Education R e f o r m a n d Education Politics in J a p a n
l-lm~a,~om F u j r ~
Since the 1980s, a new tide of education reform movements has emerged in many countries, including the United States and Japan, along with the rise of a consumer orientation and national concern over the quality of schooling. This has made parental choice into a major policy issue, along with accountability and independent control. Four forms of symbiosis are identified: embracive, segregated, civic and marketoriented. This article discusses the nature of current reforms, and argues that they place Japanese education at a threefold critical crossroads or in a state of crisis.
Introduction Since the 1980s, a n e w tide of e d u c a t i o n reform m o v e m e n t s has e m e r g e d in m a n y countries including the U.S.A. a n d Japan, along with the rise of a cons u m e r orientation a n d national concern over the quality of schooling, raising questions a b o u t the "one best system" of public e d u c a t i o n (Tyack 1974, 1990). Prior to the 1980s, educational reforms w e r e o r i e n t e d t o w a r d the e s t a b l i s h m e n t and e x p a n s i o n of the "one best system" of state m a n d a t e d , state f u n d e d a n d state p r o v i d e d education; w h e r e a s today's reform m o v e m e n t s have a t t e m p t e d to m o v e a w a y from that m o d e l a n d to create a decentralized, diversified a n d market-driven system (Clune a n d Witte 1990; Whitty et al. 1998), m a k i n g "parental choice" o n e of the major policy issues a n d "accountability" a frame o f reference for p r o m o t i n g neo-liberal reform initiatives. This article attempts to do the following: First, to identify the major backg r o u n d s a n d concerns of this n e w tide focusing o n the J a p a n e s e case; s e c o n d , to clarify the nature of the reform measures a d o p t e d and the rhetoric u s e d b y reformers; third, to e x a m i n e the six forms of educational control and its transformation; fourth, to discuss the four forms of symbiosis as an organizing principle of society and its relation to public education in a m o d e m society; and finally, to make a brief comment on the challenges for theory and practice in sociology. Hidenori Fujita is professor of sociology of education, and Dean of the Graduate School of Education, University of Tokyo. He teaches courses in the sociology of education, the comparative politics of education reform, and education and cultural reproduction. E-mail:
[email protected], ac.jp.
42
The American Sociologist / Fall 2000
The Third Major Education Reform in Japan since the 1980s In 1984, the National Council on Educational Reform (NCER) was set u p as an ad hoc advisory committee to the Prime Minister and l a u n c h e d the third major e d u c a t i o n reform in Japan. NCER s p e n t three years reviewing the nation's education system and generated four reports to the prime minister that have b e e n the basis for the s u b s e q u e n t neo-liberal and neo-conservative reform movements. The first reform was the establishment of the m o d e r n educational system in the Meiji Restoration period, the successive d e v e l o p m e n t s of which h a d gradually transformed the forms of social life and that of learning and the g r o w t h of children from the traditional to the m o d e r n and rational. The system of schooling was organized by the principles of meritocracy and modernity. The s e c o n d reform occurred in the late 1940s. The Fundamental Education Law and School Education Law, both issued in 1947, laid a f o u n d a t i o n for the democratic and egalitarian ideology of schooling in Japan, and reorganized the system into the single-track 6-3-3-4 school system with the first n i n e years compulsory. In this system, a n y o n e w h o graduated from junior high school w o u l d eligible for senior high school if they could pass the entrance examination for the school of their choice. Senior high school graduates could, in turn, go on to the college or university of their choice by passing entrance examinations. This is an open, egalitarian, single-track system that e m p h a s i z e s academic achievement as a major admission criterion for senior high schools and universities. Under this system, Japan has achieved o n e of the highest levels of quali W of schooling, as illustrated by such measures as enrollment ratio, r e t e n t i o n or graduation rates, daily attendance, equality of opportunity and academic performance. Six-year elementary and three-year lower secondary education is compulsory and free. About 97 percent of the age cohort are enrolled at three-year senior high schools, and over 90 percent of these students graduate from high school. Some 60 percent of the age cohort are enrolled at higher e d u c a t i o n institutions like four-year colleges and universities, two-year junior colleges, and two- or three-year special training colleges. The daily attendance rates of elementary and secondary schools are above 95 percent. Equality of o p p o r t u ni W is secured by the single-track school system m e n t i o n e d earlier, the neighb o r h o o d s c h o o l system at the e l e m e n t a r y a n d l o w e r s e c o n d a r y level a n d meritocratic entrance examinations for senior high schools and universities. The high quality of teaching and learning has b e e n d e m o n s t r a t e d by the three international comparative studies on student performance in math a n d science c o n d u c t e d by the International Association for the Evaluation of Educational A c h i e v e m e n t (IEA) in 1964-70, 1978, a n d 1994-95. Each time the a v e r a g e scores of Japanese students were a m o n g the top three countries. The results of these comparative studies and Japan's post-war e c o n o m i c success h a v e attracted the attention of other countries to Japanese schooling, w h i c h has b e e n highly appraised especially since the 1980s. It is very ironic, however, that Japan l a u n c h e d the third major e d u c a t i o n reform just w h e n many other countries paid attention to and tried to learn from the Japanese schooling. Since the 1980s, based o n the r e c o m m e n d a t i o n s of
Fujita
43
NCER mentioned earlier and several other Councils concerned, various reform measures and policies have been introduced and implemented at all levels of education from elementary to higher education. Reforms in higher education have been guided mostly by university-related people and by the functionalist ideology, with a few exceptions. Among many, the following are particularly noteworthy: establishment of the University Council, which has discussed a wide range of subjects in higher education and recommended various reforms; revision of national standards for the establishment of universities to enable each individual university to develop distinctive educational programs; diversification of university entrant selection/admission procedures; expansion and diversification of graduate programs; introduction of obligated university self-evaluation and establishment of the quasi-public agency of university assessment to make an external assessment of all national universities; introduction of the partially competitive budgeting scheme to national universities; and expansion and systematization of lifelong learning programs. Furthermore, the policy of transforming all national universities into quasi-public independent agencies from the year 2003 has n o w b e c o m e a major issue discussed widely among the people of national universities. Politicians and the government have compelled implementation of this last policy, while the national university people are mostly critical of it and are trying to enact a specific law for the national university agency, separated from the General Law of Independent Agencies issued in 1999. The last three policies m e n t i o n e d earlier, establishment of the university assessment agency, introduction of the competitive budgeting scheme and transforming national universities into i n d e p e n d e n t agencies, are guided by the initiatives of the government and politicians. Major concerns behind them are to cope with the h u g e national financial deficit as well as to make university management more efficient and to enhance the standards of university-based research. Many reforms were also implemented at elementary and secondary education levels. Among them, the following are the major ones which I see as critical and problematic: (1) the phased introduction of a five-day school week, which makes one and then two Saturdays per month days off, and finally will make all Saturdays off from the year 2002; (2) the revision of curriculum guidelines along with the full-introduction of a five-day school week, which drastically reduces the number of lessons and the contents for most subjects, including math, Japanese language arts and the sciences on the one hand, and on the other, created a n e w subject entitled "comprehensive studies" of 110 lesson hours (at the elementary level) and 70 lesson hours a year (at the lower secondary level) to help encourage students to think for themselves and to express themselves; (3) the introduction of combined junior and senior high school education (six-year secondary schools) which will inevitably lead to the transformation of the existing single-track 6-3-3 school system into partially multitracked one; (4) the policy of relaxing the n e i g h b o r h o o d "assigned" school system in elementary and lower secondary education which, along with the introduction of the six-year secondary school, will make "school choice" a major issue of the next decade and will bring with it the problems of school ranking and tracking at the lower secondary education level.
44
The American Sociologist / Fall 2000
Another departure from the past pattern has b e e n growing at the u p p e r secondary education level. Where general academic education and vocational education have been the two core curricula, a third "integrated senior high school" pattern has been added, having the kinds of curriculum patterns found in U.S. magnet schools. An advancement system based o n subject credits rather than grades has also been adopted by some senior high schools to make the learning paths of individual students more flexible and thereby to make high school education more attractive.
Four Major Background Factors o f Current Education Reform in Japan While I oppose such an educational policy in general, I am in favor of diversification and increased flexibility in upper secondary and university education. But, besides these, w h y are such drastic reforms necessary now? Amidst these radical reform movements, the following questions must be addressed as Japanese education appears to be at a critical crossroads: W h y does Japan n e e d to carry out these reforms and what are their goals or objectives? Are they really appropriate and effective? What will be the outcomes of these reforms and whose benefits will be realized? What are the critical problems brought up by these reforms? As far as reform measures and policies related to e l e m e n t a r y and lower secondary education are concerned, these are the questions which have b e e n on my mind with a growing sense of crisis since the mid-1980s, and which I have often b e e n asked about by m a n y scholars and teachers in Japan and abroad. Accordingly, I have written many articles and books criticizing especially the above-mentioned reform measures and the rhetoric behind t h e m (Fujita 1992, 1993a, 1993b, 1995, 1996, 1997, 1998, 1999a, 1999b, 2000a, 2000b). Just as other countries began to appreciate Japan's education system as a model of success, the Japanese media, education critics and politicians began to claim Japan's education system was o u t m o d e d and in n e e d of a drastic overhaul. Even as Western countries began to focus on and learn from the merits of Japan's education system, Japan was working toward reform that was i n t e n d e d to eliminate those same elements as being the factors responsible for the educational distortion. While other countries sought to improve the scholastic a c h i e v e m e n t levels of their students as an overriding educational objective, Japan was beginning to say it was more important to allow students more freedom and flexibility and more room to encourage individuality and creativity, even at the expense of academic standards and educational efficiency. In other words, Japan is moving in a direction opposite to that of the Western countries. This is not to say, however, that Japanese education does not have any problem to be solved or coped with, nor to say that Japan and the West do not share con~rnon features in reform trends. Indeed, they have in c o m m o n a growing tendency of a more market-driven, privatized approach to education. The question is what is behind this recent trend in Japanese educational reform. There are at least four major background factors and concerns (Fujita 1994; Fujita and Wong 1999).
Fujita
45
The first factor is the upheaval of the so-called "school disorder" p h e n o m e n a such as vandalism, violence, bullying, and school-phobia since the late 1970s. It all began w h e n the mass media took an active role in making sensational reports on several serious incidents that h a p p e n e d in schools and serious crimes that school children committed. Educational critics and researchers have res p o n d e d by making o p e n c o m m e n t s on t h e m and elevated t h e m into major public debates and discourse. Policymakers also s o o n f o u n d themselves being held u p in these debates or outcries for radical reforms. Thus, in this dimension, the following strategies w e r e adopted: framing these p r o b l e m s o n a moral basis, and scientizing the individual and the structure within which he or she is e m b e d d e d and thereby locating legitimate solutions. I called this the "moralist" ideology in the current reform wave. The s e c o n d factor is the rising concern with the needs and d e m a n d s of a p o s t m o d e r n society. The advent of the information age, globalization and internationalization, and a rapidly aging society, all have b e c o m e major concerns of policy-makers, business and media p e o p l e as well as educational critics. T h e y question the effectiveness and efficiency of Japanese schooling to m e e t various needs of the p o s t m o d e m society that must continue to enjoy e c o n o m i c affluence and possess the capability to c o m p e t e in a n e w information t e c h n o l o g y and globalizing economy. These concerns have b e c o m e a major incentive to p r o m o t e reforms toward restructuring the system to be m o r e flexible and dive> sifted and revising the curricula for m e e t i n g these n e w needs. This can be called the "functionalist" ideology of the current reform wave. The third b a c k g r o u n d factor is a rising concern about the educational quality of the p r e s e n t system since so m a n y p e d a g o g i c a l principles a n d styles of teaching and school m a n a g e m e n t have b e e n criticized as obsolete and even distorting educational processes and children's life. For example, entrance examinations to senior high schools and universities have b e e n criticized as being too competitive, putting heavy pressures on children, parents and teachers, a n d thus, causing negative effects. The centrally regulated system of educational administration and control is criticized as inefficient to cope with a w i d e variety of people's d e m a n d s and needs of the changing society. Traditional practices have b e e n c o n d e m n e d and critics have called for their replacement by m o r e flexible, progressive ones in such areas as curriculum, classroom organization, styles of teaching and school rules and disciplines. This factor can be called as "progressivism" or "liberal educationist" approach. The fourth factor is related to the recent trend of wider reform m o v e m e n t s in the system of finance and banking and the e c o n o m i c structure in general. W h e n the Japanese came to be aware of a so-called "bubble economy" of the 1990s and its collapse, reform initiatives s o o n got organized and b e c a m e institutionalized to survive the e c o n o m i c crisis and social problems. Indeed, l a u n c h i n g reform itself has b e c o m e a supreme goal and p u r p o s e in the current J a p a n e s e society, being fueled by the growing c o n c e r n with "accountability." Thus, crisis and reform have b e c o m e a legitimate pair for social progress. Such a p h e n o m e n o n has e n g e n d e r e d a belief in "reform-supremacy." This has b e e n particularly distinct in the field of education. Furthermore, it should be noted that the guiding principles of wider reform m o v e m e n t s are deregulation, liberalization, and accountability. Reflecting o n
46
The American Sociologist / Fall 2000
this general trend as well as the s e c o n d and third factors, reform initiatives in education have also oriented toward deregulation, liberalization, marketization and privatization in principle. These four factors have c o m b i n e d to accelerate current reform initiatives in a radical manner, but with m a n y contradictions and deceptive arguments. The Peculiar Rhetoric of Current Education Reform in Japan
The reform m o v e m e n t has b e e n g u i d e d and p r o m o t e d by progressive, neoliberal a n d neo-conservative arguments, w h i c h overlap with each other to a significant extent. Many education critics w h o are mostly committed to progressive ideas have emphasized individuality, self-realization, self-cultivation, and freedom in learning, and have argued that the "cramming" style of education, standardized curriculum, uniform teaching, and strict school m a n a g e m e n t obstruct authentic learning, a stress-free, h u m a n life, and the d e v e l o p m e n t of individuality and creativity. Neo-liberals have stressed the importance of freed o m and choice in education, have criticized the state m o n o p o l y in education, and have argued that freedom of school choice and the existence of a variety of alternative schools are the prerequisites for releasing children from t h e pressure of e n t r a n c e e x a m i n a t i o n s , for repairing the d e t e r i o r a t i n g s c h o o l climate, a n d for i m p r o v i n g the quality of schools a n d children's lives. Neoconservatives, mostly e c o n o m i s t s a n d b u s i n e s s leaders, h a v e e m p h a s i z e d the necessity for deregulation a n d the i m p r o v e m e n t of e d u c a t i o n to c o p e with s o c i o e c o n o m i c c h a n g e s like c o m p u t e r i z a t i o n and globalization, a n d have a r g u e d that market c o m p e t i t i o n is m o r e effective than state m o n o p o l y b e c a u s e it will stimulate creative e n d e a v o r s , raise incentives to learn, a n d thus i m p r o v e education. The mass m e d i a a n d critics have r e p e a t e d l y b r o u g h t u p serious cases of bullying, v i o l e n c e against teachers a n d peers, a n d juvenile crimes. T h e y have further claimed that these cases and the reported statistics are only the tip of the iceberg and that our children are being damaged by too m u c h education and distorted schooling. They have suggested that it is our moral duty to save our children from such a suffocating situation and that radical reforms are urgently called for. These arguments, orchestrated together, brought on a n e w tide of neo-liberal and neo-conservative reform efforts. This n e w tide is not only both neo-liberal and neo-conservative, but also seems to have an aspect of "reform-supremacy." Reform itself seems to be the goal, not a means to improve education. Policy makers are n o w eager to proceed with reforms for their o w n sake in Japan's radically changing political landscape. This change began in the late 1970s, but accelerated especially after the b r e a k d o w n of the Berlin Wall and the subsequent collapse of USSR and other socialist regimes in Eastern Europe. That is, ideological opposition finally came to an end; political parties repeated factional alignments; politicians b e c a m e more responsive to the public at least in appearance; and the notion of accountability b e g a n to spread. The collapse of Japan's "bubble economy" in the 1990s, the s u b s e q u e n t e c o n o m i c a n d financial crisis, and the rise of the n e w global e c o n o m y accelerated this process and forced the g o v e r n m e n t to deregulate and restructure the economy, the finance and the administration scheme. Under these circumstances, deregulation and
Fujita
47
reformism became a general trend in the field of policy-making, and educational policy was no exception. Unfortunately, however, current policy arguments and reform measures in elementary and secondary education s e e m to be irrational and deceptive. Prop o n e n t s of current reform m o v e m e n t always bring u p school disorder a n d maladjustment problems and justify reform measures by saying that they are coping with these problems. But, there is no rational reason or any evidence to s h o w that these problems will be solved by a b o v e - m e n t i o n e d reform measures. These measures have nothing to do with school disorder problems but m u c h to do with the structure of educational opportunity. To illustrate this w e a k n e s s of current reform arguments, let us consider the problems associated with the introduction of six-year secondary schools. I m p l i c a t i o n s o f Six-Year S e c o n d a r y S c h o o l s a n d S c h o o l C h o i c e
The introduction of six-year secondary schools has b e e n o n e of the major foci of current educational reform debates. This reform measure has the potential for causing critical changes in Japanese elementary and secondary education. M t h o u g h the issue u n d e r discussion at present is the introduction of a small n u m b e r of six-year secondary schools, an increase in that n u m b e r w o u l d mean the reform of the current single-track, 6-3-3 school system and the spread of parental choice in the public sector of lower secondary education. There are four critical problems associated with this reform measure: elitism; problems with school ranking and tracking; problems with early selection; and the probable exacerbation of school maladjustment problems. The p r o b l e m of elitism w o u l d be clear, because the advantages of six-year secondary schools c o u n t e d by its p r o p o n e n t s apply only to the "chosen few," while the great majority of children will not be released from the pressures of high school entrance examinations, nor will they receive m o r e flexible a n d comprehensive education and other p r e s u m e d advantages. This single point makes it clear that the argument in favor of six-year secondary school is selfrighteous and elitist. P r o p o n e n t s of the plan also claim that its main premise is to lessen the competitiveness of entrance examinations and their negative effects on education and students. In order to ensure this, the 1998 Parliament, w h i c h passed the bill revising the School Education Law to introduce six-year s e c o n d a r y schools, m a d e an attendant decision that public six-year s e c o n d a r y schools should not conduct the academic performance examinations for student selection. But, no matter h o w they conduct entrant selection, insofar as they recruit and select students from a wider catchment area, these are schools only for selected students, or elite schools. Furthermore, as the r e p u t a t i o n of these schools improves, more students will try to enter and the selection process will b e c o m e more of a problem. As a result, a situation resembling that of Tokyo, where severe entrance examinations for private and national junior high schools are only too c o m m o n , will spread to other urban areas. In response to this criticism, s o m e advocates of six-year secondary school suggest that we should e x p a n d this plan and increase the n u m b e r of these schools. Others p r o p o s e to combine all junior high and senior high schools into
48
The American Sociologist / Fall 2000
six-year secondary schools. But neither of these proposals makes sense in the context of Japanese schooling. Given the current condition of secondary education in Japan, the latter proposal is unrealistic, because it means depriving students of the right to c h o o s e a public senior high school. If this b e c o m e s the case, t h e n public schools will decline, while private and national schools will further improve. This is logically and structurally inevitable, unless students are entitled to c h o o s e public six-year secondary schools like national and private schools, or unless national and private secondary schools are forced to recruit their students from an assigned catchment area as public schools should do. If the latter is possible, however, there is no reason to introduce six-year s e c o n d a r y schools and it w o u l d be e n o u g h just to abolish the senior high school entrance exam. On the other hand, if the former m e a s u r e is adopted, then the p r o b l e m s of early selection at age 12, such as entrance examinations for lower secondary education and school ranking will emerge at this stage. It is totally unimaginable that this w o u l d be accepted, while the present system of senior high school entrance examinations and its associated problems are being criticized. The first proposal to greatly increase the n u m b e r of six-year secondary schools has a similar drawback. Because these schools will ostensibly be established to provide better secondary education than ordinary junior and senior high schools, various policy measures such as allocating more financial and h u m a n resources will be adopted toward that end. However, as the reputation of these six-year s e c o n d a r y schools improves, m o r e students will try to enter t h e m and the selection process will b e c o m e m o r e problematic. Furthermore, the issue of school choice will b e c o m e m o r e of a reality, for it will be unfair to students w h o enter ordinary three-year junior high schools that only six-year secondary school entrants are free to c h o o s e their schools. Accordingly, it will n o t be surprising that dissatisfaction will grow over the issue of w h y s o m e students will have the right to c h o o s e their schools, while others will not. If school choice b e c o m e s a possibility at the junior high school level, then Japanese public education will u n d e r g o an upheaval and such p r o b l e m s as school ranking at the lower secondary level, early selection (at age 12), and further deterioration of the school climate and children's life will follow. The problems of school ranking and tracking that are n o w criticized for plaguing senior high schools will begin at the junior high school level. W h e n schools are ranked from the junior high school level, junior high school entrance exam pressures will creep into and warp primary schools. The adage "one's fifteenth year is misery" will be replaced by "one's twelfth year is misery." If all of these are the case, school maladjustment and disorder problems will b e c o m e even more serious than they are now, other conditions being equal, as we can n o w see from the situation at "educationally-difficult high schools" for students with learning difficulties or disciplinary problems. As a whole, even t h o u g h six-year secondary schools will have advantages for an elite few, for the majority of primary and secondary students, the disadvantages of this plan far o u t n u m b e r its advantages. Moreover, as s h o w n in the reports of NCER and m a n y other education-related councils, as well as in various writings on education, policy makers and educational critics repeatedly decry the decrease in educational support from families and local communities,
Fu~ita
49
while emphasizing the importance of the cooperation of schools, families and local communities. But, if six-year secondary schools proliferate and school choice spreads to the public sector, the lives of the students will become even more divorced than they n o w are from the localities in which they live. No reasonable explanations are provided to explain this contradiction. Moreover, it will undermine the cooperative attitudes among families and community people to work together for making their community-based schools better. In these senses, Japanese schooling is n o w at a critical crossroads. The question thus arises: Why are the policy makers eager to introduce sixyear secondary schools and w h y do we hear no serious arguments opposing it? As mentioned previously, there are several reasons political, ideological, pedagogical, psychological or moralistic, and structural. Politically, w e are n o w in the age of reform. Politicians and higher government officials w h o are increasingly concerned with accountability are eager to carry out reforms. Ideologically, policy makers tend toward neo-liberalism or neo-conservatism in general, and to the belief in the necessity of deregulation and the functionality of the market mechanism in particular. Many people, especially those of the urban middle class, are increasingly inclined toward neo-liberalism and consider greater choice and diversity in education more desirable. In pedagogy, progressive educational thought has spread significantly and many education critics and the media have criticized features of Japanese schooling such as uniform education, standardized curriculum, strict school management and disciplinary control for being outmoded and repressive, and they have proposed expanding childcentered education, o p e n school education, diversity in education, and individuality in learning. On a psychological level, education critics and the media as well as policy makers w h o are seriously concerned about school maladjustment and disorder problems, have c o n d e m n e d Japanese schools for strict school management and discipline, for promoting "cramming" education, for subjecting children to the heavy pressures of entrance examinations, and for causing various school maladjustment problems. Structurally, it is not surprising that reform movements, which are fueled by these sentiments, have a tendency to shift from the present "one best system" of public education and centralized educational administration towards a system characterized by diversity in education, freedom of choice and market control. But here we need to ask whether or not this is the only way to improve our children's education and lives. This is not only an important practical question for the future of Japanese education, but also an interesting theoretical question because a similar shift has taken place in many other countries including the United States and the United Kingdom. T r a n s f o r m a t i o n o f Educational C o n t r o l a n d t h e Crisis of Professional Autonomy
The recent reform movement has a possibility that a critical transformation is taking place in the form of educational control and governance (Fujita 1996, 1997, 1999). This is the possibility not only in Japan but also in many other countries. Indeed, it is quite distinctive in the United Kingdom. After the conservative victory in the 1979 election, the Thatcher and Major administrations
50
The American Sociologist / Fall 2000
w o r k e d enthusiastically to restructure English education and passed a series of Education Acts from the 1980s to the early 1990s. For example, u n d e r the 1980 Education Act, parents and students w e r e all o w e d to c h o o s e state schools, and state s e c o n d a r y schools w e r e forced to publish their examination results to provide parents with the information necessary for choosing schools. The major concern b e h i n d this Act was "to r e m e d y t h e failures o f ' m o n o p o l i s t i c ' p u b l i c p r o v i s i o n by e n h a n c i n g c o n s u m e r choice"(Whitty and Edwards 1988:212), although it was after the late 1980s that the major changes began. Under the 1986 Education Act, the school g o v e r n i n g bodies were reformed to reduce the p o w e r of local education authorities (LEAs) and to increase the representation of parents and local business circles. T h e 1988 E d u c a t i o n Act further c o n s o l i d a t e d the restructuring process. B a s e d o n this Act, the National Curriculum a n d the system of national testing w e r e i n t r o d u c e d to e n h a n c e the standards of schooling. The grant-maintained s c h o o l policy was also a d o p t e d , by w h i c h existing state schools were enabled to "opt out" of their IXAs and obtain funds directly from the central govemment to operate the schools, although the number of schools that opted out was not as large as had been anticipated. Moreover, the local management of schools (LMS) policy expanded the power of the school goveming bodies, giving them more autonomy to control their o w n budgets and manage their own schools. In addition, based on the 1992 Education Act, a n e w central department, the Office for Standards in Education (OFSTED) was established to regulate and manage the n e w system of school inspection and thereby to e n h a n c e the quality of education and standards of academic achievement (Ouston et al. 1996). The main objectives and concerns of these reforms are clear. All these reforms were g u i d e d and justified by the objectives of enhancing the quality of public education and increasing the accountability of the education system. To realize these objectives, all of the reform measures were intended to and w e r e significantly successful in reducing the role and p o w e r of the LEAs a n d in u n d e r m i n i n g the a u t o n o m y of teachers, while, at the same time, increasing the voice of parents and business circles in public education, the regulatory p o w e r of the central government, and the control of the market. LEAs were "regarded from the right as self-perpetuating, self-interested and objectionably 'progressive' educational establishment that had consistently ignored and overridden the interests of consumers" (Whitty and Edwards 1998:213) and were c o n d e m n e d for the failures of British public education and for preventing state schools from improving themselves. The basic landscape of British educational reform seems to have m u c h similarity with that of Japan in terms of the transformation of the form of educational control and governance, although concrete reform measures for improving the quality of education are different and even opposite at least up to now. In any case, the reforms in these two countries suggest that the f o r m of educational control and governance has n o w b e c o m e the major issue. I think it is also the case in the United States, although the basic landscape of American education, c o m p a r e d to that of Japan and the United Kingdom, seems m o r e complicated, partly because the political and administrative system of education is far more decentralized and multi-layered, and partly because the school system is significantly more diversified and fragmented (Witte 1990).
Fujita
51
In Japan, current reform m o v e m e n t s have demonstrated a general t e n d e n c y to depart from the "one best system" of state funded, state provided education to a more decentralized and diversified system. Deregulation, diversification and marketization have b e c o m e gradually supported, reflecting the g r o w i n g orientation towards more f r e e d o m of choice. The market approach is not as strong yet, t h o u g h it may grow along with the expansion of six-year s e c o n d a r y schools and schools of choice. In current reform arguments, there are increasing voices for more parental choice as well as for e x p a n d i n g local and sitebased m a n a g e m e n t of schools. The question, thus, arises about w h o should govern/control education and h o w it should be governed/controlled for better education. We can n o w identify six types of educational control: professional control, bureaucratic control, c o m m u n i t y control, market control, public control and i n d e p e n d e n t control. The relationships among these six types of control can be illustrated as in Figure 1. Professional control is o n e in which teachers as educational professionals hold their a u t o n o m y and discretionary powers over curriculum, teaching practices, and school management. The guiding principles of this control are professional ethics with the culture of dedication and the confidence in professional k n o w l e d g e and skills. Bureaucratic (state) control is exercised in various ways o n the basis of education laws and regulations. The guiding principles of this control are legitimacy (observance of the laws and regulations) and contribution to national goals, which might vary from time to time. C o m m u n i t y control here refers to the influence over education and efforts put toward education by local communities or by voluntary associations. The guiding principle of this control is to realize and e n h a n c e c o m m u n i t y concerns a n d welfare. Public control refers to the influence of ideas and concerns a m o n g the general public, or public opinion, mostly expressed through the media these days. The central feature of this control is instability or changeability reflecting the occasional distribution of opinions and concerns a m o n g the public. Market control is o n e that is exercised t h r o u g h the market m e c h a n i s m , like parental choice. T h e organizing principle of this control is efficiency or marketability. I n d e p e n d e n t control is found in such cases as "charter school" and h o m e schooling, b o t h of FIGURE 1 Six Major Forms of Educational Control and their Relationships
uni-dimensional market control
public control
~.~rte/burea~cratic c o n t % differentiation (choice)
commonness ofessional control ~ I
independent control
I
local control
I
multi-dimensional 52
The American Sociologist / Fail 2000
which have g r o w n to some extent in the United States, but not yet in Japan. The guiding principle of this control is self-oriented voluntarism. Historically, c o m m u n i t y control, either by local communities or by voluntary associations, was c o m m o n before the national education system emerged. But with the e m e r g e n c e of the national education system, both professional and bureaucratic types of control have b e c o m e p r e d o m i n a n t along with its expansion, although there has been the tension b e t w e e n these two controlling p o w ers. We are n o w observing the rising tide of market control and public control along with the expansion of the notion of accountability, which requires s o m e caution. Although the term "accountability" is used in a variety of ways, it is very often disconnected from the locality and is used to appeal to an individualized general public, the controlling p o w e r of w h i c h might be t e r m e d as "public control." This might be misleading, however. Because of the disconnectedness m e n t i o n e d earlier and individualistic orientation, the principle of accountability tends to serve special interest groups w h o usually have a large voice in public discourse and decision making and w h o p r o m o t e market solutions for various educational problems. In other words, those w h o have a large voice in public discourse, like urban intellectuals, the urban middle class, politicians, and business leaders, tend to seize the principle of "public control" a n d "accountability" and exercise the controlling p o w e r for themselves u n d e r the n a m e of "public" and "accountability." On the other hand, bureaucratic and professional control have b e e n criticized as unresponsive, inefficient and self-protective, which might be true to s o m e extent, but no evidence or reasonable justification has b e e n provided by advocates w h o consider market control an improvement. The current reform m o v e m e n t s tend to be transforming educational control as follows: first, partial expansion of the state/bureaucratic control over school m a n a g e m e n t and the quality of teaching by changing the budgeting scheme, setting u p the curriculum standards (in UK), and introducing or enforcing school assessment; second, limited expansion of i n d e p e n d e n t control like the increase of charter school and the expansion of h o m e schooling in the United States; third, greatly increasing tendency of the expansion of market control and public control with the ideological principle of accountability; and, fourth, decline of professional control which may cause the deterioration of professional ethics, deskilling of teaching and decline of the culture of dedication. If this is the case, then our education is n o w at a crossroads, a very critical, historical crossroads.
Four Forms o f Symbiotic Society and Implications o f School Choice School choice is n o w becoming a major issue of education reform in Japan, as in the United States and the United Kingdom. This is the final aspect to be examined in this article, because it will have a critical impact on the organizational nature of our schooling and society, that is, the symbiotic and cooperative form of our schooling and society. From a functional perspective, the issue of school choice is c o n c e r n e d with h o w children are g r o u p e d into each school. On this aspect, the school choice plan is very different from the n e i g h b o r h o o d , assigned school plan. Under the
Fujita
53
latter plan, all children, irrespective of their origins, family backgrounds, academic abilities, and cultural orientation, go together to the same school located in their local community and learn together there. On the other hand, u n d e r the school choice plan, children tend to be grouped on the bases of both their o w n and their parents' preferences, w h i c h presumably reflect social, cultural and economic capitals of their family. Accordingly, as school choice spreads, schools tend not only to be rank-ordered as m e n t i o n e d previously, but also to be differentiated and segregated on the bases of social differences of various kinds. This differentiation and segregation is critical especially in elementary and lower secondary education. It is widely accepted that an appropriate differentiation is functionally necessary in u p p e r secondary and higher education, corresponding to various academic disciplines, occupations and students' lifestyle perspectives. But, it is not the case in elementary and lower secondary education, which is defined as basic, c o m m o n education for all children and w h i c h is assumed as providing all students c o m m o n , appropriate preparations and equal opportunities o p e n to any future career plans. Moreover, schools are the bases where students develop their identity and sense of belongingness. As the differentiation and segregation b e c o m e s distinct, all of these features and assumptions will be undermined. This is o n e of the major drawbacks intrinsic to the school choice plan. Moreover, this drawback has a possibility to stretch further to the organizing principle of our society. Any society is c o m p o s e d of a variety of p e o p l e w h o are different in terms of value orientation, cultural preference, o c c u p a t i o n and lifestyle, religion, class, race a n d ethnicity, and m a n y o t h e r aspects. T h e s e p e o p l e live together in a region, organizing a society. In this sense, any society is a symbiotic society where m a n y different people live together. We can identify four m o d e s of symbiosis (co-living), or four types of symbiotic society (Fujita 1997): embracive symbiosis; segregated symbiosis; civic symbiosis; and market-oriented symbiosis. Embracive symbiosis is the m o d e of co-living that seems to be superior at traditional, pre-industrial c o m m u n i t i e s w h e r e p e o p l e live together with very limited social differentiation and are c o n n e c t e d to strong social ties. Segregated symbiosis is o n e in w h i c h different groups of p e o p l e are separated from each other socially, culturally, and sometimes, even spatially. Alt h o u g h a classic type of this can be found, for example, in p r e - m o d e m aristocratic society, its m o d e m type e m e r g e d along with the process of industrialization and urbanization, for example, in m a n y American urban cities in the early twentieth century. In many cases, this has b e e n a foundation for social discrimination. Civic symbiosis is one that tends to be idealized in a m o d e r n democratic society. There all individuals are a s s u m e d as being equal, a u t o n o m o u s and independent, but at the same time, as having an orientation to accept different people, ideas and cultures, and to cooperate for improving their welfare. Market-oriented symbiosis is o n e that has spread along with the a d v a n c e m e n t of the capitalist, market e c o n o m y and the expansion of cities. There, individuals tend to be self-oriented, c o n c e r n e d with personal benefits, indifferent toward others, and not willing to cooperate in order to improve social benefits. They may cooperate for some c o m m o n benefits, but mostly for those limited to
54
The American Sociologist / Fall 2000
a special interest group to which they belong, or only w h e n it is necessary for their o w n sake. If we seek to realize a society of civic symbiosis, not o n e of s e g r e g a t e d symbiosis or o n e of market-oriented symbiosis, then we n e e d to organize our schooling by the same principle, that is, c o m m o n n e i g h b o r h o o d schools w h i c h are o p e n to e v e r y o n e in their respective local c o m m u n i t i e s a n d w h i c h all residents there are willing to cooperate to improve. As Henry Levin noted (1990:248), "choice is o n e of the major tenets of both a market e c o n o m y and democratic society." Choice is something g o o d in a n d of itself both in a market e c o n o m y and democratic society, a n d constitutes the core value of the m o d e r n d e f i n i t i o n o f f r e e d o m . But, u n l i k e the m a r k e t e c o n o m y , co-existence and public d i s c u s s i o n are also core tenets of a d e m o cratic society. In such a democratic society, a w i d e variety of individuals a n d g r o u p s live together, m a k e c o m m i t m e n t to others a n d their c o m m o n g o o d s a n d welfare, k e e p order a n d maintain an identity over g e n e r a t i o n s . Accordingly, civic symbiosis or co-living is crucial for h a r m o n y a n d t h e persistence of a democratic society. This value of civic symbiosis can be realized n o t b y choice, but by a c c e p t i n g / a d m i t t i n g and m a k i n g c o m m i t m e n t . If public e d u c a t i o n is the f o u n d a t i o n for a d e m o c r a t i c society, o r g a n i z i n g it along the lines of choice will u n d e r m i n e its foundation. Rather, it is critical to make public schools a place that all p e o p l e in a region are willing to accept and to make a c o m m i t m e n t to. Thus, here again our education is n o w at a critical crossroads. Conclusion
In this article, I first depicted the current reform m o v e m e n t s in J a p a n a n d examined the b a c k g r o u n d s and rhetoric b e h i n d them, and then discussed the nature of those reforms as putting our education at threefold critical crossroads or in crisis: first, current reform m o v e m e n t s try to overthrow even the merits of Japanese schooling; second, they are changing the form of educational control and governance, and moreover, at least in Japan, u n d e r m i n i n g the f o u n d a t i o n of professional control and deteriorating professional ethics and the culture of dedication a m o n g teachers; and third, they tend to transform the organizing principle of public education from a c o m m u n i t y - b a s e d to a market-oriented one, and thereby to u n d e r m i n e the foundation of civic symbiosis and a m o d e m democratic society. All these are the challenge for theory and practice in sociology. In Japan, very few sociologists have paid attention to the possibility of these f u n d a m e n t a l changes and the current reform movements, although a couple of s o c i o l o g i s t s have joined the popular arguments c o n d e m n i n g Japanese schooling as obsolete and dysfunctional, and have advocated deregulation, decentralization, and school choice. 1 Most of the arguments that advocate school choice and e m p h a s i z e the importance of accountability are focusing on the level of legal rights. Even sociologists do so, too. But, what we n o w n e e d to do is to m a k e structural a n d institutional analyses about these matters, rather than formalistic a n d jurisprudential ones.
Fujita
55
Note 1.
In Japan, there are the Japanese Sociological Association (JSA) and the Japanese Association of Educational Sociology (JAES) as two independent academic bodies9 Members of JSA are about 3000, whereas those of JAES are about 1300 and about 30% of them also belong to JSA. The comment here in the text refers to the activities of JSA members 9 There are some members of JAES who have published books and articles, examining school-disorder problems which promoted the uprising of current reform movements, but great majority of their writings tend to focus on those disorder and maladjustment problems as the background phenomena, not on the reform initiatives and politics nor on their nature, rhetoric and anticipated effects.
References Ball, S.J. 19939 "Education, markets, choice and social class: the market as a class strategy in the UK and the USA." British Journal of Sociology of Education 14:3-19. 9 1994. Education Reform: A Critical and Post-structuralApproach. London: Routledge. Bell, D. 1976. The Cultural Contradictions of Capitalism. New York: Basic Books Brown, p. & H. Lauder. . 1992. Education for Economic Survival.. From Fordism to Post Fordism? London: Routledge. Chubb, J. E. and T. M. Moe. 1990. Politics, Markets, and America's Schools. Washington, D. C.: The Brookings Institution. Clune, W. H. and J. F. Witte (ects.) 1990a. Choice and Control in American Education, Volume 1: The Theory of Choice and Control in American Education9 London: The Falmer Press. 9 1990b. Choice and Control in American Education, Volume 2: The Practice of Choice, Decentralization and School Restructuring. London: The Falmer Press. Cookson, E W. 1994. School Choice: The Struggle for the Soul of American Education9 New Haven: Yale University Press. .1995. "Goals 2000: Framework for the new educational federalism9 Teachers College Record 96(3): 405-417. Department for Education (the United Kingdom) 9 1992. Choice and Diversity: A New Framework for Schools. London: HMSO. Earley, P. (ed.) 1998. School Improvement afier lnspection? School and LEA Responses. London: Paul Chapman Publishing. Flude, M. and M. Hammer (eds.) 1990. The Education Reform Act, 1988.. Its Origins andlmplications. London: The Falmer Press. Fuller, B. and R. F. Elmore (eds.) 1996. Who Chooses? Who Loses?: Culture, Institutions, and The Unequal Effects of School Choice9 New York: Teachers College Press. Fujita, H. 1992. "Gakkou-ltsukasei Nanatsu no Gimon (Seven questions about five-day school week)." Asahi-shimbun (Asahi Newspaper), January 21 (evening). 1993a. "Atarashii Gakkoukan o Saguru (A Quest for a new image of school)." Gekkan Gakkou Kyoiku Soudan (Monthly Review of School Counseling)(August): 48-65. 9 1993b. Kyoiku no koukyosei to Kyodousei (Publicness and Commonness of Education) 9 H. Morita et al., (eds.) Kouikugaku Nenpou (Annals of Educational Research) 2:3-339 Tokyo: Seori-shobou. __. 1995. Kosei: sono Shakaiteki-Bunkateki Kiban (Individuality: Its social and cultural foundation). H. Morita et al., (eds.), Kyoikugaku Nenpou (Annals of Educational Research) 4 : 8 5 119. Tokyo: Seori-shobou. 9 1996. Kyoiku n o Shijousei/Hi-shijosei: Kouritsu-ChuKou-Ikkannko oyobi Gakkou Sentaku no Mondai o chushin-ni (Marketness and non-marketness of education: Focusing o n the issues of six-year secondary school and school choice)9 H. Morita et al., (eds.), Kyoikugaku Nenpou (Annals of Educational Research) 5:55-959 Tokyo: Seori-shobou. __. 1997. Kyoiku kaikaku: Kyosei-jidai no Gakkoou-zukuri (Education Reform: Schooling in a new symbiotic age). Tokyo: Iwanami-shoten. __. 1998. "Kyoiku-Shakaigaku kara mira KonNichi n o Seishounen-Mondai (Current juvenile problems from the perspective of sociology of education) 9 Hanzai to Hikou (Journal of Crime and Delinquency) 117:4 -26.
56
T h e American Sociologist / Fall 2000
__. 1999a. Choice, Quality and Democracy in Education: A Comparison of Current Education Reforms in the United States, the United Kingdom and Japan. Hitoshi Abe et al. eds., The Public and the Private in the United States. JCAS Symposium Series 12. The Japan Center for Area Studies (JCAS), National Museum of Ethnology, Osaka, Japan, pp.248 -272. 1999b. "Shimin-teki-kyosei" to kyouiku-kaikaku no Kadai ("Civic Symbiosis" and the Prospects for Education Reform). H. Fujita, et al., (eds.), Kyoikugaku Nenpou (Annals of Educational Research) 7: 409-455. Tokyo: Seori-shobou. . 2000a. "Crossroads in Japanese education." JAPAN QUARTERLY, Asahi Shimbun Publishing CO., Vol.47 No.1 (January-March), pp.49-55. . 2000b. Shimin-shakai to Kyoiku: Shin-jidai no kyouiku-kaikaku Shian (Civic Society and Education: A Proposal for Education Reform in a New Age). Tokyo: Seori-shobou. Fujita, H. and S-K. Wong. 1999. Post-Modern Restructuring of the Knowledge Base in Japanese Mass Education: Crisis of Public Culture and Identity Formation. Education Journal (A Journal of Hong Kong Institute of Educational Research, The Chinese University of Hong Kong). Vol.26, No.2 & Vol.27, No.1 (Winter 1998 & Summer 1999), pp. 37 -53. Greenawlt, C. E., II (ed.). 1994. EducationalInnovation: An Agenda to Frame theFuture. Lanham: University Press of America. Hanus, J. J. and P. W. Cookson, Jr. 1996. Choosing Schools: Vouchers and American Education. Lanham: American University Press. Hillgate Group. 1987. The Reform of British Education:from Principles to Practice. London: HiUgate Group. Katz, M. B. 1971. Class, Bureaucracy and Schools: The Illusion of Education Change in America. New York: Praeger. Kurosaki, I. 1996. Shijo no nakano Kyoiku/Kyoiku no nakano Shijo (Education in the Market/ The Market in Education). H. Morita, et al. (eds.), Kyoikugaku Nenpou (Annals of Educational Research) 5: 25-54. Tokyo: Seori-shobou. __. 1999. Sentaku to Kyosei: Fujita Hidenori "Kyoiku Kaikaku" ni taisuru Kansou (Choice and Symbiosis: Some Thoughts on Fujita's "Education Reform"). H. Morita, et al. (eds.), Kyoikugaku Nenpou (Annals of Educational Research) 7:367 -374. Tokyo: Seori-shobou. Levin, H. 1990. The theory of choice applied to education. Pp. 247-284 in Clune & Witte (eds.), (1990a). __. 1991. "The economics of educational choice." Economics of Education Review 10: 137-158. Munn, P. 1991. "School boards, accountability and control." British Journal of Educational Studies Vol. XXXlX No. 2, (May). National Commission on Excellence in Education (NCEE). 1983. A Nation at Risk.. The Imperative for Educational Reform. Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office. Office for Standards in Education (OFSTED). ~ . 1993a. Handbook for the lnspection of Schools (Consolidated Edition 1994). London: HMSO. . 1993b. Frameworkfor the Inspection of Schools (Consolidated Edition 1994). London: HMSO. __. 1994a. Assessing School Effectiveness. London: HMSO. __. 1994b. Improving Schools. London: HMSO. Ouston, J., P. Earley, and B. Filder (eds.) 1996. OFSTED Inspections: The Early Experience. London: David Fulton Publishers. Ravitch, D. 1995. National Standards in American Education: A Citizen's Guide. Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution Press. Riley, R. W. 1995. "Reflections on Goals 2000." Teachers College Record 96(3): 380-388. Thomas, H. 1993. "The education-reform movement in England and Wales. Pp.51-68 in H. Beare & W. L. Boyd (eds.), Restructuring Schools: An International Perspective on the Movement to Transform the Control and Performance of Schools. London: The Falmer Press. Tyack, D. 1974. The One Best System. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. . 1990. "'Restructuring' in historical perspective, tinkering toward utopia." Teachers College Record (Winter): 171-191. Whitney, B. 1993. The Children Act and Schools: A Guide to Good Practice. London: Kogan Page. Whitty, G., S. Power, and D. Halpin. 1988. Devolution and Choice in Education: The School, the State and the Market. Buckingham: O p e n University Press. Whitty, G. and T. Edwards. 1998. "School choice policies in England and the United States: An exploration of their origins and significance." Comparative Education 34 (2): 211-227. Witte, J. F. 1988. Choice and control: An analytical overview. Pp,11-46 in Clune & Witte (eds.), (1990a).
Fujita
57