Directions: Journal of Educational Studies Vol. 25 Nos 1 &2 June & Dec. 2003
A Context-sensitive Approach to Educational Aid
Kabini Sanga
This paper argues that the approach to educational aid must be sensitive to
underlying fundamental contextual considerations within the communities
aided. In Pacific Islands countries, these relate to weak leadership and,
consequently, a lack of clear national vision and plan for education. This
paper discusses the Re-thinking Pacific Education Initiative, its context-
sensitive approach and its areas of innovation, significance and challenge.
Introduction
Three or more decades of sustained educational aid to Pacific Island
countries (PICs) have not resulted in sustainable quality education in these
communities. According to Pene, Taufe‘ulungaki and Benson (2002:2), this
is “because [Pacific Islanders] do not own the process, educational visions
and goals of education”. Instead, these are defined by donors and other
external players. Aid to education will continue to be an integral component
of educational development for some of these countries, but ownership of
the process, the visions and the goals is a matter of concern.
Historically, educational aid has been delivered through bilateral,
multilateral and regional programmes, using various approaches. These
approaches have in common the fact that they are donor-driven and donor-
controlled. More recent forms, including co-financing, sectoral budgets and
country trust funds, are being discussed or tried. More often than not, these
approaches, though well intentioned, do not seem to be sensitive to local
agendas, timelines and ways of working.
This article examines a new approach to educational aid, based on the
experience of the Re-thinking Pacific Education Initiative (RPEI), funded
by the New Zealand Agency for International Development (NZAID). The
article is based on the experiences of Pacific educators, including the author,
as these relate to the RPEI, between 2001 and 2003. The article draws heavily
on the conversations of Pacific educators and their NZAID partners. As the
facilitator of the RPEI, the author has also used information from reflections,
evaluations and feedback by Pacific educators, including reports and papers
written by those closely associated with the initiative.
28
Directions: Journal of Educational Studies Vol. 25 Nos 1 &2 June & Dec. 2003
Background
Educational aid in PICs is big business. In 2000, the total aid to these
countries was US$657.5 million, with Australia being the largest donor (Davis
2002). Other key donors in the region are the European Union, the United
States of America, New Zealand and Japan. The New Zealand development
programme is small (by world standards) with a total annual budget of more
than NZ$226 million of which 47% is directed to PICs (NZAID 2002).
NZAID’s linkages with PICs are strong, with more than 40% of the Agency’s
bilateral program targeting education. A new project on basic education, the
Pacific Regional Initiative for the Delivery of Basic Education (PRIDE),
totaling around NZ$21 million and financed by the European Union and
New Zealand, has recently been implemented.
The distribution of aid appears to mirror the educational needs of
countries, hence, the three most needy Melanesian countries of Papua New
Guinea, Solomon Islands and Vanuatu received more than 50% of total aid
to the region in 2000 (Davis, 2002).
Historical and constitutional relationships with donors also influence
the amount of aid given to certain countries. Educational needs have also
been seen in terms of what is being financed. In the past few years, the shift
of attention by donors has moved from tertiary to basic education. In general,
however, educational aid is directed towards improving access, participation
and quality; training teachers; developing curriculum; and developing the
policies of local Ministries of Education.
Educational aid has resulted in some success, with schools built, teachers
trained, curricula developed and books produced. In the Melanesian countries,
many more girls have been able to attend school. More children have learnt
to read and write in English. On the whole, however, the impacts of aid have
been largely disappointing (Tahu and Fangalasu‘u 1995; Baba 1999; Nabobo
2000). Aid has not resulted in quality and sustainable educational standards
(Hughes 2003) or improved relationships among educational stakeholders
(Sanga 2001). Nor has it fostered strong Pacific leadership in education
(Sanga and Nally 2002). Instead, despite decades of aid, Pacific peoples
still do not own their education systems (Taufe‘ulungaki 2002) and have
remained overwhelmed by their inability to meet basic educational needs or
to provide services at consistent quality levels. This situation is a result of
29
Directions: Journal of Educational Studies Vol. 25 Nos 1 &2 June & Dec. 2003
the way aid is ‘delivered’, usually by external (often non-national) consultants
and organisations, to Pacific Islanders who are expected to ‘receive’ it
compliantly. The possibility that the aid involves personal relationships
among groups of people has never been seriously explored. This basic
approach has not changed over the last few decades. Its impact, however,
has left Pacific educators overwhelmed, discouraged and angry.
Re-thinking Pacific Education Initiative (RPEI)
As an idea, the RPEI was initiated and developed by a group of Pacific
educators (Konai Thaman, ‘Ana Taufe‘ulungaki, Kabini Sanga) in late 2000.
The idea was then shared with NZAID, which, following further discussions
with these Pacific educators, agreed to support the initiative financially for a
5-year period. The focus of the initiative has been on enhancing leadership
by Pacific educators for educational development within Pacific countries
and strengthening local capacities within these communities. This is done
through a number of strategies, including: (1) big picture strategising of
education; (2) engagement with key stakeholders, including donors,
governments and regional institutions; (3) facilitation of national and regional
forums to rethink education; and (4) development of research skills and
capacities within Pacific countries to produce appropriate educational research
by Pacific Islanders.
The initiative began in Suva, in 2001, with a Pacific regional colloquium
on re-thinking education. This was followed by a number of national pilot
activities in Vanuatu (research workshops and a conference, 2002). In 2002,
papers from the colloquium were edited and the resulting book, Tree of
Opportunity: Re-thinking Pacific Education, was published by the University
of the South Pacific’s Institute of Education. The book is used widely as a
reference and university text. In the same year, the Pacific Education Research
Fund (PERF) was established. Early in 2003, the initiative facilitated a
planning workshop for a national review of Solomon Islands’ education
strategic plan. A regional conference on educational aid was held in October
2003. In the same year, a number of national research projects were
commissioned and undertaken by Pacific Island nationals. With funding from
PERF, a number of small research projects have also begun and are currently
under way in several countries.
30
Directions: Journal of Educational Studies Vol. 25 Nos 1 &2 June & Dec. 2003
It has been only a few years since the RPEI began, but even in its early
stages, the initiative has generated considerable interest among Pacific
educators. In an evaluation, Pacific educators reinforced the strategy and
claimed that it had “ignited regional and national leadership and commitment
to Pacific education” (Sanga, Niroa and Teweiariki 2003:4). Where people
have had some significant involvement with its activities, they appear to
have been encouraged and inspired, as educators within their own
communities, to lead, be mentored and become mentees themselves.
The approach
What is different about the approach used in this initiative? At a later
stage, I shall discuss the answer to this question more fully. For now, let me
briefly say what the approach does not involve. First, the RPEI was neither
initially commissioned by NZAID nor driven by it once the donor had agreed
to support it. Second, the RPEI is neither managed through a New Zealand
management services contract, nor does it involve any New Zealand advisers
or consultants. In fact, the initiative does not use consultants at all but engages
Pacific educators to support and collaborate with their colleagues. Third,
the initiative is not a project. It evolves, is organic and responsive to education
in the PIC generally and within national contexts as understood and requested
by Pacific educators within those contexts.
Key features
In the following section, key features of the approach are discussed in
greater detail.
1. Focus
It has been stated above that leadership by Pacific peoples is a primary
need in education in PICs. This one factor was deemed essential by Pacific
educators, who want strong national education systems that reflect Pacific
cultures, aspirations and needs. The way of working deemed appropriate for
NZAID and its Pacific partners was one that enhanced greater leadership by
Pacific educators. Sanga and Nally (2002) explained that referencing all
aspects of the RPEI to strengthening of leadership by Pacific peoples provided
31
Directions: Journal of Educational Studies Vol. 25 Nos 1 &2 June & Dec. 2003
a powerful and cohesive touchstone for the initiative and mitigated the risk
of activities or the donor approaches becoming the focus in themselves. By
focusing on people, the initiative could then push for Pacific needs for leader-
development. By design, NZAID was encouraged to take an arm’s length
strategy by “listening and questioning, for better understanding, and to
evaluate what was being heard against its own understanding of Pacific
education” (Sanga and Nally 2002: 4). For NZAID, this was risky but the
Agency went down that road with its Pacific partners. So far, it has been a
satisfying experience for those involved.
2. Strategic collaboration
The need for real engagement, as opposed to one of compliance, has
been a concern for Pacific peoples within aid relationships. The approach
taken by the RPEI has allowed for “interactive, formative and collaborative
dialogue” (Sanga and Nally 2002: 4) to take place at various levels of
engagement between NZAID and Pacific educators and between key Pacific
educators and their colleagues. Collaborative discussion began from the
development of the initiative and is an ongoing feature of it. Key partners
meet regularly to talk, listen, agree or disagree. The process has been
challenging, as different partners often had different goals or different
interpretations of these. Where difficulties have been encountered,
particularly in relation to meeting NZAID regulatory requirements, the
temptation has been for Pacific educators to disengage from the partnership.
The partners have, however, stayed engaged with each other, thereby
challenging the more usual modes of implementation and finding newer ways
of working. The result has been, as noted by Sanga and Nally (2002:4), that
the process of collaborative dialogue has “helped to build a relationship of
understanding and trust beyond that which usually exists in contractual
[approaches] for delivering aid”.
At another level, the initiative has encouraged and experienced active
engagement by a wide range of Pacific peoples at all levels of education. In
Vanuatu, where pilot activities were held in 2002, community leaders,
women’s groups, members of the clergy, teachers, government officials,
politicians, members of civil society, the media, consultants, academics,
researchers and students participated in the research workshops and a national
conference. These activities were decided on by the Ni-Vanuatu educators.
32
Directions: Journal of Educational Studies Vol. 25 Nos 1 &2 June & Dec. 2003
Leading Pacific educators questioned, listened and discussed the plans with
Ni-Vanuatu, then discussed these further with NZAID for the purpose of
funding.
The Ni-Vanuatu saw the approach used in working with them as
empowering and appreciated it, as seen in the following feedback, recorded
by Sanga, Niroa and Teweiariki (2003:28):
We valued the genuine attitude reflected by NZAID in giving Ni-
Vanuatu the liberty to decide and plan activities that we saw as most
appropriate for ourselves. As Ni-Vanuatu people, we never had to deal
with an NZAID staff. This was unusual and new to us and therefore meant
a lot for us. For NZAID to give Ni-Vanuatu people the financial means,
then allow us to plot our path towards our own destination was probably
the most useful service by NZAID to Ni-Vanuatu.
3. Openness of support
Pacific partners have often pointed out the restrictive nature of contractual
approaches to aid and their wish for support that is more responsive to allow
for opportunities to be fully utilised as these are created. NZAID supported
the RPEI from its inception as a multi-year initiative. While the duration of
RPEI is envisaged to be longer than five years, the decision by NZAID was
welcomed, as five years is adequate to test the ideas and approach used.
NZAID is also aware that, while it is the major donor for the RPEI, Pacific
educators are free to seek other donor partners for any or all of its activities.
In explaining this capacity, Sanga and Nally (2002) stated that the structure
of the RPEI and the funding arrangements have allowed for leading Pacific
educators to maintain the right to seek support from wherever they choose.
Thus in 2002, the author explored and obtained funding support from the
United Kingdom Department for International Development for research
development workshops in Tonga, from UNESCO for the regional conference
on educational aid, and from two New Zealand companies to support RPEI
activities in Vanuatu and Fiji.
As stated above, the need was for a relationship of openness with donor
partners. The RPEI approach was sensitive to that need, thereby supporting
Pacific peoples in their desire to remain in control of their choices and
relationships.
33
Directions: Journal of Educational Studies Vol. 25 Nos 1 &2 June & Dec. 2003
4. Responsiveness
The people who have the most stakes in and understand Pacific education
fully are Pacific peoples and educators. Given the great distances between
islands and the nature of traditional approaches to aid, Pacific peoples have
not hitherto had the opportunity to inform the discussions and debates on
education in their own countries. They have not been mobilised or networked
effectively. Awareness of these needs has resulted in the RPEI adopting a
facilitative approach to its implementation in different national and regional
contexts.
Two examples are given. Vanuatu educators expressed the need to
develop basic research skills before they could be expected to do research as
part of their own self-reflections and critique of their education system. The
RPEI agreed and facilitated. Following the Vanuatu pilot activities in 2002,
there were to be no further national activities until July 2003. However, due
to the national crisis in Solomon Islands, which led to the closure of schools
for long periods of time, leading Pacific educators felt that there was a need
to support the educational leaders of Solomon Islands. The RPEI responded
and facilitated a planning workshop as requested by Solomon Islands
educators.
Another component of the approach that has been useful to ensure NZAID
and its Pacific partners were responsive has been the big-picture strategising
sessions among leading Pacific educators and with NZAID. Other useful
outcomes, which have become integral parts of the RPEI approach, have
been the strategic alliance-building, networking and capacity-building. People
who were once professionally isolated have been grouped together, linked,
supported and are growing in confidence together.
5. Pacific peoples and processes
Product-oriented approaches in educational aid are common in PICs.
The need has been for undivided attention focused on the people who are
being assisted in order to enhance their autonomy, encourage their active
participation and enable their own leadership further. The RPEI approach
has not neglected tangible outcomes but has instead seen them as inevitable
‘bonuses’. It is argued that, when a discouraged people are motivated, they
are likely to be inspired to act and, in doing so, are likely to produce the
desired tangible outcomes. As has been stated, the RPEI is focused on
34
Directions: Journal of Educational Studies Vol. 25 Nos 1 &2 June & Dec. 2003
people—Pacific peoples—and on strengthening them as leaders of education.
By design, the first five-year period of the initiative is intended to motivate
Pacific peoples, to inspire them to assume a greater responsibility for the
education of their communities. An exciting effect of this approach has
been a number of impressive tangible outcomes, such as completed research
projects, follow-up national activities and the publication and dissemination
of research.
The need to take account of local understandings and interpretations has
also been long felt within PICs. By engaging Pacific educators to support
their colleagues across boarders, the RPEI has allowed for Pacific
understandings and approaches of working with people to be utilised in
educational aid situations. The RPEI was also successful in undertaking a
self-evaluation followed by an external assessment by a critical friend on the
goals and performance of the Initiative. Again, while the two-part evaluation
was financed by NZAID, the activity was commissioned and done in order
to strengthen RPEI’s capacity to undertake what it intends to achieve. These
activities are what I call, ‘brown-breaking’, in the sense that they are
innovations of change by Pacific Islanders (brown-skinned people). Moreover,
they are ground-breaking for aid relationships in PICs.
Emerging positive signs
A number of positive outcomes have emerged from the approach taken
by the RPEI. First, Pacific educators have received the initiative positively.
Some have agreed with its focus on people—on leader development. Some
have been inspired and encouraged by it. Others have identified with the
opportunities that the RPEI has created for their own involvement. Yet more
have been attracted to it because of the approach used, the modeling by
leading Pacific educators, and the arm’s length nature of the NZAID
involvement. For whatever reason, Pacific peoples have easily identified
with RPEI and appear to have a convincing sense of ownership of it.
Second, the establishment of networks and strategic groupings has meant
that Pacific educators working on remote islands are not as professionally
isolated as they used to be. Pacific educators have been able to communicate
with each other, sharing information, discussing issues and debating about
35
Directions: Journal of Educational Studies Vol. 25 Nos 1 &2 June & Dec. 2003
education. While the linkages are still in their infancy, the signs are promising
because, for many, years of professional isolation have been demoralising.
Third, published research by Pacific educators about their own education
systems is not in abundance. The RPEI has excited educators about research.
It has demystified research and has encouraged teachers and curriculum
officers to reflect systematically on their work and have their efforts
scrutinised by their colleagues and others. The small, applied research
projects being undertaken in a number of countries are the beginnings of
creating relevant research and making this accessible to educators, students
and policy-makers.
Fourth, research that has been done through the RPEI is being
incorporated into teaching and policy-making. The book, Tree of Opportunity:
Re-thinking Pacific Education, is being used for further debate and discussion.
Having Pacific interpretations documented in books is a useful addition to
the combined understandings of education.
Fifth, the approach appeared to have had success in mobilising community
participation in educational planning in Vanuatu. Following the 2002
activities, Ni-Vanuatu educators moved on and took the initiative further by
holding seminars, redeveloping policies and applying research findings to
improve practice at the school level in their country.
Emerging challenges
The following list shows some of the challenges arising from the RPEI
approach, as noted by Sanga, Niroa and Teweiariki (2003).
1. The ‘hands-off’ support by NZAID has allowed Pacific educators to
provide leadership and direction in an exploratory manner. It is, however,
not a blank cheque approach but rather one of according respect to Pacific
partners, developing and enhancing relationships with them. The approach
has also allowed for a more organic experience of development partnerships
between Pacific educators and NZAID. A key challenge of this approach
has been the building and maintenance of trust between key individuals that
represent the various partners.
36
Directions: Journal of Educational Studies Vol. 25 Nos 1 &2 June & Dec. 2003
2. When outsiders (including other Pacific educators) are working with
their colleagues within national contexts, they are likely to be more successful
if they go in as ‘one of the nationals’. Having Melanesians supporting their
colleagues in Vanuatu and Solomon Islands was new—and successful. As a
strategy, it represented a ‘browning of advice’. In reality, successful empathy
with colleagues has less to do with skin colour or culture but more to do with
a sincere attitude of identifying with and respecting the knowledge, skills
and expertise of national colleagues. The onus here rests on the outsider
supporters, rather than on their national colleagues. The ‘browning of advice’
and support across international boundaries has potential and must receive
greater backing by donors and Pacific governments. A challenge of this
approach has been the negotiation of tensions between ‘browning of advice’,
which may be inexperienced, against ‘expert’ or consultant advice, which
may be more expedient, prompt and neat; and the values put on these.
3. The Vanuatu pilot was a success story because the Re-thinking
Vanuatu Education Initiative was adequately contextualised. It was explained
in a manner understood by the community. The activities were consistent
and supportive of each other, rather than disjointed. The initiative made
strategic use of education and community stakeholders, ensuring their
commitment, leadership and participation. It made key and timely linkages
with politicians, other government officers, senior education officials and
key national stakeholders.
4. Regular consultations among key Pacific educators and with NZAID
have allowed these educators to identify potential opportunities and risks,
articulate strategic happenings in education effectively, and undertake
appropriate action. These consultations ensured that Pacific educators were
able to be responsive to the demands of educational change regionally and,
to a certain extent, within some national contexts.
5. During aid project discussions and negotiations, Pacific educators
have not often stayed engaged with donors, particularly after instances where
the former have been disappointed by the actions of donors. In establishing
the PERF, there were serious disagreements and some tension between
NZAID and Pacific educators. In spite of these, Pacific educators remained
37
Directions: Journal of Educational Studies Vol. 25 Nos 1 &2 June & Dec. 2003
engaged with donor representatives, rather than withdraw from them. This
action led to improved understandings of the issues by both partner groups.
6. Because the RPEI is organic, focuses on ‘re-thinking’ and is
exploratory in orientation, its agenda and the issues it has raised have called
for a responsiveness that NZAID structures and processes are struggling to
deal with adequately. This is because, although it is a development agency,
NZAID is still a government department. As such, NZAID needs to follow
public sector organisational rules that do not necessarily allow for the newer
challenges and demands from its Pacific partners. NZAID’s ability to be
responsive to newer ways of working has also been tested by specialist staff
shortage and changes within the Agency.
Conclusion
To sum up, a context-sensitive approach to educational aid is one which
is responsive to underlying educational needs. In the context of PICs, these
go beyond the commonly stated needs for improved access, greater
participation or better trained teachers insofar as they relate more to the
need for leadership by Pacific peoples themselves, their need for active
engagement with and understanding from donors.
The RPEI case study has raised a number of issues and challenges relating
to aid delivery. Integral to these is the acknowledgement that working with
Pacific communities towards strengthening their institutional capacities,
developing their sense of autonomy and creating hope in those communities
takes time. The goal in this instance is to promote the nurturing of educational
leaders that are able to take charge of the educational destinies of their
communities. Such an emphasis requires that donor approaches enhance the
achievement of this goal, not use strategies that are counter to it or ignore
this goal.
NZAID has demonstrated a preparedness to accommodate new ways of
working with its Pacific partners. For RPEI and its exploratory approach to
be developed further, Sanga and Nally (2002:9) suggest that a formative
dialogue take place between NZAID and leading Pacific educators. The
authors note that, for this process to succeed, “it will need to be underpinned
by a commitment to a common purpose, development of a shared
understanding of what it will take to achieve that purpose and a good degree
of tolerance and support within the partnership”.
38
Directions: Journal of Educational Studies Vol. 25 Nos 1 &2 June & Dec. 2003
References
Baba, T. 1999. Teacher education and globalisation: Challenges for teacher
education in the Pacific during the new millennium. Directions 21(1): 31-
50.
Davis, D. 2002. Basic education finance in Pacific Forum Island countries.
Suva. Pacific Islands Forum Secretariat.
Hughes, H. 2003. Aid has failed the Pacific. Issue Analysis 33:1-31.
Nabobo, U. 2000. Teacher education in an aid project: The case of the
Fiji-Australian teacher education project. Paper presented at the Research
Unit on Pacific Education Symposium. Auckland. December.
NZAID. 2002. Towards a strategy for the Pacific Islands region. Wellington. NZAID.
Pene, F., ‘A. M. Taufe‘ulungaki and C. Benson. 2002. Tree of opportunity: Re-thinking
Pacific education. Institute of Education, University of the South Pacific,
Suva.
Sanga, K. 2001. A case for integrity in development assistance partnerships.
Journal of Pacific Studies 25(2): 10-17.
Sanga, K and T. Nally. 2002. Rethinking development practice. Paper presented at
the DevNet International Conference. Palmerston North. December.
Sanga, K., J. Niroa and T. Teweiariki. 2003. Rethinking the rethinking of Pacific
Education. Victoria University of Wellington. Wellington.
Tahu, A and J, Fangalasu‘u. 1995. The SICHE School of Education and higher
award courses: Implementation and sustainability. In C. Driscoll (ed.)
Proceedings of the International Symposium on Education. SICHE,
Honiara: 33-37.
Taufe‘ulungaki, ‘A. M. 2002. Pacific education at the crossroads: Are there
Alternatives? In F. Pene, ‘A. M.Taufe‘ulungaki and C. Benson Tree of
opportunity: Re-thinking Pacific education. Institute of Education,
University of the South Pacific,Suva.
39
|
