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.
It has now confirmed the new arrangements – and there are potential major implications for international students juggling work, study and attending classes.
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 new rules from UKVI need some… explaining. There’s some wider commentary up on the main site, and a note on similar (but different) things happening for home students up on the site too.
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 last year 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 now defined as:
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 had the option to not come in for – because you can watch it live, or even watch it back recorded, now counts as “remote”.
That obviously may see some providers 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 now 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.
You’ll see that that difference isn’t (necessarily) between teaching designed as in-person or designed as remote – it’s between hours that a student is required to be on campus for, and hours that they either specifically aren’t expected to come in for, or have the option to not come in for. That’s an important distinction:
Where the student has an option of online or in-person learning, this should count as a remote element for this purpose.
“Remote delivery” is to be allowed only on courses at degree level and above (ie Level 6 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 now using.
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 new policy 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).
Many universities will want to avoid difficult conversations with and closer scrutiny from UKVI about that. But if your uni sticks with the 20 per cent automatically allowed thing, in theory only 20 per cent of teaching hours would be allowed to be “recorded” or those a student mustn’t be made to come in for.
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).
Modules and stuff
What “counts” as teaching? UKVI says that activities like writing dissertations, conducting research, undertaking fieldwork, carrying out work placements and sitting exams are not “taught elements” – and are not therefore in scope.
Another way of looking at that is basically – if it’s timetabled, it probably counts.
Some providers have also been confused about modules – given that students on most courses are able to routinely choose elective modules (which themselves might contain different percentages of teaching in the two categories) after the CAS is assigned.
UKVI says that sponsors should calculate the remote delivery percentage on the assumption that the student will elect to attend all possible remote elements online. So where elective modules form part of the course delivery, the highest possible remote delivery percentage will have to be stated (!) And where hours in the timetable are optional, providers will have to calculate remote delivery by assuming that students will participate in all optional remote elements online.
When managing all of that the percentage won’t have to be calculated on the basis of module or year – it’s the entire course that counts. And where the course is a joint programme with a partner institution based overseas, only elements of the course taking place in the UK will be taken into account.
How are they going to do this?
In terms of implementation, UKVI is going to make some changes to IT systems to implement from this Spring, with a view to it all being in place from September.
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.
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.
There are wider questions – the way in which students use “optional” attendance and/or recorded lectures to manage their health and time, with all the challenges relating to part-time work and commuting/travelling in the mix, may result in a need to accelerate timetable reform to reduce the overall number of now very-much “required” visits to campus.
UKVI says it recognises that home and international students may end up being treated differently as a result, but that that is necessary to secure confidence in the system.
The stuff on modules looks like it will need careful thinking, especially if it ends up partly being a student’s responsibility to clock up the required percentage of “in person” hours, and over on the main site we have argued that any revision to arrangements implemented locally should very much aim to switch away from “UKVI said so” towards detailed discussion with (international) student representatives, with a consideration of wider timetabling, housing, travel and other support arrangements in the mix.
If nothing else, SUs will want to ensure they are consulted on how policies will change, and how any penalties for unauthorised non-attendance might work (or change) in the future.
