The purpose of this paper is to show theoretically that professional leadership of educational administration functions as a system in that it can respond to a request from administration in other fields. First I put in order and classify the location of responsibility in education. Then the necessity of participation of teaching staff in educational administration is shown. I also survey the political side of education. The specialties asked for by educational administration and educational practice are analyzed using the concept of practice knowledge and professional knowledge. Participation in educational administration by school staff is then situated as educational politics. This is to show that professional leadership of educational administration that can respond to a request from general administration is built on the basis of support from school stuff more than on opinions from various fields.

Regarding criticism of the board of the education system, the existence of exclusive rules inside the profession has been highlighted. Greater support from school staffs to boards of the education system can reinforce such an exclusive rule. To overcome this problem, school staffs should join in public and political stages for educational arguments. Participants from other sectors cannot accept a suggestion that only profits school staffs. So, they have to insist with sufficient grounds and evidences to persuade others. When educational administrators can be led persuasively to other fields from the view point of pedagogy, professional leadership of educational administration can exist.

Educational administration as a public work adjusts differences from every related actor. In other words, this system can be educational politics itself which consists of strained relations. Even an insistence from educational administration is just one of many specific opinions from other fields. Educational administration should understand other external professions as partners, and then involve them in their field. Educational administration should also send them their requests. It is important for it to have sufficient support from its own professional field, for example school staffs.

The purpose of this paper is to show the centralized financial system under the Japanese welfare state and to prove clearly a lack of the social security system relating to education and child care, throughout considering interdisciplinary research. I analyze one of the most important theories, the theory of dividing education matters into internal items and external items, and the ideology of the Japanese welfare state.

As criticizing the ideology of the Japanese welfare state that led to the construction of a particular Japanese social regime after World War II, Seiya Munakata determined the theory of dividing education matters into internal items and external items in educational administration study in the 1950s. In a process of forming the theory, Munakata pointed out that the Japanese educational finance system was extremely vulnerable. Subsequentry, from the point of view that government should fund education, arguments were growing regarding the relativity of internal and external items and how to decide the financial matters of external items democratically.

In addition, arguments around the theory were influenced by the comparative analysis of welfare state ideology and the condition of the Japanese welfare state. It is important at least to discuss the theoretical value throughout keeping the relationships between the theory, the ideology and the system under review.

How we understand the Japanese welfare state and welfare society are not only historical research questions but also modern challenges. Today’s child poverty happens in the changing Japanese welfare state and the issues are in a new specific structure. We are to find the new serious problems resulting from a new social regime in Japan.