State Formation and the Development of the National Education System：The cases of Japan and England and Wales＊
Naoko OTA
Abstract
in hisαnalysis O／the history O∫nationαl edUCαtion systems，
Anめ・Green pointed out that the most碗ρo吻η乙！α伽r in tんθestablish−
ment of tんe nationαl education SNstemωα8 tんθproceSS O∫8観θ！or〃乙α一
tion rαther thαn economic developme砿even tんougんんθnoticed the
即ortαnce O！tんe lαtter． HeαnalysedんistoricαllN tんe relationshiρわθ一 tween stαte！ormationαnd tんθnαtionαl edUCαtion Sッstems OプAsiαn countries like Jφαη，！ocused on the concep t o！ 乙んθdevelopmentα1 8観θ αnd Uρonオんθim、ρortant ro・le．ρ勿edうツthe nαtionαl education Sツstem in tんe proceSS O∫state！ormation． In this．ρ￠ρθr， attention is Pαid to tんθconflict betωeen state formαtionαnd economic development．
1ωould娩θto point out tんαt tんθdeveloping proceSS O∫伽nαtionαl education SNsternωα8 neitんθr simp le nor progressive．1診ωα8， rα亡んθろα zig2α9．ρrOCθSSω励verツseriOUS discontinuities in its ideααnd contents．
Aπ吻or discontinuity occurredαt tんθtum O／the century． Thisωα8 Cαused byオんθC傭rαdictionαnd COη！lict between the request from tんθ Government to strengtんen tんθro le of Stαte to extend tんθmode of caρi−
tαliSt prOdUCtiOn SッStem，αnd tんe prOCeSS O／9αining COnSenSUS／rOm地θ peoρle． Thereωθre pαrα〃el discontinuities in botんcountriesαt this sort
of stage， even tん0㎎んtん08θ伽O systemsωθrθvery dCがθrent in culture αnd organizαtion。
1The early stage of the national education system and its reorganiza−
tion toward the State education system
Thθtwo main objectives behind the establishment of the national education system are to produce a labour force with basic education and to cultivate the social consciousness to respect the law and order．
However these two factors are not always ill harmony to support the de−
velopment of the education system itself． There is always the conflict between two． On the one hand， with the progress of technology， a capi−
talist society seeks for the labour force with the flexible ability to deal with advanced technology， i．e． so−called full developed abilities in all aspects ， and on the other hand the same society seeks for the gaining the consensus or legitimacy to support the imagined state， The decision to establish the education system was recognition of the importance of education as the foundation of the nation state and as the tool to build the notion of a modern nation． This was far beyond the minimum re−
quirement of the modern economic system． This is the same reason why Althusser noted that the school was the main and dominant State
Ideology Apparatus that worked into peoples consciousness（1）． For exam−
ple， the process to establish the national education system in Japan after 1868 showed that the requirement of Meiji Japan was far higher than the requiremellt from the economy at that time． The reason it happened was， according to Saburo Shimoyama， that it made possible for the Goverllrnent to establish modern army forces with skill and knowledge to deal with modern weapons and to absorb the modθrn cul−
ture underneath it． Simoyama concluded that the（educational）legisla−
tion in 1872 was not an indispensable condition for the needs of modern Japanese economic policies （2）．
Andy Green also pointed out that many of the traditional theo−
ries of educational change cannot explain the uneven development of
1臨鴇諮甜儲。喩：盤mlnt 35
these systems（Archer，1979）， Theories linking educational development with industrialization and urbanization cannot explain why national sys−
tems developed first in countries like Prussia and France when they were predorninantly pre−industrial and rural societies， while Britain， the most industrialized and urbanized nation， was rθ1atively slow to develop its national system （3）． What was sought at the beginning of the national education system was the new identity of the member of the nation state， which had to deny the old， local and family−based identity．
In 1872， the law and thθframework of the national education sys−
tem in Japan were established。 The whole of Japan was to be divided into 8 areas and each area had one Irnperial University。 Each area was to be divided into 32 districts and each district would have to have one secondary education school． One district was to be divided into small school districts and each school district would have to have one primary school． This administrative system itself symbolized the state power that provided the foundations for the consciousness of the national iden−
tity． However， in reality， the school systems were subjected to the local economy that supported and provided national schools and actually they were generally uneven． In the process of state formation， the Meiji Governrnent recognized the importance of education and emphasized it，
but the real power to support schooling was』 狽潤@colne from local people．
The new state formation gave the hope and the dream of a new society for local peoplθand local people started building their own schools in the area as the preparation for new era， within the framework the Government had prescribed， As the result， the local schools emerged in this period directly reflected local peoplθs wishes． There was also a lack of uniformity among uneven localities． It gave the contradictory image of the national education system driven by state formation．
However， this education system described above has not developed
and extended directly to the contemporary system that gained good
reputation from abroad because of its contribution to economic growth．
The contemporary system is the result of historical gaps． The first and big gap appeared in the turn of century． What happened was the reor−
ganization of the national education system．
2 The case of Japan
The main feature of the developmental state is to establish the capitalist economy system by using State power。 Otherwise it is impos−
sib1θto gain the primitive accumulation of capital that is a minimum condition for the capitalist economy system． On the contrary， the State also gains its legitimacy to pursue that purpose． Meiji Japan decided to build a higher education system at first in order to educate and producθ the elites in both modern economy and bureaucracy， and to leave the na−
tional education system that expected to cultivate social consciousness as a Nation to local people and initiatives． In this regard， there was room for local alld popular characteristics within the national education system． Some localities started organizing so−called secondary schools by using their own funding． When the Japanese capitalist econolny system reached a stage whereby it needed to take one step further， the Government tried to reorganize the national education system in order to provide for this． The State was seeking to establish one national edu−
cation system under its control． However， this process was at the same time to be the procθss of the struggle between thθState and local people over the ideals and purposes of an education system． The main domain was secondary education． Kurosaki demonstrates this very clearly（4），
Both the education reforms in the mid−Meiji period and the Primary Schools Ordinance of 1900 were to establish the state education system． In other words， Japanese national education system became
1臨鵬諸鑑藷二。蠕捻塁野nt 37
subject to State control from primary schools to universities・In this re−
form， secondary schools became selective and were built only if the State allowed the use of public funds． It meant that the previous secon−
dary schools built by local people with local funds no longer existed．
Arguing on this education reform， Miyahara wrote：
Thus， voluntary learning ac㌻ivities of youth emerged from the Freedom and the Peoples Rights Movement and ended before it
was fully developed． We can find a blooming of secondary educa−
tion activity which we cannot find any in the national education system hereafter． We have to notice that there was one of big gaps in the history of modern education in Japan（5）．
3The case of England and Waies（6）
The Elementary Education Act of 1870
As the first country to establish a capitalist society and the leader of the world， English society already possessed a skilled labour force and the notion of national identity。 England and Wales had its first education legislation in 1870 just 2 years before Japan． There was abig argument over state intervention in regard to education systems not only for the working classes but also for the middle classes．
It is possible to say that the Elementary Education Act of 1870 was one of results of the second Reform Act of 1867， if we consider changes in social control． It gave legitimacy for s七ate mterventlon．
However， in reality， there were already many elementary schools before 1870．They were provided mainly by both the British and Foreign School Society and the National Society． These were rθ1igious bodies． There were some other schools provided by individuals and companies． From
18330nwards the Government started，to provide grants subject to
inspection by HMIs． On the eve of the 1870 Act， there were some schools subject to statθ intervention in respect of grants and inspections and which provided a curriculum based on the Standards of 1862． There were， however， other schools which did not conform to any of these matters． In short， the Elementary Education Act of 1870 chose one type of school as a good school and made it the model for the national edu−
cation system of the future． It also defined the schools which did not accept any intervention as a bad school and parents who supported these institutions as bad or ignorant parents ． The State controlled the curriculum and the structure． However， state intervention was not legitimised as a whole． The issues of the rights of parents（actually fa−
thers）were still contested． They mainly concerned the length of compul−
sory education and religious instruction． Thus Forster left these matters to the school board． The school board was ad hoc and locally and di−
rectly elected by rate payers． The school board was expected to
legitimise educational provisions and to build the consensus in the area．
It means， from the beginning， the school board system and its election became the locus of the struggle and controversy in both political and educational policies． The State obtained the power to dis］miss the school board under the Act．
The school board was to be based on a parish and to be estab−
lished to fill the gaps where elementary school places were insufficient．
The school board obtained the power to make a one penny levy and to make loans． This gave financial advantages to the board colnpared to voluntary schools， even though some ratepayers did not want to pay any additional tax． Using the rate as the third funding， the school board was able to legitimise secular education in board schools． In areas where voluntary schools suffered from shortages of funds， the election of the board became the fighting field． Many religious bodies tried to
1臨憶離翻二。鷺1蟹nt 39
obtain membership places on the board to use the rate for their schools as well． The school board system tended to reflect the local ideal of education． Some school boards established Higher Grade Schools（HGSs）
or Organized Science Schools as post−elementary schools in the Northern industrial areas． On the contrary， some school boards tended to make the compulsory period shorter， especially in agricultural areas． Thus，
there was not the uniform national education system． Furthermore， if there were plenty of school places， it was impossible to establish a school board． In 1876 when the Conservative Government wanted to ex−
tend compulsory education provision， it introduced the powerless school attendance committee instead． Betweθn 1870 and 1902， the Conservatives tried to diminish the board whenever it was in pow6r． In fact， there were many varieties of people who were elected as the mernbers of the board， including labourers， Socialists， Feminists， Trade Unionists， ex−
teachers， professors in universities， and so forth． Thus we can say that
the school board system was the local administration system with highly popular characterlstlcs・
The Education Acts of 1902 and 1904
From the bθginning of the national education system， therθwas criticism about its lack of uniformity and backwardness． Thus there were always some voices urging reform． It was at the turn of century when these activities became stronger． Some of them already noticed that the English economy was losing its advantage and prestige over the world economy for some European countries and the USA．had nearly
caught up with England． They called for technical and science education based on a sound elementary education． They were successful in convinc−
ing the Government to introduce the Technical Instruction Act，1889 and 1891 and thθ Local Taxation （Customs and Excise） Act， 1890
respectively． Under these Acts， the Technical Instruction Committee was set up in the new elected and multipurpose local coullcil that was also established under the Local Government Act 1888． The TIC was able to levy on the rate in order to provide technical instruction in the area．
The TICs started giving grants to HGSs， evening classes and secondary schools when they provided technical instruction． Some of the TICs，1ike the London TEC， also started scholarships． Then， there were three local authorities in education， i．e． the school board， the technical instruction committee and voluntary schools． And also there were three central authorities in education， i．e． the Education Department， the Science and Art Department and the Charity Commission．．These were heavily over−
lapped and became too complex． The Royal Commissions， like the Bryce Commission， always pointed out this complexity as a main problem， As far as the central authority was concerned， unification was achieved whθn the Board of Education was established in 1899． Under the Board of Education， all three authorities came together but it did not mean that the national education system became one system from elemθntary to secondary．
When the society moved to the imperial era， there were arguments over national efficiency or imperial efficiency from people like Sidney Webb and RB． Haldane， Sidney Webb， experienced as a member of London Technical Education Committee， wanted to place the whole edu−
cation system under the control of the London County Council in order to develop a new sort of elite through the school system． For Webb，
national identity or social solidarity was curtailed only through the love of locality． Webb was active and adopted the Fabian s strategy， i．e． per−
meation to politicians and bureaucrats． There was also an attempt to build a state−oriented national education system from the centre by such figures as Gorst， Balfore and Morant． Morant even tried to bring the
State Formation and the Development 41 0f the National Education System：
universities under state control in the 1910s． For all of them， the main problem was the HGSs or Organized Science Schools built by the school boards． They were not proper secondary schools． The school board sys−
tem itself was not able to spread throughout the whole of England and Wales and their size based on a parish was not enough to deliver secon−
dary schools． Furthermore， if the national education system was to be handled by the local discretion， a state−oriented total national education system could not be built． The illegality of HGSs funded from the rates became clear in the Cockerton Judgement． There were two alterna−
tives． One was the school board system to provide both elementary and secondary education， The other was that local government should be per−
mitted to do so． The Education Act of 1902 declared the agent of local government to be the LEA． LEAs were not ad hoc． Under local gov−
ernment， the Education Committee was set up by the Act and composed by councillors with co−opted members， Le， the professions and vested in−
terests． And each EC had the Chief Education Officer as a clerk and head of department． The Education Committee was actually playing the main role in educational administration． The local educational policy making process was going to be handled by politicians guided by the CEO and other co−opted members． However， the EC did not have any power to levy or make a loan． It was a machinery without substantial methods． The EC had to be subordinate to the local counci1． We may see that local people lost their direct say under the LEA system．
However， even though LEAs became distant from local people， the LEA still enjoyed its independence， for the Government did not have the power to dissolve local government itself． Sidney Webb was happy about this， but Morant was not and he wanted to go a step further．
He prθpared the Education Act of 1904． This Act， as Eaglesham pointed out， gave the state powers to control the direction that the LEA should
follow（7）@Haldane spoke strongly against this during the parliamentary debates but this was in vain（8）． At the same time， Morant reorganized the central education administration systern． After 1902， there were three branches， i．e． elerrlentary， secondary and technical education． For elementary education， England and Wales were divided into 3 areas and each area had one branch where an Assistant Sθcretary and other civil servants from the Board were located． The Board of Education issued the regulations for both elementary and secondary schools． Morant
tried to establish the national education system with the educational ad−
mlnlstratlon system． Under such systems， we may say that England and Wales nearly had a statθ一〇riented national education system． It is im−
portant not to ignore the existence of the Education Act of 1904．
The principle of partnership， which used to be a catchphrasθfor the English educational administration system， was that it was built on a good relationship among the three partners， i．e． the Board of Education， the LEAs and schools． This principle developed after the edu−
cation reforms at the beginning of the twentieth century． In other words， after local people lost their direct say frorn a local educational admillistration system．
4Conclusions
Japan and England and Wales established national education sys−
tems at thθsame time． However， judging from the level of economic dθvelopment， the Japanese education system operated at a very much higher level． As far as national identity was concerned， the State left local people to deliver elementary schools which associated national idθn−
tity with peoples hope for the new era． On the contrary， England and Wales had a very backward education system compared to its economic development level． The legitimacy of state intervention was not clear．
1臨織雛翻二。愉：蟹nt 43
English．society already had elementary schools and a strong sense of na−
tional identity． The State had to givθthe decision−making process re−
garding aspects of schooling to local pθople・
Local discretion and endeavours were able to build so−called secon−
dary schools in both England and Wales and Japan． At the・turn of the century， when the articulation between elementary education and secon−
dary education reached the top of agenda， from the State s point of view， the national education system was to be led or planned by the centre． When both Governments succeeded， the popular aspects in local education administration disappearθd or were abolished．
We can conclude two points from the above． First， the relation−
ship between state formation and the national educatlon system ls not so simple． It is， rather， more complex and sometimes there are gaps m the history of the nationalθducation system． Second， it is not right to think that what happened in both countries， at the same tirne and nearly the same thing， was just coincidental。 I think this stage of the history is a sort of necessary one and it would be universal or a common phe−
nomenon in other countries． Of course I need to investigate the third case as wel1，
In addition to these， the ways of developing the state national education system are very different in both countries． State invention towards elementary education in England ceased in 1926， for secondary education in 1944． On the contrary， state intervention became stronger and tighter in Japan during this period as the country moved towards a military and totalitarian state． After WW2， the Japanese started again to build a new national education system． However it was based on democratic principles this time． Again， there was a popular aspect in local educational administration at the beginning． It was depressed by the Government in 1956 in order to build the state national education
system that would support more economic development under central planning． These differences may give more explanations for the differ−
ences between both countries education systems． But it is far beyond my focus now． I shall leave it in future．
＊ This paper was delivered at the Annual Conference of the History of Education Society at Winchester on the 4th of December，1999．
（1）Althusser， L（1971）， L・痂， P励・ん・吻and Otん・・E・8αツ、． L。nd。n，
New Left Books．
（2）Shim・y・m・， S・（1966）， M・㌍・hin Ke吻u・hi R・・（A St・dy。n th，
Historical Researches on The Meiji Restration），Ochanomizushobo， p．311
（3） Green， A．（1997）， E（lucαtion， Globαli2αtionαn（l Tんe Nαtion Stαte
，
Mcmillan， p．33．
（4） Kurosaki，1．（1980），Koωkyouihuhi no Kendyu（A Study on Public Funds for Education）， Aoki shoten．
（5） Miyahara， S，（1963）， Kyouikusんぎ （The History of Education），
Toyokeizaishinpousha， pユ01．
（6）This part is based on my book， IgirisuleOVouileugOVouseiseido seirit8usんピ
（Th・Hi・t・・y・f E・gli・h Ed・・ati・nal Admi・i・t・ati・n・Th・Emaerg，nce。f the Principle of Partnership ）， Tokyo University Press，1992，
（7）E・glesh・m， E（1956），F・・m S・ん・・♂B・α・伽L・・α1 A。th。吻， RKP、
（1957）M・・a・t・nMarch， y・α・わ・・feげ肋磁…（1957）C・nt・・lli。g Educational Expenditure Eighty Years Ago， BritisんJournα1（ゾE（∫召cαtionαl St dies，5−2：（1960）Planning The Education Bill of 1902， BJES，9−1（1962）
Implementing The Education Act of 1902， BJES，10−2：（1963）The Centenary of Sir Robert Morant， BJES，12−1：（1967）TんθFoundαtions（ゾ20tんCenturッ Educαtion in五］nglαn（1， RKP．
（8） Hαnsαrd，4th． Vol．139， clm．1237．
