Embassies and expatriate schools in Oman
Gulf News has reported that the Ministry of Education in Oman has decreed that expatriate schools are now to be run by elected boards of parent governors. According to the newspaper report, foreign embassies and diplomatic personnel may have no say in the running of such schools.
This took me back to 1996 when the newly incumbent American ambassador in Muscat objected to the running of the American-British Academy, then the only international school in Oman, and insisted on changes to the senior management of the school and the educational syllabus so that it would be more in keeping with United States educational policy and practice. The US embassy was then the sponsor of ABA.
There was heated exchange, at which I was present, and spoke. A significant contingent of parents, who were predominantly American, and who had all school fees mostly paid on their behalf by their companies, called for much greater investment in the school through a very substantial hike in the fees.
As the ABA was an international school accommodating over 50 nationalities of children, many of whom came from families who were obliged to fork out for their own fees, there seemed a real danger that the price of education for these expatriates would become out of reach. I was one such parent.
ABA had been through an unsettled period, it is true, and I cannot speak for the staff, but I had been quite happy with the education that my two children had been receiving there.
Not so the American Embassy. The embassy withdrew its support and sponsorship and invested(?) or at least sponsored instead The American International School in Muscat, usually known as TAISM.
The British Embassy took over sponsorship of ABA.
There is always a problem for transient communities obtaining permanent structures to educate their children when this requires liaising with local landlords for leasing land and premises. So I suppose that embassy sponsorship can be valuable when it comes to forming a permanent relationship with the landowner on whose land the school exists.
Which makes me wonder whether the edict banning diplomatic involvement in the running of the school extends to sponsorship as well. If, as was hinted at in the newspaper article in a comment by the Pakistan Embassy's Head of Chancery, the ruling refers to the actual running of the school, rather than sponsorship, then there may be no great risk to the provision of education for expatriate children.
It's actually the Indian community which might face a bit of a problem, since three Indian schools are privately owned and run by businessmen.
Perhaps someone could enlighten us, please.
This took me back to 1996 when the newly incumbent American ambassador in Muscat objected to the running of the American-British Academy, then the only international school in Oman, and insisted on changes to the senior management of the school and the educational syllabus so that it would be more in keeping with United States educational policy and practice. The US embassy was then the sponsor of ABA.
There was heated exchange, at which I was present, and spoke. A significant contingent of parents, who were predominantly American, and who had all school fees mostly paid on their behalf by their companies, called for much greater investment in the school through a very substantial hike in the fees.
As the ABA was an international school accommodating over 50 nationalities of children, many of whom came from families who were obliged to fork out for their own fees, there seemed a real danger that the price of education for these expatriates would become out of reach. I was one such parent.
ABA had been through an unsettled period, it is true, and I cannot speak for the staff, but I had been quite happy with the education that my two children had been receiving there.
Not so the American Embassy. The embassy withdrew its support and sponsorship and invested(?) or at least sponsored instead The American International School in Muscat, usually known as TAISM.
The British Embassy took over sponsorship of ABA.
There is always a problem for transient communities obtaining permanent structures to educate their children when this requires liaising with local landlords for leasing land and premises. So I suppose that embassy sponsorship can be valuable when it comes to forming a permanent relationship with the landowner on whose land the school exists.
Which makes me wonder whether the edict banning diplomatic involvement in the running of the school extends to sponsorship as well. If, as was hinted at in the newspaper article in a comment by the Pakistan Embassy's Head of Chancery, the ruling refers to the actual running of the school, rather than sponsorship, then there may be no great risk to the provision of education for expatriate children.
It's actually the Indian community which might face a bit of a problem, since three Indian schools are privately owned and run by businessmen.
Perhaps someone could enlighten us, please.
Comments
No comments yet