Iyoda Macro-Level Language Policy 25

MACRO-LEVEL LANGUAGE POLICY: EDUCATIONAL ENVIRONMENT OF JAPANESE EDUCATIONAL FACILITIES IN THE UNITED STATES

RITUSKO IYODA

UNIVERSITY OF HAWAI’I AT MANOA IYODA – MACRO-LEVEL LANGUAGE POLICY 2

INTRODUCTION

There are three different types of educational facilities that are currently supported by the Japanese government for children in the compulsory education age group living overseas. Two of them offer a full-time education in Japanese, and the other one,

Japanese language supplementary school (Hoshuukoo), offers classes in Japanese once a week on weekends. All of these schools are located all over the world and there are 282 schools in total in 53 countries as of April 2007 (see tables 1-1 and 1-2). The Schools were established by two different groups of Japanese parents. One group is Japanese immigrant parents who wish to maintain Japanese language and culture for the next generation. The other group is Japanese parents who work on business or educational missions overseas and plan to return to Japan. For the latter group, these schools are to educate their children in Japanese setting classes during their time abroad so that the children can make a smooth transition when returning to the Japanese compulsory education system.

Since ever the first Hoshuukoo was established in 1958, the Japanese government has provided the schools with certain supports under Section 26 of the School Education

Law, whereby the Japanese government is obligated to provide free compulsory education so all people are guaranteed the right to receive an education. Although

Section 26 of the Constitution only applies to those who reside in Japan, the Japanese government extends their supports to Hoshuukoo because they take into consideration that those children attending Hoshuukoo will return to Japan in the near future and become a great asset to Japan. The supports that the Japanese government provides to

SLS 660 (1) Paper 1, Option B 2/25 IYODA – MACRO-LEVEL LANGUAGE POLICY 3

Hoshuukoo includes, but not limited to, financial aid for some of the school administration cost, sending teachers in Japan to the schools and distributing curriculums, free textbooks and other educational materials, which are all developed in Japan and being used in public schools in Japan. Until recently, using such curriculums and textbooks at Hoshuukoo had made perfect sense to both the Japanese government and the schools, because majority of the students attending Hoshuukoo were all native speaker of

Japanese who plan to return to Japan in a few years.

However, shortly after the Bubble Economy burst in Japan in early 1990s, many

Japanese based companies in the world started closing their offices and sending their employees back to Japan. Accordingly, many Japanese students withdrew from

Hoshuukoo as their parents being sent back to Japan. In contrast, the number of Japanese staying in overseas, especially in the United States (the U.S.), for an extended period of time have continued to increase. Although they are totally unrelated, these two phenomena happened at once had a great impact on the demographics of Hoshuukoo.

Hoshuukoo, especially in the U.S., now have much higher enrollment ratio of the students who do not plan on returning to Japan.

Such change in the demographics of Hoshuukoo has brought a big challenge to educators of Hoshuukoo. Teachers are now required to accommodate students with two different social cultural backgrounds, levels of Japanese language proficiency, and learning needs at the same time. As you can imagine, teaching two different groups of students, one who learn Japanese as a mother tongue and the other who learn Japanese as a heritage language, in the same classroom can be very difficult, especially if you are never trained to teach children Japanese as a heritage language, if you need to use a

SLS 660 (1) Paper 1, Option B 3/25 IYODA – MACRO-LEVEL LANGUAGE POLICY 4 textbook used for Japanese monolingual native speakers in Japan, and if you are asked to complete a curriculum within one-fifths of class hours that is offered by public schools in

Japan.

The best solution of the difficulty is to request the Japanese government to send textbooks and curriculums that fit the current demographics of Hoshuukoo. However, it is unlikely to happen because there is no incentive for the Japanese government or perhaps even for the Japanese nation to spend their tax money on developing textbooks and curriculums for those Japanese children who live overseas permanently. At the same time, it is also unlikely that the Japanese government discontinues providing the supports to Hoshuukoo due to the change in the demographics either. This dysfunctional situation

- the supports provided by the Japanese government do not really meet the needs of

Hoshuukoo, but the schools keep accepting it as is anyway since it keeps coming - has been noticeable for all parties involved in Hoshuukoo education, and yet it has been left untouched in the past decade for some reasons. The primary purpose of this paper is (1) to illuminate the dilemma between what the Japanese governments has been offering to

Hoshuukoo and how it is actually being used by Hoshuukoo, (2) to examine reasons causing such dysfunction, and (3) also to make suggestions for change.

THE JAPANESE GOVERNMENT POLICIES IN EDUCATION FOR JAPANESE

CHILDREN LIVING OVERSEAS

Data collected in 2006 (the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Japan, 2007) indicate that the population of Japanese living overseas as non-immigrant alien and Japanese children in the compulsory education age group living overseas have increased over 836 percent and 875 percent respectively since 1971 through 2006 (see Figures 1-1 and 1-2).

Section 26 of School Education Law, which was enacted in 1947, states “all people shall have the right to receive an equal education correspondent to their ability, as provided by law. All people shall be obligated to have all boys and girls under their protection receive ordinary education as provided by the law, and such compulsory education shall be free.” Under the Section 26 of School Education Law requirements, the Japanese government is obligated to be financially responsible for compulsory education in order to guarantee all people the right to receive an education. Accordingly,

Japanese Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology (MEXT) along with the Ministry of Foreign Affairs have provided Japanese children in the compulsory education age group living overseas who plan to return to Japan (hereafter referred to as

“Future Returnees”) with the following services and supports:

(1) Providing financial aid for administration cost:

40 to 45 percent of the rent that Hashuukoo pays to local public schools, certain portion of wages for teachers hired by Hoshuukoo1, and airfare for teachers’ educational program once a year up to two teachers will be reimbursed by the Japanese government.

(2) Sending certified Japanese teachers from compulsory education schools in Japan:

If requested, a teacher from compulsory education schools in Japan will be provided by the Japanese government at not cost to Hoshuukoo, provided, however, that Hoshuukoo must meet the following requirements: a total number of Future Returnee is 100 or more; the school secures an office where the teacher sent from Japan can work full-time basis

1 The amount is determined by the Japanese government, but average size Hshuukoo of which total number of student is between 50 and 100 usually receive amount that is worth annual salary of 8 teachers. Hourly rate of Hoshuukoo teacher depends on the school, but it is usually not more than $30 per hour.

(not only Saturdays); and the school hires a full time administration staff who can assist the teacher in his or her projects at the office2. Such teacher(s) will stay at Hoshuukoo as a school principle or a teacher for up to three years and provide local teachers with necessary teacher education as needed.

(3) Providing free textbooks for compulsory education:

Textbooks for compulsory education that are developed and used in public schools in

Japan will be provided at no cost to all students attending Hoshuukoo with the exception of those students who do not hold a Japanese citizenship or students who are a Japanese citizen but hold a permanent resident card and do not plan to return to Japan in the future

(hereafter referred to as “Non-Returnees”). Textbooks for Non-Returnees can be purchased at set bookstore.

(4) CLARINET, the computerized information network:

CLARINET (Children Living Abroad and Returnees Internet) was established by MEXT in 1997 to link educational facilities overseas with relevant agencies in Japan. It provides

Hoshuukoo with on-line access to information of education in Japan.

DEFINITION AND LITERATURE REVIEW ON CHILD HL LEARNER OF

JAPANESE IN THE U.S.

Before we go any further, I would like to define the words, “heritage language

(HL)” and “heritage language learners”, because these terms can be defined differently depending on the context and also used differently by those concerned about the study,

2 A total of 1,339 teachers were sent to schools for Japanese children living overseas in 2007.

SLS 660 (1) Paper 1, Option B 6/25 IYODA – MACRO-LEVEL LANGUAGE POLICY 7 maintenance, and revitalization of non-English languages in the U.S., like Fishman who categorized HL in the U.S. into three major groups, immigrant languages, indigenous languages, and colonial languages, according to each group’s sociohistorical background in the U.S. (2001). Valdés (2001) has formulated a basic definition of heritage language

(HL) speakers in the U.S., which is a student who is raised in a home where a non-

English language is spoken, who speaks or at least understands the language, and who is to some degree bilingual in that language and in English. In this paper, I adopt Valdes’s definition in my discussion of Japanese as a HL, and I define a HL speaker of Japanese as follows: those who have been raised in a home where Japanese is spoken by their parent(s) as a mother tongue of the parent(s), and who speak or merely understand

Japanese, and who are to some degree bilingual in English and Japanese. Among these

HL speakers of Japanese, I refer to those who actually learn Japanese as a HL at classroom settings as “Japanese HL learners.” My focus in this paper is Japanese HL learners in K-8 system attending Hoshuukoo, and I consider Non-Returnees as Japanese

HL learners according as the definition above.

Compare to studies involving Japanese HL learners at post-secondary level, there is very little attention have been given from the academic community to those Japanese

HL learners who are in K-8 system and attending Hoshuukoo (Douglas, 2005). However, university professionals with expertise in learning and teaching Japanese as a second, foreign or a HL in the U.S. have begun to recognize the various serious instructional problems common to the schools, and studies involving child Japanese HL learners have grown rapidly in recent years. For example, Kataoka, Koshiyama & Shibata (2005) conducted a large-scale study involving 1,591 students attending Hoshuukoo in order to

SLS 660 (1) Paper 1, Option B 7/25 IYODA – MACRO-LEVEL LANGUAGE POLICY 8 assess the language abilities of such students. The study clearly showed that the levels of

Japanese proficiency tended to separate into both high and low extremes from about fifth or sixth grade, and the students at the low extreme were mainly Non-Returnees. Japanese ability between Future Returnees and Non-Returnees started to noticeable from fourth grade, and the acquisition levels of grammatical skills such as particles and sentence patterns differ more significantly in the later grades. In fact, Japanese language proficiency of some Non-Returnees at the junior high school level remain as low as the first or second grade. The finding supports Douglas’s statement that no positive correlation between the length of attendance to Hoshuukoo and the students’ demonstrated proficiency levels (2008). Although much more studies are needed to identify development of HL of Non-Returnees in detail, it is safe to assume that Non-

Returnees acquire age-appropriate level of proficiency in communicative aspect of

Japanese at home, but they do not develop age-appropriate proficiency in cognitive- academic aspect of Japanese at Hoshuukoo.

On the basis of the characteristic of Non-Returnees’ Japanese language competence, Douglas (2006) argues that a curriculum that were developed in Japan for native speakers of Japanese is not appropriate for Japanese HL learners, and yet a curriculum developed for American students learning Japanese as a foreign language does not meet needs of Japanese HL learners either. In proposing new curriculum designs for child Japanese HL learners, Douglas points out that “a challenge for a

Japanese HL curriculum planer is the heterogeneous language proficiency of Japanese

HL learners, which requires multilevel planning” (2003, 2005, and 2008). Considering that fact that many average size Hoshuukoo experience insufficient funding, inadequacy

SLS 660 (1) Paper 1, Option B 8/25 IYODA – MACRO-LEVEL LANGUAGE POLICY 9 of teaching methodology, lack of instructional materials and lack of well-qualified teachers (Douglas 2008), supports from academic community are desperately needed by

Hoshuukoo in developing pedagogically sound curriculum that can cope with teaching both Future Returnees and Non-Returnees.

OVERVIEW OF EDUCATIONAL FACILITIES SUPPORTED BY THE

JAPANESE GOVERNMENT FOR JAPANESE CHILDREN LIVING OVERSEAS

1. History and educational environment of each type of school (MEXT, 2008a, 2008b),:

There are currently three types of educational facilities accredited by MEXT as an authorized school available for Japanese children in the compulsory education age group living overseas. History and educational environment of each type of school are summarized as follows:

(1) Nihonjin-gakko, a full-time school for Japanese:

The first Nihonjin-gakko was established in 1956 for Future Returnees and there are 85 Nihonjin-gakko in 50 countries as of April 2007. It offers a full-time education of the same standard as that provided in schools in Japan, and graduates are qualified to enter higher schools. The school is funded by financial aid from the Japanese government, donations from local Japanese based companies, and tuition from the parents.

(2) Shiritsu, another full-time school for Japanese:

Shiritsu is a private overseas educational facility established, administered and

SLS 660 (1) Paper 1, Option B 9/25 IYODA – MACRO-LEVEL LANGUAGE POLICY 10 funded by private school corporations in Japan. They provide a full-time education for

Future Returnees and graduates are qualified to enter higher schools in Japan. There are

10 Shiritsu in 7 countries as of April 2007.

(3) Hoshuukoo, supplementary education school for Japanese:

Hoshuukoo offers a part-time education of the same standard as that provided in schools in Japan once a week on weekends. Majority of Hoshuukoo offer classes 40 days per year, which is approximately one-fifths of that is offered by elementary and middle schools in Japan (see Figure 2). Due to the lack of course hours, Hoshuukoo is not authorized as an ordinary Japanese school defined by the Constitution. Since it is not granted the same status as Nihonjin-gakko and Shiritsu, graduates of Hoshuukoo are not qualified to enter higher schools in Japan.

Hoshuukoo was established by Japanese immigrant parents and Japanese parents who work on business or educational mission overseas for their children. The school is administered by parents and funded by financial aid from the Japanese government, donations from local Japanese companies and tuition from parents. The majority of the students attending Hoshuukoo were Future Returnees, but more Non-Returnees have begun to attend Hoshuuko in the past decade (Kondo, 1998). The first Hoshuukoo was established in Washington D.C. in 1958, and there are 187 Hoshuukoo in 53 countries as of April 2007.

2. Demographic information of each school:

Figures 3-1 and 3-2 show number of students enrolled in Nihonjin-gakko and

Hoshuukoo by region as of April 2006. The information for Shiritsu is not available to public since they are private schools. Figure 3-3 shows the Japanese population of non- immigrant alien and permanent resident living in Asia and North America as of April

2006. As you can see, almost 75% of Japanese children who attend Nihonjin-gakko reside in Asia whereas 72% of Japanese children who attend Hoshuukoo reside in North

America. Among these three Figures, it is clear that Nihonjin-gakko are currently located more in countries where English is not the official language, and that Japanese parents living in such non-English speaking countries tend to send their children to Nihonjin- gakko with regardless of period of their time abroad. We can also make another assumption that Japanese children living in North America are most likely receiving their compulsory education in English at local schools and learn Japanese only once a week at

Hoshuukoo, and therefore, that their exposure to Japanese and Japanese culture may be limited compare to those children who live in non-English speaking countries and enroll in Nihonjin-gakko.

3. Trend in the total number of the Schools:

Most Nihonjin-gakko, Shiritsu and Hoshuukoo were established during the rapid economic growth in the 1950s to early 1970s and the era of “Bubble Economy” in Japan in the 1980s to early 1990s, when many Japanese companies sought new business opportunities outside Japan and sent their employees all over the world. Figure 4 shows the trend of total number of each type of school for the period from 1984 through 2006.

One point to note is the down trend of the number of Nihonjin-gakko and Shiritsu in early

2000s. Although there is no study conducted to support this statement, we can assume

SLS 660 (1) Paper 1, Option B 11/25 IYODA – MACRO-LEVEL LANGUAGE POLICY 12 that the burst of the Bubble Economy in early 1990s triggered this down trend since many Japanese based companies that expanded their business in the 1980s to early 1990s had to close their offices and sent their employees back to Japan in late 1990s. Since

Nihonjin-gakko and Shiritsu were established to support children of these Japanese employees, some of them might have not been able to maintain their operation due to the decline in the Japanese population. Since majority of the students attending Nihonjin- gakko and Shiritsu are Japanese children whose parents are working on business overseas, it makes sense that these schools get affected by Japanese economy.

Hoshuukoo, on the other hand, does not get impacted by the movement of Japanese companies since parents of majority of the students do not plan on returning to Japan from the first place.

A STORY OF ONE OF THE HOSHUUKOO:

Austin Japanese School (AJS) was established in 2000 and started out with 34 students in 5 classes. The majority of the parents who contributed to the establishment of

AJS were working for Japanese high-tech companies with offices in Austin, such as

Sony, Hitachi, and Toshiba. AJS grew significantly during the first few years, but with the economic downturn in the Austin technology industry in early 2000s, many Japanese employees in Austin returned to Japan, and consequently many Japanese students withdrew from AJS at that time. However, AJS enrollment continues to grow due to the increasing number of students from mixed families, where the mother is typically a

Japanese immigrant and the father is a U.S. citizen. In the past five years, the number of students enrolled at AJS has increased from 71 to 119. In 2003, Non-Returnees accounted for 46% of the total students, but they now comprise nearly 70% of the

SLS 660 (1) Paper 1, Option B 12/25 IYODA – MACRO-LEVEL LANGUAGE POLICY 13 population (see Figure 5). The growth in the number of Non-Returnees not only brought

AJS financial stability, but also brought AJS teachers a new challenge of teaching

Japanese to children with fewer academic Japanese skills and different education needs.

Most Non-Returnees were born and are raised in the U.S. Very few of them have received formal academic Japanese instruction prior to enrollment into AJS and most of them have very little personal interest in learning a Japanese language. The difference in academic needs and motivation between Future Returnees and Non-Returnees are reflected in their Japanese proficiency and coursework. Eriko, one of the teachers who have taught at fifth grade level for 6 years, expressed her frustration (personal communication translated from Japanese by myself on June, 2007):

“I have taught at the fifth grade level since 2002, and while Future Returnees

used to outnumber Non-Returnees at first, Non-Returnees now fill up two

thirds of my class roster. Most Non-Returnees in my class are fairly

illiterate, are unable to comprehend lectures, or even properly ask teachers

questions in Japanese. I now have tremendous difficulty accommodating the

academic needs of both Future Returnees and Non-Returnees at the same

time in the same class. I am a certified elementary school teacher with 5

years of teaching experience, but what I know does not work on Non-

Returnees here at all and I have come to realize that teaching Non-Returnees

Japanese requires different skills and expertise. Teachers, including myself,

have proposed to our school committee to start offering another track for

Non-Returnees, but it was rejected mainly because such program will not be

supported by the Japanese government and also because we will not be able

to find a teacher in Austin who is trained to teach Japanese as HL. I teach

my students per the required textbooks and curriculum every Saturday. I am

aware that two-thirds of students sitting in front of me have no idea what I

am talking about, but I must keep going or I will not be able to finish the

required curriculum and get complaints from parents of Kikoku students.”

ISSUES:

The story above clearly illuminates the various serious instructional problems common to Hoshuukoo. Among many problems, Eriko picked the curriculum and the textbook as two serious problems at Hoshuukoo that hinder teachers from being creative on their lessons. As I introduced to you earlier, Hoshuukoo are accredited by the

Japanese government and thus are required (1) to use Kokugo textbooks, the Japanese language arts textbooks, which are developed by non-governmental publishers in Japan and approved by MEXT per the curriculum guideline required by School Education Law, and (2) to follow Gakusyu-shidou-youryou, the MEXT’s official curriculum guidelines and the course of studies required for elementary and secondary school teaching in

Japan3. These constraints can be very problematic at schools like Hoshuukoo that have a higher enrollment ratio of Japanese HL learners.

There are very few studies conducted to analyze Kokugo textbooks as a textbook for Japanese HL learners from the cognitive linguistic aspect. One study pointed out,

3 Gakusyu-shidou-youryou includes, but, not limited to, overall objectives, objective, contents, syllabus design, curriculum design and criteria and process of assessment per each grade and subject. It was introduced in the 1940s under the School Education Law and has been reviewed and updated in every few years. Once the curriculum guideline is updated, the textbook is also updated accordingly.

SLS 660 (1) Paper 1, Option B 14/25 IYODA – MACRO-LEVEL LANGUAGE POLICY 15 however, that Kokugo textbooks do not consider the needs of child Japanese HL learner to acquire reading strategy to cope with various types of errors in reading (Douglas,

2002). In the study, Douglas argues that Kokugo textbook for the first grade, for example, focuses on reading fluently and consider a self-correction4 as an error, but the miscues such as improper pronunciation or self-correction made by Japanese HL learners should be analyzed and monitored by a teacher to measure development of their HL proficiency (e.g. reading process, and reading strategies). The other problem on using

Kokogo textbooks for Non-Returnees is that most topics treated in Kokogo textbooks are deeply tied to Japanese school life and culture. To most Non-Returnees who were born and are raised in the U.S., the topics in Kokugo textbooks are not authentic and often times they are not able to relate to the topics, which demotivates them instantly.

Although much more studies are needed to evaluate suitability of Kokugo textbook as a textbook for Japanese HL learners, it is safe to assume that Kokugo textbooks are not appropriate for Non-Returnees.

As for the Gakusyu-shidou-youryou, considering the fact that Japanese HL learners’ language profiles and needs are distinctly different from those of Japanese native speaking students (Kondo-Brown, 2008), it is clear that the Japanese government official curriculum, materials and assessment process that were developed for elementary and middle school students in Japan are not appropriate for Non-Returnees either, especially with a combination with the extremely limited instruction hours at Hoshuukoo.

Then why the Japanese government continues to supply Hoshuuko materials that are not appropriate for majority of the students at Hoshuukoo, and why Hoshuukoo

4 When a student mispronounced a word and the sentence does not make sense, the student comes back to the sentence and tries to read it again correctly.

SLS 660 (1) Paper 1, Option B 15/25 IYODA – MACRO-LEVEL LANGUAGE POLICY 16 continues to use them as is? The problem goes back to the Japanese government policy in education for children living overseas. The children who the Japanese government is obligated to support by the law is Future Returnees and thus all supports provided by the

Japanese government are only applicable to Future Returnees. In order to keep receiving the maximum financial aid and free textbooks for their students, however, it is common that Hoshukoo includes the number of Non-Returnees to the number of Future Returnees when they report the total number of students of their school to the Japanese government.

In case of AJS, even 70% or more of the students are Non-Returnees, they are reported as

Future Returnees so the school can receive the sufficient funding to run the school for another year. Because of this “common practice”, it is quite possible that the Japanese government is not aware of the drastic change in demographics of Hoshuukoo, or they may be aware of the situation but do not take any actions on purpose so they can continue supporting Hoshuuko as they have been since 1950s. Either way, it seems to me that the support provided by the Japanese government to Hoshuukoo has held its balance on such a “thin ice”; it is too fragile that all of us are afraid of taking a step forward. But what are the consequences and who is paying for it?

CONCLUSION AND SUGGESTIONS:

A possible solution to free both the Japanese government and Hoshuukoo from the chain was actually suggested by Kawamura Takeo, the former head of MEXT:

“ The government needs to take responsibility for compulsory education,

which is the basis for character development and equips students with the

skills necessary for becoming a valuable member of society. Moreover, a

citizen's right to receive an education is guaranteed in Section 26 of the

Constitution. Compulsory education should be free and the contents and

level of compulsory education guaranteed throughout the nation. Securing

these principles of compulsory education (equal opportunity, assurances of

standards, and a free education system) is the firm responsibility of the

central government. At the same time, in the implementation of education,

local authorities should take responsibility, and schools should be

encouraged to show as much creativity as possible. Compulsory education

will be able to achieve its objectives through such an approach. The goals

of education should be responsible for assuring standards and be generous

in providing the necessary investment in education in order to fulfill these

objectives, while encouraging the creative innovation of local authorities

and schools in the implementation of education policy.” (MEXT, 1994b)

In applying his notion above to the situation of Hoshuukoo, the message he sends to Hoshuukoo would be something like “we (the Japanese government) do our part, the rest is up to you (Hoshuukoo).” In other words, Hoshuukoo is already given the authority to decide how the supports that they get from the government should be used at

Hoshuukoo. It is then Hoshuukoo’s responsibility to be creative and make the most of it.

As a starter, Hoshuukoo should first find a way to become more financially independent from the Japanese government so they can make necessary investments for future such as teacher education, and educational material research and development. At the same time,

Hoshuukoo should conduct needs analysis involving their teachers, parents and students, to confirm their positioning and role in their community. By doing so, they will learn

SLS 660 (1) Paper 1, Option B 17/25 IYODA – MACRO-LEVEL LANGUAGE POLICY 18 where the school stands now and what their attainment goals should be in the next 5-10 years. It is also important to learn from a successful Hoshuukoo as to what worked and what did not.

In my opinion, this transition cannot be done successfully without supports from university professionals with expertise in learning and teaching heritage languages. The roles that researchers are expected to play in this context are (1) to keep raising awareness in specific needs of Non-Returnees, (2) to develop and suggest theoretically and pedagogically sound strategies for teaching heterogeneous young Japanese HL learners, and (3) to assist educators in implementing curriculum, material and assessment process developed for Non-Returnees by providing them with transformative projects and teacher education opportunities.

Hoshuukoo is a community-based school. It was established and has been maintained by the community since 1950s. It is the community that decides what role

Hoshuukoo should pay, not the Japanese government. It is always shaped by the community and thus will never be the same. Children in the community are the responsibility of members of the community. It is their duty to encourage their children to keep learning until they realize what opportunities that maintaining their ability to use their HL can bring to their life.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Chinen, K. & Tucker. G. R. (2005). Heritage Language Development: Understanding the Roles of Ethnic Identity and Saturday School Participation. Heritage Language Journal 3.1. Retrieved September 2008, from http://heritagelanguages.org/

Douglas, M. (2002) analyses of learning goals of Japanese language textbooks for native speackers. Retrieved September 2008, from http://www.colorado.edu/ealld/atj/SIG/heritage/douglas_kyokasho.html

Douglas, M., Kataoka, H., & Kishimoto, T. (2003). Keishoogokoo t onihongo hoshuukoo ni okeru gakushuusha no gengo haikei choosa [Survey of the language background of students at hoshuukoo and Japanes language schools]. CRIE Review of International Education, 1, 1-13.

Douglas, M.O. (2006). Pedagogical theories and approaches to teach young learners of Japanese as a heritage language. Heritage Language Journal, 3. Retrieved September 2008, from http://www.heritagelanguages.org/

Douglas, M. (2008). Curriculum Design for young Learners of Japanese as a Heritage Language. In Kondo-Brown, K. and Brown, J.D. (Eds.) Teaching Chinese, Japanese and Korean Heritage Language Students: Curriculum Needs, Materials, and Assessment (pp. 237-270). New York: Lawrence Erlbaum

Hasegawa, T. (2008) Measuring the Japanese Proficiency of Heritage Language Children. In Kondo-Brown, K. and Brown, J.D. (Eds.) Teaching Chinese, Japanese and Korean Heritage Language Students: Curriculum Needs, Materials, and Assessment (pp. 77-97). New York: Lawrence Erlbaum

Kanno, K., Hasegawa, T., Ikeda, K. & Ito, Y (2005). Linguistic Profiles of Heritae Bilingual Learners of Japanese. Retrieved September 2008, from http://www.cascadilla.com/isb4.html

Kataoka, C.K., Koshiyama, Y., & Shibata, S. (2005) Japanese and English Language Ability of Students at Supplementary Japanese Schools in the United States. In Kondo- Brown, K. and Brown, J.D. (Eds.) Teaching Chinese, Japanese and Korean Heritage Language Students: Curriculum Needs, Materials, and Assessment (pp. 47-76). New York: Lawrence Erlbaum

Kondo, K. (1998). The paradox of US language policy and Japanese language education in Hawaii. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 1, 47-64.

Kondo-Brown, K. (2003). Heritage language instruction for post-secondary students from immigrant backgrounds. Heritage Language Journal, 1. 1-25. [Refereed online journal hosted by the UCLA Language Resource Centers

Kondo-Brown, K. (2006b). East Asian heritage language proficiency development. In K. Kondo-Brown (Ed.), Heritage language development: Focus on East Asian immigrants (pp. 243-258). Amsterdam, Netherlands: John Benjamins.

Kondo-Brown, K. (2008). Issues and Future Agendas for Teaching Chinese, Japanese, and Korean Heritage Students. In Kondo-Brown, K. and Brown, J.D. (Eds.) Teaching

Chinese, Japanese and Korean Heritage Language Students: Curriculum Needs, Materials, and Assessment (pp. 17-43). New York: Lawrence Erlbaum

Kondo-Brown, K. & Fukuda, C. (2008). A Separate-Track for Advanced Heritage Language Students?: Japanese Intersentential referencing. In Kondo-Brown, K. and Brown, J.D. (Eds.) Teaching Chinese, Japanese and Korean Heritage Language Students: Curriculum Needs, Materials, and Assessment (pp. 135-156). New York: Lawrence Erlbaum

Kondo-Brown, K., & Brown, J.D. (Eds.). (2008). Teaching Chinese, Japanese and Korean Heritage Language Students: Curriculum Needs, Materials, and Assessment. (ESL & Applied Linguistics Professional series.) New York: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates/Taylor & Francis. 346 pp.

Lee, J., 2005. Through the learners' eyes: Reconceptualizing, the heritage and non- heritage learner of the less commonly taught languages. Foreign language annal, 38, 4, p554

MEXT. (1994a). White Paper, Part II Chapter 4 Section 32, Recent Trends and Development in Government Policies in Education, Science and Culture. Retrieved September, 2008 from http://www.mext.go.jp/b_menu/hakusho/html/hpae199401/hpae199401_2_109.html

MEXT. (1994b). Reforming Compulsory Education. Retrieved September, 2008 from http://www.mext.go.jp/english/topics/04091701.htm

MEXT. (2008a) Kaigai sizyo kyouiku no ayu mi [History of Japanese children living overseas]. Retrieved September 2008 from http://www.mext.go.jp/a_menu/shotou/clarinet/002/001.htm

MEXT. (2008b) Kaigai sizyo kyouiku zyouhou [Information about Japanese children living overseas]. Retrieved September 2008 from http://www.mext.go.jp/a_menu/shotou/clarinet/002.htm

The Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Japan (2007). Annual Report of Statistics on Japanese Nationals Overseas. Retrieved September, 2008, from http://www.mofa.go.jp/mofaj/toko/tokei/hojin/07/index.html

Valde’s G. (2001). Heritage Language Students: Profiles and Possibilities. In J.K. Peyton, D.A. Ranard, & Scott McGinnis (Eds.), Heritage languages in America: Preserving a national resource (pp. 37-77). Washington, DC & McHenry, IL: Center for Applied Linguistics & Delta Systems.

Table 1-1: Size and location of Nihonjin-gakko

Size of school No. of school (%) No. of students City

2000< 2 2.4% 4,655 Shanghai, Bangkok

1000< 2 2.4% 3,206 Singapore, Hong Kong Jakarta, Taipei, Kuala Lumpur, 500-999 5 5.8% 3,649 Beijing, others 400-499 2 2.4% 918 London, Manila

300-399 3 3.5% 1,022 Soul, Brussels, Guangzhou Amsterdam, Frankfurt, Paris, 200-299 4 4.7% 950 others Takao, Dairen, San Paulo, 100-199 16 18.8% 2,268 Sosyu, others Moscow, New Daly, 50-99 12 14.1% 872 Barcelona, Dubai, others Colombo, Rotterdam, Rime, 50> 39 45.9% 986 others

Total 85 100.0% 18,526

Table 1-2: Size and location of Hoshuukoo

Size of school No. of school (%) No. of students City

1200-1999 1 0.5% 1,208 Los Angels

800-1199 2 1.1% 1,920 San Francisco, Detroit London, New York, Chicago, 400-799 6 3.2% 3,131 Columbus, Boston, Seattle San Diego, New Jersey, 100-399 27 14.4% 5,315 Washington, Toronto, others Philadelphia, Princeton, 50-99 30 16.1% 2,043 Sriracha, others

50> 121 64.7% 2,441 Hamburg, El Paso, others

Total 85 100.0% 16,058

Figure 1-1: Number of Japanese living overseas as a non-immigrant alien.

800000 700000 600000 500000 400000 300000 200000 Non-immigrant Alien 100000 0 1971 1976 1981 1986 1991 1996 2001 2006

Figure 1-2: Number of Japanese children in compulsory education group living overseas.

70000 60000 50000 40000 30000 Children in compulsoly 20000 education group 10000 0 1971 1976 1981 1986 1991 1996 2001 2006

Figure 3-1: Number of students enrolled in Nihonjin-gakko by region.

269, 1% 121, 1% Asia 149, 1% North America 3078, 17% South America Europe 583, 3% Oceania 462, 2% Middle East Africa

13,864, 75% Total no. of students: 18,526, 100%

Figure 3-2: Number of students enrolled in Hoshuukoo by region.

74, 0% 77, 0%

586, 4% 910, 6% Asia 2,803, 17% North America South America Europe 116, 1% Oceania Middle East Africa

Total no. of students: 11,492, 72% 16,058, 100%

SLS 660Total (1) no. Paper of students: 1, Option B 23/25 16,058, 100% IYODA – MACRO-LEVEL LANGUAGE POLICY 24

Figure 2: Number of days Hoshuukoo offer class per year.

no. of school 35 30

25 Elementary 20 Middle school 15 10 5 0 no. of day

Figure 3-3: The Japanese population of non-immigrant alien and permanent resident living in Asia and North America.

150,796 North America 263,756

Permanent resident Non-immigrant alien 10,671 Asia 267,064

0 50000 100000 150000 200000 250000 300000

Figure 4: Trend of number of each school from 1984 to 2006.

1984 1989 1994 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 Nihonjin-gakko 76 84 90 95 95 96 96 96 83 82 82 85 85 Shiritsu 10 10 10 17 17 17 17 16 16 13 13 12 12 Hoshuukoo 102 136 167 176 181 183 188 188 187 188 186 185 187

200 180 160 140 120 Nihonjin-gakko 100 Shiritsu 80 Hoshuukoo 60 40 20 0

Figure 5: The change in the proportion of Eizyu to Japanese NS students at AJS from 2003 through 2007.

Eizyu Kikoku c) 2007 Student Ratios a) Total Students b) 2003 Student Ratios Eizyu Kikoku Eizyu Kikoku

100% 25 25 90% 31% 80% 20 20 54% 70% 15 15 60%

50% 10 10

40% 5 69% 5 30% 46% 0 20% 0

10% 3rd 5th 3rd 3rd 5th 3rd

0% Middle 1st Middle 1st 2003 2007 PreschoolPrimary 1 1st PreschoolPrimary 1 1st

SLS 660 (1) Paper 1, Option B 25/25