The Evolution of International Education

The idea of international education has a long history, with efforts to create International Schools, one of the traditionally recognized forms of institutes for international education (Hayden & Thompson, 1995), documented as early as 1867, when the London College of the International Educational Society was formed (Sylvester, 2002). But despite being well-used both in common vocabulary and in educational discourse, international education is not well-defined as there are various perspectives and interpretations (Hayden & Thompson, 1995). To develop a better understanding of international education in the past, present and where it is heading in the future requires analyzing; the shared qualities of international education perspectives from its inception, the aspects which have stayed consistent, its evolution, and consideration of the geographical areas currently experiencing international school growth.

From the inception of the various ideas behind international education, there have been some shared qualities. Prior to World War II, the idea for international education was to provide an international understanding and education for world citizenship (Sylvester, 2002). Many international institutions founded post-World War I aspired to create environments where people could learn together with and about people of various backgrounds to combat prejudices and increase world mindfulness (Sylvester, 2002) to avoid repeating the mistakes of the past regarding intercultural relations, particularly war. In addition, two forms of these international institutions were prevalent and can mostly be categorized using Brunnell et al.’s (2016) model. Type-A traditional International Schools were, and to some degrees, still are schools which cater to expatriate families living abroad and wanting an English-medium school for the children to attend, being more pragmatic in nature. These schools have a large cultural mix of students, are usually privately funded and parental involvement is considerable. Then there are Type-B Ideological International Schools, focused on education for global peace and international mindedness to create global citizens, one example being the International School of Geneva. These schools are fewer in number. Despite the distinction, it is important to note International Schools do not belong to either classification exclusively, having traits of both, and these categorizations would benefit from Hayden’s (2011) model, with schools sitting somewhere along a spectrum, with ideology on one end and pragmatism on the other.

As time has progressed, some aspects of international education have remained consistent. The idea that International Schools offer an international education, albeit a western education teaching western perspectives from western teachers (Hayden & Thompson, 1995), has largely remained the same. On a more basic level, these International Schools continue to operate and expand in areas where ‘international’ education may not be part of the national curriculum per se. In addition, many International Schools still have ideological and pragmatic underpinnings, though to varying degrees, which continues to give credence to the spectrum proposed by Hayden (2011) when categorizing International Schools.

In recent times, international education has seen changes and evolved. The appearance and growth of Type-C Non-traditional International Schools (Brunnell et al., 2016), especially in Asia, catering “largely for affluent host country nationals who seek a competitive edge for their children” (Hayden, 2011, p. 220), gaining ‘international’ qualifications to enter prestigious universities abroad and/or for better job opportunities (Hayden, 2011). These privately owned and operated institutions geared towards making a profit for owners emerged as investors identified the demand for such schools increasing, seeing them as a lucrative investment (Bunnell et al., 2016), influenced in part by less parents working overseas, likely attributable to the rapid developments in communication technology allowing for remote work. This also coincides with Mazzarol et al.’s (2003) recent third wave of internationalisation of education, which has seen the expansion of branch campuses and institutions in foreign markets of well-known and prestigious universities open in various areas, especially in Asia, and the development of online education through advancements in communication technologies, to offer educational courses and programs which in the past were exclusively provided in ‘western’ countries in the comfort of one’s own home country without needing to incur the heavy expenses associated with studying abroad, potentially allowing for opportunities for students from various socio-economic backgrounds to participate more as the industry continues to grow globally (ISC Research, 2020). In addition, regional schools, from the perspective of students, are beginning to offer “opportunities to develop an 'international attitude' (e.g. by dealing with international issues or typical foreign issues, by offering trips abroad/exchange programmes) (Hayden & Thompson, 1995).

Furthermore, various parts of Asia continue to see the largest growth in international schools and enrollment rates. In the Middle East, enrollment has increased 20.6% since 2015, while South-Eastern Asia and Eastern Asia have seen enrollment grow 31.5% and 33.3% respectively (ISC Research, 2020). Most notable has been the enrollment rates in Southern Asia, where enrollment has increased by 64.6% (763, 900 students) since 2015 (ISC Research, 2020).

Considering the shared qualities of international education perspectives from its early days, the aspects of international education that have persisted, how it has differed and evolved, and acknowledging the geographical areas currently experiencing international school growth, a better picture of international education in the past and present is painted, with some insight to where it is potentially heading. Despite the commitment to providing international education to students abroad through various internationally recognized programs, such as the International Baccalaureate curriculum (Hayden, 2011; Hayden & Thompson, 1995), challenges persist regarding what makes 'international education' international. These programs are mostly taught by western teachers using western pedagogies, questioning whether these programs are international in nature. Consideration for student populations and staff members being of various cultural backgrounds must be given as well, as there are benefits of having a multi-cultural environment to provide an international education. Furthermore, these challenges are exasperated by the developments in branch campuses and online delivery of educational programs, and it remains to be seen how these trends will lend to defining what international education is in the future and where it is going.

References

Bunnell, T., Fertig, M., & James, C. (2016). What is international about International Schools? An institutional legitimacy perspective. Oxford Review of Education, 42(4), 408–423. https://www.jstor.org/stable/26158439

Hayden, M. (2011). Transnational spaces of education: the growth of the international school sector.?Globalisation, Societies and Education,?9(2), 211–224. https://doi-org.proxy.queensu.ca/10.1080/14767724.2011.577203

Hayden, M., & Thompson, J. (1995). International Schools and International Education: a relationship reviewed.?Oxford Review of Education,?21(3), 327–345. https://doi-org.proxy.queensu.ca/10.1080/0305498950210306

ISC Research. (2020, December 20). New Shifts in the World’s International Schools Market. ISC Research. New Shifts in the World's International Schools Market - ISC Research

Mazzarol, T., Soutar, G. N., & Seng, M. S. Y. (2003). The third wave: future trends in international education.?International Journal of Educational Management,?17(3), 90–99. https://doi.org/10.1108/09513540310467778

Sylvester, R. (2002). Mapping International Education: A Historical Survey 1893-1944. Journal of Research in International Education, 1(1), 90-125. https://doi-org.proxy.queensu.ca/10.1177/147524090211005