Tag: Education

Leaders in Higher Education Call for Immigration Reform

GT Law

As the immigration reform debate endures in the House of Representatives, leaders in higher education are continuing their call for improvements to the nation’s immigration system.

Most recently, presidents of 28 Catholic and Jesuit colleges and universities united in a fast for immigration reform on Ash Wednesday (March 5, 2014). In doing so, they joined the “Fast for Families” movement, which reignited the immigration debate last fall when the movement’s leaders, supported by many members of Congress and The President, fasted for twenty-two days on the National Mall in Washington, D.C. Students have not been far behind in the campaign to reform the nation’s immigration system. In February, one hundred and fifty students from nine Catholic colleges and Universities held a Student Summit on Immigration Reform.

These are just a few of the continuing calls made by members of the higher education community for Congress to pass immigration reform. In late 2013, leaders of more than one hundred colleges and universities across the United States wrote to their Congressional representatives to support the overhaul of the immigration system.

In many ways, our nation’s colleges and universities are on the front lines of our broken immigration system. Roughly a third of their graduate students in STEM fields are foreign nationals – in some states it is well over half. Leaders in higher education see how often our immigration policies prevent the nation from retaining and capitalizing on these talented individuals and create obstacles to growth.

The higher education community is hopeful that its continuing efforts will prompt the Congressional leadership to renew its efforts to pass meaningful immigration reform.

Article by:

Nataliya Rymer

Of:

Greenberg Traurig, LLP

The Gift of Education Re: Estate Planning

McBrayer NEW logo 1-10-13

 

Many grandparents want to enrich the lives of their grandkids, but are not sure the best way to accomplish this with their estate plan. I encourage clients to consider helping their grandchildren with the future costs of education. The proper planning can help grandkids avoid hefty loans and be tax-efficient for the donor.

A grandparent may currently gift up to $14,000 per grandchild (or to anyone) per year tax free ($28,000 if a married couple gift-splits). Any gift over that amount requires the filing of a gift tax return.

However, if you pay for a grandchild’s education expenses directly to the provider (i.e., educational institution), the gift is excluded from your annual exclusion amount. For purposes of this exclusion, the term “educational institution” covers a broad range of schooling, such as primary, preparatory, vocational or university institutions. This kind of payment is also exempt from the generation-skipping tax (which is too complicated to explain herein, but can significantly reduce a grandparent’s gifting amount). In short, if you pay $40,000 to cover your grandchild’s tuition directly to the school, you can still gift up to $14,000 tax free to him or her in the same year. Some institutions may even allow a donor to pay upfront the applicable years of education at a locked-in tuition rate, so as to avoid rate hikes.

Another option to consider is a 529 college-savings plan. One of the biggest benefits of this plan is that it can continue operation when the grandparent is no longer around to write checks to an institution. A grandparent can gift up to the annual exclusion per year tax free, or make up to five years’ worth of the annual exclusion gift ($70,000 per single donor or $140,000 per couple) in one year to benefit a single individual. However, this has its drawbacks. If you gift the five year maximum amount in one year, any other annual exclusion gifts to that beneficiary for the next five years will incur gift tax consequences. Further, if you die within five years of the date of the gift, a prorated portion of the gift will be included in the estate tax calculation.

Article by:

Terri R. Stallard

Of:

McBrayer, McGinnis, Leslie and Kirkland, PLLC

U.S. Supreme Court Directs 5th Circuit Court of Appeals to Re-Examine University of Texas’ Race-Conscious Admissions Policies

Barnes & Thornburg

On Monday, June 24, 2013, the U.S Supreme Court issued a much-anticipated ruling in the first affirmative-action case since the 2003 landmark decisions of Gratz v. Bollinger and Grutter v. Bollinger.  However,  Monday’s ruling in Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin did not reach the merits of the school’s policy, holding that the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals applied the incorrect standard of review.

For academic institutions that have race-conscious admissions policies, this case does not alter the current legal requirement that such polices be “narrowly tailored” to further the compelling governmental interest of having a diverse student body.  Because the appellate court did not properly apply this “strict scrutiny” standard, the Supreme Court sent the case back to the lower court for further consideration.

In Fisher, a Caucasian applicant, Abigail Fisher, applied to the University of Texas in 2008. After being rejected for admission, Fisher sued the University, claiming that the school’s race-conscious policy violated the Equal Protection Clause of the U.S. Constitution’s 14th Amendment which requires that racial classifications be subjected to strict scrutiny.

The District Court granted summary judgment to the University. On appeal, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal, deferring to what it called “a constitutionally protected zone of discretion,” and holding that Fisher could challenge only whether the University’s decision was made in good faith.

In a 7-1 decision, the U.S. Supreme Court rejected the cursory analysis of both lower courts and held that the proper standard of review must be applied.  Specifically, the Court held that the District Court and appellate court each confined their strict scrutiny analysis too narrowly.  A “meaningful” judicial review, the Court wrote, would have assessed whether the University’s admissions policy was narrowly tailored to achieve student body diversity that “encompasses a broad array of qualifications and characteristics of which racial or ethnic origin is but a single though im­portant element.”

Fisher presents the most recent challenge to academic affirmative action in the Fifth Circuit, which, in 1996, effectively banned such practices in Texas. See: Hopwood v. State of Texas, 84 F. 3d 720 (5th Cir. 1996). In 2003, the Grutter case overruled that ban and the University of Texas re-implemented a race-conscious admissions policy.

Now that the Fisher case has been remanded to the appellate level, the constitutionality of race-conscious admissions policies in state-funded academic institutions remains unchanged.  Advocates and opponents of affirmative action in public education will have to continue to wait until the Fifth Circuit completes its review and undertakes the level of strict scrutiny review required by the Equal Protection Clause.

Article By:

 of

Public Education Teacher Selection Process Not So Simple…

A very interesting article recently posted in the National Law Review  by Denise M. Spatafore of Dinsmore & Shohl LLP regarding WV’s legislature rules for determining who receives both teaching and administrative positions in West Virginia public schools.

If you do a Google search for the “qualities of effective teachers,” 4,920,000 results come up within 15 seconds. Obviously, the placement of the best possible educators in our public schools is important to virtually everyone, but determining how that can be accomplished has been, and continues to be, the subject of much debate and, in West Virginia, the subject of some fairly complex legislation.

Prior to the 1990s, the selection of classroom teachers in West Virginia was required by statute to be based on qualifications. In turn, “qualifications” was not defined, allowing for fairly broad and varied interpretations of what made a teacher qualified. Some believed that the lack of specific criteria allowed for selection decisions based on politics or nepotism, rather than actual teaching skills. Therefore, in 1990, the legislature enacted W. Va. Code § 18A-4-7a, which to this day contains very specific rules for determining who receives both teaching and administrative positions in West Virginia public schools.

There are two sets of seven criteria which are applied to applicants for teaching positions, and the factors used depend upon who the applicants are. If all of the applicants are “new” to the particular county (meaning that they are not currently employed in the county or are substitutes, rather than full-time teachers), the seven criteria applied include:

  1. certification for the position
  2. teaching experience in the subject area
  3. degree level
  4. academic achievement
  5. specialized training
  6. performance evaluations
  7. “other measures or indicators upon which the relative qualifications of the applicant may fairly be judged”

When using this so-called “first set of factors,” county administrators are not required to give any particular factor more weight than others, which allows a lot of discretion in determining which applicant is most qualified for the position. It may be the person who had the best interview, or it might be the teacher with the most relevant experience. As long as each applicant’s qualifications are assessed under each criterion, the board of education may hire whomever they want, absent a totally arbitrary decision that simply can’t be justified.

On the other hand, the “second set of factors,” which is used when any teacher employed in the county applies for a position, must be weighted equally. The second set of criteria contains some of the same categories as the first, including certification, degree level, training and evaluations. However, experience is considered in two separate categories:

  1. total teaching experience (regardless of what subject or grade level)
  2. “existence” of experience in the particular area of the posted position

Therefore, under the second set of factors, a teacher will be given credit for the entirety of his or her teaching experience, regardless of whether it was in the subject area of the position for which they are applying.

Another difference between the two sets of factors is that, when currently employed teachers apply, seniority is considered. There appears to be a common misconception among West Virginians and even among teachers that seniority is the only basis for awarding teaching positions, but this is simply not true. Seniority is only one of seven factors considered, and it must be equally weighted, just like the others. However, a possible source of some of the misconception could be that, in many counties, seniority is used as a tie-breaker when two or more applicants have equal qualifications.

Although school principals do have a statutory right to interview teacher applicants, if the second set of factors is in play, there is simply no legal basis to consider the results of interviews. Whether the legislature intended this or not is unknown, but it is a frustrating provision both for the administrators doing the hiring and for the applicants who may or may not be given the opportunity to demonstrate their attributes during an interview.

Also resulting from the requirements of the second set of factors, when both current employees and outsiders apply for teaching jobs, young or new teachers often have difficulty getting positions. Particularly within the field of elementary education, a very popular certification area for teaching students, young teachers often have to do substitute work for years before being able to “break into” the county system and obtain full-time employment.

While proposed changes to the teacher hiring process have been discussed by the legislature for the past several years, none have been successful to date.

© 2011 Dinsmore & Shohl LLP. All rights reserved.