（13）Reforms of the Educational Administrative System

A major reform of the school structure demanded that a corresponding change be made in the educational administrative structure. The task, however, of determining a new structure acceptable both to the Occupation authorities and to Japanese educational circles proved difficult. From 1946 until as late as 1952 the debate continued over what form the new educational administration should take.

As stated earlier, in August, 1946, the Ministry of Education proposed an Outline for Educational Administrative Reform, which would have divided the country into nine school districts, each with its own education bureau which would have authority over educational matters from the elementary to the university level as well as over the social education programs of the school district. The president of the Imperial University in each school district was to serve as the administrative head of the school district education bureau. Each school district also had a school district board of education, and each prefecture within that school district had a branch education bureau and a branch board of education. Members of the boards of education were to be elected from among educators.

Because of the strict insistence of GHQ on adhering to the Report of the United States Education Mission to Japan with respect to the decentralization and democratization of the educational structure, the Ministry was obliged to drop this plan.

A modified system was then proposed by the Education Reform Committee in December, 1946. According to this plan, a board of education was to be set up in each city, town, village, and prefecture and the prefectural units were further to be grouped into regions with the regional boards of education. Decentralization was to be accomplished through the election of boards of education in each city, town, village, and prefecture. These boards were responsible for all policy decisions related to education, and the administrative head of education, who was to be elected by the board members, was responsible for the execution of these decisions. However, this plan also required that the regional boards of education, whose members were to be elected by the prefectural board members in their regions, should have authority for coordinating personnel matters and educational policies in their regions (The regional boards were also to elect the administrative heads of education in their regions.).

The Ministry of Education drafted a bill, based on this proposal and taking into account the new local government system, but this also was rejected by GHQ because of the regional orientation of the boards of education. GHQ adamantly insisted that education should be left in the hands of the people and should therefore follow the American model where boards of education, comprised of persons outside of the educational field, were elected locally and had full authority over educational matters. On the other hand, Japanese educational leaders argued that strict adherence to the American model failed to take into account circumstances particular to Japan and was therefore bound to create undesirable tensions within the educational structure.

Although the debate over the nature of the boards of education continued, legislation for the establishment of elected boards was introduced into the Diet where it was further amended, but finally passed on July 5, 1948. The Board of Education Law was promulgated on July 15, 1948, and put in force on that day. On October 5 of that year the first elections for board members were held in each prefecture and in the five largest cities and these boards officially took office on November 1. Though the Occupation authorities had specified that board members should be nonprofessionals, the Japan Teachers' Union's campaigns resulted in the election of at least one-third of the initial board members from the teaching ranks.

The remaining boards of education, specifically those for the smaller cities, towns, and villages, were originally to be elected in 1950. The continuing controversy over the jurisdictional units prompted the Ministry of Education to postpone these local elections until 1952 while establishing an Investigative Council on the Board of Education System in December, 1950, to discuss how the boards should be elected and what the appropriate units of establishment should be. When it became apparent in 1952 that the Council would be unable to resolve these problems, the Ministry introduced a bill into the Diet to postpone the establishment of the boards yet another year. The bill itself was shelved with the dissolution of the House of Representatives.

On November 1, 1952, locally-elected boards of education were finally established in each city, town, and village. From the outset however, they were unable to grapple with the fundamental and pressing problems of financing teachers' salaries and arranging for adequate facilities for the schools. Since local school authorities had no means of producing revenue to support the educational system, and yet were administratively independent of the national financial structure, it was apparent that further change in the educational administrative structure would be necessary, as well as finding some means of supplementing local finances to maintain the schools. No solution to these problems was found during the Occupation period.

The structure of the Ministry of Education also underwent several transformations in the effort to create an administrative structure appropriate for the postwar educational system. As a first step, on September 5, 1945, the Students Mobi1izatior Bureau was abolished and the Ministry was divided into the Minister's Secretariat and the following five bureaus: the Higher Education Bureau (Senmon Kyoikukyoku), the National Education Bureau (Kokumin Kyoikukyoku), the Nationalism Instruction Bureau (Kyogakukyoku), the Science Education Bureau, and the Physical Education Bureau. On October 15, 1945, the Higher Education and National Education Bureaus were dismantled in order to unify the administrative structure and the School Education Bureau was created. Further changes included the reinstatement of the Social Education Bureau and the revival of the former Books Bureau under the new name of the Textbook Bureau, and the elimination of the Nationalism Instruction Bureau.

The National Administrative Organization Law was promulgated on July 10, 1948, to be enforced on January 1, 1949, but ultimately put in force on June l, 1949. This Law specified that the structure of all government administrative organs should be fixed by law, and, accordingly, the Ministry of Education Establishment Law was promulgated on May 31, 1949, clearly defining the structure and function of the Ministry of Education. The latter Law also came into force on June 1 of that year, the same day as the National Administrative Organization Law. The Ministry was newly divided into the Minister's Secretariat and the following five bureaus: the Elementary and Secondary Education Bureau, the Higher Education and Science Bureau (Daigaku Gakujutsukyoku), the Social Education Bureau, the Research and Information Bureau, and the Administration Bureau. As much as possible, the Ministry turned over the actual administration of the educational system to the boards of education keeping step with provisions of the Board of Education Law. The role of the Ministry was conceived to be to provide the boards with professional and technical aid and advice. It was the responsibility of the Ministry of Education to establish educational standards so as to maintain and improve the educational system of the country and to provide the financial assistance necessary for this task.

Financing of the educational system continued to be inadequate, whether on the national or local level and for both public and private schools, throughout the Occupation period. The enormous costs of maintaining teachers' salaries and providing the necessary educational facilities were further compounded by the high rate of inflation and the radical structural reforms of the system. Not until after the economy began to improve rapidly in the years after 1955 was an adequate system for providing government subsidies for salaries and facilities established.