Genuine Progress Index for Atlantic CanadaIndice de progrès véritable - Atlantique

Education Measures in the Genuine Progress

Index

NZ Ministry of EducationWellington, 23 April, 2008

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

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.

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

children...?

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

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

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

Natural

environment

Society

Economy

Measuring Wellbeing:

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

In the GPI…

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

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)

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

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

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

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

Aggregate Distribution of Costs for an Average Car

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 over 2/3 of total cost

• These results indicate an inefficient, unsustainable transportation system where externalities conceal the full costs to society

COSTS Low Medium HighOperating and amortized capital costs 72,500,000$ 72,500,000$ 72,500,000$ Beveraging Container Recycling Program (net) 14,300,000$ 14,300,000$ 14,300,000$ Used Tire Management Program (net) 2,700,000$ 2,700,000$ 2,700,000$ EtcEtcCosts to increase participation 5,000,000$ 7,000,000$ 9,500,000$ Total Costs 96,600,000$ 99,400,000$ 102,700,000$ Cost Per Capita 103$ 106$ 109$

BENEFITSEmployment benefits (direct) 2,800,000$ 3,300,000$ 3,900,000$ Employment benefits (indirect) 3,700,000$ 4,250,000$ 5,100,000$ Reduction in greenhouse gas emissions 3,300,000$ 34,200,000$ 84,300,000$ Reduction in air pollutant emissions 9,500,000$ 42,600,000$ 67,400,000$ Extended landfill life 18,800,000$ 18,800,000$ 18,800,000$ Avoided siting costs 175,000$ 175,000$ 175,000$ Avoided compensation 1,300,000$ 1,600,000$ 1,900,000$ Export revenue 1,100,000$ 1,400,000$ 1,650,000$ Tourism 190,000$ 190,000$ 190,000$ Energy savings from recycling 28,700,000$ 28,700,000$ 28,700,000$ RRFB diversion credits 4,980,000$ 4,980,000$ 4,980,000$ RRFB approved programs 4,400,000$ 4,400,000$ 4,400,000$ RRFB investment 250,000$ 250,000$ 250,000$ Total benefits 79,195,000$ 144,845,000$ 221,745,000$ Benefits per capita 84$ 154$ 236$ Net annual cost ( ) or benefit (17,400,000)$ 45,400,000$ 120,000,000$ Annual cost ( ) or benefit per capita (18)$ 48$ 127$ Net savings compared to pre-Strategy cost 31,200,000$ 94,000,000$ 167,800,000$ Annual savings per capita 33$ 100$ 178$

THE NOVA SCOTIA GPI SOLID WASTE-RESOURCE ACCOUNTS

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

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

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

Energy savings per tonne of waste recycled

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

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

Conclusions1995 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

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.

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

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 √

Human Impact on the Environment• Greenhouse Gas Emissions √• Sustainable Transportation √• Ecological Footprint Analysis √• Solid Waste √

Natural Capital• Soils and Agriculture (3 = √; 2 = …)• Forests √• Marine Environment/Fisheries √• Water Resources / Water Quality √• Energy √• Air Quality √

Nova Scotia Genuine Progress Index: Components

Social and Human Capital• Population Health √• Educational Attainment √• Costs of Crime √

Living Standards• Income Distribution √• Debt and Assets ….• Economic Security ….

Nova Scotia Genuine Progress Index: Components

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.

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.”

Standardized tests -- what do they measure?

• Not at population level + Also reflect 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

Average scores in PISA math assessment

by quartile of family socioeconomic status, 15-year-olds, Canada, 2003

571

585

556

559

571

584

555

559

541

565

563

546

552

524

538

540

556

523

529

517

532

532

525

539

521

524

526

531

508

510

496

516

510

507

506

477

504

503

502

483

479

469

485

486

0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700

British Columbia

Alberta

Saskatchewan

Manitoba

Ontario

Quebec

New Brunswick

Nova Scotia

Prince Edward Island

Newfoundland &Labrador

Canada

Average PISA math scores

First quartile

Second quartile

Third quartile

Fourth quartile

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.

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.

Framework for indicators of an educated populace

POPULACEWisdom and

Values

CONTEXT (determinants)

LEARNING OUTCOMES

ECOLOGICAL INTEGRITY &

SUSTAINABILITY (UNDESD)SOCIAL OUTCOMES

(GPI Domains)

Pop

ula

tion

H

ealt

h

Time Use LivingStandards

Hu

man

Imp

act on

the

En

vironm

ent

Social Capital Natural Capital

To live togetherTo do

To be To know

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)

Average prose literacy scores Canada, aged 16+,

1994 & 2003

281

270

266

269

272

280

275

255

264

270

240 245 250 255 260 265 270 275 280 285

Western region

Ontario

Quebec

Atlantic region

Canada

Average prose literacy score19942003

Average document literacy scores Canada, age 16 +, 1994

& 2003

281

270

263

267

271

277

277

254

259

270

240 245 250 255 260 265 270 275 280 285

Western region

Ontario

Quebec

Atlantic region

Canada

Average document literacy score1994

2003

Percentile scores of correct answers to general political knowledge questions, by age

group, 1984, 1993, 1997, 2000

Age Group

Year 18–23 24–29 30–34 35–39 40–49 50–59 60 +

1984 39.3 43.7 51.9 51.4 54.4 57.9 52.4 1993 36.7 46.7 47.1 50.3 55.5 53.1 56.0 1997 37.8 41.0 46.1 47.7 53.2 58.4 57.0 2000 31.4 36.2 47.6 49.5 51.4 59.7 58.3

Ecological Literacy? Footprint by Educational Attainment,

Canada, 2005 (1st time)

6.76

6.96

8.67

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

some secondaryeducation

completed secondaryeducation

university degree

global hectares per capita

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

11,300

10,800

11,000

10,400

15,200

7,400

12,300

12,900

15,400

11,300

12,029

10,511

12,194

8,964

11,318

8,681

11,267

7,372

12,670

11,542

20,100

17,900

22,100

17,800

21,600

13,500

21,400

18,500

26,900

22,600

16,656

16,293

19,387

13,040

14,660

13,129

16,297

13,245

16,783

16,562

0 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 25,000 30,000

British Columbia

Alberta

Saskatchewan

Manitoba

Ontario

Quebec

New Brunswick

Prince Edward Island

Newfoundland

Nova Scotia

Average government loan debt at time of graduation

1995 University

2000 University

1995 College

2000 College

Average amount borrowed (all sources) for 2003 degree, post-2003

degree education or both, Maritime provinces, 2005

$32,390

$27,148 $26,199 $27,104

$0

$5,000

$10,000

$15,000

$20,000

$25,000

$30,000

$35,000

PEI NS NB Maritimes

aver

age

stude

nt d

ebt (

all s

ourc

es)

Average borrowed

Average undergraduate university tuition fees, Canada,

1990/1991, 2005/2006, 2007/2008 ($2005)

4,703

4,809

4,625

3,278

5,213

1,962

5,554

4,301

2,551

5,694

4,382

4,874

5,125

5,062

3,272

4,881

1,900

5,037

4,645

2,606

6,281

4,214

2,346

1,669

2,005

1,962

2,180

1,173

2,498

2,432

1,744

2,519

1,900

0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000 6,000 7,000

British Columbia

Alberta

Saskatchewan

Manitoba

Ontario

Quebec

New Brunswick

Prince Edward Island

Newfoundland

Nova Scotia

Canada

Average tuition fees

1990/1991

2005/2006

2007/2008

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

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

%

percentage 26.6 25.5 28.5 28.5 32.1 36.2 37.9 40.4 40.1 41 40.7 40.4 43.7 44.2 46.7 46.9

1976 1978 1980 1982 1984 1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006

Average work hours/week during school year, full-time

students, aged 18–24, Canada, 1976–2006

15.8

15 14.8

13.9 14

14.6 14.715.2

14.114.6

15

15.616.1 16

16.416.7

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

1976 1978 1980 1982 1984 1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006

usua

l wor

k ho

urs/

wee

k

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

HALLWAYS, CAFETERIA

UNIFORMS BUSES SUPPLIES WEBSITE OTHER ANY OF

ABOVE

North - 11.4 0.0 15.9 0.0 15.9 38.6 BC 19.3 1.9 1.4 12.2 1.1 14.2 37.0 Prairies 18.5 3.4 1.9 10.3 1.5 15.1 37.9 Ontario 13.9 2.6 1.0 12.2 0.8 10.1 31.0 Quebec 8.1 1.0 0.8 7.9 1.2 8.3 21.4 Atlantic 16.6 8.9 2.2 11.1 2.2 11.1 34.6 Elementary 11.2 2.1 1.4 11.6 1.2 9.5 28.1 Secondary 32.3 8.3 1.4 12.5 1.8 23.6 54.8 French 9.5 2.4 - 8.8 1.2 8.8 23.5 English 16.2 3.4 1.5 11.6 1.2 12.3 34.3 Canada 14.9 3.2 1.3 11.1 1.2 11.6 32.3

Public versus private share of sponsored research at

Canadian universities, 1972–2005

83.3 83.781.8

79.777.2

80.4 81.479.8

77.5 76.4

71.969.4 69.1

64.267.8

69.873.6 72.4

16.7 16.218.1

20.322.8

19.6 18.620.2

22.5 23.6

28.130.6 30.9

35.832.2

30.226.4 27.6

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

Survey year

Perc

en

tag

e o

f sp

on

sore

d r

esearc

h

Total public share Total private share

Where to from Here? What’s Next? Key

Messages:1. We have not answered the question:

How educated are Nova Scotians?

2. Conventional output indicators can’t do so

3. Development of new indicators, data sources, measurement methods is needed – a ‘paradigm shift’ (NS Education Dept.)

4. See Report Appendix: Comprehensive list of “ideal” indicators (+ full literature review and detailed report on potential indicators – 3000pp – to be released fall, 2008)

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.

Next Steps: - (A) Complete detailed, separate

components• Released ’08: Education, HRM transportation

+ Complete last 3 components by June ‘08

• 90+ detailed reports = Most complete data set available to any jurisdiction in North America to measure wellbeing and sustainable dev’t

• Statcan advice – bottom up, methodological, data integrity. Withstand expert scrutiny. Transparency, references.

Next steps – (B) Integration

Now -> policy utility, integration, update:

1. Headline indicators – community (May 08)

2. Database – easily updatable, replicable (Jul.08)

3. Headline indicators – provincial (Sept. 08)

• Oct. 08: Major release – Formal presentation to Premier, Government, and People of NS = Landmark moment in evolution of GPI

Therefore communication:

Must speak effectively to 3 audiences:

• Experts (credibility as basis)

• Policy audience

• General public (use of media)

- Infiltration over time vs one big release: Water against a rock (others including govt. cite GPI #s as own; radio talk shows)

Different GPIs: Shared principles, objectives,

strategy• Shared critique of GDP-based measures

• Shared understanding of inter-related nature of reality, and need to integrate social, environmental, and economic measures in a comprehensive system

• Shared strategy of using economic valuations (conversation with Redefining Progress)

Different GPI Methods, Approaches

• Monetization of all variables vs view that many measures not amenable to monetization (-> comprehensiveness)

• Aggregation or not (-> communication, ‘doorway’, weighting, and policy utility)

• Top-down framework vs bottom-up (eg: by component, forest example, educ. framework)

Different GPI Methods, Approaches

• Start with ‘personal consumption’ + add household work? (-> challenge growth paradigm? a ‘green’ GDP? replace GDP?)

• Range of technical issues (stocks vs flows, etc.)

• Communication: All at once vs infiltration

Politics and Uptake:Measuring progress is

normativeBut GPI based on consensus values

• Economic and livelihood security

• Health, free time

• Educational attainment

• Strong and safe communities

• Clean environment, healthy natural resources

Political implications

• Non-partisan; Evidence-based decision making

• Good news (e.g. waste, air quality, seniors, employment); Bad news (e.g. GHGs, old forests); Improvements (e.g. income dist.)

• Consensus on goals, vision. Politics is about how to get there. E.g. GHG reductions, poverty reduction – goal vs strategy

• Comparisons: NS, Canada, Provinces, Int’l

Positive Approach: Can we do

it?Percentage Waste Diversion in Nova Scotia

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000

% D

iver

sion

Challenges to Policy Adoption

• Long-term vs short-term – returns on health promotion policy = 25-30 years from now

• Cost “savings” hard to demonstrate without paradigm shift away from prolonging life, address “dying well” (Bhutan)

• Science as ‘certainty’ vs precautionary principle; Materialism / consumption addiction vs ‘contentment’, ‘enough’.

But time is right – E.g. NS Gov’t commitments 2006-08:

• “Demonstrate international leadership by having one of the cleanest and most sustainable environments in the world by the year 2020” (Bill 146: Environmental Goals and Sustainable Prosperity Act

• “Becoming the “best place to live” means scoring well on quality of life indicators like those produced by Genuine Progress Index Atlantic” (Opportunities for Sustainable Prosperity. 2006)

• Power of Green Conference, 2007 (Ec. Dev’t)

Maintain and update GPI

• Strongly recommend period of study, reflection, consultation

• Took nearly 12 years to get here, another year to investigate application appropriate – e.g. interdepartmental task force

• Understand methods and data sources, select appropriate indicators

• NS Govt will report GPI results (Community Counts)

Data considerations• New database key to easy updating, comparison,

replication

• Data sources – (a) official/available – mostly Statcan; (b) provincial – e.g. forest inventories, waste diversion -> development; (c) new surveys (e.g. education); (d) local data (Community GPI)

• Time, money, resources depend on indicator selection. But cf resources required for GDP: How often is that needed?

Data challengesA. National vs local / community

B. Conceptual inadequacies (indicator choices)

1. E.g. education: We could not answer the question: How educated are Nova Scotians?

2. Conventional output indicators can’t do so

3. Development of new indicators, data sources, measurement methods is needed – multiple literacies

4. Comprehensive list of “ideal” indicators

Conclusion

• GPI key tool to achieve sustainability, health promotion targets, because it measures progress in way that joins social, health, economic & environmental objectives, and accounts for true benefits and costs

• Measuring progress towards objectives is an essential mark of genuine commitment to those goals and objectives

• NZ has potential to become genuine model

GPI: Measuring what we value to leave a wiser NZ

for our children

Genuine Progress Index for Atlantic CanadaIndice de progrès véritable - Atlantique

www.gpiatlantic.org