The UNESCO AI Competency Framework for Teachers defines five dimensions and three progression levels as a bounded capacity reference.
Teacher competence across three levels of progression
The framework defines teacher AI competency across a human-centred mindset, ethics, foundations and applications, pedagogy, and professional learning. Each dimension progresses through Acquire, Deepen and Create. Competence is therefore broader than tool operation and cannot be inferred from attendance at a short software demonstration.[S1]
The framework combines a human-centred mindset, ethics, AI foundations and applications, AI pedagogy, and AI for professional learning. Each dimension develops through Acquire, Deepen and Create levels. This matrix prevents competence from being reduced to tool operation: pedagogical judgement, ethical responsibility and professional development remain part of the expected progression.[S1]
The five dimensions of the UNESCO framework
UNESCO specifies 15 competency blocks and explains intended use in national frameworks, teacher education and assessment design. The framework emphasizes human agency, accountability and sustainability. Institutional evidence can map learning outcomes, practice-based assessment, safeguards and continuing development to the relevant competency block and progression level.[S1]
Programme evidence can map learning outcomes and assessment tasks to the framework matrix. Attendance records only participation, while competence requires a performance that demonstrates the relevant level. Portfolios, lesson designs, risk analyses, observed practice and reflective records can show different dimensions. Assessment criteria need to state whether the teacher is recognizing a concept, applying it in practice or creating a context-sensitive response.[S1]
A competency assessment is credible when another qualified assessor can understand the task, criteria and result. Evidence can show a teacher identifying limitations, designing a pedagogically justified use, protecting learner agency and evaluating outcomes. Because the matrix is developmental, a programme may report different levels by dimension; one overall label can conceal material gaps in ethics or pedagogy.[S1]
From training completion to demonstrated practice
The framework is a global reference for policy-makers, teacher-education providers and professional-development designers. It requires localization to curriculum, role, education level, infrastructure and policy. It does not classify AI systems or determine legal compliance.[S1]
The UNESCO framework is designed as a reference for teacher-development policy and programmes across varied systems. It does not assume one tool, platform or curriculum. Application depends on teachers' roles, learner ages, subjects, infrastructure and local governance. Responsibility for approved systems, data processing and high-impact decisions remains with the relevant institution or authority, not with an individual teacher alone.[S1]
Boundaries of a competency framework
A competency framework does not establish that an AI use is accurate, lawful or educationally effective. Self-assessed confidence is not equivalent to observed professional capability. Access constraints and local language support can materially affect implementation.[S1]
Completion of a course or self-assessment does not establish competent practice. Tool-specific skill can also become obsolete without transferable understanding. The framework does not certify an AI product, resolve the legality of a use or prove a learning effect. Claims need to identify the competency dimension, progression level, assessment method and population actually evaluated.[S1]
Framework evidence in ICEQC analysis
ICEQC records the UNESCO framework as an external competency reference. It is not adopted as an ICEQC requirement, and its citation does not imply UNESCO participation in ICEQC certification. No later ICEQC requirement is applied to this historical record.
ICEQC may use the framework as an external reference when reviewing teacher capability for an AI-enabled education service. It is not an ICEQC certification scheme and does not imply UNESCO recognition. No current ICEQC clause is applied retrospectively to the historical record.