Tag: Rule

  • Ripping up the rule book

    Ripping up the rule book

    On May 7, I was honoured to address an audience at Goodenough College in London, at the kind invitation of the master of The Worshipful Company of Educators, to talk on the topic of ‘educators opening doors to the world’.

    For those not familiar with Goodenough College, it is a remarkable community in Bloomsbury, central London, comprising 700 postgraduate students and their families from around 95 different countries, each studying at any one of London’s world-leading universities.

    When I stepped inside the doors of the College, I was instantly transported back to my own experience as a first-time post-doctoral researcher at the University of British Columbia (UBC) in Canada, when I found myself living in a very similar international community called St John’s College at the heart of the UBC campus.

    It was there that I saw first-hand just how important communities like these are for bringing people together from across the globe through education and providing a ‘home from home’ for overseas students and researchers. These communities allow friendships to form, ideas to thrive and inter-cultural understanding to arise.

    It is also that experience that has since driven my subsequent career, both in making and influencing higher education policy, to ensure that our universities and colleges continue serving as dynamic meeting points for the world.

    Breaking the rules

    When you work in policy, one of the first rules you learn is not to base policy on anecdote or personal experience. However, when it comes to something as positive and life changing as international education, I am a firm believer in ripping up the rule book.

    While not everyone is fortunate to have an international education experience of their own, every single one of us indirectly benefits from the international students around us – not least given that, in the UK, they bring in £41.9 billion to the economy per annual cohort.

    when it comes to something as positive and life changing as international education, I am a firm believer in ripping up the rule book

    These economic benefits are felt even more acutely by our universities and colleges, where international student fees have become a lifeline to financially-stretched institutions – both to make up for the rising shortfall in domestic funding and to cross-subsidise world-leading research.

    Yet, as all good educators know, international students are much more than big pound and dollar signs to our sector.

    In a global city like London, international student communities are reflective of the global workforce and the multi-cultural population around us. Having international students in our midst helps prepare local students for the realities of living and working in these diverse environments. It encourages them to think differently about the world, and they learn to appreciate different cultures, traditions and perspectives.

    The real winners

    There are also substantial soft power benefits to be had from our diverse international student inflows. Each year the Higher Education Policy Institute (HEPI) publishes a soft power index showing the tally of serving world leaders educated in UK universities. While some may see this as a ‘bit of fun’ over the summer when it’s traditionally published, it’s actually a really powerful signal of the strength of the UK’s educational brand.

    It is also a stark reminder of what is at stake if we start to use education to close doors to the world rather use it than to open them.

    As one international student, and member of Goodenough College, said to me over dinner on the evening I spoke: Today I might just be eating dinner here with other international students, but tomorrow we could be the ones doing deals together in politics or in business, and it is our countries that will be the real winners of this experience.”

    While policymakers across the Western world are fixated on finding ways to bring immigration down, when it comes to international education, perhaps they should pay more attention to the benefits that are had when international students return to their home countries with the skills, friendships and memories made during their overseas educational experiences. For, these are the things that from the foundations of closer business and trade relationships between different countries and enhance future diplomatic relations.

    The clock is ticking

    A very early read of the immigration white paper suggests UK universities may have dodged a bullet when it comes to major policy reform. While the post-study work entitlement may have been reduced to 18 months from two years, the UK still has a positive offer to sell to the world – and one that isn’t undermined by country-specific restrictions or provider-level caps as is the case elsewhere in the world. Gone too (for now at least) are any requirements for international graduates to meet certain salary thresholds should they wish to stay and work in the UK.

    We need to ensure policymakers are tackling the parts of the immigration system that are failing us, not those that are overwhelmingly helping us

    Of course, we need to take public concerns about immigration seriously and chart a sustainable path for the future. But we need to ensure policymakers are tackling the parts of the immigration system that are failing us, not those that are overwhelmingly helping us. This should be done through measures that strengthen the overall ecosystem, not ones that weaken it through reckless words and kneejerk reactions.

    Last month, the International Higher Education Commission (IHEC), for which I am proud to have served as a commissioner, set out a framework for success based on the three pillars of competitiveness, diversification and public trust. The challenge for all of us now is to find ways to move forward with this framework – and in the new context set out by the Immigration White Paper – to ensure we continue opening the doors to the world through our educational offer. The last thing we should do is close them down through the loss of any one of those important sides of the policy triangle.

    Source link

  • Trump administration court filing may spell end of overtime final rule

    Trump administration court filing may spell end of overtime final rule

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

    U.S. Department of Justice attorneys asked the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to temporarily suspend the Labor Department’s appeals in two cases challenging its 2024 Fair Labor Standards Act overtime rule, according to an April 24 court filing.

    Texas district court judges twice blocked DOL’s final rule, which increased the minimum salary threshold for overtime pay eligibility in two steps. First, a November 2024 decision sided with plaintiffs including the state of Texas and enjoined the rule nationwide. A second judgment set aside and vacated the rule in response to a lawsuit by marketing agency Flint Avenue.

    The government asked that the 5th Circuit place its appeals in abeyance “pending the agency’s reconsideration of the rule.” It said counsel for the appellees in both cases did not oppose its request.

    The Biden administration’s effort to expand overtime eligibility to millions of U.S. workers would have pushed the annual minimum threshold under the FLSA to $58,656 in 2025 with automatic, additional increases every three years beginning in July 2027. An initial increase to $43,888 per year took effect before Texas federal judges blocked it along with the rule’s other components.

    The entire policy is almost certain to be erased by the second Trump administration, according to attorneys who previously spoke to HR Dive. Prior to the Biden-era rule, DOL had last increased the overtime-pay threshold during Trump’s first administration in 2019.

    Source link

  • Appeals Court Stays Litigation on Overtime Rule – CUPA-HR

    Appeals Court Stays Litigation on Overtime Rule – CUPA-HR

    by CUPA-HR | May 6, 2025

    On April 29, the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals issued a stay on the litigation challenging the Biden administration’s overtime rule that will last for 120 days. The order halts further proceedings in the appeals court while the Trump administration’s Department of Labor (DOL) reconsiders the Biden administration’s rule, and it directs DOL to file additional status reports every 60 days.

    In February, the Trump administration’s DOL filed an appeal on a district court’s ruling in Flint Avenue, LLC v. DOL that vacated the Biden administration’s overtime rule. The Trump appeal was the second appeal filed for cases involving the Biden overtime rule. The move to appeal was largely viewed as an attempt for the Trump administration to put a placeholder on court proceedings while Secretary of Labor Lori Chavez-DeRemer settled into her new role and figured out next steps for the overtime regulations.

    The ruling from the appeals court followed a request from Trump’s DOL to hold the case in abeyance while the agency reconsidered the rule. Further updates from the Trump administration regarding the overtime regulations are likely to follow.

    CUPA-HR will continue to monitor for updates related to the overtime regulations.



    Source link

  • New COPPA Rule to take effect in June

    New COPPA Rule to take effect in June

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

    Dive Brief:

    • Updates to the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Rule are to take effect on June 23, but companies have until April 22, 2026, to fully comply, according to the amended final rule published by the Federal Trade Commission earlier this week.
    • It remained unclear for months when — or if — the expanded COPPA Rule would go into effect after the FTC announced the finalized changes in January, just four days before President Donald Trump would be inaugurated.  
    • Though the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act itself does not explicitly mention schools, the updated rule will impact how K-12 leaders interact with ed tech companies, according to student data privacy experts.

    Dive Insight:

    COPPA is a 26-year-old federal law that gives parents control over the data that websites can collect from children ages 13 or younger. Its regulations and enforcement are overseen by the FTC, which is required by law to review the COPPA Rule every five years.  

    One of the key changes in the latest COPPA Rule is that companies must obtain parental consent before using children’s data for targeted advertising or disclosing their information to third parties, according to the April 22 notice published in the Federal Register. However, school districts are still allowed to give consent to ed tech companies in lieu of parental consent as long as that data is solely used for educational purposes and not commercially. 

    Schools should expect to see more transparency from ed tech companies, given that they are required under the new COPPA Rule to provide a direct notice to parents — or in this case school districts — about how they plan to collect and use children’s data upon receiving consent.

    The new rule also states that companies must put limits on retaining children’s data and cannot hold onto it indefinitely. Though the FTC did not specify a duration, it said companies can retain data “for only as long as is reasonably necessary to fulfill the specific purpose(s) for which the information was collected.”

    In another update, companies collecting children’s data have to bolster cybersecurity plans by, for instance, conducting annual risk assessments and implementing safeguards to protect children’s sensitive information. 

    The FTC also expanded its definition of any collected “personal information” to include biometric data such as facial recognition or fingerprints. Online contact information and government-issued IDs like Social Security numbers are also now considered personal information. 

    The updates come as companies increasingly try to profit off children’s data, the FTC said when announcing the finalized changes to the COPPA Rule in January.

    The new requirements also come as ed tech companies like PowerSchool have been targeted this year by cybersecurity incidents that have led to mass breaches of sensitive student data.

    Source link

  • DOL files fresh appeal of a Texas decision vacating its new overtime rule

    DOL files fresh appeal of a Texas decision vacating its new overtime rule

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

    Dive Brief:

    • The U.S. Department of Labor has appealed a Texas federal judge’s 2024 decision blocking its Biden-era final rule which sought to expand overtime pay protections under the Fair Labor Standards Act, according to a Feb. 28 court filing.
    • Last December, Judge Sam Cummings of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas ruled against DOL in Flint Avenue, LLC v. U.S. Department of Labor, vacating and setting aside the final rule. Cummings’ decision came just over one month after another Texas judge similarly vacated and set aside the rule in a separate lawsuit filed by the state of Texas and parties including the Plano Chamber of Commerce.
    • The appeal takes Flint Avenue to the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, the same court in which DOL filed an appeal of the decision in the State of Texas case last year. DOL’s public affairs staff did not immediately respond to a request for comment. The U.S. Department of Justice, which represents the DOL, did not respond to a request for comment submitted via its online form.

    Dive Insight:

    The Feb. 28 notice of appeal may come as a surprise to employers who expected the Trump administration to abandon the final rule; attorneys who previously spoke to HR Dive said that the rule was effectively “dead” despite DOL’s State of Texas appeal because of the Trump administration’s conservative policy stance on overtime.

    In fact, the new administration had already filed motions in the 5th Circuit pertinent to overtime rule litigation. On Jan. 22, two days after President Donald Trump’s inauguration, DOJ attorneys sent a letter to the 5th Circuit requesting a 30-day extension on the deadline set by the court to file an opening brief in the State of Texas appeal. The court granted the request and the agency’s filing deadline is currently set to March 7.

    The April 2024 final rule proposed a two-step process that would have eventually raised the minimum annual salary threshold for overtime pay eligibility under the FLSA from $35,568 to $58,656 by Jan. 1, 2025. The rule would then have implemented a mechanism for automatically adjusting the threshold every three years using current wage data beginning in July 2027.

    But a series of Texas court decisions froze the rule. The judge in State of Texas held that the rule exceeded DOL’s authority and was unlawful. Likewise, Cummings said in his decision that he found the State of Texas judge’s reasoning “persuasive,” and he adopted the same reasoning in ruling for the plaintiffs.

    There is some intrigue in how the 5th Circuit might rule on the two appealed judgments given that the court signed off on DOL’s overall use of a salary basis test for determining overtime pay eligibility in last year’s Mayfield v. U.S. Department of Labor. The Mayfield plaintiffs alleged that the salary basis test had no basis in the FLSA’s text, but the 5th Circuit disagreed. The court did hold, however, that DOL “cannot enact rules that replace or swallow the meaning” of the FLSA’s text, adding that particular salary threshold may raise legal issues because of their size.

    Source link

  • Higher ed must resist authoritarian rule. It’s the mission.

    Higher ed must resist authoritarian rule. It’s the mission.

    Together, we should be clear on what President Donald Trump is trying to do to higher education.

    Destroy it. Whatever public rationales he or his administration release, the intent of his actions is clear, so if we’re going to discuss responses to those actions, we must remember, always, that Donald Trump is trying to destroy higher education.

    Michelle Goldberg at The New York Times gets it; the rest of us should, too.

    This goal is not new. In 2021 in a speech at the National Conservatism Conference, future vice president JD Vance declared, “We have to honestly and aggressively attack the universities in this country.” Vance (and Trump) are open admirers of Hungarian authoritarian leader Viktor Orbán, who has subjugated the once-free higher education institutions of his country to his own needs.

    This is the Trump/Vance playbook. The unannounced, unilateral (now paused thanks to court intervention) cuts to NIH grants, and the Dear Colleague letter that goes well beyond, and even actively distorts current law to threaten institutions with punishment for failing to obey, are just the latest attacks in a war that has been going on for quite some time, and not just at the federal level, but in the states as well, as exemplified by Ron DeSantis’s wanton destruction of Florida’s New College.

    Sadly, as callous, counterproductive and wasteful of taxpayer money as it was, DeSantis taking a wrecking ball to New College in order to install his cronies while recruiting enough athletes for three baseball teams—despite New College not being in an athletic conference—was within the power of the state’s chief executive.

    What Trump is doing to higher education institutions is not. It should be unthinkable for institutions to obey diktats that are not only unlawful, but in direct conflict with the purported mission of the institution.

    If any institutional leaders are thinking that if they do just enough compliance with Trump’s demands, he will stop the war, they are kidding themselves.

    How is the rush to declare institutional neutrality to not just words but actions, as enacted by Vanderbilt chancellor Daniel Diermeier last year, working out? Surely they are feeling secure knowing that they got ahead of the abuse.

    What’s that? That isn’t happening? Turns out Vanderbilt has had to pause graduate student admissions because of concerns about funding. I guess surrendering in advance wasn’t the way to go.

    I used Vanderbilt only because it was a recent, handy example, not the only one. The silence from major, well-resourced higher education institutions is truly deafening.

    Writing at her personal website, Jackie Gharapour Wernz, an education and civil rights attorney, calls the Dear Colleague letter “regulation by intimidation,” which is exactly right. Bending the knee at this moment only demonstrates the effectiveness of intimidation.

    Wernz walks through a number of ways the advisories in the letter go well beyond well-established law, while also making an additional important point: Trump is busy gutting the very agencies that would be able to do the investigation and enforcement of institutions they believe are in violation of legal regulations. This reality, plus the various procedural steps involved in these investigations, suggests that it may be far more advantageous to dig in and run out the clock of this initial flurry, particularly when existing law is clearly on your side.

    But this doesn’t seem to be the strategy for most institutions. They are going to hope this goes away. Trying to make yourself a smaller target doesn’t mean the people intent on destroying you are going to stop attacking.

    Interestingly, the group of higher ed leaders who are … uh … leading belong to the Education for All coalition, primarily consisting of community college administrators. Under the “freedom’s just another world for nothing left to lose” theory, this should not be surprising. Giving in to the Trump administration’s demands to give up on providing educational opportunities to diverse cohorts of students with different desires and needs would be to abandon their work entirely. Their defiance is both principled and practical.

    To me, this suggests that the more prestigious institutions that are cowering in the face of the intimidation perhaps do not see their mission in terms of providing access to all. In a lot of ways, the present situation is primarily revealing that which we already knew—that the interests in diversity, equity and inclusion in elite spaces were a virtue-signaling scrim over the much less savory reality of wealth and exclusion.

    Look, I’m getting worked up here. The truth is, I don’t wish any harm on any higher education institution, but the institutions with the most resources, most power and most influence must step up.

    The present threat goes well beyond an attack on the institutional coffers. These attacks on higher education are part of a much broader push toward authoritarianism as a federal executive (and his minions) direct the actions of formerly free institutions and people.

    The good news is that should institutions stand up for themselves, I think they will find many people standing up with them, including, most importantly, the students. Unfortunately, the longer institutions hesitate to stand for the values they claim to hold, the more distrust they’re sowing with the very constituencies who could save them, who do not want to destroy them, but the opposite, who want to see them thrive.

    The stakes are almost impossibly high. Shouldn’t we act like it?

    Source link

  • Education Department will enforce 2020 Title IX rule

    Education Department will enforce 2020 Title IX rule

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

    Dive Brief:

    • The U.S. Department of Education has told colleges and school districts they should follow the 2020 Title IX rule for investigating sex discrimination in schools, closing the chapter on a Biden administration rule that faced much legal turmoil. 
    • In a Friday “Dear Colleague” letter, Craig Trainor, acting assistant secretary for civil rights, said that under the 2020 rule, the interpretation of “sex” means being born male or female. 
    • The letter also clarified that any open Title IX investigations initiated under the 2024 Title IX Rule should be immediately reevaluated to comply with the requirements of the 2020 rule.

    Dive Insight:

    Trainor said the change is based on a federal judge’s decision in early January that struck down the 2024 rule as unconstitutional across the country. That Biden administration rule for the first time extended Title IX civil rights protections to LGBTQI+ students and employees at federally funded schools and colleges — including by prohibiting discrimination based on gender identity and sexual orientation

    Released in April 2024, the rule drew legal challenges, and courts blocked the regulations in at least 26 states.

    Trainor also stated that the 2024 rule conflicts with a Jan. 20 executive order from President Donald Trump that requires all federal agencies and departments to recognize just two sexes — male and female — when it comes to “sex-protective” laws. 

    “As a constitutional matter, the President’s interpretation of the law governs because he alone controls and supervises subordinate officers who exercise discretionary executive power on his behalf,” Trainor’s letter said.

    Supporters of the 2020 rule, developed under the first Trump administration, praised the letter.

    Chad Wolf, executive vice president of the America First Policy Institute, said that under the 2020 rule, women and girls were “unjustly and illegally” denied access to sex-segregated athletic opportunities and intimate spaces. Linda McMahon, President Trump’s nominee for U.S. education secretary, is chair of the board at AFPI. 

    “Female athletes were seriously injured competing against males, and many were forced to undress in front of males,” Wolf said in a statement. “It was a misguided policy that did real harm, and this new guidance puts an end to it.”

    But opponents to the 2020 rule voiced concern, saying it puts students at greater risk of harassment and discrimination.

    This is an incredibly disappointing decision that will leave many survivors of sexual violence, LGBTQ+ students, and pregnant and parenting students without the accommodations critical to their ability to learn and attend class safely,” said Emma Grasso Levine, senior manager of Title IX policy and programs at Know Your IX, in a statement. “Schools must step up to protect students in the absence of adequate federal guidance.”

    Source link

  • Education Department will enforce 2020 Title IX rule

    Education Department will enforce 2020 Title IX rule

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

    Dive Brief:

    • The U.S. Department of Education has told school districts and colleges they should follow the 2020 Title IX rule for investigating sex discrimination in schools, closing the chapter on a Biden administration rule that faced much legal turmoil. 
    • In a Friday “Dear Colleague” letter, Craig Trainor, acting assistant secretary for civil rights, said that under the 2020 rule, the interpretation of “sex” means being born male or female. 
    • The letter also clarified that any open Title IX investigations initiated under the 2024 Title IX Rule should be immediately reevaluated to comply with the requirements of the 2020 rule.

    Dive Insight:

    Trainor said the change is based on a federal judge’s decision in early January that struck down the 2024 rule as unconstitutional across the country. That Biden administration rule for the first time extended Title IX civil rights protections to LGBTQI+ students and employees at federally funded schools and colleges — including by prohibiting discrimination based on gender identity and sexual orientation

    Released in April 2024, the rule drew legal challenges, and courts blocked the regulations in at least 26 states.

    Trainor also stated that the 2024 rule conflicts with a Jan. 20 executive order from President Donald Trump that requires all federal agencies and departments to recognize just two sexes — male and female — when it comes to “sex-protective” laws. 

    “As a constitutional matter, the President’s interpretation of the law governs because he alone controls and supervises subordinate officers who exercise discretionary executive power on his behalf,” Trainor’s letter said.

    Supporters of the 2020 rule, developed under the first Trump administration, praised the letter.

    Chad Wolf, executive vice president of the America First Policy Institute, said that under the 2020 rule, women and girls were “unjustly and illegally” denied access to sex-segregated athletic opportunities and intimate spaces. Linda McMahon, President Trump’s nominee for U.S. education secretary, is chair of the board at AFPI. 

    “Female athletes were seriously injured competing against males, and many were forced to undress in front of males,” Wolf said in a statement. “It was a misguided policy that did real harm, and this new guidance puts an end to it.”

    But opponents to the 2020 rule voiced concern, saying it puts students at greater risk of harassment and discrimination.

    This is an incredibly disappointing decision that will leave many survivors of sexual violence, LGBTQ+ students, and pregnant and parenting students without the accommodations critical to their ability to learn and attend class safely,” said Emma Grasso Levine, senior manager of Title IX policy and programs at Know Your IX, in a statement. “Schools must step up to protect students in the absence of adequate federal guidance.”

    Source link

  • Federal Judge Strikes Down Biden Administration’s Title IX Rule

    Federal Judge Strikes Down Biden Administration’s Title IX Rule

    by CUPA-HR | January 9, 2025

    On January 9, a federal judge in the Eastern District of Kentucky Court vacated the Biden administration’s Title IX regulations. The order strikes down the regulations nationwide, reverting enforcement back to the 2019 Title IX regulations set by the Trump administration.

    Background

    The Biden administration’s Title IX final rule was released in April 2024 and was set to take effect on August 1, 2024. Soon after the rule was published, several states filed legal challenges against it, resulting in preliminary injunctions that blocked the rule from taking effect in 26 states and hundreds of schools in other states that did not challenge the regulations.

    The Biden administration appealed the preliminary injunctions to the Supreme Court, requesting that the court limit the scope of the preliminary injunctions placed by the lower courts to block only those provisions that related to gender identity. They argued that the lower courts’ decisions to grant the preliminary injunctions were based on concerns with the expanded protections for transgender students and that other provisions like the new grievance procedures and training requirements set forth by the final rule should be able to take effect. The Supreme Court ultimately rejected the Biden administration’s request, arguing that the gender identity provisions were “intertwined with and affect other provisions of the rule.”

    District Court Judge’s Ruling

    In the ruling that vacates the rule nationwide, the federal judge stated that the Biden administration’s Title IX rule is unlawful because Title IX’s prohibition on sex discrimination does not include the scope laid out in the regulations, which include expanded protections for pregnancy or related conditions, gender identity and sexual orientation. The order also states that the rule violates the First Amendment and that it is “arbitrary and capricious.”

    Looking Ahead

    The judge’s order almost certainly ends any hopes for the Biden administration’s Title IX regulations to take effect nationwide. The Biden administration may decide to appeal the decision to a higher court, but efforts to reinstate the rule will likely be unsuccessful given the few days they have left in office and the incoming Trump administration’s unwillingness to defend the rule in court. Alternatively, the Trump administration may seek to update their 2019 Title IX regulations, though any urgency to do so may be diminished now that the 2019 regulations are back in place.

    CUPA-HR will continue to monitor for Title IX updates and keep members apprised via Washington Insider Alert emails and the blog.



    Source link