1

The International Conference on Education Research (ICER)

2009

Accountability Systems in Japanese Education;

a note on the national testing and the school evaluation policies.

Akihiko Hashimoto

National Institute for Educational Research, Japan

Abstract

The purpose of this report is to provide the audiences with outline information of two major Japanese national policies relating educational accountability system, and to give some reflections on their characters. One is the national testing policy that conducts “National Assessment of Academic Ability”. The other is the policy for nationwide school evaluation system.

The nationwide survey began in 2007 to be conducted yearly to the 6th and 9th graders, in their whole population. The main purpose is to know how the active curriculum and the real teaching toward it is working or not, and to get a hint to improve them. The nationwide school evaluation system was charged in the regulation of the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports and Scientific Technology (MEXT) in 2002, then proceeded to be a duty for all schools when the “School Education Law” was amended in 2007.

Those two are not merely the major accountability systems but are systems for quality assurance or devices for improving school education in the national educational policy. The Japanese Government is paying very close attention to the implementation of these systems, as we had the tradition of using the evaluation tools without utilizing them for an educational purpose.

It is too clear that local schools and educational authorities need to be accountable to the public for its educational service, as well as to open up what efforts are taken in the schools and to seek what improvement should be done. But at the other hand, the Government needs to take care of local schools and authorities that no one will run excessively to anti-educational evaluation that evokes no positive improvements for children’s learning.

Keywords: academic ability,accountability, assessment, school evaluation, testing policy,Japan

1. Introduction

The purpose of this report is to provide the audiences with outline information of two major Japanese national policies relating educational accountability system, and to give some reflections on their characters. Thus, I wish to show how accountability is pursued in Japanese national educational policy.

One is the Japanese national testing policy. It can be represented by the “National Assessment of Academic Ability” (hereinafter referred to as the "Assessment"). The Assessment began in 2007 to be conducted yearly to all 6th and 9th graders. The main purpose is to know about students’ real learning situation and get hints to improve active curriculum and the teaching as well as educational policies.

The other is the nationwide school evaluation system. It was charged in the regulation of the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports and Scientific Technology (MEXT) in 2002. Then evaluation proceeded to be a duty for all schools when the School Education Law was amended in 2007. The system emphasizes self-study of each school, and aims at better quality education to be promoted in every local school.

As follows, I will present the main features of the two policies, and give some considerations to think about accountability system in Japanese education.

2. The National Testing Policy

2.1 The Historical Background of Nationwide Assessment

2.1.1. The First Assessment in 1956

The current Assessment was instituted in April 2007, the first time in 43 years.

Table 1 shows a short history of the national testing policy of Japan.

The first nationwide assessment took place in 1956. Its aim was to;

contribute toward the maintenance and the improvement of the national Course of Study[1] and other educational conditions[2]

Since 1961 Fiscal Year[3], the nationwide assessment expanded to assigning all 8th- 9th graders testing of 5 major subjects (Japanese, math, social study, science and English). Sampled 5th - 6th graders and senior graders of upper secondary schools were examined in yearly chosen subject(s). Besides the sampled elementary schools, many school volunteered to participate in the assessment, and in 1962, more than 90 % of the elementary schools did so. The Ministry of Education had the intent that the entrance examination for upper secondary schools could be replaced by the nationwide assessment that covers all 9th graders.

However, as a matter of fact, the nationwide assessment caused stressful competition upon schools, students and teachers. Cramming, preparing, dummy examinee, hiding low performers, proctor’s cheating, and planned cunning. Evil influences were reported in many districts. Teachers union had opposed to it bitterly. Finally, in 1966, one district court sentenced the assessment done by the national government to be illegal ( this judgment was reversed at the last resort in 1976).

Thus, the first attempt of national assessment was interrupted after its 11 years of trial and data collection.

Table 1 A Short History of the National TestingPolicy

2.1.2. The Curriculum Implementation Survey by the NIER

The task of nationwide assessment was taken over by the National Institute for Educational Research (NIER)[4], when the Curriculum Implementation Survey began in 1981 fiscal year (actually Feb. 1982). At first, until 1995, the sampling survey was imbedded in a research project, and after that year, the survey became more visible for the public.

The purpose held up this time was the verification of the national Course of Study. Japanese national Course of Study is revised almost every ten years. Responding to the revision of 1977/78 FY, 1989FY, and 1998/99 FY, the Curriculum Implementation Surveys of 1981/82/83 FY, 1993/94/95/01/02/03 FY, and 2003/04 FY took place respectively.

For instance, the process of the survey responding to the Course of Study of 1989 FY is as follows. After the Course of Study of 1989 for elementary schools was launched, a period of preparation was taken. Then it was implemented fully into elementary schools in 1992, lower secondary schools in 1993, and upper secondary schools (year by year from the 1st grade) in 1994. 1-2 fiscal years after the implementation of that Course of Study into schools, Curriculum Implementation Survey took place. As for elementary school, in 1993 FY, about 1 % of the whole 5th– 6th graders were tested for Japanese and Mathematics. Then in 1994 FY, another 1 % of the whole 5th– 6th graders were tested for Social Study and Science. It was special that the Course of Study of 1989 FY had got the secondary survey which took part in 2001-03 FYs. This time, the testing for Japanese, Social Study, Mathematics, and Science was given to about 8 % of the whole 5th– 6th graders, and furthermore, 6 % of 7th– 8th and 8 % of 12th graders were tested.

By analyzing the data, profiles of the academic ability were extracted. A report from the Central Council for Education summarizes lessons from the Survey as follows.

…considerable numbers of children can be thought of as having acquiredfundamental knowledge and skills, but problem issues can be identified in individual cases,such as for example in Mathematics in lower secondary schools, understanding the meaning ofthe transposition of a term in mathematical equations or understanding the relationshipbetween the volume of a cylinder and a cone.

On the other hand, points such as the following can be identified as causing problems inthe area of the application of knowledge and skills.(rest omitted)[5]

2.1.3. Other Assessments in National or Local Level

Besides those nationwide assessments, there were various kinds of assessments. Though Table 1 shows only a portion of them, it should be pointed out that assessments were needed since the late 1940’s or early 50’s. Most of them aimed at grasping how well the children are taught, for the purpose of searching what improvement could be done for education.

So, the general intention is the same to the former nationwide assessments. The key word is “improvement”. However, those assessments in the late 1940’s or early 50’s were small scale, and were not directly connected with real policy. Furthermore, they tend to lack the strong concern to measure student’s ability toward a standard of achievement in certain grade. They were rather done for research than for governmental use.

Lastly, we must see that prefectures had also practiced assessments of academic ability at their own judgment. Almost every 47 prefectures had something to do with assessments, and others would subsidize local municipalities that would use private sector’s achievement tests[6]. 8 prefectures out of 47 had begun their own testing before the year of 2000, and the earliest prefecture of Fukui started it in 1951. However, some of the prefectures quit their own assessment recently. It might be related to the commencementof the complete national Assessment by MEXT this time. [7]

2.2 The Implementationof Current Assessment

2.2.1. The Nationwide Controversy over Academic Ability

A consideration of the nationwide arguments about academic ability is indispensable when we talk about the nationwide assessment. Though Japanese modern education has a long history of arguments on academic ability, Japanese society has not yet found a national consensus on how to think about it.

The current nationwide controversy has two dimensions. One is the question of “what is the substance of academic ability for our children?” The other is the question of “how shall we respond to the testing scores of our children?”

For the first point, the Japanese government proposed new slogans in the mid ‘80s[8]. Those are “A New View of Academic Ability(신학력관)” and “Zest for Living(사는힘)”. The conversion of idea, from “testing oriented education” to “authentic education”, was proposed. The “New View…” was unfolded under the policy of “Yutori (Relaxed) Education(여유교육)”[9] which is an antithesis of “Cramming Education”. It did not only aim to banish cramming education, but also accompany deregulation of the curriculum, cutback of the volume of the Course of Study, and institution of a five-day workweek. These policies were prepared during the ‘90s, and finally materialized in the national Course of Study revised in 1998/99 FY that was implemented from 2002 FY.

Concerning the second point of the “testing score” problem, Japan seems to be at the turning point of how to view and utilize the results of assessments.

Since the ‘90s, there were voices that concerned about the near future declining of the academic ability, if the new “Yutori education” policy was practiced. 1 or 2 years after the implementation of the new Course of Study, two internationalassessments took place. They are the TIMSS(Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study ）2003 and the PISA (Programme for International Student Assessment) 2003. Some papers front-paged that Japan had fell down from the top ranking group.

Various arguments arose after those results. Not a few people had the concern that “international ranking shows the decline” or “basic knowledge and skill has fell down”, while others would answer “there is no evidence to conclude our decline” or “ability besides testing oriented ability is not measured yet”.

Although there are no definitively strong conclusions of the controversy, there is a consensus that parents and children are willing to pursue much more good academic ability that would help their future life, and public education must meet their want.

2.2.2. Why “Nationwide” Assessment had Revived

It was Nariaki Nakayama, the Minister of Education of Sep. 2004 – Oct. 2005, that directly mentioned about the revival of the nationwide Assessment. He was invited as a temporary member to the regular meeting of the Council on Economic and Fiscal Policy on Nov. 4th 2004. In his speech, he announced he will take over the former Minister’s work, and make more reform of his own “within these two years” to strengthen Japanese nation. He proposed on executing the new “National Assessment of Academic Ability”. His expectation was as follows;

I expect my educational reform to make Japanese academic ability the top of the world. Children shall foster the awareness tostudy hard together in good rivalry. [10]

After Nakayama’s proposal, the MEXT announced that a plan for the Assessment will be prepared by next autumn.

The Council took over Nakayama’s proposal with care. … After the Council’s report, the Cabinet decided the "Basic Policies for Economic and Fiscal Management and Structural Reform 2005" (so-called 'Basic Policies 2005') on June 21, 2005. It said :

By autumn of FY2005, basic policies for revising the curriculum guidelines will be compiled.Furthermore, to assess and analyze the academic abilities of students and to strive for theimprovement and upgrading of teaching methods based on these assessments, appropriatemeasures will be deliberated, including nationwide academic ability surveys.[11]

One could see that Nakayama’s ingenuous proposal was taken in. However, much more care is added to utilize the result of the nationwide survey for improvement.

2.2.3. The Assessment Materialized in the Educational Policy

After the argument in the Council on Economic and Fiscal Policy, the MEXT asked the Central Council for Education to discuss about how to and what to test in the Assessment. The Council submitted the report titled “Redesigning Compulsory Education for a New Era” to the Minister on Oct. 26th, 2005.[12]

In this report, the Central Council had recommended that the reformed system of compulsory education should ensure educationalquality within the following framework (see Figure 1 and quotation)

Figure 1 National Framework to Ensure Educational Quality

1. The central government shall take responsibility for setting goals and providing the infrastructure needed to achieve them.

2. With this as a foundation, the powers and responsibilities of local municipalities and schools shall be expanded through decentralization.

3. At the same time, the central government shall be responsible for examining educational outcomes.

And under “3. examining educational outcomes”, the two tools of “Nationwide Assessment of Academic Ability” and “School Evaluation System” are put as examples of policy that could be implemented. One could see that the in the Central Council’s proposal, the Assessment, as well as the School Evaluation System, is a part of the P-D-C-A cycle for educational policy.

In the Central Council’s report, the Assessment was described as follows:

- Use results to benefit student learning by improving teaching methods on the basisof objective data

- Take into consideration not only motivating students to learn more, but also avoiding school rankingand unhealthy competition

Next month, in November 2005, MEXT began to prepare for the Assessment. Then, MEXT established aCommittee to propose how to conduct the Assessment. In Apr. 2006, the Committee made a report of “Implementation Methods of the National Assessment of Academic Ability”. After this report, in June 2006, MEXT launched the “Implementation Guidance of the National Assessment of Academic Ability” as a vice-minister’s decision. After the Guidance, local education authorities and public schools prepared for the Assessment which will be executed the next year.

On April 24,2007, MEXT conducted the Assessment to all students in the 6th graders (sixth year of elementary school) and the 9th graders (third year of lowersecondary school). The result of the Assessment was announced on October 24, 2007. It was the first time in 43 years that a testing was administered to all the students of targeted grades.

2.2.4. The Main Features of the “National Assessment of Academic Ability”

In this section, we will have a quick look of how the Assessment in 2007 looked like. Table 2 is an “overview” of the Assessment held in 2007.[13]

To overview item by item, “objectives” of the Assessment are to verify the results of education provided, identify associated problems, and implementnecessary improvements. This is not only for the MEXT but basically the same for local boards of education and schools.

“Graders assessed” are all 6th graders and 9th graders, including special education schools or private schools.

“Contents” of the assessment consists of “testing” for school subjects ( Japanese and Mathematics - “Arithmetic” in elementary level ) and the “questionnaire survey” concerning lifestyle habits and learning environment.

The “testings” are divided into two categories of “A” and “B”. “A”(Japanese A, arithmetic/mathematics A) is a testing primarily concerning “knowledge”. That is, knowledge and skills which are indispensable in subsequent grades, andso essential that students should be able to use any time in real life. “B”(Japanese B, arithmetic/mathematics B) is a testing primarily concerning “use” of knowledge/skills in various life situations. It includes the ability to form problem solving concepts and to practice,evaluate and improve them.

In the “questionnaire survey”, the students were surveyed concerning their motivation, learning methods, learningenvironment and various aspects of their daily life. Schools were also surveyed, concerning teaching contents and methods, and theoverall state of students’ situations. Thus, it was intended that the data could be analyzed from many perspectives.

Other facts like “Numbers of schools and students assessed” and ”Results of the 2007 assessment” are shown in the FY2007 White Paper. We will see what problems occur at the last chapter of this paper. Before we move on, I must add that the MEXT had worried much about “the excessive competitiveness” and the evils it would bring. MEXT has made agreements between every municipality that the results of individual schools nor municipalities shall not be announced by superior authorities as prefectures or central government. And MEXT had distributed many notes to warn practical points especially on how the publication of the results should be done.

Table 2 The Overview of the Assessment of 2007

3. The School Evaluation Policy

This chapter could not be sufficient, as the last chapter was too long.

However, just a glance of the national school evaluation policy will be viewed.

3.1 The Legislation of School Evaluation System

3.1.1. The ShortHistory of School Evaluation

The First School Evaluation System in was introduced in 1951. It resembled American system of school accreditation. However, it did give a certain impact for a portion of schools but diminished within a decade.[14]