January 29, 2018, 16:30 – 18:00 CICE Seminar Room (IDEC 6F), Hiroshima University.
CICE Open Seminar 203rd

Progress and Challenges in
Implementing Policies ofSchool Management and Evaluationin JapanAkihiko Hashimoto,
Senior Researcher
National Institute for Educational Policy Research of Japanaki@nier.go.jp

January 29, 2018, 16:30 – 18:00 CICE Seminar Room (IDEC 6F), Hiroshima University.
CICE Open Seminar 203rd

Contents:
1. Demography and School Age Population
2. Outline of the School Management Policy
3. Outline of the School Evaluation Policy
4. Seven Factors Obstructing Successful
Implementation of the School Evaluation
5. ConclusionGoals of today:
To understand the outline of the policy of school
management and school evaluation, andto discuss about the reality of those policies,
with emphasis on the school evaluation.

1. Demography
and School Age Population

The proportion of major three age groups

Source: National Institute of Population and Social Security Research2. Outline of the School
Management Policy.

.

Stereotypical trends in the post-war
school management policy
1945- seeking era toward “democratic school management”
1956- establishing era of “systematic school management”… in the midst of the Rapid Economic Growth1971- diversification era of an “expanded school management”… problems spurted in reaction to the economic growth
1984- take-off era with an “autonomous school management”… National Council on Educational Reform established
1998- well developed era in a decentralized environment… 2004; Act on the Organization and Operation of Local
Educational Administration, Revised
reference: Takeaki Nakadome. 1984. Sengo Gakko Keiei no Kiseki to Kadai.
and some other books.

Example of a recent reform:“Community School” policy (2004-)
Community School= a school with a school management council- running a school with participation of local community

School Management Council= “an organization that discuss about school management”
Revised “Act on the Organization andOperation of Local Educational Administration” 2004

Council’s power1) comment on school management2) comment on school personnel matters3) approve important school plans
Source: MEXT website.

The first school management council:“Gotanno Elementary School Council ” in
Adachi city, Tokyo (2004-)
11 members:- three from the local community,- three parents,- four school staff and- one person from the administration.

Source: MEXT website.

(cont.)

The first school management council:“Gotanno Elementary School Council ” in
Adachi city, Tokyo (2004-)
accomplished:
1) implementation of “power learning” forarithmetic, Japanese character reading andwriting for 15 minutes each morning,2) development of a campaign to“greet people,” extending out to thewider community; and3) classes on Saturdays run by local
volunteers on computers andJapanese checkers, etc.

Source: MEXT website.

(cont.)Shift in the role of School Council- “creating schools with the local community” School councils will:- Gather assistance for the schoolfrom the local community,- Gather support for the school activities
from the local community,

Source: MEXT website.

memo

memo

3. Outline of the School
Evaluation Policy.

.

SKPre-history
IImplemented
P

from USA afterWW2. (ca 1950)

SKIP←Evaluative Criteria ↑Japanese delegatesLegislation process ofthe school evaluation system (1)Standard for Elementary School Establishment(ministerial ordinance, March 29,2002)（self evaluation）
・article 2
1 Elementary schools are expected to monitor and evaluate
their educational activities and other school management
activities to improve school management, raise theireducational levels, and accomplish their purpose, and also
expected to disclose the results of the monitoring andevaluation to the public.
2 To accomplish the said monitoring and evaluation,schools shall set such evaluation items that are compatible
with the said conditions.

Legislation process ofthe school evaluation system (2)School Education Law ( June 27,2007 )・article 42
Based on the regulations stipulated by the Minister ofEducation, Culture, Sports and Scientific Technology,
elementary schools shall endeavor to improve the levelof their education by carrying out evaluations of theconditions of their educational activities and otherschool management activities; then in accordance withthe results, implement necessary measures to improve
school management.

Purpose ofschool evaluation(1) school improvement through evaluationof achievement of the school goal/plan(2) assuring accountability partnership withparents, guardians and community residents↓

Quality Assuranceof Education

Distribution of
The School Evaluation Guidelines

Versions of2006 Mar.,2008 Jan.,2010 Jul. and 2016 Mar.

The Three-Tier Model inThe School Evaluation Guidelines(1) Self-evaluation- Under the leadership of the principal, done by all school staffs.
- School Goals, School Plans and other plans are to be referred.

(2) Evaluation by persons related to the school- Consists of guardians, PTA members, School Council members,
community members, people concerned with articulated schools, etc.
- Evaluation done based on the results of self-evaluation(3) Third-party evaluation- Consists of experts not directly connected to the subject school, etc.
- Objective, specialized evaluation
Extracted from:
School Evaluation Guidelines , March 2016.

memo

4. Seven Factors Obstructing
Successful Implementation of
the School Evaluation

0) “School evaluation” not“successfully implemented” ???
- Q: “To what extent was the self-evaluation useful toboth systematically and continuously improveeducational activities or other school operations?”
answers

2006 2008

2011

2014

a. extremely effective

-

-

16.3%

20.3%

b. effective to some extent

--

79.3%

74.1%

c. not very effective

-

-

2.1%

2.4%

d. not effective at all-

-

2.3%

3.0%

e. don’t know--0.1%

0.1%

Author’s translation of the MEXT’s “Survey on School Evaluation etc. Implementation”

1) The correct meaning of the word
“evaluation” is not well known- The Japanese word for“evaluate” bares themeaning of “praise”.
Oftenly, “to evaluate”
means “to praise”.
Thanks to IRASUTOYA
http://www.irasutoya.com/

2) School evaluation not linked tothe school’s goal
- Goals are, in most schools, too
abstractive as “be brave andstrong and true.”- Too many sets of “goodwords” resembling to the“school’s goal” such as “schoolslogan”, “teacher’s ideal”,“student’s ideal” and so on.
Thanks to Matsumoto City / Mito City(cont.)2) School evaluation not linked tothe school’s goal

- When schools plan the selfevaluation, they cannot link itto the school goals, orwhatever goals;…unless goals are “S.M.A.R.T.”(Specific, Measurable,Achievable, Realistic, andTime-limited),

How STRONG?
How BRAVE andHow TRUE ?
?????????

Thanks to IRASUTOYA http://www.irasutoya.com/

3) Poor indicators for evaluation- Principals struggle to set convincingindicators to measure performance of
their activities- At many schools, indicators will comefrom regional test scores, questionnaire
surveys and counting cases by teacher.
They are expected to be as numericalas possible.

(cont.)3) Poor indicators for evaluation- Schools tend to set indicators measuring teachers'
effort. Many indicators, except test scores, areinput-based, do not show students’ growth.
© CyberAgent© GATAG“effort indicators” and “performance indicators” often get confused

4) Evaluation results not utilized forschool improvement- Many principals are not sure of how they
can utilize evaluation results to improve
the school.
- Many would answer they will:A) put the results on school's web site,B) share results among teachers and w/ parentsC) discuss about the results.
[Survey of 2014 by MEXT]UTILIZED?? Really???

5) Absence of good evaluators
or coordinators- Basically, no full-time staffs are
assigned for school evaluation.
- As for the self-evaluation, it isleft to principal and teachers'hands.
- They are, in most cases, notwell trained or prepared toevaluate schools.

(cont.)5) Absence of good evaluators
or coordinators (then, who ?)- a. PTA headquarters member (67.5%)- b. School council member (61.2%)- c. Residents’ association member (40.0%)- d. Social welfare facility or organization
member (31.9%)- e. Former school council
member (31.3%)- h. People of experience or
academics (13.9%)………..

6) Lack of courses for school
evaluation- In colleges for pre-service and in
local authorities for in-service
courses, it is rare to see properly
furnished programs for schoolevaluation.
- At most, they will be one hour
lecture on "school evaluation"or "school management".

7) Poor funding- Problems raised above arise from, orresult in, the lack of an appropriate
budget for school evaluation.
- Schools and local authorities are notable to hire evaluators, coordinators,mentors or assistants to lead or assistin school evaluation.
- Costs for evaluation is scarcely cared in
the school policy-making process.
Thanks to IRASUTOYA http://www.irasutoya.com/

5. Conclusionmemo

Open Discussion

memo