Social Education and Kominkan
Yoko Arai and Miho Tokiwa-FuseT

he Kominkan, community-based social education institution run
by the education board of the local government, has become a symbol of social education in Japan. It has played a role in ensuring thatpeople at the community level were able to exercise their right to education.
It has invariably been involved in facilitating education on various social
issues.
In 2009, a network of civil society organizations on social education in
Japan prepared a report that dealt with the various aspects of social education in Japan including the role of the Kominkan. The report entitled “Social
Education/Adult Education in Japan: Policies, Practices and Movements
During the Last 12 Years” was prepared by the Japanese Domestic Grassroots Meeting for the Sixth International Conference on Adult Education(confintea VI) in November 2009.1
Below is an edited excerpt of sections of the report focusing mainly
on social education and the Kominkan - their history, significance and thechallenges being faced.
I. Social Education in Japan
Japanese Concept of Social Education2
In Japan, ‘adult education’ (Seijin Kyouiku in Japanese) is not a concept
or term that enjoys wide currency. The commonly used concept is ‘social
education’ (Shakai Kyouiku in Japanese), which can be roughly translated
into adult and community education and is widely used in laws and government policies, and in research and practice.
The forms of education in Japan are conventionally categorized into:a) Home education, which is held privately at home for children;b) School education, which is the formal education for children
or adults at schools; andc) Social education, which includes all educational activities insociety at large falling outside the above a and b categories.
169

170

H u m a n R i g h t s E d u c at i o n i n A s i a - Pa c i f i c

A wide variety of educational activities come under the term ‘social
education’: they can be nonformal education provided by social education
institutions such as the community learning centers run by local governments called Kominkans, public libraries and museums, or learning that accompanies voluntary activities of citizens in clubs, volunteer organizations,community organizations, and so on: they can be conducted inside theclassroom in school-type environment where learners are taught by teachers, or outside the classrooms as self/mutual education activity of a groupof citizens who teach and learn from each other: and participants can be of
any age (children, youth, adults or the elderly) and a mixture of different age
groups (e.g., children and adults).
Social education is closely connected to home education and school
education. It includes such examples as parents’ learning to improve theirhome education and the activities of Parent-Teacher Associations (ptas)
aiming for the betterment of school education. Some local governments
have come to offer social education to the residents almost solely related tohome education.
This phenomenon was promoted by the revision of the Social Education
Act in 2001, which clearly stated that a board of education in a local government has the responsibility for promoting the residents’ learning concerning home education through classes, assemblies and public lectures.
In the three categories of education, adult education overlaps bothschool education and social education: the institutions in the field of school
education include universities, vocational schools (Senshuu Gakkou) andmiscellaneous schools (Kakushu Gakkou, where practical skills such as driving, cooking and foreign languages are taught) and those in social education
are Kominkans, museums, public libraries, public sports facilities and educational institutions for young people with a lodging function called Seinenno Ie.
Adult education is also provided in various institutions that are not administratively designed for education: for example, the labor administration
offices/labor information centers offer seminars and public lectures for employees and employers.
While the Japanese government has conducted a ‘social education survey’ every year, it has been largely indifferent to the profiles (such as thesex and age) of the participants of social education unless the educational
programs in question are targeted to specific sex/age groups. It has tended

Social Education and Kominkan

171

to be satisfied with such rough data as budgets or the number of users of agiven social education institution. For this reason it has not been very usefulwhen one would like to know the state of adult education/learning included
in social education in Japan.
As mentioned above, the concept of social education itself is all-inclusive and indiscriminate about who (and how old) the participants are.
While this is a unique way of categorizing education and has its own merit,in order to grasp in detail the reality of social education, with which adulteducation/learning partly overlaps, it is necessary to modify the methods ofcollecting data for a social education survey.
The Constitution and Fundamental Law of Education
After World War II, Japan enacted a new Constitution with three major
principles: sovereignty resides in the people, respect for the rights of people,
and renunciation of war for peace and democracy. Under this Constitution,
the Fundamental Law of Education was enacted in 1948. This law has thecore idea that the purpose of education is to respect and foster the freedom
and autonomy of individuals and that it is important to protect the independence of education from political powers. Under this idea, local autonomous
bodies (especially municipalities, not prefectures) have the responsibility foreducational administration. And each local autonomous body must have an
education board that is different and independent from the other administrative sections in order to keep educational policies free from any politicalcontrol from other fields.
From the following year, 1949, a series of education-related laws
were enacted including the Social Education Law in 1949, Library Law in1950, Museum Law in 1951, Promotion Law for Youth Class in 1953, andPromotion Law for Sports in 1961.
Right to Social Education
The Social Education Law was soon revised in 1951 with the additionof a new chapter on regulations for social education director. Revision ofsome articles of this law also occurred in 1959. The 1959 revision met resistance because of fear that political control of social education would become stronger. Subsequent amendments of the Social Education Law wereminor, usually with a change of a few words.

172

H u m a n R i g h t s E d u c at i o n i n A s i a - Pa c i f i c

The local governments mainly implemented the social education/adulteducation policies under these education-related laws.
Movements on learning and social education would at times support orjoin the local governments in implementing educational policies, but also
oppose them at other times. Some movements called for change in thesepolicies.
In line with the philosophy of the Fundamental Law of Education,
Article 3 of the Social Education Law provides that “State and Public Bodies”(meaning the national and local governments) have to perform their “function” of assisting in the maintenance of “congenial environment” for the development of social education. Article 12 strictly prohibits these “State andPublic Bodies” from controlling social education organizations and theiractivities.
These articles uphold the philosophy of ‘social education’ that thelearners are the subjects who decide on how to develop their own learning, what cultural and sports activities under some conditions could be created through a variety ways. In short, they state the right to learn from both
points of view of freedom and welfare.
Despite these ideas under the Social Education Law, social educational
policies started to change from late 1950s toward control of learning programs for local residents. Some of the social education (government) officials who supported the residents’ right to learn were moved from the social
education section to other parts of the administration office for politicalreasons. This problem was then known as the “unfair shift of social education officials.” This problem often occurred during the 1960s and the 1970s.
Moreover, some local governments refused to allow some learning activities
of residents to be held in public education facilities.
Against this policy trend, movements of people articulating the rightto learn and the idea of ‘right to social education’ became popular. In somemunicipalities, the power of residents espousing the idea of ‘right to social
education’ changed the social education policies to those that made the residents themselves the leaders in promoting them.
During this period of tension between people and the national and local governments, national-level social education movements were born. For
example, Monthly Journal Social Education started in 1957. This journal
started the annual national conference for social education study in 1961,
which gave birth to the Japan Association for Promotion of Social Education

Social Education and Kominkan173

in 1963. These developments in the social education movement democratized social education once more and helped social education develop more.
The journal, the association, and the movements are still existing at present.
Contradiction Within Lifelong Learning Act
However, the enactment of the Lifelong Learning Promotion
Maintenance Act3 in 1990 changed the previous trend mentioned. Thislaw provided legal justification for the 1976 report of the Council of Social
Education (National), the 1981 report of the Central Council for Education,and the policies of ‘lifelong education’ and ‘lifelong learning’ that had alreadystarted to be implemented with budget from the 1981 fiscal year. Moreover,
the Ministry of Education put the Lifelong Learning Department at the firsttier in the structure of the ministry and made social education part of its
function.
The government enacted the Law on Promotion and Maintenancefor Lifelong Learning with no consideration for its relation to the Social
Education Law. The Law on Promotion and Maintenance for Lifelong
Learning mainly covers policies of prefectural governments and for districts
whose areas are bigger than municipalities. It also covers not only about thepolicies related to the Ministry of Education but also those related to the
Ministry of International Trade and Industry. The government tried to implement lifelong learning policies beyond the power of local governments,
and also explored a market for lifelong learning business.
In the first half of the 1990s, many Ministries implemented policies thatused the words ‘lifelong learning.’ This made ‘lifelong learning’ not merely
a component of educational policies but part of policies on many other issues (industrial, welfare, labor, home affairs, community, etc.). Some local
governments (both prefectural and municipal) responded to this new policy
movement and sought opinions from the public in making their own lifelong learning policies. Some of them made their social education plans onlifelong learning through their education boards. But before the local governments were able to implement their plans in mid-1990s, they started to
face financial difficulties alongside the implementation of the decentralization program of the national government. While there is no research data
to be able to analyze whether the local governments were effective in implementing their lifelong learning plans or continued them in the 1990s, it isclear that the boom of lifelong learning policy has gone away.

174

H u m a n R i g h t s E d u c at i o n i n A s i a - Pa c i f i c

Revision of the Social Education Law
Looking back at the legal and political trends in the social education
field since the mid-1990s, several features arose:a. The regulation that promoted participation of residents in the process of adopting social education policies has been weakened,b. Control by the government of social education has prevailed, andc. Ideas and policies to protect and support the right to social education
have been set aside.
The decentralization policy of the national government in mid-1990s
promoted the deregulation policy in order to reduce the budget of the local governments. In line with this process, the 1999 revision of the Social
Education Law made the provision on participation of residents in policymaking unclear. The membership of the local residents in the Kominkan
Advisory Committee and the Advisory Committee of Social Education became vague with the use of the phrase “persons who are related to school orsocial education.” The provision that suggests democratic selection of representatives from among the residents has disappeared.
The Social Education Law was again revised in 2001, just two years
after its last revision. A new provision was added in Article 3, the article
that provides for the principal philosophy of the law (the idea of ‘congenial
environment’ for social education). The new provision, as the second provision of Article 3, provides that the national and local governments are
responsible both for linking social education to school education and for
improving home education. The 1999 revision was again revised with thephrase “persons who contribute to making home education better” being
used instead. This again affected the membership of the Kominkan Advisory
Committees and the Advisory Committees of Social Education from among
the residents.
Article 5 of the Social Education Law (Affairs of Local Board of
Education) was revised with the insertion of two new sections: “Mattersconcerning the planning of courses in the provision of learning opportunities for home education, the sponsorship of meetings, and the encouragement thereof ” and “Matters concerning the implementation of projects
to provide young people with opportunities for social service experience,
including volunteer activities, nature experience and the encouragement
thereof.”Social Education and Kominkan

175

These 2001 revisions showed the new policy direction of controllingsocial education activities, which seemed to be inconsistent with the basic
principle of ‘deregulation’ in the 1999 revision.
2006 ‘Revision’ of Fundamental Law of Education
The Fundamental Law of Education was significantly revised in
December 2006. New articles were added that provided a different perspective on education.
A new article entitled “Lifelong Learning” was added parallel to the article on social education. In this new article, “lifelong learning” was presented
based on the framework that separates “individual learning” from the society to which individuals contribute by the fruit of one’s learning. The article
on social education was also revised by stating that social education shouldmeet both individual demands and social needs.
The idea of education in these two new articles under the 2006 revisiondiffers from the original idea under the 1948 Fundamental Law of Education.
The original provision in the 1948 Fundamental Law of Education states thatsociety should develop through the development of the whole personality
and positive spirit of individuals, whereas the new articles in the 2006 revision define education in the framework of two parallel poles - the ‘individual’ and the ‘society’. In addition, the purposes of education in the 1948
law are stated modestly and philosophically. The 2006 revision adds narrow
and moralistic purposes such as respect for discipline in school and love of
hometown (‘love of the country and region’), which do not seem to fit the1948 purposes of education.
The 1948 provision that education “shall not be subject to improper
control, but it shall be directly responsible to the whole people” was revisedin 2006 by replacing the clause “but it shall be directly responsible to thewhole people” with “and shall be carried out in accordance with this andother acts.” This latter new clause allows other laws to be enacted and read
into the main law, the 1948 Fundamental Law of Education, and thus views
the profound idea of freedom of education in reverse. This revision, in effect, weakened the idea of freedom of education.
Another new article, now Article 17, adds the idea of a “Basic Plan for
the Promotion of Education” that the national government should adopt.
But the new article also requires local governments to adopt their own educational plans with reference to such national plan. While this latter com-

176

H u m a n R i g h t s E d u c at i o n i n A s i a - Pa c i f i cment seems to restore the idea that local governments have primary authority on educational policy and administration, an important principle ofeducational administration in Japan, it actually strengthens the control of
the national government over education.
Under this situation, there is a need to ensure the autonomy of local
governments in both the national basic plan and local plans. It is also important that the local residents elaborate the local educational plans to beable to promote the learning activities of people and keep the freedom oflearners and educational institutions. It is a challenge to social educators
to continue and develop the philosophy of ‘congenial environment’ in the
future policies for the promotion of social education.
2008 ‘Revision’ of the Social Education Law
The Social Education Law was amended in May 2008 in accordance withthe 2006 revision of the 1948 Fundamental Law of Education. A new section
was added to Article 3 of the law regarding the importance of stronger connection of social education to both school education and home education.
Moreover, under a new section, the local legislative councils were given theauthority to decide on support for the education of primary and secondary
school students. The amendment of Article 13 loosened the system on public
subsidy for social education. Under the previous system, only the Advisory
Committee on Social Education as a legal committee with representativesof local residents could give to the local government the approval for its
subsidy on social education groups. This was meant to keep the subsidies tothese groups not subject to government control. The new amendment permitted the local government to subsidize social education groups without
the approval of the Advisory Committee on Social Education, though theyneed the final approval of another committee.
Under these amendments of the Social Education Law, there was concern that the important system of participation of citizens in the Social
Education Advisory Committee would weaken. Also, the participation of
the citizens in the policymaking process on adult education would also
weaken with no alternative system for citizens’ participation having beenpresented.
The 2008 revisions also changed the qualifications for the position ofsocial education director by adding as necessary qualifications the experience of being librarian or museum curator to the experience of being a so-Social Education and Kominkan

177

cial education associate director or a school teacher. And a new article wasadded regarding the “evaluation” of the management of Kominkans.
Outsourcing the Management of Institutions for Social Education
During the decade of 2000s, the national government compelled local
governments to outsource the management of public facilities under thedecentralization policy. The 2003 revision of the Local Autonomy Law introduced the designated manager system. Although this revision was expected to exempt social educational facilities, the Ministry of Education,
Culture, Sports, Science and Technology (mext) supported the applicationof the system to social education facilities by issuing a statement entitled“About the Application of Designated Manager System to Social Education
Facilities” in January 2005. People involved in social education, Kominkan
and public libraries opposed this stance of the mext. Those opposing themext stance included Kominkan Advisory Committees in several municipalities, even the one in Hiroshima city where the Kominkans had alreadybeen outsourced to its public foundation. Some of them made petitions totheir local governments against this outsourcing.
The Japan Association for the Promotion of Social Education (japse)
expressed in January 2005 its opposition to the introduction by mext of a
new system in managing public social education facilities.4 Japse listed what
it saw were problems of the new system:• It spread the idea that beneficiaries should pay for public services in social education• It created an obstacle to the participation of the residents inpolicymaking• It destroyed the freedom of learning because the designatedinstitutions system prefers profitability and efficiency• It denied the continuity of social education• It made the working conditions worse and less professional for
people working for social education.
But the mext document started to influence some local governments
leading to the change in the management system of some public institutions
and facilities of social education such as Kominkans, libraries and museums.

178

H u m a n R i g h t s E d u c at i o n i n A s i a - Pa c i f i c

Local Governments and Social Education Staff
Social educational policies and programs are mainly implemented by local governments. After World War II, social education gained support withstaff under the local Education Boards. In the 1970s, the number of local
governments that officially employed workers for social education gradually
increased. Some local governments took care of ensuring staff allocation forsocial education, allowed them to remain working in social education for alonger period if they wanted to do so, and some of them even hired specificworkers as social education staff who worked only for adult education policy
or programs.
But in early 1980s, some local governments started to assign staff tosocial education programs for shorter periods than before. They transferredstaff working on social education to the other administration offices easily.
They seemed to have been influenced by the new theory of managing local
governments. At the same time, due to the national government demand forthe reduction of the number of local government staff, some local governments pretended that they were reducing, or not increasing, the number ofstaff. In the adult education fields, they did it by outsourcing the management of social education facilities to outside public corporations that local
governments have helped establish.
In the 1990s, local governments tended to replace the number of permanent staff by part-time staff. They also introduced the outsourcing system
more widely. They did the same thing in social education field too. Under
the “designated manager system,” the relations between the social education
staff and the local government staff weakened because the social education
staffs were hired by outside designated organizations. Local governments’contact with social education staff was coursed through the designatedorganizations.
Similar situations usually gave rise to a social problem in the official
workers system caused by low employment rate of part-time staff. Part-timeworkers were usually employed for short periods and their wages were low
and usually could not be raised. Their situation worsened even more when
they were transferred by the local governments to the organizations thatmanaged the facilities under the management outsourcing scheme.
In general, therefore, the people working on social education policies
and programs could not keep their professional positions anymore and also
faced the same deterioration of working conditions that local government

Social Education and Kominkan

179

personnel encountered. This trend created a serious challenge to social education under the administration of local governments.
For a long time, the national government has not adopted a policy that
respected the particular importance of social education and has not improved and reinforced the professional status of the social education staff.
There is a qualification system under three laws for the position of the social
education director, the librarian and the curator. The national government
lowered the level of qualifications under the 1996 revision of government
regulations for the qualifications for these three positions. With the changeof government rules on social education staff system, the recommendationsof the Advisory Committee for Lifelong Learning based on these qualifications resulted in people with such qualifications not being able to get properjobs. The understanding within the government of the value of social andadult education jobs and their particular quality, and the vision for recovering or recreating the social education staff system failed to progress.
Abandonment of the Youth Education Policies
Before World War II, national and local governments took care andsometimes organized women and youth organizations, and used them to
implement their social education/adult education policies in Japan. These
women and youth organizations were disbanded, and then revived after thewar. They eradicated their old image of having supported the government
regarding the war, and continued their important role in social education
in local communities. But urbanization caused the gradual decrease in thenumber of these organizations, and their role in social education weakened.
In the 1960s and 1970s, the activities of ptas, the social education classes in Kominkans, and other activities led to the creation of many groups ofyoung mothers. They covered a variety of areas of learning and developed
their own activities. They developed both as target and stakeholders of social education.
In the 1960s, social education programs in Kominkans focused onclasses for young people who migrated from rural to urban areas with theaim of helping them live active life in their new places of residence. At thesame time, the activities of youth organizations in rural areas continued. But
with the rise in the number of youth enrolling in secondary schools and universities from late 1970s and early 1980s, the youth became less interested

180

H u m a n R i g h t s E d u c at i o n i n A s i a - Pa c i f i c

in activities in local communities and the place of youth education in social
education programs weakened.
Due to this trend the Law for Promotion of the Education Class for theYouth enacted in 1953 was repealed, along with the revision of one hundred
fourteen laws, under the new Package Promoting Decentralization Law in
1999.
The Law for the Promotion of the Education Class for the Youth had
problems. There were youth and other movements that opposed the law due
to fear that it would lead to government control of the educational activities
that were freely developed by youth organizations in local communities. The
law was also opposed on the ground that it promoted a cheap way of educating young workers, instead of giving more financial support to encouragethem to take night courses under the official secondary school programs.
However, the repeal of the Law for the Promotion of the Education
Class for the Youth was not due to these opposing views. It was in line withthe trend of abolishing youth education programs initiated by some prefectural governments since the early 1990s, similar to the ending or abandoning and turngiving over ‘Youth House’, institutions and buildings to municipal governments. Thus both national and local governments retreated fromsupporting youth education.
The Advisory Committee for Lifelong Learning, which prepared someprovisions on the deregulation of the education activities under the Package
Promoting Decentralization Law, explained that the Law for Promotion of
the Education Class for the Youth lost the need for its existence because of
the increase in the number of youth going to upper secondary and higher
level of education. Consequently, this situation weakened the youth education policies in the communities.
At the heels of the decreased support for youth education in late 1990s
rose the phenomenon of youth who did not have the “will to work” giving
rise to popular terms like “freeter” (young person who refused to become
permanent employee, taking temporary or part-timework instead)5 and“neet” (not in education, employment, or training). The Ministry of Health,
Labor and Welfare launched projects such as “Supplementary School for
Self-help of Youth” from July 2005, seminars, and Support Station for Youthin Community all over the country. But these projects were limited to supporting the youth in gaining employment by ‘enlightening the youth about
work’ and ‘supporting the youth to adapt to the society’. They were far from

Social Education and Kominkan

181

the educational projects that support the youth in freely organizing learning
movements by themselves.
In December 2006, the government issued ‘the Integrated Plan for
Supporting Re-Challenge’, consisting of projects from the different ministries. The plan does not only have projects on youth education but also on
adult education. The plan seemed to be based on the idea of making people
adapt to the existing social structure. Would this plan develop its perspective and include educational projects that support the development of people’s critical consciousness in a variety of fields and bring up people who
would make their own society by themselves based on this consciousness?
Would this plan include the education on labor unions that support workers’ consciousness about their right to work? But the ruling party changed in2009 and a different policy was adopted.
Social Movements Related to Social Education Movements
Japan has a long history of labor and union education movements since
before the World War II. The Labor College of Tokyo and the Labor College
of Osaka, established in the 1920s (Taisho era), fostered the thoughts andculture of workers who led the labor union movement and sometimes engaged in labor disputes. After World War II, many study/learning clubs
within the labor unions came about. At present, there are also some active
learning movements of workers such as the Association for Labor Educationor the Unions of Civil Engineering and Construction Workers.
From the 1960s, some local government public workers’ movements
started to develop their activities together with the movements of residents
in developing municipal-level learning movements to change local government policies. Social education staff often managed such movements
as members of local government public workers’ union. Teachers’ unions
also organized learning movements in the community such as ‘Meetings on
Education,’ and some of them developed programs together with the learning movements of residents in the 1970s and the 1980s. In some cases, thefarmers’ cooperative movements and other cooperative movements developed together with or including social education movements.
The establishment of the Japanese Trade Union Confederation in 1989
was a momentum for the labor movement organizations in Japan. This development can also be viewed differently. It can either be seen as the unification or the division of the labor movement. Actually, labor movements

182

H u m a n R i g h t s E d u c at i o n i n A s i a - Pa c i f i clost their power gradually during the 1970s and the 1980s. According to
the summary of the results of the basic survey on trade unions made by the
Ministry of Health, Labor and Welfare, the number of trade union members
was highest at 12,699 in 1998 but started to decrease until 2007. The rate ofunion membership among all workers has been decreasing since 1975 andwas at 18.1 percent in 2007. From 2005 to 2011, the rate has remained at 18
percent average, and decreased to 17.9 percent in 2012.6
However, there are some movements that steadily continue as well assome new movements. For example, in some regions, local government public workers learning movements continue or recover their strength together
with the residents’ learning movements. The activities of the Institutions
for the Study of Problems of Local Bodies in some regions of Japan and thecontinuation or the recovery of the Learning School Movements of Local
Bodies are also examples. Moreover, new labor movements of non-regular workers have arisen due to their worsening working conditions. Thesemovements should get the attention of people in social education to know
how and what learning movements would develop from them and how dosocial education movements learn from and contribute to them.
II. Kominkan
The Kominkans constitute one of the primary institutions for social education in Japan. In July 1946, the then Ministry of Education recommended through an official letter to local governments the establishment of
Kominkans in the communities. The Kominkans were established not only
for people to learn about democracy and engage in educational and culturalactivities, but also to provide a place for people to meet and develop theirabilities together by performing industrial, welfare and other activities that
help develop the community. Because funding was not fixed, Kominkans
varied in size and manner of operation. The number of Kominkans established in each municipality also varied. The total number of Kominkans increased rapidly and reached 36,406 in 1955. It was the highest number ofKominkans in history.7
Present Condition of Kominkan
The Kominkans were covered by Article 7 of the 1948 Fundamental
Law of Education. After the establishment of ‘Board of Education’ in everySocial Education and Kominkan

183

municipality by the then new administrative system of education in Japan,
Kominkans spread widely as public institutions for social education. Publicservice corporations were permitted to establish Kominkans, though they
could only establish a small number of them. Prefectural governments were
not permitted to establish Kominkans. As a result, the Kominkans wererooted in local communities as public institutions for adult education.
Some Kominkans were seen as community learning activities because
they did not have their own buildings, and used facilities such as primaryschools and temples for their activities. These Kominkans were often called“Kominkans with no roof but the blue sky” or “Kominkan with only a signboard” in their early stages. With the consolidation of many towns and villages in the 1950s, the total number of Kominkans decreased rapidly in the
1960s. The condition of their buildings hardly changed. By 1968, there were
only 13,785 Kominkans.
In the 1970s, they began to increase in number. During this period,
most Kominkans had their own buildings; the “Kominkans of the town” hadprevailed. By 2005, there were 17,143 Kominkans. Counting also the quasiKominkans, the total would be more than 18,000. This number was muchbigger than the number of lower secondary schools in Japan, which was
11,035 in 2005. Because of their big number, Kominkans can be considered
the primary institution for social education in Japan.
Changes from the Mid-1990s
A review of the policy trend on the Kominkans during the past decadereveals some problems.
According to government report on the “number by types of facilities
for social education,” the total number of Kominkans and quasi-Kominkans
combined reached 19,063 in 1999.8 But they decreased to 18,810 in 2002,
and to 18,182 in 2005. The number of Kominkans has decreased from 18,257
in 1999 to 17,947 in 2002, and then to 17,143 in 2005. This means that 1,114
Kominkans disappeared from 1999 to 2005. Compared to other facilities
for social education that increased in number, though a little bit, except for
women’s education facilities and private sports facilities, the decrease in thenumber of Kominkans as primary institutions for social education shows
the deterioration of social education policies in Japan.
Local governments have reduced the number of Kominkans in two
ways: first, by giving different name and category from social education

184

H u m a n R i g h t s E d u c at i o n i n A s i a - Pa c i f i c

to newly-established institutions that should actually be properly considered Kominkans; second, by changing the name and category of the existing Kominkan. The latter case often happens when they rebuild the existingbuilding of Kominkan or when they reform the administrative structure of
local governments.
Some local governments adopted these policies because the national
government stopped giving support to Kominkans.
There was no funding support from the national government when the
Kominkan system was established just after World War II, although the national government recommended their establishment. They explained thatpeople in each community had to build and manage their own Kominkan bythemselves. But soon after, in 1950s, the then Ministry of Education started
to subsidize the building or management of Kominkans by the local governments, although the 1959 revision of Social Education Law restricted
the use of the subsidy only to building the Kominkan facility. The subsidy
continued and increased a bit till 1980. Although the subsidy continued but
in decreased amount after 1980, a lot of the local governments were encouraged to build or rebuild Kominkans using this subsidy. The amount ofdecreased subsidy for each Kominkan ranged from five million Yen (nearly
50,000 US dollars at current rate) for each of the forty-seven Kominkanswith regular size, and eighty-five million Yen (around 830,000 US dollars atcurrent rate) for each of the nineteen big Kominkans under the 1995 budget. However, the national government stopped new requests for subsidy for
Kominkans in the 1997 budget, and gave the last requested subsidy in the1998 budget. A press release by the then Ministry of Education stated thatthe national government stopped this subsidy because they understood thatthe conditions of existing community facilities were sufficient.
Removal of the Name “Kominkan”
The removal of the name “Kominkan” is one of the reasons for the decrease in the number of Kominkans. It is also a deliberate violation of thefreedom to learn and undervalues social education.
The consolidation of towns, resulting in lesser number of towns, could
be a cause for the reduction in the number of Kominkans as earlier mentioned. However, whether or not this was a major cause in reducing thenumber of Kominkans is unclear. Some towns kept the existing Kominkans
even after consolidation. They used them for their community activities.

Social Education and Kominkan

185

Some local governments preferred to convert the Kominkans from educational facilities to other purposes such as community centers, because
they want to use them mainly for community development. Others madeonly ad hoc change, such as changing the administration of Kominkan fromunder the Board of Education to another body, because they wanted to keep
the name of Kominkan to avoid trouble from concerned residents, or theywanted to use the popularity and “legacy” of Kominkan in each community.
A similar policy trend in the 1970s was observed when the Ministry ofHome Affairs promoted community policy. However, this policy did not affect the number of Kominkans. Many local governments established more
Kominkans during this period.
In 2000s, some local governments dared to change Kominkans eventhough these Kominkans were performing excellently in their social education programs. The use of their buildings was changed to that of ordinary community buildings, with no relation to education or to the natureof Kominkan.
For example, in 1990 Nagoya city had sixteen Kominkans whose names
were originally ‘Social Education Centers’ and then changed to ‘Lifelong
Learning Centers.’ But their legal category was the same as that of theKominkans, and their staff had undertaken very good social education activities with the residents in each district. In 2000, Nagoya city changed
their legal category as Kominkans and put them under the jurisdiction of
the community development department in each district’s administrative
structure (which belonged to the general administration section) instead of
the Board of Education. This happened despite the fact that a large movement of people was opposed to it.
After that, in Nagoya city, a scheduled lecture in a Lifelong Learning
Center was stopped by the city government on the ground that the person
who would give the lecture seemed to be opposed to the position of Lifelong
Learning Center, which should support the policies of the local government.
This was reported by the newspapers in 2001.
In another example, Kitakyushu city had Kominkans that were also doing excellent work in close collaboration with the local communities. The
city added the name and function of ‘Community Welfare Center’ to the
Kominkans. But the two names created a problem. The city changed thenames to ‘Citizens Centers’ and moved their legal category to that belonging
to the general administration section.

186

H u m a n R i g h t s E d u c at i o n i n A s i a - Pa c i f i c

Another case is in Hirakata City. In 1963, the Advisory Committee on
Social Education and Kominkan of this city clearly stated the idea of social
education in its report entitled “Social Education for All Citizens,” Social
Education in Hirakata, No. 2. They stated the idea in short sentences withsome explanation: ‘The citizens based on their own view undertake social
education’, ‘People have the right to social education’, ‘The essence of social
education is to learn the Constitution’, ‘Social education has to empower
the autonomy of residents’, ‘Social education is the learning part of popular
movements’, ‘Social education has to grow, cultivate and protect democracy.’ These statements were later called the ‘Thesis from Hirakata’. Thesestatements encouraged people who were engaged in social education movements in 1970s all over Japan to promote the idea of the right to social education and the freedom of learning.
New residents in Hirakata city in the early 1980s learned about thesestatements. They created active movements for the establishment of
Kominkans, undertook activities, and requested the Hirakata city government to establish more Kominkans.
But in 2006, Hirakata city abolished the Kominkan system and changed
the names of existing Kominkans to ‘Lifelong Learning Centers’. It alsochanged the jurisdiction over them from the Board of Education to thegeneral administration section, despite several years of opposition of many
people to it.
These cases show that some local governments abolished the Kominkansystem along with their social education policies in order to diminish thevalue of social education and adult education, or to restrict the purpose oflearning of the residents to that which would only fit community development. It can be assumed that such policies also influenced the decrease in
the total number of Kominkans since the same trend occurred in other local
governments as well.
Designated Manager System and the Kominkans
As earlier discussed, in promoting the decentralization policy since the1990s, the national government recommended that local governments outsource their enterprises to private sectors. With the 2003 revision of the
Local Autonomy Act, the national government introduced for-profit organizations into the designated manager system, although they were not permitted to manage public facilities before. The government strongly request-

Social Education and Kominkan

187

ed the local governments to use this system in their administration. Under
the new guideline for administrative reform of local governments (issued in
March 2004), the local governments were requested to evaluate all existing
public facilities to check the possibilities for outsource management to “designated managers” until September 2006.
This 2004 guideline influenced the social education facilities in Japan
when some local governments introduced the ‘designated manager system’
to public social education facilities. The number of Kominkans that havebeen outsourced to the “designated manager system” reached five hundred
seventy-four in 2005.
The adverse effect of the designated manager system on the Kominkans
has been raised, even at the Diet (parliament). During the discussion on therevision of the Social Education Act in 2008, the Diet issued a resolution
stating that the government should “…take sufficient care about the bad effects of introducing the designated manager on staffing for social education
facilities like Kominkans, libraries, museums, in order to support lifelong
learning of people and meet the increasing learning demand.”The number of Kominkans that have been outsourced to the “designated manager system” once reached 1,220 in 2008, but decreased to 1,161
in 2011.9
Deterioration of the Residents’ Participation
As mentioned earlier, when the Social Education Law was revised in
1999 together with many other laws under the decentralization policy of
the government, the role of the residents’ participation system in the Social
Education Law was minimized. The Kominkans were no longer required tohave Advisory Committees, the bodies that represent the founding philosophy of Kominkan. The Kominkans were supposed to operate from the timeof their founding in line with the intention, and through the power, of theirrespective community residents.
The report of the Central Advisory Committee of the Ministry of
Education, which proposed the 1999 revision of Social Education Law, discussed the role of the Kominkan Advisory Committee system in terms of ‘deregulation,’ but also virtually stated that the Advisory Committees were notworking well. Actually there were active Kominkan Advisory Committees
whose members were “elected” in a process similar to official elections,
held official meetings often (more than once a month), actively discussed

188

H u m a n R i g h t s E d u c at i o n i n A s i a - Pa c i f i cissues, and sometimes presented recommendations to the Directors of theKominkans on various matters including the appointment of the Directors.
Data shows that from 1999, the number of Kominkan Advisory
Committees had been decreasing. Some local governments established another system that allowed the participation of residents in the Kominkan
operations, but there were no statistics on these cases. With the oppositionof people and staff of Kominkan to the law revision, some local governments
dared to keep their existing ordinances related to Kominkans in spite of the1999 revision. Moreover, one local government even strengthened its ordinances on the participation of residents in the Kominkans.10
The Standards for Establishment and Management of Kominkans
The Standards for the Establishment and Management of the Kominkans,
adopted through the revision of the Social Education Law in 1959, were actually minimum standards (referring to area coverage, facilities, staff, etc.).
The national government wanted the local governments to make their own
improvements on the Kominkans using the minimum standards. This started the discussions in the local governments on what the Kominkans should
be. There were proposals from the then Ministry of Education itself and the
National Kominkan Association that was founded in 1951.
In 1973, the Kominkan staff and a researcher in a Tokyo suburb called
Santama came up with an excellent proposal entitled “Looking for the New
Kominkan Model.” The proposal, later known as the “Santama thesis”, contained four roles for the Kominkan:
a. Open space for the residents
b. Base for group activitiesc. The residents’ own “university”
d. Park for creating culture.
There were also seven management principles:a. Promote freedom and equity
b. “No fees”
c. Keep the Kominkan independent as an institution for learning andcultural activities
d. Have qualified staff
e. Allocate one Kominkan to each community

Social Education and Kominkan

f.
g.

189

Have sufficient and varied equipments, andFacilitate the participation of the residents in its management.

The Santama thesis contributed to the creation of movements of people
around early 1970s that campaigned for the establishment of Kominkans.
The movements also presented ideas on how the Kominkans should be established and operated using the Santama thesis.
But after twenty-five years, two revisions of the Standards Provision for
the Establishment and Management of the Kominkans dealt with thea. removal of the word “specific” referring to the Director and officersof the Kominkan that indicated the importance that these positions be occupied by people who have special knowledge on social education (1998
revisions)b. removal of articles on facilities and equipments in line with the decentralization policy, removal of provision on the need for specific officials
with social education qualification (2003 revisions)c. addition of articles that recommended various activities such as
family education, voluntary activities by youth and cooperation between
school, family and community, and so on, and addition of an article on selfevaluation of operations (2003 revisions)d. addition of an article encouraging the introduction of “night services” according to the condition of each community (2008 revisions).
It is easy to imagine how a legal provision like letter “d” above lengthens
service time to attract residents without careful consideration, and how therevisions of the standards provisions are promoted to support the outsourcing of public services to private sectors.
The revisions of the Standards for the Establishment and Managementof Kominkans, on one hand, and the challenges of financial allocation andphysical condition of Kominkans, on the other hand, changed the activitiesof the Kominkans to serve other purposes.
Social Education Practices through Kominkans
Social education practices through the Kominkans are varied and theirtargets are not only adults and youth but also children. Their district coverage is usually as small as a public school district for primary school or lower
secondary school.

190

H u m a n R i g h t s E d u c at i o n i n A s i a - Pa c i f i c

There are a lot of small Kominkans that are like affiliated Kominkans.
Some small Kominkans fall within the categories of Kominkans in the Social
Education Law, but others are not counted as Kominkans by the local government even though people call them ‘Kominkans’ or similar names. Theselatter types of Kominkan are generally known as ‘hamlet Kominkans’ or‘autonomous Kominkans’ and there are no national statistics about themyet. People often perform their community activities using both types ofKominkans as their base.
On the other hand there are also other types of Kominkans that havea lot of programs and projects. Kominkan officials plan and implement
these programs and projects with the community residents. Some residents’groups are sometimes born from such programs and projects and usually continue their activities after the implementation of the programs andprojects ended. This type of Kominkans is typical of those established after
1970s. And they have a variety of programs and projects.
Recommendations
The Kominkan, which is established and firmly rooted in the community, can cultivate diverse learning and promote cultural and sports activities that support people’s development of local communities based on theirown efforts and will. Considering this, the following are recommendations
in support of the Kominkans:
A. To promote the establishment of a Kominkan in every local community and to keep the Kominkan even when rebuilding the facility
In order for local governments to support the establishment of
Kominkans with the appropriate size and number necessary for the daily
life of people in each local community:(1) The national government should provide financial support to the
local governments for the establishment and maintenance of Kominkans(2) The prefectural governments should also provide financial support
to the towns for the establishment and maintenance of Kominkans(3) The local governments should keep the Kominkans as institutions
for adult education, provide them with enough budget to be able to performtasks for the empowerment of residents, and keep the system to protect the
freedom of the residents to learn.

Social Education and Kominkan

191

B. To appoint specific officers with qualification for social education toeach Kominkan(1) The national government should establish a national qualification
system for Kominkan officers.
Kominkans need qualified staff who understand both the essence of social education and the functions of Kominkan, and have appropriate abilities
to be able to perform the activities of the Kominkans in accordance with thechallenges faced by the residents in their local communities.
It is the better policy to make the specific staff qualification system for
Kominkan rather than a general qualification system for social education
facilities. This is a more effective system according to the experiences in thelong history of social education in Japan.
(2) The local governments should make the best effort to appoint highly
motivated staff with the appropriate abilities to the Kominkans and to letthem work at Kominkans for a long time in order to make the best of theirown experiences.
(3) The town, city, prefectural and national governments should eachmake such policies that support the Kominkan staff in developing selfdesigned training courses to develop their motivations and abilities. The
policies should include sending Kominkan staff to training courses in accordance with their requests, supporting them to organize and implement
training courses by themselves, and so on.
C. To appropriate budget for the appointment of Kominkan officers
The national government should appropriate budget to support the local governments’ appointment of officers to each Kominkan.
D. To promote the democratic management of Kominkan(1) The national government should declare and adopt basic regulations
on the importance of the participation of the residents in the managementof Kominkans. The Kominkans should empower the residents and use theirvaried abilities in Kominkan management; and the Social Education Law,
the Standards for the Establishment and Management of Kominkans andother legal requirements should be appropriately revised.
For example, the Advisory Committee system for Kominkans must
have, or develop, the regulations for democratic operations by introducing
clearer ideas for residents’ participation.

192

H u m a n R i g h t s E d u c at i o n i n A s i a - Pa c i f i c(2) The local governments should keep the Kominkans as educational
institutions and independent from any political control, with the understanding that Kominkans should contribute to the development of the local
community and support policies of governments only when they support
and promote independent learning of residents including the learning toresearch, analyze and critically discuss the policies by themselves.
E. To develop social education practices through the partnership ofresidents and Kominkan officers
The community residents and Kominkan officers should develop learning free from the fear about creating tensions between or among them inboth processes of learning and actions, and also develop learning from thewider view beyond their community, by making the best use of the place andoperations of Kominkans.
Conclusion
After confintea VI in 2009, the number of Kominkans continued to decrease from 17,947 in 2005 to 15,943 in 2008, to 14,681 in 2010.[i] This meansthat 2,462 Kominkans disappeared or were changed to other facilities from2005 to 2010. This number is more than twice the number of Kominkans
that ceased to exist from 1999 to 2005, numbering 1,114. Actually, more
Kominkans could have disappeared or been changed to other facilities because a few local governments established new Kominkans during the same
period.
Keeping the name “Kominkan” and changing only the administration
structure from under the Board of Education to another body (because of
mainly community development policy shift) seem to prevail even among
the municipalities that were famous for excellent social education practicesof their Kominkans and the Kominkan officers.
Moreover, some local governments seem to try to use Kominkans forpolitical purpose by keeping them as social education institutions despitelack of understanding of education that promotes human rights, whichmeans education that respects freedom of learning.
Even some excellent social education officers or Kominkan officers dareto accept those distorted Kominkan policies in order to keep the Kominkans
in their municipalities under the pressure of financial crisis. These decisions

Social Education and Kominkan

193

were dangerous. A severe dispute on this issue exists among civil society
movements.
The national government is now trying to change the education system,
even the education board system. Moreover, there is a move to change theConstitution.
We all have to learn more and more critically about the many challenges
to social education at every level not only at the community level. We also
have to take care that the political powers do not use social education institutions including Kominkans for their own purpose, similar to the situation before World War II. The political powers, even those with good intention, easily fall into the trap of using education only for their own political
purpose.
Under these present complex situations in Japan, we the social educators through the civil society movements network have to promote andinvent stronger and more flexible social education system by utilizing thelegacy of social education experiences including Kominkan experiences andby ensuring the prevalence of and adherence to the excellent and importantphilosophy of the right to learn and the freedom of learning among all of us.
Endnotes
Confintea VI was held from 1 to 4 December 2009 in Belém, Brazil.
This section ‘is an edited version of “1. ‘Social education’ and adult education:a word on the term and concept” included in the chapter I-2 of the first part of the2009 report, written by Miho Tokiwa-Fuse of Japan Society for the Study of Adultand Community Education (jssace). The rest of the article are edited excerpts ofthe following sections: “3. The ‘Revisions of some laws close[ly] related to Social
Education,”’ “4. The other trends of policies of social education,” “6. Some other topics among changes of recent social education policies or so on” in chapter I-2 of thefirst part, and of chapter II-1 ‘Kominkan’ in the second part of the report. These sections were, written and translated by Yoko Arai of Japan Association for Promotionof Social Education (japse). Yoko Arai also wrote the concluding paragraph, as new
text.
3
The formal title of the law is: Law Concerning the Establishment of
Implementation Systems and Other Measures for the Promotion of Lifelong
Learning.
4“The Opinion of japse on the 25 January 2005 document of the Ministry of
Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology about the designated manager
system.”
1
2

194

H u m a n R i g h t s E d u c at i o n i n A s i a - Pa c i f i c

See Reiko Kosugi, Youth Employment in Japan’s Economic Recovery:‘Freeters’ and ‘neets’, The Asia-Pacific Journal: Japan Focus, www.japanfocus.
org/-kosugi-reiko/2022.
6
See Table 1, The transition of the number of trade unions, membershipand density rates, General Study on labor-management relations FY 2012, 2012
December, Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare, in Japanese. See also Table 7-1,
Trade union membership and density rates (national official statistics), Databook ofInternational Labour Statistics 2013, Japan Institute for Labour Policy and Training,www.jil.go.jp/english/estatis/databook/2013/07.htm
7Ministry of Education, The History of Kominkan During the Past Ten Years(Tokyo: Ministry of Education, 1958).
8
Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology, The Social
Education Research Report, FY 1999, FY 2002, FY 2005 (Tokyo: mext).
9
Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology, The Social
Education Research Report, FY 2008, FY 2011 (Tokyo: mext).
10“Modern Approaches to the Legal System Related to Adult and Community
Education,” The Annual Book No. 47 (Tokyo: jssace, 2003).
11
Op. cit.
5