Quiet kids as table buffers for louder kids

[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?

Proper medication.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Do you think you should put the trouble makers together? That doesn’t sound like a recipe for a peaceful classroom. Instead of saying that you are putting the well behaved kids with the troublemakers, think of it as separating the troublemakers. You can’t keep them in a bunch or they ramp each other up. What do you suggest instead?

Teachers do their jobs and stop treating children as their meat shields. My good kid is not fodder for your lack of classroom discipline.

+1

DC was consistently put next to the kid who constantly missed directions, yet would not shut up. Nip it in the bud with the teacher, and flat out tell the teacher you demand your kid NEVER be next to that kid. Parents have to stand up for themselves.

It drags the whole class down, and my kid is not your 1:1, unless you want to generously pay me and DC cash, directly. Nope.

Good luck with that plan.

Then the loud kids sit by themselves. Done.

Also, if the teacher refuses to fix it, escalate, escalate, escalate. Good kids deserve a proper education, too.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Do you think you should put the trouble makers together? That doesn’t sound like a recipe for a peaceful classroom. Instead of saying that you are putting the well behaved kids with the troublemakers, think of it as separating the troublemakers. You can’t keep them in a bunch or they ramp each other up. What do you suggest instead?

Teachers do their jobs and stop treating children as their meat shields. My good kid is not fodder for your lack of classroom discipline.

+1

DC was consistently put next to the kid who constantly missed directions, yet would not shut up. Nip it in the bud with the teacher, and flat out tell the teacher you demand your kid NEVER be next to that kid. Parents have to stand up for themselves.

It drags the whole class down, and my kid is not your 1:1, unless you want to generously pay me and DC cash, directly. Nope.

Good luck with that plan.

Then the loud kids sit by themselves. Done.

This is the most effective and least disruptive approach.

It’s pure laziness and exploitation to try to get the quiet girls to handle classroom management for the teachers.

[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.

Do you think you should put the trouble makers together? That doesn’t sound like a recipe for a peaceful classroom. Instead of saying that you are putting the well behaved kids with the troublemakers, think of it as separating the troublemakers. You can’t keep them in a bunch or they ramp each other up. What do you suggest instead?

Teachers do their jobs and stop treating children as their meat shields. My good kid is not fodder for your lack of classroom discipline.

“Meat shield”? WTF?

You think putting all of the troublemakers together will give your kid a better classroom experience?

Do you even have kids?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Do you think you should put the trouble makers together? That doesn’t sound like a recipe for a peaceful classroom. Instead of saying that you are putting the well behaved kids with the troublemakers, think of it as separating the troublemakers. You can’t keep them in a bunch or they ramp each other up. What do you suggest instead?

Teachers do their jobs and stop treating children as their meat shields. My good kid is not fodder for your lack of classroom discipline.

+1

DC was consistently put next to the kid who constantly missed directions, yet would not shut up. Nip it in the bud with the teacher, and flat out tell the teacher you demand your kid NEVER be next to that kid. Parents have to stand up for themselves.

It drags the whole class down, and my kid is not your 1:1, unless you want to generously pay me and DC cash, directly. Nope.

Good luck with that plan.

Then the loud kids sit by themselves. Done.

Also, if the teacher refuses to fix it, escalate, escalate, escalate. Good kids deserve a proper education, too.

Please explain how putting all of the troublemakers together will give other kids a better classroom experience.

And share your age and age of your children.

[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.

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.

So, what are you proposing? That if there are 4 kids who talk too much, they all sit at the same table, and then no one can hear instruction?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I was a quiet kid and am a quiet adult, and this thread is kind of throwing me for a loop. I never thought of being quiet as a positive attribute, while being extroverted and gregarious as a negative one.
I have always wanted to be more like the “troublemakers.”

There's a time and a place for this type of personality. In a classroom while the teacher is teaching is not the time and place to be class clown.

How do you have a “time and place” for your personality?
Don’t we all have times and places where we wish we could change our personalities? I can’t tell you how many situations I have been in where I would have preferred to be someone who was more talkative and outgoing.

[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?

Proper medication.

Gee whiz. If it only it made her shut up and never talk. She already has preferential seating nearest the teacher with other kids like her. We're doing our best. Sorry your goody two shoes has to be inconvenienced once in awhile.

[Anonymous]

Maybe the issue is a teaching style in the early grades that is not appropriate for a lot of kids and a teaching workforce for early elementary that is dominated by women who don't have a clue how to engage a different type of personality beyond the quiet and well-behaved girl who can sit for long stretches stereotype.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I was a quiet kid and am a quiet adult, and this thread is kind of throwing me for a loop. I never thought of being quiet as a positive attribute, while being extroverted and gregarious as a negative one.
I have always wanted to be more like the “troublemakers.”

There's a time and a place for this type of personality. In a classroom while the teacher is teaching is not the time and place to be class clown.

How do you have a “time and place” for your personality?
Don’t we all have times and places where we wish we could change our personalities? I can’t tell you how many situations I have been in where I would have preferred to be someone who was more talkative and outgoing.

Sometimes we have to get out of our comfort zones and do the small talk, be conversational, and if that's not your personality you do your best then you get to go home and recharge. I'm an introvert by nature but sometimes I have to fake it until I make it.

[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?

Medication and a ball gag for all i care. Don't expect tweens and teen to do your job.

[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?

Medication and a ball gag for all i care. Don't expect tweens and teen to do your job.

For all you care? Stuff it. My kid can sit next to your and bug the shit out of her for all I care.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Maybe the issue is a teaching style in the early grades that is not appropriate for a lot of kids and a teaching workforce for early elementary that is dominated by women who don't have a clue how to engage a different type of personality beyond the quiet and well-behaved girl who can sit for long stretches stereotype.

BTW, I say this as a parent of a boy who could sit and do all the things any teacher ever wanted and was quiet and a girl who was chatty and had trouble sitting still for long periods when she was younger.

They are both thriving in high school and no she does not have ADHD and she is not a "troublemaker". Did her energy and chattiness annoy some teachers who were kind of lazy and boring and didn't seem to actually like children? Sure. The label troublemaker is terrible and you all who are saying that kind of suck.

[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?

Proper medication.

Why not give your kid anxiety medication if they can’t handle sitting next to a child who talks a lot? Why should we have to medicate our kids to please your kid? (Different poster)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Maybe the issue is a teaching style in the early grades that is not appropriate for a lot of kids and a teaching workforce for early elementary that is dominated by women who don't have a clue how to engage a different type of personality beyond the quiet and well-behaved girl who can sit for long stretches stereotype.

BTW, I say this as a parent of a boy who could sit and do all the things any teacher ever wanted and was quiet and a girl who was chatty and had trouble sitting still for long periods when she was younger.

They are both thriving in high school and no she does not have ADHD and she is not a "troublemaker". Did her energy and chattiness annoy some teachers who were kind of lazy and boring and didn't seem to actually like children? Sure. The label troublemaker is terrible and you all who are saying that kind of suck.

We're not talking about your DD's type if she was not labeled a troublemaker. These parents are well aware of their kids' issues. One of these kids can disrupt an entire class.