Introducing Competitive Circumstances between Public Schools and Private

Schools Using a Subsidy for Private School Tuition

Educational Reform in Osaka

DR. TOMITARO KITAMI, ESQ.OSAKA PREFECTURAL GOVERNMENT,

JAPANMAY 25 T H , 2011 , TAIPEI

Outline

1. A Brief Overview of Education System in Japan2. Aims and Measure of Educational Reform in Osaka a. Three Aims of Educational Reform b. Measure: a Subsidy for Private School Tuition 3. Osaka’s Innovations a. “Policy Marketing Research” b. Program Design4. Results and Conclusions

A Brief Overview of Education System in JapanPosition of High School (Upper Secondary School) in the System

Fig.1

☞ High school education is considered as de facto compulsory education in Japan.

A Brief Overview of Education System in JapanPosition of Private School in the de facto Compulsory Education

Fig.2

☞ Private schools have 30% share of enrollment and complement necessary facilities in the de facto compulsory education.Fig.2

A Brief Overview of Education System in JapanRelationship between Public Schools and Private Schools

Fig.3

☞ Total number of students hit its peak in 1980s and dropped steeply and Osaka’s Board of Education asked private schools for help in order to meet the increasing demand for school facilities in 1970s.

Aims and Measure of Educational Reform in OsakaThree Aims of the Educational Reform

➣ The enrollment quota was set to public and private schools, 70% and 30% respectively, in 1982 at the latest.

➣ As a result, competition between public and private schools had been controlled.

☞ Enhance educational quality by introducing competitive circumstances between public and private high schools

The First Aim

Aims and Measure of Educational Reform in OsakaThree Aims of the Educational Reform

☞ Enable students to choose high schools based on their wishes and abilities regardless of their economic conditions

Public School Private School Difference930,000 960,000 - 30,000

National Subsidy 0 60,000 - 60,000Local Allocation Tax Grants 670,000 240,000 430,000Prefectural Expenditure 140,000 60,000 80,000Total 810,000 360,000 510,000

120,000 600,000 - 480,000

87.1% 37.5% -Dependency Rate to Public Funding (A/ (A+B))

Defference of Educational Costs per Student Between Public and Private High School (FY2008)

Parents' Expenditure (Tuition etc.) (B)

Public Funding (A)

Educational Costs (A+B)

Table 1

The Second Aim

Aims and Measure of Educational Reform in OsakaThree Aims of the Educational Reform

☞ Minimize fiscal expenditure by properly shifting student enrollments from public to private schools

The Third Aim

Public School Private School Difference930,000 960,000 - 30,000

National Subsidy 0 60,000 - 60,000Local Allocation Tax Grants 670,000 240,000 430,000Prefectural Expenditure 140,000 60,000 80,000Total 810,000 360,000 510,000

120,000 600,000 - 480,000

87.1% 37.5% -Dependency Rate to Public Funding (A/ (A+B))

Defference of Educational Costs per Student Between Public and Private High School (FY2008)

Parents' Expenditure (Tuition etc.) (B)

Public Funding (A)

Educational Costs (A+B)

Table 2

Aims and Measures of Educational Reform in OsakaMeasure: a Subsidy for Private School Tuition

☞ Two important elements to realize proper competitive circumstances are found.

Recipient's eligibilityas for income level

Undesirable concequences forcompetitive circumstances

Private schools'autonomy foreducation

Undesirable concequences forcompetitive circumstances

Case 1Not set

(All students)

Restricted

(i.e. Private schoolsmust admit candidateswithout their ownselection.)

Private schools will become"quasi-public schools" andeducational diversity will beabolished.

Case 2Not set

(All students)

Maintained

(i.e. Private schoolskeep full autonomy foreducation includingtuition-settiing power.)

Susidies may be exploited as abail-out for private schools withmanagerial difficulties bysimply raising tuitions.

Case 3Limited to low-income

studentsCompetitive effects will belimited to low-income class. ―

High-income families who canafford private school tuitionwill spend extra money fromsubsidies to their children’sout-of-school educationresulting in enlargededucational inequity.

Table 3

Osaka’s Innovations a. “Policy Marketing Research”

☞ A large scale research was conducted.

☞ Statistically estimated and analyzed

Fig. 4

Fig. 4

Osaka’s Innovationsb. Program Design

☞ The details of the Osaka’s programFig.5 ➣ National government has already

established a local subsidy to waive public high school tuition in FY2010.

➣ Governor Hashimoto changed it into a more meaningful policy by expanding existing small subsidy: －　 Free tuition program for private school students from families having less than ￥ 6.1 million annual income. －　 Tuition reduction program for students from families with more than ￥ 6.1 million and less than ￥ 8 million income. Their tuitions are reduced up to ￥ 100,000.

➣ Total budget amounts to ￥ 11 billion (131 million US$) in FY2011 and will be tripled on the completion of the program.

Osaka’s Innovations b. Program Design

Recipient’s eligibility as for income level is introduced so as to make 50% of all households are eligible for the free tuition program and up to 70% for the reduced tuition program.

➣ Avoid giving extra advantages to high income students.

➣ Avoid limiting competitive effects to small group of candidates.

☞ Innovations regarding recipient’s eligibility as for income level

Osaka’s Innovations b. Program Design

Private schools’ autonomy for education is maintained but restricted as for their tuition-setting power (i.e. private schools are obliged to set their tuitions no more than ￥ 580,000 per year if participate in the system).

➣ Avoid abolishing educational diversity by making “quasi-public school.”

➣ Avoid exploiting the subsidy as bailout for private schools with managerial difficulties.

☞ Innovations regarding private schools’ autonomy for education

Results and Conclusions

☞ The results are being examined but considerable effects are shown.

- The rate of private school-oriented candidates rose up to 27.02 points from 21.46 in the previous year.

- Some public schools attracted more candidates than ever while the majority of them could not recruit sufficient candidates to meet their capacity.