HomeJournalCOMPARATIVE EDUCATION No.53, 2016

COMPARATIVE EDUCATION:
Bulletin of the Japan Comparative Education Society No.53, 2016

Special Papers: Comparative Perspectives on Current Changes to Japan’s University Entrance Exam System (Based on the Research Project Report I at the 51st Annual Meeting)

Sachiko FUJII Outline of the Reports
Shigeru YAMAMURA GCE A level Reform in England
Yutaka KIDO Germany's University Admission System Reform: From Global Perspective
Asato MATSUMOTO The Reform of University Entrance Examinations in Korea: Challenges to New Academic Assessment
Yoshiro TANAKA Reform and Innovation of the Japan's University Entrance Exam System in Global Contexts: Discussant's Comments and Suggestions
Katsuhiro ARAI Validity of the Current Reform of the Japanese College Admissions System

Articles

Reira KURIHARA School Policy Differences between Two Major Political Parties in Germany: Focus on the PISA Survey, the United Nations Investigation, and the Parent Movement
Yusuke NAKAJIMA Emiratis and International Branch Campuses in the United Arab Emirates: "Arab-based Branch Campuses" in the Education Hub
Ai KADOMATSU The Logic of Guardian's Choice of Pre-primary Education in Bangladesh: The Influence of Expectations for School Education and Views of Child-rearing
Kengo SHIROGANE Education of Children with Disabilities in Vietnam: A Study Focusing on Institutions Adopting Inclusive Education

Book Reviews

Abstracts of Articles

School Policy Differences between Two Major Political Parties in Germany: Focus on the PISA Survey, the United Nations Investigation, and the Parent Movement
Reira KURIHARA
(Graduate Student, Sophia University)
 In the states of the former Federal Republic of Germany (West Germany), the lower secondary school system has adopted a three-tier model consisting of the Gymnasium, the Realschule, and the Hauptschule (in descending order of scholastic merit). But in the 1970S, SPD-run states initiated the Gesamtschule, a comprehensive school system, by integrating all three types into one. School policies therefore remain split between the Christian Democratic Union (CDU) and the Christian Social Union (CSU) that promote a traditional three-tier system and the Social Democratic Party (SPD) that promotes a comprehensive system.
 Thus, the Gesamtschule has been more widely introduced in SPD-run states rather than in CDU- or CSU-run states. School policies were again up for discussion after the Program for International Student Assessment (PISA) survey (2000) and the United Nations (UN) investigation (2006) for the right to education outlined the German school system's problems. Furthermore, in the 2000s, parents initiated a movement against the German parties' school policies. Additionally, the scenario of the students' school type choice and the numbers of each school type are changing. Therefore, German school policies are currently at a turning point.
 This paper clarifies the following: (1) school policies influenced by PISA survey results through analysis of the parties' Bundestag election programs; (2) school policies for solving the school system's problems as confirmed by UN investigation; and (3) analysis of education policies reflecting parents' needs for the school system.
 First, through the analysis of manifestos for the Bundestag 2002 election, this paper confirmed that the parties' reactions to PISA survey results and discussions on school policies differ. The PISA survey confirmed the following about the German school system: (1) Compared to students in other countries, German students' performance was poor; (2) Students' performance differed across the German states, and (3) A strong relationship existed between students' social classes and their school type in the three-tier system.
 Following the publication of PISA survey results, the CDU and CSU have asserted the three-tier system's success because student performance in CDU- and CSU-run states was better than in SPD-run states. In contrast, the SPD demanded the introduction of a comprehensive school system similar to that in other European countries with better average performances and educational equity.
 Second, this paper explains that responses to the UN investigation differed among parties, in accordance with their principles. The UN investigation report explained Germany's educational inequalities. For example, the provision of listings of secondary school types to final-year students according to individual capabilities by primary educational institutions was recommended, leading to questions regarding the fairness of streaming. Potentially capable students from poorly educated families might not enroll in Gymnasium due to incorrect streaming recommendations, possibly due to teacher bias. Therefore, the UN report recommended abolishing the three-tier system.
 Despite this, the CDU and CSU have retained the three-tier system. However, they have also attempted to address issues relating to the three-tier system that might limit student futures. Compared to the number of graduates from other types of schools, Hauptschule graduates face narrowed prospects for enrollment in future education. In response, many of the Hauptschule have adopted a special course for high-achieving students; so they can now earn a Realschule graduation certificate, considered better than a Hauptschule certificate.
 In contrast, the SPD approved the UN abolition recommendation and continued introducing the Gesamtschule. Additionally, SPD-run states abolished the legal obligation of streaming recommendations, and parents can select a school type for their children.
 Third, this paper explains that each party is planning school policies that reflect parental needs. Parents conducted a public movement against the introduction of the comprehensive school system in North Rhine-Westphalia and a plebiscite in Hamburg. These parents believe that every child's potential capabilities differ and that the three-tier system corresponds to these differences is essential. Additionally, some parents whose children attend the Gymnasium fear that by integrating school types, their children will learn with other children who previously did not attend the Gymnasium. Apparently, class-consciousness and the parents' hope that their children's contact with another milieu or other social classes will be minimized is reflected. In accordance with parental voices since 2011, SPD has reserved its decision as to whether or not to abolish the tiered system completely.
 Furthermore, the number of Hauptschule students has decreased because many parents are dissatisfied with Hauptschule education and certificates. Therefore, since 2011, the CDU has planned to integrate the Realschule and Hauptschule into a new school type. But the CDU's national association in North Rhine-Westphalia, CSU, and Bayerischer Handwerkstag (Bavarian Crafts Association) oppose this reform plan because they appreciate the role of the Hauptschule in improving connections between school and workplace, and they support graduates' employment in craft industries.
 In sum, to guarantee educational fairness, the German SPD is gradually reforming the school system from being tiered to comprehensive. However, the CDU, CSU, and other stakeholders (for example, some parents) wish to retain the tiered system for educational reasons on the one hand and class-consciousness on the other. In any ease, the tiered system will continue. Meanwhile, the legally binding force of streaming recommendations has been abolished in many states; consequently, the problem of stream-dependent education will be partly solved. Additional support, including improvements to the method of streaming recommendations, is necessary so that all students and parents can find the best school.
 
Emiratis and International Branch Campuses in the United Arab Emirates: “Arab-based Branch campuses” in the Education Hub
Yusuke NAKAJIMA
(Kyoto University)
 This paper clarifies the characteristics of two International Branch Campuses (IBCs) in the United Arab Emirates (UAE); Mohammed V University-Agdal Abu Dhabi (UM5A-Abu Dhabi) and the University of Saint Joseph-Dubai (USJ-Dubai). While IBCs in UAE have dramatically developed mainly for expatriate students, generally Emiratis prefer to study in federal universities for the perceived social well-being of Emiratis. It is said that UAE has developed as an Education Hub within the network of foreign institutions and students. However, almost all students in UM5A-Abu Dhabi and USJ-Dubai are Emiratis and it seems that these two IBCs have a theory of development different from that of an Education Hub. Clarifying the characteristics of these two IBCs will make up for the research blank and suggest the actual conditions of the regionalization of higher education in the Arab states.
 Firstly, the development of the higher education system in the UAE is investigated to clarify the systematical framework for IBCs. At the federal level, the Commission for Academic Accreditation (CAA) was established by the federal government to approve the establishment of institutions and accredit their programs. However, Dubai established economic free zones exempt from federal regulations and IBCs in these zones can choose to be under the federal regulation or Emirati regulation. Many IBCs in free zones choose to follow the regulation of the Dubai government, but they cannot be recognized as official institutions at the federal level nor affiliate with institutions accredited by the CAA, and graduates of these IBCs sometimes cannot work in federal institutions or other Emirates. On the other hand, Abu Dhabi has developed a different education system. The Abu Dhabi Education Council (ADEC) was established as governing body for education in Abu Dhabi and makes a huge financial investment in educational infrastructure with its rich oil resources. Economic free zones do not exist in Abu Dhabi and all IBCs must follow federal regulations. The regulatory environment for IBCs is therefore different between emirates, and each emirate has initiatives for building relationships with IBCs in accordance with their respective social economic environments.
 Next, the kinds of higher education institutions (other than federal universities) that Emirati students tend to study in are analyzed. While many Emirati students in Abu Dhabi prefer to study in non-federal public institutions, private higher education institutions providing legal education, media and Arab/Islamic studies hold many Emirti students in Dubai. In the UAE, Emiratization in public and private sectors remains a social problem. Especially, Emirati students hope to work in the public sector because of better working conditions, and the labor market in the public sector needs highly skilled Emiratis.
 In addition, the developments of UM5A-Abu Dhabi and USJ-Dubai are examined in terms of their management systems and educational programs. UM5A-Abu Dhabi is the IBC of Mohammed V University-Agdal in Morocco and was established in 2009 from the partnership between the ruler of Abu Dhabi and the king of Morocco. UM5A-Abu Dhabi provides bachelor, master and doctoral programs in Islamic studies and 11 Emirati graduates in 2013 gained employment as preachers within the Abu Dhabi government. In terms of management system, UM5A-Abu Dhabi has a board of trustees which consists of UM5A professors and governmental persons in Abu Dhabi. While UM5A has the initiative in academics, ADEC holds the initiative in administration and finance. Students do not pay tuition fees and they get scholarships from the financial assistance of the ADEC. UM5A-Abu Dhabi provides programs in Islamic studies to foster Emirati preachers and focuses on Islamic research and the practice of preaching. Islamic studies in UM5A-Abu Dhabi are based on “Maliki” which is the prevalent school in North Africa and part of the Arabian Peninsula.
 On the other hand, USJ-Dubai is the IBC of University of Saint Joseph in Lebanon. USJ was established by the Society of Jesus in 1875, but policy later became a matter of secular governance. USJ-Dubai provides legal programs to develop Emirati legal professionals working in national defense, judicial administration, media and so on. It also focuses on the development of females within the legal profession (70% of students in USJ-Dubai are female). Regarding management, USJ-Dubai also has a board of trustees which consist of USJ professors and Emiratis, and functions to decide on th opening new programs, the administration of tuition fees and costs and so on. It also has advisory boards which consist of USJ professors and members appointed by the KHDA. USJ-Dubai is financially independent from the Dubai government and operated autonomously, but it holds a relaxed relationship with the Dubai government. USJ-Dubai provides legal programs in Arabic, with these focusing on “comparative perspectives” of Lebanese, GCC and UAE law. The legal system in the UAE, as in Lebanon, is based on Latino Germanic laws and is affected by the Egyptian legal system, with programs provided in USJ-Dubai reflecting this situation.
 Lastly, the characteristics of UM5A-Abu Dhabi and USJ-Dubai are investigated in terms of “Individual level”, “Organizational level”, “Sector/Network level” and “Society level” using Vincent-Lancrin’s “Capacity Development” framework. Firstly, the development of these two IBCs will be suitable for the “Individual level” and “Organizational level”. They aim at the development of Emirati human resources and the establishment of IBCs as educational infrastructure. However, it seems that the “Sector/Network level” is not the main focus of these IBCs. Almost all of the IBCs in the UAE contribute to the Education Hub as nodes of an international network of foreign institutions and students. However, two IBCs cannot be included in this network of IBCs as other IBCs are not accredited by the CAA and, in fact, USJ-Dubai does not have international exposure. Finally, the “Society level” will be the main focus of the development of two IBCs. Economic and Political situations are reflected in the management systems of these IBCs and educational programs are based on the commonality of the legal system and the school of Islamic law. These two IBCs have developed on a theory which is different from that of an “Education Hub”, depending instead on expatriate students and characterized as “Arab-based Branch Campuses” for the development of Emirati human resources, with the roll of fostering an Arab/Islamic element in a highly internationalized society.
 
The Logic of Guardians’ Choice of Pre-primary Education in Bangladesh: The Influence of Expectations for School Education and Views of Child-rearing
Ai KADOMATSU
(JSPS Research Fellow/ Graduate Student, Kyoto University)
 This study clarifies the logic of guardians’ choice of pre-primary education in Bangladesh, focusing on the influence of expectations for school education and views of child-rearing. In this study, “guardian” means mother or grandmother who cares for the child. “Expectations for school education” means the recognition that school education is a necessary and important determinant of children’s future.
 Early childhood care and education (ECCE) is now seen as an important field in the world because it may contribute to reduce poverty and achieve universal primary education. Efforts are being made in education policy to try to expand pre-primary education as part of ECCE. Previous studies examine the way to expand pre-primary education, but little research has been done about parents’ active choice. It is necessary to understand from the beneficiary’s perspective how pre-primary education is expanded because ECCE has a strong connection with child-rearing and the view of children in each country. Therefore, this study focuses on guardians’ choice of pre-primary education.
 Recently, the Bangladesh government rapidly instituted some policies governing pre-primary education. The most noteworthy work is that the government introduced pre-primary education to the formal education system as a one year program for five-year-old children in 2010. Since then, most public primary schools (GPS) have introduced free pre-primary classes. As a result, the net enrollment rate has increased notably from 10.9 % (2008) to 40.4 % (2013).
 Pre-primary education is, however, not compulsory education. Therefore, guardians can make decisions as to whether or not they send children to pre-primary education. Should they decide to send their children, they may choose one of a number of pre-primary schools. Nath (2006) and CAMPE (2014) revealed that parents think a five-year-old child is too young to go to school. In this respect, it estimates that pre-primary education has some conflict with their view of child-rearing. On the other hand, it is said that Bangladesh has entered “the era of education”. People have strong expectations for school education even if they live in rural areas or are poor. In this sense, pre-primary education expands parental expectations of school education for young children.
 In light of the above, this study focuses on the negotiation between guardians’ expectations for school education and their views of child-rearing in order to clarify the logic of guardians’ choice of pre-primary education; to send children or not, and school choice. Fieldwork was carried out twice in Saidpur Tana in 2015. Interviews were conducted among twenty-nine guardians (mothers) who have children aged three to six and send them to pre-primary education, and forty-one guardians (thirty-eight mothers and three grandmothers) who have children aged five to six but do not send them.
 Before focusing on case studies, Section 1 provides this study’s framework for analysis. The view of “allo-mothering” is quoted in this framework. According to the view of allo-mothering, this study defines “the view of child-rearing” as the relationship among three factors; guardians’ perception of their role, their perception of children’s abilities or childhood, and their perception of the school environment. Expectations for school education are then contrasted to respective views of child-rearing.
 In Section 2, this study shows the situation of mothers and children within the social cultural context of Bangladesh. Bangladesh society has a strong norm that mothers have a responsibility for child-rearing. Within “the era of education”, if parents have even just a little money to spare, they want to send their children to private schools rather than free public schools because they believe private schools are better. In this section, it is shown that parents can choose pre-primary classes from GPS’s ones, Kindergarten School (KG)’s ones, or NGO’s ones.
 In the next section, the research method of the study is explained, with the analysis provided in Section 4. In Section 5, the following four types are revealed as the logic of guardians’ choice of pre-primary education in Bangladesh focusing on their expectations for school education and views of child-rearing.
 The first type is that guardians determine to send children to school with no conflict between their expectations for school education and their views of child-rearing. In this type, guardians value pre-primary education because children can get academic knowledge and adapt to school. The second type is that guardian expectations for school education comprise the main reason to send children to pre-primary education, but guardians emphasize the possibility that they can care for children at school. The differences between these two types relate to views as to what “a good education environment for young children” is. The first type has the view that if there are guardians in or near the classes, children cannot concentrate on activities. The second type thinks that children can learn without fear if guardians are near the class.
 Within the third type, conflict exists between expectations for school education and views of child-rearing; guardians do not send children to pre-primary education. This type is divided in two subsections. The first is that guardians do not feel a need for pre-primary education at schools because they can teach children at home by themselves. The second is that guardians perceive a need for pre-primary education at school, but do not send their children because they think they are not yet suited for school. This type has a flexible view of school education, whereby children should start school according to their developmental situation and their own will. The fourth type is that guardians have strong expectations for school education, but they cannot send children for some reason. In short, they want to send children to a good school but they cannot due to proximity-related or financial reasons.
 It is revealed that only expectations for school education are not enough to promote student enrollment even in “the era of education,” and that guardians make decisions by considering their views of child-rearing.
 
Education of Children with Disabilities in Vietnam: A Study Focusing on Institutions Adopting Inclusive Education
Kengo SHIROGANE
(JSPS Research Fellow/ Graduate Student, Kyoto University)
 The state ensures education for all its children regardless of their special educational needs (SEN); this is especially true of primary education, which is the fundamental type of educational institution. Further, SEN has attracted much international attention, particularly in the case of inclusive education for children with disabilities. Vietnam has made great strides in the dissemination of primary education, including the establishment of educational institutions. Since it has achieved universalization of primary education, the government promotes inclusive education throughout the country. However, as educational resources are scarce and institutions are inadequate in Vietnam, the following question arises: how does Vietnam ensure primary education for children with disabilities? This study aims to answer this question by analyzing the educational institutions implementing inclusive education. The study relies on a theoretical framework comprising the state and society; considers institutions to be artificial norms of people’s activities; and separates institutions into two categories, formal and informal.
 According to the existing literature on Vietnamese education, the primary education provided by the government is insufficient; hence, local people voluntarily involve themselves in educational activities to support schools. Vietnam has adopted a strategy known as Socialization of Education to mobilize educational resources in local communities and from outside the state. Previous studies focus on the static characteristics of formal institutions, ignoring those of the informal ones, and shed little light on the dynamics between formal and informal institutions. The Vietnamese educational framework is a dual-track system: it comprises general education and continuing education, both of which are controlled by the government, and inclusive education is implemented only as part of general education. Educational statistics show that the number of children with disabilities has increased significantly since the 1990s, and inclusive education has led to the expansion of formal education. In addition, although the government monitors inclusive education, there is leeway to coordinate its implementation at the local school level.
 However, several parents narrate how regular schools refuse to accept children with disabilities. By analyzing the alternative educational activities of parents, considered as informal institutions, this study considers three categories. First, a nonprofit, small class is conducted for children with disabilities. It is run by parents who, themselves, have such children; however, it does not guarantee access to regular schools. Second, the number of people-founded centers, which provide education and medical intervention, has been increasing in Vietnam following the implementation of the Socialization of Education policy as it promotes privatization. However, their management remains unstable, due in partial to their profit-making policy. Third, private tutoring, although considered illegal, is popular in Vietnam and contributes to the education of children with disabilities.
 There are two thresholds with respect to formal institutions. The first was established in 1991, when the law on the universalization of primary education was issued and the full-scale inclusive education project was launched. These policies intended the expansion of opportunities for children with disabilities to study in primary schools. The second threshold was established in 2006, when the Ministry of Education and Training issued Decision No. 16, which regulated a uniform curriculum for all children, and Decision No. 23, which pursued countrywide inclusive education. The latter meant that all children, including those with disabilities, must have equal and formal access to education. Therefore, it is clear that formal institutions were gradually formulated, while primary education, which implements inclusive education, was controlled by the state. Further, it is seen that alternative educational activities are commonly undertaken by parents who have children with disabilities; the previous socialist regime would not have accepted such activities. The reformation of the entire state regime by the government promoted privatization and the import of information from nonsocialist countries, which should have led to the provision of conditions favoring alternative activities. The small class for children with disabilities is based on a group that started in 2002, supported by Vietnamese emigrants, and people-founded centers emerged following the implementation of Socialization of Education in 1996. Private tutoring has always been popular; however, in the early 2000s, there were only a few special education teachers. Finally, parents’ activities aim at the education of their children, not the inclusion of their children in regular schools, which is pursued by the Vietnamese education system in formal institutions. In fact, inclusive education is currently attracting criticism internationally. Therefore, in Vietnam, while the government disseminates inclusive education, which is acknowledged by the international community, a separate educational system exists in the form of informal institutions. Considering the fact that the government’s policy of Socialization of Education is based on the voluntary educational activities undertaken by local communities, the study implies that the education system of Vietnam functions by integrating informal institutions as a part of the socialist framework.
 In conclusion, although the Vietnamese government provides primary education with the establishment of inclusive education, informal institutions that pursue a separate educational track to accommodate SEN have developed and become pervasive outside regular schools in order to ensure the education of children with disabilities. This phenomenon suggests that it is necessary to ensure the provision of education outside “inclusive schools”; further, when inclusive education is implemented as a state-sponsored program, it may not necessarily fit children’s SEN.
 
ページトップへ
Copyright (C) Japan Comparative Education Society, All Rights Reserved, 2001-2016.