2012 Volume 38 Pages 82-98
In 1948, the Board of Education Law was enacted in Japan under the occupation policies aimed at promoting democracy and decentralizing education by following the model of the United States. The Board of Education system has been revised several times since then, but there has been no noticeable change to the provision concerning the relationship between the boards of education and their superintendents. Legally, the boards are an executive organ and have extensive legal authority over local education, whereas the superintendents are an auxiliary (subordinate) organ and thus have limited authority. Consequently, the superintendents should take charge of all education affairs managed by the boards, subject to the boards' "direction and supervision." However, in practice, the boards have little influence over the policy process, which favors the superintendents. How to improve the internal control of the boards has been a crucial problem in Japan. This article discusses the legal relationship between the boards of education and the superintendents. While the law's wording technically allows the boards to direct and supervise their superintendents' activities, the Ministry of Education has restricted the boards' power through administrative interpretations of the law. According to these interpretations, the boards can only outline policies and should not directly affect the activities of the superintendents. This article analyzes the discrepancies between the legal and administrative interpretations, focusing on the bill for partial revision of the Board of Education Law that was submitted to the Diet in 1949 but was dropped later. The bill was primarily aimed at reframing the relationship of these two entities. The first section of this article discusses the preparation of the bill by the Ministry of Education. Internal government documents show that the ministry intended to weaken the boards' control over the superintendents and strengthen the superintendents' authority by revising the term "direction and supervision" to "general supervision." This section also clarifies the bill's background and the difference between "direction and supervision" and "general supervision." The second section examines the Diet's deliberations in 1949 and 1950. In 1949, members of the opposition parties pointed out what they viewed as the main problem of the proposed revisions: weakening of the boards' control. The bill failed to pass during that session. It was resubmitted the next year and passed with no revision concerning "direction and supervision." Therefore, the attempt to reframe the relationship between the boards and superintendents was not fully accomplished through the legislative process. However, the administrative interpretations issued since 1952 can be identified as being more similar to the "general supervision" idea than the "direction and supervision" concept in a strict sense. Through these interpretations, the Ministry of Education has restricted the boards' control. In conclusion, the discrepancy between the law and the ministry's administrative interpretations makes the boards' responsibility less clear. Theoretical and empirical research is required to clarify how and to what extent the boards should control superintendents.
