Author Archives: Paul

Why education will always be a human-intensive activity

Posted on by
Reply

There’s a growing consensus out there that not only does education needs to be disrupted, but that the logical conclusion of such change is to digitize learning. While I agree that schools need a major overhaul, the diagnosis that education ought to be automated is completely absurd.

Two articles speak to this ideology. The first was published on TechCrunch and claimed that teachers would be replaced by technology – essentially, software can do as effective a job as a human. The second was published on the Huffington Post, stating that higher education was necessarily being disrupted by new self-service online instructional platforms that would break down the cost barriers to university.

Both articles are based on an ideology that defines learning as the accumulation of knowledge – I would contest such a notion. To be truly educated means one must be able to think critically, to synthesize different facets of knowledge, to effectively express one’s self to others, and to learn how to learn. Education of this depth can never be adequately facilitated by an online platform powered by multiple-choice exams.

There’s no doubt that the way schools currently operate needs disruption. The traditional model features a teacher transmitting “knowledge” into the empty brains of students. This is the way most schooling occurs, from grade school to grad school. This model lends itself greatly to replication online. Indeed, why should any student go to a physical building or pay thousands to attend university if the quality of the education can be obtained cheaper or more conveniently from an internet connection.

In this sense, the disruptive forces of these so-called innovations are good. They are prompting brick-and-mortar education to up their game and change their modus operandi. To survive in such an environment, face-to-face learning will need to become more valuable that a simple one-to-many transmission of static knowledge.

In its replacement will emerge collaborative, multi-disciplinary, engaged, and personalized learning that delves into the deep questions. Teachers will no longer be “teachers” but rather facilitators of the learning process.

Technology will play a part in enabling this shifting of roles and learning environments, but it will never outright replace the vast majority of face-to-face education. In depth education is simply too multi-faceted, complex, and ever-changing for algorithms to ever produce.

Let’s cut the tax rhetoric

Posted on by
Reply

“The sky is falling!”

That line, famously tied to Chicken Little, could just as easily be linked to politicians and business leaders when talking taxes.

We’re living, still, in an era dominated by neo-liberal economics, an ideology that calls for limited government, privatization of services, de-regulation, and low taxes. In fact, it’s so ingrained in our society that any politician that would dare proclaim they supported raising taxes would simply be laughed off the stage by citizens and the media alike. Of course, business groups and economists, with their primal focus on wealth and jobs, reinforce this notion that all taxes are a drain on private capital and productivity.

The rhetoric is extreme with their claims that any tax increases would destroy the economy and put untold numbers of workers out of employment. Ironically, in recent times, the political leaders of this campaign in BC have eaten crow twice for reversing course.

When Christy Clark became Premier, she pledged to raise the minimum wage from $8 an hour, one of the lowest in the country and not raised in over a decade, to $10.25, more in line with other major provinces. For years, the Liberals claimed that raising the minimum wage would destroy jobs in low margin industries like restaurants. Their claims were backed up by economists and local business groups that said the economy would grind to a halt if the government dared raise the floor on wages.

Yet, Clark moved forward, and increased the minimum wage, through three escalating steps over the course of two years. The economy has not crashed and burned, McDonald’s and White Spot are still employing people, and the world went on.

Situation number two. The HST was able to head to a provincial referendum and the Clark government decided to sweeten the deal if British Columbians decided to keep the tax – if a majority supported it, the HST would be lowered to 10%. How would the government make up the lost revenues? Well, it would just increase the corporate tax rate.

Yet, this completely contradicts the rhetoric from the Liberals for a decade that corporate taxes were driving away investment from the province. Corporate taxes were demonized as inefficient; nothing more than a hidden cost passed onto the consumer. Of course, the HST was voted down, and thus the corporate tax rate was never increased, but for a government that vehemently decried the tax for years to suddenly flip flop shows the real holes in its ideological economics.

What these two examples prove to me is that, despite all the cries that the sky would fall if we raised taxes, in reality the effects are minimal. While a huge spike or drop in taxation no doubt would either hinder or help investment, changes around the margins don’t make a significant difference to business. They adapt and life goes on.

iPad textbooks, iTunes U big step forward for distance learning

Posted on by
Reply

I was one of my city’s pioneers in online learning. I first switched in 2005 and graduated high school online in 2008. For me, the ability to manage my own time and set my own pace of learning was tremendously valuable.

The set up back then consisted of courseware hosted online through a private WebCT system. On this system, you could access assignment instructions and some basic curriculum, email the teacher, and use interactivity components if activated, such as discussion forums, embedded YouTube videos, or instant quizzes. Often times though, most of the learning happened via textbook.

In many ways, online learning was just traditional paper-based distance education upgraded. Instead of mailing the textbook and courseware to you to eventually mail back for grading, the exchange of essays occured online and courseware no longer needed to be snail mailed. This reality is often far from the grandiose visions of engagement and interactivity that technologists declare when pushing online learning or other technology-enhanced educational opportunities. In fact, I’d go so far as to say that, as it currently exists, online learning is essentially less engaging than a real classroom (most of the time), but its advantages in terms of time outweigh that downside.

With Apple’s announcement today of the new iPad textbooks, the iBooks publisher, and the re-designed iTunes U, online learning has taken a big leap forward. We currently require a student to sit down at a PC with their textbook on hand while accessing assignment notes off WebCT - this new educational ecosystem streamlines and enhances that whole process.

Instead, students will be able to access their courseware through the iTunes U app, dynamically linked to either professional or self-published interactive textbooks, all from their iPad. No longer is online learning tied to the desk or to paper. It is entirely hosted and managed from a lightweight, powerful, and affordable device that can be used for so many other purposes.

One of the most important aspects of this platform is its ease of use. Apple software is leaps and bounds ahead of the current technology in this space. WebCT has rightly been decrieded by all the students who’ve used it over the years. It’s dated, slow, and hardly engaging. And the software of the static, paper-based textbook is no doubt ripe for change itself. With this ecosystem, there’ll be less time spent on debugging and troubleshooting, and more time spent learning.

Another big component here is self-publishing textbooks. With iBooks Author, any individual or group can create a fully interactive textbook, with images, video, and quizzes, super easily. The textbooks can either be shared with others for free or sold for minimal expense on the iBookstore. This platform can enable teachers or government to create custom interactive textbooks with ease. Custom textbooks are often significantly cheaper than professional options and more customized to the actual curriculum, but do require time to be invested in their creation. Instead of worrying about layouts or printing costs, creators can focus solely on the actual content.

No doubt this requires buy-in to the full Apple platform. But so too did the iPod and the iPhone, ecosystems which, although locked-in, were far more powerful and easy to use than any of the alternatives. With these new tools announced today, Apple has presented itself as undeniably the optimal platform for online learning. While that doesn’t mean that online learning itself is in any ways more engaging than person to person education, it is definitely the next step forward in making online learning a more interactive and simple learning option for more people.

Ethical oil? There’s no such thing.

Posted on by
Reply

One of the strongest cases made to support the expansion of the Alberta oil sands is the proposition that our oil is ethical when compared to reserves from the Middle East. From a geopolitical perspective, the purchase of oil from Canadian markets over Arab markets makes sense, but such a conclusion is simplistic at best.

According to Merriam Webster, ‘ethical’ is defined as that which “conforms to accepted standards of conduct.” This definition inherently recognizes that ethics are not static – they are created, endorsed, and re-shaped over time by society. What may be ethical or accepted behaviour in one place may not be shared by another. These standards of conduct shift due to accepted understandings of what is right or wrong, based on our knowledge at a particular time.

For example, it was not long ago that slavery was accepted as ethical behaviour. The notion that human beings could be bought or sold and had no rights of their own to freedom was simply taken as a norm. It was not until this notion was challenged and acceptability changed that slavery was abolished and outlawed. Individuals heard arguments for and against slavery, and ultimately decided that it was in fact unethical.

In the case of oil, modern society has gone through its own process of debate and, I dare say, enlightenment. During the industrial revolution, the use of fossil fuels to power our machines was not questioned. The immediate effects of pollution were dealt with by the rich, and later the middle class, by leaving the inner city for healthier, suburban spaces. Technology was also created to help reduce and mitigate this pollution.

The lesser known, more latent effects of that fossiel fuel usage is, of course, climate change. While on the radar for nearly three decades by scientists, a generally global consensus that, one, it is occurring, and two, it is man-made, has only emerged in roughly the past five years.

Five years ago, the source of your oil was of ethical concern. A country like Canada or Norway, with better records on human rights, would be a more ethical purchase than oil from Russia, Latin America, or the Middle East. But based on our new global consensus on the negative effects of fossil fuel usage, the purchase of any oil, no matter where it comes from, is no longer ethical.

When we are aware of the harmful and long lasting, perhaps irreversible, effects of climate change on people around the world, any corporation, person, or country that continues to purchase and burn oil is acting unethically.

Now there are those who will argue that anyone who currently relies on oil, or fossil fuels, for any part of their lifestyle, are therefore acting unethically. Often this argument is thrown at environmentalists, deeming them to be hypocritical for taking a flight or driving a car. Of course, under the new paradigm this is indeed unethical, but the burden placed on the individual is far too great, when said person has such a limited control on their options for survival. We would not accuse a middle-class individual for choosing to be fat if their neighbourhood is surrounded by fast-food restaurants and grocery stores filled with processed foods. Their choices are constricted by the larger societal processes, leaving much of the responsibility to corporations and governments.

When renewable and clean energy sources are available as freely and priced at the same rate as fossil fuels, and individuals have a legitimate option available, if they continue to purchase the non-renewables, they ought to be deemed as acting unethically. If they switch to the clean energy option, they are choosing to adopt ethical behaviour.

With this in mind, when a corporation – Enbridge – and a government – Alberta and Canada – actively seek to expand the oil sands for export to energy hungry nations, they are choosing to be irresponsible global citizens and are acting against the best interests of society. The ethical option would be to take our existing wealth to invest in clean energy sources, a move that would drive down their costs and put them on a level playing field with fossil fuels.

We are living in a new era where we deeply recognize and understand the negative impacts of fossil fuels. Corporations and governments that refuse to shift their behaviour in this new environment fail to grasp that our ethics have evolved, our norms have changed, and that such choices are no longer acceptable.

100 billion dollar oil windfall for Canada? Not quite.

Posted on by
Reply

With the hearing on the Northern Gateway pipeline having just begun, the oil industry is already on the offensive, pushing several reports that are proclaiming over a hundred billion in economic activity for the country as a result of the project. To the layman, hearing that one pipeline could bring in such a huge amount of money almost makes the environmental risks seem negligible. In an era of fiscal tightening, the pipeline seems to be an obvious economic boon. As I soon learnt, when things sound too good to be true, it’s because they are.

To get to the bottom of this, I went straight to the main source: a report from the University of Calgary’s School of Public Policy released late December. Here’s a blurb from the press release:

“With better access and new pipeline capacity, oil producers will see more efficient access to international markets which can add up to $131 billion to Canada’s GDP between 2016 and 2030,” the authors write. “This amounts to over $27 billion in federal, provincial and municipal tax receipts, along with an estimated 649,000 person-years of employment.”

Not surprisingly, Alberta, with its robust oil reserves, will be the principal beneficiary, but the authors stress that “most every single province and territory will realize fiscal and economic gains.”

“These are impressive figures,” concluded co-author Michal Moore. “The rewards of additional pipelines for all of Canada are too great to ignore.  Pipelines must be a national priority.”

The final paragraph is perhaps the most revealing in how dedicated the authors are to spin their meagre results. A real look at the numbers shows that, while the figures may be impressive to Alberta, there is a negligible benefit to the rest of the country. My analysis would argue vehemently with the conclusion that this project is in the national interest.

Another interesting element, hidden between the lines, is that these calculations are based not just on the Northern Gateway pipeline, but on the construction and expansion of several others, including the Keystone XL project currently on hold in the USA. Also, while the revenue windfall sounds large, it is important to acknowledge that this is on a 14 year time horizon.

Let’s take a look at the details.

The report is predicated on the realities of the existing market: world oil demand remains robust, but our main source for export is America, which has become saturated. In addition, oil sands bitumen faces bottlenecks in the mid-west, where current pipelines end, a ways from the large refineries in the Gulf Coast.

The report calls for the Keystone XL pipeline, which would directly connect the oil sands to the refineries in the Gulf, eliminating the production bottlenecks and opening up the resource to a larger market quicker. It also calls for expansion of pipelines down to California, where there is an excess of refinery space for the oil sands and ports for export. Finally, the Northern Gateway pipeline is deemed necessary to export the bitumen to Asian refineries, which would ultimately help the Albertan industry escape the captive American market and command higher prices. The financial conclusions assume that all three of these expansions are completed on schedule.

The report says that, from 2016 to 2030, the projects would create $131 billion in economic activity in Canada – let’s deconstruct that a bit. 87% of that figure results from the Keystone XL pipeline, while only 8% is derived from the Northern Gateway project. At eight percent, the economic boon drops down to $10 billion for the Gateway pipeline; over 14 years, that brings us to $750 million in economic activity annually.

That’s not the whole story though. 95% of that economic activity is destined for Alberta, with 2.7% for Ontario, 1.2% for BC, and the remaining going to the rest of the country. One of the most prominent narratives put forth by the oil industry and reinforced by the federal government is that Northern Gateway is in the ‘national interest’. Poppycock.

This project clearly benefits Alberta, and Alberta only. Considering BC is taking on the majority of the risk with regards to oil spills, the benefits are grossly in favour of the producer province rather than the coastal one. Additionally, if 95% of the economic activity of this pipeline remains in Alberta, how can one argue that this will improve the life of Canadians in Nova Scotia, Nunavut, or Quebec?

The answer to that question is often parlayed into the government royalties and tax revenues that will result from the project. The report collated the increased government revenues that will head into municipal, provincial, and federal coffers, and sorted those monies down by province. Let’s take a look.

In the media, one will see the figure of $27 billion dollars destined for our governments, money that presumably would help fund healthcare and education. Once again, that figure is for all three projects, one of which, Keystone, is expected to bring in $23 billion. The Northern Gateway pipeline actually only contributes $2.17 billion to that figure – over 14 years.

Again, the ‘windfall’, if it can be called that at this point, is not distributed fairly. 92% of the government revenues head to Alberta. 4.3% are destined for Ontario, 1.6% for BC, 1% for Quebec, and a pittance for the rest of the country. To BC, that means an additional $350 million over 14 years, or $25 million annually in government revenue. To put that into perspective, out of BC’s 2011 budget of $41.9 billion, $25 million amounts to 0.005% of the total provincial coffers. $25 million can buy 50 buses or one recreation centre or high school.

For argument’s sake, let’s assume all three projects went ahead, and that the government revenues were in fact in the national interest; how much of a windfall is $27 billion over 14 years. That equals almost $2 billion a year – sounds like a fair chunk of change, eh? However, within the context of Canada’s 2009 federal budget of $237 billion, it amounts to just 0.82% of annual federal spending. But, that’s irrelevant, as 92% will go to Alberta anyways.

Add it all together, and the promise of a multi-billion dollar boon that will propel our economy and fund our social programs, well, it doesn’t sound all that valid anymore. Would there be economic opportunities? Absolutely. But when over 90% goes to one province, it’s hardly in the ‘national interest’.

So let’s not pretend that by approving the Northern Gateway pipeline, our deficits will just disappear, our taxes can be lowered, and we can properly fund healthcare and education, because the numbers just don’t add up.