1 / 68

About GPI Atlantic

Genuine Progress Index for Atlantic Canada Indice de progrès véritable - Atlantique Education Measures in the Genuine Progress Index NZ Ministry of Education Wellington, 23 April, 2008. About GPI Atlantic.

gizela
Download Presentation

About GPI Atlantic

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Genuine Progress Index for Atlantic CanadaIndice de progrès véritable - AtlantiqueEducation Measures in the Genuine Progress Index NZ Ministry of EducationWellington, 23 April, 2008

  2. About GPI Atlantic • Non-profit, fully independent, research and education organization founded April,1997. Based in Halifax; Web site: www.gpiatlantic.org • Committed to development of Genuine Progress Index (GPI): Measuring wellbeing & sustainable development accurately and comprehensively • Towards full-cost accounting: human, social, natural, and produced capital accounts • NS focus ->National and international activities

  3. Origins • 1st GPI 1995 – Redefining Progress, California • Emerged from critique of shortcomings of GDP-based measures of progress (Kuznets warning) • Distinguished from quality of life indicator systems by adding economic valuation • 1995 GPI – single $ number; Statcan critique = starting point for NS GPI (1996) as pilot for Canada. 12 years developmental work.

  4. Basic question: How are we doing? What kind of NZ are we leaving our children...?

  5. Current way of answering that question: GDP-based measures of progress inadequate and can be dangerously misleading. e.g: • Natural resource depletion as gain • No distinction re what is growing (e.g. pollution, crime [US stats], sickness, cigarettes) • Vital social, environmental assets + value of unpaid work, free time, health, education, equity ignored

  6. Why We Need New Indicators - Policy Reasons: • More energy use, greenhouse gas emissions, consumption, drug use make economy grow = not the signals we may want to communicate • Preventive initiatives to conserve and use energy and resources sustainably, to reduce sickness, crime, poverty, greenhouse gas emissions, may be blunted, or inadequately funded

  7. Indicators are Powerful What we measure: • reflect what we value as a society; • determines what makes it onto the policy agenda; • influences behaviour (e.g. students) Logic not refuted: From wilderness to mainstream: OECD, EU, SNA, CIW

  8. Natural environment Society Economy

  9. Measuring Wellbeing: In the GPI… • Health, free time, unpaid work (voluntary and household), and education have value • Sickness, crime, disasters, pollution are costs • Natural resources (e.g. forests) are capital assets • Reductions in greenhouse gas, crime, poverty, ecological footprint are progress • Growing equity signals progress

  10. Beyond indicators and towards accounting and policy shift… e.g. • Ideal world: Neither indicators nor economic valuation is required: Social, economic, environmental impacts would be taken into account in all decisions. BUT • GDP is an accounting system, not indicator system. While economic growth statistics dominate, economic valuation will have most impact on policy • In GPI, economic valuations = add-on to indicators based on physical measurements; brings wholistic indicator set into policy arena

  11. Examples of policy impacts: • E.g. NS voluntary work worth $1.9 bill/year • Preventable chronic disease costs NS $500m in excess health care costs –> DHPP; costs tobacco, obesity, inactivity –> e.g. HRM planning process; smoke-free legislation • Full CBAs – e.g. Solid Waste; Halifax Harbour cleanup; HRM transportation …. Etc. • Impact on policy can be indirect (e.g. forests)

  12. E.g. Full transport costs • Internal variable (Direct costs according to how much a person drives) • E.g. travel time, vehicle operation • Internal fixed (Direct costs that are not really changed when driving habits change) • E.g. vehicle ownership, registration/insurance, parking • External (Costs imposed on others) - E.g. climate change, air pollution, congestion • Or direct/indirect(based on subjective experience) • E.g. subsidized parking

  13. Per Capita and Total Estimates for Road Passenger Transportation (C$2002)

  14. Each cost a potential headliner E.g. Congestion costs NS $12m/yr • Lost time, gas, excess GHGs • Conservative: Recurrent congestion only (not snow, roadworks, accidents etc.), AM-PM only, no freight, arterials only (no side-streets), based on <50% posted limit, etc. • = Small portion total costs

  15. Average Car Costs (per vehicle-km) Ranked by Magnitude

  16. Aggregate Distribution of Costs for an Average Car

  17. Full-Cost Accounting Results • Overall full cost of N.S. road transportation system in 2002: $6.4 billion - $13.3 billion • True cost is about $7,598/capita, of which $4,562 are “invisible” costs • Fixed and external costs account for over2/3 of total cost • These results indicate an inefficient, unsustainable transportation system where externalities conceal the full costs to society

  18. Results • Implementation of the Solid Waste-Resource Strategy led to an increase in operating and amortized costs from $48.6 million ($53/capita) in the 1996-97 fiscal year to $72.5 million ($77/capita) in the 2000-01 fiscal year. • An increased cost of $24 million ($25/capita) for implementing the changes = conventional accounts stop there

  19. Full cost Accounting Results • The new NS solid waste-resource system in 2000-01 produced net savings of at least $31.2 million, when compared to the old 1996-97 solid waste-resource system • This translates into savings of $33 for each Nova Scotian, versus a cost of $25 as suggested when comparing strictly the operating and amortized capital costs of the two systems

  20. Benefits • Total benefits of 2000-01 system range from $79 million to $221 million =$84-$236 pp, incl: • $3.3 - $84.3 million in GHG emission reductions; • $9 - $67 million in air pollutant reductions • $18.8 million in extended landfill life • $28.6 million in energy savings from recycling • $6.5 - $8.9 million in employment benefits • $1.2 - $1.9 million in avoided liability costs • $1.1 - $1.7 million in export revenue of goods and services • $187,000 in additional tourism

  21. Material Energy savings Paper 8.5 million Btu Plastic 20.1 million Btu Glass 2.4 million Btu Steel Cans 18.4 million Btu Aluminium Cans 166.9 million Btu Energy savings per tonne of waste recycled

  22. Costs • Total costs of 2000-01 solid waste-resource system were $96.6-102.7 million: • $72.4 m. in operating and amortized capital costs • $14.3 m. for beverage container recycling prog. • $2.7 million for used tire management program • $1.6 million in RRFB operating and admin costs • $5 - $9.5 million to increase participation • $220,000 - $1.8 million in nuisance costs

  23. Conclusions 1995 NS Solid Waste-Resource Strategy has led to a considerable net benefit, both in monetary and non-monetary terms: 1) The solid waste-resource system in 2000-01, despite increased operating and amortized capital costs, provided a net savings of between $31 million and $167.7 million compared to the operating and amortized capital costs of the old system

  24. Conclusions 2) Nova Scotia is a leader both internationally and nationally in solid waste diversion. 3) The accessibility, comprehensiveness, and levels of waste being composted and recycled have all improved since the introduction of the Solid Waste-Resource Strategy.

  25. This is Genuine Progress • Access to curbside recycling in Nova Scotia jumped from less than 5% in 1989 to 99% today • 76% of residents now have access to curbside organics pickup • Both are by far the highest rates in the country

  26. The Genuine Progress Index - 85 detailed reports to date: Time Use • Economic Value of Unpaid Childcare and Housework √ • Economic Value of Civic and Voluntary Work √ • Value of Leisure Time √ • Working Time and Employment √

  27. Nova Scotia Genuine Progress Index: Components Natural Capital Soils and Agriculture (3 =√; 2 = …) Forests √ Marine Environment/Fisheries √ Water Resources / Water Quality √ Energy √ Air Quality √ Human Impact on the Environment Greenhouse Gas Emissions √ Sustainable Transportation √ Ecological Footprint Analysis √ Solid Waste √

  28. Nova Scotia Genuine Progress Index: Components Living Standards Income Distribution √ Debt and Assets …. Economic Security …. Social and Human Capital Population Health √ Educational Attainment √ Costs of Crime √

  29. Most used education measures tell us more about labour market conditions than about educational attainment + send conflicting messages. • E.g. Alberta has lowest high school graduation rate and second highest drop out rate in Canada (because lucrative jobs are available), but the highest standardized test results (partly because higher performers remain in school). • Atlantic Canada has the lowest drop out rates, the highest graduation rates, yet scores the lowest on standardized test results.

  30. Explaining the Difference • 2003 CMEC data: Alberta graduation rate = 10% below Nova Scotia. Difference between Nova Scotia and Alberta PISA scores = just under 10%. • Dr. Michael Corbett (Acadia Educ.): “By having a more exclusive high school system Alberta adjusts underperforming students out of the school door and into the workforce. As it happens Alberta has an economy that can absorb a considerable amount of educational underachievement. Here in Nova Scotia we don't have that luxury.”

  31. Standardized tests -- what do they measure? • Not at population level + Alsoreflect labour market conditions – i.e. who remains in school to be tested • Scores often reflect and reinforce socio-economic inequalities • Tests focus on a few academic subject areas -- math, science, reading/writing. Are these more important than art, history, or social studies? • Standardized testing pressures teachers to “teach to the test,” at expense of other non-test subjects • Standardized test results can be misused and manipulated to support calls for questionable reform

  32. Average scores in PISA math assessmentby quartile of family socioeconomic status, 15-year-olds, Canada, 2003

  33. What these quantitative “output” measures don’t tell us – “outcomes”: • How educated the populace is, and whether we are getting wiser and more knowledgeable • Whether we’re learning what we need to know to live well and sustainably, & improve our wellbeing • What and how we learn from non-school sources (media, family, community etc.) • Anything about the quality of education, and the quality of information in the learning environment ….Etc.

  34. So What is an “Educated Populace”? • An “Educated Populace” has the knowledge and skills required to foster wellbeing in individuals and in the population as a whole —that is to live full and healthy lives, have decent jobs, participate actively in their communities as citizens, and understand the interdependence of the world in which they live, without imperiling these prospects for future generations.

  35. Framework for indicators of an educated populace

  36. YET…Literacy flat, despite more schooling • “More analytical work is required to explore the factors around the lack of overall change in the literacy performance of Canadians.” (Statistics Canada) • “We urgently need to understand why our current literacy and learning programs are not succeeding in order to develop more effective approaches.” (Canadian Council on Learning)

  37. Average prose literacy scores Canada, aged 16+, 1994 & 2003

  38. Average document literacy scores Canada, age 16 +, 1994 & 2003

  39. Percentile scores of correct answers to general political knowledge questions, by age group, 1984, 1993, 1997, 2000

  40. Ecological Literacy? Footprint by Educational Attainment, Canada, 2005 (1st time)

  41. Average debt from government student loans at graduation, classes of 1995 and 2000 ($2000)

  42. Average amount borrowed (all sources) for 2003 degree, post-2003 degree education or both, Maritime provinces, 2005

  43. Average undergraduate university tuition fees, Canada, 1990/1991, 2005/2006, 2007/2008 ($2005)

  44. Employment rate of full-time students, 20–24 years of age, Canada, 1976–2006

  45. Average work hours/week during school year, full-time students, aged 18–24, Canada, 1976–2006

  46. Advertising in Canada’s public elementary and secondary schools (%), 2003/2004

  47. Public versus private share of sponsored research at Canadian universities, 1972–2005

  48. Where to from Here? What’s Next? Key Messages: • We have not answered the question: How educated are Nova Scotians? • Conventional output indicators can’t do so • Development of new indicators, data sources, measurement methods is needed – a ‘paradigm shift’ (NS Education Dept.) • See Report Appendix: Comprehensive list of “ideal” indicators (+ full literature review and detailed report on potential indicators – 3000pp – to be released fall, 2008)

  49. The Good News • 3 years GPI research uncovered good models, measures of science literacy, health literacy, media literacy, civic literacy, ecological literacy, wisdom scales, informal learning, ETC. – Available in other places, not yet Canada • -> Canadian Knowledge Survey (11+ literacies) • Good education indicators = glue, binding factor, connective tissue between all GPI components – link learning outcomes to social outcomes – e.g. health, civic, ecological literacy, etc.

More Related