Category: Policy

  • From Funding Formulas to AI: Pedro Teixeira on Higher Education’s Next Challenges

    From Funding Formulas to AI: Pedro Teixeira on Higher Education’s Next Challenges

    Welcome back to our fourth season. Time Flies. We’ve gone back to an audio only format ’cause apparently y’all are audio and bibliophiles and not videophiles, so we decided to chuck the extra editing burden. Other than that, though, it’s the same show. Bring you stories on higher education from all around the world. So, let’s get to it.

    Today’s guest is Pedro Teixeira. He’s a higher education scholar from the University of Porto in Portugal, focusing to a large extent on the economics of education, but he also just finished a term as that country’s Secretary of State for higher education. That’s a position closer to a junior minister rather than a deputy minister, but it has elements of both.

    I first met Pedro about 20 years ago, and I ran into him again this summer in Boston at the Center for International Higher Education’s biannual shindig, where he was giving the Philip Altbach lecture. And let me tell you, this was the best lecture I have listened to in a long time.

    Two reasons for this. First, Pedro spoke about his experiences as a Secretary of State trying to negotiate a new funding formula with universities in that country. I won’t spoil the details, but one big highlight for me was that he was in the rare position of being a politician, trying to convince universities not to have a performance-based element in their funding formula. And second, he talked about the future of higher education in the face of possible falling returns to education due to wider adoption of artificial intelligence.

    It was such a good talk, I knew my World of Higher Education podcast listeners would think it was great too. And while I couldn’t record it, I did do the next best thing. I invited Pedro to be our lead off guest for this season’s podcast. Let’s listen to what he has to say.

    The World of Higher Education Podcast
    Episode 4.1 | From Funding Formulas to AI: Pedro Teixeira on Higher Education’s Next Challenges

    Transcript

    Alex Usher: Okay, so Pedro, you were an academic at CIPES (Centre of Research on Higher Education Policy) at the University of Porto, and you went from that to being a minister of state. That’s not an unfamiliar path in Portuguese higher education—Alberto Amal, I think, did something similar. But that move from academia to government, how big a shift was that? What did you learn, and what were you not expecting when becoming a minister of state?

    Pedro Teixeira: I think you’re right in the sense that there are quite a few people who have done this, not only in Portugal but also in other parts of Europe, in different areas. And I think it’s always a bit of a challenge, because there’s this expectation that, since you’re an academic—and especially if you’re an expert on the topic—people expect you to have a solution for all the problems. And it’s not exactly like that.

    At the same time, I think one is worried that what you do in office will be coherent with what you had advocated as an academic and with what you had written about specific topics. That’s challenging.

    In some respects, I wasn’t very surprised by what I faced, because I had been involved in advisory roles and I knew people who had been in that kind of policy role. So I think I wasn’t—I mean, there were the things you expect, like the amount of work and the long days. But I never felt that was really the most difficult part. Of course, going through these things and living them is a little different than knowing them in the abstract.

    But I think the main concern for me was the permanent pressures. You are always concerned with something, always worried either about the problems you have to deal with or the problems that will emerge.

    What I was not so happy with was the lack of a sense of urgency in some of the actors, both on the government side and on the side of stakeholders in the sector. Because if you feel the problems are significant, you need to move forward—of course not rushing, but you do need to move forward.

    On the positive side, I think the quality and dedication of staff was very important. Civil service is often criticized, but I found that very important. And the other thing that was also very important was the role of data and evidence, while at the same time you also need to develop arguments and persuade people about the points you’re trying to make.

    Alex Usher: So what were those urgent issues? I know one of the big things you dealt with was a funding formula—and we’ll come to that later—but what, to your mind, were the other big urgent issues in Portuguese higher education at that time?

    Pedro Teixeira: As we know, most people in their higher education system always think their system is very specific, very different from everyone else. But in fact, we know there are a lot of commonalities across education sectors.

    In many ways, the challenges were the same ones that people describe as belonging to mass systems, or what others might call mature systems. One significant issue, of course, was the adverse demographic trends.

    Another was the tension between, on the one hand, wanting to broaden access and enhance equity in the system, and on the other, facing enormous pressures toward stratification and elitism, with the system tending to reproduce socioeconomic inequalities.

    There were also issues related to diversity versus isomorphism. On the one hand, people agree that in order for a mass system to function, it needs to be diverse. But there are pressures in the system that tend to push institutions toward mimicking or emulating the more prestigious ones.

    The balance between missions is another challenge. This relates to that issue of isomorphism, because research has become so dominant in defining what higher education institutions do and how they see their mission.

    And, of course, there were issues of cost and relevance: who should pay for higher education, and how can we persuade society to put more resources into a sector that, because it is a mass system, is already absorbing a significant amount of public funding?

    Alex Usher: All right. On that point about demographics, I saw a story in one of the Portuguese newspapers this week saying that applications were down 15% this year. Is that a rapidly evolving situation? That seems like a lot.

    Pedro Teixeira: No. There’s been a downward trend over the last three or four years, but because the number of applicants was bigger than the number of places, it didn’t disturb things much. Most of what we’re seeing now is actually due to the fact that in 2020, with the pandemic, exams for the conclusion of secondary education were suspended.

    They were only reintroduced this year. That decision was taken at the end—actually by the government I was part of—at the beginning of 2023. But in order to give students and schools time to adjust, the change only applied to the students who were starting secondary education then. Those are the students who applied this year for higher education.

    Basically, when you look at the data—we don’t yet have the numbers on how many graduated from secondary education—but the number of applicants is very much in line with what we had in 2019, which was the last year we had exams for the conclusion of secondary education.

    And in fact, if you take into account the declining trend of the last three or four years, I would say it’s not a bad result. It actually means the system managed to compensate for those losses.

    Alex Usher: Managed to absorb.

    Pedro Teixeira: Yeah, yeah. But it’s also a signal for the sector in that respect.

    Alex Usher: So let’s go back to the funding formula issue, because I know that was a big part of your tenure as Secretary of State for Higher Education. What was wrong with the old formula, and what did you hope to achieve with a new one?

    Pedro Teixeira: There are two things. I think there were some issues with the old formula. It was designed in 2006, so 15 years had passed. The sector was very different by then—the situation, the challenges, everything had changed.

    Also, like many formulas of that time, it was quite complicated, with many indicators and many categories for fields of study. That didn’t make the system very transparent. If you introduce too many indicators and variables, in many ways the message you want to convey is lost. A funding formula is supposed to be an instrument to steer the system.

    But the larger problem was that this old formula hadn’t been applied for the last 12 years. When the Great Recession started around 2005–2010, the government suspended its application. Since then, the budgets of all institutions have evolved in the same way—same amount, same direction—regardless of their number of students or their performance.

    So when we came into government in 2022, the situation was, in many cases, very unbalanced. Some institutions that had grown significantly didn’t have funding to match that growth. Others that had declined hadn’t seen any adjustments either.

    The idea of having a new formula was preceded by an OECD review commissioned by the previous government, which we took over. Our idea was to design a simpler and more transparent formula that would form part of the funding system. In addition to the formula, we introduced funding contracts, focused mainly on institutions located in more peripheral regions of the country.

    The idea was also to have a four-year period of gradual implementation of the new model and funding system. At the same time, this would correct some of the imbalances caused by not having applied any formula for 12 years.

    Alex Usher: And how did institutions respond to those proposals? Were they on your side? Were there things they liked, and things they didn’t like? Universities don’t like change, after all.

    Pedro Teixeira: On the other hand, I think a significant part of the sector was very keen to finally have some kind of formula—some set of rules that would be applied to the whole sector. Of course, some institutions were afraid that by reintroducing a formula, given their recent evolution, they might end up on the losing side.

    But one of the key aspects of the process was that this was always seen as a formula, or a new system, that would be introduced within a pattern of growth in funding for the sector—not as a way of redistributing funds from some institutions to others. That made the process easier. It would have been much more difficult if we had been taking money from some institutions to give to others.

    This required political commitment from the government, and it was very important to have the backing of the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance. That meant we could correct imbalances without creating disruption for institutions.

    I would say the main critical points were, first, the differentiation between sectors. We have a diverse education system with universities and vocational institutions. Then there was the question of whether to differentiate between regions. Our decision was to have a formula that applied in the same way to all regions, and then use funding contracts as additional resources targeted for strategic purposes—mainly for institutions located in more deprived or less populated regions.

    Another point raised in discussions was fields of study. Everyone wants their own fields—or the ones in which they are strongest—to be better funded. But we really wanted to simplify the mechanism, and I think that helped.

    Finally, there was the issue of performance indicators. We didn’t propose to introduce them from the start. Because we had gone so many years without a formula, we didn’t have consistent data, and moreover we wanted performance indicators to be developed collaboratively with institutions. The idea was that institutions themselves would decide which areas they wanted to focus on, which areas they wanted to contribute to, and therefore which indicators they wanted to be assessed by.

    Because we decided that performance indicators would come in a second step, some institutions wanted them introduced earlier. That was also a point of discussion.

    Alex Usher: I find that fascinating, because I don’t think I’ve ever heard of universities—maybe “demanding” is the wrong word—but being disappointed that there wasn’t enough performance-based funding in a system. Why do you think that was?

    Pedro Teixeira: I’m not sure I was surprised, but it was significant that some institutions were pressing for it. In some ways, it could have been a strategic approach by certain institutions because they thought they would be on the winning side.

    But I think it also has to do with the fact that this competitive, performance ethos has so deeply permeated higher education. At some point, I even said to some institutions: be careful what you wish for. Because in some cases, this could curtail your autonomy and increase the possibility of government interference in your ability to devise your own strategy.

    Actually, I think that was, in many ways, the only real public criticism that came up. And that was quite interesting, to say the least.

    Alex Usher: I want to shift the ground a little bit from Portugal to Boston. Two months ago, you gave the Philip B. Altbach Lecture at Boston College’s Center for International Higher Education. You devoted a lot of your talk to artificial intelligence and how it’s likely to change higher education. Could you tell us a little bit about your views on this?

    Pedro Teixeira: That’s a fascinating topic. Of course, it’s an important issue for many people around the world and for many education institutions.

    It’s fascinating because, to a certain extent, we’ve been nurtured by a view that has dominated over the last decades—that progress has been skill-biased. In previous waves of technological progress, the labor market tended to favor those with higher skills. Education was often seen as contributing to that, helping people be on the winning side, and the returns to more education and more skills seemed to confirm it.

    My concern is that this wave may be slightly different. I’m not saying it will destroy a lot of jobs, but I am concerned that it may affect skilled and experienced workers in ways that previous waves did not.

    We’ve already seen, and many of us have already experienced in our own jobs, that AI is performing certain tasks we no longer have to do. It’s also changing the way we perform other tasks, because it works as a collaborative tool.

    So I think there is a serious possibility that AI—especially generative AI—will change the tasks associated with many jobs that today require a higher education degree. We need to pay attention to that and respond to it.

    I worry that because education has been such a success story over the last half-century in many countries, there is a degree of complacency. People take a relaxed attitude, saying: “We’ve seen previous changes, and we didn’t experience so many problems, so we’ll be fine this time as well.”

    I think there are quite a few aspects we need to change in our approach.

    Alex Usher: And what might those areas be? Because I have to say, whenever I hear people discussing AI and radical change in the labor market, I think: that’s the stuff that’s actually hardest for higher education to deal with—or for any kind of education to deal with.

    Education is often about teaching a corpus of knowledge, and there is no corpus of knowledge about AI. We’re all flailing blindly here—it’s totally new.

    I think a lot about James Bessen and his book Learning by Doing. He was talking about how education worked during the Industrial Revolution in Manchester, and in other parts of England that were industrializing. Basically, when there’s a totally new technology, who are you going to get to teach new people? There’s no settled corpus of knowledge about it.

    What do you think higher education institutions should be doing in that context?

    Pedro Teixeira: One of the major concerns I have is that we tend to focus so much on the impact of digitalization and technology on science and technology fields. But we should be much more attentive to how it’s changing non-technical fields—health professions, the humanities, and the social sciences. These make up a very large part of higher education, and a very large part of the qualified workforce in many of our countries.

    I think there are several things we need to do. The first is to rethink the balance between the different missions of higher education. At the moment, so much of the pressure and so many of the rewards are focused on missions other than education, teaching, and learning. We need to rebalance that. If institutions don’t commit themselves to education, it will be much more difficult for anything significant to happen at the basic level—among professors, programs, and so on.

    If AI does affect more experienced workers, that means many people will need more support in terms of lifelong learning. They will need support in reskilling, and in some cases, in changing their professional trajectories. This is an area where many higher education institutions preach much more than they practice.

    So I think we need to rethink how we allocate our efforts in education portfolios, moving more attention toward lifelong learning. So far, the focus has been overwhelmingly on initial training, which has been the core of the sector in many systems.

    Finally, we would need to rethink—or at least introduce—changes at the level of initial training: the way we teach, the way we assess students, the way we train and retrain academic staff. None of this will be obvious. But in the end, it will all come down to how much institutions are committed to education as the prime mission of higher education.

    Alex Usher: So even if AI is not a mass job killer—either now or in the future—we are seeing declining rates of return on higher education around the world. There’s massive graduate unemployment in China, quite a bit in India, and in the United States, for the first time, young graduates are less likely to be employed than non-graduates of the same age.

    What does it mean for the higher education sector globally if rates of return decline? Are we heading for a smaller global higher education sector?

    Pedro Teixeira: I tend to be cautious with some of these conclusions. We may be extracting too much from what could be transitional situations. We’ve seen in the past moments where there were problems adjusting supply and demand for graduates, and those didn’t necessarily lead to a permanent or structural situation where education became less relevant.

    In countries like China and India, higher education systems have expanded tremendously in recent years. In some ways, what we’re seeing now is similar to what other countries experienced when they went through massive expansions and the economy couldn’t absorb the rising number of graduates as quickly as the education system was producing them.

    It’s also not surprising that in many countries we’re seeing lower relevance of initial training—bachelor’s or first-cycle degrees. That’s a supply-and-demand issue. As systems move from elite to mass, that’s normal. But in many cases, we’ve seen a growing premium for postgraduate degrees and for continuing education. So I’d be cautious about concluding that education will become less and less relevant.

    That said, I would repeat my concern about complacency. I don’t necessarily expect a decline in the sector, but perhaps a slower pattern of growth. That will be a challenge, because we’re coming out of decades of relentless growth in many education systems.

    I also think we’ll see a broader scope in how we approach education and differences in higher education portfolios. It’s not that there aren’t many things we can do, but it will probably require us to rethink what we expect from professors and where institutions should focus their attention.

    Alex Usher: Right. Pedro, thank you so much for being with us today.

    Pedro Teixeira: My pleasure.

    Alex Usher: And it just remains for me to thank our excellent producers, Sam Pufek and Tiffany MacLennan, and you, our listeners and readers, for joining us. If you have any questions or comments about today’s episode, or suggestions for future episodes, don’t hesitate to get in touch with us at [email protected].

    Join us next week when our guest will be the University of Melbourne’s Andrew Norton. He’ll be talking about what lies ahead for Australian higher education under a second Labor government. Bye for now.

    *This podcast transcript was generated using an AI transcription service with limited editing. Please forgive any errors made through this service. Please note, the views and opinions expressed in each episode are those of the individual contributors, and do not necessarily reflect those of the podcast host and team, or our sponsors.

    Source link

  • Engaging policy review to smooth lumpy futures into transformative higher education

    Engaging policy review to smooth lumpy futures into transformative higher education

    Hamish Coates, Ellen Hazelkorn, Hans de Wit, Tessa Delaquil, and Angel Calderon

    Hans de Wit, Ellen Hazelkorn and Hamish Coates are editors and Tessa DeLaquil is associate editor of Policy Reviews in Higher Education. Angel Calderon is a member of the PRiHE Editorial Board. This blog is based on their editorial for issue 2, 2025.

    It often feels like there is lots more ranting and moaning than imagining and evidencing around higher education these days. With excellent policy research, it does not have to be this way.

    The immediate post-millennium era was arguably a golden age for universities, with huge interest in massification, investment, especially in research, and institutional autonomy. But the global financial crisis followed a decade later by global pandemic shocked higher education into different worlds. Most countries still promulgate objectives for a sustainable and cost-efficient, equitable and accessible, high quality education system as the basis for growth. In OECD countries, however, assumptions that massification would on its own provide opportunities for everyone with mechanisms for social inclusion and social mobility are being heavily questioned. In developing and emerging economies, the challenge is meeting demand and being able to absorb graduates. Yet, too many countries and research-focused universities keep chasing ‘quick prestige’, leaving others to put up with disproportionately lower funding, as well as poorer facilities, resources and opportunities.

    Wealth and opportunity inequalities are increasingly greater within rather than between countries. At the same time, questions about educational outcomes such as employability, skills gaps and skills mismatches and over-qualification which have been long ignored by academic communities as irrelevant, are gaining public and policy traction. Governments and industries document the shift away from credentials towards greater focus on competencies – what people can do with what they know – and alternative accreditation processes.

    A few large countries are in the foothills of a demographic cliff, while others are (currently) privileged by demand. Traditional public systems in many countries face an identity crisis and appear too sluggish to grasp new opportunities. Parts of the private subsector are progressively active and more responsive to the needs of diverse and older learners and to competency-based learning, micro-credentials and other forms of just-in-time learning. Accordingly, the private sector is the fastest growing segment of postsecondary education worldwide.

    Countries vary considerably in their ability to cover costs associated with policy objectives due to revenue challenges and competitive demands elsewhere within society and the economy, alongside student and public unease about cost. Certain systems promote a laissez-faire or marketised approach whereby individual colleges and institutions (public and private) pursue their own agendas, while others grasp at opportunities for a more strategic state-led approach. Countries are beginning to examine the opportunities of a more joined-up post-secondary tertiary system (Hazelkorn, 2025). As Piketty has written, “it is access to skills and diffusion of knowledge that allow inequality to be reduced both within countries and at the international level” (2020: 534). But funding a mass system is very different from one catering to a small minority especially at a time when geopolitical/geoeconomic power shifts reshape the global landscape.

    Deglobalisation and populist nationalism are shaking these issues out differently around the world. In many countries, these tensions are contributing to a growing sense of people and communities being left behind, and to social unrest. The dominance of information technology over universities, challenging the value of graduates for entry-level work and of faculty, will spur heightened questioning of the value of higher education (Coates, 2017; The Guardian, 2025; Roose, 2025). While others look on in disbelief, there is a sense that this may not be a problem for higher education today, though it is likely to be so one day.

    It is too easy to blame governments and other external stakeholders. What role has higher education played itself, and what role can it play into the future? Is the sector, especially the public side, sufficiently strategic, forward-looking and adaptable? What are the implications for the governance of the system and of its many institutions? Or is it wandering unchained in the global wilds? Universities praise themselves as being one of the world’s oldest and most enduring institution, but as Darwin said: “It is not the strongest of the species that survives, nor the most intelligent that survives. It is the one that is the most adaptable to change.”

    Once, such questions may have been ludicrous to provoke at the outset of a Policy Reviews in Higher Education (PRIHE) editorial. Not anymore. Accordingly, in the balance of this editorial we sketch frontier topics which higher education can embrace to drive positive reform, then current journal contributions (Figure 1). We conclude with a call to engage and transform.

    Figure 1: Current and frontier contributions

    Any higher education policy zealot who has read Arnold Lobel’s brilliant treatise on Owl’s strange bumps in the bed (in which the Owl is afraid to go to sleep because of two strange bumps at the bottom of his bed, which are, in fact, his feet) (Lobel, 1982) understands that fear is created by running scared and can be tackled by uncovering and addressing matters in ways that unlock innovation and progress.

    Policy Reviews in Higher Education plays this important role, though to date with fewer endearing drawings. Springing from inspiring intellectual dialogue with a member of the PRIHE Editorial Board and consequently guest author, Angel Calderon, we mark out a handful of narratives to carry forward policy research over the coming decades:

    • Moving beyond academic comfort communities
    • Handling looming demographic shifts and diversity
    • Addressing concerns about academic value
    • Creatively unpacking university clusterings and characteristics
    • Leaders who lead in smart ways.

    Higher education researchers must explore how universities and the academics who comprise them can move beyond comfort communities. This means finding ways to move beyond conservative research literatures and straightjacketing bibliometrics, beyond discipline and collegial communities, beyond the academic treadmill, beyond the subsector itself, and beyond naval-gazing research. A doctorate followed by decades toiling in the same institution is no prudent recipe for forging broader cognitive or tangible engagement with enterprise and industry (public and private) and the broader world. How can career trajectories be redefined to evoke and even provoke experimentation, fertilisation, and broader contribution?

    Policy researchers must find productive ways for helping universities handle looming demographic shifts. The Asian investment in higher education which has fuelled the last thirty years will plateau and in major instances decline. Smart countries and universities are already looking beyond increasingly risky ‘foreign and school-leaver markets’ at reconfigured alignments with career-inspiring work and adult life. As yet, however, few if any countries have policy and associated regulation or funding to spur new ventures and directions. Beyond the sensible need for regional or perhaps global ‘harmonisation’, what is the scope for more imaginative forward-thinking about the sort of institutional reconfigurations needed to deliver for societies in 2050? Also, universities continue to see international students as an alternative for demographic declines as well as for income generation, adopting imperialist approaches to new markets rather than anticipating global and local shifts. Internationalisation is still seen as an income source based on mobility flows, instead of as a possible change agent for innovation in education, research and service to society.

    Genuine political concerns about academic quality and value are unlikely to be assuaged by fluffing up the fame of elite researchers who typically have little to do with students or voting communities. Graduate outcomes and relevance are some of the most pressing challenges for all governments pushing people to question the value of higher education and ensure it translates into good jobs. Broadening rankings to include topics like sustainability, while useful, misses the more substantial need to focus on local engagement rather than global striving. It is folly to think that all the ~88,000 higher education institutions (UNESCO, 2022: 12) should aspire to look the same. Pursuit of ‘world-class’ sameness is no substitute for critical research and delivery of more robust and compelling public information on value, quality of educational delivery and outcomes, and at the same time nuanced differentiation of the difference each and every institution can make. And arguably rankings bear increasing responsibility for distorting funding allocations and institutional/government priorities across many post-secondary systems.

    Higher education sector growth in recent decades has spawned exciting, misunderstood and very important institutional and national configurations. There is an urgent need to creatively unpack university clusterings. Far too much time and money has been invested in studying groups characterised by bibliometric performance. More interestingly, there are university-defined groups, ranging from ‘presidents’ dinner clubs’ to disciplinary groups of nationally aligned associations. There are broader political, cultural and religious associations. There are groups connected through graduate or professional diasporas, or research connections. There is an emergent clustering of associations shaped by geopolitical/geoeconomic and national security imperatives. Ownership and tax-status has long been a means of shuffling universities into groups. What novel patterns and projections can be revealed?

    Leading universities and the sector in smart ways will be imperative to ensuring the sector’s promise does not demise. Finding effective leaders is an obvious necessary step, which surprisingly little research has clarified. Cultivating and developing leaders is an obvious next step, though it is tackled in so many perplexing ways. Diversity is important, of course, including in intellectual as well as manifest characteristics. Assuring value and delivery is paramount, with increasing suspicions but to date far too little warrant is given to importing governance techniques from other sectors. Strengthening institutional governance and management is required to ensure that the right leaders are appointed and that they have the capacity and capability to deal with more frequent and overlapping crises and conflicting externalities in uncertain circumstances. There should be willingness to find new ways to govern tertiary education sectors more robustly considering turbulence and increased uncertainty and the level of emergent discord between the public and universities. No doubt policy governance can be tricky, but it needs to be more strategic and forward thinking, willing to take innovative steps to ensure the education system meets the needs of all learners and society. Governance systems were designed based on periods of relative stability and the occasional minor disturbance. What can be done, for instance, to build more resilient leadership for public and private vocational and higher education, encouraging active engagement with each other and their communities beyond the campus? Is there renewed scope to refresh ‘old public management’?

    With the intent of curating even more purposeful contributions, PRIHErecently launched a call for experts around the world to curate cognate collections on a high-impact policy contributions. These contributions which relate to hot topics in higher education policy seek to engage a group of scholars around important themes, and work with the journal and related networks to convene hybrid global seminars and deliver substantial insights on consequential frontier issues. PRIHE’s Editorial Board and Editors have spotlighted six shaping themes which raise questions, insights and issues to be addressed by policy, drawing on experiences from around the world. These include:

    • Proving contributions: Restoring public trust in higher education and universities
    • Emerging formations: Transnational, online and private higher education, regulation, ethics
    • Geopolitical upheavals: Collaboration, sovereignty, nationalism, deregulation
    • Global challenges: Sustaining autonomy, academic freedom, purposeful research, independence
    • Lifelong learning: Valuing higher learning and skills across the lifespan, and
    • Valuing education: Raising the profile of large-scale teaching and learning.

    Higher education in many if not most countries is confronting strong headwinds and needs strident thinking and reform rather than rent-seeking complacency. Carving out intellectual architectures to stimulate dialogue from disorder creates tailwinds for the tough work then required to create and promulgate the evidence which may sway policy and reform practice. In this editorial we have advanced a handful of non-ignorable developments as a guide for authorship, deliberation, and reforming practice.

    Reference: Hazelkorn, E (2025) ‘Building a Unified Tertiary Education System. Trends and Propositions to Provoke Discussion, Trending Topics’ New Directions for Community Colleges  Forthcoming.

    Professor Ellen Hazelkorn is Joint Managing Partner, BH Associates. She is Professor Emeritus, Technological University Dublin.

    Hamish Coates is professor of public policy, director of the Higher Education Futures Lab, and global tertiary education expert.

    Hans de Wit is Professor Emeritus and Distinguished Fellow of the Boston College Center for International Higher Education, Senior Fellow of the international Association of Universities.

    Tessa DeLaquil is postdoctoral research fellow at the School of Education at University College Dublin.

    Angel Calderon is Director of Strategic Insights at RMIT University and expert on global tertiary education.

    Author: SRHE News Blog

    An international learned society, concerned with supporting research and researchers into Higher Education

    Source link

  • Canada rejects nearly two in three study permit applicants 

    Canada rejects nearly two in three study permit applicants 

    Government figures obtained by The PIE show 62% of applicants were refused a study permit from January to July this year, with record-high volumes “raising urgent questions about transparency and application readiness,” said ApplyBoard.  

    Despite a decade of relatively stable approval ratings hovering around 60%, rates have plummeted to 38% so far this year, down from 48% in 2024 following the implementation of Canada’s study permit caps. 

    “It’s clear that Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada (IRCC) is applying far greater scrutiny to new applications,” Jonathan Sherman, vice president of sales & partnership at BorderPass told The PIE, pointing to a “fundamental shift” in government processing.

     

    Data: IRCC

    Indian students – who comprise 40% of Canada’s international student population – have been hardest hit by soaring refusals, with four out of five Indian students receiving rejections in Q2 2025, according to BorderPass.  

    Stakeholders have pointed to a glimmer of hope in overall approval ratings rising modestly this spring, though without a “dramatic shift,” Canada will only reach one fifth of the government’s international student target for the year, Sherman warned.  

    With institutions bracing for severe declines, ApplyBoard analysis has found the most common reason for reason for rejection in 2024 was the perception by IRCC officers that students wouldn’t leave Canada after their studies, cited in over 75% of cases.  

    “While reviewers at IRCC understand that some future students hope to gain work experience in Canada after graduation… the extensive use of this reason last year suggests that many are perceived as having permanent residency as their primary purpose, instead of study,” stated the report. 

    Financial concerns drove three of the top five refusal reasons, after Canada more than doubled its proof-of-funds requirements from $10,000 in 2023 to $20,635 in 2024.  

    Specifically, in 53% of cases, IRCC officers said they were unconvinced that applicants would leave Canada based on financial assets, alongside doubts about insufficient resources for tuition and living expenses.  

    “While new policy caps played a role, our full-year data points to recurring applicant challenges, particularly around financial readiness and immigration intent that are preventable with the right guidance and documentation,” said ApplyBoard.  

    The report highlighted the continuing decline of unspecified reasons for refusal, following IRCC adding officer decision notes to visa refusal letters last month, which was welcomed as a much-needed step in improving transparency.  

    Other reasons for refusal include the purpose of visit being inconsistent with a temporary stay and having no significant family ties outside Canada.  

    The data comes amid a major immigration crackdown in Canada, with temporary resident targets included in the latest Immigration Levels Plan for the first time, which aims to reduce temporary resident volumes to 5% of the population by the end of 2027 – a year later than the previous government’s target.

    Many are perceived as having permanent residency as their primary purpose, instead of study

    ApplyBoard

    Approval rates are also below average for other temporary resident categories, but none so drastically as study permits, with just under half of all visitor visas approved so far this year, compared to a ten-year average of 64%.  

    After more than 18 months of federal policy turbulence, changing eligibility rules have likely contributed to the rise in study permit rejection rates.  

    Pressure to reduce IRCC backlogs and reach ambitious government targets could also be playing a role, according to immigration lawyers speaking to the Toronto Star. 

    As of July 31, over 40% of Canada’s immigration inventory was in backlog, including 56% of visitor visas, 46% of work visas and 23% of study visas, according to official data.  

    Following a swathe of new IRCC officer hires, Sherman said he expected to see improvements in consistency, though “processing backlogs may get worse before they get better,” he warned.  

    Amid the challenges, educators and advisers are doubling down on what applicants and institutions can do to ensure the best chance of success, with ApplyBoard warning that any incomplete or ineligible documentation can be grounds for refusal.  

    Source link

  • US proposes visa time limit rule to end “abuse” of system

    US proposes visa time limit rule to end “abuse” of system

    The proposed rule, announced by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) on August 27, would upend the longstanding “duration of status” policy and enforce additional restrictions on students changing programs and institutions.  

    If finalised, the new rule would limit the length of time international students, professors and other visa holders can stay in the US, which DHS claims would curb “visa abuse” and increase the department’s “ability to vet and oversee these individuals”.  

    Trump initially put forward the proposal during his first administration, only for it to be withdrawn under Biden. In recent weeks, a rehashed version of the plans has been moving closer towards final approval.  

    Yesterday’s publication of the finalised proposal in the Federal Register was met with immediate denunciation by stakeholders who say it would place an undue administrative burden on students as well as representing a “dangerous government overreach”. Now the proposal is under a 30-day public comment period.  

    “These changes will only serve to force aspiring students and scholars into a sea of administrative delays at best, and at worst, into unlawful presence status – leaving them vulnerable to punitive actions through no fault of their own,” said NAFSA CEO Fanta Aw.  

    Under the rule, students could only remain in the US on a student visa for a maximum of four years and would have to apply for a DHS extension to stay longer.  

    The policy document reasons that 79% of students in the US are studying undergraduate or master’s degrees which are generally two or four-year programs, thus: “a four-year period of admission would not pose an undue burden to most nonimmigrant students”.  

    And yet, stakeholders have previously pointed out that the average time taken to complete an undergraduate degree – for both domestic and international students – exceeds four years, meaning that the majority of students would have to file for an extension to complete their studies.  

    Meanwhile, this reasoning does not consider postgraduate students on longer programs or the many students that go onto Optional Practical Training (OPT), who would have to apply for a visa extension as well as the work permit itself. 

    If finalised, master’s students would no longer be able to change their program of study, and first year students would be unable to transfer from the institution that issued their visa documents.   

    Alarmingly, the rule would hand power to the government to determine academic progress, with “a student’s repeated inability or unwillingness” to complete their degree, deemed an “unacceptable” reason for program extensions.  

    It would also limit English-language students to a visa period of less than 24 months, and the grace period for F-1 students, post-completion, would be reduced from 60 to 30 days.  

    Such far reaching provisions amount to “a dangerous overreach by government into academia,” said Aw, pointing out that international students and exchange visitors are already “the most closely monitored non-immigrants in the country.”  

    Government interference into the academic realm in this way introduces a wholly unnecessary and new level of uncertainty to international student experience

    Fanta Aw, NAFSA

    “For too long, past administrations have allowed foreign students and other visa holders to remain in the US virtually indefinitely, posing safety risks, costing untold amount of taxpayer dollars, and disadvantaging US citizens,” DHS said in a statement.  

    Framing the issue as one of national security, the department said it had identified 2,100 F-1 visa holders who arrived between 2000 and 2010 and have remained in status, becoming what DHS called “forever” students “taking advantage of US generosity”.  

    Putting this in perspective, commentators have highlighted that in 2023 alone there were 1.6 million F-1 visa holders in the US.  

    As well as imposing significant burdens on students and intruding on academic decision-making, the proposal would also place strain on federal agencies and increase the existing immigration backlog, warned Miriam Feldblum, CEO of the Presidents’ Alliance on Higher Education and Immigration.

    “International students deserve assurance that their admission period to the US will conform to the requirements of their academic programs,” said Feldblum, issuing a grave warning that the rule would further deter international students and “diminish” US competitiveness.  

    “At a time when the US is already facing declines in international student enrolment, we must do everything we can to keep the door open to these individuals, who are essential to our future prosperity,” she continued, alluding to recent falls in US visa issuance.  

    Since coming to office, a barrage of hostile policies from the Trump administration have erected unprecedented barriers for students hoping to study in the US, with a near-month long visa interview suspension earlier this summer still wreaking havoc on visa appointment availability around the world. 

    The latest government data revealed a 30% drop in student arrivals this July, with colleges bracing for a drastic drop in international student numbers for the upcoming year. If the decline continues, experts have warned of USD $7bn in damages to the US economy.  

    According to Aw, the proposed rule would “certainly” deter international students further, “without any evidence that the changes would solve any of the real problems that exist in our outdated immigration system”. 

    Appealing to Trump’s recent remarks pushing for a more-than doubling of the Chinese student population in the US, Aw urged the government to engage with the sector to ensure the US remained the “premier destination” for global talent while keeping the country “safe and prosperous”. 

    Source link

  • Alumni urge Harvard not to “give in” amid settlement rumours

    Alumni urge Harvard not to “give in” amid settlement rumours

    “This is a critical juncture – and it’s essential you live the values Harvard teaches and not make a deal with the Trump administration that cedes the university’s autonomy in unconstitutional or unlawful ways,” states the August 1 letter.  

    Signed by 15,068 alumni, faculty, researchers, staff and other supporters, the letter criticises settlements made by Columbia and Brown, which signatories warn “represent a dangerous capitulation that risks eroding the foundation of American higher education”.  

    “As Harvard rightly argued in court in its lawsuit, the unconstitutional demands being made by this administration represent a blatant encroachment on academic freedom and university autonomy,” it continues.  

    Last month, Columbia became the first institution to settle with Trump over allegations of antisemitism on campus, paying the administration $221m in return for settling various civil rights and employment claims and restoring $400m in terminated funding.  

    Soon after, Brown University followed suit, reaching its own deal with the administration over similar disputes about DEI admissions practices and access to student data.   

    Harvard, having the largest endowment of any global university, has been the only one to challenge the White House in the courts, though recent rumours have suggested a $500m deal between Harvard and the government could be in the making. 

    The letter’s message is clear: “Do not give in.” 

    It calls on university leadership to uphold Harvard’s independence and reject political interference and punitive action, ensuring that admissions hiring, employment and disciplinary processes do not treat student and staff differently based on their political views. 

    The signatories recommend the establishment of a structure for the university to directly engage with the Harvard community about policy changes impacting them, urging Harvard to use its financial resources to “protect and honour” their livelihoods and education.  

    “Protect students, faculty, researchers and staff, especially those with international status, from any intrusions of privacy, unwarranted immigration action, and attacks on their constitutionally protected rights and freedoms,” it continues. 

    At this moment of national reckoning, Harvard must demonstrate that our values, integrity, and freedom are not for sale

    Harvard alumni

    The letter warns of the “chilling effect” that a settlement would have on the Harvard community and beyond.

    Holding the line is critical for campuses across the US, for those that benefit from the research and scholarship of the university, and for the “foundational role that independent higher education plays in our democracy,” it argues.  

    “At this moment of national reckoning, Harvard must demonstrate that our values, integrity, and freedom are not for sale.” 

    Since mid-April, the Trump administration has launched multiple attacks on Harvard for allegedly failing to root out antisemitism on campus and failing to hand over international students’ records, among other accusations.   

    The university is fighting the government on multiple fronts in the courts, including defending its right to enrol international students, which the administration has repeatedly tried to revoke.  

    The university has publicly stood by its 7,000 international students, who make up over 27% of Harvard’s student body and come from nearly 150 different countries.  

    Amid broader attacks on higher education and severe visa challenges, colleges across the country are bracing for a major decline in international students this fall, with “conservative” estimates of a potential 30-40% decline.  

    Source link

  • US scraps $100m in study abroad programs

    US scraps $100m in study abroad programs

    • Stakeholders warn that the funding cuts will probably result in furloughs, redundancies or – in the worst cases – organisations being forced to close.
    • The move comes after months of policy turmoil in the US, as the Trump administration wages war on international education.
    • Experts question the legality of the move as a campaign is launched to save State Department international exchange programs.

    State Department regional bureaus were informed of the cuts on August 13, via internal communications stating that government officials would work with them to “pull down” the affected programs “with the least possible disruption”.  

    The directive explained that the programs “were lower funding priorities in the current fiscal environment, so they are being removed from FY25 Funding”, according to communications from the Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affair (ECA).  

    “It’s an existential crisis for these programs and possibly for ECA,” said Mark Overmann, executive director of the Alliance for International Exchange – whose members make up 13 of the impacted programs, facing cuts of $85m.  

    According to Overmann, the 22 programs were all due to be renewed and were expecting to receive FY25 funds before September. Now, they will no longer be allowed to go through their awards process or renewal, and thus will be terminated.  

    “These organisations will now suddenly lose funding they’ve long anticipated and been promised, and this will likely result in furloughs, layoffs, and even organisational closures,” warned Overmann.  

    “Cancelling $100 million in programs which impact 10,000 students is devastating on many levels,” Bill Gertz, chairman of American Institute for Foreign Study (AIFS) told The PIE News.  

    “It means students’ plans and dreams are impacted… it means layoffs and financial disruption at the many fine cultural exchange organisations,” added Gertz, who sponsors the YES Abroad program which has been cancelled.

    “These folks have worked tirelessly to make the world a better place,” he said.  

    Typically, the State Department’s funding process would be in full swing in the spring and summer, though this year has been plagued by delays and uncertainty for program organisers and students alike.  

    Following the lifting of the State Department’s funding freeze this March, stakeholders have been concerned about the lack of movement on the ECA’s FY25 funding process, which has caused delays in the opening of applications and interfered with students’ plans.  

    According to a former staff member of the Republican Senate Foreign Relations Committee: “The variety of programs impacted are too broad to point to a single issue or justification – everything from community colleges to disability and education exchanges.” 

    They warned that the cuts would isolate the US in the long term, raising particular concerns about the discontinuation of the Kennedy-Lugar Youth Exchange and Study (YES) Program. 

    This initiative “was created after 9/11 specifically to bring young people from predominantly Muslim countries to the US to build long-standing relationships with communities and individuals who might not otherwise every get to see our nation in anything other than filtered news and anti-US social media,” they explained. 

    The value of study abroad for US soft power and public diplomacy was echoed by Gertz, who said the cuts came “at a time in our history when cultural understanding is needed the most”.  

    If OMB is allowed to cut these Congressionally appropriated FY25 awards, it will give them license to do it again and again, opening the door to effectively eliminate international exchange programs

    Mark Overmann, Alliance for International Exchange

    Beyond the programs, their participants, alumni and staff, the move raises alarm bells about the White House’s ability to cut congressionally appropriated grants. 

    Historically, Congress has approved ECA awards, but this year the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) inserted itself “irregularly” into the process to stop congressionally approved funds from being spent, said stakeholders.  

    According to Overmann, the move could be illegal, with Gertz also stating it was unconstitutional for OMB to override Congress in such a way.  

    “OMB found a way to use a small, previously arcane piece of administration process to stop ECA program awards from moving forward,” Overmann explained, leading to the defunding and termination of 22 cultural exchange programs. 

    “If OMB is allowed to cut these Congressionally appropriated FY25 awards, it will give them license to do it again and again, opening the door to effectively eliminate international exchange programs,” Overmann warned.  

    The cancellations have shocked the US study abroad community, which recently received a vote of confidence in Congress, which drastically reduced the planned cuts for study abroad in the FY2026 budget.  

    “We believe we have the support of the majority of Americans who have supported our efforts for decades,” said Gertz. ” We are actively engaged with Congress on the future of ECA programs. 

    Sector leaders have already kicked into action, warning that the elimination of funding would “greatly damage 75+ years of exchange activity and the legacy of Senator Fulbright. It would destroy many of our programs and much of our work,” said Overmann. 

    The Alliance today launched a campaign to save State Department international exchange programs, urging stakeholders to write to members of Congress.  

    The State Department has not issued a formal announcement or replied to The PIE’s requests for comment.  

    It appears that the following programs are impacted, though the list may not be exhaustive:  

    • Community College Administrator Program (CCAP) 
    • Community College Initiative Program (CCI) 
    • Community Engagement Exchange (CEE, Leahy Initiative on Civil Society) 
    • Council of American Overseas Research Centers 
    • English Access Scholarship Program 
    • English Language Fellow Program 
    • Global Undergraduate Exchange Program 
    • IDEAS Program 
    • International Center for Middle Eastern-Western Dialogue (Hollings Center) 
    • Kennedy-Lugar Youth Exchange and Study (YES) and YES Abroad Program 
    • Leaders Lead On-Demand 
    • Mandela Washington Fellowship for Young African Leaders 
    • Mike Mansfield Fellowship Program 
    • National Clearinghouse for Disability and Exchange (NCDE) 
    • Professional Fellows Program 
    • Survey of International Educational Exchange Activity (IEEA) in the United States 
    • TechWomen 
    • The J. Christopher Stevens Virtual Exchange Initiative 
    • U.S. Congress-Korea National Assembly Exchange Program 
    • U.S.-South Pacific Scholarship Program (USSP) 
    • Young Southeast Asian Leaders Initiative (YSEALI) Academic Fellowship 
    • Young Southeast Asian Leaders Initiative (YSEALI) Professional Fellowship Program (PFP) 

    Source link

  • UK unis could take £620m hit from international student levy

    UK unis could take £620m hit from international student levy

    Based on the latest HEPI data, the Institute estimates the levy could “hamper universities’ ability to compete with institutions in other countries,” said independent researcher Mark Fothergill, who compiled the data. 

    The proposed 6% levy on international students’ tuition fees was first introduced in the government’s highly anticipated immigration white paper, coming as a surprise to many in the sector.  

    HEPI has warned that the policy will hit both large internationally engaged universities and smaller specialist institutions. According to the analysis, the largest financial losses are expected to hit big metropolitan universities with high proportions of international students.  

    Namely, University College London (UCL), which derives 79% of its fee income from non-UK students, could be faced with financial losses of £42m. 

    Meanwhile, Manchester University and King’s College London (KCL) could also be hit with heavy losses of £27m and £22m respectively, with 19 institutions paying at least £10m. 

    Stakeholders have pointed out that while the levy is intended to raise money for the “higher education and skills system”, it is unclear if all the money will come back out of the treasury, and how it will be spent if it does. 

    “International students are the backbone of our higher education system, contributing over £10 billion in fees to English universities – around £4.50 of every £10 of fee income,” Fothergill said. 

    “No wonder the 6% levy is seen as a tax on one of the country’s best-performing sectors,” he added.  

    With more details expected in the autumn budget, universities are left with two options: pass the cost onto students and become less competitive or absorb the costs and leave less funding for teaching and research, HEPI suggested.  

    While universities haven’t announced to what extent they would try to absorb the extra costs, a reduction in international student numbers – whose fees subsidise university research – would also hamper sector finances.  

    Speaking at a conference last month, the UK skills minister Jacqui Smith maintained the government was “not levying international students directly”, suggesting it would help show students’ economic contribution to local communities.  

    The levy is a shadow looming large over universities as they prepare for the next academic year

    Nick Hillman, HEPI

    “Threatening an expensive new tax on one of the country’s most successful sectors with only a rough idea of how the money will be used seems far from ideal,” said HEPI director Nick Hillman.  

    “Currently, the levy is a shadow looming large over universities as they prepare for the next academic year,” he added.  

    Amid policy volatility in other markets, the UK has increasingly been cited by students as the most stable of the ‘big four’ study destinations, with stakeholders keen to preserve this reputation.

    “There are good reasons why Australia opted not to implement a levy when it was proposed there a couple of years ago,” warned Fothergil.  

    With the UK higher education sector already facing severe financial headwinds, Hillman said university leaders were worried the levy will be “yet another weight dragging them down in the struggle to remain globally competitive”. 

    According to OfS data, 72% of providers could be in deficit by 2025/26, with a sector-wide deficit totalling £1.6bn.  

    Alongside the levy, the government’s white paper proposed shortening the graduate route visa from two years to 18 months, and tougher Basic Compliance Assessments (BCA), with the latter set to be introduced in September.  

    Source link

  • How will the India-UK Vision 2035 impact education?

    How will the India-UK Vision 2035 impact education?

    The India–United Kingdom Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA), negotiations for which began in January 2022, was finalised on July 24, with UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer and Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi calling it a ‘step-change’ in bilateral relations. 

    While the trade deal covers a wide range of areas, including tariff reductions, market access, mobility, and investment protection, aimed at delivering a £4.8bn annual boost to the UK economy and an estimated USD $9-10bn in export growth, the two Prime Ministers also endorsed the India-UK Vision 2035, “reaffirming their shared commitment to unlocking the full potential of a revitalised partnership”.

    Although technology, innovation, defence, and climate action are key pillars of India-UK cooperation under the Vision 2035 framework, education remains central to the shared goal of developing a skilled, future-ready talent pool to tackle global challenges and drive a sustainable future, according to a policy statement released alongside the FTA signing.

    In a first, both countries are launching an annual ministerial India-UK Education Dialogue, which will include reviews of mutually recognised qualifications and knowledge-sharing through joint participation in platforms such as the UK’s Education World Forum and India’s National Education Policy initiatives. 

    The launch of the ministerial dialogue also comes as UK universities increasingly recognise the potential of establishing academic and research-focused branch campuses in India.

    Just this Tuesday, the University of Bristol joined a growing list of UK institutions that have received approval to open campuses in India under the University Grants Commission’s Foreign Higher Educational Institutions (FHEI) regulations.

    Bristol’s Mumbai campus, slated to launch in Summer 2026, will offer undergraduate and postgraduate programs in data science, economics, finance and investment, immersive arts, and financial technology.

    Once operational, Bristol, ranked 51st globally, will become the highest-ranked British university to establish a campus in India, surpassing the University of Southampton, which launched its Gurugram campus earlier this month with classes beginning this August.

    Though Modi has welcomed the establishment of British campuses in India, calling it a “new chapter in the education sector of both countries”, some UK universities are facing flak at home “for seeking fortunes in India” amid ongoing financial woes and domestic job cuts.

    However, with universities like Bristol positioning their India campus as a hub for students, researchers, and industry to shape a better future, the Vision 2035 framework also underscores the India-UK Green Skills Partnership, an initiative focused on equipping young people in both countries with future-ready skills.

    The partnership aims to bridge skill gaps and enable joint initiatives, such as centres of excellence, climate-focused ventures, and courses and certifications in areas such as sustainability. 

    Moreover, the Vision 2035 framework also “encourages exchange and understanding among youth and students” to strengthen the success of existing initiatives like the Young Professionals Scheme (YPS) and the Study India Programme.

    While the YPS, launched in February 2023, is designed as a reciprocal visa scheme enabling British and Indian citizens aged 18-30 to live, work, travel, and study in each other’s country for up to two years, it has so far been largely one-sided. 

    Over 2,100 visas were issued to Indian nationals in 2023, while no such data is available for UK nationals going to India – suggesting participation has been minimal.

    But on the educational front, with UK universities setting up campuses in India and more exchange opportunities emerging, British students may also be encouraged to study in the South Asian country, Alison Barrett, country director India at the British Council, said in a recent interview with Financial Express.

    Once the FTA is ratified, the responsibility will shift to business organisations, institutions, and industry leaders to bring it to life
    Amarjit Singh, India Business Group

    Furthermore, a recent article by Bhawna Kumar, Acumen’s director of TNE and institutional partnerships, and Nikunj Agarwal, the company’s consultant in research and TNE, highlighted the pivotal role of India’s National Education Policy in shaping the FTA and the Vision 2035. 

    “Chapter 8B of the FTA (UK Schedule of Commitments) places no restriction on UK providers offering higher education services (CPC 923) in India. This opens doors for UK universities to expand through various TNE models such as joint degrees, dual degrees, and campus partnerships,” they noted, citing the example of University of Birmingham’s joint master’s programs with IIT Madras in Data Science and Artificial Intelligence, and Sustainable Energy Systems, as a key example. 

    “Chapter 14 of the FTA aligns closely, promoting joint R&D, researcher exchanges, and institutional partnerships in areas like digital innovation, clean energy, agriculture, and healthcare mirroring NEP’s multidisciplinary agenda,” they added. 

    While the Vision 2035 framework appears robust on paper, the authors point out several implementation challenges that remain pressing, chief among them being regulatory alignment, visa bottlenecks, and the slow pace of progress on mutual recognition agreements. 

    “Establishing a Joint Education and Skills Council, co-chaired by senior officials from both countries, would institutionalise cooperation, monitor delivery, and resolve bottlenecks in real time,” they suggested. 

    While the trade deal does not explicitly mention international students, CETA is expected to broaden “high-quality employment pathways” for young Indians by easing access to the services market and facilitating short-term mobility for skilled talent across sectors such as IT, healthcare, finance, and the creative industries. 

    Each year, up to 1,800 Indian chefs, yoga instructors, and classical musicians would be able to work in the UK temporarily under CETA. 

    Additionally, Indian workers will benefit from the Double Contribution Convention (DCC), which will exempt them and their employers from UK National Insurance contributions for up to three years.

    Will CETA stand the test of time in delivering benefits to students and professionals? Amarjit Singh, CEO, India Business Group, believes it can but only with a collaborative approach to ensure its long-term success.

    “The UK-India partnership is respected across party lines. While the 2030 Roadmap was negotiated last year, the framework has been in the making for nearly a decade. There is broad consensus not to jeopardize this progress,” Singh told The PIE News. 

    Though CETA has been signed by both countries, it still requires ratification by their respective parliaments, a process expected to take another six to 12 months.

    “Once the FTA is ratified, the responsibility will shift to business organisations, institutions, and industry leaders to bring it to life. That’s where we need more awareness, active engagement, and a bit of hand-holding to realise its full potential.” 

    Source link

  • IRCC adds officer decision notes to visa refusals

    IRCC adds officer decision notes to visa refusals

    Announcing the news on July 29, Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada (IRCC) said the move supported its “commitment to… transparency” and, in theory, has been hailed as welcome news for prospective students, institutions and representatives.  

    “This is a welcome step that many of us in the sector have long advocated, however how it is actually implemented remains to be seen,” director of global engagement at the University of British Columbia, Philipp Reichert, told The PIE News.  

    The move is intended to provide greater transparency and clarity in IRCC’s decision-making, giving applicants a better understanding of the reasons for their visa refusal, and reducing the need to submit Access to Information Requests (ATIR) or file Judicial Reviews challenging visa decisions.  

    And yet, “the real test will be whether these officer decision notes provide meaningful detail, rather than generic statement, to support informed reapplications”, said Reichert.  

    Given the frustration of applicants and representatives who previously received template refusal letters, Canadian immigration lawyer Will Tao said it was “largely justifiable” that colleagues had generally reacted positively to the news.  

    However, heeding caution, Tao raised concerns “that having letters which provide only the summary of the final decision, the ‘last entry notes’ so to speak, may not move us forward very much”.

    Just two days into the new policy, early examples of IRCC decision notes are already circulating among educators and immigration lawyers, with Reichert calling them “disappointingly brief and surface-level”. 

    Stakeholders have stressed that the policy will only be effective if decision notes meaningfully explain how an officer reached their conclusion. “Transparency without clarity risks being a missed opportunity,” warned Reichert. 

    In the policy’s early phase, decision notes are being provided with visa refusal letters for study permits, work permits, visitor visas and extensions, with more application types to be added over time.

    The change comes amid rising sector concerns over the falling study permit approval rate which dropped from 60% in 2023 to 48% in 2024, meaning half of all prospective international students were denied entry to Canadian institutions last year.  

    What’s more, the declining approval rate comes as the pool of applicants is shrinking due to the federal cap on international students – a trend that has surprised some stakeholders who had expected the applicant pool to have become stronger.  

    As approval rates have fallen, a growing number of international students are relying on information requests to obtain basic information about the reasons for refusal, as well as appealing the decision through judicial reviews.  

    If implemented correctly, clear officer decision notes could reduce the number of ATIP requests and judicial reviews by addressing some of the uncertainty that drives these decisions.  

    Superficial or templated notes are unlikely to make a significant difference to JR volumes

    Philipp Reichert, University of British Columbia

    Not only would this make for a fairer process, but it would also lower the administrative burden and costs on the IRCC system and “create a smoother experience for everyone involved”, noted Reichert.  

    “However, this will depend heavily on the quality of the information provided. Superficial or templated notes are unlikely to make a significant difference to Judicial Review volumes,” said Reichert.  

    Based on initial examples, Tao said the notes so far had provided “merely the same boilerplate language” except without the disclosure of the use of Chinook (the IRCC’s software system), triage and timestamp information, which, he warned, would make it difficult to uncover bulk decision-making.  

    At the same time, commentators have highlighted that it is still “early days”, with Tao suggesting that the use of tools including IRCC GPT could drive more case-specific refusal reasons over time. 

    Notably, the change comes as the IRCC is planning to de-platform its case management system (GCMS) altogether, meaning that the officer notes could be all that applicants can access in the new Digital Platform Modernisation, ‘DPM 3’, due to be rolled out across IRCC’s temporary resident visa program next year.  

    Though until that happens: “my clients will likely still need to file ATIPs and also judicial review decisions telling the court full reasons were not received,” said Tao.  

    Source link

  • The move from principal to district leader was fraught–here’s what I missed the most

    The move from principal to district leader was fraught–here’s what I missed the most

    This story was originally published by Chalkbeat. Sign up for their newsletters at ckbe.at/newsletters.

    I didn’t expect to grieve.

    I knew taking a central office role meant trading the school building for a district badge. I knew the days would be filled with policy, meetings, and personnel issues. What I didn’t know was how much I would miss morning announcements, front office chatter, and the small but sacred chaos of classroom life.

    When I accepted my central office role at Knox County Schools nearly three years ago, I heard words of congratulations and encouragement, and a lot of “You’ll be great at this.” What I didn’t hear was, “You’re going to miss the cafeteria noise” or “You’ll feel phantom pain for your walkie and reach for it like it’s still there.” No one warned me I’d find myself lingering too long during school visits, trying to feel like I still belong.

    What I lost wasn’t just proximity; it was identity.

    As a principal, I was part of everything. Students shouted greetings across the parking lot. Parents stopped me in the grocery store to ask about bus routes or share weekend news. Teachers popped into my office with questions or just to drop off a piece of cake from the lounge. I wasn’t above the work. I was in it. I was woven into the messy, beautiful rhythm of a school day.

    Shifting to the central office changed not just the pace of my day, but the feel of the work. The space was quieter, the communication more deliberate. There are no morning announcements. No car rider line and morning high-fives from kids. No spontaneous TikTok dances during class change. I moved from the rhythm of a living, breathing school to a place where school leadership feels more technical, more filtered, and more removed.

    The relationships changed, too. As a principal, you’re not just part of a team; you’re a part of a family. You laugh together, carry each other’s burdens, and share both the stress and the wins. Move into a district role, and you’re now “from downtown,” even if your heart still lives on campus. You walk into buildings with a badge that means something different, and the conversations shift just enough for you to notice.

    None of this means the central office work doesn’t matter. It does. Or that I don’t love it. I do. Central office work gives me a systems-level view of how our schools function. I find purpose in improving not just individual outcomes, but the structures that guide them.

    Still, the change in relational gravity caught me off guard. And once the initial disorientation passed, it left me with a deeper concern: How will I stay connected to how the work is actually experienced and carried out in schools if I’m no longer living in it each day?

    At first, I told myself it was just a learning curve, that it would pass, that I’d find new rhythms soon enough. And I did — but not before realizing that central office leadership requires a different kind of muscle. One I hadn’t needed before.

    As a principal, I lived in fast feedback loops. I saw the effects of my decisions by lunchtime. I knew which teachers were having a hard week, which student needed extra eyes, which parent was about to call. Even hard conversations came with a certain clarity because I was close to the context and knew the culture I wanted to build.

    At the district level, the impact is broader but harder to track. The wins take longer to see. The feedback is quieter.

    I had to become more intentional about noticing what I could no longer see. That meant listening differently during school visits, paying closer attention to what leaders were navigating, and asking better questions. Not just about what was happening, but what it was costing them to make it happen.

    One of the advantages of working at a systems level is being able to recognize patterns across multiple settings. They can reveal root causes that individual concerns might never expose. That clarity opens the door to more aligned, lasting support.

    I began thinking less about whether expectations were clear and more about whether they were sustainable. My role was not to direct the work but to support the people carrying it out.

    These changes didn’t come naturally. They came because I didn’t want to become a leader who made good decisions in theory but stayed out of touch in practice. I didn’t want to lead by spreadsheet, even though color-coded tabs bring me great joy. I wanted to lead by understanding.

    Eventually, I began to see that even though I was no longer in the thick of the school day, I could still choose to stay connected — to show up, to ask real questions, to build trust not just through policy, but through presence.

    The classroom educators and school leaders I supported didn’t need someone who had knowledge of what it was like to be a teacher or principal. They needed someone who remembered what it felt like to be one. Someone who hadn’t forgotten the rush of the morning bell or the weight of a tough parent meeting or the impossible feeling of juggling school culture, teacher evaluations, instructional priorities, and a leaky roof all before noon.

    I think back often to my first year in central office. The silence. The absence of bells and kids and chaos. The invisible weight of missing something no one warned me I would lose. I remember walking through a school one afternoon and instinctively reaching for my walkie talkie. It wasn’t there. Of course it wasn’t there. But the reflex reminded me of something important: I still wanted to be tuned in.

    Leadership doesn’t have to grow lonelier as it grows broader. But staying connected takes intention. It takes habits, not just memories.

    I didn’t expect to grieve. But I’m grateful I did. Because grief has a way of reminding you what still deserves your presence.

    Chalkbeat is a nonprofit news site covering educational change in public schools.

    For more news on district management, visit eSN’s Educational Leadership hub.

    Latest posts by eSchool Media Contributors (see all)

    Source link