Guaranteeing the Creativity of Educational Practice under the Revised Fundamental Law of Education(<Urgent Special Issue> Educational Reform and the Reconstruction of Educational Practice under Amended Fundamental Law of Education)

The revision of the Fundamental Law of Education signals a decisive loss for the people who had believed that the freedom of education would be protected by means of preventing the law from revision for close to 60 years. Article 10 of the original Fundamental Law of Education stipulated as follows: "Education shall not be subject to improper control, but it shall be directly responsible to the whole people. School administration shall, on the basis of this realization, aim at the adjustment and establishment of the various conditions required for the pursuit of the aim of education." But the revision bill dropped the phrase that education should be carried out with direct responsibility to the people and, instead inserted the phrase that education should be carried out in accordance with "this and other laws." One wonders if this revision will prepare the circumstances for the state strengthening control of and intervening in education, because the theory of the people's right to education and teacher's professional autonomy was authorized by the original Article 10. In order to oppose the power of the state and protect their rights, people can choose one well-known way, that is weakening the influence of one law by means of using another law of higher status, such as the Constitution or the Convention on the Rights of the Child. However, I think it is not the best way to reach a public consensus on the importance of teachers' professional autonomy. This paper examines the 'historical path' to building a strong discourse protecting the teachers' freedom to teach. There was a process of discovering the value of the Fundamental Law of Education. And was a process of collaboration in which so many researchers and lawyers participated, and ultimately created the theory of the people's right to education. But, we can see typically in Prof. Munakata's discourse, the pluralities of freedom within his theory were removed in order to win the suit. The reason why such a large scale campaign for the Special Power Relation Theory was developed by the bureaucracy was to oppose that strong discourse. The stronger their discourses could become, the colder the war would become. My alternative plan is to reconsider the possibility for the right of education to return to the beginning point, recreating the law from the view of the actual situation of education where the law for pluralities of freedom would develop out of the encounter of children, parents, stakeholders and teachers.