To be furious teachers keep sitting 'naughty' kids next to my 'angelic' DC

[Flaky]

So he is then upset by them being mean to him and doesn't want to go to school?

This is at least the 3rd occasion a kid like this has been moved next to him.

Last year the teacher admitted that she had done it so DS's good influence rubs off but why should he suffer for it?

He's the youngest in the class as well (Yr2)and some of these DC are almost a whole year older.

Isn't this just very lazy teaching?

You can't decide they have any of those things surely, unless your tried to im.still some discipline first?

That's the point I'm trying to make.

If behaviour is dealt with and not just silently inflicted on the "good" kids it would eitger rule out or confirm other stuff surely?

I’ll put my hand up and say my ds is one of those “naughty” kids who was made to sit next to one of the “well behaved” kids.

I felt sorry for the other child and spent a lot of energy with ds to get him to behave. Incidentally he was fine behaviour wise with other teachers - I think on reflection that it was the teacher who brought out the worst in him. She basically came down very hard on him from day one (he is a bit clumsy and can day dream etc) and he gave up trying because he thought he was stupid. Needless to say I wasn’t impressed.

So Op I would def speak to the teacher - it isn’t great for your child and doesn’t tackle the root issue of the behaviour problem of the naughty one.

Sometimes the cause of bad behaviour is just a lack of boundries isn't it?

Better to deal witg it on reception-yr 2 then have a nightmare kid yr 4 who's just then playing musical chairs amongst the other kids as he or she basically got away with everything and now don't give a shit about lunch time detention

Gileswithachainsaw I’m struggling to find commonality with you when you can partition children in to “good” and “naughty.”

Behaviour is just an expression, and if a child is exhibiting unwanted behaviour then it’s a demonstration of an unmet need, which may or may not be boundaries.

One in five children has a special educational need, by the way.

But surely you would agree that if a chikd needs some firm boundries set then sitting next to a kid who you know just puts up and shut up as it makes it easier for You
Would do bugger all to help the child and the impact on the paired chikd is negative

And regardless of any SN dumping them on another child rather than supporting them is lazy and benefits no one?

Splitting up disruptive students and mixing them with others is a perfectly reasonable seating strategy, but it goes hand in hand with other behaviour management strategies (including sanctions for poor behaviour and a zero tolerance for bullying).

I must admit, I tend to avoid placing typically disruptive students next to really academic or quiet students. I've rarely found it to be a good pairing for either of them. I tend to seat more disruptive students with a student who is middle ability, well-rounded and works hard. I tell all students they are sat for learning.

If there's an issue of bullying then it needs raising with the school always.
If people are all 'my DC should never have to sit near someone who isn't well behaved and hard working all the time' then it's being a bit precious. What should we do, put all thr 'naughty' children on a naughty table?! I hate that idea.

I was paired with a less able pupil in school.

I was disturbed every couple of mins as she couldn't spell well.

I lost break time catching up. She didn't learn to spell any Better.

Teacher must have loved not having to provide any back up/assistance and hands lovely quiet lesson

giles
That's poor seating then.

Contrary to what people on MN think, there is a time and a place for using more able children as leaders and coaches. Being able to explain to someone else is more difficult than just getting it (it's why someone could have a PhD in their subject and be a poor teacher). However, they should never be used as TAs in my opinion.

Parents of able children sometimes think their child should only be sat with other very brigjt children. That's not always the case.

A good way to think of it is to divide the class into 4:
High
High mid
Low mid
Low

It's crude but you get the idea.

Pairing a high child with a low or a low mid child would be a poor pairing but pairing a high child with a high mid child would be perfectly reasonable. So the higher child is sat with someone 'lower' than them but it's a good pairing, both offer something to the pair etc.

Ds1 in year 10 had his lessons for one subject completely disrupted

He was one of three children who didnt mess around

The other 25+ were very disruptive

@DailyMailReadersAreThick that is so awful. I am so sorry.

@Jux I am so sorry for your dd but hats off to a brilliant girl/woman who is doing so well.

This is not just about special educational needs! My dd has special educational needs and is not disruptive.

I went to school with numerous children who were disruptive, they were not all special needs. They were disenfranchised, but they also helped to disenfranchise others. Me included.

There is a bigger picture than just special needs!

@Zerosugaroption "”Behaviour is just an expression, and if a child is exhibiting unwanted behaviour then it’s a demonstration of an unmet need, which may or may not be boundaries."

I think behaviour is communication, some of it is help, I need help, I can't focus, I can't learn this. Some of this is I don't give a shit, or I live hurting you. Or I'm bored.

It's not all about special educational needs.

What should we do, put all thr 'naughty' children on a naughty table?!

Yeah, why not? Have a table right st the front so you can monitor them better.

like hurting you.

maisy

This poor girl struggled with 4 letter words and this was in juniors.

She would have benefited from some basic reinforcement rather than being sat with the likes of me who just happened at the time to be in the top 3 spellers in the class.

It helped no one.

People are not saying they do not want their kids to sit next to kids with special needs or kids not as bright as them; it is a disruption issue.

It'a also an issue that the quiet "good" ones often don't say they need help, don't complain, see this as their lot and just struggle on.

As they are quiet and not disruptive, their distress is not obvious, and so goes unnoticed.

Yeah, why not? Have a table right st the front so you can monitor them better.
I can monitor them just fine having them sat around the room. I dont need to have a table to do that.

Though one year I did separate my y11s into lazy vs not lazy and ignored the lazy ones until thry started to work though. Logic beinh i wasn't going to waste my time and effort on people who couldn't be bothered. They saw others getting lots of 1-1 help, praise, higher grades, attention and realised actually they wanted in on it too. It lasted a week. It was done at the point where I had a good relationship with 16 year olds and wanted to give them a kick up the backside.
Would I do that with y7? Not a chance.

It's funny that on one thread at the moment people are whining that basic rules and routine are some attempt at a dictatorship which allows teachers to bully children and on this thread people are quite happy to ensure their child never ends up near someone not up to their standarss

Wow! This thread clearly highlights how little parents actually understand about teaching and what actually goes on within the classroom. I've certainly had a little chuckle at some of the suggestions and assumptions made by the clueless on this thread.

Jaunty. That was a patronizing post. My quiet and well behaved kids were sat next to the naughty kids much, much more often than was fair. The teachers admitted they did it. I've never claimed to know about 'teaching' but I do know that it's shite to let a quiet and well behaved child suffer the brunt of a naughty kids behaviour. Its unfair and lazy. My kids felt like they were being punished for their good behaviour. I can't see anyway how that could equate to good teaching.

MaisyPops admittedly I seem to be a lone voice but I didn't have an issue with DD (very high ability - as in predicted 10 Grade 9s at GCSE - but not quiet) being sat next to an incredibly disruptive child. It did him some good by all accounts and did her no harm and possibly some good, in terms of understanding other pupils who were different from herself and in terms of seeing the value of helping others. In Y7 she came across another child very different from the others but for different SEN reasons and a teacher took time out to contact me to say how sensitive DD was in her dealings with this child. I'm amazed at how self-centred some of the comments on this thread appear to be, and indeed short sighted.

Have you two read the posts from the women who have experienced this?

Why don't they matter? Why do the quiet "good" ones not matter? There is a woman on here who was suicidal, and others who were molested, injured. Who felt they couldn't say anything because guess what they do what they're told, don't they, and the don't make a fuss, that's kind of the whole thing that gets them put in these positions in the first place.

And here we have teachers "having a little chuckle" and saying it's because they don't want their children near others who are "not up to their standards".

I'm genuinely really taken aback.

So the idea that the teachers didn't care about the impact on the "quiet one" seems to have been upheld here by a distressingly large amount of teachers.

Enlighten us Jaunty....

And another post who says well the ones who had psychological issues, whose self confidence was destroyed, who attempted suicide,

Yeah

They're just self centred aren't they.

All this does is reinforce that it's "sink or swim" for the quiet ones, if they don't cope it's a personal failing. And as long as they aren't making a fuss and are just crying at home in their room every night then so what. They are like, collateral damage.

Bloody hell.