School reform in perspective

教育基本法改正問題

The report, quoting from existing law, says education is aimed at "character building." It lists new targets, such as "respect for tradition and culture," "enhancing the public spirit" and "cultivating an attitude of participating voluntarily in society's formation and development." Patriotism is described as "loving (or respecting) the country."

Current law, established in 1947, is based on the idea that education is aimed primarily at serving the needs of the individual. Character building is posited as a basis for the development of a democratic society. By contrast, the report emphasizes the need to develop the "public spirit (or sense of public duty)." It makes no mention of key phrases in existing law, such as "individual value" and "voluntary spirit." The underlying assumption seems to be that undue respect for "individual dignity" is responsible for juvenile crime.

Referring to the June 1 slashing death of an elementary school girl in Sasebo City, Nagasaki Prefecture, former Economy, Trade and Industry Minister Takeo Hiranuma said, "Respect for individual dignity is going too far, leading to a chaotic situation such as lethal violence among students." He called for a revision of the education law. The statement seemed irresponsible, coming at a time when people were thinking hard about the causes of the killing and as a family court was about to begin a psychological examination of the girl who committed the crime. There is little doubt, though, that it reflected a political climate in favor of amending the law.

An argument like Mr. Hiranuma's seems detached from the realities surrounding schoolchildren. Analyses by family courts and others of vicious juvenile crimes committed in the past show that the offenders "blew up" because they lacked the experience of being accepted as individuals and, consequently, a positive sense of self.

It is worrying that the governing parties are trying to incorporate "morals" in the education charter. For example, referring to family education, the report says "parents should strive toward the sound development of their children."

Of course parents have a duty to raise emotionally and physically sound children, but this is not something that can be imposed by law. Parents may abuse their children in an excessive attempt to teach "manners" or because of an overwhelming sense of duty to bring them up properly. A legal prescription of family education may exacerbate the plight of such parents.

Caution is in order regarding respect for "tradition and culture," and the emphasis on "love of country." Both could compromise "freedom of mind." It is not right for the state to impose its definition of a concept on the public. As for equal opportunity of education, it is worrisome that the report makes no mention of this. Existing law says no one should be discriminated against because of his or her economic status.

Another concern is the emphasis on the role of the state in educational administration. Before and during World War II, education was controlled by the state. That is why the existing law calls for autonomy in education and limits the role of administration.

The report, however, leaves room for active and open intervention in the contents of education. Education should be administered, it says, "through role sharing and mutual cooperation between central and local governments." One wonders whether that is another way of saying that education should serve the needs of the state, not the individual. If so, the statement runs counter to contemporary expectations for an education system that encourages resourcefulness and ingenuity in school, and that gives full play to regional features and characteristics.

Education imposed from above is not likely to help "problem children." Grown-ups need to heed a distress message emanating from them: They are yearning to get the attention they deserve. The right approach is to respect them as individuals, not to change legal wording.

The Japan Times Weekly
July 17, 2004
(C) All rights reserved

      報告は、教育の目的は現行法通りに、「人格の完成」であるとし、新たな目標として「伝統や文化の尊重」、「公共の精神の涵養」、「社会形成に主体的に参画する態度」などを挙げている。

      1947年に成立した教育基本法は、教育は個人の価値を尊び、人格の形成は民主的社会の基礎と位置づけている。報告は公共の精神を強調する一方で、 現行法で重要な要素である 「個人の価値」、「自発的精神」などには触れていない。

      長崎県佐世保市で6月に起きた小学生女子児童による同級生殺害事件について、平沼前産業経済相は「個人の尊厳の尊重に行き過ぎがあり、混乱を招いた」として、教育基本法の改正を求めたが、事件の真相究明のさなかに無責任な発言だ。

      専門家による分析では、最近の悪質な少年犯罪の加害者は個人として認められた経験がなく、自己肯定感がないために「キレた」という。

      与党が教育基本法に「道徳」を盛り込もうとしているのも気になる。報告は「家庭教育は、子供の健全な発育を目指すべき」というが、家庭教育を法律で規定すれば、ストレスによる児童虐待悪化の可能性がある。

      「伝統と文化」、「愛国心」の偏重は、精神的自由を束縛することになる。また報告は、教育機会の均等について触れておらず、教育制度について国家の役割を強調しているのも心配だ。

      報告は、教育は「中央省庁と地方自治体の役割分担と協力」で実施すべきと述べている。これは、教育を個人よりも国家の目的に適合させる必要があるということだろうか。

      上から押しつけられた教育で「問題児」を助けることにはならない。法律を改正するのでなく、大人は子供たちを個人として尊重し、悩みを聴くべきだ。