The objective of this paper is to clarify the relationship between Ethical Guidelines for Teachers (hereafter, Ethical Guidelines) and Explanatory Notes on Ethical Guidelines (hereinafter, Explanatory Notes). Specifically, the paper examines (1) by whom, (2) when, (3) why, and (4) through what process these documents were created.

As a document setting forth basic guidelines for teacher disposition and behavior, Ethical Guidelines was formulated and adopted through a formal procedure by the JTU. In July of 1951, the draft version of Ethical Guidelines, written by a number of well-known pedagogists and philosophers, was submitted to the JTU Central Executive Committee, where it was accepted as a “draft document.” Thereafter, the Ethical Guidelines “draft document” was officially adopted at the regular JTU general assembly held in June of 1952, attended by representatives of the member unions.

In contrast, Explanatory Notes was created and published without having gone through the formal approval process within the JTU. Explanatory Notes was independently prepared by the Information and Public Relations section of the JTU and published in September of 1951 as an informational pamphlet. The contents of the pamphlet were neither approved by the Central Executive Committee nor discussed at a regular general assembly. Thus, Explanatory Notes, is merely an unofficial document.

Ethical Guidelines sets forth abstract principles for teacher behavior and is written using moderate expressions from beginning to end. The Explanatory Notes, on the other hand, contains passages written in a militant style that evokes images of Marxist class struggle. For this reason, since the mid-1950s, right-wing polemicists as well as conservative government officials and politicians who disagree ideologically with the JTU have criticized the Ethical Guidelines by shining a spotlight on the Explanatory Notes.

However, as demonstrated by this paper, Ethical Guidelines and Explanatory Notes are completely unrelated documents, both in terms of how they were created and how they were approved (or not approved) by the JTU.

During the Korean War (1950-53), Misao Onda (1916-96) implemented the pedagogical method of “Seikatsu-Tsuzurikata” (life writing) at a Kawashimo secondary school in Iwakuni city, Yamaguchi Prefecture. Through an analysis of Onda’s practices, this paper examines the range of the “SeikatsuTsuzurikata” movement in the early 1950’s in relation to U.S. military base problems.

First, this paper considers Onda’s compilation process of a collection of school essays, “Delta” No. 3. It originated from his investigation of essays that reflected children’s responses to Iwakuni U.S. military base problems within “Seikatsu-Tsuzurikata” assignments. He invariably used children’s diverse insights and thoughts as a starting point for his practices. This provided an opportunity for him to relativize Cold War thought. Second, this paper analyses the nature of the content of “Delta” No. 3. Its structure has two functions. The first is to coordinate the scope of the children’s perceptions and the depth of their thoughts, the second to promote their collaboration in engaging in life in a “military base town.”

Onda’s practice is closely related to the build up of the Cold War in East Asia. However, Onda’s practices show the realistic potential of “Seikatsu-Tsuzurikata” that takes up the trends of education influenced by political background of the Cold War.

Finally, this paper investigates the relationship between the nationwide response to “Delta” No. 3 with the planned publication of Ikutaro Shimizu, et al, The Child of the Military Base (1953). “Delta” No. 3 attracted attention nationwide as a pioneering example of “Seikatsu-Tsuzurikata” that took up military base problems. However, as interest in the subject grew, it was subjected to repeated editing and redirection. As a result, its original two functions and the opportunity of relativizing Cold War thought was eliminated.

This study examines how undergraduate courses of instruction were determined and why the registration system of choosing courses, called the “group system,” was adopted in Cornell University and Johns Hopkins University, with following two hypotheses: 1) these universities introduced the group system to prepare students for postgraduate studies, presupposing the educational ladder from secondary via undergraduate to postgraduate education; 2) the founding presidents of the universities introduced the group system because they opposed the free elective system in use at Harvard, and designed their systems based on ideas on the course of instruction found in Yale’s Reports of 1828.

Previous studies interpret this period as the emergence of “American Universities” with specialization of undergraduate courses as a transformation from classical English-style colleges to German-like universities, and Johns Hopkins and Cornell were thought as pioneers of this transformation, following Harvard. However, it is also likely that both founding presidents, Daniel C. Gilman and Andrew D. White, were influenced by their own education at Yale College, which occurred after the 1828 Reports were issued. To support these conclusions, this paper examines the following materials: Annual Catalogues, Annual President’s Reports, and articles written by the two founding presidents. This analysis revises the characterization of the history of curriculum in American higher education as a pendulum swinging from one extreme to another (e.g. from prescribed to elective and then back to prescribed).

While previous research has not sufficiently considered the larger picture of school reform of the American Progressive education movement, it does show that at many contemporary school there was no specific philosophy or methodology for teacher training. This paper reconsiders these conclusions by focusing on the Winnetka Plan, a well-known representative of Progressive school reform. This plan originated in 1919 with Carleton Washburne, superintendent of schools in Winnetka, Illinois, U.S.A., and continued into the 1940s.

The special feature of the Winnetka plan was the use of two instructional methods, called “Common Essentials” and “Group and Creative Activities.” Previous research considered this plan one of the most radical “instructional reform” in Progressive education. This assessment was based only on Washburne’s statements, because the teachers’ views were not considered due to the lack of historical materials until recently. Washburne explained that these two methods were created only for teachers. Furthermore, he emphasized that these were not formal or visible methods, in that these methods would not be recognized by the children.

In order to reexamine the actual meaning of “Common Essentials” and “Group and Creative Activities,” this study investigates not only how Washburne organized these two ideas, but also how teachers recognized and understood them. As a result, they were not “instructional methods” for teachers to master, but rather “practical principles” that allowed teachers to design their curriculum flexibly in response to children’s interests and social needs. On the one hand, Washburne consciously organized these principles for teacher professional development; on the other hand, teachers understood the nature of these principles correctly and intentionally designed their curriculum in a flexible manner. Until the early 1930s, Winnetka teachers organized teacher education programs based on these principles. We thus should reappraise the Winnetka plan as a leading example of “school-based teacher education.”

As this case study of the Winnetka Plan indicates, it is necessary to reexamine and reappraise other Progressive school reforms that have been known as “instructional reform” for decades, from the viewpoint of teacher professional development and teacher education.