Theresa Frey, Abass Isiaka, and Yann Lebeau School of Education and Lifelong Learning, University of East Anglia

Introduction

The COVID-19 pandemic was about to severely disrupt international mobility when UNESCO launched in November 2019 a plan to redefine that mobility as a global project. The Global Convention for the Recognition of Qualifications in Higher Education (hereafter GC) adopted at the 40th General Assembly was indeed “the first UN legally binding standard-setting instrument for global higher education” but is it the game changer its promoters announced towards a global transparent and non-discriminatory recognition of qualifications? The GC’s history dates back to the 1970s, when UNESCO first proposed the idea of a global framework to regulate academic mobility and unify recognition systems worldwide. Eventually, six regional conventions were adopted instead to regulate recognition at regional levels, covering the areas of Latin America and the Caribbean (1974), the Arab and European States bordering the Mediterranean (1976), the Arab States (1978), Europe (1979), Africa (1981), and Asia and the Pacific (1983).

These “first generation” regional conventions were subsequently revised to reflect a changing global landscape of study mobility and are known in their new format as the Lisbon Convention (developed with the Council of Europe in 1997), the Tokyo Convention (2011), the Addis Ababa Convention (2014), the Buenos Aires Convention (2019), and the Arab States Convention adopted in Paris in 2022. Regional conventions were designed to address the implications of trends such as the massification of higher education, the diversification of educational offerings, shifts in learning paradigms, the acceleration of internationalisation and emerging transnationalisation of higher education, as well as the steady rise of transborder professional mobility (UNESCO-IELSAC, 2023).

The GC, therefore, appears to complement instruments already championing the fair recognition of foreign higher education qualifications by universalising their principles and extending them to non-traditional learning modes (e.g. Transnational Education). The GC also offers UNESCO an opportunity to align its Higher Education (hereafter HE) agenda with growing calls for a decolonial and more sustainable internationalisation. And finally, the GC is being promoted as a standard-setting instrument that recognises new challenges, such as the forced internationalisation of HE induced by population displacements and the integration of qualified refugees into the labour markets of host countries.

A closer attention to the timing of the adoption of the GC questions the image of linearity and complementarity of the two types of conventions promoted by UNESCO. One might wonder why UNESCO deemed it appropriate to develop and adopt a global convention when some of the “second generation” regional conventions had yet to be adopted and ratified. In fact, with the exception of the Lisbon Convention of 1997, framing recognition across the European Higher Education Area and North America, revised regional conventions were still in their infancy and facing mistrust, if not resistance, from member states. The question then is: why did UNESCO push ahead with a global recognition agenda instead of investing in the consolidation of regional instruments largely identical in wording? 

To address this question, we returned to how the GC came to be, and to why dominant players (in Europe in particular) in the international HE field joined forces to support the introduction of yet another layer of regulation to a world already tailored to their own economic and symbolic profit. 

International student mobility in a world of polycrisis

Over the past three decades, international student mobility has experienced significant changes and shifts under the deregulation, diversification, and massification of higher education, but also as a result of rising environmental, political, and economic crises challenging the neoliberal economy and ideology of mobility.

In this context, the unilateral flow and attached celebratory narrative of mobility is challenged by scholars and trends alike, in the Global South in particular. New dynamics, particularly the regionalisation of mobility, begin to mitigate the ecological toll of over 7 million globally mobile students and advance the prospect of more sustainable and equitable regional higher education cooperation. Regional initiatives, particularly in South America, also seek to disrupt long-standing South–North dependencies and reimagine mobility beyond the gravitational pull of elite Northern institutions.

In today’s polycrisis context, dotted by protracted wars, climate emergencies, authoritarianism, neo-nationalism and growing displacement, rethinking ISM is not only timely but necessary. As the boundaries between higher education mobility and migration become increasingly porous, the need to develop sustainable frameworks for understanding and supporting mobility becomes ever more urgent. But is a Global Convention the answer?

Meanings and Expectations

The GC adopted in 2019 has so far been ratified by 38 countries. At the heart of this rather slow ratification process is the interpretive work of various actors, including national ministries, universities, international organisations, and stakeholder organisations, each with contrasting interests in the convention and its proposed scope. The expression of these differences is seen in UNESCO’s self-presentation as a “laboratory of ideas”, a global public sphere drawing on tools like the GC, conceived as inclusive discursive spaces shaped by both expert knowledge and member state consensus.

UNESCO highlighted three of the GC’s ten objectives in advancing its agenda for inclusive internationalisation, namely establishing a fair, transparent, and equitable global framework for qualification recognition, promoting a “culture of quality assurance” within HE systems, and ensuring “recognition for all,” including refugees and displaced persons (UNESCO, 2019). Interestingly, this implicit critique of global HE market dynamics and alignment with the UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) faces incredulity and reluctance from among the Global South countries it is aiming to primarily benefit. This is because the inclusivity gloss of the agenda tends to mask the tangible implications of the norm-setting instrument for national policies. While some Member States support and promote (through their early ratification) the Convention as a tool to expand graduates’ access to international labour markets, reduce brain drain, and integrate displaced populations, others simply do not see its immediate interest, are wary of models from the Global North (such as the European Lisbon Convention or ENQA) seeping through a highly permeable UNESCO, see in the GC a facilitator of transnational education initiatives from the Global North, or are reluctant to further open their HE and labour market opportunities. 

This was evident in our interviews with officials from Türkiye, Jordan, and Zambia and with regional UNESCO officials. For example, Turkish officials stated that ratifying the Lisbon Recognition Convention (LRC) and the Tokyo Convention had already integrated their country into a global higher education framework aligned with its internationalisation goals. Ratifying the GC was therefore not a policy priority. For Jordan, the decision was more complex. Yet to ratify a regional convention perceived as equating its qualifications with those neighbouring  countries it does not recognise academically, the country sees the GC as a more valuable route to the global visibility and legitimacy of its qualifications and is  further engaged in its ratification (Interviews, 2024). Meanwhile, in some regional UNESCO offices, officials warned that discounting regional conventions in favour of a single global framework could reinforce existing centre-periphery dynamics.

Complex intertwined influential factors involving voluntary financial contributions, strategic appointments and active diplomatic promotion from dominant State Parties and non-state actors such as regional agencies and organisations (e.g. the EU) complicates the actual agency of member States despite their prerogative over higher education. This is something important for UNESCO to consider. While offering long-sought possibilities for inter-regional collaboration and mobility (particularly within the Global South) and providing an alternative to fragmented and unequal pathways of post-mobility integration into labour markets, the GC also risks reproducing global hierarchies by allowing influences across its policy cycle from formulation to implementation.

In a rapidly changing world of ISM where international league tables and private supra-national accreditation agencies increasingly act as proxies for quality and recognition of programmes and institutions, the GC is as much a political and symbolic instrument as it is a policy tool. Its global appeal lies in its promise of inclusive and sustainable regulation of internationalisation, but its adoption and implementation remain deeply rooted in geopolitical, institutional, and historical inequalities. Understanding the GC, therefore, requires not only attention to its stated aims (or what UNESCO and its state parties seek to achieve with it) but also to the complex interplay of meaning, expectation, and power that underpins its emergence as a global education norm.

References

UNESCO. (2019). Global Convention on the Recognition of Qualifications concerning Higher Education.

UNESCO. (n.d.). What is the Global Convention on higher education? | UNESCO. Retrieved February 9, 2025, from

Author Bios

Theresa Frey

Theresa Frey is a PhD student at the School of Education and Lifelong Learning at the University of East Anglia and an adjunct faculty member at State University of New York (SUNY), Westchester Community College. Theresa has been a higher education professional since 2008. Theresa’s research has focused on international education, refugee education, and justice-centred education practices through art and creative approaches for refugee and migrant children. In addition, Theresa’s PhD research focuses on decolonising and futures practices of youth education activists in New York City, United States, through ethnography and participatory action research.

Abass Isiaka

Abass B. Isiaka (PhD) is a Senior Research Associate in Widening Participation at the Centre for Higher Education Research, Practice, Policy and Scholarship (CHERPPS) at the University of East Anglia, Norwich, United Kingdom. As an SRA at CHERPPS, he works on a range of evaluation and research projects informing the University’s inclusive policy and widening access and participation for underrepresented and/or disadvantaged groups such as those with specific learning differences (SpLDs), autism spectrum disorder (ASD), and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD).

Yann Lebeau

Yann Lebeau is Professor of Higher Education Research, and Head of the School of Education and Lifelong Learning at the University of East Anglia. He joined the School in 2007 after holding teaching and research positions in France (Brest, Bordeaux), in Nigeria (Ibadan) and at the UK’s Open University. His research interests are in the sociology of higher education communities and where higher education, policy and social change intersect. He has done extensive empirical research on the University/society nexus and on questions of international policy transfers, internationalisation, academic mobility, in Africa, Latin America, the Middle East, and in Europe. Yann is a member of several education and development research networks. He has been involved for over 20 years in the design and delivery of research training and research capacity building programmes worldwide, notably with the Open Society Foundations and with the Council for the Development of Social Sciences in Africa (CODESRIA).

‘To even begin to attack our destructive and punitive educational system, pedagogies that promote social justice must have teeth. They must move beyond feel-good language and gimmicks to help educators understand and recognize America and its schools as spaces of Whiteness, White rage, and White supremacy’ (Love, 2019, p. 13).

Imagine a learning environment, formal or informal, where youth come together to create agreements that build dialogue, respect, and accountability. The youth are active participants in shaping their learning experiences and co-creating a set of expectations that foster a safe and inclusive learning environment. In the co-creating, the youth feel empowered to take ownership of their education and actively participate in shaping the classroom culture. This is the building of Community Agreements.

This blog post is a call to action after our paper, ‘Do Not Raise Your Hand: Restorative Justice in Community Agreements’, for ���Ĵ�ý’s 2023 Annual Early Career conference, Transformative education as a force for change: reflections and experiences from around the world. We will expand on the Community Agreement practices for practitioners and researchers towards decolonising and youth community-centred approaches.

Our work as a practitioner and a researcher is alongside New York City youth. New York City is the largest school district in the United States. The public school students of the Global Majority. Youth face the harsh realities of the and policing in schools and their communities on an everyday basis. While many schools worldwide do not require students to go through metal detectors or have police examining and questioning students upon entry to the school, this is a reality for many students in New York City. New York City public schools remain some of the in the United States. Understanding the laws and policies through the lens of Critical Race Theory and Culturally Relevant practices is crucial (Crenshaw, 1988; Huber et al., 2024; LadsonBillings, 2021). By prioritising youth voices, fostering mutual respect, and embracing the ongoing journey of learning, we can advocate with youth for a learning environment transformed by restorative justice principles.

What are Community Agreements: Initial Discussions

Community Agreements are learning environment agreements that formally and informally disrupt systems of oppression, re-imagine voice and participation, and are co-created through community and youth-led approaches. ‘Addressing a dehumanizing dominant narrative involves understanding’ (España & Herrera, 2020, p.116). The Community Agreements prioritise agreements in action by starting with a facilitated discussion of values and desired learning environment, including parameters for accountability. The discussion grounds youth in a journey of collective imagination that requires them to reflect on their core values (friendship, respect, knowledge) and how these core values impact their learning. This initial discussion builds a foundation of understanding that centres youth’s experiences and values by including their everyday experiences.

An initial discussion example: this is an excerpt from a student-led and co-created workshop on ‘Knowing Your Rights when Going through School Metal Detectors’:

‘Hey, Y’all, my name is *name*, and today our focus is on addressing and learning about the metal detectors on our campus. I’m excited for this discussion. This is a safe community space, and your ideas, thoughts and experiences are welcome! That being said, we want to make sure that we are able to have effective and fruitful discussions as a community around this topic where typically differing opinions arise. One way we can do that is through community agreements. Are there any agreements folks want to uplift in this space today? (Wassif, 2023) – Elizabeth Wassif, NYC public school student.

Through the discussion, key concepts are further broken down to help the youth understand concepts like ‘respect’. The youth explore what respect looks, feels, and sounds like in their cultures and backgrounds, fostering a common language for respectful interaction. Simultaneously, the conversation on the concept of ‘yet’ is acknowledged. Learning is a continuous process, and the Community Agreements focus on striving towards goals, with the understanding that mistakes are stepping stones on the path where we can lay tools alongside to guide us through accountability.

As the ideas for Community Agreements are created, some essential steps have been practical. In small groups, have youth…

• think about how they operate in their communities.
• think about their own needs within community spaces.
• generate ideas about how they can contribute positively to their communities.
• think about maximising and minimising their learning and the tools they use to mitigate that.

Beginning Community Agreements with the prompts above serve two functions. 

First, youth are challenged to be radically honest about their own conditioning and habits— thinking about their current reality and the collective reality they are intentionally building in this community. Furthermore, youth reflect on where their needs are met and where they must show up for this community. 

Secondly, youth are called to confront and explore what they know about themselves and their communities and then imagine the practical steps to move towards agreements specific to the group’s needs and responsive to the community’s vision for its time together. This work towards community and time-specific agreements helps to bypass more generic Community Agreements.

After discussing these prompts in smaller groups, youth come together as a whole group and present their thoughts; from there, a foundation is built that allows for an intentional and grounded process for generating Community Agreements.

Generating Community Agreements

Community Agreements are powerful tools for educators seeking to foster a more equitable and engaging learning environment. They establish a ‘collectiv[e] responsibl[ity] for addressing the issue[s]’ as they empower youth voices by co-creating learning engagement expectations centred on restorative justice (Emdin, 2016, p.73).

Agreements are brought up through suggestions, and each agreement is elaborated on in the following ways:

• Checking for understanding: some agreements are stated in acronyms or are vague— being specific is crucial.
• Checking for accountability: ‘How can we actively uphold this agreement in our space?’

The community of youth not only builds safe spaces for themselves but also challenges traditional power structures. ‘Educators and educational policy makers must build learning spaces that are responsive to trauma’ (Morris, 2019, p. 51). Community Agreement practice lends itself to disrupting traditional dynamics. Agreement Examples:

• ‘Do Not Raise Your Hand’ challenges the traditional call-and-response system, dismantling the power imbalance between educators and youth. It fosters participation based on the desire to contribute meaningfully, not on being the fastest to raise a hand.
• ‘Take Space, Leave Space’ challenges societal conditioning and breaks up formal and informal white supremacy structures in the learning environment. It encourages youth to become keenly aware of how much time and voice they are taking up in the community and to respect the need for others to contribute.
• ‘One Mic’ is an active acknowledgement of who is speaking and calls community members in so every voice is heard and respected. When used in practice, it serves as a tool that youth can use for accountability without relying on a facilitator or ‘leader’, and the youth demonstrate the practice of investment in their community and their agreements.

Community Agreements as Living Documents:

Community Agreements are living documents and are revisited to ensure they reflect the evolving needs of the community rooted in an environment of compassion, dialogue, and accountability. Furthermore, youth are pushed to envision this community, our society, and its potential. These agreements are not set in stone. This practice reinforces the evolving need for a learning environment to be a dynamic space that thrives on collaboration.

Thank you to the ���Ĵ�ý community and the ���Ĵ�ý student representatives for this opportunity to share the practice of Community Agreements. Thank you to the youth, our change-makers, who we walk along with in solidarity through actions of justice.

References: 

Crenshaw, K. (1988). Race, Reform, and Retrenchment: Transformation and Legitimation in Antidiscrimination Law. Harvard Law Review, 101(7), 1331–1387.

Emdin, C. (2016). For White Folks Who Teach in the Hood…and the Rest of Y’all Too: Reality Pedagogy and Urban Education. Beacon Press.

España, C., & Herrera, L. Y. (2020). En Comunidad: Lessons for Centering the Voices and Experiences of Bilingual Latinx Students. Heinemann.

Frey, T. (2023a). Creating Community Agreements [Photograph].

Frey, T. (2023b). Community Agreements as Living Documents [Photograph].

Huber, L. P., Vélez, V. N., & Malagón, M. C. (2024). Charting methodological imaginaries: Critical Race

Feminista Methodologies in educational research. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1080/09518398.2024.2318296

Ladson-Billings, G. (2021). Beyond Beats, Rhymes, & Beyoncè: Hip Hop, Hip Hop Education, and Culturally Relevant Pedagogy. In Culturally relevant pedagogy: asking a different question. (pp. 151–164). Teachers College Press.

Love, B. (2019). We Want to Do More Than Survive: Abolitionist Teaching and the Pursuit of Educational Freedom.

Morris, M. W. (2019). Sing a Rhythm, Dance a Blues: Liberatory Education for Black and Brown Girls.

Wassif, E. (2023). Know Your Rights: Metal Detectors Workshop.

Divine Soona Gertrude Ndombo

Divine Soona Gertrude Ndombo is a Cameroonian-Congolese immigrant and self-proclaimed Harlemite. Her introduction to social justice began in an afterschool program at her middle school called GirlsTalk/GuysTalk. With its center on community building and youth empowerment, it planted a seed of love for social justice that has only grown over the past 10 years. This passion has been further cultivated in her experience at YVote and the YA-YA Network, both youth-led organizations. Divine is now an alumnus who continues to provide her knowledge, enthusiasm, and leadership. Currently, she is the Director of Youth Development at The YA-YA Network, primarily running the Empower Fellowship Program. Beyond education justice, Divine is passionate about addressing the disparities of black migrants, especially undocumented students within the education system. She builds on this work through her advocacy with BAJI and her self-directed research that interrogates the erasure of Black migrants both within immigrant justice movements and our society broadly. Outside of these endeavors, she is also an entrepreneur, a singer-songwriter, and an alumnus of City College University. She double majored in Political Science and International Studies and minored in Human Rights.

Theresa Frey

Theresa Frey is a PhD student at the School of Education and Lifelong Learning at the University of East Anglia and an adjunct faculty member at State University of New York (SUNY), Westchester Community College. Theresa has been a higher education professional since 2008. Theresa’s research has focused on international education, refugee education, and justice-centred education practices through art and creative approaches for refugee and migrant children. In addition, Theresa’s PhD research focuses on decolonising and futures practices of youth education activists in New York City, United States, through ethnography and participatory action research.