The crypto-growth of “International Schooling”: emergent issues and implications

ABSTRACT

The diverse arena of International Schooling concerned with schools delivering a non-local curriculum in English largely outside an English-speaking nation, has grown enormously during the current wave of globalisation. Traditionally, the arena of “International Schools” played an intended ideological and pragmatic role, albeit in a rather discrete and peripheral manner which in practice facilitated an exclusive schooling experience for a limited and already privileged transnational elite clientele. Its growing appeal and access to a wider, localised clientele is now a key source of tension. A period of fast-paced, reactionary policy-making in areas such as China, Malaysia, Myanmar, Vietnam, and Qatar, has quickly and rather quietly ushered in a new, diverse provision of private international schooling, supported by a complex global package of commercially-driven support-agencies and backed by private equity. Further, a body of state-backed “Public International Schools” are discretely beginning to appear, offering an entirely new arena of activity. Moreover, there is evidence that much of this is occurring without national debate or awareness, creating a newer and more complex form of “crypto-growth”. The arena of International Schools now competes directly within the national sphere of education, raising both their political profile and critical discussion about their emergent purpose and intentions. The role now seems much more blurred and problematic, and tensions are beginning to appear at a local and national level adding to the sense of insecurity and precarity.

KEYWORDS:

• Globalisation
• International Schools
• education policy
• International Baccalaureate

Introduction

The enormous growth context

My paper is concerned with the complex arena of International Schooling, associated in the main with K-12 schools delivering a non-local curriculum in English largely outside an English-speaking nation. Recent growth has been both phenomenal and largely unpredicted, involving much wider appeal and access. The 2019 Global Opportunities Report: Looking to the Future, compiled by ISC Research, the main provider of market intelligence, revealed the extent of the global growth trends (Speck, 2019). The number of “International Schools”, according to their data, had increased more than fourfold between 2000 and 2019, from 2,500 (employing 90,000 teachers) to 12,000 schools (Stacey, 2020). The number of students enrolled in these schools increased from 1.0 million in 2000, to reach 4.3 million in 2015, and 6.0 million in 2020. Moreover, growth is expected to continue well into the late-2020s, and ISC Research is expecting the number of International Schools globally to have reached 19,000 by 2029. The number of students by then is expected to have reached 10.6 million, and the number of teachers should have reached one million. Put simply, this is now a significant arena of elite schooling worthy of much further investigation and critical insight.

Aside from enormous statistical growth, the role of this arena of elite schooling has changed quite markedly in a relatively short space of time, and the resultant emergent tensions are the focus of my paper. “International Schools” in some areas of the world have substantially grown in number and have entered the local schooling market, competing for local children/parents and competing with local schools (Kim, 2019). This is a problematic entry into the public space of an arena of private schooling that was previously largely seen and regarded as independent and peripheral. Further, much of this development has been quite sudden and arguably by stealth (Kim & Mobrand, 2019), a form of “crypto-growth”.

This is an important point for critical discussion since the appeal of the arena as an attractive overseas career-choice for an already large and continuously growing body of educators (still in the main, Anglo-American) places an importance on stability and security (Rey et al., 2020), yet the emergent national tensions and re-framing of the perceived traditional role could add considerably to what is already being seen as an unstable, precarious labour-market in places such as mainland China (Poole, 2019). This traditional role is explored next.

“International Schools” and their traditional role

Traditionally, the role was painted and perceived to be relatively clear and non-controversial; it was primarily focused on idealistically facilitating global peace and sustainability, whilst pragmatically serving the globally-mobile expatriate business and Diplomatic “international community” within a fundamental dichotomy of approach. Such a functionalist perspective is best explored by Cambridge and Thompson (2004). Thus, within a largely hidden and somewhat disguised mode of operation it has in practice facilitated an exclusive schooling experience for a limited and already privileged transnational elite clientele. In other words, a discrete form of growth, which might be best termed “crypto-growth”, was always evident.

It was traditionally private and non-profit operating, and was until around 1990 still being visualised as involving a fairly static and very slow growing body of about 500–1,000 schools largely modelled upon the 1924-established International School of Geneva, and to a lesser extent the 1962-established Atlantic College in South Wales (Hayden, 2011). Both these institutions had acted as catalysts for the birth of the Geneva-registered International Baccalaureate (IB), and the body of International Schools globally were perceived, and self-presented (Leach, 1969), as acting as independent, innovative global laboratories. This stable and largely insular landscape, conveniently masked by pragmatism and ideological innovation, remained mainly unchanged until the 1990s.

This dichotomy needs to be further explored. One prevalent normative view is that students at International Schools are well-placed to facilitate global peace and sustainability. In this context, any growth of the arena ought in theory to be welcomed and encouraged, acting as a potential benevolent force for good, and counteracting growing nationalism and parochialism within the world, as is exemplified by “Brexit” and the populist policies of ex-President Trump, and which is expected to worsen in the post-Covid-19 era (Roubini, 2020).

Further, alongside the ideological role, as already noted, International Schooling traditionally has a pragmatic mode of activity which has also always seemingly been positively received. This offered a solution for mobile professionals to obtain access to a form of schooling (and curriculum) that would meet their immediate employment needs, and the requirements of their temporarily displaced offspring. In this context, it sought to serve needs that could not be met by public schooling, and helped nations attract globally-mobile Capital and their employees, whilst aiding the economic development of the host-nation. By conveniently harnessing the forces of globalisation and neo-liberal educational policy, the entry of international schooling into a growing number of nation-states has always previously been safely assured (Resnik, 2012). Moreover, it sought to conveniently serve the needs of an exclusive clientele, largely hidden (or at least disguised) from the public gaze.

With this dichotomy framework, International Schooling has been largely allowed to exist over time as a perceived neutral, de-politicised, peripheral arena of private elite education attracting little external critical attention, and generally escaping public debate. Its pragmatic dimensions helped to justify its growth, and its idealistic dimension helped to defend it. As noted by Prosser (2020), elite schooling in general adapts a relatively simple and convenient rhetorical defence to survive and thrive, and the “dichotomy of approach” discourse has arguably aided International Schooling to exist and grow within a perceived vision of pragmatically serving a global elite that might contribute to the global good. At the same time, the arena has been left to report its own history and paint its own narrative (e.g. Leach, 1969; Peterson, 1987), a convenient by-product of the “crypto-growth”.

Although the bodies of International Schools are well-documented, in practice as organisations, for its micro-politics, high turn-over, and workplace insecurity (Caffyn, 2010), the overall role and existence of these organisations has rarely been directly questioned. In the main, the appearance and growth of International Schools has traditionally been positively, or at least neutrally, viewed by host-nations, and perceived as offering little competition or direct involvement with established local provision. Put very simply, the intended role of International Schooling is traditionally arguably largely benign, and can be regarded as relatively innocent. This has conveniently helped, over a large period of time, to largely deflect and neuter criticism.

The changing nature and character

However, this situation has substantially changed in recent years and warrants closer attention. An entirely new era/epoch of activity has occurred, undermining and questioning the previous image and identity of role, and potentially de-stabilising the continuous growth. The enormous growth statistics disguise the fact that the role of International Schooling is rapidly and radically changing towards increasingly serving, within a commercially-driven paradigm, a market of locally-based clients seeking a competitive edge and distinction, lured by the appeal of the label “International” (Basaran & Olsson, 2018). It is well-established that at least 80% of children are now “locals”, a complete reversal from the 1990s (Brummitt & Keeling, 2013). Therefore, the forces behind the demand are changing from clients who are naturally, perhaps sometimes inadvertently involved (the transnational elite) towards those who are deliberately and purposefully choosing International Schooling as an alternative pathway to local provision for their children (the emerging, aspiring middle class). There is evidence emerging that the latter might even constitute a “new” class-in-formation, a Global Middle Class (GMC), a body of like-minded professionals with cosmopolitan sensibilities, and the elite traditional International Schools are well-placed to facilitate this development both at a parental and alumni level of activity (Wright & Lee, 2020). However, significantly, the pragmatic rationale remains, albeit in a new way, which arguably helps to (still) contain and shroud any overt critical attention or discussion. What changes though is that they potentially become a rationed arena of elite schooling, accessibly to a few yet desired (and demanded, in a financial sense) by a growing number of locally-based parents.

At the same time, the supply-side of this enormous and relatively sudden growth is becoming much more complicated and controversial, and warrants closer critical attention. As much as the demand-side changes are disguised, the supply-side changes are largely hidden from public view. Much of this growth is driven by complex inter-connected flows of investment from (secretive) Swiss-based private equity funds and public Sovereign Wealth Funds belonging to arguably illiberal nations such as Abu Dhabi and Bahrain, compromising the ethical and ideological stance of many “liberal” International Schools. This is now driving the funding opportunities, and even many of the traditional (IB) International Schools are now in the ownership of commercial bodies backed by profit-driven private equity, giving the continued “crypto-growth” a modern twist.

Further, much growth is being fuelled by nation-states encouraging and facilitating the establishment of new International Schools, compromising the traditional autonomy and non-politicised dimension of the arena. My paper addresses this particularly under-discussed aspect of supply-side growth, especially within the national policy-making context where much of the growth has been not only relatively sudden but has also occurred largely unnoticed, with seemingly little debate or discussion by academic observers nor even within the nation-state itself. We can identify this growth of International Schooling as another, newer, form of “crypto-growth”, where it is allowed to occur at a policy-making level by stealth rather than advertisement. It continues to be politically and economically welcomed and encouraged as has always been the case but this time it has a deeper social and cultural context. It is no longer peripheral or hidden. This process is starting to create tensions and there is emerging evidence both from literature and from newspaper reports in nations such as China and Malaysia that it is slowly being noticed, and is causing some level of concern.

My paper offers a framework for analysing and discussing this. It is a complex scene, requiring differing viewpoints and standpoints. On the one hand, one can easily identify a process of neo-colonial exploitation occurring, as investors and commercial agencies (in the Global North) take advantage of the emerging thirst for a seemingly quality-assured model of private schooling that can meet both parental demand and facilitate economic growth (in the Global South). In this respect, the growth is ethically suspect. At the same time, a more cautious or sceptical viewpoint emerges which identifies nation-states as being in control, and deliberately taking advantage of the desire for continuous growth of the arena of International Schooling. In this respect, the growth is (still) seemingly both invited and welcome.

My paper will discuss the context of growth, first through a globalisation lens as this helps to understand the growth factors since the 1990s. I will then explore the nature of educational policy-making that has occurred, highlighting in particular the fast-pace and reactionary nature of policy-making as this helps understand the problematic links with nation-states that are emerging. Third, I will present the “new reality” of state-backed provision, an unexpected by-product of the policy-making process. Last, I will explore some real-world examples from both academic literature and localised press reports to show that the growing provision in some nations, mainly in Asia (the epicentre of current growth activity), is causing tensions and concerns although as we might expect with continued “crypto-growth”, it is still quite muted.

The globalisation context

The aspect of “deepening” activity

One area of education that is undeniably very closely aligned with “globalisation” is English-Speaking International Schooling, with its roots going back to the birth of the railways. One economics model for conceptualising globalisation sees it as a recurring theme in history and identifies the year 2020 as being theoretically at the very peak of the “5^th Wave”. Kondratieff Wave Theory (Schumpeter, 1934) identifies this “5^th wave” (termed “K5”) as beginning about 1990 with the fall of The Berlin Wall and the Soviet Union, and being the fifth of a series of regular 60-year cycles going back to the Industrial Revolution, and the birth of the railway. Fittingly, the year 2020 saw commentators (e.g. Kapur, 2020; Roubini, 2020) referring to “post-Globalisation”, at exactly the half-way point of the current cycle.

At the same time as enormous continuous growth, even during the Global Financial Crisis of 2008 proving it to be “recession-proof” (Pham, 2009), the arena of International Schooling during the “K5 Wave” period has changed radically in nature and character. To more fully conceptualise these changes, it is worth considering one well-known definition of “globalisation” that has appeared in the “K5 Wave” context. This views it as a dynamic process involving:

the widening, deepening and speeding up of worldwide interconnectedness in all aspects of contemporary social life, from the cultural to the criminal, the financial to the spiritual. (Held et al., 1999, p. 2)

Subsequently, International Schooling now involves new players (i.e. it is “widening”) and many are now far-away from modelled upon the IB pioneers, instead being branded and commercially-led, dubiously and discretely fuelled, as said already, by private/public equity. The arena is growing at a remarkably fast pace (i.e. it is “speeding up”), and in areas of the world where it previously had minimal contact (i.e. “it is deepening”).

The “deepening” aspect is significant as it moves International Schooling into areas of the world where activity is both contentious and precarious. Large clusters of schools existed in 2019, dominated by the United Arab Emirates, and mainland China. In Dubai, there are 309 schools, whilst Shanghai has 168 and Abu Dhabi has 164. Next, Beijing has 151 and Doha has 144. This scene is the result of the “Great Asian Gold-Rush” (Machin, 2017). Overall, 31 countries have over 100 schools, with China and India having the most (Speck, 2019). By stark contrast, five decades ago, Leach (1969) had calculated there were a total of about 400 “International Schools” worldwide, of which just 76 were in Asia (including just 15 in the Middle East) educating approximately 80,000 children. The only noticeable areas of activity five decades ago were all in Northern Europe – Geneva and Rome had 11 apiece, whilst Paris had eight and Vienna had a further four. Overall, this seemed a more “natural” and less problematic base for activity than Asia and the Middle East.

The aspect of greater “inter-connectedness”

We must also consider the “inter-connectedness” aspect. Leach’s (1969) seminal study had identified an arena of ad-hoc activity very much in its infancy, with low-levels of inter-dependence and high levels of autonomy, innovation and experimentation. Each major city seemingly had one school apiece (Bryant, 2018), autonomous or loosely linked with others within a plethora of small-scale support agencies. These schools sat on the periphery, largely separated from the national educational stage. This tribal and familial Durkheimian sense of “mechanical solidarity”, under-pinned by a strong sense of mission and intentions, and ideologically guided by the politics and fears of the Cold War, now seems a distant almost utopian by-gone era.

The current growth pattern, towards a much more planned, mature and inter-dependent “organic solidarity” mode of activity (Bunnell, 2020), with schools increasingly belonging to chains and networks of schools (e.g. GEMS Education, Cognita) and catering increasingly for the local population, is clearly substantially different from the previous scene. A major shift from peripheral towards central stage is apparent. Aside from the geography and the demographics the purpose has also changed. Clearly, it now caters largely for an aspiring “new” middle class in Asian and Middle Eastern nations, perhaps forming a “GMC”, as a schooling option of choice. However, beneath all of this sits the forgotten supply-side of the equation i.e. where is the growth coming from? What has facilitated the “speeding up”, “widening”, and “deepening”? To make sense of this, we need to consider the policy-making context in Asian and Middle Eastern nations as this has both encouraged and facilitated the growth.

The policy-making context

The notion of “fast-paced” policy

It is also said (Jessop, 2005) that globalisation is a multi-temporal and multi-form process, with different regions being involved at different stages and in different ways. At the same time, the literature on educational policy-making in the “K5 wave” period globally has much in common, revealing a distinct set of trends, and the “speeding up” aspect is one such noticeable trend (Jessop, 2002). Education policy-making in nation-states as diverse as Colombia (Pacheco, 2017) and Sweden (Hardy et al., 2019) are described by using the term “fast-paced” policy. The notion that some nation-states are involved in promoting an educational “fast-track” is now well established (Rose, 2005), and one commentator (Adhikary, 2019) has even introduced the term “fast-policy”. Here lie the policy-making foundations for my notion of a continued yet newer form of “crypto-growth”.

The educational reforms are often linked to human capital development (Sellar, 2015). The concept of “unleashing aspiration” and “potential” has been recognised as a key one in policy documentation, used in “justifying reform agendas directed at both increasing human capital investment and reducing educational inequity” (Sellar, 2015, p. 201). Consider that Qatar introduced its Education for a New Era policy in 2003 as a direct consequence of failing to perform well in PISA/OECD testing, especially when compared to near-by Dubai. In this context, reform is painted as being both necessary and inevitable, which offers a vacuum whereby education policy can be implemented swiftly and without much public discussion or debate; it is sold to the nation as something that must happen quickly. In America, the notion that the “world is flat” (Friedman, 2006) and nations such as India are catching up and overtaking more economically advanced nations in terms of job-creation and innovation is an example of the type of debate that has often occurred, offering a sort of “wake-up call” to the nation’s leaders.

The notion of “policy by stealth”

The aspect of needing to be “fast” and absolutely “necessary” has been joined in some instances by that of “stealth” implying much education policy-making is occurring in nation-states with little public debate or critical discussion. This issue of “stealth” has a long history in education in the “K5” period, with Chitty (1997) and Lupton (2011) identifying the process in England. Within a broader global framework, Nassar (2017) has identified a “Neo-liberal Stealth Revolution” implying that it had a strong political base and was permanent, yet the emotive term “Revolution” also implied it has been suddenly enforced rather than democratically evolved. At the same time, Clarke (2012) notes how in spite of its ideological roots, neo-liberal educational policies have met with a depoliticised opposition as they have been “sold” as necessary and inevitable. Further, an inter-connected critical view has emerged that in order to “speed up” educational reform, many nation-states have looked around to “borrow ideas that work” (Lewis, 2017), an extension of “policy-borrowing” (Phillips & Ochs, 2003). Such “silver bullet” solutions, identified by Ball (1998) as “magic educational big policy”, are often now seen as involving a process of “reform first and ask questions later” (Lewis & Hogan, 2019).

Referring to Thailand, a nation never previously “colonised”, Rush (2014) discusses the huge growth of International Schooling there as a form of “colonisation by stealth”. The entry into Thailand in 2017 of a branch of England’s exclusive and highly prestigious Rugby School does arguably reinforce the image of a form of educational colonisation process taking place. This development even adds substantially to the view that a new “re-colonisation by stealth” process has possibly begun.

The notion of competitive policy-making

Within this background of fast-making policy occurring largely by stealth, intended as a “silver-bullet” to improving competitiveness, a strong, critical thesis has emerged (Kim, 2019; Kim & Mobrand, 2019) directly regarding the growth of International Schooling. This is a significant re-framing of the perceived role, and strongly counter-balances the previous “pragmatic-ideological” framework. This new, alternative thesis argues (quite rightly) that International Schools are no longer “isolated islands” on the periphery of educational activity and they have instead quickly and quietly (i.e. through a form of “crypto-growth”) entered the public sphere in many nation-states where they now openly attract “local” children/parents who might otherwise have been barred from entry. A good case in point would be Qatar, where a body of well-established and supposedly “outstanding International Schools” have since 2006 been allowed, indeed invited through a form of competition, within the Education For a New Era reforms to join the national market-place, competing for the school vouchers assigned to the Qatari population. Thus, the well-established transient, overseas middle class in Qatar is now deliberately being joined by a newer body of local, aspiring middle class families (the “GMC”) with their own, separate agendas. As a result, elite institutions as diverse as England’s Sherborne College, and the International School of London now have branches in Doha, operating (for now at least) as guests of Qatar. This is very different from the previous era where schools imposed themselves on the nation, albeit in a very discrete manner.

Other commentators are beginning to identify these shifts. As remarked by Bryant (2018, p. 23) “For decades … such schools were positioned as islands outside of the local education system and the societal culture in which they were located”. Thus, they “had little relevance to state school systems and hence to researchers.” However, Bryant (2018) goes on to also note that they are now positioned within the national system, especially in Asia, and are closely aligned with the needs and demands of localised parents (which in turn links them to the neo-liberal competitive agendas of some nation-states). Ingersoll (2018), referring specifically to Malaysia, notes that “global education reform policies are underpinned by neoliberal policies”, and that the growth of International Schooling in that nation “incentivizes global elites to seek higher levels of distinction through social and academic capital”. In other words, it is becoming normal to reason and perceive that some local parents (the “GMC”) are increasingly and deliberately choosing the International Schooling pathway for a multitude of advantageous economic and social reasons, linked to distinction and networking, and for reasons that have little to do with the philosophical roots or mission statements of the schooling models, or pragmatic reasons of overseas employment. Indeed, recent evidence (Gardner-McTaggart, 2018) does show that some local elites are doing just that.

The notion of reactionary policy-making

There is still more to discuss about the Kim and Mobrand (2019) thesis. Subsequently, Kim and Mobrand (2019) argue that some nation-states have been forced to react and respond to this fundamental change in the relationship between private “International Schools” and the local/national population, effectively putting pressure on nations to (fast) enact policies that allow this position to exist and prosper. In effect, the barriers between private “International Schools” and “National Schooling” have begun to break down, and some nation-states are having to react (quickly) in a rather defensive manner (Kim & Mobrand, 2019). A good case in point here concerns Vietnam, where in 2019 there was much talk about the Government substantially reducing the cap/limit (“Decree 17”) on local children attending International Schools, as had happened previously in near-by Malaysia.

What emerges from this discussion is what I tentatively put forward now for further discussion as the “Reactive Growth Model”, where nation-states are allowing growth as a reaction to both localised demands (thus reducing their “brain-drain”), and reforms going on in nearby nations. At the same time, they are intending to lure students from other nations in the region (thus increasing their “brain-gain”). This again is often a reaction to policy-making elsewhere e.g. Malaysia has developed Iskandar into an “education hub” with a branch of England’s Marlborough College as “anchor-tenant” in EduCity, as a reaction to moves by Singapore to do the same (i.e. the “Singapore Schoolhouse” project). In effect, the entire South East Asia region is competing within itself, for the same students with numerous education hubs emerging amidst a plethora of similar sounding titles (e.g. Education City in Doha, Star City in Myanmar, Global Education City on Korea’s Jeju Island, and Education City in Kuala Lumpur).

Such a complex growth framework is problematic for several reasons, as discussed by Kim and Mobrand (2019). First, the reaction has often been sudden and quick (as said already, this is often the case with education policy-making generally in the “speeding up” of globalisation “K5 Wave” phase). As such, a sort of “react now and discuss later” approach has appeared. Second, even when discussed, the policy-making has seemingly subsequently not involved the level of national debate and consensus decision-making that such policy-making perhaps ought (this issue requires further research inquiry and validation i.e. “What discussion actually occurred in Qatar, or Vietnam?”). Hence, the growth can seemingly (still) be described as “creeping”, or “crypto”, a sort of “back-door” entry.

Third, and perhaps most importantly, the entry of International Schools in any nation now also involves the discrete and indirect introduction of external agents, bringing forward a set of values and funding that might otherwise be opposed since the arena is backed by a growing “Global Education Industry” (GEI) promoting commercial and corporate activity (Verger et al., 2017). As we have seen, many International Schools are no longer autonomous players, and they bring with them the sophisticated machinery and baggage of the mainly Global North-based GEI such as private equity funding, powerful commercial brands, and anonymous foreign investors. International Schooling now involves a complex flow of trade, like any other goods and services (Komljenovic & Robertson, 2017). Many International Schools are now heavily backed by an array of support agencies, ranging from lawyers and trade/export officials to recruitment firms and marketing/branding people, involving a sophisticated and complex set of inter-linked interests. The relatively simplistic arena that existed before the “K5” wave of activity now seems a very distant memory. A very complicated globalised and inter-connected flow of money now exists, bringing with it a set of ethical dilemmas and tensions that previously did not exist, or at least not to the same extent.

Fourth, the entry of private, branded, for-profit International Schools into the public sphere creates a quasi-market that many existing national schools, private and public, will find it difficult to compete with. This is a recipe for division, and aggressive competition. In short, a form of “marketisation by stealth” has appeared (Kim & Mobrand, 2019), especially in Asia and the Middle East, the epicentres of current activity.

This listing of potential tensions and dilemmas caused by the continued “crypto-growth” of International Schooling is not exhausted, and there may be other factors to consider. For example, the entry of elite, branded International Schools could effectively “cream off” the nation’s best students, undermining the local markets.

Overall, it becomes very clear here that the situation in some nation-states could become problematic. This matters for a number of reasons. Governments are seeking political solutions and do not want upsets. Investors are seeking a stable, guaranteed income without any reprisal. Teachers are seeking a sustainable and enjoyable career. Parents are seeking a viable schooling pathway for their children, and a means to flaunt their social credentials. In other words, much is at stake by growing insecurity and precarity. To explore this topic further, my paper will now focus on some more real-world developments.

The “new reality”

The growing diversity of the “private International School”

The policy-making process outlined above has led to a complex landscape of schooling emerging. The general aggregated data identifying 12,000 “International Schools” is useful in identifying the trends, but it masks a number of inherent divisions. In no way can the arena now be described as being an equal playing-field, and at least two-sectors can now clearly be identified. An under-looked growth issue concerns the fact that a definite “premium-sector” now exists. Only 19% of all “International Schools” are accredited (Fraser, 2019), and only 30% belong to a regional association such as FOBISIA (Federation of British International Schools in Asia). Such features are becoming the hallmark of the “Tier-1” grouping of schools, mainly represented over time by the dwindling body of the “Traditional International Schools” (Hayden & Thompson, 2013).

At the same time, almost one-third are now “bilingual schools”, representing a significant grouping of the emergent “non-premium sector”. Some of these are arguably “International” in name only, with little substance to support the claim aside from delivering a curriculum partly or wholly through the medium of English. This issue is important since any potential attack on the growth of International Schooling could rest on the standards of provision, whereby “International” does not always seemingly measure well against “National”. The fact that about 80% of all International Schools are not externally authorised or accredited bodes badly for the political sustainability of the arena in many nation-states.

Somewhere in the middle sits a sizeable “Non-Traditional” bloc of schools. Poole (2020) refers to a distinct body of “Chinese Internationalised Schools” emerging, as Chinese parents begin to seek some advantage, and distinction. This latter sector also largely offers a British-based curriculum, such as the primary-level National Curriculum for England, or a fusion of curricula. At the same time, the “Non-Traditional” arena involves the surprising growth of overseas branches linked with elite, private schools mainly from England, although a small body of schools from Scotland, Wales, Canada, America, and Australia are also involved. Pioneered by England’s Dulwich College, and Harrow School, in Thailand in the late-1990s (Bunnell, 2008), the quasi-replication, franchising, and cross-branding of prestigious private schooling institutions modelled upon England’s historic “Public Schools” (Judge, 1982) had almost reached 100 by 2020 (Bunnell et al., 2020). Rugby School in Thailand has already been mentioned, and here we have a strong basis for arguing that much growth is involving the “back-door” entry of British-based institutions, a discrete form of educational Neo-Colonialism.

The rise of the “Public International School”

As said already, major changes are occurring, and some are largely hidden from view, and occurring by stealth. At first glance, “International Schooling” seems inextricably linked with private interests, provision and governance, and with little state interference or involvement. However, an emergent under-reported phenomenon has become the state-backed International School, a “novel entity” in many nations, such as Israel (Dvir et al., 2018). Such a development is problematic since it brings the arena directly into the political arena, where it is potentially open to tax-payer and national-interests attack, as has happened to the IB in the United States since it began to receive public monies in 2004. Further, such a school directly enters the open-market, competing with both the established private schools and the local national ones, with an ability to create demand by an aspiring, ambitious national middle-class.

Several plans for public “International Schools” have appeared in recent years. In 2018, Egypt announced the building of nine “International Public Schools”, as part of the Egypt 2030 Vision. In 2019, the Sarawak state government (in Malaysia) announced that they are going to build five residential “International Schools” – two in Kuching, and one each in Sibu, Miri and Bintulu. It was initially reported (Malay Mail, 7 December 2019) that the aim was to “help the state government to pick the best and brightest students.” Then, in a surprising twist, it was further reported (Chiam, 2019) that the five schools would only cater for 100 students each, and would cater “where people in rural areas can be groomed in that particular ecosystem.” Immediately, one can recognise here the “reconciliation of a fundamental dilemma” between ideological and pragmatic interests (Cambridge and Thompson, 2004). Within this radically changing scene, we are witnessing a “new reality” of discourse, to be discussed next.

The emergent critical discourse

I began my paper by asserting a view that the growth of International Schooling in its “private International School” mode of operation has traditionally been received as seemingly innocent and benign. A framework for identifying a greater critical lens regarding the continuous growth of international Schooling has begun to emerge in academic literature in recent years. A decade ago, doubt was cast on whether the ongoing growth of the IB programmes could be sustainable, arguing through a “growth scepticism” lens that there are “limits to growth”, maybe not numerically but socially. Using the work of English economist Fred Hirsch, a link was made between continuous growth of the “IB World” and “potential social externalities such as increased competition and the commercialisation of society” (Bunnell, 2011, p. 161). Evidence is now emerging to show that (fast, stealth) policies to incorporate international agencies and curricula into the national schooling arena can lead to local divisions and rising competition, rather than lifting overall standards or levels of attainment. In other words, a “social limit” is arguably being reached in some mature markets. Resnik’s (2020, p. 315) study exploring the incorporation of the IB Diploma Programme (IBDP) in High Schools in different Districts in Canada (British Columbia, Ontario and Quebec) concluded that:

Rather than fostering efficiency and improving students’ achievement as intended, marketization policies resulted in an increased focus on the recruitment of high achieving students, which led to a competition between schools, between districts and between other programs in the districts or in other words –an ‘all against all’ competition.

Reports about the “IB World” in Australia, another very mature market, points to access being largely confined to “affluent communities of large cities” and “students from privileged socioeconomic backgrounds” (Dickson et al., 2017, p. 65). Evidence from the internationalisation of private schools in Brazil had earlier pointed to widening inequalities (Aguiar & Nogueria, 2012).

Definite “warning signs” have begun to emerge, with indications appearing of concerns about lack of transparency, and the motives for (fast) growth. I will now introduce a few recent examples that have appeared in localised press reports. The Egyptian Minister of Education was forced in September 2018 to respond to accusations that the establishing across Egypt of “International Public Schools” is a form of back-door privatisation of public schooling (Al-Youm, 2018). The surprising moves by the Sarawak state to build five schools immediately led to a flood of letters in the Malaysian national press from concerned nationals. One said (The Star, 12 March 2019) that:

The schools should attract qualified teachers and administrators in a transparent manner, as the schools involve public funds. Far too many previous state investment projects have been set up without input and knowledge from the people, raising issues about cronyism and other insinuations.

The letter concluded with the statement that:

A more holistic approach must be adopted before such massive investment is committed; only then will the people in Sarawak fully support the proposal.

Another letter, by the Director of the Sarawak Institute for Public Affairs (Wong, 2019) asked if the state venture is even necessary. The author said the intended venture was “worrisome”, and finished his concerns by asking:

Rather than bulldozing ahead with their plans, the state should provide enough avenues for the people in the state to voice their opinion on the matter and to then make a decision on whether to set up these schools or not.

The term “bulldozing” used here is very telling, and fits well with the notion of “fast-policy” and “silver bullet” initiatives occurring. Overall, the comments show a sign that the initiative in Sarawak has not been fully and properly debated, or publically-discussed. This is the essence of the newer form of “crypto-growth”.

At the same time, the general growth of “International Schools” in Malaysia is causing concerns. It was reported in November 2019 (Wern Jun, 2019) that “educational experts” are becoming concerned that schools now have far more Malaysian students than foreign students which “has raised questions of whether international schools have deviated from its original purpose of catering to children of foreign nationals such as expatriates and diplomats.” The article talked about “an unhealthy trend as separation between Malaysian students and the national education system will be vast and could affect the students’ identity as Malaysians.”

Moving the scene over to mainland China, there are signs that the previously de-regulated growth of private International Schools will be curtailed, as local national and private schools begin to feel an element of (unfair) competition. In particular, the emerging role of private “Internationally British Schools” seemingly catering for the top-students is being questioned, and blocked. It was reported (Turner, 2019) in October 2019 that the Chinese government is “fed up” with British overseas schools “creaming off” and “poaching” (Bennett, 2019) the most talented students. Delegates at a British private school heads’ conference were informed by ISC Research presenters that:

There is a backlash against the rapid increase in private schools in China, particularly from the big public schools where it’s conceived that they have been simply creaming the best kids for their schools.

The term “backlash” used here is a new discourse, seemingly very much at odds with the normal sense that everything concerning the growth of overseas branches of British private schools in mainland China is smoothly happening. Earlier in 2019, as part of policy-initiative Education Modernisation 2035, China had announced that all private schools teaching Chinese children aged 7–15 would have to adopt a lottery system for places, effectively putting an end to academic selection. Private schools had already been told they need to teach the Chinese national curriculum as well as whichever international qualifications they offer (Quinn, 2019). In other words, we can expect tighter restrictions on the activities of traditional or innovative models of International Schools in China in the future, whilst the so-called “Chinese Internationalised School” model (Poole, 2020) might prosper instead.

The contrarian view explored

To reiterate, this is a complex area of schooling to explore, and there are a number of major paradoxes at play. One should be aware that an entirely different lens of inquiry can be applied, and I now offer my own, in the form of an alternative “Inverted-Colonialism Growth Thesis”. Recent discussion (You, 2019) on how nations such as England had borrowed what seemed like successful pedagogy and policy from South East Asian nations (e.g. borrowing teaching policy in Maths from schools in Singapore for promoting England’s PISA rankings) could be seen as a form of “Neo-Orientalism”, reinforcing and exploiting a stereotypical view of “Asian Learning”. China, and East Asia in general, have provided much source of policy referencing in England (You & Morris, 2016). The importation of “British-style” schooling by nations such as Myanmar could, on the other hand, be viewed as a form of inverted “Neo-Colonialism”, reinforcing and exploiting a stereotypical view of high-performing “Elite British Schooling”. The “return of The Raj” exportation of branches of elite British private schools to India (e.g. Repton College opened a school in Bangalore in 2018) is a further classic example. Furthermore, the “International School” offers in general a well-tested model for advancing nation-states in terms of English-language trade, and schooling prestige.

In this context, the growth of International Schooling can be viewed as perhaps being more welcome that might be thought. It is maybe not a negative reaction, but an embracing of the opportunities offered by the footloose “GEI”. A particular problem here involves the lens of inquiry tending to be “outward” i.e. from a Western-liberal focus, assuming that the spread of overseas campuses of elite private English schools in Asia is always problematic and unwelcomed, without getting the “inside/internal” view. Viewing the growth of overseas branches of elite British private schools as a form of deliberate exploitation of the “British School” brand, demands a new, fresh perspective, but it is not too far-fetched to be dis-believed. Elite private schools have come under huge political attack in Britain in recent years, and subsequently seek alternative, steady revenue streams to survive as charity-status institutions through greater offerings of bursaries and scholarships, which the franchising of the brand entails (Bunnell, 2008).

In other words, the schools in Britain are under much pressure to invent new revenue streams, and are thus susceptible and vulnerable to policy-making offers from Asia. The growth of “Satellite Colleges” perhaps reflects as much the weakness of the elite British schools as it does the strength of the nations who promote and allow their entry. Qatar, for example, seems fully in control of its educational destiny, as does Vietnam or Malaysia. Only Myanmar really stands out as being vulnerable to importing ideas since its substantive educational reforms have started from a relatively low base requiring very fast policy-borrowing-by-stealth (Howson & Lall, 2020).

The notion that nation-states in Asia and the Middle East are not threatened by globalising educational forces but are using it to their own advantage is actually quite a strong one, and is certainly worthy of further investigation and theorisation. However, the matter still stands that the growth is largely discrete, and hidden i.e. the “crypto-growth” aspect still dominates the changing scene.

Conclusions

The arena of International Schooling has, during the current “K5 Wave” of growth and development, increased in size four-fold since 1990, and it looks set to double again over the next decade although the tumultuous events of 2020 might act as a brake on growth in the short-term. At the same time, the landscape has substantially altered and the geography and demography continuously move further away from Northern Europe and the globally-mobile expatriate “international community”, towards South East Asia and serving a new body of middle-class parents, representative of a “GMC”. This changing scene is aided and abetted at the supply-level by both the emergent “GEI”, and national policy-making as growth becomes more planned and inter-connected with national aspirations. In short, the growth in terms of both the demand and the supply is radically changing, and becoming substantially more problematic.

Amidst all of this change, the role of International Schooling has become much more blurred and less transparent. On the one hand, the intended idealistic “global peace and sustainability” role, honed in Geneva, is still evident in the discourse of the schools although arguably it now partly acts as a convenient shield, a sort of truth-prism, behind which the changing scene can be hidden and legitimised, as is often the case with elite schooling (Prosser, 2020). On the other hand, the pragmatic role has substantially altered as nation-states act quickly and suddenly in a seemingly reactive manner to regional and global competitiveness pressures. In this context, much of the growth can be described as occurring by stealth, with seemingly minimal time or opportunity for critical discussion within the national arena. In turn, the scene becomes more insecure and precarious for all concerned: teachers, parents, children, and investors.

This newer form of “crypto-growth” is starting to be questioned, and the arena of International Schooling is now being (quite rightly) placed under greater scrutiny. This can only continue, and probably worsen. A particular problem here involves the role of the growing arena of International Schooling in terms of providing a convenient and proven model for potentially fast economic growth and educational development. Much of the growth seems socially divisive and proving social injustices and inequalities (Resnik, 2020). In this sense, the development is arguably representative of a form of educational neo-colonisation, whereby agencies based in the Global North exploit the growing wealth, aspirations, and ambitions of individuals, families, and Governments based in the Global South. The siphoning of profit by England’s elite private schools through the growing “Satellite College” model is a good case in point, and the continuous growth of commercial networks of International Schools might also be an example. However, if we can step back from this viewpoint, the role can be seen as being very different. Perhaps, many nation-states in Asia and the Middle East in particular are in control of their educational destiny and are deliberately exploiting the history, traditions, and successes of Western-based schooling to their own advantages. In this respect, the continuing “crypto-growth” aspect becomes one of unknown, hidden factors fuelling the real growth. An exploration of the policy initiatives is needed to uncover the real motives.

The litmus test here will be when at some point in time, nations such as Qatar and Vietnam suddenly state they no longer want the growth of International Schooling to continue, as they either have developed their own model (i.e. the “International Public School”) or they have reached a point where the internal demands from parents, and policy-making worries, have been met (i.e. the nation does well enough at PISA/OECD testing, and the “brain-drain” has been reduced). Alternatively, they may serve notice on the need for Western-trained educators since they have now trained “locals” to do the job; the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia in August 2020 suddenly decreed (Govind, 2020) that all foreign nationals must leave their posts as leaders of private schools and be immediately replaced by Saudis. At the same point in time, discussion occurred (Razak, 2020) in Malaysia about the possible “phasing out” of International Schools and the accusation by some national politicians that local parents who use these schools are not “nationalistic”. Both these examples in 2020 point to the emergence of a post-Globalisation era, one of potentially greater insecurity and precarity. Put simply, the role of International Schooling is always changing, and the past does not always match the future. The next decade of “crypto-growth” looks set to be as unpredictable as the last one has proven to be.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).