Navigating the blurred lines between principalship and governance in international schools: leadership and the locus of ownership control

Abstract

The number of international schools has increased significantly this century, with new schools predominately situated in Asia and the Middle East. This growth has also seen a shift from not-for-profit to for-profit education, and from such schools being primarily for children of expatriates to being mainly for host nation children. New actors, such as global chains of international schools, have also entered the arena. This article explores the impact of the contemporary landscape on the professional relationship between international school principals and their governors/owners, by drawing on a study of 12 international school principals in Malaysia. There were five emergent themes from the analysis: principal autonomy; ownership support; principal accountability; principal affective dissonance and the locus of control. There were wide-ranging levels of autonomy given to principals, significant support from owners in terms of financial backing for areas of development and methods of accountability that ranged from formal to informal. Principals seemingly had affective dissonance over working in for-profit schooling and there were issues surrounding the locus of ownership. There is little research in this area, particularly in Asia and this work appears to be the sole work that includes consideration of leadership in international school chains.

An Analysis of the Socialization Experiences of British Satellite College Principals in China and Challenges They Face in Their Role

“…A common organizational socialization theme from long tenured and internally promoted principals was their perceptions of how their organization's socialization processes had changed and had become more purposeful and formalized with the emergence of an intra-national headquarters for their respective groups (Gibson & Bailey, 2021) and improved collaboration with their respective parent schools in the UK. Reflecting on the early days, R6 commented: it was only just becoming a group then…so in terms of a formal understanding of what [the brand] stands for, that's been quite limited, it's only become formalized in the last two years.…”

“…The success of such a business model has enabled parent schools to sell territory rights to educational entrepreneurs who have now built portfolios of 'satellite colleges' tied together under one single branded 'group' with the result that many such groups now have a head office in the region holding an intra-national "locus of control" (Gibson & Bailey, 2021, p. 6). Principals for the purpose of this study are defined as the top tier leader of the whole college (Nursery to Year 13) as other studies in the field of international top tier leadership (Bailey & Gibson, 2020;Gibson & Bailey, 2021;Howling, 2017;Machin, 2014) have utilized the same job title. In this paper I am considering principals' perceptions of the satellite college, the satellite college's branded group and the parent school as influences on the socialization of principals.…”

Sustainable Leadership in Private International Schools: Lessons from Kuwait

“…Such lack of consistency and overall governance of the field means that schools operate through varied structures and processes of boards within schools, which may be very different in each school or group of schools. Gardner-McTaggart (2018) and Gibson and Bailey (2021) have also noted the complexity of governance in international schools with respect to autonomy for leaders and the ambiguity and lack of stability around governance and school practices. Bunnell (2019) meanwhile has noted that this lack of consistency and stability in governance policies and practices may place school leaders in precarious positions and contribute to the high turnover of leaders which in turn affects stability within the school.…”

“…Gardner-McTaggart (2018), Keller (2015) and Speirs (2017) have all identified this challenge, as international schools have varied systems, processes and practices based on each school’s board and/or owner. Gibson and Bailey (2021: 5) have identified how ‘international schooling is a contested and evolving construct that has implications for governance and the professional working relationship between owner and principal’. Such lack of consistency and overall governance of the field means that schools operate through varied structures and processes of boards within schools, which may be very different in each school or group of schools.…”

“…Bunnell (2019) meanwhile has noted that this lack of consistency and stability in governance policies and practices may place school leaders in precarious positions and contribute to the high turnover of leaders which in turn affects stability within the school. In their case study of international school principals in Malaysia, Gibson and Bailey’s (2021: 16) findings concluded that ‘models of ownership and leadership developed in Western contexts cannot easily be applied to other cultural and legal settings’. Further research is clearly required in understanding models appropriate for international school contexts.…”