measuring japan‘s nursery quality international …
TRANSCRIPT
MEASURING JAPAN‘S NURSERY QUALITY
WITHIN THE UNCRC FRAMEWORK:
INTERNATIONAL STANDARDS FOR YOUNG CHILDREN‘S SOCIAL
SERVICES AND THEIR IMPLICATIONS FOR JAPAN
A DISSERTATION
SUBMITTED TO THE SCHOOL OF LAW
AND THE COMMITTEE ON GRADUATE STUDIES
OF STANFORD UNIVERSITY
IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS
FOR THE DEGREE OF
DOCTOR OF THE SCIENCE OF LAW
Ikuko Ota
November 2010
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/us/
This dissertation is online at: http://purl.stanford.edu/tf331pd9273
© 2011 by Ikuko Ota. All Rights Reserved.
Re-distributed by Stanford University under license with the author.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial 3.0 United States License.
ii
I certify that I have read this dissertation and that, in my opinion, it is fully adequatein scope and quality as a dissertation for the degree of Doctor of the Science of Law.
Deborah Hensler, Primary Adviser
I certify that I have read this dissertation and that, in my opinion, it is fully adequatein scope and quality as a dissertation for the degree of Doctor of the Science of Law.
Lawrence Friedman
I certify that I have read this dissertation and that, in my opinion, it is fully adequatein scope and quality as a dissertation for the degree of Doctor of the Science of Law.
Helen Stacy
Approved for the Stanford University Committee on Graduate Studies.
Patricia J. Gumport, Vice Provost Graduate Education
This signature page was generated electronically upon submission of this dissertation in electronic format. An original signed hard copy of the signature page is on file inUniversity Archives.
iii
iv
Abstract
In response to mounting concerns regarding the decline in birthrate in Japan and
the increasing aged population, center-based daycare has assumed an important role in
Japanese society. In order to tackle the issues of low birthrate and longevity, demand
for policies that encourage women to both participate in the workforce and have
children is greater than ever. Since 1997, this perceived need has brought about a
policy transformation in Japan‘s postwar system of approved nursery centers (i.e.,
nursery facilities that meet the national daycare quality standards), which had—until
then—operated measures entirely under the control of the municipalities, as part of the
child welfare policy of the Japanese government.
In order to respond to the urgent need for daycare services and facilities, the
government has instigated a policy of privatization throughout its nursery centers
system and has relaxed many of the regulations in the field of daycare services
provision. However, in the course of the privatization of public nursery centers, the
government has been widely regarded as prioritizing ―capacity (quantity)‖ concerns
over ―quality‖ concerns when constructing its policies. Because the nursery centers
system has undergone legal reform and because quality concerns are on the rise, both
researchers and administrative officers have come to recognize how important it is to
define and measure quality nursery daycare.
With this issue in mind, this study proposes an approach to assess the quality of
Japan‘s nursery daycare against international standards, particularly from the
v
standpoint of a state party‘s obligations under the 1989 United Nations Convention on
the Rights of the Child (UNCRC). The following research questions are central to this
study: To what extent does Japan comply with international standards on daycare
quality? Are there international standards that Japan should be permitted exemptions
from, and if exemptions are appropriate, what is the rationale for such exemptions?
Chapter 1 reviews the relevant government-commissioned empirical studies that
have assessed quality factors, and data from which have been used as evidential
justification of the government‘s privatization policy. This chapter also examines
several lawsuits filed by parents of attending children, on the grounds that the
privatization of public nursery centers has led to deterioration in the quality of nursery
daycare received by their children.
Chapter 2, against the background of the changing socioeconomic context,
describes Japan‘s nursery daycare system and traces the reforms it has recently
undergone in order to clarify how and why nursery daycare no longer remains under
full state control. In addition, the implications of these recent reforms for young
children attending the nursery centers are examined, particularly from the viewpoint of
the children‘s best interests.
Chapter 3 first examines the requirements that the UNCRC set out for both state
parties and non-state actors, in terms of ensuring the quality of early childhood
education and care (ECEC). The international standards for daycare quality are then
examined—within the framework of the UNCRC—in relation to the following
questions: What should quality cover? How far should quality extend? How should
vi
quality be ensured? After looking into recent major cross-national reviews, reports,
and policy proposals concerning ECEC quality in OECD countries, this chapter
extracts three areas of quality (―Structural Quality,‖ ―Process Quality,‖ and ―Staff
Working Conditions‖). Two sets of international standards are then applied to each
indicator of the aforementioned three quality areas: the 2008 UNICEF benchmarks
and—as a complementary Europe-based, cross-national set of standards—the 1996 EC
targets.
Chapter 4 then compares the 11 items (indicators) of the international standards
and Japan‘s current nursery daycare standards. On the basis of an analysis of the most
recent Japanese surveys and empirical studies (which exclusively focused on daycare
quality and were made public in 2008 and 2009), this chapter clarifies international
daycare quality standards and demonstrates clearly to what extent Japan‘s daycare
quality falls short of those standards.
Chapter 5 discusses exactly how the Japanese government should address
improving Japan‘s daycare quality, so that Japan might measure up to the international
standards. Against the background of the UNCRC core concepts, this chapter further
proposes several policy options that should be considered by the Japanese government
and non-state stakeholders of daycare services, if they are to improve their daycare
quality to an internationally acceptable level, while fulfilling the urgent need for more
daycares (quantity).
This study is the first detailed examination of Japan‘s nursery daycare policies
under the framework of the UNCRC written in English. The introduction of a daycare
vii
quality assessment method to Japan—one that is based on international
standards—serves as a useful basis both for the smooth formulation and
implementation of nursery policies that ensure daycare provisions (in terms of quantity
and quality) and to provide a benchmark against which reasonable judicial rulings can
be made on the basis of the ―the best interests of the child,‖ one of the core principles
in the UNCRC. Furthermore, it will also help provide some insights into how
stakeholders of nursery daycare in OECD countries are able to ensure that daycare
quality takes children‘s best interests into account while also considering the historic,
cultural, and social contexts of respective countries.
viii
Acknowledgments
This dissertation is a product of a long process of interactions and learning with
many supportive individuals and institutions. I am enormously grateful to my principal
advisor Professor Deborah Hensler, who provided excellent supervision and expert
orientation through many years, and ultimately, the opportunity to present this work. I
owe a deep debt of gratitude to Professor Lawrence Friedman and Professor Helen
Stacy, as the members of my dissertation committee, for their precious advice and
constant encouragement. I also would like to thank Professor Jun‘ichi Akiba,
Professor Junko Torii, Dr. Ram Jakhu, Professor Margaret Radin, Professor Thomas
Heller, Professor Deborah Rhode, Professor Michele Dauber, Professor Eric Feldman,
Professor Hirokazu Miyano, and Professor Teruo Komori, for their thoughtful
assistance and insightful comments.
I received financial support and personal encouragement from the following
institutions: Stanford Law School/Japan Foundation Grant-in-Aid for Graduate
Study (2008-09); MEXT.KAKENHI (Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research (B),
Project No.17330009 (2005-07); and MEXT.KAKENHI (Grant-in-Aid for Scientific
Research (C) (2), Project No.12620039) (2000-03). Without their grants, my research
would of necessity have been briefer and much less thorough. I would also like to
thank Kinue Sato, Research project section of Zenkoku hoikushi yosei kyogikai [the
National Nursery Teachers Training Council] (Tokyo) for providing latest documents.
ix
For help editing my drafts, I am grateful to MKY Associates Inc. (Tokyo) and
Cactus Communications Pvt. Ltd. (Munbai).
I would like to give special thanks for helping me through the final stages of my
project to Lucy LaPier, Adriana Camarena Osorno, Mari Ike-Koyano, Tatsuo Muto,
Midori Hirokawa, Gary Bonnell, Yuriko Ohno, Midori Kumae, Hitomi Yamaguchi,
Henri Furgiuele, Yukari Dithmer, and my colleagues of Hiroshima City University,
especially Takeshi Ohtowa and Masae Yuasa. My greatest debt is to Nobuo Kazashi,
my partner in life, who believed in this project from the start and did everything
possible to ensure its completion. Lastly, I dedicate this dissertation to my parents,
Yuko and Tadao Ota, because of what they have given to me.
*I note that names are given in this dissertation in the Western order, with the
family name last.
x
Table of contents
Abstract ........................................................................................................................ iv
Acknowledgments ...................................................................................................... viii
Table of contents ........................................................................................................... x
List of tables .............................................................................................................. xvii
List of abbreviations ................................................................................................ xviii
Chapter 1. Introduction ............................................................................................... 1
1.1 Background and purpose of the study .................................................................. 1
1.2 Research question, structure, and methods of the study .................................... 6
1.3 Review of previous studies and analyses of judgments of relevant lawsuits ..... 8
1.3.1 The economy & fiscal report (2005) and the background report of the Cabinet
Office (May 2003) ....................................................................................................... 9
1.3.1.1 A trial calculation of ―the productivity of nursery centers‖ ......................... 9
1.3.1.2 The conceptual basis of the May 2003 report ............................................ 12
1.3.1.3 Some concerns about the handling of data in the May 2003 report .......... 14
1.3.2 The report of the Cabinet Office’s study group (March 2003) ...................... 17
1.3.2.1 Japan‘s first empirical analysis of the cost-effectiveness of daycare services
with quality factors taken into account .................................................................. 17
1.3.2.2 The qualitative evaluation of daycare services from the March 2003 report
............................................................................................................................... 19
1.3.2.3 Some concerns about the method of measuring daycare quality deployed in
the March 2003 report ............................................................................................ 20
1.3.3 Lawsuits seeking the nullification of approved public nursery centers’
privatization, and their implications for the assessment of nursery daycare quality
................................................................................................................................... 25
1.3.3.1 ―Quality of Daycare‖ as the right to choose a specific nursery center ...... 27
1.3.3.2 Criteria for judging the quality of daycare replaced by the length of
transition period ..................................................................................................... 30
xi
1.3.3.3 Impacts of the trials on the administration for privatizing public nursery
centers .................................................................................................................... 32
Chapter 2. Positioning nursery daycare system reform in the changing
socioeconomic context of Japan ................................................................................ 36
2.1 The public nature of Japan’s nursery center system and recent changes it has
undergone .................................................................................................................... 36
2.1.1 Public responsibility for child-rearing under Japan’s nursery center system:
preconditions for realizing the best interests of young children ............................ 36
2.1.2 The M-shaped employment rate among Japanese women and Measures
Against the Declining Birthrate that “attempts to bring about gender justice” .... 41
2.1.3 The relaxation of regulations in the approved nursery center system, as part
of social security structural reform, and its negative impact on young children’s
best interests .............................................................................................................. 47
2.1.4 Nursery teachers employed by local governments as “the government-created
working poor”: the background............................................................................... 51
2.2 The structural reform of Japan’s social security system that has occurred since
the late 1990s, and its implications for the best interests of young children ......... 58
2.2.1 Changes in Japan’s socioeconomic environment and a paradigm shift in the
social security structure............................................................................................ 58
2.2.2 Policy of holding down social security costs under the fiscal structural reform
................................................................................................................................... 60
2.2.3 Introduction of the principle of self-responsibility as part of the basic
structural reform of the social welfare system in Japan ......................................... 61
2.2.3.1 Emergence of a contract-based welfare society: from measures to contract
............................................................................................................................... 63
2.2.3.2 The continued responsibility of public institutions in terms of the right to
life (article 25 of the constitution) ......................................................................... 65
2.2.3.3 Legal quality of daycare service contracts, after privatization: the
administrative responsibility remains unchanged .................................................. 66
2.2.3.4 Public responsibility for the funding of welfare service management, based
on the right to the pursuit of happiness (article 13 of the constitution) ................. 69
xii
2.3 Aggressive reductions in social security expenditures under “the honebuto
basic reform policy” and the implications of this for Japan’s MADB .................. 70
2.3.1 Debates on “the honebuto basic reform policy” and increased contributions
by individuals ............................................................................................................ 70
2.3.2 Disparities in parental incomes and child poverty ......................................... 74
2.3.3 Current public expenditure situation with regard to MADB in Japan ......... 76
2.3.4 Request for revision of the social security benefits policy and for the national
commission for social security to guarantee the provision of the necessary fiscal
resources ................................................................................................................... 78
Chapter 3. Selecting international standards for daycare quality under the
UNCRC framework .................................................................................................... 83
3.1 The UNCRC and its implications for young children ....................................... 83
3.1.1 The UNCRC and its monitoring body the CRC ............................................. 83
3.1.2 The original policy design for implementation: the parent-child-state
tripartite framework ................................................................................................. 85
3.2 The impediments to ensuring the effective implementation of the UNCRC: a
lack of clarity of the “best interests” principle and the risk this poses to young
children ........................................................................................................................ 89
3.2.1 The “best interests” principle of the UNCRC ................................................ 89
3.2.2 The principle’s indeterminacy and the implications of this for young children
................................................................................................................................... 91
3.3 The CRC’s approach to restrengthen the role of parents and states parties .. 93
3.3.1 The recommendations that emerged from the DGDs (2002, 2004) and General
Comment No.7 (2005) .............................................................................................. 93
3.3.2 Signaling the significance of the support that professional caregivers can
offer parents .............................................................................................................. 94
3.3.3 Encouraging public-private partnership in support of states parties ............ 97
3.4 The CRC’s contribution to ensuring effective fulfillment of young children’s
best interests .............................................................................................................. 101
xiii
3.5 The selection of internationally applicable standards for measuring quality in
center-based childcare .............................................................................................. 103
3.5.1 Methodology .................................................................................................. 103
3.5.2 A review and summary of some of the relevant literature ........................... 105
3.5.3 Common findings in the cross-national literature ....................................... 108
3.6 Measuring the quality of Japan’s nursery daycare against international
standards ................................................................................................................... 111
3.6.1 Selected areas of international quality standards for comparison .............. 111
3.6.2 Selected aspects/indicators of respective quality areas ................................ 112
3.6.2.1 Structural Quality ..................................................................................... 112
3.6.2.2 Process Quality ........................................................................................ 113
3.6.2.3 Staff Working Conditions ........................................................................ 114
3.6.3 The application of assigned existing international standards to each area 114
3.6.3.1 Existing international standards and Structural Quality .......................... 114
3.6.3.2 Existing international standards and Process Quality .............................. 117
3.6.3.3 Existing international standards and Staff Working Conditions ............. 119
3.6.4 Explanations of the aspects/indicators of each quality areas ...................... 120
3.6.4.1 Explanations of the aspects/indicators of Structural Quality ................... 120
3.6.4.2 Explanations for the aspects/indicators used Process Quality ................. 125
3.6.4.3 Explanations of aspects/indicators of Staff Working Conditions ............ 128
Chapter 4. Measuring the quality of Japan’s nursery daycare ............................ 131
4.1 Introduction ........................................................................................................ 131
4.2 Japan’s current mechanism for ensuring the quality of nursery daycare: four
elements and their respective requirements ........................................................... 131
4.3 Recent fact-finding surveys and empirical studies that have been conducted on
Japanese approved nursery centers ........................................................................ 133
4.3.1 The 2008 Survey of the National Council of Nursery Daycare ................... 134
4.3.2 The 2009 Survey of the Benesse Corporation .............................................. 135
xiv
4.3.3 The 2009 Oshima Project Report on the quality of nursery daycare services
................................................................................................................................. 135
4.3.4 The 2009 Sadayuki report on the residential functions of nursery centers 137
4.4 Comparison between international and Japanese standards in Structural
Quality: (1) group size and (2) staff-child ratio ..................................................... 139
4.5 Comparison between international and Japanese standards in Structural
Quality: (3) staff qualification and training ........................................................... 145
4.5.1 Present daycare conditions in Japan and how they relate to standards of “staff
qualification and training” .................................................................................... 147
4.5.1.1 Acquisition of nursery teacher‘s qualification ......................................... 147
4.5.1.2 The 2009 Oshima Project study regarding nursery teacher development 151
4.5.1.3 The Keidanren‘s and Pasona‘s requests to the Cabinet Office for
deregulation ......................................................................................................... 154
4.5.1.4 The 2009 SSC-STF Report ...................................................................... 156
4.6 Comparison between international and Japanese standards in Structural
Quality: (4) quality of materials and environments .............................................. 160
4.6.1 Present daycare conditions in Japan and how they relate to standards on
“quality of materials and environments” .............................................................. 161
4.6.1.1 Introduction of the flexible enrollment system for children who are on
nursery centers waiting lists, and how this impacts daycare environments ......... 161
4.6.1.2 Results of the 2009 Sadayuki report on the residential functions of nursery
centers .................................................................................................................. 165
4.6.1.3 Cabinet Office Advisory Committee‘s recommendation to abolish
minimum standards and series of urgent appeals of objection from nursery daycare
groups ................................................................................................................... 167
4.6.1.4 The MHLW‘s response to the recommendation and that occupancy
standards in large cities be relaxed as a temporary measure ............................... 170
4.6.1.5 Certified nursery centers in Tokyo—scandals involving three operators 173
4.7 Comparison between international and Japanese standards in Structural
Quality: (5) public funding ...................................................................................... 180
4.8 Comparison between international and Japanese standards in Process
Quality: (6) the presence of curricular materials and learning activities ........... 182
4.8.1 Present daycare conditions in Japan and how they relate to Standard (6): the
presence of curricular materials and learning activities ...................................... 183
xv
4.8.1.1 The revised GND designed to improve the quality of nursery daycare: two
characteristics ....................................................................................................... 183
4.8.1.2 Contents of nursery daycare in the 2008 GND ........................................ 187
4.8.1.3 Concrete outcomes outlined in the 2008 GND concerning the improvement
of daycare quality ................................................................................................. 188
4.8.1.4 Action programs 2008-2012 by the national government and local
governments ......................................................................................................... 190
4.9 Comparison between international and Japanese standards process quality:
(7) interaction between child and caregiver ........................................................... 192
4.9.1 The present conditions in Japan in relation to Standard (7) interaction
between child and caregiver ................................................................................... 193
4.9.1.1 The child in a ―dynamic existence that continues growing‖ in the GND 193
4.9.1.2 The nursery teacher as the implementer of Edu-care............................... 196
4.9.1.3 Introduction of the third-party evaluation system for welfare services ... 197
4.9.1.4 Evaluation of nursery centers undertaken by HYK ................................. 199
4.10 Comparison between international and Japanese standards in the area of
Staff Working Conditions: (8) caregiver’s salary and benefits ............................ 202
4.10.1 Present condition of male nursery teachers in Japan ............................... 205
4.11 Comparison between international and Japanese standards in area of staff
working conditions (9) opportunities to participate in professional development
and in-service training ............................................................................................. 207
4.12 Comparison between international and Japanese standards in area of staff
working conditions (10) caregiver’s work satisfaction and (11) annual turnover
rates of caregivers and directors ............................................................................. 210
Chapter 5. Conclusion: recommendations for how Japan can ensure the quality of
its nursery daycare ................................................................................................... 213
5.1 Deterioration of nursery teachers working conditions, despite the greater
responsibility of nursery teachers as stipulated in the 2008 GND ....................... 214
5.2 Change forced on the 2009 government pledge “Child Allowance Policy” due
to shortage of funds: Japan’s fiscal crisis and demographic challenges ............. 217
5.3 New measures to support child-rearing of the JDP-led administration
unveiled: roadblocks to realize the integration of kindergartens and nursery
centers and to ensure the necessary funds.............................................................. 221
xvi
5.4 Proposals regarding Japan’s response to the daycare challenges .................. 226
5.4.1 The need to tackle three unattained items that are outlined in the 2008
UNICEF benchmarks ............................................................................................ 226
5.4.2 Ensuring proactive public support and assistance to small-scale daycare
service providers and the imposition of obligatory third-party evaluations ......... 227
Appendix 1: Classification of Daycare Services in Japan ..................................... 232
Appendix 2: Ten 2008 UNICEF Benchmarks and Forty 1996 EC Targets ........ 235
Appendix 3: Minimum Standards for Child Welfare Institution, Chapters 1 and 5
(Extracted Articles concerning Daycare at Nursery Centers).............................. 243
Appendix 4: The Guidelines for Nursery Daycare, Chapter 3 ............................. 250
List of references ....................................................................................................... 260
xvii
List of tables
Table 1: Lawsuits seeking the nullification of
pubic nursery centers‘ privatization 26-27
Table 2: Comparison of Staff-child Ratio Standards
(International Standards / Japan Standards MSCWI) 143
Table 3: Comparison of Japanese Wage Structures
(Nursery Teachers / All Industries) 159
Table 4: Comparison of Spatial/Residential Environments
(The 1996 EC Target 32 and Art. 32 of Japan‘s MSCWI) 161
Table 5: Minimum Standards for Indoor Space per Person
for Children Aged 3 Years or Older 164
Table 6: Cumulated Public Spending per Child in USD
(Comparison of Japan and the OECD average) 181
Table 7: Comparison of Japanese Wage Structures by Occupation
(The all-industry averages, nursery teachers, elderly care workers,
kindergarten teachers, and high school teachers) 204
xviii
List of abbreviations
CRC The Committee on the Rights of the Child (a monitoring body of the
UNCRC)
DGD Day of General Discussion (a periodical, thematic meeting
coordinated by the CRC)
ECEC Early Childhood Education and Care
GC General Comments (the CRC‘s documents on thematic issues for
interpreting the UNCRC provisions)
GND The Guidelines for Nursery Daycare (Hoikusho hoiku shishin, a set
of Japanese standards on ―Process Quality‖)
MADB Measures against the Declining Birthrate (Shoshika taisaku)
MHLW The Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare of Japan (Kosei rodo
sho)
MSCWI The Minimum Standards for Child Welfare Institutions (Jido fukushi
shisetsu saiteikijun, a set of Japanese standards on ―Structural
Quality‖)
OECD Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development
UNCRC The United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (1989)
1
Chapter 1. Introduction
1.1 Background and purpose of the study
In the average OECD country, approximately 80% of children aged between
three and six receive some kind of early childhood education and care (ECEC) outside
their homes. Indeed, ECEC is becoming increasingly popular, even for younger
children (in the average OECD country, about 25% of children under three years of
age receive ECEC). Centers are also open later than they ever have been, and the
number of centers that provide ECEC is growing rapidly.1 At the same time, the
global economy has become more competitive, and thus knowledge has become an
increasingly valuable commodity. Against this background, ECEC has progressively
become more important. It allows women to enter into the workforce and still have
children—improving the work/life balance for most parents—therefore acting as a
countermeasure against declining birthrates. But ECEC is also regarded as an
investment in future human resources as well as a precautionary measure that reduces
levels of social exclusion among children.2 Nonetheless, in many countries, when
ECEC services are expanded, provision for this expansion is often assigned to
non-state (often, for-profit) service providers because governments are concerned
about reducing administrative costs and improving the efficiency of public services.3
1 UNICEF 2008, 3.
2 See OECD 2006, Chapter 1.
3 See OECD 2006, Chapter 5.
2
Japan is no exception to this trend. In recent years, center-based daycare has
become particularly important in Japan as the social concern for Japan‘s looming
demographic problem—a rapidly expanding aged population dependent on a
diminishing labor force (owing to steadily declining birthrates) for support—is on the
rise. Daycare services in Japan, which are classified in Appendix 1, have increasingly
been regarded as an indispensable way of encouraging women to bear (more) children
and to remain in the workforce while their children are young. Therefore, increased
provision for nursery daycare that is well balanced in terms of quantity and quality has
come to be considered as not only a means to deal with the declining birthrate but also
as an important political challenge to decide the near future of Japanese society.
Japan‘s change in policy toward the system of approved nursery centers in 1997
reflects this perception. Until then, the system had operated entirely within state
control as part of the child welfare policy. However, Japan later implemented
processes of privatization within this system of approved nursery centers.
By privatizing approved public nursery centers4 and initiating a deregulation of
daycare services, the government hoped to address the dual issues of daycare quantity
and quality in Japan—(i.e., more daycare services and facilities with adequate quality).
Even after September 2009, when the governing party in Japan changed and the
reformist parties came into power, the policy of opening the nursery daycare system
4 Japan‘s privatization of approved public nursery centers implies, in a narrow sense, that the entities
responsible for establishing such centers have been changed from local governments to private entities.
However, in a broad sense, it also includes cases where the establisher remains a local government while
the operation of such centers is wholly or partly consigned to a private entity. In this study, the broader
meaning is adopted. In this context, ―privatization of public nursery centers‖ as used here includes
consignment of operation to private entities, in addition to assignment and transfer of such centers to
private entities.
3
up for privatization—which had been proposed by Japan‘s business community under
the previous conservative LDP administration—continued to be implemented.5
Traditionally, the provision of ECEC services has varied considerably from
country to country in accordance with individual cultural and historical attitudes
toward concepts of childrearing and childhood. However, as the economy becomes
increasingly globalized, there is mounting pressure to ensure a level of consistency
between ECEC policies of OECD countries. Additionally, there are concerns that
privatized ECEC services tend to prioritize the reduction of operational costs over
other more important quality-based issues: Most OECD countries have also
encountered other similar challenges with regard to ensuring the quality of their ECEC
services. This is particularly true in terms of deciding how ECEC quality should be
assessed (what elements should be evaluated), how far should the provision of the
ECEC extend, and how should quality ECEC services be ensured.
In Japan, the government has been accused of prioritizing capacity (quantity)
concerns over quality concerns when establishing its daycare policies. As the nursery
system was undergoing privatization,6 it became increasingly clear to both researchers
and administrative officers that identifying appropriate ways to define and measure
daycare quality was essential to providing an effective system.7 If adequate quantity
and quality of daycare services and facilities are made available, the number of
5 In the Diet session of March 2010, as part of the parent-subsidy model, the publicly funded ―Child
Allowance‖ policy was enacted. For details, see section 5.2 of this dissertation. 6 Specifically, the 1997 revision of Child Welfare Act, the 2000 revision of Social Welfare Service Act
and the 2006 enactment of the Preschool Education Promotion Act constitute major turning points. 7 For recent sudden increase of empirical study reports, see section 4.3; also, for recent strong emphasis
on daycare quality by the Japanese Social Security Council, a consultative body to the Health, Labour and
Welfare Minister (the 2009 SSC-STF Report), see sections 4.2 and 4.5.1.4 of this dissertation.
4
working mothers in Japan will increase rapidly (owing, in part, to the sluggish
economy). If available daycare services are insufficient or only provide low quality
care, women may withdraw from the workforce to bear and raise children, or they
might decide not to have children in order to remain in the workforce. However, the
Japanese government has yet to address issues of daycare quality directly.
For example, in November 2009, the Japanese economy had undergone a severe
downturn, and the government was forced to make dramatic cuts to its budget. To help
reduce their expenditure on ECEC services, the Japanese government endorsed a
temporary relaxation of national standards for approved nursery centers so that more
children might be permitted in each approved nursery center therefore reducing the
number of children on waiting lists for nursery center enrollment. In essence, this had
the effect of degrading the overall quality of nursery daycare that was provided in
those centers, albeit only in selected urban areas that had large numbers of children on
nursery center waiting lists.8 Despite the immediate expression of strong concerns and
opposition from various associations related to ECEC, the temporary policy change
resulted in a relaxation of standards on occupancy space per child (which essentially
led to an increase in group size) under the pretext that it was part of a wider attempt to
―decentraliz[e] power from central government to local governments.‖ Despite the fact
that most of the opposition to this policy change was based on data found in an
empirical study report of March 2009, which was sponsored by the Ministry of Health,
Labour, and Welfare (MHLW), the relaxation of quality regulations was introduced
without any examination of daycare quality. Indeed, no research was conducted as to
8 For details, see section 4.6.1 of this dissertation.
5
whether, and to what extent, such relaxation would affect the development of
attending children.
It is against this background that this study has been produced, and it is hoped
that the proposed measures outlined in this study will help ensure that the quality of
Japan‘s nursery daycare will meet international standards from the standpoint of the
obligations of states parties as stipulated in the 1989 United Nations Convention on
the Rights of the Child (UNCRC).
The UNCRC is the UN‘s center of children‘s international human rights.
Regarding the provision of ECEC services, the Committee on the Rights of the Child
(CRC)—a monitoring body of the UNCRC—has confirmed the following two points
in its 2002 Recommendations and 2005 General Comments: Responsibilities to
respect and ensure the principles and provisions of the UNCRC extend beyond the
state to individuals and other non-state actors. Further, even when the services
provision is delegated to non-state actors, states parties have the primary, legal
obligation to ensure that non-state service providers operate in conformity with the
UNCRC by way of creating indirect obligations on them and monitoring the quality of
ECEC services.
While this understanding of ECEC provision lies at the heart of our
recommendations, we also acknowledge the fact that national policies on child and
family welfare are likely to reflect the historic, cultural, and social contexts of the
respective countries. Like many industrialized countries, Japan faces a number of
alarming signs of widespread ―family dysfunction,‖ such as rapidly increasing levels
6
of child abuse and domestic violence. However, according to its own contexts, Japan
should be able to construct a solution that is uniquely suited to its particular set of
challenges.
1.2 Research question, structure, and methods of the study
In order to effectively measure the quality of Japan‘s nursery daycare in the
context of international standards, we explore the following research questions in this
study: To what extent does Japan comply with international standards on daycare
quality? Are there international standards that Japan should be permitted exemptions
from, and if exemptions are appropriate, what is the rationale for such exemptions?
The structure and methods of this study are as follows.
In the following sections of this chapter, we review the relevant
government-commissioned empirical studies that have assessed quality factors, and
data from which have been used as evidential justification of the government‘s
privatization policy. We also examine several lawsuits filed by parents of attending
children, on the grounds that the privatization of public nursery centers has led to
deterioration in the quality of nursery daycare received by their children.
In Chapter 2, against the background of the changing socioeconomic context,
we describe Japan‘s approved nursery daycare system and trace the reforms it has
recently undergone in order to clarify how and why nursery daycare no longer remains
under full state control. In addition, the implications of these recent reforms for young
7
children attending the nursery centers are examined, particularly from the viewpoint of
the children‘s best interests.
In Chapter 3, we first examine the requirements that the UNCRC set out for
both state parties and non-state actors, in terms of ensuring the quality of ECEC. The
international standards for daycare quality are then examined—within the framework
of the UNCRC—in relation to the following questions: What should quality cover?
How far should quality extend? How should quality be ensured? After looking into
recent major cross-national reviews, reports, and policy proposals concerning ECEC
quality in OECD countries, this chapter extracts three areas of quality (―Structural
Quality,‖ ―Process Quality,‖ and ―Staff Working Conditions‖). Two sets of
international standards are then applied to each indicator of the aforementioned three
quality areas: the 2008 UNICEF benchmarks and—as a complementary Europe-based,
cross-national set of standards—the 1996 EC targets.
In Chapter 4, we then compare the 11 items (indicators) of the international
standards and Japan‘s current nursery daycare standards. On the basis of an analysis of
the most recent Japanese surveys and empirical studies (which exclusively focused on
daycare quality and were made public in 2008 and 2009), we clarify international
daycare quality standards and demonstrate clearly to what extent Japan‘s daycare
quality falls short of those standards.
In Chapter 5, we discuss exactly how the Japanese government should address
improving Japan‘s daycare quality, so that Japan might measure up to the international
standards. Against the background of the UNCRC core concepts, we further propose
8
several policy options that should be considered by the Japanese government and
non-state stakeholders of daycare services, if they are to improve their daycare quality
to an internationally acceptable level, while fulfilling the urgent need for more
daycares (quantity).
This study is the first detailed examination of Japan‘s nursery daycare policies
under the framework of the UNCRC written in English. The introduction of a daycare
quality assessment method to Japan—one that is based on international
standards—serves as a useful basis both for the smooth formulation and
implementation of nursery policies that ensure daycare provisions (in terms of quantity
and quality) and to provide a benchmark against which reasonable judicial rulings can
be made on the basis of the ―the best interests of the child,‖ one of the core principles
in the UNCRC. Furthermore, it will also help provide some insights into how
stakeholders of nursery daycare in OECD countries are able to ensure that daycare
quality takes children‘s best interests into account while also considering the historic,
cultural, and social contexts of respective countries.
1.3 Review of previous studies and analyses of judgments of relevant lawsuits
As Roger Goodman emphasizes in his study published in 2000, ―virtually
nothing has been written in English, not only on the child welfare services but indeed
on personal social services in Japan in general,‖9 except introductory documents and
9 Goodman 2000, 3-4.
9
data without contextual explanations, issued by various Japanese government agencies.
Moreover, in March 2003, Japan‘s National Institute of Population and Social Security
Research—an affiliated body of the MHLW—described the situation in terms of data
availability on Japanese daycare as follows: ―In Japan, the study focusing on the
quality of childcare provided by daycare centers has only just begun and no reliable
data [are] available. ... The data on the quality of care provided by non-licensed
daycare centers are virtually nonexistent.‖10
However, since this was published, two exceptions—in the form of study
reports commissioned by the Japanese government in March and May 2003—have
been published in the public domain. In the following sections, we critically analyze
these study reports in terms of assessing daycare quality.
1.3.1 The economy & fiscal report (2005) and the background report of the
Cabinet Office (May 2003)
1.3.1.1 A trial calculation of “the productivity of nursery centers”
The expression ―the productivity of nursery centers‖ was used in the ―Annual
Economy & Fiscal Report—No Reform, No Growth V‖ for FY 2005.11
The report
was presented in the Cabinet meeting by Mr. Heizo Takenaka, the then minister in
10
NIPSSR 2004, 41. This booklet itself covers, with abundant quantities of demographic data, overall
policies regarding welfare of families with children in Japan as of 2003. However, as an introductory
booklet, it lacks a sociologically and historically contextualized examination of the policies as well as
up-to-date information and evidence of Japan‘s daycare policies and practices.
Akita et al. in 2008 also clarified that Japanese research on ―quality in ECEC‖ has focused mainly on
issues of quality that are related to professional development in terms of practical understanding of
children at nursery centers, and what constitutes professional development for early childhood teachers.
[Akita et al. 2008, 302.] 11
Cabinet Office, July 2005, 182-183.
10
charge of economic and fiscal policies, and it was published in July 2005 by the
Cabinet Office, which was responsible for dealing with the declining birthrate.
We might preface our discussion of the ECEC quality standards in Japan and the
effect of privatization on them by asking why an intense level of public involvement is
required in the services provided in fields such as medical services, nursing care,
education, and nursery. These public services are clearly related to people‘s basic
human rights including life, health, and equal opportunity in education. Due to the
asymmetry in the information available to—on the one hand—the providers of these
services and—on the other hand—the users of these services (the former having much
more information than the latter), it is sometimes difficult for users to make an
informed decision with regard to their own services. In light of this situation, the ―No
Reform, No Growth‖ report advocates the promotion of a shift ―from the public to the
private sector‖ (the opening up of public services to privatization) will help improve
the efficiency of the provision of these services and offer more options for consumers.
This recommendation is made with the acknowledgement that a certain level of public
regulations, thorough disclosure of information, and third-party evaluations are
essential parts of the privatization process.
This position was arrived at based on arguments outlined in the ―Analytical
Report on Economic Effects of Policies No. 16,‖12
which was published in May 2003
by the Director General on Policy Planning of the Cabinet Office (who is responsible
for conducting the policy analysis of economic and fiscal policies). This 2003 report
was entitled the ―Economic Effects of Regulatory Reforms on Services including
12
DGPP of the Cabinet Office, May2003.
11
Medical Services, Nursing Care, and Nursery Daycare—a trial calculation for
studying entry into these fields by such entities as stock companies.‖ In this 2003
report, ―the productivity gap between the public and the private sectors‖ in these
controlled markets at the initiative of government agencies (kansei-shijo) was
analyzed with stochastic frontier production functions and a trial calculation was made.
The calculation indicated that private businesses could achieve ―higher
productivity.‖13
According to the stochastic frontier function framework, the higher the
production level for labor and capital input, the more efficient is a business.
Conversely, any nursery center that has invested in more production factors than other
nursery centers, but yet only generates the same amount of output as others, is
regarded as inefficient and far less productive. With regard to nursery centers, this
2003 report defined the ―production output‖ (of daycare services) in terms of a
calculation that multiplied the number of children enrolled in a center by its operating
hours. The report then measured the efficiency gap, where ―labor‖ (defined by a
calculation where the number of nursery teachers in any one center was multiplied by
their weekly working hours) and ―capital‖ (defined as the total area made up of
nursery rooms, baby rooms, and outdoor play yards) were defined as the production
factors. The report concluded that the productivity of the average private center
(referring to both nursery centers that are ―privately run‖ and ―non-approved nursery
13
DGPP of the Cabinet Office, May2003, 38-42.
12
centers that are supported by subsidies‖)14
is 21.1% higher than the average publicly
run center.
1.3.1.2 The conceptual basis of the May 2003 report
The following section details the assumptions underlay the trial calculation that
was made in the May 2003 report. One of the most significant reasons why there was
an increase in the number of children waiting to be enrolled in the centers is that the
supply (of nursery daycare) did not, and does not, meet demand. As the preceding two
studies on this topic noted,15
a major obstacle to increasing supply is the fact that
publicly run centers have been found to be less productive. In approved centers, the
operating hours of publicly run centers are shorter than those that are privately run,
and thus, they tend to attract fewer enrollments from small children (children under
two years); despite this, the operating costs are higher for publicly run centers.16
For this reason, the May 2003 report recommends that other private entities
aside from social welfare corporations (shakai fukushi hojin) be encouraged to enter
the market of operating approved centers. It is hoped that the increased levels of
competition will provide incentives for the centers to become more streamlined than
the existing centers that are run by public entities and social welfare corporations and 14
According to the definitions of several types of centers used in the May 2003 report, child-welfare
facilities built pursuant to Article 35 of the Child Welfare Act are ―approved (ninka) nursery centers,‖ and
of these, centers run by local governments are ―publicly run nursery centers‖ and those run by other
entities than local governments (primarily social welfare corporations) are ―private-run nursery centers.‖
On the other hand, facilities which perform the same type of services as nursery centers but have not been
approved as such by their respective prefectural governors are deemed ―non-approved (ninka-gai)
nursery centers.‖ Of such ―non-approved nursery centers,‖ those that satisfy independently set
requirements and receive subsidies from local governments are defined as ―non-approved nursery centers
supported by subsidies.‖ And ―private-run nursery centers‖ and ―non-approved nursery centers supported
by subsidies‖ are collectively called ―private nursery centers‖ in this report. 15
Shiraishi and Suzuki 2002, and PPD-SPB of the Cabinet Office, March 2003. 16
DGPP of the Cabinet Office, May 2003, 35.
13
that this will then boost the centers‘ productivity. Furthermore, the report
recommended that the diversification of financing schemes be permitted so that larger
sums of money can be made available to invest in equipment and other resources. It is
hoped that this will trigger a ―provision of nursery daycare services of higher quality
through the use of IT and other means.‖ As we explore more fully below, the
assumption that has often been made in forming nursery daycare policy is that services
of higher quality will follow automatically from material investments (such as the
installation of monitoring cameras in nursery rooms and outdoor play yards to protect
children, e-mail communication with parents, and disclosure of information about the
centers through websites). Not only this, but it is hoped that this will also increase
capacity, which will alleviate the problem of long waiting lists.
In addition, there are families that have given up even enrolling their children in
daycare—despite the fact that they need it—because nursery center places are in such
short supply at the moment. If we include these children as well as those actually on a
waiting list,17
it is presumed that—to meet demand—there is a need to employ
261,000 new nursery teachers.
17
The 2003 report estimates the potential female workforce as follows:
In Japan, the percentages of working women by age bracket make a so-called ―M-shaped curve.‖
According to the 2002 White Paper on Female Labor of the MHLW, the percentage of working
women aged between 30 and 34—the bottom age bracket of the M-shaped curve for giving birth and
child rearing—is 57.1%. However, if we add to this age group the potential female workforce (i.e.,
women who are willing to work but prevented from doing so by not having access to nursery
daycare), the percentage rises to 81.5%.
DGPP of the Cabinet Office, May 2003, 41, note 39. In terms of M-shaped curve, see section 2.1.2 of
this dissertation.
14
1.3.1.3 Some concerns about the handling of data in the May 2003 report
In the May 2003 report, the significance of daycare quality—or how qualitative
factors in the production of nursery services should be treated—was duly recognized;
nonetheless, there remain some concerns that the report failed to outline precisely
what action should be taken to define a quality assessment process.
First, the most significant concern is over the paucity of available data. The May
2003 report used data from 266 centers, excluding those of ―non-approved centers not
supported by subsidies from local governments‖; these data were collated from the
―Survey concerning the Environment and Current Situation of Nursery Daycare
Services,‖18
which was conducted by the Japan Center for Economic Research
(JCER) in the period between February and April 2002. This number makes up only a
tiny proportion of the total number of approved centers in April 2002, which stood at
22,272.19
The next biggest concern with the JCER 2002 survey is that there appears to be
no thorough method used when assessing ―daycare quality.‖ In other words, it is
unclear whether the survey accurately measured the actual daycare provided by
nursery teachers and its effects on the children who attended the centers; instead, the
survey has collected and classified available and self-reported data from adults, that is,
directors of centers and parents. This may creates potential for conflict of interest in
terms of garnering unbiased data.
18
Shiraishi and Suzuki 2002. See also Shiraishi et al. 2003. 19
MHLW 2002 (September 20). As of April 2009, the total number of approved centers is 22,925.
MHLW 2009 (September 7).
15
Following the ―Third-Party Evaluation Standards at Child Welfare Institutions,‖
which were established by the MHLW in August 2001,20
the JCER 2002 survey
outlined the following four areas, each of which should be analyzed separately to
classify and evaluate ―the qualities of nursery daycare services for each recipient
category‖21
:
*For Children: 9 items (Health Management-1, Daycare Menus-7, and Daycare
Environment-1);
*For Parents: 10 items (Parental Convenience-5 and Communication and
Information Sharing with Parents-5);
*For Communities: 6 items (Support for Child-rearing for Communities-2 and
Interaction Menus with Communities-4); and
*Operation and Management of the Center: 6 items (Safety Management and
Operation of the Center-4 and Capability Building of Nursery Teachers-2).
Despite the fact that the MHLW model guidelines recommend that third-party
evaluations are made via visits to the centers by trained expert surveyors, the JCER
2002 survey was conducted via mail, and directors of the selected centers completed
the questionnaires they received and sent them back anonymously. It was in this way
that the data ―could be objectively scored‖22
and the 31 evaluation criteria23
were
used to assess the overall quality of services.
The survey originally selected randomly a total of 4,131 centers that were
located in the metropolitan areas of four administrative prefectures (Tokyo, Saitama,
Kanagawa, and Chiba) and all of which had a large number of children on the waiting
20
See section 4.9.1.3 of this dissertation. 21
Shiraishi and Suzuki 2005, pdf version, 6. 22
Shiraishi and Suzuki 2005, pdf version, 4. 23
Shiraishi and Suzuki 2002, 24. Table 2.
16
list. The breakdown by type of the centers that were surveyed was public (2,060),
private (1,294), and non-approved (777). In addition to the 31 survey items detailed
above, the survey asked for information regarding the number of children that were
enrolled in each center (broken down by age bracket), center operating hours, the
number of nursery teachers (broken down by regular and temporary statuses),
dimensional area of their buildings and outdoor play yards, and amounts of subsidies
received from their respective municipal governments.
According to the May 2003 report, these figures—extracted as production
figures from the JCER 2002 survey data—―cannot be fully reliable.‖ This unreliability
is partly due to the fact that the response rate to the JCER 2002 survey was only
16.7%. However, at the same time, the 2003 report regarded one qualitative factor of
the 2002 survey—actual weekday operating hours, including ―extended hours‖—as
valid.24
In addition, the May 2003 report went on to state that ―while it is important to
evaluate the qualities of services provided [in respective centers], we had to proceed
with our analysis on the assumption that such qualities were equal due to limitations
on the use of data.‖25
The same 2003 report then went on to calculate ―productivity of
daycare services,‖ in the same manner as described in section 1.3.1.1.
24
DGPP of the Cabinet Office, May 2003, 38. 25
DGPP of the Cabinet Office, May 2003, 39.
17
1.3.2 The report of the Cabinet Office’s study group (March 2003)
1.3.2.1 Japan’s first empirical analysis of the cost-effectiveness of daycare
services with quality factors taken into account
At the same time that the May 2003 report was being finalized, another division
of the Cabinet Office published a different report in March of the same year. This
report detailed the findings of a study that had been conducted into the costs of
daycare. The ―study group on the prices of daycare services‖ had been initiated in May
2002 by the Price Policy Division of the Social Policy Bureau of the Cabinet Office,
and the study group was led by Mr. Naohiro Yashiro, then Chairperson of the JCER.
Based on micro-level data that were originally collected by this study group, the group
compiled a report titled ―Current Situations and Challenges of the Daycare Services
Market,‖26
which analyzed the cost-effectiveness of daycare services, taking
qualitative factors into account; this report was ―the first such undertaking in Japan.‖27
The study group made a full-scale, comprehensive positive analysis of daycare to
better understand how high-quality but low-cost daycare services might be realized
efficiently. The study was based on collected data from both the supply side
(individual nursery centers, and other daycare facilities) and the demand side
(individual parents) of daycare services.
26
PPD-SPB of the Cabinet Office 2003. 27
PPD-SPB of the Cabinet Office 2003, Honron [Body text], 3. (Available at:
http://www.caa.go.jp/seikatsu/price/hoiku/honbun.pdf.)
18
According to Suzuki,28
a member of the study group who also participated in
the abovementioned JCER 2002 survey, the group visited municipal governments,
explained its intent, and in the form of a request from the Cabinet Office, collected
financial data from each nursery center located in nearly all municipalities in the 10
prefectures in and around the Kanto region (Tokyo, Kanagawa, Saitama, Chiba,
Shizuoka, Nagano, Yamanashi, Gunma, Tochigi and Ibaraki). Twenty per cent of the
public centers that were assessed and 40% of the private centers in these
municipalities were selected at random. After this data had been collected, large-sized
micro-level data—including the operating costs of the respective centers as well as
wages/salaries of nursery teachers and other employees transcribed from their payroll
books—were collected. In addition, the Cabinet Office sent direct requests to
quasi-approved and non-approved daycare facilities as part of the survey.
This was a significant study as it was the first of its kind to use large-sized,
reliable, micro-level data in a comprehensive manner in Japan.29
However, despite the
fact that various diagrams are attached to the report, which are based on the analyzed
figures and titled ―Technical Notes,‖30
the details of raw data, including the total
number of surveyed centers and the collected replies from parents, were not published
in the report.
28
Shiraishi and Suzuki 2005, pdf version, 15. 29
PPD-SPB of the Cabinet Office 2003, Honron [Body text], 10. (Available at:
http://www.caa.go.jp/seikatsu/price/hoiku/honbun.pdf.) 30
See PPD-SPB of the Cabinet Office 2003, TN1-1—TN7.
19
1.3.2.2 The qualitative evaluation of daycare services from the March 2003
report
With regard to the qualitative evaluation criteria, the study group‘s survey
followed many of the qualitative characteristics outlined in the 31 items of the JCER
2002 survey. In addition to clearly using the JCER 2002 survey as a reference, the
group used relevant studies from overseas, in particular the ECERS and other similar
scales.31
These scales were referenced specifically because the group recognized that
they emphasized so-called ―Process Quality,‖ that is, the quality of interactions
between nursery teachers and children, and the quality of the growth environment that
is provided for children at centers. These overseas scales were originally intended to
be used by multiple trained evaluators during physical visits to the centers. Although
the group took a questionnaire placement method, and did not apply these scales in the
way that they were intended, they utilized the scales as reference materials ―to the
fullest extent‖32
possible; they eventually developed 40 items, incorporating new
category items, such as ―Developmental Psychology Characteristics‖ (growth
environment and health/safety management for children). These items will be
described in the next section.
31
The study group listed the following overseas scales: Early Childhood Environmental Rating Scale
(ECERS), Infant/Toddler Environmental Rating Scale (ITERS), Caregiver Interaction Scale (CIS),
Teacher Involvement Scale (TIS), UCLA Early Childhood Observation Form.
PPD-SPB of the Cabinet Office 2003, Technical Note 2-1, ―Hoiku sabisu no shitsu no keisoku‖
[Measuring the Quality of Daycare Services], 2. (Available at:
http://www.caa.go.jp/seikatsu/price/hoiku/tn2-1_honbun.pdf.) 32
PPD-SPB of the Cabinet Office 2003, Technical Note 2-1, ―Hoiku sabisu no shitsu no keisoku‖
[Measuring the Quality of Daycare Services], 2. (Available at:
http://www.caa.go.jp/seikatsu/price/hoiku/tn2-1_honbun.pdf.)
20
In their comparison of the relative qualitative characteristics of the different
types of nursery centers (assessed with a quantitative analysis of the qualities of
daycare services), the quality at public centers was found to exceed their private
counterparts, according to items such as ―nursery teachers‘ abilities and
qualifications,‖ the ―equipment of the centers,‖ and the ―growth environment for
children.‖ On the other hand, the quality at private centers was found to exceed their
public counterparts in terms of items such as ―health and safety management for
children,‖ ―convenience for parents,‖ and ―enrollment of foreign children.‖
As part of the analysis of whether the management of respective services was
performed efficiently, a cost function was then applied to the data to adjust difference
in quality so that their cost analysis can be interpreted as indicating that public centers
spend more than private centers to deliver the same quality.33
This control revealed
that the operating costs for the average public center were around 20% higher than
those of private, quasi-approved, or non-approved centers.
1.3.2.3 Some concerns about the method of measuring daycare quality
deployed in the March 2003 report
It is important that recognition be made of the significant amount of effort that
the group took to construct a reliable data set for the assessment of the management
efficiency of Japanese daycare services. In addition, their recognition of the
33
In the analysis, the cost functions (through the regular Cobb-Douglas and translog functional form) that
had controlled the quality of daycare services were assumed, using the group‘s survey data. Then, a
comparison of cost-effective ratios between public and private centers was made. With regard to the
methodology of quality control, see also Mocan 1995, 410-411.
21
significance of ―Process Quality‖ in selecting their criteria for evaluating daycare
quality was a valuable addition to the assessment of daycare services in Japan.
Despite these significant developments, the March 2003 survey still fell short of
evaluating actual ―Process Quality.‖ That is, the group failed to assess the actual
human relations that occur at nursery centers and the effect that this has on children,
things that can only be evaluated by actually making visits to centers. Instead, with the
exception of the employer-employee-matched survey data on nursery teachers‘
qualifications and their wage-age profiles, the analysis of the March 2003 report seems
to depend mostly (if not entirely) on the available self-reported data from center
directors and parents (the complete set of micro-level data were not published in the
report).
In addition, the study group‘s selection of quality criteria,34
as shown below,
seems to be almost entirely conducted from the viewpoint of the parents as consumers
of daycare services.
Characteristics of Daycare Quality Used in the March 2003 Report
1) Structural Characteristics
A) Abilities and qualifications of nursery teachers
1. Staff-child ratio;
2. Percentage of regular staff members of the staff at the center;
3. Average years of experience of the staff at the center;
34
PPD-SPB of the Cabinet Office 2003, Chart 8-1 ―Hoiku no shitsu ni kansuru shoshihyo‖
[Characteristics of Daycare Quality],1-2. (Available at:
http://www.caa.go.jp/seikatsu/price/hoiku/honbun_zuhyou_3.pdf.)
22
4. Whether the nursery center conducts training for new nursery teachers;
5. Whether the center sends nursery teachers to outside daycare
trainings/academic meetings; and
6. Whether the center encourages and provides opportunities for nursery teachers
to attend training courses to nurture their leadership skills (training to become a
chief nurse, for example).
B) Facilities in the nursery centers
7. Area of the baby room per child;
8. Area of the nursery room per child;
9. Area of outdoor recreation ground (must belong to the center; use of public
parks was not permitted); and
10. Area of the indoor recreation room.
2) Developmental psychology characteristics
A) Developmental environment;
11. Whether the center holds a sports festival;
12. Whether the center organizes outdoor daycare activities (field trips,
potato-digging, etc.);
13. Whether the center organizes swimming pool activities (bathing/swimming);
14. Whether the center organizes dance and rhythm activities;
15. How often outdoor playing activities are held in the center‘s yard, parks, etc.;
and
16. Whether the center has an early childhood education system in place.
B) Health/Safety management for children
17. Whether the center keeps logs of children‘s daily activities;
18. Whether the center implements physical checkups and body measurements of
the children;
23
19. Whether the center provides explanations to parents when children are hurt or
have an accident while in the center;
20. Whether communication notes are used between nursery teachers and parents;
21. Whether the center organizes intra-nursery teachers meetings;
22. Whether the center organizes regular medical checkups for its staff members;
23. Whether the center has contracts with hospital(s) in addition to contract
doctor(s);
24. Whether the center has accident insurance coverage for the children; and
25. Whether the center has monitoring cameras installed in nursery rooms or
playing yards to protect children.
3) Characteristics that enhance parental convenience
26. Distance from the nearest station of public transportation;
27. Length of operating hours;
28. Maximum hours available for extended daycare;
29. Whether daycare is provided during weekends and public holidays;
30. Whether daycare is provided for children recovering from illness;
31. Frequency of meetings/conferences with parents (held on weekdays);
32. Frequency of meetings/conferences with parents held on holidays (Saturdays);
33. Whether the center has a child-rearing support center and provides
child-rearing support and child-rearing consultation services;
34. Whether the center has a complaint counter to respond to parents‘ complaints;
and
35. Whether e-mails are used to communicate with parents.
4) Other characteristics
36. Whether the center provides daycare for disabled children;
24
37. Whether the center provides emergency/temporary daycare services;
38. Whether the center opens its playing yard to residents of the community;
39. Whether the center enrolls foreign children; and
40. Whether the center has a functioning website.
The approach that the group took—of examining quality from the parents‘
viewpoint—is understandable, given that the group‘s primary objective was to find the
most efficient balance between supply and demand of daycare services. However,
even from the viewpoint of parents, this selection can be considered rather limited; for
instance, in choosing a nursery center, it is likely that parents will not only care about
the number of events and activities that a center holds but also care about the way a
center provides for their children‘s intellectual and social growth, which was a topic
not covered by the group‘s scale.
In addition, if the average parent does believe that the methodology deployed at
higher-supply cost centers provide better events and activities than that deployed at
lower-supply-cost centers, then, this might clearly affect the validity of the group‘s
conclusions. In this case, the higher supply costs that public centers incur could be
justified as necessary expenditure. The lower supply costs of private centers, on the
other hand, might then be regarded as reflecting a reduction in nursery staffing.
Because nursery daycare is labor-intensive, higher supply costs might be deemed
acceptable as they would reflect higher wages or higher staff-child ratio.
25
1.3.3 Lawsuits seeking the nullification of approved public nursery centers’
privatization, and their implications for the assessment of nursery daycare
quality
When the management of an approved public nursery center is outsourced to the
private sector, the current regular nursery teachers, who are civil servants, are all
dismissed and replaced with private sector nursery teachers; this usually happens
within a day. Needless to say, sudden and dramatic changes are not easy for young
children to understand, and it often takes time for them to adapt when these events
happen at their nursery centers. ―Houn Netto,‖ an online network for parents
concerned about problems resulting from the abolition and privatization of public
nursery centers (established in March 2007), conducted an Internet-based survey
directed at parents, asking for their opinions on the privatization of approved public
nursery centers, in 2008.35
They received answers from 53 people in 43 municipalities
across the country. Although the answers did not serve as a valid basis for inferring
parents reactions generally due to too small numbers of samples, there were a variety
of responses, including the following accounts from parents: ―Some children refused
to go to the center or moved to another one,‖ ―the children‘s development was held
back‖ and ―it was a tough experience for all concerned, including the parents, children,
and staff.‖36
Indeed, these quotations reflect a wider concern with the on-site confusion
resulting from privatization, which led to some parents filing lawsuits, claiming that
35
Houn-Netto 2009. 36
Asahi Shinbun , February 6, 2009.
26
privatization had brought about a real deterioration in the quality of nursery daycare.
Most of the lawsuits claim that outsourcing was planned without substantive
consultation with parents, and that insufficient time was given for the completion of
the handover of management to the private sector at the relevant nursery centers. Most
of these actions took the form of administrative lawsuits that sought the nullification
of the municipal ordinance that aimed for the abolition of public nursery centers to be
outsourced to the private sector. To date, fifteen actions have been brought in courts
across the country since 2001. These are presented in the following Table 1:
Table 1: Lawsuits seeking the nullification of pubic nursery centers‟ privatization37
Institution of
lawsuit
Defendant Result (for plaintiff)
October 2001 Takaishi City, Osaka Pref. Defeat in the second trial finalized
November
2002
Daito City, Osaka Pref. Defeat in the first trial, victory in the
second trial finalized
December 2003 Hirakata City, Osaka Pref. Defeat in the second trial finalized
February 2004
Yokohama City, Kanagawa
Pref.
Victory in the first trial, defeat in the
second trial, final appeal dismissed
(Virtual victory)
June 2006 Hakodate City, Hokkaido Defeat in the first trial
June 2006 Nerima ward, Tokyo Defeat in the first trial, appealed to a
higher court
June 2006 Itabashi ward, Tokyo Defeat in the first trial, appealed to a
higher court
October 2006 Kawasaki City In dispute in the first trial
December 2006 Kobe City Defeats in the first and second trial,
in dispute in the final appeal
December 2006 Yachiyo City, Chiba Pref. Defeat in the first trial
December 2006 Osaka City, Osaka Pref. In dispute in the first trial
April 2007 Ebetsu City, Hokkaido In dispute in the first trial
37
Table 1 is based on the following information: Tamura 2007, 8-9; Osaka Yomiuri Shinbun,
November 17, 2007; Asahi Shinbun, February 6, 2009; Sendai District Court 2009; Asahi Shinbun,
November 27, 2009; Kobe Shinbun, March 13, 2010.
27
November
2007
Yao City, Osaka Pref. In dispute in the first trial
June 2008 Amagasaki City, Hyogo
Pref.
In dispute in the first trial
December 2008 Sendai City, Miyagi Pref. Defeat in the first trial
1.3.3.1 “Quality of Daycare” as the right to choose a specific nursery center
Among these lawsuits were two cases where the parents secured a virtual
victory in the action that they had brought against the municipality, which was
finalized at the Supreme Court. These lawsuits were filed against Daito City of Osaka
Prefecture38
and Yokohama City of Kanagawa Prefecture,39
and they sought the
nullification of the decision to abolish municipal nursery centers and compensation for
relevant damages.
In both cases, the parents, who were the plaintiffs, asserted that, in choosing a
specific nursery center, they were also clearly making a choice about the specific
nature of the daycare itself; they stated that, by choosing a municipal nursery center,
they were effectively making a choice about the skills and experience that had been
handed down, at the public nursery center, from the elder, experienced nursing staff to
the younger, entry-level. The plaintiffs also argued that the decision to abolish a
nursey center by privatizing it amounted to a denial of their right, as parents, to choose
a specific nursery center, because all the nursery teachers and the management, who
had been involved in the center when they made the choice, were then replaced. Thus,
38
For the Daito-City of Osaka Prefecture case, see Ota 2009, 450-451; Osaka District Court 2005; Osaka
High Court 2006; Supreme Court 2007; Osaka Yomiuri Shinbun, November 17, 2007; Sankei Shinbun,
November 18, 2007. 39
For the Yokohama-City of Kanagawa Prefecture case, see Ota 2009, 448-450; Yokohama District
Court 2006; Tokyo High Court 2009; Supreme Court 2009.
28
in filing their lawsuits, the plaintiffs were claiming their right to choose a specific
nursery center, and their right to continue to enjoy ―the specific quality of daycare‖
that they had opted for when making their original choice.
With regard to the abovementioned two trials, the Supreme Court recognized
that the abolition of public nursery centers through privatization could be made at the
policy discretion of the relevant municipality. At the same time, the court explicitly
admitted the rights of parents and children to choose a specific nursery center (―legal
status allowing them to expect to continue to receive daycare at the chosen nursery
center until the applied period expires‖). Then, in order to judge whether the policy
discretion was appropriately executed or not, the court evaluated whether the rights of
parents and children could be used as a legal challenge to the privatization policy.
More specifically, judgment was made as to whether the discretion of each city had
been executed in a valid way. They assessed this by determining 1) the presence of
reasonable grounds to justify the violation of the abovementioned right, and 2) the
presence of alternative measures taken to compensate for the violation.
As a result, the discretion executed by the government was found valid, due to
the fact that the government had made considerable achievements in cost reduction in
these two cases. However, in the cases of Daito City (the second trial finalized by the
decision of the Supreme Court) and Yokohama City (the first trial), the relevant courts
explicitly recognized that the conditions of the relevant nursery centers after
privatization were so grave that ―the safety of children could be put in serious danger.‖
In recognizing this, the courts pointed out that the alternative measures that had been
29
put in place to allow parents the right to choose a specific nursery center had not been
sufficient; ―the shortness of the transition period‖ was presented as evidence that
insufficient alternative measures had been put in place.
With regard to this ―transition period,‖ in the Daito City case, the second trial
judgment specified a concrete requisite time period of ―at least one year.‖ The length
of one year was chosen because this was deemed the minimum requisite time that
would allow the exchange of detailed information between old and new nursery
teachers and allow the content of the daycare to remain as similar as possible both
during the transition, and after the privatization had taken place. This enabled the new
nursery teachers and the children in the nursery to establish trusting relationships, and
minimized the anxiety that parents and children were likely to feel.
In the cases we have been discussing, the transition period lasted only three
months, a substantially shorter time than one year. Thus, both cities were ordered to
pay compensation for negligence of their due fiduciary obligations associated with a
contract finalized under the public law.
It is also useful to note that the Supreme Court judgment40
that ruled in the case
of Yokohama City did not order the defendant to provide compensation for damages,
despite the fact that damages had been awarded to the plaintiffs in the first trial.41
The
damages were denied because the children in question left the nursery soon after, and
thus, the interests of the lawsuit were lost. However, the Supreme Court denied the
40
Supreme Court 2009. 41
Yokohama District Court 2006.
30
grounds for the dismissal of Yokohama City case, as presented by the Appeal Court.42
The appeal was rejected on the basis that the lawsuit was invalid. This was the first
legal recognition by the Supreme Court that the ordinance to abolish public nursery
centers through privatization is an administrative disposition that affects the interests
and rights of specific parents and children to choose respective nursery centers. The
attorneys representing the plaintiffs in the case of Yokohama City evaluated the
Supreme Court judgment as ―a virtually victory.‖ 43
1.3.3.2 Criteria for judging the quality of daycare replaced by the length of
transition period
Both of these cases centered on the issue of whether or not the children could
continue to enjoy the same quality of daycare throughout the transitional period and
after privatization. Although in both cases the courts found the fact that the quality of
daycare had indeed deteriorated after privatization, the judgments did not directly refer
to the quality of daycare.
As mentioned above, the Supreme Court recognized the right to choose a
specific nursery center extended to the right for parents to choose a specific quality
and type of daycare for their children to continuously enjoy throughout the contracted
period. However, the criteria for judging whether this right was violated was not
directly related to any evaluation of the quality of daycare either during or after
privatization. In addition, even this criterion for judgment itself (namely, whether or
42
Tokyo High Court 2009. 43
Asahi Shinbun, November 27, 2009.
31
not ―at least one year‖ was secured for the length of the transition period,) does not
prove a violation of the right to choose a specific nursery center.
In the case of another lawsuit that sought the nullification of the privatization of
the public nursery center, the parents lost in the first trial against Kobe City; the ruling
was made in December 2008.44
However, even though the plaintiffs did lose the case,
the judge nonetheless questioned the short transition period (which was three months,
as in the other two cases discussed). The judge also recognized the problems that had
occurred in the nursery centers after privatization, including one instance where a
child with allergies had been given an ordinary meal by mistake and one instance
where a child had fallen from a jungle gym. The judge warned the defendants that
these were things that should never have occurred.45
Despite the fact that the defendant‘s virtual culpability for these accidents had
been acknowledged in the first trial at Kobe District Court, yet had been found not
guilty, in the appeal of March 12, 2010, the Osaka High Court again dismissed the
case of the parents. Chief Judge Seizo Yasuhara explained his judgment by pointing
out that the court had found no instance of deviation from the discretion of the city and
that no evidence had shown that the quality of daycare had deteriorated under
privatization.46
As the second court decision is yet to be compiled in the law reports, it is not
known what criteria were used to judge that the quality of the daycare had not
44
For the Kobe-City (Edayoshi Nursery Center) Privatization case, see Kobe District Court 2008;
Kansai ABC Webnews, December 16, 2008. 45
Asahi Shinbun, February 6, 2009. 46
Kobe Shinbun, March 13, 2010.
32
deteriorated under privatization. However, on the basis of the fact that the plaintiffs
lost in the first trial despite the fact that the court recognized the fact that the
transitional period was too short and that the children‘s accidents were associated with
privatization, it is difficult to see how the quality of daycare at the nursery center, both
during the transition and after the privatization, had been objectively measured and
evaluated in the second trial. It would be accurate to understand that the suits were
based on an alleged violation of the contract the parents had entered into with the
approved centers with nursery teachers as public officials, and that the issue of quality
(or negative effects on the children attended) was only considered in passing by the
judges in these cases.
1.3.3.3 Impacts of the trials on the administration for privatizing public
nursery centers
The driving force behind the privatization of the approved public nursery
centers was the reduction of the number of children on waiting lists for nursery centers
and assurance that the various needs that nursery daycare has to meet could be
fulfilled, while still meeting the tight financial restrictions faced by local governments.
To date, no court decisions have ruled the abolition of public nursery centers under
privatization as illegal. Nonetheless, relevant trials that are being brought on this issue
are prompting new procedures and practical methods to be adopted by municipalities
when privatizing public nursery centers.
As mentioned above, in the Daito City case, the judgment in the second trial
(finalized) partly accepted the plaintiffs‘ assertions and recognized that the city had an
33
obligation to take into consideration the setting of a transition period of about one year.
Based on the court decision, Daito City, which is still proceeding with the plan, set a
total of two years as the transition period under which privatization should take place.
They now decide that, for one year before privatization, six nursery teachers of the
new management enter the existing center as temporary city employees, and for
another one year after the privatization, six nursery teachers from the old nursery
center stay on at the new center. It is hoped that these measures will help avoid a
situation where all the teachers are replaced at one time, which will minimize the
physical and psychological impact of this transition on both children and their parents.
Nerima ward is an area of Tokyo that has been forced to stop privatization in the
middle of the fiscal year because of heavy parental opposition and subsequent
lawsuit.47
The ward had originally planned to privatize two nursery centers—one in
the spring of 2009 and the other in the spring of 2010—and it had invited applications
for operators to manage them. However, the selection board concluded that no
acceptable entity had applied, and the ward decided to postpone the privatization.
Moreover, one municipality has even reviewed whether privatization needs to
take place at all. Musashino City in Tokyo organized a committee of experts to
consider the relative benefits of privatization. As a result of their discussion, the city
instead decided to reform nursery centers, while maintaining them under public
management and pledging to continue examining options for reform. On the basis of
this judgment, both Bunkyo ward and Hino City in Tokyo have delayed the
47
See Ota 2009, 445-447.
34
privatization of their nursery centers and are implementing their own meeting to
discuss the best strategy.
The rising trend among local governments—to avoid hasty privatization—may
ensure, indirectly, that the quality of nursery daycare remains consistent during the
transition to privatization; the adequate length of transition period would help the
nursery daycare to remain as similar as possible during the transition to privatization,
as the adequate time period allows the exchange of detailed information between old
and new nursery teachers. In addition, as we discuss in more detail in section 3.2, from
the perspective of the ―best interests of the child‖ prescribed in the UNCRC, to avoid
hasty privatization may be desirable; again the adequate length of transition period
would help the new nursery teachers and the children in the nursery center to establish
trusting relationships and minimize the children‘s anxiety.
The right of each municipality to exercise its discretionary power in
decision-making and policy-implementation, while also struggling to reduce costs
should be fully respected. It is evident that the law supports this reflection because
there is no judgment that rules that ―the abolition of a public nursery center‖ is as a
rule illegal. However, if the litigation is a definite indicator of parental opposition and
if public officials are indeed elected to serve the citizens, it might be legitimate for
both the national and local governments to respond to parental concerns if officials
decided the concerns were well-founded.
Therefore, the introduction of standard international measurements and
evaluations for daycare quality to Japan could serve as a useful basis for both the
35
national government and municipalities to decide what constitutes adequate quality
daycare and how best to deliver quality daycare while, at the same time ensuring
adequate quantity. Such a development would be considered essential for Japan as the
economy continues to slow down and its budgets tighten.
36
Chapter 2. Positioning nursery daycare system reform in the changing
socioeconomic context of Japan
2.1 The public nature of Japan’s nursery center system and recent changes it has
undergone
2.1.1 Public responsibility for child-rearing under Japan’s nursery center system:
preconditions for realizing the best interests of young children
Approved nursery centers are child welfare facilities that provide daycare for
those babies or infants whose parents48
are unable to do so; they operate on a daily
basis, based on parents‘ entrustment (Art. 39 of the Child Welfare Act). Japan‘s
nursery center system has been operated under the principle stipulated by Article 1,
Paragraph 2 of the Child Welfare Act, which stipulates that all children shall be
equally assured of their livelihood and protected. The system is also based on the
notion of public responsibility for rearing children, as stipulated by Article 2 of said
Act, which specifies that the national and local governments are responsible for
rearing physically and mentally sound children in partnership with their parents.49
There is no phrase in the Child Welfare Act of 1947 that stresses ―the best
interests of children.‖ This is because the act stands on the protective principle that
emphasizes the responsibilities of parents and the national government uniformly, and
regards children as the object of protection based on the natural parent-child relation
48
The term ―guardian(s)‖ is the literal translation of the Japanese term ―hogosha‖ in related legislation. 49
Nordic and Central European countries that have inherited a ―social pedagogy‖ tradition seem to prefer
the similar holistic approach to children encompassing care, upbringing and learning, in comparison with
France and the English-speaking world (except New Zealand) that have adopted a ―readiness for school‖
approach. See OECD 2006, 128 and 158, note 10.
37
model. From this viewpoint, ensuring the public nature of daycare has been considered
one of the core tenets of Japan‘s nursery center system. National and local
governments take public responsibility for rearing all young children who cannot be
protected by their parents at home during the daytime, due to working commitments.
Therefore, it is the responsibility of national and local governments to ensure that
children grow and develop both physically and mentally at nursery centers. In other
words, it is the duty of national and local governments to provide all young children
with a certain, uniform level of protective care across the country (defined as the
provision of an environment that assures a healthy, safe, and emotionally secure
standard of life) and education (defined as support for the development of human
relations and linguistic expression etc. that cultivate the basis for character building); it
is this public ideal of daycare that Japan‘s nursery center system aims to realize.50
Specifically, the public responsibility for nursery daycare can be defined
according to three main functions, as described below:
First, the municipalities are responsible for implementing daycare (Art. 24,
Paragraph 1). Municipalities are responsible for admitting all children who lack
parents‘ daytime-caring into nursery centers and guarantee them daycare. As will be
discussed in section 2.2.3.3, a direct contract between approved nursery centers and
users (parents) has not yet been developed. With regard to the fees for daycare, the
relevant municipality collects fees according to a means-testing system (Art. 56,
Paragraph 3). Article 24 of the Child Welfare Act can also be interpreted as a
stipulation of the right to life under the Constitution (Art. 25); as we will explore in
50
MHLW, April 23, 2007.
38
section 2.2.3.2, it should also be regarded, in the field of child welfare, as the right to
receive daycare.51
Therefore, the establishment of minimum standards for nursery
centers is also an establishment of the minimum standards for the right to life of young
children who lack parents‘ daytime-caring. We will discuss this in further detail
below.
Second, the state must be able to guarantee the quality of daycare to at least a
minimum standard. In order to secure these nursery center standards for both the
facility itself and the management, the MHLW is obligated to set the minimum
standards for securing the living standards necessary for the physical, mental, and
social development of children (Art. 45, Paragraph 1). These minimum standards
apply to the assignment of nursery teachers, the area and the facilities, and include an
obligatory outdoor playground, medical treatment room, cooking room, etc. They also
cover the requisite standards for disaster prevention control, hygiene control, etc., that
every center must comply with. For example, in the case of infants aged less than one
year, there must be one nursery teacher or more per three children and for all infant
rooms, an area of 3.3 m2 or larger per child must be provided. Those who establish
nursery centers must observe these national uniform minimum standards (Paragraph 2
of the same article), and the relevant administrative agency (particularly, the national
and local prefectural governments) must exercise the necessary supervision of
compliance.
Moreover, those who establish a nursery center are obligated to make efforts to
improve its facilities and management, so that they are above the minimum standards
51
Research Group on Japanese Child Welfare Law 1999, 41, 46; Sugiyama 2008, 36.
39
(Paragraph 3 of the same article). If these minimum standards are satisfied, the center
can then be approved by the authorities, and function under the title of ―approved
nursery center‖ (Art. 35, Paragraphs 3 and 4), a subsidy from the national and local
prefectural governments is then granted to the center. These standards, therefore,
represent a minimum requirement for both the prefectural government-approval of a
nursery center and the granting of a governmental subsidy to a nursery center.
The third responsibility that national and local governments must bear with
regard to provision of nursery services is that they are responsible for covering the
cost of implementing daycare. Indeed, to ensure the standards detailed above can be
met, relevant financial resources must be secured. Those municipalities that are
responsible for implementing daycare are obligated to secure such resources, and the
burden is shared between the national and local prefectural governments (Art. 50, Item
6.2; Art. 51, Paragraphs 3 and 4; Art. 56.2). More specifically, the national
government pays half of the amount that is calculated by deducting the total amount
collected (as determined by the national government and paid by parents) from the
total amount of operating costs (based on the standards determined by the national
government). The relevant local prefectural government and municipality each cover
one quarter of the remaining amount. Incidentally, as we will explore in some detail in
section 2.1.3, among approved nursery centers, no public nursery centers that have
been established by the municipality have been covered by the state liability system,
since FY 2004, and no subsidies have since been granted to them by the national and
40
relevant prefectural governments.52
This does not mean, however, that the principle
that the cost of nursery centers should be covered by the state has changed; the
operating costs that are paid to private nursery centers continuously come from the
state liability system.
In summary, under Japan‘s present nursery daycare system, municipalities are
responsible for providing children with equal daycare of a certain level or higher, and
the system is operated with the cooperation of municipalities, parents, and approved
nursery centers. In addition, the national and prefectural governments support those
municipalities that are responsible for implementing daycare by approving centers that
meet those standards and granting subsidies. Therefore, among approved nursery
centers, even if public nursery centers are privatized as the result of the introduction of
deregulation, the public nature of daycare and the proper implementation of childcare
should remain secure, as long as the national and local governments ensure they meet
their public responsibility. Moreover, by guaranteeing the fulfillment of these three
public responsibilities, national and local governments are ensuring that the minimum
standards for the facilities and the management of approved nursery centers, as well as
the minimum labor conditions for the nursery teachers working there, are met. In other
words, the fulfillment of the responsibility to the nursery center system, as stipulated
by the Child Welfare Act, could be considered direct legal justification to uphold the
maintenance of the stable and professional nursery daycare environment that is
essential for realizing the best interests of young children.
52
With regard to the classification of nursery centers, see Appendix 1 of this dissertation.
41
Incidentally, as municipalities are responsible for implementing daycare for all
children that require it (as mentioned above), municipalities are also responsible for
securing daycare for those children that are not awarded a place in an approved public
or private nursery center because no spaces are available. This is because
municipalities are responsible for providing ―proper protection‖ (Proviso in Paragraph
1 of Art. 24) to all children that require it; this includes providing children who are on
a waiting list with an alternative option for daytime care until a sufficient number of
approved nursery centers are established. In terms of conducting an analysis of the
administrative control of non-approved childcare facilities, such as unapproved
nursery centers and baby hotels, this is outside the scope of this study; we duly note
that the Child Welfare Act was revised in 2001 to tighten controls on institutions like
these (Act No.135).53
2.1.2 The M-shaped employment rate among Japanese women and Measures
Against the Declining Birthrate that “attempts to bring about gender justice”
In Japan, the prewar fascist government implemented a number of policies
under the slogan ―Beget and Multiply‖ to encourage population growth. The cabinet
agreed that this was the principle under which Japan would develop as a wealthy
nation with a strong army and a booming industry; because of this bitter experience,
after the World War II, many Japanese people are suspicious of government
involvement in their private matters, such as marriage and childbirth. Because of this
attitude, the government launched its national commitment to the implementation of
53
MHLW, December 13, 2001. See also Tamura 2004, 31-44.
42
countermeasures to the falling birthrate with great caution.54
However, after the
record-low birthrate of 1.57 drew the public attention as a serious social problem in
1990 (the ―1.57 shock‖55
), the government decided to instigate its plan to improve the
nation‘s birthrate in 1994. Known as the ―Angel Plan,‖ this set of measures explicitly
set about counteracting the nation‘s falling birthrate.56
Successive administrations
have also tried to implement policies called Measures Against the Declining Birthrate
(MADB) to help promote population growth, including the ―New Angel Plan‖ (1999),
―Zero Waiting Child Operation‖ (2001), ―Falling Birthrate Countermeasures Plus
One‖ (2002), ―Basic Act on the Countermeasures to the Falling Birthrate‖ (Act
No.133 of 2003, which stipulates the concept of countermeasures for the falling
birthrate and framework for the policies and measures), ―Act on the Promotion of
Supportive Measures for Fostering the Next Generation‖ (Act No. 120 of 2003, which
obligates municipalities and enterprises with more than 300 employees to formulate
54
Higuchi et al.2006, 3. 55
The 1.57 shock in 1990 refers to the shock people felt when they found out the Total Fertility Rate
(TFR) in the preceding year (1989) became 1.57. The TFR in a specific year is the number of children
that would be born to each woman if she were to live to the end of her childbearing years and if the
likelihood of her giving birth to children at each age was the currently prevailing age-specific fertility
rates. The TFR 1.57 of 1990 was even lower than 1.58, the record-low rate in 1966 resulting from the
special factor of ―hinoeuma‖ (the year of the Fiery Horse). According to the superstitions with birth signs
in the Japanese astrological system, women who were born in that year are called dangerous,
headstrong, and are seen as deadly to men. It is said that couples tend to avoid childbirth in that year as
their children can have difficulties to get married if they are female. MHLW 2008, Chapter 2, Section
1.1, note 1. (Available at
http://www8.cao.go.jp/shoushi/whitepaper/w-2008/20webhonpen/html/i1211000.html.)
For the definition of the TFR, see also OECD Family Database 2010, ―SF2.1: Fertility rates.‖
(Available at http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/37/59/40192107.pdf.) 56
The approaches of this Angel Plan policy focused on improving the childcare system, taking
measures such as providing more quota (the number of places) in nursery centers, improving the quality
of care, fostering diversification and privatization by encouraging new providers to enter the market,
and increasing spending on subsidies and pilot programs. See Boiling 2007, 141-142.
43
specific action plans for supporting child-rearing).57
However, despite these policies,
the birthrate in Japan has continued to decline.
In 2005, Japan experienced a decline in its population, for the first time since
population records began in 1899. In 2005, the census that was conducted in October
clearly indicated that the population had fallen by 22,000 from the previous year,
reaching a new low of 127.76 million. The number of births and the average lifelong
number of births per woman also reached record lows of 1,065,000 and 1.26,
respectively.
The statistics reflect a reality where many Japanese women find it difficult to
both work and raise their children at the same time.58
Since World War II, there has
been an M-shape curve in the rate of employed women. The dip of the M reflects a
decline in the number of women in the workforce, most of who are in their late 20s
and early 30s, who leave the workforce due to marriage and childbirth. In 2008, over
60% of women who had been in the workforce left their job due to the birth of their
first child. If we calculate, as of 2005, the opportunity cost (in terms of lost earnings)
that female workers, who had been employed since their university graduation, and
who temporarily left their fulltime work due to the birth of their first child resuming
work later on a part-time basis, was about 220 million yen (USD 2.2 million) and the
rate of lost earnings is over 80%, when compared to women who took no break and
57
For the detailed explanation of these policies and legislation, see Boiling 2007, 142-148; Peng 2002. 58
In terms of the traditional the prominent ―dip‖ in female employment in Japan, see OECD Family
Database 2010, ―LMF1.4: Employment profiles over the life-course.‖ (Available at
http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/29/62/38773711.pdf.)
44
continued working until retirement (60 years old).59
However, for those women that
make use of childcare leave and continue working as a regular fulltime employee, the
amount of opportunity cost is only about 19 million yen (USD 190,000) and the rate of
lost earnings is about 7% respectively. However, as of 2005, only about 14% of all
female workers were able to opt for this working style.60
The main reasons for this
small proportion seemed to be 1) disproportionate childcare burdens on wives due to
their husbands‘ long working hours61
and 2) lack of effective measures to allow
women to work and raise their children at the same time. The background factor of
these reasons that might also be responsible for the fact that women find it difficult to
raise children and remain in the workforce is Japan‘s policy framework on labor and
family, which recommends division of labor by gender, that is, where men are
regarded as the ideal breadwinners and women as the dedicated homemakers; this
tendency has been noted by many studies in the past.62
In particular, during and after
the period of high economic growth, that is from the mid-1950s until the late 1990s
when the promotion of social security structural reform occurred,63
Japan‘s social
security system was designed as two sub-systems, one of families and one of
enterprises, that encompassed a large part of Japan‘s social security system, and
59
See Cabinet Office, August 2005, Chapter 3, 18, ―Fig. 3-1-24 The opportunity cost of a former
full-time worker re-entering employment as a part-time or casual worker is large.‖ (Available at
http://www5.cao.go.jp/seikatsu/whitepaper/h17/05_eng/pdf/chapter3.pdf.) 60
See NIPSSR 2006, 10, Figure 4-2: ―Komodo no shusseinen-betsu, dai 1-shi shussann zengo no
shuugyo keireki no kousei‖ [Wives‘ Working Styles Before and After Their First Child-birth]. 61
As to the detailed analysis of this point, see the following reference of the international attitudinal
research covering five countries (Japan, Korea, France, Sweden, and the United State) conducted by
Japan‘s Cabinet Office in 2005 (Number of samples: Basically 1,000 men and women aged 20-49 in
respective countries): DGPP of the Cabinet Office, March 2006, 16-19. 62
See, for instance, Yamagishi 1999, Schoppa 2006, and Rosenbluth 2007. 63
See section 2.2.1.
45
functioned accordingly. That is to say, the Japanese social welfare policy had placed
the burden of care-work, such as eldercare and child-care, mostly on the shoulders of
family members, substantially on those of women within families. Meanwhile, the
Japanese government and companies enhanced preferential treatments with regard to
the systems of taxation, social insurance, and remuneration for single-income families
(i.e., a wage-working husband with a stay-at-home wife and children).
Since the statistics have demonstrated the gender-biased construction of
socioeconomic systems in Japanese society,64
the Japanese government has come up
with a selection of basic principles that should underpin any system of gender justice,
including concepts of ―gender equality,‖ ―work life balance,‖ and ―support for the
balancing of work and family.‖65
As a result, the vast majority of mass media and
women‘s organizations have accepted the Japanese government‘s promotion of
MADB positively. The most important issue of MADB is ―resolving the either-or
situation, i.e., either work or marriage/birth/childcare‖; their efforts at enshrining this
principle in law by setting concrete numerical objectives in economic and social
policies have moved at an incredible speed.
The Expert Panel on Labor-Market Reforms of the Council on Economical and
Fiscal Policy raised the target for the number of employed married women aged
between 25 and 44 who are at the stage of childbirth and child-rearing, by 14
64
For example, in terms of the fourfold gap in time spent on care work between men and women in Japan,
see OECD Family Database 2010, ―LMF2.5 Time used for work, care and daily household chores‖
(available at http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/1/50/43199641.pdf); with regard to the prominent gender gap
in employment rates, see ―LMF1.6: Gender differences in employment outcomes‖ (available at
http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/30/39/38752777.pdf); as for the salient gender wage gap in Japan‘s
economy, see ―LMF1.5: Gender pay gaps for full-time workers and earnings differentials by educational
attainment‖ (available at http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/29/63/38752746.pdf). 65
See Osawa 2000.
46
points—from 57% in 2006 to 71% in 2017.66
In December 2007, the ―Public and
Private Sectors to Promote Work-Life Balance,‖ organized by the Cabinet Office as
part of its selection of MADB drew up the ―Charter for Work-Life Balance‖ and the
―Action Policy for Promoting Work-Life Balance,‖ which set numerical targets—such
as increased levels of employment for women aged 25-44, increased levels of
continued employment among women before and after the birth of their first child
(from 38% in 2007 to 55% in 2017), increased levels of childcare leave utilization by
women (from 72.3% to 80%), increased levels of childcare leave utilization by men
(from 0.5% to 10%), and increased levels in time spent by men on childcare and
domestic chores (from 1 hour per day to 2.5 hours in 2017).67
At the Council on
Economic and Fiscal Policy that was held on June 10, 2008, the government officially
outlined its ―Economic Growth Policy‖; this policy focused strongly on increasing the
number of women, senior citizens, and young people in work, in order to counter the
declining birthrate and growing senior population.68
This policy was included in the
2008 ―Basic Policy for the Economic and Financial Reforms (Honebuto Basic Reform
Policy FY2008),‖ along with a retrenchment target for social security expenses aimed
at ―curbing 1.1 trillion yen (USD 11 billion) in five years by 2011.‖ (However,
separate consideration was to be given to measures designed to address the shortage of
medical practitioners, the declining birthrate, and improve the health care system for
the latter-stage elderly.)
66
Asahi Shinbun, April 7, 2007. 67
Public and Private Sectors to Promote Work-Life Balance, December 2007. 68
Asahi Shinbun, June 11, 2008.
47
2.1.3 The relaxation of regulations in the approved nursery center system, as part
of social security structural reform, and its negative impact on young children’s
best interests
The relaxation of regulations regarding Japan‘s approved nursery center system
has been implemented under the pretext of helping fulfill the MADB objectives.
However, in reality, the idea of regulation relaxation had already been promoted prior
to the establishment of the ―Basic Act concerning the Countermeasures to the Falling
Birthrate‖ enacted in 2003, in which the concept and the framework of the
government‘s measures were defined, that the fact that this promotion occurred before
the regulations had been set out proves that the relaxation of regulations in the
approved nursery center system was not only aimed at supporting working parents and
nursery teachers in ensuring the best interests of young children. The relaxation was
concurrently aimed at reducing public spending and creating a market for childcare as
part of the government‘s structural reform policy to pursue economic (financial)
efficiency.
With the revision of the Child Welfare Act in 1997, the system of how children
were admitted to enter approved nursery centers was changed, from an existing
measures-based system to a choice-by parents-based system. Under the Koizumi
administration, with the notice issued by the Director-General of Children and
Families Bureau of the MHLW on March 30, 2000, titled ―Regarding the
Authorization for Establishment of Nursery Centers,‖ the restrictions on operating
entities were removed so that private businesses might establish and operate approved
48
nursery centers. As the three-year deregulation program was approved in a Cabinet
meeting on March 30, 2001, the standard capacity for nursery centers was increased
and the relevant accounting standards were eased. In addition, incentives were granted
to promote the expansion of businesses by private enterprises. Furthermore, based on
the ―First Report concerning the Relaxation of Regulations,‖ submitted by the
government‘s Council for Regulatory Reform, the revision of said three-year
deregulation program was approved in a Cabinet meeting on March 29, 2002. As a
result, the private management of publicly owned facilities, and the entrustment of the
management of public nursery centers to the private sector was promoted.
Indeed, the financial cost of running and subsidizing public nursery centers and
maintaining their facilities had been regarded as a significant burden on the national
treasury. In the period when the government subsidy system was responsible for
covering the cost of operating nursery centers, the management of approved nursery
centers remained relatively stable and minimum standards of daycare could be realized
across the country, without depending on the financial capability of the relevant
municipality. However, in October 2002, the government‘s Council for the Promotion
of Decentralization Reform proposed a policy of promoting ―the management
integration of kindergarten and nursery centers‖ and ―the allocation of revenue
earmarked for operating [public] nursery centers to general revenue‖ in an integrated
manner.69
Clearly, it was hoped that by abolishing the government subsidy, the
burden on the national treasury would be reduced and the money could be spent
elsewhere. ―General revenue‖ is the name given to financial resources that can be used
69
Cabinet Office, October 2002, 10, 12.
49
by the relevant municipality at its own discretion without specifying the purpose. The
policy proposed by this council was taken on in the so-called ―Honebuto Basic Reform
Policy FY2003‖ (the Economic and Fiscal Reform 2003 plan), approved in a Cabinet
meeting in June 2003. As part of the ―Honebuto Basic Reform Policy FY2003,‖ which
aimed to reduce the country‘s financial deficit, ―funding was only taken from areas of
the country that were truly obligated to bear the cost.‖70
As part of this policy, the
level of government subsidy and tax revenue that was allocated to local governments
was reduced, and abolishing state responsibility for covering the cost of operating an
approved nursery center was set up as an issue to be discussed. As a result, the budget
implemented for FY 2004 was reduced by 3 trillion yen (USD 30 billion) from the
year before, and 166.4 billion yen (USD 1.664 billion) that had been allocated to the
operating of public nursery centers was allocated to general revenue.71
Naturally, unless an increase in general revenue source is secured, by, for
instance, increasing local tax allocation, which accounts for a major part of the general
revenue source, the abolishment government subsidies of public nursery centers only
shifts the financial burden from the national government to local municipalities. It then
becomes difficult for the relevant municipality to ensure that the minimum nursery
daycare standards are maintained.
The ―Report on the Results of the Questionnaire concerning the Management of
Childcare Centers‖ (March 2008), organized by the social welfare corporation, the
Japan Childcare Association (Nihon hoiku kyokai), details the findings of a
70
Cabinet Meeting Approval, June 23, 2003, 33. 71
The financial responsibility for operating approved nursery centers has not changed yet, and, indeed,
the cost of operating approved private nursery centers remains that of the national treasury.
50
comparative survey that was conducted into the financial status of municipalities, in
the years between FY 2003 (before the relevant costs had been allocated to general
revenue) and FY 2007 (after the costs had been allocated to general revenue).72
According to this report, 61% of municipalities reported a reduction in the cost of
operating approved nursery centers between 2003 and 2007 (20% reported that they
had no opinion either way, and 18.2% reported that they were not affected, 0.8% did
not respond at all). More than 60% of those municipalities that had a population below
300,000 and more than 50% of those that had a population between 300,000 and
500,000 had reduced the cost of their nursery daycare during that time period. In
contrast, only approximately 20% of those municipalities that had a population over
500,000 reduced these costs. Thus, it is clear that local municipalities that had lower
populations were more significantly affected by the policy changes than those with
higher populations.
Around 34.9% of those municipalities that had provided subsidies to private
nursery centers (around 65.5% of all municipalities), abolished, or reduced the policy
of providing private nursery subsidies after the policy change. This trend applies
throughout the sample, regardless of the size of the municipality; this demonstrates
clearly that the removal of funding earmarked specifically to cover the cost of
operating public nursery centers leads directly to the reduction of subsidies provided
to private nursery centers.
72
Murayama 2008.
51
2.1.4 Nursery teachers employed by local governments as “the
government-created working poor”: the background
As mentioned in section 1.3.3, the privatization of approved public nursery
centers has triggered a movement protesting the change among parents. Nonetheless,
regardless of before, during, or after the privatization, approved nursery centers
continue to replace their regular employees with non-regular staff from outside.
According to a national questionnaire survey that was conducted among non-regular
nursery teachers (by the Nursery Affiliated Society of the Nursery Daycare Council by
category of the National Union of Welfare and Nursery Center Workers) from
November 2005 to March 2006, the work environment, regardless of before, during,
or after the privatization, did not allow them ―to provide sufficient daycare.‖ The
factors they deemed relevant in this included: a) low pay (as mentioned below in this
section), b) uncertainty with regard to continued employment (as employment tenure
is determined by general public bidding), c) discriminatory treatment of non-regular
employees, even though they provide the same service as regular employees, and d)
non-regular employees‘ psychological burdens, caused by the fact that they feel that
they cannot interact with regular employees on an equal basis.73
In one instance, at the beginning of a new fiscal year, a parent learned that a
nursery teacher at some approved nursery center in charge of her child‘s class was a
non-regular nursery teacher when the teacher replaced by another non-regular staff
from outside. When a parent learned of the change, they were infuriated, saying,
73
Inokuma 2008, 94.
52
―They say that the children will become familiar with the new nursery teacher, but it
will take six months. Even if the nursery teacher is genuinely hard-working, honest,
and excellent, mentally, children are unlikely to be comfortable if their nursery
teachers are changed every six months.‖74
In some cases, approved public nursery
centers are all staffed with outsourced nursery teachers except for the director and
chief of the center staff. This results in a situation where all the employees are directly
privatized, even though the ―organization‖ (public nursery center) itself is not.
In addition, since the 1990s, a number of policies have been implemented by the
government, as part of MADB, to expand the functions of ―approved nursery centers.‖
These functions include overtime daycare, daycare services during holidays and when
children are sick, and approval of admission to over 25% of the enrollment limit.75
As
a result, the work conditions of most nursery teachers have been worsening since the
1990s. In fact, in one court decision, the suicide of an overworked nursery teacher was
found to be work-related.76
Needless to say, it is logical to assume that nursery teachers will only be able to
devote themselves to their work when they are assured of reasonable pay and working
conditions that enable them to lead stable lives. However, by privatizing nursery
centers, it is local governments—who are obligated to generate and maintain the
public elements of their respective communities, thus are responsible for the decline in
74
Inokuma 2008, 94. 75
MHLW, October 23, 2006. See also Tamura 2004, 45-55. 76
Tokyo District Court 2006 (a case reversing the Kakogawa Labor Standard Bureau Director‘s decision
on no payment of bereaved family compensation and so forth).
53
working conditions and pay—that has resulted in nursery workers becoming the
so-called ―government-made working poor.‖
However, Japan‘s public services are themselves not immune to criticism.
Problems such as the prevalence of opaque discretionary contracts and high costs are
often identified in Japan‘s public services. With the reduction of local governments‘
fiscal resources, as a result of the ―Reform of the Three Major Polices‖ (the combined
reform of three major elements of ―national government subsidiaries,‖ ―local taxes‖
and ―grants to local governments,‖ commonly called the ―Trinity Reform,‖ in Japan)
together with enactment of the Market Testing Act (Act No. 51 of 2006) in June 2006,
the consignment of services to private entities spread rapidly as a means to cut
government costs.77
Even as recently as the last five years or so, general public
bidding has been introduced to a number of fields, and private firms now have the
opportunity to bid for control of, not only the operation of public nursery centers, but
also the cleaning of public facilities, the checking of gas meters and water meters, and
other services.
At the heart of the Market Testing Act is the hope that it will ensure that
national administrative bodies and local governments ―continually review all the
public services provided by them, and in the process of performing them, properly
adopt originalities and contrivances of private entities through transparent and fair
competition, with a view to making their services better and more cost-effective in the
best interests of the people‖ (Art. 3(1)). It is hoped that, by conducting these reviews,
any public services that the national and local government are not obligated to provide
77
Cabinet Office, n.d.
54
themselves be ―discontinued‖ (Art. 3(2)), in favor of a private operator. In this
instance, it has been found that ―good quality‖ and ―cost-effectiveness‖ do not seem to
be compatible, and cost reductions are often made at the expense of quality.78
Certainly, in terms of maximizing results while minimizing costs, general public
bidding is widely considered the most appropriate way of implementing privatization,
while maintaining transparency, fairness, and competitiveness. However, in bids for
consignment work or public projects that are instigated by local governments, prices
tend to fall rapidly, with bidders trying hard to win contracts, and local governments
promoting lower offers. With the issue of labor conditions disregarded, it is clear that
wages for public services workers drop drastically to the level of the minimum wage.79
The nationally weighted minimum wage stands at 687 yen (USD 6.87) /hour (as
of September 2008),80
which amounts to approximately 100,000 yen (USD 1,000) per
month. The Revised Minimum Wage Act, intended to eliminate the inversion
phenomenon where earning the minimum wage was less favorable than receiving
welfare payments, was put into effect in July 2008, and it is expected that the wage
will increase by some 15 yen (USD 0.15) every year in the future.81
However, earning
100,000 yen (USD 1,000) is widely agreed not to be sufficient for a comfortable life.
On the other hand, welfare payments are set to enable recipients ―to maintain the
minimum standard of wholesome and cultured living‖ (the right to life, Art. 25 of the
78
Obayashi 2008, 111. See also, Ninomiya and Haruyama 2005; Nakano 2006, Kumasawa 2007;
Shigeta 2007, 34-54; three cases of certified (ninsho) nursery centers in Tokyo described in section
4.6.1.5 of this dissertation. Considering that labor accounts for approximately 80% of nursery daycare
costs [UNICEF 2008, 24], the daycare quality at nursery centers can be considered to be highly
susceptible to the effect of cost reductions. 79
NHK, April 7, 2008. 80
MHLW, September 2008. 81
Nihon Keizai Shinbun, August 6, 2008.
55
Constitution), and a typical family of three might expect to receive standard payments
of around 230,000 yen (USD 2,300) per month. If welfare payments allow someone to
lead a richer life and not working is the more financially rewarding choice, then
people lose motivation to work, which is potentially very harmful to society. If
average income falls, then the revenue of local governments will follow and the
standard of life enjoyed by most people will also fall. This will result in a loss of
affluence throughout society.
Of course, the fault for this does not lie exclusively at the door of local
governments. They are, of course, directed by policies made at a national level; this is
also true of the policy of privatization. According to Masahide Kimura of the General
Federation of Japanese Local Governments‘ Union, the national government is not
only responsible for amending the laws and ordinances that are directly related to
nursery daycare administration and reducing the relevant budgets, they are also
responsible for changing the administrative and fiscal management of local
governments. This then contributes to and accelerates the rate of privatization among
public nursery centers.82
Under the ―Trinity Reform,‖ the fiscal budgets of local governments were
reduced to the minimum permissible, 6.5 trillion yen (USD 65 billion), and in June
2007, the Fiscal Restoration Act (Act No. 94 of 2007) was enacted (this took effect in
April 2009).83
The Act is aimed at ensuring that national government has a better
understanding of the fiscal conditions of local governments. It is hoped that this will
82
Kimura 2008, 56. 83
Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications, April 2009.
56
help national governments to prevent local governments from going bankrupt and urge
at an early stage those governments whose deficits have exceeded certain levels to
work toward restoration of fiscal soundness. This then incentivizes local governments
to place fiscal soundness at the top of their priority list. On the other hand, following
the ―Future Policy of Administrative Reforms‖ endorsed by the Cabinet on the
recommendation of the Economic Advisory Council and other organizations, the
Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications drafted the ―New Guideline for
Administrative Reforms of Local Governments.‖84
The goal of the guideline was ―to
convert Japan to a society, based on decentralized systems allowing local governments
to provide public services suitable for their respective communities, taking into
account what local residents can pay and what they want.‖ Based on this guideline,
prefectures and municipalities were required to develop staff reduction programs to
help meet the target of a 4.6% staff reduction over five years; the target was outlined
in the Administrative Reform Promotion Act (Act No.47 of 2006), which was enacted
in 2006. As a result, there has been an increase in the number of local governments
that have consolidated their public facilities, downsized their welfare facilities,
increased the burden of usage fees, and replaced regular staff members with temporary,
non-regular employees in order to reduce costs.85
As competition to provide services at a lower cost continues, resources naturally
become stretched; often, this results in an undermining of the ―the quality of daycare.‖
On the other hand, as will be examined in section 3.3, the most remarkable feature of
84
Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications, March 2005. 85
Obayashi 2008, 60, note 13.
57
the General Comments No.7—the documents issued by the CRC in 200586
—is the
emphasis that is placed on the importance of encouraging young children and their
parents or other caregivers to engage in relationships that have strong emotional
attachments; this is deemed an essential part of implementing children‘s rights.
Primary caregivers (i.e., parents or legal guardians) are expected to be ―children‘s first
educators,‖ and so it is expected that they learn how to ―provide an environment of
reliable and affectionate relationships [with young children] based on respect and
understanding‖ (Paragraph 29). Because of this, the CRC particularly emphasized the
importance of the role of professional caregivers (i.e., nursery teacher working for
nursery centers) in support of primary caregivers.
In short, the CRC expects professional caregivers to play a substantive role in
educating parents in building up close and continuous relationships with their young
children. As the quality of nursery daycare is inextricably linked to the closeness of
the relationship between young children and their professional caregivers and the
stability of their daycare environment, it is clear that ―the best interests of young
children‖ at nursery centers are directly and negatively affected by nursery center
privatization that focuses only on cost reduction.
Why, then, has Japan‘s reform of the approved nursery center system—which
has been found to be a change for the worse that undermines the treatment of nursery
teachers, and eventually, the stable and professional nature of the daycare
environment—been implemented? To understand why this might be, we must first
examine a paradigm shift that occurred within the social security structure, which was
86
See GC7.
58
brought about by the changes in Japan‘s social and economic environment that
occurred in the 1990s.
2.2 The structural reform of Japan’s social security system that has occurred since
the late 1990s, and its implications for the best interests of young children
2.2.1 Changes in Japan’s socioeconomic environment and a paradigm shift in the
social security structure
In Japan, the promotion of social security structural reform has been occurring
since the late 1990s. Until then, the Japanese system of social security and its
framework has remained more or less the same for the last fifty years; it was first
introduced after World War II as a set of measures to help provide for the poor and
needy. However, as Japan‘s population has aged rapidly and the birthrate has declined,
the cost of social security, in the form of pension benefits, medical costs, and costs of
the nursing care for the elderly, had reached 21.7 trillion yen (USD 217 billion) in
FY2008 state budget, accounting for 40% of overall expenditure.87
Because Japan
experienced a rapid decline in the birthrate and a greater increase in life expectancy,
its population is aging more rapidly in a short period of time than is the case in
Western countries. This is why it is imperative that Japan instigates a quick and
effective response.88
87
In July 2008 the government hammered out a policy to reduce the natural increase of social security
costs by 220 billion yen (USD 2.2 billion) in the guidelines for the budget appropriation request (ceiling)
for FY 2009. Even though this reduction is realized, it is not likely to put the brakes on the deteriorating
national finance as the increase in FY 2009 is expected to be about 650 billion yen (USD 6.5 billion),
which is 100 billion yen higher compared with fiscal 2008. Mainichi Shimbun, July 25, 2008. 88
In Japan it took only 24 years for the population aging rate (percentage of the population 65 years or
older) to double from the 7% level (in 1970), which is the definition of the aging society, to 14% (in 1994).
Compared with this, it took 85 yeas in Sweden, 46 years in Britain, and 116 years in France for the rate to
double. MHLW 1999, Section 1.1.1.1.3 (4) [Institution Development to Respond to the Aging Society
59
At the same time as this shift in the make-up of Japanese society was going on,
there were significant changes in the environment surrounding social security,
including the fact that the economy in the 1990s experienced low levels of growth, the
state‘s fiscal situation worsened, and the demands for welfare services became
increasing diverse as the living standards improved. Under such circumstances, the
challenge to establish a social security system that ensured that Japanese people could
live safe and secure lives, under stable management, without imposing an excessive
financial burden on future generations, while also responding to the changes in
demands of the present generation, such as higher demands for nursing care, became a
high priority. This prompted a review of the entire Japanese social security system to
ensure that it provided ―social security suitable for a mature society and economy‖89
;
this amounted to a paradigm shift in the social security system of Japan.
In May 1996, the Social Security Related Advisory Council Chairpersons‘
Conference, consisting of the chairpersons of eight advisory councils including the
Advisory Council on Social Security, was held, in order to determine the direction that
this reform should take. In November of that year, the ―Direction of Social Security
Structural Reform (Midterm Summary)‖—a summary of the discussions that occurred
during this conference—was presented.90
Subsequently, structural reform has been
promoted, in line with the four basic directions that were specified in this meeting;
they are as follows:
with a Falling Birthrate (1990s)]. (Available at
http://wwwhakusyo.mhlw.go.jp/wpdocs/hpaz199901/b0009.html.) 89
MHLW1999, Section 1.1.4.1.1 [Recent Trends of Social Security System Revision]. (Available at
http://wwwhakusyo.mhlw.go.jp/wpdocs/hpaz199901/b0050.html.) 90
MHLW-SSRACCC, November 1996.
60
1) Promotion of overall social security system efficiency through a
cross-sectoral reorganization of the system (pension, medical care, welfare, etc.);
2) Focus on a user-oriented scheme that supports personal independence
(Development of a service providing system that responds specifically to diverse
demands, such as the disclosure of information concerning services and home medical
care and nursing care);
3) Appropriate role-sharing between public and private (ensuring public security
of fundamental demand and allowing individuals to freely select private services for
portion over base) and promotion of introduction of private-sector vitality with
relaxation of regulations; and
4) Ensuring that the benefits system is impartial and fair to all sectors of society
(ensuring the right balance between the elderly generation and the active generation,
and between the rich and the poor).
2.2.2 Policy of holding down social security costs under the fiscal structural
reform
Moreover, during the same period, the Hashimoto government (January
1996-July 1998) established the promotion of ―Six Reforms‖—covering
administration, finance, social security, economy, financial system, and education—as
the government‘s policy of measures to create a new economic and social system.
Concurrently, in June 1997, in order to improve worsening fiscal conditions, the
government adopted the ―Plan to Promote the Fiscal Structural Reform,‖ which
outlined a specific plan for expenditure reform and budget cuts; in order to clarify the
61
content, the government implemented the Fiscal Structural Reform Act (Act No.109 of
1997). This Act aimed to set out the immediate goals for fiscal structural reform,
including ensuring the fiscal deficit remained below 3% of GDP, implementing reform
in every area of expenditure, outlining goals so that a quantitative reduction target
could be achieved, and promoting various institutional reforms. In addition, in the
field of social security, the government decided to promote a structural reform of the
social security system that would help control the increase of social security-related
expenditures as much as possible, and promote reform of the medical and pension
insurance systems.
In 1997, the MHLW, aware that that social security costs would place an
increasing burden on national finances, organized the Panel on Social Welfare Service,
made up of relevant experts; the panel held various meetings from August 1997.
Discussion continued, based on the report compiled by this Panel, at the Social
Welfare Structure Section Meeting set in the Central Social Welfare Council from
November of the same year, and in June 1998, the ―Report on Social Welfare Basic
Structural Reform (Midterm Summary)‖ was presented.91
2.2.3 Introduction of the principle of self-responsibility as part of the basic
structural reform of the social welfare system in Japan
In the midterm summary, the ―Concept of the Reform‖ was outlined as
follows:92
91
MHLW-CSWC-SWSSM, June 1998. 92
MHLW-CSWC-SWSSM, June 1998, ―II. Kaikaku no rinen‖ [II. Concepts of the Reform].
62
In a mature society, as a basic rule, people should be responsible for their own
lives; however, there may be cases where, due to various problems that might occur,
individuals become unable to maintain an independent life on their own;
The purpose of social welfare in the future is not merely to provide protection
and relief to a limited group of people—as welfare has traditionally been seen—but
also to provide support based on the viewpoint of social solidarity to the whole
population when such problems occur, and support each individual‘s self-reliance so
that they may lead a life suitable for each individual with their family and in the
community with peace of mind and in dignity as an individual human regardless of
disability and age;
Underlying social welfare is a spirit of caring about, supporting, and helping
others. In that sense, it can be said that welfare is the responsibility of the entire
population; and
In order to realize a social welfare system that is based on this concept, it will
be necessary to promote reform in line with seven basic directions, which are based on
the assumption that national and local public entities are responsible for the promotion
of social welfare.
Thus, the introduction of the principle of self-responsibility in social security
was proposed for the first time; it was hoped that this would be a new concept, suitable
for mature society. According to this concept, that some people cannot maintain an
independent life of their own volition is regarded as an exceptional case, and social
support should be provided for these people, out of a spirit of social solidarity that
63
regards caring for, supporting, and helping others as a key concept that should be
undertaken willingly by the population. The midterm summary pointed out that in
order to realize social welfare based on this concept, it would be necessary to
implement drastic reform of overall fundamental structure of social welfare in line
with the following seven basic ways of thinking:
1) Establishment of an equal relationship between service users and providers;
2) Comprehensive support from the community of diverse demands from users
based on the user-oriented way of thinking;
3) Promotion of participation by diverse entities to respond to a wide range of
demands from users;
4) Improvement of reliable and convincing service quality and efficiency;
5) Securing the transparency of services and operations by the disclosure of
information and other measures;
6) Impartial and fair apportioning of the increasing cost of social welfare; and
7) Creation of a characteristic welfare culture that is rooted in active and
independent participation by the population.
2.2.3.1 Emergence of a contract-based welfare society: from measures to
contract
Under this new direction, in March 2000, the ―Bill for partial amendments to the
Social Welfare Service Act and others laws, for promoting social welfare‖ was
approved in a Cabinet meeting as a cabinet bill; after Diet deliberations, it was enacted
in May of the same year. These amendments aimed to change the system through
64
amending various social welfare related laws, such as the Social Welfare Service Act,
Child Welfare Act, and Act on the Welfare for the Disabled. It was hoped that, by
changing the measures-based system—where the administration uses administrative
measures to determine the appropriate service—to a service-use system—where users
select the appropriate service, based on equal relations between users and service
providers. Specifically, the amendments focused on the enhancement of users‘ rights,
by securing the equality of users and service providers, and guaranteeing users‘
self-determination and choice.
The measure-based system allows those seeking welfare services to apply to the
relevant administrative authorities; qualified beneficiaries then receive services in the
form of a benefit, from the relevant service provider (social welfare corporation, etc.)
as designated by the authorities. Because the measures-based system functioned as a
kind of rationing system, in which administrative government agency controls the
provision of welfare services in an integrated manner, there were efficiency problems
with the system. There was significant discrepancy between demand and supply in
terms of both quality and quantity. Specifically, there was no distinct trade
relationship between the service provider and the user; this meant that there
insufficient impetus for service providers to voluntarily increase the supply of services
through the market. Moreover, because the fees paid to service providers were fixed,
there was very little incentive for providers to improve service quality.93
However, it
is clear that, despite these various benefits, the amendments made to the Social
Welfare Service Act and others were instigated in order to allow the government to
93
Kato et al. 2001, 206-7; Komamura 2004, 233, note 27.
65
reduce the amount it was spending on welfare services by relaxing the regulations and
opening welfare services up to the free market.94
This shift in policy has aroused
concerns, with many alleging that it amounts to a governmental retreat from the
founding concept of the public responsibility for the social welfare system and a shift
toward individual responsibility for welfare.
2.2.3.2 The continued responsibility of public institutions in terms of the right
to life (article 25 of the constitution)
In the years after the end of World War II, the living standards in Japan were not
high; indeed, in recent years, they have improved significantly. Because of these
improvements, it is widely accepted that it is no longer practical nor appropriate for
public institutions like national and local public entities to take direct and full
responsibility for the administration of social welfare. Indeed, in the future, social
welfare administration will have to be executed by public institutions increasingly
indirectly, in cases such as planning, legislation, administrative regulation, formulation
of minimum standards, and maximally controlled cost burdens. Furthermore, the fact
that the legal relations between parties that are concerned with social welfare are more
frequently outlined in legally binding contracts means that this fundamental structure
reform has ensured that welfare service are, in essence, ruled according to civil law.
However, national and local public entities still hold some responsibility in
terms of public services. Japan‘s ―social security law‖ is a generic term that is used to
refer to those laws that outline the legal basis of provision of the social benefits
provided in Japan. These rights are provided to ensure that all people have sufficient
94
Japan Federation of Bar Associations 2002, 21.
66
resources to live a full life, which is a legally binding concept found in Article 25 of
the Constitution.95
According to this interpretation of the laws, social security is
understood as a benefits scheme provided by the government to ensure that the basic
needs of all people are met (medical care, nursing care, etc.). Therefore, the
government must clearly guarantee that welfare services remain a public responsibility.
Even in cases where certain welfare services are managed privately as a result of the
relaxation of regulations, a large part of the relevant cost is covered by public funding
even though the user often also has to pay a subsidized rate. Thus, it is reasonable to
consider a welfare service contract as an indirect application of Article 25 of the
Constitution.
2.2.3.3 Legal quality of daycare service contracts, after privatization: the
administrative responsibility remains unchanged
Moreover, the relevant government authorities are clear that the contracts that
rule privatized daycare services as are binding between the parent and the relevant
municipality (not the nursery center). With the amendments made to the Child Welfare
Act in 1997, the subject of Article 24 stipulating the admission of approved nursery
centers was amended from ―Admission to Nursery Centers‖ to ―Implementation of
Daycare.‖ This means that the administration regards the nursery center admission
system as having been changed from a traditional measure-based system to a system
based on contracts between parents and the relevant municipalities (not nursery
centers). Many interpreters of social security law regard this contract as a kind of
contract of adhesion and position it as a contract in terms of public law under the legal
95
Araki 2000, 251.
67
framework of the traditional measure-based system.96
More specifically, the
relationship between parents and municipalities has been transformed—from one
where the administrative government agency and citizens had an agreement—to one
that is built around a consumer agreement that centers on service provision and
payment based on the method defined by the municipality.97
In the measure-based system, administrative measures were taken by the
entitled authority, as a one-sided declaration of intent; the relevant municipality was
then responsible for implementing the measures. Under the measure-based system, a
legal relationship is established where the administrative measures are implemented
by the entitled authority. In this system, power and unilateral property of
administrative authorities were emphasized, and the prevailing legal interpretation
regarded the benefits received by the user as reflexive, a logical result of the
implementation of administrative actions. The user‘s intent was not regarded as
reflected in the content of the measure.
However, this conventional interpretation completely denies the continuous and
variable contractual elements that are outlined in the relations concerning the use of
welfare services.98
In one instance, a case came to trial where a child met with an
accident in a municipal nursery center before the amendments were made to the Child
Welfare Act in 1997. The court ruled that the municipality had breached its obligation
and was liable for damages. Then, in 1998, the following judgment was passed:
―When a child is admitted to a[n approved] nursery center as a result of a parent‘s
96
Kikuchi 2001b, 121. 97
Research Group on Japanese Child Welfare Law 1999, 168. 98
Kikuchi 2001b, 120-121; Kurata 2009, 41-42.
68
application, the parent‘s application is regarded as equivalent to agreeing to a nursery
daycare entrustment contract (yoji hoiku itaku keiyaku); the relevant municipality‘s
decision to accept this contract is regarded as the approval of said contract. Therefore,
it is clear that a contract for the benefit of a third party (the child) has been agreed
between the municipality and the parent . . . Admission to the [approved] center as a
result of administrative measures does not constitute any grounds for denying that the
legal relations between the parents (in this case, the plaintiff) and the municipality (in
this case, the defendant); indeed, the agreement is regarded as equivalent to a daycare
entrustment contract or a legally binding agreement.‖99
In other words, even though the term ―measure‖ was deleted from the provisions
of the Child Welfare Act when the amendments were made in 1997, nonetheless,
municipalities were regarded as responsible for providing daycare to those children
whose parents were unable to provide it (Art. 39). Moreover, the clause of ―selective
use of nursery center‖ was introduced into the Act alongside the 1997 amendments
(Art. 24(5)); this makes clear the duty that municipalities have to provide relevant
information so that parents make an informed choice about their selection of an
approved nursery center. The duty of municipalities to provide information is also
outlined in ―securing of appropriate management of nursery centers‖ (Art. 24(5)); the
same procedure is adopted in the new system as in the previous measure-based
system.
.
99
Tokyo District Court, Hachioji Branch, 1998, 79.
69
2.2.3.4 Public responsibility for the funding of welfare service management,
based on the right to the pursuit of happiness (article 13 of the constitution)
National and local governments are responsible for using public funds to
manage welfare services. ―The minimum standards of wholesome and cultured living‖
as stipulated in Article 25, Paragraph 1 of the Constitution (right to life) of Japan can
be realized primarily through the guarantee of a basic income (payment of monetary
benefit). How this should be funded and, more specifically, where this funding should
come from—tax revenue or public insurance system—is a politically charged question
that depends on notions of the redistribution of wealth. Incidentally, the cost of the
present MADB (including Next Generation Fostering Support System) is publicly
funded and managed by the national and local governments (80%), contributions
provided by enterprises, and insurance premiums split between employees and
employers (20%).100
Through the equal distribution of social primary goods, such as income and
wealth, every individual can be guaranteed an independent way of living (interpreted
as the right to the pursuit of happiness, as specified in Art. 13 of the Constitution).
Despite this material benefit, many of the basic needs of living, include services
(benefit in kind) such as medical care and nursing care, which cannot be fulfilled only
with money (funding of benefits). Therefore, individuals are given the right to make
100
MHLW 2008, Chapter 2, Section 2.4, ―‗Kodomo to kazoku wo oen suru Nion‘Juten senryaku no
gaiyo, Jyuten senryaku ga shimeshita kadai [1]: Gutaitekina kadai sekkei no kento‖ [Outline of the
Priority Strategy of ―Japan Supporting Child and Family,‖ Issues Presented by the Priority Strategy [1]:
Consideration of Specific Institution Design]. (Available at
http://www8.cao.go.jp/shoushi/whitepaper/w-2008/20webhonpen/html/i1222000.html.)
70
individual choices in looking for these services; the national government is responsible
for guaranteeing these rights. Therefore, it is clear that in shifting state responsibility
from the provision of the service itself to the provision only of the cost of the benefit
may well be considered a retreat of public responsibility.101
However, when in the 1990s, neo-liberalism, a market-driven approach to
government policies that maximizes the role of the private business sector in
determining the political and economic priorities of the state, become increasingly
prominent in Japan, the national and local government‘s public responsibility for
welfare service management began, inevitably, to decline. These new liberal politics
accelerated rapidly during the Koizumu (April 2001-September 2006) and Abe
(September 2006-September 2007) administrations; both of these governments had to
govern during a financial slow-down, and, as a result, the budgets for social security
were reduced and labor conditions worsened as regulations were relaxed and as
welfare services privatized.
2.3 Aggressive reductions in social security expenditures under “the honebuto
basic reform policy” and the implications of this for Japan’s MADB
2.3.1 Debates on “the honebuto basic reform policy” and increased contributions
by individuals
―The Honebuto Basic Reform Policy‖ (Honebuto no hoshin)102
was first coined
by Mr. Koizumi, who was elected prime minister in 2001. The policy outlines ―the
101
Kikuchi 2001a, 67. 102
The phrase ―Large-boned policy‖ is the literal translation of the Japanese phrase ―Honebuto no
hoshin.‖ The adjective ―honebuto‖ covers a number of meanings such as broad, robust, powerful,
decisive, and basic. By using this symbolic phrase, Prime Minister Koizumi could win the public‘s
71
basic policy for economic and fiscal management, and structural reforms,‖
recommended in June 2001 by the Council on Economic and Fiscal Policy. In January
2001, the Council on Economic and Fiscal Policy (chaired by the Prime Minister) was
formed to initiative the process whereby the initiatives for budget compilation could
be transferred to the Cabinet from the Ministry of Finance. In June every year, the
Council recommends a basic framework for economic and fiscal policies, which is
ultimately endorsed by the Cabinet. Even after Mr. Koizumi retired as premier, the
council‘s recommendations for each year are still outlined in ―the Honebuto Basic
Reform Policy for 20XX‖ and much policy continuity remains.
―The Honebuto Basic Reform Policy for FY 2001‖ designated the years through
to FY 2003 (later extended to FY 2004) as an intensive adjustment period where
economic growth was not expected; instead, the years were to be used to stimulate
economic growth in subsequent years. Initially, the social security budget was reduced
by 300 billion yen (USD 3 billion) a year (on the national budget basis) and the
government has since continued to cut the budget 220 billion yen (USD 2.2 billion)
every fiscal year. This has been achieved by decreasing government outlay for
employment insurance and reducing drug prices. In order to achieve further cuts in
fiscal spending, a measure was suggested in the Honebuto Basic Reform Policy for FY
2006 that would curb increases in social security expenditures by 1.1 trillion yen
(USD 11 billion) over a period of five years (starting in FY2007); this was later
attention and give the impression of himself as a decisive leader for reconstructing the out-of-date
socio-economic systems.
72
endorsed at the Cabinet meeting.103
Under this policy, the government also hopes that
the basic treasury budgets of the national and local governments will be back in the
black by FY 2011.
However, even if the present increases of the social security budgetcan be
successfully curbed, trial calculations by the MHLW,104
still indicate that medical
expenses are likely to rise by an average of 2.9%, and nursing care expenses by an
average of 5.1% as society continues to age. In FY 2025, predicted overall social
security expenditure is calculated to 1.6 times FY 2006 level.
Surprisingly, according to the 2008 edition of the White Paper on the Society
with Declining Birthrate, the government takes an assumption as a given that women
will increasingly be participating in the labor market. Based on this assumption of
increased participation, the outlook for economic and fiscal management, social
security benefits and contributions, and the fiscal verification of public pension plans
are presented.105
On the other hand, these outlooks fail to take into account the extra
money that is required to allow women to work and raise children at the same time (an
additional government outlay of 1.5 to 2.4 trillion yen (USD 15 to 24 billion),
according to an estimate by the 2007 Priority Strategy Council). For example, in ―the
Economic and Fiscal Report for FY 2003,‖ issued by the Cabinet Office, it is
estimated that the real GDP growth will increase by around 0.5%, through 2050, if
women no longer feel forced to choose between either work or childbirth/child-care.
103
Cabinet Meeting Approval, July 7, 2006. 104
MHLW, May 2006. 105
See, for example, MHLW 2008, Chapter 2, Section 2.4. (Available at
http://www8.cao.go.jp/shoushi/whitepaper/w-2008/20webhonpen/html/i1222000.html.)
73
Then women are more likely to participate both in childrearing and in the workforce,
which will lead to an increase in the birthrate.106
This estimate does not include the
abovementioned additional fiscal outlay of 1.5-2.4 trillion yen (USD 15-24 billion), so,
if the low birthrate is to be addressed, it seems that women must attempt to manage
work and childcare at the same time, or to give up one if doing the two things at the
same time is not manageable.
If the government is unable to cover increased social security benefits, then the
next question to be asked is whether increasing contributions from individuals and
corporations is practical. Indeed, it has often been suggested that consumption tax
should be increased in order to help fund social security benefits. In order to secure
more funding for social security, such as pension liabilities and medical expenses, the
government has been considering introduction of a new pledge to only use revenue
that is generated from consumption tax. Overall, social security cost the national and
local government, approximately 26 trillion yen (USD 260 billion) in FY2004, and it
has been predicted that, if these expenses are to be met by the consumption tax, then
tax rate (5% as of September 2010) will have to be raised to over 10%.107
However,
the consumption tax tends to hit younger generations harder, who usually have lower
incomes anyway. Because of this, many people assume that the consumption tax is not
a workable solution for funding benefits to encourage child-rearing.
According to a nationwide opinion survey that was conducted by Asahi Shimbun
(Asahi Newspaper) in June-July of 2008 on the relation between contributions and
106
MHLW 2008, Chapter 2, Section 2.4, note 8. (Available at
http://www8.cao.go.jp/shoushi/whitepaper/w-2008/20webhonpen/html/i1222000.html.) 107
Kawasaki, May 16, 2006.
74
benefits of the future public pension systems, the opinions of the Japanese people were
starkly divided; 37% of respondents believed that the government should ―increase
contributions and maintain/improve present benefits‖ (higher contributions for higher
benefits), and 39% believed the government should ―curb benefits to reduce
contributions‖ (lower benefits for lower contributions). Forty-three percent of male
respondents and 32% of female respondents believed that ―higher contributions for
higher benefits‖ was the solution. Of the respondents who defined their living
standards as ―in upper part of the middle class,‖ nearly 50% supported this view, but
of the respondents who defined their living standards as ―in upper part of the lower
class,‖ only some 20% agreed, indicating a relatively strong resistance to the concept
of increased contributions among this class.
With regard to suggested measures that could be implemented to cover possible
shortfall in resources for social security expenditures, 33% of respondents supported a
―higher consumption tax,‖ 25% supported ―hikes in consumption and corporate
taxes,‖ and only 16% approved ―reduced services.‖ However, 44% of respondents
agreed that, ―in order to maintain current levels of social security benefits, people‘s
contributions must be further raised,‖ either ―fully‖ or ―to some extent‖ and 53% said
―not entirely‖ or ―absolutely not.‖
2.3.2 Disparities in parental incomes and child poverty
As social security expenditures continued to drop 220 billion yen (USD 2.2
billion) every year, under the direction of ―the large-bone policy,‖ a 2006 OECD
report expressed concerns about the poverty rate among Japanese children (where
75
poverty is defined as having under 50% mean disposal income), which was growing as
a result of disparity in the income of rich and poor; this growth in poverty shocked
Japanese society.
In 2000, over half of Japan‘s working single parents were living in relative
poverty; the OECD average stood at some 20%.108
In addition, it is noteworthy that
the poverty rate in Japan is higher among working single parents than among jobless
single parents. In order to provide incentives for parents to get back into work, the
government reformed the childcare allowance system (Jido fuyo teate seido). Because
of the extremely high poverty rate among children of single-parent families (57.2%
ranking second among the 25 OECD member countries), these reforms increased the
poverty rate among Japanese children to 14.3% in 2000, well above the OECD
average (and the tenth highest in the top 25 OECD nations).
The report also expressed concerns about the hierarchization of academic
capabilities among Japanese children, which had been revealed in the PISA survey.
Considering the relatively high number of children educated by the private sector in
Japan, the report concluded that sufficient access to quality education should be
guaranteed for children of low-income families, so that the generation-to-generation
succession of poverty may be prevented.
Ms. Aya Abe, Manager of Second Section, Department of International
Research and Cooperation of National Institute of Population and Social Security
108
According to a survey of families on welfare in Sakai City, Osaka Prefecture, 70% of single-parent
families on welfare had low education and besides, 40% of heads of fatherless families on welfare were
raised in families that were also on welfare, marking a notable generation-to-generation succession of
welfare. Asahi Shinbun, September 3, 2007.
76
Research, points out that one of the defining social characteristics of Japan is that ―the
social security system does not seem to have progressed in the reduction of poverty
among children.‖ The reason she cites is that ―in addition to the fact that social
insurance with regressive nature, such as the national pension plan with fixed
premiums that impose a greater burden (relative to resources) on the poor than on the
rich, lies at the center of the social security system, public benefits provided for
child-rearing families are insufficient, and the income redistribution enacted through
the tax systems is inadequate.‖109
2.3.3 Current public expenditure situation with regard to MADB in Japan
As has been discussed, it is clear that the responsibilities of the national and
local governments to allocate sufficient money not only to MADB but also to overall
family allowance programs have not been properly fulfilled.
The overall benefits and services offered to help bring up the next generations in
Japan are provided by systems of child welfare, maternal and child health, medical
insurance and employment insurance. Each of these programs has its own benefits and
contribution methods established pursuant to its own ideals, and there is no systematic
process for allocating benefits according to individual needs.
In addition, in comparison with most European countries, the fiscal scale of the
overall policies implemented to support families (through cash and in-kind benefits)
remains small. The 2007 OECD data show that social expenditures as a percentage of
109
Toyo Keizai Weekly, May 17, 2008, 43.
77
GDP (in 2003) stood at 3.02% in France and 3.54% in Sweden.110
France, which saw
its birthrate drop to 1.65 in 1993, succeeded in raising the rate to 2.00 in 2006 by
allocating a budget of 3% of GDP to expenditures that were overwhelmingly
concerned with child-rearing and family allowances. In contrast, in Japan, the
corresponding rate was 0.75% (approximately 3.7 trillion yen, USD 37 billion). Even
acknowledging that there are differences in social practices, if the Japanese
expenditures were raised to the same level as those of France, the annual budget would
come to 10.6 trillion yen (USD 106 billion).111
There is yet to be a clear national consensus formed with regard to the
contributions that are required to support family-related policies. Child and
family-related social expenditures only account for 4% of the overall social security
programs of Japan, and they are extremely low—particularly for the first half of
people‘s lives—in comparison with the corresponding expenditures in European
countries.112
According to ―Social security benefits in FY 2005‖ of the National
Institute of Population and Social Security Research, while child and family-related
expenditures stood at 3.5637 trillion yen (USD 35.637 billion, 4.1% of the total social
expenditures), elderly related expenditures amounted to 61.7079 trillion yen (USD
617,079 billion, 70.2% of the total). It should be noted that these statistics are
compiled according to the ILO standards and, unlike social security expenditures
110
The data are based on social expenditures for ―family‖ category of the OECD and include expenses
related to childbirth, benefits associated with childcare leaves, various allowances for children and
various child welfare services provided both in cash and in-kind. Cabinet Office, June 19, 2008,
Reference, No.32. (Available at
http://www.kantei.go.jp/jp/singi/syakaihosyoukokuminkaigi/chukan/siryou_2.pdf.) 111
Asahi Shinbun, June 3, 2008; Asahi Shinbun, June 19, 2008. 112
MHLW-SSC-STF, May 2008, 2.
78
according to the OECD standards, do not include such expenses that do not directly
translate to benefits of individuals, such as facility repair expenses.113
2.3.4 Request for revision of the social security benefits policy and for the
national commission for social security to guarantee the provision of the
necessary fiscal resources
Under these circumstances, the governmental body, the National Commission
for Social Security, in the outline of its intermediate report that was published in June
2008, recommended that the government‘s policy of restraining social security
expenditures be revised.114
The Commission appreciated that the reforms undertaken
by the Koizumi administration to curb social security expenditures, which included
introduction of a 30% contribution by the patient for medical expenses, pension plan
reforms, and a separate health care system for people aged 75 and over, achieved
certain results.115
On the other hand, the report listed increasing worries among the
elderly population with regard to reduced benefits and increased contributions, the
shortage of pediatric doctors, and the collapse of local medical systems as problems
that were not adequately addressed or those that newly arose in the process of reforms.
The report advocated that the priorities of the reform should be shifted so that the
provision of necessary services could be guaranteed and the stability of people‘s lives
be secured.116
It recommended, among other things, the following specific measures:
expand the coverage of social insurance to include non-regular employees, build
113
See also, Cabinet Office, February 9, 2007. 114
This National Commission for Social Security (Shakai hosho kokumin kaigi) was established by the
Cabinet Meeting Approval on January 25, 2008, as a Cabinet‘s commission chaired by the Prime Minister,
for discussing Japan‘s social security policies in general. Cabinet Office, June 19, 2008. 115
Cabinet Office, June 19, 2008, 5. 116
Cabinet Office, June 19, 2008, 6.
79
medical networks in communities, reorganize and intensively allocate resources to
child-rearing assistance services.117
In closing, the report emphasized the need for resources to enhance the
effectiveness of the social security system. The report recommended that a national
consensus be formed as soon as possible concerning people‘s contributions, while at
the same time pursuing increased efficiency in the country‘s social security systems. It
also highlighted the importance of the national and local governments in striving to
secure necessary resources, this suggests they also agree that there is a need for tax
hikes.118
Concerning the MADB, the report pointed out that ―compared with
European countries, the percentage of expenditures related to childbirth and
child-rearing in GDP is extremely low,‖ and suggested that an additional 1.5 to 2.4
trillion yen (USD 15 to 24 billion) be spent by the national and local government.119
However, the report stops short of suggesting specific measures related to increased
contributions.120
Practically, at the subcommittee level, members strongly sought an increase in
resources, including an increase in the funding provided to tackle the declining
117
Cabinet Office, June 19, 2008, 18. 118
Cabinet Office, June 19, 2008, 21. 119
Nihon Keizai Shinbun, June 4, 2008. The amount 1.5-2.4 trillion yen (USD 15-24 billion) is the same
as the amount suggested by the Priority Strategy Conference for ―Japan Supporting Children and
Families‖ (―Kodomo to kazoku wo oensuru Nihon‖juten senryaku kento kaigi) as cited in MHLW 2008.
(Available athttp://www8.cao.go.jp/shoushi/whitepaper/w-2008/20webhonpen/html/i1222000.html.)
However, this amount (USD 15-24 billion) is a ballpark figure of resources needed in the future, and it
should be noted that costs for repairing/maintaining facilities and maintaining/upgrading services and
enhanced care for handicapped children in need of special assistance such as social care are not included.
See Cabinet Office, June 19, 2008, ―Intermediate Summary‖ (Chukan torimatome) of the 3rd
Subcommittee of National Commission for Social Security (named ―Building a Sustainable Society
(Declining Birthrate- Harmonizing Work and Life‖), 8. ( Available at
http://www.kantei.go.jp/jp/singi/syakaihosyoukokuminkaigi/chukan/siryou_5.pdf.) 120
Asahi Shinbun, June 5, 2008.
80
birthrate, which stands at only 4% of total social security expenditure. In February
2008, the Third Subcommittee of the National Commission for Social Security that
was aimed at ―building a sustainable society,‖ and which is responsible for
deliberating the MADB, had its first meeting. Although the chairperson suggested that
child-rearing assistance programs should be prioritized as ample funds are not likely to
be allocated to the MADB, subcommittee members opposed that policy, proposing
that a set of discussions be held to make the consumption tax ―a new fiscal resource‖
and that measures be put in place to stop companies from bearing responsibility for
expenses such as childcare allowances.121
As our discussion has made clear, the concept of ―children‘s interests‖ has been
missing from the reform of the nursery daycare system that has been conducted under
the structural reform of Japan‘s social security system with aggressive reductions in
social security expenditures. However, this does not necessarily reflect an overall
indifference in Japanese society to children. In the policy-making discussions of
specific issues of the MADB, there were actually some statements expressing
children‘s interests. For example, in July 1993, a private consultation group formed by
the then Director General of the Children and Families Bureau of the MHLW
published a ―Report on the 21 Plan Study Group for Local Communities Filled with
Healthy Children, Cheerful Families, Energy, and Kindness.‖ The report upheld four
principles that should lie at the heart of all measures for children and families: (1)
universalizing measures for children and families, (2) partnership between families
121
Nihon Keizai Shinbun, February 27, 2008.
81
and society for child-rearing, (3) positioning of children as the holders of rights, and
(4) promotion of diverse and comprehensive measures based on families and local
communities. Especially with regard to (3), the report stated, ―the UNCRC emphasizes
the perspective of ‗children as persons that exercise rights‘ along with the joint
responsibility of parents, the national and local governments, and society for the
protection of children.‖ The report became the first of several compiled by the MHLW
to declare ―children‘s rights,‖ ―children‘s best interests,‖ as important principles,
alongside other principles with the shift of viewpoint from ―support of parents rearing
children‖ to ―support of children growing and of parents rearing children.‖122
In
addition, the Subcommittee of the Priority Strategy Study Committee on Revitalizing
Regions and Families ―Japan Supports Families and Children‖ held its first session in
March 2007; the minutes of the session show that a Subcommittee member made the
following comment: ―Haven‘t the MADB in general prioritized economic efficiency
as its ruling principle, including conventional daycare policies? Surely the most
important issue is how to guarantee children‘s growth… but I wonder if the best
interests of our children are, indeed, a top priority.‖123
Nursery daycare as a public service should guaranteed consistently across the
board, regardless of parent income and cost burden capacity. When these integral
122
Takahashi 2007. 123
Cabinet Office, March 13, 2007, a statement of committee member Professor Shiro Takahashi
(Myojo University, Tokyo). The Priority Strategy Conference for ―Japan Supporting Children and
Families‖ (―Kodomo to kazoku wo oensuru Nihon‖juten senryaku kento kaigi) was established on
February 9, 2007, as a subsidiary organ of the Cabinet Office‘s Commission on the Countermeasures to
the Falling Birthrate (Shoshika shakai taisaku kaigi), the commission that was established, in September
2003, by the ―Basic Act on the Countermeasures to the Falling Birthrate‖ (Act No.133 of 2003).
82
aspects are not maintained in the nursery daycare system, then it is ―the best interests
of young children‖ that are directly and most negatively affected.
83
Chapter 3. Selecting international standards for daycare quality under the
UNCRC framework124
3.1 The UNCRC and its implications for young children
3.1.1 The UNCRC and its monitoring body the CRC
The UNCRC was adopted by the United Nations General Assembly in
resolution 44/25 of November 20, 1989.125
On September 2, 1990, ratified by twenty
members, the UNCRC came into existence in accordance with Article 49. Since then,
193 states parties have ratified and acceded to the UNCRC, making it the most widely
accepted multilateral treaty in existence of any kind.
Under the UNCRC, all children under the age of 18 are holders of autonomous
rights as well as protective rights; all the rights outlined in the Convention extend to
infants and toddlers. Young children are entitled to ―the progressive exercise of their
rights,‖126
according to their evolving capacities and with the protection, guidance,
and support of their parents or others who have legal responsibility for them. The
UNCRC outlines a wide range of civil, political, economic, social, and cultural rights
that apply to children. In its implementation, the Committee on the Rights of the Child
(CRC), the monitoring body of the UNCRC, classifies the following four Articles as
124
Sections 3.1-3.4 are excerpted by permission of the Publishers from ―Privatization of Childcare as a
Way of Implementing Young Children‘s Rights: The Recommendations of the Committee on the Rights
of the Child and Their Implications for Japan,‖ in Public Interest Rules of International Law: Towards
Effective Implementation (Karel Wellens & Teruo Komori eds., 2009), pp. 427–458. Copyright © 2009 125
Convention on the Rights of the Child, New York, 20 November 1989, 1577 UNTS 3. 126
GC7, para.3. Other two principles are Article 2 (Non-discrimination) and Article 6(The right to life,
survival and development).
84
―general principles‖127
: Article 2 (Nondiscrimination), Article 3 (Best interest of the
child), Article 6 (The right to life, survival, and development), and Article 12 (Respect
for the views of the child).
The CRC was created under Article 43 of the UNCRC to ensure the
implementation of the UNCRC and its optional protocols. The CRC is a body made up
of 18 independent experts, and its primary mandate is to review the progress made by
states parties in implementing the UNCRC and its two optional protocols. Pursuant to
Article 44, states parties are required to submit a periodic report128
to the CRC
explaining how they are fulfilling their obligations (which are mainly specified in Part
One (Art. 1 through 41) of the UNCRC). The CRC examines each report and
communicates its concerns and recommendations to the state party in the form of
―concluding observations.‖
The CRC also publishes its interpretation of the UNCRC provisions, known as
―General Comments,‖129
centering on thematic issues, ―with a view to promoting
further implementation and assisting states parties in fulfilling their reporting
obligations.‖130
Periodically, the CRC also coordinates a ―Day of General
Discussion,‖ (DGD) where specific articles of the UNCRC or a particular theme about
children‘s rights are explored in detail; this is conducted ―in order to enhance a deeper
127
See UN Doc. CRC/C/5 (1991) para.13; UN Doc. CRC/C/58(1996) paras. 25-47.
See also UN Doc. CRC/GC/2003/5 (2003) para.12. 128
The first report needs to be submitted by the state party two years after acceding to the convention.
After that, a progress report is required every five years. 129
Regarding the functions of the General Comments issued by international human rights organs in
general, Steiner and Alston points out the following two: aid to states in filing reports under the respective
human rights treaties; and restatement, interpretation and elaboration of provisions of the respective
human rights treaties. Steiner and Alston 1996, 522-534. 130
CRC 2005, 21, Rule 73(1). For general information, see
http://www.ohchr.org/english/bodies/crc/comments.htm.
85
understanding of the content and implications of the Convention.‖131
The discussions
are public; those invited to participate include government representatives, United
Nations human rights mechanisms, United Nations bodies and specialized agencies,
NGOs, and individual experts.132
In relation to the topic of the provision of daycare quality, the CRC has
organized the following two DGDs, which were both held at Palais Wilson, Geneva:
Day of Discussion on the Private Sector as Service Provider and Its Role in
Implementing Child Rights (September 20, 2002),133
and Day of Discussion on
Implementing Child Rights in Early Childhood (September 17, 2004).134
Based on the
findings of the working groups and the plenary discussion at the DGDs, the CRC
adopted respective recommendations. Regarding the theme of the 2004 DGD, the
CRC also adopted a more detailed document—the General Comment No.7—in its
40th session (September 2005).135
We will discuss these documents in greater detail
in section 3.3.
3.1.2 The original policy design for implementation: the parent-child-state
tripartite framework
In the original policy design for the implementation of children‘s rights, the
UNCRC envisaged a triangular framework structured around ―parent-child-state.‖
131
CRC 2005, 21, Rule 75. For general information, see
http://www.ohchr.org/english/bodies/crc/discussion.htm. 132
Each year, children, NGOs and experts are invited to submit documents to inform the CRC‘s one-day
discussion with stakeholders mentioned in the text. All submitted documents are posted on the Child
Rights Information Network (CRIN) website, http://www.crin.org/resources/treaties/discussion.asp. 133
See DGD 2002. For the full text of the outline for the DGD, see CRC/C/114 annex VIII, 187-190. 134
See DGD 2004. For the full text of the outline for this DGD, see UN Doc. CRC/C/137 Annex II,
132-135. For its summary record (partial), see UN Doc. CRC/C/SR.979. 135
See GC7.
86
Within this framework, the UNCRC allocated the primary responsibility of upbringing
and development of children to parents (or legal guardians), and all supplementary
assistance offered to families for child-rearing was deemed the responsibility of states
parties.136
In the light of children as rights-holders, the responsibilities of parents and
states parties were thus subject to Article 3 (which calls for the best interest of the
child to be a primary consideration when taking action involving a child) and Article
12 (the right of a child to express their own views freely in all matters affecting him or
her).
The ―rights‖ of the parent rather than their ―authority,‖ to direct the upbringing
of their children in their own household, are prescribed by the UNCRC (Art. 5 and
14(2)). However, parents are, in essence, regarded as fiduciaries137
in relation to their
children‘s rights; the best interests of the child should be ―their basic concern‖ (Arts.
18(1) and 27(2)). As such, parents are obliged to perform their fiduciary
responsibilities and duties, and states parties must provide appropriate assistance to
parents in performing their child-rearing responsibilities (Art. 3(2), 18(2), and 27(3)).
If parents are not able to discharge their duties of protection and guidance, then states
parties must involve themselves in protecting the best interests of the child. This is a
136
It might be because of the following two factors that the original policy designs were expected to
function well: first, the traditional conception of family autonomy, which has venerated freedom form
State control and has outlined domestic family laws in most legal systems, was generally accepted in the
drafting process for the UNCRC; second, as ―has become a familiar requirement‖ in the main human
rights treaties, the UNCRC has stipulated, for the sake of the review and comments by the CRC, that
States parties are required to submit, to the Committee on the Rights of the Child (CRC), the Convention
organ, periodic reports about their domestic implementation of the UNCRC obligations. Steiner and
Alston 1996, 505. 137
See, e.g., Kandel and Griffiths 2003, 1056; Scott and Scott 1995, 2401.
87
substantial departure from the past, when state involvement in the realm of the family
life (Arts. 9(1) and 19(1)) would traditionally have been prohibited.
Traditionally, the patriarchal concept of family autonomy has been predominant
in the Western world, and it considers children as merely recipients of protection
under the parental (i.e., head-of-household‘s) authority.138
This concept has
contributed substantially to the longstanding legal paradigm where competition for
control is conducted between the private authority of the family and the power of the
state. When the UNCRC introduced the new category of children‘s rights into the
existing realm of international human rights, this traditional breakdown of authority
was transformed; by formulating a parent-child-state framework, decisional power and
responsibility was allocated among these three parties.
Under the Convention, traditional legal paternalism has been undermined almost
entirely, despite the fact that most major human rights documents recognize the right
to family life or privacy.139
From this point of view, the traditional competition
paradigm between the state and the family is replaced with a new paradigm of
partnership, in which parents and the state cooperate with each other to ensure
children‘s healthy development.140
138
Under the patriarchal model, in which ―the father‘s power over his household …was absolute[, l]aw
employed a property theory of paternal ownership and treated children ‗as assets of estates in which
fathers had a vested right.‘‖ Woodhouse 1992,1037. 139
The States parties shall protect the family and its members, and are not allowed to subject an
individual to arbitrary or unlawful interference with his or her family life or privacy, as is recognized in
the major human rights documents, such as the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights(UDHR), the
1966 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights(ICCPR), the 1950 European Convention for
the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms(ECHR), and the 1961 European Social
Charter(ESC), See, e.g., Article 16(3) of the UDHR, Articles 17 and 23(1) of the ICCPR, Article 16 of the
ESC and Article 8 of the ECHR. 140
Woodhouse 2004, 85.
88
However, it should also be noted that the UNCRC does place significant
emphasis on the importance of the role of the family (i.e., parents and other primary
caregivers) in the realization of children‘s rights. In the preamble of the Convention,
for instance, it is made clear that states parties should consider the family as ―the
fundamental group of society and the natural environment for the growth and
well-being of all its members and particularly children‖ (Paragraph 5). The same
preamble also clarifies that ―the child, for the full and harmonious development of his
or her personality, should grow up in a family environment, in an atmosphere of
happiness, love, and understanding‖ (Paragraph 6).141
With the concept that children‘s
upbringing is primarily the responsibility of the family underpinning its position, the
UNCRC adopts a stance whereby states parties, in the first place, play a role of
backing and assistance for the family, by monitoring whether children‘s rights are
being respected within the private sphere of the family.142
It is worth emphasizing
here that this complementary, supportive positioning of states parties presupposes the
sound functioning of the family that is rearing their children, and that the atmosphere
of understanding, rather than parental authority, should predominate.
141
Furthermore, Article 7 (Name and nationality) defines the rights for the child as ―as far as possible, the
right to know and be cared for by his or her parents‖ and in Article 9 (Separation from parents) sets a rule
that a child shall not be separated from the parents against his or her will, and even if separated for reasons
of abuse or parental divorce, States parties respect the right ―to maintain personal relations and direct
contact with both parents on a regular basis.‖ 142
This formulation of responsibilities for realizing children‘s rights can be speculated as a reflection of
family law outline of most legal systems. For the detailed description of this paragraph, see Ota 2001,
195-199.
89
3.2 The impediments to ensuring the effective implementation of the UNCRC: a
lack of clarity of the “best interests” principle and the risk this poses to young
children
3.2.1 The “best interests” principle of the UNCRC
As mentioned in section 3.1, the CRC classifies four Articles as ―general
principles‖ that should underlie the implementation of the UNCRC. In this context, it
is worth noting that children in early childhood are uniquely vulnerable due to their
immaturity and dependency on responsible authorities to represent their rights.
Considering this, the ―the best interests of the child‖ principle should lie at the heart of
any decision made for the child by those in positions of authority.
Article 3 of the UNCRC consists of three paragraphs. The first articulates the
principle of the best interests of the child as follows:
In all actions concerning children, whether undertaken by public or
private social welfare institutions, courts of law, administrative authorities or
legislative bodies, the best interests of the child shall be a primary
consideration.
Article 3(2) outlines the obligations that states parties have to ensure that
appropriate measures are taken in areas of legislation and administration as follows:
States Parties undertake to ensure the child such protection and care as is
necessary for his or her well-being, taking into account the rights and duties of
his or her parents, legal guardians, or other individuals legally responsible for
him or her, and, to this end, shall take all appropriate legislative and
administrative measures.
90
Lastly, together with Article 3(1), Article 3(3) prescribes the obligation of state
parties‘ obligations: first, to establish proper standards, in conformity with Article
3(1),143
for those responsible for caring and protecting children, and second, to ensure
that those responsible conform with such standards. It reads as follows:
States Parties shall ensure that the institutions, services and facilities
responsible for the care or protection of children shall conform with the
standards established by competent authorities, particularly in the areas of
safety, health, in the number and suitability of their staff, as well as competent
supervision.
When these guidelines are regarded in the context of the privatization of nursery
daycare, it is clear that, in the same Convention, Article 18(2) is specifically related to
Article 3(3).144
Under Article 18(2), states parties ―shall render appropriate assistance
to parents and legal guardians in the performance of their child-rearing responsibilities
and shall ensure the development of institutions, facilities, and services for the care of
children.‖ Article 18(3) imposes obligations on states parties to ―take all appropriate
measures to ensure that children of working parents have the right to benefit from
childcare services and facilities for which they are eligible.‖
As the above overview of the UNCRC articles shows, this principle can be
primarily considered as ―an aid to construction as well as an element which needs to
be taken fully into account in implementing other rights.‖145
This principle can also
143
Freeman 2007, 71. 144
Freeman 2007, 71-72. See also Detrick 1999, 94. 145
Alston 1994, 16.
91
function ―as a basis for evaluating the laws and practices of States [p]arties where the
matter is not governed by positive rights in the Convention.‖146
3.2.2 The principle’s indeterminacy and the implications of this for young
children
However, despite the centrality of the concept to the UNCRC and the fact that
all states parties that have ratified the Convention have pledged to uphold it, ―the best
interests of the child‖ is still rather problematic because the concept itself is not well
defined.
In fact, neither the UNCRC nor the CRC directly defines the concept of a
child‘s ―best interests‖ and, as such, the concept of ―best interests‖ is very vague.
According to Philip Alston, the drafters of Article 3(1) seem to feel ―no need either to
defend [the] open-endedness [of the phrase ‗the best interests of the child‘] or to
propose elements which might inject some particular content into it,‖ because they
were aware of ―its extensive usage in the domestic laws of many countries‖ but
―unaware of the controversy over [this] principle in many of these jurisdictions.‖147
Indeed, the CRC invokes this principle to criticize certain domestic laws,
policies, and practices of states parties that are regarded as incompatible with ―the best
interests of the child.‖ These include criticizing the prevalence in some jurisdictions of
the low marriageable age of girls, laws penalizing children born outside wedlock, the
treatment of children from minority cultures, the low legal age of criminal
responsibility, corporal punishment, and the neglect of a child‘s best interests in the
146
This role of the principle was first identified by Stephen Parker. Freeman 2007, 31. 147 Alston 1994, 11.
92
face of economic difficulties.148
Nevertheless, the CRC has not directly defined the
―best interests‖ principle.
The fact that this concept has yet to be properly defined is highly risky; indeed,
it is clear that any ambiguity surrounding such a central phrase may allow for abuse of
the principle. As Michael Freeman points out, in upholding the ―best interests‖
principle, there is ample opportunity for prejudice (homophobia, for instance) and
―dominant meanings‖ (e.g., dominant ideology, individual arbitrariness, and ―family
and more general social policies for which the law serves as an instrument‖), to
influence decisions made about a child, under the guise of upholding the principle
itself.‖149
Even where children do have adequate ability for verbal communication, they
are often unable to articulate their own point of view because adults tend to wield the
majority of power in most societies. The fact that the ―best interests of the child‖ has
yet to be properly defined is dangerous, as it may provide ―a convenient cloak for bias,
paternalism and capricious decision-making,‖150
especially in the exercise of young
children‘s rights. Since children are unable to verbally communicate until late on in
their childhood (and even then they may be disempowered from speaking honestly), it
is crucial that the adults around interpret their best interests, and rear the children with
this principle at the forefront of their mind.
148
Freeman 2007, 41-44, 51-59. 149
Freeman 2007, 2. 150
Parker 1994, 26.
93
3.3 The CRC’s approach to restrengthen the role of parents and states parties
3.3.1 The recommendations that emerged from the DGDs (2002, 2004) and
General Comment No.7 (2005)
DGDs have been organized on the following topics: service provision by the
private sector (2002) and young children‘s rights (2004). After each DGD, the CRC
adopted a set of corresponding recommendations. In 2005, the CRC also adopted a
more detailed document on the implementation of young children‘s rights—the
General Comment No.7 (hereinafter GC7)—in September 2005.
Based on the considerations outlined in the previous sections—with regard to
the UNCRC tripartite framework structured around ―parent-child-state‖ and the
problem of the ambiguity of the term ―best interests of the child,‖ the following
sections will evaluate the ways that the CRC is seeking to strengthen the roles of
parents and states parties in addressing the impediments to ensure that the UNCRC is
effectively implemented. These approaches are the result of the two DGDs mentioned
above and the CRC has used the guidelines outlined in GC7 to help parents and states
parties fulfill their UNCRC obligations in the domain of childcare. The GC7 are a set
of guidelines that are the outcome of the findings and recommendations of the DGD
2004, as the GC7 and the DGD 2004 dealt with the same topic. The following sections,
therefore, examine mainly the GC7 (on implementing young children‘s rights) and the
recommendations of the DGD 2002 (on service provision by the private sector).
94
3.3.2 Signaling the significance of the support that professional caregivers can
offer parents
The most remarkable feature of the GC7 is the emphasis placed on the
importance of ensuring that, in implementing the rights of children in early
childhood,151
young children and their parents or caregivers are allowed to engage in
relationships that have ―strong emotional attachments‖ (Paragraph 6(b)).The GC7 is
based on research that has found that the survival, well-being, and development of
young children both depend on and evolve around ―close relationships . . . with a
small number of key people‖ (Paragraph 8). The guidelines are clear that young
children‘s sound development is ―best provided for within a small number of
consistent, caring relationships [that] are with some combination of mother, father,
siblings, grandparents and other members of the extended family, along with
professional caregivers specialized in childcare and education‖ (Paragraph 19). In
other words, these key caregivers are regarded as the ―major conduit‖ (Paragraph 16)
―through which even babies can implement their rights.152
In this context, the GC7 has three distinctive underpinnings. First, based on the
findings on research into early childhood, it enunciates the CRC‘s consistent
151
In the GC7, the CRC‘s working definition of ―early childhood‖ is all young children below the age of
8 years: at birth and throughout infancy; during the preschool years; as well as during the transition to
school (paras.1, 4). 152
The GC7, paragraph 16 explains the way that babies implement their rights as follows:
Newborn babies are able to recognize their parents (or other [primary] caregivers) very soon after birth,
and they engage actively in non-verbal communication. Under normal circumstances, young children
form strong mutual attachments with their parents or primary caregivers. These relationships offer
children physical and emotional security, as well as consistent care and attention. Through these
relationships children construct a personal identity and acquire culturally valued skills, knowledge and
behaviours.
95
recognition of young children as ―social actors from the beginning of life‖ (Paragraph
2(c)) who have ―evolving capacities‖ (Paragraph 17) and are ―active social agents‖
(Paragraph 16), who ―actively make sense of the physical, social and cultural
dimensions of the world they inhabit, learning progressively from their activities and
their interactions with others, both children and adults‖ (Paragraph 6(d)).
Second, the GC7 upholds the CRC‘s solid conviction that early childhood is a
critical period for achieving children‘s rights (Paragraph 1); it also concurs with the
CRC in articulating concerns that states parties have not paid adequate attention ―to
young children as rights-holders and to the laws, policies, and programs required to
realize their rights during this distinct phase of their childhood‖ (Paragraph 3).
Third, the GC7 confirms the CRC‘s willingness to assist ―primary caregivers,‖
such as parents or legal guardians, in realizing young children‘s rights, paying
particular attention to children‘s best interests (Paragraphs 15 and 16). Since early
childhood is recognized as ―the period of most extensive (and intensive) parental
responsibilities related to all aspects of children‘s well-being,‖ it is clear that, under
the UNCRC, the implementation of young children‘s rights depends on the
―well-being and resources available to those with responsibility for their care‖
(Paragraph 20). Therefore, the GC7 relates in detail the importance of providing
carefully crafted assistance to those primary caregivers.
Paragraph 20 exemplifies the necessary assistance as follows:
(a) An integrated approach would include interventions that impact
indirectly parents‘ ability to promote the best interests of children (e.g.
taxation and benefits, adequate housing, working hours) as well as those that
96
have more immediate consequences (e.g. perinatal health services for mother
and baby, parent education, home visitors);
(b) Providing adequate assistance should take account of the new roles
and skills required of parents, as well as the ways that demands and pressures
shift during early childhood－for example, as children become more mobile,
more verbally communicative, more socially competent, and as they begin to
participate in programs of care and education;
(c) Assistance to parents will include provision of parenting education,
parent counseling and other quality services for mothers, fathers, siblings,
grandparents and others who from time to time may be responsible for
promoting the child‘s best interests;
(d) Assistance also includes offering support to parents and other family
members in ways that encourage positive and sensitive relationships with
young children and enhance understanding of children‘s rights and best
interests.
As these examples make clear, the CRC recognizes the fact that the primary
caregivers are expected to function as ―children‘s first educators‖ and therefore need
to learn how to ―provide appropriate direction and guidance to young children in the
exercise of their rights, and provide an environment of reliable and affectionate
relationships based on respect and understanding (Art.5)‖ (Paragraph 29). Professional
caregivers are marked out by the CRC as the substantive educators of primary
caregivers as an essential way to address the deterioration of family roles in raising
children.
Signaling the significance of professional caregivers as supporters of primary
caregivers, Paragraph 29(b) recommends the following:
(b) In planning for early childhood, states parties should at all times aim
to provide programs that complement the parents‘ role and are developed as
far as possible in partnership with parents, including through active
cooperation between parents, professionals and others in developing ―the
97
child‘s personality, talents and mental and physical abilities to their fullest
potential‖ (Art. 29.1 (a)).
Furthermore, the CRC deliberately stipulates, in Paragraph 23, some quality
standards to which institutions, services, and facilities responsible for early childhood
should conform. These standards include an outline of appropriate working conditions
for staff, to safeguard professional caregivers and ensure that they are able to judge
satisfactorily the best interest of a child. The CRC confirms that states parties ―must
ensure‖ (Paragraph 23) observance of these working conditions, regardless of whether
those facilities are run privately or publicly (Paragraph 32), as discussed in the
following section.
3.3.3 Encouraging public-private partnership in support of states parties
Regarding the legal obligations of states parties in the context of service
provision, the CRC has made the fundamental principle—that the state is the primary
duty-bearer, even when service is delivered through a private provider—absolutely
clear.153
As pointed by Professor Paul Hunt, Rapporteur of the UN Committee on
Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, made clear in his keynote speech in the opening
session of the DGD 2002 on ―the Private Sector as Service Provider and Its Role in
Implementing Child Rights,‖154
―while a state may privatize health or other services,
it cannot privatize its international human rights obligations.‖155
The GC7 also
adheres to this principle, as Paragraph 32 entitled ―the private sector as service
153
See DGD 2002, para.653, sub-paras. 1, 15. 154
In the context of DGD 2002, the private sector encompasses businesses, non-governmental
organizations and other private associations, both for profit and non-profit. (DGD 2002, para.632, note
1.) 155
Hunt, September 20, 2002, para.14.
98
provider‖ makes clear. Moreover, the DGD 2002 recommendations further confirm
this principle as central to any process of decentralization or privatization (Paragraph
15). The GC7 spells this out very clearly: ―where services are decentralized, this
should not be to the disadvantage of young children‖ (Paragraph 38).
Moreover, it is worth noting that the CRC explicitly requires states parties‘
uncompromised implementation of their obligations under market globalization; the
CRC demands it even in the middle of economic or fiscal reform initiated at the
national level or by international financial institutions, such as the IMF and the World
Bank (DGD 2002, Paragraphs 13 and 21). Based on the states parties‘ obligation to
devote the maximum amount of available resources to the realization of the economic,
social, and cultural rights of the child (Art. 4), the CRC recommends the following in
Paragraph 13 of the DGD 2002 recommendations:
States undertake assessments of the potential impact of global trade policies
concerning the liberalization of trade in services on the enjoyment of human
rights, including children‘s rights. In particular, the Committee recommends
that these assessments should be undertaken prior to making commitments to
liberalize services within the context of WTO or regional trade agreements.
Further, if commitments to liberalize trade in services are made, the effects of
those commitments should be monitored on the enjoyment of the rights of
children and the results of monitoring should be included in States reports to
the Committee.
Although the CRC acknowledges that non-state actors (including the private
business sector) are also responsible for ensuring that they respect and ensure
children‘s rights (DGD 2002, Paragraphs 6, 16; GC7, Paragraph 32), this does not
absolve states parties from being ―the paradigm of ultimate state responsibility.‖156
It
156
Hunt, September 20, 2002, para.26.
99
is the responsibility of states parties to ensure that the private sector provision of
services is consistent with the UNCRC obligations as well as relevant national laws
enacted for its implementation at all stages of services provision: ―the process by
which the policy [of services provision] is formulated; the content or substance of the
policy; and the policy‘s monitoring and accountability arrangements.‖157
To this end, the CRC recommends that states parties ―establish a permanent
monitoring mechanism aimed at ensuring that non-state service providers respect the
relevant principles and provisions of the Convention, especially Article 4 [(states
parties‘ obligation to undertake all appropriate measures in implementing the
UNCRC)]‖ and the four general principles (DGD 2002, Paragraph 8).158
The CRC
outlines clear criteria with regard to how states parties should evaluate service
provision by non-state providers; these are as follows: availability, accessibility,159
acceptability, quality, overall compliance with the UNCRC, and finally that funding
should be withdrawn in the case of noncompliance (DGD 2002, Paragraph 8).
Additionally, the GC7 emphasizes the importance of nondiscriminatory access to
services, especially for the most vulnerable groups of young children, such as those
living in poverty, with disabilities, from migrant families, or who have alcohol- or
drug-addicted parents (Paragraph 24).
In conjunction with this top-down approach, the CRC also encourages a
bottom-up approach where non-state providers should put in place their own 157
Hunt, September 20, 2002, para. 22.. 158
Regarding the importance of a system of accountability in operating rights and obligations by service
providers, see Hunt, September 20, 2002, para. 19. 159
―The CRC defines accessibility in the same manner as the Committee on Economic, Social and
Cultural Rights in its General Comments 14, meaning non-discrimination, physical accessibility,
economic accessibility and information accessibility.‖ [DGD 2002, Note to para. 653, sub-para. 8.]
100
self-regulation mechanisms. The CRC recommends that non-state service providers
ensure that a detailed set of criteria be adhered to, such as indicators/benchmarks for
measuring progress and establishing accountability (DGD 2002, Paragraph 17). The
CRC further encourages non-state service providers—inter alia, for-profit service
providers—as well as the media, ―to engage in a continuing process of dialogue and
consultation with the communities they serve‖ and to ―create alliances and
partnerships with different stakeholders and beneficiaries‖ in order to enhance
transparency, by including grass-roots community groups in the processes of
decision-making and service provision where appropriate (DGD 2002, Paragraph 18).
When financing early childhood services and infrastructure, the GC7 also encourages
states parties ―to develop strong and equitable partnerships between the Government,
public services, non-governmental organizations, the private sector and families‖
(Paragraph 38).
Therefore, the CRC both encourages states parties to engage in public-private
partnership by encouraging state involvement in realms that were traditionally
considered private, while also holding for-profit providers to account for traditionally
public goals such as accountability and equality.160
160
Jody Freeman deals with the similar issues, arguing that privatization can be a means of ―publication,
―and it might extend public law norms -- such as accountability, due process, equality and rationality -- to
private actors through vehicles such as budgeting, regulation, and contract. See Freeman 2003.
101
3.4 The CRC’s contribution to ensuring effective fulfillment of young children’s
best interests
How then has the CRC, by publishing the two documents of the GC7 and the
DGD 2002, helped to ensure that the public-private partnership and close and
continuous relationship exists among the stakeholders in the privatization of nursery
daycare?
First, the CRC complemented the early design of implementation by assisting
parents and states parties in fulfilling their UNCRC obligations. This complementary
role had already been envisaged by the CRC, as indicated by the significance given to
the supportive role of professional caregivers in relation to parents, and by
encouraging public-private partnerships among all stakeholders in providing daycare
services.
Second, the CRC has implicitly helped clarify the interpretation of the best
interests of the child, at least in terms of young children in general. The CRC‘s
documents examined in this chapter recognize explicitly that the foundation for
exercising young children‘s rights resides in their being able to cultivate close
relationships and strong emotional attachments with their caregivers (both professional
and primary). This clarification means that it is possible, at all stages of the private
sector provision of nursery daycare, to be far clearer about what the ―best interests‖ of
the child means. It is clear from the clarifications made by the CRC that the quality of
a child‘s relationship with their caregiver should be prioritized above other
considerations when securing the best interests of the child.
102
As Philip Alston points out, the UNCRC (and also the CRC) should avoid
providing ―any definitive statement of how an individual child‘s interests would best
be served in a given situation,‖ as ―any such pretension would obviously be
misplaced.‖161
However, the abovementioned standard or concern for the
relationships between young children and their caregivers can be a ―[signpost] capable
of guiding those seeking to identify what is in the best interests of the child, and
excludes from the equation, by implication, various other elements,‖162
this means
that the prioritization of the relationship between child and caregiver may serve to
limit the number of possible interpretations that can be made of the best interest
principle, at all stages of the private sector provision of daycare services.
An indispensable aspect when securing and facilitating public-private
partnerships is the assurance of equal levels of understanding and cooperation from
both responsible public authorities as well as the for-profit providers of daycare
services. However, as will be examined in section 4.6.1.5, the traditional motivation,
behavior, and practices of for-profit providers tend to flourish in the context of
political reform pressures—even when they are involved in the provision of human
services; indeed, as examined in section 2.1.4, it has often been observed that in this
context, public agencies too seem to follow the systems of private providers in
reducing costs and improving efficiency.
As Mary Sanger, senior fellow at the Brookings Institution‘s Center for Public
Service, asserts, it is the responsibility and capacity of public agencies ―to select
161
Alston 1994, 19. 162
Alston 1994, 19.
103
competent and responsible providers, to manage them and ensure accountability, and
to design contract systems to reward them without creating perverse incentives or
distortions in their disposition to serve the public interest.‖163
Moreover, as was
discussed in section 3.3.3, as a state party of the UNCRC, the Japanese government is
not permitted to privatize its international human rights obligations; it is still the
responsibility of the government to ensure that privatized nursery services in Japan
comply with UNCRC obligations, especially with regard to ―the best interests of the
child.‖
3.5 The selection of internationally applicable standards for measuring quality in
center-based childcare
3.5.1 Methodology
As our analyses of the CRC‘s GC7 and the outcome guideline of the DGD 2002,
make clear, ensuring that children are permitted to maintain close and continuous
relationships with their professional caregivers in nursery centers is crucial if the state
is to ensure that the rights of children, as preserved in the UNCRC, are upheld and
their best interests are served.
In order to validate the pivotal importance of the relevant recommendations of
GC7 and DGD 2002—including the importance of facilitating close relationships
between young children and their key adult caregivers and the promotion of
specialized training for professional caregivers—we examine several recent major
163
Sanger 2003, ix.
104
cross-national reviews, reports, and policy proposals concerning ECEC quality in
advanced countries.
We then identify those areas/categories of center-based daycare quality that are
widely accepted across the field and clarify a number of aspects/indicators for each
area/category; we also suggest appropriate techniques and available instruments to
measure these aspects/indicators.
After compiling these data, we assign the following two sets of international
standards regarding ECEC services for advanced countries to each aspect/indicator:
the ten Benchmarks of 2008 by the UNICEF Innocenti Research Centre (four of them
are standards directly related to the quality of out-of-home ECEC), and—as
complementary Europe-based, cross-national standards—the 40 Targets of 1996 by
the EC Network on Childcare.164
Furthermore, both sets are formed in accordance
with the UNCRC principles and are based on scientific research that has been
conducted on the growth of young children, such as recent neuroscientific findings
regarding the early development of a child‘s brain,165
which emphasizes the
164
For the contents of the 2008 Benchmarks and the 1996 EC Targets, see Appendix 2 in this
dissertation. As to the difference between ―benchmarks‖ of the 2008 UNICEF Report and ―targets‖ of the
1996 EC Targets Report are explained by John Bennett as follows:
Benchmarks for early childhood systems should be distinguished from 'targets', the concept used by the
European Commission Childcare Network (1996). Targets are aspirational, that is, they are standards to
which countries should aspire. In contrast, benchmarks refer to minimum standards below which early
childhood systems or services should not fall, if negative consequences for young children, educators and
families are to be avoided. Here, in particular, is referred to unfavourable child:staff ratios, low wages and
qualifications for staff, and lack of affordability of services for families. This minimal approach may
cause some disappointment in early childhood circles.
[Bennett 2008b, 13.] 165
According to the 2008 UNICEF Report, important concepts to emerge from recent neuroscientific
research include: the sequence of ―sensitive periods‖ in brain development; the importance of ―serve
and return‖ relationships with carers; the role of love as a foundation for intellectual as well as
105
importance of children‘s access to ―loving, stable, secure, stimulating, and rewarding
relationships with family and caregivers in the earliest months and years of life.‖166
3.5.2 A review and summary of some of the relevant literature
Cross-National Reviews
The 2008 UNICEF Report167
and its two Working Papers:168
This is a proposal of ten benchmarks and the first attempt to establish an
internationally applicable set of minimum standards by which progress in ECEC might
be monitored and compared across OECD countries.169
The benchmarks can be
grouped under the broad headings of policy framework (1 and 2), access (3 and 4),
quality (5, 6, 7, and 8), and supporting context (9 and 10), ―the latter two being
designed to acknowledge and reflect wider social and economic factors critical to the
efficacy of early childhood services.‖170
The 2008 UNICEF Report specifically
considers the recent childcare transition in advanced countries ―from the point of view
that is in danger of being neglected and that is so clearly set out in article 3 of [the
UNCRC] -- that in all actions concerning children ‗the best interests of the child shall
be a primary consideration‘.‖171
The 2008 EU Progress Report172
and its Staff Working Document:173
This is a progress review report among EU countries regarding implementation
of the 2002 Barcelona quantitative childcare provision objectives from the viewpoints
of work-life balance and gender equality. Regarding quality, the report simply repeats
―affordable and accessible quality childcare provision,‖ but emphasizes: 1) difficulty
in comparing ECEC policies and data at European level due to their variety,
emotional development; the fostering of the child‘s growing sense of ―agency - the feeling of being able
to influence events and situations‖; the ways in which the architecture of the developing brain can be
disrupted by stress; and the critical importance of early interactions with family members and carers in
the development of stress management systems. [UNICEF 2008, 5, Box 1, 6-7.] 166
UNICEF 2008, 6. 167
UNICEF 2008. 168
Bennett 2008a and 2008b. 169
See ―Fig. 1. Early childhood services - a league table,‖ UNICEF 2008, 2. 170
UK Committee for UNICEF2008. 171
UNICEF 2008, 5. 172
European Commission, October 2008. 173
European Commission Staff Working Document, October 2008.
106
inconsistency and/or absence,174
and 2) urgent necessity of improving childcare staff
quality and their working conditions.175
The 2006 OECD Starting Strong II:176
This is the second round of a comparative review of twenty177
OECD members‘
ECEC policies.
The 2003 UK Project Paper (on quality):178
This is a review paper of recent cross-national studies, commissioned by the UK
Department for Education and Skills (DfES), in response to a number of ECEC policy
questions concerning quality in daycare, in which evidences from the following fifteen
countries were compared: four ―English-language‖ countries—Australia, New
Zealand, the United Kingdom, and the United States; four Nordic
countries—Denmark, Finland, Norway, and Sweden; seven ―other European‖
countries—Belgium, France, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, Portugal, and Spain.
Researchers at the Thomas Coram Research Unit were also commissioned by the
DfES to examine four categories of policy questions concerning ECEC: provision of
services, child outcomes, the workforce, and funding and sustainability. The findings
of the Unit on each topic was then released separately. The analysis of quality
conducted by the 2003 UK Project Paper (on quality) owes much to OECD‘s ―Starting
Strong‖ (2001), the first OECD report that conducted a comparative review of ECEC
174
―Childcare provision for pre-school-age children differs widely between Member States, depending
on the systems in place and the different national approaches and priorities accorded to reconciling
working life and family life.‖ [European Commission, October 2008, 5.] 175
―For example, carers for very young children are generally required to have been trained to technical
secondary level, or even have a higher education diploma. Their actual level of training, however,
depends very much on the type of childcare facility they work in, and some self-employed caregivers
have no specific training in this field. In contrast, most individuals working in pre-school education
services have a graduate qualification, in the same way as primary school teachers.
The number of jobs in the early childcare sector has increased very markedly in recent years in the EU due
to the strong demand. However, in some cases the terms of employment (for example part-time contracts
or atypical contracts) do not attract workers to this sector, which is characterised by a shortage of
qualified staff and very high staff turnover rates (EFILWC, The childcare services sector -- what future?,
2006). Moreover, this is one of the most female-dominated professions (males account for less than 5% of
the workforce in most Member States) and this may be an impediment to the sector achieving a
higher-status profile and combating gender stereotypes.‖ [European Commission, October 2008, 8.] 176
OECD 2006. 177
These 20 countries are 12 participants of the first round review (Australia, Belgium, the Czech
Republic, Denmark, Finland, Italy, the Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Sweden, the United Kingdom,
ant the United States) plus 8 additional ones of the second round review (Austria, Canada, France,
Germany, Hungary, Ireland, Korea and Mexico). 178
Mooney et al. 2003.
107
policies of twelve OECD members. The 2003 UK Project Paper (on quality) emphases
are similar to those of the 2008 EU Progress Report with more concrete evidences of
ECEC diversity among fifteen countries.
The 2002 EU Barcelona Objectives by 2010:179
This document outlines the European Council‘s quantitative targets for 2010 in
terms of providing childcare, from the perspective of equal employment opportunities
for women and men. The targets suggest that out-of-home childcare should be
provided in member states for 1) at least 90% of children between three years of age
and the mandatory school age, and 2) at least 33% of children under 3 years of age.
However, this document does not refer to the quality of childcare as itself at all.
The 1996 EC Targets Paper:180
This outlines proposals for a 10-year action program and suggests 40 targets for
ECEC services for young children, within the framework181
of the 1992 Council
Recommendation on Childcare.182
The 40 ―aspirational‖ targets selected by the EC
Childcare Network (European Commission Network on Childcare and Other Measures
to Reconcile the Employment and Family Responsibilities of Men and Women)183
addressed the following nine areas deemed important for the development of early
childhood policy development: 1) Policy framework targets (1-6), 2) Financial targets
(7-10), 3) Targets for levels and types of services (11-15), 4) Education targets (16-20),
5) Targets for staff-child ratios (21-24), 6) Targets for staff employment and training
(25-29), 7) Environmental and health targets (30-33), 8) Targets for parents and
community (34-36), and 9) Performance targets (37-40). These ―quality targets‖ as a
179
European Council Presidency Conclusions 2002, 12 (para.32). 180
EC Childcare Network 1996. 181
The purpose of these quality targets was to propose ―criteria for assessing progress towards achieving
the Recommendation‘s objectives and establishing conditions needed to enable their achievement.‖[EC
Childcare Network 1996, C11.]
Specific objectives for the development of services for young children proposed by the 1992 Council
Recommendation (Art.3) are as follows: affordability; access to services in all areas, both urban and rural;
access to services for children with special needs; combining safe and secure care with a pedagogical
approach; close and responsive relations between services and parents and local communities; diversity
and flexibility of services; increased choice for parents; coherence between different services. [EC
Chldcare Network 1996, C5.]
The EC Childcare Network considered that ―[t]aken together, these objectives form the basis for the
definition of a good quality service system,‖ and this holistic approach to quality seems to characterize
what to be measured and how as childcare quality, not only at European level, but also at international
level. 182
EC Council, March 31, 1992. 183
The European Commission set up a Childcare Network in 1986, as part of the Community‘s Second
Equal Opportunities Program. Consisting of experts from all Member States and a Coordinator, this
Network has taken deep interest in the development of services for young children.
108
whole can be considered as a crystallization of European concerns and expectations
for ECEC system.
US Domestic Study Results
“Childcare and Child Development” (2005) by the National Institute of Child
Health and Human Development (NICHD) Early Childcare Research Network:184
This is a volume of collected results that have been produced from a large body
of longitudinal, up to date, and comprehensive scientific study data on early childcare
and its relation to child development in the US.
3.5.3 Common findings in the cross-national literature
Quality is important in childcare. As these reports have found, there is a
significant body of empirical research that has identified a strong relationship between
quality in early childhood services and positive outcomes for children.185
It is also
widely recognized that ―[r]esearch, mainly from the US, has identified clear indicators
[including those for both the structural and process elements of childcare provision] of
quality care in terms of their predictive significance for children‘s development,186
that indicate a so-called ―readiness for school‖187
approach to children‘s development.
184
NICHD Early Child Care Research Network 2005. 185
See, e.g., Mooney and Munton 1998, NICHD Early Child Care Research Network 2005, Bennett
2008a, and Korjenevitch and Dunifon 2010. 186
Mooney et al. 2003, 7-8 (para. 2.3); see also, 9 (para.2.7); OECD 2006, 128 (―Child-outcome
quality‖); Bennett 2008b, 48. 187
OECD 2006, 128.
―Child-outcomes: Positive child outcomes are a major goal for ECEC programmes in all countries, but
differences between countries arise concerning the outcomes to be privileged. A child-outcome approach
that privileges language and logico-mathematical skills is characteristic of France and the
English-speaking countries [excepting New Zealand, (OECD 2006, 128)]. The Nordic and several other
countries, while not neglecting preparation for school as children approach that age, privilege the
well-being of children, participation and the capacity of children and adults to live together guided by
democratic principles.‖ [Bennett 2008b, 48.]
109
However, as the 2003 UK Project Paper indicates, ―[d]efinitions of quality and
what should be measured will depend on interests, cultural values and understandings
of childhood,‖188
and even within a single country, ―[d]efinitions will vary depending
upon the different interests and views of stakeholders involved in the ECEC
provision . . . .‖189
Therefore, when dealing with the quality of childcare, we may
need to respect the fact that quality is difficult to define; indeed, it has been described
as ―a constructed concept, subjective in nature and based on values, beliefs and
interest, rather than an objective and universal reality (Moss and Pence, 1994: 172).‖190
In particular, the abovementioned understanding of quality has been reflected in
the following three assumptions that underpin the EC Childcare Network‘s selection
of the 1996 EC targets (boldface type added by the Network):191
• The targets are interdependent: they form a totality. Taking any of them in
isolation may be meaningless and misleading.
• Quality is a relative concept based on values and beliefs, and defining quality
should be a dynamic, continuous, and democratic process. A balance needs to
be found between defining certain common objectives, applying to all services,
and supporting diversity between individual services.
• There can be no final and static view of quality. Countries that achieve—or
have already achieved—most or all of the targets will want to go on developing
their services. [The 1996 EC Targets Paper] does not justify halting or reversing
developments in Member States with more advanced Services.
188
Mooney et al. 2003, 5. 189
Mooney et al. 2003, 7. 190
Mooney et al. 2003, 7. 191
EC Childcare Network 1996, C11.
110
In addition, the 2008 UNICEF benchmarks did not include any measure of child
outcomes. On this point, John Bennett, who was the project leader of the OECD
Starting Strong comparative reviews of ECEC policies and also contributed to
finalizing the 2008 UNICEF Benchmarks, explains as follows:192
There may be some surprise that the selected benchmarks do not
include a specific measure of cognitive outcomes, e.g. that children should
have reached a certain level of pre-literacy or language mastery before
transitioning into school. Cognitive outcomes are avoided in this survey
because they are multiply determined to a significant extent. It is well known,
for example, that family and child characteristics, the quality of home care
and social class, all moderate significantly the effects of children‘s services
and schools (Lamb 1998; Coley and Barton 2007). In addition, a
numeracy-literacy perspective on assessment may give undue importance to a
particular type of child development model, and allow insufficient space for
other, equally valid, developmental frameworks (Schweinhart 2001). Most
countries avoid testing or noting young children, a position supported by early
childhood experts who argue that such tests are often poorly designed and
developmentally inappropriate (Meisels 1996, 2007).193
There are also other findings that were found across many of the recent major
cross-national reviews, reports, and policy proposals concerning childcare quality.
1) Difficulty with finding reliable data specific to the early childhood field.194
2) Necessity of an interrelated understanding of aspects/indicators in quality. 192
Bennett 2008b, 11. 193
Bennett adds in a note as follows: ―It is useful for administrators to have a measure of the
developmental curve of young children from year to year. Yet, if poorly organized, assessing children can
lead to a focus on particular content and distract teachers from the relational and pedagogical work that
young children need.‖ [Bennett 2008b, 11, note 9.] 194
According to John Bennett, the reasons include the general lack of data on the younger children
(data for the age group 0-3 years), inconsistency and confusion among countries caused by ambiguous
data concepts and definitions of early childhood education in the 1997 ISCED (International Standard
Classification of Education), double or none counting of children attending services because of different
definitions and licensing arrangements across countries. [Bennett 2008b, 14-17.]
Also, Starting Strong II explains the difficulties of data collection in the ECEC field as follows:
―[They] stem to some extent from the newness of the field. The large scale information systems on
population, households, social policy or education that are routinely managed by national statistical
bureaus were not initially set up to deliver the kinds of data needed to advance ECEC policy and
provision.‖ [OECD 2006, 15. See also Chapter 8.]
111
3) Promotion of participatory processes in defining and assuring quality beyond
the minimum standard ensured by the basic regulations, and involving different
groups including children, parents, families, and professionals who work with
children.195
4) Significance of ―relationship quality‖ or the pedagogical relationship between
children and educators.196
5) A shift towards integrated services of childcare and early education, so-called
―Edu-care‖197
to help improve the ―relationship quality‖ between caregivers and
children.
3.6 Measuring the quality of Japan’s nursery daycare against international
standards
3.6.1 Selected areas of international quality standards for comparison
An analysis was conducted on the literature detailed in section 3.5.2, and the
following three quality areas/categories of comparison were identified: ―Structural
Quality,‖ ―Process Quality,‖ and ―Staff Working Conditions.‖ ―Structural Quality‖
refers to all those ―objective aspects of the childcare environment that are often
regulated by government.‖198
―Process Quality‖ refers to the activities of children, the
interactions between children, and the relationships between children and adults that
occur at the facility.199
Additionally, research200
shows that the ―[‗Staff Working
Conditions,‘ or] the adult work environment indirectly influences the children in care
195
OECD 2006, 126. 196
OECD 2006, 128. 197
GC7, 14. 198
Helburn and Howes 1996, 64. 199
Mooney et al. 2003, 9. 200
See Helburn and Howes 1996, 64, notes 9 and 10.
112
because it is closely tied to both caregiver behavior and to caregiver longevity in
childcare.‖201
3.6.2 Selected aspects/indicators of respective quality areas
3.6.2.1 Structural Quality
The aspects/indicators of ―Structural Quality‖ in center-based childcare are:
(1) group size (the numbers of children cared for in a group);
(2) staff-child ratios (the number of children cared for by each caregiver);
(3) staff qualifications and training202
(caregiver‘s previous experience in caring for
children, caregiver‘s formal education);
(4) quality of materials and environments203
(health and safety aspects of the
childcare environment with adequate space, presence of appropriate indoor/outdoor
layout, and equipment);204
and
(5) public funding.205
According to Helburn and Howes‘ review of studies conducted on daycare
quality, a range of techniques were used to measure quality; these include observation
201
Helburn and Howes 1996, 64. 202
Professional education of ECEC staff (caregivers), i.e., opportunities to participate in professional
development and in-service training, is categorized as the aspect of ―Staff Working Conditions‖ in this
dissertation. 203
With regard to the identification of basic quality indicators in OECD Starting Strong II, see OECD
2006, 77. 204
Helburn and Howes classify these two aspects/indicators in the area/ category of ―Process quality.‖
Helburn and Howes 1996, 65, Table 1. 205
In the light of the reviews of the 20 countries, OECD Starting Strong II proposes 10 policy areas for
consideration. Among them, proposal No.5 recommends to base public funding estimates for ECEC on
achieving quality pedagogical goals. It is because ―substantial government investment is necessary to
support a sustainable system of high quality, affordable services… Without stron government
investment and involvement, it is difficult to achieve quality pedagogical goals and broad system aims
(social inclusion, child health and well-being, gender equality.‖ [OECD 2006, 211.]
Starting Strong II also concludes that ―direct public funding of [ECEC] services brings for the moment
at least, more effective control, advantages of scale, more even national quality, more effective trainng
for educators and a higher degree of equity in access and participation than parent subsidy models.‖
[OECD 2006, 101.]
113
(for group sizes and ratios), questionnaires, interviews, and review of personnel
records.206
3.6.2.2 Process Quality
The aspects/indicators of ―Process Quality‖ in center-based childcare are:
(6) Presence of curricular materials and learning activities; and
(7) Interaction between child and caregiver (including caregiver sensitivity or
discipline, detachment, and involvement with children).207
According to Helburn and Howes‘ review of studies conducted on the quality of
daycare, a variety of techniques were used to measure these aspects, including
observation of children, caregivers, and the learning environment. Several instruments
have also been utilized to measure these aspects of center-based childcare: the Early
Childhood Environment Rating Scale (ECERS), the Infant/Toddler Environment
Rating Scale (ITERS), the Caregiver Interaction Scale, and the UCLA Early
Childhood Observation Form.208
206
Helburn and Howes 1996, 65, Table 1. 207
Helburn and Howes 1996, 65, Table 1. 208
From the perspective of center-based daycare, ―Family Daycare Rating Scale‖ that is listed in
Helburn and Howes 1996, 65, Table 1, is omitted here in this dissertation.
114
3.6.2.3 Staff Working Conditions
The aspects/indicators of ―Staff Working Conditions‖ in center-based childcare
are:209
(8) Caregiver‘s salary and benefits;210
(9) Opportunities to participate in professional development and in-service
training;211
(10) Caregiver‘s work satisfaction (including commitment and perception of job
stress);212
and
(11) Annual turnover rates of caregivers and directors.213
According to the Helburn and Howes‘ review of studies conducted into the
quality of daycare, the main technique that was used to measure these aspects was the
staff questionnaire.214
3.6.3 The application of assigned existing international standards to each area
3.6.3.1 Existing international standards and Structural Quality
In terms of (1) group size and (2) staff-child ratios in ―Structural Quality‖ area,
209
It is important to note that these indicators of ―Staff Working Conditions‖ are different from the
indicators of the other two quality areas that are considered outcomes of daycare delivery. The indicators
of ―Staff Working Conditions,‖ on the other hand, include input that is hypothesized to be causally related
to the outcomes. Nonetheless, in light of the important role that professional caregivers play during
interactions with children and with careful focus on the needs of children, we have adopted the same
indicators as Helburn and Howes, taken from an extensive body of literature on childcare quality within
the disciplines of psychology and education.. 210
Helburn and Howes includes ―Childcare director‘s [salary and benefits]‖ in Helburn and Howes 1996,
65, Table 1. 211
OECD 2006, 216. Helburn and Howe categorize this aspect into ―Structural Quality‖ as
―Caregiver‘s specialized training in childcare.‖ However, other materials discuss this aspect under the
issues of ―Staff Working Conditions.‖ 212
Helburn and Howes 1996, 65, Table 1. 213
Helburn and Howes 1996, 65, Table 1. 214
Helburn and Howes 1996, 65, Table 1.
115
the 2008 UNICEF Benchmark 7 focuses on them in an integrative way. Specifically, it
sets that a lead educator for every group of maximum 24 children aged 4-5 years
should be supported by at least one trained child assistant.215
In addition, the 1996 EC
Target 21 outlined staff to child ratios (and group size) in daycare as follows:
Target 21
Staff ratios for collective care should reflect the objectives of the service and their
wider context and be directly related to group age and group size. They should
usually be more than but should not be less than:
• 1 adult : 4 places for children under 12 months
• 1 adult : 6 places for children aged 12-23 months
• 1 adult : 8 places for children aged 24-35 months
• 1 adult : 15 places for children aged 36-71 months.
Ratios in family day care should not be less than 1 adult : 4 places for children
under compulsory school age, and the ratio should include the family day carers‟
own children.
The Targets 22 and 23 propose that at least one-tenth of a caregiver‘s working
week should be non-contact time allocated to preparation and continuous training, and,
for consistently maintaining the ratios, adequate alternate caregivers should be
available. Moreover, the Target 24 suggests that all administrative, domestic, and
janitorial work should be allocated as staff time or hours to those hours that are spent
with children. These are all included under the category of wider guidelines, the
―Targets for Staff-Child Ratios.‖216
In terms of (3) staff qualifications and training, the UNICEF 2008 report also 215
Bennett 2008b, 57. 216
It is noteworthy that ―non-contact time‖ (i.e., hours separate from hours devoted to childcare) is
officially recommended to ensure in relation to staff–child ratio. It can be considered that these targets
symbolize the following two points: First, the quality of daycare almost entirely depends on the quality of
the relationship between children and caregivers; therefore, ―if there is a single critical component of
quality, it rests in…the ability of the adult to be responsive to the child‖ (National Research Council 2000,
322). This, however, is reliant on caregivers having reasonably professional working conditions. Second,
all indicators of quality are interdependent so that any one indicator should not be examined as an isolated
entity [EC Childcare Network 1996, C11].
116
suggested appropriate standards of compliance in its Benchmarks 5 and 6. Benchmark
5 proposes a suggested target of 80% of all staff should have at least initial training
before taking up employment in early childhood education and care. Benchmark 5 also
attempts to address the issue of staff quality and turnover by stipulating that pay and
conditions in line with those of the teaching or social care professions are at least
envisaged. This is backed up by Benchmark 6, which stipulates that a minimum of
50% of staff in early education centers, including classroom assistants and all advisers
and teachers, should have a minimum of three years tertiary education, with specialist
qualifications in early childhood studies or a related field. Similar measures are
proposed in the 1996 EC Targets 26 and 27.
In terms of (4) quality of materials and environments in a daycare context, in the
2008 Draft-UNICEF Benchmark 11,217
the development of a validated, national/state
guideline or curriculum framework for all early childhood services was proposed.
However, the final version of 2008 UNICEF Benchmarks on Quality (i.e., 5, 6, 7 and
8) does not directly deal with issue. With regard to the reason for eliminating the Draft
Benchmark 11, Bennett explains as follows:218
Although universal benchmarks may not be able to take into account the
interactional and pedagogical aspects of care, upbringing and education, or
give sufficient attention to the quality of the living and learning experiences
that children have in different settings, they do call attention to basic
conditions that allow good process to take place. In the advanced economies,
high quality in early childhood provision and process is unlikely to be reached
or maintained unless financing and training benchmarks are fixed and applied.
On the other hand, this issue (4) is dealt with in the 1996 EC Targets (9, 20, 30,
217
Bennett 2008b, 48-51. 218
Bennett 2008b, 17.
117
31, 32, and 33). In particular, in the category entitled ―Environment and Health
Targets,‖ Target 32 spells out the EC conditions of space as follows:
TARGET 32:
There should normally be sufficient space, inside and out, to enable children to play,
sleep and use bathroom facilities, and to meet the needs of parents and staff. This
should normally mean:
• internal space of at least 6 sq metres for each child under three years and of at
least 4 sq metres for each child 3-6 years (excluding storage and corridor or
through-way space)
• direct access to external space of at least 6 sq metres per child
• an additional 5% of internal space for adult use.
In regard to (5) public funding, the international standard is dealt with in both
the 2008 UNICEF Benchmark 8 as well as the 1996 EC Targets 7; they provide that
the level of public expenditure on ECEC for pre-school children should be not less
than 1% of GDP.219
In addition, Targets 8, 9, and 37 suggest how to allocate this
budget and validate the spendings on targeted items.
3.6.3.2 Existing international standards and Process Quality
In regard to the aspect/indicator (6), ―presence of curricular materials and
learning activities‖ in the area of ―Process Quality,‖ in the 2008 Draft-UNICEF
Benchmark 11,220
the development of a validated, national/state guideline or
curriculum framework for ECEC services, which focuses on the child‘s well-being,
holistic development, learning and participation, was proposed. However, same as
above (4) (the quality of materials and environments), the final version of 2008
UNICEF Benchmarks on Quality does not explicitly refer to this issue of presence of
219
With regard to the rationale for this percentage, see the end of section 3.6.4.1. 220
Bennett 2008b, 48-51.
118
curricular materials and learning activities. On the other hand, this issue falls under the
category of ―Educational Targets‖ of the 1996 EC Targets, and is covered Targets 16,
17, 18, and 20. These targets emphasize the importance of having coherent values and
objectives including a stated and explicit educational philosophy in ECEC services.
Specifically, Target 18 elaborates the contents of advisable educational philosophy in
ECEC services as follows:
TARGET 18:
The educational philosophy should be broad and include and promote inter alia:
• the child‟s autonomy and concept of self
• convivial social relationships between children, and children and adults
• a zest for learning
• linguistic and oral skills including linguistic diversity
• mathematical, biological, scientific, technical and environmental concepts
• musical expression and aesthetic skills
• drama, puppetry and mime
• muscular coordination and bodily control
• health, hygiene, food and nutrition
• awareness of the local community.
With regard to (7) interaction between child and caregiver, the final 2008
UNICEF Benchmarks on ―Quality‖ (i.e., in 5, 6, 7, and 8) also do not deal directly
with the issue, except the 2008 Draft-UNICEF Benchmark 11. Specific standards
relating to this issue are, however, outlined in the 1996 EC Target 19 as follows:
TARGET 19:
The way in which the educational philosophy is put into practice should be stated
and explicit. Services should have a programme of organisation covering all their
activities including pedagogical approach, deployment of staff, grouping of children,
training profiles for staff, use of space, and the way in which financial resources are
used to implement the programme.
119
In addition, Targets 38 and 40 suggest regular assessments of both children‘s
progress and staff performance; for assessing the latter, objective methods and
self-evaluation are recommended.
3.6.3.3 Existing international standards and Staff Working Conditions
The international standards also refer to the area of ―Staff Working Conditions.‖
In terms of (8) caregiver‘s salary and benefits and (9) opportunities to participate in
professional development and in-service training, the 2008 UNICEF Benchmark 5
refers to caregiver salaries and training opportunities, but it does not give precise
details on the type of prescriptions.
However, falling under the category entitled ―Targets for Staff Employment and
Training,‖ the 1996 EC Targets 25, 26, 27, 28, and 29 explicitly outline suggested
benchmarks with regard to these issues. Particularly, Target 25 states the advisable
level of wage for all qualified staff in ECEC services as follows:
TARGET 25:
All qualified staff employed in services should be paid at not less than a nationally
or locally agreed wage rate, which for staff who are fully trained should be
comparable to that of teachers.
Moreover, other targets (i.e., 26-29) make a point of the staff‘s right to continuous
in-service training, right to trade union affiliation, and gender equality at the
workplace.
Nonetheless, neither the EC Targets nor the UNICEF benchmarks directly
consider benchmarks/targets for the following two aspects:
(10) Caregiver‘s work satisfaction (including commitment and perception of job
120
stress)
(11) Annual turnover rates of caregivers and directors.
3.6.4 Explanations of the aspects/indicators of each quality areas
3.6.4.1 Explanations of the aspects/indicators of Structural Quality
As many of the international studies on childcare have made clear, ―Structural
Quality‖ is generally used to refer to the overall framework and foundations that
underpin early childcare programs and ensure that appropriate standards of quality are
adhered to. These foundations are based on compliance with ―the clear formulation
[that constitutes] the substance of national licensing requirements . . . [under]
enforcement of legislation or regulations.‖221
These two definitional components are
widely accepted in most comparative reviews and international documents on
―Structural Quality‖ in childcare.
(1) Group size, (2) staff-child ratios, and (3) staff qualification and training
function as the so-called ―iron triangle,‖ are regarded as the interrelated key items of
―Structural Quality,‖ because they are the factors that are found to be associated with
―positive [and] sensitive staff-child interactions, which in turn are associated with
positive child outcomes (Phillips 1988 cited in Hayes et al. 1990).‖222
In particular, different from the UNICEF Benchmarks and EC Targets, in the
US, national organizations, such as the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP),
American Public Health Association (APHA), and National Association for the
221
OECD 2006, 127. 222
Mooney et al. 2003, 18 (para. 4.4).
121
Education of Young Children (NAEYC), have voluntarily presented more specific,223
integrated criteria of (1) group size and (2) staff-child ratios.224
Even though international standards do not detail clear and specific indicators of
quality, in measuring childcare quality, the importance of cultivating an interrelated
understanding of quality aspects/indicators has been repeatedly emphasized in
international review studies on the ECEC quality, such as the 1996 EC Targets Report,
the 2003 UK Project Paper, the 2006 OECD report ―Starting Strong II,‖ and the 2008
UNICEF Report.
Among these materials, the 2003 UK Project Paper, in which evidences from
fifteen countries225
on daycare quality were compared, discusses the key points that
should underpin the cultivation of an interrelated understanding with regard to the
223
According to the 2003 UK Project Paper, this is probably because research on childcare quality have
been mainly conducted in the US and it has a tendency to identify ―clear indicators of quality care in
terms of their predictive significance for children‘s development . . . .‖ [Mooney et al. 2003, 7
(para.2.3).]
The 2001 OECD Starting Strong I also comments as follows:
France and the English-speaking world [except New Zealand] have adopted a ―readiness for school‖
approach [in comparison with Nordic and Central European countries that have inherited a ―social
pedagogy‖ tradition], focusing on cognitive development in the early years, and the acquisition of a range
of knowledge, skills and dispositions that children should develop as a result of classroom experiences.
Contents and pedagogical method in early and primary education have been brought closer together,
generally in favour of teacher-centred and academic approaches.
[OECD 2006, 57.] 224
The chart below gives APHA/AAP recommendations by age for group size and child-to-staff ratios.
Staff-to-child ratio and group size (for centers)
Birth to 12 mo 1:3 with groups <6
13–30 mo 1:4 with groups <8
31–35 mo 1:5 with groups <10
3 y 1:7 with groups <14
4 and 5 y 1:8 with groups <16
[Source: American Academy of Pediatrics 2005, 188, Table 1 (this policy statement was reaffirmed in
December 2009).]
For the NAEYC integrated standards on (1) and (2) of 2006, see NAEYC 2006, specifically
<https://oldweb.naeyc.org/academy/criteria/teacher_child_ratios.html>.
225
The fifteen countries are: four ―English-language‖ countries -- Australia, New Zealand, United
Kingdom and United States; four Nordic countries -- Denmark, Finland, Norway and Sweden; Seven
―other European‖ countries -Belgium, France, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, Portugal and Spain.
122
aspect of (2) staff-child ratios. The report found that there was significant variation in
the ratio of caregiver to child in centers in different countries. For instance, for
children up to the age of three, the caregiver to child ratio ranged from 1:3 to 1:13.
Indeed, the report found that ―straightforward comparisons cannot be made due, for
example, to different pedagogical approaches.‖226
This was not the only limitation of the data. As the report itself acknowledges,
―Most of the empirical research on staff ratios is from English-language countries,
particularly the US.‖227
This linguistic bias was also noted in the ―Research on Ratios,
Group Size and Staff Qualifications and Training in Early Years and Childcare
Settings Research Report‖ of 2002, which found a notable absence of data from
Belgium, France, Germany, Spain, and the Nordic countries.228
This same review
concluded that when there were fewer children per member of staff, then the quality of
the childcare was higher and the greater were the positive developmental outcomes.
Fewer children per staff member also seemed to promote the interaction between staff
and children.
However, as the 2003 UK Project Paper recognized, ratios should not be the
only indicators that are used to assess quality, despite the fact that they are easy pieces
of data to assess. Indeed, in a study of French services by Howes and Marx in 1992,
despite the fact that there were far more children per staff that the level recommended
by US experts, the quality of the daycare was not adversely affected, because the
French staff were better trained in comparison to the staff in the US. As the 2003
226
Mooney et al. 2003, 5 (para. 1.2). 227
Mooney et al. 2003, 21-22 (para. 5.12). 228
Mooney et al. 2003, 21 (para. 5.12).
123
Paper cites from the 1992 study of Howes and Marx, ―French teacher-child
interaction . . . is warm, sensitive and responsive to children. . . . Despite caring for
large numbers of children there is a minimum of teacher harshness and restriction.
These observations suggest that teacher training and working conditions may offset
the high adult-child ratios found in the French system.‖229
With regard to (4) quality of materials and environments, we will examine it
specifically from the viewpoint of spatial environment of nursery centers in section
4.6.
In terms of (5) public funding, the CRC‘s GC7 suggests that public funding is
crucial for the realization of young children‘s rights in terms of their care: Indeed, the
GC7 recommends that resources for early childhood services be increased across the
board, and encourages states parties to increase their investment in early childhood
services and programs (UNCRC, Art. 4) and the infrastructure that this requires. In
this connection, states parties are encouraged to ―develop strong and equitable
partnerships between the Government, public services, non-governmental
organizations, the private sector and families to finance comprehensive services in
support of young children's rights.‖230
On the other hand, many OECD countries have recently positioned ECEC
services as a public good for investing in human capital. Behind this trend, there exists
the fact that the move towards acknowledging the early childhood, i.e., foundation
stage of learning, as an unequaled opportunity for formation of human capital has
229
Mooney et al. 2003, 22 (para. 5.12). 230
GC7, 18. Cited in Bennett 2008b, 38.
124
increasingly supported by economists as well as by early childhood researchers. As the
2006 OECD Starting Strong II points out, the economic returns analyses of Cunha et
al. and Alakeson demonstrate that ―investments in young children have a more
profound and lasting effect on learning potential than at any other age,‖ because
―leaning in one life stage begets learning in the next.‖231
From this standpoint, the 2006 OECD report urges governments and major
ECEC stakeholders to estimate the public funding targets with an eye to achieving
quality pedagogical goals, rather than just the creation of more places. The report is
clear that the level of public investment for ECEC services that is required should be
no more per head than the investment in children in primary school age. Indeed, is
some cases, the necessary investment may well be significantly less. This is despite
the fact that ―young children need more staff than older children, and generally spend
longer hours in services.‖ However, despite this, the report finds that current levels are
so low that, ―according to reliable cost estimates, most countries [will] need to double
their annual investment per child to ensure acceptable child-staff ratios and highly
qualified staff.‖232
According to John Bennett, the project leader of the OECD Starting Strong early
childhood reviews, although the general consensus from most OECD countries is that
ECEC may be funded by a combination of sources, there is still widespread agreement
that a substantial portion of that should come from the government if a sustainable,
231
OECD 2006, 107, 37. See also OECD 2006, Chapter 1. 232
OECD 2006, 17. See also 211-213.
125
high quality system, affordable service is to be developed.233
A number of authoritative sources234
in OECD countries have suggested
estimates for government investment in childcare services. All the studies found that
the average cost of a high quality early education service in the developed world,
where there are ten children or fewer per trained adult, range from USD8,000 to
USD14,000 dollars annually for every child aged one to three, and between USD6,000
to USD10,000 for every child aged three to six years old.235
In terms of hours in
services with qualified educators, the best estimates suggest the following figures:
-- At least USD5,000 per child per year for a half-day, school year program
-- Around USD9.000 per child per year for a full-day, school year program
-- Around USD13,000 dollars per child per year for a full-day, year round
program with integrated childcare. (Abecedarian costs run to USD63,476 per child
over five years, which runs to approximately USD12,700 per child).
3.6.4.2 Explanations for the aspects/indicators used Process Quality
In the mid-1990s, Suzanne Helburn and Carollee Howes analyzed an extensive
selection of literature on childcare quality from the perspectives of psychology and
education. With regard to ―Process Quality,‖ they found its significance as follows:236
Process quality is considered basic to childcare quality because it is
most directly related to children‘s behavior in the childcare environment.
Quality childcare means that caregivers respond to children‘s social behaviors
in a sensitive and positive fashion, are involved in their play and learning
233
―The evidence suggests that [as to the morality of funding used, ]direct public funding of services
brings more effective governmental steering of early childhood services, advantages of scale, better
national quality, more effective training for educators and a higher degree of equity in access compared
with parent subsidy models.‖ [OECD 2006, 14.] See especially OECD 2006, Chapter 5. 234
See OECD 2006, 106-107. 235
These figures are based on 2002 costs in the United States, when the dollar and euro were more or less equivalent. Bennette 2008b, 39, note 30. 236
Helburn and Howes 1996, 64.
126
activities, and are not harsh in their management of children‘s behavior.
Children in high-quality care spend their childcare hours in socially
appropriate play with adults and peers, and they explore materials in ways that
fit their age and developmental stage. Children in such settings have higher
scores on cognitive, social, and language measures of development.
In terms of the two aspects/indicators of this quality (i.e., (6) presence of
curricular materials and learning activities, and (7) interaction between child and
caregiver), the 2006 OECD Starting Strong II indicates the interlinked nature of their
relationship more explicitly. As the report notes:237
[The key goals on educational concept and practice that are set out in
respective national curriculum framework of OECD countries] differ widely
from country to country, and no doubt from decade to decade, but a common
conviction is emerging across countries that lead staff need to be trained to a
high level to achieve the broad goals of early childhood programming . . .
which seem particularly appropriate for young children: learning to be
(forming one‘s self identity); learning to do (through play, experimentation,
and group activity); learning to learn (through a learning environment
providing interest and choice and that includes well-focused pedagogical
objectives); and learning to live together (within the early childhood centre, in
a democratic way, respectful of difference).
Besides, the report is keen to highlight how classroom-focused training is no longer
sufficient now that caregivers have increasingly diverse role, including supporting
parents, families, and communities.
Then, in particular on the aspect/indicator of (7) interaction between child and
caregiver, the 2006 OECD Starting Strong II emphasizes that decades of research have
identified ―relationship quality‖ as a key variable that determines child outcomes.238
The report continues to point out three of most frequently cited goals in this aspect (7).
They are the warmth and quality of the pedagogical relationship between educators
237
OECD 2006, 127-128. 238
The OECD Starting Strong II cites AAP/APHA 2002, NICHD 2004 and Rutter et al. 2003. [OECD
2006, 128.]
127
and children, the quality of interaction between children themselves, and the quality of
relationships within the educator team. According to the report, the pedagogical
relationship between children and educators seems to be most effective when the
relationship includes care, upbringing, and concern for the general well-being of each
child, as well as expert support for the children‘s learning.239
Furthermore, the 2008 UNICEF Report puts emphasis on the critical importance
of this area of ―Process Quality‖ in ECEC services. They stress that this essential
underpinning depends above all else on the ability of the caregiver to ―build
relationships with children, and to help provide a secure, consistent, sensitive,
stimulating, and rewarding environment‖ and clearly state that this aspect (7) is ―the
essence of ‗quality‘‖.240
In the words of this report, ―good childcare is an extension of
good parenting.‖ Alternatively, as the US National Research Council report puts it, ―If
there is a single critical component of quality, it rests in the relationship between the
child and the teacher/caregiver, and in the ability of the adult to be responsive to the
child.‖241
Then, admitting the evident nature of this aspect (7) that is ―patently difficult to
measure,‖ the 2008 UNICEF report tries to speculate its quality by measuring ―some
known preconditions of quality—principally, the availability of sufficient numbers of
239
The OECD Starting Strong II explains that this integrated approach and relationship is found in the
concept of pedagogy, encountered in the social pedagogy tradition of Nordic and Central Europe [OECD
2006, 128]. According to OECD, ―The word ‗pedagogical‘ has a different connotation in Danish to the
usual English meaning of ‗pertaining to the science of teaching.‘ The word ‗pedagogical‘ in the social
pedagogy tradition refers to a holistic approach to children encompassing care, upbringing and learning.‖
[OECD 2006, 158, note 10.] 240
UNICEF 2008, 25. 241
National Research Council 2000, 322. Cited in UNICEF 2008, 25.
128
well-trained, well-supervised, and well-remunerated early childhood professionals.‖242
Seen in this light, the report concludes that the 2008 UNICEF Benchmarks 5 (a
minimum level of training for all staff), 6 (a minimum proportion of staff with higher
level education and training), and 7 (a minimum staff-to-children ratio), should be also
considered and utilized for assessing the quality of this aspect (7).
3.6.4.3 Explanations of aspects/indicators of Staff Working Conditions
Helburn and Howes outline the findings regarding quality area of ―Staff
Working Conditions,‖ as essential standards for childcare quality. For them, salary,
benefits, and working conditions are key aspects that define how long and how well a
caregiver can continue to provide care. The link, therefore, between these factors
(albeit indirect) and the welfare of children in a care setting, is clear [(Howes and
Hamilton 1993a; Whitebook et al. 1990)].243
For example, ―providers who are
committed to their jobs, satisfied, and compensated adequately are more sensitive to
the children, more responsively involved, and more nurturant [(Kontos et al.
1994)].‖244
It is clear that if centers offer better wages and benefits, then they are
much more likely to attract and retain higher caliber staff. Indeed, as Helburn and
Howes put:245
Caregivers who earn more are less likely to leave their center jobs
[(Whitebook et al. 1990; Phillips and Howes 1993)]. . . . Staff turnover is an
important indicator of poor quality care because children who lose their
regular caregivers tend to experience negative outcomes such as poor
242
UNICEF 2008, 25. 243
Helburn and Howes 1996, 66, notes 5 and 9. 244
Helburn and Howes 1996, 66, note 2. 245
Helburn and Howes 1996, 66.
129
language and social development [(Whitebook et al. 1990)] and, in at least
one study, increased aggression [(Howes and Hamilton 1993b)].
OECD Starting Strong II also identifies a strong link between the training and
support of staff—including appropriate pay and conditions—and the quality of ECEC
services. Recent research from the United Kingdom confirms the earlier U.S.-based
research on the subject, which finds that staff with higher qualification tend to provide
care of a higher quality. In particular, the report finds that centers that have many staff
members with higher qualifications provide better quality overall and the children in
their care make better progress. The report continues as follows:246
[T]he higher the qualification of staff, particularly the manager of the centre,
the more progress children made. Having qualified trained teachers working
with children in preschool settings (for a substantial proportion of time, and
most importantly, as the pedagogical leader) had the greatest impact on
quality, and was linked specifically with better outcomes in pre-reading and
social development (Sylva et al. 2004).
However, the 2008 UNICEF Report presents ―not encouraging picture‖247
of
this ―Staff Working Conditions‖ area/category across OECD countries. The UNICEF
Report is critical, in particular, of the fact that, in many countries, ―childcare
professionals stand at the bottom of the wages ladder and have little in the way of
either job security or opportunity for career development.‖ It singles out countries
such as Australia, the UK, and the US where, more often than not, those employed in
nurseries and daycare centers are often ―very young, unqualified, transient, or all
three.‖ The report continues, ―Where pay is low, staff turnover rates tend to be high
(30 per cent per year among childcare employees in the United States, for example,
246
OECD 2006, 216. 247
UNICEF 2008, 23.
130
compared to under 7 per cent for school teachers). The US National Scientific Council
note that ―[such high] staff turnover rates…currently undermine the relationships that
young children have with the adults who provide much of their daily care.‖248
Sharing these understandings, the 2006 OECD Starting Strong II proposes, as
one of ten policy areas for consideration by governments, the improvement of the
working conditions and professional development of ECEC staff.249
The OECD report finds a number of weaknesses in ECEC staff policies of
member countries that can clearly adversely affect the quality of the care offered to
young children: low recruitment and pay levels, particularly in childcare services; a
lack of certification in pre-primary education systems; the feminization of the
workforce; and the failure of pedagogical teams to reflect the diversity of the
neighborhoods they serve; insufficiency both in professional development and in the
allocation of non-contact time. Besides, the report is keen to highlight that sufficient
state support or regulation is an essential part of tackling these issues, and countries
that do not have state support or regulation tend to suffer from worse quality childcare.
Therefore, for ameliorating high turnover rate of ECEC staff and enhancing the
status and quality of ECEC work, the report suggests governments to introduce ―equal
working conditions (salaries, benefits, and professional development opportunities) for
equivalent qualifications across the early childhood and primary education fields.‖250
248
National Scientific Council on the Developing Child 2007, 7. Cited in UNICEF 2008, 23. 249
OECD 2006, 216-217. 250
OECD 2006, 216.
131
Chapter 4. Measuring the quality of Japan’s nursery daycare
4.1 Introduction
In the previous chapter, we identified the particular areas/categories of daycare
quality that were commonly accepted throughout the literature on this issue; we then
proposed a set of aspects/indicators for each area/category, and outlined the techniques
and available instruments that could be used to measure these aspects/indicators. We
also examined each aspect/indicator in the context of existing international standards
that are being developed within the framework of the UNCRC: the 2008 UNICEF
Benchmarks on childcare quality and—as complementary Europe-based,
cross-national standards—the 1996 EC Targets on childcare quality.
In this chapter, we examine the current quality standards in Japanese nursery
daycare against the set of international standards. We then use this information in the
concluding chapter to assess whether Japan is fulfilling its UNCRC obligations in
terms of the quality of its daycare.
4.2 Japan’s current mechanism for ensuring the quality of nursery daycare: four
elements and their respective requirements
Before we assess Japan‘s nursery daycare quality standards in the context of
international standards, we first examine the range and content of Japanese nursery
daycare in approved nursery centers.
In February 2009, the Japanese Social Security Council‘s Special Task Force to
Deal with a Declining Birthrate issued their first report entitled ―Toward Designing a
132
New System to Support the Development of the Next Generation.‖ This 2009
SSC-STF report outlines the design of the latest direction of, and framework for a new
nursery center system in Japan. As the reference materials that are attached to the
report indicate,251
under the current approved nursery center system in Japan, there
are four elements that underpin the mechanism that implements nursery daycare
quality standards: (1) the content of daycare, (2) the daycare environment, (3) nursery
personnel, and (4) audits/evaluations. Each approved nursery center must have been
found to have fulfilled the requirements/standards that are associated with each
element. These requirements/standards are defined as follows:
(1) The content of daycare: The Guidelines for Nursery Daycare (GND)
(Hoikusho hoiku shishin).252
These guidelines cover standards relating to the purposes
of daycare, the aims and the content of daycare, the nature of the daycare plan, the
inclusion of health promotion, and the safety provisions, etc.
(2) The daycare environment: The Minimum Standards for Child Welfare
Institutions (MSCWI) (Jido fukushi shisetsu saitei kijun). These are the minimum
required standards that daycare facilities adhere to with regard to staff-child ratios and
standards of facilities, etc.
(3) Nursery personnel: (a) Nursery teacher‘s qualification (Hoikushi shikaku).
This qualification is required for all nursery teachers who are employed at an approved
nursery center. To gain this qualification, nurses must graduate from a school that
251
Social Security Council is an advisory body to the Minister of Health, Labour and Welfare.
MHLW-SSC-STF, February 2009, Reference Materials, 43, ―Hoiku no shitsu wo sasaeru shikumi‖ [The
Mechanism that Implements Nursery Daycare Quality Standards under the Current Nursery Center
System]. (Available at http://www.mhlw.go.jp/shingi/2009/02/dl/s0224-9d.pdf.) 252
MHLW, March 2008.
133
specializes in training of nursery teachers, or another facility that has been recognized
by the MHLW as a ―Designated Nursery Teacher Training Facility.‖ Alternatively,
there is the MHLW-recognized once-yearly qualification examination for
non-graduates of the abovementioned schools and facilities. (b) Nursery teachers must
also engage in a continuous training process (OJT and Off-JT such as participation in
one-day workshop for developing daycare skills that is put on by regional specialized
associations) during their employment;
(4) Audits/evaluations (in terms of the content and methodology deployed in the
daycare facility, the operation and management of a nursery center, etc.): (a)
Mandatory audits conducted by the prefectural and city governments, and (b)
voluntary third-party evaluation (evaluations conducted by an independent evaluator;
the nursery centers may decide whether or not they wish to partake in such third-party
evaluations).
4.3 Recent fact-finding surveys and empirical studies that have been conducted on
Japanese approved nursery centers
As mentioned in section 1.3, in Japan, the study focusing on the quality of
daycare provided by nursery centers has only just begun. However, as legal reform has
transformed the nursery system in Japan, bringing privatization with it,253
there has
been increasing recognition among researchers and administrative officers of the need
to study the situation on the ground in nursery centers, particularly in terms of the
quality of daycare.
253
Specifically, the 1997 revision of Child Welfare Act, the 2000 revision of Social Welfare Service Act
and the 2006 enactment of Preschool Education Promotion Act constitute major turning points.
134
To compare standards in Japan with those that have been agreed internationally,
we utilize data from the following four fact-finding surveys and empirical studies, in
addition to data from the Japanese government.
4.3.1 The 2008 Survey of the National Council of Nursery Daycare
The National Council of Nursery Daycare (NCND) (Zenkoku hoiku kyogikai) is
an organization of nursery centers, which has about 21,000 members across the
country; their members account for about 93% of the approved nursery centers
nationwide. It was started as a subordinate organization of the Japan National Council
of Social Welfare (Zenkoku shakai fukushi kyogikai) in 1952, and each prefecture and
designated city has a corresponding nursery daycare council. Their main activity is the
provision of information and PR activities related to nursery daycare in their bulletin
and on their website, etc; they also train people engaged in nursery daycare, conduct
surveys and research into nursery daycare, collate the opinions of people engaged in
nursery daycare, and submit relevant recommendations regarding nursery service to
the appropriate administrative bodies, including the national government.
In May 2007, the NCND began collecting data from a fact-finding survey on
nursery centers nationwide that it had been conducting for the first time in twelve
years (the base date of the survey was October 1, 2006). It was conducted to clarify
the changes that occurred in the environment surrounding member nursery centers and
the issues that these changes raised. It was also hoped that this survey would help the
organization identify requests and recommendations regarding the future design of
nursery centers in the context of the recent drastic changes that nursery daycare has
135
undergone. A questionnaire was distributed to all the member nursery centers by post,
and responses were collected either by post or via email. There were 11,605 completed
questionnaires returned (Public: 52.9%, Private: 46.6%, Not specified: 0.5%), which
represented 56.3% of all members. The survey report was published in May 2008.254
4.3.2 The 2009 Survey of the Benesse Corporation
The Research Institute on the Development of the Next Generation of Benesse
Corporation, which provides products and services in the field of education and
welfare in Japan, conducted a survey and research on parent-child relations during
pregnancy, birth, childcare, nursery daycare, early childhood education, etc. The
institute then used its results to outline specific recommendations to relevant bodies
and provide information on various issues in each field. In September 2008, the
institute conducted another questionnaire survey with the heads and directors of
approved public and private nursery centers across the country. The survey was
entitled the ―First Research on Early Childhood Education and Daycare (with a focus
on Nursery Centers)‖; they then published the finding from this survey, which elicited
responses from 3,018 nursery centers (collection rate: 25.2%) in March 2009.255
4.3.3 The 2009 Oshima Project Report on the quality of nursery daycare services
In recent years, nursery teachers have increasingly been expected to play a
greater role in Japan with socially-recognized deterioration of family role in raising
254
The 2008 Survey of NCND. 255
The 2009 Survey of Benesse Corporation .
136
children,256
and the nation has placed its great hopes on the specialized knowledge
and skills of its nursery teachers. The roles of the nursery teacher has also been
expanding; they are expected to meet an increasingly diverse set of daycare needs, as
the number of two-income households grows and the upbringing capabilities of
families and local communities decline. They are also now expected to support
families in the process of raising their children, as well as helping victims of child
abuse and children with developmental disabilities. This reflects in part the
increasingly diverse roles that nursery teachers, in cooperation with kindergarten
teachers, have to fill as daycare facilities become progressively more comprehensive,
as nursery daycare is joined to education, in ―authorized centers for children‖(Nintei
kodomoen).
In order to ensure that nursery teachers can meet these social demands and to
improve the quality and specialized skills of those nursery teachers that are already in
employment, a survey was conducted on the quality of daycare services. A number of
―Surveys and Studies of the Quality of Nursery Daycare Services‖ were conducted by
a team of researchers headed by Kyoji Oshima, professor at Kyoritsu Women‘s
University, between FY2006 and FY 2008, as part of a research project subsidized by
the MHLW aimed at promoting policy science. The results of the project were
published in October 2009.
In this project, researchers carried out questionnaire surveys on child welfare
institutions; they interviewed academics and other experts to examine (1) what they
recommended in terms of the licensing and development of nursery teachers, from the
256
See Ota 2009, 432-435.
137
viewpoint of improving their quality and specialized skills, (2) whether the second
revised edition of the Guidelines for Nursery Daycare (GND), formulated in 2000 and
in use when the project was implemented, met social demands for nursery daycare. As
we shall discuss later, the results of the questionnaire surveys and interviews with
regard to the second research question were also utilized as basic materials by a
MHLW commission when it was considering a third revision of the GND257
(revised
in March 2008).
4.3.4 The 2009 Sadayuki report on the residential functions of nursery centers
In May 2008, the national government‘s Committee for the Promotion of
Decentralization Reform raised doubts about the scientific foundation of the MSCWI.
Because of these doubts, it was recommended that the standards be relaxed so that
each local government could determine the structural standards independently.258
Based on this recommendation, the MHLW commissioned research to be
conducted into the most appropriate setting of the minimum structural standards for
the Japan National Council of Social Welfare, and the results were published in March
2009 in ―the Comprehensive Research Report on the Spatial Environment of Nursery
Centers with Focus on the Residential Functions (Representative researcher: Mariko
Sadayuki, Professor, Japan Women‘s University).259
This research examined the
257
The 2009 Oshima Project Report, 110, 112. (Available at pdfs named ―200801002A0004‖
(http://mhlw-grants.niph.go.jp/niph/search/Download.do?nendo=2008&jigyoId=081011&bunkenNo=2
00801002A&pdf=200801002A0004.pdf) and ―200801002A0005.‖) 258
In the case of the Tokyo municipal government, they relaxed the minimum standard for crawling
room for infants aged less than two years in a certified (ninsho) nursery center for which they
independently grant subsidies. Specifically, it was reduced from 3.3m2 per child to 2.5 m
2 per child. See
section 4.6.1.5 of this dissertation. 259
The 2009 Sadayuki Report.
138
structural standards of nursery centers based on the MSCWI, and paid particular
attention to the spatial environment and facility standards that were necessary to meet
the changing demands of daycare provision.
The survey assessed the centers not only in the context of the traditional
concepts of MSCWI—where daycare facilities are assessed according to their
structural standards and room space, such as infant rooms and crawling rooms—but
according to whether the facilities were places where infants were able to grow and
lead a full life. The centers were also assessed in terms of how well they provided
education and supported the parents of the children. Namely, the survey aimed to
clarify the minimum standards that should be adhered to when implementing daycare
in institution facilities (in terms of ―Structural Quality‖) and to ensure that appropriate
levels of ―Process Quality‖ were adhered to, according to the GND.
The Sadayuki Committee conducted this research in the following way:
(1) They studied foreign material from 13 regions in six countries, concerning
standards for establishing nursery centers.
(2) They conducted a questionnaire survey of 4,097 approved nursery centers
nationwide and 55 approved nursery centers located in Tokyo to garner data on the
physical environment of nursery centers and the actual condition of daycare (they had
1,738 valid responses).
(3) They conducted an on-site survey of 17 nursery centers to assess the actual
condition and use of facilities and space, and they conducted an interview survey with
the directors of these centers.
139
(4) They selected five nursery centers to examine the standards that were set out with
regard to area etc. for establishing nursery centers, and conducted observation-based
research on action taken by children and nursery teachers while children were having a
meal, taking a nap, and playing.
The Sadayuki Committee analyzed the results of these surveys and research,
and—using the revised 2008 GND—it clarified the functions outlined by the GND for
providing daycare. The committee also organized the guiding principles for
appropriate residential environments needed to implement the abovementioned
functions and prepared a collection of reference cases based on the research.
4.4 Comparison between international and Japanese standards in Structural
Quality: (1) group size and (2) staff-child ratio
As referred in section 3.6.4.1, the evidence suggests that, in fact, the two types
of aspects/indicators—group size and staff-child ratios—are indivisibly linked and
thus should be evaluated as a unit. In general, small group sizes and small staff-child
ratios are associated with children receiving higher-quality care. For example, the
study conducted by NICHD indicates that higher positive care ratings and frequencies
were observed in childcare arrangements where caregivers were responsible for fewer
children and where there were lower staff-child ratios. This was also found to be the
case in settings that were assessed as safer and physically more stimulating and in
140
programs in which caregivers had more formal education and held more
non-authoritarian beliefs about child-rearing.260
However, there is no such comparable data with regard to the group size
applicable to Japanese nursery centers. In addition, although the MSCWI stipulate
guidelines with regard to staff-child ratios in nursery centers, in reality, the number of
children that is calculated as the responsibility of each caregiver is, in fact, only a
basic figure that is used to calculate the number of nursery teachers required in the
nursery center overall. It does not reflect how individual classes are composed in
terms of the age of the children and the number of nursery teachers assigned to each
class.
In addition, particularly in densely populated areas (urban areas), a certain level
of flexibility is permitted in terms of admissions quotas, because of the measures that
are in place to deal with the high number of children on waiting lists.261
According to
the 2008 Survey of National Council of Nursery Daycare, in which 11,605 authorized
nursery centers responded to a questionnaire, (public centers: 54.1%, private centers:
45.6%), in cities that have a population of less than 10,000, children aged between 0 to
2 years account for 28.5% of all children admitted in nursery centers. In contrast, in
260
NICHD Early Childcare Research Network 2005, 50-66. 261
According to the 2008 Survey of NCND, municipalities with smaller populations have many nursery
centers with smaller quotas, while municipalities with denser populations have many nursery centers with
larger capacity. In areas with a population of less than 10,000 people, nursery centers where more than 90
children are admitted account for 16.6% of all nursery centers, while in areas with a population of
500,000 or larger, such nursery centers account for 51.4% (p.18). Also, in areas with a smaller population,
there are many public nursery centers, while the denser the population is, the higher the percentage of
private nursery centers. While in areas with a population of less than 10,000, public nursery centers
account for 73.1% of all nursery centers, in areas with a population of 500,000 or larger, private nursery
centers account for 58.3% (p.14). From this, it can be assumed that, as indicated by the fact that in areas
with a smaller population, nursery centers cannot be operated unless they are publicly managed due to the
reduced number of children as a result of depopulation, etc., while in urban areas with a denser population,
there are many private nursery centers, the bipolarization and regional gaps are in progress.
141
those cities that have a population of 500,000 or more, children aged between 0 and 2
years accounted for 37.6% of children admitted to nursery schools. Thus, it is clear
that the more populated the city, the higher is the percentage of children that are aged
from 0 to 2 years.262
Moreover, there is a tendency—in municipalities with a
population of 50,000 or more—for the number of children actually admitted in nursery
centers to be higher than the quota, while in small-scale municipalities—including
areas that have lower populations—nursery centers are undersubscribed.
Moreover, according to the 2009 Survey of the Benesse Corporation, in which a
questionnaire was answered by 3,018 authorized nursery centers across the country
(public centers: 1,540, private centers: 1,478), 27.6% of public centers and 62.5% of
private centers acknowledged admitting more children than their quota allowed.
Meanwhile, 64% of public centers, and 28.9% of private centers, are undersubscribed
(enrolling less than 75% of their quota). These data can be further broken down in
terms of age. Approximately 20% of nursery centers exceed their quota by 25% for
children under two years old (children aged one account for 20.6% and those aged two
account for 18.9%). If other nursery centers that also exceed their quota, although by
less than 25%, are included (children aged one account for 18.6% and those aged two
account for 20.9%), then about 40% of all nursery centers admit children exceeding
the quota.
Furthermore, according to Japanese standards for staff–child ratios (see Table 2),
the permitted number of children per nursery teacher is still greater than the ratio
suggesteded by international standards. The Japanese standard permits thirty children,
262
The 2008 Survey of NCND, 19.
142
aged four years or more, per nursery teacher (during an approximate 8-hour session of
daycare) (MSCWI, Art. 33(2)). In addition, if the children are over five years of age,
then thirty-five are permitted to be under the care of one nursery teacher (during an
approximate four-hour period) in nursery centers authorized as ―authorized center[s]
for children‖ (Nintei kodomoen)263
, which are integrated institutions for early
childhood education and care (MSCWI, Art. 33(2)). When one considers the effects of
high staff–child ratios (i.e., overcrowded classrooms) together with the shortage of
nursery residential/outdoor space—another challenging factor affecting Japan‘s
nursery daycare system (Tables 4 and 5 in section 4.6)—it might be reasonable to
strive toward staving off the synergetic negative effects by improving the ratios.
263
In Japan after WWII, as an institution to provide daycare for preschool-aged children, two types of
institutions have continued to co-exist: one being nursery centers as a welfare institution for children
lacking daycare and the other being kindergarten as an educational facility for children not lacking
daycare. Kindergarten provides roughly 4 hours of early childhood education on weekdays to toddlers, in
principle, three years of age or older and before school age in accordance with the School Education Act
under the jurisdiction of the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology. In
accordance with standards for establishing kindergartens set by the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports,
Science and Technology, the upper limit of toddlers taken charge of by one teacher for one kindergarten
class is 35. According to White Paper on Childcare 2009, as of April 2008, there are about 23,000 nursery
centers and about 14,000 kindergartens and in both types of institutions, about 3.72 million toddlers are
receiving daycare (Hoiku Hakusho 2009, 81). An ―authorized center for children‖ (nintei kodomo-en), a
comprehensive facility that combines nursery daycare with education, implemented since October 2006,
is positioned as an institution where the existing two institutions are integrated with direct contract
between institutions and users. Also, the setting and collection of nursery fees as the responsibility of
nursery center is introduced to the existing nursery center system.
143
Table 2: Comparison of Staff-child Ratio Standards
International Standards Japan Standards (MSCWI)
(t: EC Target, b:UNICEF Benchmark)
Age in month
1:4 t Birth to 11 months 1:3
1:6 t 12 to 23 mo. 1:6
1:8 t 24 to 35 mo. 1:6
1:15 t 36 to 71 mo. 1:20 (3 years)
1:15 b* 48 to 71 mo. 1:30 (4 years or older)
(* Maximum group size should be no larger than 24, and overall, the Staff-child ratio
should not exceed 1:15. Specifically, every group of 24 children aged 4-5 years should
have a lead educator, supported by at least one trained child assistant.)
The 2009 SSC-STF report expressed concern about this situation and stated that
the number of nursery teachers assigned per child in Japan—particularly for older
children—is not at a satisfactory level when compared internationally. Indeed,
Japanese MSCWI standards are based on eight hours of daycare, in Japan recently, the
actual average hours of daycare is approaching eleven, which are the standard
operating hours of most nursery centers.264
In fact, according to the 2008 Survey of
National Council of Nursery Daycare, the average Japanese daycare center operates
for 11.4 hours, and more than 80% of nursery centers open between 7:00 and 8:00 in
264
MHLW-SSC-STF, February 2009, 15.
144
the morning on weekdays and close between 18:00 and 19:00 in the evening. As for
the combination of opening time and closing time, 43.6% of public centers open
between 7:00 and 8:00 and close between 18:00 and 19:00 and 40.4% open between
7:00 and 8:00 and close between 19:00 and 20:00. As for private centers, 66.5% open
between 7:00 and 8:00 and close between 19:00 and 20:00 and 10.5% close even later
than 20:00.265
In February 2009, this data prompted the Japan National Council of Social
Welfare, National Council of Nursery Centers, and National Council of Nursery
Teachers to request that a set of nursery daycare-related measures be defined and a
budget assigned for 2010.266
It was hoped that this budget would help to ensure that
legislation and fiscal measures could be taken so that a drastic review of staff
assignment for both children and staff members could be undertaken. This should
ensure that caregivers, while fully engaging in relationships with children, may
provide relieved, safe, and stable protective daycare and education. In particular, the
current average staff-child ratio for children aged three years was highlighted as an
area that needed urgent improvement if the continued growth of children in daycare
could be ensured. Indeed, there was a significant discrepancy between the staff-child
ratio for children aged one to two years (1:6) and that for children aged three years
(1:20).
In addition, one set of the international standards—the 1996 EC Targets— is
clear that daycare centers be sure that these figures represent a reality, rather than
265 The 2008 Survey of NCND, 22. 266 JNCSW et al., February 3, 2009.
145
merely ensuring that the numbers ―balance.‖ More specifically, sufficient staff must be
assigned to ensure the standards regarding ―group size‖ and ―staff-child ratios‖ are
satisfied while other staff members are receiving training to further improving their
daycare capabilities, not to mention ensuring nursery teachers are not forced to work
under excessive labor conditions when dealing with children (Targets 22 and 24).
This means that, from the perspective of securing the quality of nursery daycare,
the standards regarding group size and staff-child ratio themselves are strongly related
to the nursery teacher‘s way of actually dealing with children (―Process Quality‖) and
the nursery teacher‘s way of working (―Staff Working Conditions‖); therefore, it is
clear that, until the standards of ―Process Quality‖ and ―Staff Working Conditions‖ are
satisfied, neither group size nor staff ratio should be used as the sole standards for
assuring the quality of daycare. Consequently, it follows that even if standards of
group size and staff-child ratios in Japan fall short of international standards, this is
less serious that if Japan falls short of the international standards concerning ―Process
Quality‖ and ―Staff Working Conditions.‖
4.5 Comparison between international and Japanese standards in Structural
Quality: (3) staff qualification and training
As the 2009 SSC-STF report shows, in Japan, nursery staff—that are crucial
elements in ensuring the quality of nursery daycare—must meet two requirements:
acquiring a nursery teacher‘s qualification and undertaking continuous training after
employment.
146
Training after employment for nursery teachers is beneficial in two significant
ways. First, their specialized abilities improve and, as a result, they improve their
skills in dealing with children and their parents; second, nursery teachers then perform
better in their performance evaluations. With regard to the latter aspect, working
conditions for nursery teachers, we will examine Japanese situations in light of
international standards on the aspect/indicator of ―opportunities to participate in
professional development and in-service training‖ (as discussed in 4.11).
Japan does meet the numerical standards of the 2008 UNICEF Benchmark 5
that stipulates guidelines for the minimum training for all staff in nursery centers.
However, as we examined in our earlier discussion of ―Staff Working Conditions,‖
Japan fails to satisfy the latter half of Benchmark 5, which stipulates that: ―[nursery
centers should] move towards [establishing] pay and working conditions in line with
the wider teaching or social care professions.‖ As a response to the increasing
international emphasis on the diverse effects of ECEC on not only the future of the
world‘s children but also the future of society as a whole, international standards urge
countries to encourage their nursery teachers to gain technical knowledge and skills
that exceed the level outlined in the 2008 Benchmark 5 level. They also urge nursery
teachers to participate in training programs to further improve their abilities (e.g., the
2008 Benchmark 6 and the 1996 EC Targets 26 and 27). Japan, however, fails to meet
all these standards. The data on average salaries of nursery teachers compared to
Japan‘s other workers are presented later in section 4.5.1.4 (Table 3).
147
4.5.1 Present daycare conditions in Japan and how they relate to standards of
“staff qualification and training”
In Japan, with respect to the aspect/indicator of ―staff qualification and
training,‖ there is a widening gulf between those who regard ensuring the ―quality‖ of
nursery teachers as a priority in nursery daycare and those who regard ensuring the
―quantity‖ of nursery teachers as a priority in nursery daycare. In other words, while
both those engaged in nursery daycare and ECEC researchers are demanding stricter
entry requirements for nursery teachers that adhere to international standards, Nippon
Keidanren (Japan Business Federation) is demanding a relaxation of entry
requirements. One advisory body to the government has announced that it will
consider developing an education and development system for nursery teachers to
drastically increase the number of people that are qualified to work in the nursery
daycare service.
4.5.1.1 Acquisition of nursery teacher’s qualification
Traditionally, a nursery teacher was defined as ―a person who is engaged in
daycare of children in child welfare institutions‖ (the Order for Enforcement of the
Child Welfare Act, Art. 13). However, in 2003, the qualification required to become a
nursery teacher was upgraded to national certification (kokka shikaku). This was a
result of revisions made to the Child Welfare Act in 2001 that attempted to regulate
non-approved facilities that exploited the social trust in nursery teachers. It was hoped
that, by upgrading the entry requirements, these low-level unauthorized centers would
148
no longer be able to operate, which would promote child-rearing in the community.
Indeed, these revisions ensured that there were now clearly defined criteria regarding
who could be referred to as a nursery teacher, the entry qualifications required and the
confidentiality obligations involved. Nursery teachers were obliged then to obtain a
registration card that was issued by the relevant prefectural government before they
engaged in their work.
At present, all qualified nursery teachers must either have completed a nursery
teacher-training course (for two years, after graduating from senior high school)
designated by the Minister of Health, Labour and Welfare (hereinafter
―Minister-designated training school‖), or have passed a nursery teacher examination
after having worked in a child welfare institution specified under the Child Welfare
Act for two to five years.
According to the data on the numbers of nursery teacher‘s qualification holder
from 1949 to 2006, it is clear that the percentage of those who became qualified
nursery teachers—not by graduating from a Minister-designated training school, but
by passing a national examination—fell in the early 1970‘s and continued to decline.
Indeed, since the 1990s, the percentage of those qualification holders has remained
only 10% of total qualification holders, partly because it is very difficult to accumulate
sufficient practical experience without being qualified.267
Thus, in recent years,
approximately 90% of qualification holders are graduates from Minister-designated
training schools; for being qualified as a nursery teacher, they have not taken the
MHLW-recognized national examinations.
267
Tokyo Yomiuri Shinbun, October 30, 2007.
149
To garner a deeper understanding of the specialized knowledge that is required
by nursery teachers in the field of ECEC, the content of the nursery teacher curriculum
that is alternatively tested by a MHLW-recognized qualification examination that is
held once every year is shown below. Applicants must first pass a written examination
and score at least 60% in all subjects, after which they must take a practical
examination in two subjects.268
Written examination
(1) Social welfare: Predominantly focusing on knowledge regarding the general
aspects of social welfare, including laws, concept, practice services, etc.
(2) Child welfare: Predominantly focusing on attaining an understanding of the
significance, concept, laws, systems, etc., of child welfare, and the present situation
of child, relevant social problems, etc.
(3) Developmental psychology and mental health: Students learn about the
characteristics, assessment methods, and support during human growth and
development, while referring to the psychological structure. With regard to mental
health, they learn skills associated with the actual daycare scene, based on
knowledge about the different stages of human development and human
characteristics.
(4) Child health: Students learn to understand how to define health, with a focus
predominantly on child health (Disease, protective vaccination, maternal and child
health, emergency treatment, etc.).
(5) Pediatric nutrition: Students are given a basic knowledge regarding child nutrition
in the context of actual daycare; they also learn how to provide children with basic
education and guidance in regard to nutrition and diet.
(6) Principles of daycare: Students learn about the characteristics, significance, and
concepts that underpin nursery daycare. In particular, they explore the framework
behind the GND that ensures they understand the basics and standards when they
provide actual daycare.
(7) Principle of education and principle of protective care: Students learn about the
concept of education, relevant laws and ordinances, changes in practice, and garner
an overall understanding of the theory of education. As for the principle of
protective care, they learn systematically about how this principle is implemented in
other child welfare institutions.
268
National Nursery Teachers Training Council (n.d.).
150
(8) Theory of practical training of daycare: Students learn about musical theory, terms
used for picture drawing, and the relevant stipulations in this area in the GND.
Practical examination (Two subjects to be selected)
(1) Music: They sing two assigned pieces of music while playing either the piano, the
guitar, or the accordion.
(2) Picture drawing: Based on an assigned theme, they draw a picture on a B4-sized
piece of paper, using colored pencils (12 to 24 colors); they must complete the task
within 45 minutes.
(3) Language: They give a spoken performance by telling a children‘s story etc. that
they have prepared alone in the preparation time of three minutes. They must tell
the story as if 20 infants of around three years are in front of them.
Thus, it is clear that the nursery teacher curriculum (assessed either by the
Minister-designated school coursework or MHLW-recognized qualification
examination) does cover two subjects concerning the GND (Japanese standards for
―Process Quality‖) as well as subjects related to laws and ordinances regarding
―Structural Quality,‖ such as the Child Welfare Act and the MSCWI. The implication
of this is that in Japan, all nursery teachers should be familiar with the Japanese
standards regarding ―Structural Quality‖ and ―Process Quality.‖ Despite the fact that
the qualification is gained after only two years (which is why Japan fails to meet the
2008 UNICEF Benchmark 6), it is nonetheless clear that Japanese nursery teachers do
possess a uniform level of ECEC knowledge and ability when they start working; this
is in contrast to many other countries where there is no qualification system.
151
4.5.1.2 The 2009 Oshima Project study regarding nursery teacher
development
In FY 2006, the 2009 Oshima Project Study developed a questionnaire to assess
the issue of ―nursery teacher development‖; the questionnaire was mailed to 3,042
child welfare institutions where nursery teachers worked, including nursery centers,
children‘s self-reliance support facilities, and disability-related facilities. They
received 1,182 valid responses (response rate: 38.9%). They also interviewed a
selection of experts (14 officers at organizations related to nursery daycare and
welfare, and four academics).269
In FY 2007, they carried out similar a questionnaire
survey on the Minister-designated training schools that were members of the National
Nursery Teachers Training Council (the Council had 436 members as of May 2007).
They received 273 valid responses (response rate: 62.6%).270
They also interviewed a
selection of 22 teachers at nursery teacher training schools from across Japan.271
Furthermore, in FY 2008, they held supplementary interviews with seven users of
child welfare institutions (two parents for nursery centers, three former users of
protective institutions, and two parents for disability-related facilities).272
The results of the questionnaire were then used to collate opinions from all these
areas regarding what was deemed a ―desirable form for the nursery teacher‘s
qualification,‖ ―desirable ways of developing nursery teachers,‖ and ―a desirable
269
The 2009 Oshima Project Report, 43, 106. 270
The 2009 Oshima Project Report, 15. 271
The 2009 Oshima Project Report, 174. 272
The 2009 Oshima Project Report, 263.
152
system to ensure the quality of nursery teachers.‖ A detailed breakdown of these
results is described below.
The results of the survey clearly indicated that most people believed that the
nursery teacher qualifications should be comprehensive, rather than a selection of
qualifications that would vary according to the age group of the children and their area
of expertise (such as nursery daycare, disabilities, health care, child abuse, or family
support).
Most respondents also believed that the grading of nursery teachers—there are
three grades in the licensing of kindergarten teachers: second-class (junior colleges,
etc.), first-class (universities etc.), and specialized (graduate schools)—was a better
way of qualifying nursery teachers than merely granting a single-grade qualification to
all students that have completed the two-year training courses (as is the case under the
current system). Most respondents agreed that, while nursery teachers should attain
their basic qualification during the two-year training courses, a qualifying structure,
based on four-year training courses and a system that enables upgrading of the basic
qualification, should also be created. Furthermore, the results indicated that most
respondents believed that nursery teachers could become more specialized by
undertaking graduate school education. In order to ensure that the system still includes
nursery teachers that have diverse skills, it was recommended that the current
qualification examination should continue, with additional requirements, such as
practical experience (practical training and volunteer activities) and business
experience.
153
In order to ensure that all nursery teachers have a certain level of specialized
skills, the results of the survey found that most respondents that practice daycare at
child welfare institutions believed that a new national examination system should be
introduced where all new graduates from Minister-designated training schools must
take examinations at the time of graduation to confirm that they have the minimum
necessary amount of knowledge to be a nursery teacher. Respondents also suggested
that a system be introduced whereby all teachers must undergo qualification renewal.
In particular, over 70% respondents of child welfare institutions, irrespective of
the type of facility that they worked in or who operated them, believed that a new
national examination system for graduates from Minister-designated training school
(61.9% believed that is was necessary to set a new examination to confirm whether
graduates had the minimum necessary level of knowledge and skills, and 9.1%
believed that it was necessary to set a more stringent national examination). On the
other hand, approximately 40% respondents of training schools agreed (39.6% for the
former opinion, and 1.5% for the latter opinion). The percentage of those who
regarded the current system as sufficient and saw no need for a new national
examination system was 22.2% for child welfare institutions and 52.7% for training
schools.273
If the results of these surveys and interviews, which can be regarded as
reflecting the actual conditions in nursery centers, are taken into account, it seems
clear that most interested parties in nursery centers believe that the current
qualification system—based on a two-year curriculum—is insufficient to ensure the
273
The 2009 Oshima Project Report, 211, 293. 3
154
quality and specialized skills that are demanded of nursery teachers today. This is
especially true because nursery teachers are increasingly expected to play a central
role in supporting childcare in the local community while also meeting a diverse range
of childcare needs.
4.5.1.3 The Keidanren’s and Pasona’s requests to the Cabinet Office for
deregulation
While the results of the Oshima Project indicated that there was widespread
dissatisfaction with the current qualification system and increasing calls to develop a
more stringent qualification system, in political and business communities, there have
been growing calls to relax the qualification requirements for nursery teachers in order
to ensure that the requisite number of nursery teachers do, indeed, qualify.
In June 2007, the Japanese government accepted the need for regulatory reform
and privatization in a numbers of areas such as medical services, nursing care and
nursery daycare; three of the 561 requests for regulatory reform that were authorized
to be implemented on a nationwide scale were related to nursery teachers and nursery
centers.274
Of these three, two requested a relaxation of the requirements for taking the
examination to acquire a nursery teacher‘s qualification; one was submitted by Pasona
Inc., a major temporary staffing agency, and one by Nippon Keidanren (Japan
Business Federation). With the revision of Article 18-6 of the Child Welfare Act in
1988, the nursery teacher examination was made more rigorous, and where it had
previously been conducted at a high school level, it was then conducted at a junior
274
Cabinet Office, June 2007.
155
college level. After April 1, 1991, graduation from a high school by only completing
the general high school course was no longer sufficient to take the nursery teacher
examination.
According to Nippon Keidanren (proposal management number: 5068186),275
―as nursery centers and similar facilities are rapidly establishing themselves, especially
in urban areas, the maintenance of qualified nursery teachers is becoming important to
ensure the nursery daycare service continues.‖ They also noted how the job of nursery
teacher is ―highly popular among young women in particular, and many full-time
housewives who have finished raising their own children and wish to go back to work
again in the role of a nursery teacher so that they can make the most of their
experience in child rearing.‖ However, the current requirement to take the nursery
teacher examination, which demands graduation from a junior college or a similar
qualification, ―might deprive them of favorable employment and reemployment
opportunities.‖ Citing these reasons, Keidanren requested that the current
qualifications be revaluated immediately and the requirements for taking the
examination be lowered again.
Pasona, which submitted a similar request (proposal management number:
5030007)276
to that of Keidanren, organized a ―Shadow Cabinet‖ in-house in February
2007 as part of their employee training. In the shadow cabinet, employees made
investigations and put together policy under such themes as employment, health care,
275
Cabinet Office, June 2007, Proposal management No.5068186. (Available at
http://www.kantei.go.jp/jp/singi/kouzou2/proposal/2007/07/06_1_dat02_2.pdf.) 276
Cabinet Office, June 2007, Proposal management No.5030007. (Available at
http://www.kantei.go.jp/jp/singi/kouzou2/proposal/2007/07/06_1_dat02_2.pdf.)
156
and education, and began to offer Pasona‘s opinions to the government. Over a period
of about one-and-a-half years, up to August 2008, the company submitted 55 requests
to the real Cabinet Office of Japan. In June 2007, Pasona‘s Ministry of Deregulation
proposed a policy to the real Cabinet Office‘s Council for the Promotion of Regulatory
Reform, arguing that requirements to take the nursery teacher examination should be
eased. This was because despite 4,000 holders of a nursery teacher‘s qualification
being registered with Pasona for temporary work, the lack of nursery teachers was an
issue that field managers had raised with Pasona daily. The real Office for the
Promotion of Regulatory Reform replied that the government would consider
deregulation, but that it would like Pasona to investigate why the turnover rate for
nursery teachers was so high. In September 2008, Pasona‘s Ministry of Deregulation
carried out a questionnaire survey with its registered nursery teachers (response rate:
30.5%). In December of the same year, Pasona‘s Ministry put together the results of
the survey (not opened to the public) and submitted them to the real Cabinet Office.277
However, as of November 2010, the qualification requirements for nursery teachers
have not been relaxed yet despite of the business group pressure.
4.5.1.4 The 2009 SSC-STF Report
Referring to the basic policies for discussing how future nursery daycare
systems should be, the 2009 SSC-STF Report, mentioned in Section 4.2, considers
that the highest priority should be ―to help all children to grow up in good health by
ensuring a favorable growth environment.‖ In order to increase ―the volume of
277
Nihon Keizai Shinbun, August 25, 2008.
157
daycare services as a whole swiftly and drastically while ensuring the quality,‖ it
emphasizes the necessity of achieving two goals: (1) reforming the current system of
nursery daycare, and (2) establishing a source of revenue based on the ―Medium-term
Program Aimed at Building a Sustainable Social Security System and Establishing a
Stable Source of Revenue to Attain the Objective‖ (adopted by a Cabinet meeting in
December 2008).278
The report aims ―to establish a system to continuously examine
the effects of the quality of nursery daycare on the growth of children and other issues
through scientific and empirical research and studies.‖279
However, the report reminds policymakers that, as they attempt to resolve the
shortage of the absolute volume of nursery daycare with celerity, they are required ―to
keep in mind at all times, with limited funding, the need to strike a balance between
ensuring the quality of, and increasing the volume of, nursery daycare required for the
healthy growth of children.‖280
In essence, while referring to the necessity of
―ensuring the quality of nursery daycare,‖ the SSC-STF Report focuses on the need to
promptly and drastically increase the ―volume‖ of nursery daycare services, which is
in acutely short supply, and recognizes that the development of nursery teachers and
the support of nursery daycare services in a systematic way that maintains both
quantity and quality, is essential.
The report analyzes the current problems that are associated with increasing the
provision of nursery daycare while ensuring its quality. As part of this analysis, with
respect to the acquisition of a nursery teacher‘s qualification, it mentions only that the
278
MHLW-SSC-STF, February 2009, 21. 279
MHLW-SSC-STF, February 2009, 51. 280
MHLW-SSC-STF, February 2009, 51.
158
Special Task Force, the author of the report, will ―further consider a systematic
development of nursery teachers needed to increase the volume of nursery daycare‖;281
it raises only two subjects in this regard: participation by nursery teachers in training
programs after employment and support for the reemployment of voluntarily separated
unemployed nursery teachers.
More specifically, in its analysis, the SSC-STF report first points out that
participation in training programs after acquiring a nursery teacher‘s qualification
should be at the discretion of individual nursery teachers; it also notes that there has
yet to be a training scheme aimed at improving the specialized knowledge and skills of
nursery teachers under a system in place. The report also finds that nursery centers are
already facing a shortage of nursery teachers in their centers, which prevents them
from allowing those they do have from participating in training programs. Third, the
report found that the turnover rate of nursery teachers was high (in part because they
remained in employment for a shorter number of years the all-industry average), and
their wages are lower than the average (Table 3); this high turnover rate prevents
nursery teachers from watching children develop over a long period of time in a stable
manner, a condition that is indispensable to the growth of both children and nursery
teachers. Fourth, no system has yet been put in place to provide training to nursery
teachers who leave their jobs (for reasons such as marriage), in the hope that they
might return to nursery teaching at a later date.282
281
MHLW-SSC-STF, February 2009, 27. 282
MHLW-SSC-STF, February 2009, 15-16.
159
Table 3: Comparison of Japanese Wage Structures
(Nursery Teachers / All Industries)
Total Female Male
Average age: 33.5/40.9 33.6/39.1 N.A.[29.2]/41.7
Service years: 7.7/11.6 7.8/8.6 N.A.[5.0]/13.1
Cash wage: 2159/2991 2141/2261 N.A.[2290]/3337
(1 USD = 100 Yen)
Source: 2008 Basic Survey of Wage Structure (MHLW, July 2009). Data in square brackets are
from 2006 Basic Survey of Wage Structure (MHLW, July 2007).
In order to maintain and improve the quality of nursery daycare, the SSC-STF
Report also outlines the following important points: (1) administrative agencies should
be required to perform stricter, more exhaustive audits of nursery centers; (2) a system
should be established to enable assessment and inspection of the turnover rate for
nursery teachers and other conditions from the viewpoint of building stable
relationships between nursery teachers and children, (3) that nursery teachers should
receive training and development to ensure they are capable of providing high quality
nursery daycare at nursery centers, even as their work environment undergoes changes,
due to the diversification of social demands; and (4) that the workplace of nursery
teachers should be managed properly so that they can display their individuality and
abilities to the fullest extent. From these perspectives, the report states that as along
with establishing a source of revenue, the Special Task Force will consider in further
detail (1) stepping up efforts to assure facility managers and nursery teachers of
160
training programs under an overall system, (2) building a system that enables nursery
teachers to upgrade their abilities through practical experience and participation in
training programs (to develop highly- specialized nursery teachers and senior nursery
teachers capable of guiding rank-and-file nursery teachers), (3) reconsidering
personnel assignment standards to allow nursery teachers to take training courses, and
(4) improving the treatment of nursery teachers and other personnel to recruit superior
ones in the future.283
4.6 Comparison between international and Japanese standards in Structural
Quality: (4) quality of materials and environments
At least, in terms of itemization of the contents, Japanese standards with regard
to the ―quality of materials and environments,‖ i.e., the MSCWI, seem to adhere to the
relevant international standards. However, the actual numerical criteria in Japan fall
short of those recommended by the 1996 EC Target 32 (Table 4), which indicate that
Japanese standards on the spatial/residential environments of nursery centers are far
inferior to the desirable level of ―sufficient space, inside and out, to enable children to
play, sleep and use bathroom facilities, and to meet the needs of parents and staff.‖284
283
MHLW-SSC-STF, February 2009, 27, 51. 284
EC Childcare Network 1996, Target 32.
161
Table 4: Comparison of Spatial/Residential Environments
(The 1996 EC Target 32 and Art. 32 of Japan‘s MSCWI)
Internal space for each child (sq meters)
Target 32 Article 32 of MSCWI
at least 6* (under 3 years) no less than 1.65 (baby room – under 2 years)
no less than 3.3 (crawling room – under 2 years)
at least 4* (3-6 years) no less than 1.98 (2 years or older)
* Excluding storage and corridor or through-way space
External space for each child (sq meters)
Target 32 Article 32 of MSCWI
at least 6** (all children) no less than 3.3*** (2 year or older)
** Ensuring direct access to external space
*** Substitution with a place located near the center that can serve as such is permitted
Internal space for adult use
Target 32 MSCWI
Additional 5% N.A.
4.6.1 Present daycare conditions in Japan and how they relate to standards on
“quality of materials and environments”
4.6.1.1 Introduction of the flexible enrollment system for children who are on
nursery centers waiting lists, and how this impacts daycare environments
The 1948 MSCWI for nursery centers (Chapter 5 of MSCWI285
) specify the
minimum conditions required of facilities and personnel arrangements for ―children
lacking daycare‖ (Art. 39 of the Child Welfare Act) to maintain the minimum level of
285
See ―Appendix 3: Minimum Standards for Child Welfare Institutions, Chapters 1 and 5 (Extracted
Articles concerning Daycare at Nursery Centers)‖ in this dissertation.
162
wholesome and cultured living, as stipulated under Article 25 of the Constitution of
Japan. However, these minimum standards were developed in the years immediately
following World War II, when the economic situation was poor and the country was in
disarray. Therefore, Article 3 of the MSCWI takes as a given that these guidelines be
improved in accordance with future economic conditions and people‘s standards of
living.
In reality, the facilities, personnel, and arrangements of the average nursery
center are, in fact, of a higher level than stipulated by the MSCWI standards. It can be
said that the system has compensated for the low-level conditions of the MSCWI
standards, by the national treasury subsidy and charge system, which concerns the cost
of operating a nursery center, and helped raise the level of the daycare environment at
approved nursery centers across the country.286
Furthermore, even under the current system for nursery centers, each local
government can exercise its own authority as long as they comply with the guidelines
set out in the national minimum MSCWI standards. Namely, the national government
is obligated to provide financial assistance to local governments in order to allow them
to implement appropriate daycare (Art. 24 of the Child Welfare Act); with this in mind,
the national government should indicate, from a financial point of view, national
minimum benchmarks (concerning national subsidies for operating nursery centers
and for maintaining facilities etc.). Moreover, local governments should be given the
authority to exceed such levels when deemed necessary. In reality, some local
governments implement measures to reduce the nursery the daycare fees that have
286
Hoiku Hakusho 2009, 37.
163
been specified by the national government, and when the national benchmarks of
subsidies for operating expenses of nursery centers are not sufficient (to cover, for
example, additional expenses for nursery teachers, overtime pay for working over
eight hours, and expenditures for pay raises), local governments have sometimes
supplemented the cost with their own funds as ―exceptional benefits.‖
However, in reality, the national government already has a flexible enrollment
system in place that allows nursery centers to accommodate more children than
officially permitted. This is part of measures that have been put in place to reduce the
number of children on the waiting lists. In the middle of FY 1998, nursery centers
were permitted to admit approximately 15% more children than the limit stipulated; in
FY 1999, the level was raised to 25%; and since FY 2001, any limitations on the
number of children admitted has been removed completely. Accordingly, the number
of facilities that are accommodating more children than their stated capacities
increased from 43% in 1999 to 59% in 2005.287
Indeed, a flexible enrollment system may be applied, as long as the minimum
MSCWI standards that cover aspects of nursery care, such as space and personnel
arrangements, are satisfied. However, as the MSCWI standards only outline the
minimum levels required, it should be considered that those minimum levels just
guarantee the permissible-limit minimum levels of daycare for the numbers of children
to be admitted adhering to the quota. Besides, even in conformity with the quota, in
comparison with other countries, Japan‘s current minimum standards for nursery
centers are low, as the following Table 5 indicates.
287
Ikemoto, October 20, 2009.
164
Table 5: Minimum Standards for Indoor Space per Person
for Children Aged 3 Years or Older
Location Sq meters Stockholm, Sweden 7.5
Paris, France 5.5
State of New York, USA 3.25
Hamburg, Germany 3.0
New Zealand 2.5
England 2.3
Japan 1.98
Source: The 2009 Sadayuki Report on the Residential Functions of Nursery Centers.
In addition, according to the Childhood Exercise Council of Kobe City, in one
nursery center, although the nursery room for one-year-olds met the minimum
standard for space, on paper, in reality, when the toy storage areas and the passages to
the restrooms were excluded, the actual usable space was found to be about 70% of
the standard. This seems to be indicative of a wider problem. In many such centers,
storage rooms and corridors are converted to nursery rooms in order to accommodate
more children, and, often, halls are used as nursery rooms as well. At other centers,
corridors and verandas were found to have been converted to nursery rooms for
four-year-olds. The minimum standards require that a space of 1.65 m2 (sq meters) or
more be provided for each 0-1 year-old, and 3.3 m2 or more of moving space be
provided when they start to crawl. However, Kobe City has traditionally interpreted
the space required for a one-year-old to be 1.65 m2, whether or not they have begun to
crawl. An official of the section concerned at the MHLW responded to these
allegations, ―We have never heard of a local government that intentionally adopts the
165
lower end of the standards. If no crawling space is set aside while they have
one-year-olds crawling and if the space of 1.65 m2 each is applied to all the babies, it
is a violation of the standards.‖288
4.6.1.2 Results of the 2009 Sadayuki report on the residential functions of
nursery centers
Meanwhile, in response to the fact that the hours of operation at most nursery
centers have increased significantly in recent years, the Committee of the 2009
Sadayuki Report on Residential Functions of Nursery Centers drew attention to the
several issues that this shift prompted. They particularly paid attention to the
possibility of practicing daycare in the context of longer operating hours, especially
from the perspective of the mental and physical development of children. For instance,
they were very concerned about the ―separation of meals and sleep‖ (separation of
place for having a meal and place for taking a nap to ensure children can do so calmly
and adequately), which is essential if children are to have a safe and healthy
environment.
In its conclusion, the Sadayuki Committee recommended that dimensions wider
than those outlined in the present standards should be required as standard, specifically
they recommended 4.11 m2 (sq meters) per person for children aged less than two
years (compared to 3.3 m2 under the present MSCWI) and 2.43 m
2 for children aged
two years or older (compared to 1.98 m2 under the present MSCWI).
289 In addition,
288
Asahi Shinbun, June 29, 2009. 289
The Sadayuki Committee‘s survey also found that, while in many nursery centers, a space of 4.95 m2
per child for infant classes (which is larger than the present MSCWI standard of 3.3 m2) is provided, in
166
they expressed concern that, if a system that allowed smaller areas that those outlined
in the present standards be introduced, then it would be increasingly difficult for
nursery daycare to respond to the development needs of individual children.
Another study group also presents similar findings to the 2009 Sadayuki report.
In 2007, a study project was conducted by Gen Tamiaki, Professor at Shiraume
Gakuen University with financial assistance from the MHLW entitled
―Comprehensive Study on the Proper Way of Daycare Environment in a Society with
Fewer Children.‖ It was based around both observation and an interview-based survey
and assessed the impact of room space on children‘s development; they used two types
of nursery rooms with adjusted room space (2.5 m2 and 3.3 m
2). As a result, the
following findings were clarified:
(1) Children seemed to enjoy eating more, showed more interests in things close to
them, talked more, and moved more in the larger room.
(2) Undertaking daycare seemed to be easier and less stressful for nursery teachers in
the larger room.290
Based on the results of this survey, Tamiaki proposed that lowering the present
MSCWI standards, even if it reduced the number of children on waiting lists, should
be avoided as it was clearly harmful to child-rearing.291
classes for four- to five-year-olds, more often than not, the space allotted per child was between 2.0 m2
and 2.1 m2 per child (an area that only narrowly met the present standard of 1.98 m
2).
290 The Tamiaki Project FY 2007 Report, 8.
291 Asahi Shinbun, July 3, 2009.
167
4.6.1.3 Cabinet Office Advisory Committee’s recommendation to abolish
minimum standards and series of urgent appeals of objection from nursery
daycare groups
Despite the overwhelming results of empirical studies suggesting the importance
of the maintenance and improvement of national MSCWI standards, on October 8,
2009, the Committee for Promoting Decentralization presented its third
recommendation for the ―Realization of ‗Local Governments through Expanded
Self-governing Legislative Powers,‖292
to the Prime Minister. The recommendation
was aimed at promoting decentralization reform and advocated that the MSCWI
standards governing approved nursery centers be abolished and the relevant authority
be transferred to local governments. This was in line with the recommendation of the
National Governors‘ Association and National Mayors‘ Association that had
suggested that ―[t]he building and operating environment of daycare facilities differ
from one region to another. In urban areas where land prices are high, it is difficult to
secure space, while in sparsely populated areas it is difficult to secure nursery teachers.
The standards related to such centers/facilities and operation should be established by
local governments so that they may run such facilities, taking into account their
respective conditions.‖ 293
United in their opposition to this third recommendation of the Committee for
Promoting Decentralization, on October 9, the Japan National Council of Social
292
Cabinet Office, October 7, 2009. This Committee for Promoting Decentralization (Chiho bunken
kaikaku suishin iinkai) was established in April 2007, by the ―Basic Act on the Promotion of
Decentralization‖ (Act No.111 of 2006), for studying the basic issues of the promotion of
decentralization and making recommendations to the Prime Minister. 293
Cabinet Office, October 7, 2009, 22.
168
Welfare, the National Council of Nursery Centers, and the National Council of
Nursery Teachers made an urgent appeal to the government to ―not destroy
environments that promote child growth, and maintain the MSCWI standards for
approved centers.‖294
On October 13, the Association of National Nursery Daycare
Groups expressed their view that ―the policy to abolish or review the MSCWI nursery
standards that threatens babies‘ growth and development should be rescinded.‖295
On
October 14, the Parents Supporting Nursery Centers made an ―urgent appeal to have
the MSCWI national standards for nursery centers maintained and improved.‖296
On
October 22, the Association for Children‘s Environments and The Clinical
Child-Raising and Daycare Workshop requested that ―the MSCWI standards for
daycare environments be maintained to ensure that the children can continue to grow
and develop.‖297
Moreover, on November 2, the Japan Society of Research on Early
Childhood Care and Education made a statement advocating the implementation of a
―policy to ensure that the quality environment for nursery daycare should be expanded,
with a view to attaining genuine improvement of the MSCWI standards at approved
centers.‖298
All of these appeals, which were prompted by the 2009 Sadayuki Report on the
Residential Functions of Nursery Centers, take the MSCWI standards as ―the
foundation of Japan‘s nursery daycare system that has secured a certain relevant
daycare environment nationwide, even though they are relatively low, when compared
294
JNCSW et al., October 9, 2009. 295
ANNDG, October 13, 2009. 296
PSNC, October 14, 2009. 297
ACE and CCRDW, October 22, 2009. 298
JSRECCE, November 2, 2009.
169
internationally.‖ In addition, all of the appeals refer to the importance of maintaining
the quality of nursery daycare and encourage the maintenance and improvement of
MSCWI standards with regard to ensuring successful young children‘s development.
At the same time, all these appeals expressed concerns that relaxing the MSCWI
standards could lead to a daycare environment where larger numbers of children than
are present now are ―crammed into nursery centers,‖ leading to a deterioration of the
quality of daycare. They also expressed concern that transferring the responsibility of
maintaining nursery centers to financially distressed local governments could widen
the existing gaps in daycare levels between different local governments. Furthermore,
these appeals point out that the MSCWI standards should not be blamed for the
increase in children on a waiting list, and they advocate a bold approach to securing
the appropriate financial resources on the existing basis of the national responsibility
of daycare. They propose that more approved nursery centers that meet or exceed the
current minimum standards of MSCWI be built, rather than relaxing standards so that
it is easier to build centers that are approved.
Furthermore, on the morning of November 4—the deadline for the MHLW to
respond to the third recommendation—Ms. Mizuho Fukushima, the then State
Minister in charge of Consumer Affairs and Declining Birthrate, referred to the
importance of eliminating children on a waiting list; she said, ―In the interest of
children, the most important thing is to maintain the quality of nursery daycare.
Basically, the MSCWI standards must be observed in principle. It would not be correct
to assume that the transfer of authority to local governments will automatically result
170
in blanket approval, allowing them to deregulate as they please; we need to have
further discussions on this matter.‖299
4.6.1.4 The MHLW’s response to the recommendation and that occupancy
standards in large cities be relaxed as a temporary measure
On the same day, November 4, after considering the concerns that were voiced
by these involved parties with regard to the deterioration of childcare quality, the
MHLW announced ―its Responses to the Third Recommendation (Portions to be
replied to the requests of local governments)‖300
; this outlined the hope that nursery
daycare quality could be retained while also ―respecting to the fullest extent possible
the third recommendation toward realizing decentralization reform.‖ Accordingly,
only 162 items that can have significant effects on nursery daycare, nursing care, and
welfare, are to be defined as ―the standards to be observed‖ covered in the national
minimum standards (ordinances applicable nationwide), while items under the existing
standard requirements related to aspects such as facilities, totaling 1,362 are now to be
decided with local ordinances.301
With this change, approximately 90% of the existing
standard requirements are now under the jurisdiction of the local governments.
In the context of nursery centers, the only ―standards to be observed‖ are those
that regulate ―personnel arrangements‖ (Art. 33 of the MSCWI), ―occupancy space
standards‖ (Art. 32), and ―operating standards directly related to human rights‖
(abused children admitted on a priority basis, confidentiality, the GND, kitchens of
299
Fukushima, November 4, 2009. 300
MHLW, November 4, 2009. 301
See, MHLW, November 4, 2009. (Available at
http://www.mhlw.go.jp/stf/houdou/2r98520000002ahn-img/2r98520000002aj5.pdf.)
171
nursery centers, etc.) (Art. 9, 9-2, 10, 11, 14-2, 35). This means that the number of
children accommodated in a nursery room and the outsourcing of meals is now an
issue that may be decided by local governments, since these are ―not expected to have
significant effects on the quality of nursery daycare, even if they are relaxed.‖302
This
claim stands in stark contrast to the huge body of evidence on the effect of these issues
on the development of children.
The MHLW proposed that the only standards that should be relaxed (i.e., be
ceded to the local governments) in regard to occupancy space were those that applied
to approved centers in large cities, such as those in the 23 wards of Tokyo, where there
are a large number of children on waiting lists. This is regarded as a temporary
measure that should only be in effect until the problem of children on the waiting list
is resolved, provided that the local governments concerned are made accountable by
bearing responsibility for implementing the guidelines. Minister Nagatsuma
emphasized that this was only a temporary measure, saying, ―The national minimum
standards of MSCWI should be restored when the problem of waiting children is
resolved.‖303
Local governments that are permitted to relax their standards of
occupancy space will be selected according to ―the numbers of waiting children and
the land prices of surrounding areas‖; Yokohama and Kawasaki are cities that have
been suggested as possible locations for this regulation relaxation.304
However, as parents, people involved in nursery daycare, and researchers all
point out in their statements of objection to the abovementioned third recommendation,
302
Sankei Shinbun, November 4, 2009. 303
Asahi Shinbun, November 5, 2009. 304
Tokyo Shinbun, November 5, 2009.
172
the national government‘s minimum standards or ―regulations‖ that are applicable
nationwide are not, in themselves, an obstacle to the realization of localized daycare
environments that are specifically suited to different localities. As mentioned in
section 4.6.1.1, even under the current system for nursery centers, each local
government can, in fact, exercise their own authority to exceed the national minimum
MSCWI standards, when deemed necessary.
The 2009 SSC-STF Report advocates that, on the assumption of continued
existence of the MSCWI standards, a system reform should be pursued to ensure the
quality of nursery daycare, and it clearly states that the securing of adequate funds is
essential if quality nursery daycare be ensured across the board in Japan. In addition,
in terms of the financial responsibility for daycare on local governments, the report
points out the necessity for ―a mechanism to prevent inadequate gaps among different
localities, and discussions taking into account the effects of having expenses related to
public nursery centers incorporated into general revenue.‖
On average, as we discuss in section 4.10, labor accounts for approximately
80% of nursery daycare costs. Thus, in the case where MSCWI standards are
abolished, local governments will be responsible for ensuring the quality of nursery
daycare and thus undertaking responsibility for these labor costs. As there is
widespread ignorance regarding the fact that nursery daycare is highly labor-intensive,
in situations such as this, where there may well be no financial resources assigned to
maintain an adequate level of daycare, local governments will be forced to respond to
this added financial burden by undertaking a quantitative expansion of daycare and
173
cost reduction. As a result, it is very likely that a nursery daycare policy will be
developed that runs virtually counter to the principle that the best interest of children
in nursery centers are served when the quality of such care is maintained. Therefore,
the application of local governments‘ own standards in effect legalizes standards in
nursery facilities that fail to meet the MSCWI standards (in large cities with many
children on the waiting list). This is, therefore, a major cause of concern, since, in
these cases, local policy runs counter to the assurance of young children‘s
development and thus to the intent of decentralization.
4.6.1.5 Certified nursery centers in Tokyo—scandals involving three operators
One case that illustrates why this concern for the relaxation of regulation may be
justified, is the system of certified (ninsho) nursery centers that was started in Tokyo
in May 2001. As mentioned in section 2.1.1, the municipalities are responsible for
admitting all children who lack parents‘ daytime-caring into nursery centers and
guarantee them daycare (Child Welfare Act, Art.24, Paragraph 1). Then, in order to
deal with the shortage of approved (ninka) nursery centers, the Tokyo municipal
government initiated a system whereby nursery centers could be certified, outside the
normal nursery approval system, according to standards set out by the Tokyo
municipal government itself. By providing subsidies for facility maintenance and
relaxing restrictions on the permitted disbursement of operating expenses, the Tokyo
municipal government aimed to invite private entities to enter the business of nursery
daycare.
174
In order to allow certified nursery centers to reduce their opening and operating
expenses so that they were lower than those of approved centers, several items of the
standards were relaxed, including the following:
(1) No outdoor space is required at such centers; playgrounds in near-by facilities,
such as public parks, may be used as a substitute (as opposed to the previous legally
binding requirement that stipulated that all approved centers had to have their own
outdoor space);
(2) Only 60% of the caregiving workforce must be qualified nursery teachers in these
centers (as opposed to 100% of the caregiving workforce at approved centers); and
(3) The standard for minimum space per child (baby rooms and crawling space) is
reduced to 2.5 m2
in these centers (as opposed to 3.3 m2
at approved centers).
In these certified centers, the daycare fee for children under three years may be
freely decided through direct contracts between certified centers and parents, with the
ceiling set at 80,000 yen (USD 800) per month. To ensure the convenience of users,
certified centers are required to take in children under one year, to be located in areas
with good transportation access, and to be open for more than 13 hours—two hours
longer than approved centers (which are permitted to remain open for a maximum of
11 hours). While, in approved centers, parents must be mean-tested, there are no such
requirements for certified centers.305
Since operating expenses at certified centers are approximately only 70%-80%
of those at approved counterparts, between the introduction of the system and
November 2009, 468 certified centers have been opened and approximately 80% of
305
Tokyo Municipal Government, May 7, 2001.
175
them are for-profit organizations.306
However, a number of such centers have faced
operating difficulties and difficult situations with regard to their staff.
Mr. Hiroshi Yamaguchi, President of JP Holdings, the largest operator of both
approved and certified centers says, ―Suppose, at an approved center the enrollment
limit is 60 children and the annual revenue is 120 million yen (USD 1.2 million), at
certified centers we receive significantly less, around 90 million yen (USD 0.9
million), including money generated by daycare fees. If you want to make a certified
center profitable, you need to be enrolled more children of a low age, as higher fees
are levied for them; you also have to select good locations where you can earn fees
that justify the payable rents.‖307
Operating expenses at certified centers are lower than those at approved
counterparts, but this is mainly because the employees at certified centers are paid less.
While the average pay for a nursery teacher at an approved center is approximately
260,000 yen (USD 2,600), for nursery teachers at a certified center, the average wage
is drastically lower at 190,000 yen (USD 1,900). Mr. Shinichi Miyatake,
representative of the company Toy Box, who operate four certified centers in Tokyo
remarks, ―We know the quality of daycare depends on the humans providing the
daycare, but if we try to provide a good daycare environment, then we can only afford
to pay our nursery teachers lower wages. Under the current certifying system and with
306
Tokyo Municipal Government, September 2010. 307
Toyo Keizai Weekly, November 7, 2009, 77.
176
the current level of revenue, nursery teachers will continue to be overworked, and the
shortage of labor issue will become more serious.‖308
For example, in certified centers, there are no extra subsidies for clerical
workers and so many centers do not employ workers dedicated to clerical issues.
Therefore, it is left to the nursery teachers in these centers, whose prime responsibility
should be to take care of children, who are forced to pick up the slack and do these
clerical tasks as well as care for the children.
Since in certified centers, only 60% of the nursery teaching staff need to be
qualified, often, daycare is left in the hands of workers who are inexperienced or
unqualified; this, contrary to the operators‘ plans, puts an additional burden on the
qualified nursery teachers in these centers, as they then have to correct or supervise
those who are less qualified. Despite the fact that these centers employ insufficient
qualified staff, such certified centers are open for longer hours and the workloads on
these qualified teachers tend to be heavy.309
In fact, FY 2008 saw three cases (Jungle Nursery Center of Arakawa Ward,
Higashi Nakano Station branch of MKG Happy Smile, and Seijo Center of Odakyu
Mukku) in which operators of certified centers were deprived of their permits; the
center was made to return its subsidies on the grounds that they had violated the
308
Toyo Keizai Weekly, November 7, 2009, 77. 309
Toyo Keizai Weekly, November 7, 2009, 78. For instance, in late March 2009, at one such certified
center, six employees (out of the entire workforce of around a dozen) resigned at the same time, citing
low pay and overwork as the reason; the center was forced to hurriedly hire new people to continue to
operate. At another certified center, two out of the four employees that were responsible for classes of
children were unqualified part-time workers. On one occasion, a child became sick during a scheduled
walk. Since the child could not be left in the care of the unqualified workers and the facility had no outside
play area of its own, all the children were forced to go back to the facility and stay indoors for the entire
day. [Toyo Keizai Weekly, November 7, 2009, 78.]
177
operating code for certified nursery centers, as established by the Tokyo municipal
government.310
(1) The Case of the Jungle Nursery Center
The Jungle Nursery Center only employed two to three nursery teachers when,
in fact, they were required to have seven teachers for the 30 children that were
enrolled in the nursery that were under three years old. Not only this, but the center
was found to have registered ex-employees as full-time workers and made false
applications for subsidies.311
A former nursery teacher at the center testified as
follows: ―Due to the cost reduction policy in place, we did not have enough tables. So
we let the children eat from plates put on the floor. We borrowed picture books and
picture-card shows from the library. It was forbidden to turn on the air conditioner in
summer and it was like working in a steamed bath.‖312
The investigation conducted
by the Ward uncovered problems not only associated with daycare such as ―no
specialized care provided in accordance with the advancement of age‖ but also
sanitation-related problems such as ―diapers not properly put in the garbage box‖ and
―toys not regularly disinfected.‖313
(2) The Case of MKG Happy Smile
MKG entered the daycare field in 2003 and operated 27 centers, including
approved centers in Kanagawa and Saitama Prefectures. One of these centers was
located in front of the Higashi Nakano train station and was opened in September
310
Tokyo Municipal Government, May 7, 2001. 311
Sankei Shinbun, March 21, 2008. 312
Mainichi Shinbun, December 1, 2007. 313
Tokyo Yomiuri Shinbun, March 25, 2008.
178
2008. MKG‘s main business was the marketing of OA equipment, but as this part of
their business began to perform poorly, they suddenly closed all of their nursery
centers in late October 2008 in order to avoid bankruptcy (a tactic that turned out to be
fruitless). This caused great confusion among parents and nursery teachers and
prompted the Tokyo municipal government to cancel their permit. As the reason for
canceling their permit, the Tokyo municipal government said, ―Unilateral closure of
facilities is an abandonment of the operators‘ responsibility and is an act that betrays
the expectations and trust of the people of Tokyo.‖314
An investigation by an
assembly member of Tokyo found that, in August 2008 (just before MKG went
bankrupt) the company borrowed a huge amount of money using the operating rights
of five nursery centers and commissions/subsidies related to three of their nursery
centers as collateral.315
The Tokyo municipal government, after the closure of MKG‘s center in front of
Nakano Station, implemented a variety of corrective measures in the processes of
granting certification and providing subsidies to certified nursery centers. They
employed a certified public accountant to examine the financial conditions of
companies that were bidding to open certified centers and they began enforcing early
and regular directions with regard to the standard at the centers, as stipulated by the
municipal personnel.316
However, even with these new systems in place, there were still limitations to
the control that municipalities had over the privately run nursery centers. This is clear
314
Mainichi Shinbun, December 9, 2008. 315
Toyo Keizai Weekly, January 24, 2009, 127. 316
Mainichi Shinbun, December 3, 2008.
179
from an instance in Saitama Prefecture where an MKG facility was certified as a
―home daycare room‖ in Saitama‘s certified nursery center system to deal with the
shortage of approved nursery centers. A spokesperson from a local government in
Saitama Prefecture who dealt with one of the closures that occurred when MKG went
bankrupt said, ―Under the current system, we can check applicant companies‘
personnel arrangements and equipment but we really cannot check their financial
situation.‖317
(3) The case of the Odakyu Seijyo center
At the Seijyo center, Odakyu Life Associate, the parent company, could not hire
a sufficient number of qualified and experienced nursery teachers, because the ―sellers
market‖ at the time meant that there was a shortage of qualified staff. Therefore, the
company had to hire inexperienced or unqualified part-time workers to work in their
nursery centers. The company concealed this fact and received illegal subsidies by
making it look as if qualified employees (who were, in fact, at other centers) were
working in their facilities. Despite repeated requests for better working conditions
from the nursery teachers and other employees at centers run by Odakyu Life
Associate, the managers of the centers dismissed their pleas. One manager was quoted
as saying ―Don‘t be too smart, you‘re just workers‖ or ―If you don‘t like it here, get
out.‖ Moreover, just a year after the opening, more than a dozen employees had left
the center, according to one former nursery teacher.318
317
Mainichi Shinbun, November 14, 2009. 318
Toyo Keizai Weekly, January 24, 2009, 127.
180
The above three instances depict the risks that are involved in leaving the
daycare business in the hands of profit-seeking companies. At present, under ―New
Operation Zero‖ that aims to reduce the number of children on a nursery center
waiting lists, the MHLW is advocating the introduction of ―new daycare
mechanisms,‖ including full-scale participation of private companies in the daycare
business with a view to increasing the number of facilities available to take in waiting
children. Many of the mechanisms that are incorporated there are similar to those
adopted by the Tokyo municipal government certified system, such as direct contracts
between centers and users. If the national government continues to proceed with
deregulation without providing sufficient financial resources, it is feared that the
overall quality of daycare may further deteriorate, as the number of centers expands.
4.7 Comparison between international and Japanese standards in Structural
Quality: (5) public funding
According to the most recent OECD data, Japan‘s public spending on ECEC
(0.32% of GDP) fails to meet the relevant international standard (not less than 1% of
GDP). In FY 2005, Japan‘s public expenditure on childcare and pre-primary education
ranked, as a proportion of GDP, 30th among 37 OECD countries319
.
Not only does Japan‘s expenditure on pre-primary education fail to meet
international standards, according to ―Doing Better for Children,‖ the OECD‘s report
on children in 2009, Japan spends less than the OECD average on children at every
319
See OECD Family Database 2010, ―Chart PF3.1.A Public expenditure on childcare and early
education services, per cent of GDP, 2005,‖ in ―PF3.1: Public spending on childcare and early
education.‖ (Available at http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/45/27/37864512.pdf.)
181
stage of childhood(Table 6). The spending shortfall is particularly notable for children
under the age of 6, that is, preschool children, where Japan spends less than one-third
than it spends on later stages of childhood. Thus, the OECD report proposes that
―Japan should spend considerably more on younger children to ensure all get a good
start in life.‖320
Table 6: Cumulated Public Spending per Child in USD (1 USD = 100 Yen)
(Comparison of Japan and the OECD average)
Japan OECD average
On children aged 0 to 5 years 18,000 42,000
On children aged 6 to 11 years 60,000 62,000
On children aged 12 to 17 years 60.000 71,000
Source: ―JAPAN: Country Highlights,‖ in OECD 2009. .
In addition to the recommendation to spend more money on pre-primary care, in
November 2009, the OECD Secretary General Angel Gurria advised Hatoyama‘s new
government that they should channel more public spending into ECEC, rather than
giving a monthly child allowance, a signature pledge of the Democratic Party of
Japan‘s election campaign in August 2009. During the election campaign, the DPJ
promised to provide monthly allowances of 13,000 yen (USD 130) for FY 2010 and
26,000 yen (USD 260) from FY 2011 for each child of junior high school age or
younger, regardless of income level. In 2010, this new program cost the government
320
OECD 2009, ―JAPAN: Country Highlights.‖ (Available at
http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/21/23/43590152.pdf.)
182
2.7 trillion yen (USD 27 billion) out of a total about 7 trillion yen (USD 70 billion)
that was allocated to fulfill the DPJ-led government‘s key economic promises.
In September 2009, immediately after the election victory, the new prime
minister Yukio Hatoyama declared in his address at the UN General Assembly that his
administration had allocated 5.5 trillion yen (USD 55 billion) per year, to the payment
of child allowances.321
Japan‘s GDP is about 500 trillion yen (USD 5 trillion), so
Hatoyama‘s pledge for child allowance corresponds to 1% of Japan‘s national GDP.
However, as tax revenue has fallen, as of September 2010; precisely how this
program may continue is yet to be seen.
4.8 Comparison between international and Japanese standards in Process
Quality: (6) the presence of curricular materials and learning activities
The Japanese standards for ―Process Quality‖ and the GND contain most
elements that are stipulated in international standards for nursery daycare. However,
the GND fail to cover two significant viewpoints that are present in the international
standards: involving parents as partners and valuing the diversity and cultural heritage
of each child‘s family322
(the UNICEF draft Benchmark 11, the EC Targets 17 and
20).
321
―‗Child allowances‘ of 5.5 trillion yen (USD 55 billion) annually will serve not only as an investment
in education but also as a means of stimulating consumption and a policy to address the low birthrate in
Japan.‖ [Hatoyama, September 24, 2009.] 322
In part, due to relatively homogenous construction of Japanese society, Chapter 3 of the GND deals
with cultural diversity at nursery centers as follows:
1, (2), B [Human Relations], b), 14)
To encourage children to develop affection for foreigners and those who have cultures different from their
own;
2, (1) [General matters to be considered concerning daycare], E.
183
With regard to assistance to parents by nursery centers, the newly revised GND
of 2008 did outline some aspects. In specifying the duty of nursery teachers, the GND
include a dedicated chapter (Chapter 6), clarifying that assistance to the parents of
children entering nursery centers and assistance to their communities is a primary duty
of nursery teachers. In particular, specific instances in which nursery teachers should
assist parents are clearly stated in this chapter, including respect for the best interests
of children, sharing with parents the pleasure of watching children as they grow,
offering assistance to parents to improve their childrearing capabilities with due
consideration given to stable relations between children and parents, and resource
utilization concerning assisting the child-rearing of the community.323
4.8.1 Present daycare conditions in Japan and how they relate to Standard (6):
the presence of curricular materials and learning activities
4.8.1.1 The revised GND designed to improve the quality of nursery daycare:
two characteristics
The purpose of the GND is to improve the quality of daycare based around the
notion that the ideal at the heart of children‘s welfare is ―[the consideration] of the best
interest of children accommodated in nursery centers and [the active promotion of]
their welfare.‖324
According to the GND, in the first instance, daycare in a nursery center should
be practiced with regard to the situation of respective parents and their children, and
The children‘s different nationalities and cultures should be accepted, and consideration should be given
to foster a sentiment of mutual respect in children.
323
MHLW, March 2008, Chapter 6 (1). 324
MHLW, May 2008, 15.
184
that of the relevant local community; it should also be based on the daycare
philosophy and objectives of each nursery center. In this sense, the originality and
ingenuity of each individual nursing center should be respected.
At the same time, for the sake of all children‘s best interests, a daycare common
framework, which is applicable nationwide, should be adhered to by all nursery
centers, to ensure each child‘s health and safety and to safeguard development etc. In
this sense, it can be said that the GND are part of a wider mechanism to secure the
quality of nursery daycare, a mechanism which corresponds to ―Process Quality,‖ on a
nationwide uniform basis.
In addition, if children‘s development is held back, this has implications for the
quality of both the overall childcare environment and the family and local; this is
especially true today, where the working environment of many parents is changing
rapidly. Under such circumstances, the provision of high quality care and education
for children in their early childhood in a nursery center should be a high priority. To
ensure that this is, indeed, provided, it is important that the role and function of the
nursery center be clarified and the content of daycare be enhanced.
These are the values—within the framework of the utmost objective of further
improving the quality of daycare—that underpin the March 2008 GND revisions of
the previous GND content and structure. The original guidelines, which were
established in 1965, were revised in 1990 and 1999, and so the March 2008 revisions
were the third such changes.325
The 2009 revisions came into force in April 2009. As
325
For this 2008 revision, the ―Committee for Considering the Revision of the GND,‖ which was
organized by the MHLW consisted of 15 members: 11 researchers of the ECEC, three practicing
185
a result of the 2008 revisions, the main two points that characterized the GND became
as follows:
(1) The status of normative standards upgraded to a minister’s announcement
The first important change in the GND was that their status was upgraded to that
of the Minister‘s announcement, and their status as the set of normative standards was
clarified.326
Specifically, based on Article 35 of the MSCWI, each nursery center is
required to practice daycare in light of the terms stipulated under the GND that fall
under ―matters concerning the content of daycare in a nursery center‖ and ―matters
concerning relevant management.‖ In accordance with this upgrading, the GND
outlined distinct demands with regard to 1) matters that must be observed, 2) matters
where facilities are obligated to undertake a sincere effort, 3) matters that are set out as
basic principles and where each nursery can exercise their own discretion in
implementing them, or matters that are recommended to be dealt with by each nursery
center when daycare is practices.
By upgrading the GND to the status of Minister‘s announcement, the standards
for the content of daycare specified by the GND were now subject to supervision
under the MSCWI, as stipulated under Article 46 of the Child Welfare Act. This
means that, when administrative authorities enter the facilities of a nursery center for
inspection (as specified in Article 46(1)), they must check whether the daycare that is
professionals (heads of nursery centers), and one representative from the parents‘ association
(male-to-female ratio was 8 to 7). The committee held 16 meetings from December 2006 until March
2008 to continue deliberations. 326
Until this third revision of 2008, the GND was positioned as an implementation outline (notice of
director-general) that authorized nurse centers, as stipulated under Article 29 of the Child Welfare Act,
should utilize for reference when formulating daycare plans, etc.
186
practiced, the standard of the facilities, and operation of the nursery center meet
relevant GND standards. If any part of the daycare fails to meet these standards, then
the relevant administrative authorities may recommend or order its establisher to make
the necessary improvements or even suspend his/her services (Art. 46(3) and (4)). In
addition, the authorities may also rescind the center‘s approval or order its closing (Art.
58).
(2) Confinement of standard matters to basic items to encourage each nursery
center’s ingenuity
The second important change that the revisions to the GND prompted was the
fact that the basic policy that ―independence and ingenuity of the nursery center
should be respected in the practice of daycare‖ was now very clearly set out. In order
to encourage each nursery center to be proactive in improving the quality of its
daycare provision, the contents of the GND were reorganized. The important aspects
were listed as basic items and the description of the items was simplified, making it far
easier to understand.
On that basis, a practical guide with a total 262 pages was produced by the
Daycare Division of the Equal Employment, Children and Families Bureau in the
MHLW, which includes a commentary and supplementary explanation of the contents
of the GND, covers important matters in the context of daycare provision, and
provides examples of efforts made by specific nursery centers as a reference. The
Ministry expects that the GND will be used as the guiding principles for daycare not
187
only by nursery centers but also by other daycare facilities and nursing mothers
(family-based daycare) as well as parents‘ childcare.327
In the following section, we will review the new standards for nursery center
daycare, as set out in the newly revised GND, from the perspective of ―Process
Quality.‖ We shall focus especially on Standard (6) ―Presence of Curricular Materials
and Learning Activities.‖
4.8.1.2 Contents of nursery daycare in the 2008 GND
In Chapter 3 of the GND, the content of daycare provided at nursery centers was
divided into ―Purposes‖ and ―Contents.‖ ―Purposes‖ refer to the explicit goals of
nursery daycare, as described in Chapter 1 (General Provisions) of the GND; these are
the values that enable children to lead stable lives at nursery centers while also
enjoying fulfilling activities.328
―Contents‖ present those actions329
that should be
taken to achieve these ―Purposes.‖
In order to enable nursery teachers and other staff members to understand fully
what the ―Purposes‖ and ―Contents‖ are required of them, they are further divided into
two categories: ―Protective Care‖ and ―Education.‖ However, it should be noted that,
in practical nursery daycare, these two agendas are provided integrally.
In the GND, ―Protective Care,‖ which can be divided into two
categories—―maintenance of lives‖ and ―stabilization of emotions‖—refers to the
327
MHLW, May 2008, ―Hajimeni‖ [Preface]. 328
The category of ―purpose‖ covers (1) all matters that nursery teachers and other staff members must
perform, and (2) all matters related to such qualities as sentiments, willingness, and attitudes that are
desirable for children to acquire. 329
They are (1) matters that nursery teachers and other staff members must perform properly, according
to the children‘s lives and conditions, and (2) matters that children experience in their environments with
the help of nursery teachers and other staff members.
188
assistance and involvement of nursery teachers and other staff members in maintaining
the security of children‘s lives and stabilizing their emotions. ―Education,‖ which is
split into five areas—Health, Human Relations, Surrounding Environments, Language,
and Expression—refers to the assistance and involvement of nursery teachers and
other staff members in facilitating children‘s sound growth and expanding their
activity levels. All the elements of both these categories should be interrelated and
provided in a comprehensive manner through children‘s lives and playing.
A more detailed breakdown of these elements is shown in Appendix 4.
4.8.1.3 Concrete outcomes outlined in the 2008 GND concerning the
improvement of daycare quality
In Chapter 1 (General Provisions), the basic concepts that underpin the
standards are described along with the overall framework of the revised GND.
Common responsibility is stressed as the following quotation makes clear: ―what must
be shared and recognized commonly by all the people engaged in children‘s
daycare‖330
and the General Provisions of the GND are broken down into three
categories, as follows: ―Role of the Nursery Center,‖ ―Principles of Daycare,‖ and
―Social Responsibility of Nursery Center.‖ On the basis of that, it provides a specific
explanation of the content in Chapters 2 to 7. Thus, while all the chapters are
associated with one another and the consistency is maintained as a whole, the revised
GND is designed to effectively promote improvement in the quality of daycare.
Features of the revised GND concerning the improvement of the daycare
contents are as follows:
330
MHLW, May 2008.14, 20.
189
- The GND clearly prescribe that protection and education of children may be
integrally provided;
- The GND recommend that teachers should understand how children evolve at
each major stage in their growth from birth to entering school, and nursery daycare
should be provided taking into account matters for consideration unique to each stage;
- The GND clearly indicate ―Aims and Contents‖ to enable relevant facilities to
specifically plan, practice, and self-evaluate ―integral implementation of care and
education‖; and
- The GND reinforce the structure of health promotion and safety (responsibilities
of facility managers are clearly defined, coordination with relevant organizations in
the community, and promotion of dietary education).
In Chapter 4 (Planning and Evaluation of Daycare), structures are suggested to
help improve the quality of nursery daycare. The ―daycare plan‖ that had been a
central concept in the previous GND is replaced with a ―daycare roadmap.‖ These
daycare roadmaps outline the basic methodology that is suggested for the fulfillment
of the provisions in Chapter 1. The roadmap outlines structures for ordinary daycare,
health education, dietary education, and care for handicapped children; it also outlines
the need for daycare staff to develop their own ―guiding plan‖ for individual children
that provides a detailed plan for the care and education for each segment. It is hoped
that, by developing their own daycare roadmap, each center to will be able to provide
daycare for the children in their care in a consistent, continuous, systematic, and
well-planned manner.331
In the new GND, emphasis is placed on opportunities for ―nursery teachers and
other staff members involved in daycare‖ (managers, nursery teachers, cooks,
dieticians, clinical nurses, etc.) to reflect on their practice, in light of their ―daycare
331
MHLW, May 2008, 12-13.
190
roadmap‖ and ―guiding plan.‖ Self-evaluation is clearly encouraged, and the
disclosure of the contents of their daycare practices and other particulars is also
promoted.332
In this context, self-evaluation consists of nursery teachers and other staff
undertaking individual self-evaluations as well as engaging in an overall
self-evaluation of the nursery center involved. The GND require that through these
two evaluation processes, staff members may share a common understanding of
problems at their workplace and, through systematic and well-planned training
sessions and self-development initiatives, may find ways to resolve these problems,
while also improving their respective qualities and their collective expertise.333
Moreover, Chapter 7 (Improvement of Staff Members‘ Qualities) outlined new
specifications regarding the responsibilities of center managers (such as systematic
and well-planned implementation of training both inside and outside the center,
provision of assistance and advice to their staff members, etc.).334
4.8.1.4 Action programs 2008-2012 by the national government and local
governments
Furthermore, following the revision of the GND in March 2008, a
comprehensive action program, specifying measures that should be taken by the
national government (the MHLW) and local governments (at prefectural and
municipal levels), was developed with a view to improving the quality of nursery
332
MHLW, March 2008, Chapter 4 (2). 333
MHLW, May 2008, 12. 334
MHLW, March 2008, Chapter 7 (2).
191
daycare (this was published in March 28, 2008, as a technical advice to local
governments regarding the Local Autonomy Act following the revisions of the GND).
It is also recommended that local govenments draw up their own action plans
for the improvement of nursery daycare (which may be integrated with prefectural and
municipal action programs based on the Act for Measures to Support the Development
of the Next Generation). The implementation period has been stipulated as five years,
which began in FY 2008, a year before the new GND was scheduled to take effect (in
April of FY 2009). However, it should be noted that local governments may decide
their own implementation periods.
The national government‘s action program can be summarized as follows:
(1) Improvement and upgrade of daycare practices;
Including the promotion of research and studies concerning self-evaluation and
daycare practice, and the improvement of efficiency through the use of information
technology.
(2) Guarantee of children’s health and safety;
Including the clarification of activities in the areas of health and safety, promotion
of securing specialist staff including nursery teachers, and clarification of the roles
of contract doctors; enhancement of daycare practices provided for children in need
of special attention is also advocated.
(3) Improvement of nursery teachers’ qualities and upgrading of their
specialties;
Including the enhancement of training programs both inside and outside nursery
centers, enhancement of the roles of center managers, proposed review of the
acquisition of licenses, and training of nursery teachers.
192
(4) Enhancement of the basics to support nursery daycare.
Including the enhancement of evaluation, development of database and utilization
of study results concerning nursery daycare and utilization of experts and diverse
human resources available in the communities and guarantee of funds needed for
improving and enhancing the daycare environment for nursery centers are
advocated.
Because these revisions are recognized as a MHLW announcement, they are
now the legally binding minimum standards for the content of daycare and the
operation of daycare centers (based on Art. 35 of the MSCWI, which was also revised
to ―Nursery daycare shall practice care and education in an integrated manner and the
content shall be determined by the Minister‖).
4.9 Comparison between international and Japanese standards process quality:
(7) interaction between child and caregiver
It is clear, from our discussion, that in the field of ECEC, the concept that ―the
single most important determinant of [ECEC] quality is interaction between children
and staff, with a focus on the needs of the child‖335
is common sense. Moreover, the
two sources of international standards—the 2008 UNICEF Benchmarks and the 1996
EC Targets—fully understand the significance of this. However, rather than outlining
strict and inflexible requirements, the international standards seem to provide an
adequate support structure to enable caregivers to maintain autonomy while ensuring
they provide high-quality interaction (in particular, with regard to securing continuous
335
UNESCO 2006, 5.
193
in-service training and professional education) (Draft benchmark 12336
and
Benchmark 5, in addition to Benchmarks and Targets regarding ―Working Staff
Conditions‖). With this in mind, many empirical studies have found that ―a strong link
exists between the training and support of staff—including appropriate pay and
conditions—and the quality of the ECEC services.‖337
In the following section, we clarify the GND definition of ―Interaction between
Child and Caregivers‖ and discuss how the interaction is evaluated in Japan‘s nursery
daycare system.
4.9.1 The present conditions in Japan in relation to Standard (7) interaction
between child and caregiver
4.9.1.1 The child in a “dynamic existence that continues growing” in the GND
In the GND, based on Article 39 of the Child Welfare Act, a nursery center is
defined as ―a place where staff that have the necessary expertise in daycare (head of
center, nursery teachers, clinical nurses, nutritionists, cooks, etc.) implement
protective care and education in an integrated manner, through the environment
provided by the center, in light of each child‘s conditions and development process,
under close cooperation with the family.‖338
This understanding of the role of nursery centers is predicated on the idea that
children enjoy a ―constantly dynamic existence that continues growing‖ and where the
336
―Governing agencies provide effective support structures to assist educators to achieve curriculum
goals and values, in co-operation with parents. They provide support to staff working in teams, through
regular in-service training, participatory forms of quality development and assessment (e.g.,
pedagogical research and documentation); and other forms of collaborative working both within and
between services.‖ For explanation, see Bennett 2008b, 51-53. 337
OECD 2006, 216. 338
MHLW, March 2008, Chapter 1 (2) 2; MHLW, May 2008, 14.
194
development path and daycare process that underpins this concept is highly valued.339
This position is based on the idea that infants and toddlers acquire new abilities
through various activities and playing; engaging in the daycare environment helps
broaden their interests and exposes them to more stimuli. By establishing stable
relationships both with their peers and nursery teachers who are receptive to their
wants and needs, children are given the maximum opportunities for developing new
skills.340
Therefore, when nursery teachers conduct their self-evaluation of their
daycare and the respective conditions of children, they are required to do this in light
of these interpretations of the daycare process and they must evaluate each child‘s
growth on an ongoing basis.341
More specifically, nursery teachers are required to implement protective care
and education in an integrated manner, which means that they must respect the
individual agency of children, protect them, and provide support so that the children
may accumulate experiences suitable for infancy and early childhood, while ensuring
children‘s emotional stability.342
In addition, nursery teachers must implement
daycare effectively within the environment of the nursery center (such as human
environment including nursery teachers and other children, etc., physical environment
including facilities and play equipment, and the environment on site including nature
and events), while ensuring that they also meet the expectations of the parents.
339
MHLW, April 2008, Answer 5. 340
MHLW, May 2008, 11. 341
MHLW, April 2008, Answer 5. 342
MHLW, May 2008, 11.
195
The GND outline two ―objectives of daycare‖ that should be cultivated by
nursery workers: the first is that they must ensure that infants and toddlers can live a
full childhood and a desirable future. Second, nursery workers should provide support
to the parents of the children in their care, while always keeping in mind the child‘s
best interests.343
The former objective is further divided into the following six
goals:344
(1) Protective care
To fulfill various wants and needs of children, preserve their lives, and secure
their emotional stability in a relaxed atmosphere, and in an environment where
protection is fully assured.
(2) Health
To cultivate the basic habits and attitudes required for daily living—such as
health and safety, and build the foundation of mental and physical health.
(3) Human relations
To foster love and trust for other people, respect for human rights, cultivate the
attitude of autonomy, independence and cooperation, and grow the germ of
morality.
(4) Surrounding environments
To promote, cultivate, and nurture the intellectual curiosity, interest, and concern
for all forms of life, natural and social events.
(5) Language
In nursery life, to promote interest and concern for language, and help children
develop richer vocabularies, including the ability to talk, hear, and understand what
other people say.
343
MHLW, May 2008, 22. 344
MHLW, May 2008, 20-21.
196
(6) Expression
To foster profound sensitivity and expressive power through various experiences
and to cultivate creativity.
4.9.1.2 The nursery teacher as the implementer of Edu-care
In its stipulation that ―the basis of daycare at nursery centers must be provided
within the appropriate daycare environment,‖345
the GND, from the perspective of
Standard (7) ―Interaction between Child and Caregiver,‖ repeatedly emphasize the
significance of the daycare environments that surround children and that are created
by people, things, and places.
Therefore, the GND are clear that both the nursery center and nursery teachers
must understand that children grow up and develop their abilities based on their
interaction with the daycare environment. Further caregivers are responsible for
ensuring children are in ―responsive environments,‖ which change in various ways
according to individual children‘s needs. Specifically, the GND require both the
nursery center and nursery teachers to create, in a well-planned manner, (1)
environments where children can get involved in and accumulate experiences, (2)
environments that are safe and healthy, (3) environments that promote lively activities
and that are filled with a warm atmosphere, and (4) environments that promote the
formation of relationships with other people.346
Thus, when daycare is practiced in a nursery center, the GND clearly deem
nursery teachers as the dominant agents that can ensure the children experience
345
MHLW, March 2008, Chapter 1 (3) 3. 346
MHLW, May 2008, 25-27.
197
daycare with high ―Process Quality.‖ According to the GND, in light of Article 18-4
of the Child Welfare Act, nursery teachers must provide daycare for children and
guidance to their parents, through use of their specialized knowledge, skills, and
judgment, backed with sound ethics. This is part of the wider goal of nursery workers,
which is to implement the roles and functions of the nursery center in the most
appropriate manner.347
The GND consider that a range of expertise of the nursery teachers includes:
(1) Skills to see through children‘s growth and support their development, based on
the specialized knowledge concerning the development of infants and toddlers;
(2) Knowledge and skills for livelihood assistance, that support mindfully children‘s
abilities to live personally, in light of respective children‘s development process
and motivation;
(3) Skills to establish the daycare environments, by making use of the space and
physical environment in and out of the nursery center, various play equipment and
materials, and natural and human environments;
(4) Knowledge and skills for abundantly developing various types of play and
games, in light of children‘s experiences, interests and concerns;
(5) Knowledge and skills for relation-building to provide the necessary support for
the relations among children and between children and their parents, while
staying close to the respective parties‘ feelings; and
(6) Knowledge and skills for providing consultation and advice to children‘s
parents.348
4.9.1.3 Introduction of the third-party evaluation system for welfare services
The revision of Article 78 of the Social Welfare Act in 2000 proposed that
operators of social welfare facilities should voluntarily strive to improve the quality of
their services, ―always keeping in mind the best interest of service recipients‖
347
MHLW, March 2008, Chapter 1 (2) 4. 348
MHLW, May 2008, 19-20.
198
(Paragraph 1). In Paragraph 2 of Article 78, it was prescribed that the national
government should work to take any measures necessary to make fair and appropriate
evaluations of the quality of welfare services, with a view to assisting the operators of
such facilities.
The introduction of a third-party evaluating system of welfare services was
understood to be a specific measure, which would help ensure the implementation of
Article 78(2). In this evaluation system, third-party enterprises must evaluate the
quality of welfare services provided at care facilities in a professional and objective
manner that is in accordance with certain criteria; they must also disclose the results of
their evaluations. Meanwhile, it is left to the discretion of welfare facilities whether or
not they invite in such third-party evaluations.
The system was put into practice in 2002 on the back of the guidelines
published by the MHLW (different evaluation criteria were prescribed for different
types of welfare facilities—for example, facilities for children and facilities for
disabled children). In the new MHLW guidelines, published in 2004, harmonized
evaluation criteria that were applicable to all types of welfare services were proposed,
(including 55 common items covering such operating conditions as cost analysis and
user-oriented services). Moreover, a number of items that were specific to the type of
welfare facility (for example, 34 items were prescribed for nursery centers in addition
to the above 55) were prescribed. Prefectural and city governments established their
own bodies to promote the guidelines, and following the MHLW‘s recommendation,
199
they developed their own evaluation criteria and certified adequate NPOs and private
companies as third-party evaluating organizations.
The evaluations of a welfare facility is conducted by evaluators (minimum two
people) who are dispatched from the relevant organizations. The evaluation methods
employed are (1) interviews with users and questionnaires conducted with users‘
families, (2) self-evaluations by facilities, and (3) visitations to facilities by more than
one evaluator. The results from all three methods are then combined to determine the
final evaluation. The results of the evaluation are then published on websites of
individual promoting bodies.
4.9.1.4 Evaluation of nursery centers undertaken by HYK
The National Nursery Teachers Training Council or Hoyokyo (incorporated
association), by utilizing its expertise, launched a third-party evaluation business for
nursery centers in FY 2000. Hoyokyo extended cooperation with the MHLW when the
Ministry developed and published ―The Guideline for a Third-party Evaluation
System of the Quality of Welfare Services Provided by Child Welfare Institutions‖ in
April 2002.
Hoyokyo established, in FY 2002, HYK—a third-party organization to evaluate
welfare services provided at nursery centers—and began making third-party
evaluations nationwide on the back of these guidelines. Since then, it has been
engaged in making third-party evaluations of such facilities. Until the end of FY 2007,
HYK has made third-party evaluations of 273 child welfare institutions (268 nursery
200
centers, 2 children‘s homes, 2 infant homes, 1 short-stay treatment facility for
mentally disabled children).
In FY 2004, the MHLW changed the mode and mechanism for evaluating the
enterprise, in order to disseminate the third-party evaluating system more widely
among existing welfare facilities. The major changes were (1) local governments were
now responsible for conducting third-party evaluations in their own and (2) the
evaluation criteria were changed so that the 55 items common to every type of welfare
facility functioned at the core; other evaluation items that were applicable to different
types of such facilities were also added. As more local governments have stepped up
their activities in this area, the number of facilities evaluated by HYK has been
decreasing annually (62 in FY 2002, 45 in FY 2003, 60 in FY 2004, 69 in FY 2005, 20
in FY 2006, and 17 in FY 2007). Due to this development, HYK has strengthened the
tendency toward analyzing academically desirable modes of such evaluation
practice.349
HYK recruits evaluator-applicants from people with knowledge or experience in
nursery daycare, such as teachers in nurse training schools, and people with ample
experience of actual daycare, such as those who have been managers of child welfare
institutions, on a nationwide scale. Applicants are trained and those with an academic
background and experience in daycare combine to make an evaluating team. The
evaluating team of HYK consists of three evaluators—one more than the number
specified in the government guideline, which makes it possible for one evaluator to
349
NNTTC 2009, 1.
201
observe the actual daycare/other services provided at the facility at all times; this
makes it easier for the team to form a consensus on the evaluation results.
Two types of evaluation modes are offered; one is the HYK standard mode in
which HYK‘s evaluators make a one-time visitation to the facility involved for
inspection and provides evaluation results (500,000 yen, USD 5,000), and the other is
a two-time visitation mode along with consultation services in which HYK‘s
evaluators make a second follow-up visitation approximately six months after the
initial visitation—and when problems and items in need of improvement at the facility
involved are pointed out (700,000 yen, USD 7,000).
The evaluation criteria consist of 67 items in the following six different areas:
(1) Basic policies related to welfare services and the facility;
(2) Operation and management of the facility;
(3) Provision of adequate services;
(4) Assistance to children‘s development (the basics of assistance to development,
healthcare/diet, daycare environments, and contents of daycare services);
(5) Assistance for child-rearing; and
(6) Safety and accident prevention.
Approaches to these items by the facility and related problems are evaluated
according to three grades. Overall evaluations are made by the HYK evaluation
committee, consisting of prominent experts in daycare, with self-evaluations of child
welfare institutions (such as nursery centers); the results of the questionnaire are then
sent to parents, so that they are aware of the evaluation result.
202
Since evaluations are only conducted where centers ask for them, there is a
situation where ―only self-confident nursery centers agree to be evaluated.‖350
Therefore, 80% of the facilities evaluated by HYK rank in the highest of the three
evaluation grades. HYK publishes its final evaluation results of nursery centers on the
website with the consent of the centers involved.
4.10 Comparison between international and Japanese standards in the area of
Staff Working Conditions: (8) caregiver’s salary and benefits
The last sentence of the 2008 UNICEF Benchmark 5 indicates the international
position with regard to caregiver salaries: ―A move towards pay and working
conditions in line with the wider teaching or social care professions should also be
envisaged.‖ In addition, even though there is no direct standard for ―Caregiver‘s
Salary and Benefits,‖ when a trial calculation assuming public spending for the field
of ECEC at a minimum of 1% in relation to GDP is used in Benchmark 8, it is noted
that approximately three quarters of the costs for providing ECEC services are
associated with labor.351
In addition, the 1996 EC Target 25 advocates a similar
position in Benchmark 5, when it proposes that the salaries and benefits of fully
trained ECEC staff should be equal to those of teachers.
From these perspectives, it is clear that the working conditions for nursery
teachers in Japan do not meet the international standards. As the 2009 SSC-STF report
has admitted,352
the working conditions of nursery teacher are as bad as those of
350
Asahi Shinbun, August 1, 2003. 351
UNICEF 2008, 24. 352
MHLW-SSC-STF, February 2009, 15; MHLW, October 22, 2008, 28.
203
elderly care workers, which is a well-documented problem in Japan.353
In other words,
when compared to the all-industry averages, their ―contractual cash earnings‖354
(a
criterion used in the ―Basic Survey on Wage Structure,‖ a sampling survey conducted
by the MHLW), are lower,355
their length of service is shorter, and the female ratio is
higher.
The following Table 7 presents a comparison of the working conditions of
nursery teachers with those of the all-industry averages, elderly care workers,
kindergarten teachers, and high school teachers (no data were available for elementary
and junior high school teachers in the Basic Survey).
353
According to ―the field survey of elderly-care work in 2008‖ conducted by Elderly-Care Work
Foundation, the average wage of workers is 180,700 yen (USD 1,807) per month. This is approximately
100,000 yen (USD 1,000) lower than the all-industry average of 299,100 yen (USD 2,991), and
approximately 60% of the elderly-care workers say, ―The pay is low for the work performed.‖ The annual
turnover is 18.7% and the average length of service is short at 4.4 years. The MHLW, in an effort to
increase wages of caregivers by 20,000 yen (USD 200) per month, raised the care-giving benefits by 3%
effective April 2009. In addition, the Ministry launched a program to spend 400 billion yen (USD 4
billion) as ―a grant to improve compensation packages for care-workers‖ from October, 2009 through the
end of fiscal 2011 in order to increase their wages by another 15,000 yen (USD 150) per month. However,
there is criticism that the turnover of care-workers cannot be stopped unless their basic pay, which makes
the foundation of the care-giving benefits, is raised. [Toyo Keizai Weekly, December 26, 2009.] 354
Before-tax, not after-tax, amount of cash wages paid of employees, for the surveyed month of June,
based on paying conditions and calculating methods specified in advance in labor contract, labor
agreement, and/or working rules of establishments. 355
An industry-wide analysis (see Table 7) reveals that female workers in Japan are paid substantially
less than male workers are. Within this overall gender-wide wage gap, the average wage of female
nursery teachers is slightly less than the industry-wide average wage of female workers, but female
nursery teachers earn slightly more than females in elder-care positions and only somewhat less than
female kindergarten teachers. This is why (irregular) nursery teachers working at privatized approved
nursery centers have been labeled ―the government-created working poor.‖ However, it is essential to
recall that investing in young children has a more profound and lasting effect on their learning potential
than at any other life stage (the highest return in terms of human capital). Also, the most important
determinant of ECEC quality is the interaction/relationship between children and staff. Thus, in order to
focus on the needs of the children, it is reasonable to recommend the implementation of relevant
international standards as a measuring stick for change (including those regarding wages) in order to
eliminate the negative influence of these external factors on the child/staff relationship.
204
Table 7: Comparison of Japanese Wage Structures by Occupation
*All Industries
Average age Service years Cash wage (1 USD = 100Yen)
Total: 40.9 11.6 2,991
Female: 39.1 8.6 2,261
Male: 41.7 13.1 3,337
*Nursery Teachers
Average age Service years Cash wage (1 USD = 100Yen)
Total: 33.5 7.7 2,159
Female: 33.6 7.8 2,141
Male: N.A. N.A. N.A.
*Elderly Care Workers
Average age Service years Cash wage (1 USD = 100Yen)
Total: 35.8 5.2 2,158
Female: 37.2 5.3 2,086
Male: 32.7 5.1. 2,317
*Kindergarten Teachers
Average age Service years Cash wage (1 USD = 100Yen)
Total: 30.5 7.0 2,224
Female: 30.1 6.9 2,189
Male: N.A. N.A. N.A.
*High School Teachers
Average age Service years Cash wage (1 USD = 100Yen)
Total: 43.7 16.1 4,468
Female: 41.2 13.6 3,979
Male: 44.7 17.1 4,662
Source: Fiscal 2008 Basic Survey of Wage Structure (July 2009).
205
4.10.1 Present condition of male nursery teachers in Japan
Most data suggest that the first male Japanese nursery teachers appeared in the
early 1970s. Initially, men tended to work in private or partnership nursery centers
(kyodo hoikusho) and they could not qualify as nursery teachers. In 1977, the
Enforcement Ordinance for the Child Welfare Act was amended, which enabled men
to qualify as nursery teachers, and in 1999, the official name of the profession was
changed from ―female nurse‖ (hobo) to ―nursery teachers‖ (hoikushi).
According to the MHLW, in 1980, there were around 457 male nursery teachers
working at nursery centers nationwide, accounting for 0.26％ of the total; by 1990,
the number had risen to 713—around 0.37% of the total; by 2001, the number had
jumped to 3059 or 1.06％. In addition, according to the 2009 Survey of Benesse
Corporation, the percentage of nursery teachers that were male stood at around 1.9%
at the time of survey (1.4% of whom work at public nursery centers and 2.5% at
private centers).356
Since the survey items of the MHLW have changed recently, a simple
comparison of the data today and the data in previous years cannot be made, but as of
April 2007, there were around 820,000 nursery teachers registered at the MHLW, of
which some 25,000 are male, accounting for 3% the numbers indicate registered
nursery teachers, rather than those that are actual working. This increment is partly
due to the name change of the profession (making it gender neutral) and that an
356
The 2009 Survey of Benesse Corporation , March 2009, 42, Chart 2-3-12.
206
increasing number of nursery centers are now accepting male nursery teachers. This is
in part to do with a shift in attitude with regard to child-rearing. Indeed, most families
that enroll their children at the centers have two working parents and so fathers as well
as mothers often take part in child-rearing; because of this, male nursery teachers are
fully accepted and rarely encounter opposition.
Although this progress is to be lauded, Japan still falls short of the 20% target
percentage of male staff members for ECEC services as outlined in the 1996 EC
Target 29. Furthermore, the shortfall of male nursery teachers in comparison with the
international standard is not the only problem that male nurses face. Indeed, it has
been noted that they often face significantly difficult working conditions. According to
Mr. Tamikazu Nishimaki, Secretary General of the ―National Men‘s Nursery Worker
Network,‖ which is composed of male nursery teachers working in nursery centers
throughout Japan, ―Male nursery teachers are often hired in non-permanent position,
such as casual, contract, or temporary employees. Because of this, many male nursery
teachers have very little job security in terms of knowing whether they can continue
working as nursery teachers until their retirement.‖ In cities where the government
offers no additional benefits to nursery teachers, there are nursery teachers who have
more than 20 years of experience, but who are only earning approximately 200,000
yen (USD 2,000) per month. Therefore, even if the number of students intending to be
nursery teachers increases, many of them are hesitant to actually work in the field
because of the low salaries that are offered. Nishimaki advocates that ―given the
reality…it would be difficult for a nursery teacher to support a family under the
207
current working conditions; improvement of nursery teachers‘ social position and
working conditions—regardless of the sex—should be a challenge that the national
government should address and respond to clearly. This will also help secure nursery
teachers of high professional quality.‖357
4.11 Comparison between international and Japanese standards in area of staff
working conditions (9) opportunities to participate in professional development
and in-service training
Regarding the relation between ―Working Staff Conditions‖ and the quality of
daycare services, the discussion in the section of ―Targets for Staff Employment‖ in
the 1996 EC Targets suggests the following:358
There are many ways in which diverse and high quality services for
young children can be created and supported, but research indicates that the
better the pay and conditions, training and support of staff, the better will be
the quality of the service. Continuity and responsiveness of staff and their
consistent relationship with the same group of children is more easily
achieved when the staff themselves are paid above minimum wages, are
trained, and enjoy decent working conditions. Where these conditions do not
apply, for example, in nurseries in the United States, turnover of staff has
been shown to reach over 40% per annum.
In addition, the 1996 EC Targets (26 and 27) advocate that staff members
should have the ―right of access‖ to opportunities to improve their nursing
qualifications and to take part in training sessions. Similarly, the Japanese standards,
the GND, and action programs drawn up by local public authorities in accordance with
the GND, require that center operators do all they can to provide their staff members
357
Asahi Shinbun, December 14, 2007. 358
EC Childcare Network 1996, C29.
208
with opportunities to take part in training for improving the quality of their nursing
skills. However, training is not regarded as a staff member‘s right per se.
According to the 2009 Survey conducted by the Benesse Corporation, nursery
center managers/directors often consider ―maintenance and improvement of qualities
of nursery teachers and others‖ as the most important priority, followed by ―securing
nursery teachers and others‖ and ―securing budgets.‖ They also feel that, in order to
improve the qualities of their nursery teachers and other staff members, ―guaranteed
time set aside for training‖ and ―improvement in working conditions for nursery
teachers and others‖ are also necessary. The survey reveals the difficulties that are
associated with implementing such improvements in a profession that has such diverse
working patterns, including shifts of non-regular employees.359
The detailed results of the abovementioned survey questions are presented.
Q1: Please share with us challenges you face in implementing nursery daycare and
operating relevant facilities.
(Summary method: The percentage of ―quite applicable.‖ Listed in descending
order of priority at public nursery centers.)
Items: Public N.C. Private N.C.
1. Maintenance and improvement of
qualities of nursery teachers and others 44.2% 51.7%
2. Securing nursery teachers and others 42.4% 35.4%
3. Enhancement of facility equipment 42.3% 36.7%
4. Enhancement of daycare programs and methods 34.4% 40.0%
5. Securing budgets 31.4% 44.6%
359
The 2009 Survey of Benesse Corporation , March 2009, 6, Chart 3-5-1.
209
6. Implementation of self-evaluation/self-scoring 27.4% 30.0%
7. Dissemination of the importance of
daycare and early education 27.2% 26.9%
8. Response to handicapped children and
those in need of special care 24.1% 19.3%
9. Coordination with elementary schools 23.2% 17.9%
10. Maintenance and guarantee of
optimal scale enrollment 21.3% 26.9%
11. Cooperation/coordination with parents 19.6% 20.8%
12. Guidance for parents 19.2% 18.7%
13. Acquirement of new children 8.4% 20.3%
Q2: Please list up to three items (in descending order of importance) that you think
are necessary to improve qualities of nursery teachers and others not only at your
center but also in general terms.
(Summary method: Total value of the percentages of the maximum three items
selected. Listed in descending order of priority at public nursery centers.)
Items: Public N.C. Private N.C.
1. Ensuring training hours
for nursery teachers and others 66.2% 54.7%
2. Appropriate self-evaluation of
nursery teachers and others 51.9% 44.5%
3. Enhancement of annual training sessions
according to years of experience of
nursery teachers and others 45.4% 35.4%
4. Improvement in working conditions of
nursery teachers and others
in terms of salaries and wages 34.9% 59.7%
5. Shortening working hours of
nursery teachers and others 32.1% 30.6%
210
6. Extension of years of developmental education
for nursery teachers and others 22.3% 29.5%
7. Unification of qualifications/licenses
for nursery centers and kindergartens 13.4% 8.9%
8. Introduction of renewal system for qualifications
of nursery teachers and others 12.3% 15.3%
9. Promotion of dual qualification/license
for nursery centers and kindergartens 5.9% 3.7%
10. Others 3.2% 3.7%
4.12 Comparison between international and Japanese standards in area of staff
working conditions (10) caregiver’s work satisfaction and (11) annual turnover
rates of caregivers and directors
There are no international standards or Japanese statistics directly covering
Standards in Area of ―Staff Working Conditions‖ (10) Caregiver‘s Work Satisfaction
and (11) Annual Turnover Rates of Caregivers and Directors. According to the 2008
Survey of National Council of Nursery Daycare, the following data give some idea
about the working conditions at Japanese nursery centers.
(1) Extended operating hours on weekdays
The average center operates for 11.4 hours. More than 80% of nursery centers
―open between 7:00 and 8:00 and close between 18:00 and 19:00‖ (on weekdays).
As far as private nursery centers are concerned, 10.5% are open ―even after 20:00.‖
(2) On Saturdays, 97.0% of the centers are open
As is the case with weekdays, more than 80% of the centers open between
7:00 and 8:00. While some nurseries close around noon, others stay open as late as
20:00. A closer look at the closing hours of the public and the private centers shows
that the there are two peaks in the data—one between 13:00 and 16:00 when 19.6%
of them close and the other between 18:00 and 19:00 when 44.0% of them close.
211
Meanwhile, 65.7% of private centers close between 18:00 and 19:00. And
5.3% of them close after 20:00.
(3) Nursery center building is 25.2 years old on average
Centers built more than 31 years ago account for 33.8%, which indicates that
rebuilding aged centers may become a serious problem in the future. There is an
increasing need for facility improvement grants (grants for hardware) are increased
and local governments secure funds.
In terms of the state of the facilities, private centers have relatively new
facilities—15.3% of them were built less than six years ago—while public centers
are more likely to have old facilities—39.0% of them were built more than 31 years
ago. However, in FY2006, the budget for facility improvement for public nursery
centers was incorporated into general revenue; the cost of renovating old ―public‖
centers will be a challenge in the coming years.
(4) The average number of nursery teachers in each center is 14.3—8.8 regulars
and 3.6 non-regulars
The average staffing (including nursery teachers) for the average number of
children, 93.1, is 15.5 ―full-time employees‖ and 3.4 ―part-time employees.‖ By
profession, the number reads: 14.3 nursery teachers, 0.9 nursing staff, 0.2 health/sick
nurses, 0.4 dietitians/national registered dietitians, 2.2 cooks, and 0.4 clerks. Except
the numbers for nursery teachers and cooks, they represent less than one person
(some centers have these employees, others do not have all of them). In particular,
the low, overall average number of 0.2 for health/sick nurses means that only one
out of five centers has such professionals.
Of full-time nursery teachers, regulars read 8.8 persons while non-regulars
read 3.6. In addition, by the kinds of operators, public centers have a lower
percentage of regulars and a higher percentage of non-regulars.
(5) The average number of non-regular nursery teachers per center is 77.7%
Looking at the overall percentages of non-regular nursery teachers: 22.9% of
the centers, non-regular staff make up between 20%-40%. 28.8% of centers have
between 40-60%, 10.0% of nurseries have between 60%-70%, and at 4.9% of
centers, non-regular nursery teachers make up more than 70% of their staff.‖ Public
centers tend to have a higher percentage of non-regular nursery teachers. At 6.3% of
such centers, more than 70% of the nursery teachers are non-regulars; at 13.5% of
them, 60%-70% are non-regular; and in 35.4% of public centers there staff are about
40%-60% non-regular.
(6) Directors’ with more than 30 years of service are employed at 38.6% of the
centers; in 38.5% of centers, the chief nursery teacher has over 25 years of
service While most public centers have directors with more than 30 years of service
and chief nursery teachers with more than 25 years of service, this varies
considerably at private centers.
212
(7) Average starting salaries are ¥2,419,000 (USD 24,190) for newly hired
nursery teachers, ¥4,994,000 (USD 49,940) for chief nursery teachers and
¥6,346,000 (USD 63,460) for center directors
After taking out social insurance premiums, and income taxes and bonuses,
the monthly take-home pay for a new nursery teacher is estimated to be
approximately ¥140,000 (USD 1,400). (Due consideration should be given to the
fact that the percentage of no response to this question was high.)
(8) For 61.0% of the total workforce, their weekly working hours are between
40 and 50
At public centers, 71.1% of the employees work ―40 to 50 hours a week,‖
indicating that their actual working hours tend to be long. At private centers, 45.6%
of employees work ―30 to 40 hours a week‖ and 49.6% of them work ―40 to 50
hours a week.‖ Actual working hours are longer at public centers than at private
centers.
(9) Annually, 30.0% of regular employees take 3-6 days of paid vacation per
year, 28.2% of them take 7-9 days, and 23.0% take 10-15 days. At public centers, 35.1%—the largest group—of employees take ―3-6 days,‖
followed by 30.6% of them taking ―7-9 days.‖ At private centers, 27.4% of
employees—the largest group—take ―10-15 days,‖ followed by 25.5%,who take
―7-9 days.‖ Compared with private centers, the percentages of public-center
employees taking paid vacations are low.
(10) In-house training was held at 86.7% of the centers, outside training held at
96.2%
Of the centers that responded, 10.8% reported that they had no training
programs; this is worrying in that this directly affects the quality of nursery daycare.
In addition, at 14.3% of the centers that have relevant programs, only regular
nursery teachers may avail of the training, despite the fact that an increasing number
of non-regular nursery teachers are working at various nursery centers as presented
in the abovementioned data (5).
213
Chapter 5. Conclusion: recommendations for how Japan can ensure the quality of
its nursery daycare
As we have discussed in the previous chapters, Japan‘s looming demographic
problem and crisis in public finance have factored into the development of nursery
daycare policy-making. This is evident in the way that Japan has been prioritizing the
capacity (quantity) of nursery daycare facilities over the quality concerns regarding
many of the facilities. We have also seen that this relaxation of quality standards for
approved nursery centers is not compatible with Japan‘s obligations as a party to the
UNCRC, in terms of maintaining the normative value of childcare services
provision—developing policies that are in young children‘s best interests.
For three straight years, the number of children waiting to be enrolled in
approved nursery centers has been increasing: as of April 2010, the number of
children totaled 26,275 nationwide. In the past three years, the overall quota of nursery
centers has increased by some 50,000 and reached 2.16 million. Although the number
of facilities has increased rapidly, the waiting list for children has risen at a faster pace.
With the sagging economy, the number of mothers looking for jobs has been rising
and supply has not caught up with demand.
Taking Japan‘s current situation into account, there is an urgent need for a
quantitative increase in the supply of nursery daycare services, but this need must be
met while giving adequate consideration to the international standards of the quality of
nursery daycare. For many Japanese women, either there are not enough places
214
available at nursery centers or the daycare services that have open availability provide
sub-standard care. Many of these women will be forced to leave the workforce in
order to stay home with their children—furthermore, some women might forgo having
children all together.
With this unwanted reality in mind, we propose an approach that we believe will
help resolve Japan‘s twofold daycare issue (quantity and quality): Japan should use
international standards as the most effective basis for assessing the current and future
quality of Japan‘s nursery daycare.
5.1 Deterioration of nursery teachers working conditions, despite the greater
responsibility of nursery teachers as stipulated in the 2008 GND
As has become clear, the challenge of ensuring and improving the quality of
daycare at nursery centers in Japan has rapidly become a social and political concern.
This has increasingly been the case as governmental privatization policies have been
implemented to reduce the number of children on nursery center waiting and reduce
public spending on social welfare.
Particularly, the latest revision of the GND in 2008 highlighted the importance
of the content of quality, standards that should be enforced uniformly throughout
Japan. These were specified in the form of Minister‘s announcement, which enshrined
these standards in law. Indeed, there is now a significant body of research, including
within the field of developmental psychology, that recognizes the importance of
―Process Quality‖; therefore, it is clear that, in their most recent form, the GND are
relevant, clear, and workable standards that should be applied across the board in
215
ensuring the quality of Japan‘s nursery systems. Furthermore, with this understanding
at the core of the guidelines, the GND introduced a scheme whereby nursery teachers,
as those responsible for providing Edu-care, are encouraged to take responsibility for
ensuring and improving the daycare quality in their place of work.
However, government policy that attempts to eliminate children on waiting lists
and reduce public spending on social welfare budgets creates a situation that makes
the pursuance of ―Structural Quality‖ and ―Process Quality‖ almost impossible. Indeed,
the government‘s policy clearly increases the burdens on nursery center staff because
of the overall reduction in funding provided to nursery centers. Under these
circumstances, the imposition of further legislation—in the form of carefully-crafted
―Process Quality‖ (as stipulated in the new GND)—means that nursery teachers are
required to bear yet heavier burdens.
According to the most recent discussions concerning ECEC at the international
level, the most important element for securing and improving daycare quality is the
relationship between nursery teachers and children at the centers.360
Therefore, it is
clearly crucial that a high level of staff working conditions should be duly guaranteed,
particularly for nursery teachers. Despite this fact, staff working conditions at nursery
centers throughout Japan continue to worsen as nursery centers continue to be
privatized to save money.
360
―Education for All Global Monitoring Report 2007,‖ an independent publication commissioned by
UNESCO, summarizes the core factor of ECEC quality as follows: ―The single most important
determinant of ECCE quality is interaction between children and staff, with a focus on the needs of the
child. This requires reasonable working conditions, such as low child/staff ratios and adequate materials.‖
[UNESCO 2006, Summary, 6.]
US National Research Council report also puts: ―If there is a single critical component of quality, it
rests in the relationship between the child and the teacher/ caregiver, and in the ability of the adult to be
responsive to the child.‖ [National Research Council 2000, 322.]
216
Moreover, due to the economic slump in Japan, the job market continues to
favor employers, which tends to trigger a worsening of working conditions, as jobs
become scarcer. However, despite the scarcity of jobs, the situation is different for
nursery teachers. For example, overall, the jobs-to-applicants ratio in Tokyo is 0.59 (as
of January 2010, according to the Tokyo Labour Department), but for social welfare
specialists—including nursery teachers— the number stands at 2.24. According to
Showa Women‘s University, nursery teachers never find it difficult to secure a job;
this is even the case with new graduates. Furthermore, Sendai City, which is ranked
third among the nation‘s municipalities in terms of the number of children on its
nursery waiting lists (as of April 2009), is having difficulties in securing nursery
teachers. Forty-seven approved public nursery centers are planning to hire some 200
extra nursery teachers on a yearly basis; these teachers are scheduled to start work in
April (the first month of the new fiscal year in Japan), but, as of mid March, the
approved public nursery centers are still several dozen nursery teachers short.361
As we clarified in section 4.10.1, it is not that there is a shortage of qualified
nursery teachers. Indeed, according to the MHLW, the number of training schools for
nursery teachers has increased some 80% compared with 10 years ago, and there are
some 600,000 ―potential nursery teachers‖ who are able to work but are not actually
working.362
Therefore, it seems reasonable to assume that the major factor that
prevents these qualified teachers from actually working is the poor working
conditions; indeed, the fact that their average wage remains at around 70% of the
361
Nihon Keizai Shinbun, March 22, 2010. 362
Nihon Keizai Shinbun, March 22, 2010.
217
all-industry average may well be a significant factor.363
Mr. Michio Koyama, the Central Executive Board Chairperson of National
Union of Welfare and Nursery Workers, points out that—in addition to extended
working hours for extended daycare and daycare on holidays—the fact that nursery
teachers are also responsible for providing assistance to families that are experiencing
difficulties in child-rearing may emotionally wear down young nursery teachers.364
5.2 Change forced on the 2009 government pledge “Child Allowance Policy” due
to shortage of funds: Japan’s fiscal crisis and demographic challenges
On November 4, 2010, as part of its work to finalize the budget for the next
fiscal year, the government started to consider setting the monthly amount of ―Child
Allowances‖ (kodomo teate) at 20,000 yen (USD 200) per child under three years of
age, an increase of 7,000 yen (USD 70) from the current level 13,000 yen (USD
130).365
The political pledge of the Democratic Party of Japan (DPJ)—a Child
Allowance of 26,000 yen (USD 260) per month, to be paid to every child aged 15 or
younger in junior high school (no means test required)—was made at the time of the
Lower House election in August 2009. After the change of administration took place,
in its first FY 2010, the government was unable to fully fund the costs pledged for the
Child Allowance (26,000 yen [USD 260]) with the public purse. In addition, one year 363
Professor Reiho Kashiwame, Shukutoku University, who is familiar with affairs related to nursery
daycare, identifies the reason why there are so many potential nursery teachers and yet job spaces remain
unfilled—nursery teachers do not see a nursery center as an attractive working place. [Nihon Keizai
Shinbun, March 22, 2010.] 364
Nihon Keizai Shinbun, March 22, 2010. 365
Nihon Keizai Shinbun, November 5, 2010.
218
after the regime change, the pledged amount had to be officially modified due to lack
of funds.
The additional payment is limited to children under three years of age to give
consideration to the fact that this age bracket is hit the hardest by the change of
existing systems due to the establishment of the Child Allowance program (including
the termination of the existing child benefit (jido teate) and the termination of
deductions for young dependents from parents‘ income and residential taxes). Funds of
some 250 billion yen (USD 2.5 billion) per year will be required for the raise of the
Child Allowance for children under three years of age to 20,000 yen per child. The
Government Tax Commission is considering a plan to eliminate the
deduction-for-spouse from taxes imposed on households with annual incomes of over
10 million yen (USD 100,000). This new policy will be implemented by a temporary
legislation of two years and then another new system of measures to deal with the
declining birthrate will be introduced in FY 2013.
However, the Child Allowance requires substantial funding even with the
government‘s plan to rescind its earlier decision to raise the Child Allowance across all
age brackets. This is because the Child Allowance is still being paid to a wide
spectrum of households without any eligibility limits, even for parents within the
upper income brackets. There is a persistent criticism that, in view of the critical
condition of the fiscal deficit, the allowances only function as ―a device to pass the
fiscal burdens to future generations.‖366
It seems clear that the ideal of ―Children First,‖ first proposed by the DPJ-led
366
For example, see Whipp, September 8, 2010.
219
administration ―to guarantee to cover basic expenses for children‘s growth irrespective
of the parents‘ incomes,‖ should be respected in principle. It also seems that providing
a cash benefit is an effective measure to stop poverty among children, which is
progressing rapidly in Japan.
However, we must recognize, as the Secretary General of the OECD367
did, that
there is a clear need to strike a balance between two different benefits: benefits in
kind—in the form of building more nursery centers and so forth, and second, cash
benefits. 368 Ensuring benefits in kind in the field of ECEC under the state
responsibility is worth emphasizing; as the financial situation of local government
worsens year by year, it seems unlikely that the government will allocate funds
received under the state‘s general revenue to child-rearing support.369
In fact, Japan‘s fiscal deficit is in such a critical state that it forced the DPJ to
modify its political pledge in just one year. According to Mr. Masaaki Kanno, chief
Japanese economist for JP Morgan in Tokyo, Japan‘s government debt (total of
national bonds, borrowings, and outstanding balance of the government guarantees370
)
stands at some 950 trillion yen (USD 9.5 trillion) as of June 2010, and is expected to
reach some 200% of the GDP at the end of FY 2010 and balloon to some 300% of
GDP by FY 2014. By FY 2015, Japanese domestic savings (by households and
corporations combined) will finally become insufficient to cover the fiscal deficit.371
This critical fiscal position is further worsened with the vicious circle of 367
See section 4.7. 368
With regard to the problems of the demand-side or consumer subsidy funding, see OECD, 2006,
115-119. 369
See section 2.1.3. 370
See, Ministry of Finance, August 2010. 371
Sender, November 3, 2010.
220
ever-increasing expenditures and ever-declining revenues and resultant additional
issue of new national bonds. According to the ―Summary of General-account Budget
for Fiscal 2010‖372 of the Ministry of Finance, the general-account expenditures will
amount to some 92.3 trillion yen (USD 923 billion), of which the three major
items—social security-related expenditures (27.3 trillion yen, 29.5%), national bonds
(repayment of the government‘s past debt: 20.6 trillion yen, 22.4%), and grants to
local governments, etc. (17.5 trillion yen, 18.9%)—account for some 75% of the total.
Moreover, the ratio of tax revenues in the expenditures has fallen short of 50% for two
consecutive years. The critical nature of current fiscal issues was certainly highlighted
in FY 2009 when the amount of government bonds issued exceeded the tax revenues
for the first time since FY 1946. The general-account revenues for FY 2010 will be
composed of tax revenues accounting for 40.5% or some 37.4 trillion yen (USD 374
billion) and revenues from bonds issued (tax burdens of future generations) accounting
for 48.0% or some 44 trillion yen (USD 440 billion).
To break this vicious circle in Japan where the aged demographic is on the rise,
two major objectives, that of increasing participation of women in the labor market
and raising the birthrate, must now be achieved at the same time. One reason is that
people born in 1971–1974 or children of the mass generation, which is a large age
bracket, will be in their 40s in a few years. The present time—a time when this age
bracket is still in their reproductive years—may be the last chance to check the
declining birthrate.373
372
Ministry of Finance, October 2010. 373
Nikkei Business Magazine, February 15, 2010, 36.
221
If the decline in birthrate is not checked now, the population decline in Japan
will accelerate rapidly. At the same time, if women‘s participation in the labor market
does not progress, such pay-as-you-go social security systems as pensions and medical
care insurance programs in which the then-active generations support the older
generations will crumble from their roots. As the huge age bracket of the mass
generation starts to age in full scale, it will become more and more difficult for the
younger generations to keep up with the ever-increasing social security costs. The
decline in the reproductive-age population (15 years old to 64 years old) will lead to
the decline of economic growth and corporate activities owing to a dwindling labor
force, and the shrinkage of market sizes within education-related industries and
pediatricians targeting children.
5.3 New measures to support child-rearing of the JDP-led administration
unveiled: roadblocks to realize the integration of kindergartens and nursery
centers and to ensure the necessary funds
As discussed in previous chapters, the increased provisions for nursery daycare,
managed in a way that prioritizes both quality and quantity, is an imperative political
objective, not only to ensure the best interests of young children and increase women‘s
participation in the labor market, but also to resume Japan‘s contributions to the global
economy by retrieving the vitality and creativity of Japanese society.
This is in agreement with the basic ideal of ―Children First,‖374
which was
envisioned by the current administration, led by the Japan Democratic Party, when
developing the relevant policy. This ideal was decided upon during the Cabinet
374
Cabinet Meeting Approval, January 29, 2010.
222
meeting of January 9, 2010. Indeed, it is stated at the beginning of ―The Vision for
Children and Child-rearing,‖ which describes the direction of support for child-rearing
over a five-year period starting in FY 2010.
This vision includes measures to tackle the issue of the 25,000 children who are
currently on a waiting list of the approved nursery centers. Children under three years
of age will be the renewed area of focus because they make up 80% of those on
waiting lists. One key measure includes increasing the enrolling capacity for these
infants by approximately 50,000 to make the total number (of children under three
who are enrolled in nursery school) 1.02 million in five years, which is 270,000
children more than the current figure. This will be achieved by using vacant
classrooms in elementary and junior high schools, in addition to building or expanding
nursery centers. To clarify, the focus is on improving the percentage of children under
three years of age that are enrolled at nursery centers from 24% to 35%. The current
total capacity of all nursery centers, which is around 2.15 million, should be increased
to 2.41 million in five years. In order to respond to the diverse daycare needs of
increasingly diversified parent‘s working modes, the number of children
accommodated under extended daycare hours and daycare on holidays will be
increased by 170,000 and 50,000, respectively. At the same time, the number of
elementary school pupils enrolled in after-school daycare programs or children‘s clubs
will be increased by a drastic 300,000.375
The MHLW has sent a budget request
amounting to some 400 billion yen (USD 4 billion) for FY 2011 to be used to decrease
the number of children waiting to be enrolled at approved nursery centers and to
375
Asahi Shinbun, January 29, 2010.
223
enhance daycare services.
In January 2010, the government set up ―the Council to Discuss New Systems to
Deal with Children and Child-rearing.‖ The council exchanged views with people
involved in operating kindergartens and nursery centers as well as with representatives
of labor and management. On June 25, 2010, the council came up with its basic
policies.376
Lingering in the background of this government initiative to discuss new
systems is the persistent issue regarding the serious birthrate decline. The total fertility
rate (TFR) rose over three consecutive from 2006 to 1.37 in 2009—the same figure as
the previous year indicating that the rising trend has stopped. It is far short of 2.07, the
level needed to check the population decline. The TRF is not rising as expected and
the government was forced to review its measures to support child-rearing.
According to the council, the new goals for policy-making to support children
and child-rearing include
(1) ensuring a good growing environment for every child and to enhance pre-school
education,
(2) recovering the TRF,
(3) increasing the labor-force participation rate of women, and
(4) eliminating child poverty.
For each of the above, the government will take the following measures (the
number of the goal corresponds with the number of the measure):
(1) Will enhance daycare services and work to integrate kindergartens and nursery
centers
376
Nihon Keizai Shinbun, June 29, 2010.
224
(2) Will subsidize childbirth expenses and enhance medical facilities for the
prenatal period
(3) Will promote child-care leaves and build and develop more nursery centers
(4) Will deal with this problem with such policies as the Child Allowance
The main pillars of the new systems aimed at restructuring and enhancing
measures to support child-rearing are (1) transfer of funds and powers from the
national government to the local governments (i.e., establishment of ―Child and
Child-rearing Funds (kodomo/kosodate kanjo)‖) and (2) elimination of the boundary
between the kindergarten and the nursery center, an initiative called ―integration of
kindergarten and nursery centers (yoho-ittaika)‖ (i.e., establishment of ―Child Centers
(kodomo-en)‖).
Concerning the newly established funds, budgets related to various support
measures for child-rearing, which had been separately managed according to their
respective areas of responsibility by the MHLW, the Ministry of Education, Culture,
Sport, Science and Technology (MEXT) and other related agencies, will be
consolidated into a one-line budget. The total sum is expected to be over 6 trillion yen
(USD 60 billion) on the 2010 budget basis. It is further said that the government will
consider establishing the ―Ministry of Child and Family (kodomo katei sho)‖ to be an
agency solely responsible for overseeing measures to support child-rearing in
accordance with reorganized ministerial projects and budgets.
Then, with regard to ―Child Centers,‖ on November 1, 2010, the government‘s
approximate plan including child-care fees was made available. The most significant
225
aspect of this plan is that parents will be required to pay child-care fees for the hours
during which their children are cared for at the facilities (the quantity of child-care).
Child-care fees at Child Centers should be, in principle, official prices ―to ensure that
every child is given an opportunity to receive ECEC‖ and because parents should be
required to bear the same ratio of burden at public and private facilities. On the other
hand, Child Centers that provide higher levels of infant education are allowed to set
their own flexible fees. Consideration toward the more socially vulnerable citizens is
incorporated in to the plan, with such programs as lower fees charged to low-income
earners and preferential entry into the facilities for children of single-parent families or
those who are abused at home.377
With regard to these new systems, the government intends to send the relevant
bills to the Ordinary Diet session in 2011, and have them take effect in 2013. However,
coordinating multiple laws and government agencies will not be easy. Furthermore,
the transitional period to complete changeovers of kindergartens and nursery centers to
Child Centers is said to be ―approximately ten years.‖378
A Timeframe is set but many
challenges including the problem of funds still need further discussion before the plan
is truly realized.
The funding—the biggest obstacle to carrying out the new systems—has yet to
be broken down into specific amounts and sourced by the aforementioned council. The
government seems to be leaning toward increasing corporate burdens on top of
welfare pension plans and employment insurance premiums. However, there is a limit
377
Nagasaki Shinbun, November 3, 2010. 378
Asahi Shinbun, November 2, 2010.
226
to the additional burdens that corporations/employers can bear. At the moment, they
shoulder some 600 billion yen (USD 6 billion) annually in the form of entitlements
related to child-care leaves, and expenses related to support for child-rearing such as
child-care for pupils. Since funds required annually for the new systems are expected
to total 8–10 trillion yen (USD 80–100 billion), it would be insufficient to simply
divert currently secured resources (approximately 6 trillion yen). Therefore, it is
projected that raising the consumption tax rate will be required to secure funds on a
long-term and stable basis.379
5.4 Proposals regarding Japan’s response to the daycare challenges
5.4.1 The need to tackle three unattained items that are outlined in the 2008
UNICEF benchmarks
By comparing Japan‘s daycare standards with those suggested in international
documents, it is plain to see that the most imperative approach Japan can take towards
improving its daycare quality is through the improvement of working conditions for
nursery teachers. From the viewpoint of realizing the normative value of young
children‘s best interests, Japan should strive to remedy the unattainable states
clarified—three out of the four items—in achieving the 2008 UNICEF Benchmarks on
―Quality‖ (i.e., in 5, 6, 7, and 8). For this to happen, it is desirable that funding be
secured of 1% of GDP for the ECEC (as outlined in Benchmark 8). At the same time,
the employment conditions of nursery teachers should be improved so that they are at
379
Komamura, June 30, 2010.
227
the same level as elementary school teachers380
; this could ensure that all highly
educated and highly skilled nursery teachers be hired on a stable basis (as stipulated in
Benchmark 6). Finally, the government needs to realize that, under improved
employment conditions, the group size for children between 3 and 5 years of age may
not exceed 24: the maximum staff–child ratio may be 1:15 (as recommended in
Benchmark 7).
However, in view of Japan‘s critical financial problems owing to demographic
challenges, it seems unlikely that policymakers will be able to focus on daycare
quality in the short-run. Thus, the next issue to be resolved is what the short-term
policy options are and how these might best be achieved.
5.4.2 Ensuring proactive public support and assistance to small-scale daycare
service providers and the imposition of obligatory third-party evaluations
From the middle to long-range perspectives, it is likely that items covered in the
new measures of the JDP-led administration to support child-rearing will be
reasonable and take into account the experiences of OECD countries in terms of the
implementation of ECEC policies. However, this might seem like a distant dream; no
parent can wait ten years for the elimination of the government‘s vertical
administrative structure for the new measures to be effective. With the sluggish
economy, the number of mothers looking for jobs has been rising, and the increased
quota of nursery centers (supply) has not caught up with the increased number of
children waiting to be enrolled in approved nursery centers (demand). Therefore, it is
380
In several countries such as France, Ireland, and the United Kingdom, the educators of young children
are qualified as primary school teachers. See UNICEF 2008, 25-26.
228
necessary to consider the short-term policy options for the dual issues that Japan
confronts: daycare quantity and quality. In view of Japan‘s current situation, what is
needed now is an urgent quantitative increase in supply of child-care services, while
giving proper consideration to the international standard of the quality of nursery
daycare services. If adequate quantity and quality of daycare facilities are made
available, the number of working mothers in Japan will increase rapidly.
Therefore, if we view the issue from a different perspective, the rising number
of mothers looking for jobs may be considered as a good opportunity to raise women‘s
participation rate in the labor market and bring about resultant institutional reforms to
Japanese society. If the number of working mothers actually increases with an
increased supply (quantity) of quality daycare services, it will lead to a further rise in
the rate of female labor participation and to the improvement of the educational
environment for children. This turn for the better will bring greater productivity
through the elimination of long working hours, recover the birthrate, slash public
expenses through streamlining administrative measures to support child-rearing, and
improve women‘s status, among other things experienced by OECD countries with the
implementation of relevant policies. Above all, it will enable Japan to deflect the
negative effects that the rapid decline in the birthrate and the increasing aged
population are having on the socioeconomic systems. Furthermore, with intensive
provision of high-quality ECEC services in infancy and childhood, the most efficient
and effective investment in human capital can be made. In the mid-to-long term
perspective, this investment will lead to possibilities for socioeconomic change for a
229
better future.
As we have explored in this study,
(1) Investments in young children as human capital have a more profound and lasting
effect on learning potential than at any other life stage
(2) The single most important determinant of ECEC quality is the
interaction/relationship between children and staff, with a focus on the needs of
the child
(3) In Japan, the 2008 legally binding GND highlight the importance of the content
of quality, and deem nursery teachers as the dominant agents responsible for
Edu-care
(4) Safeguarding appropriate working conditions for nursery staff is regarded crucial
under the UNCRC framework, when securing the best interests of young children
attending nursery
Therefore, Japan‘s short-term policy options for the dual issues of daycare
quantity and quality should consider the knowledge of the above four points.
Specifically, for the immediate supply of an adequate quantity of child-care services,
after which the following two points might be implemented: The first point addresses
small-scale daycare services, and the second point examines the obligatory third-party
evaluation.
First, breaking away from the stereotypes of the past ECEC administrative
policies unveiled in the new Child Centers plan of November 2010, it would be
advisable to take a flexible approach to building small and diverse forms of daycare
facilities according to different communities‘ needs—using home-based daycare
providers (i.e., ―nursery matrons (hoiku-mama)‖), kindergartens, NPOs, and private
companies engaged in other industries.
230
The nursery matrons (hoiku-mama) system deserves special mention. Prior to
the revision of the Child Welfare Act in April 2010, the nursery matrons
(hoiku-mama) were qualified and handled by the municipalities. However, now they
have a position in the national system so that the nursery matrons (hoiku-mama)
system might be further promoted. The maximum number of children that one matron
can care for is three (five when the matron has an assistant) and these children (mainly
three years of age and younger) must be cared for by the same (approved) person in
the same (approved) home environment. By a ministerial decree, the MHLW obligates
local governments to set up support procedures (i.e., employing supporters who visit
matrons and offer consultation and who secure liaisons between children at nearby
nursery centers and the children in the care of matrons).381
The reason why small-scale services are deemed desirable is that they are suited
to provide ―stable and intimate relations between young children and professional
caregivers‖ mentioned in the abovementioned point (2). In view of the
space-challenged living environment of Japan, the spatial/residential environment
recommended by international standard382
may not be obtainable in some cases;
however, if daycare service providers with limited space host a small group of
children there would be no problematic effects in terms of quality. In addition, since
the number of children in these facilities is kept low, the point in which staff–child
ratio of Japan falls short of the 2008 UNICEF Benchmark 7 standard with regard to
381
Cabinet Public Relations Office 2009. 382
See section 4.6 and Table 4.
231
the children three years and older,383
may be covered without difficulty.
Second, given the instances of accidents at certified (ninsho) nursery centers in
Tokyo, it seems unavoidable that nursery daycare operators, while receiving more
proactive administrative support and financial assistance based on public-private
partnerships, should be obligated to periodic or surprise third-party evaluations. It
would be desirable if such third-party evaluations attached a high value to ―Process
Quality,‖ reflecting the GND—Japanese national standards regarding this relational
quality. What should be ensured is that, irrespective of the various forms providers
take to supply such services (e.g., nursery matrons (hoiku-mama) or
municipalities-certified nursery businesses), the same criteria to evaluate daycare
services are applied across the board and their results are made public.
Following this line of thought, it might be considered that the international
standards for daycare quality not only embrace the normative value to prioritize ―the
best interests of the child‖, but also to provide ―support for parents in the bringing up
of children‖384
—values preserved within the UNCRC framework. These values could
be instrumental to the development of adequate-quality daycare services and to
obtaining the required quantity of those services. These standards could provide a
solid basis for advanced countries to achieve successful daycare services despite their
different circumstances.
383
See section 4.4 and Table 2. 384
UNICEF 2008, 13.
232
Appendix 1: Classification of Daycare Services in Japan
1. Approved (ninka) nursery centers (2,080,114 children enrolled in 23,068 centers, as
of April 2010385
):
Approved by prefectural governments according to the uniform standards
throughout the country; screening of children for enrollment by local governments
of cities, towns, and villages, depending on the extent of need for care; fees to be
borne by the parents decided by local governments according to the parents‘
income
(1) Public (koritsu) centers (890,484 children enrolled in 10,766 centers, as of April
2010)
Operated by local governments; privatization accelerated; existing teachers‘ status
changed from public officers to private (often irregular) workers; for children aged
3–5 years, average public subsidies of FY 2009 per child per month are USD 158
and average net burden on the parents is USD 264386
; no data available for
children under 3 years
(2) Private (shiritsu) centers (1,189, 630 children enrolled in 12,302 centers, as of
April 2010)
Operated mainly by social welfare corporations (shakai fukushi hojin); regulations
on prohibiting for-profit corporations from operating approved centers abolished
in 2000; for children aged 3–5 years, average public subsidies of FY 2009 per
child per month are USD 185 and average net burden on the parents is USD
266387
; no data available for children under 3 years
2. Unapproved (ninka-gai) nursery facilities (7,284 facilities handling 176,421
children, as of March 2009388
)
Contracts concluded directly between each facility and parents; fees freely decided
by each facility
385
MHLW, September 6, 2010. 386
Hoiku Hakusho, 2010, 72. 387
Hoiku Hakusho, 2010, 72. 388
MHLW, March 26, 2010.
233
(1) Certified (ninsho) nursery centers independently operated by local governments
(some 2,800 facilities handling slightly fewer than 50,000 children, as of 2007389
);
receiving subsidies from local governments by satisfying their daycare requirements;
in Tokyo, average net burden on the parents per month is USD 400–600, with the
ceiling set at USD 800390
(2) Others
3. Unapproved in-house nursery centers operated by corporations (jigyosho-nai
hoikusho, 3869 facilities handling 56,344 children, as of March 2009391
)
Contracts concluded directly between each facility and parents; fees freely
decided by each facility
4. Unapproved baby hotels (1,756 facilities handling 32,013 children, as of March
2009392
))
Contracts concluded directly between each facility and parents; fees freely
decided by each facility (USD 400–1200 per child per month)
5. Other daycare services
(1) Daycare services provided by kindergartens393
(mainly comprising students
aged 3–5 years; additional USD 20–40 per month);
389
Toyo Keizai Weekly, November 7, 2009, 77. 390
Toyo Keizai Weekly, November 7, 2009, 77. 391
MHLW, March 26, 2010. 392
MHLW, March 26, 2010. 393
In Japan after WWII, as an institution to provide daycare for preschool-aged children, two types of
institutions have continued to co-exist: one being nursery centers as a welfare institution for children
lacking daycare and the other being kindergarten as an educational facility for children not lacking
daycare. Kindergarten provides roughly 4 hours of early childhood education on weekdays to toddlers, in
principle, three years of age or older and before school age in accordance with the School Education Act
under the jurisdiction of the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology.
234
(2) Nursery matrons (hoiku-mama, homely nursery providers legalized with the
revised Child Welfare Act 2008; Qualifications of nursery teachers and clinical
nurses needed; Subsidized by municipalities; Average net burden on the parents
per month is USD 250–300);
(3) Private baby sitters (USD 30–50 per hour);
(4) Family support centers (child-rearing supports by volunteers in communities)
235
Appendix 2: Ten 2008 UNICEF Benchmarks and Forty 1996 EC Targets
The 2008 UNICEF Benchmarks (Benchmarks for Early Childhood Services)
Policy Framework Benchmarks (1 - 2)
Benchmark 1
(A minimum entitlement to paid parental leave)
The minimum proposed standard is that, on the birth of a child, one parent be entitled
to leave of at least a year (to include pre-natal leave) at 50 per cent of salary (subject
to upper and lower limits). For parents who are unemployed or self-employed, the
income entitlement should not be less than the minimum wage or the level of social
assistance. At least two weeks parental leave should be specifically reserved for
fathers.
Benchmark 2
(A national plan with priority for disadvantaged children)
All countries going through the child care transition should have undertaken extensive
research and evolved a coherent national strategy to ensure that the benefits of early
childhood education and care are fully available, especially to disadvantaged children.
This dimension of early childhood services cannot currently be assessed and
compared in a satisfactory way. Rather than omit such a critical factor, benchmark 2
records, as a proxy measure, whether governments have at least drawn up a national
plan for the organization and financing of early childhood services.
Access Benchmarks (3 - 4)
Benchmark 3
(A minimum level of child care provision for under-threes)
The minimum proposed is that subsidized and regulated child care services should be
available for at least 25 per cent of children under the age of three.
Benchmark 4
(A minimum level of access for four-year-olds)
The minimum proposed is that at least 80 per cent of four-year-olds participate in
publicly subsidized and accredited early education services for a minimum of 15 hours
per week.
236
Quality Benchmarks (5 - 8)
Benchmark 5
(A minimum level of training for all staff)
The minimum proposed is that at least 80 per cent of staff having significant contact
with young children, including neighbourhood and home-based child carers, should
have relevant training. As a minimum, all staff should complete an induction course. A
move towards pay and working conditions in line with the wider teaching or social
care professions should also be envisaged.
Benchmark 6
(A minimum proportion of staff with higher level education and training)
The minimum proposed is that at least 50 per cent of staff in early education centres
supported and accredited by governmental agencies should have a minimum of three
years tertiary education with a recognized qualification in early childhood studies or
a related field.
Benchmark 7
(A minimum staff-to-children ratio)
The minimum proposed is that the ratio of pre-school children (four-to-five year-olds)
to trained staff (educators and assistants) should not be greater than 15 to 1, and that
group size should not exceed 24.
Benchmark 8
(A minimum level of public funding)
The suggested minimum is that the level of public spending on early childhood
education and care(for children aged 0 to 6 years) should not be less than 1 per cent
of GDP.
Supporting Context Benchmarks (9 - 10)
Benchmark 9
(A low level of child poverty)
Specifically, a child poverty rate of less than 10 per cent. The definition of child
poverty is that used by the OECD – the percentage of children growing up in families
in which income, adjusted for family size, is less than 50 per cent of median income.
237
Benchmark 10
(Universal outreach)
To reinforce one of the central tenets of this report – that early childhood services
should also be available to the children of disadvantaged families – this last
benchmark attempts to measure and compare demonstrated national commitment to
that ideal. As no direct measure is currently possible, the suggested proxy measure
is the extent to which basic child health services have been made available to the most
marginalized and difficult-to-reach families. Specifically, the benchmark of „universal
outreach‟ is considered to have been met if a country has fulfilled at least two of the
following three requirements: a) the rate of infant mortality is less than 4 per 1,000
live births, b) the proportion of babies born with low birthweight (below 2,500 grams)
is less than 6 per cent, and c) the immunization rate for 12 to 23 month-olds (averaged
over measles, polio and DPT3 vaccination) is higher than 95 per cent.
The 1996 EC Targets (Quality Targets in Services for Young Children)
Policy Framework Targets (1 - 6)
TARGET 1: Governments should draw on professional and public opinion to provide
a published and coherent statement of intent for care and education services to young
children 0-6, in the public and in the private sector, at national and at regional/local
level. This policy should set out principles, specify objectives and define priorities, and
explain how such initiatives will be coordinated between relevant departments.
TARGET 2: At national level one department should be nominated to take
responsibility for implementing the policy whether it does so directly or through an
agency; at a regional/local level there should be a similar designation of
responsibility, whether services are directly administered by the regional/local
authority or whether contracted out to other providers.
TARGET 3: Governments should draw up a programme to implement the policy
which outlines strategies for implementation, sets targets, and specifies resources.
At a regional/local level, the department or agency responsible should similarly draw
up a programme for implementing policy and developing practice.
238
TARGET 4: Legislative frameworks should be created to ensure that the targets are
fully met within specified time limits and reviewed regularly, and which should outline
the competencies of regional and/or local government in fulfilling the targets.
TARGET 5: The government department or agency responsible at national level
should set up an infrastructure, with parallel structures at local level, for planning,
monitoring, review, support, training, research and service development.
TARGET 6: The planning and monitoring system should include measures of supply,
demand and need covering all services for young children at national, regional and/or
local level.
Financial Targets (7 - 10)
TARGET 7: Public expenditure on services for young children (in this case defined as
children aged 5 years and under) should be not less than 1% of GDP in order to meet
targets set for services, both for children under three and over three.
TARGET 8: A proportion of this budget should be allocated to develop the
infrastructure for services. This should include at least 5% spent on support and
advisory services including continuous or in-service training and at least 1% for
research and monitoring.
TARGET 9: There should be a capital spending programme for building and
renovations linked to the environmental and health targets.
TARGET 10: Where parents pay for publicly funded services, the charges should not
exceed, and may well be less than, 15% of net monthly household income. The charges
should take into account per capita income, family size and other relevant
circumstances.
Targets for levels and types of service (11 -15)
TARGET 11: Publicly funded services should offer full time equivalent places for:
• at least 90% of children aged 3-6 years; and
• at least 15% of children under three years.
239
TARGET 12: Services should offer flexibility of hours and attendance including
coverage for working hours and a working year if parents require it.
TARGET 13: There should be a range of services offering parents choice.
TARGET 14: All services should positively assert the value of diversity and make
provision both for children and adults which acknowledges and supports diversity of
language, ethnicity, religion, gender and disability, and challenges stereotypes.
TARGET 15: All children with disabilities should have right of access to the same
services as other children with appropriate staffing assistance and specialist help.
Education Targets (16 - 20)
TARGET 16: All collective services for young children 0-6 whether in the public or
private sector should have coherent values and objectives including a stated and
explicit educational philosophy.
TARGET 17: The educational philosophy should be drawn up and developed by
parents, staff and other interested groups.
TARGET 18: The educational philosophy should be broad and include and promote
inter alia:
• the child‟s autonomy and concept of self
• convivial social relationships between children, and children and adults
• a zest for learning
• linguistic and oral skills including linguistic diversity
• mathematical, biological, scientific, technical and environmental concepts
• musical expression and aesthetic skills
• drama, puppetry and mime
• muscular coordination and bodily control
• health, hygiene, food and nutrition
• awareness of the local community.
240
TARGET 19: The way in which the educational philosophy is put into practice should
be stated and explicit. Services should have a programme of organisation covering
all their activities including pedagogical approach, deployment of staff, grouping of
children, training profiles for staff, use of space, and the way in which financial
resources are used to implement the programme.
TARGET 20: The education and learning environment should reflect and value each
child‟s family, home, language, cultural heritage, beliefs, religion and gender.
Targets for Staff-Child Ratios (21 -24)
TARGET 21: Staff ratios for collective care should reflect the objectives of the service
and their wider context and be directly related to group age and group size. They
should usually be more than but should not be less than:
• 1 adult : 4 places for children under 12 months
• 1 adult : 6 places for children aged 12-23 months
• 1 adult : 8 places for children aged 24-35 months
• 1 adult : 15 places for children aged 36-71 months.
Ratios in family day care should not be less than 1 adult : 4 places for children under
compulsory school age, and the ratio should include the family day carer‟s own
children.
TARGET 22: At least one tenth of the working week should be non-contact time
allocated to preparation and continuous training.
TARGET 23: Adequate supply cover should always be available to maintain the
ratios.
TARGET 24: Administrative, domestic, janitorial work should be allocated staff time
or hours in addition to those hours spent with children.
Targets for Staff Employment and Training (25 -29)
TARGET 25: All qualified staff employed in services should be paid at not less than a
nationally or locally agreed wage rate, which for staff who are fully trained should be
comparable to that of teachers.
241
TARGET 26: A minimum of 60% of staff working directly with children in collective
services should have a grant eligible basic training of at least three years at a post-18
level, which incorporates both the theory and practice of pedagogy and child
development. All training should be modular. All staff in services (both collective
and family day care) who are not trained to this level should have right of access to
such training including on an in-service basis.
TARGET 27: All staff in services working with children (in both collective and family
day care) should have the right to continuous in-service training.
TARGET 28: All staff whether in the public or the private sector shall have the right
to trade union affiliation.
TARGET 29: 20% of staff employed in collective services should be men.
Environment and Health Targets (30-33)
TARGET 30: All services, whether in the private or the public sector, should meet
national and local health and safety requirements.
TARGET 31: The planning of the environment and its spatial organisation, including
the layout of the buildings, the furnishings and equipment should reflect the
educational philosophy of the service and take account of the views of parents, staff
and other interested parties.
TARGET 32: There should normally be sufficient space, inside and out, to enable
children to play, sleep and use bathroom facilities, and to meet the needs of parents
and staff. This should normally mean:
• internal space of at least 6 sq metres for each child under three years and of at least
4 sq metres for each child 3-6 years (excluding storage and corridor or through-way
space)
• direct access to external space of at least 6 sq metres per child
• an additional 5% of internal space for adult use.
TARGET 33: Food preparation facilities should be available on the premises and
nutritional and culturally appropriate food should be provided.
242
Targets for Parents and the Community (34 -36)
TARGET 34: Parents are collaborators and participants in early years services. As
such they have a right to give and receive information and the right to express their
views both formally and informally. The decision-making processes of the services
should be fully participative, involving parents, all staff, and, where possible, children.
TARGET 35: Services should have formal and informal links with the local
community or communities or district.
TARGET 36: Services should adopt employment procedures which emphasize the
importance of recruiting employees who reflect the ethnic diversity of the local
community.
Performance Targets (37 - 40)
TARGET 37: Services should demonstrate how they are fulfilling their aims and
objectives and how they have spent their budget through an annual report or by other
means.
TARGET 38: In all services children‟s progress should be regularly assessed.
TARGET 39: The views of parents and the wider community should be an integral
part of the assessment process.
TARGET 40: Staff should regularly assess their performance using both objective
methods and self-evaluation.
243
Appendix 3: Minimum Standards for Child Welfare Institution, Chapters 1 and 5
(Extracted Articles concerning Daycare at Nursery Centers)
(Translated by author)
The Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare, Ordinance No. 63 of February 29, 1948.
Latest revision: The Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare, Ordinance No. 37 of
March 16, 2009.
The minimum standards for child welfare institutions are established as follows, in
accordance with the provisions of Article 45 of the Child Welfare Act (Act No. 164 of
1947).
Chapter 1: General Provisions
Article 1 (Effects of the Ministerial Ordinance)
The minimum standards for the equipment and operation of a child welfare
institution (hereinafter called ―the minimum standards‖), as defined in Article 45 of
the Child Welfare Act, shall be established herein.
Article 2 (Purposes of the Minimum Standards)
The minimum standards are intended to ensure that children enrolled in a child
welfare institution will grow vigorously in body and in mind, and will be educated
so as to adapt to society in a lively and hygienic way under the guidance of staff
(including a director of a child welfare institution—this notation shall apply to
subsequent provisions as well) who have proper discipline and have received
adequate training.
Article 3 (Upgrading of Standards)
1. Prefectural governors, after hearing the opinions of the Prefectural Child Welfare
Council or Regional Social Welfare Council under their charge, may recommend to
the child welfare institutions under their supervision that they upgrade their
equipment and operations to exceed the minimum standards.
2.–4. [Omitted since these clauses are provisions on the reading of terms.]
5. The Health, Labour and Welfare Minister shall always endeavor to upgrade the
minimum standards.
Article 4 (The Minimum Standards and Child Welfare Institutions)
1. A child welfare institution shall always upgrade its equipment and operations to
exceed the minimum standards.
244
2. A child welfare institution better equipped or better run than the minimum
standards shall not be allowed to lower the standards of its equipment or operations
on the grounds of the minimum standards.
Article 5 (General Principle regarding the Structural Equipment of Child Welfare
Institutions)
1. A child welfare institution shall have the equipment necessary to achieve the
purposes established in the Child Welfare Act.
2. The structural equipment of a child welfare institution, including lighting and
ventilation equipment, shall be installed with due consideration for health and
hygiene, as well as for the prevention of danger to the children enrolled.
Article 6 (Child Welfare Institutions and Emergencies or Disasters)
1. A child welfare institution shall have fire-extinguishing equipment such as
portable fire extinguishers, emergency exits, and other necessary provisions for
emergencies or disasters, and at the same time develop specific evacuation plans for
emergencies or disasters, and strive to exercise constant caution and drills.
2. Of the drills described in the preceding clause, evacuation and fire drills shall be
conducted at least once a month.
Article 7 (General Requirements for the Staff of Child Welfare Institutions)
The staff engaged in protecting children enrolled in a child welfare institution
shall have sound bodies and minds as well as enthusiasm toward child welfare
projects, and to the extent practicable shall be people who have received training on
the theories and practices of child welfare projects.
Article 7-2 (Improving the Knowledge and Skills of the Staff of Child Welfare
Institutions)
1. The staff of a child welfare institution shall strive to acquire, maintain, and
improve the knowledge and skills necessary for achieving the purposes of their
institution, as these purposes are defined in the Child Welfare Act.
2. A child welfare institution shall provide training opportunities for its staff to
improve their qualities.
Article 8 (Standards for the Equipment and Staff of Child Welfare Institutions that are
Combined with Other Social Welfare Facilities)
When a child welfare institution is installed with another social welfare facility,
some of the equipment and staff members of the child welfare institution may be
mobilized for the other social welfare facility as the need arises; provided, however,
that equipment unique to the rooms of enrolled children and the institution, and staff
members directly engaged in protecting enrolled children, shall be excluded.
245
Article 9 (Principle of the Equal Treatment of Enrolled Children)
At a child welfare institution, discrimination in the enrollment of children on the
grounds of their nationalities, beliefs, social positions, or methods of paying the
expenses or fees required for their enrollment shall not be practiced.
Article 9-2 (Prohibition of Abuse, Etc.)
The staff of a child welfare institution shall refrain from abusing enrolled children,
as this is defined in Article 33-10 of the Child Welfare Act (Abuse to Enrolled
Children, Etc.), and from performing other acts that have negative effects on the
bodies and minds of the children concerned.
Article 9-3 (Prohibited Misuse of the Authority Vested in the Directors of Child
Welfare Institutions regarding Disciplinary Actions against Enrolled Children)
[Omitted since this clause is not applicable to nursery centers.]
Article 10 (Hygiene Control)
1. The equipment, eating utensils, and drinking water used by children enrolled in a
child welfare institution shall be kept in hygienic conditions, or the necessary
hygienic measures regarding such items shall be taken.
2. A child welfare institution shall strive to take the measures necessary to prevent
the occurrence or spread of infectious diseases therein.
3. [Omitted since this clause is not applicable to nursery centers.]
4. A child welfare institution shall have necessary medications and other medical
supplies, and exercise adequate control thereof.
Article 11 (Meals)
1. A child welfare institution, when feeding enrolled children, shall cook meals in its
own kitchen (including such a kitchen that is used for both the facility and another
social welfare facility, the permissibility of which is established in the provision of
Article 8).
2. The menus for children enrolled in a child welfare institution shall have as much
variety as possible and contain the nutritional ingredients necessary for the sound
growth of such children.
3. Meals shall be prepared and offered in accordance with the preceding provision,
and consideration shall be given to the physical conditions of the enrolled children
and their preferences in terms of kinds of food and cooking methods.
4. Meals shall be cooked in accordance with prearranged menus.
Article 12 (Medical Checkups for Enrolled Children and Staff Members)
[Omitted since this clause is not applicable to nursery centers.]
246
Article 13 (Rules in Child Welfare Institutions)
In a child welfare institution, rules shall be established for necessary matters
regarding the following:
1. Support to enrolled children; and
2. Management of the facility
Article 14 (Bookkeeping at Child Welfare Institutions)
A child welfare institution shall keep books to clarify and record assets, revenue,
expenditure, the status of staff members, and the treatment of enrolled children.
Article 14-2 (Confidentiality)
1. The staff of a child welfare institution shall not disclose without good reason the
secrets of clients or their families that they have learned in the course of their work.
2. A child welfare institution shall take the necessary measures to ensure that former
staff do not disclose without good reason the secrets of clients or their families that
they had learned in the course of their work.
Article 14-3 (Response to Complaints)
1. A child welfare institution shall set up a complaint counter or take other necessary
measures to deal promptly and properly with complaints from enrolled persons, their
custodians, and other relevant parties regarding the support provided by the
institution.
2. [Omitted since this clause is not applicable to nursery centers.]
3. In the event that a child welfare institution receives instructions or advice from
prefectural or municipal authorities charged with the provision of nursery daycare
regarding measures taken or support provided by the institution, the institution shall
take the necessary corrective measures in accordance with such instructions or
advice.
4. A child welfare institution shall cooperate to the extent practicable with
investigations conducted by the Committee for Promoting Proper Operation
established in accordance with Article 83 of the Social Welfare Act regarding
consultations, etc., for the settlement of complaints conducted by the Committee for
Promoting Proper Operation, as such consultations are provided for in Article 85-1
of the said act.
Chapter 5. Nursery Centers
Article 32 (Standards for Equipment)
The standards for the equipment of a nursery center shall be as follows:
1. A nursery center enrolling babies or infants aged less than two years shall have a
baby room or a crawling room, a first-aid room, a kitchen, and restrooms.
247
2. The space of the baby room shall be no less than 1.65 m2 (sq meters) per baby or
infant, as this is defined in the preceding item.
3. The space of the crawling room shall be no less than 3.3 m2 per baby or infant, as
this is defined in Item 1.
4. The baby room or the crawling room shall have the necessary equipment.
5. A nursery center enrolling infants aged two years and older shall have a nursery
room or a playroom, an outdoor playroom (substitution with a place located near the
center that can serve as such is permitted—this notation shall apply to subsequent
provisions as well), a kitchen, and restrooms.
6. The space of the nursery room or the playroom shall be no less than 1.98 m2 per
infant, and the space of the outdoor playroom shall be no less than 3.3 m2 per infant,
as infants are defined in the preceding item.
7. The nursery room or the playroom shall have the necessary equipment.
8. [Omitted. This item relates to requirements regarding fire resistance and disaster
prevention applicable to centers that have baby rooms, crawling rooms, and nursery
rooms or playrooms on the second floor.]
Article 32-2 (Exceptions to the Standards for Equipment at Authorized Centers for
Children [Nintei Kodomoen])
Nursery centers combining kindergarten and daycare functions are defined as
authorized centers for children under Article 6-2 of the Act to Promote
Comprehensive Provision of Education and Care to Pre-school Children (Act No. 77
of 2006, hereinafter called ―the Act to Promote Education and Care to Pre-school
Children‖), and centers satisfying the standard set forth in each of the following
items may bring in meals cooked outside their facilities to feed infants aged three
years and older. In such cases, the centers concerned are required to have equipment
for such necessary in-house processes as heating and preserving meals prepared and
cooked offsite.
1. The centers concerned are responsible for feeding infants, and systems as well as
contracts with outside meal suppliers are in place to enable the managers involved to
exercise due work-related care in terms of various parameters, including hygiene
and nutrition.
2. Systems are in place to enable the centers concerned to receive nutritional advice
regarding their menus from in-house dieticians or their counterparts from other
facilities, health centers, and municipalities, so that the necessary consideration by
dieticians may be reflected in the meals.
3. External meal suppliers should duly recognize the main purpose of the feeding
service at the centers concerned, and should be capable of adequately performing the
required work in terms of various parameters, including hygiene and nutrition.
248
4. Regarding meals for infants, external meal suppliers should be capable of
adequately performing the required work in terms of content, frequency, and timing,
which includes arranging meals according to the infants‘ ages, developmental stages,
and health conditions, paying due attention to such particular constitutions as allergy
and atopy, and offering the necessary nutritional ingredients.
5. From the standpoint of promoting the sound development of babies and infants
through diet, external meal suppliers should do their utmost to offer meals based on
dietary plans that establish matters to be considered regarding meals fed, according
to the growth and developmental stages of babies and infants.
Article 33 (Staff)
1. A nursery center shall have nursery teachers, contract doctors, and cooks;
however, nursery centers that outsource all the cooking work are not required to
have cooks.
2. The number of nursery teachers shall be one or more for approximately every
three babies, one or more for approximately every six infants aged between one and
less than three, and one or more for approximately every 20 infants aged between
three and less than four. The number of nursery teachers at an authorized center for
children (hereinafter called a ―nintei center‖) shall be, as in the case of kindergartens
(Article 1 of the School Education Act), one or more for approximately every 35
infants that utilize the nintei center for approximately four hours a day (hereinafter
called ―short-staying infants‖), one or more for approximately every 20 infants that
utilize the nintei center for approximately eight hours a day (hereinafter called
―long-staying infants‖), and one or more for approximately every 30 infants aged
four and older (at a nintei center, one or more for approximately every 35
short-staying infants and one or more for approximately every 30 long-staying
infants). However, there shall be a minimum of two nursery teachers at a nursery
center.
Article 34 (Nursing Hours)
In principle, the nursing hours at a nursery center shall number eight hours a day,
but such hours may be decided by the directors of individual centers in different
regions, with local conditions including the working hours of the babies‘ or infants‘
custodians and other family situations to be taken into account.
Article 35 (Contents of Nursing)
The characteristics of daycare at a nursery center shall consist of the integrated
execution of care and education, and the contents thereof shall be decided by the
Health, Labour and Welfare Minister.
249
Article 36 (Contact with Custodians)
The director of a nursery center shall stay in close contact with the custodians of
the babies and infants enrolled in his/her center, and shall make an effort to gain the
custodians‘ understanding and cooperation regarding the contents of daycare and
other relevant matters.
Article 36-2 (Fair Selection)
A private nintei center as defined in Article 10(1)5 of the Act to Promote
Education and Care to Preschool Children shall apply a fair method when selecting
children for enrollment, in accordance with the provisions of Article 24(3) of the
Child Welfare Act superseded by Article 13(2) of the Act to Promote Education and
Care to Preschool Children.
Article 36-3 (Daycare Fees)
In the event that a nursery center receives payments of fees from custodians or
other parties concerned for fee-involving services provided to children (excluding
those provided at the selection of the parties paying such fees) in addition to fees
payable under the provision of Article 56(3) of the Child Welfare Act and the
provision for daycare fees as defined in Article 13(4) of the Act to Promote
Education and Care to Preschool Children (hereinafter called ―collection fees, etc.‖),
the amounts of such fees shall be decided with consideration for the expenses
required for the provision of such services and the impact of payments thereof on
the household budgets of the parties concerned.
Supplemental Provisions
(Ordinance of the Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare No. 51 of April 9, 1998)
[1. and 3. omitted]
2. (Temporary Measures)
Regarding the number of nursery teachers for nursery centers enrolling six or
more babies as defined in the revised Article 33(2), one at most out of the health
workers or clinical attendants working in such centers may be considered a
temporary nursery teacher.
250
Appendix 4: The Guidelines for Nursery Daycare, Chapter 3
The Purposes and Contents of Nursery Daycare and Matters to Be Considered
concerning Nursery Daycare
(Translated by author)
1. THE PURPOSES AND CONTENTS OF NURSERY DAYCARE
(1) Purposes and contents related to protective care
A. Maintenance of lives
a) Purposes
① To enable individual children to live comfortably
② To enable individual children to enjoy health and safety
③ To enable individual children to fully satisfy their physiological needs
④ To enable individual children to proactively promote their health
b) Contents
① To gain a proper understanding of the normal health conditions as well as
the growth and developmental stages of individual children, and to
promptly take the necessary actions in case any abnormality is noticed
② To keep close contact with children‘s families and, through cooperation
with contract doctors, deepen understanding of the children‘s sicknesses
and of accident prevention, and strive to maintain and improve healthy and
safe environments for nursery daycare
③ To satisfy children‘s physiological needs through the arrangement of clean
and safe environments as well as with proper assistance and responsive
involvement. In addition, to encourage children to establish proper life
rhythms according to their developmental stages through cooperation with
the children‘s families
④ To enable children to exercise and rest properly according to their
developmental stages. In addition, to provide proper assistance to enable
children to lead highly-motivated lives in terms of such daily actions as
eating meals, evacuating, sleeping, putting on and removing clothing, and
keeping themselves clean
251
B. Stabilization of emotions
a) Purposes
① To enable individual children to live with a sense of stability
② To enable individual children to express their feelings without anxiety
③ To enable individual children to be accepted and grow as independent
agencies, and develop positive feelings about themselves
④ To enable individual children to soothe their physical and mental fatigue
b) Contents
① To promote responsive interaction and initiate conversations while
properly understanding the situation in which individual children are
placed and the developmental stages they are at, thereby properly
satisfying their emotional needs
② To accept individual children‘s feelings, sympathize with them, and build
lasting relationships of trust with them
③ To observe individual children‘s developmental processes and approach
them when appropriate in order to enable them to act voluntarily, elevate
their self-motivations and inquiring minds, and develop self-confidence
based on relationships of trust with nursery teachers and other staff
members
④ To enable individual children to have proper meals and rest while
balancing and coordinating the contents of activities according to such
parameters as their life rhythms and developmental processes, and the
hours of daycare
(2) Purposes and contents related to education
A. Health
To encourage children to develop sound minds and sound bodies, and build their
capacity to lead healthy and safe lives independently
a) Purposes
① To encourage children to act cheerfully and free from all care, and feel
fulfilled
② To encourage children to move their bodies fully and exercise willingly
③ To encourage children to acquire the habits and attitudes necessary for
leading healthy and safe lives
b) Contents
① To encourage children to communicate with nursery teachers and friends,
and lead their lives with a sense of stability
252
② To encourage children to move their bodies fully through various types of
play
③ To encourage children to play outdoors willingly
④ To encourage children to get involved in and enjoy various activities
⑤ To encourage children to acquire healthy life rhythms and enjoy meals
⑥ To encourage children to keep clean and handle by themselves such
actions necessary for existence as putting on and removing clothing, eating
meals, and evacuating
⑦ To encourage children to know how to spend time at nursery centers and
create a comfortable environment for themselves
⑧ To encourage children to take an interest in their health and voluntarily
take actions for disease prevention and other related matters
⑨ To encourage children to know where dangerous places are, know how to
act in a time of disaster, and take precautions for safety
B. Human relations
To develop children‘s independence and ability to relate with others in order to assist
them in making friends and supporting each other in their lives
a) Purposes
① To encourage children to enjoy their lives at nursery centers and have a
sense of fulfillment through acting on their own
② To encourage children to voluntarily interact with other people close to
them and have affection and a sense of trust toward them
③ To encourage children to acquire desirable habits and attitudes in social
life
b) Contents
① To encourage children to care about the adults and friends close to them,
play imitate them, and attempt to voluntarily interact with them in the
context of secure relationships with nursery teachers
② To encourage children to experience the joy of spending time together with
nursery teachers and friends, amid steady relationships with them
③ To encourage children to think and act on their own
④ To encourage children to do what they can by themselves
⑤ To encourage children to share their joys and sorrows with friends through
proactively interacting with them
⑥ To encourage children to communicate what they have in mind to their
friends, and understand what their friends have in mind
⑦ To encourage children to recognize their friends‘ good points and
experience the joy of doing things together with them.
253
⑧ To encourage children to develop the mindset of cooperating and getting
things done while interacting with friends
⑨ To encourage children to recognize the existence of good as well as bad
and acquire the habit of thinking while acting
⑩ To encourage children to deepen relationships with friends close to them,
interact simultaneously with various kinds of friends including those senior
and junior to them, and develop sympathy and affection for them
⑪ To encourage children to recognize the importance of rules for living
comfortably with friends, and attempt to abide by those rules
⑫ To encourage children to take good care of play equipment and tools for
common use, and share them with others
⑬ To encourage children to develop affection for persons who have much to
do with their lives, such as elderly and other people in their communities
⑭ To encourage children to develop affection for foreigners and those who
have cultures different from their own
C. Surrounding environments
To encourage children to deal with their various surroundings with curiosity and
inquiring minds, and incorporate the discoveries into their daily lives.
a) Purposes
① To encourage children to take an interest in and pay attention to various
things, while coming in contact with nature and their proximate
environments
② To encourage children to willingly deal with their proximate environments,
enjoy and give thought to their discoveries, and incorporate them into their
daily lives
③ To encourage children to enhance their perceptions of the characteristics of
things, quantities, letters, and such while watching, checking, and handling
things close to them
b) Contents
① To encourage children to enhance their senses of hearing, seeing, feeling,
smelling, and tasting in secure human and physical environments
② To encourage children to take an interest in their favorite toys and play
equipment, and enjoy various games
③ To encourage children to live in contact with nature and recognize its
immense scope, beauty, and wonder
④ To encourage children to touch various things in their lives, and take an
interest in and pay attention to the characters and mechanisms of these
things
254
⑤ To encourage children to recognize seasonal changes in nature and in
people‘s lives
⑥ To encourage children to take an interest in events around them, such as
changes in nature, and attempt to incorporate them into their play and daily
lives
⑦ To encourage children to develop affection for animals and plants in their
proximate environments, and recognize the importance of life through such
experiences as caring for and cherishing them as well as growing farm
products and tasting them
⑧ To encourage children to take good care of things around them
⑨ To encourage children to handle things around them, play with their
equipment with interest, and develop their creativity by thinking of and
trying new ways of playing with their equipment
⑩ To encourage children to pay attention to numbers, figures, and such in
their daily lives
⑪ To encourage children to pay attention to simple signs, letters, and such in
their daily lives
⑫ To encourage children to take an interest in and pay attention to the lives
of people in their neighborhoods, and willingly participate in events and
other occasions in and out of nursery centers
D. Language
To encourage children to nurture their sense of words and linguistic expressiveness by
developing the ability to express what they have experienced or thought in their own
words, as well as by developing a willingness and attitude to listen to what others have
to say.
a) Purposes
① To encourage children to feel the joy of expressing their feelings in words
② To encourage children to feel the joy of listening to other people‘s words,
stories, and such, as well as the joy of telling and sharing what they have
experienced
③ To encourage children to understand the words necessary in their daily
lives, develop an interest in such materials as picture books and stories,
and relate to nursery teachers and friends
b) Contents
① To encourage children to communicate voluntarily, through nursery
teachers‘ responsive interaction and initiation of conversations
② To encourage children to enjoy the exchange of words while playing
make-believe with nursery teachers
255
③ To encourage children to take an interest in and pay attention to what
nursery teachers and friends have to say, and listen to and talk to them with
affection
④ To encourage children to express what they have done, seen, heard, tasted,
felt, and thought in their own words
⑤ To encourage children to express what they want to do and what they want
others to do, and ask questions about what they do not understand
⑥ To encourage children to listen to what others have to say with attention,
and talk in a manner to make themselves understood
⑦ To encourage children to understand and use words necessary in their daily
lives
⑧ To encourage children to greet others with affection in their daily lives
⑨ To encourage children to recognize the pleasure and beauty of words in
their daily lives
⑩ To encourage children to expand their imagination and vocabulary through
various experiences
⑪ To encourage children to enjoy such materials as picture books and story
books, and feel the joy of listening with interest and imagination
⑫ To encourage children to feel the joy of communicating in words in their
daily lives
E. Expression
To encourage children to nurture their sensitivity and ability to express themselves and
enhance their creativity, through expressing what they have felt and thought in their
own words.
a) Purposes
① To encourage children to develop sensitivity to the beauty of various
things
② To encourage children to enjoy expressing what they have felt and thought
in their own words
③ To encourage children to enhance their imagination and enjoy various
manners of expression in their lives
b) Contents
① To encourage children to enjoy the feel of various materials, including
water, sand, soil, paper, and clay
② To encourage children to play with their nursery teachers by singing
together, enjoying hand movements, and moving their bodies to rhythms
③ To encourage children to notice and enjoy various things, including
sounds, colors, shapes, textures, movements, tastes, and scents
256
④ To encourage children to experience various events in their daily lives and
enhance their imagination
⑤ To encourage children to enjoy the experience of sharing what moved and
thrilled them in various events
⑥ To encourage children to express themselves with sound and movement,
and freely draw and recreate what they have felt and thought
⑦ To encourage children to familiarize themselves with various materials
and be creative in playing with them
⑧ To encourage children to develop an interest in music and feel the joy of
singing and playing simple rhythmic instruments
⑨ To encourage children to feel the joy of drawing and making objects, and
using them for play and decorative purposes
⑩ To encourage children to feel the joy of performing plays and expressing
images and movements in words
2. MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED WHEN PROVIDING DAYCARE
Nursery teachers and other staff members should have a good understanding of
individual children‘s developmental processes and the continuity of these processes,
deal with the above purposes and contents with flexibility, and consider the following
matters in particular when providing daycare.
(1) General matters to be considered concerning daycare
A. Differences in individual children‘s mental and physical stages of development
and activities should be taken into account; simultaneously, attention should be
paid to their feelings and proper assistance provided accordingly.
B. It should be noted that children‘s health is achieved not only with physiological
and mental growth, but also with development of independence, sociality, and
proper sensitivity.
C. Proper assistance to children should be provided with due attention to the activities
that they conduct on their own through a process of trial and error while handling
their environments by themselves.
D. When children are enrolled at nursery centers, they should be treated individually
to the extent possible so that they may have a sense of stability and gradually
acclimate themselves to their lives at the centers; also, consideration should be
given so as not to make the children already in the centers uneasy and nervous.
E. The children‘s different nationalities and cultures should be accepted, and
consideration should be given to foster a sentiment of mutual respect in children.
257
F. The children‘s individual and gender differences should be noted, and
consideration should be given so as not to plant fixed views based on gender or
other factors in the children‘s minds.
(2) Matters to be considered when providing daycare to babies and infants
A. Babies and infants do not have strong immune systems and are liable to contract
diseases due to immature mental and physical capabilities. Therefore, care should
be provided for the health of individual children, based on proper judgment
concerning their growth and developmental stages as well as their physical
conditions.
B. Individual children‘s desires should be properly satisfied and differences in their
growing histories noted, and measures should be taken to allow particular nursery
teachers to be responsively involved with them.
C. Coordination among staff and with contract doctors concerning daycare for babies
and infants should be enhanced, and proper responses should be made with
consideration of the matters described in Chapter 5 (health and safety). If
dieticians and clinical nurses are available, their expertise should be mobilized for
responses to children.
D. Daycare for babies and infants should be provided while building relationships of
trust with custodians, and simultaneously providing consultation as well as
assistance to the custodians.
E. If the nursery teachers in charge are changed, the experiences and developmental
processes of the children concerned should be shared among the relevant parties,
who should cooperate with each other in order to provide the proper responses.
(3) Matters to be considered when providing daycare to children aged less than three
A. Children in this age bracket are particularly vulnerable to infectious diseases. Thus,
their daily conditions, including physical status, moods, and appetites, should be
carefully observed, and health-related responses should be provided based on
proper judgment.
B. Programs should be introduced to allow children to handle the basic habits
necessary for existence, such as meals, evacuation, sleep, putting on and removing
clothing, and keeping themselves clean, in a comfortable atmosphere and
according to their respective conditions, and their willingness to do these things
themselves should be respected.
258
C. Environments should be arranged in order to enable children to fully engage in
games of hide-and-seek, with due precautions to prevent accidents, and various
games should be introduced, including those that require children to use their
entire bodies.
D. The development of individual children‘s sense of self should be observed and
their feelings accepted. At the same time, nursery teachers should intercede and
carefully teach them how to respect their friends‘ feelings and how to get along
with each other.
E. Children should be encouraged to participate in volunteer activities while attempts
to stabilize their emotions are made.
F. If the nursery teachers in charge are changed, the experiences and developmental
processes of the children concerned should be shared among the relevant parties,
who should cooperate with each other in order to provide the proper responses.
(4) Matters to be considered when providing daycare to children aged three and over
A. Consideration should be given to enable children to understand the importance of
acquiring the basic habits and attitudes necessary for existence, and selecting the
proper actions.
B. Consideration should be given to stabilize children‘s emotions and enable them to
feel the joy of getting things done and have confidence in themselves.
C. It should be understood that the development of different physical functions is
promoted by the energetic movement of children‘s entire bodies through a range of
play, and programs should be introduced to direct children‘s interests to outdoor
play.
D. Consideration should be given to enable children to gradually understand other
people‘s feelings by experiencing conflicts such as fights, and to gradually realize
that they and others need each other.
E. Consideration should be given to enable children to recognize the importance of
rules while they live and play, and to act based on their own judgments.
F. Based on the understanding that children‘s sensitivity, cognition, intellect, and
expressiveness are developed through contact with nature, programs should be
implemented to allow children to deepen their contact with nature.
259
G. Bearing in mind that it is important for children to express their feelings and
experiences in their own words, proper responses should be made when they
initiate conversations. In addition, efforts should be made to enable children to feel
the joy of communicating and talking with friends.
H. Programs should be introduced to secure the materials and tools necessary for
daycare and to set up various environments, in order to enable children to express
freely and in a number of creative ways what they have felt, thought, and
imagined.
I. Bearing in mind that the daycare provided at nursery centers leads to the
development of a foundation for the lives and learning of children at and after
elementary school, efforts should be made to lay foundations for their developing
creative thoughts, self-assertive life attitudes, and such through experiences that
befit their early ages.
260
List of references
Books, Articles, and Chapters in Books
Akita, K., Miwa, J. and Takazakura, A. (2008), ―Hoiku no shitsu kenkyu no tenbo to
kadai‖ [Review of Research on the Issue of Quality in Early Childhood
Education and Care], Bulletin of the Graduate School of Education, the
University of Tokyo (Tokyo daigaku daigakuin kyoiku kenkyuka kiyo) 47:
289-305 <http://ci.nii.ac.jp/naid/110007126617>.
Alston, P. (1994), ―The Best Interests Principle: Towards a Reconciliation of Culture
and Human Rights,‖ International Journal of Law and the Family 8, 1–25.
Araki, M. (2000), Shakai hosho dokuhon (Shinban hotei) [Guide to Social Security
Act] (Revision to the new edition) (Tokyo: Yuhikaku).
Boiling, P. (2007), ―Policies to Support Working Mothers and Children in Japan,‖ in F.
Rosenbluth (ed.), The Political Economy of Japan‟s Low Fertility: 131-154
(Stanford, CA: Stanford U.P.).
Cornell, D. (1998), At the Heart of Freedom: Feminism, Sex, & Equality (Princeton,
N.J.: Princeton U.P.).
Detrick, S. (1999), A Commentary on the United Nations Convention on the Rights of
the Child (The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers).
Discussion Forum (ed.) (2006), Kokuren kodomo no kenri iinkai iin Krappmansan to
kataru kai jikko iinkai [Discussion Forum with the CRC Member Mr.
Krappman] (ed.), Kodomo no kenri joyaku kara hoiku no minkan itaku wo
kangaeru [Considering Private Consignment of Nursery Daycare from the
Perspective of the UNCRC] (Tokyo: Tokyo Jichi Mondai Kenkyusho).
Dwyer, J.G. (2006), The Relationship Rights of Children (Cambridge: Cambridge
U.P.).
Freeman, J. (2003), ―Symposium: Public Values in an Era of Privatization: Extending
Public Law Norms through Privatization,‖ Harvard Law Review 116,
1285–1352.
261
Freeman, M. (2007), ―Article 3. The Best Interests of the Child,‖ in A. Alen et al.
(eds.) A Commentary on the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the
Child (Leiden: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers).
Freymond, N. and Cameron, G. (2006), Towards Positive Systems of Child and Family
Welfare: International Comparisons of Child Protection, Family Service, and
Community Caring System (Toronto: University of Toronto Press).
Goldstein, J. S., Albert J., Goldstein, S. and Freud, A. (1998), The Best Interests of the
Child: The Least Detrimental Alternative (N.Y.: Free Press).
Goodman, C. (2003), The Rule of Law in Japan: A Comparative Analysis (New York:
Kluwer Law International).
Goodman, R. (2000), Children of the Japanese State: The Changing Role of Child
Protection Institutions in Contemporary Japan (New York: Oxford University
Press).
Hayes, C.D., Palmer, J. L. and Zaslow, M. (1990), Who Cares for America‟s
Children? (Washington, DC: National Academy Press)
<http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=1339>.
Helburn, S. and Howes, C. (1996), ―Child Care Cost and Quality,‖ The Future of
Children: Financing Child Care 6, 62-82
<http://www.princeton.edu/futureofchildren/publications/docs/06_02_03.pdf>.
Held, V. (2006), The Ethics of Care (N.Y.: Oxford U.P.).
Higuchi, Y. et al. (eds.) (2006), Shoshika to Nihon no Keizai Shakai: 2tsu no Shinwa
to 1tsu no Shinjitsu [Declining Birthrate and Japan‘s Economic Society]
(Tokyo: Nihon Hyoronsha).
Hobson, B. (ed.) (2002), Gender and Citizenship in Transition (N.Y.: Routledge).
Japan Federation of Bar Associations (2002), Nihon bengoshi rengo kai [Japan
Federation of Bar Associations], Keiyaku-gata fukushi shakai to kenri yogo no
arikata wo kangaeru [Contract-based Welfare Society and the Way Advocacy
Should Be] (Tokyo: Akebi Shobo).
Kandel, R. and Griffiths, A. (2003), ―Reconfiguring Personhood: From
Ungovernability to Parent Adolescent Autonomy Conflict Actions,‖ Syracuse
Law Review 53, 995–1065.
262
Kasza, G. (2006), One World of Welfare: Japan in Comparative Perspective (Ithaca:
Cornell University Press).
Kato, T., Kikuchi, K., Kurata, S., and Maeda, M. (2001), Shakai hosho ho [Social
Security Law] (Tokyo: Yuhikaku).
Kato, S. (2004), Kodomo heno Sekinin: Nihon Shakai to Hoiku no Mirai
[Responsibilities for Children: Japanese Society and Future of Nursery Daycare]
(Tokyo: Hitonaru Shobo).
Kikuchi, Y. (2001a), ―Atarashii seizonken-ron‖ [Theory of New Right to Exist]
Hogaku Kyoshitsu 250, 64-69.
Kikuchi, Y. (2001b), ―Shakai hosho ho no shiho-ka?‖ [Does Social Security Law Shift
to Private Law?] Hogaku Kyoshitsu 252: 119-124.
Kittay, E. F. (1999), Love‟s Labor: Essays on Women, Equality, and Dependency
(N.Y.: Routledge).
Kittay, E. F. et al. (eds.) (2003), The Subject of Care (Lanham, MD: Rowman &
Littlefield Publishers).
Kimura, M. (2008), ―Koritsu hoikusho no haishi, mineika, minkanitaku‖ [Abolishment,
Privatization, and Consignment of Nursery Centers] in Hoiku Hakusho 2008:
52-56.
Knijn, T. and Kremer, M. (1997), ―Gender and the Caring Dimension of Welfare
States: Toward Inclusive Citizenship,‖ Social Politics 4, 328-361.
Komamura, K. (2004), ―Giji shijo ron‖ [Theory on Quasi-Markets] in H. Shibuya and
K. Hiraoka (eds.), Fukushi no shijo-ka wo miru me [Perspective on the Trading
of Welfare in the Market] (Tokyo: Mineruva shobo).
Kontos, S., Howes, C., Shinn, M., and Galinsky, E (1994), Quality in family childcare
and relative care (New York: Teachers College Press).
Kujiraoka, T. (2002), “Sodaterareru mono” kara “sodateru mono” he [From
―Persons to be Raised‖ to ―Persons Who Raise‖] (Tokyo: NHK books).
Kumasawa, M. (2007), Kakusa shakai Nippon de hataraku to iukoto: Koyo to rodo no
yukue wo mitsumete [Working in Unequal Society Japan: Future of Employment
and Labor] (Tokyo: Iwanami shoten).
263
Kurata, K. (2009), ―Hoikusho nyusho no houteki seishitsu wo meguru
kosatsu‖[Consideration on the Legal Nature of Enrollment in the Nursery
Center] Shakai Hosho Kenkyu 45: 36-45
<http://www.ipss.go.jp/syoushika/bunken/data/pdf/19052005.pdf>.
Kymlicka, W. (1997), Contemporary Political Philosophy: An Introduction (N.Y.:
Oxford U.P.).
Lamb, M.E. (1998), ―Nonparental Child Care: Context, Quality, Correlates and
Consequences,‖ in W. Damon, I. E. Sigel and K. A. Renninger (eds.), Handbook
of Child Psychology (vol. 4), Child Psychology in Practice (5th ed.): 73-134
(N.Y.: Wiley).
Lewis, J. (ed.) (2006), Children, Changing Families and Welfare States (Edward Elgar,
Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar).
McAdams, D. and De St. Aubin, E. (eds.) (1998), Generativity and Adult Development
(Washington: American Psychological Association).
Meisels, S.J. (2007), ―Accountability in Early Childhood: No Easy Answers,‖ in R.C.
Pianta, M.J. Cox, and K. Snow (eds.), School Readiness, Early Learning, and
the Transition to Kindergarten: 31–48 (Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes).
Melhuish, E. and Petrogiannis, K. (eds.) (2006), Early Childhood Care and Education
(N.Y.: Routledge).
Mercier, J. M. et al. (eds.) (2000), Redefining Family Policy: Implications for the 21st
Century (Ames, IA: Iowa State U.P.).
Minow, M. (1991), Making All the Difference: Inclusion, Exclusion, and American
Law (Ithaca, NY: Cornell U.P.).
Minow, M. and Shanley, M. L. (1997), ―Revisioning the Family: Relational Rights
and Responsibilities,‖ in M. L. Shanley and U. Narayan (eds.) Reconstructing
Political Theory: Feminist Perspectives: 84-108 (Cambridge: Polity Press).
Mocan, H.N. (1995), ―Quality-Adjusted Cost Functions for Child-Care Centers,‖
American Economic Review 85: 409-413
<http://www.bus.lsu.edu/mocan/Quality_Adjusted_CostFunctions.pdf>.
Moss, P. and Pence, A. (1994), Valuing Quality in Early Childhood Services: New
approaches to Defining Quality (London: Paul Chapman Publishing).
264
Murayama, Y. (2008), ―Hoikusho no zaisei‖ [Finance of Nursery Center] in Hoiku
Hakusho 2008: 41-42.
Nakano, A. (2006), Rodo danpingu: Koyo no tayoka no hateni [Labor Dumping:
Consequences of Employment Diversification] (Tokyo: Iwanami shoten).
Ninomiya, A. and Haruyama, K. (eds.) (2005), Komuin seido no henshitu to komu
rodo [Transformation of Public Servant System and Labor of Public Service]
(Tokyo: Jichitai kenkyusha).
Ninomiya, A. (2008), “Shin taiki jido zero sakusen to hoiku seido kaikaku no gen
dankai” [Operation zero children on the waiting list for admission into nursery
centers and the current status of the nursery system reform], in Hoiku Hakusho
2008: 110-113.
NNTTC (2007) [National Nursery Teachers Training Council (Zennkokku hoikushi
yose kyogikai)], Hoikusho daisansha hyoka no jissai [Practical Guide of the
Third-party Evaluation for Nursery Centers] (Tokyo: Zennkokku hoikushi yose
kyogikai).
Obayashi, Y. (2008), Shin Jichitai mineika to kokyo sabisu no shitsu [Privatization of
Local Governments and Quality of Public Servicese, Revised Edition] (Tokyo:
Jichitai kenkyusha).
Okin, S. M., Justice, Gender and the Family (Basic Books, N.Y., 1989).
Osawa, M. (2000), ―Government Approaches to Gender Equality in the mid-1990s,‖
Social Science Japan Journal 3, 3-19.
Osawa, M. et al. (eds.) (2004), Yunibasaru sabisu no dezain: Fukushi to kyosei no
kokyo kukan [Designs for Universal Service] (Tokyo: Yuhikaku)
Osawa, M. (2005) ―Japanese Government Approaches to Gender Equality Since the
Mid-1990s,‖ Asian Perspective 29, 157-173
<http://www.asianperspective.org/articles/v29n1-g.pdf>.
Ota, I. (2001), “Kodomo no jinken” [Children‘s Human Rights], in Nihon kokusaiho
gakkai [The Japan Society of International Law] (ed.), Nihon to kokusaiho no
hyakunen: vol. 4, jinken [Japan and International Law Over the Last Hundred
Years: vol. 4, Human Rights]: 181-206 (Tokyo: Sanseido).
265
Ota, I. (2009), ―Privatization of Childcare as a Way of Implementing Young
Children‘s Rights: The Recommendations of the Committee on the Rights of the
Child and Their Implications for Japan,‖ in K. Wellens and & T. Komori (eds.),
Public Interest Rules of International Law: Towards Effective Implementation:
427-458 (Surrey, England: Ashgate).
Parker, S. (1994), ―The Best Interests of the Child – Principles and Problems,‖
International Journal of Law and the Family 8, 26–41.
Peng, I. (2001), ―Women in the Middle: Welfare State Expansion and Devolution in
Japan,‖ Social Politics 8, 191-196.
Peng, I. (2002), ―Social Care in Crisis: Gender, Demography and Welfare State
Restructuring in Japan,‖ Social Politics (2002), 411-443.
Pfau-Effinger, B. et al. (eds.) (2005), Care and Social Integration in European
Societies (Bristol: The Polity Press).
Phillipsen, L.C. Burchinal, M.R. Howes, C. and Cryer, D. (1997), ―Prediction of
Process Quality from Structural Features of Child Care,‖ Early Childhood
Research Quarterly 12, 281-303.
Radin, M. J. (2001), Contested Commodities: The Trouble with Trade in Sex, Body
Parts, and Other Things (Cambridge, MA: Harvard U.P.).
Research Group on Japanese Child Welfare Law (ed.) (1999), Jido fukushi hoki
kenkyukai (ed.), Saishin Jidofukushiho no kaisetsu [Explanatory Guide on the
latest Child Welfare Act] (Tokyo: Jiji tsushinsha).
Rosenbluth, F. (ed.) (2007), The Political Economy of Japan‟s Low Fertility (Stanford,
CA: Stanford U.P.).
Rutter, M., K.J. Thorpe, R. Greenwood, K. North and J. Golding (2003), ―Twins as a
Natural Experiment to Study the Causes of Language Delay: Examination of
Obstetric and Perinatal Environment,‖ Journal of Child Psychology and
Psychiatry 44: 326-341.
Sanger, M. (2003), The Welfare Market Place: Privatization and Welfare Reform
(Washington: Brookings Institution Press).
Schoppa, L. J. (2006), Race for the Exits: The Unraveling of Japan‟s System of Social
Protection (Ithaca, NY: Cornell U.P.).
266
Scott, E. and Scott, R. (1995), ―Parents as Fiduciaries,‖ Virginia Law Review 81,
2401–2476.
Shigeta, H. (2007), Hoikushi no mentaru herusu [Mental Health of Nursery Teachers]
(Kyoto: Kamogawa shuppan).
Shiraishi, S. and Suzuki,W (2005), ―Koritsu hoikusho no minkan kaiho‖ [―Opening up
Public Nursery Centers to the Private Sector‖], in N.Yashiro (ed.), Kansei shijo
kaikaku no keizaigaku [Economics of Reforming Public-Made Markets]:
135-148 (Tokyo:Nihon keizai shinbunsha). Also available, as pdf version, at
<www2.e.u-tokyo.ac.jp/~seido/output/Horioka/horioka031.pdf>.
Shiomi, T. et al. (2005), Hoikuen no mineika wo kangaeru [Considering the
Privatization of Nursery Centers], Iwanami Booklet No. 651 (Tokyo: Iwanami
Shoten).
Steiner, H. and Alston, P. (1996), International Human Rights in Context
(Oxford:Oxford University Press).
Takahashi, S. (2007), ―‗Kosodate shien‟ kara „kosodachi-kosodate shien‟ he‖ [From
―Support of Parents Rearing Children‖ to ―Support of Children Growing and of
Parents Rearing Children‖] Shakai Hosho Kenkyu 43: 182-183
<http://www.ipss.go.jp/syoushika/bunken/data/pdf/18624401.pdf>.
Tamura, K. (2004), Hoikusho no mineika [Privatization of Nursery Centers] (Tokyo:
Shinzansha).
Tamura, K. (2007), Hoikusho no haishi [Abolishment of Nursery Centers] (Tokyo:
Shinzansha).
Vij, R. (ed.) (2007), Globalization and Welfare: A Critical Reader (N.Y.: Palgrave
Macmillan).
Williams, J. (2000), Unbending Gender: Why Family and Work Conflict and What to
Do about It (N.Y.: Oxford U.P.)
Winnicott, D. W. (1992), Babies and Their Mothers (N.Y.: Da Capo-Perseus
Publishing).
Woodhouse, B. (1992), ―‘Who Owns the Child?‘: Meyer and Pierce and the Child as
Property,‖ William and Mary Law Review 33, 995–1122.
267
Woodhouse, B. (2004), ―Reframing the Debate about the Socialization of Children:
An Environmentalist Paradigm,‖ The University of Chicago Legal Forum 2004,
85–166.
Yamagishi, T. (1999), Anshin shakai kara shinrai shakai he: Nihongata shisutemu no
yukue [From the Secure Society to the Trusting Society: Fate of the Japanese
system], (Tokyo: Chuo koronsha).
Official Documents and Others
AAP/APHA (American Academy of Pediatrics/American Public Health Association
and the National Resource Center for Health and Safety in Child Care) (2002),
National Health and Safety Performance Standards: Guidelines for
Out-of-Home Child Care
<http://nrckids.org/CFOC/PDFVersion/National%20Health%20and%20Safety
%20Performance%20Standards.pdf>.
ACE and CCRDW (2009, October 22) Association for Children‘s Environments
(Kodomo kankyo gakkai) and Clinical Child-Raising and Daycare Workshop
(Rinsho ikuji/hoiku kenkyukai), ―Kodomo no hattatsu wo hosho suru hoiku no
kankyo no saitei kijun wo mamotte‖ [The MSCWI Standards for Daycare
Environments Be Maintained to Ensure that the Children can Continue to Grow
and Develop], released on October 22, 2009
<http://www.children-env.org/file/091022.pdf>.
Alakeson, V. (2004), A 2020 Vision for Early Years: Extending Choice; Improving
Life Chances, Social Market Foundation, London
<http://www.smf.co.uk/assets/files/publications/A2020VisionforEarlyYears.pdf
>.
American Academy of Pediatrics (2005), ―Policy Statement: Quality Early Education
and Child Care from Birth to Kindergarten (Reaffirmed December 2009),‖
Pediatrics 115, 187-191
<http://aappolicy.aappublications.org/cgi/reprint/pediatrics;115/1/187.pdf>.
ANNDG (2009, October 13), Association of National Nursery Daycare Groups
(Zenkoku hoiku dandai renrakukai), ―Nyu-yoji no seicho, hattatsu wo obiyakasu
saitei kijun haishi/minaoshi wa tekkai wo‖ [The Policy to Abolish or Review the
MSCWI Nursery Standards that Threatens Babies‘ Growth and Development
Should Be Rescinded], released on October 13, 2009
<http://www.hoiku-zenhoren.org/kenkai/data1/091014-135914.html>.
268
Asahi Shinbun [Asahi Newspaper] (2003, August 1), “Hoiku sabisu no „shitsu‟ tenken,
daisansha hyoka no kohyo hajimaru” [The Checkup of ―the Quality‖ of Nursery
Daycare Services―Disclosure of Third-party Evaluations], Morning edition
<http://t21.nikkei.co.jp/>.
Asahi Shinbun (2006, May 23), “Hoikuen mineika „Isogi sugi,‟Yokohama Chi-sai, Shi
ni baisho meirei” [Yokohama District Court Rules Nursery Center Privatization
‗Too Fast‘, Orders City to Pay Damages], Morning edition
<http://t21.nikkei.co.jp/>.
Asahi Shinbun (2006, May 25), “Gyosei, fubo to mukiatte, Yokohama-shi nohoikusho
mineika ni „Iho‟ hanketsu” [Government Needs to Face Parents, Yokohama
City Nursery Privatization Plan Ruled ―Illegal‖], Morning edition <http://t21.nikkei.co.jp/>.
Asahi Shinbun (2006, October 11), “Hoikuen no mineika, torikeshi
motomeru,Kawasaki, hogoshara ga teiso” [Parents Sue Kawasaki City to
Demand Reversal of Nursery Center Privatization], Morning edition
<http://t21.nikkei.co.jp/>.
Asahi Shinbun (2007, April 7), ―10 nengo ni kikon josei shugyoritsu wo 71% ni
hikiage‖ [Aiming to Increase Married Women‘s Employment Rate to 71% in
Ten Years], Morning edtion <http://t21.nikkei.co.jp/>.
Asahi Shinbun (2007, September 3), ―Sekatsu hogo jukyu no boshisetai 4-wari, Oyano
sedai mo jukyu, Sakai-shi chosa‖ [40% of Fatherless Families on Welfare
Raised in Families that Were Also on Welfare―Sakai City Survey], Morning
edition <http://t21.nikkei.co.jp/>.
Asahi Shinbun (2007, December 14), “Dansei hoikushi, teichaku to kabe, shikaku
shutoku kara 30-nen, toroku 25,000-nin” [Male Nursery Teachers, Their
Stability and Bottleneck, 30 Years of Eligibility for Qualification, 25,000 Males
Registered], Morning edition <http://t21.nikkei.co.jp/>.
Asahi Shinbun (2008, June 3), ―Datsu-shoshika, atsui kabe‖ [A Thick Wall
Obstructing Efforts to Break the Declining Birthrate], Morning edition
<http://t21.nikkei.co.jp/>.
Asahi Shinbun (2008, June 11), ―Keizai zaisei shimon kaigi, „keizai seicho senryaku‟
kettei‖ [―Economic Growth Policy‖ Outlined by Council on Economic and
Fiscal Policy], Morning edition <http://t21.nikkei.co.jp/>.
269
Asahi Shinbun (2008, June 19), ―Shusseiritsu kaifuku de shoshika ni hadome?‖ [The
Trend toward Fewer Children Reversed with An Upturn in Birthrate?], Morning
edition <http://t21.nikkei.co.jp/>.
Asahi Shinbun (2009, January 30), “Hogosha-gawa, nishin wa haiso, Yokohama-shi
no hoikusho mineika meguru sosho” [Parents Lost in Appeal Trial, Yokohama
City Nursery Center Privatization Case], Morning edition
<http://t21.nikkei.co.jp/>.
Asahi Shinbun (2009, February 6), “Hoikuen mineika, konran no genba, hikitsugi
fusoku, jiko tahatsu, yoji ga dasso” [Privatization of Nursery Centers, Confused
Work Site: Insufficient Transition, Frequent Occurrence of Accidents, Mass
Escape of Young Children], Morning edition <http://t21.nikkei.co.jp/>.
Asahi Shinbun (2009, February 9), “Jumin-gawa ga jokoku, hoikuen mineika sosho”
[Parents Appeal to Supreme Court in Yokohama Nursery Center Privatization
Case], Morning edition <http://t21.nikkei.co.jp/>.
Asahi Shinbun (2009, June 29), “Tsumekomi, kyuba no hoikuen, purehabu zosetsu,
monooki mo roka mo tsukau” [Cramming, Make-shift Nursery Centers,
Expansion with Pre-fabricated Structures, Storage Areas and Corridors
Converted to Nursery Rooms], Morning edition <http://t21.nikkei.co.jp/>.
Asahi Shinbun (2009, July 3), “Taiki-jido, tooi zero” [Children on the Waiting List,
Far from being Reduced to Zero], Morning edition <http://t21.nikkei.co.jp/>.
Asahi Shinbun (2009, November 5), ―Ninka hoikusho no kijun wo kanwa, taiki jido ga
ooi daitoshi de, Naganuma Korosho hoshin‖ [Standards of Approved Nursery
Centers to Be Relaxed in Large Cities with Many Waiting Children, Minister
Nagatsuma Dictates], Morning edition <http://t21.nikkei.co.jp/>.
Asahi Shinbun (2010, January 29), “Hoikusho teiin, 27-manin zo he, 3-sai miman,
5-nen de, vijon kakugi kettei” [Total Enrolling Capacity at Nursery Centers for
Children under 3 Years Old to Increase by 270,000 in Five Years – the Vision
Approved at the Cabinet Meeting], Evening edition <http://t21.nikkei.co.jp/>.
Asahi Shinbun (2010, November 2), “Yoho-ittai, giron nerau, Kan-shusho hoshin
atooshini, kodomo-en koso‖ [Seek Keen Discussions for Integrating
Kindergarten and Nursery Centers, PM Kan‘s Policy Aims to Push ―Child
Centers‖ Plan], Morning edition <http://t21.nikkei.co.jp/>.
270
Bennett, J. (2008a), ―Early Childhood Services in the OECD Countries: Review of the
literature and current policy in the early childhood field,‖ Innocenti Working
Paper No. 2008-01. Florence,UNICEF Innocenti Research Centre
<http://www.unicef-irc.org/publications/pdf/iwp_2008_01_final.pdf>.
Bennett, J. (2008b), ―Benchmarks for Early Childhood Services in OECD Countries,‖
Innocenti Working Paper 2008-02. Florence, UNICEF Innocenti Research
Centre <http://www.unicef-irc.org/publications/pdf/iwp_2008_02_final.pdf>.
Cabinet Office (2002, October), Naikakufu, Chiho bunken kaikaku suishin kaigi
[Cabinet Office, Council for the Promotion of Decentralization Reform],
Jimu/jigyo no arikata ni kansuru iken [View on Administration and Operation],
October 30, 2002 <http://www8.cao.go.jp/bunken/021030iken/021030iken.pdf>.
This council was established in July 2001, by the order for the organization of
the Cabinet Office (Order No.217 of 2001), for studying the basic issues of the
promotion of decentralization and making recommendations to the Prime
Minister. It ended the activities three years after, in July 2004, according to the
said Order.
Cabinet Office (2005, July), Naikakufu [Cabinet Office], “Heisei 17 nendo Nenji
keizai zaisei hokoku—Kaikaku nakushite seicho nashi V” [Annual Economy &
Fiscal Report for FY 2005—No Reform, No Growth V], July 2005
<http://www5.cao.go.jp/j-j/wp/wp-je05/05-00000pdf.html>.
Cabinet Office (2005, August), White Paper on the National Lifestyle FY2005:
Perceptions and lifestyle of the child-rearing generation (English summary),
August 2005
<http://www5.cao.go.jp/seikatsu/whitepaper/h17/05_eng/index.html>.
Cabinet Office (2007, February 9), Reference No.2-2 [International Comparisons of
Family-related Benefits, Elderly-related Benefits and National Burden Rates], a
material presented by the then-Finance Minister Omi at the first meeting of
Priority Strategy Conference for ―Japan Supporting Children and Families‖
(―Kodomo to kazoku wo oensuru Nihon‖juten senryaku kento kaigi) on February
9, 2007. This conference was established on the same day as a subsidiary organ
of the Cabinet Office‘s Commission on the Countermeasures to the Falling
Birthrate (Shoshika shakai taisaku kaigi), the commission that was established,
in September 2003, by the ―Basic Act on the Countermeasures to the Falling
Birthrate‖ (Act No.133 of 2003)
<http://www8.cao.go.jp/shoushi/kaigi/ouen/saisei/k_1/pdf/sn2-2.pdf>.
Cabinet Office (2007, March 13), the proceedings, the first meeting of the 3rd
Subcommittee of Priority Strategy Conference for ―Japan Supporting Children
and Families‖ (―Kodomo to kazoku wo oensuru Nihon‖juten senryaku kento
271
kaigi: Chiiki, kazoku no saisei bunkakai), held on March 13, 2007
<http://www8.cao.go.jp/shoushi/kaigi/ouen/saisei/k_1/gijiyoushi.html>. With
regard to the Priority Strategy Conference, see Cabinet Office (2007, February
9).
Cabinet Office (2007, June), Naikakufu, Kozo kaikaku tokubetu kuiki suishin honbu
[Cabinet Office, Headquarters for Promotion of Special Zones for Structural
Reform], ―Zenkokukibo no kisei kaikaku yobo‖ [Requests for Regulatory
Reform on a Nationwide Scale]
<http://www.kantei.go.jp/jp/singi/kouzou2/proposal/2007/07/06_1_dat02.html>.
Cabinet Office (2008, June 19), Shakai hosho kokumin kaigi (Chukan hokoku)
[National Commission for Social Security (Intermediate report)]. This
commission was established by the Cabinet Meeting Approval on January 25,
2008, as a Cabinet‘s commission chaired by the Prime Minister, for discussing
Japan‘s social security policies in general
<http://www.kantei.go.jp/jp/singi/syakaihosyoukokuminkaigi/chukan/siryou_1.
pdf>.
Cabinet Office (2009, October 7), Naikakufu, Chiho bunken kaikaku suishin iinkai
[Cabinet Office, Committee for Promoting Decentralization], ―Dai 3-ji kankoku:
Jichi rippoken no kakudai ni yoru „Chiho seifu‟ no jitsugen he‖ [The Third
Recommendation: Realization of ‗Local Governments through Expanded
Self-governing Legislative Powers Requests for Regulatory Reform on a
Nationwide Scale], released on October 7, 2009
<http://www.cao.go.jp/bunken-kaikaku/iinkai/torimatome/091007torimatome01
.pdf>. This committee was established in April 2007, by the ―Basic Act on the
Promotion of Decentralization‖ (Act No.111 of 2006), for studying the basic
issues of the promotion of decentralization and making recommendations to the
Prime Minister.
Cabinet Office (n.d.), Naikakufu, Kisei kaikaku/minkan kaiho suishin kaigi [Council
for Regulatory Reform and Market Opening], ―Shijoka-tesuto (Kan-min kyoso
nyusatsu)‖ [Market Testing (the public and private sectors competitive bidding)]
<http://www8.cao.go.jp/kisei-kaikaku/old/market/index.html>. This council was
established in April 2004, by the Cabinet order (Order No.121 of 2004), for
studying the basic issues of the regulatory reform and market opening and
making recommendations to the Prime Minister.
Cabinet Public Relations Office (2009), Naikakufu daijin kanbo seifu koho-shitsu
[Cabinet Public Relations Office, Cabinet Secretariat],“Kateiteki hoiku
(hoiku-mama) jigyo” [Homely Daycare (Nursery Matron) Business], 2009
<http://www.gov-online.go.jp/featured/kosodate/support/kateitekihoiku.html>.
272
Cabinet Meeting Approval (2003, June 23), ―Keizai zaisei unei to kozo kaikaku ni
kansuru kihon hoshin 2003‖ [the Economic and Fiscal Reform FY2003 plan
(―Honebuto Basic Reform Policy FY2003‖)], drawn up by Keizai zaisei shimon
kaigi [Council on Fiscal and Economic Policy], approved in a Cabinet meeting
on June 23, 2003 <http://www.kantei.go.jp/jp/singi/keizai/kakugi/030627f.pdf>.
Cabinet Meeting Approval (2006, July 7), ―Keizai zaisei unei to kozo kaikaku ni
kansuru kihon hoshin 2006‖ [the Economic and Fiscal Reform FY2006 plan
(―The Honebuto Basic Reform Policy FY2006)], drawn up by Keizai zaisei
shimon kaigi [Council on Fiscal and Economic Policy], approved in a Cabinet
meeting on July 7, 2006
<http://www.kantei.go.jp/jp/singi/keizai/kakugi/060707honebuto.pdf>.
Cabinet Meeting Approval (2010, January 29), ―Kodomo/kosodate vijon‖ [The Vision
for Children/Child-rearing], approved in a Cabinet meeting on January 29, 2010
<http://www8.cao.go.jp/shoushi/vision/index.html >.
Coley, R.J. and Barton, P.E. (2007), The Family: America‟s Smallest School ETS
(Education Testing Service) <www.ets.org/familyreport>.
CRC (2005), Committee on the Rights of the Child, Provisional Rules of Procedure
(Adopted by the Committee at its first session, 1991, and revised by the
Committee at its 33rd session, 2005), UN Doc. CRC/C/4/Rev.1.
Cunha, F., J. Heckman, L. Lochner and D.V. Masterov (2005), Interpreting the
Evidence of Life-Cycle Skill Formation, IZA Discussion Paper Series, No. 1575,
Institute for the Study of Labor, Bonn, Germany, July
<http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=766744##>.
DGD 2002, Committee on the Rights of the Child, Day of General Discussion: The
Private Sector as Service Provider and Its Role in Implementing Child Rights
(Held at the Palais Wilson, Geneva, on September 20, 2002), 31st session, UN
Doc. CRC/C/121, 145–158, paras. 630–653.
DGD 2004, Committee on the Rights of the Child, Day of General Discussion:
Implementing Child Rights in Early Childhood (Held at the Palais Wilson,
Geneva, on September 17, 2004), 37th session, UN Doc. CRC/C/143,
108–116,paras. 532–563.
DGPP of the Cabinet Office (2003, May), Naikakufu seisaku tokatsukan (Keizai
zaisei—keiki handan, seisaku bunseki tanto) [Director General on Policy
Planning of the Cabinet office (in charge of economic outlook and policy
analysis of economic and fiscal policies)],―Iryo, kaigo, hoiku to ni okeru
kiseikaikaku no keizaikoka —Kabushikigaisha to no sannyu ni kansuru kento no
273
tameno shisan,‖[Economic Effects of Regulatory Reforms on Services including
Medical Services, Nursing Care and Nursery Daycare —A Trial Calculation for
Studying Entry into These Fields by Such Entities as Stock Companies],
(Analytical Report on Economic Effects of Policies No. 16, May 2003),
<http://www5.cao.go.jp/keizai3/2003/0527seisakukoka16.pdf>.
DGPP of the Cabinet Office (2006, March), Naikakufu seisaku tokatsukan (Kyosei
shakai seisaku tanto) [Director General on Policy Planning of the Cabinet office
(in charge of policies on cohesive society)], ―Shoshika shakai ni kansuru
kokusai ishiki chosa no gaiyo‖ [Outline of International Attitudinal Research on
Societies with Declining Birthrate], March 2006
<http://www5.cao.go.jp/keizai3/2003/0527seisakukoka16.pdf>.
EC Childcare Network (European Commission Network on Childcare and Other
Measures to Reconcile the Employment and Family Responsibilities of Men and
Women) (1996), Quality Targets in Services for Young Children, Brussels <
http://www.childcarecanada.org/pubs/other/quality/Qualitypaperthree.pdf>.
EC Council (1992, March 31), Council recommendation of 31 March 1992 on child
care, 92/241/EEC, Official Journal L 123:16-18.
European Commission (2008, October), Implementation of the Barcelona Objectives
concerning Childcare Facilities for Pre-school-age Children (Report from the
Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic
and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions, Brussels, October 3,
2008, COM(2008)638 final)
<http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2008:0638:FIN:
EN:PDF >.
European Commission Staff Working Document (2008, October), Commission Staff
Working Document accompanying document to the Report from the Commission
to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social
Committee and the Committee of the Regions, Brussels, October 3, 2008,
COM(2008)638 final, Brussels, October 2, 2008, SEC(2008)2524. (Available at
http://ec.europa.eu/social/main.jsp?langId=en&catId=89&newsId=404&further
News=yes.)
European Council Presidency Conclusions (2002), Barcelona European Council 15
and 16 March 2002, Doc. SN 100/1/02 REV 1,
<http://ue.eu.int/ueDocs/cms_Data/docs/pressData/en/ec/71025.pdf>.
274
Fukushima, M. (2009, November 4), Announcement made at a regular news
conference by the then State Minister Fukushima in charge of Consumer Affairs
and Declining Birthrate
<http://www.cao.go.jp/kaiken/0909fukushima/2009/1104kaiken.html>.
GC7, Committee on the Rights of the Child, General Comment No.7 (2005),
Implementing Child Rights in Early Childhood, 40th session, UN Doc.
CRC/C/GC/7/Rev.1.
Hatoyama, Y. (2009, September 24), Address by the then Prime Minister of Japan at
the Sixty-forth Session of the General Assembly of the United Nations,
September 24, 2009, New York
<http://www.kantei.go.jp/foreign/hatoyama/statement/200909/ehat_0924c_e.ht
ml>.
Helburn, S. (1995), Cost, Quality and Child Outcomes in Child Care Centers.
Technical report. Denver, CO: Department of Economics, Center for Research
and Social Policy, University of Colorado at Denver.
Hoiku Hakusho (2008), [White Paper on Childcare 2008], Zenkoku Hoiku Dantai
Renrakukai & Hoiku Kenkyusho (eds.) (Tokyo: Hitonaru Shobo).
Hoiku Hakusho (2009), [White Paper on Childcare 2009], Zenkoku Hoiku Dantai
Renrakukai & Hoiku Kenkyusho (eds.) (Tokyo: Hitonaru Shobo).
Hoiku Hakusho (2010), [White Paper on Childcare 2010], Zenkoku Hoiku Dantai
Renrakukai & Hoiku Kenkyusho (eds.) (Tokyo: Hitonaru Shobo).
Houn-Netto (2009), ―Hoikuen mineika wo meguru jichitai no doko to fubotachi no
undo‖ [The Trends of Municipalities on Privatizing Public Nursery Schools and
Parents‘ Opposition Campaigns] (updated February 15, 2009)
<http://www.houn-net.org/document/questionnaire/mzquest01-0902.pdf>.
Howes, C., and Hamilton, C.E. (1993a), ―Childcare for young children,‖ in B. Spodek
(ed.), Handbook of research on the education of young children (New York:
Macmillan).
Howes, C., and Hamilton, C. E. (1993b), ―The changing experience of childcare:
Changes in teachers and in teacher-child relationships and children‘s social
competence with peers,‖ Early Childhood Research Quarterly 8, 15-32.
Hunt, P. (September 20, 2002), ―The International Human Rights Treaty Obligations
of States Parties in the Context of Service Provision‖ [Text of the presentation
given by Professor Hunt in the opening session of the General Day of
275
Discussion, September 20, 2002, Office of the High Commissioner for Human
Rights, Palais Wilson, Geneva]
<http://www.crin.org/docs/resources/treaties/crc.31/Paul_Hunt-Legal-Obligatio
ns.doc>.
Ikemoto, M. (2009, October 20), ―Taiki-jido kaisho wo isogeba fukusayo mo‖
[Superficial Elimination of ―Waiting Children‖ Develops Side Effects], Shukan
Ekonomisuto [Economist Weekly Magazine], Issue of October 20, 2009 (Tokyo:
Mainichi shinbunsha): 29.
JNCSW et al. (2009, February 3), Japan National Council of Social Welfare (Zenkoku
shakai fukushi kyogikai), National Council of Nursery Centers (Zenkoku hoiku
kyogikai) and National Council of Nursery Teachers (Zenkoku hoikushi kai),
―Heisei 22 nendo hoiku kankei shisaku/yosan ni taisuru yobosho‖ [The Petition
to the National Government on Nursery Daycare-related policies and budget for
FY2010], released on February 3, 2009
<http://www.zenhokyo.gr.jp/news/08_0027a.htm>.
JNCSW et al. (2009, October 9), Japan National Council of Social Welfare (Zenkoku
shakai fukushi kyogikai), National Council of Nursery Centers (Zenkoku hoiku
kyogikai), and National Council of Nursery Teachers (Zenkoku hoikushi kai),
―Kodomo no sodatsu kankyo wo kowasanaide, ninka hoikusho no saitei kijun no
kenji wo‖[Urgent Appeal: Not Destroy Environments that Promote Child
Growth, and Maintain the MSCWI standards for Approved Nursery Centers],
released on October 9, 2009 <http://www.zenhokyo.gr.jp/pdf/091020.pdf>.
JSRECCE (2009, November 2), Japan Society of Research on Early Childhood Care
and Education (Nihon hoiku gakkai), ―Ninka hoikusho ni okeru jido fukushi
shisetu saitei kijun no shin no kojo wo mezashite, ryoshitsu na hoiku kankyo
hosho heno seisaku kakuju he‖ [Advocating the Implementation of a Policy to
Ensure that the Quality Environment for Nursery Daycare Should Be Expanded,
with a View to Attaining Genuine Improvement of the MSCWI Standards at
Approved Centers], released on November 2, 2009
<http://wwwsoc.nii.ac.jp/jsrec/appeal/urgent_declaration.pdf>.
Kansai ABC Webnews (2008, December 16), ―Hyogo, Shiritu hoikusho no mineika
sashitome sosho, hogosha haiso‖ [Parents Lost in Trial, Kobe City Nursery
Center Privatization Case], December 16, 2008 <http://webnews.asahi.co.jp/ >.
Kawasaki, T. (2006, May 16), ―Ikuji hoken sosetsu? Seifu no shoshika- seisaku,
akirakani‖ [Child-Rearing Insurance to Be Established?―The Government‘s
Countermeasures to the Declining Birthrate Unveiled], All About News, May 16,
2006
<http://allabout.co.jp/children/ikujinow/closeup/CU20060516A/index.htm>.
276
Kobe District Court (2008), Kobe Chiho Saibansho [Kobe District Court], Case No.
Heisei-18-Gyo-U-81, December 16, 2008 (yet to be compiled in the law
reports).
Kobe Shinbun [Kobe Newspaper] (2010, March 13), ―Kobe shiritu edayoshi hoikusho,
nishinn hanketsu mo minneika tekihou, Kosai‖ [Kobe-City Edayoshi Nursery
Center Privatization Case, Second Trial Legitimizes Privatization, High Court] <http://www.kobe-np.co.jp/news/shakai/0002779947.shtml>.
Komamura, K. (2010, June 30), “Keizai kyoshitsu: Kosodate-shien ni antei zaigen
wo” [Economic Class: Stable Funds Required to Provide Support for
Child-Rearing], Nihon Keizai Shinbun [Nihon Keizai Newspaper], Morning
edition <http://t21.nikkei.co.jp/>
Korjenevitch, M. and Dunifon, R. (2010), ―Child Care Center Quality and Child
Development,‖ Working Paper, The Parenting in Context project. College of
Human Ecology, Cornell University
<http://www.parenting.cit.cornell.edu/documents/Child%20Care%20Center%20
Quality%20%20Development%20Brief_FINAL.pdf>.
Kosaka, K. (2006, May 31), “Susumu hoikuen mineika, oya mo ko mo fuan, shitsu no
kakuho kadai” [Nursery Center Privatization Continuing, Parents and Children
Worry about Maintaining Quality], Tokyo Yomiuri Shinbun [Tokyo Yomiuri
Newspaper], Morning edition <http://t21.nikkei.co.jp/>.
Maeda, M. (2005, August 8), ―Working Women Deserve Support in Child Rearing,‖
Nikkei Weekly
<http://www.nni.nikkei.co.jp/AC/TNW/Search/Nni20050808OP5CC555.htm>.
Mainichi Shinbun [Mainichi Newspaper] (2007, December 1), “Kyogi shinsei,
moto-hoikushi ga shogen, enji 30-nin ni hoikushi 3-nin” [False Application
Revealed in Ex-Nursery Teacher‘s Testimony, Only Three Nursery Teachers for
30 Children], Morning edition <http://t21.nikkei.co.jp/>.
Mainichi Shinbun (2008, July 25), ―Shakai hosho hi: Shizen zo ha 8700 oku en,
konnendohi ‖[FY 2009 Social Security Costs: Natural Increase 870 Billion Yen
(USD 8.7 Billion), Compared with FY2008], Morning edition
<http://t21.nikkei.co.jp/>.
Mainichi Shinbun (2008, December 3), “MKG hoikusho heisa, HP ninsho shorui wok
yogi no utagai” [MKG Centers Closed, False Descriptions in HP Application],
Morning edition <http://t21.nikkei.co.jp/>.
277
Mainichi Shinbun (2008, December 9), “MKG hoikusho heisa, Nakano no hoikusho,
To ga ninsho torikeshi” [Closure of MKG Nursery Centers, Tokyo to Revoke
MKG‘s Permit for the Nakano Center], Morning edition
<http://t21.nikkei.co.jp/>.
Mainichi Shinbun (2009, January 30), “Yokohama-shi hoikuen mineika sosho: jumin
ga gyakuten haiso, Tokyo Ko-sai” [Yokohama-City Nursery Center
Privatization Case: Parents Overruled the Original Decision by Tokyo High
Court], Morning edition <http://t21.nikkei.co.jp/>.
Mainichi Shinbun (2009, November 14), “Hoikusho wa hitsuyo fukaketsu” [Nursery
Centers Are Essential], Morning edition <http://t21.nikkei.co.jp/>.
Meisels, S.J, Atkins-Burnett, S., and Nicholson, J. (1996), ―Assessment of Social
Competence, Adaptive Behaviour and Approaches to Learning with Young
Children,‖ NCES, Washington < http://nces.ed.gov/pubs96/9618.pdf >.
MHLW-SSRACCC (1996, November), Social Security Related Advisory Council
Chairperson‘s Conference (Shakai hosho kankei shingikai kaicho kaigi), Shakai
hosho kozo kaikatu no hoko (chukan matome) [Direction of Social Security
Structural Reform (Midterm Summary)], November 19, 1996
<http://www1.mhlw.go.jp/shingi/s1119-3.html>.
MHLW-CSWC-SWSSM (1998, June), Central Social Welfare Council-Social Welfare
Structure Section Meeting (Chuo shakai fukushi shingikai-Shakai fukushi kozo
kaikaku bunkakai), Shakai fukushi kiso kozo kaikaku ni tsuite (chukan matome)
[Report on Social Welfare Basic Structural Reform (Midterm Summary)], June
17, 1998 <http://www1.mhlw.go.jp/houdou/1006/h0617-1.html>.
MHLW (1999), Kosei Hakusho 2008 [White Paper on Health and Welfare FY1999]
(Tokyo: Okurasho insatsukyoku).
MHLW (2001, December 13), Reference Material 4, ―Jido fukushi ho no ichibu wo
kaisei suru horitsu no gaiyo‖ [Outlines of the Act No.135 Revising Child
Welfare Act] <http://www.mhlw.go.jp/shingi/0112/s1213-2f.html>. (Prepared
by the MHLW for the 4th Meeting of the Social Security Council (Shakai hosho
shingikai), an advisory body to the Minister of Health, Labour and Welfare, held
on December 13, 2001 <http://www.mhlw.go.jp/shingi/0112/s1213-2.html >.)
MHLW (2002, September 20), Hoikusho no jokyoto ni tsuite [Situation of Nursery
Centers of Fiscal 2002]
<http://www.mhlw.go.jp/houdou/2002/09/h0920-3.html>.
278
MHLW (2006, May), Shakai hosho no kyufu to futan no mitoshi [A Forecast in May
2006 on Expenditures for Social Security Benefits and Contributions]
<http://www.mhlw.go.jp/houdou/2006/05/h0526-3a.html>.
MHLW (2006, October 23), ―Hoikusho teiin no danryokuka no jokyo ‖[Approval
Overview of Admission to Over the Enrollment Limit of Nursery Centers as of
October 1, 2005] in Heisei 17 nen Chiiki jido fukushi jigyoto chousa kekka no
gaikyo [Survey of Regional Child Welfare Services FY 2005: Results Outlook],
Ocotober 23, 2006
<http://www.mhlw.go.jp/toukei/saikin/hw/jidou/05/kekka1.html>.
MHLW (2007, April 23), Reference Material 3-2, ―Hoikusho no yakuwari/kino no
gainenzu‖ [Conceptual Diagram for Roles and Functions of Childcare Centers]
<http://www.mhlw.go.jp/shingi/2007/04/dl/s0423-12i.pdf>. (Prepared by the
MHLW for the 7th Review Conference concerning the Revision of The
Guidelines for Nursery Daycare (GND), held on April 23, 2007
<http://www.mhlw.go.jp/shingi/2007/04/s0423-12.html>.)
MHLW (2007, July), Heisei 18 nen chingin kozo kihon tokei chosa [2006 Basic
Survey of Wage Structure] (Available at
http://www.e-stat.go.jp/SG1/estat/NewList.do?tid=000001011429.) Explanatory
memorandum of this statistics is available at
http://www.mhlw.go.jp/english/database/db-slms/dl/slms-04.pdf.
MHLW (2008), Shoshikashakai Hakusho 2008 [White Paper on Society with Fewer
Children FY2008]
<http://www8.cao.go.jp/shoushi/whitepaper/w-2008/20webhonpen/index.html>.
MHLW (2008, March), Announcement (Kokuji) No. 141 of March 28, 2008,
Hoikusho hoiku shishin [Guidelines for Nursery Daycare (GND)]
<http://www.mhlw.go.jp/bunya/kodomo/hoiku04/pdf/hoiku04a.pdf>.
MHLW (2008, April), Equal Employment, Children and Families Bureau
(Koyokinto/jido katei kyoku hoikuka), Kaitei hoikusho hoiku shishin Q&A 50
[Q&A 50on the new GND] < http://www.mhlw.go.jp/bunya/kodomo/pdf/qa.pdf
>.
MHLW (2008, May), Hoikusho hoiku shishin kaisetsusho [Practical Guide of the
GND] (Tokyo: Froebel-kan). (Also available at
http://www.mhlw.go.jp/bunya/kodomo/hoiku04/pdf/hoiku04b.pdf.)
MHLW-SSC-STF (2008, May), Social Security Council‘s Special Task Force to Deal
with a Declining Birthrate (Shakai hosho shingikai shoushika taisaku tokubetu
bukai), Jisedai ikusei shien no tameno aratana seido sekkei ni muketa kihonteki
279
kangaekata [Basic Philosophies to Design New Systems for Assisting Future
Generations], issued on May 20, 2008
<http://www-bm.mhlw.go.jp/shingi/2008/05/dl/s0520-6a.pdf>.
MHLW (2008, September), Chiiki-betsu saitei chingin no zenkoku ichiran [List of
Minimum Wage by Region]
<http://www2.mhlw.go.jp/topics/seido/kijunkyoku/minimum/minimum-02.htm
>.
MHLW (2008, October 22), Reference Material 2, ―Hoikusho no yakuwari/kino no
gainenzu‖ [On Quality of Daycare Services]
<http://www.mhlw.go.jp/shingi/2008/10/dl/s1022-13c.pdf >. (Prepared by the
MHLW for the 15th meeting of the Social Security Council‘s Special Task
Force to Deal with a Declining Birthrate (Shakai hosho shingikai shoushika
taisaku tokubetu bukai), held on October 22, 2008.)
MHLW-SSC-STF (2009, February), Social Security Council‘s Special Task Force to
Deal with a Declining Birthrate (Shakai hosho shingikai shoushika taisaku
tokubetu bukai), Dai 1-ji hokoku: Jisedai ikusei shien no tameno aratana seido
taikei no sekkei ni mukete [The First Report: Toward Designing a New System
to Support the Development of the Next Generation], issued on February 24,
2009 <http://www.mhlw.go.jp/shingi/2009/02/dl/s0224-9c.pdf>.
MHLW (2009, July), Heisei 20 nen chingin kozo kihon tokei chosa [2008 Basic
Survey of Wage Structure] (Available at
http://www.e-stat.go.jp/SG1/estat/NewList.do?tid=000001011429.) Explanatory
memorandum of this statistics is available at
http://www.mhlw.go.jp/english/database/db-slms/dl/slms-04.pdf.
MHLW (2009, September 7), Hoikusho no jokyoto ni tsuite [Situation of Nursery
Centers of Fiscal 2009]
<http://www.mhlw.go.jp/houdou/2009/09/h0907-2.html>.
MHLW (2009, November 4), Dai 3-ji kankoku (chiho yobo bun) ni taisuru Korosho
taio hoshin [MHLW‘s Responses to the Third Recommendation (Portions to be
replied to the requests of local governments)], announced on November 4, 2009
<http://www.mhlw.go.jp/stf/houdou/2r98520000002ahn.html>.
MHLW (2010, March 26), Ninka-gai hoiku shisetsu no genkyo [Situation of
Unapproved Nursery Facilities of Fiscal 2010]
< http://www.mhlw.go.jp/bunya/kodomo/hoiku06/dl/090331.pdf>.
280
MHLW (2010, September 6), Hoikusho kanren joho torimatome [Situations related to
Nursery Centers of Fiscal 2010]
<http://www.mhlw.go.jp/stf/houdou/2r9852000000nvsj.html>.
Ministry of Finance (2010, August), Zaimusho [Ministry of Finance], Kokusai oyobi
kariirekin narabini seifu hosho saimu genzai-daka [The Total of National Bonds,
Borrowings and Outstanding Balance of the Government Guarantees, as of the
end of June 2010], August 10, 2010 < http://www.mof.go.jp/gbb/2206.htm>.
Ministry of Finance (2010, October), Zaimusho, Heisei 22 nendo ippann kaikei yosan
no gaiyo [The Summary of General-account Budget for FY2010],
<http://www.mof.go.jp/jouhou/syuzei/siryou/002.htm>.
Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications (2005, March), Somusho [Ministry
of Internal Affairs and Communications], Chiho kokyo dantai ni okeru gyosei
kaikaku no suishin no tameno aratana shishin no sakutei ni tuite [Notice of the
New Guideline for Administrative Reforms of Local Governments], March 29,
2005 <http://www.soumu.go.jp/news/pdf/050329_01.pdf>.
Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications (2009, April), Somusho, ―Chiho
kokyo dantai no zaisei no kenzenka ‖ [Fiscal Restoration of Local Governments]
<http://www.soumu.go.jp/iken/zaisei/kenzenka/index.html>.
Mooney, A., Cameron, C., Candappa, M., McQuail, S., Moss, P., and Petrie, P. (2003), Early years and childcare international evidence project - Quality, Thomas Coram Research Unit, Institute of Education, University of London/Department
for Education and Skills, UK
<http://www.education.gov.uk/research/data/uploadfiles/7136_Child_paper4.pd
f>
Mooney, A. and Munton, A.G. (1998), ―Quality in early childhood services: parent,
provider and policy perspectives,‖ Children & Society 12, 101 – 112.
NAEYC (2004) (National Association for the Education of Young Children),
―Teacher-child Ratios‖
<http://preschool.unlv.edu/documents/NAEYC%20RATIOS.pdf>.
NAEYC (2006), New NAEYC Program Standards and Accreditation Criteria
<https://oldweb.naeyc.org/accreditation/Standardscriteria/default.asp>.
281
Nagasaki Shinbun [Nagasaki Newspaper] (2010, November 3), “Hoiku-ryo, jikan ni
ouji futan, „kodomo-en‟ de seifu soani‖ [Child-care Fees to Be Born according
to Hours Cared, in The Government‘s Rough Plan for ―Child Centers‖], Web
edition
< http://www.nagasaki-np.co.jp/f24/CN20101102/ma2010110201001006.shtml
>.
National Scientific Council on the Developing Child (2007), The Science of Early
Childhood Development (Cambridge MA: Center on the Developing Child at
Harvard University, http://www.developingchild.net)
<http://www.cdph.ca.gov/healthinfo/healthyliving/childfamily/Documents/MO-
ECCS-ScienceEarlyChildhoodDev.pdf>.
National Nursery Teachers Training Council (n.d.), Zenkoku hoikushi yosei kyogikai
[National Nursery Teachers Training Council], Hoikushi shiken juken no tebiki
[Manual of Nursery Teacher Examination]. (Available at
http://www.hoyokyo.or.jp/exam/.)
National Research Council (2000), Eager to Learn: Educating our preschoolers, B. T.
Bowman, M. S. Donovan and M. S. Burns (eds.); Committee on Early
Childhood Pedagogy (Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press). (Available
at http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?isbn=0309068363.)
NHK (2008, April 7), Nippon Hoso Kyokai [Japan Broadcasting Corporation], ―Kan
kara min he, yureru „Itaku no genba‟‟‖ [From Public Sector to Private Sector:
Swaying ―Actual Situations of Consignment‖], broadcasted nationwide on April
7, 2008, as a half-hour program of news report show ―Kurozu appu gendai‖
[Closing Up Present Day Phenomenon].
NICHD (National Institute of Child Health and Human Development) Early Childcare
Research Network (2005), Childcare and Child Development (New York:
Guilford Press).
NICHD Early Child Care Research Network (2004), ―Family and Childcare Predictors
of Mother-child Interaction and Children's Developmental Outcomes,‖
Symposium presented at 18th Biennial Conference on Human Development,
Washington DC.
Nihon Keizai Shinbun [Nihon Keizai Newspaper] (2006, May 22), “Hoikuen mineika,
Yokohama-shi ni baisho meirei, Chi-sai „Sairyo-ken wo ranyo‟” [Court Orders
Yokohama City to Pay Damages in Nursery Center Privatization Case – ―Abuse
of Discretionary Power‖], Web edition
<http://www.nikkei.co.jp/news/main/20060522AT1G2203P22052006.html>.
282
Nihon Keizai Shinbun (2006, May 23), “Hoikuen no mineika iho, Chi-sai hanketsu,
Yokohama-shi ni baisho meirei, „Isogu beki riyu nashi‟” [Nursery Center
Privatization Ruled Illegal, District Court Orders Yokohama City to Pay
Damages ―No Reason to Hurry Privatization‖], Morning edition
<http://t21.nikkei.co.jp/>.
Nihon Keizai Shinbun (2006, June 7), “Hoikuen no mineika, nanchakuriku he mosaku
tsuzuku” [Continuing Plans for Nursery Privatization Soft-landing], Evening
edition <http://t21.nikkei.co.jp/>.
Nihon Keizai Shinbun (2008, February 27), “Kosodate shiensaku ni yusen juni hituyo
―Shakai hosho kokumin kaigi‖ [Child-Rearing Assistance Programs to Be
Prioritized―National Council for Social Security], Web edition
<http://health.nikkei.co.jp/special/child.cfm?i=2008022707623p4>.
Nihon Keizai Shinbun (2008, June 4), ―Shoshika taisaku, 1.5-2.4 trillion yen tsuika
hituyo―Shakai hosho kaigi chukan hokoku‖[The Outline of Intermediate
Report of National Commission for Social Security Calling for an Additional
Expenditure of 1.5-2.4 Trillion Yen (USD 15-24 Billion) for Countermeasures
to the Declining Birthrate], Morning edition <http://t21.nikkei.co.jp/>.
Nihon Keizai Shinbun (2008, August 6),“Saitei chingin jikyu 700 yen-dai de kecchaku,
chusho/reisai, koyo ni omoshi ‖[The Minimum Wage Settled on the Order of
700 yen (USD 7), Increased the Burden on Small and Medium-sized Businesses
as well as on Employment], Morning edition <http://t21.nikkei.co.jp/>.
Nihon Keizai Shinbun (2008, August 25), “Pasona, shanai ni „Naikaku,‟ koyo ya iryo,
shirabete seisaku teigen [Pasona Forms ―Cabinet‖ In-house, Studies
Employment and Health Care, and Proposes Policy to Real Cabinet], Morning
edition <http://t21.nikkei.co.jp/>.
Nihon Keizai Shinbun (2010, March 17), Editorial, “Bokoku ni kodomo wo nokoshite
hataraku zainichi gaikokujin ni kodomo-teate wa fuyo” [No Need to Pay Child
Allowance to Foreign Nationals Working Here with Their Children Left in
Their Mother Countries], Morning edition <http://t21.nikkei.co.jp/>.
Nihon Keizai Shinbun (2010, March 22), “Motomu! hoikushi, zosetsu rashu haikei,
kagi nigiru taigu kaizensaku” [Wanted ! Nursery Teachers, Amid a Rush in
Building More Nursery Centers, the Key Issue as Measures to Improve Their
Working Conditions], Web edition <http://t21.nikkei.co.jp/>.
283
Nihon Keizai Shinbun (2010, June 29), “Dou miru kosodate shin-shisutemu:
yoho-ittaika jitsugen ni kabe, zaigen dokoni?” [How New Child-rearing System
Are Viewed, Roadblock to Realize the Integration of Kindergartens and Nursery
Centers, Where Would the Necessary Funds Come From?], Evening edition
<http://t21.nikkei.co.jp/>.
Nihon Keizai Shinbun (2010, November 5), “Kodomo teate, Uwanose 3-sai miman ni
gentei, rainendo tuski 2-man yen ni: Seifu, ichiritsu wa dannen” [Additional
Child Allowances Limited to Children of Less Than Three Years Old, Monthly
Payment of 20,000 Yen to Start Next Fiscal Year: The government abandons
across-the-board raise], Morning edition <http://t21.nikkei.co.jp/>.
Nikkei Business Magazine (2010, February 15) ―Tokushu: Kodomo baizo
keikaku—kigyo ga shuyaku no shoushika taisaku‖ [Special Feature: Plans to
Double Child Population—Measures to deal with the declining birthrate led by
corporations], Issue of February 15, 2010:36-37.
NIPSSR (2004) (National Institute of Population and Social Security
Research/Kokuritsu shakaihosho jinko mondai kenkykusho), Child Related
Policies in Japan (Tokyo: NIPSSR),
<http://www.ipss.go.jp/s-info/e/childPJ2003/childPJ2003.pdf>.
NIPSSR (2006), Dai 13 kai shussei doko kihon chosa: Kekkon to shussan nikansuru
zenkoku chosa (fufu chosa) no kohyo ni tsuite [The 13th Basic Research on Birth
Trends (Married Couples Survey), Summary of Results], June 27, 2006
<http://www.wam.go.jp/wamappl/bb16GS70.nsf/0/35bed1f5524411734925719
b00229b8b/$FILE/20060628siryou.pdf>.
NNTTC (2009), Research Institute on Contemporary Nursery Daycare (Gendai hoiku
kenkyusho), National Nursery Teachers Training Council (Zennkokku hoikushi
yosei kyogikai), Hoikusho ni okeru HYK daisansha hyoka ni kansuru kenkyu
[Report of the Assessment Project on HYK‘s Third-party Evaluation Enterprise
for Nursery Centers] (Tokyo: Zennkokku hoikushi yosei kyogikai).
OECD (2001), Starting Strong I: Early Childhood Education and Care (Paris: OECD
Publishing).
OECD (2006), Starting Strong II: Early childhood education and care (Paris: OECD
Publishing).
OECD (2009), Doing Better for Children (Paris: OECD Publishing).
284
OECD Family Database (2010), last updated July 1, 2010
<http://www.oecd.org/document/4/0,3343,en_2649_34819_37836996_1_1_1_1,
00.html>.
Osaka District Court (2005), Osaka Chiho Saibansho [Osaka District Courts],
Heisei-14-Gyo-U-151 et al., January 18, 2005
<http://www.courts.go.jp/hanrei/pdf/BE0929FE0E21AB73492570EE00229DD
0.pdf>
Osaka High Court (2006), Osaka Koto Saibansho [Osaka High Court], Case No.
Heisei-17-Gyo-Ko-13 et al., April 20, 2006
<http://www.courts.go.jp/hanrei/pdf/20061023154241.pdf>.
Osaka Yomiuri Shinbun [Osaka Yomiuri Newspaper] (July 27, 2006), “Takamatsushi,
hoikuen mineika wo ichi-nen enki, hogosha hantai, Yokohama hanketsu eikyo
mo” [Takamatsu City: Nursery Center Privatization Plans Delayed One Year,
Objections by Parents, Yokohama Court Decision Also Had an Effect], Morning
edition <http://t21.nikkei.co.jp/>.
Osaka Yomiuri Shinbun (November 17, 2007), “Hoikusho haishi de baisho meirei,
Saiko-sai jokoku kikyaku, Daito-shi, hogosha ni 1,000 man-en” [Supreme Court
Dismisses Final Appeal on Closing of Nursery Center, Daito City Ordered to
Pay Damages 10 million yen to Parents], Morning edition
<http://t21.nikkei.co.jp/>.
Phillips, D., and Howes, C. (1993), National Childcare Staffing Study revisited: Four
years in the life of center-based childcare (Oakland, CA: Childcare Employee
Project).
Public and Private Sectors to Promote Work-Life Balance (2007, December), ―Shigoto
to seikatsu no chowa kensho‖ [the Charter for Work-Life Balance] and ―Shigoto
to seikatsu no chowa suishin no tameno kodo shishin‖ [the Action Policy for
Promoting Work-Life Balance], drawn up on December 18, 2007, by
Waku-raifu baransu suishin kanmin topu kaigi [the Public and Private Sectors to
Promote Work-Life Balance], the meeting organized by the Cabinet Office
<http://www8.cao.go.jp/wlb/government/top/k_2/pdf/s1.pdf>
PPD-SPB of the Cabinet Office (2003, March), Naikakufu kokuminn seikatsu kyoku
bukka seisaku ka [The Price Policy Division, Social Policy Bureau of the
Cabinet Office], Hoiku sabisu shijo no genjo tokadai [Current Situations and
Challenges of the Daycare Services Market] (Report of the study group on
Prices of Daycare Services), March 2003
<http://www.caa.go.jp/seikatsu/price/hoiku/menu.html>.
285
PSNC (2009, October 14), the Parents Supporting Nursery Centers (Hoikuen wo
kangaeru oya no kai), ―Hoikusho ni kakawaru kuni kijun no kenji/kojo wo
motomeru kinkyu apiru‖ [Urgent Appeal to Have the MSCWI National
Standards for Nursery Centers Maintained and Improved], released on October
14, 2009 <http://www.aa.cyberhome.ne.jp/~aki-f/oyanokaiappeal091014.pdf>.
Sankei Shinbun [Sankei Newspaper] (2007, November 18), “Daito no hoikuen haishi
sosho, Saiko-sai, Shi no sekinin mitomeru” [Supreme Court Admits Daito City‘s
Responsibilities in Nursery Center Closing Case], Morning edition
<http://t21.nikkei.co.jp/>.
Sankei Shinbun (2008, March 21), “To-ninsho hoikusho, hatsu no shikaku torikeshi”
[First Case of Cancellation of Permit among Centers Legalized by Tokyo],
Morning edition <http://t21.nikkei.co.jp/>.
Sankei Shinbun (2009, November 4), “Hoikusho secchi, daitoshi de kijun kanwa,
Korosho hoshin, jichitai ni kengen” [Establishment of Nursery Centers,
Relaxation of Standards in Large Cities, Policies of the MHLW, Authority
Transferred to Local Governments], Morning edition <http://t21.nikkei.co.jp/>.
Schweinhart, L.J. (2001), How the High/Scope Perry Preschool Study has Influenced
Public Policy, Ypsilanti, High/Scope Educational Research Foundation.
Sendai District Court (2009), Sendai Chiho Saibansho [Sendai District Court], Case
No. Heisei-20-Gyo-U-20 et al., September 28, 2009
<http://www.courts.go.jp/hanrei/pdf/20091006154411.pdf>.
Sender, H. (2010, November 3), ―Worse still to come after Japan‘s lost decades,‖
Financial Times < http://academic.lexisnexis.com>.
Shiraishi, S. and Suzuki, W. (2002), ―Hoiku sabisu kyokyu no keizai bunseki:
Ninka/ninnka-gai hoikusho no hikaku‖ [Economic Analysis of Services
Provision on Nursery Daycare: Comparison of approved and non-approved
centers] (JCER Discussion Paper No.83), December 2002
<http://www.jcer.or.jp/report/discussion/detail3065.html>.
Shiraishi, S., Suzuki, W. and Yashiro, N. (2003), ―Hoiku sabisu kyokyu no keizai
bunseki: Ninka/ninnka-gai hoikusho no hikaku‖[Economic Analysis of Services
Provision on Nursery Daycare: Comparison of approved and non-approved
centers] (Technical Report, Hitotsubashi University), October 2003
<http://hermes-ir.lib.hit-u.ac.jp/rs/bitstream/10086/14256/1/pie_dp183.pdf>.
Sugiyama, R. (2008), Hoikuno “shijo-ka” to kouteki sekinin [Marketization of
Nursery Daycare and Public Responsibility] (Tokyo: Jichitai kenkyusha).
286
Supreme Court (2007), Saiko Saibansho [Supreme Court], Daiichi sho hotei [first
petty bench], Kettei [Decision], Case No. Heisei-17-Gyo-Ko-13 et al.,
November 15, 2007 (yet to be compiled in the law reports).
Supreme Court (2009), Saiko Saibansho [Supreme Court], Daiichi sho hotei [first
petty bench], November 26, 2009, Case No. Heisei-21-Gyo-Hi-75
<http://www.courts.go.jp/hanrei/pdf/20091126111108.pdf>.
Sylva, K., E. Melhuish, P. Sammons, I. Siraj-Blatchford, B. Taggart and K. Elliot
(2004), Effective Provision of Pre-School Education (EPPE) Project: Final
Report - A Longitudinal Study Funded by the DfES 1997-2004, Institute of
Education, University of London and Sure Start, London
<http://www.education.gov.uk/research/data/uploadfiles/SSU_FR_2004_01.pdf
>.
The Akita Project FY 2007 Report (2008, October), Akita, K., Oda, Y., Ashida, H.,
Suzuki, M., Kadota, R., Noguchi, T. and Miwa, J., Hoiku kankyo no shitsu
shakudo no kaihatsu to hoiku kenshu riyo ni kansuru chosa kenkyu [Surveys and
Studies of the Development of Quality Scales and Their Usages in Nursery
Training] , conducted by a team of researchers headed by K. Akita, professor at
Tokyo University, between FY2007 and FY 2009, as part of a research project
subsidized by the MHLW aimed at promoting policy science (No. 200701040A
et al.), released on October 31, 2008. (Available at
http://mhlw-grants.niph.go.jp/index.html.)
The Tamiaki Project FY 2007 Report (2008, October), Tamiaki, G., Nishimura, S.,
Takano, Y., Yoshioka, M., Narita, T., Kono, R., Shimizu, M., Chiba, T., Mori, T.
and Kawakita, M., Shoshika shakai ni okeru hoiku kankyo no arikata ni
kansuru sogoteki kenkyu [Comprehensive Study on the Proper Way of Daycare
Environment in a Society with Fewer Children], conducted by a team of
researchers headed by G. Tamiaki, professor at Shiraume Gakuen University,
between FY2007 and FY 2009, as part of a research project subsidized by the
MHLW aimed at promoting policy science (No. 200701041A et al.), released on
October 31, 2008. (Available at http://mhlw-grants.niph.go.jp/index.html.)
The 2008 Survey of NCND (2008, May), National Council of Nursery Daycare
(NCND) (Zenkoku hoiku kyogikai) with Japan National Council of Social
Welfare (Zenkoku shakai fukushi kyogikai), Zenkoku no hoikusho jittai chosa
hokokusho [Report of Fact-finding Survey on Nursery Centers Nationwide],
published in May 2008 (Tokyo: Zenkoku shakai fukushi kyogikai)
<http://www.zenhokyo.gr.jp/pdf/0805cyousa.pdf>.
287
The 2009 Survey of Benesse Corporation (2009, March), Research Institute on the
Development of the Next Generation of Benesse Corporation (Benesse jisedai
ikusei kenkyusho), Dai 1-kai yoji kyoiku/hoiku ni tsuiteno kihon chosa (hoikusho
hen) [First Research on Early Childhood Education and Daycare (with a focus
on Nursery Centers)], released on March 10, 2009
<http://benesse.jp/berd/aboutus/katsudou/pdf/pre_16.pdf>.
The 2009 Oshima Project Report (2009, October), Oshima, K., Ishii, T., Oba, S.,
Konuma, H., Shibasaki, M., Takano, Y., Nishimura, S., Masuda, M. and Kaneko,
E., Hoiku sabisu no shitsu ni kansuru chousa kenkyu [Surveys and Studies of the
Quality of Nursery Daycare Services], conducted by a team of researchers
headed by K. Oshima, professor at Kyoritsu Women‘s University, between
FY2006 and FY 2008, as part of a research project subsidized by the MHLW
aimed at promoting policy science (No. 200801002A et al.), released on
October 29, 2009. (Available at http://mhlw-grants.niph.go.jp/index.html.)
The 2009 Sadayuki Report (2009, March), Japan National Council of Social Welfare,
Child Welfare Division (Zenkoku shakai fukushi kyogikai, Jido fukushi bu),
Kino-men ni chakumoku shita hoikusho no kankyo/kukan ni kakaru kenkyu-jigyo
sogo hokokusho [Comprehensive Research Report on the Spatial Environment
of Nursery Centers with Focus on the Residential Functions]. The research was
conducted as the MHLW-commissioned research in FY 2008, and published in
March 2009. The members of Research Committee were: Sadayuki, M.
(Representative researcher, professor at Japan Women‘s University), Anme, T.,
Ichihara, K., Obinata, M., Kaneko, E., Kikuchi, S., Shimizu, M., Fukoin, A.,
Fujiki, T., Fujimori, H. and Mikami, T. (Tokyo: Zenkoku shakai fukushi
kyogikai, Jido fukushi bu)
<http://www.shakyo.or.jp/research/09kinoukenkyu.html>.
Tokyo District Court, Hachioji Branch (1998), Tokyo Chiho Saibansho, Hachioji
Shibu [Tokyo District Court, Hachioji Branch], Case No. Heisei-7-Wa-1412,
December 7, 1998, Hanrei Chiho Jichi 188 (1999):73-82.
Tokyo District Court (2006), Tokyo Chiho Saibansho [Tokyo District Court], Case No.
Heisei-18-Gyo-U-268, September 4, 2006
<http://www.courts.go.jp/hanrei/pdf/20061005150712.pdf>.
Tokyo High Court (2009), Tokyo Koto Saibansho [Tokyo High Court], January 29,
2009, Case No. Heisei-18-Gyo-Ko-169
<http://www.courts.go.jp/hanrei/pdf/20090804143433.pdf>.
288
Tokyo Municipal Government (2001, May 7), Bureau of Social Welfare and Public
Health (Fukushi hoken kyoku), Tokyoto ninsho hoikusho jigyo jisshi yoko
[Implementation Guidelines for Services Provision of TMG Certified Nursery
Centers]
<http://www.fukushihoken.metro.tokyo.jp/kodomo/hoiku/n.hoikusyo/syosai/file
s/youkou.pdf>.
Tokyo Municipal Government (2010, September), Bureau of Social Welfare and
Public Health (Fukushi hoken kyoku), Tokyoto ninsho hoikusho ichiran [List of
TMG Certified Nursery Centers]
<http://www.fukushihoken.metro.tokyo.jp/kodomo/hoiku/n.hoikusyo/ichiran/fil
es/ninsyouichiran100901.xls>.
Tokyo Shinbun [Tokyo Newspaper] (2009, November 5), ―Hoikusho kijun wo kanwa,
shisetu menseki, Tokyo nado, jigen sochi‖ [Standards for Nursery Centers
Relaxed on Facility Space in Tokyo, etc., Temporary Measures], Morning
edition <http://t21.nikkei.co.jp/>.
Tokyo Yomiuri Shinbun [Tokyo Yomiuri Newspaper] (2006, May 25), “Hoikuen
mineika de Yokohama-shi ni baisho meirei, sessoku gyosei no ihosei nintei”
[Yokohama City Ordered to Pay Damages in Nursery Center Privatization Case,
Quick and Sloppy Administration Deemed Illegal], Commentary, Morning
edition <http://t21.nikkei.co.jp/>.
Tokyo Yomiuri Shinbun (2006, May 31), “Tokyo, Nerima no hoikuen, ku kansaiin,
itaku chushi seikyu wo kikyaku” [Tokyo Nerima Ward Audit Committee
Dismisses Request to Halt Nursery Center Outsourcing], Morning edition
<http://t21.nikkei.co.jp/>.
Tokyo Yomiuri Shinbun (2006, June 1), “Shiritsu hoikuen mineika sosho, Yokohama
shigikai ga „Koso‟ kaketsu” [Yokohama City Council Votes to Appeal City
Nursery Center Privatization Case], Morning edition <http://t21.nikkei.co.jp/>.
Tokyo Yomiuri Shinbun (2006, June 15), “Kisarazu-shi, yon-hoikuen mineika wo enki,
Hogosha kara hantai iken ooku” [Kisarazu City: Privatization of Four Nursery
Centers Delayed – Many Opposing Viewpoints from Parents], Morning edition
<http://t21.nikkei.co.jp/>.
Tokyo Yomiuri Shinbun (2007, October 30), ―„Jun-hoikushi‟ sosetsu‖ [Establishing a
System of ‗Assistant Nursery Teacher‘], Morning edition
<http://t21.nikkei.co.jp/>.
289
Tokyo Yomiuri Shinbun (2008, March 25), “Yureru hoiku (1): Rieki yusen de retsuaku
kankyo mo” [Daycare in Turmoil (1) Inappropriate Operation with Priority
Given to Profits], Morning edition <http://t21.nikkei.co.jp/>.
Toyo Keizai Weekly (2008, May 17), ―Tokushu: Kodomo-kakusa‖[Special Feature:
Disparities among Children], ShukanToyo Keizai, Issue of May 17,
2008:36-105.
Toyo Keizai Weekly (2009, January 24), ―Hoikuen de fushoji tahatsu, kigyo sannyu wa
daijobuka?‖ [Nursery Centers Rocked by Series of Scandals, Private Entities Fit
to Enter the Business?], ShukanToyo Keizai, Issue of January 24, 2009:126-127.
Toyo Keizai Weekly (2009, November 7), ―Tokushu: Kuzureru kitokuken, bocho suru
riken―Naze fuenai hoikusho, taikijido taisaku wa tekisetsuka?‖ [Disappearing
Vested Interest, Expanding Special Interest – Why Nursery Centers Do not
Increase in Number? Are Measures to Deal with Waiting Children Effective?],
ShukanToyo Keizai , Issue of November 7, 2009:76-78.
Toyo Keizai Weekly (2009, December 26), ―Kaigo rodosha no teichaku wa
susumunoka?” [Would the Stability of Elderly Care Workers Improve?],
Shukan Toyo Keizai, Issue of December 26, 2009―January 2, 2010: 132.
UK Committee for UNICEF (2008), ―Report Card 8: The Childcare Transition‖
<http://www.childwellbeing.org.uk/pages.asp?page=15>.
UNESCO (2006), Strong Foundations: Early Childhood Care and Education
(UNESCO Education For All Global Monitoring Report 2007), (Paris:
UNESCO Publishing)
<http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0014/001477/147794e.pdf>.
UNICEF (2007), Child Poverty in Perspective: An Overview of Child Well-Being in
Rich Countries (Innocenti Report Card 7), (Florence: UNICEF Innocenti
Research Centre) <http://www.unicef-irc.org/publications/pdf/rc7_eng.pdf>.
UNICEF (2008), The Childcare Transition: A League Table on Early Childhood
Education and Care (Innocenti Report Card 8), (Florence: UNICEF Innocenti
Research Centre) <http://www.unicef-irc.org/publications/pdf/rc8_eng.pdf>.
Vandell, D. L. and Wolfe, B. (2000), Child Care Quality: Does It Matter and Does It
Need to Be Improved? (Washington, D.C.: Office of the Assistant Secretary for
Planning and Evaluation: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services)
<http://aspe.hhs.gov/hsp/ccquality00/execsum.htm#top>.
290
Vandenbroeck, M. (2006), ―Globalisation and Privatisation: The Impact on Child Care
Policy and Practice,‖ Working Paper 38 (The Hague: Bernard van Leer
Foundation).
Whipp, L. (2010, September 8), ―Long-term Incentives Needed to Counter Population
Decline,‖ (Special Report, Japan: Banking, Finance & Investment), Financial
Times < http://academic.lexisnexis.com>.
Whitebook, M., Howes, C., and Phillips, D. (1990), Who Cares? Childcare Teachers
and the Quality of Care in America (Oakland, CA: Childcare Employee Project), <http://www.eric.ed.gov/PDFS/ED323031.pdf>.
Yokohama District Court (2006), Yokohama Chiho Saibansho [Yokohama District
Court], Case No. Heisei-16-Gyo-U-4, May 22, 2006
<http://www.courts.go.jp/hanrei/pdf/20060525130611.pdf>.