In our calls with SUs, many will recall that we’ve been flagging that UKVI and the Home Office have been reviewing attendance requirements for international students.
We’ve now seen an outline proposal – that universities are being consulted on (but may not be consulting you or your international students on).
This matters a lot because work and travel – especially in a cost of living and accommodation crisis – have both got tougher for international students.
And we know that many international students value, for example, being able to watch a lecture remotely live (or watch a lecture a few days later that’s been recorded) as an alternative to coming to campus for one hour in the middle of the day.
The proposal from UKVI is a bizarre bit of policy and needs some… explaining.
What is the current situation?
As it stands, the immigration rules say that “all sponsored study” must generally take place on campus (or on the campus/premises of a partner institution).
But back during Covid, things changed. So-called “concessions” were introduced in 2020 that allowed the delivery of courses to take place online.
UKVI then officially withdrew that “concession” in June 2022 – but plenty of providers:
- Still offer the chance to watch teaching taking place live remotely
- Offer the chance to watch back recordings of teaching
- Offer a different kind of delivery of “teaching” through more deliberately “asynchronous” (ie not live) recordings or ressources
In other words in some contexts the changes that came about via Covid – and in some cases changes made to cope with “too many students on this course to actually fit in a lecture theatre anyway” mean that UKVI thinks universities are now non-compliant with the old rules.
This has all been the subject of internal discussions – but in January it seems that officials received “ministerial approval” to implement a “remote delivery policy” on the basis that:
- Face-to-face delivery remains the “predominant” delivery method
- Where course delivery is planned to exceed a set percentage of remote delivery, universities will be required to justify why it is necessary, which will be considered as part of the sponsor compliance process.
What does all this mean?
Let’s start with some definitions.
Remote delivery is proposed to be defined as:
The timetabled delivery of learning where there is no need for the student to attend the premises of the student sponsor or partner institution which would otherwise take place live in-person at the sponsor or partner institution site.
The important word there is “timetabled”. Anything timetabled that you could not come in for – because you can watch it live, or even watch it back recorded, would appear to count as “remote”.
That obviously has the potential to restrict lecture recordings – even though we know that international students often very much value them on the basis of watching back the content for understanding or recall.
Face-to-face delivery is then proposed to be defined as:
Timetabled learning that takes place in-person and on the premises of the student sponsor or a partner institution.
In other words, stuff you absolutely have no choice but to come in for, or you’ll miss out.
The “consultation” notes that as much of the course content for PhD courses would not be captured by the above definitions of timetabled learning, those courses will not be within scope of this policy.
“Remote delivery” is proposed to be allowed on courses at degree level and above at providers with a “track record of compliance” – that’s most universities.
UKVI says that feedback from universities is that “remote delivery” largely forms a minor element of total delivery and is used in a supplementary manner – but that may not be the case when you look at the actual definition they’re proposing.
Proportions
Then we get into percentages. Face-to-face delivery (ie you have to come in for, or you miss out) must remain the “predominant” method of delivery. The proposal is that “Predominantly face-to-face” is defined as consisting of between 1-20 per cent of the taught elements of the course delivered via remote delivery.
If a university wanted instead to offer “mainly” but not “predominantly” face to face, there are two conditions:
- “Remote delivery” could only be up to 40 per cent;
- It would only be allowed by UKVI on a course-by-course basis, and universities would have to seek and get permission from UKVI (before a CAS is issued!)
The university will have to provide a justification for the higher percentage of remote learning and the justification will be expected to be based on educational value, demonstrating how the usage is consistent with the guidance provided by the relevant educational quality standards body (OfS, QAA etc).
We would imagine that many universities would want to avoid difficult conversations with UKVI about that. But if they stuck with the 20 per cent automatically allowed thing, in theory only 20 per cent of teaching hours would be allowed to be “recorded”.
And then – crucially – any courses which consist of any higher than 40 per cent of the course being delivered “remotely” would be banned altogether.
The good news is that remote delivery will be permitted on courses of any academic level on an exceptional basis in circumstances where requiring face to face delivery would constitute discrimination on the basis of a student’s protected characteristics under the Equality Act 2010, or where continuity of education provision would otherwise be interrupted by unforeseen circumstances (for example industrial action, extreme weather, periods of travel restriction).
How are they going to do this?
In terms of implementation, UKVI is going to try to obtain sufficient data points to allow it to review usage and measure any resulting impact of the policy. As such, it’s going to run “an in-year exercise” for universities who have already submitted their CAS allocation request for the coming academic year.
In terms of academic engagement and attendance monitoring of remote delivery within the 1-20 per cent range, universities will still be expected to monitor academic engagement in line with the existing requirements of the Home Office’s and their own internal policies.
BUT – if a course gets the 20 – 40 per cent designation, universities will also have to implement new ways of recording engagement with remote elements of the course – although the “specific method” used for doing this can be decided by institutions.
UKVI says it will monitor CAS data on remote delivery usage and may liaise with the appropriate regulatory body (ie OfS, QAA etc) where areas of concern arising from usage are noted.
Any failure to provide details of all courses utilising remote delivery which are offered to students and/or to ensure these details are reviewed and updated (where required) with every annual CAS allocation request may be seen as a compliance concern.
As well as the issues we’ve noted above, you’ll see that “teaching” isn’t really defined, and not is “full-time” – so the policy does assume percentages of things that aren’t actually defined.
One of the other perverse incentives therefore is that if a university wanted to keep doing lecture recordings, it might not define those hours as “timetabled teaching” at all – and instead only make, say, a recording available as an asynchronous resource.
That would mean students that need, want, or value some of the hours they get in person with other students getting less of those hours overall.
Generally, it looks to us like the definitions of “remote” and “face to face” need some work to prevent universities withdrawing lecture recordings, or withdrawing in-person teaching in favour of “non timetabled” learning resources.
The time is tight on this – UKVI is seeking feedback to the proposals by close of business on 26 April. If your university hasn’t consulted you or international students more generally already, you’ll need to get in quick to influence their response.
