There is a great article on Financial Times about NLCS Singapore. Paywalled but a great read into the culture of this British school in Singapore.
It’s a pretty crazy read that paints the Principal and Vice Principal quite badly.
Id interviewed with the VP before and he had a bit of an unpleasant vibe to him.
But it brings new questions. There is aggressive expansion of British private schools selling their names abroad. The name seems impressive, the blue suits they wear look impressive, but underneath it’s just a slimy British nastiness. And I say this as a Brit who unhappily works at a British school in China undergoing similar problems.
With so many British schools expanding (NLCS in Japan, Wycombe abbey in Singapore, Harrow in Dubai, Wellington in Indonesia, Dulwich in Thailand, Nord Anglia in every where), will they be a repeat of NLCS’s pretentiousness and false elitist nature?
Locked because discussion in the comments has become unproductive.
Perhaps copy-paste the article text here, so we can read it?
Use https://archive.ph/
Copy the link to the original FT.com story, then paste it on https://archive.ph/
I've posted it in the comments, it's a long read!
Thanks, but you’ve only posted enough to whet my appetite! Could you post the whole thing?
https://www.reddit.com/r/Internationalteachers/comments/1pn65cq/comment/nu5e97g/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web3x&utm_name=web3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button
I pasted it all here in it's entirity, enjoy
This is just sending me in a loop. Anyway, thanks for trying.
Seems the Mods deleted it, makes sense as its a paywalled article.
Anyone tell me what it said about the Principal and AP?
Nearly a dozen former employees — male and female — say they found the duo’s behaviour and management style to be misogynistic or sexist. The consensus among former members of academic and support teams who spoke to the FT was that Friend and Earl were particularly dismissive, disrespectful and judgmental of women working at the school.
Another adds: “Everyone knew staff were being bullied but no one did anything. [Friend and Earl] ensured a culture of fear was in place. If you stood up for others you would be targeted. These people control your references, the international world is a small community and those in power have a hold on peoples’ lives, more than in normal education. So no one ever — even HR — was able to sort the bullying out.”
And my favourite
Caussyram adds that on one occasion, in early 2024, Earl asked whether a drama teacher “had dementia” after she asked something “so stupid” on a staff group chat. Friend laughed and said: “Maybe it’s Alzheimer’s or early MS [multiple sclerosis],” according to Caussyram.
....
The lawyers added that Earl truly believed the drama teacher may have had dementia, adding: “It is inaccurate, deeply offensive, and highly defamatory to portray this interaction as anything other than an expression of genuine concern.”
Something really needs to be done about the over reliance of references in this industry. "Principals" get away with bloody murder by holding a reference over your head.
Oh, if you don't let me pass out drunk in your bathroom every night and cover for me in the morning, I don't know about your reference.
Yes, sadly believable.
Thanks for trying though.
Where? I can’t see it
https://www.reddit.com/r/Internationalteachers/comments/1pn65cq/comment/nu5e97g/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web3x&utm_name=web3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button
You have just posted a couple of quotes.
See if the Archive.ph workaround works for you
Just read it.
The gist of it is: fake, franchised British school acts unethically, hires UK teachers with bait-and-switch offers then grinds them into dust, all while flooding the school with rich Chinese children who don't speak English.
My honest take: yeah, and? Unfortunately, they're almost all like this at this point, aren't they?
That's the trend.
It's more of a warning now for people looking to break into this industry from their home countries, or those looking to move on.
That flashy new british school with the beautiful exterior and classic name. It's secretly trash.
I did a CELTA over ten years ago with a view to working abroad. Our instructors told us it was a new and largely unregulated industry we were going into and that we had to be really selective with which offers we considered/accepted - especially in Asia, which they said was flooded with "cowboy schools". Nothing has changed. The only innovation since is it's PGCE/QTS trainees getting scammed or stitched up now, not just TEFL monkeys.
To be fair, this is not really a British school thing. I've been to a number of non-British schools that were the same.
That....sounds pretty accurate.
But if you have contacts at the FT you can get a plush piece including all the most mundane details.
Looking forward to the 2000 word exposé on the bear that took a dump in the woods.
Sadly parents in E Asia are very “brand” conscious and the facade of a British school (suits, jackets with crests, pleated skirts) helps to create the surface image of a “proper” school. Never mind that the overlords are locals who are just using this veneer as a marketing ploy.
Sadly optics trumps substance and parents are beguiled by these… at least temporarily.
Hello -- FT reporter Madison Marriage here. Some really interesting comments here. If you would like to share anything about this story with us, we would love to hear from you. You can reach me at: [madison.marriage@ft.com](mailto:madison.marriage@ft.com)
A great angle or follow up would be how the reference from current principal system allows so many abuses of power. Basically you can not get a next job unless you the current principal agrees to get on a phone call and vouch for you to the next principal. This crates a huge imbalance of power. Admin get away with anything they want. People can not push back or lose their careers. People are afraid to speak up because one person holds your future. All your degrees, past work, it can all be flushed if one sociopathic lush decides he didn't like what you said in a meeting. Bonus points if you add i how groups like Search Associates profit from it.
I’ve had an offer rescinded because of something a former head said to the school I was offered a job at. It was from a telephone conversation. This was after the references were sent which had lead to the job offer. I guess since both schools were in the same city, it seemed convenient to follow up with a call? That weighed more heavily than the reference from the school I currently had been at. It was weird. And unprofessional. The old boys network at work. “So tell me, what was she really like”.
If you’re interested in a documented, first-hand account of British-aligned schools overseas and the British based educational institutions that align with them failing to meet the employment standards they publicly claim to uphold, you should see my previous post here: https://www.reddit.com/r/Internationalteachers/s/JM1A9f0CMt
My experience involves a well regarded and historic British-curriculum international school operating under BSO / COBIS frameworks who recruited me via the UK Times Educational Supplement. The school withdrew my signed contract when my wife got pregnant, explicitly citing her pregnancy and their "changed circumstances". It was a flagrant breach of both UK discrimination laws and their own local employment laws. When this was raised with their aligned UK-based bodies, accrediting organisations and recruitment platforms, they declined to intervene, while continuing to endorse and take money from the school.
All parties involved continue to market themselves as upholding “British values” and ethical standards...
Why no interviews of parents/ex students?
Because they'd probably say they don't see any of the problems...
hi Madison - wondering what discussions have taken place, if any, about your investigations into misconduct and abuse of power across business, politics, housing, education and beyond, being locked behind the paywall?
Come on dude.... Like, do you really expect everything to be free? Why are your classes "locked behind a paywall?"
Come on dude! Don't you care about the victims?
some stories go behind the paywall, some don't -- afraid that's above my paygrade. Difficult stories like these take multiple reporters (and numerous other colleagues) months of work, so I understand why paywalls have to exist.
ok. It's also curious that although you have a twitter account followed by 18k, that lies dormant instead of being used to spread the news about misconduct / abuses of power.
Of course those guilty of abuse are surely ecstatic about all this.
C'mon dude...I feel like it would be very easy to get your point across with a little less sarcasm and a little more respect.
I tried my best, since I actually wanted answers and have real concerns that FT management is counting beans instead of publicising abuses. Maybe even complicit with the abusers.
The work required to put out this content has no relation to FT decision to paywall it. It is a small fraction of all FT content.
Not only that, but FT exists on twitter. If anyone can hold their nose while tweeting something, it's this author.
I've worked at several of these, including in middle management. If you'd like, reach out by PM.
It’s nice to see this getting some mainstream reporting. Edit: also worth noting, while many of us see this as bear-shits-in-woods-level obvious, we aren’t the target audience for this article.
It’s hard to say what effect, if any, this will have; the franchising cat has long since left the bag. But it would be nice to see some pressure back home on the schools that lend the legitimacy conferred by their names to this sort of operation, and to suffer some reputational consequences as a result.
Also, this is a good reminder that sunlight is a good treatment for a lot of shady behavior, and an encouragement to speak with reporters (with protections) when they’re asking for relevant information.
Here is hoping that the legal consequences these school will definitely pursue don't screw over those whistleblowers.
Agreed. Thankfully, Singaporean courts have a pretty decent track record of ruling against international schools in cases of documented misconduct, and it sounds like they have some receipts. Here’s hoping that it resolves the right way.
Nord Anglia didn’t start as a British private school, nor does it own exclusively British schools. It has American curriculum schools, bilingual schools, IB World schools, and British international schools. Just a point of correction.
Regardless of what people’s views are about this school, this article has to be deeply damaging to this school and the board will be furious about it. And, people are correct in that this could be written about hundreds of for-profit schools. Weighing-in on the ‘Terrible British Leaders’, I think they are turned into this by the for-profit system. I’ve worked for many British leaders in the UK state system, and they’re not really like that. Unfortunately, I’ve met lots of them internationally. Put them in an expat-bubble for profit school and they change. I don’t think it’s a purely British trait, it’s the nature of the beast they work for.
I tried multiple methods to share/archive this article to get past the paywall but all failed.
I believe The Financial Times offers free access to educators with an .edu email. It worked with my school email.
Edit: Here it is. Someone slid it in my DMs.
https://archive.is/2025.12.15-172510/https://www.ft.com/content/3513f610-c85a-4373-b3f3-ce91e11e5ccf
Bypass Paywalls Clean addon for Firefox
Archive.is works perfectly fine for all FT articles.
Not for me it doesn’t.
British nonprofits are fairly rare, no?
Alice Smith, Tanglin and Kellett spring to mind in East Asia. Not many others do.
rarer than American ones, yes.
In Asia - Kellett, ESF schools, Tanglin, Alice Smith, BS Jakarta, BS Tokyo, Taipei ES & Pattana.
In the ME - Dubai College, JESS, BSAK, BS Oman, BS Jeddah/Riyadh, St Christopher's Bahrain.
IN Europe - BS Netherlands, BS Brussels, BS Paris, St George's Rome.
There are probably a few more too, but those are the big ones I can remember.
Lots of the issues here could be found in many international schools I think. What this article misses is the British franchises don’t offer anything special from an educational perspective and are probably ultimately brand dilutive for the original school.
I'm that Scottish guy that gets annoyed at schools being called 'British'. There's no such thing, as education is a devolved matter.
They're English schools, if they're anything. There's no such thing as a British school in the UK.
Internationally, British is a brand, not a curriculum. Outside the UK, British and English are effectively interchangeable most parents abroad don’t know, or care about the distinctions between England and Scotland.
That’s exactly why the Scottish school Gordonstoun markets its overseas school as British.
it’s marketing, not a cirriculum.
Yeah, and marketing/branding should be accurate. Call it English if it's English.
Gordonstoun in Scotland, being a private school, uses the English system (A-levels and GCSEs), not the Scottish one. Funnily enough, using the English system in Scotland would make it a rare 'British' school.
But if a Scottish school wanted to open an intl school, would they be wise to call it a Scottish school
If they were using Standard Grades and Highers, what else would they call it?
English school would be for learning English
It could be, yes, or it could be English curriculum. What's a British school? There's no British national curriculum.
There's also no American or Canadian national curriculum, but schools brand as such, generally because they're using a curriculum from the country.
Then they're also inaccurate, unless they're doing something that is particular to America or Canada as a whole.
They are - teaching in English, with western-qualified teachers.
If they were doing A-levels they wouldn't call themselves an American school.
Teaching in English with Western teachers isn't particular to America. Plenty of countries do that.
You're right, they would call themselves a British school.
No, but it is particular to Australia/USA/UK etc. This is why schools often refer to themselves with one of those words in the title.
Or they'd call themselves an international school and not wrongly attach a nationality to it.
Unless you're doing something that's unique to that nation, such as using its curriculum, methodologies, or qualifications, you shouldn't use the country's name.
Edit: For example, I know of Western Australian international schools in my city which are accredited by the regional government of Western Australia. They, of course, should call themselves Western Australian. They've even factored in the regional differences of Australia in the name and, therefore, their marketing matches the product as far as I'm aware.
It’s called the national curriculum in England. Not the English curriculum. It’s on the UK government website. Don’t be mad at the world for calling it the British national curriculum.
If they're selling something as British, when it's specifically English, it's false marketing.
It's the national curriculum... for the nation of England, not Britain.
The people involved don’t care about that. That’s the point that everyone is making but which you refuse to understand. Most people abroad dgaf about the distinction between English and British nor do they gaf about Scotland. Sorry if it hurts your feelings, but it’s really not about you.
Words mean things. People should know that.
The same goes for Australian schools that do iGCSEs and A-levels.
It's awful marketing taking charge of schools.
Anyway, I understand it, I just think it's wrong. Are they ashamed of being English? England has a lot going for it, after all. There's a lot to be said about the English education system.
BSO are a thing. British schools are a thing. Deal with it.
I'm not having a breakdown over it, chief.
I'm on Reddit being pedantic, because that's what Reddit is for.
On a serious note, I think it's interesting there hasn't been an attempt by a brand or company to have a Scottish curriculum international school doing Scottish qualifications. The curriculum for excellence and the promise of access to Scottish universities would be a strong brand.
Possibly, yeah.
I would have argued that Cambridge and Oxford kind of eclipse Scottish universities with regards to international recognition, but I have seen Australian and Canadian schools, and Scottish universities are on a par with them recognition-wise.
It may be because there's an international version of the GCSE, but there isn't for National 4 + 5.
As an Englishman, I agree, there is no such thing as British. The amount of petty nationalism from Scots and Welsh who are net recipients of English tax income is not surprising, but astonishing.
found the tory
Absolutely not. Being against beggars being nationalists isn't a sign of conservatism, nor are my fiscal or social attitudes.
It's an unequal relationship to the benefit of the scots and welsh, and that's how the world goes. Less fucking complaining about how would be nice, is all.
Perhaps if Scotland were net contributors to England, we could laud about how special and different our schools are too.
The country is largely built around the financial sector and other industries very close to the capital. A fair point against independence (and arguably one for independence), but not one for how Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland, and most of England do not contribute to a country with an integrated economy.
Scotland, just as an example, provides a geographical location for the UK to keep its nuclear submarines (which is used as an argument for independence). What's the financial value of that?
Likewise, England isn't currently able to produce enough electricity for its population, so imports from Scotland and France, net exporters. Sure, Scotland would continue to export post-independence, but this is very much contributing. I'm not saying England would have blackouts without Scotland, as England is capable of making its own powerplants, but it does currently rely on Scotland to do that, just as London currently provides more tax revenues - you know, that capital of Empire that wouldn't have got there without the contributions of Liverpool, Birmingham, Glasgow, and Belfast.
On top of that, as mentioned before, the whole UK is very much tied to London and the South East. On a smaller scale, Edinburgh is similar - as a city, it is very much a financial net contributor to the UK, given that it has lots of tourism and a booming financial sector, unlike Glasgow and Liverpool, for example, which have been impacted by massive deindustrialisation and the shift to an economy based on the finance sector which might not have been done in a way that everyone is happy with.
Anyway, just because Glasgow and Liverpool receive more tax money than they provide doesn't mean their people don't get to have opinions on things.
They can have opinions. They can even secede, I'm fine with that. But do it or don't.
As to the nuclear submarine issue specifically (hello Diplomat season 2!), in the event of a secession, obviously Scotland would not 'go it alone'. They would likely be, as Ireland are, fully protected while simultaneously complaining about matters related to that protection.
Please understand I am not a tory nor do I want Scotland etc to bow. O just truly think they are a bit spoiled, and indulged, and yet still dissatisfied, so their expectations may need to be revised (or their contribution to the partnership should).
Oh btw I am a Londoner for better or for worse, as you rightly pointed out.
The point is that London (and Edinburgh) has all the money, basically, because the country is designed that way. Many people don't like that, and don't like the fact that they need to rely on London to provide their public funds. That could be wrong, but it is very much a strong sentiment in former economic powerhouses like Glasgow and Liverpool (not just in Scotland). They don't just want to cut a line down the middle, but to change how things currently operate.
This isn't being spoiled, which is a rather arrogant way of looking at a nation of people, it is a desire, very possibly incorrectly, to do things their own way. Getting called indulged, and having all of this even brought up when someone mentions that they dislike the fact that English and British are incorrectly treated as exactly the same thing internationally fuels the sentiment that we are ignored and our opinions don't matter. When we want recognised as British in addition to being Scottish, we get told we're spoiled - as if we're children.
The arrogance is not from me. The arrogance is from Scots who, removed from England, do not benefit - and yet want to be regarded as separate.
You have a right to be separate. Call a referendum and vote for it. If you wish to leave the union, you have my support with that. If not, you are in the union. For better or for worse. Scottish education is the benefciary of favourable tax allocation. You can give up that benefit if you don't want it.
Imagine any other nation which enfranchises a region as Westminster did Wales and Scotland. In most other places you would be in trouble (mild yo severe) for 'secessionist' sentiment. Yet we have accommodated and sponsored it (my original point). You don't even need to be grateful. Just don't complain.
And why is Scotland benefiting from London's tax relevant to 'British' inaccurately being used instead of 'English'?
That sounds like someone looking to get a dig in for no reason.
"I agree with your point, now listen to my complaints about Scottish people, who aren't allowed to complain about stuff."
Around 3 years ago, I rejected an offer from one of those British chain schools and willingly accepted a poor pay in Japan at an American school. To me, the school being non-British makes it automatically favored. If it is a non-profit, I will 95% of the time take up the job. If it is an assisted school by the Department of State, that makes it obvious, I will sign that damn contract
Could someone copy and paste article. I'd be really interested in reading it. I know those involved.....
I have posted it in this thread. It's a long read!
[removed]
To one former employee, the school’s decision to buy imported fresh daffodils for the ceremony — founder Buss’s favourite flower — stood as a symbol of its flawed values; how, in her view, it prioritised marketing opportunities and parent-pleasing gimmicks over student and staff welfare. “They spent a fortune flying all these daffodils in. They were all limp when they arrived. If you have that money, put it into safeguarding,” she says.
Both former staff and experts say what occurred at the school stands as a warning to the burgeoning international franchise sector — an example of what can go wrong when a respected parent school entrusts its name and brand to overseas business partners without sufficient oversight or aligned incentives.
“If you step out into the corporate world and try to merge two companies that have different values you end up with a complete mess, and this is no different,” says Jon Robinson, former chair of the non-profit Tanglin Trust School, Singapore’s oldest British international school. “Schools entering into this . . . really need to do very thorough assessment and due diligence.”
Almost all of the 28 former employees interviewed by the FT requested anonymity because of concerns about professional fallout within the insular sector. Yet three were willing to speak out publicly as they felt staff and parents of children paying up to S$55,000 a year ($42,000) in school fees were being misled. “The school does not work ethically or morally and is not in it for the best interests of the students or the teachers,” says Nicole Frey, a former junior school teacher who left in January.
Ian Callender, chief executive of NLCS International, which manages the parent school’s overseas offshoots, says the allegations made by the sources in this article “present a false, misleading, inaccurate and distorted picture of our school”.
The claim the school had misled anyone was “without substance”, he says, and its Singapore establishment has always “prioritised the safety and wellbeing of our community, our values of professionalism and transparency, the rigour of our admissions process and quality of the education experience we provide to our students”.
Callender adds: “We do not recognise their characterisation of the school, its culture and its practices. This is contradictory to the lived experience of more than 370 current and former staff, and more than a thousand families who have entrusted us with their children’s education.”
North London Collegiate School is one of about 50 British private schools to have expanded overseas over the past two decades.
Since prestigious boys’ boarding schools Harrow and Dulwich College opened in China and south-east Asia in the late 1990s, dozens of overseas “satellite” schools have sprung up in locations as varied as Saudi Arabia, Malta, Kazakhstan and Bangladesh. Since 2015, the number of British private school offshoots has risen from 31 to 151, according to the Private Education Policy Forum, a think-tank.
Experts attribute the sector’s rapid growth to two main factors: a rising middle class in Asia and the Middle East dissatisfied with local educational offerings, and more recently, specific demand from families in China in response to government crackdowns on international schools there.
Today, it is a professional sector where investors, school groups and governments broker deals at glossy international conferences. While around half of British private schools are registered charities, the international offshoots are for-profit enterprises.
Schools themselves rarely provide capital for these projects, but typically receive an annual franchise fee or revenue share (which experts say can range from between 1 and 10 per cent), and sometimes both.
For its school in Singapore, NLCS partnered with a Dubai-based property developer, Meraki, with which it had previously opened a school in Dubai. Together, they won the bid to build the school in 2015 with a goal to open to students from August 2020.
But for the school’s earliest employees, the project was beset by problems from the outset that appeared to stem from Meraki’s tight-fisted approach to doing business. A former bursar who worked at the school for six months says she quit in late 2019 after deciding the practices there were too unethical to continue.
Before she had even arrived in Singapore, she says she was asked by a senior Meraki employee to start working at the school illegally on a tourist visa as her paperwork had not been completed. She refused, but once she had the proper work permit, she says she found her job impossible to carry out as Meraki had full control of the school’s finances, including payroll, payments to suppliers and fees.
Payments to suppliers were erratic, she says, leading to a pile-up of angry emails from external companies and prompting the builders to occasionally down tools. In response, NLCS (Singapore) says it has never had a “systemic” issue with payments or shown any unwillingness or inability to pay suppliers or staff. Nonetheless, nine former employees, including several at senior level, say there were frequent payment problems or delays, with five of these providing documentary evidence.
By the time the new school building was complete, in January 2021, four former members of the school’s senior team say it “was not safe to open” when it did. While the facilities looked impressive to external observers, with an Olympic-sized swimming pool, vast sports hall and state-of-the-art science laboratories, some former staff say there were serious hazards in various parts of the site.
Several staff injuries occurred as a result: a senior female employee fractured her foot the day it opened after tripping on an uneven surface near the entrance; an ambulance had to be called for a security guard who got concussion after walking at speed into an unmarked glass wall; another female employee tripped on an uneven surface adjoining the sports field and tore a tendon in her ankle. “Fortunately for the students, the main people who got hurt were the staff,” says one former senior employee.
Problems abounded elsewhere in the months and years that followed. There was exposed wiring, piping, dust, nails and clutter; water and sewage leaks coming through ceilings; mould outbreaks that particularly affected asthmatic staff; insect infestations in walls; a jagged broken door handle; unusable changing rooms; and wide-opening windows on the upper floors that posed a risk to students. An external tennis company refused to work on the school’s courts until health and safety concerns were resolved.
Some fire safety equipment was faulty, while fire drills occurred infrequently and involved packing students into what former staff described as an ill-conceived evacuation area comprising a narrow strip of land alongside the school building. One former teacher called it a “disaster waiting to happen”.
In the early years, the performing arts staff turned to gallows humour to cope with the situation, adopting a motto — “no corner left uncut” — which they inscribed on a paper shield in the corner of their department. Two years after the school opened its new site, a former senior team member wrote to NLCS International pleading for it to intervene.
In the email, the employee stated that the school’s partner, Meraki, “project little interest in education and focus on where to cut costs”, creating an environment where “the constant need for resources [and] a functioning building is not what anyone expected given the NLCS name and its reputation in London”. She says she never received a response.
NLCS International said the school site was approved by all relevant authorities; that its fire safety plan had formal local approval and its air quality testing had “always been” within acceptable standards. It added that opening and operating a large campus inevitably came with “snagging issues” but stressed that all identified problems were “tightly managed”.
It acknowledged that some accidents occurred in the early days of the campus opening, but said these incidents were “isolated and limited when set against the vast number of people using the school premises daily”. “We investigated each incident promptly with utmost care and vigilance, and these areas were subsequently cordoned off and repaired.”
The first pupils to enter the purpose-built campus, a founding cohort of a few hundred, was selective and diverse. But former staff say other problems soon began to emerge, which they felt was driven by a persistent desire to bring in more cash — a “bums on seats” mentality that brought worrying academic and pastoral consequences.
At that time, Singapore’s international schools market was in the midst of a drastic demographic shift. The supply of western expats, formerly the sector’s bread and butter, was drying up as severe Covid restrictions and higher prices made the city-state less attractive. At the same time, demand from Chinese families — who want the prestige of a western education and their children to speak fluent English — was skyrocketing. Chinese applicant numbers increased across the board.
This kind of trend presents a challenge for any international school, as social divisions can emerge if a single nationality dominates pupil numbers. For this reason, some put caps on the ratio of pupils from any one nationality, in order to maintain a diverse student body.
But others do not, experts say. “Some schools are more particular about the profile of students per class, some are a bit more relaxed,” says Edmund Lin, an educational consultant in Singapore.
A large number of children of a single nationality does not inherently have negative consequences, staff and experts tell the FT, so long as students can comfortably speak the same language — often English, the lingua franca of most international schools.
But former staff say NLCS (Singapore) turned to the new pool of prospective Chinese pupils with scant regard. They say it frequently turned a blind eye to pupils’ English levels or their academic records, without regard for its ability to support them or how other students would be affected. “The [Chinese] children were a great opportunity to increase numbers and cash flow. ‘Get them in’ was very much the attitude,” says one former teacher. The student body has swelled from a few hundred upon opening to 1,400 this year.
With an under-resourced English as an additional language department, staff say that many children were unable to socially integrate or access the rigorous International Baccalaureate curriculum that was advertised. The result was a swift erosion of the school’s pastoral and academic promises. “I had 15-year-old kids for an hour in a lesson unable to write a sentence in English for me, it was that bad,” says one teacher.
Several teachers say this led children’s mental health to deteriorate. “It was very difficult watching children unhappy in class — a lot of Chinese children clearly finding it difficult,” says one. Another describes the situation simply as “cruel”.
Teachers adapted by turning to Google Translate, sticking English and Mandarin key words on the walls, or asking students to help with interpreting in class. Many former teachers say they felt they had been hired into the school under false pretences of the UK mothership’s academic renown. They say the slow pace required by students needing English language support made it impossible to stretch and challenge — a key tenet of NLCS’s ethos — those easily able to keep up.
Former staff point to NLCS (Singapore)’s exam results as evidence of this deterioration in academic standards. The International Baccalaureate average score — an important marketing metric in school brochures — has dropped each year, with 47 per cent of students earning more than 40 points (out of 45) in the inaugural 2023 graduating year, to only 25 per cent this year.
NLCS International denied it had lowered admissions standards to accept as many students as possible, in particular those from China. It said it had declined places to 1,400 prospective students over the past five years, adding: “We do not compromise standards to fill seats.”
It said that some students who demonstrated academic potential but lacked immediate English fluency were accepted but provided with English language support. And it added: “In a multicultural hub like Singapore, challenges around language and integration are inevitable. We continually review and refine our provision, addressing issues as they arise.”
The surge in Chinese students attending the school came hand in hand with a major safeguarding issue, according to a dozen former staff. They felt children were especially put at risk by the school’s oversight of “guardianships” — in loco parentis arrangements required for pupils whose parents live overseas.
In Singapore, the increasing number of international students, particularly those from China, has spawned an unregulated cottage industry — where guardians can range from family “homestays” to professional agents running dormitory houses.
The city-state does not oversee these arrangements, but where schools accept students under guardianship, stringent policies on oversight and numbers are considered best practice. Some educators frown upon day schools taking on lots of children in guardianships.
“It’s fraught with risk,” says Robinson, the former Tanglin chair. “If you want to have lots of overseas students you need to set up a boarding school.”
Former staff with experience of guardianships at other elite schools say they had never encountered such a high number nor so many concerning arrangements as at NLCS (Singapore), where some guardians lived in separate apartments to their young wards.
In one incident, a former teacher says they discovered the school did not know the identity or address of a student’s guardian when an issue arose. Five members of staff say they raised concerns about guardianship arrangements with senior leaders at NLCS (Singapore) but that no apparent action was taken. One did so after a pupil told them they were “locked” in their room all evening.
Four former staff say they became particularly concerned after discovering that there were primary-aged students at NLCS (Singapore) under formal guardianship or, in one case, not in the care of their parents. “This comes back to the fact that there were not stringent policies in place from day one,” says one former teacher. “Things fell by the wayside.”
NLCS International denied there were any problems with the school’s approach to guardianships. “The suggestion that guardianship at NLCS (Singapore) is unsafe, unusual or poorly managed is simply not true,” it said.
It added that its guardianship arrangements were limited to senior school students. Of that cohort, 56 are currently under guardianship. It referred the FT to its “Guardianship Policy”, dated September 2024, as evidence of its long-standing stringent policies in this area, but declined to provide a copy of earlier examples.
NLCS International said that in “rare cases” where it discovered parents or guardians had failed to adhere to this policy, the concerns were addressed or the child left the school. Overall, it said it took a “proactive and vigilant approach” to student welfare.
Some of the problems at NLCS (Singapore) could be written off as teething issues of the type faced by any new school. But staff who joined long after opening found much the same.
Tessa Caussyram and Sheerwan O’Shea-Nejad were unaware of the issues brewing within the school when they applied to work there in 2023. The couple met on the dating app Hinge in early 2020, and their first dates — like so many other lockdown romances — were socially distanced picnics in the park in the unusually warm British springtime that year.
O’Shea-Nejad, an experienced secondary school teacher, was the first to be offered a job at NLCS (Singapore) with a teaching post starting in August 2023. He jumped at the opportunity to have an overseas adventure, plus the pay was triple what he was earning in the UK. Caussyram, who previously worked for the NHS in various operational roles, was offered a job at NLCS (Singapore) running its HR and operations team one month later.
The pair — then in their late twenties — say the prestige and reputation of the mothership in London was part of the appeal. “I thought I was taking a safe bet,” says O’Shea-Nejad. “I was excited to start this new chapter in Singapore with this trusted brand,” adds Caussyram.
But they soon felt the school was not what it had promised. Caussyram says she quickly uncovered a raft of ethical, safeguarding and HR issues that went far beyond what she would have expected as a normal level of dysfunction within a start-up environment.
One of the first major issues she was confronted with occurred in early 2024, when she discovered that nearly two dozen staff members who were listed on internal systems as having full background checks had not in fact had checks — nor had they even been ordered.
She found this “shocking”; background checks are a vital mechanism in education for ensuring adults working with children have no history of criminal behaviour. Some staff had worked there for years without them, she says.
The situation was discussed at a governing body meeting and Caussyram worked closely with the principal, Paul Friend, to quickly arrange full background checks, as well as chaperones for staff who would otherwise be alone with children.
Helen Wright, an international education adviser and former headmistress in the UK and Australia, says an absence of background checks was “really dangerous”. “If you don’t know where your members of staff have been, how can you vouch that they are safe to work with children? It is essential.”
NLCS International said it had “absolute confidence” in its background checks and that “at no stage have children ever been put at risk”. It added: “Background checking is a complex process, and where any isolated issues or delays have emerged, we have taken appropriate practical steps to mitigate risks . . . until such time that we have the full set of background checks complete.”
While many former staff felt problems at the school ultimately stemmed from the intense profit focus of its business partner, Meraki, numerous former employees say structural problems — and an inability to solve them — also stemmed from the behaviour of the two most senior figureheads at the school, Friend and his senior vice-principal Robert Earl.
Friend cut an intimidating figure, former staff say — bald, heavyset and well over six-foot tall. Usually dressed in a formal three-piece suit, he was a self-confessed caffeine addict who kept a mini-fridge under his desk stocked with Coca-Cola and drank at least six cups of coffee a day.
Earl, just over a decade younger, is also bald but with a bushy dark-brown beard. Former staff say he could be an exuberant dresser, sometimes seen in a pair of maroon snakeskin shoes or socks that matched his tie. The pair had previously worked together at the original NLCS satellite school in South Korea.
Nearly a dozen former employees — male and female — say they found the duo’s behaviour and management style to be misogynistic or sexist. The consensus among former members of academic and support teams who spoke to the FT was that Friend and Earl were particularly dismissive, disrespectful and judgmental of women working at the school.
Caussyram says she frequently observed Friend make inappropriate or derogatory comments, often about female colleagues. She heard Friend call one female colleague “thick and useless” and a “classic peroxide blonde”; remark that a second female colleague “had not aged well” while zooming in on her professional headshot during a meeting; describe a third female colleague as being “thick as two planks”; and refer to a parent governor as a “fucking bitch who asked so many questions” after a fractious governing body meeting.
Could someone copy and paste this please?
This is off-topic, but I worked at two MYP schools in Switzerland where I was moderately to very unhappy with admin, and it wasn't until I left that I realized how British that admin typically was. It was always called IB and MYP, never A Levels and IGCSE, so I sort of assumed it was a coincidence that the school leaders tilted heavily British and even more heavily Commonwealth (with more Dutchies than, say, Irish folks, oddly enough). Now I'm at an overtly American school -- American is in the name -- in Central Europe and I'm vastly happier, both with systems and with admin. All those Brits have left a sour taste in my mouth.
Careful, you’ll piss the brits in this reddit
I would enjoy a frank discussion asking whether American International Schools vs. British ones are better, healthier places to work.
There’s generally a frank monthly discussion on that topic, but I’m not sure that I would call it a healthy or productive conversation so much as a chance for all participants to collect angry downvotes.
Sounds like fun to me! lol
I’d love to know that too, i used to work at this school in the article…
American school jobs are hard to come by and very competitive. British schools are hiring dozens at a time.
Worked at both and I’m a Brit. Will not be returning to British schools. Firstly I don’t want to wear a shirt tie jacket and leather shoes in forty degree heat. Secondly American schools seem to have less scheduled contact time so more time for marking and planning. They also seem to pay more and are more flexible in what you teach.
I've never had less contact time than at my American school. It's brilliant.
Exactly. God forbid you come into work and are not exhausted immediately by six back to back classes. I get in. Have time to chat with colleagues. Look at the news for current events talk with students. Go out to get a coffee and then still have an hour to modify my ppts or mark work etc. it’s brilliant
And I'm doing the best teaching of my career because I have time to reflect and plan. And because there's no gun to my head by snooty bosses telling me that we need more meetings to plan meetings about meetings.
Haha exactly right. If I have an idea for a project or assessment I have time to actually sculpt it to be more engaging and enjoyable. Plus I’m not constantly tired from having a huge amount of contact time.
You can sign up for free to read it - you don’t have to pay.
All of these schools are like this. This kind of thing has been going on in Mainland China for over ten years now.
And where is the surprise NLCS no matter the school is a horrible place to work at with nasty practices, terrible work/life balance and poor upper management
Do you have experience in other schools?
Welp Caussyram is going to spend the next few years in court and be forced to settle with a cash payment for libel.
Sorry, could you elaborate on 'slimy British nastiness'?
I'm sure you didn't mean to, but that's very offensive to Brits.
[removed]
That’s a broad generalisation about an entire nationality. Leadership ability varies between individuals, not countries. What evidence are you basing that on?
Probably a reference to the awful british system.
'British' system needs clarifying. Do you mean their business practises, like maximising profit?
Comes from the cockney rhyming slang 'slimy limey'.
Being slimy refers to actions that are dishonest, insincere, and corrupt. Basically someone who appears friendly or pleasant on the surface ('limey' stereotypical posh englishman with manners) but is dishonest and manipulative underneath ( hence the 'slimy').
I say this as a British person, offending ourselves is a normal thing.
As a fellow Brit this description perfectly sums up many of my countrymen abroad.
A veneer of moral decency and 'properness' that masks a callousness and self-preserving petty vindictiveness is par for the course in many 'British' institutions.
I should add, the British seem to have a rich history of presenting ourselves as bastions of moral rectitude, whilst happily selling our souls to any crook or scoundrel who offers us a pay day. Perfect conditions for running an international school franchise sadly 🤣
I understand what slimy means, but what do you mean by the phrase 'slimy British nastiness'? Is slimy a national trait - is that what you're saying?
I think it would help the discussion if you were more specific about what practices or behaviours you’re criticising. Describing it as “slimy British nastiness” reads like a judgement on British people rather than on particular schools or leadership cultures, which feels unfair and unhelpful.
There’s a bit of irony in criticising “sliminess” while using a sweeping national slur on an international forum. That kind of framing undermines what could otherwise be a serious critique.
I’ll clarify, because I’m not making a claim about British people as a whole.
By “slimy British nastiness” I’m referring to a specific institutional culture found in some older British private schools and their leadership. It’s the difference between the polished, marketable image and what actually happens inside the school.
The article describes an entrenched old boys club mentality, misogyny and sexist behaviour, leadership protecting itself, and image management being prioritised over students and staff. NLCS International refusing to support whistleblowers is part of that pattern. That’s what I’m criticising.
This isn’t a dig at every British person. It’s a dig at the fake, performative “British gentleman” act that masks poor leadership and unethical behaviour. Earl and friends in three-piece suits, outward politeness, and strong British branding, while the reality underneath doesn’t live up to it.
I’m criticising the contrast between the two.
I don’t disagree that those behaviours exist, or that the examples you mention are real problems. My hesitation is with framing them as specifically ‘British’. Old boys’ networks, leadership protecting itself, image management over staff welfare — those are institutional problems you can find in elite private schools across many countries. Calling it ‘British’ risks turning a structural issue into a national one.
I don’t think you’re wrong about the behaviours you describe, but I don’t see how they’re uniquely British. Performative politeness masking exploitation exists in plenty of systems. International schools are profit-driven businesses almost everywhere, and leadership protecting reputation over staff welfare is a structural problem, not a national one. Singling out ‘Britishness’ feels more like a critique of branding than of cause.
I'm phrasing it as British because the post is about British schools and I grew up in Britain. That background shapes how I recognise and describe these behaviours.
Calling something “British” doesn’t make it universal, nor does it mean it applies to all of Britain. It’s just the context
My point isn’t that this behaviour only exists in Britain. It’s that in this case, the cultural packaging matters. The politeness, the formality, the gentlemanly presentation, and the quiet closing of ranks are all part of how the behaviour operates in British private schools.
So yes, the underlying issue is structural. But the way it presents and is maintained here is culturally specific, which is why I’m naming it as British in this context.
I do understand that your background and the context of a post about British international schools shape how you see these issues. But I’m still uneasy about the phrase “slimy British nastiness.”
To me, that wording reads as if the behaviour itself is uniquely British, rather than describing the branding or presentation. The behaviours you highlight — closing ranks, managing reputations, a veneer of politeness — are things I’ve seen in many international and fee‑paying, profit driven schools, regardless of the curriculum or country. That makes them feel like institutional and class‑based problems rather than national traits.
I agree that the contrast between a “gentlemanly” brand and poor practice is worth criticising. I’m just not convinced that framing it as distinctly British adds clarity when the underlying issues seem common across the international education sector.
Fair point, there is nothing new per se about this stuff, but historically, there is a reason we are here in a dystopia where English is the trade language. We Brits packaged up amoral commercial conquests and made it a world epidemic.
Are you British? I am and I’m not offended in the least bit. That’s a difference between American and Brits. I feel like we don’t get offended as easily.
Yes, I am British. Whether one individual is offended or not doesn’t really address the point — it’s about how sweeping national language reads on an international forum. Criticising specific practices is fair; turning it into a national character judgement is something else.
But who cares. Water off a ducks back. Do you complain when a Hollywood villain is British?
Some people do care — especially on international forums. The point isn’t personal offence, it’s that sweeping national labels derail discussion when the issue is specific practices, not an entire nationality. It's poor representation.
Are you British? I am and I’m not offended in the least bit. That’s a difference between American and Brits. I feel like we don’t get offended as easily.
I'm happy to share the full link with the whole story - but wonder if this will get taken down.
I can't read the article because it's behind a paywall but I've heard BSKL has become a horrible place to work as well.
Used to work there back in 2016. I heard after Janet Brock (fantastic person), the principal left, a new one came in straight from the UK and was a total bastard. Walking by classrooms constantly peering in, insisting on the shirt and tie despite Malaysia being a boiling hot country, picking up on the slightest behaviour infractions.
I hear there's a lot of top down bullying and gaslighting of teachers by the school leadership. Not sure if it's the same principal but the current one is meant to be a piece of shit.
Mike O’Connor. He didn’t get his contract renewed, same for the HoS, Nicola Brown.
The former torches careers with a passion.
O'Connor had a terrible reputation in China. Meant to be a massive bully. Would threaten staff contracts at teacher meetings.
He was extremely strict with staff not leaving Suzhou/China during Covid. Then, left in the middle of a term to go visit family in Australia.
Nah. The principal who replaced Janet was called Simon. Bit of a prick. But he didn’t last long either.
I don't know man, but I've worked for Wycombe Abbey and never again. Absolutely awful place to work