Care Versus Market Logics in International Schools
A Conceptual Model for Understanding Inclusion, Ethics, and Stakeholder Experience
Introduction
International schools occupy a complex
and increasingly contested position within global education. While frequently
portrayed as cosmopolitan, inclusive, and values-driven, these institutions
also operate within highly competitive transnational education markets
(Bunnell, 2019; Hayden & Thompson, 2013). In recent decades, the expansion
of for-profit international school chains has amplified the influence of
market-based rationalities, altering definitions of success, resource
allocation, and conceptions of learners (Ball, 2012; Wilkins, 2020). This
development raises critical questions regarding the capacity of international schools,
particularly those motivated by profit, to function as authentic caring
communities for all stakeholders.
This essay presents a conceptual model
of Care versus Market Logics in international schools, positing that these
competing institutional logics fundamentally shape experiences of inclusion,
belonging, and exclusion. Drawing on care ethics, neoliberal critiques of
education, and inclusive education theory, the model provides a framework for
analysing how international schools navigate ethical commitments amid commercial pressures. It is argued that although care and market logics
frequently coexist, their relative dominance significantly influences the
experiences of students, educators, and school communities.
The Marketisation of
International Schooling
The global expansion of international
schools has increasingly aligned the sector with neoliberal policy trends that
frame education as a private good rather than a public or moral endeavour
(Ball, 2003, 2012). In many contexts, international schools operate as
corporate entities, governed by boards accountable to investors, shareholders,
or parent companies rather than local communities (Bunnell et al., 2016).
Within this paradigm, schools are positioned as service providers competing for
enrolments, reputation, and market share.
Market logics prioritise efficiency,
growth, performativity, and measurable outcomes (Ball, 2003). In international
schools, this is often evident in an emphasis on examination results,
university placements, campus expansion, and branding. While such priorities
may contribute to financial sustainability, they also risk narrowing schools'
educational mission and redefining students as customers or performance
indicators rather than relational subjects (Wilkins, 2017).
Marketisation fundamentally alters
decision-making processes. Resource allocation is increasingly linked to return
on investment, and inclusive practices, especially those necessitating
specialist support, are frequently regarded as costs rather than ethical
imperatives (Slee, 2011). Within this context, tensions between market and care
logics become most apparent.
Care Ethics and the
Moral Purpose of Schooling
In contrast to market rationalities, care
ethics frames education as an inherently relational and moral practice
(Noddings, 2005, 2013). Within this perspective, schools function not only as
sites of knowledge transmission but as communities where care, trust,
attentiveness, and responsiveness are essential to human flourishing. A caring
school community is defined by enduring relationships, recognition of
individual needs, and an ethical commitment to the well-being of all members.
Noddings (2005) asserts that care
loses its ethical integrity if it is selectively applied or instrumentalised.
Conditional care, extended solely to those who are easy to teach, inexpensive
to support, or beneficial to institutional reputation, does not constitute
genuine care in a moral sense. Tronto (2013) expands on this argument by
emphasising the political dimensions of care, illustrating how power dynamics
determine whose needs are acknowledged and whose are marginalised.
When applied to international schools,
care ethics necessitates a critical examination of institutional practices that
privilege certain learners over others. This perspective foregrounds questions
such as: Who receives care? Under what conditions? At whose expense?
The Conceptual Model:
Care vs Market Logics
The Care vs Market Logics model
conceptualises international schools as operating within a dynamic tension
between two competing institutional orientations.
The Care Logic is rooted in relational
ethics, inclusive education, and moral responsibility. It conceptualises
education as a public and ethical good, regards students as whole individuals
with diverse needs, and prioritises inclusion, well-being, and professional
trust. Decision-making within a care logic is guided by considerations of
justice, responsiveness, and ethical appropriateness for current community
members.
In contrast, Market Logic is based on
economic rationality and neoliberal governance. It treats education as a
commodity, positions students as customers or assets, and prioritises
efficiency, growth, and reputational outcomes. Decision-making is primarily
motivated by financial sustainability, competitive positioning, and risk
management.
The model suggests that international
schools exist along a continuum between these logics, resulting in three broad
institutional zones: ethically coherent caring communities, hybrid or contested
spaces, and market-dominant educational enterprises.
Zone 1: Ethically
Coherent Caring Communities
In this zone, care logic predominates
and is structurally embedded in governance, policy, and practice. Inclusion is
regarded as a non-negotiable ethical commitment rather than a marketing tool.
Schools allocate resources to learning support, pastoral care, and staff
well-being, even when these investments do not produce immediate financial
returns.
Such schools frequently implement
participatory leadership models, providing educators with professional autonomy
and moral agency (Starratt, 2004). Stakeholders report a strong sense of
belonging and trust, and care is distributed equitably rather than strategically.
These contexts are typically associated with non-profit or values-driven hybrid
schools, although they are uncommon in highly commercialised markets.
Zone 2: Hybrid and
Contested Spaces
The second zone constitutes the most
prevalent configuration among contemporary international schools. In this
context, care and market logic coexist in persistent tension. Schools
articulate inclusive values and caring rhetoric yet operate under financial and
reputational constraints that restrict the realisation of these commitments.
Within these contexts, inclusion may
be conditional, fragile, or inconsistently applied. Students with additional
needs may remain enrolled but receive diminished support, experience
marginalisation, or encounter subtle pressure to leave the school. Educators
frequently experience moral distress as they attempt to reconcile professional
ethics with institutional directives influenced by market imperatives
(Hargreaves, 2001).
This hybrid space is marked by ethical
ambiguity. While care exists, it is constrained, and the school's identity
fluctuates between community and enterprise. The model indicates that, in the
absence of intentional ethical leadership, schools in this area are susceptible
to a gradual shift toward market dominance.
Zone 3:
Market-Dominant Educational Enterprises
In the third zone, market logic
supersedes care commitments. Growth, branding, and performance metrics serve as
the principal drivers of institutional decision-making. Students are valued
based on their contributions to examination results, university placements, or
fee revenue, while those who disrupt efficiency or profitability are
marginalised.
Exclusion in these contexts is
frequently subtle rather than overt (Slee, 2011). Students may remain enrolled
but lack adequate support, voice, or a sense of belonging. Care becomes
symbolic, referenced in marketing materials but absent from daily experience.
Under these conditions, the assertion that the school operates as a caring
community is ethically indefensible.
Implications for
Stakeholders and Inclusion
The Care vs Market Logics model
demonstrates that inclusion is not solely a pedagogical concern but also a
structural and ethical issue. When market logics predominate, individuals with
the least market power—such as neurodiverse learners, students requiring
additional support, and educators advocating for inclusion—are particularly
susceptible to marginalisation.
For school leaders, the model
underscores the necessity of ethical coherence. Assertions of care should be
substantiated through governance structures, resource allocation, and
accountability mechanisms. For researchers, the model provides a framework for
analysing stakeholder narratives and institutional practices within
interpretivist and critical paradigms.
Repositioning AI
Within the Conceptual Model
Integrating
AI governance into the Care vs Market Logics model reveals that AI is not a
neutral mediator between care and commerce but a force multiplier that tends to
amplify whichever logic dominates institutional governance. In care-dominant
contexts, AI may be constrained by ethical oversight, professional judgment,
and inclusive policy frameworks. In hybrid or market-dominant schools, however,
AI systems are more likely to entrench exclusionary practices under the guise
of objectivity and innovation.
The model, therefore, positions AI governance as a mediating layer between institutional logic and stakeholder experience. Where care logic governs AI adoption, technology can support responsiveness and inclusion. Where market logic governs, AI accelerates data-driven exclusion, performativity, and ethical distancing.
Conclusion
This essay has developed a conceptual
model that elucidates the ethical tensions influencing international schools in
the context of marketisation. By contrasting care and market logic, the model
demonstrates how institutional priorities shape experiences of inclusion,
belonging, and exclusion. Although profit-driven international schools may
assert that they are caring communities, such claims are credible only when
care operates as a non-negotiable ethical principle rather than a strategic
asset.
The Care vs Market Logics model
encourages educators, leaders, and researchers to consider not whether
international schools can be profitable, but whether they are prepared to
prioritise human flourishing over market imperatives, and to reflect on the
consequences when they do not.
References
Ball, S. J. (2003). The teacher’s soul
and the terrors of performativity. Journal of Education Policy, 18(2),
215–228.
Ball, S. J. (2012). Global education Inc.: New policy networks and the
neo-liberal imaginary. Routledge.
Bunnell, T. (2019). The international school market. Oxford Review of
Education, 45(1), 1–16.
Bunnell, T., Fertig, M., & James, C. (2016). What is international about
international schools? Oxford Review of Education, 42(4), 408–423.
Hargreaves, A. (2001). Emotional geographies of teaching. Teachers College
Record, 103(6), 1056–1080.
Hayden, M., & Thompson, J. (2013). International schools. Sage.
Noddings, N. (2005). The challenge to care in schools. Teachers College
Press.
Noddings, N. (2013). Caring (2nd ed.). University of California Press.
Slee, R. (2011). The irregular school. Routledge.
Starratt, R. J. (2004). Ethical leadership. Jossey-Bass.
Tronto, J. C. (2013). Caring for democracy. NYU Press.
Wilkins, A. (2017). Making school markets. British Journal of Sociology of
Education, 38(8), 1153–1166.
Wilkins, A. (2020). Education governance and the entrepreneurial state. Educational
Philosophy and Theory, 52(10), 1035–1047.
Comments
Post a Comment