公教育研究の今日的意義と課題(現代日本の公教育構造の変容,I 年報フォーラム)

抄録

1 Reconsideration of the theory of "the Educational Structure under the Fundamental Law of Education" At first, I will consider Eiichi Mochida's paper (treatise) "The Educatinal Structure under the Fundamental Law of Educatin as Modern Public Education" (1979). According to Mochida, Post World War II educational reform in Japan was quite thorough in terms of Modernization." The Educational Structure under the Fundamental Law of Education formed as a result has had characteristics of "the Structure of modern public education," and it has also been called the educational structure of the welfare state. But this reform and its structure cannot be held as only "Democratization. "He also argued that the meanings and the limits of the "Modernizaiton of education" and "the Educational Structure under the Fundamental Law of Education" should be cleared. Although the Fundamental Law of Education has not changed, the structure of public education is basically changing. Can we call it "the Educational Structure under the Fundamental Law of Education" even now? 2 A perspective for the analysis of public education I will also take up Mochida's paper "A perspective for the Analysis of 'Public Education' in the Theory of Educational Administration" (1975). According to him, educational administration is management of "Public Education," that is management of educational projects under the state. So, making the relation between "Education and State" clear, especially the existing form of "Modern Public Education" is a basic subject for research in educational administration. He points out four issues to be discussed and examined. (1)What is "Education"? What is the "State"? (2)How do we grasp the essence of modern public education? (3)The "present" phases of public education. (4)Specific features of "Japanese" public education. How can we get hold of the utility and limits of his theory? The "present" age that he describs in fact the "latter-period of the Modern Age." It cannot be applied to our "contemporary age." 3 "The Contemporary Age" as history The wording of "present" does not show the historical age, but shows an expedient term meaning "today." Objectively wording it, the "Premitive" age is "the first age" of human history, "Ancient" is "the second age," "Middle" is "the third age", "Modern" is "the fourth age." Moreover, we also have 3 periods in the "Modern-age," that is the "former-period," the "middle-period" and the "latter-period." After thel980s, different indications appear concerning "the latter-period of Modern-age." The "contemporary age" is in fact a "transition period" to the fifth age of human history. 4 "Neo-middle-period of the Modern-age" (also called "Post-modern") Political powers that intended to return to "the middle-period of the modern-age" came on stage in the 1980s. Their typical models were Thatcher's in the UK, Reagan's in the USA and Nakasone's in Japan. They depended upon neo-liberalism or neo-conservatism as ideology. Their characteristics are similar to those of "the middle-period of the Modern-age." The present- period called "post-modern" can thus be regarded as "the neo-middle-period of Modern-age," that is the fourth period of the Modern-age. But at the same time, it should also be regarded as a transition-period to "the fifth age" of human history. 5 A view of structure of public education to "the fifth Age" of human history Early indications of "the fifth age" are

(View PDF for the rest of the abstract.)