A seating plan is a teacher’s usual weapon of choice when establishing authority in a classroom. It sends out a clear message: “I am in charge.” And it provides tactical advantage - you set the players where you think they need to be to best facilitate learning.

Regardless of how you do the seating plan - girl-boy, fixed groups, alphabetical or countless other options - it seems to work. But work for whom?

Many of the methods we use for seating plans are more problematic than we might think. The perceived benefits are often false, the impact less positive than imagined and, in some circumstances, a seating plan could mean you are treating your students in an unfair, or discriminatory, way.

So, let’s take a look at some common seating plan approaches and scrutinise them in a little more detail.

1. Girl-boy-girl-boy

Why do we do it?

Most often, it’s done in an effort to encourage the two genders to mix. When large groups of students enter a room and choose their own seats, teachers usually find that they end up with boys on one half of the room, and the girls on the other.

Some also believe that mixing the genders like this prevents misbehaviour by breaking up groups of friends and discouraging stereotypical girl/boy behaviour. In addition, it is thought that it can have a positive impact on learning by encouraging the mixing of different viewpoints.

Potential pitfalls

Carolyn Jackson, head of educational research at Lancaster University, argues that a mixed-gender arrangement can in fact perpetuate unhelpful stereotypes. She explains that the idea that boys are all laddish cheeky chappies, and girls are all super-keen and obedient, is simply not true. We’re dealing with young people, not caricatures from the Beano, she says.

But when you build your seating plan girl-boy, Jackson argues, you are making a statement that you believe girls and boys are sufficiently different to justify dividing them up, and that there is something artificial about sitting girl-boy; that girls and boys aren’t meant to be friends.

In a recent blog for the University of Nottingham, Catherine Gripton, an assistant professor in primary education in the Faculty of Social Sciences, pushed this idea even further. She argued that “we want to avoid transmitting the message to children that there are only two genders or that they have to know which of these they identify with from as young as three or four years old” .

She cites evidence from The Gender Agenda government report and writes that this “shows that we are best to avoid gender labels and generally lessen the accentuation of gender in the classroom. Emphasising gender in primary schools, particularly the binary labels of ‘girl’ and ‘boy’, provides subtle yet sustained clear messages to children about themselves, their families and society as a whole”.

Meanwhile, in writing his book Boys Don’t Try? (co-authored with Matt Pinkett), secondary assistant head Mark Roberts found no evidence to suggest that this girl-boy seating approach had any benefit, but plenty to indicate - if indirectly - that it could be damaging for the reasons above.

So, what next?

It would seem that girl-boy seating definitely needs to go. “We want to dismantle gender stereotypes rather than reinforce the idea that girls behave and learn well or boys can’t regulate their own behaviour,” says Vivienne Porritt, head of WomenEd and a former secondary headteacher.

Roberts agrees. “Boy-girl seating plans used to be my default method of seating. I felt it helped minimise disruption,” he explains. “My feeling now is that the concerns are so serious that they override any other benefits associated with boy-girl seating.”

2. Fixed table groups according to attainment

Why do we do it?

Popular in primary schools, this strategy appears to have a lot going for it. It gives a sense of belonging, and keeping the same students together in a group can allow them to feel like a mini team in a larger class.

It’s also attractive to teachers because seating students according to attainment makes it easier to lead differentiated activities. In theory, children working on the same tasks can more easily help each other.

Potential pitfalls

When you put students into a seating plan based on attainment groups, you are - according to much of the research in this area - sending a clear message to them: “This is your place in the class, and we have a limit of what we expect of you.”

Rachel Marks, author of Ability-grouping in Primary Schools: case studies and critical debates and assistant programme leader for the PGCE primary at the University of Brighton, says that studies have shown that the use of ability groups can have incredibly negative effects on children in terms of how they perceive their own ability. The evidence suggests that those effects will trail them throughout their primary school life.

And in her research paper “Children put in the bottom maths group at primary believe they’ll never be any good”, she outlines how, although data is meant to be used to choose these groups, the decision is often influenced by year of birth, social background and special educational needs and disabilities (SEND). This study is backed up by a wealth of research from across the world.

Other academics frequently point out that seating in groups by attainment is usually done using a single literacy and/or numeracy metric that is not representative of attainment across every subject - so it is not as useful as some believe for differentiating work. And differentiation itself is problematic, as argued by Ian Taylor in Tes (“We need to talk about differentiation”, 8 November 2019).

So, what next?

How, then, should students be grouped instead? Becky Taylor, co-author of Reassessing ‘Ability’ Grouping and a senior research practitioner at UCL Institute of Education, suggests that any kind of fixed table grouping in a class is counter-productive, and says that instead we should arrange groups based on the students’ needs in that lesson.

“Our advice is that when within-class groups are used, they should be flexible and arranged for the material that is going to be taught in that lesson - for example, by checking pupils’ gaps in their learning first, then arranging groups based on what pupils need to learn,” she explains.

It is important to note that, compared with the studies into ability grouping, there is far less research into the effects of mixed attainment teaching and what effective practice should look like.

3. Pairing low-attaining and high-attaining pupils

Why do we do it?

Some school policies ask for the current “working at” level to be recorded on a seating plan, and even suggest placing students who are considered “more able” or “previous higher-level attainers” next to “less able” or “previous lower-level attainers” in a bid to encourage teaching between the pairs.

And research by the Education Endowment Foundation suggests that peer tutoring can work. Studies have shown that where peer tutoring has been adopted, there has been “an average positive effect equivalent to approximately five additional months’ progress”. However, some studies include cross-age peer tutoring and others involve students of similar attainment levels, so definitive results for mixed-attainment pairings are tricky to ascertain.

Potential pitfalls

There is no doubt that students benefit from explaining their understanding to others, Taylor says - but she cautions that this is true for all students, not just those with higher prior attainment. Therefore, by adopting this method of seating pupils, where the “smart” child teaches the “struggling” child, you are denying the lower-attaining pupil the benefits of acting as the tutor.

There is also the problem of resentment from one side of the partnership. “We found that higher-attaining pupils were unhappy when this happened too much of the time,” says Taylor. The cause of that unhappiness is easily identified: the students know what is going on here. Imagine the equivalent CPD sessions: teachers are put in pairs to discuss their behaviour-management strategies, and looking around the room you notice that all the teachers who struggle with behaviour in their classroom are paired up with those who are considered behaviour gurus. And then this happens every single staff meeting.

This approach draws a clear line in your class, and by creating a division, you potentially limit the progress of both groups. In addition, the social, self-efficacy and motivational impacts of this approach are likely to be negative.

So, what next?

The essential idea is salvageable. Research suggests that it is most effective to use peer tutoring as a consolidation exercise, rather than when introducing new material. So, it makes sense to move students into “peer tutoring” pairs in the seating plan, but think carefully about mixing up the partnerships to avoid any potential negative impacts.

4. Sitting disruptive children next to less disruptive peers

 Why do we do it?

In order to win over a class, teachers are usually told to split up “challenging” students and place them next to the best-behaved ones. The idea is to avoid having groups of children more likely to misbehave feeding off one another by being sat together, and to sit them next to more positive role models.

The belief is that this can harness the power of peer influence, particularly in the teenage years. Peer influence is indeed powerful, according to Brett Laursen, professor of psychology at Florida Atlantic University, and editor-in-chief of the International Journal of Behavioural Development.

On a recent Tes Podagogy podcast, he explained that when children enter the teenage years, they look to mimic their peers and adopt their behaviours. So, if you can create group norms of good behaviour, it is likely to catch on.

Potential pitfalls

If only peer influence was as malleable as this approach promises. Laursen cautions against trying to manipulate relationships, as he says it is very hard to judge dynamics from outside that relationship. He adds that, although aiming to create classroom norms is a good idea, managing it is incredibly difficult.

Another issue, according to Jackson, is that this approach often leads to poorer-behaving boys being sat with better-behaving girls.

“I do think that’s problematic,” she says. “Girls should not be used by teachers to act as caretakers of boys. The discourse that women are caring and caretakers, especially of men, is long-standing and deep-rooted, and needs challenging. Caring is not, and should not be, women’s work. Girls should not be taught to be self-sacrificing and boys taught to be independent.”

Roberts agrees, and argues that this scenario puts the girls into a disadvantaged position. “I think it’s unfair to expect some quiet girls to act as a fire blanket for the poor behaviour of some boys - and vice versa.”

Even if this strategy does not end up being split on gender lines, there are still issues with arranging the seating plan in this way.

For example, certain behaviours may be a sign of issues around special educational needs and disabilities, and in moving a child and not addressing those issues, you may exacerbate rather than help the situation.

There is also a danger that the “quiet” student you select has SEND issues that may be exacerbated by being seated with particular pupils.

Luke Beardon, senior lecturer in autism at Sheffield Hallam University, urges teachers to ask: what is the reason for the child’s passivity? Is it due to a characteristic of their additional need?

“Autistic students often have higher levels of arousal,” explains Beardon. “This means that aspects such as emotional expression or verbal interaction become vastly more difficult for them compared with a student who is anxiety-free.”

So, in reality, this child who appears to be very quiet, passive and easygoing might be really struggling in your lessons, he explains. And sitting them next to a student who is very loud and challenging could be the absolute worst thing you can do for their stress levels.

“If the student struggles subsequently to communicate their distress [about the student who is sitting next to them] then it’s effectively a ‘triple whammy’ against that autistic student: they are in an anxious state in the first place, and then they are exposed to a situation that is likely to add to that stress, and they are also not in a position to easily communicate any of this,” says Beardon.

A further issue is unconscious bias. David Gillborn, director of the Centre for Research in Race and Education at the University of Birmingham, warns that teachers may be unconsciously making racially motivated decisions when arranging seating in this way.

“We’ve got about 30 years of qualitative research showing that teachers who absolutely believe that they treat students equally do treat students from particular ethnic backgrounds in different ways,” he says. “There’s a long-established awareness, particularly among black young people and parents, that a group of three or four white students will be seen as a friendship group, whereas a group of three or four black students will be seen as a gang.”

So, what next?

It appears clear that there is little benefit to this approach and a lot of issues. It would seem most sensible to drop it altogether.

5. Putting students who struggle to concentrate at the front

Why do we do it?

It feels intuitive to put those students who tend to stray off task in the best position in the room for the teacher to keep an eye on them: the front row.

“I’ve put you here to keep an eye on you,” you might warn. Or you might use the front row for students who constantly call out or try to get away with off-task behaviour. If they’re sitting front and centre, then it’s harder for them to pass notes, eat food or daydream during your set-up for the first task.

Potential pitfalls

Environmental psychologist Lily Bernheimer suggests that before you start meddling with the seating plan, you first need to think about why concentration is a problem for that student in the first place. If it is down to their being distracted by others around them, the front is probably not the best place for them.

“Some people really like, and find it easier to work in, ‘ninja-proof seats’,” Bernheimer explains. “When your back is to a wall, and you can see the window and the door, we call that a ‘ninja-proof seat’ as no ninjas can sneak up on you.”

Sitting in this way is preferable for many, and those students who are acting up in your class might find the front a really tricky place to sit, and consequently find it more difficult to concentrate.

Teachers should imagine what it is like to be an anxious person, or a child who has been bullied, sitting with the whole class behind them. The front of the class can be a scary place for some, says Bernheimer.

“I would imagine that people with a higher need for personal space might also find it difficult to sit in a place with a lot of people sitting behind them,” she explains.

“Sitting at the front would cause them more anxiety or distraction than maybe someone who’s more extroverted.”

So, what next?

It sounds simple, but Beardon says the best approach is to have a sensible discussion with the student: why are they not focusing? What do they think would make a difference? If they feel a front-row seat would benefit, great, but there may be countless other solutions.

This is particularly important for those with SEND, he argues. “It might be that the child is able to identify what aids their concentration - be it slipping their shoes off, wearing noise-cancelling headphones, chewing on the end of a rubber pen - and giving them the chance to explore the options may benefit everyone.”

So, is there any method that does not bring with it a range of potential issues?

One suggestion that comes up with the researchers again and again is to let the students choose their places themselves, but with the caveat that you, as teacher, retain the right to move as necessary, and you will be reviewing the situation regularly.

“The experiences of some students are so hidden that only the students themselves understands what their needs are,” explains Beardon. He gives the example of needing a certain amount of light, or being close to the speaker. And these needs will change from room to room, and at different times of day.

This belief that students should have a say about their place in the classroom is shared by Gillborn. “I’ve worked with teachers that have said, ‘Right, sit down. We’ll make a note where everyone is, and we’ll see how it goes for the first week or so.’”

By retaining the right to move students if they choose, teachers can still hold that authority that is needed to lead the class.

Tes behaviour columnist and school leader Jarlath O’Brien, author of Better Behaviour: a guide for teachers, wrote recently about his belief that seating plans in which students choose their own seats can be effective, too. (“Seating plans: should we bother?”, Tes, 24 September 2019).

Is widespread ditching of the seating plan likely, though?

The seating plan is much loved - it speeds up name learning, it makes it quicker to find the student you’re looking for and it comes to the rescue when any cover teacher steps in to take over your class.

Perhaps a more attainable goal would be to urge caution. Those old rules can probably take a seat in the corner, right at the back. And let’s move simplicity and common sense to the front: overthinking the seating plan only gives rise to potential problems.

Grainne Hallahan is a senior content writer at Tes

This article originally appeared in the 22 November 2019 issue under the headline “Are you sitting comfortably?”