Language Minority education at Japanese public schools 1
Language Minority Education at
Japanese Public Elementary Schools
SLS 660 Sociolinguistics and Second Languages
Professor Christina M Higgins
Language Policy
October 26, 2007
Eri Hashimoto
Language Minority education at Japanese public schools 2
Introduction
The number of foreigners living in Japan is growing rapidly and parallel to that increase,
numbers of children who do not speak Japanese as a first language (L1) are increasing as well.
This paper will focus on these children’s educational support in public elementary school in
Japan. Although these language minority (LM) students are increasing and this increase does
not seem to end, the system of supporting LM students’ education is not well-established (Ito,
1999 and Vaipae, 2001). The policy made by the Ministry of Education (MEXT) is too broad
and the curriculum suggested by MEXT is not being used because of the poor assessment and
lack of teacher training (Kawakami, 2003). This is causing a serious problem for teachers and
students. For busy teachers who have no educational background about Japanese as a Second
Language (JSL) education, although they want to support them, they lack in time and knowledge.
This increase is no more than burden placed upon the teachers. Furthermore, students who
cannot learn Japanese and start to attrite their L1 are facing subtractive bilingualism (Sato, 2001).
It is time for the Japanese government to set up a structured system that will support LM
students’ education at Japanese public schools. In this paper, I claim that the problem facing JSL
education is due to lack of concrete system and I will introduce a model that could solve these
problems. Moreover, I will introduce an assessment that could measure students’ language
ability accurately. Before going to the focus, I will explain why these foreigners are increasing
and discuss the background of LM education. Then I will explore the history and existing policy
of MEXT and draw attention to the gap between the policy and the reality. After pointing out
the problems the JSL education is currently facing, I will introduce a first step model and
assessment system that could support the LM students’ education.
Language Minority education at Japanese public schools 3
I. Increase of the foreigners living in Japan
The reason for the increase of foreigners
Due to globalization, it is getting easier to cross the boarders. As a result, large numbers
of foreigners come to Japan to travel, to study, for business, and to live as international couples.
However, there has been a radical increase for workers of Kitsui, Kitanai, Kiken (difficult, dirty,
dangerous) jobs since 1990 due to two reasons: changes in the immigration policy and
acceptance of the trainee workers.
From the end of World War II until 1990, the Japanese government restricted the
entrance of foreign workers to only those with some kind of qualification, such as medical
degree, nursing degree, or architect degree, limiting the number of unskilled foreign workers
entering Japan. However, the revision of the Immigration Control Law in 1990 made it legal for
Nikkei-jin (decedents of Japanese emigrants) and their spouses to work at unskilled jobs (Kanno,
in press). This resulted in a great increase of Nikkei Brazilians and Peruvians. In 1989, the
number was 18,649, since the revision the number increased dramatically to 145, 614 in 1991
and to 359,808 in 2005 (Homusho, 2006).
Another reason for the fact of increase in unskilled workers is the “corporate trainee”
programs implemented in 1990 (Somusho gyoseki kanrikyoku). This allowed private companies
to accept workers from developing countries as trainees, and currently 54,107 workers work as
trainees (Homusho, 2006). Although they are called “trainees,” in the reality, Cornelius (1994)
reports that they are working as a source of cheap labor for menial jobs that most Japanese
citizens would not do (cited in Kanno, in press). Cornelius (1994) and Kajita (1998) stressed that
the government is not officially welcoming the unskilled workers, however, consciously or
unconsciously, by loosening the immigration policies, it is creating the grey zone for unskilled
Language Minority education at Japanese public schools 4
workers to enter Japan (cited in Kanno, in press).
Even though the government is not hailing the unskilled workers; yet, we need the
workers who would do the Kitsui, Kitanai, Kiken jobs that no one in Japan is willing to take.
Due to yearly labor shortage (Koseirodosho), the importance of these workers is increasing.
Moreover, population experts predict that population of Japan, which was about 128 million in
2005, will shrink to 95 million by 2050 (Aratani, 2007). We are the once who need the help of
these workers; thus, I believe that Japanese government is responsible for creating the
environment where these workers can live, especially supporting education for their children.
Increasing the number of language minority students in Japanese public schools
Corresponding to the number of foreigners in Japan, LM children are also increasing.
Because of the radical increase of unskilled workers in Japan, the issue of JSL education rose to
prominence because they were the children who need formal support. For example, if parents
are working a prestigious company they could have the money to afford private tutors, Japanese
language schools, or cram schools. However, the unskilled labors in Japan do not have a
disposal income; therefore, they can not afford the extra services that would help with their
children’s education, and thus it is important to provide equal education.
Due to this rapid increase of the LM students in 1990, MEXT started conducting a yearly
study on foreign national students who need Japanese language instructions from public
elementary schools to the high school level, since 1991. According to its study in 2006, MEXT
reported that 20,692 students are under the need of “Japanese as a Second language instruction”
(MEXT, 2006). This shows a 5.2 percent increase of students in need of JSL education from the
same study done in 2004, and it has quadrupled since 1991 (Kanno, in press).
However, these numbers are doubtful because their assessment firstly does not include
Language Minority education at Japanese public schools 5
students who have Japanese nationality. In other words, this study excludes bi or multiracial
students. For example, a fourth grade student whose mother is Japanese and father is Filipino,
who used to live in the Philippines and spoke Tagalog at home, and recently moved to Japan, is
excluded in this study. For this student, although she has Japanese nationality, she does not
speak Japanese as an L1. Children such as this student should be included to conduct accurate
study.
The study also excludes students who have the ability to speak daily conversation
Japanese, but who do not have the ability to study with this language. That is to say, it does not
include students who have lived in Japan for several years and who have basic daily conversation
abilities. This is because teachers in charge of assessment are not well trained, thus are not
familiar with the distinction between cognitive/academic language proficiency (CALP) and basic
interpersonal communicative skills (BICS) (Cummins, 1984). Cummins (1984) claimed the
importance of distinguishing BICS and CALP explaining that if the tip of the iceberg above the
water is BICS, the remainder under the water is CALP. Furthermore, Baker (1993) supports his
claim emphasizing that one is able to acquire BICS in two to three years, but it will take more
than five to seven years to acquire CALP. Based on this discussion, Miyajima and Kanou (2002)
predict that, if counted properly, there are more than 60,000 LM students attending Japanese
public schools who are under the need of JSL education (cited in Kawakami, 2003, pp. 16).
II. The policy and the reality
History of the Japanese Government’s movement toward LM education
The history of LM students’ policy is still young and is in need of improvement. In 1979
the first policy for LM students’ education, “International Covenants on Human Rights (A
Constitution, the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights),” was made
Language Minority education at Japanese public schools 6
(Gaimusho). This policy made by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Japan guaranteed the right
to elementary education for all students (Sato, 2001). Furthermore, in 1994, the Treaty of Rights
of the Children was signed, and its Article 2 stated that it prohibits “any discrimination from race,
skin color, gender, language, religion, nationality, ethnicity, or social origin, and every right are
guaranteed for every child (Gaimusho).” Moreover, Article 28 of the same treaty also guarantees
elementary education as compulsory for all children.
Although the policy states’ the right to education for all children, there are inequalities;
the law only applies for Japanese citizens; thus, education is not an obligation for non Japanese
citizens. An official homepage of Tokushima City in Tokushima prefecture explains foreign
students’ admission as follows:
Obligations for School Attendance: For foreigners, they are not under the Japanese
constitute; thus, they do not have the obligation toward education. This means that you
do not have the obligation to take education but it does not mean that you do not have any
chance to participate in education.
Procedure for admission: In Tokushima City, we pick children who are going to be the
admission age from the alien registration record and send census of willingness of
entering school. Therefore, please answer them when you receive. For those who are
willing to enroll, we will provide the “notice letter” and will send it to you through
school. Please fill in the necessary information and submit it to school. (Translated by
author, quoted from Tokushima City official homepage)
As this official homepage shows, non-Japanese citizen have to take an extra step (Ota,
2000 and Sato, 2001) to receive the “notice letter,” which gives the right to public education
while other Japanese citizens receive them automatically. This perceived small step is
Language Minority education at Japanese public schools 7
formidable obstacle to overcome for working class parents who are treated poorly due to their
unskilled labor status and who do not speak Japanese. This may also cause students not
attending schools.
The fact that LM students are receiving the “same” education with “same” textbook is
another problem. They need an education that supports their language barrier and not the same
education. Ota (2000) and Vaipae (2001) claims that although there are foreigners in Japan,
Japanese society has been identifying its country as a mono-cultural society, therefore, the base
of the education system is the citizen education, which is forcing LM students to assimilate into.
Supporting Ota’s point, Prime Minister Nakasone denied the existence of minorities in Japan in
his public speech in 1986 (Noguchi, 2001). Although it has been while since he declared this,
this type of thinking still exists even today.
Recently the Ministry of Education has posted a summary of the policy for returnee and
foreign students in its official homepage (MEXT). It is important to notice there is only one
policy for both returnees and foreign students, which are two different issues. Even from this
fact, we can tell how inaccurate this policy is. Moreover, because this policy was only a
summary, it did not provide each movement in detail. I contacted the Ministry of Education and
politely asked for its full policy, however, after three weeks, there still is no reply from the
Ministry. The summary of the policy explains five categories: System of Teaching, Investigative
Research, Teacher Education, JSL Education, and Others (MEXT). The next section will
analyze the policy and relate it to the real classroom by referring to interviews and researches.
Problem of the summary of the policy and the reality
The first section of the policy, “System of Teaching,” is the core of the whole policy.
However, this section very vaguely explains in one sentence, “Faculty will be placed to students
Language Minority education at Japanese public schools 8
who need extra support such as Japanese language support (translated by author).” Further, it
explains that since 1991, the government has been providing extra faculties for “foreign students
and returnee students” and it is paying from the national coffers. However, this description lacks
in various explanation such as: who these teachers are; what are these teachers are teaching; at
what condition are these extra teachers provided; how are the students being assessed; and who
are they being assessed by. Most importantly, is this the only system that the government
provides? Because of this vague and irresponsible policy serious problems are raising. Among
different problems, I will focus on two major problems: unequal educational support and lack of
trained teachers.
Unequal educational support
Because there is no concrete system to support LM students, what each school do to
support the LM students are relied on every city’s board of education; thus, system taken largely
depends on support provided by the government and awareness of people in that district, which
is very unfair. For example, top three prefectures with largest number of LM students are Aichi,
Kanagawa, and Shizuoka (MEXT, 2006). In these places, it is not rare to have almost half of the
class filled with LM students (kanno, 2004). They have the awareness and financial support
from the government to provide some type of assistance such as pullout JSL classes, the Center
School system, and team teaching (Kanno, in press, Kawakami, 2003, and Uzubashi, 2004).
However, other places where there are less than five LM students in school, no special system is
taken (Nishida, 2007 and Vaipae, 2001) due to lack of support and awareness.
Majority of the support are in pullout system, where LM students leave the homeroom
classes while other students are taking regular subject classes and going to special class where
they learn Japanese language. These classes are usually taught by the faculty members who does
Language Minority education at Japanese public schools 9
not have homeroom classes, including principal, sub principal, or in rare case, visiting Japanese
language teacher (Sato, 2001). Kanno (2004) stressed that these JSL classes are more of mental
support classes where students feel safe, and not very “intellectually stimulating (Kanno, 2004,
pp. 324)” classes.
Other region take the center school system, where LM students who live in one certain
region will go to a certain school where JSL teacher is present for limited amount of time to
receive JSL education. Nishida (2007), who majored in JSL education at International Christian
University, observed an elementary school where center school system is taken. She stressed
that teachers were professional at teaching JSL. However, because students had to go to
different school by riding train by themselves, it is hard for some students to afford the
transportation fee. Moreover, she pointed out that this distance is not only physical, but also
mental. In other words, students feel outsider because that school is not their home school.
In team teaching, sub faculty or Japanese teacher stays in regular classes other than
teacher teaching in front. They sit with the LM students and describe what teachers are saying in
simple words during classes. There also are cases where volunteers who speak that language
attend the class to translate the lessons (Sato, 2001).
Finally, there are schools where no special classes are provided. Nishida (2007) did a
case study on a firth grade Uzbek boy’s development of acquiring Japanese, who did not have
special JSL classes in school and emphasized the difficulties he faced. In school, he just sat in
the class until he started to pickup some words and after school, he went to a community center
once a week. The community center is opened to all foreigners at all ages and volunteers from
the neighbors came to help foreigners’ struggles. Therefore, to get a language support here, he
had to study with other Filipino women who were in Japan as an entertainer. Nishida noted that
Language Minority education at Japanese public schools 10
these volunteers are not necessary familiar with JSL education and people thought whoever can
speak Japanese can teach Japanese (personal interview, 2007).
Burden on untrained teachers
Teachers who are in charge of LM educations are usually randomly chosen among
regular teachers who are not trained for JSL. The “Teacher Education” section in the policy
explains that teachers who are in charge of JSL education are invited to seminars to brush up
their JSL teachings skills (MEXT). However, the numbers of participants are limited and the
seminar only lasts for few days. Furthermore, teachers are extremely busy and it is hard for them
to participate in the seminar.
A teacher who used to teach at Japanese publishes junior high school pointed out that she
was assigned to take care of a Brazilian student who did not speak any Japanese because she was
an English language teacher, and the principal believed that because she is the language teacher,
she must be able to take care of Japanese language too. Yet, it is important to note that foreign
language teaching and second language teaching are two very different things. Moreover, unlike
Europe where languages are taught as a mean of communication, in Japan, many times, English
is taught by grammar-translated method, where the aim of language education is not to learn
communication skills. She insisted that although she was chosen, she had no time to talk with
her because she was teaching 35 classes a week and had teachers meeting after school. This
shows how impossible it is to rely on once certain teacher who have regular classes to teach.
This is not only causing heavy burden on teachers, but due to lack of training in these teachers, it
is also causing two serious problems: no use of curriculum and inaccurate assessment of LM
students’ Japanese ability.
Under “JSL education” section in the policy, it explains that MEXT has developed JSL
Language Minority education at Japanese public schools 11
curriculum on 2003 for elementary level (MEXT). However, Nagatomo and Endo (2007)
pointed out that although four years have passes after the released of the curriculum, it is still
unfamiliar with a lot of faculties and are not being used. This curriculum is a topic based and
subject needs oriented curriculum developed by professors from different universities who are
experts of Japanese language education and applied linguistics. The underlying objective is
“assimilating” LM students into Japanese school system and it connects primary language
learning to subject teaching. It was pointed out in the curriculum that the current problem is the
lack of distinction between CALP and BICS; thus, the curriculum put focus on students’
improvement for CALP (MEXT, 2003). This curriculum itself is well organized, but the
problem is that it is not being used. Kawakami (2007) explain that students are not assessed
accurately. The goal of the curriculum is to improve students’ CALP, however, teachers are still
unfamiliar with the distinction, thus majority of students are taken out of the JSL classes when
they have BICS. Therefore, this calls for the need of accurate assessment.
Currently, there are no systematic assessment of LM students Japanese language abilities.
MEXT’s policy dose not mentions a word about assessment. Thus, untrained teachers observe
their students and decide if they think they are in needs of JSL education. Because of this vague
assessment, curriculum is not being used properly, the yearly study done by MEXT is vague
(refer to section one “increasing the number of language minority students in Japanese public
schools”), and causing students’ subtractive bilingualism (Sato, 2001). Students do not learn
Japanese to CALP level and they attrite their L1. This is causing serious problem to LM
students’ cognitive process.
III. Suggestion of a model and assessment
The major problem in the JSL education is the lack of concrete system and I arose major
Language Minority education at Japanese public schools 12
problems above. There are a lot of things to concern to solve these problem, such as developing
universities or technical colleges that develop JSL teachers who can development. However, the
numbers of LM students are increasing rapidly and the government is in the urge need of the
system that will solve the problems. Therefore, as a active remedy, I introduce the “Waseda
model” and “JSL Band Scale.”
Waseda model
“Waseda model” is the model currently used between Graduate School of Japanese
Applied Linguistic at Waseda University (WU), board of education of Shinjyuku, and
elementary/junior high schools with LM students in Sinjyuku. WU made an agreement with the
board of education in Sihnjyuku and whenever new LM students come to an elementary/junior
high school in Shinjuku, the board of education inform WU. WU will then, send their MA
students studying JSL education to support those students with both their language and subject
problems (Graduate School of Japanese Applied Linguistic at Waseda University) (Figure).
Figure: Waseda Model
School
Board of
education in
Shinjuku
agreement
WU
(Graduate School of Japanese Applied Linguistic at Waseda University)
Taking this model will benefit LM students, teachers, WU students, and the society.
Firstly, this model will benefit LM students because students at WU include exchange students
Language Minority education at Japanese public schools 13
from various countries such as USA, Span, China, Korea, and Russia; thus, WU students have
the JSL knowledge and also can speak students L1 will be able to support LM students. This
will create easier access for LM students to talk about their obstacles if they have any or it will
enable students to express difficult concepts in their L1. There are also possibilities for these
MA students to support LM students’ L1 education in the future.
Secondly, this model could decrease the burden on teachers who are in charged of JSL
education because MA students will be able to assist them. For instance, in schools where there
are less than five LM students, thus no assistance from the government is provided, regular busy
teachers are in charged of LM students. In these cases, due to busy schedule of teacher, LM
students receive no special education at school. Therefore, MA students could be in charge of
LM students’ educational support according to their needs. Moreover, in cases where there are
JSL classes, MA students could assist running classes or assessing students.
In addition, MA students will also be able to bridge teachers and researcher by bringing
back what they learn in graduate school to classes and problems arise in class to graduate school.
MA students will take courses such as teaching methods in Japanese, material development,
second language acquisition, applied linguistics, language testing, history of Japanese language,
and sound of Japanese at school, thus if teachers have any problem in classes but have not one to
ask to, MA student could answer their problems. This could also work as a mentor mentee
relationship between teachers and MA students.
This volunteering will also benefit MA students because they will be able to experience a
lot of teaching before going to the field. MA students will also be able to connect things they are
learning at school to classroom situation and enhance their understanding.
Finally, this connection between university, public schools, and board of education will
Language Minority education at Japanese public schools 14
make a good social environment because currently, people are too independent and there are not
many social interactions as there used to be. Therefore, this model could bring back the social
bond to the community.
Waseda Model is currently only done by the WU. However, I recommend introducing
this program to other universities with JSL program. In order to introduce Waseda model, it
requires a universities or a technical colleges where they develop JSL teachers, thus, people
might refute that it is infeasible. However, the example of Hamamatsu Gakuin shows that it is
not hopeless. In Hamamatsu City, where there are large number of foreigners, there were no
school that trains JSL teachers, thus this year, the Ministry of Japan created a JSL teacher
training program in Hamamatsu Gakuin Univresity (MEXT, 2007).
JSL Band Scale
As pointed above, it is important to have an accurate assessment to measure students’
CALP and BICS (Cummins, 1984), and I recommend “JSL Band Scale” for the measurement.
JSL Band Scale is a scale based on the “ESL Scale” used in Australia, created by Waseda
University. There are four types of scales: scale for grade 1 to 3 students, 4 to 6 students, junior
high school students, and high school students. Each scale have four skills to observe; listening,
speaking, speaking, and writing, and each skills in every scale are measured from one to seven
(one is lowest and seven is native like ability). There are detailed explanation on what students
should be able to do at each level, thus teachers assess students by observing the students
(Kawakami, 2003). It is currently used in Shinjyuku and other places when they are asked to go
and assess (Kawakami, 2006).
By using this scale students will be assessed more accurately, thus JSL curriculum will
more likely be used for accurate level students. Furthermore, this will benefit teachers to
Language Minority education at Japanese public schools 15
understand students better because teachers will have to observe LM students carefully in order
to do the assessment. To use this scale more effectively, Kawakami (2006) suggests to take
video of LM students in class and discuss with other teachers who are involved in his/her school
life and do the assessment. In WU, they do the assessment and meetings about JSL students with
their homeroom teacher, school principal, music teacher, school counselor, JSL teacher, and MA
student. They make a file for each LM students with all their information and assessment so that
every teacher in teachers’ room will be able to see it when they have problem, and add notes
when they feel any. This way, not only the homeroom teacher, but other teachers will also have
same level of understanding towards that student. Furthermore, with the Waseda Model, MA
students could also get involved in this assessment, and if teachers find any vagueness or
difficulties assessing, MA students could take back the issue back to university and discuss it
with colleagues and could strengthen the “JSL Band Scale” itself. According to this scale,
students should receive JSL education until they pass level seven, however, Kawakami (2006)
claims that currently, students are returned to regular classes when they reach level three in this
scale. Thinking about students’ language acquisition and the accurate survey by MEXT, it is
important to provide accurate assessment.
Conclusion
Due to the rapid increase of LM students, a supporting system is in urge need. “Waseda
Model” and “JSL Band Scale” introduced in this paper could be the first aid to solve this
situation. It could solve main problems facing JSL education such as burden on teachers,
inaccurate assessment, lack of teachers’ knowledge in JSL education, curriculum not being used,
and no equal system.
However, this is only the first step of the development of JSL education, and there are
Language Minority education at Japanese public schools 16
more issues to consider. Firstly, this paper only discussed about JSL education, but it is also
important to consider about students’ L1 education. Moreover, for further research, comparing
JSL education with the history of ESL education in Inner Circle countries (Krachu, cited in
Crystal 1997, pp. 54) could be beneficial because they are ahead of us in terms of LM students
education. It will be interesting we could compare the LM education in other countries.
Secondly, due to globalization, LM education will be a problem of all countries. Therefore, it is
important to for JSL education to create a good model that other nations could use as a model.
This area of study is still in its developmental stage. To be able to do that, everyone who are
involved in JSL education, teachers, researchers/students, and the board of education should all
cope and work to develop the field. For example, Waseda model and JSL band Scale created by
the researchers are currently used in classroom, thus teachers should give feedback of the model
and scale to researchers. Finally, many people perceive LM student issue as a problem, but this
is a great chance for Japanese children to learn about people from different countries. Therefore,
more discussion on how to include LM students’ specialties in classes should rise.
At the end, I would like to question why the language policy currently provided by MEXT
is too lukewarm. System is created based on the policy, and because the policy is too vague,
there are no concrete system. Tollefson (1995) insisted that language policy greatly depends on
the power. Power can be explained in different ways, but here it could be explained by the
prestige of parents of LM students and number of LM students. Is it that MEXT is not providing
concrete policy because people under the need of JSL education is the children of unskilled
workers who have lower status and number of LM students are still small?
Moreover, I would like to question why the yearly study of students under need of JSL
education by MEXT (2006) is not providing any assessment style. I do not think that MEXT
Language Minority education at Japanese public schools 17
have no distinction between BICS and CALP because it was mentioned in the official curriculum
that lack of these distinction is a problem. I have a feeling that MEXT is keeping the vague
assessment on purpose to keep the number of LM students small, so that they will not have to
make further action for LM students. I feel that MEXT is controlling the number because when
number of students under need of JSL education increases, LM students’ power will increase.
Kawakami (2006) also supports this point in his speech. This is why it is important to create a
concrete assessment that will visualize the real number of students under the need of JSL
education and it is important to introduce a concrete system that will enable to support them will
equal right to education.
Language Minority education at Japanese public schools 18
References
Aratani, L. (2007, October 7). Japanese immigrants struggle in insular Japan. The Honolulu
Advertiser, pp. A10.
Nagatomo, M., & Endo, Y. (2007, January 23). Asahi shimbun. Retrieved October 25, 2007 from
the World Wide Web:
http://mytown.asahi.com/aichi/news.php?k_id=24000120701230001.
Baker, C. (1993). Foundation of bilingual education and bilingualism. Clevedon: Multilingual
Matters.
Crystal, D. (1997). English as a Global Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Cummins, J. (1985). Bilingualism and special education: issues in assessment and pedagogy.
Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
Department of Japanese Language Education at Waseda University Official homepage.
Retrieved October 12, 2007 from the World Wide Web: http://www.waseda.jp/gsjal/.
Gaimusho [The Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Japan]. Jidouno kenri jyouyaku [Treaty of Rights
of the Children]. Retrieved October 12, 2007 from the World Wide Web:
http://www.mofa.go.jp/mofaj/gaiko/jido/index.html.
Gaimusho [The Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Japan]. Kokusai jinken kiyaku [International
Covenants on Human Rights]. Retrieved October 12, 2007 from the World Wide Web:
http://www.mofa.go.jp/mofaj/gaiko/kiyaku/index.html.
Homusho [Ministry of Justice]. Heisei 17 nendomatsu genzai ni okeru gaikokujin torokusha
tokei ni tsuite [Results of the 2005 survey on registered foreign residents]. Retrieved
October 12, 2007 from the World Wide Web:
http://http://www.moj.go.jp/PRESS/060530-1/060530-1.html.
Language Minority education at Japanese public schools 19
Ito, Y. (1999). Gaikokujin jidouseitoni taisuru nihongo kyouikuno genjyoto kadai [Statu quo and
problems facing the Education of foreign students]. Nihongo kyoiku, 100. pp. 33-44.
Kanno, Y. (2004). Sending mixed messages: Language minority education at a Japanese public
elementary school. In A. Pavlenko & A. Blackledge (eds.) Negotiation of identities in
multilingual contexts (pp. 316-338). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Kanno, Y. (2007). Language minority education in Japan. In A. Creese, P. Martin & N.
Hornberger (Eds.), Ecology of Language. Volume Nine of the Encyclopaedia of Language
and Education (2nd ed.). New York: Springer.
Kawakami, I. (2003). Nenshosya nihongokyoikuniokeru “Nihongo nouryoku sokutei” ni kansuru
kanten to houhou [Perspectives and method of “Assessment in Japanese language” of
Juvenile’s Japanese education]. Waseda Japanese Education Research, 2.
Kawakami, I. (2006). Ido suru kodomotachiwo kangaeru [Thinking about children who have to
move]. Manuscript of Lecture at Aichi University of Education (January 30, 2006).
Kawakami, I. (2007). Children crossing borders and illiteracies education for the 21st century.
Presentation at the Malaysia International Conference on Foreign Language on 14-15
August, 2007. Scripts Retrieved October 19, 2007 from the World Wide Web:
http://www.gsjal.jp/kawakami/dat/0708a.pdf.
Official homepage of Graduate School of Japanese Applied Linguistic at Waseda University.
Waseda Model. Retrieved October 19, 2007 from the World Wide Web:
http://www.gsjal.jp/kawakami/jslbandscale.html.
Koseirodosho [Ministry of Health, Labor and Welfare]. (2006). Heisei 17 nendo jinko dotai tokei
geppo nenkei no gaikyo [Monthly report on demographic trends in 2005], Retrieved
October 12, 2007 from the World Wide Web:
Language Minority education at Japanese public schools 20
http://www.mhlw.go.jp/toukei/saikin/hw/jinkou/geppo/nengai05/dl/gaikyou.pdf.
MEXT [Ministry of Education]. (2003). Gakkoukyouikuniokeru JSL karikyuramuno kaihatsuni
tsuite (Saishuhoukoku) [Development of the JSL curriculum in school education (Final
report, elementary school version)], Retrieved October 12, 2007 from the World Wide
Web: http://www.mext.go.jp/a_menu/shotou/clarinet/003/001.htm.
MEXT [Ministry of Education]. (2006). Nihongoshidou ga hitsuyo na gaikokujin jido-seito no
ukeire jokyoto ni kansuru chosa (Heisei 17 nendo) no kekka [Results of the 2005 survey
on the acceptance and instruction of foreign children and students needing Japanese
language education], Retrieved October 12, 2007 from the World Wide Web:
http://www.mext.go.jp/b_menu/houdou/18/04/06042520/001/001.htm.
MEXT [Ministry of Education]. (2007). Heisei 19 nendo “shakaijin no manabi naoshi neezu
taiou kyouiku suishin puroguramu” sentei jigyou gaiyou [Reeducating working
peopleprogram], Retrieved October 25, 2007 from the World Wide Web:
http://www.mext.go.jp/b_menu/houdou/19/07/07072304/002/042.htm
MEXT [Ministry of Education]. Kikoku, Gaikokujin jidouseitokyouiku tounikansite
monbukagakushoga okonatteiru sisakuni kansuru jyouhou [Summary of the policy for
returnee and foreign children], Retrieved October 12, 2007 from the World Wide Web:
http://www.mext.go.jp/a_menu/shotou/clarinet/003/001.htm.
Nagatomo, M., & Endo, O. (2007, January 23). Fueru gaikokujinno kodomo [Increasing foreign
students]. Asaih shinbun. Retrieved October 12, 2007 from the World Wide Web:
http://mytown.asahi.com/aichi/news.php?k_id=24000120701230001.
Nishida, C. (2007). Language Education for Minority Children in Japan. Unpublished
bachelor’s thesis, International Christian University, Tokyo, Japan.
Language Minority education at Japanese public schools 21
Noguchi, M. G. (2001). Introduction: The Crumbling of a Myth. In M. G. Noguchi & S. Fotos
(Eds.). Studies in Japanese Bilingualism (pp. 1-23). Great Britain: Mutual Matters Ltd.
Sato, J. (2001). Nihonsaijyuno gaikokujinno kodomoto kyouiku [Children and Education of
Foreigners living in Japan]. Unpublished bachelor’s thesis, Tokyo Woman’s Christian
University, Tokyo, Japan.
Soumusho gyosei kanrikyoku [Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications]. (2007).
Koyoutaisakuhou [Employment Promotion Law]. Retrieved October 12, 2007 from the
World Wide Web: http://law.e-gov.go.jp/htmldata/S41/S41HO132.html.
Tokushima City official home page. Sho chu gakkou eno shin nyugaku [New admission to
elementary and junior high schools]. Retrieved October 25, 2007 from the World Wide
Web: http://www.city.tokushima.tokushima.jp/gakko_kyoiku/gaiyo05.html.
Tollefson, J. W. (1995). Power and Inequality in Language Education. Cambridge: Cambridge
Press.
Uzubashi, Y. (2004). Chugakkouniokeru nihongokyoikuno wakugumito kadai- JSL kyoiku
toshiteno nihongo kyoikuhe- [framework and challenges of Japanese education in junior
high school –Japanese language education as JSL education-]. Osaka University Foreign
student Research center Multicultural society and foreign student interchange. 8.
Vaipae, S. S. (2001). Language minority students in Japanese public schools, In M. G. Noguchi
& S. Fotos (Eds.). Studies in Japanese Bilingualism (pp. 184-233). Great Britain: Mutual
Matters Ltd.