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?

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?

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.

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.

Sadly it is exactly the class management method many teachers use- seating kids by labels the teacher gives them (and that the kids then know)— it labels all the kids. Even more fun is when behaved kids called out for not keeping their seat mates in line.

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 is OP saying this is a good or bad thing?

I was just volunteering in my DD's class. On nearly every single boy's desk there was a sign taped on. It said something like "Remember to sit quietly, raise your hand, don't talk when others are speaking, don't touch other people" with a picture of a stop sign. I looked and didn't see any signs on girl desks.

What is going on with boys? Is school asking too much of boys? Do we need same sex classes? I do think that boys and girls learn differently.

I feel like it got better in MS where there is math tracking (no trouble makers in upper track) and informal ELA tracking as well.
Electives such as coding that are less attractive to loud kids are also a good way out.

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.

The only time it seems to happen is high school is teachers pairing kids for group work/group projects. Drives my DD crazy.

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.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What does this mean?

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

+1

This should be posted in the FCPS sub. Parents should know.

Anonymous wrote:What does this mean?

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

What does this mean?

This stopped after ES for us. Actually it stopped IN ES for us after I sent a scathing note about it.

For parents or teachers of high school kids, hoping you tell me at some point teachers stop using the quiet, listening, attentive kids as table blockers for the louder and misbehaving kids. I knew happened in lower ES grades, but surprised still going on in higher grades.