Book Review

Reimagining Japanese Education:

Borders, Transfers, Circulations, andthe Comparative
Edited by David Blake Willis and Jeremy Rappleye
Oxford Studies in Comparative Education, Symposium BooksLtd., 2011. (288 pages). ISBN: 978-1-873927-51-9
Reviewed by Ellen HeadBritish Council Shanghai

Reimagining Japanese Education is a fascinating and challenging book for anyteacher in Japan who has an interest in understanding the meaning and context
of their work. Lecturers in English in Japan are of necessity engaged in workon a linguistic/cultural border. The Japanese education scene is changing fastand impacting us, particularly non-Japanese teachers, in ways that we may notunderstand.
For example, in 2012 the number of Japanese students studying abroad in
the USA was less than half that in 2004 (Institute of International Education,2012). Meanwhile, millions have been spent attempting to attract overseas
students to Japanese universities. The number of foreign students has increased,
but at 137,000 it is still less than half the projected target.
The Fundamental Law on Education, unchanged since 1947, was rewritten in 2006 to include instruction in moral education and patriotic values.
74Reimagining Japanese Education, OnCUE Journal, 8(1), pages 74-80

In addition, a policy of “relaxed education” pursued since the late 1990s
was abandoned recently in favor of stricter curriculum guidelines. “Relaxededucation” failed to reduce the pressure on students and alleviate bullying. The
policy failed, but is it really likely that a return to a more traditional curriculum
and holding school classes on Saturdays will help?
Reimagining Japanese Education is not an easy read, but it is a thoughtprovoking book for those who want to gain insight into education in Japan
today. The book consists of 11 chapters structured around the questions “Whyhas Japanese education changed?” and “How should we now reimagine Japanese
education to better understand future educational and social change there andelsewhere in the world?” (p. 27). The two opening chapters set the agenda for
the whole book, which was created by the editors inviting various authors tocontribute their thoughts on these two questions.
In the first chapter, entitled “Reimagining Japanese education in the global
conversation: borders, transfers, circulations and the comparative”, Willis andRappleye argue that there is an urgent need for a paradigm shift not only inJapanese education studies but in comparative education as a whole. They explainthat they invited all the contributors to the volume to draw on the work ofanthropologist Arjun Appadurai, whose model of globalization uses metaphorssuch as “flow” and “landscape” to express the fluidity of change (Appadurai,2001). This gives the volume a certain unity, since each writer tries to engage
with the idea of globalization and explore the relevance of Appadurai’s thinking
to Japan in the global context. The merit of this approach is to highlight ways inwhich Japan is interconnected.
Criticizing the “methodological nationalism” in much comparativeeducation discourse, the editors analyze how Japan has come to be passed overin recent comparative studies. The Chrysanthemum and the Sword (Benedict,1946), written to brief the American administration then, established an exotic
image of Japan. Subsequently, the idea of Japanese uniqueness gained popularity
within Japan due to Japanese writers like psychologist Takeo Doi (1973) andanthropologist Chie Nakane (1970). From the 1960s through early 1980s, thespeed with which Japan implemented industrialization and universal education
75Headseemed miraculous. Many comparative studies of the 80s and 90s (Duke, 1986;Rholen & LeTendre, 1998) were motivated by the need to justify politicalchange in the United States and Britain by projecting the image of Japaneseefficiency. Willis and Rappleye allege in chapter 1 that since then, comparativeeducation has lost interest in Japan, and Japan has turned inward.
It seemed that a ‘lost wandering’ in search of the Self had absorbed JapaneseSociety at precisely the moment …global forces began to reshape the country.
Just as a new vision was needed the most, Japan appeared to be closing in (p.
15).
It might seem that Japan is returning to the period when it was a “closedcountry” (sakoku) and is unique in doing so. However, Willis and Rappleye
argue that Japan is one of many countries which are reacting to globalization,
having “experienced similar global flows as a host of other nations worldwide,
and that has undergone similar educational change as they have” (p. 24). They
identify features like decentralization of control over education, reduction incentral budgeting, pressure on universities to move in the direction of private
funding, and calls for a more patriotic curriculum as trends not only in Japanbut in many other countries. This analysis is developed in more detail in later
chapters, particularly chapter 2 by Kariya and Rappleye on education reform,
chapter 3 by Marie Roesgaard on moral education and chapter 10 by Keita
Takayama on comparative education.
One of the strengths of the book is the contribution by three Japanese
educationalists, Takehiko Kariya (formerly professor at the Graduate School ofEducation at Tokyo University and now at Oxford University), Manabu Sato
(Professor of the Graduate School of Education at Tokyo University) and Keita
Takayama from the Graduate School of Education at the University of NewEngland, Australia. They combine deep understanding and razor-sharp analyses.
Kariya co-authors a historical overview of Japanese education with Rappleye
in chapter 2, and also provides an afterword. I found the middle section ofthe book less exciting but still worthwhile. In chapter 3, Roesgaard argues thatthe 2006 reforms of the Fundamental Law on Education in relation to moral
education can be understood as a reaction to the “threat” of globalization. “The76

Reimagining Japanese Education, OnCUE Journal, 8(1), pages 74-80

moral education revision is an attempt to have one’s cake and eat it as well: toretain Japanese national identity and values while integrating with the world” (p.
104). The next paper by Ryoko Tsuneyoshi highlights the paradox that although
the Japanese government has talked a lot about “internationalization” ineducation, programs focus narrowly on English and English-speaking cultures,largely ignoring the larger Chinese, Brazilian and Philippine ethnic minorities.
After that, Robert Aspinall’s paper highlights a contradiction between thegovernment’s protective attitude to Japanese identity and the rhetoric ofglobalization. As he has written elsewhere (Aspinall, 2003), this is as a major
impediment to progress in English language education.
The next two chapters analyze the gap between rhetoric and reality inpolicies relating to junior and senior high schools. Christopher Bjork observes
the gap in relation to the practice of “relaxed” education, and Aaron Miller to theeffects of introducing Western ideas about sports education.
Mayumi Ishikawa’s chapter on the “Global 30” initiative explains how thegovernment has offered grants to selected universities which create courses
in English aimed at attracting outstanding foreign students. She notes there
is no guarantee that the presence of foreign brains on Japanese campuses will
reinvigorate the whole, particularly since only 13 of the planned 30 Global
campuses have been established. In her words, “Without appreciation ofmulticultural interactions and learning experiences, there may even be a dangerof new nationalism emerging as scholarship opportunities and jobs seem to be
going to foreign students or graduates” (p. 214).
In chapters 9 and 10 Takayama and Sato pick up the challenge of looking
for continuities between Japan and other East Asian countries. First, Sato’s paper
helps to make sense of many contradictions in educational change since 2006.
He defines an “East Asian Style of Education” (p. 234), developed in responseto economic needs, valuing economic efficiency, competitiveness, centrally
controlled bureaucracy, nationalism and what he calls “an immature public mind”(p. 234). He continues, “Nationalism in pursuit of state interests and the egotism
of individualism have been the two wheels driving modernization.” He suggests
this East Asian style is prone to binary oppositions (knowledge/experience, self/77

Headother) which block the way to alternative educational discourses (p. 235).
On the other hand, Sato reveals the permeability that has come from decentralization. As Professor of the Graduate School of Education at Tokyo
University, Sato has used his authority to stimulate and support grassroots
reform at school level. He explains in his chapter that a group of professors atTokyo University were able to stimulate a movement of three thousand schools
to sign up to a system of self-improvement, which centralized policies would
never have allowed. After doing a survey in 2005, he found that “the number
one complaint of teachers is too many reforms coming from outside” (p. 236).
He called for schools to establish learning communities independently. In theseschools reflective teaching and collaborative learning are encouraged by a systemof open classes and discussion, focusing not on evaluating the skill of teachers
but instead on observing the learning and collaboration experienced by children(p. 238). Three thousand schools (about 10% of public schools, according toSato) have signed up or developed their own versions of his code of practice. Thefact of decentralization allowed this to happen:
The imagined idea is that schools are becoming neo-liberal, but the reality
is different, with a different set of results revealing the permeability andimmunology of outside ideas at grassroots level to be entirely different fromwhat is expected by elite policy makers and often by outside observers (p.
237).
Sato’s influence extended beyond Japan to Korea and China, whereorganizations have voluntarily adopted his model of a learning community. Satoexplains this “hidden reality” has an uncertain future: “The more progress thislearning-community-based school reform… makes, the more it comes face toface with the harsh reality which surrounds education in Japan” (p. 243).
In the final chapter, Takayama presents the 2006 reforms of the Fundamental
Law on Education as the culmination of a process started in the 1980s by thethen prime minister, Yasuhiro Nakasone. Takayama offers a corrective to otherviews, in particular highlighting the extent of disagreement within the rightamong proponents of education reform. He highlights how decentralization
has increased the possibilities at local level, which has allowed Sato’s “learning78

Reimagining Japanese Education, OnCUE Journal, 8(1), pages 74-80

school” movement to take place. He explains how “Both progressive andconservative organizations have quickly recognized the lowering of the scale ofeducation politics and intensified their advocacy work at the regional and locallevels” (p. 261).
He also points out how decisions which appear to be taken at national levelare permeable to outside influence from agencies which he calls “global elites”
such as PISA and OECD. The use of such a phrase reminds us that PISA andOECD are not neutral but stakeholders in an evolving global order.
The effects [of OECD recommendations] were real because the system is nolonger premised upon the post war political settlements guided by the state’s
formal commitment to egalitarianism and liberal democracy, and because
the “real” consequences are already witnessed in the widening disparity inacademic outcomes and incentives… (p. 266).
Finally, Takayama criticizes the lack of dialogue between education scholars
around the world for not reading work produced in other languages than theirown. He calls for them to pay more attention to each other’s work, in order tomake use of sorely needed insights from different perspectives.
Reimaging Japanese Education is a complex book, difficult to do justice toin a short review. I have lived in Japan since 2000 and followed movements
such as the demise of “relaxed education” and the 2006 education law revision
as well as I can through TV news and translated sources with fascination, attimes accompanied by alarm, skepticism, and confusion. The book gave me new
insight into how professional development is carried out within schools and how
the big picture of educational change in Japan relates to other countries in Asia. I
found the metaphors related to landscape and circulation fresh and enlightening,
the perspectives and analysis of the situation of teachers and students in Japan
clear-eyed and sobering but also inspiring in the way that it reveals grassroots
movements for positive change.

References

Appadurai, A. (2001). Globalization. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
Aspinall, R. W. (2003). Japanese nationalism and the reform of English79

Headlanguage teaching. In R. Goodman & D. Phillips (Eds.), Can the Japanesechange their education system? (pp. 103-117). Oxford: Symposium Books.
Benedict, R. (1946). The chrysanthemum and the sword: Patterns of Japaneseculture. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.
Doi, T. (1973). The anatomy of dependence. : Tokyo, Japan: Kodansha
InternationalDuke, B. C. (1986). The Japanese school: Lessons for industrial America. New
York, NY: Praeger.
Institute of International Education. (2012). Top 25 places of origin ofinternational students, 2010/11-2011/12. Open Doors report oninternational educational exchange. Retrieved from http://www.iie.org/opendoors
Nakane, C. (1970). Japanese society. Berkeley, CA: University of California
Press.
Rholen, T. P., & LeTendre, G. K. (Eds.). (1998). Teaching and learning in Japan.
Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.

Author Bio

Ellen Head is currently working as assessment consultant for the British Council
British Council in Shanghai. She taught English at universities in Japan from2000 to 2014. Her research interests include learner autonomy, metaphors andinteraction patterns in native speaker/non-native speaker dialogue. She completed
her MA on learner autonomy and the Japanese education system for Sheffield
University in 2007. Ellen.Head@britishcouncil.cn.org
Received: January 16, 2013
Accepted: July 21, 201480