Riding the global wave of elite English private schools

Introduction

Working as a school leader in international schools for many years, I have gained an insight to the changes and developments in this environment, and the greater focus on internationalism and globalisation within schools as described by Pearce (2013). Much of the research undertaken on ‘international schools’ is focused on such schools as a single entity, and on what it means for them to be international. Less research is focused on the different groups of international schools found across the global market (Hill, 2016). Specifically, I am considering here the recent growth in high-profile private schools from England (Griffiths, 2007; Hunt, 2012). I believe their arrival in the international school community has had a profound effect, with positive and negative outcomes that are only now starting to be recognised. This paper joins the growing body of research relating to international schools, discussing a specific subset and its development.

Little over a decade after the emergence of these schools, Bunnell (2008) published ‘The Exporting and Franchising of Elite English Private Schools: The Emerging “Second Wave”’, describing how these schools, as an ‘educational experiment’ (2008: 384), had been on the periphery of international education research and noting that:

‘What began as an opportunistic hyper-capitalist experiment by Dulwich in 1996 has led to the emergence of a potentially financially lucrative quasi-market for elite English private schools. A breed of educational institutions has discreetly emerged over the past decade, backed by local business leaders and an alumni base.’ (2008: 390)

Bunnell highlights well here the rise and growth in the first decade. Moving on beyond a second decade, these schools are still on the periphery of academic research. I believe this has become an important area of growth in the international sector that warrants further study. Understanding how and why the demand for such schools is growing will help to develop our understanding of why international education has increased in popularity and how it might develop. Further study should yield an understanding of the ways in which this growth may be changing the educational ideals of different groups within increasingly internationally-minded societies.

Through a general discussion of international education, my first aim is to build on the body of knowledge described by Bunnell in 2008. Initially proposing a definition of international schools for the purpose of this paper, I follow with a brief synopsis of the events outlined by Bunnell before summarising a brief history of international schools and English private schools to give context to Bunnell’s work. How these new international schools fit in the time frame will be suggested, with possible causes for the initial wave of development described by Bunnell (2008). At the time he was writing, Bunnell explained that the term ‘satellite college’ (2008: 384) was adopted from the popular press (Griffiths, 2007; Paton, 2007). Based primarily on the Dulwich College model, and now with more branded schools adding to the landscape, I review Bunnell’s adoption of this term and propose a more collective alternative term; Globalised Elite English Private Schools (GEEPS). I will consider other models used by international schools through the lens of globalisation before discussing the global middle class who have multiplied (Koo, 2016) and populated the growing number of schools. In this connection, I have drawn on the work of Zhao to define globalisation as:

‘the process and result of worldwide economic, social, cultural, and political networks that could only exist in much smaller geographical spaces before.’ (2015: 247)

I will go on to summarise the growth of these new international schools since Bunnell’s article up to the emergence of Covid. The growth is important as I aim to review what Bunnell (2016) describes as the primary task, or core purpose, of these new international schools, and whether this has changed since their first arrival. The successive years of growth will show the scale of development. Drawing on Fertig (2007), I will discuss how international schools subsequently legitimised their purpose through affiliation and accreditation. In conclusion I will propose what the future may hold for the development of elite English private schools overseas.

International Schools: A Definition

Whilst Bunnell (2008) refers to the Asian Dulwich College and Harrow School as examples of ‘franchised elite English private schools’, these elite English schools, of which at the time of writing there are over 100 emanating from approximately 20 such schools in England, place themselves as international schools. On its website, Harrow uses the word ‘international’ in a school’s title followed by the city in which it is located: for example, Harrow International Bangkok. Dulwich meanwhile refers to each school as part of the Dulwich College International Group. Interestingly, recent legislation in China requires foreign schools that teach Chinese nationals to adopt more local names, as a result of which Harrow’s bilingual schools, aimed at a Chinese market, will become known as ‘Tide’, thus it is argued detracting from the marketing strength of its name (Langley et al, 2022).

Attempts to define international schools to date have not been conclusive, and are constantly under discussion. Over fifty years ago it was argued that an international school could be recognised by its multinational population (Leach, 1969). In contrast, an international school was defined by Terwilliger (1972) as having a population of non-host nationals, even if made up of only one nationality. Clearly at this time the word international was being interpreted as relating to nationalities; a straightforward view. In the 1980s, the focus for definition was moving away from a school’s population to the curriculum offered. A school’s curriculum had to be different from the host country curriculum, argued Matthews (1989), for it to be recognised as an international school: a definition which would allow national schools located in a different country to be classed as international.

By the 1990s, debate had shifted towards the ‘international dimension’ of the school (Hayden & Thompson, 1995), a debate which has arguably been overtaken today through the idealistic nature of internationalism balancing against a capitalistic slant of globalism (Pearce, 2013). Just over ten years on, Hayden and Thompson (2008) describe the staff in international schools as being mainly expatriates, arguably a situation that is becoming less marked as Western ‘overseas hire’ expatriate contracts may be considered expensive, and more opportunities are thus provided to local staff. More recently, probably the simplest definition of an international school comes from Machin who posits that such a school ‘is one which self declares as such’ (2017: 133). In considering different definitions, it is notable that both Leach (1969) and Terwilliger (1972) were discussing international schools in terms of the nature of their student population, the underlying point being the absence of host nationals in the school. Government regulations, prohibitive costs, lack of awareness, and admissions quotas are all good reasons as to why host nationals were in a minority (Hayden, 2011; Bailey, 2015). Moving forward half a century, what had more recently been an approximately 20:80 ratio of host nationals to expatriates in international schools worldwide has become approximately 80:20 (Gaskell, 2019; ISC Research, 2021): an interesting shift in the context of a more than tenfold increase in the number of international schools in the same period (Gaskell, 2019; ISC Research, 2021).

This paper focuses on the under-reported body of elite England-based private schools that have established branches overseas. Drawing on the work of Leach (1969), Matthews (1989), Hayden and Thompson (2008) and Bunnell (2008), as well as on Zhao’s view of globalisation (2015), I propose the following definition of the schools under consideration: globalised elite English private schools that educate a majority of host nationals, through a curriculum that is different to that of the host country, taught by a staff that is in the majority expatriate. Deriving a definition does not explain how the franchising of elite private schools from England to initially Asia, and since more widely, came to be. In the next two sections I summarise the events described by Bunnell (2008), the journey of both international schools and elite English private schools, and how that may have led to a wave as initially described by Bunnell (2008) across Asia, and then beyond.

A Summary of Bunnell (2008): Ten Years of Exporting Elite English Private Schools

Bunnell (2008) notes that the early export of Dulwich into Thailand was perhaps not so unique. The idea of opening overseas campuses had already been explored by universities looking to increase revenue through development of ways to recruit new students (2008: 383-384). Thailand already had a number of prominent international schools, and a western education had become increasingly popular in the capital, Bangkok, with an increase in international schools of over 300% in Thailand in less than 10 years (Brummitt, 2007). An influential Thai alumnus of Dulwich College, UK was instrumental in the replication of Dulwich in Phuket in 1996. Harrow Bangkok was not far behind, opening its doors two years later (Bunnell, 2008: 384). Bunnell goes on to explain that a growing number of elite English private schools were considering possible locations and financial supporters, though the economic crash in Asia at the end of the century led to these discussions not bearing fruit (2008: 385). Dulwich and Harrow were able to develop and gain reputation, both schools modelling themselves on their UK counterparts, including uniforms, though with fees greatly reduced for the Asian market (2008: 385).

Five years on, Shrewsbury was the third of the elite schools to join the wave. Opening a co-educational campus in Bangkok, Shrewsbury was instantly oversubscribed, confirming the demand for international school places (Bunnell, 2008: 385). The fourth school, also seen as one of the leading 250 private schools in the UK, was Bromsgrove, which opened a year later and was slightly different in that it was a re-branding of a former Bangkok-based international school, Windsor (2008: 385). By this time, Dulwich had taken its international model to China, initially in Shanghai for ‘overseas Chinese’ (Chinese students who had previously lived outside China). Three other campuses were also planned, the second of which opened in Beijing at a similar time to Harrow also opening in Beijing, notable in both cases being the targeting of local Chinese rather than the expatriate market (Bunnell, 2008: 385).

As Bunnell reports, other schools were now following suit elsewhere in the world, including Brighton College in Moscow, and Repton in Dubai. New projects in Asia were announced, including Oxford High School for Girls with two possible campuses, and Haileybury proposing a satellite college in Kazakhstan. Rumours followed of Wellington College opening in Bahrain, Qatar and India. During this first ten years, Dulwich evolved from the initial franchise into a separate international management group, which secured rights for 100 years allowing them to expand through and beyond China (Bunnell, 2008: 386). Interestingly, Bunnell highlights the misleading appropriation of branded names by some schools such as the EtonHouse Group (with no connection to Eton), which he suggests should be considered the Asian ‘fake Rolex’ of the international school marketplace. According to Bunnell, the elite phenomenon did not seem at that time to have been replicated by prestigious schools from other Western countries. Where recognisable names were seen, often they appeared to be examples of the ‘fake Rolex’ syndrome (Bunnell, 2008: 389).

At the end of the first decade after the emergence of Dulwich and Harrow, Bunnell suggested the positioning of a possible further wave (2008: 390); after ten years of groundwork, a lucrative global marketplace for elite English private schools, partnered by local business leaders, had emerged. Bunnell proposed that whilst the first wave was warmly welcomed, what was developing over the next decade might be received less favourably. The following decade, however, saw greater growth and market positioning to cement the elite status. In the following sections I consider how the elite English private schools prospered and claimed new territories. Understanding some of the events that led to the inception of this form of new international school may help to see how the landscape might further develop.

How Did the Wave Form?

Butler and Hamnett (2011) explain that, around the end of the nineteenth century, the outward growth of British cities allowed suburbs to develop: arguably this is a significant factor, linked to an increase in the importance of national education which supported the development of the middle and upper classes (Butler & Hamnett, 2011). With an increase of salaried middle-class professionals, Banks (1955) observes that formal educational qualifications were a large contributing factor to social mobility. London’s elite schools had an opportunity to relocate from the city to areas that allowed for growth of facilities and greater sporting opportunities. Further work by Honey (1977) describes the observable school attendance of the aristocracy increasing towards the end of the century to become more routine, with well-established schools such as Eton and Rugby becoming more aristocratic (Honey, 1977). Additional recognition of these changes is found in Hall (1974), noting the re-locating of the elite schools (not only Eton and Rugby) supporting an imagery of elite and middle-class schooling. Elite private schools with their recognisable architecture, in a rural setting, were within commutable distance of the city (Hall, 1974).

International schools arguably began to emerge after the First World War with the opening of schools in Geneva and Yokohama (Schmidt & Chiang May, 2014). The United Nations Educational Scientific and Cultural Organisation (UNESCO) made recommendations following World War II for peace, international understanding and cooperation, also proposing education for fundamental freedoms and human rights. UNESCO explained international understanding as indivisible and argued that, despite the existence of different political and social systems, there should be respect for fundamental freedoms along with human rights (UNESCO, 2021). The subsequent and accelerated growth of international schools has arguably been driven by several factors (Hayden & Thompson, 2008; Zhao, 2015):

In some countries since the turn of the century, international schools now offered governments an opportunity to respond to the demands of the growing middle classes and so provide a quality international education (Machin, 2017). Worldwide, state-funded education was (and still is) the form of education studied by the majority with few notable exceptions, such as Dubai. At the same time, and in some contexts, international schools now offered a country’s middle class recognisable global qualifications (ISC News, 2018). Parents were offered a choice without government having to bear the financial burden. Many governments, particularly in Asia, actively supported the growth of international schools: see Ang & Kwok (2012) and Techavijit (2007). Examples of this phenomenon can be seen in Malaysia where the government offered a 100% tax incentive for new or expanding international schools (Ang & Kwok, 2012), while the South Korea government gave significant investment and land for the development of international schools (Ang & Kwok, 2012), and the Thai government allowed Thai nationals to attend international schools in 1992 through deregulation of its private schools (Techavijit, 2007).

Bunnell (2008) argued that the driving force behind the wave of elite English private schools overseas was the Charities Act 2006 in England and Wales, which effectively meant that private schools, if they were to retain their charitable status, had to demonstrate their actions were of benefit to the public. Elite schools needed to offer increased numbers of subsidised places to state school children, with the Charity Commission saying the schools should be ‘innovative and imaginative’ in doing so (Charity Commission, 2007, Section G). What could be more innovative than the exportation of the elite private schools themselves to a willing customer base that would fund the required subsidies? Innovative ideas, however, are only as good as those who align to them. The next two sections will initially discuss the different school models and the role of globalisation in supporting the growth of the international school sector, before discussing who the global middle classes are and why they might be shunning their national schools.

International School Models and Globalisation

International schools were originally stand-alone, independent ventures (Hill, 2016), often created to fill a need within a particular expatriate community. In time, some such schools through like-minded administration or other connections began to form collaborative affiliations, such as the Federation of British International Schools in Asia (FOBISIA, 2021) and the British Schools in the Middle East (BSME, 2022). Groups of schools from a single founder also began to develop, such as the English Schools Foundation (ESF) in Hong Kong in the late 1960s, and few years later and also in Hong Kong, Nord Anglia Education. By the turn of the century more school groups had begun to emerge, including GEMS Education, Cognita, and Orbital Education.

Bunnell (2008: 384) adopted from the popular press (Griffiths, 2007; Paton, 2007) the term satellite college which, as he goes on to explain, each have what is described as a father college (the original in England) with a family of schools in different locations. The marketing of a family of schools by, for instance, Harrow and Dulwich arguably portrays an image based on the ethos and values of the college, and what parents may be looking for, much like those of a traditional family. From Bunnell’s (2008) descriptions, it could be argued that in the first wave, the satellite colleges were in many ways trying to replicate the ‘father’; then as the ‘children’ grew up and matured, they wanted to establish their own identities. The model has changed. Both Harrow and Dulwich are now global brands (Harrow, 2022; Dulwich, 2022); Harrow Foundation is a franchise operating under a licence, while Dulwich College International is a management group that holds a 100-year agreement. Bunnell (2008) touches upon global branding in discussing the work of Kapferer (2005). At that time, with no other source to draw upon than the popular press, Kapferer’s concept of post-global branding was not generally recognised, leading to the term ‘satellite college’ being widely used. I propose that the satellite model is not as relevant today as previously, hence the need for the new descriptive term for these schools: Globalised Elite English Private Schools (GEEPS). The word ‘globalised’ is used here to represent both ethos and location. As businesses, the GEEPS have developed new models to suit an expanding competitive market, and others have followed. Understanding the globalised nature of these schools may provide an insight into their nature; their primary task. Their market positioning implies a shift of focussing the task from one of education to one of economics, which provides a clear distinction between the GEEPS and the elite traditional international schools (Bunnell & Hatch, 2021), where the primary task remains rooted in education.

Kapferer’s work (2005) is consistent with this line of thought in showing how global branding becomes targeted on regional differences, especially in larger countries. More locally-recognisable details are adapted to suit the regional market. Kapferer illustrates four factors (cost, regulation, location, and customer) that need to be considered in global branding (2005: 321), which can equally be related to the context of education. From the four factors, Kapferer posits seven patterns of globalisation (p322): luxury, positioning, adaptation, branding, legislation, pricing, and variation. All can be seen in the current marketing of international school groups, including the GEEPS. Joachimsthaler & Aaker (1997) share Kapferer’s view that identity building is important for brand building, while more recently Thompkins & Rogerson (2012) challenge some of these traditional ideas through the development of the consumer’s role in brand building through social media. In the business of international education, the four factors affecting schools could be rewritten to include:

International school groups are expanding and developing in new territories (Gaskell, 2019; ISC, 2021). This is also true of the GEEPS, and it is important for them to model their global development through regional variations; in becoming global, they must value the regional. Referring to Kapferer’s seven patterns of globalisation (2005), I will show that whilst the GEEPS position themselves as global brands, their model may be re-interpreted.

Kapferer highlights businesses that show no adaptation (Type 1) (2005: 323): the top brands that are easily recognisable and sought-after globally as they are. In the context of international schools, this could apply to the United World Colleges (UWC, 2022), which have a mission and vision that do not alter, and a student base that is arguably similar regardless of their different regional placements. Founded in 1962 by educationalist Kurt Hahn, the UWC are an instantly recognisable movement of schools (UWC, 2022). Arguably it is the wish of the GEEPS to be regarded as a brand, Type 1 (Kapferer 2005: 323): their regional (or localised) elite status in the UK is what they hope to replicate and capitalise on through a global stage. Alternatively, Kapferer describes Type 6 (2005: 323), which develop through the same brand but with different price positions. In the context of international schools, GEMS Education is an excellent example of Type 6: a three-tier model to fit the pockets of the upper, middle and lower sections of the global middle class. GEMS claims that students will achieve the same educational outcomes but through differing experiences based on cost. Arguably this is a model also starting to be developed by the GEEPS, with Dulwich and Harrow both opening schools with lower fee structures, designed for more local markets in China and across Asia.

I suggest the GEEPS are clearly aiming to be Type 1, elite tier schools, but they must recognise that through expansion and widening their student base to include more local host country nationals, they are crossing into Kapferer’s Type 6 and possibly undermining their elite brand identity. This does not however, appear to be deterring potential students who desire access to this elite brand. The next section will consider the concept of the new global middle class in order to help to understand their motives for school choice.

Who are the Global Middle Class?

According to Koo (2016), the term global middle class refers to the growing middle class population in the world: a group made up of those who have reached a level of economic stability. Wheary (2009) explains that around 400 million people identified as being middle class in the 1980s, the majority of whom were in the West. Wheary explains that, by the end of the twentieth century, this figure had grown to over a billion globally. Das (2009) mirrors Wheary’s view and forecasts that this number will likely double by 2030, when globally the middle class are estimated to number beyond two billion (Das, 2009). In taking this argument further, Koo (2016) argues that the numbers of typical middle class in the West, including those in the USA and Western Europe, are declining. In China, India and Asia, however, the numbers are rapidly increasing. Koo (2016) believes middle class numbers in the East have now overtaken those in the West. This wave of affluence has arguably been, and still is, underpinning the wave of international schools. Supporting the growth in international schools is the growth in a particular section of the middle class: a global middle class or global elite (Koo, 2016; Wechsler, 2017). They are more affluent, have a more globalised mindset, and can be seen as more ‘globally oriented’, than their middle class peers, as described succinctly by Koo:

‘These people enjoy the western style of life, speak English, feel comfortable in foreign cultures, and exhibit a global orientation in their work and leisure. They form the most visible segment of the population in today’s bustling Asian metropolises, and they represent the dominant trend of social and cultural change in these societies.’ (2016: 442)

An alternative view is taken by Ball & Nikita (2014) of the global middle class as an emerging group: the globally mobile, the ‘managers and professionals’ (p85). This growing group of the global middle class, and their children, have a transient lifestyle as they move for their careers. Statistics from ISC (2021), however, show that the proportion of expatriate children being educated in international schools is dropping in comparison with the growing proportion of host nationals. Particularly in the case of GEEPS, it is clear that more locals are now attending international schools than expatriates, and it is this rise in the local global middle class that is fuelling the rising numbers of international schools.

What Koo describes reflects globalisation in practice and is consistent with Zhao’s definition of a ‘process and result of worldwide economic, social, cultural, and political networks’ (2015: 247). Held had previously described globalisation as a ‘widening, deepening and speeding up of worldwide interconnectedness in all aspects of contemporary social life’ (1999): 2). Globalisation can therefore be thought of as a transformation of social relationships and interactions. The increase in international schools not only creates communities that support globalisation but inherently are catalysts for future growth: a view supported by Scholte (2005) in describing people within societies living at different levels. They can live at a local, county and national level, and live in spaces that are cross-border: as Scholte explains, a single space. The notion of a cross-border single space is reinforced through the lens of different networks such as financial, strategic, environmental and socio-cultural as proposed by Keohane & Nye (2001).

Lucas (2000) posits that by the end of the twentieth century the world economy was shaped by financial globalisation, with the world enjoying a global prosperity not seen before: a point later reinforced by Eisenhauer (2007). Quality of life in the second half of the century was visibly better than at other times before (Lucas, 2000). Eisenhauer (2007) suggests that this made defining or even conceptualising a global middle class a challenging process, as the boundaries that separated this global middle class from others were vague. Investment in education was seen by Bourdieu as the reproduction of middle-class privilege (Bourdieu & Boltanski, 2000). The emerging global middle class, as per Bourdieu, showed the perfect inequality of class structuring and the new-found love for international education. One illustration of this phenomenon was identified in South Korea by Hagen (2016) where at the end of the last century as a consumerist society, widening economic gaps in the middle classes gave way to class distinction by the more affluent, principally through what Bourdieu (1984) described as ‘conspicuous consumption’. Eager to form a new class identity different from the ‘ordinary middle class’, residential segregation and luxury consumerism became more symbolic (Hagen, 2016). Gucci, Chanel and Prada became status symbols for the more affluent middle class. As Hagen describes, international education was for the privileged upper middle class; school uniforms became designer. A similar phenomenon could be seen across Asia, with the rising middle classes keen to demonstrate their new affluence and demand for international school places soaring in popularity. Globally, the ten years prior to Covid-19 had seen growth beyond expectation, which changed the international school landscape (Gaskell, 2019). In the next section I look back at this growth, focusing specifically on the development of the GEEPS.

Catching Up Over the Second Decade: A Summary of Growth

Bunnell (2008) describes the first wave of elite English private schools constituting nine international schools from four of the UK private (independent) schools: Dulwich, Harrow, Bromsgrove and Shrewsbury. Others were then being planned, and over the following ten years the scale of development for GEEPS opening international satellite schools made Bunnell’s wave look more like a ripple, with Sherborne, Wellington, North London Collegiate, Brighton College, Malvern, Kings College, Epsom College, Repton, RGS Guildford and Rugby joining the early pioneers in opening international versions of themselves. Based on available data from ISC, FOBISIA, BSME, CIS and ISR (2021; 2022), approximately forty new international schools (GEEPS) joined an already expanding market during that ten year period. As well as the GEEPS, other ventures were taking off during this period that capitalised on the names of trusted independent schools from the UK. While clearly not having any formal connection with their namesakes and appearing perhaps to be examples of Bunnell’s (2008) fake Rolex syndrome, the schools themselves do not claim to have connections they do not have.

While forty new schools in a decade may seem impressive, these numbers pale into insignificance when placed in the context of the overall international market. By the end of this second decade, around fifty GEEPS is a small fraction of the 9,000 or so international schools globally at that time (Gaskell, 2019). In referring to the ‘Asian Gold Rush’, Machin describes the regional growth of international schools:

‘Exemplifying the rate of regional growth, at the turn of the century Hong Kong had 92 international schools and now has 176; Thailand had less than a dozen, today 181. Since 2012 the number of international schools in Myanmar has more than doubled, from 25 to 51. In the United Arab Emirates, the number of schools increased by 15% between 2015 and 2016, with 78 new schools opened in the space of a single year.’ (2017: 131)

By the end of their second decade, the arrival and presence of the GEEPS was notable, and for expatriate teachers had become a magnet for employment, providing an opportunity to work for a trusted name and, for some, to have their own children educated at globally elite schools (ISR, 2022). They have become the new challenger in the marketplace to the Elite Traditional International Schools (ETIS) described by Bunnell & Hatch (2021), the trusted name becoming better known in an overcrowded and growing market.

In the next two sections, I consider the primary task of the international school with respect to how it may have changed or been adapted since the arrival of the GEEPS, before proposing that international schools use both accreditation and affiliation as tools in an increasingly competitive market.

What is the Primary Task of International Schools, and has it changed?

International schools have become multi-tasked communities with a range of purposes depending on the lens of the stakeholder. Bunnell (2016) discusses an evolving definition of international schools and their primary task. Citing many well-known commentators in the field including Hill and Thompson, Bunnell explores the notion of identity and purpose, with the word ‘international’ brought under scrutiny. Describing the primary task as ‘the task an organisation must perform to survive. In other words, its essential activity’, Bunnell (2016: 32) simplifies a previous definition by the English anthropologist A K Rice. In the context of this article, what is the essential activity of an international school?

International schools develop their mission statements to act as an indicator of their primary task, in so doing possibly clouding the understanding of how the task was to be achieved. Bunnell uses the example of one particular mission statement from Copenhagen International School (CIS), arguing (2016: 34) that while the statement may explain what the school wants to do, it does not explain how or why that relates to being international. Does it need to though? Why does a school have to explain its international nature as a core purpose? Bunnell works through the vision and mission of CIS to distil in his view the primary task of CIS as being the offering of an international curriculum (the International Baccalaureate, IB) to fulfil its mission (2016: 34). In the context of one example of GEEPS, Harrow International School Bangkok might argue its primary task as cultivating ‘Educational Excellence for Life and Leadership’ as shown in the tagline on its website’s landing page (Harrow Bangkok, 2022). The curriculum offered by Harrow Bangkok includes the IGCSE and A Level offered by many international schools. The primary task of Harrow Bangkok therefore could be argued to be not so much the curriculum itself but more the delivery of the education and how it supports their students in preparing for a global stage.

Explained as a heuristic concept by Miller & Rice (1967), the primary task can be explained in many ways. Arguably, in international schools the primary task will be skewed depending on the lens of the stakeholder. As noted earlier, Zhao (2015) commented on a number of reasons given for the increase in numbers of local students now attending international schools. For parents paying for places, these reasons may well relate to their view of what the primary task of the international school should be, whatever the school’s mission and vision. Arguably, many parents see the primary task of the GEEPS as providing direct access to elite UK universities such as Oxford and Cambridge. In contrast, Machin (2014) suggests that school owners may have a different view of their school’s primary task; capitalist vs ideological (based on internationalism: Hill, 2016). In my view, international schools should not differ widely in their primary task from that of national schools: all schools exist to educate, regardless of the curriculum, in a manner and environment chosen by the school (owners or government) to meet the needs of its community. A simple difference may be that a national school is preparing its students predominantly for a future in the host country, while an international school may be preparing its students for a future either in the host country or elsewhere.

Focusing on the primary task as described above may perhaps be an oversimplification. Bunnell, Fertig & James (2016) describe the work of Lawrence (1977) who proposed three different kinds of primary task: normative (official or recognised task), existential (the task that stakeholders believe they are performing), and phenomenal (the task inferred from the stakeholders’ behaviours, conscious or not). Though these three tasks may be different in reality, Bunnell, Fertig & James (2016) argue that for an institution to have legitimacy, they should be the same. My view is that legitimacy is being sought through other means, often mistaken as the primary task: this will be elaborated in the next section, together with consideration of the role of accreditation and affiliation viewed through the lens of Fertig (2007).

Legitimisation through Affiliation and Accreditation

It is clear that there exists a growing market place in which international schools are competing (ISC, 2021). Personal experience suggests that while facilities and location are popular factors influencing choice, schools must also find other ways in which to differentiate themselves from each other: to show that they are a better choice than their competitor nearby. Billboards and posters across cities are testament to this.

Accreditation may be defined as the process by which competency and credibility are certified (ISO, 2022), while affiliation refers to direct association with a particular group, often through membership of a relevant organisation. In my experience, there has been a notable shift towards international schools being both affiliated and accredited with regional and globally recognisable groups and organisations. The reasons behind this trend are many, but include a simple marketing strategy of ‘keeping up with the Joneses’. Affiliating groups such as FOBISIA and BSME have rapidly increased their numbers of member schools over the past two decades (FOBISIA, 2022; BSME, 2022). Such groups include as a requirement for membership that schools are accredited by recognised bodies; a way of legitimising their own membership. Fertig (2007) describes how models of international school accreditation have developed, with a noticeable trend towards self-improvement and goals or standards becoming similar across the accrediting bodies, pushing international schools to become more homogenous in their delivery of an international education. The sector is becoming more regulated and controlled by a handful of recognised accrediting agencies with similar standards and expectations.

Growth in this area is matched by growth in the international school market as noted above. In 2007, when Fertig searched the phrase ‘school accreditation’ on Google Scholar, 106 search items were returned. (2007: 334). 15 years later, this figure has become 12,700. There is now far greater interest in these processes, with approximately 20% of international schools having recognisable accreditation, a percentage that has remained fairly stable even as numbers of schools continue to grow (Gaskell, 2019). The English elite private schools that have moved into international territories have followed suit. When competing against each other, their name and heritage may not be enough outside a UK-centric market. A review of a number of websites for the GEEPS shows an array of accreditation and affiliations including FOBISIA, BSME, Council of International Schools, Council of British International Schools, and British Schools Overseas. In an international market where competition between international schools exists, affiliations and accreditation are clearly important. Machin (2019) develops the idea of schools as organisations, evolving through their affiliations and associations.

Bunnell, Fertig and James (2017) argue that it is the international curriculum as the primary core task that gives legitimacy to international schools. With the increasing importance attached to accreditation, it is arguably delivery of the curriculum and how that is externally judged that brings legitimacy, with wider curriculum and the care offered to students a very visible part of this process. The GEEPS may well be relying on names and heritage to support legitimacy. More widely, in 2013 Hayden and Thompson categorised international schools into three types. Schools in Type A are the traditional international schools, developed to meet the needs of a transient or mobile population. Type B are international schools formed on the ideals of world harmony and peace as described by UNESCO and exemplified by the United World Colleges. Type C, or non-traditional, international schools are arguably more capitalist in focus, catering largely for host country nationals and, Machin (2014) points out, often owned by business people looking to legitimise their own operations through the lucrative business of education. Across all three types, accreditation and affiliation can be found. The histories of FOBISIA and BSME (2022), for example, show early collaboration, particularly with Type A schools in facilitating affiliated support for each other through, for instance, provision of opportunities for sporting competition between their respective communities (FOBISIA, 2022). The primary task of simple collaboration for these affiliating bodies has evolved, and grown to include a form of its own accreditation through outside bodies (BSME, 2022). Type C schools now wish (and in some cases need) to legitimise themselves by being a part of growing affiliations such as these.

One of the more recent accreditation models is that offered by British Schools Overseas (BSO), which is controlled by the British Government through OFSTED (Gov.UK, 2022): a means of the UK vetting and benchmarking those schools internationally that claim to be British in nature. Though not a requirement, BSO is arguably becoming a kitemark for top British international schools: so much so that an affiliation of BSO accredited schools has already been formed – an elite within the elite. The Association of British Schools Overseas (AoBSO) exists to ‘connect the best in educational thinking and practices in British Schools Overseas around the world’ (AoBSO, 2021). Many of the new GEEPS have joined the ranks of top traditional international schools to become accredited through BSO and join their regional AoBSO.

Discussions, Conclusions and the Future

Information on international schools is becoming increasingly accessible. As the market for international schools continues to grow, so too do the markets for school resource providers and for school research (ISR, 2022); databases are more accessible and reasonably current. Full access to some of these databases can, however, be expensive, as with ISR. Such databases are also often no more than snapshots of the landscape, at a particular time, and are statistical in nature. Despite increasing availability of information, it is clear that there is still little known about how GEEPS, and international schools more widely, will develop. Predictions appear to show continued growth of the market (Machin, 2017) that will eventually slow down. What will happen to some of these schools is unclear, though there may well be school closures as profit margins begin to drop through increased competition. Some schools have already closed due to increased pressure from the pandemic that impacted on the rate of growth of new school numbers.

As an international school leader, I am privileged to discuss upcoming new ventures with other colleagues, but often these are based on hearsay and many do not come to fruition. Schools themselves often keep plans for development and growth fairly quiet, and competition for location can be quite strong. Further growth may be challenged through new competitors. Recently, US independent schools have been showing an interest in this market (Eisenach & Gaskell, 2019): Dwight and Chadwick, for instance, have sister schools outside of the US. Eisenach and Gaskell explain that a shrinking independent school market in the US is pushing schools to develop alternative revenue sources and follow the UK GEEPS into the international market. Available literature on such US equivalents is scant, and further research into how these schools are developing and positioning themselves against the GEEPS is needed to ascertain any potential threat to the GEEPS market.

The international school landscape has changed, as have the schools themselves. No longer do we clearly see the ideology of internationalism (Hill, 2016) throughout the sector, which has shifted overall far more to the pragmatic consumerism of globalisation and capitalism. Whilst not-for-profit independent international schools still exist worldwide, they are competing in an increasingly competitive market (Machin, 2014; 2017). Competition is in turn leading schools to reflect on their own ideals and how to support them. As increasing numbers of schools are opened, with ever more impressive landscaping and physical resources, they are needing to find other ways to attract and retain students in order to make good on their investments.

Asia is already overwhelmed by consumerism and newly-found capitalism (Zhao, 2015; Machin, 2017). Schools that are seen as recognised brands have created a niche market. A change in UK charitable status for independent/private schools jumpstarted a wave of elite English private schools across Asia (Bunnell, 2008) which, on reflection, was perhaps more of a chain reaction akin to the fire crackers used across Asia. Interestingly, the rest of the world (barring the Middle East) appears to be slower on the uptake. Bunnell (2019) describes this focus of schools across Asia as the ‘China Distortion’, also explaining how the popular news and focus of international schools is quite often depicted through examples of the GEEPS, giving rise to a ‘Dulwich Distortion’ (Bunnell, 2019). Ironically, the Charities Act has now reverted to its previous form, with independent schools only being expected (and not required) to support state schools through use of facilities and mentoring in order to keep their charitable status (Merrick, 2018).

The growth of the GEEPS across Asia and the Middle East is clear: as noted earlier, a four-fold increase by the end of their second decade over the first, with more schools planned and new players entering the market likely to ensure further growth over the next decade. The satellite model described by Bunnell (2008) was the starting point before the ‘satellites’ matured and created their own families. The GEEPS may be thought of as relatives of the original UK-based colleges and schools, but which are now starting their own distinct families overseas. Numbers of international schools more widely are predicted to double again in this next decade (Bunnell & Gardner-McTaggart, 2022) with the GEEPS now firmly embedded and bringing their own brand of leadership and cultural demands.

As we move into a third decade of the GEEPS, the originals of these branded international schools (Dulwich and Harrow) are gaining heritage value as their early students, as alumni, are looking to send their own children to their alma mater (Dobson, 2015). As noted by Hunt (2012), this increased relationship helps strengthen the regional brand. What is not yet clear is how the global network of international alumni of such schools will interact with each other. As more international schools enter the market, there is an associated increase in numbers of teachers being employed (Gaskell, 2019; ISC, 2021), with teachers themselves finding ways to establish standards by which to rate and categorise international schools (see, for instance, the International Schools Review) (ISR, 2022). Such categorisations are becoming increasingly important, especially as accreditation becomes increasingly standardised: despite the number of accrediting bodies, education and assessment measures are becoming more generic and formulaic (Fertig, 2007).

Arguably, the primary task of any school is to educate, though the primary task of an international school may be somewhat clouded by its own identity crisis (Hill, 2017). Agreeing on one definition of an international school to which all can subscribe may help with this. Until then, as Machin (2017) argues, an international school may be considered as one that deems itself so. It is also the case that the primary task of such schools can be adapted or abused. As such, most of the newer schools, or Type C (Hayden & Thompson, 2013), may have dual primary tasks dependent upon the ideological or the capitalist viewpoint they espouse. Many educators appear to believe the primary task of many international schools has become financial, with education relegated to being a secondary task (ISR, 2022).

Going Forward

Where next? As Machin points out, ‘gold rushes rarely last forever’ (2017: 143). The numbers of international schools (including GEEPS) being founded may well continue to increase as opportunists seize on the current and improving climate (ISC News, 2018). In the business world, market forces usually determine which businesses will remain. The alumni of the GEEPS and their success are likely to be a crucial factor in their long-term survival. Schools would be wise to invest in their students, to encourage them to invest back into the schools beyond their own graduation. Research on international alumni is limited, with one such study being Jabal’s (2006) research on alumni of international schools in Hong Kong and their impact on school leadership. Further research on international school alumni is required to develop our understanding of their place in the labour market and so inform a clearer understanding of the primary task of the GEEPS. University and career progression for GEEPS alumni may provide good indications of the long-term value of the branded international school. Further research on the GEEPS’ alumni networking opportunities would allow clearer comparison with UK elite private schools themselves and whether there is a recognition of or merging of social networks. Much of the existing research on international schools focusses on the globally mobile expatriate population (the 20%, as noted earlier: Gaskell, 2019), and more research is needed on the ‘national’ population (the 80%), who are experiencing the ‘third culture’ of international schools by nature of their education and its environment (Bailey, 2015). What will be the impact of these international school graduates on the future of their country and beyond? Will they, as Harrow Bangkok (2022) argues, ‘contribute as leaders to a better world’?

In academic literature and in the media, international schools such as Dulwich and Harrow are often referred to as elite or educating the national elite (Griffiths, 2007; Bunnell, 2008; Bunnell, 2019; Hunt, 2012; Machin, 2014; Machin, 2017; Wechsler, 2017). The GEEPS terminology I am proposing includes the term ‘elite’. The schools themselves, however, do not describe themselves as such. It may be argued that an indirect and unfair advantage is being given by describing them as such, helping to set the GEEPS apart from others. Since the end of the second decade of what promised to be a steady stream of growth, the pandemic has led to an ebbing of the global wave (ISC, 2022). Particularly in China, the arguably harsh government response to Covid-19 combined with changing legislation (Langley et al, 2022), may mean that the gold rush discussed by Machin (2017) becomes more of a trickle – for the time being, at least.