Directions

A CHALLENGE TO THE NATION: The Fijian Education Problem*
Tupeni L. Baba
School of Education, USP

In his speech at the Queen Victoria School Silver Jubilee on Saturday,
14th October, the Governor-General, Ratu George Cakobau, provided an
interesting historical perspective on the question of the slow progress
obtained in Fijian academic achievement. He said that the problem was
evident 25 years ago in a speech by Sir Brian Freeston, when he laid the
foundation stone of QVS in 1950. An examination of the education
components of the three development plans of this country, the DP5 (1965-1970),
DP6 (1971-1975) and the current DP7 (1976-1980), reveals also the
continuing concern of our Governments — both colonial and post-colonial
— with Fijian education.
When we examine these three development plans, we see in all of
them special sections devoted to Fijian education. In these sections of the
plans, the objective of producing sufficient qualified Fijians to occupy 'a due
share' of top and middle level positions in the public and private sections of
the economy is stressed. It is not always made clear, however, what this
'due share' of Fijian positions is or should be, whether it should be related to
the proportion of Fijians in the whole population which is currently 44%
(according to the 1976 Census) or whether it should be based on the 50:50
policy used in university scholarship allocation by the Government. Whatever
the exact proportion of Fijians envisaged in this objective, it is fairly clear that
nothing short of a substantial share of 'these positions is expected as the
ultimate target. The above development plans emphasize the role of education
in ensuring that sufficient Fijians get through the school system in order to get
to these positions.
The realization that the Fijian is not achieving well academically is not
new. As our Governor-General said recently, the matter has been evident for
quite some time. The previous colonial Government had identified the
problem and recommended certain specific steps to improve it as could be
seen in the Development Plan 5 of 1965-1970. The present Government has
reiterated many similar policies in both its plans. Two notable steps taken by
the present government with respect of this problem have been (i) the
establishment of a number of junior secondary schools in the rural areas to
cater for rural dwellers most of whom are Fijians and (ii) the allocation of
'(Prepared for the Fiji National Radio Programme, "In My View", Wednesday, 1st November,
1978).

15

tertiary scholarships on a 50:50 racial basis to encourage all deserving Fijians
to get higher education.
A lot of other specific 'affirmative actions' had also been recommended
from 1960 onwards, such as the need for boarding facilities, the need for
frequent inspection of schools, the amalgamation of schools in rural areas to
allow for sharing of facilities, and so forth. The yearly reports of the Ministry
of Education in the last decade or so are full of such suggestions.
Fiji is now in the eighth year of its independence and yet the so-called
Fijian problem is still very much in evidence. In fact it seems to be looming
larger and has a habit of getting into the headlines. One could ask: Have we
not made improvements in view of all these policies, development plans,
annual reports and a royal commission, that have all attempted to deal with
this problem?
The evidence suggests that in terms of academic achievements in external
examinations, the situation has not improved. The results of the Secondary
Entrance Examination, for example, have not shown any improvement in the
proportion of Fijians relative to other races passing the examination. Since
1970, the proportion of Fijians passing this examination averages about 35%.
The proportion of Fijians passing the Fiji Junior Certificate and the New
Zealand School Certificate has also not shown any improvement. The Fijian
pass rate for the University Entrance Examination is equally disturbing.
Whereas in 1965, 20% of all those who passed this examination were Fijians,
the average proportion of Fijians passing the same examination since 1970 is
only about 18%.
These results indicate a very high dropout rate of Fijians at the secondary
level, particularly after Form 4. At this level, the proportion of Fijians passing
the Fiji Junior Examination is about 11 % less than the relative proportion of
Fijians in the general population. In the New Zealand University Entrance
taken at Form 6, this figure soars to 2 6 % . The above figures indicate that
the Fijian child has comparatively little chance of getting through to higher
secondary let alone the tertiary level. Certainly, his chances are less than those
of his contemporaries. In effect, his chance of getting to Form 6 is three to
four times less than that of an Indian child and six times less than that of a
Chinese or Part-European. These figures do not indicate any change for the
better despite the number of measures suggested and implemented to
improve Fijian education.
These figures, of course, do not give the full story. There may be other
benefits to the Fijians which have not been considered but in view of the
importance of examination results in determining those who pursue tertiary
education or those who take up other important positions in the country, they
cannot therefore be completely ignored. It could also be said that some
wastage is inevitable in any educational system but the occurrence of dis-
16

proportional dropouts where the proportions of the major populations are nearly
equal creates some unpleasant feelings, and we are not unfamiliar with this
situation in this country.
There is the danger of over-reacting to such a situation and resorting to
short-term measures which instead of alleviating the situation bring about new
problems. An example of such a measure is the 50:50 racial policy of allocating
scholarships to students at the Foundation year of the University. This policy
states that the number of allocated scholarship places for Fijians should be
equal to the number of places allocated to all the other ethnic groups put
together. In practice, this means that 50% of the places are given to the 18% of
the Fijians passing the University Entrance and 50% to the other 82% of
pupils from all the other ethnic groups who pass the same examination.
Given such disproportional results in the New Zealand University Entrance
Examination, the policy encourages the selection of students from differential
achievement groups after which they are placed in a common programme
where there are expected to do equally well. As expected, the number of
Fijians failing at the University Preliminary II or Foundation level is much
greater than the students from the other ethnic groups. In 1977, for example, the
overall failure rate of Fijians at this level was.four times greater than that of
non-Fijians.
This policy inevitably produces a high failure rate and is wasteful of
resources. In addition, it creates a tradition of failure and lack of confidence
among Fijians which could, for some, develop into deep-seated complexes.
This policy has also received its fair share of opposition from other members of
the community because of its blatant discriminating posture. In any multi-
ethnic community, the acceptance of any measure of affirmative action
usually depends on the goodwill of other members of the community, a
commodity which is not always inexhaustible, and which, if eroded or lost,
could hardly be regained. It seems reasonable therefore to expect from those
to whom such goodwill is extended, that they vigilantly nurture it and guard
against its abuse. In our situation, this means that the Fijians must see it
unworthy of themselves to endorse and accept short-term policies that in
themselves are blatantly discriminating in their favour. On the surface their
non-acceptance of such policy may seem a path to 'quick death' but it is
contended here that it would not be so. Once such a gesture is made, it would
then become the task of the nation to seek and pursue other viable long-term
policies that are worthy and deserving of Fijians.
Many such policies have been quoted but they have not been followed
up. Some of these policies have already been suggested in the past develop-
ment plans, Ministry of Education annual reports and in the Fiji Education
Commission Report. The tentativeness of many of these proposals indicates
that there was never any real effort made to implement them. Hardly any has
17

been subjected to extensive research within this country despite the fact that
the successful resolution of this national problem could decide the extent to
which we will continue to share this piece of earth harmoniously together as a
multi-ethnic society.
What should then be the basis of new national policies on Fijian
education? An examination of the Fijian dropout position indicates that the
bulk of the Fijian pupils drop out at the end of Form 4. This would indicate
that the majority of the dropouts leave after having failed the Fiji Junior
examination. The majority of Fijian students who drop out at this stage
attended the new secondary schools in the rural areas as against those who
attended the well-established Government and urban schools. It would seem
therefore that an improvement of the quality of the junior secondary schools in
the rural areas could be an important step in improving this situation. This
might call for some restraint in the present expansion policy of the
Government to allow for consolidation and qualitative improvements.
Studies in other developing countries indicate that the quality of an
institution is a significant factor in education achievement, particularly where
the home does not offer a conducive educational environment. A recent study
by Harris (1975), on factors influencing educational achievement in the sixth
form in Fiji, also indicated that Fijians who succeeded in the sixth form were
usually those who received' their education in schools of good academic
record.
It would also be necessary to examine further which are the critical
factors that produce an institution of quality. One factor that has often been
suggested in Fiji is the existence of boarding facilities. Harris, in her study, also
identified this as an important correlate of achievement at the sixth form for
Fijian students. Another factor relating to equipment and books is also
important. A related exploratory study by Elley and others (1978) of USP
indicated the existence of a relationship between the number of books in a
library and the reading ability of pupils in Fiji schools.
The above studies are still exploratory and they represent possible
avenues of research which if indicated and consciously supported could have
an interesting bearing on policies to improve the quality of education in the
rural areas. Many other factors which appear to be significant and which could
also be examined are those of teacher quality, quality of administrative
support, school location, factors relating to home background and
achievement motivation, competency in English, etc. These are mentioned
only to indicate the kind of tasks that could be done if the nation intends to
pursue a long-term policy that would be more acceptable to the whole
community and more effective in improving the quality of Fijian education.
Even in the short term, other less blatantly discriminating policies could
18

be pursued. One such policy is to allocate Government scholarships or
assistance according to rural and urban criteria. Each education district could
have its quota of scholarships, divided accordingly between rural and urban
places, depending on its population breakdown. Another way is to allocate
scholarships on a school basis in which some weighting is given in favour of
less-advantaged schools. Thirdly, a composite scheme could involve the allocation
of a proportion of scholarships to the best students (irrespective of ethnic
criteria) and the rest to be given on the basis of either, or a combination of
the above criteria.
These are not impossible tasks; we have the people and the resources to
examine these issues if only this nation has the will to face the challenge.
In my view, the so-called Fijian education problem is a national problem
and the extent to which we are going to resolve it is going to determine in a
significant way how we are going to live together in this country as a multi-
ethnic and multi-cultural society. Can we afford not to meet this challenge?
REFERENCES
1. Cakobau, Ratu Sir George (1978), Speech at the Queen Victoria School
Silver Jubilee Celebration at Matavatucou, on Saturday, 14th October,
1978.
2. Baba, T.L. (1975), Education and National Integration in Fiji (unpublished).
3. Elley, W . B . (1978), Research Project on Reading in Fiji: Second Progress
Report to the Suva Institute for Educational Research (unpublished).
4. Elley, W . B . and J . Thomson (1978), The English Language Skills of
USP Foundation Students (unpublished).
5. Rimes, J . (1978), A Study of Parental Expectations for Three Cultures in
Fiji (unpublished).
19