The scrutiny is coming from more than one direction. Admissions offices are tightening their own checks on the authenticity and consistency of English-language evidence, in response to well-documented fraud vulnerabilities and inconsistent evidence standards across the sector.

At the same time, UK Visas and Immigration (UKVI) now runs an annual Basic Compliance Assessment (BCA) for every institution holding a student sponsor licence, scoring them on visa refusal rates, enrolment rates, and course completion rates. Falling short on any one of those metrics can strip an institution of the right to self-assess a student’s English ability altogether, forcing a shift to mandatory secure testing across the board. Further, a new Agent Quality Framework is being extended so institutions can no longer treat agent-sourced evidence as somebody else’s responsibility. In short: the English-language evidence an agent helps assemble now feeds directly into a compliance metric that determines whether an institution can keep recruiting internationally at all.

That’s the backdrop and it’s also the opportunity. Agents who understand this chain of evidence, and can speak to it confidently, become more valuable partners to the institutions they work with, and better advisers to the students who trust them.

Academic readiness is the cornerstone of student success

Academic readiness is the strongest predictor of first-year performance, progression, retention, and completion. When students arrive without sufficient English proficiency, the impact is immediate: difficulty engaging in seminars and group work, falling behind in reading-intensive modules, rising stress, and a higher likelihood of assessment failure or withdrawal.

Meeting a minimum entry requirement isn’t the same as being ready to perform at it. A student who scrapes the headline overall score with a weak reading or writing subscore is often the one who struggles most in postgraduate, research-intensive programmes, where extended reading and academic writing carry most of the assessment weight.

In practice, that means: looking with the student beyond the single overall band to the subscore breakdown; recommending a margin above the minimum particularly in speaking and writing wherever a programme is writing- or seminar-heavy; and encouraging an early retake where subscores are borderline, rather than waiting until an offer is at risk. Agents who steer students toward the cheapest or fastest route to a passing score to obtain a visa rather than genuine readiness, aren’t doing anyone any favours: those are the students most likely to need extra support, delay progression, or withdraw outcomes now visible to institutions through the BCA’s own completion-rate metric.

The growing scrutiny of MOI

Medium of Instruction (MOI) evidence is under sustained scrutiny, and institutions increasingly treat it as a case-by-case judgement rather than a standard alternative to testing. Practice varies widely: some institutions require MOI letters to be corroborated by transcripts, curriculum details, or interview; others have withdrawn MOI acceptance for certain markets or programmes altogether, following BCA findings that linked MOI-based admissions to weaker completion or higher visa refusal rates.

For agents, that means treating an MOI recommendation as a considered call each time, not a default and being able to talk a student through the reasoning.

Three questions are worth working through together: First, does the receiving institution’s current policy actually support MOI for this student’s country, subject, and level of study? Policies here shift often, so this is worth checking fresh for each application rather than assumed from a previous case. Second, was the student’s prior study substantively delivered and assessed in English not just described as such on paper in a way that plausibly matches the demands of postgraduate or research-intensive study in the UK? Third, is an MOI-based application more likely to trigger additional verification, delay an offer, or be queried at visa stage for this particular market?

Where any of these three is uncertain, recommending secure testing alongside or instead of MOI is the safer, more defensible choice for the student’s academic readiness, and for the agent’s credibility with the institutions they work with.

Secure testing as a strategic enabler

Secure English language testing is worth repositioning, in conversations with students, as more than an entry hurdle. It supports identity validation, demonstrates genuine academic readiness, reduces institutional exposure, and gives students greater confidence going into study. Viewing testing as an unnecessary cost is short-sighted: the real cost is poor preparation academic, financial, and emotional. Framing testing as an investment in a student’s own success, rather than a bureaucratic step, tends to land better with students and parents alike and it happens to be true.

BCA reviews are raising the bar

The Basic Compliance Assessment is an annual Home Office review of how well a sponsoring institution is managing its international student population against three metrics: visa refusal rates, enrolment rates, and course completion rates. Institutions rated amber or red face restrictions including, in some cases, losing the right to self-assess English-language ability, which pushes their entire cohort toward mandatory secure testing. As English-language evidence sits upstream of all three metrics a student who was never really ready for the course is more likely to be refused a visa, to under-enrol, or to withdraw, institutions are having to demonstrate, more rigorously than before, how that evidence was gathered, verified, and judged sufficient at the point of offer, both to their own compliance teams and to UKVI itself.

Agent-sourced evidence is now squarely inside that chain of justification. As regulatory attention on institutions increases, so does attention on the English-language guidance and evidence that agents provide upstream of the admissions decision. Weak guidance creates a vulnerability that traces all the way back to an agent’s file; strong guidance protects the student, the institution’s compliance record, and the agent’s own standing with institutional partners.

Defining practice that works for students and agents

A forward-looking standard is emerging, and it rewards informed, student-centred practice, which includes:

• Recommending the right test for the destination and programme, factoring in university acceptance, subject demands, security requirements, and timing
• Where subscores are borderline, especially speaking and writing for postgraduate, research-intensive courses, advising testing to a margin above the stated minimum, and supporting an early retake rather than a late one
• Treating MOI as a case-by-case judgement using the three questions above, not a standard substitute for testing
• Communicating secure testing to students as an investment in their own progression, not a hurdle to clear
• Keeping documentation authentic, consistent, and aligned with each institution’s current expectations, since these shift
• Engaging admissions teams early to confirm current requirements and reduce delays

These aren’t extra burdens layered on top of an agent’s advising role they’re the parts of that role now most visible to institutions, most consequential for students, and most likely to distinguish the agents that institutions want to keep working with.

The role of agents in a changing landscape

Agents are often a student’s first trusted adviser. Their guidance shapes not just admission outcomes but a student’s confidence, performance, and ultimately their success once they arrive. Getting the English-language piece right is one of the clearest, most immediate ways an agent can add value to that relationship and one of the clearest ways to build a track record that institutions notice.

How ELSAA supports the sector

ELSAA is the English Language Standard Advisory Authority [link to https://englishlsa.com]. Our mission is to strengthen standards, improve transparency, and support risk-aware decision-making across the English-language ecosystem. We work with agents and institutions to:

• Interpret emerging regulatory and compliance expectations
• Identify appropriate English-language pathways
• Reduce institutional and agent risk
• Improve student progression and retention
• Build trusted, future-ready recruitment practices

Agents who build this expertise put students at the centre of every decision and in doing so, strengthen their own standing with the institutions they work with. Strong English-language guidance isn’t an extra step; it’s the advantage.

The English Language Standard Advisory Authority (ELSAA) is an independent organisation dedicated to improving transparency, understanding, and informed decision-making in high-stakes English language testing. Through independent test reviews, comparative analysis, training, and advisory services, ELSAA supports universities, professional bodies, employers, and policymakers in evaluating and using English language assessments with confidence.

For additional background, please see:

• “Study highlights gaps between English standards set by test developers and those used by universities and professional bodies“
• “Narrowing bands of compliance: How the UK’s new RAG system will impact international student recruitment“

The post Why sharper English-language guidance is becoming an agent’s sharpest tool for student success appeared first on ���Ϲ��� Monitor - Market intelligence for international student recruitment.

There is some overlap between the two in that they jointly regulate institutions that provide programming across higher education and VET, and they share jurisdiction over CRICOS-registered providers (the Commonwealth Register of Institutions and Courses for Overseas Students) delivering courses to international students.

The interests of the two regulators are naturally aligned in some ways, but TEQSA and ASQA rarely issue joint statements. However, earlier this month, they did just that, that they are watching how providers and agents are behaving with regards to onshore student transfers.

The joint message says:

“TEQSA and ASQA are aware of concerns that some advertising by registered providers appears inconsistent with the intent of the ban on the payment of education agent commissions in relation to onshore transfers.

“Both agencies view any attempts by providers or education agents to bypass this restriction as unacceptable and providers who are not adequately managing these risks or not meeting the relevant Standards may be subject to a compliance assessment and/or regulatory action.”

The caution speaks directly to a new rule that was introduced in January 2026, and that came into force on 31 March 2026. Under the new rule, education agents are no longer permitted to receive commissions from Australian schools and universities when an international student already in Australia (an “onshore student”) transfers from one institution to another without having completed their course with the previous provider.

The rule appears in revisions to the National Code of Practice – formally, – and it was part of a package of amendments to the Education Services for Overseas Students Act (ESOS) passed in November 2025.

The joint TEQSA-ASQA alert goes on to say that the two regulators have specific concerns in the following areas:

• Recruitment or incentive arrangements that preserve commission-based behaviour (for onshore transfers);
• Practices that encourage and facilitate unnecessary transfers of students from other providers;
• Insufficient provider oversight of education agents;
• Providers failing to declare their arrangements with third parties facilitating student transfers;
• Improper management of data around agent activities and student enrolment, including inaccurate or delayed reporting;
• Weak governance, controls, monitoring or record-keeping practices around recruitment and student enrolment;
• Providers with poor risk management practices in respect of accepting higher risk students who have transferred from another provider and do not appear to be academically prepared for their new course.

The alert then outlines the compliance expectations the regulators have for providers working with agents on onshore transfers:

“Providers need to be able to demonstrate, through robust governance oversight, that their arrangements, practices and controls are consistent with the recent changes to the National Code preventing the payment of education agent commissions in relation to onshore overseas student transfers.”

TEQSA and ASQA expect all providers to undertake a check of their current processes and practices, including:

• Reviewing agreements with education agents and other third parties;
• Checking what education agents are promoting in-market;
• Reviewing admissions and transfer practices to ensure they do not contravene the ban on onshore transfers;
• Demonstrating compliance through clear policies, monitoring, and record-keeping.

The instruction concludes with a more specific warning: “Providers who are not adequately managing these risks or not meeting the relevant Standards may be subject to a compliance assessment and/or regulatory action.”

The joint alert makes it clear that TEQSA and ASQA are concerned about onshore transfers; that they expect providers to take any actions needed to address these concerns; and that they may ramp up compliance checks or other interventions going forward.

Regular readers will appreciate that this is not strictly an Australian story. Rather, the direction of travel is clear across destinations: providers should expect greater scrutiny of their international recruitment activities by governments and regulators. Implementing effective quality checks and oversight of recruitment programmes is key to compliance.

For additional background, please see:

• “Australia introduces new rules restricting agent commissions for onshore student transfers“
• “Narrowing bands of compliance: How the UK’s new RAG system will impact international student recruitment“
• “Who decides about quality? Education agents and the question of increased regulation“

The post Joint sector alert sends a clear compliance message to Australian higher education and VET providers appeared first on ���Ϲ��� Monitor - Market intelligence for international student recruitment.

Lowest volume of visa applications in the past five years

The Home Office received -33% fewer sponsored study visa applications from students (main applicants) in January–April 2026 than in the same period in 2025. This follows a -21% decline in applications in Q4 2025 versus Q4 2024.

The chart below was published by Nous Group director in mid-May.

As the chart depicts, this year’s January–April visa application volume is the lowest in the past five years. It is -11% below the recent-year low for the same period in 2024, and in April 2026 alone, only 8,900 applications were received. This is down nearly -40% compared with April 2025.

What is driving the decline?

Visa applications from key markets dropped dramatically when the government announced in the summer of 2023 that most international students would no longer be able to bring their families with them to the UK as of January 2024.

However, demand began to pick up in 2025 as the shock wore off: in May 2025 alone, submissions from main applicants (i.e., students rather than dependants) were up +19% compared with May 2024.

This suggests that it wasn’t the dependants ban that prompted the past seven months of applications declines. Rather, many industry analysts believe the drop was spurred by a government announcement in May 2025 that universities would soon need to meet higher standards of compliance in order to continue to host (aka sponsor) international students. The three updated Basic Compliance Assessment (BCA) standards demand that institutions maintain:

1. A visa refusal rate of less than 5%
2. An enrolment rate of at least 95%
3. A course completion rate of at least 90%

The government then elaborated in January 2026 that failure to meet even one of the three benchmarks above would land institutions in the “red” or “amber” bands of a “red, amber, green” (RAG) assessment structure. Falling into “red” (e.g., exceeding 5% in visa rejections) can lead to a range of sanctions – the most extreme of which is that an institution has its licence to sponsor international students revoked.

The updated BCA thresholds (and associated RAG system) represent a much more stringent test of compliance than what they replace. found that had the updated benchmarks been in place in 2024, more than 20 universities would have failed at least one threshold and about 49,000 students might have been affected.

The immediate impact on applications

Following on the heels of the May 2025 announcement of the tightened BCA thresholds, the average visa approval rate for international students dropped to 85% in Q4 2025, down from 91% in Q4 2024. Universities were fully aware that the 85% approval rate is a full 10 percentage points below the upcoming BCA threshold of 95%.

For many, the lower average approval rate was the trigger for adopting a more cautious recruitment approach to high-growth markets with higher-than-average refusal rates.

As early as December 2025, some institutions hit the brakes entirely on recruiting in important emerging markets such as Bangladesh and Pakistan, countries where visa rejection rates hover between 18% and 22%. Many also adopted more a more careful approach to markets such as Nigeria, India, and Nepal, including:

• Extending fewer offers
• Checking documents more rigorously
• Holding more credibility interviews

A recent British Universities International Liaison Association (BUILA) survey found that around a third of surveyed UK universities reported curtailing recruitment in certain markets to reduce compliance risk.

The shift towards lower-risk markets continues, and the 1 June official implementation of the stricter BCA metrics will do nothing to halt this momentum.

High-risk markets are high-volume markets

Over the past couple of years, demand from the UK’s top two sources of students, India and China – as well as from the key emerging market of Nigeria (#4) – has been falling. The chart below details commencements from 2005–2025, and it highlights just how sharp the declines have been from India and Nigeria.

Strong demand from Nepal and Pakistan has been essential to mitigating declines from other top markets.

If the BCA compliance benchmarks continue to dampen UK universities’ confidence in recruiting in some Indian states with as well as in Nigeria, Pakistan, Nepal, and Bangladesh, the downward pressure on overall international commencements and enrolments could be severe. Collectively, according to HESA data, those five countries accounted for 39% of international enrolments in the UK in 2024/25. Looking at the entire student population (domestic and international), roughly 1 in 10 students were from India, Pakistan, Nigeria, Nepal, or Bangladesh in that academic year.

The impact on revenue and operations

Should international commencements fall again in the 2026/27 September intake, it will be devastating for many UK universities. On 19 May, the recruitment firm published an analysis of revenue sources across the higher education sector and found that “22 universities now earn more than half of all their income from overseas tuition … eight years ago, none did.”

Forecasts for coming years

The Office for Students (OfS), which is the independent regulator of higher education in England, released its on 14 May. Key inputs for the analysis are the self-reports and projections of 279 participating UK universities.

Of those universities, more than a third (36%) reported an operating deficit for 2024/25. On average, providers expect a small worsening of the financial picture in 2025/26 and then a rebound in 2026/27.

The OfS is skeptical of this forecast:

“Our assessment is that this projected recovery remains based on overly optimistic assumptions, particularly in the context of continued volatility in student recruitment.”

It notes that among responding universities, “non-UK entrants fell by -7.7% [in 2024/25], which was -9% below [providers’] forecast.”

Despite this decline, responding universities reported to the OfS that their forecast is for international undergraduate numbers to increase by +24.6% and postgraduate enrolments by +26.8% between 2024/25 and 2028/29.

The OfS warns that it would be financially imprudent to operate according to such an expectation, noting that “recent published visa data from the Home Office suggests a possible renewed decline in non-UK student numbers, particularly from key markets such as India and China.” The chart below is pulled from the report, and you’ll see that beginning in the fall of 2025 – as the BCA thresholds began to affect recruitment – international visa applications began to soften.

The OfS presented three financial scenarios in the report that “could happen if recruitment changes and providers take no mitigating action.”

Scenario 1 assumes no growth in international and domestic enrolments, Scenario 2 anticipates a modest reduction, and Scenario 3 describes a larger reduction of enrolments. The OfS summarises:

“Under the ‘no growth’ scenario, which assumes flat student recruitment from 2025/26 onwards, cumulative net income losses relative to forecast could reach £2.7 billion by 2028/29. Under this scenario 163 providers, representing 58.4% of the sector, would report a deficit. In the most severe scenario modelled, cumulative income losses increase to £4.2 billion, with deficits reported by up to 196 providers (70.3% of the sector as a whole).”

The report concludes: “Variations in student recruitment in 2024/25 and 2025/26 are prominent in the financial challenges facing the sector. Further volatility in recruitment, in 2026/27 and beyond, could present further significant challenges.”

For additional background, please see:

• “Foreign enrolments in UK higher education dipped again in fall 2025”
• “Narrowing bands of compliance: How the UK’s new RAG system will impact international student recruitment”
• “UK’s stiffening compliance regime already having an impact on international student recruitment”

The post UK universities bracing for a further decline in international enrolments appeared first on ���Ϲ��� Monitor - Market intelligence for international student recruitment.

The guidance includes details of a new red-amber-green (RAG) banding scheme that sets up what could be, as Jim Dickinson wrote on , “a system more punitive than many in the sector were expecting.”

The regulatory background

In order to apply for a student visa for the UK, an international student must first obtain a Confirmation of Acceptance for Studies (CAS) document. Only a sponsor – that is, an educational institution licensed by the Home Office to sponsor international students for visas – may issue a CAS. In effect, the sponsor is vouching for the student-applicant and his/her eligibility to study in the UK.

That sponsor status places a number of obligations on the institution, and particularly that a sponsor must apply for a (BCA) every 12 months.

When UK Visas and Immigration (UKVI) carries out the BCA, it currently assesses the sponsor based on the following thresholds for three “core requirements”:

• a visa refusal rate of less than 10%;
• an enrolment rate of at least 90%; and
• a course completion rate of at least 85%.

The linkage between the three is quite explicit: the institution is expected to carefully evaluate each applicant to determine that they are eligible for admission but also, once admitted, will have a high likelihood of following through to take up their spot in their intended programme of study and then go on to successfully complete that programme. In other words, the university or college’s ability to continue to admit international students rests on its ability to recruit qualified, bona fide students that are committed to their intended programme of study.

Sponsor institutions that fall outside of those benchmarks are subject to a variety of sanctions, the most extreme of which could lead to the revocation of the sponsor license – meaning in effect that the institution could no longer admit foreign students.

The new BCA thresholds

A May 2025 UK government immigration white paper set out a number of new requirements for UK institutions, including more stringent compliance thresholds. Specifically, sponsoring institutions must now maintain:

• a visa refusal rate of less than 5%;
• an enrolment rate of at least 95%; and
• a course completion rate of at least 90%.

The draft guidance from the Home Office indicates that the first two of those new compliance benchmarks will come into effect on 1 June 2026. The course completion threshold will remain at 85% until June 2027, at which point it will rise to 90%.

RAG time

The Home Office guidance sets out that, “A sponsor’s performance against the three metrics composing the BCA will be rated in a Red-Amber-Green (RAG) banding system.”

Essentially, sponsors with a red rating are operating at or below one or more of the BCA requirements. An amber rating indicates that the sponsor is in danger of non-compliance with respect to one or more of the key benchmarks, whereas a green rating means that the institution is more comfortably within the compliance threshold.

The margin for error, however, is notably slim across the key BCA metrics. The following table summarises the band ranges for each requirement.

“Look at the width of the amber band – or rather, the near-total absence of it,” says Wonkhe’s Dickinson. “On refusals it’s a single percentage point. On enrolment it’s a single percentage point. On completion it’s two. The amber band is extremely narrow.” In other words, the distance to travel between green and red is very narrow indeed.

The significance of those very tight thresholds is driven home by another key aspect of the RAG system: there is no overall scoring across metrics; rather, the sponsoring institution’s rating will be based on their lowest-rated BCA requirement.

The Home Office guidance sets out that: “The RAG rating system is not an aggregate. A sponsor’s rating shall be determined by their lowest rated metric, which will take precedence over any other metric’s score. For example, if the sponsor falls into the red category for their refusal rate, yet falls into the green category for both their enrolment and completion rates, they will receive a red RAG rating.”

Against the advice of sector stakeholders, including Universities UK, the Home Office also intends to make sponsor ratings public, indicating that “a sponsor’s RAG rating will be published on the student sponsor register.” This provision will apply to the first BCA assessment cycle after 1 June 2026, meaning that public ratings won’t likely be available for a critical mass of UK higher education institutions until spring or summer 2027.

Recruitment impacts

“We welcome stronger compliance in principle, but the cumulative impact on UK recruitment should not be underestimated,” says Peter Skillen, the Director of Governance, Risk, Assurance, and Compliance at Study Group. “What may appear to be a technical tightening on paper could have a real chilling effect in practice. The government’s white paper proposed raising each BCA metric by five percentage points and introducing a new RAG banding system, but the draft guidance appears to go further in the way that framework is operationalised. With narrow amber bands, a lowest-metric-wins approach, and final warnings that can remain active for five future Basic Compliance Assessments, institutions may become increasingly selective in their recruitment behaviour, particularly in emerging markets. The risk is that the system becomes more draconian and overbearing for institutions, compelling them to carry out ever more stringent compliance checks and absorb growing administrative burdens. The unintended consequence may be a UK system that is less accessible to genuine international students, with some institutions deciding that recruitment from certain countries is no longer viable.”

The new BCA compliance thresholds were first announced almost a year ago in the government white paper in May 2025. In the months since, there have been a number of signals that institutions are both anticipating and responding to a more stringent compliance regime.

There is after all a significant exercise of risk management at the heart of the CAS-sponsor-compliance model as the three key BCA metrics rest a great deal of responsibility for student performance and student outcomes with the institution itself.

“The rationale behind the new RAG scheme is hard to argue with: stronger compliance should help ensure universities issue CAS only to genuine, well‑prepared students, protecting educational standards and the UK’s international reputation,” says Diana Beech, the Assistant Vice-President (Policy & Government Affairs) at City St. George’s, University of London.

However, the scheme’s razor‑thin thresholds and ‘lowest‑metric‑wins’ approach are not without risk. With so little margin for normal variation, even responsible institutions could be pushed into the red – and publishing these ratings will only intensify that pressure. The result may be overly cautious recruitment, fewer opportunities for legitimate students, and a narrowing of global engagement.

Enhanced compliance matters. But it needs a framework that is proportionate, supportive, and avoids penalising compliant institutions for factors they cannot fully control.”

Indeed, some institutions are already responding reducing or suspending recruiting activities in countries that are seen to be associated with higher risk. “Higher risk” in this sense being defined as markets where students are more likely to not follow through on their study plans or to complete their programmes of study – often for reasons relating to academic background, language skills, or financial difficulty.

In July 2025, for example, London Metropolitan University said that it would suspend admissions for Bangladeshi students. Deputy Vice-Chancellor Gary Davies has attributed the decision to high rates of visa refusals for Bangladeshi students in particular, which were putting the university’s compliance at risk.

Earlier this month, the University of Derby said that it too would suspend student recruitment from Pakistan and Bangladesh over concerns that visa refusal rates for applicants from the two countries were simply too high.

Other UK institutions have reportedly – although less publicly – made similar decisions to limit or suspend admissions from specific markets and/or for particular fields of study where there is seen to be undue compliance risk.

On their face, any such moves are extreme measures and regrettable in that they limit opportunities for bona fide students from markets that are seen to have high risk levels attached. But they also perfectly illustrate the dilemma that UK universities now face under the new BCA benchmarks. With such narrow RAG bands – a green rating requires, for example, that universities maintain a visa refusal rate under 4% – an individual university must either take additional steps to more fully qualify prospective students before issuing a CAS or they have to limit (or even suspend) recruitment in markets or channels that are judged to have greater compliance risk.

Needless to say, each of those broad courses of action carries significant additional costs – in terms of real expenses, risk, or foregone opportunities – for institutions, partners, and students alike. In the meantime, the Home Office has indicated that it is actively engaged in discussions across the sector around the draft guidance and that final guidance and details for implementation of the more stringent BCA requirements will be published shortly.

For additional background, please see:

• “UK’s stiffening compliance regime already having an impact on international student recruitment“
• “UK sets out new immigration strategy, will reduce Graduate Route work term to 18 months“
• “UK: International student numbers fall for second year, especially in postgraduate programmes“
• “How the UK’s Agent Quality Framework will shape the future of agent training“
• “Who decides about quality? Education agents and the question of increased regulation“

The post Narrowing bands of compliance: How the UK’s new RAG system will impact international student recruitment appeared first on ���Ϲ��� Monitor - Market intelligence for international student recruitment.

Our hosts are then joined by an expert panel for a thoughtful discussion on the data, narratives, and policy alignment that will shape the future of our sector in destinations around the world.

Our panel for this episode includes Jeremy Neufeld, the Director of Immigration Policy for the ; Natalie Lulia, the Regional Director Americas, Europe & Gulf Cooperation Council, Councellor – Education with ; and Cindy McIntyre, Senior Advisor and Chief of Staff at the (CBIE).

You can listen right now in the player below, and we encourage you to subscribe via your favourite podcast app in order to receive future episodes automatically.

For additional background, please see:

• “���Ϲ��� Podcast: Live from ���Ϲ��� Berlin 2025“

The post ���Ϲ��� Podcast: Engine of growth: The true value and impact of the international education sector appeared first on ���Ϲ��� Monitor - Market intelligence for international student recruitment.

“Australia’s future success requires a focus on quality, integrity and a great student experience,” said Assistant Minister for International Education Julian Hill. “That’s why we’re cracking down on exploitation, increasing transparency, and safeguarding the reputation of our sector. These changes will protect genuine students and support our high-quality providers.”

Amendments for international education

The legislation steers clear of hard caps on new international student commencements and instead focuses on other mechanisms to control the quantity and quality of students coming into the country.

The amendments will also impact the delivery of offshore education by Australian educators, requiring that providers be authorised by the Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency (TEQSA) to operate overseas. Along with the UK and US, Australia accounts for a high share of all transnational education delivered across the world. The quality of Australian educators’ overseas courses and partnerships are thus integral to the reputation of the Australian education brand.

Another feature of Australian international education is the significant role of agents in recruiting students for universities, vocational education institutes (VET), and language schools (ELICOS). According to a recent student experience survey cited by the government, 88% of international students surveyed in 2024 used an education agent to help them study in Australia.

The legislative amendments explicitly sharpen the definitions for both making it clear that any party not in the permanent employ of an institution that engages in overseas recruitment can be classed as an agent. Similarly, the amendments spell out that agent commissions include any benefits given on behalf of an institution – monetary or otherwise – to an agent in connection with international recruitment.

The importance of those refined definitions is made clear both in the amendments themselves – which confer new powers on the Department of Education to collect and share data on agents and agent commissions – and in government communications that make it clear that some type of ban or restriction on onshore commissions is forthcoming.

It is generally expected that any such regulations will be grounded in the new legislation and detailed in upcoming changes to Australia’s National Code of Practice for Providers of Education and Training to Overseas Students.

A government communique adds that, “The new definition [of education agent] supports transparency of provider/education agent relationships and integrity in the international education sector… The new definition will enable the Secretary of the Department of Education (the department) to request information on education agent commissions paid to education agents. [It] also allows the regulators greater powers to examine cross-ownership arrangements between providers and other entities in the sector under the new fit and proper provider requirements.”

Meanwhile, the Department of Education explains that the updated definition of agent commissions, “responds to sector concerns about substantial increases in education agent commissions and the types of monetary and non-monetary payments made to agents. This has highlighted the need for greater transparency regarding agent and provider activities and interactions for the sector and for students. Introducing a definition of ‘education agent commission’ will identify the range of payment and incentive arrangements providers have with their education agents in relation to overseas or intending overseas students. This change will have complementary benefits in facilitating the sharing of accurate agent information with providers, to help providers make informed decisions in choosing ethical, high quality education agents. Greater transparency around education agent commissions will support stronger integrity in the sector.”

Finally, the legislative amendments also extend new powers to government ministries and agencies to restrict provider programming for international students, including that:

• Most prospective VET providers will now need to enrol and teach domestic students for two years before being allowed to enrol international students. This is to ensure the primary motivation for VET providers is to deliver a high quality of education and student experience – not to gain revenue from international student tuition fees. An exception is made for TAFE institutions that are government-funded.

• The Department of Education may now cancel the registration of providers that, for 12 consecutive months, do not deliver courses to overseas students. This is aimed at providers who shut down their existing business to avoid debts or regulatory penalties, then open the same kind of business without those liabilities.

• The government is also empowered to cancel entire courses due to concerns around quality or relevance to Australia’s skills needs.

The major amendments for the ESOS Act and the TEQSA Act are summarised in the following table.

Industry reaction

Australia’s international education sector generally approves of efforts to strengthen integrity in the system and to better protect students. But some believe that the provisions of the newly passed amendments are vague and really intended to obscure the real goal of constraining new international enrolments. Some industry stakeholders also decry the government’s response to . Ian Pratt, Managing Director at Lexis English, wrote on :

“After numerous Senate hearings (ignored), industry consultation (ignored, but Julian got some nice photos for his socials), peak body negotiations (largely ignored), one failed attempt in the Senate then last minute amendments by the Greens (ignored) and LNP (token, but welcome), Hill and Jason Clare MP will finally have the chance to claim some kind of victory [with Bill 2025].”

Also writing online, Sukh Sandhu, the Director, Compliance, Risk Management, and Strategic Planning at CAQA Australian Higher Education Group, offered of the legislative package and said: “At its heart, the Education Legislation Amendment (Integrity and Other Measures) Bill 2025 is trying to answer a simple public question: can Australians trust that our international education system is genuine, high quality and not being used as a back door to migration abuse?

For too long, a small but damaging minority of providers and agents have made that question harder to answer. In that sense, many of the integrity measures in this Bill are not only understandable but overdue.

Yet integrity cannot come at any cost. A regulatory system that treats every provider as a potential suspect, concentrates power without transparent safeguards, or discourages new high-quality entrants would ultimately damage the sector it is meant to protect.”

For additional background, please see:

• “Australia introduces new integrity measures through proposed amendments to the ESOS Act”
• “The next era of international education: Trust, transparency, and a focus on quality”
• “Who decides about quality? Education agents and the question of increased regulation”

The post Australia passes integrity legislation; sharpens definition of agents and agent commissions appeared first on ���Ϲ��� Monitor - Market intelligence for international student recruitment.

But immigration settings are never permanent, and research shows that substantial voting blocs in key destination countries are both concerned about immigration levels and supportive of maintaining or increasing international student numbers. In other words, they do not lump international students into general misgivings about immigration. This is important for educators to consider amidst increasingly strict visa settings that are impacting their ability to recruit overseas. If the voting public distinguishes between international students and other categories of migrants, it makes sense that governments should consider this in their policy-making.

Today, we are reporting on research showing that:

• Young Americans have notably different attitudes about their president and his approach to immigration than their older counterparts;
• Britons and Australians draw a distinct line between immigrants and international students, with support for the latter category much stronger than for the former;
• More than half of Australians polled in 2025 are in favour of maintaining or increasing international student numbers;
• People are more influenced by widely circulating narratives about immigration than by quantitative information.

Young Americans see things differently than their older counterparts

In April 2025, the surveyed 4,100 registered voters and featured an oversample of more than 2,000 respondents aged 18 to 29 (i.e., this age range was intentionally over-represented in the poll).

While the research covered a wide range of topics, it featured a particular focus on education and immigration. Yale Youth Poll Director Milan Singh said:

“The poll is focused on what topics are relevant to right now. Questions on whether international students should be deported, or have their visa revoked. We wanted to gauge what people feel about federal funding cuts to universities, whether they should issue political statements or positions on social issues, whether people feel positively or negatively towards the Ivy League or other elite private universities.”

The highlights of differences between younger and older cohorts in the sample include:

• The youth segment (under age 30) gave a “net favourability” score to President Trump of -18% (i.e., an “unfavourable” opinion) compared to the full-sample score for President Trump of +6%.

• Among youth, 79% said the level of legal immigration should be increased (40%) or remain the same (39%). This is considerably higher than the average across the sample: 50% (30% “should be increased” and 20% “remain the same”).

• More than three-quarters (79%) of youth oppose deporting international students who participated in campus protests against Israel’s war in Gaza, compared with a sample-wide average of 62.5%.

Of the finding that 8 in 10 young voters opposed the deportation of international student protesters, Yale’s Mr Singh commented: “We wanted to measure just how unpopular this idea is, and it turns out, among young voters, it’s extremely unpopular.”

Voters in the UK and Australia differentiate between international students and immigrants

Research conducted earlier this year by the immigration think tank based on focus groups in six UK cities and a nationally representative survey of over 2,000 people found that:

“The public perceive international students positively. The survey found almost six in ten (59%) agree that universities would have less funding to invest in top quality facilities and teaching without the higher fees paid by international students, with only 10% disagreeing. And 54%) agreed that international students enhance the reputation of UK universities overseas, with only 11% disagreeing.”

In addition, the research revealed that “only 28% of respondents categorise international students as immigrants, compared to 38% for migrant workers. The top two groups perceived as immigrants are asylum seekers (62%) and recipients of humanitarian visas (46%).”

In Australia, an early-2025 survey of 5,000 respondents undertaken by the (ANU) found that more than half of Australians (53%) consider immigration levels in their country to be too high. However, an even larger percentage (58%) said there should either be no change or an increase in the number of international students enrolled in Australia, again illustrating the distinction people make between immigrants and international students.

The role of narrative

A study called “Narratives, information and immigration policy preferences” by Alyssa Leng, Ryan Edwards, and Terence Wood for ANU’s reveals the significant way in which narratives broadcast by governments and the media influence public perception of international students and immigrants. The study was conducted in 2024 and funded by the Australian Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade.

The study explored the extent to which opinions about immigrants shifts according to:

• “A one-shot narrative information treatment on the costs or benefits of immigration for the receiving country population;
• A bundle of factual quantitative information about immigrants’ characteristics.”

The way the study was set up was that three groups of respondents were provided with one of three narratives (i.e., stories) about immigration before being asked about what they felt about the number of migrants of various profiles that should be allowed into Australia. One of the narratives was positive, one was balanced, and one was negative. Then another group, the fourth group, was provided a bundle of quantitative facts about immigration – that is, objective information rather than narratives.

Not surprisingly, what the study found was:

“While narratively informing respondents of the perceived ‘negative’ impacts of immigration on house prices does not substantially change the likelihood that respondents prefer more immigration, it decreases the probability that respondents express support for immigration levels remaining the same or increasing by around five percentage points. Showing respondents a narrative vignette emphasising immigrants’ positive contributions generates larger increases in the likelihood of supporting more immigration than providing quantitative information (between 4–7 and around 2percentage points, respectively).”

Why is the study relevant for educators in Big Four countries?

The study sheds light on the power of narrative on public sentiment and government policies. For example, if the media turns its focus on a handful of economists’ assertions that international students are to blame for housing or healthcare problems, a snowball effect tends to occur where:

• The economists’ position gathers steam (e.g., becomes picked up by more media outlets and thus is seen by more viewers/readers);
• The government is pressured to react to an associated public (aka voter) sentiment that something must be done about international students.

By extension, this phenomenon suggests that efforts by international education stakeholders to shift the narrative are worthwhile, provided those efforts are backed by solid research and accompanied by a strong media strategy and coordinated lobbying.

For example, in Australia in 2024, research commissioned by the Student Accommodation Council, a peak body for the country’s purpose-built student accommodation sector (PBSA), found no alignment between the return of international students to Australia – after borders reopened post-pandemic – and rents increasing. This finding was in direct contradiction with the media and governmental narrative circulating at the time.

One highlight of the research was that international students make up only 4% of all renters in Australia. Domestic students compose 6.2%, and the remainder are non-students. What’s more, the study found that the vast majority of international students do not live in the housing most in demand in Australia: only 3% of international students live in detached houses suitable for couples or families, while 74% live in PBSA close to universities.

Taking accountability

None of this is to say that the international education sector in places such as Canada and Australia has not played a role in the ebb of public support for recruiting international students. Before the tightening of immigration settings in those countries, international student enrolments were growing at an unsustainable pace and the line between education and “edugration” (the pursuit of education abroad as a pathway to permanent residency) was ever more opaque.

But responsible recruiting of international students is another matter altogether, and it is to the benefit of educators, domestic students, international students, governments, and economies that this be not only allowed, but also fully supported. When international students are vetted carefully for their suitability for institutions and programmes, encouraged to consider programmes linked to labour force needs, and supported in career pathways that contribute to productivity and innovation, they are crucial elements of a country’s future competitiveness, development, and place in the global economy.

And so going into 2026, the importance of schools, colleges, universities, and peak bodies collecting data and presenting compelling narratives about the value of international education has never been higher. The research we profiled today shows that voters in the US, Australia, and UK are open to the benefits of certain immigration pathways, including international students and highly skilled workers. That research is often supported by peak international bodies in those countries.

Meanwhile in Canada, linking responsible international recruitment to the sustainability of crucial programmes and research initiatives – and to the larger social and economic goals of the country – is a narrative well worth developing and advancing.

The post The power of data and narrative in building public support for international students appeared first on ���Ϲ��� Monitor - Market intelligence for international student recruitment.

Since 1995, ���Ϲ��� Berlin has served as a catalyst for connecting the world through education. With our 30th anniversary approaching, our sector is facing a new challenge: the need to build better systems and standards for ensuring transparency, compliance, and student wellbeing.

In all four of the world’s leading study destinations – Australia, Canada, the UK, and the US – governments are taking a closer look at how students are recruited. From tightening visa policies and integrity audits to mandatory declarations of agent use, the message is clear: compliance and accountability are now as critical as marketing and conversion. The challenge now is to reshape how institutions, agents, and governments interact in this new context.

The next thirty years will belong to those who not only recruit globally, but who also act responsibly.

How it all began

In the 1990s, international education was still a limited, even experimental, activity. Apart from short-term language study holidays within Europe, students from a small number of countries travelled mainly to the UK and the US for tertiary studies or exchanges. Yet the soft power, innovation, revenue, and intercultural understanding generated by student mobility soon drew in many more students, institutions, and destinations. What began as a trickle of cross-border enrolments became a pillar of globalisation.

Three decades of expansion

In 2002, there were roughly 2.5 million international students worldwide, of whom more than a third came from China. By 2023, that number reached nearly 7 million, a 176% increase.

These numbers reflect a focus on growth. The expansion in outbound mobility did not only benefit schools and universities, but it also boosted governments and entire economies. In 2021/22, international student spending contributed US$52.2 billion to the UK economy and US$26.5 billion to Canada’s. In 2023/24, it accounted for US$32.7 billion in Australia and US$43.8 billion in the United States.

The benefits are not just fiscal. Nearly 60% of international doctoral students in the OECD study science or engineering. They drive research and innovation and lead major start-ups. Their collaborations consistently produce high-impact papers and cutting-edge research. In short, the mobility pipeline feeds the innovation pipeline. The lab bench does not care about passports, and the citation record proves it.

The cultural dividend of international student mobility is impossible to measure. International students bring the world closer together, forming friendships, business partnerships, and academic networks that last a lifetime. They return home as ambassadors for their host countries, carrying new languages, values, and professional skills that shape diplomacy and multilateral trade. In a world increasingly divided by politics, international education remains one of the few systems that consistently builds bridges rather than borders.

Thirty years of connection and change

Over the past three decades, ���Ϲ��� Berlin has grown alongside the industry itself, from a small gathering in 1995 to the world’s leading forum for international education partnerships. As always, the focus of the event evolves in response to changing circumstances, regulatory environments, and sectoral trends. Providing systems and structures that support greater transparency, trust, and accountability is not a new priority for ���Ϲ��� – it is a pillar of our operations. What’s more, we now offer agents and institutions more programmes and services supporting greater integrity and quality control than ever before. 

The human infrastructure behind it all

When thinking of what has driven the success of the industry so far, it would be wrong to underestimate the role of education agents. For decades, agents have helped families to navigate complex systems, translated opaque policies into clear expectations, and made international study accessible far beyond elite circles. Agents function as counsellors, logistics experts, and cross-cultural guides.

In fact, education agents have become one of the most quietly powerful forces in international education. They perform a unique dual role by guiding families through complex admissions systems and helping universities to reach more students in a diverse range of markets.

Yet as new regulatory frameworks emerge, such as the UK’s Agent Quality Framework and Canada’s pending federal registry for education agents, we risk forgetting just how much value these intermediaries create.

Guardrails but not roadblocks

No one disputes the need for higher professional standards, transparent data, and accountability. The scandals and negative headlines we have all seen in recent years show what happens when those are absent. But as it stands, policy makers have often blurred the distinction between unethical operators and legitimate, responsible businesses.

Without that distinction, the danger is that the blunt compliance mechanisms, however well intentioned, could consolidate market power among a handful of large agencies. This would leave local experts behind, and it would limit student choice. What is needed is not less oversight, but smarter oversight built on shared data, sound codes of practice, and technologies that make it easier to scale quality controls.

In this environment, voluntary accreditation frameworks such as  are helping to raise standards globally. With more than 2,300 accredited agencies in over 130 countries and nearly 700 institutional supporters across 50 countries, IAS has become the world’s largest quality-assurance framework for education agencies. It recognises businesses that meet rigorous ethical and operational criteria, providing governments and educators with a trusted benchmark of professional integrity. IAS demonstrates that accountability can be collaborative when well considered and structured.

Collaboration and systematised quality controls are essential for sustainable growth in the new era of international education. , for example, brings transparency to both sides of the recruitment relationship.

For institutions, it offers AI-powered analytics and real-time data for comprehensive due diligence checks on agent partners, flagging potential risks early by monitoring regulatory sanctions, legal filings, and social media activity.

For agents, it provides tools to protect their reputation and gain clearer visibility into their sub-agent networks, helping them demonstrate integrity and meet rising government expectations for accountability.

These innovations are supported by a broader commitment to professional development through , which today counts more than 144,000 registered learners and over 21,000 graduates across 130 countries. ���Ϲ��� Academy provides structured learning pathways for education counsellors, institutional staff, and sector professionals, making training and certification measurable and accessible worldwide.

�ճ���� platform gives educators a practical way to ensure their recruitment partners are both effective and compliant. It enables structured, multilingual training for agent networks so that every counsellor understands an institution’s background and academic offer, admissions process, ethical standards, and regulatory requirements. It also allows institutions to monitor counsellor progress and training outcomes, giving them clear visibility and measurable oversight of network-wide compliance. The platform is equally valuable for master agents, who can use it to train and inform their sub-agents.

Beyond professional development, Train Your Agents helps educators to demonstrate compliance, protect institutional reputation, and support agents with credible, up-to-date knowledge. In an era demanding transparency, it provides clear proof of responsible recruitment across the global network.

These tools are not about policing; they are about empowering international educators and promoting quality assurance. Together, IAS, Due Diligent, and Train Your Agents create a framework where integrity becomes operational, where compliance strengthens opportunity rather than constraining it.

The next thirty years

If the past three decades were about expansion, the next will be about trust. Collaboration between governments, educators, and quality agencies will be essential to achieve this.

International education remains one of the most positive forms of global exchange ever created. The small agency owner in Nairobi, Lahore, or Ho Chi Minh City, the one who knows every student’s family by name, is as vital to that ecosystem as the vice-chancellor or the minister.

At its core, international education has always been about students. We should welcome and design frameworks and partnership models that protect their dreams and ambitions while empowering responsible agents and institutions to support them safely. The future belongs to those who evolve, embrace transparency, and continue to earn the trust of the students we serve.

The post The next era of international education: Trust, transparency, and a focus on quality appeared first on ���Ϲ��� Monitor - Market intelligence for international student recruitment.