This book explores the International Bureau of Education (IBE) from its inception in Geneva in 1925 to its integration into UNESCO in 1968, focusing on its guiding principle: “the ascent from the individual to the universal.” This work is part of a series by Rita Hofstetter and the Érhise team on twentieth-century educational internationalism.Footnote ¹ It builds on their previous publication, Le Bureau international d’éducation, matrice de l’internationalisme éducatif (premier 20e siècle)/ [The International Bureau of Education, matrix of educational internationalism (first half of the twentieth century)].Footnote ²

The book provides English-speaking readers with an in-depth yet accessible analysis of the IBE, an institution that is not as well known in the US. It traces the institution’s development up to 1968, addressing the impact of decolonization as newly independent countries increasingly joined the IBE. It offers an original reflection on a question that has a very strong contemporary resonance: Is there something more than Eurocentrism behind the universalist ambition displayed by this institution? The authors reject simplistic views, examining how the IBE’s founders conceptualized and implemented their universalist goals while navigating various tensions and contradictions. The analysis is mainly grounded in the rich archives of the IBE but also includes documents from neighboring or rival organizations like the World Federation of Education Associations.

The book is divided into five parts. The first part outlines the IBE’s institutional history, beginning with its creation in 1925 in the aftermath of the First World War. At that time, the League of Nations had ruled out the idea of a technical agency dedicated to international cooperation in education. The IBE was thus founded by figures associated with the Institut Rousseau, a research center based in Geneva, with financial backing from the Rockefeller Foundation. Initially envisioned as a platform for educators’ associations, the IBE faced competition from rivals, leading to its transformation into a traditional intergovernmental organization by 1929. Still active during the Second World War, the IBE fought for its autonomy when UNESCO was set up within the United Nations system: A convention set out the precise terms of cooperation between the two entities. By 1968, the influx of new members and financial instability eventually led to its absorption by UNESCO.

The second part delves into the ideals of the IBE’s founders and how they adapted to changing circumstances. In its early years, the IBE was influenced by Genevan pacifism, the Éducation nouvelle (a movement comparable to Progressive Education in the USA), and a commitment to scientific approaches in education. The founders, seeking to consolidate their influence, distanced themselves from the more militant Ligue de l’Éducation Nouvelle and the League of Nations, which was viewed with suspicion by communists and anti-colonialists. Rivalries with organizations like the International Commission for Intellectual Cooperation, perceived as promoting French views, allowed the IBE, based in Switzerland, to position itself clearly as a neutral entity. From the 1930s, the IBE aligned more closely with government interests, focusing on providing accessible education for all. While the new education ideas were integrated into the discourse, they were framed as objective, scientific conclusions from child psychology and psychopedagogy. The rise of military threats led the IBE to emphasize conflict resolution in education, aiming for instructors to teach children how to address “conflicts of reciprocity” that underpin international conflicts, through the very organization of the classroom.

The third part examines the International Conferences on Public Education, organized by the IBE from 1934 to 1968. These annual conferences had two main objectives: to assess global educational progress and address pressing issues by making recommendations. Their design was based on extensive surveys conducted two years in advance, with results published in the IBE’s Yearbook. Initially, the IBE assumed that its recommendations would be implemented through participant countries emulating one another. However, by the late 1950s, UNESCO’s call for concrete achievements shifted the focus. From 1961 onward, governments were required to report on actions taken based on conference recommendations. The modus operandi of the conferences reflects the conceptions of key IBE figures Jean Piaget, its director, and Pedro Rosselló, its deputy director. Rosselló, a promoter of comparative education in the academic field, envisioned the IBE as a world center for comparative education, while psychologist Piaget saw the transition from the individual to the universal as central to both child development and international cooperation. Despite their efforts, the IBE’s vision of universalism increasingly clashed with the expanding field of educational expertise.

The fourth part explores the IBE’s relationships with governments in a changing geopolitical context. The IBE’s ambition for universality led it to seek broad representation, increasing the number of participants in its surveys and conferences. By the late 1930s, nearly all sovereign countries were represented, though significant geographical areas were still excluded. Postwar growth included independent countries and, after Stalin’s death, Communist countries. The inclusion of African nations in the 1960s marked a significant advance, although the number of member countries—crucial to the institution’s financial survival—did not correspond to the near-universal level of participation in surveys and conferences. As late as 1968, only one in two participants was a member. IBE members were primarily recruited from Latin areas of influence, both in Europe and America, while English-speaking countries and their closest allies remained on the sidelines until the late 1950s, reflecting a rivalry also at work at UNESCO. In the 1930s, the organization had to navigate tensions between authoritarian and liberal democracies. The Cold War created new complications, as seen in UNESCO’s opposition to the People’s Republic of China’s participation. The most significant tensions arose in the 1960s, when newly independent African countries sought to exclude Portugal because of its colonial policies.

The final part addresses the themes discussed at the IBE conferences: teaching content and methods, issues related to the teaching profession (including training, recruitment, and status), the role of women, economic and socio-cultural aspects of expanding secondary education, and racial and colonial policies. The authors analyze the discrepancies between the IBE’s universalist rhetoric and the conservative nature of many proposals that maintained the status quo. They highlight how non-representation or under-representation of certain groups, such as women and colonized populations, marginalized key issues. The pursuit of consensus often diluted progressive recommendations, despite the IBE’s efforts to include previously overlooked populations.

Overall, this book provides a valuable reference for those interested in the IBE. Its comprehensive analysis, supported by extensive data and a rich bibliography, offers a detailed examination of the development, challenges, and contributions of the IBE. The combination of various methods, including quantitative analysis, individual case studies, attention to visual materials, and a relevant interweaving of practical and intellectual factors, contributes to the depth of the analysis. The systematicity of the approach comes at a price: Each part methodically examines several decades, so that only a posteriori can the reader construct an overall vision of the history of the IBE, balancing elements of continuity and rupture.

The investigation also opens up questions about how the IBE’s recommendations were used and adapted by different countries. Future research should explore the impact at the national level and the national networks of key figures involved in the IBE’s work. This would provide insights into how the IBE’s recommendations were received and integrated into national educational systems. This book lays the groundwork for such inquiries, and it offers a crucial resource for understanding the global governance of education and the historical context of international educational policies.