A Short Review of Elementary School
English Policies in Japan
Peter Ferguson
Abstract Elementary school English education in Japan commenced in １９９２. Over the past １７ years a number of policies have been introduced that have changed the landscape of the education system at the primary level. Some of these policies were designed and implemented to meet social and political-economic agendas. Other policies have focused on pedagogy, classroom practices and how English should be taught and learned in elementary school classrooms. This paper offers a conceptual framework for policy analysis that examines policy as both a text and as a process. In regards to the processes of policy implementation, the paper uses open system theory to illustrate and inform how each level of the education system are different, which enlightens why policy implementation can be challenging. The introduction of English education is presented as a natural adjustment considering the growth and influence of globalization. However, this raises an important question: how are elementary school English language policies implemented into the education sys-tem ? Elementary school English education has created opportunities for students to learn more English, but created enormous challenges for schools and teachers. It is important to understand these developments and challenges those policies pre-sent teachers. The preliminary results with three key observations are prepre-sented and question whether the current state of these policies will be able to generate the desired results of improved English education in Japan.
Key words language policy, policy implementation, education system, ideologies, globalization
Introduction
After painstakingly dragging its heels for almost two decades, Japan’s Ministry of Education（MEXT）quietly announced in ２０１７ that English would finally become a regular subject in public elementary schools for grades five and six beginning in April ２０２０. One reason why it was done quietly and without much media attention was that the announcement was excepted, if not long overdue. This policy change means English classes will be taught twice a week to students in grades five and six. English activities, which is not a formal subject, will be compulsory from third grade and be taught once a week. From an educational standpoint, how this new language policy is being put into practice in the school system will provide valuable understanding on just how complicated the whole process of language policy implementa-tion can be in the public schools. This paper examines some of the macro-level policy changes in education, then looks at policies that have focused on elementary school English education. Some of these policies establish social and political-economic agendas regarding the use of English, and some of these policies focus on school curriculum and how English should be taught and learnt in elementary school classrooms. This paper is an attempt to understand how these policies possibly influenc-ing how English is beinfluenc-ing taught and learnt in public elementary schools.
What is policy ?
Making sense of education policy-how policy is created, what it is created for, and how it changes classroom practices-is a difficult task. Therefore, in this pa-per, I conceptualize education policy as both a document that can be analyzed, and a complex set of processes that eventually inform, and possibly change classroom practices（ Ball, １９９２）. In other words, policy is both a noun（ e.g., text ）and a verb（e.g., process）. This conceptualization of policy helps to understand the multilevel macro and micro processes of education language policy implementation in Japan’s public elementary school system. I define education language policy（ELP）as a mechanism that influences the structure, function, use, and acquisition of a language
in the school system. An ELP may include official or unofficial regulations. It will have explicit and implicit goals that effect language beliefs, practices, and regulate power in schools and communities. Policy implementation is conceived as being multi-layered and is a process as well as a product that interplays with the contexts and ideologies of that context（Johnson, ２０１３）.
What is an education system ?
All modern societies, as they grow and develop socially and economically, have supported and maintained some sort of strong education system. Japan is no exception. The education system is a social program of mass schooling, or sometimes referred to as formal schooling, to education and socialize children, develop a di-verse and talented work-force and citizenship（Baker, ２０１４）. Japan’s education system, compared to the education system in North America, is centrally controlled. Es-sentially the system is hierarchal and can be divided into three levels. At the top level is the Ministry of Education, which creates national standards for schools and teachers and has a lot of control over the content of the national curriculum and textbooks. At the second level are prefectural and city boards of education, followed by schools on the third level. In order to conceptualize how policy implementa-tion works within the educaimplementa-tion system, in this paper I will use open systems the-ory（OST）.
As a conceptual framework, one strength of OST is that it can be applied equally well to a large-scale entity（ such as the education system ）or to a small-scale unit（such as a single classroom）for analysis. This flexibility has enabled OST to be used in various fields, from the hard sciences（ Delyenne & Sandberg, ２０１７）to the social studies（ Fidan & Balci, ２０１７）. OST is sometimes referred to as organization theory（Hatch, ２０１３）. The theory is inherently integrative because it treats all aspects of the sociocultural system or organization as networks of in-formation and communication in a constant cycle or process.
There are three essential features to any system. First, it is goal-oriented, which provides purpose and maintains a level of stability within the system. In terms of an education system, one goal is to produce well-educated citizens and
workers. The second feature is that it is open to its surrounding environment. This means it can influence and also be influenced by its surroundings; however, the system or organization must maintain a level of independence or autonomy from the environment. The last feature is that any system is heterogeneous, which means there are divisions between the individual parts that make up the system. All the members of the system or organization do not have the same roll, do not perform the same function, and do not have the same rank, such as the three levels of Japan’s education system mentioned above. OST assumes there will be forms of tension inherently built into any organization because members have different roles, functions, identities, and status（Ritzer, ２０１１）.
Brief Understanding of the Education System
To understand how this new English language policy is affecting public elementary schools in Japan, we need to examine Japan’s education system. We need to un-derstand the importance of the system, how it works, and what it means to be educated in Japan. A long detailed historical survey of Japan’s education system and for-mal schooling is not mandatory for this paper, however, understanding some of the essential points is key to providing a backdrop and context on how and why certain things are possibly occurring now. The history of formal mass public schooling in Japan is a rather long and rich history; however, for simplicity, I will divide things into two phases: the pre-war era（１８７２１９４５）and the post-war era（１９４６-present）.
Pre-war Era（１８７２１９４５）
Japan’s modern education system is almost １５０ years old. As the old feudal system was ending in Japan, the political leaders realized they would have to create a national school system that would educate the mass population if the country was going to modernize economically（Hane, １９９２; Okano & Tsuchiya, １９９９）. The first suggested idea of providing mass schooling to the population was a traditional idea of education based on Confusion and Shinto ideals. However, this idea was quickly rejected by those who espoused a modern version of schooling based on Western educational
ideas and practices（Hane, １９９２, pp. １０１１０２）. The government used several slogans, such as‘ rich nation, strong army’（ fukoku, kyohei ）and‘ increase production and industry’（ shokusan, kougyou ）to unite the population as Japan began its journey of modernization out of the old feudal system（Erikawa, ２０１８）. The new modern education system would focus on literacy, mathematics, and science to promote in-dustry, production, and overall socio-economic growth.
Throughout this period of modernization, as Japan grow both socially and economi-cally, there were long running debates about what was the best way to educate the population（Tsujimoto & Yamasaki, ２０１７）. Basically, there were two opposing groups that had differing beliefs about education, endorsed different approaches, and promoted different ideologies. In order for Japan to grow economically and become stronger, one group which I will call the progressives, advocated for a western style education for modernization. An opposing group, which I will call the tra-ditionalists, also wanted to seek modernization, but not using an education system from the west and promoted traditional values and culture. They viewed using western style education as a treat, while the progressives viewed traditional methods has being counter-productive and not suitable for modernization and strengthening the country（ Morikawa, ２０１７; Yamasaki, ２０１７）. This ideological debate between progressive ideas and traditional ideas would continue throughout this period. The details of these discourses are not necessary for this paper, but it is important to know that from the beginning of Japan’s modern education system there has been a continuous dispute between progressive and conservative ideologies on the nature of education. Another important point is that during the same period, the promotion of Japanese literacy and the idea that Japan is a monolingual nation was very strong（ see Morikawa, ２０１７ and Yamasaki, ２０１７ for a more detailed account ）. Later in this paper I will argue this ideological clash along with the idea that Japan is a monolingual society is still going on today, and in fact, both are impacting how elementary school English education is viewed.
Post-war Era（１９４６-present）
system into a more democratic and egalitarian system（Dower, １９９９; Okano & Tsuchiya, １９９９）. The model for that change was the American education system, which
in-troduced the ６３３ model. This means six years of elementary school education, three years of junior high school followed by three years of high school education. Foreign language education was reintroduced with a new school system in １９４７ （Erikawa, ２０１８）. English was made an elective subject in the new junior high schools, nevertheless, by the end of the １９５０s, English became part of the new entrance ex-ams for high schools and eventually became a compulsory subject in junior high schools（ Sasaki, ２００８）. From that period onward, foreign language learning in Japan has always been either controlled and managed by the government（Aspinall, ２０１３; Sasaki, ２００８; Seargeant, ２０１１）.
Early Reforms to the Education System
A detailed analysis of educational reforms from the １９７０’s to early １９８０’s high-lighted the continuing conflict between progressive and traditional ideologies in the education system（ Schoppa, １９９１）. Examining the reform movement from the top down, Schoppa looked at the highest levels of government to understand how policy was turned into practice, or why it was not. Interestingly, many of the reforms that were mentioned over thirty years earlier were finally being turned into practice. Even what Schoppa called“ radical reforms ”were clear goals for the new National Curriculum（ ibid, pp. ２１１２５０）. For example, here is what he wrote about one of these radical reformers and the need to move away from a utilitarian educational system stating“the twenty-first century would require an education system with a whole new emphasis: less rigid in its emphasis on academic background, less stress on memorization and more concentration on work-related ability, creativity and self-confident expression. Japan’s‘catch-up’ phase was over, these men argued, and it therefore needed to reexamine its educational system which had been built around this goal”（ibid, p. ６４）.
By the mid １９８０s, Japan’s high speed economic growth and the development of globalization in business and politics was forcing Japan to integrate itself more with the international community（Calder, ２０１７）. The times of economic growth
and prosperity based on manufactured goods, such as automobiles, televisions and other electronic appliances was ending. Computers and the Internet were beginning to influence the way the world gathered and produced information, communicated, did business, and learned in schools（Baker, ２０１４）. Since the burst of the economic bubble in Japan, the government has struggled to revive the economy. It was dur-ing this time period that internationalization was becomdur-ing a social phenomenon that the Japanese government needed to address in business and in education. Business leaders began calling for changes in the education system because the country needed a more highly skilled and educated workforce in this new ear of internation- alization. By the end of the １９８０s, Japan was experiencing changes in many areas of society, including education（ Schoppa, １９９１）. A report published in １９８６ by the Extraordinary Education Council recommended introducing English in elementary schools as a way of reform English education. This was the first link in a chain of events that has led to the current implementation of English education in the elementary school curriculum.
In the early １９９０s, many educators and social critics in Japan saw the need to reform Japan’s education system as the country faced many economic and social challenges. The debate was not when to reform, but how and what to reform. Once again, the ideological divide between those who wanted progressive reforms and those who promoted a return to more traditional contents and methodologies. Progressives used the heading of International Education, kokusairikai kyouiku, to advocate an education system that was to be more open and focused on teaching new skills for a changing society. On the other ideological side were the traditionalists, who held a more traditional or even nationalistic view and believed the problem was that schools did not teach students enough morality about family and community. They wanted to see more emphasis placed on moral and emotional education. Under the banner of Environmental Studies, kankyo kyouiku, the traditionalists not only believed in saving the environment but also idealized traditional Japanese cul-ture and way of life. They believed this was the path Japan must take. Naturally, they were opposed to introducing foreign language education into the elementary school curriculum.
In July of １９９６, MEXT published a comprehensive report compiled by the １５th Central Council for Education titled, First Report on The Model for Japanese Education in the Perspective of the ２１st Century, or in the original Japanese as, 21seki o tenboshita
wagakunino kyouikunoarikata nitsuite. This １６０-page report covered a wide range of
social and educational topics and its impact changed the face of education in Japan, with the affects still seen today. There were four main points this report introduced regarding educational reforms: １）Fostering children’s“ zest for living ”through a liberal, flexible and comfortable school life; ２）careful selection of educational content at schools, and enhancement of education at home and in the local community; ３）implement a comprehensive five-day school week; and ４）Improve of school education in accordance with internationalization, informatization［sic］, the development of science and technology and environmental issues.
The first section summarized several troubling social problems in education, such as the lack of freedom of choice for children, stressful and competitive school life, bullying, absenteeism and the general low expectations for education. To ad-dress these social problems MEXT advocated for a more flexible approach to schooling （yutori kyoiku）. Other sections discussed the need for a renewed cooperation between
schools, the home and the community and outlined some of the major changes that would take place in the new national curriculum. Some examples were the need for a more creative and individualistic educational system that could teach children new skills, such as problem solving and critical thinking skills and the need to move further away from lecture style classes of memorization and rote learning.
A new phrase MEXT introduced was, ikiruchikara or what MEXT translated into English as“ zest for living ”. This concept of ikiruchikara, I think entails a similar idea of“ empowerment ”but without the political baggage of the western definition. Possibly by using a far less political idea, MEXT could maintain an appearance of neutrality between the traditionalists and the reformists. This new idea of a“zest for living”was a concept and means of improving the quality of participa-tion and promoting lifelong learning in people. The biggest development announced in this document however, was the creation of a new time period called a Period of Integrated Learning or named sogotekina gakushu no jikan in Japanese. To foster
this new sense of empowerment in students, schools would have to set aside regular class time and allow the students to have hands on experience in learning. Integrating this time with other subjects, MEXT suggested schools could use an overall theme such as International Education, Information Technology, or Environmental Studies mentioned above. Shortly after its publication, this development caused great concern to teachers because it did not clearly spell out how schools should establish this new education system. Schools were free to pick a topic. English education was placed under the banner of international education, therefore, schools that were interested in English selected the theme of international education for this new learning period. This new approach to teaching and learning, which began in April of ２００２, it was one of the biggest debated topics in Japanese educational circles.
In ２００３, MEXT published another white paper on the future of English education titled, Action Plan to Cultivate“Japanese with English Abilities.” This five-year action plan would be a de facto foreign language policy that would drive how Eng-lish language education, international education, and individualism would be dealt with until in schools until the next course of study was published five years later. This document was the first public MEXT document that directly stated the need to introduce English in the public elementary schools. I see the promotion of in-ternational education as a way for MEXT to respond to the phenomena of increased globalization and the development of an information orientated society（Butler & Iino, ２００５）.
Responding to the Report of the １５th Central Council for Education, MEXT （２００１）presented three main points for the development of international education: １. To foster open-mindedness and understanding regarding other cultures, and
the development of an attitude that is respectful of these cultures and qualities, and the development of the abilities necessary for living together with people from different cultures.
２. Establishment of a strong sense of self and sense of being Japanese to better appreci-ate the concept of international understanding.
３. Development of basic foreign language skills, the ability for self-expression, and other communication skills for the purpose of expressing one’s own thoughts
and intentions, while respecting the positions of others in an international society.（p. １２１）
This policy framed international education as not just learning about things that are foreign, but to help develop a sense of identity and mutual respect. MEXT wanted students to also learn about their community’s history and culture, which would please opponents of elementary school English. Learning about diversity does not occur at the expense of one’s identity with their community, but the tra-ditionalists viewed it as such. MEXT was forced to juggle two opposing views, the progressives and the traditionalists. This was done for a good reason because at that time the opposition to elementary school English was strong. Even though the idea of international education and elementary school English was gaining in popularity, some social critics argued against introducing foreign languages at the elementary level（e.g., Otsu, ２００４; Suzuki, １９９９）. This brings us to an important question: what is international education ?
Examining International Education in Japan
A recent study of Japan’s development of international education in the school system was by done by Robert Aspinall（２０１３）. His book, International Education
Policy in Japan in an Age of Globalisation and Risk, examined the implications of globalization
on education in post-industrial Japan. The book summarized the development of international education policy from the early １９７０ to the early １９９０s very well. Unfortu-nately, the examination of the present conditions within the schools and how policy is put into practice is marginally researched, and the examination of elementary school English was questionable. Regardless of those shortcomings, one of the book’s strengths is the theoretical framework of risk theory and how it applies to national educational policymaking and globalization. Aspinall argued that poli-cymakers in Japan were managing internal and external risks and opportunities. By examining policymakers’ behavior through the lenses of risk-management, we can better understand why MEXT sometimes produces paradoxical statements and policies, which is due to their management of weighing the risks of participating or not engaging in advancements such as placing computers in classrooms, reducing
class size, and proceeding with English education in public elementary schools. This conceptual framework makes a strong contribution to understanding why certain nations have adopted progressive, or more conservative attitudes towards foreign language studies at the primary school level.
Competing Ideologies on Bilingual Education
Japan has a‘monoglot’ ideology. This term was used by Blommaert（２００６） to describe a society where membership is based on an ethno-linguistically defined people who believe they are a monolingual group and deny evidence proving they are in fact multilingual. This perfectly describes Japan. Blommaert was writing how this ideology is used in nation-building, however, he was actually writing about Tanzania, and not Japan. A number of scholars have written extensively on Japan’s monolingual myth（ e.g., Aspinall, ２０１３; Gluck, １９８５; Gottlieb, ２０１２）. One of the most detailed accounts is The Making of Monolingual Japan by Patrick Heinrich （２０１２）. This small book provides a thorough explanation of how language ideology
was created and used to build a modern nation and then how that ideology is still impacting society today. Heinrich demonstrated that many people, unfortunately still accept this idea, or more accurately this contradiction. For example, a scholar of Japanese education, even though being critical of certain aspects of the education system, illustrated this monoglot ideology when she stated:“The fact that Japan has never been colonized, and that it has always possessed a common language, Japanese, have influenced the way it has introduced foreign language to the community at large, and the education system”（Hashimoto, ２００７, pp. ２６）. Interestingly, Blommaert stated this ideology affects society in three ways: first, it makes a‘socially desirable’ ideal of language use; secondly, it produces and regulates identities of membership; and thirdly, it has an impact on scholarship, as shown by the example presented above.
Thus far, I have written about what I see are major developments of educational change at the macro-level. These changes have been brought about by policies that do not explicitly deal with English education at the elementary school level. However,
these policies were designed to bring about the desired changes that would allow MEXT to implement foreign language education into the elementary curriculum. In the second part of this paper I will briefly outline some of the important developments in how Eng-lish language policy has been put into practice in Japan’s public education system.
Brief chronology of elementary school English
In １９９２ two public elementary schools in Osaka were selected by MEXT to be pilot-schools for conducting action research into how to teach English. By １９９６ there was at least one pilot school in each prefecture（ Allen-Tamai, ２０１４, p.１０）. MEXT never officially regulated how schools should teach English or how much they should teach, and this‘ hands off’ approach would eventually create large gaps between regions, cities and even schools which created troubles for junior high schools. For example, students graduating from an elementary school that did no English were attending the same public junior high school with other students from other elementary schools that had provided English lessons once a week from third grade. This meant students who were exposed to no English lessons were learning English with students who had １２０ hours of instruction.
In order to combat this large imbalance between schools, in the spring of ２００２, MEXT announced that English activities would become compulsory from April ２００４ for grades five and six as part of international education taught during the Period of Integrated Studies. The Ministry of Education would develop a national curriculum for elementary school English, in effect establishing a minimum national standard that all school districts would have to implement. Though English would not be an official subject, MEXT finally made foreign language education part of the new primary school national curriculum. It even took the unprecedented step of designing its own textbook that would be the de facto language policy for elementary school English. I had the privilege of assisting MEXT to design the curriculum, the textbooks, and compile the new course of study and this is where my interest in language policy began.
This new development of adding foreign language education to the primary school curriculum suddenly combined the political rhetoric and conflicting ideologies
towards foreign language education with the realities of the classrooms. How should elementary teachers implement a policy when they have not been trained to teach English as a foreign language ? Japanese elementary school teachers are now the ones introducing Japanese students to English, but they have received minimal or no training on how to teach a foreign language. Many elementary school teachers have expressed to me a lack confidence in their own English proficiency to be a role model for their students, but they are still required by MEXT to implement a policy they have neither been trained for, nor licensed to teach.
Issues in classrooms
The ability to teach a foreign language is something most elementary school teachers have not been trained to do（Esaki & Shintani, ２０１０）. A study examining teachers’ self-evaluation of their English communication skills and ability to teach English lessons effectively was correlated with teachers’ overall teaching experience （Butler, ２００５）. This study revealed that compared to other countries, Japan’s
decentral-ized‘hands-off’ approach did not prepare teachers to become better language teachers. One study examined how elementary school teachers in Japan struggled with im-plementing English language policy（Machida, ２０１６）. This study used a questionnaire to measure anxiety among １３３ elementary school teachers and the researcher found that teachers’ low self-perceived proficiency in English, coupled with only a few years of experience, and with little of formal training in English were the main factors that caused anxiety among these practitioners. The findings confirm what we already know about the struggles facing teachers. How exactly do teachers conduct English lessons and are those lessons effective for young learners to acquire the knowledge and skills to speak even basic English ? Classroom practices in English lessons remain an area that needs more research, especially with the recent changes where teachers will now have to teach English as a subject, teach early literacy skills and evaluate students’ English learning.
Contradictions in policies
forced education policy makers to adjust their ideas toward education language policy“to meet national goals, and most recently the restating of national identity in the face of the effects of globalization”（Gottlieb, ２０１２, p. ７）. Gottlieb documented the changes in government policy towards the Japanese language and how many grassroots changes are occurring, such as the idea of teaching“community languages” is slowly growing（ ibid, pp. １５５）. Only time will tell if MEXT promotes a more multilingual, multicultural and possibly a multiracial society, or if they continue to look inwards and preserve an monolingual ideology.
Another contradiction that MEXT needs to address is the idea that English language education is merely a tool for communication for a few spcialists. If it is just a survival tool for communication that only a few people need, then why introduce English language education at the primary level in the first place ? By exposing the whole population to English at an earlier age, MEXT is saying that foreign language education is more than just a survival tool for a few specialists. Until these contradictions are addressed and changed, I worry English education in Japan will continue to stumble along.
Three Early Observations
From all these policy developments and initiatives, I identify three reoccurring and influential observations, or subthemes, on the processes of English language policy implementation. These three recurring subthemes are interconnected and I think will provide clues and insights onto why things are happening the way they are. These three themes are: １）the influence of global forces of education on national views and practices of schooling; ２）the need to maintain the appearance of progress; and ３）the institutionalization of English education in Japan’s school system. These themes are congruous and mutually influential with several overlapping qualities. The order they are presented is not related to their importance or power of influence. I view them equally important and will now explain each theme in more detail below.
The first theme is the interaction of global forces of education with national and local practices of mass schooling. This new global perspective of education
was shepherded in the past ５０-years by the globalization of the marketplace, the incredible increase of information on education from international and comparative studies（Baker & LeTendre, ２００５）. As stated above, the globalization of schooling no longer views educational problems and solutions solely at the national level, but to view national problems within a global framework with global solutions. For example, low TOEIC and PISA scores are presented in Japan as evidence of a poor education system. To counter this, MEXT is actively promoting“ Super Global”high schools and universities, promoting the use of the Common European Reference Framework of Languages（CEFR）and considering adopting international language tests to replace standard university entrance examinations. This powerful influence of global forces of education influencing national and local practices is one reoccurring theme that helps explain why English education is being introduced to the elementary school system.
The second observation is the need to maintain an appearance of progress. With the globalization of English（ Crystal, ２００３）more countries in Asia have been introducing English education into the primary school level. This policy shift is based upon the assumption of a critical or sensitive period of acquisition for learning a language. This age of acquisition assumption is based on second language research and not foreign language research, where the social environment is vastly different. This notion is not supported by foreign language education research （Nunan ２００３）, but possibly influenced by political reasons, such as keeping the ap-pearance of progress. English is now considered a global language and many countries in the Asia-Pacific region have elected to lower the starting age of English education to the primary schools（e.g., Kirkpatrick & Sussex, ２０１４; Spolsky & Moon, ２０１５）. This assumption by policy makers that earlier is better is also based on the growing influence of neo-liberal perspectives in education that argue current problems of perform-ance can be solved by providing future opportunities for students（e.g. Holborow, ２０１５; Ricento, ２０１５）. Compared to other countries in the region, Japan was off to a slow start. Yet, this was not necessarily a bad thing because it afforded the opportunity for national policy makers to learn from experiences of other countries. However, despite being afforded the time and insight from observing neighboring
countries it appears policy makers here in Japan simply followed and borrowed from around them in order to maintain the appearance of progress. Rather than trying to develop a new approach to English education by restructuring the content and how English is taught in the junior high schools, it appears MEXT was more concerned with a political‘keep-up-the-Jones’ desire for Japan to maintain the ap-pearance of progress and also lowered the starting age of foreign language education. This theme of maintaining the appearance progress captures the close relationship between politics and English language policy in the school system and possibly helps explain why things are unfolding the way a certain way.
The last observation is the further institutionalization of English education in Japan’s school system. In modern societies, obtaining education credentials are a prerequisite for almost any position in the labor market and this rise of im-portance of the education system means that formal schooling has been institutionalized （ Baker & LeTendre, ２００５）with one researcher even referring to this educational
transformation of society as“ a quiet social revolution ”（ Baker, ２０１４, pp ３４）. The institutionalization of education is a mindset that assumes educational solutions are needed to solve complex social problems; in this case, poor performances on in-ternational English language tests by Japanese students. Nowadays, the roll of the school system has an unprecedented control over issuing credentials; therefore, it is now taken for granted that all children must participate and advance as well as they can in formal schooling. With this growing importance on education, state policy makers tend to advance educational solutions to reduce most societal problems（Baker & LeTendre, ２００５, pp. ６２６３）. But this assumes that the answer to solving social problems is through more education policies. There is also a premise that more schooling results in an increase in economic development. This overlaps with the ideas of the neo-liberal views of education - current performance problem verses future opportunity argument - such as low national scores on international English language tests.
By mandating elementary schools begin teaching English, MEXT is further placing strain on schools and teachers because they were not designed and staffed to fulfill this directive. Furthermore, it mandates that only English-and not any other
for-eign language-be the sole focus of the nation because students will soon be required to study English for １０ years, up from the previous six years. Rather than promoting the social and economic value of learning a foreign language and then leaving it up to the individual to select which language they would like to learn; the state has mandated that all future Japanese citizens must learn English. The education system is to carry the burden of providing the teaching and learning of English. It is not an individual pursuit, it is a state-controlled pursuit. Yet it is uncertain if better English scores are going to lead to better economic development of individuals and their country. How is limited exposure to the target language in elementary schools, taught by unqualified teachers who are not highly proficient in English, going to lead to improvements in English education, especially, when there are no real changes taking place at the junior and senior high schools ? It is also questionable that top-down policies mandated by MEXT will change society’s attitudes and per-spectives towards investing large amounts of time and resources towards the goal of learning English mandated by the state. The idea that elementary school English education will be a catalyst for improvement to Japan’s English education is yet unproven and open to discussion.
Conclusion
I began this paper by introducing a conceptual framework that is suited to analyze the processes involved in policy implementation. In order to understand the contents of English language policy I argued we need to understand the context in which those policies were created. Historically, there have been competing groups with conflicting views and ideologies on the nature and purpose of the education system. Those discourse arguments began as soon as the education system was established and drew a line between progressive views of learning and traditional views of schooling. I argued that those conflicts remain today and still influence how English language policy is created and implemented in elementary schools to date. Caught in the middle is Japan’s Ministry of Education who has tried over the years to please both groups. This is why there have been contradictions and gaps between
policies. This has sent mixed messages to schools and teachers who are trying to implement a new policy that required English to be taught as a subject. As more requirements are placed on schools to improve elementary school English, it is question-able if teachers will be question-able to meet the goals them. Only time will tell, but it would not be wrong to think that things are going to get worse for elementary school English, before it starts to get better.
References
〔１〕 Allen-Tamai, M.（２０１０）. Shougakkou eigo no kyouikuhou.［Methods of teaching elementary school English］. Tokyo, Japan: Taishukan.
〔２〕 Aspinall, R. W.（２０１３）. International education policy in Japan in an age of globalisation
and risk. Leiden, The Netherlands: Global Oriental.
〔３〕 Baker, D. P.（２０１４）. The Schooled Society. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
〔４〕 Baker, D. P. & LeTendre, G. K.（２００５）. National differences, global similarities:
World culture and the future of schooling. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
〔５〕 Ball, S. J.（１９９２）. Politics and policy making in education: Explorations in policy
sociology. London, UK: Routledge.
〔６〕 Block, D., Grey, J. & Holborow, M.（２０１３）. Neoliberalism and applied linguistics. London, UK: Routledge.
〔７〕 Blommaert, J.（２００６）. Language policy and national identity. In T. Ricento （Ed.）, An introduction to language policy（pp. ２３８２４５）. Victoria, Australia: Blackwell. 〔８〕 Butler, Y. G. & Iino. M.（２００５）. Current Japanese reforms in English language
education: The ２００３“Action plan”. Language Policy 4, ２５４５.
〔９〕 Butler, Y. G.（２００５）. Comparative perspectives towards communicative activities among elementary school teachers in South Korea, Japan and Taiwan. Language
Teaching Research ９（４）, ４２３４４６. doi: １０.１１９１/１３６２１６８８０５lr１７６oa
〔１０〕 Calder, K. E.（２０１７）. Circles of compensation: Economic growth and the globalization
of Japan. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
〔１１〕 Crystal, D.（２００３）. English as a global language. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
〔１２〕 Delvenne, J., & Sandberg, H.（２０１７）. Dissipative open systems theory as a foundation for the thermodynamics of linear systems. Philosophical Transactions
A375, １１６. doi:org/１０.１０９８/rsta.２０１６.０２１８
〔１３〕 Dower, J. W.（１９９９）. Embracing defeat. New York, NY: Norton.
〔１４〕 Erikawa, H.（２０１８）. Nihon no gaikokugo kyoikuseisakushi. ［A historical study of foreign language education policy in Japan］. Tokyo, Japan: Hituzi Shoten. 〔１５〕 Esaki, Y., & Shintani, R.（２０１０）. English education in Japan’s elementary
schools: reforms and challenges. Asia Pacific World １（１）, １３３１５３. doi:１０.３１６７lapw. ２０１００１０１０９
〔１６〕 Fidan, T., & Balci, A.（２０１７）. Managing schools as complex adaptive systems: A strategic perspective. International Electronic Journal of Elementary Education
２０（１）, １１２６. doi:１０.２６８２２/iejee.２０１７１３１８８３
〔１７〕 Gluck, C.（１９８５）. Japan’s modern myths: ideology in the late Meiji period. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
〔１８〕 Gottlieb, N.（２０１２）. Language policy in Japan. New York: Cambridge University Press.
〔１９〕 Hatch, M.（２０１３）. Organization Theory. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. 〔２０〕 Hane. M.（１９９２）. Modern Japan. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
〔２１〕 Hashimoto, K.（２００７）. Japan’s language policy and the“lost decade”. In A. Tsui & J. W. Tollefson（Eds.）, Language policy, culture and identity in Asian
con-texts（p.２５３６）. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
〔２２〕 Heinrich, P.（２０１２）. The making of monolingual Japan: Language ideology and Japanese
modernity. Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters.
〔２３〕 Holborow, M.（２０１５）. Language and Neoliberalism. London, UK: Routledge. 〔２４〕 Johnson, D. C.（２０１３）. Language Policy. London, UK: Palgrave Macmillan. 〔２５〕 Kirkpatrick, A. & Sussex, R.（Eds.）（２０１２）. English as an international language
in Asia: Implications for language education. New York, NY: Springer.
〔２６〕 Machida, T.（２０１６）. Japanese elementary school teachers and English language anxiety. TESOL Journal ７（１）, ４０６６. doi: １０.１００２/tesj.１８９
〔２７〕 MEXT.（２００３）. Eigo ga tsukaeru nihonjin no ikusei no tameno koudoukeikaku an. ［Action plan to cultivate“Japanese with English abilities”］. Retrieved from http:/ /www.mext.go.jp/b_menu/shingi/chukyo/chukyo４/００７/gijiroku/０３０３２４０１/ ００９.pdf
〔２８〕 MEXT.（２００８a）. Sho gakkou gakushu shidou yoryo eigoban gaikokugo katsudou. ［Course of Studies guideline for foreign language activities in elementary schools］. 〔２９〕 MEXT.（２００８d）. Sho gakkou gakushu shidou yoryo kaisetsu gaikokugo katsudouhen.
［ Description for study of course guideline for foreign language activities in elementary schools］.
〔３０〕 Morikawa, T.（２０１７）. Ideals of self-reliance and personal advancement: Modern eduction in the Meiji era １８６８ to １９１２. In M. Tsujimoto & Y. Yamasaki（Eds.）,
The history of education in Japan (1600 2000)（pp. ３４６０）. New York, NY: Routledge.
〔３１〕 Nunan, D.（２００３）. The impact of English as a global language on educational policies and practices in the Asia-pacific region. TESOL Quarterly, ３７（４） Winter. 〔３２〕 Okano. K. and Tsuchiya, M.（１９９９）. Education in contemporary Japan. Cambridge,
UK: Cambridge University Press.
〔３３〕 Otsu, Y.（ Ed. ）（２００４）. Shogakko de no eigokyoiku wa hitsuyou ka［ Is English education necessary at primary school ?］. Tokyo, Japan: Waseda University Press.
〔３４〕 Ricento, T.（２０１５）. Political economy and English as a“global”language. In T. Ricento（Ed.）, Language policy & political economy（pp.２７４７）. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
〔３５〕 Ritzer, G.（２０１１）. Sociological Theory. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill. 〔３６〕 Sasaki, M.（２００８）. The １５０-year history of English language assessment in
Japanese education. Language Testing ２５（１）, ６３８３. doi:１０.１１７７/０２６５５３２２０７０８３７４５ 〔３７〕 Seargeant, P.（２００８）. Ideologies of English in Japan: the perspective of policy and pedagogy. Language Policy 7, １２１１４２. doi:１０.１００７//s１０９９３-００７-９０７９-y 〔３８〕 Seargeant, P.（ Ed. ）（２０１１）. English in Japan in the era of globalization.
Hampshire, UK: Palgrave Macmillian.
London, UK: Routledge.
〔４０〕 Spolsky, B. & Moon, Y.（Eds.）（２０１２）. Primary school English-language education
in Asia: From policy to practice. New York, NY: Routledge.
〔４１〕 Suzuki, T.（１９９９）. Nihongo to gaikokugo［ Japanese and foreign languages ］. Tokyo, Japan: Iwanami Shinsho.
〔４２〕 Tsujimoto, M. & Yamasaki, Y.（Eds.）（２０１７）. The history of education in Japan
(1600 2000). New York, NY: Routledge.
〔４３〕 Yamasaki, Y.（２０１７）. New education and Taisho democracy １９００ to １９３０s. In M. Tsujimoto & Y. Yamasaki（Eds.）, The history of education in Japan (1600
