English Edition
No. 3 July 2010

Considering “Quality Assurance” inJunji Yamazaki
Teacher Education
Toyo University

In recent years, educational circles have emphasized “quality
assurance” and have strived to embody the idea in various
areas, from elementary education to higher education. Amongothers, the maintenance and improvement of the quality ofteachers is often discussed as a key measure to resolve various
educational issues. For that reason, much emphasis has beenplaced on “quality assurance” in the ﬁeld of teacher education.
I have had opportunities to be involved in work related to“quality assurance” in teacher education at faculties and graduate schools. I was able to learn a great deal on those occasions
and feel that the following two points are particularly important to confront “quality assurance” issues in the future.
The ﬁrst includes problems of standards for evaluation to
improve quality assurance. I have had the experience of being
involved in drafting a standard for the accreditation in the
Graduate School of Professional Teacher Education. The experience showed me that a standard proposal should be notmerely to maintain a certain level of quality, but also to contribute to improving the level. Additionally, it is important not to
produce an evaluation based on a centralized and uniﬁed
standard, but instead to produce an evaluation to support andencourage challenges with characteristics and features of each
university. I would like to emphasize this very principle repeatedly. Now, an accreditation of teacher education in undergraduate programs is becoming a policy issue, as well as an
issue related to Graduate Schools of Professional Teacher
Education. It is necessary to fulﬁll demands for accountability
and to forge understandings and agreements with people
beyond those who are involved directly in education.
However, we should always take great care not to lean toward
centralized uniformity, quantiﬁcation under the name of objectiﬁcation, and ranking of evaluation results on those grounds.
Furthermore, careful considerations will be needed forproblems such as associated with making a “core curriculum”
as one measure for clarifying the content of teacher education;and those over the nature of evaluation itself on which basis
the quality of teacher education is judged (“process evaluation”
or “outcome evaluation”).
The second include problems of evaluation systems to
improve quality assurance. From my experience, having been

involved in approval processes for teacher education courses,
the improvement of post evaluation systems is even more
important than preliminary screening systems because thedevelopment of the systems has lagged considerably. It is now
becoming a pressing political subject. However, the development of post-evaluation systems will be utterly difﬁcult
because numerous universities offer teacher education
courses and their ideals, history, and characteristics are also
diverse. Considering this improvement problem reminds meof the idea of “Chiiki kyoshi kyoiku kiko (Regional organization
for teacher education)” set out by people involved in teacher
training courses in private universities some 20 years ago. The
idea could be said to construct a pre-post evaluation system. It
included a peer review type of course approval operation
based on a cooperative system of national, public, and private
universities in each region, not based on a uniﬁed, centralized
type system by the government and public administrations.
Universities with teacher education courses pointed out
problems about the system itself in the opening and implementation of the teaching license renewal program. However,simultaneously, they set up collaborative discussions andcooperation organizations in good faith and have won trust ineach prefecture and region by overcoming differences basedon types of universities. Now, many years later, we can say withcertainty that the experience has taken a ﬁrst step toward
embodying the idea presented above from a contemporary
viewpoint.

Teacher Education in an Era of Low Birthrates
Director, Curriculum Center for Teachers, Tokyo Gakugei University Toshiki Sakai

Declining birthrates have presented a huge social issue
for eastern Asia, including Japan, South Korea, China,
and Taiwan. Particularly in South Korea and Taiwan,
they were sufﬁciently serious to record the lowest
overall fertility rate in the world one after another since2005. All of these eastern Asian regions have achieved,or are now achieving, rapid economic growth,
although their timing differs slightly. Once theeconomy started growing, traditional fertility was
regarded as a hindrance to economic growth; thenpopulation control measures were emphasized.
Furthermore, liberalization and marketization policies
of economy and institutions from around 1980 havebeen developed, coupled with the transition from thephase of population control to a lower birthratesociety. Although being compared with European
welfare states, regions in eastern Asia have begun tostrengthen their liberal policies (small government)
since around 1980 before becoming mature welfare
states. In that regard, they are about to enter a superaging society with a declining birthrate before theyreach the status of welfare states.
In structural terms, the decline of fertility rates iscaused by a burden on the household budget resulting
from a gap separating the progress of afﬂuence
accompanying economic growth and increasing
investment necessary to support children. Presently it
is progressing coupled with the following factors:
search for values other than childbirth and childrearing; ﬂuctuation of the traditional view of the family,
and changes of the view of the marriage such as atendency to marry later or not at all. In eastern Asia,
there is an urgent need to construct sustainablesystems for the economy, society, and educationaccording to the new population structure: an aging
society with a declining birthrate.
What impact does the birthrate decline have onschool education? Relatively large families used tofunction as the basic unit of society and large families
played a signiﬁcant role in the development ofchildren. Even if not wealthy, they took on welfare
functions and further educational aspects, as well as
upbringing functions. In contrast, todayʼs trends
toward nuclear families and disturbance of family
relations make family roles less signiﬁcant even in therole of stabilizing economic life, in addition to lessstably serving roles of upbringing, welfare, and education. For children, a harsh reality is spreading. It is also
readily apparent that behind this background is a prob-

lem of a widening economic gap in a competitive
society.
Schools in the era of low birthrates confront problems including the fact that they have become smaller
and that environments have become less and less aplace for children to work hard together. In addition to
those problems, schools must take on problems arisingfrom the transformation of social structure which are
the grounds or causes of the birthrate decline. Children
in economic poverty are said to have particularly
increased. Although not so high as in the United States,
it is pointed out that the child poverty rate in Japan has
increased to 14%. Studies of child poverty have lagged
behind. Consequently, meticulous educational studies
are expected to clarify how children in poverty are to
be encouraged to develop and shown how they can
put their hopes in school life.
Since 2000, South Korea has increased education
and welfare budgets. Its education budget as apercentage of GDP ranked fourth among the OECDmember countries in 2008. Educational programs touse after school hours are being developed for children
who are not guaranteed the right to education. It could
be understood that they are trying to transform into alate-developing welfare state.
Universities also should more actively address problems such as declining birthrates and child poverty. The
nature of development in teacher education should in
all reason be carried forward with particular emphasis
on problems that are difﬁcult to identify among the
problems associated with the declining birthrate.

Research Project of the Division of Teacher
Preparation Research and Development
Internationalising European Teacher Education

The Division of Teacher Preparation Research and Development of Curriculum Center for Teachers surveys not only
practices in Japan but also exerts great effort in foreigncountries. The purpose is to highlight problems facing
teacher education in Japan through attention to teacher
education policies and curriculums in foreign countries.
For example, the European Union (EU) reported in its
documents for teacher education policy that students
wanting to become teachers are encouraged to study
abroad. On the other hand, in recent years, Japanese higher
education institutions offering teacher-training courses are
expected to send graduates who are proﬁcient in educational
guidance and classroom management into schools. It can besaid only slightly that experiences in living abroad, including
learning foreign languages, are assigned great importance as
the basis to develop the quality of teachers. Certainly,
Japanese universities and faculties for teacher education
have so far developed exchange programs with higher
education institutions abroad, but very few students whowant to become teachers study abroad using suchprograms.
The premise of EU teacher education policy to promotestudents to study abroad is the standardization of higher
education systems (Bologna Process) starting in 1999. It was
designed to increase mobility among students within Europe
by aligning academic degree systems which vary among
countries.
The EU teacher education policy is closely associated withthe cause of European integration. Although apparently
seeming to be irrelevant to the context that Japan stands, it isactually thought-provoking because global sensitivity andknowledge which are expected to be acquired throughforeign experiences would be necessary for teachers in Japan
as well.
Given such problem consciousness, for two years from2008, we conducted a study with visiting professors from

Banner hanging froma window of the
Humboldt Universityof Berlin to inform
people of the callingof a strike. (Taken byauthor)Germany and Sweden and domestic researchers with thetheme of internationalisation of teacher education.
Results revealed that students in Germany wanting tobecome teachers are doing well in an overall tendency thatstudying abroad has stagnated. Surprisingly, it is the implementation of Bologna Process to be pointed out as thereason for stagnation of studying abroad. It is argued that theovercrowded curricula cannot allow sufﬁcient time to study
abroad. (This often becomes a target for protests by students.)
Of course it is compulsory in majors in foreign languages.
However, even in other majors, students who want to beteachers consider studying abroad as a rare invaluable opportunity that is difﬁcult to experience after getting a teachingjob. Therefore, they go abroad by managing their study plans.
Meanwhile, student who wants to become a teacher in
Sweden is not as active as students in other majors, which issimilar to Japan on this point. However, in the country that
actively accepts immigrants and overseas students, theinternationalisation of teacher education courses has beenpromoted by means such as increasing the number oflessons conducted in English.
In February this year, we released the “Europe ni okeru
kyoshikyoiku no kokusaika kenkyu project hokokusho(Research project report on the internationalisation of teacher
education in Europe)” summarizing achievements for suchprojects. It is accessible through the Center website. Please
visit if you are interested in this subject. (Yoshimi Uesugi)

Expectations for the Curriculum professional careers. Particularly, the way that in-service
training should be conducted and the contents of it at universiCenter for Teachers
ties must be examined.
Hideki Yonekawa

Osaka Kyoiku University
Member of the Advisory Board for the Curriculum
Center for Teachers
Initial teacher education in Japan is now entering a period ofgreat change. Since the change of government last year,
transition to a six-year teacher education program has been
opened for discussion, as well as the abolition of the Teaching
License Renewal Program. In this time of change, the following
two points will be required for all initial teacher education
institutions in Japan: 1) A policy-making contribution of whatsort of blueprint of an initial teacher education system; and 2)
Their involvement in quality assurance of teachers. What are
required for 1) are detailed analyses from historical and global
viewpoints and presentation of a policy menu. Requirementsfor 2) are examination of the content of teacher education
curriculums and a way in which universities will get involved ina future national model and development of teachers in their

Regarding policies for fostering teachers in 1), the Center has
so far made large contributions by performing several research
projects and international symposia. I hope that suchchallenges will be continued to the future. From the viewpointof reconstructing Japanese initial teacher education, I thinkthat the Center has entered the transitional period to the nextstage (level of policy formation) based on its remarkable
academic accomplishments.
I believe that a standpoint from a national curriculum ofteacher education is necessary for quality assurance of teachersin 2). This contains a challenge for a difﬁcult task to scrutinize amodel core curriculum further, including the content ofsubjects. On top of it, initial teacher education institutions inJapan are expected to shift increasingly to in-service training ofteachers. The appropriate response to this is also being investigated.
I have no doubt that now, more than ever, initial teacher
education institutions all over Japan have pinned their hopeson the Center.

Graduate School of Professional Teacher
Education, Tokyo Gakugei University
Seiji Kawasaki
Since 1996, when I arrived to take up a new position in thisuniversity, I conducted observations of elementary schools in
Hawaii. In ﬁscal year 2001, I had a sabbatical and conducted an
intensive observation. The elementary school selected for a ﬁeld
study was a cooperating school for the Master of Education in
Teaching program of the University of Hawaii, and approximately 20 student teachers turned up on a regular basis. I had
no idea at the time what the Master of Education in Teaching
program was for. At the same time of being surprised at practiceteaching throughout the year, I had even a joyous impression of
student teachers who appeared once or twice a week because
practice teaching seemed very easy-going. In reality, they took
theoretical classes at the university, organized project studies inessays, and made presentations at staff meetings of cooperating schools. I actually attended staff meetings and listened topresentations. Each presentation was full of suggestive andpractical contents for cooperating schools. It even drew
encouraging plaudits from teachers: “Do you have your card?”(meaning, “I want to give you a job”).

Seven years later, I came to teach at the Graduate School ofProfessional Teacher Education of this university; it was nothing
less than fate. The reason why I demand a far more rigorous
standard for the quality of project studies as an alternative tomaster theses than other teachers is based on the experiences
described above. It is quite possible for even student teachers to
extract problems at school sharply and present improvement
plans, or to follow up on the actual conditions of children
theoretically.
Our Graduate School of Professional Teacher Education has aconsiderable number of students who did not read pedagogy inundergraduate years. Just after enrollment, those students show
puzzlement at research methods used in pedagogy and show
ambivalence toward human study and occasionally cannot step
forward. I can understand those feelings well because I myself
shifted from jurisprudence to pedagogy. However, during thefollowing six months or so after practice teaching started, theysometimes come to have more problem-consciousness thantheir classmates who graduated from pedagogy. It might bebecause theoretical perspectives cultivated in class come toengage with daily practices in cooperating schools. It is about us
ourselves that I suddenly feel uneasiness on such occasions: I
wonder whether we are continuing to grow as researchers, aswell as being teachers. Postgraduate students are watching thispoint carefully. They discern it very well.

Subject groups which should be taken to obtain a teacher
certiﬁcate in Japan have been divided broadly into “subjects
related to school subjects” and “subjects related to theteaching”. With the revision of the act in 1998, “subjects related
to school subjects or the teaching” were newly added to them.
They are the so-called “mataha (neither) subjects”. For example,
the requirements for the ﬁrst-class certiﬁcate for elementary
school teachers are 8 credits in “school subjects”, 41 credits inthe “teaching”, and 10 credits in “mataha subjects”.
The “mataha subjects” can be arranged as follows at each
universityʼs discretion: assigning previous “school subjects” or

the “teaching” subjects; or setting a unique subject group forthis category. In general, the faculties such as literature andscience increase “school subjects”, whereas the faculties foreducation tend to increase the “teaching”. Furthermore, diverse
examples are observed because of this categoryʼs peculiarity:
cross-subject type (curriculum, information, etc.) subjects;
subjects related to English taught during elementary school(not regarded as a “subject” at this point); and so on.
This arrangement results from the fact that the revision of theact in 1998 allowed some latitude in the planning undertaken ateach university, although intending to weigh heavily on the“teaching profession”. For that reason, several problems havebeen created. For example, constructing a nation-wide standard
becomes difﬁcult. (Yasuyuki Iwata)

Saturday, November 20, 2010 (tentative)

Saturday, December 4, 2010

Mataha (neither) subjects

The 9th Workshop for Practicing
Teacher Education
Staﬀ of Curriculum Center for Teachers
Director

SAKAI, Toshiki(Professor, History Education and Korean Education)

Center Researchers[Division of Curriculum Research and Development]
MITSUISHI, Hatsuo(Professor, Curriculum Studies)
KANEKO, Mariko(Associate Professor, Educational Sociology)[Division of Teacher Preparation Research and Development]
IWATA, Yasuyuki(Associate Professor, Historical Studies of Teacher Education)
UESUGI, Yoshimi(Associate Professor, Media Education)[Division of Research and Development for In-Service Teachers]
MAEHARA, Kenji(Associate Professor, Educational Administration)

The 11th Annual Symposium “The future
curriculum of school and teacher
education” (tentative)
The CCT is produced by the Curriculum Center for Teachers,
Tokyo Gakugei University.
Editor: Yoshimi Uesugi
Designer: Tsukasa Aoyama and Xiaohui Zhang(Aoyama Lab., Calligraphy and Arts, Tokyo Gakugei University)
Curriculum Center for Teachers, Tokyo Gakugei University
4-1-1 Nukui-kitamachi Koganei, Tokyo 184-8501 Japan
Tel: 81-42-329-7776
Fax: 81-42-329-7786
E-mail: currict@u-gakugei.ac.jp
Website: http://www.u-gakugei.ac.jp/˜currict/english/index.html