Understanding International Schools as Autopoietic Systems

Abstract

This paper re-examines the evolving landscape of international schools through the theoretical lens of autopoiesis, a concept from biology that emphasises self-organisation, adaptability, and systemic autonomy. In contrast to traditional frameworks based on fixed categories, dichotomies, or taxonomies, which offer static representations of a highly dynamic field, the autopoietic approach recognises international schools as self-organising systems that continually reconstruct their identities in response to shifting external pressures. Through an analysis of curriculum choices, institutional adaptation, and the role of intermediary organisations such as alliances, associations, accrediting bodies, the paper illustrates how international schools sustain internal coherence while responding to increasingly diverse and localised contexts. Rather than replacing existing models, the autopoietic perspective complements them by offering a more process-oriented and systemic view that interprets perceived fragmentation as evidence of adaptive capacity. In this sense, what is often perceived as fragmentation may instead be understood as evidence of adaptive capacity. Ultimately, this conceptual shift invites researchers, practitioners, and policymakers to rethink how international schools are defined, studied, and navigated in an increasingly complex global environment.

Keywords

International schools autopoiesis classification frameworks

Introduction

The boundary-mapping exercise concerning international schools has been under way for nearly a century, yet this sustained effort has not yielded consensus on a comprehensive, all-encompassing universal definition (see, for instance, Murphy, 2000; Heyward, 2002; Bunnell et al, 2017). This fact reflects the field’s ongoing struggle for conceptual clarity, highlighting the persistent difficulty of reconciling wide-ranging institutional forms within a single definition. The diverse body of international schools, marked by wide variation in terms of their characteristics and purpose, has been described as fragmented and lacking in a shared collective practice and ethos (Bunnell, 2006). In the absence of a single overarching authority responsible for regulating the use of the term ‘international’, its application varies considerably across contexts. Although some national systems impose criteria governing when a school may adopt the label, others do not, resulting in a fragmented landscape in which the meaning and legitimacy of the term are locally mediated rather than universally defined (Walker, 2004; Bittencourt & Willetts, 2018). It is perhaps unsurprising that in the field that is marked by divergence of perspectives and where the concept of international schools remains ‘relatively ill-defined’ (Hayden & Thompson, 2016: 9), some scholars have questioned the value of pursuing a single definition. Attempts to generalise across this heterogeneous landscape have been described by some as a futile exercise altogether, ‘likely to produce little that is worthwhile, given the variety of institutions which describe themselves by that umbrella term’ (Matthews, 1989: 12; see also Hill, 2016). In response to these challenges, other scholars (see Bunnell et al, 2016; Hayden & Thompson, 2016) have begun to shift their attention away from definitional concerns and towards the nature and quality of the education taking place within such schools.

The difficulty associated with defining international schools stems not only from their internal diversity but also from the wider patterns of diversification and fragmentation in global education. Indeed, global educational processes such as privatisation have been shown to generate highly diverse, context-specific institutions that resist uniform classification and standardisation (Verger et al, 2016). What if privatisation, marketisation, rapid expansion, and fragmentation, which have already been well-documented in literature (Bunnell, 2021; Pearce, 2023), pose a challenge not only to refining definitions but also to rethinking our reliance on conventional classifications? Traditional mapping methods employed to define and classify international schools, such as taxonomies, dichotomies, and spectra, which rest on a static and bounded logic, are proving increasingly inadequate. The argument developed throughout this paper is that, while these approaches offer a starting point for classification, their inherent limitations ultimately hinder a comprehensive understanding of international schools. The increasing complexity, diversity, and rapid growth of such schools have created a pressing need to recognise their capacity to respond and adapt to changing local and global conditions. Since the mid-2000s, the field has been slowly shifting away from an inward focus, that is, a preoccupation with defining and categorising international schools, and towards a greater emphasis on their practices. This shift has been described by Bunnell (2008) as a ‘second stage’ of growth and development, and can be understood as a period of structural reconfiguration marked by diversification and hybridity. It also signals a move away from rigid categories and linear representations, marking the onset of a fluid, ‘transitionary phase’ (Bunnell, 2020), characterised by reconceptualisation of international schools as diverse, hybrid, and context-responsive rather than stable, classifiable institutions.

Systems theory approaches offer a powerful alternative to traditional mapping methods, enabling a better understanding of the complexities that define international schools in this transitionary period. This paper endeavours to inform our current understanding of international schools by aligning it with the principles of a concept borrowed from biology: namely, autopoiesis. By viewing international schools as dynamic systems that actively construct and maintain their identity in relation to their environment, autopoiesis moves analysis beyond static categories and captures the richness and complexity of the international schools. This shift in perspective offers a deeper understanding of the diverse priorities, adaptive capacities, and self-maintenance mechanisms employed by international schools, paving the way for a more nuanced and outward-looking analysis of the field.

The International School as a Contested Concept

The inherent ambiguity surrounding the very definition of an international school becomes apparent as soon as one attempts any type of conceptual investigation in this educational context. Its loose definition as a ‘conglomeration concerned with the vague concept of “international education”’ (Bunnell, 2007: 350) raises immediate questions about the meaning of the ubiquitous term ‘international’. Imbued with multiple meanings, which can vary depending on the context in which it is deployed (Cambridge & Thompson, 2004; Bray, 2015), the type of curriculum used by a school (Hayden & Thompson, 2013; Bunnell et al, 2017; Bunnell, 2019) and even the school itself (Barratt Hacking et al, 2018), the term ‘international’ resists a single definition, and so do international schools. As the distinction between national and international schools becomes increasingly blurred through the proliferation of hybrid institutional forms, the localisation of ‘international’ curricula, and uneven regulatory frameworks, Hayden (2022: 228) notes that ‘to draw a distinction between the concepts of international education and national education will become increasingly less meaningful.’ In this context, efforts to generalise across such varied institutional forms have become increasingly problematic, with some scholars turning their attention away from classification and towards examining practices within schools as an alternative to attempts at external classification. This shift not only challenges the prevailing definitional approaches, but given the diversity and heterogeneity identified above, also calls into question the coherence of the field as a stable category of research and practice.

Scholars, including Hayden & Thompson (1995), Hayden (2006), Bray (2015) and Hill (2016), urge caution in applying the ‘international’ label, emphasising that international education is by no means an inherent or fixed property of educational institutions that self-identify as ‘international.’ Hayden (2006: 13), for instance, explicitly rejects a ‘one-to-one correspondence between international schools and international education,’ pointing out that national schools can also provide programmes that promote international mindedness and, in doing so, express a degree of ‘international-ness.’ International mindedness is itself a complex and fluid concept. It was borne out of the need to foster ‘an appreciation of multiple cultural perspectives’ and to provide ‘an education for intercultural understanding and awareness of global issues’ (Hill, 2015: 65-67), while simultaneously responding to the needs of the globally-mobile expatriate business and diplomatic international community. In the contemporary era of globalisation, international schools occupy an intersection of diverse cultural experiences, global demands, and local expectations, where they must navigate the challenge of reconciling a ‘dilemma between ideological and pragmatic interests’ (Cambridge & Thompson, 2004: 161). These tensions are particularly visible in regions experiencing rapid sectoral growth and diversification. The Asia-Pacific region, particularly countries such as China, Vietnam, and Thailand, has seen a sharp rise in the number of international schools, with new forms of international schools emerging in response to both state initiatives and private capital investment (Kim, 2019; Bunnell, 2022). This growth has generated new tensions over the legitimacy of the ‘international’ label, stratified access, and the shifting purpose of international schools under market pressures.

Given the rapid growth in the number of international schools, which as of February 2026 totalled 15,075 and enrolled 7.7 million students worldwide (ISC Research, 2026), the task of describing their defining characteristics is becoming increasingly difficult, as inconsistencies, if not contradictions, emerge from the way in which they practise international education. The notable growth of international schools in terms of their numbers has been accompanied by greater institutional and curricular diversity. The range of curricula has widened, including British, US, International Baccalaureate (IB), or a hybrid combination of these programmes (Bunnell, 2014: 10), often adapting to local regulatory requirements, linguistic settings, and domestic educational priorities. As a result, schools operating under the ‘international school’ label (Brummitt & Keeling, 2013; Pearce, 2023) may now differ significantly in their curricular orientation, thereby further loosening the consistency and clarity of the ‘international school’ label (Brummitt & Keeling, 2013; Pearce, 2023). On the whole, rapid growth and diversification have rendered some established definitions increasingly misaligned with the present, let alone future, realities of international schools.

While some scholars have moved away from attempts to secure a universal definition of international schools and towards examining the nature and quality of the educational practices taking place within them, this shift does not eliminate the need for conceptual inquiry. Rather, it reflects growing recognition that static, all-encompassing definitions are ill-suited to a sector marked by diversity, hybridity, and continuous transformation. If international schools are no longer readily understood as stable or uniform institutional types, then conceptual approaches must also adapt to capture their evolving forms and functions. It is argued here that a re-evaluation grounded in the self-organising principles of autopoiesis offers a more nuanced theoretical lens through which to better understand the complexity, dynamism, and evolving character of international schools. Such a perspective helps connect ontological questions of form with questions of practice, showing how international schools construct, maintain, and adapt their identities in changing contexts.

Mapping the International School Landscape

Due to the inherent ambiguity surrounding the very definition of international schools, attempts to categorise these institutions have yielded multiple frameworks. Traditional approaches often rely on taxonomies, which classify schools based on discrete characteristics. Dichotomies, on the other hand, organise them through binary oppositions, such as public versus private or for-profit versus non-profit. Spectrum-based approaches, while acknowledging the fluidity and multifaceted nature of international schools, still position them along a single, linear dimension. This section outlines these frameworks and highlights their shortcomings in capturing the complexity and evolving dynamics of international schools.

Taxonomic Approaches

The term ‘taxonomy’, derived from the Greek words taxis (arrangement) and nomos (law), refers to a system for naming, describing, and classifying entities. Knight & Leach (1964) proposed one of the earliest taxonomies of international schools. Emerging from Leach’s firsthand survey of the field, it identified seven types of international schools. This taxonomy was largely based on sponsorship and affiliation, categorising schools according to their source of funding, membership in certain organisations, and national affiliation. It included schools sponsored by regional intergovernmental groups (such as the European Economic Community), governments – including French- and German-sponsored schools established to serve NATO and UN communities, and international associations such as the International Schools Association (ISA), as well as schools considered eligible for future ISA membership.

A revised, more streamlined version was introduced five years later in Leach’s (1969) book, hailed by Sylvester (2005: 123) as a historical ‘landmark’. A key feature of this updated taxonomy was its implied hierarchy, suggesting that some schools ‘qualify to be more truly international than others’ (Hill, 2015: 63). Notably, affiliation with the International Schools Association (then a prominent authority in the world of international education), and delivery of the International Baccalaureate Diploma Programme, were identified as the defining characteristics of an international school (Leach, 1969: 7-10). However, since the conception of the ‘original’ taxonomy, the international education landscape has changed dramatically (Hayden & Thompson, 2013; Bunnell, 2014; Hill, 2015). Subsequent scholarship continued to refine classificatory approaches, often shifting emphasis from governance and curriculum toward clientele, mission, and institutional purpose (Hayden & Thompson, 1995; Hayden & Thompson, 2013). Most notably, with the foundation of other associations such as the European Council of International Schools (ECIS), the Council of International Schools (CIS) and the Alliance for International Education (AIE), ISA’s position as the sole arbiter of legitimacy has inevitably weakened. The expansion of other internationally recognised curricula has led to more diversification and contributed to greater curricular plurality, thereby reducing the centrality of the ISA–IB model embedded within Leach’s taxonomy. A wider range of internationally mobile and transnationally recognised programmes, including the USA’s Advanced Placement, British A-Levels, IGCSE, and hybrid combinations with national curricula, has gained prominence. By 2015 multiple pathways to international recognition had emerged, reducing the explanatory reach of Leach’s original framework. As Hill (2015: 67) observes, ‘it’s not ‘and . . . and’ it’s ‘either . . . or’; any of them will suffice.’ This development reflects growing recognition that international schools have become more diverse, differentiated, and complex.

In addition to schools’ membership affiliations and their curricular choices, another dimension that has gained increasing attention is their profit status. Earliest international schools were established as non-profit institutions, and for-profit orientation was therefore initially of limited significance. However, from the 1980s onwards, sectoral expansion was accompanied by the growth of proprietary schools that also identified as international schools. Reflecting this shift, Hayden & Thompson (2013) proposed an alternative three-part taxonomy of international schools that extends earlier conceptual frameworks and challenges the notion of a single, uniform model of international schools. Their taxonomy distinguished between ‘Type A Traditional’, ‘Type B Ideological’, and ‘Type C Non-traditional’ schools. This move brought ownership structure and profit orientation to the fore as important dimensions of differentiation and marked a shift from singular definitions towards a more plural understanding of international schools.

‘Type A’ schools cater predominantly to the needs of the globally mobile workforce and their children (Hayden & Thompson, 2013). In fact, many started out as parent cooperatives and continue to have governance models based on high levels of parental influence (Hayden, 2006). While ‘Type A’ schools typically levy tuition fees, they generally operate on a non-profit basis. In terms of curriculum, they offer international programmes such as those of the IB (Jonietz, 1991; Hallgarten et al, 2015), a largely pragmatic choice that provides continuity of education for students who frequently relocate. These schools often maintain close ties with international organisations, NGOs, or governmental bodies, reflecting their origins in serving mobile diplomatic and expatriate communities.

In contrast, ‘Type B’ schools are underpinned by an ideological commitment to fostering global peace and understanding, with operations and educational practices that are mission-driven (Perez, 2015). These schools often align with Kurt Hahn’s philosophy of experiential education (Warren, 2005). Hahn’s social concerns led him to view civic responsibility as the ultimate goal of education (Flavin, 1996). Institutions such as the United World Colleges (UWC), a network as at April 2026 of eighteen international schools and colleges catering to a broad age range across four continents, embody this ethos, with a mission to ‘make education a force to unite people, nations and cultures for peace and a sustainable future’ (Perez, 2015). Their objectives are not merely rhetorical but actively shape their policies and practices. For example, many ‘Type B’ schools have implemented sliding scale tuition models and scholarships to promote socioeconomic diversity within their student body, actively addressing issues of inequality and class stratification (Warren, 2005). International schools such as UWC emphasise experiential learning, peace and conflict resolution, environmental sustainability, and service-oriented leadership, embedding global citizenship not only in the curriculum but in the culture of campus life.

‘Type C’ international schools differ in important respects from their ‘traditional’ and ‘ideological’ counterparts (Hayden & Thompson, 2013: 7), thereby challenging earlier understandings of what distinguished international schools, particularly those associated with ‘Types A and B’ (Hayden & Thompson, 2013: 7; Hallgarten et al, 2015: 3). The primary motivations of ‘Type C’ schools are often described as ‘less altruistic’ (Machin, 2014: 21) and more market-oriented. These schools cater to domestic economic elites who view international education as superior to that found in national, state-funded schools (Hayden & Thompson, 2013: 7-8). Their operational characteristics also diverge; many are privately owned, representing a rapidly growing segment of the international education market, which has long been forecast to become the dominant one (Brummitt & Keeling, 2013). This trend has been especially pronounced in China and South-East Asia, where rising incomes, improving living standards, and parental demands have fuelled an unprecedented demand for international schools (Bunnell, 2019; Kim & Mobrand, 2019). Their growth also raises renewed questions concerning what legitimates a school’s claim to be ‘international’ (Bunnell et al, 2016), reflecting the increasingly differentiated character of the international education sector (Keller, 2015).

The summary of taxonomies of international schools outlined above reveals an important shift in classification approaches. The progression from the intricate, seven-tier system originally proposed by Knight & Leach in 1964 to the more parsimonious model developed by Hayden & Thompson (2013) is indicative of a broader movement from detailed classification towards greater practical and functional utility, but not only that. It also reflects the substantial transformation of the international education sector itself over the intervening decades. Knight & Leach were writing in the context of a comparatively small and homogenous field, largely composed of schools that would later approximate to Hayden & Thompson’s ‘Type A’ category. By contrast, the contemporary landscape includes a far broader and more differentiated range of institutions. While the three-part taxonomy inevitably cannot fully capture this diversity of international schools, and may even obscure some important nuances, it offers a more pragmatic tool for navigating the complex educational landscape. The expansion of global curricula, shared accreditation systems and educational aspirations have created common reference points across many schools, even as they adapt differently according to local contexts. Consequently, although such taxonomies retain their descriptive value, they remain limited in their ability to account for the fluid, evolving, and self-organising character of international schools.

Dichotomous Approaches

The study of international schools has long been shaped by a reliance on binary classifications. Bunnell (2008) argues that a fundamental dichotomy underpins much of the theoretical discourse in the field, serving as a valuable conceptual tool through which schools are organised according to broad tendencies. For example, Matthews’ (1989: 12) influential distinction identifies two contrasting orientations within international schools: ‘ideology-driven’ and ‘market-driven’ international schools. The former emphasises values-driven education and the promotion of the ‘global gaze’ (Bailey, 2023) or ‘global imaginary’ (Meyer, 2021), whereas the latter is shaped by market demands and competition. Similarly, Bunnell (2014) distinguishes between ‘Ideal’ era schools, which are aligned with the values-driven model associated with Leach, and ‘post-Ideal’ era schools, which depart from the ‘original’ idealistic model in terms of their educational ethos, operational character, and responsiveness to competitive pressures. To a degree, such dichotomies remain important and useful as they highlight enduring tensions between educational idealism and commercial pragmatism, yet their simplicity can also obscure the growing complexity and hybridity of international schools.

However, even more nuanced dichotomies become harder to sustain in light of recent developments in the international education sector. For instance, some schools are positioned as either ‘global’ or ‘local.’ In broad terms, ‘global’ schools are typically associated with internationally oriented curricula, transnational student bodies, and English-medium instruction, whereas ‘local’ schools are more commonly shaped by national regulation, domestic curricula, local student intake, and local cultural priorities. Yet this binary distinction has been criticised for failing to capture the dynamic and context-specific character of international schools in an era of globalisation (Carney, 2009; Maxwell et al, 2020). In practice, many schools combine elements of both orientations. For example, while some schools in China follow a more traditional international model, serving expatriate and returnee families with international faculty and through curricula such as the IB (Wright et al, 2024), they represent only a minority of the sector. Poole (2020) notes that a significant 80 percent of IB schools in China are better understood as ‘Chinese internationalised schools,’ that is, institutions offering bilingual instruction, serving predominantly local students, which integrate Chinese cultural content with international curricula. Comparable boundary-blurring dynamics are evident elsewhere in Asia. Kim & Mobrand (2019), for example, analyse policy compromises that weaken distinctions between national and international schools, enabling what they term ‘stealth marketisation.’ Taken together, these examples suggest that fixed dichotomies are increasingly inadequate for capturing the hybrid realities of international schools.

Recognising these limitations, scholars have been moving beyond binary models. Simandiraki’s (2005) notion of international schools ‘serving two masters’ captures the dual pressures many of them face: responding to host-country regulatory requirements, language policies, and cultural expectations on the one hand, while also meeting transnational demands for internationally recognised curricula, English-medium instruction, global mobility, and global expectations on the other. As the boundaries between nationally oriented and internationally oriented international schools become less clear, with many schools combining local regulatory requirements, domestic student populations, and transnational education models, the interplay between these influences demands closer scrutiny (Poole & Bunnell, 2023; Bailey & Gibson, 2024). Reflecting this shift, Bunnell (2019) introduces the concept of Globalised English Medium of Instruction Schools (GEMIS), a more expansive and flexible category that better captures the realities of international education today, particularly in the Global South. Rather than measuring schools against an ‘ideal’ model, GEMIS recognises the increasingly hybrid and context-specific nature of international schools, where local and global elements are interwoven. By foregrounding English-medium provision as a shared operational feature, while allowing for considerable variation in curriculum, and student population, Bunnell redirects attention away from whether schools conform to established categories and towards the different forms international schools take in different contexts. This reconceptualisation aligns with critiques by Maxwell et al (2020), who also argued that national priorities, understood here as the host country’s regulatory frameworks, cultural norms, and language expectations, often operate alongside rather than in opposition to cosmopolitan aspirations, including internationally recognised qualifications, pathways to overseas higher education, and preparation for global mobility. As a result, many international schools are required to negotiate multiple agendas simultaneously. Taken together, these developments mark a move beyond dichotomous thinking and set the stage for a more flexible approach that views international schools not as fixed types, but as institutions positioned along a continuum of forms and practices.

Spectrum Models of International Schools

As the limitations of taxonomies and binary labels become evident, adopting a spectrum-based approach presents itself as another, perhaps more flexible and responsive, alternative for mapping out international schools. Cambridge & Thompson’s (2004) distinction between globalist and internationalist orientations is helpful here, as it illustrates how schools may embody different and overlapping priorities rather than fit discrete types. In their account, a globalist orientation is associated with market demands, globally recognised qualifications, student mobility, and preparation for participation in the transnational economy. By contrast, an internationalist orientation emphasises intercultural understanding, peace, cooperation, and responsible citizenship. Importantly, they argue that these orientations are rarely seen in their pure forms and are often reconciled within the same school. Building on this logic, Machin (2006: 133) proposes a ‘spectrum of institutions variously titled “international”’ and urges a shift away from reductive labels to a more granular, context-sensitive examination of each school’s unique characteristics. Such an approach enables a more situated interpretation of international schools, rather than relying on rigid models which risk oversimplifying the diversity and fluidity of contemporary international schools.

One notable attempt to operationalise this spectrum-based mapping strategy is Hill’s (2006: 5) proposal for an ‘improved nomenclature of school types’. Rather than contrasting national and international schools, Hill proposes a continuum shaped by two principal dimensions: the nature of the educational programme and the cultural composition of the student body, while also acknowledging the significance of the external cultural context in which the school is situated. At one end of the spectrum lie national schools delivering home country curricula to a culturally, linguistically, and nationally homogenous student population. At the other are schools combining culturally diverse enrolments with programmes framed as international, most notably those of the IB. Between these poles sit hybrid configurations, including nationally oriented schools offering international programmes, or internationally diverse schools offering one or more national curricula. This continuum not only captures differences in curricular alignment and student demographics but also accommodates hybridity rather than discrete categories. What makes Hill’s model particularly valuable is its emphasis on schools’ dynamic adaptability. Schools do not occupy fixed positions but can move along the spectrum, shifting their positions over time in response to internal changes and external pressures. In this sense, ‘internationality’ is not a guaranteed status or a fixed condition. For instance, a school that once firmly identified as ‘international’ may recalibrate towards national priorities when faced with new local government regulations, demographic shifts, or market pressures. Wright et al (2022) document this phenomenon in their analysis of some IB schools in China, where institutions that previously embodied a globalised outlook began realigning with national priorities in response to centrally-driven, ideological, and regulatory changes. Conversely, educational reforms around the world, including in the Netherlands (Weenink, 2009), Israel (Yemini & Fulop, 2015) and China (Poole, 2022), have also seen locally rooted schools gradually adopt internationally oriented practices, including the integration alongside national curricula of international programmes such as those of the IB, as well as national programmes with transnational reach including IGCSE (UK) and AP (US). Taken together, these studies demonstrate that schools are neither fixed nor static, but can move along the international-national continuum in response to regulatory frameworks and market demands.

Although the spectrum-based approach overcomes the limitations of rigid classification systems and provides a more nuanced understanding of institutional diversity, it nevertheless has its own limitations. A school may be classified as ‘international’ simply because it offers a non-national curriculum and serves a culturally diverse student population. Yet such indicators do not necessarily reveal how effectively it cultivates ‘international mindedness,’ which some scholars regard as the hallmark and defining outcome of international schools (Bunnell, 2014; Hill, 2015). In other words, while spectrum models are helpful for mapping structural, curricular, and demographic features, they remain less effective in accounting for educational outcomes, institutional ethos, and the lived experience of internationalism within schools. As Hill (2006: 31) argues, there remains a pressing need for a ‘measuring instrument’ that can assess not only the characteristics but also the outcome of international education. It is precisely at this point that systems theory, and particularly the concept of autopoiesis, offers a compelling framework for reconceptualising international schools in terms not only of what they are, but also of how they function to maintain, reproduce, and legitimate their identities over time.

Systems Theory and the Concept of Autopoiesis

Foundations of Systems Theory

From the solar system, through ecosystems, to computer systems and so on, the concept of a ‘system’ has long permeated both social and academic circles (Siskin, 2016). Systems theory approaches gained prominence in the post-World War II period with Ludwig von Bertalanffy’s seminal publication General System Theory (1968), spurring further development and interdisciplinary influence of the theory. His collection of papers made a case for applying biological concepts, such as homeostasis and equilibrium, to advance the understanding of the interactions between organisations and their environment. For example, proponents of systems management theory applied it within industrial and corporate contexts to investigate organisations’ ability to adapt and respond to complex and dynamic conditions in their environment (Easton, 1957; Dye, 1966; Hofferbert, 1974). In essence, systems theory marked a departure from earlier reductionist and mechanistic models towards a more holistic and dynamic perspective; one that accounts for the interrelationships and interactions among an organisation’s components and its ongoing exchanges with the environment.

Autopoiesis as a Distinct Systems Perspective

Within the broader field of systems theory, autopoiesis represents a distinct and more specific theoretical development that originated in biology. First introduced by Maturana & Varela (1980, 1992), autopoietic theory centres around the idea that living organisms are fundamentally self-producing and self-maintaining. Self-production refers to the continuous process of creation and regeneration of the system through the recursive interaction of its own elements that unfolds within the confines of its organisational structure and ensures its viability. In addition to ensuring the system’s sustenance, self-maintenance entails continually reinforcing the system’s distinctiveness in response to external perturbations, thereby preserving its identity over time.

Crucially, despite their self-referential nature, autopoietic systems are not entirely closed. Their ‘fuzzy (ill-defined) boundaries’ (Mennin, 2009: 23) serve as interfaces that allow exchange with the environment. The relationship between an autopoietic system and its environment can be further explained with the help of two key concepts: ontogeny and structural coupling (Maturana & Varela, 1992). Ontogeny refers to the system’s history of internal changes arising from its self-production and self-maintenance processes. To remain viable, the system must respond and adapt to environmental changes, but it must do so in ways that preserve its core characteristics. Structural coupling describes the mechanism by which the system and its environment co-evolve and exert mutual influence without compromising each other’s autonomy or integrity.

Ultimately, autopoiesis views organic systems not merely as aggregates of parts, but as dynamic yet stable and coherent entities arising from the interplay of elements and their environment. It on the basis of those direct interpretations, which progressively grow increasingly abstract (Mingers, 1995), that organisms construct a distinct sense of ‘self.’ Over time each organism builds a rich, internal model of reality which it navigates in ways that ensure its ongoing viability. This perspective underscores how autonomy and existence of a system depend on its capacity to maintain itself through a continuous process of adaptation and structural change in response to external conditions.

Beyond Biology: Cross-disciplinary Applications of Autopoiesis

Beyond its original role in explaining biological autonomy, autopoietic theory also provides a conceptual framework for understanding how systems in other domains preserve their distinctiveness and ensure continuity. The theory has been applied across various disciplines, such as law (Teubner, 1993) and philosophy (Habermas, 1979). It has resonated particularly strongly with sociologists (Giddens, 1984), who have drawn on it to explain how even basic social systems, such as family units, can undergo significant internal transformation and changes in membership while maintaining their core, recognisable identity. Building on this broader theoretical foundation, Luhmann (1984, 1986) extended the concept of autopoiesis to the realm of social systems, arguing that, like living organisms, such social systems exhibit a degree of operational closure. In his view, society is fundamentally centerless, lacking a single core or authority, and instead functions as a decentralised, self-referential network sustained through ongoing interactions between its constituent parts and the surrounding environment.

However, the cross-disciplinary appeal of autopoiesis does not come without its conceptual and methodological challenges. While the theory offers a compelling lens for interpreting the continuity and adaptability of social systems, its biological origins call for careful translation and methodological rigor when applied to domains such as sociology or education (Mingers, 1995). Autopoietic analysis demands that a system’s constituent elements and processes are clearly defined: no small task, given that autonomous entities constantly undergo renewal and engage in the process of renegotiation (Luhmann, 1986). Equally challenging is distinguishing the system from its environment and fully grasping the delicate state of homeostatic equilibrium given socially embedded contexts. Thus, while autopoiesis undoubtedly offers a novel and more scientific perspective for understanding organisational persistence and change, the challenge of applying it within well-established theoretical traditions, including educational theory, remains a complex but worthwhile endeavour.

Autopoiesis in Education Theory

The earliest system analyses of education emerged in the 1970s (Vanderstraeten, 2023). Given that educational institutions share organisational features with corporate systems, such as complexity and hierarchical structures, they have naturally lent themselves to analysis through management theory. For instance, Coombs (1968: 9) observed that an educational system has a ‘set of inputs, which are subject to a process, designed to attain certain outputs . . .. These form a dynamic, organic whole.’ A typical example might involve students as inputs who undergo a structured learning process designed to attain certain outputs, such as achieving certain examination results, grades, or qualifications. Much of the educational discourse continues to be dominated by functionalist paradigms that prioritise control, efficiency, and standardisation. While systems-theoretical analyses provide a solid foundation for understanding the operational logic of educational institutions, their emphasis on optimisation risks overlooking the evolving, self-referential, and dynamic nature of educational systems.

Autopoietic theory offers a clear departure from linear input-output models. It extends the discussion beyond cause-and-effect mechanisms and shifts from a discourse about control and output to one of self-organisation, adaptability, and maintenance in relation to—rather than in submission to—external forces. It aims to account for and understand interdependence as a defining feature of systems, particularly in their interactions with a constantly changing environment. As Poole (2019) observes, the interplay of environmental factors, including globalisation and competition, adds to the inherent unpredictability and uncertainty of the system’s trajectory, and contributes to a condition of ‘precarity.’ In this context, what makes educational institutions autopoietic, and therefore suitable for autopoietic analysis, is not merely their transformative capacity, but rather their ability to regenerate and interpret their own practices from within while remaining responsive to the precarious environment in which they exist.

Although some scholars (such as Kay, 2002; Vanderstraeten, 2002) have applied autopoietic principles to explore the nature of educational organisations or curriculum design, this line of inquiry remains niche and largely theoretical, gaining limited traction in broader educational debates. This limited uptake may stem from the theory’s conceptual abstractness and overly technological and deterministic orientation (Apple & Apple, 2004). It is impossible to dismiss these concerns, which are further amplified by the increasing volatility of the educational landscape, where shifting social norms, marketisation, and politicisation create conditions that traditional systems-theoretical analyses struggle to accommodate. However, it is precisely this volatility that makes autopoiesis so relevant. The theory offers a means of reimagining educational institutions as adaptive, self-defining, meaning-making systems. This perspective is particularly pertinent to international schools, whose heterogeneity, fluid identities, and contextual embeddedness defy conventional frameworks of classification and demand more dynamic, referential models of analysis capable of explaining continuity, adaptation, and change.

Reinterpreting International Schools Through Autopoiesis

The partial and negotiated autonomy of international schools, particularly in matters concerning governance, curriculum, and institutional positioning, is often obscured by dichotomies, taxonomies and spectra premised on fixed, predetermined categories. The discussion that follows draws on the concept of autopoiesis to reveal how international schools function as self-organising systems, actively constructing distinctive, dynamic identities through their engagement with intermediary organisations, such as associations, alliances, accrediting bodies, and curriculum providers, as well as through strategic curricular choices. While other factors, such as leadership, teaching faculty, and the student body, also shape their institutional identity, the capacity for internal decision-making and curricular adaptation remains central to understanding how international schools continually evolve in response to shifting contextual demands.

Intermediary Organisations and Systemic Coordination

From the 1950s, international schools increasingly began forming alliances, associations, and other collaborative organisations intended to support cooperation, professional exchange, and institutional development. Early examples include the International Schools Association (ISA), International Schools Services (ISS) and, later, the European Council of International Schools (ECIS), established in 1965. These early initiatives laid the foundations for a broader organisational landscape that grew steadily in the closing decades of the twentieth century, before accelerating in the 2000s. This growth was marked by a surge in the number of non-government, not-for-profit, and regional bodies including, amongst others, the International Education Association Australia (IEAA) and the Association of International Schools in Asia (AISA). Reflecting this momentum, Haywood (2005) characterised the forging of alliances as ‘unstoppable,’ highlighting the transformative potential of strategic educational partnerships and suggesting that such developments had moved beyond ad hoc collaboration toward more institutionalised forms of cooperation. More importantly, their emergence suggests that, in the absence of a single governing authority, international schools have been relying on intermediary organisations to provide coordination across a decentralised international school sector. By performing functions such as accreditation, advocacy, and networking, these bodies have been helping schools to coordinate, generate professional norms, and maintain a sense of collective identity. As their presence expanded, so did their influence within the field. Walker (2003: 9) described this as a new ‘Stage of Influence’, defined by the ‘synergy of working together and the promotion of international values and ideals’. Although most intermediary organisations lack direct governance authority over schools, they nevertheless exert considerable soft power by fostering dialogue and collaboration, shaping professional expectations, and influencing how schools position themselves within the wider international education system. Their shared priorities, including enhancing educational quality, promoting intercultural understanding, and cultivating global citizenship suggest that despite the absence of centralisation, international schools remain connected through overlapping ethical and pedagogical commitments.

Self-organising tendency is also reflected in the formation and evolution of the intermediary organisations themselves. For example, the Alliance for International Education (AIE), initiated through a workshop at the University of Bath in 2001, developed into a collaborative professional network linking schools through conferences, working groups, and local chapters (Hayden, 2016). Unlike formal membership associations such as the Council of International Schools (CIS) or the Council of British International Schools (COBIS), the AIE has functioned primarily as a voluntary alliance for dialogue and knowledge sharing. Haywood (2005) emphasises the AIE’s pragmatic focus on promoting best educational practices, dissemination of educational values, providing platforms for collaboration, and research. On the other hand, accrediting bodies such as the Council of International Schools shape practice through different mechanisms such as evaluation and quality assurance, while curriculum providers such as the International Baccalaureate and Cambridge Assessment International Education do so through programme design, authorisation, and assessment frameworks. Together, these diverse forms illustrate how coordination among international schools often emerges through distributed rather than hierarchical processes. In this way, coherence is achieved through continuous adaptation rather than through direct command or formal regulation.

Yet participation in these organisations has remained uneven. At the time of writing, Fraser (2019) estimated that only 19% of all international schools were accredited, while only 30% belonged to a regional association such as COBIS (the Council of British International Schools), EARCOS (East Asia Regional Council of Schools), or FOBISIA (Federation of British International Schools in Asia). Bunnell (2021) similarly noted that, as of that date, around 80% of international schools lacked either external or internal accreditation. External accreditation could be provided by organisations such as the International Baccalaureate, which authorises schools to offer one or more of its programmes, while internal accreditation could be granted by bodies including the Council of International Schools, which recognises schools according to standards of governance, teaching, and student learning. While these participation rates may be interpreted as indicators of fragmentation, they also suggest that cohesion within international schools has never depended on universal membership of centralised oversight as such. Instead, coordination seems to have rested more on voluntary and selective participation in alliances and associations. The tension between cohesion and fragmentation has long been acknowledged. Bunnell (2008: 419) argued that the international education sector was already moving beyond the early stage of ‘mechanical solidarity,’ characterised by a relatively loose network of like-minded institutions and towards a ‘more ordered, structured and outwardly professional worldwide system’. This suggests that cohesion within the field was generated through insitutional structures rather than shared identity alone. However, this trajectory did not continue in a lenear fashion. A decade later, Bunnell (2020) observed that growing numbers of schools operated outside established associations and networks. While some parts of the international education sector (such as IB World Schools: schools authorised to offer one or more of the IB programmes) may have become more professionalised, the wider landscape remains fragmented and differentiated, reflecting a field that is neither fully unified nor in disarray. This pattern is consistent with an autopoietic system in which order is reproduced through decentralised and adaptive processes. Coherence within the sector appears unevenly distributed, emerging through selective networks and institutional linkages rather than through universal integration.

The rapid expansion of international schools, particularly in Asia and the Middle East, has further intensified this complexity. In these regions, many international schools primarily serve local communities through bilingual or hybrid curricula (Poole, 2020; Wright et al, 2020). Such schools may derive legitimacy as much from responsiveness to host country expectations and domestic market demands as from participation in transnational associations. The COVID-19 pandemic further exposed and accelerated the sector’s fragmentation, with many international schools experiencing disconnection from international networks alongside increased rootedness in local contexts (Bailey & Gibson, 2024). Taken together, these developments suggest that a sector long characterised by institutional autonomy has evolved towards differentiated forms of autonomy, in which many schools function as self-organising systems while remaining connected to varying degrees within wider networks. From this perspective, autopoiesis offers a more dynamic way to understand how international schools construct and maintain their identity and are best understood as self-organising systems, shaped more by internal adaptation than by alignment with centralised international structures.

The differentiated and networked character of contemporary international schooling is also evident in the emergence of ‘diverse groups’, such as alliances and associations that ‘retain their autonomy while seeking to synergise efforts towards a common goal’ (Haywood, 2005: 14). Collectively, these bodies foster a growing, if fluid, sense of collective identity among international schools. By enabling members to pursue forms of ‘internationalist’ education, centred on intercultural understanding and responsible citizenship, without wholly succumbing to the trappings of a ‘globalist’ agenda focused on mobility, competition, and transferable credentials, these organisations accommodate considerable variation in practice (Cambridge & Thompson, 2004). More fundamentally, this inherent pluralism surpasses the limitations of traditional frameworks, dichotomies, and spectra used to define and neatly categorise international schools. The adaptive and self-organising nature of these intermediary bodies, taken together with that of their constituent schools, reflects key autopoietic dynamics, that is, self-regulation, boundary setting and maintenance, and internal evolution. It therefore invites a more dynamic conceptualisation of international schools, one that accommodates multiplicity, hybridity, and ongoing transformation. Rather than viewing such organisations merely as markers with static classificatory frameworks, their emergence and evolution demonstrate how international schools generate coherence through decentralised coordination, thereby reinforcing the argument that the sector is best understood as autopoietic rather than taxonomically fixed. Future analyses of international schools should focus less of placing schools within fixed categories and more on examining how coherence is continually produced across diverse and shifting contexts.

Curriculum and Institutional Self-Production

At its core, curriculum refers to the structured content, experiences, and intended outcomes of an educational programme, shaped by pedagogical aims and societal priorities (Kelly, 2009). Traditionally, a school’s curriculum reflected a society’s culture and values, meaning that the educational content it transmitted fostered a sense of national identity and cohesion (Lawton, 1989). However, as Resnik (2012) argues, the rise of international education and globally mobile populations has, in some contexts, contributed to the partial denationalisation of curriculum, whereby educational content places less emphasis on reinforcing national belonging and more on cultivating global competencies, citizenship, and transnational capital. As a result, defining cultural priorities in an increasingly globalised and multicultural world has become a cumbersome task, as links between nationality and culture are now increasingly blurred (Ross, 2000). A singular definition of an international curriculum is even more elusive owing to the complexity associated with the dynamic nature of both the term ‘curriculum’ and the ‘international’ descriptor (Tarc, 2009; Cambridge, 2011; Hayden, 2013; Tanu, 2014). Against this backdrop, international schools have responded through an increasingly diverse range of curricular models, reflecting different interpretations of what it means to be internationally oriented.

The concept of a formal curriculum with a specifically international focus first emerged in the late 1960s with the launch of the IB Diploma Programme, designed for students age 16-19 and originally intended to meet the needs of globally mobile expatriate families. As of May 2024, the IB reported that over 8,000 programmes across the Primary Years Programme (PYP), Middle Years Programme (MYP), Diploma Programme (DP), and Career-related Programme (CP) were offered worldwide in approximately 5,800 schools across more than 160 countries, with the USA identified as the largest national context by number of IB schools (IBO, 2024). Alongside the IB, other internationally focused programmes have also gained prominence. For instance, as of June 2024, Cambridge International Examinations (CIE) offered curricula for all age groups in over 10,000 schools, with the Cambridge IGCSE described as ‘the world’s most popular international qualification for 14- to 16-year-olds’ (CIE, 2024). In addition to fully international programmes such as the IB and Cambridge pathways, other schools combine international positioning with distinct national educational traditions. Bunnell (2019: 5) describes a subset of these as ‘Internationally-British,’ referring to institutions that market themselves as international (and internationally) while drawing heavily on British curricular models. He also identifies comparable forms such as ‘Internationally-French’ and ‘Internationally-Japanese’ schools (Bunnell, 2019: 15). These examples illustrate hybrid identities that combine national educational traditions with international frameworks and global market appeal. More broadly, they demonstrate that curricular diversity is closely tied to how schools position themselves within changing local and global educational markets.

Through these diverse international curricular models, international schools create, sustain and manifest their distinct identities. Ultimately, curriculum choice becomes a critical element in constructing and legitimising each school’s distinct ‘self’, especially as each institution grapples with what Hayden (2016: 90) terms the ‘legacy issue’: the tension between historical roots of international schools as institutions primarily serving expatriate and mobile communities, and the contemporary pressure to reposition themselves for new markets, and changing educational demands. The challenge of transitioning from a historically national orientation to one that is more global in purpose and outlook is complicated further by the fact that the curriculum is not merely a pedagogical tool, but a strategic statement of internationalism. As Bunnell et al (2017: 309-310) argue, an international curriculum is ‘central in establishing the legitimacy of a school’s claim to be “international”,’ with the IB in particular functioning as a symbolic and structural cornerstone of such legitimacy. Yet this legitimacy is not fixed or static, but must be continually negotiated in response to shifting expectations, market pressures, and evolving contexts.

Autopoiesis offers a valuable theoretical lens through which to examine the dynamic interplay between the curricular identity of international schools, or the ‘self’, the global education landscape, and the specific socio-cultural and political contexts in which these institutions are located and operate. Thompson’s (1998) four categories of international programmes provide a useful framework for considering different ways in which curricular models relate to local settings. The four categories, namely exportation, adaptation, integration, and creation, highlight varying degrees of contextual responsiveness, ranging from the direct transfer of imported models to the development of more locally grounded curricular programmes. Interpreted through an autopoietic lens, they help illuminate how international schools negotiate the tension between self-preservation, continuity, legitimacy, and contextual responsiveness through strategic curricular choices.

At one end of the spectrum, the weakest expression of autopoiesis is exhibited by international schools which adopt a curriculum ‘as is’, for example by implementing an English-medium curriculum (such as A Level) overseas with limited adaptation to the local context in which they operate, while relying primarily on imported curricular and institutional models. This corresponds to Thompson’s (1989) category of exportation. This form of curricular transfer represents a one-size-fits-all approach and prioritises standardisation and brand recognition over contextual responsiveness. A particularly prominent manifestation of this model is the expansion of British ‘satellite colleges’ in Asia. These are private institutions that reproduce selected organisational, curricular features associated with elite English independent schools, often alongside internationally recognised programmes such as A levels, IGCSE, or the IB (Bunnell, 2008; Bunnell et al, 2020; Probert, 2023). Their growth (see for example Rugby, 2025; Wellington, 2025) underscores the enduring appeal of British educational branding while reinforcing the symbolic power of ‘Englishness’, exclusivity, and prestige among aspirational middle classes and, in some cases, may even perpetuate colonial legacies (Probert, 2023; Jin & Chen, 2023). In such cases, institutional coherence is sustained less through internal curricular innovation than through the symbolic authority of imported educational models.

A more moderate form of autopoiesis can be observed in international schools that blend international and local curricula, corresponding to Thompson’s (1998) category of ‘adaptation’. For example, Elerian & Solomou (2023) document how international schools in Cyprus combine the IGCSE framework with elements of the national curriculum of Cyprus, forming hybrid syllabi that respond to the cultural, linguistic, and pedagogical needs of their communities. This adaptive approach reflects a wider trend: internationally delivered qualifications such as the IGCSE have become among the most widely used programmes in international schools, and are offered by around 40% of them. Their adoption grew nearly tenfold from 2006 to 2020 (Machin, 2017; Bunnell et al, 2020; Probert, 2023). Part of this expansion can be attributed to the flexibility of such programmes, which allows schools to combine internationally recognised standards with local curricular priorities. Cambridge Assessment International Education explicitly supports such flexibility, encouraging schools to ‘pick and mix’ components to suit their contexts and to ‘avoid a UK-centric approach to content’ (Parker, 2016). Cambridge syllabi, for instance, include texts from authors in Nigeria, India, and the United States, alongside British writers, allowing educators to tailor teaching materials to reflect local educational values while maintaining the structural integrity of the international programme. Here, schools do not simply import external models, but selectively rework them to preserve legitimacy while enhancing local relevance. This model enables international schools to sustain themselves through curricular responsiveness, striking a balance between global legitimacy and local appropriateness.

The strongest form of autopoiesis is exemplified by international schools which possess significant autonomy to redefine their structures and purposes beyond compliance with global and national standards. These education providers blend rigorous, centrally administered examination regimes with school-based syllabi tailored to address the ‘local knowledge needs’ of their communities (Tarc, 2009: 247). Rather than simply importing non-local curricula such as the IB, the AP, and IGCSE, these schools reconfigure international education through hybrid models that respond dynamically to shifting regulatory, cultural, and institutional pressures. In this sense, schools do not merely adapt to their environments; they actively reproduce themselves through context-sensitive innovation. Such alignment between international frameworks and local lived realities illustrates a heightened capacity for self-organisation, and is most clearly reflected in Thompson’s (1998) categories of ‘integration’ and ‘creation.’ This dynamic is particularly visible in state-regulated and locally embedded international schools that retain international branding, selected curricular elements and staffing while adapting to restrictive national policy environments and markets, such as those found in China and Vietnam, often exemplify this strong form of autopoiesis. Wright & Mulvey (2022), Poole & Qin (2023), and Wright et al (2024) document how Chinese ‘internationalised’ schools craft bespoke programmes that blend state-mandated content with globally oriented pedagogical approaches. This includes not only curriculum innovation, but also the development of bilingual instruction, hybrid governance structures, and context-sensitive values systems. Such schools reflect a process of curricular self-production that transcends superficial adaptation, generating models that are both globally credible and locally rooted. Yet even this stronger form of autopoiesis remains conditional rather than absolute. As Tarc (2022) notes, in schools offering IB programmes such flexibility remains contingent on the organisation’s willingness to accommodate diverse national contexts. These consitions suggest that institutional self-organisation in international schools is never wholly autonomous, but continues to operate through negotiation with external constraints and regulatory frameworks. Ultimately, such cases illustrate how autopoietic dynamics can persist and thrive even under constraint, generating locally responsive, innovative institutional forms that reshape what the term ‘international’ means in practice.

From this perspective, curriculum becomes a formative force in shaping a school’s unique distinctive identity, an evolving ‘self’, rather than a static feature determined by fixed typologies, such as frameworks, spectra, and dichotomies. Existing frameworks often distinguish between globally oriented curricula associated with transnational mobility and internationally recognised qualifications, and nationally embedded curricula aligned with local, regulatory and cultural priorities (Cambridge & Thompson, 2004; Maxwell et al, 2020). Yet such binaries tend to obscure the complex and context-sensitive processes through which schools negotiate their place within shifting educational landscapes. An autopoietic perspective, by contrast, illuminates the reciprocal dynamic at play: curriculum decisions actively shape institutional identity, while that identity, grounded in lived experience, in turn guides the ongoing adaptation and evolution of the curriculum. Over time, this interaction contributes not only to the internal coherence of the school, but also to broader transformations in the educational environment. Curriculum, therefore, should be understood not simply as a classificatory indicator of school type, but as a dynamic mechanism through which international schools reproduce, adapt, and legitimate their identities, further supporting an autopoietic interpretation of the field.

Conclusion

Underlying this paper is the conviction that the field of international education research can be strengthened through more systematic engagement with theoretically robust concepts. One promising avenue for achieving this objective lies in drawing upon theoretical constructs from other disciplines, including biology. Such interdisciplinary borrowing has the potential to deepen conceptual precision, open analytical possibilities, and more scholarship beyond descriptive categorisations alone. In this respect, leveraging a concept such as autopoiesis, with strong scientific foundations, paves the way for a more rigorous and systematic approach to scholarly inquiry into international schools.

Grounded in the principle that building on existing theories from other disciplines can not only enrich but also advance our understanding of the education field, autopoiesis offers a productive conceptual lens for capturing the dynamic and self-organising character of international schools. Unlike traditional categories, dichotomies, and spectra that present static representations of a constantly evolving field, autopoiesis emphasises processes of movement, adaptation, and internal regulation. It does not simply categorise or classify; it models and explains change. This dynamic concept thus reflects, rather than merely captures, the state of the field. Importantly, this is not to suggest that autopoiesis constitutes what Apple & Apple (2004: 113) might describe as ‘a substitute’ or ‘one alternative’ framework (emphasis added). Rather, its utility and value lie in its capacity to complement existing perspectives as part of a multifaceted approach to understanding the dynamics and complexities of the international school sector.

The analysis presented in this paper suggests that international schools exhibit autopoietic tendencies through their participation in alliances and associations, and through their curricular choices. However, the value of autopoiesis extends beyond these domains. The autopoietic lens may also be applied to other critical dimensions of the international education landscape, including governance, leadership practices, assessment paradigms, and professional development models. Its principal strength derives from its capacity to account for the field’s inherent heterogeneity and fluidity without reducing these features to signs of conceptual weakness or disorder. Instead, it reframes what is often perceived as fragmentation as evidence of adaptive capacity. Ultimately, autopoiesis offers educators, school leaders, curriculum designers, policy-makers, and researchers a conceptual framework through which to better understand and navigate this fast-evolving landscape with greater clarity, insight, and resilience.

Footnotes

ORCID iD

Marta Aleksandra Gasiorowska

Author biography

Marta Aleksandra Gasiorowska is a teacher and researcher based in Hanoi, Vietnam, with experience in English Literature, bilingual education, and curriculum development. She has taught across international and bilingual school settings, with particular interests in teaching quality, educational policy, curriculum studies, and evidence-informed practice. She holds a Master’s degree in Applied Linguistics and a Bachelor’s degree in English and Philosophy, as well as a Postgraduate Certificate in International Education.

References

Apple

M W

(2004) Ideology and Curriculum. 3rd ed. New York: Routledge Falmer.

Bailey

(2023) Challenging the Internationalisation of Education: A Critique of the Global Gaze. London: Routledge.

Bailey

Gibson

M T

(2024) International schools and de-globalisation: Exploring the tensions during the Covid-19 crisis. Journal of Research in International Education. 23(1): 3–18.

Barratt Hacking

Blackmore

Bullock

Bunnell

Donnelly

Martin

(2018) International Mindedness in Practice: The Evidence from International Baccalaureate Schools. Journal of Research in International Education. 17(1): 3-16.

Bittencourt

Willetts

(2018) Negotiating the tensions: A critical study of international schools’ mission statements. Globalisation, Societies and Education. 16(4): 515–525.

Bray

(2015) International and comparative education: boundaries, ambiguities and synergies. In: Hayden

Levy

Thompson

(eds) The SAGE Handbook of research in International Education. London: SAGE Publications. [pp 122–129].

Brummitt

Keeling

(2013) Charting the Growth of International Schools. In: Pearce

(ed) International Education and Schools: Moving beyond the first 40 years. London: Bloomsbury.

Bunnell

(2006) The growing momentum and legitimacy behind an Alliance for International Education. Journal of Research in International Education. 5(2): 155–176.

Bunnell

(2007) The international education industry: An introductory framework for conceptualizing the potential scale of an ‘alliance’. Journal of Research in International Education. 6(3): 349–367.

10.

Bunnell

(2008) International education and the ‘second phase’: a framework for conceptualizing its nature and for the future assessment of its effectiveness. Compare: A Journal of Comparative and International Education. 38(4): 415–426.

11.

Bunnell

(2008) The exporting and franchising of elite English private schools: the emerging ‘second wave’. Asia Pacific Journal of Education. 28(4): 383–393.

12.

Bunnell

(2013) The International Baccalaureate and the role of the ‘pioneer’ international schools. In: Pearce

(ed) International Education and Schools: Moving beyond the first 40 years. London: Bloomsbury Publishing. [pp 167–182].

13.

Bunnell

(2014) The changing landscape of international schooling: implications for theory and practice. Abingdon: Routledge.

14.

Bunnell

(2019) International schooling and education in the ‘New Era’. 1st ed. Bingley: Emerald Publishing Limited.

15.

Bunnell

(2020) The continuous growth and development of ‘International Schooling’: The notion of a ‘transitionary phase’. Compare: A Journal of Comparative and International Education. 50(5): 764–768.

16.

Bunnell

(2021) The crypto-growth of ‘International Schooling’: emergent issues and implications. Educational Review. 74(1):39–56.

17.

Bunnell

Courtois

Donnelly

(2020b) British Elite Private Schools and their Overseas Branches: Unexpected Actors in the Global Education Industry. British Journal of Educational Studies. 68(6): 691–712.

18.

Bunnell

Fertig

James

(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.

19.

Cambridge International Examinations (2024) Available from: https://www.cambridgeinternational.org/about-us/facts-and-figures/ [Accessed 25 June 2024].

20.

Cambridge

Thompson

(2004) Internationalism and globalisation as contexts for international education. Compare. 34(2): 161–75.

21.

Cambridge

(2011) International curriculum. In: Bates

(ed) Schooling Internationally: Globalisation, Internationalisation and the Future for International Schools. Abingdon: Routledge. [pp 121–147].

22.

Carney

(2009) Negotiating Policy in an Age of Globalization: Exploring Educational ‘Policyscapes’ in Denmark, Nepal, and China. Comparative Education Review. 53(1): 63–88.

23.

Coombs

(1968) The world educational crisis: A systems analysis. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

24.

Dye

(1966) Politics, Economics and Public Policy. Chicago: Rand McNally.

25.

Easton

(1957) An Approach to the Analysis of Political Systems. World Politics. 9(3): 383–400.

26.

Elerian

Solomou

(2023) International or Internationalised? Exploring issues faced by international schools in local markets: a Cyprus case study. Journal of Research in International Education. 22(1): 55–69.

27.

Flavin

(1996) Kurt Hahn’s schools & legacy: To discover you can be more and do more than you believed: The story of one of the 20th century’s most innovative and inspiring educators. Wilmington, Del: Middle Atlantic Press.

28.

Fraser

(2019) The growing popularity of international education in Asia. K12 Digest. Available at: https://www.k12digest.com/the-growing-popularity-of-international-education-in-asia/ [Accessed: 1 April 2026].

29.

Giddens

(1984) The Constitution of Society. Cambridge: Polity Press.

30.

Greenfield

(1979) Organization Theory as Ideology. Curriculum Inquiry. 9(2): 97–112.

31.

Habermas

(1979) Communication and the Evolution of Society. London: Heinemann.

32.

Hallgarten

Tabber

McCarthy

(2015) Third Culture Schools: International Schools as Creative Catalysts for a New Global Education System. London: ECIS.

33.

Hayden

(2006) Introduction to International Education: international schools and their communities. London: SAGE.

34.

Hayden

(2013) A review of curriculum in the UK: Internationalising in a changing context. Curriculum Journal. 24(1): 8–26.

35.

Hayden

(2016) The Alliance for International Education: retrospective and prospective. International Schools Journal. 35(2): 86–93.

36.

Hayden

(2022) International Education: Setting the Scene. In: Hayden

(ed) Interpreting International Education: In Honour of Jeff Thompson. London: Routledge. [pp 1–9].

37.

Hayden

Thompson

(1995) International schools and international education: a relationship reviewed. Oxford Review of Education. 21(3): 327–345.

38.

Hayden

Thompson

(2013) International schools: antecedents, current issues and metaphors for the future. In: Pearce

(ed) International Education and Schools: Moving beyond the first 40 years. London: Bloomsbury Publishing. [pp 3–23].

39.

Hayden

Thompson

(2016) International schools: the developing agenda. In: Hayden

Thompson

(eds) International schools: current issues and future prospects. Oxford: Symposium Books. [pp 9–16].

40.

Haywood

(2005) The Alliance for International Education: Making possible the age of influence. International Schools Journal, XXIV(2): 7–16.

41.

Heyward

(2002) From International to Intercultural: Redefining the International School for a Globalized World. Journal of Research in International Education, 1(1): 9–32.

42.

Hill

(2006) Student types, school types and their combined influence on the development of intercultural understanding. Journal of Research in International Education. 5(1): 5–33.

43.

Hill

(2015) What is an ‘international school’? International Schools Journal. 35(1): 60–70.

44.

Hill

(2016) What is an International School? International Schools Journal. 35 (2): 9–21.

45.

Hofferbert

(1974) The Study of Public Policy. New York: Bobbs-Merrill.

46.

IBO (2024) Available from: https://www.ibo.org/about-the-ib/facts-and-figures/ [Accessed 25 June 2024].

47.

ISC Research (2026) Global international schools snapshot 2026. ISC Research. Available at: https://iscresearch.com/intelligence/white-papers/ [Accessed: 12 April 2026].

48.

Jin

Chen

(2023) Experimenting With International Curricula in Shanghai: Policies, Practice, and a Network Ethnography Analysis. ECNU Review of Education. 6(4): 623–645.

49.

Jonietz

(1991) Part 2: The International School Experience: Introduction. In: Jonietz

Harris

(eds) World Yearbook of Education 1991: International Schools and International Education. London: Kogan Page. [pp 53–54].

50.

Kelly

(2009) The curriculum: theory and practice. 6th ed. London: SAGE Publications.

51.

Kim

(2019) Government policies and the shifting place of international schools in the education system. In: Kim

(ed) How global capital is remaking international education. Singapore: Springer. [pp 43–56].

52.

Kim

Mobrand

(2019) Stealth marketisation: how international school policy is quietly challenging education systems in Asia, Globalisation, Societies and Education, 17(3): 310–323.

53.

Kay

(2002) Autopoiesis and systems education: Implications for practice. International Journal of General Systems. 31(5): 515–530.

54.

Knight

Leach

(1964) International secondary schools. In: Bereday

Lauwerys

(eds) The Yearbook of Education 1964: Education and international education. London: Routledge. [pp 5–53].

55.

Lawton

(1989) Education, Culture and the National Curriculum. London: Hodder and Stoughton.

56.

Leach

(1969) International Schools and their role in the field of InternatEducation. Oxford: Pergamon Press.

57.

Luhmann

(1984) Soziale Systeme. Frankfurt: Suhrkamp.

58.

Luhmann

(1986) The autopoiesis of social systems. In: Geyer

van der Zouwen

(eds) Sociocybernetic Paradoxes. London: SAGE Publications.

59.

Machin

(2014) Professional Educator or Professional Manager? The Contested Role of the For-profit International School Principal. Journal of Research in International Education, 13(1): 19–29.

60.

Machin

(2017) The Great Asian International School Gold Rush: an economic analysis. Journal of Research in International Education. 16(2): 131–146.

61.

Matthews

(1989) The Scale of International Education. International Schools Journal, (17): 7–17.

62.

Maturana

Varela

(1980) Autopoiesis and Cognition: The Realization of the Living. Dordrecht: Springer.

63.

Maturana

H R

Varela

F J

(1992) The Tree of Knowledge: The Biological Roots of Human Understanding. Boston & London: Shambhala.

64.

Maxwell

Yemini

Engel

Lee

(2020) Cosmopolitan nationalism in the cases of South Korea, Israel and the US. British Journal of Sociology of Education. 41(6): 845–858.

65.

Mennin

(2010) Self-organisation, integration and curriculum in the complex world of medical education. Medical Education. 44(1): 20–30.

66.

Meyer

(2021) The Global Imaginary of International School Communities. Singapore: Springer.

67.

Mingers

(1995) Self-Producing Systems: Implications and Applications of Autopoiesis. New York: Plenum Press.

68.

Murphy

(2000) Questions for the new millennium. International Schools Journal. XIX(2): 5–10.

69.

Parker

(2016) Developing international qualifications for schools worldwide. Cambridge Assessment. Available at: https://www.cambridgeassessment.org.uk/blogs/developing-international-qualifications-for-schools-worldwide [Accessed: 16 December 2025].

70.

Pearce

(2023) Internationally-national schools: A critical review of this developing sector and the frameworks that define international schools. Research in Comparative and International Education. 18(3): 351–372.

71.

Peel

(1998) International education comes of age. International Schools Journal. XVII(2): 7–12.

72.

Perez

A B

(2015) Mission Alignment and Operationalization: The Case of the United World Colleges. Thesis (PhD) The Claremont Graduate University.

73.

Poole

(2019) Internationalised school teachers’ experiences of precarity as part of the global middle class in China: Towards ‘resilience capital’. The Asia-Pacific Education Researcher. 29(3): 227–235.

74.

Poole

(2020) Decoupling Chinese internationalised schools from normative constructions of the international school. Compare. 50(3): 447–454.

75.

Poole

Bunnell

(2023) Diluting, decoupling, and dovetailing: Considering new metaphors for understanding the changing international school landscape in China. Journal of Research in International Education. 22(1): 3–19.

76.

Poole

Qin

(2023) Nationalising the international in China: A phenomenological study on the purpose of international schooling in an era of regulation. British Educational Research Journal. 50(1):181–199.

77.

Resnik

(2012) Sociology of International Education – an Emerging Field of Research. International Studies in Sociology of Education. 22(4): 291–310.

78.

Ross

(2000) Curriculum Construction and Critique. London: Routledge.

79.

Probert

(2023) International Education in Asia: The Changing Market. Journal of Research in International Education. 22(3): 185–200.

80.

Rugby School (2025) Rugby School Japan. At https://rugbyschooljapan.com/ [Accessed 11 November 2025].

81.

Simandiraki

(2005) Of onions and ruins: knowing cultures through their heritage. International Schools Journal. 24(2): 40–48.

82.

Siskin

(2016) System: The shaping of modern knowledge. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

83.

Stobart

(1989) A new programme for a time of change. Forum No 38. Strasbourg: Council of Europe.

84.

Sylvester

(2002) The ‘first’ international school. In: Hayden

Thompson

Walker

(eds) International Education in Practice: Dimensions for National and International Schools. London: Kogan Page. [pp 3–17].

85.

Sylvester

(2005) Framing the map of international education (1969-1998). Journal of Research in International Education. 4(2): 123–152.

86.

Tanu

(2014) Becoming ‘International’: The Cultural Reproduction of the Local Elite at an International School in Indonesia. South East Asia Research. 22(4): 579–596.

87.

Tarc

(2009) What is the ‘International’ in the International Baccalaureate? Three Structuring Tensions of the Early Years (1962—1973). Journal of Research in International Education. 8(3): 235–261.

88.

Tarc

(2022) International Baccalaureate: Meanings and Uses in a Globalizing World . In: Tierney

Rizvi

Ercikan

Smith

(eds) International Encyclopaedia of Education. 3rd ed. Oxford: Elsevier. [pp 1074–1081].

89.

Taylor

(2015) International schools – creative communities with a cause. International Schools Journal. XXXV(1): 16–20.

90.

Teubner

(1993) Law as an Autopoietic System. Oxford: Blackwell.

91.

Thompson

J J

(1998) Towards a Model for International Education. In: Hayden

M C

Thompson

J J

(eds) International Education: Principles and Practice. London: Kogan Page. [pp 276–290].

92.

von Bertalanffy

(1988) General system theory: Foundations, development, applications. New York: Braziller.

93.

Vanderstraeten

(2023) Systems Theory Approaches to Researching Educational Organizations. In: Hytten

(Ed) Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Education. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

94.

Vanderstraeten

(2002) The autopoiesis of educational organizations: The impact of the organizational setting on educational interaction. Systems Research and Behavioral Science. 19(3): 243–253.

95.

Verger

Lubienski

Steiner-Khamsi

(2016) The emergence and structuring of the global education industry: Towards an analytical framework. In: Verger

Lubienski

Steiner-Khamsi

(Eds) World Yearbook of Education 2016: The Global Education Industry. New York: Routledge. [pp 3–24].

96.

Walker

(2003) IBO: Now for the stage of inﬂuence. International School. 6(1): 9.

97.

Walker

(2004) International Education and the International Baccalaureate. Fastback. Phi Delta Kappa Educational Foundation. 522: 7–34.

98.

Walker

(2015) International education – for saints or sinners? International Schools Journal. XXXV(1): 10–15.

99.

Warren

(2005) A Path Worth Taking: The Development of Social Justice in Outdoor Experiential Education. Equity & Excellence in Education. 38(1): 89–99.

100.

Weenink

(2009) Creating a niche in the education market: the rise of internationalised secondary education in the Netherlands. Journal of Education Policy. 24(4): 495–511.

101.

Wellington India (2025) Wellington College India. https://www.wellingtoncollege.in/ [Accessed 1 March 2026].

102.

Wright

Auld

(2022) Experiments in being global: the cosmopolitan nationalism of international schooling in China. Globalisation, Societies and Education. 20(2): 236–249.

103.

Wright

Mulvey

(2022) The promised capitals of international high school programmes and the global field of higher education: The case of Shenzhen, China. Journal of Research in International Education. 21(2): 87–104.

104.

Wright

Lin

(2024) The turning tide of the International Baccalaureate in China: when global dreams meet national priorities. Globalisation, Societies and Education. 22(4): 651–664.

105.

Yemini

Fulop

(2015) The international, global and intercultural dimensions in schools: an analysis of four internationalised Israeli schools. Globalisation, Societies and Education. 13(4): 528–552.