Changing conceptions of democratic education and equity in Japan and the United States: How and why they have edged closer

• In Event: Democrat, Education and Literacy

Proposal

The purpose of this comparative study is to trace the development of Japanese and U.S. conceptions of democratic education and educational equity since World War II, focusing on the past several decades.　The two countries make an interesting comparison of their respective pursuits of democratic education and equity because the American Occupation in Japan after World War II used U.S. democracy and education as models for Japan. To this end, it uses research methods primarily consisting of a review of literature on democratic education and educational equity, as well as of documents on education policies of the Japanese and U.S. governments and research studies on those education policies in the two countries.

The conceptual framework of this study was derived from our critical review of literature on democratic education by John Dewey (1916), Benjamin Duke (1989), Edda Sant (2019), etc. and educational equity by Kenneth Howe (1994), Akito Okada (2012), etc. and consists of three major conceptions: egalitarian, liberalized, and participatory. The egalitarian conception emphasizes standardized, uniform education, the liberalized conception stresses diversification and downsizing of education, and the participatory conception emphasizes individualization and interactive practices.

In terms of the analytical methods, we applied the egalitarian, liberalized, and participatory conceptions to analyze Japanese and U.S. government education policies, particularly over the past several decades. As the respective traditions, the ideal in the U.S. was local participation with an emphasis on the worth and dignity of the individual, while the ideal in Japan was an egalitarian system with uniform education. These are the traditions, or foundations of education in the two countries, but there were turning points in the 1980s, however, associated with the establishment of the Ad-Hoc Committee on Education in 1984 in Japan, and the publication of A Nation at Risk in 1983 and an Education Summit held in 1989 in the U.S.

As one of the most important findings of this study, after the turning points, the U.S. and Japanese governments changed their approaches, and their education policies have edged closer, each moving to adopt the other’s conceptualizations. Concretely speaking, Japan liberalized education by diversifying and downsizing public education, for example through the reduction of the national treasury share of compulsory education expenditure from one-half to one-third in 2006, and also individualized education by introducing a zest for living based on UNESCO’s vision and promoting more participatory practices such as active learning and inquiry-based learning. By contrast, the U.S. standardized education by introducing curricular standards, standardized tests, and rigid accountability system, especially embodied in the No Child Left Behind Act enacted in 2002 to close the achievement gaps. It is important to point out that although the education policies in the two countries have edged closer, their education systems and policies are still quite different.

We then explained why the Japanese and U.S. governments have shifted their education policies since the 1980s. Japan liberalized and individualized education as education became too inflexible to meet the needs of individual students, while the U.S. standardized education as inequitable results were no longer considered acceptable. Looking beyond the national situations, as one of the most important findings of this study, global influences were found to have affected U.S. and Japanese education policies but differently. In the U.S., poor results in a series of international tests, stressing traditional knowledge, led to standardization of education. In contrast, in Japan, the Ministry of Education has supported more humanistic and participatory conceptions because a zest for living based on UNESCO’s vision, etc. called for more alternative, progressive practices, while de-emphasizing memorization and standardization.

We concluded that our conceptual framework based on three conceptions of democratic education and equity (egalitarian, liberalized, and participatory), helped us better understand the traditions and changes in education policies and practices in Japan and the U.S. The two countries edged closer over time, as Japan liberalized and individualized and the U.S. standardized their respective education policies.

The significance of this study lies in the following three areas. First, this study came up with a framework of the three conceptions of democratic education and equity and examined the education policies of the U.S. and Japan through the framework. By doing so, we were able to illustrate how the two quite different education systems edged closer over time. Second, we went beyond the common dichotomy between the egalitarian versus neoliberal conceptions with the former preferred and the latter criticized, by adding a third participatory conception. By doing so, we were able to paint a more nuanced picture of education reform in the two countries in that U.S. policies have become more egalitarian and less participatory, while Japanese policies have become more liberalized and participatory. Third, this study went beyond the conception of neoliberal convergence where economic global influences force countries to introduce market-based competition and deregulation, by including UNESCO’s visions of education to broaden the perspectives to analyze the education reform especially in Japan.

Finally, this study examines how and why Japanese and U.S. governments promoted democratic education and educational equity through their respective policies and hence does not directly address the Power of Protest – the overall theme of CIES 2024. But, the goals of reform are similar in that both were intended to achieve democracy, equity, and justice, although nuances may be different.

Author

• Naoshi Kira, Toyo University, Tokyo