In late August, a big shockwave went through the international education community when memos were sent by SEVP that seemed to remove institutional flexibility for CPT advising. The CPT regulation, which says that the work must be “an integral part of an established curriculum,” has always left it up to the individual institutions to define the term “integral.” This institutional-specific guideline has allowed schools, programs, and institutions the necessary flexibility to authorize CPT for students without overhauling entire program curriculums. The August 25 memo, though, offered a government definition of the word “integral,” stating that DSOs should only authorize CPT “if its absence would make the attainment of a degree an impossibility.” The memo goes on to warn that schools not complying with this definition, including the instructions listed on their website, “they may be subject to additional scrutiny and action from SEVP and Homeland Security Investigations, to include potential withdrawal of the school’s SEVP certification” (ICEF Monitor).
In response, schools are having to react to this news by reevaluating their own major requirements, curriculum, and CPT processes. In my conversations with several different schools since the news, I’ve learned that advisors are worried that students will back out of enrolling if the CPT opportunity was an important component of their educational plan; some have had students already go out and begin their CPT for the semester prior to the memo being released; and some schools have already received follow up from SEVP that they will be undergoing investigation for their CPT policies.
These sudden changes are coinciding not only with the beginning of the semester for most schools, but also with the impending implementation of the new Duration of Status rules, set to take effect on September 15. Although schools have been planning for those changes for at least a year, the final ruling wasn’t published until two months ago, which means that advisors are under more pressure than ever to answer questions for quickly changing regulations and policies. Not surprisingly, a lawsuit has been filed by seven claimants, including NAFSA, against the ending of D/S–which, although an important step in pushing back against harmful policies, can further complicate the role of advisors as the rules continue to sit in limbo.
And, lastly, 30 different research institutions across the US were provided with instructions to scrutinize and audit their global partnerships, with a primary focus on China relationships.
According to the Times Higher Education, “the US Department of War gave universities just two weeks to review ties with institutions that feature on a list, known as Section 1286, that identifies institutions deemed a ‘concern to national security’” (THE). Scholars and educators are responding by speaking out about the role that education plays in global understanding and cultural goodwill, and calling this yet another cause of “the steady erosion of higher education and research ties between China and the US” (Philip Altbach, Center for International Higher Education at Boston College).
In happier news that probably didn’t make the front page, so many of you welcomed new international students to your campuses over the past couple of weeks. We have been honored to be part of lots of your orientations and welcome celebrations, and we wish you ALL the very best as you continue to support these incredible students.
From our world to yours, that’s the latest from international education this month.
Recent Comments