Parents of children harmed by bullying are urging Japan to add penalties to its national anti-bullying law, arguing that schools face too few consequences when serious cases are mishandled.
Editorial Note
This article is provided for general educational and informational purposes and does not constitute legal advice. It is based on publicly available reporting, Japanese government materials and the law in effect as of the publication date.
The July 21 development discussed below was a public campaign seeking legislative reform. Japan’s National Diet had not enacted the requested penalties at the time of publication. Statements made by parents and advocacy organizations represent their positions and should not be interpreted as findings that every school or educator has violated the law.
Bullying cases are highly sensitive and often involve children, grieving families and disputed accounts of how schools responded. New To Education has not independently investigated the individual cases referenced in public reporting. Families seeking advice about a particular situation should consult qualified counsel or the appropriate Japanese education, child-welfare or law-enforcement authorities.
More than a decade after Japan adopted a national law intended to prevent school bullying, grieving parents are asking a difficult question: What happens when schools fail to follow it?
On July 21, 2026, parents of children harmed by bullying and members of a support organization held a news conference in Tokyo calling for amendments to Japan’s Act for the Promotion of Measures to Prevent Bullying. They argued that the law should include penalties for schools or responsible officials whose improper responses allow serious cases to be minimized, delayed or mishandled.
The group said it intended to increase its outreach to lawmakers from both governing and opposition parties in an effort to secure legislative change. Shintaro Saito, whose 13-year-old daughter died by suicide in 2018 after experiencing bullying, argued that the absence of meaningful enforcement had allowed the problem to be treated too lightly. Human Love Aid co-representative Shigeru Nakano described reform as urgent.
Their campaign exposes a central tension in educational law. Japan already has a detailed national framework requiring prevention, early detection, prompt intervention and formal investigations in serious cases. What it largely lacks is a direct penalty written into the anti-bullying statute for a school that fails to perform those duties properly.
Supporters of reform believe that gap has turned some legal requirements into promises without enough force behind them. Critics of a punitive approach may worry that penalties could encourage defensive reporting, blame individual educators for systemic failures or make schools less willing to communicate openly when mistakes occur.
The real question is not simply whether Japan should punish schools. It is how the country can make its child-protection duties genuinely enforceable without creating a system built mainly around fear and blame.
What Parents Demanded on July 21
The parents and advocacy representatives called for a statutory amendment that would establish consequences when schools respond improperly to bullying.
Their concern is not merely that bullying occurs. No law can guarantee that every harmful act between students will be prevented. Their criticism focuses on what happens after a child or family reports a problem.
Families have repeatedly complained that schools may characterize sustained mistreatment as an ordinary disagreement, wait too long to investigate, fail to preserve records or resist recognizing a case as a legally defined “serious situation.”
The campaigners argue that a school should not be able to disregard required procedures and face little direct consequence under the national anti-bullying law.
The July 21 news conference did not itself change the law. It was an effort to build political support for future amendments. That distinction matters: penalties are being proposed, not currently imposed under a newly enacted reform.
Why Japan Enacted a National Anti-Bullying Law
Japan enacted the Act for the Promotion of Measures to Prevent Bullying in 2013 following national outrage over the death of a second-year middle-school student in Ōtsu, Shiga Prefecture.
The law recognizes that bullying can violate a child’s right to education, damage physical and psychological development and create a serious danger to life and personal safety. It defines bullying broadly enough to include physical or psychological conduct, including online conduct, that causes another student physical or emotional suffering.
The statute assigns responsibilities to the national government, local governments, school operators, schools, teachers and guardians. It requires schools to establish basic anti-bullying policies and create an internal organization involving multiple staff members and, where appropriate, professionals with expertise in psychology or social welfare.
When school personnel receive information suggesting that bullying may have occurred, the law calls for the matter to be reported and promptly examined. If bullying is confirmed, schools are expected to provide continuing support to the affected child and guidance to the student responsible for the conduct.
On paper, this is not a weak or vague framework. The dispute is about what happens when the framework is not followed.
What Counts as a “Serious Situation”
Article 28 of the law establishes a heightened response for what Japan calls a serious bullying situation.
A case may fall within that category when there is reason to suspect that bullying caused serious harm to a student’s life, physical or mental health or property. A case can also qualify when bullying is suspected of forcing a student to remain absent from school for a substantial period.
When those conditions may be present, the school or its operator is expected to establish an investigative body and promptly investigate the facts. The process may involve interviews, questionnaires, document reviews and explanations to the affected student and family.
Japan’s revised national guidelines emphasize that schools should not wait until every factual dispute has already been resolved before recognizing the possibility of a serious situation. A report from a student or guardian can provide the starting point for the required response.
That safeguard is crucial. The purpose of an investigation is to determine what happened. Requiring families to prove the entire case before an investigation begins would reverse the process and place an unrealistic burden on children.
Why Families Say the Existing System Is Not Enough
The law establishes responsibilities, but many of its provisions are administrative and preventive rather than punitive.
Schools are told what they should do, yet the statute does not contain a straightforward penalty section imposing fines or other sanctions whenever a school fails to respond appropriately. Public reporting from the July 21 news conference described this absence of penalties as the core of the families’ complaint.
For families, the practical problem is time.
A child experiencing bullying may be afraid to attend school, suffering psychological distress or considering self-harm. A delayed investigation cannot always repair the damage later.
Even when a third-party report eventually criticizes a school’s response, years may have passed. Administrators may have transferred, staff members may have retired and the affected student may no longer attend the school.
A system that identifies failure only after prolonged investigation may produce a formal record without providing meaningful protection when the child needed it most.
That is why some parents no longer believe guidance, training and recommendations are sufficient. They want consequences strong enough to change institutional behavior before another case is mishandled.
Japan Has Already Strengthened Its Investigation Guidelines
The national government has not ignored these concerns.
MEXT revised its guidelines for investigations of serious bullying situations after acknowledging that serious cases had increased and that some schools and school operators were still failing to respond consistently with the law and national guidance.
The revised guidelines address preparation before a crisis, the recognition of serious cases, initial responses, selection of an investigative body, explanations to families, evidence gathering, report preparation, publication and possible reinvestigation by local government leaders.
They also place greater emphasis on communication with children and families, protection of personal information and the need to implement recommendations after an investigation ends.
The existence of these detailed guidelines complicates the debate.
Japan does not lack procedures. It has a growing collection of rules, checklists and official expectations. The continuing concern is whether guidance alone can compel compliance when institutions have reputational or legal reasons to resist recognizing a serious failure.
What Penalties Could Look Like
The parents’ demand raises an immediate legal-design question: Who exactly should be punished?
A future amendment could impose administrative consequences on a school operator or board of education for failing to establish a required investigation. It could create fines for deliberate concealment, destruction of records or knowingly false reporting.
Another option would be professional discipline for administrators who intentionally obstruct a serious-case investigation. Funding conditions, mandatory corrective plans or independent monitoring could be used where failures are institutional rather than personal.
Japan could also establish a civil enforcement mechanism allowing families to request a court or independent authority to order compliance with investigative duties.
These approaches are not interchangeable.
Punishing a teacher who made an honest error while managing an overwhelming workload would be different from sanctioning an administrator who deliberately suppressed a report to protect a school’s reputation.
Any amendment would need to distinguish negligence, serious negligence, intentional misconduct and reasonable professional judgment. A law that simply threatens “schools” without identifying the prohibited conduct could create confusion rather than accountability.
The Case for Adding Penalties
The strongest argument for penalties is that legal duties lose credibility when repeated noncompliance produces no timely consequence.
A school may experience pressure to protect its reputation, avoid negative publicity or prevent a case from being formally categorized as serious. Those incentives can conflict with the interests of the affected student.
Clear sanctions could change that calculation.
A principal or school operator would know that delaying a mandatory investigation, failing to report a serious case or interfering with evidence could result in more than criticism in a later report.
Penalties could also communicate that bullying investigations are not optional public-relations exercises. They are child-protection obligations.
Supporters may further argue that other regulated institutions face consequences when they fail to follow safety requirements. Schools should not be exempt merely because their responsibilities involve education rather than healthcare, transportation or workplace safety.
The Risks of a Punitive System
Penalties could also create unintended consequences.
Teachers may begin documenting every minor disagreement as a potential legal emergency, not because that response helps students but because they fear personal liability. Administrators may become more focused on procedural self-protection than on restoring a safe environment.
Schools could rely excessively on lawyers and formal investigations, making families feel that every conversation has become adversarial.
There is also a risk of blaming the nearest employee for a failure caused by understaffing, limited access to counselors, weak district leadership or confusing national guidance.
Bullying cases are rarely simple. Accounts may conflict, students may be reluctant to speak and harmful conduct may occur through private messages or outside school grounds.
A fair enforcement system would need to recognize those difficulties while still holding institutions responsible for following required procedures.
The goal should not be to punish educators whenever bullying occurs. The relevant question is whether responsible officials acted promptly, honestly and in accordance with the law once they had reason to suspect a problem.
School Accountability Should Not Depend Only on Criminal Punishment
The debate is sometimes presented as a choice between penalties and the current system. Japan has more options than that.
An independent national or prefectural oversight body could receive complaints when families believe a school has failed to recognize or investigate a serious case.
The body could order corrective action, require the preservation of evidence, appoint independent investigators or direct a school operator to provide information within a fixed period.
Japan could also establish mandatory reporting timelines. A school might be required to notify the appropriate board of education and the family within a defined number of days after identifying a possible serious situation.
Failure to meet those requirements could lead first to administrative orders and corrective plans, with stronger sanctions reserved for repeated or intentional violations.
That graduated approach would create enforcement without treating every procedural error as a criminal offense.
Independent Investigations May Matter as Much as Penalties
Families often question whether a school or board of education can impartially investigate its own conduct.
Even when an investigation includes outside experts, the school operator may influence the selection process, scope, timeline or release of findings.
A stronger legal framework could require greater independence when the alleged failure involves senior administrators or the board of education itself.
Investigators could be selected from an approved external panel rather than primarily by the institution under review. Families and affected students could have a formal opportunity to identify issues that must be examined.
Reports could include clear findings on whether the school complied with each legal duty, rather than discussing the incident only in broad narrative terms.
Penalties are more likely to be fair when they follow an investigation that both families and educators can regard as independent.
Students Need Remedies Before the Investigation Ends
Serious bullying investigations can take months or longer. A child cannot wait for a final report before receiving protection.
A stronger law should guarantee immediate educational support while the facts are being investigated.
That could include safe classroom arrangements, schedule changes, access to counseling, protection from retaliation, an alternative attendance location or online learning when appropriate.
Students who cannot safely return to the original environment should not be academically punished for their absence.
Schools must also avoid treating removal of the targeted student as the easiest solution. Moving the child who reported bullying can create the impression that seeking help caused the loss of friends, teachers and normal school life.
Immediate protective measures should be designed around the student’s wishes and educational interests.
The Law Must Also Address Cyberbullying
Japan’s existing statute recognizes that bullying can occur online, and it calls for awareness efforts and systems capable of addressing cyberbullying.
Digital harassment creates additional enforcement problems. Messages can spread quickly, disappear, move across platforms or involve students from more than one school.
A school may be tempted to argue that conduct occurring after school hours is outside its responsibility. Yet online abuse can directly affect whether a child feels safe attending class the next morning.
Any reform should clarify when schools must respond to off-campus digital conduct that substantially affects the school environment or a student’s access to education.
It should also establish procedures for preserving screenshots and other digital evidence while respecting privacy and due-process rights.
Penalties Alone Will Not Prevent Bullying
Even supporters of stronger enforcement should be cautious about treating punishment as a complete solution.
Schools need counselors, psychologists, social workers and trained staff who can recognize changes in student behavior. Teachers need manageable workloads and clear reporting systems.
Students need confidential ways to seek help without fearing that their disclosure will immediately become public among classmates.
Schools must also provide appropriate support and intervention for students who engage in bullying. Some may be dealing with violence, neglect, disability-related needs or serious emotional problems of their own.
Accountability and prevention must work together.
A law can require action and punish deliberate failures. It cannot replace the relationships, staffing and professional judgment needed to create a safe school.
What Families Should Be Able to Expect
Regardless of whether Japan eventually adds penalties, families should be able to expect several basic things after reporting suspected bullying.
The report should be documented. The child should be protected from immediate harm. The school should explain which officials are responsible for responding and whether the matter may qualify as a serious situation.
Families should receive clear information about the investigation process and opportunities to provide evidence. They should not have to repeatedly retell traumatic details because records were not preserved or shared responsibly.
Schools should also explain their conclusions and the steps being taken to prevent recurrence.
These expectations are consistent with the purpose of Japan’s anti-bullying framework. The controversy exists because families believe that formal responsibilities are not always translating into dependable practice.
What a Balanced Amendment Could Include
A carefully designed amendment could strengthen enforcement without criminalizing ordinary educational judgment.
The law could define specific violations, such as knowingly concealing a serious case, deliberately failing to establish a required investigation, destroying relevant records, retaliating against a reporting student or providing materially false information to investigators.
Less serious failures could trigger corrective orders, mandatory retraining or external monitoring. Intentional or repeated violations could produce stronger administrative or financial penalties.
The amendment could also strengthen whistleblower protection for teachers and staff members who report institutional failures.
Educators should not have to choose between protecting a child and protecting their employment.
Finally, Japan could require public reporting of anonymized compliance data, including how long serious-case investigations take and whether corrective recommendations were implemented.
Transparency would allow communities to evaluate not only how many bullying cases are identified but how institutions respond after identification.
Why This Debate Matters Beyond Japan
Countries around the world struggle with the same problem: anti-bullying policies may appear strong until a school fails to follow them.
The Japanese debate illustrates the difference between declaring a right and creating a remedy.
A student may have a legal right to a safe education. A school may have a duty to investigate. Yet those principles provide limited protection when families lack a timely way to compel action.
Educational law is meaningful only when people can use it.
Japan’s next step may influence broader discussions about whether school accountability should rely on professional guidance, administrative enforcement, civil liability or direct statutory penalties.
How New To Education Supports Students and Families
New To Education publishes accessible analysis of educational law, student rights, school policy and developments affecting families and educators.
Our educational services also include tutoring, academic support, curriculum assistance, professional development and resources for students and organizations.
Legal disputes involving bullying require qualified professional guidance, but families also benefit from understandable information about how education systems are expected to operate.
Learn more about New To Education:
Key Takeaways
Parents and an advocacy organization held a news conference in Tokyo on July 21, 2026, calling for penalties when schools respond improperly to bullying. They argued that Japan’s current law creates responsibilities without enough enforcement.
Japan’s anti-bullying law requires prevention, early detection, prompt intervention and formal investigations when serious harm or prolonged school absence may have resulted from bullying.
MEXT has strengthened its investigation guidelines, but official materials acknowledge that schools and school operators have continued to mishandle some serious cases.
Penalties could discourage concealment and delay, but poorly designed sanctions could promote defensive behavior or unfairly target individual educators for institutional problems.
A balanced reform could combine clearly defined violations, independent oversight, corrective orders, protection for reporting students and staff, and stronger sanctions for intentional or repeated noncompliance.
Frequently Asked Questions
Did Japan add penalties to its anti-bullying law on July 21?
No. Parents and advocates publicly called for an amendment. The July 21 development was a campaign for legislative reform, not enactment of a new penalty provision.
What is Japan’s national anti-bullying law?
The Act for the Promotion of Measures to Prevent Bullying is a 2013 law establishing responsibilities for the national government, local governments, schools, teachers, school operators and guardians.
What is a serious bullying situation?
A case may qualify when bullying is suspected of causing serious harm to a student’s life, physical or mental health or property, or when it is suspected of forcing a student to miss school for a substantial period.
Does the current law require schools to investigate?
Yes. Schools or their operators are expected to establish an investigative body and clarify the facts when a serious situation may have occurred.
Does the law currently punish schools for mishandling cases?
The statute establishes legal and administrative responsibilities, but it does not contain the kind of direct penalty provision demanded by the parents at the July 21 news conference.
Would penalties apply whenever bullying occurs?
A fair amendment should not punish a school merely because bullying occurred. Penalties would need to target clearly defined failures such as deliberate concealment, obstruction, retaliation or refusal to perform a legally required investigation.
Final Thoughts
Japan’s anti-bullying law was created because the country recognized that bullying can destroy a child’s access to education and place a young life in danger.
More than a decade later, parents are arguing that recognition is no longer enough.
They want a law capable of responding when the institutions responsible for protecting children fail to perform their duties.
Their demand deserves serious consideration. A legal obligation without a practical remedy can leave families navigating the same institution they believe failed their child.
Penalties, however, must be designed carefully. The objective should not be to punish teachers for every difficult case or transform schools into permanently defensive legal environments.
The objective should be accountability when responsible officials knowingly ignore warning signs, delay required action, conceal serious harm or obstruct an honest investigation.
Japan does not have to choose between supporting educators and protecting students.
It can provide schools with better staffing, training and professional assistance while also making clear that child-protection duties are not optional.
The parents who spoke on July 21 are asking lawmakers to ensure that the country’s anti-bullying law works before another family discovers its limits through tragedy.
Support New To Education
New To Education publishes independent reporting and analysis on educational law, student rights, school safety and policy developments in Japan and around the world.
Readers can support our work by sharing this article, exploring our educational and professional services or contributing through the donation options available on our website.
Related Articles
Japan’s Moral Education Standards Could Be Revised to Better Reflect Diverse Families
https://newtoeducation.com/view-blog/japans-moral-education-standards-could-be-revised-to-better-reflect-diverse-families-6a5f434ab63d9
Kitakyushu’s School-Holiday Lunch Contract Raises Questions About Children’s Right to Food Outside the Classroom
https://newtoeducation.com/view-blog/kitakyushus-school-holiday-lunch-contract-raises-questions-about-childrens-right-to-food-outside-the-classroom-6a5adc6064ce6
Sources
Kobe Shimbun — Parents Call for Penalties Under Japan’s Anti-Bullying Law
https://www.kobe-np.co.jp/news/zenkoku/compact/202607/0020616448.shtml
Japanese Law Translation — Act for the Promotion of Measures to Prevent Bullying
https://www.japaneselawtranslation.go.jp/en/laws/view/3748/en
Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology — Revised Guidelines for Investigations of Serious Bullying Situations
https://www.mext.go.jp/a_menu/shotou/seitoshidou/1400142_00006.htm
MEXT — Full Revised Guidelines for Investigations of Serious Bullying Situations
https://www.mext.go.jp/content/20240830-mext_jidou01-1336275_3.pdf
