DD is always put with disruptive children...AIBU to ask her to move?

[peacockfeather11]

Every year this happens and I always try and say nothing because I don't want to be that mother that comes in to school complaining. But this year I am furious! My DD has been put on a table with the most disruptive and she's in tears and I can truly understand. It's too much too ask of her and she's so sensitive she never wants to let the teacher down which I feel is manipulated.

Do I ask the teacher to move her or AIBU?

What seems to be getting missed by the vocal minority here is that the failure of a SLT to provide alternatives for disruptive children isn’t the responsibility of other children. No one here has disagreed: there is an issue in terms of alternatives, but there is only one poster who seems to think that the answer is allowing that disruption to continue.

I’m not sure if they’re a teacher or not, because the board of governors I sit on would probably receive a written complaint within minutes if a teacher responded like that to them. Parents are more than capable of knowing when a teacher is taking their concerns seriously. To be frank, we would want to hear about it, because it’s not appropriate to delegate classroom management to children who should be focused on learning and growing.

There are many better ways to teach tolerance and resilience that don’t have such high stakes. Our school is fee paying, and there are plentiful alternatives for disruptive children that don’t pose involve teachers delegating to children - and it’s another way in which education quality is divided across income. If it was truly a good policy, it would be implemented at the school level and formalised in learning plans, and would be adopted by fee paying schools.

I would object.

This policy is not good for your child and is not good for the child who needs actual support. But the school will argue that it is using seating arrangements or peer support to deny giving real adult support which means that a child is both less likely to get an EHCP when they need one and is also alienated from peers when they have social communication disorders, poor impulse control, distractibility etc.

Teachers are not allowed to remove fiddle toys, tell the child needing support to 'shut up, stupid' so they delegate to child peers that do do this out of frustration.

Lose/lose for D.C. but win for budgets.

"if only it was that easy... you might live in your little bubble, but in the real world, there are other avenues to ensure your child is being respected and your behaviour not tolerated."

Do elaborate.

@rawlikesushi

"My dc was the role model child put on the "naughty table". He was bullied by the other kids on the table and went from a child who was desperate to go to school to one who was withdrawn, clearly unhappy and who begged not to go to school."

Well I've repeatedly said that bullying is unacceptable so I'm not sure why you're sharing your anecdote with me like it's revelatory.

Bullying or hurting another child - zero tolerance imo. I can't promise it'll never happen but I can promise to deal with it robustly if I see it or it is brought to my attention.

You seem to think that the support child rarely get negatively impacted by being put in that position when the experiences pp have had is that these children are often bullied and no longer want to go to school. Schools rarely deal effectively with bullying particularly at primary school.

"Let's cut the bullshit for a minute, even someone with such an offensive and disgusting attitude has a head teacher, governors, there's ofsted and local groups to help out and solve the problem.
NO ONE has to put up with bullying and the only option is not to remove your child from school and being called a whiny child."

Oh my god why am I constantly being accused of supporting or tolerating bullying?

How many times exactly do I have to say that no child should put up with bullying?

And there's a fucking gulf of difference between a bullied child or a child with a genuine grievance, and a whiny kid who complains about every tiny misdemeanour.

"You seem to think that the support child rarely get negatively impacted by being put in that position when the experiences pp have had is that these children are often bullied and no longer want to go to school."

Oh. Again.

Whats your idea of a tiny misdemeanor?

People have spoken about being kicked and pinched. My dd was being pushed/shoved in yr 7 and this kid caused a pile up on the stairs by pushing her over. She banged her head and was trodden on.

But yes she scape goated him and its a tiny misdemeanor

How bad does it have to be to exit out of whiny arsehole and into worthy of being looked at?

"because it’s not appropriate to delegate classroom management to children who should be focused on learning and growing."

It's not delegating classroom management to rotate your seating arrangement regularly to make sure that, across the year, nobody's education or learning is negatively impacted by a challenging child.

They've got to sit next to someone.

"How bad does it have to be to exit out of whiny arsehole and into worthy of being looked at?"

Any bullying or physical attack is absolutely unacceptable, as I've said repeatedly.

You keep saying that.

You admit they are disruptive and challenging and then you claim its all tiny misdemeanors. Then why can't they sit everywhere else then?

Which is it?

" but there is only one poster who seems to think that the answer is allowing that disruption to continue."

If you're referring to me, I don't tolerate or condone disruption.

No you just expect other kids to ansorb it.

Absorb

@rawlikesushi I was indeed referring to you. Instead of rudely recommending adult reading intervention to other posters who disagree with you, perhaps you could read the post I wrote in context rather than replying to small bits at a time? Quite frankly, those students don’t need to sit next to anyone - if there was sufficient funding. Instead of pushing the responsibility to SLT, you are busy talking about the supposed benefits to the well behaved children. You ask why you are being accused of allowing bullying, but simultaneously call “small children” “whiny” and lack sympathy for them. You don’t seem to see your own dismissive attitude, and that’s troubling.

This is why most people disagree with you, and find you a tad disingenuous.

"You admit they are disruptive and challenging and then you claim its all tiny misdemeanors. Then why can't they sit everywhere else then?"

Yes, I have 12 children in my class of 33 with complex SEN.

We do a great job supporting SEN children, so parents choose us.

They can be disruptive and challenging - stimming, shouting out, rocking, drumming fingers, getting up and walking around, clumsy, disorganised, miss instructions.

I work really hard to support those children, and every child in my class.

My seating plan changes every half term, so most children will sit by one of these children at some point in the year.

Most children are wonderful, and most parents are supportive.

I have a little boy with a brain injury sustained at birth, a little girl with FAS, another child in care with a truly terrible history.

Where would you like me to put them?

"You ask why you are being accused of allowing bullying, but simultaneously call “small children” “whiny” and lack sympathy for them. You don’t seem to see your own dismissive attitude, and that’s troubling."

Any parent who claims that whiny children don't exist is being disingenuous.

I'm dismissive of whiny kids, whining about trivia, and their whiny parents.

If you don't think those children exist, then you probably are one.

Obviously, obviously I'm not talking about children who are being bullied or hurt.

And there's a fucking gulf of difference between a bullied child or a child with a genuine grievance, and a whiny kid who complains about every tiny misdemeanour

Do you also think it's wrong for people not to tolerate low level disruption? After all it's only low level?

The drip drip drip of having your education routinely disrupted isn't being whiny about each misdemeanor. Each misdemeanor adds up.

To anonymise a situation from secondary school.

Child A was disrupted. Child B was usually placed next to them in several subjects.

Over the course of a school day, Child A's education could be disrupted by the following:

• can't hear the teacher because B was whispering
• struggling to concentrate because B was playing with their pencil case, tapping pencils, sucking a pen lid so it whistles quietly
• the teacher says to discuss a question with their partner, but B hadn't done the task so A had nobody to speak to to share ideas (all the other children had a chance to share ideas)
• teacher asks for feedback from pairs and when B can't give an answer, the pair are told they should have done the task better. It's not A's fault though, but they get the blame too.
• B is kicking the table leg when A is trying to write
• B nudges them whilst writing
• The class have moved on but because B doesn't have the first part of the notes they expect A to let them copy
• Teacher tells A to let B copy their notes because B doesn't have anything written down. A loses 10 minutes of a 20 minutes task doing nothing because B doesn't quickly copy them down.
• There's group work where the teacher assigns each person in a group of 4 a task. The whole group has part of the task missing because B didn't do their bit.
• B turns around and is distracting their mates nearby and A is caught in the cross fire
• When the teacher circulates the room, B decides they 'don't get it' and A is subjected to performative stupidity whilst B thinks they are hilarious for showing how little they know
• The teacher says the students have to do some peer assessment (because it can be beneficial to share work and it's a valid strategy when used well). Unfortunately, A doesn't get peer feedback because B can't be bothered to do it properly and hasn't paid attention. A also doesn't learn anything from looking at B's work because they've hardly done anything.
• B doesn't have equipment but the teacher expects A to lend B a pen.
• A doesn't get her own back because B has dismantled it and chewed the lid.
• Later in the day A is expected to allow B to share their calculator in maths, which means they have to move at a slower pace
• When there's shared school equipment B is silly with it, but the teacher manages to have selective blindness because at least B isn't being disruptive.
• By last lesson, A finally has enough and tells B to "shut up". A gets sent out and a behaviour point for being disruptive. A is told they have to apologize to B because B assures the teacher that they were 'just asking a question'.

No bullying there, no violence to A, but a hell of a big impact on A's education.

"No you just expect other kids to ansorb it."

Depends what it is.

**Child A was quiet and compliant. Child B was disruptive and usually placed next to A in several subjects.

"Quite frankly, those students don’t need to sit next to anyone - if there was sufficient funding."

Which there isn't.

Are you talking about them all being taught in one class, sent to PRU, what?

"he drip drip drip of having your education routinely disrupted isn't being whiny about each misdemeanor. Each misdemeanor adds up."

For a few weeks before the seating plan changes. Cry me a river. You're not interested in anything other than your child not having to take their turn next to a child you don't like.

Well according to you you dont tolerate disruption so they can sit anywhere right?

Either there are problems or there aren't. The fact you change your seating plans indicates you infact do recognise it causes issues nut i exoect those kids who are still learning themselves and who trust you, know exactly what you think if they aren't proper hard-core and don't complain.

For a few weeks before the seating plan changes. Cry me a river. You're not interested in anything other than your child not having to take their turn next to a child you don't like

Far from it. My DC aren't school age yet.

I'm a teacher who gets fed up with some colleagues expecting children to carry the burden of behaviour management for the teachers.

The fact this is your response to repeated disruption says a lot, especially combined with the 'what should we do? Send them all to a PRU' attitude.

Children's education shouldn't suffer because either their class teacher can't be bothered to get a handle on poor behaviour or SLT can't be bothered to promote good behaviour around school.

Given you seem to care more about disruptive students than anyone else, let me put it another way. What message does the 'ah well, what can we do... the whiny children should suck it up' attitude send to disruptive students? It tells the disruptive student that the teacher doesn't think you can behave, that the teacher expects less of you, that the teacher doesn't see the point in holding you to account, that the teacher considers you the naughty child so as long as you don't kick off then they're not that bothered about you. Why would they bother trying when the teacher with responsibility for their education doesn't think they're worth the effort?

No child wins when teachers are permissive and minimise disruptive behaviour.

@rawlikesushi Ignoring the majority of the post yet again. However, I’ll do you the service of an answer. In our school, we use specialist TAs to sit at tables with the more disruptive children (who, yes, are grouped together). We also have pastoral staff who can take children out for periods of time where necessary, sensory rooms, early/late entry into class. Some children, yes, are not invited to come back in future semesters because the environment isn’t right for them.

If you agree the problem is funding (as I said), and you have indicated protest is something you believe is effective, why not send those children directly to SLT offices until they have to do something? Seems like a better option than disrupting other children, despite the ‘benefits’ you imagine exist for them. Being a teacher is hard, but the answer isn’t letting children take the hit for the lack of support you’re offered.

"Either there are problems or there aren't. The fact you change your seating plans indicates you infact do recognise it causes issues nut i exoect those kids who are still learning themselves and who trust you, know exactly what you think if they aren't proper hard-core and don't complain."

Of course it can be challenging to sit next to someone exhibiting the behaviours I detailed earlier, and that's why I change the seating plan every half term.

But it should be within the competencies of most NT children to experience it, for a few weeks, without any of the doom-laden forebodings of this thread coming to pass.

For the avoidance of doubt - no child should have to endure bullying or physical hurt.