This paper consists of three sections. 1)the awareness of the interrelationship between the Fundamental Law of Education and the Imperial institution as the symbol of the State and of the unity of the people;2)the problem of the Fundamental Law of Education and "hinomaru(nationalflag)" and "kimigayo(national anthem)" ;and, 3)the Fundamental Law of Education and responsibility for Post War in "national education debate". Today, we are required to explain the historical meaning of the 50-years since Japan's defeat in World War II. One important controversy for Japan centers on the problems of wartime responsibility and postwar responsibility. This country continues to avoid its responsibility for the war of aggression and colonial domination in the Asia and Pacific areas. What is this nation? We have been faced with such a question. The problem is also similar to that of the inseparability of public education and the way that Japan should be. It is taken for granted that the legal framework of the postwar public education system is the Fundamental Law of Education. And debate has been centering on how we shall understand the historical character of this legal framework. This system has been based on a positive "Constitution and the Fundamental Law of Education System, "that in turn means acceptance of the three principles of the Constitution, numely, popular sovereignty, fundamental human rights, and renunciation of war. However, there has been little discussion about the interrelationship between the Fundamental Law of Education and the Constitutional provision of an Emperor as symbol that goes hand in hand with the Emperor's political immunity. The aim of this paper is to clarify the issue of postwar responsibility in postwar educational research, especially the interrelation between the preservation of human rights and the Imperial institution, as well as freedom of thought and conscience in public education.
The Fundamental Law of Education specifies that education shall aim at the full development of personality. This aim has been generally accepted by most of those engaged in educational theories and practices as well as in policy making. But interpretation of the aim has been so ambiguous that quite opposite views on education have been justified. Particularly problematic is that the original intent of the aim, i.e.education should aim at the full development of personality because it is broader and more basic than the formation of a good member of the nation, seems to be forgotten by most interpretations. This paper tries to clarify the weakness of the usual interpretation of the aim and to replace it with a more reasonable one. The concept of the personality in the original interpretation of the aim presupposes that human beings are unique in that they have the ability of reson. This characteristic enables them to pursue the universal values of truth, good and beauty, free from the causality of the material world. This interpretation has been accepted by most educational literature and policy documents. The concept of reason in the interpretation is almost the same as that in the age of the Enlightenment. Such a view has been persuasively critcized since the 19th century, particularly by so-called postmodern thinkers of the present. The above interpretation of the full development of the personality neglects these criticisms and, as a result, becomes an abstract concept which fails to have concrete effect on educational practices. A dificulty in educaionsl theories based on the Enlightenment concept of the reason is that a clear distinction is made between adults and children, namely, rational adults educate irrational children until they become rational. Viewed in this way, children's ability to reason has no place in education and neither equal relationaship nor mutual understanding between adults and children can be established. Then education becomes just another name for conditioning children by adults. This is a logical consequence of the Enlightenment theory of education that justifies the transformation of public education into national education. Although human beings may bear different values in different societies and among individuals in the same society as well, they may find common values if they make an adequate effort to do so when necessary. At least this possibility should not be denied even before they try. The ability to find a common value when necessary may be called reason, because it is what makes human beings understand each other in an equal relationship. Education that aims at the full development of personality based on this understanding of reason means to enhance mutual understanding of human beings. This effort is mainly made by adults upon children within a certain society, but in principle it is open to all human beings.
First, this paper looks back at the process by which the article on coeducation was put in the postwar Fundamental Law of Education and the debate about the nature of males and females. After that, the paper discusses the fact that these concepts were introduced smoothly without contradicting the prewar concept of separate education for both sexes, and the theory was not put into actual practice becaouse modern theory on the equality of the sexes was based on the idea that woman's peculiar attributes were real. Furthermore, it has been made clear that by the women's liberation and second femnist movement the reality of women's liberation was deepened, and the social structure became complicated through sexual discriminations. At the same time, various realities of unequal and un-symmetrical school education were cleary exposed. The social concepts of "onna-rashisa(womanliness)" and "otoko-rashisa(manliness)"were investigated thoroughly by gender, distinguished from sex or sexuality. Even now school practices for gender free educaion face many problems. It has become rather clear that the direction of a social system that supports gender discrimination has a new view of sexual differences and male-female relationships. It seems, however, that the new concepts of sexual defferences and male-female realtionship, and th social structure that support these views are becoming acceptable.
The Constitution called for equality between men and women, prohibited discrimination, and expected its realization in education. The Fundamental Law on Education specified equal opportunities in education and coeducation. It abolished single-gender education, and brought an epoch-making reform by making higher education open for women. However, looking at society as a whole, there remain clear gender distinctions, and Japan is still a developing country in gender equity. In this study I analyze these factors based on a view of the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women Treaty, and I examined what future gender-equity education should be. The Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women Treaty says that "physiological difference"is not the basis of gender discrimination, but it proposes that custom and practice should be modifid from the view of gender. In this respect, interpretations of the equility between men and women of the Fundamental Law on Education were restricted by historical facts, and it recognized gender roles and specialization. There have been some factors which prevented gender-equity education. The first factor is that education policy introduced the intention of the industrial world where the idea of gender roles and specialization because of different traits and characteristics was preferred. The second factor is that single-gender elementary and secondary schols, many women's colleges, and women's universities were established and have been maintained. The third factor is the formal curriculum classified by gender and the hidden curriculum which reproduces gender have been continued at school. However, in the interaction that competes with those elements above, "education about life and reprocuction of life, " "education about occupation and skill, " "sexual education, " and "gender-free discrimination" have been creating contents for Gender-fair education. However, in the recent government announcement the problem of gender-equity education was not discussed as an educational policy for the 21st century. From now on, it will be thought important that the modern school which has contributed to industrial development and state control should reviewed for the purpose of promoting gender-equity education. Furthermore, both parents and students should reach mutual agreement on gender-equity education, and course of studies should be of local citizen's own creation.
Although religion in public education should have been an important issue in post-war Japan, Educators have paid little attention to it because the Constitution and the Fundamental Law of Education stipulate separation between them. On the contrary, the religious academic world has been concerned about the introduction of religious education into public education. Today's moral deterioration over childeren threshes out once more an old controversy. The paper makes a historical survey of controversy on religion and public education in post World War II Japan by focusig upon major arguments between the religious academic world ad education.
Article VIII, Clause I of the Fundamental Law of Education states that the political knowledge necessary for intelligent citizenship shall be valued in education. Clause 2 states that schools, prescribed by law, shall refrain from political education or other political activities for or against any specific political party. The aim of this paper is to investigate the effect of Article VIII of the Fundamental Law of Education upon legislation and educational administration about political education by reviewing related controversies and cases that arouse after the enactment of that Law. The Constitution of Japan and the Fundamental Law of Education were influenced by America's legislative history. Accordingly, court cases concerning free speech rights of teachers in America are examined to discuss the Article VIII in international perspective. The effect of Article VIII may be briefly summarized in the following outline. cause I was not effective in fostering the political education necessary to cultivate in students the political moral and critical sense essential for citizenship in democracy. The merits and demerits of Clause 2 are balanced, because it brought legislation and ruling to limit the political activities of teachers and students, as a result largely of such legislation or ruling, the legislative intention of Clause 1 has been poorly carried out, while on the other hand such legislation and ruling are as valid as American cases to keep the political education neutral and to protect the classroom from substantial disruption. Clause 2 has exerted well balanced influence with both merits and demerits). For Clause 2 caused enectment and notifications for restriction of teachers' and students' political activities, which as a result the legislative intention of Clause I has become far from being realized(failed to be realized). On the other hand the legilation and notifications pertinent to Clause I are valid and effective, as seen in cases(counter parts in judicial causes)in America, to preserve neutrality of the plitical education and to protect classrooms from substantial disruption.
In the 1990s the National Ministry of Education has been trying to shift from centralization to decentralization. But the contents are only the redistribution of some educational administrative affairs from natioal level to prefectural and municipal boards of education. In other words the Japanese educational decentralization policy does not include any shift of decision-making power from school board to the school building level. We have protected teacher's professional autonomy by saying that teachers instruction in a school should be distinguished from administration by the school board. Actually this explanation is based upon the Article 10 of the Fundamental Law of Education which stipulates as follows: Education shall not be subject to improper control, but it shall ve directrly responsible to the whole people. School administration shall, on the basis of this realization, aim at the adjunstment and establishment of the vatious conditions required for the pursuit of the aim of education. According to the legal principle of the direct responsibility of education to the whole people, teachers' professional autonomy should be balanced with people's participatory right to education especially at the school community level. Many countries have already tried devolution of most decision-making authority to the school community leve. In America the community control movement in the 1960s emerged as a major challenge to the unrepresentative bureaucratic school goverment. New York City eventually created 31 elected community school boards in 1970. In the late 1980s Chicago also developed further a more decentralized system. Each school is governed by a Local School Council(LSC), an elected body that consists of six parents, two community representatives, two teachers, one student in high schools, and the principal. The LSC has the power to hire and fire the school principal and to approve a school improvemtn plan and the school budget. The LSC members share the authority and responsibility for making most decisions about the school. Although the principal is the school's educational leader, no one individual has exclusive control. The spirit of the LSC dictates that good decision-making requires the participation of every group in the school community. America has the valuable expeience of possessing a district school system from the time of Revolution until the mid-19th century. If the district school were violated by the educational government, parents could abolish the school and/or the government and establish a new school and/or educational governing body. Parents' revolutionary right to education backed by the ideal of popular sovereignty is fundamental to American educational self-government. When we evaluate the LSC system through these historical experiences, we realize the LSC system is the reproduction of the original educational governance style by means of returning the governance power from the central professional bureaucracy to the parents and community people. It is very useful to introduce two key concepts, "educational governance" and "shared control"in school board restructuring in Japan. Then we must pursue three tough reforms. First, people should have the right to choose board members and take back subject status in educational governance. Municipal boards of education should be truly representative governing bodies by using the elective system. Second, each junior high school community should establish a community educational council with all schoo community people involvement as a subsidiary administrative agency to the municipal school board. Third, at the school building level, each school should organize a school council with the principal and the representatives of parents, teachers, and students to deliberate on important school matters such as school curriculum, personnel, and budget.
The main purpose of this paper is to clarify the process of how the Fundamental Law of Education was introduced to Postwar Okinawa, and how it took root there at a time when Okinawa was politically separated from Japan and was under the American occupation(1945-1972). Under the strict restrictions of the Occupational policies that had as their background American Far Eastern strategy, the Fundamental Law of Education and other educational laws were not realized in content as they really were intended in Japan proper, but rather were modified and changed within the framework established by the United States Civil Administration of the Ryukyu Islands. Furthermore, the Code of Education for the Ryukyus, 1952, was administered by the Americans similar to other legal ordinances, namely as a colonial law. Inspired resistance by people of Okinawa, a democratic movement led by the teachers association in Okinawa and represented by Choubyou Yara, tried to deal legally with the four educational laws(the Fundamental Law of Education, the School Education Law, the Board of Education Law, and the Social Education Law). Boldly opposing the Americans this protest movement succeeded in achieving the implementation of the enactment of the Four Educational Laws based on the principle of Japan's educational legal system, 1958. The educational legal system and administration of Okinawa under the American Occupation was characterized by adversarial relationship based on the two different system of occupational Force's Government and the Okinawa Government. Unlike the other area of Japan proper, the Okinawa's Fundamental Law of education was developed under such characteristics as the following:1)the stabilization process under the American Occupation;2)civilian movement for legislation against the Occupation's administration;3)the local history that was handed down and spread to each island of Okinawa;and 4)a gap between the principle of the Fundamental Law of Education and reality.