intmindedness

James Cambridge & Jeff Thompson Centre for the study of Education in an International Context, Department of Education, University of Bath, Bath BA2 7AY, United Kingdom.	Internationalism, international-mindedness, multiculturalism and globalisation as concepts in defining international schools
Abstract Abstract Introduction Internationalism and international schools Internationally minded schools Pragmatism and the marketplace Encapsulated and inclusive school missions Globalisation & internationalism in education Multiculturalism & monoculture in international schools Conclusions References	International schools are a growing sector in the educational community. This paper reviews previous definitions of the terms 'international school' and 'international education'. It concludes that they represent attempts to reconcile dilemmas between the contrary trends of internationalism and globalisation; monoculturalism and pluralism; contrasting educational ideologies; and issues of privilege, access and equity.
Introduction	The aim of this paper is to discuss how international schools might be defined, to examine their relationship with international education, and to explore the economic and ideological frameworks which influence them. International schools comprise amongst their number those with differing philosophies, whether these are essentially market driven, pragmatic or ideologically focused (Hayden & Thompson, 2000a). Thus, it may be argued that there is no single definable entity which can be identified as ‘an international school’ because a single universal definition of what constitutes international schools cannot be defended. The term ‘international school’ is a pragmatic shorthand device to signify one of a growing population of institutions around the world serving the educational needs of globally mobile students, and whose culturally diverse constituency includes the children of diplomats and employees of multinational companies, parastatal bodies and non-governmental organizations, as well as host country nationals. It cannot even be stated categorically that international schools are where international education (however that is defined) takes place uniquely, because an international school may offer an education that has no claims to be international, while it has been argued that an international education may be experienced by a student who has not attended a school that claims to be international (Hayden & Thompson, 1995). However, many international schools, as well as an increasing number of independent schools and schools in national education systems, offer an international curriculum such as the programmes of the International Baccalaureate Organization.
Abstract Introduction Internationalism and international schools Internationally minded schools Pragmatism and the marketplace Encapsulated and inclusive school missions Globalisation & internationalism in education Multiculturalism & monoculture in international schools Conclusions References	Hayden & Thompson (1995) reviewed the growth of international schools over the past thirty years or so from a number totalling approximately 50 (Knight & Leach, 1964) to a figure in the region of 1000 (Matthews, 1989a). Pearce (1994a) stated that there are over 2000 schools around the world which specifically cater for the children of expatriates but this estimate includes institutions which, it may be argued, are schools with an 'encapsulated mission' (Sylvester, 1998), that is to say representatives of particular national cultures which have been transplanted in another country. The John Catt Directory listed 1,082 institutions 'compiled from information supplied by independent schools, by the European Council of International Schools (ECIS), and by the International Baccalaureate Organization (IBO)' (Bingham, 1997). By May 2000 there were 1,080 schools offering the programmes of the International Baccalaureate Organization alone, of which '43% were state schools', and ‘only about one third of all schools offering an IBO programme [were] private independent international schools’ (Hill, 2000). By March 2001 this figure had reached 1200 schools, and rising.
	Issues which confront the researcher attempting to understand international schools include their geographical distribution, clientele, relationship with national systems, relationship with particular national cultures, history, language of instruction, cultural diversity and curriculum. International schools and international education are also influenced by the contrasting perspectives of internationalism, international mindedness and globalisation.
Internationalism and international schools	Knight & Leach (1964) identified seven types of international school categorised into three groups: 1. National schools overseas. 2. International Schools Association (ISA) member schools. 3. Profit making schools. From this source, it is apparent that membership of the International Schools Association, based in Geneva, was important in identifying a school as ‘international’ in the 1960s. The stance adopted towards profit-making schools at this time is also remarkable. A school operated for profit was deemed to be unsuitable for designation as ‘international’. The implication that a non profit-making school is inherently superior to, and more ‘international’ than, a profit-making one might today seem difficult to justify.
Abstract Introduction Internationalism and international schools Internationally minded schools Pragmatism and the marketplace Encapsulated and inclusive school missions Globalisation & internationalism in education Multiculturalism & monoculture in international schools Conclusions References	Leach (1969) identified three styles of internationalism, that is the maintenance of relations between different countries, practised by countries in the field of education: Unilateral internationalism - such as a country concerned chiefly with its own personnel away from home in a different country. Bilateral internationalism - such as exchange between and among students of two countries, chiefly at university level. Multilateral internationalism - requiring funding from at least three national sources, no one of them dominant, such as the European schools. Informed by this classification, Leach (1969) went on to identify international schools in four groups: National international schools; Overseas schools; Schools founded by the joint action of two or more governments; Schools which belong to the International Schools Association (ISA) or could do so. The first category, 'national international schools', are proprietary institutions, owned by a national of the country in which it is located. Many such schools 'are to be found in Switzerland' and they offer a certain 'snob appeal' (Leach 1969). Leach placed these institutions in the 'unilateral internationalist' category, which also included overseas schools and missionary schools, which are 'set up as personally owned, parent-owned or foreign government-owned in another nation, and, in most cases, serve only the expatriate community' (Leach 1969).
Abstract Introduction Internationalism and international schools Internationally minded schools Pragmatism and the marketplace Encapsulated and inclusive school missions Globalisation & internationalism in education Multiculturalism & monoculture in international schools Conclusions References	This is in contrast with schools 'founded by joint action of two or more governments or national groupings' (Leach 1969), such as the European schools, founded as a result of multilateral action of members of the European Union. However, these schools 'draw a sharp distinction between themselves and international schools. This is partly due to their position as pioneers in achieving inter-state financial backing and partly because they do not pretend to be more than European' (Leach, 1969). Furthermore, as Jonckers (2000) admits: 'these schools do not allow everybody to benefit from them. They were founded for the children of parents working for European [Union] institutions, and only when there are places available can other children be enrolled.' Leach admitted that criteria for membership of the International Schools Association are very broad, and that there is no strict definition of what constitutes an international school, although by implication he assumes that a 'genuine international school' does exist and can be identified as such. However, Leach was clear that multilateral internationalism was an important criterion, stating that: implicit in the ISA criteria is the notion that no one government nor national grouping (especially the host nation and largest expatriate community) should control the international school nor hold half the seats on its board of governors, however selected. In addition, no special privilege may be given [to] any social grouping, religious body or ideological point of view. It is, on the affirmative side, intended to educate young people to be at home in the world anywhere (Leach 1969). An example of 'bilateral internationalism' is the Japan Exchange and Teaching (JET) programme that brings university graduates to work throughout Japan in state schools and government offices. However, the outcome of this has been criticised as being 'differential internationalisation' because 'to achieve greater international status, the Japanese feel they must concentrate on their relations with Western countries' (McConnell 2000).
Internationally minded schools Abstract Introduction Internationalism and international schools Internationally minded schools Pragmatism and the marketplace Encapsulated and inclusive school missions Globalisation & internationalism in education Multiculturalism & monoculture in international schools Conclusions References	When Williams (1981) argued for the inclusion of an 'international dimension' in national systems of education, it is evident that an agenda for the promotion of international understanding in the educational system of England and Wales was being discussed. As Leach (1969) points out, a distinction can be made between 'international ' and 'internationally minded' schools: It would appear to be common practice in a number of places to regard an international school as one serving or being composed of students from several nationalities. This definition leads into hopeless confusion, however, when, upon reflection, one realises that practically every school in such a cosmopolitan centre as London or New York includes a number of nationalities in its student body. Such schools are mostly state-financed national institutions. There are, in fact a number of privately financed and some state-operated schools of an elite order in most developed countries, which pride themselves on being 'internationally minded' and are, in truth, far more international in their orientation than the run-of-the-mill London or New York school. In most cases, however, the internationally minded school … is usually composed of students of one nationality, or mostly of one. (Leach, 1969) Ronsheim (1970) described international schools as institutions that promote education with international understanding. The school would have international sponsorship, allow no single political ideology to dominate, and not operate for profit. In common with Terwilliger (1972) she agreed that, for a school to be classified as international, it must enrol many students who are not host nationals, have a multinational board, multinational teaching staff, and operate a curriculum reflecting the instructional practices of many national systems. Jonietz (1991) divided international schools into three categories: National schools overseas that offer national education to expatriates; Limited enrolment multilingual or multinational schools; and, Evolving multicultural, multilingual and multinational international schools. Matthews (1989b), and Hill (1994) shared the view that an international school is distinctive due to a particular school ethos. Hill (1994) proposed that such an ethos 'may be defined as preparing students for global citizenship by building on the principles of tolerance, international cooperation, justice and peace.' He argued that the most obvious characteristics shared by international schools are the diversity of input from teachers and students, and the social adaptability of the students. Hill (1994) continued to focus his definition by comparing an international school to a national school. He described an international school as being one 'whose students and staff are representative of a number of cultural and ethnic origins, and where the International Baccalaureate or a number of different national courses and examinations are offered and where the ethos is one of internationalism as opposed to nationalism.' A national school by comparison would have students and teachers from predominantly one country, and the curriculum and examinations would also be from that same country. Such factors would result in a national, as opposed to an international school ethos.
Pragmatism and the marketplace Abstract Introduction Internationalism and international schools Internationally minded schools Pragmatism and the marketplace Encapsulated and inclusive school missions Globalisation & internationalism in education Multiculturalism & monoculture in international schools Conclusions References	Matthews (1988) identified a dichotomy between international schools that are 'market driven' and a minority of 'ideology driven' institutions, such as the United Nations schools and members of the United World Colleges movement. Hayden & Thompson (1995) criticised 'the interpretation which could be placed on Matthews' dichotomy suggesting that the division between the two groups is watertight, and that schools which are market driven may not also be underpinned by a sound ideological philosophy'. However, as Pearce (1994b) comments: 'the title international school can mean anything from a school typical of those in the home location that happens to be overseas, to a sophisticated cultural compromise, according to local taste'. One may therefore conclude that it may be more accurate to discuss 'schools which operate in an international context' rather than 'international schools'. Schools in an international context may be considered to comprise a variety of school types, only a proportion of which may be popularly described as international schools. Subsets of this group would include company schools making provision for the children of company employees, schools providing an education abroad in an expatriate national system, and schools in which the student body comes wholly, or in the greatest proportion, from the host population. They would include not only institutions whose explicit mission is to foster some form of internationalist ideology, but also those whose internationalism is more pragmatic. Such a view is supported by Belle-Isle (1986) who argued that schools use the term 'international' in their name for one or more of the following reasons: to reflect a school population of diverse nationalities; to indicate that the institution is operating overseas principally for the nationalities of the home country whose programmes it delivers; because the school subscribes to the ideological and pedagogical principles of an international education and acts this out; and because the term is attractive and may give a market edge for student recruitment.
Encapsulated and inclusive school missions Abstract Introduction Internationalism and international schools Internationally minded schools Pragmatism and the marketplace Encapsulated and inclusive school missions Globalisation & internationalism in education Multiculturalism & monoculture in international schools Conclusions References	Sylvester (1998) identified contrasting 'encapsulated' and 'inclusive' missions among international schools. Encapsulated school missions display: limited diversity of parent/student cultures; teaching limited to culture-specific pedagogy; a tendency for the school to manage the multicultural experience; a narrowly targeted curriculum; and a value system as a product of an imported school culture. Schools with encapsulated missions may be identified with Leach's 'unilateral internationalism', since their primary concern is for the educational needs of personnel from the country away from home. Bilateral internationalism may also be found in schools with encapsulated school missions, in which host country national students are participating in an educational enterprise informed by a national system different from their own. Encapsulated school missions are contrasted with 'inclusive' school missions, which Sylvester identifies with five core 'universals of international education’ listed by Hayden & Thompson (1996): diversity in student cultures; teachers as exemplars of 'international mindedness'; exposure to others of different cultures outside the school; a balanced formal curriculum; and a management regime value-consistent with an institutional international philosophy. Inclusive school missions appear to share much in common with the multilateral international schools described by Leach (1969): The truly multilateral international school must be devoted to the principle that the highest common denominator between and among the various contributing national elements is essential. Rather naturally, the whole world becomes the local parish for the multilateral international school. Each major tradition can be analyzed for its strengths and usefulness. Once this course has been decided upon and the essential unity of mankind therefore underscored, the possibility of achieving a result which will enrich each national heritage is made possible. Such a step seems, in retrospect, the only sensible course to have taken. This is the experience of a number of teachers in international schools which approach or have achieved multilateral internationalism. Thus many schools in an international context cannot be considered to provide an international education, as defined in terms of the universals listed above, because they provide globally mobile expatriates with a means of ‘travelling in tunnels’ (Pearce, 1999), by isolating their children's educational environment from exposure to local culture. Many of these schools are insulated […] by 'cellophane walls' from the national community in which they are located. For the most part, it is clear that overseas schools are devoted to preparing their students for rapid integration into the life of the nation of origin at whatever point their clientele goes home (Leach, 1969). Thus it may be argued that the role of internationalism in education is ambiguous. For some, internationalism in education is a means to set up a home away from home, whereas for others the aim is to promote international understanding and peace.
Globalisation and internationalism in education Abstract Introduction Internationalism and international schools Internationally minded schools Pragmatism and the marketplace Encapsulated and inclusive school missions Globalisation & internationalism in education Multiculturalism & monoculture in international schools Conclusions References	McKenzie (1998) claimed to identify, in a statement of aims of the International Baccalaureate Organization, five different meanings of the word ‘international’ comprising: non-national, pan-national, ex-national (as in expatriate), multinational, and transnational. He illustrated these meanings as follows: ‘international education’ refers to a system that is non-national, and therefore not subject to the requirements, standards, demands and orientations of a particular national system. ‘International understanding’, through the juxtaposition of its two words, seems broader than this. Here we have something more than the merely non-national; this type of sympathetic mutuality is pan-national, an enterprise that seeks to build bridges between countries. An internationally mobile community seems clear; the members of this community are those expatriates who can safely be said, for the most part, to be ex-national. When we come to the ‘international curriculum’ that is worked out through collaboration with national education systems we seem to be dealing with a phenomenon that is multi-national in much the same sense of the word as a comparative educationist might mean. Finally, an ‘internationally recognised’ secondary school qualification for university entrance suggests a concern with a transnational certificate, which will legitimately promote the educational aspirations of the children of the ex-national community by allowing them to cross educational borders with the same ease that a valid passport permits movement from one country to another (McKenzie, 1998; italics added). This analysis is imaginative and useful as an heuristic device for forming more questions, but one might take issue with McKenzie’s definition of the ‘ex-national’ category as being a caricature of a more complex situation. Would the participation of students from the host country in an international school identify them as ‘ex-nationals’ in their own country? Furthermore, where does this framework fit with respect to the phenomenon of globalisation? Whereas arguments about internationalism discuss the world as we would want it to be, arguments about globalisation claim to discuss the world as it is. Arguments about internationalism are explicit about the values they promote, whereas arguments about globalisation may purport to be value-free, although they are laden with implicit values. Jones (1998) recognizes this tension between globalisation and internationalism, arguing that: globalisation is seen as economic integration, achieved in particular through the establishment of a global marketplace marked by free trade and a minimum of regulation. In contrast, internationalism refers to the promotion of global peace and well-being through the development and application of international structures, primarily but not solely of an intergovernmental kind. Despite important conceptual difficulties in formulating the case for internationalism and despite the world’s patchy record of putting its principles into effect, the essentially pro-democratic logic of internationalism stands in sharp contrast to the logic of globalisation. Consideration of the history of international schools and international education appears to support Jones’ perspective on internationalism. Some of the earliest international schools, such as the International School of Geneva and the United Nations International School New York, were founded in connection with the League of Nations and its successor the United Nations Organization (Walker, 2000). Furthermore, the educational philosophy of Kurt Hahn, the founder of the United World Colleges movement, is reported to have been profoundly influenced by his involvement in the conduct of the peace negotiations on the German side in Versailles at the end of the Great War (McLachlan, 1970; Sutcliffe, 1991). Internationalism in education does appear to foster an aspiration for world peace and understanding between nations. However, besides harbouring internationalist aspirations, international schools also appear to be part of the process of globalisation; not only are they influenced by it but they also contribute to its spread. Indeed, it may be argued that the ideological underpinning of international education as it is currently practised constitutes a reconciliation of the dilemma between the contrary trends of internationalism and globalisation. Jones (1998) discusses three patterns of globalisation comprising economic, political and cultural globalisation, which is a theme also taken up by Hayden & Thompson (2000b) when they discuss market, political and social globalisation. Among other attributes, Jones identifies ‘a deterritorialised religious mosaic’ and ‘deterritorialised cosmopolitanism and diversity’ as features of cultural globalisation, alongside ‘global distribution of images and information’. As a feature of political globalisation, Jones identifies ‘an absence of state sovereignty and multiple centres of power at global, local and intermediate levels’. An argument may be constructed which sees international education, and those schools in which it is practised, as contributing to this ‘deterritorialised cosmopolitanism and diversity’ in which students in geographically dispersed schools share common experiences mediated through a common curriculum which is independent of the country within which they are presently located. Indeed, it appeared to be on the grounds of erosion of national sovereignty that Dr Nick Tate, formerly of the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority in England, described the International Baccalaureate as ‘pushing globalisation one big step further forward’ in a newspaper interview in January 2000 (The Times, 2000). Another typology of globalisation is proposed by Held et al (1999), who describe it in terms of ‘the widening, deepening and speeding up of world-wide interconnectedness in all aspects of contemporary social life’. According to them, globalisation can be thought of as: a process (or set of processes) which embodies a transformation in the spatial organization of social relations and transactions - assessed in terms of the extensity, intensity, velocity and impact - generating transcontinental or interregional flows and networks of activity, interaction, and the exercise of power (Held et al, 1999). Three contrasting currents in globalisation are identified which are termed the hyperglobalist, sceptical and transformationalist theses. For the hyperglobalists, history and economics have come together at the end of the twentieth century to create a new order of relations in which states are either converging economically and politically, or are being made irrelevant by the activities of transnational business. Economic policies are determined more by markets than by governments and, in the economically developed portions of the world at least, the telecommunications media have facilitated the spread of globalised mass culture. We wear the same fashions and watch the same television shows while grazing on the same fast foods. Williams (1981) acknowledged the 'internationalisation of popular culture' in a paper written before the term globalisation became widespread. Klein (2000) offers a sixth term to add to the list discussed above (McKenzie, 1998), but it may be argued that the 'post-national' has stronger resonance with the 'hyperglobal' than with the 'international'. Usually, reports about this global web of logos and products are couched in the euphoric marketing rhetoric of the global village, an incredible place where tribespeople in remotest rain forests tap away on laptop computers, Sicilian grandmothers conduct E-business, and ‘global teens’ share, to borrow a phrase from a Levi’s Web site, ‘a world-wide style culture’. Everyone from Coke to McDonald’s to Motorola has tailored their marketing strategy around this post-national vision, but it is IBM’s long-running ‘Solutions for a Small Planet’ campaign that most eloquently captures the equalizing promise of the logo-linked globe (Klein, 2000; italics added). The hyperglobalist trend towards the formation of one single world order is represented in international education by those who see a system of education which transcends national frontiers. When one considers the educational needs of a clientele which is mobile, and with a high rate of turnover, it is clear that they expect international schools to provide continuity in their children’s education as they move from country to country. Like the providers of other globally branded products, international schools must provide a reliable service throughout the world. The history of the International Baccalaureate Organization is intimately linked to the development of the United World Colleges movement whose aims may be interpreted as the hyperglobalist project of ‘fighting the Cold War by other means’ (Sutcliffe, 1991). Thus international education, a force for creating a better world by overcoming national differences, may be interpreted as an ideological construct which promotes hyperglobalisation. Yet this view is also ambiguous and apolitical because various critics of the hyperglobalist thesis argue either that it is an apology for the current dominance of neo-liberal free market capitalism, on the one hand, or for the spread of social democratic regulation of markets, on the other. The sceptical thesis draws a contrast between globalisation and the internationalisation of trade. Globalisation sceptics argue that historical evidence indicates that the world is not becoming a single market but that it is the development of regional economic blocs and the facilitation of trade between countries which has extended. For the sceptics, the economic era in which the Gold Standard between national currencies prevailed represents a far more globalised economic system than exists today. Internationalisation and globalisation are contradictory trends, since international trade is strengthened by the existence of nation states whose policies actively regulate and promote it. Of course, the formation of regional trading blocs results in two classes of countries; ‘insiders’ which are members of the blocs, and ‘outsiders’ which are not. The increasing internationalisation of trade between some countries has led to the marginalisation of others, notably the poor economies of the Southern Hemisphere. Against this analysis, the development of international schools as encapsulated outposts of ‘other’ national cultures, and the development of international education, can be interpreted as pragmatic responses to economic circumstances where a school serving a single national grouping is unviable. Globally mobile communities of workers from different countries must pool their educational resources. To adherents of the transformationalist thesis of globalisation, reference to the economic marginalisation of whole countries is unjustifiable, since: the familiar core-periphery hierarchy is no longer a geographic but a social division of the world economy ... North and South, First World and Third World are no longer ‘out there’ but nestled within all the world’s major cities (Held et al, 1999). This recalls the ‘deterritorialised cosmopolitanism and diversity’ discussed by Jones (1998) above. Globalisation is a process of reordering of interregional relations, but it embraces both integration and fragmentation. In many less developed countries, international schools provide opportunities for the children of the socio-economic elite of the host country to turn their backs on their own educational system and embrace the rest of the world. One interpretation of the rapid expansion in many countries of the numbers of schools offering ‘international’ qualifications is that they are a response by local elites to a stiffening of the local positional competition on the one hand and a globalisation of that competition on the other. As more people gain local qualifications, those who can afford to do so seek a new competitive edge by taking qualifications that they hope will give them a local advantage. At the same time, it is hoped that these international qualifications will give access to a labour market that is becoming increasingly globalized - for the most advantageous occupations, at least (Lowe, 2000b). International education may therefore be instrumental in the entrenchment of economic privilege, and the students in international schools may 'represent a privileged elite for whom international education plays a pivotal role in personal development' (Willis et al, 1994). International education may be viewed as a means of changing the world by increasing international understanding through bringing together young people from many different countries, or as Rawlings (2000) puts it: International education is a transformative discourse which locates all field of enquiry in a supra-national frame of reference and upholds the cause of peace (italics added). Here is a seventh term, 'supra-national', to be added to the list of meanings of the word 'international' proposed by McKenzie (1998). In an analysis of international education in the context of the United World College of the Atlantic, Rawlings (2000) found that it embraces a number of curricular and pedagogical interventions including: an idealistic vision; a vision of human potential; service-learning; character-building, skill formation, social relations and international understanding; values education; a relativist epistemological position; and, the concept of citizenship - at local, national and international levels. Note in particular the references above to the place of 'idealistic vision', 'service', 'character-building', 'international understanding', 'values' and 'citizenship' in this view of international education. They contrast with the alternative view of international education as a pragmatic response to the needs of globally mobile families, particularly in situations in which no single national grouping is sufficiently large to make a school dedicated to its own use an economically viable proposition. The positions are not mutually exclusive, and in many schools the institutional philosophy represents a reconciliation of the dilemma between them.
Multiculturalism and monoculture in international schools Abstract Introduction Internationalism and international schools Internationally minded schools Pragmatism and the marketplace Encapsulated and inclusive school missions Globalisation & internationalism in education Multiculturalism & monoculture in international schools Conclusions References	However they are construed, it is clear that international schools are sites of multiculturalism in education, either because of their diversity of nationalities or because of the synthesis of a ‘third culture’ from the collision between expatriate and host country cultures (Langford, 1998). To an extent this may be the case, in the sense that there is pluralism in terms of the national origins of the participants. However, in the memorable phrase of Zaw (1996), multiculturalism in education can be ‘a substantial monoculturalism as to values, mitigated by tolerance of exotic detail’, or what Mattern (1991) describes as the 'mix-and-stir approach to international education'. This is a reflection of developments in global business. Klein (2000) describes the tendency of global branding of commodities to promote cultural homogeneity as ‘mono-multiculturalism’. Teachers and students in international schools may have plural national origins, and may express and celebrate their diversity in terms of national festivals, costumes and food, but they may also show convergence in educational values. It may be argued that international schools in different countries which share a common international curriculum also share common values.
Conclusions Abstract Introduction Internationalism and international schools Internationally minded schools Pragmatism and the marketplace Encapsulated and inclusive school missions Globalisation & internationalism in education Multiculturalism & monoculture in international schools Conclusions References	International schools may be conceptualised in contrasting ways. One proposition is that 'international schools' and 'schools in an international context' do not comprise a single unitary population, but are members of a community of overlapping populations of different types of institutions consisting of: transplanted national school cultures serving globally mobile expatriates (which, following Leach (1969), may be considered to be unilateral international schools); transplanted national school cultures or a simulacrum - such as the programmes of the International Baccalaureate Organization - serving host country nationals (schools offering an internationally minded education); and, the simulacrum of a transplanted national school culture serving globally mobile expatriates, and possibly also admitting host country nationals (the popular image of an international school, promoting bilateral or multilateral internationalism according to context); as well as the ideological enthusiasts (the United World Colleges, notably, with an emphasis on education for international understanding, service and building character). Institutions might be combinations of these categories. The programmes of the International Baccalaureate Organization may be regarded as a simulacrum (that is an entity that has the appearance, and many but not all of the essential characteristics, of something else) of a national education system. This form of words is used because, for practical purposes, the IBO programmes may be considered to be analogous to a national education system for those who are not being educated within a national education system. These people may comprise globally mobile expatriates but they also include the students in schools which offer an international education to host country nationals. It may be conjectured that the motivating force in many such schools is a pragmatic approach to the curriculum which is designed to appeal to the widest possible client audience, comprising students who are bound for university education in the developed world. These schools tend to be in the private sector of education where they are defending what Murgatroyd & Morgan (1993) would describe as a niche market position by offering an enhanced curriculum. Another view of international schools is that, as the camp followers of globally mobile expatriate workers, they are a product of the global spread of capitalism. However, they are now extending their reach beyond their initial expatriate market niche to serve the needs of nascent capitalist classes of the developing world. This is evident in the increasing participation of host country nationals in the emerging neo-liberal economies in China and India (Fitzgerald, 1997; Kobrin, 1999). This is also a matter of demographics because these countries are where the world’s young people are, and they would appear to be just as desperate to join the armies of consumers of global popular culture as their peers in other more developed economies where the young are a declining proportion of the population. These students might be expected to be very academically motivated because an international education in an international school offers opportunities for economic and social advancement, particularly through participation in higher education in another country. The existence of an idealistic faction who believe that international schools and international education are for the promotion of ‘internationalism’, ‘international mindedness’, ‘international understanding’ and ‘community service’ must also be acknowledged. They follow a model of progressive education that seems to have been in vogue in the 1930s but whose time, it is claimed, has now come. The life and times of Kurt Hahn are worth considering in this regard (Röhrs, 1970; Peterson, 1987; Sutcliffe, 1991). Hahn’s vision of education was based on a strong commitment to service, with an emphasis on experiential learning and ‘character building’ (Price, 1970), but it was also an existentialist educational ideology whose appeal was to the moral development of the person. As Bacon (1983) recalls: As in all his educational ventures, Hahn was less concerned with the academic achievements of his students than with their attitudes, ambitions and perceptions; instead he focused his energies on the kinds of people who would emerge from his schools. He perceived youth to be surrounded by the decay of care and skill, the lack of enterprise and adventure, and the loss of compassion. He believed that ‘the aim of education is to impel people into value forming experiences ... [and] to ensure the survival of these qualities: an enterprising curiosity, an undefeatable spirit, tenacity in pursuit, readiness for sensible self-denial, and above all, compassion.’ In addition, his pupils were challenged by the physical stresses of athletics, by the exercise of patience in tasks of craftsmanship, and by an expedition on land and water (Bacon, 1983). This view of education may be interpreted as a response to the existence of poverty and political oppression in the world, whereas other forms of international education are a response to emerging affluence and entry into the global consumer economy. The dilemma to be reconciled between the two approaches is whether one is to be the surfer or the wave. Do the fundamental tenets of the curriculum assume that the education should reflect existing cultural values and power relations, or is the assumption that education should enable students to change the world? A further view is that the terms ‘international school’ and ‘international education’ are ambiguous and difficult to define because the consumers of their services project onto them whatever values they want. International schools are international schools because they declare themselves to be so, and because their clients recognise them as such. They are a pragmatic response to a need in the market place for a generic product. This is the reason why the accreditation services of bodies such as the European Council of International Schools (ECIS) and the curriculum and assessment services of the International Baccalaureate Organization (IBO) are so important to international schools because they provide the globally branded services which the clientele of international schools may interpret as the hallmarks of quality, leading to the claim that: it is a source of satisfaction to schools to know that they have undergone a rigorous process of evaluation by experienced colleagues and have been found worthy of accreditation. This places the school alongside over 120 international schools world-wide. In addition, more and more peripatetic parents are becoming familiar with the process of accreditation and are beginning to feel that placing their children in an unexamined school is a risk they do not wish to take (Murphy, 1998; italics added). International schools and international education present various attempts to reconcile dilemmas in at least four areas. First, there is a dilemma between Globalisation and internationalism. This is expressed in terms of the global spread of the values of free market capitalism, exemplified by a view of international education as a globally branded service industry, on the one hand, and the desire for peace and understanding between nations, to be ‘internationally minded’, on the other. This leads to a second dilemma between monoculturalism and pluralism, exemplified by the contrast between encapsulated and inclusive school missions. Many parents from more developed countries wish their children to be educated in schools which are culturally diverse, but others prefer to support schools which replicate their home national systems. Some parents from less developed countries may also wish to send their children to schools which are encapsulated outposts of another system; such schools may be monocultures in the presence of great diversity. This leads to a third dilemma between the aims of education; is the school curriculum to be centred upon cognitive aims, placing a premium upon formal examination success? Or is it to be centred upon more affective aims, placing a premium on existential, experiential learning? This is the contrast between views of the school as a ‘filling station’ and as a ‘tool for social change’ (Deal & Nolan, 1978). The former view would identify the academic programmes of the IBO in terms of a framework of globally portable qualifications and the rise of ‘credentialism’ (Lowe, 2000a; 2000b). The latter view would identify the Creativity, Action, Service (CAS) components of the same programmes with Hahn’s educational philosophy. Finally, there is the dilemma between economic privilege, access and equity. What are the prospects for upward economic and social mobility of children from modest backgrounds in some of these schools? In many parts of the world international schools represent private islands of plenty in contrast to an impoverished local public education system. They are places where the children of the economic elites are brought together from many countries. In many international schools economic inequality is legitimated and reinforced by differential salary scales which discriminate between expatriate teachers recruited from rich developed countries with high wage economies and their colleagues who are recruited from poor countries with low wage economies (Richards, 1998; Cambridge, 1998). As one of the universals of international education (Hayden & Thompson, 1996), to what extent is the development of a management regime in an international school which is value-consistent with an explicit institutional philosophy which makes claims about internationalism assisted or hindered by the existence of a differential salary scale? The extent to which a common view of international education is shared amongst those in both national and international schools will be determined ultimately by the ways in which these dilemmas are reconciled by those in individual institutions and those responsible for designing whole systems of international education.
References Abstract Introduction Internationalism and international schools Internationally minded schools Pragmatism and the marketplace Encapsulated and inclusive school missions Globalisation & internationalism in education Multiculturalism & monoculture in international schools Conclusions References	BACON, S. (1983) The Conscious Use of Metaphor in Outward Bound. Denver: Colorado Outward Bound School. BELLE-ISLE, R. (1986) Learning for a new humanism. International Schools Journal, 11, pp. 27-30. BINGHAM, D. (1997) The John Catt Guide to International Schools 1997. Saxmundham: John Catt. CAMBRIDGE, J. (1998) Investigating National and Organizational cultures in the Context of the International School. In: HAYDEN, M.C. & THOMPSON, J.J. (Eds) International Education: Principles and Practice London: Kogan Page, pp. 197-211. DEAL, T. & NOLAN, R. (1978) Alternative schools: a conceptual map. In: LEE, V. & ZELDIN, D. (Eds) Planning the Curriculum: A Reader London: Hodder and Stoughton, pp. 11-19. FITZGERALD, N. (1997) Harnessing the potential of globalisation for consumer and citizen. International Affairs 73, 4, pp. 739-746. HAYDEN, M.C. & THOMPSON, J.J. (1995) International Schools and International Education: A relationship reviewed. Oxford Review of Education, 21, 3, pp. 327-345. HAYDEN, M.C. & THOMPSON, J.J. (1996) Potential difference: the driving force for international education. International Schools Journal XVI, 1, pp. 46-57. HAYDEN, M.C. & THOMPSON, J.J. (2000a) International education - flying flags or raising standards? International Schools Journal XIX, 2, pp 48-56. HAYDEN, M.C. & THOMPSON, J.J. (2000b) Quality in diversity. In: HAYDEN, M & THOMPSON, J.J. (Eds) International Schools and International Education London: Kogan Page, pp 1-11. HELD, D., MCGREW, A., GOLDBLATT, D. & PERRATON, J. (1999) Global Transformations. Oxford: Polity HILL, I. (1994) The International Baccalaureate: Policy Process in Education. University of Tasmania: PhD thesis. HILL, I. (2000) Internationally-minded schools. International Schools Journal XX, 1, pp. 24-37. JONCKERS, R. (2000) The European School model Part II International Schools Journal XX, 1, pp. 45-50. JONES, P. (1998) Globalisation and Internationalism: democratic prospects for world education. Comparative Education 34, 2, pp. 143-155. JONIETZ, P.L. (1991) International Schools: developing a consensus of opinion. Brunel University: PhD thesis. KESON, J. (1991) Meet Samantha and Sueng-Won, Ilse-Marie and Haaza. In: JONIETZ, P. & HARRIS, D. (Eds) World Yearbook of Education 1991: International Schools and International Education London: Kogan Page, pp 55-59. KLEIN, N. (2000) No Logo London: Flamingo. KNIGHT, M. & LEACH, R. (1964) International Secondary Schools. In: BREREDAY, G. & LAUWERYS, J. (Eds) Yearbook of Education 1964. London: Evans Brothers. KOBRIN, S. (1999) Development after industrialisation: poor countries in an electronically integrated global economy. In: HOOD, N & YOUNG, S. (Eds) The Globalisation of Multinational Enterprise Activity and Economic Development. Basingstoke: Macmillan, pp. 133-154. LANGFORD, M. (1998) Global Nomads, Third Culture kids and international schools. In: HAYDEN, M.C. & THOMPSON, J.J. (1998) International Education: Principles and Practice London: Kogan Page, pp 209-216. LEACH, R. (1969) International Schools and their Role in the Field of International Education. Oxford: Pergamon Press. LOWE, J. (2000a) International examinations: the new credentialism and reproduction of advantage in a globalising world. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy and Practice 7, 3, pp. 363-377. LOWE, J. (2000b) Assessment and educational quality: implications for international schools. In: HAYDEN, M. & THOMPSON, J.J. (2000) International Schools and International Education London: Kogan Page, pp 15-28. MATTERN, W.G. (1991) Random ruminations on the curriculum of the international school. In: JONIETZ, P. & HARRIS, D. (Eds) World Yearbook of Education 1991: International Schools and International Education London: Kogan Page, pp. 209-216. MATTHEWS, M. (1988) The ethos of international schools. University of Oxford: MSc Thesis. MATTHEWS, M. (1989a) The scale of international education. International Schools Journal 17, pp. 7-17. MATTHEWS, M. (1989b) The uniqueness of international education International Schools Journal 18, pp. 24-34. McCONNELL, D. (2000) Importing Diversity: Inside Japan's JET Program Berkeley: University of California Press. McKENZIE, M. (1998) Going, Going, Gone... Global! In: HAYDEN, M.C. & THOMPSON, J.J. (Eds) International Education: Principles and Practice London: Kogan Page, pp. 242-252. McLACHLAN, D. (1970) Hahn. In: RÖHRS, H. (Ed) Kurt Hahn London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, pp. 1-13. MURGATROYD, S. & MORGAN, C. (1993) Total Quality Management and the School. Buckingham: Open University Press MURPHY, E. (1998) International school Accreditation: Who Needs It? In: HAYDEN, M.C. & THOMPSON J.J. (Eds) International Education: Principles and Practice London, Kogan Page, pp 212-223. PEARCE, R. (1994a) International Schools: the multinational enterprises' best friends CBI Relocation News 32 (November 1994), pp. 8-9. PEARCE, R. (1994b) Globalisation: Learning From International Schools Mobility (November 1994), pp. 27-29. PEARCE, R. (1999) Personal communication. Conversation at International Summer School at University of Bath, July 1999. PETERSON, A.D.C. (1987) Schools Across Frontiers La Salle, Illinois: Open Court Books. PRICE, T. (1970) Some aspects of character-building. In: RÖHRS, H. (Ed) Kurt Hahn London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, pp. 80-91. RAWLINGS, F. (2000) Abstract of Doctoral Thesis: Globalisation, curriculum and international communities: a case study of the United World College of the Atlantic. International Journal of Educational Development 20, pp 365-366. RICHARDS, N. (1998) The Emperor's New Clothes? The issue of staffing in international schools. In: HAYDEN, M.C. & THOMPSON, J.J. (1998) International Education: Principles and Practice London: Kogan Page, pp. 173-183. RÖHRS, H. (1970) The educational thought of Kurt Hahn. In: RÖHRS, H. (Ed) Kurt Hahn. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, pp. 123-136. RONSHEIM, S. (1970) Are international schools really international? Phi Delta Kappan 7, 2, pp. 43-46. SUTCLIFFE, D. (1991) The United World Colleges. In: JONIETZ, P. & HARRIS, D. (Eds) World Yearbook of Education 1991: International Schools and International Education London: Kogan Page, pp. 25-37. SYLVESTER, R. (1998) Through the lens of diversity. In: HAYDEN, M.C. & THOMPSON, J.J. (Eds) International Education: Principles and Practice. London: Kogan Page, pp.184-196. TERWILLIGER, R. (1972) International Schools - cultural crossroads. The Educational Forum XXXVI, 3, pp. 359-363. THE TIMES (2000) Interview with Nick Tate. 5 January 2000 WALKER, G. (2000) Connecting the national to the global. In HAYDEN, M. & THOMPSON, J.J. (Eds) International Schools and International Education. London: Kogan Page, pp 193-204. WILLIAMS, S. (1981) Education for international understanding. International Schools Journal 1, pp. 7-14. WILLIS, D., ENLOE, W. & MINOURA, Y. (1994) Transculturals, transnationals: the new diaspora. International Schools Journal 14, 1, pp. 39-41. ZAW, S.K. (1996) Locke and multiculturalism: toleration, relativism and reason. In FULLINWIDER, R.K. (Ed) Public Education in a Multicultural Society. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 121-155.