Men are regaining jobs faster and women are losing them, according to the Pew Research Center. The study found that men are making inroads in industries long dominated by women, such as nursing and teaching. The percentage of male nurses climbed from 9.5% in 2003 to 12.2% this year.
Men gained jobs at a faster rate than women in education and health services, professional and business services, and leisure and hospitality. In other sectors, including retail, finance, and federal government, men gained jobs while women lost jobs.
In each of the recovery periods since 1970, women have regained jobs at a faster rate than men within the first two years of the recovery. Between the end of the recession in June 2009 through May 2011, men gained 768,000 jobs and women lost 218,000 jobs.
Friday, July 15, 2011
Wednesday, July 6, 2011
Treasury Department To Pay Servicers For Quicker Loan Modifications
The Treasury Department will pay mortgage servicers more for modifying loans in an earlier stage of delinquency and less the longer the process takes, according to guidelines released July 6, 2011.
The guidelines, effective October 1, will be adopted by Fannie Mae when the Federal Housing Finance Agency releases the new mortgage servicing fee structures.
Through HAMP, a servicer receives $1,000 when a homeowner is placed in a verified income trial modification for three months before becoming permanent. Effective October 1, mortgage servicers will receive $1,600 if the trial starts before a loan becomes more than 120 days delinquent, $1,200 for loans between 121 days and 210 days delinquent and $400.00 for loans placed in the trial stage after being 210 days delinquent.
Servicers are prohibited from requiring borrowers to make past due payments before entering a trial modification which would result in a higher fee for the servicer.
The guidelines, effective October 1, will be adopted by Fannie Mae when the Federal Housing Finance Agency releases the new mortgage servicing fee structures.
Through HAMP, a servicer receives $1,000 when a homeowner is placed in a verified income trial modification for three months before becoming permanent. Effective October 1, mortgage servicers will receive $1,600 if the trial starts before a loan becomes more than 120 days delinquent, $1,200 for loans between 121 days and 210 days delinquent and $400.00 for loans placed in the trial stage after being 210 days delinquent.
Servicers are prohibited from requiring borrowers to make past due payments before entering a trial modification which would result in a higher fee for the servicer.
Friday, June 17, 2011
U.S. SUPREME COURT RULES: YOUTH'S AGE IS RELEVANT IN MIRANDA ANALYSIS
A youth’s age is relevant when deciding whether a person being questioned by police is in “custody,” triggering the need for a Miranda warning, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in a 5-4 decision.
At issue was whether J.D.B., a 13-year-old special education student, had the right to a Miranda warning when he was pulled from his middle school classroom and questioned by a police officer. The North Carolina Supreme Court had ruled the teen was not in custody when he was questioned, so a Miranda warning was not required.
Justice Sonia Sotomayor, who wrote the majority opinion, said age is relevant to the analysis and remanded for a new determination of whether the student was in custody. “To hold, as the state requests, that a child’s age is never relevant to whether a suspect has been taken into custody—and thus to ignore the very real differences between children and adults—would be to deny children the full scope of the procedural safeguards that Miranda guarantees to adults,” she wrote.
The ABA had filed an amicus brief in the case arguing that children, as compared to adults, have unique vulnerabilities. It is the third time in recent years that the ABA has filed an amicus brief on the unique status of children.
At issue was whether J.D.B., a 13-year-old special education student, had the right to a Miranda warning when he was pulled from his middle school classroom and questioned by a police officer. The North Carolina Supreme Court had ruled the teen was not in custody when he was questioned, so a Miranda warning was not required.
Justice Sonia Sotomayor, who wrote the majority opinion, said age is relevant to the analysis and remanded for a new determination of whether the student was in custody. “To hold, as the state requests, that a child’s age is never relevant to whether a suspect has been taken into custody—and thus to ignore the very real differences between children and adults—would be to deny children the full scope of the procedural safeguards that Miranda guarantees to adults,” she wrote.
The ABA had filed an amicus brief in the case arguing that children, as compared to adults, have unique vulnerabilities. It is the third time in recent years that the ABA has filed an amicus brief on the unique status of children.
GEORGIA PHYSICIANS MUST DISCLOSE WHETHER THEY HAVE MALPRACTICE INSURANCE
Georgia Governor Nathan Deal signed a law last month, requiring physicians to inform the Georgia Composite Medical Board if they are insured. The board will make the information available on its website as part of a physician's public profile. Physicians must disclose whether they are covered by insurance when asked by patients. If the physician declines to inform his or her patients, the physician is subject to disciplinary action by the board.
Tuesday, June 14, 2011
THE STATUS OF FEDERAL SUPPORT FOR GIFTED STUDENTS
Congress eliminated Jacob K. Javits grants for research on gifted and talented education in the fiscal 2011 budget agreement.
The Talent Act, sponsored by Sen. Charles E. "Chuck" Grassley, R-Iowa as S.857 and by Rep. Elton W. Gallegly, R.-Calif. as H.R.1674 has put forth a set of changes to incorporate gifted education in the next authorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. It would:
• Overhaul the Javits research grants;
• Require assessments capable of measuring growth among high-performing students;
• Include gifted education in federal professional development grants for teachers; and
• Call for schools to include plans to serve high-performing students in poverty in their Title I or school improvement plans.
Sen. Grassley said he considers the bill "a marker for the upcoming reauthorization debate for the Elementary and Secondary Education Act.”
For more details on the bill, see Talent Act presentation.ppt delivered at the Senate.
The Talent Act, sponsored by Sen. Charles E. "Chuck" Grassley, R-Iowa as S.857 and by Rep. Elton W. Gallegly, R.-Calif. as H.R.1674 has put forth a set of changes to incorporate gifted education in the next authorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. It would:
• Overhaul the Javits research grants;
• Require assessments capable of measuring growth among high-performing students;
• Include gifted education in federal professional development grants for teachers; and
• Call for schools to include plans to serve high-performing students in poverty in their Title I or school improvement plans.
Sen. Grassley said he considers the bill "a marker for the upcoming reauthorization debate for the Elementary and Secondary Education Act.”
For more details on the bill, see Talent Act presentation.ppt delivered at the Senate.
Monday, May 9, 2011
Are some elementary and secondary schools discouraging the enrollment of undocumented immigrant children?
The U.S. Department of Justice Civil Rights Division, the U.S. Department of Education Office for Civil Rights and Office of the General Counsel addressed this question in a "dear colleague" letter issued May 6, 2011. "Recently, we have become aware of student enrollment practices that may chill or discourage the participation, or lead to the exclusion, of students based on their or their parents' or guardians' actual or perceived citizenship or immigration status," says the "dear colleague" letter.
The letter cites Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits discrimination based on such factors as race, color, or national origin, by public schools. It also cites Plyler v. Doe, the 1982 decision by the U.S. Supreme Court that held a state may not deny access to a basic public education to any child, whether that child is present in the country legally or not.
The letter and accompanying materials clarify that schools may ask for birth certificates to establish age requirements, but may not bar enrollment because a child has a foreign birth certificate. Furthermore, schools may not deny enrollment if parents refuse to provide a child's Social Security number.
The letter cites Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits discrimination based on such factors as race, color, or national origin, by public schools. It also cites Plyler v. Doe, the 1982 decision by the U.S. Supreme Court that held a state may not deny access to a basic public education to any child, whether that child is present in the country legally or not.
The letter and accompanying materials clarify that schools may ask for birth certificates to establish age requirements, but may not bar enrollment because a child has a foreign birth certificate. Furthermore, schools may not deny enrollment if parents refuse to provide a child's Social Security number.
Friday, April 22, 2011
Justices Ask Obama Administration Its Views On Special Education Case
This week the U.S. Supreme Court asked the Obama administration for its views on whether a parent may bring a negligence claim against a school district that allegedly failed to identify a high school student's disabilities.
The justices asked the U.S. solicitor general's office to give its view on the issue raised under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA)
The case involves an appeal filed by a California school district of two lower court rulings that the mother had a valid legal claim under the IDEA that the district had failed to identify her daughter's disabilities.
The facts in court papers show that when the student was in 10th grade, her teachers became concerned that her work was "gibberish and incomprehensible" and that she had failed every class. The school district referred the girl to a mental health counselor, who recommended that the student be evaluated for learning disabilities. The district did not follow the recommendation, and it promoted the girl to the 11th grade.
The mother later made a request for an individualized education program (IEP)for her daughter, and the district determined that the girl was eligible for special education services for a learning disability.
The mother brought an administrative claim under the IDEA, arguing that the school district failed under the law's "child find" requirement to identify the girl's disabilities sooner. That requirement obliges states to ensure that all children with disabilities who are in need of special education services are identified, located, and evaluated.
An administrative law judge largely sided with the family, ordering as much as 150 hours of compensatory tutoring for the girl's lost educational opportunities.
The school district appealed that ruling in federal district court, arguing among other things that if the family prevailed, students with disabilities would be able to bring "educational malpractice" claims against districts.
The district court rejected the school district's arguments, and a panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit, in San Francisco, also sided with the family.
In a 2-1 decision, the 9th Circuit panel rejected the school district's arguments. The majority held that there was a broad jurisdictional mandate under the federal special education law, and that in this case there was "willful inaction" on the district's part in the face of numerous "red flags" about the student's disabilities.
The appeal is Compton Unified School District v. Addison (Case No. 10-886). The solicitor general's office usually takes several months to respond to the high court's request for its views in a case.
A
The justices asked the U.S. solicitor general's office to give its view on the issue raised under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA)
The case involves an appeal filed by a California school district of two lower court rulings that the mother had a valid legal claim under the IDEA that the district had failed to identify her daughter's disabilities.
The facts in court papers show that when the student was in 10th grade, her teachers became concerned that her work was "gibberish and incomprehensible" and that she had failed every class. The school district referred the girl to a mental health counselor, who recommended that the student be evaluated for learning disabilities. The district did not follow the recommendation, and it promoted the girl to the 11th grade.
The mother later made a request for an individualized education program (IEP)for her daughter, and the district determined that the girl was eligible for special education services for a learning disability.
The mother brought an administrative claim under the IDEA, arguing that the school district failed under the law's "child find" requirement to identify the girl's disabilities sooner. That requirement obliges states to ensure that all children with disabilities who are in need of special education services are identified, located, and evaluated.
An administrative law judge largely sided with the family, ordering as much as 150 hours of compensatory tutoring for the girl's lost educational opportunities.
The school district appealed that ruling in federal district court, arguing among other things that if the family prevailed, students with disabilities would be able to bring "educational malpractice" claims against districts.
The district court rejected the school district's arguments, and a panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit, in San Francisco, also sided with the family.
In a 2-1 decision, the 9th Circuit panel rejected the school district's arguments. The majority held that there was a broad jurisdictional mandate under the federal special education law, and that in this case there was "willful inaction" on the district's part in the face of numerous "red flags" about the student's disabilities.
The appeal is Compton Unified School District v. Addison (Case No. 10-886). The solicitor general's office usually takes several months to respond to the high court's request for its views in a case.
A
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)