Historical Background of the Japanese School

Chapter

Abstract

There were no public schools in Japan before the Meiji era (1868–1912) other than private schools called “Hanko,” which were feudal clan-owned schools established for educating samurai (warriors), and “Terakoya,” temple-owned schools for educating tradesmen and farmers. In these schools, one teacher was responsible for the education of children of different ages, primarily in the subjects of maths, reading, and writing. “Terakoya” tended to be a one-room house, but “Hanko” were more organized in planning, having a main hall and several small rooms. There are no “Hanko” and “Terakoya” nowadays, however, some buildings have survived and are on view to the public. “Shizutani Gakko” (built in 1675), whose plan is shown in Figure 1, is one of the best surviving examples. It used to accept not only samurai (warrior) children but also common people (Murasawa, 1980, p. 97, 156).

Keywords

Steam Arena Tral Kato 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Barth, R. (1972). Open Education and the American School. New York: Agathon.Google Scholar
  2. Barker, R.G., & Gump, P.V. (1964). Big school, small school. Palo Alto, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  3. Brubaker, C.W. (1998). Planning and designing schools. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  4. Carnegie Foundation. (1988). An imperiled generation: Saving urban schools. Princeton, NJ: Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching.Google Scholar
  5. Costa, A.L., & Liebmann, R.M. (Eds.). (1997). The process-centered school: Sustaining a renaissance community. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.Google Scholar
  6. Cotton, Kathleen (1996). Affective and Social Benefits of Small-Scale Schooling. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service EDO-RC-96-5).Google Scholar
  7. DeYoung, A.J. (1989). Economics and American education: A historical and critical overview of the impact of economic theories on schooling in the United States. New York: Longman.Google Scholar
  8. Ehrenkrantz, E. (1999, September). Planning for flexibility, not obsolescence. Keynote address presented at the UEF-21 Conference at the New Jersey Institute of Technology, Newark, NJ, September 17, 1999. Retrieved from http://www.designshare.com/Research/EEK/Ehrenkrantz1.htm
  9. Fowler, W., & Walberg, H.J. (1991). School size, characteristics and outcomes. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 13, 189–202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. George, P.S., & Alexander, W.M. (1993). The exemplary middle school. Fort Worth, TX: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.Google Scholar
  11. Graves, B. (1993). School ways: The planning and design of America’s schools. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  12. Gulliford, A. (1984). America’s country schools. Washington, DC: Preservation Press.Google Scholar
  13. Gulliford, A. (1996). America’s country schools. (3rd ed.). Washington, DC: Preservation Press.Google Scholar
  14. Herbst, J. (1996). The once and future school: Three hundred and fifty years of American secondary education. New York: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Johnson, C. (1963). Old-time schools and schoolbooks. (First published in 1904 by Macmillan). New York: Dover.Google Scholar
  16. Lackney, J.A. (1994). Educational facilities: The impact and role of the physical environment of the school on teaching, learning and educational outcomes. Milwaukee, WI: Center for Architecture and Urban Planning Research, University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee.Google Scholar
  17. Marks, J. (2000). The Educational Facilities Laboratories (EFL): A history. Washington DC: National Clearinghouse for Educational Facilities.Google Scholar
  18. McAndrews, T., & Anderson, W. (2002). Schools within schools. ERIC Digest 154. College of Education, University of Oregon: Clearinghouse on Educational Management.Google Scholar
  19. McClintock, J., & McClintock, R. (1970). Henry Barnard’s school architecture. New York: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
  20. Meek, A. (Ed.). (1995). Designing places for learning. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.Google Scholar
  21. National Council on Schoolhouse Construction (NCSC). (1953). Guide for planning school plants. National Council on Schoolhouse Construction (now Council of Educational Facility Planners, International). Nashville, TN: Peabody College.Google Scholar
  22. Rieselbach, A. (1992). “Building and Learning”. In The Architectural League (Eds.), New schools for New York: Plans and precedents for small schools. New York: Princeton Architectural Press.Google Scholar
  23. Rothenberg, J. (1989). The open classroom reconsidered. Elementary School Journal, 90, 69–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Saint, A. (1987). Towards a social architecture: The role of school building in post-War England. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  25. Tanner, L.N. (1997). Dewey’s Laboratory School: Lessons for today. New York: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
  26. Trotter, A. (2000, October 25). States virtually carried away over online high schools. Education Week, 20(8), 22.Google Scholar
  27. Wolff, S.J. (2001, September). Sustaining systems of relationships: The essence of the physical learning environment that supports and enhances collaborative, project-based learning at the community college level. Unpublished dissertation, School of Education, Oregon State University.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.ChibaJapan

Personalised recommendations