Keywords

The trend that international education has caught, especially in the decades, attracts the curiosity of all states influential in international politics. States are establishing more correlations between their national interests, international images, and international education policies, opening more space for cultural diplomacy in their foreign policies. Thus, education, science, culture, language, accreditation issues are more and more included in the foreign policy agenda. In this respect, international education 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 undergone changes in content and mission in the historical process and have gained their current form. The first international schools were established 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 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 colonial 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 international 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 Classrooms, 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 Institute 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 institutions enable states to teach, introduce, and transmit their own language, 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 policies 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 conceptualized for half a century in the literature, the concept has also been found in media organs such as The Times, New York Times, and Washington 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., transparency). 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 expropriation (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 (İnalcık, 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 communication 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 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 communication 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 execution 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. Evaluating 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 alternative to traditional diplomacy. Public diplomacy is successful to the extent that it is supported by traditional diplomacy mechanisms. Likewise, 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 interests to the target audience (other governments, nations, international public) to create international public opinion on this matter, to eliminate discourses against them, to forget the wrong policies they have implemented, 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 gratitude. 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 disseminate their cultural and national values, identity, language, and religion in other states. Thus, mutual cultural exchanges are realized based on establishing 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 relations. 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 societies 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 diplomatic 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 political 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 literature: (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 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 education 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 citizenship 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 classifying 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 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 children are educated; Type B are the ideology-oriented international schools, mission-oriented schools that encourage a global approach and international 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 Thompson’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.

State-Supported International Schools

The first examples of state-supported international schools were established 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 companies 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 European School Movement was opened in Luxembourg in 1953 for the employees of the European Coal and Steel Community and the European 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 international 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 missionaries. 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 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, France started to open schools for formal education abroad. The language of instruction 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 countries. 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 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 international 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 government, 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 accordance 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 framework 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).

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 institutional 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 international 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 accreditation 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.

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 Confucius Institutes in 2004. While Confucius Institutes focused on cultural activities at cultural centers and universities in other countries, Confucius 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 Confucius 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.

Turkish Maarif Foundation

I would like to thank the Turkish Maarif Foundation for sharing internald documents such as their Weekly Status Reports and 2016–2019 Summary Activity Report.

For many years, the internationalization of education in Turkey was only limited to higher education. Namely, international students and academicians were encouraged to come to Turkey, and Turkish students and academicians were sent to universities abroad through certain scholarship 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 Communities (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 affiliated 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 Foundation’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 52 countries. TMF provides education to 43,000 students in 342 international 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 development 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 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 activities 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 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, organizations, 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 international 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, traditions, 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 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 Institute 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 curriculum of the country the school integrates with; using British terminology in school culture and management; employing teachers who have British standards and are English-educated; and selecting educational 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 document 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 influences. 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 graduates 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 with the language and culture of the country of origin. Therefore, international 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, international 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 international schools in many countries. In schools established by colonial states, the education provided through the language and religion of the colonial 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 international 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 colonial 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 educational 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 education but by providing qualified education to some of the local people (Feldman, 2016, p. 36; Garnier & Schafer, 2006, p. 157). In other words, France started to apply an adaptation process instead of one of assimilation. This change in education policy has had significant effects on the continuity of today’s Francophone geography. Although today’s Francophone geography was shaped by the policies of the colonial period, an important reason why France and French can still be effective in this geography 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 cooperative rather than vertical, imposing, and hegemonic (Canto & Hannah, 2001, p. 32). Mutual and joint cultural activities serve as an important 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 educational 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 sustainability 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 companies, 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.

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 planning. 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 beginning 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 diplomatic 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 host country’s language. Unlike AEFE and ZfA, England has established an inspection and accreditation system under the Department of Education (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 international 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 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 traditional 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.