The role of community service-learning in international schools: a marginalized approach?

Abstract

International schools have historically grappled with the fundamental dilemma of providing a high-quality curriculum and qualification supporting international mobility, while promoting a culture of peace and understanding. The internationalist (ideological)–globalist (pragmatic) spectrum of approaches can be applied to understand this dilemma. Historically being balanced towards the globalist (pragmatic) end of this spectrum, rapid growth of international education markets can be seen to further marginalize the internationalist (ideological) perspective. Community Service-Learning is a core pedagogical approach of many international schools, grounded in the ideological perspective and supporting the development of international mindedness and global citizenship. This same spectrum is applied in this paper to the Community Service-Learning literature in order to examine how instrumentalist and market forces of globalization are influencing the practice. It is concluded that Community Service-Learning programs in international schools similarly face a reconciliation of a dilemma between ideological and instrumentalist outcomes, with the scale tipped towards the latter.

Introduction

This paper explores how Community Service-Learning (CSL) programs in international schools may be influenced and potentially marginalized through a shift towards globalist education, driven by instrumentalist and market forces. In my 12 years of experience designing and leading a diverse range of local and international CSL programs for international schools, I have witnessed a significant market response to the needs of international schools through the growth of for-profit organizations offering a menu of ‘community-service’ experiences. Coupled with this perceived commercialization of what was originally an ideological and values-driven pedagogical approach, I have also witnessed the formation of a new set of instrumentalist and market-driven motivations for service engagements, which center around individual skill and attribute development, and the ability to market oneself to potential universities and employers. This paper will include an examination of the recent and rapid growth of the international education market as well as the CSL literature, to better understand how the current practice of CSL may be increasingly marginalized by the instrumentalist and market forces of globalization. The fundamental dilemma of international education as presented by Cambridge and Thompson (2004), in their well-established spectrum of educational approaches, acknowledges the internationalist (ideological) approaches at one end and the globalist (pragmatic) approaches at the other end of the spectrum. This same framework has been adopted to critically analyze the service-learning literature through these conflicting lenses of the globalist and pragmatic approaches, to understand how the practice is being influenced by the rapid growth and change in the international education sector.

Defining international schools

There is no universal definition of what constitutes an international school, nor does a governing global body granting the use of the term currently exist (Hayden, 2006), with the title ‘international’ remaining available for any school to adopt as they desire (subject to any national restrictions that might apply). Marshall (2006: 38) describes as ‘the big terminology debate’ the lack of clarity of terminology in this context, in which terms become more diverse in their scope of definition as the variety of international schools expands. From the 1960s through to the early 1990s the number of international schools worldwide was consistently said to number less than 500 worldwide (Jonietz, 1992; Leach, 1969; Mayer, 1968), predominantly made up of what Hayden and Thompson (2013) refer to as Type A traditional international schools, or to a lesser degree Type B ideological international schools. This number has grown more recently to 13,180 international schools around the globe according to ISC Research (2022), of which the vast majority represent a new form of school that Hayden and Thompson (2013) have termed Type C non-traditional international schools. Coinciding with this extraordinary market growth, the diversity of international schooling options is also vastly expanding.

The discourse on what constitutes an international school clearly continues. This paper will adopt the Hayden and Thompson (2013) typology of international schools, selected as it draws upon a broad definition of what constitutes an international school, inclusive of the diversity of schools across the internationalist–globalist spectrum. The adopted definition is guided by the description used by ISC Research, whose data is widely used to inform the international school market, and who deem a school to be international ‘if the school delivers a curriculum . . . wholly or partly in English outside an English-speaking country’ (ISC, 2022). The adoption of this broader description, together with Hayden and Thompson’s (2013) typology, will provide a comprehensive framework to explore and understand how this radical growth is changing the nature and character of international schools, and their ability to develop international mindedness (IM) and global citizenship (GC) through CSL. Hayden and Thompson’s typology may be summarised as followed (2013: 5):

Type A traditional international schools: those established principally to cater for globally mobile expatriate families for whom (for language or other reasons) the local education system is not considered appropriate;

Type B ideological international schools: those established principally on an ideological basis, bringing together young people from different parts of the world to be educated together with a view to promoting global peace and understanding;

Type C non-traditional international schools: established principally to cater for ‘host country nationals’ – the socio-economically advantaged elite of the host country who seek for their children a form of education different from, and perceived to be of higher quality than, that available in the national education system.

The fundamental dilemma of international schools

While the history of international schools is long and storied (Hayden and Thompson, 2008: 9) and the exact origins of international schools are still unclear (Sylvester, 2002), there remains a well-accepted classical view of international education arising from the ashes of the First World War (Hayden, 2011). Early international schools such as Yokohama International School, founded in 1924, or The International School of Geneva, founded in the same year with the support of the newly–formed League of Nations (Cambridge and Thompson, 2004), arose not only in response to a need identified by globally-mobile professionals, but also based on the vision of connecting and shaping young people from around the globe to embody principles of understanding and peace between nations and cultures (Sylvester, 2015). The prevailing underpinnings of traditional international schooling at this stage were recognized as ideologically liberally humanist (Tarc, 2009), or what Cambridge and Thompson (2004) have described as based on an internationalist (ideological) approach to international education. Since these ideological beginnings, international schooling has increasingly grappled with the conflicting pragmatic realities of catering for an elite expatiate and global clientele, who require a high-quality curriculum and globally recognized diploma to secure entrance into universities and job markets around the world. This represents the contradicting globalist (pragmatic) approach in what Cambridge and Thompson (2004) describe as a reconciliation of the fundamental dilemma between the two approaches to international education, most commonly viewed as a spectrum. Community service programs have long been a core aspect of traditional international schools, providing a unique opportunity for the development of international mindedness and global citizenship (Haywood, 2022; Wasner, 2016), which is argued to distinguish international schools from other education providers (Haywood, 2015; Hill, 2012: 246). In my own practice I have experienced a growing reliance on various service-learning programs to provide learning opportunities for international mindedness and global citizenship. At the same time these programs seem to be increasingly driven by pragmatic and globalist market forces. By applying this well-established spectrum of opposing approaches, an examination will be undertaken into how CSL programs in international schools may be influenced by the vast and rapid changes occurring in what has become a global international education industry.

International education as a growing market sector

Disproportionately skewed in more recent years towards the globalist (pragmatic) approach, in recent years the international education spectrum described here has experienced even further movement towards the more pragmatic or instrumentalist end of the international education spectrum (Hayden, 2011). Factors such as increasing global market pressures of competition, standardization and economic choice, trade and cultural exchange, as well as the growth and influence of the transnational capitalist class (Robinson and Sprague, 2018; Sklair, 2000) and the global middle class (Verger et al, 2017), have contributed to an international school boom. Drawing on data provided by ISC Research, the significance of the sector’s growth and influence is evident. According to their July 2022 report, ISC Research data accounts for a total of 13,180 schools. This represents a growth rate of 60% over the previous 10 years, or as Bunnell (2019) has suggested, an astonishing growth rate representing the development of an average of two international schools per day. These schools enroll upward of 5.8 million students and employ over 570,000 teaching faculty annually. As a sector, international schools worldwide generate over USD 53.8 billion in school fees per year (ISC Research, 2022), confirming a radical market change that Bunnell (2022) has termed ‘crypto growth.’ The full impacts of this extraordinary sector growth are as yet unknown, and require significant research attention to understand how it will continue to influence international education at macro policy, local school and program levels.

Some notable sector trends include 64% of all international school enrolments being in the fast-growing Asian international school market, which is divided into two distinct sub-regions: the Middle East with more than 1.72 million students, and the South Asian Region of 659,000 students (Stokes, 2021), whose growth is led by often government-backed education hubs such as Jeju Island’s Global Education City, Kuala Lumpur’s Education City, Myanmar’s Star City and Doha’s Education City. The creation in developing nations of the global south by prestigious British public (independent) schools of what may be described as satellite schools, has also been recognized as a significant trend. This form of education globalization was pioneered by Dulwich College in 1997, building a replica campus in Thailand. Harrow School closely followed suit in 1998, heralding what Bunnell et al (2020) describe as the first of three waves of successive growth in British elite satellite schools, beginning with this first wave of Thailand-based developments in the late-1990s, through the rapid market entry of new schools, to diversification into new geographical areas.

Also of significance is the growth in a new type of Chinese international schools, which has been soaring in popularity in recent years (Wu and Koh, 2022), as well as networks of branded non-autonomous schools worldwide such as the GEMS and Cognita groups (Bunnell, 2022: 146) or the Internationella Engalska Skolan (IES) network in Sweden (IES, 2016). Such networks of schools provide an example of market-driven responses to the increasing demand for international education, resulting in the availability of an increasingly diverse range of educational experiences and program offerings.

Significant global market pressures, growth and rapid changes are resulting in the existence of a more diverse range of ‘international education’ experiences than originally offered by the more ideologically-focused traditional international schools. These more diverse school experiences, whether or not by design, are grounded in the globalist (pragmatic) approach to international education. Originally driven by the necessity to provide a high-quality curriculum to a globally mobile elite who seek access to universities and job markets around the world (Cambridge and Thompson, 2004), and more recently as a market response to the aspiring global middle class of the global south (Verger et al, 2017), this ‘crypto growth’ raises many questions surrounding international schools, their ability to provide an international education, and the specific programs that develop international mindedness and global citizenship. In this paper, I raise the question of how this growth and change may specifically impact the role of community service programs in international schools. Though exactly what constitutes an international school or even an international education remains contentious, it is clear through a review of international school (and International Baccalaureate, as offered in many international schools) guiding statements, marketing publications and websites, that community service plays an important role in the function of both, particularly those offering International Baccalaureate (IB) programs (Roberts, 2009).

Role of the International Baccalaureate (IB)

The IB is one of the most prominent international curriculum organisations, offering a ‘highly regarded quality-assured international education throughout the world’ (Pearce, 2013: xiii). Launched in Geneva in 1968, the pre-university IB Diploma Programme curriculum and associated examinations resulted from the collaborative efforts of leading educators from a small number of international schools, including the International School of Geneva. These educators and institutions shared a similar values-based ideology which came to influence the nature of the IB (Cambridge and Thompson, 2004: 162). At its core, however, can be seen the immediate and fundamental dilemma between providing a high-quality curriculum and diploma that would provide internationally mobile students access to universities and job markets around the world, and the desire to promote a culture of peace and understanding that would help to ensure that the horrors of World War would not be repeated (Boyd, 2013: 120). These sentiments remain integrated in the IB mission which begins with a statement that ‘At our heart we are motivated by a mission to create a better world through education’ before an equally bold aim to ‘develop inquiring, knowledgeable and caring young people who help to create a better and more peaceful world through intercultural understanding and respect’ (IB, 2021a). More recently, the pre-university IB Diploma Programme has been joined by the IB Middle Years Programme (MYP), Primary Years Programme (PYP) and Career-related Programme (CP).

Role of international mindedness and global citizenship

Two complementary concepts of international education best represent these ideological aspirations in practice: global citizenship (GC) and international mindedness (IM) have both been widely used to describe the attributes and profile of an international school graduate (Haywood, 2022: 26). IM and GC are closely connected concepts often used interchangeably in practice, IM involving the appreciation of cultural diversity and fostering intercultural understanding, contributing to a peaceful global society (Hill, 2012; Haywood, 2015), while GC emphasises awareness of global issues and encourages active participation in creating a sustainable and equitable world (UNESCO, 2020; Haywood, 2022). Together, they form the foundation of values-based outcomes in international education.

It is argued that it is a values-based education resulting in outcomes such as the development of IM and GC that differentiates an international school from any other form of school (Haywood, 2015; Hill, 2012: 246). This is an argument that can be corroborated by reviewing the guiding statements of any international school, which will more than likely include values-based statements, if not directly referring to IM, GC and service. Whether or not one agrees with the notion that international schools are differentiated by their specific focus on values-based education, the centrality of IM, GC and the specific programs that support this form of learning is clearly aligned with the ideological end of the international education spectrum. CSL, often connected to curriculum programs such as the Service as Action (SA) component of the IB Middle Years Programme, and the Creativity, Activity, Service (CAS) component of the IB Diploma Programme, play a significant role in developing IM and a sense of GC at many international schools. For example, as one of three essential elements of the IB Diploma Programme, CAS is based on a broad experiential learning approach designed to ‘encourage the transformation of children into adults who will participate in creating a better, more peaceful world through intercultural understanding’ (IB, 2019), with a requirement that students engage in each of the three strands of Creativity, Activity and Service, as well as an extended and culminating CAS project. Creativity requires engagement in the arts and other creative thinking experiences, while Activity requires an ongoing commitment to physical exertion that both contributes to a healthy lifestyle and complements academic work, and Service is collaborative and reciprocal community engagement that is unpaid and voluntary, leading to student learning and response to an authentic need (IB, 2019). The seemingly central and traditional role of service-learning, GC and community engagement is evident through their significant and explicit role in the constitution of IB and international school guiding statements in their marketing, publications and websites (Roberts, 2009).

In addition to the clear mission of the IB, other highly influential organizations in international education also place GC and IM as central to their function. The Council of International Schools (CIS), for instance, a leading authority on international school accreditation and school improvement processes, adopts a vision centered around the development of global citizenship: ‘To inspire the development of global citizens through high-quality international education: connecting ideas, cultures, and educators from every corner of the world’ (CIS, 2021), a vision that is underpinned by four drivers for international school improvement, one of which relates to how effectively the school in question ‘develops global citizenship’ (CIS, 2021: 4). Likewise, Global Citizenship Education is a key strategic area of focus for UNESCO, which has released detailed frameworks for the implementation of Global Citizenship Education (UNESCO, 2015) and more recently Education for Sustainable Development (UNESCO, 2020). The OECD has joined this movement of driving a contemporary internationalist (ideological) education agenda with their framework for Teaching Global Competencies in a Rapidly Changing World (Asia Society and OECD, 2018). In this rapidly changing and globalized world, young people are increasingly connected with each other and the world around them, with the idea of global citizenship weaving together the future of young people with the future of the world (Hayden et al, 2020: 589). It is the specific learning programs supporting IM and GC such as those based on a service-learning approach that encourage active engagement with social and environmental issues of local and global importance (UNESCO, 2017: 16).

As the international education landscape becomes increasingly pragmatic and market-driven, and the understanding of IM and GC is further conceptualized and implemented in practice, many questions are raised regarding how this affects pedagogical practice. The CSL approach, which has been an integral element of an international education in different types of international schools, is no exception. How this significant and pragmatic market growth will affect the role of CSL programs is not yet understood. This paper will now explore the prominent literature surrounding ‘service’ programs in international schools, before adopting the internationalist-globalist framework as the basis for discussing how the values, aims and practice of CSL are being impacted and even marginalized through a shift towards a globalist (pragmatic) perspective.

Community service-learning in international schools

Kolb’s original 1984 experiential-learning cycle is said to remain the most widely adopted and influential theory of its kind to date (Seaman et al, 2017: 3). This theory has laid a foundation for discourse, research and theory development in a variety of forms of experiential-learning, including the three main categories of internships, cooperative education and of course service-learning, as classified by Moore (2010), which can be expanded to include the likes of study abroad programs, community-based research, volunteerism and practical placements (Lim and Bloomquist, 2015). As is well-established in literature, the values and objectives of developing IM and GC underpin the guiding philosophies of international schools that offer a truly international education, particularly any school that adopts any of the IB programmes (Haywood, 2015; Hill, 2012: 246). The concept of ‘taking action’ is both a core component of the IB and a key outcome of 21^st century international education, which leads to pedagogies of authentic community engagement and service (Michetti et al, 2015). Davies’ (2006) research suggests that the two ‘school-based predictors of whether people become active citizens and actually ‘Take Action’ are (a) involvement in school democracy and (b) experience of doing some form of community service.’ Community service has historically played an important role in IB and international school programs and philosophies, providing a learner-centered approach to developing the attitudes and attributes of international mindedness and global citizenship (Wasner, 2016).

Community Service-Learning is also referred to in different contexts as Academic Service Learning (Furco, 2010; Hatziconstantis and Kolympari, 2016), Service as Action, or Creativity, Activity, Service (IB, 2019) and most commonly as Service-Learning. For this paper, the term Community Service-Learning (CSL) has been adopted since the specific practice of serving local and global communities is such a central focus for international schools in particular. CSL can be described as an innovative experiential-learning strategy that links meaningful community service with student learning and a process of reflection (Hatziconstantis and Kolympari, 2016). Specific service projects should be purposefully community-oriented, with both planning and implementation occurring in close partnership with community members, to ensure a genuine community need is being served. Local and global communities become a learning resource whereby the out-of-school context offers students authentic learning opportunities to develop knowledge and skills, and implement solutions to real-world problems. The approach takes an intentional shift from the role of students as ‘recipients’ of learning and assistance to one of being an active producer in the learning process and provider of aid in the community (Furco, 2010). Yorio and Ye (2012: 11) offer a concise definition that ‘Service learning is, therefore, experiential learning conducted in the context of a community setting.’ It is a pedagogical approach celebrated for its positive impacts on students’ development of character, social responsibility, academic achievement and vocational development, often referred to as a transformative process (Furco and Root, 2010). Transformative for whom exactly is a question that has continually been raised in my own practice and which this paper will further examine.

There is significant empirical evidence to suggest that a well-developed and well-delivered CSL program can lead to improved academic achievement (Furco and Root, 2010; Davila and Mora, 2007; Klute and Billig, 2002; Kraft and Wheeler, 2003), improved student engagement in school and learning (Brown et al, 2005; Melchior, 1998; Scales et al, 2000), enhanced civic responsibility and citizenship (Kahne and Sporte, 2008), and enhanced personal and social skills (Billig et al, 2008; Boyd, 2001; Ladewig and Thomas, 1987; Martin et al, 2006). This growing body of research is also supported by several meta-analytic studies on community service-learning resulting in varying but predominantly very positive support for its role and impact in education (see, eg, Andrews, 2007; Celio et al, 2011; Conway et al, 2009; Stewart and Wubbena, 2015; Weiler et al, 1998; Yorio and Ye, 2012).

While the empirical evidence behind CSL is strong, demonstrating the transformative potential of these programs, returning to the question of exactly who it is transformative or even beneficial for, one can clearly see a pattern of transformative benefits targeting those supposedly providing the service. Positive outcomes for students’ academics, social and emotional development, and increasingly positive attitudes towards self, school, and learning all tend to be self-serving outcomes. The community service literature acknowledges this challenge of ensuring authentic reciprocity, where each of the participants benefits in a meaningful way, while also cautioning practitioners that not all service is equal (Furco and Root, 2010). The focus for this discussion, however, is not on how best to implement CSL in international schools, but rather to explore how the philosophy and practice is being marginalized through a shift towards instrumentalism, driven by global market pressures. To accomplish this, an analysis of recent CSL literature will now be conducted through the conflicting lenses of internationalist (ideological) and globalist (pragmatic) perspectives. This choice of methodology provides a new approach to interpreting the current service-learning body of literature, contributing to an under-researched discourse on service-learning in international schools.

Community-service as a spectrum of approaches (internationalist–globalist)

There is a well-established understanding of the growing marketisation of international schools, best represented in the extreme growth of Type C non-traditional international schools that are predominantly privately owned, fee-paying, and cater to a local and aspirational global middle class (Bunnell, 2022; Robinson and Sprague, 2018; Sklair, 2000; Verger et al, 2017). There is also a well-established understanding that the growing diversity of international schools results in a broader range of international education experiences (Hayden, 2011), some of which may lack ‘legitimacy’ to their claim to be truly international (Bunnell et al, 2016). This diverse range of experiences can all be argued to sit somewhere on a spectrum of approaches, between the extremes of an internationalist (ideological) or globalist (pragmatic) approach to international education (Hayden and Thompson, 2008). The spectrum represents a fundamental dilemma for international schools, in which specific programs and pedagogical approaches, such as CSL, can be placed and shifted or repositioned along the spectrum over time, based on various factors (Bunnell, 2021a). The array of research literature suggests that CSL is a successful and empirically backed pedagogical approach (Furco and Root, 2010) originating at the ideological end of the spectrum and providing specific and unique opportunities to develop the attitudes and attributes of IM and GC (Davies, 2006; Wasner, 2016). The evidence supporting CSL is strong, and the ideology matches with the foundational mission and vision of many international schools, as well as the IB, CIS and OECD, and their initiatives to develop IM and GC. Yet, when examined through the lens of the internationalist-globalist spectrum, research suggests that CSL, along with other aspects of an ideologically-driven international education, are being marginalized and reframed in favor of globalist and pragmatic outcomes. Through the lens of these two contradictory approaches to international education, the following discussion will examine the extent of this shift towards instrumentalist learning outcomes driven by market forces.

CSL through the internationalist (ideological) lens

This section critically examines key CSL literature through a values-based internationalist (ideological) lens, beginning with the well-established and traditional Type A international schools. These schools have long harbored a liberally humanist ideology (Tarc, 2009), driven by the internationalist (ideological) end of the spectrum of approaches. These idealistic philosophical underpinnings have been supported by bold mission and vision statements from international schools and curriculum and accreditation bodies alike that unapologetically endeavor to promote international peace, intercultural understanding, environmental stewardship and social justice (Boyd, 2013; Hill, 2012; Roberts, 2009). The facilitation of long-term community-service, environmental stewardship and charitable work, all through an action-oriented learning framework, has helped lead to the development of IM and GC (Bunnell, 2021b). Such schools have historically promoted community service and action through character-forming engagements that develop aspects of integrity, respect, empathy, tolerance, compassion and a sense of global citizenship, which can be said to represent the essence of IM (Hill, 2012). CSL, often represented in the IB Diploma form of CAS, is designed to encourage transformative participation to endeavor to promote a more peaceful and sustainable world (IB, 2019). These aims clearly align with the concerns for the moral development of individuals through the formation of positive attitudes towards peace, the environment, international and intercultural understanding, and global citizenship (Cambridge and Thompson, 2004: 164).

Some evidence suggests that student participants in CSL view their role through an idealistic-humanitarian lens, perceiving the act of service as ‘selfless offering of oneself to interact with the world within a humanistic context’ (Hatziconstantis and Kolympari, 2016: 12). The character traits noted by Hill (2012) such as empathy, respect, compassion and a sense of global citizenship are central to this view. However, as with international schools themselves, CSL programs face a dilemma of conflicting aims and approaches, with students also affiliating this internationalist or idealistic-humanitarian view with notions of perceived heroism and instrumentalist outcomes based on personal development and self-improvement (Hatziconstantis and Kolympari, 2016: 12). A reconciliation of these often conflicting approaches to CSL is inevitable. However, as research suggests, there is currently a more significant focus on the instrumentalist outcomes of improved social skills, academic performance (Celio et al, 2011) and attitudes towards self, school and learning (Conway et al, 2009). Returning to the key question stemming from my own practice, this does confirm a transformative potential for individual program participants, though it leaves unanswered whether this transformative potential extends to the community partners being served.

The work of Wasner (2016) identifies a potentially more impactful approach that she terms Critical Service Learning (not to be confused with Community Service-Learning), which is claimed to more truly support the necessary moral development and formation of IM and GC commonly advocated by proponents of CSL. Wasner (2016) argues that a more participatory approach can help students and educators to adopt a more critical mindset and truly question the inequalities in the world around them, starting with their own privilege. This critical service-learning approach involves the engagement of students and teachers as collaborative researchers who endeavor to create together new knowledge and understandings about IM and GC, resulting in authentic learning at the internationalist (ideological) end of the Cambridge and Thompson framework. Critical Service Learning offers a promising approach to balance the instrumentalist pressures on international education and community service-based programs, though it requires further empirical research to better understand the long-term impacts on the development of IM and GC ideals.

CSL through the globalist (pragmatic) lens

Compared to analysis of the CSL literature through an internationalist (ideological) lens, there is an abundance of relevant research and articles that embody a globalist (pragmatic) perspective. Starting with the broadening rationale for a school’s adoption of the term ‘international’ in its title (Hayden and Thompson, 2013), likewise, the rationale for a school’s adoption of one or more of the IB programmes has also been said to change, embracing IB not ‘because they are internationalist, but because, in some cases, they wish to become internationalist.’ It is also argued that schools that adopt IB programmes are now more concerned with curriculum quality, reputation and the IB Diploma’s global acceptability for college admission, rather than its fundamental ideological mission (Boyd, 2013: 121). When we examine recent research on CSL in an international school context, there is growing evidence to suggest that the culture and philosophy of community service is increasingly being driven by these same instrumentalist and globalist pressures. Empirical evidence derived from longitudinal studies on the aforementioned CAS element of the IB Diploma Programme suggests that an important impact relates to the development of neoliberal values and principles in individuals. These include an emphasis on free markets and choice, individual responsibility and economic drivers, rather than only on the values of international mindedness and being globally responsible citizens (Hayden and McIntosh, 2018). This notion has been supported throughout recent literature, which exhibits a growing influence of instrumentalist forces driven by the growth and marketisation of international education, where pragmatic benefits to the individual increasingly appear to be the core driver of CSL. The transformative potential and ideological underpinnings are still relevant, though seemingly becoming a marginalized interest.

It is said that volunteering in the community is more attractive to students and is taken more seriously when they earn academic credits for this work (Bringle and Hatcher, 1996: 231). This aligns with the research of Hatziconstantis and Kolympari (2016) whose findings suggest that students have a dominant utilitarian-instrumentalist conceptualization of volunteering as a self-serving endeavor, the focus of which is increasingly on instrumental outcomes such as academic performance, university entrance, and the development of personal attributes and skills. The implications of this can be described as an ideological shift towards ‘meritocratic competition based on educational continuity’ (Hatziconstantis and Kolympari, 2016: 13), which serves a rapidly growing and transient global middle class in what has been termed the ‘global knowledge economy’ (Cambridge, 2010). It could also be seen as compatible with Haywood’s (2015) analysis of the ‘global competition mindset’ and aligns with the rapid ‘crypto growth’ of particularly Type C non-traditional international schools that are driven by market pressures (Bunnell, 2022). Drawing a specific focus on the CAS element of the IB Diploma Programme, Hayden and McIntosh (2018) question the programme’s transformative potential when the implementation is superficial, which as suggested in the research findings of Hatziconstantis and Kolympari (2016) is often the case. Students’ motivations prioritize academic results and access to higher education and job markets. These claims add to a continued debate surrounding the long-term effects of CAS, raising questions surrounding the transformative potential of approaches to experiential learning that are driven by instrumentalist forces and self-serving motivations.

A pattern begins to emerge in the empirical research base in which intrinsic or moral motives, and the drive to truly serve a community in need, are subsequent to the current climate of accountability and assessment-driving academic motives for CSL. Furco (2013) claims that such instrumentalist market pressures require more substantial and more convincing evidence of the direct links to academic performance to support further institutionalization of service-learning in schools. These academic motives are linked to competitive entrance requirements for global higher education institutions and prestigious positions in the global job market. Afzal and Hussain’s (2020) entire research into more inclusive service learning models was based on the fact that many schools and universities now include community service in their admissions process: a concrete example of the motivations for engaging in community service shifting to the globalist (pragmatic) end of the spectrum. This connection is supported by a growing perception that international service and study abroad programs ‘make impressive additions to an international CV’, supporting international school students’ applications to premium higher education institutions and global companies (Hayden and McIntosh, 2018: 404). A clear thread can arguably be drawn between the engagement of international school students in international community service programs and access to prestigious and high-paying jobs in the global market, which clearly aligns with pragmatic and globalist motivations for undertaking service-based work.

Reflecting on current trends and relevant literature, it is reasonable to suggest that the philosophy and practice of CSL in international schools is influenced by the wider marketisation and globalization of international education. Significant evidence, including multiple meta-analysis, supports the vast learning benefits of CSL (Furco and Root, 2010), as well as the transformative potential when well-planned, well-executed and ‘motivated by intentional change, or when collaborative practices are permitted’ (Hayden and McIntosh, 2018: 410). These benefits do, however, seem to more significantly and intentionally benefit the individual, through helping ‘students become more participatory, more adventurous, better organized, more open-minded, more mature, more tolerant and caring, and to have broader perspectives, increased self-knowledge and more understanding of people, as well as improved leadership skills’ (Hayden et al, 2020: 596), all of which can be truly transformative for the individual serving, though not so much for those being served, because the outcomes are centred on the development of the individual rather than the community. Valid questions are raised concerning the ability of an international school’s service-based programs to influence lasting changes that promote a better, more peaceful and sustainable world. A picture begins to emerge of the reconciliation between the two conflicting approaches to CSL in international schools. Aligned with the significant growth in the global international education market, what can be described as a utilitarian-instrumentalist (Hatziconstantis and Kolympari, 2016) or globalist (pragmatic) (Cambridge and Thompson, 2004) approach to CSL is at present seemingly the more dominant force, marginalizing the ideological underpinnings of IM and GC in favor of instrumentalist and self-serving aims.

Instrumentalism through ritualism and the formation of class solidarity

A newly theorized connection has been made between the traditional community service engagements of Type A traditional international schools and the formation of a class consciousness. Employing Basil Bernstein’s Sociology of the School framework, Bunnell (2021b) examines the ‘expressive culture’ and formation of class identity and solidarity through rituals and character formation. It becomes evident that the CSL programs of elite international schools can be viewed as an interaction ritual, contributing to the development of class identity and solidarity. This class formation then leads to exclusive opportunities, and ‘acts to deliver and secure advantage, whilst conveying a sense of status, distinction, and class-consciousness’ (2021b: 252). Such a class views themselves as internationally minded global citizens who are globally mobile and concerned with global issues such as environmental sustainability, social injustice and inequalities (Bunnell et al, 2022: 713). The undertaking of group-oriented and often large-scale and overseas service activities has the potential to become an ‘interaction ritual.’ This is explained as a build-up of ‘positive emotional energy which in the long run can be released, to facilitate action and service’ (Bunnell, 2021b: 264). Over time, these experiences have become a normative pillar (or ritual) of most elite traditional international schools. CSL is deeply reflected upon and celebrated throughout schools, allowing students to come away with a sense of shared experience and enthusiasm. This can lead to a form of ‘collective memory’ that is shared by members of this elite class of international school graduates, helping to consolidate the importance of their social class identity (Roediger and Abel, 2015).

Instrumentalist values become evident when applying the internationalist-globalist framework to CSL, as a form of ritualism that influences class identity and solidarity. Once again, the practice appears transformative for those serving rather than the community being served. Ultimately, education from Type A traditional international schools offers the formation of class identity and solidarity, which in turn leads to exclusive education and career opportunities, and access to exclusive networks. The connection with CSL programs providing a platform for class formation is not difficult to hypothesize, though undoubtedly requires further empirical research (Bunnell et al, 2022: 715).

An internationalist (ideological) renaissance?

The growth and marketisation of international education is undeniable (Bunnell, 2022; Hayden, 2011), resulting in a more instrumentalist and pragmatic perspective on international schooling that can be seen to impact the driving philosophies and motivations for CSL (Furco and Root, 2010; Hatziconstantis and Kolympari, 2016). There is however a promising and growing global movement towards Education for Sustainable Development. The United Nations 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDG) are at the center of this movement, with SDG 4 focusing specifically on the role of Quality Education (UNESCO, 2020). The specific targets of this goal are, however, significantly utilitarian in nature, offering limited opportunity for truly transformative change, with the exception of Target 4.7 (Schulte, 2022: 6).

The UN is not alone in this movement towards a more ideologically rooted education that adequately prepares young people for a global, sustainable and rapidly changing world. The United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) self-describes as ‘a specialized agency of the United Nations aimed at promoting world peace and security through international cooperation in education, arts, sciences and culture’ (UNESCO, 2020). With education acknowledged as its primary current focus due to its position as a ‘basic human right and the foundation on which to build peace and drive sustainable development’, UNESCO has developed an Education for Sustainable Development roadmap. This framework provides the direction for systems-based changes at international, national and local levels of education, including the adoption of action-oriented and innovative pedagogies that ensure students develop the knowledge, skills and attributes to take transformative action to build a more sustainable future (UNESCO, 2020: 2–3). Likewise, the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) – an intergovernmental organization developed to overcome the vast array of challenges arising through globalization, evidently including those of the global education market – has developed a similar framework that prioritizes education for what they term Global Competencies.

Global Competencies, as with Education for Sustainable Development, align strongly with the moral, environmental and humanitarian foundations of the internationalist (ideological) perspective. They encourage taking action for the collective well-being and sustainable development of society and the planet (Asia Society and OECD, 2018: 5). The commitment to better understanding the relationship between global competencies and education can be demonstrated through the OECD’s Program for International Student Assessment (PISA) which now tests for global competencies alongside reading, mathematics and science (OECD, 2018). Service-learning is explicitly recognized as one of the necessary pedagogies to achieve this vision for the education of globally competent youth: a notion that supports a renewed importance placed upon the development of IM and GC, through CSL programs such as the CAS component of the IB Diploma (Asia Society and OECD, 2018).

Whether these bold policy movements from international and intergovernmental organizations have the necessary support and momentum to drive a potential ‘renaissance’ (perhaps better phrased as a ‘resistance’) to the neoliberal trends of the rapidly changing international education sector, is yet to be seen. It does however present a transformative educational agenda that is firmly anchored in the internationalist (ideological) perspective, which prioritizes forms of experiential and service-learning aimed at the development of IM and GC.

Limitations

Although the Cambridge and Thompson framework is well-established, it has never to my knowledge been applied to examine the nature of CSL programs in a rapidly changing international education landscape. Since the framework’s inception in 2004, the landscape has undergone significant ‘crypto growth’ (Bunnell, 2022) and is now almost unrecognizable (Brummitt and Keeling, 2013). Revisiting and paying homage to this idea of a fundamental dilemma of conflicting approaches to international education, Bunnell (2021a) posits that it is time to reconsider this fundamental dilemma through a contemporary lens that accounts for the new ‘depth’ and variety of international school experiences. This leads to a prediction that ‘a fragmentation of the [international education] field seems inevitable at some point in the future’ (2021a: 147), which would see the globalist and market-driven sector diverge in its philosophies and operations from the traditional ideological foundations of international education. I argue that the justification to adopt and apply this framework in a new examination of CSL at the organizational and program level remains strong. As also acknowledged by Bunnell (2021a: 147), the fundamental dilemma still endures, and despite calls for new models and applications, none yet exist with comparable theoretical foundations. By critically applying this well-accepted framework to the CSL literature, this work has made a significant contribution to an under-researched discourse on service-learning in international schools.

Conclusions

Experiential learning in the form of CSL is a core pedagogy of many international schools, especially those offering programmes of the IB (Hill, 2012; IB, 2019). It is a pedagogy deeply intertwined with the philosophical ideals of the internationalist (ideological) or idealistic-humanitarian approaches to international education, which provides a key avenue for the necessary development of international mindedness and global citizenship (Hatziconstantis and Kolympari, 2016; Haywood, 2015). CSL, as a broadly defined experiential learning approach, benefits from significant empirical research that supports its positive learning outcomes (Furco and Root, 2010; Davila and Mora, 2007; Klute and Billig, 2002; Kraft and Wheeler, 2003), though when examined through the lens of Cambridge and Thompson’s (2004) internationalist-globalist spectrum, the literature presents a significant marginalization of the internationalist (ideological) philosophical underpinnings of CSL in favor of a globalist approach driven by instrumentalist and market forces (Bringle and Hatcher, 1996: 231; Bunnell, 2021a; Hatziconstantis and Kolympari, 2016). Exactly how this idea interacts with the changing landscape of international education and the growth of the Type C non-traditional international schools is yet to be theorized. There is, however, a clear alignment between the shifting balance of the wider international education sector and CSL programs towards the globalist (pragmatic) end of the spectrum, providing an opportunity for future research.

There is yet hope for those advocating a return to an international education grounded in internationalist (ideological) values, being led by international and intergovernmental organizations and policymakers such as the OECD, UNESCO, the IB and CIS. Adopting various terms and frameworks, they all advocate an educational approach ideologically centered around morality and responsibility for the planet and its inhabitants. Although driven by a global crisis different from the atrocities of the world war that profoundly influenced the initial development of an ideologically- and internationally-based form of education, this movement may come to represent a ‘renaissance’ of internationalist values, or perhaps a more appropriately termed ‘resistance’ to the instrumentalist outcomes of market-driven international education. Whether these movements towards an education for global citizenship, intercultural understanding, human rights, equality and environmental sustainability will have any deep-rooted and continued influence is yet to be seen. For now, they provide some resistance to the overwhelming instrumentalist forces impacting international education and CSL.

Reflecting on these overwhelming forces, Bunnell (2021a: 146) posits that ‘over time a picture is likely to emerge whereby most international schools are positioned towards the globalist/pragmatic end of the spectrum, whilst a minority of schools will be positioned within the reconciliation area (the middle ground), and even fewer will be placed at a discernible ideological point in the spectrum.’ It is reasonable to suggest that CSL and other programs for international mindedness and global citizenship will share a similar fate, being marginalized to a minority of schools maintaining an ideological approach. To conclude, I will draw upon Cambridge and Thompson’s (2004: 164) original proposition that ‘international education, as currently practised, is the reconciliation of a dilemma between ideological and pragmatic interests’. After adopting their framework to examine the relevant service-learning literature, I propose that Community Service-Learning programs, as currently practiced in international schools, similarly face a reconciliation of a dilemma between ideological and instrumentalist interests, with the scale currently clearly tipped towards the latter.