Seventy-two hours does not make an NCP-funded short-term learning abroad experience; however, it’s long enough to gather Learning Abroad experts to dissect the 2025 NCP mobility and scholarship guidelines.
The uplift, outcomes and reflections on the 2025 NCP program guidelines at the IEAA Learning Abroad Forum are as complex and diverse as they are passionate and divisive.
With the ink just dry on the guidelines for mobility grants and the scholarship program, work has begun to bring these to life across institutions. Some will find this task easy while others will not.
Links to the guidelines are in New Colombo Plan Scholarships 2.0: A whole new world (TKN 21 Aug 2024), and Indo-Pacific mobility and New Colombo Plan grants: All in this together (TKN 22 August 2024).
It did not go unnoticed by The Koala that changes were delivered late in the day with no identified sector consultation. It’s fair to say many of the impacts may have been mitigated or lessened through their co-design and timely delivery, given the sector’s deep decade-long embrace of NCP. The Forum clearly articulated this to DFAT and the sector will now support the Foreign Ministers intent.
In measuring the Forum mood, there was a colourful conversation of angst, disappointment and celebration. The Koala drew on reflections of colleagues across universities, consortia and learning abroad providers to identify a myriad of (unintended) consequences that may impact 2025 programs.
While institutions and stakeholders will see these through their own lens, they should not miss the kaleidoscopic view, a sum of the rich parts coming together for national impact and the uplift in regional engagement envisaged by the Foreign Minister. These are only short-term operational implications, of which a sample includes;
- Deeper language engagement with Asia may be limited by current (and often non-existent) language offerings, skewing the number of applications and generating a concentrated funnel into and amongst priority countries and some favoured institutions.
- The inference that longer programs are better does not reflect the robust evidence and research the sector has invested in to show how short-term programs can be similarly transformational (TKN 22 August 2024).
- The equity pillar of NCP mobility is at risk. 4-week programs test the capacity of academics to deliver when teaching programs, semester timetables and research loads are considered in an environment where this form of internationalisation is often undervalued in academic workplans.
- Accessibility will be impacted. Student financial capability, family responsibilities, medical conditions and other personal factors will be stress tested in transition to 4-week programs.
- The changes, while welcomed, required socialisation across diverse university stakeholder groups, including careers and employability, indigenous units, disability services, academics, alumni engagement and global engagement that require time to embed into systems.
- Constraints around the use administrative funding potentially limits growth and creative programming within some institutions and the opportunity for funding to be applied to uplift programs with specific institutional contexts in mind.
- The capability and capacity of regional host institutions to pivot to 4 weeks is untested and requires time for robust partner discussions. Certainly, for this round, and planning for future intakes.
- With around 62% of learning abroad programs less than 4 weeks, pivoting to 4-week minimum programming should not be based on funding alone. Without appearing disloyal, the sector must remember NCP mobility was not proposed as a long-term or stand-alone funding solution.
So, there is a damned if you do and damned if you don’t element here. Yes, guidelines lacked consultation and yes, were late. So, the sector, with its professionalism, is right to be bitterly disappointed; however, they will move on to do what they do best – sending students abroad and recognise that NCP is one of the many program mechanisms and funding levers available. What now becomes imperative is a reset of the sectors relationship with DFAT and its program administrator, Palladium.
Australian Learning Abroad is in an unrecognisable place through NCP. The sector is a valued contributor to regional and diplomatic conversations that inevitably draws out a range of disparate views. This should be celebrated, stepped into, and embraced with positive intent.
Lack of consultation and timeliness aside, 11 years ago the sector was not sitting at the table, nor having these conversations. These short-term operational challenges are the price of the sector’s next phase of success, through ongoing robust conversation with DFAT, with the sector embracing the opportunity to elevate its impact and showcase its legitimacy as part of the international education narrative.
Dust always settles; the sun will rise, the Assistant Ministers consultations will take place, and students will continue learning abroad.
Disclosure: The author played no formal or informal role in any consultation, design or construction of the 2024 NCP guidelines, subsequent changes or the 2025 NCP guidelines.
Note: A sincere acknowledgement, in the authors Forum absence, to the many colleagues providing updates, calls and reflections to construct The Koalas view on NCP feedback and commentary.
