Category: International

  • The new international education strategy settles the policy direction – now we need to make it work

    The new international education strategy settles the policy direction – now we need to make it work

    It’s easy to think of international student recruitment as a numbers game.

    Inside institutions and within partners like IDP, we sit and analyse data to work out how many students will come to the UK, what institutions they will go to, into what disciplines, from what markets.

    As we pore over Tableau dashboards or – often – spreadsheets, it would be easy to forget that behind every number is not only a student, but an entire support system allowing, enabling and encouraging them on their international student journey.

    Last week’s International Education Strategy (IES), in a departure from its 2019 predecessor, didn’t get into international student number targets but instead plumped for an overall export goal of £40bn by 2030, spanning the whole gamut of internationalisation activity across the education sector.

    The rumbling (and often toxic) debate around net migration statistics continues to cast a gloomy shadow, so, understandably, it’s difficult for the government to gun for a numbers-based international student recruitment strategy when international students are such a large part of the overall migration number – around 36 per cent at last count. This is also, perhaps, the reason that endorsement of the strategy sees the FCDO teaming up with DfE and DBT, and no public backing from No. 10 or the Home Office. The wider focus of the strategy offers the opportunity though, to make the most of the government’s international education champion Sir Steve Smith, a role that is both the envy of other countries and a critical conduit between government and universities.

    Let’s not kid ourselves though: it’s clear that sustainable international recruitment in higher education will play a big role in reaching that goal. And the strategy is clear about where government expects higher education institutions should focus: on responsible recruitment, high-quality student experience, and “world class outcomes for graduates.”

    The discourse on outcomes is positive because it appears to go beyond the course completion rates that the BCA metrics capture, and degree classifications, to speak to the benefits students gain from their education, including graduate-level employment. Following many rounds of student sentiment research, as part of our Emerging Futures surveys, we know graduate employment outcomes remain the most important factor influencing student choice.

    A story of “us”

    The difference between the immigration white paper and the IES is the scope for immediate action. The BCA changes were clear, and institutions sprang into action to get their house in order. In the absence of a universal evidence-based for outcomes, we need to think about how universities prove they are doing the “right thing” here and how to get that message not only back to the government departments involved but also out to future students as a reason to come and study in the UK in the first place.

    The IES offers a settled view of government policy on international education that, all being well, should extend for the rest of this parliament. There is an opportunity, now, to respond positively and develop thinking further about how we can enable international graduates to have the best opportunity to develop skills to work and contribute professionally to our national workforce.

    International graduates can not only help fill local and national skills gaps but will also send that clear message to future students that support is available – support as an investment in them and their futures, just as they have invested in us. Simply put, this is the outcome that students are most interested in and the one most likely to reattract students to our institutions, in the face of stiff global competition.

    To keep ahead of the argument, we need to bring these outcome stories to life. It’s reassuring that there was commitment in the refreshed IES to continued promotion through the British Council’s Study UK campaign.

    Let’s tell the story about the student who came here and moved to the Innovation Founder route to start their own business. Let’s tell the story about the students who discovered new things about themselves during their studies; those who were able to explore politics and talk about their views safely; those who found new passions, new hobbies, new language skills. The ones who now say “aye” instead of “yes” or who call you “mate” or “pal” or “mucker” having made lifelong friends in their classrooms, student flats and in part-time jobs – the very places that support our university towns and cities and bring rich culture and diversity.

    We need to find new ways to bring these tales of the friendships forged, loves found and adventures taken – all while studying for a world-class degree in a safe, inclusive, welcoming environment – to the students of the future and those who have influence over them. Already, Brand Scotland are doing some stellar work in this space like this story of entrepreneurship.

    Pragmatism aligns with purpose

    Some early commentary suggests not much has changed between the 2019 IES and the 2026 version. For those of us who have been in the sector long enough, there are throwbacks to Tony Blair’s Prime Minister’s Initiative (PMI) in 1999. Both focus on strengthening the UK’s global education presence with an emphasis on partnerships and collaboration. This time around the focus leans more to taking the UK to the world, but for institutions to remain financially viable, we still need to bring the world to the UK. TNE and inbound student recruitment must be co-joined strategies, and one does not replace the other.

    Sustainable growth and a focus on quality is a sensible approach, one we all need to commit to and one we welcome. That focus is the right thing for the international students and in turn the right thing for domestic students, teaching staff and potential employers. At IDP, we remain concerned over English language testing. Appropriate preparation/testing is one clear way to ensure students arrive ready to succeed and to make the most of their time in our classrooms and in our communities.

    Linked to the focus on quality, we’ll also hold ourselves to account with compliance and we expect others in our space to do the same. We hope everyone shares that view. Our ambition is to be the most compliant recruitment partner to our UK partners – and our global partners, for that matter. To do this, we will work closely with all universities to analyse trends that point towards risk and we’ll act on that to maintain sustainable growth from key markets. We’ll continue to change our ways of working to fit with the Agent Quality Framework and we’ll continue to put students at the centre of what we do.

    For this to work, we’ll all have to adjust our lenses on what we want to achieve. Our commitment is simple: let’s re-forecast the numbers in the Tableau dashboards (and spreadsheets) to ensure the students behind the data points are given the best opportunity to thrive and to become successful graduates and positive ambassadors of our world-class education system.

    ***

    In the current academic year Wonkhe and IDP plan to convene a community of institutions keen to share ideas on further building the evidence base for quality, student experience and student outcomes as part of their sustainable international recruitment strategies. If you would like to be involved, please get in touch.

    This article is published as part of Wonkhe’s partnership with IDP.

    Source link

  • What’s missing from the UK’s international student offer?

    What’s missing from the UK’s international student offer?

    It’s been over six years since the last International Education Strategy.

    We now have a new one – with three core ambitions, including to “sustainably recruit high-quality international students.”

    But this isn’t really the higher education international education strategy. That’s to come.

    The government’s approach to international student recruitment in HE is parked almost entirely to the Education Sector Action Group (ESAG) – a sector-led body tasked with producing an action plan for higher education.

    If nothing else, that should be a good opportunity to get some actual international student voices into the mix – they’ve been notably absent from previous iterations and are hard to find in this high level document too.

    The published strategy commits to “work with the sector” through ESAG on student experience, quality outcomes, housing, infrastructure, support systems, and responsible recruitment. The details will follow.

    Since I last looked at a bunch of strategies from “competitor” countries, I’ve continued to keep an eye on what other countries commit to – and so the question remains – what should be in the higher education action plan when it arrives?

    Graduate outcomes

    The published strategy promises “world-class outcomes for graduates” through ESAG working with institutions, though it doesn’t specify what targets or baseline measurements ESAG should develop – so what have other countries committed to?

    The UK collects some international graduate outcomes data through the Graduate Outcomes survey, but coverage is poor and deteriorating – response rates for non-UK students stood at just 11 per cent in 2021/22 compared to 51 per cent for UK students, and in 2021, HESA stopped telephoning international graduates to follow up non-responses, a cost-saving measure that further reduced data quality.

    Back in 2019, the then education secretary wrote that:

    …it will be critical to ensure the OfS makes public transparent data on the outcomes achieved by international students.

    But five years later, the UK still lacks robust, representative data on where international graduates end up or whether they’re employed.

    Recent Graduate Outcomes data shows rising dissatisfaction among international students, particularly at postgraduate level, with nearly 30 per cent of non-EU postgraduates reporting they’re not using what they learned. But with response rates so low, it’s unclear whether this represents the full picture or just a particularly dissatisfied minority who chose to respond.

    Finland sets explicit retention targets and tracks employment rates post-graduation, with ministry data showing improvement over time and explicitly linking recruitment to national R&D targets and skilled worker shortages through the internationalisation programme and global networks and accompanying strategy document.

    Ireland’s Global Citizens 2030 lists specific indicators – retention, graduation and first employment of international learners, employer satisfaction, and mobility rates – all monitored and reported, as detailed in the IUA publication. Germany’s strategy on the internationalisation of higher education institutions references federal skilled worker shortages and notes international graduates are “particularly attractive for the German labour market”, with DAAD data showing retention rates among the highest in the OECD alongside Canada.

    The Netherlands publishes detailed stay rates through Nuffic research, tracking both immediate post-graduation employment and five-year retention, with the government explicitly noting housing as a major barrier to retention. France’s Cour des comptes found in March 2025 that tracking was inadequate, recommending systematic cohort studies in its evaluation of attractiveness and accompanying synthesis report.

    Perhaps ESAG’s action plan should commit to systematic, robust tracking of international graduate outcomes with adequate response rates.

    Student wellbeing

    The strategy says government will “work closely with the sector” through ESAG on student experience and quality outcomes, but doesn’t specify what this means in practice – so what binding or voluntary frameworks have other countries established?

    Ireland’s International Education Mark creates statutory requirements through its QQI Code of Practice – providers must designate appropriate personnel for learner support, establish mechanisms for emergency financial support, foster a supportive wellbeing environment, create feedback mechanisms, provide intercultural competence training for staff, and maintain written agent agreements, while QQI assesses compliance through panels, and authorisation can be refused, conditioned, or revoked.

    Australia’s National Code under the ESOS framework requires registered providers to give students information about support services and offer reasonable support at no additional cost – providers must have documented critical incident policies, provide information on employment rights, give pre-enrolment information on living costs and accommodation, and ensure appropriate arrangements for under-18s, while breaches can suspend or cancel registration, and the Tuition Protection Service provides refunds if providers fail, as set out in the legislation.

    Finland’s SIMHE network provides integrated support including Finnish language training, career guidance, and recognition of prior learning, though participation is voluntary for institutions. Germany’s Campus Initiative funds projects supporting the full student lifecycle from recruitment through to labour market transition. Latvia conducts annual international student satisfaction surveys. Ireland explicitly lists student satisfaction as a performance indicator alongside retention and employment outcomes.

    France’s Bienvenue en France Label certifies institutions demonstrating quality welcome services, assessing institutions across six areas – information quality and accessibility, reception facilities, teaching accessibility and support, housing and campus life, post-graduate follow-up, and environmental sustainability – where institutions receive ratings from one to three stars based on performance against 28 indicators, and as of October 2025, 180 institutions hold the label, enrolling 65 per cent of international degree-seeking students. France also operates a €10 million fund supporting institutions to meet label standards.

    Ireland’s International Education Mark operates differently – providers recruiting non-EU/EEA learners requiring study visas must obtain the mark, making it a regulatory requirement rather than voluntary certification, branded as “TrustEd Ireland” and backed by statutory quality standards.

    Maybe ESAG should recommend binding student experience requirements with compliance monitoring, or at least quality standards or voluntary certification recognising institutions demonstrating excellence in international student experience.

    Before arrival

    The strategy says government will “encourage” the Agent Quality Framework to “help tackle the risk of poor practices”. Beyond that, the strategy doesn’t specify pre-arrival or onboarding requirements, leaving these to institutional practice – but what have other countries mandated or encouraged?

    Finland’s Agent Code of Conduct was jointly developed by sector bodies, including ethics requirements, through non-binding voluntary adoption. However, following a December 2024 investigation by national broadcaster Yle which uncovered evidence that third-party agents were spreading false and misleading information to prospective students about work opportunities and living costs, the Finnish government has announced further work.

    Under the proposals, students would only be permitted to use agents that have formal agreements with Finnish universities, and those will be more closely monitored. Ireland’s IEM Code requires written agent agreements incorporating ethics with termination clauses, enforced by QQI. Australia’s ESOS framework creates legally binding agent conduct requirements with sanctions, and Germany’s National Code includes a complaints mechanism where institutions designate a complaints body with unresolved disputes going to mediation, while agents must comply and can be dismissed for violations.

    Australia’s National Code requires providers to give pre-enrolment information on living costs and accommodation options before students arrive. Ireland’s IEM Code requires providers to give clear information on fees, accommodation costs, insurance requirements, and subsistence costs prior to enrolment, alongside tailored inductions meeting international learner needs.

    Germany’s National Code establishes minimum standards for pre-arrival information, though compliance is voluntary with a complaints mechanism for disputes. France’s Bienvenue en France Label assesses quality of pre-arrival information and reception facilities as part of institutional certification.

    Finland provides preparation through the SIMHE network, though not all institutions participate. The Netherlands acknowledges international students face immediate housing needs creating vulnerability to discrimination, but has no binding pre-arrival housing guarantee requirement.

    Standards for pre-arrival information and onboarding support would be very much appreciated by the international students I’ve talked to.

    Costs are a big concern. France operates VISALE – a free government-backed rental guarantee for students covering rent up to €1,500 monthly in Paris and €1,300 elsewhere, universally available to international students with residence permits who are also eligible for CAF housing benefits.

    Australia requires providers to give pre-enrolment information on living costs, and Ireland requires providers to inform students about average costs including accommodation, food, transport, and medical care.

    Even if cost of living support mechanisms can’t be mandated, minimum transparency requirements about true costs would be very welcome.

    Working while studying

    The strategy doesn’t address during-study work rights or employer connections, though these differ from post-graduation pathways – what approaches have other countries taken?

    Finland permits students to work 30 hours weekly as a yearly average. Germany allows 140 full days or 280 half-days yearly, increased from 120 and 240 in March 2024, or 20 hours weekly. France permits 964 hours yearly, approximately 60 per cent of full-time work.

    Sweden permits work during studies with recent changes to work permit portability. Germany’s Campus Initiative explicitly funds projects covering recruitment through labour market transition, integrating employer connections throughout study. Finland’s Talent Boost programme integrates career services and employer connections with language training.

    France’s “Invest Your Talent in Italy” programme includes mandatory internship components. Ireland includes employer satisfaction with international graduate competencies as an explicit performance indicator. Australia’s National Code requires providers to inform students about employment rights and Fair Work Ombudsman access.

    International students would commitments in this space to be very welcome indeed.

    Institutional commitments

    Ireland’s International Education Mark creates statutory requirements through its QQI Code, which mandates designated personnel for learner support, mechanisms for emergency financial support, supportive wellbeing environment, feedback mechanisms, intercultural competence training, and written agent agreements incorporating ethics with termination clauses, alongside a Learner Protection Fund for provider failures, while QQI assesses compliance through panels, and authorisation can be refused, conditioned, or revoked.

    Australia’s National Code under the ESOS framework requires information on support services, reasonable support at no additional cost, documented critical incident policy, information on employment rights, pre-enrolment information on living costs and accommodation, and appropriate arrangements for under-18s, while breaches can suspend or cancel registration, and the Tuition Protection Service provides refunds if providers fail.

    Canada’s federal strategy expired unreplaced, but British Columbia implemented provincial standards requiring minimum in-person delivery, institution-controlled locations, and information about academic and housing support. Germany’s National Code establishes minimum standards for information, marketing, admissions, supervision, and follow-up – it’s voluntary but includes a complaints mechanism where institutions designate a body and unresolved disputes go to HRK mediation, while agents must comply and can be dismissed for violations.

    The strategy doesn’t explicitly address consumer protection for international students beyond encouraging the Agent Quality Framework, but the Office for Students has recognised international students face heightened risks of unfair treatment.

    OfS’ proposed initial condition C5 on fair treatment explicitly includes international students, reflecting that they’re exposed to the same risks as domestic students and in some cases greater ones – higher fees, greater reliance on pre-arrival information, visa dependencies, and higher switching costs if things go wrong all amplify the potential for consumer detriment.

    Recent OfS research shows international students aren’t fundamentally different from domestic students in how they understand promises and rights, but they experience some issues more acutely – when disruptions occur, international students were more likely to report that limited support from academic staff had significant impact on their academic experience, and while both international and domestic students show weak awareness of rights and redress mechanisms, this is particularly consequential for international students who are more dependent on institutional processes because informal escalation, legal challenge, or withdrawal are often less viable options.

    The combined evidence implies that international recruitment carries heightened regulatory risk – many international students struggle to identify what was promised versus what was merely expected, increasing the likelihood of disputes and perceived unfairness after enrolment, and while international students aren’t uniquely dissatisfied, they are structurally more exposed when fairness breaks down, justifying closer regulatory scrutiny of provider behaviour at the point of entry and during delivery.

    Were ESAG’s action plan to recommend strengthened consumer protection measures specifically recognising international students’ structural vulnerabilities, students would be pleased.

    Housing

    The strategy mentions housing once – government will work with the sector through ESAG on “adequate infrastructure and access to local housing”.

    While housing coordination mechanisms aren’t detailed in the strategy, what approaches have other countries taken to student housing challenges?

    The Netherlands launched its National Action Plan for Student Housing with government investment, targeting new affordable homes through multi-stakeholder coordination including government, municipalities, housing providers, universities, and SUs, while the plan explicitly acknowledges international students face discrimination and current shortages are substantial.

    Italy allocated significant PNRR funding to increase student beds, France operates a free government-backed rental guarantee for students, Germany identifies housing as a top barrier with government funding promised for student housing, and Hungary’s dormitory programme provides guaranteed places with government funding.

    Ireland acknowledges “tangible constraints can’t be ignored, such as availability of accommodation”, with research finding scams and exploitation widespread while planned on-campus beds remain unbuilt. It now has a national student housing plan, as do several other countries.

    Ideally, ESAG’s action plan would include housing targets, investment proposals, or at least coordination mechanisms with local authorities.

    Coordination

    The strategy is “co-owned by the Department for Education, the Department for Business and Trade, and the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office” with leadership “sitting firmly across the government”.

    Immigration policy remains under Home Office responsibility – but maybe that’s part of the problem.

    Finland’s Talent Boost is cross-ministerial with Education and Economic Affairs jointly leading, explicitly integrating immigration, education, employment, business, and R&D policy.

    Germany’s strategy is implemented by federal and state governments, explicitly linking to skilled immigration legislation, with agencies working across employment and business while referencing federal skilled worker strategies. Ireland involves multiple departments as lead alongside Justice for immigration and Enterprise for employment, linking to national skills, access, and languages strategies.

    France’s Cour des comptes criticised the absence of Economy and Labour ministries, recommending comprehensive strategy “under Prime Minister’s authority with full involvement of Economy and Labour ministries” after concluding France “failed to define clear strategic priorities.” Sweden’s coordination programme brings together eleven government agencies.

    What next?

    The strategy confirms £925 per international student per year from 2028–29, stating:

    the levy will be fully reinvested into higher education and skills, including the reintroduction of targeted maintenance grant for disadvantaged domestic students.

    This is the strategy’s binding financial commitment regarding international students – extracting funds to redistribute to domestic students.

    Yet many of the mechanisms other countries use to support international students – multi-stakeholder housing coordination, dedicated integration funding, careers support programmes, language provision, pre-arrival services, quality assurance frameworks – require investment.

    International students might reasonably argue that a levy explicitly charged on them should fund improvements to their experience rather than subsidising domestic students’ maintenance.

    If the state can’t afford that kind of investment from general taxation, the case for redirecting levy income toward international student support becomes stronger – especially when rising graduate dissatisfaction suggests current provision is inadequate.

    The published strategy delegates the substance of higher education international student policy to ESAG, and the action plan could include measurable graduate employment targets, published retention tracking data, binding institutional requirements with enforcement, dedicated integration funding, housing targets and investment proposals, cross-departmental coordination mechanisms, language integration programmes, agent regulation with enforcement, quality certification standards, performance-based institutional funding, student experience and wellbeing frameworks, pre-arrival support requirements, cost of living transparency or support, during-study work provisions, consumer protection measures recognising structural vulnerabilities, and risk management frameworks.

    Other countries – including those ramping up their recruitment to English language programmes – have developed accountability frameworks, binding requirements, and funded infrastructure that ESAG could consider for the UK’s higher education action plan.

    The evidence from fifteen other countries provides options to consider.

    Source link

  • A renewed commitment to welcoming international students is the story to tell

    A renewed commitment to welcoming international students is the story to tell

    The long wait for a new International Education Strategy is over.

    Widely scrutinised since its publication, there has been a mixed reception for the Strategy in the national and sector press, notably and unsurprisingly covering the ambition to grow the UK sector’s TNE coverage and provide more UK education overseas, in contrast to a numerical target for international student recruitment.

    A lot of the reaction has tended towards the disappointed and the underwhelmed, which might be more to do with the length of time we have waited for it to be launched. Personally, the Strategy has brought out my inner Pollyanna.

    In these times, it’s become common practice to explore where the deficits or the challenges lie – and there are some definite gaps, but it is important that we do not overlook the positives in this strategy.

    A welcome commitment

    I note that hardly any media coverage has led with the Strategy’s continued commitment to welcome international students to the UK. While it doesn’t set a numerical target, it does restate a commitment to international student experience, and even cites key elements such as infrastructure and housing.

    Considering that the previous strategy contained zero reference to the international student experience when first launched in 2019, this welcome retention should be what the sector and the press are widely communicating to current and prospective international students.

    We should also be celebrating the multiple references to the work of the British Council and Study UK – albeit with no mention of funding. The Council’s international network and the Study UK campaign are unique promoters of the UK sector around the world, and it’s significant that this Strategy takes several opportunities to reinforce this.

    Let’s hope that this Strategy leads to increased investment in Study UK as a result, if government is serious about ramping up its global impact and supporting the UK’s ambitions for recruitment in the UK and overseas.

    The IES reiterates a commitment to women and girls’ education, which has been a long-standing objective of successive governments. Of course, if government wants to ensure this objective is met, it’s essential that an impact assessment is carried out on recent changes to immigration policy – something we have called for consistently at UKCISA – to identify where it discriminates against women students who would benefit from studying in the UK.

    Let’s hope that the new Education Sector Action Group (ESAG) will advocate strongly for this and other missing impact assessments required for the last few years of policy changes.

    Mobility matters

    As a long-standing advocate for student mobility – and former first-in-family, full-grant-recipient Erasmus beneficiary – I was delighted to see mobility get a profile in the Strategy, albeit focused on outward mobility and less on the importance of reciprocal mobility for the UK’s ambitions in international partnerships.

    Conversely, I was disappointed that there was not a single reference to the success of the Taith programme in Wales. This seemed a wasted opportunity to profile a significant – and Labour-funded – success story.

    Sector collaboration

    UKCISA has had many opportunities to feed into the development of the Strategy, and advise government on the importance of the international student experience, so the second objective to sustainably recruit international students from a diverse range of countries is welcome, not least because it’s what our members are already working hard to do.

    Our recent #WeAreInternational Awards showcased the depth and breadth of work across the sector to provide the best possible student experience and the work already under way to ensure that this objective is being met, and we are discussing with DfE and DBT how the award-winners can help exemplify the strategy’s commitments to the international student experience.

    Our members include staff working in admissions, advice, and sponsor compliance in over 180 universities, including an active immigration compliance expert practitioner network. Staff engagement with our essential training in immigration and our invaluable information, advice, and guidance on immigration rules, guidance, and how these translate to practice demonstrates their commitment to the provision of a high-quality student experience across all aspects of student engagement.

    Student voice

    Significantly, the spirit of our #WeAreInternational Student Charter and its principles strongly feature in this part of the Strategy – a testament to the importance of the student voice in influencing policy that has an impact on them, and the influential role that UKCISA will play in the delivery of the Strategy in the long-term.

    I was delighted to see one of our first #WeAreInternational Student Ambassadors, Nebu George, share his story of being a student in the UK. Nebu’s contribution matters not because it is a feel-good case study, but because it reflects how student insight can and should shape policy.

    Through our work with students, we do not simply support them – we help ensure their lived experience is heard in the rooms where decisions are made, and reflected in the strategies that follow.

    What’s missing

    While there is much to celebrate in this Strategy, as an overall document, it is arguably too heavy on background, context, and the UK’s achievements to date and far too light on measurable objectives and a plan for supporting the sector to achieve them.

    Delegating the action plan to the Education Sector Action Group (ESAG) means that the sector is waiting a while longer to find out how this will be achieved and how success will be evaluated.

    Then there is the bizarre positioning of the international student tuition fee levy as part of a competitive offer. No student choosing the UK is going to be drawn in by a technical consultation on the levy, or the promise that their fee is going to be reinvested into grants for domestic students.

    Mentioning the levy in the strategy at all feels at best like an editing oversight, and at worst, like an ill-thought-out marketing campaign. This needs to be a priority issue for ESAG to look at, mitigating the risk of this in communications to students considering a UK education.

    Perhaps the most important gap is information on how ESAG – the group that holds so much responsibility for the delivery of the Strategy’s objectives – will be formed.

    I trust that government will recognise that UKCISA representation on the ESAG is critical to any action plan to deliver a high-quality student experience and build an engaged alumni community, and we look forward to working with them and colleagues across the sector to help deliver on these ambitions.

    Source link

  • Responding to the International Education Strategy requires an appreciation of how fast the world is changing

    Responding to the International Education Strategy requires an appreciation of how fast the world is changing

    The long-awaited new UK international education strategy looks and feels very different from the last one.

    Gone is the target for international recruitment from the previous strategy, which had, in any case, been exceeded substantially. It has been replaced by a “bold ambition” to grow overall education exports to £40bn per year by 2030 (the figure for 2022 was calculated at £32.3bn).

    The emphasis is on growing transnational education (TNE) and partnerships in education and research, as well as outward student mobility, and the UK’s global reputation in education. There is much to welcome in this strategy. Not least the cross-government (FCDO, DfE and DBT) ownership of the agenda, and the recognition that the rapidly changing geopolitical landscape requires support from the UK government and its institutions to support the sector.

    But let’s turn to what isn’t in the strategy. Great strategies are adaptable to a changing landscape, and the external environment in international education is shifting very rapidly.

    Times change

    Two major issues are worth highlighting. First, there is no such thing as a single TNE model, and the financial margins differ markedly depending on the host country and the teaching model. The margins depend on the nature of the regulatory regime and the nature of the host country partnership(s). International campuses which involve an element of research activity are also more expensive to run.

    It’s fair to say that many UK universities operating overseas have tended to engage in TNE not solely because of financial margin, but often to raise their international profile in order to attract more direct recruitment to their UK campuses. Others make a larger margin by adopting a very streamlined and low-cost teaching model.

    Second, the financial sustainability of UK universities has been greatly impaired by the instability of direct international recruitment. The international education strategy uses the cautious language of “sustainably recruiting high-quality students” to the UK, not least because of the difficult immigration debates student flows have caused.

    Canada, Australia and the USA – the other three of the “Big Four” international student destinations – have had similar debates on student visas. But the shift from the Big Four dominating international direct recruitment to a situation where a “Big Fourteen” have come to compete more aggressively for this market has been very sudden, and has left the UK and other anglophone countries having to compete much more aggressively.

    The countries experiencing growth range from Europe (for example France, Germany and the Netherlands) to Asian destinations (such as China, Korea and Malaysia). There are many reasons why these new destinations have become more competitive beyond the student visa regime: student safety, work experience opportunities, pricing/affordability, cultural and language factors, and the geopolitical environment have all played a part.

    Universities in the Big Four are responding by competing on some of these fronts. Many of the new countries and jurisdictions in the Big Fourteen have explicit targets to grow international numbers, unlike the new UK strategy (e.g. Japan, South Korea, Hong Kong, and France). Many non-Anglophone countries have embraced English language teaching, especially at master’s level.

    We need new models

    But is this a definitive trend we are observing away from the Big Four – or is the market just becoming more contestable and the landscape will evolve even further?

    I would argue the latter: I believe that the international recruitment market could continue to evolve rapidly. Under the circumstances, universities in the more established markets will want to forecast the potential short-term trends and cycles in student demand, but more importantly the underlying factors: to what extent are some factors like studying closer to home important for students in large sender markets like China and India? To what extent are there trade-offs between different factors such as the cultural affinity of the host nation and affordability/pricing? Economic theory, and indeed the instability of flows since the pandemic, suggests that these factors do interact and there are trade-offs.

    University leaders will want to gain a much more sophisticated market understanding in the next five years than relying on the simple linear market trends which we adopted in our recruitment forecasts 10-15 years ago. That will require much more refined economic analysis of what students (and their families) think about international study.

    Similarly, UK and other universities jumping on the accelerating TNE bandwagon will want to understand how this interfaces with direct recruitment in the Big Fourteen. We know that an in-country TNE presence in a large sender market can have an impact on direct recruitment.

    Watch this landscape carefully over the next five years – it will rapidly evolve.

    Source link

  • Export success is not international education success

    Export success is not international education success

    The UK government’s newly published International education strategy opens with a statement few in our sector would dispute – in an “uncertain world, education matters more than ever.”

    That is true. But a closer reading of the document suggests a more specific and narrower interpretation of why education matters.

    This is not, in any meaningful sense, a national international education strategy. It is, instead, an international education export strategy.

    There is nothing inherently wrong with that. Education is one of the UK’s most successful export sectors, supporting jobs, research, soft power, and local economies across the country. At a time of financial constraint, it is understandable that government thinking frames education primarily through the lenses of growth, trade, and global influence.

    But if this is the government’s intent, it should be honest about it. Words matter, because they shape priorities, expectations, and trade-offs.

    Calling this an “international education strategy” implies something broader – a vision for how education helps the nation understand the world, engage with it intelligently, and equip its people to thrive within it. That wider vision is largely absent in this strategy.

    The dominant logic of the strategy is export-led. Success is defined through metrics such as global market share, education exports reaching £40 billion per year by 2030, transnational education expansion, and the recruitment of international students as contributors to economic growth and soft power. Students, staff, and institutions appear primarily as instruments in a national growth and influence agenda.

    What’s missing

    What is missing in this strategy is just as telling.

    First, there is no serious engagement with languages and area studies. At precisely the moment when the UK’s universities are retrenching from modern languages and regional expertise, the strategy is silent on linguistic capability and cultural literacy.

    This is not a marginal issue. If international education is about preparing a country to collaborate, compete, and coexist in a complex world, then understanding other languages, cultures, and political contexts is a basic requirement.

    Second, the strategy underplays the role of internationally mobile academic and professional staff. International researchers and educators are acknowledged, but largely as contributors to research outputs, innovation, and competitiveness.

    There is little sense of them as part of a long-term national knowledge ecosystem, or of the conditions required to attract and retain global talent in an increasingly competitive environment. Trust and partnership are repeatedly mentioned, but these depend on openness, stability, and welcome – not just on visa routes that happen to suit current labour market needs.

    Third, outward mobility for UK students and staff remains peripheral. The return to Erasmus+ and the continuation of the Turing Scheme are positive steps, but they are framed as supporting soft power and employability rather than as core components of a genuinely international education system.

    More than a decade ago, I argued that if we truly value international experience, we should allow UK students make use of UK student loans to travel and study beyond our borders. That argument still has traction and still goes unanswered.

    Nothing new

    None of this is new. When previous international education strategies were published, I raised similar concerns – that international education was being conflated with international student recruitment and export earnings, and that the deeper purposes of education in a global society were being squeezed out.

    More than a decade on from BIS’s International education strategy: global growth and prosperity, the language is more polished and the ambition more coordinated across government, but the underlying philosophy has changed remarkably little.

    The risk is not that the UK pursues education exports. The real risk is that we mistake export success for international education success. A country can generate billions in education revenue while simultaneously hollowing out its own international capabilities – languages, cultural understanding, outward mobility, and academic openness.

    A true international education strategy would start with different questions. What capabilities does the UK need to thrive in a multipolar, unstable world? How does international education contribute to social cohesion at home as well as engagement abroad? How do we ensure that internationalisation benefits domestic students and staff, not just balance sheets and trade statistics?

    The current strategy contains elements that could support such a vision. It talks about partnerships, mobility, values-based education, but they are subordinate to the export narrative rather than driving it.

    If government wants an international education export strategy, it should say so clearly. And if it wants a genuinely international education strategy, then this document is only half the story.

    Source link

  • A new international education strategy

    A new international education strategy

    The Westminster government’s newest iteration of the international education strategy commits the UK to three ambitions: to increase the UK’s international standing through education, to recruit high quality international higher education students from a diverse range of countries, and to grow education exports to £40bn a year by 2030.

    Last time we got an International Education Strategy from the government was back in 2019 – famously it committed the government to increase education exports to £35bn per year, and to increase the number of international HE students studying in the UK to 600,000 per year, again: both by 2030.

    The government’s current best estimate for performance against those targets – which deals with the 2022 calendar year – suggests income from education exports was £32.3bn for that year – with around three quarters of that being derived from higher education activity. For a variety of reasons, it isn’t great data.

    And HESA tells us that there were 758,855 international higher education students during the 2022-23 academic year, though numbers have fallen since.

    Diversification across sub-sectors

    Within the higher education sector the perception has been that this decline in international student numbers has been a political choice in the face of wider public concerns around immigration rather than any failing among universities: changes to dependant visa access, a reduction in the length (from 24 months to 18 months) of the graduate visa for postgraduate taught students, reported difficulties in obtaining student visas, and the onset of price rises linked to the forthcoming international student levy.

    Though a lot of the UK’s historic strengths in international education come via its higher education providers, the strategy is at pains to emphasis the full spectrum of what is on offer, noting:

    We see diversification across sub-sectors as key to long-term success

    Accordingly much of the strategy deals with early years and schools, non-HE tertiary education, English language training, special educational needs, and education technology. But, as with higher education, there is little detail: this will be filled in via an action plan developed by a reconstituted Education Sector Action Group (ESAG). This ministerially-chaired forum will bring together government, industry, and sector representative bodies: each representative will lead on a sub-sector action plan to be published within 100 days of appointment.

    Of course, we don’t even know which minister will chair the forum yet – the strategy is owned jointly by the Department for Education, the Department of Business and Trade, and the Foreign and Commonwealth Development Office. We do know that Steve Smith retains his role as international education champion, and that the strategy will be supported by a range of existing tools and programmes: notably for higher education these include research and technology partnerships including Horizon Europe, plus things like Erasmus+ (from 2027) and Turing (newly confirmed for 2026-27).

    The British Council will play a prominent role too – most notably in the expansion of transnational education provision across every part of the sector. Here robust quality assurance will play a key part – we get detail on schools-level accreditation and oversight, but the parallel section on higher education quality assurance and international standards is missing (despite case studies on the University of London, and the India campus of the University of Southampton). The section on the work of the British Council-led Alumni UK programme (launched in 2022) offers recognition of the value of alumni as international ambassadors.

    And what’s in it for higher education?

    The meat of the strategy for higher education providers concerns a “strategic approach to sustainable international student recruitment”. The key words are “well-managed” and “responsible” recruitment, and a quality student experience should lead to world-class outcomes. It is very encouraging to see that support systems and infrastructure (including local housing) are on the radar too.

    Institutions will be “encouraged to diversify their recruitment”, moving away from reliance on any single country”. There’s support for the sector-owned Agent Quality Framework to tackle poor practices, and a suggestion that government will:

    work closely with the sector to ensure that our institutions recruit international higher education students in a way that maintains quality and student experience. This includes considering factors such as skills and entry requirements, adequate infrastructure, local housing, and support systems

    A section on “maintaining a competitive offer” flags the retention of the (18 month) graduate route, the high potential individual route for those graduating from top 100 institutions (nothing to do with helping UK international education expand, but it is in there), and the change in visa conditions enabling graduates to start businesses while transferring to the “investor founder” route. The international student levy clearly does not help to maintain a competitive offer but we get details of that here too:

    The levy will be fully reinvested into higher education and skills, including the reintroduction of targeted maintenance grant for disadvantaged domestic students, helping to break down barriers to opportunity as part of the government’s Plan for Change and making our higher education system more inclusive for the benefit of all students

    However this ends up benefitting home students, there is no detail on how the policy might discourage (via higher prices, for example) international recruitment.

    Indeed, throughout the strategy there is nothing that deals with the restrictions being placed on higher education as the largest single contributor to educational exports, and how that situation will cause problems (despite warm words about “unlocking the full potential of our education sector”) in meeting this expanded and challenging financial target.

    Source link

  • Are we reducing research security risk, or just shifting it around?

    Are we reducing research security risk, or just shifting it around?

    In an era of heightened geopolitical tension, research security has shot to the top of policy agendas worldwide. Governments and institutions are implementing new measures intended to safeguard sensitive science against threats like espionage, theft, and undue foreign influence.

    The Flagship EU Conference on Research Security, held recently in Brussels, underscored the urgency: for the first time, the European Union announced plans to anchor research security in EU law via a forthcoming European Research Area. It also confirmed proposals for a range of new support measures including a European Centre of Expertise, an international collaboration due diligence platform, and a common resilience testing methodology.

    Yet amid these proactive steps lurks a critical question: are current research security frameworks genuinely reducing risk, or merely redistributing it across borders? There is growing evidence that without careful coordination, well-intentioned safeguards in one country can simply deflect threats to less-regulated arenas. In its recent note on “Research Security as a Shared Responsibility”, conference co-organiser CESAER noted the need to build resilience in Europe through “collective responsibility and trust.” It emphasised that “making a level playing field across the continent” is essential. But why should the level playing field stop there?

    The waterbed effect

    Across the world – and even within Europe – research security frameworks vary wildly. This fragmentation is more than just a bureaucratic quirk; it can actively undermine the intention to reduce risk. If one institution or country imposes rigorous security checks, a hostile actor can simply target a more permissive collaborator elsewhere, bypassing the tightest gate by entering through an unlocked side door.

    Research managers from across European countries and beyond recently voiced a clear message through the “Stronger Cooperation, Safer Collaboration” project: divergent national approaches are creating duplication, confusion, and vulnerability in research security. Some nations have strict regulatory frameworks; others rely on informal guidelines and self-regulation, and some have yet to implement any framework at all. This disharmony forces collaborating institutions to navigate a patchwork of rules. Crucially, it creates a race to the bottom: “The first to act loses out,” as one research manager put it, meaning institutions that impose tougher controls risk losing collaborations or talent that underpin their institutions impact and financial resilience. Conversely, overly open environments risk becoming safe havens for those trying to evade stricter jurisdictions, leading to longer term losses through knowledge leakage from the same global collaborative projects.

    This dynamic has played out in anecdotal reports: one trusted research manager at a research-intensive university in the UK shared that they had experienced a recent case in which a PhD candidate who had unsuccessfully appealed an Academic Technology Approval Scheme (ATAS) refusal told their UK institution not to worry, as they had received an offer from elsewhere in Europe. Colleagues elsewhere in the UK and in Denmark confirmed similar experiences – Denmark and the UK being two countries now taking a firm line on vetting international research ties.

    The pattern highlights a potential unintended consequence: was the risk eliminated, or was it shifted to another institution? It raises the question as to whether early inward-facing approaches have inadvertently created a “waterbed effect”: press down on risk in one place, and it pops up elsewhere, undermining the overall goal of a safer global research environment.

    Shifting risk to the Global South

    The “risk transfer” phenomenon in research security isn’t just a North Atlantic or European problem. It can play out globally, often to the detriment of researchers in the Global South. Many high-income countries (such as the US, UK, Canada, Australia, and some EU states) have ramped up protections for their own institutions. This includes stricter export controls on sensitive technologies, visa vetting of foreign researchers, requirements for disclosure of overseas ties, and due diligence on international partners. But those seeking access to advanced research can respond by targeting less fortified partners in countries where such measures are not yet in place or enforced.

    This dynamic means that Global South collaborators sometimes become passive recipients of risk. I spoke with Dr Palesa Natasha Mothapo, Director of Research Support and Management of Nelson Mandela University and an alumnus of the Women Advance Research Security Fellowship, who has led initiatives to engage institutions in South Africa and beyond on research security. She noted that South Africa has a thriving research and innovation ecosystem with highly sensitive research, but discussions on research security remain at a very early stage. Even so, Mothapo noted that institutions in South Africa generally benefit from greater financial security due to national investment and infrastructure and colleagues from elsewhere in the Global South feel even more exposed to the risks.

    When working with international funders, institutions are often forced to accept onerous funding terms and conditions set by wealthier partners and conditions which aim to shift responsibility and liability downward. Those terms and conditions have often not been formulated fully considering the local context or capacity. For example, a major research funding agreement from a US or European sponsor might require the African or Asian sub-grantee to comply with strict cybersecurity protocols, international export-controls or vetting of staff. Lacking an equal say in drafting these terms, the partner institution does its best to comply, effectively shouldering the security burden – but it may not have the inhouse experts, resources or infrastructure that its counterparts are able to rely on. But if something goes wrong, who bears the blame or consequences? If our actions only result in shifting the blame but fail to mitigate the likelihood or consequences, they have failed altogether. This inequity can erode trust and perpetuate harm.

    To counteract this erosion, changes in terms and conditions need to accompanied by the capacity strengthening, partnership and co-creation that accounts for what each collaborator values and seeks to protect. In the last three years, I have worked with researchers, research managers, innovation professionals and policy makers from over 50 different countries on capacity strengthening in research security. While the contexts vary greatly, there are still commonalities in the challenges we face and significant opportunity for cooperation and knowledge exchange. Raising standards everywhere is not a zero-sum game but creates a more stable, level playing field for all. This is the solution to truly reduce risk globally, instead of shifting it around.

    Towards harmonisation and mutual support

    If current research security measures risk shifting problems around, what is the remedy? The experts and stakeholders convened in Europe and elsewhere seem to converge on a key principle: harmonisation and capacity-building. Rather than each country acting in isolation (or worse, in competition) on research security, there’s a call for joint action to raise the floor globally and key actions have begun in this direction.

    There is also a growing recognition that culture change is as important as policy change. The concept of research security is relatively new in academia’s culture of openness. We need to foster a culture where security is seen not as a hindrance or a nationalist agenda, but as a shared duty to protect the integrity of science. That means those implementing security must do so in a way that is transparent and respects values like academic freedom and open science.

    To return to our original question: are we actually reducing risk or just shifting it elsewhere? At present, the answer is: a bit of both. The flurry of research security policies in recent years has plugged many gaps that were previously exploitable. Major economies are certainly harder targets for espionage and IP theft than they were a decade ago, thanks to these efforts.

    However, as protections evolve so do threats and tactics and there is little room for complacency. Some of those same efforts have diverted actors to take different approaches, including in some cases exporting the risk to less prepared quarters, or creating new frictions in the research enterprise. A chain is only as strong as its weakest link, and right now the “chain” of global science has some weak links open to exploitation. The good news is that the solution is within reach through international cooperation.

    We reduce research security risk only when we reduce it for everyone. If instead we simply push the risk around, it will eventually circle back and hit us from behind. The current trends – increased awareness, dialogue, and alignment – give reason for optimism. The UK government has indicated that international capacity strengthening will form part of their anticipated research security strategy.

    The next few years will be critical in translating these insights into practice. If we succeed, we will be on track to celebrate a genuinely safer, more collaborative global research environment – one where risk is tackled collectively, not passed like a hot potato.

    Source link

  • The Trump administration’s biggest impact on education in 2025 

    The Trump administration’s biggest impact on education in 2025 

    by Nirvi Shah, The Hechinger Report
    December 18, 2025

    Even with a conservative think tank’s blueprint detailing how the second Trump administration should reimagine the federal government’s role in education, few might have predicted what actually materialized this year for America’s schools and colleges. 

    Or what might be yet to come. 

    “2025 will go down as a banner year for education: the year we restored merit in higher education, rooted out waste, fraud and abuse, and began in earnest returning education to the states,” Education Secretary Linda McMahon told The Hechinger Report. She listed canceling K-12 grants she called wasteful, investing more in charter schools, ending college admissions that consider race or anything beyond academic achievement and making college more affordable as some of the year’s accomplishments. 

    “Best of all,” she said, “we’ve begun breaking up the federal education bureaucracy and returning education control to parents and local communities. These are reforms conservatives have championed for decades — and in just 12 months, we’ve made them a reality.” 

    Related: Become a lifelong learner. Subscribe to our free weekly newsletter featuring the most important stories in education. 

    McMahon’s characterization of the year is hardly universal. Earlier this month, Senate Democrats, led by independent Sen. Bernie Sanders, called out some of the administration’s actions this year. They labeled federal changes, especially plans to divide the Education Department’s duties across the federal government, dangerous and likely to cause chaos for schools and colleges. 

    “Already, this administration has cancelled billions of dollars in education programs, illegally withheld nearly $7 billion in formula funds, and proposed to fully eliminate many of the programs included in the latest transfer,” the senators wrote in a letter to Republican Sen. Bill Cassidy, chair of the committee that oversees education. “In our minds, that is unacceptable.” 

    So, what really happened to education this year? It was almost impossible for the average observer to keep track of the array of changes across colleges and universities, K-12 schools, early education and education research — and what it has all meant. This is a look back at how the education world was transformed. 

    Related: Tracking Trump: How he’s dismantling the Education Department and more 

    Higher education

    The administration was especially forceful in the higher education arena. It used measures including antidiscrimination law to quickly freeze billions of dollars in higher education research funding, interrupting years-long medical studies and coercing Columbia, Brown, Northwestern and other institutions into handing over multimillion-dollar payments and agreeing to policy changes demanded by the administration.

    A more widespread “compact” promising preference for federal funding to universities that agreed to largely ideological principles had almost no takers. But in the face of government threats, universities and colleges scrapped diversity, equity and inclusion, or DEI, programs that provided support based on race and other characteristics, and banned transgender athletes from competing on teams corresponding to genders other than the ones they were assigned at birth.

    As the administration unleashed its set of edicts, Republicans in Congress also expanded taxes on college and university endowments. And the One Big Beautiful Bill Act made other big changes to higher education, such as limiting graduate student borrowing and eliminating certain loan forgiveness programs. That includes public service loan forgiveness for graduates who take jobs with organizations the administration designated as having a “substantial illegal purpose” because they help refugees or transgender youth. In response, states, cities, labor unions and nonprofits immediately filed suit, arguing that the rule violated the First Amendment. 

    The administration has criticized universities, colleges and liberal students for curbing the speech of conservatives by shouting them down or blocking their appearances on campuses. However, it proceeded to revoke the visas of and begin deportation proceedings against international students who joined protests or wrote opinions criticizing Israeli actions in Gaza and U.S. government policy there.  

    Meanwhile, emboldened legislatures and governors in red states pushed back on what faculty could say in classrooms. College presidents including James Ryan at the University of Virginia and Mark Welsh III at Texas A&M were forced out in the aftermath of controversies over these issues. — Jon Marcus

    Related: How Trump 2.0 upended education research and statistics in one year  

    K-12 education

    Since Donald Trump returned to office earlier this year, K-12 schools have lost millions of dollars in sweeping cuts to federal grants, including money that helped schools serve students who are deaf or blind, grants that bolstered the dwindling rural teacher workforce and funding for Wi-Fi hotspots. 

    Last summer, the Trump administration briefly froze billions of dollars in federal funding for schools on June 30, one day before districts would typically apply to receive it. Although the money was restored in late July, some school leaders said they no longer felt confident they’ll receive all expected federal funds next year. And they are braced for more cuts to federal budgets as the U.S. Department of Education is dismembered.

    That process, as well as the end goal of returning the department’s responsibilities to the states, has raised uncertainty about whether federal money will continue to be earmarked for the same purposes. If the state of Illinois is in charge of federal funding for every school in the state, said Todd Dugan, superintendent of a rural Illinois district, will rural schools still get money to boost student achievement or will the state decide there are more pressing needs?  

    As part of layoffs at the Education Department during the government shutdown in the fall, the Trump administration cut loose almost everyone who works in the Office of Special Education Programs, alarming many parents and advocates. About 7.5 million children ages 3 to 21 are served under federal law protecting students with disabilities, and the office had already lost staffers after the Trump administration dismissed nearly half the Education Department’s staff in March. Some worry this additional round of layoffs is a big step toward moving oversight of how states treat students with disabilities to the Department of Health and Human Services.

    Even as the Trump administration attempts to push more control over education to the states, it has aggressively expanded federal power over school choice and transgender student rights in public schools. The One Big Beautiful Bill Act will create a federal school voucher program, allowing taxpayers to donate up to $1,700 for scholarships that families can use to pay for private school. The program won’t start until 2027, and states can choose whether to participate — setting up potentially divisive fights over new money for education in Democratic-controlled states. 

    Already, some Democratic-led states have come to the defense of schools in funding and legal fights with the federal government over transgender athletes participating in sports. The U.S. departments of Education and Justice launched a special investigations team to look into complaints of Title IX violations, targeting school districts and states that don’t restrict accommodations or civil rights protections for transgender students. Legal experts expect the U.S. Supreme Court to ultimately decide how Title IX — a federal law that prohibits sex discrimination in education — applies to public schools.

    The federal government directly runs just two systems of schools — one for military families and the other for children of tribal nations. In an executive order signed in January, the president directed both systems to offer parents a portion of federal funding allocated to their children to attend private, religious or charter schools. 

    And as part of the dismantling of the federal Education Department, the Interior Department — which oversees 183 tribal schools across nearly two dozen states — will assume greater control of Indian education programs. In addition to rolling out school choice at its campuses, the department will take over Indian education grants to public schools across the country, Native language programs, Alaska Native and Native Hawaiian programs, tribally controlled colleges and universities, and many other institutions. — Ariel Gilreath and Neal Morton

    Related: Trump administration makes good on many Project 2025 education goals

    Early education

    Early education was not at the top of Trump’s agenda when he returned to office. On the campaign trail, when asked if he would support legislation to make child care affordable, he gave an unfocused answer, suggesting tariff revenue could be tapped to bring down costs. Asked a similar question, Vice President JD Vance suggested that care by family members was one potential solution to child care shortages. 

    However, many of the administration’s actions, including cuts to the government workforce and grants, have affected children who depend on federal support. In April, the administration abruptly closed five of 10 regional offices supporting Head Start, the free, federally funded early childhood program for children from low-income families. Head Start program managers worried they would be caught up in a freeze on grant funding that affected all agencies. Even though administration officials said funds would keep flowing to Head Start, some centers reported having problems drawing down their money. The prolonged government shutdown, which ended Nov. 12 after 43 days, also forced some Head Start programs to temporarily close. 

    Though the shutdown is over, Head Start advocates are still worried. Many of the administration’s actions have been guided by the Project 2025 policy document created by the conservative Heritage Foundation. Project 2025 calls for eliminating Head Start, which serves about 715,000 children from birth to age 5, for a savings of about $12 billion a year. 

    The One Big Beautiful Bill Act contained some perks for parents, including an increase in the child tax credit from $2,000 to $2,200. The bill also created a new program called Trump accounts: Families can contribute up to $5,000 each year until a child turns 18, at which point the Trump account will turn into an individual retirement account. For children born between Jan. 1, 2025, and Dec. 31, 2028, the government will provide a $1,000 bonus. Billionaires Michael and Susan Dell have also promised to contribute $250 to the account of each child ages 10 and under who lives in a ZIP code with a median household income of $150,000 or less. 

    That program will launch in summer 2026. — Christina A. Samuels

    Contact staff writer Nirvi Shah at 212-678-3445, on Signal at NirviShah.14 or [email protected].   

    This story about the Trump administration’s impact on education was produced by The Hechinger Report, a nonprofit, independent news organization focused on inequality and innovation in education. Sign up for the Hechinger newsletter.

    This <a target=”_blank” href=”https://hechingerreport.org/how-education-changed-in-one-year-under-trump/”>article</a> first appeared on <a target=”_blank” href=”https://hechingerreport.org”>The Hechinger Report</a> and is republished here under a <a target=”_blank” href=”https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/”>Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License</a>.<img src=”https://i0.wp.com/hechingerreport.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/cropped-favicon.jpg?fit=150%2C150&amp;ssl=1″ style=”width:1em;height:1em;margin-left:10px;”>

    <img id=”republication-tracker-tool-source” src=”https://hechingerreport.org/?republication-pixel=true&post=113955&amp;ga4=G-03KPHXDF3H” style=”width:1px;height:1px;”><script> PARSELY = { autotrack: false, onload: function() { PARSELY.beacon.trackPageView({ url: “https://hechingerreport.org/how-education-changed-in-one-year-under-trump/”, urlref: window.location.href }); } } </script> <script id=”parsely-cfg” src=”//cdn.parsely.com/keys/hechingerreport.org/p.js”></script>

    Source link

  • What the US can teach other countries about home-based child care

    What the US can teach other countries about home-based child care

    by Jackie Mader, The Hechinger Report
    December 17, 2025

    Each day, nearly 70 percent of the world’s children are cared for and educated by adults other than their parents in home-based settings, many of which are informal and run by women. (In the United States, it’s about 30 percent.) In many countries, these home-based settings receive little financial or training support from their governments. 

    This summer, I moderated a panel made up of global child care experts at the National Association for Family Child Care’s (NAFCC) global learning convening. The event marked the first time that the association brought together child care leaders from across the globe to share their expertise in how family child care works in their countries. About 1,000 people attended, including representatives from Bangladesh, Ecuador, South Africa and the United States, to discuss how early learning programs face similar challenges around the world, including low pay and a lack of respect. Attendees also discussed progress securing funding and more awareness and recognition for the sector.  

    The session I moderated, on home-based child care policy and advocacy, featured Grace Matlhape as one of the panelists. Matlhape is the chief executive director of SmartStart, a nonprofit that supports high-quality home-based early learning programs in South Africa.

    The organization’s model, which trains community members to teach a play-based curriculum and run their own early learning programs, has been found to decrease achievement gaps between higher- and lower-income children. 

    In early 2025, after advocacy from Matlhape and other early childhood organizations, South African President Cyril Ramaphosa announced he would prioritize the early years in his education agenda, acknowledging the country is decades behind in the field. The government also dedicated $500 million to expand early childhood development programs to some of the country’s 1.3 million young children not already enrolled in early care. That number represents about 18 percent of the country’s 0-5 population.

    I recently caught up with Matlhape to hear more about progress she is seeing in South Africa, stereotypes of home-based care and which countries she’s looking to for guidance as the sector continues to grow. This interview has been edited for length and clarity.

    What is the landscape of early childhood in South Africa?

    Up to now, South Africa’s main approach is center-based child care. There’s still a gap in access, it’s not equitably accessible, but the main seen, acknowledged, recognized and regulated mode of child care is center-based care. 

    SmartStart is the first organization to look at home-based care as a model to build. Having said that, South Africa is very similar to the U.S. in that the early childhood care education is market-driven. The government does not run programs directly. From time to time, they may have a school here and a preschool there, but in the early years, government is not the main provider of programs. SmartStart is the first organization that decided to build [home-based care] into a national model that becomes acceptable even to policy makers.

    Why are you focusing on home-based care? 

    It enables rapid setup, because it avoids all of the lead times in buildings and so on. It lowers the cost when you take away all of the infrastructure investments required. It’s community-based. People have very strong local relationships, for example, a shopkeeper down the road delivers bread every day. It builds on this very strong local culture of looking after children and just investing in their care and their stimulation.

    We recruit our providers within close proximity to one another so that they can form into communities of practice to support one another. It’s a very powerful vehicle of building belonging and identity. It creates cultural acceptability very quickly. 

    Finally, we’ve seen fantastic child outcomes compared to the national average in South Africa. Many of [the programs] are in informal housing in very, very poor environments, but their child outcomes outperform the national average. We think it is a matter of good child ratios. You can’t have a massive class of children at a home. You have children in smaller groups, and we think that’s the answer.

    What challenges have you encountered? 

    It is really hard for people to let go of this overreliance on quality associated with physical structures. People expect to see quality with their eyes, whereas what we are seeing in home-based child care is the experience and the love and attention, and the power of practicing good pedagogy between one loving practitioner and a handful of children. That’s the secret sauce. And so it’s been a challenge just to change mindsets, for people to see child care, home-based child care, in that way. 

    This summer you came to Dallas and met with other home-based child care experts from around the world. Did anything stick out to you regarding how South Africa’s home-based landscape compares to other countries?

    What was very different in the U.S. is just how mature the sector is. It’s significantly more mature. It has matured to a practitioner-led advocacy level, with a platform like NAFCC and people who are leading the organization! [In South Africa], it is very strongly practitioner led. We are still on that journey of the practitioner representing themselves and driving advocacy in their own provinces or states. It gave me a sense of what the future might look like, the power in the practitioner-led alliance or coalition. 

    What are your goals moving forward?

    We’ve actually moved into the zone now of regulation and funding by the government. We co-founded an advocacy organization about three to four years ago with other early childhood development organizations in South Africa. We’ve invested in policy research on what’s going on around the world [in early childhood]. My colleagues really invested in understanding what home-based child care looks like, particularly in Latin America — we drew a lot from that. And we are partnering with the government, with the Department of Education. As insights emerge, we partner with them to say, ‘This is what the research says. These are the trends.’ We are very effectively influencing policy in South Africa by getting the president to announce early childhood as one of the apex priorities for our government. We are trying to make early childhood development in general, and promoting home-based child care as a first tier approach, a societal priority. 

    This story about home-based child care was produced by The Hechinger Report, a nonprofit, independent news organization focused on inequality and innovation in education. Sign up for the Hechinger newsletter.

    This <a target=”_blank” href=”https://hechingerreport.org/what-the-us-can-teach-other-countries-about-home-based-child-care/”>article</a> first appeared on <a target=”_blank” href=”https://hechingerreport.org”>The Hechinger Report</a> and is republished here under a <a target=”_blank” href=”https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/”>Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License</a>.<img src=”https://i0.wp.com/hechingerreport.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/cropped-favicon.jpg?fit=150%2C150&amp;ssl=1″ style=”width:1em;height:1em;margin-left:10px;”>

    <img id=”republication-tracker-tool-source” src=”https://hechingerreport.org/?republication-pixel=true&post=113980&amp;ga4=G-03KPHXDF3H” style=”width:1px;height:1px;”><script> PARSELY = { autotrack: false, onload: function() { PARSELY.beacon.trackPageView({ url: “https://hechingerreport.org/what-the-us-can-teach-other-countries-about-home-based-child-care/”, urlref: window.location.href }); } } </script> <script id=”parsely-cfg” src=”//cdn.parsely.com/keys/hechingerreport.org/p.js”></script>

    Source link

  • The international recruitment market is changing – and international education strategies will need to change with it

    The international recruitment market is changing – and international education strategies will need to change with it

    If you work anywhere near international student recruitment in the UK right now, chances are you’re feeling it: the tension; the uncertainty; the quiet panic behind friendly webinar smiles and networking events where we gather with peers. Is there some comfort in realising it’s not just you? The recruitment landscape really has shifted – and it’s shifted fast.

    For years, the UK felt like a safe bet. We’ve dined out on a strong reputation, our many world-class universities and our significant English-language advantage, which has given us a steady flow of students from our key markets. Looking back on the year just gone, it’s not hard to see why it feels like we’ve been living through a crisis.

    The international student levy and student demand

    The announcement of the international student levy sent shockwaves through the sector. There has been much focus on the potential material impacts to universities, but there is also a significant symbolic effect among prospective international students.

    At a time when international students are already facing rising tuition fees, higher living costs, currency volatility, and visa expenses, the levy feels like yet another barrier. Even if institutions absorb the levy cost, the levy has already done time in the court of public opinion, and the “international student tax” perception is out there. The most recent iteration of our student perceptions research, Emerging Futures 8, saw that three of the top five reasons international students decline their offer to study internationally are financially linked: the cost of tuition is beyond their financial reach; the cost of living has become too expensive; and the student visa cost has become too high.

    While institutions and the British public are being encouraged to look at it as an investment in other areas of HE, from a student’s perspective, it doesn’t read as investment. It reads as “you’re welcome… but at a price.” We saw a similar proposal come and go in Australia pre-election. The Australian Universities Accord panel considered and ultimately ruled out a levy, on the grounds of both the damage to Australia’s international appeal, and the significant headache in administering it

    If we put ourselves in the shoes of a student weighing up studying in the UK versus studying in Germany, the UK option now comes with higher tuition fees to offset domestic fees, the NHS surcharge, an increase in maintenance amounts, a steep visa fee and now, an additional levy. Meanwhile, Germany is saying low or no tuition, post-study work routes and growing English-taught provision. Even if the UK still offers higher prestige, the financial psychology is changing, and we know that matters.

    The countries that traditionally send students to the UK are facing shrinking job markets. And while students are still interested in international qualifications, the tone has shifted from aspirational to transactional with a strong emphasis on whether UK study is “really worth it.”

    The quiet squeeze of the BCA

    The BCA (Basic Compliance Assessment) framework is another pressure point, and it hits universities unevenly. On paper, it’s about quality and credibility, which no one disputes works to safeguard the reputation of the UK. But operationally, it’s becoming a quiet limiter on recruitment ambition. If an institution’s refusal rate climbs, its recruitment strategy tightens. If dependency on a single market becomes too visible, risk tolerance drops. And suddenly, growth opportunities shrink.

    That’s not because the demand isn’t there, but because the risk feels too high, with real consequences: fewer bold recruitment experiments; less appetite for new or emerging markets; more conservative agent partnerships and reduced flexibility in offer-making. The result? A recruitment environment that’s more cautious than creative.

    Sliding demand for the UK

    For a long time, the UK competed largely on reputation. Now, while the UK is still in the conversation, it no longer owns the room. The UK still has world-class education, but these days, so does everyone else. While UK institutions were navigating Brexit fallout, policy uncertainty, immigration messaging shifts and now compliance tightening, our competitors were building momentum. Students are more informed than ever. They compare graduate salaries, post-study work options, cost of living, the political climate, safety, and mental health support as well as prestige and reputation. But the recruitment decision is no longer just academic – it’s deeply geopolitical and financial, with a focus on ROI.

    The UK is no longer the automatic first choice destination it once was. Emerging Futures 8 puts Australia out front, with the UK second, ahead of the USA. But this doesn’t mean demand has collapsed. It means it has fragmented.

    We’re seeing a softening in traditional high-volume markets, slower conversion from offer to enrollment and more students holding multiple destination options later into the cycle. In fact, the same survey showed that now only 12 per cent of students apply for one destination – meaning 88 per cent of students are considering multiple options and they are holding onto those options much later down the recruitment funnel than in previous years. This also goes some way to explaining why institutional modelling of admissions is not as accurate as it has been in the past.

    At the same time, countries like France and Germany are stepping confidently into the spotlight. France has aggressively expanded English-taught programmes, particularly at Masters level. Business schools, engineering schools and public universities are all in the mix. Add lower tuition and growing post-study work routes, and suddenly France is no longer Plan B but a plausible first-choice option.

    Germany, meanwhile, has quietly built one of the most attractive international education propositions in the world: minimal or zero tuition, strong industry links, STEM leadership and a welcoming post-study work ecosystem. Layer in concerted campaigns from Poland, Spain, Turkey, Korea, China and Hong Kong to attract international students and you’ve got a busier marketplace than UK HE has ever had to contend with.

    What this means in 2026

    Despite all of the rather gloomy realities I’ve outlined, I see no reason why the UK should concede its market advantage without a fight – we are looking forward to working with our partners in 2026 to do just that. But winning back market share will mean recognising that the UK is no longer competing from a position of automatic advantage. We’re competing in a truly global marketplace where value matters as much as prestige, policy signals shape perception, compliance restricts agility, and cost sensitivity is rising everywhere.

    The institutions that will thrive are the ones that diversify markets meaningfully (not just on paper), invest in authentic student support, build real industry and employability pipelines, strengthen agent relationships as partnerships, and tell clearer, more honest value stories to students. As the government puts the final touches to its international education strategy, there is much opportunity to sustain and even extend international education, but any strategy that depends on “recruit as many as we can” without thinking deeply about how the offer lands in the international student market, is not likely to see long term success.

    Because right now, the world isn’t waiting for the UK to catch up. The world has already moved on, and our future students have moved with it.

    This article is published in association with IDP Education.

    Source link