International education in the UK needs direction, not drift
January’s “refresh” of the UK’s international education strategy should have steadied the ship on the role and place of international students. Instead, it reads like a holding pattern, or more of the same at a moment that demands so much more.
There are warm words for exporters, vague nods to partnerships and a notable silence on the very levers the government has been pulling for the past 18 months – namely application fees and health surcharges – making it harder for international students to enrol at UK universities.
By avoiding the big questions around international education… the new strategy risks becoming background music
Plus, let’s be honest: international education in the UK is not shaped by junior ministers in the Business and Education departments, even with the added support of colleagues in the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office. Instead, it is driven by the Home Office and its visa policies, the state of the economy and the Treasury’s risk appetite, and whatever else Number 10 judges will play with the electorate at any given moment.
By avoiding the big questions around international education – notably the continued inclusion of overseas students in net migration figures and the growing funding crisis facing UK universities – the new strategy risks becoming background music. If the major offices of state choose to sing a harsher tune on international students in the future, then the new document offers very little to hold the line.
Political theatre
We’ve now had over a year of contradictions. Ministers say the UK welcomes the “brightest and the best” while continuing to brief against “low quality courses”. Universities are urged to diversify their recruitment markets at the same time as the visa and immigration rules that underpin the UK’s competitiveness are tightened.
Institutions are also encouraged to grow international research and innovation capability while operating within a funding system that increasingly relies on international fees to underwrite domestic teaching and research. The new strategy tiptoes around this political theatre rather than confronting it.
A serious international education strategy, by contrast, would have set out clear conditions for stability. Central to this should be buy‑in from the Home Office to prevent the Graduate Route being reopened for debate each spring as part of the annual migration cycle. Persistent speculation around graduates’ post‑study work rights creates unnecessary volatility in the market. Without reassurance on future prospects, applicants hesitate and universities are left unable to plan with confidence.
Fixing the faultlines
A serious strategy would also have grappled with the hard wiring required to deliver its ambitions. Setting out a wish‑list is one thing; explaining how it will be financed and implemented is quite another. With the international student fee levy already a ‘done deal’ in England at least, this was an obvious opportunity to make a credible claim on a portion of that revenue for reinvestment into destination marketing and international competitiveness.
The strategy could also have anchored international education more firmly in domestic growth ambitions and wider political developments. The emerging English Devolution Bill presents an obvious hook for this join‑up. Yet, the strategy barely touches the mechanics of how mayoral areas will be empowered and resourced to make the benefits of international education visible locally, whether through housing, placements or graduate jobs. Without this alignment, the contribution of international education to regional economies remains largely ignored.
The pivot to TNE
As it stands, government messaging leans heavily on transnational education (TNE) and offshore growth to reach the £40 billion export target without increasing onshore numbers. There is, of course, a place for this pivot, particularly as the cost of international mobility rises and environmental concerns grow. But TNE will not solve the sector’s financial challenges, nor should it become an alibi for avoiding the difficult decisions required to make in‑person international education work.
TNE will not solve the sector’s financial challenges, nor should it become an alibi for avoiding the difficult decisions required to make in‑person international education work
In this context, institutional agency matters more than ever. Universities can move first on responsible recruitment and student experience – strengthening agent quality, planning for sustainable housing with regional partners and expanding placement capacity – so that if and when the UK government returns to the Graduate Route, the foundations of good practice are already in place.
The way forward
International education is not a fringe issue for the UK economy. It is one of the country’s most successful exports, a cornerstone of its soft power and a vital pillar of support for a higher education sector under strain. Treating it as politically convenient when it grows, and politically expendable when it does not, undermines all three of its core functions.
The UK university sector does not need another vision-setting piece. It needs direction – with clear signals of intent from Cabinet ministers, consistency in policy approach and confidence that international students are valued not just on arrival, but throughout their time at university and beyond.
Without that, the policy drift will continue. And in an increasingly competitive global market, drift can have a habit of turning quickly into decline.
The post International education in the UK needs direction, not drift appeared first on The PIE News.