Wouldn’t it be great if the Correspondence School had the innovative capacity to do that ‘NotSchool’ stuff. There are many people out there who could provide input about how to do it well. That would be an educational project we could support.
Yes. The good thing about it is that it doesn’t set up kids to fail. Correspondence School is essentially an earnest attempt to replicate mainstream schooling, which wasn’t what a child who had grown actively hostile to that system needed.
You probably know that NotSchool could have been properly adopted here, but lost out in an internal political battle at the Ministry of Education. We were very fortunate to to find Jean Hughes, who was actually being paid to oversee British students (after-hours, taking advantage of the time difference) but was able to add our son to her roster. She’s an amazing woman who now drives buses.
He didn’t learn a lot via NotSchool – he learned a lot more on his own by playing video games, to be honest – but it was at least a place that didn’t make his world worse.
BTW shortly thereafter, there’s this across town a bit at C1 – The Spinoff After Dark – the Spinoff crew and Steve Braunias …’with a selection of the best-looking guests from the festival’ – Russell, that must include you!
Not formally. But I have promised to heckle from the cheap seats :-)
I suspect this is one way to get rid of those pesky kids with behaviour or learning ‘issues’ which schools do their best to dissuade from attending. If there is a ‘cool’ then that is an official option to send them to. Tidy solution for the Ministry and Minister.
Ironically, we had the opposite problem – an insistence that the only acceptable path for our younger ASD son was for him to stay in school, even if that required him to be put on antipsychotics. It was basically bullying. That was primary school – the intermediate school was happy to hand him over in the end, but we were stuck with the same terrible GSE caseworker.
Correspondence School didn't really work for him (he correctly determined that the website sucked and was unwilling to use it) and it was actually only a British-based online learning environment called NotSchool, backed up with an external enrolment from a local high school, that kept us clear of the truancy officer.
Of course, we would have preferred having the option of an onsite learning environment that met his needs, but there really was nothing appropriate (and I'm still pissed off about that). Our nearby high school was also inflexible about reduced-hours attendance.
It does make me think that had there been a suitable COOL available to us at the time, we'd certainly have tried it. In the event, he has missed out on socialisation, but that is better than the path he was on, which I'm pretty sure would have led to mental illness and lasting trauma.
Report released this year on Aussie Decrim models:
This seems pretty emphatic:
There is clearly a strong public health benefit to people who use drugs being diverted away from the criminal justice system and this is not a radical idea – it is already happening,” says Dr Hughes. “The research evidence also indicates that decriminalisation reduces costs to the criminal justice system and improves social outcomes, such as increasing the likelihood that people who use drugs remain in or enter the paid workforce.
“In contrast, there is no evidence that decriminalisation increases drug use or crime,” she adds.
Should someone tell Mike?
Which might encourage cops to set up checkpoints and search every likely looking vehicle, or scour student residences with drug dogs in order to fill their ticket quota and bring money in. (That sort of thing has been reported in US states with an infringement regime for cannabis).
I think the revenue from expiation notices in South Australia goes into covering the costs of the scheme, but I don’t know what happens to any surplus.
This 2000 paper looked at the outcomes of the first 13 years and found that cannabis use didn’t rise – but the number of offences processed really did:
Impacts on law enforcement and criminal justice systems: The CEN scheme in South Australia had a major unanticipated effect on rates of minor cannabis offence detection. The number of offences for which cannabis expiation notices were issued increased from around 6,000 in 1987/88 to approximately 17,000 in 1993/94 and subsequent years (12). This “net-widening” is not related to any change in the pattern of cannabis use, but reflects the greater ease with which police can process minor cannabis offences, and a shift away from the use of police discretion in giving offenders informal cautions, to a process of formally recording all minor offences.
Since the inception of the CEN scheme, the rate of payment of expiation fees has remained low, at around 50%. Substantial numbers of minor cannabis offenders received a criminal conviction for a cannabis offence as a result of their failure to pay expiation fees. The burden which this placed on the courts was not as severe as one might expect because significant numbers of those people who were issued with a summons chose the option of pleading guilty in writing and did not appear in person. The vast majority of those expiation matters dealt with by the courts resulted in convictions for the offenders, with similar fines imposed to the original expiation fees, plus the addition of court fees.
There has been strong support by law enforcement and criminal justice personnel for the CEN scheme, and little support for a return to the former approach among those administering and enforcing the system (50). The CEN scheme has proven to be relatively cost-effective (8). The unit cost of issuing and processing an expiation notice, when paid on time, is estimated at approximately $30 per case. The total costs associated with the CEN scheme in 1995/96 were estimated to be around $1.2 million (not including police time in detecting the offence). Total revenue from fees and fines was estimated to be around $1.7 million. The cost-effectiveness would obviously be greater if the rate of expiation could be increased. It was also estimated that, had a prohibition approach been in place in South Australia in the same year, the total cost would have been around $2 million, with revenue from fines of around $1 million.
The number of notices has settled down since, to about 9000 annually. But they’ve got a rather large meth problem keeping police busy.
(Btw, check out the last two comments under that story. What is it with Australians and internment camps?)
I don't think the traffic-ticket model is a particularly good one, but it plainly hasn't been the calamity that Hosking et al imagine in their minds.
Which is what “decriminalisation” advocates wish for here with regards for cannabis.
Sorta. I certainly wouldn’t reject decriminalisation – which means a bunch of different things anyway – as an incremental step. I frequently come back to civil unions > marriage equality as a comparison.
The intriguing thing is that what people did in response to Prohibition has fed into what might turn out to be a very good model for legal cannabis – cannabis social clubs. In Europe, they offer legal supply and distribution (and choice, which is important) without the perils of commercialisation.
Apart from the nonsensical Yardley rave, they also have a self-penned “Stuff Nation” (read amateur) piece today from a self-publicising US narcotics cop, telling kiwis that in his opinion, changing the law here would be a grave mistake and the sky will immediately fall.
Graves is basically channelling pro-prohibition campaigner Kevin Sabet, almost word-for-word in some cases. I have no time for Kevin Sabet.
Good grief, these ones are persistent, aren't they?
Today is a memorable day. For today, three quarters of the way through the Rio Olympics, is the first day that Sky NZ's Olympic coverage website has worked.
All channels, including pop-ups, are streaming live. The quality is fairly Sky Go-ish, but it's there.
I hope so, in this case, but I’m not optimistic. It’s been a hostage to nonsense and arbitrariness since forever. I can fully see people high up making it their only personal contribution, ever, to have frustrated the progress of cannabis reform. Not just high up, but particularly importantly, in the political center. Both Winston Peters and Peter Dunne can make it the cross that they die on and happily go to their graves thinking they did the world a favor.
Dunne is actually the only party leader who has explicitly called for reform. And he’s the author of the really-pretty-good National Drug Policy. He’s changed, man. And Peters has been hot and cold on a referendum but would probably support one if it came to it – especially on medical cannabis, where he’ll be aware of the developing mood in Grey Power branches.
Labour and its leader need to sit down and listen to some public health people.
But the main obstacle remains the National caucus – I get the feeling a lot of them just don’t want to know anything.