In deciding to include the words ‘International School’ in its title, it could be asserted that Bishop Mackenzie (hereafter BMIS) is making certain claims about the education that it provides. A casual observer might think of an international school as defined by its clientele, its curriculum, its location, or perhaps its ethos; but as any student of international education is aware, the term ‘international school’ is loaded with problems and contradictions.
As Cambridge and Thompson observe, ‘no single definable entity can be identified as an ‘international school’ because a single universal definition of what constitutes international schools cannot be defended.’ This however hasn’t stopped a few people from trying to sculpt at least a theoretical model, whether an all encompassing one or at least one which specifies a few key features that they feel such a school must have in order to qualify.
Ronsheim’s ‘international school’ model is an ideological and practical one, describing an institution that promotes education with international understanding, which has international sponsorship, allows no political ideology to dominate, and does not operate for profit; and in common with Terwilliger, 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 institutional practices of many national systems.
Hayden and Thompson suggest a modified definition, of a school ‘whose students and staff are representative of a number of cultural and ethnic origins, where the International Baccalaureate and/or a number of different national courses and examinations are offered and where the ethos is one of internationalism as distinct from nationalism’, which has independence from government control, an absence of competitive entry, and which caters for a range of needs and abilities.
While we will see how neither of these definitions can be entirely satisfactory in every case – Sanderson lists seven types of international school, Ponisch eleven, and Hill, more recently, lists four – it is clear that they explore common ground to a greater or lesser extent: areas such as a school’s ethos, its curriculum, the student-body and its experience, and staffing. Each of these distinct yet overlapping aspects is relevant, and will be explored in more detail below.
While these models are interesting and worthy, perhaps more true to life are more recent claims that the term ‘international school’ is essentially meaningless and that in reality it is little more than Leach suggests, a ‘pragmatic shorthand device’, the result of which being, as Skelton puts it, that ‘the International School of X may be a very, very different place from the International School of Y.’ There are many reasons why a school might choose to have ‘international’ in its name: in fact, any of the separate reasons in the above definitions might be reason enough, as might the more self-serving reason that it will attract a desirable clientele.
Claims that the students define the school as international school are challenged: ‘a school cannot claim the status of an international institution simply because 70 or 80% of its clientele represent a variety of nationalities, races and cultures.’ Similarly it is recognised that there are many different models of governance in schools claiming to be international. The location of a school is no determining factor either, as ‘schools which operate in an international context may be considered to comprise a variety of school types, only a proportion of which may be properly described as international schools’. And so it is hard not to agree with Leach’s view of the term as ‘pragmatic’, and with Cambridge and Thompson’s assertion that ‘international schools are international schools because they declare themselves to be so, and because their clients recognise them as such.’
In order to address the question of whether BMIS is near or not to the model of an ideal school, then, we need to find something other than these factors, and Hayden and Thompson, among others, suggest a better approach: ‘underlying the wide range of different types of international schools and the associated differences in perception as to what may or may not be considered to be such a school, is a fundamental issue of philosophy.’ There should, they propose, be a common thread of some description relating to the concept of ‘international education’ running between them.
‘International education’, as it turns out, is no less a minefield of ambiguity and assumption than the ‘international school’; and the two terms are not necessarily intrinsically related. Indeed, Ronsheim points out how ‘an international school may offer an education that makes 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.’ Nevertheless, Hayden and Thompson have attempted to define what they consider to be the ‘Universals of International Education’:
- Diversity in student cultures
- Teachers as exemplars of international-mindedness
- Exposure to others of different cultures outside the school
- A balanced formal curriculum
- A management regime value-consistent with an institutional international philosophy
These mirror a number of the factors earlier attributed to international schools, and so a discussion of international education can, at least to some degree, be seen as a discussion of international schools. And to say that no description or model of either that exists is sufficient is in itself not sufficient to say that such a description or model is not desirable, especially when we are talking, as we are, about ideals.
And so to take these confusing terms and attempt to deconstruct them a little, to address the areas which compose their component parts, and to apply them to BMIS, we will examine, with a mind on the ideals behind, benefits of, problems with and realities of each one, the issues of values and ideology, curriculum, students, and staff, to try to determine how near BMIS is to any supposed ideal, if such a thing indeed exists.
Values and Ideology
All schools hold and espouse a set of implicit or explicit values, consciously or otherwise: ‘they convey values every day, knowingly or unknowingly, both at the explicit level of what is taught, and at the less openly acknowledged level of how the school is administered.’ Indeed Lazaridou cites research that demonstrates how values held by the various groups and individuals in schools affect what happens in schools in many ways.
More consciously held and expressed than values are the ideologies they help to form. Deal and Nolan generated a range of metaphors to describe the ideological frameworks around which they felt various schools were built. Among them were: the school as a filling station; the school as a greenhouse; the school as a tool; and the school as a marketplace. Schools, they said, that conformed more closely to the prevailing ideology (of the clientele, of the location, of the time) would be perceived as more successful and receive higher levels of support. At odds with this, it would seem, is Cambridge and Thompson’s more recent assertion that ‘the consumers of their services project onto them whatever values they want.’ Either way, these ideologies and values exist, and conflict between them, as Deal and Nolan explain in some detail, may lead to inconsistencies, indecision and mixed messages.
So what is the ideological ideal in international education? Hill counts its component parts as these:
- Commitment to social justice and equity on a world scale
- Empathy for the feelings, needs and lives of others in different countries
- Respect for cultural diversity within and without one’s geographical location
- A belief that people can make a difference
- Concern for the environment on a global scale
- Commitment to sustainable development on a global scale
This built on his earlier assertion that the ethos of international education may be defined as preparing students for global citizenship by building on the principals of tolerance, international cooperation, justice and peace. Willis, Enloe and Minoura put it more succinctly: ‘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.’
In terms of BMIS, all of these things are, to a lesser or greater degree, catered for in the IB Learner Profile, to which, as an IB World School, BMIS supposedly ascribes. They are grand ambitions. But while they may at first seem inarguably noble and worthy, they are not immune to criticism.
Cambridge and Thompson note that a paradox is highlighted by many authors on the subject, this being that whilst international education claims to foster world peace and understanding between nations, it is also part of the process of economic globalisation where international schools are free market responses to a global need, and the presence in a country of a school offering international education may introduce competition with the international education system.
International education, Cambridge asserts, is intimately linked with the process of globalization, a process which Hayden and Thompson describe as a means of ‘establishing multi-national corporations that help distort healthy, authentic and appropriate development in countries, standardizing tastes, attitudes and needs around the world’, and as such is always likely to be open for criticism from those wishing to protect nation and cultural identities.
The IBO anticipate this, and offer a defence: ‘we promote intercultural understanding and respect, not as an alternative to a sense of cultural and national identity, but as an essential part of life in the 21st century.’ Still, with such criticisms levelled at themselves and other providers of international education, it is clearly an issue which must be addressed.
Writing on African schools, of which BMIS is an example, Mitsuko Maeda observes that ‘an important and critical question for the educators is what cultural values should now be imparted to students in post-colonial schools.’ He specifically targets the tendency, much used by others, of talking of different countries, asserting that there really is no concept of a nation in the traditional Africa. If this is true, it puts a strain on some of the definitions, if not the very term itself, of international education.
Writing of the unsuitability of the IB in American schools, and citing the close links between the IBO and the UN, Allen Quist uses much stronger language: ‘the view of the United Nations is the foundation of totalitarianism.’
With so much disagreement then on what the ideals should be, and of the costs and benefits of international-mindedness, it is helpful that Hayden and Thompson settle in the grey areas where undoubtedly the truth lies: ‘if one form of international education relates to an ideology based on mutual understanding across nations, other forms exist in a less ideological framework.’ As with anything else in this arena, it never was likely to be black and white. And as such, while BMIS can be said to operate along the lines of certain ideals of international education, with so much criticism and disagreement it is impossible to say for sure what the true ideal is, and therefore whether BMIS meets that ideal or not.
First and foremost, let us establish what we mean in this context when we talk of curriculum and what, by turn, we do not mean. For some, the curriculum might refer to what is otherwise known as the syllabus: that is, what is formally taught. To others, it encompasses every aspect of a student’s school experience. Here, we focus on the former.
A number of commentators have tried to formulate the definitive model for an international curriculum, invariably limiting themselves to generalities, and overlapping a good deal with the realm of value and ideology. Ian Hill has concerned himself with this field, stating that such a curriculum will:
- Contain courses that provide an international perspective;
- Recognize that the world is increasingly interdependent;
- Provide activities that bring students into contact with people of other cultures;
- Create a context for world peace by providing opportunities for many cultures to learn together in mutual understanding and respect.
Focusing in on the taught curriculum, as we will, he claimed that an international education programme should, from a global perspective, knowledge about:
- Social justice and equality
- Sustainable development
- Cultural diversity
- Peace and conflict
- Population concerns
Although this concept of an international curriculum is still relatively new, such curricula exist. The IBO’s Diploma, MYP and PYP programmes, the AICE, the APID, the IGCSE, and the IPC are a few of the examples of curricula operating in international schools. They are, however, varying in their degrees of supposed ‘international-mindedness’, and are open to criticism on a number of fronts. For example, Hayden and Thompson observe that the IGCSE and AICE are arguably less international than the IB programmes as they are essentially national programmes offered overseas.
And while 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’, for many it is seem as the mark of an international school. Indeed, as Bunnell puts it, the adoption of the IBDP is for many schools the most obvious outward manifestation of their ‘international school’ status.’
In 2008 there were over 2400 globally branded ‘IB World Schools’. The IBO state that they are ‘motivated by a mission: we aim to create a better world through education and international-mindedness’. They further claim that ‘the International Baccalaureate aims to develop inquiring, knowledgeable and caring young people who help to create a better and more peaceful world through intercultural understanding and respect’. These aims would seem to fit very well with the ideas outlined by Hill, above.
BMIS is an IB World School, offering the PYP, MYP and Diploma programmes (as well as the IGCSE). Does this reflect an ideal school for international education? Many would argue not.
‘It would be positively wrong today to claim that all schools offering the IBDP are international schools’, writes Bunnell, and even when the MYP has been said to be more international than the Diploma programme, Marshall insists that ‘the IB curriculum alone does not an international school make.’ Schools do not become international through adoption and implementation of the IB, and it could be argued that in many cases ‘schools have adopted the IB exam to carve out a distinctive identity, rather than for intrinsically ideological reasons.’
One ideological reason for choosing the IB is that it is seen as promoting such values as are espoused above by Hill. Another lies in the recognition that, as Bunnell puts it, ‘the IBDP could be viewed as offering a useful alternative for countries keen to escape a colonial education system.’
One key criticism of the IB can be better understood if we accept Lawton’s description of education and the curriculum: ‘education…is concerned with making available to the next generation what we regard as the most valuable aspects of culture. Because schools have limited time and resources, the curriculum needs to be planned to ensure an appropriate selection is made.’ With this in mind, assertions such as Bunnell’s that ‘the IB programmes are always prone to being viewed as ‘Eurocentric’’, or Bhabha’s that ‘the literature of the colonizing powers has served as a medium for the imposition of foreign ideas, cultural representations, and structures of power’ become more problematic.
As well as with their content, there are also problems associated with the IB and other international curricula in terms of the educational traditions from which they stem. Kingston and Forland highlight the different traditions of East and West, identifying the collectivist as opposed to individualist traditions respectively, and the role of the student within them as respectful and passive within the former as opposed to challenging, critical and active within the latter. The IB actively promotes ‘critical thinking’, and this can be seen as a Western ideal as opposed to a necessarily global one. Maeda argues that ‘a stereotypical dualistic concept of traditional and Western culture should not be imposed on students, because it may lead to prejudice, which against the basis of a democratic society. Perhaps, students should be encouraged to have a sense of ‘flexible citizenship’, in which identities are not attached to any one culture.’
While there are undoubtedly schools which aspire to reconcile these approaches, and those that attempt to, and indeed succeed in, operating in accordance with such ideals and aims as we have seen discussed here, the truth, as in other aspects, is likely that most take a more pragmatic approach, as described by Cambridge and Thompson: ‘when one considers the educational needs of a clientele which is mobile, and with a high turnover, it is clear that they expect international schools to provide continuity in their children’s education as they move from country to country’. And Hayden and Thompson may also be right: ‘most parents are more immediately interested in a school’s academic achievement than in its philosophy.’
While the wishes and needs of the parents are of course important considerations for any school, and perhaps even more so given the relative flexibility and autonomy available to most international schools or those concerned with international education when compared with their national, state-run counterparts, we will concern ourselves rather with the wishes and needs of the children themselves.
‘Outside the home, international children’s most important relationships and activities are centred around school, with their classmates and with their teachers’, writes John Hardman. Indeed while school is but one of many considerations for a parent when relocating to a new community, for the children the international school is their community.
Moving schools is hard. According to Akram, relocated children need about eight months to adapt to their school. When coupled with the fact that many children stay in international schools no longer than two or three years due to their parents’ mobile lifestyles, this leaves very little time to establish any kind of stability, and requires repeated ‘fresh starts’ being made. It is of no surprise then that, as Grimshaw and Sears note, ‘some international school students pay a high psychological and emotional price for their cosmopolitan lifestyle.’
The concepts of the ‘global nomad’ or ‘third culture kid’ are well documented. These refer to the state of ‘feeling equally at home everywhere – or conversely not really feeling at home anywhere’, and the problems such a state of being may cause. While there are many possible benefits to being a ‘TCK’, the potential downsides tend to be highlighted, succinctly identified by Hayden and Thompson as including ‘a lack of cultural identity, the trauma of constantly leaving behind people and places and a common distrust of emotional intimacy and long-term relationships.’ Dixon and Hayden point to a sense of bereavement felt by the child for the environment left behind, a view emotively articulated by Pollock and van Rehen: ‘most TCKs go through more grief experiences by the time they are 20 than monocultural individuals do in a lifetime.’
As well as simply providing an education that ascribes to an agreeable set of values and operates around a curriculum that is well-balanced, ‘international’ and to at least some degree transferable, Sears would argue that ‘an important aspect of the work of international school educators is helping children to cope with the sense of cultural disjuncture and alienation resulting from these constant changes.’
One obvious cause of obstacles is language. With many students studying in a language other than their mother-tongue, both academic and emotional difficulties can arise. For one, as Grimshaw and Sears attest, ‘language…is an indicator of a person’s personality and plays a pivotal role in the social construction of identity.’ Furthermore, a lack of support for a child’s first language can lead to problems with cognitive development. If we then add to these the fact that other learning (and perhaps social or behavioural) difficulties are likely to be disguised by a poor faculty with the language of instruction, and it is clear that language support in some form or another should be a priority.
At BMIS language support is a priority for students whose first language is not English. The EAL department targets students with extra needs in this area and they are given tailored support, both in and out of class. There is, however, very little support available for children in their native languages, particularly non-European languages. While French, Spanish, German, Chichewa and one or two other minor languages can be catered for, there is little scope, with the resources available, to assist with others, and it is fair to say that though it is stated that one of the school’s priorities should be to support students in their mother tongue, little actually provision exists for many.
Other problems that children encounter as a result of such transitions include not finding a right to express an idea, lack of comprehension of classroom set-up and not feeling accepted by or having friends, as well as teachers failing to recognise each student’s unique background. And any or all of these things may be further exacerbated by the emotional aspects of relocation. The situation is delicate.
Cowie and Pecherek argue that teachers need to better understand how such children respond to loss; ‘in doing so’, they write, ‘they will be well placed to develop a strategy to help receive them and their families into the new school community.’ This is difficult to deny. After all, as Schaetti puts it, ‘the schools have…a pivotal role to play. They can influence the child’s arrival, influence the child’s departure, they influence the child’s arrival in the next location.’
There are many detailed suggestions as to how such influence might be used, including through the provision of student counselling services, teacher training, ‘profiling’ portfolios for students in transition, classroom activities, and parent counselling, among others. Whatever the specifics, Dixon sees three things as key:
- the importance of schools having a formalized induction programme for incoming students;
- the importance of ensuring such systems work, rather than assuming that they will do so;
- the importance of transitional teams;
At BMIS there is no student counselling service, no teacher training related to such students, and no such ‘profiling’ is done. There is very little in the way of formalized induction procedures. In fact it is often the case that a child may arrive in class without the teacher having any previous knowledge of their arrival, and certainly with the teacher having no information about the student’s background or language capabilities. Any systems which do exist, such as a possibly ‘buddy’ system or classroom activities, tend to do so on a largely ad hoc basis, being assumed rather than monitored. And there is no transitional team to oversee such a process.
With a full understanding of what it means to be an international student, and with an understanding of all the potential emotional and academic problems that that allows for, an ideal school for international education should have mechanisms in place to minimize the potential for difficulties to arise, and similar mechanisms to deal with any such problems as might arise; BMIS does not.
While Pamela Joslin might argue that ‘teachers choose to apply for a post overseas and it remains the individual teacher’s responsibility to ensure that they are well prepared for the task’, the majority of commentators would agree that many of the issues addressed above in relation to student relocation also apply to the members of staff in an international school. Teachers move between schools with as much frequency as students, and their induction is equally important if a school is to function effectively for the benefit of all.
An effective induction programme for new teachers, it has been suggested, should go beyond the customary three days, acknowledge the differences between staff, should include cultural, professional and personal aspects and might involve the use of a mentor or ‘buddy’ system.
At BMIS the induction process does, in theory, operate beyond the customary three days. It includes social events, an orientation to local shops and amenities, a brief talk on Malawi culture, and in Primary, a thorough introduction to the PYP curriculum and the school.
Stirzaker, writing extensively on the subject, asserts that ‘all teachers, including experienced ones, require and deserve appropriate induction when they start a new school.’ Furthering the cause of the experienced teacher, he explains that there may appear to be an assumption in many induction studies that induction is concerned with ‘beginner teachers’, whereas ‘a very common cause of stress to experienced but relocated teachers…is feeling unexpectedly ‘de-skilled’ in a new school.’ ‘It is important’, he writes, ‘to show that newcomers are valued, and opportunities should be created to allow them to establish their credibility.’
At BMIS, there is no distinction made between relatively new and more experienced teachers, meaning that all received a similar induction. In Primary, that means that all teachers are given the same high level of support. In Secondary, it means, unfortunately, that all teachers are equally assumed to know what they should be doing.
On the subject of staffing, the CIS insist that an effective international school should include ‘clearly defined roles for its entire staff.’ At BMIS, it has proven difficult for many new teachers to establish exactly who is responsible for what, whether in terms of fellow teachers, the senior leadership team or the auxiliary staff.
In terms of the professional development that should be made available to staff, there are some issues which may be specific to education in an international context. While the CIS’s assertion that ‘knowledge of developmental and learning style differences among students is essential…appropriate professional development offerings will enhance the development, delivery and evaluation of the school’s curriculum and its other programmes’, is of course true in any school, it must be recognised that learning styles may differ more in an international school, where, for example, Eastern tradition, as we mentioned above, has the potential to meet its Western counterpart.
Also on the issue of staff development, Skelton noted that ‘it is important that individual teachers should be given experiences through staff development that helps to encourage a personally held view that an international mindset is worthwhile. It is an important personal quality to look for when selecting candidates.’
Little professional development exists at BMIS outside of training for the IB programmes. While these do, by the nature of being based around the IBO’s values, deal with internationalist issues, they could be said to be limiting, and limited to the IBO’s definition of what international-mindedness should be.
As well as the international mindset required by Skelton, there are other characteristics desirable in international school staff. Blaney explains that they ‘should be carefully recruited so as to represent, without an unreasonable financial burden being placed upon schools, the major cultural areas of the world and as many nationalities as feasible.’ This is not without its problems though, as it can be recognized that teachers from different cultural backgrounds may have contrasting values with respect to education.
The fact remains, according to Grimshaw and Sears, that in many, if not most international schools, ‘the majority of the teaching faculty are members of a dominant language group, while the student body is usually multilingual and multicultural.’ And where this dominant language group is English-speaking, as it usually is (American teachers making up 38 per cent of the total, or nearly 4 out of every 1o teachers in international schools in 2003), this can again cause issues when dealing with students from other cultural backgrounds.
As with so many other things though, it comes down to pragmatism over idealism in many cases. Canterford points out that ‘if schools are looking for teachers with experience in programmes such as the IB, this will undoubtedly narrow the field when it comes to recruitment’. And parents prefer Western-trained native speakers of English.
English-speakers make up the majority of the teaching staff at BMIS. Of these, British teachers are in the majority, with a large number of North Americans, a couple of Irish and an Australian. Other nationalities do range far and wide, however, and include Dutch, Bulgarian, South African, Indian, Malawian, Kenyan and Zimbabwean.
If it is impossible to present a clear definition of international education or the international school, problematic to ascribe an ideal set of values to either, and difficult to identify what could or should constitute a curriculum in such a context, then it goes without saying that to claim that BMIS is or is not close to being ‘ideal’ in relation to such indicators is ultimately doomed to be little more than an exercise in subjectivity.
It is a good school. It does many things right, and for the right reasons, and it gets a few things wrong, and needs to improve in these areas before it approaches anyone’s definition of ‘ideal’.
Its values and ideologies are sound, grounded as they are in the IB programme, and while they are tempered at times by inevitable pragmatic concerns, they remain a focus and are actively pursued and valued.
The curriculum, based as it is on the IBO’s PYP, MYP and DP programmes (and the IGCSE) is inherently international in scope and applicability, offering most things that it is claimed an international curriculum should whilst also remaining very transferable.
Student support is a serious area of concern. It is my assertion that, in order to move closer to any supposed ‘ideal’ for international education, a few aspects of how we cater pastorally for our students need to change. Firstly, where it can be made available, more support should be available to students in their mother tongues. While this is difficult to apply practically and affordably, all attempts should be made to do so. Secondly, student counselling provision should exist, preferably in the guise of a trained and experienced school counsellor. Thirdly, all aspects of student transition need to be addressed. Students, and teachers, are let down by the current system (or lack thereof).
For new staff, the Secondary school needs to take as much care as the Primary school does with professional induction, and overall there needs to be more formal organisation and less assumption.
With these few changes, BMIS would improve, and though no true model may exist of an ideal school for international education, one could argue that, given the assertions, claims, and observations of those involved with the study of schools and education in an international context, it would be a relatively good example of what such a school might look like.
 Cambridge and Thompson 2001, p.1
 Hayden and Thompson 1995, p.338
 Hayden 2006a
 Skelton 2002
 Cambridge and Thompson 2001, p.1
 Skelton 2002
 Hayden and Thompson 1995, p.335
 CIS, NEASC 2006
 Cambridge and Thompson 2001, p.6
 Ibid, p.17
 Hayden and Thompson 1995, p.336
 Cambridge and Thompson 2001, p.2
 Hayden and Thompson 1996
 Halstead 1996
 Lazaridou 2007
 Deal and Nolan 1978
 Cambridge and Thompson 2001, p.17
 Deal and Nolan 1978
 Hill 2002
 Hill 1994
 Willis, Enloe and Minoura 1994, p.39
 Marshall 2007
 Cambridge 2002
 Hayden and Thompson 1995, p.329
 IBO 2010
 Maeda 2009, p.335
 Quist 2006, p.2
 Hayden and Thompson 1995, p.328
 Skelton 2002
 Hill 2002
 Hayden and Thompson 1995
 Cambridge and Thompson 2001, p.15
 Bunnell 2008, p.411
 IBO 2004, p.2
 IBO 2010
 Bunnell 2008, p.411
 Hayden and Thompson 1995
 Marshall 2007, p.46
 Bunnell 2008, p.410
 Ibid, p.418
 Lawton 1989
 Bunnell 2008, p.410
 Grimshaw and Sears 2008, p.267
 Kingston and Forland 2008
 Maeda 2009, p.340
 Cambridge and Thompson 2001, p.12
 Hayden and Thompson 1995, p.336
 Hardman 2001
 Skelton 2002
 Grimshaw and Sears 2008, p.262
 Hayden and Thompson 1995, p.331
 Ibid, p.331
 Dixon and Hayden 2008
 Ibid, p.486
 Grimshaw and Sears 2008, p.262
 Ibid, p.266
 Dixon and Hayden 2008
 Gabor 2010
 Dixon and Hayden 2008, p.487
 Ibid, p.487
 Langford et al 2002
 Dixon and Hayden 2008
 Joslin 2002, p.34
 Lewis 1993
 Stirzaker 2004, p.32
 Ibid, p.32
 Ibid, p.38
 CIS, NEASC 2006, p.52
 Ibid, p.31
 Skelton 2002
 Blaney 1991
 Cambridge 2002
 Grimshaw and Sears 2008, p.267
 Canterford 2003, p.51
 Canterford 2003, p.56
Belle-Isle R (1986) ‘Learning for a new Humanism’, International Schools Journal. 11 pp. 27-30.
Blaney J (1991) The International School System, in Jonietz PL and Harris D, World Yearbook of Education 1991: International schools and international education, London, Kogan Page.
Bunnell T (2008) The Global Growth of the International Baccalaureate Diploma Programme over the First 40 Years: a Critical Assessment, Denmark, Taylor & Francis.
Cambridge J (2002) Recruitment and Deployment of Staff: a Dimension of International School Organisation in Hayden MC, Thompson JJ and Walker GR (eds) International Education in Practice: Dimensions for National and International Schools, London, Kogan Page.
Cambridge J and Thompson J (2001) Internationalism, International Mindedness, Multiculturalism and Globalisation as Concepts in Defining International Schools, Department of Education, University of Bath.
Canterford G (2003) ‘Segmented Labour Markets in International Schools’, Journal of Research in International Education. 2(1) pp. 47-65.
CIS, NEASC (2006) The Guide to School Evaluation and Accreditation, 7th Edition, Council of International Schools.
Deal T and Nolan R (1978) ‘Alternative schools: a conceptual map’, The School Review. 87(1) pp. 29-49.
Dixon PGS and Hayden MC (2008) ‘On Move: Primary Age Children in Transition’, Cambridge Journal of Education. 38(4) pp. 483-496.
Gabor G (2010) ‘Can Students with Dyslexia be Effectively Supported in the Diversity of an International School Setting?’, Journal of Research in Special Needs. 10(1) pp. 31-41.
Garton, B 2000, Recruitment of Teachers for International Education, in Hayden, MC and Thompson, JJ (eds), International Schools and International Education: Improving Teaching, Management and quality, Kogan Page.
Gellar CA (1981) ‘International Education: Some thoughts on what it is and what it might be’, International Schools Journal. 1 pp. 21-26.
Gellar C (2002) International Education: a Commitment to Universal Values in Hayden M, Thompson J and Walker G (eds) International Education in Practice: Dimensions for National and International Schools, London, Kogan Page.
Grimshaw T and Sears C (2008) ‘Where am I from? Where do I belong? The negotiation and maintenance of identity by international school students’, Journal of Research in International Eduacation. 7(3) pp. 259-278.
Halstead JM (1996) in Halstead JM and Taylor MJ Values in Education and Education in Values, London, Falmer Press.
Hardman J (2001) Improving Recruitment and Retention of Quality Overseas Teachers in Blandford S and Shaw M (eds) Managing International Schools, London, Routledge Falmer.
Hayden MC (2006a) Introduction to International Education:International Schools and their Communities, London, Sage.
Hayden MC (2006b) The International Baccalaureate and International Education in Pound T (ed) The International Baccalaureate Diploma Programme: an Introduction for Teachers and Managers, London, Routledge.
Hayden MC and Thompson JJ (1995) ‘International schools and international education: a relationship reviewed’, Oxford Review of Education. 21(3) pp. 327-345.
Hayden MC and Thompson JJ (1996) ‘Potential Difference: the Driving force for International Education’, International Schools Journal. 16(1) pp. 46-57.
Hill I (1994) The International Baccalaureate: Policy Process in Education. University of Tasmania: PhD Thesis.
Hill I (2002) The History of International Education: an International Baccalaureate Perspective in Hayden MC, Thompson JJ and Walker GR (eds) International Education in Practice: Dimensions for National and International Schools, London, Kogan Page.
Hill I (2007) International Education as Developed by the International Baccalaureate Organisation in Hayden MC, Levy J and Thompson JJ (eds) Sage Handbook of Research in International Education, London, Sage.
Hirst PH and Peters RS (1970) The Logic of Education, London, Routledge and Kegan Paul.
International Baccalaureate Organisation (2004) Strategic Plan of the International Baccalaureate Organisation (IBO).
International Baccalaureate Organisation (2010), website available at http://www.ibo.org.
Joslin P (2002) ‘Teacher Relocation: Reflections in the Context of International Schools, Journal of Research in International Education. 1(1) pp. 33-62.
Kelly AV (2004) The Curriculum: Theory and Practice, London, Sage.
Kingston E, Foland H (2008) ‘Bridging the gap in expectations between international students and academic staff’, Journal of Studies in International Education. 12(2) pp. 204-221.
Knight M and Leach R (1964) International Secondary Schools in Brereday G and Lauwerys J (eds) Yearbook of Education 1964, London, Evans Brothers.
Langford M (1998) Global Nomads, Third Culture Kids and International Schools in Hayden MC and Thompson JJ International Education: Principles and Practice, London, Kogan Page.
Langford M, Pearce R, Rader D and Sears C (2002) The Essential Guide for Teachers in International Schools, Great Glemham, John Catt Educational Ltd.
Lawton D (1989) Education, Culture and the National Curriculum, London, Hodder and Stoughton.
Lazaridou A (2007) ‘Values in principles’ thinking when solving problems’, International Journal of Leadership in Education. 10(4) pp. 339-356.
Leach R (1969) International Schools and their Role in the Field of International Education, Oxford, Pergamon Press.
Lewis J (1993) The Induction of Teachers Entering an International School for the First Time, unpublished MEd dissertation, University of Bath.
Maeda M (2009) ‘Education and cultural hybridity: what cultural values should be imparted to students in Kenya?’, Compare: a Journal of Comparative Education. 39(3) pp. 335-348.
Marshall H (2007) The Global Education Terminology Debate in Hayden M, Levy J and Thompson, J (2007) The Sage Handbook of Research in International Education, London, Sage.
McKenzie M (1998) Going, Going, Gone…Global! in Hayden MC and Thompson JJ (eds) International Education: Principles and Practice, London, Kogan Page.
Parker W, Ninomiya A and Cogan G (1999) ‘Educating world citizens: toward multinational curriculum development’, The American Educational Research Journal. 36(2) pp.117-145.
Peterson ADC (2003) Schools across Frontiers: the Story of the International Baccalaureate and the United World Colleges, (2nd Edition), La Salle Il: Open Court.
Quist A (2006) Why International Baccalaureate (IB) is un-American, Edwatch.
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.
Robitaille D (1993) Curriculum Framework for Mathematics and Science: TIMMS Monograph No. 1, Vancouver, Pacific Educational.
Ronsheim S (1970) ‘Are International Schools Really International?’ Phi Delta Kappan. 7(2) pp. 43-46.
Stirzaker R (2004) ‘Staff Induction: Issues Surrounding Induction into International Schools’, Journal of Research in International Education. 3(1), pp.31-49.
Willis D, Enloe W and Minoura Y (1994) ‘Transcultural, Transnationals: The new Diaspora’, International Schools Journal. 14(1) pp. 39-41.