Watching the news this morning, I just saw a story of a high school, whose principal, in order to ensure that good hard working students got into his school, denied entry to some examinees despite passing the entrance exam. The reasons were due to bad manners and untidy dress.
Alright, so I do believe that no student should be denied an education, and in an era where Japan is starting to feel the population decline (3 schools near mine are reducing their class numbers from 8 to 6, and the elementary school near my aunt's apartment had a mere 28 1st graders), a school needs to get as many students as possible, for school revenue and possibly government bonuses. From an economic stand point, and an idealistic stand point, the principal's actions don't make sense.
But am I wrong in wondering why the principal is being punished for trying establish standards at his school? Yes, while it is very probable that the students who dressed untidily and had bad manners would grow out of that awkward and rebellious 14th year of life, for many students high school is simply a continuation of junior high school, where they are spoon-fed information without deeper/critical analysis, to be regurgitated during their college/university exams. For many of these students, there will be no noticeable change in environment, save that the subject matter is a little harder.
I remember my entrance into high school. I worried about bullies and being shoved into lockers, but also of getting to choose my courses, and having to manage my own workload. In other words, it was my first steps into the world of adulthood. There was a definite difference is atmosphere from JHS to HS. And with the chance of failure real (and in my case performed in practice), suddenly my own efforts were truly required to ensure I passed.
OK, so that may be a little more ideal than I remember, but the sentiment is true nevertheless. In Japan, smarter students attended higher academic schools. Their chance of failure is real. But the students always have a back up, and it is rare that a student serious about attending high school will fail their back up. So a student is almost guaranteed to progress. So is failure to get into a school of choice truly a roadblock?
Students should be helped. That is indeed one of a teacher's many duties. But it's also a duty to teach students that failure has real consequences. A slacker, extra-academic issues notwithstanding, should not be allowed to pass into the following grade year with an academic history of all failures. Yet due to Japan's obsessive compulsion for group unity, such students are dragged along.
The fundamental problem is this: there is no real penalty for failure in the Japanese education system. A student who fails a test (for which, I will add, the passing grade is 40%) receives no academic penalty other than a stern talking to. Come hell or high water, that student WILL go on to the next grade level with all of his or her schoolmates.
So I personally applaud that principal, who tried to establish standards in his school. A principal who tried to send a message to the parents of the students who passed the paper test but failed the attitude test, that their shoddy and ineffective parenting is not to be tolerated. A principal that said that there both student must be held responsible for not only academic standards, but for social standards as well, and that a parent cannot simply hand a student to a school and expect a teacher to be a surrogate parent.
Sadly, I'm in the minority opinion here.
8 comments:
Before 8AM? Impressive. I'm barely likely to get a shower and a cup of coffee in that time.
But I do think you're mixing/matching/conflating a couple points...
The whole thrust of Japanese education, from the very top, and of which I was reminded as recently as this month's useless ALT Muni meeting, is NOT academic education. Hence the huge disconnect a lot of us on JET feel and experience.
It is to develop a "whole" individual who will serve as a willing member of the harmonious Japanese community and nation.
The Japanese educational system - much to the frustration of some of my Japanese English teachers, who want nothing more than to *really* teach English - is so much more about socialization and learning appropriate "roles" in Japanese society than it is in any way, shape or form about academic education.
Which is why you can graduate from JR High school simply by showing up and never, ever passing any test. Ever. Attendance and socializing with your peers trumps *everything.* Including any western concept we might have of academics being integral to *passing.* Because the system, by design, doesn't concern itself [especially] with that.
And the whole social harmony bit is what this Principal is, in fact, trying to find a way to enforce. The behavior of these academically sufficient kids would be disharmonious and innapropriate to the group dynamic they're trying to train/induce, so they're rejected.
It's interesting that you kind of change tack a bit, it seems to me. Talking about standards, and failure and then automatically and understandably [from the Western perspective] transitioning into the concept of academic failure...
But the principal isn't in any way supporting the concepts of academic success or failure. In fact, he's punishing academic success. In hopes of promoting greater group unity/identity.
[Whereas you laud more academic stringency, and say Japan overemphasizes group unity. But that's exactly what this principal is doing...]
And I guarantee, the message sent to the parents about their kids is not that they failed to raise them properly, but that their JR High teachers and homeroom teachers failed to teach them properly. It's just the way the system/society is designed.
Whether that's for good, or ill, I've decided isn't really my role.
But honestly, if this weirdly schizo educational system is at all of any real interest, you'd do well to read some of [multiple winner of NY Teacher of the Year] John Taylor Gatto's stuff.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Taylor_Gatto
http://www.johntaylorgatto.com/underground/prologue2.htm
The reason that modern day education [in both Japan and the "West"] is such a failure is because it's all based on the early 19th century Prussian model.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prussian_education_system
And the goal of that system wasn't ever academic achievement, but instead creating socially obedient, pliable and malleable workers.
So yeah, we're all basically a part of an evil-mind-controlling construct.
But I'm okay with that.
[In Japan leastways. My gaijin copout is it's not my culture or society to decide... my role is to bring some joy and strangeness into the lives of as many kids as possible. I don't think I could ever teach at a regular school in the US. There are some really interesting alternative schools though - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_school#USA ]
You're. I am in essence contradicting myself. But this wasn't intended to be a critical analysis, but rather a gut reaction to a piece of news. It was a rant, not helped by being written before 8am.
That said, I'll argue my point further. I would agree that from a JHS stand point the point of the Japanese education system is not to educate but to initiate students as functioning members of society. Indeed, this can be transposed into HS without much difficulty, wherein we see students drone on in their classes, much as they will when they become "productive" members of society at a desk under the watchful gaze of Kacho.
In retrospect, your argument that the Principal was re-enforcing the rigid dronification that all formal education strives to achieve is true. After all, by ensuring all his students are neat, efficient, well-mannered packages of Japanese-ness, they will do little to rock the boat .
But if the point of the Japanese education system isn't to educate, then why is this Principal being punished? Surely he should be lauded for being such a fine cog in the Japanese machinery.
Instead, he will probably be dismissed, because bashing anyone who seems to be impeding Japan's attempt to rescale the ladder of academic ability is in vogue now. A pass is a pass, regardless of how a student dresses or acts, because he is academically viable.
Like all things, I think the Japanese education system is a mix of multiple goals, in which academics and socialization play a part because society as a whole demands both of these aspects to be fulfilled. Whether that very definition of fulfillment is correct or not is moot, as this is the society that has been inherited.
Thus I maintain the position that the Principal is to be lauded. While there is a case to be argued that high school could have taught these bad-attitude untidy kids to tuck in their shirts and say please and thank you, it has been my experience that many such kids remain that way all throughout high school. Only with the impending arrival of entrance exams do such students shape up, because there is indeed a consequence to their slacker-dom. However once they pass their exams, they revert to their same old habits. If indeed the Japanese education system is designed to make successful, integrated Japanese citizens, then teaching that there are consequences to actions, or even consequences to inaction, is vital.
The only reason this made the morning news is because of Japan's falling academic levels. It's source of embarrassment to the country, and as such a juice news item.
But lets not go into the nightmare that is the mass media and "unbiased" news reporting...
"But if the point of the Japanese education system isn't to educate, then why is this Principal being punished? Sure he should be lauded for being such a fine cog in the Japanese machinery.
Instead, he will probably be dismissed, because bashing anyone who seems to be impeding Japan's attempt to rescale the ladder of academic ability is in vogue now..."
I blame the corrupting the degenerative influence of the West. It's the only rational explanation. Which, of course, gives rise to the whole Monster/Helicopter parent phenomenon, which obviously couldn't be native to Japan and of course the fault of outside influences.
I think you hit the nail on the head though, as to the why. For all of Japan's talk, and mythology, of cohesive teamwork and harmony, none of that matters as much as success, and the "face" of success.
In Japan, as a culture, I think it's safe to say it's reputation/face first, and harmony second. If people are starting to say or infer Japan is somehow a 2nd class educational system, they'll bury/destroy/crush anyone seeming to impede their resurgence.
I'd agree that the principal is to be lauded. Not for the enforcing conformity and appearance. Nor for showing that there are "consequences" [more on that in a moment] but instead for not caving or buckling under to ludicrously entitled monster parents. IMHO.
As far as the whole consequences thing, I'm going to disagree a bit... [I know you hate me by this point]... You say "then teaching that there are consequences to actions, or even consequences to inaction, is vital."
And you know, from a personal perspective, and from a broader psychological perspective, I totally agree.
But.
In Japan, there doesn't seem to be that understanding. Japan, to me, doesn't seem to a be a culture that rewards or punishes you for your individual accomplishments or risk taking. It's not a society of individual risk and reward, it's overwhelmingly a bureaucratic-style society.
To succeed in Japan, it seems to me that you have to learn to *not* take action, to value inaction, to not rock the boat and not stand out. [Don't be that nail sticking out.]
That's how you effectively bureaucratize, in any country. And that's how you succeed in Japan. And in any bureaucracy, there is no "failure" or "consequences" as long as you were doing "what you were supposed to." [For example, everyone, ever, in the GWBush administration.]
I'm not saying it's a good game, or a positive game, or even a psychologically healthy game... I'm just saying it seems to be the way the game is played here.
Rob, far from my making me hate you, you are making me love your big bald head even more. I really do love this kind of argument.
Your point reminds me of a point made by my astute tutor. According to her, Japan, and the Japanese, made a fatal misinterpretation of the word democracy when it was imported after the second world war.
Now, all flag-waving aside, representative democracy to my unilluminated (and because I'm a Canadian, socialist) mind means freedom of speech, religion, and the pursuit of happiness. In exchange for these, there is a duty, be it to vote, pay taxes, serve in combat, or even ensure the government is checked.
Crushing reality aside, my tutor theorizes that Japanese people took the former (freedom), but disregarded the later (duty). As a result there was raised a generation that could say what they wanted, but didn't feel they needed to support that very society in anyway. In other words, a generation of selfish people.
This is probably a world-wide phenomenon, and not isolated to Japan, but allow me to wave a virtual American flag and say that in America, democracy was won by force of arms, where as in Japan it was imposed upon from a victorious nation. I would posit that in this case, Japanese people didn't feel that...
Damn, I ran out of time. I will delete and repost this reply when I have time tomorrow.
If you delete your previous, this will make no sense, but I sally forth nevertheless...
It's funny, the point that you/your tutor make is similar to the discussion Sandy and the teacher from Genkai [whose name escapes me] were having at Hanada-san's apt a few months back.
Basically, the jist being that democracy [or the Japanese understanding of it] made the Japanese people "free" and "selfish."
At the time, and now, I've got to call bullshit on that one.
It strikes me and smacks of the same saving face nonsense that permeates the Japanese culture.
"Of course the reason Japanese are selfish is because of the democracy that was forced upon us. It couldn't possibly be because of something inherent in us. Democracy stripped us of our essential Japanese-ness, our culture, our identity, our values."
From there it's a hop, skip and a jump to "The way to restore our society, our culture, our greatness, is to purge our society of these untoward and corrupting foreign influences, then we can return to the Pure Land and Pure Spirit of true Japan!"
And then, purged of selfishness and disharmony maybe they could relaunch the Asian Co-Prosperity Sphere and invade Korea or something.
Standard goofy golden-age mythologizing of the past. Same nonsense the the Republican Party does with America in the 1950s. The best of America! When women stayed home and minorities knew their place.
The fact that the meme is clearly out there - "we're selfish and fucked up because of the democracy imposed upon us" - I wouldn't be at all surprised if it's a talking point of the right wing nationalists in Japan.
Anything to avoid responsibility and save face.
Guys, at the risk of not having anything to contribute, I have to say this is a fascinating read.
Keep it up!
Ian
I'll leave the comment up, as you're reply is a good one. I'll also continue to argue, now more the sake of arguing, as it's a good and fun intellectual activity.
Ian, feel free to jump in.
CAVEAT: I have a cold, and I'm dosed on meds. What I say may in reality make no actual sense.
I agree. I don't actually agree with my tutor's theory, namely for the reasons stated.
But allow me to play the devil's advocate for a moment, and ask if imposing democracy on a foreign culture leads to a misinterpretation of the it's fundamental principles?
Japan had it imposed on it. Iraq had it imposed on it. Afghanistan had it imposed on it. America did the imposing, and so it follows that it has a vested interest in how it is implemented.
My argument is this: can we not see a clear distinction between adoption and imposition. Ideologically, democracy is a system of government where the People keep the Government in check. If popular sentiment decrees a government unfit to lead, they can remove that government.
That US democracy evolved from this model into its current bureaucratic form was inevitable. But there in lies the crux of the matter. It EVOLVED. I would posit that when it was initially adopted, it was done for ideological purposes, to reject what had come before and replace it with something that was seen as better.
This isn't of course the case with Japan, Iraq, or Afghanistan. As the loser in war, none of these countries consciously adopted this form of government.
Yet as we all know, people can't be trusted with making wise decisions. GWB is living testament to that. And regardless, "trusted leaders" are necessary to take the reins, because holding instant elections is impossible.
What I'm trying to say is this. The democracy that was imposed on Japan, Iraq, and Afghanistan was one that had already evolved, OUTSIDE of the culture it was imposed upon. Thus there was no intrinsic understanding of what it was or why it was "better", just the promises that it would be.
Lacking that understanding, and seeing many of the old regime back in power, but now as "democrats", the common folk could go on as they always did. But now they had the freedom to say what they wanted, to think what they wanted.
Of the three cited, Japan is the only case that has had a chance to evolve. It is telling that something as simple as, "Do you think he is guilty or not" is complicated enough to the Japanese to warrant the making of a DS game that allows the player to participate in a trial by jury. Despite all the efforts to clean Japan's beaches, no one says anything about industrial dumping. Many of Japan's food related issues are the result of a complete lack of 3rd-party civilian oversight.
As a democracy, Japan is equipped to enact such popular measures. However, the Japanese fail again and again to enact them, because they don't intrinsically understand democratic fundamentals, because democracy was imposed on them.
So it makes sense that most Japanese people are indifferent to change. They don't see themselves as empowered to do so, and it doesn't jive with their cultural predilections of conformity.
So I ask: is the excuse that Japan is selfish because of a misinterpretation of democratic values necessarily an invalid one?
Japanese people understand that as citizens in a democratic government, they are free to say what they will. Japanese people are free to demand things be done to correct their perceived injustices, because it is a constitutionally enshrined right. Yet they take no steps to ensure that the government remains accountable, and that they follow through with their solutions, because it would mean rocking the boat, because it would require standing up, because it goes against the grain of hundreds of years of socio-cultural development.
Thus Japanese people are selfish, in that they demand change and yet do nothing to enact it.
Hey! I’m remembering why I so enjoyed writing essays in university! That said, I’m not sure I can track this back to the original discussion of the Principal who did a bad thing by denying passing-grade students into his school.
So far: bad Principal -> messed up Japanese education system -> formal education sucks -> Japanese value systems -> validity of the argument of Japanese democratic misinterpretation. Phew. Heady stuff.
There's really nothing to counter your last batch of arguments with. In fact you can extend it to, pretty much everyone, everywhere, if you want.
Democracy, in theory, ideally, requires you to have the belief that you can make a change and what you do matters.
"Imposing" democracy automatically abrogates that ideal. [Though I'd argue that after 50 years, Japanese "Democracy" is no longer imposed in any way, shape or form, and is actually so-much lip service, as is American democracy.]
"Democracy" is the catch phrase that makes us all feel okay about the fact that a privileged few run most everything. A vague idea that keeps us all in line as we're plied with TVs, electronica, junk food and alcohol.
In the words of the legendary Bill Hicks - "I'll show you politics in America. Here it is, right here. 'I think the puppet on the right shares my beliefs.' 'I think the puppet on the left is more to my liking.' 'Hey, wait a minute, there's one guy holding out both puppets!'"
Or maybe I'm just feeling particularly cynical right now.
Blah.
Post a Comment