In historical retrospect, a great deal of time has passed since some nation states started introducing compulsory education schemes. On the other hand, however, the newly established independent nation states are still struggling in their attempts to implement compulsory education systems that suit their own objectives. In these situations, it may be safely said against the background of human civilization, that the Fundamental Law of Education, together with its clause related to compulsory education, may entail the international relevance as norms. In particular, the peace-doctrine apparent in Japan's Constitution should be re-considered as a leading principle for re-structuring the world wide systems of polity, economy, and education for human kind. However, there are still be some issues for the Japanese to solve in relation to the fuller implementation of the ideals of the Constitution and the Fundamental Law of Education in order to bring about a more balanced system between polity and education. For example, the current definition of Japanese nationality excludes all minority groups currently living in Japan and those who may come in future. One possible solution can be, to find a viable way by which "new geopolitical areas" could replace nation states and re-define and guard new notions of citizenship. This could then lead to the abolition of "nationality" and its current form of legitimacy in today's "nation states."
The issue of the Fundamental Law of Education being enacted in present popular opinion has been explained from the idea and enthusiasm of Kotaro Tanaka, Education Minister when this Law was being designed. In his original plan of educational reform, however, Tanaka emphasized two points : the need to promote ethics in Japanese education and for the Constitution to guarantee the independent authority of education. It is debatable whether the drafting idea of the Fundamental Law of Education may be born naturally or not from such a denying design that prescribes educational purposes by law. In this respect, the historical study on the enacting process of the Fundamental Law of Education has taken a new step forward through the rapid progress of research on educational reform documents in Post-War II Japan. By them it has become clear that we need to consider two other remarkable persons, in addition to K.Tanaka. One person is Jiro Tanaka, Acting Secretary of the Investigation Room, Ministry of Education, who played a role in drafting educational laws in the Occupation period, and another is Shigeru Nambara, Vice-Chairman of the Japanese Education Reform Committee(JERC), who played an important role in making Japanese educational policy. Then, where may we find the key-points for solving how the Fundamental Law of Education was enacted? First, the drafting of this Law began in the Ministry's Council of Education on 11 September 1946. As a matter of fact, the conception for the Fundamental Law of Education came from a juridical concept of Jiro Tanaka at a meeting of that date. His 21 September 1946 outline of the Fundamental Law of Education became an original suggestion for the discussion process of the 1st sub-committee of the JERC and for negotiations between the Investigation Room and the Education Division of CI & E. It was he who first conceived the idea of a preamble for the Fundamental Law of Education. Minister K. Tanaka Played an Important part in supporting such a design and implemented it as national policy. Second, it is important to note that Shigeru Nambara also had considerable impact on the drafting of the Fundamental Law of Education. We should notice his interpellating address about the fundamental problem of education and culture in the House of Peers on 27 August 1946. He criticized Minister K.Tanaka's policy on educational law and the idea of an independent authority for education. Simultaneously, he demanded the inclusion of a fundamental education law in the New Constitution that would provide for a direct relationship between education and the people and stress the importance of civics education. Moreover, the JERC's adoption of the outline for enacting Fundamental Law of Education owes much to his severe criticism of the 1st sub-committee report. Therein, he emphasized that education should be directed thoroughly at the full development of the human personality, rather than aiming at development of human nature. He also asserted that he was against a leap to religion in promoting ethical education. As a result, these ideas proved useful in the writing of some articles of the Fundamental Law of Education. In the deliberation of these key-points, hereafter, we must read and know the real histrical significance and limitations in the enactment of the Fundamental Law of Education if we are to put it to good use in our future education.
The theory of division was introduced by Professor Munakata with reference to the work on Comparative Education(1993)by Isaac L. kandel. This theory prohibits a state or a local government from intervening in "interna" matters, that is, educational content, methods, textbook, etcetera. It limits the functions of the educational administration to 'externa' matters, namely, educational facilities, finance, school system, etcetra. 'Interna' is associated with the cultural freedom of the people to administer their own education ; however, the ultimate right to determine it is entrusted to each teacher as a professional. Scholars of educational laws cite this theory for the interpretation of Article X of the Fundamental Law of Education. The theory has much significance for the theory of the people's right to education and for authorizing teachers freedom to teach. It is possible to classify control types of education into(a)state intervention, (b)professional leadership, (c)popular control, and(d)market choice. The theory of the peoples right to education and the theory of division belong to "b". "a", "c" and "d" categories deny "b" for the reason that "b" category vests teachers with an unrestricted authority. The relationship between "a" and "b" has been controversial after World War II because of the dispute between the state's right or claim to determine school education and the people's right to determine it. But the question of the relationship between "b" "c" and "d" dategories that commonly prohibits state intervention into 'interna' have really not been debated. Therefore, this paper has reexamined the meanings of appropriate sections of the Constitution and the Fundamental Law of Education, especially Article X. As a result of this examination, it is clear that none of the four type's simultaneously meets all the principles of "direct responsibility to the whole people for education", "adjustment and establishment of conditions for education", "equal opportunity in education", and "fair and appropriate treatment of teachers", in the Fundamental Law of Education and Constitution. To reconstruct the theory of division, it is necessary : 1. to prescribe first the relationship between individuals including children and parents, and the state including schools and teachers. The state is respoinsible for both 'interna' and 'externa' for equal opportunity, though there are much larger limit on the 'interna' in respect to the realization or protection of fundamental human rights ; 2. to divide a state into legislative, administrative and educative functions. We have to prescribe the mutual relationship, regarding the principles of direct responsibility and adjustment of conditions. Legislative functions extend over both 'interna' and 'externa'. By contrast the administrative functions and the educative ones are limited to 'externa' and 'interna' respectively. 3. to locate educational actions of teachers and management by their skills in 'interna' and 'externa' respectively. In the consideration of fair and appropriate treatment, teachers are free to exercise their own skills as professions, but professional skills are to be appraised or managed on objective and professional standards by the educational administration.
Why has there been so little concern about the revocation of the District(Gun)Code in 1921(effective from 1923)and the elimination of the District Office in 1926? Generally speaking, it's because the District system wasn't able to work successfully, and only a few people took issue about this problem at that time. However, this can be seen differently from the view point of educational administration. Until 1926, town and village elementary schools were directly under the jurisdiction of Districts. The District had strong contrl over elementary schools, for better or worse. It completely controlled elementary schools through the District Chief's right to make a Confidential Report on principals and teachers to the prefectural governor(Naishin-ken), while it protected the autonomy of schools from the local influence. Therefore, the elimination of the District Office affected elementary school management in various ways. First, it broadened the power of principals, who gained control over Naishin-ken. This added the new role of administrator to principals. Second, the elimination of the medium administrative level brought about the standardization of administration. This freed elementary schools from the influence of local political circumstances to some extent(This process had previously been completed by the Law for Defraying the Obligatory Educational Expenses from the National Treasury), and helped to standardize school management. In many prefectures All-Prefectural Principal Societies were organized. Through these, governors were able to directlyu convey the guiding principles of each prefecture to the principals, and thus made them reflected in each school. A good example of the negative results caused by standardized government can be found in Chiba prefecture where elementary school had gained some freedom in educational practice before 1926. We can conclude that reexamination of local administration in 1926 was the turning point in the relationship between the administration and elementary school management in Japan.