The purpose of this paper is to examine what school communities should learn from resolution of conflict in incidents such as school bullying.  I have focused on the theory and practice of restorative justice, especially as applied in school communities, and believe that it has much potential for citizenship education.  The theory of restorative justice is based on communitarianism.  Braithwaite (1989) describes three elements of communitarianism: densely enmeshed individuals，mutual help and trust，and group loyalties.  I consider that these concepts of communitarianism are significant for reconsidering the condition of the school communities.  I emphasize the theory of narrative and the reintegrative shaming theory for guidance methods.  Therefore, restorative justice theory is viewed as an approach to serve justice for criminals or wrongdoers who pose any harm to a community.  Any such offender must be adjudged upon, and interpersonal relationships must be restored in the community, because the practice of restorative justice pursues the needs of the community.  Restorative justice theory shows how to create a more democratic and inclusive community by resolving issues through a dialogue between the victim and the offender.   In the case of school bullying, it is necessary to reintegrate the wrongdoer into the school community.  According to the reintegrative shaming theory, acknowledging the importance of shame causes wrongdoers to take responsibility for their actions.  This could facilitate a change in attitudes held by wrongdoers toward such actions.  Acknowledged shame provides an opportunity for restoring interpersonal relationships.   The Japanese educational system must be made free from educational paternalism.  Eventually, it will be possible to restructure the school into a democratic community.  If the school community becomes democratic, children will grow up to form and maintain a civil society in the future.

The purpose of this paper is to clarify how the concept of “Führung” has developed in German pedagogy, to reconstruct the concept of “Führung” based on “Bildung” and to clarify its significance and limitation. After the German unification, the concept of “Führung” underlined the equality between teacher and students, and in practice, for example, the lesson rules were decided by consensus building. However, Bernhard Bueb restored “Disziplin” and “Führung” as control by punishment because he criticized the equality between teacher and students, which leads to egoism of children. Because of his proposal, there was a controversy in Germany. In this trend, Meike Zellner reconstructed the concept of “Führung”from “Bildung” theory. She related “Führung” with the Greek word, “paideia”, and discovered that “Führung” should be related to “Bildung”. Giving an importance on the interactive relationship between teacher and students, she placed “Disziplin” as “Vorpädagogische Führung” which preserves order in classroom, and under this condition, she proposed “Pädagogische Führung” as “Methodische Führung”, “Didaktische Führung” and “Organisatorische Führung”, which leads to “Selbstführung” as “Bildung”. This study clarified that although “Führung” was regarded as freedom or control in Germany since the Second World War, the significance of character formation by “Führung” in subjects was underlined after the Bueb’s debate.

 The purpose of this paper is to identify the sustainable development process of lesson study, and the relationship between the process and teachers’ learning in lesson study.  To that end, the author conducted interview surveys for teachers of the research team and followers’ teachers, and integrated the experiences of each teacher in lesson study at the same time.  Then, the author analyzed these data by using the “ostensive” and “performative” aspects of the “organizational routine” concept by Spillane.

 As a result, the following three points are shown.  First, the author is able to draw the process of redesigning the organizational routine that research team can embed tools and tasks to recognize differences between ostensive and performative aspects in an organizational routine, and the teachers of the research team exercised various leadership to reduce differences depending on positions and roles.  Second, it is revealed that teachers are conducting “learning on how to teachers learn” by planning and managing an organizational routine and executing a task in lesson study.  Finally, it becomes clear that teachers’ learning is done by tools embedded in the organizational routine being produced in the course of practice.  Since the research team redesigns the organizational routine by analyzing the tool, it can be said that the organizational routine planned and operated by the research team and teachers’ learning are in a mutual relationship.

 OECD-CERI launched a project for“Curriculum  Development” in 1970s. During the seminar of this project held in Tokyo, the working group 2 reached an agreement that there were two different styles of curriculum development, namely“Technological  Approach” and“Rashomon  Approach.” The current academic discussion in Japan tends to generalize the“Rashomon  Approach” and“Goal-Free  Evaluation” as the educational ideas that deny setting common educational standards and“goal-referenced  evaluation.”

 However, investigation on the educational thoughts addressed in working group 2 in 1960-1970s revealed following. First,“Rashomon  Approach” contained various concepts. Second, the most crucial part of“Rashomon  Approach” cannot be attributed to neither OECD-CERI nor Atkin, but to Japanese members. Third,“goal-free  evaluation” was misunderstood as the idea that denied setting common educational standards in Japan. Forth, as a result, continuous discussions about educational evaluation to inform and improve curriculum development were lost in 1980-1990s in Japan.

 The purpose of this research is to clarity the meanings of study of educational methods and problems that the theory and practice of the “place-based education” submit.  It suggests that the interdependence with everyone around them should be learned in school, against globalization causing economic devastation, cultural homogenization, and ecological destruction in local community.

 In this research, I focused on an example of the school education reform in Alaska developed mainly on Barnhardt’s theory of “pedagogy of place” and examined a school curriculum design and educational practice implemented there.  

The central focus of “pedagogy of place” is to show connectivity and complementarity between Native knowledge system, which has been marginalized, and Western knowledge system.  It was designed as culturally responsive school curriculum reform to integrate two knowledge systems, and such a school curriculum design develops to teacher education through the presentation of the practical handbook and lesson plans.  It could be observed how elders and school cooperate together for developing experiential, inquiry-based learning.

 From the perspective of place, we can acquire suggestion of relationship between locality and school education.

 In the early twentieth century New Education (Reformpädagogik) criticized the differences between school and life.  This problematic has also been seen in Germany since the 1970s as radical criticism of schools.  Among these school reform movements, the school experiment “Jena-Plan Weimar”, which is the subject of examination of this essay, occupied a unique position.  This school experiment critically confronted the idea of New Education  while simultaneously reviving the representative of New Education “Jena Plan” after the reunification of East and West Germany. 

 Then, how did this school experiment try to revive the early 20th century Jena plan to modernity, and at the same time critically overcome it?  The purpose of this essay is not to link school and life directly, but to clarify the theoretical and practical method based on the differences between school and life from the case of this school experiment.

 This school experiment as the multi-viewpoint lesson lets students think reflectively about their life by intentionally taking distance from it.  Lessons based on differences were supported by two pedagogical principles “multi-viewpoint lesson” and “dialogue education”.  This school experiment sees the difference from life as a positive possibility of lesson of re-designing lesson, which overcomes the contradictiory conflict of “lesson reform or its criticism” and relativizes the demand of “authenticity” and “usefulness” in school lessons.

This article aims to visualize the idea of the “happy lesson” theory by Hiraku Toyama.  Our objective is to give clear illustration to the followings, 1) Toyama’s teaching activities were to prove that instead of merging activities and the subject mathematics, activities were utilized as drilling for the teaching purpose.  2) Toyama upheld the idea of breaking down the conventional teaching format for children, while there are no evidence that Toyama agreed that teachers should cater the needs from students.  3) Moving towards the 1970s, and based on the idea of “comprehensible lesson” and the feasibility of improving the examination score of students, Toyama claimed it is not correct to incorporate any students’ scores or ranks to the teaching activities and thus focus should be on activities without any discrimination.  4) Toyama’s ideas of “happy lesson” and “comprehensible lesson” are not contradicting but co-existing.  This article includes clear explanation and detailed description about Toyama’s “happy lesson” from an untraditional and greatly different point of view.

This study focuses on Tomoki Ueda’s distinctive idea “Jun Ongakuseikatsu no Shido” in order to highlight his theory and practice of musical instrument instruction in the National Elementary School era in Japan.

Ueda’s theory emphasized the importance of rhythm, which was influenced by Satis Coleman’s “creative music” and the philosophy of modern Western aesthetics of music called “autonomy of music”.  Ueda was inspired by Coleman’s idea, “the foundation of music is rhythm”, and developed his own approach of musical instrument instruction focusing on rhythm.  His approach aimed to encourage unmotivated children to fully express their energy in a form of music.  Ueda also espoused the modern Western philosophy, “autonomy of music”.  He emphasized that children must understand the structure and fundamentals of orthodox music (rhythm, melody and harmony), beyond primitive rhythm.  All of them were necessary for his approach for children to understand and express orthodox artistic music.

The National Elementary School era was a crucial period, when Japanese “music” education was molded into its current form.  In this period, Ueda’s approach based on “creative music” could have been a breakthrough for challenging Japanese traditional music education at elementary school, which placed great value on the orthodox musical expression.  However, Ueda was not able to depart from the traditional music education because he espoused the philosophy, “autonomy of music”, simultaneously.  His theory and practice of musical instrument instruction was predicated on two incompatible ideas, “creative music” and “autonomy of music”, and was succeeded by later generations into elementary music education in the post war era.

 The purpose of this research is to find the way to resolve the conflict between two moral values “observance of rules” and “tolerance” by introducing caring ethics (Gilligan, 1982; Mayeroff, 1971; Noddings, 1984).  For that purpose, the authors tried to redefine these values referring to the concept of “second-person engagement” and “third-person engagement” (Sayeki, 2017) through analyzing cases in junior high schools.

The case analysis firstly indicates that “second-person engagement” can resolve the conflict while “third-person engagement” causes it.  Next, “second-person engagement” is the environment/ecology in which a student grows up as an agent who observes rules.  “Observance of rules” can be regarded as a mark of student’s attitude toward others by “second-person engagement”.  Finally, caring as “tolerance” does not mean unconditional pampering but acceptance of the present status of students in the context of their growth.

The norms carried by diverse individuals and the caring for diversity are the essential conditions for school to be a place where students develop ethical minds.  Based on this understanding, it is suggested that daily student guidance and school management could be advanced.