Sustainable Leadership in Private International Schools: Lessons from Kuwait

Governance in International Schools

Considering the rapid growth of private international schools globally, Hayden and Thompson (2016) have noted that with ‘no overall body having worldwide authority to determine whether a school may describe itself as’ an international school there is no clear definition of how this designation is assigned. A significant problem identified in research is the diversity of practices within these schools. Researchers have noted the diversity of international schools in how they are managed and owned, and have indicated a need to identify consistent definitions for such schools (Bunnell, Fertig and James, 2016). Different from the international schools of the past that provided educational services for the children of early global workers (politician, diplomats and missionaries), international schools have grown in number since the 1960’s as workforce global mobility has increased (Hayden, 2011: 214). Most recently, international school growth has boomed in response to a demand from host country families who seek for their children an English-medium western-style education that promises access to the best universities (Morrison, 2019). As the number of schools has increased, so too has the complexity of the sector, with an increasingly broad definition of what makes a school international (Bunnell, Fertig and James, 2016), while (Fertig and James, 2016: 122) ‘there is likely to be considerable diversity and therefore complexity around the leadership and management practices required to organise any particular school’. Hayden and Thompson (2016: 13) have noted that the unprecedented growth over recent decades has produced a different type of international school: ‘commercially focused, run on a for-profit basis and, commonly though not exclusively, forming part of a chain or group of such schools’.

Research has also identified inconsistencies in governance as one of the biggest challenges facing school leaders who transition into international schools. Gardner-McTaggart (2018), Keller (2015) and Speirs (2017) have all identified this challenge, as international schools have varied systems, processes and practices based on each school’s board and/or owner. Gibson and Bailey (2021: 5) have identified how ‘international schooling is a contested and evolving construct that has implications for governance and the professional working relationship between owner and principal’. Such lack of consistency and overall governance of the field means that schools operate through varied structures and processes of boards within schools, which may be very different in each school or group of schools. Gardner-McTaggart (2018) and Gibson and Bailey (2021) have also noted the complexity of governance in international schools with respect to autonomy for leaders and the ambiguity and lack of stability around governance and school practices. Bunnell (2019) meanwhile has noted that this lack of consistency and stability in governance policies and practices may place school leaders in precarious positions and contribute to the high turnover of leaders which in turn affects stability within the school. In their case study of international school principals in Malaysia, Gibson and Bailey’s (2021: 16) findings concluded that ‘models of ownership and leadership developed in Western contexts cannot easily be applied to other cultural and legal settings’. Further research is clearly required in understanding models appropriate for international school contexts.

In general, school leaders from Western public (publicly-funded) school settings are charged with setting the direction of the school, guiding the alignment of resources and school improvement efforts, promoting a collaborative learning culture, developing instructional practice by building teacher capacity, and monitoring student learning (Leithwood et al, 2019). These are the skill sets school leaders often bring to international schools when moving from national public systems. It is clear, however, that leadership needed in international schools is different from school leadership as practiced in national public education systems; this is an important area for further research in contributing to ensuring success for school leaders in international settings. Research also points to a need for further study to clarify the international school leadership role and to develop a leadership model that meets the needs of international schools while also setting standard policies and practices for governance.

Transience in International Schools

Transience is a constant in international schools and, as Gardner-McTaggart (2018: 155) has identified, ‘the theme of transience is central to understanding leadership in the international school context’. This transience relates to the high turnover, of both teachers and educational leaders, that is more pronounced in the international school context than in national public education systems (Gardner-McTaggart, 2018). Speirs (2017) and Gardner-McTaggart (2018) have both noted high turnover of staff as a particular characteristic of international schools; often 20-30% per year. Consistently high turnover of staff and leaders can work against important aspects of school success such as teacher recruitment, retention, motivation, team building and school improvement in general, as leaders are constantly working with a new reconstituted group of local and global staff. Gardner-McTaggart (2018: 160) has commented on the transience of staff and leaders as the underlying debilitating problem that undermines consistency and permanence in international schools, while Fertig and James (2016) have noted that the complexity in international schools is exacerbated by the rapid turnover of staff, and can disrupt connectivity and the collaboration between colleagues that is important to schools.

International schools, through the nature of their contract negotiations, which often take place early in the school year, contend with considerable human resource issues as teachers and leaders make decisions on renewing or ending their contracts. For school leaders, when staff turnover is high, recruiting can take a lot of their time away from the work with teachers and students – weekly team meetings, professional development for staff, and school improvement measures – which would otherwise occupy a substantial amount of their time. As noted by Gardner-McTaggart (2018: 160), ‘for a leader in this educational context, alignment with organizational values, and empowerment for permanence may be more apt than anywhere else in education’. Speirs’ (2017) analysis of questionnaire responses from over 100 school leaders in international schools in Asia and the Gulf region revealed staffing as a big challenge due to remote recruitment, skills shortages and issues mobilising and managing a diverse workforce.

International school leaders themselves may also be considering whether to stay or leave, and looking for other opportunities. Caffyn (2018: 507) has suggested that leaders are also viewed by international schools as short-term staff, while Bunnell (2019: 4) states that ‘the high turnover and precarity of school leaders in “international schools” is a long-standing issue of discussion’, citing research that suggests an average tenure of 2.8 years. While school leaders may move on voluntarily while searching for the right fit, governance ‘micro-political tensions’ may also contribute to leaders being fired (Bunnell, 2019).

Market Forces and Edu-Business

The growth of international schools seems to have outpaced the establishment of standards or consistency in governing processes within these schools. Kim and Mobrand (2019) have elaborated on the marginalization of international schools as outsiders in the larger, international domain of policy debates and at the centre of marketing in education. Verger et al (2017) discuss how the edu-business industry has targeted international schools as a market and is pervasively present and active in marketing not only programs but also the policies that drive the programs they are selling, at educational conferences, professional meetings and school presentations. Kim and Mobrand (2019) note how this marketing sector has grown quietly and quickly through a ‘stealth marketisation’ because international schools are removed from any international oversight and ‘in international school policy there appears to be a form of marketisation that falls outside the main modes addressed in the literatures on global education policy’ (p 311). Edu-business actors and policy actors have become increasingly significant players in global education policy networks.

These developments reflect the impact of the continuing inroads that market-based edu-businesses are making to establish legitimacy and authority in the international school sector. As international schools are working out what ‘best practices’ will position them to attract student enrollment and position their school to compete with other such schools, the growing network of marketing and edu-business actors provide a ready solution pitched apparently to serve all their needs. In contrast to vetting processes in national schools systems, edu-businesses may have direct contact with individual international schools to pitch their products. This direct access can go awry if owners, governing boards, or other parties involved do not have a good understanding of education products and practices.

Findings of this study (see below) suggest that school leaders were often left out of the decision-making around the purchase of resources and programs as school owners were more influenced by the edu-business representatives. This was challenging for school leaders when it came to implementation with staff. Given the diversity of governance in international schools, however, there are also cases where school leaders are heavily involved in matters of policy and school direction setting. Bunnell (2019: 6) has described this issue as a ‘duality’, ‘with leaders balancing the academic needs of the internal community with the commercial needs of the external’. For school leaders who have moved from national school systems where the leadership model is focused on instructional leadership to support student achievement and school improvement, having accountability for student success but not the involvement in the policies and programs to lead the instructional program can present challenges. It is important to consider the influence of edu-business and recognize that the extent to which school leaders are involved in decision-making has implications for leadership responsibility and accountability in supporting student success and school improvement.

This review highlights research on some of the main challenges faced by school leaders working in private international schools, specifically in the areas of school governance, transience and the influence of marketing and edu-business. Next sections provide a further exploration of challenges faced by school leaders within, specifically, the context of the private international school sector in Kuwait.

Navigating Unfamiliar Bureaucratic and Institutional Norms

A survey of international school leaders in Asia and the Gulf region indicated that governance was the number one issue for heads, who commented on the complexity of governance structures, dysfunctional operations, cultural dissonance and some specific challenges of proprietor boards and parent boards (Speirs, 2017: 1). Such tensions were also evident in the experiences of participants in the present study. The biggest change for many of the school leaders transitioning into private international schools was the lack of both a coherent system of institutional norms, and the oversight of a ministry board that vetted and provided policy and programs, as had been part of their previous experience. Many of the school leaders interviewed made reference to this sense of loss in not working under the umbrella of a school board and ministry of education where policies and practices were set. One participant missed the stability and consistency she had felt working in a national school as she stated, ‘the levels of bureaucracy and programs would be in place for longer periods of time so there was no initiative fatigue, staff were not so transient, and leaders were in their schools for longer periods of time to build trust and consistency’. Many of the school leaders made reference to the lack of institutional norms that were familiar to them and found it challenging to adapt to fewer institutional practices, while feeling that practices within their international schools were more loosely set up. Often it was stated that the long-term local staff who knew the history of the school understood the ‘unwritten playbook’ which put leaders at the mercy of staff who could choose either to support new leaders coming in, or to withhold relevant information from them. Many participants felt the governance in their schools was top heavy with much of the decision-making at the board level; all the participants expressed frustration that decisions they had made as leader would often be changed at board level, leaving them to explain the shifting changes to staff.

Related to understanding the governance structures within international schools is knowing how the chain of command works. Constant decision-making is central to leadership in practice, and in order to make decisions leaders need to know how much autonomy they have and who they need to check in with. Understanding the school hierarchy was an added challenge for leaders in this study who were constantly navigating unfamiliar socio-political and cultural nuances. ‘Whether the international school is managed by a board (not for profit) or privately owned (for profit), a leader is always traversing unseen challenges driven by politics, culture and individual egos’ (Morrison, 2017: 521). Many participants described the school hierarchies of power as very challenging in navigating their own roles within school and in often not having a clear understanding of their roles within the system. In contrast to national education systems that may govern large numbers of schools within a region, private international schools are often stand-alone schools under the operation of an owner and/or board of governors who may or may not have experience with educational practices and procedures. One participant reported that he had given up making decisions as he stated, ‘I’ve made decisions and they have been overturned, so when you get your hand slapped enough I’m just not going to make a decision’.

In addition to the relational governance processes, participants described the difficulty of accessing well-formed policies and practices to inform their work. Often participants described their struggle with what to do, who to ask, and who gives permission, as the policies and practices were often not fully developed or were constantly evolving. Transferring and borrowing of policies and practices is common in international schools around the world, and Kuwait international schools are no different. Most participants were involved in developing policies and practices in their schools, often brought from their own practices in national school systems. The challenges of developing and implementing policies in an international school are often exacerbated by the inordinate amount of time spend on staffing issues. One participant developed a policy and procedure for implementing a professional learning community (PLC) in his school. A lot of time and effort was put into it but, he said, ‘head on it didn’t work and we crashed’ as everything was thrown aside when staffing and enrollment took over the school. Due to the transience of staff in international schools, leaders in general spend a lot of time on staffing issues, recruiting, orientation, training, evaluating and placing staff on a continuous yearly cycle. This leads into the next area of the research findings on mobility and staff turnover that predominated with school leaders.

Mobile Leaders Working with Constant Turnover

Transience is a constant in international schools and impacts are felt within international schools of both leadership mobility and staff turnover. The longevity of international school leaders has been previously suggested to be 2.8 years (Bunnell, 2019). This was evident with the participants in this study. Of the nine participants who were previously school leaders in national school systems, four had left their international school positions after their first contract. Of the 8 participants who had moved from national school systems as teachers and rose through the ranks in their schools to become school leaders, one leader left after their first contract. An interesting finding of this study was thus that school leaders moving from national school systems experienced more challenges than did leaders who had moved as teachers from national school systems and became school leaders within their schools. Participants who had started in their schools as teachers expressed appreciation for knowing how the school worked as a teacher, which made moving into a leadership position much easier than for school leaders coming in new. Owners of private international schools may often be hard pressed to recruit qualified school leaders, and see budding leaders within teachers who have been with them for a while and bank on them to know the school from the ground up and to understand how things work. When leaders don’t return after their first year, strong teachers in the school may be hastily put into leadership positions. While participants in this study who rose into leadership positions found their knowledge of the school helped considerably, they all felt they should have had more support and leadership development in making this transition.

As noted above, staff transience often creates time-consuming challenges for international school leaders in terms of overseas or local recruiting, yearly onboarding and training of new staff, and other matters related to building a cohesive and well-trained staff (Fertig and James, 2016; Gardner-McTaggart, 2018). For most participants in this study, the challenge of staffing issues was a constant disruption to their efforts to be instructional leaders and work with teachers to put in place the practices around reviewing data and developing interventions for student success.

The Marketing and Business Side of International Schools

Many researchers in the field of international schools have observed an emerging global education industry. Verger et al (2017) have identified some aspects of this industry as increasing the globalisation of standards, the propagation of for-profit schools and the marketisation of policies, programs and services to this growing field of schools. Perhaps surprisingly, ‘international schools are simultaneously at the centre of market-creation in education and on the periphery of education policy’ (Kim and Mobrand, 2019: 311). The quiet marketisation of international schools has been facilitated by the marginalization of private international schools from the policy discussions of global education institutions that provide oversight in the field of development education but are not involved in the field of private international education. Kim and Mobrand (2019: 312) state that ‘while the marketisation of international education appears as an easy case, international education as a field of policy passed under the radar’. Being under the radar, international schools ostensibly have limited direction around policies and practices unless they seek the advice of the educators in their building or the growing field of edu-business policy actors who sell their services to international schools. Verger et al (2017) have identified this growing global education industry as providing a wide array of services to international schools including consultants, edu-marketing, certification services, student recruitment service, test preparation services, testing and reporting technology, and policies and programs. These services come at a price, economically and in decision-making, as owners and boards have to make decisions that they may not have the policy and practice expertise in making for the best interests of the school. For seasoned school leaders who have worked in national public systems and have knowledge of policies and practices that have been vetted in their national systems, challenges can be presented when owners and boards accept what’s on offer in order to ensure the competitiveness of their school.

The marketing and business side of international schools was described by the participants in this study as a very distinct challenge, as most expressed ambivalent feelings about the hard sell of outside marketing and policies and practices that they felt were not a good fit for the school. Their challenge was often in not having a say in the products and services purchased, while having to implement them and raise enthusiasm and buy-in with the staff. Seeing themselves as instructional leaders, many participants found it difficult to implement new programs and resources with their staff when they felt the products did not match the needs of the school, and the staff were sometimes wary of yet another new product that was purchased to boost their school success. One participant in this study shared how her associate director decided to purchase 150 thousand dollars’ worth of product that was not needed. The associate director was sold on the product through marketing and was not aware that the elementary principal herself had been purchasing the resources needed over the previous few years. Another participant had a similar experience when his school decided to change their report card program two weeks before the report cards were due to be sent out. Report card time is usually a tense enough time for teachers, and school leaders know that timelines are critical for teachers to learn new systems and upload information for reporting. Edu-businesses often have the ear of owners in marketing their products to enhance school legitimacy and provide ways to promote their school. An overriding concern expressed in this study was that participants felt the experiences eroded their leadership responsibilities and accountability in the work of monitoring student success and making improvements specific to the context of the school.

The marketing and business side of running a private international school challenged many of the participants in understanding exactly the nature of their leadership role. Most saw themselves as instructional leaders working to build teacher capacity to improve student learning. They found that this leadership role was often side-lined when the business and marketing aspects of the school shifted priorities. Positioning the school well through promotion of programs and events, communication and visibility on various media platforms, and ensuring a service model was in place with all staff came as a surprise to many of the participants when they first started working in an international school. Most came to understand the marketing aspects as they realized enrollment of pupils was not a given as it might be in national public school systems. Usually in the third quarter of the school year attention is focused on enrollment, and the focus becomes ‘getting bums on seats’. With their eyes on instructional practice to support student success, school leaders in this study struggled to convince owners and boards of the importance of instructional leadership and improved teaching practice to improve student success. For most participants in this study, their frustrations were often around not being listened to or not feeling they had the trust of the owners to lead instructional practice in the schools. It seemed for many of the participants that their focus on improving instructional practice got lost in the marketing focus of the school through non-academic aspects that were more visible and celebratory to the parent community.

School relationships with parent communities are important in all schools. Educators know these relationships enhance student learning as parents, teachers and the school more widely work together. This relationship is heightened when there is more of a service model in international schools as parents are effectively the customers of international schools and are purchasing an educational service for their children. While most participants in this study understood this, it still presented challenges in terms of how things were run at their schools around parent preferences and how school owners wanted to showcase their schools. Several school leaders struggled with the way in which owners could ‘turn the ship around’ at a moment’s notice if something did not look right to the parents, and the owners would expect things to be fixed quickly if a problem was brought forward. One study participant lamented that she never received positive feedback for things like creating a curriculum map for her staff, ‘but will get feedback on how things are decorated for the graduation, and they will tell me to have it taken down if they don’t like the decorations’. Another participant also learned quickly that the operations of his school were at the whim of the owners and ‘their number one motivation is profit marketability’.

The marketing and business forces that international schools operate within were significant areas of challenge that all participants of this study had to navigate. Many of the school leaders in this study grew to understand and accept the realities of working in a private international school and tried to balance the areas of focus in their leadership while reconciling with the importance of the marketing and promotional aspects of working in such a context. Operating outside of the regulatory influence of national or global education systems, edu-business and policy actors have become increasingly significant players in global education policy networks. While the cast of actors within this growing network take aim at a booming industry of private schooling, international schools and international school leaders will need to look at the role boards and school leaders will play in decision-making around policies and programs that support the goals of the school, and are a good fit for the educational needs of the students.