Policy and practice in cultural context 1988 to 2011

Research Bulletin of Education, Vol.7, 2012
武庫川女子大学大学院　教育学研究論集　第 7 号　2012
Seminar on 21st February 2011 in Mukogawa Women’s University
Primary education in Britain:
Policy and practice in cultural context 1988 to 2011
Peter Cunningham㧖
Abstract
What can we learn from policy change? What can we learn about primary schools and primary teaching by
understanding the dynamics of recent change?
This lecture will present an account and an analysis of changes in policy and practice over the last twenty years
in Britain. It will also discuss the continuing process of change and current policy trends following a recent
change of government.
The session will encourage students to reflect on comparisons between Japan and Britain as a way of
understanding the social, economic and political factors that inform primary education.
The session will be arranged in three sections:
1. Curriculum
- national curriculum and the needs of primary children
- citizenship, health and welfare
- assessment and testing
2. Teachers
- teacher qualification and professional development
- teacher autonomy and teaching methods
- teachers and other adults in the classroom
3. School governance
- variety of types of primary school
- local accountability
- national accountability
* Bye-Fellow of Homerton College, Cambridge, and Visiting Fellow at the University of London Institute of Education
䋭 㪋㪊 䋭
Peter Cunningham
Input to session
1. Curriculum
1.1
National Curriculum and the needs of primary children
In Britain the ‘elementary’ school curriculum at the beginning of state education 140 years ago comprised the
basic skills of reading, writing and arithmetic, together with religious education. Over the first half of the
twentieth century increasing knowledge of developmental psychology led to an understanding of the curriculum
in terms of children’s development. Education became known as ‘primary’ to reflect the developmental stages
of the child. By the time of the Plowden Report (1967) on ‘Children and their Primary Schools’ emphasis was
on the needs of the individual child, and responsibility for the curriculum was left to individual schools and
teachers.
In the 1970s and 1980s increasing concern about national economic performance and problems of literacy and
numeracy amongst children entering employment after school led government policy to revive the earlier
emphasis on basic skills and preparing children for the world of work. A National Curriculum (NC) was
introduced 1988 by a Conservative government that believed in traditional school subjects. The NC also
increased assessment and testing as a means of monitoring children’s progress and helping them to improve, and
as a means of monitoring and improving schools’ effectiveness.
Another argument for centralised control of the curriculum was to produce an ‘entitlement curriculum’, to
ensure that all children throughout Britain would receive a common experience at school. The NC would also
make it easier for their parents to move from one part of the country to another, to satisfy the changing demands
of the labour market, without too much interruption of their children’s schooling.
But these policies
undermined the ‘child-centred ideal’ of teachers responding to the needs of individual children in their class, as
perceived by the teacher.
The National Curriculum implemented in primary schools from 1990 has two ‘Key Stages’, Key Stage One for
children from age 5 to age 7 and Key Stage Two for children from age 8 to age 11. It is defined in terms of
‘core’ subjects (English, Maths and Science) and ‘foundation’ subjects (Geography, History, Design and
Technology (DT), Information and Communications Technology (ICT), Music, Art and Design, Physical
Education). Religious Education is statutory but not strictly part of the NC.
How far the needs of individual children can be met by a national curriculum is a question we could discuss.
1.2
Citizenship, health and welfare (and Religious Education)
Two broad aims for the school curriculum were reflected in the Education Act 1996, requiring that all schools
provide a balanced and broadly based curriculum: ‘to promote the spiritual, moral, cultural, mental and physical
development of pupils and of society’; and ‘to prepare pupils for the opportunities, responsibilities and
experiences of adult life’.
䋭 㪋㪋 䋭
Primary education in Britain: Policy and practice in cultural context 1988 to 2011
These aims are further explained as follows:
The school curriculum should … develop principles for distinguishing between right and wrong. It should
develop their knowledge, understanding and appreciation of their own and different beliefs and cultures,
and how these influence individuals and societies. The school curriculum should pass on enduring values,
develop pupils' integrity and autonomy and help them to be responsible and caring citizens capable of
contributing to the development of a just society.
The school curriculum should promote pupils' self-esteem and emotional wellbeing and help them to
form and maintain worthwhile and satisfying relationships, based on respect for themselves and for others,
at home, school, work and in the community. It should develop their ability to relate to others and work
for the common good.
Citizenship and welfare are an explicit and important aspect of state policy on education. This policy reflects
an expectation that schooling will help to fix the many problems of social breakdown, yet it can be seen to be in
tension with the emphasis on developing basic skills and subject knowledge that constitute the formal
curriculum and by which schools are formally assessed. Opportunities for citizenship and health education
have to be made across the primary curriculum in all sorts of activities, and the ethos and organisation of the
school has to play an important part in transmitting these values to children.
The formal content of the curriculum that contributes to this includes Religious Education (RE) and ‘personal,
social and health education’ (PSHE), which includes sex education. In the case of RE and of sex education,
however, parents can choose to withdraw their children, and although this happens infrequently, it raises serious
questions about aspects of the curriculum for all children that are regarded as extremely important, but from
which parents can opt out. Most schools must teach religious education according to a locally agreed syllabus
that should reflect the fact that the religious traditions in Great Britain are mainly Christian, while taking
account of the teachings and practices of the other principal religions represented in Great Britain. But again
exceptions occur because schools of a religious character are not bound by this requirement. These are
difficult dilemmas that we could discuss.
1.3
Assessment and testing
The National Curriculum included for the first time a system of regular assessment and testing. The aim was for
government to be able to monitor the progress and achievement of schools and to enable parents to exercise
choice by identifying ‘good schools’ and ‘bad schools’.
This process introduced for political reasons was
made possible by increasing sophistication of information technology and by increasingly sophisticated
mechanisms for assessment.
However it met with a lot of opposition from the teaching profession because of its perceived narrowness which
gave a distorted view of children’s progress and personal development, its apparent undermining of professional
䋭 㪋㪌 䋭
Peter Cunningham
judgment, its damaging effect on children in labelling and increasing anxiety, and the increased workload which
detracted from quality teaching time. Many parents and others, professional and lay people, also objected in the
early stages because of the distortion of the curriculum in encouraging teaching to the test.
Parents also observed the stress that testing and ‘labelling’ caused in some children.
There were also
objections to the publication of results in ‘league tables’ which encouraged competition between schools and
damaged morale of teachers and children attending schools that performed comparatively badly, especially
where the fundamental cause of lower scores was more likely to be the social and economic deprivation of
children rather than the quality of teaching.
Some improvements were made as a result of these objections, for example simplifying the system of
assessment and introducing ‘value added’ measures that took some account of the level that children were
achieving on entry to school, also taking account of measures of social deprivation, although these were fairly
crude such as numbers of children receiving ‘free school meals’.
Problems of assessment and testing in relation to the primary school curriculum could be a topic for discussion.
Questions for discussion:
٨
What is unclear or needs more explanation?
٨
What are the advantages and problems for the primary curriculum in serving
individual needs, social needs, and the state’s needs?
٨
How does assessment and testing in Japan help or hinder a curriculum for
personal and social development?
2. Teachers
2.1
Teacher qualification and professional development
Within a state education system, government has always been concerned to ensure a sufficient supply of
teachers, and of sufficient quality. So it was necessary to provide the means of training teachers, either through
apprenticeship or through colleges. Qualified Teacher Status (QTS), was awarded by the state, and not (as in the
case of lawyers and doctors) by an independent professional body. But the details of knowledge required by
teachers and the methods by which they learned the necessary skills for teaching were, like the school
curriculum, traditionally thought of as a purely professional issue and not a matter for political interference.
However, just as the effectiveness of schools came under closer scrutiny by the state in the 1970s and 1980s, so
the education and training of teachers became a matter of public concern and government policies began to be
more specific and more controlling over professional development. This has tended to undermine not only
䋭 㪋㪍 䋭
Primary education in Britain: Policy and practice in cultural context 1988 to 2011
professional independence but also the academic independence of the universities, who had been responsible for
designing and validating course of teacher training.
In 1984 the British government established a Council for the Accreditation of Teacher Education appointed by
the Secretary of State for Education, responsible for approving courses of initial training. This was later
succeeded by a Teacher Training Agency (TTA) which began to specify a detailed list of ‘competences’ to be
demonstrated by teachers in order to qualify. These competences later became known as ‘standards’, finely
graded by descriptions of satisfactory and unsatisfactory performance.
Governments have developed an increasing number of school-based routes into teaching and reduced the extent
of university-based courses. More recently the TTA, now renamed the Training and Development Agency, has
been given the oversight of Continuing Professional Development (CPD) throughout a teacher’s career. Also
introduced was a professional qualification specifically for Head Teachers (NPQH) with emphasis on the skills
of managing schools as organisations and a National College for School Leadership. This signals a departure
from the generally accepted ‘collegial’ tradition of a Head Teacher, especially in primary schools, as first and
foremost a teacher, a colleague in the education of young children who took the leading role amongst a team of
teachers.
Professional development had been a matter of individual preference for teachers who might choose to follow
further courses in subject knowledge or professional skills. Increasingly requirements for further professional
development have been decided by the Head Teacher and senior management according to the school’s
particular curriculum or institutional needs at any one time (often following the outcomes of a school
inspection). CPD resources have also increasingly been targeted by government at national initiatives such as
the National Literacy Strategy and National Numeracy Strategy.
Issues for discussion that are raised by these policies might be the proper role for universities in the training of
teachers, and the independence of the individual teacher in planning their own professional development.
2.2
Teacher autonomy and teaching methods
The NC in 1988 had been a culture shock for a profession that had always regarded curriculum as a matter for
independent professional judgment. Government ministers at the time insisted that although this step had
become necessary it would never attempt to dictate to teachers how they should teach. But after only a few
years, a new Secretary of State for Education commissioned a report on ‘Curriculum Organisation and
Classroom Practice in Primary Schools’ (1992). Its authors were Robin Alexander, Jim Rose and Chris
Woodhead, three individuals who have had prominent roles in the subsequent discourse of primary education up
to the present time. Their discussion, which was ostensibly critical of ‘informal’ and ‘child-centred’ practice in
primary teaching, heralded a new phase that led to government determination of teaching methods.
Continuing concern about standards of literacy and numeracy through the 1990s and the diversity of methods
adopted for the teaching of English and maths in different schools and by different teachers, appeared to justify
䋭 㪋㪎 䋭
Peter Cunningham
the formulation of a national strategy that was realised by the New Labour government from 1997. This
strategy promoted a daily ‘literacy hour’ and a ‘numeracy hour’ throughout Key Stages One and Two, for which
the materials and the method of teaching were tightly planned and widely disseminated. Dissemination of
methods and training of teachers was extensively organised on a national scale. Many teachers in fact welcomed
the detailed prescription as giving them the reassurance of a prescribed structure in curriculum areas that were
receiving a great deal of hostile publicity, where they felt vulnerable and open to potential criticism for the
outcomes of children’s learning.
Standards as reflected in the results of national testing in English and maths improved dramatically in the first
years of the strategies. Government claimed credit for this, although independent evaluations were more
reserved, suggesting this was partly an effect of novelty, and the effects of ‘teaching to the test’. Also
increasingly identified in more balanced evaluations was the negative impact on other aspects of the curriculum
and on children’s school experiences as they spent a greater proportion of their time in routine classroom
procedures and proportionately less time in creative, expressive and physical activities. For teachers, the
impact of this new way of working to central government direction would take much longer to show, but as ten
years have now passed, research on teachers reveals less job satisfaction, less initiative and creativity. There is
a genuine danger that a more routine and conformist approach to the work of primary teaching will alter the
experiences that children have of personal interaction and mutual enjoyment of learning with their teachers. It
may even to deter livelier personalities from becoming primary teachers.
2.3
Teachers and other adults in the classroom
Historically, the role of the primary class teacher has been conceived as having responsibility for ‘the whole
child’ in a single class for the entire school year. Thus the teacher takes care not just of the intellectual
learning, but of the child’s physical, social and emotional development of individuals for as long as they’re in
her, or his, class. Obviously there are limits to what’s possible, especially given the size of the class. But the
implications for the teachers’ role are many.
In some situations more than others they had to concern
themselves with matters of welfare and with many practical matters in addition to their formal teaching.
Sometimes there was limited assistance available, in earlier times in the form of ‘pupil-teachers’ (apprentice
teachers) or more recently in the form of ‘parent helpers’ who might volunteer to assist in the classroom one or
two mornings or afternoons during the week.
In very recent times the government embarked on a deliberate policy of ‘workforce reform’, one idea of which
was to provide assistance for teachers in some of the more practical tasks. Government policies on curriculum
and the ‘strategies’ required more planning, preparation and assessment, more ‘paperwork’ on the part of the
teacher. So the role of ‘classroom assistant’ was more clearly identified, and more classroom assistants were
employed by schools. As teachers were required to undertake more professional development during the school
day, it was envisaged that classroom assistants could cover their absence by taking charge of the class. Some
training was made available for classroom assistants, but a question inevitably raised by this policy was how
effectively an unqualified (and lower paid) ‘assistant’ could cover all the aspects of a professional teacher’s role.
䋭 㪋㪏 䋭
Primary education in Britain: Policy and practice in cultural context 1988 to 2011
Questions for discussion:
٨
What is unclear or needs more explanation?
٨
How should teachers best be prepared for their role through initial education and
training, and what are their needs for continuing professional development?
٨
How far do primary school teachers have professional independence in Japan,
what kinds of support do they receive from other adults in school, and how far
does this affect their professionalism?
3. School governance
3.1
Variety of types of primary school
Even within a uniform state system, schools will vary widely in size and character depending on their location
and on the character of the local population and local economy. In Britain there is still quite a lot of variety for
historical reasons. Most obviously, when you visit an English village, small or large town, or city, are the
number of denominational primary schools, especially Church of England.
Even the structure of state primary schooling, sometimes varies between different local education authorities for
historical and geographical reasons. More densely populated areas often had separate infant and junior schools,
though it has seemed to make more economical and more educational sense to bring these into one ‘all-through’
primary from ages 5-11. A few parts of the country still have middle schools designed to soften the dramatic
(and sometimes traumatic) transition from primary to secondary schools at the age of 11, by creating ‘middle
schools’ with two transitions at the age of 8 or 9, and again at 13 or 14. Middle schools however became
increasingly unpopular after the introduction of the national curriculum as these transition points disrupted the
progression through KS1, KS2 and KS3.
3.2 Local accountability
Local Education Authorities (LEAs) were part of democratically elected local government, and were
responsible for local schools, but were often in conflict with national government over education policy.
Reforms to school governance and from the 1970s began to recognise the parents’ role and a need for
‘partnership’ in primary education.
This was associated with informed ‘consumerism’ as a positive
development, but also with the ideology of education as a ‘market place’ which has been a less constructive.
More varied types of primary school have also arisen from successive governments’ attempts to devolve the
funding of and responsibility for schools to local communities. This process has been very piecemeal and
haphazard as far as primary schools are concerned. Grant Maintained schools were encouraged encouraged
under a Conservative government in the early 1990s, freeing themselves from local authority control and getting
their funds direct from national government and there have been many similar experiments and innovations
under Conservative and New Labour governments in the last twenty years, such as Foundation Schools, Trust
䋭 㪋㪐 䋭
Peter Cunningham
Schools, Academies, and now so-called Free Schools under the new Coalition (Conservative and Liberal
Democrat) government in 2010.
There are benefits to community involvement in schools, but these policies
are politically ideological and can lead to social divisiveness, a problem that is worth discussing.
3.3
National accountability
Finally we need to return to the machinery of assessment, testing, evaluation and inspection, mentioned earlier
in relation to curriculum. (Section 1.3). We will discuss school inspection by Ofsted in the UK as well as
assessment and testing.
One dynamic behind the high profile emphasis on assessment and testing was the increasing use of comparative
national measurements of educational quality and achievement made by international bodies.
The
Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development, founded after the Second World War, has taken an
increasing interest in education and exercises a strong influence over national education policies:
‘Education is a major area of spending for OECD countries, but they face tough questions when it
comes to allocating these resources: How best to balance spending across people’s lives—from
preschool to adult learning? How can the role of education in fuelling economic growth be reconciled
with other education goals? And what are the best ways of achieving those goals? Drawing on the
experience of member countries, OECD helps societies answer these questions. The goal is to create
education and training systems that contribute to social stability and economic strength, and that provide
everybody with the chance to make the most of their innate abilities at every stage of life.’
The Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) is an internationally standardised assessment that
was jointly developed by participating economies and administered to15-year-olds in schools.
Four
assessments have so far been carried out (in 2000, 2003, 2006 and 2009), and data for the assessment which
took place in 2009 was released on 7 December 2010. Korea and Finland topped the OECD’s latest PISA survey
of reading literacy among 15-year olds, which for the first time tested students’ ability to manage digital
information. The survey, based on two-hour tests of a half million students in more than 70 economies, also
tested mathematics and science. The next strongest performances were from Hong Kong-China, Singapore,
Canada, New Zealand and Japan.
Questions for discussion:
٨
What is unclear or needs more explanation?
٨
Should parents and the local community be able to influence the quality of their
primary schools?
٨
What arrangements are made for ensuring the quality of primary education in
Japan?
䋭 㪌㪇 䋭
Primary education in Britain: Policy and practice in cultural context 1988 to 2011
United Kingdom
(UK)
Primary education in Britain:
Policy and practice in cultural context
1988 to 2011
Dr Peter Cunningham
Homerton College, University of Cambridge
and
Institute of Education, University of London
Local Authorities
(LAs)
In England
Countries of the UK:
-England
-Wales
-Scotland
-Northern Ireland
Margaret
Thatcher
Tony Blair
Conservative
Prime
Minister
Labour
Prime
Minister
1979-1990
1997-2007
䋭 㪌㪈 䋭
Peter Cunningham
1.
Curriculum
1.1
National Curriculum and
the needs of
primary children
David Cameron (Conservative) Prime Minister
Nick Clegg (Liberal Democrat) Deputy PM
Coalition Government 2010-
Trends in National Policy for Primary Curriculum 1870-2010
0-5
5-11
Early Years
Foundation
Stage
Key stages 1 & 2
Key Stages 3 & 4
Primary school
Infant/junior
Secondary school
Nursery
Children’s Centre
11-16
or
11-18
16-18
18-21
6th Form
College
University
1870 -‘Elementary Education’ = ‘the three R’s’:
Reading, Writing, Arithmetic
1944 –
‘Primary Education’ = children’s development:
‘learning by discovery’, ‘integrated day’
Child-minder
1988 -‘National Curriculum’ = ‘core subjects’:
English, Mathematics, Science
and ‘foundation subjects’:
History, Geography, Art, Music, PE
1998 –
‘National Strategies’ = intensive programmes for
‘literacy’ and ‘numeracy’
䋭 㪌㪉 䋭
1.
Curriculum
1.2
Citizenship, health and welfare
Primary education in Britain: Policy and practice in cultural context 1988 to 2011
ECM 2004
䋭 㪌㪊 䋭
1.
Curriculum
1.3
Assessment and testing
Peter Cunningham
Questions for discussion:
2.
Teachers
2.1
Teacher qualification
and professional development
xWhat is unclear or needs more explanation?
xWhat are the advantages and problems for the
primary school in serving individual needs, social
needs, and the state’s needs?
xHow does assessment and testing in Japan help
or hinder a curriculum for personal and social
development?
2.
Teachers
2.2
Teachers autonomy
and teaching methods
䋭 㪌㪋 䋭
Primary education in Britain: Policy and practice in cultural context 1988 to 2011
Teachers and other adults in the classroom
2
Teachers
2.3
Teachers and other adults
in the classroom
Questions for discussion:
•What is unclear or needs more
explanation?
•How should teachers best be prepared for
their role through initial education and
training, and what are their need for
continuing professional development?
3.
School governance
3.1
Variety of types of primary school
•How far primary school teachers have
professional independence in Japan, what
kinds of support do they receive from other
adults in the school, and how far does this
affect their professionalism ?
3.
School governance
3.2
Local accountability
Community School
Faith or Foundation School
Academy
Free School
䋭 㪌㪌 䋭
Peter Cunningham
3.
School governance
3.3
National accountability
secondary school
local authority
central government
primary school
Children’s Trust
children’s centre
nursery
Questions for discussion:
•What is unclear or needs more
explanation?
4.
•Should parents and the local community
be able to influence the quality of their
primary schools?
•What arrangements are made for ensuring
the quality of primary education in Japan?
䋭 㪌㪍 䋭
How are policies changing
under the new
Conservative/Liberal Democrat
Coalition government?
Research Bulletin of Education, Vol.7, 2012
武庫川女子大学大学院　教育学研究論集　第 7 号　2012
2011 ᐕ 2 ᦬ 21 ᣣ㧘ᱞᐶᎹᅚሶᄢቇᢥቇ⎇ⓥ⑼ᢎ⢒ቇኾ᡹࠮ࡒ࠽࡯
Seminar on 21st February 2011 in Mukogawa Women’s University
ࠗࠡ࡝ࠬߩೋ╬ᢎ⢒㧦
1988 ᐕ߆ࠄ 2011 ᐕߩᢥൻ⊛ᢥ⣂ߦ߅ߌࠆᢎ⢒᡽╷ߣᢎ⢒ታ〣
Primary education in Britain:
Policy and practice in cultural context 1988 to 2011
ࡇ࡯࠲࡯࡮ࠞ࠾ࡦࠟࡓ㧖⪺
⋙⸶㧦ጊ㦮ᵗሶ㧖㧖
⸶㧦ዊᨋ␞ᄹ㧖㧖㧖, ’᧛⧷⩐㧖㧖㧖, ᳰዥᴕⓄ㧖㧖㧖, ⊕⍹⵨ሶ㧖㧖㧖,
ᚭ↰߽߽㧖㧖㧖, ᴡญടᄹ㧖㧖㧖, ᧻⪲ ᕺ㧖㧖㧖, ᫪ᧄ૫ᄹ㧖㧖㧖
Peter CUNNINGHAM㧖
YAMASAKI, Yoko㧖㧖
KOBAYASHI, Rena㧖㧖㧖, MAKIMURA, Eri㧖㧖㧖, IKEJIRI, Saho㧖㧖㧖, SHIRAISHI, Yuko㧖㧖㧖,
TODA, Momo㧖㧖㧖, KAWAGUCHI, Kana㧖㧖㧖, MATSUBA, Megumi㧖㧖㧖, MORIMOTO, Kana㧖㧖㧖
ⷐ⚂
᡽╷ߩᄌൻ߆ࠄ㧘⑳ߚߜߪ૗ࠍቇ߱ߎߣ߇ߢ߈ࠆߩߢߒࠂ߁߆‫ޕ‬ೋ╬ቇᩞᢎ⢒ߩㄭᐕߩ഍⊛ߥᄌൻࠍℂ⸃ߔࠆߎߣ߆ࠄ㧘
ೋ╬ቇᩞߣೋ╬ᢎ⢒ߩ૗ࠍ⑳ߚߜߪቇ߱ߎߣ߇ߢ߈ࠆߩߢߒࠂ߁߆‫ޕ‬
ᧄ࠮ࡒ࠽࡯ߢߪㆊ෰ 20 ᐕ㑆ߩࠗࠡ࡝ࠬߩ᡽╷ߣᢎ⢒ታ〣ࠍឭ␜ߒಽᨆߒ߹ߔ‫ߚ߹ޕ‬㧘ߘߩᄌൻߩㆊ⒟ߩ⛮⛯ᕈߣㄭᐕߩ
᡽ᐭߩᄌൻࠍㄡߞߡߘࠇࠄߩ᡽╷௑ะࠍ⼏⺰ߒ߹ߔ‫ޕ‬
ᧄ࠮࠶࡚ࠪࡦߪએਅߩ 3 ㇱ㐷ߢ᭴ᚑߐࠇߡ޿߹ߔ‫ޕ‬
3㧚ቇᩞㆇ༡
1㧚ࠞ࡝ࠠࡘ࡜ࡓ
㧙ೋ╬ቇᩞߩᄙ᭽ߥ࠲ࠗࡊ
㧙࠽࡚ࠪ࠽࡞࡮ࠞ࡝ࠠࡘ࡜ࡓ㧘ೋ╬Ბ㓏ߩሶߤ߽ߩ࠾
㧙࿾ᣇᒰዪߩ⺑᣿⽿છ
࡯࠭
㧙࿖ኅߩ⺑᣿⽿છ
㧙ࠪ࠹ࠖ࠭ࡦࠪ࠶ࡊ࡮ஜᐽ࡮⑔␩㧔ߣቬᢎᢎ⢒㧕
㧙ࠕ࠮ࠬࡔࡦ࠻ߣ⹜㛎
2㧚ᢎᏧ
㧙ᢎᏧߩ⾗ᩰߣኾ㐷ᕈߩ⊒㆐
㧙ᢎᏧߩ⥄ᓞᕈߣᢎ⢒ᣇᴺ
㧙ᢎቶߩਛߩᢎᏧߣᢎᏧએᄖߩᄢੱ
㧝㧚ࠞ࡝ࠠࡘ࡜ࡓ㧔㪚㫌㫉㫉㫀㪺㫌㫃㫌㫄㧕
᭴ᚑߐࠇߡ޿߹ߒߚ‫ޕ‬20 ਎♿ߦ౉ߞߡඨ਎♿એ਄߽ߩ㑆㧘
㧝㧝࠽࡚ࠪ࠽࡞࡮ࠞ࡝ࠠࡘ࡜ࡓ㧘ೋ╬Ბ㓏ߩሶߤ߽ߩ࠾࡯࠭
⊒㆐ᔃℂቇߩ⍮⼂ߩჇടߦࠃࠅ㧘ሶߤ߽ߚߜߩ⊒㆐ߩⷰὐ
㧔National Curriculum and the needs of primary children㧕
߆ࠄࠞ࡝ࠠࡘ࡜ࡓ߇ℂ⸃ߐࠇࠆࠃ߁ߦߥࠅ߹ߒߚ‫ޕ‬ᢎ⢒ߣ
ࠗࠡ࡝ࠬߩ‫ޟ‬ၮ␆‫ޠ‬㧔elementary㧕ቇᩞࠞ࡝ࠠࡘ࡜ࡓߪ㧘
ߪ㧘ሶߤ߽ߩ⊒㆐Ბ㓏ࠍ෻ᤋߔࠆߴ߈‫ޟ‬ਥⷐߥ߽ߩ‫ޠ‬
140 ᐕ೨ߩ౏ᢎ⢒㧔state education㧕ߩ㐿ᆎᤨߦߪ㧘⺒ߺ࡮
㧔primary㧕ߢ޽ࠆ㧘ߣ⠨߃ࠄࠇࠆࠃ߁ߦߥࠅ߹ߒߚ 1‫ޟޕ‬ሶ
ᦠ߈࡮⸘▚ߣ޿ߞߚၮᧄ⊛ࠬࠠ࡞ߦട߃ߡ㧘ቬᢎᢎ⢒߆ࠄ
ߤ߽ߣೋ╬ቇᩞ‫ޠ‬
㧔‘Children and their Primary Schools’㧕ߦ㑐
*
ࠤࡦࡉ࡝࠶ࠫᄢቇ㧔Faculty of Education, University of Cambridge㧕㧘ࡠࡦ࠼ࡦᄢቇ㧔Institute of Education, University of
London㧕
**
ᱞᐶᎹᅚሶᄢቇ㧔Mukogawa Women’s University㧕
*** ᱞᐶᎹᅚሶᄢቇᢎ⢒ቇ⑼ቇㇱ↢㧔Undergraduate student, Department of Education, Mukogawa Women’s University㧕
䋭 㪌㪎 䋭
ピーター ・ カニンガム著 （山﨑洋子監訳）
ߔࠆࡊ࡜࠙࠺ࡦႎ๔ᦠ 㧔1967㧕2 ߇ೀⴕߐࠇࠆᤨ߹ߢߦߪ㧘
᳞߼ߡ޿߹ߔ‫ޕ‬
‫↢ޟ‬ᓤߣ␠ળߩ♖␹⊛࡮㆏ᓼ⊛࡮ᢥൻ⊛࡮⍮
ሶߤ߽৻ੱ߭ߣࠅߩ࠾࡯࠭߇㊀ⷞߐࠇࠆࠃ߁ߦߥߞߡ߅
⊛࡮り૕⊛⊒㆐ࠍଦㅴߒ‫ޠ‬㧘ߘߒߡ‫↢ޟ‬ᓤߩߚ߼ߦ␠ળ↢ᵴ
ࠅ㧘ࠞ࡝ࠠࡘ࡜ࡓߦኻߔࠆ⽿છߪ୘‫ߩޘ‬ቇᩞ߿ᢎᏧߦᆔߨ
ߩᯏળ߿⽿છ㧘⚻㛎ࠍⓍ߹ߖࠆ‫ߦ߼ߚޠ‬㧘ߔߴߡߩቇᩞ߇
ࠄࠇࠆࠃ߁ߦߥߞߡ޿߹ߒߚ‫ޕ‬
⺞๺ߩߣࠇߚ᏷ᐢ޿ၮ⋚ࠍ᦭ߔࠆࠞ࡝ࠠࡘ࡜ࡓࠍឭଏߔࠆ
1970 ᐕ߆ࠄ 80 ᐕઍߦ߆ߌߡ㧘࿖ኅ⚻ᷣߩታ❣ߣතᬺᓟ
ߦዞ⡯ߔࠆሶߤ߽ߚߜߩ࡝࠹࡜ࠪ࡯㧔⺒ߺ࡮ᦠ߈⢻ജ㧕߿
ߎߣࠍ᳞߼ߡ޿߹ߔ‫ޕ‬
ߎࠇࠄߩ⋡⊛ߪ㧘ߐࠄߦએਅߩࠃ߁ߦ⺑᣿ߐࠇߡ޿߹ߔ‫ޕ‬
࠾ࡘ࡯ࡔ࡜ࠪ࡯㧔⸘▚⢻ജ㧕ߩ໧㗴ߦኻߔࠆ㑐ᔃ߇㜞߹ߞ
ߚߎߣߦࠃࠅ㧘᡽ᐭߩ᡽╷ߪ㧘ᣧᦼߩᲑ㓏ߢၮ␆ᛛ⢻ࠍり
ቇᩞߩࠞ࡝ࠠࡘ࡜ࡓߪ㧘
࡮࡮࡮ༀᖡࠍ඙೎ߔࠆᓼ⟵ࠍ⊒
ߦߟߌߐߖࠆߎߣߣ㧘ഭ௛ߩ਎⇇ߦ౉ࠆḰ஻ࠍሶߤ߽ߚߜ
㆐ߐߖࠆߴ߈߽ߩߢ޽ࠅ㧘ఽ┬⥄り߿⇣ߥࠆାઔ㧘ᢥ
ߦߐߖࠆߎߣߩ㊀ⷞࠍᓳᵴߐߖࠆߎߣࠍ૛௾ߥߊߐࠇ߹ߒ
ൻ߿㧘ߎࠇࠄ߇ߤߩࠃ߁ߦ୘ੱߣ␠ળߦᓇ㗀ࠍ෸߷ߔ
ߚ‫ߪࡓ࡜ࡘࠠ࡝ࠞ࡮࡞࠽࡚ࠪ࠽ޕ‬㧘વ⛔⊛ߥቇᩞߩᢎ⑼ࠍ
߆ߣ޿߁ߎߣߦኻߔࠆ⍮⼂㧘ℂ⸃㧘⹏ଔࠍ⊒㆐ߐߖࠆ
ଔ୯޽ࠆ߽ߩߣ⠨߃ࠆ଻቞ౄ᡽ᐭߦࠃࠅ㧘1988 ᐕߦዉ౉ߐ
ߴ߈߽ߩߢ޽ࠆ‫ޕ‬ቇᩞߩࠞ࡝ࠠࡘ࡜ࡓߪ㧘᥉ㆉ⊛ߥ⻉
ࠇ߹ߒߚ‫ߚ߹ޕ‬㧘ሶߤ߽ߚߜߩㅴᱠࠍ࠴ࠚ࠶ࠢߒᓐࠄ߇ะ
ଔ୯ࠍવ߃㧘ఽ┬↢ᓤߩ⺈ታߐߣ⥄ᓞᕈࠍ⊒㆐ߐߖ㧘
਄ߔࠆߩࠍഥߌࠆᚻᲑߣߒߡ㧘ߐࠄߦቇᩞߩ᦭ലᕈࠍ࠴ࠚ
ᓐࠄ߇౏ᱜߥ␠ળߩ⊒ዷߦ⽸₂ߒᓧࠆ⽿છᗵߣᕁ޿߿
࠶ࠢߒߡะ਄ߐߖࠆᚻᲑߣߒߡ㧘࠽࡚ࠪ࠽࡞࡮ࠞ࡝ࠠࡘ࡜
ࠅߩ޽ࠆᏒ᳃ߦߥࠆߩࠍᡰេߔߴ߈ߢ޽ࠆ‫ޕ‬
ࡓߪ㧘ࠕ࠮ࠬࡔࡦ࠻ߣ⹜㛎ࠍჇ߿ߒ߹ߒߚ‫ޕ‬
ਛᄩ㓸ᮭ⊛ߥࠞ࡝ࠠࡘ࡜ࡓᡰ㈩ߩ߽߁৻ߟߩ⺰ὐߪ㧘ࠗ
ቇᩞߩࠞ࡝ࠠࡘ࡜ࡓߪ㧘ఽ┬↢ᓤߩ⥄ዅᔃ߿ᖱ✜⊛ߥ
ࠡ࡝ࠬߓࠀ߁ߩሶߤ߽ߚߜߔߴߡ߇ቇᩞߢߩ౒ㅢߩ૕㛎ࠍ
ᐘ⑔ᗵࠍଦㅴߐߖࠆߴ߈߽ߩߢ޽ࠅ㧘ኅᐸ࡮ቇᩞ࡮⡯
ฃߌࠄࠇࠆߎߣࠍ଻⸽ߔࠆ‫⾗ޟ‬ᩰࠞ࡝ࠠࡘ࡜ࡓ‫ޠ‬
႐࡮࿾ၞ␠ળߢߩ⥄ಽ⥄りߣઁ⠪߳ߩᢘᗧߦၮߠ޿ߡ㧘
㧔‘entitlement curriculum’㧕ࠍߟߊࠆߎߣߢߒߚ‫࠽࡚ࠪ࠽ޕ‬
ଔ୯߇޽ࠅḩ⿷ߩ޿ߊੱ㑆㑐ଥࠍᓐࠄ߇ᒻᚑߒ㧘ߘߒ
࡞࡮ࠞ࡝ࠠࡘ࡜ࡓߪ߹ߚ㧘ሶߤ߽ߚߜߩࠬࠢ࡯࡝ࡦࠣࠍ޽
ߡ⛽ᜬߔࠆߩࠍᡰេߔߴ߈߽ߩߢ޽ࠆ‫ޕ‬ቇᩞߩࠞ࡝ࠠ
߹ࠅᅹߍࠆߎߣߥߊ㧘ⷫߚߜ߇࿖ߩ޽ࠆ࿾ၞ߆ࠄ೎ߩ࿾ၞ
ࡘ࡜ࡓߪ㧘ઁ⠪ߣ㑐ࠊࠅ౒ㅢߩ೑⋉ߩߚ߼ߦ௛ߊᓐࠄ
ߦᒁߞ⿧ߒ㧘ഭ௛Ꮢ႐ߩᄌൻߒߟߟ޽ࠆ㔛ⷐࠍḩߚߔߩࠍ
ኈᤃߦߒࠃ߁ߣߒߡ޿߹ߒߚ‫ߒ߆ߒޕ‬㧘ߎࠇࠄߩ᡽╷ߪ㧘
ߩ⢻ജࠍ⊒㆐ߐߖࠆߴ߈߽ߩߢ޽ࠆ‫ޕ‬
ቇ⚖ߩሶߤ߽৻ੱ߭ߣࠅߩ࠾࡯࠭ߦᔕߓࠃ߁ߣߔࠆᢎᏧߚ
ࠪ࠹ࠖ࠭ࡦࠪ࠶ࡊߣ⑔␩ߪ㧘ᢎ⢒ߦ㑐ߔࠆ࿖ኅ᡽╷ߩ㗼
ߜߩ‫ޟ‬ሶߤ߽ਛᔃߩℂᗐ‫ޠ‬
㧔‘child-centred ideal’㧕ࠍ்ߟߌ߹
࿷⊛߆ߟ㊀ⷐߥዪ㕙ߢߔ‫ߩߎޕ‬᡽╷ߪ㧘ቇᩞᢎ⢒߇㧘␠ળ
ߒߚ‫ޕ‬ᢎᏧߪߘߩࠃ߁ߦฃߌߣ߼ߚߩߢߔ‫ޕ‬
ߩ⴮ㅌߦ㑐ࠊࠆᄙߊߩ໧㗴ࠍ⸃᳿ߔࠆߩߦᓎ┙ߟߢ޽ࠈ߁
1990 ᐕ߆ࠄೋ╬ቇᩞߢታᣉߐࠇߚ࠽࡚ࠪ࠽࡞࡮ࠞ࡝ࠠࡘ
ߣ޿߁ᦼᓙࠍ෻ᤋߒߡ޿߹ߔ‫ߪࠇߘߒ߆ߒޕ‬㧘ᱜⷙߩࠞ࡝
࡜ࡓߦߪ㧘ੑߟߩ‫ޠࠫ࡯࠹ࠬ࡮࡯ࠠޟ‬
㧔‘Key Stages’㧕߇޽ࠅ
ࠠࡘ࡜ࡓࠍ᭴ᚑߒ⻉ቇᩞ߇ᱜᑼߦࠕ࠮ࠬࡔࡦ࠻ߐࠇࠆၮ␆
߹ߔ‫ޕ‬5㨪7 ᱦߩሶߤ߽ߪࠠ࡯࡮ࠬ࠹࡯ࠫ 1㧘8㨪11 ᱦߩሶߤ
ᛛ⢻ߣ㧘ᢎ⑼⍮⼂ߩะ਄ࠍ㊀ⷞߔࠆߎߣߣߩ✕ᒛ⁁ᘒߦ޽
߽ߪࠠ࡯࡮ࠬ࠹࡯ࠫ 2 ߦ⋧ᒰߒ߹ߔ‫ߪࠇߘޕ‬㧘
‫ޟ‬ਛᔃ‫ޠ‬
㧔‘core’㧕
ࠆࠃ߁ߦᕁࠊࠇ߹ߔ‫ߣࡊ࠶ࠪࡦ࠭ࠖ࠹ࠪޕ‬ஜᐽᢎ⢒ߩᯏળ
ᢎ⑼㧔⧷⺆㧘▚ᢙ㧘ℂ⑼㧕ߣ㧘࿾ℂ㧘ᱧผ㧘࠺ࠩࠗࡦ࡮ᛛ
ߪ㧘޽ࠄࠁࠆ⒳㘃ߩᵴേߦ߅޿ߡೋ╬ᢎ⢒ߩࠞ࡝ࠠࡘ࡜ࡓ
ⴚ㧔DT㧦Designed Technology㧕㧘ᖱႎ࡮ࠦࡒࡘ࠾ࠤ࡯࡚ࠪࡦ
ࠍᮮᢿߒߡ૞ࠄࠇߥߌࠇ߫ߥࠅ߹ߖࠎ‫ߡߒߘޕ‬㧘ሶߤ߽ߚ
ᛛⴚ㧔ICT㧦Information and Communications Technology㧕㧘㖸
ߜߦߎࠇࠄߩଔ୯ࠍવ߃ࠆ㓙ߦ㧘ቇᩞߩ․⾰ߣ⚵❱߇㊀ⷐ
ᭉ㧘⟤ⴚ࡮࠺ࠩࠗࡦ㧘り૕ᢎ⢒ߣ޿ߞߚ‫ޟ‬ၮ⋚‫ޠ‬
㧔‘foundation’㧕
ߥᓎഀࠍᜂࠊߥߌࠇ߫ߥࠅ߹ߖࠎ‫ޕ‬
ᢎ⑼ߩⷰὐߦࠃߞߡቯ߼ࠄࠇߡ޿߹ߔ‫ޕ‬ቬᢎᢎ⢒ߪᴺߦࠃ
ߎߩߎߣߦነਈߔࠆࠞ࡝ࠠࡘ࡜ࡓߩᱜᑼߥౝኈߦߪ㧘ቬ
ߞߡቯ߼ࠄࠇߡ޿߹ߔ߇㧘࠽࡚ࠪ࠽࡞࡮ࠞ࡝ࠠࡘ࡜ࡓߩ෩
ᢎᢎ⢒㧔RE㧕ߣ㧘ᕈᢎ⢒ࠍ฽߻‫ੱޟ‬ᩰ࡮␠ળ࡮ஜᐽߩᢎ⢒‫ޠ‬
ኒߥ㗔ၞߦߪ౉ߞߡ޿߹ߖࠎ‫ޕ‬
㧔PSHE㧕߇޽ࠅ߹ߔ‫ࠄ߇ߥߒ߆ߒޕ‬㧘ቬᢎᢎ⢒ߣᕈᢎ⢒ߩ
ሶߤ߽৻ੱ߭ߣࠅߩ࠾࡯࠭߇㧘࠽࡚ࠪ࠽࡞࡮ࠞ࡝ࠠࡘ࡜
႐วߪ㧘ਔⷫ߇ᓐࠄߩሶߤ߽ߦฃߌߐߖߥ޿ߣ޿߁ㆬᛯ߇
ࡓߦࠃߞߡߤߩ⒟ᐲḩߚߐࠇᓧࠆߩ߆ߣ޿߁໧޿ࠍ㧘⑳ߚ
ߢ߈㧘⒘ߦߢߔ߇㧘ߎߩߎߣߪ⿠ߎࠆߩߢߔ‫ߪࠇߘޕ‬㧘㕖
ߜߪߎࠇ߆ࠄ⺰ߓߡ޿߈߹ߒࠂ߁‫ޕ‬
Ᏹߦ㊀ⷐߢ޽ࠆߣߺߥߐࠇߡ޿ࠆߔߴߡߩሶߤ߽߳ߩࠞ࡝
㧔ዊᨋ␞ᄹ㧕
ࠠࡘ࡜ࡓߩ⻉ዪ㕙ߦ㑐ߒߡᷓೞߥ໧㗴ࠍ߭߈߅ߎߒߡ޿߹
ߔ‫ࠄ߇ߥߒ߆ߒޕ‬㧘ਔⷫߪ㨇ߘࠇࠍሶߤ߽ߦฃߌߐߖߥ޿㨉
㧝㧞ࠪ࠹ࠖ࠭ࡦࠪ࠶ࡊ࡮ஜᐽ࡮⑔␩㧔ߣቬᢎᢎ⢒㧕
ㆬᛯ⊛㔌⣕㧔opt out㧕߇ߢ߈ࠆߩߢߔ‫ߩߤࠎߣ߶ޕ‬ቇᩞߪ㧘
㧔Citizenship, health and welfare㧔and Religious Education㧕㧕
࿾ၞߏߣߩࠕࠣ࡝࡯࠼࡮ࠪ࡜ࡃࠬߦࠃߞߡ㧘ቬᢎᢎ⢒ࠍᢎ
ቇᩞߩࠞ࡝ࠠࡘ࡜ࡓߦ㑐ߔࠆੑߟߩᐢ޿⋡⊛ߪ㧘1996 ᐕ
᝼ߒߥߌࠇ߫ߥࠅ߹ߖࠎ‫ߡߒߘޕ‬㧘߶ߣࠎߤߩቇᩞߪ㧘ߘ
ᢎ⢒ᴺߦ෻ᤋߐࠇ߹ߒߚ‫ߩߘޕ‬ᢎ⢒ᴺߢߪ㧘ߔߴߡߩቇᩞ
ߩࠪ࡜ࡃࠬߦ㧘ઁߩਥⷐߥቬᢎߩᢎ⢒ߣታ〣ࠍ⠨ᘦߒߡ޿
߇⺞๺ߩߣࠇߚ᏷ᐢ޿ၮ⋚ࠍ᦭ߔࠆࠞ࡝ࠠࡘ࡜ࡓߩឭଏࠍ
߹ߔ߇㧘ࠣ࡟࡯࠻࡮ࡉ࡝࠹ࡦߩቬᢎ⊛વ⛔߇ਥߣߒߡࠠ࡝
䋭 㪌㪏 䋭
イギリスの初等教育 ： 1988 年から 2011 年の文化的文脈における教育政策と教育実践
ࠬ࠻ᢎߢ޽ࠆߣ޿߁੐ታࠍ෻ᤋߒߡ޿ࠆߩߢߔ‫߹ߒ߆ߒޕ‬
㧞㧚ᢎᏧ㧔㪫㪼㪸㪺㪿㪼㫉㫊㧕
ߚ㧘ቬᢎ⊛․⦡ࠍᜬߟቇᩞߪߎߩⷐ᳞ߦ❈ࠄࠇ߹ߖࠎߩߢ㧘
㧞㧝ᢎᏧߩ⾗ᩰߣኾ㐷ᕈߩ⊒㆐ 㧔Teacher qualification and professional development㧕
ߐࠄߦ଀ᄖ߽⿠ߎࠅ߹ߔ‫ߪࠄࠇߎޕ‬㧘⑳ߚߜߩ⼏⺰ߦ୯ߔ
ࠆⶄ㔀ߥࠫ࡟ࡦࡑߢߔ‫ޕ‬
౏ᢎ⢒೙ᐲߩਛߢ㧘᡽ᐭߪᏱߦචಽߥᢎຬߩଏ⛎ߣචಽ
㧔’᧛⧷⩐㧕
ߥ⾰ߩ଻⸽ߦ㑐ࠊߞߡ߈߹ߒߚ‫ޕ‬ᓥߞߡ㧘ᓤᒉ೙ᐲ߆ᄢቇ
ߩߤߜࠄ߆ߦࠃࠅ㧘ᢎຬ㙃ᚑߩᚻᲑࠍឭଏߔࠆᔅⷐ߇޽ࠅ
㧝㧟ࠕ࠮ࠬࡔࡦ࠻ߣ⹜㛎 㧔Assessment and testing㧕
߹ߒߚ‫ޕ‬ᢎຬ⾗ᩰ㧔QTS㧦Qualified Teacher Status㧕ߪ࿖߆
࠽࡚ࠪ࠽࡞࡮ࠞ࡝ࠠࡘ࡜ࡓߦߪ㧘ೋ߼ߡቯᦼ⊛ߥࠕ࠮ࠬ
ࠄਈ߃ࠄࠇ㧘
㧔ᑯ⼔჻߿ක⠪ߩ႐วߩࠃ߁ߦ㧕⁛┙⊛ߥኾ㐷
ࡔࡦ࠻ߣ⹜㛎ߩ೙ᐲ߇฽߹ࠇࠆߎߣߦߥࠅ߹ߒߚ‫⋡ߩߘޕ‬
ኅߩ࿅૕߆ࠄਈ߃ࠄࠇࠆ߽ߩߢߪ޽ࠅ߹ߖࠎߢߒߚ‫߆ߒޕ‬
⊛ߪ㧘᡽ᐭ߇⻉ቇᩞߩㅴᱠߣ㆐ᚑᐲࠍ࠴ࠚ࠶ࠢߔࠆߎߣ߇
ߒ㧘ᢎຬߦⷐ᳞ߐࠇࠆ⍮⼂ߩ⹦⚦߿㧘ᓐࠄ߇ᢎ᝼ߔࠆ㓙ߦ
ߢ߈㧘ਔⷫߚߜ߇‫޿⦟ޟ‬ቇᩞ‫ޟ߿ޠ‬ᖡ޿ቇᩞ‫⷗ࠍޠ‬ᭂ߼ߡ
ᔅⷐߥᛛⴚࠍቇ߱ᣇᴺߪ㧘ቇᩞߩࠞ࡝ࠠࡘ࡜ࡓߩࠃ߁ߦ㧘
ㆬᛯߢ߈ࠆࠃ߁ߦߔࠆߎߣߢߒߚ‫ޕ‬᡽ᴦ⊛ߥℂ↱ߢዉ౉ߐ
⚐☴ߦኾ㐷⊛ߥߎߣߢ޽ࠅ㧘᡽ᐭ߇ᐓᷤߔࠆߎߣߢߪߥ޿
ࠇߚߎߩភ⟎ߪ㧘ᖱႎᛛⴚ߇߹ߔ߹ߔ♖Ꮑߦߥߞߡ޿ߊߎ
ߣᤄ߆ࠄ⠨߃ࠄࠇߡ޿߹ߒߚ‫ޕ‬
ߣ߿㧘ࠕ࠮ࠬࡔࡦ࠻ߩᚻᴺ߇Ბ‫ߣޘ‬ᵞ✵ߐࠇߡ޿ߊߎߣߦ
ߒ߆ߒߥ߇ࠄ㧘1970 ᐕઍߣ 80 ᐕઍߦ㧘࿖ኅߦࠃߞߡቇ
ࠃߞߡ㧘น⢻ߦߥࠅ߹ߒߚ‫ޕ‬
ᩞߩ᦭ലᕈ߇✎ኒߦ⺞ᩏߐࠇࠆࠃ߁ߦߥࠆߦߟࠇߡ㧘ᢎຬ
ߒ߆ߒ㧘࠽࡚ࠪ࠽࡞࡮ࠞ࡝ࠠࡘ࡜ࡓߦ⷗ࠄࠇࠆ㧘ሶߤ߽ߚ
ߩ㙃ᚑߣᢎ⢒߇࿖ኅߩ㑐ᔃ੐ߣߥࠅ㧘᡽ᐭߩ᡽╷߇㧘ࠃࠅ
ߜߩㅴᱠ߿୘ੱߩ⊒㆐ߦߟ޿ߡᱡ߼ࠄࠇߚ⷗ᣇࠍਈ߃ࠆ஍
⹦⚦ߦߥࠅኾ㐷ᕈߩ⊒㆐ࠍࠃࠅᒝߊᡰ㈩ߒᆎ߼߹ߒߚ‫ߎޕ‬
⁜ߐ߿㧘ኾ㐷⊛ߥ್ᢿߩ᣿ࠄ߆ߥᓟㅌ㧘࡟࠶࠹࡞ߠߌ߿ሶߤ
ߩߎߣߦࠃࠅ㧘ኾ㐷⡯ߣߒߡߩ⁛┙ߛߌߢߥߊ㧘ᢎຬ㙃ᚑ
߽ߚߜߩਇ቟ࠍჇߔߎߣߦࠃࠆ᦭ኂߥᓇ㗀㧘ᢎ᝼ᤨ㑆ߩ⾰ࠍ
⺖⒟ࠍ┙᩺ߒᴺᓞ⊛᦭ലᕈࠍਈ߃ࠆ⽿છࠍ᦭ߔࠆᄢቇߩቇ
៊ߥ߁ഭ௛⽶ᜂߩჇടߩߖ޿ߢ㧘࠽࡚ࠪ࠽࡞࡮ࠞ࡝ࠠࡘ࡜ࡓ
໧⊛⁛┙ߐ߃߽㧘⴮ㅌߔࠆ௑ะߦ޽ࠅ߹ߒߚ‫ޕ‬
ߪᢎ⡯⠪߆ࠄᄙߊߩᛕ್ࠍฃߌ߹ߒߚ‫ޕ‬ᄙߊߩⷫߚߜߩઁߦ
1984 ᐕߦࠗࠡ࡝ࠬ᡽ᐭߪ㧘ᢎ⢒ᄢ⤿㧔Secretary of State for
ኾ㐷ኅ߿⚛ੱ߽㧘⹜㛎ߩߚ߼ߩᢎ⢒ࠍᅑബߔࠆࠞ࡝ࠠࡘ࡜ࡓ
Education㧕߇છ๮ߒ㧘ᢎຬ㙃ᚑೋᦼ⺖⒟ࠍᛚ⹺ߔࠆ⽿છࠍ
ߩ߭ߕߺࠁ߃ߦ㧘ᣧ޿Ბ㓏߆ࠄ෻ኻߒߡ޿߹ߒߚ‫ޕ‬
⽶߁㧘ᢎຬ㙃ᚑ⹺ቯදળ㧔Council for the Accreditation of
ⷫߚߜߪ߹ߚ㧘⹜㛎ࠍߔࠆߎߣ߿‫߇ޠߌߠ࡞࠹࠶࡟ޟ‬㧘
Teacher Education㧕ࠍഃ⸳ߒ߹ߒߚ‫ޕ‬ᓟߦߎࠇߪ㧘⾗ᩰࠍᓧ
޽ࠆሶߤ߽ߚߜߦᒁ߈⿠ߎߔࠬ࠻࡟ࠬߦ᳇ߠ޿ߡ޿߹ߒ
ࠆߚ߼ߦᢎຬ߇␜ߔߴ߈‫࡯ࠪࡦ࠹ࡇࡦࠦޟ‬㧔⢻ജ㧕
‫⚦⹦ߩޠ‬
ߚ‫ߚ߹ޕ‬㧘ቇᩞ㑆ߩ┹੎ࠍᅑബߔࠆߎߣߦࠃࠅ㧘Ყセ⊛ᚑ
ߥ࡝ࠬ࠻ࠍ᣿⏕ߦߒᆎ߼ߚᢎຬ㙃ᚑᯏ㑐㧔એਅ TTA㧦Teacher
❣ߩᖡ߆ߞߚቇᩞ㧘․ߦૐᓧὐߩේ࿃߇ᢎ⢒ߩ⾰ࠃࠅ߽߻
Training Agency㧕ߦ⛮ᛚߐࠇ߹ߒߚ‫ߩࠄࠇߎޕ‬⢻ജߪᓟߦ‫ޟ‬᳓
ߒࠈሶߤ߽ߚߜߩ␠ળ⊛࡮⚻ᷣ⊛࿎┆⁁ᘒߩቇᩞߦㅢ߁ᢎ
Ḱ‫ߡߒߣޠ‬⍮ࠄࠇࠆࠃ߁ߦߥࠅ㧘ḩ⿷޽ࠆ޿ߪਇḩ⿷ߥᚑ
Ꮷߣሶߤ߽ߚߜߩ჻᳇ࠍ៊ߥ߁‫ޟ‬ᚑ❣⴫‫⚿ߩޠ‬ᨐ౏⴫߳ߩ
❣㧔satisfactory and unsatisfactory performance㧕ߣ޿߁⸥ㅀߦ
෻ኻ߽޽ࠅ߹ߒߚ‫ޕ‬
ࠃߞߡ⚦߆ߊ╬⚖ߠߌࠄࠇ߹ߒߚ‫ޕ‬
ߎߩࠃ߁ߥ෻ኻߩ⚿ᨐ㧘޿ߊߟ߆ߩᡷༀ߇ߥߐࠇ߹ߒߚ‫ޕ‬
᡽ᐭߪ㧘ቇᩞߦၮ⋚ࠍ⟎ߊᢎ⡯߳ߩ㆏╭ߩᢙࠍჇ߿ߒߡ㧘
ߚߣ߃߫㧘ࠕ࠮ࠬࡔࡦ࠻೙ᐲࠍ◲⚛ൻߔࠆߎߣ߿㧘ሶߤ߽
ᄢቇၮ⋚ߩ⺖⒟ߩ▸࿐ࠍᷫࠄߒ߹ߒߚ‫ᦨޕ‬ㄭ㧘ᢎຬ㙃ᚑᯏ
ߚߜߩ౉ቇᤨߩᚑ❣ࠍ޿ߊࠄ߆⠨ᘦߦ౉ࠇࠆ‫ޟ‬ട▚⹏ଔ‫ޠ‬
᭴㧔੹ߢߪ Training and Development Agency ߦᡷ⒓㧕ߪᢎ
ភ⟎ࠍዉ౉ߔࠆߎߣ㧘߹ߚ␠ળ⊛࿎┆ߩ⒟ᐲࠍ⠨ᘦߔࠆߎ
Ꮷ ߩ ⡯ ߦ ޽ ࠆ 㑆 ߩ ⛮ ⛯ ⊛ ኾ 㐷 ⢻ ജ 㐿 ⊒ 㧔 એ ਅ CPD 㧦
ߣߢߔ‫ߛߚޕ‬㧘‫ޟ‬ήᢱߩቇᩞ⛎㘩‫ޠ‬㧔free school meals㧕ࠍฃ
Continuing Professional Development㧕ߩ⋙〈ᮭ߇ਈ߃ࠄࠇ߹
ߌߡ޿ࠆሶߤ߽ߩᢙߩࠃ߁ߦᧂߛಽᨆߐࠇߡ޿ߥ޿߽ߩ߽
ߒߚ‫ޕ‬หᤨߦዉ౉ߐࠇߚߩ߇㧘⚵❱ߣߒߡߩቇᩞࠍ▤ℂߔ
޽ࠆߩߢߔ߇‫ޕ‬
ࠆᛛⴚࠍ㊀ⷞߔࠆ㧘․ߦᩞ㐳㧔Head Teacher㧕ߦߥࠆߚ߼ߩ
ೋ╬ቇᩞߩࠞ࡝ࠠࡘ࡜ࡓߦ㑐ߔࠆࠕ࠮ࠬࡔࡦ࠻ߣ⹜㛎ߩ
ኾ㐷⡯⾗ᩰ㧔NPQH㧕ߣ࿖┙ࠬࠢ࡯࡞࡮࡝࡯࠳࡯ࠪ࠶ࡊ࡮
໧㗴߇㧘⼏⺰ߩ࠹࡯ࡑߦߥࠆߢߒࠂ߁‫ޕ‬
ࠞ࡟࠶ࠫ㧔a National College for School Leadership㧕ߢߔ‫ߎޕ‬
ߩߎߣߪ৻⥸⊛ߦ⹺߼ࠄࠇߡ߈ߚᩞ㐳⡯ߩ‫ޟ‬ห௥⊛‫ޠ‬વ⛔
⸛⺰ߩߚ߼ߩ໧޿㧦
࡮ਇ᣿ߥὐ߿㧘ߐࠄߦ⺑᣿߇ᔅⷐߥ▎ᚲߪ޽ࠅ߹ߔ߆‫ޕ‬
࡮୘ੱߩ࠾࡯࠭㧘␠ળߩ࠾࡯࠭㧘࿖ኅߩ࠾࡯࠭ߦᓎ┙ߟ
ೋ╬ࠞ࡝ࠠࡘ࡜ࡓߩ㐳ᚲ߿໧㗴ὐߪ૗ߢߔ߆‫ޕ‬
࡮ᣣᧄߦ߅޿ߡ㧘ࠕ࠮ࠬࡔࡦ࠻ߣ⹜㛎ߪ㧘୘ੱߩ⊒㆐߿
߆ࠄߩ㔌⣕ࠍᗧ๧ߒߡ޿߹ߔ‫ߌࠊࠅߣޕ‬㧘ᩞ㐳ߣ޿߁ߩߪ㧘
ೋ╬ቇᩞߢߪ㧘ᦨೋߩਥⷐߥᢎຬߣߒߡ㧘ᐜ޿ሶߤ߽ߚߜ
ߦᢎ⢒ߔࠆ㓙ߦᢎຬ㓸࿅ߩਛߢਥዉ⊛ߥᓎഀࠍᜂߞߡ޿߹
ߔ‫ޕ‬
␠ળߩ⊒ዷߩߚ߼ߩࠞ࡝ࠠࡘ࡜ࡓߦߤߩࠃ߁ߦᓎ┙
ኾ㐷ᕈߩ⊒㆐ߪ㧘ᢎᏧ߇ᢎ⑼ߩ⍮⼂ߣኾ㐷⊛ᛛⴚߩߤߜ
ߞߡ޿߹ߔ߆㧘޽ࠆ޿ߪ୘ੱߩ⊒㆐߿␠ળߩ⊒ዷߩߚ
ࠄࠍࠃࠅᷓߊቇ߱߆ߩㆬᛯࠍ୘ੱߦਈ߃ߡ߈߹ߒߚ‫ޕ‬Ᏹߦ
߼ߩࠞ࡝ࠠࡘ࡜ࡓࠍᅹߍߡ޿߹ߔ߆‫ޕ‬
ᩞ㐳ߣ਄⚖▤ℂ⠪ߦࠃࠅ㧘㨇ᄙߊߪቇᩞ⺞ᩏߩ⚿ᨐߦᓥߞ
㧔ᳰዥᴕⓄ㧕
ߡ㨉ቇᩞߩ․ቯߩࠞ࡝ࠠࡘ࡜ࡓ߿೙ᐲ਄ߩ࠾࡯࠭ߦᔕߓߚ
䋭 㪌㪐 䋭
ピーター ・ カニンガム著 （山﨑洋子監訳）
ߐࠄߥࠆኾ㐷ᕈߩ⊒㆐߇㧘߹ߔ߹ߔⷐ᳞ߐࠇߡ߈ߡ޿߹ߔ‫ޕ‬
ߣ␜ໂߒߡ㧘⁛┙ߒߚ╙ਃ⠪ߦࠃࠆ⹏ଔߪ߹ߛⴕࠊࠇߡ޿
⛮⛯⊛ኾ㐷⢻ജ㐿⊒㧔Continuing Professional Development ,
ߥ޿ߌࠇߤ߽㧘ߎߩ⚿ᨐࠍା㗬ߔࠆߣਥᒛߒ߹ߒߚ‫ߚ߹ޕ‬㧘
CPD㧕ߩ⾗Ḯ߽㧘࠽࡚ࠪ࠽࡞࡮࡝࠹࡜ࠪ࡯࡮ࠬ࠻࡜࠹ࠫ࡯
ࠃࠅဋⴧߩߣࠇߚ⹏ଔߦ߅޿ߡ⏕⹺ߐࠇߚߎߣߪ㧘ሶߤ߽
㧔National Literacy Strategy㧕 ߿࠽࡚ࠪ࠽࡞࡮࠾ࡘ࡯ࡔ࡜ࠪ
ߚߜ߇ࠃࠅᄙߊߩᤨ㑆ࠍ᳿߹ࠅ߈ߞߚᢎቶᵴേߦ⾌߿ߒ㧘
࡯࡮ࠬ࠻࡜࠹ࠫ࡯㧔National Numeracy Strategy㧕ߣ޿ߞߚ᡽
ߘࠇߦᲧߒߡഃㅧᵴേ߿⴫⃻ᵴേ㧘り૕ᵴേߦ૶߁ᤨ㑆߇
ᐭߩ࿖ኅ᭴ᗐߩ⋡ᮡߣߐࠇߡ޿߹ߔ‫ޕ‬
ᷫࠆߩߢ㧘ࠞ࡝ࠠࡘ࡜ࡓߩ೎ߩ㕙߿ሶߤ߽ߚߜߩቇᩞ⚻㛎
ߎࠇࠄߩ᡽╷߇߭߈߅ߎߔ໧㗴ὐߪ㧘ᢎຬࠍ㙃ᚑߔࠆ㓙
ߦࠃߊߥ޿ᓇ㗀ࠍਈ߃ࠆߣ޿߁ߎߣߢߒߚ‫ޕ‬ਛᄩ᡽ᐭߩᜰ
ߩᄢቇߩᧄ᧪ߩᓎഀߣ㧘ᢎᏧ⥄りߩኾ㐷ᕈߩ⊒㆐ࠍ⸘↹ߔ
␜ߦᓥߞߡ௛ߊߎߩᣂߒ޿ᣇᴺߩᓇ㗀߇ᢎᏧߚߜߦ⃻ࠇࠆ
ࠆ୘‫ߩޘ‬ᢎᏧߩ⁛┙ᕈߦ޽ࠆߢߒࠂ߁‫ޕ‬
ߦߪ㧘߹ߛᄙߊߩᤨ㑆߇߆߆ࠆߢߒࠂ߁‫ߒ߆ߒޕ‬㧘10 ᐕ⚻
㧔⊕⍹⵨ሶ㧕
ߞߚ੹ᣣ㧘ᢎᏧߚߜࠍ⺞ᩏߔࠇ߫㧘઀੐ߩḩ⿷ᐲ߿⥄⊒ᕈ㧘
ഃㅧᕈߩૐਅ߇᣿ࠄ߆ߦߥࠆߢߒࠂ߁‫ޕ‬ೋ╬ᢎ⢒ߩ઀੐߳
ߩࠃࠅᯏ᪾⊛ߢᓥ㗅ߥขࠅ⚵ߺߩߖ޿ߢ㧘ሶߤ߽ߚߜ߇⚻㛎
㧞㧞ᢎᏧߩ⥄ᓞᕈߣᢎ⢒ᣇᴺ
ߔࠆ㧘ᢎᏧߣ৻✜ߦቇ߱ߎߣߩ⋧੕ߩᭉߒߐ߿୘ੱߩ߰ࠇ޽
㧔Teacher autonomy and teaching methods㧕
ࠞ࡝ࠠࡘ࡜ࡓࠍ⁛┙⊛ߥኾ㐷ኅߩ್ᢿߦࠃࠆ߽ߩߣᏱߦ
޿ߩ⚻㛎ࠍᄌ߃ߡߒ߹߁߆߽ߒࠇߥ޿ߣ޿߁㧘⌀ߩෂ㒾ᕈ߇
⠨߃ߡ߈ߚኾ㐷⡯⠪ߦߣߞߡ㧘1988 ᐕߩ࠽࡚ࠪ࠽࡞࡮ࠞ࡝
ẜࠎߢ޿߹ߔ‫ߪࠇߘޕ‬㧘ᵴ⊒ߥੱߦೋ╬ᢎ⢒ߩᢎᏧߦߥࠆߎ
ࠠࡘ࡜ࡓߪࠞ࡞࠴ࡖ࡯࡚ࠪ࠶ࠢߢߒߚ‫ޕ‬ᒰᤨߩᄢ⤿ߪ㧘ߎ
ߣࠍᕁ޿ߣߤ߹ࠄߖࠆߎߣߦߐ߃ߥࠅ߆ߨ߹ߖࠎ‫ޕ‬
㧔ᚭ↰߽߽㧕
ߩភ⟎߇ᔅⷐߦߥߞߡߒ߹ߞߚߌࠇߤ߽㧘ߤߩࠃ߁ߦᢎ߃
ࠆߴ߈߆ࠍᢎᏧ㆐ߦᜰ࿑ߔࠆߟ߽ࠅߪ᳿ߒߡߥ޿ߣਥᒛߒ
߹ߒߚ‫ߒ߆ߒޕ‬㧘ࠊߕ߆ᢙᐕᓟ㧘ᣂߒ޿ᢥㇱᄢ⤿ߪ㧘
‫ޟ‬ೋ╬
㧞㧟ᢎቶߩਛߩᢎᏧߣᢎᏧએᄖߩᄢੱ
㧔Teachers and other adults in the classroom㧕
ቇᩞߢߩࠞ࡝ࠠࡘ࡜ࡓ✬ᚑߣᢎቶߢߩታ〣‫ޠ‬㧔‘Curriculum
Organization and Classroom Practice in Primary Schools’㧕
㧔1992
ᱧผ਄㧘ೋ╬ቇᩞߢߩᢎᏧߩᓎഀߪ㧘ోቇᐕᐲ㧘ฦࠢ࡜
ᐕ㧕ߦ㑐ߔࠆႎ๔ᦠߩ૞ᚑࠍ๮ߓ߹ߒߚ‫ߩߘޕ‬ၫ╩⠪ߪࡠ
ࠬߩ‫ߩߡߴߔޟ‬ሶߤ߽‫ߦޠ‬ኻߒߡ⽿છࠍᜬߟߎߣߛߣ⠨߃
ࡆࡦ࡮ࠕ࡟ࠢࠩࡦ࠳࡯㧔Robin Alexander㧕㧘ࠫࡓ࡮ࡠ࡯࠭㧔Jim
ࠄࠇߡ޿߹ߒߚ‫ߡߞ߇ߚߒޕ‬ᢎᏧߪ㧘⍮⊛ߥቇ⠌ߛߌߢߥ
Rose㧕㧘ߘߒߡࠢ࡝ࠬ࡮࠙࠶࠼ࡋ࠶࠼㧔Chris Woodhead㧕ߣ
ߊ㧘ሶߤ߽ߚߜ߇ᓐ߽ߒߊߪᓐᅚߩࠢ࡜ࠬߦ޿ࠆ㒢ࠅ㧘ᓐ
޿߁㧘⃻࿷ߦ޿ߚࠆ߹ߢߩೋ╬ቇᩞᢎ⢒ߩߘߩᓟߩᱠߺߦ
ࠄߩり૕߿␠ળᕈ㧘ᗵᖱߩ୘‫⊒ߩޘ‬㆐ࠍᔃ߇ߌߡ޿߹ߔ‫ޕ‬
߅޿ߡவ಴ߒߚᓎഀࠍᨐߚߒߚਃੱߢߒߚ‫ޕ‬ᓐࠄߩ⼏⺰ߪ㧘
ߣࠅࠊߌ㧘ࠢ࡜ࠬߩⷙᮨߪਈ߃ࠄࠇߚ߽ߩߢߔߩߢ㧘ߥߒ
ೋ╬ቇᩞߢߩ‫ޟ‬㕖ᱜᑼ‫ޟߥޠ‬ሶߤ߽ਛᔃ‫ޠ‬㧔‘Child-centred’㧕
ᓧࠆߎߣߦߪ᣿ࠄ߆ߦ㒢ᐲ߇޽ࠅ߹ߔ‫ߒ߆ߒޕ‬㧘ᢎᏧߚߜ
ߩታ〣ߦኻߒߡ⴫㕙਄ߪᛕ್⊛ߢ޽ࠅ㧘᡽ᐭߦࠃࠆᢎ⢒ᣇ
ߩᓎഀߦ฽߹ࠇࠆ߽ߩߪᄙ޿ߩߢߔ‫ޕ‬ᱜⷙߩ᝼ᬺߦട߃ߡ㧘
ᴺߩ᳿ቯࠍ߽ߚࠄߔᣂߒ޿ዪ㕙ߩ೨߱ࠇߣߥࠅ߹ߒߚ‫ޕ‬
޽ࠆ⁁ᴫߢߪ㧘ᓐࠄߪ⺕ࠃࠅ߽⑔␩ߩ໧㗴߿ᄙߊߩታ㓙ߩ
1990 ᐕઍࠍㅢߒߡ㧘⸘▚ߣ⺒ߺᦠ߈ߩ⢻ജߩ᳓Ḱߦߟ޿
໧㗴ߦ㑐ࠊࠄߥߌࠇ߫ߥࠅ߹ߖࠎߢߒߚ‫ߪߦᤨޕ‬㧘೑↪ߢ
ߡߩ㑐ᔃ߇⛮⛯ߒߚߎߣ߿㧘ߐ߹ߑ߹ߥቇᩞߢߐ߹ߑ߹ߥ
߈ࠆᡰេߦ㒢ࠅ߇޽ࠅ߹ߒߚ‫ޕ‬ฎߊߪ‫ޟ‬ೋ╬ቇᩞߩᢎ⢒ታ
ᢎᏧߦࠃࠅ⧷⺆ߣᢙቇࠍᢎ߃ࠆߚ߼ߦណࠄࠇߚᣇᴺ߇ᄙ᭽
⠌↢‫ޠ‬
㨇⷗⠌޿ߩᢎᏧ㨉ߣ޿߁ᒻߢ㧘ᦨㄭߢߪ㧘㧝ㅳ㑆ߦඦ
ߢ޽ߞߚߎߣߪ㧘1997 ᐕ߆ࠄߩᣂഭ௛ౄ᡽ᐭߦࠃߞߡታ⃻
೨߿ඦᓟߩ 1 ࿁߹ߚߪ 2 ࿁㧘ᢎቶߢេഥߔࠆࡏ࡜ࡦ࠹ࠖࠕ
ߐࠇߚ࿖ኅᚢ⇛ߩ᣿ᢥൻࠍᱜᒰൻߔࠆࠃ߁ߦᕁࠊࠇ߹ߒ
ߩࠃ߁ߥ‫ߩޠ࠭࡯ࡄ࡞ࡋ࡮࠻ࡦ࡟ࠕࡍޟ‬ᒻߢߥߐࠇߡ߈߹
ߚ‫ޕ‬ᢎ⢒ᣇᴺߩ᥉෸ߣᢎᏧߩ⢒ᚑߪ㧘࿖ኅߢᄢⷙᮨߦ⚵❱
ߒߚ‫ޕ‬
ߐࠇߡ޿߹ߒߚ‫ߩߎޕ‬ᚢ⇛ߪ㧘ࠠ࡯࡮ࠬ࠹࡯ࠫ 1 ߣࠠ࡯࡮
ߟ޿ᦨㄭ㧘᡽ᐭߪ‫ޟ‬ഭ௛ജᡷ㕟‫ߥ⊛↹⸘ߩޠ‬᡽╷ߦਸ਼ࠅ
ࠬ࠹࡯ࠫ 2 ࠍㅢߒߡ㧘Ფᣣߩ‫࡯ࠪ࡜࠹࡝ޟ‬㧔⺒ߺ࡮ᦠ߈㧕
಴ߒ߹ߒߚ‫ߩߟ৻ߩߘޕ‬⠨߃ߪ㧘૗ࠄ߆ߩታ㓙⊛ߥ઀੐ࠍ
ߩᤨ㑆‫ᤨߩ▚⸘ޟߣޠ‬㑆‫ࠍޠ‬ᅑബߒ߹ߒߚ‫ߩ߼ߚߩߘޕ‬ᢎ
ߒߡ޿ࠆᢎᏧߦኻߒߡᡰេࠍਈ߃ࠆߎߣߢߒߚ‫ޕ‬᡽ᐭߩࠞ
᧚ߣᢎ⢒ᣇᴺ߇߈ߜࠎߣ⸘↹ߐࠇ㧘ᐢߊ᥉෸ߒ߹ߒߚ‫ޕ‬ᣇ
࡝ࠠࡘ࡜ࡓߦ㑐ߔࠆ᡽╷ߣ‫ޟ‬ᚢ⇛‫ߪޠ‬㧘ࠃࠅᄙߊߩ⸘↹᩺㧘
ᴺߩ᥉෸ߣᢎຬߩ㙃ᚑߪ㧘࿖ኅⷙᮨߢᐢ▸࿐ߦⴕࠊࠇ߹ߒ
Ḱ஻㧘⷗Ⓧ߽ࠅ╬㧘ᢎᏧߩ‫ᦠޟ‬㘃઀੐‫ࠍޠ‬ᔅⷐߣߒߡ޿߹
ߚ‫ޕ‬ታ㓙ᄙߊߩᢎᏧߪ㧘ᄢ޿ߦᢜኻ⊛ߥᛕ್ࠍฃߌߡ޿ߚ
ߒߚ‫ߢߎߘޕ‬㧘
‫ޟ‬ᢎቶࠕࠪࠬ࠲ࡦ࠻‫ߩޠ‬ᓎഀߪߪߞ߈ࠅ⹺߼
ࠞ࡝ࠠࡘ࡜ࡓ㗔ၞߢቯ߼ࠄࠇߚ᭴ㅧߣ޿߁቟ᔃᗵࠍᓐࠄߦ
ࠄࠇ㧘ቇᩞߪࠃࠅᄙߊߩᢎቶࠕࠪࠬ࠲ࡦ࠻ࠍ㓹޿߹ߒߚ‫ޕ‬
ਈ߃ࠆ߽ߩߣߒߡ㧘⹦⚦ߥⷙቯࠍ᱑ㄫߒ߹ߒߚ‫ߪࠇߘޕ‬㧘
ᢎᏧߚߜߪ㧘᝼ᬺᣣߦߪࠃࠅኾ㐷⊛ߥㇱಽߩ⊒㆐߇᳞߼ࠄ
ሶߤ߽ߚߜߩቇ⠌⚿ᨐߦኻߔࠆẜ࿷⊛ߥᛕ್ߦኻߒߡ㓗ߛ
ࠇߡ޿߹ߒߚߩߢ㧘ᢎቶࠕࠪࠬ࠲ࡦ࠻ߪ㧘ࠢ࡜ࠬࠍᜂᒰߔ
ࠄߌߢ㐿ߌߞ߯ࠈߍߢ޽ࠆߣ㧘ᓐࠄߪᗵߓߡ޿ߚ߆ࠄߢߔ‫ޕ‬
ࠆߎߣߦࠃߞߡ㧘ᢎᏧߩਇ࿷ࠍ⵬߁ߎߣ߇ߢ߈ࠆߣ੍ᗐߐ
⧷⺆ߣᢙቇߩ࿖ኅ⹜㛎ߩ⚿ᨐߦ෻ᤋߐࠇࠆ᳓Ḱߪ㧘ᚢ⇛
ࠇ߹ߒߚ‫ޕ‬ᢎቶࠕࠪࠬ࠲ࡦ࠻ߪ㧘૗╬߆ߩ⸠✵ࠍฃߌࠆߎ
ߩ৻ᐕ⋡ߢᄢ‫ߦ⊛ޘ‬ะ਄ߒ߹ߒߚ‫ޕ‬᡽ᐭߪ㧘ߎࠇߪ৻ߟߦ
ߣ߇ߢ߈߹ߒߚ߇㧘ߎߩ᡽╷߇ᔅὼ⊛ߦ߭߈߅ߎߔ໧㗴ߪ㧘
ߪᣂ᡽╷ߩᚑᨐߢ޽ࠅ㧘
‫⹜ޟ‬㛎ߩߚ߼ߩᢎ⢒‫ߩޠ‬ലᨐߢ޽ࠆ
⾗ᩰߩߥ޿㨇ߘߒߡ⾓㊄ߩૐ޿㨉
‫߇ޠ࠻ࡦ࠲ࠬࠪࠕޟ‬㧘޿߆
䋭 㪍㪇 䋭
イギリスの初等教育 ： 1988 年から 2011 年の文化的文脈における教育政策と教育実践
ߦലᨐ⊛ߦࡊࡠߩᢎᏧߩᓎഀߩߔߴߡߩዪ㕙ࠍࠞࡃ࡯ߢ߈
ቇᩞㆇ༡ߩᡷ㕟߆ࠄߢߔ‫ߩߘޕ‬ᡷ㕟ߪ㧘ᖱႎߦንࠎߛⓍᭂ
ࠆߩ߆ߣ޿߁ߎߣߢߒߚ‫ޕ‬
⊛ߥ⊒ዷߣߒߡߩ‫ޟ‬ᶖ⾌⠪ㆇേ‫ޠ‬㧔consumerism㧕߿㧘ᑪ⸳
⊛ߥᗧ๧ࠍ߽ߚߥ޿‫ߩ࠻࠶ࠤ࡯ࡑޟ‬႐ᚲ‫ޠ‬
㧔market place㧕ߣ
⸛⺰ߩߚ߼ߩ໧޿㧦
࡮ਇ᣿ߥὐ߿㧘ߐࠄߦ⺑᣿ߩᔅⷐߥߣߎࠈߪ޽ࠅ߹ߔ߆‫ޕ‬
࡮ ᢎ Ꮷ ߪ ೋ ᦼ ᢎ ⢒ ߣ ೋ ᦼ 㙃 ᚑ 㧔 initial education and
training㧕ߦࠃߞߡ㧘޿߆ߦߒߡ⥄ಽߩᓎഀߦኻߔࠆᦨ
ༀߩḰ஻ࠍߔࠆߴ߈ߢߔ߆‫ߚ߹ޕ‬㧘ᢎᏧߩኾ㐷ᕈߩ⊒
㆐ࠍ⛮⛯ߔࠆߚ߼ߦᓐࠄߦᔅⷐߥߎߣߪ૗ߢߔ߆‫ޕ‬
࡮ᣣᧄߢߪ㧘ೋ╬ቇᩞߩᢎຬߩኾ㐷⡯⊛⁛┙ᕈߪߤߩ⒟
ᐲߢߔ߆‫ߚ߹ޕ‬㧘ᓐࠄߪቇᩞߩਛߢ㧘ᢎᏧએᄖߩᄢੱ
߆ࠄߤߩࠃ߁ߥ⒳㘃ߩᡰេࠍฃߌߡ޿߹ߔ߆‫ߒߘޕ‬
ߡ㧘ߘࠇߪᢎᏧߩኾ㐷ᕈߦߤߩߊࠄ޿㧘ᓇ㗀ߒߡ޿߹
ߔ߆‫ޕ‬
㧔ᴡญടᄹ㧕
ߒߡߩᢎ⢒ࠗ࠺ࠝࡠࠡ࡯ߣ߽㑐ㅪߒߡ޿߹ߒߚ‫ޕ‬
ೋ╬ቇᩞߩࠃࠅᄙ᭽ߥ࠲ࠗࡊߪ㧘ቇᩞߩ⾗㊄⺞㆐߿ቇᩞ
ߦኻߔࠆ⽿છࠍ࿾ၞ␠ળߦ⼑ࠅᷰߘ߁ߣ޿߁㧘᡽ᐭߩ⛮⛯
⊛ߥ⹜ߺ߆ࠄ↢ߓࠆߎߣ߽޽ࠅ߹ߔ‫ߩߎޕ‬ㆊ⒟ߪ㧘ೋ╬ቇ
ᩞߦ㑐ߔࠆ㒢ࠅ㧘㕖Ᏹߦࠁߞߊࠅߢ஧⊒⊛ߥ߽ߩߢߔ‫ޕ‬࿖
ᐶ⵬ഥቇᩞߪ㧘1990 ᐕઍೋ㗡ߦ଻቞ౄ᡽ᐭߩ߽ߣߢᅑബߐ
ࠇ߹ߒߚ‫ߪࠇߘޕ‬㧘࿾ᣇᒰዪߩ▤ℂ߆ࠄㅏࠇߡ࿖ኅ᡽ᐭ߆
ࠄ⋥ធߦ⾗㊄ࠍᓧࠆ߽ߩߢߒߚ‫଻ޕ‬቞ౄ᡽ᐭߣᦨᓟߩ 20 ᐕ
ߪᣂഭ௛ౄ᡽ᐭߩ߽ߣߢ㧘࿾ᣇ⵬ഥቇᩞ㧘࠻࡜ࠬ࠻ࠬࠢ࡯
࡞㧘ࠕࠞ࠺ࡒ࡯㧘ߘߒߡ 2010 ᐕߩᣂㅪ┙᡽ᐭ㧔଻቞߅ࠃ߮
⥄↱᳃ਥౄ㧕ߩ߽ߣߢߩ㧘੹ᣣߩ޿ࠊࠁࠆࡈ࡝࡯ࠬࠢ࡯࡞
㧟㧚ቇᩞㆇ༡㧔5EJQQNIQXGTPCPEG㧕
ߩࠃ߁ߥ㧘ᄙߊߩ㘃ૃߒߚታ㛎ߣᡷ㕟߇ߥߐࠇߡ߈߹ߒߚ‫ޕ‬
㧟㧝ೋ╬ቇᩞߩᄙ᭽ߥ࠲ࠗࡊ
࿾ၞ␠ળ߇ቇᩞߦ㑐ࠊࠆߩߪ᦭⋉ߢߔ߇㧘ߎࠇࠄߩ᡽╷ߪ
㧔Variety of types of primary school㧕
᡽ᴦ਄ࠗ࠺ࠝࡠࠡ࡯⊛ߢ޽ࠅ㧘␠ળ⊛ߥಽⵚࠍ߹ߨ߈߆ߨ
↹৻⊛ߥ࿖ኅ೙ᐲߩਛߦ޽ߞߡߐ߃㧘ቇᩞߪ࿾ၞᕈ߿࿾
߹ߖࠎ‫ߪࠇߘޕ‬㧘⼏⺰ߦ୯ߔࠆ໧㗴ߢߔ‫ޕ‬
㧔᧻⪲ ᕺ㧕
ၞ૑᳃ߩ․ᓽ㧘࿾ၞߩ⚻ᷣജߦࠃߞߡ㧘ⷙᮨ߿ᕈᩰߩὐߢ
ᄢ޿ߦ⇣ߥࠆߢߒࠂ߁‫ߪߢࠬ࡝ࠡࠗޕ‬㧘ᱧผ⊛ߥℂ↱ߦࠃ
ߞߡ㧘ᧂߛߦ᏷ᐢ޿ᄙ᭽ᕈ߇޽ࠅ߹ߔ‫߽ᦨޕ‬᣿ࠄ߆ߥ߽ߩ
㧟㧟࿖ኅߩ⺑᣿⽿છ㧔National accountability㧕
ߣߒߡߪ㧘޽ߥߚ߇ࠗࠡ࡝ࠬߩ᧛߿㧘ዊߐߥ޽ࠆ޿ߪᄢ߈
ᦨᓟߦ⑳ߚߜߪ㧘ࠞ࡝ࠠࡘ࡜ࡓߦ㑐ㅪߒߡవߦㅀߴߚ㧔࠮
ߥ↸߿Ꮢࠍ⸰ࠇࠆߣ㧘ߘߎߢࠗࠡ࡝ࠬ࿖ᢎળ㧔Church of
࡚ࠢࠪࡦ 1. 3㧕ࠕ࠮ࠬࡔࡦ࠻㧘⹜㛎㧘⹏ଔ㧘ߘߒߡᩏኤߩ
England㧕ߩࠃ߁ߥ․ቯߩቬᵷߩೋ╬ቇᩞߩᢙߩᄙߐߦ᳇ߠ
ᯏ᭴ߦᚯࠆᔅⷐ߇޽ࠅ߹ߔ‫⹜߿࠻ࡦࡔࠬ࠮ࠕߪߜߚ⑳ޕ‬㛎
ߊߎߣߢߒࠂ߁‫ޕ‬
ߣห᭽ߦ㧘ㅪว₺࿖ߩᢎ⢒᳓Ḱዪߦࠃࠆቇᩞᩏኤߦߟ޿ߡ
࿖ኅߩೋ╬ቇᩞᢎ⢒ߩ⚵❱ߢߐ߃߽㧘ᱧผ⊛࡮࿾ℂ⊛ߥ
⼏⺰ߒ߹ߒࠂ߁‫ޕ‬
ℂ↱ߩߚ߼ߦ㧘ߘࠇߘࠇߩ࿾ᣇᢎ⢒ᒰዪ㑆ߦߪ㧘ᤨߦߪ᭽‫ޘ‬
ࠕ࠮ࠬࡔࡦ࠻ߣ⹜㛎ࠍ⪺ߒߊ㊀ⷞߔࠆߎߣߩ⢛ᓟߦ޽ࠆ
ߥ㆑޿߇޽ࠅ߹ߔ‫ੱࠅࠃޕ‬ญ߇ኒ㓸ߒߡ޿ࠆ࿾ၞߢߪ㧘ਥ
഍⊛ᄌൻߪ㧘࿖㓙࿅૕ߦࠃߞߡ૞ࠄࠇߚ㧘࿖ߏߣߩᢎ⢒ߩ
ߦ 5 ᱦ߆ࠄ 11 ᱦߩ‫ޠߚߒ⽾৻ޟ‬
㧔all-through㧕ೋ╬ቇᩞߦ߹
⾰ߣ㆐ᚑᐲߩᲧセዤᐲߩ೑↪ߩჇടߢߒߚ‫╙ޕ‬ੑᰴ਎⇇ᄢ
ߣ߼ࠆߎߣ߇⚻ᷣ⊛࡮ᢎ⢒⊛ߥᗧ๧ࠍᜬߟࠃ߁ߦᕁࠊࠇࠆ
ᚢએᓟߦ⸳┙ߐࠇߚ⚻ᷣදജ㐿⊒ᯏ᭴㧔OECD㧕ߪ㧘ᢎ⢒
ߦ߽߆߆ࠊࠄߕ㧘ߒ߫ߒ߫ᐜ⒩࿦ߣೋ╬ቇᩞࠍ೎‫ߦޘ‬ᜬߞ
߳ߩ㑐ᔃࠍ൐ࠄߖߡ㧘࿖ኅߩᢎ⢒᡽╷ߦᒝ޿ᓇ㗀ࠍਈ߃߹
ߡ޿߹ߔ‫ޕ‬8 ᱦఽ޽ࠆ޿ߪ 9 ᱦఽߩ⒖ⴕߣ㧘13 ᱦఽ޽ࠆ޿
ߒߚ‫ߜࠊߥߔޕ‬㧘
ߪ 14 ᱦఽ߳ߩੑߟߩ⒖ⴕࠍߟߥߋ‫ޠ࡞࡯ࠢࠬ࡞࠼ࡒޟ‬
‫ޟ‬ᢎ⢒ߪ⚻ᷣදജ㐿⊒ᯏ᭴ߩട⋖࿖߇߅㊄ࠍ⾌߿
㧔‘middle schools’㧕ࠍ૞ࠆߎߣߦࠃߞߡ㧘11 ᱦߢೋ╬ቇᩞ
ߔ৻ᄢ㗔ၞߢߔ߇㧘ߎࠇࠄߩ⾗Ḯࠍ㈩ಽߔࠆߣ޿߁
߆ࠄਛ╬ቇᩞ߳⒖ࠆ഍⊛ߥ⒖ⴕ㧔ߘߒߡᤨߦߪ♖␹⊛ߦᄖ
ߎߣߦߥࠆߣ㧘㔍ߒ޿໧㗴ߦ⋥㕙ߒ߹ߔ‫ޕ‬ᐜ⒩࿦߆
்ࠍฃߌࠆࠃ߁ߥ㧕ࠍ๺ࠄߍࠆࠃ߁ߦ⸘↹ߐࠇߚࡒ࠼࡞ࠬ
ࠄᚑੱᢎ⢒ߦ⥋ࠆ߹ߢ㧘ੱ‫↢ߩޘ‬ᵴߩਛߢߤߩࠃ߁
ࠢ࡯࡞߇ᧂߛߦሽ࿷ߔࠆ޿ߊߟ߆ߩ࿾ၞ߽޽ࠅ߹ߔ‫߆ߒޕ‬
ߦ⾗㊄ࠍ૶߁ߣᦨ߽ߟࠅว޿߇⦟޿ߩ߆‫⚻ޕ‬ᷣߩᚑ
ߒߥ߇ࠄ㧘ࡒ࠼࡞ࠬࠢ࡯࡞ߪ㧘ߎࠇࠄੑߟߩ⒖ⴕᦼߦࠠ࡯࡮
㐳ࠍഥ㐳ߔࠆߣ޿߁ᢎ⢒ߩᓎഀߪ㧘ߤ߁ߒߚࠄઁߩ
ࠬ࠹࡯ࠫ 1㧘ࠠ࡯࡮ࠬ࠹࡯ࠫ 2㧘ߘߒߡࠠ࡯࡮ࠬ࠹࡯ࠫ 3 ߩ
ᢎ⢒⋡ᮡߣ⺞๺ߒᓧࠆߩ߆‫ߡߒߘޕ‬㧘ߎࠇࠄߩ⋡ᮡ
ߟߥ߇ࠅࠍㅜಾࠇߐߖࠆߩߢ㧘࠽࡚ࠪ࠽࡞࡮ࠞ࡝ࠠࡘ࡜ࡓ
ࠍ㆐ᚑߔࠆᦨ⦟ߩᣇᴺߪ૗ߥߩ߆‫ޕ‬ട⋖࿖ߩ⚻㛎ࠍ
߇ዉ౉ߐࠇߚᓟߪ㧘߹ߔ߹ߔਇੱ᳇ߦߥࠅ߹ߒߚ‫ޕ‬
ឬ಴ߒߡߺࠆߥࠄ߫㧘OECD ߪߎࠇࠄߩ໧㗴ߦኻߒ
ߡ␠ળߩ᳞߼ࠆ╵߃ࠍਈ߃ࠆߩࠍഥߌߡߊࠇࠆ‫ޕ‬
㧔Local accountability㧕
㧟㧞࿾ᣇᒰዪߩ⺑᣿⽿છ㧔
OECD ߩ⋡ᮡߪ㧘␠ળߩ቟ቯ߿⚻ᷣജߦ⽸₂ߒ㧘ੱ
࿾ᣇᢎ⢒ᒰዪ㧔LEAs㧕ߪ㧘᳃ਥ⊛ߦㆬ߫ࠇߚ࿾ᣇ᡽ᐭߩ
↢ߩߤߩᲑ㓏ߦ߅޿ߡ߽ߔߴߡߩੱߦ↢߹ࠇᜬߞߚ
৻ㇱߢ޽ࠅ㧘࿾ၞߩቇᩞߦኻߒߡ⽿છࠍ⽶ߞߡ޿߹ߒߚ‫ޕ‬
ᚽ⢻ࠍᦨ߽ࠃߊ⊒ើߔࠆᯏળࠍߔߴߡਈ߃ࠆߎߣߢ
ߒ߆ߒ㧘࿾ᣇᢎ⢒ᒰዪߪߒ߫ߒ߫ᢎ⢒᡽╷ߦ㑐ߒߡਛᄩ᡽
޽ࠆ‫ޠޕ‬
ᐭߣኻ┙ߒ߹ߒߚ‫ޕ‬ೋ╬ᢎ⢒ߦ߅ߌࠆਔⷫߩᓎഀߣ‫ޟ‬දജ‫ޠ‬
㧔partnership㧕ߩᔅⷐᕈߦ᳇ߠ߈ᆎ߼ߚߩߪ㧘1970 ᐕઍߩ
䋭 㪍㪈 䋭
↢ᓤߩ࿖㓙ቇ⠌೔㆐ᐲ⺞ᩏ㧔The Programme for
ピーター ・ カニンガム著 （山﨑洋子監訳）
International Student Assessment : PISA㧕ߪ㧘ቇᩞߩ 15 ᱦߩ
1833 ᐕߦ㐿ᆎߐࠇࠆ߇㧘ၮ␆ᢎ⢒ᴺ߇ᚑ┙ߒߚߩߪ 1870
↢ᓤߩߚ߼ߦ㧘⚻ᷣ߿⚻༡ߦෳടߔࠆߎߣߦࠃߞߡදห⊛
ᐕߦߥߞߡ߆ࠄߢ޽ࠆ‫ߩߘޕ‬ᓟ㧘ߔߴߡߩ⠪߳ߩਛ╬ᢎ⢒
ߦિዷߒߡ޿ࠆ࿖㓙᳓Ḱߩࠕ࠮ࠬࡔࡦ࠻ߢߔ‫ߣߩߢ߹੹ޕ‬
ࠍߣ޿߁ⷐ᳞ߦ╵߃ߚ 1944 ᐕᢎ⢒ᴺ㧔ߚߛߒ㧘⢻ജ೎ߩਃ
ߎࠈ 4 ࿁ߩࠕ࠮ࠬࡔࡦ࠻߇ⴕࠊࠇ㧔2000㧘2003㧘2006㧘2009
ಽጘဳߩਛ╬ᢎ⢒㧕㧘ㅴᱠਥ⟵ߩᢎ⢒ࠍផᅑߒߚࡊ࡜࠙࠺ࡦ
ᐕ㧕㧘ߘߒߡ 2009 ᐕߦⴕࠊࠇߚࠕ࠮ࠬࡔࡦ࠻ߩ࠺࡯࠲ߪ㧘
ႎ๔ᦠ㧔1967 ᐕ㧕㧘ᢎᏧᢎ⢒ࠍ 3 ߟߩࠨࠗࠢ࡞ߢ᭴ᗐߒߚ
2010 ᐕ 12 ᦬ 7 ᣣߦ౏㐿ߐࠇ߹ߒߚ‫ޕ‬㖧࿖ߣࡈࠖࡦ࡜ࡦ࠼
ࠫࠚ࡯ࡓ࠭ႎ๔ᦠ㧔1972 ᐕ㧕㧘ㅴᱠਥ⟵ᢎ⢒ߣᢎᏧߩᜰዉ
ߪ㧘OECD ߩ 15 ᱦ↢ᓤߩᦨᣂߩ PISA ߩ⺒⸃࡝࠹࡜ࠪ࡯㧔⺒
ജࠍഭ௛ౄ᡽ᮭਅߩࠠࡖ࡜ࡂࡦ㚂⋧߇ᛕ್ߒߚ߆ߩ࡜ࠬࠠ
ߺ࡮ᦠ߈㧕⺞ᩏߢ࠻࠶ࡊߦ┙ߜ㧘ߘߒߡ㧘ߘߩࠕ࠮ࠬࡔࡦ
ࡦṶ⺑㧔1976 ᐕ㧕㧘ߘߒߡ଻቞ౄࠨ࠶࠴ࡖ࡯᡽ᮭਅߩ 1988
࠻ߪ࠺ࠫ࠲࡞ᖱႎࠍᛒ߁↢ᓤߩ⢻ജߦߟ޿ߡߩೋ߼ߡߩ⺞
ᐕᢎ⢒ᡷ㕟ᴺ㧔࠽࡚ࠪ࠽࡞ࠞ࡝ࠠࡘ࡜ࡓߩ೙ቯ㧕ߣ⛯߈㧘
ᩏߢߒߚ‫⺞ߩߘޕ‬ᩏߪ 70 ࠞ࿖એ਄ߩ 50 ਁੱߩ↢ᓤߩ 2 ᤨ
᡽ᴦߩ⺖㗴ࠍ‫ޟ‬ᢎ⢒㧘ᢎ⢒㧘ᢎ⢒‫ߣޠ‬ਥᒛߒߚࡉ࡟ࠕഭ௛
㑆ߩ⹜㛎ߦၮߠ޿ߡ߅ࠅ㧘ᢙቇߣℂ⑼ߩ⹜㛎߽ታᣉߐࠇ߹
ౄ᡽ᮭࠍ⚻ߡ㧘੹㧘⥄↱ౄߣ଻቞ౄߩㅪว᡽ᮭਅߢᢎ⢒ᡷ
ߒߚ‫ߢ޿ߟޕ‬ᅢᚑ❣ߢ޽ߞߚߩߪ㧘ਛ࿖㚅᷼㧘ࠪࡦࠟࡐ࡯
㕟ߪㅴ߼ࠄࠇߡ޿ࠆ‫ޕ‬
࡞㧘ࠞ࠽࠳㧘࠾ࡘ࡯ࠫ࡯࡜ࡦ࠼ߣᣣᧄߢߒߚ‫ޕ‬
ᧄ࠮ࡒ࠽࡯ߩ⿰ᣦߪ㧘ߎ߁ߒߚᱧผ⊛⢛᥊ࠍⷞ㊁ߦ౉ࠇ
ߟߟ㧘ᢎ⢒ߦࡐ࡝࠹ࠖࠢࠬ߇౉ࠅߎࠎߢ޿ߊ᭽⋧ߣᢥ⣂ࠍ㧘
⸛⺰ߩߚ߼ߩ໧޿㧦
࡮ಽ߆ࠄߥ޿ߎߣ߿߽ߞߣ⺑᣿ߒߡ߶ߒ޿ߎߣ߇޽ࠅ߹
ߔ߆‫ޕ‬
ᢎᏧߦߥࠆߎߣࠍᦸࠎߢ޿ࠆቇ↢⻉᳁ߣߣ߽ߦ࿖㓙⊛ߥⷞ
ὐࠍᜬߞߡ⠨߃ߡߺࠃ߁㧘ߣ޿߁ߎߣߦ޽ߞߚ‫⿰ߩߘޕ‬ᣦ
ߪ㧘⻠Ṷ⠪ߩࡇ࡯࠲࡯࡮ࠞ࠾ࡦࠟࡓඳ჻ߩౕ૕⊛ߢࠊ߆ࠅ
࡮ⷫ߿࿾ၞ␠ળ߇ೋ╬ቇᩞߩ⾰ߦᓇ㗀ࠍ෸߷ߔߎߣ߇ߢ
߿ߔ޿⺑᣿ߩ߅㒶ߢ߁߹ߊታ⃻ߒߚ‫ޕ‬
߈ࠆࠃ߁ߦߔࠆߴ߈ߢߔ߆‫ޕ‬
ߎߎߢࡇ࡯࠲࡯࡮ࠞ࠾ࡦࠟࡓඳ჻ߩ⚻ᱧ߿⎇ⓥᬺ❣ߦዋ
࡮ᣣᧄߢߪೋ╬ቇᩞߩ⾰ߩ଻⸽ߩߚ߼ߦߤࠎߥ⺞ᢛ߇ߥ
ߐࠇߡ޿߹ߔ߆‫ޕ‬
ߒ⸅ࠇߡ߅߈ߚ޿‫ޕ‬ඳ჻ߪ㧘ࠤࡦࡉ࡝࠶ࠫᄢቇࠫࠚ࡯ࡓ࠭
ࠞ࡟࠶ࠫ㧘ࠝ࠶ࠢࠬࡈࠜ࡯࠼ᄢቇ࠙ࠚࠬ࠻ࡒࡦࠬ࠲࡯ࠞ࡟
㧔᫪ᧄ૫ᄹ㧕
࠶ࠫࠍୃੌᓟ㧘ࠝ࠶ࠢࠬࡈࠜ࠼ࠪࡖ࡯෸߮࡟ࠬ࠲ࠪࡖ࡯ߩ
ೋ╬ቇᩞߢᢎᏧࠍ⚻㛎ߒ㧘ߘߩᓟ㧘ࠝ࠶ࠢࠬࡈࠜ࡯࠼ᄢቇ
㧨޽ߣ߇߈㧙⸃⺑෸߮⻢ㄉ㧙㧪
෸߮ࠤࡦࡉ࡝࠶ࠫᄢቇߢᢎᏧᢎ⢒ߩ઀੐ߦ៤ࠊߞߡ߈ߚᢎ
਄⸥ߪ㧘ᐔᚑ 22 ᐕᐲᱞᐶᎹᅚሶᄢቇ․೎⚻⾌‫ࠆ޽⦡․ޟ‬
⢒ผኅߢ޽ࠆ‫ޕ‬ᓐߩඳ჻ቇ૏㧔࡝࡯࠭ᄢቇ㧕⺧᳞⺰ᢥߪ㧘
ᢎ⢒ᡰេࡊࡠࠣ࡜ࡓ㧛ᄖ࿖⺆ᢎ⢒࡮࿖㓙੤ᵹ߳ߩข⚵ߺ㧦
⸶⠪ᵈ 2 ߦ᜼ߍߚ᜕⋙⸶‫ࠬ࡝ࠡࠗޡ‬ೋ╬ቇᩞߩࠞ࡝ࠠࡘ࡜
ᄖ࿖⺆ࠍ↪޿ߚᢎ⢒ᵴേߩలታ‫ޠ‬
㧔੍▚ࠦ࡯࠼ 22103㧘੐ᬺ
ࡓ‫ޢ‬㧔ߟߥࠎ಴ 㧕ߢ޽ࠅ㧘ߘࠇߪ 1945 ᐕએ㒠ߩࠞ࡝ࠠࡘ
ᜂᒰ⠪㧦ጊ㦮ᵗሶ㧕ߩ੍▚ࠍ↪޿ߡ㧘ࠗࠡ࡝ࠬߩᢎᏧᢎ⢒
࡜ࡓߩᄌㆫࠍߐ߹ߑ߹ߥⷺᐲ߆ࠄ⸃᣿ߒߚߣ޿߁ὐߢ㧘↹
⎇ⓥߩኾ㐷ኅߢ޽ࠆࡇ࡯࠲࡯࡮ࠞ࠾ࡦࠟࡓඳ჻ࠍ᜗⡜ߒߡ
ᦼ⊛ߥ⎇ⓥߣ૏⟎ߠߌࠄࠇߡ޿ࠆ‫ޕ‬ᓐߪ㧘ቯᐕᓟߩ੹߽㧘
ታᣉߒߚᱞᐶᎹᅚሶᄢቇᢥቇㇱᢎ⢒ቇ⑼࡮ᄢቇ㒮ᢎ⢒ቇኾ
ࠤࡦࡉ࡝࠶ࠫᄢቇࡎࡑ࠻ࡦ࡮ࠞ࡟࠶ࠫߣࡠࡦ࠼ࡦᄢቇᢎ⢒
᡹ਥ௅ߩ࠮ࡒ࠽࡯‫ߩࠬ࡝ࠡࠗޟ‬ೋ╬ᢎ⢒㧦1988 ᐕ߆ࠄ 2011
ቇ⎇ⓥᚲߩቴຬ⎇ⓥ⠪ߣߒߡ⎇ⓥߣᄢቇ㒮↢ߩᜰዉࠍߒߥ
ᐕߩᢥൻ⊛ᢥ⣂ߦ߅ߌࠆᢎ⢒᡽╷ߣᢎ⢒ታ〣‫޽ߢ⸶ోߩޠ‬
߇ࠄ㧘ࠗࠡ࡝ࠬᢎ⢒ผቇળߩቇળ⹹ ”Histor of Education”
ࠆ‫ޕ‬
ߩ✬㓸ᆔຬߣߒߡ࿖ౝᄖ⊛ߦᵴേߒ㧘ᢎ⢒ผߩ⎇ⓥ⠪ߩ⢒
ࠗࠡ࡝ࠬߢߪቇᩞᢎ⢒ߪ㧘ቬᢎ⊛ᢥ⣂ࠍήⷞߔࠆߎߣ߇
ᚑߦዧജߒߡ޿ࠆ‫ߚ߹ޕ‬㧘ᤓᐕᄐ߆ࠄ᡽ᐭߩᆔ⸤੐ᬺߢ޽
ߢ߈ߥ޿ߚ߼㧘৻⥸ߩੱ‫ߦޘ‬㐿߆ࠇߚ࿖᳃ߩߚ߼ߩᢎ⢒೙
ࠆࠤࡦࡉ࡝࠶ࠫᄢቇ‫ߩࡦ࠲ࠬࡈࠩࠞޟ‬ᢎຬ㙃ᚑ‫ࠍޠ‬ਥዉߒ㧘
ᐲ߇ᚑ┙ߔࠆߩߪᭂ߼ߡㆃ޿‫౏ޕ‬ᢎ⢒߇ㄭઍൻߣ޿߁ᱧผ
ߘߩᵴേ▸࿐ߪ⋉‫ޘ‬ᐢ߇ߞߡ޿ࠆ‫ޕ‬
੐⽎ߣߣ߽ߦ⺆ࠄࠇࠆᣣᧄߣᲧߴࠆߣ㧘‫ޟ‬࿖᳃ᢎ⢒㧔౏ᢎ
߹ߚ㧘ࠞ࠾ࡦࠟࡓඳ჻ߩੑౠ⋡ߩ⪺૞߽ᄢᄌ⥝๧ᷓ޿߽
⢒㧕‫ߔ⴫߇⪲⸒߁޿ߣޠ‬ᗧ๧ߪᭂ߼ߡ᭽⋧ࠍ⇣ߦߒߡ޿ࠆ‫ޕ‬
ߩߢ޽ࠆ‫ߪࠇߘޕ‬㧘᡽ᐭ⵬ഥ㊄ࠍᓧߡታᣉߒߚ⺞ᩏ⎇ⓥߩ
৻⥸ߦ㧘࿖ኅߩㄭઍൻߣ౏ᢎ⢒೙ᐲߩᚑ┙ߪ㧘⋧੕ߦ㑐ㅪ
ᚑᨐࠍ㧘ห௥ߩࠟ࡯࠼࠽࡯㧔Philip Gardner㧕ߣߣ߽ߦ߹ߣ
ߠߌߡᝒ߃ࠄࠇࠆ߇㧘ࠗࠡ࡝ࠬߪ↥ᬺ㕟๮ߦࠃߞߡㄭઍൻ
߼ߚ”Becoming Teachers: Texts and Testimonies, 1907-1950”
ࠍᣧᦼߦᚑߒㆀߍߚ࿖ߢ޽ࠆߦ߽߆߆ࠊࠄߕ㧘߹ߚߘ߁ߢ
㧔Woburn Education Series, 2004㧕ߢ޽ࠆ‫ߪߦߎߘޕ‬㧘ᢎᏧ߇
޽ࠆ߇ࠁ߃ߦ㧘࿖᳃ᢎ⢒೙ᐲߩᚑ┙߳ߩ㆏ߪࠁߞߊࠅߣߒ
ߤߩࠃ߁ߥ␠ળ⊛⢛᥊ߩਛߢߤߩࠃ߁ߦᾘᖨߒߥ߇ࠄᢎᏧ
ߡ޿ࠆ‫߃ࠁࠇߘޕ‬㧘ࠗࠡ࡝ࠬᢎ⢒ผ⎇ⓥߢߪ㧘Ԙ⟵ോ㧘ԙ
ߩኾ㐷ᕈࠍ㜞߼ߡᢎᏧߦߥߞߡ޿ߞߚ߆㧘ᢎᏧߪߘࠇߙࠇ
ήఘ㧘Ԛ਎ଶߣ޿߁ 3 ߟߩේೣࠍలߚߔ౏ᢎ⢒೙ᐲߩ⏕┙
ߩᤨઍߦ↢ߓߚ໧㗴߿⺖㗴ߦߤߩࠃ߁ߦะ߈ว޿㧘ᢎᏧߣ
ࠍߤߩᤨὐߦ᳞߼ࠆ߆㧘ߣ޿߁ߎߣ߽ᧂߛ⺰੎ߩ᷵ਛߦ޽
ߒߡߩኾ㐷⊛ࠕࠗ࠺ࡦ࠹ࠖ࠹ࠖࠍᷓ߼ߡ޿ߞߚ߆㧘ߘߒߡ
ࠆߩߢ޽ࠆ‫ุޕ‬㧘߻ߒࠈ౏ᢎ⢒ߩᚑ┙ߣ޿߁ᱧผ੐⽎ߪሽ
ᢎᏧ⥄りߩੱ↢ࠍߤߩࠃ߁ߦ⥄Ꮖታ⃻ߒߡ޿ߞߚ߆ߣ޿ߞ
࿷ߒߥ޿㧘ߣߐ߃⸒ࠊࠇߡ޿ࠆߩߢ޽ࠆ‫ޕ‬
ߚ㧘޿ࠊ߫‫ޟ‬ᢎᏧߩᗧ๧⺰‫ޠ‬
‫ޟ‬ᢎᏧߩ↢ᚑ⺰‫߈ߴ߁޿߽ߣޠ‬
ߚߣ߃߫㧘᡽ᐭߦࠃࠆቇᩞᢎ⢒߳ߩ࿖ᐶ⵬ഥ㊄ߩ੤ઃߪ
⎇ⓥᚑᨐ߇߉ߞߒࠅߣߟ߹ߞߡ޿ࠆ‫ޕ‬ೋ╬࡮ਛ╬ᢎᏧ㑆ߩ
䋭 㪍㪉 䋭
イギリスの初等教育 ： 1988 年から 2011 年の文化的文脈における教育政策と教育実践
ੱ⊛ࡀ࠶࠻ࡢ࡯ࠢߩਛߢߎߩࠃ߁ߥᚑᨐࠍ޽ߍࠆߦߪ㧘ା
ᢎ⢒ⴕὑ߇㧘ᢎᏧߛߌߢߥߊᄢੱ߿࿖ኅߩ㑐ਈ߇޽ࠆߣ޿
㗬㑐ଥ߇ᦨ߽㊀ⷐߢ޽ࠆ‫߇ࠇߎޕ‬ᚑഞߒߚߩߪ㧘৻㊀ߦ㧘
߁ߎߣ㧘ߘࠇࠁ߃ᢎᏧߦߪ‫⺑ޟ‬᣿⽿છ‫ߣߎ߁޿ߣࠆ޽߇ޠ‬
ࠞ࠾ࡦࠟࡓඳ჻ߩ᷷ෘߢ⺈ታߥੱᨩߦࠃࠆ߽ߩߢ޽ࠈ߁‫ޕ‬
߇ߒߞ߆ࠅߣવࠊߞߚࠃ߁ߦᕁࠊࠇࠆ‫ߪࠇߎޕ‬࿖ࠍ⿥߃ߚ
⤘ᄢߥᤨ㑆ߣ␹⚻ࠍ⾌߿ߐࠇߚᧄᦠ߽㧘ᢎᏧᢎ⢒㧔ผ㧕ࠍ
࠹࡯ࡑߢ޽ࠅ㧘ᢎ⡯ߦዞ޿ߚ⠪߇⋥㕙ߔࠆᄢ߈ߥ⺖㗴ߩౝ
⎇ⓥኻ⽎ߣߒߡ޿ࠆᣇߦ߅൘߼ߒߚ޿⪺૞ߢ޽ࠆ‫ޕ‬
ߩ৻ߟߢ޽ࠆ‫ߪߣߎߩߘޕ‬ฃ⻠↢ߩฃ⻠ᓟߩࠦࡔࡦ࠻ߦ߽
߹ ߚ ߐ ࠄ ߦ 㧘 2012 ᐕ 1 ᦬ ߦ ߪ 㧘 㐳 ᐕ ข ࠅ ⚵ ࠎ ߢ ߈
␜ߐࠇߡ޿ࠆ‫ ߩⷐ♿ᧄޕ‬120㨪122 㗁ࠍෳᾖߐࠇߚ޿‫ޕ‬
ߥ߅㧘⸶಴ߦ㓙ߒߡߪ㧘ᢎ⢒ቇ⑼ 3 ᐕ↢㧔ጊ㦮ᵗሶ࠯ࡒ㧘
ߚ”Politics and the Primary Teacher”㧔Understanding Primary
Education Series, Routledge㧕 ߽਄ᪧߐࠇߚ‫⪺ߩߎޕ‬૞ߩࠬ
⃻ 4 ᐕ↢㧕ߩ╙৻ᰴ⸶ࠍጊ㦮߇ᜰዉߒ㧘ᧄ⹹߳ߩ෼㍳ߦ㓙
࠲ࡦࠬߣౝኈߪᧄ࠮ࡒ࠽࡯ߢ߽ㅀߴࠄࠇߚ߇㧘ೋ╬ቇᩞߩ
ߒߡౣᐲὐᬌ࡮ୃᱜߒ㧘⸶ᵈߣ⸃⺑ࠍઃߒߚ‫࡯࠽ࡒ࠮ᧄޕ‬
ᢎ⢒ᕁᗐ߿ࠞ࡝ࠠࡘ࡜ࡓߩᱧผߛߌߢߥߊ㧘ᢎ⢒ߩ᡽╷ผ
ߩ৻ㅪߩข⚵ߺߪ㧘Ḱ஻߆ࠄᢙ߃ࠆߣ⚂ 3 ᐕඨ߇⚻ㆊߔࠆ
⎇ⓥߦ߽㍈޿⋡ࠍะߌߚᧄᦠ߽㧘ቇ↢⻉᳁ߦ߽ߗ߭߅⺒ߺ
ߎߣߦߥࠆ‫⸥࡯࠽ࡒ࠮ޕ‬㍳ߣߒߡߎߩࠃ߁ߦ߹ߣ߼ࠆߎߣ
޿ߚߛ߈ߚ޿⪺૞ߢ޽ࠆ‫⌒⌕ߩᦠᧄޕ‬ὐ߿⠨ኤౝኈߩ⏕߆
߇ߢ߈ߚߩߪ㧘৻㊀ߦ㑐ଥߩߺߥߐ߹ߩߏදജߣߏᡰេߩ
ߐߦߟ޿ߡߪ㧘ࠗࠡ࡝ࠬߢߪᣧߊ߽⛘⾥ߐࠇߡ߅ࠅ㧘ߘߩ
⾦ߢ޽ࠆ‫ࠍߣߎߩߎޕ‬ᗵ⻢ߒߟߟ㧘࠮ࡒ࠽࡯⸥㍳߇෼㍳ߦ
㜞޿⹏ଔߪ㧘಴ ␠߿ࡎࡑ࠻ࡦ࡮ࠞ࡟࠶ࠫߩ࠙ࠚ࠶ࡉࠨࠗ
⥋ߞߚߎߣߦߟ޿ߡ㧘߹ߕߪ⸶಴૞ᬺߦᅗ㑵ߒߚቇ↢߿㧘
࠻ߦឝタߐࠇߡ޿ࠆ‫ߩࠬ࡝ࠡࠗޕ‬ᢎᏧ㧘ߣࠅࠊߌೋ╬ቇᩞ
࠮ࡒ࠽࡯ታᣉߦ㓙ߒߡ޿ߟ߽ᗂߒߺߥߊᡰេߒߡߊߛߐߞ
ߩᢎ⡯ߦߟ޿ߡߎߩࠃ߁ߦᄙⷺ⊛ߦ⎇ⓥߒߡ޿ࠆ⎇ⓥ⠪
ߡ޿ࠆ㕖Ᏹൕഥᚻߩศ↰ዊ⊖ว᳁ߣߣ߽ߦ༑߮ߚ޿ߣᕁ
ߪ㧘᳁ࠍ߅޿ߡઁߦߪሽ࿷ߒߥ޿ߢ޽ࠈ߁‫ޕ‬
߁‫ߊߥ߽ߢ߹߁⸒ޕ‬㧘ᧄ㇌⸶ߩᦨ⚳⽿છߪጊ㦮ߦ޽ࠆ‫ޕ‬ᕁ
ߣߎࠈߢ㧘ࠞ࠾ࡦࠟࡓඳ჻ߣ᜗⡜⽿છ⠪ߩጊ㦮ߣߩ⎇ⓥ
੤ᵹߪ㧘2003 ᐕߩࠗࠡ࡝ࠬᢎ⢒ผቇળᄢળෳടߩ᛬ߦ㧘ᒰ
ࠊߧ⺋⸶ߥߤ߽޽ࠆ߆߽ߒࠇߥ޿‫ޕ‬ᔊᙈߩߥ޿ߏᗧ⷗ࠍ޿
ߚߛߌࠇ߫ᐘ޿ߢ޽ࠆ‫ޕ‬
ᤨ࠙ࠚ࡯࡞࠭ᄢቇߦ޿ߚࡠࠗ࡮ࡠ࠙ᢎ᝼ߦ⚫੺ߐࠇߚߎߣ
ᦨᓟߦߥߞߚ߇㧘ᐢፉᄢቇߩ቟ේ⟵ੳᢎ᝼㧔ᐢፉᄢቇฬ
ߦᆎ߹ࠆ‫ޕ‬એᓟ㧘ࠞ࠾ࡦࠟࡓඳ჻ߪ╩⠪ߩ⎇ⓥᜰዉഥ⸒⠪
⹷ᢎ᝼㧘⃻᡼ㅍᄢቇᐢፉቇ⠌࠮ࡦ࠲࡯ᚲ㐳㧕ߦ߽ᓮ␞ࠍ↳
ߢ޽ࠆߣหᤨߦ౒ห⎇ⓥ⠪ߣߥߞߚ‫ޕ‬2006 ᐕ 8 ᦬ߦߪ㧘ࠞ
ߒ਄ߍߨ߫ߥࠄߥ޿‫ޕ‬቟ේᢎ᝼ߩߏዧജߦࠃߞߡ㧘ࠞ࠾ࡦ
࠾ࡦࠟࡓඳ჻ߣ╩⠪ࠄᣣᧄੱߩᣂᢎ⢒ㆇേ⎇ⓥ⠪ߪ㧘౒ห
ࠟࡓඳ჻ߪᐢፉᄢቇ߆ࠄߩ᜗⡜߽ฃߌࠄࠇߚ‫ߢߎߘޕ‬㧘ห
ߢ⎇ⓥ⊒⴫㧔ᣈ㧦ᘮᙥᄢቇ㧕ࠍߒߡ⎇ⓥ੤ᵹࠍᷓ߼ߡ߈ߚ‫ޕ‬
ᄢቇߩᢎ⢒ቇ⎇ⓥ⑼ߩ㒮↢߿ᢎຬߦኻߒߡ⻠Ṷߐࠇᄢ재
ߘࠇࠁ߃㧘ᱞᐶᎹᅚሶᄢቇ߳ߩඳ჻ߩ⸰໧ߪ 2 ᐲ⋡ߢ޽ࠆ‫ޕ‬
⹏ߢ޽ߞߚ㧘ߣ޿߁ߎߣࠍુߞߚ‫ࡑ࡯࠹ޕ‬᳿ቯߦ㓙ߒߡ㧘
߇㧘ߒ߆ߒᧄቇߢߩ࠮ࡒ࠽࡯ߪೋ߼ߡߩߎߣߢ޽ߞߚ‫ޕ‬
ࠞ࠾ࡦࠟࡓඳ჻ߣ⺞ᢛࠍㅴ߼ߡ߈ߚ⠪ߣߒߡᄢᄌ߁ࠇߒߊ
ߘߩߚ߼㧘㐿௅߹ߢߦߪ㧘⋥ធળߞߚࠅࠬࠞࠗࡊࠍ੺ߒߚ
ᕁ߁‫ߣࠬ࡝߽ࠡࠗࠄ߆ࠇߎޕ‬ᣣᧄߩ⎇ⓥ⠪ߩ੤ᵹ߇߹ߔ߹
ࠅߒߡ૗ᐲ߽ᗧ⷗੤឵ߒ㧘⻠⠌ౝኈ߿ᣇᴺߦߟ޿ߡ⺞ᢛࠍ
ߔᵴᕈൻߒߡ޿ߊߎߣࠍ㗿޿ߟߟ㧘ߎߩ႐ࠍ୫ࠅߡ㧘ᐢፉ
ߒߚ‫⻠߇ߟ৻ߩߘޕ‬Ṷࠬ࠲ࠗ࡞ߩᎿᄦߢ޽ࠆ‫ޕ‬ቇㇱ↢߽ᄙ
ߢߩ᳁ߩṛ࿷ਛ㧘૗߆ߣߏදജ޿ߚߛ޿ߚ቟ේ⟵ੳᢎ᝼㧘
ߊ಴Ꮸߒߡ޿ࠆߩߢ㧘ᦨೋ߆ࠄᦨᓟ߹ߢࠍ৻᳇ߦ⻠Ṷߔࠆ
᫃੗৻ᥙಎᢎ᝼㧔㡆㐷ᢎ⢒ᄢቇ㧕㧘࿯੗⾆ሶ⻠Ꮷ㧔Ყᴦጊᄢ
ߩߢߪߥߊ㧘࠮࡚ࠢࠪࡦߏߣߦ㑆ࠍ߅߈㧘2 ߟߩࠣ࡞࡯ࡊ
ߦಽ߆ࠇߡ㧘ࠞ࠾ࡦࠟࡓඳ჻ߣᅏ᭽ߩࡃࡀ࠶࠻ඳ჻ࠍ࿐ࠎ
ቇ⍴ᦼᄢቇㇱ㧕ߦ㧘ᔃࠃࠅᓮ␞ࠍ↳ߒ਄ߍߚ޿‫ޕ‬
㧔ጊ㦮ᵗሶ㧕
ߢ⾰⇼ᔕ╵ߩᤨ㑆ࠍขࠅ㧘ℂ⸃ࠍࠃࠅᷓ߼ߡ޿ߞߚ‫ޕ‬ੑߟ
㧨ಠ଀㧪
ߩࠣ࡞࡯ࡊߢㅢ⸶ߥߤߩ⵬ഥࠍߒߚߩߪ㧘ᢎ⢒ቇ⑼ 4 ᐕ↢
㧔㧕ේౖߩ̈ ̉ߪ‫ޔ‬
‫ ޕߚߒ⸥⴫ߢޠ ޟ‬
ߩᮮ੗೑૫ሶ㧔⃻ᄢቇ㒮ᢎ⢒ቇኾ᡹ 1 ᐕ↢࡮ࡠࡦ࠼ࡦᄢቇ
㧔㧕ᢥᧃߦ޽ࠆ⣉ᵈߪ‫⸶⋙ޔ‬⠪ߩ⸶ᵈߢ޽ࠆ‫ޕ‬
SOAS ᄢቇ㒮㧝ᐕ↢㧕
㧘ᢎ⢒ቇ⑼ᢎຬߩᄢᵤዏᔒ⻠Ꮷߣጊ㦮
㧔㧕⋙⸶⠪߇⵬ߞߚ⸒⪲ߪ‫ޕߚߒ␜ߢ?=ޔ‬
ᵗሶߢ޽ࠆ‫ޕ‬ฃ⻠↢ߩ⾰໧ߩౝኈߪ㧘ᣣᧄߣࠗࠡ࡝ࠬߩᢎ
㧔㧕⸶ᢥߩㅜਛߦ㧔 㧕ߢᝌ౉ߒߚ᳁ฬߪ╙৻ᰴ⸶⠪ࠍᜰ
Ꮷߩ߅߆ࠇߡ޿ࠆ┙႐߿ⅣႺߩ㆑޿ࠍ᣿⏕ߦ෻ᤋߐߖࠆ߽
ߔ‫ޕ‬
ߩ߇ᄙߊ㧘ᓐࠄߩᕁ⠨ߩ᏷߇ᐢ߇ߞߚࠃ߁ߢ޽ࠆ‫ޕ‬ട߃ߡ㧘
㧙⸶ᵈ㧙
1 ߎߎߢߪ㧘‘elementary’ ߣ‘primary’ ߩ↪⺆ߩ૶޿ಽߌߦ
࡜ࡓᡷ㕟㧙ㅴᱠਥ⟵⊛ℂᗐߩ᥉෸㧙‫ޢ‬
㧔Curriculum Change in
the Primary School since 1945㧕ߦ⹦ߒ޿‫ޕ‬
ᵈᗧߔࠆᔅⷐ߇޽ࠆ‫ࠄߥߗߥޕ‬㧘‘elementary’ ߩ⸒⪲ߪ㧘
ⶄ✢ဳߩቇᩞ㓏᪽ߩሽ࿷ࠍ೨ឭߣߒߡ޿ࠆ߆ࠄߢ޽ࠆ‫ޕ‬
3 ࡒ࠼࡞ࠬࠢ࡯࡞ߪ㧘1963 ᐕߦࠢ࡟࠶ࠣ㧔Cregg, Alec㧕߇㧘
2 ࡊ࡜࠙࠺ࡦႎ๔ᦠ߇ࠗࠡ࡝ࠬߩೋ╬ቇᩞߩࠞ࡝ࠠࡘ࡜
࠙ࠚࠬ࠻࡮࡜ࠗ࠺ࠖࡦࠣߢዉ౉ߒߚߎߣߦᆎ߹ࠆ‫ࠇߎޕ‬
ࡓߦਈ߃ߚᓇ㗀ߦߟ޿ߡߪ㧘ࡇ࡯࠲࡯࡮ࠞ࠾ࡦࠟࡓ⪺㧘
ߪ㧘ࡈࠔ࡯ࠬ࠻ࠬࠢ࡯࡞㧘ࡒ࠼࡞ࠬࠢ࡯࡞㧘࠮ࠞࡦ࠳࡝
ጊ㦮ᵗሶ࡮ᧁ᧛⵨ਃ⋙⸶‫ߩࠬ࡝ࠡࠗޡ‬ೋ╬ቇᩞࠞ࡝ࠠࡘ
࡯ࠬࠢ࡯࡞ߣ޿߁ਃߟߩ❑♽೉ߩቇᩞ⒳ߩ᭴ㅧࠪࠬ࠹
䋭 㪍㪊 䋭
ピーター ・ カニンガム著 （山﨑洋子監訳）
ࡓࠍᜰߔਃᲑ㓏ࠪࠬ࠹ࡓ㧔’three-tire’ system㧕ߩ⢐ቯࠍᗧ
ߐࠄߦ㧘⃻࿷ߩട⋖࿖ߪએਅߩ 34 ߆࿖ߢ޽ࠆ‫ޕ‬
๧ߔࠆ‫ߚ߹ޕ‬㧘ࡊ࡜࠙࠺ࡦႎ๔ᦠߢߪ㧘ࡈࠔ࡯ࠬ࠻ࠬࠢ
⊒⿷ᒰೋߩේട⋖࿖㧔ࠕ࡞ࡈࠔࡌ࠶࠻㗅㧕ߪ㧘ࠝ࡯ࠬ
࡯࡞㧔5-8/9 ᱦ㧕߿ࡒ࠼࡞ࠬࠢ࡯࡞ߣᡷ⒓ߔࠆߎߣߦࠃߞ
࠻࡝ࠕ㧘ࡌ࡞ࠡ࡯㧘ࠞ࠽࠳㧘࠺ࡦࡑ࡯ࠢ㧘ࡈ࡜ࡦࠬ㧘࠼
ߡ㧘ೋ╬ࠞ࡝ࠠࡘ࡜ࡓߣߘߩᢎ⢒ᣇᴺࠍ᜛ᒛߔࠆߎߣ߇
ࠗ࠷㧘ࠡ࡝ࠪࡖ㧘ࠕࠗࠬ࡜ࡦ࠼㧘ࠕࠗ࡞࡜ࡦ࠼㧘ࠗ࠲࡝
ឭ⸒ߐࠇߚ‫ޕ‬㧔ࡇ࡯࠲࡯࡮ࠞ࠾ࡦࠟࡓ⪺㧘ጊ㦮ᵗሶ࡮ᧁ
ࠕ㧘࡞ࠢ࠮ࡦࡉ࡞ࠢ㧘ࠝ࡜ࡦ࠳㧘ࡁ࡞࠙ࠚ࡯㧘ࡐ࡞࠻ࠟ
᧛⵨ਃ⋙⸶೨ឝᦠ㧘‫ޠ⺑⸃⺆↪ޟ‬p. 391 ෳᾖ㧕
࡞㧘ࠬࡍࠗࡦ㧘ࠬ࠙ࠚ࡯࠺ࡦ㧘ࠬࠗࠬ㧘࠻࡞ࠦ㧘ࠗࠡ࡝
4 ╙ੑᰴ਎⇇ᄢᚢᓟߩ 1948 ᐕ㧘∋ᑷߒ߈ߞߚ࡛࡯ࡠ࠶ࡄ
ࠬ㧘ࠕࡔ࡝ࠞวⴐ࿖ ߢ޽ࠅ㧘ߘߩᓟߩട⋖࿖㧔ട⋖ᐕ
⚻ᷣࠍᵴᕈൻߒᢇᷣߔࠆߚ߼ߦ㧘ࠕࡔ࡝ࠞวⴐ࿖ߦࠃࠆ
㗅㧕ߪ㧘ᣣᧄ㧔1964 ᐕ 4 ᦬ 28 ᣣ㧕㧘ࡈࠖࡦ࡜ࡦ࠼㧔1969
࡛࡯ࡠ࠶ࡄᓳ⥝ᡰេ⸘↹ࠍ⋡⊛ߣߒߚࡑ࡯ࠪࡖ࡞࡮ࡊ࡜
ᐕ 1 ᦬ 28 ᣣ㧕㧘ࠝ࡯ࠬ࠻࡜࡝ࠕ㧔1971 ᐕ 6 ᦬ 7 ᣣ㧕㧘࠾
ࡦߩฃߌ౉ࠇࠍᢛ஻ߔࠆᯏ㑐ߣߒߡ㧘࡛࡯ࡠ࠶ࡄߩ 16
ࡘ࡯ࠫ࡯࡜ࡦ࠼㧔1973 ᐕ 5 ᦬ 29 ᣣ㧕㧘ࡔࠠࠪࠦ㧔1994
߆࿖ෳടߩ᰷Ꮊ⚻ᷣදജᯏ᭴㧔OEEC㧕߇⸳┙ߐࠇߚ‫ޕ‬
ᐕ 5 ᦬ 18 ᣣ㧕㧘࠴ࠚࠦ㧔1995 ᐕ 12 ᦬ 21 ᣣ㧕㧘ࡂࡦࠟ࡝
1950 ᐕ㧘OEEC ߦࠕࡔ࡝ࠞวⴐ࿖ߣࠞ࠽࠳߇Ḱട⋖࿖ߣ
࡯㧔1996 ᐕ 5 ᦬ 7 ᣣ㧕㧘ࡐ࡯࡜ࡦ࠼㧔1996 ᐕ 11 ᦬ 22 ᣣ㧕㧘
ߒߡෳടߒ㧘1961 ᐕ㧘࡛࡯ࡠ࠶ࡄ⚻ᷣߩᓳ⥝ߦ઻޿㧘᰷
㖧࿖㧔1996 ᐕ 12 ᦬ 12 ᣣ㧕㧘ࠬࡠࡃࠠࠕ㧔2000 ᐕ 12 ᦬
Ꮊߣർ☨߇⥄↱ਥ⟵⚻ᷣ߿⾏ᤃߢኻ╬ߥ㑐ଥߣߒߡ⊒
14 ᣣ㧕㧘࠴࡝㧔2010 ᐕ 5 ᦬ 7 ᣣ㧕㧘ࠬࡠࡌ࠾ࠕ㧔2010 ᐕ
ዷ࡮දജߔࠆ⋡⊛ߩਅ㧘OEEC ߪ⊒ዷ⊛ߦᡷ⚵ߐࠇ㧘⃻
7 ᦬ 21 ᣣ㧕㧘ࠗࠬ࡜ࠛ࡞㧔2010 ᐕ 9 ᦬ 7 ᣣ㧕㧘ࠛࠬ࠻࠾
࿷ߩ⚻ᷣදജ㐿⊒ᯏ᭴㧔OECD㧕߇ഃ┙ߐࠇߚ‫ޕ‬
ࠕ㧔2010 ᐕ 12 ᦬ 9 ᣣ㧕ߢ޽ࠆ‫ߚ߹ޕ‬㧘 ട⋖↳⺧࿖ ߪ
1964 ᐕએ㒠㧘ᓥ᧪ߩᨒߢ޽ࠆ⷏᰷ߣർ☨ߣ޿߁࿾ℂ⊛
ࡠࠪࠕ㧔2007 ᐕ 5 ᦬㧕㧘ട⋖ࠍⷞ㊁ߦ౉ࠇߚ OECD ஥ߩ
೙㒢ࠍขࠅᛄ޿㧘ࠕࠫࠕ㧘᧲᰷ߦ߽ട⋖࿖ࠍ᜛ᄢߒߚ‫ޕ‬
⺞ᩏ㐿ᆎࠍℂ੐ળ߇੐ോ✚㐳ߦ⺧᳞㧔2007 ᐕ 5 ᦬㧕ߒߚ
ᣣᧄߪᣧߊ߆ࠄ OECD ട⋖ߦ㑐ᔃࠍ␜ߒ㧘ᨒ᜛ᄢ⋥ᓟߩ
㑐ਈᒝൻ࿖ ߪ㧘ࡉ࡜ࠫ࡞㧘ਛ⪇ੱ᳃౒๺࿖㧘ࠗࡦ࠼㧘
1964 ᐕ 4 ᦬ 28 ᣣߦട⋖ߔࠆߦ⥋ߞߚ‫ޕ‬1990 ᐕઍߦ౉ࠅ㧘
ࠗࡦ࠼ࡀࠪࠕ㧘ධࠕࡈ࡝ࠞ౒๺࿖ ߢ޽ࠆ‫ߩࠄࠇߎޕ‬ട
಄ᚢ᭴ㅧ߇፣უߔࠆߣ㧘ࡑ࡯ࠪࡖ࡞࡮ࡊ࡜ࡦߩᓳ⥝ᡰេ
⋖↳⺧࿖㧘㑐ਈᒝൻ࿖ߩ߶߆㧘㚅᷼㧔‫ޟ‬ਛ࿖㚅᷼‫ߒߣޠ‬
ߩኻ⽎߆ࠄᄖࠇߡ޿ߚ᧲᰷⻉࿖߿ᣂ⥝Ꮏᬺ࿖߇ട⋖ߔ
ߡෳട㧕㧘ਛ⪇᳃࿖㧔
‫ߡߒߣޠࠗࡍࠗ࠲࠭࡯࠾ࠗࡖ࠴ޟ‬ෳ
ࠆࠃ߁ߦߥࠅ㧘੹ᣣߩ OECD ߦ⥋ߞߚ‫ޕ‬
ട㧕㧘ࠪࡦࠟࡐ࡯࡞ߥߤ㧘ᄙᢙߩ࿖߿࿾ၞ߇ࠝࡉࠩ࡯ࡃ
ߥ߅㧘OECD ߪ㧘એਅߩ 3 ߟࠍ⋡⊛ߣߒߡ޿ࠆ‫ޕ‬
࡯ߣߒߡ OECD ߩ⒳‫ߩޘ‬ᯏ㑐ߩᵴേߦෳടߒߡ޿ࠆ‫ޕ‬એ
㧔OECD ᧦⚂╙ 1 ᧦㧕
ਅߩ࠙ࠚ࠶ࡉࠨࠗ࠻ࠍෳᾖ‫ߒߛߚޕ‬㧘⧯ᐓߩ⺋⸃߽޽ࠆ
Ԙ⚻ᷣᚑ㐳㧔ߢ߈ࠆ㒢ࠅߩ⚻ᷣᚑ㐳㧘㓹↪ߩჇᄢ㧘↢ᵴ
ࠃ߁ߢ޽ࠆ‫ޕ‬
᳓Ḱߩะ਄ࠍ࿑ࠆߎߣ㧕㧘ԙ㐿⊒㧔⚻ᷣ⊒ዷㅜ਄ߦ޽ࠆ
㧔http://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E7%B5%8C%E6%B8%88%
⻉࿾ၞߩ⚻ᷣߩஜోߥ᜛ᄢߦነਈߔࠆߎߣ㧕㧘Ԛ⾏ᤃ
E5%8D%94%E5%8A%9B%E9%96%8B%E7%99%BA%E6
㧔ᄙ⋡⊛߆ߟήᏅ೎ߥ਎⇇⾏ᤃߩ᜛ᄢߦነਈߔࠆߎ
%A9%9F%E6%A7%8B㧕㧔11th/Feb. 2011㧕
ߣ㧕‫ޕ‬
䋭 㪍㪋 䋭