campusreview. com. au
INTERNATIONAL EDUCATION were becoming increasingly reliant upon the income generated through the internationalisation of the government’ s educational reforms, which provided an alternate revenue source amidst decreasing domestic funding. The value of agent partnerships was now imperative to the sustainability of international student programs.
Key source markets in the early 1990s were serviced by IDP and / or the Australian Education Centres( AECs), which IDP operated. Australian institutions were using their services almost exclusively.
However, as more institutions looked to increase international recruitment, demand for other agents increased. Institutions identified the benefits of a‘ one-stop shop’, whereby an independent agent could be contracted to market and recruit for them, and Australia led the way in developing strong agent partnerships.
The agent channel continued to grow from 2000 to 2008. Assisted by favourable migration policies, Australia was a popular destination for study. And by 2008, scepticism had also grown around students seeking to study here and enrolling in a course that had a qualification on the Migration Occupations in Demand List( MODL). Questions were raised around the genuineness of some of these students, and also the agents who supported them.
The government undertook a series of reviews, notably by Bruce Baird and Michael Knight, which produced several recommendations around ensuring the quality of Australian international education recruitment, including the role of agents. Whilst Baird provided explicit recommendations on enhancements to the ESOS Act and provider responsibilities, Knight posed further considerations around how best to support education agents’ role. The reviews each also made recommendations around stakeholder responsibilities but did not specifically address quality assurance of the agents.
ADDRESSING THE CHALLENGE Despite the many reviews, much remains to be done. There has been enormous growth in not only the number of students recruited through education agents, but also in the number of agents contracted by Australian education providers. And whilst the ESOS Act and National Code provide excellent guidelines for education providers in the management of agents, many aspects related to the assessment of agent quality remain vague.
A number of issues then need to be considered, such as: what quality assurance frameworks do institutions have to ensure the credibility and legitimacy of their respective agent network? How are pricing frameworks established? What are the legal implications working across international jurisdictions?
These questions pose challenges for the industry. Is it time to evaluate how other countries engage with agents, and explore the possible benefits of adopting a more co-ordinated model?
Australia’ s approach differs somewhat from countries that use state-funded and endorsed networks such as the British Council and Education USA. Countries have approached quality assurance in differing ways.
In the US, for instance, where the debate over the ethics of use of agents is strongest, support for the member-based, not-forprofit organisation American International Recruitment Council( AIRC) as a stamp of quality for agents and supporters of US education has been particularly strong.
In the US, it is illegal to pay a third party for the recruitment of domestic students. This law does not apply internationally but has been at the centre of much debate in many of the member-based organisations within the US.
New Zealand has taken steps to endorse quality education agents for its institutions and programs through an assurance( not accreditation) program. Unlike the US, however, it has chosen for this to be led by the state-based New Zealand Education.
Here in Australia, establishing quality outreach programs for agents and extending accurate information for setting realistic expectations was a key aspect of the Chaney Review.
Education agents are referenced as a key element in the National Code( Standard 4) and Professional International Education Resources( PIER) provides a well-recognised online agent training program.
Australia is also a signatory to the Statement of Principles for the Ethical Recruitment of International Students by Education Agents and Consultants( March 2012), better known as the London statement. It would be fair to say, however, that the implementation of these principles has been overlooked or piecemeal, at best. The governance of agents supporting the flow of students to Australia has been largely self-regulated. Whilst institutions do need to demonstrate and take carriage over the actions of each agent they contract, there is little oversight or co-ordination to ensure systems-wide levels of quality.
Governance relies on institutions individually providing contractual, financial or other support to particular agencies as a means of quality assurance. If no institution is prepared to support an agent, and will not financially compensate that entity for work done on the institution’ s behalf, then the agency will have no means to survive.
It would, however, be counterproductive to consider a model that excluded new quality entrants due to similar conditions. Models such as AIRC, therefore, require both demonstration of performance and institutional recommendation to apply for certification.
Meanwhile, Australia is renowned for the quality of its international student data, particularly in regard to visa statistics. And the provider registration and international students management system( PRISMS) now includes a dedicated field for agents. This may provide an opportunity to gather valuable data that could form a basis of integrity around the agent channel and an additional form of quality assurance based on a system-wide approach – provided the methodology behind the data entry and validation can be enhanced. It’ s a large piece of work, no doubt, but one that does warrant consideration.
There is certainly no“ one size fits all” or single approach to regulation and quality assurance of education agents. As requirements change, it is important to review and assess the value of models other countries implement, mindful that any schemes considered need to be fit for purpose and based on Australia’ s unique attributes.
It is essential that high-quality agents are provided with the recognition and support they deserve, and alternatively that agents who do not support our requirements of transparency and accuracy can be easily identified.
The key question that needs to be asked is this: does Australia have robust models in place to provide the required mechanisms for students, institutions and agents to guarantee the quality of student recruitment is assured and ongoing growth in the sector is promoted? ■
Brett Blacker is director international at the University of Newcastle and president of IEAA.
11