La Lectoescritura en la Escuela La Urama nos hace volar

The Pacific as a region is littered with aid and remnants of aid projects. External aid in education has thrived in the Pacific region for the past 50 years. The state of the Pacific governments, their economies, their educational programmes and institutions including their graduates are the products of external aid. Luteru and Teasdale (1993) declared that due to Pacific island countries’ limited resources, geographical and economical isolation from world markets, and their vulnerability to external trade forces, almost all are dependent on some form of aid. The execution of educational aid projects in the Pacific varies amongst the donors and more so amongst the government and non-government sources. Baba’s (1985) critique of the Australian

63

government’s educational aid identified the difference between the AusAid sponsored assistance and the International Development Programme (IDP) of Australian universities and colleges assistance, was the latter was more collaborative. The IDP sponsored by the Higher education institutions of Australia, independent from the Australian government and had established a good working relationship with the University of the South Pacific.

Educational aid is big business. Developed countries spend huge portions of their annual budgets on external aid. According to Knapman (1986) proponents of foreign aid believe the extension of aid will expand third world development opportunities, and resources and expertise at concessional rates rather than market prices. Australia and New Zealand are the two major providers of aid to most Pacific island countries, even though they are small in comparison to countries such as the United States of America and Great Britain. Australia provided more aid to the Pacific island countries, including Papua New Guinea, than to any other country or a region (such as the Asian continent) (Hughes, 2003).

A number of internal critiques of Australian external aid have been undertaken, beginning with the reports of Commission on international development also known as the Pearson Commission (1969), the Brandt Commission (1980) (Harris, 1982), the Jackson Report (1984) (Lim, 1985) and the Simons Report (1997) (Warr, 1998). While the Brandt Commission identified some shortcomings with external aid, such as wastage and corruption, it was argued that aid was usefully spent to eradicate poverty, and support rural development, health and education. According to the Simons Report, the multiple political, humanitarian, and security objectives of the Australian Aid programme, contributed to the failure of aid making a direct impact on the low income populations in recipient countries (Mullen, 1999). On the other hand, the Jackson Report represented “a watershed in the delivery of Australian overseas aid development assistance (ODA)” (Luteru & Teasdale, 1993, p. 294). The Jackson Report indicated a shift from a humanitarian platform for aid to one aimed at gaining more political and economic interest for Australia and its institutions. This report set in

64

motion a fresh perspective of external aid, especially for educational assistance to the Pacific islands (Albinski, 1995; Baba, 1985; Bray, 1993; Luteru & Teasdale, 1993).

Baba (1985) analysed Australia’s business of educational aid in the Pacific and highlighted the practice of giving aid but using Australian academics, experts and institutions. This practice according to Baba was not only paternalistic but also undermined Pacific academics, local institutions and expertise, and he concluded it was a deliberate policy on the part of the Australian government. Educational aid such as that given by Australia ensures funds are returned to Australian institutions (Sanga, Chu, Hall, & Crowl, 2005). Remenyi (1991) concluded in his assessment of Australia’s trade behaviour that “the countries to which Australia gives aid also tend to be those that import from Australia. ODA [Overseas Development Assistance] is a trade promoting boomerang” (p. 3). Whatever perspective is taken about external aid, Knapman (1986) explained important issues that remain:

Aid allegedly encourages the belief that the prime determinants of development can be had for nothing, and thereby undermines self reliance. Concessional loans and grants replace (rather than supplement) domestic savings; imported technology depresses domestic research and development efforts; food aid diminishes agricultural self-reliance; and a pauper mentality displaces national pride (p. 145).

The Fiji Health Sector Improvement Project (FHSIP) funded the revision and the implementation of the Diploma of Nursing curriculum at the Fiji School of Nursing. The FHSIP was a part of the AusAid’s AusHealth International, which was carrying out extensive health reforms in the Pacific island countries including Fiji. The review of the previous Diploma of Nursing curriculum fitted in well with definitions and descriptions of educational aid provided by cosmopolitan countries for the small island states in the Pacific in its initiation and implementation. The role of AusAid in the re-structuring and review of Fiji’s health services began in 1999. AusHealth International’s Milestone document (AusAID, 2002), stated the Fiji project was Australia’s response to a series of reports in which there was a need to meet Fiji’s health needs efficiently, quickly and effectively. The work of AusAid in the Pacific Island countries health service reforms is similar to its previous involvement in the Pacific in the 1920s. Cameron-Smith (2010) described Australia’s long standing obsession with medical and health domination in

65

the Pacific by mapping strategies such as centralising Pacific health training research and leadership within Australian institutions. According to Cameron-Smith, Australia produced the Austral-Pacific regional zone map, which it considered to be within its sphere of political influence. Australia’s ambition was, “Not only to safeguard the Commonwealth but to fulfil dreams of Australian hegemony in the Pacific islands through the establishment of dominance over imperial medicine and native administration” (p. 60).

In 1993 AusHealth International, on behalf of AusAid, began health service reforms in Fiji as part of the health reforms AusAid was funding for Pacific Island countries such as Tonga, Solomon Islands and others. In the process of reviewing and restructuring Fiji’s health services, the Fiji School of Nursing as a health resource institution, was also included for a review and upgrade of its curriculum in preparation for amalgamation with the Fiji School of Medicine (Biscoe, 2000; Usher, Rabuka, Nadakuitavuki, Tollefson, & Luck, 2004).

AusAid was also involved in the up skilling of teachers’ qualifications at the Fiji School of Nursing from an undergraduate to a Master of Nursing degree in preparation for the implementation of the new curriculum and the merger of the School of Nursing with the Fiji School of Medicine. Both degrees and other courses, such as the Intensive Care Unit/Coronary Care Unit (ICU/CCU) nursing, were all provided by the James Cook University (JCU) by distance education, with the JCU staff travelling regularly to conduct on-campus block courses in Fiji. This type of arrangement did not recognise or utilise local institutions, such as The University of the South Pacific or other local university campuses for the University of Southern Queensland and the Central Queensland University who had been providing similar courses in Fiji for a long period of time. The Simons Report strongly advised against such practices by Australia as such arrangement resulted in a wastage of funds that could be better utilised within the recipient country, or diverted to other useful ventures (Mullen, 1999).

66

The international transfer of educational programmes and practices that aimed to keep professionals and practitioners on par with each other and up-to-date with technologies and approaches also had its fair share of problems and shortcomings. Sir Michael Sadler (1979) warned international educational consultants and planners that events outside the schools mattered more than those inside, as they govern and interpret those inside:

We cannot wander at pleasure among the educational systems around the world, like a child strolling through a garden and pick off a flower from one bush and some leaves from another, and then expect that if we stick what we have gathered into the soil at home, we shall have a living plant, but if we have endeavoured, in a system of education, we shall in turn find ourselves better able to enter into the spirit and tradition of our own national education, more sensitive to its unwritten ideals, quicker to catch the signs, which threaten it and the subtle workings of hurtful change (p. 229).

Crossley (1993) echoed Sadler’s warning, which was especially pertinent in the global context of rapid international travel, technologies, communications together with an increased growth in international consultancy services by developed countries. The nature of aid projects and international consultancy patterns pose a very real danger where advisors have little or no comparative experience or knowledge in the cultural background of the countries they are engaged in. The competency-based Diploma of Nursing curriculum is an example of such educational aid. The curriculum was externally developed, funded and supervised by external experts with minimal involvement of the local teachers. A curriculum consultant was appointed to oversee the implementation of the curriculum at the Fiji School of Nursing when it became evident that the nursing faculty was reluctant to implement the new curriculum late in 2004. Failure to implement the curriculum in August 2004 would have been seen as a failure on the part of the AusAID project in Fiji.