Education and Social Justice in Japan

Kaori H. Okano

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2020
• ISBN:
  9781317803454
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Éducation
• Subtopic: Politique d'éducation

This book is an up-to-date critical examination of schooling in Japan by an expert in this field. It focuses on developments in the last two decades, with a particular interest in social justice. Japan has experienced slow economic growth, changed employment practices, population decline, an aging society, and an increasingly multi-ethnic population resulting from migration. It has faced a call to respond to the rhetoric of globalization and to concerns in childhood poverty in the perceived affluence. In education we have seen developments responding to these challenges in national and local educational policies, as well as in school-level practices.

What are the most significant developments in schooling of the last two decades? Why have these developments emerged, and how will they affect youth and society as a whole? How can we best interpret social justice implications of these developments in terms of both distributive justice and the politics of difference? To what extent have the shifts advanced the interests of disadvantaged groups? This book shows that, compared to three decades ago, the system of education increasingly acknowledges the need to address student diversity of all kinds, and delivers options that are more varied and flexible. But interest in social justice in education has tended to centre on the distribution of education (who gets how much of schooling), with fewer questions raised about the content of schooling that continues to advantage the already advantaged.

Written in a highly accessible style, and aimed at scholars and students in the fields of comparative education, sociology of education and Japanese studies, this book illuminates changing policies and cumulative adjustments in the daily practice of schooling, as well as how various groups in society make sense of these changes.

1Introduction

Many of us have childhood memories of feeling things were “unfair” at home or in the playground. You might have felt that your big brother was receiving a larger serving of ice cream than you on a hot summer day, because “he is older”. Your junior tennis partner received a new racquet every year, but you didn’t. A sense of unfairness can be felt in relation to intangible matters. When an umpire’s decision favoured one team, players would call the match “unfair”. At school, a loud, domineering child would get more attention from teachers, silencing quieter peers. Some students had private tutoring at home, did well, and were praised at school. Perceptions of unfairness can be transitory, but if they persist can become significant and affect our trust. In the same way, individuals’ and families’ perceptions of what occurs at school can affect their trust in the system of schooling. Collectively, the public perception of schooling affects the legitimacy of schooling as a system.

Most people say that they support the idea of social justice, which is popularly and vaguely understood as being the principle of “equality” and “fairness” for all people and respect for their human rights (Sensoy & DiAngelo, 2017, p. xix). Social justice is both a process and a goal. Bell describes the goal as “full and equitable participation of people from all social identity groups in a society that is mutually shaped to meet their needs” (Bell, 2016, the first paragraph). But we do not necessarily have consensus on the details. A practice can be fair or otherwise depending on the perspective of a social group. What constitutes a human right may not necessarily be agreed upon, either, as evidenced in authoritarian states. Social groups located in different positions in the hierarchy of power and influence often see “fairness” differently.

Is Japanese schooling “fairer” now than it was three decades ago? Does it provide a greater scope of equitable educational opportunities and life chances to everyone, regardless of social background? Has the content of schooling become more impartial to all social groups, and more socially just?

The aim of this book is to offer an up-to-date critical examination of schooling in Japan, focusing on developments over the last three decades, with a particular interest in issues related to social justice. It is a follow-up to Education in contemporary Japan: Diversity and inequality (Okano & Tsuchiya 1999), which I co-authored and which has enjoyed a wide readership, including translation into Malay with subsequent reprints. In it, we examined the development of modern schooling, which contributed to modernization and democratization, and critically analyzed contemporary practice which had by then largely received positive appraisals from outside Japan. The book showed the diversity of schooling experience in Japan, and argued that there were patterns of inequality in such diversity.

In the two decades since then, Japan has undergone major social changes. The ten years of the 1990s has often been called the “lost decade”. The period was characterized by recession, subsequent slow economic growth, changes in employment practices whereby irregular positions began replacing permanent positions, and the decline of the seniority wage system. The media and public sympathetically refer to those who entered the workforce during the 1990s as the “lost generation” (rosujene), since many struggled to make the transition from school to the workforce in the middle of structural changes. Reflecting this sympathy, in 2019 a number of local governments and two national ministries advertised permanent positions specifically targeting “lost generation” candidates, drawing a large number of applications (Oota, 2019; Uchiyama & Kitami, 2020).

Developments in schooling in the last three decades derive from a combination of various major social changes. Recession and subsequent slow economic growth affected employment practices and school-employment links. An influx of migrants from the third world led to an increasingly culturally and linguistically diverse student population. Assisted by Japan’s ratification of various human rights-related UN conventions, minoritized social groups became more assertive, and this heightened the public’s awareness of human rights. There has been greater pressure to respond to the rhetoric of globalization in the form of international competitiveness. Competition for market share from rising parts of Asia pressured Japan to conform to global norms and “internationalize” mainstream institutions. A low birth rate has resulted in Japan becoming one of the fastest aging societies in the world, with those over 65 constituting 28 percent of the total population in 2019. Coupled with the low birth rate, the population began to decline in 2003. Pessimists fear that Japan may have an insufficient working population to sustain economic productivity, while optimists view the slow economic growth and population decline as an opportunity to envision the kind of sustainable development, balanced prosperity, and wellbing to be pursued in the long term. Many post-industrial Western societies have also experienced some of these shifts. How has the practice of schooling in Japan been affected by all these changes? How can schooling play meaningful roles in navigating these shifts? While the OECD report states that the Japanese education system is one of the highest performing and combines excellence with equity (OECD, 2018), within Japan there has been much debate and concerns expressed about perceived deficiencies in the education system, amongst educators, policy makers, and the wider community.

This book is about changes and continuities in education in contemporary Japan. I ask the following questions: what are the most significant developments in schooling of the last two decades? Why have these developments emerged, and how will they affect the youth and society as a whole? How can we best interpret the directions of these developments in terms of seeking social justice? How have the shifts advanced the interests of disadvantaged social groups?

Competing understandings of schooling: functionalist and critical theory perspectives and interpretive approach

Research on education focuses on different aspects of schooling and adopts multiple approaches. Sociological studies of schooling generally see four distinctive roles of modern schooling (e.g., Ballantine, Hammack, & Stuber, 2017). First, schools disseminate knowledge and skills deemed necessary for becoming an adult citizen. There is a high degree of consensus on the value of basic literacy and numeracy, but beyond that different nation states determine what is to be taught. For example, liberal democracies and authoritarian states have quite different views about providing education on critical thinking, human rights, sustainable development, peace, social justice, and citizenship. Second, schools socialize and enculturate the young so that they can function in adult society and the global world by equipping them with interpersonal skills such as team work, respect for diversity, accountability, resilience, and compassion.

Third, the system of schooling identifies different talents amongst the young and differentiates between them through some kind of assessment process. The assessments, both internal and external to individual schools, are presented as being impartial. Students are expected to make decisions in light of their “assessment” results and individual preferences. They are then selected for higher levels of schooling, and allocated to different positions in society. This process may include affirmative action in order to enable students of under-represented social groups to participate, but its extent and nature vary across societies. Fourth, schools choose to teach particular views of the social world, and in so doing normalize these views as universal, assisting in maintaining the beliefs and practices of existing society.

In all of these four roles, to what extent is it possible for schooling to be impartial to all social groups? Do some groups benefit from the practice of schooling more than others?

There are two competing interpretations of how schools discharge these four roles, located at opposite ends of a continuum. Interpreted in these two contrastive ways, the four roles of schooling mentioned above present different pictures. At one end of the continuum are “structural functionalist” views, that see schools performing these roles more or less adequately in order to sustain the existing system of schooling and institutions beyond (e.g., Ballantine et al., 2017; Collins, 2016; Sadovnik, 2016). From this perspective, schools transmit knowledge and skills that are deemed useful for individuals to function in the existing society that is stratified based on individuals’ merits. Some end up occupying positions with more access to resources and influence, but this is justified on the basis that such positions require specific merits and talents. This worldview leads students to assume that the present society and school-employment link is working smoothly. Schools socialize and enculturate students so that they can appropriately interact and communicate with others, whether individually or in a group, and interpret cultural mores. Schools select students for further education based on merits established through what are deemed impartial assessments and examinations. Through these processes, students learn to accept that the knowledge and worldviews that they acquired at school are legitimate, that everyone is given a chance to succeed via equal opportunity of education, that they obtain positions based on fair selection mechanisms, and that they should accept their lot in society. If some do not obtain what they aspire to achieve, it is because they did not work hard enough, or have insufficient merits. Through this world view, students blame themselves when failing to achieve their goals, believing that they had equal educational opportunity. Structural functionalists admit that schools do not perform all roles perfectly, and this requires improvement via affirmative action programs and a more inclusive curriculum.

At the other end of the continuum, conflict theory and critical theory perspectives consider that the structural and institutional arrangements of schooling are dominated by the powerful (e.g., Ballantine et al., 2017; Collins, 2016; Sadovnik, 2016). They point out that schooling plays a crucial role in advancing the interests of dominant groups, while simultaneously marginalizing those of minoritized groups. These views see the existing power structure as problematic, and schooling as playing a role in maintaining this power structure. Critical theory perspectives draw on works in critical race theory, critical pedagogy, critical multiculturalism, feminism, post-colonialism, queer theory, anti-racist education, globalization, and others, and in so doing they illuminate inherent “intersectionality” – how racism, classism, sexism, ableism, and other forms of oppression intersect to create complex layers of marginalization and oppression (Collins & Bilge, 2016). The term “minoritized groups” is a useful expression to remind us that a social group does not simply become a minority group, but is made into such a group by the structural and institutional inequality and oppression which simultaneously privileges the dominant groups and minoritizes other social groups. This book takes a view located closer to the latter end of the continuum.

While adopting different interpretations located on the above continuum, anthropological studies have been more interested in microscopic processes of schooling – how students, parents, teachers, and educational practitioners experience and make sense of schooling. These interpretive approaches draw on school ethnography to capture the nuance-filled processes of schooling which simultaneously include contradiction, conflicts, solidarity, and cohesion. These studies are valuable not only for their arguments derived from ethnographic fieldwork, but also for their detailed “thick descriptions”. Since contemporary and future researchers would find them useful as points of diachronic comparison, I provide examples below. These ethnographies include those on pre-schools (Hendry, 1986; Peak, 1991; Tobin, Wu & Davidson, 1991; Tobin, Yeh & Karasawa, 2009); primary schools (Cave, 2007; Cummings, 1980; Duke, 1986; Lewis, 1995; N. Sato, 2003; Shimahara & Sakai, 1995; Tsuneyoshi, 2001); middle schools (Aspinall, 2012; Bjork, 2016; Bondy, 2015; Cave, 2016; Fukuzawa & LeTendre, 2001; LeTendre, 2000; Singleton, 1967; Whitman, 2000); senior high schools (Okano, 1993; Rohlen, 1983); universities (McVeigh, 1997; Poole, 2010); and post-secondary cram schools (Tsukada, 1991). The most recent ethnographic studies are by Bjork (2016), Bondy (2015) and Cave (2016).

These ethnographic studies have revealed features of Japanese schooling that are considered unique in comparison to the Anglophone societies. I briefly introduce some of these features below, and will refer to them in later chapters. Japanese educators often use the word ganbaru (perseverance) when encouraging students, and value effort over innate talent and actual achievement in the learning process (e.g. Lewis, 1995). Students learn in small heterogenous groups (han) which encourage cooperative learning. Group-based learning is more valued than individualised learning; and ability-based streaming and tracking is rarely seen at primary schools, since the emphasis is on the full participation of everyone in the class (Sato, 1993; Tsuneyoshi, 2001; Duke, 1986; Peak, 1993). Teachers pitch lessons to students with a lower than median level ability with the aim of reaching the expected level of achievement for each student (Okano & Tsuchiya, 1999). Kizuna (teacher-pupil bonding, mutual trust, and an empathetic relationship) is considered the most crucial element in effective teaching, rather than asserting authority over students (Shimahara & Sakai, 1992). In classroom management teachers widely adopt “peer supervision” and delegate authority and responsibilities to class members. We see this in the tôban (rotational class monitor) system for different tasks, such as daily classroom cleaning and school lunch service, which provides opportunities for all students to take on responsibilities as leaders and group members. Students are also encouraged to resolve problems and conflicts collectively, only asking the teacher to mediate as a last resort (Sato, 2003; Tsuneyoshi, 2001; Lewis, 1995). Educators consider schooling as “whole person education” and extensively engage in shidô (guiding students’ overall personal development, and school to work transition), which is deemed to be as important as academic teaching (LeTendre, 2000; Okano, 1993).

Social justice and education

Social justice seeks both socially just goals and socially just processes. There are many different understandings of social justice, all centering on fairness, as discussed in the volume edited by Reisch (2014), which presents papers of multiple understandings from diverse academic disciplinary, cultural, and theoretical perspectives, on areas such as environmental justice, psychological justice, transitional justice, religion, and so forth. There are different understandings of justice and morality across societies (Dien, 1982; Gilligan, 1982; Nader & Sursock, 1986). Social justice in education is one of these understandings, but even within this there are multiple views (Ayers, Quinn, & Stovall, 2009; Hytten & Bettez, 2011).

In this book, I consider that social justice in education is best understood as two interconnected elements: (1) distributive justice, and (2) the content of the social good that is distributed (education). The main interest of the former is who gets how much of schooling, that is, equality in distributing the social good (i.e., educational opportunities and rewards). The latter is concerned with differences – how the differences play out in deciding on and enacting what schools teach and what students learn at school, and with what consequences.

Distributive justice: opportunities and participation

Few people question the virtue of distributing education fairly. The system of education is a public asset funded by taxpayers. Individuals benefit from schooling by gaining qualifications, knowledge, skills, and citizenship qualities, enabling them to achieve their potential in adult society. Society as a whole benefits from schooling, since education promotes social cohesion and trust in public institutions. We talk about distribution of education in terms of school participation rates for age cohorts and retention rates to higher levels of schooling. In distributing education, there are three principles to consider: “simple equality”, prioritizing the needs of the least advantaged, and merit-based distribution. Let me explain them in more detail.

The “simple equality” principle (Walzer, 1983, pp. 13–17) treats everyone in an identical manner, distributing education to everyone in a specified group – the school-age cohort in Japan – regardless of individual backgrounds and attributes. This is variously referred to as “objective equality” (Eckhoff, 1974, p. 35), and the “equality principle” (Schwinger, 1980, pp. 99–100).

The second principle, of prioritizing the least advantaged (Rawls, 1972, p. 75), acknowledges the special needs of students deriving from their differences (and advantages/disadvantage). This line of approach is variously termed “subjective equality” (Eckhoff, 1974, p. 36), “humanitarian norms” (Schwartz, 1975, p. 112), the “needs rule” (Deutsch, 1975, p. 146), and “protecting the vulnerable” (Goodin, 1985). Rawls’ “difference principle” (1972, p. 75) summarizes these approaches by stating that inequalities can be justified only when they advantage the least advantaged. We see this principle applied in financial assistance and various forms of compensatory education and affirmative action programs. The principle is linked to the simple equality principle and to merit-based distribution (below). Without protection of the vulnerable, it would be difficult for all students to complete the nine years of compulsory schooling. It would also be hard to distribute educational opportunities based on ‘merit’ or ‘achievement’ if students in minoritized groups (e.g., low income families, ethnic minorities) were disadvantaged at the starting line.

Third is the merit-based allocation principle. It guides the distribution of places in higher levels of schooling and universities through the assessment of academic performance and other achievements. This is on the grounds that opportunities for further study should be given to those who demonstrate the most potential to benefit from them, and that rewards for “merit” motivate individuals to achieve excellence. Merit-based distribution is variously called the “performance principle” (Schwinger, 1980, p. 105), “desert” (Walzer, 1983, p. 24), and “equity” (Deutsch, 1975, p. 143). The nature of “merit” is typically taken for granted as including academic performance, personal qualities such as leadership, and participation in extra-curricular activities, but it is actually often determined by those who benefit from the decision of what constitutes “merits”.

In reality, the three principles operate simultaneously. When studying how high schoolers obtain permanent post-school jobs under a school-based job referral system (Okano, 2000), I saw merit-based selection being applied with “simple equality” and prioritization of the ...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Half Title Page
• Series
• Title Page
• Copyright
• Contents
• List of illustrations
• Acknowledgements
• 1 Introduction
• 2 History of schooling: Learning at the global periphery
• 3 Directions of change: Reforms in transition
• 4 Culturally and linguistically diverse minoritized social groups
• 5 Childhood poverty, gender gap, and regional variations
• 6 The politics of shokuiku, and compulsory school lunches
• 7 Nonformal education for school-aged children: Supplementary and alternative
• 8 Conclusions
• Bibliography
• Index