Importing Diversity: Inside Japan's JET Program by David L. McConnell
Authors: David L. McConnell
Ads: Link
no time
were discussions held with the textbook oversight committees or other
groups that shaped the larger structure of English education in Japan. Instead, the JET Program would simply be added on to existing policies, with
all the glaring contradictions that would inevitably follow.
SETTING INITIAL PROGRAM POLICY
Once a tenuous alliance between the three sponsoring ministries had been
forged, it remained for a planning committee consisting of representatives
from each to set initial program policy. What were the decisions about program structure that were explicitly debated, and how were they resolved?
What were the "nonissues"-that is, on what aspects of program policy did
broad agreement already exist?
The most immediate problem arising from the diverse sponsorship of
the new program was to articulate the "official" statement of program
goals for the press release on 8 October 1986. The intersectoral nature of
the policy meant that program goals had to be worded so as to please all
three sponsoring ministries-the diplomatic goals of Foreign Affairs, the
local development goals of Home Affairs, and the foreign language-teaching
goals of Education. Insofar as the JET Program was a response to American
pressure, the statement of purpose also had to be couched in terms that sat isfied the critique of Japan as a closed society. What emerged after much deliberation was an exceedingly broad statement designed to satisfy each of
the above constituencies:
The Japan Exchange and Teaching Program seeks to promote mutual
understanding between Japan and other countries including the U.S.,
the U.K., Australia, and N.Z. and foster international perspectives in
Japan by promoting international exchange at local levels as well as intensifying foreign language education in Japan.21
Another major decision regarding program policy was how to structure intergovernmental linkages. Who would be responsible for which aspects? I was quite surprised to find Japanese ministry officials referring to
JET as a "grassroots" exchange program, calling up images of ideas and
actions bubbling up organically from volunteer networks in local communities. It would seem to be the direct antithesis of governmentsponsored programs.
But Japanese sensibilities gave a different flavor and meaning to the
term. For the national-level bureaucrats, there was never any question that
"grassroots internationalization" needed both impetus and management
from the top. National-level ministries, in spite of being highly compartmentalized, all view the policy process similarly. Put simply, ministry officials subscribe to a theory of top-down change that sees the national government providing training of, encouragement to, guidelines for, and
subtle pressure on prefectural governments, who in turn leverage the next
level of the system; this process continues downward until satisfactory policy outcomes are achieved. The theory is that enough muscle applied at
each level will eventually bring compliance."
The formal administrative structure of the JET Program that resulted
from this approach is shown in figure i. Local initiative was to be encouraged, and employment contracts were to be signed with the local
host institution (prefecture or municipality), which could request the
number and kind of JET participants desired each year. That local institutions, not a national-level body, were designated as the "official employers" goes a long way toward explaining the variation in working conditions experienced by JET participants (see chapter 4). Nonetheless, local
autonomy played out within a framework set largely at the national
level. The sponsoring ministries would make key decisions about programwide policies and the annual number of participants; they would
provide the services of selection and placement in host institutions; and they would coordinate the Tokyo orientation, midyear block conferences,
and other support services.
Figure
were discussions held with the textbook oversight committees or other
groups that shaped the larger structure of English education in Japan. Instead, the JET Program would simply be added on to existing policies, with
all the glaring contradictions that would inevitably follow.
SETTING INITIAL PROGRAM POLICY
Once a tenuous alliance between the three sponsoring ministries had been
forged, it remained for a planning committee consisting of representatives
from each to set initial program policy. What were the decisions about program structure that were explicitly debated, and how were they resolved?
What were the "nonissues"-that is, on what aspects of program policy did
broad agreement already exist?
The most immediate problem arising from the diverse sponsorship of
the new program was to articulate the "official" statement of program
goals for the press release on 8 October 1986. The intersectoral nature of
the policy meant that program goals had to be worded so as to please all
three sponsoring ministries-the diplomatic goals of Foreign Affairs, the
local development goals of Home Affairs, and the foreign language-teaching
goals of Education. Insofar as the JET Program was a response to American
pressure, the statement of purpose also had to be couched in terms that sat isfied the critique of Japan as a closed society. What emerged after much deliberation was an exceedingly broad statement designed to satisfy each of
the above constituencies:
The Japan Exchange and Teaching Program seeks to promote mutual
understanding between Japan and other countries including the U.S.,
the U.K., Australia, and N.Z. and foster international perspectives in
Japan by promoting international exchange at local levels as well as intensifying foreign language education in Japan.21
Another major decision regarding program policy was how to structure intergovernmental linkages. Who would be responsible for which aspects? I was quite surprised to find Japanese ministry officials referring to
JET as a "grassroots" exchange program, calling up images of ideas and
actions bubbling up organically from volunteer networks in local communities. It would seem to be the direct antithesis of governmentsponsored programs.
But Japanese sensibilities gave a different flavor and meaning to the
term. For the national-level bureaucrats, there was never any question that
"grassroots internationalization" needed both impetus and management
from the top. National-level ministries, in spite of being highly compartmentalized, all view the policy process similarly. Put simply, ministry officials subscribe to a theory of top-down change that sees the national government providing training of, encouragement to, guidelines for, and
subtle pressure on prefectural governments, who in turn leverage the next
level of the system; this process continues downward until satisfactory policy outcomes are achieved. The theory is that enough muscle applied at
each level will eventually bring compliance."
The formal administrative structure of the JET Program that resulted
from this approach is shown in figure i. Local initiative was to be encouraged, and employment contracts were to be signed with the local
host institution (prefecture or municipality), which could request the
number and kind of JET participants desired each year. That local institutions, not a national-level body, were designated as the "official employers" goes a long way toward explaining the variation in working conditions experienced by JET participants (see chapter 4). Nonetheless, local
autonomy played out within a framework set largely at the national
level. The sponsoring ministries would make key decisions about programwide policies and the annual number of participants; they would
provide the services of selection and placement in host institutions; and they would coordinate the Tokyo orientation, midyear block conferences,
and other support services.
Figure
Similar Books
