9 minute read
‘Illiberal’ International Schools
Schools Revisited
By Richard Eaton
In 2019, given my then personal and professional affiliations, I wrote in this magazine an anonymous rejoinder, entitled The rise of ‘illiberal international schools’?, to an earlier piece on international education terminology by Hayden & Thompson (2018). It was a reaction to their suggestion that we may not ‘need to explain “international schools” further’; rather we might show
‘more interest in what takes place educationally, within and outwith the institution’ (ibid, p3). My concern, at the time, was what I perceived as the apolitical nature of this commentary. I had entered our profession in 1997, on the heels of the Cold War – blinded, arguably, by the notion that international education was primarily about the development of peaceful approaches to internationalism and pan-human understanding (Bunnell, 2021a), essentially an ideologically-driven field within which I could make a meaningful contribution. In this sense, I had enlisted in the Western, liberal democratic and economic order which, looking back, was a political, even naïve choice. Nevertheless, like many young people now and then, affected by the context of my time I hoped, in what seemed a benevolent manner, to make the world a better place.
In their typology of international teachers, Bailey & Cooker (2019) have referred to those entering the field on ideological premises as ‘Type B’ teachers (p136). In the late 1990s, for me, such grounds seemed logical.
It was an era I imagined would be defined by the proliferation of what Nye (1990) called
‘soft power’ (p166) – the sway of attractive, predominately Western political and economic values that would bring benefit to all in an increasingly inter-connected global civil society. While the proliferation of Western ‘soft power’ has been problematic in its own right, at the start of 2019 I was, nonetheless, intent on highlighting what seemed a troubling contradiction. ‘What happens’, I asked, ‘when [self-proclaimed or clearly illiberal states] contribute significant funding to sponsoring so-called international schools
My conclusion, for – or ones that seize better or worse, was on any number of similar appellations that even though … to advance [their] the governments national economies?’ (Anonymous, 2019: financing these 5). My conclusion, for schools would better or worse, was seem the ‘anti-thesis that even though the governments financing to much of what these schools would the international seem the ‘anti-thesis to much of what the schooling movement international schooling has stood for across movement has stood the last two centuries’ for across the last two centuries’ (p5), the field’s supply chain and its teaching cadres would see opportunity and seize it. Consequently, these nation-states and their illiberal regimes would grow in power, and global civil society – which I imagined international schooling in place to strengthen – would be weakened. A bitter irony, yes, but literature emerging post-2019 has helped me better understand the predicament. Bunnell & Atkinson
(2020), drawing on the work of Bourdieu, describe what they call the ‘nomos’ (p257) of international schooling. Essentially, this is the field’s powerful, ‘wider, normative belief structure’ (ibid, p257). In our profession, they theorize, the ‘nomos’ hinges ‘upon a strong ethical and moral code of operation that promotes intercultural understanding, mutual respect, and global responsibility which ultimately aims to deliver a sustainable, just and more peaceful world’ (ibid, p257). This exemplified what was, for me, the allure of the profession; at the same time, a robustly ‘positive ethical platform’ also conceals the field’s lesssightly underbelly, which has included employment discrimination (ibid, p257), elite educational opportunities inaccessible to the general public (Vass, 2019), youth talent being stripped from less-developed locales (Elliot, 2021), international schooling’s comparability to colonial and missionary activity (Eaton, 2019), and the clandestine ‘complex interconnected flows of investment’ propelling the field’s growth (Bunnell, 2021b: 4). Blinkered by an ethically noble ‘nomos’ (Bunnell & Atkinson, 2020), it becomes hard to imagine that international schooling, something structured fundamentally to do good, could impact detrimentally and/or contradictorily.
The paradox of international schooling’s ‘nomos’ may also explain a passive coexistence with illiberalism in its mottled guises. Drawing on a seminal work by Cambridge & Thompson (2004), Bunnell reminds us that parallel to the idealism that drew many of us to teaching internationally, there has always been a degree of functional pragmatism inherent to our field (Bunnell, 2021a). The ever-expanding constellation of international schools exists to serve a collage of variedly intentioned proprietors. Within this patchwork, polarizing regimes benefit deliberately and implicitly from international schools, while educational professionals may
remain willing to work in duplicitous political contexts where the unique opportunities and challenges on offer are able to be parlayed into forms of what Bunnell & Poole (2021) have called ‘resilience’ (p64) and ‘transition’ (p84) capital applicable when moving from job to job, school to school, and country to country. This is not to mention the prospect of mobility and travel sought by Bailey & Cooker’s (2019) ‘Type A’ international educator (p136). When aligned with an attractive salary, and the prospect of working somewhere new, different, and exciting – or even subversively hoping to make change – it is easy to appreciate the draw.
We still know little about the messiness of the lived experiences of international teachers working in many contexts (Poole, 2020), particularly how they rationalize their career decisions to themselves and others; yet we are fully aware that some international schools operate in contexts beleaguered by ‘oppressive human rights laws, statemandated fake histories, and ongoing acts of genocide‘ (Elliot, 2021) – and that legitimizing accrediting bodies and
curriculum providers act as superordinate authorities for schools in these settings, giving credence to their claims to be international (Bunnell, Fertig & James, 2016). It could be argued that many such schools support diplomatic work that maintains an uneasy balance. Concurrently, the same schools can find themselves providing education for a morally questionable (Elliot, 2021) political elite. As such in 2019, unreservedly drawing on Hayden & Thompson’s (2013) A–C typology of international schools, I labeled illiberal international schools – and others receiving funding
from governments whose ‘political discourse, action, and impact is in conflict with the humanitarian values that the international schooling movement has long championed’ (Anonymous, 2019: 7) – Type D international schools: effectively, organizations that when subjected to the lofty criteria I had for the international schooling movement when I joined the field a quarter of a century ago, were deserving of a letter grade close to F, or nearly failing. The Type D appellation was, and remains, an admittedly overly simplistic one, but it consummates the disappointment felt by those, like me, who joined the profession on ideological grounds in what now seems like a bygone era.
And so Foreign Affairs began 2022 with an essay aptly entitled ‘The Real Crisis of Global Order: Illiberalism on the Rise’. Therein was a stark reminder, against the backdrop of the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic and much-needed reflection on matters of inequality, racism, and social justice: nation-states the world over have benefited from ‘the liberal economic order without accepting the requirements of political liberalism’ (Cooley & Nexon, 2022). It has become harder not to notice – harder, as stated in the mission and vision of one of the field’s leading voices, the Council of International Schools (2022), to make ‘different views and opinions a source of inspiration’, harder to be politically neutral. However, reflecting on my own rationale for embarking on a career in our profession, one has to wonder if the field ever really was We still know little about the messiness of the lived experiences of international teachers working in many contexts (Poole, 2020),
politically neutral, which makes today’s quandaries all the more befuddling.
International schooling too, notably its stunning growth, has benefited from the liberal political and economic order; and, three years on from my rejoinder to Hayden and Thompson, I am more equipped to sociologically rationalize how and why our field has quietly coexisted with illiberalism. Yet there comes a time, as Ruth Smeeth (2020: 48), CEO of Index on Censorship, declares, when we are forced ‘to take a step back and consider who we are and what we want to achieve’ as individuals, organizations, and entire professions, particularly when faced with a tide that threatens so much of what our movement holds dear, including peace itself.
It is past time for further commentary; collective action is needed. ◆
Richard Eaton has served as a teacher and leader for 25 years in schools across four continents, and today is based with his family in Berlin, Germany. ✉ eatonr@ymail.com
References
• Anonymous (2019) The rise of ‘illiberal’ international schools? A rejoinder to Hayden and Thompson.
International School. 21(2): 5-7. • Bailey L and Cooker L (2019) Exploring teacher identity in international schools: key concepts for research. Journal of Research in International Education, 18(2): 124-141. • Bunnell T (2021a) The ‘fundamental dilemma’ of international education revisited. In Hayden M (ed) (2021) Interpreting International Education: In Honour of Professor Jeff Thompson. Routledge: Abingdon, 139-149. • Bunnell T (2021b) The crypto-growth of ‘international schooling’: emergent issues and implications.
Educational Review (online). 8 February 2021. • Bunnell T and Atkinson C (2020) Exploring enduring employment discrimination in favour of British and
American teachers in ‘traditional international schools’. Journal of Research in International Education. 19(3): 251-267. • Bunnell T, Fertig M and James C (2016) What is international about international schools? An institutional legitimacy perspective. Oxford Review of Education. 42(2): 408-423. • Cambridge J and Thompson J (2004) Internationalism and globalization as contexts for international education. Compare. 34(2):161-175. • Cooley A and Nexon D H (2022) The real crisis of global order: illiberalism on the rise. Foreign
Affairs (online), January/February 2022. Available at www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/world/2021-12-14/ illiberalism-real-crisis-global-order?check_logged_in=1&utm_medium=promo_email&utm_source=lo_ flows&utm_campaign=registered_user_welcome&utm_term=email_1&utm_content=20220114 • Council of International Schools (2022) Mission and vision. Council of International Schools: Leiden.
Available at www.cois.org/about-cis/mission-and-vision. • Eaton R (2019) Book Review: Growing up with God and Empire: A Postcolonial Analysis of ‘Missionary
Kid’ Memoirs. Journal of Research in International Education, 18(3): 356-358. • Elliot J (2021) Do international schools strip countries of their greatest asset? School Management Plus (online). Available at www.schoolmanagementplus.com/college-counselling/do-international-schools-stripcountries-of-their-greatest-asset/ • Hayden M and Thompson J (2018) Time for new terminology? International School 21(1): 3. • Hayden M and Thompson J (2013) International Schools: Antecedents, current issues and metaphors for the future. In Pearce R (ed) (2013) International Education and Echools: Moving Beyond the First 40
Years. London: Bloomsbury Academic, 3–24. • Poole A (2020) Research Highlights: Constructing International School Teacher Identity from Lived
Experience: A Fresh Conceptual Framework. Network for Research into Chinese Education Mobilities (online), 16 September 2020. Available at chineseedmobilities.com/2020/09/16/constructinginternational-school-teacher-identity-from-lived-experience-a-fresh-conceptual-framework/ • Nye J S (1990) Soft Power. Foreign Policy. 80: 153-171. • Smeeth R (2020) Why Index has never been needed more. Index on Censorship. 49(3): 48-49. • Vass A (2019) Expensive, Publicly-Funded, Elite School Opens in Debrecen. Hungary Today (online).
Available at hungarytoday.hu/expensive-publicly-funded-elite-school-isd-debrecen/
