I was interested to read that the UK Home Office is considering rolling out its own Secure English language test last week on The PIE.
Clearly, many of you also were, as it outshone all our other stories last week – probably because of a) the shock of the government making such a bold, one-test move and b) because of the potential value of the contract – over £1.13 billion estimated on the government tender site which may be awarded in two parts.
In the government’s own words, “UK Visas and Immigration (UKVI) is seeking input from the market to build a business case to inform future specifications to ensure that the service is delivered with the highest current levels of security, integrity and customer satisfaction.
“This market data gathering will include but not be limited to testing the feasibility of potential procurement options and the market’s capacity and capability for delivery.”
Isn’t the intent to consider, “the highest current levels of security, integrity and customer satisfaction” something to be celebrated in terms of the UK evaluating its relationship with prospective international students and the admissions process?
Now most of the commentators (none of the testing providers, understandably), seemed to emerge initially to point out the negatives of such a bold move.
Lack of competition – monopoly on price if there is only one government-approved test – and concerns over access to test-taking opportunity if just one provider is delivering the HOELT.
These are of course all valid considerations.
But let’s consider potential positives too. Bringing the best of test development and delivery together – an amalgam of the best of development – is that achievable?
At this stage, there seems to be opportunity for collaboration in being the awarded contractee(s) – development is being disaggregated into two areas – so such a huge undertaking may require joint ventures or involve at minimum two lead parties each of which brings its own excellence to the product and delivery – I predict some sort of collaborative nexus already happening behind the scenes.
Note that the government notice explains “The Home Office is planning to move away from a concession model and contract directly with suppliers. The service is also planned to be disaggregated into two service lines: 1) The development, evaluation and ongoing support of a Home Office branded test to be used globally for all HOELTs, and 2) The facilitation of tests globally, including a customer booking platform, test centre provision, invigilation, and ID-verification.
Already, many test brands such as Cambridge University Press and Pearson may work with a white label partner such as Learnosity (both are cited on their website) to stay on top of tech innovation in test design and delivery. So collaboration in this space is not a novel concept.
In terms of market perceptions around SELT as a step towards achieving a dream of studying abroad – one government-mandated test means no “easier than others” problem of comparison between tests so in-market, there is no merit in some students discussing (a claim I have certainly heard) which tests are “easier” to pass.
The big advantage of this fairly bold idea is that it would enable radical transparency for the test-takers
Amy Baker, The PIE
But the big advantage of this fairly bold idea is that it would enable radical transparency for the test-takers, and presumably, the higher education institutions that would be required to use HOELT scores for admissions purposes too. I am imagining a centralised database, similar to an e-visa ESTA system I use, which allows one to log in and check expiry of visa and in this case, the score and level attained?
Imagine not having to rely on a student to submit their own score, which can then be verified with the testing organisation?
A seamless visa process whereby the Home Office can already check your latest language level? That is pretty radical.
Will this pave the way for other governments to follow suit?
I remember after 9/11, when the US government realised it really had insufficient data on who was in the country on a student visa – because one of the terrorists who was involved in the attacks had entered the country on a student visa before attending a flight school.
That prompted the introduction of the SEVIS system to centrally track all visa awardees – and update information on any transfer, change in status, and duration of study period.
Such big data on student visa holders now seems essential to the operation of a multi-million dollar industry bringing hundreds of thousands of young people into the country every year.
But in 2001, this seemed a bold new concept – and one which some railed against, initially as I recall, because the cost was passed on to the student.
Twenty years later, it’s hard to imagine that something like SEVIS wouldn’t exist in the largest international student market in the world, allowing real-time quarterly data on visa issuance trends.
I wonder if 20 years from now, we’ll marvel at a time when there was not one seamless service that limited opportunity for fraud and offered transparency into visa application decision status (a massive black hole at the moment) and SELT status at the same time.
I’m aware that there are decades of best practice in academic research and test delivery evolution and a central tender does risk losing some of this expertise if not all SELT providers continue to operate.
I’m also aware that to cater for the demand currently managed by 5 SELT providers (offshore and onshore), a seismic shift is required in terms of delivery capacity – also acknowledged by the government.
But this is big bold thinking – it feels as if student experience has been considered – and that in itself is to be applauded.
