In September of last year, something changed in Geneva. Not in a big way—there were no broken gavels, walkouts, or fights that made the news. However, something moved inside the UN building. Ninety-two governments got together to talk about a plan that, depending on how the next year goes, could change the laws that govern childhood education for generations to come. The World Organization for Early Childhood Education (OMEP) has been keeping a close eye on this. It’s clear what they want to say: 2026 is not just another year on the policy calendar. The United Nations may have never been more important for children’s rights than it is now.
That claim should be looked into, not just taken at face value. Not until you see what’s on the table, though, can you say no?
The main focus is on a suggested add-on to the Convention on the Rights of the Child. This new law would require all signatory governments to provide free public education from the time a child is very young until the end of secondary school. The current convention says that primary education must be free. Junior high school? The language gets nicer. Pre-primary school? not really part of international law that applies to everyone. That gap has been there for decades, and it has kept millions of kids from going to school, especially during the most important years for their development.
At the Geneva meeting, OMEP’s World President, Mercedes Mayol Lassalle, was clear. Toddler and preschool years are not a warm-up for school; they are where learning is built. The proof for this is not new or being argued over. It’s new that it’s getting more support in the law and in politics.
There was a real sign of agreement at the session, which doesn’t happen very often in international diplomacy. A large number of the countries that were there spoke in favor of moving forward with the treaty. Free education had already changed things in Brazil, Ghana, Spain, Zambia, and Ecuador, even though their governments came from different regions, had different levels of income, and had different political situations. When Ghana got rid of upper secondary school fees in 2017, more kids from low-income families signed up. When Zambia made secondary education free in 2022, they saw the same kinds of gains. These are not guesses. They’re the results.
Seeing how everything is going makes you think that the political window is really open right now, but windows close. The chair of the session started a process of intensive consultations with the goal of getting everyone back together in 2026 to negotiate the actual treaty text. So, this year is the time to draft. For the next few decades, what is written down in 2026 will be the law about what children are owed.
For the first time in the history of making UN treaties, children took part in the session. Mari Karen, a 16-year-old from Mexico, stood in front of the governments and asked them to get rid of all direct and indirect school fees for preschool through high school. Roberto, 17, from Liberia, who was turned down for a visa and had to talk through video, said he saw kids being kicked out of school because their families couldn’t pay the fees. Their words weren’t meant to be symbolic. It was clear, rooted, and uncomfortable in a way that can only come from having lived it.
A UN survey was filled out by more than 8,000 kids from 40 countries, some of whom were as young as three years old. No matter where they lived or what language they spoke, all of their answers said the same thing: governments should stop thinking of free education as a goal for the future and start seeing it as a legal duty right now.
Not every person in the room agreed. Belgium, Eritrea, and the UK all said they were strongly against it. The UK’s position was especially strange because they admitted that there might be a gap in protections for early childhood education but said that this gap doesn’t need a new treaty. That makes little sense, especially coming from a country that gives kids what it seems to not think other kids deserve.
A lot of advocates were also confused by UNICEF’s position. The group seemed to back down from a suggestion it made in a major report the previous year. That report called for a new legally binding framework to make sure that all children have the right to early childhood education and care. Many people thought it was bad timing for them to walk that back at the same time that governments were moving toward the exact same result.
As usual, the question of money hung over the whole meeting. But the counterarguments were dealt with in a clear way. Tax reform, debt relief, and working together with other countries are not just ideas. They are tools that governments use to do their jobs. A report from Human Rights Watch on the meeting said that an education minister from a middle-income country liked the treaty because it would give him power with his own finance ministry. An international obligation that must be met is not always a burden. It can be used to negotiate.
OMEP’s view that 2026 will be a very important year is not just exaggerated. The treaty process is moving forward. The talks are already going on. This year, the draft will take place. It’s still not clear whether governments will see this as a real legal promise or let the process drag on for another ten years with cautious language and limited support, leaving 175 million preschool-age children still not protected by international law.
You still have time. But since these things happen so slowly, it makes sense to wonder how much of it is still there.
