일본의 지방교육행정 개혁의 쟁점과 시사점

Abstract

The purpose of this study is to examine local educational administration reform in Japan and suggest its implications in Korea. This article is composed of five chapters: introduction, research frame, revised Acts(1948-2007), some issues, evaluation, and lessons. The history of Japanese policy can be divided into four periods. The representative slogans are “Decentralization of Power (1999)” and “Strengthening the Nation’s Responsibility (2007).”The New Fundamental Law of Education(revised in 2006) emphasized the role-division and cooperation between Nation (MEXT) and local government (Board of Education) and was reflected in the Local Educational Administration Law as a basic ideology of administration. The idea of reform comes from the report (Reforms of the Board of Education for the realization of a responsible educational administration, 2007.3.10) of the Central Council for Education. The characteristics of the Japanese Board of Education can be summarized by the four points below. First, there is no concept of Educational Autonomy as an ideology of local educational administration. Second, the Board of Education is an institution independent of the provincial governor. Third, it is operated by representatives from the Board of Education. Fourth, it is organized under the principle of layman control. However, the real situation in Japan is different from these principles and laws. The provincial governor is superior to the Board of Education in power. The Board of Education is operated with much red-tape. Meetings of the Board of Education are not active. As a conclusion, I suggested some lessons to be learned through the Japanese case study. Firstly, it is necessary for us to establish the principle of role-division and cooperation between national and local government. Secondly, we should remember the continuous process of establishing educational policy through the Central Council for Education. This lesson is very important for Korea, which is suffering from “hurry-up disease.” Thirdly, it is more important to analyze the cause of non-efficiency than to stop the Board of Education System. Lastly, when we reform the laws related to educational administration, we should recognize that the final purpose of any reform is to promote school (educational) autonomy and lastly citizens' basic educational rights.