Abstract
The aim of this paper is to explain the common proportion of educational expenses in the Meiji Period. Educational expenses have been discussed in the contextof their direct connection to public interest in education. We can note that cooperation in bearing the tax burden (not only related to educational expenses) has a deep link to customs and order within the community. If It's true, what be became actual by the burden is not interest for school but the custom of the community. If this becomes apremise, we must extend it to show that citizens have been constrained by customs and order within the community that they have had no choice but to be dependant on. When we attempt to clarify the connection between education for citizens, throughout their lives, we have to make clear that the position and means of the share in whole people's life. And then, that process will make us aware that the means of education itself in whole people's life.It becomes the following if the thing, which I try to statein the main subject, is summarized, 1. The method of determining the proportional share of the educational expense burden changed between 1880's and l890's. As a result of that change, the relative classburdens within the society, in terms of educationalexpenses, also changed. Those changes made changes inquality of means about sharing.2. The ratio of the sharing of educational expenses in thecommunity was settled within the community's social structure. Therefore, members of the community became aware that sharing the tax burden could be associated to their status within the community, rather than simply being associated with a common societal duty. 3. One's status within the community became directly connected to the level of tuition fees paid, and served to make a difference in the attitude of teachers toward children. This, in turn, served to highlight "the statuswithin the community" of people whose children were in these schools. The method of contributing to educational expenses inthe community I researched changed as follows. First, members of the community contributed according to the "Jinko-wart" system (educational taxes were imposed based on the overall number of families) until 1883, and the taxable amounts were higher than taxes which were imposed based on the value of the citizens' estates and properties. Because the ratio of tax payments was based onthe number family members in each family, it was based on the possibility of individual consumption rather than the value of family estates. However, this formal changed when the "Kosu-ward"system was introduced to the community, and such changeinvolves the base of ratio of payment. Clarifying there straint of community is the characteristics of "Kosu-ward". It means that the base of ratio of educational expenses changed to which on the status in community from which on the number of a family. The result of this changing does not emerge the sense of relation between payment and object of that to the people, but consciousness of depending on community. The structure of payment in the community was notemerged for the people that sense for the school (and their education) but the order of their community preceded thatinstead. School (and their education) was existed as "a form of clarifying the order of the community". Because made it become latency, there was common owner consciousness toward the people's school by such aneducational expenses burden form.
