THE JAPANESE JOURNAL OF EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH
Online ISSN : 2187-5278
Print ISSN : 0387-3161
ISSN-L : 0387-3161
Volume 85, Issue 3
Displaying 1-18 of 18 articles from this issue
Paper
  • Shinpei KUWAJIMA
    2018 Volume 85 Issue 3 Pages 283-295
    Published: 2018
    Released on J-STAGE: October 12, 2019
    JOURNAL FREE ACCESS

     The purpose of this paper is to clarify the thought of Shuichi Katsuta (1908-1969) on co-presence from the pre-war through wartime, and to define the limits of his thought.

     Katsuta has been a far-reaching influence on educational thought after World War II in Japan; however, most researchers who have discussed Katsuta's thought have not considered his thought on co-presence. Therefore, this paper observes his thought on co-presence, and how it came about. The paper refers to the Kyoto School, especially Kitaro Nishida's philosophy and Tetsuro Watsuji's ethics, as the source of Katsuta's thought on co-presence.

     This paper consists of the following sections:

     1. Introduction

     2. Survey of “I and We”

     3. Background of “I and We”

     4. Influence of Tetsuro Watsuji's ethics upon Katsuta's thought on co-presence

     5. Dilemmas of repetition of the past

     6. The loss of the other brought by recurrence to the origin

     7. Conclusion

     The first section of the paper takes a general view of research on Shuichi Katsuta's thought, and confirms that existing research has not significantly considered his thought on co-presence.

     The second section presents a survey of the thesis “I and We” (1938) that shows Katsuta's fundamental thought on co-presence.

     The third section discusses the background of Katsuta's thought about co-presence from the pre-war through wartime. This section expresses that Kitaro Nishida's philosophy had a great influence on Katsuta's thought.

     The fourth section searches for the influence of Tetsuro Watsuji's ethics upon Katsuta's thought on co-presence. This section shows that Katsuta discussed co-presence under the influence of Watsuji's ethics theories, and that the most important point of Katsuta's thought on co-presence was recurrence to the origin.

     The fifth section considers the logic of recurrence to the origin. As with Watsuji's ethics, Katsuta considered that recurrence to the origin related to time. Surveying his thought on recurrence to the origin with time theory shows the core of his thought on co-presence.

     The sixth section tries to define the limits of Katsuta's thought on co-presence. This section shows that the core of the problem of his thought on co-presence consists of recurrence to the origin itself.

     The seventh section presents the conclusion and the issue of research into Katsuta's thought on co-presence after World War II.

     As above, this paper discusses Shuichi Katsuta's thought on co-presence from the pre-war to wartime and defines the limits of his thought.

    Download PDF (445K)
  • Kanae TAKAGI
    2018 Volume 85 Issue 3 Pages 296-308
    Published: 2018
    Released on J-STAGE: October 12, 2019
    JOURNAL FREE ACCESS

     The purpose of this paper is to consider how the Japan Teachers' Union (JTU) fought for the Teacher Status Law. The Teacher Status Law is the bill which preceded the Special Act for Education Personnel. To approach this question, I used the JTU's internal records.

     To analyze this question, I took three analytic views (section 2): (1) the JTU's attitude to the connection between the National Public Service Act and the Teacher Status Law, (2) whether the JTU was able to find a route to the reflection of their opinion about the Teacher Status Law, (3) whether the JTU was able to obtain information on the Teacher Status Law at all. In this way, I summarize how the JTU fought for the Teacher Status Law (section 3). In addition, I analyze the logic of “specialty of teacher labor” deeply (section 4), and describe how the JTU movement for the Teacher Status Law was a dead end (section 5). In conclusion, I discuss the weakness of the JTU's movement for the Teacher Status Law (section 6).

     Through these analyses, the following findings were obtained.

     The JTU proceeded with their movement to protect their guarantee of status. At first, they dithered over whether to join other civil servants' unions to prevent the National Public Service Act from passing, or to fight for the Teacher Status Law themselves. But when the National Public Service Act was submitted to the Diet (Aug. 1947 to Oct. 1947), they chose to work against the National Public Service Act with other civil servants' unions, and after the National Public Service Act was enacted, they fought for the Teacher Status Law themselves (mid-Oct. 1947 to Jan. 1948) (section 3 (1)(2)).

     However, the movement to modify the National Public Service Act stalled, and the JTU was unable to hold advance consultations on the Teacher Status Law (section 3 (3)); moreover, the JTU could not obtain concrete information on the Teacher Status Law. From February 1948 on, the JTU was unable to settle on an effective method for their movement, and when they discussed the nature of their movement at last (June 1948), they had no remaining good options.

     I also found that the JTU used the logic of “specialty of teaching labor” clearly (section 4). It is said that the JTU movement was ineffective not so much because of their ambiguities about the logic of “specialty of teaching labor”, but due to “the Ministry of Education's habitual secrecy”. So the JTU's intelligence operations and advance consultation opportunities were insufficient.

     The JTU's internal record shows that “the Ministry of Education's habitual secrecy” made it very difficult for the JTU movement to take place effectively at the crucial moment of the guarantee of their status. In fact, even when the JTU held the three rights of labor and was at their postwar peak of effectiveness, they were subjected to various restraints.

    Download PDF (439K)
  • Mugiho MAEDA
    2018 Volume 85 Issue 3 Pages 309-320
    Published: 2018
    Released on J-STAGE: October 12, 2019
    JOURNAL FREE ACCESS

     The enactment of the Act on the Organization and Operation of Local Educational Administration (AOOLEA) and the revision of the Law for Special Regulations Concerning Educational Public Service Personnel (LSEP) in 1956 transferred the authority over teacher employment evaluations from the superintendents of municipal boards of education to those of prefectural boards of education. Previous studies have shown that the transfer was a critical turning point in the teacher employment system in postwar Japan. However, this has been discussed only on the level of legal provisions, and there has been no credible empirical research on the operation of the system.

     This study reexamines the commonly accepted theory of previous research through a case study of the teacher employment administration in Toyama Prefecture during the 1950s. Specifically, this study tests the hypothesis that before 1956, although the superintendents of municipal boards of education were given authority over teacher employment evaluations, they were restrained from the exercise thereof. This analysis uses historical materials from Toyama Prefecture and local newspapers in Toyama.

     The analysis supported this hypothesis, showing some room for reconsideration of the commonly accepted theory of previous research. The three reasons for this are as follows.

     First, the Toyama Prefectural Board of Education started evaluation tests for teacher candidates at the end of fiscal 1952. This system, in which the prefectural board of education implemented the evaluation tests and determined employment centrally, continued after the “evaluation tests” were renamed “evaluation qualification testing” in 1956.

     Second, the Toyama Prefectural Board of Education provided and mediated new graduates to each municipal board of education. It was expected by the Ministry of Education that prefectural boards of education nationwide would perform this function.

     Third, the Toyama Prefectural Board of Education played an important role in the determination of the highly uncertain number of teachers. Because there was no age-limit system at that time, the number of new employees was undetermined until the last moment of the end of the fiscal year. Accordingly, superintendents of the municipal boards of education had little opportunity to determine the employment of teachers on their own.

     Finally, I discuss the implications of this study.

    Download PDF (482K)
Research Note
  • Toshiya SAWADA
    2018 Volume 85 Issue 3 Pages 321-331
    Published: 2018
    Released on J-STAGE: October 12, 2019
    JOURNAL FREE ACCESS

     The purpose of this paper is to analyze the draft on “Moral Education” in the Department of Elementary and Special Education of the Ministry of Education, and how the discussion influenced policy-making at that time.

     Previous studies revealing the process of establishing Moral Education seem to have some problems. Regarding objectives, contents and teaching methods of Moral Education, prior studies have only pointed out the simple fact that the Ministry had influenced the Curriculum Council of 1957, but have not examined the process of discussion. The previous studies have indicated five reasons why Moral Education was not established as a standard school subject: 1) the decision of the Curriculum Council of 1957, 2) the legal issue that the Educational Personnel Certification Law had to be revised, 3) the anticipated reaction to counteropinions about establishing Moral Education as a standard school subject, 4) curriculum issues such as relationships with other subjects and 5) the lack of time to prepare needs such as textbooks. However, this cannot be explained by the decision of the Curriculum Council of 1957 alone. It seems that the Ministry of Education decided not to establish moral education as a school subject before the discussion of the Curriculum Council. Moreover, excluding the legal issue and curriculum issues, the other reasons are only inferences. Therefore, this paper focuses on drafts of the Course of Study of 1958 and the discussion in the Department of Elementary and Special Education of the Ministry of Education.

     The results reveal that the Department of Elementary and Special Education of the Ministry had discussed concretely objectives, contents, and teaching methods, as well as the positioning of Moral Education as a school subject. In addition, it is possible that the Department played an important part in establishing Moral Education, as the Department discussions were similar to the description of some reports from the Curriculum Council and the revised Course of Study. Moreover, it is clear that specialist opinions oriented the Curriculum Council and the revised Course of Study. Therefore, it is implied that politics in the Ministry influenced policy-making, and within the Ministry, specialists took important roles in the process. This study suggests that specialists intervened in policy-making, with consideration for actual needs in schools, by utilizing their experience and expertise in education.

    Download PDF (471K)
Series Part 12: Current Issues of Education Research
Book Review
Book Review
feedback
Top