Date and time;

July 12th (Tuesday) 2005, 13:30 – 15:00

At;

Common meeting room 1, Nagatacho Government Building

Agendum;

“Teacher's License, Employment System” “School Selection System”

Attendees;

The party of Council for the Promotion of Regulatory Reform and the Opening Up of Government-driven Markets for Entry into the Private Sector ;

Chief Examiner Kusakari,

Council member Shiraishi,

Expert Advisor An-nen,

Expert Advisor Fukui,

The party of Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology (MEXT);

Mr. Maekawa Kihei, Director of Elementary and Secondary Education Planning Division of Elementary and Secondary Education Bureau

Mr. Towatari Hayashi戸渡速志, Direcor of Educational Personnel Division of Elementary and Secondary Education Planning Division of Elementary and Secondary Education Bureau

Mr. Katsuno Masahiko 勝野慎彦, School Inspector of Elementary and Secondary Education Planning Division of Elementary and Secondary Education Bureau

Ms. Shiomi Mizue, Chief of Office for Education System Reform of Elementary and Secondary Education Planning Division of Elementary and Secondary Education Bureau

We are doing a discussion on Japanese education system at least. We have never been informed about the effect measurement of training system and licensing system, which is, we suppose, currently performed scientifically and experimentally, so we believe MEXT have the responsibility to investigate it carefuly.

Then, next question,

Wait a minute sir. I you claim that the current teacher's certificate system has no meaning, I need your explanation of it.

No, sir. It is not so at all. What we say that we have no data on which we can rely in order to decide it is necessasry or not.

I request Mr. Fukui to show that.

How could we do that. It is your responsibility.

MEXT is Central Government which is responsible for education. You are responsible for what you are doing on education, and we have a right to hear your explanation.

If you present a question you have to show the reason to present the question, otherwise we cannot answer.

It is ridiculous to believe something a priori without evidence.

If you are doing something a priori without evidence, the doing itself is significant matter.

No, sir. You present the question on it. I ask you the rationale of your question.

If there is no evidence, we would present question, as a matter of course, because you do not show us the evidence.

We question you that you are doing without evidence. Therefore we need the rationale to implement the policy on which we can rely on.

If you present such question, the question ….

Who doesn't have doubt despite no evidence? It is rational to doubt something if it has no evidence. Doubting is scientifically rational.

It is you who introduced the policy. Do not confuse that.

No, it is not.

We cannot understand if you don't present us the reason you have such question.

The party who is responsible to do is MEXT. We are the party to see whether it is effective or worth for regulatory reform or not. If you are performing it without any evidence, that should be questioned.

What you are doing is nothing but false accusation with poor reason.

What we are saying we don't get any evidence.

Please do not use such remark like yakuza. This is not false accusation.

It is a duty of the government office to show the people your rationale of the policy which is in charge of you.

If you insist such question....

It is not a question. I am saying how could you work out the policy without presenting any substantial rationale.

As for substantial rationale, the teacher training at university is considered important by countries all over the world in order to educate teachers and it is done empirically.

Yes the world data is OK as well. Point is; we want the data or effect of licensing system and education system.

So, if you insist there is no rationale, then you have to present us such as such reason or such data showing no rationale, to begin with.

No, sir. We are not saying we doubt the policy which you are executing – you have no data, no measurement of the effect, nevertheless saying it is proper, and when we asked its rationale, you insist we have to show. We questioned your such reaction, your attitude as personel of central government office. It dosn't make sense. You cannot show the people the data or evidence for what your are doing youselves. And you said us do it. I never heard such unrational government office. You must ashame yourselves.

If you insist your question, please tell us the reason of your question.

It is not question. You consider yourselves doing right isn't it?

We ask you to give us the data that it is effective.

Yes, sir. You are doing because it is important and effective, therefore we ask you to show it to us.

It is true to any system.

No, sir, it is not. For example, if you are given an anti-cancer agent, would you take it just because it is said becoming good after licking it? Based on the evidence you decide, isn't it? Education also, you are using tax money, so show us the evidence.

You cannot show us data on which you are doing with responsibility, then you tell us to show it. It is ridiculous. You are the responsible person of administration of ministry of education. Therefore it is your duty to show us that you are doing this under such rationale or such theory.

If you present a question against the current system...

We are not presenting a doubt. We ask you the rationale under which you are operating.

We ask you to demonstrate the effect.

So, you don't have a doubt.

Without data we cannot say it is effective or not, therefore we ask you to show us data.

You are operating on the assumption that you are doing right, or reasonable, isn't it? So we want to know the rationale.

What problem, do you think, happened under the current system?

Before any problem, we want to know what rationale you are relying on in your operation.

For what purpose you are asking that?

Please don't use sophistry. We want to check the effect. That's all.

If there is no effect we would suggest to stop it, and if we found it effective we suggest to improve it. That's all.