Conceptualising Ideologically Bounded Equity in Japan: A Document Analysis of Curriculum Governance, High-Stakes Transitions and Shadow Education
EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF EDUCATION, cilt.61, sa.3, ss.1-14, 2026 (SSCI, Scopus)
- Yayın Türü: Makale / Tam Makale
- Cilt numarası: 61 Sayı: 3
- Basım Tarihi: 2026
- Doi Numarası: 10.1111/ejed.70819
- Dergi Adı: EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF EDUCATION
- Derginin Tarandığı İndeksler: Academic Search Ultimate (EBSCO), Social Science Premium Collection (ProQuest), Education Collection (ProQuest), Education Source Ultimate (EBSCO), Scopus, Sociology Source Ultimate (EBSCO), Agricultural & Environmental Science Database, Social Sciences Citation Index (SSCI), IBZ Online, Periodicals Index Online, Education Abstracts, Educational research abstracts (ERA), ERIC (Education Resources Information Center), EBSCO Education Source, MLA - Modern Language Association Database, Public Affairs Index, MLA International Bibliography
- Sayfa Sayıları: ss.1-14
- Açık Arşiv Koleksiyonu: AVESİS Açık Erişim Koleksiyonu
- Süleyman Demirel Üniversitesi Adresli: Evet
Özet
This study examines how responsibility for educational fairness is represented across curriculum governance, reform cycles, selective transitions, supplementary education and values and moral education in Japan. It uses thematic document analysis of a criterion-based purposive corpus of 43 documents: six Japanese official documents, five OECD publications and 32 academic or scholarly sources. The analysis identifies a substantive public guarantee of common curricular provision, meaningful but uneven recalibration across the Yutori and Post-Yutori periods, socially differentiated conditions for converting provision into valued pathways and heterogeneous functions of shadow education. Values and moral education have substantive pedagogical and normative purposes, but the corpus does not show that they directly legitimise examination-based inequality. Ideologically Bounded Equity is retained as a qualified, revisable middle-range interpretation: public commitment, institutional guarantee and differentiation are strongly supported; the boundary of public responsibility is partial and contested; and ideological legitimation remains tentative.