大桃 敏行

This paper identifies education governance reform, New Public Management (NPM) and Neoliberalism as keywords of recent education policies, and examines Federal education policy in the U.S. by referring to these three concepts. The results of the examination suggest the following points. First, though NPM and Neoliberalism are pointed out to be compatible, they do not always have a one-on-one relation. Therefore, it is necessary to analyze their relation according to each policy process. Second, there is a difference in the meaning of education governance reform in the U.S. and Japan. In the U.S., education governance reform through the reauthorization of Federal law was required to create a systemic structure for guaranteeing equality of education. However, in Japan, it was promoted under the criticism of the detailed common national standards and policies. Third, demands for equality itself would support the launching of a new control system in governance reform. Decentralizing the decision-making power is a component of NPM theory. However, if guaranteeing equality or quality of education is set as a primary goal, decentralization or autonomy would become tools for it, and a severe accountability system would be built.

地方分権の推進が今日の大きな改革課題の一つになっている。小論の目的は行政の地方分権化と公教育概念の変容について次の三つの視点から考察することにある。第一は、今次の地方分権に向けた改革が中央から地方への権限の移動だけでなく、行政のあり方の変革を迫っていることである。現代国家において、行政は立法府の政策を忠実に実施するだけの機関ではない。むしろ、政策形成において重要な役割を担うとともに、その執行においては広範な裁量権を有している。このことは行政自体が政策のための価値の選択・序列化に深く関わっていることを意味し、今次の改革は地方段階における行政のより開かれた制度の設立を求めるものである。このことは官僚制の緩衝装置の弱体化をもたらし、親や住民への説明責任、彼(女)らへの応答責任を高めることを教職に求めることになろう。第二は、地方分権が規制緩和や公共サービスの民営化といった政府機能の縮小に向けた潮流と密接に関わって進められていることである。教育の領域において、規制緩和や民営化はまず生涯学習において進められ、次に学校教育にも導入されてきた。このような変革は、主に国家に依拠した公教育概念から、国家、私企業、ボランティア団体など多様なセクターが教育機会の供給に関わる「公教育」概念への変容をもたらすことになろう。この地方分権化と政府機能の縮小という二つの大きな改革潮流が交差するとき、公共セクターが教育においてどのような役割をどの程度までどのように担うべきかを決定する重い責任が、各自治体の住民の手に置かれることになる。第三は、教育の地方分権化を進めていくうえで独自の課題が存在することである。行財政機構の地方分権化が多様性をもたらすことは明らかであるが、別言すれば、それは自治体間の公共サービスの不平等を意味する。この「多様性」を正当化する一つの論拠が、意思決定を行うものがその結果に責任を負うべきであるという自治論である。しかし、教育の場合、公共サービスの意思決定者(大人)とその受給者(子ども)が異なるために、これは妥当な原理とはならない。さらに、大人の間での参加民主主義の実現と将来の民主的シチズンシップの育成とは同義でない。学校の主要な目的が将来の市民の育成にあるのなら、地方分権化自体は教育改革の目的にはなり得ない。地方レベルでの参加型の意思決定システムに向けた改革が学びの場の変革に実際にいかなる影響を持ちうるのかが問われなければならない。この点の考察を欠いた参加賛美論は危うい。歴史的に見れば、教育行政の専門化と等しい教育機会の保障のための国家関与は、参加と自助の地方自治の制限に依拠して求められた。

In the promotion of lifelong learning, the necessity of cooperation between the board of education and the syuchoubukyoku (governor's or mayor's departments), or prefectures and municipalities, has been mentioned. However, how are administrative affairs concerning the promotion of lifelong learning actually being conducted, and what problems are arising? Additionally, chihoukousya (local public beneficial corporations) are coming to play important roles,. but, what problems concerning their activities are arising? The purpose of this paper is to clarify these points through surveys of local public bodies. 1. Relations between the board of education and the syuchoubukyoku. Many local public bodies set up an organization to coordinate and promote the lifelong learning policies of both the board of education and the syuchoubukyoku. In the case where its secretariat is placed in the board of education, the board easily exerts its expertise, but coordination becomes difficult. On the other hand, in the case where the secretariat is placed in the syuchoubukyoku, an issue arises: how the expertise of the board of education should be used to coordinate and execute policies. A fundamental problem between two principles of local government, pluralism of executive agencies and integration of their administration, thus arises in conducting administrative affairs concerning the promotion of lifelong learning. 2. Relations between the prefecture and municipalities. In the case where the secretariat is placed in the board of education at the prefectural level, intimate cooperation between prefectural and municipal boards can be easily instituted, but the leadership of the former contains the possibility of undermining the subjectivity of the latter. On the contrary, in the case where the secretariat is placed in the syuchoubukyoku at the prefectural level, municipal boards of education have to contact both the prefectural board of education and the governer's departments. As a result, the system of cooperation becomes complicated. This is connected with the basic problem extant between prefectural leadership and municipal subjectivity, and is because of this fabric problem that at the muinicipal level boards of education are playing the central role in the promotion of lifelong learning while at the prefectural level the secretariat of the organization for lifelong learning is sometimes being placed in the syuchoubukyoku. 3. Activities of chihoukousya. While chihoukousya can be expected to have flexible management, a new issue is brought about: how the principles required of public administration, such as democratic participation, equality or neutrality, should be preserved in their activities. Though chihoukousya conduct a part of the administrative affairs of the local public body. they themselves are not executive organs. In the promotion of lifelong learning, to what extent should local public bodies be responsible, and in what way should they conduct administrative affairs? The problem of conducting administrative affairs concerning lifelong learning leads us to question how public administration should be conducted.