Post-EducationUSA Forum Analysis

With yet another major international education conference in the books, our profession seems to have found a new normal, despite mask mandates after this past week's EducationUSA Forum in Washington DC. For those that know me well, you know EducationUSA has formed an integral part in my career, and this past week I had the opportunity to renew relationship with advisers, REACs, IIE and State Department staff I haven't seen in years. Those moments are truly food for my soul. That being said, there are a couple of nagging doubts that cause me some concerns.

No News Is Bad News

Where's the press coverage? Despite many press invited and in attendance, nothing in the major ed/intl ed news sources (Chronicle, Inside Higher Ed, The PIE News) yet. Hopefully this coming week will show something. But after all of the above had pieces out the same week as AIRC, AIEA, NAFSA, and Intl ACAC over the the past 8 months, you would be forgiven for thinking that a DC event featuring Homeland Security, State, Commerce, and Education Department presenters as well as the U.S. government's vast EducationUSA network all in one place, would generate at least some newsworthy pieces.

I note this morning (Monday) that an overview piece from The PIE News did come out.

Joint Statement on Intl Education: One Year On

In a much anticipated session, panelists from the four key agencies who signed on to the Joint Statement of Principles in Support of International Education (released July 2021 at the virtual EducationUSA Forum) presented on the progress made in the last year. While the original statement was heralded as the most significant statement from the U.S. government on our profession since IEW was established 22 years ago, and by some as the foundation for an eventual national policy/strategy for international education to improve our positioning in an increasingly competitive global battle for international students. For keen observers of international education in the United States, the expectations were high for this session.

Sadly, this session fell flat. To be clear, I am glad these departments are making progress to improve what they are doing to bolster the US as a premier study destination. While each department's representative focused on what it had achieved separately since the joint statement, there were no signs we are any closer to an international education strategy in this country. Individually, Commerce and State have begun campaigns USA: A Study Destination and #StudywithUS respectively. While Education is working on increased bilateral agreements on career and technical education with other nations, DHS is ramping back up staffing let go/lost during the pandemic as well as introducing improvements to STEM CIP coded academic programs.

After thanking the panelists for their work, I asked the equivalent of "Where's the beef?" Put simply, where are the game changing policy and regulatory adjustments that can really demonstrate to prospective international students we mean business and are truly welcoming to their presence here. I referenced failed proposals of changing F1 to a dual-intent status, green cards for STEM PhD graduates, and making permanent the pandemic enforced change that allows enrolled intl students to take more than one online course per term.

Too Many Cooks, Too Little Leadership

While I know most of these (and more recommendations) have been made repeatedly by higher ed associations in the U.S. in recent years it is both not surprising and futile to expect action without any coordinated approach. Yes, they have interagency meetings to share their progress on certain projects, but they have neither the authority nor internal pressure needed to make the big changes. After the session I asked two of the government panelists what the end goal/product would be. Neither had an answer, one proffered maybe nothing as one of the US's greatest strengths in its decentralized federal government and society, and that will overcome all perceived obstacles. When asked if a cabinet-level international education czar (like exists in the UK) would be welcome or needed to guide, set, and inform policy directions, neither seemed overly optimistic that would happen.

The reality is, until the White House gets fully behind anything related to international education strategy for the country that is informed by higher ed association representation and recommendations, nothing significant will happen. Any legislative successes or regulatory changes would be piecemeal in our attempts to show our unity in support in again opening our doors to the best and the brightest from around the world. Until then each of these four major departments (and Labor who should also have a seat at this table) will do their own thing, report their success and be bound by their individual departmental missions regarding international education: State - public diplomacy, Commerce - educational export revenue, Homeland Security - national security, and Education - diversifying participation and access to intl higher ed. Some are complementary to others, some are at odds with each other. In all cases, these viewpoints do little to show a United States of America perspective on international education. Let's speak with one voice! E Pluribus Unum - out of many one.

I have a dream ....