「規制緩和」後の国家/市場と教育 : 配分主体の特定化をめぐって(<特集>国家の教育責任と地方分権 : 「学校」の変貌を問う)

概要

論文の詳細を見る
In this paper I clarify the points in specifying the distributor of educational opportunity in the era of post-Fordism whose policy expresses itself in the name of deregulation I argue the validity of the frameworks of state/market and equality/freedom to make clear of the points. The debate between I.Kurosaki and H.Fujita concerning the facilitator of school improvement suggested the necessity to ask further the underlying question: which agent should distribute education, state or market? To search for feasible answers I examine several discussions of different kinds of trends in the following sections. The discussion of P.Bourdieu has influenced Japanese educationalists by its radical criticism of marketism against which he defended collectivism of social planning that includes education. His discussion and the discussions by many Japanese educationalists in the terms of criticism against neoliberalism. I argue, are not necessarily free from a fault to draw a veil over the inherent conflict among educational needs. The same difficulty of collectivism was also found in the discussion of G.Whitty who attacked the quasi-market mechanism in distributing education and stressed the need of social justice instead. On the other side J.Tooley, a leading educationalist of libertarian trend, assumed that education could be distributed equitably and effectively when it would be reclaimed from state control. He found it a paradox to equalise schooling while leaving family influence as it was unequal. H.Brighouse whom Tooley considered as an egalitarian called justification of the institute of the family into question; he asked adults rather than parents to meet their obligations to be the provider of educational opportunity not only for their children but for all children in the society. D.H.Hargreaves emphasized the significance of children choosing their own schools for the development of their autonomy in the pluralist society. Community, he argued, should encourage children to choose their own way of life even if their choice may differ from the one prevailingin the community. M.Walzer, known as a communitarian to us, asserted that human society is a distributive community though there exists the plurality of distributive justice according to the social goods to be distributed. Education, among other goods, should be distributed according to the local justice inherent to education but not be allocated through the market mechanism so that the society could retain its own identity asa community. Finally I discussed the triad of the agents relevant to the social reformation: state, market and community. It demands to consider the inter-regulation among state, market and community so that the distribution of education might not depend exclusively on the trade between suppliers and consumers. It also demands to respond to a moral question about deciding the priority among those who should be educated. It is unavoidable to tackle the issue of specifying the distributor if we want to bear a responsibility to give answer to the moral question of education; we can no longer answer to it by echoing the old-fashioned egalitarian discourse: Education for All.
日本教育学会の論文
2004-06-30

「規制緩和」後の国家/市場と教育 : 配分主体の特定化をめぐって(<特集>国家の教育責任と地方分権 : 「学校」の変貌を問う)

スポンサーリンク

概要

著者

関連論文

スポンサーリンク