From Its Historical Development to Current Trends and Prospects: Comparative Education in EastAsia

1

Introduction

In recent years, the field of comparative education in East

Asia, primarily in Japan, China and South Korea, has grown

dramatically. This article looks at the historical development

of comparative and international education societies in Japan,

China and South Korea. It also discusses current issues in the

field that are shaped by economic, social and political

developments in East Asia.

Japan

The year 2006 marked the fiftieth anniversary of the

Comparative and International Education Society (CIES). Today,

the society is found on almost all the continents of the world,

in major cities such as, Athens, Berlin, Chicago, Hong Kong, New

York, Seoul, Sydney and Tokyo. What is more significant

2

however, is that, the society has helped create numerous sub-

organizations with an international array of members, a number of

scholarly journals, as well as academic departments and course

offerings at universities found world wide. In the case of

Japan, Japan has been an active member of both the Comparative

and International Education Society (Formerly Comparative

Education Society) and the World Council of Comparative Education

Societies (WCCES). One is left to ask what has led to Japan’s

interest in comparative and international education, and how does

Japan’s participation in both CIES and WCCES compare to other

East Asian societies? This section of this paper looks at the

current trends and prospects of comparative and international

education societies in Japan.

Many scholars have argued that historical conditions after

the Second World War set in motion Japan’s interest in

comparative and international education. (Tsuchimochi, 436)

However, Japan in its modern or imperial state had always been

interested in educational systems other than its own. This is

because Japan understood that foreign systems of education could

3

further its own social, political and economic progress. (King,

74)

As early as 1868, The Imperial Oath of Five Articles said that

“Knowledge shall be sought throughout the world in order that the

welfare of the Empire may be promoted.” (Japan Ministry of

Culture) Such a model continued to drive Japan’s educational

system, even after the collapse of imperial Japan in WWII. One

author states, “...behind such efforts for internationalism

existed strong motives for importing useful knowledge and skills

from advanced nations in the West for national interest.”

(Kobayashi, 66) Nevertheless, a strong advocacy in adapting

foreign educational models into Japanese schools, led to Japan’s

interest in comparative education.

In 1945, the United States occupied Japan as part of the

peace treaty after the Second World War. (Duke, 212) The system

of education that existed in Japan prior to the war had been

almost entirely wiped out. One scholar asserts, “Over half the

wooden school buildings had been destroyed by fire raids. Many

of the male teachers had long been conscripted for armed

4

services.” (Duke, 212) Unfortunately, many of Japan’s trained

teachers would perish while fighting in the Pacific. Because of

the shortage of teachers and school administrators and the lack

of school buildings, students stopped attending school. As a

result of this dismemberment of the Japanese school system, the

United States, its allies and the new Japanese government saw

this as an opportunity to restructure Japan’s education system.

Japan’s schools were restructured with democratic principles in

mind. Some of these changes included 1) making sweeping

curriculum revisions, 2) creating the Mombusho (Japan’s

Department of Education) and 3) establishing a system of school

boards to overlook general school operations. (Duke, 212) It is

this reorganization that many contend helped give Japan a broader

perspective in international education.

By 1952, Japan’s first chair of comparative and

international education took shape at Kyoto University.

(Tsuchimochi, 436) Japan was at the forefront in comparative and

international education involvement. Following Japan’s inception

into the society, comparative and international education

5

chairmanships were opened at Kyushu University (1952), Hiroshima

University (1953), Kyoto University (1965) and University of

Tokyo (1967). (Tsuchimochi, 436) Moreover, to add to a growing

list of comparative education chairs, a Research Institute of

Comparative Education and Culture was created in both Kyushu and

Fukuoka University. (Brickman, 396) Interestingly, the

Japanese Comparative Education Society (JCES) would not appear

until 1964, when Japanese universities had been active in the

field of comparative education for several decades. In addition,

the JCES was the first national comparative education society in

the world.

Many scholars have argued that a turning point in Japanese

involvement in the field of comparative education occurred in

1980. At the 1977 World Congress of Comparative and

International Education, held in London, the Congress approved

Tokyo, Japan as the site for the Fourth World Congress to be held

in 1980. (Epstein, 262) The Congress also elected Masunri

Hiratsuka to be the council’s third chairman and the theme of the

Tokyo conference was “Tradition and Innovation in Education.”

6

(Epstein, 262) The Japan Comparative Education Society was also

one of five societies that took part in creating the WCCES in

Ottawa, Canada in 1970. (Mochida, 1)

What led the Congress to select Tokyo, Japan for its 1980

conference? In the late 1970's as one scholar noted, “Japan may

be described as the world’s pathfinder into a technological world

of the twenty first century.” (King, 73) Even today Japan’s

innovation in technology leads the global market. Japanese

electronic products are found in almost every department store

worldwide. Japanese automobile manufacturers have sales greater

than any other car manufacturer, and when one thinks of Japan

today electronic gadgets and technological innovations come to

mind. Furthermore, at the London Congress, one author notes that

“...two-thirds of the participants [at the Congress] were from

only three Countries: Japan (32 percent), the United Kingdom (19

percent), and the United States (16 percent).” (Epstein, 264) In

addition, the Japanese delegates at the Congress were second to

the United Kingdom in terms of length of membership in a

comparative education society. (Epstein, 265)

7

The World Congress was aware of Japan’s rise to economic

prosperity and Japanese interest in the field of comparative

education. However, why would the World Congress be concerned

with Japanese economic growth and technological advancement? Let

us look at this question more closely. Many would agree that the

rise of Japanese prosperity may be directly attributed to Japan’s

educational system. One author says, “Everybody knows that Japan

industrialized itself, in fact, by industrializing schooling -

not by injecting technological content.” (King, 74) Education is

a social force that helps shape a culture’s, values, goals and

aspirations and helps guarantees economic and social progress.

Therefore, because Japan needed to be competitive in a global

economy, it used schooling and education as a means of preparing

its citizenry to be competitive in a global market. As a result,

Japan succeeded in modernization and industrialization, and was

able to compete with other industrialized nations. (Kobayashi,

66) By the 1980's, it was not only Japan that was interested in

international education models, but other industrialized powers

were becoming interested in Japan’s school system--because of

8

Japan’s economic success.

In 1983, the National Commission on the Excellence of

Education’s report, A Nation at Risk, concluded that “America’s

position in the world may once have been reasonably secure with

only a few exceptionally well-trained men and women. It is no

longer.” (NCEE, 6-7) As a result, comparative scholars became

interested in what role Japan’s schools played in the country’s

success. Foundations like The Robert Lestman and Larry Sutter

Foundation, helped encourage comparative scholars to investigate

more closely Japan’s educational system. (Cummings, 294) A

plethora of literature was produced on various topics on Japanese

education. The research done by comparativists set out to

determine what other nations could learn from how Japan conducted

its educational system, rather than merely giving a historical

investigation on the development of Japanese education.

(Cummings, 294)

As mentioned earlier in this section, The Japan Comparative

Education Society (JCES) was created in 1980. More important,

the JCES has been an active participant in the field of

9

comparative and international education. For example, in 1980,

JCES completed a bibliography of publication. The bibliography

reported 1,941 books and articles by 160 of JCES’s 394 members.

(Tsuchimochi, 440) As of 2003, JCES claims to have 874 registered

members. On the JCES website, the society says it holds annual

conferences, publishes yearly to the Journal of Comparative Education,

issues a newsletter to its members, collaborates with other

international societies such as the WCCES, operates a research

institute called Research Information for International and

Comparative Education (RICE), maintains a website and gives an

annual award to one of its members for distinguished work in the

field of comparative and international education. (JCES Website,

http://wwwsoc.nii.ac.jp/jces/index_en.html)

With a long history in the WCCES and an active participation

through communication and interaction with other comparative and

international education specialists, Japan has not merely been a

member of the field of comparative and international education,

but a major contributor to the establishment and advancement of

comparative education.

10

China

The internationalization of education and schooling and the

development of comparative education societies is an important

historical development in mainland China. Moreover, a number of

factors can be cited to account for the trend toward

international education cooperation in China. This section on

mainland China (described as “China” in the rest of the section)

will focus on the emergence and development of the field’s

institutional framework throughout the nation’s economic,

political, and social history. Although China’s educational

system is linked to both Taiwan and Hong Kong, a discussion on

the educational connection of these three territories, in

relation to comparative education, appears in the conclusion of

this paper.

China has had a long history of educational borrowing and

lending. Bray and Qin (2001) point out that “Educational

Borrowing and lending were already present in China during the

Han Dynasty (206 BC to 220 AD) and the Tang Dynasty (618-906 AD)”

(Bray & Qin, 454). However, although China has had a long history

11

of educational lending and borrowing, Chinese involvement in

comparative education would not occur until the twentieth

century, when institutions and organizations of comparative

education emerged. According to Jing and Zhou, “...cross-

cultural contact and exchanges in its educational development,

the legitimation of the field has been a recent phenomenon [in

China].” (Jing and Zhou, 241) Two of the publications by Chinese

scholars—the journal of World of Education, published in 1901, and

Current Status of World Education, published in 1911—both included China

in their interpretations of the worlds educational systems. By

1930, Beijing and Zhongshen Universities both established a

formal course in comparative education. It was during this

period that China began to open its doors to the field of

comparative and international education “as a distinct area.” (Jing

& Zhou, 240)

In the late 1970s, comparative education began to play a

role in China’s desire to modernize. Wide attention to

comparative education emerged for the purpose of national

development. Comparative education studies were believed to help

12

“the masses and Chinese policymakers to deepen their

understanding of the critical role education could play in a

nation’s development.” (Chen, 239)

After the downfall of the Gang of Four, (who were a group of

Communist Party leaders) in 1976, China experienced a great

transition involving “political transformation, economic

developments, and wide social change.” (Jing & Zhou, 242) An

unprecedented number of comparative and international education

institutes emerged at national, municipal, and university levels,

inviting educators and graduate students into the field. (Jing &

Zhou, 242) The result was an annual increase of graduate students

in comparative education.

Beijing Normal University, East China Normal University, and

other major universities undertook teaching and research in

comparative education. (Jing & Zhou, 244) Between the late 1970s

and the early 80s, the field became part of the significant

“curriculum in higher teacher-training institutions” (Jing &

Zhou, 248). Comparative education became a popular course and

attracted the attention of many education majors in various

13

teacher programs. Moreover, some education programs, at the

post-secondary level, began to function as “institutions

specializing in comparative education.” (Chen, 236)

Under the leadership of Deng Xiaoping in the 1970s, China’s

Open Door Policy was introduced. The policy promoted China’s

economic reform through foreign trade and economic exchange. As

Bray and Qin (2001) describe, China “has been increasingly shaped

by market forces” while it “remains a socialist state” (Bray &

Qin, 453). This implementation of the policy of the “open door

to the outside world” (Chen, 1994, p. 237) contributed to China’s

further development in the field. Furthermore, China’s new

policy permitted academic exchanges in a wider international

stage and the policy enhanced collaboration of Chinese scholars

with international organizations such as UNESCO and the World

Bank.

In the context of such wide social transformation,

comparative education studies in China focused on topics “of

practical significance to educational development and reform”

(Jing & Zhou, 246). The primary topics included higher

14

education, national development and educational reform as well as

education and modernization. Such topics help reflect China’s

priority in industrializing, and China’s belief in accomplishing

this goal through education. Comparative education studies would

give deeper insight to educational reforms, which were assumed to

be “a prerequisite and a motivational force for modernization in

China.” (Chen, 240) Thus, between the late 1980s and early1990s,

China focused on “foreign systems from which they felt that China

could learn useful lessons.” (Bray, 74)

Therefore, in the 1980's, a systematic comparative analysis

became more important to Chinese comparativists. This means

that, before 1985, most researchers were merely descriptive,

“simply [introducing and describing] educational theories and

practices in foreign countries.” (Chen, 246) Comparison and

analysis of different educational systems, as well as its

application to educational programs, became an essential

characteristic of the field. The nature of systematic comparison

appeared in Comparative Higher Education, in 1987. Other nations like

15

the U.S., Soviet Union, Japan, West Germany, and France were also

all taking this approach in comparative research.

Also in the 1980's, the field was further promoted by

academic exchanges of individuals as well as institutional

organizations. In 1979, the Chinese Comparative Education

Society (CCES) was established in Shanghai as the first national

academic organization. The growth of the membership gradually

increased after several decades. For example, in 1985 the

organization claimed 340 members and by 2001 the organization was

composed of 500 members. (Bray & Qin, 455) It is also worth

noting that in 1984, Gu Mingyuan, who was CSES’s president, was

elected vice-president of the WCCES. (Bray & Qin, 455)

Unlike the Comparative Education Society in the U.S., which

focused on studies of school systems throughout the world, as

well as cooperation with world-wide organizations such as UNESCO

and International Institute of Education, (Brickman, 13) the main

objective of the CCES was focused on the academic growth of the

field.

16

The establishment CCES contributed to broadening China’s

understanding of the role of education. This was mainly because

of CCES’ success as an organization. The organization held

annual/biennial meetings and symposia and published books and

journals on the field. (Jing & Zhou, 248-249) By the 1990's

Chinese scholars sought to improve the theoretical standard of

Chinese comparative education and to communicate more with their

international counterparts. (Rui, 6, cited in Bray & Qin, 466)

China introduced the circulation of comparative education

journals and research. For example, the CCES journal Comparative

Education Review far exceeded the circulation of any other

comparable journal in the world. (467) Large circulations of the

journals written in Chinese have helped “to balance the dominance

of English” (Qin, 468) in the global sphere of comparative

education: “the comparative education work conducted in Asia on

the one hand contributes to the international discourse conducted

in English, and on the other hand provides a balance to that

discourse with scholarly outputs in other languages.” (Bray, 75)

17

In addition to China’s contribution to wider literatures of

comparative education, has played a significant role in promoting

comparative research in Asia through a wider organizational

framework (Bray & Qin, 468). In addition, China’s active

involvement has, therefore, “changed balances in the field as a

whole,” (Bray, 70) in the aspect of membership of WCCES, as well

as that of the languages used in publication of comparative

studies.

Korea

Historically, South Korea has experienced numerous

invasions, which have been detrimental to South Korea’s national

educational development. Similarly to Japan, South Korea

restructured its educational system after WWII. The

establishment of the Korean Comparative Education Society (KCES)

took place in 1968 during the military regime of General Chung

Hee Park (1961-1979).

The World Council of Comparative Education Societies (WCCES)

was formed in 1970 from the previous International Committee of

Comparative Education Societies also previously convened by

18

Joseph Katz of Canada in 1968 (Epstein, 1981). In which case,

five societies came together for the formation of the World

Council of Comparative Education Societies (WCCES) namely: the

Comparative and International Education Society (CIES) of the

USA, which had been established in 1956, the Comparative

Education in Europe (CESE), which had been established in 1961,

the Japanese Comparative Education Society (JCES), which had been

established in 1964, the Comparative & International Education

Society of Canada (CIESC), which had been established in 1967;

and finally the Korean Comparative Education Society (KCES),

which had been established in 1968.

Many scholars are also intrigued about the factors that have

contributed to South Korea’s membership and prominence within the

World Council of Comparative Education Society (WCCES). The

international educational development initiative in South Korea

reveals a program transition from high school to higher education

and work which is basically competency based. This program

helped students to build up the competencies needed for their

college education and the world of work. (Jang et al pg. 600).

19

As one of Asia’s four little tigers, South Korea, unlike the rest

of the tigers, Taiwan, Hong Kong, and Singapore, maintained close

international education and economic development tie with Japan

and the United States. It is therefore unquestionable that South

Korea’s investment in comparative and international education has

contributed to her human capital development and consequently to

her industrialized economic development success story. (Morris,

1996)

In 2001, it was in fact the Korean Society which sponsored

the WCCES Conference in

Chungbuk (South Korea) with 29 members’ societies including the

Asian and Korean Society that played host. The development of

Comparative Education theory and practice is said to have been

influenced by a Chinese-language Journal entitled “World

Education” which was launched in 1901. The journal was so

inspiring such that the 1903 issue contained articles on the

United Kingdom, United States, France, Italy, Belgium, Holland,

Australia, Sweden and Russia (Bray & Gui, 2001).

20

Much emphasis was on foreign education instead of

comparative education for a long time in the region as noted by

Kobayashi (1990). However, the impetus for Asian nations to get

involved in the council can be attributed by remarks citing the

under representation of Asian scholars at the 12th WCCES in

Montreal, Canada, in 1989. (Shu & Zhou, 1990, P. 68). Also Asia

was endowed with a United Nations Educational and Scientific

cultural organization (UNESCO) regional office (in Bangkok)

Thailand. Bray (2002, 73) also notes many developments in the

academic of Asia Pacific Education Development at Seoul National

University, Korea in 1999, which launched the Asia Pacific

Education Review Journal that focused explicitly on comparison;

thanks to the Asian Development Bank (ADB) that has also become

active in the education sector. Bray (2002, 75) also notes that

the South Korean membership has also grown to more than 300

members. This exceeds the memberships of Britain and Canada

respectively with fewer than 200 members.

The language of reporting council business is also done in

Korean language. Even though the Korean geographic focus of

21

comparative studies has characteristically been Asiatic along

with the diverse cultures of (Buddhist, Christian, Islamic and

Confucian), more in roads are being made to enhance the variables

for comparative study. Important topics studied by East Asian

scholars including Korean scholars as well include projects

conducted by the International Association for the Evaluation of

Educational Achievement (IEA). Also, most prominently was the

study of the Third International Mathematics & Science Study

(ITMSS). There are also many scholars who have been doing a lot

of research and publication in South Korea and Western countries

as evidenced in the Comparative Education Review Journals.

In conclusion, it is gratifying that comparative education

has a long history in East Asia and South Korea in particular

which played a leadership role in the founding of the WCCES in

1970. The continued influence of international bodies such as

UNESCO and the ADB means that the East Asian voice as well as

that of South Korea will not only be heard on the World stage but

help moderate Western dominance and influence in the field which

has been evident throughout the 20th century and beyond. In

22

fact, in my opinion it makes comparative education really worthy

of scholarship when the East and the West meet in comparative

education.

Concluding Remarks

Although this paper has focused on Japan, China and South

Korea, it is important to note the significant role of Hong Kong

and Taiwan in the field of comparative and international

education. The Comparative Education Society of Hong Kong

(CESHK) was established in 1989. Three years later, the CESHK

became a member of the WCCES. The CESHK was created while

British colonial rule in Hong Kong was coming to a close and when

China assumed control of Hong Kong. Most of the CESHK

publications still appear in English and Hong Kong’s contribution

to the literature in the field has been acknowledged as “the top

English-language publications in the field and in the Chinese-

language journal with the largest circulation.” (Bray & Quinn

462) Moreover, Hong Kong’s political and social transformation

will continue to influence comparative studies. The question

remains whether the Hong Kong society will merge with the Chinese

23

society as Hong Kong becomes politically, economically and

socially connected to China. The field of comparative education

is strongly aware of linguistic and political divides in the

field. However, the growth of comparative education studies in

Chinese-speaking nations has brought a rise in Chinese as a

vehicle for academic research. English still dominates the

professional work of most of the comparative and international

education journals, but some have argued this may change as

comparative education grows in East Asia and as China gains more

influence in the world.

Hong Kong has had a major cultural and political impact in

greater East Asia and Hong Kong’s interaction with the West is no

longer an exchange of hard goods, but it has extended itself to

include ideas, educational models and a general interest in

educational sharing. Hong Kong has also provided comparative

educators in the world with insights into how theoretical and

methodological development of comparative education as a distinct

field interacts with “social, economic, political, and cultural

24

forces” (Templeton, 1958, 29) within and beyond particular

societies of today.

In the case of Taiwan, Taiwan maintains its sovereignty from

China while China claims that Taiwan is part of China. The

Taiwanese Comparative Society is distinct from the mainland

Chinese Society, calling itself Chinese Comparative Education

Society-Taipei (CCES-T). Interestingly, Taiwan was forced to

change the name of the society from Chinese Comparative Education

Society because of political differences with mainland China.

Political changes in the region of East Asia, due primarily

because of Chinese territorial claims, could quickly change

Taiwan’s political position. Comparative education in Taiwan and

the general area could take a different direction because of

these political changes.

What if most of the East Asia comparative societies unify as

one society? The Comparative Education Society of Asia (CESA) was

formed in 1995 in Hong Kong. The main purpose of CESA was “to

serve Asian scholars who have no national societies.” (Bray &

Qin, 468) The first conference was held in Japan in 1996; in

25

China in 1998; and in Taiwan in 2001. It is likely however, that

most societies will maintain their national comparative

organizations while simultaneously becoming members of a wider

regional organization.

The three strands examined in this paper-the Japanese,

Chinese and South Korean-are the most influential in the complex

web of the development of comparative and international education

organizations in East Asia. All three nations embody the

doctrine of lending and borrowing educational models from a

regional sphere to a wider global realm.

26

References

Bray, M., & Qin, G. (2001). Comparative education in Greater China: Contexts, characteristic, contrasts and contributions. Comparative Education, 37(4), 451-473.

Bray, M. (2002). Comparative education in East Asia: Growth development and contributions to the global field. Current Issues in Comparative Education 4(2), 2002, 81-86.

Brickman, W. W. (1966). Genesis and early development of the comparative and international

education society. Comparative Education Review, 10(1), 4-15.

Brickman, W. W. (1977). Comparative and international education society: A historical analysis. Comparative Education Review, 21(2/3), The State of the Art, 396-404.

Chen, S. (1994). Research trends in Mainland Chinese comparative education. Comparative Education Review, 38 (2), 233-252.

Cummings, W. K. (1989). The American Perception of Japanese

27

Education. Comparative Education, 25(3), Special Number (12): Cross-National Attraction in Education, 293-302.

Duke, B. C. (1963). The irony of Japanese postwar education. Comparative Education Review,6(3), 212-217.

Duke, B. C. (1966). The dualism in Asian education. Comparative Education,3 (1), 41-47.

Epstein, E. H. (1981). Toward the internationalization of comparative education: A report on the World Council of Comparative Education Societies. Comparative Education Review, 25(2), 261-271.

Jang, S., & Kim N. (2004). Transition from high school to higher education and work inKorea, from competency based education perspective. International Journal of Education Development, 24(6), 691-703.

Jeong, I., & Armer, M. J. (1994). State, class and expansion of education in South Korea: A general model. Comparative Education Review, 38(4),

Jing, S., & Zhou, N. (1985). Comparative education in China. Comparative Education Review, 29(2), 240-250.

King, E. J. (1986). Japan’s education in comparative perspective.Comparative Education, 22(1), Special Number (9): Education in Japan, 73-82.

Kobayashi, T. (1986). The internationalization of Japanese education. Comparative Education, 22(1), Special Number (9): Education in Japan, 65-71.

Kobayashi, T. (1990). China, India, Japan and Korea. In Halls, W. D. (Ed.), Comparative

education: Contemporary issues and trends (pp. 200-226). London: Jessica Kingsley, & Paris: UNESCO.

28

Morris, P. (1996). Asia’s Four Little Tigers: A comparison of therole of education in their development. Journal of Comparative Education, 32(1). 95-110.

Moshida, K. (2001). President’s Message. Japan Comparative Education Society. Retrieved April 2, 2006, from http://www.soc.nii.ac.jp/jces/index_en.html

National Commission on Excellence in Education. (1983). A nation at risk : The imperative for

educational reform : a report to the Nation and the Secretary of Education, United States Department of Education. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

Shu, H., & Zhou, N. (1990). Comparative education in Asia and itsprospects. Prospects, 20(1), 65-78.

Templeton, R. G. (1958). Some reflections on the theory of comparative education. Comparative

Education Review, 2(2), 27-31.

Tsuchimochi, G. H. (1982). Comparative education in Japan: A note. Comparative Education Review, 26(3), 435-441.

UNESCO, & Executive Secretary United Nations Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific (ESCAP). (1985). Fifth regional conference of ministers of education and those responsible for economic planning in Asia and the Pacific: final reporot. Paris: Unesco.

29