著者

井深 雄二

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.43, pp.104-120, 2017 (Released:2019-03-20)

---

The purpose of this paper is to reexamine the “School Standard Bill” and “School Finance Bill” which were planned in the educational reform period after World War II in Japan.The main results of this research are as follows: 1. The research on the school standard bill was initiated by Taro Nakajima & Mitsui Ito. However, the origin and the date of the “Bill concerning the Standard of Curricula of Schools” that was a subject of research in their paper were unknown. In this research, I confirmed that it existed as the bill which is dated December 19th, 1949 in the “Tomejiro Atsuzawa collection”.2. Previously, the “Bill concerning the Standard of Curricula and Organization of Schools (first tentative plan)” (November 1st, 1950) was reviewed as having been created by the Ministry of Education. However, I pointed out that it was the bill which was translated as “BILL CONCERNING THE STANDARD OF CURRICULA AND ORGANIZATION OF SCHOOLS” which originated with Osborne's proposal by CIE Education Division.3. The principle of educational finance came into existence in accordance with the “Bill concerning the Local Educational Administration”. However, it was deleted in the “School Board Law”. Therefore, the problem of educational finance reform remained even after this was concluded. Regarding this case, I showed that there was an “offer” from the CIE to “specify a nationwide education standard by the law.” It then became clear that, the idea of a “School Standard bill” depended on this point.4. The Ministry of Education’s “School Finance Bill” which was planned together with the “School Standard Bill” included the theory of equal contributions from state funds and local expenditure. However, I pointed out that this was different from the principle of “Equalization Formula for the distribution of state funds” which was sought by the CIE as a way of determining the role of the state in educational finance.5. Regarding the tax and fiscal reforms, which were based on the “Report by the Shoup Mission”, the expenses for the compulsory education treasury charge were absorbed by the local finance equalization grant. Therefore, the Ministry of Education tried to make the local governments pay for the standard schooling in the “Bill concerning the Securing of Standard Expenses for Compulsory Education”. I pointed out that this fact was related to the “School Standard Bill” which was divided into “School Facilities Standard Bill” and “Bill concerning the Standards of Curricula and Organization of Schools”.6. The School Standard Bill was ultimately not submitted to the Diet. I pointed out the reasons for this : being that the “School Finance Bill” and “Bill concerning the Securing of Standard Expenses for Compulsory Education” were not put into effect.