March 29, 2002

Sowing Confusion at OLA

What does Shirley Bond know about the Open Learning Agency that she isn't saying? Alternatively, what does the Premier's Office know that they aren't telling the Advanced Education Minister?

On March 26th the Victoria Times Colonist reported that the new board of the Open Learning Agency had adopted a report in principle that "recommended that the OLA as an institution be phased out over a two-year period." Later that day, the Acting President and CEO of the Open Learning Agency sent a note to staff that confirmed the authenticity of the media report.

On the morning of March 28th, CKNW quoted Shirley Bond as insisting there is no secret plan to close the Open Learning Agency. According to the CKNW website, "Bond says, if there are to be changes, discussions will be held with OLA employees and the public."

On the afternoon of March 28th the Select Standing Committee on Education tabled its report in the BC legislature. One of the recommendations in that report reads:

The Advanced Education Minister and her colleagues on the backbench who produced the Education report ought to know that the Open Learning Agency is the provincial infrastructure for on-line learning plus a lot more! OLA was created in 1978 - 24 years ago. It has kept up to date with technological changes and has developed and copyrighted many on-line courses.

The hand picked new board and CEO of the Open Learning Agency appear to have been given different instructions than Minister of Advanced Education, Shirley Bond, is prepared to admit. The Legislature's Education Committee has left the door open for Bond to simply state that the Open Learning Agency already provides the infrastructure to support learners who opt to use an on-line approach. The Campbell government ought to immediately end the confusion facing tens of thousands of students who benefit from OLA. Until that is done those students and those who preceded them ought to contact their MLA and speak out in defense of the Open Learning Agency.

---

March 27, 2002

No Core and No Answers in the Campbell Government

Question: "Why was the program eliminated?"
Answer:    "It is not in the core."

How can program after program, including the entire Open Learning Agency, be reduced or eliminated without explanation? Doesn't accountability first and foremost mean explaining and providing information?

What does "not in the core" mean? By whose determination and by what criteria was the "core" examined? What kind of analysis was done and what are the expected consequences? How can anyone really believe that "core review" is not shorthand for "arbitrary political values"?

I submitted freedom of information requests to every ministry in government in an effort to answer these questions. All but two ministries responded saying that what appeared on the government website as extremely rigorous requirements were in fact just vague guidelines. If the government is to be believed, ministries chose not to prepare impact assessments and related documentation. The Ministry of Transportation said three documents existed but they wouldn't be released due to cabinet secrecy. The Ministry of the Attorney General said 328 pages exist. After additional delays, those pages are supposed to be delivered on March 27th. Hopefully that will be March 27, 2002!

The Open Learning Agency (OLA) was not a creation of the NDP. Dr. Pat McGeer was its early champion. Founded in 1978, it has grown to be a recognized leader in distance education. It's demise was announced not by Advanced Education Minister Shirley Bond, but by yet another government leak. The Vancouver Province and the Victoria Times Colonist both reported on a meeting where the newly imposed board of directors accepted a two year plan to eliminate Open Learning Agency. What student would risk time and energy by enrolling in the last year of a program that is being eliminated?

The Acting President and CEO of OLA responded to the leak by emailing the staff and essentially confirming the media report by saying "As media reported, the OLA board has approved a recommendation regarding the future of OLA in principle, however they have asked for further information and details before making a final decision." Before it is too late tens of thousands of British Columbians who have benefited from the Open Learning Agency and Knowledge Network should phone or visit their MLA and ask why the Campbell government is destroying OLA.

Destroying OLA was foreshadowed in the surprise legislation rammed through the BC's legislature during an extraordinary weekend sitting. Bill 28 surprised college instructors throughout the province with language that broke their contracts and referred to distance or distributed learning. Bill 28 defined "distributed learning" as "a method of instruction that, in whole or in part, uses information technology, teleconferencing or correspondence as a means of instruction." It then went on to invalidate any provision in a collective agreement that would restrict the ability of an institution to "assign faculty members to instruct courses using distributed learning". It appears that the Campbell government is going to force college instructors to take over the job that has been successfully performed for over twenty years by the Open Learning Agency.

An open, transparent and accountable government would answer the simple question, why? An acceptable answer would say more than it is not in the core.

---

February 15, 2002

Disrupting Education at Open Learning Agency

The Campbell government has fired another board and CEO. The Board and CEO of Open Learning Agency have been replaced with the shameful details leaking out on Friday afternoon - a time usually chosen by governments for bad news.

At its February 7th staged cabinet meeting, government announced that TechBC would become a satellite of Simon Fraser University. One of the excuses in TechBC's case was that their enrollment was less than 400 rather than the 1,400 that had been forecast.

Open Learning Agency (OLA) serves over 20,000 students. Unlike TechBC, OLA has been in existence since 1978 and has served tens of thousands of students in that time.

When the government forced the legislature to sit all weekend in a contract breaking marathon, a surprise for college instructors was buried in Bill 28. Government opened college instructor's contracts and gave management the "flexibility" to require instructors to teach distance education. Government is undermining the extremely successful OLA and forcing colleges to pick up its programs. Why is government micro-managing and interfering with this 24 year old institution?

The full memo sent by OLA's takeover CEO is copied below: