Considering the poor logic of "free education" as a policy

It is very difficult to say "free education" when the whole Japan is moving towards free education, but I am watching this and thinking that it seems a bad policy.

First of all, I think it's wrong to say that this is a policy "for children from families who cannot afford tuition fees."

This can be seen by recalling when this policy first emerged.

I recall that free education first emerged as a policy issue around 2017. It was Seiji Maehara, then leader of the Democratic Party, who first brought it up.

"All for All"

He advocated this policy, pledged to pass on the increased consumption tax to everyone, not just the elderly and the poor, and in particular to make education free as a service to the working generation.

In response to this, the Liberal Democratic Party, led by then Prime Minister Abe Shinzo, dissolved the House of Representatives and called a general election, pledging to use the "2% consumption tax increase (from 8% to 10%)" to make education free.

This can be said to be a complete rip-off of the policies of Maehara's Democratic Party, and the reality that they could actually allocate a budget and implement the policies as the ruling party was supported, which was one of the reasons for their landslide victory in the House of Representatives election.

On the other hand, Maehara's Democratic Party, whose policies had been completely copied, fell into chaos and merged with Tokyo Governor Koike Yuriko's Kibouno Tou, and the party split, leading to Edano Yukio founding the Constitutional Democratic Party, leaving the opposition parties in the fragmented state that remain in today.

Maehara is currently the co-chair of the Nihon Ishin-no-kai. He is currently in tough negotiations with the Ishiba Shigeru administration to realize "free education," but looking back at the past, there is a connection between it in 2017 and in 2025.

After the 2017 general election, all political parties, from the Reiwa Shinsengumi and the Communist Party to the Social Democratic Party, the Constitutional Democratic Party, the Komeito Party, the Liberal Democratic Party, the Nihon Ishin-no-kai, and perhaps even far-right parties, were all in favor of "free education."

So why is there so much talk about making education free?

This goes back to the "integrated tax and social security reform" of the Democratic Party government led by Yoshihiko Noda.

This was a "three-party agreement" between the ruling Democratic Party (at the time) and the opposition Liberal Democratic Party and Komeito Party, which called for a two-stage increase in the consumption tax (from 5% to 8%, and then from 8% to 10%). However, the increased tax revenue was to be used to reduce the fiscal deficit and for social security for the elderly and services for the poor on welfare.

The Noda administration resigned and the second Abe administration was established. As the time came to implement a consumption tax increase, strong dissatisfaction gradually emerged as an issue among the working generation, those raising children, and young people.

In short, the people who will feel the heavy tax burden caused by the consumption tax hike most strongly are the working generation, those raising children, and young people (even though it is the elderly and the wealthy who will actually pay it).

Simply put, they pay taxes but do not receive services. The politicians strongly felt that this strong dissatisfaction with the heavy tax burden led to a strong aversion to tax increases not seen in other countries (which is why the consumption tax （VAT) rate remains at about half that of European countries).

And "free education" was introduced as a service to the working generation, child-rearing generation, and young generations.

Looking back on it like this, you'll notice that free education is not for the poor who can't afford tuition fees. It's to eliminate the dissatisfaction of the working generation, child-rearing generation, and young people who should be able to pay tuition fees (well, at least for public schools, not private schools), and to win votes.

In other words, I strongly suspect that all political parties are promoting this policy as a way to hand out money for election purposes, and that this is the true nature of the free education policy.

The next problem is that free education is not actually free. In essence, it means that "your child's tuition is free, but you have to pay the tuition of other children."

In particular, if the scope of eligibility is expanded to include "free private education without income restrictions," as some politicians are strongly advocating, it would mean that "working, child-rearing, and young people will have to pay the tuition fees for the children of the wealthy."

This is because, of course, it is not possible to ask schools that have no income due to the free education system to provide educational services for free. Thus, the national and local governments will have to pay for it from taxes. Taxes are paid by the people.

A simple "misunderstanding" that many people have about free education is that they think, for example, that politicians and government officials will pay the tuition fees for your children.

No. You're the one paying for it. And for someone else's kid. A rich kid.

I think that those who can afford it should be allowed to pay. This is a slightly different example from the university, but I heard a story about a professor I know whose child is attending a national university that was formerly an imperial university.

The child apparently formed a group with his friends to study in empty classrooms during non-class times and on holidays.

However, one day, the university posted a notice at the entrance to the classroom.

"To conserve electricity, classrooms are not to be used outside of lessons."

A professor said that.

"Tuition at national universities is cheap, isn't it? It's ridiculous that there's no money and students can't study freely. We can afford it, so I wish we could pay more."

This will lead to a decline in the academic ability of Japanese students and a decline in the research capabilities of universities. I think that those who can afford it should pay.

What is even more problematic is the consequences that making education free will have on society.

In particular, what kind of results will "free private school tuition" bring? As has already been pointed out, children from families who cannot afford private school fees will take the entrance exams for private schools instead of going to public schools, and enroll in them. As a result, the number of students taking the exams for public schools will decrease. Schools will be forced to close.

On the other hand, it is not so simple to say that private schools will develop further. If taxpayers' money is poured into them, the Ministry of Education and local governments will have to exercise stricter control.

For example, if a private school wants to develop and introduce a free and innovative educational program, it needs a budget. Normally, tuition fees would be raised and only children from families who can afford it would enroll. However, if tuition were to be made free and tax money was paid, various criticisms would erupt.

"Is it okay for them to do whatever they want with the people's hard-earned tax money?"
"Isn't it unfair that they are using tax money?"
"I can't accept that they are using tax money to provide a program that is better than the school my child goes to."

And so on...

Not only will there be criticism from the public, but because subsidies will be injected, there will be examinations by the Ministry of Education and local governments. There is no way that an increase in funding for a new program will be approved as is. In the end, it will become "evil egalitarianism," and it will be rejected because there is no precedent, and the whole of education will become like "socialism." We will be left further behind the rest of the world.

I believe that there are some things that need to be addressed from a long-term perspective before making education free.

This involves eliminating the disparity between children who attend cram schools and enter private schools and those who are unable to do so and go on to public schools.

The important thing is that no matter what kind of family a child comes from, if they go to school and work hard, they can pave their way in life without going to a private school. At least, that was the hope in Japan until around the time I graduated from a local prefectural high school and entered university.

I didn't have a cram school when I was in high school. There was a lot of extra lessons at school. I was able to go to college without a cram school. Now, my alma mater doesn't do that anymore.

Looking at the regions today, it is undeniable that such hope is fading. Even the students around me are saying things like "oya-gacha (I was not born with a silver spoon in his mouth)" and "if you're not born in the city, you're a loser." That's no good.

This is not a simple case of everything being fine if we make tuition free.

The "free education" policy is essentially an election strategy, but there are people who can afford to pay tuition but don't. Those people should be made to pay. The money should be used to provide education at the same level as private schools, such as by increasing the number of teachers at public schools, improving educational infrastructure such as teaching materials and working conditions, and eliminating disparities.

On top of that, we will provide subsidies to make tuition fees free, focusing only on families who truly cannot afford it.

Of course, this is not easy. It will be a policy that takes a long time. However, aren't we now short-sighted with elections and elections, and only distributing today's money to the people? If that's the case, we'll just keep repeating the cycle of money being needed again when the money runs out, and nothing will accumulate.

It may be necessary to take a moment to carefully craft policies with an eye to Japan's future.

If Prime Minister Ishiba is promoting "Chihou Sousei (regional revitalization)," shouldn't he focus his budget on improving local public schools for the future, rather than handing them out for today? After all, schools are at the heart of each community. Their value has not been lost.