In the shifting landscape of postwar international cooperation, education emerged as a key site of global governance. Three organizations stood at the forefront of this transformation: the International Bureau of Education (IBE), founded in 1925,  United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) founded in 1945 and the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), established in 1961.

The 1960s were a decisive decade. As one organization expanded its influence, the other faced internal pressure and institutional transformation. Their interactions—ranging from collaboration to quiet rivalry—offer revealing insights into how education became a globally governed policy field.

Bliss at the surface, contention at the bottom

In July 1974, OECD officials discussed an invitation from the IBE to collaborate on a new information system. This meeting seemed to suggest a productive alliance.

But archival records tell a more complicated story about the relations between intergovernmental organisations (IGOs). A UNESCO report from 1969 described the OECD’s growing role in education as “overlapping,” and even “competitive.” One internal memo from 1965 even warned that the OECD’s activities might endanger UNESCO’s core mission.

Behind the scenes, these organizations were not simply partners—they were contenders in shaping what global education would become.

The IBE’s Humanistic Legacy

Founded in Geneva in the interwar years, the IBE was steeped in the intellectual traditions of progressive education and child psychology. Jean Piaget—its most famous director—saw education as a path to peace, driven by dialogue and pedagogical exchange.

“Education can progress especially by emulation and exchange of information, and mutual understanding from diverse points of view.”
Jean Piaget, ICPE 1962

Through its annual International Conference on Public Education (ICPE), the IBE brought together educators and policymakers from around the world. Its approach emphasized curriculum reform, teacher training, and qualitative methods, while expressing caution toward emerging diagnostic and assessment tools. The IBE advocated for the comprehensive use of such tools only within an ecosystem centered on the needs of the child—an approach firmly rooted in universalist ideals.

But by the late 1960s, the IBE’s influence waned. Shifting constituencies and evolving global priorities led to its full integration into UNESCO in 1969. Its independent identity—and pedagogical mission—was absorbed into a larger institutional apparatus.

The OECD’s Technocratic Rise

While the IBE was being folded into UNESCO, the OECD was carving out its own space in education. Emerging from the OEEC and shaped by Cold War geopolitics, the OECD framed education as a tool for economic growth, modernization, and workforce development.

Its focus was systems thinking, planning, and human capital theory. Flagship initiatives like the Mediterranean Regional Project and the formation of CERI (Centre for Educational Research and Innovation) in 1968 marked a move toward what would later become data-driven, outcome-oriented governance.

The OECD’s approach was pragmatic, quantitative, and aligned with the needs of industrialized member states. And unlike the IBE, the OECD was just getting started.

Crossroads and Correspondence

Despite their differences, the 1960s saw moments of surprising cooperation.

Letter from Michael Harris to The Conference Secretariat dated 22. June 1965, XXVIIIe Conférence internationale de l’instruction publique (1965), relations avec les ministères, 59_A-2-1-1692, UNESCO-IBE Archive, p. 34.

OECD staff visited IBE’s Geneva office to access its extensive documentation. Officials like George Papadopoulos and Dennis Kallen engaged with the IBE during ICPE sessions, seeking insights into curriculum reform and pedagogical innovation.

In 1969, CERI even explored a joint project with Piaget’s research center after he left the IBE, recognizing the value of epistemological inquiry in education.

Yet, as these encounters multiplied, it became clear that the OECD was interested in acquiring knowledge more than transforming its institutional logic. The IBE functioned as a broker—but not as a co-architect—of the emerging global education agenda.

Education Planning: One Goal, Two Visions

Both the IBE and OECD prioritized educational planning, but their strategies diverged sharply: while the OECD pursued its own approach, the IBE became a vehicle for UNESCO priorities—particularly as the UN Decade for Development compelled UNESCO to engage with planning, thereby setting the IBE on that path.

The IBE, supported by UNESCO, emphasized local context, qualitative methods, and stakeholder consultation. Educational planning was seen as a collective responsibility, rooted in the right to education enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

“First and foremost, the development of education is the responsibility of the governments and peoples themselves.”
René Maheu, UNESCO Director-General

The OECD, by contrast, approached planning through a technocratic lens. Manpower forecasting, systems analysis, and statistical modeling were at the core. Education became a variable in economic growth models.

The 1967 publication Methods and Statistical Needs for Educational Planning crystallized this orientation, setting new standards for data-driven governance.

Why the 1960s Still Matter

This historical episode offers more than archival curiosity. It reveals the origin story of contemporary education governance—and the philosophical battle lines that continue to shape it.

  • The OECD’s ascendancy laid the groundwork for modern large-scale assessments like PISA.
  • The IBE’s marginalization reflects the sidelining of pedagogical and humanistic approaches in favor of metrics and outcomes.
  • The struggles over legitimacy and expertise between IGOs in the 1960s mirror today’s debates under the design of frameworks like SDG 4.

 

As global education governance grows more complex—entwining IGOs, foundations, contractors, and private actors—the story of the IBE and the OECD in the 1960s reminds us: governance is not neutral. It is contested, political, and deeply shaped by the institutions that produce knowledge. Who defines educational progress—and whose expertise counts—remains a central question.

Further Reading