Why So Many British Schools Struggle to Launch in Korea - And Why BIEK Is Changing That

A promising market that too often proves elusive

Over the past decade, South Korea has stood out as one of Asia’s most attractive destinations for international education. With high levels of household spending, a strong cultural emphasis on academic achievement, and a government actively seeking global engagement, the appeal is obvious.

Yet despite these favourable indicators, several of the UK’s most prestigious schools have encountered major difficulties when attempting to establish campuses in Korea. Harrow, Charterhouse, Royal Russell, Brighton College. These are not marginal institutions. They represent the very best of British education. And yet, their ventures in Korea have either stalled, failed, or faded quietly.

This is not a matter of weak demand or poor school quality. It is a matter of misalignment, between expectations and reality, between global ambition and local execution. At BIEK, we have studied these cases closely, not to criticise, but to understand how to build something better and to learn from their wrong turns.

Harrow in Songdo: a case study in overconfidence and structural missteps

Harrow’s brand needs no introduction. Its managing body in East Asia, AISL, has had tremendous success across East and Southeast Asia: Bangkok, Hong Kong, Shenzhen, and more. These schools are, rightly, held up as models of international British education done well.

However, Korea presented a fundamentally different challenge, one that AISL’s existing model, for all its regional strength, was not configured to address.

The Harrow Songdo project was initially announced with confidence and clarity, strongly backed and promising what appeared to be a seamless extension of their Asia network. But from the beginning, the structure lacked the right kind of local grounding. Regulatory complexity, political nuance, and community engagement were vastly underestimated.

In essence, the model that had succeeded elsewhere, centralised, standardised, and driven by a strong brand, was applied without sufficient adjustment to Korea’s distinct policy environment and cultural landscape.

AISL brought management experience, but it did not have the necessary expertise in Korea, nor the depth of access and understanding to fill that gap. As a result, despite their capability and prestige, the project did not advance, and ultimately, the opportunity was lost.

This is not a failure of Harrow’s educational model. It is a case of lack of expertise, over-confidence and structural misalignment, of applying the wrong strategy to the right market.

Other examples: Charterhouse, Royal Russell, Brighton College

Similar themes emerge in other attempts. Charterhouse and Royal Russell both entered Korea through similar initiatives, but lacked sustained, strategic presence in the country. The disconnect between brand expectations and on-the-ground delivery became evident, and the projects quietly dissolved.

Brighton College, too, explored a Korean venture. Despite its international credibility and a strong connections, it faced logistical and legal challenges that were never fully resolved. Without a Korean-based team managing day-to-day navigation, the project was shelved.

Why Korea is different

Korea is not a blank canvas. It is a mature, complex education market with high regulatory standards, active municipal oversight, and a competitive domestic sector.

Several factors make the Korean context particularly challenging for foreign entrants:

• Local regulation is detailed and evolving, with specific zoning, licensing, and profit-use requirements that differ by municipality.

  
  

• Municipal support is essential and requires careful negotiation, formal agreements, and consistent political stewardship.

  
  

• Parent expectations are uniquely demanding, combining international aspirations with Korean academic rigour and university access.

  
  

• Long-term sustainability matters: local media and political actors expect transparency, fairness, and genuine educational contribution.

  
  

None of these factors are insurmountable but they require dedicated, in-country expertise that goes beyond traditional school operations or regional expansion models.

Why BIEK offers a different outcome

BIEK exists precisely to address the gaps that have hindered other British schools in Korea.

Our structure is not that of a typical developer, a licensee, or an offshore operator. We are a strategic educational partner, with deep ties to Korean stakeholders, municipalities, and education authorities. Our team includes bilingual professionals with extensive experience in both British education and Korean policy.

Here’s what we do differently:

• We establish formal municipal support from the outset, ensuring legal clarity and public endorsement before any branding or marketing takes place.

  
  

• We advise on governance, not just operations, protecting the integrity of the school and its long-term mission.

  
  

• We adapt curricula and admissions structures to reflect Korean expectations while preserving British standards.

  
  

• We remain embedded for the long term, not just to launch the school, but to guide it through evolving local conditions.

  
  

Most importantly, we don’t view Korea as an extension of another market. We treat it as its own environment, worthy of tailored planning, respectful engagement, and a bespoke strategy.

Final thoughts

The demand for British education in Korea is strong. Parents, students, and municipalities alike continue to seek high-quality, globally credible schooling. But credibility alone is not enough. Success here requires alignment, integration, and local expertise.

At BIEK, we are proud to be helping British schools meet that challenge. We are not just enablers, we are protectors of brand reputation, stewards of local trust, and partners in long-term excellence.

For those who are serious about entering Korea, and getting it right the first time, there is no substitute for the right partner.