The purpose of this paper is to clarify the plan for an English language education system under occupation in Japan, focusing on the establishment of foreign language education as a subject in new lower secondary schools, using the PWC Papers, SWNCC Papers, SFE Papers, GHQ/SCAP (CI&E) records, Trainor Papers, “Sengokyouiku-shiryo” (“Postwar Education Materials”), and Haruyama Papers. The results are as follows; The draft written by Gordon T. Bowles, a member of the Department of State, on 23 October 1945, stated that equal educational opportunities, expansion of secondary institutions and expanded teaching of the English language should be realized to ensure the completion of the Potsdam Declaration. The points of this draft were adopted at the recommendation of the SFE. Introduction of “Foreign Language Education” to new lower secondary schools was implemented by CI&E, having accepted SFE's recommendation. On the other hand, the Ministry of Education was reluctant to introduce “Foreign Language Education.” At the beginning of drafting the “Course of Study for English,” Aoki Seishiro, chairman of the editorial committee for the Courses of Study, did not take a positive attitude towards the implementation of foreign languages. Under the instruction of CI&E's members, especially the linguist Abraham Halpern, it was Shishito Ryohei who wrote the “Course of Study for English.” In addition, the Institute of Research Language Teaching (IRLT) cooperated with the CI&E. IRLT offered its knowledge concerning phonetic symbols. The School Education bill was drafted by the Bureau of School Education of the Ministry of Education, in which Foreign Language was not stipulated as a subject of the new lower secondary schools. The Bureau continued to maintain a halfhearted attitude toward “Foreign Language” until the new lower secondary schools started. Therefore, the “Course of Study for English” and the School Education bill diverged. The results of this research indicate that the plan for an English Language Education System under the Occupation in Japan, which established the subject of “Foreign Language” in the new lower secondary schools, was the plan for English education policy offered by the US government during the occupation.
Although previous studies in “Gender and Education” have argued that teachers may become actors reproducing the existing gender order and discrimination rather than actors criticizing them, their discussions have not examined teacher personalities. In this paper, I focus on teacher personalities, aiming to examine the relation of “Gender Pedagogical Practice” therewith. I have used one teacher’s semi-structured interview data to clarify my research theme. My analytical framework made use of Nias’ concept of the “substantial self.” This concept comprises “self as person in teaching” and “self as teacher”. So the process in which the “substantial self” is transformed by “emergent reflexivity” is sparked by epiphany. The following points have become clear in this study. First, Teacher A’s junior high school experience may have contributed significantly to the formation of his “substantial self.” This fact is closely related to the teacher’s “self as person in teaching” and “self as teacher.” In addition, the teacher’s experiences since being assigned to teach at his alma mater had a positive impact on him, and reinforced his values of anti-discrimination. However, the criticism of colleagues brought to the surface an aspect of sexism that he had not recognized. Therefore, he experienced conflict, because of the mixture of the two inconsistent values of “gender discrimination” and “anti-discrimination” in his teacher-self. To resolve this conflict, he allowed the obsession of the “self as teacher” to persuade him, suppressing a part of himself in the process. Further, it was so hard to recognize the sexist aspects of his internalized “substantial self” when they appeared suddenly that conflict occurred and he was unable to deal with them. Second, the teacher gained the idea of recognizing the diversity of students through “Gender Pedagogical Practice,” and reconsidered the idea of seeing each child as one person. He also recognized the discriminatory aspects of his self. Thus, through accepting and relativizing the sexist aspect of his “substantial self,” he became able to help himself maintain distance from the obsession of his “self as teacher.” Teacher A became aware of the sexist aspect in his “substantial self” through Gender Pedagogical Practice. By critically examining the practice of his own “self as person in teaching,”,there is a possibility that he will bring transformation to his “substantial self.” In this way, the teacher is creating an “emergent reflexivity” through “Gender Pedagogical Practice,” and has come to work toward self-reflection and self-targeting. Thus, by the questioning of his existing “substantial self”, the teacher has created a new set of values in which he is aware of his own sexist aspect and an attitude in which he examines them critically. However, such a transformation does not occur naturally only through “Gender Pedagogical Practice”. Transformation occurs through a variety of overlapping factors, including practice which becomes an opportunity to learn, colleagues to practice with, a school culture that supports them, and the results and changes in the students thereby.