The UK government’s newly published International education strategy opens with a statement few in our sector would dispute – in an “uncertain world, education matters more than ever.”
That is true. But a closer reading of the document suggests a more specific and narrower interpretation of why education matters.
This is not, in any meaningful sense, a national international education strategy. It is, instead, an international education export strategy.
There is nothing inherently wrong with that. Education is one of the UK’s most successful export sectors, supporting jobs, research, soft power, and local economies across the country. At a time of financial constraint, it is understandable that government thinking frames education primarily through the lenses of growth, trade, and global influence.
But if this is the government’s intent, it should be honest about it. Words matter, because they shape priorities, expectations, and trade-offs.
Calling this an “international education strategy” implies something broader – a vision for how education helps the nation understand the world, engage with it intelligently, and equip its people to thrive within it. That wider vision is largely absent in this strategy.
The dominant logic of the strategy is export-led. Success is defined through metrics such as global market share, education exports reaching £40 billion per year by 2030, transnational education expansion, and the recruitment of international students as contributors to economic growth and soft power. Students, staff, and institutions appear primarily as instruments in a national growth and influence agenda.
What’s missing
What is missing in this strategy is just as telling.
First, there is no serious engagement with languages and area studies. At precisely the moment when the UK’s universities are retrenching from modern languages and regional expertise, the strategy is silent on linguistic capability and cultural literacy.
This is not a marginal issue. If international education is about preparing a country to collaborate, compete, and coexist in a complex world, then understanding other languages, cultures, and political contexts is a basic requirement.
Second, the strategy underplays the role of internationally mobile academic and professional staff. International researchers and educators are acknowledged, but largely as contributors to research outputs, innovation, and competitiveness.
There is little sense of them as part of a long-term national knowledge ecosystem, or of the conditions required to attract and retain global talent in an increasingly competitive environment. Trust and partnership are repeatedly mentioned, but these depend on openness, stability, and welcome – not just on visa routes that happen to suit current labour market needs.
Third, outward mobility for UK students and staff remains peripheral. The return to Erasmus+ and the continuation of the Turing Scheme are positive steps, but they are framed as supporting soft power and employability rather than as core components of a genuinely international education system.
More than a decade ago, I argued that if we truly value international experience, we should allow UK students make use of UK student loans to travel and study beyond our borders. That argument still has traction and still goes unanswered.
Nothing new
None of this is new. When previous international education strategies were published, I raised similar concerns – that international education was being conflated with international student recruitment and export earnings, and that the deeper purposes of education in a global society were being squeezed out.
More than a decade on from BIS’s International education strategy: global growth and prosperity, the language is more polished and the ambition more coordinated across government, but the underlying philosophy has changed remarkably little.
The risk is not that the UK pursues education exports. The real risk is that we mistake export success for international education success. A country can generate billions in education revenue while simultaneously hollowing out its own international capabilities – languages, cultural understanding, outward mobility, and academic openness.
A true international education strategy would start with different questions. What capabilities does the UK need to thrive in a multipolar, unstable world? How does international education contribute to social cohesion at home as well as engagement abroad? How do we ensure that internationalisation benefits domestic students and staff, not just balance sheets and trade statistics?
The current strategy contains elements that could support such a vision. It talks about partnerships, mobility, values-based education, but they are subordinate to the export narrative rather than driving it.
If government wants an international education export strategy, it should say so clearly. And if it wants a genuinely international education strategy, then this document is only half the story.