- 著者
-
後藤 武俊
- 出版者
- 日本教育行政学会
- 雑誌
- 日本教育行政学会年報 (ISSN:09198393)
- 巻号頁・発行日
- vol.45, pp.41-57, 2019 (Released:2020-10-02)
- 参考文献数
- 19
This paper examines the issues concerning public support for private organizations providing opportunities for truant students, considers the limitations of previous studies, and suggests an alternative viewpoint. In this study, we focus on the characteristics of the concept of “public,” which means “common” and at the same time connotes “diversity” from the meaning of “openness.” We also focus on another aspect of “public,” which is used to justify giving or receiving public funds and support.In the first chapter, we analyzed the current conditions of truant students and private organizations giving educational services based on some national surveys in Japan. We estimated that the actual number of truant students was larger than indicated in national surveys. We also noted that those private organizations accepted many high school students and young people over 19 years old.In the second chapter, we analyzed previous studies about issues related to public support for private educational services and found two significant points. The first point was that they had tried to change the image of public education through focusing on the aspect of “diversity” in the meanings of “public,” and tried to justify public funds and support for many types of private educational services. They had also required a quality assurance system and funding system in order to nurture private organizations, not to suffocate them. The second was that they had confronted the challenges of standardization required in the process of quality assurance as publicly-funded activities. In many examples, quality assurance required many documents to be written and rules stipulated by governments to be obeyed. Then they brought about transformation of original ideas and activities in private organizations. This standardization also caused a division among private organizations in terms of whether they could receive public support or not. Considering these points, we found the limit of public support for private organizations based on the logic of “public” education, which inevitably requires having the minimum aspects of “common” education. If we recognized various types of education as public, we could not do it in case of activities that are not aiming for education directly.In the final chapter, in order to overcome the limit of “public” education, we focused on the viewpoint of “the right to exist” of students and young people who have many difficulties. They have received various kinds of support about the right to exist from private organizations, and this support sometimes includes educational activities. Focusing on this viewpoint, we could effectively encourage those organizations giving comprehensive support for students and young people who have difficulties, because we could derive public support from the two sides: one is the logic of public education and another is the logic of the right to exist. Justified by this logic, various types of organizations and activities could be recognized as public. But in order to make these organizations work as a safety net for all students and young people, we also needed to build one-stop services, which estimate the conditions of students and young people and refer them to the organization best suited to their needs and difficulties.