Educational Review

ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: www.tandfonline.com/journals/cedr20

Being “international” differently: a comparative

study of transnational approaches to international
schooling in China

Wenxi Wu & Aaron Koh

To cite this article: Wenxi Wu & Aaron Koh (2022) Being “international” differently: a
comparative study of transnational approaches to international schooling in China,
Educational Review, 74:1, 57-75, DOI: 10.1080/00131911.2021.1887819

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/00131911.2021.1887819

Published online: 25 Feb 2021.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 3573

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Citing articles: 27 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=cedr20
EDUCATIONAL REVIEW
2022, VOL. 74, NO. 1, 57–75
https://doi.org/10.1080/00131911.2021.1887819

Being “international” differently: a comparative study of

transnational approaches to international schooling in China
Wenxi Wu and Aaron Koh
Department of Educational Administration and Policy, Faculty of Education, The Chinese University of
Hong Kong, Hong Kong SAR, China

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

International schools in China have enjoyed soaring popularity in Received 5 October 2020
recent years. Many of these schools adopt curricular forms and/or Accepted 3 February 2021
school brands originating from the US, UK or Canada, and they KEYWORDS
brand themselves as American-style (meishi), British-style (yingshi) International education;
and Sino-Canadian (zhongjia) international schools respectively. international schools;
Beyond this general observation about the different types of inter­ commodification of
national schools, there is little empirical research done to under­ education; transnational
stand how these different international schools position themselves positional goods
differently in the national field of international schooling in China.
Our study takes a transnational analytic perspective because inter­
national schools are models that travel. Our comparative and multi­
ple case study of international schools from three Chinese cities
aims to throw light on the idiosyncratic differences of these inter­
national schools, highlight commonalities they share, and point out
issues and challenges in their transnational practices. We draw from
the theory of positional good as our theoretical framing, but update
this theory with a discussion about international schools to suit the
context of our research. The paper concludes with a call for more
governmental efforts to regulate and support the international
school sector.

Introduction
There has been a notable growth of international schools over the past two decades,
fuelled by a widening appeal of global-oriented, English-medium education among
middle-class families in several fast-developing Asian economies (Bunnell, 2019; Hayden
& Thompson, 2016; H. Kim, 2019; Lee & Wright, 2015; Machin, 2017). Bunnell’s (2019)
recent study highlighted a developing trend involving the expansion of what is called the
“Internationally British” schools – defined as “schools with a British national orientation,
and/or using elements of the UK national curriculum” (Council of British International
Schools [COBIS], 2020, n.p.), as well as other similar constructions such as the
“Internationally American”, “Internationally Canadian”, and “Internationally Australian”
schools.

CONTACT Aaron Koh [email protected] Department of Educational Administration and Policy, Faculty of
Education, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong SAR, China
© 2021 Educational Review
58 W. WU AND A. KOH

As “models” that travel, international schools are now operating as a global education
industry reaching out to a more local/national clientele in addition to children of expatri­
ates. The last decade has witnessed a slew of newly minted international schools operat­
ing in the Middle East, East and Southeast Asia regions. Strikingly, these international
schools enrol indigenous students and are operated by host-country entities (Bunnell,
2014, 2019; Machin, 2019). This new wave of international schools and their modes of
operation continue to provide fresh fodder for research. Bunnell et al. (2020), for example,
recently provided an update of this research reporting an emergence of elite British-style
schools operating as “satellite colleges” in the Middle East and Southeast Asia.
However, existing research has yet to thoroughly understand the transnational prac­
tices of such international schools as models that travel to the shores of China. We also do
not know the extent to which such models are contextually re-modelled differently in the
socio-cultural, economic and political context where the international schools are set up.
Locating and contributing to the research on international education, our comparative
and multiple case study of international schools from three Chinese cities aims to throw
light on the idiosyncratic differences of these international schools as well as highlight
commonalities they share. But, first, to a brief contour of the international school land­
scape in China.
International schools emerged in China in the 1980s as a response to external drivers of
economic globalisation and internal demand for higher-quality education that looked to
the world for examples (Yan et al., 2015). Consequently, two types of international schools
have developed within China’s regulatory environment. One is called “Schools for
Children of Foreign Personnel” which caters to a growing expatriate population in the
country. These schools enrol foreign passport holders only and operate autonomously
outside the Chinese national education system. The other type, which is the focus of this
study, targets Chinese students aspiring for international education that transits to
(higher) education overseas. However, international schools within this category are
loosely defined and encompass various private schools and public-high-school sectors
that adopt international curriculum elements using English or bilingual medium of
instruction. Some of them are referred to as “Chinese Bilingual Schools” or “Chinese
Internationalised Schools” (Poole, 2020), which highlights the integration of Chinese
and international orientations. In 2019, China was hosting 1,168 international schools
with around 525,000 students, and over 85% of these schools fall into the second type of
international schools (TopSchools, 2019).
It is to be noted that compulsory education (Grade 1–9) in China is strictly regulated.
As such, all schools, including Chinese-attended international schools, are required to
teach the National Curriculum at this stage while foreign curricula are not allowed. At
the non-compulsory senior secondary level, however, international schools can offer
a range of foreign curriculum programmes, providing local Chinese students with exit
routes from the National College Entrance Examination (gaokao) towards higher educa­
tion overseas. It is estimated that the UK-based Advanced (A) Levels and the US-based
Advanced Placement (AP) programmes constitute respectively 35% and 34% shares of
the total international curriculum offerings in China, with another 18% linked to other
countries and only 13% to the International Baccalaureate (IB) (NewSchool Insight,
2019). Moreover, some international schools are offshore schools or sister schools
related to specific foreign educational systems. Statistics show that out of the 130
 EDUCATIONAL REVIEW 59

Canadian accredited offshore schools across the world, 90 of them are operating in
mainland China (Canadian Information Centre for International Credentials [CICIC],
2020). By the end of 2019, 17 British independent schools were running 36 “satellite
colleges” (Bunnell et al., 2020) in mainland China, with 16 more planned in 2020
(Venture Education, 2020). Besides, schools linked to the American system have devel­
oped in a relatively arbitrary manner through partnerships with various educational
organisations and private businesses.
Compared with a smaller number of IB schools, the majority of international schools in
China characteristically adopt the curricular forms and/or brand names exported from
mainly the US, UK and Canada. Accordingly, many of these schools model themselves as
American-style (meishi), British-style (yingshi), or Sino-Canadian (zhongjia) international
schools in explicit or implicit ways. Students who attend such international schools usually
proceed to study in universities in the US, UK or Canada respectively. Although these
institutions dominate the international school market, there has been a limited under­
standing of their distinctive forms and development (Wang, 2017). Some of the themes
that have emerged in the growing body of literature on international schools in China
include the national neoliberal policies promoting international schools and the conse­
quences (H. Kim & Mobrand, 2019; Liu, 2020), elite class formation and social justice issues
related to international schooling (Lee et al., 2016; Young, 2018), and students’ acquisition
of academic and social skills (Woods & Kong, 2020; Wright & Lee, 2014; Wright et al., 2017).
These studies are undoubtedly important, but we argue that they mostly suffer from
“methodological nationalism” (Wimmer & Schiller, 2003) as the studies are inherently
focused on international schools in situ within the boundary of the nation-state as a unit
of analysis.
We addressed this methodological blind spot by situating our study of China’s inter­
national schools from a transnational analytic perspective. We insist on a transnational
optic because international schools are quintessential examples of “global forms”
(Appadurai, 2013) that travel and mutate with local/national characteristics. As such, we
argue that any analysis of international schools in China must examine the differences
from within the national field, referencing the original international education systems
and their translocated forms in the Chinese cities. With this consideration, our study
investigates how international schools connected to American, British and Canadian
education systems operate in China and makes comparisons of their approaches to
transnational education provided mainly to Chinese students. Our inquiry is concerned
with how these national linkages might differentiate the schools’ operations and the
types of educational experience that students might receive there. The study aims to offer
more fine-grained and holistic perspectives on the internationalisation of schooling, while
also pointing out practical issues and challenges during the process.

International schooling as a transnational positional good: a theoretical

frame
A useful theoretical lens to study international schools is to understand the provisions of
international schooling as positional goods. Relevant to this study are three points
derived from the positional good theory first proposed by Hirsch (1977/2005). But we
update this theory with two points of revision to address the international school sector in
60 W. WU AND A. KOH

China, perhaps also applicable in other educational contexts where international schools
have sprung up.
Firstly, there is an economic logic to positional goods. They are valued for their limited
supply in society, and attempts to increase such supply will not increase the value of the
goods. Secondly, the absolute value of a positional good is determined by its relative place
in distribution. In his discussion on the function of education as a positional good, Hirsch
(1977/2005) stressed that the quality of schooling has a “relative dimension”, which
“consists of the differential over the educational level attained by others” (p. 6). It implies
that the value of a “good education” lies, to a certain extent, in the superior positioning
that it would confer to the learners in a hierarchy. Thirdly, expanding on Hirsch’s theorisa­
tion, Halliday (2016) suggests that the market of the educational positional goods should
be distinguished from the markets of other positional goods, because the former involves
the “conversion work”, whereby “the good of access to educational resources . . . must then
be converted into competitive advantage by whoever receives it” (p. 154, original
emphasis). In other words, the actual advantage of schooling is not automatically given,
but is realised through access to other benefits in society.
Hirsch’s (1977/2005) theory of positional good was written in the 1970s when the term
“transnational” was yet to be introduced. We add a transnational perspective to his
theory, acknowledging that the provision and formation of an international school sector
are essentially a transnational enterprise. In her review of the growth of the international
school sector, Hayden (2011) alludes to the offshore settlement of international schools as
“examples of the transnational spaces created by the globalisation process” (p. 212). Ball
(2012) argues that a broader context for the global phenomenon of international school­
ing is the widespread impact of economic liberalisation in education which encourages
private sectors to fulfil the extra schooling demand unmet by the state. Indeed, scholars
have identified the Middle East, East Asia and Southeast Asia as the global hubs for
a thriving international school industry because a growing aspirational middle class are
seeking such schools as an alternative to schooling in the national/local system (Bunnell,
2019; Cambridge, 2012; Koo, 2016).
We theorise the consumption and demand for international schools in China as
a transnational positional good because the offshoots of international schools in our
case study are like “retailers” of “globally branded products” that are “manufactured” by
transnational providers such as the IB, the UK-based Cambridge Assessment and the US-
based College Board (Cambridge, 2002, pp. 230–231). Ingersoll (2019) calls this, rightly,
the “branding of transnational credentials” (p. 267). Many of these international schools in
China are also branding themselves as elite schools as Lee et al.’s (2016) study has shown,
largely to differentiate themselves from their competitors and also to appeal to wealthy
parents who are seeking “reputational capital” (Hayden, 2011, p. 217).
Even as international schools have gained a foothold in China’s market, we stay true to
Hirsch’s (1977/2005) point that social scarcity and unequal distribution are by definition
what qualifies a positional good. However, we further extend the economic logic of his
theory with a culture-specific uptake of the “positional” by arguing that in China, the
consumption of international schooling as transnational positional good is a strategy
parents from affluent families use to enhance the “positional competition” of their
children (Brown, 2000). This competition is particularly intense as students take the
exam of their lives – the gaokao – to qualify for top-tier universities in China. In local
 EDUCATIONAL REVIEW 61

parlance, the saying “thousands of troops crossing a single-plank bridge” appositely

captures the frenzy around the gaokao. However, there is an “escape” route for children
from affluent families. They could attend international schools in China – and there is
a variety of them as our study examines – that will not compromise the competitiveness
of their cultural capital. Young’s (2018) study, for example, reported that some non-elite
international schools in China serve as an alternative route for students from economically
well-off families who, facing difficulties in the domestic education system, choose to
transfer to a different track towards overseas higher education. Significantly, students
who study at international schools gain positional and social advantage because of the
prospect of converting international schooling to future competitiveness en route to high-
ranking overseas universities. It is upon this transnational pathway made available by
attending international schools that we expand Hirst’s theory as a transnational positional
good.

The study and methodology

This study draws on both primary and secondary data from the international school
sector in three Chinese cities, Shanghai, Shenzhen and Suzhou. The three cities were
chosen because of their representativeness and accessibility of the case study
research. All cities have large numbers of international schools of various kinds. By
the end of 2019, Shanghai hosted approximately 120 international schools offering
secondary-level education, Shenzhen around 60, and Suzhou around 30. At the first
stage of research, secondary data were mined from an existing database (xinxueshuo.
cn) operated by a Beijing-based consultancy on K-12 international education. This
source of data was further supplemented by information obtained from school web­
sites and media reports. Together, these two sources of data provided
a comprehensive overview of the key types of international programmes across
China’s international school sector. Special attention was paid to the schools showing
an explicit American, British or Canadian orientation according to the school profiles
and curriculum structures. For example, a school which is deemed “American-style”
tellingly displays on its website that it adopts “original American high school curricu­
lum and AP courses” and offers “zero-distance experience of an authentic American
education”.
At the second stage, a qualitative case study method was employed to collect primary
data from eight schools to illuminate the key features of the transnational set-up of the
international schools understood through the perceptions of their various stakeholders.
The focus of our study is suited for a case study methodology as it has a particular
strength for conducting exploratory inquiries about the nature and processes of a real-
life phenomenon (Yin, 2014). The case study schools were purposively selected to repre­
sent the primary forms of foreign-national linkages identified from the first-stage analysis
of the secondary data. Four schools were initially approached through the personal
network of the first author, who used to work in the international school sector in
Shanghai. The schools where she worked were not part of the study to avoid researcher
bias. By way of snowball sampling, the school leaders in Shanghai were able to connect
the researcher to three other schools in Shenzhen and one in Suzhou. Information on the
case study schools is provided in Table 1.
 62

Table 1. Case study information.

W. WU AND A. KOH

American-style (Case A) British-style (Case B) Canadian-style (Case C)

Case Case A1 Case A2 Case A3 Case B1 Case B2 Case B3 Case C1 Case C2
Nature Semi-public (affiliated Private Private (local- Private Private Private Semi-public (Sino-Canadian Private (Sino-Canadian
international department) (franchising) run) (local-run) (franchising) (franchising) joint cooperation) joint cooperation)
Study level G10-12 G9-12 G9-12 G10-12 G1-12 G10-12 G10-12 G10-12
(in China)
Curriculum Chinese + AP American- American- IGCSE + Chinese + IGCSE + IGCSE + Chinese + Canadian Chinese + Canadian
structure based + AP based A Levels A Levels A Levels (Provincial) (Provincial)
Number of 120 180 320 950 400 110 130 150
students
Tuition fees 85,000 yuan 148,000 yuan 180,000 yuan 160,000 yuan 160,000 − 180,000 240,000 yuan 95,000 yuan 130,000 yuan
(per year) yuan
Interviews 1. Principal 1. Co-Principal 1. Co-founder 1. Vice- 1. Head of High 1. Director of 1. Curriculum Coordinator 1. Vice-Principal
2. College Counsellor 2. Academic 2. Admissions Principal School Operations 2. College Counsellor 2. Manager of Operating
3. Chinese History Teacher Director Director 2. College 2. Manager of 2. Admissions 3. English Teacher Company
4. Psychology Teacher 3. Maths 3. English Counsellor Marketing Associate 4. Geography Teacher 3. Chinese Teachers (2)
5. Spanish Teacher Teacher Teacher 3. Chemistry 3. Chinese Teachers 3. Maths 5. Maths Teachers (2) 4. French Teacher
4. Economics 4. French Teacher (2) Teacher 6. Students (3) 5. Physics Teacher
Teacher Teacher 4. Student Advisor 4. Economics
5. Students (2) 5. Maths Teacher
Teacher 5. Students (3)
1 Chinese yuan = 0.14 US Dollar
 EDUCATIONAL REVIEW 63

Each case study school was visited to gain an overview of the school environment,
facilities and aesthetics, which were recorded in the field notes. Additional school docu­
ments were collected and reviewed, and in-depth semi-structured interviews were con­
ducted with school leaders and teachers during school visits or via WeChat, a Chinese
multi-purpose mobile app. Questions were mainly related to their perspectives on the
schools’ international identities and characteristics, ways of collaboration between the
schools and foreign partners, and their work focuses. A small group of students from three
schools were also interviewed face-to-face or online. Multiple interview sources served to
compare and contrast perspectives and enhanced the validity of the data. The interviews
were conducted primarily in Chinese, and the length ranged from 30 minutes to 1.5 hours.
The interviews were recorded, transcribed and translated to English for detailed qualita­
tive analysis. The data were presented anonymously to preserve the confidentiality of the
informants and their affiliated schools.
Data analysis for this study was conducted through a layered process. Supported by
secondary data, the interview transcripts, field notes and documents of each case study were
initially reviewed separately for identification of themes and categories of information. This
was followed by cross-case comparisons to gauge the extent of the schools’ variations and
commonalities. Finally, synthesis of data was conducted to put the findings in conversation
with the theoretical framing and literature. The overall aim is to understand how the
American, British and Canadian educational components travel to the shores of China and
are re-modelled as offshoots of international schools. We turn to present our findings next.

Findings
Findings of the research are presented in three subsections, which respectively address
the characteristics of the three types of international schools and themes identified from
the case study analysis.

American-style international schools: “like a giant study-abroad agent”

In China, not all American-style international schools are the same. While such interna­
tional schools have received much publicity in the Chinese media, what qualifies them as
“American” remains ambiguous. They are commonly accepted as American-style interna­
tional schools as long as they have some connection with the US.
However, our data analysis found that there are differences within schools which claim
to be “American-style”. One key difference is the curriculum. Some integrate the Chinese
national curriculum with preparatory courses for American standardised examinations
needed for US college applications while the sister schools adopt the same curricula and
teaching materials; yet others import academic programmes developed by US-based
education organisations. There are also differences in terms of ownership and manage­
ment. Although most are for-profit private schools, some take semi-public forms and are
affiliated to Chinese public high schools as their fee-paying “international departments”.
A wide range of operating bodies can be involved, including individual investors, educa­
tional institutions, commercial groups of diverse industries from both China and abroad.
The schools can be fully local-run, linked to schools in the US or Chinese-foreign coop­
erative, with different degrees of teaching input from the US partners.
64 W. WU AND A. KOH

These mutations have made it challenging to identify a shared conception of what an

American-style international education substantially entails for Chinese students. During
the interviews, the school leaders and teachers also did not come up with a unified
expression for their schools’ American characteristics; however, a recurring theme, which
is the prospect of sending students to renowned US universities, overarched the partici­
pants’ perceptions. Many tried to distinguish the US higher education pathway from the
domestic gaokao route in China’s mainstream secondary education. This contrast was
frequently featured in the interviews. Commenting on the strengths of their schools, two
participants said:

More than half of the world’s Top 100 universities are located in the US; China (mainland) only
has two. We all know how difficult it is for students to get into Tsing University and Peking
University . . . But if you come to our school, you will see that 80% of our graduates are
admitted to Top 50 US universities. This is called “overtake at a corner”. (Principal, Case A1)

I think parents are attracted to American-style schools because they value the freedom and
choice there. We often say that gaokao is a single-plank bridge. What international education
can offer is like, “All roads lead to Rome”. Students taking the gaokao can only get admitted to
one university, all in one shot. But our students would expect multiple offers, Top 50, Top
100 . . . many. (Admissions Director, Case A3)

As evinced from the second quotation above, we found that many of the practitioners in
American-style international schools did not make much distinction between an
American-oriented education and international education, often using the concepts
interchangeably. As the College Counsellor in Case A1 explained, “The US has long
been the No. 1 destination for Chinese international students, so naturally American-
style education is an important part of international education.” When asked to evaluate
the practices of international education at their schools, the participants made natural
references to their US college admission results. For example, the Principal in Case A1
remarked, “I believe we are one of the leaders in the field of international education in (city
name). We have Ivy League admissions every year, and many of our graduates go to top
Liberal Arts Colleges.”
Sending students to high-ranking universities in the US seemed to be a well-
acknowledged educational objective of the schools. In many cases, when the participants
shared their work, they emphasised the potential benefits for college applications, more
frequently than the knowledge and skills that students might develop from the process.
For example, the Co-Principal in Case A2 mentioned that the primary reason they decided
to introduce the AP courses was to “give students an edge in US applications”. The AP
Psychology Teacher in Case A1 said that she encouraged her students to take the subject
because “it has a comparatively high 5-point rate”, which could help maximise their
scores. Not only the academic subjects, but also various aspects of school arrangements,
were perceived by school leaders as ways to bolster students’ advantage during applica­
tions. The Academic Director in Case A2, for instance, mentioned their partnership with
a US high school, which “can allow our (Chinese) students to register for the American
student status and enjoy the same status as their peers in the US during applications”.
Moreover, admission-related educational provisions have different price tags. The
Admissions Director in Case A3 justified the school’s high tuition fees on the ground of
their “all-inclusive application package” offered to the students. The school had contracts
 EDUCATIONAL REVIEW 65

with service providers including a language tutoring school, an art school, a study-abroad
agency and organisers of summer programmes and academic research activities, which
would help improve students’ profile from different angles. Students in Case A2 also
reported having to pay extra fees to the schools in order to receive more comprehensive
college counselling and writing assistance.
When these schools placed students’ applications at the centre of their work, admis­
sion results became a major component of teachers’ performance evaluation. One parti­
cipant talked about the “Key Performance Indicators (KPIs)” requiring every G12
homeroom teacher to “ensure all students in the class be admitted to Top 100 US
universities” (Economics Teacher, Case A2). In this situation, aspects of education which
could not pay off immediately had received less investment and attention. Teachers from
both Case A2 and Case A3 reported the absence of long-term teacher development plans.
Subjects required in the Chinese high school curriculum but not essential for college
application were relegated to “the grocery courses” (Chinese History Teacher, Case A1),
indicating the insignificance of the subjects. Teaching was also found to be result-driven
and in some cases, ethically problematic, as the English Teacher in Case A3 mentioned
occasions when she was pressed to re-mark test papers in order to bring the average
score of her class above 85. “It’s ridiculous, but we have to keep their GPA [Grade Point
Average] look good because it’s important for their applications,” she said. Overall, we
found many school-based practices poorly regulated in the schools offering American-
based curricula. Except for the US-administered standardised examinations such as the
SAT and AP, assessments of most other areas of schooling were up to the individual
schools themselves.
To some extent, the findings above may explain why the diversified forms and
practices of the American-style international schools in China did not affect their collec­
tive positioning of being “American”. Regardless of the curriculum structures and modes
of school operation, they all served the goal of better placing students in US universities,
which not only led to utilitarian behaviours in education but also reduced teaching and
school management to college application services. As one participant frankly remarked,
“I feel that the school is like a giant study-abroad agent” (French Teacher, Case A3).

British-style international schools: “Britishness is the golden ticket to the Chinese

market”
In China’s international school sector, schools that are recognised as British-style fall into
two types. The first includes schools that adopt international curricula with a UK origin,
typically the British A Levels and the International General Certificate of Secondary
Education (IGCSE). Usually, the schools are locally established in China and are operated
under local brands. The other type includes so-called branch campuses under the same
name with the UK independent schools. A main purpose of the second type of schools is
to replicate the successful model of the original UK schools in China. Franchising is the
most common mode of operation, in which the UK school selects and authorises its local
Chinese partner(s) to use the school brand and access parts of its resources, while the
latter owns and runs the school. The second type represents the more typical form of
British-style international schools in China and is the main focus of our analysis.
66 W. WU AND A. KOH

From the school documents and interviews, we found that the idea of a British origin
firmly underpinned various aspects of the schools, and there were many unified expres­
sions for it. The most salient characteristic shared by all the UK branch schools was the
spotlight on the heritage, reputation and achievement of the elite parent schools in the
UK. The UK schools’ long histories, academic records and celebrity alumni, particularly the
UK Prime Ministers and the royal family members, were frequent references in the schools’
advertisements. Pictures of British historical architecture, uniform-wearing British stu­
dents, school emblems and the Union Jack were common elements in the school docu­
ments. During the interviews, most of the participants also stressed their schools’ bond
with the UK and adoption of various UK-originated educational features, such as the
theatre in education, pastoral care and the housing system. These features were con­
strued to be superior to the Chinese national education because of the promoted benefits
for students’ whole-person development, individualised learning and character building.
The strong sense of Britishness is an essential part of the schools’ branding strategies,
as one participant remarked about the founding of their school:

. . . first need to establish a high-end and orthodox school identity. Before the school results
can be tested by the Chinese market, trying to create an identity of pure British school
pedigree and a high-end image is key to success. (Manager of Marketing, Case B2)

Similarly, another participant commented that “to a great extent, it is the title of the British
elite school that attracted parents, thinking that their children are part of that”
(Admissions Associate, Case B3). The ideas of the “British-school pedigree” and “British
elite school” served as a symbolic endorsement of quality and distinction, making parents
feel that the branch campus in China would provide privileged experiences and oppor­
tunities as one would have in the UK.
To a certain extent, the pursuit for an authentic British education had some positive
impact on the schools’ educational development, as school managers in China have the
pressure to maintain high standards and preserve the reputation of the UK schools. As
two of them remarked:

They (UK schools) have many advanced practices that are different from what we do in China;
they have systematic curricula, excellent teaching practices and strict academic requirements.
Communicating and learning with them can enable us to reach a relatively high standard
quickly. (Head of High School, Case B2)

Our UK partners treasure their feathers very much. They are cautious of any potential risks
here . . . This is also a good constraint on us as managers. We must demand high standards for
ourselves and our teachers. (Director of Operations, Case B3)

Other participants also mentioned the importance to build up the capacity of the local
campuses by absorbing experiences from the UK partners’ successful practices and
traditions. They recognised the quality and prestige of UK schools and considered it
useful for bringing better practices to education in China.
In association with the schools’ distinct Britishness is the fact that many of them look
alike, with similar school ethos, curricula and management styles. In large part, this is
related to the UK Government’s long-time branding of UK education, now under the
“Education is GREAT” campaign, combined with an ambitious top-down education export
strategy promoted by the state. As detailed in the policy paper International Education
 EDUCATIONAL REVIEW 67

Strategy: Global Potential, Global Growth, the UK Government aims to increase its educa­
tion export value to £35 billion per year by 2030 and increase the number of international
students entering the UK higher education system each year to 600,000 by the same year
(Department for Education and Department of International Trade [DfE & DIT], 2019). As
part of the national strategy, UK independent schools are encouraged to set up overseas
offshoots to bring back revenues, and the UK Department for International Trade is
responsible for supporting schools to spearhead global markets.
A close look at the conventional franchise models of the British-style international
schools in China suggests that their provisions are highly commodified. In most cases, the
UK schools have only minimal involvement in managing the branch campuses in return
for an annual royalty from about 4% to 7% of the local tuitions – and the British-style
schools are among the most expensive international schools in China. “The UK side only
provides a basic curriculum, some teacher training and consultancy, and of course the
brand,” says Director of Operations in Case B3 when explaining how their contract works,
“We are the ones responsible for all the work, the land, the money and daily operations.”
Even though the school is owned and managed by the Chinese local operators, it never­
theless presents itself as a true British one. In this sense, the branded British culture may
be perceived as a shell for the school’s underlying profit-oriented practices, just as the
Maths Teacher in Case B3 commented, “Britishness is the golden ticket to the Chinese
market.”
This scenario brings potential challenges to the schools’ sustainable development.
Because the roles played by both the UK schools and education authorities are primarily
promotional rather than regulatory, the franchised campuses in China generally receive
inadequate support and supervision from the UK side, which prioritises the economic
value of the offshore schools. As reported by the participants, some schools faced
financial pressure and had to admit unqualified students to increase tuition revenues.
Some other schools had to deal with complaints from parents and students when their
experiences fell short of expectations. Especially during the Covid-19 pandemic, the
school leaders were under considerable pressure dealing with parents’ requests for tuition
refunds because they deemed online experiences not worth the money.

Canadian-style international schools: “Sino-Canadian class”

The Canadian-style international schools in China are known as “Canadian offshore
schools” in Canada’s education policy. They have strong ties with the associated
Canadian provincial education authorities, notably, British Columbia, New Brunswick,
Nova Scotia and Ontario, which certify and inspect their respective offshore schools.
Most of the schools in China are established as joint programmes between Chinese
high schools and the Canadian provincial ministries of education. In this model, the
school is under dual leadership and delivers curricula from both countries/provinces.
Certified teachers from Canada teach the Canadian curriculum according to the provincial
learning standards. Upon fulfilment of academic requirements and assessments, students
usually receive a Canadian certificate of graduation issued in addition to a Chinese high
school diploma. The Sino-Canadian cooperation, aided by official recognition from the
Canadian side, constitutes a crucial feature that distinguishes the Canadian-style interna­
tional schools from other types.
68 W. WU AND A. KOH

In this context, the Canadian construction of being “international” takes a unique form,
in which the school practitioners highlighted the idea of being “Chinese” and “Canadian”
at the same time as their interpretation of the schools’ international character. Most of the
Canadian offshore programmes in China are called “Sino-Canadian class” (zhongjia ban) in
common Chinese parlance, instead of using the term “Canadian-style” (jiashi) as one
would describe the American-style (meishi) and British-style (yingshi) international
schools. In contrast to the British-style schools, which tried to hide their Chineseness
underneath British brands, the Canadian ones inclined to emphasise the combination of
educational provisions from both countries with doubled benefits. This conception was
revealed in our interviews in two directions.
The first involved the direction of Canadian education travelling to China, where the
curriculum and teaching are localised in the Chinese schools. As one participant
explained:

We have done much work to integrate the Canadian courses into the Chinese curriculum so
that the foreign elements can be adapted to the Chinese classrooms and fit students’ learning
characteristics. (Curriculum Coordinator, Case C1)

The second direction concerns the Chinese schools sending students to Canada. Although
the school is in China, the Canadian programme that it delivers is incorporated into the
corresponding Canadian provincial school system and is subject to local academic
requirements. Notably, the offshore school is granted an “in-province” (shennei) status,
as highlighted by many of the participants, which “seamlessly connects Chinese students
to Canadian higher education” (Vice-Principal, Case C2). School leaders in both cases
regarded the schools as fast tracks to Canadian universities, and admissions to lower-
ranked ones were even guaranteed. Much like the participants from American-style
international schools, they compared the easy paths they offered to the “ordeal” of
gaokao. This perception was well summarised by a school leader using a Chinese couplet,
translated as:

Ten years of study hard, the single-plank bridge to Tsinghua is crowded by an army. One year
at (school name), welcome to the Sunshine Avenue of the University of Toronto. (Vice-
Principal, Case C2)

Besides assured admissions to Canadian universities, the dual-track arrangement has

many benefits according to the participants. Some mentioned that students could har­
ness the academic strengths of both Chinese and Canadian education, with an effect of
“one plus one larger than two” (Maths Teacher, Case C1). For example, since students are
required to take courses from both China and Canada, the traditional strengths in Chinese
maths and science education could assist students to better grasp the concepts in English
when learning the subjects in the Canadian curriculum. On the other hand, English-
medium teaching in the Canadian part, particularly the English and social science sub­
jects, accelerated students’ English proficiency and provided them with “a more flexible
and self-directed learning experience” (Geography Teacher, Case C1), which were con­
sidered essential for their quick adaptation to Canadian higher education in the future.
Moreover, during the post-Covid-19 era, the concept of “dual-track” becomes even
more advantageous as it gives students more possibilities when planning their studies.
Participants perceived this point as a significant benefit of the Sino-Canadian
 EDUCATIONAL REVIEW 69

programmes, because when international travel became unfavourable, students could

choose to “go local” and continue their studies towards higher education in China. As
a school leader explained:
Unlike some other international schools where students are only given an international
diploma, our students have both the Chinese and Canadian graduation certificates. If they
no longer wish to go abroad, they can consider taking the gaokao and apply to joint venture
universities in China. (Vice-Principal, Case C2)

Although taking the gaokao is only possible in theory for the students (but extremely
difficult in practice due to the fierce competition), the idea of having a backup plan can be
a great relief to parents and is thus a valid selling point in challenging times.
Ideally, the Chinese and Canadian education systems were supposed to be well-
coordinated in one school. On many occasions, however, the balance between the two
was very much leaning towards the Canadian side. Because the primary purpose of the
Sino-Canadian programmes was to send students to Canada, school leaders paid more
attention to the Canadian educational requirements. While they stressed the importance
of adopting “highest standards” and “strict requirements for students” in dealing with the
Canadian courses, they only considered it necessary for students to “pass” the Chinese
High School Graduation Examination (huikao), which did not require much effort from the
students.
As noted, the construction of “international” at Canadian offshore schools was focused
on the mutual engagement of Chinese and Canadian education, a feature that differen­
tiated the schools from the American and British types. However, the actual content of the
cooperation was not that different, given their shared commercialisation features. While
the early presence of Canadian offshore schools in China typically involved the collabora­
tion between a Canadian provincial education authority and a designated Chinese public
school, with governmental or non-governmental organisations facilitating the connec­
tion, the model has become increasingly commercialised during its recent development.
Like the UK, the Government of Canada views educational trade as interlinked to its
economic objectives and competition for international students (Government of Canada,
2019). As part of the country’s ongoing international education strategy, more provincial
governments have looked to offshore schools for exports beyond purely educational
collaboration. During our interviews, the participants also saw this as evidence for the
commodification of international education and understood that “Canadian universities
are vying for Chinese students for revenues” (College Counsellor, Case C1). Within China,
driven by educational reforms towards decentralisation and marketisation, private
schools, instead of public ones, have become the dominant hosts of the Sino-Canadian
programmes. Besides, larger numbers of private and especially corporate operators have
stepped into the market, serving as commission-based intermediates between Canadian
and Chinese sides. Collectively, these forces have contributed to the fast yet deeply
commodified provisions of Canadian-style international schooling in China.

Discussion
Our use of the imagery of international schools as models that travel alludes to the
transnational flow of international schools as an example of a global education industry.
70 W. WU AND A. KOH

The main players of this industry come from a “centre” (i.e. the US, UK and Canada),
travelling from the Global North to China (and elsewhere) with the intent of operating
their models of international education as business enterprises. Our study shows that the
scale in which these models are multiplying suggests that the commercial footing of this
global education industry is taking shape as a national field of international schooling in
China. However, we argue based on findings from our case study schools that, as models
that travel, international schools become “international” differently when they reach the
shores of China. In what follows, we consolidate a discussion of our findings.
We acknowledge that extant research has made efforts to unpack the meaning of the
“international” in international schools (e.g. Bunnell et al., 2016, 2017; Hill, 2015). However,
such conceptualisations are from Eurocentric perspectives thinly connected to the inter­
national school sector in China. Although Poole (2020) helpfully proposed to “decouple”
the unique form of international(ised) schools in China from the normative concept of
international schools, his attempt glossed over the idiosyncratic differences within the
national field of the sector. In this article, we have provided empirical evidence of the
differences from our case study schools.
The American-style international schools stood out as a model that has mutated in its
form and practice from its parent provider so much so that our data showed that what
constitutes an American-style international school remains an ambiguity, although one
could also argue that this mutation is the way experimentation should be encouraged in
a business venture. We developed the theme “like a giant study abroad agent” from the
data of our case study of American-style international schools to suggest that while these
schools are different from each other, they are united by one common characteristic that
is their mission to channel and prepare students en route to leading US universities. By
contrast – and a stark one – the British-style branch schools preserve their identity,
culture, representation and hallmark of their brand names as their parent schools. While
franchising is the business model that they subscribe, as Bunnell et al. (2020) have also
pointed out, they capitalise on the elite status of their brands and also promote
“Britishness” as “the golden ticket to the Chinese market”, quoting from our participant.
As for the Canadian-style international schools, they sell themselves in the Chinese
market by promoting their hybrid model, one that offers a joint programme, part Chinese
curriculum and part Canadian in partnership with local Chinese high schools. We describe
this model as “Sino-Canadian class” in our case study to highlight a distinctive difference
from the other two models whereby the dual-track curriculum operates like the posses­
sion of dual citizenship; that is, students could transit and study at universities in Canada
or choose to study at mainland Chinese universities. Overall, there is not a totalising
“international schools” typology as such in the national field of international schooling in
China. They are different in their own ways and must be understood in their nuances.
Despite their differences, these international schools market themselves as the gateway
to prestigious universities in the US, UK or Canada. Now that the market has grown,
international schools operating in China have to differentiate themselves more distinctly
because ultimately, they are selling a transnational positional good to a growing aspira­
tional middle class who are seeking different advantages for their children.
In our study, what strikes us as important in explaining the differences in the interna­
tional schools we studied is the role played by the state. Like many other Asian countries,
education authorities in China tend to view international schools as peripheral
 EDUCATIONAL REVIEW 71

components of the national school system (H. Kim & Mobrand, 2019). As such, the Chinese
local governments generally lack adequate supervision over the international schools’
development beyond compulsory education levels, except for setting the basic standards.
Ostensibly, this encourages travelling models of international schools to take different
forms and modes of operation. In the case of the American-style international schools, few
regulations and guidelines from education authorities in the US have seen the schools
mutate into diversity. By contrast, the UK Government has a systematic top-down policy
and export strategy to encourage its independent schools to explore overseas markets
(Bunnell et al., 2020), leading to more unified practices. In the Canadian case, the federal
and provincial jurisdictions for education in Canada have long been engaged in support­
ing the growth of Canadian offshore schools (Cosco, 2011). Two decades of development
has seen a stable model of operation developed and matured over time.
Our thesis of international schooling as a transnational positional good is amply
supported by the evidence from our empirical data. From a “production” angle, whether
it is the American-style, British-style or the Canadian-style international schools, they
market themselves as offering a positional advantage to their consumers with the
promise of increasing their competitiveness when applying to Western universities. In
the Canadian-style international schools, students are even guaranteed a place in some
Canadian universities. However, the positionality is not necessarily correlated to the
absolute quality of the educational provision (Halliday, 2016). An example could be said
of the American-style schools where quality control is a looming issue because there is no
close monitoring and various school-based practices have since evolved.
Secondly, from a “consumption” angle, economically privileged Chinese families are
attracted to international schools because of the positional rewards they gain by exchan­
ging economic capital. As shown in Table 1, the fees vary among different international
schools, presenting “a choice hierarchy” (Ingersoll, 2019, p. 264). Consumption of exclu­
sive services, such as the “all-inclusive application package” in one of our American-style
cases, can help secure a relative advantage for its students over applicants elsewhere.
International schooling is also consumed for its symbolic power. As exhibited by the
British-style cases, they market the offshore independent schools as no different from
their parent schools in England, burnishing the former with all things British with symbols
and paraphernalia that suggest “distinction”.
Despite differences among the schools, many Chinese parents and students however
perceive international schools as serving the same purpose – they provide an “escape”
route from the gaokao. As noted in the American-style schools, this purpose is expressed
as a naked fact. Similarly, beyond the promoted British culture and Sino-Canadian
cooperation in the other two types of schools, the aim of studying abroad is the de
facto core of their services. However, as these international schools are competing for
a similar pool of clientele, they are set for greater competition among themselves. And to
stay ahead of this competition, they have to highlight their difference(s) further, and what
the transnational positional good could offer.
Thirdly, from a “conversion” angle derived from the positional good theory, interna­
tional schooling as a transnational positional good might be affected by a gap between
the purchase of the good in China and the realisation of its value overseas. The conversion
is meaningful if the fundamental value of the educational product depends on the
advantageous prospect of its current shape of provision. In our case, the value of attending
72 W. WU AND A. KOH

international schools in China is tied with a promise of the students’ future high ground in
the global positional competition for credentials and employment (Brown, 2000).
Crucially, consuming educational products associated with different countries can lead
to having different forms and amounts of positional advantage, given the existing global
hierarchy and particularly the Anglo-American hegemony of higher education systems
and knowledge production (J. Kim, 2016). Because of the future-oriented nature of the
educational positional goods, international schools could face uncertainties if their con­
sumers could not effectively materialise the advantage of the goods provided to them.
A typical incident to illustrate the significance of conversion is the impact of the Covid-
19 pandemic on Chinese students’ choice in international higher education (Mok, 2020).
The fact that many Chinese parents are refraining from the international track of school­
ing out of health and safety concerns for their children has posed unexpected challenges
to the positional advantage of international schools. In our findings, the Canadian schools
responded to the risk by highlighting the flexibility of their dual-track provisions, which
might enhance their relative position in the market. Moreover, international relations can
be another significant factor affecting the positioning of international schools with
different national orientations. A case in point is that the recent political tensions between
China and the US have resulted in increasing numbers of Chinese students choosing the
UK over the US as their preferred university destination (Yan, 2020). This scenario is likely
to change the value of those international schools focusing on the two countries. Placing
the concept of positional good in the context of international schooling has served to
illuminate the distinction and relationship between the current and future statuses of the
good’s positionality.

Conclusion
This article has discussed the different “breeds” of international schools in China, propos­
ing the theoretical perspective of “transnational positional good” to understand the
schools’ characteristics and roles in the international education system. This perspective
not only offers more nuanced understandings about how the concept of being “interna­
tional” is perceived and translated in the schools’ operations, but also suggests further
implications for educational practices and policies in transnational settings.
Findings of this study have pointed out issues relating to the commodification of
international schooling and education. In China, the positional goods of education that
are being constructed and traded at international schools have extensively (re)shaped
their educational ecology. As the commodification of a more effortless channel to over­
seas universities becomes the primary pursuit for the international schools, it oversha­
dows, if not displaces, other practices with more intrinsic educational considerations.
Beyond this, there is a global market for international student mobility where different
agents collaborate and profit from the student flows. International schools are just one
part of the massive industry. Therefore, the problem of commodification found at inter­
national schools in China does not stand alone, but permeates the broader supply chain
of the global education industry. Factors like Anglo-American universities’ admission
standards and governments’ policies on the internationalisation of (higher) education
have pre-set the rules for international schools in China and other countries in the
 EDUCATIONAL REVIEW 73

developing South to adapt and have informed their core value as an engine for interna­
tional student mobility.
Given these issues, however, policy responses from different governments are inade­
quate. In China, education authorities have given low priority to overseeing international
schools because of their marginal position in the national education system. However, the
fact that they have significantly grown into a larger market requires better local policy
response. For the main exporting countries of international schools and international
curricula, appropriate levels of governmental engagement in their offshore programmes
are also needed. As suggested in this study, the absence of governmental supervision is
connected to the American-style schools’ fragmented operational focuses and lack of
educational concerns. By comparison, even some basic guidelines and requirements such
as those offered by the UK and Canadian governments can make a difference in the
educational development for the offshore schools.
Finally, to the caveats of the study and some ways forward. The parameter of the
research has only involved international schools with notable orientations to the US, UK
and Canada. There are, admittedly, other kinds of international schools associated with
different countries, and many do not have explicit foreign national focuses, such as those
adopting the IB programmes or developing strong Chinese characteristics. This leaves
room for further research that will take up other types of international schools as a focus.
Furthermore, due to the small number of case studies featured in our study, making far-
reaching generalisations about the international school sector in China from the data is
a little too premature. The limitation helps to justify a future research agenda that
includes more qualitative case studies from within China and other countries for making
comparisons. Our idea of international schooling as a model that travels can also be
further explored methodologically using multi-sited global ethnography (Kenway et al.,
2018). The diversity of international schooling remains a fertile ground for research. We
hope that our study will begin new conversations and inspire further theoretical, meth­
odological and empirical explorations that move the field forward.

Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

ORCID
Wenxi Wu http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0563-6986
Aaron Koh http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9883-3227

References
Appadurai, A. (2013). The future as cultural fact: Essays on the global condition. Verso.
Ball, S. J. (2012). Global education inc.: New policy networks and the neo-liberal imaginary. Routledge.
Brown, P. (2000). The globalisation of positional competition? Sociology, 34(4), 633–653. https://doi.
org/10.1177/S0038038500000390
Bunnell, T. (2014). The changing landscape of international schooling: Implications for theory and
practice. Routledge.
74 W. WU AND A. KOH

Bunnell, T. (2019). International schooling and education in the “new era”: Emerging issues. Emerald
Publishing.
Bunnell, T., Courtois, A., & Donnelly, M. (2020). British elite private schools and their overseas
branches: Unexpected actors in the global education industry. British Journal of Educational
Studies, 68(6), 691–712. https://doi.org/10.1080/00071005.2020.1728227
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://doi.org/
10.1080/03054985.2016.1195735
Bunnell, T., Fertig, M., & James, C. (2017). Establishing the legitimacy of a school’s claim to be
“International”: The provision of an international curriculum as the institutional primary task.
Educational Review, 69(3), 303–317. https://doi.org/10.1080/00131911.2016.1213224
Cambridge, J. (2002). Global product branding and international education. Journal of Research in
International Education, 1(2), 227–243. https://doi.org/10.1177/147524002764248158
Cambridge, J. (2012). International education research and the sociology of knowledge. Journal
of Research in International Education, 11(3), 230–244. https://doi.org/10.1177/
1475240912461988
Canadian Information Centre for International Credentials [CICIC]. (2020). Directory of offshore
schools and international education resources. Retrieved August 1, 2020, from https://www.cicic.
ca/
Cosco, L. (2011). Canadian overseas schools: A unique approach to the export of Canadian education.
Asia Pacific Foundation of Canada. https://www.asiapacific.ca/sites/default/files/filefield/over
seas_canadian_schools_final.pdf
Council of British International Schools [COBIS]. (2020). Why a British education? https://www.cobis.
org.uk/about-us/british-international-schools/why-a-british-education
Department for Education and Department of International Trade [DfE & DIT]. (2019). International
education strategy: Global potential, global growth. https://www.gov.uk/government/publica
tions/international-education-strategy-global-potential-global-growth
Government of Canada. (2019). Building on success: International education strategy (2019–2024).
https://www.international.gc.ca/education/assets/pdfs/ies-sei/Building-on-Success-International
-Education-Strategy-2019-2024.pdf
Halliday, D. (2016). Private education, positional goods, and the arms race problem. Politics,
Philosophy & Economics, 15(2), 150–169. https://doi.org/10.1177/1470594X15603717
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/10.1080/14767724.2011.
577203
Hayden, M., & Thompson, J. (2016). International schools: The developing agenda. In M. Hayden &
J. Thompson (Eds.), International schools: Current issues and future prospects (pp. 9–16).
Symposium Books.
Hill, I. (2015). What is an ‘international school’? The International Schools Journal, 35(1), 60–70.
https://eshop.isjournal.eu/product/isj-november-2015-what-is-an-international-school-part-one/
Hirsch, F. (1977/2005). Social limits to growth (Revised ed.). Routledge and Kegan Paul.
Ingersoll, M. (2019). Uncommon knowledge: International schools as elite educational enclosures. In
K. J. Saltman & A. J. Means (Eds.), The Wiley handbook of global educational reform (pp. 259–282).
Wiley Blackwell.
Kenway, J., Fahey, J., Epstein, D., Koh, A., McCarthy, C., & Rizvi, F. (2018). Multi-sited global ethno­
graphy and elite schools: A methodological entrée. In D. Beach, C. Bagley, & S. M. Da Silva (Eds.),
The Wiley handbook of ethnography and education (pp. 423–442). Wiley Blackwell.
Kim, H. (2019). How global capital is remaking international education: The emergence of transnational
education corporations. Springer.
Kim, H., & Mobrand, E. (2019). Stealth marketisation: How international school policy is quietly
challenging education systems in Asia. Globalisation, Societies and Education, 17(3), 310–323.
https://doi.org/10.1080/14767724.2019.1571405
 EDUCATIONAL REVIEW 75

Kim, J. (2016). Global cultural capital and global positional competition: International graduate
students’ transnational occupational trajectories. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 37(1),
30–50. https://doi.org/10.1080/01425692.2015.1096189
Koo, H. (2016). The global middle class: How is it made, what does it represent? Globalizations, 13(4),
440–453. https://doi.org/10.1080/14747731.2016.1143617
Lee, M., & Wright, E. (2015). Elite schools in international education markets in East Asia: Emerging
patterns, successes and challenges. In M. Hayden, J. Levy, & J. Thompson (Eds.), The SAGE
handbook of research in international education (2nd ed., pp. 582–597). SAGE.
Lee, M., Wright, E., & Walker, A. (2016). The emergence of elite International Baccalaureate Diploma
Programme schools in China: A ‘skyboxification’ perspective. In A. Koh & J. Kenway (Eds.), Elite
schools: Multiple geographies of privilege (pp. 50–69). Routledge.
Liu, S. (2020). Neoliberalism, globalization, and “elite” education in China: Becoming international.
Routledge.
Machin, D. (2017). The Great Asian international school gold rush: An economic analysis. Journal of
Research in International Education, 16(2), 131–146. https://doi.org/10.1177/1475240917722276
Machin, D. (2019). The organisational evolution of contemporary international schools. Journal of
Research in International Education, 18(2), 109–124. https://doi.org/10.1177/1475240919865033
Mok, K. H. (2020, July 4). Will Chinese students want to study abroad post-COVID-19? University
World News. https://www.universityworldnews.com/post.php?story=20200703155021111
NewSchool Insight. (2019) . 2019 report of the development of international schools in China: Research
on policy and market.
Poole, A. (2020). Decoupling Chinese internationalised schools from normative constructions of the
international school. Compare: A Journal of Comparative and International Education, 50(3),
447–454. https://doi.org/10.1080/03057925.2019.1682839
TopSchools. (2019) . 2019 China international school market report.
Venture Education. (2020) . British independent schools in China: Annual report 2020.
Wang, F. (2017). Canadian offshore schools in China: A comparative policy analysis. Journal of
Education Policy, 32(5), 523–541. https://doi.org/10.1080/02680939.2017.1303545
Wimmer, A., & Schiller, N. G. (2003). Methodological nationalism, the Social Sciences, and the study
of migration: An essay in historical epistemology. The International Migration Review, 37(3),
576–610. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1747-7379.2003.tb00151.x
Woods, O., & Kong, L. (2020). The spatial subversions of global citizenship education: Negotiating
imagined inclusions and everyday exclusions in international schools in China. Geoforum, 112,
139–147. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoforum.2020.04.005
Wright, E., & Lee, M. (2014). Elite International Baccalaureate Diploma Programme schools and
inter-cultural understanding in China. British Journal of Educational Studies, 62(2), 149–169.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00071005.2014.924615
Wright, E., Lee, M., & Feng, S. (2017). Shadowing the International Baccalaureate: Private supple­
mentary tutoring for the diploma programme in China. Educational Research for Policy and
Practice, 17(2), 127–143. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10671-017-9221-3
Yan, A. (2020, July 18). Chinese students turn away from US universities with Britain the big winner.
South China Morning Post. https://www.scmp.com/news/china/society/article/3093614/chinese-
students-turn-away-us-universities-britain-big-winner
Yan, W., Han, Y., & Cai, Y. (2015). Internationalization and globalization in Chinese K-12 Schools and
University Education. In M. Hayden, J. Levy, & J. Thompson (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of research
in international education (2nd ed., pp. 569–582). SAGE.
Yin, R. (2014). Case study research: Design and methods (5th ed.). SAGE.
Young, N. A. E. (2018). Departing from the beaten path: International schools in China as a response
to discrimination and academic failure in the Chinese educational system. Comparative Education,
54(2), 159–180. https://doi.org/10.1080/03050068.2017.1360566