Technology has economized and perfected almost everything it has touched. To deny the potential that it could improve education while cutting costs places education on too high of a pedestal and reeks of the kind of protectionism that stifles creativity and growth. It also denies that education is an industry, and prone to many of the same fluctuations as other service industries.
Of course we want students to learn, but I didn't see any evidence presented in that article that the students weren't indeed learning something from their tutors. If they didn't pass their exams, they wouldn't call back. And our education system requires things we cannot expect everyone to be good at. I am ok with the fact I got a C- in High School Chemistry, and if two hours on the phone with a tutor could have help me bump that up to a C, it would have been a sufficient investment of resources and while still serving a pedagogical purpose. But to invest anymore would be a waste of time and money - Chemistry requires all the skills I am really bad at and doesn't use any of my strengths - sure a good teacher could have made it more interesting, but to what end? Wouldn't the teacher be better served by helping interested students expand their knowledge?
Why can't we use technology to do production oriented education if it means we can free up resources [labor and capital] to go deeper and better where it will serve a greater return?