Directions

Directions: Journal of Educational Studies Vol 26 No. 1 June 2004
Re-thinking Educational Reform in the Pacific
Priscilla Puamau
This paper argues for a specific emphasis to be placed on a subjective and
spiritual approach to be taken to educational reform when interrogating
education in the Pacific. As part of taking a more holistic approach, the
spiritual development—heart and soul knowledge—of students should not
be neglected. This would be in line with the ‘learning to be’ pillar of learning
advocated by the Delors Report commissioned by UNESCO. The paper
suggests that cultural and spiritual values of each Pacific country should
underpin reform of education in the Pacific.

Introduction
A groundswell of opinion on the critical importance of re-thinking education
in the Pacific is rising from Pacific nations and their educators (See for example
Taufe‘ulungaki 2002; Thaman 2002; Sanga 2002; Afamasaga 2002; Puamau
2002; Teaero 2002: Heine 2002; Nabobo 2002; Niroa 2004). They recognise
that their education systems are still caught up in a colonised time warp,
despite the fact that most Pacific nations have been politically independent
for some decades. The issues of control and ownership of the processes and
structures of education are particularly important to them. Moreover, an
interrogation of the values and assumptions that underpin formal education
is taking place in knowledge sites such as universities. Pacific educators are
concerned because the same issues of access, equity, relevance, quality,
efficiency and effectiveness that confronted Pacific education three decades
ago still abound today, despite much investment in educational reform by
governments and donor agencies.
For the purposes of this paper, the Pacific refers to the 15 independent countries
in the Pacific region. This includes four larger nations: Fiji, Papua New Guinea
(PNG), Solomon Islands and Vanuatu; seven not so large nations: Cook Islands,
Federated States of Micronesia (FSM), Kiribati, Palau, Republic of Marshall
Islands (RMI), Samoa and Tonga; and four small island nations: Niue, Nauru,
21

Directions: Journal of Educational Studies Vol 26 No. 1 June 2004
Tokelau and Tuvalu. From the smallest nation of Tokelau to the largest of
PNG, many reforms are being undertaken in an attempt to improve the quality
of their education systems.
Using postcolonial theoretical resources, this paper analyses the impact of
such forces as colonialism and educational aid on the capacity of Pacific
nations to attain and maintain control and ownership of their education
systems: the content and processes of learning; pedagogies of the teacher;
organisational structures; management cultures; and approaches to assessment
and evaluation. The paper attempts to provide a way forward by exploring
conceptual underpinnings that lead to a new approach based on syncretisation
of: the local and the global; insider and outsider perspectives; academic,
technical and lifelong learning; and the temporal and spiritual. In re-thinking
educational reform in the Pacific region, it is important to take a holistic
approach. The privileging of a more subjective and spiritual approach to
educational reform is the thread that will seek to integrate the paper.
In this paper, I take a ‘strategic essentialist’1 (Spivak 1990, 1995) position as
an ‘insider’ indigenous Pacific Islander. In using essentialism as a strategy, I
contend that the Pacific is basically indigenous and Christian to validate the
lived experiences of the indigenous peoples of each Pacific country in order
to strengthen my argument for their cultural and spiritual values to underpin
the reform of education. My treatment of the Pacific region seems to assume
homogeneity when this is clearly not the case. I acknowledge the heterogeneity,
complexities, specificities and multiplicities of contexts and situations of the
15 Pacific countries covered in the paper. Moreover, if there are any
contradictions or ambivalences, this will demonstrate that there are no easy
answers to the issues confronting the Pacific region.
The colonial legacy
With the exception of Tonga, the Pacific region has been colonised by various
‘western’ countries over the last three centuries. The primary instruments of
control of colonised subjects were (and still are) written history (texts),
education and language. Colonial practicesincluding the historical,
imaginative, material, institutional and discursive have significantly
22

Directions: Journal of Educational Studies Vol 26 No. 1 June 2004
transformed Pacific ways of knowing, being and doing. The ideological,
political, economic and social structures currently in place today are
manifestations and hybrid versions of the colonial project. Colonial ways of
knowing and doing, together with ‘western’ values, attitudes and cultural
practices, permeate the lived experiences of the colonised to such an extent
that they have become part of the postcolonial landscape. At the point of
decolonisation, if there is no deliberate effort to resist, overthrow, even
transform these colonial legacies, then inherited structures and systems will
become normative and hegemonic fixtures of national life.
Because every education system is shaped by its national history and socio-
cultural, political and economic contexts, the education systems in the Pacific
region are manifestations of their colonial histories. For instance, the
educational structures in Fiji are modelled on the British system. Similarly,
Palau, RMI and FSM continue to maintain strong ties with the United States
of America; the Cook Islands, Tokelau and Niue have close ties with New
Zealand; while Vanuatu faces the challenge of dual Anglophone and
Francophone systems. The curricula, teaching methods, assessment and
evaluation methods, languages of instruction, administration and management
models, and organisational cultures of schooling in the Pacific continue in
hegemonic forms, usually closely resembling those in place during the old
colonial days.
The most insidious element of neocolonialism, defined as “the highest form
of colonialism” (Altbach 1995: 452), is that relatively little change to the
education system occurs after former colonies attain political independence
(Puamau 1999a: 40). As Ashcroft et al. (1995: 424) put it, “Education is
perhaps the most insidious and in some ways the most cryptic of colonialist
survivals, older systems now passing, sometimes imperceptibly, into neo-
colonial configurations”. In the case of the Pacific, educational apparatuses
can be described as hegemonic because once structures such as curriculum
assessment and school organisation become entrenched and institutionalised,
they have a totalising effect on society. Education deeply saturates “the
consciousness of a society” (Williams 1976: 204) and becomes unquestionably
what parents want for their children.
23

Directions: Journal of Educational Studies Vol 26 No. 1 June 2004
Pacific countries, because of their colonial legacy, also face the deeper
challenge of decolonising colonial mindsets inherited from centuries of
colonial subjugation, oppression and power play. Stepping out of the colonial
box into postcolonial2 conditions must start where it counts mostin the
mind. A psychological/mental deconstruction must take placean
interrogation of the colonial past and postcolonial present in order to
renegotiate the way to a more effective syncretism of local and global worlds.
Pacific Islanders need to find a constructive and practical way to “deconstruct
the concept, the authority and assumed primacy of the West” (Young 1990).
They must analyse the insidious effects of their colonial past not with the
purpose of criticising or blaming the colonisers but with the goal of
transforming their mindsets in order to reclaim or restore the best of what
was lost, subverted or ignored in the colonial era and its aftermath.
A Pacific vision for education
Is it possible to have education systems that are owned by the people of the
Pacific? In light of over a century of colonisation, and the current colonial
substitutes of globalisation and educational aid, can Pacific educators develop
their own distinctively local systems, firmly founded on their local cultures
and traditions, and strongly underpinned by indigenous value systems,
philosophies and epistemologies? Is it possible, even desirable, to do so?
Two important initiatives, both established in 2001, that provide a vision of
education in the Pacific are the Re-thinking Pacific Education Initiative
(RPEI1) and the Forum Basic Education Action Plan (FBEAP), the former
developed by concerned Pacific educators and the latter by fifteen Pacific
Ministers of Education under the umbrella of the Pacific Islands Forum
Secretariat (PIFS).
The Re-thinking Education Colloquium held in Suva, Fiji in 2001, the first of
many initiatives under the RPEI, began with the assumption that more than
three decades of extensive educational reforms in Pacific education and
1. RPEI was changed in April 2005 to RPEIPP ~ Re-thinking Pacific Education
Initiative for and by Pacific Peoples
24

Directions: Journal of Educational Studies Vol 26 No. 1 June 2004
significant investments by national governments and donor agencies have
not succeeded in providing the quality human resources needed to achieve
national developmental goals. The regional representatives at the Colloquium
were concerned that educational reforms have focused too narrowly on
improving various aspects of the quantification of education with little
attention given to questioning the values and assumptions underpinning formal
education. As Taufe‘ulungaki (2002: 15) puts it, “The failure of education in
the Pacific can be attributed to a large degree to the imposition of an alien
system designed for western social and cultural contexts, which are
underpinned by quite different values.” A continuing interrogation needs to
take place about the values, beliefs, assumptions and ideologies that underpin
‘neo-colonial’ Pacific educational systems.
The Colloquium agreed on the Tree of Opportunity as the most appropriate
metaphor for re-thinking Pacific education. In this reconceptualisation,
education is firmly rooted in the cultures of Pacific societiesin their values,
beliefs, histories, worldviews, philosophies, processes and skills, knowledge,
arts and crafts, institutions and languages. The Tree of Opportunity:
encapsulates the new vision for Pacific education based on the assumption
that the main purpose of education in the Pacific is the survival, transformation
and sustainability of Pacific peoples and societies, with its outcomes measured
in terms of performance and appropriate behaviour in the multiple context in
which they have to live. The primary goal of education, therefore, is to ensure
that all Pacific students are successful and that they all become fully
participating members of their groups, societies and the global community.
(Pene et al. 2002: 3)
Similarly, the FBEAP document arose out of a desire of Pacific Ministers
for Education to achieve universal educational participation and
achievement; ensure access and equity and improve quality and
outcomes (PIFS 2001). The vision for Pacific education is specified in
FBEAP as:
Basic education as the fundamental building block for society should engender
the broader life skills that lead to social cohesion and provide the foundations for
vocational callings, higher education and lifelong learning. These when combined
25

Directions: Journal of Educational Studies Vol 26 No. 1 June 2004
with enhanced employment opportunities create a higher level of personal and
societal security and development.
Forum members recognised that development of basic education takes place
in the context of commitments to the world community and meeting the new
demands of the global economy, which should be balanced with the
enhancement of their own distinctive Pacific values, morals, social, political,
economic and cultural heritages, and reflect the Pacific’s unique geographical
context. (PIFS, 2001: 1-2)
The Pacific Regional Initiatives for the Delivery of basic Education (the
PRIDE Project) was launched in 2004 to implement this Pacific vision for
education in the 14 Pacific member states of the Pacific Forum Secretariat
together with Tokelau. Its overall objective is:
To expand opportunities for children and youth to acquire the values,
knowledge and skills that will enable them to actively participate in the social,
spiritual, economic and cultural development of their communities and to
contribute positively to creating sustainable futures. (www.usp.ac.fj/pride)
Voice and speaking positions
The issue of voice and speaking positions is one of critical importance in
postcolonial discourse. As bell hooks (1989: 9) puts it, “moving from silence
into speech is for the oppressed, the colonized, the exploited and those who
stand and struggle side by side a gesture of defiance that heals, that makes
new life and new growth possible”.
The important point to note regarding the RPEI, FBEAP and the PRIDE Project
is the emphasis placed on Pacific people deciding for themselves what is best
for their communities. The insider perspective is crucial here because of their
intimate knowledge and experience, and their collective wisdoms. The related
issue of voice is also critical as it emphasises the importance of Pacific
educators and communities speaking out of themselves and for themselves.
The collective voice therefore of Pacific educators and peoples on issues that
are close to their hearts and souls is a poignant resistance to and reclaiming
of lost ground ‘stolen’ from them by their colonial past. The issues of
26

Directions: Journal of Educational Studies Vol 26 No. 1 June 2004
representation, power and control will come full circle to Pacific peoples
through this process of reclaiming a Pacific vision of education, decided on
by Pacific people for Pacific people, so that they can own the process of
education and allow healing from the devastating impact of the colonial
encounter.
It could be argued that it was the ‘voice’ of the initiators of the RPEI and their
successful influence at the Pacific Ministers of Education meeting in Auckland
2001, held under the aegis of PIFS, that resulted in the development of FBEAP
ultimately the birth of the PRIDE Project in 2004. It was also the ‘voice’ of
the Ministers of Education from the Pacific that articulated in a powerful
way what it considered to be a Pacific vision for education.
Re-thinking educational reform in the Pacific
Given the profound and pervasive psychological repercussions of colonialism
and globalisation, and given the increasing pressures to conform to
international benchmarks and conditions that come with accepting foreign
educational aid, can Pacific people change the ‘colonial mindsets’ that many
of them are still trapped within? Is it possible for them to change the
philosophies, ideologies, values and structures that currently underpin their
educational systems? Do they have the will, the courage, the energy and the
resources to transform their education systems into what they perceive to be
best for their people and nation? Can they truly own and control the formal
education process? Is it possible to have a genuine Pacific vision of education?
What shape should the re-thinking of educational reform in the Pacific take?
What are the parameters that should guide the direction of this re-thinking
process? Who decides? Whose voice(s) ought to speak and be heard? What
place do ‘outsider’ perspectives have in the re-thinking of Pacific education?
These are some important questions that need to be addressed by educators
and concerned stakeholders engaged in re-thinking educational reform in the
Pacific.
There are many challenges ahead, particularly coming from outside the Pacific.
Pacific nations are struggling to keep up with the impact of globalisation,
with the rapid increase in cross-border economic, social and technological
27

Directions: Journal of Educational Studies Vol 26 No. 1 June 2004
exchange under conditions of capitalism. In order to survive in an increasingly
sophisticated technological world, they need to log onto the information
superhighway and keep up with worldwide trends and developments. They
must align their development plans to international political, economic and
educational conventions and laws. They must play the game of keeping up
with trade deficits, and of maintaining national economic systems against the
powerful homogenising impact of western cultural practices, the influence
of the media and the dictates of market forces. And they continue to depend
on development assistance to fund many national activities.
Foreign donor agencies have driven many educational reforms in the Pacific
region. Reforms over the last three decades at all levels of schooling have
centred mainly on curriculum development, assessment, teacher education,
and resource development to support curriculum change. While a critique of
development assistance shows that donor countries benefit most from the aid
relationship (see, for example, Nabobo 2003), the benefits of educational aid
for recipient countries must be acknowledged. For example, teacher training
assistance has seen capacity-building of a significant number of lecturers.
Expensive infrastructure, such as classrooms, lecture rooms, hostels, libraries
and toilet blocks has been provided through aid-funded projects. Additionally,
many locals have been employed in aid projects that have included capacity-
building of local professional and management staff who then become highly
marketable on the international stage. Moreover, scholarship programmes
have enabled many Pacific Islanders to obtain a tertiary education, including
postgraduate degrees. Without development assistance, it is highly unlikely
that small island states could have afforded these expenditures, given their
small national budgets.
However research (e.g. Tari 2004; PIFS 2001) and personal reflections (e.g.
Singh 2002; Teaero 2002) in the Pacific region indicate that, despite reforms
in training teachers, revising curricula, providing resources, upgrading
facilities, mobilising community support, and improving leadership and school
management, quality education is still not being achieved. The same issues
that faced Pacific education three decades ago in terms of quality, access,
equity, relevance, efficiency, effectiveness, and student achievement continue
to plague Pacific nations. And despite Pacific governments and donor agencies
28

Directions: Journal of Educational Studies Vol 26 No. 1 June 2004
investing heavily in the education sector, the learning outcomes for most
students have not improved. In fact, many students continue to fail in schooling
at alarming rates (Puamau 1999a.)
Very little attention has been given to interrogating curriculum, school culture,
structure and organisation, including the values that underpin evaluation and
assessment of learning. The “values and belief systems that underpin the
behaviours and actions of individuals and institutions, and the structures and
processes they create” need to undergo fundamental change (Pene et al. 2002:
1). The ineffectiveness of Pacific education can be attributed to the “increasing
incongruence between the values promoted by formal western schooling, the
modern media, economic systems and globalisation on the one hand and those
held by Pacific communities on the other”(Pene et al. 2002: 1).
Donor agencies and ‘outsiders’ need therefore to dismantle their own mindsets
about the capability of Pacific Islanders who, in many cases remain the ‘others’
of Europe. During the colonial era, the colonisers stressed the cultural and
racial difference of the ‘other’ by asserting their domination and superiority
over them. This occurred in every lived sphere of colonial subjects through
stereotyping and discrimination against the colonised and became
institutionalised in the structures of colonial society. This ‘epistemic violence’
(Spivak 1995: 24-25) against the ‘subaltern’ (oppressed subject who is of
inferior rank) by constituting the colonial subject as Other “unleashed a myriad
cultural and psychological forces, many of them not fully manifest even after
500 years” (Sardar et al. 1993: 83). This ‘othering’ process has continued in
the postcolonial era, with many aid agencies and outside consultants still
taking the dominant and controlling position in the aid relationship. Others
are seeking to develop a culture of collaboration and consultation where the
aid relationship is seen as an ‘equal’ one and where donors try to understand
Pacific perspectives and ways of thinking and doing and to work in more
culturally acceptable and appropriate ways.
A holistic approach
How can education reform in the Pacific be reconceptualised? A holistic
approach needs to be taken, not only in discussions on education in the Pacific
29

Directions: Journal of Educational Studies Vol 26 No. 1 June 2004
but more importantly in its practices and processes. Currently, learning and
what happens in schools is disparate and disconnected from the daily lives of
students. It is mainly abstract, too academic and fragmented. In order to regain
wholeness and a seamless connection in education, a shift must now occur in
the following areas:
(1) Balanced and holistic ways of ‘knowing’, ‘doing’, ‘being’ and ‘living
together’, the four pillars of learning advocated by the Delors Report (1996)
need to be reflected in curricula. The current perception that livelihoods and
life skills knowledges are of second class status should be discarded. A more
holistic approach to learning would necessitate a better balance in academic,
technical, vocational, life skills and lifelong learning. Moreover, a holistic
approach needs to be taken also to the old demarcations between the various
levels of educationpre-school, kindergarten, primary/elementary, secondary,
technical/vocationalwith more effective articulation between each level.
(2) Because formal schooling is largely derived from foreign value systems,
there is a serious cultural gap between the lived experiences of most Pacific
Island students and what is offered in schools, including the way schooling is
organised and structured, the culture and ethos of schooling, its pedagogical
practices and the assessment of learning. And because the outcomes of
schooling continue to be measured in terms of examination passes, many
Pacific Islanders fail to succeed in school. A holistic approach to education
will also mean a re-thinking of all these factors.
(3) A holistic approach to education will particularly necessitate a culturally
inclusive curriculum where cultural and linguistic literacy is part of what is
offered in schools (Thaman 1992). It is critical that every child learns the
language, culture and traditions of the particular human society into which s/
he is born. This is particularly so for indigenous cultures. It is important that
the curriculum is grounded in the local cultural systems of knowledge and
wisdom. The cultural identity of indigenous peoples must be reaffirmed at
school, beginning with a culturally inclusive and democratic curriculum which
halts the “cultural and environmental bankruptcy” that is “an affliction which
has been an obstacle to sustainable development in much of the modern world”
(Thaman 1995: 732). It is envisaged that curriculum development for schools
30

Directions: Journal of Educational Studies Vol 26 No. 1 June 2004
(Thaman 1992) and teacher training institutions (Thaman 1996) will focus
on making the curriculum more culturally democratic at these sites.
(4) The spiritual development of the child currently is missing from most
educational discourse in the Pacific. This is a serious gap that needs to be
rectified. An emphasis on spiritual development or moral education needs to
occur in Pacific schools. The region has successfully internalised Christianity
as the dominant religion. Because the bulk of a child’s waking hours are
spent at school, and because of changing economic and social conditions
which weaken the role of the church and families, I believe schools and their
teachers now have a crucial role in building morally strong citizens for the
future. The teaching of Christian values and principles therefore should be
incorporated into the curricula of Pacific schools. At the same time, however,
an inclusive environment strongly suggests that the spiritual needs of non-
Christian students also be taken into account. Schools that are run by non-
Christian reliogious organisations can teach their own doctrines but make
the curriculum inclusive of students with other religious orientations.
Countries that are developing or reviewing their curricula should ask the
following questions (Puamau 1999a: 330):
a) What are the current curriculum goals? What should the goals be?
b) What and whose values, philosophy, ideology does the curriculum
profess? What and whose values or ideals should it promote?
c) What knowledge, skills and attitudes should the curriculum
emphasise?
d) Who decides on content?
e) What language should the curriculum be taught in?
f)) Whose interests will the curriculum serve?
g) What are the social, educational, economic and political implications
of such a curriculum?
In order to have a holistic approach to curriculum reconceptualisation, these
questions should be answered in light of the quest to be culturally inclusive,
to be cognisant of indigenous concerns, and to blend both local and global
ways of knowing and doing. Values education or spiritual development should
also be included in this holistic approach to education.
31

Directions: Journal of Educational Studies Vol 26 No. 1 June 2004
Local/global intersections
To take a holistic approach also means syncretising local and global
perspectives in order to adopt the best of both. The successful blending of
global and local ways of thinking and doing is at the heart of the PRIDE
Project. However, before blending the local and global, it is critical to develop
solid local foundations, where Pacific Islanders have explored all micro
dimensions of their specific contexts in order to build a strong body of local/
Pacific knowledge. Pacific researchers should take a deliberate stance to
document and record local perspectives and solutions. An example is Sanga’s
(2004) valuable account of how his community in the Solomon Islands
resolved conflict at the community level without external help by drawing on
their spiritual reserves firmly founded on their Christian faith. This account
is invaluable, not only for its emphasis on the need for good leadership by the
elders in the community, but also and just as importantly, for its emphasis on
Christian faith as the most powerful weapon in dealing with tribal conflict.
In terms of the reconceptualisation of the curriculum, there needs to be a
review of the content of learning so that the local and global occupy a balanced
space. The curriculum should not only be culturally democratic, but also
geared to meet the challenging ‘new times’ that are characteristic of the western
world. The reconceptualised curriculum should address the question of how
students re-invent themselves as culturally hybrid, complex and dynamic
human subjects in a new global era.
A synthesis, therefore, of the best from indigenous and non-indigenous
knowledge bases seems the most useful approach to take, the curriculum
striking a balance between the local and global. It must take into account the
need to value the cultural identity of the indigenous and non-indigenous
communities. Sir Geoffrey Henry (1992: 14), then Prime Minister of the Cook
Islands, summed it up thus:
One thing that the University of Life has taught me is that, while there are
black and white dogmas, philosophies, and solutions, the areas of grey are
large… The ideologies belong to the extremes while, between them, there
exists an infinite range of possibilities… With such a range of opportunity,
answers will emerge.
32

Directions: Journal of Educational Studies Vol 26 No. 1 June 2004
It is this range of opportunities, of possibilities that exist between the
extremities of non-western and western knowledge systems that should be
explored in order to ensure both cultural and social survival yet, just as
importantly, economic survival in postmodern conditions heavily influenced
by the processes of colonialism, neocolonialism, westernisation, globalisation
and economic rationalism. Pacific nations should, therefore, be concerned
not only about the role of education in preserving essential knowledges, skills
and values for the maintenance of local cultural identity, but also the role of
education in generating new values and competencies considered necessary
for the future development of the country in a competitive global world (Power
1992: 17).
Reality of the spiritual - values and moral education
In the Pacific, I believe it is necessary for education to take a more subjective
and spiritual approach, and to include local values, ethics and wisdoms. As in
Western schools, however, the spiritualheart and soul knowledgeis largely
absent from Pacific schooling. Because of the spiritual nature of Pacific
Islanders where Christian faith is an integral part of their lives, this dimension
needs to be valued and brought into the curriculum. A commitment to building
a strong foundation for Pacific education in the cultural values and spirituality
of each country would contribute to the ‘learning to be’ and ‘learning to live
together’ pillars of learning that the Delors Report (1996) advocates.
This concern to ground Pacific education in the spirituality of each country
resonates with Edmund O’Sullivan’s argument that contemporary western
education lacks a comprehensive cosmology and “must take on the concerns
of the development of the spirit at a more fundamental level” (1999: 259). He
observes that both traditional wisdom, particularly of indigenous cultures,
and an emergent form of knowledge coming from the ecological sciences
provide a radical view of the earth community. He notes that the traditional
western scientific perspective has much to learn from indigenous world views
regarding a balanced relationship between humans and nature.
The dominant faith in the Pacific is Christianity, a legacy of the evangelising
work of missionaries who came in the wake of colonial expansion, or perhaps
33

Directions: Journal of Educational Studies Vol 26 No. 1 June 2004
even drove it. The missionaries, together with traders and beachcombers,
became colonial agents, working with colonial governments to annex and
transform Pacific islands. They developed orthographies for some indigenous
languages, translated the Bible into the vernacular, and established rudimentary
schools to teach the ‘natives’ how to read so that they could study the Bible.
Christianising most of the Pacific through these means allowed formal
schooling to be introduced in the colonies.
Most indigenous Pacific Islanders were (and still are) deeply spiritual. They
found significant resonance between their traditional spiritualities and the
newly introduced Christian faith, and rapidly syncretised their own values
and beliefs with it. As a consequence Christian discourse became well
established in social and political life. For example, in Tonga today, everything
comes to a halt on Sunday which is officially and legally declared the national
day of rest for everyone, resident or visitor. There is no commercial
activity¾airports and wharves are closed, shops are shut, no taxis or buses
are allowed to operate and no one is allowed to play any sports. Similarly,
one will usually not find Christians playing local or national sports on Sunday
in Fiji and Samoa as this is revered as the Sabbath. As all Pacific constitutions
are founded on the values and principles of Christianity, it makes sense that
these principles and values should underpin the reform of education.
In my own view the Pacific needs citizens who are not only strongly rooted
in their traditional cultures, languages and epistemologies but who are equally
strongly grounded in their Christian faith, confident to take their place on
both local and international stages. This will be in keeping with the overall
objective of the PRIDE Project: “to expand opportunities for children and
youth to acquire the values, knowledge and skills that will enable them to
actively participate in the social, spiritual, economic and cultural development
of their communities and to contribute positively to creating sustainable
futures” (PRIDE 2003: 6).
Are there inherent contradictions in the fact that many Pacific Islanders who
critique the impact of colonialism at the same time deeply value Christian
beliefs and principles? Why have Pacific Islanders embraced Christianity
and made it their own yet are looking for alternatives to their education
34

Directions: Journal of Educational Studies Vol 26 No. 1 June 2004
systems? The answer lies in the ownership principle. The wholehearted
acceptance of Christianity has enabled it to permeate the lived reality of many
Pacific societies. People have taken ownership of it, internalising its values
and principles. On the other hand, formal schooling is still viewed as foreign,
abstract, meaningless and irrelevant by many people. Because the culture of
schooling generally is not synchronous with the culture of the students, high
failure rates and underachievement are the norm for many Pacific Islanders
(Puamau 1999b). Many indigenous communities have successfully integrated
Christianity into their cultural practices, yet view schooling to be outside
their ambit of control and something difficult to understand.
Most indigenous Pacific Islanders express a close affinity with their Christian
God, land, nature, village and kinspeople. They value and maintain their social
and religious relationships. It is the intricate network of social, family and
church relationships that helps to ensure the survival of the group through
interdependence and cooperation. The interests of the group and not of the
individual are important to them. Their thinking is based on mutuality, not
separateness.
What values, then, should underpin Pacific educational systems? I have already
indicated that Christian values currently underpin the constitutions of the
Pacific Islands. It is my contention that Christian values also should underpin
the curriculum and permeate the organisation and culture of Pacific schools.
A balance needs to be struck in the notion that education and religion are
separate entities and should not merge. A thread underlying this paper is the
principle that Pacific values and ways of thinking and doing should become
a hegemonic feature of everyday life and underpin Pacific education systems.
Educational and political leaders need to deliberately analyse and unpick the
current content, practices and organisation of schooling to see where more
emphasis can be placed on the spiritual development of students. After all, a
holistic, balanced and inter-connected approach would mean a good balance
in the academic (mental), social, physical, cultural and spiritual development
of each student.
I have taken a strategic essentialist position in arguing for indigenous cultural
values and Christian values to underpin education in all Pacific countries
35

Directions: Journal of Educational Studies Vol 26 No. 1 June 2004
covered in this chapter. In Fiji, however, where there is a sizeable non-Christian
population, and in other Pacific countries where non-Christian organisations
have set up schools, I must make the point that their freedom to practise their
religion or culture is never in question. I admire Muslim, Hindu and other
religious organisations in Fiji whose schools are solidly built on their religious
and cultural values and beliefs which are respected by people of other religions
who choose to attend these schools. This is the very principle and model that
I draw on for state and Christian schools to be founded on.
The issue of making moral and ethical decisions is significant in these new
times of rapid social, cultural, political, economic and technological change.
As mentioned earlier, students will need to be guided into making sound
moral and ethical choices in everything they do, whether in or outside the
classroom. While the family, as the basic social unit of society, and the church
can play a significant role in this area, their impact is neutralised by the
changing dynamics brought about by urbanisation, globalisation, changing
economic structures including high levels of poverty and the like. It is therefore
imperative that schools also take the lead in ‘teaching’ and ‘practising’ sound
moral values. The building of character through moral education should be
strongly emphasised in school organisation and curriculum so that upright,
law-abiding citizens are produced who can live lives of moral significance.
As emphasised already, Pacific schools should also be underpinned by Pacific
indigenous values, principles, beliefs, ideologies, knowledges and wisdoms.
As indicated earlier, there is no logical inconsistency between indigeneity
and Christianity because Pacific Islanders have so successfully integrated
their Christian faith into their cultures. The cultural values of Pacific Islanders
should saturate their individual and collective consciousness so that they
permeate the educational system and become hegemonic features of the
educational landscape. For example, the underlying values and beliefs that
guide local Pacific planning processes include: cooperation; unity; reciprocity;
respect for authority, each other and the environment; maintaining culture
and traditions; maintaining family and community relationships; sharing and
caring; religious or spiritual nurturing; moral character development; and
capacity-building.
36

Directions: Journal of Educational Studies Vol 26 No. 1 June 2004
The re-thinking initiative of Pacific educators should continue to examine
ways that the spiritual and the cultural can become embedded in the school.
There is a real need for heart and soul knowledge alongside the head
knowledge emphasised through academic discourse. This will contribute to
reclaiming ‘learning to be’ and ‘learning to live together’ in Pacific education.
Further research is needed in these areas because they currently hold such
marginal positions in education discourse.
Concluding remarks
There is no doubt that the colonial encounter with indigenous peoples of the
Pacific region, as elsewhere, brought untold psychological, social and cultural
damage. After decolonisation Pacific peoples, living in small island countries,
continue to grapple with challenges brought about by the impact and influence
of neocolonialism, westernisation, globalisation, foreign aid and market
capitalism. The education systems, amongst other things, in each of the 15
Pacific countries of the PRIDE Project have been significantly affected by
these onslaughts.
Increasing numbers of educated Pacific Islanders, particularly in Pacific and
New Zealand universities, have begun to question and interrogate the values,
beliefs, world views, ideologies, processes and structures that underpin their
current realities. They have begun the process of unpicking their way through
the effects of colonialism in order to make sense of where they are, before
they can chart a progressive way forward for the Pacific. This is particularly
evident in the ‘Re-thinking Pacific Education Initiative’ discussed in this paper
which has provided the impetus for a more aggressive interrogation of the
historical past and postcolonial present. The need for a collective mobilisation
of the Pacific spirit in order to bring about a positive transformation in the
lives of local communities is evident.
In reconceptualising educational reform in the Pacific, and the work of the
PRIDE Project, the need for a holistic approach to education, including
grounding formal schooling in the spiritual and cultural realities of indigenous
communities, has been emphasised. This holistic approach should also include
37

Directions: Journal of Educational Studies Vol 26 No. 1 June 2004
working towards a balance in the following areas: curriculum coverage; levels
of schooling; school structures and lived experiences of Pacific peoples; local
and global intersections; and insider and outsider perspectives. Research that
concerns Pacific education and its relationship to development, amongst other
things, needs to be undertaken on a more intense scale in order to build up a
body of knowledge that is unique to the Pacific.
References
Afamasaga, T. 2002. Personal reflections on education in Samoa. In F. Pene, ‘A.
Taufe‘ulungaki and C. Benson (eds) Tree of opportunity: Re-thinking Pacific
education
. Institute of Education, University of the South Pacific, Suva: 97-101.
Altbach, P.G. 1995. Education and neocolonialism. In B. Ashcroft, G. Griffiths and H.
Tiffin (eds) The post-colonial studies reader. Routledge, London: 452-456.
Ashcroft, B., G. Griffiths and H. Tiffin (eds). 1995. The post-colonial studies reader.
Routledge, London.
Delors, J. (Chair). 1996. Learning: the treasure within. Report to UNESCO of its
International Commission on Education for the Twenty-first Century. UNESCO,
Paris.
Gandhi, L. 1998. Postcolonial theory. A critical introduction. Allen & Unwin, Sydney.
Heine, H.C. 2002. A Marshall Islands perspective. In F. Pene, ‘A. Taufe‘ulungaki and
C. Benson (eds) Tree of opportunity: Re-thinking Pacific education. Institute of
Education, University of the South Pacific, Suva: 84-90.
Henry, G.A. 1992. Education for educational development. In B. Teasdale and J.
Teasdale (eds). Voices in a seashell: Education, culture and identity. Institute of
Pacific Studies, University of the South Pacific, Suva: 9-14.
hooks, b. 1989. Talking back, thinking feminist, thinking black. South End, Boston,
Masachusetts.
Nabobo, U. 2003. The human dimension of project aid. Some local counterpart
perspectives with regards to ‘expertise exchange and relationships’: a Fijian case.
In E. Coxon and ‘A. Taufe‘ulungaki (eds) Global/local intersections. Researching
the delivery of aid to Pacific education.
Research Unit of Pacific Education
(RUPE), The University of Auckland, Auckland: 86-100.
Nabobo, U. 2002. Computer tigers and coconut trees. In F. Pene, ‘A. Taufe‘ulungaki
and C. Benson (eds) Tree of opportunity: Re-thinking Pacific education. Institute
of Education, University of the South Pacific, Suva: 36-47.
38

Directions: Journal of Educational Studies Vol 26 No. 1 June 2004
Niroa, J. 2004. Why we need to rethink Vanuatu education. In K. Sanga, J. Niroa, K.
Matai and L. Crowl (eds) Re-thinking Vanuatu education together. Ministry of
Education, Port Vila and Institute of Education, University of the South Pacific,
Suva: 25-29
O’Sullivan, E. 1999. Transformative learning: Educational vision for the 21st century.
Zed Books, London.
PIFS (Pacific Islands Forum Secretariat). 2001. Forum Basic Education Action Plan
– 2001. PIFS, Suva.
Pene, F., ‘A. Taufe’ulungaki and C. Benson (eds). 2002. Tree of opportunity: Re-
thinking Pacific education. Institute of Education, University of the South Pacific,
Suva.
Power, C. N. 1992. Culture, development and education – the role of UNESCO. In B.
Teasdale and J. Teasdale (eds). Voices in a seashell: Education, culture and
identity.
Institute of Pacific Studies, University of the South Pacific, Suva: 15-
23.
PRIDE Project. 2003. Financing Agreement for Pacific Regional Initiatives for the
Delivery of Basic Education (PRIDE). University of the South Pacific, Suva.
Puamau, P.Q. 1999a. Affirmative action and racial inequalities in education: The case
of Fiji. PhD thesis, The University of Queensland, Brisbane.
Puamau, P.Q. 1999b. Understanding Fijian under-achievement: an integrated
perspective. Directions: Journal of Educational Studies 31(2):100-113.
Puamau, P. 2002. Re-thinking education in Fiji: issues and solutions in the 21st century.
In F. Pene, ‘A. Taufe‘ulungaki and C. Benson (eds) Tree of opportunity: Re-
thinking Pacific education
. Institute of Education, University of the South Pacific,
Suva: 61-72.
Sanga, K. 2002. Beyond access and participation: challenges facing Pacific education.
In F. Pene, ‘A. Taufe‘ulungaki and C. Benson (eds) Tree of opportunity: Re-
thinking Pacific education
. Institute of Education, University of the South Pacific,
Suva: 52-58.
Sanga, K. 2004. Digging deeper: Resolving conflict at a community level. Paper
presented at the International Conference on Securing a Peaceful Pacific,
Canterbury University, Christchurch, New Zealand, October 15-17, 2004.
Sardar, Z., A. Nandy and M. Davies. 1993. Barbaric Others. A manifesto on western
racism. Pluto, London.
Singh, G. 2002. Addressing issues and challenges facing Pacific education. In F. Pene,
‘A. Taufe‘ulungaki and C. Benson (eds) Tree of opportunity: Re-thinking Pacific
education
. Institute of Education, University of the South Pacific, Suva: 59-60.
Spivak, G.C. 1990. The post-colonial critic: Interviews, strategies, dialogues.
Routledge, New York.
39

Directions: Journal of Educational Studies Vol 26 No. 1 June 2004
Spivak, G.C. 1995. Can the subaltern speak? In B. Ashcroft, G. Griffiths and H. Tiffin
(eds) The post-colonial studies reader. Routledge, London: 24-28.
Taufe‘ulungaki. ‘A. 2002. Pacific education at the crossroads: are there alternatives?
In F. Pene, ‘A. Taufe‘ulungaki and C. Benson (eds) Tree of opportunity: Re-
thinking Pacific education
. Institute of Education, University of the South Pacific,
Suva: 5-21.
Tari, F. 2004. Improving school performance. In K. Sanga, J. Niroa, K. Matai and L.
Crowl (eds) Re-thinking Vanuatu education together. Ministry of Education, Port
Vila and Institute of Education, University of the South Pacific, Suva: 95-106.
Teaero, T.F. 2002. 2002. Old challenges, ‘new’ responses to educational issues in
Kiribati. In F. Pene, ‘A. Taufe‘ulungaki and C. Benson (eds) Tree of opportunity:
Re-thinking Pacific education
. Institute of Education, University of the South
Pacific, Suva: 73-83.
Thaman, K.H. 1992. Cultural learning and development through cultural literacy. In
B. Teasdale and J. Teasdale (eds). Voices in a seashell: Education, culture and
identity.
Institute of Pacific Studies, University of the South Pacific, Suva: 24-
36.
Thaman, K.H. 1995. Concepts of learning, knowledge and wisdom in Tonga, and
their relevance to modern education. Prospects: Quarterly Review of Comparative
Education
96, XXV(4): 723-733.
Thaman, K.H. 1996. Towards a cultural democracy in teacher education. Keynote
Address, New Zealand Teacher Education Conference, Dunedin, June 25-28,
1996.
Thaman, K.H. 2002. Towards cultural democracy in Pacific education: an imperative
for the 21st century. In F. Pene, ‘A. Taufe‘ulungaki and C. Benson (eds) Tree of
opportunity: Re-thinking Pacific education
. Institute of Education, University
of the South Pacific, Suva: 22-30.
Williams, R. 1976. Base and superstructure in Marxist cultural theory. In R. Date, G.
Esland and M. MacDonald (eds) Schooling and capitalism: A sociological reader.
RKP, London: 202-210.
Young, R. 1990. White Mythologies. Writing History and the West. Routledge, London.
40

Directions: Journal of Educational Studies Vol 26 No. 1 June 2004
Notes
1 The term ‘strategic essentialism’ refers to the use of essentialism as a strategy to
effect agency or voice for disadvantaged or marginalised groups. In the case of Pacific
Islanders disadvantaged in profound ways by the processes of colonialism and
neocolonialism, postcolonial theorists writing in academia or indigenous people can
use this strategy of being essentialist, totalising or deterministic in order to effect
voice and agency for themselves in order to recover the voice, space and the dignity
of ‘knowing themselves and of themselves by themselves’ (Puamau, 1999a: 51).
2 The term ‘postcolonial’ is a hotly contested one and much theorizing revolves around
it. A useful definition is given by Leela Gandhi (1998: 4) who defines postcolonialism
as “a theoretical resistance to the mystifying amnesia of the colonial aftermath. It is a
disciplinary project devoted to the academic task of revisiting, remembering and,
crucially, interrogating the colonial past”.
41