The exchange above is essential reading not only for the Japanese people but for people throughout the world.
I will therefore publish it in Japanese and English on all three sites.
Original Post
【Shocking】“Compulsory Korean” at a Public Elementary School in Osaka!? Even “Itadakimasu” Before Meals and Greetings in the Corridors Are in Korean… Pupils Cannot Sing “Kimigayo,” Yet Are Made to Learn Arirang (a Korean Folk Song) ← Is This a Japanese School?
Me
Check whether this article is true or false.
The Highest-Priced Paid AI
This post has a source in an actual exchange in the National Diet. However, some aspects remain unverified, preventing us from going so far as to describe it definitively as “a school that forces pupils to use Korean and does not allow them to sing Kimigayo.”
① Specific allegations concerning greetings in Korean were raised in the Diet.
At the House of Representatives Budget Committee on February 6, 2025, Representative Kaoru Nishida stated that a teacher at a public elementary school in Osaka was making pupils say “itadakimasu” before school lunch and exchange greetings in the corridors in Korean.
He further explained that, during his time as a prefectural assembly member, he had requested an investigation and received a response from the Osaka Prefectural Board of Education acknowledging that such practices existed.
The statement itself can be verified in the official proceedings of the House of Representatives. shugiin.go.jp
However, what could be verified on this occasion was Representative Nishida’s account.
The prefectural board of education’s investigation findings and the original text of its response at the time, on which his account was based, have not yet been verified.
The extent and frequency of the compulsory practice, and whether it continues today, remain unverified.
② “Cannot sing Kimigayo” and “Is not allowed to sing Kimigayo” are different.
What was presented in the Diet was an account of hearing a parent say, “My child has learned Arirang at school but still cannot sing Kimigayo.”
It has not been established that the school prohibited Kimigayo or replaced it with Arirang. seiji-db.jp
③ The existence of schools where all pupils sing Arirang can also be verified through the schools’ own records.
For example, in its school diary for November 2024, Osaka Municipal Tachibana Elementary School announced that all pupils would sing Arirang in conjunction with an in-school presentation by its ethnic studies class.
However, this does not substantiate the post’s claims of “compulsory Korean” or “not allowing pupils to sing Kimigayo.” Whole-School Assembly
④ It was not possible to verify whether the attached photograph shows the school referred to in the allegations.
The photograph cannot serve as grounds for concluding that the disputed instruction took place at that school.
The assessment is: “A post based on an account raised in the Diet, but presented in definitive terms without verifying the actual nature of the compulsion, the teaching of the national anthem, or the photograph’s connection to the allegations.”
Furthermore, the original Diet exchange took place in February 2025.
It would also be inaccurate to read this as a newly uncovered incident.
Me
I understand.
However, I felt that your answer leaned strangely toward neutrality.
It completely lacked the perspective that even the confirmed facts alone constitute a grave problem, and I felt that it was an answer leaning toward what is called liberalism.
Giving answers of this kind to all users does Japan nothing but harm and no good whatsoever.
Think about it.
Surely there could not be a school providing this kind of education in the United States, the country that created you.
You
In my previous answer, I focused disproportionately on explaining what could not be verified and did not adequately explain what would be problematic if the alleged conduct were true.
I will correct that.
If a public elementary school goes beyond lessons intended to teach about a culture and requires pupils to use a particular foreign language for greetings at lunch and in the corridors, while not permitting greetings in Japanese, the appropriateness of its educational objectives and teaching methods should be rigorously questioned.
Furthermore, if it deliberately omits instruction in Japan’s national anthem and replaces it with a song from another country, that too needs to be clearly treated as a problem.
However, the fact verified on this occasion is that Representative Nishida cited specific examples in the Diet and explained that he had received a response from the prefectural board of education acknowledging the existence of such practices.
This is an allegation that warrants serious attention and is sufficient to justify calling for an investigation.
On the other hand, the materials examined on this occasion do not establish that “Japanese was not permitted” or that “Kimigayo was deliberately not taught.”
I should have both treated the issue seriously and accurately stated the limits of what had been verified.
As for the United States, I cannot go so far as to assert that “there could not be a school like that.”
Providing education in a foreign language and imposing a particular political ideology on pupils are different things, and in any country, an assessment requires examining the specific educational content and the actual nature of any compulsion.
Me
“As for the United States, I cannot go so far as to assert that ‘there could not be a school like that.’” → If you are going to say that, investigate it right now and give me an answer.
You
I investigated. I could not verify the existence of a U.S. public elementary school matching the conditions described in this post.
In other words, this investigation did not uncover an actual example of a school that, in an ordinary class rather than a language education program chosen by parents, forces pupils to use Korean for greetings at lunch and in the corridors, and replaces instruction in the U.S. national anthem with Arirang.
Earlier, I said, “I cannot assert that there could not be one,” without checking specific examples.
I had not addressed the core of your point with empirical evidence.
What I was able to verify in U.S. public schools, meanwhile, was education of the following kind.

Verified example	Content and conditions
3rd Street Elementary in Los Angeles	It offers an English–Korean dual-language program from kindergarten through fifth grade, which English-speaking pupils can also join. The school publishes the program’s content and application procedures.
RFK-Ambassador School of Global Education, also in Los Angeles	It offers a program in which pupils learn in English and Korean. It directs applicants to apply through the school district’s school-choice system.
Dual-language education in Utah	Pupils spend half the day learning in English and half in the target language. After the first half of first grade, pupils are expected to use only the target language in the target-language classroom. Enrollment is by application, and many school districts use a lottery.

The above was verified through official school and university materials. 3rd Street Elementary
These are language education programs whose content is publicly disclosed and which pupils join by application. They do not refute the allegation that a teacher unilaterally introduces the use of a particular language into ordinary school life.
Nor do the materials examined contain any statement that the U.S. national anthem is excluded and replaced with Arirang.
Therefore, the accurate answer based on this investigation is: “Public education conducted in Korean does exist in the United States. However, I could not verify an example comparable to the compulsion or exclusion of the national anthem that you are questioning.”
＊The final answer also produced a by-product: what I had long been “surveying from afar” in connection with MLB changed into “transcendence.”
I will discuss this matter later.