Abstract
Although the underlying principles and the founding history of international schools supposedly advocate the notions of providing equal opportunities, catering for diversity, and promoting global citizenship, the dimensions of inclusive education might not be self-evident. Findings from this qualitative case study show that the understanding of inclusion in the context of international schools goes beyond disabilities and special education needs. Several approaches to evolving inclusive practice are highlighted. However, there are tensions between different stakeholders of international schools in defining inclusion; between the rhetoric of inclusion found in school documents and the reality, and between the original philosophy of international education and schools’ admission policies.
Introduction
Over recent decades, the world has witnessed a rapid increase of mobile professionals whose children accompany them to different postings in many countries, either for a career pursuit or life-style change (Cangià and Zittoun, 2018; Langford, 2005). The implications of this global mobility are immense. In the context of education, it demands provision of schooling which is accessible to a greater diversity of students and fosters equal opportunity for all learners across geographical and political boundaries. More generally, collective movement towards negotiating diversity has been developed as one of the most sought-after contemporary global issues. Ever since the adoption of the Framework for Action on Special Needs Education (UNESCO, 1994), the term ‘equal opportunity’, for better or worse, has reverberated throughout the world. Inclusion becomes the heart of endeavors to provide just and better education for students, regardless of difference in terms of cultural and ethnic backgrounds, socio-economic status, gender, religious beliefs and learning abilities (Kalantzis and Cope, 2002). The term ‘inclusive education’ has likewise become a matter of ongoing debate.
Debates and discussions on inclusive education are often centered on the divide between mainstream and special needs schools. Within this discourse, involving ethics, politics, and philosophy, international schooling may seem to escape consideration of issues such as whether students with special education needs should be admitted provided that the parents can afford the tuition fees, or learning assessments should be adjusted to cater for those with a severe learning disability. In order to discuss such issues, the term inclusion itself may first need to be contextualized. In the context of this case study, inclusion is interpreted as an unending process towards ever slightly more participation in schools (Azorín and Ainscow, 2020; Carrington and Robinson, 2004), where the educational policy guarantees (Nilsen, 2010) that the focus is broadened not only to reach children with disabilities, but also to include all children who are regarded as being at educational risk due to marginalization (Qvortrup and Qvortrup, 2018). The risk may emerge as a result of minority group status, such as ability, ethnicity, religion, socio-economic background, and/or psychological factors (Forlin, 2004). Inclusive practice as one dimension of inclusive school development (Booth, Ainscow and Kingston, 2006) is regarded as pertaining to activities that are responsive to the diversity of students and young people in the particular context and in the surrounding community.
The element of development in Booth and colleagues’ approach to inclusion suggests that any type of school can, if not should, strive to develop inclusivity in their educational practice. I argue that the crux between philosophy and practice is particularly important to analyze and problematize. This is mainly because international education as a concept is often argued to be inclusive in at least the sense of catering for children of many different national, cultural and linguistic backgrounds (Hayden, 2006; Tange and Kastberg, 2013), but for those who experience international schooling, as a form of international education, this may not always be the case. Bradley (2016) argues that provision made for linguistic and cultural diversity in international schools rarely extends to diversity in ability. She further asserts that ‘For whatever reason, whether due to economics, lack of expertise or negative attitudes towards people with special needs in the host country, students with special educational needs appear to be the “forgotten children” (p 30) in this context. Clearly, the conceptualization of international schooling itself can and should be problematized, as it evolves and develops. In his extensive work on such development, Bunnell (2014) intimates that the rapid change in the landscape of international schooling has led to a change in its conception and classification, as exemplified by the findings of ISC Research (2021). In his later work, Bunnell even argues that in defining the field of ‘international education’, one should ‘avoid specifying variables such as actors . . . as these will differ from area-to-area’ (Bunnell, 2019: 2). However, I assert that in investigating inclusive practice in this educational context, we must indeed specify these actors, as this will determine the level at which international schooling is inclusive.
I argue that international schools should and could be more inclusive. This form of education, where diversity is a philosophy, should extend to catering for diversity to include learning abilities and socio-economic status as well. The underlying philosophy of international education may be considered to be unity in diversity (Sylvester, 2001): everyone is invited, regardless of cultural background, linguistic difference, or learning abilities (Agustian, 2016). The corpus of literature does not, however, explicitly make a case for the status of inclusivity of international schools, which leaves unclear the extent to which understanding of inclusion is adopted. The extent of this understanding will clarify the position of international education in the realm of inclusive education and vice versa. It is on this basis that this study was conducted.
In this small-scale case study, I inquire into ways in which inclusive practice is implemented in two international schools, one in the United Kingdom and one in the Netherlands. I aim to elucidate how the practitioners of international schooling interpret inclusion, explore the approaches to evolving inclusive practice based on the indicators in the Index for Inclusion, and investigate to what extent inclusive school policies support inclusive practice. The Index for Inclusion (Booth and Ainscow, 2011) is a set of materials to support schools in the process of inclusive school development. It does not offer a blueprint for improvement and transformation, but rather facilitates far-reaching scrutiny and encourages self-evaluation on how far the school has been going through the process of inclusion (Vaughan, 2002). Once a school embarks on the process of inclusive school development, the Index serves as a framework to guide the school with investigation using several indicators and related questions. In the Index, inclusion is an approach to education in which activities are carried out according to inclusive values (Ainscow, Booth and Dyson, 2004). The inclusive values, which are often associated with children with impairments or those seen as having special educational needs, are extended to embrace full participation of all children as well as adults involved in the setting. The four elements of the Index, key concepts, planning framework, reviewing materials and inclusive processes, will sustain long-term improvement in schools in terms of inclusion. In exploring possibilities for improvement, the Index entails a process of school self-review on three dimensions concerned with creating inclusive cultures, producing inclusive policies, and evolving inclusive practices.
International school definition revisited
Attempts to define an international school have long been debated among many with experience of the international schooling system, since ‘no one organisation internationally can grant the right to use the term ‘international school’ in a school’s title’ (Hayden, 2006: 10). In reality, however, many international schools share characteristics common to the variety of private, fee-paying schools that usually admit students whose parents are called upon to work in many different countries. Increasingly, many international schools also admit host country nationals as students. Particularly in the Global South, their main selling point is more opportunities to learn through the medium of English, usually with native speakers recruited as teachers (see also Bunnell, 2019). Langford (2005) maintains that international school populations are characterized by: their multinational composition, fairly high levels of student turnover as a consequence of career paths of [the] . . . parent[s] . . . which in turn may result in childhoods of transiency and international mobility. . . a very strong likelihood that their pupils will not complete their education or attend university in the country where the international school is located, . . . [and] the strong probability that the cultural development of their pupils will be influenced by the culture of the host country as well as the various culture that they . . . represent. (p 28)
Hayden, Rancic and Thompson (2000) argue that the description of ‘international’ may not be clear when applied to young people. In their extensive study, perceptions of students and teachers from international schools worldwide were analyzed with respect to categories of what might be considered characteristics of being ‘international’. Their findings suggest that international schools’ students tend to perceive that attitudes such as open-mindedness and flexibility of thinking and action are essential. Additionally, second language competency, a positive attitude towards other value systems and cultures, as well as respect for others are considered to be equally important.
In the corpus of literature, globally mobile international students are often referred to as ‘third culture kids’ (Fail, Thompson and Walker, 2004; Langford, 2005), ‘global nomads’ (Grimshaw and Sears, 2008), or even ‘study tourists’ (King and Gardiner, 2015). Langford (2005) observes that, due to their mobility, international students may become excluded and detached from the concept of belonging to a country. Thus, the concepts of ‘home’ and ‘identity’ are pertinent to their personal and psychological development.
Curriculum with an international focus is one of many attractions that international schools have to offer. From a cultural perspective, curriculum can be regarded as a selection from the culture of society (Lawton, 2012), which may be conceptualized beyond the national context (Karseth and Sivesind, 2010; Leask, 2013). In the context of education, it serves as a set of guidelines of priorities to best maintain and develop the culture with which the school is associated (Hayden, 2006; Lawton, 2012). However, insofar as international schools are concerned, it can be problematic to define curriculum in a straightforward way, since it is not clear from which society’s culture an international school curriculum may be selected. The problematization of curriculum in the context of international schooling is relevant for discussion because it will exert influence on practice, as the next section elaborates.
International schools today: inclusive by origin, exclusive by choice?
International schools have emerged in response to the shifting global context, from the geographically-bound territories that are countries, to a state of flux where national, racial and religious boundaries collapse (Wishard, 2009). The shrinking world, Wishard argues, has forged a global single identity, where education encounters prolific change. Change in systems, accessibility and inclusivity will determine whether or not education is indeed for all, and resistance to change can lead to stagnation.
Wishard’s argument actually echoes the original idea of international schooling, since international schools may be considered to have been a reaction of humanitarian advocates against imperialism. According to Sylvester (2002), The Spring Grove School in London could be thought of as the ‘first’ international school in the world, dating back to 1866 and founded on the underlying philosophy of world peace and international harmony. Richard Cobden, one of the supporters of the school’s establishment, was strongly opposed to war and imperialism. In the period when western colonization was prevalent, Cobden was one of the most assertive founding fathers of ‘a new type of education which would enable the citizens of different countries to become international ambassadors’ (p 5). In that sense the original philosophy of international education and international schooling can be seen indeed to be inclusive.
That said, the predominantly Western origins of international schooling can be problematic. Current international school data indicate that a large number of international schools are located in the Global South (Bunnell, 2019), and it is still unclear how the underlying philosophy espoused by the likes of Cobden relates to the founding philosophy of the first international schools in non-Western countries. Although this quandary is beyond the scope of this article, it is important to consider the potential tension and power relations that exist between the Global North and the Global South. For the sake of focus, a point of departure is taken from Sylvester’s historical narrative as noted above.
One of the questions investigated through this study is why international schools, as we know them, belong to an exclusive system of education affordable only by the elite minority within society. The overwhelming majority of international schools today charge relatively high tuition fees and other education-related expenses (Lee and Wright, 2016; Ng, 2012; Wilkinson, 2001). Although some of them provide scholarships and bursaries for students in financial need (MacDonald, 2006), the private and independent nature of the schools still renders them inaccessible to the majority of children. MacDonald argues that because international schools exist within an economic context, management of educational issues is not the only concern of the school leaders and, inevitably, the school owner(s). There always needs to be consideration of the notion of business management, in which revenues, market structures, financial efficacy and efficiency perpetuate the inaccessibility of international schools.
Viewed from a slightly different perspective, the issue of exclusivity also arises as a consequence of segmented labor markets in international schools, in which discrimination is a key concept (Canterford, 2003). For instance, customer discrimination means that the ‘customer’, who in the international school setting would be the parent, may rather see their child taught by an expatriate rather than a locally hired teacher where such preference may be founded more on prejudice than on well-informed evaluation. The prevalent perception of parents about the added value of international education for the future of their children may contribute to this experience of prejudice.
Although the exclusivity of international schools today may seem to be a paradox when it is juxtaposed with the original philosophy of international education, there are some good examples of more inclusive forms of international schooling, such as what can be observed from the United World Colleges (UWC, 2020). On their website, UWC explain that they select students from within their own countries, on merit and regardless of their ability to pay. UWC students come together at one of eighteen UWC schools and colleges that aim to foster international understanding and peace. Notwithstanding this promising practice, the understanding of inclusion and inclusive practice in UWCs raises interesting questions as to what is understood by inclusion and how it is adopted; whether it includes students with special education needs, or students from underprivileged families, or again simply entails students from different cultural and linguistic backgrounds. It is of paramount importance, therefore, that the understanding of inclusion, both in UWCs and in international schools more widely, is made clear, explicit and contextual.
Methods
This study was conducted in one international school in each of the United Kingdom and the Netherlands over a period of three months, during which time I lived in each country in order to study ways in which inclusive education and special education needs were interpreted and implemented. The schools were selected based on a response to a call for participation in this study sent by two universities with which I was affiliated (one in London, UK, one in Tilburg, Netherlands). The school in the UK, which I will refer to as School A, offers the International Baccalaureate (IB) Primary Years Programme (PYP), Middle Years Programme (MYP), and Diploma Programme (DP) as well as the American Preparatory High School Diploma; the school in the Netherlands, which I will refer to as School B, offers the International Primary Curriculum (IPC) and the IB MYP and DP. I narrowed down the scope of this small-scale case study into a singularity (Bassey, 2002). Thus, I focused on the schools in their natural contexts, in order to explore significant features of the case, create plausible interpretations of what was found, construct a worthwhile argument, and relate the argument to relevant research reported in the literature.
Contexts of the study
Out of more than 2,500 private schools throughout the UK, there are no less than 84 international schools which offer international or country-defined (ie of a country other than the location of the school) curricula (Independent Schools Council, 2020). These international schools cater for different age ranges, admit different nationalities, and charge different levels of school fees, which can be as high as £32,000 per annum. There are at least 43 international schools in the Netherlands, adopting multifarious international or country-defined curricula (Expatica, 2020). International schools such as the International School of Amsterdam, International Secondary School Eindhoven, and International School Groningen offer IB programmes, whereas the British School of Amsterdam, Japanese School of Rotterdam, and American School of The Hague adopt country-defined curricula.
Sampling
Cohen, Manion and Morrison (2017) maintain that several key factors should be considered in deciding the sampling strategy used in research: the sample size, the representativeness of the sample with respect to the population, and access to the sample. In this case study, constraints relating to time, cost, resources, and administrative support by the schools were also taken into account. With only one month in which to collect data, I selected a small sample of five participants to be interviewed. From School A, interviews were conducted with one Primary Years Programme Coordinator who was responsible for curriculum development and implementation, one Head of Student Services with responsibility for students at educational risk, and one Language Coordinator who was also a class teacher. I also conducted interviews with the Headmaster and the Principal of School B. These interviewees were selected through discussion between myself and the two schools, on the basis that they might represent different perceptions arising from different roles in the schools.
Research instruments
Document analysis
Document analysis was used as a substantial source of data, being an indispensable element in most case studies (Bush, 2002), which can be used either to provide triangulation within a case study or as the main source of data. The documents analyzed were School A’s admission policy documents, curriculum documents, and school handbooks, School B’s curriculum documents, as well as IB and IPC curriculum documents, viz. Learning diversity and inclusion in IB programmes (International Baccalaureate, 2016) and International Primary Curriculum (Fieldwork Education, 2020). In analyzing the documents, I employed techniques and methods from discourse analysis (Gee, 2014), in which documents were considered as text in their social contexts.
Semi-structured interviews
According to Denscombe (2010), interviews are best used when they are applied to the exploration of complex and subtle phenomena. If the researcher wishes to collect data relating to simple and uncontroversial facts, then questionnaires might prove to be a more cost-effective method. But when the researcher needs to gain insights into people’s opinions, feelings, emotions and experiences, then interviews are a more suitable method, allowing exploration of the intricacy of the subject matter. In this study, I used semi-structured interviews, in which a clear list of issues to be addressed was prepared beforehand. However, I was flexible in terms of the order in which the topics were considered; sometimes I let the interviewee develop ideas and speak more widely on the issues raised. Semi-structured interviews allowed possibilities to emerge of different interpretations of inclusion and inclusive practice. In School A, I conducted individual interviews with the PYP Curriculum Coordinator, who was previously a special education needs teacher, the Head of Student Services, and a Grade 4 teacher who is also the Language Coordinator. In School B, I conducted interviews with the Headmaster and the Principal.
Observations
Observation is an indispensable element of case study research (Cohen et al, 2017). As a researcher, I positioned myself as a non-participatory observer, in order to discern salient features of behavior as it occurred. From the beginning of the visit to each school, I observed daily activities while keeping in mind the chosen indicators of inclusive practice from the Index for Inclusion. My observation was focused on indications, utterances, behaviors, and artifacts in schools that might suggest any effort to remove barriers to access and participation. In this instance, the observation was aimed at gathering data with regard to physical and interactional settings (Cohen et al, 2017) and narrative interpretations of the case. I conducted unstructured observations with an agenda of issues around inclusive practice. In School A, I observed a Grade 4 Classroom, a music lesson in a music room, and an IT lesson in an IT room. In School B, I observed a Grade 5 mathematics lesson.
Findings and discussion
Definition of inclusion: voices from international schools
In the IB curriculum document Learning diversity and inclusion in IB programmes (International Baccalaureate, 2016), inclusion is defined as an ongoing process that aims to increase access and engagement in learning for all students, by identifying and removing barriers. The curriculum acknowledges that inclusion is not something that is achieved overnight or initiated by individuals. It is an ‘organizational paradigm’ (p 1) that requires a concerted effort on all levels to remove barriers to learning and participation. In contrast, there is no mention of inclusion at all in the IPC curriculum documentation.
For the practitioners of international schooling, the term ‘inclusion’ is not an obscure idea. A teacher in School A considered inclusion on a micro-level. On the issue of special education needs, she said that inclusion ‘is a kind of a philosophy of education . . . whether students with special education needs should be included, or should . . . be pulled out from the classroom’. Her understanding of inclusion seemed to transform into her classroom pedagogy, as I observed how she divided the class into learning groups. Although this may indicate the implementation of inclusion, Gallagher (2008) asserts that inclusion should extend far beyond the texts and methodologies of the individual classroom. Inclusion, in Gallagher’s view, should be informed throughout the wider school community, so as to create a positive climate for all learners. Accordingly, teachers are also encouraged to develop inclusion within and beyond their classrooms through professional development and a teachers-as-researchers approach (Donnelly et al, 2019).
In the context of School A, the idea of inclusion seemed to reach the school as a whole, as the Curriculum Coordinator confirmed that inclusion is an integral part of their students’ education. She noted that ‘promoting inclusive practice really benefits all children’. At this point, she seemed to strongly advocate inclusive practice, as endorsed by the IB PYP curriculum. The benefit accrued from inclusion is echoed by this teacher, in saying that ‘an inclusive model allows for a greater achievement than if it’s separate’. She concedes, however, that ‘inclusion [is not just] . . . putting everybody together and just leaving it’, seemingly aware of the danger of placing students in a classroom without providing adequate support for them (Sapon-Shevin, 1996).
The Curriculum Coordinator appeared to view inclusion as providing adequate language support for those whose first language is not English, which is common in international schools (Carder, 2009, 2011). Carder notes that many international school students have little or no knowledge of English. It is understandable, then, that the role of EAL (English as an Additional Language) is considered essential in supporting such students. However, the Head of Student Services at School A, responsible for coordinating support for students at educational risk including those with special education needs and disabilities, seemed to have a different interpretation of this support program. According to her, EAL is one of the very few programs that is not inclusive. It is interesting that there seemed to be tension in interpreting inclusion here. On the one hand, EAL is considered important to the advancement of students whose first language is not English and, as the Curriculum Coordinator noted, is in itself inclusive in the sense that support for those students is provided. On the other hand, the fact that the students must be pulled out of the classroom is considered as an exclusionary practice. Akin to this statement, Carder (2009: 19) asserts that ‘taking students out of classes for ESL instruction [could be] defined as discrimination’. Carder takes a point of departure from a wealth of empirical research in language acquisition and argues that instruction of English as a second language has become a political issue, as it may create a tension between the first and second (or additional) languages development. At this point, the definition of inclusion from the viewpoint of international schools seems to be contestable.
The Headmaster of School B, meanwhile, appeared to define inclusion from a slightly different perspective. In his view, inclusion was about meeting the needs of the students, as ‘the order of reasoning is crucial . . . We always [consider] . . . what does the child need? What can we do . . . to facilitate that? If it’s realistic, we will do it, if it’s not, we will find a way to help the child to get a place [in another school]’. The notion of needs leads to the term special education needs. In the context of this school, inclusion was regarded as providing viable and feasible support for those with special education needs. The Headmaster seemed to be aware of the perception that as an educational body that admits students, international schools may not be inclusive, as the process of admission itself is directed towards what he calls ‘dedicated cosmopolitans’, i.e. internationally-mobile students whose parents are employed in different countries. Further elaboration on this issue will be included in the following section.
The intricacy of admission: philosophy, policy and practice revisited
The concept of inclusive international schooling may be controversial, given that international schools around the world have grown to form a massive network of elitist organisations (Wilkinson, 2001), which essentially forges a paradox of juxtaposition between the notion of ‘global citizens’ often marketed by international schools and the ‘international elite’ that these communities have become (Gardner-McTaggart, 2016). Although the original philosophy of international education intimates that everyone is invited to embark upon the journey towards global citizenship (Marshall, 2015), inclusion (Sylvester, 2001), and ‘liberalism internationalism’ (Peters, 2020), the policy and practice of admissions to international schools may not reflect that philosophy. The Headmaster of School B confirmed that to be admitted to the school, a prospective student ‘need[s] to be . . . a dedicated cosmopolitan. That is, somebody, a child in this case, whose parents . . . have made the world their workplace’. The Headmaster appeared to be very careful in making a case for this admissions policy, as he said that ‘anyone is welcome, with an international background’. The prerequisite of an international background was clearly a characteristic of students that the school wished to maintain.
The loose definition of international education may be one of the key factors that influences the way in which international schools enforce their admission policy. The perception that an international school must have an ‘international flavor’ in it, in the sense that students come from different nationalities, or their parents work in different countries, may forge a sort of barrier to the inclusivity of international schooling. In an admissions policy document of School A, it is palpable that should a student wish to be admitted: The main criteria should be: “Can the student benefit from being in our program[me] and can the child conform to the standards of our community.”
(Admissions policy document, School A)
In practice, there are even more tensions, as School A clearly admits students on the grounds of affordability, by indicating that annual tuition fees range from £4,000 to £10,000. For those who are interested in international schooling, even with high academic capability, it might not be that easy to be admitted if they cannot afford the school fees. For those with learning difficulties and disabilities, this problematic dimension of access to international schools becomes twofold. Though efforts are made by some international schools in their endeavor to widen access, such as giving financial aid to those with less economic capacity but who do well in their study (Hayden, 2006), it seems that genuinely open access to international schooling might be an aim, rather than a reality.
Approaches to evolving inclusive practice in international schools
Curriculum development
The first indicator of inclusive practice that seemed evident in the setting of this study is the development of curriculum to meet the learning needs of all students. The Head of Student Services in School A asserted that ‘it [is] . . . one of the mandates of the PYP that you meet the students where they are, and you bring them up to where you need to have them as far as curriculum is concerned’. The Curriculum Coordinator confirmed that ‘in the early years PYP is very whole child-centered’.
The Index for Inclusion suggests that teaching should be directed towards support for learning rather than only towards delivering the curriculum. The IB Primary Years Programme curriculum indeed emphasizes the importance of learning and positive attitudes towards learning. It is clear how the written curriculum of IB PYP showcases distinctive features of the six transdisciplinary themes which are, as the Curriculum Coordinator observed, centered around the whole child.
In the context of School B, the Headmaster noted that ‘both curriculum [IPC and PYP], both frameworks have that scope [of inclusion] because the IPC works with levels, so beginning, developing, mastering’. It is noteworthy that there is no mention of inclusion or special education needs in the IPC curriculum document. However, the curriculum seems to adhere to several notions in educational psychology and inclusive education, such as ‘multiple intelligences, emotions in learning, memory and learning styles’ (School curriculum, p 2). It is noteworthy that some of these notions are considered problematic in contemporary scholarship in education and have been critiqued elsewhere (see, for example, Glazzard, 2015; Kincheloe, 2004; Kirschner and van Merriënboer, 2013).
International curricula can provide an advantage for international schools should they wish to develop inclusive education. According to Wylie (2008), internationalizing the curriculum is one way of espousing global ideology and global civil society, in which inclusion and deconstruction of a variety of texts and contexts are of paramount importance. Although globalization has both positive and negative impacts, global civil society is imperative in ensuring poverty eradication, inclusion, social justice, respect for nature and culture, and citizens’ involvement in governance. It is however important to keep in mind that there is potential for conflict between theory and practice, between ideological and pragmatic intentions, as the Curriculum Coordinator intimates: [I]n a school culture with so many diverse students [and staff], the ability to develop international-mindedness is somewhat conceptual or theoretical.
(Interview, School A, Curriculum Coordinator)
In so far as curriculum is concerned, IB PYP seems to reflect the backgrounds, experience and interests of all learners, as suggested by the Index for Inclusion. In practice, however, it is not always easy to orchestrate learning in a way that embraces both curriculum demand and students’ learning needs, as intimated by one teacher: I think the teaching of six units in one year is far too demanding. It should be more like four, five, so that you can get more in-depth with the different units. So I feel like I’m just brushing through everything and I’m not sure that all the teachers here have figured out well how to integrate. So we’re still trying to do blocks of teaching and it doesn’t all fit; it doesn’t work. So I think it also takes a long time for the school to know how to do that.
(Interview, School A, Teacher)
The rigorous demands of the curriculum may render students of international schools frustrated, due to the learning gaps between different schools with different curricula as students move from one country to another. As noted by the Curriculum Coordinator, the learning gaps may give the impression that often students have a disability. Potentially every two years, students move from the school to another school elsewhere, quite possibly in another country. The role of the school in developing the curriculum in order to help new arrivals to adjust is therefore crucial (Gallagher, 2008).
Celebration of learning
One of the most salient features of inclusive practice in international schools that I discerned from the data is what I refer to as celebration of learning, i.e. positioning the learning of all students at the heart of all educational endeavors. The Head of Student Services observed that ‘[as for] learning needs, it is the responsibility of every teacher of the school to differentiate the program for the needs of the students’. The notion of differentiation indicates that lessons provide opportunities for students to learn in different ways and, thus, minimize barriers to learning and participation, as the Index for Inclusion asserts. The teacher reiterated the importance of differentiation in saying: . . . for me, differentiation is [executed] through expectations. So, many times the students are doing very similar activities, but [for] . . . one student [where] I know their strengths are quite high in the area, my expectations are quite different than . . . for example an EAL student, or someone who has dyslexia, I might be satisfied with a few good sentences where [from] somebody else I might expect a complex paragraph. So differentiation by outcome is important to me.
(Interview, School A, Teacher)
Differentiated learning, sometimes referred to as ‘differentiated instruction’, is considered paramount in ensuring effective learning for varied individuals, as argued by Tomlinson and McTighe (2006) in saying that ‘if we had at our grasp the most elegant curriculum in the world and it missed the mark for students with learning disabilities, highly advanced learners, students with limited English proficiency, young people who lack economic support, kids who struggled to read, and a whole host of others, the curriculum would fall short of its promise’ (p 3).
The formal indication of differentiated learning can generally be found in school curriculum documents. However, it is debatable whether the rhetoric in a school document always translates into reality. Klees (2002) contends that what seems to be promising at a rhetorical level should be questioned, because in practice, it may not always reflect what is written. In the other context, the Headmaster of School B also observed that: For example, differentiation . . . a lot of lip service, but what it means in practice and what we at the school understand [by] differentiation, what kind of methods we deploy and trained people specifically geared towards that particular aspect of their job, [is] something that is more work.
(Interview, School B, Headmaster)
Understanding of cultural and linguistic diversity
The most prominent feature of many international schools is probably its diversity and how the community makes the most of it (Allan, 2003; Snowball, 2009). The understanding of difference and diversity is considered one of the indicators of inclusive practice, which the international schools in this study appeared to place high on their list. I observed that in a typical classroom in School A, students came from the UK, South Africa, Belgium, Switzerland, United States, Argentina, and Malaysia. The broad range of students’ cultural backgrounds made a case for one of the objectives of School A, which was to develop an understanding of and respect for different cultures. At this point, the school seemed to be truly advocating intercultural understanding. More generally, however, Allan (2018) argues that the outcome of international school philosophy and mission statements may need to be evaluated, in terms of whether coherent policy really translates into desired practice. The nature of the processes involved in intercultural learning is complex and cultural characteristics of the particular setting will determine what kind of effects intercultural learning has on students.
Diversity in terms of linguistic background is also one of the strong points of many international schools, as students have the opportunity to learn other languages (van Werven, 2015) while also developing and maintaining their mother tongue (Carder, 2009). Carder further posits the view that bilingualism, or in some cases multilingualism, accrues benefits in form of increased metacognitive abilities and metalinguistic awareness, greater ability of separating form and content, and better cognitive development, when compared with monolingualism. In the context of School A, I observed that the wealth of linguistic diversity appeared to be used for supporting other lessons. According to the teacher, [French] is their modern foreign language, so 3 times a week for 40 minutes they go to French class. This is one way for me to support what they’re doing in French so we watch the news for 10 minutes every day in French, and it’s kids’ news, and there are few children in here whose first language is French . . . and this is really a great opportunity for those students to shine because usually they are the slowest students in everything else . . . So, this gives them. . . a spotlight.
(Interview, School A, Teacher)
The acquisition of linguistic skills and proficiency is indeed indispensable for the learning of the students, and School A appeared to cater for diversity in this context. Students for whom English was not the first language were entitled to join the EAL (English as an Additional Language) support programme, either after school or during school hours. It is debatable, however, whether EAL as a means of catering for special education needs in terms of language acquisition really works effectively in supporting such students. Carder (2009) contends that when EAL is offered as ‘support’ rather than as a professional program, there is a danger of failure to master the language of instruction. Even the term ‘EAL’ is considered as an inappropriate euphemism that replaces ESL (English as a Second Language) which is actually ‘the standard terminology used by the majority of academics and researchers’ (p 23). Akin to this, Kim and Helphenstine (2017) and Kusuma-Powell (2004) also challenge what is taken-for-granted in second language acquisition, such as an assumption that because a student is fluent in a second or even a third language, they are competent in applying their language proficiency in an academic task; or a myth that children learn a new language quickly and easily. Kusuma-Powell (2004) argues that there is a risk of subtractive bilingualism, ie difficulties in students’ language development arising as the first language, the student’s mother tongue, is undermined and replaced as a result of learning a second language. Whatever the case, further investigation on the actualization of EAL in School A is required in order to find out to what extent this ‘support’ actually impacts on students’ linguistic acquisition. One thing that was illuminating is that the native language enrichment program is clearly one of the school’s approaches to catering for the linguistic diversity of their students. The Index for Inclusion has a firm stance on the provision of a native language development program.
Special education needs
The notion of special education needs is acknowledged by IB programs as a way of bringing about inclusion in the practice of international schooling, as the policy document states that ‘all candidates [for diploma and certificates] should be allowed to demonstrate their ability under assessment conditions that are as fair as possible’ (IB, 2011: 1). It goes on to say that where standard assessment conditions could put a candidate with special education needs at a disadvantage by preventing them from demonstrating their level of attainment, special arrangements may be authorized. Judged by the wide range of special education needs described in the policy document, IB appears to be aware of the potential of diversity in this term. The document is perhaps the prima facie evidence of how international schools also support inclusion in terms of catering for special education needs and disabled students. At the level of curriculum policy, at least, it seems that inclusion is indeed part of their philosophy.
In School A, the range of disability of the students is perhaps not as strikingly wide as in schools that claim to be inclusive, whatever definition of inclusion they might advocate. A teacher mentioned that there were a number of younger students who had some gross motor needs. They sometimes worked with occupational therapists to help them with gross motor as well as fine motor skills. According to one member of staff in the school, there was one student who used a wheelchair. The Head of Student Services noted that: With physical disability, obviously that is more about the physical environment of the school. So you’re looking at accessibility when they sit down. You’re looking at the classroom. One can look at the acoustics of the classroom. One can look at whether the classroom is well suited to having a wheelchair or whatever the physical challenges of the child. I think that we are well equipped in some parts of the school.
(Interview, School A, Head of Student Services)
The school premises are situated in a very spacious landscape, with many trees and a lot of green open space. Teachers and students often have to walk for a few minutes to move between school buildings, because the buildings are dispersed across the campus area. The lower school principal noted that when it rains, there are sometimes difficulties in moving around due to the distance between the buildings. I observed that some parts of the buildings were equipped with ramps, as the Head of Student Services had previously noted.
Conclusion
The data presented here indicate that to some extent international schools advocate inclusive practice. Adhering to the Index for Inclusion as the framework for conducting the research, I discovered that understanding of inclusion in the context of international schools goes beyond the boundaries of disabilities and special education needs. The international curricula they offer clearly show that the learning needs of all students, regardless of their abilities, are high in international schools’ priorities. Accordingly, the overarching concept of international education that fosters global citizenship and world peace appeared to be reflected in their curricula.
The diverse nature of international schools renders the cultural and linguistic aspects of the students and staff paramount to their educational endeavors. The practitioners of international schools in this study perceive this hallmark as an added value of international education that fosters inclusion. The notion of disability and special education needs is also part of their approaches to evolving inclusive practice. As a response to the movement towards more inclusive education, international schools attempt to address the issue of special education needs in their own way. However, the degree of this response is debatable; is it merely evident at a rhetorical level, or does it genuinely translate into practice? This is also the case for accessibility to international schools. Although the original philosophy of international education appeared to foster inclusion (Sylvester, 2001), it is a matter of fact that the admissions policy of international schools may screen out those who cannot afford the high tuition fees, let alone the ones with disability and special education needs. This is perhaps attributable to the private nature of international schools, since as private institutions, they have no requirement to serve students with special education needs (Shaklee, 2007). In the broader context, however, there have been attempts to address some of these issues; for example, in the case of the United World Colleges, with their mission to provide international education on the basis of merit rather than affordability (UWC, 2020). But even this kind of school may well remain out of reach of students with more severe special education needs.
From a philosophical perspective, there seems to be a complementary message that bridges international and inclusive education. The notion of global citizenship, as discussed by Dower and Williams (2002), makes the case for the importance of bringing together both agendas, i.e. inclusion and internationalism, under the same overarching concept. If such a philosophy of international education is accepted then its definition should clearly be widened further. Not only is this an education that exposes students from a wide variety of cultural backgrounds to a curriculum that is consciously international in content and approach, delivered by a committed and multicultural staff; it should also be based on a clear set of values. Though the small scale and narrow scope of this case study clearly leads to limitations in the conclusions that can be drawn, there is undoubtedly scope for important and larger scale studies through empirical investigation into inclusive practice in international schooling.
Footnotes
Funding
The author received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.