A view from Canada

Over in Canada, Alex Usher, President at Higher Education Strategy Associates, wrote a blog in which the UK’s IES (among other global developments) is used to goad Canadian universities into upping their transnational education game.

Alex writes:

‘Anyways, amidst this mini-boom in branch campuses, last week the United Kingdom issued its new international education strategy. It’s quite detailed and ambitious. It uses a much wider definition of “education exports” than any Canadian document ever would, and – crucially – understands that making a mark in education exports requires a lot of Government support. When reading it, there are no circumstances under which you could mistake it for a made-in-Canada strategy. 

The document has loads of interesting features, but for our purposes one stands out – the UK government wants education exports, but it doesn’t really want students to be in the UK. Hence a hard pivot towards supporting efforts to deliver UK education abroad, via partnerships. And in fact, it specifically identifies five countries – India, Indonesia, Nigeria, Saudi Arabia and Vietnam – as places the government wishes to target. Not coincidentally, the Indonesian President was in London last week, talking about his desire to see ten UK institutions set up shop in his country. And the week before that, three UK universities decided to join forces to launch degree programs in nearby Thailand. UK higher education may be in dire shape at home, but it is booming abroad.’

This is a valuable reminder that we shouldn’t underestimate the support already provided by the UK Government, particularly in paving the way for TNE partnerships in named countries. We may feel disappointed about the lack of new investments and new levers for change in the IES, but – at least in the area of TNE – we have a stronger platform to build on than many other countries.

What do other countries’ strategies look like?

Jim Dickinson, Associate Editor (SUs) at Wonkhe has done a sterling job keeping an eye on other countries’ international education strategies over the last couple of years. Back in October 2024, when the review of the UK’s IES was first announced, Jim highlighted key features of the equivalent strategies in Ireland, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Germany, France, Latvia, Finland and the Netherlands. He concluded that:

• ‘most countries seem to involve more than just their department for trade and their department for education’;
• most ‘underwrite their commitments not just with spend on promoting the country abroad, but with developmental spend to enable change inside universities’;
• other countries have more of a strategy for ‘students in general’ (i.e. including home students), covering areas such as wellbeing, housing, outcomes and employability.

On publication of the 2026 IES, Jim provided an excellent comparison with other countries’ strategies through the lens of the international student experience, exploring approaches to graduate outcomes, student wellbeing, use of agents, pre-arrival information, working while studying, and housing. He also investigated coordination across government and specific institutional commitments (such as those required under Ireland’s International Education Mark).

One of Jim’s observations on the Wonkhe podcast is that some other countries’ strategies make an explicit connection with immigration, including consideration of the role of international graduates in addressing national skills gaps and supporting economic development.

He notes, as have others, that the UK IES ‘delegates the substance of higher education international student policy to ESAG’ (the revamped Education Sector Action Group), and suggests that this group could valuably consider some of the ‘accountability frameworks, binding requirements, and funded infrastructure’ evident in other countries’ strategies.

A Europe-wide study

Anyone who wants a systematic Europe-wide overview of national strategies for international education can consult last year’s joint publication by the EAIE and ACA (Academic Cooperation Association): Mapping the Internationalisation Strategy Landscape Across the EHEA – 2025 and Beyond. This provides a snapshot of international education strategies (current in 2024) in 49 European countries.

High-level observations from the study include the following:

• The existence of a formal national strategy does not, in itself, signify a more advanced or effective approach to internationalisation.
• The majority of strategies portray a view of internationalisation as an important tool for quality enhancement, and for national and institutional development.
• Ensuring better access to internationalisation activities is of nearly unanimous concern, with the most recent strategies setting clear objectives for making specific activities more inclusive, or ‘for all’.

Conversations with national experts, conducted as part of the study, suggested several likely directions for future strategies, including:

• Showing the tangible value and impact of international education more explicitly (to ensure funding and support).
• Widening the conversation around internationalisation beyond the inner circle (involving key players outside higher education).

It was also recognised that, in a volatile context, strategies may be more expansive and less focused on ‘the nitty-gritty of strategy implementation’. They will need to be living documents, with mid-cycle (if not yearly) reviews, and the agility to deal effectively with unforeseen events and crises.

Conclusions

It can be helpful to take a step back and consider how international observers see our new UK strategy – and how other countries’ strategies articulate their priorities for international education.

The examples of commentary which I chose to highlight reflect the perspectives of individuals. However, it’s probably not too much of a reach to suggest that colleagues in those anglophone countries that, like the UK, are subject to tightening immigration policies may envy the clear focus of the UK’s IES on TNE. Meanwhile, others (including many in Europe) may wonder at the relative lack of detailed measures to enhance the experiences and outcomes of international students, engagement with local communities, and the intercultural education and opportunities of all students.

I’d love to hear some more reactions to the UK IES from colleagues in other countries. Please post any thoughts in the comments – either here beneath the blog or on LinkedIn.

Tags/Keywords

UK INTERNATIONAL EDUCATION STRATEGY TRANSNATIONAL EDUCATION INTERNATIONAL STUDENTS CANADA EUROPE

Oldest First Newest First 1 Comment Add Comment