2012 Volume 79 Issue 1 Pages 1-12
The system by which school teachers conduct the employment placement for their students is characterized by the transition process from school to work in Japan after World War II. In this paper, we will call this system the employment placement conducted by the school (EPCS). Although EPCS is not recognized in any other countries, it has been considered to be self-evident in Japan. Recently, the problems of EPCS have been pointed out by some research. It is necessary to reconsider to what extent schools should and can have responsibility for the employment placement of their students. EPCS was institutionalized with the partial revision of the Employment Security Act (ESA) in 1949. This paper analyzed the deliberation process of the partial revision; with historical records such as the GHQ/SCAP Records, the Diet Minutes and so on, to clarify its progress and the significance of the institutionalization of EPCS. As a result, the following three points were clarified. Firstly, EPCS was not self-evident under the ESA enacted in 1947, and it was not only likely regarded as a violation of ESA, but also charged as a violation of it. Secondly, the revision of ESA in 1949 that gave the legal basis to EPCS signified the partial change of the original principle of ESA in 1947. Under the principle, the Public Employment Security Offices had the exclusive responsibility for employment placement. In cases where other agencies conducted employment placement, fee-charging employment placement services were prohibited, and free services were required to be certified by the Minister of Labor. Lastly, until ESA was revised in 1949, although the Ministry of Education and the Ministry of Labor opposed each other over regulation of Article 33 of ESA, both of these Ministries recognized the necessity to station the eligible personnel to each school who should perform employment placement exclusively aside from the teachers who should perform teaching. Although the problems were deliberated in the early terms of the deliberation process of revising ESA and during diet deliberations, in the end, it was not realized. Moreover, the frame of reference which regarded EPCS as a part of vocational guidance based on educational viewpoints existed in this deliberations process, and clouded the issue involved in considering the range of responsibility which schools should and can have. This framework seems to lead to current views today.