A conversation has been subtly getting more intense in Buenos Aires at the modest administrative address where OMEP keeps its world secretariat. It’s about who gets to decide what the youngest children’s education should entail. The argument seems reasonable, even scholarly, on one level. On the other hand, it directly addresses one of the most unresolved conflicts in international education policy: whether universal standards for early childhood education can withstand interaction with radically disparate national contexts, political structures, and conceptions of childhood.
The World Organization for Early Childhood Education, or OMEP, unites members from over 70 nations in support of children’s rights and high-quality early care. Its positions are given weight in discussions of international policy because it has special consultative status with the UN and UNESCO. However, Mercedes Mayol Lassalle, the organization’s world president, recently wrote a piece outlining the extent to which that common framework is currently being tested. She wrote in response to Argentina’s proposed Freedom of Education Bill, framing it as a window into a global debate about whether education is primarily a freedom that families and markets should control or a right that states must uphold.
| Field | Details |
|---|---|
| Organization | OMEP — World Organisation for Early Childhood Education (Organisation Mondiale pour l’Éducation Préscolaire) |
| Founded | Active in 70+ countries since establishment |
| Headquarters | Buenos Aires, Argentina (Sanchez de Bustamante 191 – 2K) |
| World President | Mercedes Mayol Lassalle |
| UN/UNESCO Status | Special consultative status with UN, UNESCO, UNICEF |
| Age Range Focus | Children 0–8 years |
| Core Mission | Promote children’s rights with emphasis on right to quality education and care worldwide |
| Official Languages | English, French, Spanish |
| Key Publication | International Journal of Early Childhood (IJEC) |
| 76th World Assembly | 2024 — reviewed and renewed strategic goals |
| 74th World Assembly | 2022 — Athens, Greece; focus on COVID-19 education disruption |
| Key Education Focus | Education for Sustainable Development (ESD), children’s rights, gender equality |
| SDG Commitment | UN SDG 4 — quality early childhood development and pre-primary education for all girls and boys |
| ESD Rating Scale | Developed 2011–2014 across 7 countries (Chile, China, England, Kenya, Korea, Sweden, USA) |
| Recent Position | Reflection on Argentina’s Freedom of Education Bill and its global implications |
| Key Pedagogical Influences | Froebel, Montessori, Steiner, Freire, Malaguzzi |
This distinction is crucial when discussing children between the ages of 0 and 8. The body of research on early childhood education is as consistent as it gets: high-quality early care and education results in long-term benefits for social skills, cognitive development, school readiness, and long-term economic outcomes. Children who receive high-quality early education have better health indicators, lower rates of involvement in the criminal justice system, and higher earnings as adults. The evidence spans decades of research, nations, and income brackets. For many years, OMEP has built its programs around this evidence, such as its Education for Sustainable Development framework, which is based on the pedagogical traditions of Froebel, Montessori, Steiner, Freire, and Malaguzzi. Each of these educators has argued, in a different way, that young children learn best through engagement, relationship, and exploration of the natural and social world.
The conflict that arises at OMEP’s World Assemblies—the 76th Assembly in 2024 made this especially evident—is between that common body of research and the vast differences in how nations actually set up early childhood systems. Some countries have made significant investments in universal public services. Others, with subsidies for the poorest families, rely almost exclusively on private markets. While some employ standardized curricula with quantifiable results, others safeguard early childhood educators’ professional autonomy to tailor instruction to the particular children in front of them. The 2022 Athens Assembly noted that COVID-19 disrupted the education of over 90% of children worldwide, the largest disruption in recorded history. The fallout has intensified disagreements about what recovery should entail and who should spearhead it.
It is difficult to ignore the fact that the debates taking place in Argentina are nearly identical to those occurring concurrently in various Asia-Pacific contexts, parts of the United States, and parts of Europe. The language is different. There are differences among the political actors. However, the fundamental question remains the same: is early childhood education a service that families choose based on their own means and preferences, or is it a public good that governments owe every child? OMEP has always maintained that it is a right, not a good, and that state parties are in charge of making it a reality. In legislatures where funding is limited, ideological currents are strong, and the children most impacted by the outcome are too young to cast ballots, it is simpler to maintain that stance in theory than to defend it.
It is genuinely unclear whether OMEP’s voice will have enough influence to change those legislative discussions. The organization is present in the rooms where international frameworks are drafted because of its consultative status at the UN and UNESCO. Educators, researchers, and advocates within the OMEP network are still debating whether or not those frameworks have any significant impact on national policy, assembly by assembly, paper by paper, and nation by nation.
