The UK is at a pivotal moment when it comes to the English language tests it uses to help decide who can enter the country to study, work, invest and innovate.  

The government’s new industrial strategy offers a vision for supporting high-value and high-growth sectors. These sectors – from advanced manufacturing and creative industries, to life sciences, clean energy and digital – will fuel the UK’s future growth and productivity. All of them need to attract global talent, and to have a strong talent pipeline, particularly from UK universities. 

This summer’s immigration white paper set out plans for new English language requirements across a broader range of immigration routes. It comes as the Home Office intends to introduce a new English language test to provide a secure and robust assessment of the skills of those seeking to study and work in the UK.  

In this context, the UK faces a challenge: can we choose to raise standards and security in English tests while removing barriers for innovators? 

The answer has to be ‘yes’. To achieve, as the industrial strategy puts it, “the security the country needs… while shaping markets for innovation,” will take vision. That clearly needs government, universities and employers to align security and growth. There are no short-cuts if we are serious about both.  

The sectors that will power the industrial strategy – most notably in higher education, research and innovation – are also those most boxed in by competing pressures. These pressures include the imperative to attract world-class talent and the need to show that those they help bring to the country are well-qualified.  

But these pressures do not have to box us in. We need not compromise on security or growth. We can achieve both.   

Getting English testing right is a critical part of the solution. That means putting quality and integrity first. We should demand world-class security and safeguards – drawing on the most sophisticated combination of human and artificial intelligence. It also means deploying proven innovations – those that have been shown to work in other countries, like Australia and Canada, that have adjusted their immigration requirements while achieving talent-led growth.   

Decision-making around English language testing needs to be driven by evidence – especially at a time of flux. And findings from multiple studies tells us that those students who take high-quality and in-depth tests demonstrate greater academic resilience and performance. When it comes to high-stake exams, we should be setting the highest expectations for test-takers so they can thrive in the rapidly changing economy that the country is aspiring to build.  

The government and high-growth sectors, including higher education, have an opportunity to grow public confidence, prioritise quality and attain sustainable growth if we get this right.  

Decision-making around English language testing needs to be driven by evidence – especially at a time of flux

International students at UK universities contribute £42 billion a year to the economy. (As an aside, the English language teaching sector – a thriving British export industry – is worth an additional £2 billion a year, supporting 40,000 jobs.) Almost one-in-five NHS staff come from outside the UK. 

More than a third of the UK’s fastest-growing startups have at least one immigrant co-founder. Such contributions from overseas talent are indispensable to the country’s future success – and the industrial strategy’s “focus on getting the world’s brightest minds to relocate to the UK” is smart.  

At Cambridge, we help deliver IELTS, the world’s most trusted English test. Over the decades, we’ve learned that quality, security and innovation reinforce one another. It’s why we draw on our constantly evolving knowledge of linguistics to make sure our tests assess the real-life language skills people use in actual academic and professional environments. 

Technological innovations and human intelligence must be central to the test-taking experience: from content creation to exam supervision to results delivery. Having one without the other would be reckless.    

We should deploy the latest data science and AI advances to spot risks, pinpoint potential fraud, and act intelligently to guarantee a system that’s fair for all. IELTS draws on proven AI and data science developments to prevent fraud and improve the information available to institutions like universities, businesses and UKVI.  

As the government takes its industrial strategy, immigration reforms and English testing changes forward, it’s vital that departments coordinate on the shared opportunities, and tap into the best evidence available.  

This is complex work. It requires a collaborative spirit, creative thinking and deep expertise. Fortunately, the UK has plenty of that. 

About the author: Pamela Baxter is managing director, IELTS at Cambridge University Press & Assessment

Once the world’s largest source of international students, China is no longer expected to fuel further student growth in the ‘big four’ destinations, according to predictions from Bonard Education shared in a recent webinar. 

“China is no longer the easy goldmine it once was”, Bonard senior research consultant, Su Su, told attendees, highlighting the “visible trend” of Chinese students choosing alternative options closer to home.  

The US has seen the most noticeable decline in Chinese enrolments, which broadly started across traditional destinations in 2020/21 and has continued in the US over the past five years, according to Bonard data.  

Amid the downturn in Chinese mobility to the US, India surpassed China as America’s largest sending country in 2023 and new government data has shown this gap continue to widen.

The UK, however, is bucking the trend and has witnessed continued modest growth in Chinese students since 2020, though this cohort’s visa approval rate saw a 6% year-on-year decline in 2024. 

Elsewhere, Canada experienced a 21% drop in Chinese visa approvals last year as the impact of the government’s study permit caps took hold, but university enrolment nevertheless remains stable, signalling the visa decline is concentrated in non-university level students.  

Meanwhile, Australia and New Zealand saw a modest rebound in Chinese enrolment in 2023/24, with Su maintaining that China was still a “pivotal” source market despite fluctuations.  

The waning dominance of China as a source market can partly be attributed to the state of the economy, with financial pressure becoming the most cited factor impacting study decisions, according to Bonard’s agent network.

“Middle class families are experiencing slower financial growth, and, as a result, are more economically conscious,” explained Su, fuelling a rise in shorter term English language courses as well as impacting the post-secondary sector. 

What’s more, China’s urban unemployment rate among 16-24-year-olds jumped to an all-time high of 19% last year, pushing career outcomes up the priority list for students and their families, said Su.  

Given the financial context, “families are determined to make every RMB count”, said Su, with more affordable Asian destinations becoming increasingly attractive in China.  

The PIE News has previously reported on the rise of intra-Asian mobility, with countries in the region increasingly seeing internationalisation as critical to sustaining economic growth, plugging workforce gaps and driving innovation.

In particular, the National Universities of Singapore and Hong Kong were highlighted as hitting the sweet spot by offering highly regarded international degrees at a lower price than traditional destinations – catering to families who still value prestige and the merits of an international education, but who are shopping “smarter”.  

Elsewhere, Japan, South Korea and Malaysia are on the rise, with the Japanese government pursuing an ambitious goal of attracting 400,000 international students by 2033 and Malaysia streamlining international admissions through a new centralised system.

But it’s not just affordability that is changing the landscape: perceived policy volatility “can shape perspective just as much as the price”, said Su, highlighting the damaging impact of Donald Trump’s erratic policy announcements in the US.  

“Recent headlines in the US are raising serious concerns among families, whether or not the policies are enacted,” Su warned. 

By comparison, despite some restrictions in the UK: “It feels more stable… agencies are describing the UK as the safest bet due to its clear communication of policies,” attendees heard.  

That being said, political environments tend to have a temporary impact on student decision-making, with agencies and institutions advised that now is the time to “adapt and rethink” rather than turning away from the Chinese market.  

The Department for Education (DfE) has published the 2025 edition of Keeping Children Safe in Education (KCSIE), its statutory safeguarding guidance for all schools and colleges in England. The revised guidance, currently issued as a draft for information, is due to come into effect on September 1, 2025.

The update introduces several new references and expectations related to digital safeguarding, reflecting evolving risks around artificial intelligence, cyber-security, and online misinformation. These changes appear in Part Two of the document and are directed primarily at governing bodies, proprietors, and designated safeguarding leads.

Misinformation and conspiracy theories formally classified as online harms

Paragraph 135 of the 2025 guidance expands the DfE’s definition of harmful online content to include misinformation, disinformation, and conspiracy theories. These are now listed alongside existing risks such as pornography, racism, radicalization, self-harm, extremism, and online grooming.

The section emphasizes that technology is a significant component in many safeguarding and wellbeing issues and that children may be exposed to multiple risks simultaneously, both online and offline. The explicit addition of misleading and conspiratorial content signals a growing concern about its impact on children’s development, decision-making, and exposure to extremist ideas.

New guidance on AI use in education

Paragraph 143 introduces a direct link to the DfE’s product safety expectations for generative artificial intelligence in schools. While the KCSIE document itself does not prescribe how AI should be used, it highlights the need for appropriate filtering and monitoring systems when AI tools are accessible to students.

This addition aligns with broader departmental efforts to balance innovation in digital learning with safeguarding and data protection obligations.

Self-assessment tools for filtering and monitoring

In paragraph 142, the DfE recommends that schools and colleges use the ‘Plan Technology for Your School’ tool, an online resource that allows institutions to self-assess their filtering and monitoring infrastructure. The tool supports compliance with the DfE’s filtering and monitoring standards, which require schools to:

• Identify and assign roles for managing digital safety systems

• Review provisions annually

• Block harmful content without disrupting teaching and learning

• Implement effective monitoring strategies appropriate to their safeguarding needs

Cybersecurity standards added to support digital resilience

Paragraph 144 refers to the DfE’s cybersecurity standards for schools and colleges, which were developed in collaboration with the National Cyber Security Centre (NCSC). These standards outline the technical and procedural steps education providers should take to protect systems, data, and users from cyberattacks.

Recommended actions include regular backups, access control policies, secure configuration of devices and software, and procedures for responding to data breaches. The DfE urges institutions to periodically review their systems to ensure they remain resilient to emerging cyber threats.

Annual online safety review recommended

While not new, paragraph 145 reiterates the expectation that schools and colleges conduct an annual review of their online safety provision. This includes carrying out a risk assessment that reflects the specific threats facing their student population, especially those who are considered more vulnerable.

The guidance also points to free self-review tools such as 360safe and the LGfL online safety audit.

Additional changes unrelated to technology

While the 2025 update is primarily technical, it also includes broader safeguarding revisions such as:

• Support for kinship care added to the role of Virtual School Heads (para 199)

• Statutory status for attendance guidance (para 177)

• Revised terminology aligned with the SEND Code of Practice (para 205)

• Signposting to new RSHE and gender-questioning children guidance (paras 128, 204)

• New resources such as Shore Space from the Lucy Faithfull Foundation (para 545) and safeguarding materials from the CSA Centre and The Children’s Society (Annex B)