Education after World War II

On Aug. 14, 1945, Japan accepted the Potsdam Declaration and surrendered unconditionally to the Allied powers. The overriding concern at the general headquarters (GHQ) of the Allied powers was the immediate abolition of militaristic education and ultranationalistic ideology. This was the theme of a directive issued by GHQ to the Japanese government in October 1945. In early 1946, GHQ invited the United States Education Mission to Japan, and it played a decisive role in creating a new educational system. The mission’s report recommended thorough and drastic reforms of education in Japan. The report was subsequently adopted in its entirety as the basic framework for a new democratic educational system. The Education Reform Committee, which was directly responsible to the prime minister, was established to make recommendations for the implementation of the new education. Based on these recommendations, the Japanese Diet passed a series of legislative acts that forged the foundation of postwar education.

The Fundamental Law of Education and the School Education Law, both enacted in 1947, and the Boards of Education Law of 1948 set the outlines of the new education. The prewar system was replaced by a democratic single-track system, in which school programs were integrated and simplified and the period of attendance was settled in six, three, three, and four years, respectively, for shōgakkō, or elementary schools; chūgakkō, or lower secondary schools; kōtōgakkō, or upper secondary schools; and daigaku, or universities. The period of compulsory attendance was extended to nine years, coeducation was introduced, and provisions were made for education for the physically handicapped and other special education.

The reform of the content of education proceeded to reduce the strong state control of former days and to encourage teachers’ initiative. State textbooks were abolished in favour of commercial ones, and schools were controlled locally by elective boards of education. Shūshin disappeared from the curricula and was replaced by new subjects, such as shakaika, or social studies, designed to prepare children for life in a democratic society. The educational reform also altered the character of the universities, which offered access to all citizens. The former institutions—universities, colleges, and normal schools—were reorganized into four-year universities and colleges. Teacher education was placed within the university system, and anyone who completed professional training was eligible for teacher certification. This reorganization had an immense impact upon the development of higher education.

The peace treaty of 1952 not only liberated Japan from the restraints of occupation but also allowed education there to be adjusted to intrinsic cultural and political orientations. Centralization of control increased with respect to administration, curriculum, textbooks, and teacher performance through a series of legislative and administrative measures in the 1950s. In addition, the political indoctrination of the leftist Japan Teachers’ Union was hindered, and moral education was reintroduced as a requirement at the elementary and lower secondary levels. On the whole, however, the postwar educational reforms were retained and advanced, and their subsequent elaboration helped match Japan’s rapid economic growth.

The postwar educational administration was organized into a three-tiered structure, with national, prefectural, and municipal components—all under the general supervision of the Ministry of Education, which also wielded a considerable measure of authority over curricular standards, textbooks, and school finance, among other functions. Through its central, advisory role, the Ministry of Education guided the development of egalitarian and efficient schooling in the postwar era.

The progressive curriculum, which emphasized child interest and was introduced from the United States immediately after the war, produced deteriorating student performance. Thus, during 1961–63 the Ministry of Education replaced that curriculum with a discipline-centred curriculum at the elementary and lower secondary levels in order to improve academic achievement, moral education, science and technical education, and vocational education. This curricular revision set the tone for later changes in the national curriculum. Each major curricular revision represented an educational response to a variety of social needs, above all economic.

The 1960s was a period of high growth for both the economy and education. The unprecedented economic growth was stimulated by an ambitious national plan to boost individual income, industry, and trade. Responding to the changing economic and industrial environment, enrollments in high schools and in colleges or universities increased, respectively, from 57.7 and 10.3 percent of the eligible students in 1960 to 91.9 and 37.8 percent in 1975. Ninety percent of this increase in university and college enrollments was absorbed into poorly financed private institutions, which contributed to the deterioration of higher education. Problems also arose at the upper secondary level, where education remained rigidly uniform even though students were increasingly diverse in abilities, aptitudes, and interests. The inability of the postwar educational system to meet either student requirements or the insatiable demands for secondary and postsecondary education became of critical concern, and in 1971 the Central Council for Education recommended reforming Japan’s education to eradicate these problems.

The Central Council initiated a sustained school reform debate that set the stage for the establishment, in 1984, of an advisory council on educational reform, which was directly responsible to the prime minister. The advisory council called for elimination of the uniformity and rigidity of education at all levels and for the enhancement of “individuality” through education. Its recommendations in 1987 included diversifying upper secondary education, improving moral education, encouraging greater local freedom and responsibility in developing curriculum, improving teacher training, and fostering diversity in higher education.

Pre-independence period

Amid the rising nationalism of the latter part of the 19th century, Indians became more and more critical of the domination of Western learning as imposed by the British rulers and demanded, instead, more attention to Indian languages and culture. The Indian National Congress, several Muslim associations, and other groups raised their voices against the British system of education. British authorities were not, however, altogether blind to the needs of the country. When Baron Curzon of Kedleston arrived as viceroy in 1898, his determination to improve education was immediately translated into an order for a close survey of the entire field of education. It revealed: “Four out of five villages are without a school. Three boys out of four grow up without any education and only one girl out of forty attends any kind of school.” Education had advanced, but it had not penetrated the country as the British had earlier expected.

Curzon applied himself to the task of putting matters in order. He disapproved of the doctrine of state withdrawal and instead considered it necessary for the government to maintain a few institutions of every type as models for private enterprise to imitate. He also abandoned the existing policy of educational laissez-faire and introduced a stricter control over private schools through a vigilant policy of inspection and control. Such a policy aroused bitter feelings among some educated Indians, since it was believed that Curzon was bent on bringing the entire system of education under government control.

The main battle, however, was fought over the universities. With Eton and Balliol in mind, Baron Curzon set up the Indian Universities Commission of 1902 to bring about a better order in higher education. The commission made a number of important recommendations—namely, to limit the size of the university senates, to entrust teaching in addition to examining powers to universities, to insist on a high educational standard from affiliated colleges, to grant additional state aids to universities, to improve courses of studies, to abolish second-grade colleges, and to fix a minimum rate of fees in the affiliated colleges. The report was severely criticized, and the last two recommendations had to be dropped. Legislation in regard to the other proposals was passed despite bitter opposition in the legislature and the press.

The conflict resulted less from educational differences than from political opinions on centralization. In one part of the country, violent agitation had already started on the question of the partition of Bengal. In another, the patriot Bal Gangadhar Tilak declared: “Swaraj [self-rule] is our birthright.” Thus, Baron Curzon’s educational reforms were considered sinister in their intentions, and his alleged bureaucratic attitude was resented.

The administrative policy of Baron Curzon also gave rise to the first organized movement for national education. This effort was part of the swadeshi movement, which called for national independence and the boycotting of foreign goods. A body known as the National Council of Education established a national college and a technical institution (the present Jadavpur University) in Calcutta (Kolkata) and 51 national schools in Bengal. These schools sought to teach a trade in addition to ordinary subjects of the matriculation syllabus. The movement received a great impetus, because the Calcutta Congress (1906) resolved that the time had arrived for organizing a national system of education. With the slackening of the swadeshi movement, however, most of the national schools were eventually closed. The effect of the movement was nevertheless noticeable elsewhere: Rabindranath Tagore started his famous school in West Bengal near Bolpur in 1901; the Arya Pratinidhi Sabha established gurukulas at Vrindaban and Haridwar; and the Indian National Congress and the All-India Muslim League at their sessions in Allahabad and Nagpur, respectively, passed resolutions in favour of free and compulsory primary education.

In 1905 Baron Curzon left India. In order to pacify the general public, his successors modified his policy to some extent, but the main program was resolutely enforced. Although Indian public opinion continued its opposition, the reforms of Baron Curzon brought order into education. Universities were reconstituted and organized, and they undertook teaching instead of merely conducting examinations for degrees. Colleges were no longer left to their own devices but were regularly visited by inspectors appointed by the universities. The government also became vigilant and introduced a better system for inspecting and granting recognition to private schools; the slipshod system of elementary education was also improved. The number of colleges and secondary schools continued to increase as the demand for higher education developed.

In 1917 the government appointed the Sadler Commission to inquire into the “conditions and prospects of the University of Calcutta,” an inquiry that was in reality nationwide in scope. Covering a wide field, the commission recommended the formation of a board with full powers to control secondary and intermediate education; the institution of intermediate colleges with two-year courses; the provision of a three-year degree course after the intermediate stage; the institution of teaching and unitary universities; the organization of postgraduate studies and honours courses; and a greater emphasis on the study of sciences, on tutorial systems, and on research work. The government of India issued a resolution in January 1920 summarizing the report of the commission. Since then all legislation of any importance on higher education in any part of India has embodied some of the recommendations of the commission.

Meanwhile, World War I had ended, and the new Indian constitution in 1921 made education a “transferred” subject (that is, transferred from British to Indian control), entrusting it almost entirely to the care of the provinces. In each province, educational policy and administration passed into the hands of a minister of education, responsible to the provincial legislature and ultimately to the people. Although European-style education was still maintained as a “reserved” subject and was not placed under the control of the Indian minister of education, this anomaly was corrected by the Government of India Act of 1935, which removed the distinction between transferred and reserved subjects and introduced a complete provincial autonomy over education.

Generally, the new constitution of 1921 was considered inadequate by the Indian National Congress. In protest, Mahatma Gandhi launched the noncooperation movement, the campaign to boycott English institutions and products. National schools were established throughout the country, and vidyapeeths (“national universities”) were set up at selected centres. The courses of study in these institutions did not differ much from those in recognized schools, but Hindi was studied as an all-India language in place of English, and the mother tongue was used as the medium of instruction. These institutions functioned for a short time only and disappeared with the suppression of the noncooperation movement. The Congress’ struggle for self-rule, however, became more vigorous, and with it spread the national movement toward education to suit national needs. The Government of India Act of 1935 further strengthened the position of the provincial ministers of education, since the Congress was in power in major provinces. The developmental program of provincial governments included the spread of primary education, the introduction of adult education, a stress on vocational education, and an emphasis on the education of girls and underprivileged people. The importance of English was reduced, and Indian languages, both as subjects of study and as media of instruction, began to receive greater attention.

On this general background, educational developments from the inauguration of reforms in 1921 until independence in 1947 can be viewed. In the field of elementary education, the most important event was the passing of compulsory-education acts by provincial governments—acts empowering local authorities to make primary education free and compulsory in the areas under their jurisdiction. Another noteworthy feature was the introduction of Gandhi’s “basic education,” which was designed to rescue education from its bookish and almost purely verbal content by emphasizing the teaching of all school subjects in correlation with some manual productive craft. A general demand for secondary education developed with the political awakening among the masses. Schools in rural, semi-urban, and less-advanced communities were established, as were schools for girls. Some provision was made for alternative or vocational courses when the provincial governments started technical, commercial, and agricultural high schools and gave larger grants to private schools providing nonliterary courses. But the expected results were not achieved because of a lack of funds and of trained teachers. Secondary schools still concentrated on preparing students for admission to colleges of arts and sciences.

The period was also marked by a diminishing of the prejudices against the education of girls. The impetus came from the national movement launched by Gandhi, which led thousands of women to come out of the purdah for the cause of national emancipation. It was also realized that the education of the girl was the education of the mother and, through her, of her children. Between 1921–22 and 1946–47, the number of educational institutions for girls was nearly doubled.

In the field of university education, outstanding developments included (1) the establishment of 14 new universities, unitary as well as affiliating, (2) the democratization of the administrative bodies of older universities by a substantial increase in the number of elected members, (3) the expansion of academic activities through the opening of several new faculties, courses of studies, and research, (4) a substantial increase in the number of colleges and student enrollments, (5) the provision of military training and greater attention to physical education and recreational activities of students, and (6) the constitution of the Inter-University Board and the development of intercollegiate and interuniversity activities. With these improvements, however, the educational system of the country had become top-heavy.