Toshiyuki Omomo

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.

The promotion of decentralization is one of the major reform issues, today. The purpose of this paper is to consider the decentralization of public administration and the transformation of the concept of public education from the following three viewpoints. First, recent reform toward decentralization requires not only a shift in power from central to local government but also a change in the mode of public administration. In modern states, public administration is not merely an agency which precisely implements a legislature's policies. Rather, It plays important roles in forming public policies and has broad discretion in implementing them, This means that public administration, itself, is deeply involved in selecting and grading values for public policies, and the recent reform requires the establishment of a more participatory system of the public administration at the local level. This has the potential of weakening the bureaucratic buffers, and forcing the teaching profession to be more accountable to parents and inhabitants, and more responsive to their demands. Second, decentralization is promoted in close relation to the trend toward reducing state function;that is, deregulation and privatization of public services.In the field of education, deregulation and privatization were first promoted in life-long learning, and then introduced into school education. Such changes would transform the concept of public education based mainly on the state to that of"public education"where a variety of sectors-such as the state, private enterprise and volunteer groups-are engaged in providing educational opportunities. When these two major reform trends, decentralization and reduction of the state funcion, intersect, the heavy responsibility of deciding what role, to what extent and in what way the public sector should play in education would be placed in the hands of the inhabitants of each municipality. Third, there are specific problems in the effort to decentralize education. It is evident that the decentralization of administrative and financial structure brings about diversity;however, stated another way, this means an inequality of public services among municipalities. One justification for this"diversity"is the theory of autonomy:those who make a decision should be responsible for its result. In the case of education, however, it is not a valid principle because decision-makers of public services(i.e.adults)are different from the recipients(i.e.children). Furthmore, the realization of participatory democracy among adults is not synonymous with the nurturing of future democratic citizenship. If the major role of school is to foster future citizens, decentralization, itself, cannot be the goal of educational reform. We ought to question what influence the reform of the participatory decisionmaking system at the local level could actually have on changes in the educational process. Praising participation without considering this point is risky. Historically speaking, the professionalization of educational administration and the state intervention to guarantee equal educational opportunity were required on the basis of limiting participatory, selfhelp local autonomy.

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.