Content uploaded by Metin Celik
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Metin Celik on Jun 13, 2022
Content may be subject to copyright.
International Schools in the Context
of Cultural Diplomacy: Actors and New
Approaches
Metin Çelik
The trend that international education has caught, especially in the
decades, attracts the curiosity of all states influential in international poli-
tics. States are establishing more correlations between their national inter-
ests, international images, and international education policies, opening
more space for cultural diplomacy in their foreign policies. Thus, educa-
tion, science, culture, language, accreditation issues are more and more
included in the foreign policy agenda. In this respect, international educa-
tion is one of the strategic issues that states try to get involved in today.
In this context, international schooling, which started at the beginning of
the twentieth century, continues to increase today.
International schools founded and funded by the states have under-
gone changes in content and mission in the historical process and have
gained their current form. The first international schools were estab-
lished to meet the educational needs of powerful states’ own citizens
living overseas. Then, depending on colonial policies, colonial states,
including missionary schools, tried to teach their own language, religion,
and culture to the local people of the host countries. Thus, it aimed to
M. Çelik (B)
Selçuk University, Konya, Turkey
e-mail: metincelik@selcuk.edu.tr
© The Author(s) 2022
B. Akgün and Y. Alpaydin (eds.), Education Policies in the 21st Century,
Maarif Global Education Series,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-19-1604-5_7
161
162 M. ÇELIK
explain the colonial order to the local people and train the working class
needed in colonial activities. Realizing that language and culture teaching
and transmission is very effective in the acceptance of the existing system
by the local people and in displaying supportive attitudes toward the colo-
nial country, especially in the 1930s, the great powers gave importance to
establish cultural centers and international schools in order to spread their
language and culture abroad.
This effect of culture on national interest and foreign policy has
brought cultural diplomacy practices to the agenda. The opening of inter-
national schools by a state to meet the educational needs of its citizens
abroad is today defined as diaspora diplomacy. In the colonial period,
international schools were opened with the aim of providing forced
education for changing the language, religion, and culture of the local
people in an attempt to assimilate them. This is a kind of hard-power
policy and cannot be considered as a cultural policy. However, with the
education provided in international schools abroad, cultural diplomacy
is for a state to teach, transfer, and adopt its own language and culture
within the consent of the local people.
International education has an important place in the execution of
cultural diplomacy. Politically and economically strong states want to
make their cultural diplomacy effective with international educational
institutions, cultural centers, international student mobility programs, and
scholarship programs, including K-12 and higher education. For this
purpose, states have established international schools such as the Agency
for French Education Abroad (AEFE), Central Agency for German
Schools Abroad (ZfA), British Schools Overseas (BSO), Confucius Class-
rooms, and the Turkish Maarif Foundation (TMF) with the aim of
educating international students who support them in return. In addition,
the Alliance Française in France (1883), the Dante Alighieri Society in
Italy (1889), the British Council in England (1934), the Goethe Insti-
tute in Germany (1952), the Institute of Cervantes in Spain (1991),
the Confucius Institute in China (2004), and Yunus Emre Institute in
Turkey (2007) were established to promote the language and culture
of the respective country in the world. Despite their considerable costs,
scholarship programs such as Fulbright, the Jean Monnet, Carnegie, and
Mevlana are conducted by governments in order to promote international
student mobility as well as to contribute to cultural diplomacy.
As the most important tools of cultural diplomacy, these institu-
tions enable states to teach, introduce, and transmit their own language,
INTERNATIONAL SCHOOLS IN THE CONTEXT … 163
culture, and values to the local people of the host country where the
schools are located, creating a favorable attitude in the host country. They
alleviate the traces of the colonialist or tense past, if any exists between the
two countries, and ensure long-term ties of trust, culture, and sincerity
between them.
The very nature of cultural diplomacy gives importance to the poli-
cies implemented by the state apparatus or state-supported institutions.
Therefore, this article does not include private international schools
or state-established cultural centers. The article examines international
schools founded and supported by states in the context of cultural
diplomacy.
Culture and Education as a Foreign Policy
Argument
The effects of the issues of culture and education on foreign policy
are currently discussed in the context of public diplomacy and cultural
diplomacy. Although the concept of public diplomacy has been concep-
tualized for half a century in the literature, the concept has also been
found in media organs such as The Times,New York Times,andWash-
ington Post since the mid-nineteenth century (Cull, 2009, pp. 20–21).
However, unlike classical diplomacy, the concept used in these media
organs was used in a context emphasizing open diplomacy (i.e., trans-
parency). However, the activities defined as public diplomacy are known
to have also been applied in earlier times. For example, starting in the
fourteenth century, the Ottoman Empire applied a tolerant expropria-
tion (istimâlet) policy, especially in the Balkans, with the expectation that
the people in the newly conquered regions would be supportive of the
Ottoman Empire and they accept its sovereignty of their own consent
(˙
Inalcık, 2017, pp. 12–14).
Although applications of public diplomacy date back to earlier times, it
was introduced to the literature as a concept by Edmund Gullion in 1965
and became more popular with the use of soft power by Joseph S. Nye
in the 1990s as an indispensable part of foreign policy. Unlike traditional
diplomacy, public diplomacy refers to the whole process of direct commu-
nication between the public and the decision-makers of other countries,
informing and persuading the public and ultimately establishing long-
term and permanent institutional structures through elements such as
culture, education, and humanitarian aid. Public diplomacy is the process
164 M. ÇELIK
of conveying a nation’s ideas, ideals, institutions, and culture to foreign
public opinion through communication channels (Tuch, 1990,p.3).In
other words, while classical diplomacy takes place among the government
apparatus (government-to-government [G2G]), in public diplomacy, the
government apparatus deals with the public of another state (government-
to-person [G2P]; Manheim, 1994, p. 3). Recently, states also include
individuals and NGOs in addition to public devices, and thus communica-
tion takes place between the societies of both countries (people-to-people
[P2P]).
Public diplomacy was defined by Edmund Gullion as a new type of
diplomacy that deals with public influence on the formation and execu-
tion of foreign policy and involves the manipulation of public opinion
of other countries and intercultural communication processes apart from
diplomatic relations (Cull, 2009, p. 19). Joseph S. Nye made the concept
famous as a kind of soft power practice. Nye discussed the foreign policies
implemented by states to influence the behavior of other states in terms of
the use of force and talked about three different uses of force: enforcing
with threats, encouraging with economic arguments, and attraction. Eval-
uating the first two as hard power and the third as soft power (soft or
co-optive power), Nye (1990, p. 166) defined attractiveness as “ensuring
that the demands of a country are demanded by other countries with
their own consent.” In other words, instead of classical diplomacy, which
is costly and risky, public diplomacy involves persuading, seducing, and
attracting the other side and is both less costly and sustainable in the
long term (Nye, 1990,2003,p.10).
Public diplomacy differs from traditional diplomacy and is not an alter-
native to traditional diplomacy. Public diplomacy is successful to the
extent that it is supported by traditional diplomacy mechanisms. Like-
wise, traditional diplomacy is effective to the extent that it is supported
by public diplomacy. The atmosphere of trust and sympathy created
by public diplomacy, decision-makers of other states, and the public
contributes to the deepening of traditional diplomacy between two states.
The important point here is that in public diplomacy, a state’s culture,
political values, and foreign policy will make sense if they are deemed
acceptable, legitimate, moral, and attractive by other states (Nye, 2004,
pp. 6–8; 2011,p.20).
With public diplomacy, states aim to explain their political inter-
ests to the target audience (other governments, nations, international
public) to create international public opinion on this matter, to eliminate
INTERNATIONAL SCHOOLS IN THE CONTEXT … 165
discourses against them, to forget the wrong policies they have imple-
mented, to persuade target audiences within their consent, and to develop
cooperation and alliance ties.
The tools used by states in public diplomacy generally constitute a wide
range of specialized public devices such as NGOs, universities, research
centers, opinion leaders, and multinational companies in the fields of
humanitarian aid, culture, education, and media (Gilboa, 2008,p.56;
Nye, 2004, p. 11), but the main source of power is public devices. In
particular, humanitarian organizations, cultural and educational centers
are states’ primary choices because of their effects, such as affecting the
public in the countries where these activities are carried out, forming a
bond of affection, and establishing trust, cooperation, and a sense of grat-
itude. However, because humanitarian aid and cultural and educational
centers require the transfer of considerable economic resources, they can
be used as a public diplomacy tool by a limited number of countries.
Education is an important field in public diplomacy. Public diplomacy,
which expresses the transition from power-oriented policy to value-
oriented policy, has focused on cultural expression and transfer in recent
years. For this reason, the expression of cultural diplomacy has now
started to be used more than public diplomacy. Culture is the sum of
the values of the history, thoughts, feelings, ideas, art, and identities that
have brought society into existence and made it a meaningful whole.
The realization of one or more of the processes of explaining, teaching,
partially transferring these values to other societies, and making these the
common values of those societies are handled within the framework of
cultural diplomacy, and therefore public diplomacy. As a result, while
all cultural diplomacy activities are the subject of public diplomacy, not
every public diplomacy practice can be considered as cultural diplomacy.
Cultural diplomacy refers to a narrower scope within public diplomacy.
The main purpose that drives states to share cultures and explain their
own culture is the desire to attract and persuade other states and societies
as well as to create a supportive international public opinion.
Cultural diplomacy is compatible with and serves foreign policy
purposes. It is a foreign policy tool used for the promotion, presentation,
and construction of a state’s positive image and international reputation
through cultural activities (Ham, 2002, p. 268; Wang, 2006,p.92).With
cultural diplomacy, states have the opportunity to introduce and dissemi-
nate their cultural and national values, identity, language, and religion in
166 M. ÇELIK
other states. Thus, mutual cultural exchanges are realized based on estab-
lishing cooperation in many fields, especially in culture, with the ultimate
aim of establishing mutual understanding between societies.
Education and culture-oriented relations have a wider effect and
usage area among societies than political, commercial, and military rela-
tions. States have the opportunity to raise young people, who are the
“decision-makers of tomorrow,” to gain their sincerity and trust and
develop long-term and sincere relations between various states and soci-
eties through the international education activities they carry out in other
states (Turkish Maarif Foundation, 2019a, p. 19). Because of the ability,
other states have to deeply influence decision-makers, and the public,
international, cultural, and educational activities have become a diplo-
matic argument preferred by powerful states, with international schools
have become the most powerful tool of this argument.
International Education and International
Schools
Today, international education expresses a multi-faceted and multi-layered
notion. The effects and aims of international education can be counted in
many different contexts, such as the context of educating young people
in accordance with the developing structure of the international system
at the individual level; the context of values education in accordance with
gaining global awareness, identity, and equipment at the system level; in
the context of new ideas, research methods, and curricula at the level
of educational sciences; in the context of tuition fees, wage policy, and
education investments at the economic level; and in the context of the
mobility of international students and academics, the education of polit-
ical elites, cultural relations and cultural diplomacy at the political and
cultural levels. Putting the notion of international education into action
is possible with structures such as international schools.
International education is discussed under six headings in the litera-
ture: (i) comparative and international education, (ii) internationalization
of higher education, (iii) international schools, (iv) international research
on education and training of educators, (v) internationalization of primary
and secondary education, and (vi) globalization and education (Dolby &
Rahman, 2008, p. 677). This article discusses international education
in the context of the international schools that provide education at
INTERNATIONAL SCHOOLS IN THE CONTEXT … 167
the K-12 level and that have been established and are supported by
governments.
In its most common definition, international education is a concept
that expresses the types of intellectual, cultural, and educational relations
between individuals from two or more nations and points to international
cooperation and mutual understanding (Hayden & Thompson, 1995,
p. 328; Smart, 1971, p. 442). In another definition, international educa-
tion refers to educational activities that aim to promote an international
orientation and understanding in knowledge and attitudes (Dolby &
Rahman, 2008, p. 689). While the first definition defines international
education as an argument that enables a connection between nations and
cultures apart from diplomatic relations, international education’s second
definition explains it as an important tool for the formation of global citi-
zenship and consciousness in the perspective of global common interests
and understandings and is the one frequently mentioned today.
No consensus exists on which international school was first (i.e., the
school that a political authority such as an empire, kingdom, principality,
sultanate, or state has opened within the boundaries of another political
authority). Schools such as the missionary schools opened in the Ottoman
Empire and Japan in the seventeenth century, Galatasaray High School
opened by France in Istanbul in 1868 (Haigh, 1974, p. 29), Geneva
International School opened in Geneva in 1924 by the employees of the
League of Nations (Hill, 2001, p. 11), and other schools are mentioned
among the first international schools. As can be seen, no consensus is
found on what the notion of an international school is.
Since 2000, the emphasis in definitions of international schools has
been on international or global curriculum. International schools are
defined as schools that implement curricula loaded with international
norms and values for their students (Walker, 2015, p. 79) or schools that
use a curriculum not included in the host country despite all differences
between the countries (Hayden & Thompson, 2013,p.4).
The definitions presented above in brief are also attempts at classi-
fying these schools. Also, there is no standard for classification exists.
According to some authors, the first classification attempt (Hill, 2015,
p. 60), which is one of the most cited classifications in the literature, is
the seven-way classification made by Leach and Knight in 1964 (Hill,
2015,p.60;Hughes,2020, p. 178). This classification was further
simplified by Leach (1969) under four headings: (i) international schools
serving students of different nationalities, including citizens of the host
168 M. ÇELIK
country, (ii) overseas schools providing education to expats, (iii) schools
that are agreed and managed together between two or more states, and
(iv) schools affiliated with the International Schools Association (ISA)
(Leach, 1969, pp. 7–10). Matthews made a dual classification that he
considers to be more functional: (i) “ideology-driven schools” aiming
to promote international cooperation and the transfer of a widespread
and legitimate mentality and (ii) “market-driven schools” established by
international companies and individuals in line with the needs of their
own citizens who work and live abroad (Hayden & Thompson, 1995,
p. 336). The schools that Matthews defined as ideology-driven are the
schools that provide education with an emphasis on global citizenship
and consciousness, such as ISA and the United World College (UWC).
Meanwhile, market-driven schools refer to the schools that provide
education services in line with the demands of the international public.
Although many different classifications are found apart from these,
currently, the most popular classification in the literature was made by
Hayden and Thompson in 2013. Hayden and Thompson identified
three types of international schools: Type A are traditional international
schools, the non-profit and industry-oriented schools where expat chil-
dren are educated; Type B are the ideology-oriented international schools,
mission-oriented schools that encourage a global approach and interna-
tional understanding; and Type C are the non-traditional schools, schools
that provide for-profit education services for the children of local elites
(Hayden & Thompson, 2013, pp. 5–8). Among Hayden and Thomp-
son’s triple classification, Type A international schools are on the agenda
of diaspora diplomacy, while Types B and C are on the agenda of cultural
diplomacy.
Today, international schools are mostly run by private international
companies. Of course, private international schools are also able to be
supported politically and in terms of morale by the country of origin.
However, the nature of this support is indeterminable. For this reason,
a correct method would be to examine international schools that have
institutional ties with the states and that have been established or are
supported by states when analyzing international education in the context
of cultural diplomacy.
INTERNATIONAL SCHOOLS IN THE CONTEXT … 169
State-Supported International Schools
The first examples of state-supported international schools were estab-
lished to meet the educational needs of the children of parents who work
all over the world, take their families with them, and parents who are
expats, diplomats or working in international organizations and compa-
nies in countries where local education is insufficient (Hayden, 2011,
p. 214). Being educated in the local language in these schools that
were opened for expats, diplomats, and missionaries would be inadequate
for the universities of the country that had opened these international
schools. The children have the opportunity to receive education in their
mother tongue and learn the same curriculum as their peers in their
own countries; in this way, they do not fall behind their native country’s
education (Kim, 2019, p. 14).
Although these first-generation or traditional international schools
were often established by governments, international schools have also
been established and promoted by international organizations. For
example, the Geneva International School was opened in Geneva in
1924 by the League of Nations staff (Hill, 2001, p. 11); and the Euro-
pean School Movement was opened in Luxembourg in 1953 for the
employees of the European Coal and Steel Community and the Euro-
pean Economic Community (Mejia, 2002, p. 22). These schools were
opened to meet the language, culture, and education demands of families
who had come to Geneva and Luxembourg from different countries to
work in international organizations.
Another predecessor of today’s international schools is missionary
schools. The schools, which were opened by American and European
missionaries both for their own families and for the purpose of explaining
and spreading Christianity to the local people, turned into “secular inter-
national schools” during the decolonization process that started in the
second half of the twentieth century.
Colonialism’s first step was to open schools, usually through mission-
aries. For example, the Spanish Empire spread Catholic Christianity
through the missionary schools that opened in the lands it colonized. The
primary task of these schools was to ensure the local people’s acceptance
of Spanish culture and Catholicism through education. The education
provided in missionary schools was limited to literacy education and the
transmission of colonial rules. The worry was present that the local people
170 M. ÇELIK
would rebel if they received a comprehensive education (Feldman, 2016,
p. 33). In missionary schools, the aim is to train translators, staff who can
correspond and follow routine bureaucratic affairs, and sub-administrators
who can take responsibility in the colonial administration. The missionary
schools that carried out intensive activities in Africa and Asia, as well as
Latin America, had laid the foundations of today’s international school
networks under the auspices of colonial states such as France, England,
and Spain.
Although the international education sector contains many private
international schools in the twenty-first century, state-supported schools
continue to maintain their original weight. In order to see the continuity
and change in the context of historical institutional structure, curriculum,
and legal status, this article investigates AEFE, ZfA, BSO, Confucius
Classrooms, and the TMF.
The Agency for French Education Abroad (AEFA)
The first institutionalized cultural policy initiatives affecting the modern
period started in the late nineteenth century, with France as the pioneer
of this process. France established the Alliance Française in 1883 in
order to introduce French abroad and transfer the French culture by
starting the practice of cultural attaché in diplomatic missions (Lane,
2013, p. 15). After establishing the Alliance Française,Francestarted
to open schools for formal education abroad. The language of instruc-
tion in these schools was French, and the curriculum became the national
educational curriculum of France. The schools, which primarily provide
education services for Frenchs abroad, soon started to teach French
culture, civilization, and language to the children of non-French nations
(Haigh, 1974,p.69).
France wanted to carry this schooling accumulation into the twenty-
first century by establishing the AEFE in 1990. AEFE was established
as a public institution under the French Ministry of Foreign Affairs with
the mission of managing and monitoring French school network abroad;
370,000 students receive education in 535 AEFE schools in 139 coun-
tries. While 71 of 535 schools are directly managed by AEFE, 155 are
AEFE affiliates and managed by different associations and foundations,
and 309 are operated as subsidiaries. With this wide network of schools,
AEFE aims to enable French children living abroad to receive education in
INTERNATIONAL SCHOOLS IN THE CONTEXT … 171
their mother tongue; to establish close relations with the host country in
the fields of culture, language, and education; and to enable international
students to learn French culture and language (AEFE, 2021).
The Central Agency for German Schools Abroad
(ZfA)
After World War II, the government of Federal Germany gave priority to
public diplomacy in foreign policy. Federal Germany focused on cultural
activities both in order to erase the traces of the unfavorable past it
had inherited from the Nazi rule and to respread the use of German,
which had started to lose its lingua franca effect in Europe after World
War I. The Federal Government of Germany started to open interna-
tional schools simultaneously with diplomatic missions abroad. In order
to gather these schools under one roof, the ZfA was established as a unit
affiliated with the Federal Office of Administration (BVA) in 1968. ZfA is
a cultural diplomacy office controlled and funded by the German govern-
ment, but with a semi-independent status. Such structures that give
flexibility to Germany’s public diplomacy are defined as “intermediate
institutions” (mittlerorganisationen) (Reuter, 2019,p.63).
ZfA was assigned by the German Federal Foreign Office to manage
German government-supported schools abroad (ZfA, 2021). ZfA’s
international school system has three kinds of programs: (i) German
Schools Abroad (DAS) provides bilingual education in German and local
languages to the children of German expats and local people, (ii) German
Profile Schools (DPS) are German foreign schools operating in accor-
dance with the national education system of the host country where
German is taught as a foreign language, and at least one course is taught
in German, and (iii) German Diploma Schools (DSD), a subgroup of the
DPS national school network, are included in the PASCH (Partners for
the Future) network and provide the European common standards frame-
work that requires high standards, providing certified language education
(Reuter, 2019, p. 63). As of 2021, 140 DAS and around 1100 DPS and
DSD schools are in existence (ZfA, 2021).
172 M. ÇELIK
British Schools Overseas (BSO)
The reports prepared for the British government in the 1930s revealed
that England’s international prestige and influence were gradually
decreasing, that the period when international trade was following the
flag (i.e., politics) of the countries had come to an end, and that trade
followed the national language, education, and media organs (Taylor,
1978, pp. 248–249). Thereupon, the British Council was established in
1934 to make cultural propaganda in overseas lands in favor of England
and apply cultural diplomacy instead of classical propaganda, which could
have negative effects on the target audience.
England does not have an international school chain with an institu-
tional structure linked to public institutions such as France and Germany.
In this regard, the activities of teaching and spreading the English
language and culture abroad are generally undertaken by the British
Council. However, the UK has developed the BSO system for interna-
tional formal education activities. In this system, international schools
are established and run by private companies. At the same time, BSO
evaluates and accredits these schools with an inspection mechanism to
determine whether they are qualified to use the British School brand.
BSO is a voluntary evaluation mechanism where private international
schools request to be audited. BSO, which operates under the Ministry
of Education, supervises British private school unions and accredita-
tion organizations such as the Council of British International Schools
(COBIS), Federation of British International Schools in Asia (FOBISIA),
Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS).
Despite not having its own international schools like AEFE and ZfA
do, BSO can be regarded as a kind of state-supported international
education network, as it is directly implemented by the UK Ministry of
Education and decides whether international schools providing English
education should use the term “British” on behalf of the UK. In this
respect, BSO is the implementer of the formal education activities of
England’s cultural diplomacy. This role of BSO can be seen in its audit
reports.
INTERNATIONAL SCHOOLS IN THE CONTEXT … 173
Confucius Classrooms
China’s international culture and education centers in public diplomacy
practices are quite new compared to other central states. The Ministry
of Education of the People’s Republic of China established the Chinese
National Office on Teaching Chinese as a Foreign Language (Hanban) in
1987. Hanban is tasked with spreading the Chinese language and culture
around the world. For this purpose, Hanban established the Confu-
cius Institutes in 2004. While Confucius Institutes focused on cultural
activities at cultural centers and universities in other countries, Confu-
cius Classrooms were established for formal education activities at the
primary and secondary school levels. Confucius Classrooms are not self-
contained schools but are structured as small classes opened in local
schools through bilateral relations and agreements. Students are taught
Chinese and Chinese culture in these classes that are opened in primary
and secondary schools (Hanban, 2021a).
While Confucius Institutes opened the first international cultural center
in 2004 in Uzbekistan, 2011 saw 358 Confucius Institutes and 500
Confucius Classrooms present in 108 countries; 21% of the 358 Confu-
cius Institutes and 60% of the 500 Confucius Classrooms were in the USA
(Zha, 2013, p. 15). In 2016, this number was 495 Institutes and 1,000
Classrooms in 130 countries (Sall, 2016, p. 140), 525 Institutes and
113 Classrooms in 146 countries in 2019, and 541 Confucius Institutes
worldwide in January 2021 (Hanban, 2021b).
The main reason for the increase in the number of Confucius Institutes
and Classrooms is that the establishment processes are quite easy once
their legal status is set up in the host country. As a different concept in
international schooling, the Confucius Classrooms are established within
local or international schools included in the national education system.
For this reason, the furnishings are completed very quickly. These classes
provide a great opportunity for China to introduce and teach Chinese
and Chinese culture to students around the world at an early age.
174 M. ÇELIK
Turkish Maarif Foundation1
For many years, the internationalization of education in Turkey was only
limited to higher education. Namely, international students and academi-
cians were encouraged to come to Turkey, and Turkish students and
academicians were sent to universities abroad through certain scholar-
ship programs. Educational activities abroad include formal education
carried out by the Ministry of National Education for the children of
Turkish citizens living abroad through diplomatic mission schools where
the curriculum in Turkey is implemented in Turkish. The last 15 years
have found non-formal education activities being carried out through
public diplomacy tools such as the Turkish Cooperation and Coordination
Agency (TIKA), the Presidency for Turks Abroad and Related Communi-
ties (YTB), Yunus Emre Institute (YEE), and the Directorate of Religious
Affairs. Apart from these, no formal education activities at Turkey’s K-12
level for international students occurred.
As one of the last countries involved in the international schooling
process, Turkey stepped into this field with the TMF in June 2016. The
TMV is a public foundation established with the Law No. 6721 adopted
by the Grand National Assembly of Turkey (TBMM). It is not affili-
ated with any ministry within the constitutional institutional structure in
Turkey, and carries out its activities in close cooperation with the Ministry
of National Education and Ministry of Foreign Affairs. However, the
main decision-making body of the Foundation, the Board of Trustees,
consists of representatives appointed by the Presidency, the Ministry of
National Education, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the Ministry of
Finance, and the Council of Higher Education. In addition, the Foun-
dation’s budget is largely subsidized from the general public budget of
the Republic of Turkey (TMF, 2021a). These features show that TMF is
a public foundation.
The purpose and scope of TMF are explained in detail in Article 1 of
Law No. 6721, which is the founding law of the foundation. Accordingly,
TMF has been appointed and authorized on behalf of the Republic of
Turkey to perform the formal and non-formal education activities abroad
at all levels of education from pre-school to higher education. As of April
2021, TMF operates in 67 countries through its representative offices in
1I would like to thank the Turkish Maarif Foundation for sharing internald documents
such as their Weekly Status Reports and 2016–2019 Summary Activity Report.
INTERNATIONAL SCHOOLS IN THE CONTEXT … 175
52 countries. TMF provides education to 43,000 students in 342 inter-
national schools at the K-12 level, in addition to 1 university and 14
education centers in 44 of these 67 countries (TMF, 2021b). 47% of the
foundation’s educational institutions are located in Asia and the Pacific,
39% in Africa, 11% in Europe, and 3% in North and South America.
Compared to international school chains and networks such as AEFE,
ZfA, BSO, and Confucius Classrooms, the Maarif Foundation of Turkey
exhibits a different profile with its curriculum content. Glonacal (global,
national, local) content is seen in the curriculum implemented in TMF
educational institutions. Accordingly, the foundation aims to ensure that
its students are educated in a formation equipped with global abilities,
but assimilates their national values and are also able to remain local
(Akgün & Özkan, 2020, p. 67). In addition, the curriculum used in TMF
schools provides students with multi-language skills and local cultural
values consisting of Turkish, local language, and foreign languages, as
well as modern sciences, social sciences, and technological skills (TMF,
2019a, p. 20). The contents of the main three courses are the standard
skills given in other international schools. However, the multi-language
skills involving local language and local cultural values differentiate TMF
from other international schools. TMF and the education department
of the host country decide together which language to teach in TMF
schools, and schools usually teach in the local language. Regardless of
the language of education, however, the curriculum provides Turkish, the
local language, and at least one foreign language.
The emphasis on local language and local culture in the TMF
curriculum, especially for the nations that had to learn the language
and culture of the colonial country by force under the colonial rule
for many years, and even experienced the danger of assimilation, was
influential in the adoption of TMV in these countries in a short time.
While TMF has opened schools in 5 countries in its first year in Africa,
which is the first geography that comes to mind when addressing the
colonial period, TMF, as of 2021, operates 139 international schools in
24 countries in Africa (TMF, 2021b). These figures, which have been
obtained in just four years, show the importance of TMF’s contribution
to Turkey’s cultural diplomacy. TMF has also developed the curriculum
of teaching Turkish as a foreign language within research and develop-
ment studies. The “Turkish as a foreign language” program determines
student’s Turkish learning skills and acquisitions from pre-school to high
school in TMF educational institutions. The aim is for every student who
176 M. ÇELIK
graduates from TMF to graduate to use Turkish at the B2 level, at least
according to international language teaching standards (TMF, 2021c).
Thus, with TMF’s network of international schools spread around the
world, Turkey is involved in the international education sector and has
the opportunity to educate international students who can speak Turkish
and have knowledge about Turkey and Turkish culture.
The Political and Cultural Effects
of International Schools: Cultural Diplomacy
There are two different approaches in the public opinion toward the activ-
ities of international schools: On one hand is the approach that evaluates
these schools through their positive aspects such as quality education,
international accreditation, student mobility, education opportunity in
qualified universities, global awareness, and equipment and career, while
on the other hand is the skeptical approach that these schools’ countries
of origin are generally ex-colonial states and that the foreign language
being taught and foreign culture being transferred in these schools erode
the local culture and students’ identity.
These different approaches are also related to the mission the country
of origin puts on these schools. For some countries, these schools’
primary mission may be to teach their own language and culture, provide
quality education, promote their own country, and get a share of the
50-billion-dollar economic market.
Considering the AEFE, ZfA, BSO, Confucius Classrooms, and TMF
briefly mentioned above, the effects of state-supported international
school chains and networks on cultural diplomacy can be examined under
four main headings:
•Promotion of the country of origin, nation branding
•Teaching language and culture
•Training of local elites
•Forgetting the traces of colonialism and negative past
Promotion of the Country of Origin, Nation Branding
States allocate essential financial resources and carry out promotional
activities recognized internationally to create a few keywords that will
INTERNATIONAL SCHOOLS IN THE CONTEXT … 177
be remembered in the memory of the international public when their
names are heard and to make positive connotations in the memory.
Although these promotional initiatives based on advertising, fairs, orga-
nizations, and receptions have significant effects on international public
opinion, they are financially burdensome as the impact is limited and
requires continuity. Meanwhile, public diplomacy is a foreign policy tool
used for promoting, presenting, and building a positive image; the inter-
national reputation of a state through cultural activities (Ham, 2002,
p. 268; Wang, 2006, p. 92), attracting international public opinion (Nye,
2011, p. 20), and promoting itself as the most crucial country are
nation branding activities (Anholt, 2003, p. 13; Fan, 2010, pp. 98–99).
This promotion and branding are applied to young students and their
adult parents through international schools; a low-cost, long-winded, and
sincere acceptance occurs in Nye’s words “with the international public’s
own consent” (Nye, 1990, p. 166). In this aspect, international schools
are a very effective device for promoting a country and nation branding.
Although all TMF schools have a board called “Turkey Corner,” where
the map, flag, important cities of Turkey, portraits of the founding leader,
and current president are found, they also have a board for the host
country with similar elements. Thus, students see the similarities and
differences between their own countries and Turkey while learning about
Turkey. In addition, activities are also included in TMF schools related to
Turkey’s national holidays, important poets and authors, cuisine, tradi-
tions, and customs (TMF, 2019a, p. 22). Thus, the aim is to raise
awareness of students and parents about Turkey and to develop sympathy
for Turkey.
TMF organizes cultural trips for its successful students to strengthen its
students’ ties with Turkey and introduce Turkey to its students. Students
are given information about the Anatolian culture and Turkish cuisine,
music, art, history, architecture, and social/cultural life (TMF, 2019a,
p. 22; 2019b, p. 28). Thus, students receive qualified education on
one hand while learning about Turkey in the school atmosphere; they
graduate while getting to know Turkey.
Teaching Language and Culture
Language is the basic component in forming national identity and
consciousness, sharing culture, and being a nation and in this respect is
important for all states. States that are influential at global and regional
178 M. ÇELIK
levels also attach importance to teaching and spreading their language to
create a mutual cultural domain that supports them in the international
arena, both as a political practice and a work of prestige and image.
Villanueva (2015, p. 140) explained the effect of language teaching on
cultural diplomacy at five levels: (i) empathetic in the sense of conveying a
worldview and national character, (ii) sympathetic in terms of literary texts
and aesthetics, (iii) geopolitical in terms of ideological persuasion and
influence, (iv) diplomatic in the sense of its impact on decision-making,
and (v) utilitarian in terms of economic interaction and cooperation.
Language teaching ranks first among the goals and objectives of state-
supported international schools. AEFE mentions teaching and spreading
French; ZfA, German; BSO, English; Confucius Classrooms, Chinese;
and TMF, Turkish in their legislation; many use their native tongue
particularly as the language of instruction in their curriculum.
In international schools, the country of origin’s culture is introduced
to the students with the language. Furthermore, some programs can be
organized in international schools about the national and cultural holidays
of the country of origin and the works of important cultural people such
as poets, writers, and historians. These programs create an image, story,
and knowledge about the country of origin in students’ memories. These
types of cultural programs are a very reasonable and effective method
for promoting the country of origin so that students will become more
involved as they grow up.
Hanban made three critical decisions at the Global Confucius Insti-
tute Conference held in 2013: establishing a Confucius Chinese Studies
plan, appointing permanent academicians to Confucius Institutes, and
adding China Day programs to Confucius Institutes and Classrooms
(Zha, 2013, p. 15). This program includes supporting academicians in
the host country to research in China for Chinese studies for 2 weeks to
10 months through Confucius Institutes and organizing China Days in
Confucius Classrooms. Thus, China Day becomes an important activity
for teaching and transferring Chinese culture and the Chinese language
to K-12 level students of the host country in Confucius Classrooms.
In another example, one of the evaluation criteria in some of the BSO
audit reports titled British Nature of the School. The following criteria
are evaluated under this heading: reflecting the British architectural,
environmental, academic, and organizational structures of the relevant
school; implementing the British national curriculum alongside the local
INTERNATIONAL SCHOOLS IN THE CONTEXT … 179
curriculum of the country the school integrates with; using British termi-
nology in school culture and management; employing teachers who
have British standards and are English-educated; and selecting educa-
tional materials that are from England (BSO, 2021). However, when
examining the reports the BSO made available, no evaluation criterion
under the title British Nature of the School was found in any report.
Other reports lacking this criterion include the aim of promoting basic
British democratic values. However, this goal is included in the docu-
ment Standards of BSOs as prepared by the UK Department of Education
(DfE). This document states that one aims to introduce students to basic
British democratic values in spiritual, ethical, social, and cultural terms
and transfer these values to students (DfE, 2016). In schools that use
the British School sign with the abovementioned criteria, BSO introduces
international students to the English language, culture, traditions, habits,
and social life and teaches British cultural values to international students.
Thus, BSO has become one of the most important instruments of British
cultural diplomacy.
Training of Local Elites
The view that small and elite minorities should rule societies is an issue
that many thinkers have expressed from Plato to the present day. Forming
the elite is within the dynamics of countries with an imperial past and
deep-rooted state tradition and is as close as possible to external influ-
ences. Nevertheless, states that have been under colonial rule for a long
time or under occupation and have just gained their independence are
as open as possible to external influences such as politics, economy, and
education. Considering that the first international schools emerged in
geographies where mercantilist and colonial policies were implemented,
the post-independence political, economic, and military elites of these
countries were composed of local people who had been trained from these
schools; this has brought with it considerable impact on these countries
from the international schools’ country of origin. This effect can be seen
from time to time in politics, economy, and cultural life through the grad-
uates of international schools not only in colonial countries but also in
countries without colonialism or colonization.
The sense of school belonging provided to the students in these
schools enables young people to be educated who are familiar and in tune
180 M. ÇELIK
with the language and culture of the country of origin. Therefore, inter-
national schools instill a different social class, group belonging, and class
consciousness to their local students by applying their identity-building
processes (Breidenstein et al., 2018, p. 162). For these reasons, inter-
national schools can ensure continuous and close relations between the
country of origin and the host country through the elite classes that their
graduates have formed depending on their position in the host country.
Although these schools are few in number, they are an important element
of cultural diplomacy due to the power they gain by training the political
and military elites in the host country.
The formation of political and social elites is closely related to their elite
and privileged status, legitimacy, position in society, and education they
have received. The basic education, language, culture, and art education
they receive are both the source of their privileges and their superiority
in the eyes of other social layers as well as a status symbol for the elite
class. The impact of international schools on the local elite class varies.
International schools provide the opportunity for local elites with strong
political, bureaucratic, military, and economic status to maintain their
current status due to quality education, foreign language learning, the
opportunity to continue their education abroad, and cultural contact with
the country of origin. Sometimes it causes differentiation among elites
and the formation of different elite classes.
However, these schools can also enable the middle class to rise to
the elite class through education. Young people who graduate from
international schools by learning a foreign language can return with
an internationalized elite profile when choosing a university education
abroad (Gardner-McTaggart, 2018, p. 111; Tarc & Tarc, 2014, pp. 41–
42). Due to this attraction, a significant increase has occurred over time
in the demand for local students to study at international schools. In
1989, 80% of the students in international schools were children of expats
(i.e., children of the citizens of the country of origin), while 80% of
the students in these schools in 2015 were children of local families
(Brumming & Keeling, 2013,p.29).
Forgetting the Traces of the Colonialism and Negative Past
The ferocious history of colonialism has led to skepticism about interna-
tional schools in many countries. In schools established by colonial states,
the education provided through the language and religion of the colonial
INTERNATIONAL SCHOOLS IN THE CONTEXT … 181
state has caused the young generation in many countries to change their
religion, to not speak their language, and thus erode their culture. From
the perspective of colonial states, the country that had these schools also
held the host country, its religion, and its future (Bassey, 1999, p. 52).
Fanon (1988) expressed the impact of the colonial era on the language
and culture of the local people through education in the work Black Skin,
White Masks. Frantz Fanon wrote, “The Antillean Negro will gradually
become white in proportion to their skill in using the French language
… Whoever has a command of a language also dominates the implication
and the world expressed in that language” (p. 20).
The former colonial states, which wanted to erase the traces of this bad
past, changed the method, curriculum, and mentality in the international
schools they established in the 1950s. This change, which can be seen
in AEFE, ZfA, and BSO schools, highlight the following points: (i) to
change educational policies of international schools during and after the
colonial period, (ii) to adopt mutual interaction instead of unilateral
transfer in cultural interaction, (iii) to be effective in the process of
state-building after independence, and (iv) to gain new moral values.
The education received in the country-of-origin language in interna-
tional schools opened by colonial states often were accompanied by effects
such as colonization and acceptance of the hierarchy on the local society
as well as learning, assimilating, and internalizing the culture of the colo-
nial state (Kim, 2019, p. 95). For example, French became a mandatory
language in French schools in Algeria, and children were forced to learn
the French language, history, and culture. In fact, in the history lessons
given during this period, Algerians were taught that their ancestors had
been Gauls (Heggoy, 1973, p. 183). In this period, the result that France
expected from its international schools was to transform Africans into
“French with black skin” (Madeira & Correia, 2019, p. 418) or “Africans
who learned to be French” (Kelly, 2000, p. 235).
France, which implemented a centralized and strict education policy in
the colonial period, made three critical changes in its education policy in
the first quarter of the twentieth century. First of all, it abolished school
fees, thus enabling families with no financial means to benefit from educa-
tional institutions. Later, France secularized education, thus removing
education from the monopoly of missionary schools, and worked to win
over the non-Muslim population. Finally, France raised an elite class to
serve in public institutions not by contenting itself with basic educa-
tion but by providing qualified education to some of the local people
182 M. ÇELIK
(Feldman, 2016, p. 36; Garnier & Schafer, 2006, p. 157). In other words,
France started to apply an adaptation process instead of one of assimila-
tion. This change in education policy has had significant effects on the
continuity of today’s Francophone geography. Although today’s Franco-
phone geography was shaped by the policies of the colonial period, an
important reason why France and French can still be effective in this geog-
raphy today is that the French language and culture continue to be taught
in the region through educational institutions such as AEFE.
Instead of the one-sided cultural transfer of the colonial period, France
attempted practices that enable the interaction with the decolonization
process to be mutual. Here, the relationship between the colonialist and
the former exploited state is horizontal, interaction-based, and coopera-
tive rather than vertical, imposing, and hegemonic (Canto & Hannah,
2001, p. 32). Mutual and joint cultural activities serve as an impor-
tant catalyst for creating realistic expectations and relations between the
colonialist and ex-exploited state. This interaction takes place through
activities such as international schools, student and educator exchange,
and mobility in education. The type of relationship that transforms from
a vertical and imposing relationship to a horizontal and mutual one can
strengthen moral values in the political and social stratum of the former
colonial state and encourage ignoring the old negative past.
The continuation of the cultural influence of the colonial states on the
former colonial states was possible not only because of the strict educa-
tional models applied during the colonial period but also because they
set an example for the local elites who wanted to establish a new state
order after independence. International schools such as AEFE, ZfA, and
BSO have also been influential in the post-independence state-building
process.
Education can lead to the preservation, strengthening, and sustain-
ability of old colonial ties. In this respect, education can also be evaluated
as a neo-colonial argument (Canto & Hannah, 2001, p. 29). However,
having generations from international schools with a quality education in
terms of training, culture, skills, and tools removes the doubts about these
schools. The local people with moral values who have graduated from
these schools work in important international institutions and compa-
nies, are influential people in cultural fields, and are successful in sports
competitions. These cause international schools to be adopted by the local
people despite their past harmful traces.
INTERNATIONAL SCHOOLS IN THE CONTEXT … 183
Conclusion
International schools have undergone significant changes in purpose,
institutional structure, target audience, and curriculum since they were
first established. While states established the first international schools,
they mainly provided education to the children of the citizens of the
country of origin using the language and curriculum of the country of
origin. Today, international schools are mostly run by private companies,
provide education in globally influential languages (especially English)
with an internationally accredited curriculum, and have local students. In
international schools where expat children were in the majority in their
early periods, more than 80% of the students are local students. According
to ISC data, while 2000 saw 2584 schools, 969,000 students, 90,000
personnel, and a market value of 5 billion dollars, these figures reached
11,616 schools, 6 million students, 554,000 staff, and a market value of
54 billion dollars in 2020 (ISC, 2021). Aside from this financial volume,
its effects on cultural diplomacy have made international schools attractive
for states as well as an indispensable element of their cultural diplomacy
(e.g., the soft practices of their foreign policies).
In the 1930s, more professional training began in these schools with
the consent of the local people and the language and curriculum of
the country of origin. Thus, generations started to grow who knew the
language and culture of the country of origin. They chose the country of
origin as a target for modernization, quality education, and career plan-
ning. These generations supported the activities of the country of origin
in their own country and established a bond of affection to the country
of origin. Thus, international schools have become an important tool of
cultural diplomacy.
State-supported international schools have been constructed differently
by the countries of origin depending on their developmental conditions
and emergent new needs. As the first implementer of these schools,
France united the international schools it had established at the begin-
ning of the twentieth century under the roof of AEFE, establishing a
wide network of schools abroad that provide education in the French
language and curriculum. On the other hand, Germany gave its diplo-
matic priority to the renewal of its international image and cultural activity
that the Nazi administration had destroyed after World War II. Through
ZfA, which Germany established for this purpose alongside the German
education curriculum, Germany has started to provide education in the
184 M. ÇELIK
host country’s language. Unlike AEFE and ZfA, England has established
an inspection and accreditation system under the Department of Educa-
tion (DfE) responsibility instead of opening international schools affiliated
with its Foreign and Commonwealth Office or DfE. The UK has chosen
to inspect British private school unions and accreditation organizations
such as COBIS, FOBISIA, CIS, and IB through BSO, which the UK
established under DfE, thus establishing a virtual network of international
schools.
China joined the international education sector quite late, in which
France, Germany, and England have been effective. With the Confucius
Institutes that China established, China aims to spread Chinese language
and culture to the world at the K-12 level with the Confucius Classrooms
in higher education. Instead of carrying out international educational
activities with schools or campuses for formal education such as AEFE
and ZfA, China prefers to participate in international formal education
using the physical conditions of local or international schools operating
in the education system of other countries and creating privileged classes
within these schools.
Meanwhile, Turkey is the last country to be involved in the interna-
tional schooling process. The TMF differs from AEFE, ZfA, BSO, and
Confucius Classrooms because Turkey includes local language and culture
in its curriculum. TMF demonstrates positive and successful performances
in the eyes of local people and governments with its multi-language
education consisting of Turkish and at least one foreign language in the
curriculum applied in schools where local teachers teach local culture and
values. TMF displays a profile more suited to its purpose of conciliation
and attraction.
As seen in the examples of AEFE, ZfA, BSO, Confucius Classrooms,
and TMF, states have made special efforts to expand their international
school networks worldwide. The most important reason for this is that
the changes brought about by globalization also affect the dimension
and mentality of inter-state relations. For this reason, attracting and
persuading the international public has become indispensable for many
states today.
States can easily explain their values with their own persuasive and
attractive arguments toward international public opinion. In this regard,
states attach great importance to their contact with the children of the
host country in the international schools they have established abroad.
The reason for this is that these children can be the decision-makers
INTERNATIONAL SCHOOLS IN THE CONTEXT … 185
of tomorrow in political and economic relations, choose the country
of origin for higher education, mediate between the two countries in
commercial activities, and become cultural ambassadors explaining the
realities of the country that established and operates the international
school in the host country where they live. In short, states attach great
importance to international schools to create a supportive international
public opinion.
AEFE, BSO, and ZfA, which come first to mind regarding state-
supported international schools, appear unlikely to be the ones to make
changes in education models and education languages soon. However,
ZfA’s preference for local languages other than German as the language
of instruction in some schools shows that these international school
networks are not entirely closed to change. In addition, the fact that
Confucius Classrooms came to life with furnishings costing only 10,000
dollars and have spread to the world in a short time may cause tradi-
tional international schools to review the million-dollar-plus investment
decisions spent on buildings and complementary physical structures.
With a glonacal outlook, TMF’s sympathy within the host country,
its importance attaches to the local curriculum it reviews according to
global requirements, and multilingual education consisting of Turkish and
foreign languages including the local language can serve as an example for
other state-supported international schools.
The influence international schools have on cultural diplomacy has
become more and more clearly understood with each day. For this
reason, countries that want to be effective on a global and regional scale
will want to establish and operate international schools to the limits of
their economic capacity because countries have the opportunity through
these schools to touch young individuals from other nations, to express
themselves, and to introduce themselves.
References
Agency for French Education Abroad. (2021). Website. https://www.aefe.fr/
agency-french-education-abroad-0
Akgün, B., & Özkan, M. (2020). Turkey’s entrance to international education:
The case of Turkish Maarif Foundation. Insight Turkey, 22(1), 59–70.
Anholt, S. (2003). Brand new justice: The upside of global branding. Butterworth-
Heinemann.
186 M. ÇELIK
Bassey, M. O. (1999). Western education and political domination in Africa: A
study in critical and dialogical pedagogy. Bergin & Garvey.
Breidenstein, G., Forsey, M., La, G. F., Krüger, J. O., & Roch, A. (2018).
Choosing international: A case study of globally mobile parents. In C.
Maxwell, U. Deppe, H. H. Krüger, & W. Helpser (Eds.), Elite education and
internationalisation: From the early years to higher education (pp. 161–180).
Palgrave Macmillan.
British Schools Overseas. (2021). British schools overseas: Accredited schools
inspection reports.https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/british-sch
ools-overseas-inspection-reports/british-schools-overseas-accredited-schools-
inspection-reports
Brumming, N., & Keeling, A. (2013). Charting the growth of international
schools. In R. Pearce (Ed.), International education and schools: Moving
beyond the first 40 years (pp. 25–36). Bloomsbury Academic.
Canto, I., & Hannah, J. (2001). A partnership of equals? Academic collaboration
between The United Kingdom and Brazil. Journal of Studies in International
Education,5(1), 26–41.
Central Agency for German Schools Abroad (ZfA). (2021). Website. https://
www.auswaertiges-amt.de/en/aussenpolitik/themen/kulturdialog/04-sch
ulen/-/227670
Cull, N. J. (2009). Public diplomacy before Gullion: The evolution of a phrase.
In N. Snow & P. M. Taylor (Eds.), Routledge handbook of public diplomacy
(pp. 19–23). Routledge.
de Mejia, A.-M. (2002). Power, prestige and bilingualism: International perspec-
tives on elite bilingual education. Multilingual Matters Ltd.
Department for Education. (2016). Standards for British schools overseas: Depart-
mental advice for British schools overseas, school staff, parents and prospective
parents.https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/sys
tem/uploads/attachment_data/file/572360/BSO_standards_23Nov16.pdf
Dolby, N., & Rahman, A. (2008). Research in international education. Review
of Educational Research, 78(3), 676–726.
Fan, Y. (2010). Branding the nation: Towards a better understanding. Place
Branding and Public Diplomacy, 6(2), 97–103.
Fanon, F. (1988). Siyah deri beyaz maske (C. Koytak, Trans.). Seçkin Yayıncılık.
Feldman, H. (2016). The long shadows of Spanish and French colonial
education. Kyklos, 69(1), 32–64.
Gardner-McTaggart, A. (2018). The promise of advantage: Englishness in IB
international schools. Perspectives: Policy and Practice in Higher Education,
22(4), 109–114.
Garnier, M., & Schafer, M. (2006). Educational model and expansion of
enrollments in Sub-Saharan Africa. Sociology of Education,79(2), 153–176.
INTERNATIONAL SCHOOLS IN THE CONTEXT … 187
Gilboa, E. (2008). Searching for a theory of public diplomacy. The Annals of the
American Academy of Political and Social Science, 616(5), 55–77.
Haigh, A. (1974). Cultural diplomacy in Europe. Council of Europe.
Hanban. (2021a). Programs.http://www.chinese.cn/page/#/pcpage/projec
tlist
Hanban. (2021b). Stats.http://english.hanban.org/node_10971.html
Hayden, M. (2011). Transnational spaces of education: The growth of the
international school sector. Globalisation, Societies and Education,9(2),
211–224.
Hayden, M., & Thompson, J. (1995). International schools and international
education: A relationship reviewed. Oxford Review of Education, 21(3), 327–
345.
Hayden, M., & Thompson, J. (2013). International schools: Antecedents,
current issues and metaphors for the future. In R. Pearce (Ed.), International
education and schools: Moving beyond the first 40 years (pp. 3–24). Bloomsbury.
Heggoy, A. A. (1973). Education in France Algeria: An essay on cultural conflict.
Comparative Education Review, 17 (2), 180–197.
Hill, I. (2001). Early stirrings: The beginnings of the international education
movement. International Schools Journal, 20(2), 11–22.
Hill, I. (2015). What is an international school? Part One. International Schools
Journal, 35(1), 60–70.
Hughes, C. (2020). International schools and global citizenship education. In
A. Akkari & K. Maleq (Eds.), Global citizenship education: Critical and
international perspectives (pp. 177–190). Springer.
˙
Inalcık, H. (2017). Devlet-i Aliyye: Osmanlı ˙
Imparatorlu˘gu üzerine ara¸stırmalar-
I(60th ed.). ˙
I¸s Bankası Kültür Yayınları.
ISC Research. (2021). Data and intel.https://www.iscresearch.com/data
Kelly, G. P. (2000). French colonial education: Essays on Vietnam and West Africa
(D.H.Kelly,Ed.).AMSPressInc.
Kim, H. (2019). How global capital is remaking international education: The
emergence of transnational education corporations. Springer.
Lane, P. (2013). French scientific and cultural diplomacy. Liverpool University
Press.
Leach, R. L. (1969). Schools and their role in the field of international education.
Pergamon Press.
Madeira, A. I., & Correia, L. G. (2019). Colonial education and anticolonial
struggles. In J. L. Ryry & E. H. Tamura (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of the
history of education (pp. 413–427). Oxford University Press.
Manheim, J. B. (1994). Strategic public diplomacy and American foreign policy:
The evolution of influence. Oxford University Press.
Nye, J. J. (1990). Soft power. Foreign Policy, 80(4), 153–171.
188 M. ÇELIK
Nye, J. J. (2003). Amerikan gücünün paradoksu (R. ˙
Inan Aydın, Trans.). Elips
Yayıncılık.
Nye, J. J. (2004). Soft Power: The means of success in world politics. Public Affairs.
Nye, J. J. (2011). The future of power. Public Affairs.
Reuter, T. (2019). German cultural diplomacy in Indonesia: Building cooperation
in a changing world. Social Science Open Access Repository. https://nbn-res
olving.org/urn:nbn:de:0168-ssoar-62399-2
Sall, O. (2016). Chinese soft power in Africa: Case of Senagal. Open Journal of
Social Science, 4, 133–142.
Smart, R. (1971). The goals and definitions of international education: An
agenda for discussion. International Studies Quarterly, 15 (4), 442–464.
Tarc, P., & Tarc, A. P. (2014). Elite international schools in the global
South: Transnational space, class relationalities and the middling international
schoolteacher. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 36(1), 34–52.
Taylor, P. M. (1978). Cultural diplomacy and the British Council: 1934–1939.
British Journal of International Studies, 4(3), 244–265.
Tuch, H. N. (1990). Communicating with the world: U.S. public diplomacy
overseas. Palgrave MacMillan.
Turkish Maarif Foundation. (2019a). Türkiye Maarif Vakfı 2016–2019a özet
faaliyet raporu. (institutional internal document). Author.
Turkish Maarif Foundation. (2019b). E˘gitim ve kültür gezileri. Türkiye Maarif
Vakfı Bülteni, 3(4), 28–29.
Turkish Maarif Foundation. (2021a). Türkiye Maarif Vakfı kanunu. Author.
https://turkiyemaarif.org/page/525-TMF-Kanunu-1s
Turkish Maarif Foundation. (2021b). Türkiye Maarif Vakfı haftalık durum
raporu (Kurum ˙
Içi Özel Doküman). Author.
Turkish Maarif Foundation. (2021c). Türkçenin yabancı dil olarak ö˘gretimi
programı. Matsis Matbaa.
van Ham, P. (2002). Branding territory: Inside the wonderful worlds of PR and
IR theory. Millennium, 31(2), 249–269.
Villanueva, C. (2015). The use of the Spanish language as a cultural diplo-
macy strategy for extending Mexico’s soft power in the United States. Place
Branding and Public Diplomacy, 11(2), 139–147.
Walker, G. (2015). Review of Bunnell, T. the changing face of international
schooling: Implications for theory and practice. Journal of Research in
International education,14(1), 77–80.
Wang, J. (2006). Managing national reputation and international relations in the
global era: Public diplomacy revisited. Public Relations Review, 32(2), 91–96.
Zha, Q. (2013). China’s Confucius institutes: More academic and integrative.
International Higher Education, 71, 15–17.
INTERNATIONAL SCHOOLS IN THE CONTEXT … 189
Open Access This chapter is licensed under the terms of the Creative Commons
Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License (http://
creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/), which permits any noncommer-
cial use, sharing, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long
as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a
link to the Creative Commons license and indicate if you modified the licensed
material. You do not have permission under this license to share adapted material
derived from this chapter or parts of it.
The images or other third party material in this chapter are included in the
chapter’s Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line
to the material. If material is not included in the chapter’s Creative Commons
license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds
the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright
holder.
