STUPID! This is how University of the South Pacific deputy vice-chancellor Professor Jito Vanualailai has described the removal of Fiji’s scaling system — a decision which he said had given rise to the challenges in the education system. He said the removal of the scaling system was detrimental as the scaling system recognised differences in resources given to different schools. “You cannot compare Suva Grammar School to, let’s say, Rabi High School, (it’s) impossible,” he said. “The scaling system recognises the different resources given to different schools. By removing the scaling system, you completely remove that kind of recognition of a difficult subject and the resources given to a particular school.” Tertiary Scholarship and Loans Service CEO Dr Haskmukh Lal said the organisation was blamed for “funding poor quality students” over the past years. “We don’t monitor quality. We are not responsible for learning and teaching, but we do get blamed,” he said.
Meanwhile, Higher Education Commission Fiji director Dr Rohit Kishore said the removal of a repeat system in schools was “perhaps the biggest mistake”. “That mistake, I’d say, it was unfair to a student.” Fiji’s education sector has come under heavy scrutiny, prompting questions about the calibre of graduates being churned out to join the workforce. And some representatives from the education sector have admitted policy decisions such as lowering of admission standards and removal of the scaling system are to blame for the supposed “declining” quality in graduates. During a panel discussion hosted by Dialogue Fiji in Suva this week, the participants grilled the representatives about why such measures were implemented by institutions in the first place. This led to USP deputy vice-chancellor Professor Jito Vanualailai saying these decisions were the “stupidest” things done.
Issues of quality
The calibre of workers employed in Fiji has continually been questioned by industry leaders and businesses. But if universities are internationally accredited and boast superior programs, where is the gap? What is the issue? Prof Vanualailai also asked this, however, admitted that the issue about quality of graduates stemmed from political decisions made to lower the entry mark. He said the removal of the scaling system was detrimental as the scaling system recognised differences in resources given to different schools. “You cannot compare Suva Grammar School to, let’s say, Rabi High School, (it’s) impossible,” he said. “The scaling system recognises the different resources given to different schools. By removing the scaling system, you completely remove that kind of recognition of a difficult subject and the resources given to a particular school. “And that’s what we did. We did a stupid mistake. And now, we have the consequences of that.” He said universities were continually “hammered” about assessments and performance. “That’s what we do, that’s our bread and butter. Every day since I joined the university, we’ve been hammered left, right and centre. “Every day we are hammered about ensuring that we do the assessment that makes sure our programs are aligned to the needs of the society.”
The blame game
Tertiary Scholarships and Loans Service (TSLS) CEO Dr Hasmukh Lal says the organisation has been blamed for “funding poor quality students” over the past years. Responding to concerns raised, he said TSLS had done its best to bridge any disparity created by the removal of the scaling system, particularly for more than 70 schools in rural and maritime zones. “For example, under the merit-based scholarship, the cut-off mark for those who want to do bachelor’s in agriculture, for urban schools is 310 out of 400, and for rural and maritime schools, is 300,” he said. “We had to create these so that we could reduce the disparity and allow more access. What we have done is that if you look at our Act, those students who do foundation, they don’t qualify for the merit-based scholarships.”
He said the reason for this trend was because students who had failed Form 7 went and did Foundation Studies and usually got 4.2 or 4.5 GPA. He compared that result with a hypothetical one of a Year 13 student from Bua College, who might have scored 351. “It’s a very high mark for a rural school like that. But he’s missed out because if you equate the GPA, it’s almost over 390. So that’s a disparity which was created.” Mr Lal also said they were considering the possibility of bringing back interview processes to screen applicants before granting scholarships. Dr Lal said this was done previously for programs such as MBBS. “We don’t monitor quality. We are not responsible for learning and teaching, but we do get blamed. We do get blamed that we are funding poor quality students, but we don’t monitor quality. We are not part of the learning and teaching process. And, of course, I think it depends on the optics we’re using. The political will of the previous government was to have scholarships through national toppers and study loans for the others to access college studies. “The political will of the current government is to have more scholarships. So, it’s the political will that we follow to support the government of the day. That’s how the public sector operates.”
A disconnect between partners
The Government, tertiary institutions and the business community are expected to work in tandem to shape policies to enhance the education sector. However, all partners at the panel discussion admitted shortfalls in this process and called for continuous dialogue between all parties. Kalara Vusoniwailala, from Marketing Works Fiji, said everything discussed during the panel highlighted the disparity and market relevance of what was coming out of the institutions to what was required in the private sector. She said graduates were an investment and employers needed to be able to get a return on their investment. “Something needs to be done and it needs to be practical. And it needs to be just very simple,” Ms Vusonilawa said. “What is it that we can do to make a difference? What do you want? What do I have? And let’s match it. And we need to do that on a more regular basis, and we need to give more time to the dialogue.” Higher Education Commission Fiji director Dr Rohit Kishore agreed that perhaps a different forum needed to be convened to address these issues. “It’s not that I disagree, but political will and the policies, where we are going, where the country is going, where people are going; these things are part and parcel but perhaps there is another forum for that.” He said the Government was working on the new National Development Plan, and one of the areas being focused on was a human resource development plan. “We’ve talked about technologies, technologies playing a bigger role. The economy is changing,” he said. “The business modalities are changing. The way people are doing business after COVID is changing. So, that continuous dialogue and working together, we’re working towards that.”
Change the system?
Dr Kishore also acknowledged the concerns raised during the panel discussion, saying many students had graduated under the same system. “Today we are blaming the system, but our system was different in schools,” he said. “If we failed, we repeated. As a longtime educator, that thing of removing the repeat part and allowing a student to keep going from Year Eight, Year Nine, all the way to Year 12 and Year 13, was perhaps the biggest mistake. “That mistake, I’d say, was unfair to students.” He asked the participants to imagine if a student struggled in Class Four and was suddenly put in Class Five, the child would struggle as they would keep moving up the years. Dr Kishore said this was also discussed during the Education Forum and added the focus would be from kindergarten going up. Meanwhile, issues such as labour migration also remain a notable concern for the country. University of Fiji acting vice-chancellor Professor Shaista Shameem also asked the participants to look to the future. She said employers now look for soft skills such as communication, integrity, human values, etiquette and courtesy. “If you look at one of the ways in which to judge whether your students are coming out with quality education is to see whether they’re dropping out. That’s the first thing,” she said. “Every academic, every university, looks at the dropout rate and says, ‘oh my goodness, if we’ve got too many students just coming into the system and then leaving it without getting their qualification, we can’t retain them and then they can’t complete clearly’. That’s really a problem for education. Then you start looking at things like quality, which is what we look at, but I can tell you that our retention rate went up in 2023, post-COVID, to 92.6 per cent.
“As far as we’re concerned, look, New Zealand universities their retention rate was 86 per cent. “Now our retention rate of 92.6 per cent is not too bad at all, do you think? “We have a completion rate of 79.4 per cent in 2019, and it has gone up in the five years to that incredibly admirable percentage. “Which means that we’re doing something right because students want to stay, and they want to complete the qualification as well.”
