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The draft guidance from the Home Office indicates that the first two of those new compliance benchmarks will come into effect on 1 June 2026.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.

DEMAND AND REVENUE OPTIMISATION

“Half the money I spend on advertising is wasted; the trouble is I don’t know which half,” observed businessman and political figure John Wanamaker (1838–1922). This famous truism is relevant to the international education sector, where many institutions still do a lot of guessing about what is going right or wrong with regards to recruitment, marketing, on-campus student services, and admissions management.

The time for guessing is over. Demand for study abroad is volatile and fast-changing; students are considering an ever-wider range of destinations and institutions. Committing to data-backed strategies is the only way to remain competitive and to maximise return-on-investment (ROI).

It’s tempting to believe that intuition – perhaps based on years of experience and success – is enough, especially when margins are tight and data collection and analysis seems like a big investment. But consider this scenario:

Your institution ran a campaign or scholarship initiative that yielded some good results in a key market. But, could those initiatives have performed even better? Did the scholarship need to be that large or would demand have remained strong if it had been smaller or more targeted? Or vice versa: would a bigger scholarship have filled the seats you couldn’t fill in an undersold programme?

There is no way of knowing without data, because there are no comparison points or analytics. And so, the answers to whether your ROI was as strong as it could have been will always be at least slightly vague.

For many institutions faced with a less certain marketplace, answers to questions like these would be extremely important to know:

• How do we increase demand/revenue for certain programmes? For example, in Canada, business courses are no longer linked to the Post-Graduation Work Program (PGWP). Study fields that are linked are agriculture and agri-food, healthcare, STEM, skilled trades, and transportation. Educators are trying to find out how to price programmes in those fields given that they are now the only ones tied to the PGWP. Would demand fall if the price went up? Which programme features could be emphasised to keep demand high (e.g., internships, on-campus housing, the ability to study at home for the first two years, etc.)?

• If demand appears to be low, could it increase if we decreased tuition fees? How much of a price cut would make a difference?

• Which programme/campus features are game-changers for prospective students? The answer would help inform marketing messaging and future investments in different services.

• And for all these questions: how do the answers differ by international student market and segment?

At the , attendees learned more about the benefits of optimising price, features, demand, and revenue in target markets.

Oliver Fortescue, a partner in the education consultancy firm , presented about the firm’s capability to determine the relationship between demand and pricing, and between demand and programme features, in key overseas markets. The model allows institutions to see how students’ “willingness to pay” changes according to different scenarios.

Mr Fortescue used a travel industry example to illustrate that most people will trade off certain features of a journey to arrive at a fare they are comfortable with – e.g., departure and arrival times, number of connections, allowed baggage, or carrier. If a traveller must arrive at their destination as quickly as possible, they might be willing to pay more. If they have more flexibility, they might be more likely to choose a less optimal departure time for a lower fare.

Prospective international students also make trade-offs when deciding where to study. They consider such variables as campus location, cost of living, ease of transportation, length of course, graduate outcomes, rankings, and scholarships.

The Edified team works with institutions to determine their top goals (usually regarding revenue, demand, yield, or all three) and then designs a project accordingly. A partner company secures a custom survey sample of ideal students/parents in key markets (at least 1,000 per market, often more). A choice modelling framework determines how students would respond to different scenarios (e.g., this tuition fee with this course length, this tuition fee with this course length plus a scholarship, this tuition fee/course length/scholarship plus on-campus housing).

Among other results, the model can show the exact points at which demand begins to increase or decrease depending on the scenario. The following slide shows that demand for arts programmes is the most sensitive to a tuition fee increase or decrease of all the programmes in this illustrative choice set.

Institutions can also discover how willing students would be to pay for different features. For example, in the slide below, you can see that a 12-week internship is the most valuable of the possible durations, and that Southeast Asian postgraduate students would be willing to pay significantly more if they were able to study in Melbourne.

This kind of research is not inexpensive, but it adds much greater certainty to recruitment decisions, eliminating the likelihood of costly mistakes such as offering:

• A large scholarship where a smaller, more targeted one would have been just as effective;
• A campaign aimed at a city where there is no intrinsic demand;
• A programme priced so high that it is impossible to sell;
• Additional campus services or a facility expansion that students don’t care about.

Mark Pettitt, founder and CEO of Edified, observes that a more challenging recruiting context can also be viewed as an opportunity:

“I’ve been in this industry for a long time, and the policy environment we are seeing now in some destinations is just another example of a crisis–recovery pattern that has played out for years and that will continue to play out. There will always be changes in government policies, global viruses, geo-political tensions, currencies bottoming out, etc. – followed by a new normal once the crisis has passed. A devotion to students’ well-being and career outcomes; personalised, timely communications with prospective students; strong leadership with a long-term perspective; and an investment in data-informed decision-making will allow some institutions to survive – and even thrive – where others cannot.”

Mr Pettitt adds that data can help to maintain a diversification effort even when visa refusal rates are going up:

“An example of short-term thinking is, ‘I need to cut back in the risky markets because there’s less chance of students being approved … and everyone else is doing that as well.’ What a shame if you have been developing those markets for years – and what a shame for the bright students in those countries who would be perfect for your institution.

What you could do instead is use targeted scholarships to top students from highly reputable schools in the markets everyone else seems to be leaving. Over time, your mix of students can shift dramatically — to high-quality, low-risk students from a range of target countries. Well-considered scholarship programmes can align with diversity goals and boost your competitive position in some of the most promising markets for years to come. Especially during periods when competitors are dropping out of these markets.”

TREND #2

PERSONALISING COMMUNICATIONS

As with understanding demand, precision is key when it comes to communicating with prospective international students. Generic emails are just not going to cut it anymore – students are used to personalisation in their shopping, and they expect it from the schools and universities they are checking out.

A well-configured customer relationship management system (CRM) offers a foundation for the ability to personalise. On the CRM, you can enter information on leads, segment them, and track every contact and result. The information in your CRM enables the creation of custom emails based on individual students’ programme preferences and that skip past general content.

Website data analytics allow you to personalise further. As per :

“Create landing pages tailored to different segments of your audience. These pages should highlight the most relevant information to the visitor, increasing the likelihood of engagement and conversion. For instance, a landing page for international students could feature visa information, housing options, and success stories from other international students.

Implement dynamic content on your website that changes based on the visitor’s profile. A prospective student from a particular region might see testimonials from alumni in their area, while another visitor might see information on scholarships they’re eligible for.”

The Amazon.com main storefront offers a masterclass in personalising content. For example, data-informed recommendations such as “Based on your browsing history,” “Other items you might like,” “Inspired by your shopping trends …”. Amazon is explicit in personalising content – but effective personalisation can simply consist of creating and sending custom content to each of your leads

TREND #3

ON-THE-GROUND REPRESENTATION

Data can show you that in a certain week (or even day), students in target markets:

• Lost interest in one destination and began to consider another;
• Warmed up to a programme they hadn’t considered before;
• Finally accepted an offer of admission because a scholarship was offered;
• Spent a great deal of time on the accommodation section of your website;
• And all sort of other essential insights.

However, data insights do not replace human insights. A student’s ultimate decision about where to study may be decided by such things as:

• An agent who sits down face-to-face with parents and dispels the myth that no one is being approved for visas;
• A returning student who sets up a successful start-up company, signalling to the local market that their study at a particular institution paid off;
• An alumnus who speaks with local school leaders about pathway programme options that will guarantee admission to an institution with high admission standards;
• An in-country representative who sets up a fancy event with great food and successful alumni speakers, and shares video testimonials of happy current students.

Partnering with trusted agents and in-country reps is even more essential when travel budgets are tight and when an institution is trying to keep diversifying despite cost-cutting measures.

Prediction: More sophisticated recruitment strategies in 2025

In times like these, institutions will either lean into or back away from investments in international student recruiting. If the former, the obvious approach is to become more surgical in recruiting, in order to zone in on ideal students who have a good chance of being approved for a visa. Enrolling best-fit students begins a chain reaction of greater student satisfaction, better graduate outcomes, and positive word-of-mouth about your institution.

For additional background, please see:

• “International education has a data problem. It’s time to do something about it“
• “The way forward: Shifting to more strategic and student-centred recruitment“

The post Three international education trends for 2025: Revenue optimisation, marketing personalisation, and on-the-ground local intelligence appeared first on ���Ϲ��� Monitor - Market intelligence for international student recruitment.

The international education sector continues to voice strong objections to the bill in its current form, which has been referred to the Senate Standing Committees on Education and Employment for study. The Senate has added hearings due to the magnitude of the impact the bill would have – and the controversy around:

• The methodology informing the cap limit of 270,000 “new student commencements” for 2025;
• The fact that the responsibility for the setting of the cap, and its annual review, rests solely with the Minister of Education.

The Senate held an additional, fourth day of hearings yesterday, after which English Australia issued this statement on LinkedIn:

“English Australia reaffirms its position that it does not support the Bill in its current form. We again urge the government to pause the Bill’s progress, meaningfully consult with the sector, and ensure that amendments to the ESOS Framework and their implementation genuinely support quality, integrity and sustainability of the international education sector and the 250,000 jobs and thousands of Australian businesses the sector enables.”

During the hearing, committee member Senator Mehreen Faruqi raised a number of questions as to why the bill was going ahead.

“Is the bill to address the housing crisis or to address integrity issues? It’s a bill, apparently, to address critical work shortages, but the formula developed to put those caps on [colleges and universities] address none of those issues,” the Senator said. “I don’t know if I’m living in a parallel universe here, but this bill doesn’t do anything that it is purported to do…Why are we discussing this bill? We have no modelling as to how many jobs will be lost, and universities are telling us there will be thousands. Private providers are telling us that they will lose their livelihoods. There has been no research done on that, nothing on the impact. Why has this bill been brought forward?…Every single thing that we have heard is that this is a terrible, reckless bill”.

The Senate committee will report on the conclusions of its review on 8 October. Australia’s House of Representatives will only sit for these dates between now and Christmas, meaning that there is little time remaining to pass the ESOS amendments bill before the end of the calendar year.

• 8 to 10 October
• 4 to 7 November
• 18 to 21 November
• 25 to 28 November

Still, there is widespread expectation that the cap will be set for January 2025, despite the many international students planning to arrive in Australia to begin studies in January and February of 2025.

If this occurs, there is an understanding in the sector that programme and staffing cuts are inevitable, and that outright closure of colleges would not be surprising. This is especially the case for private institutions and schools concerned with vocational and skills training.

What’s wrong with the cap?

One of the most persuasive arguments against the cap has been made by independent consultant Claire Field, who has been examining the cap allocations carefully and pointing out a wide number of problems in the methodology.

In the Senate hearing yesterday, Ms Field noted that there has been no consistency – even within sectors (other than TAFE) – applied to the cap allocation across institutions. She noted that given that the government claims a pursuit of “integrity” is at the heart of the ESOS bill, it is not in keeping that some highly ethical institutions are receiving meagre allocations while others being investigated for unethical practices are receiving more.

She asked the Standing Committee to consider a supplementary submission from Western Sydney University that called for:

• Parliamentary review of the cap distribution
• Clear criteria for how caps have been applied
• Greater transparency
• A focus on integrity
• Consultation with providers
• The need for a public registry

That submission can be downloaded .

When asked about the finding of her research, Ms Field provided a summary of odd allocations, including those given to 12 institutions under ASQA sanctions. When asked if the ESOS bill should be scrapped, Ms Field responded diplomatically: “It would be wrong to go ahead as is.”

Ms Field looked more specifically at the way in which private vocational providers will be hardest hit by the cap in a guest post on ���Ϲ��� Monitor a few weeks ago.

Outside of the Senate hearings process, Australia’s international education community has launched , and there is some speculation that there may be collective legal action against the government at some point in the future.

For now, the Senate will review all its submissions and testimony from the four days of hearings on the ESOS amendments and is expected to file its report with Parliament on 8 October 2024.

For additional background, please see:

• “Australia: Private VET providers receive ‘devastating’ enrolment cap allocations for 2025”
• “Australia: Peak bodies lobby strongly against pending legislation during Senate hearing”

The post Criticism mounts as Australian Senate committee hears it is “wrong to go ahead” with ESOS amendments bill as is appeared first on ���Ϲ��� Monitor - Market intelligence for international student recruitment.

This new designation means that an Irish institution has met “national standards to ensure a high-quality experience for international students, from enrolment to completion of their programme of education and training.”

Minister for Further and Higher Education, Research, Innovation and Science Patrick O’Donovan announced that TrustEd Ireland will open for applications in September 2024. He explained the significance of the mark:

“The introduction of TrustEd Ireland is a significant milestone in our mission to position Ireland as a destination of choice for international learners, researchers and innovators. [It] will build on and enhance the existing quality assurance infrastructures in higher education. The mark will be transformative for the English language education sector in Ireland, which will be placed on a statutory footing for the first time.”

The mark will be administered and authorised by the state agency Quality and Qualifications Ireland (QQI).

TrustEd Ireland is bolstered by new statutory processes including:

• “Two Codes of Practice, one for higher education providers and one for English language education providers, who will demonstrate compliance with the relevant code criteria;
• A ‘due diligence’ evaluation process to examine the capacity and capability of private/independent education providers to quality assure and deliver education programmes;
• A new statutory Learner Protection Fund and scheme to protect learners enrolled with private/independent higher education and English language education providers.”

New quality assurance system complements Ireland’s growing popularity

The introduction of the TrustEd Ireland mark occurs at a time when more of the world’s prospective students are evaluating alternative destinations. Ireland has become an increasingly popular destination for higher education and English-language learning.

If we look around the world, most English-language sectors have not recovered to pre-pandemic levels of business. That is not the case for Ireland. Student weeks and numbers have surpassed volumes in 2019 and providers are hiring more staff.

Record-high foreign enrolments also characterise the Irish higher education sector, with 35,140 international students enrolled in the 2022/23 academic year. This represents year-over-year growth of just under 11% and 18% growth since 2019.

Minister O’Donovan noted:

“TrustEd Ireland will be one of the most robust schemes for the regulation of international education in existence globally. It will be the only statutory English language education inspection scheme in the world that includes a due diligence evaluation, and this evaluation will be rigorous.

The quality assurance systems in place to support learners, coupled with the mandatory requirement for education providers to participate in the new statutory Learner Protection Fund, will serve as a message to international learners that the education experience they will receive in Ireland is secure, of the highest quality and globally recognised.”

TrustEd Ireland will be officially launched at an event on 25 September.

For additional background, please see:

• Of special note to agency-based counsellors: the . Join this online course for a comprehensive understanding of Ireland’s education system and study options, and to develop specialist skills for advising students who wish to study in the country.
• “Foreign enrolment in Irish HE reaches a new high”
• “Irish ELT sector continues to exceed pre-pandemic levels of business”

The post Ireland to open applications for new quality assurance mark in September 2024 appeared first on ���Ϲ��� Monitor - Market intelligence for international student recruitment.