The issues surrounding the teaching profession, its role, status and training were raised in almost all the surveys and debates.Footnote 1 But they were also addressed as a cause in themselves through no fewer than 15 recommendations corresponding to as many investigations published in the form of volumes, summary reports and discussions at the ICPE. Two issues dominated:Footnote 2 teacher training was dealt with seven times, and teacher status and salary five times. These issues were on the agenda at the first ICPEs in 1935 and 1938 and were taken up again 15 years later,Footnote 3 in parallel for primary and secondary education. The issue of training was also discussed in a more specialised manner: the role of psychology, the education of primary teacher educators and the further training of primary teachers.

The central themes were therefore examined twice over time, distinguishing between primary and secondary schools. This allows us to observe the evolution before and after the Second World War as well as the differences between teachers at the two school levels, and both factors can be cross-matched. Given the huge disparities between countries in terms of status and treatment, how would it be possible to define a common denominator? Could it be the same in these different periods and for teachers at the first and second levels?Footnote 4

A High Level of Pedagogical Training

By the 1930s, it was clear that the training of primary school teachers had to be of a high standard, taking advantage of the new knowledge available so as to keep pace with the profound economic, social and political changes. The 1935 ICPE therefore noted that “the present economic and social conditions, and the development of knowledge have made the task of elementary school teachers much more difficult and more complex” (R 4, 1935, recital 1). Moreover, teacher training reforms were underway in most countries.

The tone was quite different with regard to secondary school teachers, still in 1935. It was as if the need for training had finally been recognised.

In fact [the rapporteur notes], high intellectual qualities are most important for secondary education and it is only in recent years that the need to provide secondary teachers with professional and pedagogical preparation has proved to be more and more essential. (p. 101)

However, the concrete proposals remained cautious and few in number.

The context changed fundamentally after the war. The delegates once again invoked rapid and profound social changes to advocate longer and more in-depth training. New advances in educational science would also give “teachers” tools to improve their teaching methods (R 36, 1953, N°33).Footnote 5 For secondary education, the argument for vocational training took a completely different turn. E. Löffler, first delegate of the Federal Republic of Germany,Footnote 6 put in the core of his report in 1954—in line with the policy of wider access to secondary education—the observation that

A large number of present-day students at the secondary level had no intention of continuing their education in the universities; and the school must fit itself to cater for their needs. Changes of that sort exercised an influence on the qualifications required for the teaching profession and on training as a teacher. (p. 63)

This observation is taken up in various forms, for example by the Chilean delegate Humberto Dîaz Casaneuva, who highlighted the need for structural change in the system and called for a transformation of training:

Without marring the existing character of the high school, it was necessary to modify it to meet its new social functions. Accordingly, the secondary teacher must be trained in such a way that high school would become an institution meeting the challenge launched by modern society. (p. 56)

These reflections went as far as calling for the same training for all secondary school teachers: Martha Shull (USA) stated that “there was a growing trend towards giving all teachers the same basic training, beginning with a broad, liberal international and humanitarian background” (p. 57). This would not be included in the recommendations, probably because it was too progressive and at odds with the dominant representations.

Training All Teachers in Higher Education Institutions

Which institutions were best suited to provide this training? For primary school teachers, as early as 1934, the delegates advocated the separation of the time of acquisition of a broad general culture within a secondary school and that of professional training; there is “a current opinion in favour of training elementary school teachers in Universities or University Institutes of Education, or in Teachers’ Colleges” (R 3, 1934, N°2), without entirely excluding the “école normale” in France, or the German Lehrerseminar. For secondary school teachers, there was general agreement on the need for university training in the subjects of their future teaching which however “should not be limited” (R 3, 1934, N°3) to these; the institutional anchorage of this professional training was not specified. However, positions were curiously more cautious in 1953, perhaps due to an awareness of the difficulties of implementation in low-income countries, which were more represented in the ICPE. Certainly, “the ideal to be gradually reached is training at university level” (R 36, 1953, N°10; see also R 45, 1957, N°2), but as Robert Dottrens the Swiss rapporteur explained in 1953:

The facts must be faced however. The ideal [is the] separation between the general and professional aspects of primary teacher training […] this is far from being the case over a very large part of the globe. In the majority of countries, primary teacher training establishments are at secondary level or between secondary and university level. (p. 142)

As far as secondary education was concerned, the requirement for high-level vocational training was clear, and the recommendations were that it should take place in higher education structures: either in universities or in specialised institutions such as pedagogical academies.

Education Sciences: The Profession’s Reference Discipline

A comparison of the content of training recommended before and after the war reveals a key difference. In 1935, the proposals for both primary and secondary schools were terse: theoretical training in the field of educational science and its auxiliary disciplines, particularly psychology, and practical training, if possible, in training schools.

After the war, the issue of “curricula” for teacher education became central. The aim was to address both child and adolescent psychology and pedagogy from a theoretical point of view as well as a practical one which included the history of education, courses on the organisation of schools, administration and legislation and also the educational problems of the country concerned, general didactics, “special methods of teaching the various subjects”, to which was added comparative education, a field embodied by the IBE itself:

the study of comparative educationFootnote 7 [that] should enable teachers-in-training to grasp the universal nature of certain educational problems, and at the same time to realize the necessity of adapting principles to national, regional and local conditions. (R 36, 1953, N°3; our italics)

For secondary school teachers, we also notice an extension, even if the share of professional training was reduced regarding the disciplines. In 1954, Dottrens proposed to complete the article on educational sciences: “Such courses should also include experimental education (evaluation techniques) and sociology”, a proposition accepted by a sizeable majority (p. 90). These options also derive from the evolution of the said sciences, in particular experimental pedagogy or pedagogical psychology or educational psychologyFootnote 8; it should also be noted that as sociology emerged, it progressively found its place in the training programme.Footnote 9

Psychology, however, remained in prime position. The VIth session of the ICPE in 1937 was even concerned with the teaching of psychology in the training programme of primary and secondary school teachers, and more particularly teaching the understanding of the child’s and the adolescent’s thinking, to the detriment of tests and evaluation methods. “Scientific knowledge is not enough. The teacher must know how to understand the pupils and must be aware of the psychology of youth” (ICPE, 1935, p. 42), stated the Norwegian delegate. By listing the psychologies to be studied (differential, general and genetic), Piaget specified in the same Conference:

Finally, the most important part of psychology, for educators, relates to the development of the child, i.e. genetic psychology. […] In contrast to the notions on which traditional education was based, according to which the child would have ready-made faculties at the outset, which it would be a matter of using and furnishing, development is a long construction and presupposes an active pedagogy. The new pedagogy based on activity is in line with the discoveries of psychology. (p. 47)

Later on, the Italian delegate claimed enthusiastically: “Psychology is like the air, it must be present everywhere” (p. 33).Footnote 10 Here we find the ideological background of the IBE which underpinned the thinking on teacher education.Footnote 11

In discussions on the general objectives of teacher education, many delegates emphasised the importance of morality. In 1935, a recommendation stated “that the selection of candidates should not depend solely on knowledge acquired, but that moral, intellectual and physical aptitudes should be seriously taken into account” (R 4, 1935, N°3). This attention remained constant: in 1953, the delegates unanimously adopted the Spanish proposal to add “moral” to “psychological and physical training” (p. 101). One year later, the representative from Lebanon

stressed the need for providing prospective teachers with a moral and spiritual training as Mr Picot [the Swiss delegate] had already pointed out. It was regrettable that the questionnaire had failed to deal with that matter; he accordingly trusted that the omission would be rectified in the draft recommendations. (1954, p. 40)

Along with others, the French delegate, Brunold, agreed, stating:

Bearing this in mind, the training of teachers, who were the shapers of humanity, should be governed by […] stress on moral training because present-day life called for very strong qualities of character and persistence in man, as well as a team spirit, isolated actions don’t exist any more. (p. 57s)

As the delegates saw it, the teaching profession was thus subject to the double imperatives of a high intellectual training requirement, ensured on a scientific basis, and a moral imperative that would build leading personalities, which appeared much more difficult to make operational.

Opposing Ideologies Subtly Expressed

Behind the unanimity of the votes on the recommendations, there were nuances in the different positions. The significance of national dimensions is a good example. In the 1930s, delegations from fascist countries insisted: “The teacher must therefore be given the necessary knowledge, but above all the notion of what constitutes the foundation of national life” (ICPE, 1935, p. 34), as the former Italian Minister of Education Balbino Giuliano said. “Develop above all the spirit of community (by means of Hitler Youth, civil service, camps)” (p. 45), declared the German delegate Alfred Huhnhäuser. For him: “professional training must be such as to ensure that future teachers are in close contact with the people” (p. 49), an addition refused and replaced by the wording of the French delegate Barrier: “professional training must be such as to ensure that future teachers have close contact with the populations among whom they will have to teach” (p. 49). We find traces of an anti-democratic ideology also during the 1954 ICPE. Indeed, Article 14 submitted for discussion stated:

The professional training of secondary teachers should include […] special courses involving for instance a study of social phenomena and relationships, professional ethics, international understanding, etc. so as to foster a spirit of democracy, freedom and brotherhood of mankind. (p. 89)

The Portuguese delegate Maria Irene Leita da Costa replied that she could not agree. She therefore proposed replacing the expression “a spirit of democracy, freedom and brotherhood of mankind” with “the realisation of the aspirations of all the peoples”, implying that, in her view, there were peoples who did not aspire to democracy and freedom; she was no doubt thinking of her own country, which was under dictatorship. The amendment was rejected by 19 votes to 7 (p. 90).

The Status of Teachers

The ICPEs had consistently advocated for better status and better treatment for teachers. This was particularly the case in times of shortage. Referring explicitly to the 1938 recommendations, the 1967 ICPE unanimously proposed:

Steps should be taken to ensure not only that secondary school teachers’ salaries and social security conditions compare favourably with those of other professions requiring similar and equivalent qualifications, but also that their conditions of living, work and employment as well as their professional prospects are such as to attract and retain in the teaching profession an adequate number of fully qualified persons. (R 62, 1967, N°13)

This is evidence that this was a reflection that had been taken for granted over the decades, especially since the teacher shortage could also be explained by the unsatisfactory and sometimes miserable conditions that affected the profession. These are certainly speeches but their perpetuation until the 1960s is a clear indication of the gap between principles and recommendations and their application.

Let us go back 30 years. The Conference of American Member States of the ILO, meeting as early as 1936, asked the ILO and the IBEFootnote 12 for an enquiry into the “living and working conditions of teaching personnel in primary and secondary education being agreed upon”. The former received little response, whereas the IBE’s approach provided a clear picture of these conditions, resulting in two recommendations, one for primary and one for secondary education, with little difference between the two in substance. The 1938 report addressed many issues related to salaries and social welfare, which were far from being agreed (p. 75ss). Some, like the Swiss delegate Borel, believed that the teacher should not have any material concerns, and even that “his modest situation encourages him to better understand the difficulties faced by the parents of pupils” (p. 26): a plea for alignment with the lower social classes, workers and peasants, who formed the majority of the population. The proposal made by the drafters of the recommendation is in a completely different vein:

Moreover, it is important for his moral authority, as well as for the maintenance of his good state of mind, that an unfavourable comparison should not be made between his material situation and that of the liberal or manual categories of a corresponding social level. (p. 33)

This wording is clearly aimed at aligning teachers’ wages with socially valued professions. This article would be strongly watered down and would become “that he should receive a salary enabling him to maintain his dignity and his good state of mind” (R 13, 1938, N°3). The explicit refusal of any comparison with other professions and social classes in fact left governments room for manoeuvre: a typical compromise in the debates and recommendations of the ICPEs, supposedly reconciling opposites, but avoiding contradictions. A universal by abstraction one might say.

Another discrepancy emerged in relation to gender pay. In his report presented in 1939, the rapporteur wrote cautiously: “Often male and female teachers are paid the same, but sometimes they are paid differently. Almost all Anglo-Saxon countries fall into this second category” (p. 98). Indeed, in the 1938 ICPE the UK proposed to delete the article providing for equality of treatment, and succeeded in getting the phrase: “no difference should be made” to be replaced by “in particular, it would seem desirable that there should be no difference between the salaries of men and women teachers” (p. 41; R 13, 1938, N°3). And in 1939, Scotland came back to the topic, calling for the deletion of the article providing for equality.

On the other hand, Mexican delegate Pajma Guillen argued for this requirement to be strengthened (p. 53). Both of these would be reduced, in favour of the previous year’s compromise solution. A similar “consensus” was reached on equal treatment for nursery school teachers and all primary school teachers. The Belgian delegate Marcel Nyns had reservations about this, and the absolute requirement would therefore be watered down with the clarification “when the duration of school service is of a comparable order” (p. 41).Footnote 13 These skirmishes were conducted along lines that at first sight seem surprising: it was the Anglo-Saxon countries, reputed to be more advanced in terms of gender equality, that refused equal treatment. The operation of school systems which were decentralised and more governed by local authorities and less by a central legal framework (Lawn, 2013) undoubtedly made unification in this area more difficult.

The definition of the legal status of primary and secondary teachers did not lead to such dissension. Whether they were civil servants of the state, the provinces or the local authorities, a teacher who met all the formal requirements for their work could only be “deprived of it for serious misconduct” (p. 37 for primary, p. 46 for secondary school). Could it be that there was only a facade of unanimity, with no one daring to contradict the principle, despite practices that were obviously contrary to it in many countries? It is difficult to say, especially as there was no debate. Fifteen years later, the 1953 and 1954 Recommendations concerning the salary and status of primary and secondary school teachers confirmed the positions developed before the war; they clarified them by systematically introducing a comparison with professions with high-level qualifications, training and responsibilities, and also provided for remedies. The principle of equal treatment for men and women was no longer contested, including for women teachers in kindergartens.

In terms of content, the most important change was that from now on the delegates advocated for the systematic participation of representatives of the profession in the drafting of contracts and directives and in appeal bodies. In order to promote this, a rule was introduced: “Teachers should have the right to join freely whichever professional organisations they prefer, which would be qualified to represent them on all occasions” (R 37, 1953, N°11), a rule which was still generalized in 1954 and stated that secondary school teachers “should freely enjoy all civic rights” (R 39, 1954, N°5).

This demand for recognition of teachers’ associations also applies to the IBE and its ICPEs: from 1953 onwards, the Comité d’entente des fédérations internationales du personnel enseignant and the World Confederation of Organisations of the Teaching Profession were systematically invited as observers, representing tens of millions of professionals (Image 19.1). The representative of these associations expressed his satisfaction by pointing out:

the presence of an observer from the Joint Committee at this Conference marked a new stage in the fruitful collaboration which had been built up over the past five years between UNESCO and the International Bureau of Education on the one hand, and the international organisations of educators which, as a Secretary-General of the Joint Committee, he had the honour to represent on the other. (p. 55)

Image 19.1
A photograph of draft of the table of expenditures for education per country. The rows are for different countries with columns for their budget total and more.

Draft for the table of expenditures for education per country, 1933. This table is part of the first survey discussed in an ICPE (1934), published in French on the question of budget savings in education. Note that the inquiry also included colonies like India, Belgian Congo, Tunisia, etc. (© IBE)

Full size image