The Changing Landscape of International Schooling: Implications for theory and practice 2014003124, 9780415737982, 9781315817705

Citation preview

The Changing Landscape of International Schooling

The number of English-medium international schools that deliver their curriculum wholly or partly in the English language reportedly reached 6,000 in January 2012. It is anticipated this number will rise to over 11,000 schools by 2022, employing over 500,000 English-speaking teachers. The number of children being taught in these schools reportedly reached 3 million in March 2012. Alongside this phenomenal growth the landscape of international schooling has changed fundamentally, moving away from largely serving the children of the ex-pat and globally mobile business community and embassies, towards serving the ‘local’ children of the wealthy and emerging middle class. This has been reflected in the shift away from non-profit ownership by the school community towards ownership by for-profit companies and proprietors. In this book, Tristan Bunnell explores the changing landscape of international schooling and discusses the implications of these changes, both in terms of theoretically conceptualizing the scale, nature and purpose of the field, and in terms of practically serving and administering the growing industry that international education is becoming. The Changing Landscape of International Schooling will be worthwhile reading for researchers, academics and students of international schooling, leaders and teachers in international schools, and those interested in the broader development of international education. Tristan Bunnell has been Head of Economics at the Copenhagen International School, Denmark, since 2004, following a 14-year period at the International School of London, UK. He is currently a part-time Teaching Fellow at the University of Bath, UK.

Routledge Research in International and Comparative Education

This is a series that offers a global platform to engage scholars in continuous academic debate on key challenges and the latest thinking on issues in the fast growing field of International and Comparative Education. Books in the series include: Teaching in Primary Schools in China and India Contexts of learning Nirmala Rao, Emma Pearson and Kai-ming Cheng with Margaret Taplin A History of Higher Education Exchange China and America Teresa Brawner Bevis National Identity and Educational Reform Contested classrooms Elizabeth Anderson Worden Citizenship Education around the World Local contexts and global possibilities Edited by John E. Petrovic and Aaron M. Kuntz Children’s Voices Studies of interethnic conflict and violence in European schools Edited by Mateja Sedmak, Zorana Medaric´ and Sarah Walker Culture, Transnational Education and Thinking Case studies in global schooling Niranjan Casinader The Changing Landscape of International Schooling Implications for theory and practice Tristan Bunnell

The Changing Landscape of International Schooling

Implications for theory and practice

Tristan Bunnell

First published 2014 by Routledge 2 Park Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon OX14 4RN and by Routledge 711 Third Avenue, New York, NY 10017 Routledge is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group, an informa business © 2014 T. Bunnell The right of T. Bunnell to be identified as author of this work has been asserted by him in accordance with sections 77 and 78 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988. All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted or reproduced or utilised in any form or by any electronic, mechanical, or other means, now known or hereafter invented, including photocopying and recording, or in any information storage or retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publishers. Trademark notice: Product or corporate names may be trademarks or registered trademarks, and are used only for identification and explanation without intent to infringe. British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Bunnell, Tristan. The changing landscape of international schooling : implications for theory and practice / Tristan Bunnell. pages cm – (Routledge research in international and comparative education) 1. International schools. I. Title. LC1090.B773 2014 370.117–dc23 2014003124 ISBN: 978-0-415-73798-2 (hbk) ISBN: 978-1-315-81770-5 (ebk) Typeset in Bembo by Cenveo Publisher Services

Contents

Acknowledgements List of Abbreviations

vi vii

1

An overview of the current situation

1

2

The previous landscape as revealed by the literature

18

3

The challenges in reporting the changing landscape

34

4

Viewing the developments within a globalization framework

46

5

Viewing the developments within a capitalism framework

59

6

The changes in operation explored in detail

70

7

The major implications for theory

87

8

The major implications for practice

121

9

Concluding remarks and issues of concern

140

Bibliography Index

158 182

Acknowledgements

I should thank Professor Jeff Thompson and Dr Mary Hayden for giving this project their support and for allowing me to use the July 2013 Ed.D Summer School at the University of Bath as a ‘sounding board’ for some of the issues discussed in this book, alongside a seminar in September 2013. Professor Thompson kindly commented on the draft of Chapter 3 and offered his valuable thoughts on the concept of a new era (tentatively titled in this book ‘post-Ideal’). This book was largely written in the library of the University of Bath in the hot summer of 2013 and I received help from librarians there in accessing copies of journals and research theses. I would like to thank my ex-International School of London colleague Dr Richard Pearce for giving me an advance copy of the Bloomsbury Academic book, with pagination. Anne Keeling, and ISC Research, gave me valuable up-to-date figures and the latest projections for the field.

List of abbreviations

Association for the Advancement of International Education Association of American Schools in Mexico The Association of American Schools in South America Association of German International Schools Alliance for International Education Association of International Schools in Africa US State Department’s Office of Overseas Schools Alliance for International Education Academy for International School Heads Association of South East Asian Nations Association of American Schools in Mexico The British Schools Group The British Schools in the Middle East Commission on American and International Schools Abroad The Indian Central Board of Secondary Education Council of Internationally Accredited Schools Australia Council of British International Schools The Council of British Independent Schools in the European Communities CoIS Council of International Schools DfE UK Department for Education EARCOS The East Asia Regional Council of Schools ECIS European Council of International Schools ESOL Educational Services Overseas Limited FOBISSEA The Federation of British International Schools in South and East Asia GEMS Global Education Management Systems Education Ltd GESF Global Education and Skills Forum IB International Baccalaureate IESPP International Education System Pilot Project IPSEF International and Private Schools Education Forum ISA International Schools Association AAIE AASM AASSA AGIS AIE AISA A/OS AIE AISH ASEAN ASOMEX BSG BSME CAISA CBSE CIASa COBIS COBISEC

viii

List of abbreviations

ISC ISG ISI ISS KHDA LISA MSACS NABSS NEASC Ofsted QSI SGIS UNESCO WCL WASC YCEF

Independent Schools Council International Schools Group Independent Schools Inspectorate International Schools Services Knowledge and Human Development Agency (Dubai) London International Schools Association Middle States Association of Colleges and Schools National Association of British Schools in Spain The New England Association of Schools and Colleges UK Office for Standards in Education, Children’s Services and Skills Quality Schools International The Swiss Group of International Schools United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization The World Class Learning Group Western Association of Schools and Colleges Yew Chung Educational Foundation

Chapter 1

An overview of the current situation

The statistical milestones The significance of 2012

The study of the field of International Schooling has always been an imprecise science. The ‘field’ (the use of this term will be explained later) defies exact classification and categorization. There is little consensus opinion on terminology and frameworks, even with regard to pedagogical issues. Carder (2013 p.86), for instance, has pointed out that there are at least 10 different terms and acronyms used in ‘International Schools’ (this term will also be defined later) to generically describe students who have ‘English as a second language’. One of the aims of this book is to ‘tighten’ the terminology used to describe the landscape and offer new conceptual frameworks that might help to better understand the changes. For example, the concept of an ‘Ideal’ and ‘post-Ideal’ era of activity will become a common theme, and is offered for further discussion and thought. Also, the field is an incredibly diverse – one encompassing a multitude of different institutions, all operating under a vague and increasingly less-relevant umbrella term of ‘International Education’, or the lesser-used ‘Education in an International Context’. In this context the field is constantly evolving, and new typologies appear. All the statistical references in this book are both contestable and subject to constant change. It is impossible to precisely view the field at any point in time. Furthermore, this field is cluttered with an everincreasing alphabet-soup of abbreviations as organizations and networks evolve, and readers should consult the ‘List of abbreviations’. In spite of these major conceptual hurdles, the year 2012 had revealed two statistical milestones that form the back-drop to this book. Although definitions are contested and categorizations conflict, Ian Hill (2011b p.8), the former Deputy Director-General of the Geneva-registered International Baccalaureate (IB), had commented that there were almost 6,000 ‘International Schools’ around the world. The accuracy of this figure was verified in January 2012 when the International Schools Consultancy Research (better known as

2

An overview of the current situation

ISC Research), the Oxfordshire-based organization with an office in Bangkok, that has researched and analysed data since 2004 (although its origins go back to 1978), had reported in its monthly online Newsletter that there were indeed according to its information now 6,000 English-medium schools that deliver its curriculum wholly or partly in English outside an English-speaking country throughout the world (Keeling, 2012a; 2012b). Much of the data in this book will have eminated from this organization. The relevancy and validity of ISC Research’s definition will be much questioned in this book (especially from an academic viewpoint), but reportedly the number of schools had doubled in the decade since 2002 (Keeling, 2012a). Nicholas Brummitt, Chairman and Founder of The International School Consultancy Group (of which ISC Research is a part) had said, in the first of his two articles published in the bi-annual International Schools Journal (ISJ), that the body of schools being mapped by his organization had risen from 1,700 in April 2000 to 3,876 in July 2006 (Brummitt, 2007 p.37). Ellwood (2007 p.6) had commented on how this analysis of the growth trends showed it was ‘an expansion that reads more like an explosion.’ I note that in January 2007, the ISC Research database was reporting 4,563 schools worldwide serving 2,070,187 students, in 187 countries. In other words, almost exactly 1,500 schools had been added over the five years from January 2007 until January 2012. The database was therefore adding about 100 schools per month at this time, and it was duly estimated in January 2007 that the 5,000 mark would be hit by 2012 (although this figure actually proved to be an underestimate). By contrast, at the turn of the Millennium there had reportedly been 2,584 International Schools, employing 90,000 staff. The average growth rate had begun by 2012 to fall, as one might expect statistically; in 2006, 2007 and 2008 the growth rate was 11%, but this was 8% by 2009. The number of schools had reached 5,187 by Autumn 2009 (Brummitt, 2009 p.13). When viewing such amazingly precise figures it should be considered that it had been said (Salter, 1999) that: ‘The International School is an enigma, eluding accurate description.’ The second major milestone in 2012 came when it was formally announced by ISC Research (22 March 2012) that the number of children attending the world’s 6,000 International Schools had passed the three million mark (Keeling, 2012c). This was an increase of two million over the past decade (Paton, 2012). The following day Britain’s Daily Telegraph had reported (Dixon, 2012a) on how the number of International Schools might increase to 10,000 by 2022. It is obviously difficult to identify how many children attend International Schools at any one point in time, but three decades ago Sanderson (1981) was estimating 600,000 students. The worldwide network was estimated by Matthews (1988) to be equivalent to the educational system of a nation of three to four million people, such as Norway. Pearce (1997 p.43) had later offered Denmark as the closest analogy. ISC Research in May 2013 was calculating

An overview of the current situation

3

3.2 million children, exactly equal to Denmark’s population, and which is almost exactly half the school population of the State of California (which was 6.63 million in 2010). It was calculated by Willis (2010 p.187) that six million children had attended International Schools between 1983 and 2009. By contrast, Leach (1969 p.180) had envisaged the creating of a single worldwide alumni network (presumably a feasible task at that point in time). ISC Research’s broad definition of an International School seems to confirm the notion that ‘English is the primary language of the global economy’ (Spring, 1998 p.27). The definition obviously excludes some activity in English-speaking countries such as Australia and England, but includes countries such as India and Hong Kong where the concept of an ‘English-speaking country’ is contentious. ISC Research openly admits there are a ‘number of grey areas’ (Brummitt, 2009 p.13) such as India and Pakistan where many schools teach in English, and schools in these countries are only included if they offer an international curriculum. This definition may not offer a totally accurate picture, but it is nevertheless a useful one for mapping trends. Ellwood (2007 p.5) had described ISC Research’s definition as having ‘a clarity that is attractively simple.’ Inspite of its usefulness as a ‘barometer’ of activity the definition used by ISC Research is academically controversial. It does not take into account previously accepted ‘norms’ of International Schooling such as promoting a philosophy of international-mindedness (Harwood and Bailey, 2012), or possessing a diversity of student and faculty body (Hayden and Thompson, 2000a). This may partly explain why so many other commentators appear to constantly underestimate the size of the field in comparison. Put simply, the figure of 6,000 schools is arguably a maximum one. The current statistics

The field has clearly come a long way since Leach (1969 p.15) was saying that: ‘The academic community has not yet become very much aware of the phenomenon known as the International School.’ The pace of growth in 2012 was shown by the fact that the January 2012 Newsletter from ISC Research had shown there were 307 schools in India. Thailand was featured in the September 2012 Newsletter, showing that 161 schools were educating 55,000 children. At the other extreme, by the end of 2012 there were 12 schools in Europe with less than ten International Schools and 25 African countries had less than five. Furthermore, central Africa stood out as having no International Schooling activity. The field in 2012 looked daunting to study, and has received very little geographical analysis (Kong, 2013), but it is actually easier to holistically conceptualize than first envisaged. A Pareto Analysis is useful since, over time, 20% of customers tend to account for 80% of sales (the Pareto ‘Rule’). In other words, growth tends to become concentrated over time, revealing the key

4

An overview of the current situation

customer base. The ISC Research database (16 November 2012) was showing that 6,400 International Schools were located in 236 countries. The largest 48 countries (20% of countries) accounted for 5,264 schools (82% of all the schools), an almost exact adherence to the Pareto ‘Rule’. In other words, the remaining 188 countries contained only 18% of all the schools. Only 19 of the 236 countries had more than 100 schools (11 in Asia, 4 in Europe, 2 in Africa, and 2 in the Americas). Together, these major 19 countries had 56% of all the schools. Furthermore, 16 city/states (nearly all in South-East Asia and the Middle East) had more than 50 schools, allowing for areas of fruitful case studies to be identified. It is worth listing them here for historical information (in November 2012, Dubai had 211 schools, Hong Kong had 167, Doha had 110, Bangkok had 100, Karachi had 97, Tokyo had 94, Shanghai had 91, Beijing had 76, Abu Dhabi had 74, Cairo had 72, Singapore had 66, Mumbai had 58, Lahore had 56, Ho Chi Minh had 53, and Jeddah had 51). In essence, International Schooling has become more of a global operation, but it is still not truly globalized. It appears to be becoming more concentrated in its core areas of activity thus conceptually the landscape has terrain and relief. International Schooling in Europe has also grown significantly, but ISC Research in January 2012 was anticipating future growth to be centred in Southern Asia; particularly in India and Pakistan, in Western Asia in parts of the United Arab Emirates (UAE), Egypt, Qatar and Saudi Arabia, in Eastern Asia; especially China, Hong Kong and South Korea, and in South East Asia in Vietnam, Thailand and Singapore. Even Myanmar was reported (Zin Htun, 2009) to have growing demand for International Schools. As stated by Pearce (2013 p.xvi): ‘There is evidence of a localization, even a popularization, of International Education in the developing world.’ To bring the growth of International Schooling as immediately up-to-date as possible in this book, it should be noted that a press release from ISC Research (2 September 2013) had commented on the potential outlook for the 2013–2014 academic year. At the beginning of that new school year there were 6,717 International Schools employing over 315,000 staff educating 3.4 million students. At that point in time, ‘Brand Dubai’ (Bagaeen, 2007) alone involved 230 schools plus another 93 were located in Abu Dhabi. Singapore had a further 70. As will be seen later in the next chapter, this meant that these three ‘countries’ (and Emirates) alone had a combined total (393) of International Schools that was almost equal to the world total calculated by Martin Mayer, and Robert Leach, in the early 1960s. These two seminal surveys, offering a rich narrative of contrast with the current landscape, will subsequently form in this book the benchmark for discussing the fundamental changes that have occurred in the field. There are those who argue that neo-liberal globalization is not sustainable (e.g. Rizvi and Lingard, 2010) yet commentators on International Schooling seem confident that the field will continue to expand exponentially. Global demand for international Higher Education is also expected to rise, from 2.173

An overview of the current situation

5

million in 2007 to 3.720 million in 2025 (figures cited in Krajewski, 2011). There was reportedly consensus at the International and Private Schools Education Forum (IPSEF) held in London in November 2011 that the field of International Schooling will continue to grow in the future by at least 5% each year: ‘International Schools have a promising future in the global education landscape’ (Nagrath, 2012 p.20). It was reported by ISC Research in October 2012 that by November 2022 a precise extrapolation of its data shows that the number of International Schools will expand to 11,331 (representing a 79% increase), the number of students will increase to 6.2 million, the number of staff to 529,000, and the annual fee income will reach almost USD60 billion (from USD20.4 billion in 2012). According to these estimates, the field will require approximately 23,000 teachers each year for the next decade, which in itself is a considerable and problematic under-reported task (Whitehead, 2012). To put this into context, this yearly figure was equivalent in 2012 to 4.7% of England’s total teaching force (Harrison, 2012). This is politically problematic given the potential recruitment ‘pool’ – research from a decade ago had shown that half of all teachers in International Schools were British or American (Canterford, 2003). Peterson (1987 p.200) had earlier commented on the ‘high preponderance of teachers from the UK in International Schools.’ At the same time, the UK in 2013 had a teacher shortage. England was reportedly 6,000 teachers ‘short’ and only 91% of teacher-training posts were filled (Ward, 2013). Also, it was reported (Williams, 2010) that between 2000 and 2007 over 25,000 teachers qualified in England but never actually entered the state sector. Many of these teachers may have entered the field of International Schooling instead. Fears of an ‘exodus’ from England’s schools to work abroad had already been expressed in the English popular press (e.g. Shepherd, 2009). The survey by the Varkey Gems Foundation Teacher Status Index in October 2013 which showed that UK head teachers had the highest level of respect of 20 industrialized countries, gave a clue as to where future administrators might come from (Stewart, 2013). As well as more competition between schools, there was evidence emerging in 2012 of greater competition between parents. The growth of local nationals wishing to attend International Schools is putting pressure on fees and placements in some cities. Britain’s Daily Telegraph had reported (Harper, 2012) on how globally there are insufficient places to meet demand and ‘ex-pats are now competing against local parents for International School places, which is driving fees skyward.’ In particular, Hong Kong, Dubai, Abu Dhabi and Doha all face huge pressure for school places. A third dimension of competition involves schools competing for the best teachers and leaders. The fourth meeting of the IPSEF, in London in November 2012, had raised concerns about teacher recruitment. It was reported in Relocate Magazine (26 November 2012) that concerns were raised by one delegate over the ‘adequacy let alone the sufficiency, of recruitment in the huge and growing market.’

6

An overview of the current situation

The key feature of Harvey’s (2006 p.95) ‘theory of capital accumulation’ is that ‘activity is expansionary and growth is accepted as both inevitable and good.’ However, not surprisingly, the future staffing of the field, both in terms of availability and effects, has become a legitimate concern for some observers. To add a caveat, Hayden and Thompson (2013 p.11) have prophesized that the recruitment of expatriate teachers from countries such as England might not be as necessary in the future as is currently thought. On the other hand, teachers might be ‘pulled’ from other English-speaking countries in Africa: ‘Teachers trained in poorer countries are attracted to become expatriate workers employed in richer countries’ (Allan, 2013 p.187). This complicated issue will obviously need reviewing in any subsequent book about the field. In fact, the prospects for further growth may be even greater than predicted. The ISC Research Newsletter in November 2010 had commented on how ‘There are many reasons to believe that ISC forecasts are very conservative.’ China has certainly appeared on the International Schooling landscape. The ISC Research Newsletter in March 2010 had reported 249 schools in China serving 116,000 children and employing 12,400 staff. However, delegates including myself, at the Alliance for International Education (AIE) conference in Shanghai, October 2006, were informed by a spokesperson from the Chinese Ministry of Education that his country would need 3,000 International Schools by 2016 (this claim was duly verified by Brummitt, 2007 p.38) and would need 10,000 International Schools in the near future. In other words, we could see another 9,000 schools appear in China alone, adding to the 11,000 International Schools that are expected to have appeared globally by 2020. As recently noted by Brummitt and Keeling (2013 p.30) ‘There are 200 million Chinese children who will need schools’ and ‘The proportion of these children wanting an internationally-oriented education will be very hard to satisfy with the current provision in China.’ In brief, at present it is not possible to fully understand the potential growth, and at least one commentator in China (Xuegin, 2011) has been openly cynical about the commitment to educational reform, although Pearce (2013 p.69) has prophesized that in 40 years’ time the ‘the dominant sponsor of International Schools could be China.’

The operational situation The change in demographics

The landscape of International Schooling has obviously changed dramatically over the past decade in terms of scale, but also in terms of nature and in ways largely unreported and under-discussed. This forms the main thesis of this book. One early preliminary study into what constitutes an ‘international attitude’ (Hayden and Thompson, 1995a p.389) had described the field as ‘the education experienced by growing numbers of children of parents who are

An overview of the current situation

7

internationally mobile and who wish their children to accompany them as they travel the world.’ A later survey (Hayden, Rancic and Thompson, 2000, quote taken from the Abstract) had identified International Schools as growing due to ‘a rapid rise in the numbers of globally mobile professional people whose children accompany them to a variety of postings worldwide.’ This view of the field, as catering mainly for the children of the transnational capitalist class (TNCC), is probably still a dominant one; International Schools are largely the ‘preserve of the wealthiest strata on the globe’ (Brown and Lauder, 2011 p.43). Indeed, International Schools have been seen as ‘transnational spaces’ (Hayden, 2011). However, the major clientele has changed fundamentally over the past few years and this change forms the underlying basis of this book. It is now commonly asserted that 80% of the clientele are now local/ national children, not ‘global nomads’; ‘it is the number of local children attending them that is causing most impact on the market’ (Keeling, 2012a p.19). This is seemingly a complete reversal: ‘thirty years ago, the market was dominated by ex-pat children’ (Keeling, 2012b p.6). It was said that: ‘Perhaps the biggest change in the International Schools market – other than the overall growth – is the demographic breakdown of the student population’ (Keeling, 2012a p.19). One of Jakarta’s main schools, the Global Jaya International School is made up of 85% ‘local’ nationals. By contrast, Leach (1969 p.148) had identified over 370 schools catering for about 100,000 children of which about 19,000 were ‘native’. In other words, Leach was estimating that about 20% of the clientele of International Schools were local children whilst 80% were ‘foreigners’ or ‘overseas’ children. Conversely, it would now appear to be justified to claim that this feature has completely reversed. Mayer (1968 p.154) had commented on how most International Schools were ‘predominantly American’ but a few ‘welcome the children of the other foreigners in town’ and ‘more than a third’ were local children. One survey of the International Schooling scene in London, in 1997, had revealed that of 11,600 children of 102 nationalities, 85% came from 12 countries. At the same time, two-thirds of the children were of a different culture to the school (Pearce, 1997 p.48). This scenario might now be described as a ‘traditional’ or ‘ideal’ one (the use of these terms will be explained and justified later). Research in the Indian context had concluded that: ‘Increasingly, schools are opening to serve the long-term resident as well as the expatriate population’ (Ranger, 2012, quote taken from Abstract). At least one recent study (Ng, 2012) has examined why ‘local’ parents choose an International School in Hong Kong, alongside Ezra’s (2007) study in Israel, and MacKenzie’s (2010) broader survey in five countries. MacDonald (2008 p.207) had correctly predicted that ‘it would seem likely that demand from local residents will increase as some begin to look towards International Education as a desirable alternative to other local educational options in this age of globalization.’ One editorial in the European Council of International Schools-published (ECIS)

8

An overview of the current situation

International School magazine (Rosengren, 1999 p.3) had identified a growth trend after the temporary decline of some students as a result of the economic and currency crisis in several Asian countries, stating that ‘many of our new students come from nearby.’ This change is in direct contrast to the change that had occurred in the early 1980s when many American-ethos International Schools began to move away from having a majority of children from a single nationality. Orr and Conlon’s (1985) survey of American overseas schools had concluded they were becoming ‘increasingly un-American’ and US citizen enrolment was reportedly about 30%, down from 50% in 1983 (cited in Jonietz, 1992 p.42). The changes to the field over the decade since 2002 can be neatly conceptualized when one considers that Choi (2004), writing about International Schools in South Korea, had observed that a troubling aspect was the dearth of academic discourse caused by the smallness of the field and the fact that such schools lie outside the mainstream local education system, serving mainly expatriate children. Neither of these two points held true in 2012 although the trend towards serving ‘locals’ was actually being identified a decade earlier. Yamato and Bray (2002) had commented on the growth of International Schooling in Hong Kong and had noted that the field was still small, but it was beginning to cater more for the local population. In a later book about Hong Kong, Yamato (2003 p.41) had commented on how ‘applicants from local families are on long waiting lists.’ The reason behind this fundamental change in demographics is complex and problematic. One ongoing major academic challenge involves ‘making sense’ of the changes over the decade since 2002. Pham (2009) in The New York Times had commented on how ‘despite hefty tuition fees, many have not only survived but prospered through the global economic crisis.’ There is evidence that the fall in house/land prices has led to some schools and companies expanding and investing. Indeed, one commentator (Altbach, 2013 p.9) has likened the growth of for-profit schooling with the ‘dot-com’ bubble of the late 1990s and the house-price bubble that ‘burst’ in 2007. Altbach’s thesis is that there has been an irrational-exuberance in terms of companies investing in schools and that the market could implode. In this context, the field of International Schooling could be identified as a ‘sub-prime’ one, subject at some point to over-inflated prices and falling demand. This might (unfortunately) form the basis of a future book. Brummitt was quoted (Nagrath, 2012 p.20) as remarking on how International Schools are defying economic trends: ‘One way some schools manage prospective declines has been to offer previously restricted placements to more local nationals, a direction often rejected in the past to preserve the international culture of their schools.’ This implies that the increase in ‘local’ children has not been planned or been necessarily welcomed. Economic conditions have adversely affected multinational corporations leading to a fall in demand from the ‘traditional’ client base. As noted by Shortland (2013 p.54),

An overview of the current situation

9

there has been ‘a fall in the proportion of assignees taking children with them on assignments.’ There obviously exists here scope for a more critical analysis of the reasons behind the growth. At the same time, one major change that has yet to be reported is that the movement towards ‘local’ children rather than ‘global nomads’ has perhaps reduced the annual turnover of children; this had been estimated at being 30% per year in many International Schools (Schaetti, 1999 p.14). The change in ownership

Alongside the change in demographics, the ownership of International Schools has also fundamentally changed. The ECIS-published 64-page booklet The Essential Guide for Teachers in International Schools (Langford, Pearce, Rader, and Sears, 2002) had a small section (on p.13) regarding the management of schools, yet had made no reference to companies, corporate networks, commercial groupings or for-profit entrepreneurs. Mayer (1968 p.155) had remarked that: ‘Nearly all American schools abroad are the creation of the parent community.’ However, by 2013 this type of comment had been changed to one of ‘most International Schools are for-profit’ (Brummitt and Keeling, 2013 p.30). One researcher had concluded about India that: ‘The fastest area of growth is in proprietorial schools, owned and governed by business entrepreneurs’ (Ranger, 2012 Abstract). MacDonald (2009a p.83) had remarked that ‘for-profit schools are seemingly becoming more common, especially in regions such as Asia.’ In fact, it is striking to think that all the schools added to the ISC Research database in 2009 were reportedly for-profit. This is in stark contrast to Ronsheim’s (1970) work which had derived a profile of International Schools from interviews and a survey of people in the field, and which had led to the conclusion that an International School did ‘not concentrate on a profit motive’ (cited in Jonietz, 1992 p.57). One commentator (Stitzlein, 2013) has openly questioned the degree to which the needs of for-profit schooling are compatible with the social goals of education, and this discussion might be ripe to begin in the context of International Schooling. It should be immediately said that the notion of ‘for-profit’ requires some degree of elaboration and further analysis. There has ‘been little in-depth study of International Schools as economic entities’ (MacDonald, 2008 p.192), and the same is true of the operation of companies owning such bodies. Many ‘traditional’ community-led International Schools do make a ‘profit’. Copenhagen International School, a seemingly typical ‘Type A’ ‘traditional’ (Hayden and Thompson, 2013) school, subsidized by the Danish Government, is allowed to make a small annual profit, yet it is not a ‘for-profit’ school as such. The issue seems to revolve around ‘how much profit does it make’ and ‘where exactly does the profit go’? The answers to these questions remain largely under-researched.

10

An overview of the current situation

The growing presence in Asia

By 2012, the huge disparity between countries and the general high level of growth in certain countries was becoming very evident. The ISC Research Newsletter for December 2012 had reported 376 schools in the UAE employing 25,400 teachers educating 343,000 students. Almost half (190) offered British curricula, 90 offered US curricula and the other 105 did an international variation. By contrast, the October 2010 Newsletter had shown how there were 319 schools in the UAE. The ISC Research Newsletter for November 2012 had focused on China. Here there were 338 schools (plus another 150 in Hong Kong) employing 18,000 teachers educating 184,000 children. A much smaller proportion of schools were offering British curricula (75 schools) compared to UAE, and more (82 schools) were offering US curricula. The October 2012 Newsletter had focused on India, revealing 322 schools there, of which 266 offered a British curricula. According to the ISC Research database in June 2013, of the 446 schools that had been added over the preceding 12 months, 57% had been located in Asia (including the Middle East). The next biggest grouping had appeared in the Americas (17%) followed by Europe (14%) and Africa (12%). In fact, Africa, from a relatively low base, had seen the second biggest growth (after Asia) in 2012 (Nagrath, 2012 p.20). The importance of Asia was further reinforced in October 2013, when the periodical The International Educator (TIE) had posted information on 386 job vacancies in 95 schools, of which 156 vacancies were in South-East Asia plus another 65 were in the Middle East, i.e. exactly two-thirds of the vacancies were in what ISC Research broadly identifies as ‘Asia’. Moreover, it was also being noted in September 2013 that countries such as Malaysia, China and Saudi Arabia looked set for huge growth in the near future as the field continues to attract investors and entrepreneurs (‘edupreneurs’) and caters more and more for ‘local’ children. The field looked set for a continuous ‘boom’ (Keeling, 2013). Malaysia in 2013 had eased the restrictions on ‘local’ children attending International Schools. In response to growing demand from middle class Chinese nations, many Chinese developers were reportedly seeking to create schools that are Chinese owned and run, that cater for Chinese students, and that deliver learning (entirely or in part) in English. Many, if not most, of the new schools will be operated by companies for-profit. To reiterate, this last point has received little critical attention, yet it is a fundamental and controversial shift in operation in what was previously seen as a non-profit area of education. The individual history of many International Schools is one of almost continuous growth and development. Several randomly collected stories from 2012 and 2013 should help to initially prove this point. The United Nations (UN) International School of Hanoi celebrated its twenty-fifth anniversary in February 2013. The school opened in 1988 with just 12 children and had

An overview of the current situation

11

grown to 1,012 in 2013 (Silva, 2013 p.2). China’s Hangzhou International School celebrated its tenth anniversary in February 2013. The numbers at that school change annually by 30–40%, yet overall the school had grown over the decade from an initial 8 to 360 students (Van der Eyken, 2013 p.8). The International School of Ulaanbaatar in Mongolia celebrated its twentieth anniversary in February 2013. The school began life in the basement of the Russian Cultural Centre, and has subsequently moved three times, now housed in a purpose-built facility (Stearns, 2013 p.18). The International School of Dakar grew from 270 students in 2007 to 425 in 2012, a 57% increase (Stinson, 2013). The breakaway from the International Baccalaureate

In any account of International Schooling, the programmes of the International Baccalaureate (IB) have a central place (Koons, 2013). As the ‘dominant Badge’ of International Schools, the IB has ‘been a rallying point for the movement’ (Pearce, 2013b p.xiv) and ‘central to the discourse’ (Pearce, 2013b p.xvii). However, this important linkage between International Schooling and the IB has fundamentally altered over recent years and this change forms another basis for this book. In September 2013, only 23% of all International Schools were offering IB programmes (private correspondence with ISC Research), and only 18% were doing the International Baccalaureate Diploma Programme (IBDP). In other words, ironically, by 2013 only one-fifth of International Schools globally were offering a curriculum programme designed by them, and intended for them. By contrast, in 1970, 80% of the IB ‘pilot’ schools were International Schools. In 2012, 22% of International Schools in Europe were offering English National Curriculum (Keeling, 2012a) whilst globally 43% of all schools were offering an alternative international curriculum such as the International Primary Curriculum (IPC). The year 2012 was a very significant one for the IB for a number of other reasons. Several statistical milestones were reached, e.g. the IB Americas region announced in March 2012 the authorization of its two-thousandth ‘IB World School’. This honour was awarded to South Texas Business, Education, and Technology Academy, reflecting the extent of growth in America, which is unreportedly a politically problematic one (see Bunnell, 2009; and Bunnell, 2012). But, probably foremost in importance is the fact that the initial programme, the IBDP, had been designed in the summer of 1962. That is to say, the summer of 2012 was in effect the fiftieth anniversary of the IBDP as an ‘experiment in International Education’ (Peterson, 1972), although the event in fact attracted little scholarly attention. The history of the IBDP has been extremely well told of late (see Ian Hill, 2010, for a comprehensive story of the ‘early years’), but it is worth telling the story of its ‘birth’ as it involved an interesting historical coincidence. The term

12

An overview of the current situation

‘IB’ was first used by Robert Leach (who has already featured much in this book) in a report he drew up for the Geneva-based International Schools Association (ISA), which had been established in Paris on 20 November 1951, but was then known as the International Schools Liaison Committee (until 1957). Here Leach had said: Until an international baccalaureate is operative, the essential ideal of the International School falls down in practice’ (Leach, 1962, cited in Ian Hill, 2010 p.36). Leach had been described as the ‘first promoter of the IB’ (Peterson, 1987 p.29), and his work at this time duly forms the foundation of this book. Alongside Leach’s report, the conference of social studies teachers sent a resolution to the ISA General Assembly ‘to explore the possibilities of a joint social studies examination, as a first step towards the establishment of basic standards’ (Peterson, 1972 p.10). The first IB course was in Contemporary History, the impetus for which came out of the Conference for Teachers of Social Studies in International Schools, held at the International School of Geneva (known colloquially as ‘Ecolint’) from 26 August to 1 September 1962 (Ian Hill, 2010 p.37) attended by 60 people (Leach, 1969 p.15). The role of the Geneva school cannot be overstated: ‘The initial work was undertaken by teachers at the International School of Geneva, rightly considered the place where the IB was spawned’ (Ian Hill, 2010 p.35). In Leach’s (1969 p.15) view, Ecolint was the ‘only International School that survived the Second World War.’ In fact, the event at Ecolint was one of two ‘projects’ occurring in summer 1962. An attempt was being made at the United World College of the Atlantic, in its castle base in south Wales, to create a broad and balanced ‘baccalaureate’ type programme. Here, Alec Peterson, previously director of the Department of Educational Studies at Oxford University, was working with Robert Blackburn, the school’s deputy headmaster: ‘During the summer of 1962, Peterson worked with him on the curriculum for the new school’ (Ian Hill, 2010 p.42). The IB emerged in Northern Europe: ‘The IB curriculum was initially developed in the European region mainly for European students in International Schools who had to move trans-nationally due to their parents’ jobs. Hence, its content and the curriculum were Euro-centric, which was natural, considering its origin and customers’ (Shin, 2012 p.17). This gives strong grounds for stating the IB was ‘born’ in 1962 rather than the more usually mentioned 1968, the point in time when the IB Organization (IBO re-branded as the ‘IB’ in 2007) was officially registered, also in Geneva, under Swiss Law. Apparently, the two ‘projects’ were oblivious of each other’s existence and did not ‘coincide’ until 1965. This story immediately reveals the fact that previously the IB was synonymous with International Schooling. It also reveals that historically the field within its IB context had a distinct Northern-European and UN/diplomatic nexus of operation. By 2012, it had a distinct Asian and commercial nexus of operation. This aspect of change is perhaps the most striking, both academically and philosophically.

An overview of the current situation

13

The emergence of an alternative supply chain

The UAE, which has undergone enormous internationalization of education (Madichie and Kolo, 2013), was in 2012 by far the biggest single market, with 400 International Schools being recorded by ISC Research in summer 2013. The 300 schools mark had been hit in February 2010. An indication of the growing educational importance of the UAE came when the inaugural Global Education and Skills Forum (GESF) occurred in Dubai in March 2013, and saw 500 delegates from 50 countries discussing the changing global demand for education. This forum, jointly organized by the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), The Commonwealth Business Council, the UAE Government and Global Education Management Systems Education Ltd (GEMS Education), has ambitions to be the ‘Davos-type’ event in education. This event seemed indicative of a growing sense of importance and a sign of how International Schooling has entered into a public-private partnership. One commentator (Swanson, 2013) has openly questioned the assumption regarding the ‘goodness’ and justice of global inter-connections and distributions of knowledge through International Educational organizations and structures worldwide. Following three meetings in London another forum, the IPSEF, which largely addresses the business and commercial interests of International Schooling, met in Kuala Lumpur, and then Dubai in March 2012. In January 2012, ISC Research had reported that the market in Asia and Middle East consisted of 3,270 schools with an annual fee income of GBP10.1 billion. This event was a further indication of a growing alternative supply chain: ‘The supply chain for the International School market is expanding rapidly too’ (Keeling, 2012b p.7). The IPSEF London Conference in November 2013 had key note speakers from Sovereign Capital and The Parthenon Group, strategic advisors to private equity funds. As noted by Harvey (2006 p.81) ‘New institutional arrangements are constantly being constituted’ as capitalism modifies itself. Together, these two forums (GESF and IPSEF) seemed indicative of the emergence of a possible next phase for International Schooling, characterized by a fundamental fragmentation of the field between the ‘traditional’ nonprofit one catering for the expatriate communities and the for-profit one catering for (now at least) the wealthy local elite. Again, this tension might form the discussion in a later book. Schools such as Copenhagen International School, established in 1962 by the American Embassy and expatriate parents are still served in the main by what might now be deemed the ‘traditional’ supply chain, e.g. accredited by the Council of International Schools (CoIS) and the New England Association of Schools and Colleges (NEASC); sponsored by the American Office of Overseas Schools (O/OS); membership of ECIS and the Academy for International School Heads (AISH); job-placements via Search Associates’ January job fair in London; administration training via the Massachusetts-based

14

An overview of the current situation

Principals’ Training Center (PTC). Hayden (2006 pp.152–154, and p.104) had listed five of these networks (e.g. AISH, CoIS, ECIS, PTC, Search Associates) as comprising ‘The global community’. Garton (2002 p.156) had also identified membership of these networks as being the ‘common characteristics’ of the field. The generic ‘interests’ of schools such as the one in Copenhagen remain internal fund raising, quality assurance and recognition, job-placements and in-service training; whilst the commercially operated groupings are more likely to be interested in marketing, investment and leasing ventures. In this context, two ‘landscapes’ are now opening up for viewing. Put bluntly, the UAE and Dubai (termed the ‘City of Gold’ by Krane, 2009) in particular had by 2012 become the new epicentre of International Schooling, whilst the field had begun to create a platform for both greater impact and fragmentation. The speed at which change has occurred can be linked to the notion of ‘dromology’, as coined by the French cultural theorist Paul Virilio. Within the context of Virilio’s (1986) conceptual framework, the field of International Schooling has been transformed by a fast-appearing model of schools which has overtaken the slower moving ‘traditional’ model. In time, the faster moving model will come to dominate. Hayden and Thompson (2013 p.16) have already commented on how the ‘Type C’ ‘nontraditional’ school is beginning to overtake the two more ‘traditional’ types (this latest typology forms the essence of discussion in this book). The emergence of quality concerns

Another under-reported International Schooling phenomenon was revealed in Spring 2012 when Relocate Magazine had reported on a huge growth of ‘British-ethos’ schooling overseas, especially in China and the Middle East. The Daily Telegraph in October 2012 had carried a report (Paton, 2012) on how there had been a surge in ‘British-style schools’ overseas. It was being reported in August 2013 that the British schools overseas were worth GBP960 million to the British economy (Exley, 2013). Lynch (2008) had earlier reported on how ‘British schools abroad are booming’, and apparently numbered over 2,000, although another report (Shepherd, 2009) had shown how ISC Research identified the growth of British schools abroad had gone from 1,282 in 2006 to 2,129 in 2009. This is a significant change. Leach (1969 p.145) had identified that 40% of all schools were American (plus 40% were French or German overseas schools) and concluded that: ‘It is this very American prevalence which makes the growth of the genuine International School so vital.’ The ethos of even the British schools abroad has apparently changed. To repeat, Lynch (2008) had reported on the ‘booming’ number of 2,000 schools, but had also noted: ‘Moreover, the culture of the British school abroad has undergone radical change.’ This article reported upon how such schools nowadays not only serve the British ex-pat community, but are modern, and boast a mix of nationalities.

An overview of the current situation

15

It should be noted that the figure of ‘2,000 schools’ is highly disputable: ‘The number of British schools is difficult to ascertain, they are not a homogenous group’ (Bagnall, 2008 p.34). Like any statistics in this field, caution on what is ‘fact’ should be observed. Yet, Asia alone was expected to have 1,600 British schools by 2013 (Lynch, 2008). The group Orbital Education, founded in 2005, operates seven British-style schools in Moscow, Budapest, Seoul and Palma de Mallorca. In September 2013, Orbital opened its newest school, Britannica International School, in Shanghai. About the same time, Connaught Education, a specialist recruiter to the independent education sector in the UK had announced the launch of a Shanghai office. Alongside this under-reported major development, there was growing evidence in 2012 of ‘disquiet’ about possible falling standards, and the British Government in particular seems keen to impose greater control over the identification of a ‘British’ education overseas. In May 2012, the Dubai Knowledge and Human Development Agency (KHDA) had announced an agreement with the British Government to deliver inspections of the then 54 British curriculum-based schools in Dubai. From henceforward, schools in Dubai wishing to be classified as ‘British’ must be prepared to meet British School Overseas (BSO) approval through inspection, which in October 2013 involved seven approved agencies (e.g. Penta International, and the Independent Schools Inspectorate (ISI)). The important issue of growth compromising standards had arisen in 2012, creating space for the argument that the growth of International Schooling may not have discernible barriers but it has certain limits. In July 2012, the Times Educational Supplement (TES) contained an editorial (Kelly, 2012) calling for the British Government to create a separate department for visiting, accrediting and supporting overseas schools, and warned that: ‘if it does nothing, not only does it dice with the future of a vibrant British business and the employment of 80,000 UK teachers, is also risks undermining an incredibly effective advertisement for British culture.’ The notion that International Schooling is not a guaranteed idyllic adventure was being highlighted by 2012. The TES had another story (Vaughan, 2012) titled ‘Sun, sea and cockroaches’ in which it recounted ‘horror stories’ by British teachers who had ‘escaped’ to work in International Schools in the Middle East. One teacher described her school as ‘like a prison’ and recounted how she had been hired to teach a subject and arrived to find she had been given another one without warning. More importantly perhaps, the story revealed how the largest network provider, CoIS, only covered about 10% of the field amongst its members and only half of these were actually accredited and evaluated by the organization. The CoIS website in December 2013 was listing just ten accredited member schools in Dubai, yet ISC Research was identifying 230 schools in that country. India had another ten accredited schools, and South Korea had a further two. By contrast, Germany had 18. In other words, by 2012 it was becoming clear that the growth of the

16

An overview of the current situation

field, especially in Asia, has generally out-paced the ability of the accreditation agencies to inspect. An Ed.D Thesis (Sheppard, 2011, quote taken from the Abstract) had openly concluded that ‘Governance structures and practice have not been able to keep pace with the increasing complexity of types of International Schools.’ At the same time, the differentiated fee model being practiced in Dubai (more on this later) requires that few schools (i.e. the ‘premier’ ones) should be accredited. It is not in the interests of for-profit network operators (e.g. GEMS Education) to have every school of the same standard since then they are all competing with each other. The TES article had asserted that ‘the rights of individual teachers can be minimal’ in International Schools and this was ‘because of the lack of a central body to oversee the quality of schools.’ Mohan’s (2012) research into teachers’ wellbeing in International Schools in Bangkok had showed that this was a stressful environment. In short, standards of employment still differ enormously across the field. This seems one area where little change in the nature of operation has occurred. It is still an uneven and unpredictable one. Not too surprisingly given the issues mentioned above, there were signs in 2012 that the field had started to receive a new research focus. Resnik (2012a, Abstract) had pointed out how International Education in its elementary and post-elementary schooling context, rather than the more normal Higher Education or Comparative Education context, is ‘an emerging and promising field of sociological enquiry’ (Resnik, 2012a). Yamato (2003 p.87) had a decade earlier concluded that it was ‘a fascinating domain for comparative analysis of education.’ It appears that the linkage between International Schooling and government policy-making has particularly recently caught the attention of sociological commentators. Dolby (2012) had also identified a viable research agenda emerging for this dimension of International Education, which is regarded as a ‘discourse’ rather than an ‘educational philosophy’ (Allan, 2013 p.183).

The outline of this book This book approaches the changing landscape within its different ‘contexts’. Chapter 1 has dealt with the historical context of this book bringing the ‘story’ as up-to-date as possible, and setting the scene for understanding the changing landscape as a completely new state of affairs. The landscape in 2012 had undergone enormous change. But, it has been seen already how growth brings challenges and a closer critical lens of inquiry. Chapter 2 will explore the literature context of this book and discusses how the field has changed when compared to earlier reports and surveys. The significant earlier work of Mayer (1968), and Leach (1969), will be introduced as pivotal reports, setting the scene for identifying a previous dominant landscape, one characterized by an ‘Ideal’ era of activity. The current landscape therefore logically becomes a

An overview of the current situation

17

‘post-Ideal’ one. Chapter 3 discusses the difficulties facing the researcher. This dimension of education lacks precise and consensus academic terminology and the field is still barely examined outside a biased and largely ‘friendly’ lens of inquiry. Chapter 4 begins the theoretical discussion about the reasons for the growth. The field is inextricably linked to the forces of ‘globalization’, and the current phase (called ‘Kondratieff Wave 5’ in this book) has facilitated ‘space’ (Harvey, 2006) for enormous growth in scale and nature, especially in countries previously ‘missing’ from the scene, such as Dubai and China. Likewise, Chapter 5 deals with the political context. The current phase of ‘capitalism’ (called the ‘low risk’ and ‘predatory’ phase’ in this book) has offered rapid capital accumulation in a period of economic decline. Moreover, the field has proven itself to be effectively ‘recession-proof’. There is seemingly a profit to be made in International Schooling, whatever the global economic climate. Therefore, the emergence of the ‘Type C’ ‘non-traditional’ (Hayden and Thompson, 2013) type of International School (e.g. Repton School Dubai) has been a logical and inevitable outcome of the current phases of globalization and capitalism. Chapter 6 introduces the major operational changes that have occurred in reality. The fundamentally-changed landscape exists in reality and is not merely a theoretical proposition. There have been major changes in both the scale and nature of activity. Moreover, alongside the obvious changes (demographic, geographical and ownership), there have been a number of more subtle and potentially controversial changes. Chapters 7 and 8 discuss some of the major implications, for theory and practice. In short, many of the models used to conceptualize the field are now in part redundant whilst many of the former leading ‘players’ in the field (e.g. ECIS, ISA, Council of British International Schools (COBIS), AISH) have become marginalized and partly disenfranchised. They no longer legitimately represent the field. At the same time, nor does any other organization. The field, previously viewed as constituting a spectrum of philosophical approach, needs reconceptualizing as having both breadth and depth (i.e. with ‘tiers’ of schools). In other words, the field has become more threedimensional. At the same time, the field is still not preparing educators for service; there is still no discernible sense of a contractual or employment ‘system’ in spite of such calls going back explicitly to Peterson (1972). Chapter 9 draws together the major conclusions. In particular, there are profound implications for the ongoing project to create an ‘alliance’ (e.g. AIE) within this dimension of education.

Chapter 2

The previous landscape as revealed by the literature

The significance of the 1960s The significance of Leach and Knight (1964)

The year 2014 marked the fiftieth anniversary of an important piece of literature. Although the ‘first’ International School has been traced back to the 1860s (Sylvester, 2002), the first appearance of the general field in literature was seemingly in the 1964 Year Book of Education produced jointly by the Universities of London and Colombia. This volume, almost 500 pages long, had a 14-page chapter (reflecting its relative un-importance at the time) written by two educators (Leach and Knight, 1964) at Ecolint on the topic of ‘education and international life’, and had identified International Schools as a ‘new concept’. In that chapter Michael Knight had discussed University entrance needs and Robert Leach had presented a seven-way criterion for categorizing International Schools (a body they identified as being about 50-strong). In particular, Leach had stressed that such a school was largely composed of students from several nationalities. Moreover, such schools were deemed to be non-profit. Although obviously only a very short section of the 1964 Yearbook, the chapter marked an epoch in literature and concluded that International Schooling was ‘not only short on means and not far reaching enough in its spread’ (cited in Hayden, 1998 p.2). The 1964 Yearbook had revealed a very small, parochial and elitist (although partly idealistic) clientele served in the main by the International Schools Association (ISA). Furthermore, these schools served a distinct clientele. Jonietz and Harris (1991) had noted in the Preface to their book when referring to the 1964 book: ‘The contents of the volume imply that only politicians, diplomats, missionaries and volunteer social welfare organizations really go overseas.’ An introductory celebration of the 1964 Yearbook helps set the scene for conceptualizing the extent to which the landscape has fundamentally changed over the preceding five decades. There also existed at this time a definite ‘top tier’ of schools. Ecolint had been a founder member of the 1949 UNESCO-convened Council of

The previous landscape as revealed by the literature

19

Internationally-Minded Schools, but after 1953 had ‘played no role whatsoever in its activities’ (Leach, 1969 p.33). Alongside Ecolint, the major ‘players’ in the field in 1964 included the United Nations International School (UNIS) in New York, a ‘sister school’ begun in 1947 from the proceeds of the sale of the Geneva school’s land after it went almost bankrupt (Walker, 2000 p.192). Along with Atlantic College these schools were the ‘three pillars’ (Peterson, 1972 p.16) of the International Baccalaureate (IB) experiment beginning in 1962 revealing the extent to which the field largely existed within an IBDP sphere of activity. The significance of Mayer (1968)

Martin Prager Mayer (1928– ) is a prolific and versatile author and his work includes several recent books about the financial crisis since 2007. Mayer’s (1968 p.7) preliminary study titled Diploma identifying the role for the IB (i.e. asking ‘is there a real need for a universal curriculum?’) had surveyed the field for almost three years between late-1964 and mid-1967. It was a difficult task, involving what was largely ‘a distasteful personal experience’ (Mayer, 1968 p.6). Mayer had deduced from ‘rather tentative data’ that there were about 400 schools around the world ‘established at least in part for the benefit of the children of a temporarily expatriated community’ (Mayer, 1968 p.10) educating approximately 250,000 children ‘drawn very largely from the intellectually, economically and socially prominent families’ (Mayer, 1968 p.11). There were many ‘struggling and confused schools’ (Mayer, 1968 p.219). Terwilliger (1972) had also identified about 400 International Schools (cited in Jonietz, 1992 p.34). Peterson (1987 p.xii) had described Mayer’s report as ‘the only objective, though sometimes very critical description of the early days of the IB.’ Mayer had concluded (Mayer, 1968 p.4) that the IB venture ‘was in truth interesting’ but that ‘its organization was weak.’ Mayer had discovered a tense and confrontational scene. Furthermore, Mayer (1968 p.75) had identified some ‘teething’ problems facing these schools, such as ‘bad accounting practice’ and ‘unwise decisions’. Many of these schools had sections undertaking different examinations leading to tensions and ‘explosive confrontations’ (Mayer, 1968 p.78). One school in Buenos Aires had experienced children being ‘violently prejudiced’ against their peers in another section doing less homework (Mayer, 1968 p.34). Caffyn (2011 p.64) has stated that International Schools often ‘enable political conflict.’ In other words, there was indeed a need for a pragmatic programme that the whole school could teach and perform, i.e. something that would unite the school. The notion of International Schools lacking a coherent ‘system’ is thus a longstanding one. Mayer had excluded military schools (consisting then of 300 units) in his survey, but had included the French overseas ones (not part of ISC Research’s

20

The previous landscape as revealed by the literature

current analysis). He had also deduced that ‘about half the total 400 schools would be American’ (Mayer, 1968 p.10). In fact, Mayer (1968 p.154) had deduced that there might be 250 American-ethos schools abroad educating 75,000 children and had remarked upon the ‘Americanization’ of International Schooling’ (Mayer, 1968 p.11). Leach (1969 p.29) had commented on how: ‘The International School of Frankfurt is wholly American in orientation.’ These comments are highly significant in light of the more recent trend towards ‘British-ethos’ schooling highlighted in the preceding chapter of this book. The field as it had existed five decades ago is well represented by Mayer’s lens of inquiry. Many of the schools were the ‘creation of an international organization’ (Mayer, 1968 p.26). Many had been created as a ‘deliberately International School’ not ‘tied to the requirements of any one culture’ (Mayer, 1968 p.25). There was no discernible ‘system’ of schools; many of the American overseas schools ‘have sprung up independently and each is a law unto itself’ (Mayer, 1968 p.155). The importance of Northern Europe at the time is revealed by the fact that Mayer had visited International Schools in 24 countries although ‘time was heavily concentrated in Europe’ (Mayer, 1968 p.7) as this was where the ‘significant’ schools were (aside from UNIS). He admitted that there are ‘some gaps in the coverage’ and no visits were made to ‘Asian nations east of the Mediterranean shore’ partly because most countries in Asia did not allow national students to attend International Schools and because the majority of schools there were ‘almost exclusively American in student population’ (Mayer, 1968 p.7). Mayer had focused his attention on schools that were ‘sponsored by the resident foreign community of the place where they are situated and those sponsored in part by government and intercultural agencies’ (Mayer, 1968 p.9). Plus, Mayer (1968 p.155) had concluded that: ‘Nearly all American schools abroad are the creation and the creature of the parent community.’ This comment is important in light of the recent growth of for-profit commercially-run schools. Mayer’s lens of inquiry would now be considered a very narrow one, focusing on a largely ‘traditional’ form of ‘Type-A’, or ‘ideological’ ‘Type-B’, International School (Hayden and Thompson, 2013 p.6). The significance of Leach (1969)

The year 1969 is seen as a ‘landmark year in terms of the literature describing International Education in any systematic manner’ (Sylvester, 2005 p.123). This was the year that Robert Judson Leach (1916–2004), a ‘widely-travelled American Quaker’ (Peterson, 1987 p.18) had published his seminal book International Schools and Their Role in the Field of International Education (Leach, 1969). It is worth mentioning the Quaker issue here, as a discernable religious bias lies throughout Leach’s book. Leach had surveyed the scope of the potential IB field (i.e. asking ‘how big is the potential market?’) and his book was undoubtedly important; it was ‘the first significant historical research on International

The previous landscape as revealed by the literature

21

Schools and their role in International Education’ (Sylvester, 2003 p.198). Furthermore, it was, ‘at the time, the solitary large-scale investigation’ (Sylvester, 2003 p.198) and ‘painted a broad stroke’ (Sylvester, 2003 p.199). Leach’s book however contained a major anomaly. Although his book had appeared in 1969, the Preface reveals that Leach had finished it by Summer 1967, whilst the research had occurred five years before that. That is to say, his findings were seven years old by the time the book was even published, which distorts the picture somewhat. He had been released by Ecolint in 1962, and after ‘three months of extensive travel’ had presented his findings. This is a significant issue to note as this means that Leach’s survey of the field was a little premature in terms of later developments. The field was in its early infancy; it developed and grew greatly between 1962 and 1965 (see Chapter 4 in this book), but this was all missed out by Leach’s survey – meaning that Mayer’s account of the field was arguably a more up-to-date and comprehensive one. Leach’s opening chapter dealt with ‘What is an International School?’ Here Leach broke down the field into four groupings. Leach (1969 p.7) noted that there existed a number of rather elite schools worldwide that ‘pride themselves on being internationally-minded’ and were indeed more international than the ‘run of the mill’ school, but were usually composed of students of one nationality, or mostly of one. A second grouping included the ‘overseas’ American schools serving in the main the expatriate community. A third grouping were the schools set up by government such as the French overseas schools, termed ‘unilateral’ International Schools by Leach (1969 p.12). The fourth grouping identified by Leach was the members of the ISA. This body had 40 members in 1969, up from 16 in 1960 (Leach, 1969 p.15). This number (40) obviously equated closely with the total field envisaged (50) by Leach and Knight (1964). It was an exclusive grouping; Mayer (1968 p.233) had been critical of the quest by the ISA to seek ‘international purity’. It was also largely American in nature; Leach (1969 p.24) had used the term ‘early Americanized’ to describe a number of schools. Mayer (1968 p.237) had said that most schools intending to offer the International Baccalaureate Diploma Programme (IBDP) were ‘Anglo-Saxon in origin.’ Within his broad, but also exclusive, framework Leach had listed (see 1969 pp.162–165) a total of 372 ‘International Schools’ worldwide, of which 76 were in Asia (including just 15 in the Middle East) educating approximately 80,000 children. Much of the evidence for this listing had come from a UNESCO publication, a 4,500-page four-volume World Survey of Education (compiled between 1958 and 1966). The only noticeable areas of activity at the end of the 1960s according to Leach’s extrapolations were in Geneva (11 schools), Rome (11), Paris (8), and Vienna (4). Indeed, Leach (1969 p.16) had stated in his book that Paris would be a good location for ISA headquarters, above Geneva. Intriguingly, Leach (1969 p.146) had described the scene in Baghdad, where the two American and three British schools in that small city

22

The previous landscape as revealed by the literature

‘obviously borders on absurdity.’ Ethiopia had nine schools listed, and Peru had five. There were seemingly no International Schools at the time of Leach’s studies in China and just two in Hong Kong. There was one school in Thailand and one in Singapore plus another one in Malaysia. London had two schools. Brazil had more schools than the entire Middle East. The UAE also had seemingly no International Schools at that time. This listing included a number of schools that would now not normally be included (e.g. French overseas schools) and so it might now be considered an overestimation, although Leach himself had said (p.152) that it constituted ‘probably a third of those which actually do exist.’ Both Leach and Mayer’s studies had identified an isolated and rather parochial body of diverse schools, which seemed to back up Merle Curti’s (1963) study on American Philanthropy Abroad which had not discussed education in depth, but had identified an isolated grouping of diverse schools overseas promoting international-mindedness. Mayer (1968 p.219) had commented on how ‘parochialism created false perceptions of reality.’ Leach (1969 p.25) had explicitly stated that: ‘Several International Schools have been created, as it were, in vacuo, and only later on have discovered that there were others.’ Leach (1969 p.9) had further commented on the ‘insulated’ nature of these schools. Put short, both Leach and Mayer had discovered a field in its structural infancy. Outside of the established bodies (e.g. Ecolint, UNIS) several schools in the mid-1960s were still operating in rather disorganized conditions sharing facilities with other schools. Mayer had painted an altogether unflattering picture of activity in Scandinavia. For instance, Mayer had visited Copenhagen, but he had not seemingly bothered to visit the fledgling Copenhagen International School, then (in 1964–1967) merely a single cabin in the playing field of a Danish state school. Instead he had visited one established school where ‘no serious effort has been made to build an academic program’ (Mayer, 1968 p.124). Mayer had visited a school in Sweden, but found it had a problem finding ‘competent and experienced English-speaking teachers’ (Mayer, 1968 p.125). Leach (1969 p.38) had even said of his school, the Geneva one, that ‘there is too much Swiss influence, too many British staff, too many American students.’ Furthermore, Leach (1969 p.38) said the tensions within his school were so great that it offered ‘a parody (of) internationalism.’ Neither of these writers had talked of identifying ‘outstanding’ schools (in terms of facilities or academic programme), although Mayer (1968 p.9) had said that ‘some of them are strong schools’, inferring that the field at the time was partly of a ‘good’ or ‘satisfactory’ standard. Mayer (1968 p.126) had commented on how many schools were ‘oddities’ and ‘rather like a scene from a Graham Greene entertainment’, presumably reflecting the diplomatic associations of many schools. Mayer (1968 p.130) had also commented on the high turnover of educators; the ‘slipshod’ and ‘money-losing’ International School of Milan had five different directors between 1959 and 1966. Leach (1969 p.42)

The previous landscape as revealed by the literature

23

had disparagingly referred to Atlantic College as being a ‘sport’ compared to other, presumably more serious, schools. Significantly, Leach (1969 p.45) had remarked that the growth of International Schools would in part be led by the ‘prospect that graduates of such institutions be assured of university placement.’ This was probably one of the first major observations of how the field had the possibility of drawing the attraction of a clientele outside of the ‘natural’ community of stakeholders, i.e. an emerging ‘local’ middle-class in countries seeking elite university placement. Harvey’s (2006 p.119) analysis on ‘capital accumulation’ might identify this as creating a ‘space of dreams, or aspiration.’ Bates (2011 p.148) had remarked on the ‘steady increase in the aspirations of parents and their children’ initially in developed, but then developing, countries. The notion of a ‘post-Ideal’ era

In the context of Mayer’ (1968) and Leach’s (1969) studies, one can identify beginning in the mid-1960s the emergence of an era (i.e. a distinctive period of time characterized by certain features and state of affairs) that might be termed ‘Mayerist’ or Leachist’, as in ‘Fordist’, the system of factory operation and production named after Henry Ford (1863–1947). The previous field, in short, was parochial and relatively sparsely populated with no major areas of operation (i.e. no city had beyond a dozen schools), American ethos in nature and serving in the main the globally mobile expatriate or diplomatic community. Schools were largely independent (i.e. operating alone, open to innovation) and largely private but community led (i.e. owned by the community they catered for, mainly parents). The teaching staff and children were of a diverse nationality, and turnover was high. Moreover, there seemed to be a discernible ideological dimension to some of the schools which was not surprising given this was the peak period of the Cold War; Leach (1969) had identified from his visits in 1962 a unique ideological form of ‘international internationalism.’ Furthermore, there existed a small group of idealistic ‘flagship’ schools, notably the three IB ‘pillars’ already mentioned (in Geneva, New York and south Wales). Leach’s book had added a few others to that list, e.g. American School of Paris (current motto: ‘At the forefront of International Education’), which was seen as an ‘excellent’ model of International Education (Leach, 1969 p.18) alongside the International School of Paris (Leach, 1969 p.16). The International School of The Hague was described as being potentially ‘a model of internationalism’ (Leach, 1969 p.42). Peterson (1987 p.71) had later referred to these bodies as being (in 1973) the ‘standard’ type of International School. Leach (1969) had preferred to view them as the ‘genuine’ type, inferring they were also a ‘model’ type. Significantly, Leach had observed that the 1964 Yearbook of Education contained a chapter about Ecolint stating its ideologically-inspired approach

24

The previous landscape as revealed by the literature

represented the ‘classic view’ behind International Schooling. This school had been created partly as an ‘interaction’ (Leach, 1969 p.80) of ‘The Winnetka Plan’, an educational experiment in progressive education that had occurred in the Illinois-based Winnetka School District 36. The notion that there exists a ‘model’, ‘genuine’, ‘classic’ or ‘pure’ type of International School has always been a contentious one. Indeed, Leach (1969 pp.175–186) had a chapter (Chapter 7 in his book) titled ‘The ideal International School’ in which he said the legal entity should be considered and that a non-profit-making company made up of trustees is most ‘appropriate’. The ideal school, ‘another type of Utopia’ (Leach 1969 p.175), would be innovative and prepared to act as a global laboratory for curriculum and teaching reform. Leach (1969 p.175) had said that he naturally had the Geneva school ‘in mind’ when he wrote this chapter. In this context, the ‘Leachist’ or ‘Mayerist’ era of activity might be better termed the ‘Ideal’ one. Hence, this book uses the term throughout. Leach’s book was a significant one in that it created the notion that the field of International Schooling should be criterion-referenced. Ideally, an International School ought to have certain features, i.e. it could by identified by what it was. At the same time, there has always been the implication that a less ‘superior’ form of school exists, which has always given a platform for identifying a ‘league table’ of International Schools. Gellar (2002a p.31) had rather disparagingly remarked on the ‘so-called International Schools’ which sprang up in the 1950s and 1960s catering largely for the mobile diplomatic and business community. Presumably, he also saw the three IB ‘pillars’ as being the ‘model’ schools. This book notes that a definite ‘tier’ of schools had begun to appear by 2014 (anecdotally rather than officially). The ‘flagship’ schools now seemingly form an identifiable ‘Tier 1’ grouping in many parts of the world. This has been an ongoing process over a number of years – Britain’s Guardian newspaper in 2006 ran an article highlighting the eight ‘best International Schools around the world’ (Moloney, 2006). The Countrylife.co.uk website in December 2008 also ran an article on this topic, highlighting Ecolint alongside the Sir James Henderson School in Milan, and the British School of Paris. As will be further discussed in this book, this development is indicative of the extent to which the field has entered a monopolistic competition market structure, where brand reputation, loyalty and recognition is crucial in certain cities (e.g. Milan and Paris) as opposed to the monopoly situation that was more evident during the ‘Ideal’ era: ‘Forty years ago ... schools were few and far between’ (Brummitt and Keeling, 2013 p.26). Murphy (1998 p.212) had commented that: ‘It is not unknown for an International School to be the only school of its kind in a foreign city or country.’ As summarized by Brummitt and Keeling (2013 p.27): ‘The demographic breakdown, learning approach and business model have all changed and it is no longer a small market catering for a niche group.’ An ISC Research seminar (3 December 2013) was concerned with the topic of ‘Selling into International

The previous landscape as revealed by the literature

25

Schools’. The ISC Research website in September 2013 commented that: ‘In line with such an expanding market is an increasing presence of investors, developers and commercial organizations responding to the needs of the sector.’ The field in its new ‘non-Ideal form’, mainly business-oriented and profitfocused and catering for the wealthy local elite within a distinct Asian/Middle East nexus of activity plus an emerging tier of ‘outstanding’ schools, clearly warrants a fresh approach. Many of the commercial groupings are ‘expanding aggressively either by buying existing schools or expanding existing operations’ (Keeling, 2012a p.19). In 2008, the Global Education Management Systems Education Ltd (GEMS Education) had opened its World Academy in Dubai, built at a cost of USD68.1m and with fees of USD25,000 per year at Grade 12. It has been described as the ‘best school on the planet’ (Murphy, 2008). It was announced in November 2012 that GEMS Education planned to open in summer 2013 an Academy offering IB programmes for 1,000 children in Etoy, Canon of Vaud, in Switzerland. The whole project was costing 162 million Swiss Francs and the school would include a radio station, television studio, music technology lab, wireless multi-device access, a ‘world language learning centre’ and a high-tech library. This sort of development seems a world away from the situation when the International School of Belgrade was founded in 1948 by the wife of the British Ambassador. Known as the Foreign Colony School it was housed in two rented rooms at the American Mission. It had one staff member, assisted by mothers, who taught elementary children using British texts. Copenhagen International School was started by a parent in 1962. A teacher was hired to supervise the first batch of 12 kids, and their work was sent off to the University of Nebraska for marking, and sent back three months later. The next year it had two teachers and two rooms. In 1965, with 40 students and three teachers, it moved into Copenhagen. Here it had three rooms, and no blackboard. Mayer (1968 p.156) had reported on how the head of a school in New York had visited many International Schools abroad as a sabbatical year and was ‘shocked by their physical and pedagogical condition.’ Leach (1969 p.83) had talked of the IB programme requiring a ‘gymnasium extensively equipped’, but then had added that: ‘No International School has such.’ Mayer (1968 p.74) had described Ecolint’s sparse facilities after the war (no indoor gymnasium, a small library), commenting on how ‘the dining facilities are altogether inadequate.’ This new period of activity, so evident by 2014, within its high-cost and high-quality mainly for-profit environment, seems ripe for a new term to appear. It might be termed ‘post-Mayerist’, or ‘post-Leachist’, a clumsy term but signifying a complete breaking away from the previous landscape as first explored and identified by Mayer (1968), and Leach (1969). Alternatively, the term ‘post-Ideal’ might be more appropriate since the field has moved considerably away from its ‘ideal’ (yet at the same time maybe ‘inferior’, ‘improvised’

26

The previous landscape as revealed by the literature

or ‘amateurish’) context of activity as explicitly perceived by Leach (1969 pp.175–186). Mayer (1968 p.155) had openly identified the American schools he visited as suffering ‘from a lack of the professionalism which characterizes the lycee.’ A possible alternative term stems from Tate’s (2013) discussion about the changing role of the IB as it has moved away from serving mainly International Schools towards national (state-funded) schooling. Tate identified three features of the ‘Enlightenment period’, including the desire to foster the characteristics of a virtuous and worthy humanbeing and building a set of pedagogical principles based on enquiry, collaboration and debate. In this context, International Schooling in its latest phase of activity might be seen as having entered a ‘post-Enlightenment’ era, characterized by a greater emphasis on commercial interest and the profit motive. Pearce (2013 p.viii) had added to the impetus for a fresh analysis when saying that ‘we need to look harder at International Schools and to have more comprehensive ways of looking.’ This comment is as relevant in terms of theory as it is in practice. We need to re-examine not only what International Schooling is but also what it does and for whom. The question ‘what is the purpose of this field in its ‘post-Ideal’ or ‘postEnlightenment’ era?’ needs re-addressing as the landscape changes. Moreover, as asserted by sociologists such as Emile Durkheim and Max Weber, a key challenge for any field that is undergoing rapid growth and change is maintaining integrity and coherence of purpose. Can this be achieved by International Schooling as it heads for an extra 6,000 schools and approximately 215,000 teachers by 2022? This book is offered as a starting point for that discussion.

The significance of the 1990s The significance of Jonietz and Harris (1991)

The first major peer-reviewed compilation discussing the emerging field did not appear until two decades after Leach’s (1969) study, International Schools and International Education, edited by Jonietz and Harris (1991). This book was originally published by Kogan Page and reprinted by Routledge in 2012. This 31-chapter compilation discussed the ‘current participants’ and ‘current issues’, as well as ‘future issues’, and revealed the scale and nature of International Schooling as it stood at that point in time; there were 290 European Council of International Schools (ECIS) member schools in 70 countries in 1990. There had been just 81 ‘regular’ members in 1975. Haldimann (1998 p.132) had later commented on how there were 450 ECIS member schools in 90 countries educating 260,000 children. It was particularly clear from the 1991 volume how far International Schooling had developed both in terms of size and diversity, plus through greater supply-chain support (e.g. ISA had been joined by a number of other networks) and through curricula development (especially the emergence of the

The previous landscape as revealed by the literature

27

IB Middle Years Programme (MYP), and the International General Certificate of Secondary Education (IGCSE)). Paterson (1991 p.41) in the 1991 Yearbook had made reference to three groupings requiring ECIS accreditation services: the American schools overseas, the British-type International Schools, and the ‘truly’ International Schools. James Keson’s (1991 p.56) contribution, presumably based on his personal experiences at the Copenhagen International School, had recognized that ‘International Schools began to sprout like mushrooms in the late fifties and early sixties’, whilst also observing that ‘most of the capitals of the world have at least one International School.’ This latter point further highlights a monopolistic situation at the time in many cities. Another important contribution came from the Director of UNIS, Joseph J. Blaney (1991), who had proposed the setting up of an ‘International Schools system’. This appeared in sorts in 1996 in the form of the International Education System’s Education for Peace (IESEP). More than 20 schools were invited to test the feasibility of a ‘system’ although ‘it was never really put to the acid test’ (Walker, 2000 p.200). Indeed, the need for a ‘system’, as espoused by Blaney over two decades ago remains an ongoing concern. Scotsman-Alexander (Alec) Peterson (1908–1988), the first IB Director General between 1968 and 1977, had written (Peterson, 1972 p.123) in his seminal book about the IB ‘experiment’ but did not quantify the size of the field, although he had noted the instability within International Schools, both in terms of teachers and students, claiming that most faculties are on two-year contracts. He also noted the lack of any ‘system’: ‘The International Schools do not at present cater for a system in which there is any stability of pay, pensions, or career structures’ (Peterson, 1972 p.123). Aside from editing the 1991 Yearbook, Patricia Jonietz had set out in the late 1980s to ‘develop a consensus of opinion’ for her Brunel University PhD Thesis, awarded in 1992. Jonietz (1992 p.303) had estimated 500–1,000 schools made up of independent, largely elitist, relatively small-scale, multicultural, community-based (parent co-operative/Board of Trustees), Anglo-centric, native English-speaking, non-profit, IB members. These would now presumably largely be considered as ‘Type-A’ (traditional, market-led) and ‘Type-B’ (ideology-led) International Schools (as articulated by Hayden and Thompson, 2013 p.5). Interesting, Jonietz had made a concerted effort to survey a representative, rather than random, sample of schools. Her choice of the International School of London (established in 1972), Frankfurt International School (1961) and the Washington International School (1966) showed that another significant group of ‘flagship’ schools, still largely Northern European, had appeared by the late 1980s. Michael Matthews (1988 p.4), in his seminal study about the same time as Jonietz’s had envisaged a dichotomy of approach (‘market-led’ and ‘ideologyled’) among ‘some 1,000 schools worldwide’ encompassing in size an educational field similar to ‘that of a nation with a population of three to four million’, and

28

The previous landscape as revealed by the literature

involving about 50,000 teachers (Matthews, 1988 p.9 and p.19). In other words, the research by both Matthews (1988) and Jonietz (1992) had deduced that the field had approximately doubled in size since the surveys by Mayer and Leach, which of course had occurred almost three decades earlier. The landscape at this time, in the late 1980s, was still largely an ‘ideal’ one. Jonietz (1991 p.54) in the 1991 Yearbook had described how the ‘biggest growth area is seen in the number of independent, community-based, Englishlanguage of instruction schools offering education to third-culture students.’ There were of course many exceptions, but it is very true to state that two decades later the landscape as being described and researched by Jonietz was barely recognizable in terms of its nature of operation. Carder (2013 p.85) had stated that in the 1990s ’English was expected to be the language of instruction in International Schools’, but this was not necessarily the case in 2013, which of course undermines ISC Research’s continued use in the future of its definition of schools in the field. The significance of Hayden and Thompson (1998)

The next major compilation of literature following the 1991 Yearbook was the book edited by Hayden and Thompson (1998), International Education: Principles and Practice, published by Kogan Page, one of three major books on understanding and conceptualizing International Schooling that emerged between 1998 and 2002. The initial volume had expressed its desired role when it opened with the sentence: ‘One of the striking features of the field of International Schools and International Education is the dearth of written material available within the public domain’ (Hayden and Thompson, 1998 p.xii). It was being remarked at the same time that International Schooling was still ‘a rather odd phenomenon on the fringes of the mainstream but is now the focus of much attention’ (Peel, 1998 p.12). Hayden (1998 p.1), in the opening page to the book, had commented on how the casual observer might deduce that the concept of an International School was an ‘un-important phenomenon’ playing ‘a minor role in education.’ Hayden (1998 p.2) had added that since the 1991 Yearbook had appeared: ‘the rate of change is almost frightening in its dimensions.’ A second book had appeared in 2000, International Schools and International Education: Improving Teaching, Management and Quality (also edited by Hayden and Thompson) and held a list of criteria that was ‘strikingly similar’ (Blaney, 2000 p.160) amongst International Schools. Blaney had listed 11 criteria including ‘non-profit and non-sectarian’ and governance by ‘democratic election’ boards of trustees. Furthermore, it was stated they serve ‘trans-national, highly mobile families’. In essence, Blaney was effectively describing the ‘ideal’ and ‘traditional’ model. Significantly, Blaney (2000 p.161) had noted that there were schools ‘whose profiles is different’ and had said that ‘the share of enrolment comprising “local” students is growing fast.’ This shows that a new era, the ‘post-Ideal’ one, was being recognized by this stage in time.

The previous landscape as revealed by the literature

29

A significant change in the literature between 1998 and 2002 was the way that commentators moved away from categorizing International Schools by what they look like (a ‘top-down’ approach) to what they do (more of a ‘bottom-up’ approach). The literature had become noticeably less protective and defensive, and had moved away from an exclusive view that an International School had to meet specific and ‘ideal’ criteria. The ‘new’ view was that any school could see itself as an ‘international’ one. Basically, the field had become more self-referenced, rather than criterion-referenced. This allowed for a much more inclusive definition to appear (e.g. from ISC Research) that has allowed in turn schools previously excluded from the field to be included. This framework further strengthens the notion of a second era, a ‘post-Ideal’ one. To be critical, one can now see that the literature until 2002 had major ‘gaps’ in knowledge and inquiry. Gunesch (2004 p.252), for instance, had pointed out that of the 52 chapters contained within the three volumes edited by Hayden and Thompson between 1998 and 2002, only three had the learners as their explicit focus revealing the extent to which the focus had been on defining and positioning International Schooling. In particular, this series of books had failed to identify fully the emergence of branded and replicated International Schools, beginning with Dulwich College in Phuket, in 1996 (O’Connell, 2005), although it should be stated that it was not until a decade later that the model ‘took off’. By 2012, Dulwich had three branches in China plus one in Kenya whilst Harrow had branches in Thailand and Beijing plus another planned for Hong Kong (Dixon, 2012b). Interestingly, Leach (1969 p.167) had much earlier commented on how the so-called ‘public schools’ (elite private members of the Headmasters’ Conference) in Britain ‘is probably as capable of becoming international as any in the world.’ Secondly, the series of books edited by Hayden and Thompson until 2002 had also failed to fully identify the emergence of large-scale for-profit companies such as Cognita who in early 2013 was managing 33 schools in the UK, including Southbank International Schools (a pioneer ‘Type A’ ‘traditional’ school) plus 11 International Schools in Spain, Singapore, Thailand and Vietnam. Indeed, a cursory glance at the index of all three of the books reveals that the word ‘profit’ did not seemingly appear. In short, the literature until 2002 was still very heavily dependent on investigating and discussing the ‘traditional’ models of International Schooling within its ‘ideal’ context of activity. Inbetween the Kogan Page books came one about managing International Schools, edited by Blandford and Shaw (2001), based upon the experience of MA students at Oxford Brookes University, England. This compendium, with ten contributors, is still the only book specifically dealing with issues such as ‘planning’ and ‘middle management’ in International Schools. Again, this book had failed to realize the potential future growth of the ‘non-traditional’ ‘Type C’ schools as identified by Hayden and Thompson (2013). There was an implied notion throughout that book that the leader in an International School would deal with a board of trustees, rather than an owner or

30

The previous landscape as revealed by the literature

commercial network. Put together, all four books on International Schooling that had appeared between 1998 and 2002 had dealt with the field in its ‘ideal’ and ‘traditional’ setting. Another significant book on International Schooling had appeared in 2003, and focused on the scene in Hong Kong. Based on her University of Hong Kong MEd dissertation, Yoko Yamato had explored the diversity of schools in a field which until then had received very little attention. The field had ‘boomed especially since the early 1990s’ and had numbered about 60 schools in 2001 (Yamato, 2003 p.1). As seen already, the field in Hong Kong had added by 2012 over 100 schools. Yamato’s book was a significant one in that it questioned the notion of the ‘local’ child, and it had identified a new set of International Schools emerging catering for such children. This had proved a decade later to be a major new direction for the field. The significance of the post-2006 literature

The next major addition to the literature came when Mary Hayden (2006), a leading researcher and commentator in the field, had individually published a book looking back over the major research, broken down into ‘communities’ (e.g. ‘The global community’, ‘The local community’), whilst also prophesizing the future of the field. Hayden’s book examined the key themes of this evolving field, and included a significant final chapter (Chapter 11) titled ‘Future Roles for International Schools’. It extensively covered the research body in order to explore the various origins, definitions and classifications of International Education. It also looked at issues such as quality assurance. Hayden (2006 p.164) in particular had foreseen the substantial growth in countries such as Thailand and the growing attraction of English-language tuition. Plus, Hayden (2006 p.20) had made reference to commercial groupings such as GEMS Education. Indeed, Hayden (2006 p.20) had raised the question of whether International Schools are an ‘enlightened set of institutions with a vision of global peace’ or are they ‘essentially private institutions whose main aspiration is a businessfocused profit margin’? Moreover, Hayden (2006 p.167) had foreseen the growth of International Schools aimed at host country nationals. A noticeable absence from that book was a chapter about ‘International Schools and companies’ or the role that for-profit networks might make as a ‘commercial community’, which seemed to reveal that the full extent of commercial activity was not as yet evident. Furthermore, the chapter about the children in International Schools (Hayden, 2006 pp.39–50) focused heavily on ‘third culture kids’ and ‘globally mobile children’ revealing the fact that the appeal of schools to the ‘local’ community was still undervalued at that point in time. This adds weight to the notion that much of the changes since 2002 had occurred without significant prior notice or anticipation. The year after Hayden (2006), a 520-page SAGE Handbook of Research in International Education (edited by Hayden, Thompson and Levy, 2007) had

The previous landscape as revealed by the literature

31

analysed the origins, contributions, and interpretations of International Education through the views of 39 authors. Bagnall’s (2008) book exploring International Schools As Agents for Change was joined the same year by Hayden and Thompson’s (2008) UNESCO-published booklet (Number 92 in the series ‘Fundamentals of Educational Planning’) dealing with the importance for policymakers and planners being better informed about the growth of International Schooling. This booklet had identified the ‘traditional’ type of International School (Hayden and Thompson, 2008 p.23), implying that an emerging number are ‘non-traditional’. As will be argued later in this book, this might now be deemed an ‘epoch’ moment in literature. My book follows on from two recent collections of views and reflections. It is intended as a complementary one to Bloomsbury Academic’s collection of 11 viewpoints (edited by Richard Pearce, 2013) which had marked the fortieth anniversary of the International School of London and which partially explored how the field had changed over the previous four decades. The first three chapters of that book had established the historical outline (Pearce, 2013), given a taxonomy of International Schools’ past, present and future (Hayden and Thompson, 2013), and had given a detailed statistical account of their explosive growth (Brummitt and Keeling, 2013). A good insight into the previous ‘ideal’ landscape comes from Pearce’s (2013b p.xii) Introduction which shows how the London school had begun life under American ownership in a building rented from the Working Men’s College in Camden Town, and immediately embarked on IB and ECIS membership which helped provide ‘a focus for deeper engagement with the emerging field.’ By contrast, the branded ‘ISL Group’ now operates three branches including one in Qatar. To complement this story, consider that in 1967 the first ‘American Community Schools’ had appeared in London. The ‘Overseas School of London’, as it was initially called, began life with just 35 children. By 2013, there were 2,300 students being taught by 650 educators at the three branded ‘ACS Group’ around London (Hillingdon, Cobham and Egham), plus a branch in Doha. This book also complements the compendium of ten viewpoints previously published by Routledge (edited by Richard Bates, 2011) which had set out to provide a critical perspective on current issues facing International Schooling, particularly the conflict between ‘internationalizing’ and ‘globalizing’ tendencies and to explore the contribution International Schools might make to the achievement of global citizenship. It claimed to be the first book to critically analyse the ambiguities, tensions and conflicts that face those involved with and researching, International Schools and their role in global networking. There was much emphasis in the book on critical analysis of International Schooling serving the transnational capitalist class (TNCC): ‘the growth in numbers has coincided with the globalization of neo-liberal ideologies committed to the reorganization of societies and social relations’ (Bates, 2011 p.2). In particular, that book had critically discussed the political economy of

32

The previous landscape as revealed by the literature

International Schooling (Brown and Lauder, 2011) and had posed critical questions about the future staffing of the field (Hayden and Thompson, 2011). The Bates book had followed on from a small but growing range of literature which has appeared (e.g. Dunne, 2008) arguing for a reconceptualization of the role and purpose of International Schooling, asserting that the field might now cater largely for the local elite; yet this offers an opportunity for asserting a more idealistic agenda and sociological imagination. At the same time, Cambridge (2011 p.135) had argued that although International Schooling does have ‘the potential to disrupt the existing social order’ it ‘remains a potent means of reproduction of social and economic privilege.’ In other words, there is a need to theoretically reconceptualize the role of International Schools. If they are no longer about facilitating global peace, or about educating the global nomad, what are they about? Are they about facilitating global trade or global development? Or is International Schooling about facilitating global capital accumulation and the global ‘super class’? These seem like big questions to ask. Another major change has occurred within the focus of literature on International Schooling. As noted by Marginson (2009), five decades ago the main body of literature was largely informed by psychology. The past decade in particular has seen a move towards applying social, cultural, and political theory, viewing the children more as self-determining human agents rather than transitory and fragile players undergoing mental and cultural upset. Mayer (1968 p.23) had commented on the ‘trauma’ facing the ‘stray foreigner’ of moving into a new school, and how International Schools understand ‘the problems of transients’ (Mayer, 1968 p.25). Previously, children attending International Schools had been viewed as involuntary players in the field, a by-product of multi-national corporations and diplomatic recruitment. Leach (1969 p.79) had commented on how ‘the majority of students in International Schools’ are there ‘by accident.’ In this context, the children had been unwittingly dragged into the arena, and this may still be true of many in ‘traditional’ ‘Type A’ schools. This model of school, ‘individual institutions catering to a local market need’ (Hayden and Thompson, 2013 p.8), continues to evolve. Østerbro International School in central Copenhagen started in 2009 with 60 students from ‘international families’ and by 2013 had over 200 (Hanley, 2013). However, the growth of schools catering for wealthy ‘locals’ implies that the situation is now sometimes more voluntary and deliberate, i.e. it is increasingly more a planned outcome. This offers scope for a more critical lens of inquiry with regard to the purpose and usefulness of International Schools, as vehicles for social mobility. A further recent book worth noting came from the IB, a major yet statistically dwindling ‘player’ in the field (to reiterate, involving in August 2013 only about 23% of all International Schools). One recurring theme within the George Walker edited (2011) book The Changing Face of International Education is the degree to which the original base of the IB, that of the International

The previous landscape as revealed by the literature

33

Schools, is still viewed as being an elite and elitist arena; ‘what some regard as a privileged club’ (Walker, 2011 p.11). It had been said that International Schooling ‘serves in large measure the process of commercial globalization, and educates many of the children of the new global upper class’ (Wilkinson and Wilkinson, 2001 p.8), creating what Brown (2000) calls a ‘democratic deficit’. Leach (1969 p.43) had identified a ‘problem’ with the ‘gap between privilege and under-privilege.’ Cambridge (2013 p.197) has explicitly stated that ‘the IB has arguably abandoned its core niche audience of the International School community.’ The notion that the IB has moved away from making contact within an exclusive ‘club’ to making connections with a more diverse and more inclusive set of schools has become a common one with regard to ‘official’ IB presentations and materials. The Changing Face book helped to partly set the scene for understanding the changing landscape of International Schooling as new and innovative international curricula (e.g. IPC, IMYC) have emerged, undermining the monopoly hold of the IB programmes. Lastly, the literature giving the emerging landscape a closer critical eye was enhanced with the publication of the book Globalizing Minds, edited by Silova and Hobson (2014). This volume set out to critically explore the rhetoric and realities of International Schools. My own chapter in that book had expressed a view that the rhetoric of the IB had changed, from being Cold War rhetoric to being outwardly ‘bullish’ and ‘even over-ambitious, or utopian’ (Bunnell, 2014 p.139). Furthermore, much of the rhetoric is ‘vacuous and sterile’ (Bunnell, 2014 p.140). The point to observe from this viewpoint is that the field in general has a record of expressing a rhetoric that is rarely matched by reality. In fact, it probably never could be. This admittedly provocative issue needs further discussion, but it forms a backdrop for viewing the emerging ‘postIdeal’ landscape with a degree of skepticism, or cynicism. This brings the literature scene up-to-date. Each book that is written has its own place in progressing the understanding of what is a fast growing field, but is still a relatively under-researched and under-theorized dimension of education. The rationale for this book is quite simple: the distribution, size, demographics, ownership, form, ethos, image and purpose of International Schooling have fundamentally altered over a relatively short space of time, warranting a fresh analysis of the emerging landscape.

Chapter 3

The challenges in reporting the changing landscape

Describing the field The cluttered terminology

Leach (1969 p.15) had noted that only two doctoral dissertations had been undertaken into International Schooling. A study over a decade ago (Hahn, 2002) had shown that the Educational Resource Information Centre (ERIC) database in November 2001 held only 194 references for the term ‘International Schools’. My advanced search in September 2013 had revealed 2,328 references of which 414 had appeared since 2009. The International Education Research Database (IERD) site, hosted by the International Baccalaureate’s (IB) website, was showing 805 references of which almost exactly half were journal articles. The academic field of International Schooling offers a series of major hurdles in reality for the researcher which helps to explain the relative dearth of material in the public domain. There are four hurdles that I would like to immediately highlight as they help to frame the landscape. Firstly, there is no consensus view on how to define and describe the landscape collectively. Sylvester (2003 p.6) had remarked that International Schooling ‘as a potential field of research … suffers primarily from a lack of definition.’ After writing the first draft of this book I realized that I had used no less than ten different words to describe the landscape (i.e. market, sector, world, movement, network, universe, industry, project, community and field). On reflection, all are problematic. The term ‘project’ is probably the most controversial and elusive in terms of references in literature. Mayer (1968 p.9) had referred to the ‘weakness of the International Baccalaureate project.’ Peterson (1987 p.5) had referred to the establishment of Atlantic College in 1962 as aimed at a ‘pilot project, influencing education in all countries.’ Gillespie (2002) saw International Education as a project based on principles of mutuality and equality, e.g. St Clare’s Oxford was founded in 1953 with a post-war commitment to furthering international understanding (and thus now serves as a good example of a ‘Type-B’ ‘ideological’ school). Leach (1969 p.186) had

The challenges in reporting the changing landscape

35

concluded his book by saying that: ‘The success of a chain of International Schools may well be involved in the survival of man.’ Yet, outside of literature about the IB, with its stated mission to ‘facilitate global peace’, the term ‘project’ is scantily used. The term ‘market’ has been used a lot in literature, e.g. Hayden and Thompson (2011 p.91). However, it now seems more accurate to refer to a multitude of different ‘markets’ especially since an expensive body of elite schools (e.g. Repton School Dubai) have appeared. The term ‘network’ does not seem applicable for describing a diverse and independent grouping of schools, many of which operate within their own separate networks, although it has also been used in literature. For example, it had been asserted that the body of International Schools forms ‘a heterogeneous collection of separate institutions forming a loose network’ (Phillips, 2002 p.173). Aside from the International Schools Association (ISA), which ‘relied on the shaky economic basis’ of its member schools, and the ‘chain of American schools’, Peterson (1972 p.124) could not identify any discernible form of network. ISA was the first educational non-government organization (NGO) to be granted consultative status at the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), with a Mission stating that: ‘The International Schools Association is a worldwide membership organization of schools that adhere to certain key principles of internationalism based on the UN Charter and the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights.’ In other words, membership seemingly identifies the bloc of ‘Type B’ ‘ideological’ schools. Although Matthews (1988 p.83) had remarked on how ‘International Schools do constitute a system, or network, in that they are similar to each other and different from national schools’, the term ‘system’ also does not wholly seem applicable for an area of education where the contractual and working experience can differ so enormously. Mayer (1968 p.155) had said after his tour of schools that: ‘By no stretch of the imagination can these American schools be considered part of a system.’ The term ‘community’ is often used in a variety of contexts, e.g. Caffyn (2013 p.218) talks of ‘joining the International School community’, however, in the context of Hayden and Thompson’s (2013) typology identifying a discrete yet growing body of ‘nontraditional’ schools, the notion of the existence of a cohesive and unified community now seems unrealistic. Pearce (2013 p.xvii) had referred to the field being largely a ‘monoglot community’ and this perhaps remains a valid use of the term. Furthermore, the term ‘movement’ implies a unified and perhaps idealistic sense of mission and purpose although it has also appeared in the literature. Ellwood (2011 p.9) had made reference to the ‘International Education movement’ and at the time of Leach’s (1969) seminal survey of the field there did seem to exist a distinct ‘International School movement’ (Sylvester, 2003 p.198). Ian Hill (2001) had used the term ‘movement’ in the context of exploring the IB’s history. Mayer (1968 p.74) had called Ecolint ‘the mother

36

The challenges in reporting the changing landscape

hen of the International School movement’. The terms ‘universe’ and ‘world’ suggests that there are common standards and practices yet this is an ongoing concern raised a lot in this book. The term ‘sector’ has been used (e.g. Yamato, 2003 p.40) but recently questioned (Hayden and Thompson, 2013 p.9) given the growth in diversity. Benson (2011 p.101) had concluded that: ‘The current arrangements that exist in International Schools are not robust enough to set consistently applied recognizable standards for the fragmented International School sector.’ ISC Research tends to use the term ‘sector’, although one Ed.D Thesis had concluded that: ‘International Schools are a largely unregulated sector of schooling in India, in fact, not a sector at all’ (Ranger, 2012, quote taken from the Abstract). It has become established to conceptualize International Schooling as an ‘industry’ and use this term in literature. MacDonald’s (2006) quantitative analysis of tuition revenues generated by International Schools had concluded that the field can be examined in terms of a global multi-billion dollar industry and that business theory can be, and is being, applied to schools. Naidoo (2006) had also identified the emergence of a new market place for the International Schooling ‘industry’. MacDonald (2006 p.194) had used the term ‘industry’ in the sense that International Schooling involves a distinct set of personnel and capital, but it seems to imply a common ‘product’ and sense of ‘purpose’ which arguably does not exist. The validity of the term ‘field’

In short, none of the above nine terms, although used regularly in literature, seems wholly and accurately applicable in describing International Schooling in its current ‘post-Ideal’ form. The use of so many alternative terms reveals how little consensus there is about describing the field and, to reiterate, one of the minor academic aims of this book is to offer to tighten the terminology used to describe International Schooling. The term ‘field’ arguably seems to fit the ‘post-Ideal’ situation best. This term, as already noted, fits well with one of the very first books written about International Schooling (i.e. Leach, 1969). The term ‘field’ thus has precedence, and has been much used before in literature: ‘As interest in the field has strengthened, so has the confidence of practitioners and researchers in sharing their experiences’ (Hayden, Thompson and Walker, 2002 p.xiv). It had been said that there has been little effort made to ‘construct a scholarly approach to the history of the field’ (Sylvester, 2003 p.6). Ellwood (2004 p.5) had commented on how: ‘The field now concerns not just schools but also service providers, professional associations, universities with training and research sectors and a choice of specially tailored curriculum models.’ Sylvester (2002b p.91) had stated that: ‘The conceptual maps that we are currently using to construct our modern sense of an emergent field of International Education are largely untested and incomplete.’ Furthermore, I have used the term before (e.g. Bunnell, 2014 p.139 and p.143), and so it is consistent with my own writing.

The challenges in reporting the changing landscape

37

Moreover, the term fits well with Pierre Bourdieu’s (1993 p.6) sociological framework where a ‘field’ is a setting in which agents and their social positions are located. Bourdieu had talked of the ‘educational field’ as one of several fields each being a ‘structured space with its own laws of functioning and its own relations of force independent of those of politics and the economy.’ Leach (1969 p.ix) had remarked upon how when he had joined Ecolint it had already ‘developed its own character and techniques.’ This concept was developed by Bagnall (2010 p.98) when saying that: ‘The IB has become an important component of a field that may be classified as the global field.’ Furthermore, Bagnall (2010 p.103) had added that: ‘The IB rests as the only significant international university qualification available to the individual wishing to gain advantage in the global field.’ In this context, International Schooling can be viewed as part of the wider ‘global field’ with its own players, actors, rules, vocabulary, language and supporters. Furthermore, as a ‘game’, there will inevitably be ‘issues of who wins and loses’ (Brown and Lauder, 2011 p.39). George Walker (2002 p.211) had referred to the specific language and vocabulary of International Schooling, implying that this is indeed a ‘field’. Roberts (2013 p.129) has said that International Education has its ‘own conferences … and its own publications, fields of research and preoccupation’ plus there is an ‘associated vocabulary.’ This later issue is important as it implies that the field has its own code, as articulated within Basil Bernstein’s theory of communication and vocabulary that shows how the language people use in everyday conversation both reflects and helps shape the assumptions and formalities of a certain social grouping. Not surprisingly, the work of the British sociologist Bernstein (1924–2000) is now regularly used in International Schooling literature, and especially by the works of James Cambridge (e.g. Cambridge, 2013; Cambridge, 2014). Bernstein had ‘seen that schools are agents of cultural change’ (Wylie, 2011 p.24), thus International Schools are also engaged in the deliberate and desired socialization of children, i.e. they are no longer passive ‘players’ in the field. Brummitt and Keeling (2013 p.29) saw the current growth stemming from the ‘opportunities’ offered by International Schooling: ‘it is now widely accepted that for students who have attended International Schools there are tremendous opportunities at the world’s top universities, many often competing for the best students.’ This sort of comment supports the notion that International Schooling should now be viewed as a sociological ‘field’. It is said that the language of the field, especially in its IB context, is inscribed with discourses of power and control (Cambridge, 2012; Quist, 2005). Literature on International Schooling now quite often makes use of critical social theory (e.g. Bagnall, 2008), a lens of inquiry which posits an assumption that elite education reproduces social privilege. As said, such literature often tends to draw upon the work of the French sociologist and philosopher Pierre Bourdieu (1930–2002). In terms of Bourdieu’s writing, International Schooling can now be viewed as a social arena, or habitus, in which people play,

38

The challenges in reporting the changing landscape

maneuver (as in a tactical operation) and struggle in pursuit of desirable resources, which in this case might be elite university placement, better working conditions, social positioning or corporate control. The ‘IB Learner Profile’, and its listing of ten ‘dispositions’ and learning ‘outcomes’ certainly fits into the ‘habitus’ framework. Hence, this book uses the term ‘field’ throughout.

Titling the field The validity of the term ‘International Schooling’

A second challenge concerns the titling of the field. This book deliberately builds on a term used in the compendium edited by Bates (2011). In that book, the term ‘International Schooling’ was used several times, e.g. ‘But the context for the expansion of international schooling is not simply numerical’ (Bates, 2011 p.2), and ‘This chapter has provided evidence that international schooling caters for children of elite professional families’ (Brown and Lauder, 2011 p.55). The synopsis blurb had said how the book was ‘essential reading’ for those interested in the ‘rapidly expanding world of international schooling.’ Wylie (2008 p.13) had described how ‘international schooling is dependent on relations of power and privilege …’. The term was also used by MacKenzie, Hayden and Thompson (2003 p.300) when referring to the field in Switzerland. The term had also been used to describe an academic course and Australia’s Deakin University offers an MA in ‘International Schooling’. An earlier MA dissertation (Fail, 1995) had explored ‘Some of the outcomes of International Schooling’. An even earlier PhD thesis had used the term also (Sanderson, 1981). Of course, the term ‘International Education’ is most often used but defies clear definition and has become a blurred term amidst a cluttered field of activity: ‘International Education is a field collectively understood by the academics and practitioners involved in it, but still difficult to define universally’ (Simandiraki, 2006 p.35). That is to say, the term is suitable for an internal academic discourse but has little relevance within a wider discussion. By the mid-1990s it was being said (Hayden and Thompson, 1995b p.327) that although the term was now being used in common educational parlance, ‘International Education’ was neither particularly extensively documented, nor well defined. This book uses the alternative term ‘International Schooling’ throughout not because it is widely accepted or recognized, but as it helps to distinguish the field from the other dimensions of ‘International Education’, which has become an ambiguous umbrella term for a wider set of understandings involving schools and institutions of Higher Education plus a broader set of Government education policies in some countries to instil a form of ‘global education’. For instance, the global market in cross-border degrees is also increasingly aligned with the notion of International Education and seemingly forms its own discrete industry.

The challenges in reporting the changing landscape

39

The term ‘International Education’ The term ‘International Education’ has never been a satisfactory one, and has always been used in the absence of a consensually agreed alternative. As stated by Ellwood (2007 p.5): ‘numerous researchers and commentators have struggled to define the meaning of a concept which has both an umbrella quality and an ability to morph into other areas.’ As added by Thompson (2002 p.5): ‘The term has such wide usage that almost any statement relating to International Education offers ample ambiguity in interpretation.’ Hayden (2006 p.5) had argued that ‘International Education’ might be better conceptualized within a Venn diagram model, with distinct but overlapping dimensions. This does seem more appropriate. The IB programmes, for example, are obviously partly responsible for the rise in cross-border educational activity at a Higher Education level. The International Baccalaureate Diploma Programme (IBDP) evolved from different national systems of education, plus it has roots in the more ideologically-inclined dimension of ‘International Education’. It has been duly claimed that the term ‘International Education’ may be reaching the end of its useful life (James, 2005). Sylvester (2003 p.8) had earlier stated that the term needed replacing with ‘a definition appropriate to the needs of the time.’ Ellwood (2004 p.5), in discussing the usefulness of the term ‘International Education’ suggested that ‘for some people it is now transmogrifying itself into International Mindedness’, although this concept in an IB context is seen by Roberts (2013 p.125) as a ‘sketchy’ one, vulnerable to interpretation. Lewis (2005) had earlier considered it as a ‘fuzzy’ concept. Recent comment (Tate, 2012) has attacked the adjective international as an inadequate, but unavoidable, label to describe this dimension of education. Given the lack of consensus over an alternative title, the field will most probably in future still be referenced as ‘International Education’ in spite of its shortfallings.

Identifying the field The term ‘International School’

A third major hurdle involves identifying a suitable lens for viewing. Sylvester (2002b p.92) explicitly stated that one of greatest problems in International Schooling research is ‘that of limiting the term within a realistic field of vision.’ Put simply, the term ‘International Schooling’ in the context of this book refers to the study of the field of ‘International Schools’. But, this term also defies exact definition and clarification. Leach (1969 p.7) had first proposed a category of schools ‘serving or being composed of students from several nationalities’ but then realized this is clearly a hopelessly vague typology that might theoretically encompass most schools in inner-London or New York. Identifying the lens of scope is indeed difficult. As noted by Caffyn (2013 p.206): ‘International Schools are intrinsically complex and unique; often

40

The challenges in reporting the changing landscape

isolated and diverse entities that have numerous boundaries.’ In this context, the mapping work of ISC Research is useful. Some commentators over time (e.g. Terwilliger, 1972) have been bold and asserted their own distinct definition. These definitions have tended to be based on common characteristics drawn from easily obtained data such as inter alia student and staff characteristics and categorization attempts have tended to focus upon the concept of ‘diversity’. This approach, simply observing raw data, is problematic. Richards (2002 p.108) had stated that: ‘Perhaps this is the crux of the problem with definitions of International Education: they attempt to define what is, rather than what ought to be.’ To quote a couple of concrete examples, Murphy (2000 p.7) says that: ‘International Schools are largely either American or British in origin, and a mix of the two nationalities can be found on the faculty of most of them.’ Jonietz (1991) had produced the following broad definition: ‘International Schools serve students and teachers living outside their home nations in a model of multi-cultural, multi-lingual and multi-national education that uses English language instruction and offer a formal international curriculum and existing examinations for secondary students.’ Findlay (1999 p.4) offered a definition of an International School as: ‘a school that serves an ex-pat community with a curriculum that is not of the host country and that has an international student population.’ As noted already in this book, these definitions were fit for purpose during the ‘Ideal’ era of activity but are now largely inadequate for describing the entire field.

The fundamental dichotomy of approach To reiterate, Matthews’ (1988 p.24) seminal work, although only considering a sample of 23 American-ethos and IB schools, had categorized two-groups of International Schools by their philosophical approach. The ‘ideology-driven’ model of International Schooling continues to evolve and appear, e.g. St Gilgen International School in Austria, founded in 2008 with its mission modelled on Plato’s ‘Cardinal Values’. Building upon the work of Matthews, a well-established academic framework is to identify the field as one encompassing schools that face a fundamental dilemma of approach. Cambridge and Thompson’s (2004) important framework had conceptualized the dilemma between the ideologically committed, and largely secular, form of internationalism and the pragmatic form of globalized internationalism. Although few schools exhibit either form in its purest sense, the fundamental importance of this issue means it can arguably be deemed a core dilemma for many International Schools; should it be serving the market or the planet? One founder of the 1966-established Washington International School had stated (Goodman, 1986 p.7) that the conceived aim was for it to become ‘the pilot school of the Planet.’ Mayer (1968 p.112) had described the Washington project as ‘dormant rather than dead.’ Yip Kwok-wah (2006 p.6)

The challenges in reporting the changing landscape

41

has more recently asserted that: ‘International Schools … should play pilot and demonstrative roles in providing education for global citizenship.’ Cambridge and Thompson (2004) had asserted that the ‘ideology-driven’ dimension is concerned with the moral development of the child, and is an attempt to influence the formation of positive attitudes towards peace and international understanding. On the flip side, the pragmatic current of International Education is an attempt to satisfy the demand for a portable educational ‘product’. The dilemma facing International Schools in South Korea, with regard to whether they should be ‘ideology-driven’ or ‘market-driven’ has been raised in literature (e.g. Choi, 2004). Some commentators (e.g. Hayden, 2006) have preferred to identify a spectrum of diversity, and it has become quite common in academic literature to identify at one end of the spectrum schools that are ‘ideology-driven’ with ‘inclusive missions’ (Sylvester, 1998), and others that are ‘market-driven’, some with ‘encapsulated missions’. Yamato (2003 p.11) had remarked on how ‘some of the so-called International Schools in Hong Kong are in fact national schools based on foreign countries and almost exclusively serving nationals of those countries.’ This issue has always greatly complicated the task of accurately assessing the scale of the field. Recent research (Jabal, 2013) focused on the inclusive-encapsulated mission among schools in Hong Kong. Given the lack of precise definition, the exact picture has always been difficult to frame. It had been quoted in the International Herald Tribune (Larner, 1995) that there were 2,600 International Schools, although this seemed a bit on the high side and may have included a large number of schools with ‘encapsulated missions’ (Sylvester, 1998 p.192), catering specifically for overseas students of one particular culture. The network of 413 French schools, offering tuition abroad in French to largely French-speaking children, is by far the largest and the easiest of this type of school to identify. There are 117 German schools abroad, plus a further 92 Japanese Schools around the world. Haywood (2002) presumably also had the Matthews (1988) framework in mind when identifying two ‘strands’ of schools; those with a ‘pragmatic rationale’ and those with a ‘visionary ideal’. The interesting aspect of a spectrum approach is that it implies that a body of schools sits in the middle, being neither purely ‘market-driven’ nor ‘ideology-driven’ and this is probably where most ‘International Schools’ fit although many may be closer to the ‘marketdriven’ side. It has been positioned that the ‘ideology-driven’ version of International Schooling is probably the ‘specialist interest of a minority of enthusiasts’ (Cambridge, 2003 p.57) whilst ‘even the most fervent idealists are tempered by the material conditions of the marketplace’ (Cambridge, 2002b p.228). Mayer (1968 p.95) had viewed Atlantic College as a school that ‘fulfils a dream rather than a need.’ More recently, Roberts (2013 p.137) has called for a group of schools to ‘address seriously education for a better world’ and expressed frustration at the status quo situation regarding the field in general. This tension might form the basis of the next book discussing the field.

42

The challenges in reporting the changing landscape

There was evidence in 2013 that a broader perception of an International School might be appearing, encompassing the ‘Type C’ model. One article (Robinson and Guan, 2012) had aimed to describe the growing popularity of International Schools in mainland China. Two types of International Schools were discussed. First, there are independent International Schools that only foreign passport holders can attend (e.g. Shanghai American School). Second, there are schools in the public system that both foreigners and Chinese nationals can attend (e.g. International Experimental Class, No. 1 Middle School, Wuhan). This form of dichotomy, between International Schools for foreigners and locals, has been inferred before in literature but not explicitly. Peterson (1987) had implied that at one level there were schools involved in ‘patriotic education’ involving the eventual repatriation of the ‘global nomad’. Walker (2000 p.193) pointed out that Ecolint has a charter committing itself to preparing the child for re-entry into their own cultures. As noted already, Leach (1969 p.7) had made reference to a grouping of elite private ‘internationally-minded schools’. Al Farra (2000 p.55) had pointed out that several schools in the Middle East may not be ‘International Schools’ as such, being mainly aimed at the local population, but are ‘international in spirit’. The Presbyterian Ladies College, in Melbourne, Australia, which had begun to offer the IBDP in 1990 as a movement towards reflecting the increased ‘Asianisation’ of Australian society, has been described as a ‘de facto International School’ (Schroeder, 2005). Combined together with the vagueness of the term ‘International Education’ this is most likely a frustrating situation for the scholarly community, and is arguably a barrier to the field being fully and appropriately identified, and accepted, as a discrete field of academic study with its own distinct history, traditions, industry and mode of operation. Hayden and Thompson (1998 p.3) had commented that: ‘A related fact contributing to the relatively low profile of International Schools is the lack of clarity with respect to a consensus on several issues: what they actually are, the relationships between the schools themselves and the International Education which many of them profess to offer.’ However, it should be said that the scholarly community is not united on whether the field needs constant reassessment of its role, purpose and character. One academic discussion, in the now defunct IB Research Notes had revealed a lack of consensus over whether the lack of an agreed understanding actually matters. Carroll (2003 p.3) expressed the feeling that the field ought not to constantly undertake an examination of the term International Schooling, as this might heighten the awareness of its hegemonic aspect as a form of education of the ‘globally mobile, mercantile elite’. The argument that it may be politically expedient to simply ‘move on’ is a strong one, but is surely outweighed by the fact that the field has issues and concerns that are not presently been tackled through research. This issue helps provide an academic focus for this book.

The challenges in reporting the changing landscape

43

Exploring the field objectively Another challenge facing the researcher in exploring the field is one of objectivity. Peterson (1987 p.xii) had pointed out, with reference to the founding of the IB, that ‘mistakes had been made’ but ‘the men and women who made them were those same friends and myself.’ It is interesting to note that the survey by Mayer (then a member of a study group called the Panel on Educational Research and Development) was far more critical of the field than Leach (then chair of Humanities at Ecolint) had been. It seems to be true to say that the literature and research into the field has always had, and most probably still has, an ‘internal’ bias, i.e. the people who do know about it are probably more favourable towards it. Until now, most literature has been ‘directed towards defining what actually is’ (Allan, 2013 p.149), and obviously this can only really come from practitioners within the field. This has led to ‘gaps’ in research and reports. For example, Pearce (2013 p.xvii) remarks that: ‘The economic context of International Education is seldom examined by those working within the field.’ In essence, the field requires external support to examine fully its impact. It also seems true to state that much writing about International Schooling has been from a positive and even biased standpoint, i.e. the purpose and intentions have always been viewed as a force for good. Ellwood (2005 p.5), for example, was saying that: ‘It is tempting to think of International Schools as havens of tolerance, peaceful interaction and good will in a fragmented world.’ Codrington (2004 p.183) had argued that: ‘The Mission Statements of most International Schools are … oriented towards globally enhancing goals such as peace, justice, international understanding, service towards others and environmental sustainability.’ Leach (1969 p.184) had even seen International Schools as offering a ‘safeguard for the future of mankind.’ Again, this sort of comment seemed applicable when describing the field in its ‘ideal’ context, but arguably requires subjective re-assessment within the current landscape of operation. In the Foreword to Bagnall’s (2008) book it was stated that: ‘International Schools have almost never been examined with a critical eye’. Bagnall’s (2008 p.5) explanation for this is to say that much of the work has been undertaken by practitioners in the field and ‘it is very rare that they write from a neutral position.’ This comment probably stands true about me, with 25 years’ teaching experience in the field, but all I can say is that I am aware of it. A key weakness of a book such as this is that it can only offer a bird’s eye view of the field, although it has been argued (Schweisfurth, 2013) that a telescopic viewing can be useful in identifying global trends. Pearce (2013 p.xii) has pointed out that the key ‘task is to find any uniformity’ among the diversity of the field, especially since there is the ‘increased difficulty of making any sort of generalization across the sector’ (Hayden and Thompson, 2013 p.8). Cambridge (2013 p.188) has implied that much discourse about the IB, for example, assumes continuous progress and improvement towards

44

The challenges in reporting the changing landscape

‘Enlightenment’. In other words, the changing landscape is normally viewed within a positive discourse of gradual improvement, although Tate’s (2012) contribution has questioned this within the ‘post-Ideal’ context of activity. In particular, Cambridge (2013 p.188) has identified much discourse about the IB as representing a ‘Whig interpretation of history.’ Sometimes this assumption is a distortion of the reality. Roberts (2013 p.120), for instance, notes that much of the early literature about the IB was, from his memory, more about practical assessment than ‘lofty ideals.’ Indeed, the initial Mission Statement of the IB, as presented by Peterson (1987 p.33), now seems eminently lacking in any expression of internationalism zeal compared to the current one envisaging the facilitation of global peace and intercultural understanding. Presumably, the immediate aim of the IB was to pragmatically convince others of its need, not to assert any immediate revolutionary intentions. That aim could come later. This book has deliberately set out to maintain a thesis that the changing landscape of International Schooling requires a more critical, and measured, discourse. At the same time, the commentary from more distanced writers has become more skeptical and disparaging, e.g. ‘International Schools tend to operate at an elite level of trans-national corporate society’ (Bates, 2011 p.16). There is an emerging view (which was very evident in the Pearce, 2013, edited book) that International Schooling has somehow and somewhat ‘lost its way’, i.e. it started with laudable intentions but has morphed into a different species with a different agenda. As said by Leach (1969 p.13), in an International School ‘the whole world becomes the local parish.’ However, as noted above, the notion of the field having ‘lofty ideals’ is a somewhat romantic one. In this context, the field has never achieved its ‘ideal’ position of activity. A particular objectivity issue now arises in the form of the newer variety of International School operated by companies for-profit and aimed at the ‘local’ wealthy elite (the ‘Type C’ ‘non-traditional’ model). It is worth saying that Peterson (1987 p.71) had made reference to how it was decided by 1973 that the IB would not be made available to ‘proprietary schools, that is, to schools conducted for private profit’, partly to preserve the image of inclusivity amidst promoting a rather grand ‘Geneva Baccalaureate’ badge. Discussing the role and actions of these ‘relative newcomers to the scene’ (Hayden and Thompson, 2013 p.7) requires a special lens of objectivity. One of the aims of this book was to consider the challenge of how can we reconcile the activity of for-profit companies in what has traditionally been viewed as a non-profit field of education? How can we consider the purpose and role of groups such as the Global Education Management Systems Education Ltd? How can we make sense of the growing attraction of International Schooling to for-profit companies? The intention is not to answer these questions now, but to highlight the point that they need considering as they have implications for both theory and practice. One of the few reports into the governing of for-profit International Schools (James and Shepherd, 2013) had

The challenges in reporting the changing landscape

45

explored, in particular, the implications of ownership and the profit motive, and showed that governance is becoming more problematic. This leads us to considering next the globalization era, and then the capitalist phase context of International Schooling. This will help to explain the changing landscape and the movement away from its ‘ideal’ context of activity.

Chapter 4

Viewing the developments within a globalization framework

Education and globalization Education as a form of ‘trade’

Globalization defies exact definition but is seen by the International Monetary Fund (IMF) as ‘the worldwide integration through trade, financial flows, technology spillovers, information networks and across cultural currents’ (cited in Morgan, 2005 p.42). The word ‘education’ is missing from this definition but has become closely linked with the ‘trade’ and ‘information networks’ aspect. Although the current phase of globalization often encompasses detailed discussion inter alia in an economics, media, and technological context, surprising little revolves around its educational implications. Even though studying abroad has become a ‘big business’ (Farrell, 2007), education in general has been described as globalization’s ‘unchartered territory’ and it has been said that: ‘We have barely started to consider how these accelerating transnational dynamics are affecting education, particularly pre-collegiate education’ (Suarez-Orozco and Qin-Hilliard, 2004 p.1). The current phase of globalization, termed by many economists as ‘Kondratieff Wave 5’ (named after the Russian economist Nikolai Kondratieff’s conceptual work in 1925 which had identified super-cycles of 50–60 years’ duration) beginning with the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989 and the emergence of the internet has witnessed an increase in global communication and trade. This fifth wave of globalization has allowed for a greater amount of ‘time-space compression’, as articulated by the geographer David Harvey in The Condition of Postmodernity (1989). This concept refers to a process of innovation which allows for quicker capital accumulation, i.e. it has become faster and easier for edu-preneurs to accumulate profit and reward investment. According to Harvey (1989 p.230): ‘the general effect is for capitalist modernization to be very much about speed-up and acceleration in the pace of economic processes and, hence, social life.’ The liberalization of education as a form of trade came with the General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS), in January 1995. This had followed

Viewing the developments within a globalization framework

47

the end of the Uruguay Round, and culminated in the World Trade Organization (WTO) talks in Seattle in 1999. GATS has had profound effects including the opening up of schooling as a profitable commodity and providing a convenient means of faster accumulating profit (De Siqueira, 2005; and Robertson, 2003). As reported by Rikowski (2002 p.1), to a British House of Lords Select Committee on Economic Affairs Inquiry into the Global Economy, the WTO ‘education agenda’ is to facilitate the penetration of education services by corporate capital. Moreover, the general outlook of the WTO is deregulation giving ‘freedom for transnational capital to do whatever it wants, where and when it wants’ (Tabb, 2000 p.5). Even socialist China was being reported by the late 1990s to be reopening up private schools (Kwong, 1997). Resnik (2008) has argued that Western education systems are being transformed, and their role redefined, in light of the processes of globalization: education targets are being reshaped in response to global economic needs; education systems are rated according to international rankings and education itself has been packaged into a commodity that can be commercialized worldwide. Not surprisingly, much of the growth of for-profit International Schooling has occurred post-GATS. Education as an ‘export’ earner

It had been estimated (Patrinos, 2002) that by the end of the 1990s the global educational field comprised a market of about USD2 trillion giving much space for profitable entry by transnational capital. Bates (2011 p.1) had observed that: ‘education at all levels is now a global service industry worth billions of dollars.’ Education in general has become a major source of export earnings for some countries. The Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (in BIS Research Paper 46, June 2011 p.9) had estimated the value of UK education exports to be GBP14.1 billion in 2008–2009, of which about half was from Higher Education earnings. It was reported by the British Council in 2007 that education is worth more to UK exports than financial services or the automotive industry (MacLeod, 2007). It had earlier been reported that Britain had 22% of the international student market (Sharples, 2003). Comment has been made in the TES that: ‘On the world education scene, Britain has bagged gold’ (Kelly, 2012). A research report, Vision 2020: Forecasting International Student Mobility – A UK Perspective, produced by the British Council, Universities UK and IDP Education Australia, showed that the global demand for Higher Education places for students seeking to study outside their own country is now forecast to reach 5.8 million overall by 2020, and the UK alone could benefit by over 800,000 Higher Education students, adding some GBP13 billion each year to the economy. The number of international students seeking Higher Education places in the main English speaking countries is forecast to increase from about 1 million in 2003, to 1.5 million in 2010 and then to 2.6 million by 2020.

48

Viewing the developments within a globalization framework

Three-quarters of the foreign students in Britain will come from China and India. The (London) Times newspaper in July 2013 carried a report (Coates, 2013) about a leaked British Government document titled ‘Education Export Industrial Strategy’ which had called for an influx of foreign students paying fees in Britain’s state and private schools. This move seemed indicative of the growing role to be played by education in countries such as Britain in economic recovery and tax-revenue enhancement. However, the process of deliberately promoting an influx of foreign students for export purposes has been shown (Collins, 2006) to be racially problematic in cities such as Auckland, New Zealand and a cause of intellectual culture shock in an Australian context (Ballard, 1987). Also, in arguing that education is a global public good, some commentators (e.g. Enslin and Hedge, 2008) question the ethics of charging overseas students a higher fee than other students. The concept of ‘soft power’ (Nye, 2004) is a useful one for conceptualizing the export growth of ‘British-ethos’ International Schooling. First used by Joseph Nye in a political and military context, to persuade and attract rather than coerce, the term ‘soft power’ is used by the British Council to promote Britain’s exports abroad. It is considered by the British Council that Britain possesses a lot of comparative advantage in terms of creativity, fashion, music, sport and education. This gives Britain a lot of ‘soft power’. The chief executive of the British Council (Davidson, 2013 p.8) has been quoted as saying that: ‘The UK has enormous soft-power advantages: a language that is being learnt by more than 1.5 billion people; an education system much admired and emulated …’. This comment gives much reasoning behind the growth of ‘British-style’ schools abroad, as a deliberately encouraged export market for Englishspeaking schooling. In turn, this becomes an import and outward flow of income for the country that is buying into the export and this adds a potentially problematic dimension to the issue. At what point might outward flows of money into countries such as Britain be questioned by developing nations? Is this not a new form of imperialism? The comment has already been made by Davidson (2009) that: ‘The sight of a Union Jack fluttering over a school in the developing world is always going to raise hackles. There will be inevitable charges of Empire building.’ This raises the issue of whether there is a limit to the growth of International Schooling (politically and diplomatically). The growing ‘market’ for tuition in English

The current phase of globalization has strengthened English as the dominant global language: ‘One of the important consequences of British and American imperialism and current expansionism has been to make English the global language’ (Spring, 1998 p.7). Jonietz (1992 p.72), following on from Tosi’s (1989) study, had suggested that most International Schools have a common

Viewing the developments within a globalization framework

49

language of instruction, namely English, and that suggestion seems to underpin ISC Research’s definition. Haywood (2005 p.15) had referred to the ‘Englishlanguage and western world of International Schools.’ At the same time, globalization has created a large body of overseas diaspora seeking education in either their native language, or English. It was estimated by the Institute for Public Policy Research in 2006 that over 5.5 million people born in the UK are resident abroad (figures cited in Pearce, 2011 p.155). This is equal to 9% of the UK population (compared to 24% in Ireland) and it is deduced by Pearce (2011 p.155) that ‘at least one British child in 25 lives overseas.’ This development might further help explain the growth of British schools overseas. Alongside the growth of British and native English speakers abroad, ‘Kondratieff Wave 5’ has involved a huge increase in worker migration especially among nationals in South East Asia and India creating a large pool of ambitious transnational workers seeking an English-language education for their children. Between 1978 and 2004, 815,000 Chinese students went abroad for study and 198,000 returned (Yamato and Bray, 2006 p.63). It is estimated that about 70% of all workers in the countries making up the Gulf Co-operation Council (GCC) are foreign, mainly Indian nationals (Abraham, 2012 p.124). It was reported (Kim, 2009) that half a million foreign workers resided in South Korea in 2006. The online newspaper Theindian.com had reported in July 2008 that the population of expatriate Indians in Qatar stood at almost 420,000, more than double that of the local Qatari population. A vast majority of the Indians in Qatar work as contract labourers in the booming construction industry. Furthermore, it was also reported that the total Indian population in the GCC region stood at around 4.82 million. Saudi Arabia was home to the largest expatriate Indian population in the region at 1.56 million, followed by the UAE (1.5 million), Kuwait (550,000), Oman (500,000), Qatar (419,096) and Bahrain (290,000). Not surprisingly given these figures, the UAE formed the focal point of the International Schooling field by 2012. The Commission on Filipinos Overseas website (www.cfo.gov.ph) reveals that, as of December 2010, there were 9.45 million overseas Filipino’s. By far the biggest grouping was in Saudi Arabia (1.52 million) alongside UAE (636,000) and Malaysia (316,000). Put together, there exists in the GCC region a huge pool of workers/migrants seeking and requiring an education either in their own language or in English. This has created a diverse market encompassing a large number of schools overseas catering for the Indian and Filipino diaspora. Many of these schools now teach in English. Education and ‘economic development’

In spite of these significant changes, it is only comparatively recently that educational researchers have begun to assess the implications of globalization

50

Viewing the developments within a globalization framework

theory for their work; ‘What globalization is and the impact it is having is therefore hard to pin down yet none of us can deny its significance’ (Mebrahtu, Crossley and Johnson, 2000 p.9). This comment is seemingly especially the case with regard to education. Research in Singapore (Koh and Kenway, 2012) has revealed how the state there is deliberately using the transnational to transform the elite into national leaders. Several International Schools have appeared in Kazakhstan out of the desire by President Nursultan Nazarbayev to modernize the educational system through the plan ‘Kazakhstan 2030’. Qatar in 2009 began inviting two International Schools each year to join its ‘Outstanding Schools Initiative’, and the International School of London was one of the first. Many of these developments are attracting hostility. Globalization is often identified with placing limits on state autonomy and national sovereignty, affecting education in various ways (Torres, 2002). This in turn creates tensions between global and local dynamics. The opposition in Singapore to the People’s Action Party, which has been in power for over fifty years, campaigned in the 2011 Elections on a platform of opposition to overly liberal immigration policies (Hyslop, 2011). Opposition parties tried to tap into anxiety about immigration to attract new voters citing problems such as climbing housing costs, a lack of jobs and strained public services which they claim is due to the fact that 36% of Singapore’s population is foreigners, mainly Chinese nationals (Yeoh and Lin, 2013). Yet, little attention has been given to identifying and conceptualizing what these tensions might be in an educational context. As a result of economic development policy-making, a number of ‘educational hub’ projects have appeared over the past decade. The Government in South Korea is ‘conducting a bold educational experiment’ (Sang-Hun, 2010) initially aiming by 2015 to have attracted 12 (later reduced to seven) prestigious International Schools to the 940-acre English-speaking only Global Education City on the southern volcanic island of Jeju. The intention was always to have two or three ‘pilot’ schools in place by 2011. The first two, North London Collegiate College Jeju and Korea International School Jeju opened in August 2011, followed by Branksome Hall Asia in August 2012. Vermont’s St Johnsbury Academy was set to open a branch in Jeju in 2015. Dulwich College in 2013 was set to open a British curricula branch in Singapore, alongside its existing four branches in Beijing, Shanghai, Suzhou and Seoul. In the context of the international expansion of universities, these branches have been called franchise campuses, joint-venture campuses and satellite campuses (Coleman, 2003). In my paper on this topic (Bunnell, 2008b), still the only one to deal exclusively with the phenomena, I termed schools such as Dulwich College Singapore ‘satellite colleges’. In spite of these controversial developments, it had been asserted that much of the debate about globalization in an educational context has been ‘somewhat confused and poorly informed’ (Dale, 2000 p.427). Reinforcing this

Viewing the developments within a globalization framework

51

view, Rizvi (2006) argued from a post-colonial perspective that some of the claims about the world ‘changing forever’ are clearly simplistic and grossly exaggerated, whilst the view that the authority of the nation states is in decline is overstated since nation states are now required to perform a range of new functions. One seemingly ‘new function’, the role of education in aiding ‘developmental’ nation states, has been especially under-emphasized (Green, 1997). Countries such as the UAE have openly encouraged the input of private globalized educational agencies (Godwin, 2006) although some commentators (e.g. Ball, 1998, and 2012) have been critical of generic educational ‘magic solutions’. It has been stated that: ‘Economic success in today’s world requires countries to liberalize to attract mobile international investment’ (Fred Bergsten, 1996 p.105). Furthermore, comment has been made (Henry, 1999) that countries need to learn how to control the ‘juggernaut’ of globalization and use it to their national advantage. However, not all countries have equal access to this opportunity. One early paper (Stewart, 1996) on the effects of globalization on education stressed that the global economy has increased opportunities for those countries that already have good levels of education but has little potential for areas of the world that have low standards (e.g. Sub-Saharan Africa). Countries with good human resources, high savings rates and outwardoriented development strategies (e.g. Pacific Asia) have the ability to attract foreign direct investment. In short, globalization has increased the gap between rich countries and the poorer ones, allowing newly-industrializing countries such as South Korea and Singapore, within the context of the latter’s ‘soft authoritarian’ political culture (Sharpe and Gopinathan, 2002), to rapidly develop whilst less attractive regions of the world for investment purposes are being by-passed. This helps explain the Pareto Rule phenomenon concerning International Schooling already mentioned. Relevant globalization frameworks

It might be useful to consider several alternative viewpoints on the different forms of globalization. One conceptual framework (Altbach and Knight, 2007) argues that globalization and internationalization are related, but not the same thing. Globalization is identified as the reality context of economic and academic trends, whilst internationalization includes the policies and practices undertaken by academic systems and institutions to cope with the changing global academic environment. The motivations for internationalization are numerous and include export promotion, economic development, social cohesion, and profit-making. This issue was also explored by McCabe (2001) in the context of study abroad programmes. Jones (1998) had made a distinction between globalization (the global pursuit of interest through unfettered capitalism) and internationalization (the promotion of global peace and wellbeing through international structures). This framework helps distinguish

52

Viewing the developments within a globalization framework

between the traditional ‘Type B’ model of International Schooling (concerned with internationalism) and the newer more profit-driven ‘Type C’ model (concerned with globalization). Another framework (Held et al, 1999), drawn up during the protests in Seattle against the WTO talks, identifies an extreme version of globalization. The notion of ‘hyper-globalization’ can easily be viewed at a high-street level. It was widely reported in January 2011 that the Subway sandwich franchise was claiming more worldwide stores than McDonald’s for the first time; Subway had 33,749 stores versus McDonald’s 32,737. It was reported in March 2012 that there were almost 19,500 branches of Starbucks, plus approximately 12,000 branches of Burger King. In other words, four major restaurant/coffee chains were in 2012 operating between them almost 100,000 stores worldwide. This framework helps place the ‘IB World’ International Schools in particular within a hyper-globalist lens of inquiry. A further useful framework (Room, 2000) identifies three broad forms of globalization. The ‘market’ form involves the removal of barriers to the free movement of labour and capital allowing edu-preneurs to develop their potential outside national boundaries. The ‘political’ form involves new supranational forms of government. The ‘social’ form involves the convergence of social and cultural values. It has been critically observed (Tikly, 2001) that the literature on globalization and education has tended to focus on Asia and that the material which is concerned with low income countries in Africa often lacks a firm theoretical basis and has been limited to a discussion of the impact of economic globalization on education.

International Schooling and globalization A globalization phenomenon

This book deals with a major pre-collegiate educational internationalization, hyper-globalization and ‘market’ form of globalization phenomenon that has the potential to create both local tensions and educational inequality, and offer developmental policy and profit-making options for capital. There is a huge growth in schools identifying themselves as ‘International’, although many do not carry this moniker as such in the title. The first that consciously did, Ecolint, and the school in Yokohama, both appeared about the same time in 1924 during ‘Kondratieff Wave 3’ (1896–1940, according to Smihula’s, 2012, framework) as giant firms emerged and there was a concentration of finance and banking, although the field has definite roots in the previous railway era and free trade phases of globalization in the early and late nineteenth century. Cambridge (2002a p.158) had further asserted that this dimension of education is ‘intimately linked with the processes of globalization.’ More recent comment (Hayden and Thompson, 2013 p.4) has said that: ‘Though International Schools existed before the term globalization was coined, the precursors

Viewing the developments within a globalization framework

53

to what we now know as globalization were undoubtedly instrumental in creating the early educational establishments we would now describe as International Schools.’ Daly (2011 p.59) has offered a globalization framework for suggesting that the growth of International Schooling ‘was being driven by three main factors’: the growth in global trade, the need for competent global workers, and the growth of global travel and study. Bradley’s (2010) Ed.D Thesis had identified the growth of International Schooling as being linked to the growth in migration and mounting global interdependence. Cambridge (2013 p.187) has identified the growth of the field in its ‘Ideal’ era as being led by ‘a response to the demands of a growing market of globally mobile workers.’ The year 2012 saw a significant number of ‘Type-A’ ‘traditional’ International Schools hit the fiftieth anniversary mark (e.g. International School of Dusseldorf, Copenhagen International School) revealing the fact that such schools grow in ‘waves’ as facilitators and recipients of phases of globalization. The history of such schools is now being told and is of interest to educators, whilst Caffyn (2008) had even argued that a consideration of the history of the school will aid in understanding the micro-politics within it. The story of how The American School of Barcelona emerged in October 1962 with 100 children and ten teachers has recently been celebrated (Berting, 2013). The story behind the Atlantic College’s ‘project’ in 1962 has been aired (Sutcliffe, 2012). China’s largest International School, Shanghai American School, celebrated its one-hundredth anniversary in 2012. Globalization is a contestable and politically sensitive trend. Thus, International Schooling is growing globally in a precarious political environment. One study (Kaya and Karakoc, 2012) had investigated the impact of the latest wave of globalization on anti-immigrant prejudice. Drawing on the literature it made a distinction between the ‘civilizing/integrative globalization’ thesis, which implies that globalization should help to decrease prejudice by creating greater contact between cultures and peoples, and the ‘destructive globalization/ globalization as a threat’ thesis. This latter thesis argues that globalization could increase anti-immigrant prejudice by intensifying competition over scarce resources and by increasing the perceived economic and social threat by native populations as a result of increasing numbers of immigrants. Recent rises in anti-foreigner sentiment in countries such as Singapore (Yap, 2013; and Teng, 2013) shows that this latter thesis is increasingly a reality. This forms a backdrop for approaching the growth of International Schooling from a more cautious and less positive angle of analysis. The constant growth is not always going to be welcomed or accepted. Many global workers/migrants live a precarious existence. A by-product of the current phase of globalization has been the commodification of labour. Standing (2011) has introduced the notion of an emerging class with common experiences involved in precarious work. Termed ‘the precariat’, a growing

54

Viewing the developments within a globalization framework

number of people across the world are living and working precariously, usually in a series of short-term jobs, without recourse to stable occupational identities or careers, stable social protection or protective regulations relevant to their job. They obviously include global migrants but also include local workers. Operating in fields that in turn operate in the interests of the market, with enormous labour flexibility including the ability to hire and fire at will has been ‘the major direct cause of the growth of the global precariat’ (Standing, 2011 p.31). Standing’s central thesis is that this ‘class’ of people although lacking identity as a class in itself, could produce new instabilities in society as they are increasingly frustrated and are ‘dangerous’ because they have no political voice or representation. Harvey (2012) had added to this thesis in the context of ‘rebel cities’ and research from China has shown (Chan and Nugai, 2009) that the specific process of the proletarianization of Chinese migrant workers has contributed to the rise of labour protests and strikes. Standing’s thesis is relevant to the field of International Schooling, which obviously includes a large body of precarious global workers. One report (Black and Scott, 1997) had concluded that UK teachers returning ‘home’ to teach after a posting abroad were victimized and disadvantaged in job hunting. The emergence of social media websites such as ISR.com can be seen as a by-product of an emerging ‘dangerous’ class of international educators. The previous phases of globalization

The website of the 18-strong AGIS (Association of German International Schools) previously had stated that: ‘Broadly speaking, International Schools are a post-war phenomenon. With the rapid development of international commerce and trade, particularly in the 1950’s, 60’s and 70’s, it soon became apparent that, if families were to stay together, a new kind of school was needed to meet the educational requirements of the children of the internationally mobile business and diplomatic communities.’ Yamato (2003 p.22), commenting on the development of the field in Hong Kong, had remarked that: ‘The concept of International Schools appeared after the Second World War.’ Similarly, Peterson (1987 p.16) had described the ‘International School’ and the ‘international community’ as ‘a phenomenon of the second half of this century.’ However, this type of historical comment reveals a particular interpretation of an ‘International School’, since the George V School began life in Hong Kong in 1902, in the form of the Kowloon British School. Indeed, Sylvester (2002b p.91) stated there is a need to: ‘examine critically the current mythology of International Education that sees the field simply as a direct outcome of two world wars or a by-product of the second age of globalization that followed.’ That is to say, the growth in size and scale of International Schooling can be conceptualized within a much broader historical context than might be envisaged.

Viewing the developments within a globalization framework

55

The earliest ‘International Schools’ (of course, the moniker was not used until 1924) can be traced way back to the period of ‘Kondratieff Wave 1’ (1790–1849) and the emergence of the railways. St Andrew’s Scots School began in 1838 in the St Andrew’s Scotch Church, Buenos Aires, to satisfy the needs of the children of the early Scottish settlers. St Paul’s School, Brazil, traces its origins to 1867, during Kondratieff Wave 2 (1850–1896), when the Escola Britânica was set up to educate 30 children of expatriate railway employees building the British-owned São Paulo-Santos Railway line. The British railway contractor Thomas Brassey had built railways in France, Italy, Belgium, Spain, Russia, India, Argentina and Australia. The Valparaíso Artizian School Society was founded in 1857 in Vina Del Mar, Chile, to serve the 180 children of Scottish craftsmen working in the railway workshops. One of the very first American-oriented schools had appeared in 1860 when American missionaries, led by Dr James F. Clarke, set up a school for boys in Bulgaria. This grew into what is now the American College of Sofia. All these schools would now probably be identified as being ‘market-led’ (Matthews, 1988), or ‘Type-A’ ‘traditional’ (Hayden and Thompson, 2013 p.6) models. Although a case for Ecolint being considered the ‘first’ International School has been put forward (Hughes, 2012), previous research by Robert Sylvester (2002 and 2003) had revealed that the 1862 London Exhibition saw the first real moves made towards creating an ‘International School’ as such. A school was set up in 1863 near Paris, and another near Bonn but they were soon disbanded. The next move came following an essay competition in 1862 won by a Frenchman, Edmond Barbier. In 1864 the novelist Charles Dickens had, perhaps surprisingly, made a call for a series of ‘International Schools’ (Ellwood, 2012; and Walker, 2012). A school called the Spring Grove International College was eventually set up in west London in 1866 based upon Barbier’s essay, and with help from Sir Richard Cobden, the Anti-Corn Law League statesman, and the scientist T.H. Huxley. At the same time that the London-based College was unfolding, a school was opened in a remote village called Brummana in Lebanon by Elijah G. Saleeby, sometime between 1869 and 1874. It was nicknamed the ‘Darlington Station’ because it was backed with Quaker (Society of Friends) subscriptions from Darlington, North-East England. This school of institution would probably now be identified as an early ‘ideology-led’ (Matthews, 1988), or ‘TypeB’ ‘ideological’ (Hayden and Thompson, 2013 p.6) form of International School. As shown already, The Yearbook of Education 1964 (1964 Yearbook) had revealed a grouping of about 50 schools. The short period between 1962 and 1965, that peak period of the Cold War involving the Cuban missile crisis and John F. Kennedy’s ‘Berlin Wall’ speech, can be identified as a pivotal point in the further development of International Schooling in its ‘Ideal’ era. The Point Four Program, a US foreign aid project which appeared in President Truman’s inaugural address helped to develop several International Schools. Sylvester

56

Viewing the developments within a globalization framework

(2005 p.126) had stated that: ‘…in the 1960s, International Education emerged as a convenient rubric upon which to consolidate educational programs that were adjunct to international aid.’ The period between 1963 and 1964 had in particular been a time of immense progress for International Schooling. The International Schools Association (ISA) had received its first UNESCO contract in 1963 (Leach, 1969 p.6). Several support structure began to appear; the US State Department’s Office of Overseas Schools (A/OS) was established in 1964, plus the International Schools Examination Syndicate (ISES), the forerunner to the International Baccalaureate Organization (IBO), was established in 1963. A large number of schools (e.g. The British School of New Delhi, Oslo International School and Copenhagen International School) appeared at this time. Moreover, schools began to appear in Africa in 1963 in the form of the International School of Lusaka, and the one in Tanganyika. The year 1964 saw a number of schools open with Roman Catholic links including St Stephen's School, Rome; St John’s International School, Brussels; and St Dominic's International School, Lisbon. These schools most probably helped form the grouping that the 1964 Yearbook had identified as being ‘a new concept’. The International Schools Services (ISS) had emerged from a meeting in Beirut in 1962 attended by 14 schools (Paterson, 1991 p.38). The European Council of International Schools (ECIS) had emerged out of a meeting in Geneva in March 1965 attended by 18 schools. By the time it was registered in October 1966 it had 25 member schools (Paterson, 1991 p.39). As described already, ISS, A/OS, IBO and ECIS helped form the core base of what can now be viewed as the ‘traditional’ supply-chain. As can be immediately observed, the field of International Schooling has a much longer and richer history than many observers probably imagine, whilst the origins of the concept have embraced the earlier phases of globalization. The ‘traditional’ (Hayden and Thompson, 2008 p.23) type of International School, now further conceptualized as the ‘Type A’ ‘traditional’ school (Hayden and Thompson, 2013 p.5), operating largely within its embassy/ diplomatic context may have twentieth century origins (during ‘Kondratieff Waves 3 and 4’) but the field has much earlier roots in nineteenth century corporate/missionary structures (during ‘Kondratieff Waves 1 and 2’). This story also shows that the field has always had both idealistic/ideology-led (internationalist) and pragmatic/market-led (globalist) foundations revealing a fundamental dichotomy of purpose and educational approach. This situation has been conceptualized as one of ‘serving two masters’ (Simandiraki, 2005), and the simplistic conceptual framework that identifies a dichotomy of approach between the pragmatic and the idealist has been a consensually agreed paradigm for the past three decades, although it now lacks a sense of ‘depth’. On the one hand, International Schooling nods to an aim of promoting global peace and citizenship. On the other hand, the aim is to facilitate global trade and development. Of course, in practice, many

Viewing the developments within a globalization framework

57

‘traditional’ schools are probably a mixture of the two approaches, whilst many of the newer ‘Type C’ schools probably nod more to the latter approach. The ‘two-dimensional’ spectrum arguably had substance at one time, perhaps up until the late 1990s when the body of schools numbered less than 1,000 but it now seems wholly inadequate as a framework for conceptualizing the entire field of over 6,000 including many commercial and deliberately elitist institutions. Although popularized by the work of Matthews (1988), its origins can be traced back much further to Peterson (1972 p.19) who had explicitly commented that ‘two types of International Schools have emerged.’ Of course, Peterson was writing at a time when there were only 24 International Baccalaureate (IB) schools, and hence his dichotomy was probably accurate for its time. The current phase of globalization

Another globalization framework, utilized by Hayden (2006 pp.161–162), is the one offered by the New York Times journalist Thomas L. Friedman (2005) in his well-known book The World is Flat. Friedman had put forward the notion that the year 2000 saw the emergence of a ‘third era’ of globalization. The first one, until 1800, had been epitomized by the globalization of countries, e.g. colonization. The second one had involved the globalization of companies and trade. The third one involves the globalization of individuals, allowing for greater migration and movement of people and cultures. Within the context of this framework, International Schooling grew initially from the interests of multi-national companies. Since the year 2000, though, the rapid growth has occurred through the context of a greater diversity of countries and cultures. The current phase of globalization involves areas of the world such as China, India and the Middle East. Not surprisingly, these areas of the world form the new ‘epicentre’ of International Schooling, unlike the ‘Ideal’ era when Paris, The Hague, Rome and New York stood out as forming the core base (Leach, 1969 p.17). In the words of Friedman, the landscape of International Schooling is getting flatter. Not surprisingly given the fundamental dichotomy of approach, the field of International Schooling has always been a diverse one encompassing a number of different models and possessing the ability to constantly morph into new ones as globalization trends change. In other words, the field is not a static one and requires constant reinvestigation. Bagnall (2008), in his book International Schools as Agents for Change, had looked upon them as living organisms that continue to develop and change as the world changes, arguing that the growth of such schools has occurred as globalization has increased the movement and rate of change of people from many countries. That book had also took the stance that, in a sense, all schools in a country such as Australia are ‘international’ which greatly complicates the conceptual vision of the field. Within the context of schools promoting international mindedness, new models of

58

Viewing the developments within a globalization framework

International Schools are constantly emerging giving rise to the argument that the role and purpose of the field needs constant reassessment. Within the context of the current phase of globalization, whether viewed either as ‘Friedman Era 3’ or ‘Kondratieff Wave 5’, International Schooling has had the opportunity to expand for a number of significant reasons. Firstly, the field has been allowed to grow since the late 1990s within a for-profit entrepreneurial (edu-preneneurial) model of activity, attracting investors and actors previously missing from the field. At the same time, International Schooling has had the opportunity to expand into markets not previously explored, significantly in Asia and the Middle East. Thirdly, the current phase of globalization has allowed the field to become exposed and attractive to a wider body of parents, notably the localized elite and emerging middle class. Fourthly, the field has begun offering an opportunity for nation states such as South Korea and Singapore to promote economic growth and development. Fifthly, the field has been opened up as a viable career-choice for educators, many of whom are likely to have come from the public schooling field of Englishspeaking countries (although this is now debated). Sixthly, the field has the potential to export and replicate elite forms of private schooling that have emerged over time in English-speaking countries. In turn, the field has opened itself up for a more critical lens of inquiry, although the field remains significantly under-theorized and under-scrutinized. This book intends to further the scope for assessment and critique but the situation requires constant research attention.

Chapter 5

Viewing the developments within a capitalism framework

The current phase of capitalism The ‘low-risk’ stage

Alongside the current phase of globalization, Cambridge (2002b p.228) had linked the growth of International Schooling to ‘the global diffusion of the values of free-market capitalism.’ Capitalism has entered since the financial crisis of 2007 a lower risk-taking stage (conceptualized as ‘Capitalism 4.0’ by Kaletsky, 2010), characterized by lower levels of public lending by the banks. The owners of capital are less prepared to risk their capital. In this context International Schooling offers a relatively low risk, and historically proven, investment area (i.e. very few schools have gone ‘bust’). In some respects the previous recession during the early 1990s, plus the economic crisis in South East Asia in the late 1990s, had also proven this but that had not attracted the attention of commercial players as much. The strength of International Schooling as a business venture was fully shown when GEMS Education reported that enrolment figures were up 12% in 2009 despite the global economic downturn (Delmar-Morgan, 2009). Brummitt (2007 p.39) had exclaimed that ‘International Schools are already big business and have attracted the attention of both governments and powerful commercial groups.’ It was reported (Pomfret, 2009) that some schools in Hong Kong charge a USD200,000 debenture just to add a name to the waiting list. Another school operator, Cognita, had reported (see ISR Research’s Newsletter February 2010) that profits had risen from GBP6.2m in 2006 to GBP22.9m in 2008. Cognita is an England-based for-profit company formed in October 2004 by private equity firm Englefield Capital (now called Bregal Capital). It is backed by the Dutch Brenninkmeijer family, owners of the C&A retail group. In March 2010, Cognita owned at that time 52 private schools and was educating over 15,000 students. In early 2013, the company employed almost 4,000 teachers and was serving more than 19,000 children. Revenue rose by 8.6% in 2011 compared to the year before, whilst the company has ambitions to be operating 100 schools by 2015, including branches in China, Mexico and Brazil (Gray 2011).

60

Viewing the developments within a capitalism framework

In this context, it was perhaps not totally surprising that ISC Research had reported that all the schools that had appeared on its database in 2009 were seemingly ‘for-profit’. The field has certainly proven its financial resilience. It was reported in TIE (4 January 2010) that the annual growth of International Schools had slowed down in 2009 from 11% to 7.2%, but this was still better than had been anticipated (Keeling, 2010 p.1): ‘the market as a whole did significantly better than expected.’ In fact, ISC Research data gathered during the 2009–2010 academic year had revealed that 51% of all schools had maintained their enrolment numbers, and only 9% had ended the year with less. These had been mainly International Schools catering for ex-pats and companies (i.e. ‘Type A’ ‘traditional’ schools) which had downsized. The other 41% had actually increased their student numbers. In China enrolment rose to 104,000 in 2009, compared to 7,300 in 2000. In India, the numbers in 2009 rose to 46,000 compared to 32,000 the year before. Indonesia saw an increase from 24,000 students in 2008 to 35,000 in 2009. As noted by Brummitt and Keeling (2013 p.31): ‘Even during the global recession, the market was affected very little and, at the worst times still achieved a 6% annual growth.’ The demand for places in many cities and regions greatly outstrips supply; ‘Dubai, Abu Dhabi, Doha and Hong Kong all have significant supply problems’ (Keeling, 2012b p.6). Subsequently, the cost of attending a school in excess-demand areas such as Hong Kong is high, and ‘Hong Kong’s top International Schools are swamped with applications’ (Nagrath, 2012 p.20). Expats are now competing with locals and this is ‘driving fees skywards’ (Harper, 2012). Harrow International School in Hong Kong has annual fees going up to USD21,000, and parents or their employers also have to make a payment between USD77,000 and USD385,000 to secure a place (Hunt, 2012). Yamato (2003 p.27), commenting on the Hong Kong market, remarked that: ‘International Schools are at the extreme end of the school fee scale.’ Furthermore, Yamato (2003 p.44) had commented that: ‘Education in International Schools is extremely expensive compared to the local mainstream.’ In fact, it was calculated by Yamato that one month’s schools fees in Hong Kong was equivalent to one-third of the average household’s income, yet there was still ‘excess demand from the local community’ (Yamato, 2003 p.56). As many International Schools are now less reliant upon serving the children of ex-pat companies, they might be expected to be less prone to global economic setbacks. For example, The British International School in Cairo had reportedly (Lynch, 2008) ‘expanded phenomenally over the past few years.’ In September 2007, the Cairo school had 600 students and this had increased to 755 by 2008. In February 2012, a survey of 166 schools by TIE (Nagrath, 2012 p.20) revealed that 69% had reported expanded school numbers in 2012 compared to the previous year. The executive director of TIE was quoted by Nagrath (2012 p.20) as saying that: ‘As in other recent recessions International Schools are demonstrating an amazing capacity to thrive in the face of economic uncertainty.’ The average reported increase in

Viewing the developments within a capitalism framework

61

2012 was 10% and three new schools even reported a growth of 50% to 130%. All the schools surveyed in Asia reported growth above 10%. Only 15 schools reported a drop in school numbers between 2011 and 2012, and the average drop was only 5.6%. The other 22% of schools obviously reported no change in student numbers. The American Community Schools of Athens had reported an 8% increase in 2012 and had 900 children compared to 500 in 2006, before the economic downturn. Hong Kong International School reported a 27% increase in student numbers between 2006 and 2012 and its enrolment in 2012 was its highest in 46 years. The American School of Milan reported that it had seen an annual growth of 8% between 2007 and 2012. The New York Times had reported (Pham, 2009) on ‘boom times for International Schools despite global downturn.’ This article had reported upon how in August 2009 the Western Academy of Beijing turned away 383 students because the 1,500 capacity school was already full. The International School of Amsterdam started August 2009 with 951 students, a record number. Moreover, both schools reported that they had not had to reduce fees to increase enrolment. The moral of all these individual stories is not only constant growth, but that there is seemingly a profit to be made from International Schooling even during a global economic downturn; ‘this is completely counter-intuitive to the daily barrage of bad economic news and predictions’ (Nagrath, 2012 p.20). The field in 2007, 2008, and 2009 proved itself to be extremely resilient, revealing the extent to which International Schooling now appeals to wealthy parents, and also the desire of ambitious middle class parents to give their children such an education at all costs. It is certainly true that the recession of 1993, and the economic crisis in 1997, hit many schools hard yet the field continued to grow; indeed double over the decade afterwards. It is actually very difficult to think of many International Schools that have failed. In other words, International Schools do seem to have a remarkably low mortality rate. Further to the ‘low-risk stage’, capitalism has conceptually entered a ‘predatory stage’ (termed the ‘cancer stage’ in the book by McMurtry, 1999), where investors are seeking to invest at low cost in services that have already been developed but are ‘weak’. Many privately-operated independent schools have entered financial problems during the current global downturn that began in 2007. The invasive growth of capitalism threatens to break down society’s ‘immune system’ and could reverse all the progress that has been made toward social equity and stability. At the core of McMurtry’s thesis, comparing unregulated global capitalism with the uncontrolled growth of a malignant tumour, is that the imperative of the modern ‘free market’ is simply to create more money for investors who desire to do as little as possible to obtain it. The means of making more money comes from degrading and destroying the infrastructure of society. This framework is a controversial one in the context of International Schooling, but it may strike a chord with some international educators and is worthy of elaboration.

62

Viewing the developments within a capitalism framework

The ‘hyper-capitalist’ thesis

Continuing the conceptual framework, capitalism has reached a stage where it can manifest itself in controversial forms, but receive little critical attention. One framework argues society has moved to a situation where capitalism is deemed the only ‘system’ (Fisher, 2009). That is to say, for-profit education is now deemed acceptable, even inevitable, whereas once it was questioned. This is particularly true of International Schooling where the growth of for-profit schooling has received little critical attention even though it was considered an anathema during the ‘Ideal’ era. In particular, capitalism has entered a stage where the buying and offering of an ‘experience’ is the key to making profit. The term ‘commodification’ refers to the use as a commodity of a good or service not intended such, i.e. it is a fabrication of the intended use. Jeffrey Rifkin (2000) in The Los Angeles Times had claimed that: ‘The capitalist journey is ending with the commodification of human culture itself.’ Rifkin was referring at that time to the merger of AOL-Time Warner and the commodification of leisure, entertainment and human time. His view was that capitalism has moved from generating wealth from making products and selling products, to extracting value from culture. Rifkin’s (2001) book, The Age of Access, subsequently termed this process ‘hyper-capitalism’, a process of obtaining short-term access to an experience, but without necessarily having direct contact with the supplier (or the ‘creator’). Put another way, in a hyper-capitalist model the consumer can have access to the product without actually buying it as such. This model is very applicable to understanding the growth of the exported and replicated type of International School, a pivotal ‘Type C non-traditional’ model, offered as ‘investors and entrepreneurs have identified a market’ serving an ‘aspirational middle class’ (Hayden and Thompson, 2013 p.7). This model of institution, although highprofile, has not as yet ‘substantially contributed to the wider discourse’ (Pearce, 2013 p.67). The emergence of this type of ‘International School’ began with south London’s Dulwich College allowing a replicated branch to open in Phuket, Thailand, in 1996 (Dulwich subsequently disaffiliated from it), followed by Harrow in Bangkok in 1998. Significantly, these two events had immediately followed the GATS agreement of 1994. Within this model (albeit a complicated one), the consumer buys the educational ‘experience’ and ‘brand’ from the franchisee, not the actual school which created the product. They are in a sense only leasing the ‘experience’, not buying it. To obtain access to the ‘real’ Dulwich College might cost a Thai citizen USD30,000 per year. But, access to the replicated model in Thai might only cost about a third of that amount. Rifkin’s (2000) main thesis is that we are moving from an industrial-based capitalism towards a cultural-based one. Here the big producers are not Boeing

Viewing the developments within a capitalism framework

63

or Ford, but Disney and Google. Repton School in Dubia, for example, is selling short-term access to a unique experience which has greater value (economic as well as social) over time. In return, the original Repton School gets access to a long-term relationship with consumers without actually having direct contact with them. The downside to this model is that what was once a ‘shared experience’, between students who actually attended the school, now becomes a packaged and ‘artificial’ experience between people who may never have met one another. To reiterate, capitalism in its current phase of activity has been seen as entering a stage where the buying and offering of an ‘experience’ is the key to making a profit. This has in practice involved the duplication and replication not only of education, but of human culture itself. The commodification of human culture, largely unreported, is advancing fast in China and parts of the Middle East. In 2006, an English town was replicated near Shanghai, called ‘Thames Town’ complete with a church modelled on a real one in Bristol, England. It was reported in 2010 that Dubai planned to build a recreation of Lyon’s Old Town, dubbed Lyon-Dubai City. There now exists in Suzhou, in eastern China, a copy (not identical) of London’s iconic Tower Bridge, built in 2012. In October 2012, it was announced (Reynolds, 2012) that Dubai was to build a replica of the Taj Mahal, costing USD1 billion. The Taj Arabia will form part of the 107-square-mile ‘Dubailand’, which will be divided into six theme worlds and will apparently be twice the size of all the Disneyland and Disney World resorts put together. These examples show that the commodification of human culture is ‘place-specific’ (Harvey, 2006 p.94), adding to a process of uneven geographical development. English-language education is well connected with this model of commodification. An educational project had occurred in South Korea where, since 2004 a large number of ‘English-villages’ have been built (Park, 2009 p.53). The first one was in Ansan, Gyeonggi-do province, and at least 20 subsequently appeared across South Korea although they have proven to be a costly experiment (Schwartzman, 2009). The 69-acre Paju English village (costing USD86 million) is actually modelled on an English village with its own brewery pub, bookstore, bakery, restaurant, bank and theatre along a main street leading to a Town Hall. One Australian doctoral study (Graham, 2001, quotes taken from Abstract) had explored the notion of hyper-capitalism and concluded that it existed when the ‘more intimate aspects of human activity have become exposed to commodification on a massive scale’ Moreover, Graham had asserted that ‘more abstract forms of value have developed as the products of thought and language have become dominant commodity forms.’ Within this context, the replication of elite English private schools in countries such as Dubai and Thailand can be seen as an expression of social value on a global scale. The English popular press (largely nationalistic) prefers to regard the replication of English schools as a form of cultural imperialism. However, it might also be

64

Viewing the developments within a capitalism framework

true that it is the symbolic value that is important, not the history or cultural capital. Elite English private schools represent power and prestige, and it is this aspect of value that might be the most vital within a hyper-capitalist context. It is tempting to dismiss the recreation of educational and human culture as a ‘fantasy’ one, likened to a Disneyesque-type creation. However, within McMurtry’s (1999) framework, the replication and exporting of elite English private schools is another means of unleashing gains from capital, yet with potentially little effort being done by the entrepreneur. In the same way that public utilities have been privatized, private schooling has been franchised. The social and cultural capital built up over centuries by institutions such as Dulwich College is simply ‘sold’ to private investors (or ‘predators’) that have the sole interest of making money from it. The concept of recreating the old town of Lyon, in Dubai, can be definitely viewed within a ‘predatory capitalism’ lens. European culture at present is very vulnerable to ‘sale’ and commodification, as the economic downturn since 2007 has placed countries (especially Ireland, Greece, Spain and Portugal) under severe pressure to reduce spending and yet create investment opportunities. It seems paradoxical that the Socialist mayor of Lyon should have endorsed the recreation of Lyon’s old town in the desert as a capitalist venture, yet it makes economic sense. It was reported in September 2012 that France had registered its highest unemployment rate in 13 years, and that 23% of youths were out of work. Youth unemployment in Greece and Spain in September 2012 stood at 55%. Such an economic scene creates an investment opportunity for cash-rich investors. European culture itself is prone to commodification; the atmosphere, spirit and soul of Gallic-Roman Lyon were set to be repackaged and exported to the Middle East. Put together, this stage of capitalism is a good ‘breeding ground’ for the replicating and exporting of elite English private schools. For example, ‘public schools’ in England came under pressure by the previous Labour government in 2005–2006 to justify their charitable status. This weakened their immune system (i.e. created the ‘cancer stage’) and made them vulnerable to predatory investment; a number of schools got involved at this stage (beyond just the Dulwich and Harrow schools). Furthermore, investing in an established and reputable educational ‘brand’ is a low-risk investment with little capital outlay (i.e. the main investment has already occurred over centuries and areas such as Dubai have a high demand for such an investment). The essence of this model is access. The emerging middle class in countries such as Thailand gain access to the networks of the global elites and future ruling class. The schools involved get access to a wider market and can release capital for subsidizing children back in England thus protecting their charitable status. The investors get access to a low-risk model of investment with no prior investment. The children in Thailand get access to a replicated ‘experience’ which they would otherwise have had to pay substantially more for.

Viewing the developments within a capitalism framework

65

At first glance this appears a benign form of capitalism (i.e. a by-product of Kaletsky’s ‘Capitalism 4.0’), allowing wider access to elite schooling by a wider global market, but the model has enormous social and economic consequences that have been little discussed. The notion of education as an economic positional good, creating inequality and social tension, would be a good source of analysis here. The model has received very little critical analysis, which seems to imply that it is deemed acceptable, and inevitable. That is to say, International Schooling seemed destined by 2014 to be used as a model for freemarket capitalist experimentation. This issue probably warrants further discussion.

Profit and International Schooling The ‘Capitalist Plan’ thesis

A further provocative framework for understanding the growth of International Schooling comes from Dave Hill (2006), co-founder of the Hillcole Group of Radical Left Educators. As said already, the World Trade Organization (WTO) rulings since 1994 have facilitated the free movement of education. At the same time, many neo-liberal governments have deliberately promoted both an environment conducive for business to operate in and make profit (the Capitalist Plan in Education) and an environment conducive for business to promote greater national competitiveness and global economic advantage (the Capitalist Plan for Education). Put together, education has become an attractive source of potential income for capital and a cheap provider of a tax-payer funded future skilled workforce. In this context, one of the purposes of education has become the creating of a global citizen who can both work for transnational capital and support its actions and activities (Reimers, 2006). The ‘IB World School’, for example, is an obvious source of such potential ‘global workers’ prepared to work with and for capital. In this context, education offers business a source of income from children as both future consumers, and future workers. Furthermore, the secretive movements by the British Government in July 2013 to encourage an influx of fee-paying foreign students into British state schools seemed indicative of the plan to create a situation where public schooling is financially viable for business to enter, i.e. one possible aim is to create a profitable environment (‘space’) conducive for edupreneurs and commercial companies to enter the public schooling market. In this context, a cynical view emerges that says companies such as GEMS Education are involved in International Schooling to show they can be trusted to operate public schools in countries such as England in the near future. Education since the late 1990s has been greatly affected by the current phase of globalization and capital penetration. The VT Group, the London Stock Market-quoted outsourcing and support-services company that formally built

66

Viewing the developments within a capitalism framework

maritime vessels announced ambitions to manage 1,000 state schools in Britain following the changes in political attitude thereafter the 2010 General Election (Hurst, 2010). Put bluntly, an ‘epidemic’ (Levin, 1998) of policy making has ensured that education both at a post-tertiary and compulsory schooling level has become attractive to investors and entrepreneurs, whilst education in general seems a reliable and fast source of profit within a relatively low-risk investment environment. This is especially the case in parts of the world such as Dubai that have embraced private inward-investment in education and have a situation of excess consumer demand for English-speaking schools. Ecuador, along with Peru and Bolivia, seems committed to diversifying its education system through bilingual and intercultural schooling (Hornberger, 2000). Together, these three Andean countries in June 2013 had the sixth biggest bloc of schools (96 schools in total) offering the three main programmes of the International Baccalaureate (IB). Resnik (2012b) had explored why neoliberal policies in certain South American countries (e.g. Chile, Argentina) favoured IB expansion. International Schooling in general has become a key source of profit and rapid capital accumulation. It is openly now stated that ‘International Schools are profitable’ (Brummitt and Keeling, 2013 p.31), but education in general has attracted much commercial involvement. James Tooley’s (1999) research into the global education industry, published by the Institute of Economic Affairs, revealed the prevalence of private and for-profit schooling, and not merely aimed at the rich or elite. Moscow has the same percentage, at 7% of children (both at primary and secondary level) attending private schools, as does England. In Colombia 40% of secondary students attend private schools. In the Ivory Coast it is a figure of 47%. Even a seemingly egalitarian country such as Denmark has 13% of children attending private schools. In nearby Sweden, substantial educational change was introduced in 1992 when 1.7% of high school students and 1% of elementary schoolchildren were privately educated. By 2008 the corresponding figures stood at 17% and 9% (Rising, 2008). Furthermore, there exist a large number of companies operating chains of schools. Objectivo/UNIP educates 500,000 children in Brazil on 500 campuses. Educor, listed on South Africa’s stock exchange has over 300,000 students, NIIT Limited in India educates a further 400,000 children. Globally, there appears a keenness to promote the operation of chains or networks of schools, often as franchises, and making use of economies of scale to be able to offer a layer of ‘low-fee’ schools. The Indian Business Standard had reported (10 July 2010) on how ICICI Venture, founded by ‘first generation entrepreneurs’, had invested in establishing IB schools in Hyderabad. One anonymous investor was reported as saying that: ‘Education offers a great opportunity for high-yield debt investment.’ The attraction of for-profit ‘edu-preneurs’ in schooling generally is evident when one considers that such activity in 2000 constituted approximately 10% of the USD740 billion education market in the USA (Lips, 2000).

Viewing the developments within a capitalism framework

67

Yamato (2003 p.32) had commented on how schools in Hong Kong were ‘thriving in the market place.’ It was reported (Anderson, 2010) that for-profit schools were growing in number in New York, including the British International School in New York and another called Avenues: The World School which opened September 2012 (Anderson, 2011) owned by the edu-preneur Chris Whittle. It was asserted that for-profit schools in New York had profit margins of 20–25%, before taxes and interest on debt and amortization. Brummit and Keeling (2013 p.35) had said that: ‘In the past, International Schools were perceived largely as a non-profit phenomenon. Now most new International Schools are for-profit and the future will be dominated by profitmaking schools and school groups.’

Big commercial players Some parts of the world, mainly in Asia, have an acute shortage of school spaces in spite of enormous growth over the past decade. The Singapore Government in 2008 released seven sites for up to four International Schools to ease a shortage of enrolment places. Hong Kong has a particularly chronic shortage of supply. A surge of British and American ex-pats since 2010 (there are now 30,000 American and 15,000 British ex-pats in Hong Kong) has led to over-subscribed schools (Keeling, 2012d). Furthermore, 21 of Kong Kong’s schools have an intake of well over 1,000 students. Harrow International School opened a new branch there in 2012, and 42% of all international schools in Hong Kong follow the English National Curriculum (10% offer an American curriculum, and 14% offer IB programmes). Within this political and economic environment GEMS Education has become a pivotal player (it is also involved in healthcare provision). GEMS first came to public attention in Britain in 2004 following the acquisition of Nord Anglia’s ten schools, at a cost of GBP11.9 million. It subsequently became the biggest manager of independent education in England, bringing its total in that country to 13 (and a further 23 other schools worldwide), although the emergence of this Dubai-based company at this level of activity in England has received little critical attention. The company’s rhetoric is hugely ambitious but often defies reality; GEMS had announced (Shaw, 2004) plans to spend another GBP190 million and manage around 200 schools in the UK by 2009. The company was reported (Sharif, 2013) to be seeking to publicly fundraise between USD650 million and USD1 billion to expand before considering an initial public offering. GEMS Education is mentioned a lot in this book and has the potential to become the biggest ‘player’ in the emergent field over the coming decade. Ball (2007) has identified GEMS Education as the growing force behind ‘education plc’. It is undeniably, again judging by its own rhetoric, an ambitious company and is the most publicized of the ‘newcomers’ (Hayden and Thompson, 2013 p.7). The company makes about USD500 million in revenue a year and in 2012

68

Viewing the developments within a capitalism framework

was the world’s biggest privately owned provider of schools (Mathew, 2013). GEMS had announced in a company press release (8 January 2010) to mark the fiftieth anniversary of the Varkey Group that it had ambitions to be educating five million children by 2024. The founder, Sunny Varkey, was quoted (Paton, 2009) as saying that ‘we plan to spread our wings across new markets and become the undisputed global pioneer and the number one education brand in the world.’ In an earlier interview in Britain’s Guardian newspaper (Woodward, 2005) Varkey had said his aim was for 5,000 schools globally by 2020. A business newspaper in the Middle East (e.g. Ferris-Lay, 2011) had reported on how GEMS was considering a public listing and had ambitions to be a USD60bn company employing 450,000 teachers and 55,000 senior leaders, i.e. GEMS alone could double the number of educators in International Schools over the next decade. It is easy to paint a distorted and disparaging picture about commercial groupings such as GEMS. Yet, in April 2012 UNESCO named Sunny Varkey as a goodwill ambassador for Education Partnerships. Varkey had been awarded in 2012 the Padma Shri, the fourth highest award to Indian civilians. Plus, in 2012 GEMS opened its first school in Africa, the GEMS Cambridge International School in Nairobi. Moreover, GEMS (i.e. GEM Systems) Education is committed to engaging more broadly within education operating ‘systems’ (e.g. child transportation to school, teacher training, data reporting) rather than merely running schools. In March 2011, a collaboration agreement was signed with UNESCO, committing GEMS to training teachers and school leaders in Africa. In November 2013, asset manager PineBridge Investments Middle East (PBME) had announced the acquisition of a school campus in Dubai via a sale and leaseback deal with GEMS. Founded in 1972, Nord Anglia Education plc is another leading for-profit company. Its International Division in early 2013 was operating 14 International Schools including The British School Warsaw and The English International School Prague. The first Annual Report from Nord Anglia, which had floated on the London Stock Exchange in 1997, had shown turnover increased from GBP27.9m to GBP40.4m over the financial year, an increase of 45%. Moreover, profits rose by 49%, totalling GBP2.42m (Sears, 1998). A decade ago, Yamato (2003 p.78) was referring to English education in Hong Kong as a ‘marketable commodity’. Another education group that is expected to show much growth by 2020 is Taaleem. This group has a relatively complex history, but was originally established in Dubai in 2004 by Ziad Azzam and three former colleagues from McKinsey & Company. Taaleem in 2010 was operating six International Schools with over 2,500 students representing more than 50 nationalities (Lewis, 2008). SABIS Educational Systems has its roots in education stretching back to the Lebanon in 1886 (the first school began in the village of Choueifat, a suburb of Beirut). In the US, SABIS Educational Systems was operating in 2013 eight charter schools (in Arizona, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Michigan,

Viewing the developments within a capitalism framework

69

Ohio), plus four ‘licensed’ schools (in New York, Michigan), and one private school (Minnesota). In Europe, it was operating three private schools (in Germany, UK). The 2009 accounts showed that SABIS managed 76 schools in 15 countries and educated 56,000 students. In the academic year 2008–2009, SABIS educated over 5,500 students in eight schools across the US. The first had opened in 1985 in Eden Prairie, Minnesota. The ISC Research database in November 2012 had showed how seven cities now have over 90 schools apiece. Many of these schools were operated by the same companies for-profit. Alongside GEMS Education, Nord Anglia, Taleem and Cognita, a large number of multinational providers of schools now exists, e.g. British Schools Group (BSG), Aldar Academies (Abu Dhabi), Dulwich College Management International, Quality Schools International (QSI), Global Indian Foundation and Yew Chung Education Foundation. In 2002, Fieldwork Education had joined up with the British Schools of America to form the World Class Learning (WCL) Group which resulted in the ownership and operation of a group of schools in the US and the Middle East called the ‘British School of America and Compass Schools’ (Svoboda, 2000). This discussion has helped set the scene for exploring in the next chapter some of the more subtle changes to the landscape of International Schooling.

Chapter 6

The changes in operation explored in detail

The transformation of the field The extent of transformation

To reiterate an important point, alongside the relatively obvious changes in size, there have occurred major changes in the nature of International Schooling over the decade since 2002. Much of this has gone largely unreported and without critical discussion. The field has fundamentally altered in terms of both statistical scale and intrinsic appearance, although it still seems true to identify the growth as having been ‘relatively adhoc, unplanned and unstructured’ (Hayden and Thompson, 2008 p.28). ISC Research had reported in January 2012 that the market had grown due to both an increased demand from globally mobile ex-pats (i.e. the original/natural stakeholders), and the number of local children being sent to International Schools, although the exact meaning of the term ‘local’ is contestable and forms a basis for discussion in this book. Even Mayer (1968 p.159) had commented on how the term ‘local community’ in an International School context ‘lacks definition’. An article (Keeling, 2012a) in Autumn 2012 had reported on the ‘transformation in the International School market’. It had highlighted the fact that alongside considerable growth, the nature of the market has fundamentally and radically changed; the clientele has shifted, the ownership of schools has changed, the distribution of schools has changed, the nature of the purpose seems different and the market is now viewed as a ‘big business’. In short, the landscape has fundamentally changed, indeed reversed in some instances, over the past decade in particular. The extent of the ‘transformation’ of the field can be conceptualized via a couple of suitable examples since 2011. The Liverpool High School was privately founded in 1880 and is one of the 29 schools of the Girls’ Day Trust School. In September 2007, it became the state-funded Belvedere Academy, one of the first two Independent Schools in the UK to undergo such a transition. Moreover, in September 2012, it opened a branch in Abu Dhabi, the Belvedere British School, offering the National Curriculum of England and

The changes in operation explored in detail

71

Wales and aimed predominantly at local Emirati children. In April 2013, Belvedere Academy announced it was intending to set up two more schools in Abu Dhabi. Another suitable example involves the first of Brighton College’s overseas sister schools which opened in Abu Dhabi in September 2011. With an initial roll of 860 pupils, Brighton College Abu Dhabi became the first in a series of potentially 12 overseas schools in a partnership between Brighton College International Schools Limited and Bloom Properties LLC, part of National Holding of Abu Dhabi. By 2015, it should be educating 1,200 pupils across the 3–18 age range in its state-of-the-art, 35,000 meter-square campus and with its students working towards GCSE and A-Level studies. Thirdly, Marlborough College Malaysia opened in August 2012 with 350 students, and had 600 the year after. It is expected to have 1,350 pupils by 2018 (Harper, 2013). Lastly, Emir Sheikh Hamad bin Khalifa Al-Thani funded the opening in 2012 of a branch of 500-year-old Sherborne School in Doha, Qatar. Sheikh Hamad’s son, Qatar’s Crown prince, is a former pupil of the English school. Sherborne Qatar became a leading member of Qatar’s Supreme Education Council’s Outstanding Schools Programme. New forms of governance appearing

These four rather randomly selected stories reveal a number of significant changes in the nature and reality of operation of International Schooling that have occurred relatively unseen, but were very noticeable by 2012 and arguably require closer attention and discussion. Firstly, new networks and chains of schools are emerging that exist beyond the reaches of the established organizations. For instance, the British Schools in the Middle East (BSME) regional association in 2012 represented 70 schools in 13 countries, yet this was clearly only a fraction of the market in that region; the ISC Research database had information on 180 schools in Saudi Arabia alone. The Council of British International Schools (COBIS) represented 250 schools, yet this was allegedly only to be about 15% of the total ‘British-ethos’ school global market (Lynch, 2008). The Federation of British International Schools in South and East Asia (FOBISSEA) had 38 members, yet there were 166 schools registered on the ISC Research database in Thailand alone. The East Asia Regional Council of Schools (EARCOS) had a further 130 member schools. The International Schools Association (ISA), the most senior of the regional blocs, represented a further 47 schools in 2012. It is worth bearing in mind that Leach (1969 p.15) had viewed ISA’s relationship with International Schools as the ‘organization that binds them together.’ SGIS had 40 members in 2012. There are a further 197 American overseas schools in 138 countries assisted by the Office of Overseas Schools (O/OS). They were educating in 2011 a total of 126,510 children of which one third were US citizens (Nagrath, 2009).

72

The changes in operation explored in detail

Put together, these seven major associations (Swiss Group of International Schools (SGIS), O/OS, BSME, COBIS, FOBISSEA, ISA and EARCOS), although core players in the ‘traditional’ supply chain, represented 772 International Schools, seemingly only about 13% of the total field in 2012, revealing the extent to which the established bodies have become not only fragmented but minority representatives of a growing field. At the same time, GEMS Education was operating 42 schools in the Middle East alongside another 11 in South Asia. Stephen J. Ball (2008) has identified organizations such as GEMS Education as new forms of educational networks. Some of his more recent work focuses on one aspect of change within the field of education policy and argues that a new form of ‘experimental’ and ‘strategic’ governance is being fostered, based upon network relations among new policy communities. Ball (2008) argues these players can disenfranchise the established network players. The issue of global governance in general is attracting more critical attention (e.g. Harman and Williams, 2013) and this might form another basis of a subsequent book about International Schooling. New inter-dependent chains of schools appearing

The managing director of ISC Research (Nicholas Brummitt) had been quoted as saying in the Spring 2012 edition of relocatemagazine.com that: ‘The International School market has become big business. There are now a number of highly respected, multinational groups of schools driving growth forward.’ This stands in direct contrast to Jonietz’s (1992 p.71) analysis that had concluded that ‘there is little indication that International Schools have internal relationships through similar administration.’ In other words, many of the newer International Schools are less independent and more interdependent than the previous ‘traditional’ models. Globally, there appears a keenness to promote the operation of chains or networks of schools, often as franchises, and making use of economies of scale to be able to offer a layer of ‘low fee’ schools. International Schooling has, of course, always involved chains of schools. Alongside SABIS, other well established examples of chains include American Community Schools (ACS), Marymount and The American School in Switzerland (TASIS) schools. There is evidently now a growing potential for ‘school chains’ (Dixon, 2012c) such as that being prepared by England’s Brighton College. The British Schools Group (BSG) had one of the largest networks of International Schools; in mid-2013, it had ten schools in six countries including Manila, Guangzhou and Nanjing in China, Moscow in Russia, Kuala Lumpur in Malaysia, Marbella and Pamplona in Spain, Tashkent in Uzbekistan and Sao Paulo in Brazil. Singapore-based Raffles Education Corporation Limited was in 2012 the largest private education group in Asia-Pacific. Since establishing its first college in Singapore in 1990, the Group had grown to operate 33 colleges in 30 cities across 11 countries in Asia Pacific: Australia, Cambodia, China, India,

The changes in operation explored in detail

73

Indonesia, Malaysia, Mongolia, Philippines, Singapore, Sri Lanka and Thailand. The London-based WCL group, with a regional office in Houston, owned nine schools in 2012. In 2010, Innoventures Education partnered with Emaar Properties to take over the management of Raffles International Schools and Nurseries in Dubai. One of the biggest networks of British-curricula International Schools is named after The City School, which was established in Karachi, Pakistan in 1978, and in 2012 encompassed 152 branches in 43 cities. Its head office is in Lahore, where it has 11 branches, but it has other branches offering mainly Cambridge International Examinations throughout Pakistan and overseas situated in Karachi, Lahore, Islamabad, Hyderabad and Dubai, Jeddah, and Dhaka. A large number of organizations have always specialized in the establishment and management of International Schools. The 1990-founded company Educational Services Overseas Limited (ESOL) has nine member schools in Dubai, Abu Dhabi, Egypt, Cyprus and Lebanon. The non-profit Quality Schools International (QSI), founded in 1971, had 37 schools (including five in China) after opening one in Hungary in 2012. Another non-profit grouping, the International Schools Group (ISG), had celebrated its fiftieth anniversary in 2012 and had seven member schools in Saudi Arabia. New inequalities of schools appearing

A ‘new’ form of relatively, or modestly, inexpensive International Schools has begun to emerge. The Delhi Public School (DPS) Society, which runs over 180 schools in 13 countries, reported in March 2013 that it was to launch the Union Indian International School in Dubai in April 2014. This school was expected to follow the Indian Certificate of Secondary Education (ICSE) curriculum and the annual tuition fees were expected to begin at around 30% cheaper than other ICSE schools. At the other extreme, an article in The Washington Post (Harlan, 2012) about South Korean parents being attracted to stay there and not send children to America had referred to the booming trade in ‘boutique International Schools’. This body of schools is easy to recognize. At least 15 schools were involved in 2013 in the exporting and replication of elite private schooling. From England there is Sherborne, Dulwich College, Harrow, Repton, Haileybury, Shrewsbury, Marlborough College, Malvern College, Wellington College, Brighton College, Epsom College, and North London Collegiate College. Plus, there is Canada’s Branksome Hall and America’s Dwight School and Chadwick School. In spite of its relative importance, and the involvement of these prestigious ‘boutique schools’, there seems to have been little academic or sociological analysis of the phenomenon. The previous chapter in this book has attempted to add some theoretical ‘flesh’ to the analysis. Interestingly, Rubinstein’s (1993) study had concluded that institutions such as Harrow were more open

74

The changes in operation explored in detail

to ‘new money’. It is worth noting that ‘top’ establishments such as Eton have not got involved in the experiment. To help contrast this situation with the ‘Ideal’ era, consider that Mayer (1968 p.29) had commented on how ‘the school building is remote from the city and the children ride to a carbon copy of an American suburban school’ (emphasis added). It is the elite English private school that is now being replicated, not the suburban American one. This is a major change. What is especially significant about the Brighton College Abu Dhabi story is that it opened fully subscribed with 840 children. This is a very different story from that told about the International Schools that had emerged in the ‘Ideal’ era. Consider two further alternative stories. The American School of Sao Paulo, or ‘Graded’, is one of the oldest American-oriented overseas schools. Mrs Ruth Kolb and Miss Bell Ribble began teaching six students in a two-room schoolhouse in the heart of Sao Paulo in 1920. It moved three more times until it settled into its present site. Ekamai International School, in Thailand, began in 1946 as ‘The Child Training Center’ with four children in the first class. Classes were held in the garage of physician Ralph Waddell. Later a classroom of thatched bamboo and metal roof was constructed and used for two years. This sort of ‘humble origins’ story was not uncommon in the ‘Ideal’ era. In fact, the 1999 ECIS Directory was showing that 60% of all International Schools had less than 300 students. The ‘traditional’ International School was usually a small school that had grown from a very low base. This is an important point to make as it was not an appealing model for outside investment hence the school relied upon parental cooperation. Even Ecolint had started life in 1924 with just eight students and three teachers, housed in a chalet loaned by a local supporter (Mayer, 1968 p.71). The American School of Brussels was also housed in a chateau, with two wooden buildings, and a capacity to house 250 students (Mayer, 1968 p.163). New areas of the world growing

The stories told above further reveal the emerging importance of the Middle East. The Asian region (including the Middle East) encompassed just over half of all International Schools by the beginning of 2011. The ISC Research Newsletter in February 2011 revealed that the region had dominated the growth since January 2006 and the 3,000 schools there accounted for 53% of all International Schools worldwide. By September 2013, this had slightly increased to 54%. By 2012, the leading countries for International Schools were in China, India, Pakistan, the UAE and Thailand. The Belvedere Academy story shows how schools are spreading across the Middle East, and the UAE in particular, further moving International Schooling away from its initial Northern European nexus of activity. In year 2000, Qatar had 21 schools, Saudi Arabia had 37 and the UAE had 97. By July 2012,

The changes in operation explored in detail

75

these figures had risen to 110, 154, and 369 respectively (Keeling, 2012a). In total there were 1,041 schools across the Middle East educating 885,213 children. Basically, there were apparently as many International Schools in the Middle East in 2012 as had existed in the world two decades previously. The Hong Kong field now serves as a good source of case study exploration. The studies by Yamato (2003) showed there were 60 schools in Hong Kong in 2000, and the ISC Research database (29 November 2012) was identifying 169 schools in that region. Mainland China, by contrast, had 22 schools in 2000 and 220 in 2012 (see Pham, 2009). Aside from Hong Kong, the growth of International Schooling in Asia in general has received relatively little direct scholarly attention or comment, although it has been linked to the growth of the International Baccalaureate (IB) programmes (e.g. Lee, Hallinger and Walker, 2012) and the desire of parents in countries such as the Philippines to undergo an elite reproduction system (e.g. Dunne and Edwards, 2010). A growing geographical imbalance can now be identified from the data being collected; Asia (including Middle East) by 2012 dominated the market with 58% of all students worldwide. The UAE, Pakistan, China, India and Japan each had more than 200 schools. Two-thirds of the extra 5,000–6,000 schools by 2021 are expected to come from Asia, including the Middle East. New forms of curricula appearing

The stories told above also reinforce the fact that new International Schools are no longer automatically and instinctively linked with the IB programmes. A large number of new schools are offering UK curricula, especially the National Curriculum for England and Wales, rather than international curricula. ISC Research in January 2012 was reporting 307 schools in India, educating 118,000 students and employing 11,330 teachers. Moreover, 85% of the schools in India offered a ‘UK curriculum’. This helps further undermine the established relationship between International Schooling and the IB. This relationship has statistically become a rather tenuous one. A presentation by the International Baccalaureate Organization (IBO) director general to the ECIS Annual Conference (19 November 2004) had revealed there were 1,215 International Baccalaureate Diploma Programme (IBDP) schools. As it was also stated around that point in time that 18% were International Schools, we can deduce that about 300 ‘IB World Schools’ were such a type of school in 2004. This figure has fallen dramatically as a proportion from 80% in 1972, to 58% in 1979 and is expected to be just 5% by 2020 (see the presentation by Beard and Holloway, 2010), although 3% might be more realistic given current growth trends. The relationship, previously maternal, has also become a rather strained one. One IB school head (Toze, 2008 p.6) had expressed concern at the ‘Gadarene rush’ to attract schools. Another (Mott, 2009 p.19) had accused the IB of being ‘intoxicated by quantitative growth’. This issue, of a ‘headlong rush’, had

76

The changes in operation explored in detail

surfaced in Seville (13–16 October, 2009) at the World Conference for Heads of IB Schools. Here 530 delegates met, and expressed concerns regarding quality being compromised. The Academy for International School Heads (AISH) held a special gathering in Seville in November 2009 to express a number of concerns, including ‘the overall integrity of the exam process’ (Betts, 2009 p.4). A statement from AISH was officially handed over to the IB. At the same time, the IB has deliberately distanced itself. The IB by 2012 no longer had a monopoly on International School curricula. In early 2013, there were 1,500 schools in 85 countries offering the International Primary Curriculum (IPC), many of them are International Schools. The demand for Cambridge IGCSE in India was also growing fast. Schools in India made over 28,000 entries for Cambridge IGCSE in 2012, a rise of 24% since 2011, plus 47 schools in Mumbai made entries in the 2011–2012 Cambridge IGCSE exam series (November 2011 and June 2012) – a rise of 24% from the previous year (Lukose, 2012). New elitist clientele appearing

Schools such as the Belvedere Academy branch are seemingly aimed predominantly at the local elite rather than the transnational community. To reiterate a major point, International Schools now cater and attract a constituency that is very different from the ‘original’ or ‘traditional’ base. One article since 2012 has discussed (Song, 2013) how English-medium International Schools in South Korea, initially established to educate foreign residents, have recently transformed themselves into private providers of global education for local South Koreans. Song (2013) argued that International Schools are elite-class reproducing institutions growing in demand as the English language has been impinging on South Korea’s education and labour market. Hayden’s (2011) discussion of the changing nature of International Schools showed that this form of education proves increasingly attractive not only to the globally mobile expatriates for whom such schools were originally founded, but also to those seeking a competitive edge for their child in a competitive and globalized market. According to Sklair (2000) the transnational capitalist class (TNCC) has very similar characteristics. It has outward-oriented global rather than inwardoriented local perspectives. It tends to share similar lifestyles, particularly patterns of Higher Education, and consumption of luxury goods and services (such as the IB). Furthermore, it seeks to project images of itself as a citizen of the world. Research among students attending schools in Qatar showed that those attending International Schools perceived themselves, and their career choices, differently from students in national schools (Baker and Kanan, 2005). It is argued that the TNCC should be viewed as an emerging global ruling class (Robinson and Harris, 2000). There now exists a global ruling elite (called the ‘superclass’ by Rothkopf, 2008), where relationships and networks are the key to power. The field of

The changes in operation explored in detail

77

International Schooling is discretely yet deliberately involved in global elite networking. The ‘G20 Group of Schools’ was in 2012 an informal association of 40 prestigious secondary schools in 16 countries worldwide initiated in 2006 by David Wylde of St Andrew’s College, South Africa, and Anthony Seldon of Wellington College, England. Member schools include Ecolint, Brookhouse International School (Kenya), Markham College (Peru), and the Chinese International School in Hong Kong. As Rothkopf (2008) was finalizing his book, September 2008 saw the opening of Haileybury Almaty, the first British private school in Khazakhstan. This $100 million project, backed by seven Khazak businessmen, is advised and monitored by Haileybury (founded 1862), a prominent and highly elite private English school. The notion of a ‘power elite’ using education to reproduce its economic advantage is a well-established one (e.g. Mills, 1959). It was being stated in the late 70s (e.g. Hymer, 1979) that an ‘international capitalist class’ had emerged, spearheaded by a social class operating within multi-national corporations. This was the same time (Starr, 1979) that the notion of ‘International High Schools’ was being mooted. The term TNCC has since appeared, identifying a deliberate project of institutionalizing globalization, beginning in the late 1960s. Robinson and Harris (2000) argued the TNCC is a global ruling class since it controls the levers of an emerging transnational state apparatus and of global decision-making. Gellar (2002b p.5), whilst noting the IB is not in principle elitist, said it has been adopted, certainly in the private sector, by International Schools serving the ‘mobile international community of well-paid middle class families, essentially the business and diplomatic communities.’ One recurring theme within the Walker (2011) book, published by the IB, is the degree to which the field of International Schooling is now viewed as being an elite arena; ‘what some regard as a privileged club’ (Walker, 2011 p.11). The notion that the IB has moved away from making contact within such an exclusive ‘club’ to making connections with a more diverse and more inclusive set of schools is a common one with regard to ‘official’ IB presentations and materials. The notion that International Schooling offers ‘advantages’ that other dimensions of education lack is a fairly long-standing one. Lowe (1999) had indicated that those taking international curricula examinations are invariably national elites, but their reasons for taking them do vary. While access to overseas Higher Education is a reason for some, this is by no means universal and other reasons relate to perceptions of the educational quality of both the schools and the curricula and to the economic and social advantages and access that international qualifications may give to the international community. There exists a well-established view that International Schooling is giving (elite) children an unfair advantage in terms of college admission, job opportunity and general lifestyle. That is to say, International Schooling is responsible for ‘winners’ emerging within the educational market place. This in turn helps to produce and reproduce a global ruling class: ‘The place of International

78

The changes in operation explored in detail

Schools within this global competition for credentials is not just about winners and losers but whether through the agency of the winners they are implicated in the creation of a trans-national ruling class’ (Brown and Lauder, 2011 p.39). Referring specifically to IBDP graduates, Wylie (2011 p.36) suggested that: ‘These students, who are likely to be the financial leaders of the next generation, will have an understanding of the complexities of the global issues … and may be positioned to make a difference for a new future.’ New career opportunities for educators appearing

There is evidence that International Schooling has become an attractive career option for many teachers. ISC Research in November 2013 had reported that the number of teaching jobs at International Schools in Abu Dhabi had increased 42.6% from 2009 to 2013. In Dubai the number of jobs had also risen sharply, by 31.8%, from 10,007 in 2009 to 13,190 in 2013. Earlier, in March 2013, ISC Research had announced (Vaughan, 2013a) that the 300,000-teacher milestone had been met globally. At the same time, Brummitt and Keeling (2013 p.33) have noted how ‘the pool of available candidates is barely keeping pace with demand.’ The UK is seemingly the biggest single supplier of staff to the field, accounting for more than 100,000 teachers (Vaughan, 2013b). It was reported (Barker, 2010) that 30,000 teachers left the UK between 2005 and 2010 to work in International Schools as they escaped ‘the freezing winter and the prospect of post-election funding cuts in education.’ The head of The British School in the Netherlands was cited (Vaughan, 2013b) as having had 160 applicants for a single teaching post. Schools such as Brighton College Abu Dhabi will appeal to English-speaking teachers especially those from British Commonwealth countries such as England, Australia and Canada. Previously, teachers had left the national system for a ‘break’. Peterson (1972 p.123) had said that ‘naturally’ the educator in an International School would ‘seek security sooner or later by getting back into the career structure of his national system.’ However, there is evidence emerging that many educators now see International Schooling as a long-term career field. The 2012 NatWest International Personal Banking Quality of Life Index revealed that 5 million British expats are living abroad, including 74,264 teachers in British International Schools. This latter number was expected to have risen by another 50% by 2013 to number 123,000 British teachers. This figure is equivalent to 25% of England’s 2012 teaching force. Britain’s TES had 64 jobs in International Schools advertised in its first edition of August 2011. Teacher numbers in Scotland’s schools fell by 3,000 (from 55,000 to 52,000) between 2008 and 2011 as many retired or left to work abroad (MacDonald, 2011). There has never been any doubt that American and British teachers constitute a large proportion of teachers in International Schools. Copenhagen International School in the academic year 2013–2014 had 145 teachers, of

The changes in operation explored in detail

79

which 31% were American citizens and 15% were British. The remainder (54%) was divided among 22 nationalities. Not surprisingly, therefore, International Schools have been identified as having a culture ‘largely AngloAmerican in nature’ (Allen, 2002 p.66). Canterford (2003 p.50) had revealed that of those teachers applying for the February 2002 Search Associates job fairs, 75% were either British, American or Canadian. Furthermore, figures taken from the 1997/98 ISS Directory had shown that the 500 schools had 27,432 teachers. Of these, 52% were British or American (this rose to 60% in schools in Europe, showing that the aforementioned Copenhagen figures were actually on the low side). The host country on average made up just 28% of the teaching force and in Africa only 17% were locally hired (Canterford, 2003 p.51). More recently, it was still being stated that: ‘The most predominant groups choosing to teach in International Schools are from Western nations, primarily Canada, UK, Australia, New Zealand and the US’ (Shaklee and Merz, 2012 p.13). This introduces the notion the that the continuous growth of International Schooling needs to seek a wider ‘net’ of future educators to avoid accusations of an educator ‘brain-drain’. New images of operation emerging

The story of Liverpool’s Belvedere Academy also reasserts the fact that much of the growth since 2002 has occurred within the British-ethos area of International Schooling. It was reported (Hyslop, 2010a) that 2,200 of the then 5,500 schools offered the National Curriculum for England and Wales. The growth of British-ethos education has been a major under-reported phenomenon, implying that the ethos of the field has maybe changed (from being predominantly American in ethos to British). The growth of British schools overseas was given a boost in September 2011 when the British Government spent GBP510,000 developing the GREAT Britain brand, which was to be used at business receptions abroad and in advertising by Visit Britain (Rayner, 2011). The British Vietnamese International School (BVIS) was officially opened in 2011 by the Rt Hon Dr Vince Cable MP, the UK Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills. A report published in August 2013 titled International Education Strategy: Global Growth and Prosperity revealed that the British education institutions that operate overseas raised GBP960 million for the British economy. The Independent Schools Council (ISC) published its Annual Census in April 2013 and highlighted the ‘internationalization of education’ as a major new trend, whilst almost 30 ISC member schools at that point in time had considered setting up branches overseas. The emerging dominance of British-ethos schooling has drawn little criticism. Yet, the term ‘cultural imperialism’ refers to the exercise of domination in cultural relationships in which the values, practices, and meanings of a powerful foreign culture are imposed upon one or more native cultures (Tomlinson, 1991). At least one article (Edwards et al, 2006) has examined the

80

The changes in operation explored in detail

importance of associations with Britain in the marketing messages of ‘British’ International Schools in Malaysia. A potential avenue of inquiry into understanding the growth of Britishethos schooling abroad comes from Bernstein’s (1997) identification of two distinct but interrelated set of behaviour. It is possible that the appeal of English schools such as Dulwich and Harrow in foreign countries is more concerned with ‘expressive order’, to do with learning conduct, character, self-confidence, style and mannerisms rather than the appeal of the ‘instrumental order’, to do with knowledge and skills. In this context, ‘British-ethos’ schooling offers a route to a distinct way of life rather an insight into different learning styles and ideas. Of course, the concept of parents in a foreign country wanting a ‘Britishethos’ education is not a historically new one. The Oporto British School opened in 1894 with 11 boys, with the Rev W.S. Picken as the Master and is believed to be the oldest British school in mainland Europe. The year 1908 saw the opening of the British Schools Montevideo, which became the first school in the southern hemisphere to offer the IB in 1969. Sir Alexander Mackenzie had founded The British School of Rio in 1924. The year after, Anne Griffith-Jones OBE had started one of the leading British schools in South East Asia, Tanglin Trust School, in Singapore, with just five students. St Edward’s School, a Catholic school, had opened on the site of a military hospital in 1929 giving Maltese students the opportunity to receive such an education. Lady Margaret Strickland donated funds and Sir John Philip Ducane, who was then Governor of Malta, provided materials. Christine Sandford, wife of Daniel Sandford, the English general who helped Ethiopian patriots liberate Ethiopia from fascist Italy, founded in Ethiopia in 1946 the Sandford English Community School. The immediate change to note is that these schools were most likely founded for British ex-pats, not ‘locals’. New divisions and tiers appearing

Furthermore, the stories told above reveal how the field is becoming increasing hierarchical, with a definite ‘top tier’ of schooling appearing. Although both Mayer (1968) and Leach’s (1969) surveys had revealed a sense of there being ‘flagship’ schools (e.g. United Nations International School (UNIS), American School of Paris), the field had previously been viewed as being a largely elitist one with schools of roughly equal stature and status, i.e. it conceptually had breadth but not depth. There have always been accusations of elitism with regard to International Schools and a ‘perception that International Schools are elitist schools operating in isolation from the society in which they are located’ (Garton, 2002 p.133). However, the market has become noticeably tiered and hierarchical, giving the field as said already a sense of depth, and henceforth creating new directions for career choice. The entry into the market of elite private schools such as England’s Repton School, with its replicated branch in

The changes in operation explored in detail

81

Dubai, has created a body of highly prestigious and expensive schools with the potential to both promote and distort the image of the field. At the same time, it would now be seemingly wrong to label all International Schools as ‘expensive’ or ‘elitist’. The ‘airline’ pricing model as practiced by GEMS Education has deliberately created a formal and easily identifiable three-tier structure, with high-fee premium schools at one end of the spectrum offering IB programmes and low-fee budget schools at the other end of the divide offering Indian curricula. The three-class ‘airline model’, perhaps best described by the ‘hotel chain’ metaphor (Hayden and Thompson, 2013 p.19), where the pragmatic approach to education is more important and quality assurance matters most, can also be identified within the listing of schools in Shanghai provided by Yamato and Bray (2006 pp.77 and 78) although the ‘top-tier’ schools now more easily stand out. One common theme in critically observing the field is to remark that International Schooling has become a force for the reproduction of economic advantage, and the education of the global ruling class. To repeat, the Bates-edited (2011) book, Schooling Internationally, had pursued the central theme that International Schooling involved the elite education of the TNCC. Although this may have been largely true of the ‘traditional’ International Schools during the ‘Ideal’ era, it appears to be no longer strictly true in practice among the ‘non-traditional’ type. A large number of schools in Dubai cater for children of the low-paid Indian ex-pat workers (although many are not perhaps seen as ‘International Schools’ as such and this requires further discussion). Fees at the International Schools in Dubai range from USD2,000 to almost USD25,000 per year in IB schools such as Repton School Dubai, and GEMS World Academy. As seen already, it is argued by some commentators (e.g. Dave Hill, 2006) that there exists a need for capital to profit from education. A highly stratified and differentiated curriculum ‘field’ helps introduce competition to the market and encourages business to profit directly from educational provision. There is little incentive for business (edu-business) to operate in a field selling the same product; so a differentiated market is more attractive. The pioneer of this model is undoubtedly Sunny Varkey, but others are also using the model. The Indian Express newspaper reported (22 June 2010) that the MDN Edify Education company founded by edupreneur Dayanand Agarwa will start ten new franchisee-model schools in different parts of India in 2012, with plans to launch 50 branches there by 2015. Varkey is hopeful in the future of operating this ‘no-frills airline’ model for profit in England (see interview with Cassidy, 2004), reinforcing the view that a wider educational experiment is taking place (i.e. GEMS is showcasing its model to a wider audience). New purposes and uses appearing

As reported already, a complex and often controversial set of new purposes have emerged. Governments in some countries have begun using International

82

The changes in operation explored in detail

Schooling as a policy vehicle to promote economic growth and development; ‘several governments have realised the value of the economic contributions made by a well-established and high-spending international community’ (Keeling, 2012 p.20). In Vietnam in 2007, it was reported (Viet Nam News, 7 April 2007) how entry into membership of the World Trade Organization (WTO) had led to enhanced enrolment figures in International Schools. In Thailand in June 2009, the education minister Jurin Laksanawisit announced the ministry planned to spend Bht3 billion to turn Thailand into an educational centre by increasing the number of foreign students at home, and would help by promoting the establishing of International Schools (The Nation, 2009). Seoul City is developing the Sangam district along with the Magok district, both in western Seoul, into ‘business hubs’ by attracting international companies. Dwight School opened its International School in Seoul in August 2012 in Sangam. Students with Korean nationality are eligible to enrol in this IB programme school only when they have had at least three years’ residence overseas, whilst the proportion of Korean students will be limited to no more than 20%. Furthermore, the yearly tuition fee cannot exceed USD22,000 until 2015. Uganda is also keen to retain students within the country. In March 2012, it was announced by the Turkish Consul in Uganda that a Turkish International School would open alongside the other eight International Schools. A large body of literature examines the policy and emergence of educational regional ‘hubs’ within a higher education context. However, there has been little comment or analysis of this educational/social/economic phenomenon at a pre-Higher Education, and International Schooling, level. A list of the major developments hubs in 2012 included: Dubai Investment Park, Education City in Qatar, Eastern Province in Saudi Arabia, Songdo New City in South Korea (which hosts Chadwick International School), Digital Media City, Seoul (which hosts Dwight School Seoul), Global Education City on Jeju Island in South Korea, Kuala Lumpur Education City (which hosts Epsom College), and EduCity in Iskandar in southern Malaysia (which hosts Marlborough College Malaysia). New investment opportunities emerging

What is not clear is the exact nature of operation and the extent to which the Abu Dhabi branch of Belvedere Academy is being operated for-profit. Of the 1,209 International Schools listed (22 May 2012) on the social website internationalschoolcommunity.com, 489 (40%) were for-profit and 720 (60%) were non-profit schools. Brighton College Abu Dhabi aims to be the ‘leading private school in the Middle East’ (Hyslop, 2010b). It was reported (September 2010) that Brighton College was also considering opening ‘satellite colleges’ in Mauritius, Jordan, and Oman. It was commented that: ‘The colleges are an excellent source of revenue for British schools aiming to capitalize on their reputation overseas’ (Hyslop, 2010b). This model has a strong financial impetus. Put bluntly, elite

The changes in operation explored in detail

83

private schooling in Britain has become very expensive, especially from a Euro and USD perspective. A report by Forbes.com (Ram, 2007) confirmed in December 2007 that the world’s 15 most expensive boarding schools were in Britain and Switzerland (Eton and Charterhouse topping Britain’s listings). It was reported (Mukherji, 2009) that in 2004 there were only a ‘handful of International Schools scattered across the city’ of Mumbai. By 2009, there were more International Schools (75 IGCSE and IB schools) than schools offering Indian international curricula (ICSE and the Central Board of Secondary Education (CBSE)) and ‘today it is International Schools that rule the roost, not only in terms of snob appeal but also numbers.’ The ISC Research database was reporting Mumbai in January 2013 to be the thirteenth biggest single market worldwide, with 58 schools. Moscow is a relatively ‘new’ market and the first International School in that city only appeared in 1994. It was reported (The Moscow News, 28 August 2008) that there were now four International Schools in Moscow, with two new arrivals, the British International School and International School of Moscow breaking the ‘monopoly’ of the established two schools. One of these, the Anglo-American School had opened in 2000, yet by 2008 it had 1,226 children and had a large waiting list. The ISC Research database in January 2013 was reporting 35 schools in Moscow. A summary of the changes

To summarize the situation, a number of largely under-reported changes have occurred to the International Schooling landscape since 2002, and are very noticeable when viewing just a few choice case studies. The operational field of International Schooling has changed enormously. There has emerged a large number of new ‘players’ operating chains of schools outside the boundaries of the established organizations and networks, effectively disenfranchising these ‘traditional’ players in the field. There has emerged a deliberately elitist model of expensive school, adding to the diversity of schooling and creating a hierarchical model of operation. There have emerged within the field a number of for-profit companies seeking a relatively low-risk and recession-proof form of investment. Also to emerge within the field are a number of alternative curricula providers further undermining the dominance of the IB programmes (although the IB has deliberately distanced itself from the field). The field in 2012 was beginning to have a definite Asia/Middle East dominance, although Africa was also attracting attention from investors. The stakeholder base of International School has changed from diplomatic/business community involvement to local and regional elite further adding to the elitist image of the field, although the exact nature of the ‘local’ involvement still requires further exploration. The field has undeniably become a ‘big business’ and has attracted a wider constituency of ambitious parent: ‘In some parts of the world International

84

The changes in operation explored in detail

Schools have already become what might be described as market actors’ (Hayden and Thompson, 2000a p.9). Some countries are openly encouraging International Schooling as a development strategy to retain and attract workers, creating what Harvey (2006) might see as a ‘space of opportunity’. The field has become more politicized and competitive, creating tensions, fears, vulnerabilities and micro-politics. The field has become a major career choice for many educators and in turn is attracting a more critical internal discourse by educators. The field has become more visibly hierarchical with a definite set of ‘premier’ schools emerging in certain cities (e.g. Beijing). The field of International Schooling has moved significantly ‘away’ from being synonymous with IB programmes, creating ‘space’ for other curricula to develop. Furthermore, the field has become more concerned about keeping ‘pace’ with the growth and the constant need to keep developing relevant and sustainable infrastructure (e.g. training leaders and principals for the diversity of schools has become a recent concern): ‘2013 will continue to be dominated by the race to keep up with demand’ (Keeling, 2012). Given the changes, it is likely that many educators (teachers and Administrators) are now entering the field unaware of its exact nature and purpose, whilst at the same time the field has become noticeably more of a career attraction. There is the potential here for misunderstandings and tensions. Overall, in this context, it does seem time for a more critical assessment of the implications and effects. Matthew Hayden’s (2013, quote taken from the Abstract) survey of 67 International School Mission Statements had revealed that while they showed a ‘dominant predilection toward cognitive and academic development’, they also contained ‘a significant number of cosmopolitan characteristics’. Basically, the Mission Statements showed that many schools still deliberately aim to facilitate intercultural understanding. Any change in this purpose of many International Schools, away from educating for global peace and citizenship towards global trade and development, is significant in that it implies that the pragmatic dimension of International Schooling, which previously involved allowing children access to Higher Education institutions and the workplace at a globalized level, has superseded the idealistic/ideological dimension that was evident when International Schools first appeared in their post-First World War and League of Nations embodiment (e.g. Ecolint, and Yokohama) and their later Cold War embodiment (e.g. Atlantic College). At the same time, it could be argued that this change is merely a movement back to the initial freetrade nineteenth century/Kondratieff Wave 1 and 2 origins of International Schooling (e.g. Spring Grove International College, in 1866). A changing pragmatic role of International Schooling seems to have become not only attracting foreign students and their parents (i.e. the current workers), but retaining local children (i.e. the future workers). If this is true, it probably requires discussion as it has implications for the future direction and fundamental purpose of International Schooling, plus it frames the field within the ‘Capitalist Plan for Education’ (Dave Hill, 2006) lens of inquiry. In theoretical

The changes in operation explored in detail

85

terms, it means that the established frameworks (e.g. the pragmatic-market/ idealistic-ideology dichotomy) used to conceptualize International Schools are increasingly becoming redundant. Conversely, the policy aim of reducing the worker ‘talent drain’ by a country (although at the same time increasing the teacher ‘talent drain’) might be deemed as being in itself idealistic and ideological. This complicates the issue greatly. International Schooling in its post-Cold War context can still arguably be viewed as idealistic and innovative, but the precise nature of the goals have changed as the field has become more inclusive, more proven and less ‘hidden’. In spite of all these significant changes, the emphasis in literature is still towards what Hayden and Thompson (2008 p.21) had called the ‘traditional’ International School. There are theoretical implications in terms of how we now conceptualize how the field operates and practical implications in terms of how we prepare educators for working in the ‘industry’. The growth in schools operating for-profit and therefore budget-led rather than goal-led probably means much of the established models for training principals and leaders in International Schools is also largely redundant. This fundamental change in the nature of International Schooling is especially problematic in the sense that the field was traditionally viewed as a non-profit area of education. This might yet another basis for the next book about the field. The changing ‘path’

It was interesting in 2012 to contrast the changes with the predictions made a decade previously. George Walker, the then IBO director general (1999–2006) had offered a framework for conceptualizing three possible avenues for the future path of International Schooling (Walker, 2002). Firstly, it could either continue down the hyper-globalist path of creating a globally branded product with internationally monitored standards. This might be deemed the ‘McDonaldization’ path of International Schooling. Alternatively, the field could go back to basics and cater exclusively, and pragmatically, for the globally mobile business and diplomatic community. This might be deemed the ‘inner-directedness’ or ‘original’ path. There are those who seek to take ‘International Education to mean the philosophical aim of any school that offer one or more of the IB programmes’ (Hughes, 2009 p.130), but that limits the scope of International Schools to a consideration of about 300–600 schools given that only about 5–10% of ‘IB World Schools’ are also ‘International Schools’. The landscape of International Schooling now encompasses a variety of curricula, both ‘national’ and ‘international’. The ‘third way’ for Walker (2002 p.215) was more visionary, if not utopian, and saw International Schooling using its ‘power to transform national education’. This might be deemed the ‘inclusive’ or ‘influential’ path. In retrospect, it would now appear that International Schooling has partly rejected the ‘inner-directedness’ path, moving away from the original

86

The changes in operation explored in detail

‘core-base’ constituency of diplomats and globally mobile business-community, and the programmes of the IB, and has followed to an extent both the ‘McDonalization’ and ‘influential’ path. The movement towards universal standards can certainly be identified within the ‘IB World’ and a 10-point Learner Profile was unveiled in March 2006, stating the core universal attributes/dispositions/outcomes that the three programmes should offer (e.g. balanced, inquiring, risk-taker). International Schooling has been described as comparable to other globally branded products such as soft drinks and burgers: ‘a reliable product conforming to consistent quality standards throughout the world’ (Cambridge, 2000 p.180). Many of the issues raised in this chapter will now be explored in more detail in the next one.

Chapter 7

The major implications for theory

The implications of the changes in ‘scale’ The challenge of estimating the size of the field

A key academic challenge remains one of offering a realistic and rational basis for understanding the size of the field. The definition used by ISC Research is a very inclusive and broad one and consequently identifies a significantly larger body of International Schools than would normally be considered academically. A good indication of this fact comes from the estimations at the turn of the millennium (e.g. Walker, 2000; Heyward, 2002) that there were approximately 1,000 International Schools in the world, yet ISC Research at that point in time had data on 1,700 (Brummitt, 2007). The discrepancy can be accounted for by the fact that some academic commentators still consider diversity of nationalities an important factor for consideration. Pearce (2013 p.61) has even asserted that ‘the crucial characteristic of International Schools is the diversity of their students.’ This is not to say the figures from ISC Research are overestimated or exaggerated, but it shows that there is no academic consensus that a definition focusing on ‘Englishlanguage tuition in a non-English speaking country’ is a totally relevant or accurate one. The point to observe from the many definitions of an ‘International School’ that have emerged over the years is that a mix of nationalities within the student population has always appeared a pre-requisite factor, whilst the traditional focus of International Schools has been seen as children living outside their home country. Indeed, Sylvester (1998 p.187) had even suggested that ‘a threshold of 30–40 student nationalities is probably required’ for a school to be regarded as an ‘international’ one, certainly within an ‘ideal’ context. Such a pre-requisite as a definition would substantially reduce the size of the field as estimated by ISC Research. The changing nature of International Schools in now catering for the local populations and is therefore problematic in terms of identifying such schools. There has been discussion (Huong Le, 2012) over the quality of high-cost International Schooling in Vietnam. One school head in that country had

88

The major implications for theory

remarked that there was a simple way of assessing what schools are truly ‘international’; ‘And they’re not international anymore if the primary focus is serving the locals.’ This point probably requires more discussion beyond this book. Ian Hill (2006) had suggested that only schools offering the three main International Baccalaureate (IB) programmes together (i.e. the ‘IB continuum’) are pure International Schools. This framework in January 2012 would have identified less than 150 schools worldwide. Gunesch (2004) had argued that an International School ought to offer more than that available to a mere ‘advanced tourist’, and called for greater ‘cosmopolitan thinking’. Chan Po King (2004) had drawn attention to the Yew Chung model, practiced by the five Yew Chung Educational Foundation (YCEF) schools in China with its focus on dual language learning, and where it is claimed that children learn to switch channels to move in and out of language and culture. In practical terms, the oft-used appendage ‘International’ (e.g. International School of London, Copenhagen International School) reveals schools which identify themselves as International Schools. Alternatively, schools belonging to a network such as the European Council of International Schools (ECIS), or the London International Schools Association (LISA), would clearly be another outwardly-oriented badge of identity. However, a process of such identification would arguably only reveal the ‘tip of the iceberg’, especially as the addition of a large number of National Schools has blurred the distinction even further. Secondly, the field now encompasses a huge number of support organizations. There has emerged over the past 60 years in particular a veritable alphabet-soup of networks comprising a ‘cluttered galaxy of providers for International Education’ (Haywood, 2005 p.7). The curriculum is also usually deemed to matter: ‘It is almost self-evident that the curriculum of an International School should, whenever possible, be based upon a global, rather than national approach’ (Phillips, 2002 p.161). The lack of inclusion of consideration of ‘approach’, ‘curriculum’ or ‘diversity’ compromises greatly the validity of ISC Research’s data as viewed within the lens of previously accepted academic frameworks. At the same time, however, there is evidence emerging that these frameworks might be losing their legitimacy as International Schools focus more on the ‘local’ populations. In this context, the movement away from considering diversity is probably the most contentious aspect of ISC Research’s definition. It had been previously asserted that: ‘diversity is not only an inherent feature of International Schools, but is also a crucial aspect of the process of International Education’ (Hayden and Thompson, 2000a p.5). In other words, the mix of nationalities of students has always previously been viewed as important if not even crucial. Further comment had said that: ‘Most International Schools have a population made up of children of a diverse and changing group of parents’ (Allen, 2000 p.131). Wilkinson (1998 p.233) had referred to ‘the internationally mobile families’ and how their ‘children form the core of many International Schools.’ Pearce (1998 p.44) had stated that an explanation of what an International

The major implications for theory

89

School is usually ‘starts with a catalogue of nationalities attending.’ In fact, it had even been implied that a ‘local’ student body figure of below 25% might be ‘ideal’ (Allen, 2000 p.130). These comments now seem typical of the ‘Ideal’ era of activity. Therefore, is it now enough for a school to merely have a mix of staff, or call itself ‘British’, or offer tuition in English? Can such a school really be called an ‘International School’? These questions seem important. At the same time, Roberts (2012 p.71) maintains that ‘being international’ is as ‘much a concept as it is a physical reality’, and the concept is not about a mix of nationalities but is about an approach to education. That is to say, a school in this context can promote international mindedness within a mono-cultural setting. The challenge of reconceptualizing the nexus of activity

The nexus of activity had changed quite suddenly. Brummitt and Keeling (2013 p.27) had noted that in the year 2000, there were 2,584 International Schools worldwide teaching 988,600 students and employing 90,000 full-time teaching staff. The areas of the world then leading the field were Spain (99 schools), UAE (97 schools), Hong Kong (70 schools) and Thailand (55 schools), although at that point in time ‘there was little evidence of any regional domination.’ It apparently was not until 2006 that Asia was beginning to dominate the market. It seems significant to note that October 2006 saw the occasion of the third biennial conference of the Alliance for International Education (AIE), held in Shanghai, co-hosted by the YCEF. In spite of restrictions on Chinese nationals attending International Schools, in the year 2000 there were just 22 schools in the whole of China, supporting the learning needs of 7,268 children. By June 2010, this had increased to 260 schools with 119,319 students (Brummitt and Keeling, 2013 p.30). Hong Kong is a well-established market and reveals the level of growth over several decades. In Hong Kong in the year 2000 there were 70 schools teaching 37,000 children. By February 2012, these numbers had risen to 164 schools serving 64,300 children (Keeling, 2012 p.14). On Hong Kong Island alone, in 2012 there were 74 schools, plus another 37 in Kowloon and 45 in the New Territories. In spite of this huge growth there was still reportedly an acute shortage of supply compared to demand. It was reported (Nagrath, 2011) that more than two-thirds of the annual increase in the ISC Research’s database for 2011 came from Asia and was being largely fuelled by China where the growth in foreign businesses, the ex-patriate community, and the export market mirrors the expansion of the International Schools market. With 46 new schools, China accounted for one in five of the new Asian schools started in 2011. As noted already, the well-established field in Hong Kong has been well explored by literature (e.g. Bray and Leong, 1996; Bray and Yamato, 2002;

90

The major implications for theory

Bray and Yamato, 2003; Yamato, 2003). The re-emergence of private schools in China had been earlier discussed (Kwong, 1997) and the market there has more recently been discussed (Drake, 2011). The market in India, in spite of its prevalence (56 schools in Mumbai alone in 2013), has attracted seemingly little attention by comparison. Brummitt (2007 p.36) had revealed the situation in April 2000, although the information had actually previously been given to the ECIS Administrators conference in Dubrovnik in April 2007. At that point in time, April 2000, ISC Research had data on 585 schools in Europe, 474 in Asia, 314 in the Americas, 256 in Africa and 72 in Oceania. Altogether, there were 1,701 schools. Seven years later, in April 2007, there were 2,057 schools in Asia (including the Middle East), 1,080 in Europe, 445 in Africa, 314 in the Americas and 81 in Oceania. Altogether, there were 4,179 schools in 192 countries, an increase of 146% in seven years. Over the same period, the number of students had increased from 800,000 to over 1.6 million. What this revealed is that Asia (including the Middle East) had between 2000 and 2007 ‘leap-frogged’ over Europe as the major area of activity. Moreover, Asia’s proportion of the school total had risen from 28% to 49%. In the 12 months up to April 2007, 63% of new schools had been in Asia compared to 23% that were in Europe and 8% in the Americas. Brummitt (2007 p.37) had further revealed that there were 205 schools in the UAE in 2007 compared to 97 in 2000. Qatar had risen from 21 to 63 schools. Spain had 155 schools in 2007 compared to 96 in 2007. The Netherlands had 133 schools compared to 33. Thailand had 158 schools compared to 53, India had 81 compared to 16, Vietnam had 29 compared to six. Furthermore, China had 144 schools in 2007 compared to 24 in 2000. Brummitt (2009 p.13) had later commented on how: ‘Asia (including western Asia, which is the Middle East) has dominated market growth since January 2006.’ By autumn 2009, Asia accounted for 61% of all International Schools worldwide and 65% of all students worldwide. Nowhere is the change in scale and nature of International Schooling more evident than in Dubai, the single biggest market by 2012. It was noted in autumn 2011 how there were 178 International School in Dubai mainly operating for-profit (Keeling, 2011 p.37). Brummitt (2007 p.37) had even predicted 500 schools in Dubai by 2010. By contrast, there had been just 43 schools in Dubai in 2001 mainly non-profit catering for ex-patriots (Keeling, 2011 p.37). By 2012, Asia’s dominance was indicated by the figures showing that ‘the top five countries leading the International Schools market today – all of which are in Asia – are the UAE, Pakistan, China, India and Japan; each with over 200 International Schools’ (Brummitt and Keeling, 2013 p.27). Furthermore, of the 32 countries worldwide that had over 50 International Schools, 16 of these were located in Asia. It seems significant to note that by August 2013, ISC Research had compiled eight ‘country reports’ all of which were in Asia (Hong Kong, Abu Dhabi, Dubai, Singapore, Qatar, Malaysia, Indonesia and

The major implications for theory

91

South Korea). In June 2013, ISC Research had released its report on Malaysia (reported in The Star, 2 June 2013). It was reported how at the beginning of the millennium there were 26 International Schools in Malaysia teaching 11,917 students. In 2009, that number had increased to 67 schools teaching 22,760 students. By 2011, there were 89 schools teaching 29,729 students and employing a total of 3,097 educators. England’s Epsom College opened a branch in Kuala Lumpur in 2012 as did Marlborough College, near the Singapore border. The three biggest locations in June 2013 were Kuala Lumpur (24 schools), Petaling Jaya (eight schools) and Johor Baru (seven). Another interesting picture of dominant activity was in East Asia. In April 2012, the internationaschoolscommunity.com website listed 156 International Schools across the region. The East Asia region ranked fourth (out of 13) in terms of the regions of the world with the highest number of International Schools listed on the website. Thailand had the most schools (39 schools listed), followed by Indonesia (28), Malaysia (20) and Vietnam (17). Of the 156 schools in the region, 42 offered an American curriculum, 61 a UK curriculum. Almost half (72) were less than 15 years old. A total of 91 were forprofit schools and the other 65 were non-profit. The predominance of UK curricula and for-profit schooling is worth noting here. This is all in stark contrast to Leach’s (1969 p.162) survey which, as shown in Chapter 2 of this book, had listed 372 schools worldwide, but only 76 were in Asia (including just 15 in the Middle East). Also, consider that the 1997 International Education Handbook (edited by Findlay, 1997) had data on 33 schools in Hong Kong and 19 schools in China. This was using a very broad definition of schools that included many with ‘encapsulated missions’. There was data on eight in Qatar, 12 in the Philippines, 14 in Kuwait, 14 in South Korea, 15 in Singapore, 21 in Thailand, and 31 in the UAE (including 11 in Dubai). By contrast, in 2009 there were 1,200 International Schools in Asia, compared to 937 in 2007 (Pomfret, 2009). ISC Research had reported in 2009 that Asia was showing the fastest growth in the world, with annual growth at 11%. Growth in China alone went from 123 schools in 2006 to 210 in 2009. In the 12 months from November 2011 to November 2012, ISC Research added 469 schools to its database. Of these, over half (53%) were located in Asia whilst only18% were in Europe. The growing importance of the Asian region is shown by the fact that private equity group Barings Asia had paid USD360 million for Nord Anglia, the British-based group which had operated nine International Schools, including four in China and one in South Korea. Nord Anglia was reported (Education Investor, 18 July 2011) to be thinking about moving its HQ from England to Asia. Cognita, with funds from Englefield Capital had bought up schools in Asia including the Australian International School in Singapore in 2007. By 2012, the region was even attracting its own forums for drawing together the key stakeholders (e.g. investors, school owners, architects) involved in planning and delivering major educational projects in the region.

92

The major implications for theory

The ISC Research database at this point in time was showing the Asian English-medium International Schools market (which includes the Middle East) had 1.7 million children attending 3,270 schools, with a fee income level of GBP10.1 billion. There seemed little doubt in 2014 that Asia (including the Middle East) will continue to dominate the field in the near future. The challenge of understanding the reasons for growth

The reasons for growth are complex but under-researched. Much of the explanation is fairly obvious. According to Keeling (2012 p.19), a key reason for the growth has been ‘wealth’ and ‘advantage’: ‘It is now widely accepted that for students who have attended International Schools, there are tremendous opportunities at the world’s top universities, many often competing for the best students.’ Also, ‘it is because of the quality of teaching and learning that International Schools provide.’ According to Davidson (2009), writing about the growth of British-ethos schooling, the growth is more about ‘cost’: ‘There are an estimated six million British expats worldwide and, although many still send their children to boarding schools back home, fewer and fewer can afford that luxury.’ At the same time, Davidson (2009), referring to ‘capitalist-mad Hong Kong and Dubai’, added that: ‘For all the idealistic talk, it is money – the needs of a wealthy elite, that is driving the agenda.’ According to Paton (2012) the growth is because: ‘People are effectively buying an educational passport that gives them greater access to the world’s best universities and increases their chances of getting a good job.’ Yamato (2003 p.xiii) remarked on how: ‘International Schools have received little attention from the research community in Hong Kong’, even though the field in that region of the world had grown enormously. Ng (2012) had investigated why 25 local Hong Kong parents decide to give up local education and send their children to eight different International Schools. Yamato (2003 p.9) remarked on how: ‘Another factor in the recent boom for International Schools is the socio-economic change in Hong Kong families.’ Aside from the fairly obvious explanations (emerging middle class in China etc.), there are other issues to consider. The field of International Schooling in general is arguably under-theorized. One aim of this book has been to introduce new angles of inquiry in order to try to take the discussions forward. One avenue is to make use of the concept of ‘space’ as articulated by Harvey (1989). The growth of International Schooling occurs both where there is both a need and where there is a space. The concept of ‘space’ in an International Schooling context is multi-dimensional. To take a concrete example, Singapore has a limited amount of physical space, i.e. there is a limited amount of land on which to build schools, but it has the political desire to promote the building of International Schools in order to ensure continued economic growth of the island state, i.e. there is a political and economic space. This in turn has created a situation where for-profit companies can get involved in

The major implications for theory

93

offering International Schools in Singapore, thus creating a space of opportunity for capital accumulation. The fact that schools in Singapore are oversubscribed also seems to point to a position of competitor space, i.e. there is still room for more schools within the market. This short example of analysis shows that the concept of space can be conceptualized within an abstract and absolute framework. At the same time, the concept of ‘space’ also implies that there are probably limits to growth and this is an issue that has been given little value in discussion thus far about International Schooling. Another use of ‘space’ helps to partly explain the attraction of exporting and replicating elite English private schooling in countries such as Dubai. The developmental model in Dubai has thus far concentrated on the construction of infrastructure such as airports and hotels, yet has not been able to replicate culture, atmosphere and spirit as found in some of the older parts of the world. As noted already, in 2006 an English town was replicated near Shanghai, called Thames Town and it was reported in 2010 that Dubai planned to build a recreation of Lyon’s Old Town, dubbed Lyon-Dubai City. In Abu Dhabi a branch of The Louvre was expected to open in 2013. The intended copying of Lyon’s Old Town, although at first glance slightly strange, seems indicative of a developmental ‘gap’, offering a space of dissatisfaction. Dubai has substantially built infrastructure, but the replication in Dubai of Repton School (founded in 1577) seems indicative of a broader desire to create a sense of heritage and culture where at present there exists a ‘space’. This analysis has clearly much further to expand but seems a starting point for understanding much of the growth of British-ethos International Schooling in countries such as Dubai and China. Brummitt (2007 p.38) had identified four key growth trends. Firstly, governments were recognizing the importance of the International School field and were ‘actively encouraging schools to open.’ Also, many governments were relaxing the rule regarding nationals attending such schools. Malaysia, for example, had done this in May 2006. Secondly, International schools are now big business attracting well-funded groups and for-profit investors. James MacDonald’s (2008 p.197) survey of 907 International Schools had revealed a fee revenue figure of USD5.3 billion per annum, which seemed quite a conservative figure when compared to ISC Research’s USD20.4 billion valuation in October 2012. Thirdly, there is a growing demand from ‘the increasing number of wealthy parents in their own country’ and they will, according to Brummitt (2007 p.38), ‘dominate future growth.’ Fourthly, there is a growing number of schools built around housing projects, built on ‘university-style campuses.’ A fall in land prices, triggered by the financial crisis, is facilitating new school projects linked to major housing developments in India, China and the Middle East (Pham, 2009). There are interesting pedagogical reasons behind the growth. The director of communications at Taleem, which manages 13 schools in Dubai and Abu Dhabi, was reported (Harper, 2012) as saying that: ‘Parents of the next generation are looking towards International Schools

94

The major implications for theory

to satisfy the need for critical thinking rather than learning by rote.’ One recent significant aspect of International Schooling has been the access of the field into the realms of National Schooling. This is not a new phenomenon, but the growth of international curricula, such as the International Baccalaureate Diploma Programme (IBDP) and the International Primary Curriculum (IPC), has been remarkably pronounced among state-funded schools over the past decade. At least 75 national schools in Turkey attended the 2008 AIE conference in Istanbul (Haywood, 2009). In January 2013, the Singapore Government unveiled the controversial White Paper A Sustainable Population for a Dynamic Singapore. The paper stated the Government will take in between 15,000 and 25,000 new citizens and grant about 30,000 permanent-resident permits annually until 2030, raising the population from 5.3 million to about 6.9 million (i.e. an increase of 30% over 17 years). The aim was to deliberately use immigration and the lure of International Schools to counteract the low Singapore birth rate (Adam, 2013). The British press (e.g. Hodal, 2013) saw this move as leading to a potential ‘identity crisis’ and a political backlash especially against Chinese immigrants. At the same time, the Singapore Government has been trying to reduce the island’s reliance on cheap labour and has raised foreign-worker levies and salary thresholds. As a result, Singapore’s inequality of income (as measured by the Gini Coefficient) has been rising and was almost level with Hong Kong in early 2013. Basically, Singapore aims to boost its population, and potentially its income gap, over the next decade by encouraging highly paid foreign workers, directly boosting the demand for International Schools. In this context, growth is occurring more through government policy (i.e. growth is being supply-fed) rather than through parental demand (i.e. simply being demand-led). This issue shows that the growth of International Schooling in future years in countries such as Singapore could prove to be socially problematic and politically sensitive, directly linking the field with globalization and greater immigration. Furthermore, there had been noticed a big expansion in the number of ‘bilingual’ schools (i.e. teaching in English and the local language). The Institut Sankt Joseph in central Copenhagen will open a bilingual international department in August 2014, and aims to focus not only on language acquisition but also cultural acquisition (Weaver, 2013). This sort of development reveals the movement away from International Schooling serving mainly the Englishspeaking transient business community. Leach (1969 p.11) had asserted that ‘bilingualism is the true touchstone’ of International Schooling. One overlooked factor behind the growth of International Schooling in Pacific Asia has been the deliberate policy attempt to stem significant social and health problems. Figures show that some countries in Pacific Asia have a growing problem in terms of suicide and divorce. Suicide is the leading cause of death in South Korea for people under the age of 40 (Oaten, 2013). The rate of suicide in Korea accounts for 32 deaths per 100,000 people. In second placed Hungary and Japan, the figure is around 20 deaths per 100,000 people.

The major implications for theory

95

Also, in the decade between 1993 and 2003, South Korea’s divorce rate increased by 250% and was second only to the rate in the US (Onshi, 2003). Government data released in October 2012 revealed that 10% of Korean married couples live apart (Harlan, 2012). It was reported in 2013 that China’s divorce rate had risen for the seventh consecutive year, and Beijing had a 39% divorce rate (FlorCruz, 2013). According to a study by the World Health Organization (WHO) in 2009, suicide in China accounts for 26% of all suicides worldwide: it is the fifth leading cause of death in the country overall along with injuries, poisoning and falls, and it is the leading cause of death for young women in China (WHO, 2009). The issue of divorce and separation became directly connected to the growth of International Schooling in 2008 after the beginning of building work in Education City, on the island of Jeju in South Korea. South East Asian nations have a rapidly declining birth (fertility) rate, and therefore are facing future prospects of a declining and ageing population. It was being reported in 2003 that South Korea may have the lowest birth rate in the world as figures suggested the average woman in that country has less than 1.2 children, a figure considerably below the 2.1 level that is needed to maintain a stable population. Worries about a labour shortage and providing care for an elderly population has even led South Korea to introduce a policy of offering dual-nationality in 2010 (Chung and Kim, 2012). On top of this, the persistent trend of Singaporean students leaving the country for overseas study has led to discussion there of reversing a possible problem of ‘brain drain’ (Koh, 2012). Studying abroad is widespread among Korea’s middle class families, whilst the children, often accompanied by their mothers, attend public schools and colleges in English-speaking countries, but the fathers remain in Korea to support them. More than 35,000 elementary and secondary school students went abroad in the school year 2005–2006 (Park, 2009 p.53). These separated families are known as ‘goose families’, and the phenomenon has become so widespread that the term in Korean (‘kirogi kajok’) was even added in 2004 to the Korean dictionary; the term ‘goose’ obviously refers to the seasonal visits by the father reuniting the separated migrating families (Kang, 2012). The potential for the number of ‘goose families’ to grow is shown by a government survey in 2008 which revealed that, if given the opportunity, one out of four Korean parents would like to emigrate for their children’s education, whilst those who have moved to other countries cite their children’s education as the number one reason (Chang, 2008). This analysis reveals the importance of the Jeju Island educational experiment.

The implications of the changes in ‘nature’ The challenge of conceptualizing labour market conditions

The labour market in International Schooling has always been a neglected area of research, although it seems a precarious and ill-equipped one. Holderness

96

The major implications for theory

(2002) had stated that the literature has tended to focus upon the students and the curriculum and that: ‘… until recently insufficient attention has been paid to teachers in the International School literature.’ Matthews (1988 p.59) added to this view by saying that: ‘In the sparse literature of International School education, little attention has been made to the teaching staff ...’. Furthermore, Canterford (2003 p.48) had contended that the focus of research has been to concentrate on the methods used to recruit teachers rather than what happens once they arrive. Scinto (2006) had identified a ‘paradigm shift’ emerging among international educators from being ‘experience seekers’ to being ‘career international professionals’. This seemed symptomatic of a shift towards a new phase of activity, one of maturity and ‘coming of age’ as argued earlier by Murphy (1998). There is evidence that perhaps as many as one in five international educators intend to see out their entire career in International Schools. The results of an online survey released in November 2012 by the social network website internationalschoolcommunity.com had revealed that about 20% of respondents would consider working in International Schooling forever, and another 20% said they would do between seven and ten years. Most of the respondents, 33%, said they expected to serve abroad between one and three years, perhaps reflecting the fact that many teachers are on two-year contracts. A caveat to be added to that statement comes from Hayden (2006 p.81): ‘it is impossible to generalize about the situation with respect to International School contracts.’ ISC Research had predicted (Keeling, 2012) that the number of teachers would increase from 293,700 in 2012 to 314,000 in 2013. Teachers are no longer merely entering the field for a ‘teaching-holiday’. Traditionally, teachers have been recruited through dedicated ‘recruitment fairs’, the first of which was held by the International Schools Services (ISS) in 1979 in New York City (Rabbitt, 1992). An indication of the subsequent growth of the international educator recruitment ‘industry’ is the fact that there were 17 recruitment sponsoring agents advertising in the February 2010 edition of TIE. A well-publicised survey in May 2009 of 800 teachers by the recruitment agency eteach revealed that more than a third of the UK’s teachers (34.6%) were actively looking for work overseas, while a similar proportion (31.8%) said they were ‘open’ to the idea. The biggest reason was broadening horizons (52.7%) followed by better working conditions (32.8%). However, International Schooling still lacks a ‘system’. Blaney (1991 p.203) had described how the ‘hallmark’ of such a system ’will be the movement of teaching and administration staff from school to school within the system’, with a ‘portable pension and medical benefit schemes.’ Such a system does not exist in 2014, although it is arguably very much still needed. There has been very little research or discourse about teacher retention in International Schools. One rare study (Hardman, 2001) had found that many teachers saw five or six years’ service as optimal, yet only half of his sample of 30 teachers had lasted more than three years in the job. Chandler’s (2010 p.221)

The major implications for theory

97

more recent research into the reasons why 26 educators had chosen an International School revealed the importance of location, which had been given 5.34 on a seven-point scale, although six respondents had given this reason a 7.0 ranking. Choosing a school by location seems a high-risk affair. A group of teachers were asked about their job-seeking plans at the November 2010 ECIS Annual Conference in Hamburg (see International School Magazine 12 (3), 9). Just over one-fifth (26%) said they would seek advice and information from other teachers at International Schools and only 5% said they would use a job fair. That is to say, many international educators are now very reliant on information from social networking websites that may or may not be accurate. It was concluded by Chandler (2010 p.222) that Africa was especially appealing as a job location, whilst the Middle East had little such appeal. It would seem from Chandler’s (2010) research that international educators choose a school, especially in Africa, as much for its location as anything else. This is dangerous territory given that political situations can change suddenly (e.g. turmoil in Egypt in July 2013) and many schools appear to be ‘toxic’ workplaces (as exemplified by comments on social networking websites). Choosing to work in an International School partly because of its location is likely to create a precarious situation. There is also evidence that many of those joining International Schools are new to the teaching profession, i.e. the International School experience is a relatively early start to their teaching career. The TES carried a report in August 2011 stating how the Renfrewshire-based teacher recruitment agency Worldteachers, which finds jobs for teachers in International Schools mainly in the Middle East, estimates that the demographic of the teachers for whom the company finds jobs breaks down roughly as: 50% probationers (i.e. newly-qualified teachers), 30% qualified within two to three years, and 10% had qualified within 15 years. The eteach survey in 2009 of 800 UK teachers had revealed that three in ten (30.7%) of those saying they wanted to work overseas had between six and ten years’ experience, while a quarter (24.9%) have been teachers for between 16 and 20 years. Some 27.9% of those who are searching for jobs overseas were between 41 and 50 years old and 26.9% are between 31 and 40. There is sufficient research evidence to suggest that International Schooling in practice is a precarious ‘career’ with high turnover rates. This is a longstanding issue: Mayer (1968 p.155) had commented on the ‘fearful lack of continuity in the leadership of most of these schools.’ Schools in general are complex and emotive organizations, and International Schools have added factors ‘such as diversity of culture, perceptions and views, isolation and complex issues caused by location’ (Caffyn, 2008 p.29). Hayden and Thompson’s (1998) study into the perceptions of teachers as to what constitutes an ‘international education’ showed that 40% had taught in five or more schools. A survey published on the Association for the Advancement of International Education (AAIE) website had shown that the average tenure of teachers is 3.5 years, whilst the range is from 2.5 years to 4.25 years. Hardman’s (2001) small-scale

98

The major implications for theory

survey showed that only 11% of teachers had worked in one school and 89% had worked at two or more. Odland and Ruzicka (2009 p.6) had collected data from ECIS/Council of International Schools (CoIS) surveys which had revealed that 270 schools had an average annual turnover of 14.4%. Little attempt has been made to offer a typology of the International Schooling educator. Hardman (2001), following his survey of motivating forces for joining an International School, had identified three possible categories of teacher. An earlier survey by Hardman (1997) had highlighted some contractual issues concerning International Schools. Hardman’s study involved a questionnaire on the views of 30 practicing teachers in four countries. An additional cross-section of teachers was taken from five International Schools in Buenos Aires, who were interviewed. The sample overall involved some very experienced international educators, most had worked in at least two schools and most had done at least ten years’ teaching. Half of them had never renewed a contract beyond the standard two-year period. The move toward educators viewing the field more as a career is bound to lead to a more critical analysis as teachers move from school to school undergoing differing experiences along the way. Educators have begun to complain and evaluate schools more (through social media sites which may or may not reflect the reality). In this sense, a disparity is naturally beginning to emerge between the perceived ‘top’ and ‘bottom’ schools. This poses a challenge for creating new models of categorization and classification. In general, the field has begun to become more transparent and is now less of ‘a well-kept secret’ (Hayden and Thompson, 2008 p.15), which could ‘harm’ the field at some point in the future. At the same time, Hayden and Thompson (2013 p.4) have more recently reasserted that ‘the majority worldwide (are) completely unaware of their existence’, thus perhaps it is too early to identify this trend. There exists scope for a more critical analysis of the reasons and implications of this growing attraction of International Schooling as a career route. The growing attraction of the field is problematic since many teachers are fleeing countries that have reduced education spending; Pham (2009) noted how: ‘Recruiting teachers is also easier amid rising fears about job security.’ One teacher, explaining why she left Scotland to teach at a British school in Saudi Arabia said (see Shepherd, 2009) that: ‘There have been huge cuts in education budgets in Edinburgh and a lot of people are chasing few jobs.’ The notion of International Schools (especially for-profit ones) exploiting the situation is problematic. It also creates a situation where educators can also be exploited, i.e. firms can charge commission for job placement. The job placement dimension of the field needs investigation. The TIE newspaper and teacher resource had celebrated its twenty-fifth anniversary in November 2011 and announced a 12% rise in subscriptions over the previous year. In an editorial explaining the doubling of International Schools over the previous decade, the newspaper’s president (Forrest Broman) had said that: ‘In the wake of massive layoffs in school districts across the US,

The major implications for theory

99

teachers are finding their skills and experience can be put to good use as International Schools around the world are experiencing rapid growth.’ California school districts cut USD1 billion from their payroll between 2007 and 2011 by reducing their teaching workforce by 40,000 (The Sacramento Bee, 1 April 2012). Alongside the growing attraction of International Schooling, educators are increasingly under pressure to ‘stand out’ (e.g. obtain an MA, PhD or ‘IB Teacher Award status’ etc.). An article in TIE (Whitehead, 2012) had commented on how Keele University had launched its MBA (Education) in Thailand: ‘To compete in this market, there is pressure on teachers to up their qualifications and experience.’ Hayden (2002) first raised the notion that perhaps what is needed in International Schools was for some form of universally-recognized accreditation award for teachers, perhaps along the lines of the Advanced Skills Teacher concept introduced in England and Wales in 2002. An ‘International Teaching Certificate’ was duly initiated by ECIS and the first batch of 27 volunteers for the pilot scheme began January 2006, accredited by Cambridge International Examinations. One under-reported implication of the huge growth of the field in countries such as Dubai has been the large turnover of staff in some schools. One report, in Dubai’s The National, highlighted how efforts to improve educational standards are being crippled by annual staff turnover in some schools of up to 60% (Ahmed, 2011a). An annual rate of staff turnover of one-third is apparently quite common in Dubai. The Dubai Schools Inspection Bureau (DSIB) had, for example, highlighted the substantial staff turnover at The International School of Choueifat as being a hindrance to improvements being made. The chief executive of Innoventures Education, who owns several schools in Dubai, was quoted as saying that: ‘International School teachers are mobile … they do not like to stay in one place too long and are generally employed on an annual contract.’ This issue requires further research. Why is staff turnover so high in some areas? Is it a poor pay and recruitment package issue? It also requires discussion about why educators are not given greater incentive to stay longer. Another controversial issue is that the growth in demand for ex-pat teachers in the Middle East is also being caused by political tension and unrest in the region. It was reported in May 2013 how the ‘Arab Spring’ turmoil in the region will lead to a shortage of teachers for private schools in 2014. The head of the Sharjah Education Zone had warned (Salem, 2013) how private schools were finding it extremely difficult to hire teachers from Arab countries suffering political tensions because of security concerns. The challenge of reconceptualizing the spectrum of approach

As noted already in this book, the diverse field of International Schools has in the past been usually viewed operating both in theory and in practice within a fundamental dichotomy of approach framework (Cambridge and Thompson,

100

The major implications for theory

2004), resting on the ‘twin concepts’ (Hayden, 2006) of ‘pragmatism’ and ‘ideology’, as first identified by Peterson (1972 p.19). This form of two-dimensional analysis, viewing International Schools from ‘above’, implies that all schools are of equal ‘merit’ or ‘appeal’, i.e. all schools are equally elite. However, as International Schooling has grown, so has the evidence of a hierarchical model of activity. Dubai serves as a good example of how some schools can definitely be identified as being ‘premium’ or ‘Tier 1’, whilst others are clearly ‘mid-market’ and ‘lower market’. A definite three-tier model of schooling is appearing, partly instigated by the fee structure practiced by for-profit companies in Dubai and India (i.e. charging a high fee for an ‘outstanding’ or ‘premium’ school, alongside a ‘medium’ and ‘budget’ set). This situation has begun to attract the attention of educators. There exists a discussion thread on the internationalschoolsreview.com (ISR.com) website (thread started April 2011) regarding ‘What makes an International School a Tier-1 School?’ The discussion included comments such as: ‘It starts with the ownership. If it is a for-profit owner-run school, it will likely fall into the bottom tier.’ Another comment says that: ‘When you have worked in a Tier 1 school you see the difference – the resources, package, and pedagogy are top notch.’ The thread says that: ‘With no similar system for rating International Schools, overseas educators appear to have adopted the concept of ‘Tiers’, creating their own comparative system based on salary, first-hand experience, and the impressions/comments of colleagues working at other schools. Academic quality does not appear to be part of the equation for what makes an International School a ‘Tier-1 School’. The huge growth of International Schools in cities such as Beijing (76 schools in 2012) and Mumbai (which had 58 schools) is leading to a perception there of differing standards between schools. Academic achievements and standards do not seem part of the assessment equation. The treatment, hiring and contractually, of educators seems to be a top priority. Some contributors to the thread believe that ownership is an issue and for-profit schools can never be considered as ‘Tier-1’ ones. Hayden and Thompson (2008 p.27) attested to a varying degree of quality when saying that ‘some are excellent in the educational experience offered, while others at present fall short of the high ideals to which many International Schools aspire.’ Here we have the framework for the emergence of ‘Tier-1’ schools, and obviously others that are (evidently or anecdotally) of a lower hierarchy. In practice therefore, ‘one challenge for a newcomer to the context … can be knowing how to identify one from the other’ (Hayden and Thompson, 2008 p.27). Educators are starting to make their own assessment of the differences. Another discussion on ISR.com deals with the concept of ‘Tier-3 Schools’, identifying the characteristics as being a school where: ‘You’re not likely to get any real training or transferable experience’, and ‘they’ll hire just about anybody, at any time and usually all you need is a degree.’ Overall, the general notion of how an educator senses that one school in a region can

The major implications for theory

101

be differentiated from the others are fairly clear; the way that educators are seemingly treated as employees and as a human resource. It seems logical that career-focused educators should judge schools in this way, whilst parents might presumably focus more on reputation, resources, communication, parental involvement and exam results. One newspaper article (Pomfret, 2009) had talked about the ‘top’ International Schools in Hong Kong, such as the German Swiss International School. An article in China Daily entitled ‘Passion for teaching English-style grows in Beijing suburbs’ (Stefonek, 2012) commented on how the principal of The British School of Beijing identified, in his mind, three tiers of schools operating in that city; the big three (International School of Beijing, Western Academy Beijing, and The British School) had waiting lists and operated alongside along another two lower tiers, which had greater excess capacity. This article implied that both parents and educators hold a notion (at least in their own minds) of ‘superior’ and ‘inferior’ schools. This issue is rarely discussed or noted, but does seem a reality of operation in some cities with a significant level of activity. Basically, educators now have their own notion of the ‘flagship’ schools, and history and heritage probably plays a significant part. Moreover, a three-dimensional model now appears, revealing the ‘depth’ of schooling (vertical) rather than just the ‘breadth’ and diversity (horizontal). The application of market structure theory has rarely been used, although it had been applied to International Schools by James MacDonald (2008 p.203). An International School could perceivably be a ‘monopoly’ in an area but it would need to be unique (e.g. United World College (UWC) type schools). It could operate in an ‘oligopolistic’ market where one school is a dominant market leader or ‘player’. This could conceivably be the case where there exists a ‘Tier 1’ school (MacDonald, 2008 p.204). Alternatively, it might operate in a ‘monopolistic competition’ market where brand loyalty and product differentiation is possible (e.g. one school has the Council of International Schools (CIS) accreditation, and another one is an ‘IB World School’). As no two International Schools are alike, this market structure is probably a common one. Lastly, there might exist ‘perfect competition’, but this is less likely to exist since International Schools most probably do not compete solely on price and are heterogeneous not homogenous, unlike apples or strawberries. In short, International Schooling presents unique contexts. The challenge of readdressing the pragmatic purpose

The notion of International Schools being used as an engine for economic growth is not a new one. The International School of Bergen, when created in 1975 was one of many components of Bergen’s infrastructure attractive to international investors. The purpose of the school was two-fold: to provide an education for the children of expatriate oil company personnel in Bergen, and to attract further corporate investment in the Bergen area. But, beyond facilitating

102

The major implications for theory

economic growth, International Schooling has now become an integral part of economic development in some countries. It was reported in October 2012 that: ‘International schools are a necessary part of the infrastructure for Singapore to remain attractive to foreign businesses like MNCs and Asian enterprises’ (Siong, 2012). Of considerable significance is the fact that many countries, as well as wanting to send fewer of their own students abroad to study, now realize the value of the economic contribution made by a well-established and highspending International School community. They are actively encouraging growth and some, like Malaysia, Thailand, Singapore and South Korea, intend to be the ‘educational hub’ for their region. The previous chapter of this book had listed the main ‘hubs’, but it is worth going into more detail on a few of them. Songdo is a so-called ‘Smart City’ built from reclaimed land 40 miles southwest of Seoul (Brooke, 2004). The aim was to import into this English-speaking city architectural features from around the world, including New York’s Central Park and Venice’s canals (McNeill, 2009). Iskandar, a development three times the size of Singapore, had USD500m of infrastructure built between 2007 and 20012 with plans to accommodate a metropolis of three million people by 2025. The five-zone region will employ 1.4 million people (Harper, 2011). The aim is to have ten educational institutions there serving 16,000 students (Ang, 2012). The Malaysian newspaper The Star Online (20 July 2012) had reported on how the number of International Schools will exceed the target of 84 by 2020; the 40% quota for locals had been lifted as part of the Malaysian Government’s Economic Transformation Programme. Knight (2011) had explored the meaning of ‘education hub’ and introduced a working definition. That writer also proposed a typology of three distinct kinds of ‘hubs’: student hub, skilled workforce hub, and knowledge/innovation hub. This book has already highlighted the Jeju Island ‘hub’ as an important student hub. The Jeju Free International City Development Center had planned to establish 12 primary and secondary schools by 2015, and the North London Collegiate College (established in 1850 as Britain’s first all-girls’ school) was the first to open on the island in September 2012. The ‘Jeju Global Education City’ project is aimed at Koreans and nationals from other Asian nations. McNeill (2008), commenting on how Korea is becoming a higher education hub, remarks: ‘The changes are driven in part by a crisis that is gathering pace year by year: A growing number of students opt out of South Korea’s Higher Education system to study abroad.’ Woodlands International School, which opened in April 2013, is the first school in Sibu (a city in Sarawak, East Malaysia), also intended as an ‘education hub’. The challenge of re-addressing the ideological purpose

Critical sociological comments had been made by Hugh Lauder and Ceri Brown in the Bates (2011) book, Schooling Internationally: Globalisation, Internationalism

The major implications for theory

103

and the Future for International Schools. Here, it was asserted that International Schooling can be viewed as a field of education that began with good intentions and very laudable purposes, but perhaps its motives should now be reconsidered and reassessed. The Routledge-published book edited by Bates (2011) had seemed to indicate that a new consensus had emerged regarding International Schooling, certainly as viewed by ‘outside’ observers. In short, the nature of purpose had shifted towards the deliberate and conscious educating of the global elite, offering economic and social advantage in a globalized economy. This thesis, in the emerging ‘post-Ideal’ era, now probably needs updating as the shift has also occurred within the ‘local’ wealthy elite. The term ‘paradigm shift’ is often falsely used, but it seems correct to call this a paradigm shift in the context of Thomas Kuhn’s (1970) seminal work which had identified a situation where an anomaly to the existing paradigm emerged creating a situation of crisis, and a new consensus emerges. Previously, the consensus in its immediate Post-War and subsequent Cold-War context was that International Schooling offered a solution to creating global peace, governance and justice (the essence of the idealistic approach in the ‘Ideal’ or ‘Enlightenment’ era). However, within the context that International Schools now apparently cater largely for the ‘local’ wealthy elite, there is the possibility to argue that they are more ‘often reinforcing the stratification of the host country by accepting host nationals’ (Allen, 2000 p. 129). The pragmatic appeal of International Schooling is still relatively obvious (the appeal of profit making, the appeal of offering economic advantage and elite university admission to the emerging middle class etc.) but what is the emerging idealistic role? In short, how can we readdress the ideological purpose of International Schooling? The fact that the field seemingly no longer caters exclusively (or mainly) for children of the globally mobile business community (i.e. the ‘global nomads’/Third Culture Kids) and is no longer predominantly community owned by parents and embassies, poses a challenge for readdressing the ‘pragmatic’ purpose. Also, the ‘idealistic’ purpose of International Schooling in its Post-War/Cold-War growth phase (e.g. Atlantic College, United Nations International School (UNIS)) was relatively easy to understand, but what is the current growth purpose? A study of the purpose of International Schooling does seem important, especially given comments saying that: ‘International Schools have long been considered the frontier par excellence of a future global society’ (Bagnall, 2008 p.4). Literature has done much to profile and explore the attributes of children in International Schools, but ‘relatively little attention has been paid to the social processes involved in the construction of identity’ (Grimshaw and Sears, 2008 p.263). Yet, children in International Schools are part of a wider social network (family, expatriate community, embassy community, future school alumni) and their time in school may prove to be a useful networking ‘tool’ for future advancement in life and jobs. This neglected area of the role of International Schooling has started to attract a wider critical discourse.

104

The major implications for theory

Karim (2012) had implied that International Schooling might have a role to play in balancing the two diametrically opposite forces of ‘globalism’ and ‘tribalism’. Another contrarian approach came from the survey of two ‘IB World’ International Schools in the Philippines (Dunne and Edwards, 2010 p.29) which had posited that that ‘the International School is a potential site for social change’ and that potentially ‘the inherent power and influence of an elite sector could be harnessed and directed towards action for social justice.’ Dunne and Edwards (2010 p.35) had concluded that International Schools are not at the ‘vanguard of social change’ and they do seem to reproduce social inequality, yet this ‘may be largely due to the absence of an alternative vision.’ One keynote speaker (Yip Kwok-wah, 2006 p.2) at the AIE conference in Shanghai, October 2006, had offered such a vision when saying that: ‘Students in International Schools come from those mobile families in the upper economic stratum … they will shape the future world.’ Comment had been made about the unstated mission of International Schools. Brown (2002 p.9) had said of American overseas schools that they are: ‘lighthouse beacons in often-hostile environments to call others to the benefits of democratic thought, theory and reality.’ One school in Hong Kong, Renaissance College, has a mission statement that commits itself ‘to build a culture that promotes peace and democracy, values diversity and works towards a sustainable future for all.’ The Østerbro International School in Copenhagen has reportedly an aim of creating people who will ‘make changes in the world’ (Hanley, 2013 p.16). At the same time, Cambridge (2011 p.135) has warned that such discourse of potential enlightenment might be ‘unwarranted’. Another possible alternative lens of vision comes from the way that several countries (namely Hong Kong, China, India, Malaysia, UAE, South Korea, and Singapore) are deliberately using International Schooling as a tool for facilitating economic development (i.e. to retain future workers and reduce the educational ‘talent drain’); ‘In some countries, growth is being driven from the highest level’ (Keeling, 2012a p.20). The field has been critically viewed as an elite arena, and a source of economic advantage, but it seems to be helping some countries to develop. Is this a way that International Schooling might be defended? The role of international schooling in facilitating economic development in countries such as South Korea needs to be reassessed within an idealistic lens of analysis. As seen already, South Korea is deliberately using International Schooling, within its Jeju-based Global Education City initiative, as a means of retaining Korean students and attracting foreign direct investment. In other words, International Schooling is being deliberately and consciously used as a direct means of reducing Korea’s ‘talent drain’. This seems to be a unique and new ‘role’ for the field. Within this context, International Schools are being invited in and ‘exploited’ as a facilitator of economic growth and development. To reiterate a point, we might say that some of the growth has become ‘supply-fed’ rather than ‘demand-led’, as South Korea is openly inviting

The major implications for theory

105

International Schools (a process beginning with the North London Collegiate School, in March 2011) onto Jeju Island and hoping to create a demand from parents in the region. Literature has begun reconceptualizing the idealistic purposes of International Schooling. Sandra Dunne’s (2008) earlier M.Ed dissertation had raised an interesting and provocative conclusion. Researching into host nationals’ students in two International Schools in Manila, it had been concluded that these schools held a powerful potential transformational position; the socioeconomic elite from the host country were distanced from the poorer local community, yet this provides an opportunity for the students to realize their privileged position, reflect on their standing, and act in the future for ‘the good of all’ as ‘future agents of social change’. Dunne had concluded by stating that it was about time that educators reconsidered the notion of International Schools as vehicles for educating the children of the economic elite and offering an expensive consumer path to an ‘elite lifestyle’ (Hassan and Katsanis, 1991). The alternative view sees this as an opportunity, to socially and morally transform the future global elite. This allows us a framework to reconsider the potential role and purpose of expensive and elitist schools such as Haileybury Almaty, Repton School Dubai and the GEMS World Academy. Both Charles Gellar (1981), a pioneer of the Copenhagen International School, and Dorothy Goodman (1985), a pioneer of the Washington International School, had much earlier expressed a vision of International Schooling ‘transcending the national’. In spite of the ending of the Cold War, a key spur for the growth of International Schooling in the 1960s, the idealistic purpose has not gone away, and stands firm as an educational objective for some commentators. As stated by Ian Hill (2011a p.122): ‘With the rise of international terrorism and world conflicts, the need to educate for international understanding has become more critical.’ A seemingly important alternative educational model began to emerge in practice from China. A keynote address at the 2004 Düsseldorf conference outlined a vision of an inclusive model where the best elements of Eastern and Western values are combined. (Chan Po King, 2004). Other such models have appeared within a mainstream ‘IB World’ context, especially in India. Gunesch, (2004) sees ‘cosmopolitanism’ as a general process of making a child ‘feel at home in the world’, no matter where in the world they are based or from. Pathways World School, in New Delhi, opened as an ‘IB World School’ in 2003, and aiming to balance Western and Indian values. The GD Goenka World School, an ‘IB World’ school since March 2005, also claims to offer a similar education. The challenge of conceptualizing the limits

One aim of this book is to theoretically present the notion of a ‘limit’ to the continuous growth of International Schooling. There seemed in 2012

106

The major implications for theory

no discernible barriers to future growth in the size of the field, although the ‘boutique’ model, as first practiced by Dulwich College and then by schools such as Brighton College and Repton School, has not entered the field to the extent that commentators had previously prophesized. It probably never will since there only exists investment ‘space’ for one of each type in a region. The model requires a niche position in the field. However, this is not to say there are no limits to future growth. The growth of the IB programmes in America had led to a largely peripheral and parochial, but vitriolic, attack from paleo-conservative forces and agencies opposed to global education (Bunnell, 2012) showing that limits can be reached. Brummitt (2007 p.39) had pointed out that: ‘Dramatic growth, however, comes at a cost and has created a new set of problems.’ The British economist Fred Hirsch’s The Social Limits to Growth (Hirsch, 1976) offered a critical analysis of the consequences of markets on the moral fabric of society. The case has been argued more recently (Carvalho and Rodrigues, 2006) for revisiting the continuing relevance of Hirsch’s seminal work and I have resurrected Hirsch’s work in the context of the IB’s continuous growth (Bunnell, 2012). Hirsch was approaching the topic from the view that growth per se was not bad, but stating that there are perhaps ‘limits’ and points at which it becomes no longer morally or socially acceptable. The concept of a ‘limit’ could be viewed in 2012 in an International Schooling context within two dimensions. Firstly, there is a moral/ethical limit to the growth of International Schooling. This can be most obviously applied to the need for more teachers (an extra 200,000 by 2022). Over a decade before 2012, it was being stated (Hallack, 1998) that the current phase of globalization was forcing commentators to rethink the goals of education, whilst also coming to terms with the effects in terms of attracting and retaining teachers, and the reconsideration of how to compare educational standards. However, the field of International Schooling has only relatively recently begun this discussion (e.g. Hayden and Thompson, 2011). Over the past few decades, researchers and policymakers (e.g. DarlingHammond, 1984; Ingersoll and Smith, 2003) have warned of severe teacher shortages confronting schools in countries such as Britain and USA. They had pointed to a dramatic increase in the demand for new teachers resulting from two converging demographic trends: increasing student enrolments and increasing numbers of teachers reaching retirement age. However, in future the growth of International Schooling as a long-term career choice for many graduate teachers might add to the pressures, leading to a potential ‘backlash’ for the field which has thus far mitigated any direct criticism as state school sectors have perhaps welcomed teachers leaving and then returning with ‘fresh’ ideas and experiences. The issue of a public sector ‘talent-drain’ towards International Schooling surely needs discussing, as more and more ‘teachers now recognize the opportunities … of working abroad’ (Brummitt and Keeling, 2013 p.33). The field needs to begin considering the implications of its future growth on education in general.

The major implications for theory

107

The future staffing of International Schooling has been raised academically as a ‘new’ concern: ‘As the number of international schools worldwide increases, one might wonder where the teachers will be found to staff them’ (Hayden and Thompson, 2011 p.90). The answer to this statement is probably that they will be found in the public schooling sector of English-speaking countries where there already exists concerns of teacher shortages. This issue raises some problematic questions. How long can International Schooling continue to exploit teachers’ discontent with working in public schooling? What are the potential long-term effects? At what point in time will this lead to a ‘backlash’ from both tax payers and governments? In this context, the broader implications of growth, in terms of the effects of growth on the outside world, not just internally, need to be discussed. A second dimension to consider is a social/political limit to growth. This is most logically applied to the fact that in spite of considerable growth of International Schooling in areas of the world such as Dubai, Hong Kong and Singapore, there is still considerable excess demand for school places. Hirsch (1976) had identified that economic growth had many positive outcomes (that is to say, he was a ‘growth sceptic’). He asserted that it is not growth per se that is necessarily the problem, more the nature and implications of growth. Hirsch‘s ‘social limits to growth’ thesis has two themes. Firstly, as an economy grows over time, more and more of our consumption becomes status-oriented. This causes consumers to ‘show off ’, a form of positional externality. The result is greater unhappiness among people who want the product but cannot obtain it, or afford it. At the same time, much of economic activity becomes about trying to keep up, or even move ahead, of the proverbial ‘Jones’’. Both are sources of stress and tension. How can we perceive the ‘limits’ to growth? It is accepted (by ISC Research and others) that the demand for international schooling will continue to grow and the number of international schools will double (to reach maybe 12,000) over the next decade. This is based on the assumption, seemingly currently correct, that the field will continue to be ‘welcomed’ and ‘invited’, and remain financially profitable. But, what if political and economic conditions change? Is there not a need for an alternative lens of investigation, viewing International Schooling as having a limit to growth? What might such a limit be? Could growth in a region exceed local acceptance levels? Could continuous growth, especially in a profit-making environment led by ‘British-ethos’ schools, lead to tensions and social divisions? As stated in the opening chapter to this book, the British Government has become concerned about protecting the image of ‘British’ education, and the longer established ‘British-ethos’ schools (represented by the Council of British International Schools (COBIS)) have expressed concern about growth compromising standards. This could be viewed as a situation where the scale of International Schooling has reached an ‘optimal’ level, i.e. further growth might not be deemed sustainable. There is a need to consider the broader

108

The major implications for theory

social and political implications of the changing landscape. Growth brings with it spillover effects, it is not a zero-sum game, e.g. the field requires up to 20,000 extra teachers each year but this takes teachers out of the public school sector: ‘Record numbers of teachers are quitting the UK to work abroad, raising fears of an exodus that will leave British schools understaffed’ (Shepherd, 2009). The number of qualified teachers who had left Britain to take up posts in schools overseas where the National Curriculum is the same as in England and Wales increased by 26% between 2006 and 2009. There exists scope for an alternative imagination beyond merely supposing continuous growth, and beyond merely seeing further growth as ‘good’. One tension involves the building of International Schools in countries such as Hong Kong with public funds. Hong Kong has begun allocating vacant schools to International Schools; of the 37 sites that had become vacant between 2008 and 2011, 13 had been allocated to International Schools (Lee, 2011). One comment (Lo, 2012) in the South China Morning Post had stated that Hong Kong does not need more International Schools and it was ‘time to ditch elitist ex-pat system.’ In this context, growth in Hong Kong seems to have reached a ‘limit’. To reiterate the point, there did in 2012 seem no discernible barriers to growth, but that does not mean there are no limits to growth. At a micro-level, there were reports in the British press in 2012 that there was a growing resentment in parts of France, such as the Dordogne region, towards British ex-pats buying property and pushing house prices up, and beyond the means of the younger locals (e.g. one-third of the thirteenth-century market town Eymet’s 2,600 population is British). Here we have an example of how growth can cause unrest and divisions, leading to the argument that a social/political/ethical ‘limit’ had been reached. The same argument could be applied to the continuous growth of International Schooling, where the implication of growth is complex and problematic. Again, at a micro-level, Copenhagen International School is under enormous pressure to grow, both because the ex-pat community (the original and natural constituency) wishes to send more children to the school, and also because the school is under pressure to accept more Danish children (the local and host constituency) who feel excluded, plus the school gets a higher income (via a state subsidy) for each Danish child. However, the two growth demands are not compatible. This was not so much an issue when the school merely attracted the relatively small ex-pat community (during the ‘Ideal’ era of activity), but the growing demand from both ex-pats and the local community (in the ‘post-Ideal’ era) adds extra pressures. The implications of the ‘limits’ for the growth of International Schooling have never fully been explored or discussed, but as the number of schools continues to grow at 6–7% compound per annum, requiring an extra 20,000 teachers year, it is perhaps timely that an alternative lens of analysis was offered. Abu Dhabi alone requires an extra 2,300 teachers (bringing the total to 9,000)

The major implications for theory

109

by 2015 after the Education Council in 2011 approved another 47 international schools, resulting in a 123% increase in school numbers since 2008, and was reviewing a further 57 applications for new schools. It was reported (Ahmed, 2011b) that: ‘This is putting a great strain on the recruitment pool … one of the main problems was the access to talent’, especially as Abu Dhabi is competing alongside enormous growth in India and Dubai. The notion that globally the International Schooling ‘recruitment pool’ has a limit is a novel one but requires discussion. The Indian curriculum schools in Abu Dhabi appear to be suffering the most from teacher recruitment issues, especially as they cannot offer the same pay packages as the other curricula schools, creating potential tensions and divisions between schools. The costs of further growth need to be viewed within a broader economic and sociological perspective. Not all schools have the same level of access to teachers and leaders. The challenge of adopting a broader cultural lens

One major challenge in 2014 is to move beyond the popular imagination of viewing International Schooling as an Anglo-American construct serving children of the British, American, Australian and Canadian ex-pat communities. This was the essence of the ‘Ideal’ era. A modern aspect of globalization has been the emergence of an ambitious middle class from developing nations (e.g. India, China, Philippines, Pakistan, Iran) that have sizeable overseas populations seeking a high-quality English-speaking education. The emergent geography of International Schooling reveals the parts of the world most open to globalization forces. The body of schools serving the global Indian diaspora are definitely seeing much growth. The Global Indian Foundation, a Singapore-based non-profit organization which established the first Global Indian International School in Singapore in 2002, had grown by 2008 into a network of 15 schools in seven countries with more than 17,000 students. Four schools are in India and the rest in Malaysia, Japan, Vietnam, New Zealand, Thailand and Singapore. The Global Indian International School, which has its branches in seven countries and purports to impart education with an ‘Indian spirit’, was set to open 15 more schools in India by 2010. My internet search in summer 2013 revealed at least 23 International Schools, mainly in the Middle East, with the word ‘Indian’ in the title (e.g. Indian International School Jeddah, Abu Dhabi Indian School, Global Indian International School Singapore). However, this is a gross underestimation. The website dubaifaqs.com in January 2013 was listing 48 schools in Dubai alone offering an Indian curriculum, plus another eight offering a Pakistani curriculum, and a further eight offering an Iranian one. By contrast, only 28 schools in Dubai were offering an IB programme (including branches of elite English private schools from Dulwich College, Oundle, and Repton). Across the UAE

110

The major implications for theory

as a whole, there were 170 schools offering an Indian curriculum (mainly the Central Board of Secondary Education (CBSE)), plus 11 offering a Filipino curriculum. The Second Philippine International School is a non-profit school, established by three parents in 1998, catering to all dependents of overseas Filipino workers in Riyadh. One under-reported fact about International Schooling in the UAE is the extent to which there exists a huge divergence between the fees paid by ‘Western’ ex-pats and ‘Asian’ ex-pats. The three-tier ‘airline’ model promoted by the Global Education Management Systems Education Ltd (GEMS) is less pronounced when viewing hundreds of schools, but the hierarchy is most easy to identify via the curricula structure. An analysis of the schools in Dubai ranked in order of fees (available at dubaifaqs.com website) revealed in summer 2013 a marked discrepancy between sets of schools aimed at different groups of ex-pat nationals. About 30 schools in Dubai had fees below UAE10,000. Of these, half offered an Indian curriculum, three offered an Iranian one (two of these are the cheapest: fees between UAE1–2,000), and two offered a Filipino curriculum. The 14 schools with the lowest fees were all K-12 schools offering either an Indian, Iranian or Pakistani curriculum. At the top of the fee spectrum, 27 schools had fees that began at UAE30,000. Of these, ten offered an IB programme, six offered English A-Levels, and 17 were listed as offering ‘UK’ education, plus seven were identified as ‘US’. None of the top 34 highest fee schools offered either an Indian curriculum or catered exclusively for the Indian ex-pat community. GEMS World Academy had fees reaching UAE92,000 and Repton School Dubai had the highest fees (up to UAE92,700). The moral of this analysis is that the large Indian diaspora in Dubai is clearly viewed as the ‘cheap’ end of the market, whilst the IB end is viewed as the most ‘expensive’. This was also true of Abu Dhabi where the seven lowest fee schools in 2012 offered either Pakistan, Indian, Bangladeshi, or Filipino curricula. At the top end, five of the ten most expensive schools offered an IB programme. The 12 most expensive schools included seven ‘UK’, four ‘US’ and one Canadian school. Brighton College Abu Dhabi, mentioned in the preceding chapter of this book, emerged as almost the most expensive school. Interestingly, the schools grouped within the middle of the fee-range tended to offer a mixture of Advanced Placement (AP), IB, International General Certificate of Secondary Education (IGCSE), A-Levels. It is worth noting that even the transportation of children to GEMS schools in Dubai is being fee-differentiated. In July 2008, it was reported (Khaleej Times, 5 July 2008) how the newly-formed Bright Bus Transport Company, that began operating the group’s 690 buses in the emirate from August that year was exploring the possibility of offering ‘edutainment’ for buses serving the ‘premium’ international schools. Children at these high-fee schools would view educational video or television programmes to make use of their time while travelling in the buses. In turn, this would of course help justify the large fee discrepancy.

The major implications for theory

111

In short, the schools catering in English for children of the Indian diaspora require embracing within the academic discourse. A much wider cultural lens of inquiry is now needed that moves beyond the ‘traditional’ field of American and British-ethos schools, largely catering for the children of the transnational capitalist class (TNCC). A much more culturally and socially diverse set of schools have appeared on the landscape and warrant some attention. The challenge of reconciling for-profit schooling

The role of the ‘for-profit’ companies involved in International Schooling needs to be critically yet objectively evaluated. At first glance, the purpose is to facilitate profit in a declining economic environment, exploiting the desire of middle class parents in countries such as Dubai who wish to opt out of poorly operated schools and facilitate economic advantage for their children. However, the stated mission of many for-profit operators is allegedly to facilitate greater and wider access to lower-income families. This mission can be viewed within an idealistic lens of investigation. Put simply, the role of for-profit schooling (now seemingly the dominant International School operational paradigm) in countries such as Dubai and India is complex and requires analysis and thought beyond the obvious and rather simplistic ‘they are out to make a profit’ stance. In particular, the overtly ambitious plans by GEMS Education to be educating five million children in 10,000 schools by 2024, and employing half a million teachers, requires a substantial rethink about how we perceive the actions of such for-profit companies (i.e. the ‘relative newcomers to the scene’) who have entered the field of International Schooling in its ‘post-Ideal’ era. Many international educators may not like the idea of for-profit schooling, but we arguably need to academically come to terms with it: ‘The business of International Education is here to stay and will continue to grow’ (MacDonald, 2009a p.78). As noted in the ‘literature context’ part of this book, there has been surprising very little written and commented about the role and activity of for-profit International Schooling, in spite of its prevalence. Yet, as noted by MacDonald (2009b p.83) ‘even for-profit institutions have a social mission.’ In this context, MacDonald had suggested that an evaluation of for-profit International Schools should be approached from a multiple ‘bottom-line’ approach, examining the ‘financial’, ‘academic’ and ‘the intangible core’. The latter aspect might in an International Schooling setting include the promotion of international-mindedness. That is, the role and nature of for-profit schooling should be examined beyond the fiscal aspect, and should include academic and social aspects of inquiry also. Here we have a framework for reassessing and reconciling the role of commercial groupings. Reconciling the involvement of for-profit International Schooling is actually a substantial theoretical challenge. As seen by numerous reports, the early categorizations of International Schools rejected outright the notion of ‘for-profit’

112

The major implications for theory

or ‘proprietorship’ schooling. This situation has fundamentally changed and thus requires a complete reconceptualization of the field. One major challenge is to objectively assess the nature, effects and intent of for-profit companies. In one sense, these companies claim to offer a lower-fee education than other providers, allowing greater access and inclusiveness. To reiterate an important point, this could be viewed as being ‘idealistic’ or ‘ideological’. Although the growth of International Schooling might lead to lower standards in the future (the British Government in 2012 has become concerned at the possible lowering of standards and wishes to accredit more overseas schools), the growth of for-profit schooling might lead to higher standards; it is not in the interests of for-profit companies in competitive environments to operate unsatisfactory schools. We may in the future have a situation where the non-profit schools require external accreditation but the for-profit schools are ‘self-policed’ by market forces. There does exist scope for an alternative imagination of forprofit schooling beyond the more usual hostile or sceptical one The challenge of reclassifying International Schools

Ian Hill (2006) had argued that there is a need for an improved nomenclature of school types. This academic task is in the process of being done. Hayden and Thompson (2008 p.21) had helpfully identified the ‘traditional’ International School. This type catered for the globally-mobile transnational community (TNCC) and grew in an individual and idiosyncratic way ‘responding to the needs of a particular set of circumstances’ (Hayden and Thompson, 2008 p.21). Furthermore, such schools began often as a parent co-operative and had high levels of parental involvement (Benson, 2011 p.88). Sears’s (2011 p.70) research into the formation and maintenance of identity in globally mobile children involved an International School that ‘exists to serve globally mobile children and young people’ and had 55 different nationalities represented within the student body. Presumably, such a school would now be deemed for research purposes a ‘traditional’ International School. Hayden and Thompson (2013 p.5) have advanced their 2008 notion of the ‘traditional’ International School. They now see ‘Type A’ ‘traditional’ International Schools as those that were established principally to cater for globally mobile expatriate families for whom the local education system is not considered appropriate. The ‘Type B’ ‘ideological’ International Schools were established with a view to promoting global peace and understanding (probably never a large bloc of schools). The ‘Type C’ ‘non-traditional’ International Schools are obviously the theoretical ‘newcomers’, established principally to cater for ‘host country nationals’ (i.e. ‘locals’), the socio-economically advantaged elite of the host country who seek for their children a form of education different from, and perceived to be of higher quality than, that available in the national education system. Yamato (2003 p.73) had identified in Hong Kong a new type of International School emerging that ‘are somehow different from

The major implications for theory

113

the other International Schools’ and which ‘target students mainly from local families.’ Yamato (2003 p.57) had identified this as a ‘new direction of schooling in Hong Kong.’ The ‘non-traditional type (or ‘non-ideal’, in the context of an emerging thesis in this book) obviously embraces the corporate and profit-driven model. Making such a distinction is clearly useful although the term ‘traditional’ implies that it is a ‘classic’ or ‘pure’ or ‘real’ type. Alternatively, the other type would seem ‘inferior’ or even ‘fake’. This issue is politically and diplomatically problematic and the terminology arguably requires further refinement. There exists an argument for calling many of the ‘traditional’ International Schools ‘pioneering’ or ‘laboratory’ schools. Indeed, I have already argued for such a reclassification among the ‘pioneer IBDP’ schools (Bunnell, 2013). The term ‘pioneering’ was used by Haywood (2005 p.7) when describing the establishment of the schools in Geneva and Yokohama in 1924, but there seems no reason why the term cannot be stretched to cover many of the ‘Type A’ and ‘Type B’ schools that appeared before, say, 1980 or 1990. The challenge of identifying the research opportunities

The field of International Schooling still has huge research ‘holes’ needing to be filled. In spite of the huge growth since 2002, it still seems true to state that: ‘In some respects, International Schools are a well-kept secret’ (Hayden and Thompson, 2008 p.15). This comment has been made several times over recent years, e.g. ‘International Schools are a well-kept secret: they are few in number, constituting a barely significant proportion of schools. Many people do not know about them, and little research has been conducted in their regard’ (Caillods, 2008 p.9). The year 1981 saw the appearance of the International Schools Journal (ISJ), first edited by Charles Gellar, which has since become a mainstay of the academic field and celebrated its thirtieth anniversary in 2011. Gellar’s (1981 p.21) initial editorial had asserted the view that the field of International Schools was a diverse yet still unclear one. In essence, even after three decades of self-promotion, the field is still a largely peripheral one. It is generally accepted that the teaching experience has been neglected by research and discussion: ‘Most of the literature on International Schools and International Education focuses on the students, and on the teacher in relation to the student’s learning and experience’ (Joslin, 2002 p.33). Yet, the reality of working in an International School does seem politically and ethically problematic and is clearly worthy of substantially more research: ‘Another area of future research concerns the nature of schools themselves’ (Ian Hill, 2006 p.30). Furthermore, it has been said that: ‘Very few texts deal specifically with the induction of teachers into overseas or International Schools’ (Stirzaker, 2004 p.32). In particular, the gender and race of international educators probably now requires further research, especially as the field has moved substantially over

114

The major implications for theory

the past decade into areas of the world (e.g. Middle East, India and China) where equality of gender and race are problematic issues. Surprising little such data seems to exist in the public domain on this topic, although gender inequality has always seemingly been an issue with regard to International Schooling. A survey by Rees (1992) had shown that in regional associations such as the Association of International Schools in Africa (AISA), 75% of the teaching posts were held by women, but almost none were in senior management. In Hawley’s surveys (1994 and 1995) it was shown that only 12% of the 336 heads were female. It had been revealed by further research that twothirds of teachers in International Schools are women but only 44% are administrators and only 20% of women are in senior management (Thearle, 1999). However much of this data was collected over a decade and a half ago. Does the lack of women in senior management roles still hold true? Benson’s (2011 p.91) study into the longevity of chief administrators in International Schools had started out with a sample of 603 ECIS schools in 110 countries, of which 70% had male chief administrators. Note that the figure of 30% women was much higher than Thearle’s (1999, 2000) 20%. It had been argued (Acker and Van Houten, 1974) that the sex structure of an organization is a factor of structural issues such as employment policy, and it needs further inquiry with regard to International Schooling. It is not a ‘random’ act. Thearle (2000) had argued that mentoring could enhance the self-esteem of female teachers in International Schools. Thearle (2000) had also quoted literature on mentoring which argues that the key role of a mentor is primarily to act as a guide to an unfamiliar male dominated organizational culture. To what extent is International Schooling (still) a male dominated industry? Of course, a study into sexual orientation and ethnicity might be useful also. Undergoing research into International Schooling is never easy. As noted by Odland and Ruzicka (2009 p.6), International Schools are independent institutions and ‘this independent quality of International Schools means that collecting comprehensive and accurate data on issues such as teacher turnover has proven very difficult.’ References to ‘high turnover’ abound in literature, yet few empirical studies have occurred. Hardman’s (2001) study of 30 teachers in International Schools in four countries (Argentina, Egypt, Indonesia and Tanzania) had looked at what factors influenced teachers to stay beyond one term of contract. Another study (Odland and Ruzicka, 2009) looked into why teachers leave at the end of the first contract. The two biggest factors involved lack of support and lack of communication with the senior management. It seems quite clear in 2014 that more research needs to focus on the realities of working in an International School. On a practical level, Caffyn (2011 p.75) states that: ‘Further research needs to be done into the locations of International Schools and how these impact on their infrastructure.’ A review of the literature reveals some important anomalies that need to be addressed if the field is to fully understand its ongoing development. For instance, surprisingly little has been written about

The major implications for theory

115

International Schooling in Dubai, yet by 2012 this small part of the world had apparently become by far the most intensive arena of International Schooling activity. The IB-hosted Institute of Education Research and Development (IERD) had 5,586 references in July 2013 of which just four made direct reference to Dubai, including three theses and a journal article (Bunnell, 2008) which still appears to be the main piece about the field in the Middle East. A broader search for ‘Middle East’ uncovered 19 references. By comparison, a search for ‘Australia’ revealed 183 references. The much bigger Education Resource Information Center (ERIC) database held 31 articles about Dubai. By comparison, there were 30,270 articles referring to Australia. The Journal of Research in International Education (JRIE) database, since 2002, held only six references to Dubai, yet the word ‘Australia’ had 128 mentions in text. The term ‘Middle East’ had 68 references, whilst the word ‘China’ had 78. The IB programmes have grown substantially in the Andes region, yet the JRIE database showed only three inclusions for the word ‘Ecuador’. In short, the literature on International Schooling still seems to largely ignore large areas of the world where the field is growing substantially and at the same time still seems over-biased towards the Anglo-centric world (i.e. the ‘Ideal’ era nexus of activity). This may reveal more about the dearth and location of the academic writers more than anything, but it appears to be the case that the academic field has yet to move away from its core base of research and understanding. This is arguably a key weakness within the literature. In particular, this helps to explain how the ‘airline’ model as practiced by GEMS Education, although controversial, has gone largely unnoticed and therefore, more importantly, has so far defied any substantial critical attention. There were, by 2012, further anomalies appearing. International Schooling has always involved its own vocabulary and language (Walker, 2002), yet there is still considerable disagreement about the usefulness of much of it: ‘The context of International Schools is one in which, as with other international organizations, terminology is not always consistently used’ (Hayden and Thompson, 2008 p.53). A review of recent literature pertaining to the growth of International Schools identifies two terms that require much more elaboration and discussion. Firstly, there is the oft-quoted remark that ‘80% of children in International Schools are local. What exactly does ‘local’ mean? Secondly, there is the remark that ‘most International Schools are now operated forprofit’. What exactly does ‘for-profit’ mean? Here we have a framework for critically attacking the growth of International Schooling as reported by organizations such as ISC Research. It is not to say that the terms are inaccurate, but they are vague and imprecise. This issue does seem important given that ISC Research had confirmed in its September 2010 Newsletter that all the English-medium International Schools (almost 450 schools) that were added to their database in 2009 were ‘for-profit’ organizations. At the turn of the millennium (e.g. Gottdiener, 2000) it was observed that consumption as a field of cultural studies overlaps with theories of

116

The major implications for theory

commodification facilitated by the mass media, themed entertainment, and the increasing role of leisure. This creates a field for the study of new and interesting models of consumption and International Schooling, within its replicated model of elite private schools (e.g. Repton School Dubai) offers such a model. There has been surprisingly little written about education as a commodity, aside from Brock and Alexiadou’s (1999) book, Education as a Commodity. The challenge of re-asserting an impact

International Schooling has always had access to the global elite. It has always embraced a core body of elite private schools. The Conference of Internationally Minded Schools, convened in 1949 by UNESCO, consisted of schools such as England’s elite private Badminton Girls’ School which under the headship of Miss Beatrice May Baker, had become committed to the teaching of international awareness. Leach’s (1969 p.156) listing of 23 ‘International Schools’ in Great Britain had included Badminton, plus Bedales School and Sevenoaks. International Schooling in this context has always been closely aligned with the education of the global elite, and therefore global governance. Of course, in some ways this is the desired purpose and International Schools have been described as ‘the supposed microcosms of the new world order’ (Poore, 2005 p.352). At the same time, one can be very sceptical of their role in facilitating global peace and intercultural understanding. With the strange exceptions of North Korea’s Supreme Leader Kim Jong-un, who allegedly attended an International School in Switzerland, and the late General Norman Schwartzkopf, who attended Ecolint, it appears true to state that: ‘As yet it seems that no world statesmen or women came from International Schools because the routes to the top table are through success on national ladders’ (Pearce, 2013 p.xv). Of course the UWC network accounts for many notable alumni including the 2013 appointed King Willem Alexander of The Netherlands, but they are truly exceptional institutions with a highly selective entry (Tsumagari, 2010). As noted already, one recent book (Silova and Hobson, 2014) had questioned the rhetoric and reality of International Schools. The moral of this story is that education is still predominantly a national concern and the national leaders and ‘superclass’ tend to still be educated at a national and not a global level. The leaders of the UK, for instance, have usually attended Eton or Westminster School not Ecolint, or the International School of London. As the corresponding field of International Schooling becomes more established and substantially larger, the level of criticism from sceptical observers could accelerate. International Schooling could stand accused of ‘underperforming’. Curriculum providers are under special pressure. Roberts (2013 p.139) has argued that international curricula providers have the opportunity of operating outside national control, but also in turn face the challenge of exerting influence on International Schooling children; they

The major implications for theory

117

have ‘unique opportunities and potential to move beyond the vague talk of international-mindedness.’ It has been said that the IB transcends national boundaries and ‘offers an advantage to participants in the competition for places in the world order’ (Bagnall, 2010 p.14). One of the few schools to offer the IB continuum in Canada is Toronto’s Branksome Hall, a premier private girls’ school, with its vision ‘To be an internationally-minded community of learners and leaders.’ Of course, there is a strong argument for saying that the IB schools have always offered this opportunity, and perhaps they should be ‘creating’ the leaders of tomorrow. Indeed, ex International Baccalaureate Organization (IBO) director general George Walker (2000 p.201) had asserted the need for ‘education for leadership’, and had explicitly said that ‘perhaps we need a special kind of education for those destined to be the world’s future leaders.’ The broader field has, in theory, the potential to create national or international leaders. Most International Schools have an expressed desire to change not only students’ knowledge base, but their attitudes and values. The Manila Bulletin announced in November 2012 that a new school in Japan – The International School of Asia – would aim to create Asia’s leaders of the future, with an Asian leadership rather than a Western-oriented paradigm. A plethora of schools now call themselves a ‘world academy’, e.g. there is The World Academy in Jeddah, the One World Academy in India, the Tripoli World Academy, the World Academy in Pakistan, plus the one with the same title in New Hampshire and in California. One school in South Korea even calls itself the Global Prodigy Academy, whilst in Manhattan there is a Grade 6–8 School for Global Leaders, plus there is a World Leadership School in Colorado and one with the same name in New Jersey, Texas and Ohio. Brummitt (2007 p.39) had made the claim about International Schools that: ‘Traditionally the province of expatriates, enrolment is increasingly dominated by the richest 5% of non-English speaking parents looking for places at International Schools in their own countries.’ Although this claim was later reiterated (Brummitt and Keeling, 2013 p.29) little formal evidence has been provided to back up this statement, but it is nevertheless an important one as it fits well with comments on the global elite. One interesting phenomena of the modern era is the convergence beyond geographical frontiers of the global elite and Rothkopf (2008) had claimed to have identified somewhere between 6,000 and 7,000 people who matched his definition of the (new) ‘superclass’. This term is used to describe people who posses ‘the ability to regularly influence the lives of millions of people in multiple countries worldwide.’ These obviously include heads of state, and religious and military leaders, plus cultural ‘icon’ figures. According to Rothkopf (2008), 33% of the global elite are in the Asia-Pacific region, 28% are in the European Union, 21% is North American, and 12% is in Latin America. The list includes terrorists, but the bulk is comprised of businesspeople: hedge fund managers, entrepreneurs and private equity investors. The average one works apparently for Goldman Sachs,

118

The major implications for theory

attends conferences such as Davos, and went to Standford or Harvard. Rothkopf's main thesis is that a global elite has emerged whose connections to each other have become more significant and close than their ties to their home nations and governments. This ‘class without a country’ increasingly forms ‘the new leadership class for our era.’ Moreover, they have attended the same schools and universities. Adonis and Pollard (1998) had also earlier claimed to have discovered a new ‘superclass’, which consisted of elite professionals and managers, who held high salaries and share ownership. Interestingly, The Dwight School in New York was founded in 1872. It became in the year 2000 the first school in the US to offer the three main IB programmes together. The School’s founder was Dr Julius Sachs, whose family established the banking house of Goldman Sachs. The challenge of redefining the stakeholders

The changing demographics of International Schooling pose a challenge of redefining the stakeholders. The children were previously viewed as ‘global nomads’ (e.g. McLachlan, 2007), or ‘Third Culture Kids’ (TCK). Is this sort of typology still viable? It had been suggested (Berting, 2010 p.30) that the wellestablished terms such as TCK be dropped in the context of discussing the populations of International Schools as it ‘helped lead to a misleading local versus international dichotomy.’ A more useful approach might be to consider how colloquial or cosmopolitan people are in addition to whether or not they are local. Basically, a lot of ‘local’ children in an International School might actually be ‘cosmopolitan locals’. Of course, in practice this might include the body of children from the host nation who have previously been taught in another country. The issue of ‘local’ parents has also been questioned. Mackenzie (2010 p.108) asserted that ‘the distinction between local and expatriate parents is a problematic one’ since many families have lived abroad and may continue to do so whilst many expatriate families may stay permanently in the host country. One interesting aspect of the movement away from educating in the main the children of the ‘ex-pat’ community towards the ‘local’ is that the clientele of International Schools has become more complex, defying precise terminology and classification. This is especially the case in the UAE, which accounted in 2012 for 6% of all International Schools (according to the ISC Research database), although other countries have a similar situation. For example, the Malaysian newspaper The Star (20 July 2012) claimed that there were 27,000 children at 70 schools in Malaysia (ISC Research identified 110), of which 15,772 are ‘foreign students’ and 11,278 were ‘locals’. However, it was also claimed that 60% of the ‘locals’ were in fact Chinese nationals; presumably, as Chinese nationals currently cannot attend International Schools in China itself, many are attending boarding facilities in Malaysia. In this context many of the ‘locals’ are only ‘locals’ in a regional sense. At the same time, they defy

The major implications for theory

119

classification as ‘foreign’ students as that implies they are the children of the globally mobile ex-pat community. The situation in Dubai is also very complex, with much of the ‘local’ clients at International Schools being members of the large Indian diaspora, attending Indian curricula schools (at relatively lower cost). Indeed, according to the 1998 Census data, Dubai had a population of just over two million, but only 17% were ‘locals’ or ‘UAE nationals’ and 85% was classified as ‘Asian’. Here we have another example where the distinction between ‘foreigners’ and ‘locals’ become blurred and hazy. This issue is important as it potentially undermines the notion that 80% of children at International Schools are ‘local’. One theoretical implication of this situation is that there is clearly the need for an alternative ‘third-way’ term to describe children in International Schools who are not ‘local’ but not ‘foreign’, perhaps by the making of a distinction between ‘host locals’ (e.g. native Malay children) and ‘regional locals’ (e.g. Chinese nationals in Malaysia) might help. The term ‘locals’ is clearly not universally understood and might refer to regional (e.g. South East Asia) or trade bloc alignment (e.g. Association of South East Asian Nations (ASEAN) membership) in the same way that many refer to ‘EU nationals’ and ‘non-EU’. One implication of this misunderstanding is that the statistic that says ‘80% of children at International Schools are now locals’ might actually be an underestimate since 60% of Malaysia’s ‘local’ clients are in fact ‘foreign’ Chinese nationals. It is not uncommon for many of the older ‘traditional’ International Schools to have a student body made up of 40–70 nationalities, with no single dominant grouping. For instance, using data from the 2007 ECIS Directory we can see that The English School Kuwait, founded in 1953 under the auspices of the British Embassy and the oldest established school in Kuwait, had an enrolment of 536 students comprised of 46 nationalities. St George’s British International School in Rome was founded in 1958 and its 627 students came from 64 countries. The Taipei American School in Taiwan was founded in 1949 and had 2,200 students from 42 countries. This is in direct contrast to the remark by Nick Brummitt (in The International Educator, April 2010 p.2) that: ‘Most International Schools today cater largely to wealthy local families, with 70–80% of International School students now from local families, a complete reversal over the last 20 years.’ An article in The Jakarta Post had reported (Leks, 2011) on how wealthier ‘local’ families there were now choosing International Schools. One comment (Choe Choe, 2012) on the ‘booming’ of International Schools in Malaysia had noted how the 40% quota on ‘local’ children was to be lifted and would result in an explosion of schools. It was expressed that this change in demographics was problematic and that: ‘Some perceive that this will pose a threat to the real identity of International Schools.’ At the same time, the figure of 80% seems quite high in some contexts. An article about Hong Kong (Lee, 2011) had commented on how the Education Bureau planned to create 5,000 more

120

The major implications for theory

International School spaces and of the 32,000 currently being educated, 13% were ‘local’ and 87% were from ‘elsewhere’. These figures obviously differ from country to country. Mackenzie’s (2009 p.326) research into six schools had led to an estimation that perhaps 6,000 Japanese children attend International Schools in Japan, about 47% of the total International School population in that country. MacKenzie (2009 p.336) had discovered that a major reason for sending the child to an International School in Japan was access to English and higher education institutions abroad (especially the USA where 45% wanted their children to eventually study). Although there are those (e.g. Lauder, 2007 p.441) who see International Schooling as the ‘fast track to the top universities for global and indigenous elites’, MacKenzie’s study concluded that in a Japanese context this was true in the sense that Japanese parents wanted their children to have a more cosmopolitan experience. The moral of this story is that the attraction of International Schools to the ‘local’ population may be more nuanced and less elitist than is often envisaged or reported. There is scope for a less generalized theoretical approach to be considered.

Chapter 8

The major implications for practice

The ‘greater impact’ implications The challenge of integration and engagement

Ex-International Baccalaureate Organization (IBO) director general George Walker had outlined a conceptual framework for understanding his vision of the different stages of International Schooling. Walker first delivered this in September 2005 during his last month in office (after six years’ service). In a speech delivered in Sweden (see Walker, 2005), he commented on how International Schooling involved, in his mind at least, a three-stage overlapping ‘model’. This was summarized in a later speech (Walker, 2007). The first ‘stage’ of this model, the lower order one, is ‘international awareness’, which any school can arguably deliver. This involves a certain consciousness of world events. The second ‘stage’ is more deep rooted, involving ‘global awareness’. This involves an understanding of the inter-connectedness of globalization, and that decisions made in one country have implications in another. The third ‘stage’, a seemingly higher order one, involves ‘global citizenship’. Walker had made it very clear that this ‘stage’ involves engagement and not just knowledge. The emerging fact that many International Schools now cater largely for the ‘local’ wealthy elite rather than a mixture of children from different nationalities poses a major practical challenge to moving away from the ‘cultural bubble’, and towards ‘engagement’. The field of International Schooling has always been a largely parochial and isolated one which has arguably hindered the degree of awareness, attention and impact that it might exert. Leach (1969 p.32) had commented on how: ‘The ISA has existed in a rather curious isolation from other school associations.’ It had been said three decades later that: ‘International Schools can be disconnected from the rest of the world and can exist in their own bubble of reality’ (Ellwood, 2004 p.6). It had been stated by that same writer that International Schools operate in a ‘sometimes rarified and isolated atmosphere’ (Ellwood, 2005, p.5), and that few have any genuine or sustained contact with the local community. Allen (2000 p.125), referring indirectly to

122

The major implications for practice

Dulwich College in Phuket (with buildings that ‘proudly mimic a private school in South London’) stated that such schools are ‘proclaiming their foreignness and in doing so, promote the idea of difference rather than communality.’ A decade ago David Wilkinson (2002 p.192) had stated that ‘no single body exists that pulls together the many constituents of international education’ and this remains true today. Mayer (1968 p.155) had described the body of International Schools as having ‘sprung up independently’ and being ‘a law unto themselves’, although an element of structure had begun to appear in 1951 when the International Schools Association (ISA) had been established in Geneva (although Paris was first proposed: Leach, 1969 p.16), and the International Schools Services (ISS), a non-profit corporation based in Princeton, New Jersey, was set up in 1955. The Association of American Schools in South America (AASSA) had appeared in 1961, followed later in 1964 when the Office of Overseas Schools (O/OS) had been set up following an evaluative study of 125 overseas schools in 18 countries, conducted by a team led by Harvard Professor Finis Engleman. Allen (2002), referring to the growing sense of competition that occurred in the 1990s among International Schools in South East Asia, had remarked how a three-fold set of associations had evolved. The degree of cooperation differs enormously and the relationship has been remarked upon as being a ‘cautious’ one, with meetings often resembling ‘a game of poker’ (Allen, 2002 p.137). As well as the lack of internal contact, International Schooling often acts beyond the gaze of the wider public. Allen (2002 p.133) saw the lack of contact as a ‘hole’ in the globalization net and stated that: ‘Research shows that links with the local community have not been seen as important for either International School students or teachers.’ The isolation from the local community is a long-standing and well-established ‘angst’ among International Schooling commentators. The location is often a factor. Mayer (1968 p.163) had noted that: ‘Like most American schools, the American School of Brussels sits well out from the city and the children come on buses.’ Matthews (1988 p.84) had concluded that ‘more could be done to foster local cultural contact, and criticism has been levelled at the elitism inherent in the existence of an expatriate cocoon.’ Yamato (2003 p.72) had commented on how many International Schools in Hong Kong were ‘located in rather remote areas.’ Hayden and Thompson (1996 p.53) had identified this sort of situation as a negative factor in the cultivation of intercultural understanding (a key theme in the IB Mission Statement). The lack of contact with the local community arguably does matter, even if it is the case that the majority of children in many International Schools are ‘local’. Dorothy Goodman, for instance, in 1966 had stated (Goodman, 1986 p.7) the aim was for it to become ‘the pilot school of the planet.’ Leach (1969 p.149) had reported on how the school in Washington was intended to be a trilingual one. It is the case that the founding ethos of some International

The major implications for practice

123

Schools is to serve as a ‘showcase’ model for the planet, but they cannot do if they are effectively invisible. Furthermore, research had shown that local community contact is an important feature of an International Schooling ‘experience’. Hayden and Thompson’s (1995) research among undergraduates who had followed such an education, showed that few mentioned the importance of community service, or making contact with the local community. However, when Hayden and Thompson (1997) undertook research among school students, participating in community service was deemed quite important (given a mean of 3.33 out of 5.0). The issue of ‘having strong links with the local community’ was also identified as being important. Hayden and Thompson (1998) later did research among teachers, who scored a mean of 3.91 for the school ‘ensuring student participation in community service activities within the local community.’ Having ‘strong local links with the local community’ scored 3.78 as an important component of the International Schooling experience. The moral of this story is that many International Schools want a higher local and regional profile, and the concept of international mindedness probably demands it. However, it has always proven a difficult political and social task. The emergence of a greater competitive and elitist landscape of activity will probably only aggravate the situation. The challenge of innovation and experimentation

The purpose of International Schooling, in its ‘Ideal’ era of activity at least, had always been more complex and idealistic than envisaged. Both Peterson (1972) and Leach (1969) had identified International Schools as having a strong aim of experimentation and offering laboratory conditions (globally) for such activities. Leach (1969 p.177) had asserted that the ‘ideal’ International School would ‘consciously seek to serve as a laboratory for outstanding teachers.’ Furthermore, Leach (1969 p.177) had said that it would ‘encourage program experimentation.’ He had added (Leach, 1969 p.181) that it was important that ‘each primary school classroom be sufficiently large as to serve as part-time laboratory.’ Leach (1969 p.27) had commented on how the Community School of Tehran had ‘been content to experiment on its own.’ Sylvester (1998 p.185) had later stated how ‘International Schools themselves are useful sites for such research into an emerging worldview.’ The changing ownership structure of the field (i.e. from parental co-operation to commercial ownership with investor and shareholder interests) presents practical obstacles to allowing International Schooling fulfilling its educational role as an independent set of global ‘laboratories’. International Schools previously were able to fulfil a role of creativity, experimentation and innovation. As they were previously largely schools operating in a partly hidden and peripheral educational field, independent of government mandate or control, they were able to offer a base for experimentation. In a further sense, they had a parental

124

The major implications for practice

(and ‘community’) mandate to experiment. Ian Hill (2011b p.9) stated that: ‘Finally, let us not forget that International Schools have spearheaded innovative education practices, ideas, and noble missions for peaceful co-existence.’ Hayden (1998 p.1) had talked about ‘the large amount of exciting and innovative work being undertaken in many International Schools around the world.’ Further recent comment has said that: ‘International Schools remain at the forefront of educational experimentation and have much to offer National Schools’ (Bagnall, 2008 p.3). But, is this view still true in the ‘post-Ideal’ era? I do not want to pretend that there was ever a halcyon era of experimentation that has been superseded by one of conservatism, but the story of the beginnings of the International Baccalaureate Diploma Programme (IBDP) offers pointers as to how far International Schools have in the past played a pivotal role in educational innovation. The notion of International Schools having a laboratory function was very evident during the early years of the IBDP, which until 1976 was essentially still a controlled experiment limited to a sample of less than 500 candidates per year. The vital and essential role of the initial body of International Schools as voluntary ‘laboratories’ was acknowledged by Alec Peterson when he stated that: ‘The fact that their proposals would be actually be tried out in the International Schools provided something akin to an international laboratory situation which could not have been provided by any other means’ (Peterson, 1972 p.89). The United Nations International School (UNIS) was the first, in 1968, to adopt the IBDP as the sole basis of curriculum. Fox (1998a p.70) had remarked how ‘UNIS was thus in an optimum position to serve as a laboratory for the IB experiment.’ Subsequently, it was stated that: ‘Over the years, as an independent organization, IBO has had the freedom to explore and pilot a variety of curriculum and assessment initiatives, drawing from varied ideas and practices world-wide’ (Fox, 1998b p.240). The first IB Economics course was discussed in May 1967, and one is struck at how innovative and imaginative it was (see Leach, 1969 p.119), with 30 topics and an attempt not to ‘embarrass any traditional economic system.’ Another example of innovation and co-operation among International Schools had come in 1979 when the IB director general Alec Peterson had reproposed a course of studies to be called ‘The Culture of Cities’ (Gellar, 2002a p.32). The idea had actually been ‘mooted’ during a meeting of IB teachers in June 1967 as a ‘Study of Cities’ course (see Leach, 1969 p.119). The idea was that students from one school would study the history, economics and cultural life of their own city and contrast it with what had been discovered by students in other cities. Eighteen cities (e.g. Manchester, England, Peking and Brasilia) had been drawn up as possible venues (see Leach, 1969 p.194). The scheme in 1979 had envisaged children studying in the three countries (Iran, USA, and Denmark), similar in a way to the idea of the London Spring Grove International College model of the 1860s, where students were meant to spend four years in three different countries (Sylvester, 1998).

The major implications for practice

125

Unfortunately, the fall of the Shah of Iran in 1979 helped to destroy the idea. Another radical curriculum model had emerged out of disquiet with the takeoff of the Atlantic College-developed Peace and Conflict Studies IBDP course which was ‘sadly, never adopted by the IB Organization more widely’ (Gellar, 2002a p.33). The ISA had agreed at a meeting at Washington International School in March 1997 a framework for creating the International Education System Pilot Project (IESPP) curriculum. This event was described by Roberts (2013 p.132) as one of the few attempts to ‘develop a coherent approach to addressing key global themes.’ Of course, International Schools do continue to innovate. The ‘ACS Group’ (as said previously, this is the American Community Schools in England and Doha) announced in early-2012 that it was to establish a new education think tank, ACS Centre for Inspiring Minds, to foster collaborative educational and technological research projects to develop understanding and innovation within the International Schooling field. The ‘G20’ bloc of 40 schools (including Ecolint) in 17 countries only admits invited members who have a history of innovation and experimentation. The substantial bodies of schools that have appeared over the past decade tied to commercial organizations are probably less able or inclined to undergo this sort of organizational and philosophical innovation. At the same time, the growth in competition between schools and the fact that the field is more ‘visible’ to the outside world offers practical limits to how far many International Schools can act as ‘laboratory’ schools. A good case in point is Southbank International School, created in 1979 as a worker co-operative. This school had begun life in 1979 using the concept of a ‘school without walls’ as propagated in John Bremer’s (1971) book with the same title, based upon the Parkway Programme in Philadelphia, and pragmatically utilizing London’s museums as learning resources instead of relying on textbooks (indeed, ‘School without walls’ is Southbank’s motto). Southbank is now the ‘flagship’ of Cognita which presumably limits how far Southbank can now act as an independent source of innovation and experimentation. Leach (1969) had made it clear in his Preface that the ‘genuine’ International School offered training and a sense of adventure to the involved educator. It is worth noting that Next Frontier Inclusion, a network of about 100 International Schools committed to serving a diversity of learning, is made up largely of institutions that would now be identified as ‘traditional’ ‘Type A’ ones (i.e. they are mainly European Council of International Schools (ECIS) members, and only two are in the Middle East). There is very little evidence of ‘non-traditional’ ‘Type C’ schools existing within that network. Again, this seems indicative of a ‘traditional’ supply chain emerging alongside an alternative commercial-based one. It also might be indicative of how for-profit schooling is reluctant to engage in ‘inclusion’. In one of the few articles to address this issue, Bradley (2000 p.37) had asserted that inclusion is ‘time consuming’ and uses up a lot of ‘human resources’, thus it may not be ‘economically viable’ for

126

The major implications for practice

many International Schools. A further example would involve the Global Issues Network established in 2003 by the International School of Luxembourg in response to the book High Noon by Jean-François Rischard (2002) which had highlighted 20 global issues and 20 years to solve them. This network by 2012 had involved almost 500 schools, yet none were in Dubai and only 11 were in the Middle East. Again, most were of the ‘traditional’ ‘Type A’ variant. Put bluntly, the ability for many International Schools to innovate and experiment is probably being compromised by the desire and need to satisfy market forces: ‘International Schools must orient themselves to the market’ (Yamato and Bray, 2006 p.60). Furthermore, in terms of market structure, the growth of schools into large clusters in cities such as Shanghai and Beijing is creating a monopolistic competition situation where brand recognition and reputation probably matter most. In short, innovation poses a risk to the reputation and images of standardization and brand.

The ‘governance’ implications The challenge of monitoring and regulating standards

International Schooling is a precarious arena due partly to ‘the relative lack of any overall control, monitoring or consistent set of expectations’ (Hayden and Thompson, 2008 p.73). These same authors have more recently asserted that: ‘no international body has the authority to adjudicate on whether or not a school may describe itself as an International School’ (Hayden and Thompson, 2013 p.4). The lack of accreditation across the field seriously undermines the control and monitoring of quality assurance whilst at the same time the unethical treatment of educators can go unmonitored. There is much evidence of poor standards of governance in International Schools, even in accredited schools. Stout (2005 p.20) had remarked upon how it was ‘alarming how many of these schools seem to make a practice of hiring and firing heads without intervention or censure by the accrediting body.’ International Schooling has never had a set of rules: ‘International schools are bound together not by rules but by informal and voluntary linkages’ (Phillips, 2002 p.173). The issue of to what extent International Schools can be held accountable has been raised before. As argued by Robertson (2003 p.297): ‘Foremost, International Schools such as ISX transcend any regional or national requirements and cater to a wealthy, globalized clientele of major multinational corporations.’ Pearce (1994) had called these schools ‘the multinational enterprises best friend.’ International Schools that label themselves ‘British’ have historically never received formal support or recognition from the British Government. Subsequently, it has been openly stated (Tarry, 2011 p.294) that ‘parents may be unsure of the standard and quality of education offered at International Schools

The major implications for practice

127

claiming to provide “British” education.’ The Council of British International Schools (COBIS) in collaboration with Britain’s Department for Education (DfE) has developed a common set of standards which ‘British-ethos’ International Schools can voluntarily adopt. At the time of Tarry’s (2011 p.297) research, 28 COBIS member schools were accredited. However, the usefulness and application of such arrangements has been questioned (e.g. Benson, 2011). It was reported (Hyslop, 2010a) that the chief executive officer of the Independent Schools Council (ISC) had stated that: ‘At the moment, schools which claim to be British are damaging the reputation of the English educational system.’ This article revealed that a tension is emerging among the organizations that accredit and represent British schools overseas (e.g. COBIS, the National Association of British Schools in Spain (NABSS)) about the more long-term effects of growth among British-ethos schools, putting pressure on the British government to intervene and react. The further fact that many new schools operate beyond the ‘reaches’ of the established agencies (i.e. the ‘traditional’ supply chain) has implications for the setting and policing of common standards. The issue of International School accreditation has been little researched (Fertig, 2008 p.345), even though Leach (1969 p.186) had insisted that the ‘ideal’ school ‘must submit to careful scrutiny.’ Several bodies have appeared that offer to accredit International Schools although the uptake is still voluntary. The subject of an accreditation role for ECIS had been discussed in 1965 (Paterson, 1991 p.40). ECIS had formally drawn up plans in Lausanne in 1970 for an accreditation service, and Antwerp International School in 1972 became the first school to formally undergo the process followed by the Copenhagen International School the year after. By 1991, ECIS had accredited 60 schools, including four in Africa and two in Asia (Paterson, 1991 p.44). The year 1998 saw the one-hundredth school accredited (Schaecher, 1998). In spite of the existence of a long-established body of accreditation agencies, it was reported in May 2012 that the majority (70%) of ‘American-ethos’ schools in the UAE are not accredited by any outside body, meaning that these schools do not offer SAT examinations (Ahmed, 2012). The website of the Council of International Schools (CoIS) (cois.org) listed in May 2013 a total of 387 accredited schools, but as expressed already in this book, this accounted for only about 10% of all International Schools worldwide. Furthermore, there are large global discrepancies. This listing included 41 schools in Australia and 33 in China, yet only 13 schools in the UAE were CoIS-accredited (note: the ISC Research database in May 2013 had listed 342 schools in China and 397 schools in the UAE). In other words, a large number of schools are not seemingly accredited by any organization, potentially undermining the standards of quality and image. Of course, a cynical view can be proposed that only a few schools need accreditation, and that this adds to the formal existence of a three-tier ‘airline/hotel chain’ model of activity in countries such as Dubai. In this context, we will never see a large body of International Schools

128

The major implications for practice

accredited as this undermines the notion of ‘good’ (expensive) and ‘satisfactory’ (cheaper) ones. The challenge of ethical conduct and operation

As noted already, very little attention has been given to the general experience of being a teacher in an International School. The literature has tended to focus upon the students and the curriculum and little attention has been made to the teaching staff. The reality and practice of working in International Schooling remains an under-researched field. However, it is now becoming clear, anecdotally at least, that many educators are unhappy in the field and face a precarious job place even if it is not entirely clear if this is the reality (i.e. the field still relies on anecdotal and often spiteful evidence). International Schools are vulnerable to both organization micro-politics and emotional micro-politics to do with the psycho-dynamics of human interaction. However, Caffyn (2010 p.50) argues that it is the latter form that is most prevalent in International Schools ‘due to the issues of identity, fear and vulnerability.’ The operation of International Schools has been critically examined recently. The past decade has seen some commentators exploring the extent to which International Schooling is a politicized organizational setting with much tension and micro-politics. A decade ago, Zsebik (2000) was arguing that there was an unwillingness to acknowledge politics or conflicts of interest, but this matter has changed. This has major implications both for the study and leadership of International Schools. One ISR.com blog current in June 2013 discussed the pros and cons of working for-profit schools stating that: ‘Owners most certainly see you as a commodity and your value for XYZ School may be simply to provide one small cog in the wheel that drives the school.’ It added that: ‘you are a Western face in front of the classroom, a promotional tool to get the more wealthy local and expat parents to enroll their children.’ The growing body of international educators, numbering only about 90,000 in 2000, but expected to be numbering 300,000 by 2015 and perhaps half a million by 2022, can be conceptualized in terms of Standing’s (2011) notion of the ‘precariat’. Any field of activity which lacks common standards, is largely unregulated and non-unionized, and has many institutions that are not regularly inspected or accredited is going to be a precarious workplace. As cynically noted by Nagrath (2011): ‘The rapid growth has corresponded with the proliferation of the title “international” placed on many schools that may possibly have the veneer of being international in name only.’ An earlier comment (Jackson, 2005 p.22) had said: ‘We are all now aware that the title international is used by many schools without any real justification …’. Furthermore, many schools lack any form of long-term plan. Blaney (2001 p.159) had said of International Schools that: ‘In short, the visitor may well discover that strategic thinking and planning, for a variety of reasons, are not centrepieces of the school’s governance and leadership activities.’

The major implications for practice

129

It is certainly true to state that many international educators are employed on temporary, short-term contracts. International Schools as organizations have traditionally been noted as having what Handy (1991) likened to as a ‘shamrock organization’ structure. Cambridge (2002 p.159) argued ‘a tripartite organizational structure has developed in many International Schools.’ There is a long-term administrative core, consisting of the head and their deputies. Standing (2011) might refer to this grouping as the ‘salariat’. There is a fringe of relatively highly-paid professional expatriates on short-term, often two-year contracts, and there is a large pool of lower-paid local hired staff. Garton (2000) had referred to three similar groupings. But, it is not only teachers in International Schools that have a precarious workplace. It has been well stated that International schools have a ‘headship survival’ rate of just 2.8 years (Hawley, 1994), significantly lower than the normal nine or ten years in state schools in England (Halpin and Owen, 2004). A more recent survey (Benson, 2011) into the nature of chief administrator turnover in International Schools collected data from 83 schools revealing that the average term of office was 3.7 years. This is about one year higher than the findings of Hawley’s survey, perhaps duo to the greater amount of information now available. It had been said by Littleford (1999 p.23) that: ‘Almost eighty percent of all heads of school are fired. They do not leave of their own volition.’ In practice, this means that many heads serve out their fixed period of contract, apply for an extension, but this is refused. De facto, the head has been ‘fired’. The researcher can now make use of substantial anonymous postings by educators worldwide on social websites such as ISR.com. This website had appeared following an exchange of comments in The International Educator in 2002 and 2003. One set of commentators (Trotter and Trotter, 2002 p.18), describing an aspect of their own experience had stated that ‘the positions were misrepresented, as was the character of the school. It was a philosophical mismatch from the beginning.’ It was also argued that the problem lies not with teachers but with ‘unscrupulous heads’ (Frembgen, 2003). Ingersoll’s (1999) study had concluded that poor teacher retention in the USA might be more of a factor of organizational culture than the characteristics of the teachers themselves. The earliest postings on ISR.com, not surprisingly, date from 2003 and the website now holds over 6,000 individual postings, including 20 in Hong Kong and 25 in Qatar (all figures correct in May 2013). The biggest bloc of comments concerns schools in China (80 schools covered). Many of these reviews comment on what might broadly be deemed ‘destructive leadership’, with substantial claims of leadership bullying, victimization, favouritism, and other forms of narcissistic behaviour. There have occurred high-profile incidents involving International School teachers. In April 2013, Dorje Gurung, a Tibetan-Buddhist chemistry teacher was arrested in Qatar and charged with insulting Islam. The incident had occurred after several students had mocked

130

The major implications for practice

him in class. He was fired by the school and subsequently arrested. He faced seven years in jail if convicted. The ISR.com website immediately began a petition and had collected 11,000 signatures within the first week. The ISR.com website hosts an International Teachers’ Bill of Rights, arguing that: ‘Schools that withhold salaries, switch contract terms, substitute poor housing for promised housing, fail to reimburse travel and shipping allowances, renege on health insurance and engage in other dishonest practices are not acceptable schools to work at by any stretch of the imagination.’ The sixitem Bill includes demands such as ‘School housing, if offered, is clearly represented by photos and written descriptions at recruiting time’ and ‘Passports are held only for the purpose of visa renewal and are returned upon request.’ This area of discussion is clearly controversial, representing the ‘dark-side’ of International Schooling, but it requires discussion if the field is to attract (and retain) another 200,000 teachers by 2022. There is now a wealth of anecdotal evidence that such a ‘Bill of Rights’ is required. International Schools, in spite of their inclusive Mission Statements, can often be inherently divisive. It is quite common in International Schools to make a distinction between teachers employed whilst living overseas (overseas hire) and those employed whilst residing in the host country (local hire). These two sub-groups can have different contracts and substantially different pay structures; a situation that can lead to tension and resentment (Hayden and Thompson, 2008 p.56). The moral of this story is that the ‘dark side’ of the field is now openly discussed and requires greater control and scrutiny. A ‘Bill of Rights’ clearly requires more open discussion. The challenge of legitimacy and leadership

The field has never had a cohesive sense of unity. Walker (2000 p.149) referred to the ‘uncoordinated movement to create a global education’, whilst Hayden and Thompson (2000 p.48) made reference to the ‘rapid and largely uncontrolled expansion in numbers’ of International Schools, coupled with a growth of diversity. The field of International Schools has built up over time its own essentially closed circuits, and as seen throughout this book, a plethora of acronyms and abbreviations exist. One major implication of the growth of International Schooling beyond Europe and towards Pacific Asia and the Middle East, as discussed a little already, is the breakdown of the leadership role of many well-established organizations and support bodies. ECIS member schools formed the basis of Jonietz’s (1992) survey. ECIS had originally been proposed as the ISC (Jonietz, 1992 p.311) and its membership and activities previously formed the mainstay of much International Schooling activity. For instance, I remember attending the ECIS conference in November 1991 in Birmingham when the event was considered by many international educators to be the main event of the academic year, bringing together the main bodies in Europe and beyond. However, the

The major implications for practice

131

number of schools affiliated to ECIS as a proportion of total schools has fallen considerably, causing the ECIS conferences to seem more peripheral and marginal. Pearce (2013 p.70) has openly stated that attendance at the ECIS November conference had ‘peaked around 2005’, but has diminished substantially since. The ECIS organization in 2003 had 585 member schools in 114 countries (Maybury, 2003 p.3). This bloc probably accounted for about 20% of all International School at that point in time. A decade later, ECIS in autumn 2012 had 389 member schools teaching 246,479 children and employed almost 31,000 teachers. These figures meant that ECIS member schools now made up only 6.5% of the global International School field, teaching 8.3% of all students, employing 10.9% of teachers and producing 13.1% of global fee income (Keeling, 2012 p.20). An online survey in January 2013 by social network website internationalschoolcommunity.com had revealed that the annual ECIS November Conference was the preferred choice of only 18% of respondents. Here we can also identify a possible problem of declining legitimacy. The same issue applies to ISA, membership of which in 1964 was seen as prerequisite for even being identified as an International School. The same logic could even be applied to research organs such as the International Schools Journal (ISJ) (sponsored by ECIS), and the Journal of Research in International Education (JRIE). To what extent can the ISJ in particular, started in 1981, still claim to be the main research publication encompassing the majority of schools in the research field? Should it be now retitled the ‘Traditional’ International Schools Journal (TISJ)? One implication of the predominant growth of schools with a more pragmatic-driven approach is that networks of schools that have historically been more idealistic in their approach (e.g. ISA, United World Colleges (UWC), maybe also Yew Chung) are in danger of becoming increasingly marginalized. The outcome of this is that they either become perceived as ‘unimportant’ or become seen as ‘superior’ (as articulated by Hayden and Thompson, 2008 p.82). Either way, they risk becoming seen as peripheral and ‘outdated’ in their approach. This undermines the notion that International Schooling should be seen as a richly diverse field of education encompassing different philosophies and approaches. No worldwide system has yet emerged with either the ability or the mandate ‘to convert the micro into the macro’ (Walker, 2002 p.209). The ‘Alliance for International Education’ exists at present as an embryonic body that aims to bring together the major parties involved in the growing world of International Schooling. The first calls for such a body can actually be traced as far back as Peterson (1972: see the last chapter in that book) followed by Blaney’s (1991) call for a ‘system’, whilst the first mention of an ‘alliance’ as such can be attributed to Hayden and Thompson (2000). The practical impetus evolved from a conference in Geneva in 2002 and the larger conference in

132

The major implications for practice

Dusseldorf in November 2004, which it was argued ‘may well prove to be for international educators what Kyoto is for climate change and Maastricht for the European Union’ (Roberts, 2005 p.8). This conference saw the creation of the ‘Statement of Purpose’: ‘The Alliance for International Education brings together all those who are committed to advancing international and intercultural understanding through education. It promotes collaborative ventures that enhance the learning of relevant concepts, skills and values.’

The ‘sustainability’ implications The challenge of preparing educators for service

The need for preparing educators for entering and serving the field has long been viewed a major issue. It is probably safe to assume that most International School educators have developed, within their initial teacher-training period, the necessary basic skills as a ‘technician’ or professional. However, one presentation at the inaugural Alliance for International Education (AIE) conference in Geneva in 2002 had said that: ‘Most teachers in International Schools are thrown in at the deep end, with little or no preparation for dealing the issues of culture, language and transition that are so commonplace’ (Snowball, 2002, in the Abstract of the presentation). Hayden (2002a p.117) had said that: ‘It would almost certainly be safe to assert that the vast majority of teachers and administrators currently based in International Schools worldwide have had no specific training to teach in that context.’ Very few studies have examined the experience of educators who relocate abroad to teach in International Schools, aside from Roskell’s (2013) examination of the perspective and nature of ‘culture shock’ of 12 teachers who had moved abroad to teach in an International School in South East Asia. The professional international educator in 2014 is likely to discover that International Schools are all very different in purpose and nature which might come as a surprise, shock or disappointment, i.e. moving from one school to the next can be a very different experience. As Hayden and Thompson (2008 p.69) had asserted: ‘they (teachers) may find the second experience is a major disappointment since the assumptions they had made about the transferability of characteristics across the International School sector proved to be unfounded.’ Furthermore, since moving from one school to another is really not a predictable outcome, this is probably an issue for children, parents and educators alike. In particular, moving from a school led by parents to one led by a profit-driven company (and vice-versa) could be unsettling. The issue was summarized by MacDonald (2007 p.151): ‘Just as no two people are exactly alike, no two International Schools can be the same.’ One survey into turnover among teachers in International Schools (Odland and Ruzicka, 2009) had revealed that proprietary schools suffer from the perception of operational decisions being driven by a profit incentive. Odland and

The major implications for practice

133

Ruzicka’s (2009 p.16) survey of why 281 teachers had left an International School after the first term of contract had ended found that the largest aggregated decision was ‘issues arising from private ownership’ (mentioned by 28% of respondents). That is to say, working in a for-profit school for some educators is not a favourable move in terms of job satisfaction. It may also come as a shock for school leaders. The challenge of financial leadership in an International School is accepted by MacDonald (2007 p.156): ‘Anyone familiar with operations of International Schools knows that International School managers do not operate in the same context as business leaders.’ Here we have a framework for understanding the possible underpinnings of much of the micropolitics in International Schooling in its ‘post-Ideal’ era of activity. Bambi Betts, the director of the Principals’ Training Center (PTC) for International School Leadership in The International Educator (see the online edition, 11 October 2011), referring to the change in ownership towards ‘for-profit’ companies, had admitted that heads and potential principals are not getting the appropriate training and that much professional development was now ‘relatively meaningless’: ‘We are trying to develop training which addresses this new reality.’ The implication of this comment is that major service providers such as the PTC have been ‘caught out’ by not only the huge growth, but also the changing nature of International Schooling. The PTC had recognized its first graduate in 1991 and topped the 1,000-mark in 2013, with 95 new graduates that year alone (see The International Educator, October 2013 p.12). This helps in revealing an interesting point – the changing nature has been largely unplanned and unexpected. There is evidence that others sense a changing need for more preparation for principals and heads. Stout (2005 p.15), referring directly to the extent of conflict in International Schools remarked that: ‘There is little doubt that the job of a head today is very different from that of 30 years ago.’ He went on to say how for the past decade he had ‘been saddened by the number of reports that I have received of directors and heads in International Schools being dismissed from duty following a period of intense conflict with the board of governors and the school.’ Leach (1969 p.29) had commented on how the International School of Milan had suffered from ‘troubles inside the school.’ A small-scale survey in England of teacher trainees had shown, a decade ago, that 10% saw themselves working abroad within the next five years (Sillitoe, 2003). There has been a ‘timely call for action’ (e.g. Olmedo and Harbon, 2010; Kissock and Richardson, 2010) asking teacher training institutions to internationalize the training given to recruits, better preparing future teachers for working in a global arena. The challenge of preparing and training teachers for entering International Schooling is now accepted. Several bodies within the industry are now involved in training international educators, but they are still relatively small scale. A total of 120 teachers had graduated since 2007 with the ECIS International Teacher Certificate (ITC) by autumn 2012, and 70 had enrolled in the programme in 2012 alone (Fail, 2012 p.28).

134

The major implications for practice

Hayden and Thompson (2008 p.77) had expressed concern about initial teacher training ‘given the national focus it generally has and thus its only partial appropriateness as preparation for work in multicultural and multilingual schools.’ One survey of teachers had concluded that: ‘Most teachers have had little, if any, formal training to become International School teachers’ (Bagnall, 2008 p.73), and it was suggested there is an increasingly growing need for such teachers to be aware of inter-cultural issues. Benson’s (2011 p.100) study into the longevity of chief-administrators in International Schools, for example, had concluded that ‘language learning is just one area where chief administrators could receive extra training.’ The challenge of preparing educators for specific service in International Schools seems to involve at least four key challenges. Firstly, there is the challenge of preparing them at teacher training college level for the diversity of working environment, especially given that many will now probably have contact with for-profit schooling at some point in their ‘career’. Secondly, there exists the challenge of informing new entrants about the nature of the field. It is clear from anecdotal evidence from social networking websites that many new entrants are left disillusioned and disappointed either through lack of knowledge, or the height of expectation. Hayden (2002) had called for a teacher-training college to develop a course intended for those intending to work in an International School. The first college offering a dedicated Bachelor Degree, the BA in International Teacher Education (ITE), intended for primary teachers specifically wishing to work in International Schools had appeared by 2012, from a consortium of three Northern European colleges: Denmark (University College Zealand), Buskerud University College (Norway) and Stenden University (the Netherlands). Teacher graduates from the programme will receive a diploma to show that they are also specifically prepared to teach at an International School. However, it is not known what precise information prospective teachers are given about the field. Wilkinson (2002 p.195) had implied that training for aspiring heads hoping to work in International Schools was also essential, to help provide ‘enlightened leadership’. There is a third challenge of retraining the teachers currently in the field. As noted previously in this book, an ECIS ‘Guide’ (Langford et al, 2002) had partly attempted to address this issue, but as we have also observed in this publication the field has changed substantially since this was written and published. Paul Tarc’s (2013) book focusing on the educational effects of international encounters is a new entrant to the field. There is also the fourth challenge of preparing educators for teaching international mindedness and using the ‘vocabulary’ (Walker, 2002) of International Schooling. A generic base here might be the way forward to creating a common ‘language’. It has been said that the novice International School educators needs to be more practically prepared in terms of awareness-raising of different cultural context and educational practices ( Joslin, 2002).

The major implications for practice

135

It was stated in Geneva in 2002 that an AIE might focus on the initial training for the promotion of International Education, of both teachers and administrators (Hayden, 2002b). At the following conference in Dusseldorf, in 2004, a group of 40 international educators, including myself, had been given the task of formulating possible goals for the emerging body, and a diverse list of 20 potential goals appeared. One goal had envisaged some form of beginnerteacher induction role. There is little theoretical consensus over the ideal period of such mentorship. The main focus is normally on the ‘survival and discovery’ stage, where the goal is to meet the novice teacher’s immediate needs (Hauling-Austin, 1992). This seems the most logical need for international educators. However, Conyers et al (1999) refer to the further two stages of ‘experimentation and consolidation,’ followed by a period of ‘mastery and stabilization’. Many teachers may not reach this third stage until the five- to seven-year mark (Feiman-Nemser and Remillard, 1995). As most International School educators are probably on their second or third school by this stage, these later two stages seem less relevant. Deveney’s (2007 p.315) study of how well prepared do teachers feel working in a 500-student International School in Thailand had revealed that 60% of the UK-trained teachers had undergone no formal training for teaching in a culturally diverse classroom, although Deveney (2007 p.325) had concluded that ‘teachers will not necessarily develop cultural responsiveness during their teacher training years.’ That is to say, many UK-trained teachers do not seem ready for working in an International School, but would probably require special training even if they were to be. This adds weight to the notion that International Schooling requires a specific Post-Graduate Certificate in Education (PGCE)-type course, similar perhaps to the Bachelor’s IET that has appeared. Ecolint has set up a PGCE course in co-operation with the University of Durham, plus the school in Geneva has set up an Institute of Learning and Teaching that will offer the IB Teacher Award and a Master’s Programme also in association with Durham (Tuck, 2012 p.3). It has even been suggested that some International Schools could be accredited as training institutions (Holderness, 2002). There is evidence that such a potential body of schools may already exist. For example, the International School of Tanganyika launched an innovative programme to promote teacher action research in 1999 and introduced a number of research fellowships for staff. The American Community Schools, in England, had launched in 1997 a research-based newsletter, Academic News, which was published five times per year. The challenge of attracting and retaining educators

The staffing of International Schooling has become a relatively ‘new’ major concern: ‘As the number of International Schools worldwide increases, one might wonder where the teachers will be found to staff them’ (Hayden and

136

The major implications for practice

Thompson, 2011 p.90). In fact, we can guess where they will come from (at least in the immediate future). Fryer (2009 p.211) had referred to research in an International School in Hong Kong and commented on how: ‘The school leaders and teachers have mainly Western backgrounds and are from Australia, Britain, Canada, New Zealand and the USA.’ Brummitt and Keeling (2013 p.32) had remarked on how: ‘The vast majority of these are expatriate teachers; qualified, experienced, English-speaking teachers largely coming from the UK, New Zealand, Australia, South Africa, Canada and the USA.’ This reality can be contrasted with Leach’s (1969 p.177) ‘ideal’ vision where there would be ‘some sort of balance between and among the major cultures of the world.’ However, Ecolint had relied in the 1960s on British staff: ‘The expansion was staffed from Britain’ (Mayer, 1968 p.73). Even at the American School of Brussels, ‘The staff was overwhelmingly British’ (Mayer, 1968 p.164). Paterson (1991 p.41) had noted how in April 1989 ECIS had 440 teachers on its placement ‘books’ looking for jobs: 55% were American or Canadian citizens and 30% were British. Jonietz’s (1992 p.214) doctoral study had revealed that Frankfurt International School’s 33 informants consisted of 14 British and 15 American passport holders. The International School of London’s 20 informants who contributed to Jonietz’s research had been made up of 12 Britons. The 2007 ECIS Directory showed that the International School of Bangkok, founded in 1951, had a faculty body of 229 comprised of 133 US citizens, and only 15 were ‘host country’ Thai citizens. St Michael’s International School in Kobe, Japan, delivers a British-style education based on the National Curriculum of England and Wales. It listed (valid summer 2013) 20 teachers on its website. Of these, ten were British, five were Japanese, two were Canadian and two were American, and the other one was Indian. As noted elsewhere in this book, the prospect of recruiting a further 200,000 teachers by 2022 raises the issue of a controversial ‘brain drain’ from public schooling in the aforementioned major English-speaking countries. Indeed, the term ‘brain drain’ has been explicitly used (Allan, 2013 p.188), as International Schools ‘constitute a magnet that can distort teacher supply and demand.’ Many International Schools appear to have a faculty body comprised of between four and 20 nationalities. The 2007 ECIS Directory also revealed that The American International School of Zagreb in Croatia had a faculty of 34 comprised of four nationalities. Vienna International School had a faculty of 150 comprised of 19 nationalities. Miras International School in Almaty (Kazakhstan) had a full-time faculty of 85 comprised of 14 nationalities. In the context that International Schooling remains reliant on a pool of teachers from a relatively small group of countries that have in themselves got recruitment problems, the broader implications of growth need to be discussed. This in itself may prove to offer a limit to growth. Retaining educators is another problem. It had become generally accepted a decade ago by commentators that International Schools have a high turnover

The major implications for practice

137

of teachers, students, administrators, and trustees (e.g. Richards, 2002; Cambridge, 2002). It had been asserted (Walker, 2002 p.213) that: ‘… national schools have a certain advantage over their international counterparts because they do not suffer from the debilitating turnover of staff, students, and parents that characterize International Schools …’. Blandford and Shaw (2001 p.14) even identified this as a unique characteristic of such schools although it had been implied (Broman, 2005) that an annual teacher turnover in International Schools of 20% is ‘healthy’ and desirable. One Ed.D thesis survey (Mancuso, 2010) of teacher turnover in American overseas schools revealed an annual rate of 17%, i.e. very close to Broman’s desired figure. Little serious attempt has been made to examine what aspects of the organization’s reality might explain this high turnover. Hardman (2001 p.128) had pointed out that a major problem with International Schools is the fact that there is often a high degree of resentment felt by ‘local-hired’ teachers towards the better paid ‘overseas-hired teachers’. There is more recent research showing that as many as one-fifth of all teachers in International Schools leave a school each year. A survey (Mancuso, Roberts and White, 2010) of 22 schools and 248 teachers in Asia revealed a 17% annual turnover. One school in this survey had a 60% annual turnover of teachers. A small-scale survey into teacher retention and attrition in International Schools (Farber and Sutherland, 2006 p.16) revealed that on average a 20% annual percentage of teachers leave a school each year, leading to the conclusion that ‘there was an attrition or wastage rate of about one fifth of the faculty.’ The average tenure was revealed to be four years. At least 13 reasons were given why teachers leave the school, but ‘economic factors’ (e.g. low pay) were the biggest reasons along with ‘family reasons’. Of course, teaching in general is a high turnover profession. Ingersoll’s (2002) survey of 55,000 US teachers showed turnover to be 13.2%. In the case of private schools it was 18.9%, whilst small private schools have an annual turnover of 22.8%. Littleford (1999 p.33) had stated that ‘too many International Schools today are revolving doors for heads.’ Hawley’s (1994; and 1995) well-cited studies, mentioned already in this book, had suggested that the longevity of 196 chief administrators in International Schools (all US-accredited) was 2.8 years, although 15% had left after just one year and fewer than 7% had lasted more than seven or more. In Asia the longevity was 2.5 years and in Africa it was only 1.9 years. Poor relations with the schools board accounted for the biggest turnover reason. Benson’s (2011) more recent survey of 83 ECIS members revealed longevity of 3.7 years, although this was 3.0 years in the Middle East and 3.5 years in Africa. Benson (2011 p.93) had concluded that greater longevity recorded in his survey was possibly the ‘improvement in technology’, e.g. chief administrators now have greater access to information about schools and are making more informed job choices. The biggest reasons for leaving in Benson’s survey were changes in board management and micro-management.

138

The major implications for practice

The challenge of continuous curricula provision

As seen already in this book, the previously hegemonic relationship between International Schooling and the programmes of the IB has radically broken down to the extent where only about 400 International Schools offer the programmes (IBDP, Middle Years Programme (MYP), and Primary Years Programme (PYP)). Lesley Snowball (IS Magazine 14 (3) pp.15–16), referring to the growth of curricula for primary International Schools had said that: ‘The increase in numbers of International Schools and students looks set to continue and, as it does, it is important that further curricula alternatives emerge and existing frameworks adapt to meet the needs of this highly significant and diverse sector of education.’ Carder (2012 p.102) had concluded that it was a paradox that the second language learner (SLL) children of the international community which created the initial need for International Schools ‘are suffering because of the inability of international educational bodies to provide relevant models.’ Both these comments seem to show that the field of International Schooling has a major ongoing challenge of both catering for the growing diversity of the field, and catering for the original body of schools as other (more selective and less inclusive?) types of International Schools appear. At the same time, alternative models to the IB programmes are required as they move further into public schooling in America and beyond (Bunnell, 2012). It had been argued (Cambridge, 2002 p.231) that ‘International Schools operate in local markets as the franchised distributors of globally branded international education products and services.’ The most well established are undoubtedly the three main programmes of the IB, which together form a fourth progamme, the ‘IB Continuum’ although no more than 5% of the ‘IB World’ at any point in time has chosen to operate such a model of K-12 provision. The IB has arguably well served the needs of the field with constant innovation and curriculum development. As well as developing the IBDP, the IB had ‘adopted’ the MYP and PYP. Bagnall (2008 p.107) had noted how: ‘The lack of vocational options within the IBO remains a weak point in its offerings.’ However, this issue by 2012 had been dealt with, although perhaps not resolved when the IB Career-related Certificate (IBCC) had appeared. The 12 pilot schools of the IBCC had held their final workshop in Dubai in 2011 after three years of developing the project. In September 2012, four ‘IB World Schools’ (International School of Berne, Riverview High School (Florida), Yokohama International School, and Adrian Public Schools (seven schools in Florida)) were selected to participate in the ‘Open World Schools’ pilot project and will enrol non-IB students who wish to take IBDP courses online. Again, this reveals the extent to which many of the ‘traditional’ International Schools are well prepared to serve as global laboratories. At the same time, several ‘alternative’ programmes had appeared. Ramakrishnam (2009) reported about the growing number of schools of India

The major implications for practice

139

offering the Cambridge International Examination board’s curricula. The Cambridge International Primary Programme (CIPP) was launched in April 2003. In 2008, the Cambridge Pre-U Diploma appeared after being piloted in 30 schools. It carries an IBDP-style package that involves a Global Perspectives Portfolio. Furthermore, the UK’s largest examination body, the Assessment and Qualifications Alliance (AQA) launched in 2008 its ‘AQA Baccalaureate’, and deliberately intended as a homegrown and ‘cheaper’ option than the IBDP. In August 2013, ISC Research was reporting that 25% of schools on its database offered the International General Certificate of Secondary Education (IGCSE). One under-reported phenomenon has been the growth of the International Primary Curriculum (IPC). The IPC was first presented publicly at the ECIS conference in 2000 (Skelton, 2009 p.88). By 2009, it was being used in 600 schools in 51 countries around the world. The IPC was created by Fieldwork Education Ltd (established in 1984), a subsidiary of the WCL Group. The curriculum was piloted at the Piasiu Primary School, in Miri, Malaysia, a school that has had links with Shell since 1922, and the Petroleum Development Oman School, in Muscat (Bunnell, 2010). Although the 2007 IPC Head Teachers Conference was hosted by The International School of The Hague, and the Dubai British School hosted the two-day IPC Gulf Region conference in May 2008, the growth in Britain has been among state-funded schools. Fieldwork’s International Middle Years Curriculum (IMYC) for 11 to 14 year olds was officially launched at the ECIS conference in Nice in 2010 after five years of research (see International School 13 (3), p.20). The IMYC is made up of a range of themes, dubbed ‘Big Ideas’ (e.g. ‘discovery’, ’balance’). At the beginning of 2013, the IMYC was being used by International Schools in 18 different countries including those in Qatar, Oman, China, Indonesia, Costa Rica, Kenya, Thailand, Netherlands, Qatar and the USA as well as national schools and academies in the UK. New ‘international’ forms of curricula continue to appear, especially in England and Wales where modifications to A-Levels continue. The Edexcel exam board in 2013 responded to the British Government’s latest reforms of A-Levels, scheduled for introduction in 2015, by announcing a new set of international A and AS-levels with the same modular structure as the present system. It was already being reported (Garner, 2013) in summer 2013 that leading independent schools such as Eton were considering ditching A-levels in favour of their international equivalent. One leading IB World School in England, Sevenoaks School, had reportedly (Paton, 2013) devised its own exams called the Sevenoaks School Certificate, initially in English literature. New syllabuses in the arts and technology were to be introduced from September 2014 with subjects such as humanities and languages expected to follow.

Chapter 9

Concluding remarks and issues of concern

The context of current changes An unrecognizable landscape

The landscape of International Schooling in 2012, with its more than 6,000 schools serving three million children, had seemed remarkably different not only in scale but also in nature to that previously explored by research. Leach (1969 p.9) had identified, five decades earlier in 1962, a diverse body of ‘national schools overseas’, catering for ex-patriot children (now termed the ‘traditional’ ‘Type A and ‘ideological’ ‘Type B’ schools). By 2012, this ‘original/ pioneer’ grouping had been joined by a large contingent of what Leach might have identified as ‘international schools at home’, catering for local children (now termed ‘non-traditional’ ‘Type C’ schools). The majority of students in International Schools are seemingly no longer there ‘by accident’ (Leach, 1969 p.79), which now legitimately opens the field up to greater scrutiny in terms of its purpose and implications. That change in the landscape was the immediate rationale behind this book. Brummitt (2009 p.13) had summarized the changing nature when saying: ‘Two of the most noticeable changes in the market as a whole have been the increase in the number of local students and the increase in the number of schools run for profit.’ Conversely, in the year 2000 ‘International Schools were still perceived largely as an expatriate and non-profit phenomenon.’ To reiterate an important point, the growth of for-profit schools serving largely a local clientele fundamentally undermines the accepted academic classifications and categorizations of International Schools. Significantly, Jonietz (1992) had concentrated her doctoral research attention in the late 1980s on three ‘traditional’ International Schools, two of which (in London and Frankfurt) had formed the core of my own PhD study in the late 1990s. In other words, the academic field was even in the late 1990s ‘dominated’ by a certain group of prominent, well established NorthernEuropean-based International Schools. It then seemed natural, almost compulsory, to sample for research purposes European-based schools such as Ecolint,

Concluding remarks and issues of concern

141

Vienna International School and the International School of London. After all, of the 26 contributors to the 1991 Yearbook of Education, five had been working at this grouping of three schools. This grouping would still be deemed an important one (now seen as ‘Tier-1’ schools?) but would not in 2014 be considered in any way a representative sample of all International Schools. Significantly, the research by Grant, Khuns and Pickert (1995), among 87 International Schools in 11 countries, had shown that the values and framework behind Leach’s (1969) ‘ideal’ vision stood true in the minds of educators in the mid-1990s, which supports the sampling approach taken by Jonietz (1992) and myself in the late 1990s. International Schooling, however, had by 2012 moved noticeably far away from the description provided a decade earlier by Heyward (2002 p.21) who had said the field existed to ‘cater for expatriates and foreigners.’ Moreover, it had also significantly moved away from the ‘ideal’ vision as propagated by Robert Leach in his 1969 book (i.e. non-profit-making, laboratory conditions, membership of the International Schools Association (ISA)). International Schooling is now seen as a big business with enormous profit-making and investment potential. This is arguably the essence of the ‘post-Enlightenment’ era (Tate, 2013). There is now a number of ‘big brands’ (Dixon, 2012c) with the power to both drive and distort the field, although they do not have a mandate to represent it. International Schools are no longer the preserve of the globally mobile elite (although literature tends to partly still portray this, showing a conceptual academic ‘time lag’) and are no longer intrinsically linked to the programmes of the International Baccalaureate (IB). Moreover, International Schools are no longer in the main independent community-led/parent-co-operative-type institutions. For instance, the British International School of New York is a proprietary school and is a sister school to London’s Abercorn School and the Abercorn International School in Texas. The British Schools Foundation (also known as BSG) operates eight schools (non-profit) including Brazil, Russia and the Philippines. These new models of school are also no longer automatically aligned with the established, or ‘traditional’ supply chain (e.g. membership of the European Council of International Schools (ECIS), the Council of International Schools (CIS), the Council of British International Schools (COBIS) etc.), although the aforementioned school in New York is a member of COBIS. Alongside the ‘traditional’ types of International School an expensive type of schools has appeared alongside a lower-priced type (the ‘hotel chain’ metaphor), offering greater parental choice and more ‘tiers’ of school provision and budget choice. The fundamental change is confirmed when one looks at the field as it stood in 1972 when the International School of London was established; this contrast was well revealed within the Bloomsbury anthology (Pearce, 2013) which marked the fortieth anniversary of that school. In short: ‘The international schools market has changed beyond recognition in the past 40 years’ (Brummitt and Keeling, 2013 p.27).

142

Concluding remarks and issues of concern

A concrete example in the extreme of the changes that have occurred in International Schooling involves the Southbank International School, in London. Its humble origins are revealed by the story that its five founders started it in 1979 as a worker’s co-operative, at a cost of £8,000. The first site was a disused Victorian primary school building, with just two toilets, near Waterloo Station. In 1982, the school leased a six-storey Georgian building near Victoria Station, and shared facilities with an EFL (English as a Foreign Language) school. Like many ‘Type A’ ‘traditional’ International Schools it started out with the word ‘American’ in its title, yet in the year 2000 it became the first school in the UK to offer all the three main IB programmes together (i.e. the ‘IB continuum’). In this context, it perhaps became more a ‘Type B’ ‘ideological’ school. Southbank now has four campuses and is the ‘flagship’ of the for-profit company Cognita who allegedly (Boffey, 2011) made a GBP3 million profit from Southbank alone. A globalization phenomenon

Chapter 4 of this book was about the growth of International Schooling in its globalization context, an important discussion given the statement that: ‘International Education was born out of globalization’ (Roberts, 2013 p.119). It has become clear over the past decade in particular that this dimension of education has reflected a world trend of economic restructuring characterized by a new international division of labour (e.g. overseas hire, local hire), the increasing internationalization of trade (and education as a commodity), the restructuring of the labour market (e.g. non-unionized, temporary contract workers), the arrangement of new exchange relations between nations (e.g. the emergence of franchised and replicated models of elite private schooling) and the ever-increasing cultural gap between more-developed and less-developed nations. Much of the growth activity has centred around Asia (including the Middle East). In this context, the globalization of International Schooling has been a ‘reality’ and is not merely a theoretical viewpoint, thus defying a skeptical globalization analysis (Held et al, 1999). At the same time large areas of the world have been largely untouched by its advancement or fundamental changes: ‘vast segments of the world are almost untouched by many of these globalization dynamics’ (Burbules and Torres, 2000 p.11). Hayden and Thompson (1997 p.332) had stated that ‘International Schools in their many guises are rapidly becoming an influential force on a global scale’, but it had become very clear by 2012 that the field is not equally spread out. International Schooling grows where there is ‘space’ (Harvey, 1989) in terms of local and regional need, acceptance and financial opportunity, not just a pragmatic ‘market’ of transnational ex-patriates. Phillips (2002 p.162) had suggested that ‘International Schools appear to have the potential to answer the market call.’ As further noted by Benson (2011 p.88) many of the modern for-profit International Schools have emerged ‘catering

Concluding remarks and issues of concern

143

to the wealthiest group of locals in countries that adopt a laissez-faire attitude to the construction of such schools.’ The term globalization is used in many different ways, but most might agree that: ‘At a fundamental level globalization is concerned with change’ (Gunn, 2005 p.1). In particular, two dimensions of International Schooling have reportedly completely reversed in nature. Firstly, the demographics have fundamentally changed, and 80% of the clientele are now described in reports as being local/national children, not ‘global nomads’; ‘it is the number of local children attending them that is causing most impact on the market’ (Keeling, 2012). It is possibly true that it is also having an impact on the culture of the school. One recent article (Hacohen, 2012) has explored teachers’ perceptions of the effects of high student turnover in International Schools in the UK. It has been recently asserted that ‘International Schools are usually environments with high turnovers of both staff and students’ (Fail, 2011 p.112). However, do the schools catering for ‘local’ children have such a high turnover? To reiterate, the concept of ‘local children’ is not academically clear and needs examining. What does ‘local’ mean in a global context? If a school in Spain refers to a child from France, they might identify the child as a ‘European Union citizen’. Therefore, it is equally fair to assume that a Chinese national studying in Singapore might be seen as a ‘local’. In this context, the figure of 80% might actually be an over-estimate. However, it is clear that many of the children are at least ‘regional’ or ‘Continental’, and ‘local’ at least in a trade bloc context. Yamato (2003 p.65), researching in the Hong Kong context, had openly questioned the use of the term ‘local’. The answer she had received from an education officer was that it was a ‘broad term’, and she remained unconvinced of its validity after ‘this rather circular explanation.’ Indeed, after doing the research, Yamato (2003 p.66) had ‘realized the complexity of the nationalities and identity of Hong Kong people.’ This sort of comment somewhat undermines the validity of many quotations of how many ‘local’ children actually attend International Schools. Secondly, the ownership of schools has fundamentally changed, and the vast majority of new schools are now operated for-profit and not community/ parent-led. Bradley (2000 p.37) had stated that ‘many International Schools are profit-making institutions’ yet we now seem close to saying that this factor constitutes the ‘majority’ of schools. The attraction of International Schooling to commercial groupings is fairly clear to see. Globalization in its current ‘Kondratieff Wave 5’ phase has speeded up the profit-making process, a form of ‘space-time compression’ (Harvey, 1989). The ‘traditional’ International School, growing from a low base of students, presented little opportunity for the making of a ‘quick’ profit or return to capital investment and hence relied on parent and embassy co-operation. Leach (1969 p.29) had commented on how the International School of Belgrade ‘can only exist under the wing of an Embassy.’

144

Concluding remarks and issues of concern

The environment in countries such as Hong Kong and Dubai in 2012, with excess demand for private schooling and a desire for English-language/Britishethos schooling, presents the possibility of rapid capital accumulation. It is also relatively risk-free and seemingly ‘recession-proof ’. In this context, the field is not only ‘big business’ but is ‘big for business’ (i.e. the Capitalist Plan in Education). This is no longer a non-profit area of education, yet the growing commercialization of International Schooling has occurred with little critical discussion.

The context of current understanding A new framework of analysis needed

As noted in Chapter 2 of this book, International Schooling in its new format might be termed ‘post-Ideal’, especially with regard to the changes in ownership (towards commercial for-profit networks) and demographics (towards serving ‘local’ elites). Note that the intention of this book is not to impose a term but merely to signify that a new term is needed. I accept that such a term will require consensus over time. In literature terms, the beginning date for this new epoch might arguably be 2006 since the book by Mary Hayden was the first to identify the new forms of International Schooling. Alternatively, the UNESCO-published book by Hayden and Thompson (2008) was the first to conceptualize an established variant of International School loosely termed at that point in time the ‘traditional’ type. This concept implied a breakdown of the previously hegemonic models for categorizing International Schools and reinforced the notion that traditionally this was a non-profit dimension of education aimed largely at foreign children. As the term ‘post-Ideal’ describes the current situation in 2014, this concept will need evolving and could conceivably attract different schools of thought. Furthermore, there exists scope for viewing the shift from different sides. In economic terms, the new landscape might be termed ‘post-GATS’ since 1995 marked the movement towards the liberalization and commercialization of education as a form of trade and export. It seems no mere coincidence that the first replicated model of English elite private schooling had occurred in 1996, in Thailand. The late 1990s was a defining point in time for International Schooling and I (Bunnell, 2008) have previously marked the year 1998 as a special one. Commentators had begun to talk of International Schooling having entered a ‘stage of maturity’ (Murphy, 1998), and having ‘come of age’ (Peel, 1998) and this did seem true in an academic context since the year 1998 saw the first of four books appear until 2002, plus the field by then had its own peer-reviewed academic journal in the form of the Journal of Research in International Education ( JRIE). The concept of ‘post-Ideal’ clearly warrants further thought and elaboration although it had previously been discussed (e.g. Grant, Kuhns and Pickert, 1995).

Concluding remarks and issues of concern

145

An unexplained phenomenon

Many of the changes that have occurred are fairly logically explainable. For instance, the growth of for-profit International Schooling can be explained by the fact that the ‘traditional’ type of school began from a small scale with few children and then grew in a rather adhoc manner. I undertook a survey of founding base (Bunnell, 2006) using a random sample of 100 ‘traditional’ schools from 52 different countries, including eight countries in Africa, and five in The Middle East. The average school in this survey had begun life in 1966 with 39 students, and in 2006 had 767. A significant amount, 24 schools, had started with less than ten students. For example, the International School of Brussels had started life in 1951 as the American School of Brussels, with four teachers and 27 students. By contrast, Dulwich College International School in Shanghai opened in 2004 with 500 students and a 400-strong waiting list (O’Connell, 2005). Marlborough College Malaysia opened in 2012 with 350 pupils and had more than 600 the following year (Harper, 2013). However, one change that is not so easily explained involves the more general growth of ‘British-ethos’ schooling. This is probably explainable but maybe requires a wider lens of thought beyond education. In March 1997, Vanity Fair had published a special edition on ‘Cool Britannia’ and this might help to signal the beginning of the shift within a broader popular culture phenomenon (Lucy and McClure, 1999). The first of the seven ‘Harry Potter’ novels, Harry Potter and the Philosopher’s Stone, had been published three months after, on 30 June 1997. The books chronicled the adventures of a wizard and his two friends all of whom are students at Hogwarts School of Witchcraft and Wizadry. Coincidently, the year 1996 had seen the opening of the first replicated and exported private English elite school followed by another boarding school, Harrow International School in Bangkok in 1998, and 80% of its students were Thai (Sharples, 2003). Local educators at the time attributed this escalating growth to a variety of obvious factors, including the recovery from the slump of 1997, a poor quality local education system that has large class sizes and rote learning, an increase in expatriates, and increasingly affluent Thai parents who wanted their children to be bilingual yet attend schools that still promoted the Thai culture. However, in retrospect the appeal of such schools might have been partly due to popular cultural. The issue clearly warrants further inquiry.

A potentially problematic landscape

There is evidence emerging of concerns (e.g. Kelly, 2012; Vaughan, 2012) about the changing scale and nature of International Schooling and in 2014, as the body of schools rapidly approaches 7,000, there does appear to be a timely need to critically and objectively consider the broader growth issues and implications. The central thesis of this book is quite clear; the landscape of

146

Concluding remarks and issues of concern

International Schooling has changed dramatically over the past two decades in terms of both scale and nature and in ways that are largely unreported and potentially problematic. It is arguably time for a fresh analysis. The growth of International Schooling has occurred largely within a hidden and friendly community of educators and stakeholders. The ‘traditional’ International Schools that had emerged by the 1990s had pragmatically (and to a degree ideologically) served a purpose and met the needs of a diverse ‘international community’. At the same time, education remains predominately a national concern. However, the entry of International Schooling into the national debate critically repositions the field. The growing anti-immigration sentiment in Singapore, where over a third of the population is not currently Singaporean and where the government in January 2013 revealed plans to boost the immigrant number to almost half the total population by boosting the number of International Schools, could prove to be a pointer of how the growth of International Schooling might become politically and socially more problematic (Chong, 2011). It has been recognized (e.g. Yap, 2013; Teng, 2013) that anti-foreigner sentiment is on the rise in Singapore, with foreigners being blamed for a variety of issues such as rising property prices, and rising income inequality (Lim, 2011) and castigated for their poor level and command of the English language (Rubdy and Mackay, 2013). The boosting of International Schooling as a byproduct of population/immigration policy is especially problematic in that the construction of institutionalized uncertainty, together with less formalized migratory processes, help produce ‘precarious workers’ over whom employers and labour users have particular mechanisms of control (Anderson, 2010). That is to say, educators who move to work in Singapore in the future may encounter specific political and social issues. This environment clearly warrants future research and investigation. A further pointer towards possible critical opposition to International Schooling came in 2012, when Hong Kong authorities announced controversial plans to introduce China-oriented ‘patriotic education’ in state-funded schools (Evans, 2012). A notion that children in International Schools in Hong Kong will undergo ‘international education’ whilst those in state-funded ones do ‘patriotic education’ seems potentially divisive. Furthermore, there is a definite sign that some people are beginning to openly question how many schools a city or region actually needs. An article in The Korea Times (25 March 2010) had asked the question ‘Is Seoul overcrowded with International Schools?’ The city at that time had 20 schools with another two planned, and these had 5,500 children (Si-Soo, 2010). This situation warrants more research attention in cities beyond Seoul. A still under-researched field

It seemed true to state in 2014 that this is still an academic field in its relative infancy. It has moved significantly away from the situation where Leach

Concluding remarks and issues of concern

147

(1969 p.15) had said: ‘The academic community has not yet become very much of the phenomenon known as the International School.’ However, as said by Hayden and Thompson (2011 p.97), the growth of International Schooling is ‘generating many important issues that would benefit from further research.’ In spite of enormous growth, the field remains largely hidden from view and it is only relatively recently that its emergent shape and form has caught attention. At the same time, there now is much scope for research by educators within the field. Hayden and Thompson (2001 p.10) had talked of ‘the dearth of written material available within the public domain’, and Blandford and Shaw (2001 p.9) had identified a ‘paucity of documentary evidence.’ The first editorial in the JRIE, in putting forward the rationale behind the need for a peer-reviewed journal, had made the point (Thompson, 2002) that the field was still suffering from a lack of agreement, among practitioners and theorists alike, of the fundamental nature of International Schooling. Five years and 70 published articles later, the second editorial in JRIE had reiterated the same point (Hayden, 2007 p.5). There was in 2014 still a surprising paucity of literature regarding International Schooling in general. The movement towards for-profit schooling has especially gone largely unreported and only the work of James MacDonald currently stands out in analyzing International Schooling as a ‘business’ or ‘market structure’ (e.g. MacDonald, 2009). The research into micro-politics in International Schools, as vital as it seemingly is, has moved little beyond the significant work of Richard Caffyn (e.g. Caffyn, 2011). The research into the average tenure of chief administrators in International Schools has seemingly moved relatively little since David B. Hawley’s 1994 study into Americanethos schools (with the notable exception of Benson, 2011, and Littleford, 1999). Sears (2011 p.72) had referred to the ‘relative paucity of research relating to second language speakers of English in English-speaking International Schools.’ One could go on, but it is quite clear that the research field has much space for further investigation. At the same time, the opportunities for ‘internal’ stakeholders to undergo research in the field is still quite limited: ‘The total output of teachers undertaking specialist postgraduate or undergraduate courses in International Education is severely limited, although increasing’ (Pearce, 2013 p.63). It is worth reiterating at this point the literature ‘journey’ of the academic field. It was only in 1964 that the field was formally identified in academic literature (Knight and Leach, 1964) and not until 1991 that it had involved a serious (although largely non-critical) analysis of the emergent issues when the first compendium appeared edited by Jonietz and Harris (1991). The next major academic discussion (although still largely non-critical) had appeared seven years later edited by Hayden and Thompson (1998), one of four major books that appeared up until 2002. A decade later the field had changed fundamentally requiring further analysis. Hayden’s (2006) book was followed by

148

Concluding remarks and issues of concern

the compendium edited by Bates (2011) that involved a more critical and skeptical sociological discussion, and that has been followed in quick succession by one edited by Pearce (2013), plus Silova and Hobson (2014). The field clearly warrants closer and more frequent analysis. In short, there is now an accepted need to move from discussion about ‘existence’ and ‘purpose’, although this still arguably matters, to ‘effects’ and ‘implications’. Children at International Schools (formerly viewed as a set of third culture kids (TCKs), global nomads, transnational learners) are no longer being viewed as ‘innocent players’ in the field subject to transition stresses as their parents move from country to country, a view that had previously been reflected by commentators such as Akram (1995). Ellwood (2004 p.2) had noted that: ‘International Education has now reached an interesting stage in that it is old enough to have become a topic for analysis with its own traditions, philosophies and celebrated pioneers.’ The field has explained its history and origins well, but has never fully explored the implications or effects of its existence. Within a largely hidden sphere of activity the implications and effects of growth probably warranted little analysis or discussion, outside of an internal discourse, however, this is arguably now not true for a number of reasons which have been highlighted within this book. An imprecise landscape

As said in Chapter 3, there still exists little academic consensus on how best to describe International Schooling collectively. The term ‘International Education’ remains the dominant one in spite of its accepted failings. The notion that International Schools are all unique institutions is a strong one: ‘One reason why International Schools are self-consciously concerned with their nature, like an adolescent in a permanent identity crisis, is that they are intrinsically exceptional’ (Pearce, 2013 p.vii). Leach (1969 p.11) had commented that ‘the field is fluid to an incredible degree’, and ‘each institution is different from the others.’ Of course, at a minor although vocal and visible level of activity, the replication of elite English private schools now undermines and contradicts this point. In short, the best definition, in theory and practice, probably still rests with Hayden and Thompson’s (1995 p.332) long-standing statement that ‘for the most part the body of International Schools is a conglomeration of individual schools which may or may not share an underlying educational philosophy.’ The definition of International Schools currently being used to map the growth of the field (i.e. being identified by ISC Research as a school offering tuition in English outside of an English-speaking country) is problematic and contestable. This definition implies that the characteristics previously consensually considered as pre-requisite for such a categorization (e.g. a mix of nationalities, universal values and philosophy of approach) is not necessary, and is therefore a controversial definition. Al Farra (2000 p.54) had admitted that

Concluding remarks and issues of concern

149

the Amman Baccalaureate School in Jordan, where 86% of students were Jordanian, is a ‘national school with an international dimension’ and this probably still best fits the description of many ‘International Schools’. In this respect, discussing the definition of an International School probably does still matter. There exist frameworks for suggesting that the field of International Schooling in 2012 was much smaller than that of the 6,000 institutions being estimated by ISC Research. Hayden and Thompson (1996) had put forward the notion that International Schools have five broad universal features. One of these, diversity in student cultures, can be easily measured. Gellar (2002a) had stated that International Schools have two distinguishing features, an international curriculum, and a set of ethical ‘universal’ values. Accepting this type of categorization would significantly reduce the body of schools. The moral of this issue is that the exact picture of the reality of operation cannot be accurately measured. We have no means of knowing exactly how big the landscape of International Schooling really is. This has always been the case. As commented by Leach (1969 p.144): ‘Probably no more difficult task may be set before the educationalist than to attempt a delineation of International Schools in this world.’ Put bluntly, we always have to take any estimations of scale with a large ‘pinch of salt’. In particular, the acceptance that 80% of children are seemingly ‘local’ greatly undermines the previously accepted norm that diversity of population is a key characteristic. It also undermines the previously accepted narrative that said ‘Most International Schools are set up to serve the needs of a group of expatriates working in an overseas location’ (Findlay, 1997 p.5). The definition used by ISC Research can be particularly questioned when one considers the statement that: ‘International schools have a very culturally diverse student body, ideally with no one nationality significantly dominating the others’ (Ian Hill, 2006 p.8). At the same time, Mattern (1991 p.208) made it clear that ‘internationalism is more than a mix of nationalities and languages and cultures and religions, no matter how well stirred.’ Furthermore, Roberts (2012 p.74) had added that ‘a simplistic statement such as an International School caters for a diversity of cultures really says very little about whether it is international or not.’ That is to say, the need for a mix of nationalities is still worth debating. Many of the terms used in literature in International Schooling are based on assumptions and need challenging (Pearce and Cambridge, 2008 p.13). The term ‘International Education’ has never been a fully suitable one and exists primarily in the absence of a consensually agreed alternative. This book has deliberately used the term ‘International Schooling’ in the hope of reaching a new consensus. The term ‘global nomad’ has been attacked as a ‘metaphor with elitist and exclusive connotations’ (Pearce and Cambridge, 2008 p.11) and is seemingly now a description of the minority of children in International Schools. Presumably, the term ‘TCK’ is equally non-valid in some schools. The term ‘expatriate’ can be viewed as a racialized discourse, avoiding the term ‘immigrant’ or ‘foreigner’. The terms ‘local’ and ‘for-profit’ require elaboration as argued several times in this book and there has even been a call

150

Concluding remarks and issues of concern

(Berting, 2010) to cease using the terms ‘local’ and ‘international’. The term ‘British-ethos’ is a vague construct also given that the model being replicated is distinctly ‘English’. In short, the vagueness of the terminology is arguably acting as a barrier to the field asserting itself as a discrete academic area of study. This issue needs constantly addressing. Furthermore, there is a substantial challenge in trying to categorize the emergent ‘non-traditional’ model of International School (for-profit, high fees, local clients, commercially-owned, replicated, chain of schools). The term ‘boutique’ has been used by the American press, but is not an established one and is presumably used in a disparaging way. The term ‘traditional’ has been openly used academically (e.g. Hayden and Thompson, 2008 p.21) for a number of years now, but this is equally problematic implying that a ‘real’ or ‘original’ type exists. Ian Hill (2006 p.7) had implied that only schools such as Copenhagen International School, which offer ‘international curricula throughout’ (e.g. the ‘IB continuum’) are a ‘pure’ type of International School. But, this would encompass only about 160 schools in 2014, or 0.025% of all International Schools in the world. I like the term ‘pioneer’ (e.g. Bunnell, 2013), yet this implies a historical lens of inquiry. Could not a new International School become a pioneer? I also see ‘non-ideal’ as a possible alternative, but this term has little relevancy beyond an academic understanding of Leach’s (1969) work, and thus is unlikely to reach a consensus position in literature. In short, the field is left with a plethora of unsuitable, exclusive and contestable terms. The term ‘traditional’ seems likely over time to reach a new consensus, but what are the ‘newer’ International Schools (now termed ‘Type C’ ‘non-traditional’) to be called? The next book exploring the field and its changing landscape might reveal some more answers as the emergent picture further clarifies itself. The acceptance that the majority of new International Schools are operated ‘for-profit’ (whatever that actually means) greatly undermines the previously accepted definitions that had dismissed such activity. Peterson (1987 p.72) had commented that it was quite difficult for the IB in the 1970s to ‘establish the criteria which identify a proprietary or profit-making school.’ In short, this implies that much of the theoretical frameworks used to categorize and define International Schools are no longer valid. A wider lens of discussion is required which can reconcile the growth and involvement of what Hayden and Thompson (2008 p.26) refer to as ‘commercial groupings’. As seen, work on reclassifying International Schools is in progress, and Hayden and Thompson (2013 p.5) have reclassified them into three main groups characterized in the main by their economic, historical and social orientation and foundation. This helps to substantially develop the previously hegemonic ‘dichotomy of approach’ models. A complex landscape

ISC Research by 2009 had identified two major and fundamental changes, in terms of demographics and ownership. The increase in size seems self-evident,

Concluding remarks and issues of concern

151

although ‘the reasons for growth have not been proven’ (MacDonald, 2008 p.206). Yet, closer examination reveals a number of other more subtle changes that have been less widely reported. To reiterate, International Schooling has become a more ‘British-ethos’ area of educational activity and the attractiveness of ‘British-ness’ or ‘English-ness’ (both educationally and culturally) to countries such as Dubai and China requires further sociological research. The search for a cultural and heritage/identity/soul/atmosphere does seem to be indicative of a ‘development gap’ in some emerging nations (e.g. the idea of recreating Lyon Old Town in Dubai). It has been asserted (Stephenson, 2013) that one fundamental sociological concern for Dubai is its perceived lack of cultural consistency, particularly in terms of the absorption of the ‘old’ into the ‘new’. Another commentator (Govers, 2012) had identified a schizophrenic image combining Middle-Eastern stereotypes with images of a modern, rich, glamorous metropolis. It seems deeply ironic that curricula such as A-Level and GCSE are constantly under attack in England yet are increasingly fashionable in other parts of the world. Also, as said already, the last two economic recessions (early 1990s and since 2007) have shown why International Schooling offers significant appeal to investors and edu-preneurs: ‘International School parents are relatively wealthy and only withdraw their children from school as an absolute last resort’ (Brummitt, 2009 p.14). The notion that parents at some International Schools have a low price elasticity of demand and can be ‘exploited’ through fee hikes is a problematic ethical issue. Brummitt (2007 p.40) had confessed that: ‘We (ISC Research) are not oblivious to the educational, political and moral issues involved in the rapid expansion in the number of International Schools.’ Furthermore, International Schooling has become a long-term career choice and offers scope for up to 25,000 new entrants each year although the accusation of ‘brain drain’ could prove problematic in the near future. The landscape of International Schooling has changed over a relatively short span of time, especially when one considers that the field has definite nineteenth century roots (e.g. Spring Grove, London). A major theoretical challenge is therefore to think ‘what has not changed?’ Much of this has to do with the body of educators and their operational reality of existence and status. Is it not still true to state (Bastable, 2002 p.11) that: ‘Most International Schools still employ few teachers from non-Western traditions’? It was becoming very clear by 2014 that International Schooling in practice generally requires a greater ethical mode of operation. There does still seem to be a need for common (higher) standards with regard to the way educators are treated by schools. Recent research (e.g. Odland and Ruzicka, 2009) has shown that the field still has a relatively high turnover rate of both teachers and school leaders. Indeed, the field seems to contain a large body of disgruntled and disaffected educators. A ‘Bill of Rights’ has even been suggested and the thousands of comments that have emerged since 2006 on social networking websites such

152

Concluding remarks and issues of concern

as ISR.com seem to imply that such a code of ethical conduct is now very necessary. There is now scope for the reassessment of the purpose behind International Schooling, moving beyond the more usual socio-economic analysis. Even in 2002, it had been asserted that ‘it is true to state that the vast majority of International Schools have been established with a pragmatic rather than ideologydriven foundation’ (Heyward, 2002 p.21). The emergent changes to the landscape since 2002 seem to point to an even greater movement towards the pragmatic market-driven side of the spectrum, although the role of International Schools in promoting social cohesion in South Korea could be construed as a re-imagination of an idealistic approach. As stated by Hayden (2002 p.116) little research has been undertaken into the reality of the ‘ideological’ claims of some schools. International Schooling is now being used by many countries to further economic growth and development and this offers scope for viewing the purpose beyond merely the reproduction of economic advantage and the education of the global elite. For example, South Korea is using the island of Jeju to attract English-speaking workers but also as a means of retaining its own workers (i.e. reversing the educational brain drain). In this context, Korea is also deliberately attempting to reduce its national divorce and suicide rate by retaining the unity of the family unit. At the same time, International Schooling as a model for economic development requires further critical study. A multi-tiered field

International schooling has always involved a diverse and complex conglomeration of schools, but there now does seem to be a tiered and hierarchical model of activity. There is sufficient evidence from reports in cities such as Beijing and Moscow that a perception of a multi-tiered model of schooling exists. Brummitt (2007 p.39) had commented that: ‘With so many new schools there are big differences between the best and worst – and an increasing need, therefore, to make sure that as many as possible subscribe to recognizable standards of International Education.’ Brummitt and Keeling (2013 p.35) reasserted this point a few years later when saying that ‘there will become big differences between the best and the worst.’ By May 2013 the ISR.com discussion forums had posted 20,000 comments about working in individual schools. Many of the forum postings ask the question ‘Which is the best school in Country A?’ It is clear from a reading of the postings that the field has become more segmented and differentiated. Put another way, not all International Schools are now judged by educators to be of equal reputation, value and experience. The notion that there now exist a ‘Premier-league’ of ‘Tier-1’ schools (plus lower standard ‘Tier-2’ and ‘Tier-3’ schools) requires further discussion as it has long-term implications for the growth of International Schooling and its attraction as an alternative teaching

Concluding remarks and issues of concern

153

and management career. Not everyone can work in a ‘Tier-1’ school, and not every school can possess such a title. Within the context that there now exists a definite hierarchy of International Schools, with a body of distinguishable ‘Tier-1’ schools and ‘Tier-3’ ones, there is arguably a form of ‘horizontal’ career, i.e. an educator can have ambitions of working in a ‘top’ school without necessarily being promoted to a senior position. However, given that such a ranking is largely drawn up from anecdotal discussion by disgruntled personnel on websites, this in itself is a precarious area. The notion that the International School educator is a form of global ‘precariat’ is a strong one and needs addressing. The notion that all International Schools are no longer (if they indeed ever were) of equal ranking and value further undermines the dichotomy of approach models previously used to categorize schools (e.g. Matthews, 1988). There still probably exists a spectrum of ‘traditional’ International Schools conceptually spanning ‘market-driven’ (‘Type A’ schools) and ‘ideology-driven’ (‘Type B‘) schools; therefore the comment that ‘it is now arguably more appropriate to think in terms of a spectrum with ideological and market forces at opposite ends’ (Hayden and Thompson, 2008 p.22) may still be a valid one. But at the same time, there now seems to exist tiers of schools giving the model a more three-dimensional face. This issue clearly requires further elaboration and research. As commented by Phillips (2002 p.160) ‘there can never be a single blueprint that could be adopted by any International School anywhere in the world.’

The emerging issues of concern An unprofessional field

One provocative conclusion to be drawn in 2014 is that International Schooling has become more of a profession but it is still not truly professional. Firstly, the field is still not fully preparing incoming teachers; ‘The newcomer will sense a need to train his or her cross-cultural communication skills’ (van Oord and Kranenburg, 2004 p.26). Although the first course for primary school entrants (the BA in International Teacher Education (ITE)) had appeared by 2014, on offer in three countries, the field continues to be staffed by educators ill-prepared for the job: ‘Most teachers in the field of International Education are not specifically trained to teach in multicultural communities like International Schools’ (van Oord and Kranenburg, 2004 p.26). Hayden (2006 p.92) had concluded that there was much more required of the international educator than merely moving location, it required much ‘awareness in advance.’ It had also been said that: ‘International educators, themselves, need to understand and develop their own intercultural communication skills before they can enhance it to their children’ (Shaklee and Merz, 2012 p.18).Yet, referring to teachers in International Schools, Shaklee and Merz (2012 p.13)

154

Concluding remarks and issues of concern

commented that ‘little is known about their prior training in intercultural skills or their prior international experiences.’ The same may even be true of administrators. It had been pointed out (MacDonald, 2009 p.77) that ‘International School leaders cannot properly “see” the true picture of a school without an understanding of both business and education.’ Secondly, many educators are entering the field and making choices about schools based largely on anecdotal evidence. Furthermore, it appears from research (e.g. Chandler, 2010) that too many educators are still making the choice of school based upon their ideal location. This is not a totally rational or fully informed decision-making process. Consequently, contract-breaking probably remains a frequent occurrence. Thirdly, the field is still contractually fragmented and lacks any sort of ‘system’ as envisaged by Blaney (1991 p.203) with universal and transferable pensions and medical care, although such a ‘system’ seems long overdue. In general, the nature and needs of the growing labour force requires substantially more critical attention. It is asserted that the current phase of globalization is exemplified by a growing instability within the global market place. For example, outsourcing has altered the notion of permanent employment. The International School labour market can be viewed within the same lens of inquiry; the notion of the permanent teaching post is replaced by one of continuous movement and flexibility. It remain true that ‘a school does not have to meet any criteria to call themselves an International School’ (MacDonald, 2008 p.193). In practice this means that the growing body of schools is incredibly diverse in terms of its purpose, ownership, leadership and philosophy. Hayden (2006 p.20) had asked ‘What is an International School’ and concluded that they are a ‘complex and varied set of institutions.’ At the same time, the field offers a very precarious and unpredictable environment for educators to operate in and the tensions and micro-politics in International Schools has offered a rich area of research in recent years. It is both difficult to be formally prepared for working in this field of education (i.e. with appropriate teacher or principalship training) and to be emotionally and psychologically prepared. The challenge of ‘being prepared’ and ‘preparing yourself’ are ongoing issues. In particular, the issue of continuously staffing International Schools becomes a major challenge, and issue of concern. Brummitt (2009 p.14) had noted that: ‘Recruitment has become a major growth sector’ and that ‘given the need to maintain high teaching standards, this is the biggest problem facing International Schools today.’ Brummitt and Keeling (2013 p.32) had remarked that: ‘The recruitment and retention of suitably qualified staff is getting harder for many schools and is likely to get much worse.’ At the same time, the ‘mainstreaming’ of International Schooling, especially the IB schools, may make the field more attractive to ‘local’ teachers reducing the need for ‘overseas’ educators. As prophesized by Hayden and Thompson (2013 p.11): ‘recruiting expatriates to teach international programmes may not be as essential as it was once believed to be.’

Concluding remarks and issues of concern

155

The precarious nature of International Schooling (job fairs, non-unionized workplaces, two-year contracts, no universal pension scheme and frequent changes of school administration etc.) implies that it is difficult to plan and progress professionally. This greatly undermines the notion that International Schooling is a career. This has been a long-standing issue. A survey over a decade and a half ago of female senior administrators had shown that few admitted their careers had been carefully planned, whilst two-thirds said it had been largely opportunistic (Thearle, 1999). In spite of the growth of accrediting bodies and calls for a greater sense of ‘system’, International Schooling remains a largely deregulated, unmonitored and decentralized field of educational activity. This has been a long-standing issue of concern. Matthews (1988 p.4) had talked about ‘thirty years of unregulated and largely autonomous evolution.’ Yet, two decades later, it had been stressed that: ‘a central issue of note remains when considering International Schools remains the lack of control and monitoring of the network overall’ (Hayden and Thompson, 2008 p.77). Indeed, these same authors had concluded that: ‘it may be time for the adhoc nature of its earlier years of growth to be superseded by a more systematic, centralized form of compulsory monitoring’, although such a system is ‘difficult to envisage’ (Hayden and Thompson, 2008 p.78). These two authors have led the calls for some form of ‘Alliance’ to perhaps help to create a platform for stability and the creation of an Alliance for International Education, first mooted in 1998, remains an ongoing project. Although it now seems genuinely true that the nature of International Schooling has fundamentally changed (e.g. many more for-profit schools catering for local elite within a British-ethos learning environment) much of its nature stays remarkably the same. Murphy (2003 p.48) had pointed out that ‘the International Schools of today reflect today’s world’, staffed largely by native English-speakers from Western countries using Western-based curricula and teaching methods. This is probably as true in 2013 as it was a decade ago. In other words, perhaps one should be careful not to overestimate or exaggerate the changes in nature that have occurred. A fragmenting field

As noted in Chapter 1 in this book, the Global Education and Skills Forum (GESF) and the International and Private Schools Education Forum (IPSEF) gathering of commercial bodies interested in the field that had occurred by 2013, seemed indicative of a ‘new era’ for International Schooling emerging, characterized in the main by the commercial groupings largely operating in Asia and the Middle East, such as GEMS Education, discussing internal matters and building up their own supply chain. It seems inevitable that for-profit International Schooling should create its own forums for discussion as its research and supply needs are different from the ‘traditional’ schools, many of

156

Concluding remarks and issues of concern

which are still interested in ‘traditional’ issues and concerns (e.g. child transition, fundraising, alumni building, curriculum development). Moreover, the appearance of a number of networks of International Schools operating outside the mainstream of the established players implies that we are witnessing a breakdown of legitimacy. Ball (2008) had expressed how new networks of schooling are appearing which are disenfranchising the established educational bodies. We are certainly witnessing this within the field of International Schooling. The Academy for International School Heads (AISH) organization in 2012 represented 400 International Schools, less than 6% of the total field as viewed by ISC Research. It seems almost inevitable that Asia and the Middle East should become the future ‘hub’ of International Schooling. In predicting the future for International Schools, Hayden and Thompson (2008 p.79) commented that ‘it may well be that the International School network of the future will consist of larger numbers of (commercial) groupings, run on a business basis and with schools in many parts of the world, quite possibly offering their own forms of professional development, induction and appraisal.’ There was much evidence in 2012 of this already taking shape, with organizations such as GEMS Education getting ready for training its own ‘cadre’ of educators and leaders. If GEMS reaches its ambition of employing half a million educators by 2024, it will have little need for attending external job fairs or using Principals’ Training Center (PTC) workshops. This may be welcomed as means of further professionalizing the labour force, yet it might also further fragment the industry, providing a separate ‘circuit’ of schooling isolated from the wider field. The future landscape could very conceivably involve the ‘traditional’ International Schools having one ‘circuit’ of activity, and the ‘nontraditional’ ones having another, if indeed this is not already the case. A challenge for an ‘Alliance’

To bring these conclusions together, there does still seem much scope and need for an ‘Alliance for International Education’ (AIE). Such a body does exist and had by 2012 completed six bi-annual conferences (Geneva, 2002; Dusseldorf, 2004; Shanghai, 2006; Melbourne, 2008; Istanbul, 2010; and Qatar, 2012). The next one was scheduled for Mumbai in 2014. The AIE had in 2014 two operating ‘Chapters’, in the UK and China, and the Londonbased one held a seminar in September 2010. The Alliance’s ‘Statement of Purpose’ is broad and inclusive, whilst the term ‘collaborative ventures’ within the Statement could in theory include a wide variety of activity. In the context of this book, there is an ongoing need for a ‘Code of Conduct’ which an AIE body could initiate and endorse, as first proposed over a decade ago (Hayden and Thompson, 2000b). It has already been agreed that an AIE cannot impose a template or try to ‘police’ the industry (see Walker, 2002), but it could nevertheless perhaps draw up ‘industry standards’, similar to Olympic standards. The November 2002 European Council of International Schools (ECIS)

Concluding remarks and issues of concern

157

Conference had made reference to a ‘code of practice model’, one of five to materialize in discussion (Hayden and Haywood, 2003), which also included the ‘think tank model’. A new line of action might include ‘representing’ the field. This was presented as the ‘Ambassador model’ at the 2002 ECIS conference. At present, it is not clear who has a mandate for representing the views and nature of the field. The popular press in England, for example, writes regularly about International Schooling, yet it has a limited access to information and the bodies it turns to for news or views (e.g. Wellington College, Taaleem) have no official mandate to offer it. This could be a practical line of action for the Londonbased ‘Chapter’. In direct reference to an AIE, Hayden and Thompson (2008 p.81) had made the point that: ‘no body yet in existence has taken responsibility for establishing a set of criteria that could be deployed in the construction of a “league table” for highly-performing International Schools.’ These two authors summarized that perhaps there was no ‘political will’ to produce such a listing, plus many international educators would discourage such a move. However, it seems true to now state that such a listing is beginning to appear, albeit largely in an anecdotal context. Would it not be better for the field to produce its own table? After all, there has always been an implied ‘league table’ and ‘hierarchy’. This might be viewed as constituting the ‘strategic action model’, or even the ‘needs analysis model’, that had appeared at the 2002 ECIS conference. Leach (1969) had implied a form of hierarchy when he had identified Ecolint as being an ‘ideal type’. The landscape of International Schooling has changed much over the past two decades and looks set in 2014 for much further changes. It will need reexamining on a constant basis and this book is just another marker along the way.

Bibliography

Abraham, R. (2012) ‘India and its diaspora in the Arab Gulf Countries: Tapping into effective “soft power” and related public diplomacy’, Diaspora Studies 5 (2), 124–146. Acker, J. and Van Houten, D. (1974) ‘Differential recruitment and control: The sex structuring of organizations’, Administrative Science Quarterly 19 (2), 152–163. Adam, S. (2013) ‘Singapore projects 6.9 million population as neighbors catch up’, Bloomberg.com, 29 January 2013. Adonis, A. Pollard, S. (1998) A Class Act: The Myth of Britain's Classless Society. Harmondsworth: Penguin. Ahmed, A. (2011a) ‘Schools hit by teacher turnover of 60 percent’, The National, 11 May 2011. Ahmed, A. (2011b) ‘Wanted: 2,350 new teachers for Abu Dhabi’, The National, 16 October 2011. Ahmed, A. (2012) ‘Most US curriculums unaccredited’, The National, 8 May 2012. Akram, C. (1995) ‘Change and adaptation: Children and curriculum in International Schools’, International Schools Journal 15 (1), 39–53. Al Farra, S. (2000) ‘Images of international education in national and international schools: A view from Jordan’, in M. Hayden and J. Thompson (eds) International Schools and International Education: Improving Teaching, Management and Quality pp.51–61. London: Kogan Page. Allan, M. (2002) ‘Cultural borderlands: A case study of cultural dissonance in an International School’, Journal of Research in International Education 1 (1), 63–90. Allan, M. (2013) ‘Understanding international education through discourse theory: Multinational, multicultural or intercultural?’, in R. Pearce (ed.) International Education and Schools: Moving Beyond the First 40 Years pp.149–166. London: Bloomsbury Academic. Allen, K. (2000) ‘The International School and its community: Think globally, interact locally’ in M. Hayden and J. Thompson (eds) International Schools & International Education: Improving Teaching, Management and Quality pp.124–142. London: Kogan Page. Allen, K. (2002) ‘Atolls, seas of culture and global nets’, in M. Hayden and J. Thompson (eds) International Education in Practice: Dimensions for National and International Schools pp.129–144. London: Kogan Page. Altbach, P. (2013) The International Imperative in Higher Education. Rotterdam: SensePublishers.

Bibliography

159

Altbach, P. and Knight, J. (2007) ‘The internationalization of higher education: motivations and realities’, Journal of Studies in International Education 11 (3–4), 290–305. Anderson, J. (2010) ‘Elite for-profit chase a growing market’, New York Times.com, 21 September 2010. Anderson, J. (2011) ‘The best school 75 million dollars can buy’, New York Times.com, 8 July 2011. Ang, K. (2012) Massive education complex takes shape in Malaysia, The New York Times, 23 December 2012. Bagaeen, S. (2007) ‘Brand Dubai: the instant city; or the instantly recognizable city’, International Planning Studies 12 (2), 173–197. Bagnall, N. (2008) International Schools as Agents for Change. New York: Nova Science Publishers. Bagnall, N. (2010) Education Without Borders: Forty Years of the International Baccalaureate 1970–2010. Saarbrucken: VDM Verlag. Baker, A. and Kanan, H. (2005) ‘International mindedness of native students as a function of the type of school attended and gender’, Journal of Research in International Education 4 (3), 333–349. Ball, S. (1998) ‘Big policies/small world: An introduction to international perspectives in education policy’, Comparative Education 34 (2), 119–130. Ball, S. (2007) Education PLC: Understanding Private Sector Participation in Public Sector Education. Routledge: London. Ball, S. (2008) ‘New philanthropy, new networks and new governance in education’, Political Studies 56 (4), 747–765. Ball, S. (2012) ‘Performativity, commodification and commitment: An I-Spy guide to the neoliberal university’, British Journal of Educational Studies 60 (1), 17–28. Ballard, B. (1987) ‘Academic adjustment: The other side of the export dollar’, Higher Education Research and Development 6 (2), 109–119. Barker, I. (2010) ‘Teachers flee UK for sunnier future’, Times Educational Supplement, 19 March 2010. Bastable, J. (2002) ‘Views from the West only’, International School Magazine 4 (3), 11. Bates, R. (2011a) (ed.) Schooling Internationally: Globalisation, Internationalism and the Future for International Schools. Abingdon: Routledge. Bates, R. (2011b) ‘Assessment and International Schools’, in R. Bates (ed.) Schooling Internationally: Globalisation, Internationalism and the Future for International Schools pp.148–164. Abingdon: Routledge. Benson, J. (2011) ‘An investigation of chief administrator turnover in international schools’, Journal of Research in International Education 10 (1), 87–103. Bergsten, C.F. (1996) ‘Globalizing free trade’, Foreign Affairs, 75 (3), 105–120. Bernstein, B. (1977) Class, Code and Control, Volume 3. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul. Berting, R. (2010) ‘From local or international to colloquial or cosmopolitan – refining how we look at the populations of International Schools’, International Schools Journal 29 (2), 30–35. Berting, R. (2013) ‘Fifty years of development: The American School of Barcelona’, International Schools Journal 32 (2), 87–90. Betts, B. (2009) ‘AISH attempts advocacy over IB concerns’, The International Educator 24 (2), 4.

160

Bibliography

Black, D. and Scott, W. (1997) ‘Factors affecting the employment of teachers returning to the United Kingdom after teaching abroad’, Educational Research 39 (1), 37–64. Blandford, S. and Shaw, M. (2001) ‘The nature of International School leadership’, in S. Blandford and M. Shaw (eds) Managing International Schools pp. 9–28. London: Routledge Falmer. Blaney, J. (1991) ‘The International Schools System’, in P. Jonietz and D. Harris (eds) International Schools and International Education pp.199–205. London, Kogan Page. Blaney, J. (2000) ‘Long-term planning in International Schools’, in M. Hayden and J. Thompson (eds) International Schools and International Education: Improving Teaching, Management and Quality pp.158–168. London: Kogan Page. Boffey, D. (2011) ‘Free schools: Private firm Cognita “milked profits”’, The Guardian, 10 April 2011. Bourdieu, P. (1993) The Field of Cultural Production. Oxford: Polity Press. Bradley, G. (2000) ‘Inclusive education in International Schools: A case study from Singapore’, in M. Hayden and J. Thompson (eds) International Schools and International Education: Improving Teaching, Management and Quality pp.29–41. London: Kogan Page. Bradley, G. (2010) ‘The “maid phenomenon”: Home/school differences in pedagogy and their implications for children in two International Schools in the Middle East’. Unpublished Ed.D thesis, University of Bath, England. Bray, M. and Leong, P. (1996) Education and Social Change: The Growth and Diversification of the International Schools Sector in Hong Kong. Hong Kong: Department of Education, University of Hong Kong. Bray, M. and Yamato, Y. (2002) ‘Education and socio-political change: The continued growth and evolution of the International Schools sector in Hong Kong’, Asia Pacific Education Review 3 (1), 24–36. Bray, M. and Yamato, Y. (2003) ‘Comparative education in a microcosm: Methodological insights from the International Schools sector in Hong Kong’, International Review of Education 49 (1–2), 51–73. Bremer, J. and Von Moschzister, M. (1971) The School Without Walls: Philadelphia’s Parkway Program. New York Holt, Rinehart and Winston. Brock, C. and Alexiadou, N. (eds) (1999) Education as a Commodity. Saxmundham, Suffolk: John Catt Educational Ltd. Broman, F. (2005) ‘US public schools face debilitating teacher turnover’, The International Educator 14 (1), 28. Brooke, J. (2004) ‘New Island hopes to be Hong Kong of Korea’, The New York Times, 24 September 2004. Brown, C. (2000) ‘The globalization of positional competition’, Sociology 34 (4), 633– 653. Brown, N. (2003) ‘Great expectations: Some thoughts on the future of International Education’, International Schools Journal 23 (1), 10–16. Brown, C. and Lauder, H. (2011) ‘The political economy of International Schools’, in R. Bates (ed.) Schooling Internationally: Globalisation, Internationalisation and the Future for International Schools. Abingdon: Routledge. Brummitt, N. (2007) ‘International Schools: Exponential growth and future implications’, International Schools Journal 27 (2), 35–40. Brummitt, N. (2009) ‘Facing up to global recession’, International School Magazine 12 (1), 13–14.

Bibliography

161

Brummitt, N. and Keeling, A. (2013) ‘Charting the growth of International Schools’, in R. Pearce (ed.) International Education and Schools: Moving Beyond the First 40 Years pp.25–36. London: Bloomsbury Academic. Bunnell, T. (2006) ‘An insight into the low founding base of many International Schools’, International Schools Journal 25 (2), 35–45. Bunnell, T. (2008a) ‘The International Baccalaureate and its Middle East challenge’, Education, Business and Society: Contemporary Middle Eastern Issues 1 (1), 16–25. Bunnell, T. (2008b) ‘The exporting and franchising of elite English private schools: the emerging “second wave”’, Asia Pacific Journal of Education 28 (4), 383–393. Bunnell, T. (2008c) ‘International Education and the “second phase”: A framework for conceptualising its nature and for the future assessment of its effectiveness’, Compare 38 (4), 415–426. Bunnell, T. (2009) ‘The International Baccalaureate in the United States and the emerging “culture war”’, Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education 30 (1), 61–72. Bunnell, T. (2010) ‘The momentum behind the International Primary Curriculum in schools in England’, Journal of Curriculum Studies 42 (4), 471–486. Bunnell, T. (2011) ‘The International Baccalaureate and “growth skepticism”: A “social limits” framework’, International Studies in Sociology of Education 21 (2), 157–172. Bunnell, T. (2012) Global Education under Attack: International Baccalaureate in America. Frankfurt: Peter Lang. Bunnell, T. (2013) ‘The role of the pioneer International Schools and the growth of the International Baccalaureate’, in R Pearce (ed.) International Education and Schools: Taking the First Forty Years Forward pp.167–189. London Bloomsbury Academic. Bunnell, T. (2014) ‘The International Baccalaureate and its “second era” of ambitious rhetoric: Wider access and greater impact’, in I. Silova and D. Hobson (eds) Globalizing Minds: Rhetoric and Realities in International Schools pp. 137–157. Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing. Burbules, N. and Torres, C. (2000) Globalization and Education: Critical Perspectives. London: Routledge. Caffyn, R. (2008) ‘Understanding the historical context: History as an investigative lens in studying the micro-politics of International Schools’, International Schools Journal 27 (2), 29–36. Caffyn, R. (2010) ‘Enabling long-term effective school leadership: Nine ways to understand and utilize micro-politics in International Schools’, International Schools Journal 29 (2), 50–59. Caffyn, R. (2013) ‘Boundaries and boundary management in International Schools: Psychodynamics and organizational politics’, in R. Pearce (ed.) International Education and Schools: Moving Beyond the First Forty Years pp.205–221. London: Bloomsbury Academic. Caffyn, R. (2013) ‘International Schools and micro-politics: Fear, vulnerability and identity in fragmented space’, in R. Bates (ed.) Schooling Internationally: Globalisation, Internationalism and the Future for International Schools pp.59–82. Abingdon: Routledge. Caillods, F. (2008) Preface, in M. Hayden and J. Thompson (eds) International Schools: Growth and Influence pp.9–10. Paris: UNESCO.

162

Bibliography

Cambridge, J. (2000) ‘Globalization and the seven cultures of capitalism’, in M. Hayden and J. Thompson (eds) International Schools and International Education: Improving Teaching, Management and Quality pp.179–190. London: Kogan Page. Cambridge, J. (2002a) ‘Recruitment and deployment of staff: A dimension of international school organization’, in M. Hayden, J. Thompson and G. Walker (eds) International Education in Practice: Dimensions for National and International Schools pp.158–169. London: Kogan Page. Cambridge, J. (2002b) ‘Global product branding and International Education’, Journal of Research in International Education 1 (2), 227–243. Cambridge, J. (2003) ‘Identifying the globalist and internationalist missions of International Schools’, International Schools Journal 22 (2), 54–58. Cambridge, J. (2011) International curriculum, in R. Bates (ed.) Schooling Internationally Globalisation, Internationalisation and the Future for International Schools pp.121–147. Abingdon: Routledge. Cambridge, J. (2012) ‘Pedagogic discourse: a language for the description and analysis of international curriculum implementation’, International Schools Journal 31 (2), 45–52. Cambridge, J. (2013) ‘Dilemmas of International Education: A Bernsteinian analysis’, in R. Pearce (ed.) International Education and Schools: Moving Beyond the First 40 Years pp.183–204. London: Bloomsbury Academic. Cambridge, J. (2014) ‘Global citizenship: Education as a pedagogic discourse’, in I. Silova and D. Hobson (eds) Globalizing Minds: Rhetoric and Realities in International Schools pp. 15–31. Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing. Cambridge, J. and Thompson, J. (2004) ‘Internationalism and globalisation as contexts for International Education’, Compare 34 (2), 161–175. Cambridge, J. and Thompson, J. (2012) ‘International Education research and the sociology of knowledge’, Journal of Research in International Education 11 (3), 230–244. Canterford, G. (2003) ‘Segmented labour market in International Schools’, Journal of Research in International Education 2 (1), 47–65. Canterford, G. (2009) ‘Segmented labour markets in International Schools’. Unpublished Ed.D thesis, University of Bath, England. Carder, M. (2012) ‘English Language teaching: The change in students’ language from “English only” to “linguistically diverse”’, in R. Pearce (ed.) International Education and Schools: Moving Beyond the First 40 Years pp.85–106. London: Bloomsbury Academic. Carroll, G. (2003) ‘The reification of International Education’, IB Research Notes 3 (4), 2–5. Carvalho, L. and Rodrigues, J. (2006) ‘On markets and morality: Revisiting Fred Hirsch’, Review of Social Economy 64 (3), 331–348. Cassidy, S. (2004) ‘Is this a no-frills revolution?’, The Independent, 23 September 2004. Chan, C. and Nugai, P. (2009) ‘The making of a new working class?: A study of collective actions of migrant workers in South China’, The China Quarterly 198 (1), 287–303. Chan Po King, B. (2004) ‘Educating the twenty-first century child: A new approach to international education’, keynote speech delivered at the Conference on Education for International Mindedness, Alliance for International Education, International School of Düsseldorf, 2 October 2004.

Bibliography

163

Chandler, J. (2010) ‘The role of location in the recruitment and retention of teachers in International Schools’, Journal of Research in International Education 9 (3), 214–226. Chang, S. (2008) ‘A cultural and philosophical perspective on Korea’s education reform: A critical way to maintain Korea’s economic momentum’, Korea Economic Institute Academic Paper Series 3 (2), 1–11. Chater, M. (2005) ‘Archetypes of destruction: Notes on the impact of distorted management theory on education communities’, International Journal of Leadership in Education 8 (1), 3–19. Choi, S. (2004) Globalization or marketization?: The dilemma of International Schools in South Korea, International Journal of Educational Reform 13 (4), 325–337. Choe Choe, T. (2012) ‘International schools boom’, New Straits Times, 27 May 2012. Chong, T. (2012) ‘A return to normal politics: Singapore General Election 2011’, Southeast Asian Affairs 2012 (1), 283–298. Chow, S. (2011) ‘The Korean “goose family” phenomena: Educational migrants’, Center for Global Prosperity (Hudson Institute), 22 August 2011. Chung, E. and Kim, D. (2012) ‘Citizenship and marriage in a globalizing world: Multicultural families and monocultural nationality laws in Korea and Japan’, Indiana Journal of Global Legal Studies 19 (1), 195–219. Coates, S. (2013) ‘Secret letter calls for influx of foreign pupils’, The Times, 4 July 2013. Codrington, S. (2004) ‘Applying the concept of “best practice” to International Schools’, Journal of Research in International Education 3 (2), 173–188. Coleman, D. (2003) ‘Quality assurance in transnational education’, Journal of Studies in International Education 7 (4), 354–378. Collins, F.L. (2006) ‘Making Asian students, making students Asian: The racialisation of export education in Auckland, New Zealand’, Asia Pacific Viewpoint, 47 (2), 217–234. Crafter, G. (2002) ‘International Education- formalizing 40 years of dialogue’, paper presented to the Interpreting International Education Conference, Geneva, 12 September 2002. Curti, M. (1963) American Philanthropy Abroad: A History. New Brunswick: Rutgers University. Curtis, P. (2002) ‘School diversity creating an “unwelcome hierarchy”’, The Guardian, 28 November 2002. Dale, R. (2000) ‘Globalization and education: Demonstrating a “common world educational culture” or locating a “globally structured educational agenda”?’, Educational Theory 50 (4), 427–448. Daly, A. (2011) ‘Determinants of participating in Australian university student exchange programmes’, Journal of Research in International Education 10 (1), 58–70. Darling-Hammond, L. (1984) Beyond the Commission Reports: The Coming Crisis in Teaching. Santa Monica, California: The Rand Corporation Publications Department. Davidson, M. (2009) ‘English schools abroad: Forever England’, Daily Telegraph, 18 September 2009. Davidson, M. (2013) ‘Britain will be defined by creativity, business and learning’, The Times, 2 July 2013. De Siqueira, A. (2005) ‘The regulation of education through the WTO/GATS’, Journal for Critical Education Policy Studies 3 (1), 1–11.

164

Bibliography

Delmar-Morgan, A. (2009) ‘Enrolment figures up despite UAE exodus fear – GEMS’, Arabianbusiness.com, 2 July 2009. Deveney, B. (2007) ‘How well-prepared do International School teachers believe themselves to be for teaching in culturally diverse classrooms?’, Journal of Research in International Education 6 (3), 309–328. Dixon, S. (2012a) ‘International Schools: now more than three million children get a global education’, The Daily Telegraph, 23 March 2012. Dixon, S. (2012b) ‘Schools that educate your child to become global citizens’, The Daily Telegraph, 9 October 2012. Dixon, S. (2012c) ‘Moving to a different country- but the school stays familiar’, The Daily Telegraph, 11 October 2012. Dolby, N. (2012) ‘Afterword: A research agenda for International Education’, International Studies in Sociology of Education 22 (4), 369–374. Drake, B. (2011) ‘Growth of the International School market in China and its potential implications for the IB’, in M. Hayden and J. Thompson (eds) Taking the IBDP Forward pp.142–160. Woodbridge, Suffolk: John Catt Educational Limited. Dunne, S. (2008) ‘Host-national students at International Schools: Identity, local connections and social responsibility’. Unpublished Med. Monash University, Victoria, Australia. Dunne, S. and Edwards, J. (2010) ‘International Schools as sites of social change’, Journal of Research in International Education 9 (1), 24–39. Edwards, J., Edwards, R., Blythe, M. and Quinn, J. (2006) ‘Cricket pitches and Latin mottos: How British International Schools market themselves’, International Journal of Learning 12 (2), 263–269. Ellwood, C. (2004) From the Editor, International Schools Journal 24 (1), 5–6. Ellwood, C. (2005) From the Editor, International Schools Journal 25 (1), 5–6. Ellwood, C. (2007) Comment, International Schools Journal 27 (1), 5–7. Ellwood, C. (2011) ‘Celebrating 30 years’, International Schools Journal 30 (2), 5–9. Ellwood, C. (2012) ‘Charles Dickens’ International School’, International School Magazine, 31 (2), 5. Enslin, P. and Hedge, N. (2008) ‘International students, export earnings and the demands of global justice’, Ethics and Education 3 (2), 107–119. Evans, R. (2012) ‘Chinese “patriotic” education draws protesters in Hong Kong’, Bloomberg.com, 30 July 2012. Exley, S. (2013) ‘Private schools and post-16 colleges bring international boom to the UK economy’, Times Educational Supplement, 2 August 2013. (Van der) Eyken (2013) ‘A decade of learning in Hangzhou’, China, The International Educator 27 (3), 8. Ezra, R. (2007) ‘Caught between cultures: A study of factors influencing Israeli parents’ decisions to enroll their children at an International School’, Journal of Research in International Education 6 (3), 259–286. Fail, H. (1995) ‘Some of the outcomes of International Schooling’. Unpublished MA thesis, Oxford Brookes University, Oxford, England. Fail, H. (2011) ‘Teaching and learning in International Schools: A consideration of the stakeholders and their expectations’, in R. Bates (ed.) Schooling Internationally: Globalisation, Internationalisation and the Future for International Schools pp.101–120. Abingdon: Routledge.

Bibliography

165

Fail, H. (2012) ‘Reflections on the ECIS International Teacher Certificate’, International School Magazine 15 (1), 28–29. Farber, R. and Sutherland, B. (2006) ‘Waste not, want not: Teacher attrition and retention in global schools’, International Schools Journal 25 (2), 14–20. Farrell, E. (2007) ‘Study abroad blossoms into Big Business’, Chronicle of Higher Education, 7 September 2007. Feiman-Nemser, S. and Remillard, J. (1995) Perspectives on Learning to Teach. East Lansing, Michigan: National Center for Research on Teacher Learning, Michigan State University. Ferris-Lay, C. (2011) ‘Dubai’s GEMS may IPO as school network grows, says exec’, Arabianbusiness.com, 29 March 2011. Fertig, M. (2007) ‘International School accreditation: Between a rock and a hard place?’, Journal Research in International Education 6 (3), 333–368. Findlay, R. (ed.) (1997) International Education Handbook. London: Kogan Page. Findlay, B. (1999) The Findlay Guide to International Schools. London: John Catt. Fisher, M. (2009) Capitalist Realism: Is There No Alternative? Winchester: Zero Books. FlorCruz, M. (2013) ‘China’s divorce rate rises for seventh consecutive year’, International Business Times, 27 February 2013. Fox, E. (1998a) ‘The emergence of the International Baccalaureate as an impetus for curriculum reform’, in M. Hayden and J. Thompson (eds) International Education: Principles and Practice pp.65–76. London: Kogan Page. Fox, E. (1998b) ‘The role of the IB in educational transformation: Chile’, in M. Hayden and J. Thompson (eds) International Education: Principles and Practice pp.235– 241. London: Kogan Page. Fred Bergsten, C. (2009) ‘Globalizing free trade’, Foreign Affairs 75 (3), 105–120. Frembgen, L. (2003) ‘Problem is not with teachers but with unscrupulous heads’, The International Educator (April), p.16. Friedman, T. (2005) The World is Flat: A Brief History of the Globalized World in the 21st Century. New York: Allen Lane. Fryer, T. (2009) ‘Stakeholder experiences of a dual-language International School’, Journal of Research in International Education 8 (2), 210–222. Garner, R. (2013) ‘Top private schools could scrap A-levels over Michael Gove’s exam reforms’, The Independent, 13 August 2013. Garton, B. (2000) ‘Recruitment of teachers for International Education’, in M. Hayden and J. Thompson (eds) International Schools and International Education, pp.85–93. London: Kogan Page. Garton, B. (2002) ‘International schools and their wider community: the location factor’, in M. Hayden, J. Thompson and G. Walker (eds) International Education and Practice: Dimensions for National and International Schools pp.145–157. London: Kogan Page. Gellar, C. (1981) ‘International Education: some thoughts on what it is and what it might be’, International Schools Journal, I (1), 21–26. Gellar, C. (2002a) ‘International Education: a commitment to universal values’, in M. Hayden and J. Thompson (eds) International Education in Practice: Dimensions for National and International Schools pp.30–35. London: Kogan Page. Gellar, C. (2002b) ‘Governing International Education: are we losing our way?’, International Schools Journal 27 (1), 5–8.

166

Bibliography

Gillespie, S. (2002) ‘The practice of International Education in the context of globalization: A critique’, Journal of Studies in International Education 6 (3), 262–267. Godwin, S. (2006) ‘Globalization, education and Emiratization: A case study of the United Arab Emirates’, The Electronic Journal of Information Systems in Developing Countries, 27, 1–14. Goodman, D. (1986) ‘Transcending the national: unfinished agenda for International Schools’, International Schools Journal, 10 (1), 7–16. Gottdiener, M. (2000) New Forms of Consumption: Consumers, Culture and Commodification (Postmodern Social Futures). Lanham, Maryland: Rowman and Littlefield. Govers, R. (2012) ‘Brand Dubai and its competitors in the Middle East: An image and reputation analysis’, Place Branding and Public Diplomacy 8 (1), 48–57. Graham, P. (2001) ‘Hyper-capitalism: An investigation into the relaionship between language, new media and social perceptions of value’. Unpublished PhD thesis, Queensland University of Technology, Australia. Grant, J., Kuhns, E. and Pickert S. (1995) ‘Pre-collegiate International Schools: ‘Leach’s “Ideal” type and today’s reality?’, International Review of Education 41 (6), 501–510. Gray, A. (2011) ‘Cognita looks abroad to expand’, The Financial Times, 12 March 2011. Green, A. (1997) Education, Globalization and the Nation State. New York: St Martin’s Press. Grimshaw, T. and Sears, C. (2008) ‘Where am I from, where am I going: The negotiation and maintenance of identity by International School students’, Journal of Research in International Education 7 (3), 259–278. Gunesch, K. (2004) ‘Education for cosmopolitanism? Cosmopolitanism as a personal cultural identity model for and within International Education’, Journal of Research in International Education 3 (3), 251–276. Gunn, S. (2005) ‘Introduction’, in C. Cullingford and S. Gunn (eds) Globalisation, Education and Culture Shock pp.1–9. Aldershot: Ashgate Publishing Limited. Hacohen, C. (2012) ‘“The norm is a flux of change”: Teachers’ experiences in International Schools’, Educational Psychology in Practice 28 (2), 113–126. Hahn, A. (2002) ‘International Education and the study of languages’, International Schools Journal 12 (1), 43–53. Haldimann, M. (1998) ‘Special learning needs in International Schools: The optimal match concept’, in M. Hayden and J. Thompson (eds) International Education: Principles and Practice, pp.132–145. London: Kogan Page. Halpin, T and Owen, G (2004) ‘... but they still last longer than fat-cats’, The Times, 1 May 2004. Handy, C. (1991) The Age of Unreason. London: Arrow. Hanley, J. (2013) ‘The school that grows with its students’, The Copenhagen Post, 29 November 2013. Hardman, J. (1997) ‘Neither mavericks nor Penelopes: Sustaining and retaining quality overseas teachers through school conditions and incentives’. Unpublished MA dissertation, Oxford Brookes University, Oxford, England. Hardman, J. (2001) ‘Improving recruitment and retention in quality overseas teachers’, in S. Blandford and M. Shaw (eds) Managing International School. London: Routledge Falmer. Harper, J. (2011) ‘British expats and investors drawn to Malaysian metropolis’, The Daily Telegraph, 11 October 2011.

Bibliography

167

Harper, J. (2012) ‘Expat parents face international school fees hike’, The Daily Telegraph, 24 October 2012. Harper, J. (2013) ‘Boom in British schools overseas’, The Daily Telegraph, 20 August 2013. Harrison, A. (2012) ‘Teacher numbers fall by 10,000 in a year in England, BBC News, 25 April 2012. Harvey, D. (1989) The Condition of Postmodernity: An Inquiry Into the Origins of Cultural Change. Oxford: Blackwell. Harvey, D. (2006) Spaces of Global Capitalism: Towards a Theory of Uneven Geographical Development. London: Verso. Harvey, D. (2012) Rebel Cities: From the Right to the City to the Urban Revolution. New York Verso. Harwood, R. and Bailey, K. (2012) ‘Defining and evaluating international-mindedness in a school context’, International Schools 31 (2), 77. Hauling-Austin, L. (1992) ‘Research on learning to teach: Implications for teacher induction and mentoring programs’, Journal of Teacher Education 43 (3), 173–180. Hayden, M. (1998) ‘International education in practice’, in M. Hayden and J. Thompson (eds) International Education: Principles and Practice pp.1–8. London: Kogan Page. Hayden, M. (2002a) ‘Pragmatism and professionalism in supporting teachers’, in M. Hayden; J. Thompson; and G. Walker (eds) International Education in Practice: Dimensions for National and International Schools pp.112–128. London: Kogan Page. Hayden, M. (2002b) ‘Summary of Professional Development Theme’, Theme Summary from the Interpreting International Education Conference, Alliance for International Education, International School of Geneva, 11–13 September 2002. Hayden, M. (2006) Introduction to International Education: International Schools and Their Communities. London: Sage. Hayden, M. (2007) ‘Five years on’, Journal of Research in International Education 6 (1), 5–7. Hayden, M. (2011) ‘Trans-national spaces of education: the growth of the International School sector’, Globalization, Societies and Education 9 (2), 211–224. Hayden, M. (2013) ‘Mission Statement possible: International Schools and cosmopolitanism’, International Education Journal: Comparative Perspectives 11 (2), 5–26. Hayden, M. and Haywood, T. (2003) ‘Towards an Alliance for International Education’, IB Research Notes 3 (1), 7–10. Hayden, M., Rancic, B. and Thompson, J. (2000) ‘Being international: Student and teacher perceptions from International Schools’, Oxford Review of Education 26 (1), 107–123. Hayden, M. and Thompson, J. (1995a) ‘An investigation of perceptions of International Education in an undergraduate population: A preliminary study’, International Review of Education 41 (5), 389–404. Hayden, M. and Thompson, J. (1995b) ‘International Schools and International Education: a relationship reviewed’, Oxford Review of Education 21 (3), 327–345. Hayden, M. and Thompson, J. (1995c) ‘International Education: the crossing of frontiers’, International Schools Journal 15 (1), 13–20. Hayden, M. and Thompson, J. (1996) ‘Potential difference: The driving force for International Education’, International Schools Journal 16 (1), 46–57.

168

Bibliography

Hayden, M. and Thompson, J. (1998) ‘Preface’, in M. Hayden and J. Thompson (eds) International Education: Principles and Practice pp.xii–xiii. London: Kogan Page. Hayden, M. and Thompson, J. (2000a) ‘Quality in diversity’, in M. Hayden and J. Thompson (eds) International Schools and International Education: Improving Teaching, Management and Quality pp. 1–14. London: Kogan Page. Hayden, M. and Thompson, J. (2000b) ‘International Education: Flying flags or raising standards?’, International Schools Journal 14 (2), 48–56. Hayden, M. and Thompson, J. (2008) International Schools: Growth and Influence. Paris: UNESCO. Hayden, M. and Thompson, J. (2011) ‘Teachers for the International School of the future’, in R. Bates (ed.) Schooling Internationally: Globalisation, Internationalism and the Future for International Schools pp.83–100. Abingdon: Routledge. Hayden, M. and Thompson, J. (2013) ‘International Schools: Antecedents, current issues and metaphors for the future’, in R. Pearce (ed.) International Education and Schools: Moving Beyond the First 40 Years pp.3–24. London: Bloomsbury Academic. Hayden, M., Thompson, J. and Levy, J. (2007) The SAGE Handbook of Research in International Education. London Sage. Hawley, D. (1994) ‘How long do International School heads survive? Part 1’, International Schools Journal 14 (1), 8–21. Hawley, D. (1995) ‘How long do International School heads survive? Part 2’, International Schools Journal 14 (2), 23–36. Haywood, T. (2002) ‘An international dimension to management and leadership skills for International Education’, in M. Hayden and J. Thompson (eds) International Education in Practice: Dimensions for National and International Schools pp.170–184. London: Kogan Page. Haywood, T. (2003) ‘An Alliance for International Education: Can we do without one?’, International Schools 6 (2), 12–13. Haywood, T. (2005) ‘The Alliance for International Education – Making possible the age of influence’, International Schools Journal 24 (2), 7–16. Haywood, T. (2009) ‘The Alliance conference: Building new bridges in Istanbul’, International Schools Magazine 11 (2), 11. Held, D., Mcgrew, A., Goldblatt, D. and Perraton, J. (1999) Global Transformations. Cambridge: Polity Press. Henry, M. (1999) ‘Working with/against globalization in education’, Journal of Education Policy 14 (1), 85–97. Heyward, M. (2002) ‘From international to intercultural’, Journal of Research in International Education 1 (1), 9–32. Hill, D. (2006) ‘Class, capital and education in this neo-liberal/neo-conservative period’, Information for Social Change 23, 11–35. Hill, I. (2001) ‘Early stirrings: The beginnings of the International Education movement’, International Schools Journal 20 (2), 11–22. Hill, I. (2002) ‘Internationally-minded schools’, International Schools Journal 20 (1), 24–37. Hill, I. (2006) ‘Student types, school types and their combined influence on the development of intercultural understanding’, Journal of Research in International Education 5 (1), 5–33. Hill, I. (2010) The International Baccalaureate: Pioneering in Education (The International Schools Journal Compendium, Volume IV). Woodbridge, Suffolk: John Catt.

Bibliography

169

Hill, I. (2011a) ‘Working with governments’, in G. Walker (ed.) The Changing Face of International Education: Challenges for the IB pp. 121–138. Cardiff: IB. Hill, I. (2011b) ‘Foreword – How schools became truly international’, in W. BosberryScott (ed.) John Catt Guide to International Schools pp.7–9. Saxmundham, Suffolk: John Catt. Hirsch, F. (1976) The Social Limits to Growth. Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press. Hodal, K. (2013) ‘Singapore protest: “Unfamiliar faces are crowding our land”’, The Guardian, 13 February 2013. Holderness, J. (2002) ‘The role of continuing professional development in the improvement of International Schools’, in M. Hayden; J. Thompson and G. Walker (eds) International Education in Practice: Dimensions for National and International Schools pp.83–98. London: Kogan Page. Hornberger, N. (2000) ‘Bilingual education policy and practice in the Andes: ideological paradox and intercultural possibility’, Anthropology & Education Quarterly 31 (2), 173–201. Hughes, C. (2009) ‘International education and the International Baccalaureate Diploma Programme: A view from the perspective of postcolonial thought’, Journal of Research in International Education 8 (2), 123–141. Hughes, C. (2012) ‘Child-centred pedagogy: Internationalism and bilingualism at the International School of Geneva’, International Schools Journal 32 (1), 71–79. Hunt, K. (2012) ‘Elite schools head east as Asia’s education market booms’, CNN.com, 3 September 2012. Huong Le, T. (2012) ‘Are International Schools worth the high price tag?’, Vietnam News, 25 July 2012. Hurst, G. (2010) ‘Business will seek to run state schools after shift in political attitudes’, The Times, 31 March 2010. Hymer, S. (1979) The Multinational Corporation: A Radical Approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Hyun-cheol, K. (2009) ‘12 Jeju International Schools to accept 10,000 students’, The Korea Times, 29 May 2009. Hyslop, L. (2010a) ‘Mark of quality for British schools overseas’, The Daily Telegraph, 27 January 2010. Hyslop, L. (2010b) ‘Brighton College appoints head teacher for first school abroad’, The Daily Telegraph, 24 September 2010. Hyslop, L. (2011) ‘Singapore opposition stirs up anti-foreigner sentiment’, The Daily Telegraph, 5 May 2011. Ingersoll, R. (2002) ‘The teacher shortage: A case of wrong diagnosis and wrong prescription’, National Association of Secondary School Principals Bulletin, 86 (631), 16–32. Ingersoll, R. and Smith, T. (2003) ‘The wrong solution to the teacher shortage’, Educational Leadership 60 (8), 30–33. Jabal, E. (2013) ‘Institutional identity and school-community matters: “Encapsulated” and “inclusive” lessons for engagement from two International Schools in Hong Kong’, Journal of Research in International Education 12 (1), 3–21. Jackson, M. (2005) ‘The role of the host culture as a resource for developing intercultural understanding in a Dutch international secondary school’, Journal of Research in International Education 4 (2), 193–209.

170

Bibliography

James, C. and Shepherd, P. (2013) ‘The governing of International Schools: The implications of ownership and profit motive’, School Leadership and Management 34 (1), 2–20. James, K. (2005) ‘International education: The concept, and its relationship to intercultural education’, Journal of Research in International Education 4 (3), 313–332. Jones, P. (1998) ‘Globalisation and internationalism: Democratic prospects for world peace’, Comparative Education 34 (2),143–155. Jonietz, P. (1991) ‘Part 2: The International School Experience: Introduction’, in P. Jonietz and D. Harris (eds) World Yearbook of Education 1991: International Schools and International Education pp.53–54. London: Kogan Page. Jonietz, P. (1992) ‘International Schools: Developing a consensus of opinion’. Unpublished PhD thesis, Brunel University, London. Jonietz, P. and Harris, D. (eds) (1991) World Yearbook of Education 1991: International Schools and International Education. London: Kogan Page. Joslin, P. (2002) ‘Teacher relocation: reflections in the context of International Schools’, Journal of Research in International Education 1 (1), 33–62. Kaletsky, A. (2010) Capitalism 4.0: The Birth of a New Economy. London: Bloomsbury Publishing. Kang, Y. (2012) ‘Any one parent will do: Negotiations of fatherhood among South Korean “wild geese” fathers in Singapore’, Journal of Korean Studies 17 (2), 269–297. Karim, S. (2012) ‘The co-existence of globalism and tribalism: A review of the literature’, Journal of Research in International Education 11 (2), 137–151. Kaya, Y. and Karakoç, E. (2012) ‘Civilizing vs. destructive globalization? A multi-level analysis of anti-immigrant prejudice’, International Journal of Comparative Sociology 53 (1), 23–44. Keeling, A. (2010) ‘International Schools: still growing’, The International Educator 24 (4), 1–2. Keeling, A. (2011) ‘Are you thinking of teaching in Dubai? Demand is outstripping supply’, International Schools Magazine 14 (1), 37–38. Keeling, A. (2012a) ‘All set for a healthy future’, International School Magazine 15 (1), 19–20. Keeling, A. (2012b) ‘Prospecting for gold’, British International Schools Magazine 1, 6–7. Keeling, A. (2012c) ‘International Schools reach 6,000-mark’, The International Educator 26 (4), 1 and 8. Keeling, A. (2012d) ‘In the city that never sleeps, a new deal-breaker’, The International Educator 26 (3), 1 and 14. Keeling, A. (2013) ‘ISC points up global growth sectors’, The International Educator, 10 August 2013. Kelly, G. (2012) From the Editor – ‘International Schools need a sporting chance’, Times Educational Supplement, 20 July 2012. Keson, J. (1991) ‘Meet Samantha and Seung-Won, Ilse-Marie and Haaza’, in P. Jonietz and D. Harris (eds) World Yearbook of Education 1991: International Schools and International Education. London: Kogan Page. Kim, A. (2009) ‘Global migration and South Korea: Foreign workers, foreign brides and the making of a multicultural society’, Ethnic and Racial Studies 32 (1), 70–92. Kissock, C. and Richardson, P. (2010) ‘Calling for action within the teaching profession: It is time to internationalize teacher education’, Teaching Education 21 (1), 89–101.

Bibliography

171

Knight, J. (2011) ‘Student choice in higher education: Motivations for choosing to study at an international branch campus’, Journal of Studies in International Education 1 (16), 413–433. Koh, A. (2012) ‘Tactics of interventions: student mobility and human capital building in Singapore’, Higher Education Policy 25 (2), 191–206. Koh, A. and Kenway, J. (2012) ‘Cultivating national leaders in an elite school: deploying the transnational in the national interest’, International Studies in Sociology of Education 22 (4), 333–351. Kong, L. (2013) ‘Balancing spirituality and secularism, globalism and nationalism: the geographies of identity, integration and citizenship in schools’, Journal of Cultural Geography 30 (3), 276–307. Koons, E. (2013) ‘When globalization met education: A story of the International Baccalaureate’. Unpublished PhD thesis, University of Colorado-Boulder. Krajewski, S. (2011) ‘Developing intercultural competence in multilingual and multicultural student groups’, Journal of Research in International Education 10 (2), 137–153. Krane, J. (2009) City of Gold: Dubai and the Dream of Capitalism. New York: St Martin’s Press. Kuhn, T. (1970) The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Kwong, J. (1997) ‘The re-emergence of private schools in socialist China’, Comparative Education Review 41 (3), 244–259. Langford, M., Pearce, R., Rader, R., and Sears, C. (2002) The Essential Guide for Teachers in International Schools. Suffolk: John Catt Educational Ltd. Larner, D. (1995) ‘Some expatriates set up their own schools’, International Herald Tribune, 17 October 1995. Lauder, H. (2007) ‘International Schools, education and globalization: Towards a research agenda’, in M. Hayden, J. Levy and J. Thompson (eds) The SAGE Handbook of Research in International Education pp.441–449. London: SAGE Publications. Leach, R. (1969) International Schools and Their Role in the Field of Education. Oxford: Pergamon Press. Leach, R. and Knight, M. (1964) ‘International Secondary Schools’, in G. Brereday and J. Lauwerys (eds) The Yearbook of Education 1964. London: Evans Brothers. Lee, M., Hallinger, P. and Walker, A. (2012) ‘Leadership challenges in International Schools in the Asia Pacific region: Evidence from programme implementation of the International Baccalaureate’, International Journal of Leadership in Education 15 (3), 289–310. Lee, S. (2011) ‘Suen pledges 5,000 more places at private schools’, The Hong Kong Standard, 17 March 2011. Leks, S. (2011) ‘Going international’, The Jakarta Post, 18 August 2011. Levin, B. (1998) ‘An epidemic of education policy: (what) can we learn from each other?’, Comparative Education 34 (2), 131–141. Lewis, C. (2005) ‘What must a school do to be globally responsible?’, International Schools Journal 24 (2), 17–23. Lewis, K. (2008) ‘The man who built an education Empire’, The National, 13 September 2008. Lim, P. (2011) ‘Singapore opposition taps anti-foreigner views’, The China Post, 2 May 2011.

172

Bibliography

Lips, C. (2000) ‘Edu-preneurs: A survey of for-profit education’, Cato Policy Analysis 386, 1–29. Littleford, J. (1999) ‘Leadership of schools and the longevity of school heads’, International Schools Journal 19 (1), 23–35. Lo, A. (2012) ‘Time to ditch elitist expat system’, South China Morning Post, 2 November 2012. Lowe, J. (1999) ‘International examinations, national systems and the global market’, Compare 29 (3), 317–330. Lucy, G. and McClure, E. (1999) Cool Britannia? Lurgan: Ulster Society Publications. Lukose, A. (2012) ‘Demand for Cambridge IGCSE is growing fast’, The Hindustan Times, 17 September 2012. Lynch, S. (2008) ‘From Egypt to Brunei, British schools are growing in popularity’, The Independent, 23 October 2008. MacDonald, G. (2011) ‘Our talent is in demand – not just here’, Times Educational Supplement, 12 August 2011. MacDonald, J. (2006) ‘The International School industry: Examining International Schools through an economic lens’, Journal of Research in International Education 5 (2), 191–213. MacDonald, J. (2007) ‘Daring to be different: How differentiation strategies help determine the educational success and fiscal health of International Schools’, Journal Research in International Education 6 (2), 151–170. MacDonald, J. (2008) ‘A cure for insomnia: Dispelling four myths of International School finance’, Journal of Research in International Education 7 (1), 37–54. MacDonald, J. (2009a) ‘Balancing priorities and measuring success’, Journal of Research in International Schooling 8 (1), 81–98. MacDonald, J. (2009b) ‘For better or worse: Marrying business realities with the ideals of International Education’, International Schools Journal 23 (2), 74–78. MacKenzie, P. (2009) ‘The attraction of International Schools for Japanese parents in Japan’, Journal of Research in International Education 8 (3), 326–348. MacKenzie, P. (2010) ‘School choice in an international context’, Journal of Research in International Education 9 (2), 107–123. MacKenzie, P., Hayden, M. and Thompson, J. (2003) ‘Parental priorities in the selection of International Schools’, Oxford Review of Education 29 (3), 299–314. MacLeod, D. (2007) ‘Education worth more to British exports than banking’, The Guardian, 18 September 2007. Madichie, N. and Kolo, J. (2013) ‘An exploratory enquiry into the internationalisation of Higher Education in the United Arab Emirates’, The Marketing Review 13 (1), 83–99. Mancuso, S. (2010) ‘An Analysis of Factors Associated with Teacher Turnover in American Overseas Schools’. Unpublished Ed.D thesis, LeHigh University, Pennsylvania, USA. Mancuso, S., Roberts, L. and White, G. (2011) ‘Teacher retention in International Schools: The key role of school leadership’, Journal of Research in International Education 9 (3), 308–323. Marginson, S. (2009) ‘Sojourning students and creative cosmopolitans’, in M. Peters, S. Marginson, S. and Murphy, P. (eds) (2009) Creativity and the Global Knowledge Economy pp.217–255. New York: Peter Lang.

Bibliography

173

Mathew, S. (2013) ‘Dubai GEMS Education obtains $545 million loan for expansion’, Bloomberg.com, 21 April 2013. Mattern, G. (1991) ‘Random ruminations on the curriculum of the International School’, in P. Jonietz and D. Harris (eds) World Yearbook of Education 1991: International Schools and International Education pp.209–216. London: Kogan Page Matthews, M. (1988) ‘The ethos of International Schools’. Unpublished MSc thesis, University of Oxford. Maybury, M. (2003) Comment, International Schools Magazine 5 (3), 3. Mayer, M. (1968) Diploma: International Schools and University Entrance. New York: The Twentieth Century Fund. McCabe, L. (2001) ‘Globalization and internationalization: The impact on education abroad programs’, Journal of Studies in International Education 5 (2), 138–145. McLachlan, D. (2007) ‘Global nomads in an International School: Families in transition’, Journal of Research in International Education 6 (2), 233–249. McMeans, A. (2010) ‘Six new schools to meet needs of growing population’, The National, 5 July 2010. McMurtry, J. (1999) The Cancer Stage of Capitalism. London: Pluto Press. McNeill, D. (2008) ‘South Korea seeks a new role as Higher Education hub’, The Chronicle of Higher Education, 21 March 2008. McNeill, D. (2009) ‘New Songdo City: Atlantis of the Far East’, The Independent, 22 June 2009. Mebrahtu, T., Crossley, M. and Johnson, D. (2000) Globalisation, Educational Transformation and Societies in Transition. Wallingford, Oxford: Symposium Books. Mills, C. Wright (1959) The Power Elite. New York: Oxford University Press. Mohan, K.P. (2012) ‘The role of person and perceived situation variables leading to job well-being of International School teachers’, International Journal of Behavioral Science 2 (1), 132–151. Moloney, A. (2006) ‘The best International Schools around the world’, The Guardian, 12 December 2006. Morgan, W. (2005) ‘Local knowledge and globalisation: Are they compatible?’, in C. Cullingford and S. Gunn (eds) Globalisation, Education and Culture Shock pp.35–47. Andover: Ashgate Publishing Limited. Mukherji, A. (2009) ‘More international than ICSE or CBSE schools in Mumbai’, The Times of India, 22 September 2009. Murphy, A. (2008) ‘Is this gem the best school on the planet?’, Business 24-7.ae. Murphy, E. (1998) ‘The coming of age of International Education’, International Schools Journal 17 (2), 5–7. Murphy, E. (2000) ‘Questions for the new millennium’, International Schools Journal 14 (2), 5–10. Murphy, E. (2003) ‘Getting ready for the International School of the future – one generation at a time’, International Schools Journal 23 (1), 40–57. Nagrath, C. (2009) ‘International Schools – understanding the differences’, The International Educator, 9 September 2009. Nagrath, C. (2011) ‘What makes a school international?’, The International Educator Online, 28 August 2011. Nagrath, C. (2012) ‘International school growth defies economic trends’, The International Educator 26 (3), 20.

174

Bibliography

Naidoo, V. (2006) ‘International Education: A tertiary-level industry update’, Journal of Research in International Education 5 (3), 323–345. Ng, V. (2012) ‘The decision to send local children to International Schools in Hong Kong: Local parents’ perspectives’, Asia Pacific Education Review 13 (1), 121–136. Nye, J. (2004) Soft Power: The Means of Success in World Politics. New York: Public Affairs. Oaten, J. (2013) ‘Tackling South Korea’s suicide rate’, Australia Network News, 11 January 2013. O’Connell, D. (2005) ‘British institutions rush to broaden Eastern horizons’, The Times, 27 March 2005. Odland, G. and Ruzicka, M. (2009) ‘An investigation into teacher turnover in international schools’, Journal of Research in International Education 8 (1), 5–29. Olmedo, I. and Harbon, L. (2010) ‘Broadening our sights: Internationalizing teacher education for a global arena’, Teaching Education 21 (1), 75–88. Onshi, N. (2003) ‘Divorce in South Korea: Striking a new attitude’, New York Times, 21 September 2003. van Oord, L. and Kranenburg, F. (2004) ‘Interpersonal teacher behaviour in International Schools’, International Schools Journal 24 (1), 26–32. Orr, P. and Conlon, A. (1985) ‘Overseas schools and international relations: Perceptions of governance and leadership’, International Schools Journal 9 (1), 55–60. Park, J. (2009) ‘English fever’ in South Korea: its history and symptoms, English Today 25 (1), 50–57. Paterson, J. (1991) ‘Part 1: Current participants in international education: International endeavour’, in P. Jonietz and D. Harris (eds) World Yearbook of Education 1991: International Schools and International Education pp.38–44. London: Kogan Page. Paton, G. (2009) ‘Rise of the empire of Sunny’, Times Educational Supplement, 25 March 2009. Paton, G. (2012) ‘More children educated in British schools overseas’, The Daily Telegraph, 16 October 2012. Paton, G. (2013) ‘Three-fold rise in schools offering alternative GCSE exam’, The Daily Telegraph, 18 August 2013. Patrinos, H. (2002) A Review of Demand-side Financing Initiatives in Education. Washington, DC: World Bank. Pearce, R. (1994) ‘International Schools: the multinational enterprises’ best friends’, CBI Relocation News 32, 8–9. Pearce, R. (1997) ‘Moving with your child’, in R. Findlay (ed.) International Education Handbook pp.43–46. London: Kogan Page. Pearce, R. (1998) ‘Defining cultural identity in an International School environment’, in M. Hayden and J. Thompson (eds) International Education: Principles and Practice pp.44–64. London: Kogan Page. Pearce, R. (2011) ‘When borders overlap: Composite identities in children in International Schools’, Journal of Research in International Education 10 (2), 154–173. Pearce, R. (ed.) (2013a) International Education and Schools: Moving the First 40 Years Forward. London: Bloomsbury Academic. Pearce, R. (2013b) ‘Introduction’, in R. Pearce (ed.) International Education and Schools: Moving Beyond the First 40 Years pp.xii–xx. London: Bloomsbury Academic. Pearce, R. and Cambridge, J. (2008) ‘Challenging the assumptions about International Education research’, International Schools Journal 27 (2), 9–15.

Bibliography

175

Peel, R. (1998) ‘International education comes of age’, International Schools Journal 17 (2), 7–12. Peterson, A. (1972) The International Baccalaureate: An experiment in international education. London: George G. Harper & Co. Ltd. Peterson, A. (1987) Schools Across Frontiers: The Story of the International Baccalaureate and the United World Colleges. La Salle, Illinois: Open Court. Pham, L. (2009) ‘Boom time for International Schools despite global downturn’, The New York Times, 3 November 2009. Phillips, J. (2002) ‘The third way: Lessons from International Education’, Journal of Research in International Education 1 (2), 159–182. Pomfret, J. (2009) ‘Asia’s International School boom cools amid crisis’, Reuters.com, 24 July 2009. Poore. (2005) ‘School culture: The space between the bars, the silence between the notes’, Journal of Research in International Education 4 (3), 351–362. Quist, I. (2005) ‘The language of International Education: A critique’, IB Research Notes 5 (1), 2–8. Rabbitt, M. (1992) ‘International recruitment centers for International Schools’, Phi Delta Kappan 73 (5), 409–10. Ram, V. (2007) ‘Europe’s most expensive boarding schools’, Forbes.com, 12 December 2007. Ranger, G. (2012) ‘What are the professional development needs of heads of international schools in India and how may they be met? Unpublished Ed.D thesis, University of Durham, England. Rayner, G. (2011) ‘David Cameron launches Great Britain marketing drive’, The Daily Telegraph, 21 September 2011. Rees, R. (1992) ‘Women and men in AISA schools: A perspective on gender and other issues’, International Schools Journal 23 (1), 66–69. Reimers, F. (2006) ‘Citizenship, identity and education: Examining the public purposes of schools in an age of globalization’, Prospects 36 (3), 275–294. Resnik J. (2008) The Production of Educational Knowledge in the Global Era. Rotterdam: Sense Publishers. Resnik, J. (2012a) ‘Sociology of International Education: An emerging field of research’, International Studies in Sociology of Education 22 (4), 291–310. Resnik, J. (2012b) ‘The denationalization of education and the expansion of the International Baccalaureate’, Comparative Education Review 56 (2), 248–269. Reynolds, E. (2012) ‘Dubai to build replica of Taj Mahal for $1 billion’, The Daily Mail, 4 October 2012. Richards, N. (2002) ‘Professional development: An International Schools’ perspective’, in M. Hayden, J. Thompson and G. Walker (eds) International Education and Practice: Dimensions for National and International Schools pp.86–96. London: Kogan Page. Rifkin, J. (2001) The Age of Access: The New Culture of Hypercapitalism, Where All of Life is a Paid-for Experience. Ontario: Penguin Books. Rikowski, G. (2001) ‘Education for industry: A complex technicism’, Journal of Education and Work 14 (1), 29–49. Rikowski, G. (2002) ‘Globalisation and education’, a paper prepared for the House of Lords Select Committee on Economic Affairs: Inquiry into the global economy, 22 January 2002.

176

Bibliography

Rikowski, G. (2003) ‘The Business takeover of schools’, MediaActive: Ideas, Knowledge, Culture 1, 91–111. Rischard, J. (2002) High Noon: 20 Global Problems, 20 Years to Solve Them. New York: Basic Books. Rising, M. (2008) ‘Private schooling establishes firm foothold in Swedish life’, USA Today, 25 July 2008. Rizvi, F. (2004) ‘Debating globalization and education after September 11’, Comparative Education 40 (2), 157–171. Rizvi, F. and Lingard, B. (2010) Globalizing Education Policy. London: Routledge. Roberts, B. (2005) ‘Allies in International Education’, International School Magazine 7 (5), 8–11. Roberts, B. (2012) ‘Reflection on what is implied by “international” with reference to international education and International Schools’, International Schools Journal 31 (2), 69–76. Roberts, B. (2013) ‘International Education and global engagement: Education for a better world?’, in R. Pearce (ed.) International Education and Schools: Moving Beyond the First 40 Years pp.119–145. London: Bloomsbury Academic. Robertson, J. (2003) ‘Teachers’ perceptions of accountability at an International School’, Journal of Research in International Education 2 (3), 277–300. Robertson, S. (2003) ‘WTO/GATS and the global education services industry’, Globalization, Societies and Education 1 (3), 259–266. Robinson, J. and Guan, X. (2012) ‘The changing face of International Education in China’, On the Horizon 20 (4), 305–312. Robinson, W. and Harris, J. (2000) ‘Towards a globalizing ruling class? Globalisation and the Transnational Capitalist Class’, Science and Society 64 (1), 11–54. Room, G. (2000) ‘Globalization, social policy and international standard-setting: The case of higher education credentials’, International Journal of Social Welfare 9 (2), 103–119. Ronsheim, S. (1970) ‘Are International Schools really international?’, Phi Delta Kappan 7 (2), 43–46. Rosengren, D. (1999) Comment, International School Magazine 1 (2), 3. Roskell, D. (2013) ‘Cross-cultural transition: International teachers’ experience of “culture shock”’, Journal of Research in International Education 12 (2), 155–172. Rothkopf, D. (2008) ‘Who is the superclass? A global elite now has unprecedented influence over world affairs’, Newsweek International Edition, 7 April 2008. Rubdy, R. and McKay, S. (2013) ‘Foreign workers’ in Singapore: conflicting discourses, language politics and the negotiation of immigrant identities, International Journal of the Sociology of Language 2013 (222), 157–185. Rubinstein, W. (1993) Capitalism, Culture and Decline in Britain. London: Routledge. Salem, O. (2013) ‘Arab Spring will lead to teacher shortage for UAE private schools’, The National, 7 May 2013. Salter, R. (1999) Comment, International School Magazine 2 (1), 3. Sanderson, J. (1981) ‘International Schooling: the “mobile” pupil and his educational needs. Unpublished MSc thesis, University of Oxford. Sang-Hun, C. (2010) ‘Western schools sprout in South Korea’, The New York Times, 22 August 2010. Schaetti, B. (1999) ‘Coping with a world of inbetween’, International School Magazine 1 (2), 14–15.

Bibliography

177

Schroeder, J. (2005) ‘From international to intercultural’, International School Magazine 8 (1), 13–15. Schwartzman, N. (2009) ‘A trip to the Paju English village’, Asiancorrrespondent.com, 17 June 2009. Schweisfurth, M. (2013) ‘The comparative gaze: from telescope to microscope’, Comparative Education 49 (2), 121–123. Scinto, D. (2006) ‘International educators – from experience seekers to career international professionals’, International Schools Services NewsLinks 21 (3), 3. Sears, C. (2011) ‘Integrating multiple identities: Narrative in the formation and maintenance of the self in international school students’, Journal of Research in International Education 10 (1), 71–86. Sears, N. (1998) ‘Market pioneer reaps fat reward’, Times Educational Supplement, 2 January 1998. Shaklee, B. and Merz, S. (2012) ‘Intercultural communication: Competency for international educators’, International Schools Journal 32 (2), 13–20. Sharif, A. (2013) ‘World’s biggest private school operator GEMS seeks $1 billion’, Bloomberg Businessweek, 27 March 2013. Sharpe, L. and Gopinathan, S. (2002) ‘After effectiveness: New directions in the Singapore school system?’, Journal of Education Policy 17 (2), 151–166. Sharples, J. (2003) ‘Famous names have learnt to keep up the old school Thais’, The Daily Telegraph, 17 March 2003. Shaw, M. (2004) ‘Middle East mogul expands his empire’, Times Educational Supplement, 2 July 2004. Shepherd, J. (2009) ‘Teachers leave Britain to find rich life abroad’, The Guardian, 25 January 2009. Sheppard, A. (2011) ‘An analysis of the nature of the governance of International Schools and the potential for securing appropriate governance’. Unpublished Ed.D thesis, University of Bath, England. Shin, G. (2012) ‘The International Baccalaureate (IB) influence on internationalizing the curriculum in South Korean secondary schools: Mapping considerations for the future design of an integrated K-20 system’. Unpublished PhD thesis, University of Pittsburgh. Shortland, S. (2013) ‘The effects of children’s education and supporting organizational policy and practice on corporate expatriation’, in R. Pearce (ed.) International Education and Schools: Moving Beyond the First 40 Years pp.37–60. London: Bloomsbury Academic. Si-Soo, P. (2010) ‘Is Seoul overcrowded with International Schools’, The Korea Times, 25 March 2010. Silova, I. and Hobson, D. (2014) (eds) Globalizing Minds: Rhetoric and Realities in International Schools. Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing. Silva, E. (2013) ‘UNIS Hanoi’s quarter-century’, The International Educator 27 (3), 2. Simandiraki, A. (2005) ‘Of onions and ruins: Knowing cultures through their heritage?’, International Schools Journal 24 (2), 40–48. Simandiraki, A. (2006) ‘International education and cultural heritage’, Journal of Research in International Education 5 (1), 35–56. Siong, O. (2012) ‘International Schools part of Singapore’s infrastructure’, Channelnewsasia. com, 19 October 2012. Skelton, M. (2009) ‘Historical vignettes: 25 years of Fieldwork Education’, International Schools Journal 29 (1), 86–90.

178

Bibliography

Sklair, L. (2000) ‘The transnational capitalist class and the discourse of globalisation’, Cambridge Review of International Affairs 14 (1), 67–85. Šmihula, D. (2011) ‘Long waves of technological innovations’, Studia Politica Slovaca, 2 (2011), 50–69. Snowball, L. (2002) ‘International teachers – what are they, and what support/ training do they need?’, paper presented to Interpreting International Education Conference, International School of Geneva, 11–13 September 2002. Son, J. (2005) ‘Sociological analysis on the phenomenon of Korean students studying abroad’, Korean Journal of Sociology of Education 15 (2), 95–120. Song, J. (2013) ‘For whom the bell tolls: globalization, social class and South Korea’s International Schools’, Globalisation, Societies and Education 11 (1), 136–159. Spring, J. (1998) Education and the Rise of the Global Economy. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Ltd. Standing, G. (2011) The Precariat: The New Dangerous Class. London: Bloomsbury Academic. Starr, S. (1979) ‘International high schools: their time has come’, Phi Delta Kappan 60 (10), 743–744. Stearns, R. (2013) ‘International School of Ulaanbaater turns twenty’, The International Educator 27 (3), 18. Stefonek, J. (2012) ‘Passion for teaching English-style grows in Beijing suburbs’, China Daily, 10 June 2012. Stewart, F. (1996) ‘Globalisation and education’, International Journal of Educational Development 16 (4), 327–333. Stewart, W. (2013) ‘UK heads have highest status, finds international study’, Times Educational Supplement, 3 October 2013. Stinson, P. (2013) ‘Expansion, celebration in Dakar’, The International Educator 27 (3), 1 and 2. Stirzaker, R. (2004) ‘Staff induction: Issues surrounding induction into International Schools’, Journal of Research in International Education 3 (1), 31–50. Stitzlein, S. (2013) ‘Education for citizenship in for-profit charter schools?’, Journal of Curriculum Studies 45 (2), 251–276. Stout, W. (2005) ‘Conflict and its resolution in the governance and management of International Schools’, International Schools Journal 25 (1), 15–21. Suarez-Orozco, M. and Qin-Hilliard, D. (2004) Globalization: Culture and Education in the New Millennium. Berkeley: University of California Press. Sutcliffe, D. (2012) ‘Then and now: What has become of the Atlantic College project?’, International Schools Journal 31 (2), 87–93. Svoboda, S. (2000) ‘British-style schools come to the colonies’, Toledo Blade, 31 December 2000. Swanson, D. (2013) Critical Perspectives on International Education. Rotterdam: SensePublishers. Sylvester, R. (1998) ‘Through the lens of diversity’, in M. Hayden and J. Thompson (eds) International Education: Principles and Practice pp.184–196. London: Kogan Page. Sylvester, R. (2002a) ‘The “first” International School’, in M. Hayden, J. Thompson and G. Walker (eds) International Education in Practice: Dimensions for National and International Schools pp.3–17. London: Kogan Page. Sylvester, R. (2002b) ‘Mapping international education: A historical survey 1893– 1944’, Journal of Research in International Education 1 (1), 91–126.

Bibliography

179

Sylvester, R. (2003) ‘A historical perspective in defining international education’, IB Research Notes 3 (4), 6–8. Sylvester, R. (2005) ‘Framing the map of international education (1969-1998)’, Journal of Research in International Education 4 (2), 123–152. Tabb, W. (2000) ‘The World Trade Organization? Stop world take over’, Monthly Review 51 (10), 1–18. Tarc, P. (2013) International Education in Global Times: Engaging the Pedagogic. New York: Peter Lang. Tarry, E. (2011) ‘British International Schools: The deployment and training of teaching assistants’, Journal of Research in International Education 10 (3), 293–302. Tate, N. (2012) ‘Challenges and pitfalls facing International Education in a post-international world’, Journal of Research in International Education 11 (3), 205–217. Teng, Y.M. (2013) ‘Singapore’s population conundrum: The great balancing Act 2’, Southeast Asian Affairs 2013 (1), 274–284. Terwilliger, R. (1972) ‘International Schools: Cultural crossroads’, Educational Forum 36 (3), 359–363. The Nation (Editorial) (2009) ‘Is Thailand ready to be an education hub?’, The Nation, 24 June 2009. Thearle, C. (1999) ‘Women in senior management positions in International Schools’, International School Journal 17 (2), 38–47. Thearle, C. (2000) ‘The role of women in senior management positions’, in M. Hayden and J. Thompson (eds) International Schools and International Education: Improving Teaching, Management and Quality pp.112–123. London: Kogan Page. Thompson, J. (1998) ‘Towards a model for international education’, in M. Hayden and J. Thompson (eds) International Education: Principles and Practice pp.276–290. London: Kogan Page. Thompson, J. (2002) ‘International education: Towards a shared understanding’, Journal of Research in International Education 1 (1), 5–8. Tikly, L. (2001) ‘Globalization and education in the post-colonial world: Towards a conceptual framework’, Comparative Education 37 (2), 151–171. Tomlinson, J. (1991) Cultural Imperialism. London: Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Tooley, J. (1999) The Global Education Industry: Lessons From Private Education in Developing Countries. Washington DC: Institute of Economic Affairs. Torres, C. (2002) ‘Globalization, education, and citizenship: solidarity versus markets?’, American Educational Research Journal 39 (2), 363–378. Tosi, A. (1989) Bilingualism in the IB. London: IBO. Trotter, J. and Trotter, D. (2002) ‘What happens when the tables are turned?’, The International Educator, April, pp.17–18. Tsumagari, M. (2010) ‘The enduring effects of a United World College education as seen through a graduate’s eyes’, Journal of Research in International Education 9 (3), 289–305. Tuck, V. (2012) Comment, International Schools Magazine 14 (2), 3–4. Vaughan, R. (2012) ‘Sun, seas and cockroaches’, Times Educational Supplement, 3 August 2012. Vaughan, R. (2013a) ‘English speakers ought to satisfy global boom’, Times Educational Supplement, 15 March 2013. Vaughan, R. (2013b) ‘Global demand for English-speakers grows’, Times Educational Supplement, 8 March 2013.

180

Bibliography

Virilio, P. (1986) Speed and Politics: An Essay on Dromology. New York: Colombia University. Walker, G. (2000) ‘International education: Connecting the national to the global’, in M. Hayden and J. Thompson (eds) International Schools and International Education: Improving Teaching, Management and Quality pp.193–204. London: Kogan Page. Walker, G. (2002) ‘The language of international education’, in M. Hayden, J. Thompson, and G. Walker (eds) International Education in Practice: Dimensions for National and international Schools pp.208–216. London: Kogan Page. Walker, G. (2005) ‘What have I learned about international education?’, speech delivered at Biennial Conference of IB Nordic Schools, Stockholm, 9 September 2005. Walker, G. (2007) ‘Educating the global citizen’, speech delivered at The British Schools of the Middle East Conference, 31 January 2007. Walker, G. (2011) The Changing Face of International Education: Challenges for the IB. Geneva: IBO. Walker, G. (2012) ‘Tea and oysters: metaphors for a global education’, International Schools 31 (2), 8. Ward, H. (2013) ‘Fears of a teacher recruitment shortage as one third of School Direct places left unfilled’, Times Educational Supplement, 11 September 2013. Weaver, R. (2013) ‘Institut Sankt Joseph: Taking a bilingual approach to International Education’, The Copenhagen Post, 29 November 2013. Whitehead, S. (2012) ‘The future of international schools – and their teachers’, The International Educator (26) 3, 8. WHO (2009) ‘Women and suicide in rural China’, World Health Organization Bulletin 87 (12), 885–964. Wilkinson, D. (1998) ‘International education: a question of access’, in M. Hayden and J. Thompson (eds) International Education: Principles and Practice pp.227–234. London: Kogan Page. Wilkinson, D. (2002) ‘International education and issues of governance’, in M. Hayden, J. Thompson and G. Walker (eds) International Education in Practice: Dimensions for National and International Schools pp.185–196. London: Kogan Page. Wilkinson, D. and Wilkinson, V. (2013) ‘The Pestalozzi influence on International Education’, in R. Pearce (ed.) International Education and Schools: Moving Beyond the First 40 Years pp.107–118. London: Bloomsbury Academic. Williams, R. (2010) ‘Hundreds of thousands of qualified teachers not working in profession’, The Guardian, 1 January 2010. Willis, D. (2010) Book Review: International Schools: Growth and Influence by Mary Hayden and Jeff Thompson, Journal of Research in International Education 9 (2), 187–188. Woodward, W. (2005) ‘Business class’, The Guardian, 13 December 2005. Wylie, M. (2008) ‘Internationalizing curriculum: Framing theory and practice in International Schools’, Journal of Research in International Education 7 (1), 5–20. Wylie, M. (2011) ‘Global networking and the world of International Education’, in R. Bates (ed.) Schooling Internationally: Globalisation, Internationalisation and the Future for International Schools. Abingdon: Routledge. Xuegin, J. (2011) ‘Internationalizing education’, The Diplomat, 1 June 2011. Yamato, Y. (2003) Education in the Market Place: Hong Kong’s International Schools and Their Modes of Operation (No. 1). Hong Kong: Comparative Education Research Centre, University of Hong Kong.

Bibliography

181

Yamato, Y. and Bray, M. (2006) ‘Economic development and the market place for education dynamics of the International Schools sector in Shanghai, China’, Journal of Research in International Education 5 (1), 57–82. Yap, M. (2013) ‘Singapore’s population conundrum’, Asian Population Studies 9 (1), 1–3. Yeoh, B. and Lin, W. (2013) ‘Chinese migration to Singapore: Discourses and discontents in a globalizing nation-state’, Asian and Pacific Migration Journal 22 (1), 31–54. Yip Kwok-wah, P. (2006) ‘We humankind, our earth – Education for global citizenship in the globalization era’, Keynote address delivered at the Alliance for International Conference, Shanghai, 27 October 2006. Zin Htun, K. (2009) ‘Demand fuels International School boom’, The Myanmar Times, 1 February 2009. Zsebik, P. (2000) ‘The politics of international education’, in M. Hayden and J. Thompson (eds) International Schools and International Education: Improving Teaching, Management and Quality, pp.62–72. London: Kogan Page.

Index

Abu Dhabi: and Belvedere British School 70–1, 74, 78, 82; and Brighton College 110; and excess demand; 5, 60, 108, 109; and scale of market 4, 90, 96 Academy for International School Heads (AISH) 13, 76, 156 accreditation 16, 27, 101, 112, 126–7 advanced-levels (A-Levels) 71, 110, 139, 151 advanced placement (AP) 110 Africa: and scale of market 3, 4, 10, 90, 127; and teacher recruitment 97, 114, 137; and teacher training 68 airline pricing model 81, 110, 115, 127 Atlantic College (United World College): and its character of 23, 41, 84, 103; as an IB pioneer 19, 34, 53, 125 Allan, Michael 6, 16, 43, 136 Allen, Keith 79, 88–9, 103, 121–2 alliance-building 17, 89, 131–2, 155, 156–7 Alliance for International Education (AIE): and ‘Chapters’156; and Conferences 89, 132, 156; and ‘models’ of 156, 157; and its Statement of Purpose 131, 132, 156 American Community Schools (ACS Group) 31, 72, 125, 135 American-ethos schooling 8, 20, 23, 40, 127 American International School of Zagreb 136 American School of Brussels 74, 122, 136, 145 American School of Paris 23, 80 American School of Sao Paulo (‘Graded’) 74 Amman Baccalaureate School, Jordan 149 Andean Union countries 66, 115 Anglo-American School, Moscow 83 Antwerp International School 127 Argentina 55, 66, 114

Association for the Advancement of International Education (AAIE) 97 Association of American Schools in South America (AASSA) 122 Association of South East Asian Nations (ASEAN) 119 Australia 38, 42, 48, 57, 63, 79,115, 127, 136 Australian International School, Singapore 91 AQA Baccalaureate 139 Badminton Girls’ School 116 Bagnall, Nigel 15, 31, 37, 43, 57, 103, 117, 124, 134, 138 Ball, Stephen 51, 67, 72, 156 Bangkok 2, 4, 16, 62, 136, 145 Bates, Richard 23, 31, 32, 38, 44, 47, 80, 102, 103, 148 Belvedere Academy (Liverpool) 70–1, 74, 76, 79, 82 Benson, John 36, 112, 114, 127, 129, 134, 137, 142, 147 Bernstein, Basil 37, 80 Betts, Bambi 76, 133 Blaney, Joseph 27, 28, 96, 128, 131, 154 Bolivia 66 Bourdieu, Pierre 37 Bradley, Gail 53, 125, 143 ‘brain drain’ 79, 95, 136, 151–2 branding: branded schools 29, 31, 62, 64, 141; brand reputation 24, 68, 101, 126; the IB brand 12, 85, 86, 138 Branksome Hall, Toronto 50, 73, 117 Bray, Mark 8, 49, 81, 89–90, 126 Brazil 22, 55, 59, 66, 72, 141 Brighton College 71–4, 78, 82, 106, 110 Britannica International School, Shanghai 15

Index British Council 47–8 British-ethos schooling: concerns about 79, 107, 127; growth of 14, 20, 71, 79–80, 92–3, 145, 151, 155 British School in the Netherlands, The 78 British School of Beijing 101 British School of New Delhi 56 British School of Paris 24 British Schools in the Middle East (BSME) 71–2 British Schools Group (BSG) 69, 72, 141 British Schools Montevideo 80 British Schools Overseas (BSO) status 15 Broman, Forres 98, 137 Brookhouse School, Kenya 77 Brown, Ceri 7, 32, 33, 37, 38, 78, 102 Brummitt, Nicholas 2–3, 6, 8, 9, 24, 31, 37, 59, 66, 72, 78, 87, 89, 90, 93, 106, 117, 119, 136,139, 141, 151–2, 154 Buenos Aires 19, 55, 98 Bunnell, Tristan 11, 33, 36, 50, 106, 113, 115, 138, 139, 144, 145, 150 Caffyn, Richard 19, 35, 39, 53, 97, 114, 128, 147 Cambridge, James 32, 33, 37, 40, 41, 43, 44, 52, 53, 59, 68, 73, 76, 86, 99, 104, 129, 137, 138, 139, 149 Cambridge International Examinations: International GCSE (IGCSE) 27, 76, 83, 110, 139; International Primary Programme (CIPP) 139; International Teaching Certificate (ITC) 133; Pre-U Diploma 139 Cambridge International School, Nairobi 68 Canada 73, 78, 79, 117, 136 Canterford, Glenn 5, 79, 86 capitalism: the ‘cancer-stage’ 61, 64; and ‘capitalism 4.0’ 59, 65; and ‘Capitalist Plan for Education 64–5, 144; and ‘Capitalist Plan in Education’ 65; and ‘capitalist realism’ 62; the ‘Predatory-stage’ 17, 61, 64 Carder, Maurice 1, 28, 138 Chadwick School 73, 82 Chan Po King, Betty 88, 105 Chandler, James 96–7, 154 Chile 55, 66 China: historical growth 6, 10, 14, 22, 42, 59, 60, 72, 74–5, 89–91; potential growth 4, 17, 48, 57, 104, 118, 151; schools in 11, 53, 88, 101, 105, 127, 129 Chinese International School, Hong Kong 77

183

code of ethics 152, 156–7 Cognita 29, 59, 69, 91, 125, 142 Colombia 66 commodification: of education 47, 53, 62, 63, 64, 116, 142; and Lyon Old Town 62, 64, 93, 151; and Taj Mahal 63; and Tower Bridge 63 common standards 36, 127–8 Community School of Tehran 123 Conference of Internationally-Minded Schools (CIS) 116 Connaught Education 15 contract of employment 17, 27, 96, 98–9, 114, 129, 130, 133, 152, 154 ‘Cool Britannia’ 145 Copenhagen International School 9, 13, 22, 25, 27, 53, 56, 78, 79, 88, 105, 108, 127, 150 Council of British International Schools (COBIS) 17, 71, 72, 127, 141 Council of International Schools (CoIS) 13–15, 98, 127, 141 Cosmopolitanism 84, 88, 105, 118, 120 Costa Rica 139 Deakin University 38 Denmark 2–3, 32, 66, 94, 124, 134, Department for Education (UK) (DfE) 127 ‘development gap’ 151 disenfranchisement 17, 72, 83, 156 Dubai: conference in 13, 138, 139; and commodification 63, 64, 93, 151; and excess demand 5, 60, 66, 107, 109, 144; fees structure 19, 92, 100, 110, 11, 119, 127; and GEMS 25, 67, 68, 91; growth in 4, 14, 15, 17, 63, 73, 78, 90–1, 109; and Repton School 17, 35, 81, 93, 105, 116 Dubai Knowledge and Human Development Agency (KHDA) 15 Dubai Schools Inspection Bureau (DSIB) 99 Dulwich College: in China 29, 145; in Kenya 29; in London 64, 73, 80, 106, 109, 121; in Phuket 29, 50; in Singapore 50 Dunne, Sandra 32, 75, 104–5 Dwight School 73, 82, 118 East Asia Regional Council of Schools (EARCOS) 71–2 economic developmen: 49–51, 102, 104, 152 Ecuador 66, 115 edu-preneurs 9, 10, 46, 52, 58, 64, 66, 67–8, 81, 117, 151 educational hubs 50, 82, 102, 156

184

Index

Educational Services Overseas Limited (ESOL) 73 elite English private schools 63–4, 74, 80, 116 Ellwood, Caroline 2, 3, 35, 36, 39, 43, 55, 121, 148 Ekamai International School 74 embassies 1, 13, 56, 103, 119, 143 Engelfield Capital 59, 91 Engleman, Finis 122 English School Kuwait, The 119 Epsom College 73, 82, 91 Eton College 74, 83, 116, 139 European Council of International Schools (ECIS): accreditation service 27, 127; conferences 75, 90, 97, 131, 139, 156, 157; history of 56, 127, 130; membership of 13–14, 17, 26, 31, 56, 88, 114, 125, 136, 141; publications 7, 9, 74, 98, 119, 131, 134, 136; Teaching Certificate (ITC) 99, 133 European Union (EU) 117, 132, 143 expatriates 76, 117, 129, 141, 142, 145, 149, 154 exports 47, 48, 51, 58, 62, 64, 73, 89, 93, 144, 145 Fail, Helen 38, 133, 143 Federation of British International Schools in South and East Asia (FOBISSEA) 71–2 Fertig, Michael 127 Fieldwork Education: International Middle Years Curriculum (IMYC) 33, 139; International Primary Curriculum (IPC) 11, 33, 76, 94, 139; World Class Learning (WCL) Group 69, 73, 139 Findlay, Robert 40, 91, 149 Frankfurt International School 27, 136, 140 French schools overseas 14, 19, 21–2, 41 GD Goenka World School 105 Gellar, Charles 24, 77, 105, 113, 124, 125, 149 GEMS Education 13, 16, 25, 59, 65, 67–9, 72, 81, 110–11, 156 GEMS World Academy 25, 81, 105, 110 General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS) 46, 47, 62, 144 Geneva 1, 12, 19, 21, 44, 56, 121, 131, 132, 135, 156 German schools overseas 14, 41 German Swiss International School, Hong Kong 101

Germany 15, 69 global citizenship 31, 41, 65, 121 Global Education and Skills Forum (GESF) 13, 155 Global Education City, Jeju Island 50, 82, 95, 102, 104, 105, 152 Global Indian Foundation 69, 109 Global Indian International School, Singapore 109 Global Issues Network 126 Global Jaya International School, Jakarta 7 global nomad 7, 9, 32, 42, 103, 118, 143, 148–9 global peace 27, 30, 32, 35, 41, 43, 44, 51, 56, 84, 103, 104, 112, 116, 124, 125 Global Prodigy Academy, Korea 117 Goodman, Dorothy 40, 105, 122 ‘goose families’ 95 ‘G20’ Group of Schools 77, 125 Gunesch, Konrad 29, 88, 105 Haileybury School 73, 77, 105 Hangzhou International School 11 Harrow School: in Bangkok 29, 62, 145; in Beijing 29; in Hong Kong 29, 60, 67; in London 64, 73, 80 Harvey, David 6, 13, 17, 23, 46, 54, 63, 84, 92, 142, 143 Handy, Charles 129 Hardman, John 96–8, 114, 137 ‘Harry Potter’ 145 Hayden, Mary 3, 6, 7, 9, 14, 17, 18, 20, 27–32, 33, 36, 38, 39, 41, 42, 43, 44, 52, 55, 56, 57, 62, 67, 70, 76, 81, 84, 85, 88, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 106, 107, 112, 113, 122, 123, 124, 126, 130, 131, 132, 134, 135, 142, 144, 147, 148, 149, 150, 152–7 Hayden, Matthew 84 Haywood, Terence 41, 49, 88, 94, 113, 157 Hawley, David 114, 129, 137, 147 Heyward, Mark 87, 141, 152 Hill, Dave 65, 81, 84 Hill, Ian 1, 11, 12, 35, 88, 105, 112, 113, 124, 150 Hirsch, Fred 106–7 Holderness, Jackie 95, 135 Hong Kong: excess demand 4, 67, 68, 108; fees 59, 60–1; research about 8, 22, 30, 41, 54, 75, 92, 112, 119, 122, 129, 136, 143; schools in 4, 5, 7, 10, 29, 54, 77, 89, 90, 101, 104; tensions in 146

Index hyper-capitalism 62, 63, 64 hyper-globalization 52, 85 ICIC Venture 66 immigration 50, 94, 95, 146 imperialism 48, 63, 79 Independent Schools Council (ISC) 79, 127 India: Delhi 73, 105 ; Hyderabad 66; Mumbai 4, 76, 83, 90, 100, 156; growth of schools 60, 74, 75–6, 83, 90 Indian curriculum 81, 109–10, 119 Indian Diaspora 109–11, 119 International and Private Schools Education Forum (IPSEF) 5, 13, 155 International Baccalaureate: 1, 11, 12, 19, 34, 57, 66, 75, 88, 141; Career-related Certificate (IBCC) 138; and ‘continuum’ 88, 117, 138, 142, 150; Contemporary History course 12; ‘Culture of Cities’ course 124; Diploma Programme (IBDP) 11, 19, 39, 42, 75, 78, 94, 113, 124, 125, 138, 139; Economics course 124; ‘Euro-centric’ 12; International Schools Examination Syndicate (ISES) 56; Middle Years Programme (MYP) 27, 138; Organization (IBO) 12, 56, 75, 85, 117, 121, 124, 138; Peace and Conflict Studies 125; Primary Years Programme (PYP) 138 international education 16, 20, 30, 37–40, 42, 85 international educators: and gender 114, 155; job fairs 79, 155–6; recruitment 5–6, 32, 96, 97, 99, 109, 136, 154; size of body 5, 10, 68, 78, 91, 128; training of 134, 135, 153; turn-over of 9, 22, 23, 97, 98, 99, 104, 129, 132, 136–7, 143, 151 international-mindedness 3, 22, 39, 57, 89, 111, 117, 123, 134 Internationalschoolcommunity.com 82, 96, 131 International Schooling: elitist: 18, 27, 33, 57, 76–7, 80–1, 83, 105, 108, 120, 123, 149; and ‘Ideal’ era: 1, 16, 24, 40, 53, 55, 57, 62, 74, 81, 103, 108–9, 111, 115, 123; and ‘inclusion’ 125; and ‘limits’ to growth: 96, 106–8; and ‘post-Ideal’ era: 1, 17, 23–5, 28–9, 36, 44, 103, 108, 111, 124, 133, 144; as a ‘precarious’ arena: 53–4, 95, 97, 126, 128–9, 146, 153–5; and its ‘vocabulary’: 37, 115, 134 International School of Amsterdam 61

185

International School of Asia 117 International School of Belgrade 143 International School of Bergen 101 International School of Berne 138 International School of Brussels 145 International School of Choueifat 68 International School of Dakar 11 International School of Dusseldorf 53 International School of Geneva (Ecolint): character of 18, 19, 20, 22, 23, 24, 25, 35, 37, 42, 43, 52, 55, 74, 77, 84, 116, 125, 135, 136, 140, 157; IB pioneer 12, 35 International School of London (ISL Group) 27, 31, 50, 88, 116, 136, 140, 141 International School of Lusaka 56 International School of Luxembourg 126 International School of Manila 133 International School of Milan 22, 133 International School of Paris 23 International School of Tanganyika 135 International School of The Hague 23, 57, 139 International School of Ulaanbaatar 11 International School of Yokohama 52, 84, 113, 138 International Schools: and definitions 2; and ‘depth’ 17, 56, 80, 101; and ‘diversity’ 3, 40, 41, 87, 88, 97, 149; and ‘dichotomy of approach’ 27, 40, 56, 57, 85, 99, 150, 153; and fees 5, 8, 25, 48, 60–1, 73, 81, 110, 150; and ‘flagships’ 23–4, 27, 80, 101, 125, 142; and innovation 23, 123–6, 138; and isolation 80, 97, 121–2; and local community 30, 60, 70, 105, 108, 121–3; and micro-politics 53, 84, 128, 133, 147, 154; and Mission Statements 43, 84, 104, 130; the ‘hotel chain’ metaphor 81, 127, 141; and ‘non-Ideal’ type 25, 113, 150; and ‘pioneer’ schools 29, 133; and ‘purpose’ of 26, 32, 33, 35, 36, 42, 43, 58, 70, 81–4, 101–3, 105, 116, 123, 140, 146, 148, 152; and ‘space’ 17, 23, 46, 65, 84, 92, 93, 106, 142, 143; ;and ‘system’ 17, 19, 20, 27, 35, 96, 131, 154, 155; and ‘tier-1’ type 100, 141, 152, 153; and ‘tier-3’ type 100, 152, 153; ‘Type A’ schools 9, 20, 29, 32, 53, 55, 56, 60, 81, 112, 125, 126, 140, 142, 153; ‘Type B’ schools 20, 27, 34, 35, 52, 55, 112, 140, 142, 153; ‘Type C’ schools 14, 17, 29, 42, 44, 52, 57, 62, 112, 125, 140, 150

186

Index

International Schools Association (ISA) 12, 18, 35, 56, 71, 121–2, 141 International Schools Journal (ISJ) 2, 113, 131 International Schools Liaison Committee 12 Internationalschoolsreview.com (ISR.com) 54, 100, 128, 129, 130, 152 International Schools Services (ISS) 56 Iran 109, 110, 124 Iskandar, Malaysia 82, 102 Japan 75, 90, 94, 109, 117, 120, 136 Japanese schools overseas 41 Jonietz, Patricia 8, 9, 18, 19, 26, 27, 28, 40, 48, 72, 130, 136, 140, 141, 147 Joslin, Pamela 113, 134 Keeling, Anne 2, 6, 7, 9, 10, 11, 13, 24, 25, 31, 37, 60, 66, 67, 70, 75, 78, 82, 84, 89, 90, 92, 96, 104, 106, 117, 131, 136, 141, 143, 152, 154 Kenya 29, 68, 139 Khazakhstan 77 Kondratieff Waves 17, 46, 49, 52, 55, 56, 58, 84, 143 Lauder, Hugh 7, 32, 37, 38, 78, 102, 120 Leach, Robert 3–4, 7, 12, 14, 16, 18, 20–4, 26, 29, 32, 33, 34, 35, 37, 39, 42, 43, 44, 57, 71, 80, 91, 94, 116, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 127, 133, 136, 140, 141, 142, 146, 147, 148, 149, 150, 157 Lebanon, The 55, 68, 73 Littleford, John 129, 137, 147 local elites 13, 25, 32, 76, 144, 155 London International Schools Association (LISA) 88 MacDonald, James 7, 9, 36, 78, 101, 111, 132, 133, 147, 151, 154 MacKenzie, Peter 7, 38, 118, 120 Malborough College 71, 73, 82, 91, 145 Malvern College 73 Markham School, Peru 77 market forces 112, 126, 153 market structures 7, 8, 13, 24, 101, 126, 147 Marlborough College 71 Matthews, Michael 2, 27, 28, 35, 40, 41, 55, 57, 96, 122, 153, 155 Mayer, Martin 4, 7, 9, 16, 19, 20, 22–6, 28, 32, 34, 35, 40, 41, 43, 70, 74, 80, 97, 122, 136 MDN Edify Education 81 Miras International School, Almaty 136

missionaries 18, 25, 55, 56 monopolistic competition 24, 101, 126 Moscow 15, 66, 72, 83, 152 Myanmar 4 National Association of British Schools in Spain (NABSS) 127 National Curriculum for England and Wales 11, 67, 70, 75, 79, 108, 136 New England Association of Schools and Colleges (NEASC) 13 New York 25, 39, 57, 67, 69, 96, 102, 141 New Zealand 48, 79, 109, 136 Next Frontier Inclusion 125 Nord Anglia 67, 68, 69, 91 North London Collegiate College 50, 73, 101, 105 Office of Overseas Schools (O/OS) 13, 71–2, 122 Oman 49, 82, 139 Oporto British School 80 Orbital Education 15 Oslo International School 56 patriotic education 146 Pakistan 3, 4, 73, 74, 75, 90, 109, 110, 117 Pareto Analysis 3, 4, 51 Pathways World School, New Delhi 105 Pearce, Richard 2, 4, 6, 7, 9, 11, 26, 31, 35, 43, 44, 49, 62, 87, 88, 116, 126, 131, 141, 147, 148, 149 Peru 22, 66, 77 Peterson, Alec 12, 19, 20, 23, 27, 42, 43, 44, 54, 57, 78, 100, 123, 124, 131, 150 Philippines 73, 75, 91, 104, 141 Phillips, John 35, 88, 126, 142, 153 Post-Graduate Certificate in Education (PGCE) 135 power-elite 77 Precariat 53–4, 128, 153 Presbyterian Ladies’ College, Melbourne 42 Qatar: education hub 82; and ISL Group 31, 50; and Outstanding Schools Initiative 50, 71; and Sherborne School 71; and size of market 4, 74, 90–1, 129; and student body 82 Quality Schools International (QSI) 69, 73 Raffles Education Corporation Limited 72, 73 recession-proof 17, 59, 60, 61, 83, 144, 155

Index Renaissance College, Hong Kong 104 Resnik, Julia 16, 47, 66 Rifkin, Jeffrey 62 Rischard, Jean-Francois 126 Roberts, Boyd 37, 39, 41, 44, 89, 116, 125, 132, 142, 149 Ronsheim, Sally 9 Rothkopf, David 76–7, 117–18 SABIS Educational Systems 68, 69, 72 Sanderson, Joyce 2, 38 Sandford English Community School, Ethiopia 80 ‘satellite colleges’ 50 Saudi Arabia 4, 10, 49, 71, 73, 74, 82, 98 Search Associates 13, 79 Second Philippine International School, Riyadh 110 Seoul 15, 50, 82, 102, 146 Sevenoaks School, England 116, 139 Shanghai 4, 6, 15, 42, 50, 53, 63, 81, 89, 93, 104, 126, 145, 156 Sherborne School, England 71, 73 Shortland, Susan 8 Shrewsbury School, England 73 Sir James Henderson School, Milan 24 Snowball, Lesley 132, 138 Songdo New City, South Korea 82, 102 South Africa 77, 136 Southbank International School, London 29, 125, 133, 142 South Korea 4, 8, 15, 41, 63, 73, 76 South Texas Business, Education, and Technology Academy 11 Spring Grove International College, London 55, 84, 124, 151 Standing, Guy 53–4, 128–9 St. Edwards’ School, Malta 80 St. George’s British International School, Rome 56 St. Michael’s International School, Kobe 119 ‘super class’ 76, 116, 117, 118 supply chain 13, 26, 56, 72, 125, 127, 141, 155 Sweden 22, 66, 121 Swiss Group of International Schools (SGIS) 71–2 Sylvester, Robert 18, 20, 21, 34, 35, 36, 39, 41, 54, 55, 87, 123, 124 Taaleem 68, 157 Tanglin Trust School 80

187

Tarc, Paul 134 Tate, Nicholas 44, 141 Terwilliger, Ronald 19, 40 Thailand: education hub 82, 102; growth in 3, 4, 22, 29, 30, 71, 73, 74, 89, 90, 91, 109; schools in 29, 63–4, 144 The American Schools in Switzerland (TASIS) 72 Thearle, Carol 114, 155 The International Educator (TIE) 10, 119, 129, 133 Third Culture Kids (TCKs) 30, 103, 118, 148 Thompson, Jeff 3, 6, 7, 9, 14, 17,20, 27, 28–32, 35, 36, 38, 39, 40–1, 42, 43, 44, 52, 55, 56, 62, 67, 70, 81, 84, 85, 88, 97, 98, 99, 100, 106, 107, 112, 113, 115, 122, 123, 126, 130, 131, 132, 134, 136, 142, 144, 147–50, 153–7 Times Educational Supplement (TES) 15, 78, 97 Tooley, James 66 Transnational Capitalist Class (TNCC) 7, 31, 76, 77, 81, 111, 112 Uganda 82 Union Indian International School, Dubai 73 United Arab Emirates (UAE) United Nations International School (UNIS), New York 19, 20, 22, 27, 80, 103, 124 United Nations International School of Hanoi 10 University of Durham 135 University of Keele 99 Vienna International School 136, 141 Vietnam 4, 29, 82, 87, 90, 91, 109 Virilio, Paul 14 Walker, George 19, 27, 32, 33, 36, 37, 42, 55, 77, 85, 87, 115, 117, 121, 130, 131, 134, 137, 156 Washington International School 27, 40, 105, 122 Wellington College 73, 77, 157 Western Academy Beijing (WAB) 61, 101 Westminster School 116 Wilkinson, David 33, 88, 122, 134 Woodlands International School, Malaysia 102

188

Index

World Leadership School, Colorado 117 ‘World is Flat’ metaphor 57 World Trade Organization (WTO) 47, 52, 65, 82 Wylie, Michael 37, 38, 78

Yamato, Yoko 8, 16, 30, 36, 41, 49, 54, 60, 67, 68, 75, 81, 89, 90, 92, 112, 113, 122, 126, 143 Yew Chung Education Foundation (YCEF) 69, 88, 131