Use and Abuse of the J-1 Exchange Visitor Teacher Program
2025 FACT SHEET
Highlights
Public and private schools use the J-1 exchange visitor teacher program to employ teachers from abroad in the United States. Despite facilitating employment, the J-1 visa program lacks the appropriate safeguards to prevent workplace abuse, harming J-1 teachers and U.S. educators alike.
The U.S. Department of State, which oversees this employment program, provides very little oversight over employer recruitment practices and J-1 teachers’ working conditions. Additionally, publicly available data about the J-1 teacher program is limited.
Reforms are needed to ensure that there is adequate regulatory oversight over the J-1 visa program and its teacher recruitment practices. The U.S. Department of Labor should have an oversight role, J-1 teachers must be informed of their workplace rights, and more transparency is needed about schools’ use of the J-1 teacher program.
DPE supports reforming the J-1 exchange visitor program based on the experiences of union professionals. The more than four million members of DPE’s 24 affiliated unions include U.S. citizens, permanent residents, and people working on nonimmigrant visas, including the J-1 visa. Employers routinely use the J-1 exchange visitor program, including the teacher program, to take advantage of the program’s lack of safeguards. Reform is needed to ensure that J-1 programs with an employment component are regulated as work visa programs.
The J-1 Exchange Visitor Teacher Program: History and Eligibility
The J-1 exchange visitor teacher program allows accredited public and private schools to bring teachers from abroad to work full-time in the United States. This visitor teacher program is one of several categories in the J-1 exchange visitor program, a nonimmigrant visa program that permits people from other countries to temporarily work or study in the United States. While Congress established the J-1 program to promote cultural exchange and strengthen diplomatic ties between the United States and other countries, most people enter the United States on J-1 visas to work.[1]
A school may hire someone through the J-1 teacher program if that person meets the qualifications for teaching at the pre-K or K-12 levels in their home country and if they have at minimum a degree equivalent to a U.S. bachelor’s degree in either education or the subject in which they intend to teach.[2]
J-1 visas for teachers are valid for an initial three years, and they may be renewed for up to two additional years.[3] Schools may hire returning J-1 teachers if they have resided outside of the U.S. for at least two years and continue to meet the program’s eligibility requirements.[4]
Few Regulations Govern the J-1 Teacher Program
The U.S. Department of State (hereafter State Department), which oversees the J-1 exchange visitor program, provides very little oversight of the recruitment practices and working conditions faced by J-1 teachers.[5] While employment is a core component of the J-1 teacher visa, the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) has no formal oversight role. Despite facilitating employment, the J-1 visa program lacks the appropriate safeguards to prevent workplace abuse, harming J-1 teachers and U.S. educators alike.
Typically, teachers in other countries learn about the J-1 teacher program and apply to work in the U.S. through unregulated labor recruitment agencies. Unlike work visa programs governed by DOL regulations, agencies recruiting for the J-1 teacher program are allowed to charge recruitment fees and other expenses, which can amount to tens of thousands of dollars.[6] J-1 teachers typically cannot pay this total upfront, leaving them saddled with high-interest debt owed to their recruiters before they even arrive in the U.S. and start teaching.[7] According to a 2014 study by Education International, “recruiting agencies commonly earn between $5,000 and $20,000 for each teacher they place in a U.S. teaching position, with fees being collected from teachers or school districts, and in some cases, both.”[8] This profit-driven business model, coupled with unregulated recruitment practices, underscores the predatory nature of many of these agencies.
Contrary to comparable temporary work visa programs, the uncapped J-1 teacher program has no specific wage regulations other than the requirement that positions must “comply with any applicable collective bargaining agreement.”[9] Therefore, absent a union contract, employers may elect to pay J-1 teachers significantly less than they pay other teachers working in the same school. Lacking even the bare minimum protections of work visa programs, school systems that employ J-1 teachers do not need to seek any type of pre-approval or labor certification from the DOL. Employers, in most cases, are not required to pay federal FICA taxes for J-1 employees, providing a strong financial incentive for schools to skip past available, qualified U.S. educators.[10]
Quantifying the J-1 Exchange Visitor Teacher Program
Source: Compiled from “Facts and Figures: BridgeUSA J-1 Visa Basics,” U.S. Department of State (see footnote 11 for citation).
The State Department does not release substantive data about who is employed through the J-1 teacher program, what they are paid, and in what schools the J-1 teachers work. The limited public data makes clear that K-12 school systems are increasing their use of the J-1 teacher program to recruit teachers. However, we do not know the ages, genders, or countries of origin of J-1 teachers nor the specific public or private schools that employ them. The chart below shows the number of J-1 teacher program participants in the United States from 2016 to 2023. With the exception of 2020, when there was a sharp drop in the number of J-1 teachers in the country due to travel and nonimmigrant visa restrictions during the COVID-19 pandemic, the number of J-1 teachers steadily increased during this period such that by 2023, the number of J-1 teachers in the United States was 154 percent greater than in 2016.[11]
The lack of detailed program data makes it difficult to understand the degree to which specific school districts are relying on the J-1 teacher program and its impact on the overall labor market conditions for educators; however, the State Department has periodically reported on the number of J-1 teachers at the state level. Indeed, some states disproportionately rely on the J-1 teacher program. Between 2016 and 2023, six states – North Carolina, Texas, Florida, South Carolina, Arizona, and California – had over 2,000 J-1 teachers working in U.S. schools. North Carolina schools employed the most J-1 teachers, with over 4,800 working in the state between 2016 and 2023.
Workplace Rights for J-1 Teachers
Source: Compiled from “Facts and Figures: BridgeUSA J-1 Visa Basics,” U.S. Department of State
J-1 teachers working in unionized schools have the right to become members of and fully participate in their unions, and are protected by applicable labor law. J-1 teachers working in public schools are protected by state public sector labor law, while those working in private or charter schools are fully protected by the National Labor Relations Act, including having the right to participate in efforts to organize new unions at their workplaces. Additionally, J-1 visa program regulations clearly state that program sponsors and employers are not allowed to retaliate against J-1 visa program participants for consulting with advocacy, community, and legal organizations, filing complaints against sponsors and employers, testifying in proceedings, or exercising any other right afforded to them under the law.[12]
Despite these legal rights, some J-1 teachers may feel unable to participate fully in their unions because of fear of deportation.[13] In addition, while J-1 teachers are fully within their legal rights to participate in work stoppages and other concerted activities, certain visa rules could create uncertainty for these teachers about possible retaliation from sponsor organizations or their employers.[14] The lack of government oversight of recruitment and labor practices in the program is a strong factor in creating an environment rife with intimidation as few formal pathways exist for these educators to report abuses without fear of retaliation.
Teacher Shortages and the J-1 Teacher Program
Teachers and school administrators across the country have decried a shortage of educators for decades. Beginning in early 2020, the COVID-19 pandemic led to an even greater crisis in school staffing shortages, as many teachers either left their jobs for other teaching opportunities, retired early, or chose to leave the profession entirely due to burnout.[15] Especially since visa restrictions were lifted in 2021, school districts seized the opportunity to employ J-1 teachers, filling some of the vacant teaching positions at their schools, at least on a temporary basis. Relying on the recruitment of people from abroad to teach in the United States – even if only for a maximum of five years at a time – is an unsustainable fix to the alleviation of the burden faced by many school administrators and their staff since the start of the pandemic.[16] As a report by the American Federation of Teachers (AFT) about international teacher recruitment notes, “[w]hile the hiring of overseas-trained teachers may be a Band-aid treating the symptom of the teacher shortage, it is in no way a cure for the conditions that caused the shortage in the first place.”[17]
A Case Study of Exploitation in New Mexico
The lack of regulatory structures leaves J-1 teachers vulnerable to abuse. We outline a particularly egregious example below, which made headlines in New Mexico in early 2021.
In January 2021, the New Mexico Attorney General sued a recruitment agency, Total Teaching Solutions International (TTSI), for charging teachers excessive recruitment fees and making misleading statements about the agency’s ability to help teachers obtain J-1 visas. According to the lawsuit, the recruitment agency threatened teachers with lawsuits and deportation if they did not pay their hefty monthly recruitment fees.[18] Furthermore, there were signs of direct collaboration between TTSI and at least one employing school district (for example, the CEO of TTSI was married to the superintendent of the school district in the town of Ruidoso). The lawsuit alleged that TTSI used its association with the superintendent of Ruidoso schools to boost its legitimacy and build connections with other New Mexico School Districts.[19]
The Attorney General’s lawsuit was filed after TTSI sued several J-1 teachers and served them at their schools for allegedly failing to keep up with their exorbitant monthly payments to the agency. These teachers, with the help of their union, AFT, successfully defeated these lawsuits and raised awareness of the exploitative conditions faced by J-1 teachers.[20]
The New Mexico lawsuit is just one example of recruitment agencies overcharging J-1 teachers. Until there is substantial change in the structure and regulations governing the J-1 teacher program, recruitment agencies will continue to charge steep recruitment fees that trap J-1 teachers in a cycle of debt.
Reforms to the J-1 Visa Program Are Needed
Significant regulatory changes are necessary to address widespread problems in the larger J-1 visa program and the exchange visitor teacher program specifically. These reforms must start with the recognition that the J-1 visa program is an employment visa, not solely a cultural exchange program. The State Department therefore needs to formalize a partnership with the DOL to implement the following recommendations. This list is not exhaustive of the necessary changes but addresses the J-1 visa program’s most pressing problems.
1.Oversight is needed
Broad and effective oversight is needed to guarantee that J-1 teachers have robust labor and employment protections, including wage regulations to ensure J-1 teachers are paid no less than their colleagues doing the same work.
2. Regulate recruitment practices
Recruitment practices must be regulated to prohibit recruiters and sponsors from charging recruitment fees to J-1 teachers and hold recruiters and employers jointly liable for abusive recruitment practices, including deceptive promises made during recruitment.
3. Empower J-1 teachers
J-1 teachers must be informed of their legal rights and have effective mechanisms for legal recourse when their rights are violated. J-1 teachers who assert labor and employment or civil rights claims or who are critical to the effective investigation and litigation of such proceedings must have their visas extended, be granted deferred action or other affirmative relief, or be provided with support to apply for U or T visas. Additionally, existing regulations that prohibit employer and sponsor retaliation against J-1 visa program participants who engage in protected activity or assert their rights under local, state, or federal laws must be strengthened and fully enforced. Finally, the regulations that permit program sponsors to suspend J-1 program participants if they “fail to pursue the activities for which he or she was admitted to the United States,” must be clarified to explicitly state that J-1 visa program participants have the right to engage in protected concerted activity under U.S. labor law.
4. Increase transparency of J-1 visa program
The State Department must increase transparency within the J-1 visa program by making information about visa sponsors and beneficiaries publicly available and easily accessible to the public. This includes sponsorship, recruiter, and employer contracts and fees, occupations, wages, employers, job sites, and demographic data.
Lastly, though the J-1 teacher program is administered by the federal government, state and local policymakers also have a role to play since public school systems employ a significant portion of J-1 teachers. The “Code for the Ethical International Recruitment and Employment of Teachers,” developed by education administrators, labor leaders, and academics, provides a template for how state education departments and school districts can engage with the J-1 teacher program responsibly and ensure they do not replicate abusive recruitment practices in their role as employers.[21]
May 2025
[1] 22 USC §2451.
[2] 22 CFR Section 62.24(d).
[3] 22 CFR Section 62.24(k).
[4] 22 CFR Section 62.24(l).
[5] While this factsheet is focused on the experiences of teachers working under the J-1 visa, extensive research has been conducted about the grueling working conditions often faced by those working under the J-1 summer work travel and au pair programs. See, e.g., “Shining a Light on Summer Work.” International Labor Recruitment Working Group. (2019). Retrieved from https://migrationthatworks.files.wordpress.com/2020/01/shining-a-light-on-summer-work.pdf and Costa, Daniel. “Au pair lawsuit reveals collusion and large-scale wage theft from migrant women through State Department’s J-1 visa program.” Economic Policy Institute. (January 15, 2019). Retrieved from
[6] Villagran, Lauren. “Foreign teachers are paying to work in New Mexico public schools. Here's why.” Las Cruces Sun News. (October 16, 2018). Retrieved from https://www.lcsun-news.com/story/news/education/2018/10/16/foreign-teachers-pay-j-1-visas-nm-school-districts/1618327002/.
[7] “Visa Pages: U.S. Temporary Foreign Worker Visas.” Justice in Motion. (January 2020). Retrieved from https://www.justiceinmotion.org/_files/ugd/64f95e_cd79fd93290b461c96a53817f6a02c4b.pdf.
[8] Caravatti, Marie-Louise, et al. “Getting teacher migration and mobility right.” Education International (May 2014): p. 91. Retrieved from https://www.ei-ie.org/en/item/25652:getting-teacher-migration-and-mobility-right.
[9] 22 CFR Section 62.24(f).
[10] Costa, Daniel. “Guestworker diplomacy: J visas receive minimal oversight despite significant implications for the U.S. labor market.” Economic Policy Institute. (July 14, 2011). Retrieved from https://www.epi.org/publication/j_visas_minimal_oversight_despite_significant_implications_for_the_labor_ma/.
[11] U.S. Department of State. “Facts and Figures: BridgeUSA J-1 Visa Basics.” Cached page from January 19, 2024 via Internet Archive. Retrieved from https://web.archive.org/web/20250119144837/https://j1visa.state.gov/basics/facts-and-figures/.
[12] 22 CFR Section 62.10(d) states that: “No sponsor or employee of a sponsor may threaten program termination, remove from the program, ban from the program, adversely annotate an exchange visitor's SEVIS record, or otherwise retaliate against an exchange visitor solely because he/she has filed a complaint; instituted or caused to be instituted any proceeding; testified or is about to testify; consulted with an advocacy organization, community organization, legal assistance program or attorney about a grievance or other work-related legal matter; or exercised or asserted on behalf of himself/herself any right or protection.”
[13] Mabe, Rachel. “Trafficking in Teachers.” Oxford American. (August 25, 2020.) Retrieved from https://www.oxfordamerican.org/magazine/item/1963-trafficking-in-teachers.
[14] 22 CFR Section 62.40 states that a J-1 visa program sponsor is supposed to terminate an exchange visitor’s participation in the program if they “fail to pursue the activities for which he or she was admitted to the United States.”
[15] See, e.g., “Here Today, Gone Tomorrow? What America Must Do to Attract and Retain the Educators and School Staff Our Students Need.” American Federation of Teachers. (2022). Retrieved from https://www.aft.org/sites/default/files/media/2022/taskforcereport0722.pdf.
[16] See, e.g., Saslow, Eli. “An American Education.” The Washington Post. (October 2, 2022). Retrieved from https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2022/10/02/teacher-shortage-bullhead-city-arizona/.
[17] “Importing Educators: Causes and Consequences of International Teacher Recruitment.” American Federation of Teachers (2009): p. 25. Retrieved from https://www.aft.org/sites/default/files/media/2015/importingeducators0609.pdf.
[18] Carillo, Edmundo. “Suit: New Mexico firm cheats Philippine teachers.” Albuquerque Journal. (January 5, 2021). Retrieved from https://www.abqjournal.com/1533005/lawsuit-nm-company-taking-advantage-of-filipino-teachers.html.
[19] “Lawsuit alleges financial exploitation of immigrant teachers.” AP News. (January 6, 2021). Retrieved from https://apnews.com/general-news-6289008b86bb302fdfa55ce0fb71f4f9.
[20] “AFT fights exploitation of teachers from the Philippines.” American Federation of Teachers. January 27, 2021. Retrieved from https://www.aft.org/news/aft-fights-exploitation-teachers-philippines.
[21] “Code for the Ethical International Recruitment and Employment of Teachers.” Alliance for Ethical International Recruitment Practices. Retrieved from https://www.aft.org/sites/default/files/code_intl_recruitment_2017.pdf.