UK student visa regulation ‘needs greater coherence’
UK universities face two competing forms of regulation when it comes to international students, a report has found, with the Home Office being urged to relinquish some control or risk missing growth targets.
The Office for Students and UK Visas and Immigration (UKVI) have been urged to work more closely together to “resolve emerging tensions and reduce the risk of unintended consequences for institutions and students”.
Olufunke Aluko-Daniels, principal of Birmingham City University International College, argues in a policy note for the Higher Education Policy Institute (Hepi) that the two bodies sometimes have conflicting motivations and requirements.
One key example Aluko-Daniels gives is that UKVI expects a completion rate for international students of at least 90 per cent, whereas the OfS’ threshold for full-time, first-degree students is 75 per cent. She says the completion matter is an example of an “emerging tension” between the two bodies.
Competition is an educational outcome for the OfS, in contrast to UKVI, which is interested in whether students sponsored to take courses complete them.
She argues that the recent case of the Bloomsbury Institute, whose international student sponsor licence was revoked after it failed its Basic Compliance Assessment, demonstrates why the relationship between the two bodies is now more important.
“A UKVI decision on sponsor compliance can quickly become an OfS concern about students, continuation, completion and their ability to achieve the outcomes for which they enrolled,” she says.
Aluko-Daniels, who is also college director at her institution, said: “The issue is not whether we need two regulators. Both have legitimate responsibilities. The question is whether their requirements are sufficiently coordinated, particularly where decisions taken to manage institutional compliance risks could also affect student opportunity and educational continuity.”
She says the solution is “greater regulatory coherence where their responsibilities overlap” to smooth complexity and resolve conflicting incentives for institutions.
There should be more “formal coordination” between the OfS and UKVI on these intersecting areas in the form of “structured dialogue” in areas such as completion, interruption and student protection.
In a case where action against a provider’s student sponsorship licence could “materially disrupt existing students’ education”, an agreed protocol in government could help ensure educational continuity and transfer agreements with impacted students, Aluko-Daniels says.
Where both regulators use competition as a measure, Aluko-Daniels says institutions need greater clarity on how their definitions align, including how they treat intermediate qualifications.
Hepi chief executive Nick Hillman warned that: “Ministers and universities both want to expand the UK’s education earnings from overseas and to protect the student visa route from abuse. Yet the current level of friction between the rules from the Office for Students and those from UKVI are jamming the system up.”
He added: “As a country, we could start to share responsibility for international students across departments, rather than giving sole control to the Home Office. If this seems too big a change, then smaller incremental improvements would also help students, institutions and ministers hit their own targets while protecting the integrity of the UK’s borders.”
frances.jones@timeshighereducation.com