The International Baccalaureate Diploma Programme (IBDP) is designed to enable university entrance across borders. A great deal of higher education institutions worldwide have recognized and appreciated IBDP as a university entrance qualification. Therefore, IBDP has been referred to in-previous research as the Global Standard Program (Iwasaki, 2018) in the age of globalization.

  However, there is room for discussion as to whether IBDP is as highly appreciated in Japanese contexts. This is because there are only a limited number of Japanese universities that utilize IBDP for admissions although the Japanese government and the Japan Association of National Universities have announced that universities should actively use IBDP for this purpose. Why, then, is there such an unusual situation around the utilization of IBDP for admissions in Japan?

  Based on the above question, the purpose of this paper is to investigate the intentions and conflicts that Japanese universities have when they introduce and implement special entrance examinations using IBDP (IB entrance examinations). This paper argues that Japanese selective universities are not actively working on the introduction or implementation of IB entrance examinations because they maintain “the logic of elite selection”(Nakamura, 1996). This emphasizes securing fairness based on traditional academic ability even when conducting IB entrance examinations, which are classified as “selection focusing on new abilities”(Nakamura, 2012).

  To achieve its purpose, this paper analyzes the results of an interview survey targeting five universities that have conducted a special entrance examination only for International Baccalaureate graduates (IB graduates). Based on the results, the reasons why Japanese universities are not actively working on the IB entrance examinations are revealed to be as follows.

  The surveyed universities have introduced and conducted IB entrance examinations in the hope that IB graduates would have so-called “new abilities” that are needed in the present age such as “independence” and “thinking skills”. Moreover, it is thought that the acceptance of IB graduates activates university classes at some surveyed universities. Based on these facts, IB entrance examinations are classified as “selection focusing on new abilities” with various scales in the same way as are admissions based on a recommendation (suisen-nyushi) and admissions conducted by the admission offices (AO-nyushi) in Japan.

  This “selection focusing on new abilities” has been popularized among non-selective universities that were not targeted to accept IB graduates. Japanese selective universities place importance on securing fairness based on traditional academic ability that is measured through the National Center Test at admissions. This tendency is called “the logic of elite selection”.

  A dilemma arises here. That is, when IB entrance examinations classified as “selection focusing on new abilities” is carried out at Japanese selective universities, it cannot be considered sufficient that IB graduates only have “new abilities”. It is thought that IB graduates should prove that they also have “traditional academic ability” equal to or better than other students who have advanced from Japanese high schools to Japanese selective universities. The reason is that “the logic of elite selection” which emphasizes fairness based on “traditional academic ability” remains at Japanese selective universities, even when “selection focusing on new abilities” is implemented. (View PDF for the rest of the abstract.)

  This paper deals with the development of Holocaust education in Europe since the 1990s. Along with the growth of Holocaust studies in the field of history and sociology in particular, Holocaust education has been developing not only in Germany and Israel – the very countries concerned with it – but also around the world, particularly in Germany’s neighbouring countries in Europe. The paper examines the processes and the backgrounds of the development of Holocaust education with a special reference to the case of Sweden, a wartime neutral state. It is one of the best examples among former ‘bystanders’ countries in terms of acknowledging and teaching the Holocaust as part of national history, and among the driving forces of Holocaust education in current Europe and beyond.

  The perspectives in which the examination is conducted are two-fold: the conceptual ground and the contextual ground of the development of Holocaust education. Firstly, the paper positions the conceptual perceptions of the Holocaust as an incident of genocide in human history. One way to look at the Holocaust is to underline its ‘uniqueness’ with a sharp distinction from other genocidal cases. As Zygmunt Bauman (1989) argued, it claims the totality of mobilising all aspects of, for example, the bureaucracy, the system of administration and control, state ideology and advanced technology of the modern era. This structuralist or functionalist way of understanding the Holocaust began to be criticised by another intellectual stream. In it, such a clear – and somewhat arbitrary – differentiation of the Holocaust is downplayed with the rise of so-called ‘genocide studies’, which view the Holocaust as a valuable lesson for all humans, like other genocides. All in all, paradoxically, because of the specificities of the Holocaust as a historical incident of genocide, and because of its iconic significance in human history, Holocaust education has taken a firm hold as a universal lesson for humanity.

  Secondly, the paper tries to explain why Holocaust education has been expanded in Europe since the 1990s. It analyses the timing of the development of Holocaust education, shedding light on the contextual changes in international politics and social transformation in Europe. It is argued that historic watersheds in the development of Holocaust education are made in the following three points: the end of the cold war; the political, economic and cultural integration of Europe; and – above all – the continued effort for teaching the Holocaust undertaken by the Federal Republic of Germany since the end of the Second World War. Firstly, after the end of the cold war, Holocaust studies and education began to prosper in former communist countries where such studies and education had long been a ‘taboo’. It was based on socio-cultural traditional and ideological grounds in eastern Europe. In a sense, Holocaust studies and education was set free from communist ideology. A large number of documents related to the Holocaust began to be disclosed from the official archives after the collapse of the eastern bloc where the concentration and the extermination camps of Nazi Germany were concentrated. Secondly, the ‘Europeanisation of Holocaust history’ was possible with the burgeoning of a new political, economic and cultural community, called the European Union. In it, the notions of democracy and respect for human rights are more widely shared than before. Sharing the view of the past is considered to be essential in forming a new European identity and building the common future. Lastly but not least, the basis of Holocaust education has been firmly built by the state policy for education after the establishment of the Federal Republic of Germany. This basis has been succeeded in a united Germany with some conceptual changes in currently multicultural German society. (View PDF for the rest of the abstract.)

  This article examines France’s enseignements de langue et de culture d’origine (ELCO), which is provided under bilateral agreements signed between France and nine countries of origin. Rather than focusing on how the program is perceived by France (the host country), I focus on how it is perceived by the nine partner countries (the homelands of the immigrants participating in the program).

  ELCO is a program for teaching languages and cultures of origin. It is available in French public schools primarily for the benefit of the children of immigrants. The nine partner countries are Algeria, Croatia, Italy, Morocco, Portugal, Serbia, Spain, Tunisia, and Turkey. These countries recruit, deploy, and remunerate the ELCO teachers. The ELCO teachers deliver one 1.5-hour ELCO class a week, usually outside of regular class hours.

  ELCO was established in 1973 for the purpose of helping its students master their mother tongues, thus contributing to France’s immigrant education policy. The program has proven extremely controversial. Some have called for the program’s abolition, claiming that it fuels discrimination and hinders assimilation into French society. However, this picture is one-sided, coming entirely from the French side and reflecting French values and mores. Critics ignore the perspective of the countries of origin, placing the focus exclusively on the host country. To obtain a more nuanced picture of the ELCO program, I analyzed how the program is perceived by ELCO teachers and relevant personnel at the embassies and consulates of the partner countries. The data was obtained from interviews with these individuals as well as from materials provided by the individuals at the time of the interview.

  Of all the criticisms leveled at ELCO, this article is most concerned with the claim that the program is insular. ELCO is independent from regular public school education, which, according to the critics, means that it runs counter to core French principles, such as unity, indivisibility, and the French conception of equality. Critics also claim that children who take ELCO classes may remain forever bound by their countries of origin. These arguments may have once been valid; ELCO was exclusive to children with foreign roots for many years. However, in the late 2000s, the program started welcoming all children, regardless of their origin. It would be silly, then, to still claim that ELCO remains insular.

  My analysis indicated four key trends in the ELCO program. First, the notion that ELCO is for the children of immigrants, as suggested in the phrase “of origin” (d’origine), is now being downplayed. In 2016, ELCO was renamed enseignements internationaux de langues étrangères (EILE; “international teaching of foreign languages”). This renaming—the first in the program’s history—has been received favorably by the countries of origin.

  The second trend concerns the program’s openness. Most children in ELCO classes are from the relevant country of origin, but an increasing proportion is not. To some of the children participating in ELCO, the language of origin represents a purely foreign language. These children participate to learn the language from an introductory level. To other children, the language represents not a complete foreign language but a heritage language. These children participate to learn more formally the language that they would have learned to some extent at home. In yet other cases, the language represents the students’ mother tongue. These children participate in ELCO to master their mother tongue, which is the original purpose of the program. The sheer diversity among the students can present a challenge to the teachers, yet every teacher interviewed rated this aspect favorably. One criticism of the program is that it covers only nine countries of origin. (View PDF for the rest of the abstract.)

  In this paper, I aim to study the differences of the meaning of “labor” among the government, teachers and ex-students. “Labor” was an important subject in the curriculum as socialist education after Pol Pot’s regime in Cambodia. During Pol Pot’s regime, the education system was abolished, and many teachers were slaughtered. In the era of the People’s Republic of Kampuchea (PRK), after Pol Pot’s regime ended in 1979, the Kampuchea People’s Revolutionary Party (KPRP) government faced the difficult task of reconstructing the new nation state and building a new education system, which reflected the Eastern bloc socialist ideology. There are only a small number of empirical studies about education during the PRK era since researchers from the western bloc were prohibited from entering Cambodia, in addition to the ongoing civil war near the Thai-Cambodia border area. Therefore, this research considers the intention of the subject from not only the perspective of the curriculum that reflected the KPRP policy, but also from an individual perspective based on interviews with elementary school teachers and ex-students.

  This research’s significance lies in re-evaluating the meaning and the value of socialist education in Cambodia. Although the concept of socialism has had a great impact not only on Cambodian politics, but also on people’s lives, there have been very few studies from the point of view of socialist education in Cambodia. The Cambodian People’s Party, which has its roots in the KPRP, is the ruling party of Cambodia, and they initiated the education reconstruction process following Pol Pot’s regime, continuing the reconstruction process from the PRK era to the present. Understanding the meaning and the value of “labor” could not only make up for the lack of previous research, but also could gain a new perspective on the present education system.

  In order to reveal the differences of the meaning of “labor”, the following two aspects were analyzed: (1) I first discussed the background of the KPRP, and the purpose and contents of the “General Primary Education Curriculum in 1980,” (2) I then analyzed the experiences and the recollections of the teachers and the ex-students from the PRK era.

  The findings are as follows:

  First, according to the history of the KPRP, it is clear that the KPRP and Pol Pot’s group had a common origin. The KPRP had a strong friendship with Vietnam; however, Vietnam was considered an enemy of Pol Pot’s group. The KPRP government hoped to join the international socialist community, which was centered on the Soviet Union, through its close relationship with Vietnam.

  Second, from the analysis of the “General Primary Education Curriculum in 1980”, I identified “labor” as a key subject, because it is closely related to the purpose of the complete general primary education while reflecting a socialist ideology. The purpose of “labor” was to connect the school to the home and the community and thus the concept of “labor” was roughly divided into two components: productive labor and labor to learn solidarity. The subject of “labor” reflected an ideal of socialism pedagogy.

  Third, according to the interviews with teachers, it was revealed that the teachers were almost uninterested in “labor” as the key of socialist education. On the contrary, they were inclined to think that “labor” had an educational value in Pol Pot’s regime. Additionally, during the PRK era their teaching methodology in elementary school referenced their own learning experiences received before Pol Pot’s regime. This establishes the following two important explanations; first, the KPRP government could not distinguish clearly between their socialist ideology and Pol Pot’s communist ideology. (View PDF for the rest of the abstract.)