Realpolitik: 10 points to note about today’s new International Education Strategy

HEPI Director, Nick Hillman, takes a look at the new International Education Strategy, which is out today.

1. It is a relief to have the paper finally out, as it has been a wait. First, the Coalition had their initial 2013 version (which still reads pretty well, except for its comments about MOOCs, even if it had a rather different list of target countries … ); the subsequent Conservative Governments then had their 2019 Strategy, with its clear targets, and subsequent updates in 2021, 2022 and 2023; and, in October 2024, the newly installed Labour Government promised ‘a review of the International Education Strategy’, which is what has now landed. It is good to have clarity: the new paper provides a comprehensive summary of UK strengths, usefully reinvigorates some tired initiatives (like a ‘reformed’ Education Sector Action Group) and commits to achieving £40 billion of educational exports by 2030. I do not underestimate the challenges involved in getting the paper to this stage, which has been overseen like most of its predecessors by the indefatigable Sir Steve Smith (the UK Government’s International Education Champion to whom the sector owes so much), despite my mixed commentary below – given the general rightwards shift in the country, given the differences of opinion across Whitehall on issues like student migration and given all the other energy-sapping issues on Number 10’s plate.
2. My first impression was that the paper is shorter than we might have expected – c.50 pages of large text, with lots of ‘throat clearing’ (the Introduction arrives on page 10 and the meat doesn’t start until page 17…). In contrast, the 2019 Strategy was of a similar length but with a much smaller text and included 23 clear ‘Actions’, while the 2021 Update was c.70 pages of dense text, including an update on progress towards the specific actions.
3. Similarly, the three Ministers put up to front the report are, in government terms, second rank (Minister of State) rather than first rank (Secretary of State) and two sit in the unelected Upper Chamber rather than the elected House of Commons. Along with the lowish word count, this sends a slightly unfortunate signal about the seriousness with which education export issues are taken in government. The 2019 Strategy and the 2021 Update each had two Secretaries of State pen the Foreword, for example.
4. Perhaps none of this matters. It is better to be concise than wordy. Who cares how many pages there are, what font size has been used and which Ministers have written the inoffensive Foreword? I think it probably does matter a bit as there are no areas of education as competitive as international exports, and it is one of the few areas where the UK can still undeniably claim world-class status. Our main competitors read such UK strategies closely, just as the UK’s own initial 2013 strategy emerged partly as a response to the strategies that had already been adopted in other English-speaking countries. A confident country keen to expand its share of a particular global market tends to project itself as such, whereas a thinner paper that hedges its bets may be regarded, perhaps accurately, as reflecting lukewarm support for educational exports in parts of Whitehall.
5. More importantly, the new Strategy is keen to emphasise that it is a cross-Government initiative: ‘Leadership of this agenda now sits firmly across the government, with the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office joining the Department of Education and the Department of Business and Trade as co-owners of the strategy.’ This is welcome. But the Home Office remain notable by their absence, and it is they that have sole control over things like student visas, post-study work rules and Basic Compliance Assessments. Until the Home Office are forced to share responsibility for international students studying in the UK equally with other parts of government or until the Home Office is overridden by the centre of Whitehall, our higher education institutions will continue to have one arm tied behind their back while trying to expand this important export market.
6. The Home Office ministers and mandarins will still, however, have had to sign the new paper off and their behind-the-scenes influence is evident. While the paper is full of commitments to ‘leverage’, ‘champion’ and ‘continue’ doing things, it eschews the opportunity to set clear new targets for higher education. The 2013 paper looked to increase the number of international students studying in the UK at higher education ‘by 15-20% over the next five years.’ The 2019 Strategy had a target of increasing students ‘in the UK to 600,000 per year’ by 2030. Now, however, there is an overall goal of increasing all ‘education exports to £40 billion per year’ by the end of this decade but, on higher education students specifically, we only get a commitment to ‘support the sustainable recruitment of higher-quality international students’, warm words about ‘Well-managed and responsible recruitment’ and an objective of ‘building a more resilient, diverse and long-term pipeline of international talent.’ How many more synonyms are there for ‘reducing’ the number of new student arrivals in the UK, I wonder. The Department for Education’s press release suggests TNE (transnational education), with all its challenges and opportunities, has displaced students coming to the UK as the flavour of the month.
7. As it is a UK-wide document, so the rUK or the ‘rest of the UK’ as it is known in Whitehall get a brief look in. There are nice words about Scotland’s (in truth poor-performing) schools system and the controversial Curriculum for Excellence, which may be rather useful to Scottish policymakers as they look ahead to the 2026 elections to the Scottish Parliament, when education is expected to feature quite heavily.
8. There are a surprising number of lengthy references to things that are clearly part of modern education but which do not immediately seem directly relevant to establishing a stronger framework for encouraging UK educational exports around the globe, and which are perhaps included to flesh out the text. For example, climate change appears in the very first sentence of the document and page 22 elaborates: ‘the UK Government expects all nurseries, schools and colleges to have a climate action plan, and in collaboration with leading environmental and education organisations, provides direct support through the innovative Sustainability Support Programme. The programme ensures educational settings are inspired to act and supported to plan and deliver meaningful climate action to embed sustainability, climate awareness and connection with nature.’ One can fully subscribe to the idea of man-made climate change and a climate emergency, as well as the need for action to address these, but still be left scratching one’s head at quite what the purpose of such text is in a short paper promoting the UK’s educational exports.
9. The paper inadvertently reveals a long-standing and tricky issue for policymakers, which is the gap in our general attitudes towards delivering education to people at home and selling UK education to people from overseas. For example, as a nation we are as favourable towards soft power abroad, by making friends in high places through education, as we are opposed to old boys’ networks at home. In England, we tightly regulate who gets to university via Access and Participation Plans, yet when it comes to overseas students, we rely on the very high fees (plus an incoming International Student Levy) that only upper-middle class students can afford and we don’t even worry too much if, on occasion, the extra international students squeeze out home students. (Those attacking Trinity Hall for advertising their outreach work to a handful of UK independent schools tend to ignore that the entire higher education system is propped up by some of the wealthiest people from other countries.)
10. There is another contradiction illustrated by the new International Education Strategy too: while Ministers block Eton College from working with partners to set up a school for disadvantaged Brits in Middlesborough, the new Strategy celebrates famous independent schools establishing footprints abroad. So Charterhouse Lagos is, we are told, ‘a model for future school partnerships abroad, strengthening bilateral ties and delivering long-term educational and economic benefits.’ It seems to be Floreat Carthusia abroad and Pereat Etona at home (please correct my Latin in the Comments section below … ), which doesn’t in all honesty seem to make much logical sense. At least, there is a German word for it all: realpolitik.