The phrase “We just don’t have the data” has been a recurring theme in American education policy hearings for decades. In Senate subcommittees, it is stated. In think tank panels, it is stated. Every time someone advocates for increased federal funding for early childhood education and care, this statement is made. The implication is always the same: ambitious policy is a leap of faith that no one in Washington is willing to take in the absence of solid, globally comparable evidence. The data is now arriving, which is a recent change that has happened quietly and without much fanfare. And a large portion of that narrative revolves around an organization that most American policymakers would be hard-pressed to identify on a good day.
The World Organization for Early Childhood Education, or OMEP, was founded in 1948 as a result of the first UNESCO-sponsored international conference held in Prague, where representatives from seventeen nations gathered in rooms that most likely smelled of genuine hope and postwar exhaustion. It has national committees in more than 70 countries, strong ties to UNESCO and UNICEF, and consultative status at the UN. It has operated for the majority of its existence in the manner that international civil society organizations typically operate: through expert consultations, assembly declarations, and advocacy documents. Not precisely the kind of detailed field research that shifts budget line items, but still useful.
Something has changed. The discourse surrounding equitable research partnerships, which are truly reciprocal collaborations as opposed to the previous extractive model in which Western institutions collected data from communities and flew home, has become so loud that it is altering the actual design and control of research. The international networks of OMEP, especially those in Africa, Latin America, and now Central and Eastern Europe through the World Conference in Poznań in 2026, are producing the kind of cross-contextual, comparative evidence that fills in the gaps that American researchers have found difficult to fill at home.
It’s important to be clear about the type of data that this truly refers to. Contextual issues have long plagued American early childhood policy; while there are studies, they are frequently limited, culturally specific, or difficult to generalize. The breadth of OMEP’s network allows educators, researchers, and civil society actors from widely disparate systems to contribute to a common understanding of what works in early childhood care and education across cultural contexts, economic conditions, and levels of state investment. Manufacturing that within the research ecosystem of a single nation is really challenging.
As the 78th OMEP World Assembly takes shape around the theme of Janusz Korczak’s legacy—that amazing Polish-Jewish educator who thought children were complete individuals deserving of dignity now, not future citizens to be shaped—it seems that the framing is just as important as the conclusions. Korczak’s emphasis on listening to kids is more than just a philosophical belief. It’s methodical. Research designs that prioritize children’s lived experiences generate a variety of questions, which in turn generate a variety of data.
For years, American policymakers have stated that they are looking for proof that supports ongoing funding for early childhood systems. Whether they will act on evidence that comes from sources they don’t immediately recognize is still up in the air. However, the missing data is no longer present. It’s becoming more difficult to keep up that specific justification.
