Quiet kids as table buffers for louder kids

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What does this mean?

Assigned seating in class or at lunch where well behaved kids are sprinkled amongst the troublemakers.

I mean, isn't that just how assigned seating works? Or are you suggesting labeling each kid as well-behaved or trouble maker and segregating accordingly? Hopefully you realize how silly that sounds.

Not silly at all- common. For example at a table of four a teacher will put: 2 well behaved girls and one quiet boy with a troublemaking boy. Never more than one troublemaker together. It is pretty obvious.

I'm not a teacher .... but that seems like a very practical approach. What would you prefer, all the troublemakers grouped together at one table?? That would be a disaster for everyone in the room.

I would prefer that disruptive kids who can’t behave themselves in a mainstream classroom in a way that allows everyone else to learn are removed from mainstream classrooms. In previous decades the teachers had one of those kid in every class but now there’s a group. It’s not fair to the kids who are at school to learn.

Well then you can try to get appointed as the secretary of education and can dictate Us education policy and norms.

And lemme tell you when I was a kid in the 80s there were plenty of trouble makers in mainstream classes. Your memory is deteriorating.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Your quiet kids are not “buffers” - they are just getting assigned to wherever they get assigned to. I get that you dislike the “loud”
kids and think they get special treatment, but your “quiet” kid does not deserve special treatment either.

Well, no. Kids are sent to school to learn. Your loud kid has no right to keep my kid from hearing the teacher. My quiet child is not keeping your child from learning.

Your boring kid isn’t contributing much to the discussion so they aren’t helping my kid learn either

NP. It's not any child's job to teach at school. It's the teachers' job to facilitate the children accessing the curriculum. There's one child in this scenario blocking that goal, and it isn't the quiet one.

Maybe if school wasn’t so boring and dumbed down it wouldn’t be an issue.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What does this mean?

Assigned seating in class or at lunch where well behaved kids are sprinkled amongst the troublemakers.

Why is this such a bad thing? My mom tells me how she was always proud when the teachers told her what a good student/role model I was and how they seated me near kids who needed a good influence. I vaguely remember some rowdy boys in elementary school, but have no memorable trauma of being sprinkled in. My DS is one of the calmer boys in class and I know the teacher tries to break up the louder kids by including some of the quieter kids at the table. I think a mix of personalities is good.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What does this mean?

Assigned seating in class or at lunch where well behaved kids are sprinkled amongst the troublemakers.

Why is this such a bad thing? My mom tells me how she was always proud when the teachers told her what a good student/role model I was and how they seated me near kids who needed a good influence. I vaguely remember some rowdy boys in elementary school, but have no memorable trauma of being sprinkled in. My DS is one of the calmer boys in class and I know the teacher tries to break up the louder kids by including some of the quieter kids at the table. I think a mix of personalities is good.

When we were kids truly disruptive kids were sent to the principal or into the hall. That doesn’t happen anymore

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have been on both sides of this.

As a teacher, yes I always did this.

As a parent I have been annoyed as my child has been used as a buffer child consistently.

I am not sure what you think the alternative is though?

I have the kid who won't stop talking and I ask that she not be put near people she would prefer to talk to. Keeps her quiet, she won't bug her neighbor, and everyone can focus on their work better. Why does this bother the "buffer"? They weren't going to misbehave or talk either way so the end result is the same for them. But now the classroom has less chatter.

Did it occur to you to teach your kid how to behave in a classroom setting?

Well, she has ADHD, so how could I "teach" her to do that?

WTF? Are you saying your child is unteachable? Having ADHD is not an ‘anything goes’ card everyone can learn to behave.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have been on both sides of this.

As a teacher, yes I always did this.

As a parent I have been annoyed as my child has been used as a buffer child consistently.

I am not sure what you think the alternative is though?

I have the kid who won't stop talking and I ask that she not be put near people she would prefer to talk to. Keeps her quiet, she won't bug her neighbor, and everyone can focus on their work better. Why does this bother the "buffer"? They weren't going to misbehave or talk either way so the end result is the same for them. But now the classroom has less chatter.

Did it occur to you to teach your kid how to behave in a classroom setting?

Well, she has ADHD, so how could I "teach" her to do that?

WTF? Are you saying your child is unteachable? Having ADHD is not an ‘anything goes’ card everyone can learn to behave.

I'm not the one in the classroom. It's the teacher's job to set the classroom rules. I don't run a classroom at home so we have different rules.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What does this mean?

Assigned seating in class or at lunch where well behaved kids are sprinkled amongst the troublemakers.

I mean, isn't that just how assigned seating works? Or are you suggesting labeling each kid as well-behaved or trouble maker and segregating accordingly? Hopefully you realize how silly that sounds.

Sure it “sounds” silly when you categorize it as segregation according to levels of observed mis-behavior.

But the problem is, teachers routinely do the reverse of this as a matter of practice in an attempt to mitigate the disruptions rather than group disruptive kids together.

OP is pointing out that this may be a reasonable solution to the teacher, but it actually harms the learning experience of the attentive, behaving child by saddling them with the responsibility of tolerating and balancing out the antics of the misbehaving inattentive kids.
Mostly this is just a vent from OP to express that it’s frustrating as a parent when you see that your well-behaved child is being used as a buffer to curb other students’ poor behavior. And instead of being rewarded for their good behavior by allowing them to sit next to friends who may also be studious, attentive kids, they are “punished” by having to be subjected to the antics of the kids who need the “influence” of her child.
In classroom management, this means that it’s always the poorly behaved child’s needs that are centered.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What does this mean?

Assigned seating in class or at lunch where well behaved kids are sprinkled amongst the troublemakers.

I mean, isn't that just how assigned seating works? Or are you suggesting labeling each kid as well-behaved or trouble maker and segregating accordingly? Hopefully you realize how silly that sounds.

Sure it “sounds” silly when you categorize it as segregation according to levels of observed mis-behavior.

But the problem is, teachers routinely do the reverse of this as a matter of practice in an attempt to mitigate the disruptions rather than group disruptive kids together.

OP is pointing out that this may be a reasonable solution to the teacher, but it actually harms the learning experience of the attentive, behaving child by saddling them with the responsibility of tolerating and balancing out the antics of the misbehaving inattentive kids.
Mostly this is just a vent from OP to express that it’s frustrating as a parent when you see that your well-behaved child is being used as a buffer to curb other students’ poor behavior. And instead of being rewarded for their good behavior by allowing them to sit next to friends who may also be studious, attentive kids, they are “punished” by having to be subjected to the antics of the kids who need the “influence” of her child.
In classroom management, this means that it’s always the poorly behaved child’s needs that are centered.

I hate to be the one to tell you, that when your studious, attentive, quiet child is put next to her bestie, she becomes a non-studious, non-attentive, non-quiet child.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Your quiet kids are not “buffers” - they are just getting assigned to wherever they get assigned to. I get that you dislike the “loud”
kids and think they get special treatment, but your “quiet” kid does not deserve special treatment either.

Well, no. Kids are sent to school to learn. Your loud kid has no right to keep my kid from hearing the teacher. My quiet child is not keeping your child from learning.

Your boring kid isn’t contributing much to the discussion so they aren’t helping my kid learn either

NP. It's not any child's job to teach at school. It's the teachers' job to facilitate the children accessing the curriculum. There's one child in this scenario blocking that goal, and it isn't the quiet one.

Maybe if school wasn’t so boring and dumbed down it wouldn’t be an issue.

Okay, sure. But as an adult, you need to step up to fix that, not expect some child to do your work for you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Your quiet kids are not “buffers” - they are just getting assigned to wherever they get assigned to. I get that you dislike the “loud”
kids and think they get special treatment, but your “quiet” kid does not deserve special treatment either.

Well, no. Kids are sent to school to learn. Your loud kid has no right to keep my kid from hearing the teacher. My quiet child is not keeping your child from learning.

Your boring kid isn’t contributing much to the discussion so they aren’t helping my kid learn either

NP. It's not any child's job to teach at school. It's the teachers' job to facilitate the children accessing the curriculum. There's one child in this scenario blocking that goal, and it isn't the quiet one.

Maybe if school wasn’t so boring and dumbed down it wouldn’t be an issue.

Okay, sure. But as an adult, you need to step up to fix that, not expect some child to do your work for you.

No. That’s the teachers job.

[Anonymous]

Maybe try Catholic school. They don’t mess around with discipline. The first month of 9th grade, my DS talked to someone while his teacher was talking (Catholic HS) and immediately had one hour detention that day PLUS had to write a 2 page essay about why it was disrespectful, disruptive, etc. DS thought it was grossly unfair, complained while writing the essay, etc. Guess what? One year later and he has never been in trouble for talking in class again.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What does this mean?

Assigned seating in class or at lunch where well behaved kids are sprinkled amongst the troublemakers.

I mean, isn't that just how assigned seating works? Or are you suggesting labeling each kid as well-behaved or trouble maker and segregating accordingly? Hopefully you realize how silly that sounds.

Sure it “sounds” silly when you categorize it as segregation according to levels of observed mis-behavior.

But the problem is, teachers routinely do the reverse of this as a matter of practice in an attempt to mitigate the disruptions rather than group disruptive kids together.

OP is pointing out that this may be a reasonable solution to the teacher, but it actually harms the learning experience of the attentive, behaving child by saddling them with the responsibility of tolerating and balancing out the antics of the misbehaving inattentive kids.
Mostly this is just a vent from OP to express that it’s frustrating as a parent when you see that your well-behaved child is being used as a buffer to curb other students’ poor behavior. And instead of being rewarded for their good behavior by allowing them to sit next to friends who may also be studious, attentive kids, they are “punished” by having to be subjected to the antics of the kids who need the “influence” of her child.
In classroom management, this means that it’s always the poorly behaved child’s needs that are centered.

I hate to be the one to tell you, that when your studious, attentive, quiet child is put next to her bestie, she becomes a non-studious, non-attentive, non-quiet child.

Wow. What an obnoxious post.
Way to miss the point entirely.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have been on both sides of this.

As a teacher, yes I always did this.

As a parent I have been annoyed as my child has been used as a buffer child consistently.

I am not sure what you think the alternative is though?

I have the kid who won't stop talking and I ask that she not be put near people she would prefer to talk to. Keeps her quiet, she won't bug her neighbor, and everyone can focus on their work better. Why does this bother the "buffer"? They weren't going to misbehave or talk either way so the end result is the same for them. But now the classroom has less chatter.

Did it occur to you to teach your kid how to behave in a classroom setting?

Well, she has ADHD, so how could I "teach" her to do that?

WTF? Are you saying your child is unteachable? Having ADHD is not an ‘anything goes’ card everyone can learn to behave.

I'm not the one in the classroom. It's the teacher's job to set the classroom rules. I don't run a classroom at home so we have different rules.

I would like to add that i would welcome more consequences for my kid, there just are rarely any. She’s chatty but not majorly disruptive or disrespectful. I don’t get why the schools are loathe to discipline.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Listening to all these parents in here defending their kid’s poor behavior is exactly why great teachers are leaving the profession in droves and education is going in the toilet.

It is sad that kids aren’t able to cope being around other kids who act like kids. I don’t remember silent classrooms where nobody ever talked.

You are being deliberately obtuse and argumentative. That’s not what we are talking about and you know it.

Are you sure? The name calling of kids in here makes this whole thread a joke and impossibly to take seriously.

Try subbing in a public school for a day. You will no longer be confused what we mean.

Why would I do that? I don't even send my own kids to a public school. But chatty kids and people are everywhere shouting on their phones acting like they are the only people who exist. People need to learn to co-exist and that you can't control other people.

The problem is that kids aren’t just trying to “exist” in the same area as them. They’re forced to stay in the same area as disrespectful/disruptive kids while they’re trying to get an education at the same time.

Since there will be no solutions to that anytime soon, the bothered kids need to work on their coping strategies.

The bothered kids with involved parents will be moved, and the bothered kids with checked out parents will be put there instead. Not a great solution. Whenever this happens to one of my kids, I just get them moved. I’ve never received pushback.

Moved where? There are more than a couple disruptive kids in every class. Only exception (sometimes) are the AP classes or maybe honors, but neither of those are a guarantee either. We’ve established that a lot of disruptive annoying kids exist. They don’t get removed from class. They need a seat too. Where should they sit?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Listening to all these parents in here defending their kid’s poor behavior is exactly why great teachers are leaving the profession in droves and education is going in the toilet.

It is sad that kids aren’t able to cope being around other kids who act like kids. I don’t remember silent classrooms where nobody ever talked.

You are being deliberately obtuse and argumentative. That’s not what we are talking about and you know it.

Are you sure? The name calling of kids in here makes this whole thread a joke and impossibly to take seriously.

Try subbing in a public school for a day. You will no longer be confused what we mean.

Why would I do that? I don't even send my own kids to a public school. But chatty kids and people are everywhere shouting on their phones acting like they are the only people who exist. People need to learn to co-exist and that you can't control other people.

The problem is that kids aren’t just trying to “exist” in the same area as them. They’re forced to stay in the same area as disrespectful/disruptive kids while they’re trying to get an education at the same time.

Since there will be no solutions to that anytime soon, the bothered kids need to work on their coping strategies.

The bothered kids with involved parents will be moved, and the bothered kids with checked out parents will be put there instead. Not a great solution. Whenever this happens to one of my kids, I just get them moved. I’ve never received pushback.

Moved where? There are more than a couple disruptive kids in every class. Only exception (sometimes) are the AP classes or maybe honors, but neither of those are a guarantee either. We’ve established that a lot of disruptive annoying kids exist. They don’t get removed from class. They need a seat too. Where should they sit?

Not my problem, lady.