This week, the SELT sector was rocked by the news that the UK Home Office appears to be planning an overhaul of secure English testing, moving away from the current model based on multiple providers to a dedicated test owned by the Home Office and developed by one supplier.
The plans 鈥� which were released in a and initially went unnoticed by much of the sector 鈥� have left stakeholders with myriad questions about the feasibility of implementation and the consequences for SELT providers, candidates and the market at large.
The service, carrying an estimated contract value of 拢1.13 billion, 鈥渋s planned to be disaggregated into two service lines鈥�; the development and ongoing support of a Home Office-branded test to be used globally, and the facilitation of tests around the world, according to the tender document.
Such proposals would 鈥渞epresent a seismic shift in the language testing world,鈥� according to SELT expert Michael Goodine , pointing to the time taken to develop such a test and the financial implications for the major testing firms.
Reacting to Goodine鈥檚 post, commentators raised questions about how likely it is that the Home Office will go in this direction, and about the impact it could have on other governments around the world.
鈥淚f they are looking to bring the entire SELT delivery in-house to the Home Office (which the documentation hints at), then they simply don鈥檛 have the expertise to do so, so it would be a non-starter in my opinion,鈥� Paul Muir, former head of technology enabled assessment at the British Council and risr/ CCO told 小瓢虫传媒.
At best, the government would need to get the expertise from the marketplace and label it as a single Home Office service, according to Muir.
Further concerns have been raised about the traditional risks of a single supplier in which there is a 鈥渟ingle point of failure and a monopoly and all the issues that can bring in terms of pricing and service,鈥� warned Muir.
It would also blunt innovation as the supplier would simply be looking to deliver the minimum contracted requirement
Paul Muir, risr/ CCO
Goodine also raised the danger of reducing competition in the testing space, and the potential of reduced accessibility caused by a decline in the number of approved test centres around the world.
鈥淚t would also blunt innovation as the supplier would simply be looking to deliver the minimum contracted requirement, rather than competing and offering new products/services to win a larger share of the SELT market,鈥� said Muir, who has previously advised the Home Office on SELT.
Commentators on LinkedIn have also pointed to the logistical challenges of moving to one supplier, which could cause bottlenecks in test centre waiting times and demand the implementation of increased security measures.
“Building the capacity for test development and full-cycle assessment in an organisation that hasn鈥檛 regularly conducted such high-stakes testing may take some time.
“Will this affect quality and accountability measures? What, then, is the whole point? We are now weighing integrity against quality,” wrote Vali Huseyn, strategic assessment and partnership officer.
The Home Office has invited suppliers to submit their applications and has said it will engage with the market to understand the “products, services and innovations available”.
While some industry members have taken comfort in the fact that the tender document suggests that the service will be split into two different divisions 鈥� one for test development and one for delivery 鈥� for Muir, this would cause greater challenges.
鈥淭his would be a significant mistake as you will end up with two different organisations, almost certainly utilising two different technology solutions, that would need to be brought together to deliver the end-to-end solution for the candidate,鈥� he said.
As for the reasoning behind the proposed changes?
鈥淭here has always been a tension with the Home Office of some tests being perceived to be easier than others and the idea of the system being 鈥榞amed鈥� by candidates,” said Muir, who disputed the validity of such claims.
Furthermore, it is possible that the government 鈥� under pressure to appear strict on immigration 鈥� feels as though the perception of a Home Office English Language Test (HOELT) will present a new, tougher standard to achieve.
As for providers, there has been a conspicuous silence from the big testers, with IELTS, IDP, LanguageCert and Trinity College London declining 小瓢虫传媒鈥檚 requests to comment, and Pearson stipulating its commitment 鈥渢o helping the UK government select skilled visa applicants with our trusted English proficiency tests鈥�.
According to Muir, while market leader IELTS has a significant portfolio to fall back on, there is the risk that restructuring the model could effectively shut some suppliers out of the market, with industry stakeholders expressing concerns about the potential repercussions for employees.
Although most online commentators were negative, the prospect of a single portal might present an opportunity for聽radical transparency in the sector, as well as a possible plug-in for institutions to check results submitted against those actual awarded.
“We are in the process of re-tendering the English Language Testing provision. Further information will be published in due course,” a Home Office spokesperson told 小瓢虫传媒.
Do you have an opinion on the matter? Get in touch with 小瓢虫传媒 news team at info@thepienews.com
