This paper aims to construct a theory of distribution of education that enables individuals to attain self-respect (and happiness), based on John Rawls' two principles of justice in A Theory of Justice, while considering the conflict between adequacy and equality in distribution of education, mainly debated in the Anglophone world.

　In discussion about the theory of distribution, the framework of adequacy ensures distribution up to a certain threshold for everyone but does not address inequality beyond that threshold. Conversely, the framework of equality prioritizes those at a disadvantage beyond the threshold. The background of the conflict between these two frameworks includes (A) the problem of leaving inequalities beyond the threshold unaddressed and (B) the problem of leveling down when dealing with education, which has the properties of a positional good.

　This paper approaches these problems by interpreting Rawls. First, it examines the principles of distribution of education by reviewing the two principles of justice, with the interpretation that the principle of basic liberties and that of fair equality of opportunity align with the framework of equality, while the difference principle aligns with the framework of adequacy. Based on Rawls' discussion on the priority of these principles, this paper finds that the two principles of justice prioritize the framework of equality and seek to compensate social inequalities through the framework of adequacy, thus encompassing both frameworks.

　Next, the paper focuses on Rawls' discussion of self-respect and examines what should be distributed through education. Self-respect has two aspects. First, it includes a person's sense of their own value, meaning the conviction that their plan of life is worth carrying out. Second, it includes a confidence in one's ability to fulfill intentions within one's power. These aspects correspond to “recognition self-respect” and “appraisal self-respect.” Moreover, possessing both types of self-respect is associated with happiness. Rawls aimed to distribute the social bases of self-respect, which form the foundation for its acquisition, through his two principles of justice.

　Following Rawls, the paper argues as follows: education aiming to acquire recognition self-respect should pursue its distribution and practice from the framework of equality, with inequality disallowed in both educational opportunities and outcomes. Elsewhere, appraisal self-respect should be pursued from the framework of adequacy, meaning that education should be distributed and practiced so as to ensure the acquisition of the minimum necessary capabilities for the least advantaged to achieve an appropriate plan of life. Regarding problem (A), while thorough equalization is required for recognition self-respect, inequalities beyond the threshold are justified for appraisal self-respect based on the setting of the threshold that allows the least advantaged to achieve suitable plan of life. Regarding problem (B), while leveling down may sometimes be introduced to achieve equalization for s recognition self-respect, it is unnecessary for appraisal self-respect as long as the threshold for the least advantaged is guaranteed.

　The purpose of this study is to clarify the differing notions of laïcité between Camille Sée (1847-1919) and the Université over secondary education for girls by focusing on Séeʼs criticism of the Université and the responding countercriticism. This is achieved by examining the content and progression of the debate.

　This paper is structured as follows:

1. Camille Sée, Monthly Reports on Secondary Education for Girls.

2. Camille Séeʼs criticism of the Université

3. Camille Séeʼs criticism of the teaching material Madame de Maintenon and its logic.

4. The Universitéʼs counterarguments

　Section 1 confirms the position of the Monthly Reports. Section 2 then explores the promotion of boarding schools and the criticism of opening attached courses, showing that Sée believed that the laïcité of secondary education for girls required ensuring equal educational rights. Section 2.1 demonstrates that Séeʼs commitment to educational equality was central to his vision for laïcité. Sée advocated for boarding schools, viewing them as essential for girls from families without means and as a protection against convents. Section 2.2 reveals Séeʼs criticism of attached courses, which he saw as a sign of “bourgeoisification,” framed within his argument for educational equality.

　Section 3 notes that Sée, aiming to laïciser secondary education for girls, saw the introduction of Gréardʼs Madame de Maintenon as a step towards aligning girlsʼ education with the Catholic Church. This book outlines the educational methods used by Madame de Maintenon for girls, which Sée considered akin to training future nuns. His ideology of girlsʼ education was influenced by Fénelonʼs, which emphasized the familyʼs role in education. Sée also viewed Madame de Maintenonʼs more restrictive educational approach as similar to the Catholic Churchʼs education, which he had previously criticized for keeping girlsʼ intellectual standards low.

　Section 4 shows that while the Université acknowledged Madame de Maintenonʼs “immoral” aspects, they valued her literary talent and believed that her works would benefit girlsʼ intellectual development. They did not view her immorality as harmful. However, the Université did not address the compatibility of Madame de Maintenon with the Catholic Church. The only instance where a claim recognizing freedom of religion can be observed is in Boudoirʼ s words. This reflects a stance aligned with liberal laïcité, which acknowledges and upholds freedom of religion.

　Based on the above, the differences between Sée and the Université become evident. Specifically, the distinction lies in Séeʼ s stance of anticlerical laïcité (strict republicanism) versus the Universitéʼs stance of liberal laïcité (liberalism). By examining the debates on the implementation of secondary education for girls, it becomes possible to clarify the differences in their respective views on laïcité.

　In August 1984, the Ad Hoc Council for Education (AHCE) was established by Prime Minister Nakasone Yasuhiro, as an advisory council to the Prime Minister on educational reform. This paper analyzes the political process developing a promotional framework of educational reform after the AHCE from roughly April 1987 to June 1989, in order to reveal what framework each actor considered so as to bring about the content of the AHCE's reports. This analysis suggests that the failure to form this framework affected the process of educational reform in the 1990s.

　From April 1987 on, the Working Committee of the AHCE and the Working Group drafting its final report considered a promising plan for a framework which would promote educational reform after the AHCE and rapidly bring about the content of their reports. The plan was to reorganize the Central Council for Education (CCE), an advisory council to the Minister of Education which had been suspended during the AHCE, in order to follow up on the reports. This plan was discussed at the General Meeting of the AHCE to almost no objections and some agreement. Around the same time, Liberal Democratic Party (LDP) members with influence on educational policy also agreed that the party and the Ministry of Education (MoE) would be cores of the reform promotion framework, using the Ministry Council.

　However, on July 21, Nakasone, who was approaching the end of his term as Prime Minister, told AHCE chair Okamoto Michio and Minister of Education Shiokawa Masajuro that since the reform promotion framework needed to be politically decided, the phrasing of the final report should leave room for choice. In response to this, ultimately, the AHCE's final report (submitted to Nakasone on August 7, 1987) did not specifically refer to a framework or organs promoting educational reform.

　After Nakasone's negotiations, a succeeding council for the AHCE was eventually agreed upon, marking the end of Nakasone's term as Prime Minister. The subsequent Takeshita Noboru administration promoted educational reform; a bill establishing the succeeding council was submitted to the Diet on March 15, 1988. However, the LDP and the MoE looked on it negatively, while the Japan Socialist Party and the Japanese Communist Party directly opposed it. In the end, it was abandoned in the 114th Diet.

　As a result, since the CCE remained unreorganized and no succeeding council was established, there was no organization to promote educational reform generally after the AHCE. Additionally, establishing the University Council and the Lifelong Learning Council based on the AHCE's reports had reduced the CCE's scope of authority. Thus, in the 1990s, educational reform policies were made separately by the authority-reducing CCE and the existing councils by policy areas of the MoE. This policy-making system was different from today's system as created by the Central Government Reforms of 2001.

　This study examines the impact of additional teacher allocation measures implemented during the recovery and reconstruction efforts following the Great East Japan Earthquake, focusing on teachers' distress. The study focuses on the case of Fukushima Prefecture, which was significantly affected by the nuclear disaster and where many additional teachers were allocated. It examines the “concurrent appointments” implemented using additional teacher allocation measures funded by the national government. While these measures were positively evaluated for restoring teacher numbers and providing care for children, some theories suggest that they may have caused unnecessary burdens and confusion in schools. However, these measures' mechanisms and internal dynamics remain underexplored.

　This study involved semi-structured interviews with three teachers who received concurrent assignments and one administrative staff member. The analysis focused on what teachers sought to protect and their experiences of distress. Furthermore, certain practices unique to the teaching profession were observed in regard to what teachers aimed to protect, offering insight into one aspect of teachers' professional expertise. This study also examines what aspects of what teachers sought to protect were harmed by reconstruction policies. It explores why this distress occurred, focusing on system and policy factors. Findings revealed that teachers prioritized maintaining connections with children and their original schools. However, they experienced significant distress, including feelings of unfulfillment and lack of belonging at their new assignments. In addition, the measure of concurrent assignments continued, leading to more teachers with no connection to their original schools. The gradual fading of this school identity caused them to experience conflict.

　The prefectural board viewed teacher allocation primarily as a numerical problem; their focus was on ensuring that teachers could be secured even if schools reopened mid-school year. This approach likely contributed to teacher distress. Additionally, the lack of organizational support and structures to reflect teachers' perspectives further hindered their ability to maintain connections with students and schools.

　Finally, this study reevaluates the positive assessments of these measures and analyzes the experience of teachers from the perspective of teachers' professionality. While teacher numbers returned to near pre-disaster levels, the severed connections among teachers, children, and communities suggest that recovery remains incomplete. Teachers also highlighted the absence of organizational measures to support children and schools in disaster recovery. Discussions on how to aid teachers and schools in enhancing care for children have been insufficient. The perspective of teachers' connections with schools and communities provides insight into these discussions.

　Additionally, perspectives such as teachers' expertise and participation in policymaking are closely related to these issues. This study highlights that teachers' distress arose from the loss of what they sought to protect, which included relationships with children and communities―essential for teachers to exercise their professional expertise. Thus, much of the distress experienced by teachers was not just because they were disaster victims but because they were teachers. The concurrent appointment system restricted teachers' ability to exercise their expertise, infringing on their professional autonomy.