For teachers from the Philippines, getting hired to work in Alaska is only the first step

Julieth Tapado has met with recruiters each time Kodiak Island Borough School District held a screening event in Manila. (Photo by Brian Venua/KMXT)
Alaska school districts are ramping up international hiring. For some, that means sending their own recruiters to the Philippines. In Part 2 of this five part audio series, Mabuhay sa Alaska, KMXT's Brian Venua reports that the process can be pretty complicated, and it's only getting more stressful.
Julieth Tapado was one of hundreds of teachers waiting for the chance to impress recruiters from Alaska school districts earlier this year. She drove about an hour from Cavite City to the recruiting event in Manila, then waited even longer to get in. She said Alaska was at the top of her list — she hadn't applied anywhere else in the U.S.
'I'm curious and excited to work in Alaska because I believe the tradition and the culture is still not like other states,' Tapado said. She said she's heard the people are more genuine in places like Kodiak.
This is Tapado's third attempt to get a job in Alaska. She has friends and family that have been successful in Alaska, and she wants to join them.
'There are a lot of school districts looking, so I might be one of those blessed aspirants!' she said.
Serjoe Gutierrez has taught in Kodiak for the last three years. Now he also helps Alaska districts fill vacancies with teachers from his home country.
'This is the start of your dreams,' he told Tapado and 120 of her peers at the start of the event. They were the first of six groups about that size that the recruiters would meet on their 2025 recruiting trip. The administrators asked candidates about classroom management and how they connect with families. They were also looking for skills like English fluency and the ability to respond to questions quickly.
Each candidate had less than 10 minutes with recruiters. They could earn more time through a callback, but less than a third were asked for one.
That's where the process shifts to the bureaucracy around immigration.
'You need to go through (the) Visa Application Center, get your biometrics, get your pictures done,' Gutierrez said to the crowd of applicants. 'And once you're done, you need to schedule a U.S. Embassy interview.'
Teachers also have to pay hundreds of dollars in application fees to the U.S. embassy and work with the Philippine government's Department of Migrant Workers and its licensed agencies.
After arriving in the U.S., but before starting in classrooms, new teachers have to file for teacher certification and Social Security numbers.
All of the paperwork gets pretty complicated.
That's why at least seven Alaska districts, including Kodiak's, work with immigration lawyer Russell Ford. Ford, of FordMurry Law, is based in Maine but has public school districts and private schools across the country as clients.
He helped his Alaska clients figure out which visa was most appropriate.
'When we met them, most of their teachers were on J1,' Ford said.
J1 visas are supposed to promote international cultural exchange. They allow foreign nationals to live and work in the United States for three years and can be extended up to five years.
A former J1 visa holder can reapply after returning to their home country for two years. In the past, many Alaska school districts hired from abroad through third-party recruiting agencies that used J1 visas.
Now that administrators are recruiting directly with Ford's help, many have shifted to using H1B visas. Those are designed for high-skill jobs like teachers and allow for longer careers in the U.S.
'If everything is working out, then there's the possibility of sponsorship for permanent residence or a green card,' Ford said.
That opens the door for districts and communities to build long-term relationships with international hires.
Neil Frank Rivera Ferrer is the Philippines' consulate general in San Francisco and provides immigration services for Philippine nationals across 10 states, including Alaska. He said switching to the H1B visa is the right call.
'We would prefer if those that are coming to Alaska and coming to the U.S. in general, for work purposes, should get a work visa – the H1B visa instead of a J1 visa, which is really more of a temporary, cultural, short term visit to the U.S.,' Ferrer said.
But U.S. Citizen and Immigration Services issues a limited number of H1B visas each year. And President Donald Trump's administration has sworn to deport millions of illegal immigrants. Some legal immigrants have been caught in his crosshairs, too.
Ford said that's left his clients with more uncertainty about living in the U.S..
'I'm having conversations that are a little tougher – it's about people's fears,' Ford said. 'It's about – 'Can I go home? Should I go home? Can I travel? Do people want me here?' So I'm doing more counseling, and not from a legal sense, but just having someone to talk to.'
Ford said H1B applications have had a few more delays than before, but he's trying to run business as usual. He just makes sure to remind clients to be extra careful to follow the law and avoid attracting negative attention.
At least one Filipino migrant in Kodiak was arrested by the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, commonly known as ICE, in April. Elsewhere, ICE has deported legal Filipino immigrants.
But for candidates like Julieth Tapado at the recruiting event in Manila, the work is worth it. This wasn't her year — again — but she's already planning to try again next year.
'I'm still hoping that somehow, in God's time, in God's beautiful time, I could be able to achieve my dream working in Alaska as an English teacher,' Tapado said.
This story was originally published by KMXT, as part two of a five part audio series, Mabuhay sa Alaska.

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Learn with AIFact CheckingText to SpeechAI Summary

Related Articles

Chicago Tribune

5 hours ago

• Chicago Tribune

How Senate Republicans want to change the tax breaks in Trump's big bill

WASHINGTON — House and Senate Republicans are taking slightly different approaches when it comes to the tax cuts that lawmakers are looking to include in their massive tax and spending cuts bill. Republicans in the two chambers don't agree on the size of a deduction for state and local taxes. And they are at odds on such things as allowing people to use their health savings accounts to help pay for their gym membership, or whether electric vehicle and hybrid owners should have to pay an annual fee. The House passed its version shortly before Memorial Day. Now the Senate is looking to pass its version. While the two bills are similar on the major tax provisions, how they work out their differences in the coming weeks will determine how quickly they can get a final product over the finish line. President Donald Trump is pushing to have the legislation on his desk by July 4th. Here's a look at some of the key differences between the two bills: The child tax credit currently stands at $2,000 per child. The House bill temporarily boosts the child tax credit to $2,500 for the 2025 through 2028 tax years, roughly the length of President Donald Trump's second term. It also indexes the credit amount for inflation beginning in 2027. The Senate bill provides a smaller, initial bump-up to $2,200, but the bump is permanent, with the credit amount indexed for inflation beginning next year. Trump promised on the campaign trail that he would seek to end income taxes on tips, overtime and Social Security benefits. Also, he would give car buyers a new tax break by allowing them to deduct the interest paid on auto loans. The House and Senate bills incorporate those promises with temporary deductions lasting from the 2025 through 2028 tax years, but with some differences. The House bill creates a deduction on tips for those working in jobs that have customarily received tips. The House also provides for a deduction for overtime that's equal to the amount of OT a worker has earned. The Senate bill comes with more restrictions. The deduction for tips is limited to $25,000 per taxpayer and the deduction for overtime is limited to $12,500 per taxpayer. The House and Senate bills both provide a deduction of up to $10,000 for interest paid on loans for vehicles made in the United States. And on Social Security, the bills don't directly touch the program. Instead, they grant a larger tax deduction for Americans age 65 and older. The House sets the deduction at $4,000. The Senate sets it at $6,000. Both chambers include income limits over which the new deductions begin to phase out. The caps on state and local tax deductions, known in Washington as the SALT cap, now stand at $10,000. The House bill, in a bid to win over Republicans from New York, California and New Jersey, lifts the cap to $40,000 per household with incomes of less than $500,000. The credit phases down for households earning more than $500,000. The Senate bill keeps the cap at $10,000. That's a non-starter in the House, but Republicans in the two chambers will look to negotiate a final number over the coming weeks that both sides can accept. The House bill prohibits states from establishing new provider taxes or increasing existing taxes. These are taxes that Medicaid providers, such as hospitals, pay to help states finance their share of Medicaid costs. In turn, the taxes allow states to receive increased federal matching funds while generally holding providers harmless through higher reimbursements that offset the taxes paid. Such taxes now are effectively capped at 6%. The Senate looks to gradually lower that threshold for states that have expanded their Medicaid populations under the Affordable Care Act, or 'Obamacare,' until it reaches 3.5% in 2031, with exceptions for nursing homes and intermediate care facilities. Industry groups have warned that limiting the ability of states to tax providers may lead to some states making significant cuts to their Medicaid programs as they make up for the lost revenue in other ways. The Medicaid provision could be a flashpoint in the coming House and Senate negotiations. Sen. Josh Hawley, R-Mo., was highly critical of the proposed Senate changes. 'This needs a lot of work. It's really concerning and I'm really surprised by it,' he said. 'Rural hospitals are going to be in bad shape.' The House bill would allow companies for five years to fully deduct equipment purchases and domestic research and development expenses. The Senate bill includes no sunset, making the tax breaks permanent, which was a key priority of powerful trade groups such as the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. Republicans in both chambers are looking to scale back the clean energy tax credits enacted through then-President Joe Biden's climate law. It aimed to boost the nation's transition away from planet-warming greenhouse gas emissions toward renewable energy such as wind and solar power. Under the Senate bill, the tax credits for clean energy and home energy efficiency would still be phased out, but less quickly than under the House bill. Still, advocacy groups fear that the final measure will threaten hundreds of thousands of jobs and drive up household energy costs. The House bill would allow millions of Americans to use their health savings accounts to pay for gym memberships, with a cap of $500 for single taxpayers and $1,000 for joint filers. The Senate bill doesn't include such a provision. The House reinstates a charitable deduction for non-itemizers of $150 per taxpayer. The Senate bill increases that deduction for donations to $1,000 per taxpayer. Republicans in the House bill included a new annual fee of $250 for EV owners and $100 for hybrid owners that would be collected by state motor vehicle departments. The Senate bill excludes the proposed fees.

Miami Herald

6 hours ago

• Miami Herald

Young workers face stark Social Security reality

If Congress doesn't act, Social Security benefits will face a 23% across-the-board cut in 2033, according to the 2025 Social Security Trustees' Report. That's because the Social Security trust fund is projected to be depleted by that year. In other words, less money will be coming in than going out to pay 100% of total scheduled benefits owed to current and future beneficiaries. If the past is prelude, Congress will act at the last minute to make changes – but likely changes won't affect those in their 40s or older or those with income below certain thresholds. Don't miss the move: Subscribe to TheStreet's free daily newsletter That's sort of what happened in the 1980s. In 1983, Congress enacted reforms that were designed to address Social Security's short-term crisis and provide solvency for the next 75 years. They achieved this primarily through a combination of increased revenue (higher taxes, taxation of benefits, expanded coverage) and modest benefit reductions (delayed COLA, higher retirement age). So, let's say some brave souls rise to address Social Security's deficit between now and 2032, and let's say Congress, instead of doing what it did in the 1980s, just cuts benefits that will affect those in their 20s or younger, as well as those not yet born. Well, as an experiment, I made the assumptions below and then asked Google's AI (Gemini) to run the numbers. Assumptions and key data points Starting Year: 2025Current Age: 25Starting Earnings: $100,000Retirement Age: 70Life Expectancy: 95Historic Average Wage Index (AWI) Growth: Approximately 4.5% (based on historical data, though this can fluctuate significantly).Historic Average Cost-of living-adjustment (COLA): Approximately 3.8% (since 1975).Discount Rate for net present value (NPV): We'll use a real discount rate, which accounts for the time value of money beyond inflation. A common assumption for long-term real discount rate is 2.5% to 3%. We'll use 2.5% for this Retirement Age (FRA): For someone born in 2000 (25 in 2025), their FRA is Retirement Credits (DRC): For those born in 1943 or later, DRCs are 8% per year (or 2/3 of 1% per month) for delaying beyond FRA up to age Security Maximum Taxable Earnings (Bend Point for Earnings): For 2025, this is $176,100. This amount also grows with the AWI.2025 PIA Bend Points:90% of the first $1,226 of AIME32% of AIME between $1,226 and $7,39115% of AIME above $7,391 And here's what Gemini calculated. Without a 23% cut in benefits, the estimated monthly benefit for a 25-year-old today would be $25,232.26 in 2070 dollars. And the net present value of that stream of benefits to that 25-year-old in 2070 would be $5,392,977. Related: Social Security faces huge threat sooner than you think If, however, that very same 25-year-old experiences a 23% cut in benefits come 2023, here's how their benefit and the net present value of their benefits would change. Their estimated monthly benefit at age 70, in 2070 dollars, would be $19,428.84, a cut of $5,803.42. The net present value of those benefits would be $4,151,592, a difference of $1,241,385. By way of background, in January, Social Security estimated the average monthly benefit to be $1,976 for all retired workers, $3,089 for a retirement-aged couple with both receiving benefits, $3,761 for a widowed mother and two children, and $1,832 for a retirement-aged widow(er). In April 2025, people in the United States received Social Security benefits, according to the Pew Research Center. This represents more than one-fifth of the U.S. population and includes retired workers, their spouses and children, survivors of deceased workers, disabled workers, and those receiving Supplemental Security Income. Typically, Social Security represents about 14% of total income in retirement for those in the highest income quintile and 64% for those in the lowest income quintile. To be fair, there are multiple levers Congress can pull to address the deficit. As they did in the 1980s, Congress could increase taxes and reduce benefits. More Personal Finance: Social Security student loan garnishment sparks alarmThe most tax-friendly states for your retirement incomeSALT income tax deduction takes critical step forward "If policymakers chose to preserve benefits for older workers and retirees by placing the burden on younger workers through benefit cuts rather than increasing taxes (either by increasing the tax itself or by increasing the level of Social Security earnings subject to the tax), that plan wouldn't work soon enough to fix the problem with the next seven years," said HLS Retirement Consulting President Heather Schreiber. "However, on some level, the changes necessary to bring about meaningful change are likely going to be on younger generations, whether that comes through a combination approach of reducing benefits, as in your example, and some faster revenue raiser like increasing cashflow into the funds to avoid imminent benefit reductions to OASI recipients," Schreiber said. For the sake of argument, let's say Congress pulls only one lever in the future: They just cut benefits for younger and not-yet-born workers. What advice do experts have for that cohort? For his part, Jim Blankenship, a certified financial planner with Blankenship Financial Planning, said the advice for this cohort remains the same, even in light of the potential reduction in future Social Security benefits. "If you're still many years away from retirement, the key is to start saving early in retirement accounts. By doing so, you'll benefit from the power of compounding over time," he said. To maximize your savings, Blankenship said look for ways to reduce discretionary spending now. Related: How the IRS taxes Social Security income in retirement "The goal is to build enough of your own resources so that you're not dependent on Social Security - and therefore not vulnerable if those benefits are reduced from what's currently projected," he said. "If you take these steps and rely primarily on your own savings, any Social Security benefits you receive will simply be a bonus." And Schreiber offered the following thoughts. Start saving earlier and more aggressively. Maximize opportunities to save, especially in tax-efficient accounts like designated Roth accounts, if offered inside their employer's 401(k) or 403(b). Max fund health savings accounts (HSAs) if available in conjunction with participation in a high-deductible health plan; encourage young workers to refrain from spending the funds for current qualified health care expenses and instead earmark the account for post-retirement health care expenses. A 23% cut in lifetime Social Security benefits can't be ignored, but its impact can be mitigated if young people are encouraged to start saving early and should incorporate lower projected benefits into projection models to better prepare for the worst-case scenario. Incorporate other sources of guaranteed income to bridge the gap, such as deferred income annuities or laddering younger workers to not focus exclusively on the accumulation "number" but to also determine how much that wealth will generate in future income, and incorporate the potential impact of taxes into the conversations. Start conversations early about tax efficiencies during retirement to avoid even further reductions to the net income received from Social Security due to unintended federal income taxes and Medicare premium surcharges, or costly health care/LTC with a benefit cut, younger workers should still understand that Social Security is not going" broke" and that, with life expectancy on the rise, particularly for this cohort, the benefit of waiting to claim as late as age 70 will help mitigate the benefit cut, assuming a slightly below-average to average life expectancy. Related: Senate proposes big change to Social Security, SALT income tax deduction The Arena Media Brands, LLC THESTREET is a registered trademark of TheStreet, Inc.

Yahoo

11 hours ago

• Yahoo

Social Security's 2026 Cost-of-Living Adjustment (COLA) Estimate Is Getting a "Trump Bump" -- Here's How Much Extra You Might Receive

As many as nine out of 10 retirees rely on their Social Security income to cover some portion of their expenses. Estimates for Social Security's 2026 cost-of-living adjustment (COLA) are climbing, and President Trump's tariff and trade policy looks to be the culprit. Though an above-average COLA for a fifth-consecutive year would be welcome on paper, retirees continue to get the short end of the stick when it comes to annual raises. The $23,760 Social Security bonus most retirees completely overlook › Last month, Social Security's retired-worker benefit made history, with the average payout topping $2,000 for the first time since the program's inception. Although this represents a modest monthly benefit, it's nevertheless proved vital to helping aging workers cover their expenses. In each of the prior 23 years, pollster Gallup surveyed retirees about their reliance on the Social Security income they're receiving. Between 80% and 90% of respondents noted it was a "major" or "minor" income source. In other words, only around one in 10 retirees could, in theory, make do without their Social Security check. For an overwhelming majority of Social Security beneficiaries, nothing is more important than knowing precisely how much they'll receive each month -- and that begins with the program's annual cost-of-living adjustment (COLA), which is announced during the second week of October. This year's COLA announcement will be of particular interest, with President Donald Trump's tariff and trade policies expected to directly affect how much Social Security beneficiaries will receive per month in 2026. But before digging into the specifics of how President Trump's policies are expected to impact the pocketbooks of seniors, survivors, and workers with disabilities, it's important to understand the building blocks of what Social Security's COLA is and why it matters. The program's COLA is effectively the "raise" passed along on a near-annual basis that accounts for the impact of inflation (rising prices) on benefits. For example, if a large basket of goods and services increased in cost by 3% from one year to the next, Social Security benefits would need to climb by a commensurate amount, or buying power for Social Security recipients would decrease. In the 35 years following the issuance of the first retired-worker check in January 1940, COLAs were assigned at random by special sessions of Congress. Only a total of 11 COLAs were passed along during this timeline, with no adjustments made in the 1940s. Beginning in 1975, the Consumer Price Index for Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers (CPI-W) was adopted as Social Security's inflationary measure that would allow for annual cost-of-living adjustments. The CPI-W has over 200 spending categories, each of which has its own unique percentage weighting. These weightings are what allow the CPI-W to be expressed as a single figure each month, which leads to crisp month-to-month and year-to-year comparisons to see if prices are, collectively, rising (inflation) or declining (deflation). When calculating Social Security's COLA, only CPI-W readings from the third quarter (July through September) are taken into consideration. If the average CPI-W reading in the third quarter of the current year is higher than the comparable period of the previous year, inflation has occurred, and beneficiaries are due for a beefier payout. Following a decade of anemic raises in the 2010s -- three years during the decade (2010, 2011, and 2016) saw no COLA passed along due to deflation -- beneficiaries have enjoyed four consecutive years of above-average cost-of-living adjustments and are hoping for this streak to continue. A historic increase in U.S. money supply during the COVID-19 pandemic sent the prevailing rate of inflation soaring to a four-decade high. This resulted in COLAs of 5.9% in 2022, 8.7% in 2023, 3.2% in 2024, and 2.5% in 2025, respectively. For context, the average annual increase in benefits since 2010 is 2.3%. While estimates for Social Security's 2026 cost-of-living adjustment came in below this average shortly after President Donald Trump took office for his nonconsecutive second term, the script has now been flipped. Nonpartisan senior advocacy group The Senior Citizens League (TSCL) was forecasting a 2.2% COLA for 2026 as recently as March. Meanwhile, independent Social Security and Medicare policy analyst Mary Johnson, who retired from TSCL last year, was calling for a 2.2% increase in April following the release of the March inflation report from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS). After the release of the May inflation report from the BLS, both TSCL and Johnson are now forecasting a 2026 COLA of 2.5%. A 2.5% COLA would increase the average retired-worker benefit by $50 per month next year, as well as lift monthly checks for the typical worker with disabilities and survivor beneficiary by $40 and $39, respectively. This 0.3% increase in both forecasts over the past couple of months is estimated to boost the average Social Security payout (for all beneficiaries) by approximately $5.57 per month in 2026. This "Trump bump" is the result of the president's tariff and trade policies having a very modest inflationary impact on domestic prices. Charging a global import duty on all countries while imposing higher "reciprocal tariff rates" on dozens of countries that have historically run adverse trade imbalances with the U.S. can result in these higher costs being passed along to consumers. Though a lot can change with Trump's tariff and trade policy in the coming weeks and months, its current design points to a modest bump in the 2026 COLA. On paper, a fifth consecutive year where COLAs are above average (compared to the previous 16 years) probably sounds great. With the average retired-worker payout cresting $2,000 per month, an added $50 per month would be welcome in 2026. But the fact of the matter is that a 0.3% bump in COLA estimates since Trump introduced his tariff and trade policy doesn't remotely move the needle when it comes to what retirees have been shortchanged for more than a decade. Though the CPI-W is designed to be an all-encompassing measure of inflation, it has an inherent flaw that can be seen in its full name. Specifically, it tracks the spending habits of "urban wage earners and clerical workers," who, in many instances, are working-age Americans not currently receiving a Social Security benefit. Urban wage earners and clerical workers spend their money very differently than seniors. Whereas the former has a higher percentage of their monthly budgets devoted to things like education, apparel, and transportation, seniors spend a higher percentage on shelter and medical care services. Even though an overwhelming majority of Social Security beneficiaries are aged 62 and above, the CPI-W doesn't factor in this added importance of shelter and medical care services inflation. The end result for retirees has been a persistent decline in the buying power of a Social Security dollar. According to a study conducted by TSCL, the purchasing power of a Social Security dollar has dropped by 20% since 2010. A very modest "Trump bump" isn't going to offset this. What's more, the aforementioned two costs that matter most to retirees -- shelter and medical care services -- have had higher trailing-12-month (TTM) inflation rates than the annually issued Social Security COLA. The BLS inflation report for May showed TTM increases of 3.9% for shelter and 3% for medical care services, respectively. As long as the program's cost-of-living adjustment trails the annual inflation rate for these two key expenses, retirees will continue getting the short end of the stick. If you're like most Americans, you're a few years (or more) behind on your retirement savings. But a handful of little-known could help ensure a boost in your retirement income. One easy trick could pay you as much as $23,760 more... each year! Once you learn how to maximize your Social Security benefits, we think you could retire confidently with the peace of mind we're all after. Join Stock Advisor to learn more about these Motley Fool has a disclosure policy. Social Security's 2026 Cost-of-Living Adjustment (COLA) Estimate Is Getting a "Trump Bump" -- Here's How Much Extra You Might Receive was originally published by The Motley Fool