“保障教育机会”中“多样性”消失的意义:形式主义胜利与教育消费者视角的解读

I. Kuraishi
{"title":"“保障教育机会”中“多样性”消失的意义:形式主义胜利与教育消费者视角的解读","authors":"I. Kuraishi","doi":"10.7571/esjkyoiku.14.69","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The so-called “Educational Opportunity Guarantee Act 2016” was adopted and established in the National Diet in December 2016. As is well known, it gained impetus through lobbying from people involved with alternative “free schools,” pursuing a stable position within the system, along with the night junior high school movement. This process, in which a discussion that shakes the foundations of public education as a whole was brought to the fore by the margins of the public education system, is extremely interesting. Elsewhere, the final text of the law is sharply distinguished from its original plan, and has been severely criticized by people involved in the movement. This paper focuses on the point among these that both in word and in deed, the concept of “diverse” has disappeared from the initial “guaranteeing diverse educational opportunities.” With guidance from the arguments of David F. Labaree, this paper interprets the process of this alteration (loss) as the triumph of formalism over actualism in education, a “victory” for the educational consumers who view public education as private property.","PeriodicalId":205276,"journal":{"name":"Educational Studies in Japan","volume":"27 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The Significance of the Disappearance of “Diverse” from “Guaranteeing Educational Opportunities”: An Interpretation from the Viewpoint of the Victory of Formalism and the Educational Consumer\",\"authors\":\"I. Kuraishi\",\"doi\":\"10.7571/esjkyoiku.14.69\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The so-called “Educational Opportunity Guarantee Act 2016” was adopted and established in the National Diet in December 2016. As is well known, it gained impetus through lobbying from people involved with alternative “free schools,” pursuing a stable position within the system, along with the night junior high school movement. This process, in which a discussion that shakes the foundations of public education as a whole was brought to the fore by the margins of the public education system, is extremely interesting. Elsewhere, the final text of the law is sharply distinguished from its original plan, and has been severely criticized by people involved in the movement. This paper focuses on the point among these that both in word and in deed, the concept of “diverse” has disappeared from the initial “guaranteeing diverse educational opportunities.” With guidance from the arguments of David F. Labaree, this paper interprets the process of this alteration (loss) as the triumph of formalism over actualism in education, a “victory” for the educational consumers who view public education as private property.\",\"PeriodicalId\":205276,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Educational Studies in Japan\",\"volume\":\"27 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2020-03-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Educational Studies in Japan\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.7571/esjkyoiku.14.69\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Educational Studies in Japan","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.7571/esjkyoiku.14.69","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

所谓的“2016年教育机会保障法”于2016年12月在国会通过并确立。众所周知,它是通过参与另类“自由学校”的人士的游说而获得动力的,这些人在体制内寻求稳定的地位,同时还有夜间初中运动。在这个过程中,一场撼动整个公共教育基础的讨论被公共教育系统的边缘带到了前台,这是非常有趣的。在其他地方,该法律的最终文本与最初的计划截然不同,并受到了参与该运动的人士的严厉批评。其中,“多样化”的概念从最初的“保障多样化的教育机会”中消失了,无论是在言语上还是在行动上。本文以David F. Labaree的观点为指导,将这种改变(失去)的过程解释为教育中形式主义对现实主义的胜利,是将公共教育视为私有财产的教育消费者的“胜利”。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
The Significance of the Disappearance of “Diverse” from “Guaranteeing Educational Opportunities”: An Interpretation from the Viewpoint of the Victory of Formalism and the Educational Consumer
The so-called “Educational Opportunity Guarantee Act 2016” was adopted and established in the National Diet in December 2016. As is well known, it gained impetus through lobbying from people involved with alternative “free schools,” pursuing a stable position within the system, along with the night junior high school movement. This process, in which a discussion that shakes the foundations of public education as a whole was brought to the fore by the margins of the public education system, is extremely interesting. Elsewhere, the final text of the law is sharply distinguished from its original plan, and has been severely criticized by people involved in the movement. This paper focuses on the point among these that both in word and in deed, the concept of “diverse” has disappeared from the initial “guaranteeing diverse educational opportunities.” With guidance from the arguments of David F. Labaree, this paper interprets the process of this alteration (loss) as the triumph of formalism over actualism in education, a “victory” for the educational consumers who view public education as private property.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信