7 minute read
Infl ection point? Exploring the
Infl ection point?
By James MacDonald
International schools may be at an infl ection point. When the fi rst modern international schools were founded in 1924, there was an aspirational aim to promote peace between nations by fostering an understanding of people and cultures from other countries. But that was nearly 100 years ago. So what’s the purpose of international schools today? I don’t pretend to have the answer to that question, but I hope to explore the topic in a series of articles in this magazine.
In this fi rst article, I will explore how international schools arrived at where they are now and why their current position may be indicative of an infl ection point.
Over the past three decades, the growth of international schools has been remarkable. Various sources estimate at least a tenfold increase in ‘international schools’ since the year 2000. Of course, we have to be slightly careful with the data because much depends on the categorisation of ‘international schools’. For example, a small, ‘international’ English-language kindergarten in a rural area can count the same on those lists as a large, traditional, city-based K-12 international school. But the point remains the same: international education, and the demand for it, has grown signifi cantly. In fact, if we do the math there is probably more than one new international school on average popping up somewhere around the world every week. The growth has not been uniform, however, and when considering the question of the purpose of international education, the type of school matters.
Traditional international schools
The origin stories of many traditional international schools follow a similar arc: a small group of expatriates in a country desire an educational option, usually in English, for their own children. Starting a school had generally been the only viable educational option for their children (often for reasons of language), thus such schools were founded out of necessity. To illustrate the pattern, I can draw on my experience of having worked for three traditional international schools. Yokohama International School was founded in 1924 by local European parents and was fi rst housed in the local YMCA. From there, I moved to the New International School of Thailand (NIST) in Bangkok, where a group of parents working for the United Nations had decided to found a new notfor-profi t school in 1992. They did that when the International School of Bangkok moved to the outskirts of the city and left behind a vacant campus. Incidentally, NIST’s founders embraced ideals of the UN charter while also setting fees lower than those of IS Bangkok and in line with the educational tuition allowance of the UN at the time: a good example of market realities and idealism blending together. In my current setting at the International School of Brussels, local American parents banded together in post-war Belgium to found a school in 1952. Today, all three schools continue to run as not-for-profi t institutions with parent-led governing bodies. Despite their very different locations, the schools have remarkably similar origin stories – the same story as that of most international schools in the fi rst 70 years of such institutions.
But the chronicle of NIST seems to be one of the last iterations of the story. Few, if any, major not-for-profi t international schools have been founded since then. In the 1990s, international education started taking off, fuelled not by expatriate parents but by an emerging upper-middle class of ‘host country nationals’ seeking an international education for their children. Those schools were not born out of necessity and founded by isolated pockets of parents with no other options, but by entrepreneurs who began to recognise a local market thirsty for the benefi ts that an international education could provide to local children in an increasingly globalised world.
New models of international schools
Corporate model of ownership In my experience, the new types of international schools can be divided into two broad groups. The fi rst is what I call ‘corporate schools’. They are larger education groups that run networks of schools and normally have global operations. Make no mistake: they are enrolment-driven organisations. Often they have different models of schools that cater to different markets. The school model is generally defi ned by the price point (eg tuition fees), location, type of curriculum, and the quality of facilities. For example, globally we can fi nd a range of UK curriculum school models, with fees ranging from high to low. The same is true for the US curriculum. However, International Baccalaureate schools tend to have higher fees to support the higher teacher–student ratios necessary for inquiry-based learning.
For the most part, large corporations know what they are doing and will thoroughly research the local market context before deciding upon a school model. For example, a report’s executive summary might contain a line such as ‘Our research shows that there are 2800 potential school-aged children in families that can afford our specifi c fee point within a 20-minute commute radius’. The governance of those schools radiates outward from a corporate offi ce, normally with a strong reliance upon data targets and metrics appropriate for the school model. If leadership ‘hits the numbers’, then the governance likely has a light touch, whereas missing the numbers is cause for intervention. Within that approach to governance, a vital and often overlooked question is where the investment funds come from. Pension fund managers seek steady returns over a longer-term basis and thus avoid risk. Private equity, by contrast, enters with a defi ned investment horizon of 3–5 years and expects to drive up the valuation ahead of their exit. Those funding sources are very different animals, and it is often the investors, not the corporation, who set the tone of the school’s governance in these school types. And it is the investors who drive the overarching purpose.
Single private owners Another school model involving private ownership is manifested in stand-alone owners. Although there are many different types of such schools, they are generally started as businesses by a local entrepreneur or founded by an already wealthy individual or family. In the latter case, the school may be a legacy project aimed to altruistically give back to the community. In fact, it is not unheard of for owners to patiently absorb years of losses with their school project. But the motives of private owners are often complicated. Owning a school can provide political infl uence, tax benefi ts and social prestige not available through other means. It may also provide the owner’s relatives with employment opportunities outside the core business. Assigning a single purpose to such organisations is an elusive undertaking.
We have also seen that corporate school groups are consolidating the international education industry by purchasing individual, privately-owned schools. In corporate lingo, acquiring an existing facility or school is a strategy of ‘brown fi eld’ development versus starting afresh with a ‘green fi eld’ venture. The arrangement is generally a great exit for local entrepreneur–owners, because industry norms for school valuations run at 9 to 14 times the annual cash fl ow from operations.
We also know that some private owners are keen to play an active role in running the schools, often to the frustrations of the educators, whereas others may be completely hands-off and thereby lack proper governance structures and oversight. It can be diffi cult to generalise about schools with a single private owner. But one thing is for sure: where there’s a private owner, how they choose to approach governance can have a signifi cant impact on the school.
With those three types of models (traditional, corporate, and single private owner), the former becoming a very small proportion of the bigger mix, the question might be asked as to what exactly is the purpose of international schools? There is no doubt, despite what the brochures say, that parties expanding international education in order to ‘grow the business’ cannot be expected to prioritise the traditional ideals of international education. It would be irrational to suggest otherwise, for idealism is generally less profi table than pragmatism. But there’s a twist. Over the past decade, we have seen signs that globalisation is slowing and is perhaps even reversing in some cases. There is now more talk of the world being divided in regional blocs. Since international schools have always been a stepchild of globalization, surely this will have an impact.
This is a topic that deserves exploration. What do we stand for as international schools? And there is also an ‘elephant in the room’ question: When the preponderance of international
What do we stand for as international schools?
schools are now for-profi t, to what extent should these entities be expected to contribute in an uncompromised manner to a conversation about purpose? I think we are at an infl ection point, and in a subsequent article I plan to suggest some paths forward for international education. ◆
James MacDonald is Director of the International School of Brussels, having previously held posts including Head of School at NIST, Bangkok and Yokohama International School. ✉ james.w.macdonald@gmail.com
