants to eject undocumented students from public school classrooms. But first, he needs their data. 

    Watson seeks to require students statewide to submit a birth certificate or other sensitive documents to secure their seats — one of numerous efforts nationwide this year as Republican state lawmakers seek to challenge a decades-old Supreme Court precedent enshrining students’ right to a free public education regardless of their immigration status.

    Some 300 demonstrators participate in a Waukegan, Illinois, rally on Feb. 1 to draw attention to an increase in Immigration and Customs Enforcement activity in the area. Privacy advocates warn student records could be used to assist deportations. (Scott Olson/Getty Images)

    In my latest feature this week, I dive into why those efforts have alarmed student data privacy advocates, who warn that efforts to compile data on immigrant students could be used not just to deny them an education  — it could also fall into the hands of Immigration and Customs Enforcement.

    As the Trump administration ramps up deportations and tech billionaire Elon Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency reportedly works to create a “master database” of government records to zero in on migrants, data privacy experts warn that state and federal data about immigrant students could be weaponized. 

    In the news

    Cybercriminals demanded ransom payments from school districts nationwide this week, using millions of K-12 students’ sensitive data as leverage after the files were stolen from education technology giant PowerSchool in a massive cyberattack late last year. The development undercuts PowerSchool’s decision to pay a ransom in December to keep the sensitive documents under wraps. | The 74

    Gutted: Investigations at the Education Department’s civil rights office have trickled to a halt as the Trump administration installs a “shadow division” to advance cases that align with the president’s agenda. | ProPublica

    • Civil rights groups, students and parents have asked courts to block the Education Department’s civil rights enforcement changes under Trump, saying they fail to hold schools accountable for racial harassment and abuses against children with disabilities. | K-12 Dive
    • Among the thousands of cases put on the back burner is a complaint from a Texas teenager who was kneed in the face by a campus cop. | The 74

    ‘The hardest case for mercy’: Congratulations to Marshall Project contributor Joe Sexton, who was named a Pulitzer Prize finalist for his reporting on a legal team’s successful bid to spare the Parkland, Florida, school shooter from the death penalty. | The Marshall Project

    The city council in Uvalde, Texas, approved a $2 million settlement with the families of the victims in the 2022 shooting at Robb Elementary School, the first lawsuit to end with monetary payouts since 19 children and two teachers were killed. | Insurance Journal 

    • In Michigan, a state commission created in the wake of the 2021 school shooting at Oxford High School, which resulted in the deaths of four students, issued a final report calling for additional funding to strengthen school mental health supports. | Chalkbeat
    • Meanwhile, at the federal level, the Education Department axed $1 billion in federal grants designed to train mental health professionals and place them in schools in a bid to thwart mass shootings. | The 74

    A high school substitute teacher in Ohio was arrested on accusations she offered a student $2,000 to murder her husband. | WRIC

    Connecticut schools have been forced to evacuate from fires caused by a “dangerous TikTok trend” where students stab school-issued laptops with paper clips to cause electrical short circuits. | WFSB

    Eleven high school lacrosse players in upstate New York face unlawful imprisonment charges on accusations they staged a kidnapping of younger teammates who thought they were being abducted by armed assailants. | CNN

    Sign-up for the School (in)Security newsletter.

    Get the most critical news and information about students’ rights, safety and well-being delivered straight to your inbox.

    The Future of Privacy Forum has “retired” its Student Privacy Pledge after a decade. The pledge, which was designed to ensure education technology companies were ethical stewards of students’ sensitive data, was ended due to “the changing technological and policy landscape regarding education technology.” | Future of Privacy Forum

    • The pledge had previously faced scrutiny over its ability to hold tech vendors accountable for violating its terms. | The 74
    • New kid on the block: Almost simultaneously, Common Sense Privacy launched a “privacy seal certification” to recognize vendors that are “deeply committed to privacy.” | Business Wire

    Google plans to roll out an artificial intelligence chatbot for children as the tech giant seeks to attract young eyeballs to its AI products. | The New York Times

    Kansas schools plan to spend state money on AI tools to spot guns despite concerns over reports of false alarms. | Beacon Media

    ICYMI @The74

    A new report from the Department of Health and Human Services suggests gender-affirming health care puts transgender youth at risk but the report ignores years of research indicating otherwise. (Getty Images)

    HHS Condemns Gender-Affirming Care in Report That Finds ‘Sparse’ Evidence of Harm

    Chicago Public Schools’ Black Student Success Plan Under Investigation Over DEI

    SCOTUS to Rule in Case That Could Upend Enforcement of Disabled Students’ Rights

    Emotional Support

    Birds are chirping. Flowers are blooming. And 74 editor Bev Weintraub’s feline Marz is ready to pounce.


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

    Source link

  • New ICE Policy Puts International Students at Greater Risk

    New ICE Policy Puts International Students at Greater Risk

    The Trump administration issued plans earlier this week for a new policy that vastly expands federal officials’ authority to terminate students’ legal residency status, according to newly released court documents.

    The policy detailed in the filings asserts that immigration officials have the “inherent authority” to terminate students’ legal residency status in the Student Exchange and Visitor Information System “as needed.” It also explicitly lays out two new justifications for SEVIS terminations: the vague “evidence of failure to comply” with nonimmigrant visa terms, and a visa revocation, which can be issued without evidence of a violation by the State Department—and which, crucially, is not subject to court challenges.

    Immigration attorneys told Inside Higher Ed that if implemented, the new policy would enshrine broad permission for ICE to begin deporting students practically at will.

    “This is very bad news for foreign students,” said Charles Kuck, an immigration attorney representing 133 international students in the largest lawsuit challenging recent SEVIS terminations. “Any student who’s arrested, literally for any reason, is probably going to have their status terminated going forward.”

    Last Friday a U.S. attorney promised an official update to ICE policy on SEVIS terminations. On Tuesday, U.S. attorneys presented the document as evidence in a court filing in Arizona, describing it as “recently issued … policy regarding the termination of SEVIS records.”

    It was the first time that details of a new SEVIS termination policy were made public, and it was not at first clear whether it reflected official federal policy. On Tuesday, U.S. attorney Johnny Walker confirmed during another hearing for a SEVIS lawsuit in D.C. that it did, though the policy had yet to be finalized. Spokespeople for ICE did not respond to multiple questions from Inside Higher Ed.

    The plan comes less than a week after the administration began restoring thousands of foreign students’ SEVIS statuses after a series of court decisions overturned hundreds of status terminations. Kuck said the plan seemed to be a way for ICE to get around those rulings.

    “This is basically a cover-your-ass policy,” he said. “The fact that ICE initially reinstated visas was no surprise. They probably had U.S. attorneys screaming at them, ‘What are you doing?’ Now they’re trying to retroactively develop a policy that would allow them to do what they already did.”

    Immigration lawyer and Columbia University Immigrants’ Rights Clinic director Elora Mukherjee has been counseling international students across New York City for the past two months. After the visa-restoration decision last week, some students wanted to know if they were in the clear; she cautioned them against celebrating prematurely.

    “Whiplash is a good way to describe it,” she said. “Students are losing sleep—not just those whose visas have been terminated but those who are worried theirs could be next any day.”

    Fly-by-Night Policymaking

    The updated policy was outlined in an internal Department of Homeland Security memo filed as evidence in an Arizona federal court on Wednesday, where one of more than 100 lawsuits challenging visa revocations is being litigated.

    The unorthodox manner in which it was publicized has left immigration attorneys scratching their heads and international students’ advocates wondering how to respond.

    It also appears to have taken some federal officials by surprise. Kuck said that when he heard about the memo and brought it before the judge in his own case in Georgia, the U.S. attorney defending the government asked if he could send him a copy.

    Fanta Aw, president of NAFSA, an association of international educators, wrote in an email to Inside Higher Ed that the document “should not be relied upon as ICE’s new policy.” She also emphasized that there is no change to ICE’s visa termination policy included in the memo, only SEVIS terminations.

    The document is labeled as a “broadcast message … for internal SEVP use only,” meaning it would have been sent to Designated School Officials working in colleges’ international student offices. But Aw said that’s not accurate, either, because it lacks the customary broadcast message number, and DSOs in her organization said they had not received it.

    Kuck said the lack of a rule-making process for a sweeping policy change like the one outlined in the memo is most likely unlawful, and he was working on filing an amendment to challenge it on Thursday. But that doesn’t mean it should be taken lightly.

    “People should view this as the future,” Kuck said. “This is clearly the power ICE wants to give itself, so they’re going to move ahead with it.”

    ‘A Nightmare Booby Trap’

    Mukherjee said such a broad license to terminate SEVIS status would allow ICE to deport international students far more quickly and with less accountability. The new policy, if implemented and upheld by the courts, wouldn’t just revert to the status quo of the last few months, she said; it would create a landscape in which ICE could begin deportation proceedings with impunity.

    “We’ve already seen many students whose SEVIS terminations led directly to removal proceedings,” Mukherjee said. “It’s terrifying.”

    Kuck said it’s crucial that students understand that they’re still in danger of deportation even if their status was restored last week—and not just because of the new policy plan.

    The few hundred students who won a temporary restraining order in court over the past week have had their statuses reinstated and backfilled to when they were revoked. But the status of thousands more who did not file lawsuits was only reactivated from that point onward. That means they have a gap in status for the days or weeks in between—which, according to ICE policy, is grounds for removal from the country, even if their initial SEVIS termination was accidental.

    “This is a nightmare booby trap for these kids,” Kuck said.

    The only way to protect them, he said, is by filing a class action lawsuit for all affected international student visa holders. Kuck said he’s working on filing an injunction for one right now, and he is acting with urgency.

    In the meantime, Mukherjee said students—both those in the country and those who had planned to come in the fall—are “deeply unsettled.” She’s been asking them questions she’d never been concerned about before: whether they have any social media accounts or even tattoos.

    “I’m talking to international students who are currently in the U.S., to international students who’ve been admitted to study in the U.S. starting in the fall, and they’re asking, ‘Will we be able to complete our degree program?’” she said. “The answer is that it’s unclear.”

    Source link

  • Trump’s sex and gender order could create risk for colleges

    Trump’s sex and gender order could create risk for colleges

    While running for president, Donald Trump pledged to fight the Biden administration’s efforts to expand protections for transgender students. On day one of his second term in office, he got to work fulfilling that promise.

    In an executive order, which is part of a broader effort to restrict the rights of transgender people, Trump declared that there are only two sexes and banned the federal funding of “gender ideology.” His supporters hailed the move as a return to common sense, while LGBTQ+ advocates saw it as an attack seeking to erase the existence of trans people.

    For colleges and universities, the order raises more questions than it answers, and its immediate implications are unclear. As with other executive orders, it includes many provisions that require the Education Department to take action and issue guidance about how colleges should comply. But depending on how the department responds, the order could complicate institutions’ efforts to accommodate transgender students and eventually change how the federal government enforces Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972.

    Susan​​​​ Friedfel, a higher education attorney at Jackson Lewis, a New York City law firm that works with colleges and other employers, said more information is needed from the Education Department to determine how the order will affect higher ed institutions, especially since other federal and state laws protect LGBTQ+ students.

    “We have a lot of questions,” she said. “It’s challenging because we have conflicting laws that apply to the same space.”

    In the meantime, she encouraged colleges to revisit their Title IX policies to ensure they are in compliance with the 2020 regulations put in place by the first Trump administration and to think about how best to accommodate everybody.

    The order, titled “Defending Women From Gender Ideology Extremism And Restoring Biological Truth to the Federal Government,” defines “sex,” “male” and “female,” among other terms, and orders federal agencies to use those definitions when “interpreting or applying statutes, regulations, or guidance and in all other official agency business, documents, and communications.”

    The order is likely to face legal challenges, said Cathryn Oakley, senior director of legal policy at the Human Rights Campaign, who argues that it’s unlawful.

    “It is important that people not give this executive order more credence than it deserves,” she said.

    Other LGBTQ+ advocates echoed Oakley, emphasizing that executive orders don’t create or change laws.

    “Discrimination based on sex, including discrimination against transgender, nonbinary, and intersex people, remains illegal, and it cannot be legalized through this executive order,” Fatima Goss Graves, president and CEO of the National Women’s Law Center, said in a statement.

    But Republican lawmakers, conservative legal organizations and other anti-trans advocates applauded Trump’s order, saying it would protect women and girls from discrimination and ground federal law in “biological fact.”

    “Blatant and deliberate attempts to redefine our sons’ and daughters’ identities by questioning biology itself has done significant harm to our children and society,” said Representative Tim Walberg, the Michigan Republican who chairs the House education committee. “[The] action by the Trump administration acknowledges the biological differences between men and women. In doing so, it is protecting women from discrimination and securing the progress women have made over the decades.”

    What’s in the Order

    In addition to defining “sex” and other terms, the order outlines a plan to combat “gender ideology,” which the Trump administration defines as replacing “the biological category of sex with an ever-shifting concept of self-assessed gender identity, permitting the false claim that males can identify as and thus become women and vice versa.”

    Federal officials were told to remove any internal or external documents that “inculcate gender ideology” and take “any necessary steps to end the federal funding of gender ideology.” Additionally, agencies will now only use the term “sex” instead of “gender” in all applicable federal policies and documents, according to the order. The Biden administration gave people the option on passport applications to mark their gender as X rather than choose male or female. That option is now being eliminated.

    On Thursday, Secretary of State Marco Rubio said that the State Department wouldn’t process any passport applications seeking to change the applicant’s gender from male to female or requesting the X option, The Guardian reported.

    Agencies are required to give an update on their efforts to implement the order in 120 days.

    The Trump administration also directed the attorney general to correct the Biden administration’s “misapplication” of the Supreme Court’s 2020 decision in Bostock v. Clayton County, which said that LGBTQ+ individuals were protected from discrimination in the workplace on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

    The first Trump administration said that Bostock didn’t apply to Title IX, which bars sex-based discrimination in education settings. But the Biden administration reversed that guidance in June 2021.

    The Bostock decision was key to the Biden administration’s new Title IX regulations, which clarified that the law also prohibits discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity. A federal judge ruled earlier this month that the new Title IX rule was unlawful and wiped the regulations off the books.

    Trump’s executive order also requires the education secretary to rescind a number of guidance documents related to the now-vacated Title IX regulations, as well as resources for supporting LGBTQ+ students. That includes the Education Department’s June 2021 Dear Colleague letter that said Title IX protects LGBTQ+ students from discrimination based on their sexual orientation or gender identity.

    In addition, the Trump administration is rescinding a back-to-school message for transgender students from the Departments of Education, Justice and Health and Human Services that provided resources for students who experience bullying or discrimination.

    ‘Nothing Radical’

    Kim Hermann, the executive director of the Southeastern Legal Foundation, a conservative legal organization that sued the Biden administration over the Title IX regulations, said Trump’s order immediately restores the privacy and physical safety rights of women, so colleges that don’t comply could face federal civil rights investigations or lawsuits.

    “There’s nothing radical about this executive order,” she said. “All it does is solidify Congress’s original intent when they passed the laws … Our girls and our women on college campuses are sick of their rights being eroded.”

    Friedfel said the current Trump administration will likely investigate complaints from cisgender students who are uncomfortable sharing spaces with transgender students.

    “That doesn’t mean that they necessarily have to do anything radically different, but recognize that there’s that risk there,” she said.

    Oakley said that guidance from the department is necessary for universities to understand what’s expected of them and how the Office for Civil Rights will enforce Title IX. She doesn’t expect OCR to take discrimination against LGBTQ+ faculty, staff and students seriously.

    “It’s also going to be very difficult to understand how to be in compliance when the folks who are enforcing the law are not respecting the actual case law,” she said. “So it is going to create a tremendous amount of confusion.”

    Source link

  • New Research Finds Higher Ed Institutions Are at Risk of Losing Supervisors to Other Employers – CUPA-HR

    New Research Finds Higher Ed Institutions Are at Risk of Losing Supervisors to Other Employers – CUPA-HR

    by CUPA-HR | January 11, 2023

    As previous research from CUPA-HR has shown, America’s colleges and universities are in the midst of a talent crisis, as many employees are considering other employment opportunities due to a number of factors. As a follow-up to the initial findings of CUPA-HR’s 2022 Higher Education Employee Retention Survey, CUPA-HR has released new findings focused specifically on those in supervisory roles, and the data show that many supervisors are overwhelmed, under-resourced, and struggling to fill positions and maintain morale.

    The newly published report, The CUPA-HR 2022 Higher Education Employee Retention Survey: Focus on Supervisors, explores supervisors’ likelihood of looking for new employment, their current challenges and working environments, and which job aspects specific to supervisors are associated with their retention. The report analyzes data from the 3,815 higher ed administrators, professionals and non-exempt staff, most (57 percent) of whom were supervisors, who responded to CUPA-HR’s 2022 Higher Education Employee Retention Survey.

    Findings

    Higher ed supervisors are looking for other employment opportunities, and less than half would seek new opportunities at their current institution. Nearly two in five (36 percent) supervisors indicate they are likely to look for other employment in the next 12 months, and only 40 percent say they would seek job opportunities at their current institution. The most common cited reason for seeking other employment is pay.

    Most higher ed supervisors work long hours and have absorbed more duties since the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic. Data show that supervisors are more likely than non-supervisors to work additional hours. Fewer than half (47 percent) of non-supervisors work more hours than what is considered full-time. However, 89 percent of area supervisors and 76 percent of other supervisors work more hours per week than what is considered full-time at their institution. Additionally, supervisors are more likely than non-supervisors to agree that they have absorbed additional responsibilities of other staff who have left the institution since the onset of COVID-19. Supervisors are also more likely than non-supervisors to report that they experienced an increase in job expectations since the start of the pandemic.

    Filling positions and maintaining morale are supervisors’ top challenges. As shown in the figure below, almost two-thirds (63 percent) of supervisors indicated they find filling positions very challenging and over half (54 percent) found maintaining staff morale very challenging.

    Higher ed supervisors report a lack of adequate training and support. Only three in five supervisors agree that they have resources and support in their supervisory role. Less than half (46 percent) agree that they have been provided with adequate management training for their supervisory role. However, when supervisors have more resources and support in their supervisory roles, more power to advocate for their staff, more power to allow flexible schedules, and more power to allow their staff to work remotely, they are less likely to seek other employment.

    Implications of Supervisor Turnover and How to Combat It

    Turnover in any role can impact an institution due to loss of talent, institutional knowledge and team or interdepartmental rapport. However, turnover in a supervisor role has more far-reaching implications. Supervisor turnover also impacts direct reports, who must adjust to a new supervisor and may need to adapt to new team priorities and vision. Loss of supervisors also equates to a loss of leaders who are key to succession plans.

    In light of what the data show, there are several actions higher ed institutions can take to keep their supervisors:

    • Provide supervisors with resources and support in their capacity as supervisors, particularly around filling empty positions and managing staff morale.
    • Ensure supervisors have the ability, knowledge and resources to advocate for their staff.
    • Give supervisors more autonomy to determine their staff’s working arrangements, as the data show that supervisors who have more power to allow their staff to work remotely and have flexible schedules are less likely to seek other employment.
    • Commit to reducing supervisor workload.
    • If possible, raise salaries for supervisors (but not at the expense of non-supervisors).

    For a deeper look into the data, read the full report.

    Note: In the findings, “area supervisors” refer to those supervisors who are the top-most leaders in their department, units or areas (self-identified in the survey; 26 percent of respondents). “Other supervisors” are those who self-identified as having at least one direct report but were not the top-most leader in their department (31 percent of respondents). “Non-supervisors” are those employees who have no direct reports (43 percent of respondents).

    CUPA-HR Research

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



    Source link