Dulwich College Beijing

Operated by Dulwich College International, founded in Beijing in 2005 on a Shunyi campus near the airport corridor. Around 1,600 pupils, English National Curriculum through IGCSE and IB Diploma, traditionally regarded as one of the strongest British international schools in China.

The 2025-26 academic year marked Dulwich's 20th in Beijing. The school has held a top-tier reputation across that period, with The Guardian flagging it alongside Dulwich Shanghai as a leading British international option early on, and music has been a consistent strength. The senior school sits with the rest of the campus on Capital Airport Road, with a smaller Riviera primary site nearby.

Workload, both for pupils and for teachers, is the consistent honest signal. Families who want a more relaxed environment routinely flag this as the reason to look elsewhere. The school is also widely understood as not being the right fit for children with significant additional needs, which is worth raising directly at admissions if it applies. Fees at the top of the Beijing market, around 373,000 RMB at senior school for 2025-26.

• IB Diploma results put Dulwich Beijing in the top tier of schools in the city. One Reddit voice listed Dulwich Beijing and Keystone as the city's headline IB performers.
• Teacher voices and forums describe a high-workload, well-paid environment with motivated students. One teacher said "top teachers, admin are experienced teachers, motivated students. Hard workload" and called it "the best money you're going to realistically see". Another noted Dulwich "is cutting costs across the board" with staff let go recently, suggesting the financial picture has tightened.
• Parent feedback splits. The strongest praise centres on community, music programme and the values-driven environment. One parent on Expat Exchange said the partnership with parents and overseas lifestyle gave their children "a great platform" for higher education.
• Negative parent voices flag a gap between the school's stated philosophy and day-to-day reality. One parent said the philosophy statement was "only for show" and that issues raised at meetings "have not been resolved".
• Provision for children with additional needs is contested. One parent reported genuine effort and good will from administration. Another said the school is "not suitable for children with additional needs" and described disappointment with monitoring and flexibility.
• A 2016 historic safeguarding incident involving a former head of junior school surfaces in older forum threads. It pre-dates current leadership.