Category: Policy

  • Data: who’ll be worst affected by England’s international fee levy?

    Data: who’ll be worst affected by England’s international fee levy?

    Long-awaited details of the mooted levy on international students at English universities – due to take effect in 2028 – were released with Rachel Reeves’ Budget earlier this week to a largely negative reaction from international education stakeholders.

    Instead of the expected 6% tax on international student income suggested in the immigration white paper, the Treasury is instead consulting on a £925-per-international-student flat fee.

    However, under the proposals, each provider will receive an allowance covering their first 220 international students each year – meaning that many small or specialist institutions will be spared the tax.

    But larger institutions with higher numbers of international students will bear the brunt of the levy.

    HESA data from the 2023/24 academic year – the most recently available figures – gives an indication of which providers could be worst hit by the levy, although enrolment numbers may have changed since then and could shift dramatically before the policy finally comes into effect.

    London is the region set to be most impacted by the levy, with England’s capital welcoming the most international students. Meanwhile, the North East had the fewest.

    Here’s our round up of the top five institutions that risk losing out the most.

    University College London (UCL)

    Of the 614,000 international students at English institutions in the 2023/24 academic year, UCL was home to the largest amount, at 27,695.

    Under the proposals, if UCL had the same number of international students under the levy, it would be liable to pay over £25 million.

    The University of Manchester

    Coming in second is the University of Manchester, which had 19,475 international students in 2023/24. This would mean it would have to pay almost £18m under the levy proposals.

    The University of Hertfordshire

    In third place is the University of Hertfordshire, with 19,235 international students in 2023/24 – a levy amount of just over £17.5m.

    Kings College London

    Up next is Kings College London, with 15,850 international students, meaning it would be taxed a little under £14.5m

    The University of Leeds

    Another large metropolitan university set to be hit hard by the levy is the University of Leeds, with 15,605 international students. If enrolments numbers stay the same into 2028, it could face costs of over £14.2m.

    Source link

  • Integrity Bill passes as government vows crackdown on “quick-buck” operators

    Integrity Bill passes as government vows crackdown on “quick-buck” operators

    The Albanese government has passed legislation that it says will strengthen the integrity of the international education sector, despite sector concerns about some elements of the reforms set to impact higher and international education.

    The Education Legislation Amendment (Integrity and Other Measures) Bill 2025 proposes amendments across several key acts within education, including the Education Services for Overseas Students Act (ESOS). 

    “With the passing of this legislation, we now have more tools to stop unscrupulous individuals in the international education system trying to make a quick buck,” said education minister Jason Clare.

    In a statement on the Bill’s passing, the federal government chose to highlight some of the changes it is set to bring about, including:

    • Enabling the banning of commissions to education agents for onshore student transfers
    • Requiring most prospective VET providers excluding TAFEs to first deliver courses to domestic students for two years before they can apply to teach overseas students as evidence of their commitment to quality education
    • Cancelling the registration of providers that fail to deliver a course to overseas students for 12 consecutive months to help deal with ‘phoenixing’
    • Giving ministers the power to limit or cancel a providers’ ability to deliver courses where it is in the public interest or there are systemic quality issues

    Education providers will also now require authorisation from TEQSA to deliver Australian degrees offshore. The government described these changes as “light-touch, set transitional arrangements and utilise information that providers already hold”.

    “Australia’s future success requires a focus on quality, integrity and a great student experience. That’s why we’re cracking down on exploitation, increasing transparency, and safeguarding the reputation of our sector,” said Julian Hill, assistant minister for international education.

    We’re cracking down on exploitation, increasing transparency, and safeguarding the reputation of our sector
    Julian Hill, assistant minister for international education

    According to Hill, the changes will “protect genuine students and support high-quality providers”.

    Ministers say the reforms are about “safeguarding” Australia’s reputation as a world leader in education but certain parts of the Bill garnered fierce criticism from the sector. A public call for submissions gathered concerns about changes to the definition of an education agent and whether ministerial intervention powers were appropriately balanced, among other changes.

    The Bill is set to tighten oversight of education agents by broadening the legal definition of who qualifies as an agent and introducing new transparency requirements around commissions and payments.

    Elsewhere, one of the most significant points of concern related to new ministerial powers over provider and course registrations. The Bill would allow the minister to make legislative instruments suspending the processing of applications for provider registration – or registration of new courses – for periods of up to 12 months.

    The new Bill closely mirrors last year’s version but drops the proposed hard cap on international student enrolments that contributed to the earlier Bill’s failure in parliament. Instead, the government is managing new enrolments through its National Planning Level and visa processing directive MD115, rather than legislated limits.

    Source link

  • England’s international fee levy under fire after details revealed

    England’s international fee levy under fire after details revealed

    Critics of the policy – now subject to consultation – say the levy will only heap more pressure onto an already creaking higher education network. At present, only England’s universities will be subject to the charge, as the Office for Students, which will manage the charge, only regulates English institutions.

    Official modelling predicts that the change, set to come in from August 2025, will cost universities an annual £330 million. However, under the proposals, each provider will receive an annual allowance to cover their first 220 international students – a move that’s made smaller and specialist institutions breathe a sigh of relief.

    But for larger universities with high numbers of international students, the picture isn’t so rosy.

    Gary Davies, pro vice-chancellor of London Metropolitan University, told The PIE News the levy would have a detrimental effect on his institution despite being brought in as a flat fee.

    “For us the levy means a cut in funding for the very students the levy proposes to support. It will impact what we can offer in relation to student hardship, careers advice, scholarships for underrepresented students,” he said.

    Diana Beech, director of the Finsbury Institute at City St George’s, said the details of the policy had been “buried in the Treasury’s Red Book” – largely dodging coverage by the mainstream media.

    “This begs the question: why undermine one of the UK’s strongest export sectors without even gaining political credit for it – whether that’s by framing the levy as a tough stance on immigration or as a much-needed boost for disadvantaged students,” she asked.

    “By going about this policy in such a hush-hush way, the levy will simply tax legitimate, highly skilled migration under the radar and heap further pressure on universities already in financial distress. Worse still, fixing it as a flat £925 fee per student risks hitting those institutions least able to absorb the cost, given the lack of price elasticity outside the elite end of the sector.”

    Why undermine one of the UK’s strongest export sectors without even gaining political credit for it?
    Diana Beech, City St George’s

    University Alliance CEO Vanessa Wilson warned the levy risked “denting [the] success story” of UK international education – even if the cash raised would go towards a goo cause like domestic maintenance grants.”

    Wilson said the move would hit universities hard, and pressed for a full assessment of the levy’s effects on higher education institutions before its proposed implementation in 2028.

    “Alongside this, the government must explore further ways to soften the blow for professional and technical universities, such as cutting costly regulation and reviewing their participation in the Teachers’ Pension Scheme, which some universities are legally obliged to offer at increasingly expensive contribution rates,” she added. 

    Malcolm Press, president of Universities UK, pointed out that the UK’s international fees are already high. As a result of the proposed levy, he predicted, English universities would either have to reduce cross-subsidies that support teaching and research, or raise international fees further – which could drive down international student numbers and therefore force institutions to reduce domestic places.

    The irony of the levy – which will be used to fund maintenance grants for disadvantaged British students – actually reducing places for home students has been raised before. An analysis by the think tank Public First predicted the levy could shrink domestic places by 135,000.

    Source link

  • Australia’s providers and peak bodies have their say on education reforms

    Australia’s providers and peak bodies have their say on education reforms

    The Bill, which contains a suite of integrity-focused reforms that will impact Australia’s international and higher education sectors, is progressing through parliament.

    With that, stakeholders have been weighing in. Here are some of the key points raised in submissions, focusing on education agents, TEQSA powers, and consultation concerns.

    Changes for education agents

    The Bill is set to tighten oversight of education agents by broadening the legal definition of who qualifies as an agent and introducing new transparency requirements around commissions and payments.

    Universities Australia urged the government to adopt a definition of education agent that “captures only those receiving commission for the direct recruitment of students on behalf of Australian institutions”, arguing this would provide greater certainty to universities and ensure compliance requirements remain proportionate.

    The International Education Association of Australia (IEAA) also raised concerns that the proposed definition remains overly broad. In its submission, the association warned that, without clearer definitions and published guidelines, existing arrangements – such as subcontracted marketing services or partnerships with education businesses – could inadvertently fall within the scope of education agent, increasing compliance burdens and legal risks.

    For these reasons, IEAA reiterated its earlier recommendation that the definition be adapted from the National Code 2018, or that an exemption schedule be developed covering government agencies, TNE partners, and contracted marketing firms.

    TEQSA-related changes and powers

    Elsewhere, the legislation also sets out that education providers will require authorisation from the Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency (TEQSA) – Australia’s national higher education regulator – to deliver Australian degrees offshore.

    The Bill will also give TEQSA clearer authority to monitor, and, if necessary, restrict or revoke offshore higher-education delivery, backed by new reporting obligations requiring providers to notify TEQSA of key changes to offshore operations and submit annual reports on all offshore courses, with specific details yet to be defined.

    Julian Hill, the federal government’s assistant minister for international education, recently defended this part of the Bill saying: “All that this part of the Bill is doing is making sure that TEQSA, as the regulator, has a line of sight to what providers are doing offshore – that’s all.

    “Right now, TEQSA, as the regulator, simply doesn’t have the data-flow to know reliably which providers are delivering in which markets… There’s no more power; there’s no more red tape; it’s simply saying: ‘You need to get authorisation.’

    “It’s straightforward. Everyone who is currently delivering automatically gets authorised. But then they just have to tell the regulator, so that they can run their normal risk-based regulation.”

    In its submission, IEAA said it supports the changes, providing they “do not penalise existing Australian education providers’ partnership arrangements/contracts with their offshore partners”.

    However, IEAA suggests a “phased implementation timeline that allows for some providers who are mid-way through contract signing with offshore partners to not be unnecessarily caught up, delayed or burdened by this new measure suddenly being enforced”.

    IEAA also argued that the Bill’s nine-month decision period for TEQSA – which could be stretched to 18 months if extended – is too long, warning that such delays would hinder providers’ ability to respond to opportunities and innovate. A three- to six-month timeframe would be more appropriate, it said, noting that long approval windows could deter offshore partners already navigating lengthy timelines for establishing new TNE agreements.

    Requiring notifications for every change in course offerings would impose a significant – and unnecessary – administrative burden without delivering meaningful regulatory benefit
    Go8

    The Group of Eight also raised TEQSA’s new requirements in their submission, writing: “There is no material difference between courses offered by Monash University onshore in Australia and those at Monash Malaysia. Requiring notifications for every change in course offerings would impose a significant – and unnecessary – administrative burden without delivering meaningful regulatory benefit.”

    Go8 said that without further clarity on reporting requirements, it is “difficult to determine whether this aligns with the intended light-touch approach” that the government has signalled.

    “For self-accrediting universities, reporting obligations should be kept to an absolute minimum and clearly linked to risk mitigation, ensuring compliance does not create unnecessary administrative burden. Importantly, reports should not request information that TEQSA can access through existing systems,” said Go8 in its submission.

    Sector consultation

    A lack of consultation was a major point of contention during last year’s debate on the previous iteration of the Bill, and several submissions argue that this continues to be a concern.

    English Australia acknowledged the “extensive engagement” undertaken by Hill, as well as ongoing consultation by the Department of Education – and noted that several improvements had been made since the 2024 version, including the removal of proposed enrolment caps.

    However, the ELICOS peak body added that “the vast majority of feedback” provided during the inquiry has been ignored and that the limited consultation that characterised the earlier Bill has “equally marked the drafting of the current version”.

    English Australia urged the government to pause the Bill to allow time for a collaborative and robust consultation with the sector peak bodies, and also to allow time for economic modelling on the cumulative impact of its provisions on the international education sector and the wider economy.

    Independent Tertiary Education Council Australia (ITECA) takes a similar stance, describing engagement on matters within this Bill as “challenging”.

    “ITECA has been unequivocal in lending support to measures that will genuinely enhance integrity objectives,” wrote ITECA CEO Felix Pirie in its submission.

    “As you will appreciate, ITECA cannot lend such support in the absence of collaborative and open dialogue, especially when the sector is ambushed by the tabling of legislation in the parliament. Improved integrity must be delivered through improved integrity and transparency in government processes, decision-making and collaborative engagement with the sector.

    Pirie and his team are recommending that should the reforms pass, they be subject to review by an external reviewer within two years of commencement of those provisions.

    All submissions can be viewed at this link.

    Source link

  • NZ warns against exploitation as working hours for int’l students rise

    NZ warns against exploitation as working hours for int’l students rise

    As part of its plan to grow the international education sector — which includes doubling its contribution to $7.2 billion and increasing international enrolments to 119,000 by 2034 — New Zealand has introduced new immigration changes.

    The changes extend in-study work rights to all tertiary students on approved exchange or study abroad programs and clarify that most students who change providers or lower their study level will need a new visa.

    Apart from these, eligible tertiary students in post-school education, such as universities and polytechnics, and secondary students in Years 12-13 can now work up to 25 hours a week. Secondary students will continue to require parental and school approval for in-study work.

    The increased limit applies to all new visas granted from November 3, even if the application was submitted earlier.

    Moreover, students already holding visas with a 20-hour work limit will need to reapply, either through a variation of conditions or by obtaining a new study visa, to access the increased allowance.

    Stakeholders have noted the importance of making sure that the relaxed rules do not result in students being exploited for low-paid or exploitative work.

    The increase to in-study work rights comes at a time when New Zealand has 40,987 study visa holders eligible to work, with 29,790 of those visas expiring on or before 31 March 2026 and 11,197 after.

    The New Zealand government says the change will make the country “more competitive globally” and improve the overall student experience, at a time when international student satisfaction remains strong at 87%.

    “International students make a significant contribution to the economy, with each student spending around $45,000 on average in 2024 – supporting local businesses, tourism, and job creation,” Jeannie Melville, deputy COO for immigration at the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment, told The PIE News.

    “As part of the International Education Going for Growth Plan, changes were announced to immigration settings to support sustainable growth and enhance New Zealand’s appeal as a study destination. These changes aim to maintain education quality while managing immigration risk.”

    International students have the same minimum employment rights as any other worker, including being paid at least the minimum wage and working within visa conditions
    Jeannie Melville, Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment

    The rise in working hours is a “confidence signal” that will help with living costs and shows that New Zealand is welcoming, according to Frank Xing, director of marketing and operations at Auckland-based Novo Education Consulting.

    But authorities are still expected to keep a close eye on the changes amid past concerns of international students working long hours for below-minimum wages, being denied sick leave, and struggling to find jobs.

    The New Zealand government has taken steps to address workplace exploitation in the past, including launching the multilingual Introduction to Your Employment Rights module to help migrant workers understand their agreements and rights.

    “International students have the same minimum employment rights as any other worker, including being paid at least the minimum wage and working within visa conditions. Exploitation, such as underpayment or forcing excessive hours, is a criminal offence under the Immigration Act and we do act against employers who exploit workers.

    “Immigration New Zealand (INZ) has strengthened protections for migrant workers, including the Worker Protection Act that took effect in January 2024,” Melville said, adding that this allows authorities to issue infringement notices, publish the names of non-compliant employers, and stop them from supporting migrant visa applications for a period.

    “We have also tightened visa settings and improved monitoring to reduce exploitation risks.”

    According to ex and current international students The PIE spoke with, employers often pushed them to work beyond the weekly hour limit, and while students tried to balance extra hours by reducing them later or carrying them into holiday periods, any overtime during term time was usually unpaid until the breaks.

    Some students also alleged mistreatment or harsh behaviour at their workplaces, though experiences varied by employer.

    Despite these concerns, Melville noted that students can report any instances of exploitation by calling Crime Stoppers on 0800 555 111, which she described as “a confidential and safe way to make a report”.

    According to Xing, the changes in working hours don’t replace core factors like academic fit, career pathways, and post-study visas that drive student applications but they will help international students avoid situations where they can be taken advantage of.

    “Extending legal working hours should also reduce the temptation to accept low-paid, cash-in-hand jobs. Of course, vigilance is still needed,” he said.

    He called for better student education on their employment rights, as well as stronger penalties for employers who break the rules and easier reporting channels for students.

    “It’s early days since the rule took effect – around 10 days – but we’re already seeing more enquiries mentioning ‘25 hours’ alongside programme and city choice, especially as other destinations tighten settings,” Xing added, noting that current international students have also requested help from their Licensed Immigration Advisers to apply for a variation of conditions to move from 20 to 25 hours.

    It’s early days since the rule took effect – around 10 days – but we’re already seeing more enquiries mentioning ‘25 hours’ alongside programme and city choice, especially as other destinations tighten settings
    Frank Xing, Novo Education Consulting

    The increase to 25 hours per week isn’t limited to students. New Zealand has also extended part-time work rights to dependent child visitor visa holders and skilled Migrant Category Interim visa holders.

    The move comes as a record number of New Zealanders leave amid a weakening economy, with relaxed migrant work rules seen as a way to fill workforce gaps and support students’ transition into future employment.

    “In certain professions, like healthcare, the number of hours of relevant work experience is a very important factor – it can directly affect your employability and career progression,” stated Vijeta Kanwar, director of operations, New Zealand Gateway.

    “For example, some job vacancies specify that a candidate must have 100 or even 500 hours of work experience. In that context, gaining five extra hours a week over a year can significantly increase the total experience a student has, enhancing their opportunities when pursuing post-study work.”

    “We’ve seen more enthusiasm from students, especially those looking to gain international work experience. They’re quite excited because, in many professions, the number of hours of work experience you gain, especially if it’s linked to your intended career, has huge importance.”

    Just in June this year, New Zealand announced that degree holders from countries including India, France, Germany, Italy, Sri Lanka, Singapore, South Korea, Sweden, and Switzerland can now bypass the qualification assessment process for certain immigration categories.

    Subject to New Zealand’s cabinet discussions, the government is also set to introduce a new short-term work visa for some vocational graduates and streamline visa processes, according to INZ.

    Source link

  • Canadian sector hits back over plan to cancel study permits in crises

    Canadian sector hits back over plan to cancel study permits in crises

    Immigration Minister Lena Diab told a House of Commons committee last week that the Strengthening Canada’s Immigration System and Borders Act (Bill C-12) would target “people who are going to be committing large-scale fraud”.

    However, an opposition member, Conservative MP Michelle Rempel Garner, rejected the idea that the Liberal government needs sweeping powers to keep the immigration system functioning.

    “That sounds like an authoritarian dictatorship to me,” Rempel Garner said.

    Languages Canada Executive Director Gonzalo Peralta told The PIE News there was a need to define under what conditions Immigration Refugees and Citizenship Canada (IRCC) could cancel student visas.

    “The term ‘public interest’ as grounds for cancelling visas or applications is vague and does not provide the assurances needed to ensure that legitimate students are not inadvertently impacted by the legislation,” Peralta said.

    At the committee meeting, Rempel Garner argued: “It seems like you’re trying to give yourself and your department more powers to correct mistakes in the system that they could have made in screening out potential fraud to begin with.” 

    The term ‘public interest’ as grounds for cancelling visas or applications is vague and does not provide the assurances needed

    In the wake of a large number of fraudulent study permit applications made by unscrupulous education agents, in 2023 the department implemented a system requiring applicants to present a verified letter of acceptance from a designated learning institution in order to obtain a study permit.

    In many cases, the students said they were not aware that their agent was submitting fraudulent documents on their behalf.

    MP Rempel Garner called out the minister for blaming students and other newcomers to Canada. “Why don’t you make the system work instead of punishing the victims of human trafficking,” she demanded at the meeting.

    Larissa Bezo, president of the Canadian Bureau for International Education (CBIE), told The PIE her group supports measures to uphold the integrity of the International Student Program. “However, we do not want to see international students who have been the victims of fraud unfairly punished,” Bezo said.

    Peralta of Languages Canada condemned the Liberal government for failing to consult with the sector about this legislation and other policy changes.

    “In the case of the proposed Bill C-12, a more comprehensive definition is needed of the specific conditions under which IRCC could cancel visas,” Peralta said.

    Canadian immigration policy has hit the headlines over the past week after Prime Minister Mark Carney’s government set out its intention to cut new international study permits by more than 50% in 2026-2028 – going further with enrolment caps that are already causing significant problems for the international education sector.

    Source link

  • What we still need to talk about when it comes to the LLE

    What we still need to talk about when it comes to the LLE

    The Lifelong Learning Entitlement (LLE) has been promoted as a transformational change that will broaden access to flexible education and training.

    Though there have been several delays to implementation, the recent Post-16 Education and Skills White Paper has solidified the government’s commitment to delivering the LLE as planned.

    In theory, the LLE could open the door for learners who never imagined higher study, while unlocking a pipeline of talent for the high-skill jobs our economy desperately needs.

    For most undergraduates, the student finance process will remain largely the same with new features added to their application portal. For providers, it is a major operational shift that will require new systems, administration processes and advice and guidance. And while the policy spotlight has been fixed on modular learning, there are other opportunities that could be easily missed.

    The appetite for modular learning

    Modular learning has been pitched as the new frontier of flexibility. In its latest publication, the OfS shared outcomes from their Call for Evidence on how to measure student outcomes in modular study. While the report offers guidance for curriculum designers and quality assurance teams, the policy agenda has shifted since 2023, and demand is still uncertain. The OfS’ own short course trial indicated that demand was limited and the Modular Acceleration Programme has yet to deliver clear lessons.

    A 30-credit bundle would cost around £2,383 (assuming a £9,535 fee is applied to the parent course), this rate for a single module looks questionable compared to cheaper, industry-recognised certificates. With a credit transfer consultation not due until spring 2026, a national framework remains distant, and it is still unclear whether there is broad sector support for such a framework. If a national framework were to be implemented, some HEIs may see this as a challenge to their institutional autonomy and academic distinctiveness.

    If interest in modularity grows, providers will still need to consider whether employers will value standalone modules as much as full qualifications, the duration it will take to stack credits (accumulation to a full award), and the validity of earlier modules when pursuing a professional qualification. These factors will determine whether development in modular learning is a worthwhile investment.

    The target audience

    The rhetoric often frames modular study as a boon for employers. But there’s a problem: if staff are encouraged to take out loans for training their employer needs, it could be seen as a pay cut because the loans will need to be paid back with interest by the employee.

    It is in our view that CPD should sit in the employer-funded training budget, or within the forthcoming Growth and Skills Levy. Employers are of course important – but in terms of helping providers ensure there is labour market currency in a course. The learner will be accountable for the loan and so it should ultimately be viewed in terms of its benefit to the learner and not the employer; any digression from this may risk employers using the LLE as a replacement for their CPD budget, with employees picking up the bill.

    If you take out employer-driven training from this, there are three main group of learners that may be attracted to modular learning:

    • Top-uppers – employees whose employers have funded some modules and who now want to complete a qualification.
    • Passionate learners – individuals happy to pay for a module to support their career or for the joy of learning.
    • Mature learners – carers, full-time workers, and others who need smaller, flexible entry points into HE.

    The bigger opportunities hiding in plain sight

    While modularity dominates discussion, two quieter reforms within the LLE could prove even more transformative.

    Priority additional entitlement (PAE) will expand to include areas such as teaching, social work, and healthcare – vital for sustaining public services. Learners who have already used up their entitlement will still be able to access loans in these areas for full degrees.

    And the removal of the equivalent and lower qualification (ELQ) rule means graduates with residual funding and/or those that use PAE can now retrain at the same or lower level (up to level 6, at least). This opens retraining and reskilling opportunities that were previously out of reach.

    Together, these changes could unlock the mature learner market – carers, career-changers, full-time workers, those who exhausted loan entitlement on a previous degree, or NEET graduates looking for a route back into the labour market.

    It also raises another question on whether the LLE should have been capped at age 60 as many in their sixties could still make meaningful contributions in teaching, health, and social care if they had the funding to retrain.

    Our recommendations

    For the sector to take full advantage of the LLE, we recommend that providers plan for continuity – ensure there is a seamless transition from higher education student finance (HESF) to LLE for mainstream undergraduates. Operational teams should have a firm understanding of the in service changes detailed in key guidelines such as the Course Service Management Definition. This is important in distinguishing the differences between technical requirements and aspirational aspects of the policy.

    Within this technical preparation, there is a need to treat modular learning as an evolving opportunity – demand, delivery, and impact are still emerging. The Post-16 Education and Skills White Paper confirmed there will be some interaction between the LLE with the forthcoming Growth and Skills Levy, likely initially through “apprenticeship units” and Higher Technical Qualification modules beingt tied to occupational standards. Providers should anticipate how this might unfold in priority areas such as artificial intelligence, digital skills, and engineering, and plan strategically for early implementation.

    Within all of this we need to make it clear that the LLE is for the learner – the LLE should be a learner entitlement, not a subsidy for corporate upskilling. Mapping how different funding streams (e.g. LLE, Growth and Skills Levy, Skills Bootcamps, Adult Skills Fund) interact will be vital. Institutions must ensure that learners receive clear advice and that funding follows the purpose of study, whether employer-driven or learner-led. There’s an opportunity to radically expand access – the expanded entitlement and ELQ reform present major opportunities for retraining and second-chance learning. To unlock this market, provision must be genuinely flexible, accessible, and clearly explained. Institutions should design modular and part-time routes that accommodate work and caring responsibilities while demystifying the complex funding landscape through transparent guidance.

    Further considerations for long-term success

    The sector has been encouraged to explore modular learning, however, for many HEIs modularity is best viewed as an enabler rather than a standalone offer. The real prize of the LLE lies in the funding flexibilities in widening access to learning, retraining pathways, and mature learner opportunities sitting just beneath the headlines.

    If we want the LLE to deliver on its promise, we need to first ensure that all HEIs feel confident in transitioning to a new funding system to minimise disruptions to students. Following this, to truly achieve long-term transformation, we need to ask the hard questions about the purpose of modularity, the dichotomy between learner- and market-driven education, and the cultural shift required to draw more people into different higher-level learning, no matter where they are in life.

    Source link

  • Want to Protect American Children? End the Shutdown – The 74

    Want to Protect American Children? End the Shutdown – The 74


    Get stories like this delivered straight to your inbox. Sign up for The 74 Newsletter

    Politicians love to say, “We must protect our children. They are our future.” But looking at what’s happening in Congress right now, children are not being protected. Families are not being prioritized. Instead, lawmakers are locked in a standoff, waiting to see who blinks first as they fight over who gets the last word and how big of a tax break they can give the wealthiest Americans.

    Meanwhile, families — especially families of color and low-income families — are left to hold their breath and wonder what this shutdown means for them. As members of Congress keep making their rounds on television, babies still need formula, toddlers still need health screenings, children still need breakfast and lunch at school and in their child care programs, and parents still need child care so they can work. Amid extreme stress, families are left, wondering how they will be able to take care of their children.

    The demands of children and their families do not stop just because Congress is at a standstill. 

    According to Kids’ Share 2024, an annual report published by the Urban Institute about federal expenditures, children received only about 9% of all federal spending in 2023, while about 43% of federal spending went toward health and retirement benefits for adults 18 years and older. That’s a very small percentage for a nation in which politicians on both sides of the aisle have expressed interest in increased government investment in children. These numbers contradict the narrative that claims children matter because they are our future.

    That 9% starts to feel even smaller during a government shutdown. Some programs, like Social Security, Medicaid and Medicare, are mandatory, meaning they don’t require annual congressional approval. But others, including a number of crucial children’s programs, such as the Special Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC), are funded through the annual appropriations process, which Congress must approve. This means when lawmakers can’t agree on a budget, these critical programs are left in limbo.

    The fallout on the horizon from this needless dysfunction is becoming clearer.

    In September, the National WIC Association reminded the public that WIC only had enough funds to temporarily remain open during a government shutdown. Now, according to Reuters, at least two dozen state websites warn there could be an unprecedented benefit gap for more than 41 million people in America who get aid from the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) and the nearly 7 million people who rely on WIC. 

    Georgia Machell, president and chief executive officer of the National WIC Association, delivered this sobering news last week.

    “Without additional support, State WIC Agencies face another looming crisis,” she said. “Several are set to run out of funds to pay for WIC benefits on November 1 and may need to start making contingency plans.”

    Many families in historically marginalized communities, who already face greater barriers to health care, housing and early education, will feel this impact even more sharply. For example, we know that tens of thousands of young children and families rely on vital support received through Head Start, a service that promotes early learning and development, health and well-being. The shutdown is already in its fourth week, and, according to a statement issued on Oct. 16 from the National Head Start Association, if the government shutdown doesn’t end by Nov. 1, more than 65,000 children and families will be at risk of losing critical services. 

    A missed doctor’s appointment, a delay in SNAP benefits or a gap in child care isn’t just inconvenient. It can destabilize a family and hinder a child’s development, especially in the classroom.

    A research brief published by The Food Research & Action Center highlighted the links between hunger and learning, stating that “behavioral, emotional, mental health, and academic problems are more prevalent among children and adolescents struggling with hunger” and that young people experiencing hunger have lower math scores and poorer grades. The shutdown will have real and lasting consequences on the learning, development and well-being of America’s children because these programs are being impacted.

    It’s frustrating to watch lawmakers stand at podiums and declare how much they care about children while their actions — or inaction — puts children at risk. 

    Words don’t put food on the table. Words don’t pay rent. But actions do. 

    And right now, the actions coming out of Congress are sending an unfortunate message to families: protecting children is not the priority.

    If children truly are our future, then they cannot be treated as bargaining chips. Children deserve more than 9% of America’s federal spending budget. We need federal budgets that reflect children’s needs and protection for essential services. Critical programs that protect child health and well-being should never be disrupted by a government shutdown.

    Finally, Americans deserve government accountability. Policymakers should be held responsible for their words and actions, especially when they fail to deliver on the promises they make about protecting children.

    Children cannot wait. They are growing, learning and developing right now. The choices we make as a country today will shape their tomorrow.


    Did you use this article in your work?

    We’d love to hear how The 74’s reporting is helping educators, researchers, and policymakers. Tell us how

    Source link

  • “we can’t leave education to political leaders” 

    “we can’t leave education to political leaders” 

    “Politics is for short-term cycles, education is for the long-term,” said Baroness Usha Prashar, independent member of the UK House of Lords, speaking at the Reinventing Higher Education conference 2025, led by IE University, in London. 

    Prashar told university leaders in the room that institutions must not get “buffeted by the political pressures of the day,” urging them to think creatively to find ways of preserving core values.  

    Prashar pointed to cases in the US where she said universities were being “creative” and giving equality initiatives different names to save them from abolition under Trump’s anti-DEI crusade.  

    The US is perhaps the most striking current example of education coming under political pressure as the Trump administration attempts to reshape American higher education.  

    Earlier this month, the government rolled out its so-called “compact” for higher education to all US colleges, promising preferential federal funding for institutions that agree to a slew of commitments widely seen as an attack on academic research and institutional autonomy.  

    Faith Abiodun, executive director of United World Colleges (UWC) international, echoed Prashar’s advocacy, stating: “We can’t leave education to political leaders”, and warning that isolated institutions were more likely to be targeted.  

    He highlighted the dilemma faced by many US universities, compelled to choose between following the “pseudo kings” or lose access to vital federal funding. 

    Abiodun said the US previously attracted 60% of UWC’s school graduates, funded by the world’s largest privately funded tertiary education scholarship, but that students were fast turning away from the destination.  

    While Europe has stepped up efforts to attract talent pivoting away from the US – evident in the European Commission’s recent “Choose Europe for Science” campaign – IE University president Santiago Iñiguez de Onzoño emphasised international education wasn’t a “zero-sum game”. 

    “A number of continental European universities have benefitted from these increased barriers to mobility, but I don’t think it’s good news because in the end it puts up barriers to cross border mobility and good globalisation,” he told The PIE.  

    “Disruptions in the US are negative for all players.”

    Amid heightened visa restrictions and increased compliance measures across all of the ‘big four’ study destinations, western universities are ramping up efforts to establish branch campuses to reach students in traditional source destinations.  

    While providing “rich educational opportunities” for students who otherwise might be unable to access an international education, as well as allowing students and faculty to travel between campuses, Iñiguez warned that TNE was “at once an opportunity and a threat” which in some ways represents a step backwards from globalisation.  

    Politics is for short-term cycles, education is for the long-term

    Baroness Usha Prashar CBE, UK House of Lords

    In the US, the impact of declining international enrolments has not been felt uniformly across institutions, with the University of Notre Dame seeing “almost exactly the same yield of international undergraduate and postgraduate students” this semester, Notre Dame vice president and associate provost, David Go, told delegates.  

    “As a research university in the pursuit of truth we can position ourselves as nonpartisan and independent.”  

    “Universities can and should be the place for difficult conversations, which is at the root of diplomatic activity,” said Go, highlighting a recent event at Notre Dame which hosted two governors – one democratic and one republican – to discuss how to disagree well. 

    “While the broader political discourse in the US favours disagreeing poorly, to have two of our leaders come and have that conversation helped at least reset some of that discourse,” he said.  

    Elsewhere, speakers emphasised the importance of institutional neutrality to create spaces where people can disagree, at a time when universities are under increased pressure to take a political stance.  

    Julie Sanders, vice chancellor of Royal Holloway University in the UK, highlighted the necessity of institutions fostering debate when the political sphere is becoming more binary.  

    For Sanders, universities should be places for intellectual debate but also places of refuge for migrant students, highlighting the UK’s Chevening Scholarship which is one of the routes through which the UK opened its doors to Gazan students fleeing the war.

    Source link

  • Australian MPs defend education reforms as Bill progresses through parliament

    Australian MPs defend education reforms as Bill progresses through parliament

    Australia’s Education Legislation Amendment (Integrity and Other Measures) Bill 2025  has cleared its second reading in the House and will progress without amendment.

    Following the government’s unsuccessful attempt in 2024 to pass reforms through a previous ESOS amendment Bill, minister for education Jason Clare has reintroduced legislation aimed at “strengthening the integrity of the international education sector”.

    Speaking in parliament on October 29, Clare said the Bill will make it “harder for bad operators to enter or remain in the sector, while also supporting the majority of providers, who do the right thing”.

    “These changes safeguard our reputation as a world leader in education, both here and overseas,” he added.

    Assistant minister for international education Julian Hill addressed some of the key points of debate in the sector regarding the Bill, including changes that relate to education agents.

    The Bill is set to tighten oversight of education agents by broadening the legal definition of who qualifies as an agent and introducing new transparency requirements around commissions and payments.

    Hill claimed this increased transparency will help providers “identify reputable agents”.

    “Education agents, counsellors, consultants – whatever they’re called in different countries – overall play a really important and constructive role,” he said.

    “But the evidence is overwhelming, from universities but also from the reputable private providers in the higher education sector and the vocational training sector, that the behaviour of unscrupulous agents onshore pursuing transfers has corrupted the market.”

    The evidence is overwhelming… the behaviour of unscrupulous agents onshore pursuing transfers has corrupted the market
    Julian Hill, assistant minister for international education

    The legislation looks to enable the banning of commissions to education agents for onshore student transfers – a measure that has been widely debated in the sector lately.

    “I absolutely understand there are some in the sector who don’t like this part of the Bill,” said Hill.

    “But, overwhelmingly, the feedback which I’ve received over years now from the reputable private providers in VET and higher education is to please do something about the behaviour of the agent commissions because they are buying and selling students.”

    Elsewhere, the legislation also sets out that education providers will require authorisation from the Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency (TEQSA) — Australia’s national higher education regulator — to deliver Australian degrees offshore.

    “All that this part of the Bill is doing is making sure that TEQSA, as the regulator, has a line of sight to what providers are doing offshore – that’s all,” said Hill.

    “That’s because Australians, and all of the reputable providers and universities delivering transnationally, guarantee to the world that, when one of our Australian providers delivers a course offshore, that course is delivered to exactly the same quality standard as if the student were in Australia. That’s our promise to the world.”

    “Right now, TEQSA, as the regulator, simply doesn’t have the data-flow to know reliably which providers are delivering in which markets… There’s no more power; there’s no more red tape; it’s simply saying: ‘You need to get authorisation.’ It’s straightforward. Everyone who is currently delivering automatically gets authorised. But then they just have to tell the regulator, so that they can run their normal risk-based regulation.”

    Hill stressed that the recent expansion of transnational education (TNE) has been highly beneficial for the economy, Australia’s soft power, and, in particular, for strengthening links with Southeast Asia – a priority region for the government as it seeks to deepen trade, education and diplomatic ties.

    “But, if one of our providers does the wrong thing in a given market, it wrecks our reputation for everyone,” warned Hill.

    The Bill did face some criticism during proceedings, including from independent MP for Wentworth, Allegra Spender, who widely supports the Bill but raised concerns about new ministerial powers to cancel a class of courses or course registrations. Spender hopes these powers are used “sparingly and with clear safeguards”.

    “These powers mark a departure from existing arrangements, where cancellations are overseen by independent regulators, like TEQSA and ASQA. Under the Bill, the minister is no longer required to consult these bodies. Instead, the minister may only consult such persons or entities as the minister considers appropriate. This is a significant centralisation of power and one that carries risk.”

    “The minister may cancel courses due to systemic issues, but that threshold is vague. More worryingly, courses may simply be cancelled because they seem to offer limited value to Australia’s current or future skill needs, a narrow test which is also open to interpretation.”

    According to Spender, this overlooks the fact that more than 60% of international students return to their home countries.

    “As education expert Andrew Norton points out, why should their course choices be limited by the labour market needs of a foreign country?” she asked.

    The new Bill closely mirrors last year’s version but drops the proposed hard cap on international student enrolments that contributed to the earlier Bill’s failure in parliament. Instead, the government is managing new enrolments through its National Planning Level, a de facto cap that sets target limits for providers.

    Under these limits, publicly funded universities that diversify away from traditional markets and expand into Southeast Asia may become eligible for a higher allocation of international student places. Those that demonstrate strong student housing arrangements may also become eligible for a higher allocation of international student places.

    Source link