International schools: leadership reviewed

Abstract

This article provides a systematic review of research on leadership in international schools, though not focusing on International Baccalaureate schools which are the focus of a separate paper. International schools are autonomous, private bodies that cater to the globally advantaged. Accordingly, this literature review views them and their leadership through the Bourdieusian concept of distinction. Educational leaders in this context face considerable complexities. International schools thrive on the distinction they confer, it being intrinsic to these schools’ identity. International schools can be understood as existing on a matrix, or spectrum, between conceptions of international and global; equitable and market-place. The review finds that international schools experience considerable unhelpful change and transition, where consistency is highly prized yet difficult to achieve. Along with tensions between their equitable and market orientation, transition emerges as the most significant challenge facing educational leaders in this context.

Keywords

International schools educational leadership international education international schools leadership Bourdieu

Introduction

This literature review provides an overview of the research and literature on international schools, with the section entitled Leadership in International Schools offering a systematic literature review of research. A review of International Baccalaureate (IB) international schools leadership complements this in a separate paper. Both reviews consider the international schools sector through a critical lens. Sections prior to the research review unpack the complexity and diversity of international schools, which exist in many different guises and generally cater to the wealthy in two main forms: the international and globally mobile, and (increasingly) the upwardly mobile local-national demographic. It follows that discussion of international schools should involve the concept of ‘distinction’ (Bourdieu, 1984). This bears particular relevance to international schools as they position themselves in the educational marketplace, and is helpful in understanding the challenges facing leadership in this context.

Distinction

La Distinction, in its original French, is a term developed by Bourdieu and examines the way ‘taste’ operates, especially among the educated. Bourdieu terms this cultural capital, which establishes dominance for those who have it. Being ‘distinct’ as a result of cultural capital establishes dominance. The result is ‘symbolic violence’ (towards those with less cultural capital) which maintains cultural divisions, allowing the ruling class to define the dominant aesthetic. Less culturally rich aesthetics are thereby dominated aesthetics. All aesthetics (all tastes) are distinct, and the product of a combination of capitals: cultural, social, and economic (Bourdieu, 1984). Bourdieu’s findings in the Kodak study of 1963 and the Taste study of 1967 showed that every individual makes aesthetic choices. These create class fractions. Those in power dictate aesthetic concepts and, by doing so, dictate taste itself, facilitating ongoing cultural hegemony. Taste ensures social and cultural reproduction of the ruling classes as they hold social, economic and cultural capital (Bourdieu, 1984). A later empirical work explores the ‘field of power’ and the relevance of elite schools within it; how they manage to act as bodies of cultural replication and advantage. Distinction is used to explore, inter alia, symbolic power (Bourdieu, 1998).

Very similar to the private schools researched above, international schools are profoundly distinct as they offer social and cultural reproduction for the globalising and cosmopolitan privileged. They are almost entirely private and autonomous, offering significant symbolic capital in terms of high value curricula such as the IB, IGCSE, Advanced Placement, International Primary Curriculum, and more (Hayden, 2006; Hayden & Thompson, 2008). In this way, they appear to represent high value to the globalising advantaged class (Sin, 2013)(Gardner-McTaggart, 2018a).

Development of International Schools

Arguably, the first international school was founded in Hounslow, England in 1867, by Richard Cobden (politician), Thomas Huxley (biologist) and Charles Dickens (writer) (Walker, 2012). Concurrent to this school was the formation of two other international schools, one in Germany (Bad Godesburg) and one in France (Chatou). The original idea was for students to spend time in each one, thereby fostering knowledge and trade. Cambridge (2012) draws parallels with the Dickensian approach to education and the IB, in arguing that perhaps this goal of an international curricula community is now realisable in the international schools offering the International Baccalaureate, an approach that would appear to be in line with an ideology of ‘cosmopolitanism’ (Matthews & Sidhu, 2005).

Such cosmopolitanism appears to have been replaced by the establishment in 1924 of the International School of Geneva (‘Ecolint’) (Ecole Internationale de Genéve, 2017). Here, intercultural awareness was deemed to be ‘not caught but taught’ and followed the model of the League of Nations. However, with the demise of the League of Nations, the international school seems to have retained an outlook in line with conceptions of peace and equity; what may now be termed ‘Global Citizenship Education’ (GCE). Hill (2006) recounts the development of international schools, from the UNESCO-supported Conference of Internationally Minded Schools, to the later International Schools Association. It is this connection which perhaps best explains that a common feature of most international schools is the inclusion of equity in its mission and values, despite the obvious market place and distinction that may be said to go with private and autonomous education. A notable feature of this historical review is how a cosmopolitan outlook was espoused in the Dickensian 19^th Century, while a Global Citizenship outlook became relevant in the 1930’s on the back of the great depression, as a reaction to Fascism. Now, in an era of unrivalled elitism and inequity (Gardner-McTaggart, 2016), leadership research shows how GCE may serve as a cloak for a banal cosmopolitanism (Gardner-McTaggart, 2018d; Gardner-McTaggart, Forthcoming).

There is currently an unparalleled surge in international schooling – most rapidly in the Asia Pacific region and the developing world. In 2009, Brummitt identified 5,374 English medium international schools; predicting 11,000 by 2020. In 2011, Richard Bates put the number of international schools worldwide at over 5,000, citing most rapid growth in Asia (China), Europe and Africa, and pointing out the existence of an international schools industry (Bates, 2011, p. 1). Morrison (2016) suggested the existence of 8,257 international schools (a 40% increase between 2011 and 2016), with more than four million students educated therein. Different curricula exist, ranging from nationally-based systems, often with an international dimension, and non-national curricula. One international research body, ISC Research (ISCR), surmises that:

The demand for international education is increasing dramatically in many parts of the world, creating a growth market for organisations involved in educational goods and services. International schools cater for the richest 5% of the non-English speaking world. A typical international school teaches wholly or partly in English, [and] is independent …

adding that:

Roughly 20% of students in international schools are from expatriate families but the biggest group, and the most rapidly expanding, comes from the wealthy local population. The demand for English-medium schools (British, American, international and bilingual) is increasing dramatically in many parts of the world (ISC Research, 2013)

As if to confirm Bourdieu’s work in the international field, the literature on international schools shows quite clearly that their success depends largely on their ability to confer credentials that facilitate entry to the elite universities of developed countries. This instrumental orientation may not be the sum of international schools’ endeavours, and is unpacked in the following two sections.

Ideologically Internationalist and/or Globalist

Most literature on international schools looks at how these organisations can be placed on a matrix or spectrum. This is important as such schools are as varied and diverse as the demographic they serve, the host countries they inhabit, or the curricula they offer:

While one cannot state with any certainty exactly how many schools exist, or what precisely their characteristics might be, what can be asserted with confidence is that the body of institutions which would describe themselves as international schools is extremely diverse.

(Hayden & Thompson, 2000, p. 48)

It appears that education in an international schools context exists on a three-dimensional spectrum with issues of equity, distinction and market place. Almost all international schools may view distinction (Bourdieu, 1984) to be of primary importance in their outlook, i.e. the implicit message to parents is ‘Choose the international school to facilitate worldliness and sophistication in your children – be a part of the global luxury leadership.’ This concept of luxury leadership is developed by Gunter, Courtney, McGinity and Hall (2018), where the very concept of leadership is commodified as an aspect of the luxury market. Such commodification lies at the heart of the distinction implicit in the nature of the international schools experience.

The Role of the International School

The international school may exist in a tension between market place and equity. This may have historical roots represented by orientations towards both cosmopolitanism and GCE, yet it also reflects a system at odds with itself. Many wealthier families may seek a school which engages in global issues of equity and responsibility. Yet it is also clear that the instrumental pull of ‘qualification capital’ and cultural appropriation are of particular value to others who hail from less developed and connected areas of the globe. The rapid growth among wealthy local populations (particularly in the Global South) (Gardner-McTaggart, 2016) further illustrates that it is an increasingly non-Western market that avails itself of international education. Bourdieu’s (1998) concept of cultural replication outlined by Piketty (2000) sees expanding and elevating intergenerational mobility and persistent inequality in such systems. However, the concept of ‘replication’ is inaccurate for a newly globalising and upwardly mobile market, as it is not a replication of subject, but a replication of external object. In the international schools sector, it may be more accurate to speak of cultural laundering: a process, post-colonial in nature, that reacts to market demand on a global scale. Such market demand for Western and English ways of being and thinking is the privately institutionalised ‘imperial gaze’ (Kaplan, 1997), a concept drawn from feminist studies, where the female reacts in ways that she feels she must under the ‘male gaze’. Pennycook (2006) refers to ‘global Englishes’ in how English language is used in transcultural flows, and how pervasive it is in being altered, redeveloped, reinterpreted and reclaimed. Pennycook’s sociolinguistic insight lends credence to a broader and more critical view, where such English is the currency of globalisation, accompanying a more insidious trend towards ways of being, doing and even thinking, which has been described as ‘Epistemic Racism’ (Grosfoguel, 2008). In this context, clearly rooted in ‘Englishness’, ‘Westernness’, and even ‘Whiteness’ (Gardner-McTaggart, Forthcoming), international schools offer social, but mainly cultural, advantage. Indeed, embedded in this Anglo/international setting, students assimilate the minutiae of ‘Habitus’ (ways of being, dressing, taste) and ‘Hexis’ (language, body language, posture, accent) which cannot otherwise be learned (Bourdieu, 1984). Indeed, much in the way that culturally (legally) unacceptable economic capital (money) may be laundered and thereby bypass societal gatekeepers, so too can the distinction of the international school be seen to operate a process of cultural laundering, providing powerful cultural, social and symbolic capital, such as high-value internationally transferable qualifications, entry to ivy league universities, ‘Englishness’, and a globally active network. The resulting globalising class may be best understood from a critical perspective as an ‘overseer class’: managers and bureaucrats able to oversee global expansion and exploitation for global elites (Gardner-McTaggart, Forthcoming).

This has wider implications for leadership and conceptions of global mindedness, especially given the debate surrounding the gravitational pull of the Anglo-European outlook in this debate. Gardner-McTaggart (2018c) finds senior leaders in this context share rich ‘English’ cultural capital, and market this feature as successful directors of international schools. Such culturally distinct leadership is telling in schools which are becoming the distinctive vessels for privileged internationalism and cultural replication/laundering. However, this begs the question as to whether international schools are indeed capable of a truly equitable and balanced approach, or whether they are simply a further form of cultural and epistemic colonisation, driven by ‘the West’. Pearce (2013, pp. x13-x14) remarks on a narcissistic element of international schools, in that they are self-consciously concerned with themselves and what they are. Pearce’s argument attributes this to their being ‘exceptional’, as they are outsiders having been founded as alternatives to state schooling, or as private schools, or out of idealism. Pearce refers to two ‘tensions’ in international education: the first is the International Baccalaureate and its recent adoption by national systems with a demand for it to meet new and potentially disparate needs. The second ‘subtler tension’ (Pearce, 2013, p. x14) is Cambridge and Thompson’s (2004) Internationalist and Globalist – or the equitable and the marketplace – the recurring theme of the international school’s identity. Cambridge and Thompson provide helpful insight into how the international school serves both agendas; on the one side the diplomatic and equitable ‘internationalist’ agenda, and on the other the more rigid, market oriented, and instrumental globalist agenda. Hayden and Thompson (1995) point out that not all international schools offer international views of the world, just as there are national schools that offer international views of the world; perhaps even one shared yet internationalised identity, as proposed by Gallagher (2008). Central to this school view is the treatment of global citizenship education. International schools may be very good places to promote a concept of GCE, and if they are to be part of the ‘globalised classes’ mode of social reproduction, then they are ideally suited to promote values and epistemologies in line with a modern and globally equitable GCE. If they were to achieve this in the ‘global capitalist class’, there may yet be a chance for citizenry to develop a sense of identity that is based around equity and intercultural understanding.

International schooling has taken various approaches. Leach (1969) divides international schools into three categories of internationalism: unilateral (e.g. British and American schools), bilateral (e.g. student/teacher exchange agreements) and multilateral (e.g. UN schools). More recently, Wylie (2011) embarked on an empirical case study of three international schools, in which he regards this division more critically, acknowledging the historical agency of colonisation and imperialism towards globalisation:

International schools exist in a variety of contexts. International schools are located in developing countries, developed countries with a colonial history, or colonial countries, and can be examined from a colonial or postcolonial perspective. As a result of globalisation in the developing and developed worlds, a new form of imperialism has emerged focused on global economy ideologies. (Wylie, 2011, p. 36)

Every international school is likely to exist somewhere within the above categories. Fail draws on the literature to point out the differences between international schools:

There are [different] … types of school ranging from their curriculum (national or international), their purpose and reason for being (ideological or market driven), their student populations (multinational or predominantly one nationality), their faculty (multinational or not), their history (national schools overseas). (Fail, 2011, p. 101)

Hayden & Thompson’s (1998) research bears out the view that international schools are a varied yet interestingly similar grouping of institutional bodies. The job of leadership in this field is clearly challenging. A senior international schools’ recruiter describes the process of finding an international school Head as ‘looking for God on a good day’ (Roberts & Mancuso, 2014, p. 103), stressing the significant power focused in one position, prompting a discussion of leadership models that empower and distribute over models that direct and transact, as explored below. However, despite the clear demand, little is known about this oblique phenomenon.

Leadership in International Schools

Leadership in this review of research literature refers predominantly to senior administrators in international schools: principals, heads, and directors. However, there is also some reference to curriculum coordinators and middle managers in studies with a broader sample. Leadership in international schools may be interpreted in a different way from national and state school forms of school leadership. Blandford & Shaw (2001a) say that a description of international schools is ‘impossible’, given the enormous variation in their make-up. They also point to a paucity of documentary evidence relating to international schools leadership, which Hayden (2006, p. 117) terms a dearth of material. In a conceptual piece, Keller (2014) explores the often paradoxical nature of international schools, caught as they are between forces in opposition to each other.

International schools – being a disparate and loosely associated grouping – may witness any and all of the models of educational leadership outlined in the relevant literature, including transactional, moral, distributed, transformational, or contingent (Gunter, 2001; Bush, 2011). Political models of leadership (such as transactional leadership) involve a leader employing a directive style, and moving from transaction to transaction, ‘getting the job done’, with little or no overt or planned intention of empowerment, motivation, or inspiration. They operate by reward and punishment. Whilst helpful for some, due to a degree of predictability, Bush criticises such models for their inherent tendency to encourage political groupings, where teachers seek to gain influence to achieve rewards, and avoid punishments. Collegial models on the other hand (distributed, participative, transformational) aim to empower subordinates by increasing involvement, and intrinsic motivation. These models are normative, and can be difficult to achieve due to the high degree of involvement required. Contingent models employ varying styles according to the situation, which whilst helpful, leave the leader without an overarching norm by which to navigate leadership practice (Bush, 2011). Whilst effective, these cannot actually be described as theoretical models, as they lack ontological depth, and are by their nature a collection of styles, rather than an orientation.

Alternatively, there may be a discernible trend among international schools; this review suggests that transition is the underlying theme of educational leadership in this context. There is an orientation towards collegial models of management, and distributed leadership models: albeit as a normative trend, with transformational approaches often valued by school principals. It seems that categorisation of the management of international schools is not easy (Blandford & Shaw, 2001a). Whilst educational leadership is well established as a field, there is limited research on leadership in the international schools’ context (Blandford & Shaw, 2001b; Hayden, 2006; Lee, Hallinger & Walker, 2012). A primary starting point in this under-researched area has been to view the challenges facing educational administrators as largely cultural (Hayden, 2006, pp. 96-97). A general approach of global mindedness is likely to be a prerequisite for educational leaders in this context. As a tool against inequity, Van Vooren & Lindsey (2012) find that, by aligning frameworks of international mindedness and cultural proficiency, students of all origins can increase global awareness and engagement. Empirical support for this perspective is found in a quantitative study of leadership in primary schools offering international educational programmes. Hersey (2012) found positive connections between global mindedness and the concept of international mindedness as embodied by the IB Learner Profile, a set of ten attributes intended to be developed by students of all the IB programmes. It appears that a valuable tool against inequity may lie in the day to day practice and modelling of global mindedness, as represented in the IB Learner Profile.

Leadership norms

An interpretivist study (Hunter Lewis, 2015) of educational leaders in a Chinese international school focused on intercultural sensitivity and emotional intelligence in leaders as a means of promoting global citizenship education. This study considered leadership models, including distributed, transactional and transformational (Bush, 2011), concluding that a form of distributed leadership is recommended in pursuing empathetic methods of leadership with the ultimate goal of educating the global citizen. The author’s blog asks: “Transformational educational leadership engages and motivates educators … As we equip socially responsible global citizens to care for the earth and its inhabitants, are we waiting for that transformational leadership to inspire us from above?” (Hunter Lewis, 2013, p. 1). The author draws upon two works relating to leadership and five works on transformational leadership: most on its relationship with emotional intelligence. Distributed leadership, however, is taken as the preferred model in the international school context, as noted by Bush (2013), and as recommended specifically for autonomous schools by Schleicher (2012). This is because senior leaders need to engage in collaboration with other schools and the local community, with the latter often disconnected from international schools (Bunnell, 2005). Distributed leadership (and empowerment models in general) allows deputies and middle managers to take up some of the load placed on the overarching education leader:

Overall, the study suggests that leaders’ collaboration with other schools and with the local community can help to improve problem-solving through intensified processes of interaction, communication and collective learning. It can also help to develop leadership capacity and address succession and stability issues by increasing the density of and opportunities for local leadership in the school and at the local level.

(Schleicher, 2012, p. 20)

Emphasis here is on the second sentence above, as distributed leadership can develop leadership capacity and address the issues of transience, so damaging for many international schools: a worthy rallying call for empowerment models of leadership in this context.

Roberts & Mancuso (2014) led a mixed methods study into leadership styles, as expressed through recruiting. By examining advertisements for the position of principal or director, they found a need for ‘inspirational motivators’ and leaders who expressed ‘individualised consideration’. They found that transformational leadership required the most detailed analysis. This is a significant finding, as some commentators view distributed leadership as the preferred IB norm (Cartlidge, 2014), yet school advertising appears oriented towards the transformational and inspirational.

Rapid growth of (initially very small start-up) international schools appeared to be a common element facing international schools. This was gauged at an average increase of 24 students per year in Bunnell’s random sample survey of 300 European Council of International Schools (ECIS) schools. He also found that severe pressures may emerge for administrators in the form of recruitment need and overall administrative workload (Bunnell, 2006). Leggate & Thompson (1997) conducted a survey of 70 international school administrators responsible for planning, with 40 respondents, and found that long-term planning was valued by school heads and administrators, as was staff development. The study also found that the direction to be taken in terms of school goals and vision should not necessarily come from the head, as 70% believed that a senior management team should be responsible for this. These data are pertinent as they contradict transformational models of leadership, which report significant effects on organisational conditions (with only moderate effects on student engagement) (Leithwood & Janzi, 2000), or Copland’s (2001) belief that school leadership is for the ‘heroic leader’ or the board. Caffyn’s (2010) case study of two schools drew on rich interview data, and found that location (a combination of fragmented building structure) and expatriate–local dialogue were the sources of as much tension as synergy. The study found that poor planning of buildings, and local employment cultural conversations, were largely ignored by the administration. This resulted in substantial challenges; a climate of enclaves, isolation, micropolitics and fragmentation (Caffyn, 2010). Caffyn’s work is important in highlighting the very different social ramifications inherent in an international school, and underscores the importance of analysis through sociological theory:

International schools and their communities can become isolated from their immediate locality and from their homelands. This can, in turn, intensify relationships due to limited social possibilities and both psychological and linguistic isolation. [This] kind of environment produces a psychic prison, which increases distance, frustration and emotional tension. There are different levels of interaction, diverse groups and subcultures, made up of permanence and transience. [We should recognise] the power distance and politics caused by these emotional plays between permanent and transient groups in an international expatriate community. The boundaries of these groups can isolate them from outside and fragment them from within. (p. 74)

These tensions may serve to explain the short tenure of leaders, as explored below under Transience. Bunnell (2006, p. 54), drawing on Council of International Schools (CIS) data relating to 179 accredited schools, plus material from individual school websites, concluded that ‘international schools seem amazingly good at adapting and growing within the confines of their geographical setting.’

Transience

The theme of transience is central to understanding leadership in the international schools context, and is visible in Mancuso et al’s (2010) survey of international school leaders and teachers, with responses from 22 school heads and 248 teachers in Near East South Asian schools. The survey showed that, as well as factors such as age and satisfaction with salary, a supportive head was considered to be the most important factor in teacher retention. This finding corroborates a study on international school teacher careers conducted at Copenhagen International School (Bunnell, 2005). Mancuso et al (2010) found that ‘supportive’ leadership was directly linked with transformational and distributed forms of school leadership, both types falling into the ‘collegial’ model. Bush (2011) debates the pros and cons of these types of leadership, and draws upon Leithwood and Jantzi’s argument that:

Transformational leadership is characterised by commitments and capacities of school leadership. Higher levels of personal commitment to organisational goals and greater capacities for accomplishing those goals are assumed to result in extra effort and greater productivity.

(Leithwood & Jantzi, 2006, p. 9)

Bush (2011) goes on to cite an argument that transformational leadership is essential for autonomous schools (Caldwell & Spinks, 1992), in which he is supported by Schleicher (2012). In linking several studies, Bush surmises that transformational leadership may affect classroom practices but not student achievement. He adds that this leadership style might be more readily accepted by the leader than the led, noting that transformational leadership may have the potential to become despotic due to strong heroic features. Gardner-McTaggart (2018b) finds evidence that much transformational leadership in this context is merely charismatic transaction leadership ‘sold’ as transformational, providing an explanation for such negativity towards the model. However, transformational leadership appears to be particularly apt for international schools due to the inherent nexus of change and permanence in international schools. In such an environment, empowerment (central to this model) may be said to foster permanence and consistency. After all, it places faith and energy in the teacher. This is most apparent in the four I’s of transformational leadership: idealised influence, inspirational motivation, individualised consideration, and intellectual stimulation (Avolio, Waldman, & Yammarino, 1991). Distributed leadership is argued by Bush (2011, p. 88) to have ‘become the normatively preferred model in the twenty-first century, replacing collegiality as the favoured approach.’ The evidence presented by Bush illuminates distributed leadership as having recently become particularly influential in educational leadership, being the subject of much study, fundamentally collegial, and (more critically) a potential answer to the problems of overworked heads and principals.

The teaching profession struggles to retain staff with a high turnover (Blandford & Shaw, 2001; Darling-Hammond, 2001; Ingersoll, 2002; O’Malley, 2004; Bunnell, 2005). Further, the data reviewed above indicate that transience affects both teachers and educational leaders more heavily in the international context than in the national context, confirming Hayden & Thompson’s study (1998b) on teacher perceptions in international schools, where 40% of teachers had served in at least 5 previous schools. High turnover has been identified by some as a unique characteristic of international schools (Blandford & Shaw, 2001b) and in researching middle management at an international school, Javadi (2014, p. 16) draws upon Hardman (2001, p. 109), underlining that there is a great need to improve ‘recruitment and retention of quality overseas teachers’. Bunnell (2005) uses Hardman’s research data to illustrate how only 11% of teachers had worked at one school and 89% at two or more. Javadi (2014) cites Glover, Gleeson, Gough & Johnson (1998) and connects ‘itchy feet’ (a desire to leave the school for another after a relatively short period of time) and high staff turnover with serious pedagogical disruption. International schools embody a complex web of capital and status for teachers, which is mostly contingent upon location, reputation, and remuneration package. This is reminiscent of Abell’s (1975) Bargaining Zones, where movement and control are open to negotiation (Caffyn, 2013, p. 211) where ‘A border reflects issues of power, ritual classification identity and control.’ The dynamics of teacher movement are correspondingly complex and agile.

Javadi considers the most serious challenge in high turnover to be principal turnover, emphasising the critical nature of longevity in principalship in both national and international schools. Similarly, Blandford & Shaw (2001a, p. 28) see the principal in an international school as being in a more precarious position than in most national schools and offer the strong view that ‘being fired is a frequent occurrence.’ This is supported by Stout’s (2005) findings, which cite high levels of parental board membership as an issue. Indeed, though now somewhat dated, Littleford (1999) put heads’ firings at 80%. Blandford & Shaw consider this situation as a ‘disease’ and diagnose that schools can be ‘now in a self-perpetuating cycle of short-termism, lurching from one crisis to the next’ (p.35). Several studies (Hayden & Thompson, 1998b; Blandford & Shaw, 2001; Hardman, 2001; Bunnell, 2006; Caffyn, 2010; Mancuso et al, 2010) suggest that international school teachers are ready and willing to ‘move on’ to another school, making concessions in salary, package and location, due to perceived challenges with the school administration.

As outlined in discussion on globalism in the introduction above, the globalised context in which international schools exist is one of options, where distance has been minimised in favour of consumer choice and fiscal flexibility. In the same way that capital is free to be invested wherever it can bring the most profit, so are (first world) international workers able to move to where profit (whether in capital or lifestyle) can be maximised. It may be that international school teachers are particularly globalised and apt to choose schools, much in the way a consumer may chose a product. This is a group of professionals who consider travel and relocation a part (perhaps even a ‘perk’) of the job (Murakami-Ramalho, 2005). One way this may manifest as a leadership issue is seen in teacher retention. Blandford & Shaw (2001a) mention teacher and student turnover as being one of the main differences between a national and international school, and note that it can have a destabilising affect when turnover is high. International school teachers can lead a varied life, and with contracts lasting between one and three years (with two years being typical), teacher retention is often an issue for schools that wish to promote a healthy sense of continuity and stability in a fluid and international setting.

Murakami-Ramalho (2005), in an empirical study of American international schools, found that due to the constraints of human capital and time, forming stable spaces and enduring traditions of excellence were among the biggest challenges that face leaders of international schools. A stable environment is particularly important in a school; it seems this is a major challenge facing an international school leader. Odland and Ruzicka’s (2009) survey of 221 international school teachers showed that administrative leadership, compensation and personal circumstances (in that order) are the causal factors for expatriate teacher turnover in international schools. Anderson’s (2010) ethnographic case study research on five teachers in international schools bears out the high importance of leadership, finding that the primary factor in teacher retention is international school teachers’ very strong feelings about how they are treated by their administrators and the likelihood that they will leave a school where they do not feel trusted to do their job. In a theoretical piece, Robinson highlights how leader-directed change can be detrimental for educational delivery. For example if leaders drive change pursuing a persuasive process rather than a dialogical process, the inevitable result is either a lack of teacher-led initiative, or resistance to the change (Robinson, 2017). The strong emphasis here by teachers on treatment by administrators would appear to lend credence to Robinson’s view. Indeed, the nexus between transience and permanence emerges as the primary lenses through which to view school leadership in this international context.

Dualities

The issue of teacher turnover also applies to leaders. Keller (2014) approaches this by pointing out that the challenges faced by senior international school leaders are significant. Keller notes the paucity of literature dealing with the dualities in international schools, with the exception of Cambridge and Thompson (2004), and Caffyn (2010), which may be indicative of a lack of critical rigour in this educational sector. These dualities appear as tensions between normative and rigid agendas in this globalised school sector and have already been the subject of much discussion (Cambridge, 2003; Sylvester, 2005; Bates, 2011; Fail, 2011; Wylie, 2011; Gardner-McTaggart, 2016). Keller (an international school principal) highlights how these tensions (ISR, 2013) can lead to challenges that ‘if not met well, may lead to a ‘dark’ or ‘destructive’ form of leadership contributing to the leader’s failure and removal.’ (Keller, 2014, p. 1). The International Schools Review (a forum for teachers to comment on international schools worldwide) may not be a reliable source for such data gathering, yet the opinions and attitudes expressed therein do bear considerable weight in teacher recruitment (TES online, 2016). Keller connects this with generic leadership literature (Burke, 2006; Einarsen, Aasland, & Skogstad, 2007) to arrive at dark or destructive forms of leadership in international schools. In order to mitigate this perceived trend, Keller proposes a framework for precisely this leadership context, providing yet more evidence of the need for empirical work in the area of international school leadership, as proposed in this study.

Ambiguity and the board

A second major issue facing international school leaders to emerge from this review is the ambiguous relationship with the board of governors. The average tenure of an English state school head in 2004 was gauged at nine or ten years (Halpin & Owen, 2004). Now somewhat dated, older longitudinal research involving 83 international schools showed that, on average, school heads stayed in one position for a mere 2.4 years. Reasons given for this brief sojourn were primarily their relationship with the board of governors, compensation, and retirement (Hawley, 1994; 1995). More recently, Benson’s (2011) research, which probed 83 international school heads, suggests that a chief administrator’s average tenure is 3.7 years at such a school. Although career changes were cited as being important, it was also regular changes in board structure, and the board’s micro-management, that most heads cited as reasons for leaving. Blandford & Shaw (2001a) also cite an over-involvement of board members, coupled with irregular attendance at board meetings and lack of continuity, as major reasons for heads leaving international schools. Bunnell’s (2005) empirical work on international school board structure finds little commonality between the head and the board. Bunnell draws upon Littleford (1999), who finds that international school heads spend an average of 40% of their time on board matters. Further, Bunnell finds that international school boards are different from each other, and that there is no generic model, which underscores the individuality inherent in each international school. Such variation can only add to the tensions of transition between schools, for the educational leader and, as a result, for the school itself. This links to the Council of International Schools’ (2005) survey of 119 international schools which highlighted the many different names and terms used to describe the body which is formally responsible for governance. Bunnell concludes that ‘it is clearly high time that the scholarly community viewed leadership in international schools as a diffuse and distributed phenomenon.’ (Bunnell, 2005, p. 62). Gardner-McTaggart (2018a, b, c, d) provides research findings that challenge this assertion, finding the pool of senior leaders to be culturally and epistemically monotone; White, inner circle English and often Christian; mostly transactional with a veneer of empowerment discourse.

Consistency

Other factors affecting turnover include the mixed culture of staff and students and the differing perceptions of parents (Blandford & Shaw, 2001a). These factors may not be quite as different in international schools as in national schools as Blandford & Shaw state, given the very cosmopolitan nature of schools in the urban areas of most developed countries. Hayden and Thompson (2000) state that the continual change in staff, students, parents and board members produces an effect of constantly redefining the school, and that the board, in particular, staffed as it often is with parents, is not always productive as it levies influence, guides planning and oversees staffing. A recent conceptual piece (James & Fertig, 2016) presents a helpful overview of leadership in this context, describing international schools as Complex Evolving Loosely Linked Systems (CELLS). They note how diverse schools and leaders are; that international schools are more complex than national schools, and that leadership faces challenges in ‘legitimisation’ of their school in the international context. The collective focus of this literature review sheds light on systems that are ‘complex’, ‘evolving’ and ‘loosely-linked’. It identifies a lack of consistency as the underlying challenge facing the international school and its leadership. Whilst consistency is accurately identified as an issue, the CELLS model offers a high altitude view which is predominantly conceptual, and largely without a nuanced exploration of the phenomenon. Gardner-McTaggart (2018a) conducted research into senior leadership with the researcher being embedded in the field for five years. This study finds that much Complexity is due to cyclic ‘organisational amnesia’ engendered by powerful (individualistic) heads, following in quick succession; each reinventing the school in line with their own societal values. Equally, much Evolution is a product of the same process. Indeed, nurture and development of school assets must bow to change initiatives resulting from the neo-liberal market ideology by which leaders in this context abide. Being Loosely Linked may certainly be associated with distance, yet in international school ‘hotspots’ (such as Singapore, Geneva, Beijing) competition for the market is rife, adding to and drawing on the ‘narcissistic’ element (Pearce, 2013, pp. x13-x14) of these schools. Systems highlights how school administration borrows from the field of business in seeking models of educational leadership that ape business practices and foreground competition and exploitation. Such ‘colonised business practice’ (Gunter, 2013) is inherent in the organisation of international schools: a system designed to exploit a particular market in a systematic manner.

Transient leadership

The transient board remains an issue in this context. Regular changes in board structure are most frequently due to globally mobile stakeholders who are contracted for short periods, and then move on. Continuity of the kind more common in national school settings is therefore more difficult to achieve. This can be seen as symptomatic of the globalised market place, with obvious, and seemingly negative, implications for educational leadership. A perceived micro-managing board can be instrumental in heads’ decisions to leave. Benson’s (2011) data relating to a micro-managing board suggest that chief administrators may not feel they have the freedom to pursue their own goals and strategy without interference. This may imply a lack of professionalism on the part of international school boards, but may also underpin the apparent link to transformational leadership (as foregrounded in Benson (2011)) in a more negative way. Transformational leadership in its political incarnation, as Bush (2011, pp. 85-86) highlights, has the potential to become despotic, raising serious moral qualms for its appropriateness in democratic organisations, especially when used as a cloak for imposing leaders’ values. A proactive board may not fit well with a politically transformational leader.

Roberts and Mancuso’s (2014) research on job descriptors in recruitment of senior IB administrators found that ‘the most frequently sought-after leadership ‘types’ were managerial, instructional, and collaborative/distributive. Well below the frequency of these was child-centred leadership.’ (Roberts & Mancuso, 2014, p. 103). They clearly outline how managerial and instructional leadership are made more difficult by the demands made of the leader, and conclude from their statistical analysis that the attributes sought mostly aligned with transformational leadership:

The data also indicated that there was worldwide consistency in what international schools were looking for in their new leaders, and that the need for managerial, instructional, and collaborative/distributive leaders has been stable over time. However, the characteristics associated with transformational leadership have become increasingly more important over the past 7 years (2014, p. 103).

Overall, it emerges that the international school environment is characterised by transition, with change being the only constant. Boards in different schools engender different conditions for new heads. Additionally, the relatively short tenure of heads appears to guarantee change. Gardner-McTaggart (2018a) finds that the distinction which defines international schools seeks out individual leader narratives; culturally powerful individuals who transform schools to fall in line with their own societal values. Transformational individuals, coupled with short tenures, appears to readily explain the endemic transition affecting international schools.

Overview

The pressures of the globalising neo-liberal marketplace affect leadership in ways that promote individualism and pressurise leaders to reify their position. This commodification produces a ‘product of self’, quite understandably fostering a culture of debilitating school change. In serving a bottom line, through lofty ideals such as the IB mission statement and IB Learner Profile, they exist in a state of duality. For employees, this may mean empowerment on the surface, yet rigidity in reality. This review of research literature shows that challenges facing the international school leader focus around transition and change; the nexus of transience and permanence. Firstly, a good deal of the research in international schools explores the high turnover of staff, and the light-footed teacher (the teacher willing to move on easily). These are professionals who are far more open to travel, short-term contracts and movement than their colleagues in national school settings. However, such teachers actively seek a supportive leader, and will move schools if they do not have one. This suggests that teachers understand the value of permanence and consistency, and the need for empowerment models of leadership in this shifting context. It also supports evidence (Gardner-McTaggart, 2018a) of a paucity of empowerment in leadership. Secondly, there is some research that investigates boards and their relationships to school leaders, interfering and intermittent in nature. Fundamentally, the educational leader in international schools is at the nexus of the ever-changing mission and strategic objectives of a school, which most recent empirical data (Gardner-McTaggart, 2018a) suggests is due to the transitional nature of schools, driven by the director’s moral leadership enacted though transactions. This cultural aspect is based upon Anglo (Christian) societal values; cloaked in collegiality, enacted in transaction (Gardner-McTaggart, 2018a). Leaders affect the school by generating change due to a transactional approach. This change is valued for its presumed efficacy in an environment of short termism; it helps to ‘get things done’. However, such change is driven by individuals rather than by the overarching ethos, and as a result it dismantles permanence, disempowers teachers, and promotes a culture of structural amnesia. Schools exist in a tension between the marketplace and the equitable. This research suggests that applying Bourdieu’s (1984) concept of ‘La Distinction’ as a lens though which to view international schools is central to understanding how these private institutions generate their identity in a global context.

The main takeaway for leaders is that transformational, and other empowerment models of leadership, are in demand due to their effectiveness in nurturing teachers and students. However, for the senior leader aspirant they also sell well, and any omission of competence in empowering leadership would be unwise in a job interview. Listening to teachers, and collaborating with them to find solutions, is key in nurturing and providing permanence. Transience is a real, debilitating problem for international schools. For a leader in this educational context, alignment with organisational values, and empowerment for permanence may be more apt than anywhere else in education. It is a fundamental ontological issue: what is leadership and what is it for? With fickle boards, short tenure, and deregulated competition, how can a leader survive this turgid sea unless by political manoeuvring and their own commodified capital as culturally inner circle English? As long as the market decides, it will be the attributes of success and competition that drive leaders, where organisational values are not the leadership end, but rather the means.

Footnotes

Funding

This research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.

Author biography

Alexander Gardner-McTaggart is Senior Lecturer in leadership at The Royal Military Academy Sandhurst (RMAS), in the academic department of Communication and Applied Behavioural Psychology. Prior to this, he worked in international education as a teacher and middle manager for 21 years, mostly in Austria, Abu Dhabi and Azerbaijan.

References

Anderson

(2010) The experiences of expatriate teachers in international schools: Five ethnographic case studies. San Diego: Univeristy of San Diego.

Bates

(2011) Introduction. In Bates

(ed), Schooling internationally: Globalisation, Internationalisation and the Future for International Schools. Abingdon: Routledge.

Benson

(2011) An investigation of chief administrator turnover in international schools. Journal of Research in International Education, 10(1), 87–103.

Blandford

Shaw

(2001a) (eds) Managing International Schools. London: Routledge.

Blandford

Shaw

(2001b) The nature of international school leadership, in Blandford

Shaw

(eds) Managing International Schools. London: Routledge

Bourdieu

(1984) Distinction: A Social Critique of the Judgement of Taste. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Bourdieu

(1998) The State Nobility: Elite Schools in the Field of Power. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

Bunnell

(2005) An insight into the board structures of international schools. International Schools Journal.

Bunnell

(2005) Career metaphor and the international school teacher. International Schools Journal, XXIV(2), 68–74.

10.

Bunnell

(2005) Perspectives on international schools and the nature and extent of local community contact. Journal of Research in International Education, 4(1), 43–63.

11.

Bunnell

(2006) An insight into the low founding base of many international schools. International Schools Journal, XXV(2), 35–45.

12.

Bunnell

(2006) An insight into the site movement of CIS accredited international schools, International Schools Journal, XXVI(1), 50–58.

13.

Burke

(2006) Why leaders fail: Exploring the darkside. International Journal of Manpower, 27(1), 91–100.

14.

Bush

(2011) Theories of Educational Leadership and Management. Fourth edition. London: SAGE

15.

Bush

(2013) Distributed Leadership: The Model of Choice in the 21st Century. Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 41(5), 543–544.

16.

Caffyn

(2010) We Are in Transylvania, and Transylvania is Not England: Location as a Significant Factor in International School Micropolitics. Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 38, 321.

17.

Caffyn

(2013) Boundaries and Boundary Management in International Schools: Psychodynamics and Organisational Politics. In Pearce

(ed), International Education and Schools; Moving Beyond the First 40 years (pp. 205–221) London: Bloomsbury Academic.

18.

Caldwell

Spinks

(1992) Leading the self managing school. London: Falmer Press.

19.

Cambridge

(2003) Identifying the globalist and internationalist missions of international schools. International Schools Journal, 22(2), 54–58.

20.

Cambridge

(2012) Pedagogic discourse: a language for the description and analysis of international curriculum implementation. International Schools Journal, 31(2), 45–53.

21.

Cambridge

Thompson

(2004) Internationalism and globalization as contexts for international education. Compare, 34(2)

22.

Cartlidge

(2014) Implementing IB through a distributive leadership model. IB conference of the Americas. Washington: International Baccalaureate.

23.

Copland

(2001) The myth of the superprincipal. Phi Delta Kappan, 82(7), 528–533.

24.

Council of International Schools (2005) The school board: is there a perfect model? CIS governance newsletter, 3(1), 1–3.

25.

Ecole Internationale de Genéve (2017) Overview. Retrieved March 16, 2017, from https://www.ecolint.ch/overview/our-history

26.

Einarsen

Aasland

Skogstad

(2007) Destructive leadership behavior: A definition and conceptual model. The Leadership Quarterly, 18(3), 207–216.

27.

Fail

(2011) Teaching and learning in international schools; a consideration of the stakeholders and their expectations. In Bates

(ed) Schooling Internationally: Globalisation, Internationalisation and the Future for International Schools, London: Routledge.

28.

Gallagher

(2008) Equal rights to the curriculum: many languages, one message. Bristol: Multilingual Matters

29.

Gardner-McTaggart

(2016) International elite, or global citizens? Equity, Distinction and Power; the International Baccalaureate and the rise of the South. Globalisation Societies and Education, 14(1), 1–29.

30.

Gardner-McTaggart

(2018a) The International Baccalaureate and globalisation: implications for educational leadership. Nottingham: University of Nottingham.

31.

Gardner-McTaggart

(2018b) Leadership of International Schools and the International Baccalaureate Learner Profile, in Bush

(ed) Educational Management, Leadership and Administration.

32.

Gardner-McTaggart

(2018c) Birds of a Feather: Senior International Baccalaureate International Schools Leadership in Service. Journal of Research in International Education.

33.

Gardner-McTaggart

(2018d) The Promise of Advantage: Englishness in IB International Schools, Perspectives: Policy and Practice in Higher Education, https://doi.org/10.1080/13603108.2018.1456491

34.

Gardner-McTaggart

(Forthcoming) International capital, international schools’ leadership and Christianity. Globalisation, Societies and Education.

35.

Glover

Gleeson

Gough

Johnson

(1998) The meaning of management: the development needs of middle managers in secondary schools. Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 26(3), 279 – 292.

36.

Grosfoguel

(2008) Transmodernity, border thinking, and global coloniality: decolonizing political economy and postcolonial studies. Retrieved March 30, 2013, from http://www.eurozine.com/articles/2008–07–04-grosfoguel-en.html

37.

Gunter

(2001) Leaders and Leadership in Education. London: SAGE.

38.

Gunter

(2013) Knowledge production and theory development: the case of educational administration. Political Studies Association Conference, Cardiff.

39.

Gunter

H.M.

Courtney

S.J.

McGinity

Hall

. (2018) School principals in neoliberal times: a case of luxury leadership? In: Saltman

Means

(eds), Handbook of Global Education Reform. Wiley-Blackwell.

40.

Halpin

Owen

(2004) … but they still last longer than fatcats. The Times, 1 May, p. 2.

41.

Hardman

(2001) Improving recruitment and retention of quality overseas teachers. In Blandford

Shaw

(eds), Managing International Schools. London: Routledge.

42.

Hawley

(1994) How Long do International School Heads Survive? Part 1. International Schools Journal, 14(1), 8–21.

43.

Hawley

(1995) How Long do International School Heads Survive? Part 2. International Schools Journal, 14(2)

44.

Hayden

(2006) Introduction to International Education: International Schools and their Communities. London: SAGE.

45.

Hayden

Thompson

. (2001) Extending our Understanding of International Education. In Hayden

Thompson

(eds) International Education: Principles and Practice. London: Kogan Page.

46.

Hayden

Thompson

(1995) International Schools and International Education: A relationship reviewed, Oxford Review of Education, 21(3), 327–345.

47.

Hayden

Thompson

(1998b) International Education: Perceptions of Teachers in International Schools, International Review of Education, 44,

48.

Hayden

Thompson

(2000) (eds) International schools and international education: improving teaching, management and quality. London: Kogan Page.

49.

Hayden

Thompson

(2008) International schools: growth and influence. Paris: United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization.

50.

Hersey

(2012) The development of global-mindedness: School leadership perspectives. PhD Thesis, Florida Atlantic University, Educational Leadership.

51.

Hill

(2006) Internationally minded schools. International Schools Journal, 20(1), 24–37.

52.

Hunter Lewis

. (2013) Developing Global Citizens - Developing people. Retrieved July 8, 2016, from https://aliciahunterlewis.wordpress.com/

53.

Hunter Lewis

. (2015) Developing Global Citizens: Perceptions Regarding Educational Leadership in an International Expatriate School. Walden University, College of Education.

54.

ISC Research (2013) International Education in Great Demand. Retrieved March 31, 2013, from ISC Research: http://www.iscresearch.com/international-schools/

55.

ISR (2013) International Schools Review. Retrieved July 9, 2016, from: http://www.internationalschoolsreview.com/index.htm

56.

James

Fertig

(2016) Leadership and Management of International Schools. In Hayden

Thompson

(eds), International Schools: Current Issues and Future Prospects, Oxford: Symposium Books Ltd.

57.

Javadi

(2014) The Role of Middle Managers: Lessons from an International Secondary School. Dissertation. Nottingham: Nottingham University.

58.

Kaplan

(1997) Looking for the Other: Feminism, Film and the Imperial Gaze. New York: Routledge.

59.

Keller

(2014) Leadership of international schools: Understanding and managing dualities. Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 1–18.

60.

Leach

(1969) International schools and their role in the field of international education, Oxford: Pergamon Press

61.

Leggate

Thompson

(1997) The management of development planning in international schools. International Journal of Educational Management, 11, 6, 268–273

62.

Leithwood

Jantzi

(2006) Transformational leadership for large scale reform: effects on teachers and their classroom practices. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 17(2), 201–27.

63.

Leithwood

Janzi

(2000) The effects of transformational leadership on organizational conditions and student engagement with school, Journal of Educational Administration, 38 (2), 112–129.

64.

Littleford

(1999) Leadership of Schools and the Longevity of School Heads. International Schools Journal, XIX(1), 23–34.

65.

Mancuso

Roberts

White

(2010) Teacher retention in international schools: The key role of school leadership. Journal of Research in International Education, 9(3), 306–323.

66.

Matthews

Sidhu

(2005) Desperately seeking the global subject: International education, citizenship and cosmopolitanism. Globalisation, Societies and Education, 3(1), 49–66.

67.

Morrison

(2016) International Schools Market To Hit $89 Billion By 2026. Retrieved March 14, 2017, from Forbes: https://www.forbes.com/sites/nickmorrison/2016/06/29/international-schools-market-to-hit-89bn-by-2026/#3089abe770e3

68.

Murakami-Ramalho

(2005) Leadership from an integrative perspective in American international schools. Michigan State University.

69.

Odland

Ruzicka

(2009) An investigation into teacher turnover in international schools. Journal of Research in International Education, 8(1), 5–29.

70.

Pearce

(2013) (ed) International Education and Schools: Moving Beyond the First 40 Years. London: Bloomsbury Academic.

71.

Pennycook

(2006) Global Englishes and Transcultural Flows. London: Routledge.

72.

Piketty

(2000) Theories of persistent inequality and intergenerational mobility. in Atkinson

Bourguignon

(eds) Handbook of Income Distribution, 1.

73.

Roberts

Mancuso

(2014) What kind of international school leaders are in demand around the world? A test of differences by region and stability over time. Journal of Research in International Education, 13(2), 91–105.

74.

Robinson

(2017) Reduce Change to Increase Improvement. London: Corwin.

75.

Schleicher

(2012) Preparing Teachers and Developing School Leaders for the 21st Century: Lessons from around the World. Paris: OECD.

76.

Sin

(2013) Cultural capital and distinction: Aspirations of the “other” foreign student. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 34(5–6), 848–867.

77.

Sylvester

(2005) Framing the map of international education. Journal of Research in International Education, 4(2), 123–51.

78.

TES online (2016) The International School Review, Retrieved July 9, 2016, from TES online: https://community.tes.com/threads/the-international-school-review.733422/

79.

Van Vooren

Lindsey

. (2012) Leaders address inequity through a framework of international-mindedness. Journal of Transformative Leadership and Policy Studies, 2(1), 25–33.

80.

Walker

(2012) Tea and oysters: metaphors for a global education. International Schools Journal, XXXI (2), 8–17.

81.

Wylie

(2011) Global networking and the world of international education. In Bates

(ed), Schooling Internationally:globalisation, internationalisation and the future for international schools. Abingdon: Routledge.