The International Bureau of Education (1925–1968): “The Ascent From the Individual to the Universal”

I am pleased to introduce this ambitious and thought-provoking issue of Prospects, which inaugurates my appointment as the Director of the UNESCO International Bureau of Education (IBE) and Editor-in-Chief of the journal. Having served as a member of its Editorial Board for many years, I have already had the opportunity to closely witness its remarkable intellectual journey and development, and contribute actively to it. Thus, my new role of Editor-in-Chief comes as a natural next stage, one that aims at continuing to publish a journal whose high quality standards and distinctive profile, substance and identity make it a landmark among many other journals of comparative education. It also comes with the challenge to build a stronger, even more prestigious and globally visible journal. Its merits should extend beyond publishing sound peer-reviewed academic articles, to producing well-grounded, reliable work that responds to today’s educational questions and policy needs, with a special focus on curriculum-related issues. As we move toward making the IBE a global Center of Excellence, we need to reflect deeply about reorienting the journal so that it can contribute optimally to IBE’s core mandate and goals; key among them is strengthening the capacity of education systems to equitably provide high quality education and effective learning opportunities. This issue is a clear step in the new direction and illustrates our efforts to more effectively address IBE’s strategic goals and mandate. Key topics featured in this issue include education quality, equity, access to learning, teacher professionalism, community participation and youth labour market integration. The geographical coverage of the articles is notable; it includes Brazil, Cambodia, Colombia, China, Ghana, Kenya, Nepal and West Africa. The contributors to this issue are from a vast spectrum of cultures, represent different horizons of thought and belong to different generations. Despite these differences and the diversity of topics they address, the main themes of the articles are interwoven. A recurring

In this issue Sidney Forman, Professor of Education at Teachers College, Columbia University, reports on the Thirty-sixth Session of the International Conference on Education. This conference and the International Bureau of Education (IBE), which has organized it since 1934, deserve to be better known. It is hoped that Dr. Forman's thoughtful article and the following excerpts from the IBE brochure, Activities and Publications, 1978, will contribute to this end.

ABSTRACTBuilding on a historiography that is in full expansion, we are focusing our attention on the sociogenesis of “educational internationalism”, by studying the way in which agents and organisations which claim to belong to this movement have executed their commitments and reconfigured them over the decades. After having studied the groups which work within the International Bureau of Education (IBE) – which aims to build peace through science and education – here we are examining the way in which its director, Jean Piaget, shaped the implements and the operating methods of the IBE, and represented it on different international stages. The well-endowed archives that were analysed have prompted us to suggest that he is revealed as a diplomat of “educational internationalism”; while the IBE became the first intergovernmental agency (1929), it started working with UNESCO from 1946 before it became fully integrated in 1969. In particular, this article shows how, within the intergovernmental context of the IBE, this learned man adapted the concepts of teamwork and self-government that he had theorised. We are interested to see which diplomatic tools Piaget put to use in order to tackle the unavoidable contradictions that he came up against. How was one to preserve a strict neutrality and scientific objectivity, conditions of an educational internationalism which claims to be universalist, in the arenas where it is governmental and institutional delegates in struggle that debate, moreover on topics such as school – viewed as a space where national identities are fashioned?

Concepts remain the point of origin for creativity in design activity. For a comprehensive exploration of concepts it is imperative to assign adequate time and significance in architectural education and pedagogy towards their understanding. Physical modelling is one of the key techniques that helps in the critical analysis and conceptual comprehension in design. The current research considers the use of physical modelling as a conceptual device in the learning of theoretical discourse with specific focus on climate-responsive architecture. In the delivery of theories in architecture to students, such conceptual devices enhance and establish the knowledge imparted. While presenting the use of physical modelling as a conceptual device, the current research work acts as an illustrative exercise that can be carried out during the coursework for Climate and Built Environment that in turn can enrich the learning of thermal comfort principles in architecture. The research lists the learning outcomes of the classroom exercise and evaluates them against the learning theories postulated by the International Bureau of Education. The exercises resulted in the development of 3D physical models that illustrated the understanding gained by the students. It was observed that application of theory imparted during over the course of lectures was applied. The students also drew from their intuition and internal aesthetic sense. It was noted that the theory covered in class had been tested and explored and there was a strong rationale behind each model, proving that the exercise had taken the understanding of the theme beyond the scope of theoretical knowledge. The observations also revealed that the core principles of the learning theories propounded by the International Bureau of Education were in alignment with the learning outcomes from the modeling exercises that were executed by the authors, especially that of the Experiential Learning Theory. It may be concluded that these exercises can be effectively used in lecture classes that discuss architectural theories, including sustainability and climate response in buildings to expand the aesthetic and sustainable sensitivity of the learner. Consequently productivity in the design studio is vastly enriched. Apart from enrichment stemming from the listed learning outcomes, students are able to analyse design problems with climate in mind, thereby, familiarizing them with concepts of sustainability in the design studio.

INTERNATIONAL BUREAU OF EDUCATION

I am pleased to introduce this special issue, which builds on and further strengthens the already solid partnership between UNESCO International Bureau of Education (IBE) and the University of Geneva. This is indeed a special issue, as it uses a historical perspective to tackle three important aspects of education policies that are often addressed in articles published in Prospects and elsewhere, but are rarely featured in an explicit and systematic way. These aspects are: the circulation of knowledge and the genesis of education policies; the mediators of dissemination (individuals and social groups); and the materials and channels to enable the ‘‘transit of knowledge’’ (Secord 2004, p. 670). Focusing on the ways in which educational knowledge was produced and distributed during the 20th century, the issue also synthesizes recent contributions in this area, especially as they relate to the development of transnational history approaches in education. Transnational history takes as its starting point ‘‘the interconnectedness of human history as a whole, and, while it acknowledges the extraordinary importance of states, empires, and the like, it pays attention to networks, processes, beliefs, and institutions that transcend these politically defined spaces’’ (Sven Beckert, in Bayly et al. 2006). In particular, transnational approaches to the history of education are concerned with questions of the transfer, reception, negotiation and appropriation of given ideas and texts, but also institutions, as they cross national, cultural and linguistic boundaries. Work of this kind, which understands educational phenomena as a dynamic space for dissemination and exchange, seeks to go beyond a focus on their study in their isolated initial contexts (Macdonald 2013, p. 21). Since the 20th century was characterized by the ‘‘institutionalization of the international’’ in education, through new international organizations and associations, the authors in this issue pay particular attention to UNESCO and the IBE, as well as the League of

The founders of the International Bureau of Education (IBE) in Geneva were convinced the best way to develop understanding between peoples was by disseminating knowledge: collecting pedagogical materials from around the world, making them accessible to all, and enriching them through collective studies and conferences where attendees could engage in reflection to “resolve global problems in education”. This article goes behind the scene to study how the IBE “armed itself” to overcome rivalries, reach across borders, and promote international understanding. It focuses on its first two stages—as a private institution and an intergovernmental organization—before it became linked to UNESCO in 1946. It describes how the IBE positioned itself during the interwar period in relation to its first sponsors, continually adapting itself so it could safeguard the viability, durability, and legitimacy of its concept. Resolutely scientific, its mission was to make comparative education—joining the local and the global, the particular and the universal—the basis for circulating knowledge free from centrifugal and hegemonic forces, so it could develop a “charter of aspirations for global education”.

This introduction to a special issue of Prospects titled Educating in Common for a Common Humanity offers a critical reflection on the future of education, positioned against the backdrop of ongoing technological advancements and their impact on education and learning. While much of the current discourse exalts digital technologies and artificial intelligence, often questioning the relevance of traditional schooling, this collection takes a different stance. It advocates for a human-centred, public vision of education as a common good rooted in human rights and inclusivity. This issue also celebrates the centenary of the International Bureau of Education (IBE), an institution foundational in shaping global education policy and promoting education as a tool for peace and social justice. The papers in this issue build on the IBE’s legacy, exploring how education must evolve to remain a public and transformative force. Drawing from a series of lectures and essays by leading scholars, the contributions emphasize the importance of renewing the social contract for education, ensuring it serves humanity in its diversity.

Our article contributes to trace the sociogenesis of "educational internationalism" as promoted by the International Bureau of Education when it became an intergovernmental organization in 1929, cooperating with Unesco since 1947, before being fully integrated in 1969. The IBE can be considered as one of the forerunners of Unesco, a kind of factory of its pedagogical guidelines: it develops a modus operandi for producing, through a comparative approach, in as objective and neutral a manner as possible, knowledge concerning the progress of education in the world and recommendations forming a charter of world aspirations in education. These matters are discussed in International Conferences on Public Education (ICPE). With the birth of Unesco, the IBE negotiates a status of autonomy and collaboration, continuing its technical work based on comparative education. The problems studied, defined by both institutions together, relate to three crucial fields: access to education, curriculum, teacher education. The IBE’s approach is far from being free of tensions: in the results themselves of its work and between the countries participating in IBE’s enquiries and the ICPEs.

Readers of the Comparative Education Review and other journals in the field are aware of the growing number of writings on the history of comparative education as an area of curiosity, inquiry, study, and rigorous research. For the present purpose, it is sufficient to call attention mainly to the developments since World War II, with but passing reference to an earlier period. Interest in the different aspects of comparative education increased throughout the nineteenth century in Europe, with the result that systematic research and publication became relatively common. One thinks not only of the Office of Special Inquiries and Reports in London (1895), the Mus6e P6dagogique in Paris (1879), and the Zentralinstitut fiir Erziehung und Unterricht in Berlin (1915), but also of the U. S. Office of Education (1867). As Sir Robert Morant stated in 1897, the publications by the then U. S. Bureau of Education ... have probably done more than any other single agency to encourage the comparative study of education and the various systems of educational administration now in force in the different countries of the The decision, based on the advice by Sir Michael Sadler and Professor J. J. Findlay of the University of Manchester, by the young I. L. Kandel and Peter Sandiford to sail in 1908 to study at Teachers College, Columbia University, proved to be a momentous one for the development of comparative education in North America. It also contributed, in time, to the promotion of the field in Europe and in other parts of the world. During the interbellum period, the interests of comparative education were served, to a greater or lesser degree, by the older organizations, as well as by new agencies: e.g., the Institute of International Education in New York (1919); the International Institute of Teachers College, Columbia University (1923); the Bureau of International Education in Geneva (1925); and the Institut International de Coop6ration Intellectuelle in Paris (1925). The program of the Teachers College institute, particularly its research publications and the Educational Yearbook, edited by Prof. Kandel between 1925 and 1944, had a world-wide impact in the areas of comparative and international education. Also of significance were the Year Book of Education (1932-1940) published by the University of London Institute of Education and the Annuaire International de l'Education et de l'Enseignement (later International Yearbook of Education) issued by the International Bureau of Education from 1933 to 1939. And of particular importance was the appearance of Kandel's Comparative Education, a seminal, thoroughgoing, definitive, scholarly treatise which encouraged research and instruction and which was translated into several languages (1933). In the United States between the two wars, courses in Comparative Education proliferated greatly after 1920.2 On the initiative of the U. S. Office of Education, an Advisory Committee on Comparative Education was formed at a meeting in Washington on May 4, 1935. One year later, this committee met again with 16 members, representing instruction and research in comparative education, history of education, and philosophy of education. Dr. James F. Abel of the U. S. Office of Education reported the results of a questionnaire

Classroom teaching is influenced by teachers' perceptions of learner diversity. The current integration of South African schools calls for teachers to actively take stock of their perceptions of learners from diverse backgrounds and develop the attitudes, knowledge, and skills that will equip them to teach effectively in culturally diverse classrooms. Such development should be an important objective of teacher training programmes. Against this background the School of Education, University of South Africa, joined a ten-nation international research project, organised by the International Bureau of Education (IBE) of UNESCO, with a view to acquiring information about student teachers' perceptions of learners from diverse backgrounds. A section of the research done in South Africa is outlined, where the focus was particularly on the solutions student teachers envisage for dealing with learners' educational difficulties in a multicultural classroom. Implications for the design of teacher training programmes is addressed.

The article analyzes curriculum processes and products pertaining to the overall reconstruction of Afghanistan’s education system after 2002. With the support of several international agencies, including UNESCO’s International Bureau of Education (IBE), as well as non-governmental organizations (NGOs), Afghanistan’s Ministry of Education succeeded in making important progress with regard to quality education, curriculum planning and design. Based on a careful analysis of needs, new curriculum frameworks for primary and secondary education were developed over the period 2002–2006, and syllabuses and textbooks for primary and secondary education will be developed and disseminated in schools across the country. However, many challenges remain to be tackled, especially with regard to the dissemination of a new curriculum culture and the writing, printing and distribution of quality syllabuses and textbooks at all education levels. The article highlights both the achievements and the obstacles standing in the way of comprehensive curriculum reforms taking place in the difficult context of reconstructing a cohesive societal infrastructure in a country, such as Afghanistan, that is affected by conflict.

The international conferences and the official publications of the International Bureau of Education (IBE) comprise a platform where a growing number of governments exposed their considerations and concerns with the purpose of building up a better world through education. The resulting recommendations foster the basis of an ‘international code for public education’. The voluminous archives of the IBE comprise a particularly fertile source for understanding ‘the variants and invariants’, and of course also the purposes of school organisations and curricula as promoted by these organisations. The paradoxes of this effort carried out during the first forty years represent both the challenges for its survival and the outline of this article: (a) giving up on all obligations and political statements so as to ensure effective actions at governmental level; (b) documenting local needs so as to establish a world chart; (c) supporting mass schooling through state involvement for promoting individual emancipation; (d) promoting curricula designed on separate subjects so as to guarantee harmonious complete personal growth; (e) advocating scientific objectivity for spreading the methods and principles of New Education; (f) acting upon public schooling, the reserved hunting grounds of nations, for building up international education.

Representatives of the world's governments have agreed to support a global system for the exchange of educational information in order to help solve their national education problems. This agreement was reached at the Thirty-sixth Session of the International Conference on Education (ICE) sponsored by the International Bureau of Education (IBE) (1) held in Geneva, Switzerland, from August 30 to September 8, 1977.

The first six chapters form Part I tell the story of the IBE. This first one shows that the International Bureau of Education (IBE) was the product of a collective genesis. It was the continuation of a plethora of initiatives which, in the nineteenth century already, were working towards the institutionalisation of networks dedicated to education and childhood, in order to pacify the world. The contours of the IBE were furthermore sketched out in a particular context, in effervescent post-war Geneva when the city was designated to host the League of Nations (LoN). The chapter describes the dynamics of this genesis in order to understand what led the intellectuals, psycho-pedagogues and educators grouped around the Institut Rousseau to conceive of their institution as one of the international agencies representing the values of peace, international solidarity and social justice, emblematic of the “spirit of Geneva”. An insert presents the Institut Rousseau.