A report of the University of Minnesota Study Team: Contrasts between Teacher Education and Special Education in Japan and the United States U.S. Study Team: Rober Bruininks, Ph.D., Stanley Deno, Ph.D.(leader), Susan Rose, Ph.D., John Rynders, Ph.D., James Turnure, Ph.D., Frank Wilderson, Ph.D, and James Ysseldyke, Ph.D. In the years 1992-94, seven faculty members from the Special Education ProgramÊat the University of Minnesota participated in an comparative study and analysis of special education and teacher education in Japan and the United States. The purpose of the project from our perspective was to contrast Japanese special education teacher education with its counterpart in the US and to make recommendations based on what we had learned. What follows is a report on the results of our observations and analyses. Approach To accomplish the purpose of this study we relied heavily on three sources of information regarding special education and teacher education in Japan: 1) Observations conducted during site visits to schools, universities and prefecture centers; 2) Interviews and discussions with educators and researchers at the sites; and, 3) Readings of reports prepared by educational agencies in Japan, and published articles on Japanese schooling. Study team members consisted of Dean Robert Bruininks, Professor Stanley Deno(leader), Associate Professor Susan Rose, Professor John Rynders, Professor James Turnure, Professor Frank Wilderson, and Professor James Ysseldyke. While our interest in all of these information gathering activities was to first to understand the nature and conduct of special education teacher education in Japan, our primary focus came to be identifying key areas of difference between the countries with respect to special education and teacher education. Our rationale for focusing on key areas of difference was based on the assumption that it would be these differences that would be most generative source of ideas for any effort to redesign special education teacher education in either of our countries. A caution We would be remiss at the outset if we did not express our real concern that the differences that we identified in practice between our respective countries are of uncertain validity. We say this because all of the members of the US Team expressed strong concern that our incompetence in the language and our relative ignorance of the culture of Japan acts as a barrier to fully understanding and appreciating the nature and conduct of special education and teacher education in Japan. We have tried to be sensitive to the likelihood that we were in error with respect to our observations and conclusions, and have tried to be cautious in the implications we have drawn and the recommendations we have made. The reader is advised that the proper interpretation of what we have written requires that we are making our statements "as if" what we have identified as a contrast is actually true. In the event that we are incorrect, of course, then any recommendations are irrelevant. Background The Japanese education system has compulsory schooling from ages 6 to 15. Preschool education is offered in kindergarten or nursery school. Kindergarten caters to children ages 3 to 5, and nursery school is a social welfare institution which can enroll students until age six. In Japan there is both a lower-secondary and upper- secondary school. The upper secondary school is not compulsory, and entrance examinations are held. Tracking or streaming starts at the beginning of upper- secondary school. About 75% of students enroll in a general course. Specialized courses of study include vocational, technology, math and science, and foreign languages. Three Japanese laws address the needs of students with disabilities: the Law for the Welfare of Physically Disabled Persons (Law 283 of 1949), the Law for the Welfare of Mentally Retarded Persons (Law 37 of 1960), and the Mental Health Law (Law 123 of 1950). Special education in Japan is provided in two forms (special schools for students with disabilities and special classes within ordinary elementary and lower secondary schools. These are operated under the school system of the Ministry of Education. As of 1982 about 800 special schools provided special education for blind, deaf, mentally retarded, physically impaired and health-impaired students. About 22,000 special classes at the elementary and lower secondary school level provided educational services for students who are partially sighted, hard of hearing, mentally retarded, physically impaired, health impaired, speech impaired and emotionally disturbed. More severely disabled students get special education services at public and private daycare centers operated through the Ministry of Health and Welfare, and a special child-rearing allowances are given to guardians of moderately or severely mentally or physically disabled persons under the age of 20 in their homes. Assessment: Before they start school, Japanese children undergo a medical exam which identifies those with physical or medical disabilities. Special schools for blind and deaf children have been compulsory since 1948. Schools for students with mental and physical disabilities have been compulsory since 1979. Grade to grade promotion is automatic. Graduation is based on number of credits accrued and by approval of satisfactory achievement by the teacher. This differs from US where increasingly there is a move away from Carnegie Units toward graduation tests or evidence of meeting graduation standards. Accountability. The Ministry of Education conducts a nationwide scholastic achievement survey from time to time. The National Institute for Education Research conducts nationwide scholastic achievement surveys in specific subject areas to compare students at an international level. For the most part, students with disabilities are excluded. Yet, given that most students with mild disabilities are in general education classes, rate of inclusion in testing may actually be much higher than US inclusion in the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP). In the section that follows, we have identified nine areas that for us stood out as areas of contrast in special education and teacher education beaten Japan and the USA. We first attempt to clarify the contrast that we have observed; then, we have summarized what we consider to be potentially significant implications that can be drawn for the training of special education teachers. The areas of contrast are listed in no particular order. We do not consider the first to be any more, or less, important than the last. Areas of Contrast in Special Education and Teacher Education: Implications for the redesign of teacher education Contrast #1: Teacher/student Ratio One of the most striking differences between the US and Japan with respect to the organization and delivery of special education is that the Japanese teacher/student ratio is much lower than that found in the US. In Japan it is common to find that the number of adults working with students who are disabled and in a special education service setting will be virtually 1:1. In the US, the number of students per teacher will vary with the type of service delivery model used and with the nature of the students special educational needs; however, in the US it would be unusual to find service settings where the ratio was lower than 1:3 (1 adult to 3 students). In cases where the ratio was this low it would most likely be the result of one teacher and one paraprofessional working in the same room with six students. More often, when segregated services are provided to students with Moderate-Severe Mental Retardation in the US we would expect to find the ratio to be 1:4 (including paraprofessional assistance). In contrast, at the Minnesota School for the Deaf, the ratio of teacher to student is 1:12 in the Secondary School and 1:8 in the Elementary School. In our visit to the Special School in Hiroshima City we learned that the written school policy regarding student-staff ratio was 1:1. Implications for teacher education. We believe that these differences in teacher-student ratio correspond to significant differences in the types of skills that teachers must possess to be successful in their work. The demands of programming for students with disabilities in ratios of 1:1 are very different from those of 1:12. In the US the training of special education teachers includes a large component on the organization and management of groups of students and special attention must be given to issues related to classroom management. A common problem for US teachers is how to effectively respond to inattention and behavioral disruption that occurs when students are working in groups or independently. In Japan we seldom saw situations where students were being instructed in groups or were left to work independently. Behavior management, it would seem, should be less of a concern for the training of Japanese special educators. In addition to the issues of classroom management and control that are a major concern to US special educators, in the US teachers must learn how to design lessons to attempt to meet the needs of different students within the context of the group. This is a requirement of laws and regulations governing special education in the US and it is very difficult, at best, to accomplish. Because of the low teacher-student ratio in Japan, the teachers are freer to focus more directly on the needs of the individual without having to simultaneously consider the instructional needs of other students. A general principle derived from research in the US is that individual tutoring from an adult increases achievement by two standard deviations over that resulting from ordinary groupÊinstruction. If this is true, we should expect that the progress being made with students who have disabilities in Japan to be substantially greater than that obtained in the US. A major obligation of the IEP in the US is that individual student progress toward IEP Goals be routinely evaluated by the teacher. Given the low instructional ratio in Japan we would expect that assessment of individual progress can, very likely, be accomplished through direct and daily observations and experience with the learner. Finding time to assess individual student progress when wording with groups of students is a problem in the US. Given the current emphasis on assessing student outcomes in the US this problem is apt to be exacerbated. At the same time, it is likely that US special education teachers receive a great deal more training in formalized assessment than is the case in Japan where individual progress is monitored through direct and personal interactions between individual students and their teachers. Contrast #2: Degree of Integration/inclusion While pilot programs exist in various Japanese schools to integrate students with disabilities in ordinary school programs, the essential special education service delivery model is segregated school programs. This situation contrasts sharply with both current service delivery and the trends in US special education. Implications. The development of integrated programs focuses special education teacher training in the US on developing the professional skills necessary for helping learners with disabilities successfully access and achieve meaningful participation in ordinary environments. A major part of what US special educators address in their training is how to modify ordinary school and classroom environments to assure that disabilities do not become handicaps. This focus requires that special education teachers become skilled in analyzing potential barriers --- especially social barriers --- to successful participation and identifying strategies for overcoming those barriers. A major premise underlying these activities is that successful participation by people with disabilities in ordinary environments is determined as much, if not more, by the demands of the environment than it is by the abilities and disabilities of the learner. Thus, professional training must necessarily develop skills for modifying environment to fit the characteristics of the learner. This approach contrasts with the more traditional approach that is predicated on the assumption that the learner's abilities must be developed to meet ordinary environmental demands before full participation can occur. Given this shift in emphasis, it is not surprising, then, that the role and training of special educators in the US has shifted from one of providing direct instruction to one of providing indirect service through collaboration with, and support to, the classroom teacher. Our training programs have had to increase their emphasis on the "teamwork" skills necessary for success in this new role. Since the prevailing service delivery model in Japan involves segregated/separate schooling for students with disabilities, the special education teacher's role emphasizes direct instruction to students rather than support to classroom teachers. The treatment approach in Japan is based on the medical models of disabilities which focuses on factors within the learner as being 'the problems' that must be addressed by education. Thus, in the Japanese model, increased emphasis should be given to understanding and ameliorating those characteristics of the learner that serve as barriers to success in ordinary environments. In this model, it is the learner's characteristics that are viewed as 'the problems' and it is the responsibility of the teacher to help the learner overcome those problems. In the segregated model of schooling, little need exists for teachers to be trained to analyze and modify the demands that act as barriers to participation in ordinary classrooms, since the expectation it is the learner that must change rather than the environment. Contrast #3: Adult Collaboration and Teaming Our observations have led us to conclude that it is more common for teachers in Japan to be working together in organizing and conducting lessons than is the case in US special education. Despite the fact that Japanese teachers are likely to be in situations where the adult/student ratio is 1:1, very often the students are brought together for lesson activities. In these arrangements, one teacher may well be leading the activity, but the other teachers and assistants are present to supervise and support student participation in the lesson. Lessons often seem to progress well because of this cooperative effort. We assume that some degree of prior planning and agreement is at the basis of these cooperative lessons, and that each teacher at different times assumes some responsibility for leading the lesson. This strikes us as quite different from the US situation where special education teachers historically have not worked together in planning and delivering lessons. Instead, US teachers work in considerable isolation from one another, and most often do not involve their assistants in lesson planning or implementation to any significant degree. Implications. A major belief in the US is that developing integrated special education programs requires interdisciplinary planning and teamwork to determine how environments can best modified and supported to effect successful and meaningful participation by students with disabilities. Further, the integrated special educational model is one requires co-teaching and teamwork to a greater degree than has been true in the past. Because the culture of the US and the training of teachers is individualistic rather than cooperative, we have had some considerable difficulty in helping our teachers to develop positive attitudes and effective skills for working together. Most of our teachers seem to feel more comfortable working independently in their own rooms rather than cooperatively with other adults. We believe that should Japan decide to move to more integrated program development, the traditional interdependence of the Japanese culture and the collaborative roles of Japanese teachers might help to avoid some of the difficulties that we have experienced in trying to get adults to work together. A related point is that developing procedures for shared responsibility in multidisciplinary teams for student programs might be more easily accomplished in Japan than has been the case in the US. We have found that it is one thing to say that the IEP is a collaborative instrument involving shared responsibility, and quite another thing to make that sharing of responsibility real. The tendency in the US is to for all IEP team members to 'sign off' on the paper document, and to assume that it is the special education teacher who will assume responsibility for implementation. To this point, 'shared responsibility' is more of a legal concept than it is a functional concept that operates in day-to-day activities. Finally, we have found that creating and effectively using opportunities for collaborative planning is perceived as the primary barrier for US teachers in their efforts to developing successful integrated programs. One reason for this is that US teachers have little or no time available to them for collaborative planning of programs. Thus, while special educator and classroom teacher may be assigned the shared responsibility to plan and implement a cooperative program for a students with disabilities, it may be practically impossible for those teachers jointly to prepare and execute such a program. This problem is often exacerbated by the fact that philosophical differences often exist between classroom teachers and special educators who have been assigned to work together regarding the most appropriate methods to use in instruction. These differences oftentimes result from the fact that classroom teachers and special education teachers are trained in separate programs by different faculties with contradictory beliefs about instruction. Contrast #4: Requirement for Special license to Teach Students with Disabilities One of the most striking differences in the professional preparation of teachers between the US and Japan is that in Japan no requirement exists that someone employed to teach students with disabilities should have preservice training in special education and should possess a SpEd license; whereas, in the US professional training in special education and a special education license are legal requirements. Indeed, it would be unusual in the US to find that a school district is ruled to have violated law and regulation the education provided to a student with disabilities in that district were to have been provided by teachers who did not possess a valid special education license. Implications. Implications of this difference in license requirements between the US and Japan are difficult to draw for training, but not difficult to draw for programs. Perhaps the most obvious implication for training relates to recruitment and retention of people to work as special education teachers. Currently, in the US, special education is one area to which people are drawn because job opportunities exist for teachers of students with disabilities. Apparently, in Japan, the situation is quite different. Since no special education license is required to take a special education position, only a minority of special education teachers have completed a full program of special education training. Instead, the burden has fallen prefectures to organize and conduct extensive inservice training programs in an attempt to assure that those teaching students with disabilities have at least some of the skills required to accomplish this job effectively. A related result is that the number of university programs to train special education teachers is relatively small compared to the number of teacher education programs. We expect that this state of affairs will continue so long as no special education license is required to acquire a special education teaching position. (We should note here as an aside that our inadequacy in communicating in Japanese made it difficult to learn precisely how it was that the education of students with various disabilities was actually accomplished by teachers who have no prior training in helping to overcome the problems experienced by those students. We found it hard to imagine that someone who had no skills in sign language or Braille reading would be employed to teach deaf or blind students, respectively. We speculate that the low teacher/student ratio may make it possible for teachers untrained in special education to work somewhat more effectively with their individual students than would be the case were they to be working with groups of 8-12.) We are aware, also, of the possibility that many Japanese teachers who take positions in special education do so as a temporary step to gaining employment as ordinary classroom teachers. This is a low cost decision for them because they are not required to earn a special education license neither before assuming the role of special educator nor after they have assumed such a role. As is the case in the US, an oversupply of ordinary classroom teachers exists in Japan. So long as this is the case, we can predict that this trend toward using special education as an intermediate step to gaining a regular classroom teaching position will continue. In the US, it is sometimes possible to acquire a special education teaching position without holding a valid special education license, but in those cases it is typically required that a special education licensed be earned in order to remain in that position. We were told that despite the fact that special education teachers earn more money than ordinary classroom teachers, the rate of leaving special education is high among teachers in Japan. Since we do not have the exact figures to support this conclusion, and since we know that the rate of leaving ('turnout' also is high among US special education teachers, we are reluctant to attribute the rate of special education teacher loss in Japan solely to a lack of commitment to special education. At the same ime, we believe that the difference in licensure requirements between the two countries is an influence on recruitment, training, and retention. In this contrast related to licensure requirements, we are impressed by the fact that the Japanese model of professional training in special education relies much more heavily on in service training to assure service quality to students with disabilities. Since teachers are most often employed who have no preservice special education training, prefectures have had to organize structured inservice training requirements to develop some respectable level of special skills among those teachers. This has meant that a large share of the costs for special Ed training fall on the government, especially the prefectures, rather than on the individual as is the case in the US. In Japan, apparently beginning special education teachers are given release time and provided training at no financial cost. By contrast, in the US prospective teachers generally must assume the costs of their own professional development at both preservice and inservice levels of training. Even those teachers who acquire special education teaching positions on a temporary basis to meet school district needs must earn a teaching license in special education , must do so at a time outside of ordinary school hours, and must pay for the coursework required to obtain that license. In general, the amount of release time and inservice training paid for and provided by the government seems to be much greater in Japan than it is in the US. We think that this results in a better infrastructure for promoting professional development in Japan. At the same time we recognize that the organized inservice infrastructure may have developed more out of differences in licensure requirements than from a different set of values or beliefs about the importance of inservice education. Contrast #5: Need for Specialization and Differentiation in Teaching Licenses Another difference related to licensure training between the US and Japan is the emphasis placed on specialized training distinctively related to categorical disabilities in the US. This contrasts with the Japanese approach where initial licensure training is generic, or noncategorical, rather than specialized. At first glance, this difference might seem to be diminishing with an increased US emphasis on collaborative and integrated training of special educators. When we consider, however, that the emphasis in noncategorical training in the US is especially focused on the so-called 'mild disabilities' (i.e., learning disabilities, serious emotional disturbance, and mild mental disabilities), then the contrast in approaches remain. Implications. In the US, we continue to organize our training for teachers of students with 'moderate- profound' disabilities (i.e., blind, deaf, moderate-profound mental impairments, multiple disabilities) in relative distinct programs on the assumption that the skills required for working with such students are quite distinctive. Apparently, no such assumption is made in the preservice training of Japanese special educators. We are sure, then, that these different assumptions result in distinctively different professional preparation curricula in our respective countries, but we are unsure of the nature of these differences. Further support for the difference in emphasis on distinctive competencies related to categorical disabilities derives from the fact that Japanese special educators are not allowed to remain teaching in the same disability area. While the reason for this requirement is not clear, we believe that the assumption made in the US that continued teaching of students with the same disability increases professional competence and benefits students is an assumption not held in Japan. In contrast to the US, 'specialization' seems not to be a desired goal of Japanese special education teacher development. Contrast #6: Special Education for Students with Mild Disabilities In the US, most of the students receiving special education are classified as 'mildly disabled.' While the definition of a mild disability is not clear and consistent, in general the term refers to those students who are labeled learning disabled, emotionally disturbed/behaviorally disordered, speech and language disordered, and mildly mentally impaired and who rarely are segregated from their peers for more than 1-4 hours for specialized instruction. By contrast, in Japan these students generally receive no special education services in the public schools. Thus, while more than 10% of the school-age population receives special education services in the US, less than 1% of the Japanese school children receive publicly special education. While much could be said about the relative merits of providing special education to students with mild disabilities, we will address only the implications of this difference for teacher education in special education. Implications. If the Japanese undertake the development of programs for students with mild disabilities, we believe the content and training of the generic preservice license in special education will have to change markedly. At present we assume that training in special education involves little or no effort to develop teacher competence in develop alternative instructional strategies for preventing and remediating communication disorders illiteracy, innumeracy, and problems in personal/social development. At present, it appears to us that these problems are not deliberately addressed by the schools in Japan. If they are addressed at all, it is likely done so through juko schools where the costs and the problems are born privately by the families of those students who are doing poorly in school. In any case, developing special education services for students with mild disabilities will mean that appropriate content relative to the needs of such students must be included in special education training. Given the higher incidence of these types of students it will also be the case that the 1:1 teacher/student ratio often found in Japanese special education will not be affordable and that instructional ratios will rise. Finally, since services to students with mild disabilities are seldom completely segregated, training will necessarily involve how to work successfully across the boundaries of general and special education. In the US it is common practice to have special education teachers involved in identifying students with mild disabilities. Indeed, the view is that teachers as well as parents should play a heavy role in determining the nature of a students problems and their service needs. If a similar approach is taken in developing services for students with mild disabilities in Japan, emphasis on assessment and decision making will have to be included in training along with consideration of appropriate intervention methods. in the US, this need has resulted in special educators and school psychologists being among the most knowledgeable professional educators with respect to individual assessment. In the US, current approaches to the problems experienced by students with mild disabilities favor prevention rather than remediation, and this has increased demands for variation and flexibility in approaches taken in ordinary classrooms. The essence of both the US culture and US education nowadays seems to be to both accommodate and celebrate diversity. This seems to us to be in contrast to the more uniform methods typically employed in the Japanese classroom which emphasize that students should adjust to the program provided for all rather than adjusting programs to meet the needs of individual students. Clearly, this philosophical difference will have to be addressed in developing programs for students with mild disabilities, and those differences will have to result in strategy differences for the teachers. Contrast #7: Vocational Training Since US special educators serve more students with mild to moderate levels of disability, a primary goal in educating these students is on competitive employment. In Japan, the primary special education clientele is students with severe disabilities. Thus, Japanese vocational training focuses is on sheltered employment almost exclusively. Implications. Since supported and sheltered employment are viewed as the last option for most US special education students, every effort is made to analyze ordinary work environments and to conduct job analyses for determining the types of independent employment opportunities for which students might be trained. The result is that teacher education related to transitional planning and vocational education in the US involve much more community referencing in instructional procedures; whereas, in Japan, the focus is on training is on sheltered employment techniques, with greater weight being given to on- the-job-training procedures. As special education services are provided for students with mild disabilities, a much larger view of vocational planning must become part of programming for students with special needs. The US experience is that students with mild disabilities are more likely to drop out of school than students with severe disabilities, and the expectation for these students is that they should become independent and self sufficient. Despite this expectation, evidence from the US reveals that these unsuccessful students have difficulty retaining jobs and living independently. If Japan were to follow the US pattern in attempting to improve the transitional outcomes for these students, the special education teachers would need to be prepared to work collaboratively with employers and social service agencies to assure their independent living opportunities. Contrast #8: The Culture of School/Schooling US special education students (and students in general) are taught in an environment where the teacher must effect respect (at least compliance) from students. The ambiance of US schooling is derives from individualism, quite often, competition. The contemporary school and the teachers in the US are not accorded high esteem by the public as was the case in the past, nor are they regarded as the living heart of the citizen culture. The situation with respect to the Japanese schools, by contrast, seems quite the opposite: teachers are revered; cooperation is highly emphasized; schooling (education) is treated with great respect and is seen as the life blood of Japanese citizenship. Implications. For US teachers, the need is imperative to master class room management techniques if they are to prosper. Thus, considerable effort is directed toward classroom organization and management in the training of US teachers. We assume that these techniques, viewed as fundamental in US teacher training for attaining order in the classroom are essentially absent from Japanese teacher training. Related to the issue of classroom management is the teacher's role in student motivation. Engaging and maintaining student attention and task completion are major problems in the US. In addition, student attitudes toward the importance of succeeding in school are mixed, at best. Given their history of failure in school, special education students in the US are often among the least motivated to do well. At the same time, US special education law holds the school accountable for assuring an appropriate educational program. This means that special education teachers must develop motivational strategies for engaging students, holding their attention, and developing persistent workers. From our limited knowledge of the Japanese culture, we understand that the general sense among teachers is that they simply expect students to engage in work and be persistent. If they are not, the primary intervention strategy is to report a students lack of cooperation and effort to the students parents. We believe that while the Japanese culture currently makes this approach relatively effective, we also see the dramatic rise in 'extended absence' from school in Japan as an indication that the traditional Japanese approach may be limited in its effectiveness with students who have mild disabilities. If we are correct in this analysis, we predict that increased attention must be given in teacher training to strategies for increasing student engagement and task persistence. The approaches used are likely to be significantly different from those used by ordinary classroom teachers relying on the more traditional supports for schooling afforded by the culture. Finally, it is also quite likely that increased efforts to meet the needs of students with mild disabilities will result in increased contact between special education teachers and the parents of these students. Related to the previous point, the nature of these interactions between parents and teachers might well involve communications regarding student progress that are quite different from what has been usual for Japanese special educators. Since these students are 'dropping out' of school both psychologically and physically, and since parents might already have tried to encourage their children's participation, the focus of these communications is apt to be as much on what the schools can do to meet the students needs. To be successful, teachers will have to develop skills in sensitively communicating with parents in ways that does not result in conflict between school and home. Contrast #9: Early Education Our impression (again, based on very limited experience) is that Japanese early education places the teacher at the forefront of planning and maybe even delivering early education services to children with disabilities. By contrast, US teachers must take a secondary role because our approach (embodied in law) is that early education-- particularly very early education--is not only family-oriented but family-guided. Implications. If this impression of the contrast between US and Japan special education and early education is correct, then it follows that the focus of professional training for US early childhood special educators is quite different from that in Japan. Early childhood special educators in the US must learn techniques for family instruction and support. A major set of skills relates to how to act in a role that is supportive of parent-child interactions within the family context. By contrast, it would seem that in the training of Japanese early childhood special educators the primary focus must be on instruction of the child with family support roles and techniques as secondary. If our view of training in Japan is correct, then it is consistent with our assumption made earlier that Japanese special educators view disabilities from a medical model perspective, then it follows that early intervention would focus on 'correcting' the child's disabilities as much as in 'correcting' the family environment of which the child is a part. We are reluctant to make any strong statements about what should be done in training early childhood special educators just as we have been reluctant to make recommendations in any of the areas of contrast we have identified. We do not believe the issues regarding what approach is more effective have been empirically resolved. At present, US special education is based as much on law and custom as it is in Japan. Social values and economics, rather than research, continue to be the major forces driving special education. (This paper was found in the final report of 'Collaborative Research on Improving Teacher Education and Inservice Training of Special Education in Japan, Europe and North America. The report was published March, 1995.This study was sponsored by Monbusho International Scientific Resarch Program. )