English language standards are increasingly part of behind-the-scenes conversations in higher education. As recruitment pressures grow, so do questions about fairness, preparedness and student support.

Research consistently shows that stronger English proficiency is linked to better grades, progression and completion. For this reason many universities now frame language requirements as part of a duty of care — ensuring students can meaningfully benefit from their studies rather than being set up to struggle.

Drawing on her work as an international English language lecturer, teacher trainer and Intensive English Program coordinator, Courtney Bailey sees English language standards as a responsibility to ensure students are placed where they can realistically succeed. Fair admissions look at context and potential while ensuring students are academically and linguistically prepared.

As we move into 2026, we would love to hear from colleagues across admissions, recruitment, teaching and partnerships.

• How is your institution approaching English language standards?
• What innovations or changes do you see emerging next year?

Ever wondered who’s actually behind ELSAA and what really motivated them to create an independent body in this space?

Courtney Bailey sat down with the ELSAA team for an open, no-nonsense “Coffee with Courtney” conversation that gets into the human side of the organisation — the turning points, the tough questions, and the values that drive their work every day.

In the interview, they dig into:

• What sparked the idea for ELSAA and the gap they saw that nobody else was filling.
• Why independence isn’t just a nice-to-have, but essential for the communities they serve.
• How their diverse backgrounds and experiences shape the way ELSAA shows up and makes decisions.

This is the first in a series of relaxed “Coffee with Courtney” conversations, where Courtney will be sitting down with different members of the ELSAA community over the coming weeks and months to unpack their stories, perspectives, and vision for the future.

If you’ve been curious about the deeper “why” behind ELSAA — and the people willing to build something different — this is the perfect place to start.

Watch the full interview here: https://lnkd.in/ew253kss

Assessment systems influence who studies abroad, who qualifies for employment and who gains mobility. The policy decisions and standards embedded within them affect real outcomes.

In Episode 2, ELSAA continues its conversation with Courtney Bailey, English Language Specialist.

The discussion explores:

• Who influences assessment policy
• How test security is governed and monitored
• How proficiency is measured across global and local contexts
• What ELSAA means by “standard” in English assessment

This episode moves beyond general commitments to examine how transparency and implementation take shape in real contexts.

Future conversations will extend this discussion through case studies and documented evidence.

What makes an English language test fair, reliable, secure and fit-for-purpose?

In Episode 3, ELSAA continues its discussion with Courtney Bailey and offers a preview of its upcoming framework, grounded in key principles of language testing, including:

• How the test is put together (test construct)
• Review of test questions through the lenses of accessibility, cultural difference, and real-world applicability
• Test delivery and how it balances user needs with practicality for the test taker
• The type and reliability of marking
• The extent to which tests are regulated or mapped to international benchmarks such as the CEFR

The episode reflects on the dilemmas facing practitioners, while deliberately avoiding simplistic judgements about the strengths and limitations of different testing systems.

Watch the full episode: https://lnkd.in/gEdQaDss

Future discussions will explore specific elements of the framework in greater depth, while also examining other guides and benchmarks shaping the market today.

The latest HEPI article on English language testing raises an uncomfortable but necessary question for UK higher education: when academics and students are the ones living with the consequences of others’ decisions… why do they apparently state they have so little influence over the language testing ecosystem itself?

The article by Susan Kinnear, Chair of International Communication, University of Dundee, argues that too many academics feel like passive recipients of decisions made elsewhere — by commercial testing providers, recruitment pressures, or institutional processes far removed from the classroom.

So perhaps the question is no longer simply: “Which test should universities accept?”

Perhaps the deeper question that requires an answer is: How do we rebalance the relationship between universities, academics and language testing providers?

A few suggestions from us, but we welcome your comments:

• Can academics and EAP specialists have a greater role in shaping what “fit for purpose” actually means?
• Can providers test the right things for academic success — or only what is easiest to scale commercially?
• Can we move from a transactional model of testing to a genuinely collaborative ecosystem?

Kinnear argues that language testing is not simply a product. It is part of a much wider educational ecosystem involving students, university leaders, faculty and long-term outcomes.

What could a genuinely collaborative model look like? ELSAA would be interested to hear perspectives from admissions leaders, academics, EAP specialists, recruiters and assessment professionals.

“Is English language testing still fit for purpose in UK higher education?”

https://lnkd.in/eCvY8pE7

High-stakes test security is no longer a technical issue — it’s a strategic one. Thursday’s ELSAA webinar with Ray Nicosia made that clearer than ever.

Thank you to all colleagues who attended our first ELSAA webinar, The Real Story Behind High-Stakes Test Security. We were pleased to welcome Ray Nicosia as our guest expert, with the session bringing together leaders across admissions, compliance, recruitment, quality assurance, and assessment to examine the evolving risk landscape in high-stakes testing.

The discussion focused on:

• Identifying and managing emerging security risks across delivery modes
• Safeguarding trust without creating unnecessary friction for candidates
• Understanding what is changing in high-stakes testing and the implications for institutional decision-making

A central theme was Ray’s principle of “try and verify” — a reminder that assurance must be both evidence-based and operationally robust.

We explored several governance-critical questions, including:

• How security exposure differs between centre-based, online, and at-home delivery, and which model presents the greatest protection challenges
• What institutions should require from testing providers before accepting scores — particularly regarding identity verification, monitoring standards, and the audit trail
• The two elements that are most difficult to secure in remote testing, and how admissions teams can determine whether a remotely delivered score is sufficiently trustworthy for a high-stakes decision
• What technological and behavioural shifts are likely to reshape how institutions evaluate test security and score validity in the coming years

These issues sit at the heart of institutional integrity, regulatory compliance, and fair student outcomes. ELSAA will continue convening these conversations to support the sector in strengthening standards and ensuring confidence in the systems that underpin high-stakes decisions.

Watch the full webinar: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kBsorNY-lvA&t=3s

Great for ELSAA to participate at the EURIE Summit last Thursday in the “Role of English Proficiency in Shaping Fair, Transparent and Selective Admissions” panel discussion.

One central question that really stood out for us was: do we want our international students to be passive receivers of information — or active contributors in the classroom?

When we equip students to participate, challenge and engage, something powerful happens. It’s not just enabling — it’s liberating. For students, and for the institutions they study in.

We explored this and more with Angela Gayton (University of Glasgow) and Alejandra M. Vilalta-Perdomo (Tecnológico de Monterrey). Together, we reflected on the risks of short-term decisions — particularly where lowering standards may feel expedient, but can carry complex, long-term consequences that take years to put right.

What stood out most? The level of engagement in the room, the shared recognition that this is a conversation we need to keep having, and meeting up with wonderful old and new friends — we loved hearing all about the Businet network and the Foundation for International Business Administration Accreditation (FIBAA).

A big thank you to the #EURIE organisers for the fabulous and diverse event, and to Ayse Deniz Ozkan for inviting us.

A big thank you to everyone who joined the honest and lively ELSAA conversation with Michael Goodine and Conrad Heyns at #PIELive2026 in London last week. We were especially pleased to host an array of English language test producers, as well as representatives from several UK universities.

We discussed the key factors of access, cost, marking, quality and security when considering test selection. We did not shy away from the difficult issues:

• Academic integrity, and the very real risks of lowering English language entry requirements
• What ethical recruitment should look like in practice, including proper training for agents on English standards
• The importance of self-assessment of English
• The need to prepare students not just to pass a test, but to succeed on their chosen course

We also touched on a persistent gap: providing English language support isn’t enough — meaningful take-up is what really counts.

But the overriding message was a positive one. There is a huge amount of good work happening in test development and integrity. The task now is to raise the bar further — with clarity, consistency, and transparency.

At ELSAA, we’re always pleased to see clarity in how governments and institutions set their English-language requirements. But the recent update from Australia’s Department of Home Affairs raises an important question for all test score users.

Australia now accepts only TOEFL iBT Australia, a version test-takers must specifically select during registration to ensure their results are valid for visa purposes. ETS itself confirms that as of 21 January 2026, only this dedicated version meets DHA requirements.

What remains unexplained is why ETS has chosen to retain this more academic, legacy-aligned version exclusively for the Australian market, while withdrawing it elsewhere.

If a stronger, more academically robust format is deemed necessary for high-stakes migration and study decisions in Australia, why is that same standard not being maintained for other countries and organisations relying on TOEFL scores?

At ELSAA, we believe all test score users should not simply accept test provider narratives. They should interrogate differences in test versions, validation standards, security models, and score interpretations, especially when inconsistencies appear across markets.

These decisions matter — and transparency matters even more.

https://lnkd.in/eXsRHDD

At ELSAA, we would urge considerable caution in adopting or interpreting the new TOEFL 0–6 scores, particularly when mapping them back to the former 1–120 scale. There is currently very little publicly available evidence explaining how these new scale points have been equated, what data underpins the cross-mapping, or whether a highly compressed scale can meaningfully differentiate between proficiency levels. Without that transparency, test users risk making assumptions that the evidence simply does not yet support.

This matters because setting appropriate TOEFL score requirements — or any test score thresholds — is crucial. These scores are often used as a key indicator of a student’s readiness to study in English and directly influence admissions, placement, and progression decisions.

With the introduction of the new 1–6 TOEFL iBT scale, institutions need to ensure that their minimum requirements are properly aligned to the CEFR and to their previous 0–120 thresholds. If they are not, institutions risk either excluding capable applicants or admitting students who may struggle without adequate support.

A score scale that compresses all performance into seven points (0–6) also raises questions about granularity. When quite different section-score profiles can round to the same overall score — and then all convert to the same legacy score — we end up with an illusion of precision that the underlying scale cannot meaningfully provide.

For universities and other high-stakes decision-makers, that reduction in diagnostic information is far from trivial.

If thresholds are set too high or too low, the consequences are real: inequitable access, misplacement into inappropriate courses, poorer academic performance, and delayed or disrupted progression. These errors can have long-term implications for both access and academic success.

Given the limited evidence currently available — and the lack of independent validation studies, robust concordance research, or clear methodological justification — test users should be extremely careful not to over-interpret these converted scores or adopt new cut-points simply because the converted numbers look familiar.

Until more data is released, caution, transparency, and critical scrutiny should remain the guiding principles for anyone interpreting or applying the new TOEFL 1–6 scale.

In recent years, the English language testing landscape has seen a noticeable shift. Many providers are racing to develop shorter, faster, and sometimes less academically focused tests — often marketed as more “convenient” for students and institutions alike.

But at ELSAA, we believe it’s time to pause and ask an important question: Convenient for whom — and at what cost?

As educators, test developers, and gatekeepers of academic readiness, we have a duty of care to ensure that the assessments used for university admission genuinely reflect the skills students need to thrive in an academic environment.

Academic success requires:

• Extended reading stamina
• The ability to produce coherent, well-structured writing
• Critical listening for nuance and detail
• Effective spoken communication in complex, unfamiliar contexts
• The resilience to manage multi-step academic tasks

These skills simply cannot be measured reliably in short tests, nor in formats that prioritise speed over depth. When tests become too short or overly simplified, two groups lose out:

1. The Students
A “pass” on an under-powered test may feel like a quick win, but it can set students up for real challenges once they enter a demanding academic environment. Inadequate English language preparation leads to stress, underperformance, and, in the worst cases, student withdrawal or visa complications.

2. The Universities
Institutions rely on admissions tests as assurance of academic readiness. When test standards drop, the risk of admitting students who are not fully prepared increases — impacting student outcomes, programme quality, and institutional reputation.

At ELSAA, our stance is clear: Quality, fairness, and academic integrity must come before convenience. A language test is more than an administrative hurdle: it is one of several safeguards for student success, and a foundation for academic excellence.

We remain open to exploring all newly developed tests that meet stringent criteria for academic success, and place a duty of care before convenience.

The recent IELTS Official research report comparing the new TOEFL iBT with its earlier version — and with IELTS — raises some important points that the wider academic and admissions community will need to digest carefully.

At ELSAA we’ve long argued that comparing different language tests is already a bit like comparing apples with oranges. Each test is built on its own construct, its own view of what language proficiency is, and its own design philosophies. Concordance tables can be helpful, but they are always approximations.

However, when one of the “apples” undergoes a major redesign, any meaningful comparison becomes even more tenuous. And according to this report, the new TOEFL represents exactly that — a significant construct shift.

The concerns highlighted are not minor tweaks around the edges; they touch on the very foundation of what the test claims to measure. Several points stand out:

• The c-test item reflects a very narrow construct, far removed from the broader communicative principles that underpin academic study skills.
• Including daily-life reading items introduces construct drift and risks misleading equivalences with IELTS and earlier TOEFL versions.
• Shorter reading and listening passages may no longer reflect extended academic comprehension, a core requirement at B2 and above.
• The new email task appears to test only surface-level production rather than strategic written communication, where ordering and organisation of text are key.
• Persistent ambiguity around automated scoring further complicates reliability claims.

The reality is that many institutions worldwide have not yet published cut scores for the new TOEFL. This hesitation is understandable. When the underlying test has changed substantially, the old concordance tables simply can’t be relied upon, and institutions are right to exercise caution.

At ELSAA, we welcome rigorous discussion about test design and the assumptions we make about comparability. If anyone would like a breakdown of what these construct changes mean for admissions, skills readiness, or curriculum alignment, we’re happy to help.

We welcome the UK Government’s newly published Review of English Language Assessment Methods, which underscores the critical role of English proficiency in supporting international student success and maintaining the integrity of UK immigration pathways. The review emphasises that English ability is “a cornerstone of the immigration system” and essential for students to successfully complete their studies.

The Government’s review is part of a wider effort to prevent abuse and ensure that HEPs are meeting the required English-language standards.

ELSAA endorses the aim to promote:

• Clearer standards for evaluating student proficiency
• Greater consistency in how HEPs assess English, whether internally or via external tests
• Stronger oversight to ensure assessments genuinely reflect the language demands of UK higher education

These goals are central to our own frameworks, which emphasise alignment with CEFR (Common European Framework of Reference), evidence-based proficiency descriptors, and fair, accessible test design.

ELSAA strongly supports the Government’s intention to strengthen assessment oversight and promote fair, transparent, and reliable English-language evaluation practices. As the review process continues, ELSAA stands ready to contribute expertise in assessment standards, quality assurance, and evidence-based proficiency frameworks.

https://lnkd.in/enJYdu2N