At first glance, the situation sounds absurd: someone fails the selection process for a regular public-school teaching post, keeps working at a school as an instructor, and is even put in charge of a homeroom.
The key distinction is simple: failing a hiring selection does not mean lacking a teaching license.
In Japan, the credential that permits a person to teach and the local-government selection for a regular public-school appointment are different gates.[1]
A fixed-term full-time teacher may teach classes, lead a homeroom, attend meetings, and handle school events. A useful private-sector analogy is a full-time fixed-term employee who did not win a permanent position but can still perform much of the same day-to-day work. Legally, however, public-school instructors are public employees under public-law appointment rules, not ordinary private-sector contract workers.[5]
1. The five-second answer
Regular teachers and fixed-term full-time teachers can perform surprisingly similar work. The decisive difference is often not whether they are “allowed to teach,” but how strongly the organization is committed to employing them after the temporary staffing need disappears.
A part-time instructor is a different category again: fewer hours, mainly subject teaching, and often no homeroom responsibility.[2]
2. A teaching license and regular hiring are different gates
Japan’s Ministry of Education explains that becoming a teacher requires obtaining a teaching license and then being hired.[1]
The license answers: “Is this person qualified to teach?” The recruitment selection answers: “Will this local government appoint this person as a regular teacher?”
Failing the second does not erase the first. The Ministry explicitly notes that people may also be employed as full-time teachers on fixed terms or as part-time instructors.[1]
3. Can a fixed-term full-time teacher really lead a homeroom? Yes
Aichi Prefecture gives a clear current example. Its 2026 information lists vacancy coverage, maternity and childcare-leave replacement, subject teaching, homeroom teaching, school trips, meetings, and training among the duties of full-time instructors. The stated workday is 7 hours and 45 minutes, Monday through Friday.[2]
On the same page, part-time instructors mainly teach subjects and are not assigned a homeroom.[2]
So the single word “instructor” does not tell you much. Full-time and part-time positions can be structurally very different.
4. Is this just cheap labor? The bigger advantage is staffing flexibility
It is tempting to imagine a “discount teacher” system. That is too simple.
The Ministry says temporary appointee pay should be based on the salary tables and starting-pay standards used for regular full-time staff, with education, licenses, and experience taken into account.[3]
In Aichi, the January 1, 2026 example for a new four-year university graduate working as a full-time instructor is ¥305,182 per month and is described as being in line with regular teachers. Bonuses are available, retirement allowance can apply after at least six months, and dependent, commuting, and housing allowances are basically the same as for regular staff.[2]
Conditions vary by local government. Still, the institutional advantage is often less “teacher at half price” and more “near-regular capacity for exactly the period in which it is needed.”
5. The biggest difference: what happens when the vacancy disappears
Regular local-government employees have statutory status protection. They cannot simply be dismissed against their will without grounds provided by law, although lawful dismissal remains possible in specified circumstances.[5]
Temporary appointment begins with a term. Under the general rule of the Local Public Service Act, a temporary appointment can last up to six months and may be renewed once for up to another six months.[5]
Aichi’s vacancy-filling full-time instructors are appointed for six months with one possible annual renewal; maternity and childcare-leave replacements serve for the needed replacement period.[2]
In plain language:
Regular teacher: if one particular staffing gap disappears, the employment relationship is still strongly protected.
Fixed-term full-time teacher: if the temporary need disappears, the appointment can end with it.
That job-security gap is the real headline.
6. If teachers are scarce, why not make everyone regular?
Because not every shortage is permanent.
A Ministry survey published in March 2026 found a nationwide shortage of 3,827 teachers as of May 1, 2025, a shortage rate of 0.45%.[4]
Boards of education cited increased maternity and childcare leave, more sick leave, growth in special-support classes, fewer registered instructor candidates, and temporary instructors winning regular appointments.[4]
That produces an odd loop:
Expand regular hiring → people who used to fill temporary posts become regular teachers → the pool available for short-term replacements shrinks.
The point is not that regular hiring should stop. A six-month leave replacement and a permanent structural post for decades are simply different staffing problems.
7. If they’ve run a homeroom for years, isn’t that the real practical exam?
That criticism still has force. Real teaching, parent communication, homeroom management, and school events are powerful evidence of actual job performance.
Experience is not completely ignored. For Aichi’s 2027 recruitment, qualifying former teachers and experienced instructors can receive an exemption from the teaching-profession/general-education portion of the first-stage exam. Certain elementary and junior-high applicants with at least three years of qualifying service and a municipal superintendent’s recommendation can be exempted from the entire first stage.[6]
But two years of work does not automatically create regular status. The Local Public Service Act also says that temporary appointment itself gives no priority right to formal appointment.[5]
8. So “it’s kind of like a contract employee” is a useful analogy
Legally, no. Structurally, quite close.
The person may work full time, carry major responsibilities, and receive pay that is not dramatically different, while lacking the same guarantee that the organization will keep employing them once the temporary need ends.
At a school, that “major responsibility” may be an entire homeroom, which is why the arrangement looks much more dramatic from the outside.
9. Conclusion — once the system is clear, “keep competing for regular status” makes sense
The real sequence is:
licensed → appointed full time for a fixed term → performs many regular-teacher duties → may lead a homeroom → has weaker long-term employment security.
For someone who wants regular status, the normal path is therefore to build experience, use any special selection available for experienced applicants, and keep competing for a regular appointment.
The better policy debate is not “Why is an unqualified failed applicant running a class?” It is: if fixed-term teachers are trusted with nearly the same responsibility, how much should proven workplace performance count toward regular appointment?
Sources
[1] https://www.mext.go.jp/a_menu/shotou/kyoin/main13_a2.htm [2] https://www.pref.aichi.jp/soshiki/kyosyokuin/paperteacher-conference1.html [3] https://www.mext.go.jp/content/20250926-mxt_syoto01-000045031_01.pdf [4] https://www.mext.go.jp/content/20260302-mxt_kyoikujinzai01-000047773_1_1.pdf [5] https://laws.e-gov.go.jp/law/325AC0000000261 [6] https://www.pref.aichi.jp/uploaded/attachment/615359.pdf
