憲法改正過程における教育条項の修正 : 義務教育の範囲と青年学校改革案との関係を中心として
スポンサーリンク
概要
- 論文の詳細を見る
In this paper, I examine the formulation of the article on education in the Japanese Constitution and re-evaluate its significance and limitations. The provision for education in the Constitution is as follows: ・Article 26 All people shall have the right to receive an equal education correspondent to their ability, as provided by law. All people shall be obligated to have all boys and girls under their protection receive ordinary education as provided for by law. Such compulsory education shall be free. However, in the bill submitted to the Diet, this article was as follows: ・Article 24 All people shall have the right to receive an equal education correspondent to their ability, as provided by law. All people shall be obligated to have their children under their protection receive elementary education. Such compulsory education shall be free. In other words, during deliberations in the Diet, "elementary education" as part of compulsory education (Section II) was changed to "ordinary education". After reviewing the meaning of this change, the following conclusions can be made: First, even without the amendment from "elementary education" to "ordinary education", the government and the Ministry of Education thought it was possible that secondary education could become compulsory. However, if the phrase, "elementary education" was used, then the possibility of compulsory secondary education remained doubtful. Taking these problems into account, the amendment from "elementary education" to "ordinary education" clarified the intention of the government and dispelled such doubt. This is the significance of the amendment. Second, however, during Diet deliberations, the first change was not from "elementary education" to "ordinary education", but from "elementary education" to simply "education". The extent of compulsory education was then to be determined by law. Considering this step in the deliberation process, it appears that the adoption of "ordinary education" has the potential to narrow the extent of compulsory education. I think that this is the point at issue of having used "ordinary education."
- 2011-10-01