"They've made two girls unhappy to make one boy happier."

[GreeboIsMySpiritAnimal]

So said my DD, on her return from school having today, having been separated from her female partner, whom she got on really well with and worked well with, so that a boy, who didn't get on with his partner, could be sat with her instead.

It just seems like a microcosm of society in general. Let's make a large number of women unhappy, so that a small group of men can be happier.

I know this isn't about disruptive children but I taught my girls not to be that girl that is used to regulate someone else's behaviour. I ask them to give it a couple of lessons and If the behaviour is a problem ask to be moved. Put the ball in their hands, get them talking to the teachers, it's a valuable skill to learn especially for secondary school.

So maybe the boys don't get on and it was a problem for their learning so one asked to be moved. Your child is collateral damage and it does seem unfair to her and if it causes her problems then yes say something but 'life isn't fair' as my dad would say.
Being upset you're not sitting by your mate or another child having to sit with someone who actively affects their learning. If the roles were reversed what would you want?

It’s not always a boy/girl thing (DS spent parts of last year sitting next to a girl who irritated and distracted him because the teacher thought he could help her “improve her vocabulary” (to quote teacher. DS, thanks to his autism, is a walking thesaurus)).

I hated this at school, as I was used as a buffer for shitty boys. I hated it when I was a teacher and tried not to do it. It's unfair, pure and simple. It relies on the girl being 'nice'. Fuck that.

The op didn't say it was because of bad behaviour though. Just that the two boys didn't get on. If the ops DD didn't get on with the girl she was sitting next to would you want the teacher to move one of them or tell them to just get on with it?

Yes Frankly. I've always told my dds that they won't get to sit with fheir friends all the time. And to just get on with their work. I would not intervene if they didnt like eachother particularly but were able to sit next to eachother and be polite and do their work.

I'm sure most parents are the same. Only when it begins a problem, like when they were getting their stuff thrown about or physically hurt would I say anything.

My DS is sat next to a ‘naughty ‘ boy because he’s a good influence and in his words ‘I just ignore him and get on with my work’. It’s not a boy/girl thing it’s a good influence child next to somebody who needs a bit of ‘coaching’.

I'm sure most parents don't go in nor would teachers intervene cos they weren't sat next to their bff

In order to uproot 2 kids wgo were working well next to each other ajd causing no Issues there had ti be more to the boys case than not liking their partner very much surely?

It's not about the moving. It's the title of the thread, what DD said, and how often that happens. That's what's bothering me.

Sorry I'm.on.your side op just trying to explain that parents aren't usually that precious they expect their kids to he sat next to heir friends all the time, so clearly its a behaviour management thing ajd that's not what kids are there for. To absorb bad behaviour even when when it's to their detriment

Wasn't aimed at you, @Whatwouldscullydo. Just trying to get across it's not really about who sits where, more my reaction to DD's (I think) very insightful point, and the realisation of how often that happens.

Yes its clearly happened enough for her to have noticed it and feel confident to point it out.

There's far to many schools doing this whoke boy girl boy girl seating plan thing for it to be a coincidence and therefor already pre decided that boys will be a pain in the arse which I'm sure fir some is a self fulfilling prophecy and it isn't good fir the boys either to not he set higher expectations, and that the girls will just absorb it. Taking full advantage if the fact that girls don't speak up .

How exactly is it helping the more able child?

lnstead of able children relying on each other they have to use their abilities to help less able.. So teaching them to be relied on and not rely on others? So really more of the expectation of females to put others first?

So really more of the expectation of females to put others first?

No because the pairing works both ways, I pair hard working sensible boys with ‘less able’ more distracted girls

It really doesn't help the more able child - studies have repeatedly shown this. The reason grammar schools are a huge issue is that if you take away the more able kids the others sink lower because they're not "pulled up" by the bright kids. The bright kids do better because they're not "pulled down" by the less bright kids.

It changes the dynamic of the class. I teach Y2 and have moved seats around nearly everyday to try and create an environment which is the most conducive to learning. I've moved one very chatty boy four times and have finally found a seat where he's not going to turn around or shout out as much thus disrupting the whole class and slowing everything down. Yes that has involved being beside the quieter girls and boys but they're still working hard. I don't think my prime consideration when seating is the social connections of every child and whether X is sitting beside their bff. Playtime is for time with your mates. Obviously if I had violent children or attempts at bullying I will modify this and try to sit on their own. You have to find a solution that works for the majority which is not always all 30 children.

Back in the mists of time when I was in reception, I used to be desperately anxious to get to school early (which didn't always happen as I had 2 younger siblings).

If I didn't then someone called Barry used to sit in my place.

I was on a separate table with three others, as because of demographics etc, we had been at school a term longer than the rest of our year group. There was me, Elizabeth, Jackie and Richard.

Apparently Richard needed a friend to sit next to because he was the only boy .

I ended up next to Tina who was quite a bit younger and not much company (sorry Tina x).

Obviously if I had violent children or attempts at bullying I will modify this and try to sit on their own. You have to find a solution that works for the majority which is not always all 30 children

So having admitted you pick the quieter children to place the more disruptive kids next to, how do you keep on top of the bullying when these quieter ones are far less likely to say anything?

Sounds a bit like you are happy for there to be collateral damage as you know you can't keep everyone happy anyway.

Not saying that's what you meant but it is the quiet kids that often end up in this situation and that means they could well be tolerating all sorts

It might not be a girl/boy thing..... but it probably is. Because girls often behave better so they're sent in to moderate the bad behaviour of boys, DD is one of them. I have every sympathy with teachers who are doing a difficult and stressful job but that doesn't make it ok. Imagine how far and fast they would progress if we let the quiet well behaved girls get on with their work instead of holding them back to the level of the worst behaved boys? I don't agree with private schools but sometimes I wonder if I would send DD to a girls school if I had the money. That isn't the solution of course, the real issue is what is going on in our society that means girls are conditioned to be quiet and well behaved and boys are not.

@malloo

Because girls often behave better so they're sent in to moderate the bad behaviour of boys

That just isn’t true. Most the kids in my classes with major behaviour needs are girls

The theory behind it is it helps both the more able child - in this case you daughter - and the weaker student

No, it just holds the more able child back and the weaker student copies their work without learning anything. How do I know this? I know this because I’m a primary school teacher. I do my very best not to use girls as buffers because of the societal expectations on women to act as buffers for men in general and because I know so many other teachers will do it. It’s difficult if you have a girl-heavy class. Generally I switch the children around frequently so that no one has to put up for too long with being next to a child who is very hard to work next to. That’s inclusion for you ... and don’t think I’m being mean to the latter either - the less they annoy other children, the less they will be ‘othered’.

Its happening to my daughter. paired with a "naughty boy," but when asked to do maths with cubes and show their results everytime he batted it away so it looked like she/they hadn't done any work :(

I can see why private schoolsn hrive if they can actually get on with their work.

I think boy/girl is sad too. I worked much better and happier as a child if sat with a friend as it was a shared experience and I wasnt anxious about the person next to me. As an adult I still prefer a conference or work training if Im there with a friend...

Your DD learning would be much more disrupted if there wasn’t a seating plan and everyone sat next to a friend- equally they would spend for ever after each break trying to work out where to sit, and the shy quiet child would stand there not knowing where to sit and would look embarrassed and sad.

Like I’ve said 3 Times but no one seems to want to read, it isn’t just the hard working girls being sat by disruptive boys.... it works both ways. Lots of hard working clever boys sit next to more disruptive girls, but I guess as this is the feminist board people aren’t willing to accept that. Trust me- I see it daily.

@OverTheRainbow88

Your DD learning would be much more disrupted if there wasn’t a seating plan and everyone sat next to a friend- equally they would spend for ever after each break trying to work out where to sit, and the shy quiet child would stand there not knowing where to sit and would look embarrassed and sad.

Like I’ve said 3 Times but no one seems to want to read, it isn’t just the hard working girls being sat by disruptive boys.... it works both ways. Lots of hard working clever boys sit next to more disruptive girls, but I guess as this is the feminist board people aren’t willing to accept that. Trust me- I see it daily.

I have a son. A clever, hard-working, well-behaved son. I'm in no way anti-boy! And I've never suggested that there shouldn't be a seating plan, that would be ridiculous - especially at the moment.

But nonetheless it is the case that women spend their lives making sacrifices to keep men happy, and it pisses me off. And it makes me sad that DD is already affected by it.

I often do a boy/girl seating plan to begin the year - not to get girls sitting next to boys, but so that all are in a position where they are less likely to go off task because they are distracted by friends.

I absolutely agree about not using compliant girls to absorb any bad behaviour - I have one such DD myself and it worries me - but in small classrooms with limited options for seating plans, it would be madness to group those together who may be looking for opportunities to play up and go off task. They are separated, which means they have to sit next to focused students. In my classroom, the sex of said focused student is irrelevant.

Whatever way round it is surely the behaviour needs dealing with? As in actually properly dealt with. Not hidden or absorbed by placing select children who will keep quiet and do whatever the teachers ask of them without question.

By yr 5/6 they really dont give a crap about reflection rooms and surely by then you have basically run out of kids who's parents haven't had enough of their kid being prevented from doing their work and asked to have them moved?

I think I'd want to hear the teacher's perspective on this. Are you quite sure that your daughter and her friend were working together well? Girls are perfectly capable of being disruptive when working with their mates. And perhaps the boy was being bullied and it was felt that he needed a break from that?