A Comparative Study Of The Development And Implementation Of Education Programs In Japan

The development of modern management science has proven that the role of education planning has become increasingly important. To become a world power in the21century, China has to fundamentally consider the reform and the long-term planning of education development. This paper takes China’s National Medium and Long-term Plan for Education Reform and Development (2010-2020) and Japan’s Education Revitalization Plan (2008-2010) as chief sources and compares the similarities and differences on formulation, implementation and supervision of education planning in the two countries so as to find the disparities, to make up for the deficiency and to promote the reform and development of China’s education.This study is divided into five chapters according to the order of education planning development from formulation to implementation. The first chapter discusses the background of the education planning of the two countries. China and Japan are in the times with great changes, national development and social progress require long-term thinking and planning on education, education planning meets the needs of the world situation and the national conditions. The second chapter comparatively analyzes the similarities and differences on the research, consultation, consideration and amendment between the two countries in the formulation process, finding that our country’s development is a bit hasty. There are more government actions in the research and consultation process while lacking of an openness and fairness. The third and fourth chapters mainly compare the differences on education planning and implementation. The implementation process can be divided into two stages of implementation and supervision. Chapter III focus on comparing the similarities and differences on the implementation stage. As compared with Japan’s central and local role-sharing, China’s local government is usually lack of autonomy and actions in the implementation process while Japanese public participating enthusiasm is higher. Meanwhile, China’s inspection and evaluation mechanisms are inadequate during the implementation process. Chapter IV comparatively analyzes the similarities and differences on the supervision stage from the aspects of legal supervision, administrative supervision and supervision by public opinion. Overall, China pays more attention to the administrative supervision, especially the government supervision. Japan attaches importance to the role of third-party supervision and gives more expression freedom to the public. Chapter V summarizes the lack of education administrative system, supervision evaluation mechanism in China based on the comparison with those of Japan, aiming to sum up the experience in order to provide a reference for the development of China’s education planning.