From 1980s, the government of England has addressed the reform of its schooling system, especially with many sides of school governance. They put emphasis on the rights of parents to schools that their children go to, including the right to choose and take part in its decision making. For ensuring the latter right, they made each schools to have a school governing body to run itself. On the other hand, the roles of local (Education) authorities to manage and control schools within each area has been reduced under successive governments. The purpose of this paper is to pose a question on and examine the correctness of such local governance of schools in the theory, the political discourse and the actual policies, using some studies and investigation of the same framework, political documentation of Education of England or articles by press. 　There are two important policies in reform of school governance; enhance of academies and school governing bodies which was already referred. An academy is a kind of schools, which is not put under the control of local authorities, therefore is ensured that they can get autonomy with its management and self-improvement. Governments have considered that by making all schools in England academies would be an effective mean to make performance of whole schooling increased. Academies also have to have their own governing bodies. Governing Bodies have to be made-up with parent governors, staff governors, governors from communities or parishes, local enterprises and from local authorities. The school governing bodies would be an engine of the improvement of schools, regardless of academies or maintained schools under local authorities. They got strong power to appoint its head teacher, to decide its budget and daily management and so on. But recently, Sir. Michael Wishaw appealed that school governing bodies must be reformed to fulfill its roles. He complained that many of school governors have remain to be mere figurehead. His opinion affected the parliament to review the system. 　In such discourse of the reform of educational governance, where are the local authorities put? Checking the political arguments, we have found the place of them very small. But very recently, a very important example which suggests a local authority could take a responsibility to produce improvement of schools of a whole area, which came from Hackney area of eastern part of London, which had been known as a poorest area. There, a non-profit organization ‒ The Leaning Trust ‒ made a reform of education system a success. Though there are some points to examine the reasons of success, the idea of CEO of the body can suggest much for the role and raison d’être of local authorities, to say, one of important roles of them would be ‘mediating layer’ between each school and the State. It is the role that local education authorities of old times had been played and local authorities from now on have to play again. 　There are some signs of change of policies with local authorities, we have to watch it carefully.

抄録全体を表示

This paper examines the radical changes in Early Childhood Education and Care (ECEC) in England since the end of the twentieth century, with special consideration of the global circumstances around ECEC and by using the framework of transitology (Cowen 2014). ECEC in England reflects political, economic, and social changes at a global level, and it has the discourse of ‘school readiness’ as its legitimacy. 　According to the OECD Report Starting Strong, increasing global interests on ECEC have changed the meaning of ECEC, regarding it as a public good, instead of a private matter, and the report focuses on an integrated approach to ECEC, the goal of achievement and the monitoring of ECEC services, staff and child development. Partly it aims the economic development in the period of low growth. 　In addition, worldwide organisations such as the WHO, UNESCO and UNICEF also look at ECEC in terms of humanitarian support. They focus on the children’s well-being, promoting health and preventing poverty. ECEC is a hot issue shared across developed and developing countries. 　As global attitudes toward ECEC have changed, the new ECEC system and curriculum in England has also adapted, including the re-organisation of the governmental division for ECEC in order to integrate the jurisdiction of ECEC, introducing a national curriculum with detailed achievement goals, and monitoring systems for all the ECEC settings. 　The national curriculum on ECEC in England, Early Years Foundation Stage (EYFS), stresses the importance of care in terms of children’s well-being as well as promotion of literacy, and increasingly such safeguard and welfare requirements have been extended through the revisions of them. 　ECEC in England is categorised as‘ school readiness’ tradition by the OECD Report. Such a slogan has given the ECEC legitimacy from both points of view: economic growth and humanitarian support, importance in developed and developing countries, and impact of poverty and universal security. However, there are many who oppose the view of school readiness as the aim of ECEC. ‘School readiness’ can be recognised as‘ deductive rationality’ (Cowen 2014). The fundamental question is thus posed - how do we recognise childhood, as a preparation period for being an adult or a meaningful period in and of itself?

抄録全体を表示

　In the 1990s there was trend of increasing litigation sued by pupil or parent as plaintiff against the local authority or school governing body as defendant, claiming negligent liability which caused damage to the child. This article considers negligent liability on education, especially vicarious liability of local authority, which is legal liability imposed on the local authority for breach of duty by person employed by the local authority. The law case of Phelps v. London Borough of Hillingdon is regarded important in a sense that the House of Lords as the Supreme Court judged the vicarious liability to the local authority, which is never seen before. This article compares two law cases, X v. Bedfordshire County Council and Phelps v. London Borough of Hillingdon, in which both plaintiffs claimed negligent liability due to breach of duties in the treatment of abused children by the local authority and diagnosis for child suffering from dyslexia by a school psychologist employed by the local authority, respectively. Although common points in legal proceeding of the two law cases is exercise of discretion by the local authorities, the judgments of these two trials at the Supreme Court are contrastive, because the appeal was struck out in the X v. Bedfordshire case, but in the Phelps v. Hillingdon case the Court judged direct liability to the school psychologist and vicarious liability to the local authority. Organization of this paper is delineated; first, the judgments at the Supreme Court for the X v. Bedfordshire case and the Phelps v. Hillingdon case are outlined. Second, this article confirms general concept about the duty of the statute and the common law duty of care by the Opinions for the Lords of Appeal for Judgment. Third, this article scrutinizes logic of the judgments in the X v. Bedfordshire case and the Phelps v. Hillingdon case, from viewpoints of the statute, common law and vicarious liability. Fourth, this article analyzes logic of the judgments in these two law cases. Finally, this article comments on the education trial in Japan from viewpoint of the vicarious liability.

抄録全体を表示

In England, deficiency of teachers is serious problem. Especially insufficiency of workers in the education systems for children having Special Educational Needs and Disability (SEND) is a serious problem. And this problem is common with Japan’s special education systems. This note has surveyed in courses training Newly Qualified Teachers in universities or colleges with a view how many courses and subject are founded with specialty of SEND in 2014-2015. 　At first, with marshalling the acts, instruments and ministerial ordinances that are related to the Education Act 1981 and 1993. These two acts constitute bases of the contemporary special education of England. And there is NO descripts that refer to knowledge or skills that teacher with children having needs should have. Next survey is how many routes for taking Qualified Teacher Status (QTS) within several universities and colleges. Main routes to taking QTS are that taking the Bachelor of Education (BEd), rotes that taking the Professional Graduate Certificate in Education (PGCE) and routes that is established by original programs of several institutions. 80%-95% of teachers had selected in taking the BEd or the PGCE. But courses taking BEd are decreasing in late years, and courses that are original programs of several institutions are increasing. Those courses can offer QTS and undergraduate level honors are not BEd. In basing on this, I has surveyed original programs of several institutions too. 　Plymouth University is only constitution that has the undergraduate course. Their course can offer both of BEd and specialty of education for SEND with the course name or similar text. And 4 institutions offer courses like this course in PGCE, and no institutions offer in original programs. However, there are some courses that cannot offer QTS but can offer specialty of special educational needs and disability. Almost all of these has gave a suggestion that students who will finish the course, may go on PGCE program or postgraduate program can take PGCE or PGDE. Students who will be teachers of special education in England need to pay more cost with postgraduate or another course. The academic level of teachers with special education is increasing before ordinary education.

抄録全体を表示