The Language Teacher
October 2001
Is Japan's Education System Meritocratic?
Christopher P. Hood
Cardiff University
The Japanese education system is changing. Nonetheless, despite people beginning to acknowledge this fact (see, for example, Hood 2001, Roesgaard, 1998), attention tends to focus on the structural aspects of the education system (e.g., the 6-3-3 system and changes to funding of higher education) rather than on some of the effects of these changes. Of course, part of the reason for this is that as the reforms are still on going, it is not always possible to fully appreciate what changes have occurred and whether they are short-term or not.
The present reform process has many of its roots in the Nakasone-initiated reforms of the 1980s. This article looks at just one area of the education system and the way it is changing, that is, the degree to which the Japanese education system is meritocratic. For former Prime Minister Nakasone himself wrote in his "bible on Japanese politics" that the education system needed greater meritocracy (Hood, 2001, p. 36).1 Therefore, to be able to investigate this subject, it is best to start with a working definition of a meritocratic education.
A useful, and certainly popular starting point is to link it to Confucian ideologies. This is something that is often done by many Japanese politicians -- particularly conservative politicians such as Nakasone. The danger with such an approach is that it tends to give the impression of some kind of religious or moral ethos existing, whereas in fact many Japanese people inherit such ideologies as norms.
If Confucianism is the origin of such an ideology, it is also a fact that the Japanese have come to reward scholarship (Zeng, 1999, p. 20). Based on a Prussian model (which was in turn influenced by Chinese civil service examinations), Japan introduced their examination procedure in the 19th century. This system of eligibility for positions in the bureaucracy led to a symbiosis between it and the university. In the new system, meritocratic principles replaced aristocratic birth or patronage as eligibility to the bureaucracy and thus status (Windolf, 1997, p. 128). The most notable and well-used example of this is the large number of politicians and leading bureaucrats with Tokyo University backgrounds. With such graduates sitting at the top of the Japanese educational hierarchy, the conclusion may be drawn that the system is meritocratic. Yet, with reforms aiming to further enable students to pursue their own interests and changes to the exam system, let alone changes in society where the old school tie is no longer meant to be as critical in assessing potential employees, perhaps the picture is no longer as clear.
One aim of the Japanese education system that has remained constant through much of the postwar period, and that has been repeatedly highlighted by the Monbukagakusho, has been to create an egalitarian system, to the extent that soon after the Nakasone-initiated reform process had began. Amano Ikuo (1986, p. 2) wrote that equality of opportunity had been achieved and was "no longer an issue." Equality can be demonstrated by the access to all levels of education throughout the 47 prefectures of apan, the extraordinarily high attendance at elementary and secondary schools, the use of a standard Course of Study the use of approved textbooks, and so on.
That a system is egalitarian may suggest that it is perhaps not meritocratic. However, the system is not as egalitarian as we are often led to believe, and the key word in Amano's conclusion is opportunity. For, although any student can, in theory, have access to almost identical education anywhere in Japan, to the extent that different schools in different prefectures will often be teaching identical things on the same day, differences still remain in terms of the quality of education received, and the reward for attending a particular institution.
Let us consider for a moment what I observed at a middle school graduation ceremony a few years ago. What was notable about this ceremony was that all the graduating students received identical certificates. Yet the students varied a great deal -- from those who were going on to prestigious high schools and (perhaps) on to the best universities, to those who had not studied hard and were going to less prestigious high schools or were leaving the education system altogether, to students with special needs. What can be considered meritocratic about this?
The important consideration is of course that the reward was not the graduation certificate, but the next level that the student was passing on to. In other words, at this stage of the education system, the reward is the ability to be able to go on and study at a particular institution. Although the vast majority of the students were all continuing on to high school -- and this is an opportunity open to all, though it can be a prohibitively expensive option for some 2 -- the quality of these schools vary. Those that had worked hard were now rewarded -- having passed the appropriate entrance requirements -- with entry to their deserved high school. The rest were slotted into other high schools as appropriate. Perhaps this can be considered to be meritocratic.
Nonetheless, even if we momentarily set aside the issue of whether the entrance system (i.e., whether the student is accepted on the basis of a recommendation or having passed the school's entrance examination) is fair, one should still consider whether the students were ever on a level playing field. Without this condition, one cannot conclude whether a system is meritocratic or not. Although students at school may receive identical tuition (though experiences may vary from one class to another due to different teaching staff and resources), the importance of the other part of the education system, juku (cram schools) cannot be overlooked.
Juku are perhaps the most infamous part of the Japanese education system. They are typically characterised as being involved solely in preparing students for examinations, but in fact there are many different types, each performing different roles. The reason that they have become infamous is that they are "like tactical weapons in an escalating educational arms race" (Rohlen, 1988, p. 28) as students attend them to gain an advantage over other students. Their significance has become so influential that some have even begun to question if jukus might be the reason why Japanese students have appeared to do so well in international comparisons. On top of this, as some jukus have also developed better teaching techniques, Rinkyoshin (the ad hoc council established by Prime Minister Nakasone) even "wanted juku to become a recognised part of the education system and be encouraged as alternatives to regular schools" (Hood, 2001. p. 115). If they are so significant, then one cannot ignore them when making judgements about the quality and role of the education system.
Focussing on our question of the meritocratic nature of the Japanese education system, the key point to bear in mind is that access to juku is not something that can be guaranteed for all. Unlike top schools, where entrance would be, at least in part, decided upon examination results or performance at the lower stage of the education system, juku entrance is determined primarily monetarily. Although the costs to attend juku are not considered to be significant (Hood, 2001, p. 115), the fact is that money rather than educational performance has become part of the selection mechanism. Logically, this runs contrary to a meritocratic education.
Not all Japanese children attend juku although the impression may often be otherwise. There are differences depending on the stage of education. More significantly perhaps, there are often considerable regional differences. This raises questions about whether the Japanese education system is as uniform as both the Monbukagakusho and many outside observers would like to characterise it as being.
Let us now return to concentrating on entrance to high school education in Japan. It is at this point that the system would appear to become meritocratic -- in the sense that the best students go to the best schools, and the weaker students end up going to weaker schools or are forced out of the system altogether. Segregating students at this level suggests that the formal education system's preoccupation with equality amounts to selecting students with either differences in natural ability or their achievements at juku.
The former suggestion requires more attention. The idea that students may have differences in natural ability has traditionally not been a popular one in Japan. Although there may be some agreement that differences in natural ability exist, the system itself, and the way in which students are taught, has not been designed to take account of this. This is probably another factor that has led to the growth of the juku industry, as it attempts to further stimulate the minds of the gifted. In fact, in Japan, the assumption appears to be that "all children have equal potential" and differences in achievement result from differences in "effort, perseverance, and self-discipline, not from differences in individual ability" (OERI Japan Study Team, 1987, p. 26). This appears to suggest that although the education system aims to be egalitarian, variance does exist owing to differences in "effort, perseverance, and self-discipline." This is surely, more than anything else, an indication of a meritocratic education system.
When we consider entrance to university, students have apparently tended to follow an educational path that would help them get employment at a large company. It must be noted that this is both a generalisation and a stereotypical view; the system is changing, and even before the changes, there were many who did not follow this pattern. This has led to a situation whereby students may aim for institutions, or courses, that are higher than perhaps their academic records would suggest they are suitable or capable of entering. This, in itself, need not be a bad thing, as it helps to raise motivation to study. But it can lead to undue pressure and waste as some students continually attempt to enter the university of their first choice, rather than concentrate on achieving a lot and perhaps studying a more suitable course at a lesser institution. This is the dilemma of the so-called, and in my opinion overhyped, examination hell.
In theory, as a result of the hard work and effort put into study to enter these institutions, the better students are being rewarded. Yet, as we have already mentioned for entrance to high school, entrance is influenced by many external factors, in particular the region in which the student studies and the amount of money that their family has available to spend on education, especially juku.
Since the Nakasone-initiated education reforms started in the mid-1980s, there has increasingly been a move towards providing elite education and moving away from traditional egalitarian education. Rinkyoshin never explicitly called for elite education, yet the provisions that give greater attention to the individual appear to have been a move in this direction.
Consequently, the debate over grade skipping (tobikyu) for brighter students and holding back (ryunen) for students not keeping up has intensified. Although the idea appears not to be popular with many, it is something that Professor Fujita Hidenori believes will happen, although "it will be difficult" (Hood, 2001, p. 132). These changes appear to suggest that the system might become more meritocratic as hard-working students are rewarded, and others are not rewarded or are punished. A future problem may be that as differences are emphasised, particularly in public education, the perception may be that essential fairness is lost, which would be unpopular with many Japanese (Simmons, 1990, p. 127).
In conclusion, whether the Japanese education system is meritocratic is debatable. Many aspects of it appear not to be. To the majority of Japanese students and families, it is perhaps more meritocratic than is often thought. One can only hope that with the continuing changes being made to the system and the changing demands of Japanese society, in the future a better fit will be found between the education system and society so that the excesses and those on the fringes do not continue to suffer.
References
Amano, I. (1986b). The dilemma of Japanese education today. The Japan Foundation Newsletter. XIII, (5).
Hood, C.P. (2001). Japanese education reform: Nakasone's legacy. London: Routledge.
Nakasone Y. (1978). Atarashii hoshu no ronri. Tokyo: Kôdansha.
OERI Japan Study Team (1987). Japanese education today. Washington DC: U.S. Department of Education.
Roesgaard, M. H. (1998). Moving mountains: Japanese education reform. Denmark: Aarhus University Press.
Rohlen, T.P. (1988). Education in Japanese society. In D.I. Okimoto & T.P. Rohlen (Eds.). Inside the Japanese system: Readings on contemporary society and political economy. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Simmons, C. (1990). Growing up and going to school in Japan. Tokyo: Open University Press.
Windolf, P. (1997). Expansion and structured change: Higher education in Germany, the United States, and Japan 1870 1990. USA: Westview Press.
Zeng, K. (1999). Dragon gate: Competitive examinations and their consequences. London: Cassell.
1 Nakasone was referring to his 1978 book Atarashii Hoshu no Ronri, Tokyo: Kodansha.
2 Although a significant number of high schools are private, over two-thirds of students attend public schools. This is due not only to financial considerations, but also because the majority still do not enjoy the sort of reputations that their counterparts in countries like the United Kingdom, for example, enjoy, where private education is seen as providing elite education. However, even public schools can be too expensive, particularly for those in less fortunate parts of society (e.g., one-parent families, etc.).
Christopher P. Hood is the Director of the Cardiff Japanese Studies Centre, Cardiff University and a tutor on the University of Sheffield's distance learning MA course. He completed his doctorate on the education reforms in Japan and the influence of Nakasone Yasuhiro in 1998 at the University of Sheffield. This study was recently updated and published in April 2001 (Japanese Education Reform: Nakasone's Legacy). His research was based on experiences on the JET Programme, extensive reading of English and Japanese sources, and in-depth interviews with Nakasone himself, Tokyo governor Ishihara, Monbusho officials, teachers and students.
All materials on this site are copyright © by JALT and their respective authors.
For more information on JALT, visit the JALT National Website