If they're making a nuisance of themselves at school, the school would presumably give them a detention, with repeat offences eventually resulting in expulsion. If they're making a nuisance of themselves elsewhere, the school is not involved. (Note that the latter applies to criminal actions as well; that's what the police are for.)
0: That is, from "X implies Y" to "Y implies X".
This distinction doesn't really exist. Does "school" include virtual learning environments? School sports? Travelling to and from school or sports? Bullying that extends from school to out of school?
Traditionally, schools have always been responsible for these things or have taken actions that occurred out of school grounds into account.
I finished school in the early 1990s and students were expelled then for graffiti attacks out of the school, out if school hours, not in school uniform.
I don't see what is different or new here.
That's fair as far as it goes, but I'm not claiming it's different or new; I'm claiming it's bad and needs to be stopped.
> Does "school" include virtual learning environments? School sports? Travelling to and from school or sports?
Probably. Probably. Debatably and depends on the mode of transport.
> Bullying that extends from school to out of school?
That's two items; yes to the former, no to the latter.
Expulsion is not really on the table, at least in the U.S.
But expulsion is something that will affect the person for the rest of their life. There should be significant burden of proof before such an action can be taken, and we already have a system (courts) to deal with that.
If students know that then what exactly is the disincentive to engage in bullying that doesn't rise to the level of criminal harassment?
Shouldn't a school be a place someone learns appropriate behaviours with less risk of criminal sanctions? It seems that some form of punishment imposed by schools would be reasonable in some circumstances.