Are the quiet, bright, studious children destined to sit with the disruptive children as a positive influence on them?

[Thisismynewname123]

I have a very bright, hard working, but quiet daughter in Y5. She has always been happy at school, despite occasional social blips, mostly due to shyness, but she is well liked so nothing too major. Following a class mix, she's now in a class that has a reputation for being loud, and generally "naughty" (although I hate using that word). For the first time she is now dreading going to school on a daily basis. She hates that she has to sit with children who talk constantly (although from the teacher's point of view, I assume she has been put where she is as the good influence). She feels as though she is suffering for it. She can't concentrate. She doesn't get drawn into conversations during lessons when she shouldn't be talking, but that now means she feels as though she isn't making any friends in the new class. I feel like she's generally unhappy at school for the first time but I'm not sure there's anything much I can do. As the "good girl" is she destined to always be put in a small group with the difficult (although bright) children who need the good influence, even though she is suffering for it?

Is it worth raising with the teacher, or is too early in the year and I'll just be told she needs more time to settle? I'm not one to be constantly contacting the teachers about one thing or another. I don't want to be "that parent", so I'm just looking for some guidance on if it's justified or not in this case.

That strategy often means those children learn far less but surely it's better than adversely affecting the poor child being used as a buffer.

This is rather disheartening. It rather places it as an "us v them" scenario, which is sort of distasteful, IMO.

There are no easy answers but a teacher cannot use children like the op's dd as a classroom management tool.

Yes dd1 was always seated with the more troublesome children as a good influence or most likely because having three brothers she had perfected the death stare and used it liberally and effectively Dd1 was never bothered but I would have raised it if she had been and would certainly raise it if they tried with dd2 who is a hugely sensitive child.

Yep same here. Ds had been paired up with the same disrupts boy from year 1 to year 5 (only for certain subjects, as they are on 'ability' tables) but this year the boy in question was constantly disruptive, so much that ds would get home in tears at the end of most days. I spoke to the teacher and she changed the seating arrangements, ds is much happier. I do understand e teachers's dilema thought, they can't wil all the 'disruptive' children together, imagine that, it would a lot worst for everybody in the class.

I agree it's not perfect. They are only children after all. However, the onus is on the school to support these children, not on other children to be a good influence. How much of an impact is this having on the 'good influence' child's learning?

Not all those disruptive children have issues though; some are just naughty. Schools need a zero tolerance approach in those cases. Start calling the parents up daily and ask them to come out of work and collect their child as their child is frequently disrupting the class. Some parents don't want to or don't know how to teach their children how to behave in school but it is their job not that of the teachers.

I appreciate hearing the other side. However, I've been told that she contributes well in class. She is quiet but not so much that it's debilitating. I'm sorry, but as a quiet person myself, I don't see that being naturally quiet is something that you can train a person out of by putting them in amongst a loud group of children, and nor should you try to. I don't see it as a personality deficiency that she is not hugely outgoing.
She actively participates in class discussions - but in an appropriate way by putting her hand up and waiting to be called on. She is popular and well liked. She has no problem talking in front of the class - she is just studious, she takes it all (a bit too) seriously and she doesn't like feeling as though she's being punished, or she's not learning, because she caught in the middle of other children talking across her in the middle of a lesson.

Ginger Are you saying she should just put up with her child's education being affected?

OP, you might be interested in these articles/blogs:

psychologyineducation.wordpress.com/2016/01/14/promoting-extrovert-traits-will-only-marginalise-introverted-pupils/

www.joannejacobs.com/2015/10/schools-overlook-introverts-learning-needs/

Personally, I think that by Year 5 children should no longer be sitting round tables as the norm during their lessons. It facilitates bullying, promotes off-task behaviour, and is difficult for pupils who have to turn round to see the teacher or the board. Desks or tables can be moved for occasions when group work is necessary; but many educators believe that paired work is better than group work anyway, as it is less likely to facility what is termed "social loafing".

oops, "facilitate"

I guess if people feel the thought process that says "well, if we lump all the disruptive children together that's okay, even though it means they learn less than the rest of the children, as long as they're not bothering our normal children" is okay, then I guess that in itself is rather an enlightening view into their character.

Ginger You'd obviously rather everyone learnt less all together. It's like a spite move of "if my child is struggling I'll make yours struggle too." How is that fair? I think the answer would be a reshuffle to find a non-isolating seating plan that mixes all abilities together but has someone more able to cope with distraction than OP's daughter who is suffering from it.

You'd obviously rather everyone learnt less all together. It's like a spite move of "if my child is struggling I'll make yours struggle too." How is that fair?

Bit of an assumption there, don't you think?

Well Ginger, posting passive aggressively about character still doesn't cut it as the right way forward. You sound like the secondary teacher who said to me that it was a better use of him time to make sure the D pupils reached their C potential than the A pupils reached their A* potential. I fundamentally disagree with this approach and if it's how you're going to teach then you need to come out publicly both as a teacher and a school and say this is our belief and this is how we plan to concentrate our resources.

And I say all this both as a teacher and as the mother of both quiet studious children and a child with disruptive behaviour due to SN.

My 9 year old's current teacher changes the seating plan every single week. Also the layout - sometimes they sit at group tables but sometimes in pairs. It seems to work well (though I have middle of the road children, fairly ordinary, bit chatty sometimes not particularly quiet nor particularly naughty).

It's a bullshit approach and not only that but it's a secretive bullshit approach.

Well your only suggestion Ginger has been to shout discrimination for a child asking to be moved, which suggests you feel she shouldn't be moved when it is directly impacting her education.

You sound like the secondary teacher who said to me that it was a better use of him time to make sure the D pupils reached their C potential than the A pupils reached their A potential.*

So you feel it's more important that the A pupils reach their A* than the D pupils reach that C potential? I'd prefer both have opportunities. Again, it shouldn't come down to us v them.

Well your only suggestion Ginger has been to shout discrimination for a child asking to be moved, which suggests you feel she shouldn't be moved when it is directly impacting her education.

At no point have I mentioned the word discrimination.

What GingerIvy said. X a million. Why does it have to be them v us?

Ginger "So you feel it's more important ..." you're putting words in that poster's mouth. It's wrong and unfair, and makes reasonable discussion very difficult.

It doesn't Auser but forcing a child to sit in a seat that is hurting their education is unfair.

And Ginger you're being purposefully difficult so I won't bother engaging but making either child suffer for the sake of the other is unfair.

At no point have I mentioned the word discrimination.

In the light of your own unjustified assumptions about Property's beliefs, this statement is extremely ironic.

It shouldn't be them vs us! And as I said, I'd fall on both sides of that with my own children. And no I wouldn't rather the A pupils got the time but why is the prevailing attitude (ask most state secondary teachers esp in E&M) that the D pupils take priority. And if this is happening, and it is, why are schools not coming out publicly and admitting it?

Both sets of children should have their needs met and I'm sure most teachers would agree. But most teachers also know that there isn't enough time or resources to meet both but instead of an even split, the extra time and effort goes towards making sure the borderline C/D pupils get their C.