Talk:School-to-prison pipeline/Archive 1

Archive 1

The problem with that template

The concept is a USA political concept. There is not necessarily a development of the concept on an international basis. It will be necessary to research the matter. If there is in fact international development of the concept, that could be reported here. If there is no international development, it would seem the options are (1) write it up on another site, as OR, and then report that in this article or (2) remove the template. There is no prohibition on WP of articles pertaining to events intellectual and otherwise which are occuring in the US, or in the UK, or elsewhere.GeoBard^Rap 01:58, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Topics specific to a specific country are acceptable if they survive WP:NOTABLE, but the context needs to be explicitly stated. This is about US organisations referring to the US educational system. The reader should not start reading about a topic relating schools to prisons in general and suddenly realise that it is country-specific with the implication that other countries are irrelevant.

i'll quote my edit summary: this is the en.wikipedia, not the USA.wikipedia.org; USA-specific article must be explicitly labelled as such and put at least briefly into wider geographical context. Maybe the template wording is a little strong - it's a standardised template, but the work required as i explained in the edit summary was not that difficult.

As for the concept itself, i would be surprised if the modern USA is the only country-epoch where this has/is happened/ing. In any case, this article needs plenty of work in general - i only labelled one problem. Having a copyright violation in the WP:LEAD is a hint that the article needs some more work: Compare

• "Schools directly send students into the pipeline through zero tolerance policies that involve the police in minor incidents and often lead to arrests, criminal charges and juve.nile detention. Schools indirectly push students towards the criminal justice system by excluding them from school through suspension, expulsion, discouragement and high-stakes testing requirements." in the version [1] to
• "Schools directly send students into the pipeline through zero tolerance policies that involve the police in minor incidents and often lead to arrests, juvenile detention referrals, and even criminal charges and incarceration. Schools indirectly push students towards the criminal justice system by excluding them from school through suspension, expulsion, discouragement and high stakes testing requirements." in http://www.nyclu.org/files/school_prison_toolkit.pdf

The NYCLU document is a document by lawyers - if they wanted the material to be freely licensed (CC-BY-SA + GFDL) they would probably have stated that explicitly, and even if it were freely licensed, it would still have to be attributed. Minor paraphrasing does not constitute writing in your own words.

TODO: i've left youth of color and youth with disabilities as red links. These should either be converted to quotes if this is NYCLU-specific terminology: "youth of color", "youth with disabilities", but better would be to find the wikipedia articles that cover these topics and use the names of these topics. If we believe that it is important to retain the NYCLU's exact names for these sociological groups, then they can be piped, e.g. "[[(wikipedia article name)|youth of color]]".

Boud (talk) 08:39, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

i realise that the issue of discrimination is intrinsically difficult, since the problem of racism is related to the linguistic process of giving names to would-be sociological groups and assuming that it is meaningful to make some claim or behave in some way to people perceived to be in that group. So that's why i left the red links for someone else to work on, and suggested that using the NYCLU terminology and quotes may be reasonable, but probably best also to link to relevant en.wikipedia articles.

It seems to me that internal wikilinking - preferably not just to US-limited articles but also to discrimination worldwide - and inline (e.g. at least per paragraph) citation are probably the main things that need high priority attention in this article, so i've tagged them and removed the world tag. Boud (talk) 08:59, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

The ACLU promotes this???

"The concept has been promoted by education reform activists and organizations such as the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU)" The lead makes it sound like the ACLU promotes treating students this way. 66.87.2.226 (talk) 18:59, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

That did sound awful.. I changed promoted to highlighted for now, but I'm sure the whole paragraph and the one following can be better worded to reflect what the groups are actually trying to do. --Versageek 19:29, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Long term psychological effects of criminalization on former expelled students?

I've spent much of the last weekend, and some prior time, researching the long term psychological effects upon former students subject to School-to-Prison actions. At most, the only references I can find relate to the singular word "criminalization" and or "jail". Perhaps those are code words of some kind, of deeper meaning to some than others. I think I may have read 'breakdown of family units' mentioned in some published paper. Surely there must be more to the long term effects on "life, liberty, and..." particularly, "pursuit of happiness" of the School-to-prison phenomenon than these singular words. Is this an aspect of educating our kids that hasn't been studied by academic experts? This article mentions poverty. That is rather a clinical and brief abstraction of what I presume represents an entire range of negative psychological effects which in turn manifests physically as poverty, and do these internal effects last from the point of school criminalization to these peoples' final moments of life? I'm saying this would be an informative section to add to the article, IF there is any science to back any of it up. Gzuufy (talk) 17:53, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Section "Systemic problems" / POV problems

I strongly recommend that this section be rewritten (or possibly deleted).

As is, it gives an incorrect definition of neoliberalism, follows with a misleading image of neoliberalism, and makes conclusions that may or may not be supported in the sources, but certainly do not follow from the unclear and confusing reasoning used in the article. Furthermore, it is not clear to what part a POV in the sources is merely (confusingly) reported and to what part the article author has a POV problem.

In addition, the preceeding paragraph, while stating that it reports opinion opinion, is dubious e.g. in how it describes capitalism. Claims of e.g. ablism are not clear either. Here it would be best to simply quote the source outright, so that there can be no confusion. 80.226.24.14 (talk) 20:14, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Gross bias

The entire article is rife with blatant and obvious gross political bias. Reads like something out of an anticapitalist anarchist pamphlet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.105.176.81 (talk) 14:31, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

This concept certainly sets off my own bullshit detector. When I was in high school it was very hard to get expelled, and I don't know anyone who ended up in prison. And most states have problems with prison overcrowding, so why would there be a conspiracy to get more prisoners? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.33.88.5 (talk) 13:28, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Being expelled from private schools is rather easy, while in public schools, more difficult. Here's one article about how Christian schools (private) will expel kids who merely identify as gay. While it does not invoke the school-to-prison rationale, an older 1986 article from the LA Times indicates the juvenile jail system had a higher percentage of gay kids than existed in the general population. With the imposition of zero tolerance policies in the 1980s, a result of Ronald Reagan's expansion of Nixon's War on Drugs, public schools began expelling kids for trivial offenses. Racism also played a part in this, African American kids suffered disproportionately from expulsion. In regards to your other question regarding conspiracy, the U.S. is the leading jailer in the world, this is also true for youth. --Gzuufy (talk) 04:14, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Can you provide some specific examples? The only way other editors can improve the article is to have an idea of what, specifically is the problem. In the meantime I am going to remove your tag, as it doesn't seem particularly helpful, though I will be happy to see it replaced once you provide a more descriptive and helpful criticism. -- [ UseTheCommandLine ~/talk ] # _ 10:02, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Does anyone substantially dispute the existence of a "school to prison pipeline"? If not, the hedging language in the lede is inappropriate. groupuscule (talk) 17:31, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

I suppose the IP that started this section does :) However, is there a wide range of sources, even right-leaning or conservative-leaning sources, that talk about it existing? Or is discussion of it confined to more liberal-leaning sources? If the latter, that might help to justify the cautious language in the lead. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 18:06, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

When possible it seems we should rely most heavily on the academic literature. My initial impression of this Google Scholar search is that "school to prison pipeline" is widely discussed in law reviews, education journals, psychology journals, and beyond. I don't immediately see anyone disputing the existence of the concept. As far as the sources we have now, I'm not sure which ones are "liberal". ACLU, probably. It would be better to use secondary coverage of ACLU reports. ABC News and the LA Times might be charitably called "centrist" and maybe right-wing on average, though there is a lot of variation in their coverage. (Clearly they don't identify as conservative in the same way as, say, Rush Limbaugh.) Publications like PR Watch and Black Agenda Report tend to be pretty detailed on their topics of choice, and critical of both "liberals" and "conservatives". In general the citations need improvement. So does the "counter-arguments" section. groupuscule (talk) 18:39, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Misguided

The phrase and article assume that the government and only the government is responsible for inmates in the prison system - what an asinine statement. Family structure, childhood trauma, and a myriad of other causes contribute to the prison population, by the time the government comes into any individual's life the damage is almost always already done. The page needs to be deleted, not just rewritten, or given the same recognition and tone as alien abduction or conspiracy theories. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JMilty (talk • contribs) 10:10, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Article Changes

I have worked to reduce the issues of neutrality with this article through changing the title of the article from pipeline to link. I have also changed the title to be specific to the United States to address the issues of a lack of global perspective. I do discuss the uniqueness of the phenomena to the United States as it relates to patterns of mass incarceration. I have included more scholarly sources and increased the presence of statistics to address neutrality problems. I have also discussed an alternative to current disciplinary approaches to address how the discipline gap and the link can be decreased. More research could be added to this section as there are several other approaches currently being implemented in the education system to address the school-to-prison link.

Collaboration0826 (talk) 23:16, 8 December 2015 (UTC)Collaboration0826Collaboration0826 (talk) 23:16, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

@Collaboration0826: This article's new title appears to be a WP:NEOLOGISM. Unlike "school-to-prison pipeline", "United States school-to-prison link" is a phrase that has rarely been used outside of Wikipedia. Should it be changed back to its original title? Jarble (talk) 20:02, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

I also feel the new title is poor. Internet searching using Google for "school to prison link" (without quotes or hyphens), most results returned say "school-to-prison pipeline", the first result is "pipeline", thus this difference in returned results would seem confusing to readers. Is intentional confusion of the public the purpose of this article's title change? Gzuufy (talk) 19:03, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

@Gzuufy: I tried to restore the original page title, but its new title now contains an unexpected typographical error. Since I do not have administrator privileges, I will need assistance from an administrator to restore the correct title. Jarble (talk) 15:51, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Requested move 2 May 2016

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Moved. Non-controversial move. (non-admin closure) Anarchyte (work | talk) 12:18, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

---

School-to-prison-pipeline → School-to-prison pipeline – I attempted to restore the original title of this page, but there was an unexpected typographical error. Jarble (talk) 15:59, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

• Support this move 2601:541:4305:C70:4117:A152:9A9:B79B (talk) 21:29, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
• Support Gzuufy (talk) 00:19, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
• Support obviously. This should have been speedily fixed at WP:RM#TR.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  10:12, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

what is the topic here? does the "concept" and/or the reality extend beyond the USA?

i'm starting a new section about this because it's a longer term issue for people to look for sources about. See the previous section for details and GeoBard's statement, "The concept is a USA political concept."

There are several questions here:

• Is this primarily a political concept, i.e. something used for electoral and/or non-electoral political processes? Or is it a claim of a sociological reality in a given society in a given epoch?
• If it's a (claimed) sociological reality, is it really limited to the USA?

If it's primarily a political concept, then third-party sources documenting the political aims of the concept would probably be good, e.g. the aims are to fight against racial and abilities-based discrimination.

However, IMHO this article seems to be not just about the phrase itself, but about the phrase and the claims that the phrase corresponds to sociological reality in the USA in the early XXI-st century. An article about "a US political concept" that has no corresponding reality could be notable, in principle, but IMHO it's probably obvious that it's more encyclopedic if it corresponds to something sociologically real and not just a political tool.

As for the "concept" itself, if the concept concerns discrimination internally to the USA but itself discriminates by pretending that the world beyond the USA does not exist, then it seems to me rather ironical. Martin Luther King opposed not just discrimination within the USA, but also the US war against Vietnam - a highly lethal form of discrimination.

While it may not be easy to find worldwide sources on the context of the US-specific phrase, WP:BIAS suggests that making a particular effort to find sources is one of the ways of trying to overcome the demographically-induced systematic bias in the English-language Wikipedia. Boud (talk) 09:43, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Interesting philosophical points take a look at my RFC on "Ch-nk" a mere word or term which I prefered to see subsumed under a category such as "Western perceptions of Chinese diasphora". I lost but may reconceptualize. But what is the underlying sociological reality beneath that derogatory term for Chinaman? Bad immigrants? Racial prejudice? As to school to prison pipeline, it too is a concept with a bona fide sociological underlayment, the opposite though, an anti-racist one. I'd like to figure out a way to require Ch-nk to be subsumed thoughGeoBard^Rap 23:10, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Good comparison, i see your point. Without having looked seriously at the evidence for the Stp pipeline, it seems to me there's a fair chance that it corresponds to sociological reality, while the chance that about a vaguely defined perceived group of a billion people or so people correspond to a sociological group characterised by negative personality traits X, Y and Z is negligible. i empathise with your RFC. i agree that having an encyclopedia article "Chink" suggests that it is a real topic and could easily be interpreted as support for "Chinks" as a meaningful term. Also, i think that at least some of the commenters there, if not most, also empathise with the motivation. However, they list counterarguments. My way of summarising the counterarguments is "simplicity". The consensus on en.Wikipedia is that the title of an article is not intended to instruct the reader how s/he should think about the topic: s/he should read the article to judge the "known" consensus and known controversies on the topic. S/he will draw his/her own tentative conclusions. Parenthetical terms for disambiguation are unavoidable for clarity. Disclaimers in title names could potentially create a lot of extra work.

You could try proposing a section at Wikipedia talk:General disclaimer for the "Disclaimers" link at the bottom of every page. Only a very tiny fraction of users would read it after reading an article on a derogatory term, and it's probably not what you want, though probably a large enough number of people would read it without realising which particular pages it relates to.

You really should read WP:NODISCLAIMERS if you haven't already. No Wikipedia policy is set in stone. You would need to convince enough Wikipedians to change this policy to have any chance of getting support for something close to what you're hoping for - e.g. a tag near the top of the article rather than something in the article title. IMHO this "Allowing some disclaimers would generate a significant overhead of disputes regarding where to draw the line; this draws editors away from more productive tasks" is a very strong argument. Enough editorial energy is dissipated during debates about article titles, it would be a pity to waste even more. On the other hand, WP:NODISCLAIMERS says that at least three other language wikipedias do allow disclaimers.

In any case, back to this article. At the risk of slipping into advocacy, i would think that readers are more likely to take this topic seriously if they see RS'd claims of it being sociological reality rather than only a political tool designed to obtain certain political goals. My guess is that it's highly credible that it is sociological reality, but my opinion as a Wikipedian is not a RS. High-quality, inlined sourcing could potentially make this a very good article on an important topic.

Hope this feedback helps. Boud (talk) 19:13, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Not as familiar with the global reality, but this is a well-documented social reality in the US, with money often directly switched over from schools to prison, and, for example, in Baltimore, future prison bed space needs calculated from third graders' test scores! I am overhauling the article; began by taking out unsourced claims, now adding many credible sources. People seem to support this type of edit; hope I'm not overstepping. --Groupuscule (talk) 13:49, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

The Wikipedia article on United States incarceration rate includes a plot, m:File:U.S. incarceration rates 1925 onwards.png, showing that the incarceration rate in the US today is five times what it was 40 years ago. The section of that article on Editorial policies of major media cites research suggesting that this five-fold increase was primarily driven by changes in the editorial policies of the mainstream commercial media in the US to focus on the police blotter: The public got the impression that crime was out of control, when there had been no substantive change in the actual crime rate. Politicians campaigning to "Get tough on crime" replaced more sensible officials, which created the increase.

The US, Russia and South Africa all have incarceration rates substantially above the international norm, indicated by Europe, Canada, Australia and Japan (quantified in m:File:Incarceration rates worldwide.gif). It would be interesting to see similar plots of the histories of incarceration rates in Russia and South Africa. DavidMCEddy (talk) 06:11, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

POV - We have neutrality issues.

Whoops! Looks like the article reads like a news release or persuasive essay that goes against the school to prison pipeline. Refer to the section above as well. DSCrowned^(talk) 08:26, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Edit - It looks like the sections on "Systematic problems" stands out the most about talking overly against the pipeline. Anyway, the article is in completely the wrong tone, and needs a complete rewrite. Suggest your votes below DSCrowned^(talk) 08:32, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Well, the SCHOOL-to-PRISON pipeline is rather bad. Mainly because reporting the students to the police for minor, non-violent, and non-serious infractions on school ground is bad. Over-punishment creates criminals.94.252.182.250 (talk) 06:45, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

"To put this rate in perspective"

Under the "Causes" header are these sentences:

"The United States holds 25% of the world's prisoners, but only has 5% of the world's population. To put this rate in perspective, it should be noted that the United States homicide rate is 4.3x that of the UK (3.9 vs. 0.9 per 100,000), and that the United States also incarcerates at a rate 4.7x that of the UK (693 vs 146 per 100,000)."

How does comparing the US' rate of one very low-incidence crime (https://www.bop.gov/about/statistics/statistics_inmate_offenses.jsp) with that of one other country put their comparative incarceration rates into perspective? That's a very roundabout way of getting to any semblance of relevance, especially when you could compare the whole crime rate of the US with the global average, or even whichever country's average. If the intention was to put the drastically higher incarceration rate into perspective, what perspective is it putting it into?

We know the US has a much higher murder rate than other Western countries. We also know it has way more people in prison than other Western countries, and the rest of the world at that. The way the sentence is worded seems to imply these facts are strongly, directly correlated, but, as per the above link, only 3.3% of US prisoners are in for murder, while a whopping 46.1% are serving for drug offenses. A far more accurate (but still not comprehensive) perspective-building sentence would compare the rates of these crimes in the US with the rest of the world, or even just Western countries, but that wouldn't paint the picture the author of that sentence wants it to.

MykalGroll (talk) 04:05, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

Alright, it's been more than four months with no discussion on this. I've removed the sentences, if only to prompt discussion. MykalGroll (talk) 02:16, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Drop in editing

Hello fellow Wikipedians, I dropped in on this article for a brief touch up. Couple quick things here:

1. I did some cleanup of a particular UK styling that I think doesn't belong in an article which focuses heavily on the US school-to-prison system. The thing I changed is putting the periods outside the quotation mark when appearing at the end of a sentence. It's the norm in the States to write, as Angie said, "The period goes inside the quotation mark." 2. Splitting the snake - there were some run-on sections that were quite gawky to read. I fixed that for ya. ;)

That's about it, although I noticed discussion about neutrality and point of view in the talk section. If you want the Copy Editors Guild to make a deeper pass, you can always flag it with the copy edit tag. Cheers, 21:53, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Proposed Article Changes

To help create a more neutral article page for this topic, I would first work to determine a different article name, based on the terminology I see coming up in my research, that has the same essential meaning as the school-to-prison pipeline but is more evidence-based and direct, without leaving room for individuals to discount important research because of political views. By doing this, I would hope to make the article more neutral and representative. I think it would be beneficial to make changes to the lead paragraph to discuss the concept of a relationship between schools and juvenile justice systems and how it directly impacts youth outcomes. I would then break the page into U.S. zero tolerance policies and excessive policing (combining the information currently used to describe the phenomena as a whole), and add a section about the Case Study of South Africa. I would compare the two studies and show how the relationship can have similar effects on students across multiple contexts to help strengthen the evidence behind the concept itself. I would try to provide more research and remove the comments made on the page that may point towards a specific political opinion, to remove biases that are currently present in most parts of the article. By adding in less politically affiliated sources, with sources coming from a more representative community, I would hope to improve the current perception of the article. I would also hope to point out different views on the theory and include the various viewpoints on how prevalent the relationship between the school and juvenile justice system is and how strong the effects are on student's success. There are multiple views on whether certain school disciplinary policies target black and Latino students in the United States or if the disparities are actually reflective of the misbehaviors of the populations. It must be recognized that the topic is indeed controversial, but it is important to effectively include and discuss both viewpoints and use statistics and other case studies outside the U.S, to define the school-juvenile justice system relationship itself and its implications for certain student populations.

Collaboration0826 (talk) 05:51, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

The article name/title School-to-prison pipeline is simple and descriptive. I have been hearing, reading, and using it since at least 2012. I would open the scope to both South Africa (as suggested above) and Canada, where we have refined our system to channel many "races" and social groups even without a top-down private enterprise prison industry as such. A proposed paragraph here: In Spring 2021, Edmonton Public Schools, Edmonton Catholic Schools, and Edmonton Police Service, rather than using a racist "jumping" or swarming incident as a teaching and learning opportunity, chose to feed the Canadian school-to-prison pipeline. Darrylh08 (talk) 00:12, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

The trouble with that edit is that the source says nothing about a teaching and learning opportunity, nothing about the school-to-prison pipeline, and nothing about jumping or swarming. The version you present is not backed up by the source, and so violates WP:NOR, as I said in my edit summary. NightHeron (talk) 00:21, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

References

News article: Black Mothers Launch Microschools to End School-Prison Pipeline

I just came across this news article. I think the information could be useful for this article. What do others here think?

https://www.yahoo.com/news/black-mothers-launch-microschools-end-121500237.html

54mmkds (talk) 16:20, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

This looks like a promising lead. I've reverted your addition for now because it was not based on reliable, independent sources. If you can find one or two more WP:SECONDARY sources like this, however, I would support re-adding it. Generalrelative (talk) 17:28, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

A quick search yielded this: [2]. I'd be curious to hear what others think about the notability of this phenomenon. Is there a WP:RECENTISM problem here? Generalrelative (talk) 17:32, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for that link.

The content that you reverted from the article is not related to the link that I posted in this section of the talk page. In the "Alternative approaches" section of the article, I created a new section called "The Marva Collins teaching method." This is what I added. I'd like to hear what others think of it:

See also: Marva Collins

In the 1970s in Chicago, Marva Collins created her low-cost private school specifically for the purpose of teaching low income black children whom Collins felt that the Chicago Public School System had mislabeled as being learning disabled. Collins said she had the data to prove that her students were teachable and were able to overcome obstacles of learning via her teaching methods, which she said eliminated behavioral issues and allowed students to flourish.

When you deleted my addition, you commented, "Undid revision 1068478478 by 54mmkds (talk) Reverting good-faith edit. Additions to Wikipedia need to be based on reliable, independent sources."

The Marva Collins article that I linked to contains plenty of other reliable sources. In fact, it's arguable that her method is the single biggest success when it comes to its ability to end the school-to-prison pipeline. It would be a shame if this article did not include at least one reference to the Marva Collins method as an alternative to the school-to-prison pipeline.

54mmkds (talk) 23:08, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

Ah, thanks for explaining. The problem with that content is that it is sourced to its subject, Marva Collins. In order for it to be considered appropriate for inclusion, we would need at least one source that is both WP:SECONDARY and WP:INDEPENDENT of the author. I hope that makes sense. It looks like compelling content though, and I would encourage you to re-add it if we can locate appropriate sourcing. Best, Generalrelative (talk) 23:24, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

References

Criticism section

There used to be a comment here that among other stuff said

"It just seems obvious that the term must have been coined for certain political activism purposes, otherwise why would you need a term for this."

And basically claimed it wasn't real.

I think a criticism section or controversy or similar would be good even if the criticism is B.S. as there are people who do think that it doesn't exist.

Article format

I am working on a significant reformat of the article to add more subheadings and details in those. These are mostly related to underlying causes. If anyone else is working on this, or has strong opinions or insight into how this can take shape, let's discuss. I'm new to this article, although not to the topic or to. I see there has been discussion about maintaining a neutral POV - I agree this is important. I am hoping to upload my changes within the week. Thanks Architect21c (talk).

Redundancy in language

One of the more poorly written entries I’ve seen. Several paragraphs in this entry are merely the same point repeated over and over, and thus could be sentences. The passive expression and poorly written sentences obscure the causal connections that the school to prison nexus/pipeline is supposedly describing. 2600:1700:9580:61A0:4DB3:8E9F:1E73:6D8C (talk) 18:34, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Equitable Futures - Internet Cultures and Open Access

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 25 January 2023 and 12 May 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Editi2000 (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Editi2000 (talk) 02:41, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

More than just the US

The school to prison pipeline is at least a Canadian thing as well. I'm hesitant to put a globalize template on this, but it is focusing on the US when it is a thing that does happen in Canada. NebbyAxolotl (talk) 22:51, 19 June 2023 (UTC)