Education International Africa

In the lead up to the revision of the ILO/UNESCO Recommendation concerning the Status of Teachers (1966) and the UNESCO Recommendation concerning the Status of Higher-Education Teaching Personnel (1997), Education International (EI) has launched a consultation process with its 375 member organisations representing over 33 million educators in 180 countries and territories.

Updated instruments to meet the needs of 21st century teachers

“The UNESCO-ILO Recommendation concerning the Status of Teachers was adopted in 1966. 59 years later, the value and relevance of its ideas on education and the teaching profession have endured. Alongside the 1997 UNESCO Recommendation concerning the Status of Higher Education Teaching Personnel, it remains the key reference point guiding efforts to enhance the status and ensure the rights of teachers. However, the context in which teachers work has changed considerably since the adoption of both these instruments”, stated Haldis Holst, EI Deputy General Secretary.

The critical shortage of 44 million teachers worldwide, the rise of artificial intelligence and technology, climate change and its impact on education communities, the rise in violent conflict and wars, global migration, austerity-driven reforms, increased precarity in the sector, the privatisation and commodification of education, the erosion of professional autonomy and academic freedom all pose new challenges to the teaching profession in the 21st century.

The recent political momentum and mobilisation around reducing the teacher shortage and strengthening the teaching profession, including the timely and progressive recommendations of the United Nations High-Level Panel on the Teaching Profession, has set the stage for the revision of the 1966 and 1997 Recommendations .

“Even though the world has changed considerably since the Recommendations were adopted, the importance of teachers has remained a constant. Teachers are the cornerstone of quality education”, Holst noted, stressing that EI is committed to support the revision process and to ensure teachers’ voices are heard, respected, and reflected in the updated Recommendations.

To this end, the EI Executive Board has set up a dedicated Task Force made up of representatives of EI member organisations across all regions that organise teachers and education support personnel at all levels of education, from early childhood to higher education. The EI Task Force will monitor the renegotiation process, provide guidance and advice on the vision and demands that EI will put forward, and steer EI’s advocacy and strategy. Its work will build upon membership consultations, a process that started with two online meetings held in June.

1966 Recommendation: Profession’s involvement in revision process is a prerequisite to the instrument’s legitimacy

On June 18 education union leaders came together for the first online consultation to discuss the revision of the 1966 UNESCO/ILO Recommendation.

Becky Pringle, President of the National Education Association (United States) and EI Vice-President, presented the mission and objectives of the EI Task Force which she chairs.

Pringle stressed the essential principle that no revision of global education policy should proceed without the full engagement of those at the heart of teaching and learning. Any revised instrument must carry integrity and legitimacy in the eyes of those implementing it. For that to happen, teachers must be active participants at every stage of the revision.

Oliver Liang, Head of the Public and Private Services Unit of the Sectoral Policies Department of the International Labour Organization, provided participants with an in-depth overview of the procedural and strategic considerations surrounding the revision of the 1966 ILO-UNESCO Recommendation regarding the Status of Teachers. He discussed the inherent challenges and opportunities for ensuring meaningful union participation. From the ILO perspective, it is crucial to anchor the revision process in tripartite social dialogue involving workers, employers, and governments. Liang also recognised the broader need for robust social dialogue and collective bargaining in shaping teacher policies.

Union leaders participating in the consultation discussed their priorities, highlighting issues such as low salaries, the impact of technology on teaching and learning, the growing precarity in the profession, education in emergencies and crisis contexts, peace education, professional autonomy and academic freedom.

Education unions also stressed the need to strengthen the Committee of Experts on the Application of the Recommendations (CEART), the supervisory body responsible for monitoring the implementation of the Recommendations. The CEART examines allegations made by teachers’ organisations, issues findings, and makes recommendations for the resolution of such cases. To safeguard the rights and status of the teaching profession, the CEART process must be made efficient, inclusive, and effective.

1997 Recommendation: Defending higher education in an age of crises

On June 30 higher education unions came together to discuss the revision of the 1997 UNESCO Recommendation concerning the Status of Higher-Education Teaching Personnel.

David Robinson, Executive Director of the Canadian Association of University Teachers (CAUT) and member of the EI Task Force for the revision of the Recommendations, stressed that the 1997 instrument remains the only international standard that explicitly articulates foundational academic values such as academic freedom, collegial governance, and tenure. All these core principles are now being challenged.

To inform its advocacy towards the revision process, EI commissioned a study on the state of higher education. Led by Professor Howard Stevenson and titled In the eye of the storm: Higher education in an age of crises, the study analyses global trends in the sector, union use of the 1997 Recommendation and CEART monitoring mechanism, with a view to identifying key focus areas for the revision process.

Addressing higher education unionists, Stevenson discussed the research findings, arguing that a convergence of crises - financial, political, environmental, and technological - has placed the sector under unprecedented strain.

The study identified three interlinked systemic threats: austerity, authoritarianism, and automation. Austerity policies have severely diminished public funding for higher education; their impact exacerbated by inflation shocks and shifting state spending priorities. This fiscal squeeze has led to the erosion of pay, pensions, and working conditions, disproportionately affecting precariously employed academics, especially women and racialised scholars. In parallel, authoritarian trends worldwide have fueled attacks on academic freedom, undermining universities’ role as critical democratic spaces. The rise of automation, especially in the form of artificial intelligence and educational technologies, was identified as a third major concern, as their unregulated expansion risks homogenising pedagogy, undermining the role of academic labour, and weakening the higher education experience.

Central to the findings of the study was the urgent need to protect collegial governance and academic freedom. Stevenson warned of a “battle of ideas” playing out in universities, where some governments are actively suppressing critical scholarship and diversity, equity, inclusion discourses under nationalist or conservative agendas. Strong, independent, and well-resourced trade unions, he argued, are essential in defending academic freedom and resisting managerial and political encroachments.

Looking ahead to the revision of the 1997 Recommendation, Stevenson outlined four key areas for consideration emerging from the research:

1. Strengthening the recognition of academic freedom as an indispensable condition for quality education and research.
2. Embedding protections for tenure and secure employment, especially amidst rising precarity.
3. Integrating updated language on technological change and workforce inequalities.
4. Reinforcing CEART’s monitoring, transparency, and enforcement mechanisms, including by addressing the current limitations related to governance, which allow ministries to use institutional autonomy as a pretext to defer responsibility to higher education institutions who remain outside the scope of CEART’s direct oversight.

Representatives of higher education unions from various countries echoed Professor Stevenson’s findings and flagged additional areas to be covered by the updated Recommendation, including provisions on well-being, safe working environments, and pensions.

Participants also emphasised the need to recognise the challenges facing higher education as issues of democracy. The legitimacy of higher education institutions in terms of advancing, imparting, and disseminating knowledge is currently being eroded by a growing distrust of experts and academic institutions among the public, a trend fuelled by certain political actors. The revised Recommendation can be a valuable instrument in defending universities as centres of democracy and free inquiry.

The experience of teachers everywhere must inform the Recommendations

Structured consultations with EI member organisations will continue throughout the revision, with the goal of creating an inclusive process that reflects the lived realities of educators worldwide.