American Schools for the Natives of Ponape: A Study of Education and Culture Change in Micronesia 9780824886424

Citation preview

AMERICAN EDUCATION THROUGH JAPANESE EYES

T THE EAST-WEST CENTER-formally known as "The iJmt Center for Cultural and Technical Interchange Be^ ^ t w e e n East and West"—was established in Hawaii by the United States Congress in 1960. As a national educational institution in cooperation with the University of Hawaii, the Center has the mandated goal "to promote better relations and understanding between the United States and the nations of Asia and the Pacific through cooperative study, training, and research." Each year about 2,000 men and women from the United States and some 40 countries and territories of Asia and the Pacific area work and study together with a multinational East-West Center staff in wide-ranging programs dealing with problems of mutual East-West concern. Participants are supported by federal scholarships and grants, supplemented in some fields by contributions from Asian/Pacific governments and private foundations. Center programs are conducted by the East-West Communication Institute, the East-West Culture Learning Institute, the EastWest Food Institute, the East-West Population Institute, and the East-West Technology and Development Institute. Open Grants are awarded to provide scope for educational and research innovation, including a program in humanities and the arts. East-West Center Books are published by The University Press of Hawaii to further the Center's aims and programs.

American Education through Japanese Eyes George Z. F. Bereday and Shigeo Masui

T

An East-West Center Book

N / ^ / ' T h e University Press of Hawaii Honolulu

Copyright © 1973 by The University Press of Hawaii All rights reserved Library of Congress Catalog Card Number 72-91619 ISBN 0-8248-0249-7 Manufactured in the United States of America

Contents

Preface 1

School Administrations: Centralized versus Decentralized

vii 1

2

Development of the "Whole Man"—The Search for Moral Education in American Schools 29

3

Family, Church, and Community as Agents of Moral Education

65

4

Theory and Practice in the Classroom

90

5

The Teaching of Subject Matter

115

6

Special Issues in the Curriculum

149

7

The Status and Duties of Teachers

175

8 Conclusions 214 Appendix 1 Japanese-American Teacher Program, 1964-1968. List of Participating Teachers from Japan and the Prefectures from Which They Came 229 Appendix 2 The Mechanics of Introducing Japanese Visitors to Americans 232

vi

Contents Appendix 3 Toward Improved Japanese-American Cultural Exchanges 245 Notes

263

Index

277

Preface

Postwar Japan is the home of one of the most beautiful cultures in the world and also of one of the most successful civilizations. But its domestic scene is dominated by class struggle. Politics, unlike art, is seen in black and white instead of in shades of gray. Right-wing and left-wing people hardly speak to one another. Though relationships among different social classes are characterized by a conventional politeness, members of any particular social status remain rigidly distant from members of any other. Business employers and trade unions continually eye each other like sumo wrestlers jockeying for position. Long-established and successful people have much to lose from a social war. Trade union members have little to lose now but, if they continue to press successfully for more advantages, they will soon acquire things which it is painful to lose. At the end of the present social struggle in Japan there does exist the possibility of social peace, but, for that to happen, the black and the white of political controversies must be replaced by a spectrum of colors, infinite in variety. Part of the responsibility for bringing about this needed flexibility lies with the schools and, to meet this task, Japanese education must search for new ways. In particular, Japanese teachers of today—most of whom were educated before, during, or shortly after World War II—must become more "elastic." All around them is a dynamic society, a society characterized by change. Beautiful old-fashioned "wooden" neighborhoods are being replaced by concrete. Samisen and koto and even the lilting popular songs that vii

viii

Preface

have been the trademark of modernizing Japan are being overwhelmed by straight "rock." Older persons now drive automobiles on the highways that are slowly coming into being to supplement the excellent network of railways. Young people date, kiss, riot, and generally withstand much more pressure from their families than could have been predicted even as late as twenty years ago. These new veneers of modernization are attributed by the Japanese to the impact of mass education, and the influence of the schools obviously is important. Older persons cannot help noticing that the way of life and way of work of the younger generations have changed, and they are apt to assume that these changes are mainly due to the impact of new education, an education which they want to be orderly. There is the new constitution and new guiding principles of democracy but every group seems to be interpreting them in its own way. There is a need for some social institution general enough and powerful enough to bring things into focus. The school suggests itself at once as this needed agency, if only because it is "there." To find a way out of threatening chaos and to provide a means of communication between different sections, broadly educated and sociologically "aware" teachers are needed. Responding to the pressures induced by a dynamic society, a group of prominent Japanese financiers turned their eyes to education. Taking a cue from philanthropic American businessmen, they wished to develop in themselves a sense of responsibility for society. In particular they were concerned with the hostilities which Japanese teachers have shown consistently to the established system in the postwar era. While resolving to be less conservative themselves, they also hoped to induce the teachers of Japan to become less radical. They thought they could achieve this by sending Japanese classroom teachers to the United States to correct their image of that country as a rapacious, capitalistic power, one which the Japanese businessmen themselves were accused of supporting. When the late Robert Kennedy visited Japan in 1963 the financiers took their problem to him. The senator introduced them to the Ford Foundation. The Foundation made an appropriate grant and entrusted it to the present writer, a professor from Teachers College, Columbia University, who, in turn, called upon the help of a colleague at Kyushu University. In the

Preface

ix

meantime, the Association for International Education was organized in Japan by the Japanese originators, and matching funds for activities in Japan were provided. In this way the JapaneseAmerican Teacher Program, whose aim was to exchange teachers between Japan and the United States, was born. When the program was turned over to the universities, it totally lost whatever political intentions it may have possessed initially. Freedom for the participants to go and do as they wished and to observe and conduct research without hindrance was established as a fundamental principle of all activities. One hundred fifty teachers, nominated for their distinction by each Japanese prefecture and selected purely for intellectual qualities by an independent Japanese-American committee, crossed the Pacific from 1964 to 1968 to study American classrooms and American people. It was agreed among the participants that the project should not be directed toward any specific aim. One condition and one only was placed before them—that they should record their observations continually for later dissemination at home. The result has been a remarkable spread of information in Japan about American schools. The activities of the alumni have resulted in over two thousand lectures, scores of seminars, and a steady flow of publications. We now have available several volumes in Japanese in which the teachers themselves describe their experiences, a journal, numerous articles throughout the Japanese press, and several reports in English.1 As the materials which the Japanese teachers produced began to accumulate, an intellectual framework of the project emerged which possessed many aspects of significance. It is our task on these pages to render an account of the contributions we think our data have suggested. It is puzzling why English-language reports on American schools by the Japanese have been so scarce, in spite of the great impact of American education upon Japan. The editor of the papers resulting from a recent symposium on American education in foreign perspectives, for instance, could not find a Japanese contribution suitable for inclusion.2 We hope now to remedy this deficiency. There are four ways in which our materials seem to us to be significant. First, we have obtained an eyewitness account of the American educational practices at school, at home, and in the

X

Preface

community, recorded by experienced—indeed, outstanding—classroom teachers. The advantage of having these observations recorded by classroom teachers suggested itself to us from the experiences of American classroom teachers who reported on Soviet practices.3 Observations by classroom teachers are altogether too scarce in comparative studies in education. What these professionals may lack in academic profundity (although they often are quite sophisticated), they make up with the vitality and perspicacity that occurs always when insights from practical, active, service field workers are connected to academic theory-making. In addition, immeasurable value is to be derived from the fact that our observers were teachers from Japan. They came from a school system judged to be particularly relevant to the United States in that it, too, is an industrial system and is the only mass system that can claim to be comparable to the American as regards the freedoms it enjoys. At the same time, Japan measures up in quality of instruction to such rigorous systems as those employed by the countries of Western Europe and the Soviet Union. Japan has a Germanic tradition of learning, one that is encyclopedic, precisely scientific, and composed of solid subjects which are easily testable by examinations. In spite of this, the atmosphere in its schools contains some of the elements desired by the American progressives: friendly relations between teachers and pupils, an atmosphere of excitement caused by good learning, the use of art and music to saturate the students with aesthetic appreciation, and a general esprit de corps—pride in the schools as a unit, a pride which is enhanced by daily assemblies, competitions and games, and other devices. Even though admission to high school is by examination, Japan in recent years has approached the ratio of the age group that can be found in American schools at the age of 16. Inasmuch as there are almost no dropouts in Japanese high schools, that country will probably graduate a higher proportion of 18-year-olds than will the United States in the near future. In this respect America will no longer be in the lead for the first time in history. The teachers of Japan who man this large enterprise combine willingness to work for modest pay with an austerity and devotion bordering on Puritanism. Their status as civil servants, of course, gives them a position of dignity in a state-control-oriented country. An evaluation of American

Preface

xi

schools by Japanese teachers provides a comparison with the only system in the world which shares with the American the basic philosophical premises but which is considered by some to be superior in scholarly delivery. The third element of significance that has emerged from our data is the discovery of the presence of national bias in the observations recorded. One of us (G. Z. F. B.) has written before about cultural distortions that ought to be kept in mind, if not actually taken into account, when evaluating foreign observations on schools or American observations abroad.4 Interpretation of data has to be corrected for the bias of the observer if true north, rather than magnetic north, is to be found. In approaching American education from Japan we learned, first of all, that the very types of topics selected for study are culturally predetermined. The Japanese teachers are restless under the centralized control of their school system. Automatically they are fascinated by the local controls in American education. The clashes between tradition and modernization of which Japan is such a typical scene bring to the fore the teachers' concern for moral education of the pupils. The Japanese teachers in our program were so puzzled by the absence of moral education courses in the United States that they sought assiduously to discover elements of moral education in every aspect of the schooling they observed. In addition to concentrating on specific topics, the Japanese teachers were apt to bring a special flavor to the reporting of their observations. They may have had difficulty understanding why American teachers do not visit the homes of their students or why so little homework is assigned, because such things are taken for granted in their own country. There was the problem also of biased observations as a function of political convictions. Our data demonstrated that right-wing teachers and left-wing teachers reacted differently to the same stimuli. The left-wing teachers tended first to be suspicious of what they were observing but, once convinced that the evidence presented was not rigged for propaganda purposes, they joyfully accepted the American practices as a solution to the problems of social justice with which they were struggling in Japan. Right-wing teachers were in principle friendly to the United States but also were more nationalistic in outlook. They could bring themselves to admire American practices but could not ac-

xii

Preface

cept them as being appropriate, simply because such practices were not Japanese. The fourth and final element emerging from the data had to do with the evaluation of the effectiveness of international exchanges. Little systematized scientific knowledge exists about what happens when people meet to study one another. It has become fairly fashionable to watch initial international contacts and the initial clashes, and some literature exists on the meaning of culture shock and its consequences for subsequent communication.5 We actually have little empirical evidence to support the conviction that exchange evokes greater friendship and understanding. It is quite possible to envision the opposite result. Close contact is known to produce conflict where distance had preserved the peace. Multiracial and multinational groups in the United States have not worked out a peaceful modus vivendi without going through considerable tensions and painful adjustments. These considerations led us to run a check on the views of our observers both by year of visit and by time elapsed since that visit. We found that time and immersion carried with them a potential for homogenization of views. As concepts of mutual interests were discussed back and forth between the Japanese and Americans, the incoming groups did not repeat the experience anew but began where the others had left off. Conditioning of newcomers through contacts with the alumni took place in an escalating manner. The later the date of the field study and the longer the time between the date of the study and the date at which observations were made, the more the Japanese and American views on common subjects resembled one another. There is really nothing startingly new in this. People take on the color of their environment. But in testing the effectiveness of artificially induced cultural exchanges we found it significant to have such practical substantiation of long-standing theories. The program followed by the members of the Japanese-American Teacher Program ran as follows: prior and during selection, the prospective participants and later the alumni of the program were coordinated in Japan by the International Education Association of Tokyo in a series of preparatory seminars in which professors from Kyushu University, Tokyo University, Tokyo University of Education, Tohoku University, Ochanomizu Women's

Preface

xiii

University, Hiroshima University, as well as American professors from Columbia and Harvard, participated. The members of these seminars were nominated by superintendents of education in all Japanese prefectures and Okinawa. A committee of Japanese and American professors listened to the discussions of the participants, interviewed them, and evaluated the written study plans submitted by them. This committee then selected the teachers who would participate in the program (30 in 1964, 30 in 1966, 40 in 1967, and 40 in 1968). The aim of the program was to identify those teachers in the school systems who had distinguished themselves for intellectual and administrative abilities and who could be expected to exercise influence and occupy positions of leadership in Japanese education in the future. For this reason the committee did not insist on a knowledge of English as a prerequisite to selection, relying for much of its work on interpreters as intermediaries. Upon arrival in the United States, the Japanese teachers, under the general administration of the Institute for International Education, began their work by attending a ten-day "compression seminar" at the School for International Training of the Experiment in International Living in Brattleboro, Vermont. There they became conversant with American culture, attended some lectures, and visited some schools and other community institutions. They next attended an academic seminar at Teachers College, Columbia University, where they were exposed to a more intensive study of the theory of American education, visited some local schools and institutions, and followed a social program organized by the Japan Society. The third step was a "central administration seminar" in Washington where the teachers were guests of the United States Office of Education and where briefings, visits to national and educational institutions, and interviews with important public figures were held. The culmination of the program was the "local administration seminar" composed of a three- to six-week homestay and a later two-week schoolstay. During the homestay the teachers were lodged with American families and pursued closely the day-to-day routines of the schools at a local level. The homestays were clustered on the eastern seaboard in 1964, on the West Coast in 1966, in the Southwest in 1967, and in the Midwest in 1968. Altogether twenty states were visited in

xiv

Preface

this way. Following the homestay or instead of a second homestay came the schoolstay. This consisted of an intensive study of the schools in a large metropolitan system such as Cleveland or San Francisco. The final American phase of the program consisted of a "decompression seminar" held at the East-West Center at the University of Hawaii. The program was completed by a series of national and regional "dissemination seminars" held in Japan to which the alumni of the program were asked to return over and over again. To facilitate observation and research, each participating teacher selected a problem and topic of study. Beginning in the second year, the teachers as a group studied a single problem each year. The topics studied were: attitudes toward national purpose in education, preserving "essential humanity," and development of the individual potential of each student. Individual themes were organized within these common frameworks. The resulting records of observations were made continually and carefully and were firmed up in a series of discussion groups. The Japanese themselves, however, wished to emphasize that they considered their data limited in terms of time and place and that they necessarily had to generalize for the entire American educational system from observations of a few weeks' duration in a few scattered school systems. It must be noted, too, that, with the exception of a small number of statements which are the products of discussions of small groups, all statements assembled here were made by individuals. There is, therefore, an inaccuracy inherent in the frequent references we make about the views of "Japanese teachers'—as if the materials we quote represent a national viewpoint. This compounds the already mentioned "error" of the visitors making sweeping statements about "American education." We have on record here observations by some Japanese teachers about some American schools. The reader must judge for himself how far the shrewd observations presented here justify wider generalizations. The Ford Foundation graciously provided major funds for this project. The East-West Center at the University of Hawaii provided stipends and office facilities for the final execution of this study. The Center for Education in Industrial Nations of Teachers College, Columbia University, provided money for fur-

xv

Preface

ther research assistance. Our thanks are due Dr. John Mallea who assisted in the final editing and to Mr. Denji Suzuki and Mr. Clifford Miyashiro who supplied substantial portions of the English version of the Japanese texts and thus aided the Japanese coauthor in the exacting task of translation. Our thanks are also due Miss Judith Guerra and Miss Sandra Anthony for the excellent performance of the various editing and typing tasks. GEORGE Z. F . BEBEDAY SHIGEO MASUI

1 School Administrations: Centralized versus Decentralized

During the first preproject seminar at Kyoto in June 1964 there came a moment when the teachers, after a day of introductory lectures, had to adjourn from the conference hall to a nearby inn for the inaugural banquet. Only one-half block separated the hall from the inn and the transfer took place in the orderly fashion of which only Japan is capable. Spontaneously, gray-clad, rigidshouldered teachers formed a single file and marched on in the twilight to their evening activities. Four weeks later in Washington, D.C., it was necessary to move the same group of teachers across Constitution Avenue from the Smithsonian Institution to the National Gallery of Art. The teachers were still clad uniformly (this time, by order of officials of the project) in navy blue suits (to create a good impression on Americans) and each had added to his uniform the inevitable Japanese weapon abroad, a camera. But when the signal was given to move from building to building, no trace could be seen of the Kyoto single-file formation. The teachers moved across in a random circular group like Mongolian outriders. There were a few persons up front and a few stragglers at the rear, but the group had a spontaneous momentum onward. American culture already had had its impact. That impact can best be illustrated by exploring what happens to a group of visitors from a centralized school system when suddenly faced with a decentralized system. The Japanese teachers were in theory well familiar with decentralization as a concept. 1

2

School Administrations

The history of the Japanese educational administration in the postwar period has been one of an attempted movement from prewar centralization to decentralization. American reforms influenced the creation of local, elective, school boards. Japan's defeat during World War II had undermined somewhat the importance and prestige of its central bureaucracy. A strong and politically conscious teachers' union arose. Many educational aspirations and some policy proposals were influenced by left-wing thinking. Even though the elective boards of education were replaced subsequently by appointed boards and even though the strength of the Ministry of Education over the school curriculum and against the National Teachers Union was somewhat reaffirmed, the focal point of administrative power in Japan still was shifted somewhat from the center, with decisions being shared between the Ministry and the prefectural superintendents of schools, rather than being monopolized by the national government. The effect of this on the exchange teachers' program was that the incoming teachers were conditioned to centralization but were curious and, indeed, favorably disposed to decentralization when they came into contact with American education. However, their initial response was one of shock and bewilderment. They faced over 30,000 de facto independent school boards of all shapes and sizes. They had to sort out community systems from county systems. They were informed that the states are sovereign in matters of education and they found evidence of strong policies, desired if not pursued, in the state departments of education they visited. Wherever they went, they heard, as they did during their visit to Washington, about the federal government's interest in education. When they inquired at the local level in one system about the process of decision-making, they were told and, indeed, observed for themselves that the superintendent of the schools and the administrators were dominant; in another, decisions took shape in numerous teachers' committees only to be rubber-stamped above; in yet another, prominent ladies of the Parent-Teachers Association virtually ran the schools; in a fourth system, it was the members of the school board who actually ruled; in yet another, it was a strong taxpayers' organization; and, in the last one, no one seemed clearly to be in the lead, with decisions appearing by tacit un-

School Administrations

3

spoken agreement or because of apathy on the part of all concerned parties. The Japanese teachers at first could not comprehend this bewildering diversity. They listened respectfully when it was explained how American community life grew historically. They were shown that somehow school life does go on and schools are run with the sort of dispatch that is, if not spectacular, at least no worse than the school governments in other countries. But the lack of a formal and clear-cut line of responsibility disturbed them. It was not neat; it defied being put down on paper. Their puzzlement puzzled their hosts in turn. One gets the flavor of this type of cross-cultural encounter when one hears a Japanese teacher ask a Missouri school principal about the book of rules according to which he as a principal runs his school. One sees the American's jaw drop as he attempts haltingly to explain that there is no such book. "How then do you know how to run this school?" Puzzlement deepens as the American tries to explain that he just knows—that nobody taught him. "How then do you run this school? What are your own rules?" A total impasse follows as the American attempts to explain that he has no rules, his behavior being mostly intuitive. We witness a confrontation not only between two educators but between two bodies of Western philosophy: the rationalistic and structured, and the pragmatic and unstructured. Although a Frenchman and an Englishman might be expected to face one another in an argument of this kind, it is significant here that the questioning occurred far from Europe and that the questioner was an Oriental. ISSUES OF CENTRALIZATION The smooth functioning of America's decentralized school system is rooted in consensus, but that consensus is based on the recognition of conflict. People and groups have the right not only to hold opinions but to demand that these opinions be implemented by the schools. Faced with diversity and frequent contradictions, the school administrators serve as mediators, persons whose function often is to smooth ruffled feathers. Young aspirants to superintendent's positions, though not discouraged from seeking reforms, are not exactly conditioned to imagine themselves as bold

4

School Administrations

educational statesmen who snatch brilliant educational victories from their critics. Crushing, outmaneuvering, or even convincing their opponents is not their forte. Instead they live to reduce conflict, to avoid rocking the boat, to run the school with the least possible disturbance. When a calamity (such as a racial protest) strikes, they are deemed less capable as administrators if such a protest becomes a "case." Perhaps "armed peace" best characterizes the guiding motif of American administrative practices in the schools. When the Japanese teachers looked at American school governments, they almost missed this point completely. They could not conceive of a human organization that institutionalizes conflict. Conflict, when accepted at all, would have to be hemmed in by tight ritual rules like sumo or karate, or the police-regulated Tokyo street demonstrations. They sought unity in American schools, everywhere searching for the invisible framework they knew must be hidden someplace which binds together the disparate elements of American education. Here are a few examples of how the teachers vocalized their search for unity in the schools. It took some time for them to realize that unity, in the sense they knew it, did not exist. We noticed the national flags hoisted in all the schools and classrooms. At the sight of these, I felt that the daily activities of the school are based upon the spirit of loyalty to the United States, and I just wondered whether it might be related to the desire for the integration of the educational system of the United States.1 Be that as it may, it seems to me that it cannot be denied that the development of communication and transportation and the strengthening trend of the central administrative power in recent years are gradually consolidating the people of the United States into one nation beyond the borderlines of the states and that in the sector of education also the central policy is being disseminated.2 The Japanese teachers perceived the efforts Americans are making to "universalize school education of high quality"3 and the resulting policy to equalize educational achievement throughout the country. They understood that such efforts would require closer cooperation between the federal government and the states. They thought that "the voices expecting more leadership from the federal government are strong among the people."4 Over and over

School

Administrations

5

they groped for that hidden unity, even though they understood that it could not be brought about by political enforcement from above. It is not easy for Americans to appreciate the conditioning that the Japanese people have had to a central administration of their schools. Perhaps the closest American example of this can be seen in the operation of the New York City system which, although local in outward form, operates in a population as large as that of Australia. Decisions filter from above in a central system; programs are discussed and conceived above and handed down to classroom teachers to implement. Promotions, tenure, and salary increases are instigated by faceless, nameless persons not usually known to the teachers, persons who do not know the teachers and have not observed them teaching. Any desired change must be presented in the form of a petition and a long time must elapse before permission is given, if indeed it is given at all. When a system is sanctioned by old traditions and operated with fairness, such a system is taken for granted and operates automatically. This is by and large the case in Japan. When the system is inefficient, corrupt, and unjust, those within have a sense of helplessness and quiet fury. This is by and large the case in New York City. The Japanese teachers who came to the United States were unprepared for a random government of schools by an unquiet consensus. Not accustomed to having their own opinions about the governing of schools being given attention, let alone implemented, they were often conditioned to consider themselves unworthy to offer such opinions. When this picked group of the best teachers came to the United States, they soon perceived that the American teachers they met—a random group—were a mixed bag as regards quality. They simply could not understand how such groups of people could be successfully self-governing in the schools. They knew that people, to carry on, must be propped up by a system. The American un-system defied their comprehension. They were uneasy when facing the unsteady and invisible, but nonetheless workable, school government of a pluralistic people. The first interest of the Japanese teachers was in the degree of participation of the federal government in affairs of education. Most Americans consider the United States Office of Education

6

School Administrations

to be too weak; since its creation, efforts have been made continually to strengthen it. Such Americans would be startled by the way in which one of the Japanese teachers viewed the strength of that office. The United States Office of Education was established in 1869. This establishment means the sharing of the responsibiliy of educational administration by the federal government. Even its educational surveys are considered to have a great influence upon the implementation of the educational rights of each state, because they are carried out by an administrative office of the federal government.5 Other Japanese teachers, those reacting from centralization, were pleasantly surprised to find the Office of Education so weak. But even these educators lost no opportunity to trace the degree of the influence of the federal government wherever they went in the local systems. At the division of guidance and testing of a state department of education we asked if they discuss their problems with officials of the United States Office of Education when occasion arises. The answer was that they do this and maintain communications with them all the time. It was added that they need to follow them as long as they receive grants, and that for the similar reason the local school district areas pay attention to the United States Office of Education. It was also explained that the specialists visit not only the state departments of education but also die local school districts and make surveys and offer advice. It was said, however, that; although the federal government offers various things to the states, the states decide whether they will accept them or not. These explanations indicate that the activities of the federal specialists do not control the states and yet they could be considered as having some amount of controlling effect.® The Japanese teachers looked for the links among the different parts of American education because a search for unity was, with them, instinctive. They overtly disapproved of centralization but they had formed the habit of living with it. When shown that decentralization works, they became enthusiastic and asked questions. But they also expressed an anxiety that standards could become lowered because of the lack of machinery for national normsetting. They saw that the federal government is moving in the direction of formulating a fairly broad educational policy and the

School

Administrations

7

"giving of guidance to each state to a certain extent."7 But they were also sensitive to the complicated nature of the relationship between the central government and the local systems and to the ambivalence accompanying the issues of federal control. Thus, they often posed penetrating questions to their unsuspecting American hosts. In their responses Americans displayed a sort of love-hate relationship with the federal aid. They admitted that they want aid, but denied that aid means control, though they were forced to admit that grants of tax money must mean some control, if only for auditing purposes. It is a natural desire on the part of American educators "to have their cake and eat it too." But the following quotation, which reflects this feeling, does not lend itself easily to a comprehensive understanding of the American school government by the Japanese. One superintendent said, "It is up to the judgment of the school district whether it accepts the advice and grants from the federal government. It is never compelled to do so. To this day we have never experienced such control from the federal government and the school district feels a sense of resistance. We do not like to he controlled by the federal government; however, we intend to continue receiving grants from it as it is beneficial for us to do so. The proportion of federal grant money within the budget of the school district is within 5 percent now, but it will rise to about 10 percent after ten years' time. We do not think that the control will become stronger, however, in proportion to the percentage increase. Nevertheless, it may not be denied that the amount of control by the federal government will be gradually increased as long as we accept the grants with some strings attached."8

This ambivalence of Americans about federal participation puzzled and fascinated the Japanese visitors and produced prolonged questioning. On occasions such persistent probes provoked outbursts of emotion and hostility. During a visit to the United States Office of Education, one Japanese teacher was told that decentralization exists to satisfy better the diverse intellectual ambitions of the local people. His respectful question was: It is good to emphasize the development of individual ability and the independent study. On the other hand, is there not any danger of lowering the level of achievement as a whole on account of the lack of standards for the common learning?9

8

School Administrations

The reply of the American official illustrates the American ethos and the irritation which may be engendered when that ethos is questioned. I feel something inhumane behind your question. The innate capacities and aptitudes of individuals are varied. To set up a certain standard by the federal government or the state or the town and thereby to require the pupils to learn up to a certain level of achievement means to compel individuals unnaturally. It is not the way in which education ought to be carried out. Individuals and villages or towns existed first, and states and the federal government appeared later.10 Sometimes American reactions became even sharper: During our talks with a teacher, he said that he did not need to follow the guidance and suggestions which come from the people of the federal government, and yet he needed to follow them when they came from the state. He appeared to be somewhat irritated, saying, "Why do you worry about whether there is control from the federal government?"11 Expressions of reluctance by Americans to discuss federal control are revealing, but, in this context, were not necessary. Most Japanese teachers in the end received a very realistic impression of the necessity for, and limits to, federal participation in school affairs. Their comments testified to this: When we talk about centralization it is not clear sometimes whether we mean centralization at the national level or at the state level. As far as I have seen, states seem to be pretty highly centralized. But at the United States Office of Education, one official said that, in the United States now, education is becoming a national concern rather than being simply the concern of individual persons. . . . As compared with the contemporary situation in Japan, it seems to me that decentralization is well established and at a high level in its quality, too. We should not forget, however, that today in the United States the federal government, by bypassing the state governments, is exerting its power and influence directly with the local school districts. What I felt in connection with the problem of centralization and decentralization is its relationship to the economy. I should like to tell my own observations on this point. One school district in the outskirts of a large city is wealthy and the power of the community is strong, adding well to its educational finance. On the other hand,

School Administrations

9

in one rural school district in the North, there is weakness in its economy and the power of the state is, therefore, strong. When I visited another isolated area, there was no full-time supervisor in that school district and the principal of a school was taking his job concurrently.12 The Japanese teachers tended to look very favorably upon regional cooperating organizations such as the New England Council on Secondary and Higher Education. They saw that such organizations attempted in a democratic, voluntary way to maintain their own levels of academic standards. The nub of Japanese reactions to the centralization-decentralization issue was that they were ready, and even willing, to accept decentralization provided it did not interfere with high and uniform standards of school achievement. Too often they saw that decentralization depressed intellectual attainment and, to maintain high standards, they were ready to submit to central direction. Unmistakably the Japanese revealed themselves to be teachers first and administrators second. It is a measure of the practicality of the Japanese educators that they considered the problem of centralization of education from the dynamic viewpoint as well as from the static viewpoint. They referred to the "duality" of American educational administration and saw it as a "mixture of diverse, incoherent, 'atavistic' energies" hanging together in an uneasy balance amidst "wide and narrow, deep and shallow nuances."13 What occupied the Japanese teachers' attention was not only the structure of power and the patterns of duty and responsibility in the school but also the capacity for change, the ability to reform itself inherent in a decentralized system. It is not unusual for Americans to think that local responsibility encourages change by avoiding the resistance offered by the rigidities of a centralized bureaucracy. The Japanese teachers, in contrast, tended to assume that a central bureaucracy facilitates change. For instance, the National Science Foundation attracted their attention as being "active in promoting new plans in education."14 Perhaps a measure of the viability of the Japanese culture as contrasted with the American is that the Japanese are still willing to credit their government with good intentions. Even those in Japan who violently oppose their government invest it with a measure of credibility and implicitly at least support its paternalistic intentions. In the United States,

10

School Administrations

where society is explicitly run on credit, the feeling of the many that the present structure is rotten and hopeless has brought this country to a state of crisis. The lesson to be learned here might well be that both parties are right. Many teachers in Japan feel that a central bureaucracy should be more progressive and flexible to meet the desires of local governments and teachers. But they accept both the existence and the powers of the Ministry of Education. They recognize its usefulness in helping communities to effect changes which may be strongly desired but which local Japanese communities cannot implement by themselves because they lack the tradition of community action. In the United States, on the other hand, the central bureaucracy is less efficient and compares poorly with local governments in the capacity for innovative change at the local level. Hence, Americans place emphasis on local self-help and agree that higher levels of government should be active in local affairs only in a supplementary fashion. In one aspect the Japanese teachers betrayed themselves as being addicted to the classroom. Their concern with federal control of education was much less than their interest in the local control. The powers of higher agencies may condition teachers to be docile or, in contrast, may anger them deeply, but the whole problem is far less immediate than the administrative elements, the school principals or local inspectors, that touch their lives directly. The following exchange reveals the inconclusive, almost hesitant, approach of the Japanese teachers to the resolution of the problem of the exercise of federal power. INTERVIEWER: If you had a chance to be Minister of Education in Japan, would you introduce a wider range of subjects in Japanese schools? TEACHER: If I had any position in the Ministry of Education of Japan, I would like to train the teachers who are willing to adopt experimental ways. INTERVIEWER: If you were Minister of Education, or someone like that who is very powerful in American Education, would you try to narrow the range a little more in American education? TEACHER: If I were an administrator in the United States, yes, I would work hard to effect a less wide range. When I gave money to the schools I would apply pressure so that the teachers would work hard to introduce new approaches.

School Administrations

11

INTERVIEWER: What if you did apply such pressure and people at the local level resisted this pressure and refused to take your money, would you take away local control and provide federal financing or would you simply not apply pressure anymore? TEACHER: In Japan I feel there is too much centralization; on the other hand in America there is too much decentralization. So if I gave some money and if I applied pressure and if the people in the local community said that they did not want that money, then it would not be wise to make them angry. Therefore, I would not force them, but on the other hand I would like to appoint capable administrators at the state level and work through them.15

Taking a middle-of-the-road position is an ordinary human characteristic, particularly if the issue is as complex as the centralization-decentralization controversy and if the individual is bound by duty to be polite as much as are the Japanese. Still the relationship of the schools and teachers to the Ministry of Education in Japan is known to be tense and it was reasonable to expect a much greater incidence of hostility to, or support for, centralization, depending on the political learnings of the teachers. An overwhelming number of comments by Japanese teachers turned out to be eclectic, balanced, and middle of the road, this tendency increasing as time went on. As the teachers began to apply the lessons learned in America to policy in their own country, there appeared good judgment and discernment, qualities not too frequently apparent to students of educational controversies in Japan. Here is a cluster of comments on the subject: I believe educational costs should be shouldered by the national government, but the way in which the money is allocated should be carefully planned. To use the words of Professor Bereday, it should be entrusted to wise men. In my prefecture the board of education includes a very large number of members who have schooling only through the elementary level, but, irrespective of their educational background, all the members have intelligence and insight of high degree. I do not like to take a position of denying the efficacy of centralization, but I believe it is necessary for us to have a certain intermediate standpoint. For example, in my town we are moving pretty well with the help of a land of cooperative association consisting of the specialists in the field of education, representatives of parents, and several organizations.

12

School Administrations Vertical control is strong in Japan, especially at the elementary and junior high school levels. Administration and supervision of the schools are like the flow of one-way traffic, and, what makes matters worse, policies sometimes tend to be understood and accepted in a different way at the school level, depending particularly upon the principals. The system of supervision has certain artificial features which block with too much uniformity the development of individual persons as human beings. There should be no polarization between advocates of centralization and decentralization. It is necessary for the administrative agency to display leadership. There is confusion otherwise, as to the desirable image of the man as a goal of education. What is needed is a good balance of leadership between the educational administrative agency and the classroom teachers.16

WITHIN THE WORLD OF LOCAL CONTROL In following the national picture the Japanese teachers sought to establish the extent of centralization in America and, once having defined it, were able to use it to project comparative lessons for Japan. In the world of local control, their approach and subsequent reactions were bound to be different. When studying centralization, they patterned their thinking from a search for unity in American administration to an acceptance of only partial unity. When studying local government, they followed a different chain of reasoning. Their first contacts resulted in sheer incomprehension. As understanding dawned, it produced both curiosity and disbelief. The lessons of local government in the United States are so diverse that one could not expect much useful projection to as orderly and as purposeful a country as Japan. But the variety involved, the manysidedness of human relations, and above all the magical fact that chaos does work, filled foreign observers with wonder. A few teachers voiced fear of local self-government. Direct participation by citizens in educational decisions was thought capable of being "degraded into the rule of the mob"17 and warnings were sounded that national purpose of education was obscured, if not endangered, by it. Yet there was also a good deal of fascination with the greater leeway local self-determination provided. The educational requirements of the nation as a whole are urgent and pressing. The actual practices of education at the school levels,

School Administrations

13

however, are found to be much more flexible than we had anticipated.18 The general characterization of the local system was developed from what at first seemed to be incomprehensible concepts. Over and over again, the Japanese teachers, when making their first inquiries, caught themselves using Japanese rather than American criteria. One teacher would ask whether the practice of public election of the state superintendent of schools in some states might not pose "the problem of its being utilized by some people with political ambitions."19 To him the connection between politics and public service was not as self-evident as it is to Americans. Another expressed his wonder at the informal lobbying that accompanies so many official political transactions in the United States. The monthly meeting of the school district is held at 7:00 P.M. in the auditorium of a junior high school. But I found that the superintendent presented his budget bill to the officers' meeting of the local educational association at 4:00 P.M. on the same day, explaining it and asking for their cooperation in advance. In Japan the bills of the boards of education are usually published after the members' decision, whereas here they are explained in public prior to the decision. This may be due to the fact that, while the local educational association is an organization consisting of teachers, it also includes the superintendent and principals. This is completely different in character from the Japan Teachers Union.20 Yet another teacher characterized the power struggle in local systems in pathetic terms that highlight the cross-cultural difficulties attendant on comparative research. In one state a conflict had arisen between the superintendent and the members of the board of education regarding the language instruction, and, as a result of that conflict, the superintendent and eight classroom teachers were fired. I was told that the superintendent and these teachers were critical of the current methods being employed in that area and had been urging the adoption of the method of teaching which starts from the written letters. In another state I was told of a case of the dismissal of several teachers of social studies on a charge of using certain specific textbooks (which might be called "biased" textbooks—a nasty expression to me). . . . What kind of attitude was taken by teachers in general and by the National Education Association or the American Federation of

14

School Administrations Teachers toward those colleagues who had been dismissed on a charge of biased teaching? To my regret I could not get detailed information about this, but I believe that the following words which I heard express a characteristic of American democracy: "They were fired by a board of education which was selected through democratic procedure. In other words, they were rejected by the community. We teachers should fight indomitably against pressures exerted by political parties, but we must obey the will of the community." Such an expression may sound formal or even sophistic. Nevertheless, I thought it to be a fairly representative way of thinking in America.21

From these initial uncertainties a more precise understanding of the interrelationship of the various parts of American school government soon began to emerge. The Japanese teachers began to be aware of the chain of decisions which are handed down from the legal source of power, the state, to the people at the local level, the supporters and beneficiaries of the system. They began to offer formulations about the interdependence among the lay boards, the administration, and the teachers. Although the highest authority lies with the state, concrete and practical affairs in education are delegated from the state to the local school districts, and from the local school district to the principal, and from the principal to the teachers, thus enabling creativity to be displayed at each of these levels. . . . The external matters in education such as administration and management are in the hands of the board of education and the principal, thus distinguishing the authority and responsibility for the internal and the external matters. . . ,22 By the system utilized to select the members of the board of education the residents do indirectly control the educational administration of the school district. In one township a Committee on School Personnel was organized in 1962-1964. It consisted of a representative of all the principals and representatives of the general public. It made recommendations concerning salaries, personnel affairs, curriculum, and so forth. However, judging from the state constitution, it is clear that there is a certain necessary control by the state authorities, and the degree of control is stronger than the control held by the federal government over the state.23 The teachers' opinions of local controls were not uncritical. Low standards and uneveness in classroom instruction and the

School

Administrations

15

abuse of power by selfish pressure groups promptly were named as the Achilles' heel of the local control. I was impressed by the fact that the desires of the residents of the community are reflected in the schools, supported by the independent local boards of education. I am wondering, however, whether this system is efficient enough to dissolve the increasing gap in the degree of educational achievement between different school districts, and also whether it is possible to avoid the danger of too much pressure from the community.24 The teachers quickly seized upon the main theme and underlying rationale of local government in America—suspicion of, and resistance to, authority; and self-reliance as the basis of self-government. The United States is a country which has developed self-government at local levels through its historical traditions. Consequently, Americans do not like to have their ideal image of man formulated by governmental authorities.25 The thinking of the people of the community is different from that of Japan, Americans being very strong in their power to resist direction from above. It appears that the pressure they exert on their local officials is very strong, especially concerning the behavior of teachers. On the other hand, it seems to me that the pressure exexerted by the administrative side is not so strong.26 The Japanese teachers had much to say on the subject of the many details of local control. One issue deserves special mention, because it is particularly interesting. The visitors showed little interest in local financing; their concern was mainly with the power structure, even though local financing is the key to the total power structure. Much of the school politics at the local level in the United States consists of conflicts over revenue. Campaigns for bond issues are carefully prepared and, as often as not, bitterly fought. Bond issue defeats produce bitter memories. Confronted with bulging school enrollments, the agents of school management creak and groan under the burden of an inadequate supply of funds. All this was less than adequately reflected in observations by the Japanese teachers. Some remarks which they made concerning

16

School Administrations

American school finances were deliberately excluded from this text because they seemed to be purely descriptive. Only occasionally were analytical references made to local budget difficulties. In one case several small school districts were to be consolidated, and agreement to this was only grudgingly given by the local authorities. They yielded out of fear that "state grants would be withdrawn and the ensuing taxes that would result from this would not be tolerated by the district residents.27 Worries over bond issues were reported in other cases." On the whole, however, the picture of finances reconstructed from the teachers' reports was somewhat too benign. Comments reproduced below reflect no more than disinterest or, at best, an automatic acquiescence on the part of the public to pay educational taxes. The sputnik shock did a very good thing in that it made the administrative people recognize the necessity of increasing the educational budget. American educators say that education is really the key to success in life, that teachers do not need to sell education, and that people cooperate if the education offered is of high quality. It is a rule in this town for the bill of the educational budget to be prepared by the teachers of each department, then by the principal, and finally by the board of education; its fate is then decided by popular vote. Another teacher of a junior high school told me that bills of the educational budget have never been denied in this school district up till now. There is no need to say that several plans for educational revolution have been included in these bills.28 When comments were made at all about popular support of school expenditures, they hardly ever stressed the infighting and tensions accompanying the determination of public monies. The picture presented by the visitors seems far too serene. In one system the educational budget is put to popular vote. I was told that in a recent popular vote the budget was approved by only 8 percent of the people, to my surprise. I heard that the reason for an abstention rate of 92 percent was due to the trust of the residents in the educational administrators, and that, although a budget bill has sometimes been rejected in other school districts, here in this district this has never happened before. The budget for the nextfiscalyear is going to be increased greatly because of the building of new schoolhouses, and yet it has been supported by all the

School

Administrations

17

residents here. We can imagine the enthusiasm of the people and the administrative ability of the superintendent.29 There is little reason to wonder about this relative lack of attention to finances. Japanese teachers are sensitive in their own country as to who governs them and how, but they are conditioned to receive government funds automatically for all their needs. Government funding, though it could be more generous, is not used by the government as a weapon to enforce its policies in the way feared by American local school administrators. The role of the Japanese government in school finances is confined to making judgments about priorities to specific aspects of education. Hence, the issue of control seldom arises. The Japanese teachers were quite favorably impressed by the mechanics by which school decisions were made at the local level. Boards of education appeared to the Japanese to constitute a good instrument for setting the course of school government. But the visitors were not totally uncritical in their judgments. The power over education is delegated to the board of education of the school district by the state law. It is far stronger than the power held by the boards of education in Japan and is more independent, sometimes allowing the local board of education to levy educational taxes from the residents. Usually the members of the board of education are selected by popular vote and are unpaid for their services. Based on the principles of self-rule, formulated before this country became independent of England, the policy in the United States is that the members of the board of education be laymen. Sometimes members are selected because of their policy of cutting the educational budget and thereby reducing educational taxes.30 The teachers were favorably impressed with the consultations and debates accompanying the making of school decisions. At the meeting of the board of education at 7:00 P.M., the hearers attending were allowed freely to raise questions and express their opinions. Earnest representations were also made. Each school district has its own school committee consisting of three members selected by popular vote and appointed for three years' term of service. These members present their opinions to the board of education and the principals on behalf of the residents of their districts. . . . It seems to be very democratic to organize the school committee by popular vote of the residents and to open its meetings

18

School

Administrations

to the public, instead of allowing the intervention of the local political bosses.31 The teachers also commented favorably on the professional services available to the boards of education. In the office of the Board of Education in Japan we do not have many professional people in the field of education. In contrast to this, the boards of education in America usually have a rich staff of professional people, not only in school education, but in the education outside of the school.32 The merits and demerits of local administration were summarized quite maturely in one of the later reports. We felt the merits of educational administration by local self-government to be as follows: 1. The residents of the locality have a strong sense of their own school and believe that they educate their children by their own efforts; this results in their having a positive attitude toward education. 2. As it is possible to manage schools independently within a relatively small district, the areas of authority of the board of education and of the schools are clearly defined and school administration is carried out efficiently. 3. It is possible to make drastic changes in the curriculum and teaching methods, as well as in the educational system itself. . . . On the other hand, this deeply rooted policy of local self-government in education has great weak points, too. The most serious one is the differences in quality found among the schools, these differences being a result of unequal financial support. . . . It may be possible to say that American education is moving gradually toward centralization. This tendency does not mean conrol of local education by the central government, but represents an effort to dissolve differences among districts in the quality of education offered. There are a number of intelligent people who assert that the federal government should move more positively in these directions. It may be said that educational administration in Japan shows the reverse of the strong and weak points of administration in America. We think that we in Japan should move toward the direction of the positive development of the merits of the decentralized system and the local self-government as found in America.33 Exposure over a period of time has brought a clearer apprécia-

School

Administrations

19

tion that it is not the work of the whole but the work of the parts that matters most in running American schools. We reserve for later chapters the observations of the Japanese teachers on the significance of parents and the community, of teachers and their relationships with pupils, and of the influence of teachers on the curriculum. Here, by way of more specific elaboration, we offer the appraisal that has been made of the importance and significance of the details of the American administration in the schools. The Japanese teachers had an ambivalent attitude toward American administrators. As teachers, they tended to suspect and resent the power of the administrators over the schools and especially over the teachers. One-third of them, however, had already been promoted to positions of teacher-consultants (who in Japan work in the prefectural offices) and the remainder were clearly slated for promotion to positions of teacher-consultants or school principals, some immediately after return to Japan. They had, therefore, an interest in, and a latent sympathy for, the task of school administrators and with the administrative point of view. These highly select teachers, most being specialists in specific fields, were also very concerned with all aspects of education, including the administrative dimension, because of their enthusiasm for educational reform in their own country. This caused them to consider school problems from a broader perspective than they would have as rank-and-file teachers. It was their tendency to identify with the administrators that allowed them to win out over their original hostiliy. The Japanese teachers found American administrators open and friendly, willing frankly to discuss their problems, and jovial and uninhibited. This contrasted with the real and stereotyped behavior of the administrators to which the Japanese teachers had been accustomed. In America, the superintendent is a professional man in the board of education. In Japan, we need to establish the system of employing professionals as superintendents. In America, these superintendent-specialists listen to the opinions of the people of the community and they coordinate the opinions of these laymen from the standpoint of the professionals in order to implement these opinions of educational policies. In spite of the apparent variety of the opinions and practices, there seems to be a certain common guideline

20

School

Administrations

which runs through these varieties. In this sense professionals in education are playing a very important role.34 The following exchange between an interviewer and one of the Japanese teachers will also be of interest: INTERVIEWER: What was your impression of the efficiency of American administration in education? TEACHER: I was impressed with the wide knowledge of professional education which the superintendent in my homestay community had. In Japan, the supervisors usually supervise personnel only. INTERVIEWER: Do I understand correctly that your impression of American administration is that it is better than administration in Japanese education? TEACHER: American administration has both good and bad aspects. In my American homestay community the supervisors were always available for any teachers or principals to consult. In Japan, though, there is not so much continuity because sometimes there are different supervisors for different kinds of education. INTERVIEWER: If we were to exchange administrators, who would be the most important persons to invite—superintendents or teachersupervisors? TEACHER: In my prefecture, for the present moment, most of the superintendents are former principals and they are more on the old side though there are some young teachers who are junior high and senior high principals. In general, though, they are also old. The young people, such as those who are now assistant principals and who will one day be principals and supervisors, should be exchanged. INTERVIEWER: If you could establish in the United States a ministry of education with powers such as those of the Japanese Ministry of Education, what would you have it do? TEACHER: The first thing would be to lessen the differences in quality between local areas and, secondly, to solve the race problem. INTERVIEWER: Should administrators teach part-time? TEACHER: In modern schools the administration and teaching should be separate, although that has a disadvantage too because the administrator will not come in direct contact with the students. But if administrators teach, then they have to study teaching materials and plan for their classes, which would take too much time. I would suggest that the principal should give the noon time for students to come into his office to talk with him, or he could give assemblies and then hear what the students have to say.35

School Administrations

21

The Japanese teachers seemed to be well aware of the awesome burdens American administrators must bear: Judging from recent conditions in America, I believe that the possibility of a fairly free use of the powers of the administrator may lie in those middle-sized or small cities and towns which have few racial problems. . . . Larger cities also may be attractive to the administrators because of the good salaries offered, but I was told that some of the adminisrators tend to leave the educational circles for other occupations when they encounter too many difficult problems. In this point I feel that I like the situation in Japan better, as the administrators there are selected from among the people who have been throwing their heart and soul into education and who are going to devote their whole lives to education.36 In addition to their interest in administration, the Japanese visitors were fascinated with the degree of participation in decisionmaking permitted the American teachers. They were quick to note that there was no set of rules regulating teacher-administrator relationships. But they were equally quick to spot that districts were not equal in amount of consultation of teachers. On the whole, they condemned such variations. One has a feeling that they would have preferred a national system of limited, uniform decision-making instead of variations which were bewildering and difficult to understand as a system. Teachers of Japan are, as a rule, militant but, without outside political push, they are not likely to dislodge quickly the present slightly aging administrative system by which the schools are run. Amiability, paternalism, effectiveness of school officials—such judgments were complimentary to American ears and were typical of Japanese comments on American school government. Relationships among the boards, superintendents, principals, and teachers all appeared to be smooth. Not until they reached the level of teacher organizations did they sense the rumblings of contention. The Japanese teachers basically were seekers of harmony. Here are a few samples of their reports on the various agents of local government. Supervisors' activities are very important for smooth-running relationships between the classroom teachers and the local boards of education. The influence of the boards on the classroom teachers is stronger in the United States than in Japan.

22

School

Administrations

I should like to refer to the work of the superintendents of the school. What impressed me was their accurate insights into education. It seems to me that the influence of the superintendents upon the basic principles of education, as well as the content of education, is greater in America than in Japan.37 I attended a meeting of the superintendent and teachers. . . . The superintendent discussed his ideas fully with the teachers and had his ideas understood by them. . . . In the development of the curriculum his ideas seemed to be put into practice to a fairly large extent, but never by compulsion. . . . On the other hand, even in such a small prefecture as mine, such a scene would hardly ever be enacted.88 The Japanese teachers were very impressed by the respect accorded by the administrators to "the voices of the classroom teachers"39 and to the weekly conferences of the superintendent with the school principals, which they observed in some school systems.40 They seemed to assume, unconsciously perhaps, that it is a good thing that subordinates should be exposed to the views of their superiors. There was less unanimity about the power of teachers to participate in decision-making. Perhaps this disagreement reflected actual local variations. In any case, Japanese teachers' comments ranged from reports of strength to reports of weakness: In one community the opinion of the teachers' conference is low. It may be said that there is no need of it. For example, in regard to the athletic meeting of the following year and to other school events, the local board of education and the principal made the decisions and there was no room for teacher-participation in their planning. The curriculum is also prepared by the board of education and decisions for its implementation are made by the principal. No particular teachers' conference is held for that purpose, although I was told that a teachers' conference is held once or twice a year.41 By contrast: In one city there is an organization, consisting of classroom teachers, principals, and the superintendent, in which everything in connection with education in the city is discussed. The superintendent explained to me that he is unable to spend even one penny without the decision of this organization. . . . In response to my question as to whether the strong voices from the teachers' representatives might not sometimes be a barrier to his work, he answered that, on the whole, everything was going very well.42

School Administrations

23

To avoid "arbitrary decisions and execution"43 by the superintendent, advisory committees and direct meetings of teachers with the school boards were recommended by the Japanese visitors as safety devices. The following is the more detailed and perhaps more representative comment on the teachers' conference. I would think that there is a problem in our way of looking at the system of the school management as well as the teachers' conference. When we talk about the participation of teachers in the school management in Japan, we tend to look for absolute control by the staff of the teachers union, assuming that this is a democratic procedure. If we look at the American school management, what we observe is mixed control. In American schools, the principal, the vice-principals, or the department directors exercise supervision which is complementary to the control which is exercised by the teachers. I feel that we should consider which is really the more normal of these two different patterns.44 In general, the Japanese were impressed by the plurality of relationships among different groups in education, and, in particular, by the lack of formal ritualistic rigidities in such relationships, a situation to which they were not accustomed in Japan. The teachers exhibited a particular interest in the prerogatives and duties of the school principal, a position which most of them were destined to hold. In the end they came to admire the government "by ear." The following description of a senior high school gives a good example of this interest: Management of the school staff by the principal means the guidance and supervision of individual teachers in their own responsible works rather than the attempt to have mutual balance and integration of the activities of different teachers. Consequently, the principal tends to think in terms of individual teachers rather than the staff as a whole. I was told that teachers are employed by one-year contract and the contract is renewed for the following year if their work is satisfactory; if their work is unsatisfactory, the contract is not renewed. The relationship between the principal and the individual teacher exists against this background. Consequently, the principal is empowered to give warnings or guidance and he does warn the teachers whose work is not considered satisfactory.4® Many other comments on the various aspects of the principal's work were made and are self-explanatory. It seems that he was

24

School Administrations

considered by the Japanese teachers to be a key person in the educational enterprise and was thought to enjoy a high degree of "trust of the teachers."46 The principal is recruited and interviewed by the superintendent of the local school district. Therefore, there is a certain guarantee that he will be a reliable person as principal. In this way the will of the residents is reflected without taking a channel of legal regulation. When a parent learns that his child has certain problems with his classroom teacher, the parent can speak to the principal directly, who, in turn, discusses the problem with the teacher concerned. In this manner I feel that the control of the community over the school is not maintained through legal procedures but through daily contacts.47 The American principal, in the opinion of the Japanese, is closely involved with the life of the school. He does not go, by order or otherwise, to national and provincial government meetings that keep him "away from the school."48 He acts as an agent of balance between the conflicting ambitions of the teachers and of the guidance counselors. "As the human relationship is such a subtle matter, he is more careful as principal than other people."49 In many systems he is forced to give merit ratings to teachers but he accomplishes this by discussions with them so that the teachers may "know the content" and be "convinced of the results" of his evaluation.50 He cuts a warm but nonetheless stern figure. His strength (somewhat idealized by the visitors, to be sure) was never questioned. I observed a staff meeting at a senior high school. The principal expressed his firm belief in a certain policy. (His vice-principal was sitting beside him.) The meeting was finished after only several questions from the teachers. My impression was that the competence and authority of the administrator is firmly established.51 The system of internship involved in the training of men and women for the position of school principal was regarded favorably by the Japanese teachers as being truly professional. They were not deterred from making this judgment by considerations of bureaucratization which the increasing differentiation of function within the schools seemed to imply. As seen in the schools of one large city, not only the principals and vice-principals but also the heads of the departments of subject

School Administrations

25

areas are appointed by the board of education and are given specific professional training. This phenomenon could signify a tendency toward a bureaucratic structure within the schools, but, so long as the teaching personnel are differentiated by their specializations, it is natural that efficient and effective management should utilize a sort of bureaucratic structure as the most rational mechanism of administration. In this sense, American high schools are more modern than their Japanese counterparts.52 The final comment on the role of the principal extols once again his devotion to efficient internal management of the schools. What deeply impressed us as one of the characteristics of the principals was their single-minded concentration upon the management of the internal affairs of their own schools. Whenever we saw how they devoted themselves to such affairs within the school as the management of the curriculum, guidance and suggestions for the teachers, the direct contribution to the guidance of the daily behavior of the students, we could not help deepening our impression that they were in striking contrast to the Japanese principals who are obliged to throw their energies into a number of external negotiations. . . . In Japan, some prefectural boards of education give an examination to qualify applicants for the principalship, but the majority of them appoint principals on the basis of the appointees' long service or the administrators' observations and judgment. As they are not necessarily trained for the profession of school management, they sometimes lack aptitude for their jobs. So long as our principals usually have taught for a longer period than their American counterparts, we might assume that we have a relatively larger number of capable principals. In fact, however, too many of our principals spend most of their energies in various aspects of personnel management and administrative business.53 CONCLUSIONS The Japanese teachers observed American schools for a period of three months; but their opinions took four years to mature. Those who came to the United States in the first year were able, by continued participation in the subsequent activities of the project in Japan, to deepen and firm up their knowledge of American schools. In the series of seminars and discussion workshops, these teachers had an opportunity also to influence the views of their new colleagues. Those teachers who had not as yet visited the United States prepared themselves for their visit with the help of

26

School Administrations

the alumni. This affected, in a cumulative manner, the course of the international exchanges sponsored by the project. As time went on, a two-way homogenization of views appeared, because each successive group of teachers seemed to be more sophisticated than the last. Each year the selection committee working for the project was convinced that it had identified the ablest teachers in the group. Yet in each successive year, the new group of teachers appeared to be more perceptive, armed with a better and more refined plan of study, more willing to analyze what they saw instead of just describing it, and more sensitive to the dynamic changes rather than to the static structure of American education. Nowhere was this increased sophistication of thought so well exhibited as in the attitudes of the teachers toward the decentralized school systems. As time went on the concepts of disunity, which the Japanese mind at first resisted most strenuously, became more familiar. Educational "chaos" ceased to look so chaotic. Acceptance of the concept was soon followed by perceptive attempts to define and to systematize their thinking on American education. Here are several opinions expressed by the Japanese teachers, opinions which, by becoming comparative in character, clarified the respective merits of centralization and decentralization. It seems to me that there are sharp differences of opinion between the United States and Japan toward education. People in the United States consider education as a matter of the right, whereas we in Japan take it as the duty of the people.54 In Japan, we tend to understand administration as a procedure coming down from above. We are conscious first of all of power, and try to think about the organization and function of the Ministry of Education and boards of education. In contrast to this, in America, the concept of "service" seems to be implied strongly in the interpretation of administration. Therefore, to understand administration in America we must take just an opposite direction, namely, to look from below to above; in other words, to pay attention to the process by which administration takes care of the problems of the classroom.55 In the United States the community controls the schools, whereas, in Japan, the schools are obliged to take the responsibility of lead-

School

Administrations

27

ing the society. . . . In the United States the decentralization of education is complete and each community controls its schools autonomously and the schools fulfill their functions within a limited framework in the society. On the other hand, the schools in Japan have continuously been charged since the age of Meiji with the role of enlightening and leading the society to achieve the national policy.56 The Japanese teachers became sensitive to the tempo of change with which school systems adjust to modern times. I felt that new developments in education were much less prevalent than I had anticipated. . . . American teachers appear to be very cautious. On the other hand, in Japan it seems that there are certain mistaken persons who assume that any quick change is good for education in the age of technological innovation. Such gradual changes as we see in America may be considered to be due to its decentralized system. . . .57 In Japan, new things are adopted immediately and disappear quickly. This trend may be rooted in the conservativeness of Japanese. It seems to me that change does not happen readily unless some compulsion comes from above.58 I cannot agree with the view that the tendency of quick change to new things in Japan is due to a kind of conservativeness inherent in the Japanese. Japan has adopted foreign cultures intelligently and, in the course of time, has digested them until they became things Japanese. This is our strong point but also our weak point in a certain sense.59 Here is evidence that through comparison can come precision. Out of the bewilderment and tensions of initial contacts and misunderstandings can come a higher degree of clarity. An understanding of the genius of Americans in operating a plural control system of schools cannot be better expressed than by this statement by a Japanese teacher: It seems to me that there is not much difference in the ability of individual teachers between the two countries. However, in creating a large-scale organization and operating it rationally, Americans appear to exhibit this ability especially well. What is the secret of their ability for working effectively through organization, inasmuch as we are told that Americans have a strong sense of competition and are individualistic in their way of life?60

28

School Administrations

A mature acceptance o£ one's own national tradition after it has been squared with the dynamic world of America is evident from this recognition of the essence of control in Japanese education: I am wondering whether stability in Japan is not identical with capacity for change, because I think the adaptability of the Japanese is itself a sign of stability when combined with flexibility.61

2 Development of the "Whole Man"— The Search for Moral Education in American Schools

I observed in my homestay community that the students had only two and one-half minutes to move from one class to another, and they were able to accomplish this in that time. In elementary schools during the lunch period everything was also done in perfect order. I also observed good attitudes in classrooms and study halls. As far as the group was concerned, everything was done in perfect order. I did not observe, however, any instance when a teacher or principal administered discipline to a group as such. In Japan we start first with group discipline, teaching each child how to behave as a member of a group. The philosophy is different in the United States. In Japan it is first the group, then the individual; in the United States it is the individual, then the group. Do I undersand correctly that if you discipline the individual, you do not need to discipline the group?1 How to produce a moral man in the schools was one of the most keenly felt interests of the Japanese teachers. The ability to turn out such a man without acting overtly was a source of wonder to the visitors. From their observations of classrooms, but also from their keen awareness of how proper behavior is taught in the family, in the church, and in the American community, the Japanese teachers attempted to piece together an image of an American and, beyond it, an image of Man as formed by a Western culture. DEFINING MORAL EDUCATION The Japanese teachers displayed great interest and concern in those problems related to what might be called the development 29

30

Development of the "Whole Man"

of the "whole man" and his "moral education." This interest was shown consistently throughout the four years' visit to the United States by the four different teams. In spite of the wide range and variety of interests and themes of study by individual teachers, all appeared inevitably drawn to these problems in the course of their observations and analyses. The terms "whole man" or "moral education" may not be familiar to the ears of American readers, but these words continually came up in interviews and in comments and analyses made by the Japanese. It would not be easy for the Japanese teachers themselves to define such terms although the phrases are used very frequently in educational circles in Japan. Because no specific attempt was made to give any clear, common definition (although discussion was directed again and again to what was meant by these terms and several other related ones), a brief discussion is attempted here to aid the reader in understanding what was implied by the visiting teachers. The term "whole man" seems to have become popular in Japan because of the analogy to the term "whole child." This came into common use, particularly after World War II, together with the introduction of the idea of "new education" from the United States. "Whole man" naturally meant a type of man who has been harmoniously developed into a well-rounded person in terms of physical, intellectual, emotional, volitional, spiritual, technical, and other aspects of personality and knowledge. Whatever the terminology may have been, the concept itself was not new to the Japanese people since it was used in the Western countries and, since Meiji reforms, also in Japan in parallel with the Oriental tradition. But the term apparently appealed to Japanese teachers because of their memories of a wartime education geared to overemphasizing moral and spiritual training for the purposes of nationalism and patriotism. The fact that relatively too little attention was given in those days to intellectual development, to the ability to conduct scientific studies, and to rational thinking conceived as a logical, analytical, critical, and creative process, was bitterly recalled and criticized. The emotional and aesthetic aspects which were unintentionally neglected were also called into attention again. Manual training, too, was in urgent demand in view of the need for industrial recovery. But the predominant factor behind the encouragement of the use of the concept "whole

Development of the "Whole Man"

31

man" seemed to be the spirit of humanism which was regarded as the most fundamental basis for all reforms in the postwar era in any sector, including education. Humanism led to an enthusiastic support of the idea that the welfare and happiness of human beings as individuals should take precedence over the wartime policy of almost unconditional allegiance to the nation. Teachers seemed to be morally compelled to foster humanism as a sort of repentance for the wartime emphases. The concept of the "whole man" education received a boost as the country recovered from the war and moved on to increasing technological development and economic growth. Following this development and growth, however, came grave concerns about the quality of people in Japan, especially of the younger generation—their way of thinking, feeling, and behaving. The symptoms of the dehumanization and alienation of Man attracted the attention not only of the sociologists and social critics but also of the general public. It was simply natural for teachers to be deeply concerned about moral education as being the most basic and crucial problem of all. Another element to be noted in this context is the fact that the Japanese people have tended to visualize certain goals in their education particularly since they started their modern educational system a century ago. It cannot be determined whether or not they actually reached these goals, but they were always keen on identifying them theoretically in specific terms. It is, of course, one thing to set up a certain goal and entirely another to implement it successfully. This was recognized by the Japanese teachers themselves in regard to their own achievements. Under these circumstances, teachers in Japan considered and attempted to implement the "formation of the whole man," the "development of the whole personality." When a word is used which corresponds more or less to the word "personality," it often has a connotation based upon a psychological analysis which should be, in the strict sense of the word, value-free. It is true that the formation of the whole man aims at the all-round development of all aspects of human personality; however, as long as education is a function of society or social living, it cannot be entirely free from the value system, real or ideal, of the society. Japanese people, with their centuries-long tradition of consider-

32

Development of the "Whole Man"

ing education with a special emphasis upon the moral aspects, do not seem to have changed radically in their way of thinking, even in this rapidly changing age. The result is that the consideration of the moral factors seemed to provide persistently the major basis for teachers' thinking. Frequently, though not always, education of the "whole man" was considered almost inseparable from, though not always identical with, the problem of "moral education." That is why this discussion presents these two problems simultaneously without attempting to make a clear-cut distinction. After a modern system of education was established in Japan a century ago, moral education became one of its three major elements, the other two being physical and intellectual education. Although it is not easy to give a complete definition of moral education, it should probably be interpreted in a very broad sense as the training of pupils to acquire a certain basic moral sentiment or sensitivity, a certain ability to make the appropriate moral decisions when needed, a certain basic attitude and habit of moral behavior. In theory as well as in practice, moral education in Japan became a predominant segment of the total instruction. It was predominant when it was used as a guiding principle for all other aspects of educational activities. It was given a special part in the school curriculum as a subject, shushin, "moral training," which was always placed at the top of the list of school subjects, almost since the earliest years of the modern school system. Confusion entered this aspect of education when a directive of the Allied Occupation Forces, issued immediately after the end of World War II, abolished this specific subject completely, the implication here being that morality should be taught in the new social studies and in all other aspects of the school life. Teachers in general did not much resist this new principle although many harbored doubts about its implementation. Then, after several years, a number of complaints and grievances appeared concerning the moral degeneracy to be found among some members of the younger generation. One of the significant reasons for this new behavior was said to be the abolition of shushin. These critical people numbered among them some ministers of education at the time. The teachers as well as the general public were divided into two groups—those supporting the restoration of this specific subject or those opposing it. This problem, one primarily of an

Development of the "Whole Man"

33

educational nature, was utilized by some people in the battlefield of political or ideological issues. Shushin was finally restored to the curriculum in 1958 in the form of a special "hour of morals" held outside the regular school subjects. Some people did not object to this even if they did not believe it absolutely necessary for the teaching of moral education. Some other people fiercely opposed it on the ground that this was a most alarming piece of evidence of a national policy of revival of the prewar imperialism, now cooperating with American imperialism. Bitter controversy still continues with no prospect of fundamental agreement in the near future. The present state of moral education in the society as well as in the schools is by no means a happy one, at least according to the judgment of the majority of the Japanese people including teachers of all groups. It goes without saying that school education alone cannot change the social climate. Yet it is quite understandable why the Japanese teachers who visited the United States were so interested in the particular problem of moral education. Their motives for this interest may be summarized in the following way: 1. They wanted to know if American schools were facing, or American teachers were conscious of, an issue of moral education. In spite of a number of differences between the two countries of a historical, social, and cultural nature, the teachers did note similarities in the school systems such as the amount of emphasis being given freedom and equality. 2. The teachers wanted the American definition of "moral education"; they wanted to know if a problem connected with moral education did exist in the United States and, if it did exist, what its major features and characteristics were. 3. They were particularly interested in what kinds of aims were emphasized in moral education; their interest stemmed from the fact that Japan was suffering from a sharp discrepancy between the idea of what a man should be and what he actually was. 4. They were no less interested, as practitioners, in the more technical problems of moral education, such as organization of the teaching staff and the pupils, planning of the learning activi-

34

Development

of the "Whole Man"

ties or the curriculum, the methods or procedures of teaching or guiding, and so on. 5. They were also interested in the interrelationships found among the school personnel, the family, and the society, because moral education was assumed to be more closely related to conditions outside the school than to the school itself. 6. As long as the teachers were to be the key personnel in education in Japan, they wanted to determine what sort of personality a teacher should have—what attitudes and behavior he should evince. They realized that moral education is, to a great degree, dependent upon model teachers. The Japanese teachers found it relatively easy to define the terms of moral education in Japan. A similar definition of moral education in America proved less easy to make. Many of them grew quite eloquent about the search and its pitfalls. By way of an illustration here is one dialogue reported by the visitors: How are you carrying out moral education in the school? Well, we teach geography in the first year, the history of the state in the second year, and American history in the third year. No, I do not mean that. I would like to know what kind of guidance are you giving, for example, in the association of boys and girls. Oh, yes, that is a problem for the family and we do not touch that in school. But as long as you are engaged in education I suppose you consider desirable images of man, do you not? Well, maybe. But each community may have different requirements which differ from school to school. Do you not have anything like common objectives in education? If you like, we might say that democracy is a common objective. Oh, is that so? Thank you very much.2

Exchanges such as this led into a blind alley, a result of which the Japanese teachers themselves quickly became aware. In this, as in everything else, one cannot but admire their tact and patience. A fairly large number of teachers in our group was concerned about the problem of moral education in America. We felt that the school exists not simply as an agency for transmitting knowledge but also as a place where the personality of the student is formed.

Development of the "Whole Man"

35

We raised questions to many persons on many occasions but we received almost no intelligible answers. With feelings of embarrassment and irritation we tried to approach this problem from various angles.3 Other teachers echoed similar sentiments and frustrations: Some of the problems which I saw concerning moral education in this country were: 1. It is said that education in public schools for the formation of a morally aware human being is carried out through all the subjects in the curriculum by all teachers; this might result in the situation, however, in which nothing is done anywhere. Some of the teachers who are concerned with this aspect of education may try to offer guidance by the use of appropriate situations, but the teachers who are little concerned may ignore it. 2. Judging from the contemporary situation in this country in which the authority of family is being gradually weakened, I believe that it may be necessary to strengthen somewhat the authority of the school. 3. The increase in the number of families with no religious beliefs may require some sort of substitution for religious training in the schools.4 Moral education was found to be "more or less negative"5 and such elements as were discovered diffused into the teaching of subject matter, classroom concern about orderliness, or training in manners. Children, when polled by the visitors, kept referring to honesty, respect, and kindness as the virtues they were being exhorted to adopt but their lack of greater specificity is a good corroboration of the Japanese charge that American schools lack a coherent plan to teach youngsters anything but proper personal behavior. First reactions against the weakness of moral training were characterized by attempts to understand the reasons put forward by Americans to justify not having a moral "plan" in the schools. But on the whole such justifications were found to be unconvincing. Americans are trying to develop individuals who can act independently; they dislike the idea of having a certain goal or principle which allows only one specific way of behaving. Therefore, even though we search assiduously for an American "ideal" image of man, we will not find it. . . . It is my impression that Americans

36

Development of the "Whole Man" lack a specific image of a desirable society. Their present image seems to be a vague one—that of a capitalistic society rather than a socialistic one, and of a society which strives to prevent war. We shall not be able to obtain any definite answers. In the final analysis, I think that their ideal image of man is of a man who has the ability to adapt to his surroundings, whatever they may be.6 We had a chance to hear many lectures and, among them, one seemed to apply to this question very precisely. The lecturer praised highly the fact that American education permits all children through public education to develop independent lives. At the same time, however, she posed the question as to whether this education has, indeed, been successful in developing independent persons in the true sense. She referred to modern American literature and personalities depicted in it in order to urge the necessity for discernment in American education. It seems to me that the vastness of the United States still allows the coexistence of diverse peoples and ideologies. This diversity was most impressive to me throughout my short stay. On the other hand, however, uniformity, the big characteristic of modern life (not only in the United States), is also present and this, too, has been pointed out by many. This tendency should be seriously considered by educators. It does seem extremely difficult, however, to build up a breakwater against too much uniformity when one has only the traditional decentralized system through which to work.7

The Japanese visitors had to resist their instinctive admiration for the noncompulsive, individualistic, unplanned program to educate human beings, which they found in the American schools. It would be nice, they felt, if the system were workable, but the many pressures found in a complex technological society seemed to militate against such workability. In the eyes of the Japanese, the Germans, the Russians, or the Chinese, a complex scientific age requires a definite educational philosophy, a philosophy which includes the planned teaching of values. The Japanese have definite ideas on what such philosophical training should entail. It is the Age of Science now with its remarkable developments. In America, which leads the world, efforts are being made to promote science and technology throughout the country. We can find evidence of tremendous development everywhere; this may be due to the national character of Americans and to their diligence as well as to their rich resources and finances.

Development of the "Whole Man"

37

The essential thing in such an age is the matter of training the mind and heart of human beings. It should be the real feature of education in the age of technology to train the younger generations to watch the affairs of the world in a broad perspective and to think about such affairs carefully. However, inherent in the emphasis given the development of science and technology in a dynamic country is the risk of losing this broad perspective. It is particularly doubtful whether younger generations really look at themselves and think for themselves. This is a grave problem in the field of education and also a crucial point which needs to be solved through the power of education, not only in America but everywhere in the world. We Japanese should not forget our Oriental tradition of looking at things contemplatively.8 Very specifically then, in surveying the role played by American institutions toward moral education, the Japanese visitors were alarmed by the lack of recognition of the ongoing technological revolution and its special difficulties. In public statements Americans are as science minded (perhaps more science minded) as the people of any nation. But in their private lives and in the schools, they simply take technology for granted. This astonished the Japanese who tend to view the changes in their lives (advances and decays alike) as a direct result of the age of the machine. Americans, when interviewed in their homes, affected indifference to these changes. Beyond "the arguments about the amount of time spent watching television,"9 life in American homes was found to be a routine round of daily work relatively untouched by modernity. Moral education, insofar as it could be identified at all, tended to contain traditional concerns. The challenge of modernity, considered by Japanese to be the main element necessitating a revolution in Japanese moral education, seemed to pass unperceived by Americans. These are the general observations on moral education in the United States as recorded by the Japanese teachers. Only at first were these observations couched in the negative. Having observed that there are no specific provisions for character training, the Japanese teachers persisted long enough to start emphasizing the positive provisions by which the American school socializes its children. Aspects of character training, such as training for citizenship, the development of autonomous personalities, or teaching a cooperative spirit in family and community, soon began to

38

Development of the "Whole Man'

appear in Japanese statements. Here are a few statements illustrating this growing awareness. It is difficult to pin down a concrete image of a "good citizen" or a unified image of an "ideal man." We found that the teachers and parents held an extremely great variety of images. The United States was built primarily by people from various areas of Europe who gathered to seek freedom and equality; hence, a spirit of cooperation and accommodation not seen in other countries was held to be necessary. . . . It is clear that Americans feel that those qualities must be even more emphasized, now and in the future. Further, toward forming a society in which all can lead a free and equal life, they regard as highly important the development of independence and a sense of responsibility in each individual. Underlying such independence, responsibility, and cooperation exists a strict adherence to respect of individual human rights—the fundamental principle of modern society. On this point the educational stance of the teachers and the educational expectations of the parents coincide.10 All the principals and the teachers whom I interviewed were intending to achieve the moral development of their pupils. It seemed to be commonly agreed that such moral values as brotherhood, honesty, and responsibility were going to be taught whenever opportunity and situation allowed. The teachers in all subject areas, but particularly in social studies, were concerned with this aspect of education.11 It was recognized that, in the development of good American citizens, "the frontier spirit typifies the center of the image of man."12 Good citizenship and "not bothering other people" 13 were frequently quoted by American respondents as being central to their education. These and similar moral elements were found to be woven throughout American schooling. The Japanese teachers came to appreciate the fact that the absence of guidelines for moral education simply meant, in many cases, that moral education is taught according to individual notions of individual educational personnel. As to the educational objectives or the expected images of man, there was no definite guiding statement utilized either by the state or the local boards of education which I visited. However, the initiative in deciding the guidelines for such matters as moral education and curriculum seems to lie in the hands of the local boards of education and the schools themselves. Although no written policy

Development

of the "Whole Man"

39

as such exists, principals do have their own ideas on how to shape character and each teacher also has his own ideas, and sometimes they differ from one another.14 The visitors also began to discern more exactly the several elements which allow American institutions to be less precise about character training than other countries. They emphasized again and again the pragmatic way in which Americans prefer to solve their problems. American teachers are not so concerned with listing many items as educational objectives. Their teaching is practical, not theoretical. The thoughts and methods of education are always put into actual practice. Even if the teachers do have certain principles for the proper living of one's life, these principles are nothing but very broad, general guidelines.15 Japanese teachers even rationalized to themselves why no specific set of directives regarding the education of the "ideal man" existed. Americans were found to possess "enthusiasm for concrete and practical things" and for solving problems from "concrete to the abstract." 16 Part of the Japanese outlook on life is introspective and abstract but as a people they also have remarkable outgoing, and practical qualities. These latter helped them to appreciate the natural, easy way with which Americans take on the practical problems of life. We just assumed the following reasons for the nonexistence of a written statement of the educational objectives similar to "The Coals of Education in Prefectures," or "The Educational Objectives of Our School" in Japan. 1. Some thought that the reason why local boards of education do not prepare this kind of directive might be due to their tradition that the main job of educational administration is the preparation of good educational conditions rather than the formulation of the educational aims. 2. It may be due to the lack of a setup through which the total school could be committed to achieve certain specific aims. For example, some teachers of our group pointed out that the desire for a joint study of special problems in the school seems to be weaker than in Japan and also that a teachers' conference is not frequently held and, even when it is held, it is concerned mainly with business affairs. 3. Some teachers in our group said that Americans seem to have certain unwritten educational objectives which are regarded just

40

Development of the "Whole Man" as a matter of course; Americans are not too conscious of them and do not feel the necessity of explicit statements. It was also said that the teachers are not trying to teach correct moral behavior consciously, but are attempting to exercise an unconscious influence through their own character and behavior.17

The Japanese teachers generally began their search for a general theory of moral education in the United States by seeking a theoretical structure. They ended their search when they sensed the presence of pragmaticism. This not only permitted them to abandon the search for theory but also equipped them to examine in detail the methods by which the Americans do socialize their young. The Japanese observers had to be "reprogramed" from a rationalistic to a pragmatic frame of mind. MORAL EDUCATION WITHIN AMERICAN SCHOOLS Japanese teachers are classroom professionals, both by definition and by dedication. Their main interest is in the schools. When traveling and visiting outside the schools they reacted to what they observed with polite interest ranging to moderate excitement. When inside the schools they felt completely in their own element. Their reactions were of great enthusiasm and constant alertness. It is small wonder that their major search for moral education was geared to the content of school life. Details of curricular provisions, discipline in and out of the classroom, and, above all, attitudes of administrators and teachers to moral education—were the dominant concerns of the Japanese teachers. They paid great attention to the conduct of pupils. They were interested in guidance and the homeroom system. They compared rules inside and outside of school. The result was a vivid, if somewhat oversimplified, picture of the moral impact of American school life. The first contacts were not too flattering. Among the student handbooks of intermediate schools in one district, there was only one which clearly set forth the school's educational plans and objectives. . . . Teachers often speak about "the individual who functions effectively in society" or about "the building of good citizens. . . ." If one aims for a type of education which molds the whole human being and which seeks a congruence of academic study with enrichment of the personality, one must attempt to turn these educational objectives into a form of structure and fur-

Development of the "Whole Man"

41

ther establish subobjectives which present larger objectives in more detail. Among the schools which we visited, none had progressed to such a stage.18 In spite of this theoretical vacuum, the Japanese visitors could perceive the existence of a "system" of moral education. Though educational objectives discussed among the teachers were termed "castles in the air" because of a difference between professed aims and actual practice, forms of substantive behavior in the schools were found to adhere quite strictly to a set of rules, unwritten, not clearly formulated, and rather dry, but rules nevertheless. After observing several schools I had strong impressions as follows: 1. In America, the area of responsibility for the education of children is clearly differentiated between the home and the school. . . . One principal told me that it was more important for the teacher to give careful guidance to pupils within the school than to feel responsibility for them outside of the school. 2. Attitudes toward law and order are very strict. I noticed that the attitude of independence was well established, individual persons were respected, and there was a propensity to observe laws and regulations strictly, all of these aspects being very well harmonized. I felt that the essence of democracy, which had been developed after a number of trials throughout many years, still existed today. 3. People were faithfully fulfilling the work which had been assigned, and the scope of responsibility was well defined and recognized, as was the custom of receiving rewards corresponding to the quality of labor performed. 4. Wherever there were pupils, there were also teachers—in homerooms and classrooms, on the playground at recess time, in the dining area at lunch time, and wherever extracurricular activities were held. On the other hand, there were very few individual contacts with the pupils except by counselors and club consultants. In general I felt the relationships between teachers and pupils to be fairly arid.19 TRAINING THE INDIVIDUAL

With increasing acquaintance the teachers developed a more positive appreciation of what they saw, particularly those features in teaching values which seemed capable of transplantation. They quickly discovered the major purpose of moral education in the United States—the individualization of persons. This process was perceived as being carried out jointly by the school and the com-

42

Development

of the "Whole Man"

munity, with the school contenting itself with the rather modest role of developing the more positive values which individuals bring to it and of restraining the negative ones. The role of American schools was seen as producing a positive attitude to pupils and their problems. The Japanese teachers were favorably impressed "by several scenes of principals or teachers shaking hands with slow learners or tapping them on their shoulders to encourage them." They saw that "teachers are enthusiastic about cultivating the personalities of the children."20 They proceeded with enthusiasm to ferret out instances of individualism and to try to evaluate the impact of individualism upon the culture. Descriptions of school life, quoted by the Japanese visitors, pointed out how individualistic training in moral education was being provided. The major points of etiquette taught in school are to refrain from bothering or embarrassing people and to adapt language and behavior to suit the time and place. There are many school regulations. Pupils are told what they may or may not do in specific situations. It was written in the students' handbook that a male student and a female student may hold hands on the school grounds, but that they should not put their arms around one another's shoulders or waists. Americans place great respect on the individual's way of thinking and his inner values. They do not, however, teach moral values as a subject per se as do the Japanese. Because of the historical differences between the two countries regarding the development of the public educational system, Americans probably do not touch on morals to the degree that Japanese do. Despite the many rules and regulations, school dropouts increase and a vicious circle is started because facilities then become necessary to bring the dropouts back into the system or because special programs must be devised for them. On the other hand, we should not overlook the point that the lack of formalized "moral education" leaves the system free to adapt to rapidly changing social mores.21 The individualized moral training provided by American schools was perceived to imply the inculcation of self-discipline and a sense of duty. To illustrate the presence of moral education through all subject areas, I will refer to my observations that a sixth-grade girl cleared away my table in a cafeteria, saying that it was her duty; that several maxims were hung up in a classroom of the sixth grade; that a handbook entided Key to Success was carried by each child.22

Development of the "Whole Man"

43

A concern with raising autonomous persons was found by the Japanese teachers to be running through all aspects of moral education within the schools. They looked for it, appraised its effectiveness, and observed it with approval. It is interesting to discover, as did the Japanese teachers, that to Americans the extremes of individual self-determination may be not a privilege but a burden. When I attended a panel discussion with teenagers, I asked them what their greatest difficulty was. They answered that they felt their greatest difficulty lay in making decisions. I thought this to be a quite natural answer of youngsters who were going to become independent persons in society.23 Thus did the balance of assets and liabilities inherent in individualized moral training come into view. Studying this balance was of particular importance to the Japanese because they were in search of new, individualistic approaches for their own schools. Modernization in Japan was bound to run into a collision with the traditional collective and cooperative ways of living for which Japan is so well noted. Whereas the policy makers in countries such as the Soviet Union valiantly strive in education to create collective behavior, in Japan such behavior is time-engrained and voluntarily accepted. The greatest efforts go into the frontier of individualization. The Japanese face the double problem of raising individuals away from those traditional, but oppressive and obsolete, group patterns and of keeping the same individuals from passing into the corporate forms of an industrial society which are no less collective and can be just as oppressive. Japanese teachers very much admired the easy, natural way with which American schools go about creating independent individuals, persons who can collaborate with, but not submit to, authority and who also make a major effort to live in such a way as not to interfere unduly with the lives of others. TRAINING THE GROUP

The interest of the visitors in individual dimensions of moral education overshadowed somewhat the amount of attention they paid to the techniques of group education. Coming from Japan, the Japanese teachers were bound to find American group-training

44

Development of the "Whole Man"

less efficient than their own. Yet those teachers who did mention American group-training were impressed by its cohesion and strictness. The goal is to produce social development in the child not through intellectual understanding alone but through actual experience. Americans are particularly strict in the formation of correct behavior in the group. As soon as children enter school they are trained to function as members of a group. When they walk through the hallways to go to their classrooms, when they go to the playing field for physical education, and when they go to the classrooms after recess, they move in a line. If anybody moves out of line, he is strictly reprimanded. In the flow of activities during the school day, the children are consistently handled in an organized manner; there are few instances when they move in an individual or random manner. Yet I saw no indications that the children feel heavily restricted. When the class is divided into three groups, two groups study their lessons in a quiet manner while the other group is being instructed. This probably occurs because the children have been trained not to be bothersome to other people. . . . Such attractive habits are strongly dependent on training in the home, but it should not be overlooked that the teachers also spend much time and effort to inculcate those habits.24 On the whole, however, the Japanese teachers felt that Americans train their children less adequately to act in a group than they do to act as individuals. In some schools I found school regulations which emphasize the use of specific hours for group guidance. I feel that there is a problem in the fact that this needs to be emphasized anew each day. In teachers' meetings I noticed that principals were emphasizing to the teachers the necessity of giving help to the whole group of pupils, as well as to individual pupils, and not of confining their work to the instruction of subjects only. I presume that such facts reflect that these things are not carried out sufficiently well.25 Although instances of group work were singled out and praised, more group work conducted in a consistent and comprehensive manner was recommended. In this area the Japanese visitors had to come to grips with some difficult notions. The Japanese are so strongly conditioned by their old and stable culture that they appear to Westerners to be fundamentally alike. Yet, not content with these similarities, they consciously train their children to operate within a group. Americans are so diverse in their origins,

Development of the "Whole Man"

45

both regional and cultural, that it is remarkable that the country does not fall apart altogether. Yet in schools they attempt to diversify more than to homogenize. This puzzled the Japanese and, haltingly and with diffidence, they recommended more group education. GUIDANCE AND T H E H O M E R O O M IN A M E R I C A N SCHOOLS

The special services—guidance and the homeroom—provided by American schools to promote moral training were closely scrutinized by the Japanese teachers. They were favorably impressed by aspects of the guidance programs but were fiercely critical of the homerooms. The position of guidance in American schools would require a separate study. Guidance is acknowledged by Americans and Japanese alike to be an important tool of moral education. Guidance personnel have worked in the schools for some time in the United States, but the profession has just been started in Japan. The great hopes that the Japanese brought with them to the United States for a successful study of guidance and its eventual transplantation were somewhat dimmed, though happily not totally extinguished, after observing how American guidance works. We reproduce two dialogues which describe the reactions of the Japanese to what they saw. The first dialogue is between the project interviewer and the first of the Japanese teachers professionally interested in guidance. INTERVIEWER: What is your impression of guidance education in Japanese schools? TEACHER: I think it is important in guidance to draw on the good or bad qualities of each student. Guidance counseling is very nicely carried out because every student is individually advised by the counselor. INTERVIEWER: But in Japan there is no guidance counselor, is there? TEACHER: We do have guidance counselors after a fashion in Japan and Okinawa. In Japan, these guidance counselors cannot give themselves entirely to the students because they must also teach subjects. INTERVIEWER: D O you feel that the American guidance system is better than the Japanese, and that Japan should adopt the American system?

46

Development

of the "Whole

Man"

TEACHER: I think that the American system is certainly better, but I have found several problems in the American guidance system, too. For example, the homeroom teacher should accumulate all the records of the students in different subject areas and yet he should help the guidance counselor. There must be cooperation between the homeroom teacher and the guidance counselor. INTERVIEWER: Neither teachers nor guidance counselors visit students' homes in America. Do you think this is good or bad? TEACHER: Home visits should be permitted because a student's life is composed of life in the home, life in the school, and life in the community. INTERVIEWER: In the United States, families are reluctant to have officials of the government come into their homes and, therefore, legal provisions would have to be made to permit teachers the right to visit homes. Should such legal force be used or home visits be made on a voluntary basis? TEACHER: I think that the education of a child can best be achieved when the family and the school cooperate closely. A child should be educated intellectually, virtuously, and physically. Discipline is better administered within the family, so cooperation between the school and the home will achieve better results. Home visits should be legalized. INTERVIEWER: What was the most interesting thing you saw in America, either in or out of school? TEACHER: In different subject areas and different aspects of life, I was most impressed with the fact that each student was individually taken care of, each was duly respected. INTERVIEWER: Would you like to see this system introduced in Japan? TEACHER: Y e s . INTERVIEWER: What was your most unfavorable impression of the United States? TEACHER: I was most unfavorably impressed with the large cities, where so many persons seem to be contaminated both morally and physically.26

The second interview expanded these comments further. INTERVIEWER: What was your impression of American guidance counselors? Are they well trained for their work or not? TEACHER: American guidance counselors are certainly trained well in the sense that they have masters' degrees; however, the programs they are conducting are oriented more toward vocational guidance counseling than toward alleviating personal or emotional problems. In Japan, if guidance counseling is introduced, perhaps the stress should be placed on personal and emotional problems

Development

of the "Whole Man"

47

rather than on vocational guidance. In other words, the emphasis should be on delinquent students with personal problems. There does seem to be a movement in America toward more personal and emotional counseling. We had an interview at the United States Office of Education during which it was stressed that emotional or personal guidance should be conducted at the elementary school level rather than at the junior high school or high school level. So there does seem to be some land of transition taking place now in the United States. If this transition does occur, counseling and guidance people will need to be retrained to handle personal and emotional problems. This is especially true in the big cities where there are so many problems with delinquents. In my homestay community, which was a rather rural, pleasant, residential area, vocational and educational guidance seems to be sufficient. In the ghettos of the big cities, guidance must be given for emotional and personal problems. INTERVIEWER: Did you have a chance to observe a counseling session? TEACHER: Once or twice I expressed my desire to observe such a conference, but I was not given an opportunity to do so; the relationship between counselor and student is confidential and private. I also asked to see case records but again this would involve confidential information and I could not see them. I learned that counselors often do not keep records but retain data in their memories. Once, however, when I was talking to a counselor, it happened that a student came, so I just listened to their conference. INTERVIEWER: Would you suggest that we keep in our guidance programs more comprehensive records of each student? TEACHER: If possible it is, of course, preferable to have such records, but I did admire the way the counselors handle so many students. I cannot see that they have time for keeping records; however, when handling emotional problems, the counselors might find records very helpful, especially when they get together to discuss students with each other. INTERVIEWER: Should we insist that our counselors also be teachers rather than full-time counselors so that they have a chance to learn about classroom work in practice? TEACHER: I do not think that this is such a good idea, but maybe the schools could employ two or three full-time counselors, with the teachers acting as part-counselor and part-teacher. Then, perhaps, teamwork would create a better atmosphere. I do wholeheartedly agree that, to be a counselor, one must have had teaching experience. INTERVIEWER: Is there anything you would like to ask? TEACHER: Actually the guidance and counseling system in Amer-

48

Development of the "Whole Man"

ica seems to be moving from the higher to the lower levels of education and, at the same time, from vocational guidance to a more personal guidance. In some of the places I visited, school counselors, especially at the elementary school level, are receiving federal aid to implement their ideas in guidance and counseling. Does this trend show that the federal government is now beginning to believe that guidance is more important on the elementary school level than on the high school level? INTERVIEWER: Well, partly yes, but actually at the beginnings of the Kennedy and Johnson administrations a great deal of money became available at the federal level for investment in education. The persons in the United States Office of Education who distributed that money thought of putting it in the places which were weak in American education. So it is not specifically the importance of guidance at the elementary level, but rather that there did not seem to be any effective programs at this level that prompted provision for them.27 The Japanese teachers had expected to find a perfected system of guidance within American schools; they found, instead, a system which was less than might be expected from the country which originated guidance. The visitors had to be contented with whatever strengths they found after their initial disappointments. The Japanese visitors emphasized that there was "no consistent system to guide the pupils' daily life" and that shaping the professional and vocational futures of the pupils seemed to be the main concerns of the staff. Group guidance, in particular, seemed to be directed toward these practical ends. "There was no special hour for teaching of discipline."28 Guidance was not as explicit and as visible as the Japanese visitors had expected it to be. In America, the homeroom teachers' work appears to be almost nominal, being confined to mere clerical work. They are concerned mostly with instruction in classrooms and generally do not touch the pupils' personal problems; such problems are entrusted to counselors. These counselors work very hard but are obliged to counsel too many pupils suffering from any one of a wide spectrum of problems. It seems to me, therefore, that it would be almost impossible for the counselors to dig into the unconscious depths of their pupils' minds. I might even say that the counselors' work is that of clerks rather than of educators. There is another problem in guidance. Guidance officers cannot help being limited by the value-system of the community as well as of the school. It is assumed that the students should grow up to

Development of the "Whole Man"

49

be good citizens who comply with these value-systems. This prevents some pupils from feeling free to be individual and independent personalities. Under these circumstances it would be impossible to have a true sense of sympathy between guidance officers and pupils. This might mean that counseling itself would cease to exist. Furthermore, I feel that the theory of personality and of personal character of human beings is lacking. As a result of that, counselors are liable to do something like supplementary work in education and to end in the mere management of pupils. Still a third problem is how to educate for excellence. It seems that very little has been done to explore those factors which develop excellence beyond the academic achievement level. We have the homeroom system in Japan and teachers there have been playing the role of guidance counselors for many years. If we are provided with counselors as specialists as in the American system, I would suspect that we might be able to achieve much better results than in America.29 On the other hand, it was noted that Americans provide guidance facilities to an extent unparalleled in any other country. This feature and others recommended themselves to the attention of the visitors. One teacher placed particular emphasis on the problem of successfully accomplishing guidance in a seemingly differentiated organization. I noticed that America and Japan diifer in their systems of guidance. Americans do not seem to differentiate clearly between guidance in the pupils' daily life, guidance toward a future career, and guidance in studies, as we do. Their system is completely different from ours. In Japan instruction is given in all subjects in the same classroom; the classes are not divided for different subjects. On the other hand, in America the pupils move on an individual basis and are divided into different kinds of groups; for example, large groups, medium groups, and small groups. I think that it would be impossible for the American system to work in Japan. Furthermore, the methods of teaching are also different. In Japan the "teacher-centered" method is predominant, whereas in America the teaching is "pupil-centered," the teachers helping pupils according to the pupils' ability. The instruction is more practical, without being overly intellectual or abstract.30 Another teacher commented upon the dynamic potentiality for moral and spiritual guidance that lies incipient under the surface of overall administrative concerns. In America it seems to me that the deans of the students are con-

50

Development of the "Whole Man" cerned about the maintenance of order in the schools and the discipline of students and also about the maintenance of certain valuesystems. The guidance counselors are concerned with vocational guidance and classroom teachers are concerned with the instruction of subjects. I feel, however, that Americans, with the passage of time, are trying to lay more emphasis upon the formation of character and the development of creativity in individual students.31

The Japanese teachers were very sensitive to the differentiation of functions between the guidance counselors and other school educators, a theme which also emerged strongly when they discussed the position of American teachers. In one school which I observed, there was a problem of coordination between the dean (who handles discipline and punishment) and the counselors. According to one counselor, when personal problems are brought to him for discussion the contents of such discussions are kept secret even if they involve actions subject to punishment. But if he himself discovers infringements of school regulations such as smoking he reports such cases to the dean for punishment. Further, with problem children he does not attempt to arrive at solutions by himself but seeks the help of the minister of the church to which the student belongs or the aid of the school psychologist or guidance counselor and patiently works toward assisting those students. He conducts intelligence tests and achievement tests in a scheduled manner, but leaves thematic apperception tests, Rorschach tests, and so on, to specialists. In schools, similar to those in Japan, where the teacher in charge of a class group (homeroom teacher) handles such duties, the relationship between the counselor and the homeroom teacher no doubt becomes a problem. When the division of responsibilities between the two is not made clear it probably becomes difficult fully to utilize a counselor. It is unwise to decide hastily whether the teacher should be responsible for the class and should look after all aspects of the student's activities or whether the work should be divided and noninstructional duties left to a counselor.32 Although the Japanese teachers were uncertain as to what guidance is and should be, these quotations reflect their interest in it and their desire to see it utilized well both in the United States and in Japan. On the whole they recognized the potential for individual development inherent in guidance. They blamed American and Japanese schools alike for failing to emphasize personal guidance. One Japanese teacher-counselor expressed this disapproval as follows:

Development

of the "Whole Man"

51

My own opinion is that neither the Japanese nor the American teacher can reach the core of each individual. I have been a counselor for the last ten years. In the beginning, students came to me with general problems (such as their relationships with the other sex, home, clubs, study habits, and so on), but after an hour I found that they spoke about their emotional problems (in 92 out of 100 cases). And so I really handle emotional problems; the students go to their homeroom teachers for their educational and vocational problems. In the beginning these students did not know their own problems; they learned about them by talking. They are "protective" in the beginning toward their true feelings and may have psychosomatic symptoms, but they get over these after a few sessions. I feel counseling should not only be remedial, but also should help develop an individual's potential.33 The discussion on guidance reflects the deep interest of Japanese teachers in the emotional life of man, an interest well in line with the traditional literary emphases and cultural habits of the Japanese people. The more practical, more mechanical, approaches to counseling characteristic of a pragmatic people obviously run the risk of being adjudged superficial. The Japanese people are accustomed to a unified, cohesive, educational system and are likely to be surprised by the great unevenness in levels of intellectual performance and moral commitment characteristic of guidance counselors in America. It is just as well that they were cautious and did not overgeneralize from the evidence which was before them. Inasmuch as guidance is part of moral education, the Japanese visitors felt the same basic uneasiness and lack of definition as they did when they were searching for a definition of moral education. We meet here for the first time what will become a constant theme in the following pages: the chagrin of the visitors at the unrealized educational potential in the United States. The Japanese observed a diversified and ambitious individualizing school system in America; they expected this individual approach to be linked with a good system of "pointing" students. The Japanese disenchantment with the guidance system was further increased when they examined the functioning of the homeroom. The issue of the homeroom was one of particular importance because the homeroom is an American institution which

52

Development of the "Whole Man"

was transplanted to Japan. Before the coming of the homeroom, Japan had had a long tradition of the "teacher in charge of a class" at the secondary school level. The pupils of the same yeargrade were divided into several basic classes, each of which usually had about 50 pupils. The lessons of most of the subjects were given on the basis of this class organization though by different teachers. The "teacher in charge" of each class took care of all the members of his class in every aspect of their development. The idea of the "homeroom" was introduced after the last war, usually with the introduction of the "New Education" principles. It did not take long for the visitors to observe with astonishment that the original prototype of the homeroom had not necessarily fared well. The American homeroom was found at best to be formal and perfunctory. Its impact on moral education seemed minimal. Because the Japanese teachers, too, were experiencing difficulties with the homeroom idea, they wondered if their traditional system might better have been preserved. I went to America expecting that, in the country where the homeroom system has been originally started, we should certainly find it at its most successful, particularly because we have so many problems with the homeroom in our own country. However, the results were just the opposite. Japanese schools have been making much greater efforts to make the homeroom system work well.34 In one district I heard that the homeroom teacher was emphasized as a core for the guidance of pupils. In other school districts, the homeroom teacher was a far lesser figure than in Japan. In one school where I stayed, the homeroom teachers were in charge of the same class for three consecutive years, but, in spite of this, the only contact the homeroom teacher had with the pupils was during the homeroom period—about ten minutes every morning. There also appeared to be no special expectation for the homeroom teacher to assist and advise those pupils under his charge with their lessons. This is a great difference from the custom in Japan where homeroom teachers are in the central position of guidance to their pupils and are responsible for the development of their whole personality.35

Here is a sample of several further criticisms of the homeroom: In Japan the homeroom teacher is the person who best understands his pupils and who gives individual guidance, even voca-

Development of the "Whole Man"

53

tional guidance. There are no occasions of this sort for the homeroom teachers in America. It would be no exaggeration, therefore, to say that the personal relationships between the homeroom teacher and his pupils are very thin. The principal, the vice-principal, and the guidance officers also cannot develop close personal relationships with the students because they have too many students under their charge. I cannot help feeling that American homeroom teachers are more formalistic than Japanese. There are no opportunities to visit the homes, and the practice of many hours of individual discussion on a face-to-face basis seems to be rare. There is a rule permitting detention after classes, but it is a formal measure for penal purposes, completely different from the practice in Japan where it is used for very intimate personal contacts. If a pupil violates a regulation, such a violation is handled very mechanically in the United States and in a businesslike way through the channel of the principal, teachers, and counselors. It would be a marvelous thing to have a differentiated and specialized system, but I could not help wondering where and how 'living" guidance by real human beings is being given.36 The homeroom was criticized as not fostering "a sense of solidarity as a group" 37 and homeroom teachers were characterized as behaving "like a man in charge of traffic on the street." 38 There was disappointment with the almost complete failure of this uniquely American institution to exercise tutorial functions. The Japanese teachers witnessed sadly a great innovation run afoul. Japanese use for character building the term "homeroom building." Is such "character building" considered desirable in the United States? My impression was that there exists nothing equivalent to a "homeroom building" in America. Differing from the Japanese teacher, the American teacher does not have a ten-minute break between classes but has only four or five minutes. For example, if it is a social studies class there is a social studies teacher s classroom and all day long students rotate into the classroom. The teacher is extremely busy. Hence, we were interested in how character guidance was conducted. When we inquired about this we were told that there was no special teachers' room such as we have in Japan but that each teacher had his own classroom. A student with a problem was either called or came voluntarily to the classroom after classes for advice. At times the teachers called students to their own homes for personal contact and guidance. In the homeroom only routine matters such as the taking of attendance, the giving of announcements and instructions, and listening to the public address system broadcasts were dealt with, leaving the impres-

54

Development

of the "Whole

Man"

sion that there was a problem in filling up the homeroom time. I saw no positive life guidance in the homeroom on the order of "character building."39 Only one teacher viewed the weakness of the homeroom as an opportunity to provide more flexible time for various guidance purposes. Teachers in various localities stated that their function was to pass on notices and other necessary administrative communications to the students and to coordinate the requirements placed upon the students by various facilities in the school. With the establishment of instruction according to ability groups and with other differentiations of educational functions, the homeroom in the United States has lost the functions which are assigned to it in Japanese schools. . . . The role of the homeroom teacher and the manner of operation of the homeroom differ greatly among American schools. In some schools the homeroom period is used for voluntary meetings by the students. Division of functions within the school promotes greater specialized activity in each specified area. It seems that this results in more effective guidance of individual students.40 Another teacher reported how American teachers rationalize the weakness of the homeroom. Accustomed to the type of guidance prevalent in Japan, we could not help feeling a sense of danger that the contacts between teacher and student were insufficient in the United States. We were told that it is "unthinkable and wrong" that a homeroom teacher, who generally is qualified only in teaching, should undertake guidance activity in education. I personally feel, too, that teachers should not unqualifiedly give guidance. But we, of course, actively work to widen our opportunities for contact with the students. In the schools there are files and records for each student and the homeroom teacher can consult them at any time to learn about his students. . . . In terms of qualifications, the guidance counselor has a master's degree and it is preferred that he have more than one year's experience in the nonacademic world. He is placed on a better wage scale than the average teacher and a high percentage of counselors move on to become school principals. Many of them seem to be ambitious and self-confident; they also seem to be overinvolved with their profession and sometimes create gaps by cutting off communication with teachers.41 Few other comments qualified the harsh criticisms of the home-

Development of the "Whole Man"

55

room but those that were made pointed to compensatory features in other areas of the American school and home rather than to the effectiveness of the homeroom. It was suggested that the homeroom might be integrated with the office of the guidance counselor. At present the homeroom is nothing but a unit which serves to transmit information about the school's activities. But I would feel that the problem of the ineifectiveness of the homeroom might be solved to a certain degree if the homeroom were made part of the counselor system and the homeroom teacher were given part of the counselor's job as an associate counselor. If, furthermore, one teacher were made head of each of the groups of the classes of different year-grades to improve the management of the classes belonging to the same year, I suspect that the diiferentiation of the functions of the teaching personnel would be more specialized with better effects.42 One teacher pointed out that, though the homeroom is weak, the salute to the flag has moral significance. It might be designated simply a matter of routine in American daily life, but I cannot help feeling that the effect of such a solemn moment, one almost like that of prayer, must somehow support some part of their spiritual life.43 Another teacher attempted to suggest that the work of the homeroom is compensatory and, therefore, less needed in the United States where the predominant middle-class family mores supply the necessary focus. It is difficult to compare the Japanese and the American homerooms. The homes in which we stayed in the United States were at a much higher income level than die average Japanese home. For students from such homes the American homeroom is sufficient. Things that we in Japan talk about in school are discussed at their dining tables. To fail to take this into account by comparing only the homerooms themselves would be misleading.44 In summary, the Japanese teachers found the institutions existing within the schools less than adequate for the purposes of moral education. Neither the guidance system nor the homeroom seemed to provide the warm, direct relationship with the pupils to which the Japanese people aspire in their guidance ambitions. But frustration with the existing institutions did not end their

56

Development of the "Whole Man"

search. Fortunately they were able to find some compensation in the functioning of the school personnel. TEACHERS, PUPILS, AND DISCIPLINE

The Japanese teachers found American teachers to be central to the teaching of values. In a fluid individualistic society, teachers were commonly viewed as key factors in moral education. The Japanese teachers, quite contrary to the many hostile anti-American stereotypes, found their American colleagues serious, devoted, and purposeful. Several instances of the type of action the Americans engaged in were given and quoted with interest and approval. I had an impression that American teachers are working very seriously within the school with a full sense of responsibility. They never smoke except in their lounge. They behave very rigidly to provide a good model to their pupils.45 Although moral education is basically done by the family and the church, it seems to me that the teachers are also transmitting it through their own behavior. For instance, if a pupil wanted to speak while the teacher was speaking, the other pupils would prevent it; also, if a pupil were talking, the teacher himself did not speak. I found many occasions, too, in which teachers were giving guidance just incidently during club meetings and other activities. Although Americans have no special period for moral instruction, as do the Japanese, their discipline was very strict and the pupils' handbooks contained detailed descriptions of regulations and punishment. Detention and keeping pupils standing as a kind of punishment seemed to be done pretty regularly. Discipline was strict, particularly at the elementary school level.46 I was told that all teachers were expected to be conscious of their behavior. The attitudes of a "good citizen" should be revealed in the behavior of the teachers themselves; they permit their pupils to discuss the significance of right habits, punctuality, honesty, and courtesy. . . . I was impressed with the well-disciplined attitude and the orderly behavior of teachers themselves.47 We were surprised that a sense of alienation as human beings was not strong among teachers. We even felt frequently that this problem, one we assumed before our departure to be very important in America, might be altogether irrelevant. We may think of a number of causes for this. They may not have a sufficiently sharp sense of

Development of the "Whole Man"

57

the urgency of modern times—or their traditional American dream may still be sound and strong.48 Part of moral education is achieved through a closeness between the students and the teachers which permits the latter to function as appropriate models. "The words and the behavior of a teacher" were much emphasized as having a very strong influence upon the development of the personality of the pupils.49 The Japanese teachers were pleasantly struck by many instances of such closeness as exemplified by the following rather beautiful passage. It is self-evident that there must be good interpersonal relationships in school between the teacher, who plays a central role in the personality development of the child, and lie person whom he teaches, the student. In American schools the functions of the teacher are differentiated and there is clear definition of individual responsibility. Hence, I had expected that the relationships between teacher and student would not be as close as in Japan. I felt this strongly confirmed when I observed the teachers' strike in New York and found that their major demand was concerned with "the problem of instructional supervision of the child." But after beginning my period of homestay, I encountered situations which showed that myfirstconclusions were overstated. I once went to a football game with a teacher of a junior high school. At the entrance gate, while walking to our seats, and even after we were seated, his former students called out and came over to speak with him. I asked him if this were always the case and he answered, "I taught these students two years ago, but whenever I see them they call out to me in greeting. I am very fond of them." When I visited an elementary school, the principal showed me to a classroom. When we entered the classroom the first-graders, who had quietly been studying, all waved to him and called out his name. The principal smiled and talked with each child while passing their desks. The principal of another elementary school, which I visited for a number of days consecutively, personally went to the cafeteria every day during lunch period to supervise the handling of school lunches for the children in her school. The children showed a friendly countenance toward the principal's directions and ate in a very well-mannered way. She was an energetic person who wiped the tables, put things in order, and even arranged flowers in the teachers' lounge after the teachers had gone. There are few schools in Japan in which the relationship between the principal and sty-

58

Development of the "Whole Man" dents, or even between teachers and students, have this degree of closeness. It was a school with ten classes for approximately three hundred students, but there was much to learn from the abovedescribed situation. American schools have few teachers' meetings, and even when held they usually involve only instructions or communications from the principal or instruction supervisors. But after visiting the school consecutively for a number of days we saw that the principal had good ability as an administrator and ran the school in a way that reflected her own personality. Further, there was no evidence of authoritarian attitudes in her relationships with the teachers and students. In her friendly and relaxed attitude we could see her own personality and her devotion to education.50

Inside the schools, in daily life, classrooms contained many examples of lively and warm relationships between teachers and pupils. There was common dedication to learning and its purposes. The school also afforded opportunities for personal as well as intellectual contacts. During the instruction period there is much more lively and active participation in discussion than in Japan. There seems to be a good amount of communication between teacher and student. On the other hand, there is much more contact between teacher and student in Japan through club activities and in the homeroom.51 Despite the last comment, relationships between teachers and pupils were also considered good in club activities. The relationship between consultant teachers and clubs and member pupils was very intimate. These members sought advice for their personal problems from the consultant teachers, problems which went beyond the problems of the clubs, such as learning difficulties and future careers. This advice was sought by the students even after their graduation. . . . I could not help paying attention to this very warm, friendly, and comfortable teacher-pupil relationship, one which was never observed in the classrooms.52 The consultant teachers of club activities were seriously taking care of pupils . . . and I was very much impressed. Against my presupposition that the relationships between pupils and teachers in general might be cool, I felt that teachers and pupils were training themselves to be fellows or companions.53 The same positive picture emerged from the behavior of a guidance counselor. I was able to observe a good number of actual instances of coun-

Development of the "Whole Man"

59

seling. When the students came before the counselor they quite naturally took a respectful stance, yet it was they who took the lead in explaining their situations. He listened to them with an extremely settled and quiet composure. On one occasion I happened to be walking through the hallways with him when we saw a piece of paper crumpled in a corner. Without making a scene he simply picked it up and put it in a wastebasket. He was completely unaffected and did everything in this manner. I was made to feel that counseling ultimately can be reduced to the problem of the qualities of the counselor himself.54 Testimonials such as these can, one supposes, be taken at face value because it would be very difficult to pretend a friendliness that did not exist in a sustained fashion. They confirm the globally held notion that American schools are sunny places in which a relaxed manner, friendliness, and optimism have replaced the stern school modes of other countries. American visitors in Japanese schools are struck by the extremely close bond of common excitement unifying teachers and pupils. That to visitors from such a country the American schools seem even friendlier must be held to be a corroboration of their atmosphere. When the situation was appropriate, the Japanese visitors could be very critical of some aspects of pupil-teacher relationships. To quote a major instance, they observed with wonder and disapproval that American teachers confine their activities only to school time. Instances of disinterest were continually noted. We reproduce only one such comment: There is a certain limitation to the amount of guidance of pupils' behavior given in public schools. Therefore, teachers do not go beyond the scope of keeping general order within the school. They do not care much about what their pupils do once outside the school campus. While the pupils are in the school compound the teachers do watch them. But once the children have left the school grounds, they are considered to be the responsibility of their families. Even when a pupil is taken to the police station, his teacher is not called to account. When I said that in some districts in Japan, school teachers assist the police by supervising the students within the community and, thereby, prevent delinquent behavior, American teachers were very much surprised and appeared to be unable to understand what I said.55 The criticism of the lack of follow-up of pupils' homelife by the

60

Development of the "Whole Man"

American teachers is one of the more striking findings of the entire project. Japanese teachers customarily take a total interest in the lives of their pupils and such totality demands that teachers be acquainted with the pupils' parents and that they view the home circumstances in which their pupils live. American teachers rarely visit pupils' homes. They work from the tradition that "a man's home is his castle" and that an uninvited home visit might be viewed as an unwarranted intrusion of privacy. Not being civil servants in the Japanese sense, they lack the paternalistic base with which the government officials approach the population. Not everything in the different pattern of behavior of teachers in Japan and America is due to presence or lack of dedication of the respective teachers to their work. But the Japanese chastisement of the American habit of "taking off from the school parking lot at 3 P.M. in a cloud of smoke" might well be seriously considered by the American teaching profession. From the observations made by the Japanese teachers, Americans learned—to their astonishment—that they are considered to be strict disciplinarians. The Japanese teachers were particularly sensitive to displays of harshness and impersonality in teacherpupil relationships. I have some anxiety about the classroom situation in America. I am not quite sure whether we can find such feelings as compassion, sympathy, dedication, and mutual aid between children of different capabilities as we see in Japanese schools. I wonder whether there is any danger of Americans taking a too rationalistic attitude in their emphases of efficiency and scientific procedure.56 Part of this reaction must be tied up with individuals on both sides being culture-bound. There can hardly be a comparison between the beautifully assembled, polite, and well-organized Japanese children, at least as seen through the American observations of Japanese schools, and their free-wheeling, loosejointed American counterparts. These, however, seem to give the contrary impression to Japanese teachers. The opinion that American disciplinary measures are tougher is formed by such things as the fact that American teachers insist on silence during instruction. The Japanese are conditioned to judge the success of classroom work by the hum of excited childrens' voices. Much of American discipline also appears unreasonable because it is too extreme

Development

of the "Whole Man"

61

or not followed through by any part of the community. Here are several examples of how instances of administered discipline appeared to the Japanese teachers: Once I saw three pupils who had been lazy in physical education forced to run around the athletic field at a senior high school. Seeing that the teacher was not going to allow them to stop running, I asked him what he planned to do. He answered that he was going to make them run until they were exhausted, adding that they might have to run as much as forty miles.57 When I asked a senior high school teacher if smoking was permitted, I was told that it was absolutely prohibited within the school compound. . . . I had the impression, however, that there was no way of preventing the students from smoking once they were outside the school grounds, partly because the laws were made many years ago.58 The Japanese teachers found instances in which school principals deliberately provoked court action to punish pupils for legal violations.59 They also reported several other less-extreme methods of pupil control. In a senior high school, teachers stood in the corridors during the recess time, watching the pupils. At lunchtime several teachers closely watched pupils eating meals. These teachers were ordinarily very cheerful and spoke to me lightheartedly. I was surprised, therefore, and I asked the principal whether this was suitable to a senior high school where the independence of students should be recognized to a fairly great degree. The answer was, "These are decided by the state regulations of education. Therefore, these are the responsibilities of the teachers. The pupils know that, too, and they do not mind this except some problem children. Teachers also must stand to watch this small number of pupils who object to order."60 When violations . . . were found, the principal and vice-principal immediately went into action and administered warnings, detentions, or suspensions as punishment. Teachers also supervised pupils in the corridors, at the cafeterias, and other locations around the school according to the regulations of the board of education. In this way all of the staff appeared to be engaged in guidance with the sense of responsibility for discipline. I also noticed that the teachers were very strict about attendance. They had an attendance clerk and any absence was treated as nonexcusable, leading to a mark of zero in any examination which might be given on that day.61

62

Development of the "Whole Man" In one elementary school I saw pupils walking into their classrooms in lines with good manners and being greeted by teachers standing at the doors. I commented to the principal that the pupils in the school were well trained and the pupils' attitudes were very good. I asked why the pupils had to line up at the entrance to the school building in the morning. "It means discipline to a certain extent, but the most important reason is that the school starts at 8:25 A.M. If we let the pupils into the school buildings prior to that and if any accident should happen to them, such an accident would be the responsibility of the school authorities." I was very much embarrassed at this answer.62 During the class I found no pupils whispering to each other, and, if any did so, the teacher immediately warned them against it. There was silence during the lesson, therefore, and the higher the grade level, the better the students' attitudes toward learning. Whenever anyone spoke, teacher or pupil, all the others listened to him very attentively. The training to become a good listener seemed to be given on all occasions, even in the home.63 I came across such a scene. Our group showed slides of Japan to the sixth graders of an elementary school. On that occasion the principal admonished the pupils that their entrance into the room had been unruly and he made the pupils go out and come in again.64

These colorful and often doleful examples of discipline in American schools speak for themselves. No qualification made detracted from the firm conviction of the Japanese, almost unbelievable to Americans, that American schools are not only trim and shipshape but are actually tough. Americans and many foreign observers think American schools lax, often undisciplined, often lacking a sense of purpose. Perhaps teachers have developed severe precautionary measures because of a latent fear of disorder. The rather harsh disciplinary regime imputed to American schools was accompanied by many no-less-astonishing reports about behavior of American children who apparently not only submitted to, but liked, the restrictions imposed upon them. I asked several students of a senior high school about such rigid school regulations. They answered unanimously that, as long as such regulations geared to maintain order were in effect, they should be obeyed. They told me that conflicts of opinion had arisen occasionally, but that these had been resolved after mutual discussions.

Development of the "Whole Man"

63

They realized that society requires rules to operate smoothly and they did not regard necessary regulations as restrictive.65 I never saw children running along the corridors. They were very quiet. When I asked a child about this, he answered that they were quiet so as not to bother other people. The children behave well and do so not because they are scolded.66 American children do not bow either at the beginning or at the end of a lesson; however, they are well trained not to annoy other persons. They are quiet and punctual and are learning to be members of the society.67 In all the schools I visited, I heard such expressions as, "You are welcome," "How are you?" "Nice meeting you," "Good luck," and "Thank you." Would Japanese students express these salutes as naturally as do American pupils to foreign visitors? The naturally acquired culture was showing itself automatically, not, I felt, just as a result of school education alone.68 Contrasting the situation in Japan, one teacher "could not feel any sense of inferiority and melancholy among the children."69 He and others found the children to be not docile but "reconciled" to the limitations of their freedom imposed by society. The Japanese teachers found tough government "by consensus" to be the rule in the American schools. The Japanese teachers, of course, were observing essentially middle-class schools with all the privileges and all the limitations that learning in such schools entails. The homestay communities were selected with the assistance of the Experiment in International Living, and the "Experiment" communities are those in which there has come into being a voluntary organization of citizens willing and able to receive visistors from abroad for an extended stay. Such communities are, by definition, predominantly middle class inasmuch as only in that economic bracket and above can be found families with a spare bedroom and with the ability to sustain the cost of supporting a foreign guest. In the middleclass milieu, upward-striving is the rule and discipline, as well as everything else, is subordinate. The schools and homes of such communities clearly reflect this. Perhaps in the area of discipline the observations of the Japanese are most subject to distortions. But distorted or not, the Japanese views provided fascinating evi-

64

Development of the "Whole Man"

dence of how the eye of the observer determines the color and content of the life of the observed. The Japanese search for moral education in the American classroom yielded a rich, if not systematic, harvest. It was difficult to see how it could have been otherwise. Even if a school system pronounces itself strictly intellectual, i.e., devoted solely to the training of the mind, such a position constitutes a moral stance because it aspires to train wise, instead of merely clever, men. American education, which is more practical than intellectual, homogenizes children from diverse social backgrounds and upholds an extremely idealistic image of a human society. Such education could never afford to neglect behavior. The Japanese came to see this very quickly and their main problem became one which was similar to their search for the meanings of decentralization, that is, to perceive the system through which moral education is imparted. To them, there must be a system, since their own heritage is such a magnificent example of one. Perhaps they should not—even cannot—copy American practices. It was enough that they grasped the lesson that an "unsystem" can be a system. Some years ago a Soviet Minister of Education asked one of the coauthors, "Now that the philosophy of John Dewey is no longer in fashion, what is the official philosophy of American education?" The Russian was as nonplussed as were the Japanese visitors to be told, "The official philosophy of American education is that there be no official philosophy of American education." The American unsystem somehow works. That it does not work perfectly is no news. No system does. The American can be improved only through informal mechanisms. Thoughtful criticisms made by the Japanese teachers and other foreign visitors have, therefore, a relevance beyond mere comparisons.

3 Family, Church, and Community as Agents of Moral Education

Having examined the school scene, the visiting teachers turned their attention to other areas in which moral education is taught. There was a general consensus among them that the influence of the schools in fostering moral and spiritual values in America has been increasing. The Japanese teachers saw that the complexities of a modern society favor corporate influences and that "the age of technology is shifting educational functions even more to the schools."1 But they were equally well aware of the differences between future projections and present realities. They pointed out the importance of the out-of-school social units as shaping moral values. In the public schools which I visited, I did not find a system of planned moral education such as is found in Japan. Only in the churches and private schools did I see that this aspect of education was vigorously being taught. . . . Discipline and moral education of children in the United States are definitely the responsibility of the home and the church. The school is responsible for the instruction of academic subjects and also for developing the pupils' abilities in accordance with their personalities, intelligence, and talents. The school merely plays a supplementary role in the moral education of the young. This schism may be traced to the historical development of this country.2

The Japanese with their gift for categorization tended to view the schools as being informal agents of moral education and the outside agencies—the family, the churches, and the community— as being the more formal agents. They thought that the schools 65

66

Family, Church, and Community

possessed a less broad function than is popularly believed. Americans may be startled to see their schools appraised as places of purely intellectual enterprise. They have put too much effort into making the schools centers of all-round social life to take the judgment of such narrow specialization with equanimity. Even those who adamantly declare that the schools should be the places for the training of the mind and for nothing else, and who deplore the "frills" as a departure from this narrow definition, would have difficulty accepting the Japanese teachers' description of the American school. Such an acceptance would mean, after all, that their criticisms had been unfair. Only somewhat less difficult for Americans to accept would be the proposition that the out-of-school agencies supply formalized moral training. These, too, are informal agencies. The contrasts drawn by the teachers between these agencies and the schools sometimes seem overdrawn. All American institutions, even the courts, tend to function informally or semiformally. The ongoing conditioning of youth that must proceed apace in all societies is here meant to take place painlessly. But these qualifications do not lessen the central force of the Japanese teachers' arguments. Conditioned to accept the schools as the deliberate government network which molds the minds of the young, the Japanese consider that the schools have failed when they surrender important elements of moral education to the community. This would mean abrogation of control to regional and local concerns. The Japanese would be more inclined to leave academic education, than moral training, to the family, temple, and community. FAMILY It was natural for Japanese teachers to look within the institution of the family for the "missing links" to moral education. Inasmuch as they had been placed at random in different types of homes (within the limits already described) and inasmuch as different groups of teachers had visited in different communities, they gave different emphases to the importance of the home as a source of moral training. Some marveled at the noncompulsive nature of American upbringing; while others expressed wonder at, and approval of, the disciplinary methods used. The following summa-

Family, Church, and Community

67

rizes, from a variety of opinions, the basic conclusions reached by the visitors. 1. Family regime in the United States is strict and well organized. (Japanese teachers, as mentioned, were deliberately housed with families that were cohesive, where children were present, and where the parents were absorbed in their children's education and were affluent enough to have an extra bedroom which they could offer to a Japanese visitor. Their view of American child discipline is, therefore, a view of middle-class, work-oriented, and success-prone American families. They had no experience with family disorientation, broken homes, and other sociological phenomena that might have given them a view of less-than-orderly training of children.) 2. Family life in the United States is cooperative and the children conscientiously are made part of this cooperative. They are called upon to express their opinions freely, are asked for counsel in reaching family decisions, and are generally made to feel that they belong. (The Japanese teachers were quite fascinated by the way in which the family "collectivizes" children raised as individuals.) 3. The basis of American family life is love, affection, and mutual help. (No doubt that rosy judgment was influenced by Japanese politeness, the teachers being reluctant to disclose skeletons in the cupboards of the homes in which they were so generously received as guests. Also, the host families were probably on their best behavior during the three weeks the Japanese visitors were living with them. What the Japanese teachers no doubt observed were the overt expressions of affection, such as kissing, hugging, and joyful exclamations over each other, which are routine in American family life. Such expressions are unthinkable in a Japanese home where a man never kisses a woman, not even in the most intimate moments; and where touching another person, even a member of the family, is considered a rude invasion of privacy. The Japanese teachers quickly sensed and reported the underlying quality of joyfulness and dynamic movement that underlies much of American life and that is reflected in American homes.)

68

Family, Church, and Community

Following are several examples of very positive statements about American family life. I was impressed with the respect that children have for their parents. Both parents and children share a sense of mutual trust, cheerful feeling, and a spirit of service. Such attitudes lead to the development of good citizens.3 According to the results of my questionnaire to 100 pupils in a junior high school, nearly all the families reported occasions when the family members met and consulted among themselves, these occasions being much loved by the children. What is notable to an outsider are the topics of conversation at these meetings. Children's problems, such as those concerning school or friends, and adult problems, such as problems concerning the father s job or household economy, were discussed. . . . The household economy, social problems, and various other matters became topics as much as did the problems of school or friends. The children consider and are concerned with the problems of their parents and the community, as well as their own problems. . . .4 In answer to my question to some families, "What do you expect of the schools?" I got answers such as, "We want our children to enjoy learning," "We want our children to become independent persons," "We want our children to follow the way of life which we are leading now." I noticed that the confidence of some parents that their lives could serve as a model to their children was reflected in the last answer.5

We reproduce a portion of one interview which stressed similar themes. T E A C H E R : I was impressed to see how the homestay families disciplined and reared their children. On the evening on which we arrived, the son of the family, a boy in the first year of high school, was at home. His mother said that on Friday night it was his responsibility to cook for the family and it was the responsibility of the daughters to set the table. When they finished with their dinners the children took their plates to the kitchen. When I offered to take my own plate the mother said that this was not for an adult to do; rather, this was the children's job this evening. I was very impressed, then, that the parents gave the children jobs to do on Friday before a weekend. It was not something which had to be done all weekend, for the children had a relaxing time, too. In Japan, if children say that they must study, the parents will not ask them to help with household tasks. I think now, though, that it may be a good idea to assign jobs to children.

Family, Church, and Community

69

INTERVIEWER: Does the Japanese family ever require children to do such domestic tasks as you observed in your homestay community? TEACHER: Because they must pass the very difficult examinations required to enter the university, high school students especially will go to their rooms and their parents will never ask them for help. I think it is a bad thing, but parents are afraid of their children. The children say that the mere fact that they are studying should be help enough to their parents. INTERVIEWER: IS this tendency new in Japan? TEACHER: Yes, with parents of senior high students. It shows a lessening of authority among parents; this is a bad thing, I think. INTERVIEWER: D O you think that the authority of parents which you have seen in your American family is typical? TEACHER: I have not seen other families, but I think it may be typical. One thing I noticed in regard to the difference between the authority of parents in Japan and the United States is that the situation in Japan is more or less one of pressure being put on children by the parents; whereas in the United States each member of the family realizes the privilege of being a member and will voluntarily help the others. We should learn this from American family life. INTERVIEWER: D O you think that the parents should have more authority or do you feel that young persons living in a changing society should be treated more like adults at an earlier age? TEACHER: I would say we need both—parents with more confidence in what they are trying to do for their children and children learning to be independent as early as possible.6

The visitors were also quite impressed with the children's attitudes toward the system of training of which they themselves were recipients. "When I asked many youngsters what sort of people they wanted to become, I was often told that they wanted to lead lives which did not impinge on the rights of others."7 The Japanese people are as beset as are the American with misunderstandings with their youths; but, contrary to the belief of Americans, very few of these misunderstandings were attributed by the Japanese teachers to failures in American family life. The very few negative comments in this area dwelt on the "tendency of the younger generation, because of their material prosperity, not to appreciate the value of the work which their forefathers performed."8 Lack of success in lasting moral education was rather intrigu-

70

Family, Church, and Community

ingly attributed by one teacher to severe discipline administered in infancy. Parents believe in their methods of discipline. But it seems to me that some children do not obey their parents after they become adolescents because of the severity of die discipline administered in their infancy.9 One teacher criticized the inadequate attention given to homework in the American homes. INTERVIEWER:

We are anxious to learn your impressions of Ameri-

can education. T E A C H E R : I was much impressed with the students in my homestay community, for they knew that they had to study at school as long as they were there and yet, during the weekends, they were able to take part in family and social activities. So I formed the impression that the students in my community know when to study and when to enjoy themselves. INTERVIEWER: With what type of family were you living? Was it a professional family? T E A C H E R : My family was a professional family; my host was a medical doctor. INTERVIEWER: Were the parents interested in their children's schoolwork? Did they supervise their children's homework or did the youngsters work pretty much on their own? T E A C H E R : During the three weeks I stayed with the family, the mother usually asked the daughter if she had finished her homework, but she never actually ordered her to study. INTERVIEWER: If you were the father of that family instead of the guest, would you have organized the family differently? Would you have supervised homework differently? T E A C H E R : The daughter of the family was in high school and, from my point of view, she did not spend enough time in study; she just did not study enough at home. INTERVIEWER: Why did she not spend enough time? T E A C H E R : This may be a purely Japanese point of view, but . . . INTERVIEWER: I would like a Japanese point of view. T E A C H E R : Japanese high school students study at home at least four hours a day, but I think she usually studied for only about one hour. In Japan, if a student were to study only one hour, she would not be able to keep up with classroom activities. It seemed, though, that the daughter in my homestay family was doing quite well in her classes in this high school.10

Family, Church, and Community

71

American opinions quoted deplored the global disintegration of the family to which the American family was alleged to be no exception. One American professor told us that the number of the families neglecting the home training of their children is increasing in America now, and that there is pressure to admit instruction of morals in the schools because of that fact. . . . Judging from this remark and others, I thought that there were a number of problems dealing with moral education in public schools that must be solved in this country.11

The Japanese teachers hesitated to take a strong position on this point, though some referred to a variety of disintegrative forces such as an increased workload of parents which damaged their contact with children, the inroads which television is making upon reading time, and the loss of idealism which arises from materialism.12 But on the whole, as already mentioned, the image of the American family as a positive agent of moral education was predominant. The Japanese teachers were naturally attracted to those features of moral training of children in the United States which they themselves as Japanese approve and enjoy. For instance in the following passage a teacher describes beautifully a family feeling that extends across generations. Americans would not consider a linear-minded family to be typical but the Japanese "radar" quickly picked up and registered the feeling of family continuity that some older American families cultivate. The following is an account of a Mothers Day afternoon at my homestay family. The whole family pinned on their lapels small roses which they had cut from their garden. In two cars they drove to a cemetery. The wide green lawn and pink and white dogwood at the cemetery made it seem to be a beautiful park. When the father got out of the car he laughingly said, "We cannot come here in the late afternoon. There are too many young people dating here." While including his junior-high-school-age daughter and his highschool-age son in the conversation, the father took the lead in the group. He indicated the separate grave markers and spoke of the members of their family. The family grave markers could be traced back to the time of the American Civil War. He discussed the forebears of his family and also spoke of the family at an earlier time

72

Family, Church, and Community when their eighty-one-year-old grandmother was a young woman. The young daughter laughingly teased her grandmother. The grandmother, surrounded by her children and grandchildren, seemed to be completely happy and fulfilled. Seeing these three generations of Americans, I could not help being a bit envious.13

The teachers commented favorably, though with some qualifications, upon the many ties existing in the United States between the family and the schools. American schools have from their beginnings been regarded as institutions entrusted only with the intellectual aspects of child training. Perhaps because they pay an educational tax, parents are strongly conscious that the schools are "their schools." Parents sometimes say that their children's school is better than some other school, or, at times, gather in the principal's office and converse as if they had been friends with the principal for many years. These are the things that one does not encounter in Japan. Usually more than two-thirds of the parents voluntarily join a Parent-Teacher Association, and they participate in various activities which aid the school.14 Unlike the Japanese schools, most American schools do not have alumni groups or days set aside for observation of classroom instruction. I heard of a high school where an open house was held once each year. If American parents have matters to discuss with school authorities, even if the school has not set aside a specific day or time, they merely telephone or visit the schools. This situation is vastly different from that in Japan where parents visit the schools only during times specified by die school or by alumni groups. The lady in whose home I stayed wondered whether American teachers are greatly harassed by the excessive amount of complaints and dissatisfactions brought to them by parents. The vice-principal of a high school also stated sardonically, "It is well that parents make educational demands of the schools, but they make too strong a demand on a personal or individual basis. I would very gladly listen to them if they made demands on a higher level, such as those involving educational plans or educational contents." Judging from these remarks, we may be able to say that Americans also have a number of concealed problems although these differ in their nature from those in Japan.15 It was agreed that the schools' share of moral training is increasing. This is particularly true in economically deprived areas where families often are not able to carry the burden of middleclass moral education. One teacher expressed this as follows:

Family, Church, and Community

73

In middle-class areas where traditional spirit and culture have existed since the colonial days, the school, the family, and the society are fulfilling their own responsibilities in cultivating the children's intellect, spiritual powers, and morality. However, in the areas where there are no such traditions, the respective roles of the school, the family, and the society are often obscure, and the school, therefore, must take the leading part in education. In addition, the quality of public schools in middle-class neighborhoods is soaring now that families in these neighborhoods have strong confidence in school education—to such an extent that a member of the board of education in one community remarked that, "even the family cannot give a better education in terms of breeding and discipline than we can."16 We must balance this judgment against that of another teacher who felt that "a teacher's job is to teach school" and that "if the discipline which is presently administered in the home should be entrusted to school teachers, what then would be left for the parents to do?"17 The Japanese teachers, like teachers everywhere, approved harmonious cooperation between home and school; but they felt that responsibility should be shared on a fifty-fifty basis rather than one partner dominating the other. The moral role of the family was considered, overall, to be not only the teaching of individuality but also the teaching of cooperation. Individualization was emphasized very strongly when discussed as the function of moral education in the school. It was stressed that the major role of the family was the teaching of togetherness and of adjustment to the needs and interests of others —in short, of altruism. The family was considered to be at the center of teaching group cooperation with the school and society only reinforcing this teaching. The emphasis in American families on individuality and independence was dwelt upon as being in contrast to Japanese homes. That the Japanese should find individualization in American families to be striking and original is in itself an understandable, but not original, finding. But it is original and unusual to find that these teachers were also alert to the very serious efforts which American society makes to coordinate the various units of independence it itself creates. It achieves this by championing the educational aim common to all schools and families, namely, that of "doing things for other people." The Japanese saw that "the chil-

74

Family, Church, and Community

dren are taught this concept first in the family, then in the school, and then in the society."18 The Japanese teachers, after a period of initial incomprehension, caught the "unity within diversity" theme. RELIGION Besides evaluating the importance of the family in moral education, the Japanese teachers also evaluated the significance of religious education. They visited churches and parochial schools and looked at and discussed religious observances with their respective hosts. But because they concentrated on school situations, they accepted the separation of church and state without comment. They gave full recognition to the role of religion outside the schools. But rather amazingly they paid little attention to the church-state issue which most Americans consider quite important as an element of educational policy. Of course, not all American children—perhaps not even the majority—are brought under the influence of the churches. Also, in a program in which the Japanese teachers were participants, no major attention was paid to religious education; few church schools were frequently mentioned; few were visited in each community. One would be inclined to ascribe the less-vigorous interest paid by Japanese teachers to the church-state issue in education to the fact that in their own country the concept of moral education through the churches, though not alien, is not immediately relevant to schoolwork. There teachers are often specialists with relatively little exposure to out-of-school education. Our visitors regarded religious teaching in the United States, therefore, from a theoretical vantage rather than from personal practice. Nevertheless, with these qualifications, the Japanese teachers found the influence of religion on moral upbringing strong and, to their minds, remarkable. Christianity in the United States differs from Buddhism in Japan in the practice, in the United States, of entire families attending worship service every Sunday. The families also take part in other church-related activities. When family members enjoy the various church meetings and receive voluntary training in social and cultural affairs, they receive much more moral training than they would

Family, Church, and Community

75

in the schools. I would say that church-training forms an ideal method of community moral training.19 Similar comments were echoed by others: The church in American life imparts a solid religious (moral) foundation to the society in general. In contrast to the activities of the shrines and temples in Japan, the educational activities in American churches are intense, sharing being an important tenet of moral education. American families usually have strong beliefs and the majority of the families which I observed attended the churches every Sunday and the children received religious education of one kind or another in their homes as well as in the churches.20 It is frequently said that the education in the home has been weakened, but I found strict training in the home to be the rule where I stayed. I also found that the religious activities of college students were vigorous. Many people seem to be thinking seriously about declining religious beliefs and are trying to start a movement to revive them.21 The teachers emphasized the intertwining complementary influence of church, home, and school. To determine the place of moral education in America, we must consider both the church and the home, although education in the home, in the final analysis, is dependent upon the church. . . . Even though religious education is received only once a week, it is received by all members of the family, and the parents use that base to teach their children. Therefore, the influence of the church is really great; indeed, it is far more thorough than the moral education which is given in a special period of morals once a week in Japanese schools. . . . Of course not all American people attend church; and, also, all the families do not impart a desirable education to their children. Furthermore, one must consider that moral education may be separated from religious education. From our point of view, therefore, moral education should be given as a matter of course in the schools (in fact, some people in America agreed with this opinion even if their number is small).22 As American people historically regard the church as their spiritual foundation, they do not expect the schools to impart moral and/or religious values to their children. It is necessary only that the schools transmit knowledge and functional training.23 T h e Japanese teachers were able to rationalize the separation of church and state in education on a very sophisticated level.

76

Family, Church, and Community It is often said that there are too many people among us who are indifferent to religion. We do distinguish moral education and religious education, considering religious education to be that which cultivates religious sentiment in general. On the other hand, in the case of the majority of American people, religion is deeply rooted in their daily lives and their moral value-judgments are always made from that standpoint. To them, moral value-judgment separate from their own specific denominations cannot be, and, consequently, they do not cultivate religious sentiment in general. Let me consider the matter more specifically. If Americans were to give moral education in their schools, the teachers would be forced to make value-judgments on the basis of their own denominations and its dogmas and would have to convey these to the many pupils who belong to different denominations. The result will be a violation of the right of freedom of belief which Americans managed to acquire only after a tremendous amount of bloodshed, agony, and struggle which began historically in Europe in the Middle Ages. The basic principle against religious education in public schools has been established to avoid such a violation, and, so long as this principle exists, the moral education which is inseparably tied up with it cannot avoid being negative. Even when such training is given, its scope is very limited.24

From Japanese observations there emerged the view that religious education exerts a calming and unifying bond on the American people. Because of their religion, the Americans appeared to the Japanese as being a wholesome, cooperative, and democratic people. In Japan the value system in general is confused and parents have lost their confidence in their ability to discipline or morally educate their children. In the United States, even though the people are of different nationalities and denominations, the Christian spirit is deeply rooted in their lives; the spirit of democracy has truly been realized on a practical level.25 The image of the American people as being materialistic, money-oriented, and power-hungry, an image so often flaunted by critics of the United States everywhere, simply does not emerge from the Japanese data. Gathered at the grassroots level at which ordinary family life occurs and where the shaping of young personalities takes place, the Japanese testimony suggests idealism, harmony, and cooperation as the central themes of American daily life. The churches, historically strong, continue to perform

Family, Church, and Community

77

a vital role. Indeed, this may be the central difference between the otherwise increasingly similar industrial societies of the United States and Japan. What national ethos means to Japan, the Christian ethos provides for the United States. The description of the American people as "a nation under God" continues to have a real impact on the education of the young, perhaps because of, rather than in spite of, the separation of church and state. COMMUNITY Japanese teachers also perceived the impact of the community on moral education. But they made unexpectedly few comments on the influence of the neighborhood, particularly that of peer groups; the impact of public media; and the control by the local people over moral education of the young. Although they had some opportunity to compare the operation of such forces both in small towns and large metropolitan areas, they were not forcefully struck by the differences in social controls in such different types of environments. They recognized such influences but did not dwell upon them at length. Their best generalization in this area was that, in Japan, the community is family-oriented and children are reared in isolation; whereas, in the United States, the whole community takes an interest in the education of all its children. It is more or less common in Japan that out-of-school education is planned, guided, and promoted by governmental agencies. A great difference which we discovered in America is that such education is practiced on the basis of the voluntary desires of citizens and is supplemented by the educational activities of the school and the home.26 The willingness of the community to participate in school affairs struck the visitors as being out-of-the-ordinary. They were impressed with the "sense of service and participation of many community volunteers in many different kinds of activities."27 The Japanese teachers noticed, as have other foreigners, the absence of fences separating American homes from each other. As they themselves explained, this practice is in contrast to that in Japan and in Europe where family homes are deliberately isolated from each other. The Japanese teachers quickly correlated this

78

Family, Church, and Community

physical residential feature with the patterns of education of the children. When we consider the place of the home in the society, we see in the pattern of residence that there are very few homes separated by hedges. In Japan concrete-block walls are built around each home and the family is confined within them. This may be regarded as the reflection of the family-individualism. In that sense, the family is not integrated into the society as well as in the United States. This also means a difference in attitudes in regard to the training and education of the children. For example, in Japanese parentteacher associations, the parents' concern about education is mainly directed to their own children. Discussion is limited to the topics of the relationships between the school and the teachers, between the classroom teachers and the families, or between individual parents and the school.28 In America the children in one family are regarded as belonging to the whole community and are treated equally with the children of other families. It seems to me that this basic attitude is reflected in discipline as well as other areas of the education of children.29 In one place in which fences were found to be the rule, the separation of the families was found to be more pronounced, though the existence of community agencies and sports' teams supplied the countervailing influence. In contrast, it was interesting to find each of the homes in another area enclosed with fences as in Japan. We did not see housewives paying much attention to the neighborhood children. The neighborhood was in a newly developed city and had a relatively high proportion of the educated classes. Each family seemed to be preoccupied only with its own children. It was a phenomenon similar to that found in Japan. . . . It seemed that every neighborhood had a baseball team for the children and that parents were actively involved with such teams. There were teams for third graders through sixth graders. The Boy Scouts were also closely related to the community and specific, responsible persons were engaged in strict group training. . . . In some areas little communication was found among families; however, this defect was adequately compensated by church gatherings and local sports' teams for children. Although there was a lack of communication among families, children were looked after by the local community through such organizations.30 It is amazing how differently people view themselves as against

Family, Church, and Community

79

how they are viewed by outsiders. Hardly anyone at present in America, a country torn by internal conflicts, would emphasize the harmony that unquestionably pervades large sectors of American life. It takes newcomers to the country to perceive and acclaim these essential ingredients and to note their not inconsiderable impact upon the formation of young people. We must repeat the warning that the Japanese visitors were overly polite and that the language barrier isolated them from the nuances of speech through which conflict can best be studied. But their judgment validates the experiences of other foreign observers. The violent and brutal conflict latent in many areas of American life would long ago have torn the county apart but for the immense capital of human goodwill generated by the communities on behalf of the education of the young. LESSONS FOR JAPAN After examining moral education in American schools, churches, communities, and in American families, the Japanese teachers were able to make comparative statements about the subject in both countries. They constructed typologies, the emergence of which attested to the increasing systematization of their thinking. On the whole the views presented succeeded in striking a balance between negative and positive estimates about American education. Somewhat more negative were their comments about Japanese schools, where they hoped to effect reforms. We present first the thoughtful general comments of Japanese teachers about schools in both countries. As a rough generalization, instruction in American schools becomes more and more severe as the children move to the upper levels, namely, from the elementary school to junior high, senior high, and college. . . . On the other hand, discipline and the control of behavior are more severe at lower levels. Probably just the opposite situation is found in Japanese schools. . . . There seems to be a difference in the attitudes of teachers in the two countries. Generally speaking, I had the impression that the American public school teachers are too much occupied with intellectual education. . . . I felt that American teachers were strongly aware of being professional people and that they were very proud of that. . . . Even in their in-service training they appeared to be solely interested in the subject areas which they were teaching. I

80

Family, Church, and Community can say that this emphasis makes them very efficient. But on the other hand I cannot help feeling that this emphasis will weaken the personal contacts between teachers and pupils. In Japan I think that the relationship of teachers and pupils is not simply one of the people who are teaching and the people being taught, but it involves really much closer personal ties. In other words, teaching is a contact between whole personalities.31

I almost felt as if the education of emotion and sentiment, which I had in my mind, does not exist in the United States. I felt this fact to be a characteristic of the American people who tend to think in a realistic and utilitarian way and found it interesting to contrast it with what is called an Oriental way of thinking which is more delicate and emotional.32 It is easy to have differentiation of functions if education is concerned mainly with the transmission of knowledge and skill. However, education should also aim at the formation of the character of human beings, and there ought to be certain limitations in the system of differentiation. I think that it is essential to have direct personal contacts with the total personality of a certain teacher. I suspect that American schools have not sufficient integration of different functions. Basically, I feel that the pattern of Japanese schools may be better than that of American schools.33 Once again the delicate emotional nuances were held up by the Japanese teachers as the quintessence of education. These Oriental features of great beauty might well be pondered by American educators in whose schools the visitors perceived a certain coldness underlying the basic air of efficiency and purposefulness. Other comments were more positive to Americans and stressed the multifaceted efforts by which Americans approach each pupil. In Japan, we focus on the development of a well-balanced personality, whereas in America the focus is put on respect for the individual. Americans try to educate a person who is free and creative. And also, in Japan, the whole-man education is expected from the school almost exclusively. In America, on the other hand, people are conscious of the responsibility of the family and the society as being the place of its basic training; therefore, it is unlikely that Americans would entrust everything to the schools. That is why we cannot find satisfactory answers concerning the contents of the whole-man education.34 In Japan we require that each individual be equipped comprehensively with all kinds of moral traits and that a sort of static harmony be thereby realized in each individual. In America, emphasis

Family, Church, and Community

81

is laid upon the development of individuality in each person and even the harmony, if it is expected to be realized, may be a sort of dynamic harmony within that person.35 It is a matter of course that education should place children at its center. In Japan, however, we tend to consider that we should make children attain a certain level of achievement and consequently we are more concerned with the educational objectives than the reality of individual children. This tendency may be ascribed to the fact that we have begun to catch up with industrially advanced nations. Americans have a different way of thinking; they use education as a medium to help children develop their own individual potentiality. One of the reasons why we feel sometimes that American education moves too slowly may lie in this difference.36 Once again and, as previously mentioned, very much contrary to American stereotypes, the behavior of American youngsters was extolled over that of Japanese children. The behavior of senior high school students appeared to be more adultlike than it is in Japan. This may be because of their greater average heights and the nonuse of uniforms in public schools, colorful clothing being worn by both boys and girls, but also because of their general actions. As far as I could determine, the youngsters' intellectual abilities do not seem to be superior, but a sense of independence appears to have been well established within their minds by the senior high school level. Their good manners in social life may also have contributed to my impression of their maturity. But where is such independence cultivated? I rarely came across occasions where teachers were teaching independence in words, but I did see occasions where regulations were being rigidly observed. While I was observing the lives of children in the home and society, I gradually came to feel that the development of the independence of human beings started with their birth, was established on a firm basis against the background of the democratic society, and was finally polished up in the communal society of the school. In Japan the lack of independence of pupils is built into them in an abstract sense in the school. I do not think that this is a good technique for guidance.37 The remarkable outcome of the Japanese-American comparisons, especially in the field of moral education, was that the Japanese teachers tended to use the American experience to criticize their own schools and to point out how they could be improved following the American models. Although the Japanese teachers were critical of several aspects of American education, they

82

Family, Church, and

Community

phrased their criticisms as abstractions. They may have implied that Japanese schools were superior in certain aspects, but these were implications only and criticisms were seldom made explicit. When citing American strengths, however, the teachers immediately began making comparisons. In modern times we insist that comparisons be made as objectively as possible. W e are anxious to avoid charges of evangelizing or distorting the data. But practice often defeats these scientific goals. The Japanese teachers who were, after all, not trained as comparatists tended automatically to pick out lessons for themselves from the experiences they had undergone. Some of the comparisons of American and Japanese schools, however, did reach a high level of acuity. We should now learn from American education its rationalistic and functional characteristics; for example, the fact that the area of responsibility of the school is fairly well defined, that the educational functions of the school are differentiated in detail, each specialist being engaged in his own speciality, and that these differentiated functions are integrated systematically as well as functionally, so that the entire school system benefits. I would hope that Japanese educators would follow such directions in the future. I would hope, though, that Japanese schools remain essentially places where the whole person is developed; in other words, places where teachers and pupils, and pupils among themselves, cultivate their capacities as human beings, developing these capacities constantly through deeply meaningful contacts with others and sharing joy and sorrow together.38 People in Japan at the present time emphasize intellectuality and rationalism. As a result, they are apt to lack sentiment, to distort individualism into utilitarianism, and to make human relationships unalive. Recently people have come to understand the importance of learning to appreciate music and pictures. It is still doubtful, however, if the emotions of children have been richly fostered. I am afraid that we have been so fascinated by the external techniques of an industrial society that we have not paid enough attention to the cultivation of internal personality. When we read the report by the Central Educational Council on the ideal image of man, we find many statements which indicate that the authors take a serious view of the strong desire of educational leaders for fostering rich personal sentiments. In the Japanese family, on the whole, parents bring up their children indulgently and then become more and more strict as the children grow older. American parents, on the contrary, are strict with

Family, Church, and

Community

83

their children when the children are very young, so that the youngsters learn proper behavior very early. In Japan the home is not an educational place. The Japanese people are strict with their own family members but they hesitate to scold other children and tend to spoil them. The American people, on the other hand, train all children severely without drawing a distinction among them. Music education has recently become popular in Japan and many children are learning music, not because they like it but because they are forced to do so in order to satisfy their parents' vanity. Parents often judge or criticize their children by comparing them with other children. In America, though, parents allow their children to do things according to their own wishes, even when they are a little far from the ideal, because they think that it is important for children to follow the natural stages of mental and physical development. It would be worthwhile to pay attention to the American way of thinking that cultural upbringing should fundamentally take place in the family and that kindergartens are the places where children learn to lead a group life and cultivate the intellect. If we improve these areas in family education, we may be able to give a better education not only to the infants but also to all young people. I expect the Japanese family to familiarize their children with music and to cultivate a love of nature by taking care of flowers, trees, and animals. Then I am sure the children will neither break flowers in other gardens nor tread on lawns in the park.39 Comparative observations were used to criticize specific practices of the Japanese schools and to propose improvements. The teachers recommended, for instance, more patriotism and deplored lack of respect toward authority. It was so natural for American people to respect their country's flag. I wish I could find such an atmosphere in Japanese schools, too. . . .40 After the war we emphasized the training of the initiative in pupils through discussions and group learning, but, on the other hand, we neglected to teach many children proper behavior and respect for authority.41 Doubt was cast about the general quality of moral education in Japan and the correspondence between professed goals and actual practice. When we talk about the development of independence of children in Japanese schools, we tend to emphasize extracurricular activities and the special hour of morals and also the method of guid-

84

Family, Church, and Community ance. However, in our teaching of school subjects which occupy a greater part of children's school life we tend to emphasize, relatively speaking, the mechanics of pouring knowledge into children's minds, and we admit that we are not so strong in guiding pupils to tackle learning on their own initiative. We think that we have a much weaker tradition of developing the spirit of independence and initiative of children through early education in the family. Consequently, our way of guiding children toward independence through their own activities of self-government is liable to become abstract and formal. In contrast we may say that American education is carried out through the school, the home, and the society; and a spirit of citizenship and independence runs persistently through all activities.42 The fact that we have a written statement of educational objectives in Japan does not necessarily mean that we have a tightly organized structure to teach these objectives. Sometimes these statements exist just to show off to outsiders, particularly to the board of education or the Ministry of Education. There is a wide gap between the educational objectives which were theoretically established and the educational aims which are actually being realized in practice, particularly in relation to the college entrance examinations. At the background of the custom of stating educational objectives as mere theories, there might still exist the tradition of bureaucratic control in Japanese education and the worship of the powerful among classroom teachers.43

Formalism in Japanese schools was also criticized. I feel that there is too much stability in school education in Japan. A formal aspect is too much emphasized, and we are not successful in developing the personality of individuals through the cultivation of their potentialities. . . . I think that the aims of education are now very unclear in Japan. We need to consider not only human relationships but also the necessity of cultivating and establishing a conscience within the individual—a feeling that he faces something absolute.44 Contemporary Japanese education has many areas in which instruction is mechanically conducted without regard for the personality or abilities of the individual student. "Respect for the individual" or "education for the entire human being" are stated goals of Japanese education, but is there adequate concern for each child?45

The problem of the relationship between school and society was also considered in a new light by the Japanese teachers.

Family, Church, and Community

85

When we compare the present trends in Japanese education and American education, we see that there is, of course, no change in the view that the schools are places where knowledge is acquired. At the same time, however, a recent attitude holds that, although the building of a good life-view is basically the responsibility of the home and society, training for public life must come from the school; that is, we tend to see the school as a microcosm of the larger society. If we simplify to an extreme, we may say that educational functions or areas in Japan which should be handled by the home or society are at present completely entrusted to the schools. Although an attempt is being made to differentiate educational functions of the school, home, and society, such differentiation is advocated on the premise that the schools form the larger and central dimension and that the home and society are lesser components of it.46 The teachers' beliefs regarding the relationship between the schools and society eventually became an amalgamation of those views held prior to their study in America and new insights received while in that country. At the end of the following passage we would like to draw attention to the way in which the teachers urge a balanced "coordination of the educational functions of the home, schools, and society," a principle observed in America. At the same time, however, they insisted "that an ideal image of the Japanese people first be established." Their many comments demonstrated that they were well aware that a single ideal image does not exist in America. But they apparently refused to accept the American proposition that "cooperative" moral education, and maintaining a national "ideal image" are mutually incompatible. If we agree that the education of youth requires a coordination of the educational functions of the home, schools, and society, rather than one of these components being the nucleus of that coordination, we see that it is necessary that an ideal image of the Japanese people first be established. If such an image is established, a structuring of that coordination and a clarification of the functions of the components within that coordination will be possible. Such an image should not be passed down "from above," but should arise from the people themselves. It must be an image which the Japanese people can directly and realistically grasp, one with which they can directly relate their daily experiences. One aspect of our present dilemma is the absence of such an ideal; the construction of such an ideal remains a large task confronting us.47

86

Family, Church, and Community

The lack of articulation between society and school in Japan came in for other additional criticisms. It is true that, although seeking stability, we are trying to develop children who are independent; but the actual society itself is extremely unstable now, making what was learned at school unworkable in the "real" world. There is a sharp discrepancy between the school and the society.48 The Japanese family-school relations were specifically singled out. We have no idea of avoiding the responsibility of the school, but I still think, in the case of Japan, parents should assume more responsibility. The severe discipline which we once had in Japanese families has been loosened recently and there has been an increasing tendency to depend upon the school. After my observations of American education, I started to realize how to change the direction again.49 In Japan, education in the schools is far ahead, education in the family is far behind, and education in the society is even further behind. Certainly Japanese families are not successfully training their children in basic patterns of behavior and are not stabilizing their children's emotional life. We also have a problem in the fact that each family is closed within itself and is lacking in the sense of outside social responsibility.60 At the same time some fears, familiar to American educators, were expressed about excesses of family influence upon the schools. We are certainly pushed by the requirement of the society, and we are liable to compromise. However, there is some hope for a solution. In my school the Parent-Teacher Association does not intervene in the management of the school, but, as we are dependent upon it financially, there is some danger of pressure. Both the Teachers Union and the educational administrators tend to attempt to utilize it. We need to have enough confidence to control our own affairs.51 The same respondent pointed out with great approval that his local Parent-Teacher Association delegates all school matters to the school principal. This supported his belief "that if the boat has too many sailors it may run aground." 52 These sentiments reflect the changed balance of power resulting from the American occupation. Even though the position of school bureaucracy is

Family, Church, and Community

87

strong by comparison with that in the United States, the measures designed to strengthen parental influence have aroused some apprehension. It is erroneous to attribute most of the postwar changes in Japan to American occupation authorities. Many of these were, in fact, planned before the war and were interrupted by the war.53 Many of the changes intended by the Americans did not come to pass. Today Japan, as correctly perceived by Japanese teachers themselves, rewards teachers with more prestige and exacts from them a higher level of duty than that accorded to and expected from American teachers. In Japan the schools and, therefore, the teachers have a far greater social responsibility than they do in America; because of that, Japanese schools are expected to achieve much more. Japanese schools are fulfilling no small amount of the function which is shouldered by the church and the home in America. This leads to some of the strong points of Japanese education, but at the same time it involves a number of problems too. Our great responsibilities and expectations make us feel that our work is needed and worthwhile. Because the school is not merely an agency of transmitting knowledge but is essentially a place where human beings are developed in their total personalities, we are able to feel a boundless joy and pride in our contacts with the children. . . . However, this also involves a possibility of acquiring a wrong view of teachers' jobs as being "holy" jobs. It is not rare that teachers become overconscious of their responsibilities and drive themselves into almost unresolvable situations because of their too-severe sense of mission. If society is going to promote the differentiation of the functions of various social groups, it is dangerous to attempt to approach the problems of education with a premodern view of the holiness of the teacher.54 I think that teachers are independent in Japan, but they also feel certain inevitable pressures. I feel that the school principals are weak decision-making figures. Too much pressure is placed on us by the parents, even at the elementary school level. We need to enlighten the community, particularly the parents who often want simply to get their children into higher levels of school without themselves paying too much attention to the content of education.65 Postulates for specific comparative study began to appear frequently. The critical observations made by the Japanese teachers

88

Family, Church, and Community

helped them to formulate more stable judgments about the respective patterns of national education. The maturity of their comparisons appears through the following statements on moral education. The American way of thinking is based upon pragmatism, a philosophy which may be said to be at the core of the American way of life. Americans do not work from a principle or general rule to solve a specific problem, but from the concrete reality, confident that something will evolve through trial and error. They do not hold a general desirable image of man and train their children toward that ideal, but, on the contrary, they train their children to develop their own capacities to the fullest extent through education. This difference in philosophies has made it difficult, in my observation, to find a common ground for communication. And these differences in thinking will naturally be tied up with differences in methods of training.56 When we ask American teachers about their educational objectives or desirable images of man, mostly we are told of "the development of citizenship." But if we continue to ask about training for good citizenship, we are rarely told anything specific. When Japanese teachers are asked this same question, they cite the image of man which is described in the Fundamental Education Law or in their courses of study. We still do not know if American teachers understood our question. But we wonder, too, if those ideal conditions cited by Japanese teachers are really being developed in actual educational activities.57 Sharp criticisms of their schools and society by the Japanese teachers emerged, although these criticisms were tempered and sensitized through comparative analyses. We have seen that the Japanese shrewdly picked out the essence of moral education in both countries, including its many imperfections. These imperfections, however, did not deter the visitors either from pursuing their studies or from considering whether their findings were transplantable. We have provided rather extensive (and sometimes verbose) renderings of the ideas of the Japanese teachers to show how clarity can be reached through comparative analyses in this somewhat obscure area of moral education in general, and guidance in particular. The Japanese teachers are themselves aware of the need for further thought and research in this field. It is quite true that we are too much concerned with educational

Family, Church, and Community

89

objectives in Japan, but there are reasons for that. Americans have a broad foundation of democracy and traditions of good citizenship from which to work; whereas, we Japanese have a tradition of being engaged in education on the basis of the educational objectives which were clearly defined since the beginning of the Meiji era. And yet even now we do not feel that these objectives have been undestood clearly enough. That is why we need to investigate our educational objectives continuously.58 In summary, the Japanese observed that Americans build practical behavior whereas Japanese are concerned with the integrated theory of personality by which they may lead their pupils; that on the debit side emphasis on specialization and efficiency in America detracts from closeness and warmth between pupils and teachers; but that on the credit side emphasis or balance of influence between school, home, and church provides for more flexibility than the sole paternal tutelage of the school as the system operates in Japan. We can speculate on the respective merits of disciplinary training which starts tough and loosens later as in the United States as against one that starts indulgent and gets tougher later as in Japan. Many of the things the Japanese said about moral education was critical; but Americans can take comfort in the equally many comments that were made about the healthy state of school and family life, of religion, and of the interest of the communities in education. Perhaps the nicest expression of the general quality of moral education in the United States was given by those Japanese teachers who commented as follows: I think that I saw the concepts of freedom and democracy working as basic principles throughout the society, integrating education, politics, and the economy. Freedom in America means, not "freedom from," but "freedom toward."59 In Japan we tend to think of freedom in an abstract way; but in America freedom is a concept deeply believed in and realized in actual practice. Even if it is not considered to be the highest value, it is, nevertheless, regarded as being the most significant way to achieve something better in life.60

4 Theory and Practice in the Classroom

There are two sides to instruction; namely, the techniques of teaching and the contents of teaching. In the United States we can notice improvement in regard to the latter aspect particularly. The positive attitude to modernization of instruction has come, not through the government, but through the activities of a number of voluntary educational associations. As the membership of these associations shows, these activities have the cooperation of specialists from elementary, junior high, senior high, and higher educational levels. The reforms which are implemented by these activities are not makeshift innovations but are the results of long-term efforts and experimentation. The government is offering a vast amount of grants for study, and publishers are also making many sacrifices by publishing experimental texts. We cannot help feeling the tremendous degree of enthusiasm toward improving the level of instruction when we remember that these reform projects are being supported through the cooperation of all the parties concerned.1 In this positive way the visiting Japanese teachers commented on the curriculum, the topic most central to their own concerns. The topic is indeed important and was a testing ground for the meeting of ideas from Japan and the United States. Only recently have attempts been made in the United States to "repackage" the content of instruction away from the traditional patterns. To date, these attempts have not gone very far. There is no clear notion of what the new curriculum should be. New experiments have neither penetrated very deeply nor spread very widely. There is an almost universal dissatisfaction with the present content of in90

Theory and Practice in the Classroom

91

struction and this dissatisfaction may eventually force a revolution. At present, however, curriculum change is just beginning. Confrontation between Japanese and American ideas on curriculum is important, therefore, as a source of solutions to curricular problems. This confrontation should go both ways; or, rather, the flow from the United States to Japan, which began during the Meiji era and which became a torrent under the occupation, needs to be supplemented by a reverse flow. The Japanese teachers visiting American schools proved themselves to be acute observers. They were in several respects enthusiastic about what they saw in American classrooms. This is astonishing to Americans, conditioned as they have been by the media to be critical of their schools. If nothing else, Japanese approval can serve as validation of American-held beliefs and American practices. Even more is implied in the Japanese opinions. Japanese schools have preserved the old-fashioned rigor which Japan borrowed from Europe. Through their help, some of it could flow back into American classrooms. A new opinion could be formed about American courses (such as social studies) which flourish at home but which died on the vine when they were transplanted to Japan, or those others (such as mathematics) which languish at home but which bloomed in Japan. Both Japanese and American models are mass models. The high level of scholastic performance which the Japanese have managed to retain is something to which American education is once again aspiring. It is perhaps trite to point out that the ideal of optimum instruction lies in the middle between the two countries and represents a marriage of the best features in each. The search for this optimum has provided a point-to-point dissection of the elements of the curriculum which may, in time, permit each country to attempt a better mixture than before. Generally speaking, the basic evaluation of the curriculum has produced the dictum that if only American children worked as hard as the Japanese, and if only the Japanese enjoyed as much freedom as ¿he American children—provided they maintain their standards—the curriculum problems of the world would be eliminated overnight. The phrase "provided they maintain their standards" is significant because such standards have drawn sharp criticisms from Japanese teachers. But these criticisms are over-

92

Theory and Practice in the Classroom

whelmed by the admiration for the freewheeling nature and force of the American curricular traditions. Lord Snow once pointed out that European education has "rigor" and American education had "vigor." Coming from a country in which rigorous academic training derived from European precedents has been very much the rule, the Japanese teachers were most sensitive to the dynamics of the American system—its vigorous wide-ranging reach and its capacity to adapt to individual needs and changing times. They knew at once that the United States has derived these qualities from its historic heritage. THE HERITAGE OF PROGRESSIVISM Admirable literature exists to document the popularity of progressive educational ideas among educators in Japan.2 The Japanese visitors came to the United States "primed with the desire to study the effectiveness and reach of these ideas in education: like most foreigners forced to work under constraints of a formalistic system, they yearned rather idealistically for the freedoms and spontaneity of the American curriculum." The Japanese teachers seized upon "the relevance" of American offerings. In Japan instruction is centered on memorization of conceptualized materials; hence, the students quite naturally tend to take a passive attitude toward learning. In the United States, instructors, utilizing objects or situations which are intimately related to the students' daily lives, conduct classes so that the student himself learns "ways of looking at things," "ways of thinking about things," and "ways of explaining things," and, by extension, learns "ways of living." What is called "moral education," "education for sensitivity," or "education which fosters creativity," is in Japan actualized within the instruction of academic subjects. Because of the underlying foundation of "American democracy," we saw that students in a classroom situation did not resist instruction but actively and cheerfully participated in learning. The reasons for this may be found in subject matter and instruction methods which are relevant to their actual lives. I would like to focus attention on the amount of time alloted for "self-study" during the school day. In Japan, where instruction is centered on "teaching," "self-study" has only a passive meaning. However, if we consider, as explained previously, that instruction

Theory and Practice in the Classroom

93

in the United States indicates learning (on the part of the students), the allotment of such time has much significance.3 Other comments dealt with spontaneity and the dynamic momentum of American instruction. We are perhaps oversimplifying, but we may say that Japanese education takes the form of the teacher's instructing the students, whereas, in the United States, students are drawn outward in development. In terms of patterns of instruction, we direct instruction to the class as a whole; in the United States there is individual instruction. This latter type of attitude toward education perhaps produces the multiple-class-section system, especially in larger schools.4 In Japan, the number of lesson hours is larger and the pupils' burden is heavier. In addition to that, many children attend private classes of tutors after school is over. Probably they learn twice as much as American children. They also study more difficult material. On the other hand, Americans learn in a much freer atmosphere. They read lots of books and also learn how to think.® Japanese teachers staunchly denied that John Dewey's teachings were no longer at the center of American education. They saw evidence of his presence everywhere and their words on the subject speak for themselves. Is the doctrine of experience-centered education dead? I shall have to answer negatively. I heard severe criticisms of Dewey from American teachers. But I saw no instance in which their teaching performances contradicted Dewey's ideals. Furthermore, the elements which make up the foundations of Dewey's proposal for experience-centered education formed the basic attitudes which the teachers took in their classroom. It may even be said that, by criticizing experience-centered education, American teachers are moving closer to a more profound or truer experience-centered education.8 American social studies classes are confronted by the problems of American society and are themselves a means toward a solution of those problems. Hence when we ask questions about Dewey's philosophy to teachers in the field, these teachers say that they cannot answer such difficult questions. Yet American social thought itself is experience-centered and when American teachers are actually involved in teaching they cannot avoid using the experimental problem-solving method.7 Needless to say, the roots of American education and its orthodox intellectual foundations lie in pragmatism. But it seems that the

94

Theory and Practice in the Classroom "education based on pragmatism" which the Japanese experienced and understood in the postwar period was a "progressive" manifestation of such education. If this be correct, then it may be said that in the United States "progressive" education—a vulgarization of "education based on pragmatism"—has disappeared. . . . If this be so, what has happened to the mainstream of pragmatism? How should one evaluate the present situation? None of the American teachers whom I met could answer this question clearly. In a country where pragmatism permeates every aspect of life, one still is not readily able to recognize and isolate it.8

The Japanese teachers perceived that progressive education has its own weaknesses, that "many highly talented young people are being overlooked because of an overemphasis on 'equal education or "life adjustment.' " 9 But they were quick to admire the voluntary and free educational activities and a variety of courses permitting self-study based on interest. Even in minor details of specific courses of study did the visitors perceive "progressive" elements. Even technical and home economics courses at the junior high school level emphasize general, rather than vocational, education. Americans encourage "learning by doing" to develop vocational ability at later stages. This technique allows individual students to try various kinds of experiences to learn what interests them most. Boys study industrial arts and girls study home economics; this is in contrast to Japan where these two courses are somewhat combined. The contents of the subject matter are also narrower and simpler than in Japan, but the facilities are superior, and are constantly being improved.10 Narrow-focus, subject-centered instruction not related to life was condemned. On the other hand, Japanese teachers praised flexible, action-centered, dynamic teaching whenever they found it and they were uniformly impressed with the capacity of the American curriculum to arouse the imagination. Although our observations of instruction in social studies classes were limited, we felt that "arousal of interest in the students" and "development of research skills" are much more emphasized than in Japan. We were able to see that the teachers usually aided or reinforced independent thinking and scholarly activity on the part of the students.11 American teachers devote their greatest efforts to instruction. This

Theory and Practice in the Classroom

95

was the strongest impression that remained with me after actually seeing teachers in the field. In the two school systems I observed, the classes were mainly English and foreign-language classes. In these classes the teachers had made detailed instruction plans and yet they were presenting, not stereotyped, but highly individualistic instruction.12 American teachers teach specific courses of study by beginning with information already known by the students and continuing on from there. The teachers themselves have independence and initiative. Even when they are teaching basic information, they try to adapt their teaching to the ability and level of understanding of individual pupils.13 Japanese teachers highlighted "the youthful energy involved in the educational revolution"14 which they saw around them in the American schools. They realized that the major goal of American education, at least in theory, is to cultivate the ability to learn in each child and that an individual approach is the main weapon in this battle. INDIVIDUALIZED CURRICULUM The Japanese teachers were impressed with the individual approach taken by Americans to the curriculum. They envied this approach, recommended it for Japan, and, with qualifications, expressed their conviction in its being the proper approach to curriculum. "We are a young country and simple,"15 one of their hosts told them, and from this they deduced the image of the country as being vital, energetic, and devoted above all to expansion of the horizons of individual persons. In the United States many types of instructional methods seem to be used. We saw many instances of use of the lecture type of class which is also common in Japan, but this method of teaching is used at schools above the junior high school level. In the elementary and junior high schools instruction directed at an entire class seemed to occur relatively less frequently than in Japan. But in all classroom levels in America there is respect for the individual. To put it simply, Japanese may be overly involved in the subject-matter and Americans may be overly involved with the child. Which emphasis is better is not the point here; rather, the significant point is that seeing this diiference made us reconsider such

96

Theory and Practice in the Classroom questions as: Who plays the main role in education? For whom are educational materials made? What functions do such materials have?18 The schools do not force students to participate in nonacademic activities, but do recognize the educational value of voluntary activities. Such activities are unanimously supported by the teachers who all agree that the students should develop their own individualities.17 I had an impression that even the education of exceptionally bright students was firmly based upon the spirit of humanism.18

The Japanese teachers were quick to note that scholastic levels of attainment were lower in the United States than in Japan. But they were shrewd enough to understand that such a comparison depends on how one defines "attainment." They grasped at once the fact that standards of performance in American universities are among the highest anywhere. They considered "a relaxed attitude toward study, built on an attitude of independence" at a lower level to be "a coiled spring" which enables the students to perform so well at a higher level.19 The visitors also noted the American emphasis on effectiveness of learning instead of mere exposure to learning. Individualization of instruction was found to affect comparative standards of achievement, study habits, and, indeed, the whole tenor of American education. EfiForts can be seen in almost all American schools to develop within the student a positive attitude toward independent study. There are differences in emphasis between the lower and higher grade levels; but, in my case, I mainly visited high schools and was much impressed with methods which fostered the attitude of "doing it yourself." While also taking into consideration the fact that instruction according to ability is quite strongly emphasized and the fact that the nature, content, and method of use of American textbooks differ greatly from those in Japan, I feel that this is a distinctive feature of the method of instruction in the United States. I believe that one of the main goals of American education is the development of independent thought in the individual. One feels that Japan teaches academic subjects and America teaches methods of doing research. I returned to Japan with the view that American students, in comparison to Japanese students in the same grade, are at a scholastically lower level. If the formation of attitudes toward study and if the acquisition of study methods are considered to be part

Theory and Practice in the Classroom

97

of the content of education, however, I doubt if the educational level in Japan is higher than that of the United States. Let me illustrate. On one occasion we were shown new science equipment for experiments at a college, but this sparkling new equipment was the same type as that provided in the senior high schools in Japan. I mentioned this when I had a chance to discuss education with one American and was criticized in return. The general tenor of the reply was as follows: "But what is the case in Japan? Is it not that entrance examinations are constantly in everyone's mind, yet after passing the exams the students hardly study at all. And although they might study diligently while in school they seem to forget it all after graduation. We will not accept such a situation. The amount that we teach may indeed be small, but we try to have the students absorb that amount thoroughly. Our method is to instill in the student an attitude toward learning which will make him want to continue studying after graduation."20 Individualization of instruction in America was seen as involving the absence of overbearing authority. "There were no examples of the teachers bullying the students nor of the students cowering in meekness."21 There was an atmosphere of optimism in human potential that transcended a mere permissiveness. Japanese teachers even approved the practice of "foolish" questions being encouraged by the teachers. I was favorably impressed with the fact that questions, even foolish ones, are permitted by the teachers. In a long-term view, the results will be much more favorable even though the teaching methods appear now to be inefficient.22 There were a few voices questioning the authenticity and effectiveness of individualized education. In spite of the rich facilities and modern teaching methods which I observed, I felt, in a senior high school social studies class for example, that the students were deficient in the amount they were learning and that they lacked a spirit of intellectual exploration. Although Americans have traditionally respected the rights of the individual, I felt that the ethical role of the individual in society was not being considered very seriously.23 We had many doubts as to whether adequate instruction was being provided under the detailed and specific program designed to meet "the developmental level of the student or the abilities of the student." In both school districts we visited, education for creativity was

98

Theory and Practice in the Classroom held to be education which "concretely developed and guided the interests of the individual." In the classroom, however, interests seemed to remain simply as interests, often indeed seeming to degenerate into mere entertainment. The educational process must be given first consideration. To raise students' interests to a higher level and to encourage genuine creativity, it may be necessary to revise the present instructional techniques.24

But, on the whole, the major emphasis on individual attention in American education was clearly seen and accepted as being valuable. We may not have succeeded in developing different kinds and levels of abilities because (1) we have a fixed way of looking at academic achievement, at education itself, and at the abilities of children; Americans have a much more flexible way of looking at these; (2) our organization of school classes and the courses taught in those classes is lessflexiblethan in America; (3) we tend to consider ability and academic achievement from the national standard as given in the course of study issued by the Ministry of Education; American teachers, on the other hand, are concerned with developing each individual to the fullest extent of that person s abilities. I firmly believe, therefore, that we need to change our view of academic achievement and pupils' abilities and develop our own independence of judgment. We must consider individual differences among children.25 APPRAISAL OF SUBJECT TEACHING The Japanese teachers did not believe that the emphasis on individualization which they observed in American schools was accompanied by a flight from subject matter. "There has always existed instruction which closely followed subject matter."26 Instead, comments were made about the range of subjects available in American schools, a feature inevitably associated with individualization. Americans were forever said to be pushing for diversity and variety of subjects in the school and also for "the diversified development of the abilities of individuals."27 In American schools instruction is based upon a respect for individuals. For example, Americans have a large range of courses from which to select. I suppose that juvenile delinquency, a phenomenon which may be attributed to failure in academic achievement, is less common in America. Furthermore, one's educational career does not necessarily determine one's future career. Parents do not always

Theory and Practice in the Classroom

99

oppose the selection of the courses made on the criteria of abilities.28 The range of subject matter is extremely wide. For example, while Aristotle's philosophy was being discussed in one high school classroom, "home living" and the mores of dating were being taught in another. In such a manner the varied abilities of the students were taken into account. Hence, we should not simply observe only a part of the curriculum and conclude that the level of course content in Japan is higher.29 The relatively easy curriculum was said to affect favorably the personality of the students. The children were not always "grinding away at studies."30 They were allowed to enjoy their childhood and to face in a relaxed manner the complexity of adulthood. But Japanese teachers correctly characterized the astounding diversity of achievement certain to result from the flexible American curriculum. In America, those who study do so very seriously, but those who do not, do not do so at all. There seem to be tremendous differences among individuals in achievement. In Japan, the pattern of learning among pupils is more or less similar.31 One Japanese teacher brilliantly related the impact of American opulence upon the curriculum and upon the general personality profile and lack of capacity for perseverance seen in many Americans. I mentioned previously that lessons were given to train "thinking men"; however, considering their advantageous conditions, the students still lack something. They seem to have little passion for learning. Though this might be my subjective impression, I thought that the students' thoughts seemed to stay within the boundaries outlined by the teachers. Here I dare to speculate on the reasons for this situation: 1. Since many students live in ease and comfort, they find it difficult to relate to political problems; whereas dating can be the most attractive "problem" for them. 2. Their sensitivities are so deadened by sensational mass communication or dazzling advertisements that they jump at the unusual but tire easily. They cannot concentrate on, nor grapple with, one thing. 3. It is said that ordinarily American families are lacking in intellectual inquisitiveness and do not give high value to intellectual matters.

100

Theory and Practice in the Classroom

4. Low wages and low social prestige produce a scarcity of distinguished teachers. This is a serious problem, because teachers who are proud of their ability to teach have a great influence on their students. I think it is very possible to discover human alienation in American senior high schools.32

Although they reaffirmed the persistence of progressive philosophy in education, the visitors were aware that schools were being criticized in the United States for not being intellectual enough. The first impression we had after observing American education was that American education (i.e., "new education" in postwar Japan, progressive education) as we had understood it did not exist. It is generally agreed that progressive education, because it placed great importance on social adaptability, was low in intellectual productivity. It is also widely believed that the technological revolution (symbolized by the "sputnik shock," although some say that that even was merely coincidental) overturned progressive education. Scholarship was substituted for sociability. It was believed that if the students' actual projects and thinking were carefully followed through, the students would grasp the fundamentals of science and would be able to advance to formalistic concepts and to the outer limits of scientific knowledge. This was indeed the case. The recent emphasis on scholarship in education does not entail a simple emphasis on teaching established academic areas or curricula, nor is it a cramming of knowledge from established systems. The individuality and creativity included within the student's own work and thinking is truly maintained and encouraged. What of the Japanese? We found it easy to criticize "new education," i.e., progressive education. But did we make any effort to go beyond criticism to the formulation of new subject matter and methods to keep pace with contemporary science? Some efforts were indeed made, but those efforts did not become a major influence in Japanese education. In the classroom there is still a "deification" of the curriculum and even, under the name of subject-oriented instruction, a degeneration into mere cramming for college entrance examinations. Revolutionary changes in educational theory are readily apparent in American classrooms. . . . Because of an absence of ideological disputes (such as the establishment versus antiestablishment struggle concerning educational modernization in Japan), there is cooperative effort among all school personnel of whatever level. The specialization of teaching duties is necessarily related to an emphasis on scholarship in education, a mechanization of education, and a raising of efficiency. We were able to see that American

Theory and Practice in the Classroom

101

teachers are extremely devoted to their specific areas of specialization, being perhaps encouraged or even compelled to become so. The development of "citizens with the ability to think critically" has not been accomplished simply by making a proposal such as the Japanese document written by members of the Central Educational Advisory Council about the "desired image of man." It is being realized through tremendous expenditures and through steady effort on the part of the teachers. In this we see the strength of American democracy.33 Perhaps one of the most remarkable aspects of the JapaneseAmerican confrontation was the fact that the Japanese teachers, who had come from a tradition of strict learning, praised American education wherever they found it exhibiting progressive features. They criticized the American curriculum whenever they found it to be too narrowly academic. I noticed a number of good points in American education. The nongraded school system is one example where an attempt is being made to develop individuals. However, I did feel that too much attention is being laid upon the intellectual aspects of education.34 Instruction is directed toward intellectual skills by the use of the subject-centered curriculum. Among these subjects we see that a great amount of time is devoted to English and arithmetic. Although the persons in charge of supervising the teachers have been strongly asserting the necessity of combining and unifying courses, an entirely contrary situation exists in practice. As reasons for this, we offer the following appraisal. American society attempts to develop the abilities of the individual through training in academic areas. For example, it is decided whether the child is normal or mentally retarded after the child has entered the public school. Of the fifty classes for retarded children in one city, only three are conducted for children below eight years of age. This is contrary to the view that sees more effectiveness in early education. Furthermore, we are doubtful if full attention is being given to the special psychological characteristics of mentally retarded children who must receive this special attention if their abilities are to be stimulated.35 Another note in general discussion of the curriculum was the recognition by Japanese teachers of the American attempts to strike a healthy balance in the nature of offerings in the school. The Japanese teachers noted and approved the attempts to create an even distribution of scientific and humanist curricular materials.

102

Theory and Practice in the Classroom

The principal of a senior high school said, "Since the sputnik shock, fiie federal government has been encouraging the development of instruction in physics, chemistry, and engineering. Such subjects as history, language arts, fine arts, and music are also being taught. Attention is being paid not only to the natural sciences but also to the humanities." Another principal of a senior high school said, "Since the sputnik shock, the in-service training of science and mathematics teachers has particularly been emphasized by the needs of the government, the military, and industry, but now the tendency is shifting to the equal emphasis of the humanities. I personally believe that social studies are very important for the cultivation of peace."36 Ten years ago when the federal government proclaimed the necessity for better science education, there also occurred active movements to prevent a one-sidedness in the classrooms, i.e., to insure that equal weight is given the sciences and the humanities. An effort was made to prevent a hysterical rush in one direction which would deform future American education. On the premise that America's greatness lies not in its uniformity but in its plurality, educators adapted the curriculum to meet individual abilities and interests. I heard the statement, "We need persons highly trained in the sciences, but we should not forget that we also need well-trained lawyers, creative artists, and educators.37 To Japanese teachers, much more than to American parents or children, it seemed that the American curriculum has a freshness and its own natural momentum. They were impressed that such a condition could exist in a machine-oriented age. I had expected that in the United States, the country which leads the technological revolution, even education would have become mechanized with instruction being much influenced by teaching machines. However, I found the situation to be different. It is true that the recording of individual evaluations, attendance, filing of grades, systems for distribution of educational materials, and so forth are highly mechanized. But in the actual classroom situation, learning is not at all mechanized. Even programmed learning of the type used in special schools for retarded children was limited to the teaching of basic skills in arithmetic and reading. Although almost all foreign language courses used language laboratory equipment, the nuclear material taught was directed at an exchange of ideas, such as occurs between teacher and student or between friends. The special dictionaries used at the "Continuation School" (a school for children with behavioral or learning problems) did not mechanically give answers but were devised to draw out various

Theory and Practice in the Classroom

103

ideas from the individual students. Machines are used only as a means to enable more frequent and more meaningful contact between the teacher and student.38 We have seen that the comments which Japanese teachers made were not free from criticism; but, on the whole, they were unexpectedly favorable. Americans, for the last ten years, have done nothing but criticize their curriculum (often with good reason). The curriculum of rigor-minded countries like Japan had, and still has, great appeal to the general public as an orderly and lucid method for fostering intellectual performance. Then specially selected Japanese teachers came to this country; observed American classrooms; and, when they had finished, countered virtually every popular opinion of the American curriculum. They praised everything Americans regard as "soft." They criticized much that is considered positive by American reformers. Perhaps because the visitors were good teachers, they warmed up so much to the notion of a dynamic, open system in which decisions regarding the curriculum are made only by the teachers. Alas, good teachers are scarce. The majority of the teachers of the world would do well to cling to systematized methods of instruction. Hence, the argument remains unsettled as to whether there is more wisdom in pursuing the Japanese-type curriculum or the American, even though the best Japanese teachers are not willing to give the former their full approval. CLASSROOM MANAGEMENT The themes of individuality, flexibility, and the pragmatic orientation of Americans were kept in mind when the Japanese teachers turned their attention to the details of the curriculum. Regarding the specifics of teaching in the United States, the visitors characterized them in the following way: Some of the good points in American education may be the great emphasis on reading and the diversification of its teaching; the enthusiasm for new methods of teaching, such as the discovery method and the modular system; the nongraded school system; and the instruction geared to the individual development. On the other hand, Americans have some problems. For example, each curriculum subject requires certain abilities from the students if they are to learn. It is not clear what those abilities are. Second, American students

104

Theory and Practice in the

Classroom

must be able to integrate what they have learned in one class with what they have learned in another and they receive little training in this technique.39 Japanese visitors raised over and over again the theme that excessive differentiation may damage the harmonious growth of the total person. When examining specific details of curriculum, the teachers did not hesitate to point out other significant gaps existing between the American ideals and practice. The good and bad curricular peculiarities of the American system were found to be coexistent in an unexpected framework. I had expected to see within the American education system the original form of the Japanese 6-3-3 system. But in the secondary curriculum I saw rather large differences. The 3-3 difference between junior high and senior high schools in the United States does not have very great significance: the curriculum is handled in a completely unified manner. In the United States this is quite natural. Unlike the system in Japan, compulsory education in the United States does not end at the junior high school level, and so there are no senior high school entrance examinations.40 The close fit between curriculum and structure has been noted by many foreign observers as being a logical result of a system devoted to the maintenance of maximum flexibility. Various facets of classroom practices were noted at great length and are reproduced in part here to show the attention to detail paid by the Japanese. First we present a general characterization of instruction. Instruction time is not rigidly allocated and frequently only short periods of time are devoted to one topic. Predetermined instruction time schedules are rare. There are scheduled periods for nongradeoriented classes such as those in music, crafts and design, and physical education. Other subjects have varied lengths of time. For example, third graders might have fifteen minutes of spelling, one hour of reading, forty-five minutes of arithmetic, and so forth. The teacher decides how the available time is to be allocated. When I asked if this does not lead to an overemphasis of certain subjects, I was told that everything averaged out in the long run. The rate of progress within the subjects taught is also left to the teacher and, although children are tested for scholastic ability, such tests are not considered to be evaluations of the instructor's teaching ability. A basic fact to consider is that the American ethos of "doing it yourself" is not limited to the teachers but also is held by

Theory and Practice in the Classroom

105

the populace in general. Hence, rather than being bound to certain guidelines or to teaching in a certain way because that way was followed the previous year, teachers are free to be innovative and independent.41 Not only flexibility but also creativity and problem-solving were singled out for specific mention. During homestays, we first visited the local board of education. There we were given a general introduction to the local educational structure and were then each assigned to a school. At these schools the "study guide" approximated the Japanese "course of study." However, we did identify certain noticeable differences between the two countries. An example of the differences could be seen in the English courses at an elementary school. These courses were titled creative writing, creative reading, and creative speech. (We also encountered such titles as creative dancing and creative drama.) Considering the fact that in Japan there has been a call for a raising of basic academic skills and for a return to sequential instruction, we may regard the term "creative" as representing a stubborn and strong challenge to the primary goals of education. Related to this we have in social studies the controversial "problem solving" versus "sequential learning of subject matter," and in mathematics a problem of how to handle the "new mathematics." In social studies we did not, apparently, see any instances of learning by problem-solving. It is true that we encountered cases in high schools where newspapers were used to associate American education with Dewey and Dewey with "learning by experience."42 The following passage stresses the American recognition of the need for selectivity in knowledge, for acquisition of sound study methods, for avoidance of learning from textbooks, and for emphasis on the basic importance of language. We cannot make a correct evaluation if we judge only from superficialities and do not remember the objectives of American teachers. One professor made the following statement concerning this point: "The recent rapid advances in learning have greatly increased the volume of knowledge. To meet this challenge, the schools first must consider what they will teach as basic elements. Then the instruction must be organized to give students an awareness that learning is a lifetime process and also to give them the methods by which they can continue learning." With an awareness of these goals, the following two characteristics of American classroom methods become understandable. First

106

Theory and Practice in the Classroom

there is heavy emphasis placed on English language instruction. From the elementary school level the greatest amount of instructional effort is focused in this area. Settled by people from many nations and composed of states which are administratively somewhat independent, the United States must rely on its common language to maintain the unity of its people. But that is not the only reason the English language is emphasized; facility in the use of the language is regarded as a basic skill which forms the foundation for all other learning. To learn the proper study methods, the student himself reads books, consults reference works, and organizes notes into reports which are presented to the teacher. Underlying this process is the goal of having the student acquire particular methods and attitudes toward learning. As a basic skill for carrying out such research and study, a high level of English language ability is considered to be necessary. Secondly, it is held that rote teaching of the textbook must be avoided as much as possible. This is because such teaching lessens the interest of the student in studying and destroys the spirit of individual voluntary study. It is felt that the daily lessons must be no more than aids or supplements to the student's own studies. Hence, differing from the Japanese attitude, the American attitude is that the textbook need not be taught from cover to cover; rather, it is used as an aid to the student's own studies. The textbooks are organized so that they can be used in such a manner; hence, they are often quite large. It is easy to instruct by simply following the order of presentation in a textbook. It is much more difficult to plan and effect the type of instruction which American education sets as its goal—instruction which encourages individual research by the student. Difficulties in instruction methods in American high schools have not been completely overcome, of course. Americans are troubled as we are by the students' deficiencies in basic subjects such as science and mathematics. They feel that such problems await a modernization in course content and a rise in teaching ability of the instructors.43

Regarding the details of instruction, Japanese teachers did not hesitate to be sharply critical of the American curriculum and practices when they thought such criticism appropriate. In the classroom I saw very litde writing work. Some pupils were chewing gum or touching their hair in an absentminded manner. The teacher s attention was mainly directed to the brilliant children.44 In the classrooms I noticed that children were learning indepen-

Theory and Practice in the Classroom

107

dently and were well disciplined. However, I also thought that both teachers and pupils were writing in a rough and careless manner; the posture of the pupils was frequently bad; and very little was done with the use of notebooks.45 My impression of the lessons is as follows. The English class, in spite of the adoption of several new features, was more or less monotonous, with too much emphasis on questions and answers between the teacher and the pupils. I felt also that Japanese teachers go to the desks of individual pupils more frequently and give them more help. Equipment for the experimental work in science classes was pretty well provided; however, it was apparent that the quality of science education, particularly at the elementary school level, is rather low. In the social studies classes, team-teaching was often used, but I thought that it was ineffetive. In American history classes, I noticed not infrequently the repetition of similar subject matter in junior and senior high schools. In agricultural lessons the operation of machines was emphasized, but the basic knowledge and skills were not taught as much as they are in Japan. However, the general high schools were well-equipped and even slow learners were serious in their learning. Counseling was emphasized in very school and the communications with families were very close. American teachers seemed to be contented with entrusting many things to specialists in different fields.48 I could not discover any sort of training to develop the ability to reason. For example, the pupils in woodshop were simply repeating their mistakes without being able to correct them; nor did the teachers try to suggest certain specific points to start the students thinking for themselves. In Japan we teach too hurriedly in order to complete the subject matter. Americans, in contrast, teach without haste, emphasizing actual experiences. This may be a good thing, but it was doubtful if the students were being given guidance either before or after their learning experiences. In the laboratory work I saw pupils continuing their work without raising any questions. Many hours and even weeks were spent like that. I had the impression that they were not being given lessons of high quality; but, at the same time, I felt that this might be better than teaching too much, particularly if one's aim is the development of creativity.47 It was difficult for me to understand how elementary, junior high, and senior high school education could be the motive power of progress in America. Certainly academic achievement in the universities is high, but this achievement should have had its roots in the elementary, junior high, and the senior high school levels. I had to admit, however, that enthusiasm for learning has been cultivated

108

Theory and Practice in the Classroom

from early childhood. Probably the attitude which permits patient study has been fostered in many children in the home.48 The visitors did not spare their hosts wherever they found them simply "moving students from classroom to classroom" without giving them opportunity for much personal contact with the teachers.49 One could expect to find some criticisms of the curriculum in any large group of teachers, but these comments on details of instruction are too consistent to be dismissed. More likely is the explanation that, in the wide variety of schools and classrooms to which the Japanese teachers were exposed, some bad teaching could not be avoided. This conclusion is corroborated by a cluster of opinions which are less decisive in apportioning praise and blame in the American classroom. Teachers quoted below expressed their own personal likes and dislikes but also testified to the difficulties of forming precise judgments about the bewildering variety of practices and attitudes in the American schools. In general there were no opportunities for cooperative training and study within the schools. I felt that the low level of instructional guidance by the teacher is derived from this. I also have many doubts about such matters as the weekly instruction plans, the development of reasoning ability in experimental instruction, the effective use of audiovisual materials. On the positive side, I noted that instruction followed the abilities of the children and sought to develop positive attitudes toward independent and voluntary study.50 It can hardly be said that the children's creative abilities were being allowed to develop in the classroom situation. For example, there seemed to be little improvement in skill in artwork or crafts between younger and older groups of children. From this I was forced to conclude that there are developmental stages in conceptualization and skills to be acquired, even in the area of creativity; and that if there is no guidance to foster growth in sensitivity, an extremely great amount of waste results. Self-evaluation is conducted in this school every two weeks and this replaces the more usual report card. In self-evaluation, the child and his teacher discuss what was done in the past two weeks, whether sufficient progress was shown, and what should be accomplished in the following two weeks. Although I received the impression that this school was extremely free—almost to the point of having no guidance at all—I felt that a

Theory and Practice in the Classroom

109

certain intangible quality which could be sensed in the activities of the children was gained by self-evaluation and planning.51 When we visited American schools to observe classroom instruction, we received the impression that the quality of instruction was low, the atmosphere too relaxed, and results insufficient. We also felt that more thought should be given to instructional techniques. But, in actuality, there is a very high level of achievement. Further, it may be held that there is much effectiveness in the areas of development of abilities, fostering creativity, and the furthering of the potentialities of the individual. In Japan, lesson content, in both elementary and junior high school, is too precise and minutely planned. Too much is taught, so that children are graduated who lack adaptability, creativity, and the imagination to apply what they have been taught. Small research and discussion groups have finally been established in Japan to study instruction methods and course content; but, compared with the various types of American research projects, these groups are weak and insignificant.52 Below is a comment where the writer, by juxtaposing the American and Japanese curriculums, succeeded in softening the previous criticisms. Some instruction is child-centered, and learning is done freely and voluntarily according to the interests of the child. However, it is difficult in child-centered instruction to devise a sequential plan of teaching because the subject matter extends over a wide area and is difficult to coordinate. When work progresses according to the child's interests, there is the possibility that the child may acquire only scattered knowledge and not gain the basic knowledge and skills which are considered appropriate for his level of development. Some instruction is given by dividing the class into small groups. This type of teaching emphasizes individual study, but this method, too, is not without problems. How can the children not in the group being instructed use their time effectively? How is instruction given in Japan? The set phrases expressing purpose in the two countries may be the same, but the Japanese attitude toward teaching is not necessarily the same as the American. The acquirement of scholastic ability in Japan is related to the problem of entrance examinations. Yet, entrance to a specific school does not necessarily produce an effective member of society but, rather, only insures that that student who does enter will have a privileged social status. One feels that success in university entrance examinations is the ultimate goal of students in Japan. Fur-

110

Theory and Practice in the Classroom

ther, such education seems to have no relationship to employment qualifications after graduation. Six months or more of special training are needed after employment. In this we see the waste of the uniform method of instruction—the "cramming" method of instruction—which has as its goal the passing of university entrance examinations. Let us next consider flexibility in use of instruction time. In Japan use of the instruction hours is rigidly determined. Regardless of its effectiveness instruction is conducted for a set amount of time. In America, in contrast, the instructor plans the subject matter for each week to fit a set number of prescribed hours. Giving due consideration to the subject matter and the ability of the children, he may use short fifteen-minute sessions or perhaps may use the full hour; it is indeed a free and flexible method of instruction. There may appear to be certain preferences for specific subjects, but, in the long run, one can see that an equal amount of instruction in each subject is being presented.53 The visitors were also fascinated by the degree of student participation in American classrooms, a participation which, in Japan, is at a minimum. They also concerned themselves with the use of worksheets and textbooks and paid some attention to self-study and school supplies. On balance their interest in the general aspects of the classroom process overshadowed their concern for the specifics. Although the degree of participation in class discussions interested them, their evaluations on the subject differed. Some teachers thought pupils were properly passive. Others thought them to be very active and criticized American teachers for wanting to restrain them. Methods of instruction differ greatly in every classroom. Instruction has an individuality about it. Many lessons clearly reflect the teacher's personality and could only be given by that specific teacher. Perhaps because the country is so large geographically, no special teaching method became dominant; or perhaps Americans dislike following a standard or uniform method. At any rate, the courses and the teaching methods overflow with freshness and vitality. It seems, too, that the students do not have enough patience to sit quietly and listen to things which do not interest them. When they are in doubt, they immediately raise their hands to ask questions. The class then becomes very noisy, and the teacher must work desperately to return order. Have the students not been trained to listen to what the teacher has to say and then ask questions in an

Theory and Practice in the Classroom

111

orderly manner? In social situations or at home they usually allow the other to speak when two persons inadvertently speak at the same time. Why do they not do so in the classroom?54 The fact that American teachers often do not adhere to the textbooks and study aids also interested the visitors. American teachers do not utilize textbooks in the way in which Japanese teachers do. Japanese teachers usually cover all the material in the textbook during instruction periods. In contrast, the teachers in American high schools select a number of topics from the textbook to use as the nuclei of instruction. In many courses this method attains results that cannot be attained by the methods used in Japanese schools. I felt however, that in courses such as science and mathematics, where new concepts must be presented sequentially, such methods make instruction difficult.55 The textbooks are written to facilitate unsupervised study. Therefore, more time is spent in the classroom for questions and answers or discussions than for explanations.56 Educational materials are a means to aid the development of the student and, of course, are not ends in themselves. Although this is quite obvious, the inherent dictum is not always followed as closely as it is in the United States. We saw no instances where students were ordered to memorize passages and were subsequently tested to examine their ability to retain the memorized material. Rather, students had available a large pool of educational material which they could use at will. An important point is that this use of educational materials is supported by supervisory and administrative staffs. I asked one principal: "If you do not emphasize the curricula and textbooks selected by the board of education and simply leave planning to the discretion of teachers, will there not be cases in which one-sidedness will occur according to the bias of the teacher?" He answered: "No, not at all. We can have creative and living instruction only from a creative teacher. Rather than have them simply follow the textbooks, we welcome innovative teachers who add their own plans and materials." In the "evaluation of duties" sheet we found the item: "Is instruction being conducted only with use of the textbooks?57 As for textbooks, they usually contain an abundant number of pictures, charts, and detailed explanations of the subject matter. The interested student and the intelligent student probably find them to be attractive reading matter or reference works. A point of interest is the fact that, in terms of content, the texbooks are graded into various levels and can be selected freely to meet the requirements

112

Theory and Practice in the Classroom

of the users or according to the purpose of the course. This, of course, allows an amount of flexibility in the process of instruction. The lists of terminology, suggestions for projects, related research topics, exercise problems, and examples of methods of solution which may be used freely and on the initiative of the student can produce good results.58 Comments were also made about the use of work sheets. Work sheets are used in Japan in industrial arts and home economics courses. Some are devised by the teacher and others are already printed and sold in bookstores. The use of work sheets is criticized in the United States for, although such aids direct the work of the students in an orderly manner, they are not suitable for developing creativity and planning ability in the children. Americans feel that textbooks and reference materials should be consulted only when necessary. Those work sheets which they do use are very simple and are used mainly to record plans, the learning process, and evaluations.59 Adherence to texts and study plans could not be rigid in an individualized system and the visitors realized that. They accepted it as part of the nondirective teaching to which they often referred and which some of them covertly admired. As an example we present several comments about independent study, a phenomenon in which the visitors were seriously interested. We noticed that periods for independent study were available and their significance was well understood. And yet we also noticed too many occasions during which these periods were used incorrectly or inefficiently, although it is also true that we found a number of good examples of efficient use.60 In Japan we have too many periods of independent study, especially when teachers leave the school for conference meetings or other official business. But I regret that we cannot ensure that all the pupils are working in these hours, because often only a small number of brilliant pupils actually study and other pupils just waste time. In American schools, it seems to me that the students usually use their hours of independent study more seriously and usefully. They may not be asked to memorize the subject matter, but they do seem to have learned how to study and also to reason. This seems to be the difference between the two countries.61 In the chemistry laboratories the teachers did not give any directions during the period when the students were conducting their experiments according to the directions in the experiment work-

Theory and Practice in the Classroom

113

books. The teacher was not upset when students followed the workbook instructions inaccurately or when they had to repeat their experiments. It was intended that the student himself think about the problems and come to learn the subject by trial and error. At first this seems to be a time-consuming method but in actuality it is not. I feel that it helps develop creativity in the student. In their efforts to bring all students to the same level or to lead them all in the same direction, Japanese teachers have a tendency to force rashly their own thinking on the students. This has a negative effect on the development of flexible minds and on the development of creativity.62 Interesting and very perceptive comparative conclusions were drawn from the nature and use of school supplies. For educational systems such as Japan s in which the instructor uses highly organized subject matter and a systematic teaching style, bound notebooks are easier to use. Such notebooks are convenient for notes that are organized from beginning to end. Loose-leaf notebooks, on the other hand, are suitable for a more dynamic style of teaching and learning. It is an interesting point, therefore, that Japanese students usually use bound notebooks, whereas American children use flexible, loose-leaf notebooks. In comparing the styles of education in Japan and the United States, Professor Bereday characterized the one as having stability and the other as having flexibility. In the Japanese elementary schools the bulletin board is always filled. Walls are posted with various articles until almost no empty space is left. At times things such as chronologies, written in a small hand, are posted up at a high place near the ceiling. Other than utilizing the bulletin boards, American teachers seem not to use wall space for posters, announcements, and so forth. As one advances to junior high school and senior high school in Japan, the classroom environment rapidly becomes drab and lifeless and the amount of materials posted on bulletin boards and on the walls rapidly decreases. In American junior high and senior high schools the amount of posted material remains about the same.83 W e see that the Japanese teachers differed in their reactions to various facets of American education. They were certainly repelled by the bureaucratic regime under which they had had to live in their own schools. The American system, therefore, appeared open, relaxed, and never threatening. One teacher beautifully expressed this approval. I did not return to Japan feeling that all American instructional

114

Theory and Practice in the Classroom

methods were superior, but I have here selected the most favorable of my impressions. I feel that these points are truly worthy of serious consideration by teachers in present-day Japan. To an excessive degree we have conformed to formalistic instructional methods handed down "from above." Frequently we float aimlessly like rootless water plants. We should work with more energy toward forming democratic human beings. This indeed is a problem which I share with my fellow teachers. But now I no longer have the satisfaction of being a "big frog in a little pond." I should like to express my appreciation for having been given the opportunity to visit the United States. I have vowed to use what I have learned from this experience in my teaching career.64 The Japanese teachers were more critical of specific details in the curriculum than they were of its general outline. Many of them expressed their disappointment that actual teaching practices in America failed to live up to the basic theories from which they were derived. Some people think that this disparity is due to neglect of a people and a profession grown too opulent and too lazy to do the job well. More likely the disparity between theory and practice in the United States lies in the failure to recognize that ambitious, idealistic plans can only be carried out successfully by outstanding people. Institutions catering to the average are so large that they can only be run by the average. Programs to run them must be workable if perhaps less ambitious. Few Japanese teachers thought the Americans too materialistic and apathetic; rather, they appeared to be too idealistic and eager to the point of being unrealistic. The confrontation between American and Japanese teachers was a meeting of strong idealists who sought to implement their aims by avoidance of a system or accepting a minimum system with equally strong idealists who place faith in a strong system which they then proceed to improve and to "relax" from within. The believers in safety through an "unsystem" were facing the seekers after a just system. Perhaps in itself the former alternative is far too elusive to be workable. But its very existence can be used as an admirable antidote to the rigidities to which even the best intentioned systems almost inevitably fall prey.

5 The Teaching of Subject Matter

The visitors' contact with the general curriculum left untouched a sector of their interests having to do with their own specializations or with their involvements in special curricular subjects. We present their comments grouped around such categories. These comments confirm the general insights already described and add information for those readers with similar specific interests. INSTRUCTION IN ACADEMIC SUBJECT MATTER Having observed the general features of the American curriculum, the Japanese teachers proceeded to study teaching techniques of specific subjects. ENGLISH

Their first startling discovery was in the area of language teaching. Americans, they found, emphasize narrowly the teaching of reading in their schools, and this conclusion is supported by the widespread concern among people in the United States regarding the effectiveness of reading instruction. The Japanese comments speak for themselves. I went to the United States very much interested in the problem of how, in the midst of a period of great technological change, American educators evaluated and actualized the language instruction goals of "developing human nature" and "developing language abilities." The importance of "education for human nature" is discussed in America, but, because Americans are generally satisfied 115

116

The Teaching of Subject Matter

with the status quo, they are much more optimistic than Japanese educators concerning the problem of human alienation. Their confidence in having built a great civilization and their aggressiveness which will not allow a lag behind other nations strongly lead one to conclude that they believe their most vital task to be the development of human beings who, while continuing to build on the existent civilization, are also articulate. Hence, English language education is viewed as "a curriculum which enables complete acquisition of skills which are basic to all areas of learning." The goal of "developing language ability" per se supersedes that of "developing human nature."1 Speech specialists travel from school to school to provide speech guidance. It is held that reading and writing of the English language is the basis of education and that, by building on this basis, well-rounded, balanced elementary and junior high school students are developed. Hence, although the importance of science education is recognized, it is given the same importance as art and music. There is emphasis on daily effort to raise the level of competence of children. Perhaps because of the premise that the basis of all education is English language instruction, there were no special science facilities and the schools did not allot special funds for such facilities. Compared to the Japanese policy of emphasizing specific areas within education, the American policy was unexpected and startling.2 Whereas language instruction in Japan is held only in equal importance with other subjects, in the United States reading is considered to be "the basis of all other studies." 3 The visitors proceeded to elaborate further the differences in emphasis between the two countries. Much more time is allocated to the language arts in American elementary schools than in those in Japan. I thought we could understand the reason why Americans lay so much emphasis on this subject. In Japan, the time allocated to the language arts is very insufficient. American educators do not seem to be aiming at "cultivating a man who is rich in his personality," so reading lessons appear to be geared to the training of skills. In Japan, although we say that we are cultivating a rich human being through the teaching of the Japanese language, in reality we do not stress the teaching of the language enough. In teaching the mother tongue, we divide composition into two aspects, namely composition as literary writing and composition as a grammatical language skill. It seemed to me that American edu-

The Teaching of Subject Matter

117

cators were treating composition as a grammatical language skill almost exclusively. We must admit that Japanese teachers are not giving sufficient training in this latter aspect. But what is the standard of composition in America? When I read some of the compositions written by American children, I found their quality to be rather low in terms of content as well as of structure. Although I heard that the teachers were trying to encourage the children to write their own thoughts freely, I could not help feeling that the teachers were not going any further than giving some arbitrary suggestions. If I am not mistaken, they really were not letting the children write their own thoughts on the basis of their own rich experiences.4 The results of the emphasis on verbal language training were commented upon with different attitude. Speech classes were admiringly described. In a sixth-grade classroom, I saw an interesting lesson in "speech" being taught by a specialist. This was well integrated into the training of writing, spelling, comprehension, and grammar. These young children were receiving a very lively education.5 Youngsters were observed to be highly articulate as a result of verbal language training. During our three months in the United States, we noted in student meetings and among students and adults in general a high level of articulation. The student who chaired the class council with wit and humor and the student who subsequently made the main speech each had an individualistic manner of communication. The class council was interspersed with comments and laughter throughout, yet followed the order of business closely. Perhaps this occurred because the students always tried to listen carefully and to understand accurately the comments of others and also to express their own thoughts as accurately as possible. The speaker freely expressed his thoughts and emotions while others respected and listened attentively to what he had to say. This basic quality of democratic groups is firmly rooted in their lives. In the United States, a facility with the English language—reading, writing, speaking, and listening—is considered to be highly desirable. Language skills are taught sequentially in the schools according to the developmental levels of the students. Because of an awareness of the rapid rate of change in society, Americans have, in the past few years, especially emphasized language skills during the years of compulsory education. This clearly is an expression of the quality and nature of American society.6

118

The Teaching of Subject Matter

The problems of language training were recognized to have far-reaching consequences in modern life. Considering the needs of a technological society, the Japanese teachers recognized the importance of the written word. They were impressed by the amount of effort made even by adults to learn speed reading. During my homestay I found special, adult-education courses in speed reading. Many people, including junior high students and aged people, were attending and paying their own tuition. One of the old people said that he was taking this course as he could not keep up with reading documents which are coming out abundantly one after another.7 The Japanese have a great reverence for their mother tongue and are famous for their level of literacy. Their attachment to the difficult old kanji and to an elegance of speech is universally known. Under the scrutiny of such devotees, the quality of teaching the mother tongue in the country where "J°linny can't read" has not come off too badly. The Japanese were impressed with the freshness of approach and the sensibly flexible levels of approach to students. They did not understand English well enough to appraise the degree of success attained; hence, perhaps the ease with which they displayed enthusiasm. FOREIGN LANGUAGES

Neither the Japanese nor the Americans are notably successful in training their young people to speak a language other than their own. Foreign-language training has been especially poor in Japan, however, so that American techniques of teaching appeared to the visitors to be relatively successful. As always, they used their experiences in America as precedents to criticize the approach in Japan. We complicate the training of a foreign language with instruction in general culture and history. American teachers are content to teach their students the basics of grammar and vocabulary, assuming that a study of the culture will follow on the university level.8 One high school was on the four-year system, encompassing the ninth to twelfth grades. It had thirty-seven teachers to 546 students. Ninety-two students—17 percent of the enrollment—had chosen to study a foreign language. Two teachers taught French and Spanish.

The Teaching of Subject Matter

119

Because both languages were electives and not directly related to college entrance requirements, the number of students in these classes was small. I was startled by this and by the relaxed and pleasant manner in which instruction was conducted.9 Having the advantage of good facilities, the instructors taught in a calm and pleasant manner. There was no instigation of superiority or inferiority feelings by the teacher nor heavy feelings of anxiety caused by tie teacher's constant focusing on what was not known by the students. There was no "forced learning" nor desperate attempts on the part of the students to absorb large and difficult texts. . . . With the understanding that the nucleus of language learning is proper hearing and speaking, the teacher faithfully presented instruction with that emphasis. She left discussion of French culture or literature for courses at the college level. I felt that the occasional specific instruction in reading and writing and discussion of necessary items of grammar stemmed directly from the excellent editing of the textbooks. The textbooks used in the courses I observed were all written with the "dialogue pattern" as a basis. They required a constant repetition of simple expressions. I feel that in Japan we should return to the basic function of foreign language education, i.e., the teaching of a useful and living language. Further, I even feel that in certain school programs, the teaching of foreign languages should be eliminated if such languages have no direct pertinence to the program's objectives. The same can be said about junior high schools. Language courses there should be returned to their original elective basis. Foreign languages essentially are subjects which should be undertaken on the basis of the individual's interest, ambitions, needs, and abilities. Further, in Japan, texts and other materials should be more carefully selected, simplified, and reedited. If students wish to learn foreign languages in junior high school, they should be taught only to speak correctly. But, in actuality, the situation is quite the opposite; the range of subject matter taught is gradually being enlarged; the texts are overambitious and difficult; and instruction is directed at university entrance examinations. As a result, foreign language study in Japan simply produces an ineffective expenditure of energy.10 Although they did criticize Japanese practices, the teachers still remained somewhat conservative toward language teaching. Some have opted for the standard school instruction for a few hours a

120

The Teaching of Subject Matter

week instead of more imaginative new methods. The reader may observe this in the following extract from an interview: INTERVIEWER: What did you understand individualized instruction in foreign language teaching to mean? T E A C H E R : It means that each student receives as much individual attention as possible, although he sometimes may listen to language tapes with the other students. INTERVIEWER: Would these methods improve the teaching of foreign languages in Japan? T E A C H E R : I think the audiolingual approach would help language teaching very much in Japan. Speech there does not receive much attention. My American colleagues say that they tried speech training years before and, because such training did not succeed, they revised their methods. If students complain about the new audiolingual approach, they do so only because they have no enthusiasm for learning and have found that it is too much work to learn a foreign language. INTERVIEWER: H O W many hours per week are devoted to foreign language teaching in Japan? T E A C H E R : At the senior high level, more than five hours per week. INTERVIEWER: D O you think five hours a week of foreign language is enough? T E A C H E R : Yes, I think so. INTERVIEWER: Would you advocate two months of only foreign language study all day? You do not believe in total immersion? T E A C H E R : That sort of method can be used on immigrants to give them a certain kind of language training, but in school it would not be good. INTERVIEWER: What displeased you most about language instruction in America? T E A C H E R : There seemed to be no effective stimuli to encourage learning. INTERVIEWER: What sort of stimuli would you advise us to adopt? T E A C H E R : Knowledge of a foreign language should be required before a student can enter the university. Foreign-language study does not seem to be popular among high school students. INTERVIEWER: Would you recommend foreign travel for students or meeting foreign visitors in their schools as a means of increasing student interest in foreign languages? T E A C H E R : I think that the objective of foreign-language teaching is not just to get students to speak the language they are learning, there should be something more. Foreign-language teaching is given in this country to acquaint students with a foreign country before they travel. When they go to that country they will not have diffi-

The Teaching of Subject Matter

121

culties in trying to communicate with people. I think that foreignlanguage teaching should be done not during travel but more academically, that is, for the sake of academic learning. INTERVIEWER: The basic Western language in structure and academic thought is Latin. Should we then teach all our students Latin instead of other languages? TEACHER: It is different with Latin because Latin is a dead language.11 It seems that the more conservative Japanese teachers may wish to evade some of the awkward questions put to them, but they are otherwise unwavering in their convictions that the place of the language training is within the regular school framework. Discussion of foreign-language training cannot be a popular subject either in Japan or in the United States. By comparison with European countries, especially the USSR, neither Japan nor the United States have been particularly successful. The impression emerging from the Japanese-American encounter is that both countries are rather orthodox in their teaching methods. Americans are perhaps keener on the aural-oral method and more prone to innovate, whereas the Japanese command respect because of the great zeal with which they commit vast numbers of students to foreign-language training, even though they continue to do so in an orthodox manner. SOCIAL STUDIES

The Japanese teachers also made some observations on the teaching of social studies in America. Here their expertise was less handicapped by language. They freely appraised the textbooks and other media. The result was an emergence of a more sophisticated judgment. What type of abilities are developed in the social studies curriculum? First, the ability to think logically. This ability is developed by gaining an understanding of the basic concepts of the various social sciences. Second, the creative intellectual ability to formulate or structure possible solutions to the problems which one encounters in actual life. Third, the ability to reason inductively. With the goal of creating persons capable of functioning effectively in an even more complex future society, American social studies education strives to develop these abilities.12

122

The Teaching of Subject Matter

Contrary to the visitors' reports on language arts, their reports regarding the quality of teaching of social studies were not enthusiastic. A new social studies curriculum was developed in one school which I visited. Not only was this curriculum planned with the cooperation of the classroom teachers, but it was itself only an outline. Each teacher had freedom to fill in the details as he wished. I could not help feeling some anxiety about the end products.13 Although I observed only a limited number of classes, I had strong doubts about the effectiveness of social studies education. First was the problem of instruction to students of high ability. There seemed to be two methods of instruction for such students. One was the "cramming" method; the other, the method by which students were made to formulate questions or problems and then to solve them. The one focuses on acquisition of knowledge and the other on acquisition of problem-solving techniques. Both methods, however, are entirely dependent on particular classroom instruction. In such instruction, which does not handle subject matter in a sequential manner, the student may acquire the ability to make judgments by direct observation of conditions in a given situation, but one wonders how much this contributes to the growth of a complex reasoning ability. Secondly, there was a one-sidedness in homework assignments. Lively debate with active participation by the students is conducted in the classrooms, but in the selection of discussion themes or homework topics there is perhaps too close or too direct a relationship with current American problems. When geography was studied and Southeast Asia made the topic, the entire focus was on the Vietnam problem. This seemed to be much too one-sided. When coordinating exercises in problem solving with the students' knowledge of society, or when presenting subject matter within a sequential framework, should not the teacher be more concerned with teaching the essentials of social studies? In one district observed, textbooks were faithfully read and discussed, but, perhaps because each class was made to have an hour's discussion of current events each week, the subject matter of instruction also seemed to be one-sided. There was also one-sidedness in instruction. The method of instruction is determined by each teacher. If a teacher does not want to use maps when teaching geography, he simply does not do so. Japanese teachers try to use whatever is regarded as a teaching aid, but this did not seem to be true in the United States. There also seems to be no special study of teaching methods or actualization of methods which have been studied.14

The Teaching of Subject Matter

123

Sooial studies teaching in the United States was judged to be scattered in coverage and poor in methodology. With such minimum requirements in social studies I wonder if there should not result a lack of knowledge necessary for a future member of society. For instance, if a student takes only American history, which is a required subject in social studies, he will not be able to understand fully the important role of the United States in international affairs. It is no wonder that there are some Americans who do not understand at all the historical significance of the Vietnam dispute.15 After visiting junior and senior high schools in two states, I felt that there was little experience-centered instruction in social studies and in other subjects. Perhaps because it was the busy period at the beginning of the school year, the woman teacher in the first classroom I visited placed great emphasis on how to read and study the textbook. . . . Another teacher stated: "In this locale especially, there is great emphasis on college entrance; and thus it is most important that the children acquire enough knowledge to insure college entrance." In another district, there was the same emphasis; or, rather, in that area which was closer to the city and in which many families were economically comfortable, instruction for college entrance was the most pressing demand placed on education. As in Japan, parents were strongly interested in their children's test results and, because this could be bothersome, the teachers seemed to be rather harrassed by it. . . . "Textbook-centered" instruction may be restated as "course-ofstudy-centered." The members of the board of education naturally select textbooks which most closely fit the course of study they have planned. Because following the textbook means that one is automatically following the recommended course of study, the teachers make strong efforts to cover each of the essential elements in the textbooks. Such efforts are extremely fact-oriented.16 However, other observations were made which revealed that the teachers were fascinated with some aspects of social studies teaching. As in many subjects, but particularly in this subject area, the quality of lessons depends upon the quality of teachers; adverse observations may have been due simply to differences among localities or in national practices. The teaching of social studies in American schools has a healthy and vigorous history. The Japanese teachers' distaste may be due

124

The Teaching of Subject Matter

to their own history. After the war, social studies courses were introduced into the Japanese schools under the aegis of the occupation forces to replace the famous course of education in morals. By all accounts the change was bewildering to the Japanese. The visitors may have had unpleasant memories of the subject. MATHEMATICS

The assembled data did not, in spite of the recorded opinions of mathematics teachers, produce particularly thoroughgoing insights. After sputnik, dissatisfaction in the United States with the way mathematics was being taught was widespread, and attempts to reform the methods of teaching were vigorous and in some measure successful. Little awareness of this appears in the Japanese teachers' comments. Some disappointments were expressed, particularly by the mathematics teachers, to the effect that they had had very few opportunities to observe actual teaching of "new math" during their stay. Because average school systems were to be visited, and not those known for their educational innovations, this absence of new programs reflects the still-inadequate diffusion of such programs throughout the country. Comments made on the teaching of mathematics were somewhat random. One teacher liked the level of teaching the subject and pronounced the attitudes toward mathematically gifted children and the use of available materials "truly admirable."17 Another pointed out the difficulties of teaching mathematics to students of low ability. He noted the lack of after-hours group studies and the absence of special study periods for less-gifted pupils during school hours.18 Another teacher observed the importance of mathematics for college entrance while pegging high school teaching of the subject as "extremely low." As a teacher of mathematics, I noted similarities between the United States and Japan concerning the problem of college entrance; that is, instruction in both countries is regarded as preparation for college entrance examinations. In the United States, the private high schools more closely resemble Japanese high schools, instruction in both being directed toward passing entrance requirements of good colleges and universities. The level of subject matter taught in private high schools is, in some cases, higher than that of

The Teaching of Subject Matter

125

Japanese schools. In contrast with this, the level of mathematics in public high schools is extremely low. One strong point of the public schools which I visited, however, was the openness of teaching and discussion which allowed the students to ask the teacher even the most elementary questions. We do not have such freedom in Japanese public high schools.19 Most interesting perhaps, though not so far-reaching, were the observations of one teacher on the subject of the "new m a t h " program. INTERVIEWER: T O what would you ascribe the superiority of Japanese mathematics students? How could we improve American teaching? T E A C H E R : Once a new idea is introduced in Japan, it spreads very quickly all over the country. Here in the United States, although people are talking about the new math, many do not know about the School Mathematics Study Group. I think that if ideas would spread as quickly in America as they do in Japan, there would be a big improvement in American education. To do that, I think the American educators need in-service training. INTERVIEWER: Do we need to centralize education to speed up this movement? T E A C H E R : I would not say that centralization is necessary, but I do feel that the leaders in American education should make more effort to give information to the schools all over the United States. American education and Japanese education are very different in terms of in-service training, which, in the United States, is more or less on a voluntary basis. INTERVIEWER: Are the new math programs good? Are they a better way of teaching than the old math programs? T E A C H E R : In Japan, the term "new math" has not exactly been introduced yet, although we are trying to modernize mathematics education. We are still at the experimental stage, so it is hard to say whether the new programs are better. I wanted, therefore, to learn about "new math" from American teachers. My personal opinion is that at least half of the old math should be kept, especially at the primary school level. I think there are two different aspects of new math—new teaching materials and a new philosophy. I think we cannot do away with the old philosophy. INTERVIEWER: Did you have enough time to observe the new projects and learn about them, or should we have made more specialized arrangements so that you could have pursued your field in greater depth? T E A C H E R : I think I had enough time to observe the new approach. I did not have enough time to visit laboratory schools where both

126

The Teaching of Subject Matter

old and new materials are being taught. I would like to have had more time to see such experimentation. INTERVIEWER: I S there anything you would like to ask me about your visit to the United States? T E A C H E R : Teachers in one of the elementary schools I visited were using a textbook which emphasized calculations throughout most of the book. Do you think this had something to do with the fact that the students were of so many different ethnic origins? INTERVIEWER: I doubt if that had anything to do with ethnic origin; it probably had to do with levels of instruction at that school. Did you see similar things in your homestay community or did you see it only in the city? T E A C H E R : N O , I did not see such teaching in my homestay community, but I heard that attempts are being made to emphasize calculations on the lower level.20 SCIENCE

More abundant and significant than the comments about mathematics teaching were the Japanese comments on science education. Here many teachers were disparaging, indicating that they felt both instruction and equipment to be inadequate. In science education I had the impression that American students are learning more slowly and less than the same age group in Japan. 21 In the United States the following subjects are required: reading, writing, penmanship, geography, mathematics, art, music, English grammar, American history, civics, the American Constitution, and physical education. Science in many states is, oddly enough, not included among the required subjects. In one state, however, only the following five subjects were listed: language, social studies, mathematics, science, and physical education. . . . According to the charts listing number of instruction hours in each subject, science, in the elementary schools of both school districts I visited, was allotted very little time. Less than one-fourth of the time spent on English language instruction was spent on science. Like the remaining subjects, it was allotted only thirty minutes per day. We seldom saw any special emphasis on science in the allocation of instruction time. In the junior and senior high schools there are special teachers for science, and so the problem of science education is met; but quite a large problem must exist at the elementary school level. There is a great amount of in-service training for teachers and much study of educational materials and textbooks. But, from the standpoint of the allocation of instruction

The Teaching of Subject Matter

127

time, we can say that there exists a danger that science education will not be adequately carried out.22 Little attention was apparently being given at the lower grades to the sciences. In elementary schools, instruction time allotted to science is only thirty minutes per day. From the projects on display in the classroom, I inferred that not much guidance in experimental observation was being given. Although the curricula and textbooks have been improved and modernized, the technique of teaching, where the teacher uses only the blackboard and audiovisual aids, has remained the same. In English and mathematics courses, the children are grouped by ability and the level of teaching is high; in science courses, this is not so. In all junior high schools in one school district, a "science room" has been established as a service facility for the general science courses. The science rooms, which contain only a demonstration table for the teacher, are not much different from ordinary classrooms. The teacher performs experiments while the students watch. Other than observing natural phenomena outdoors, the students themselves do not conduct experiments. Instruction is given by lectures and "blackboard experiments." The most valuable method of instruction in modern science, the hypothesis—experimentationformulation of a principle, is not used. Another district had no special science rooms in its schools. Instructors were assigned each to his own room. There was very little science equipment for experiments and students were allowed to perform their own experiments only a few times a year. As elsewhere, the desks in the rooms were the ordinary type of desks which are used in lecture classes. Science classrooms have many charts and posters on the walls. Three of the four walls in every classroom were covered almost completely with such material. There was much use of audiovisual materials. Overhead projectors and 8-mm slides were used much more than in Japan. Most of the materials used were prepared by the Earth Science Curriculum Project (ESCP) and the Biological Science Curriculum Study (BSCS). The local board of education maintained an audiovisual center which supplied not only these materials but also materials for other courses. Although the students did not conduct their own experiments, they asked many questions in class, some of them indicating a high level of understanding. Four types of textbooks were available in each course and were used at the discretion of each teacher.23 I found no new developments in scientific or technical education. The equipment and facilities, even of industrial or technical high

128

The Teaching of Subject Matter

schools, were rather old. The new development did not seem to have reached the high school level. Particularly at the elementary school level was science education in a discouraging condition, this in spite of the beautiful school buildings and the equipment and facilities to be found other than in science education.24 The speed with which new methods of science education were spreading throughout the schools was found to be too slow. The rate of use of new programs in the actual field of science education is retarded to a degree unimaginable in Japan. Some local school authorities told us that they had almost no knowledge of such educational developments as the Elementary Science Study (ESS). We ourselves had no opportunity to observe instruction in the "new sciences." This situation brought us to a reconsideration of the Japanese case in which there is much attention placed on fads and innovations; yet we also felt somewhat impatient about the situation.25 The extremely ambitious modernization plans, which were aided by financial support from science foundations and other sources, for in-service training of teachers or for new education-related projects have taken too long to penetrate into the actual classrooms. If a governmental agency, such as Japans Ministry of Education, were to set uniform, mandatory guidelines for all schools, a rapid rise in educational standards would probably occur. I suggested this to the person in charge of science education at the department of education. He said that the United States is too large for its educational policies to be determined by a central agency. He agreed, however, that lack of control was a source of much difficulty for the federal government. I felt that the state department of education and the local school boards were actively concerned with the modernization of education. When I visited the schools, I found many equipped with facilities and materials suitable for the new courses. There remained only the problem of obtaining teachers to teach those courses. I was forced to conclude that it is the lack of trained teachers that is causing the delay in the modernization of education. Extremely vital matters such as course content and instruction methods are left to the responsibility of individual teachers; hence, if a teacher does not have sufficient ability or dedication, he continues to use obsolete techniques of instruction in chemistry. In Japan, too, there is the necessity for in-service training of teachers within the universities. Further, Japan is confronted with greater problems than is the United States in the area of teachers' attitudes, i.e., with lack of activism and of initiative.26

The Teaching of Subject Matter

129

The same sentiments are voiced in the following interview: What are your impressions of American education? was interested in the diversification of study programs for individual students in high school, especially in science education. INTERVIEWER: Did you observe any negative aspects of American education? TEACHER: I was disappointed in the low level of modernization in education. The books written about reforms in the United States have had a great impact on science education in Japan. We are learning quite a lot about modernization through books in Japan. It was disappointing to see these books differ from reality. INTERVIEWER: H O W would you try to remedy this? TEACHER: Instead of giving autonomy to individual teachers I think that education authorities, such as the board of education, should ensure better science education in the schools. INTERVIEWER: H O W could they possibly ensure that the teachers would teach more efficiently? TEACHER: I should think that every teacher would want to teach more efficiently but I, too, do not see how they can be forced to do so. Perhaps greater knowledge on the part of the general public and more in-service training for the teachers would help.27 INTERVIEWER: TEACHER: I

Science teaching methods were also criticized. It is dangerous to generalize from only one example of the classes that I visited, but in an "advanced" seventh grade class studying computation of specific gravity, the instructor presented a concrete example by measuring with a cup of water. He presented the example only once and then proceeded to teach by using only the blackboard. When asked by the students to demonstrate the lesson by using actual examples, he showed them the example again but went through the procedures only perfunctorily. Looking from the standpoint of instruction in the fundamentals of physics, I felt that more concrete and precise plans were needed. It seemed that more equipment was necessary for use in experiments for and by the students. It also seemed necessary that the required ability in computation should be considered in conjunction with the mathematics course. I asked another teacher to show me the teaching plan or a lesson plan for one unit or one credit hour, but was told that such plans were only used in colleges. I felt that such a plan is necessary on the high school level as well.28 At one school the Physical Science Study Committee (PSSC) program was utilized until last year, but, because it was excessively

130

The Teaching of Subject

Matter

difficult, it was dropped. The Time, Space, and Matter (TSM) program is used because its content is much easier for a student to grasp. The ESCP is much too difficult; too much of it was done by specialists writing from their particular viewpoints. In many of the school districts new programs such as the ESCP, the TSM, and the Introductory Physical Science (IPS) have been actively brought into the curriculum, but actual instruction is often by the teacher-centered lecture method. Many of the experiments included in the projects were abbreviated or removed. . . .29 American teachers, when chastised for low performance in science education, reacted defensively. Teachers did not seem to feel a particular necessity to respond to calls for a "revolution" in educational content in order that there be a full recognition of the importance of science.30 The various new and highly creative science curricula which have attracted much discussion in Japan were not as widely used in the United States as I had expected. For example, PSSC is used in 30 percent of the high school science courses; and the ESS, in only 5 percent. The situation was explained by the lack of trained teachers, the general view that uniformity in education should be avoided, and the traditional resentment of interference in education by the federal government. However, I did try to ask one person in charge of science education whether, in the light of rapid technological changes, leaving the situation in the present condition would not cause the United States to fall back from the front lines of the technological age. While continuing to drive his car, he answered somewhat peevishly: "Democracy requires much time and money."31 At the senior high school level, homework was done in the form of "paper" and the ability to comprehend and the ability to write systematically were evaluated. I felt science teachers may not have enough knowledge of their subject. It appeared, however, that they regarded their knowledge sufficient to teach others how to study science. In Japan, we are obliged to explain so that pupils understand what is written in the textbooks for their laboratory work; but American teachers do not make such explanations on the ground that the pupils can read the information almost as well by themselves.32 I n the confrontation between Japanese criticisms and American defensiveness lies the story of American education and why it is so difficult to improve.

The Teaching of Subject Matter

131

INSTRUCTION IN OTHER F I E L D S Next came the comments on esthetic education. In music and in fine arts one again senses the disappointment of the visitors. Music American music training is reported to be primarily practical and several teachers thought this to be appropriate if low in terms of standards. But one senses their implied censure as well. American music education is weak on theory and insubstantial. The comments speak for themselves. During the music (chorus) hour in the second grade, the music teacher brought into the classroom a movable organ and taught each group for fifteen minutes. In another period the students sang six or seven songs. They were instructed in great detail about the songs, but simply were guided to be in rhythm. In a Japanese classroom, minute details about the history of the songs would have been taught, lessening the enjoyment of singing for the students. If taught in the American manner, students will sing spontaneously, even while coming and going to school or at home.33 The contents and methods of lessons were generally of a practical nature. Lessons in Japan are rather theoretical, especially in junior high schools, where composition, the history of music, and the knowledge of songs and musical works are given more emphasis than actual singing or playing of instruments, mainly so that the youngsters can pass the entrance examinations to senior high schools. At the senior high school level, the music curriculum is very substantial in its content, covering not only singing, but also instrumental music, appreciation, theories of music, and so forth. In the United States, however, students study very specific areas, such as instrumental music, chorus, appreciation, or theory, and they themselves choose the area of study. Furthermore, they spend from three to five periods a week in their selected area of study.34 Simple folk songs and popular songs of the United States and of other countries were taught in elementary school music classes. At the junior and senior high school levels, songs being taught were composed predominantly by contemporary Americans; Stephen Foster's works were also studied but not as much as they are in Japanese schools. And also the compositions of the Baroque, Classical, and Romantic periods of European music, whose composers are studied extensively in Japan, were rarely heard; instead, modern

132

The Teaching of Subject Matter

jazz was found. I noticed also that the national anthem, school songs, and rooters' songs were playing a great role, and, by observing such a way of treating music, I felt a sense of pride unique to the American people.35 Concern was expressed about the inroads which have been made into music teaching by science subjects. Mathematics, the sciences, foreign languages, and vocational education are emphasized particularly. However, education of the emotions and sentiments seems to me to have suffered. . . . I noticed this in my observation of music education. One high school music teacher even thanked me for my comment in a press interview regarding the paucity of music education in the United States. This teacher told me that chorus had been dropped from the curriculum of his school as a direct result of the National Defense Education Act (N.D.E.A.). Judging from these illustrations, I question whether music education in the United States is not being weakened as a result of the requirements of science and technology.38 American parents were characterized with approval as not caring for the high standard of musical expertise being forced upon the children—an expertise often without relevance to their interests. I think that fewer American parents than Japanese parents require their children to take lessons in the fine arts particularly when our classical lessons in tea ceremony, flower arrangement, and "Koto" music are taken into account. In Japan we have too many silly parents who are too attentive to their children and encourage them to make too much practice in learning arts and music. Perhaps because American children are free from such strict parents, they are more relaxed. American parents to whom I spoke were interested in my description of violin lessons in Japan, but they were rather critical of such rigid training and wondered whether the capabilities and interests of the children were not being ignored.37 Most painful are the balanced and friendly comments which deplore the lack of "delicacy" in music education. Here the old and refined, but nonetheless dynamic, East stands in stern judgment over the dynamic, although rough and unrefined, West. I was surprised at the way Americans teach music. Fairly difficult songs were taught by the use of popular subject matter, but one

The Teaching of Subject Matter

133

hour's lesson was finished after the children sang only five songs and the teaching method was crude. Songs were never repeated to correct errors, to seek for the beauty of harmony, to reproduce interesting rhythms, to enjoy the joy of singing, or to arouse the aesthetic sense. It is true that the harmony and rhythm demonstrated by the pupils were superior to those shown by Japanese pupils, probably because of the traditions of the country. The vocal quality of singing was also very good. I felt, however, that the American children lacked a delicacy of feeling, gracefulness, and accuracy. These impressions come from observing only one chorus lesson, but it does seem to me that this lack of delicacy was more or less conspicuous in all other music lessons. I could not help feeling anew that mere quantity could not be transformed into quality.38 The visiting teachers admired the high quality of music instruction which they occasionally discovered; but such discoveries were usually made when they happened to visit classes of selected students. References to such visits are scarce in their reports. ART

Only minor comments—and those favorable—were made on art education. Art teaching in the United States was seen to be related to broader educational and social considerations. The lack of this relationship in Japan was condemned. Education historically has had two contradictory aspects, academic and practical. Art education mediates the conflict between the practical and academic aspects. That is why there is a tendency to put emphasis especially on junior high school art education, which comes between the primary school's academic education and the senior high school's practical education. I could see this tendency in class scheduling. Junior high school art education in Japan, on the other hand, rather neglects instruction directed toward social development. As far as instruction that places importance on feeling or creativity, the art education in junior high school is kept on the same level as that in primary school. Junior high school art education neither responds properly to the demands of society nor gives answers to the actual demands of students advancing to senior high school. To correct the present situation, in Japan we may need to hammer out a unique character for the art education of junior high school, one concerned with the society and senior high school education. . . . Art education should not only aim to develop creativity but should also develop discriminative ability, judgment, and spontaneity.39

134

The Teaching of Subject

Matter

VOCATIONAL EDUCATION The Japanese teachers devoted substantial attention to vocational education, and contrasts with Japan suggested themselves immediately. When American teachers explain about vocational training, they usually refer at once to all levels of elementary, junior high, senior high, and even adult education. This is very different from Japan. Also in Japan our vocational students must study a wide range of subjects, even if they are learning a specific trade. The result of this is that the number of hours allocated to each subject is too small and the students do not learn any one subject really well. Americans teach for each specific vocational trade; the students study and review these subjects for a number of years. Therefore, even though the level of expertise may be low, their training is much more thorough. American vocational education is also very practical and Well fitted to the needs of the community.40 Vocational education in America is conducted to meet more immediate goals than is technical or commercial training in Japan; that is, the students who go through vocational courses have definite job objectives—secretarial, auto repairing, woodworking, and so forth. Skills which will be useful immediately are taught. The facilities and equipment in the vocational curriculum of American general high schools are planned to meet such direct objectives. If students should gain new interests or the desire for more study while taking these courses, they can advance to technical junior colleges established by the state governments. In actuality, many vocational students do enter such junior colleges. American educators seek to make available to everyone the opportunity to gain an education. The present vocational system is one of the ways that goal is met.41

A scarcity of funds was cited as the cause of the low level of vocational education. At the national level are the activities of the American Vocational Association and at the local level are various kinds of activities for the expansion of vocational education. However, the amount of the increase in the budget for technical and vocational education at the high school level is small, indeed, because of the influence of N.D.E.A. and other acts. I found that in many schools the facilities and equipment for technical and vocational education are very poor, contrary to what I had expected to find in American schools. Furthermore, I noticed that, although practical knowledge

The Teaching of Subject Matter

135

is being taught, the mathematics and theories behind this knowledge are being covered only briefly. . . . At present most technical and vocational education in the United States is given in the regular high schools; but it seems to me that separate vocational technical high schools are needed instead. It is almost impossible for small local school systems to finance these separate high schools so it will be necessary for the state or federal government to assist them. It will be necessary, too, to raise the academic standards of existing and future vocational high schools, for it has been shown in tests administered by business concerns interested in employing the graduates of such schools that these students are not receiving a good basic general education.42 Despite the wealth of the United States, its vocational education facilities, equipment, and entire program seem inferior to technical and commercial high schools in Japan. Fully cognizant of the new technological age, Japanese educators are rushing to acquire largescale machinery and equipment for their technical high schools, while authorities in the commercial high schools are modernizing their office machines and systems.43 Vocational education in the United States was criticized by some teachers as being too narrow. I felt that Americans seem to emphasize the training of skills to meet immediate vocational needs. I rarely came across schools which have adopted the "discovery method" which was frequently found in the general courses in the high schools. It seems to me that there are problems to be solved concerning the proportions of vocational training and general education in the curriculum of the vocational high school.44 But even in narrow vocational training one teacher characterized some areas as "dead." INTERVIEWER: IS it your opinion that American vocational education in industrial arts is worse than in Japan? TEACHER: A comparison between Japanese and American industrial arts education is difficult to make because of the difference in circumstances in the two nations. I felt that in vocational education some areas are very active and lively while some parts are almost dead. INTERVIEWER: Could you describe the dead parts, the parts with which you were not impressed? TEACHER: In one city I observed a class in watch repairing. I thought that it was not necessary to offer such a course in high school. I asked one of the American teachers what he thought about

136

The Teaching of Subject Matter

this and he said that in a few years time this course would disappear from American education. I think more emphasis should be put on learning basic techniques in industrial arts. INTERVIEWER: IS it your view that specific vocational training is not appropriate in high school but, rather, that there should be more general vocational training? TEACHER: I do not mean that specific training should not be given in the school. I mean that this technical era demands more training in such fields as machine shop, woodworking, dry cleaning, and welding. These are very important for American society. INTERVIEWER: What was your impression of vocational training in big cities compared with that in small towns, for instance, in your homestay town? TEACHER: My homestay was in a rather rural area, but I was nonetheless impressed to find very active industrial arts and vocational education programs there. I was also impressed by the fact that this kind of training was being emphasized in a town located far from a big city. I had not expected this. Such education is moribund in Japan once you leave the large cities.45

Only a few teachers took a positive view of the vocational training they observed. Certainly the level of the contents in vocational education is low, but great emphasis is laid on actual practice and the training of skills. In this way Americans train workers who are well prepared to apply what they have learned. It should be noted that the minimum essentials are carefully selected and thoroughly taught.46 I wish to call attention to the fact that, when making a product, the student is held responsible for devising the layout, actualizing his plans, and bringing the product to full completion. This is, in effect, a type of actual "on-the-job training" which stimulates the individual's creativity and develops his abilities. . . . We were able to see clearly the highly ambitious goals of the instructor who attempted to teach his students, while they were acquiring actual industrial skills, and the proper behavior and attitudes relevant among professional workers in society and in industry If we were to make a comprehensive evaluation of subject matter, levels of technique, facilities and equipment, and especially of personal qualities which are necessary for the industrial worker or technician, we would say that the United States and Japan are equal. . . . I was amazed that the shop instructor in the United States has no one to assist him even though he is responsible for thirty hours of instruction each week. . . .

The Teaching

of Subject

Matter

137

American technical education aims to train persons competent in many skills, persons who can meet the demands of a technological civilization. . . . Students know that a person must do his share of work in society or be rejected by that society and perhaps lose his job entirely.47 The same optimistic impression was received from the following interview: INTERVIEWER: YOU saw vocational education in both vocational and general high schools. Which would you say does the better job of training technical workers? TEACHER: It was hard to tell which was better; both are doing a good job in American education. From the ninth to the twelfth grades there is good continuity in vocational education courses. INTERVIEWER: Much training of young people is done by business firms or factories. Would it be better if all training was conducted by these institutions? TEACHER: I think so. General high schools are now teaching what is called "basic training." Such training should be expanded because although many students who have graduated from high school take a job, many others who have taken vocational courses go on to universities or colleges. INTERVIEWER: Were you pleasantly or unpleasantly surprised by the level of training in vocational subjects? TEACHER: TO be honest, I thought that the teachers of vocational education at the high school level were very knowledgeable in their own area of specialization but not in other areas. For instance, one business teacher who was very bright and knew much about bookkeeping knew little about typing. I would say that a good business teacher should be able to take care of other specialities. INTERVIEWER: Are vocational teachers in Japan better trained? TEACHER: Generally speaking, American teachers in their own fields are very well trained, though I think American teachers are more interested in actually doing something rather than teaching theory. I think that American educators in vocational education know one particular field very well but not the rest. I think that in Japan we teach subjects in more depth. Americans take three years, grades 10-12, to teach material that would be taught in Japan in one year or one and one-half years. I think, therefore, that American schools should have more class hours in each year for vocational education. They should also teach more theory instead of just skills. INTERVIEWER: If you had one million dollars, how would you improve vocational education? TEACHER: I would use that money to improve teacher training. Schools have well-equipped facilities but not enough experienced

138

The Teaching of Subject Matter

teacher? who have a wide knowledge not only within their specialities but also outside. We have the same problem in Japan, our hardest job being to find teachers with both wide knowledge and experience. American vocational training differs from, for example, French vocational training. Vocational training in France is strictly in specific fields, but in America, as long as future teachers are in the educational field, they tend to see things in a wider sense rather than emphasizing only one particular subject.48 One Japanese teacher raised at length the question of whether vocational education should be specialized or all round and what the connection between vocational training and home economics should be. As has been frequently pointed out, American education produces skilled and productive workers for each specific, narrow area. This is a marked difference with the Japanese case in which all-purpose, general workers are trained; that is, Japanese technical education tries to teach a bit of everything, whereas American training teaches one subject in depth. This is a difference I have long noticed. What do Americans really think about an all-round worker? A teacher at the machine shop in a technical vocational center made the following comment: "I know that people who can do many things are useful. I have been in this work for twenty years and of course can operate machines. I can also do welding. But if a machine operator did welding he would be penalized by the unions. There is also the saying: 'jack-of-all-trades, master of none.'" In Japan, where unions are organized according to kinds of enterprises, the jacks-of-all-trades are extremely useful; but they are not where trade unions are based on the same occupations. The strength of American labor unions is well known, but I received the impression that these unions still have strong "guild" characteristics. Concerning employment for graduates, I was told the following at a technical high school: "It is easy to find employment in the fields of auto repair and machine operating, but woodworking and sheet-metal work are difficult to break into. This is because the carpenters' and sheet-metal workers' unions are very strong and do not readily grant union membership to new graduates. Further, the principal of one vocational school said: "When we establish new classes, we always consult a committee consisting of employers and representatives of workers in that field. Only after discussion and agreement is reached in the committee are new classes or enrollment increases allowed. The reason is that if we train too many bricklayers, for example, wages decline and problems arise with the unions.49

The Teaching of Subject Matter

139

While some teachers "were envious of American vocational schools which are equipped not only to train students but also to reeducate adults," 50 others probed further the vocational curriculum and commented on its concentration upon "skills useful in actual daily life" and the avoidance of the teaching of complex techniques. 61 One teacher went at length into vocational education for girls and generally confirmed the practice-centered tenor of this sector of education. At both school districts I asked: "In Japan technical arts and home economics are part of one course, but in the United States they are separated. Is it not necessary in this age to teach girls technical arts too?" There were various types of answers. Some agreed, but others said that it was not necessary. Others said that it was not necessary to form independent subject titles such as "household appliances and their structure," but that such information could be included as part of the lessons on sewing or home management. Still others agreed that the competent management of the home was the basic goal of home economics but felt that it was safer and more timesaving to have specialists repair appliances and machines. I wondered what basic skills are necessary for maintaining a home and what should be taught to girls who must keep house in a changing society. I also asked the teachers if they were in favor of teaching boys the fundamentals of home economics—nutrition, cooking, child rearing, and so forth. Among the teachers, usually both husband and wife had jobs, so many were in favor of teaching boys such skills. . . . The technical arts and home economics sections also have "exploratory courses" or "try-out courses" to widen the experiences of students. There was a strong attitude that students should learn through experience the basic skills necessary for competent daily living. In general, American teachers are concerned mainly with teaching as it is conducted in their own classes or in their own schools. When asked more difficult questions about theory, they usually refer us to the board of education or to university professors. I was fortunate, however, in that many of the teachers whom I met talked freely to me. Further, because we stayed at pupils' homes, I was able to see how students actually used the skills they had been taught in school. The homes are well equipped and the children seemed ready to utilize whatever skills they had acquired. At first glance the lesson content seemed narrow and rather shallow, and I also had doubts about the teaching methods which were

140

The Teaching of Subject

Matter

being used. But then I saw that American instructors sought only to teach the fundamentals of the necessary skills and to develop creativity. The classrooms were bright and cheerful. I was made to reconsider the situation in Japan where the attitude of "this must be taught" or a burdensome teacher-pupil relationship pervades the classrooms. On the other hand, I was able to reconfirm my opinion about the high abilities of Japanese teachers, who must teach a wide variety of materials to extremely large classes.52 A rather perceptive summation of the Japanese and American attitudes toward vocational education emerged. Students in technical schools in Japan must make each part of an article patiently and carefully; but at the final stage of assembly, if things have not gone well, they must greatly alter their work or sometimes begin all over. In the United States, however, not much attention is given to detail. For woodwork, for example, the students use electric planers and very large sanders which do quite admirable work. Their working methods seemed unskillful to us; yet we realized that the students were totally utilizing their machines and completing their work quickly. It is, of course, quite admirable to work painstakingly with attention to details, but the American industrial arts classes are completely different from those in Japan. The latter lack emphasis on evaluation of work in its total perspective. This deficiency is the cause of the inability of Japanese industrial education to provide actual and useful education for the craftsman or technician. At an actual construction site in the United States I was able to see that differentiation and coordination of work were harmonized well, close to highly rational "prefabricated" working methods. Technical education in America does not aim at student acquisition of techniques within a narrow area, but rather at having him think about the entire work process, at having him consider how a thing can best be made. It is a comprehensive type of technical education which covers everything from the initial layout to completion of the work.53 INDUSTRIAL ARTS

Turning to specific professional fields of vocational instruction, the teachers made the following, usually favorable, comments about industrial arts. American society is in the midst of a technological revolution involving great changes. For the most part, however, Americans have not lost their sense of humanity nor become slaves to a machine civilization. On the contrary, while in full control of the machines,

The Teaching of Subject Matter

141

they accomplish their daily tasks and enjoy a rich and full life. When I saw this situation I wondered what had given them their sense of adaptability. I felt that the industrial arts courses—which do not exist in Japan—play a very large role in that adaptability. I was also told that industrial arts have a strong connection with vocational education. I was impressed that the teachers attempted to build upon a child's activities and experiences and did not insist that uniform instruction be given to all students in the classes.54 Industrial arts courses in American general high schools are not simply formalistic courses in vocational education. Behavior, attitudes, and skills appropriate for industrial and technical workers in an age of technological revolution are taught; and, in the process of teaching such skills, human beings with rich individualistic personalities are developed. . . . A major characteristic of the American training is that highly relevant and useful education is presented, centered on the acquirement of actual skills. This is actualized through close coordination of classroom instruction with applied training. The students develop their skills in specialized shops where they can come to understand production techniques and processes which are actually used in industry. The attitudes of the students and the skills being taught were at levels far higher than I had expected. They were advanced to a degree which I had not imagined possible for general high schools.55 The level of industrial arts is low in general, but I think it would be questionable to try to teach merely the contents of a higher level at that age. And Americans seem to be giving a thorough education even if their level may be low. They also seem to be emphasizing education for creativity. Pupils are allowed to tackle problems from the beginning and discover the solutions for themselves. On the other hand, the layout of learning in Japan is determined from the start. As a result teaching tends to become more or less formal. American schools spend more time on practical learning than they do on theoretical learning. I think it is an important philosophy for Japanese schools to consider. We may decide that so much emphasis on theoretical study is not useful and that the American system would be better. The standards demanded by technical education in Japan are too high for each pupil to master. Students in industrial arts or vocational education in American schools are trained to have more practical technical judgment and skill.56 The Japanese teachers noted that Americans emphasize the practical, functional aspects of vocational training—an understandable emphasis when one realizes that the aim is to prepare

142

The Teaching of Subject Matter

rank-and-file persons for specific jobs. The Japanese have been conditioned by centuries of hereditary craftsmen and tend to regard industrial arts as an art as well as a craft. They regretted somewhat that such was not the case here. On the whole, however, they thought the American programs satisfactory. AGRICULTURE

Agricultural education was also described in a positive fashion. Instruction in agriculture in the United States begins after high school graduation at two-year training institutes or at junior colleges. In the area of on-the-job training, Americans are confronted with the problems engendered by the great distances between towns. Such vast spaces prevent the establishment of independent vocational (agricultural) high schools. To solve this problem, the government has established local agricultural centers in various districts. These centers are well equipped and service the twenty to twenty-five high schools usually included in each district.57 The basic skills which are considered to be most necessary in the United States, that is, the operation of agricultural machines, accounting, and so forth, are carefully taught. Even in classes which handle simple instructional subject matter the students are seriously and actively learning. I felt that in such a situation attitudes suitable for involvement in agriculture were being fostered. Concerning the instruction of youths who will continue in agriculture, I would like to comment that high school agricultural instructors carry the major responsibility in Japan; whereas Future Farmers of America, 4-H clubs, university instructors, special extension service people who act as liaison between the university and the farmers, and the parents themselves all act cooperatively in the United States. There is close communication both horizontally and vertically in the agrarian administrative structure which makes possible effective and positive planning for education of such youths.58 Agricultural education is further discussed in the following interview: INTERVIEWER: Did you have a chance during your stay to see as much as you wanted of agricultural education? Did you feel that we had enough to show you in this field? TEACHER: Thanks to special arrangements which were made for me I was able to observe general high schools and the vocational courses within these high schools; but, as far as agricultural schools are concerned, I felt I could not observe as completely as I wanted.

The Teaching of Subject Matter

143

However, I did observe special agricultural experimental stations. I could feel and understand much better what should be included in vocational courses and how they should be organized. I N T E R V I E W E R : D O you feel that it would have been better if we had organized the entire two months so that you could have visited agricultural and vocational schools only, instead of having been given a general overview of American education? T E A C H E R : I felt that a heterogeneous group of schools was much better than a homogeneous group in the sense that if we all saw the same speciality schools then we might have a narrow view of the American school system. I prefer to have acquired a more balanced view of American education. I N T E R V I E W E R : If you were in charge of the American schools and could change the quality of agricultural and vocational education, what would you do? T E A C H E R : I would begin the training of future agricultural workers earlier than is generally done now. The junior college level seems to me to be too late to begin training. I N T E R V I E W E R : When do you begin training in Japan? Is there room for agricultural improvement in Japan? T E A C H E R : Japanese agricultural education should also be improved by giving a broader background at the high school level and a more specific education later. We have separate special schools for agriculture, for fisheries, for technical and vocational education, for commerce, for business, and so forth. Therefore, we seem to be too concerned with specific technical skills or training at the high school level and are neglecting a broader cultural background. So this is an improvement that could be made in the Japanese educational system. I N T E R V I E W E R : YOU said that we begin training too late because we start at the junior college level. Now in Japan, future agricultural workers begin learning their trade in high school. Is such early training better, because now you seem to be saying that vocational education begins too early in Japan? T E A C H E R : I feel there always should exist a dividing line between the age when specific training should be given and the age of giving a general and broad education, which is the proper subject matter for the high school level. After a student graduates from high school in Japan, he may begin working but, at the same time, he may study at the local agricultural experimental station or some other research institute. Therefore, if our students could obtain a broad education at the high school level, they could still get specific training at these experimental stations. But at present, Japanese students must decide their vocations at the junior high school level. This is much too early for them to make such a decision.59

144

The Teaching of Subject Matterr

As w e have seen, the only question raised on the subject of agricultural training by one Japanese teacher was whether such training should begin at the college or high school level. This small detail illustrates the larger collision between the concept that vocational training should begin during adolescence—a European and Japanese view—and the concept that such training should not begin until young adulthood. The latter is largely the American view. The vocational courses which are offered in the general high schools and the presence of a few specialized vocational high schools are really products of the European tradition in America. EDUCATION FOR THE HANDICAPPED The visiting groups included a few dedicated teachers of special education and they naturally devoted much of their attention to that subject in America. Most comments stressed the philanthropic attitude of the American public and the positive attitudes of parents and teachers. We must not fail to bring into consideration the fact that people engaged in philanthropic and charitable work are a large source of aid and support in American education. We often saw such people who came to assist teachers in special classes. For example, to aid children in the lower grades who were slow to learn reading and writing, they received the teacher's instructions and then worked with individual children. Further, they donated funds for libraries or equipment; sometimes quite large sums were involved. They also provide various other types of assistance; for example, when schools did not have boarding facilities, they took into their homes children from families living in areas beyond commuting distance to the special schools. I feel that such activities are an expression of their religious spirit. There is a very strong tendency to devote one's later years to such activities in the service of society.60 It perhaps cannot be said that local communities in the United States adequately understand the mentally retarded child; but in American society, where there exists a tradition of respect for the individual, it seems quite natural that the people in local communities should have some general understanding of these children and provide cooperation in meeting their problems. We felt that individuals and groups were, by their own volition, steadily pushing for solutions to the problem. We saw one aspect of this in the many charitable activities which are based on a volunteer system.61

The Teaching of Subject Matter

145

We saw that the parents of mentally retarded children maintained a cheerful attitude and we saw that no heavy barrier separated the classes for exceptional children and the regular classes. We were amazed at the degree of availability and completeness of institutions for heavily handicapped children. We were not able to answer the following questions, however: Why was it that we never heard of children too handicapped to attend school? How should we evaluate the fact that there exists an insufficient number of teachers involved in this highly important work?62 There were some further criticisms of the American practices. Because Americans have a propensity for differentiating functions, they are more advanced than the Japanese in diagnosis and in providing special education. However, we were startled to find that, in the classes for exceptional children, only a few teachers were able to answer immediately when asked the intelligence quotients of various children in their classes. Diagnosis and examination are the starting points of education for mentally retarded children, so we were disappointed that the person in charge of such a special class did not know the intelligence ratings of the children for whom he was responsible or did not have such data immediately at hand. We saw that the establishment of diagnostic centers has allowed teachers to be able to concentrate completely on instruction; yet, on the other hand, differentiation of educational facilities and division of work among the teachers makes it easier for each prescribed area of responsibility to become independent or isolated. We retained some doubts about communication among the various areas of responsibility.63 After graduation the children are followed for about a year, but, because families often move, it is difficult to maintain follow-up over a longer period. For that reason, the Americans, unlike the Japanese, are not able to examine the adaptability of graduates to jobs and working conditions in order to adjust and revise training in the schools. We were told by American teachers involved with such classes that this is a rather serious problem.64 Education for the mentally handicapped in Japan and the United States was also compared and contrasted. The aim of special education in both the United States and Japan is to impart a prevocational education in a broad sense. Both countries have very similar prevocational study programs in the schools. This is naturally understood when we think of our history and the recent study of the education for the mentally retarded.

146

The Teaching of Subject Matter

However excellent these educational programs or study programs may be, their success or failure depends fully upon the attitude of the community toward retarded children. In the United States, vocational education is enforced on them as a preparatory education so that they may cope with the changes in today's industrial world. It is aimed to prepare them to be able to adapt to any vocation— to give them fundamental abilities rather than a technical education. Actual working processes are to be taught when the students get jobs. In Japan, special education tends to become a school-factory system. I see the need for extending social rehabilitation in the community. We need to improve the education for the mentally retarded and, at the same time, promote a better understanding of these people by the community.85 People's understanding and concern for the handicapped are, in fact, higher than in Japan. With respect to the treatment of the severely handicapped, Americans founded "colonies" almost one hundred years ago; whereas in Japan it is only recently that the idea of colonies has attracted attention. Though the quality of these colonies is not necessarily the best, the fact that they have been in existence for so long should be highly commended. However, when I look at the problems facing the United States and Japan, I find that they are essentially similar. Special education can only be accomplished when social welfare service covers all handicapped people. America unfortunately still has many handicapped persons left at home, and there are several unsolved problems in connection with the treatment offered in the institutes. I learned on this trip that humanity transcends nationality. We both struggle with the most difficult problems, suffer from them, and make every endeavor to overcome them. It is difficult enough to find a goal in life worthy of a human being; it is especially difficult for the severely handicapped people.66 Special education was found to aim not at segregation of the handicapped but at rehabilitation and reintegration into a life as normally functioning as possible. The contrasts between the American programs and the Japanese are not very great, not as pronounced as those between say, Soviet "defectology" and the American practice. Since World War II, there has been a steady communication regarding special education between Japan and the United States. The Japanese special educators share with the American a great devotion to their cause and the exchange of ideas was certain to be accomplished in such a positive milieu.

The Teaching of Subject Matter

147

EXTRACURRICULAR ACTIVITIES The Japanese teachers also paid attention to extracurricular activities and they commented about the fewer numbers of clubs in the United States than are found in Japan. In both school districts there were many club activities both for the students and for the parents. An American student lives in a society which clearly separates the world of the adult from that of the child. Many students participate in clubs outside the school. Although physical education constitutes an important aspect of junior high school education, only a limited number of youngsters actually participate in teacher-supervised sports such as track and football. In one district, after explaining the Japanese situation, I was asked why Japanese teachers are required to supervise such extracurricular activities. In the United States, ordinary citizens carry out this function. Concerning this point, I observed noticeable differences between the two school districts. One had many clubs, most sponsored by religious groups and community organizations. The dubs had a strong element of recreation and involved activities such as swimming, horseback riding, golf, baseball, and other sports which require expensive equipment and facilities. The other district supported fewer varieties of clubs and many of these, such as the Boy Scouts and 4-H Club, were related to outdoor or nature study.67 Little time is spent on club activities. For this reason there is no overlap between club activities and classroom activities. Special attention is not given to athletic team members. It may be said that classroom work and club activities are carried out independently of one another. In elementary schools there are almost no clubs.68 The American students I observed did not give too much time to club activities to the detriment of their lessons. I did not find the system of champions in sports so frequently. I felt that school lessons and club activities were well balanced. It was also interesting to find that club activities were rarely seen in elementary schools.69 Some mild criticisms of club activities are presented to balance the positive picture. There existed some clubs whose central theme was literature, dramatics, fine arts, chorus, or band, and these are also popular in Japan; but, in reality, the students appeared not so earnest in those activities as are Japanese students. The only activity which was commonly emphasized in many schools was that of football. The

148

The Teaching of Subject Matter

reason for this relative inactivity seemed to be that the students had to catch a school bus which left immediately after school. It seemed, too, particularly in the case of fine arts and music, that the content of the classroom lessons themselves was informal, being similar to the content of the club activities in Japan. Even when students were participating in such extracurricular activities after school, they were as passively involved as they were in the actual classroom. Usually advisers—often the teachers of the school—were simply lecturing. I was told that if the advisers attempted to give strict training, students often dropped out. In this way I thought that Japanese school clubs play a more significant role in education.70 The impressions presented are not very opinionated, especially when one remembers the passion which the Japanese evince for extracurricular activities, including those such as baseball, which have been imported from the United States. Americans appeared to be healthy, outdoor people but the participation of schools in sports was judged to be average at best. We noted previously the role of the communities in fostering moral education independently of the schools. American club activities tended also to be autonomous. The balance of the review of the several subjects by the Japanese teachers is, on the whole, negative. This contrasts startingly with the positive approval given by the Japanese teachers to the general gestalt of the curriculum. It appeared that American classroom practices are based on fine principles but the practical implementation of these principles always seems to be falling short of the mark. At least this seems to be the somewhat shocking conclusion of the review by the Japanese visitors of subject-matter teaching. Their message, as we shall see repeatedly, is that the grandeur of the design is not matched by its execution. The story of the curriculum through Japanese eyes is the story of America's image through foreign eyes in general. The enterprise springs out of the great hope of human hearts. Perhaps it is small wonder that human hands can not live up to the dreams of the hearts. The Japanese teachers admired what they saw in the United States as being good. But the more thoughtful among them forever raised the question as to whether what they saw was good enough for a country with such limitless possibilities.

6 Special Issues in the Curriculum

Two specific curricular issues occupied the Japanese teachers' minds while they were observing and reviewing the work in American classrooms. One was the issue of ability-grouping. The other was the subject of innovations and reforms. ABILITY-GROUPING The controversy as to whether gifted children Should be taught in separate classes has raged in the United States since sputnik. That it has abated is partly due to the capitulation of the schools to the demand for classes for the gifted and partly to the resistance which some school personnel and some laymen have put up throughout the years. The Japanese teachers who were beset in their own country with similar demands were eager to study the subject in America. Here are some descriptions of the behavior of American teachers within the classrooms where the children were grouped according to ability. The Japanese teachers, like teachers everywhere, found themselves deeply divided for and against ability-grouping. Several statements by the Japanese teachers seem to show approval of the practice of ability-grouping. We saw that in some systems separate curricula based on ability were not ostensibly being used, but that different levels of group instruction were indeed being given. For example, in the fourth grade of one school, five classifications existed; outstanding students were in classifications 1 and 2 and these were clearly differentiated 149

150

Special Issues in the Curriculum

from classifications 3 to 5. Reading ability was considered to be an important criterion in separating the groups. Transfer from one classification to another was permitted in midcourse. . . . There existed such great differences in ability among students that it seemed mandatory to establish separate teaching tracks based on ability. The "track" system appears to have produced no significant number of "inferiority complexes." Parents complain, but the school answers by saying that selection is based on reliable data. Ability is differentiated in the United States using data extracted from extremely detailed files. Kindergarten-level I.Q.-test results, other test results, and opinions of teachers are entered in a cumulative file which is being forwarded from kindergarten to high school. A counselor who has specialized in this work examines these carefully and determines the individual's classification. Hence, we may say that classification is determined with extreme care. I believe that science, mathematics, social studies, and foreign languages in the high schools are all taught within the ability "track classification" system.1 Japanese social conditions will not allow "education for talent" to be promoted to fulfill the needs of national planning. Americans regard ability as developing continuously and they are able to take concrete measures to foster it throughout the school years. They are achieving a significant measure of success, because for them the educational goal of developing individuality coincides or coordinates well with "education for talent" to meet national needs.2 Other Japanese teachers also praised ability-grouping and denied that it "fosters inferiority" in less able people. Although instruction is given under a thoroughgoing abilitygrouping system, we did not see distortions or superiority-inferiority feelings among the students. Why is it that such instruction is not conducted in Japan? The matter is discussed in Japan but usually ends with such comments as: "Inferiority feelings will be created among the students." There is lack of the courage and decisiveness necessary actually to attempt such instruction. In observing American instruction, one senses that instruction is being presented to meet the scholastic and other abilities of each child. The Japanese teacher places efforts on uniformly bringing forty or so students to a level preset by the teacher. But is this beneficial and enjoyable for the individual child or student?3 The visitors observed that Americans were less fearful of the "loss of face" which is such an important inhibiting factor in Japanese behavior.

Special Issues in the Curriculum

151

In general there were no problems about "inferiority feelings." The students liked being in groups consisting of others with the same general level of ability and parents felt that, rather than forcing a child into a higher group, it was better for the child to be in an appropriate ability group in which he could make a good grade.4 There were even those who saw in ability-grouping a chance to impart "the habit of group-living."5 But some serious comments were made by yet other Japanese teachers against ability-grouping. They charged, in particular, that segregation by ability interferes in various ways with "normal" development of talent. One teacher contrasted, with praise, the absence in the United States of rigid prejudice against hereditary handicaps, a prejudice characteristic of Japan. To learn what the attitude of Americans is toward superior mental ability, one may examine this attitude in relation to employment and in relation to marriage. It is natural in Japan for the graduate of special courses or schools to have a superior "label" attached to him for life. It is not rare that this influences both the person himself and also his parents and others in his family. It is considered important for "bloodlines" or in forming ties between families. There have been examples in which engagements were broken when it was discovered that one party had belonged to a low-ability group in school; there are also many examples of marriages being prevented because a sibling of either party was physically or mentally handicapped. In contrast, Americans traditionally view abilities or handicaps as being pertinent only to the individual himself. Further, one finds the attitude that abilities are changeable. A person who has been released from a mental hospital, for example, can find employment, get married, and reenter the mainstream of life without great difficulty.6 Another teacher shrewdly contrasted the notions of "ability" and "interest" and pointed out how the two are reconciled in the United States. Tests which measure comparative degrees of intelligence have demonstrated clearly that differences do exist. However, the counterarguments of educators who hold a basic belief in the potentiality of development of all abilities continue to be presented. Even if the tenets of this belief are acknowledged, however, the schools themselves are limited by the time available. And if it is agreed that the function of education is to provide the means by which

152

Special Issues in the Curriculum

daily life may be maintained or to provide skills which allow the making of social contributions, the schools still cannot be held responsible for developing all talents and abilities; such development may require a great amount of time or possibly even an entire lifetime. The placement of such responsibility on the schools is really a negation of school education. Hence, by a measurement of abilities at a certain time, it is decided whether particular abilities should be allowed to develop further. For this it is necessary that there be an elective system of courses. The present elective system, however, arose from another area of educational thinking or philosophy, i.e., the educational views which give a leading role to students' interests rather than to their abilities. This view holds that if there is selection of courses by interest, abilities will automatically be developed. There is a confusion of arguments here, a confusion involving the complementary relationship between abilities and interests. The former primarily is beneficial to society and country; the latter contributes to the happiness of the individual. It is the problem revolving about the relationship between rationalism and humanism. It may be held that this confusion is covered or overcome in contemporary America by the argument that the individual's life is enriched and his happiness heightened when he meets the requirements of the nation and society. It seems that there has been a rapid shift of the emphasis of the elective system from interests to abilities. Such a shift can occur rather easily; for, in a society where there is strict evaluation of abilities, interest in an area tends to coincide with the possession of ability necessary to meet the requirements of that area. For example, if a student is told that he is poor in mathematics and actually receives a failing grade, he loses interest in mathematics and becomes interested in other things such as auto mechanics. These secondary interests are interests which are forced. . . . The original purpose of the elective system has been distorted. But it would seem that if the numbers of "dropouts" are to be reduced, then institutions catering to secondary interests must play a large role. The general high school, which has come to be a subject of interest all over the world, was from my viewpoint developed during the above-described confusion of educational ideals.7 A third teacher bluntly criticized the weaknesses inherent in ability-grouping. Many problems arise with establishment of the ability-grouping system. Students in lower groups are envious of those in higher groups and it is undeniable that they have some feelings of inferiority. When students with such problems are found, they are praised or their strong points emphasized in classes which are not under

Special Issues in the Curriculum

153

the ability-grouping system. It can be seen that the inferiority feelings of students may be worsened by parental pressures. The parents' desire that their children eventually enter prestigious occupations often is not commensurate with the scholastic abilities of such children. Parents' ambitions may hamper the normal development of the child; or the child's resistance to his parents may produce extreme passivity. The child may run away from his home, be fearful of adults or superiors, or engage in various delinquent activities. At the base of this problem is the attitude which respects academic achievement and disparages technical or industrial work. Some teachers may recognize that academic and technical work are equally important, but parents in general do not take that attitude. Unfortunately, most schools have not established facilities or promoted opportunities for educating parents to acquire such an understanding. In one school observed, however, the parents of children in lower ability groups observe, discuss, and do research on classes; they reconfirm their children's scholastic abilities and discuss problems of teaching techniques.5 There were other comments against ability-grouping which were directed particularly to the difficulties which it presents in Japanese education. I think we need to be careful in the adoption of ability-grouping. From my point of view, I would rather have a mixed group which includes the pupils who are quick in a kind of intuitional understanding, the pupils who are strong in logical thinking, and so on, so as to have better chances of finding out some new solutions from different standpoints. Interaction through mutual stimulation is extremely important. . . . It seems to me that there is a difference in the way of thinking between the United States and Japan concerning ability-grouping. We usually tend to think of the formation of personality or character even when we plan ability-grouping; but, in my impression, American teachers do not seem to find any difficulty or problem with this aspect of education when they practice ability-grouping. This may be due to their tradition of emphasizing the intellectual aspects in school education.9 Given the present conditions in Japan, I fear that there will be a hardening of the situation. The bright child will be allowed to "sit" on his superiority feelings while the slow child is neglected. Inasmuch as it is obviously wrong to let the slower children simply play and waste away their time, teachers give them problems to solve or hand out a few pages of arithmetic to keep them occupied.10 Close observation of ability-grouping in actual classroom prac-

154

Special Issues in the Curriculum

tice produced criticisms not only of the theory but also of its execution in American schools. In a first-grade class the teacher had gathered a group of six or seven children for reading instruction. This was a group of advanced children and, for thirty minutes, the teacher was completely involved in instructing them. The "nonadvanced" children who formed the great majority of the class were copying letters of the alphabet from the blackboard at the front of the classroom. Their letters were not written properly and many had copied incorrectly, but the teacher gave them no guidance. Could this really be considered instruction to meet individual ability? I feel that there should be more research on methods by which instruction which promotes individual differences can be conducted while the class as a whole is also being taught. Standard tests which enable one to learn more about the interests, abilities, and adaptability of individual children are more advanced in the United States than they are in Japan. Further, I feel that we should adopt the system of keeping records of such tests over an extended period of time, the records being sent up from kindergarten, elementary school, junior high school, to senior high school. There is a certain coldness in mechanically determining a child's ability. I received the impression that contact between the teacher and child was maintained only through instruction of the course material. I do not understand why so little attempt is made to understand the child in his natural state, such as how he appears in his play, in chores, and so forth.11 Comments about the snobbery inherent in ability-grouping, about overemphasis on independent study, and about the excessive demands of advanced materials upon the capabilities of average teachers also were made occasionally.12 Ronald Dore has pointed out in a historical essay how selection by ability, which made its appearance in the modernizing society of the late Tokugawa period, needed to be reconciled with the hereditary status system.13 Problems dating back to this time continue to be found in Japan and need to be solved continually. The loss of face inherent in not being considered intelligent would be so great that considerable social cost would attach in Japan to any advantages of ability-grouping. In addition the wholehearted acceptance, at least in theory, of American educational egalitarianism after World War II, has prodded the emergence of an egali-

Special Issues in the Curriculum

155

tarian school system now firmly reinforced by teachers' liberal sympathies. Whereas the urgencies of the age of sputnik have helped Americans to temper some of their traditional reluctance to favor the talented with special programs, no such influence operated in Japan. Hence, quite properly, though rather without regard to how controversial the subject of ability-grouping is in both countries, the Japanese teachers drew a contrast between acceptance of the principle in the United States and its rejection in Japan. In answer to our question as to whether ability-group instruction does not create inferiority feelings among the slower children, the school principal stated: "The top-level students are quick to understand and to follow complex research. They read many books other than the texts. The students also feel that it is natural that able students are in their own group and the slower students take the same attitude. The elective courses also contain their own group system. Thus, even if a student is in the top group in English or mathematics, he may be in the third-level groups in his elective classes. From this there follows a good balancing of views and feelings among the students." When the ability-group system was attempted in Japan, parents as a matter of pride tried to have their children placed in the higher ability groups; this created great problems in the actualization of such instruction. We asked the American principal if he had this problem and he answered: "It is of course quite natural that some parents wish to have their children placed in the higher groups, but, as a whole, they have a good understanding of the abilitygrouping system and are cooperative." We asked to see the standard list of courses for students in the school, but were told that each student made his own schedule based on the courses being offered and on his own ability. The school did not have a standard list. Many other schools are run in the same way.14 The Japanese distaste for ability-grouping and its contrasting success in the United States was explained by comparing the respective cultural milieus. After observing American education I cannot help feeling that "ability" is regarded very differently in the United States than it is in Japan. In Japan, when regular and special classes based on ability are established, the two are differentiated to an unnecessarily rigid degree. Differentiation within the regular classes is avoided. If such

156

Special Issues in the Curriculum

differentiation is attempted, the school receives strong protests about inferiority feelings which may be aroused among the children. Hence, such differentiation cannot easily be accomplished. It is not simply that differentiation is disliked; rather, there seems to be a type of viewpoint or way of thinking among the Japanese which does not allow such differentiation. In contrast, Americans seem to believe that one should receive education according to one's ability. Hence education geared to ability is conducted even in the elementary schools. . . . Japanese generally think of ability as meaning intellectual ability. . . . Such a view also exists in the United States, but, in general, ability there is held to function in a wider variety of areas. Ability is basically considered to be the ability to function in society. Hence, even though ability-grouping is done, there is no sense of simple compartmentalization according to a single criterion. There is a strong tendency in Japan to evaluate ability by comparing children on a superior-inferior basis. Schools in the United States also use the principle of relative evaluation but it seems that they also focus attention on the individual areas of ability—on the special talents of the individual. Even when instruction is directed at ability groups, an individual child's group changes according to the subject being taught.18 The Japanese teachers were most concerned with human harmony, with the sense of solidarity that needs to be safeguarded if pupils are grouped according to ability. During the discussions concerning the gifted children we considered a number of actual measures that might foster a sense of solidarity. Although they have differing basic abilities, children function and live within heterogeneous groups. In principle, they should not be separated from their natural group. Further, it was held that academic ability itself is fostered in such natural groups.16 The Japanese teachers also pointed out that one way to cater to good academic ability would be to copy the pattern of instruction given in small private schools. I visited four schools on the eastern seaboard and one school on the west coast, all of which were non-church-sponsored private schools. My observations concerning these schools may be organized into the following points. 1. Education was provided for a controlled or limited number of students. The school enrollments stopped at a high of about 800, a figure which may be considered quite low. The classes, too, were small, ranging from four students to a high of approxi-

Special Issues in the Curriculum

2.

3. 4.

5.

157

mately twenty students. This was the point which most appealed to parents and was the major factor persuading them to enter their children in such schools. Thoroughgoing individualized instruction was offered in class. This can also be true of public schools, but, in the private schools especially, such instruction was carried to a point unknown in Japanese schools. The institution was organized for the academically elite students. This was more applicable to the eastern-seaboard schools than it was to the west-coast school. Personality development for the individual student was emphasized to the highest degree possible. Full education was given to produce the complete human being. I saw this in all the schools I visited. If American leaders receive such education, then considering the present Japanese situation it seems that a "revolution" in education must occur in Japan. School campuses are extremely large. The beautiful natural environment played a part in esthetic development and personality formation. It contributed much to the formation of a rich human awareness.17

Some rather brilliant statements related success in learning not to ability-grouping but to other incentives, notably "patience and perseverance."18 Few other teachers perceived that complaints against ability-grouping can be used as a smoke screen to cover up other deficiencies in education. Along these lines, the satisfactions and dissatisfactions of students of all abilities were seen as related not so much to ability-grouping but to the impact of the contacts with teachers and classmates. 1. Students in the lower groups were overwhelmingly more dissatisfied with their school life than were those in the higher groups. The students in the higher groups showed concern primarily about teachers' criticisms, their rates of progress in classes, and the amount of homework assigned; but the students in the lower group were troubled mainly by unsatisfactory interpersonal relationships. They disliked in particular being teased or bothered and they showed a marked tendency toward alienation. 2. More than 70 percent of the American students stated that they wished to discuss their problems with someone. Compared to junior high school students in Japan, they showed an extremely open attitude.

158

Special Issues in the Curriculum

3. Approximately one-half of the students stated that they would discuss their problems with their teachers or counselors; the remainder chose their parents or siblings. The fact that the students' problems were concerned both with the home and the school shows that counseling activity has been rather firmly established in the schools. 4. The students in the higher group sought as "good" teachers persons who presented clear and readily understandable instruction and who were fair in class. The students in the lower group expressly sought teachers who would "understand them" or who would treat them as "friends." 5. As enjoyable aspects of their school life, the students indicated "talking with friends" and the "lunch period." An unexpectedly large number of students in the lower-ability group stated that they enjoyed their lessons. Perhaps this indicated their liking for teacher contact in the classroom and also their enjoyment of learning within a peer group. 6. The students in the higher-ability group indicated that what they most disliked about school was the great amount of homework assigned. Rather than having instruction-related dislikes, those in the lower group indicated such things as classmates who bother them, getting up early in the morning, and tests.19 The following is a beautifully balanced concluding statement on the subject of the reconciliation of the seeming paradox between the mass and the talent orientation of American education. As conditions which enable the formation of an attitude of independent study and research in America, the following may be indicated: 1. Educators believe in firm training from early childhood on toward individuality and independence. 2. Strong efforts are made to avoid forbidding or repressing good activities which the child voluntarily initiates. (Enjoy while learning.) 3. Family members and general citizens understand educational subject matter and methods which are used in the schools. Serious consideration has, thus, been given equally to two aspects of education: more education for all children (mass education) and special attention to especially talented children (education for talent).20

Special Issues in the Curriculum

159

In any case it is remarkable that the United States, the country which developed and propagated heterogeneous grouping in Japan and throughout the world, now finds itself in the position of advocating the education of homogeneous grouping. In the following passages the United States is quoted as being a model to follow, not in the comprehensive pattern of education, but in the divisive pattern. When ability-group instruction is mentioned in Japan, one receives strong counterarguments from parents and teachers who demand "equal opportunities in education" or who are worried about the psychological effects. From what I saw, however, ability-based instruction is firmly established in many American districts. When the program was initiated, some parents did object, stating that it was unfair that all children did not receive equal education. Others refused to see their children placed in lower-ability groups. But, through the school's explanations of the results of research, the parents came to have an adequate understanding of the program and to support it.21 A fairly large number of subjects were offered in the curriculum. Should we have such a variety in Japan, we would have many arguments criticizing segregated education for pupils of different abilities. Nothing of that sort was heard in America. Appropriate instruction and guidance which meet individual abilities in classroom situations seem to be a good basis for the pupils' education.22 A measure of the worth of the Japanese teachers as classroom practitioners is that they approached the very controversial problem of ability-grouping with so much prudent detachment. They were aware that the increasing pressures of industrial society will force school systems to give special thought to the education of society's managers. But they were concerned, too, that equality of opportunity be preserved in the classroom. For the United States, with its strong egalitarian traditions, they saw the problem as having lesser dimensions. But for Japan, a country just emerging from a hierarchical, hereditary, and seniority-oriented system, they feared the replacement of the old system by a no-less-stratified network of intellectual "meritocracy." INNOVATIONS AND REFORMS From ability-grouping which was itself an innovation on the American scene, the teachers turned to consideration of innova-

160

Special Issues in the Curriculum

tions in general. They correctly assumed that no matter what the current state of American education, its prospects depend as do those in Japan and elsewhere on the system's capacity to improve and renovate itself. The Japanese teachers watched with great interest the incipient changes in curricular patterns in the United States. It may be said that innovations filled them with great excitement. Here are some statements about the forthcoming educational revolution. I am not saying that the educational revolution is developing in the same manner or is already complete in all the elementary, junior high, and senior high schools. It is inevitable to have certain developmental gaps among the schools. In one senior high school, everything was based on a new system; while another high school in the same school district was more or less similar to the schools in Japan, giving the teacher-centered, lecture-type lessons in the traditional way. Also, we cannot say that the educational revolution is all-successful. Very severe criticisms are made against it, and I agree with some of them. In fact, it would be correct to say that the educational revolution in the two school districts which I visited is groping its way forward in the midst of praise and criticism. In spite of that, I wish to stress the fact that there exists a small group of people, such as the superintendents, principals, and teachers, who are attempting to achieve this educational revolution. As compared with this we should reflect upon our own situation in Japan. There one finds organizations, such as the teachers unions and organizations within the school, which tend to suppress revolutionary experiments, allowing teachers only to make certain minor changes in technique, and, as a result, transform teachers into mere salaried employees. Is this trend in Japan not a sign of choking and making barren the educational thoughts which should support our classroom situations?23 Modernization trends in the United States were favorably contrasted with those in Japan. There appears to be unanimous cooperation toward modernizing the educational system among personnel in the federal government, state governments, local boards of education, and instruction supervisors, principals, teachers, and parents. It is possible to regard this educational thrust as a manifestation of American bid for power. But are all the American people so dull-witted? Looking at the examples of universities which have courageously refused to accept military research projects in science, we must conclude that the above evaluation is insufficient. It is true that modernization of edu-

Special Issues in the Curriculum

161

cation is being encouraged under the rather dubious National Defense Education Act. But such a measure seems to have been necessary because of the strong climate of local self-government and the resistance to federal interference in local education. The title of the federal measure is, in actuality, misleading. . . . Has the Japanese Ministry of Education ever spent large sums for research on new educational subject matter and methods? Have the local boards of education ever done anything in those areas? Yet the curriculum is readily revised while scientific reasons and precise data backing such reasons for revision are not presented. Such revisions only result in empty ideological struggles.24 As part of the mechanism for spreading innovations, the efforts at the state and local level were commended by the Japanese teachers. The fascination with local controls continued to keep its hold upon the visitors as they viewed the mechanics of innovation at the community and state level. They noted the role of state legislatures in subsidizing novelty. They recognized the force of regional committees formed especially to formulate plans and to push through new school projects. They also were impressed by the care and cautiousness with which reforms were being implemented. Americans are extremely cautious and almost appear to be conservative. For instance, when they introduced a new course of study in science, they took three years for preparation and then set up a few experimental classes; only gradually did they increase the number of these classes while, at the same time, monitoring the results. By this way are experimental methods very carefully promoted. This approach is used even when a school building is newly built. Cautiousness in innovations helps to shorten the distance between theory and practice. Many of the failed experiments in Japan were due to the impossibility of applying a good theory when it came to practice.25 However, criticism of the overeagerness for innovation also deserves mention. In content there seems to be a strong sense of contemporaneity, but on the other hand there is an aspect of pursuing only the new and the exotic. I felt some doubt as to whether new reforms can be matched with the intellectual abilities of the children, and whether they do not go beyond the level of their understanding.26 In spite of the vividness of their general remarks, the teachers

162

Special Issues in the Curriculum

had little to say about the specifics of the educational innovations they observed. In many ways they were disappointed not to have been shown more of the educational innovations, subjects about which they were understandably very curious. Of course, the intent of the project was to show the visitors a cross-section of general schools. The Japanese disappointments, therefore, reflect the fact that innovations in American education stop short of largescale implementation in spite of the great publicity which they are given. Publicity is needed as it is the only way by which innovations can be brought to the attention of the school system. In actual fact, there is too little publicity. It has not penetrated sufficiently the rank-and-file American schools. Turning to specifics, the Japanese teachers placed a certain amount of emphasis upon the use of visual aids. Perhaps this is so because the media in Japanese schools are beautifully developed, and the Japanese could see little in the United States to copy or admire. Nonetheless, the reports about the use of visual aids in the United States were mildly positive. Many of the senior high school teachers in Japan tend to be reluctant to use the audiovisual aids without having had any previous experience in their use. . . . Women teachers in particular hesitate to use them, assuming them to be difficult to handle. I noticed, however, that many teachers in America use them with ease, although they do not care too much about how to handle them accurately for most efficient utilization. In Japan I sometimes find some teachers are too careful in using them when they are really qualified for the use of these aids, assuming that only specialists are qualified to use them.27 Another response to visual aids was elicited by this interview. INTERVIEWER: If you had one million dollars to use to improve audiovisual instruction in the United States, what would you do? TEACHER: I would improve the curriculum and devise better software materials. INTERVIEWER: IS the Japanese use of audiovisual aids more efficient than is American use? TEACHER: It is difficult to say briefly. Generally, the more enthusiastic teachers in Japan try to introduce audiovisual teaching and, in spite of having poorer facilities, seem to be doing better than their counterparts in America. There are, though, some who are less receptive to new methods in Japan and they are resisting.

Special Issues in the

Curriculum

163

INTERVIEWER: If you brought Japanese teachers who are specialists in the use of audiovisual methods to the United States and sent American audiovisual-method teachers to Japan, which group would benefit most? TEACHER: Both would benefit from each other. In Japan, though, facilities are not so good but the teachers make good use of what they have. In the United States, the reverse is true.28

Among other innovations, the ungraded system was mentioned by one teacher. Compared to the usual graded system, the ungraded system is definitely superior in encouraging sociability in children. But in the quality of academic training and in the ability to meet individual differences, the system is not without problems. For example, in one of the meetings held every Wednesday, which was attended by all pupils, approximately eighty children were to exchange their opinions concerning the playground. But during the forty-eight minutes spent in discussion, almost all the time was monopolized by specific children. In the classroom, while the teacher was instructing some, more than half of the children were left with nothing to do. For every sixty minutes of total classroom time, the records showed that the children simply browsed away an average of fifteen of those minutes. Although the ungraded system represents an extremely ambitious instruction program, there still remain obstacles in its path. The educational goals of the school must be flexible enough to adapt to individual abilities and constantly to provide new experiences for the children. There are many minus areas which require much further study.29 This comment is rather significantly conservative in view of the known potentialities of ungraded scheduling to provide a maximum opportunity to suit individual pace and talents. But the opinion quoted correctly assesses the low degree of advancement of this method and the other uncertainties generally surrounding difficult innovations. Lesser departures from ordinary programs, such as modular scheduling, seem to have merited more enthusiastic attention. In my homestay community I saw a very good suggestion for future education—a high school which has modular flexible scheduling. I was much impressed with this school. The numbers of students in the classes were highly variable with one class having 200 to 300 students and another having only fifteen. The whole method of teaching was thereby changed. Students are encouraged to be independent and to make their own study plans. I was also im-

164

Special Issues in the Curriculum

pressed that the building itself was built for that type of modular flexible scheduling. I thought that the emphasis was put on learning on the students' part rather than on the instruction of teachers. Teachers are there to help the students develop themselves and lead them in individualized education. The teachers are always there to help them with their projects.30 A few comments were also elicited about team-teaching. A question about teachers' aides was also asked in the following interview, but the Japanese respondent understood it to mean instructional aids rather than persons attending the classroom to relieve the teachers of administrative chores. The misunderstanding is a good illustration of the difficulties attendant on communication across language barriers. In the interest of maintaining the interchange at all, the interviewer thought best to accept the interpretation of the Japanese respondent at face value. INTERVIEWER: Would you please tell me your major interest during your study of American education. TEACHER: I was very interested in innovations in education. INTERVIEWER: Did you observe that the enthusiasm for innovations was the same all over the United States or did it vary from one area to another? TEACHER: I am speaking particularly of my homestay school district. In other districts I did not get a chance to talk too deeply so I cannot tell. INTERVIEWER: What were some of the best innovations which you observed? TEACHER: Teachers' aids. INTERVIEWER: Did you know about teachers' aids before coming to the United States, or was that educational innovation unknown to you except from reading? TEACHER: Before I came here I more or less had my own opinion about innovations in education, especially in the field of educational television. And what I was interested in learning from the American educational system was where in American education this innovation should come into use. INTERVIEWER: But you observed no team-teaching in Japan, did you? TEACHER: No, team-teaching is not done in Japan but attempts are being made at the elementary school level for the teachers to specialize in one subject only rather than for them to teach selfcontained classes. INTERVIEWER: Are you enthusiastic about team-teaching? Would

Special Issues in the

Curriculum

165

you introduce team-teaching in Japan if you were in charge of the educational system? TEACHER: I do not think I could introduce team-teaching as it is done in the United States. But the first step I think should be made in Japan is to make the classes smaller, because, for the moment, forty-five is the average number of children in a class. If classes could be made into smaller sizes, then I would introduce a method utilizing a combination of team-teaching and one teacher. INTERVIEWER: Did you observe any bad factors in team-teaching? Do you have any criticisms about team-teaching? TEACHER: I did notice that much attention was being given to gifted children and slow learners, but somehow the average children were rather forgotten. At the same time, however, I remember that the average students in Japan are given much consideration and the gifted and slow learners are relatively ignored. I think the degree of attention given to students depends more or less on class size and the ability of teachers. INTERVIEWER: In what way are teachers' aids useful? TEACHER: I have been much impressed with the use of the tape recorder in reading classes and the 16-mm films which enable the teacher to individualize instruction. We were told that the analysis of which part of teaching should be done by human teachers and which part by machines is a very great problem. So this is one of the points I wanted to learn from American education. I am also experimenting with teaching aids in Japan. We have formed a voluntary committee that is trying to develop the input and output for machines, and I think we have more or less settled this as far as the electronic machines are concerned. The problem we are now facing is whose responsibility is it to analyze the subject matter and teaching materials and then how to put the data into the machines. We hope that professors from the universities and classroom teachers will take part in this and then perhaps commercial firms will help develop these programs. INTERVIEWER: If you had the chance to organize an ideal classroom in an American school with a teacher and all the teaching aids that you could use, what would such a classroom look like? TEACHER: My dream or ideal—and I am partly influenced by the film called 1999—is that for a few days youngsters will stay at home and watch television and all instruction will be given through the television. The rest of the week they would attend school and would exchange information through discussions, learning from one another how to discuss. At the same time those school classes would be used for developing discipline and for the emotional development of students. INTERVIEWER: This means that if students remained at home to

166

Special Issues in the Curriculum

watch television and then came to the classroom for discussion, there would be no need for visual aids. It means that the classroom would be pretty much the same as it is. TEACHER: Of course, this would not do for science education, music, manual training, or physical education; whereas giving facts and instructing students could be handled by television.31

We know the Japanese teachers were vividly interested in innovations; yet their comments on the subject are sparse. As stated, this must be due partly to the intent of the project which was to expose them to general, typical, school systems and problems. Had innovative centers been the primary focus of the visit, the data might be more abundant. One must reflect, however, that all teachers, the Japanese being no exception, are essentially conservative. Even when they espouse a progressive position, their approaches and attitudes are in practice traditional. Schools are entrusted, after all, with the mission of integrating youngsters into an adult society. They attract the type of people for whom the transmission of the stable patterns of society to the young is attractive. Teachers "tame" their pupils and, in spite of denials to the contrary, the Japanese teachers are no exception. Their interest in innovations is acute for new ideas and methods are, after all, what supplies excitement in an otherwise monotonous and repetitive profession. But that interest is academic. In actual practice, caution at best and disinterest at worst are used as buffers against a too-rapid destruction of the known (and comfortable?) world of education. RECOMMENDATIONS FOR JAPAN The Japanese visit resulted in comparative reflections in every area of interest. The subject of curriculum is no exception. Juxtaposition of features in American and Japanese education highlighted the points that the visitors observed. This process elicited several recommendations for Japanese education. Several comparative comments criticized Japanese education. Rather astonishingly, the Japanese handling of children was described as being too soft and easygoing. American education develops children who are able to learn for themselves; in other words, it lets them be independent in a sense and avoids too much supervision and control. Japanese education,

Special Issues in the

Curriculum

167

on the other hand, seems to be too kind and teaches too much too carefully. We should pay attention to the fact that American teachers have developed their approach in the long course of their tradition and that their emphasis on reading as the basis for learning is an important factor in the development of independent thought. Japanese education is the education of "giving to children"; therefore, the children's learning is passive. American children investigate and study for themselves; therefore, their learning is active. Because teachers give everything in Japan, their pupils can manage even without being able to read well. In America, however, if the children cannot read well, they cannot follow the lessons. . . . Japanese teachers are too careful in their instruction, making it difficult for their pupils to develop independence, initiative, and creativity. Compared to their counterparts, American teachers appear to be less careful and even rough in their planning and in their actual teaching.32

The teachers criticized the lack of training for independence in Japan. This theme ran through all of the Japanese evaluations. We have been weak in developing the ability to make decisions for oneself. We tended to depend too much on tests and we encouraged memorization. We are still unable to get rid of the traditional methods of teachers' instruction. We still have a long way to go to teach pupils how to discover things for themselves. We are talking about creative thinking and the discovery method, but in reality we are only paying lip service to these concepts. I cannot help being interested in the actual practice of developmental and creative thinking in American schools.33

Some teachers stressed the magnitude of neglect of the Japanese children. I noticed a number of good devices in the instruction which were based upon individual differences among the pupils; these devices encouraged independent study. If we assume that nearly half of the pupils in Japanese schools are not being given appropriate attention, we must admit that the percentage of American pupils so ignored is smaller. Americans still have much room for improvement, however.34 If no instruction is given which is based on individual abilities but only uniform instruction directed at the entire class is offered, and if such uniform instruction remains centered only on skills or techniques, then can we judge such teaching suitable for this age of technical revolution? We must reconsider whether such educa-

168

Special Issues in the Curriculum

tion will indeed meet contemporary requirements for creativity and adaptability.35 Other teachers deplored the rigidity inherent in Japanese methods of instruction. It cannot be denied that there is much more realistic and effective training in the United States to foster attitudes of independence. There is a tendency in Japan for educational goals to be formulated in an abstract manner; in the United States such goals are considered in a concrete manner within the processes of learning activities. Americans attempt to have the students themselves select problems and devise solutions. In the home, when a child encounters difficulties in his homework, members of his family do not show him the answers immediately but make him attempt his own solution.36 If we could combine the rationale of American teachers and the efficiency of Japanese teachers we might be able to develop a better method of instruction. But, at present, we have too much quantity in the subject matter in Japan and we lack independence and initiative as teachers. In my viewpoint, there is still room for us to display independence and initiative.37 A lengthy criticism was made of the use of the children's time in Japanese schools in the following dialogue between two teachers who participated in the United States field trip. A: The children are made to do things which they really have no desire to do and so they cannot settle down to do fully things in which they are interested. B: Whatever the case, I think the children are too busy. Their time in school is filled up completely with school activities and at home they have schedules which their mothers have devised. In such a situation they have no time to "take a breather." We see that the mother is concerned only about her own child while the schools are involved with all children. We need to coordinate these two viewpoints. A: This type of attitude may also be seen in society in general. In evaluating people—for example in the help-wanted advertisements—abilities and skills are not made the criteria for hiring. Wages are pegged to the level of number of school years completed, i.e., junior high graduates, high school graduates, and so forth. B: This is because of the great respect given to academic records. At least parents seem to take such an attitude. A: "Labels" are given first consideration. "Qualifications" and not ability are used as the criteria. B: I do feel, however, that among the younger generation a new

Special Issues in the Curriculum

169

way of thinking is being gradually developed. Among my former students is one who graduated from a prestigious university and entered a first-rate company. He has acquired the highest "social credentials," but he still says that he wants to leave the company and go overseas to study. From this we perhaps may say that having had a postwar education he has a certain freedom of attitude which allows him to develop his individuality or to do what he wants to do and not to be bound by preestablished attitudes toward life.38 Critical comments derived from comparisons were also made on a variety of subjects with which the Japanese teachers were dissatisfied in Japan. The projections from American practices to Japanese were made in reference to the famous (or infamous) Japanese examination system. All plans for the improvement of the Japanese education system would be useless as long as we have the present system of entrance examinations to colleges and universities. American high schools are able to develop their own curricula because they do not have an entrance examination system such as we suffer from in Japan. I should like to demand the complete improvement of the entrance examination system very strongly.39 Some Japanese teachers also attacked the mechanics of curricular decision-making in Japan. We may need some organization other than the Ministry of Education to plan programs besides the Ministry's courses of study. Perhaps even some private organizations could plan certain experimental curricular programs. We also need closer cooperation between classroom teachers and the university people so that research may be conducted together.40 But the teachers were also critical of the decentralized, indeterminate sources of curriculum decisions in American schools as lacking the substance for high-level, uniform school curricula. At one junior high school we asked to see the school's curriculum but we were not shown any written list of courses. As in Japan, the actual establishment of the curricula occurs within the schools; and teachers in the junior high schools who are in charge of various courses determine, in conjunction with various study groups in their cities, the curricula for their respective schools. Hence, there is insufficient discussion of the curriculum within each school, and we were doubtful about the amount of thought being given to the re-

170

Special Issues in the

Curriculum

lationship between curricula and educational goals, or about the interrelationships among courses in different curricula.41 The criticisms of Japanese education also included an appeal that the roles of school and home be better coordinated. There is a considerable gap between the direction in which the teacher tries to guide the students and the actual values which obtain in the student's family and society. No matter how much we strive in the schools, we find the situation hopeless; yet I feel that as "pioneers" within our society we must continue our efforts. Of course, we can also see that the Japanese society itself is gradually changing.42 The Japanese teachers' observations produced valuable independent comparisons as well as criticisms. A series of comments were made on the subject of instruction in the two countries. Here is one lengthy note: In Japan the instruction guideline serves as a standard of achievement. If, because of an insufficient number of instruction hours the material in the guideline is not all covered, educators generally believe that the students did not get the amount of education which the average Japanese child should receive. In the United States there exists a system by which the curriculum is formed from the actualities of the social situation or the actualities of the classroom. Teachers function in the main role within education and their society recognizes and accepts their assumption of that role. In the Japanese case there are very few teachers who, after reading the instruction guideline, attempt to present instruction which includes their own creative innovations. Japanese teachers are not inferior to American teachers but, because they must present uniform subject matter in a uniform manner, they cannot achieve results such as are attainable by teaching to meet the individual abilities of their students. In Japan instruction is too "soft"; explanation by the teacher and memorization by the student are the nucleus of instruction. . . . Reading in the United States does not involve understanding literary works; rather, the emphases are on reading skills and techniques. In Japan, because instruction is based on subject units, language skills and techniques are difficult to acquire because they are not systematically taught. Many American schools effectively differentiate and coordinate language arts so that during one period of the day there is a thorough practice in reading skills and during another period, exercise in expository or creative writing. Hence, instruction can begin at a very low level involving only basic skills or tech-

Special Issues in the Curriculum

171

niques and advance gradually to levels which provide experience in intellectual agility or which develop abilities enabling the application of language skills to other academic areas. In the postwar period the above-described methods of language-arts instruction seem to have become particularly marked in the United States. In American intermediate and high schools there is much practice in writing, e.g., presenting central ideas in the topic sentence of a paragraph, maintaining continuity in successive paragraphs, and reaching a conclusion in the final paragraph. Students must write opinion papers or expository papers with the purpose of acquiring the ability to express themselves effectively. There is much emphasis placed on the intellectual abilities which enable selections and evaluation. . . . The teacher had the students read Jefferson's diary as well as contemporaneous newspapers and chronicles. After these were discussed and debated, he posed a question concerning Jefferson's foreign policy in order to have the students deductively discover an answer from the materials available. While having his students acquire experience in the methods of historical research, he led them to an understanding of how a representative individual came to take a particular attitude or position within the context of his historical situation. At the same time this stimulated the students to consider the foreign policy of the present American administration. The resources used were not limited to written materials but, for example, the opinions of participants in the election campaign in the town were heard, or the uses of the taxes collected by the local government were directly investigated by the students. When we went to observe instruction, we often found that the topics that had been slated for study had been postponed; instead, we ourselves were requested to present descriptions and explanations of Japan. Instruction is closely related to actual social or classroom situations; we could see that there was much thought on the part of the teacher to provide "live" education.43 Several other statements were made in a comparative framework. The following, one of the most provocative comments, compares subject-oriented and action-oriented learning systems (with obvious bias toward the latter). When we observe the various methods of instruction in the academic subjects which occupy the greater part of American school education, we see that they differ from the Japanese methods in that a good amount of personality training is included. Instruction in Japan tends to be centered on the teacher who "teaches," i.e., the student "is taught." In America, on the contrary, instruction is centered on the student who "learns"; the teacher aids

172

Special Issues in the

Curriculum

the learning process of the child. The students each learn within their daily life-activities; it is a type of learning in which knowledge is acquired as part of one's daily life. There is no question of deciding which is most important, studies or daily living activities; both are considered to be interrelated and are conducted simultaneously. Americans' emphasis on instruction to meet individual abilities (i.e., instruction which adapts to the child's state of development) is derived from this attitude. In Japan, rather than giving full consideration to each student's abilities and personality, school personnel first consider the subject matter to be taught and emphasize teaching techniques by which it may all be covered. In this we see an "impatient" attitude which is centered on the teacher. It seems that, in general, there is a surprising amount of insensitivity to how the students react to such a teaching stance. . . . It is said that, within American society, schools have the function of providing "academic or intellectual education." But this is a misconception; it is not "intellectual education" but "education which raises the ability to understand."44 There were other comments made in a similar vein. There is a great difference in the concept of academic achievement between America and Japan. In American schools, even on the first-grade level, collecting and reporting various information in the presence of other persons is an important part of the curriculum. In Japan, on the other hand, a knowledge of the subject matter learned more or less according to the system of academic discipline is frequently regarded as being academic achievement.45 In American schools, the teaching is done on the basis of the individual's ability to progress. American teachers are always confirming what the pupils have already learned about the basic content of the courses and are ultimately aiming at cultivating the ability to think creatively. However, my impression is that Japanese teachers are more skillful, systematic, and careful in the method of teaching. . . . Higher standards are obtained in Japanese schools, but it is doubtful if the pupils really understand and digest what they are taught.46 Over and over again throughout these pages, we observe the workings of the two systems of education—the one serving flexibility, the other, stability; the one keen on maintaining order, the other, anxious to progress. The representatives of the older system strain away from their own and essay to absorb the strength of the new. W e are witnessing the formation of a new educational

Special Issues in the

Curriculum

173

mix, the heartbeat of the American system supplying the new ingredient. The Japanese teachers constantly stressed the dynamic elements in American education as compared with the less-dynamic system found in their own country. The classes in one public high school were extremely unruly and uncontrolled; but I found one young man attending this school who had organized at home an almost professional collection of American Indian stone artifacts and who was using Toynbee's histories as reference. In a similar situation in Japan, talent would have not been fostered to such a degree and a student's use of reference books would have been limited to those directly related to preparation for college entrance examinations. In sum, I feel that when a certain objective is set in Japan, e.g., college entrance, all efforts are directed toward that goal, preventing the appearance of other talents which the child might possess.47 Here is a statement which characterizes the whole spectrum of Japanese and American curricula and their respective effectiveness. I feel that emphasis in the United States is shifting from occupational and specialized education to general education. In terms of student absorption of subject matter, however, the American system is more advanced than is the Japanese. (This also can be said of American education in general.) We saw that the students, having an independent and voluntary attitude toward study, confronted and became involved with the carefully selected basic items until they fully understood and absorbed them. Japanese education tends to set excessively high standards, with the result that many students do not fully absorb the subject matter.48 These comparisons attempt to assign strengths and weaknesses to the two systems under observation, but the precise balance of merits and faults cannot be assessed in qualitative analysis. A clear-cut, subject-oriented instruction system was being measured against an open, indeterminate, but free and action-oriented system. Educators in both countries, although occasionally praising the strengths of their own methods, are generally restless with the restrictions and weaknesses their systems impose upon them. The other side of the pasture is forever greener. American educators

174

Special Issues in the Curriculum

envy the rigor and order of the Japanese system. The Japanese chafe under the ritualism of their ways and want the freedom of American teachers. The clock cannot be turned back. All systems of the world will have to incorporate some of the American experiences. We are on the meeting ground between the best of the old and hopefully the best of the new. One gets the feeling that the future of education is being forged through these small but meaningful encounters. The classroom teachers crossing frontiers, comparing notes, and exchanging opinions, may well prove to be the conquistadores of the future. A beautifully integrated statement sums up the impact upon the visiting teachers of American curricular practices. There are times when we must guide pupils to know and understand their cultural heritage, and there are times when we must train pupils to investigate and to think logically. If we can keep a good balance between these necessities, we may be able to build up a better method of teaching.49

7 The Status and Duties of Teachers

As we proceed further in attempting to understand the effectiveness of instruction, we come closer to the home truth that the quality of teachers is the be-all and end-all of good education. Having intense problems related to the professional position of teachers in Japan, the visiting teachers were bound to have had an additional stimulus to study their American counterparts. This task was not easy. Teachers in Japan not only hold professional status but also constitute a powerful branch of the civil service. Conditions of work, tenure, salaries, position within the school structure, and the share of power over it are all strictly regulated. This regularized status is strongly reinforced by the traditional ethos of devotion to teaching: the approval of a modest, if not austere, way of living and the reverence for the position of the sensei ("master") which teachers in Japan enjoy. At the same time teachers in Japan feel themselves to be in a beleaguered profession. Their high sense of mission reinforced by the disasters of World War II bids them to view themselves as guardians of democracy. All around them they see the survivals of a feudal system which seem to threaten democracy. An exuberant capitalism has made Japan rich and the rich Japanese richer. The teachers, though revered for their intellect and feared for their revolutionary potential, remain poor. Their espousal of many left-wing causes, or causes considered to be left-wing has rendered the teachers suspect with the conservatives and the moderates. Now the persistent alienation of youth has deprived the 175

176

The Status and Duties of Teachers

teachers of the support of their pupils, their major source of strength in their earlier struggles against the Establishment. On one hand the profession of teaching is one of substance; on the other hand, there is the problem which the Japanese themselves refer to as "the nonexistence of teachers in Japanese education."1 In the United States, the Japanese visitors found practically none of these problems. The position of the teachers varied with each district. Their social composition, far from being homogeneous, presented a bewildering conglomerate of men and women of all social backgrounds, traditions, and aspirations. As a group, American teachers are nonpolitical. Professionally speaking, the Japanese teachers found much devotion to teaching in the American classrooms, but they also met mechanical attitudes, more of the "man on the job, off after hours" conceptions, and sometimes subaverage or poor performances. With the zeal for finding things out and for making the best of what they found, the Japanese teachers proceeded to observe, to sort out, and to draw conclusions from the evidence before them. Because of their close personal involvements, the teachers may have observed more closely the positions of teachers than areas of instruction. Their comments are most illuminating. They present a picture of a profession which was not created but which grew up by itself. The American profession, in contrast to the Japanese, is not yet fully grown. It has the dynamics and the buoyancy of youth, but it also has the uncertainties, the immaturity, and the lack of a clear sense of direction that characterize the young. The American teachers can see themselves through Japanese eyes as through the eyes of senior colleagues. Their views are those of friendly, but more experienced, practitioners of the profession. The brave attempt to synthesize the American and Japanese position of teachers was accomplished, as we shall see, with the usual perceptiveness. Rather astoundingly, when the Japanese teachers observed their American colleagues, they also occasionally demonstrated an intensely negative attitude about themselves. The actions of American teachers were used as lessons for Japan. The treatment that follows shows that the visitors made several criticisms, some painfully accurate, that could only be made convincingly from their superior teaching experience. But one re-

The Status and Duties of Teachers

177

ceives the general impression that the Japanese teachers completed their visit not only more knowledgeable but also resolving to improve themselves professionally. THE STATUS OF TEACHERS Though the Japanese teachers focused mainly on the duties of their profession, they could not help but be interested in the comparative position of teachers in American communities. Considerations of status are important in Japan where teachers receive deference because of the spiritual and intellectual significance of their functions; because of their rank as civil servants; and because they operate the schools which are expected by the state to suggest guidelines to the public, and, for this reason are independent of that public. At the same time, as already mentioned, teachers suffer from low pay, from the political frustrations of liberals within a conservative state, and from the usual tensions of living within a strongly hierarchical society. From such a milieu in Japan, they were propelled into a totally different milieu in the United States. As a result, their opinions about the several ingredients that make up professional prestige in America were often contradictory and generated healthy argument. On the whole the assignment of high or low status to American teachers emerged as rather inconclusive. But their observations about what goes into the making of the teachers' positions are interesting in themselves and as crosscultural ideas. Some teachers felt that the status of American teachers is not good. In reality, the social status of American teachers is low, their salaries are not high enough, pressures from the community are strong, and they are not allowed to participate in the management of the school. (The teachers' conference usually is held merely to allow the principal and vice-principal to give directions and announcements.) Professional matters concerning the curriculum, textbooks, and methods of teaching are under the jurisdiction of the vice-principal, and teachers cannot share in the decisions regarding these. They cannot, of course, participate in the decisions concerning their own working conditions. Under these circumstances, it is, frankly speaking, doubtful to what extent the status and independence of teachers are established—this in spite of the fact that teachers are generally recognized as being professional persons.2

178

The Status and Duties of

Teachers

Though echoing the same views, other teachers saw brighter sides to American teachers' self-image. At a discussion group consisting of high school students, a girl student commented that she would consider becoming a teacher only if she could find no better job after graduation from college. A boy stated that he did not think it a good occupation because the salaries are too low. I heard these remarks shortly after reaching the United States, and my colleagues received the same impression later during their visit. But when I actually visited the high schoolssimilar conditions exist in the elementary and junior high schools— I found that the teachers were very cheerful and had a bright outlook. The lounge where we had coffee and chatted with them was extremely pleasant. It was incomparably more cheerful than staff rooms in Japan.3 The following passages also reveal the characteristic mixture of ingredients which Japanese teachers perceived as going into the status of the American profession: the low pay, the internal stratification, and the necessity to hold other, part-time work; and, on the other side, the counterbalancing factor of high esteem given for devotion to duty. Their estimates spare no punches and are fascinating reading. It may be an overstatement to say that in Japan the teacher is considered to be living educational subject matter but, even in the activities of daily life, the teacher must be a model and leader of people. No matter if the profession of teaching becomes even more narrow and specialized, it is still the teacher who, in the final analysis, will be the mainspring of influence and guidance to the student. (A subject of much discussion in Japan is the allegation that during the past few years teachers have become transformed into simple wage earners and that this is the reason for the rise in juvenile delinquency. ) Teachers tend to agree with the commonly held views of themselves. During the discussion held before we left for the United States, we discussed at length the topic of the life-styles of teachers. The predominant opinion among us was that the transformation of teachers into simple wage earners was influenced by their life-styles and the manner in which they were handled. Yet even if it is said that such a transformation is occurring among Japanese teachers, the older way of being regarded by the public still strongly colors their behavior. We thought that American teachers would be different in this regard. Even more frequently than we anticipated we met with facts

The Status and Duties of Teachers

179

which more than justified our faint and not necessarily correct feeling of superiority over American teachers. For example, many teachers in the United States do extra part-time work. Jobs such as working as a taxi driver, auto repairman, or painter—types of part-time work which would be unthinkable for a teacher in Japan—are taken openly and without being discriminated against by colleagues and parents of students. This situation could mean that Americans are not bound by peculiar social restrictions. But there are also people who say openly that the social status of the teacher in the United States is the same as that of a mailman. When we toured big cities, two drivers of tour buses said, as if by prior agreement: "When I was young I thought of becoming a teacher, but the pay was too low and so I entered this line of occupation." When we heard this, we could not refrain from painful smiles. When we say that the teacher's status is lower than that of a mailman, we may be denigrating the mailman; but, at any rate, we did not observe teaching being regarded as a "sacred occupation" as it is in Japan.4 Part-time work was persistently pointed out as "lowering" status, and the fact then even the school principals may be forced to "moonlight" was indicated as a weakness of American education. 5 The Japanese teachers were also quick to observe, however, the brighter side of American teachers' lives. They pointed out the considerable fringe benefits to be found in teaching, for example, the fact that the low pay of their American colleagues is counterbalanced by general economic and social security. Teachers do suffer from low salaries, but their positions are secure. At my homestay village, I lived at the home of a high school physics teacher. He was an average type of teacher, but he joked freely with the students in the school hallways, was a friend of the vice-principal, and was also on close terms with the principal. When he met with the chairman of the local board of education, he conversed with him as though they were friends. His attitude toward his job was that, if he fulfilled his duties, he did not have to be concerned about anything else. In sum, it may be said that the American teacher's social position and reception within the community is not too different from that of other citizens.6 The living conditions of American teachers were found by Japanese standards to be breathtaking. American teachers live in what would be considered luxurious

180

The Status and Duties of Teachers

homes in Japan (although of course there are exceptions); they own private automobiles, and have enough free time and money to be able to study or to enjoy leisure activities. Although there is some social pressure on them to lead exemplary school and private lives, they feel no sense of great restriction. Having a well-equipped school, they appear to be in a situation which enables them easily to fulfill their responsibility to society as teachers.7 DIVERSIFIED TEACHING FUNCTIONS

By far the most significant ingredient making up the professional position of teachers in America was seen to be not their social and material conditions, but what Japanese teachers called a "diversification of function." American teachers often complain of being burdened with duties other than instruction. Assistants to the teachers, the so-called teachers' aides or help from student teachers, are conceived as lessening this burden. O n a comparative scale, however, in the opinions of even more generally burdened Japanese teachers, the Americans emerge as specialized and nuisance-free. One might do well to compare these startling foreign stereotypes with American images from the film Good Morning, Miss Dove. Be that as it may, the Japanese have correctly perceived the impact that more precise specialization has had on enhancing status. American teachers were left free to teach in a variable setting. It was surprising to us that teachers were working on part-time jobs after school. They were accepting all kinds of jobs and were not limited to just tutoring as some Japanese teachers are. But, on the other hand, I never saw any teachers missing their lessons in the classrooms and, if a teacher were absent, a substitute teacher was sent by the board of education. I did not come across classes where the students were studying alone because the teacher was absent. Another difference which I found was that American teachers were not just equal among themselves as we are in Japan. Senior teachers or experienced teachers, particularly heads of departments, gave special supervision and guidance to newly employed teachers. The counselor system was well established and other personnel, such as vice-principals, were engaged in their special fields; teachers, therefore, could concentrate on their teaching. Teachers' meetings with the participation of all the staff were rather rarely held. It was also a great difference that principals were appointed without regard to age but mainly on the basis of their training and ability to manage.

The Status and Duties of Teachers

181

Teachers also seemed to be more or less content with their teaching, without necessarily desiring to become principals. . . .8 The flexibility inherent in American education was seen to permit a greater specialization for American teachers. This was held to lead to good feeling and expertise. Contrary to Japan, America permits a division of function among teachers. Administrative and office duties are handled by the viceprincipal, with a further division of the vice-principal's office into a section in charge of student discipline. The average teacher seems to be expected only to concentrate on his instructional duties. We almost never saw staff meetings which all personnel had to attend. The principal appears to be the busiest employee in American schools; and, if enrollment rises above one thousand students, it is thought that he needs special managerial abilities. If a candidate passes ability examinations in administration, supervision, and management, he is appointed principal, even though he be relatively young. The number of people who desire to become principals is few, and most teachers seem to be satisfied with their own work. There are also principals who return voluntarily to a teaching position. Appointment is based on public announcements of a vacancy, and direct promotion of a teacher within a school to its principalship seldom occurs.9 Differentiation of function was held to lead to clear and sharp allocation of responsibility for the teacher. Freedom of options for the student as regards choice of teacher-counselors was regarded with approval. Attendant with the division of function in American schools is the division of responsibility. Each person's sphere of responsibility is explicitly defined. In that sense Americans have in effect a modern management or supervisory system. In places such as Japan, where differentiation is not prevalent, the teachers are held responsible for almost everything; for example, if a child is involved in an accident, even during nonschool hours, such an accident is considered to be a failure on the part of the teacher and he is held responsible. Recently the important issue of revision of the International Labor Organization agreements on union regulations has arisen. If we consider personnel supervision or the entire structure of Japanese educational administration against the light of such large international problems, we must conclude that division of function and clear specification of areas of responsibility is necessary.10 I visited a combined junior and senior high school in a farming

182

The Status and Duties of Teachers

town. The person in charge of guidance at that school explained to me that when the students want advice on future plans, they do not have to go to the guidance counselor but can go to their homeroom teachers and to others. Whom they consult is a matter open to them. If they want specialized or technical advice on the selection of schools or occupations, however, they go to the guidance counselor. Hence, although there exists a differentiation of special functions, the individual has the freedom to decide whether he wants to utilize the specialized facilities. In the Japanese case, however, the various spheres of responsibility in student guidance are extremely unclear. Furthermore, people with a great deal of specialized knowledge are not employed in junior and senior high schools. For example, when we observed occupational counseling in an American junior high school, we saw that the counselor had gathered information and organized many files. In Japan we frequently have cases of high school seniors coming to us saying that they want to enter certain universities but do not have sufficient credits. This situation usually arises because the students did not decide their future plans when they entered high school. Guidance for future planning is insufficient in the junior high schools. Here we see the benefits of the American system of specialized facilities.11 Differentiation in elementary schools was also noted with approval. There was a teacher who visited homes of students who were absent from school because they disliked studying or because they had not been supervised closely enough by their parents. Five other teachers were assigned to visit homes or hospitals to give three hours of instruction per week in each major subject to students absent from school over long periods because of illnesses. In this manner, because of the means provided by differentiation of educational function, a teacher is assigned to handle the case and can offer active and positive instruction to the student, no matter what the situation. This is a point of difference with Japanese elementary schools. There the teacher in charge of a class is responsible for all students and must provide special guidance and instruction in addition to teaching his regular classes.12 The American system was persistently extolled for allowing teachers to be more specialized than their Japanese counterparts. They approved of each teacher's being permitted a narrow focus of attention with other aspects of his work being handled by other specialists. But they did warn that such diversity might jeopardize unity, especially teacher-pupil relations.

The Status and Duties of Teachers

183

American education is superior to Japanese in the clarity of the responsibility of each individual teacher. We need to move in this direction if we desire to progress in education. On the other hand, I wonder if there is not a danger of losing sight of the individual student—of arriving at a point where his problems are not grasped, understood, and solved. The question is whether or not the division of educational functions contradicts the principle of taking the best care of individual children.13 Good communications were thought to be responsible for the fact that school personnel could specialize in their work and yet maintain unity among themselves. American education has a kind of thoroughness. Individual teachers stay in their own classrooms and the pupils come to them; this is in contrast to Japanese schools where the pupils remain in the classrooms and the teachers move about. American teachers instruct in their own areas of specialization. Each classroom contains a telephone. Here we can see how important Americans consider good communication to be. . . . The division of educational functions among American teachers would not be possible without this excellent communication system. . . . The division of functions among Japanese teachers is not yet well developed and this lack of division is causing the increasing amount of busy work.14 Teacher profiles in Japan are homogeneous. Because teachers are burdened with heavy duties both inside and outside the schools, they have had to develop all-round professional abilities. The specialization and diversity of function which the visitors found in American schools was at first strange to them; later they saw the economy and flexibility of such an arrangement. They were never quite reconciled, however, to the extremes of specialization because they felt these extremes might detract from the total mission of teaching—a mission to which they were completely devoted. OTHER STATUS FACTORS

The Japanese teachers approved, with qualifications, the presence of "teacher specialists" in the schools. They next turned their attention to other ingredients constituting social status, the appointment policy first coming under their scrutiny. Generally the teachers liked the notion of appointment by contract. Teachers in America are employed by contract; therefore, one

184

The Status and Duties of Teachers

finds a cooperative relationship between the employer and the employee. This same relationship in Japan is based on status and power.15 There is a shortage of teachers in the United States so that teachers often move about quite freely from one district to another and even from one state to another. Student teachers or teachers who wish to be transferred apply to the school districts in which they want to work and they are hired or not hired on the basis of these applications. People are not necessarily employed by the schools to which they have first applied, but the point is that they are free to seek positions in other schools at will.16 It is characteristic of the Japanese to seek precise guidelines, and it was interesting to see how quickly one teacher came to a formulation of principles upon which the appointments of the American teachers seem to be made. I learned that teachers are selected by the principal according to rules of efficient school management formulated by the principal himself. In order to clarify these rules of school management for my Japanese colleagues, I should like to summarize several points which were mentioned in common by the principals of junior and senior high schools in my homestay community. 1. The teachers themselves should be good citizens. This is expected because teachers have the greatest influence upon their pupils at all times and places. 2. The teachers should be good teachers in the instruction of the subjects. 3. Teachers should always be in close contact with their pupils and have a positive attitude toward them. 4. Teachers should be willing to be engaged in activities outside of their subject area; for example, they should be willing to offer guidance in the cafeteria and supervision in club activities and sports. 5. Teachers should carry out the duties which are required by school policy; for example, they should not be late in submitting documents which have been requested from them. These principles indicate how teachers should engage in their work and it is these principles which are the foundations of school management.17 Local appointments of teachers struck the visitors as being unusual because this practice is so much at variance with the Japanese practice. They were quick to emphasize the closeness be-

The Status and Duties of Teachers

185

tween administration and staff resulting from direct local appointments. A potential teacher is frequently interviewed by the principal and hired after it has been determined that he agrees with the policies of the school. He is also frequently asked to teach a class so that his teaching ability and particularly his personality may be assessed in advance. Consequently once a teacher has been appointed, he is given great trust by the principal and has quite a bit of freedom. This procedure is quite different from that followed in Japan, and I find it a very desirable custom.18 The appointment mechanism for American teachers varies not only from district to district but also according to the type of contract. The teachers were favorably impressed both with the criteria used to hire teachers and with the contract and tenure systems. We had some doubts about one-year contracts. We assumed that they might produce insecurity in the incumbents and hinder the recruitment of other capable persons. But we have found that even a short contract guarantees the teacher's status in American society. There is a trend toward the tenure system, particularly in urban areas. When the tenure system is used, however, teachers are strictly rated for the first several years before they receive tenure.19 The Japanese teachers were especially interested in the rights and duties of school principals. They were favorably impressed in particular by the disregard of seniority in the appointment policy. Some of the positive impressions about American schools which the Japanese teachers received was due, according to them, to the presence of open-minded, friendly, and young principals. They noted that many of these young administrators had a close working relationship with the teachers. This was to be expected. In the United States the principal—that is, the "principal teacher"—contrasts favorably with the "school director" in other countries. As the name indicates, the latter is likely to manage the school from a considerably more remote position. Merit rating of teachers was another item on the list of Japanese teachers' interests. This system has been transplanted to Japan from the United States and has been the source of a fierce political controversy for some time. The Japanese teachers feared that a national merit rating system for teachers could be turned

186

The Status and Duties of Teachers

into a powerful weapon by the Ministry of Education and that the playing of favorites could be used to damage the independence of teachers and erode the power of the Teachers Union. The Japanese teachers were astonished to find the merit rating system for teachers in the United States to be innocuous and well accepted. They lost no time in expressing their wonder. The service merit rating system varies from one district to another in America. I was surprised to learn, however, that it is regarded by both teachers and administrators very differently than it is in Japan. In the United States, the principal considers that merit rating is useful to grasp the special qualities of each teacher and to obtain data for better school management; he feels also that it is necessary to develop good teachers within his own school. On the other hand, the teachers have no objection to the system because it permits them to know their own special qualities and to use the data for their own self-improvement. Antagonism between the administrative authorities and the union has caused the original meaning of the rating system to become lost. However, the fundamental problem seems to be the difference of interpretation of the concept of the evaluation itself.20 In the United States merit rating is practiced in any school whose personnel approve it, but its method and content vary from one district to another. The system commonly has no legal control, however. In my homestay community, the principals were rated by the local board of education and the teachers were rated by department heads and by their principal. Teachers with less than three years' experience were rated twice a year; those with four or more years' experience were rated once a year. . . . The results of the ratings are related to the teachers' promotions. They are also communicated to the teachers themselves. The teachers are given an opportunity to suggest improvements in the system or to object to its conclusions. However, in another community which I visited, the ratings are kept secret and are not given to teachers. The ratings seem to be very subjective, but it appears that teachers are more or less reconciled to the system, feeling that there is no better alternative which is sufficiently objective.21 The Japanese teachers found cases in which the merit rating system was used to advantage to bring closer together the teachers and the administration. Ratings of teachers' service and personnel management in the United States seem to be rational and efficient. . . . The principal

The Status and Duties of Teachers

187

of one high school, for instance, showed us his written suggestions on how to become an excellent teacher. He expected each teacher to use these for self-evaluation. The assessment in this case does not come from a higher authority but is made by the teacher.22 The fact that teachers have the power to make school decisions occupied the attention of the visitors. They saw it as an indication of the deference paid teachers by society. On the subject of teacher participation in school government however, not all visitors were unanimous. Some urged more detachment from the administration for teachers. It is extremely important for a teacher to be independent. The educational administration should specifically emphasize those aspects of "educational management" that lead toward the development of human beings. But for this purpose, too, it is important that the teacher guard himself against the worship of the powerful into which he is liable to fall in Japan.23 Others, too, felt that this is not the time for teachers to assume a share in school administration. The Japanese people's flexibility is seen in their acceptance of foreign systems and thoughts. However, they have tended to fall into uniformity because their way of thinking has been too timid, resulting for them in a lack of independence. I think it would be rather dangerous for teachers to participate in educational administration right now. Before they do they must thoroughly investigate and consider the problems of education for themselves.24 American precedents for solving such differences of opinion were not helpful because of the varied and complex way in which decisions in the schools are made. What emerged from the observations of American schools was a recognition of the key role which curriculum supervisors sometimes play in the school systems. In one district I observed that the schools' policies were definitely under the supervision of the supervisor of the elementary schools at the board of education. The specific guidelines of elementary education seem to have been set by a group comprising this supervisor and the principals of seven elementary schools.25 More often the teachers observed great flexibility in curricular decisions, with power to make those decisions being shared by

188

The Status and Duties of Teachers

teachers, supervisors, and principals—even to the point at which "the same curriculum was allowed to be interpreted differently by different teachers." 26 This perplexed them because they correctly felt that there is some "security" in being able to teach a predetermined curriculum. This inner conflict which the Japanese teachers carried within them was one of the central problems of their entire visit to the United States: on one side, the yearning to be flexible and free and to be master of one's own materials and methods; on the other, the wish for the cohesive firmness of the concept "school" and of the concept "teacher" neatly defined by regulations, the security of living within which bestows inner peace—though much less freedom—upon classroom teachers. In only a few cases did Japanese teachers have the unusual opportunity of witnessing a power struggle manifested by a teachers' strike. The strike described below occurred in 1963, several years before teachers' strikes, especially in New York, made such settlements of disputes commonplace. At one high school in the West I spoke with the chairman of the state teachers' association, an organization which consists of approximately seven thousand members. From this conversation I learned that the governor of the state had appointed a special committee to investigate the long-standing demand for improvement of teachers' wages and reduction of the teacher-student ratio. The committee advised that a special session of the state legislature be called to approve a sixteen-million-dollar increase ($3,300,000 for teacher pay raises) in educational expenditures. The governor vetoed the proposal and, in protest, the teachers' association staged a two-day strike. This occurred during the spring of 1963. When we visited the classrooms of the school, we saw that each class had thirty-six or thirty-seven students, quite a large number for American classes. We were told that in a school complex designed for 1,800 students, 2,100 were now enrolled. We learned that some high school teachers had to work part-time as taxi drivers because their regular salaries were so low. According to the president of the teachers' association, politicians within the state were sympathetic to the strike and 43 percent of the residents supported it (30 percent believed the governor to be correct; others were uncommitted). The chairman of the board of education, however, believed that both the governor's failure to heed the advice of the special committee and the teachers' strike were misjudgments and that the teachers' strike would not produce good results. He felt that the teachers, while

The Status and Duties of

Teachers

189

continuing their good work in the schools, should work toward attaining their goals through the administrative structure.27 It is remarkable how reticent the Japanese teachers were on the subject of strikes. Coming from a country in which teachers' strikes have been a major weapon of the profession (at least in the 1950s), the visitors could have been expected to have strong opinions for or against their use. One of the groups was in New York in the midst of the upheavals that erupted in the late 1960s, but the discussion of these events at the time was unusually subdued. The professional interest of the visitors as teachers was at all times subordinated to their general ethos as Japanese, and one cannot help but admire the tact and consideration with which they approached thorny issues in order not to embarrass their hosts. In the discussion of the relationship between the school and the family in preceding chapters, the Japanese teachers saw cordiality rather remarkable at the time when the participation of the school had begun to make encroachments upon the tasks of education performed by the family. When their focus shifted on the position of teachers, however, they found that the tensions generated by the changing patterns of relationships between the family and the school had begun to show. One major cause of a lack of enthusiasm among the teachers lies in the traditional attitudes held by the parents. One teacher stated that if he had the students pick up trash on the school grounds he would probably be sued and asked to resign. He said this very casually as if he had become much accustomed to that type of situation. Most of the teachers whom I met did not feel that they could break such tabus in order to train their students further. In such a situation there can be no solution to the problem of preventing dropouts, an educational problem which is closely tied to conditions in the home. Various types of school personnel are actually responsible for dealing with dropouts: homeroom teachers, counselors, psychologists, truant officers, and visiting teachers. Like baseball players chasing a fly ball they gather around the student. Unfortunately, they are not able to catch the ball; that is, they do not become involved with the crux of the more important problems . . . I came to see that it was because they believed that they could not infringe on the "self-direction" of the family, the independence of which is the basis for the traditional American individualism. In

190

The Status and Duties of Teachers

order to revise such traditional views in the United States, teachers must be trained to become more professional, and must be received socially and recompensed financially as professionals. They must be recognized as having the type of authority doctors and lawyers now have, and be entrusted with a part of the privacy of the home.28 However such comments were counterbalanced by others which indicated that harmony between the teachers and the community does prevail. I was much impressed by a vice-principal of a senior high school who had been working thirty years in the same school district. The people of that community were proud to know him.29 The process of assessing the status, position, and power of teachers is never easy, especially in a large and diversified country. The Japanese teachers approached this task not as sociologists (sociology being a study for which most of them were unequipped), but as classroom practitioners who could be relied upon to formulate sound intuitive judgments. The evidence is incomplete and represents sometimes conflicting opinions among individual teachers. Perhaps the American teachers appeared to form a more cohesive entity than they really do. The evidence reflects very accurately, however, the fluid and indeterminate social position of teachers in society. One of the few places where all the children in the nation can be reached is in the classroom; and teachers, being vast in number and occupying a crucial position, could have been federated into a much more powerful national force than they really are. Certainly the influence of the Japanese teachers in their country is much stronger, comparable to that of lawyers and doctors in the United States. The Japanese visitors were regretful that so much potential remains unfulfilled. W O M E N TEACHERS

The status of teachers in America was finally put to a test by an assessment of the position of women teachers. In no society can one find a large number of women teachers in top professional teaching posts. Their numbers increase as one descends the pay scale. Japan is no exception. The women of Japan have only recently begun to shed their traditional position of a limited life and have in increasing numbers opted for modernization. In

The Status and Duties of Teachers

191

search of prominent women teachers for our project, we had to overcome their scarcity in top posts and a traditional male reluctance to nominate them to a select representative program. During the first year of the project, only one woman teacher was selected; during the second year, two; in later years, five. These products of victory over tradition were naturally eager to assess the position of their American colleagues. A generally disapproving attitude toward the treatment of American women teachers was the result of their visit. It was expressed by a Japanese woman teacher who questioned the treatment of women teachers and related this treatment to their performance. INTERVIEWER: I would like to know your impression of the position of women teachers in the United States. T E A C H E R : I came to the United States with the impression that American women teachers have a more liberal viewpoint than Japanese women and have an equal position with men teachers. I was shocked to learn that American women teachers are treated just about the same as women teachers are in Japan. INTERVIEWER: Could you give me some examples of such treatment in American schools? T E A C H E R : Men are more and more being hired as principals and assistant principals to replace the women holding those positions. I asked why women are being replaced by men. The answer I received was that men teachers are entering elementary school teaching positions in increasing numbers. I wondered if men have better qualifications or higher standards and are, therefore, replacing women. INTERVIEWER: But from your observations of American schools, do you agree that men have better training or more ability to be better school principals or do you feel after seeing American teachers, men and women, that women are as well prepared? T E A C H E R : It is very difficult to make any judgment on this point and I have reached no conclusion; however, I have begun to feel as if there were a need for men in the administrative positions because they are more physically able than women teachers. Physically, you have to be rather strong in order to handle administrative work efficiently. INTERVIEWER: But many Japanese observers who come to this country feel that American women are physically aggressive and very strong. So would they not do just as well? T E A C H E R : Some women teachers, yes. INTERVIEWER: But you found, on the whole, that American women teachers are just as gentle as the Japanese women?

192

The Status and Duties of Teachers

TEACHER: I had the impression that Japanese teachers look more stern and more disciplined. This is just a feeling. On the other hand, American women teachers are always smiling and have a more gentle approach.30

Other comments by Japanese women teachers about American women teachers were equally mixed and some of them were unflattering. Judging from the results of my interviewing, I found that men teachers pointed out the insufficiency of the sense of responsibility, positiveness, and aspiration, in women teachers, whereas women teachers themselves do not seem to be feeling much difference in these points against men teachers. It is interesting to find that women teachers feel themselves to have improved in these points as compared with the past.31 Reviewing the opinions given by the teachers interviewed concerning the problem of too few women administrators, I felt that the greatest difficulty might be related to the home. But I cannot reduce all obstacles against appointment of women to the posts of the administrators to the problem of the home alone, because many capable unmarried women teachers are not working as administrators. It was a surprise and also discouraging to me to learn that women teachers are an object of criticism. Even American women who are believed to be treated kindly by men are, in my impression from these interviews, as weak as children and the tradition of protecting women, which may have originated because women were in a minority in former days, is still existent. American men, too, are very strict in their evaluation against the opposite sex and enter into competition as their rivals once women stand on an equal footing with them. I did meet a number of capable women teachers during my trip in the United States who had excellent characters. On those occasions I felt that I had discovered American women who are strong in the true sense of the word. In conclusion, I would think that the problem of women will not be solved simply by the verbal statement that women are equal, but will be solved only when we think out the best methods by our own efforts and stand on our own feet instead of availing ourselves of the favor of society in general.82 In some excerpts on the subject of women teachers a more constructive tone prevailed. As far as I got in contact with women teachers, I found that all of them had pride in their jobs as teachers and had confidence. . . . It seems to me that the main reasons which have facilitated the

The Status and Duties of Teachers

193

compatibility of the teaching and the family life in America are as follows: 1. It is possible to ask for a leave of absence to take care of children during the early years and then return to teaching again later. 2. There are two days in the week during which teachers are free. 3. It is possible to come home from school early in the afternoon. 4. The home life can be led with high efficiency through an organized way of housekeeping.33 We see that there exist among women teachers some who work outside simply to supplement their husband's income or to acquire funds for more leisure activities. In contrast with teachers in Japan, teachers in the United States rarely consider new instruction methods or approaches. For this reason I felt that Japanese teachers are better trained to observe each child in daily classes as part of their efforts to raise the level of the entire class. But how many of us actually have the professional training, specialized knowledge, and ambition to meet academic goals that can be found among American women teachers?34 One of the differences in the environment of women teachers is that they can be promoted to the positions of administrators if they have abilities and desires. In Japan, too, the door has recently opened in that direction and a number of capable women teachers have been displaying their abilities; but the gateway is still narrow.35 The dutifulness of women to men, feelings of inadequacy, and the need for protection—traditional attitudes of women and of Japanese women in particular—shine through these comments. They are only slowly being counterbalanced by new aspirations for equality, for recognition that women are effective workers, and for increased social prestige. It is interesting to observe that women teachers in America, where these new freedoms are said to be at a very high level, have not been adjudged very secure in their new position by their less-privileged sisters from Japan. Both the Japanese and the American teaching force contain a very high proportion of women. But in both countries they have made only minor inroads into the power structure of their profession. THE DUTIES OF TEACHERS The major part of the interests of the Japanese teachers concentrated on privileges and duties of the American teachers. They

194

The Status and Duties of Teachers

also wanted to pinpoint the social status of teachers and found the amorphous positions of Americans perplexing. They centered on the duties and moral obligations of teachers, however, infinitely more than they did on the problems of status. In the seminars we discussed two general topics, "The Social Position of Teachers" and "Professionalism in Teaching." In the discussion of social position, we did not maintain a strict distinction between its material and its social aspects; the two aspects were frequently confused. At times, the discussion proceeded from the standpoint of teacher remuneration; at others, from the standpoint of teacher authority. The terms "social position" and "professionalism" were also used without clear definitions. In one sense this was unavoidable; because teaching is not yet fully professionalized, it is perhaps more realistic not to insist on strict definitions but to allow an amount of blurring. As an area for future consideration there remains the question of whether it is acceptable to regard the problem of "professionalism in teaching" as it was regarded by the members of our seminar; that is, is professionalism only possible by restricting or limitating the area of responsibility of the teacher? To be responsible for one's small sphere only and to be unconcerned or even irresponsible in other areas can only be a furtherance of what is vulgarly called moneygrubbing or the bureaucratization of teaching. It can only lower the social position of teachers. . . . It is important to recognize that teaching does not have the same objectives as does the production of material commodities. A teacher seeks to enlarge the spirits and develop the personalities of his charges. In addition to having knowledge specific to education and a high level of intellectual ability, a teacher must be dedicated to truth in education. It is only with such qualities that teachers as professionals can receive the high evaluation of society. This applies without distinction to teachers in the United States and to teachers in Japan.36 The sense of devotion to duty among the Japanese teachers is much more seriously felt and pointedly expressed than in America. American teachers do not seem to have the same spirit of selfless devotion that Japanese teachers have. We were asked by American teachers whether we had a sufficient private life because of our high level of dedication.37 It was conceded that American teachers take "their responsibilities seriously,"38 and work at home as well as at school; but

The Status and Duties of Teachers

195

they were adjudged to be less guided by a sense of mission than are their Japanese counterparts. TEACHERS' EFFECTIVENESS

Questions which the Japanese teachers raised about their American colleagues centered around several issues. The first major area was concerned with the effectiveness and cooperation of teachers within the schools. It seems to be commonly agreed in the United States that nothing is more important than mutual understanding and cooperation between the teachers and capable principals and between teachers and pupils. Differences or discrepancies are dealt with frankly and openly. In one particular school, a teachers' conference was held for about one hour after classes were over every Monday afternoon. During these conferences there was a mutual exchange of information and the principal presented new policies regarding school management which were then discussed by the teachers.39 The same observer proceeded to describe in greater detail the relative ease of employment prevailing among the teachers in American schools. Teachers are sometimes urged by the principal to leave the school and find occupation elsewhere. Teachers also may move easily to other schools. If the management of the school is bad, teachers may leave it and, on the contrary, if the management is good there is a smaller turnover of teachers. In one school I visited, an average of only three or four teachers left each year. One teacher said that this was because the school management was very good. In answer to my question concerning the most important factor for obtaining the cooperation of teachers, the principal said that it is through the selection of the teachers who agree wholeheartedly with the way of the management of the principal. He added further, "Teachers should participate in the planning of all the affairs of the school and be given an opportunity to express their own opinions. I make it a rule to listen to these opinions patiently when I feel that they might be useful to the majority of the people. I also try not to ask the teachers to do what I myself would not want to do. If any problem should arise, I try to keep my temper and reason with the teachers. . . ." When I asked another principal whether or not the teachers were carrying out his plans for the school, he answered, "Yes. It takes time to let the teachers know what I have in mind. New plans are formulated in their entirety but the actual implementation of those same plans takes time."40

196

The Status and Duties of Teachers

The American teachers were described by another visitor as teaching their subjects "with confidence and high aspiration"41 and as moving around their classrooms with ease and satisfaction. It was pointed out that in the United States, senior-level teachers of particular subjects are assigned one classroom to which successive groups of students come and that teachers are permitted great individual variation of technique in teaching their subjects. This was contrasted with the efforts of Japanese teachers to hold special periodic meetings to synchronize the common content of instruction. On the whole the Japanese tended to admire the American solutions. But one could sense that they were a little uneasy at so much leeway being given to individual practitioners. There were surprisingly few reports of poor teaching in American classrooms. This is understandable. The Japanese visitors were not likely to be directed to "bad" classrooms. Unconscious window dressing is part of normal school visiting policy everywhere. Because of the language barrier the visitors would not have been able to pick up those elements of instruction which they might have condemned professionally. But even considering these qualifications, we see that the admiration of Japanese teachers for the behavior of their American colleagues in the classroom shines through their many comments. The discussion in a world history class for seniors moved from the subject of imperialism to the Vietnam problem. The more than twenty-five students began a heated debate. When one student took a "hard" position against North Vietnam and the Peking government, another who advocated more peaceful solutions gave a strong counterargument. When the teacher pointed out the horrors of nuclear war and questioned points in the argument of the student who had taken a "hawkish" position, that student asked for further clarification of the teacher's comments. The teacher became quite involved in his answer and, while gesturing with his hands or nodding his head, began to speak more and more rapidly until I could no longer follow him. He turned to me and asked my opinion as a Japanese about the subject. When I later commented that he had become quite involved in the discussion he said: "When I become involved in a discussion with a student in such a manner, I most strongly feel my worth as a teacher." It cannot be said that such a teacher is presenting a politically biased instruction. For the teacher did not take the attitude that his opinion was more correct than the student's, nor did he attempt to

The Status and Duties of Teachers

197

make the student accede or conform to his views. Further, it is difficult for instruction to become biased. The students do not swallow whole everything which a teacher says. This teacher did not try to conceal his own opinion nor did he try to deceive his students. While freely asserting his right to express his own opinions, he still did not consider them to be absolute; he constantly recognized that there should be tolerance for many points of view. I felt this attitude to be a product of American democracy, a philosophy which recognizes a plurality of truths.42 In a few instances American teachers were condemned as being narrow technologists and sticklers for methods, but such criticisms were made with humane understanding and were, on the whole, excused. It seems undeniable that American teachers regard education from the standpoint of technique. Yet it is also clear that they are not completely satisfied with this attitude. An American science teacher stated: "Even if we acquire the professional techniques of education and use them assiduously, can that be called education? Is that really being a teacher? Listening to you Japanese teachers, I am moved to envy by your opportunity to understand the personality of the child and to participate in his personal development." I subsequently asked him about his opinions concerning science education. Differing from the average Japanese teacher, his interest was directed entirely to progress in the academic areas of science.43 Americans' concern with methodology—the materialistic factor—was shrewdly linked with their religious beliefs. This very true appraisal contrasted the components of the American character with the Japanese. I feel that the American teachers who emphasize technique in education have, in reality, unconsciously formed their character upon the foundation of their religious beliefs. In contrast, Japanese teachers who stress the importance of the character have accepted merely as an idea, although based upon the national character, their historical background and long tradition and are not influenced by the philosophical, ideological, or religious beliefs.44 Turning to more material things, the visitors examined the school facilities provided for teachers and found them to be rather modest. The staff room is small and is simply a lounge or a smoking room. A coffee maker and a mimeograph machine are placed in it. There

198

The Status and Duties of

Teachers

are no service employees so the teachers get their own coffee and do their own mimeographing. In most cases the teachers have lockers in their own classrooms in which they place their personal effects. They work in their own classrooms. Different groups of students come into the classroom at the change of the class periods and, because the interval between classes is short, the teachers have little time to rest.45 I could not find any teachers' room in our sense of the word in any school, but the teachers did have their own rooms individually or had some common room. The teachers conference is sometimes held in the dining hall or in the classroom and frequently ends after one-way directions or announcements have been disseminated by the principal or the vice-principal. . . . The teachers have no system of day and night watch. All responsibility for the management of the school is on the principal's shoulders.46 Generally speaking, however, the tempo of school life of the American teachers and their freedom to devote themselves to pure teaching was much admired. The work day begins fifteen minutes before the first class and ends fifteen minutes after the last class. Inasmuch as classes end between 3:00 and 3:30 P.M. at the latest, most American teachers have left the school before 4:00 P.M. There are no rest periods between instruction hours in American schools. There are only the four or five minutes between classes. In elementary schools, children do not change classes. It is, however, a system in which teachers can concentrate on instruction with no miscellaneous duties to hamper them.47 Here is a concluding and not altogether unfriendly comment on classroom teachers. The teachers have a sense of duty in carrying out their work. In some schools their check-in time is recorded and if they are late four times their salary is reduced. When the students enter the classrooms at 8:30 A.M., the teachers must stand at the door to meet them. During periods of group instruction, I did not see children indulging in private conversation. The teachers seem to guide them in such a way that they absorbed instructional matter in a natural manner. The teachers do not smoke outside the lounge. I think that Japanese teachers are overburdened. I must express respect for American teachers for their deep sense of responsibility and for their dedication to their work. The division of functional responsibility in education between the schools and society differs

The Status and Duties of Teachers

199

in content from that of Japan. The disinterest in education of Japanese society has been frequently pointed out. Japanese schools are run much more loosely. American schools are run more precisely; but one may also question whether Americans do not regard education as a type of "business."48 It must have been a cause of great puzzlement to the Japanese to keep encountering the characteristic American mixture of deep commitment and spiritual depth on one side and the attitude of "running the school as a type of business" on the other. STUDENT-TEACHER RELATIONSHIPS

The second major Japanese interest was stated to be the affection between teachers and students, a phrase that sounds odd to an English ear but has a deep meaning for the Japanese. Here the Japanese teachers were quite critical of Americans. Within the American school system one does not see Japanese types of expressions of affection and consideration. I think that Japanese teachers love their students more. There are, however, many examples of affection toward students in the United States. When the students asked questions, no matter how foolish the questions were, the teachers carefully took them up and answered them. Even in tests, problems were so devised that even those who could not produce good results made about seventy points. Or, concerned with a child sick with diarrhea, a principal came to the dispensary to open the toilet which the nurse had inadvertently locked. . . . I feel that there exists not an Oriental type of master-disciple relationship but a simple human relationship. It is, of course, a relationship between adult and child, between an "instructor" and a 'learner." I was dissatisfied that the relationship was not closer. Further, I saw quite a bit of physical punishment—or a child might be sent out of the room to another classroom as punishment.49 To be sure, teacher-student relations were perceived to be permissive with the emphasis on flexibility and freedom. But even the fact that students were found free to select their own advisers, a fact which American teachers accept, "remaining calm" was thought for Japanese teachers to be "unbearable."50 The relationship between teachers and students in Japan is thought to possess a strong emotional content and that is connected with the issue of "losing face" which is involved when a student forsakes his appointed adviser, preferring instead a favorite of his own. Teacher

200

The Status and Duties of

Teachers

after teacher, while rendering homage to American freedom, emphasized instances such as the above as damaging the feeling of "love" between teachers and students. It seems to me that the feeling of love between teachers and pupils may be a little different in America and Japan. I feel that Japanese teachers in general have even today a very strong feeling of love, particularly for the pupils in their homerooms. In comparison with that, I had an impression that American teachers have a very strong sense only of responsibility and are engaged in teaching on the basis of a rationalistic way of thinking. We might be able to regard it as a rationalistic way of expressing a feeling of love. Or we might be able to consider it as a kind of integration of the senses of responsibility and love. Perhaps, Japanese teachers are more conscious of love, but it may be a kind of irrational love as compared to that felt by American teachers. . . . Probably the American school system itself is organized in such a way as to offer less frequent situations in which to express the feeling of love.51 The Japanese sources speak not only of love but of a "burning sense of duty" which should, but does not, characterize American teachers. I had an opportunity in one school to converse with a substitute teacher and I asked him: "What do you do with problems which are beyond the abilities of the teacher, such as economic difficulties or cases in which there is only one parent?" He answered that when a mother of a student remarries he reminds her to bring the child into a better environment. He even mentioned a case in which, with the cooperation of the police, he had had a child placed in an institution. It was a conversation conducted through an interpreter with not enough words exchanged, but it was evident that he had no burning sense of duty and no sense of seriousness. He did not regard the students' and parents' problems as his own.52 The most critical tone adopted in appraising the work of American teachers was reserved to the practice of leaving the school abruptly at the end of the school day. There were several other instances in which American teachers were accused of lacking a sense of mission. They were chastized for "locking the doors to their rooms" before leaving school and for "getting into their own cars and leaving for home even before the school bus had left with the children." 53 For real human ties to be built a great amount of time is neces-

The Status and Duties of Teachers

201

sary. From what I saw in the United States, teachers generally leave school at 2:50 P.M. In Japan the minimum working time is fortyfour hours per week. Using this extra time, teachers give life guidance to children with special problems. They visit the homes of such children to find ways of solving their problems. When a child has particularly difficult problems, teachers meet several times to discuss the proper method of guidance. If one gives these facts due consideration, one sees that the teacher's working hours is a factor strongly affecting the establishment and maintenance of good interpersonal relationships.54 To the astonishment of the Japanese the Americans were apt to rationalize the lack of concern for pupils after school hours as being deliberate. The high school principal explained that during nonschool hours, even if he sees improper behavior by a pupil, the teacher does not intervene; he has neither obligation nor right to do so. He further added, "Rather than supervising off-campus activities, the teacher has the more important job of teaching on campus. And we must respect the personal life of the teacher."55 All in all, the Japanese teachers rated their American colleagues low on dedication and affection to their pupils; but they saw many strong points in American practices and much sincerity and freedom. The most beautifully balanced, comparative statement on the subject of the relative degree of affection between teachers and pupils ran as follows. My impression was that American teachers in general might be a little less warm toward their pupils than Japanese teachers; for example, the manner of the contact between American homeroom teachers and their pupils was quite different from that of Japanese teachers. Homeroom teachers seldom see their pupils outside the homeroom period, and subject teachers generally see their students only during class. But, on the other hand, American teachers were getting into contact with their pupils more positively than Japanese teachers during club activities. I was also impressed to see principals and alumni talking together very intimately. They appeared to be much more friendly than their counterparts in Japan. In summary, I had the impression that Japanese teachers are extremely conscientious about taking care of their pupils, without necessarily always being successful in their efforts; whereas American teachers are actually doing a good job of taking care of their pupils, even though they might not appear to be as conscientious as Japanese teachers.

202

The Status and Duties of

Teachers

American parents do not depend as much upon school teachers to train their children as do Japanese parents. Americans usually feel strongly responsible for the training of their children.56

THE TRAINING OF TEACHERS The third area of interest of the Japanese teachers was that of teacher-training. Japanese teachers took for granted the rather formidable array of professional courses offered to teachers by the universities and colleges in America. Because their teacher-training system was modeled on the American pattern after the war, they did not find unusual the unification under the university roof of teacher-training for both primary and secondary levels. Only the American system and American-influenced systems are so unified. Their major attention was devoted to in-service training. Here the American system scored uniformly high marks. The Japanese teachers had little to say on the subject of university training of teachers, perhaps because they had little opportunity to visit colleges of education other than Teachers College, Columbia University, which specializes primarily in graduatelevel courses. The great difference which we noticed in the training of teachers in Japan and the United States is the rigorousness of the courses in the university and the emphasis on practice teaching in the latter. As is well known, American universities are rather easy to enter but difficult to complete. American students' attitude toward study is seriousness itself compared to that of Japanese students. In regard to the level of difficulty of the courses, the elementary schools and junior high schools are more difficult in Japan; the senior high schools are about the same in the two countries; and the university courses seem to be more difficult in America.57

The visitors noted with approval the free choice and good facilities existing in the universities for the training of teachers. In Japan we tend to attend several institutes or seminars which are conducted more or less formally with little regard to the teachers' desires. In the United States, on the contrary, teachers themselves select the universities or colleges which seem to be suitable to their own interests.58

On the subject of in-service training, the teachers had a great deal more to say because they could observe it directly during

The Status and Duties of Teachers

203

school visitations and because the process was of immediate current interest to them. W e present what has become known in the project as the "I felt like I was hit over the head with a baseball bat" quotation which, though very long, reflects well the nature of such training and also the value of intercultural contacts in general. In the limited sphere in which I came into contact with American teachers, I saw that their attitude toward in-service training differed greatly from that of Japanese teachers. . . . When American teachers participate in in-service training they quite literally regard it as study and training for the teacher himself. The training, which may take the form of study at universities in the United States or in foreign countries, summer courses, and so forth, is primarily concerned with basic scholarly study in the area which is related to the courses being taught. I was once invited to the home of a high school social studies teacher. Neatly arranged in his library were series of monthly academic journals. He laughingly said, "It is quite a task to read them every month." . . . His family was large and I received the impression that life was not entirely easy for this person, but he still had collected a substantial number of books and was continuing his studies. I had to respect him very much. Persons inspecting American education all seem to be amazed at the high quality of American textbooks. They are several times thicker than Japanese textbooks, are firmly bound, have good quality paper, contain many charts and other teaching devices, and are extremely rich in content. When Japanese teachers see this they inevitably ask first whether such textbooks can be digested within one year. The school year of 180 days is shorter than that of Japan but all the teachers seem to agree that it is possible to go through the textbooks in a year. In short, the method in which the texbooks are used is completely different from that of Japan. Parts are explained by the teacher, parts are left for the student to study at home, and related problems are discussed in school. In order to solve homework problems, the student must use parts of the textbook as reference material, so these textbooks are used in a great variety of ways. Textbook use is closely related to the manner in which the teacher undergoes in-service training. The student-teacher is expected to conduct individual study and research, and, in contrast with Japan, the texbook is not covered minutely from beginning to end. It may appear that this method eases the burden of preparation for the instructor of the course but this is not so. For a teacher to assign outside research, he must have a thorough knowledge of his subject matter. One is never sure what questions and problems may be

204

The Status and Duties of

Teachers

brought up by exceptional students. I once saw a heated exchange between a teacher and a male high school student in a history class. The student was quite intense and would not accept a vague explanation. If one does not really know one's subject, one may be unable to answer questions posed by the students. Yet, for students of lower ability it is also necessary to be able to teach in such a manner that allows them to understand the subject matter. In Japan one occasionally sees high school teachers who place their lesson plans on the lectern and lecture with an eye on those plans. Among the high school social studies teachers whom I encountered in the United States, none conducted himself in such a manner. Even teachers who were quite young lectured with a highly confident attitude, asking questions of the students and, in turn, answering their questions. Am I wrong in saying that, above all, "complete"—or perhaps, "complete for the level of instruction for high school students"—mastery of the subjects they teach is the most important burden placed on the high school teachers during their in-service training? An instruction supervisor is a member of the board of education in both Japan and America. The American supervisor, however, has more exhaustive duties than does the Japanese. I met a woman who was the supervisor in charge of elementary schools. She had long been connected with education, and was fairly well on in years. One of her most important duties was to guide the newly appointed teachers in that city. The number of such teachers was small but she met with each of them at least once a month, observed their classes, and spent some time discussing results with them. We all are fully aware of the importance of in-service training for new staff members, but I was overwhelmed by the thoroughness with which such members are trained in the United States. . . . An important duty of the supervisor is to make school visits and to guide the teachers. Needless to say, for the teacher who has received such guidance, it is an opportunity to make his in-service training more effective. The instruction supervisor in Japan, however, is occupied with various functions sponsored by the board of education, by paper work, and by a lack of sufficient transportation funds which would enable him to visit the schools. As a supervisor myself I felt as if I had been hit over the head with a baseball bat. It is well and good to gather a large number of persons and to invite an outstanding lecturer to conduct a study conference; the effectiveness of such meetings cannot be overlooked. Is it not more important, however, for the supervisors and teachers to meet one another and to be able to exchange ideas about the content of educational materials or about guidance problems encountered in actual instruction? It should not be forgotten that the strengthening

The Status and Duties of Teachers

205

of personal relations which results from such meetings is an intangible but important gain. I was amazed by the great amount of authority allowed to department chairmen; they were in a position of full supervision over the teachers within their departments. In one high school the head of the social studies department was thirty-nine years old, and he was not the oldest in his department of ten members. He had been appointed by the principal, was academically well versed in his field, and had high leadership ability. He had been selected for his ability and not for his age. In matters concerning the social studies department the principal had complete confidence in this department head. Evaluation of the teachers' performance was based on the materials submitted to the principal by each department head. The department head actually taught a few less hours than the teachers and, of course, had no homeroom. The resultant free time was not just a matter of prestige. Once a month at a minimum he observed the instruction of each teacher within his department and, on the day following this inspection, discussed the class with the teacher on a one-to-one basis, giving guidance when it was needed. The results were entered into a report which was submitted to the principal. The observation of classroom instruction occurred without any forewarning. It must have been threatening to the teachers. Yet there probably is no better way to conduct in-service training. Because it was his duty, the department head, without hesitation, pointed out defects even to teachers older than he. The teachers also recognized his position and openly discussed matters with him. Of course, not all schools in the United States subscribe to this system, but it is worthy of notice as a means of strengthening inservice training through department chairmen. It should not be overlooked that these inspections were not part of in-service training alone but also allowed an evaluation of the teachers' work.59 The in-service training in the United States also appealed to Japanese teachers because of its unstructured and individualized character. In Japan, we talk frequently of "self-training of teachers" and "inservice training of teachers" but American teachers are engaged in in-service training on an individual basis, attending summer or evening courses. It is quite rare for them to have a special meeting for their in-service training or even to have a kind of study meeting in the course of their daily educational routines. American teachers are not as active in the way in which we are in Japan; but, on the other hand, supervisors or teacher-consultants visit schools every day, observe the lessons, and give suggestions in a face-to-face relation-

206

The Status and Duties of

Teachers

ship. As compared with this, teacher-consultants in Japan are too occupied with business and events.60 Japanese teachers were struck favorably by the voluntary basis on which American in-service training was being conducted. The federal government has entrusted the responsibility for the inservice training of teachers to each individual state, but each state as a rule expects each teacher to be engaged in his own voluntary in-service training. Within the school Americans do not have a special system or custom of making a study of the curriculum or of the methods of classroom instruction such as we have in Japan. If technicalities are studied, usually this is limited to the training of newly employed teachers done by the head of the department. Transportation costs for attending in-service training courses or workshops are paid by the teachers themselves, and nothing is paid by the school as it is in Japan. When teachers do attend these courses or workshops, however, their salary is not cut even if they are absent from school.61 The visitors liked the self-help and help of colleagues which the American practice involves and "the fact that new teachers in America are supervised by their more experienced colleagues as well as by their department heads." 62 They contrasted the viable status of in-service training in America with its declining status in Japan. They pointed out the causes. After the war the teacher certification system in Japan was reformed and the system of in-service training in the universities was adopted on a large scale. This program is declining now. The following may be cited as some of the reasons for this. 1. The credits obtained in the universities have not been linked with salary increases. 2. It has been difficult to set aside a long enough block of time to use for in-service training such as is found in the American system of three months' vacation between academic years. 3. The courses offered really did little to upgrade the quality of the teachers.83 On the whole, the in-service training of teachers in the United States was of great interest to the Japanese because, in the bureaucratized structure of their educational world, there is a need for an ongoing, spontaneous, self-directed movement leading to improvements in teaching. It would actually be easier to develop

The Status and Duties of Teachers

207

such a movement than to attempt to reform teacher-training in the universities. Japanese teachers are extremely conscious of themselves as professionals. They tend to look negatively upon the attempts from outside to educate them, but are themselves most eager for self-education. It may be hazarded that teachereducation in the United States, in spite of all its faults, is at a higher level than it is in Japan. Only since the war has the bulk of teacher-training in Japan been raised to the status of university education. Many of the program participants were educated and certified as teachers in the old-style normal schools. They were more sensitive to the training of teachers on the job than to the formal pedagogical preparation. This is a pity. Severe criticisms have been made of American teacher-training. Yet, the unified, child-centered, learning-oriented system of teacher-training contains much promise. It would have been helpful to have on record Japanese reactions to the strengths and weaknesses of this system. COMPARISONS O F THE UNITED STATES A N D JAPAN Comparisons made by the visitors between the positions of Japanese and American teachers were remarkably negative to Japan. Once more one must draw attention to what virtually amounts to a law of comparative method, namely, that the urge to draw pragmatic lessons tempts observers to select mostly those materials which are likely to inspire the receiving country to a higher effort. The visitors' comparisons often took the form of recommending for Japan provisions that their American visit suggested. Sometimes even the American practices which, in the Japanese view, were not successful were nonetheless recommended as a point of departure for the exploration of proper solutions for Japanese problems. Criticisms of Japan sometimes took the form of advocacy of direct adaptation of American practices. I feel that we should wholly adopt the American methods. I say this because, from my own experience as a homeroom teacher, I know that I must not only teach, but must also spend time writing school reports about the students. The lessons are sacrificed to a great deal of miscellaneous work. Japanese teachers are employees in middle and small enterprises.64

208

The Status and Duties of Teachers

We have a lot to learn from American schools. In Japan, too, we are losing our spiritual backbone in our educational activities. Our direct contacts with our pupils are becoming fewer and fewer. Japanese and American teachers have common problems to solve.65 Japanese teachers were also urged to display more independence of authority. I feel that Japanese teachers are much too ready to conform. When the upper educational structure shifts, teachers shift accordingly; when a new educational policy is initiated, they unhesitatingly decide to follow it. When a new instruction guideline is put out, they do not pay much attention to explanations of the reasons for its establishment; without expressing approval or disapproval, they simply conform to it. Even if a certain amount of stubbornness is involved, Japanese teachers should begin asserting their views of education based on their own judgments and ideals.66 We complain in Japan of an educational system geared to entrance examinations to universities, of the tradition of too much emphasis on schooling, and of the bureaucratic control of education. If we classroom teachers were to become more professional and independent, however, I believe that we would not suffer so much from bureaucratic control. We should pay attention to the fact that the behavior of teachers as well as that of parents has a significant influence on children in America.67 In various parts of the United States, Japanese teachers appear to have seen practices that made them restless and unsettled upon their return home. After returning to Japan and to my classroom, I felt an amount of dissatisfaction. I could not help reevaluating my situation. While plagued with miscellaneous duties, I had to conduct lecture-type classes to many students, each having different abilities, and had only inadequate teaching materials with which to work. What type of values are produced within Japanese education when such education is merely a series of tests and simple cramming in preparation for university entrance examinations?68 Other criticisms were freely thrown at the Japanese schools and Japanese teachers. We should not overlook the fact that, behind the brightness in their lives, American teachers lead a severe occupational life involving strict rights and obligations. When we compare the systems of appointments and working conditions between the two countries,

The Status and Duties of Teachers

209

we see that we are still at the level of underdeveloped countries in regard to working conditions. We have a number of things to improve.69 The weak point of Japanese teachers, I think, is in the narrowness of their perspective. They tend to have certain fixed ideas. They are also unknowledgeable about educational thoughts from abroad.70 In actuality, if a lesson is not progressing well, Japanese teachers will frequently shift to lecturing about etiquette and behavior. It seems to me that because instruction and life-guidance are functionally differentiated in the United States, teachers there can concentrate more on instruction.71 Some of my impressions are as follows: 1. Compared with American teachers, Japanese teachers jump at new things such as the mechanization of instruction. But we do not think rationally about the factors which are behind the new developments. 2. We must admit that we do not successfully develop the initiative and attention of pupils in our school education.72

Complaints and criticisms aside, more mature and balanced comparisons of the Japanese and American teachers were also heard. Professionalism in education inevitably occurs in industrial societies, especially in societies which are confronting the present technological revolution. On this point Japan does not differ from the United States. Why then is professionalism not fully established in Japan? I would like to consider the American case in order to find possible answers to that question. We see, for example, that American teachers participate actively in the planning of curricula. If we look at the structured social studies programs currently being developed in the United States, we see that, while focusing on contemporary social problems, American teachers also reach back to examine problems in history. They must also have some insight into the future, have access to research materials, and the ability to use such materials. When I saw plans for a social studies program, I actually began to doubt that Japanese teachers could qualify as teachers in the United States. This observation is not limited to social studies programs but is also applicable to the sciences and mathematics. A Japanese mathematics teacher commented, "I am at a complete loss as to what to do with the School Mathematics Study Group or the Physical Science Study Committee programs. If we are to use them as they are meant to be used, we must be reeducated." I came to feel strongly that

210

The Status and Duties of Teachers

teachers must be professional enough to be able to participate actively in the formulation of curricula. We may reflect on the following quotation from the special edition entitled "Career Stages of the Teacher" of the Japanese journal Education for Living: "In his twenties the teacher is extremely enthusiastic, but when he enters his thirties he begins to be asked to take supervisory or administrative positions by his principal or supervisor. He is also told that if he participates too actively in activities sponsored by private educational groups in the community he will encounter difficulties in entering school administrative positions. Hence, he is forced to compromise his desire to contribute to the betterment of society with his natural desire for social position and economic security." Under such conditions it becomes impossible to establish full professionalism in Japanese teachers.73 Here is an astonishing comparison which considers American schools "intellectual" and Japanese schools "progressive." Perhaps in the postsputnik sixties such shrewd characterization is not entirely out of focus. It is wrong directly to compare American schools which primarily handle intellectual training with Japanese schools which have the goal of educating the whole human being and thus undertake almost all the functions of education. This difference in function is profoundly related to differences in the historical and social backgrounds of both countries. Without a full understanding of these historical and social conditions, one would find it most difficult to compare American schools which are products of the community and Japanese schools which were established by the central government to provide "enlightened guidance" for Japanese children.74 Americans are energetic, rich, and, in addition, have defeated the Japanese in war. These simple psychological conditions have been used as an explanation of why the Japanese defer to American practices and why they find them so appealing. A comparison of the two educational systems, however, reveals that this explanation is far too superficial. Rather, a residuum of praise is what is left after the Japanese have dissected American education and discarded most of its undesirable features. It is this residuum, in matters pertaining to teachers and teaching, that made the visitors dissatisfied with many of their own practices in education. More generally, over and above pragmatic outcomes, the very act of comparison sensitized the observers to national similarities and differences.

The Status and Duties of Teachers

211

The comparative process which the teachers underwent brought into relief certain national educational features which might not have been expected and which add new dimensions to the understanding of the respective educational scenes. Here are some comparisons of the differences in life and conception of teaching between the Americans and the Japanese. A woman teacher with eighteen years' experience made the following statement: "The duties of the teacher are limited to the school. Is it not her major duty to teach? When students leave, it is quite proper that the teachers leave, too. There is housework to be done at home." In this statement we see, not so much the differences in educational function between the Japanese and the American schools, but an extreme example of the difference in roles of the teacher or of the manner in which the teacher is regarded. Another female teacher made the following comment: "From the nature of the teacher's work, is early departure not to be expected? Even after we go home, we must study. We must prepare our lessons." In Japan we occasionally hear similar statements, but in the United States such statements have a definite weight or underlying strength. They carry nuances and overtones different from those in Japan. Many teachers, both male and female, while shrugging their shoulders laughingly stated, "Well, the pay is low." The actualities underlying such statements do not allow us to dismiss them as simple jokes.75 Lesson preparation forms the nucleus of the next day's instruction; it is an integral part of the teachers job. Teachers in the United States view teaching as their basic contribution in life. Hence, they make tremendous efforts. The situation may be the same in Japan, but the American teacher takes a far more clear and restricted view of his duties. . . . In the preparation of lessons, including study of the subject matter and planning of the next day's program, American teachers take a more diligent attitude and feel more responsibility. If we examine a full week's schedule, we see that even an extremely young teacher does not maintain a tense and busy schedule every single day. Friday evening and all day Saturday are spent relaxing. (American teachers are, of course, on a five-day system with Saturday and Sunday free.) Further, teachers are not required to undertake bothersome duties such as school surveillance during

212

The Status and Duties of Teachers

the weekends nor are men teachers required to stay overnight for similar duties. . . . Apart from preparing lessons, teachers must complete other paper work which they take home. In Japan teachers must grade students, fill out both academic and attendance records, and at times even handle school lunch chores. They must also prepare mimeographed materials such as the class newsletter. The work in Japan is indeed varied and the teachers themselves are extremely busy. I was told that American teachers primarily take home papers to grade and, occasionally, they make up tests there.78 There followed another vignette of the life of the American teachers as compared to the Japanese. In Japan teachers and students raise flowers in the schoolyard, plant trees, and occasionally even dig fishponds together. We did not see activities of this type in the two school districts we visited. American teachers, however, do make full use of the instruction hours. The forty-eight teachers at one junior high school went to their classrooms with lesson plans for every hour of the school day. In the two American school districts I saw that there were no feelings of impatience among teachers, intrigues within the school, no superficiality in education.77 Such calm statements were all that was ever harvested from a group of 150 teachers selected from all political, social, and educational spectrums and encouraged to be as militant or as critical as they pleased. There is obviously great potential in international cross-fertilizations. Advantages of cross-cultural contacts are often hinted at, but results of such encounters are seldom followed up analytically, let alone statistically. Yet the most valuable additional effect of the encounter between Japanese and American teachers reported upon here has been the internationalization of the general outlook of the participants. While also holding an attachment to and pride in their own culture, each teacher should resolve that he is involved in correcting defects within Japanese culture and, in attempting to equipoise the "national within the international," he must learn from the educational structures of other countries. This is the goal and function of all who work in international education.78 By bringing teachers of the two countries face to face, we were able to match two sets of philosophies and to watch as if in a mirror the professionals moving about their tasks in the school. From

The Status and Duties of Teachers

213

that mirror the American teachers emerge less flattering than they might be in the opulent country that sustains them. Their businesslike attitudes sometimes appear to verge on unconcern. But several features of their lives, their training, their specialization, and their sincerity commend the readers sympathy. They certainly are not, as revealed through the eyes of Japanese teachers, the bad stereotypes which their own press would make them.

8 Conclusions

INTERVIEWER: The Japanese people are much more polite than American people. Do you recall from your seven weeks here any examples of rudeness from American people? Did you meet with any rude behavior that offended you? If so, could you describe it? TEACHER: I never met any rudeness from American people, but I am afraid that we may have been impolite to them. INTERVIEWER: Do you remember any examples of kindness, something very special that someone may have done for you? TEACHER: I was much impressed by the American people for, wherever we went, we were treated kindly. If I had to say more specifically, I would say that I received the greatest kindness in my homestay family. Inasmuch as I do not speak English very well, they bought a book of phrases in Japanese and English. We would then communicate through the book; I was very grateful for everything which they did for me.1

The data presented in the above pages were assembled through a barrier of national differences and imperfect language communications. It is a record not only of how people spoke to each other but of how they intuitively felt about each other. The result is probably full of multiple distortions of all kinds. In concluding remarks we limit ourselves to commenting upon those themes which emerged through the data so persistently that they, like the human kindness that linked the visiting Japanese and the host Americans, cannot be the product of human error. CLASSROOM T O CLASSROOM The experiences recorded on these pages represent a confrontation between classroom teachers of two countries. There are cer214

Conclusions

215

tain weaknesses inherent in such a confrontation but they are far outweighed by the resulting advantages. On the debit side, visitors who are classroom teachers are not professionally trained to observe classrooms. There are on-record observations by anthropologists, psychologists, and other specialized persons of teaching processes or interactions in the classroom, the results of which cannot be approached in depth and penetration by the statements assembled here. When such school surveys are executed by interdisciplinary specialists, the level of accuracy and perception is perhaps at its highest. It is through teamwork that the professional expertise of specialists and the practical perceptions of classroom practitioners can be joined to the greatest advantage. In addition to deficiencies in sociological training, classroom teachers bring to their observations problems and prejudices peculiar to their profession. As teachers, they are unlikely to "knock" their professional colleagues abroad, no matter what the provocation. The comments assembled here have elicited, nonetheless, a remarkable degree of frankness about American teachers at work. They have been found to be "businesslike" and to lack the devotion and missionary zeal of their Japanese colleagues. They leave the schools when the children do and concern themselves little with the impact of the out-of-school environment upon their charges. Even within the schools, their contacts are impersonal and their level of competence too low. Youngsters march in and out of classrooms with only a few minutes between classes, which hardly permits lounging around teachers, asking questions, and "imbibing" education the way it should be imbibed and was in older and "better" days in America and elsewhere. The homeroom has degenerated to a pure formality, and specialization of function among the teachers has turned the school into a large impersonal institution "processing" children rather than teaching them. There is a difference between a fine old restaurant and a modern cafeteria. Americans themselves sometimes recognize what is happening to their schools when they propose that it be called not a school but a learning center, a vast, complicated, and imposing building with children, teachers, and schools aides popping in and out, each launched on his own predetermined course. In the matter of instruction the Japanese teachers also saw that

216

Conclusions

their American colleagues are too narrow, too intent on subjects within the class, and too impervious to thoughts about what children bring into the class. As regards methods of instruction the enquiry has revealed a surprisingly critical set of observations by superb practitioners of their craft in their own country about the level of instruction in this country. Yet because the observers were teachers they carried with them a "protective" attitude toward teaching. Such an attitude is characteristic of all professional persons but is particularly present in professionals "threatened" the way teachers are by demanding administrative officials, a hostile public, inflation, and the upward social and economic push of blue-collar and lower white-collar occupations. The psychological stance of the teachers as "whitecollar underdogs" suggests the alienation that race or ethnic minority status has wrought upon discriminated groups. With such a handicap, the Japanese teachers tended just a little to whitewash their American colleagues; or one might say that there was present a tendency to turn wrong things around to make them look better. Following this rationalization, American teachers did not interest themselves in out-of-school activities because such interest would violate the principle of separation of community, family, and school. They taught at a low academic level because they believed acute intellectual exertion by children to be damaging to their general health and well-being. American youngsters were not diligent but they were bouncy and joyful. American parents sometimes complained that the schools had failed their children, but they never thought that they themselves had failed by not pointing their children in the right direction. The list of devices used to exonerate American teachers from the undeniable though perhaps irremedial position of inferiority to Japanese teachers is long. In fact the nuances between genuine praise and whitewash are so delicate that they sometimes cannot be distinguished. It is the inability to make such distinctions, that can be said to be the one major liability behind having classroom teachers marshall data on schools. Having said that, however, we have a feeling that everything else is "pure gravy." The deployment of professionals against their opposite numbers gives a sure shortcut to an accurate evaluation of teaching techniques. The principle is as old as practice teach-

Conclusions

217

ing, teaching under supervision and classroom visitations by principals and curriculum supervisors. No one should doubt the vast and rapidly accumulating body of expertise necessary to conduct a successful class. The old adage that anybody can teach is true —anybody who is a born teacher, that is. In a modern context even these few highly endowed persons need to run checks and controls upon themselves to confirm that they are, indeed, living up to their potential. A vast profession exceeds by several times the number of highly talented naturals that it can attract. Average teachers need techniques, materials, and professional lore to function adequately in the classroom. It takes another professional to judge this lore quickly and adequately. It was uncanny to see how thoroughly the Japanese teachers could evaluate American schools because they themselves were teachers. Indeed, a visible transformation occurred everytime one of these polite, disciplined groups of teachers visited a school. One could almost see their nostrils quivering, figuratively speaking, like so many racehorses. What the Japanese teachers had to say about American schools has an authentic ring. Americans would, therefore, do well to give attentive hearing to these men and women. Some of the things Americans know and take for granted are not being taken for granted anywhere else around the world. American school buildings are good to superb. Equipment and school aids are flexible and multiple. Even American textbooks (though in fact overfilled and boring monsters) are, by comparison to textbooks of other countries, superb. Salaries of teachers, though hardly constituting a road to riches, are sufficient for all but large families. The tenure system is spreading and, in any case, hiring and firing practices are free from the corruption which is not at all unusual elsewhere. Americans know all these things about their favored school positions, though they may need to be reminded about them. Foreign visits, in addition to all the other riches they carry, may serve as such reminders. There are other aspects of American school life that the Japanese classroom teachers "hit on the nose." Over and over again they reminded us of the genuine contribution American culture and school theory has made to the development of the idea of active learning. The problem of keeping learning alive is as old a

218

Conclusions

problem as learning itself. There would have been no need for Socrates or Thomas Aquinas or John Locke or John Dewey, had not learning by becoming institutionalized always threatened to become dull and routine and unoriginal. Since Whitehead formulated the notion of "inert ideas," we have acquired a better understanding of this institutional phenomenon. Being classroom teachers of a superbly functioning school system constructed on orthodox instructional lines, the Japanese visitors admired and wanted more freedom of instruction, more interest-centered learning, more consideration for the emotional side of learning of the children. Their voices may serve as a useful reminder that American education is still in the pioneer stage and still forms the only repository in the world where all the elements of freshness and individualization in the concepts of instruction may be found. They may also serve as a warning that the word "still" is crucial. Like all systems growing older, ours is threatened with loss of élan vital. Systems, too, like persons growing old, may revert to type. The many critical comments that the Japanese teachers made about the narrowness of the intellectual instruction they observed represent the first signal of alarm in what could be the beginning of the end for the courageous American experiment to revitalize instruction. At the time of sputnik, a national alarm was sounded about the low intellectual attainments of American children. The alarm was well founded though it had little to do with the exploration of space. Ten years later it is still well founded and with Americans' having reached the moon it still has little to do with space exploration. True, our space scientists are among the highest technically trained men and women in the world today; but their training relates to American education as it was decades ago. It is the present level of instruction which has relevance to the future. In criticizing present American instruction, the classroom teachers of Japan pointed out not only the disparity between high theoretical purpose and poor practical execution, but also the incipient calcifications with which inept attempts to hoist up levels of instruction threaten Americans. Japanese dissatisfactions with their own methods of instruction can also serve as a warning against pitfalls of espousing extremes inherent in any system of instruction. When intellectual programs are systematized and ordered from above, what often tends to emerge is a rigid pattern

Conclusions

219

of constraints under which teachers chafe and children groan. Alienation from intellectual life is often the undesirable by-product of such efforts. Japanese accounts of their own schools also remind us that "progressive" attitudes, as we should well know, are also subject to calcification. Warm relationships with students tend to degenerate into softness and coddling and, instead of causing activism, degenerate into new forms of passivity. Jacques Barzun's House of Intellect is a cold place, but like a temple it is the place where truth and justice reign.2 At the heart of the educational problems common to Japan and the United States and to all countries is the problem of developing people who can take the intellectual initiative and go about their interests with rigor, freshness, and perseverance. JAPANESE AND AMERICAN EDUCATION: A T A L L Y The data presented have additional significance because they represent judgments on American education made by the Japanese. The Japanese have their own significant contribution to make to the theory and practice of mass education. At present this contribution is grossly neglected in educational literature. Among recent books on comparative education in world perspective, for instance, one can think at once of a dozen volumes in which Japan is completely omitted. The wretched barriers of language have made East-West contacts difficult and, even in the present stage of fervent activities, only a trickle comes through to us. But Japan does indeed deserve respectful attention as one of the most successful practitioners of mass education. A handful of the systems that embarked upon this experiment and all the others which aspire to it must learn from the meager precedents already established and tested by time. It will no longer do simply to look at the United States and approve its mass education because such education has made the country rich and strong; or dismiss its system of mass education because Americans have fumbled and made errors, some of which are serious enough to cause the whole system to totter. Can one discuss planning, modernization, and educational development in world perspective without a careful study of Japan, the courageous pioneer and a successful one at that? Can one relate education to democratization without considering the politi-

220

Conclusions

cal fortunes of Japanese education? Is there anywhere a country with literacy so high as to be almost total; with literacy that forces all citizens successfully to memorize and to use not a handful but thousands of characters? Is there anywhere a country that feeds well one hundred million people from an arable land the size of Montana? What qualities are hidden in the people of a country that for the first time in its history loses a war totally and abjectly, and, after unconditional surrender to its conqueror, achieves within twenty years the highest economic growth in the world? What are the levels of political sophistication in a democratic country in which a conservative government can elicit enough popular consent deliberately to slow down economic growth? The great wonder is not all the things that the Japanese fail to learn in the schools, but it is that all Japanese manage to learn so much. Since the Butler Act of 1944, Great Britain, a safe and opulent country, has attempted, until 1972, in vain, to extend compulsory schooling from 15 to 16 years of age. Another great country, France, is going through similar trials. How is it that within the same time Japanese graduation ratios at the age of 18 have almost exceeded those of the United States? It seems fantastic that questions of such import should be so persistently ignored in global considerations of the function and worth of education. The Japanese teachers in the United States and the body of observations they produced deserve attention for the guidance they have to offer. By Japanese standards the American education carries strengths that stem from reliance on spirit rather than on system. Perhaps at first accidentally but later deliberately, Americans have kept and attempt to keep reliance on systems to a minimum. After experiencing initial bewilderment, the Japanese teachers recognized such strong points that were historically inherent in, and still support, the locally determined modes of educational control. They came to understand and accept the indeterminate sources of moral education within the school and home. Within the American classroom the focus of decision rests on the shoulders of the teachers. The Japanese colleagues were stimulated by this source of initiative in spite of its great potentialities for abuse. The focus of instruction they found to be on individual needs. The sources of instruction they often saw were life and book, rather than book

Conclusions

221

alone. All of these things the Japanese teachers saw and admired. Their frustrations with the absence of these elements of "unsystem" in their own country were evident to the point of being pathetic. Does all this mean that the Japanese teachers wished to Americanize their country on the silly assumption held throughout so much of the world that, because America is mighty and because American symbols are Coca-Cola and blue jeans, all the world's other inhabitants have only to drink Coca-Cola and wear blue jeans and they too will be mighty. The harm now known to have been done by American reforms in Japan and the distaste of Japanese teachers for them hardly permits one to draw so naive a conclusion. Rather it is that the Japanese teachers recognized abroad as well as at home that it is not a people's systems that make them great but it is their spirit. Over the thousands of years that Japan has enjoyed stability and continuity, its people could not prevent systems from accumulating over them. They have used systems to advantage but they have an instinct for understanding that it is the inner qualities of people and not outward structures that keep nations going. In fact, with time, the Japanese have come to recognize that systems, if not kept in check, naturally grow oppressive—hence, their vast disenchantment with the more excessive features of their own institutions. Hence, also, their enthusiasm and admiration for a people who are willing to try to keep systems down and to risk operating on so indeterminate and precarious a basis as an optimistic faith in human goodness. By any other criterion than the free and willing consensus of its citizens, the American commonwealth would not work. But with creaks and groans it does work. Japanese teachers have much to say that is bitter. But the bitterness comes forward mostly in cases in which they observe failures of the spirit. Sloth of teachers, deviance of students, apathy of the public— in short, moral nonperformance in the schools—are what aroused the visitors' disappointment most. One heard them saying repeatedly: "With all the wonderful advantages of freedom, safety, and abundance, ought Americans not also to have a wonderful school system?" Opportunities unfulfilled are what provoked the

222

Conclusions

Japanese most in America as indeed they do all foreigners and many Americans. Perhaps the Japanese are right and perhaps, given greater individual freedom, they may demonstrate to the world what a free, individualized school can do voluntarily. Or perhaps they, too, have missed the lesson with which no nation in history has had a chance to experiment—that vigor without rigor is debilitating, that freedom without self-restraint degenerates into license, and that a school system operating on individual freedom must teach selfdiscipline above all. Perhaps free peoples unsupported by constraints of tradition are incapable of self-discipline. Instead selfindulgence leads them to their decline. These Spenglerian and gloomy speculations cannot be answered. But they have been raised anew before us by the Japanese visits. TRACING THE NATIONAL BIAS The opportunity to assemble and review Japanese data on American schools afforded us also the chance to pursue our interests which we think of vital importance for the burgeoning international exchanges. As these exchanges increase, reports about activities abroad multiply and cross-national data are accumulating. Inherent in all this, however, are misconceptions that automatically arise because of the cultural conditioning of the observers. One of our tasks was to see how the "Japaneseness" of our visitors influenced the body of data they accumulated. Anyone who witnessed the American-Soviet debates in the sixties knows that two parties are apt to use the word "democracy" in completely different though perhaps equally sincere contexts. The same difference of meaning attaches to the word "objective." The question at issue is viewpoint. For one hundred years historians have argued what is subjective and what is objective writing. Later sociologists developed the concept of reference groups to identify the distortions. In education a few writers attempted to set down their biases in introductory statements to safeguard the data presented. 3 In another book, as mentioned in the preface, one of us devoted a chapter to four articles, two by himself and two by an English colleague, both of whom reported on race and social class in England and in the United States in accusing or apologetic tones, depending on his own citizenship.4 In social psy-

Conclusions

223

chology and anthropology, literature on ethnocentrism and crossnational misunderstanding is available. It remains to be applied on a broad front to international exchanges. The data presented by Japanese teachers reveal the presence of a national viewpoint for which corrections must be made for the sake of accuracy. Of course, several other corrections not connected with national bias also enter the picture. A trivial thing such as an inflated number of ceremonial dinners administered by the project during one year, could bring about suggestions of attempted political brainwashing and influence the nature of the data. As already mentioned, the fact that Japanese teachers were quartered in volunteer American homes exposed them to a betterthan-average economic family life and influenced their viewpoint. Too many or too few lectures as against school visitations elicited or failed to elicit satisfaction and are reflected in the data. Among these and many other possible distortions, national distortions loom the largest because they are the constant in international exchanges and cannot be manipulated. There are, first, the attitudes that stem from general national characteristics. Nationals trained to be as polite as are the Japanese are not likely to show, let alone set down in print, any acute hostilities they might feel toward their hosts. The reported occasional heated retorts by the American teachers when criticized by the Japanese, were even less likely to encourage such criticisms. The Japanese teachers were, to a man, thrilled by the opportunity to visit the United States and, because thorough attempts were made to shield them from possible culture shock, their reactions to what they saw in American schools could hardly fall short of elation. Perhaps the descriptions of American schools as places humming with excitement is due to this psychological condition. The duty-oriented Japanese, schooled to feel ritual gratitude for all favors received, were not likely to emerge as malcontents. Beyond these general characteristics lie further elements likely, to an extent, to influence the data. There are certainly enough observations by the Japanese teachers so totally at variance with American views of the same issues that they warrant investigation. The choice of topics to be reported upon is clearly influenced by national conditioning. If an American were questioned about the main problems in his educational system today he would

224

Conclusions

mention race, slums, poor intellectual performance, student unrest, drugs, or some such combination of topics. Virtually none of these have found their way onto the lists of topics evolved by the Japanese teachers. The issues that they selected—centralization, moral education, curriculum content, and the position of teachers—lie squarely within Japanese interests in Japan. People, when faced with charges of bias, are likely to have their feelings a little ruffled. One should, therefore, hasten to assert that there is absolutely nothing wrong, in fact it is good "progressive" practice, with choosing one's topics in accordance with one's interests. The point is that if a third party, one unfamiliar with other sources, were to attempt to learn about American education solely from Japanese reports, they would receive a picture distorted by the almost total exclusion of the explosive contemporary issues. Within Japanese observations themselves specific statements were made that would be truly astonishing outside their Japanese context. The visitors stated their belief that federal influence in education, though invisible, is not inconspicuous. As mentioned, they were conditioned to look for central agencies in order to find an equivalent to their own towering Ministry of Education. An astonishing assertion was the frequently mentioned observation of the stringent discipline maintained in American schools. The Japanese are conditioned to interpret as severity actions such as the insistence on silence during instruction, the lack of close personal involvement with pupils, or the habit of early departure of teachers. The conduct of Japanese males versus Japanese females and vice versa is based on ironclad conditioning. This influenced the Japanese teachers' opinions about man-woman relations in America. Particularly relevant to this point were Japanese notions about women teachers and the family relationships. By and large the former were regarded as being less effective than men even by Japanese women teachers. The warmth and cordiality observed in American family life was also deduced purely by contrast with the greater formality of Japanese family life and lack of emotional effusiveness. Traditional Japanese manners forbid public embraces. According to the American coauthor of this book, one has not lived until one has seen the Japanese coauthor greet his wife at the Honolulu International Airport, a Pacific ritual that requires the bestowal of a lei and a kiss. The grimace with which

Conclusions

225

that kiss was performed, or rather nonperformed, is a good symbol of what intercultural clashes are all about. The adjustment of ethnic differences of this type projects into the observations of an intellectual order required in school visitations. The Japanese teachers, because they were Japanese and trained to move through life harmoniously, tended to avoid discussion of controversial issues. Neither examination problems in Japan, race problems in the United States, nor teacher strikes in both countries received much notice even though these were current news during the years the Japanese teachers were in this country. The reader can judge for himself from the quotations presented and from the interspersed comments the degree of "flavor" permeating the data. The result of this study is a peculiarly Japanese focus expressed with all the Japanese charm and diligence which permeates the book and which the visitors customarily applied to all their duties. We reproduce a final example of such expression of national identity, a passage revealing American and Japanese national characteristics simultaneously. The following anecdotes show the lands of views about individuality which Americans hold. The first is about the photograph. In most cases, no one tried to evade the camera when we took pictures of teachers and students during the school visits. The case was the same with the groups at home and at play who were often rather happy when we took their pictures. Often strangers were also willing to join them. On the contrary, both children and adults in Japan usually hold back from the camera when a stranger attempts to take their picture. I think that in this respect the American and the Japanese people form a striking contrast. The second example concerns the report card. When I visited an elementary school where one of the children from my homestay family was studying, the principal showed me the child's report card in the presence of the child. The child's report was certainly good and when I told this story to the parents later, they, too, were very happy. A few days later, the eldest son and second eldest son came home from school with their report cards. Not all of their grades were good, but the parents showed the cards to me quite openly. The children were neither bashful nor worried about it. Yet, who would do such a thing in Japan? In many cases they would not even show their cards to their brothers or sisters. Here again lies another big difference. The third example is a story I heard in a car from the woman who took care of us. She said, "My daughter stuttered before she

226

Conclusions

entered school. She studied for a long time at a rehabilitation center and thanks to that she has come to speak very well. Now she speaks too much, I am afraid." This story itself is not strange, but on second thought it does not seem that it would be a pleasant story for a girl at an impressionable age to hear. Because people find their own marriage partners in America, though, she does not have to worry about this kind of story. At any rate, we noticed that Americans have a frankness which the Japanese do not have. The fourth example is a story told by a woman elementary school principal when one of my friends asked her a question about the work of a woman teacher. She said, "I have three children of my own. I could not manage to live happily with my former husband; we were divorced and now I am remarried. My present husband also has three children of his own. I am working to help take care of our children." What interested me was not the position of the woman teacher, but this principal's frank story about her personal life in answering our question. She could have answered this question well enough without referring to her marriage, but this shows how differently Americans and Japanese would respond to this situation.5 HOMOGENIZATION OF VIEWS Our last concern was to see whether the national disparities of opinions, inevitably found in initial contacts, can be made to disappear with increasing proximity and intimacy. Common sense would suggest that such would be the case after the initial adjustments had been made. Yet we know that comparisons may have the opposite effect. Those who compare are psychologically more likely to look for heightened contrasts rather than for similarities. The evidence presented does, indeed, suggest that in the course of time proximity breeds similarity. Particularly in the comparative sections contained in each chapter it is clear that a process of conscious and unconscious adoption of each other's views does, in fact, take place among national groups. We have accumulated a great deal of anecdotal material, out of place in this book, which suggests how profoundly the Japanese visits and their questioning affected the American teachers. The "explosion" of viewpoints which occurred when an American teacher met, for the first time, a non-American teacher can only be described as pathetic. For the Japanese teachers the exposure to American views also tended to be both an intellectual and an intensely emotional experience. In the annual reports of the Japanese-American Teacher

Conclusions

227

Program6 in which we printed letters from Japanese teachers there are many expressions of such emotional experiences. When emotions as well as reasoning were involved, viewpoints were bound to be affected. The reader can trace for himself the transformation through which observations about American education became postulates for Japanese education. Some of the "homogenizing" elements, of course, the Japanese teachers brought with them from Japan, inasmuch as they had matured professionally and worked under a system that was American-influenced. We have mentioned the astonishing fact that Japanese teachers were forced to chastise the Americans for having virtually scuttled the homeroom, an institution which flourishes in Japan as an American importation. Criticisms of American social studies, of American guidance, and the suspicion of ability-grouping all seem like "plus catholique que le Pope" arguments. The course of homogenization was set long before the visitors arrival. But educational importations often produce a reaction against them. Prior to their arrival, the Japanese teachers were greatly provoked by issues such as national merit rating, which they regarded as an American importation. In the political sphere they were likely to be stirred by the Vietnam war, atomic stockpiles, military bases, and Okinawa. The discovery that a great many American people shared their positions had a profoundly calming effect and paved the way for intellectual homogenization. But here, as elsewhere, only part of the process was inherently natural; partly it was culturally induced. Because of the careful prebriefings and preparation they received, the Japanese teachers wanted to be agreeable, wanted to learn as much as possible, and wanted to carry back to Japan the lessons and the messages they had received. The purpose of the project was, after all, the creation of an "international community of teachers." The coming of the world community must be assisted by all means available, one of these means, a world school system, being in the forefront. If we compare the subject matter taught in most countries today, which is virtually identical, or if we notice the ease with which international meetings of educators settle down to business as compared with meetings of those in other callings, we may not be totally unhopeful that the beautiful unity of lan-

228

Conclusions

guage and knowledge that once characterized medieval universities of Europe may return to us on a broader plane. There is enough evidence presented in these pages to indicate that the purpose of the project has been amply fulfilled; and that it is, therefore, feasible and worthwhile in the interest of the world community to mount cross-national projects with this purpose in mind. In the words of one participating teacher in a subsequent letter: I will never forget the words "the international community of teachers" you gave us in Hawaii. I have decided to try to renew and rebuild my own education, taking the spirit and newly developed ways of education in America as a model, and to share the precious experiences in America with other educators.7 And far over and beyond contrived purposes of projects, international contacts must rely on the essential humanity of the participants. Perhaps the acid test of the cross-cultural encounter between Japanese and American teachers lies in the range of the answer of a Japanese teacher who was asked to recall the highest and lowest points. INTERVIEWER: NOW, if you look back, not on education, but in general, at your two months in the United States, what was the high point, the moment about which you felt the happiest during your stay? T E A C H E R : The highest point in the two months of my American stay was my homestay experience. My home consisted of a twentyeight-year-old husband and a twenty-six-year-old wife. The husband had a doctorate in chemistry. The most impressive thing was that the spirit of service was so great that I was quite overcome by what my host family did for us. They had three children, the oldest was an adopted boy who gave them some problems. At night the wife and husband always talked to each other after the boy had gone to bed. "What can we do? What can be done to handle him?" I was invited to participate in these discussions. While doing this I felt that American people are really service-minded and think of each individual's welfare and happiness. This is what I was most impressed by. INTERVIEWER: And what was the most unpleasant moment in your experience? T E A C H E R : I had a toothache and had to go to bed. That was the worst moment I had!8

Appendix 1

JAPANESE-AMERICAN TEACHER PROGRAM, 1964-1968 LIST OF PARTICIPATING TEACHERS FROM JAPAN AND THE PREFECTURES FROM WHICH THEY CAME 1964 Adachi Tokuji, Nara Akashi Tatsumi, Osaka Furuya Izumi, Hokkaido Gomi Seiji, Yamanashi Imakuma Masanori, Oita Imaizumi Yoshihiko, Saga Ishii Shinichi, Gumma Ishikawa Masaru, Nagasaki Kanazawa Takashi, Tokyo Kimura Takuzo, Hiroshima Misawa Kiyoo, Yamagata Morinaga Tamotsu, Tokushima Murakami Shuichi, Fukuoka Murata Mitsuji, Kyoto Niisato Mitsuru, Iwata

Nöda Yoshio, Wakayama Okabe Norihito, Ehime Sakai Tohio, Tokyo Sakoo Takeshi, Aichi Sanada Motosuke, Yamaguchi Sato Fumio, Akita Seto Makoto, Tokyo Shiida Haruo, Kagawa Suzuki Tadao, Aomori Taoka Kusao, Mie Ueno Susumu, Okayama Watanabe Isao, Nagano Yamada Motoyuki, Niigata Yuyama Atsushi, Kanagawa

1966 Daikuhara Ekio, Kanagawa Hayata Takeshi, Kagawa Hiyama Shigeko, Tokyo Honma Yashushi, Niigata

Amo Yoshiaki, Tokushima Ashimura Toshio, Tottori Chiba Genzaburo, Iwate Chikita Takashi, Hokkaido 229

230

Appendix

Iguchi Hiroshi, Okayama Ishii Shoji, Nara Ishizaki Ichiji, Kyoto Kawano Sahei, Miyazaki Kikkawa Haruo, Shizuoka Masuda Tomoichi, Nagasaki Mitoma Noboru, Hiroshima Miyabe Kunio, Tokyo Murakami Mitsuo, Nagano Muto Tadaharu, Tokyo Nagayama Michio, Ibaraki

Nakamura Tadashi, Saitama Nawata Akihira, Yamaguchi Okumura Tsutomu, Gifu Okura Kiyoshi, Osaka Onchi Yoshio, Fukui Shimada Kiyoshi, Hyogo Tahara Toshimitsu, Fukushima Tenno Kohei, Ishikawa Toda Minora, Tochigi Tokairin Taiko, Yamagata Tsunoda Masuo, Gumma 1967

Araki Minora, Gumma Arimura Shiro, Kumamoto Harada Yonezo, Shimane Hirai Kameo, Ehime Horiuchi Unokichi, Ishikawa Ikeda Chikashi, Tokyo Ikenaga Masamichi, Tottori Kajiwara Yasufumi, Hyogo Kamai Mamoru, Tochigi Kanekatsu Tadashi, Tokyo Kato Masachiyo, Hokkaido Katsuki Kazuo, Saga Kimura Yasuo, Miyagi Kobayashi Hideko, Tokyo Koka Hiroji, Kagoshima Kosai Muneo, Ibaraki Koshi Toshio, Nagano Masuda Tsutomu, Kagawa Matsuoka Kazutoshi, Nagasaki Nakatsugawa Yukio, Kyoto

Nonaka Shige, Osaka Obara Akira, Chiba Oda Ikuko, Osaka Ohori Teruko, Niigata Oinuma Yoshiyuki, Aichi Okuyama Noboru, Fukui Ota Kinjiro, Iwate Sasaki Kozo, Toyama Shimura Tamihiko, Kanagawa Tatebe Tatsuya, Shiga Tomiyama Daisaburo, Okayama Tsuchihashi Kyoko, Yamanashi Tsuji Yoshinobu, Wakayama Uda Taisan, Mie Ueda Toshiharu, Nara Wada Saburo, Tokyo Yabu Tokio, Tokyo Yamaguchi Terao, Fukuoka Yamamoto Mamoru, Yamaguchi Yatsuyanagi Kazuo, Yamagata 1968

Ando, Kazumasa, Okayama Aoki Tadao, Niigata Fukui Etsuo, Osaka Hasegawa Shinobu, Tokyo Hiraoka Yuko, Kumamoto Horikawa Hidetoshi, Iwate Hosotani Masatoshi, Kagawa Hotate Kenzo, Ibaraki Kuroiwa Koichiro, Nagano Matsuda Kusao, Ishikawa Matsumiya Noriaki, Aomori Matsushita Fumio, Kanagawa Hotta Masanori, Tokyo Ishiura Kunio, Toyama Ito Shosaku, Wakayama

Kabe Sasuke, Chiba Kawaguchi Shigehiro, Yamanashi Koito Hiroshi, Chiba Koizumi Eiji, Tokyo Kotoku Hiroshi, Akita Minami Rumi, Tokyo Mizoue Yasushi, Hiroshima Momota Susumu, Kochi Mori Fujie, Shizuoka Morimoto Atsuko, Osaka Munakata Kunio, Fukushima Nakanishi Mitsuo, Aichi Nio Yoshihiko, Kagoshima Nomura Denji, Gumma Ogawa Yoshihiro, Yamaguchi

1

Appendix

231

1

Ohi Yoshiko, Tokyo Setoguchi Katsuhiko, Miyazaki Takeda Ikuo, Yamagata Takeda Yokichi, Miyagi Taniyama Keiji, Kyoto

Tokumori Yoshikazu, Okinawa Tominaga Sakae, Nagasaki Ueda Sasao, Hokkaido Watanabe Shozo, Shimane Yoshida Toshio, Saitama

Appendix 2

T H E MECHANICS OF INTRODUCING JAPANESE VISITORS TO AMERICANS The introduction of one cultural group to another ought to be preceded for maximum benefit by a set of briefing activities and preliminary exposures. To dramatize this point and to illustrate the actual activities of the Japanese-American Teacher Program, we reproduce here the text of the speech developed by the American coauthor and delivered before the homestay families of Americans who volunteered their hospitality to the visiting Japanese teachers. The version presented here was recorded on August 18, 1968, in Maryville, Missouri. Ladies and Gentlemen: During the week in which we have traveled through the American communities of the Midwest we have encountered several wonderful experiences. I right away recall three of the key places which have been the highlights of our trip. The first was a shopping mall in Kalamazoo, Michigan, where, by closing off a street in the downtown area and creating a series of exciting places and fountains, a garden was built which was beautiful in its design. Another was a building of the Johnson Foundation in Racine, Wisconsin, which was originally the home of the Johnson family and was designed by Frank Lloyd Wright. The third highlight was a little dwelling house built manually by the students of a vocational course in the Maryville High School which we greatly admired as a unique feature of the American educational system, a feature which we had hitherto in our travels throughout the world and in observation of over three thousand schools never seen before. I think that there is something to see in this community of Maryville, small and rural in character as it is, which will be of great advantage for the Japanese visitors whom you will have the duty and pleasure to house for three weeks.

232

Appendix 2

233

There is also a great deal of advantage for you to learn about and to know Japanese people—self-effacing people, very humble, very quiet people. A Japanese when he speaks about your wife will refer to her as "your honorable lady" and when he speaks about his own wife will refer to her as "my silly wife." This kind of self-effacement is a part of the national character of the Japanese which colors their appearance and their being. They will be very much privileged to meet you and exchange notes on what it takes to live a contemporary American life. As the superintendent of schools of Tokyo recently told me, "It is so very hard to live in Japan. You always have to hunch your shoulders or bend your head before someone." He brightened up when I told him that it is equally hard to live in the United States for you always have to stick your chest out in front of someone. Even if our project had no other purpose than merely enabling a group of Americans to meet a group of Japanese, and it has many other most important purposes that I will talk about later, exchange of notes and experiences between Japan and the United States is a kind of cultural encounter which is so intimately rewarding and broadening that is it well to take a dip into it once in a while. I do not need to sell you on this, though, because you are already a community tied in with the Experiment in International Living in Vermont, and most of you are hooked. We think it is worth devoting our lives to it. On October 11, ten Japanese figures—eight males and two females, eight teachers and two interpreterassistants—will step down from the plane in Kansas City. They will hopefully be met by yourselves. It is hoped that they will have already seen you in a photograph which you will want to present to them before they arrive, and they will have seen the outline of your town's buildings, of your homes, and your schools. It is also to be hoped that they will have exchanged letters with you, written in incomprehensible characters, but letters nonetheless. And, properly prepared by us in other parts of the United States, they will reach here the highlight of their two-month stay in the United States living as brothers and sisters or maybe uncles and aunts, for some of them are in their forties, with your American family. You should prepare for this experiment today because of the utmost importance of our project, not only for this cultural encounter but for the creation in their hearts of goodwill and commitment in loyalty to our way of life and our country. I say "our" advisedly because, though Polish by birth, I consider myself American by choice and, therefore, share the values that you do. We have to create in their lives and in their hearts the kind of commitment to us that will then permit the project of which I am the director to ask them to render service to us when we extend the project to the next phase, namely sending American teachers in large numbers for the study and observation of Japanese schools and Japanese life. In your preparation we should proceed from the specific to the general; that is, from what happens in your home when the Japanese people come, to the broader reasons why we are sending them to you in die first place and sending them at considerable expense of time and money. The very first thing that you will have to face, a situation which perhaps you did not have to face with the French or other groups which you may have hosted,

234

Appendix

2

is the problem of communication. Our teachers are the most prominent teachers in Japan. We asked the superintendents of schools from each prefecture in Japan to select five or six teachers who, within ten years, will certainly be running the school system of Japan. We, therefore, received a group of 500 teachers with whom we met from three to five times a year to study the American experience and American schools and from whom we selected each year 30 or 40 to visit the United States. This being the case, we cannot select for the knowledge of English. If we selected for the knowledge of English we would have a lot of teachers of English who are destined only for more teaching of English. We want the future leaders, superintendents of the school systems, and for this we sometimes have to sacrifice the clarity of communication. Nonetheless, all Japanese read English because English is the foreign language that they learn in school. In many cases you may say a sentence to them and they will look blank. Then, if you write the same sentence on a piece of paper and show it to them, they will understand what you mean. Therefore, remember that your people read English and use this accordingly. Most of the teachers in your group speak some English; two of them speak good English because they are teachers of English and the other two speak excellent English because they are the interpreters who are students and whom we employ to assist in communication. Most of the teachers will have spoken English only three to four weeks. They learned it in a compressed fashion at the Experiment in International Living where we send them for initial integration. You will find that all kinds of surprising things will happen with their English. For instance, one of our teachers entered the home of his family, having just arrived in his homestay community, and was asked if he could be shown to the bathroom. He was duly shown to the bathroom, emerged from the bathroom with a big smile, bowed, and said, "Thank you, I had a very nice time." This was the phrase which he had learned that day and he thought this was an appropriate time to apply it. Experiences like this happen all of the time. They are the spice of the Japanese-American encounters. These teachers, then, will have some modest English, but, if they do not, there are several things which you can do before dissolving in a trauma of total despair. The first thing you can do if they do not know how to order breakfast is to telephone the home where there is an interpreter so that through the telephone he is able to communicate to you his wishes. The second thing you can do is to invest in a little phrase book of Japanese-American phrases. It is really going to be fun to hear you trying to speak Japanese while the Japanese tiy English. I speak Japanese passably, though not fluently. My enemies always say that my Japanese is bad in the daytime and improves in the evening. I remember that it took me three days to learn the word for "good day." I only learned it by remembering that is was a state of the union, a medical tissue, and a religious ceremony. The word in Japanese is ohayo gozaimasu—Ohio, a state of the union; gauze, a medical tissue; and mass, a religious ceremony. Put them together and you have ohayo gozaimasu. But my ardor was somewhat dampened when I was learning the second word which was the word for "thank you." It is arigato in Japanese and I remembered that it is spelled like "alligator." I kept repeating "alligator, alligator, alligator" and

Appendix 2

235

when the first Japanese appeared I said "crocodile." So there are problems of encounter across the language barrier, but a phrase book or a telephone line to the interpreter who is on duty day and night will bale you out. If all else fails, try the old Japanese custom: bow and smile and smile and bow some more. Somehow you will achieve communication. If even that fails, you are down to your last two resources, the children and the pets. It is through the children and through the pets more than through any other way that our Japanese achieve a lasting communication with their homestay families. When the time comes to part after three weeks, not only will you see them off at the airport, but you will fall on each other's bosoms, shed liberal tears, vow friendship for centuries, and for long years afterward exchange mutually incomprehensible letters. The results of these encounters are indeed very, very long lasting. For instance, to quote a sanitary incident again, several of our Japanese teachers upon return to Japan have taken out bank mortgages in order to rebuild their toilet facilities from Japanese to Western so that they can properly receive their homestay friends when they finally return the visit to Japan. This is the kind of quality of encounter which we and the Japanese accomplish; the language problem is a very serious, but not overwhelming, one. Simply be conditioned and prepared for it. Another problem which is encountered is the difference in cultural customs, particularly the difference in food habits. In the case of food, our Japanese teachers have been properly conditioned. We take them to the Experiment in International Living and stand by with stomach pumps until they get used to our way of cooking. This is a very important part of our program. I have long been impressed with the terribly bad way in which we entertain foreign politicians who visit the United States. We fly in a visiting dignitary on the presidential plane, he comes down the ramp and we give him a speech of welcome; then there is a lobster dinner; then there is a short sleep; then he is given eggs and bacon for breakfast; then we sign the treaty; and then we send him off again on the presidential airplane, back to his own country. All the time the man is dying inside. He has traveled across half the world. He is rotating with his head upside down. The climate is different; the food is different; and when he finally arrives back in his own country, all he remembers about the United States is that it is kind of yellow. This colors our international politics. But we season our teachers in Vermont to prepare themselves for the peculiarities of life and cuisine of the natives of this land. One aspect about cuisine, though, needs to be emphasized above all. Americans are the friendliest and the most eager and jovial people in the entire world; therefore, they immediately want to respond to the Japanese customs and offer their guests rice because rice is a staple diet of the Japanese. It just so happens that the Japanese regard the way in which we cook rice as a monstrosity and, therefore, if you will and must offer rice to your Japanese guest, be absolutely sure that he accompanies you to the store so that he purchases the proper rice and that he then cooks the rice for you. If he does not know how to cook (and most often he does not because, being a man, he is a lord of the manor and is served hand and foot by his grandmother, wife, daughter, maid, cousin, and what have you), the two young ladies in the group do know how to cook. Ask the inter-

236

Appendix 2

preter to come to your house if you must insist on rice and let her show you how is should be prepared so that you will not go down in the annals of our project, in the books which the Japanese write about you when they go back, as barbarians. This is the only thing that I have to say about food; otherwise they are properly conditioned to all kinds of food. Even at the slightest provocation they will cook your food for you and will treat you to a sukiyaki party. They may even try to coax you into eating raw fish, which is a Japanese delicacy. They may even ask your children to partake of the seaweed soup which is universally famous for making your hair black because it contains iodine. In view of the towheads present, though, perhaps that is not such a good idea. Other than that, there is no particular problem with the food. There are, though, problems with customs that may arise. By and large the Japanese will never say "no" to you if you ask him a direct question. If you say, "Let's go for a walk" or "Let's go to a baseball game" or "Let's go fishing," your Japanese will not say "no." Their culture does not permit them to say "no.' Because you are their host they owe you something. When they owe you something they must always get even with you by giving you something in return. When you present them with a request like "Let's go fishing," they will have to say "yes" and will certainly thank you very much. When, though, you say to them "Would you like to go fishing or would you rather be in your room—feel free to choose," then they will tell you diffidently what they want to do because we have told them to. What they may want to do on several occasions is actually to stay in their rooms. Please do not overcrowd their schedule. The Japanese are, among us, strangers. They must work all of their waking hours. They try to be on good behavior; they try to force themselves into English; and, working very hard, they need time to breathe in peace. Permit them the retreat of being by themselves, either among their own kind in short twice-a-week meetings or in their own rooms, so that they can have a little breathing space. There is another problem for which the Japanese need much time. First of all they write books about their experiences, one describing what they saw and another making sense of what they saw. They need some time to arrange their notes and to sort things out, but that is not the most important thing because usually people write what is known as the "firsthand observations" three weeks later when they have returned to their homes. Another aspect, though, is quite important and that is that our program is a very special and nationally known program in Japan. The selection for this program is considered a great honor so that when the day comes for the Japanese teacher to depart from his home town in Japan, there at the railroad station appears the school band, the superintendent and his retinue, and maybe one hundred friends and wellwishers. Because the Japanese culture, as I already indicated, is a giveand-take culture, one always has to maintain face. If somebody gives you something you have to give something back because that is the way you save face. Otherwise you owe something to someone and you are in a dependent position. Because they owe a debt of gratitude to all of these people who saw them off at the station, they must discharge this debt by writing a letter of thanks to each of them. That means that in the first

Appendix 2

237

month of their stay in the United States they must write over one hundred letters to different people. Therefore they need a little time for periodical retreat in their rooms. Do not think that sitting them down in the living room and giving them a cup of coffee is relaxation. It is work. When you are abroad you sit down for coffee with foreigners and still you are working; only when you are alone, then you do not work; then you relax; then you are yourself. That is one custom that I think would bear thinking about. There are a few other customs which should be considered. For instance, the Japanese will more or less eat what you eat; they will go where you want them to go; and they are exceedingly fond of children. They are intensely interested in the moral education of the young and since in the United States, unlike in Japan, most moral education is done in the home and not at school, they want to know what happens to youngsters in the home. They want to be in families with children—old, young, students, babies—it makes no difference. With the children there is no problem at all for they will play baseball; they will establish friendships; and they will write about them. I remember one teacher who keeps coming back in all of his speeches to one event. He was in a small town in New Hampshire and one day he asked the little eleven-year-old boy in his homestay family to go fishing. Unfortunately the mother said "no." The Japanese teacher told the boy to come behind the barn and there he repeated the offer to take him fishing in secret from the mother. The boy refused and it is always said now in Japan what a marvelous moral education Americans give their children, because look at this boy who wanted to go fishing so much and refused because his mother would not let him go. They are very sensitive to the children and will do a very good job of taking care of them and playing with them. There is only one real tabu which these people have and that concerns laundry. In Japan laundry just vanishes. The laundry is a problem for our Japanese people because they cannot very well pick it up and give it to you, the lady of the house, because you, being an American woman, are a sort of man to them so he is reluctant to do that. He certainly cannot take it to the laundromat himself because he will lose all of the respect that he has enjoyed from birth in Japanese society. The thing to do, therefore, is to handle laundry most discreetly so that it changes hands without anybody noticing it. If you wish to do the laundry in your house, which you are most welcome to do, you simply tell him when he first arrives that he should leave a package of what he needs to be washed on his bed or under his bed, then you remove it discreetly and replace it clean. You will possibly receive a great many bows, but more likely he will pretend he has not noticed it. If you must take it out of the house to the laundry, still tell him to leave it in his room. Take it, send it to the laundry, and when the bill comes present it to one of the interpreters who will have funds for that purpose. If anything gets confused, and it sometimes does, and you do not get paid by the interpreter, call us collect. Miss Symmes is going to leave a roster of numbers so that you can find one of us day or night if you have problems. When any monetary problems arise—for instance, you might go to an expensive ball game and you expect the teacher to pay for his own ticket and he does not—do not ask him for it

238

Appendix 2

back. Call us and we will send you the money. Money is no object, but goodwill is. Therefore, deal with these things like laundry and money as if they do not exist between you, but be assured that somehow they will process themselves. Another different custom, although a much slighter one, is that in the evening the Japanese changes personality. That is to say, before dinner he peels off his Western clothes, gets into a bath, and proceeds to wash off Westernization. He does not just wash. He sits there for an hour and he keeps scraping off Westernization. Then he puts on his kimono or his yukata and he appears Japanese. He spends the evening as a Japanese. After all, there is only one reason why the Japanese did Westernize and that is so that they could remain Japanese. The problem is, of course, that he is not going to wash off any Westernization while he is in the United States, because it is going to stalk him well into his bed which is an incomprehensible seven inches above the ground instead of squarely on the floor. He is not going to wash off Westernization, but he may wish to have a lengthy bath before dinner. Maybe not, maybe he is already so Westernized that he will not, but at least offer him a bath if you can. If you have only one bathroom in the house and it also happens to be the center of normal child traffic, then by no means ruin your family felicity by blocking off that nerve center of your house for an hour before dinner. If you have a spare place, and if he would like to take a big bath, and if he would like to come down to dinner in his kimono, offer it to him if you want him to. In any case, do not offer him a shower, for the Japanese abominate showers. They are used to a 120-degree temperature in the bath and though you probably cannot produce more than 95 degrees, it will have to do for their purposes. They do not wash inside the bath; they wash outside the bath under a shower and then they get into the bath to soak. So this is the difference in the life of a Japanese to which you may adapt a little bit if you will in order to make their lives a little more felicitous. If you cannot adapt to some of these things, remember that, after all, they have come here to be with an American family and to learn the American way of life. A good maxim to remember in your relations with the Japanese is this, "The definition of a foreign country is where everything is funny except the jokes." If you are going to behave like an American, you are going to look funny anyway; but if you are going to behave like Japanese, you are going to look funnier still. Therefore, behave like Americans and when the chips are down say to yourself that this is the way we are and they have come to learn from us. If, though, you can make a little more felicity in terms of soaking in the bath, well and good. Another cultural item is that the Japanese have a psychological difficulty about walking inside of the house with their shoes on. When the Japanese enters the threshhold of his house he takes off his city shoes and, if it is a carpeted house, puts on a pair of slippers. When he goes to the bathroom he takes off his slippers and puts on another pair of slippers. Then when he goes to the bedroom, which is a tatami floor, he takes off the slippers and walks in his socks or barefeet. He has what we call a floor culture, one which is by our standards a much less "elevated" culture. If you do not find it offensive for him to walk in the house in his

Appendix 2

239

socks or in his slippers you might encourage him to do it. It will be much easier for him in the evening. One more thing you, or particularly the children, should be cautioned about is that the Japanese are used to walking around in their underwear. They will not do this downstairs, but they may be caught doing it upstairs. Now their underwear is of the type that we sometimes see in Western movies, where the farmer was sewn into it in autumn and cut out of it in spring. It sort of encases them from neck to ankle. You may catch a Japanese so clad on the way from the bedroom to the bathroom and the effect on an uninitiated American teen-ager may be totally pulverizing. So perhaps you could caution and condition your youngsters that such an apparition might, indeed, take place. You will prevent the total destruction of the goodwill of our project by inhibiting the wild shrieks of laughter which may come when they first see this appearance. We try to tell the teachers not to do this, but we are never quite successful. In the evenings when nobody is watching they sneak to the bathroom and get caught in the act. So please tell your youngsters that this is a cultural feature and not the peculiarity of your guest. In fact he may even be clad in a sort of woolen tube, because the Japanese believe that the stomach should be kept warm at all times. In 95-degree weather they will have this woolen "thing" around them, but it is a feature of cultural "Japaneseness" that I think you would do well to think about and to remember. I think I have more or less covered the major problems at home. Now to the more general features of the program and the reasons why we are running it. I will be extremely short in order to permit time for questions. The Japanese people are here for two reasons: one is to learn how our American family life takes place. We have had programs on the eastern seaboard; we have had programs on the western seaboard; we have had programs in the southern region; and now, for the first time, we have come to the heart of the nation, to the Midwest. We are sending groups to Kalamazoo, Michigan; Racine, Wisconsin; Grand Forks, North Dakota; Sioux Falls, South Dakota; and, last but not least, Maryville, Missouri. They come here to learn the American way of life, specifically the way in which Americans relate to their children and the way in which Americans relate to the morality of their lives, such as church and civic participation. The second reason why the Japanese are here is to study the operation of the public schools for similar reasons. We are therefore asking that you relinquish and release them, indeed convey them, to school from 8 - 4 o'clock or whatever the school time is, so that all of the working days they will be with the schools and only on the weekends will they be in the company of your families. During the time that they go to the schools they will participate in a program which will take them to public schools, private schools, parochial schools, cultural activities, colleges, even county schools outside of Maryville, so that they get a total picture of the educational enterprise of this neighborhood and this region. This, though, is not really your problem in a sense, except that you may wish to organize a car pool by which they can travel from place to place. Two or three days of the three weeks that they are with you the school experience will consist of shadowing your child through school. They will leave home with your child and foDow him through all the phases of the

240

Appendix 2

school day. If you have more than one child, more than one day. If you have seven children, one week out of three they will be shadowing your children. The point is that actually the very best way of observing the life of a school is to shadow a child through that school and usually the children find it fascinating to watch their friend the Japanese teacher dodge them through the whole day and maybe later get sufficiently excited in their life to help them out with homework. So you have this to know about the schools. Other than this, in your spare time you should do with the teachers what your family would normally do. With the exception possibly of a last party, when you get together with them and sukiyaki is cooked and Japanese dancing is performed and much singing and merriment is had by all, the kind of thing that the Japanese should do is just what you would ordinarily do. This is to say, you must not adjust your schedule to them. Perhaps you do not go to Kansas City every month, but during this particular month you may find it practical to take your entire family to Kansas City and in this way the Japanese teacher will also see Kansas City. But, by and large, they are supposed to be immersed in the normal rhythm of American life and they are your responsibility on those days wnen you are following the normal rhythm of American life. I assume that the father of the family as well as the children of the family will leave the house about the same time during working days as the Japanese teacher will. The purpose of all this that we do is to build in Japan a network of people who will be emotionally willing to receive American teachers. We select people who shall soon be in control of the Japanese educational system and who will then permit the American teacher to go in and see what Japanese schools are like. Anyone who has worked at any length of time with schools or any other institution knows that you do not go very far if you just walk through the door. The school will treat you to a guided tour of the cafeteria, the lunchroom, and the library and that is as far as you go if you just walk into the school. But if you walk into a school in which the superintendent or principal is committed to you and remembers in glowing terms his visit to the United States as the highlight of his life and is still in communication with people the way some of your families are still in communication with your former foreign guests, then he opens the door. We have already sent four American teachers to Japan and we speak from experience. They get picked up at the airport, carried through from beginning to end, and are able to put their ear to the heartbeat of the Japanese school system. Why do we all of a sudden want to study the Japanese school system at such close quarters? Two years ago something very interesting happened to Japan and I will speak briefly on this point because this is professional talk. Maybe you do not know it but the world is divided into two different groups of schools, nationally speaking. There are 160 countries and, of those, 150 are not in our ball park. In fact the situation in their schools is worsening steadily. Thus in the last ten years the number of school places available to all children of the world has doubled, but in the same ten years illiteracy has increased from 50 to 60 percent throughout the world. Because the population is outrunning the supply of

Appendix

2

241

school places, we can now mathematically predict that of the children bom today, by the end of the century one-fourth will not know how to read or write. The other six or seven countries are in our ball park in that they have extended educational opportunities in various degrees to the total mass of their population. Now, something happened in Japan two years ago which deserves our notice. We do not have a competitive examination from junior to senior high school. Your son, Mrs. Fields, enrolled today in the Maryville Senior High School, but he did not have an examination to pass. The Japanese have a very rigorous, intellectual examination which separates the compulsory school-leaving age of 15 at the termination of junior high school from entrance into senior high school. Last year 75 percent of the entire 15-year-old age group succeeded in passing that examination and entered the high schools. The Japanese have another secret gimmick: they have no dropouts in high school at all. That means that this year they will graduate three-fourths of their entire population of 18-year-olds from high school. We enter 80 percent at age 16, drop 15 percent on the way, and graduate 65 percent from high school at age 18. For the first time in history we shall no longer be the first in high school graduations. Japan has outrun us. As the success in these examinations indicates, the Japanese manage to teach academic material to a degree that we find incomprehensible. We must go and take a look at what they are doing in their schools. We all know what to do with persons of high or average academic ability; now we must find out how to teach persons of low academic ability. How is it possible to teach literacy to people of low academic ability if your alphabet consists of 10,000 characters rather than 26 letters? To read a book you must know how to read 1,500 different characters. How do you teach people of low academic ability these kinds of materials? We must take a look at it, because first of all we are the most innovative nation in the world. This locality would not be the thriving community that it is (it would be like my hometown in Poland which looks very similar in terms of relief of the terrain, but where you still have six miles of travel to the railroad station through two tracks in the sand) had not Americans been innovators, people who like to change things, people who like to build and expand their lives. We are a very curious people and we must take a look at the Japanese educational system because "it is there." I have asked the president of my university why anybody would want to be the president of a university and he said he does not know except that when you see a mountain, you climb it. This is a very American thing to say. Or I am reminded of that beautiful story of a Polynesian native who observed the Second World War in the Pacific islands and said, "Australian soldiers—good jungle soldiers; Japanese soldiers—good jungle soldiers; American soldiers come—jungle go." We are innovators; we like to change things; we are curious to see how things are elsewhere. But we have a second, even more important reason. It is because we are changers that we are the most rapidly moving technological nation in the world. And because we are such a nation, we have moved, since the Second World War, 40 percent of our entire labor force from blue collar to white collar positions. Automation changes the design of our world. The father digs the ditch with the shovel; the son drives a steam-

242

Appendix

2

shovel; and the grandson is an electronic technician who pushes buttons on a panel to dig the ditches. We have to teach differently for the same job. Grandfather pushed a buggy and sold bananas in the street to passersby; the father learned how to drive a truck and delivered bananas from the shore to the supermarket; the son has to learn electronics so that he can become a skilled mechanic servicing banana automats in the cafeteria. You get the same job but the specifications of the job change over the generations and you must teach the same person more. As one of my colleagues put it, "His great grandmother drove a horse and buggy but she refused to go on the train; his grandmother accepted the train but no automobile for her; his mother consented to ride in the automobile but no airplane for her; his wife said that she would ride in an airplane but never in a jet. At the rate we are going, the only thing his daughter is going to be scared of is the horse and buggy." We are going through great technological advances and we must learn how to teach subaverage students more academic materials. We must teach vocational materials too; we certainly do not have enough plumbers, enough carpenters, enough teachers even, but we must teach more academic materials. If you find a country that sends to schools the same numbers that we do and teaches them academic materials, then we, who used to say that academic materials could not be taught to such large numbers, had better take another look. It is in our national interest to see what is happening in Japan. Therefore, we must prepare the framework by which the Japanese teachers can help us to study their own schools. There are other things and I will be very brief now because time marches on. One is to correct the image of us which the Japanese received during the Occupation. Americans went into Japan and legislated something of an American school system. The Japanese tried to work it but they have had problems with it. They must take a second look at it. For instance, the Americans went in and abolished moral education. Before the war there was a subject called moral education and, when the militarists seized power in 1936, this became the method for indoctrination and propaganda. So when the Americans went into Japan they abolished moral education and instead told the Japanese to teach social studies. What is social studies? History? Geography? Very difficult. The Japanese did not understand how they could teach morality through social studies so a few years ago they reintroduced moral education. They should come and take a look at what we do. That is how, without appearing to teach patriotism, we teach our young people to be patriotic. They should come and take a look at how we teach this subject called social studies. Or, for another instance, we were afraid because in Japan there was central control in education. Through the Ministry of Education the government had total control of the schools; therefore, any time the military could seize the government, the government could seize the schools, the schools could seize the young, and again we would have a nation at war. So we decentralized education to make it locally controlled. Within four years many of the school board members who were elected were Communists. The only people who had an ax to grind in a poor country and had time to go and serve gratis were the Communists. As a result the Japanese now have abolished elective boards and have created only appointed boards.

Appendix

2

243

The government appoints school board members, thereby negating the American approach. Let them come and take a look at how our school boards work; how our communities, for better or for worse, govern themselves in the matter of providing their children with schools. These are the kinds of things which we want the Japanese to learn from us. But there is another andfinalthing which we want the Japanese to learn from us, particularly the Japanese teachers. The Japanese teachers, of all the groups in Japan, are the most conscious of the tragic disparity between our intentions and our deeds. Internationally we tell the world that we are a democracy and, of course, we are. Our documents—the Bill of Rights, the Constitution—are assiduously studied and believed everywhere. And yet in our political activities in Japan we have supported a conservative government. Naturally we cannot support a left-wing government; we have all kinds of blocks against supporting a left-wing government. The only people who want to work with us are the conservatives, so for twenty years we have been supporting the conservative government. Americans know the word conservative, but they do not understand the word conservative abroad. You should take a Senator Goldwater or a John Birch Society member and then travel twenty miles to the right and only then have you got yourself a Japanese conservative. Our conservatives are all middle-of-the-road. Members of the John Birch Society or Senator Goldwater believe in free elections; believe in payment of taxes, give or take a dollar; believe in the habeas corpus act. They are not conservatives at all by Japanese standards. In Japan right now there is a big fight going on for the trade unions to be recognized as the agents of collective bargaining. We have a situation in Japan which is reminiscent of the time when the bankers and the railroad owners and Teddy Roosevelt thrashed it out over the antitrust laws. That was fifty years ago. We keep supporting this kind of a government, though, because some American people do not realize the different meanings of the word conservative in different countries. This situation makes teachers extremely left-wing and anti-American in Japan. Because the teachers are this way, the students—who look at their businessmen and cannot trust them, who look at their military and cannot trust them, who look at their civil servants and cannot trust them—cling to the teachers. They have an influence upon the country which is antiAmerican because of a misunderstanding of words, of American intentions and American practices. So let the Japanese teachers come here and see the way we are—plural as we are, diverse as we are, from different origins as we are. What is told to a man who prides himself by saying that he is 100percent American? He is told that he has just uttered a sentence in which there are contained Arab numerals, a Roman decimal system, an IndoEuropean language, and the name of an Italian explorer, Amerigo Vespucci. That is how much there is to the phrase "100-percent American." We are a pilot project of the world, different people who came together and are melted in a common pot. Let the Japanese teachers see us closely, people the way we are, not in the blacks and whites of international politics. Let them see that when Washington makes a pronouncement, many of us feel that we have not necessarily made a pronouncement. It

244

Appendix 2

is a different kind of thing, the American political scene from the Japanese political scene. We nave had absolutely signal success in getting the Japanese teachers to recognize us as we are—not brainwash them, not propagandize them, just to learn about us at close quarters so that they can appraise us properly. It is, incidentally and rather comically, the left-wing teachers that we buy off immediately when they observe us because they exclaim, as a Communist professor once exclaimed when he first came to the United States, "By God, there is one country in the world in which socialism has already been achieved and that is the United States of America." It is with the conservative Japanese teachers that we have more trouble. The left-wing teachers say, "We want it, everything you have. That is what we have been talking about for years. Why did you not tell us that this is what America is like?" The right-wing teachers say, "It is terrific, but not Japanese." They are nationalists; they would like to have it but they do not want to take it from us because it is American influence. They do not even like the word "Americanization"; they do not even like the word "Westernization." They have invented the word "modernization" to show that they did not take it from us because they do not want to be dependent on us. This is the situation in life which we are facing and a small encounter with a Japanese teacher—a highly prepared, sweet, devoted, very good teacher, who loves children and loves to be in school—is only going to make a small smudge on the international firmament. Yet it is die little drops of water which, taken together, make the ocean and the ocean represents a closer relationship and a warmer feeling of the Japanese toward us. They feel low; they have lost the war; they feel terribly guilty. When they ask to go and see Pearl Harbor they dissolve in tears and apologize to the Americans saying, "I'm sorry we did this." They feel very badly and if they see us serve them, if they see us look after them, if they see us treat them as equal humans, they take heart and they love us with great gratitude for it. Through this they will help us do the job of policing the Orient. They are the most important element for our influence in the Orient and though there may be among us some who wish we did not meddle with the Orient and simply stay within our own shores, so long as we are in the Orient, and so long as we do play the role of policeman of the world we must keep our police stations clean and our arms ready for use. It is this kind of an operation, in terms of eliciting the support of the Japanese educational world, for which I now ask your cooperation. Thank you very much.

Appendix 3

TOWARD IMPROVED JAPANESE-AMERICAN CULTURAL EXCHANGES To show how practical experience gained from the Japanese-American Teacher Program is projected into recommendations of policy, we reproduce here a paper by the American coauthor presented to the Fourth United States-Japan Cultural Conference at which he served as member of the American delegation. The Conference was held at the United States Department of State in Washington, D.C., from April 3 to 8,1968. The paper was subsequently re-presented at the East-West Center, University of Hawaii, on March 17, 1969, and was published in the Pacific Bridge, vol. 12, no. 5-8, May to August, 1968. In 1872 Arinori Mori, later a key figure in Japanese education, became Japan's first chargé d'affaires to the United States. One of his first acts was to send letters to prominent Americans requesting their opinions about the course Japanese education should take. He wanted in particular to know the effects of education upon the material prosperity of the country, upon the social, moral, and physical condition of the people, and upon laws and government. Among the many responses to this inquiry TTieodore D. Woolsey, ex-president of Yale College wrote that "the general effect of education upon a community, so far as material prosperity is concerned, is to stimulate industry by creating new desires and wants, and to increase the sense of individual power by making each laborer better acquainted with the world and with the methods of facilitating production." Woolsey also counseled an education that would stimulate civil and political freedom, that would produce "a healthy influence on government under all institutions whether [the people] choose their ruler or not." He also thought that Japanese education should have a strong influence on the moral condition of the people. "Morality, including the 245

246

Appendix 3

duties of the family, of society, toward the state and toward God cannot be left out of education with impunity."1 Mori's inquiry and Woolsey's recommendation are symbolic of the Japanese-American interest in each other's cultural life in the 1870s which began a century of international cooperation between the old island and new continent framing the Pacific. Now that that century has drawn to a close, one can review its historic content and see how present contacts may be improved. Except for the years of armed conflict the intellectual interaction between Japan and the United States can be said to have been continuous. The two countries are divided by a great many characteristics; they are, however, united by common traits which make the trading of advantages between them highly desirable. The United States is the first new nation which developed spontaneously. Japan is the first new nation which has developed deliberately. Both share die European culture from which the Western country sprang as an offshoot and to which the Eastern country had to adapt its ancient traditions. The century just past has witnessed the history of accommodation of the two countries to this European tradition. Today, the blends are complete and have since World War II begun to interact independently of Europe. Today, American flexibility, imagination, and inventiveness are being matched by the Japanese as are American mass-production methods. On the other side Americans are being overwhelmed by the near-chaos of rapid industrialization, and are finding in Japanese cultural stability, steadfastness of national purpose, and devotion to morality, a guide to conduct in a technotronic society. In the field of education the rationale for Japanese-American cooperation is compelling. The United States is the first successful industrial and mass society, and it has achieved this position by developing a system of schools for the masses. Japan is the second and the only other society to have followed this path in the nineteenth century. They were joined in the twentieth century by the Soviet Union and a few countries of Western Europe, notably, Sweden. Perhaps in the near future they will be joined by China. Beyond these countries no society promises to come near a system of total education for all its youth during their entire youth, though all are making efforts in this direction. While the nonindustrial countries can learn how to build up their schools by consulting the history of the mass-education countries, the latter can only learn from each other. There are no other precedents to follow except the lessons of the achievements and of the mistakes of the pioneers of mass education.2 Beyond the schools lies the area of cultural and general learning in which the need for exchanges has a force of its own. In the sciences the Japanese, influenced by European models, have not made extensive use of the empirical approach and have to learn from Americans. It has been pointed out that Japanese schools since the Meiji era were progressive.3 But they are certainly not pragmatic. In the humanities and the arts, on the other hand (even though American instructors could be found in Japanese universities and middle schools from the beginnings of modernization4), Japan is the repository of an ancient wisdom and great beauty that seeps out all too slowly. It is just beginning to show up in American architecture, for instance. Each country's achievements are indispensable

Appendix 3

247

to the other. Each derives continued advantages from competing and "measuring up" to the achievements of the other. In addition, both countries are economically advanced and politically democratic and what the crest of the wave is to the ocean, advanced nations are to mankind. Other nations engage in research and cooperation so that they may serve themselves; the foremost among nations do so, in addition, to stand out as good models. For them international cooperation is not only an opportunity but a duty. They face the extraordinary circumstances imposed upon the leading countries because they are leading. To the advanced countries international cooperation should not be merely a routine undertaking—a natural consequence of the expansion of international awareness of nations. The developed nations must view international cooperation as a special opportunity to experiment. They are an advance guard and as pathfinders must look for new paths. HISTORICAL BACKGROUND OF EDUCATIONAL EXCHANGES BETWEEN THE UNITED STATES AND JAPAN The exchanges of educators between the two countries began in the latter nineteenth century when Japan adopted the policy of the modernization or Westernization of the nation. As part of these efforts, the Japanese government sent a mission in 1872 to the United States and Europe. Led by Prince Iwakura and including a First Secretary of the Department of Education, Fujimaro Tanaka, the mission sought to get necessary information on education abroad. On his return Tanaka pubSshed a fifteen-volume report of his observations in the United States and other major European countries. Tanaka was particularly impressed by American elementary education and was sent to the United States in 1876 for further study of school systems in different states. His background of experience in the United States was demonstrated in his education code of 1879, which adopted a decentralized system on the American pattern. Tanaka's mission was an example of an early attempt at educational exchange and came at the same time as Arinori Mori's inquiry. Mori became Minister of Education in 1885 and, before he was assassinated in 1894, was instrumental in laying the foundations of the modern Japanese school system which embodied some of the American-derived ideas he has espoused in education. The Japanese government sent many able youths to the United States as well as to European countries for study. Already in 1871 some five hundred students were said to be studying in the United States and later in the decade several American textbooks had been translated for use in Japanese schools. Although the students did not go abroad solely for the study and observation of other systems of schools, their numbers included many who later exerted great influence in Japan in various fields of education. Notable among these were three students—Shuji Izawa, Hideo Takamine, and Senzaburo Kozu—who studied education at state normal schools at Bridgewater, Massachusetts; Oswego, New York; and Albany, New York. Upon returning home, they all made extensive contributions to the modernization of Japanese education. Izawa and Takamine brought back a new method of instruction based on the Pestalozzian ideas, and made many improvements in elementary education. Kozu and Izawa also introduced new theories and practices

248

Appendix 3

of music education to Japan. Takamine, a prominent biochemist, became a permanent resident of the United States and traveled back and forth between the two countries on scientific missions. American educators were also invited by the Japanese government to help. Worth noting was David Murray, a professor at Rutgers College, who served as the National Superintendent of Schools in Japan between 1874 and 1878. He worked with Tanaka for the establishment of a modern Japanese school system. Other Americans, whose numbers reached a peak figure of forty in 1879, were invited to work at the newly established government schools and colleges. Marion Scott helped to lay the foundations of the normal school system. Horace Capron and William S. Clark contributed to the development of an agricultural college in Sapporo which later developed into Hokkaido University. Lafcadio Hearn and Guido Verbeck taught at Tokyo University. Numerous Americans, including those sent by missionary groups, helped to build up privately sponsored education. W. Griffis of Rutgers and E. Fenelosa, an authority on art history, are worthy of mention. Following the 1880s, Japan's interest turned to the western European countries, particularly Germany, and the American influence on Japanese education was no longer as strong. Exchange of educators became less frequent. At the time of World War I when Japan entered a short period of liberalism, American educational experiments received renewed attention from Japanese educators. A number of books and reports were published by leading Japanese educators who visited the United States at this time. Some of the more prominent American educators, including John Dewey, William H. Kilpatrick, and Helen Parkhurst, visited Japan, leaving an indelible influence on Japanese education, particularly on the New Education Movement. By the 1930s, the strained political relations between the two nations made a continued exchange impossible, although the Japanese students studying in institutions of higher education in America continued to number in excess of one thousand until the end of the decade. The most important features of the pre-World War II exchanges were: 1. The exchange was mainly initiated by the Japanese, except for the missionary groups. 2. The benefit of the exchange was one-sided; that is, Japan was the sole beneficiary. 3. Between world wars, government exchanges included government officials, senior professionals, and university professors who went almost exclusively to Europe. But the movement of private persons, especially college students, was substantially to the United States. After the Second World War, the situation changed rapidly. During the Occupation, American influence was deliberately imposed upon Japanese education. The main agent concerned with overseeing the changing educational policy was the Civil Information and Education Section of the General Headquarters of the Supreme Commander for the Allied

Appendix 3

249

Powers. An attempt was made to democratize Japanese education via numerous means, including the exchange program. Between 1949 and 1951 the Government and Relief in Occupation Areas (GARIOA) made funds available enabling 1,047 Japanese students and scholars to study in American postsecondary institutions. Other exchange projects included the "National Leader Project," in which representatives of several fields, including 261 leaders in professional education, participated. In this project, the participants had sixty- to ninety-day tours in the United States for observations and conferences. In 1948 the Japanese were permitted to travel abroad, and many individuals and organizations in the United States provided funds for them to study across the Pacific. The Amherst-Doshisha program may be cited as an example. Between June 1, 1948, and December 31, 1951, a total of 807 Japanese students and teachers were financed in the United States. During the same period 399 Japanese made short tours of observation to the United States under private sponsorship. The American Association of University Women, for instance, awarded grants to Japanese college women graduates for study at American universities, and colleges such as Wellesley and Bryn Mawr made places available for women undergraduates. Two important American educational missions were sent to Japan in 1946 and 1950 to recommend changes in the Japanese school system. There were other agencies such as the National Educational Association and other leadership programs in this period which brought a few Japanese teachers for six months' study in the United States and sent several American professional educators to Japan. Japanese scholars and students who participated in the exchange programs during the Occupation contributed to the spread of the ideas and practices of democratic education. On the other hand, these exchanges deliberately aimed at "reeducating" the Japanese. Consequently the learning was one-sided: the Japanese were simply students of the Americans, and there was no exchange of ideas. At the end of the Occupation, the exchange program was expanded. This expansion heralded a new era. The GARIOA program was now replaced by the Fulbright and Smith-Mundt cultural exchange. Between 1952 and 1961, 2,812 students and scholars were brought to the United States in these programs, in addition to those brought by such organizations as the American Field Service which catered to high school students. The Fulbright and Smith-Mundt programs sent 505 American students and scholars to Japan between 1952 and 1961 on a reciprocal basis. Among several others, the Comparative Education Society of America organized a two-week educational tour for college teachers in 1959. The Japanese government began the restoration of its exchanges at the same time. The Ministry of Education's Overseas Research Scholars Awards were given, commencing in 1954, to professors of national universities. In the same year a program to invite foreign students to study in Japan under the Japanese government scholarship plan was begun. Private efforts toward an exchange of students and scholars continued to grow on both sides of the Pacific. Thus, by 1961, the number of Japanese

250

Appendix 3

students in American institutions of higher education, those sponsored by the governmental agencies as well as those financed through private groups, reached 2,434. These totals include 106 persons in t i e field of professional education as well as many other students intending to take teaching jobs after returning to Japan. In the same year 445 Japanese scholars were reported to be on the teaching and research staffs in American institutions, including six in the field of education. Several Americans were given extended appointments at Japanese universities such as International Christian University or Aoyama Gakuin. American students studying in Japan numbered 1,535. Since 1962 annual summer workshops in comparative education have been held in Japan by the University of Hawaii and the University of Michigan. Among others, Stanford, the University of California at Berkeley, Lewis and Clark College, and a consortium of thirteen midwestern colleges such as Earlham and Kalamazoo (now Western Michigan) were also active in various capacities. The University of Maryland offered extension courses for American servicemen. The academic year courses at the International Christian University, Waseda's International College, and summer courses at Sophia University attract annually a number of American students. In 1959 the Japanese Ministry of Education organized, for the first time, the programs enabling school teachers to visit foreign schools for short periods. Thirty-eight educators, including principals of elementary and secondary schools and board of education officials, were sent abroad in two groups: one to the United States and the other to Europe. In the following year another forty were sent for a six-week observation trip. In the same year a group of nine leaders in women's education were also sent by the Ministry of Education for one month to the United States and Europe. Several local boards of education sent a selected number of teachers and educational administrators abroad for various purposes. As of the end of 1967, as far as school-teacher exchanges are concerned about fifteen teachers, usually specialists in English language, were visiting the United States annually under the American government's International Teacher Development Program. The Ministry of Education program still sends some twenty-five teachers a year for a six-week visit, 283 since 1959. Tokyo Metropolitan Board of Education has sent twenty-nine educators since 1960 for individual projects of four- to six-months' duration. In 1967 Hokkaido Prefecture began financing six-month projects for ten teachers of English. Since 1966 at least two delegations from the Japan Teachers Union visited the United States on two- to three-week visits. Among others the East-West Center of the University of Hawaii annually invites teachers of English from Keio University High School. Last but not least, the Japanese-American Teacher Program, inaugurated by the Ford Foundation in 1964 and referred to later at length, has placed one hundred teachers in American schools for three-months' observation visits. TRADITIONAL FEATURES OF JAPANESE-AMERICAN EXCHANGES AND THE FUTURE Most international cooperation in the past, even in as organized and orderly a country as Japan, has taken place in an ad hoc, spasmodic fashion. A need or condition arose, a decision was made, delegations came

Appendix 3

251

and went. Now that such movements promise to be incessant, international exchanges should be studied in a scientific manner. Knowledge about their effectiveness should move from random to organized, from partial to total. In all fields of knowledge humanities begin to transcend science; from a force without humanities are becoming a force within; C. P. Snow's two cultures are being integrated into one. On the other hand, the practice of international cooperation is destined to follow an increasingly scientific path. Perhaps it has to become a planned effort. In any case, it must become a self-conscious effort. Impressive evidence is available that international cooperation is more effective when it is not a random and spontaneous pursuit, but a planned and methodical one. Planning for international transplantations has had superb results in Japan, better than average results in Turkey, and some advantages in spite of failures in Mexico, Planning, in spite of the heavy price they have had to pay for it, has put the Communistic countries on the map. One only has to look at the problems of metropolitan cities in the United States and elsewhere, or at the difficulties of international trade when it is permitted to be totally laissez-faire; to be discouraged by the aftereffects of an unplanned, though well-meant and dynamic, growth; to be fearful of a random surge of human activities beyond human power to control and contain. It is quite possible that spontaneous international cooperation should be enriched by organized forethought, by a balance between private initiative and public coordination. But one need not complicate the vision of international cooperation by insisting on the still-controversial proposition that such cooperation must be centrally planned. Movements of men and ideas back and forth across the frontiers set off processes which are often quantifiable and always subject to general social laws. The special chemistry that takes place when men find themselves in a foreign culture, when they overcome the initial shock and make their accommodations, lends itself to empirical study. Enough evidence exists, and more should be consciously recorded, to aid those who study the process of international contacts. Das Ding an sich is important enough now that the trickle of exchanges threatens to become a torrent. Japan and the United States are equipped by their very nature to view international contacts in a scientific manner. The industrial countries, as the sole possessors of mass education systems, are reaching a very high level of specialization among their educated. The volume of international commitments which these countries undertake can sustain the expense of supporting self-study. A science of international culture contacts was first advocated three centuries ago, but the movement to identify precisely its premises is not older than a decade. Japan and the United States have a history of pragmatic contacts with each other and others. They now have also die specialists to deduce some general sense of theory from these many practical encounters. International cooperation between the United States and Japan, which is already taking place in the field of education and culture, has been conducted on historically orthodox lines. Of the three types of cooperation, the first and the largest has been people-to-people contact. Countless educational exchanges have occurred between individuals, small teams,

252

Appendix S

or large delegations; many of these were enumerated above. Often these exchanges have been the result of deliberate efforts by the concerned governments. Sometimes business organizations, individual cities, or professional groups took the initiative. More often than not the universities or schools sought to cross the Pacific in order to avail themselves of educational opportunities beyond the immediate horizon. The war has played its part too. The impact of the presence of American servicemen in Japan may be taken as a symbol of Japan's confrontation with American culture. The torrents of artifacts and reminiscences which these very same servicemen brought back with them to America may be taken as a symbol of American confrontation with Japanese culture. The people-to-people contacts, the spontaneous movements are fostered by events, by fashion, and by the increased nearness of nations and places. Policy makers can augment them or limit them but, mostly, they must just take notice of them. It is inevitable that these exchanges will increase in the future. They should be encouraged to increase. Sizable minorities from each country should also be encouraged to settle permanently in the other country. The Nisei and the American expatriates form a visible bridge between the two peoples and their fate. The adjustments they are forced to make and the intermarriages they are able to achieve are symbolic of a reservoir of goodwill existing between their countries of origin. It might be of interest to note that some 7,000 permanent Japanese residents live at present in New York City in addition to some 3,000 students. There are some 200 artists alone living and working in metropolitan society.5 The second type of cooperative effort, the cross-national conferences, are more directly amenable to planning and to sustained initiative of official bodies. But as in people-to-people contacts, it is not only (or even predominantly) the governments, but private groups, scientific organizations, and the universities that are instrumental in organizing these meetings. In Japanese-American cultural cooperation the role of government conferences is substantial. The biennial joint United States-Japan Conferences on Cultural and Educational Interchange provide a meeting ground for distinguished university authorities with public personalities and highlevel government officials. In addition, conferences of several types are held in the network of American Culture Centers which the United States government maintains in several of the larger Japanese cities. These provide for confrontation between American visitors and Japanese students as well as offering substantial libraries. Beyond government-inspired conferences the volume of international meetings is quickly increasing. Japanese scholars make regular and faithful appearances at international congresses in several specialities such as the annual International Congress of Sociology. Of some of these, the Japanese are hosts by rotation; for instance, in the International Conference on Comparative Adult Education held in 1972. Many other conferences are inspired by the Japanese; for instance the International Conference on Educational Research held in Tokyo in 1959, or the International Conference on the Family organized by the Japanese Sociological Association in 1965. Joint American-Japanese efforts are responsible for meetings such as the Japanese-American Assembly called in Tokyo by the American

Appendix S

253

Assembly (affiliated with Columbia University) in 1967, or the Eleventh Pacific Science Conference held in 1966. The universities in each country initiate conferences attended by the scholars from the other. Examples are (Standing) Conference on Modern Japan established at the University of Michigan in 1958, and the UNESCO Conference on Modernization held at Fukuoka with the cooperation of Kyushu University in 1967. Economic, public service, and business organizations provide further forums for crossnational meetings. As examples, the Japanese Economic Research Center called two Conferences on the Study of the Future; NHK (Japan Broadcasting Company) held conferences on Asian Broadcasting and Educational Television; the International House of Japan and its derivatives held frequent cross-national functions. From the Encyclopedia Britannica to the Garden Club of Japan, the sources of conferences are inexhaustible. When they are specialized in scope, conferences permit experts to visit each other in one place; under other circumstances such visits would take an inordinate amount of time. Specialized scientific conferences possess certain other attractive features. Unlike most of those concerned with the humanities, science conferences present hard-core research unavailable in print and allow the scientists to confront top specialists in their field. Intellectual conferences of a general character usually do not have that very specialized advantage. However efficiently structured, they have a short-lived impact. But they are attractive forums for exchanges of opinions. Their added value lies in providing publicity for international cooperation. Even though their expense is possibly out of keeping with the benefits derived, they are valuable booster shots to alert governments, the public, and special groups to work accomplished and to new paths international cooperation should take. For these reasons effort to call periodical conferences should and, no doubt, will continue. The third type of international cooperation consists of exchanges of publications. Here, in comparison to other countries, the record of Japan is outstanding; the record of the United States is, alas, less distinguished. English-speaking publications in Japan are overwhelming in quantity. In addition to four English-language daily newspapers, journals include Japan Quarterly, Contemporary Japan, Orient/West, Journal of Social and Political Ideas in Japan, and Oriental Economist. Every Ministry of the Japanese government produces a set of publications in English, noteworthy among which is the extensive set of sources provided by the Ministry of Education.6 International conferences enumerated above are not infrequent sources of English language publications.7 All of the natural sciences are represented by English publications; Japan Science Council, by annual volumes. All universities publish volumes of journals in English, the most voluminous record belonging to Hitotsubashi University. There is hardly a field in which Japanese achievements have not been published in English by the Japanese. There is an even larger body of publications about Japan assembled by the Americans, at least if one judges by the plethora of materials available in education.8 It is in disseminating knowledge about the United States in Japan that the latter country overshadows the former. Most publications about America in Japan originate, not from the Americans, but from the Japanese. The Japanese are avid and industrious translators of all foreign books of

254

Appendix 3

major importance, first and foremost those published in America. Japanese government organizations for the study of foreign countries include, to mention only the field of education, the Research Section of the Ministry of Education (Chosaka) and sections of the National Institute for Educational Research. The independently founded Institute for Democratic Education and the Comparative Education Society of Japan are geared partly to publication of studies about American institutions and people. Hardly any publications in Japanese are placed on the market by the Americans. As mentioned, the American government has developed throughout Japan its usual information services. The American Embassy in Tokyo provides library and radio services but, besides occasional pamphlets, it publishes only a few journals in Japanese, the Nicht-Bei Fuoramu (Japanese-American Forum) being foremost. Plans are being developed for the publication of books in Japanese by McGraw-Hill Book Company and other groups of publishers. Foreign comparative studies, including those on the Soviet Union, have been a common concern of the two countries in the postsputnik age.9 More fully worked out common terminology is still lacking, especially in philosophy and the humanities, and emphasis on literal translations makes the style of the available sources stiff and unwieldy. In addition, the differences between Confucian and Hellenic logic impede a measure of mutual understanding. The two-way flow of publications should include also samplings of public opinion gleaned from the press, and in this area the Japanese once again prove themselves more diligent. Japanese newspapers and magazines frequently carry translations from the American press. Full rosters of Soviet materials are available in America from the Current Digest of Soviet Press and from the several subject journals of the International Arts and Science Press (Soviet Education, for example). But no such provision is made for the Japanese sources. Still, in comparison with what is being done in, say, French-American or German-American exchanges, there is a remarkable abundance of mutually developed writings. What is needed is systematic cataloguing and a ready supply of the copies to less-accessible centers. Both in Japan and the United States as, indeed, everywhere, there is great disparity between materials assembled in major research centers and their availability in the more remote institutions. Here is a field for government equalization programs—possibly free distribution financed by the public treasury. SOME NEW ASPECTS OF JAPANESE-AMERICAN EDUCATIONAL EXCHANGES The three tradition-sanctioned types of intellectual cooperation have worked well in the past and should be expanded as much as possible in the future. But, in addition, a systematic approach to intercultural collaboration forces one to take a look at other elements in exchanges. A frontal approach to these has been hitherto lacking. Barriers of language, of cultural maladjustment, and of exchange work conducted in the spirit of nationalism have been the major hindrances in the work undertaken. Language barriers are the great obstacle to international cooperation and no amount of reliance on interpreters or translators can circumvent them. Even with skilled interpreters, "the breaks in the continuity of

Appendix 3

255

discourse and the general impediments to the free flow of conversation are a hundredfold. ' 1 0 Neither can the use of translations replace the sensitivities derived from closer contact. The most advanced of nations must mobilize their resources and their ingenuity to ram through language training programs to remove this major impediment. The language barrier in Japan begins with the alphabet. The inability to resolve the issue of the adoption of Rotnaji in Japan is now a matter of history. One can have nothing but the greatest respect for the Japanese desire to preserve as much as possible of their ancient heritage. Yet it is relevant to ask whether the reluctance to consider Rotnaji is not a nationalistic act designed to stand in the way of a more secure participation of the Japanese people in the global community of nations. The ancient scripts of Japan and China, no less than the scripts of the USSR and the Arabs, separate the bulk of the ordinary people of these regions as with a wall from their brethren elsewhere. No particular claim can be made for the Latin alphabet as surpassing in merit the others. But one can ask whether learning 1,500 or 2,000 characters in schools instead of twenty-six is an appropriate use of children's school time. All Japanese now learn Romaji characters as well, anyway. Life itself seems to be moving them in the direction of a closer linguistic community with other nations. Words in the Latin alphabet—indeed, even in English —are now commonplace on commercial goods and in advertising. Herbert Passin of Columbia University made a count of more than twenty thousand English-derived words that have crept into the Japanese language since the heightened Japanese-American contacts began in the postwar period. These words are now being used in "Japanized" forms and are written in katakana. The ancient script should not be permitted to switch the Japanese out so much from community with other nations. Given the world as is, we can quickly see the advantages of knowing well one another's language. The ideal is that the greater the mutual knowledge, the greater the understanding. Stilted, stereotyped exchange of views, punctuated by hesitation and by imperfect expression heightens the possibility for misinterpretation. A close contact between individual human beings is more likely to come from warm, direct, and uninhibited communication. Close contacts do not, however, constitute the realities of contemporary exchanges. Nations and national interests continue to determine focus, and such a state of affairs is made easier by contenting oneself with poor communications. Stilted language helps maintain the distance between the communicants, a factor without which they could not uphold the absolute primacy of their own national identity. Hence it is the stock in trade of several separatist national movements. It is hardly believable that the twentieth century should be sufficiently backward to witness national elites attempting to consign large groups of their people to cultural separation by agitating that they speak Lithuanian, Polish, Celtic, Hindi, or Swahili. Perhaps it will be the task of the twenty-first century to down historical memories and to embrace without rancor whatever language or culture happens to be most potent to advance global homogenization. Language barriers not only maintain distance but also make dealings across this distance unreal. It is in a sense a boon and in a sense a tragedy

256

Appendix 3

of international cooperation that those who engage in it do so because they find such processes exciting. But true international homogenization implies not escalation but extinction of the pleasure born of novelty. The process of tuning into foreign culture is the process of reducing everything to the level of the ordinary. Only when there is no feeling whatsoever attached to relations with racially different groups can prejudice be said to have disappeared. Only when national differences pale until they are a matter of indifiFerence can global homogenization take place. Immersion in languages can be said, therefore, to be one of the most vital instruments for global unification. Here is an area of international cooperation that has hardly been explored. After one hundred years of Japanese-American relations that language picture continues to be strictly hit and miss. The study of English in Japan now is well-nigh universal and literally tens of thousands of people have knowledge of it. It is generally recognized that vastly greater numbers can read it than can speak it; and that, among thousands who do speak it, one finds many degrees of fluency. The study of Japanese in the United States is, in spite of many valiant efforts, in a much more precarious state. In the entire country there are probably no more than a few thousand fluent Japanese speakers. Only a very few high schools in heavily Nisei-populated areas offer elective instruction in the Japanese language. The traditional insistence on assimilation of immigrants which, in fact, meant denationalizing them, has resulted in the universal emphasis on learning English. The unintended corollary of this is a loss of language potential. There are over one hundred thousand American Nisei whose knowledge of Japanese could serve as a vital link between Pacific neighbors. Too few retain full knowledge of their ancestral language. Nor do Americans make sufficient use of the latent talent which they have for Japanese. Only as an accident of war is the network of American foreign service and cultural offices exceptionally good because some American servicemen, having settled in Japan after marrying Japanese girls, acquired a remarkable command of the language. The American reservoir of talent for foreign languages, in spite of protests to the contrary, is vast, hitherto unexploited, and available to be used where it might be needed. Targets are difficult to set between two countries, one of which is twice as populous but has only one foreign-language speaker for each hundred speakers in the second. Would striving for ten thousand American speakers of Japanese during the next few years be too much to hope for to ensure the greater intimacy and closeness long overdue between the two societies? Language training is the key to international collaboration, and anyone who has watched students acquire such competence knows that solid area training automatically follows. A singleminded concentration on creating a Japanese- and English-speaking corps today would totally alter the depth of exchanges tomorrow. The best answer to language training is total immersion. Specialists in foreign language training still vary from those who drill in grammar to those who believe in oral-aural method. But no one can seriously uphold the notion that language can be well taught in three, weekly, one-hour sessions. This school tradition is the most effective killer of whatever

Appendix 3

237

residual disposition there is to learn the language. In early language training, immediate rewards are what matters. The effort must be made quickly to break through the "sound barrier." There is need, therefore, in both countries for a vast network of training centers where nationals of one country could learn, by total immersion, the language of another. Somewhere between the nine days claimed by Berlitz courses and one year to eighteen months programmed by Army language schools lies the optimum time for achieving a first level of fluency. If for no other reason than to help by experimentation to settle the dispute about the best length of time to achieve fluency, a network of language training centers should be spread throughout Japan and the United States and be made the cornerstone of their future intellectual cooperation. As a second line of effort, whether with or without knowledge of the language, Japan and the United States each must move toward systematic initiation of its people to the culture of the other. Much of such initiation, though increasing, takes place haphazardly. Television and other media have served to bring mutual insights into the American and the Japanese lives.11 The enormous volume of the exchange of goods is another of the multiple examples of the present interaction. If nothing else the rising standard of living and the revolution in transportation will mean that an increasing number of Japanese and Americans will travel and will be thrown into direct personal or cultural encounters. Those who view international exchanges with a scientific attitude cannot resign themselves to those encounters taking place simply at random. The meeting of cultures is now commonly acknowledged to be damaged or at least retarded by what Cleveland, Mangone, and Adams have called "the cultural shock."12 Their examples related almost exclusively to contacts between Americans and Japanese. They talk, for instance, "of the two most extreme, most lurid, and the least interesting types of reaction to culture shock—the Americans who 'go native' and the Americans abroad who 'never left home.'" They go on to describe the variety of misunderstandings that occur when Americans and the Japanese meet in daily encounters. When such encounters are at the leadership level, the consequences are especially serious. Agreements made through interpreters are accepted as if they were the results of intimate conversations. Banquets and speeches are scheduled for important personalities who have just arrived from abroad and are suffering, therefore, from physical disturbances. Habitual tardiness to meetings is viewed as being a national insult, while punctuality is damned as pushiness. The total effect of these often trivial misunderstandings is immediate, but sometimes, graver still, the effect also appears much later in jaundiced attitudes or xenophobia. The entire area of initial culture contacts deserves a sustained investigation and steps should be taken to study such contacts and, where possible, to control them for maximum advantage. Devices must be sought to permit gradual submersion of the visitors of one culture upon arrival into another. Neither the United States nor Japan engages in sufficient follow-up studies. Neither, for example, examines reports of Fulbright returnees or collects recommendations of import-export specialists; in short, neither places on record the totality of multiple effects of the

258

Appendix S

"search of identity" described for Japanese students on American campuses by Bennett, Passin, and McKnight.13 From such cure might come prevention. What is truly needed in international contacts is a network of "simulation centers" conditioning visitors from one country for entry into another. Centers of that kind existed or exist where wartime Special Service agents or peacetime spies are trained for subversive work. Some English language villages and schools in the USSR and French villas in Britain complete the meager precedents. Simulation centers could naturally be combined with language-training centers and those destined for duty abroad, even those leaving for short international conferences, could avail themselves of their services. Such training would be not at all amiss for the Japanese who at home receive their major impressions of the American people from young soldiers, wealthy tourists, and Hollywood; nor for the Americans, most of whom are still apt to think of Japan as a land of little more than cherry blossoms, Mount Fuji, and geisha girls.14 Simulation centers in a specially preplanned series of experiences and activities could condition "contact prospects" to customs, to food, and to the more serious aspects of culture and language. Not unlike Disneyland's replica of New Orleans' Bourbon Street, they could even introduce their pupils to smells, noises, and the general ambience of the receiving countries. Achieving a good degree of immersion is not easy and many of the difficulties will be intellectual as well as emotional. As F. Champion Ward has put it "getting a cheerful High-Y president from an Iowa high school really to understand a Nazi concentration camp is no easier than getting him to understand the Samurai of Medieval Japan." 15 But an experimental attempt, at least, deserves to be made for urgent reasons. Salesmen, lower echelon government workers, and soldiers would especially benefit, for they are, as often as not, the most serious offenders. Among primitive tribes, where there is a little advantage in raiding neighbors, women are the principal spoils of war. In callous disregard of this basic irritant among young men of all nations, the United States Army Recreation Program in Vietnam exports young soldiers to several Oriental cities including Tokyo, there to "purchase" and to prey upon these countries' young women. Knowledge of the nature of culture contacts disseminated through simulation centers could minimize such deliberately incurred cultural clashes. On the more positive side of work that could be done, there is the example of "Cyclorama" which the United States exhibits in Japan and elsewhere and which consists simply of a circular projection of films of life in the United States cast life-sized upon the circular walls around the spectators, so that citizens of Tokyo can imagine themselves walking through the streets of New York. Simulation centers in which intended visitors of one country are exposed on their own home territory to a condensed impact of another render the passage from culture to culture incomparably smoother and the goodwill reaped from the visits incomparably larger. All planned exchanges should be graduated to assure a controlled intensity of immersion abroad. It will no longer do simply to dump groups of visitors in airports and railroad stations, hence to be "integrated" into the culture by porters and taxicab drivers. Any forethought is better than

Appendix 3

259

none. As one example of many now in operation, the University of Hawaii reports the goodwill among its Asian students resulting from orientation programs which include such light touches as dances and being met at the Honolulu airport by fellow students who bestow a lei and a kiss.16 One more example of a graduated culture contact is the JapaneseAmerican Teacher Program established by the Ford Foundation and administered by the Institute of International Education and Teachers College, Columbia University. This program (the results of which form the substance of this book) was devoted to the exposure of the Japanese teachers to American classroom practices. It was especially important that the Japanese teachers, who are more often than not suspicious of America, should not feel that their exposure to this country was rigged for propaganda purposes. Their initial introduction to America had to avoid the accusation that their experience was artificially contrived. Accordingly, in collaboration with the International Education Association of Japan, the preparation of participants for the American experience began six months beforehand in a series of activities directed from Tokyo. Selections for the field study were made from among the best teachers nominated by each prefecture. They were introduced to English language training by way of tapes presenting a series of the most-often-used American phrases. They were invited to regional and national seminars in which American and Japanese education was discussed with Japanese and American education specialists. They were given a series of books in English and Japanese dealing with American education written at an increasingly complicated level. They were supplied with pamphlets and memorandums about the local communities which they were to visit. They were asked to write essays formulating research proposals and identifying special interests which they wished to pursue through direct observation. Their personal data were carefully blueprinted in order to fit most closely their experiences in America to their personal interests. Upon arrival in the United States the participants (as already indicated in the preface) spent ten days in the School of International Training of the Experiment in International Living at Brattleboro, Vermont, where in uncomplicated rural surroundings they furthered their knowledge of American culture and of English. They introduced themselves to society in a series of meetings with different ¿roups of Americans including high school students. Only after such preparation the participants were funneled out to New York and to Washington to a schedule of contacts of increasing intensity which culminated in a series of homestays with American families coupled with a three-week period of direct observations of American classrooms at the local school level. This "compression" period was followed eventually by a period of "decompression." During their homestays the participants met almost daily to compare notes and to discuss their findings. A one-week seminar at the East-West Center in Hawaii which completed their visit was devoted entirely to discussions of their impressions. Concluding seminars in Japan after three and six months firmed up the teachers' contributions. These appeared each year in the form of books.17 Lectures, television appearances, newspaper articles, and regional seminars continue to maintain the active interest of the alumni in the program. They were, among

260

Appendix S

others, asked to coach those selected for travel in subsequent years. After four years the program had at its disposal all over Japan a core of 150 devoted teachers, many subsequently promoted to supervisory positions, ready to participate in a reverse activity—that of receiving visits from American teachers. A less successful arrangement of this particular example of exchange would have damaged the conversations that must be established between Japanese and American classroom teachers. It is vital that American and Japanese educators should be exchanging notes continuously at least for two reasons. The first is that the basis of American education has too often been misinterpreted by Japanese educators. The forcible transplantation of some American features to Japan after World War II caused emotional difficulties and critical reaction even against the good importations such as that which allowed the overhauling of the university system. Other reforms could have been fruitful if they were understood in context. Social studies failed in Japan because to this day Japanese teachers do not clearly understand the degree of moral education implicit in the American practice. Japanese educators critical of their own centralized administration of schools pointed with approval to local responsibilities in the United States. It is important to learn also of the weaknesses of locally run schools and to witness the attempts by the Americans to increase federal responsibility for education. These examples merely indicate the many areas in American education which could be of interest to Japanese educators in solving their own problems. In addition the schools of the United States, as in many other sections of American life, are characterized by vigorous experimentation and search for novelty, which could be studied and perhaps tried in Japan. The two countries are already very close in the degree of use of educational films and television. In addition, reforms such as programmed learning, the use of computers in education, team-teaching, nongraded schools, and teachers' aides could be usefully studied. The second reason for Japanese-American exchanges lies in the fact that Japan possesses at present probably the best mass school system in the world. In quantity Japan is on the verge of surpassing the United States in percentage of youngsters which it graduates from high school. In quality Japan is closer to the academic excellence of the western Europeans and the Russians than to the more practical-minded American school. The recently published cross-national study of educational attainment,18 which examined the achievement in mathematics of thirteen- and seventeen-year-olds in twelve countries placed the Japanese performance at the very top and far above other countries including the United States. American teachers could benefit, by understanding how Japan succeeds in maintaining a virtually universal literacy (99 percent) and high standards of academic attainment for all while enrolling up to 70 percent of her junior high school graduates in senior high schools and 15 percent of her high school graduates in the universities. Americans could also learn much from the way the Japanese handle their deprived children in the slum schools of Osaka and Tokyo or in the remote mountain schools of Hokkaido or Iwate. More significant to American teachers would be an understanding of how Japan achieves a high level of personal culture

Appendix 3

261

even among her working-class people. This personal culture, reflected in the manners, the good taste, and the sensitivity to beauty of all the Japanese people, embodies precisely those qualities for which American mass education is groping as it grows to maturity. Whereas other mass systems, especially the American and the Soviet, concentrate their attention almost exclusively on expansion and change, Japan's system has been more successful in blending harmoniously change and stability, tradition and progress, the old and the new. As a result there is an aura of remarkable wholesomeness around Japanese schools which has now begun to attract the attention of foreign educators. Beginning with the 1961 Tokyo conference of the Ministers of Education of Asian countries, an increasing number of foreign educational delegations have wanted to study Japanese schools. This imposes upon Japanese educators the duty of not only serving their own country well but also of acting as a model for other countries. And no system can be perfect or continue to improve unless it continuously compares itself with other systems. This lesson has been and must continue to be the underpinning of cross-educational exchanges between industrial countries.19 If only barriers of language and cultural differences could be successfully overcome, everything else would follow to ensure the resounding success of Japanese-American intellectual relations. But the seeking of mutual advantage from cultural cooperation between Japan and the United States must be ennobled by an addition of awareness that the lessons learned by the two countries have an international meaning. It is up to the leading industrial nations to act out the belief that the term "international" cooperation is a misnomer. "International" implies narrow activity between nations and continued insistence on dealing through binational units, especially in the field of intellectual cooperation; this is a cruel hoax in an age in which regional units have replaced or should be replacing the obsolescent and harmful national concepts. In an age in which we talk about the Arab nations, Latin American bloc, "international" cooperation can only mean "global." Global cooperation begins, like the journey in the Chinese proverb, with the first step when one researcher measures himself up against the exacting standards of another. From there it accumulates as different men put their experience into the common treasury. In intellectual fields the cooperation of man with man and group with group widens automatically, and theoretically one need hardly be aware when the process crosses national frontiers. Japan and the United States should view their partnership, not as good business for themselves, but as a pilot project of cooperation among all nations which is couched not in "national" but in "human" terms. In practice, cooperation must proceed through national units because language barriers, cultural differences, and deliberate obstacles to exchange placed by national laws are the very essence of that with which global movements toward cultural unity must be concerned. But efforts to overcome these must not lend comfort to countercyclical by-products such as the avidity with which nations count their Olympic medals or the secrecy with which they veil their intellectual achievements to gain military advantage. Indeed, the horrors of chauvinism are as often as not heightened by international exposure. International cooperation and global

262

Appendix 3

cooperation can be interchangeable synonyms only when both are placed in the context of one world. Those who engage in international cooperation primarily to augment some selfishly conceived national interest have little in common with those willing to act even against the interests of one's own nation if such is the need of mankind as a whole. With their immense power for good or evil, the United States and Japan must protect these global meanings by their collaboration. They must do so particularly because both cultures are regarded by many nations as being too nationalistic, even racist. In spite of valiant efforts to curb discrimination against minorities, in spite of torrents of protestations, the Anglo-Saxon and the Japanese people continue often to be xenophobic, endogamous, ethnocentric. The Foreign Service of the United States, for instance, rotates its officers from country to country sometimes after all-too-short periods of duty. It is thought that if they remain in one country too long their local ties will become so strong that they may act in favor of host nations against American interests. Narrowly conceived American nationalistic advantage is evidently thought to be a greater good than selfless service for the benefit of the usually less-privileged foreign peoples. If further proof is wanted, one needs to go no further than the announcement by former President Johnson that western Europeans (but not Asians) will henceforth be allowed to tour the United States without visas; a measure not all that far away from the English law limiting immigration of British Asians from East Africa. The Japanese need not be outraged or find self-righteous comfort in this. The Japanese record of dealing with children of mixed American-Japanese ancestry or with the Koreans who settled in Japan or with the Ainu is hardly without blemish. The Japanese people have, after all, modernized in order to remain Japanese, and in personal, social, and national contexts continue to exhibit "Japan first" attitudes. The intellectual ties which Japan and the United States are building should, therefore, be furthered with special emphasis on their being East-West and not purely national ties. Their success should demonstrate the manifest goodwill of Japan and the United States toward the world, toward other nations and races. Only such an altruistic approach to exchanges can overcome the latent contrary condition.

Notes

PREFACE 1. The publications of the Japanese-American Teacher Program listed below are indicated by roman numerals. These numerals alone will be used throughout the rest of the notes. JAPANESE LANGUAGE PUBLICATIONS

I. Gemba Kyoshi no tntta Amerika no Kyoiku: Rokujuyon nen do Amerika tanki Ryugaki Kokoku Shu [American education through the eyes of teachers at work: Report of three-month study in the United States in 1964], vol. 1 (Tokyo: Association of International Education, February 1965), 488 p. II. Gemba Kyoshi no mita Amerika no Kyoiku, Dai ni shu: Dai ni Hikaku Kyoiku Semina, Togi Kiroku [American education through the eyes of teachers at work: Second issue, the second comparative education seminar, records of discussion], vol. 2 (Tokyo: Association of International Education, February 1966), 163 p. III. Gemba Kyoshi no mita Amerika no Kyoiku; Gijutsu Kakushin Jidai ni okeru Kyoshi no Arikata o chushin toshite: Kokusai Kyoiku Kai Hokoku dai san shu, Dai ni kai (Tokujuroku nen do) Amerika tanki Ryugaku Hokoku [American education through the eyes of teachers at work: Emphasis on the role of teachers in the age of technological innovation, the third report of the Association of International Education, the second report of threemonth study in the United States, 1966], vol. 3 (Tokyo: Bunkyo Shoin, November 1966), 476 p. IV. Gemba Kyoshi no mita Amerika no Kyoiku; Gijutsu Kakushin Jidai ni okeru nozomashi Kokumin ni Ikusei to Kyoshi no Arikata: Dai yon shu, Dai i Kai Hikaku Kyoiku Chuo Kenkyu Semina, Togi Kiroku [American education through the eyes of teachers at work: Education for good citizenship and the role of teachers in the age of technological innovation; fourth issue, the first com263

264

Notes

V.

VI.

VII.

VIII. IX.

parative education central research seminar, records of discussion], vol. 4 (Tokyo: Association of International Education, April 1967), 199 p. Gemba Kyoshi no mita Amerika no Kyoiku, Gvjutsu Kakushin Jidai ni okerti Ningensei Jujttsu no Kyoiku [American education through the eyes of the teachers at work: Education for the achievement of humanity], vol. 5 (Tokyo: Association of International Education, July 1968), 514 p. Gemba Kyoshi no mita Amerika no Kyoiku: Fujiyoshida Semina no Matome [American education through the eyes of teachers at work: Summary of the Fujiyoshida seminar], vol. 6 (Tokyo: Association of International Education, December 1968), 47 p. Gemba Kyoshi no mita Amerika no Kyoiku, Gijutsu Kakushin Jidai ni okeru Nooryoku o Nobasu Kyoiku [American education through the eyes of teachers at work: Education for the development of abilities in the age of technological reform], vol. 7 (Tokyo: Association of International Education, June 1969), 508 p. Kaigai Genchi Choosa no Tebiki [Guide to field observation abroad] (Tokyo: Association of International Education, September 1967), 79 p. Kokusai Kyoiku [Education in world perspective], no. 1, December 1967; no. 2, March 1968; no. 3, May 1968; no. 4, July 1968; no. 5, November 1968; no. 6, January 1969; no. 7, July 1969.

ENGLISH LANGUAGE PUBLICATIONS

X. Japanese-American Teacher Program, 1964 (New York: Teachers College, Columbia University), 69 p. XI. Japanese-American Teacher Program, 1966 (New York: Teachers College, Columbia University), 130 p. XII. Japanese-American Teacher Program, 1967 and 1968 (New York: Teachers College, Columbia University), 268 p. In addition the project has on file verbatim minutes and recordings of its several meetings taken by the Japanese coauthor. These will be referred to in the rest of the notes by the letter of the relevant memorandum. UNPUBLISHED JAPANESE LANGUAGE MATERIALS

XIII. Masui, S., "Memorandum A, Selection and Orientation Seminar," Team 1, June 1964. XIV. Masu, S., "Memorandum B, Follow-up Seminar," Team 1 (1964), Februaiy-March, 1965. XV. Masui, S., "Memorandum C, United States Trip," Team 2, March-June, 1966. XVI. Masui, S., "Memorandum D, Okayama-Tottori Dissemination Seminar," Team 2, September 1966; "Follow-up Seminar," Team 2, November 1966. XVII. Masui, S., "Memorandum E, Follow-up Seminar," Team 3 (1967), February 1968.

Notes

2. 3. 4. 5.

265

XVIII. Masui, S., "Memorandum F, United States Trip," Team 4, September-November (1968). XIX. Masui, S., "Memorandum G, Follow-up Seminar," Team 4 (1968), February 1969. Stewart E. Frazer, ed., American Education in Foreign Perspectives: Twentieth Century Essays (New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1969). George Z. F. Bereday, William W. Brickman, and Gerald Read, The Changing Soviet School (Boston: Houghton Mifflin Co., 1960). George Z. F. Bereday, Comparative Method in Education (New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston, 1964), p. 156-168. For instance, Harlan Cleveland, Gerald J. Mangone, and John D. Adams, The Overseas Americans (New York: McGraw-Hill Book Co., 1960).

CHAPTER 1. SCHOOL ADMINISTRATION: CENTRALIZED VERSUS DECENTRALIZED 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32.

I, p. 23. Ibid. I, p. 22. Ibid., p. 23. Ibid., p. 19. Ibid., p. 23. Ibid., p. 19. Ill, p. 134. Ibid., p. 216. Ibid., p. 216 and 217. I, p. 23. II, p. 54-55. V, p. 127-128. Masui, Memorandum C. Bereday, Interview 7 in XII, p. 226-227. Masui, Memorandum A. IV, p. 69. Ibid., p. 55. Ill, p. 125. Ibid., p. 127. I, p. 280. Ill, p. 152-153. I, p. 28. Masui, Memorandum B. Ill, p. 115. II, p. 60. I, p. 35. Ill, p. 81-82. Ibid., p. 129. Ibid., p. 126. Ibid., p. 127-128. Masui, Memorandum B.

266 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. 41. 42. 43. 44. 45. 46. 47. 48. 49. 50. 51. 52. 53. 54. 55. 56. 57. 58. 59. 60. 61.

Notes VII, p. 39-50. Masui, Memorandum B. Bereday, Interview 9 in XII, p. 230-231. VII, p. 67. IV, p. 9-10. Ibid., p. 77. Ill, p. 135. Ibid., p. 111. II, p. 62. IV, p. 164. Ibid., p. 165. Ibid., p. 166. Ill, p. 159-160. Ibid., p. 162. Masui, Memorandum B. II, p. 62-63. Ibid. Ibid. I, p. 43. VII, p. 80. Ibid., p. 43-44. Masui, Memorandum D. IV, p. 17. I, p. 20. IV, p. 67-68. Ibid. Ibid., p. 69. Ibid., p. 17. Masui, Memorandum A.

CHAPTER 2.

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17.

DEVELOPMENT OF T H E "WHOLE M A N " THE SEARCH FOR MORAL EDUCATION IN AMERICAN SCHOOLS

Bereday, Interview 1 in XII, p. 214. I, p. 195. Ibid. I, p. 220-221. Masui, Memorandum B. II, p. 105-106. Ill, p. 135-136. I, p. 120. V, p. 73. Ibid., p. 91. I, p. 212-213. Ill, p. 117. VI, p. 7. Ill, p. 108. Masui, Memorandum C. VI, p. 9. Ibid., p. 5-6.

Notes 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. 41. 42. 43. 44. 45. 46. 47. 48. 49. 50. 51. 52. 53. 54. 55. 56. 57. 58. 59. 60. 61. 62. 63. 64. 65. 66. 67.

V, p. 70-71. I, p. 225. Masui, Memorandum C. III, p. 218. II, p. 109-110. I, p. 240. V, p. 93-94. II, p. 108. Bereday, Interview 15 in XII, p. 243-244. Bereday, Interview 9 in XII, p. 235-237. I, p. 248-252. Masui, Memorandum G. Ibid. Ibid. Ibid., p. 56. Bereday, Interview, XVI, unpublished. I, p. 91. Ibid., p. 230. Ibid., p. 254. Masui, Memorandum B. Masui, Memorandum G. II, p. 90-92. V, p. 82. Ibid., p. 70-75. VII, p. 81. III, p. 365. IV, p. 30. Masui, Memorandum B. II, p. 41. III, p. 155. VI, p. 4. I, p. 214. V, p. 438-439. IV, p. 26. I, p. 243-244. Ibid., p. 225. III, p. 363-364. I, p. 267. Masui, Memorandum G, taped record. II, p. 112. Ibid., p. 114. III, p. 97. I, p. 223-224. Ibid., p. 230. Ibid., p. 223. Ibid., p. 241-242. Ibid., p. 198. III, p. 372. II, p. 121. Masui, Memorandum B.

268

Notes

68. I, p. 228. 69. Ibid., p. 220. C H A P T E R 3. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. 41. 42. 43. 44. 45.

FAMILY, CHURCH, AND COMMUNITY AS AGENTS O F MORAL EDUCATION

IV, p. 43. I, p. 211. Masui, Memorandum C. Ill, p. 398-399. II, p. 105. Bereday, Interview 2 in XII, p. 216-217. II, p. 112. Masui, Memorandum C. II, p. 122. Bereday, Interview 1 in XII, p. 211-212. I, p. 216. VI, p. 13. Ill, p. 400. V, p. 418. Ibid., p. 411. XII, p. 109-110. II, p. 38. XII, p. 89. I, p. 119. Ibid., p. 218. II, p. 120. I, p. 198. Ibid., p. 200. Ibid., p. 197. Ibid., p. 218. VI, p. 42. Masui, Memorandum G. IV, p. 129. Ibid., p. 129. Ibid., p. 130-131. II, p. 46-49. I, p. 110. Masui, Memorandum G. Masui, Memorandum G, taped record. VI, p. 2. Masui, Memorandum G. I, p. 226. Ibid., p. 201. XII, p. 110. II, p. 42. Masui, Memorandum B. VI, p. 35. Ibid., p. 8. Masui, Memorandum A. V, p. 78.

Notes 46. 47. 48. 49. 50. 51. 52. 53. 54. 55. 56. 57. 58. 59. 60.

269

III, p. 363-364. IV, p. 125-128. Masui, Memorandum A. I, p. 24. IV, p. 138. Masui, Memorandum A. Ibid. Shigeo Masui, "The Problem of the Comprehensive School in Japan," International Review of Education 17 (1971): 30-31. I, p. 201-202. Masui, Memorandum A. I, p. 196-197. VI, p. 30. Masui, Memorandum G. Masui, Memorandum C. Ibid.

CHAPTER 4. THEORY AND PRACTICE IN THE CLASSROOM 1. I, p. 94. 2. Victor N. Kobayashi, John Dewey in Japanese Educational Thought (Ann Arbor: School of Education, University of Michigan, Comparative Education Dissertation Series, no. 2, 1964), 198 p. Also see M. Hiratsuka and B. Iwahashi, "Progressivism as the Basic Factor in the Curriculum of Japanese Schools," in The Secondary School Curriculum: The Year Book of Education, 1958, eds. George Z. F. Bereday and Joseph A. Lauwerys (Yonkers: World Book Co., 1958), p. 528-535. 3. VII, p. 409-410. 4. I, p. 274-275. 5. Masui, Memorandum B. 6. Ill, p. 103. 7. Ibid., p. 269. 8. Ibid., p. 90-92. 9. Ibid., p. 210-211. 10. Masui, Memorandum C. 11. V, p. 102-104. 12. Ill, p. 367. 13. Masui, Memorandum B. 14. VII, p. 294. 15. Masui, Memorandum C. 16. Ill, p. 294. 17. Ibid., p. 370. 18. Masui, Memorandum B. 19. VI, p. 10-11. 20. II, p. 47-48. 21. Ill, p. 95. 22. Masui, Memorandum G. 23. Masui, Memorandum E. 24. Ill, p. 239-240. 25. Masui, Memorandum E. 26. II, p. 78-79.

270 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. 41. 42. 43. 44. 45. 46. 47. 48. 49. 50. 51. 52. 53. 54. 55. 56. 57. 58. 59. 60. 61. 62. 63. 64.

Notes Masui, Memorandum Masui, Memorandum II, p. 40-41. IX, no. 5, p. 6. Masui, Memorandum Ill, p. 107. IV, p. 183-189. Masui, Memorandum VIII, p. 347-348. Ill, p. 82-83. Ibid., p. 204. Ibid., p. 102-103. Masui, Memorandum Ill, p. 169. II, p. 68. Ibid., p. 33-34. Ill, p. 175-177. Masui, Memorandum Ibid. Masui, Memorandum Masui, Memorandum Masui, Memorandum VII, p. 163. Ibid., p. 185. I, p. 208-210. Ibid., p. 114^115. I, p. 159-162. Ill, p. 217-218. Ibid., p. 175-177. Masui, Memorandum Ill, p. 98. I, p. 108. Ill, p. 308-309. Masui, Memorandum Masui, Memorandum VII, p. 204. I, p. 184, 186. Ibid., p. 159-162.

G. B. G. G.

G.

C. F. G. E.

B.

F. G.

CHAPTER 5. THE TEACHING OF SUBJECT MATTER 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10.

VII, p. 135-136. Ill, p. 209-210. VII, p. 128. Masui, Memorandum G. Ibid. Ill, p. 374-375. Masui, Memorandum G. Ibid. VII, p. 205. Ibid., p. 211-213.

Notes 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. 41. 42. 43. 44. 45. 46. 47. 48. 49. 50. 51. 52. 53. 54. 55. 53. 57. 58. 59. 60.

Bereday, Interview 4 in XII, p. 219-221. VII, p. 312. Masui, Memorandum G. III, p. 275. V, p. 106-107. I, p. 61-62. VII, p. 164. I, p. 95-96. IX, no. 2, p. 4C. Bereday, Interview 3 in XII, p. 217-219. Masui, Memorandum B. Ill, p. 206-209. Ibid., p. 210. Masui, Memorandum B. VII, p. 185. Ibid., p. 201-204. Bereday, Interview 13 in XII, p. 239-240. I, p. 503. VII, p. 193-194. Ill, p. 204. Ill, p. 229. Masui, Memorandum B. IV, p. 89. I, p. 116. Ibid., p. 115. Ibid., p. 112. Ibid., p. 118. Ibid., p. 117. Ill, p. 126-127. Masui, Memorandum G. Ill, p. 171-172. I, p. 130. Ill, p. 167-168. Masui, Memorandum G. Bereday, Interview 5 in XII, p. 221-222. Masui, Memorandum G. VII, p. 236-240. Bereday, Interview 12 in XII, p. 237-239. Ill, p. 197-198. Ibid., p. 197-198. IV, p. 90. Ill, p. 310-311. VII, p. 240-241. V, p. 341-342. VII, p. 236-241. Masui, Memorandum G. VII, p. 223-224. Ibid., p. 232-233. Bereday, Interview 6 in XII, p. 223-224. VII, p. 334-335.

271

272 61. 62. 63. 64. 65. 66. 67. 68. 69. 70.

Notes Ibid., p. 323. Ibid., p. 331. Ibid., p. 325-326. Ibid., p. 339. V, p. 237. Ibid., p. 246-247. III, p. 402-403. II, p. 101. Masui, Memorandum B. I, p. 115.

CHAPTER 6. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13.

14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35.

SPECIAL ISSUES IN THE CURRICULUM

II, p. 81-83. VI, p. 22. V, p. 345. Ibid., p. 152-153. Masui, Memorandum E. VI, p. 24. V, p. 201-202. Ibid., p. 85-86. Masui, Memorandum G. IX, no. 5, p. 5. I, p. 170-171. V, p. 179. Ronald P. Dore, "Talent and the Social Order in Tokugawa, Japan," in Studies in the Institutional History of Early Modern Japan, eds. John W. Hall and M. B. Jansen (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1968), p. 349-362. V, p. 151. VI, p. 17-21. Ibid., p. 22-23. Ill, p. 188-189. V, p. 203. Ibid., p. 86-87. VI, p. 39-40. V, p. 406. I, p. 226-227. Ill, p. 80. IV, p. 183-189. Ill, p. 76-78. Ibid., p. 209. Masui, Memorandum G. Bereday, Interview 14 in XII, p. 241-242. I, p. 206. Bereday, Interview 2 in XII, p. 215. Bereday, Interview 10 in XII, p. 231-233. Masui, Memorandum G. Ibid. Masui, Memorandum F. VII, p. 271.

273

Notes 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. 41. 42. 43. 44. 45. 46. 47. 48. 49.

Ibid., p. 279-280. Masui, Memorandum IX, no. 5, p. 6. Masui, Memorandum Ibid. V, p. 70-75. IX, no. 5, p. 7A. VII, p. 281-284. Ibid., p. 357-358. Masui, Memorandum Masui, Memorandum Masui, Memorandum VII, p. 263. Masui, Memorandum

CHAPTER 7. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34.

G. G.

C. B. G. A.

THE STATUS AND DUTIES OF TEACHERS

Ill, p. 15. Ibid., p. 154. IV, p. 165. II, p. 36-37. Ibid., p. 39-40. IV, p. 165. Ibid., p. 290. Masui, Memorandum B. II, p. 39-40. IV, p. 24-25. Ibid., p. 26-30. V, p. 199. IV, p. 14. Ibid., p. 12. Masui, Memorandum B. Ill, p. 146-147. Ibid. Masui, Memorandum C. VII, p. 47. Ibid., p. 46. I, p. 287-288. Ill, p. 132, 156-157. Masui, Memorandum A. Ibid. I, p. 35. Masui, Memorandum B. I, p. 32-33. V, p. 206. Masui, Memorandum B. Bereday, Interview 8 in XII, p. 228-229. VII, p. 95. Ibid., p. 98-99. Ibid., p. 103-104, 106. IX, no. 2, p. 7.

274 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. 41. 42. 43. 44. 45. 46. 47. 48. 49. 50. 51. 52. 53. 54. 55. 56. 57. 58. 59. 60. 61. 62. 63. 64. 65. 66. 67. 68. 69. 70. 71. 72. 73. 74. 75. 76. 77. 78.

Notes VII, p. 100. IV, p. 179-180. Masui, Memorandum H. Ibid. Ill, p. 162-164. Ibid. Ill, p. 153. Ibid., p. 99. IV, p. 169-170. Ibid., p. 156. I, p. 53. Ibid., p. 285. IV, p. 284. II, p. 136-137. Ibid., p. 131. IV, p. 29. Masui, Memorandum B. I, p. 276. II, p. 135-137. IV, p. 25. Ibid., p. 275. Masui, Memorandum B. VII, p. 46. I, p. 95. Ibid., p. 291-298. Masui, Memorandum B. I, p. 288. II, p. 40. VII, p. 48. IV, p. 28. Masui, Memorandum B. IX, no. 2, p. 6. Masui, Memorandum E. V, p. 287. VII, p. 48. Masui, Memorandum B. IV, p. 24. Masui, Memorandum B. IV, p. 174. Ibid., p. 49. I, p. 301-303. Ibid., p. 305-306. Ill, p. 408-409. IX, no. 2, p. 7.

CHAPTER 8.

CONCLUSIONS

1. Bereday, Interview 5 in XII, p. 222-223. 2. Jacques Barzun, The House of Intellect 1959), 274 p.

(New York: Harper & Row,

Notes

275

3. David Riesman, Constraint and Variety in American Education (Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 1966), 160 p. R. Freeman Butts, Assumptions Underlying Australian Education (Melbourne: Australian Council for Educational Research, 1955), 80 p. Helen B. Redl, ed., Soviet Educators on Soviet Education (New York: Macmillan Co., Free Press, 1964), 252 p. 4. George Z. F. Bereday, Comparative Method in Education (New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston, 1964), p. 156-168. 5. XII, p. 97-98. 6. X, p. 39-42; XII, p. 251-254. 7. XII, p. 251. 8. Bereday, Interview 6 in XII, p. 224-225. A P P E N D I X 3.

TOWARD IMPROVED JAPANESE-AMERICAN CULTURAL EXCHANGES

1. Herbert Passin, ed., Society and Education in Japan, Comparative Education Studies (New York: Teachers College Press, Columbia University, 1965), p. 3; and document 18, p. 214-315. 2. Paraphrased from XI, p. 2 and 3. 3. Masunori Hiratsuka and Bunkichi Iwahashi, "Progressivism as the Basic Factor in the Curriculum of Japanese Schools," in The Secondary School Curriculum: The Year Book of Education, 1958, eds., George Z. F. Bereday and Joseph A. Lauwerys (New York: World Book Company, 1958), p. 528. 4. Donald Adams and Robert Bjork, "Modernization as Affected by Governmental and International Educational Influences: Japan" in Governmental Policy and International Education, ed. Stewart Frazer (New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1965), p. 292. 5. A study of the circumstances of their resettlement has been made by Mary H. Bereday, "Japanese Artists in New York City" (Ed.D. diss., Teachers College, Columbia University, 1973). 6. Annual Report of the Ministry of Education, Education in 1965 (Tokyo: August 1967), MEJ6673; and Education in Japan: Graphic Presentation (Tokyo: Ministry of Education, April 1967) MEJ6669. These publications are eleventh in a continuing series. Also published by the Ministry of Education are several special studies. These titles include Demand and Supply of Graduates from Secondary Schools and Universities (1961, 70 p . ) ; Demand and Supply of University Graduates (1958, 69 p . ) ; National Surveys of Educational Expenditures (1961, 57 p . ) ; National Surveys of Scholastic Achievement (1961, 31 p . ) ; Revised Curriculum in Japan for Elementary and Lower Secondary Schools (1960, 66 p . ) ; Science Achievement in Japan; Report of the 1957 Nation-Wide Survey (1959, 122 p.); Local Educational Expenditures in Japan, 1960-1961 (1962, 386 p.); Japans Growth and Education: Educational Development in Relation to Socio-Economic Growth (1963, 243 p . ) ; Educational Development in 1966-67: Report Presented at the XXXth International Conference on Public Education, Geneva (July 1967, 50 p . ) ; Educational Standards in Japan: The 1964 White Paper on Education (1965, 222 p.); Education in Asia (1964, 218 p.) 7. The examples of relevant or related "conference" books are: Proceedings

276

8.

9. 10. 11.

12. 13. 14. 15.

16.

17. 18. 19.

Notes of the International Conference on Educational Research (Tokyo: The Organizing Committee, International Conference on Educational Research, 1961), 334 p.; Present Status of Educational Research in Japan, Supplement to the Proceedings of the International Conference on Educational Research (The Organizing Committee, International Conference on Educational Research, 1961), 182 p.; Herbert Passin, ed., The United States and Japan, American Assembly (New York: Prentice-Hall, 1966), 174 p.; Marius B. Jansen, ed., Changing Japanese Attitudes toward Modernization, Studies in the Modernization of Japan (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1965), 546 p. (the first of five projected volumes). Herbert Passin, "Japanese Education: Guide to Bibliography in the English Language," Comparative Education Review 9 ( 1 9 6 5 ) : 81-101; and Japanese Education: A Bibliography of Materials in the English Language, Center for Education in Industrial Nations (New York: Teachers College Press, Columbia University, 1970). George Z. F. Bereday, "Japanese Studies on Soviet Education," Comparative Education Review 8 ( 1 9 6 4 ) : 176-185. George Z. F. Bereday, Comparative Method in Education (New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston, 1964), p. 135. Hiroshi Miyazaki, "The Use of Radio, Film, and Television in Teaching International Understanding in School in Japan," in Education and International Life: The Year Book of Education, 1964, eds. George Z. F. Bereday and Joseph A. Lauwerys (New York: Harcourt, Brace & World, 1964), p. 354-360. Harlan Cleveland, Gerard J. Mangone, and John D. Adams, The Overseas Americans (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1960), p. 28. John W. Bennett, Herbert Passin, and Robert K. McKnight, In Search of Identity: The Japanese Overseas Scholars in America and Japan (Minneapolis: The University of Minnesota Press, 1958), 369 p. Paraphrased from X, p. x. F. Champion Ward, "Toward Universal Curriculum" in International Education: Past, Present, Problems and Prospects (Washington: U.S. House of Representatives, Committee on Education and Labor, 1966), p. 120. Sumie F. McCabe, "The University of Hawaii Orientation Center," in The Rising Demand for International Education: The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 335 ( 1 9 6 1 ) , John F. Melby, ed., p. 40-41. See note 1 to the Preface. Torsten Husen, ed., International Study of Achievement in Mathematics (New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1967), vol. 1, 304 p.; vol. 2, 368 p. Paraphrased from X, p. iv, and from XI, p. 3.

Index

ability grouping: children's response to, 151, 154; controversy over, 149-159; Japanese responses to, 149-150, 153159; weaknesses inherent in, 152-153 administrators: burdens of American, 20; Japanese attitude toward American, 19-20 agriculture, 142-144 American Association of University of Women, 249 American Field Service, 249 Amherst-Doshisha Program, 249 art, 133 centralized control of Japanese school system: conditioning of Japanese teachers toward, 2, 11; Japanese teachers' restlessness at, xi classroom management: comparison of American and Japanese flexibility in, 103-104; emphasis on English language instruction in, 106; Japanese impressions of American, 105-109 collective behavior: in Japan, 43; in the Soviet Union, 43 community, role of moral education of children in, 77-80 Comparative Education Society: of America, 249; of Japan, 250 conflict in human organizations, 3-4 cultural customs: differences among, 235-239; simulation centers, 257 curricula: comparison of American and Japanese, 91-92, 109-110, 169-170; decision-making concerning, 169-170; diversification of, 98, 101-102; effectiveness of, 172-173; flexibility of,

187-188; individualized, 95-98; innovations and reforms in, 159-166; range of subjects in, 98-103; recommendations for Japanese, 166-174; special issues of, and ability groupings, 149-159 decentralization in America: 1, 3, 8, 12-13, 25; conditioning of Japanese teachers against, 5; issues of, 3-28. See also school systems Dewey, John, 93, 105 discipline: in American and Japanese families, 82-83; in Japanese schools, 79; at the lower levels, 61-62, 79 educational exchanges between Japan and the United States, historical background of, 245-247 educational philosophy, 36-37, 172-174 English: importance of instruction in, 115-118; speech specialists' role in teaching of, 116 Experiment in International Living, Vermont, 233, 258 extracurricular activities, 147-148 family, American r as agent of moral training, 66-74, 80; compared with Japanese, 67-69; ties to die schools, 72 family, Japanese: compared with American, 67-69; relations with schools, 86 federal government: ambivalence of American teachers toward, in American schools, 7-8; role of, in American schools, 5-8

277

Index

278 foreign languages: American approach to teaching of, 118-119; Japanese approach to teaching of, 119-121 France, educational changes in, 220 Fulbright and Smith-Mundt cultural exchange, 249 Great Britain, compulsory schooling in, 220 group training, 43-45 handicapped, education for the, 144-146 hierarchy of control in education, 14-15 Hitotsubashi University, 250 Hokkaido University, 248 homeroom: comparison between American and Japanese, 55; functioning of, 51-55; introduction to Japan of, 5153; Japanese criticisms of American, 52-55 individuality: American concern for, 46; personal guidance in the schools and, 51 industrial arts, 140-142 Institute for Democratic Education, Japan, 250 Institute for International Education, xiii International Education Association of Tokyo, 258 International Teacher Development Program, 249 Japan: administration of educational functions in, 1, 5; high school examinations in, 241; literacy in, 219; moral education in, 29-30, 32; progressive ideas in, 92-95 Japan Science Council, 250 Japan Teachers Union, 250 Japanese-American: Assembly, 251; exchange of publications, 251; Teacher Program, ix, xii-xiii, 250 Japanese customs, 233, 235-239 Japanese higher education: control of, 28; curriculum instruction in, 170173; emphasis on humanism in, 3031; examination system in, 169; methods of instruction in, 168; new educational movement in, 248 language: barrier, 234-235, 254; derived words in English, 255; training, 256257 learning systems, 172-174, 217-219

local control of the schools: Japanese observations on, 15-16; merits and demerits of, 18; rationale of, 15; teachers' opinions of, 14—15 mass education, 219 mathematics and the new math, 125126 Meiji reforms, 30 Ministry of Education in Japan, 10-11, 161, 249-250 modernization of schools: in Japan, 160161; problems concerning, 161-162; in the United States, 160 modular flexible scheduling, 163-164 moral education: 220; within American schools, 40-41; defining of, 28-42; discipline and, 61-63; the family as agent in, 66-74; the homeroom and, 51-55; Japanese interest in, 32-35; lack of theory in, 40-41; religion's role in, 74-77; role of community in, 77-79; strengths of, 37-41; vocational guidance to promote, 45—51; weaknesses in, 35-37. See also United States, Japan music, 131-133 national bias inherent in observations, 222-226

National Educational Association, 249 National Leader Project, 249 National Science Foundation, 9 New England Council on Secondary and Higher Education, 9 New York City system of schools, 5 Nichi-Bei Fuoramu (Japanese-American Forum), 254 Parent-Teacher Association, 86 principals: duties and prerogatives of, 23; Japanese conception of, 23-25; and punishments of students, 61-62; relationship with teachers, 23; rights and duties of, 185; role in internal management of schools, 25; as selectors of teachers, 184-185 progressive education: in America, 9295, 100-101; Japanese alternatives to, 92-94 reading, 170-171 religion, role of, in moral training of children, 74-77 Rorschach tests, 50

Index school administrators, 19-25; identification of Japanese teachers to, 19; power of, 19, 21; relationship of, with teachers, 21; role of, in America, 3-4 school finances: in America, 16-17; inequalities in, 18; in Japan, 17 school principals, rights and duties of, 23-24, 185 school systems, 217-219; centralized versus decentralized, 1; change in, 27; comparison of, 79-89; control of, 27; decisions at the local level in, 170; and homes, 170; power struggle in, 13-14 science: Japanese critique of American teaching of, 126-130; in the lower grades, 127; methods of instruction in, 127-128; problems in the teaching of, 128-130 shushin (moral training), 32-33 social studies: in America, 121; Japanese view of America, 123-124 teachers: adverse criticisms of American, 197; appointment policy for, 183—186; attitudes and behavior of, in moral training, 34-35; awareness of self as professionals, 79; biased observations of Japanese, xi; comparison of American and Japanese, 207—213; concern for moral training by Japanese, xi, 40; contracts for, 183; differentiation of function of, 181-183; duties of, 193-194; effectiveness of, 195-199; employment practices of, 195; flexibility of, 104105, 180-183; living conditions of, 179; and local controls, 14-15; merit rating system for, 185-187; methods of instruction of, 215-216; moral obligation of, 174; participation in decision-making by, 21; participation in school government by, 187; permissiveness of, 111-112; prerequisites for American, 184-185; relationships of, 11, 21-23, 189-190, 199-202; relationships with principals, 23, 56-61, 199-201; relationships with pupils, 23; relative freedom of American, 180-183; role of American, 21-23, 27; role of Japanese, 87-88; selfimage of, 178; social status of American and Japanese, 175-180;

279 training of, 202-207; women, 190193 teachers' strike, New York, 189 teaching techniques: in agriculture, 142-144; in art, 133; in English, 115118; in foreign languages, 118-121; in industrial arts, 140-142; in mathematics, 124-126; in music, 131-133; in science, 126-131; in social studies, 121-124; in vocational education, 134-140 team-teaching, 164—165 Tokugawa period, 154 Tokyo Metropolitan Board of Education, 250 Tokyo University, Japan, xii training of children, 166-167 ungraded system, 163 United States, education in: administration of, 9, 18-21; agents of, 65-79; control, 12-13; dynamism of, 173; equalization of achievement of, 4; evaluation of, 215-219; extracurricular activities in, 147-148; government's participation in, 5-7; group methods in, 43-45; guidance facilities in, 45— 56; facilities for the handicapped in, 144-146; homeroom criticism in, 5 0 55; individual methods in, 41-42; local financing in, 15-17; positive aspects of, 37^40; pupil control in, 60-64; relations between faculty and students in, 57-64; school government in, 5; weakness of, 35-37 United States-Japanese cultural exchanges : cross-national conferences in, 252-253; future of, 254-262; historical background of, 247-250; people-to-people contacts in, 252; publication exchange in, 253—254 United States Office of Education, 5 - 8 visual aids, 162 vocational education: differences between American and Japanese, 134140; for girls, 139; Japanese impressions of American, 45-49; need for improved teacher training in, 137138; personal guidance and, 46-47; problems in, 50-51 "whole man" concept in Japan, 30-32, 80 women teachers: criticism against, 192193; status of, 190-193