Tag: International

  • WEEKEND READING: The 2025 Immigration White Paper and its impact on international teacher recruitment and retention in MFL and Physics

    WEEKEND READING: The 2025 Immigration White Paper and its impact on international teacher recruitment and retention in MFL and Physics

    This blog was kindly authored by Juliette Claro, Lecturer in Education at St Mary’s University Twickenham and Co-chair of the UCET Special Interest Group in Supporting International Trainee Teachers in Education.

    The Immigration White Paper, published in Summer 2025, introduced sweeping reforms that will reshape England’s teacher workforce. One of the most consequential changes is the reduction of the Graduate Visa route from 24 to 18 months, which directly undermines the ability of international trainees to complete their Early Career Teacher (ECT) induction. Ahead of the debate at the House of Lords on the sustainability of Languages teachers and the impact of the immigration policies on the supply of qualified languages educators in schools and universities, this article examines the implications of this policy shift, supported by recent labour market data and the House of Lords paper by Claro and Nkune (2025), and offers recommendations for mitigating its unintended consequences.

    The White Paper and the impact on shortage subjects

    The National Foundation for Educational Research (NFER) Annual Report (2025) confirms that Physics and Modern Foreign Languages (MFL) remain among the most under-recruited secondary subjects. Physics met just 17% of its Initial Teacher Training (ITT) target in 2024/25, while MFL reached 42%. These figures reflect a decade-long struggle to attract and retain qualified teachers International trainees have historically played a vital role in plugging these gaps, particularly in MFL, where EU-trained teachers once formed a significant proportion of the workforce.

    Following the significant rise in international applicants for teacher training in shortage subjects such as Physics and MFL, The University Council for the Education of Teacher (UCET) launched in  June 2025 a platform for Initial Teacher Education (ITE) providers to discuss the support of international trainee teachers through a Special Interest Group (SIG) composed of 83 members representing ITE providers across England. Members of the SIG shared their concerns towards the immigration reforms and the impact the White Paper may have on the recruitment and retention of teachers in shortage subjects such as Physics or MFL where a strong majority of applicants come from overseas.

    Graduate visa reform: a critical barrier

    The most contentious element of the 2025 Immigration White Paper is the reduction of the Graduate Visa route from 24 to 18 months, which started on 1 January 2026. The new 18-month limit creates a structural misalignment where international trainees will be forced to leave the UK before completing their two-year Early Career Framework (ECF) induction, unless their school sponsors them early through a Skilled Worker Visa. At this stage, many schools are unwilling or unable to undertake this process due to cost, administrative burden, and the complexity of the process.

    UCET SIG members conducted a small-scale research in their settings to understand the barriers with school leaders to sponsor international Early Career Teachers (ECT). Across the sector, the reasons are complex and multilayered, reflecting the lack of financial and administrative support schools have to navigate sponsorship. This is especially true for smaller schools that are not part of a Multiple Academy Trust (MAT).

    The changes in the White Paper not only disrupt career progression but also risk wasting public investment. International trainees in shortage subjects are eligible to receive bursaries of up to £29,000 in Physics and £26, 000 in MFL (2025-2026). If they are forced to leave before completing induction, the return on this investment is nullified. Coherence in policies between the Department for Education recruitment targets and the Home Office immigration policies is needed in a fragile education system.

    The fragile pipeline of domestic workforce

    Providers from the SIG who liaised with their local Members of Parliament and other officials were reminded that the White Paper encourages employers not to rely on immigration to solve shortages of skills. Moreover, the revised shortage occupation list narrows eligibility, excluding MFL and Physics teaching specialisms and requiring schools to demonstrate domestic recruitment efforts before sponsoring.

    This adds friction to recruitment as the pipeline of domestic workforce for secondary school teachers in MFL, and Physics is relatively non-existent. The Institute of Physics highlighted in their 2025 report that 700,000 GCSE students do not have a Physics specialist in front of them in class. In MFL, the successive governments and decades of failed government policies to increase Languages students at GCSE and A Level are now showing the signs of a monolingual nation, reluctant to take on languages studies at Higher Education. This has contributed to a shortage of linguists willing to join the teaching profession.

    Why do international teachers matter in modern Britain?

    While the current political climate refutes the importance of immigration to sustain growth and skills in the economy, the White Paper undermines not only the Department for Education recruitment targets in a sector struggling to recruit and retain teachers in shortage subjects, but it also undermines the Fundamental British Values on which our curriculum and Teachers’ Standards are based on. Through a rhetoric that a domestic workforce is better than a foreign workforce, we both deny our young people the opportunity to be taught by subject specialists, and we refute the possibilities for our schools to promote inclusion in the teaching workforce.

    International teachers bring a breadth of experience and expertise. This is being denied to students based on the assumptions that making visas more difficult to obtain and reducing the opportunities for sponsorship will make the economy stronger.

    International trainee teachers joining the teacher training courses from Europe and the Global South often come to England with decades of experience teaching in their country. UCET SIG members’ small-scale research suggests that the majority of them want to stay and work in English schools after they qualify. The latest 2025  Government report on international teacher recruitment also highlights the fact that the majority of internationals aspire for careers progression in highly a performing education system in England. These studies suggest that the rhetoric behind the White Paper is not necessarily applicable in Education and needs reviewing.

    International teachers show strength and resilience adapting to new curricula and new educational systems. They are role models and aspirations for learners not only sharing their expertise in the classroom but also their resilience and determination to thrive.

    Recommendations

    The following recommendations would help to address the current issues:

    • Restore the Graduate Visa to 24 months for teachers to align with the ECT induction period.
    • Introduce automatic Skilled Worker sponsorship for international trainees in shortage subjects who complete Year 1 of induction successfully.
    • Provide centralised visa support for schools, including legal guidance and administrative assistance.
    • Ring-fence bursary funding to ensure it supports retention, not short-term recruitment.
    • Monitor and publish retention data for international teachers to inform future policy.
    • To support the sector, Education and Skills England should collaborate with the Industrial Strategy Advisory Council and the Migration Advisory Committee to bring coherence to policies linked with sponsorship and visa waivers for shortage subjects for example in Languages and Physics.

    Conclusion

    The 2025 White Paper offers ambitious reforms to address England’s teacher shortages, but its immigration provisions risk undermining progress. The reduction of the Graduate Visa route creates a structural barrier to retention, particularly in MFL and Physics, where international trainees are most needed and the domestic workforce is not supplying the pipeline of specialist teachers. Without urgent policy realignment, England risks losing valuable talent and wasting public investment at a time when stability and inclusion should be the priority.

    Source link

  • 85 million international students by 2030, QS data predicts

    85 million international students by 2030, QS data predicts

    Despite headwinds that have affected the four biggest study destinations over the past year, “push factors” such as lack of capacity in higher education in major sending markets will mean that the future of international education will continue to be relatively stable – and tens of millions of students will continue to study abroad in the future.

    That was the message from QS’s Andrew Plant and Selma Toohey at the organisation’s Reimagine conference in London. Using data from QS’s Global Stream Flows project, which tracks current market data and predicts future trends, they showed the relative resilience of the market over time.

    “Everyone should know they’re in a safe sector – that things will continue to be on the up, if you believe [the data],” said Toohey, senior vice president, university services at QS, outlining that there will be some 85 million international students by 2030.

    “It doesn’t always feel like it, does it?” added Plant, QS director, UK and Ireland. “It feels like we’re always dealing with a crisis, but actually we’re in a pretty good industry.”

    However, he acknowledged that there is “potentially more volatility” in destinations such as the US, Argentina and Russia at the moment as factors such as geopolitical or financial instability come home to roost.

    Similarly, in the UK, Brexit and the pandemic have hampered growth in recent years.

    I want you to imagine international education as a chess court. Every move, every political shift, they change the shape of the game
    Andrew Plant, QS

    “I want you to imagine international education as a chess court. Every move, every political shift, they change the shape of the game,” said Plant. “The question we need to be asking ourselves is, are we predicting those moves or are we just reacting to the moves we weren’t expecting?”

    Looking at broader market trends, Toohey pointed out that Nigeria – a major sending country – has around 2 million students looking for a university place, but only a maximum capacity to offer 600,000 places across its roughly 200 universities.

    “They often do regional flows so you’ll see Nigerians go into places like Ghana, but then they have their own capacity problems, or they go out to the big four or more and more the longer 14,” she said, referring to the larger group of major study destinations over and above the biggest markets in the US, the UK, Canada and Australia.

    There is a similar situation in India, which Toohey said would have to open 14 new universities a week to keep up with its target enrolment ratio – driving the influx of TNE interest in the country as well as making India one of the biggest sending countries in the world.

    “The population is so large and more and more Indians have access or want to have access to higher education,” she explained.

    Source link

  • international education stories that shaped 2025

    international education stories that shaped 2025

    Here are five key stories that captured how the region strengthened its global education footprint, expanded transnational provision and reshaped student mobility.

    1. UAE leads MENA surge as international study interest soars

    The United Arab Emirates emerged as one of the region’s most prominent education hubs in 2025, experiencing a sharp increase in international study interest. Data highlighted growing demand from students across MENA and beyond, reinforcing the UAE’s position as both a destination for inbound mobility and a strategic base for international providers operating in the region.

    2. UAE streamlines accreditation process for HEIs in Dubai

    Dubai took steps to simplify and align its higher education accreditation processes, a move aimed at reducing regulatory duplication while maintaining quality assurance. The changes were widely seen as a boost for international universities operating in, or considering entry into, the emirate, strengthening Dubai’s appeal as a transnational hub for education.

    3. Strategic planning pays off for the MENA region in QS rankings

    Across the region, strong investment in research output, international partnerships, and reputation reinforcements translated into tangible gains in the QS World University Rankings. Several MENA universities from countries such as Saudi Arabia, Qatar, UAE, and Lebanon all climbed significantly, with record representation from the region underscoring how coordinated national strategies are beginning to deliver global recognition.

    4. University of New Haven announces Saudi Arabia Campus

    Saudi Arabia continues to position itself as a major hub for transnational education, with the University of New Haven opening a campus in the Kingdom. The move reflected growing international confidence in Saudi Arabia’s education market, as well as the country’s broader ambitions to attract top foreign providers under its Vision 2030.

    5. Egypt signs 12 cooperation agreements with the University of Louisville

    Elsewhere in the region, Egypt strengthened its international academic ties through a series of cooperation agreements between 12 Egyptian universities and the University of Louisville in the US. The agreements aimed to expand research collaboration, faculty exchange, and student mobility, signalling Egypt’s renewed focus on global engagement.

    Source link

  • South Asia’s biggest international education stories

    South Asia’s biggest international education stories

    1. India set to become the world’s largest higher education system by 2047

    Delegates at The PIE Live India 2025 heard how India’s projected eightfold growth into a $30 trillion economy presents vast opportunities for higher education, with Niti Aayog’s Shashank Shah asking attendees, “If not India, then where?”. Speakers also highlighted that India is on track to become the world’s largest higher education system by 2035, with over 90 million students — positioning transnational education as a key growth driver.

    2. Outbound Indian university enrolments fall after three-year rise

    For the first time in three years, Indian students pursuing higher education saw a drop of around 5.7%, with over 1.25 million studying at international universities and tertiary institutions, compared to 1.33 million in 2024. This comes amid a range of policy changes in major destinations and the rise of cheaper, nearer options for students.

    The decline is also reflected in growing financial uncertainty around studying abroad in India, with remittances for overseas education falling to their lowest level in eight years when comparing April – August 2025 figures.

    3. More Australian and UK universities set sights on campuses in India

    In July 2025, four universities from the UK and Australia — La Trobe University, Victoria University, Western Sydney University, and the University of Bristol — received Letters of Intent (LoIs) to establish branch campuses in India, just a month after the University Grants Commission (UGC) issued LOIs to five other universities from the UK, US, Australia, and Italy. Currently, nine UK and seven Australian universities have either opened campuses or are in the process of doing so, with not only GIFT City but other economic hubs such as Noida, Bengaluru, Mumbai, Gurugram, and Chennai also hosting campuses.

    Despite this growth, The PIE has explored the rising debate around the “rush” to enter India’s higher education space at a time when international universities are cutting back on jobs and research, particularly in the UK, where four in ten English universities are believed to be in financial deficit, according to the Office for Students (OfS).

    4. Southampton opens India operations, attracts applications from Middle East and South Asia

    The University of Southampton, the UK’s first branch campus in India, told The PIE at The PIE Live India 2025 in January that the process of establishing its Delhi campus had been “fast, frenetic [and] exciting” from start to finish.

    The India campus, which began operations in August 2025, has since gained strong traction, receiving over 800 applications, with around 200 students joining the first cohort, and applications also coming from the UAE, Nepal, and Myanmar.

    5. Sri Lanka set to welcome first ever UK university campus

    The South Asian island nation, which is the second-largest host of UK TNE students, saw its first-ever UK university branch campus this year, with the University of West London launching a dedicated facility in the capital, Colombo, for local students.

    Meanwhile, Charles Sturt University is set to become the third Australian university to establish a campus in Sri Lanka. The country’s skills gaps and its Vision 2048 development agenda are driving Sri Lanka to pursue such opportunities, as it continues to face limited capacity across its 20 public universities, despite around 160,000 students seeking tertiary education each year.

    6. Trump and Modi pledge stronger India–US higher education ties

    While US President Donald Trump and Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi appear at odds on trade, with Trump doubling tariffs on India to as much as 50%, both leaders are advocating closer ties in higher education. Their focus includes scientific research, dual degrees, joint centres of excellence, and offshore campuses, with Illinois Tech becoming the first US institution to receive approval for a campus in India.

    7. Cities within cities to host international university campuses

    Major Indian cities are planning dedicated education hubs on the outskirts of newly developing urban areas. While “Third Mumbai”, a purpose-built education city, is set to host five international universities near the upcoming Navi Mumbai International Airport, the Tamil Nadu Industrial Development Corporation (TIDCO) is developing the Knowledge City in Tiruvallur.

    The Tamil Nadu Knowledge City aims to create a first-of-its-kind education and research hub in southern India, attracting both international and domestic universities, along with academic institutions and research organisations.

    8. Bangladeshi government opens doors to international campuses and dual programs

    Bangladesh’s University Grants Commission (UGC) has announced its plans to develop “clear and stringent” guidelines for formulating a policy around international university branches in the country. While there has been interest from countries like the UK and Malaysia, the policy’s review and national interest assessments are currently underway.

    The establishment of branch campuses would be seen as key, as Bangladeshi students have faced increasing visa denials and allegations of misusing study visa status to enter the labour market, with universities in the UK and countries like Denmark imposing restrictions on them.

    9. F‑1 visa declines hit India and China hardest

    Though India has retained its position as the US’s largest sending country, accounting for 31% of all international students according to 2024/25 data, it — along with China — has borne the brunt of declining US study visa issuances. The number of Indian students receiving US study visas fell by over 41% in the year to May 2025, amid a range of policies targeting international students, including heightened social media vetting, proposed visa time limits, and increased deportations and SEVIS status terminations over political views and other minor misdemeanours.

    These developments have made international students, particularly Indians, more cautious about studying in what is widely considered the world’s top study destination.

    10. India to unveil new scheme for Indian-origin researchers overseas

    India’s Ministry of Education, the Department of Science and Technology (DST), and the Department of Biotechnology (DBT) are working to “bring back” Indian-origin researchers and scientists with strong academic credentials, targeting 12–14 priority STEM areas deemed strategically important for national capacity building.

    11. UGC launches dedicated portal for study-abroad returnees in India

    In April 2025, the UGC launched a standardised framework for recognising international degrees in India. Indian students who have studied abroad and wish to return for further education or employment can now apply for an equivalence certificate through the higher education body’s portal by paying the prescribed fee.

    12. B2B international education platform Crizac debuts on Indian stock market

    Kolkata-headquartered Crizac, which plans to expand beyond student recruitment into areas such as student loans, housing, and other services, and is targeting new geographies and growth markets within India, raised £74 million in its Initial Public Offering (IPO).

    The company listed on the National Stock Exchange (NSE) and Bombay Stock Exchange (BSE), becoming one of the few education platforms to enter the IPO space. Major edtech players like PhysicsWallah followed later, aiming for a USD$3.6 billion valuation through a USD$393 million IPO.

    13. Cost drives Pakistan’s TNE growth as student mobility barriers rise

    International universities and education providers are pivoting to TNE in Pakistan due to the country’s price-sensitive environment which is creating challenges for students going abroad for education. While Pakistan faces weak investment in research and development, its strategic growth vision is driving rising demand for international qualifications among students, delegates heard at The PIE Live Europe 2025.

    This shift is particularly significant as several institutions, especially from the UK, have halted recruitment in certain cities and increased deposit requirements from 50% to the full tuition fee.

    14. International universities tap into Nepal’s mobile student population

    With a student mobility ratio of 19% — ten times that of its giant neighbours, India and China — Nepal has attracted visits from over 16 universities under the Nepal Rising initiative. The country is already planning 30 or more franchise TNE campuses, with 30,000 students approved by the Ministry of Education.

    Source link

  • The European international education stories you should know from 2025

    The European international education stories you should know from 2025

    1. Denmark tightens restrictions on international students

    In late September, news broke that Denmark – a growing educational destination – was taking steps to make it harder for international applicants to study at Danish universities. The policy would impose stricter academic entry requirements, restrictions on spouses, national reviews of forged documents, and shorter post-study work permits for third-country students in response to rising concerns over fears education is being used as a back door into the Danish labour market. This was The PIE News’s most-read story of the year, showing rising interest in Denmark as a study destination.

    2. The UK’s education secretary issues a warm welcome to international students

    After years of increasingly restrictive polices affecting the international education sector, many stakeholders welcomed a new Labour government, led by Prime Minister Keir Starmer, that seemed to be rolling out the welcome mat for international students. Education secretary Bridget Phillipson released a video message addressing students thinking of choosing the UK as their study destination, reassuring them that the country is “a wonderful and safe place to study”.

    3. The UK ushers in a levy on international student fees

    Under the immigration white paper, a road map outlining the UK’s plans to control immigration, the Starmer government laid out plans to introduce a tax on international student fees. An announcement in the Autumn budget released more details; a £925-per-international-student flat fee for institutions in England with more than 220 overseas students. While it’s widely understood that the controversial policy was designed to help the higher education sector prove the value of international education – with the cash raised from the levy set to go towards domestic maintenance grants – critics have aired concerns that overseas students could be put off from studying in the UK if the levy is passed on in higher fees.

    4. UK Graduate Route condensed by six months

    In another major development for the UK sector in 2025, the international white paper introduced plans to shorten the Graduate Route – originally set at two years – to just 18 months. The condensed post-graduate work stream will come into effect in January 2027.

    5. Capping student numbers would lose the Netherlands serious money

    The Netherlands has long been a popular destination for international students – offering value for money and many programs taught in English. But the international education sector in the country is facing its fair share of headwinds, including right-wing politicians’ attempts to curb overseas enrolments. But research shows that capping international students at just five of the Netherlands’ universities could cause countrywide losses of up to €5bn – an eye-watering number that should leave policymakers thinking twice.

    6. Germany’s international students return eightfold investment

    Another major European study destination, Germany has been steadily rising in popularity over the past few years. But while students are flocking to the country, local communities can expect benefits in return. Research from the German Academic Exchange Service (DAAD) shows that international students in Germany contribute eight times more to public budgets than the amount the government spends on them.

    7. Rising international student numbers in Malta

    A rising ELT hub, Malta is also attracting its fair share of international students in higher education due to its friendly locals, proximity to mainland Europe, balmy climate and attractive post-graduate opportunities. This is showing up in the growing number of higher education international enrolments, with this number shooting up by more than a quarter in just one year between 2022/23 and 2023/24, according to data from the country’s National Statistics Office.

    8. French institutions cash in on US policy turmoil

    With the US – traditionally the most sought-after study destination in the world – facing significant challenges with Donald Trump back in the White House, other countries are seeing an influx of students looking for alternative places to study. Some, like France, are actively positioning themselves as an attractive alternative. The country has also introduced a new fellowship for American students, launched in anticipation of the 250th anniversary of the American Declaration of Independence.

    9. International students flock to Ireland as Celtic Tiger roars

    Ireland is fast becoming a regional hub for international education, as the largest English-speaking country still in the EU following Brexit. International students are flocking to the country in their droves, leading the the inaugural PIE Live Ireland being held in Dublin this October – at which Ireland’s higher education minister gave a video address welcoming international students.

    Source link

  • 10 stories that shaped international education in Australia

    10 stories that shaped international education in Australia

    1. Election result brings continuity – and questions – for the sector

    Anthony Albanese secured a second term for the Labor government in Australia’s federal election. While the outcome removed uncertainty around a change of government – particularly given the Coalition’s proposed international student caps and higher visa fees – it also left many in the sector assessing what continuity would mean in practice. The result sparked renewed discussion about policy direction, including commentary on whether stability would translate into greater certainty or restraint for international education.

    2. Julian Hill steps into the international education brief

    In July, Julian Hill was appointed assistant minister for international education, giving the sector a dedicated political lead. Since taking on the brief, Hill has repeatedly emphasised the need to protect the “integrity” of the sector, particularly in relation to visa settings and compliance. Hill has spent a lot of time at out and about at industry events and liaising with the sector, including in an exclusive webinar with The PIE News.

    3. Perth International College of English shuts its doors

    Perth International College of English was not the only provider to close its doors in 2025. But its decision to shut down became a clear illustration of how rising visa fees and tightening settings were landing on the ground. For many in the ELICOS sector, it underscored the vulnerability of smaller providers operating with thin margins in a rapidly changing policy environment.

    4. Student visa fees jump to AUD$2,000

    One of the most talked-about changes of 2025 came when Australia lifted the cost of a student visa to AUD$2,000 – making it the most expensive in the world. The hike sparked debate across the sector about competitiveness and particular concerns came from the ELICOS sector with stakeholders arguing that yet another price hike would put off short-term students.

    5. Australia moves toward a new tertiary education watchdog

    This year saw the Australian government introduce legislation to establish the Australian Tertiary Education Commission (ATEC). The ATEC began interim operations in July 2025, with plans to become fully operational by 2026. This new body is set to centralise the planning and regulation of post-school education, including international education, marking a significant shift in how the sector will be governed in the years to come.

    6. International student enrolment limit lifted to 295,000

    Australia raised its de facto international student enrolment cap to 295,000 places. The decision provided some breathing room for universities and providers, even as questions remained about how limits would be managed long term and who would benefit most.

    7. The PIE Live Asia Pacific 2025 puts the spotlight on sector leaders

    The PIE Live Asia Pacific 2025 offered a moment for the sector to come together – to unpack policy and trends, hear from across the industry, and recognise the people driving international education forward. Lifetime Impact Awards recognised long-standing leaders whose work has shaped international education across decades – a reminder of the human side of an industry often discussed in numbers.

    8. Can Australia thrive in a “managed” era?

    One of the year’s most widely read opinion pieces asked a question many were already grappling with: can Australia remain globally competitive while tightly managing international student numbers? The piece captured a growing tension between regulation, reputation, and market reality.

    9. A new visa processing directive replaces MD 111

    Later in the year, Australia confirmed that Ministerial Direction 111 would be replaced with a new student visa processing directive. While intended to improve integrity and efficiency, the new settings under Ministerial Direction 115 largely mirror its predecessor, with a handful of key changes – including the introduction of a third priority category for providers that exceed their new overseas student commencement (NOSC) allocations by more than 15%.

    10. Education reforms are locked in after clearing parliament

    Rounding out the year, Australia’s education reforms moved from proposal to reality in 2025 after clearing parliament in the nick of time. The changes include a broader legal definition of an education agent and expanded ministerial powers. While the measures were designed to improve integrity, parts of the sector raised concerns during consultation, with attention now turning to how the reforms will be applied in practice.

    Source link

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

    The Trump administration’s biggest impact on education in 2025 

    by Nirvi Shah, The Hechinger Report
    December 18, 2025

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

    Or what might be yet to come. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Higher education

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

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

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

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

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

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

    K-12 education

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Early education

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Source link

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

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

    by Jackie Mader, The Hechinger Report
    December 17, 2025

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

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

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

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

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

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

    What is the landscape of early childhood in South Africa?

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

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

    Why are you focusing on home-based care? 

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

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

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

    What challenges have you encountered? 

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

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

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

    What are your goals moving forward?

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

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

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

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

    Source link

  • Higher Education Inquirer : Understanding U.S. Campus Safety and Mental Health: Guidance for International Students

    Higher Education Inquirer : Understanding U.S. Campus Safety and Mental Health: Guidance for International Students

    The tragic shooting at Brown University in December 2025, which claimed two lives and left nine students wounded, is a stark reminder that even elite U.S. campuses are not immune to violence. For international students, understanding this incident requires placing it in the broader context of the United States’ history of social dangers, treatment of mental illness, and policies affecting foreigners.

    The United States has historically had higher rates of violent crime, including gun-related incidents, than many other developed nations. While campus shootings remain statistically rare, they reflect deeper societal issues: widespread gun access, social inequality, and a culture that often prioritizes armed self-protection over preventative public safety measures. Universities, traditionally viewed as open spaces for learning and discussion, are increasingly sites of surveillance and armed response, reshaping the student experience.

    Foreign students and immigrants may face additional vulnerabilities. Throughout U.S. history, immigrants have often been subject to discrimination, harassment, or violence based on nationality, race, or religion. Universities are not insulated from these pressures, and international students can be particularly susceptible to microaggressions, exclusion, or even targeted hostility. These risks were heightened under the Trump administration, when rhetoric and policies frequently cast foreigners as suspicious or undesirable. Visa restrictions, heightened scrutiny of foreign scholars, and public statements fostering distrust created an environment in which international students might feel unsafe or isolated.

    Mental illness plays a critical role in understanding campus violence, but its treatment in the United States is inconsistent. While many universities provide counseling centers, therapy services, and crisis hotlines, the broader mental health system in the U.S. remains fragmented and under-resourced. Access often depends on insurance coverage, ability to pay, and proximity to care, leaving some individuals untreated or inadequately supported. Cultural stigmas and underdiagnosis can exacerbate the problem, particularly among minority and immigrant populations. International students, unfamiliar with local mental health norms or hesitant to seek care due to cost or cultural barriers, may be less likely to access help until crises arise.

    U.S. universities deploy extensive surveillance systems, emergency protocols, and campus police to respond to threats. These measures aim to mitigate harm once an incident occurs but focus less on prevention of violence or addressing underlying causes, including untreated mental illness. Students are required to participate in drills and safety training, creating a reactive rather than preventative model.

    Compared to other countries, the U.S. approach is distinct. Canadian universities emphasize mental health support and unarmed security. European campuses often maintain open environments with minimal surveillance and preventive intervention strategies. Many Asian universities operate in low-crime contexts with community-based safety measures rather than extensive surveillance. The U.S. approach emphasizes rapid law enforcement response and monitoring, reflecting a society with higher firearm prevalence and less coordinated mental health infrastructure.

    The Brown University tragedy underscores a sobering reality for international students: while the U.S. offers world-class education, it is a nation with elevated risks of violent crime, inconsistent mental health care, and historical and ongoing challenges for foreigners. Awareness, preparedness, community engagement, and proactive mental health support are essential tools for international students navigating higher education in this environment.

    Sources

    The Guardian: Brown University shooting: police release more videos of person of interest as FBI offers reward

    Reuters: Manhunt for Brown University shooter stretches into fourth day

    Washington Post: Hunt for Brown University gunman starts anew as tension rises

    AP News: Brown University shooting victims identified

    People: Brown University shooting victim Kendall Turner

    WUSF: Brown University shooting victims update

    Wikipedia: 2025 Brown University shooting

    Pew Research Center: International Students in the United States

    Brookings Institution: Immigrant Vulnerability and Safety in the U.S.

    National Alliance on Mental Illness: Mental Health in Higher Education

    Journal of American College Health: Mental Health Services Utilization Among College Students

    Source link

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

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

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

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

    The international student levy and student demand

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

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

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

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

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

    The quiet squeeze of the BCA

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

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

    Sliding demand for the UK

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

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

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

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

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

    What this means in 2026

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

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

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

    This article is published in association with IDP Education.

    Source link