Talk:School punishment

What?

Is this page for real? It's a list of other pages. It's unreferenced. It's non-notable (barely notable at best, and then covered in the main articles). Why does this page even exist? I was tempted to judge interest with the PROD tag, but thought asking here first may elicit some comment about it instead of simply the presence of interest. With so many WikiPages AfD-ed for lacking content exclusive of other pages and for non-notable things (Lines? Come on...), I'm surprised this issue of "why does this page exist" hasn't been brought up before... Thoughts? VigilancePrime (talk) 06:23, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

please, keep it !

I agree in general, but the theme is interesting anyway. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.193.172.200 (talk) 09:24, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree..

this is just ridiculous .. but still kinda interesting to read. As a side note.. the writing lines a word or letter at a time _is_ faster due to muscle memory. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.68.239.176 (talk) 10:11, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Keep It

I think this should be kept it documents school punishments. Deleting that would be deleting alot of information that does not appear to be on other pages. Etineskid (talk) 21:21, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Um, folks, this page isn't going anywhere anytime soon... SchuminWeb (Talk) 04:15, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Popular culture section

This was removed without apparent consensus several months ago , at [1]. Unless there are objections, I'm restoring it. At least some of it, like the Simpsons, are highly notable content. DGG (talk) 16:17, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Categories

This is lacking categories - should we add some --MisterLambda (talk) 09:49, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

It's done. Alarics (talk) 12:43, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Confusion about punishment

I understand that a suspension, being put on report is not actually a punishment. Suspension - The temporary exclusion from a school or what ever is designed to review the behaviour of someone for the purposes of investigation to determine if they are giulty and what to do if it is found that they are. Since they may be innocent, this is not a punishment. Being put on report - This would be a process of monitoring behaviour, and so is an evidencing and survielance technique to see what bad behaviour occurs. Although punishment may lead to this, and it may improve behaviour because of being aware of this survielance, it is for the purposes of monitoring but may not it's self be a punishment. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.26.232.15 (talk) 23:48, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

If you read most school handbooks there is no mention of suspension pending investigation. In all cases I have ever seen, it is definitely meant as a punishment for an offence already deemed proven after whatever due process is laid down. Alarics (talk) 11:31, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

It should be noted that being "on report" is a punishment in that it singles out the offender as being subject to special scrutiny by teachers and if further offenses are committed, the punishment then imposed is likely to be greater. This article in general captures a great deal of popular history and would be recognizable by many who have attended U.S. public and parochial schools. One subject that might be added is the "Note Home"--by which a teacher advises parents of misbehavior. This note normally is sealed, must be signed by the parent and returned to the tesacher, and usually results in imposition of discipline by the parent on the student.lleslie7Lleslie7 (talk) 20:49, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Proposed merge

I see this has been noticed before, but I'd like to merge this article to school discipline. No reason to have two articles on what is essentially the same subject, and this one is basically unreferenced crud which violates any number of our policies, to be honest. I notice some discussion saying school corporal punishment should be kept, and I agree with that. Any objections? The Land (talk) 21:06, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Both articles are crap, as they currently stand. This one is largely unreferenced anecdotes. The other seems to have been hijacked by various crank causes, also not properly referenced. I agree that there doesn't seem to be any reason to have two separate articles, but I suspect that any replacement article should start from scratch rather than be to any significant degree a merger of these two. -- Alarics (talk) 21:44, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Merge done. The Land (talk) 22:34, 5 April 2011 (UTC)