Final Report in Japanese (PDF)

Back to "Educational Policies, Systems, and Laws"

Final Report in Japanese (PDF)

Back to "Educational Policies, Systems, and Laws"

Back to "School, Family, and Community"

Back to "Students, Children, and Youths"

Final Report in Japanese (PDF)

Back to "Students, Children, and Youths"

Back to "Teaching and Educational Practices

The number of "school refusal" cases has been on a constant rise since 1970s in Japan. Despite the decreasing size of the body of students, it reached 138,000 in 2001. Since then, no sign of decreasing trend has been observed.

In regards to how the "school refusal" has been perceived, there was a time when the Education Government regarded it as something that "could happen to anybody" and thus could be expected to combat social prejudices and to just educational disadvantages surrounding the school refusals. However, more recently, strict treatments and the pressures to force students to return to school are getting stronger. We observe that this parallels such movements (sometimes referred to as "Kids Bashing") as limiting the rights of children and labeling and punishing those whose behaviors deviate societal expectations.

This report is located within such contexts and focuses on the issue of school refusals in Japan. It also takes a stance that we must examine the issue from the perspectives of children themselves as much as possible, recognizing the repeated failures of discussing and deciding what to do about children's behaviors without listening to the views of children, which only to have made things worse.

Our core argument is this: School refusal is a children's right. Thus it follows that to force a child to return to school against his/her will is to violate the right of the child. We believe that a part of contributing factors underlying the problems of school bullying and students' suicides is such oppressive attitude that rejects the child's right not to attend a school. Understanding the governmental solution to the school refusal cases by strengthening the school return policy as symbolic of the above-mentioned movements that limit the children's rights, we examined the current trends in a way to give us insights and clues not only on the issue of school refusals but also on the realization of children's overall well-beings.

Though the current situations surrounding the school refusals are pessimistic, there is also a positive development in terms of active collaboration between governmental and non-governmental forces, growing activities of NPOs, and others. In order to further encourage those emerging progressive initiatives, this report attempts to promote a view that a school refusal is a way of life - a valid decision among diverse options. Finally, it also sends a message to teachers who are struggling against hegemonic pressures imposed on them at schools that we should unite together to improve the current situations and to seek after the best benefits of the children.

Final Report (Japanese): PDF

Back to "Students, Children, and Youths"

1. Abandon the national standard academic tests

Conducting a nation-wide census survey on academic performance using a single measure not only encourages ranking of schools based on the test scores but also distorts the educational purposes and the value of holistic evaluation, causing to damage students' human dignity.

While the national census survey is said to aim to better understand the students' development of academic competence, with no doubt in our minds, it will rather promote competitions and encourage schools to spend time on test preparations. To survey students' competence in a way that makes it possible to prepare for test-taking will only yield results that are temporal and superficial, as opposed to results that reflect more realities of students' everyday competence. Thus, after all, the national standard academic test fails to fulfill its mission, unable to capture the reality of how and what students have learned.

When the evaluation is judged based on test scores, the measure is so simplistic that it merely determines the ranking of each examinee. Also the test scores will be so privileged at school that everyone starts to pay attention only to them. If the teachers, parents, educational policies, and the society in general focus only or mostly on the test scores, it will change the nature of education from supporting children's holistic development and facilitating their social independence to education that aims to raise the test scores. Such education will encourage rote memories and technical trainings, pressing students to cram information, rather than to enhance students' abilities to think, analyze, and apply well-grounded knowledge and skills. In the end, we argue, such test-privileging education is more likely to damage the foundation of students' competence. Thus we believe that the national academic test will destroy our education. Children will lose hope in their diverse potentials; parents and other adults will become unable to celebrate purely the development of children; and an educational environment in which students can learn safely will be lost.

In sum, we argue that the national standard academic test is not only unable to accomplish its stated goal but also not educational at all. That we already know from the experiences of those who went through the national test 40 years ago. We must learn from our past. That is, it is us, the adults, who are now being tested our competence and literacy on history and education.

If the central government insists on implementing the national system of academic test, which we know cannot be a tool to understand the realities of students' learning and development, we cannot help inferring some other intentions hidden in the impetus. As some have warned, if the ranking based on test scores begins to have authorities in determining and controlling various aspects of educational activities, the quality of education will significantly be lowered.

2. Educate the public that the test scores shall only be a small part of evaluating academic performance

There are many competencies humans develop and the society requires its members to have that we cannot measure quantitatively. However, once we represent performance by numbers, those that cannot be measured quantitatively tend to be left invisible. We must first realize such a risk and use test scores as an evaluative measure of academic performance carefully with precautionary limitations.

It is almost impossible for a nation-wide standardized achievement test to accurately capture the realities of students' learning and development, since it can only measure knowledge and skills of narrow academic subjects and contents. Also the test is implemented within a limited time frame using a pre-selected set of questions, unable to evaluate the long-term development and achievements in diverse areas. At the best, it could only give us a rough assessment, such as "strong in calculation" or "weak in thinking abilities." That is, the national standardized academic test will have great difficulties with identifying the barriers for students' learning and places where they need help on. Thus, we cannot expect it to bring us educational benefits of offering us such useful information as how to modify curriculum or how to better support individual students' learning.

If we can develop a test that is capable of examining the quality of learning and of students' competencies, then we may be able to analyze and better understand what strategies may be effective in teaching, such as using the local nature or social environments of the community has promoted students' understanding, or that an effective teacher tends to use creative questioning skills in order to stimulate students' thinking. However, the currently proposed national academic test has not aimed to examine the quality and processes of teaching and learning.

It takes quite advanced knowledge both to design useful evaluative measures of academic competencies and to interpret the results in a way to inform us of the realities of students' learning and development. Unless we establish a team of specialists in these areas, we will not be able to fully utilize the results of assessment and tests.

Educational evaluation can be meaningful only when it is utilized to improve teaching practices and to inform other educational activities. If it happens long time after the educational activities have been completed, then the test will have no educational usage. Meanwhile, if we want to assess details of students' learning in a way that we can use the information to build educational activities, then the assessment will require as much time as the everyday teaching in classes do. Thus, we should think of educational assessment as a continuum of other educational activities such as everyday teaching in classes.

3. Demand an evaluation that assesses the quality of education policies via a method of random sampling

There are concerned voices about the public announcement of test results; however at this point the possibility has not been entirely denied. Some people rather believe that the test results should be made open to public so that the citizens can make informed decisions about which school to have their children attend.

We believe that the public announcement of test results, ranking the communities, schools, or classes, makes the inequalities in learning environments invisible, and will result in fueling the competition while it ignores other societal factors that may be beyond the control of teachers and schools. Such competition is unfair and does not lead to a true solution to educational problems.

We argue that making the test results public will reinforce discrimination and inequalities. We also argue that the enlarged discrepancies within communities, schools, and classes will make it difficult for students to live their lives with pride in their own communities, creating such societal problems as emigrations of human resources from less to more privileged areas. It will also damage the social relationships based on reciprocal trust and collaboration.

Educational policies argue that we need a tool to "assess the achievement level of students all around the country and to identify the insufficiencies or deficits that may be the causes of low achievements." We believe that a survey for such a purpose can be conducted via a method of random sampling (compared to the currently proposed system of census survey) and also this objective can be met by improving an existent survey on the local implementation of educational curriculum.

A nation-wide survey on students' academic achievements should be conducted, if to be done, with a clear purpose to measure the discrepancies among communities in regards to educational environments and conditions, as well as to evaluate the appropriateness of the national curriculum. Additionally, from the viewpoint of ensuring equal educational opportunities to all students, the survey results should be utilized to eliminate discrepancies and inequalities among communities or schools by providing more funds and assigning more skillful teachers and other staff for areas that have been shown to indicate lower students' achievements according to the survey.

Based on the analysis of PISA results, the OECD General Secretariat pointed out the linkage between "high level of academic achievements" and "social equalities of learning outcomes," offering an insight to the States' educational administrations. Yet, the Japanese educational administration has not reflected such a perspective.

4. Acknowledge that educational assessment should be conducted by individual teachers

It is unclear how high of the test scores should be considered "sufficient." Even if we decide such a cut-line, it will be without clear rationale or valid justification. Therefore, it is hard to use test scores as a credible accountability measure. As everyone knows, test scores themselves don't tell us much since one can easily obtain high or low test scores depending on the difficulty level of a given test. Then, an average of test scores may be used as an indicator of one's competence level, although the average by its nature inevitably identifies a half of "better" and a half of "worse" in its tested population. A system that necessitates for some students to be called failures cannot be educational.

As is often pointed out in a relation to the issue of unequal society, capitalism privileges the privileged and marginalizes the marginalized who are disempowered to demonstrate their abilities, forcing them to become failures. Education must support those marginalized children to fully develop their potentials and to demonstrate their diverse competencies. As such, we believe that the capitalism cannot be a principle for education.

Educational assessment should be brought back into classrooms where teachers work with children, because assessment should occur when teachers feel one is needed in order to facilitate students' new level of learning based on their knowledge about and observations of the students. When we observe individual children, we learn that learning happens in various conditions through various processes. So learning cannot be simplified into a manual, nor can the assessment. Educational activities of supporting individual children to develop their competencies will look different from classrooms to classrooms, and from schools to schools. Teachers are specialized in recognizing and responding to individual students' needs, which should be the basic tenet of all educational activities. The task of providing flexible and responsive support for individual students demand teachers to work in diverse ways. Thus, the quality and effectiveness of teachers' jobs should not be evaluated based on a single test score.

"Teachers' jobs" may be done when a teacher teaches assigned lessons during their working hours: However, a work of education is more than that. It is comprehensive and complex, refusing a simplified assessment of academic tests.

Midterm Report: PDF (Japanese)

Final Report: PDF (Japanese)

Back to "Educational Policies, Systems, and Laws"

Back to "Perspectives on 'Academic Competence'"

The statistics shows that the percentage of students with disabilities who go to these "disabled-only" schools during the stage of compulsory education is 0.52%. In reality, however, it means that there are more than 56,000 students who are sent off to special schools in their elementary to secondary school years. Moreover, more special schools are being built in Japan. There are also increasing numbers of cases where children with mild developmental disabilities who have been learning in regular classrooms are taken out and sent off to special needs classrooms because they are seen to require "special support." Thus it seems clear that segregative policy in Japanese education is being further promoted. Children with and without disabilities are being deprived of the opportunities to learn together, under the banner of "education that meets the individual special needs of children with disabilities." For a year, we have continued discussions on what we should do to change the Special Needs Education and to work toward inclusive education. This document reports the results of our discussions.

The UK Disability Studies, which critique that "the society creates disability" and "the society makes people disabled," understand "disabled people" to mean those who have been dis-abled, or dis-empowered by the society. We believe that segregative education that separate children with disabilities from their peers without disabilities lies at the deep root of what produces and maintains such structures that disempower those who are called people with disabilities. We also believe that, in order to resist this, we must seek to nurture human relationships in which people deemed disabled will not be disempowered as a human being, such as everyday interactions with people other than one's own parents - something that has been robbed of by segregation - through which one learns to be active and to be an agent of one's own life.

In this report, we focused on three kinds of human relationships: relationships with family, with friends, and with service/support providers. And we highlighted issues for each. As we did this, we reflected on and tried to learn from various realities surrounding the schooling and the lives of people with disabilities, such as the history of Disability Rights Movement that fought against societal sympathy toward mothers who killed their children with disabilities by raising a slogan, "Parents are our enemy." Also we examined the common practice of schools to demand a parent to accompany a child with a disability as a necessary condition to admitting the child into a regular school. We critiqued that such a practice could discourage and cut off interactions among children; thus we proposed to reconsider the system of support within regular schools so as not to be exclusively dependent upon parental help. Moreover, we recounted M's story, in which M pushed aside her support teacher and instead asked one of her classmates to help her with lunch. The classmate quite naturally gave her a hand. We learned a lesson from this story about the kinds of relationships that do not disempower people with disabilities.

In Chapter 3, where we examined the new Special Needs Education, especially how it viewed "competence" and a "child," we submitted a warning against the fact that the Special Needs Education encourages schools and teachers to employ checklists to assess students according to how the school and teachers believe a child should be. Then the surveying system would dictate that if a child does not meet the criteria set by and for the adults, the child be marked off as a potential target of Special Needs Education. We also critiqued the notions of "independence" and "societal participation" highlighted as desirable goals in the Special Needs Education. They seem to emphasize the importance of becoming able to do things literally independently (i.e., without any help of others). In our critique, we compared two stories: One was a story of Y who could not do calculation but had had experiences of doing shopping at his neighborhood stores since childhood, had built relationships with people in the community, and was able to do shopping on his own by utilizing his abilities to ask others for help. Meanwhile, T could calculate but did not go outside or shop because he did not know the people in the community, having been bussed off to a special school and never able to go to a school in the community. That is, we argued, having skills to do things independently does not necessarily promote "independence" and "social participation." We must nurture human relationships and empower the abilities of not only those deemed disabled but also those deemed non-disabled. Otherwise, the prejudice held by non-disabled against disabled will remain unchanged and those called disabled will not learn how to resist against it. As such, we concluded that the Special Needs Education that conceptualizes "competence" as individual abilities independent of relationships with others would not lead to inclusion.

In Chapter 4, we focused on the issue of "developmental disabilities" - a disability category newly included in the eligibility criteria under the policy of Special Needs Education - and considered the relationships with professionals in the field of developmental disabilities. After pointing out various issues, we argued for two things: First, to create a partnership with professionals in which both a professional and a non-professional understand the limitations of knowledge each can offer. Second, we also emphasized the importance of understanding that we cannot understand any child completely. The process of interacting with and getting to know a child always involves discoveries and changes. That is, it should be regarded as a dynamic process of trying to develop mutual understanding.

In Chapter 5, we examined what restrict teachers' abilities to be creative and critical, and highlighted the following three factors: (a) various pressures that make teachers busy dealing with "problems" without having time to stop and think what those "problems" really are and whether they are in fact problems at all; (b) narrow definitions of "competence" that ignore and stigmatize interdependent nature of human existence; and (c) ungenerous school environment that does not allow teachers to acknowledge and express the conflicts, contradictions, and ambiguity that they find in the complex realities of working in classrooms.

In Chapter 6, we proposed four suggestions in regards to working toward inclusive education: (a) To diversify teaching approach rather than to solely depend on the teacher-directed whole group instruction; (b) To value and encourage cooperative learning in class; (c) To strengthen teacher's three roles, including attending to individual students' needs, promoting friendships among students, and building a class as a community; and (d) To rethink curriculum based on the ideas of universal and flexible needs-based curriculum that does not disconnect any child from her or his learning community.

Finally, in Chapter 7, we identified and tried to learn from one of pioneering examples in creating education that does not exclude children with disabilities from their community schools since in 1970s - Toyonaka City of Osaka. As we collected and recounted several stories of inclusive practices, we learn how inclusive education affects the views and identities of children, teachers, schools, and community.

Full text of the final report in Japanese (PDF)

Back to "Perspectives on Academic Competence"

Back to "Teaching and Educational Practices"

Back to "Minority, Inclusion, and Human Rights"

Back to "Educational Policies, Systems, and Laws"

Full Report in Japanese (PDF)

Back to "Teachers and School Personnel"

First, it does not reflect the voices of children themselves. Second, the law defines "child abuse" narrowly. Although the law defines "child abuse" as physical, psychological, or sexual abuse and neglect done by the child's family, relatives, or those who live with the child, children face such risks not necessarily at home. It is quite possible that abuse takes place in other various places in which a child spends time. Especially there is always a risk of child abuse in such places as childcare centers, preschools, and schools where children spend as much time as they do at home. Taking these into consideration, the law's defining of child abuse as a phenomenon to take place at home lacks validity and ignores the reality of children's lives. This report questions such discussions on "child abuse,"cautions the limitations of current preventive measures, and re-examines the issue from the perspectives of child advocacy.

The study involved conducting surveys and hearings to inquire about the current situations of child abuse as well as the measures taken in concrete terms, particularly the cases of child abuse known to and measures employed by schools. Based on the information gathered, and grounding on the importance of respecting a child as a fully-fledged human being, we presented recommendations on how teachers and other school personnel should think about child abuse and on what they need to do in order to ensure the best benefit of the child.

The table of contents of the report is as follows:

I. Current situations of child abuse
II. Child abuse and schools: Current situations, measures taken, and challenges faced
III. Re-examining the issue of child abuse from the perspective of child advocacy
IV. Support from the perspective of child advocacy
V. Progressive examples within and outside of Japan

[Recommendations for the school personnel]

1. To be the child's supporter - Start from listening to the child. Communicate the child that s/he is irreplaceable. Do not rush; take time to face with the child. Tell the child that you are always on his/her side.
2. To make it easy on yourself - Do not try to do everything all by yourself. Look for outside resources.
3. To be alert and attentive - Learn about child abuse. Reflect on your own actions and language you use to ensure that you have not become an abuser yourself. Use network not for surveillance but to support children. Have the perspective of social work.
4. To involve the community - Build places in community for supporting children. Utilize social workers as a partner to the child, family, and school personnel.

Full text of the final report in Japanese (PDF)

Back to "Students, Children, Youth"

Back to "School, Family, and Community"

Back to "Minority, Inclusion, and Human Rights"

International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, to which Japan ratified in 1979, and Convention on the Rights of the Child, to which Japan ratified in 1994, both ensure the rights to education as "the rights for all children" while they also orient toward the multi-cultural and inclusive education. They ensure the rights to ethnic education in which minorities' rights to preserve their cultural identities and to use their first languages are respected.

In spite of all these facts, Japanese educational administration policies and laws still remain defining education as "the development of the Japanese nation."

School Education Law of Japan obliges Japanese parents to have their children receive compulsory edcation while it does not create such an obligation for the parents of foreign nationalities. Although they can enroll schools if they wish, there are a large number of new-comer children who are out of schools. It is not sufficient at all to send their homes a pamphlet as a follow-up to those out-of-school children. Meanwhile, it is also hard to say that the actual educational practices in schools currently embrace the philosophy of multicultural, inclusive education. As there are increasing number of Brazilian schools, the number of children who do not choose to attend a Japanese school is not small. Such a situation reveals not only the problem of Japanese language education at schools but also various other issues that Japanese schools face, including a lack of ensurement of the students' first language; lack of strong committment toward the multicultural, inclusive education; and a tendency to exclude "different others."

This research reports the results of survey as well as implications and discussions on how we can ensure the educational rights of ethnically minority students and on what multicultural and inclusive education may mean in practice. Table of contents of this report is as follows:

I. What is "multicultural and inclusive education"? - What the school education faces
II. To ensure the children's rights to attend schools
III. What is "the problem of Japanese language"? - In relation to learning, the first language, and identity
IV. Their life styles and the Japanese society (Cases of returned Japanese from China)
V. How to mobilize community resources
VI. Education that Korean residents want
VII. Seeing Japan from the problem of multilanguage education
VIII. Multicultural education and the ensurement of access to continued educational career and higher education
IX. Recommendations for multicultural and inclusive education (21 items)

1. Local governments shall create "Educational policies for foreign residents and students who have multiethnic backgrounds" based on a spirit of equality and of respecting cultural diversity. Ensure to fully reflect the views of the foreign residents and those who have multiethnic backgrounds themselves, as well as those of teachers and other school staff, parents/guardians, and NGOs.


2. So-called "international schools" and "ethnic schools" have long contributed to the cultural richness of Japanese society by practicing multicultural education. The Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology (MEXT) shall not discriminate those schools and treat them equally as if they were schools defined under the article 1 of the School Education Law as much as possible.


3. Encourage interactions between Japanese schools and international/ethnic schools and enable them to conduct classes and after-school activities jointly together in order to promote mutual understandings and to reduce discriminations and prejudices.


4. Change laws and policies so the purpose of primary and secondary education is defined not as "the education of the Japanese nation" but as "the education of the citizens." Keep and strengthen the current Fundamental Law of Education in such a direction.


5. Aiming toward the "education of the citizens" (and ultimately "the education of the global citizens"), the governmental curriculum guidelines shall be fundamentally reformed to include contents that value and teach about the culture and knowledge relevant to the students who have multicultural nationalities and/or backgrounds.


6. Challenge the mono-cultural "communitariansm" dominant in current Japanese schools, and promote to respect the cultural diversity (e.g., traditions related to piercing, food, religion) and to diversify curriculum as well as the standards to assess academic competence of students. Try to develop multicultural textbooks collaboratively with the educators of other Asian countries and South American countries.


7. Recognize that the first language is important to the identity of foreign students, and provide the opportunities to learn in or about their first languages if they desire (Use the time after school or weekends). It is desirable to employ educators as the teachers of such classes who share the same ethnic or cultural backgrounds with the students.


8. The MEXT and the boards of education shall give due recognitions as well as financial supports to the ethnic classes and the ethnic teachers who teach foreign students with permanent residency. Develop a network of foreign teachers and promote the exchange of information and teaching practices.


9. Create a teacher certificate for teaching Japanese and enable schools (especially junior high schools) to employ teachers who are specialized in this area.


10. Reconsider the academic subject of "foreign language" taught at junior high schools, which currently teaches only English, so the students will be able to choose from and learn various languages, such as Chinese, Korean, Spanish, and Portuguese. Make it so those various languages can become the options for the highschool entrance examinations.


11. Enable new-comer students to learn Japanese without having to be taken out of a regular class for "pull-out" Japanese classes. For that, incorporate billingual education in regular classes or Team Teaching approach so that multiple teachers are present and teach in the class.


12. In Japanese schoool education, the values of "working hard" and "making good efforts" have traditionally been emphasized to the point of excluding students who were deemed non-hard-workers or not making enough efforts. Often time foreign students become the victims of such value system. Challenge such an ideology and support those students who are seemingly unable to work hard by understanding the potential background factors of students' performance.


13. When foreign students enroll schools at halfway of the program (i.e., not from the first grade of the school), consider the student's class assignment not strictly based only on the age but rather by taking considerations of the student's academic performance and parents' wishes. For example, consider allowing the student to enroll in a grade that is above her/his age. In addition, as the students who are over the age 15 certainly have the rights to education, accept them into regular junior high schools if they desire.


14. Boards of Education should follow up individually to make sure that foreign students have properly enrolled schools, rather than leave it up to the foreign parents after they send homes mere notice of school enrollment.


15. Establish a position, which can be called "school social worker," in the Board of Education who shall follow up families to ensure the enrollment of foreign students by consulting and supporting the parents/guardians.


16. Due to the current policy that limits the number of teachers to be hired for international classes to be up to two, there are schools in which more than 50 students enroll who need help with Japanese yet deploy only two teachers for such students. Abolish the upper limit and allow schools to employ teachers for international classes based on the need of the students.


17. Increase the hire rate of foreign teachers at public elementary and junior high schools (Be sure not to be euro-centric and hire teachers of diverse countries especially from Asian countries) to 1%. In addition, abolish the discriminatory promotion policy that limits promotional opportunities of foreign teachers with "the ceiling level of permanent lecturer." This will allow Japanese students to learn and to gain diverse perspectives and the sense of diversity through their daily lives.


18. Promote learning that enhances global understandings and that emphasizes human rights in school education as well as in social education in order to nurture respect, within both students and parents in Japan, toward the language, religion, life styles, and value system, seeing them as "cultures" of social minorities such as foreigners, those with different ethnic origins, women, people with disabilty, and elderly people.


19. Ensure the foreign students' rights to access high schools by achieving "zero rejection," enabling all students who wish to enter a high school to be accepted. Regarding the entrance examination, establish a "special category" at all public high schools for foreign students. In addition, extend the eligiblity for such special category from "within three years of arrival to Japan" to at least five years, and take othe various factors into consideration as well.


20. All children have the rights to education, and whether their parents or themselves hold informal status to stay in Japan or not must not interfer such rights. Upon processing applications to school enrollment, the Boards of Education should not force students and families to present their forigner registration ID cards. Rather, they should request only necessary items in unintrusive ways.


21. In some communities, volunteers built learning centers to offer foreign students and their families support to school enrollment, after-school learning opportunities, and mentoring on taking school entrance examinations, some of which have proved to play an important role. Boards of Educatino and schools should collaborate with such volunteer-based learning centers in communities to support minority students and families. Local governments should also provide the learning centers with support such as to offer a place to build a learning center.

Full text of the final report in Japanese (PDF)

Back to "Minority, Inclusion, and Human Rights"

Summary in English (PDF)

Summary in English (coming soon)

Summary in English (coming soon)

Summary: PDF (English)

Summary in English (coming soon)