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.

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.

I think perhaps you need to reread those posts. The poster says I said things I didn't and I am being accused of putting words in their mouth?

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.

I'm saying things that people find uncomfortable. That's unfortunate, but that happens in discussions. As for making either child suffer for the sake of the other, perhaps you can reread the part where I said it shouldn't be us v them?

And again I ask... if none of the parents want their child next to the disruptive/talkative child, then where precisely is that child supposed to be seated?

It comes down to funding and lack of resources. I get that. But schools need to be open and honest that this is happening.

And back to the OP's daughter. It is in no way her responsibility to ensure disruption is kept to a minimum. She is a child and responsible only for her own behaviour in class. Opposition to such strategies doesn't boil down to discrimination against children with additional needs.

Definitely best to speak to the teacher (who may have no idea that your dd is feeling like this)

Ginger No, if someone says it's unfair Group A gets priority over Group B, they normally don't mean that they think that Group B should get priority over Group A. Accusing them of doing so, as you did, is simply wrong (although I admit it's extremely common for people to do this).

Agruffalo. Fair comment. So why should that reasoning not apply to my child?

Ginger, I don't know the answer, but my now well behaved child used to be too chatty with his mate. Him and his friend was made to sit on their own away from each other. Teacher was very strict. He learned the lesson.

The poster said this....

"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."

I hardly think it is out of line to then ask if he felt that the A pupils getting A* were more important than the D pupils getting the C. You will note there was a question mark at the end of my question, yes?

Quite! I most certainly do believe that those children reaching D grade with the potential to achieve a C should be given all the support possible to ensure they reach that C. I just don't believe that their needs should be prioritised over the A pupil with the potential to get an A* or indeed the B pupil with the potential to reach an A. In fact, I can almost guarantee that those poor students sitting on a C with the potential to get a B will almost certainly be the least likely to get any extra targeted support.

Auser I did actually post a solution that ideally would be tried to find a perfect fit for all. It isn't mentioned in the OP if the louder children were learning less from being around other loud children. Surely if they are still getting distracted and being loud whilst still sat next to a quieter child then that obviously isn't the answer either?

Ginger I don't have all the answers. I gave a suggestion upthread to try, what are your suggestions to make it work for everyone? If the louder children are impacting on other children's education to the point that they can't sit next to anyone that won't be affected then I fail to see what else the teacher can do without more adequate support. I'm sad that's the answer I'm giving. In my primary there was a class adapted for any children with extra needs, is that not acceptable? I'm aware not all have the resources for this which is maybe the root of the problem.

Rubbish.
We had these badly behaved children sat next to my quiet DD. Only thing affected was her confidence and learning.
Go in Op

I think you're being a little disingenuous there. It's quite clear that I'm making the point that neither group should receive priority and that both sets of children should be equally supported to reach their potential.

In my primary there was a class adapted for any children with extra needs, is that not acceptable?

But how is this "inclusive" education? Segregating the children with SNs into another classroom?

what are your suggestions to make it work for everyone?

I don't think there is a valid suggestion to make it work for "everyone." Every situation, by virtue of the fact that it's different children, different needs, different schools, different levels of support... it's all different. But over and over on MN, we see the suggestions immediately of "move them away from the other children - move them elsewhere - get them out of mainstream - be stricter - etc etc."

The OP here has assumed it's because her child is a good influence. We don't know this. She doesn't know this. Why? Because she didn't ask, she assumed. Just because that happened last year, that doesn't mean this new teacher has the same methods. The best thing for her to do is ask the teacher and explore what options are available.

But playing the "I don't want that child sitting next to my child" game isn't helpful. It's NIMBY on a classroom level, and it doesn't teach your child anything about life. Those that have disabilities are part of society and the sooner children (and parents) learn about that and become familiar with that, the sooner we have less of these threads with people not wanting to have to deal with the children at "that table." These are PEOPLE you are talking about. It would be nice if we all could remember that.

I hardly think it is out of line to then ask if he felt that the A pupils getting A star were more important than the D pupils getting the C. You will note there was a question mark at the end of my question, yes?

What you wrote was:

"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"

People don't normally phrase genuine questions as "So you believe X?" They say "Do you believe X, then?" or "Do you think that X?" and wait for the person questioned to respond. It's pretty obvious that in this case your "question" was simply a strawman set up to make a contrast with your own, superior, belief immediately following. This is called the fallacy of the complex question (one where the question assumes the answer) and is a very common form of straw man argument.

Hmm. The gap in my post above should have said: "and wait for the other person to respond". That will teach me to try to use italics

kesstrel Wow. Okay. We'll try this.... Do you think it is helpful to be pedantic and attack how I ask a question in an attempt to make me appear aggressive and argumentative when I was simply countering a comment by a previous poster?

But why on Earth would I be suggesting the A students take priority?

And @ not wanting to be portrayed as aggressive and argumentative when you post,
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 "Aggressive and pedantic?" No, I simply get cross when I see people using unfair tactics in arguments. It's not just unfair to the person whose argument is being "simply countered" in this misleading way - it's also very bad for honest discussion. Property has now had to waste time countering your misrepresentation, (in case you hadn't noticed), when she could have been engaging in more interesting discussion. That's just one reason why such tactics are problematic. The other is that they tend to make people feel defensive and under attack. Something which you appear to dislike yourself....

Property Crikey, I hadn't seen that. Oh dear.

It's not aggressive or argumentative to think that at all. Especially as some people actually do think that way.

And as I don't know you personally PQ, I have no idea. So I asked, because what you said gave me that impression. And yes, I actually know people who DO feel that way - I actually have a sibling that voices that opinion quite regularly, much to my disgust. But then, she thinks Trump is the bee's knees, too. Scary stuff, that.

kesstrel Please let me know when you're done lecturing me on the appropriate way to discuss things on MN. Frankly I've had to waste enough time dealing with it, and I could have been engaging in more interesting discussion. Such tactics are so problematic.

Something which you appear to dislike yourself....

There go those assumptions again...

Lots of responses!

Firstly, these are absolutely not SN children. They are bright children who just talk too much in class!

They sit in pairs - not group tables like in earlier school years. Someone further give in the thread mentioned desk layout.

Seating is always fluid. I realise that. They have already had multiple moves. This is typical and I expect it. It has happened every year.
I am not against my child sitting next to any difficult child - SN or otherwise (I say this as the parent of another child who does have SN). If she is happy and learning then I'm fine with it. The only other time I have spoken to a teacher about seating was when she sat next a boy who used to make fun of her any time there was green teacher writing on the page (ie, areas for improvement).

I am not saying get needs are any more important than any other child. But she does now seem to be in the middle of a particularly chatty group (her desk partner is talkative, as are the pairs in front and next to them) so she gets caught in the middle of it and she is getting upset that they keep losing house points when she isn't involved in the talking

GingerIvy - yes, I did assume it's because she is a good influence. I will speak to the teacher to ask her. But as I said previously, I don't think it's an effort to bring her out of her shell as she isn't that shy that she doesn't contribute.

kilmuir thank you for the support. It is her confidence and learning being affected hence my original post in here raising it!

I will just add that, from what I've read, there are plenty of neurotypical children who are overly talkative and disruptive in class, and who, at Year 5, would be able to control their behaviour if the school made this a priority. Integrating SEN children in would actually be far easier if classes were better behaved generally. Indeed, some people believe that back when traditional education was the norm, many (undiagnosed in those days) ASD children were able to cope without assistance, because the classroom was generally quiet and orderly.

I can remember this happening to me at primary school and actually getting up and moving as it got too much. I think as soon as it affects learning or self confidence it is unfair. These children are not here to babysit these children and also it is fundamentally wrong to thwart the progress of one child in order to try to raise the progress of another.
Surely at year five with no SN these children can control it.

Absolutely, Kesstrel! My child with asd would be unable to cope in mainstream however a large number of children with Asbergers which often goes hand in hand with severe sensory issues would cope very well in a calm quiet orderly, more traditional learning environment in a way that they simply cannot in many modern classrooms. I also believe, and I say this even as a lefty leaning teacher, that order and calm are massively conducive to a good learning experience for all pupils regardless of their temperament or difficulties.

But playing the "I don't want that child sitting next to my child" game isn't helpful. It's NIMBY on a classroom level, and it doesn't teach your child anything about life. Those that have disabilities are part of society and the sooner children (and parents) learn about that and become familiar with that, the sooner we have less of these threads with people not wanting to have to deal with the children at "that table."

Christ on a Bike! Nowhere has the OP said that the other children have disabilities. She has said taey are chatterboxes and a bit lively.
AFYI, not every child who plays up in class has a disability. Believe it or not there are some children who play up for no other reason than they can.

People seem determined to see things where there's nothing to see.
Must be a full moon or something.