'Well-behaved' girls 'socialising' 'challenging' boys at primary school

[Polynerd]

I just saw a casual mention on Twitter of the phenomenon of well-behaved girls being sat next to challenging boys to 'socialise' them. I was totally shocked because I suddenly realised that my youngest (going into Y2) has mentioned to me that this had happened to her. Is this something that happens regularly? Should I be talking to next year's teacher about this? I don't want my six-year-old daughter thinking it is her responsibility to make a load of six-year-old boys conform to classroom behavioural standards.

Speaking and listening skills (especially important in schools with lots of pupils with EAL) are developed, understanding of how they are learning (metacognition), questioning each others ideas, bouncing ideas off each others, like adults do in grown up work. Developing empathy (god forbid!)

1. Speaking and listening skills are better developed via whole class discussion, with the teacher modelling and requiring well-constructed sentence structure and extended vocabulary, etc. Interacting primarily with children of the same age and often the same language deficits can only go so far.
2. There is no evidence that this is a good

way of developing metacognition. Particularly since most people's experience of group work is that one or two people actually do the work, and the others bunk off (and thus gain nothing).

1. While brief sessions of paired discussion can be useful in developing ideas and promoting speaking and listening, a great deal of group work time tends to be spent off-topic. It's impossible for a teacher to police a number of groups at once to ensure this doesn't happen.
2. Very little time is spent by adult at work "bouncing ideas off each other". Most group projects in the workplace involve individuals getting on individually with their own assigned tasks.
3. There is little evidence that this practice "develops empathy" and quite a lot that it provokes resentment. Children have plenty of opportunity in their day to day interactions to develop empathy, which is a natural and gradual developmental process.
4. Small amounts of group work are fine, but many schools use it far too much. The opportunity cost of doing so is enormous, in terms of time that could be better spent in more effective teaching, especially since so many lower-achieving children essentially spend a lot of it not actually working or learning.

Well to be honest we didn't know about his background. The teacher was very careful not to reveal it. It was only on chatting to his foster parents that we knew he was in foster care and that was all. Not that it in any way changed our minds.

It actually helped our daughter too on reflection. She became much more engaged with the rest of her peers.

The only person it benefits is the teacher.

No one's really answered why it's hardly ever the assertive confident kids picked. The ones who would put their hands up with "sir/miss X is kicking me under the table"

Its the ones who would put up with being kicked under the table who are picked. If you are really lucky there's a glare or telling off for talking if you tell them to stop it.

placemats

Ah I see. I have seen similar good pairings.

My last post was in response to Ladybirds

Sorry cross post. Ladybirds

To add, my daughter went to an all girls school and sixth form after primary and then to a top university. She did get that first in her degree and is successfully working in London and loving it.

I think group worked could be used in differentiation, small groups of the brightest well behaved who can be trusted to work well together and the teacher freed up to focus more on the struggling children.

It happened to me at school (I’m 51) and to both my DDs (18 and 15) at primary school.

And I wonder if the teachers on here saying they use this technique have any idea how stressful and worrying it is for the focused kid. My dd1 in particular used to be in tears about being constantly placed next to the same disruptive boy, term after term. It was left up to us to teach her coping strategies because the teachers couldn’t see a problem.

The benefits are that all children grow up more tolerant and accepting of differences.

BULLSHIT

This is an ideological position.

If someone has their confidence destroyed in the process of this, how does that make them more accepting? Though conditioning to be compliant?

And the point is that only certain kids are ever asked to be the ones who are 'more tolerant'. What about the kids who witness how being saddled with a disruptive or less clever pupil as a responsibility, is a good reason not to be tolerant or not to show that you are clever / a good reason to misbehave.

Seriously, what is the bull crap based on?

It plays to the interests of the centre and the majority, but it really has negative effects for a lot of individual kids. It doesn't necessarily make for tolerance.

Mixing with different groups IS helpful and SHOULD be encouraged socially, but there does need to be consideration as to where this is done and the impact on education in the process.

No one ever focuses on or considers the kids for whom this policy has long lasting devastating effects cos of 'the greater good' mentality. There should be much more consideration of this, not a lazy attitude of doing so by just chucking kids together and hoping it works out for them both.

That comment makes me VERY angry tbh.

Girl’s schools are best for girls
It will still happen in an all girl environment.

Yes. It happened to my dd and was very stressful for her.
Also happened to DS who was good friends with a lovely little girl with SN. He was tasked with teaching her to add up and take away. He was 7. Every day in number work he was told this was his responsibility. He became very anxious and sad that he wasn't succeeding.
But IME it happens more with girls.
But our primary school system consistently fails boys. It is a complex issue.

And the point is that only certain kids are ever asked to be the ones who are 'more tolerant'. What about the kids who witness how being saddled with a disruptive or less clever pupil as a responsibility, is a good reason not to be tolerant or not to show that you are clever / a good reason to misbehave

Well that's just it isn't it? I mean tolerance should be being caught to everyone and any one all the time. It's surely never just been about putting up and shutting up with certain behaviours no matter how badly it impacts you.

JimmyGrimble

"Girl’s schools are best for girls"
It will still happen in an all girl environment.

To a much lesser extent. When I went from mixed primary to all-girl secondary, I went from physical beatings and sexual assault to a bit of cattiness and one outright bully who was shunned by everyone else in the year and eventually left.

Not having to face being held by two boys whilst a third punched me in the stomach, or having two boys corner me and grab my vulva, greatly improved my ability to focus in school and removed an enormous motivation to truant.

I'm in my mid 30s and this happened to me. I spent my entire GCSE French years next to the 'troublemaker'. In hindsight I assume he was in my class to separate him from his friend (I was top set and he really wasn't top set material), I found it difficult working with him and I do think I'd have done better not being sat next to him. The only plus side was that I bumped into him about 5 years ago and he thanked me for helping - apparently French was one the few gcses he didn't fail.

Me and my friends were also used as the befrienders for new starters. We absolutely hated this. We were at the worst school in the county so 99% of the people starting midterm were those who had been excluded from the better schools and whom quite frankly had absolutely no interest in socialising with us geeks yet if we didn't hang around with them we'd be in trouble.

Makes me appreciate my single sex education taught with aisles between the rows. I though it Dickensian at the time but if you didn’t want to be distracted it was hard for the distractor to achieve it without attracting the attention of the teacher.

I agree too much group work at secondary these days.

And we also have to ask where this tolerance is fit the quiet well behaved kids used. Being bright and capable or appearing not to be distracted etc who's to say the child involved isn't dealing equally with many issues . Do these issues only really matter if you disrupt a class or kick off in some way?

I know its been said

Yes it happens and benefits both parties

But not necessarily

No one's really answered why it's hardly ever the assertive confident kids picked. The ones who would put their hands up with "sir/miss X is kicking me under the table"
Its the ones who would put up with being kicked under the table who are picked. If you are really lucky there's a glare or telling off for talking if you tell them to stop it.
Because it's a lazy seating strategy in my opinion.

Sitting a disruptive student away from other disruptive students is reasonable.
Sitting a disruptive student next to quiet hard working students means the quiet hard working student is always expected to out up with their learning being affected and they also lose out when it comes to paired discussions (exception being if it's a normally disruptive student who behaves well for that teacher).

I tend to sit my more restless and disruptive students next to hard working, confident students (range of abilities) who'll not tolerate any nonsense. If they disrupt learning and I miss it, I know the students will call them out or make a fuss and I can intervene. Repeated attempts to disrupt other students is removal from the classroom.
I don't see why others should suffer.

But then again I've been told on MN that I'm very unreasonable for this approach

The same happened to my two dcs both boys.

Which makes me think that it’s not a well behaved girl vs badly behaved boy issue but more an easy way out for the teacher and the less well behaved child is less likely to get out of hand next to a well behaved child.

I have much more issue with the twitter line that implies that girls are the ones who are well behaved and boys the ones who aren’t.

Disruptive children, boys or girls, have to sit somewhere. Most classrooms don’t have space to sit them completely separately.

Maisy I have seen your approach done by more or less every single teacher in primary.

My dcs hated it.

The oldest because yes he is bright and yes he is will speak up. But will only do after he had been annoyed for a while. He hated that because it disrupted HIS learning and being bright and able he actually wanted to learn and get on with it.

The youngest I had to intervene and go and see the teacher. Because he is a VERY quiet child. In primary he wouodnt have gone and see the teacher on his own accord (only his last Y6 teacher actually realised that . He was only ever seen as the quiet child that works hard doesn’t create a problem). So yes the teacher had more peace. The ‘less week behaved’ child was doing some work but it’s dc2 that paid the price..... by becoming even more anxious that he already was.

So yes i can see the reasons why a teacher wouod do that. I wouod really encourage you to be extremely careful with it because the scope for getting it wrong is HUGE.
Besides, why shouod it be always the same children who, year in and year out, have to put up with the same disruptive children (remember this carries on in secondary too, where they will, of course, all meet up again...)

Which makes me think that it’s not a well behaved girl vs badly behaved boy issue but more an easy way out for the teacher and the less well behaved child is less likely to get out of hand next to a well behaved child.
I agree.
It's fine to sit them next to A well behaved child (the vast majority of children in a class are usually well behaved). The issue is sitting them next to A quiet child who will probably feel unable to speak out if their learning is disrupted.

E.g. this year I sat a disruptive student (new arrival following exclusion) next to A well behaved confident student who I knew would take no crap. I was managing behaviour by the way so easy way out. One break the student came to see me and said 'Mrs Pops, can I move seats please. I'm really struggling with Timmy and it's putting me off when you have to keep coming over to speak to him or he has to be kicked out'. I moved them next lesson.
A quieter or shy child or a child wary of crossing the 'naughty' students probably wouldn't have felt able to do that. It would be wrong to put them in that situation.

well then you do a rotation.
30 children in the class, one disruptive one that needs ‘socialising’.
One week next to each of the other children will more or less cover it.
Rather than a whole term next to the same well behaved child.

Disruptive children, boys or girls, have to sit somewhere.

And is a classroom of 30 kids the right place at all?

If they are disruptive to that extent, then they aren't suited to such large groups, and have additional needs which would be better served by adults in a smaller group. Being disruptive is about a need for attention in some way - which should be addressed rather than shoved under the carpet as a problem for the flipping other kids!

HermioneGoesBackHome
The children have to be sat somewhere.

So yes, I will put them near more confident students to start with. Usually being near a more confident student and in a strict environment I tend to find there aren't ongoing issues.

The mistake you're making is in thinking that when I say 'hard working confident children of a range of abilities' that I mean the same 3 children. I don't. The vast majority of children I teach are wonderful, hard working, sensitive, sensible students who want to do well and a reasonable proportion of them (75% would say if something was wrong).

Here are the options:

1. Seat for learning and aim to have any potentially disruptive students split up from each other. Space them out arouns the room with pupils of similar ability but avoid lumbering the really quiet ones with them. Manage behaviour appropriately.

1. Sit disruptive students next to other disruptive students so they can have a table where they create their own pocket of disruption

1. Stick them next to really quiet quiet students and make it very obvious to the whole class why that's been done.

1. If there is space, single own child on a desk on their own

Consequences:

1. Usually (95% of the time) behaviour improves and I can tell the disruptive child they are sat with peers of a similar level and they are sat for learning. Much more positive cycle combined witj a focus on learning and firm boundaries means that very little disruption occurs moving forward.

1. The disruptive table drain my attention from the rest of the class because I'm busy policing behaviour. I get angry phone calls from parents claiming I'm spending too much time dealing witj a limited number of students and their child claims...

1. The quiet child suffers, the disruptive child is under no illusions the pairing is to do a "good child witj a naughty child" and so internalizes the idea that Mrs Pops thinks I'm a naughty child, she has low expectations so I may as well mess around because she doesnt think much of me anyway.

1. Same as 3, but the quiet child is spared some of the time but the disruptive child doesn't get paired discussion (and talk for learning helps improve writing), misses out on group tasks and zones out because what's the point. By missing out on elements of learning they don't do as well, and so become more disengaged because I'm crap at this subject so I might as well mess around.

I choose option 1 most of the time.