Since their inception half a century ago, nurture groups have become commonplace in UK primaries. These small groups (usually no more than 10-12 pupils) are educated away from their mainstream classes, while still maintaining contact with them. They offer children who require extra support a chance to adjust, in an environment where wellbeing and mental health are given priority.

Although these groups were initially based at primary level when they were first conceived by educational psychologist Marjorie Boxall in the 1970s (see box, below), the approach is increasingly being used in secondary schools, too. Many opt to focus nurture groups on Year 7 students who are struggling with the transition from primary, but some offer support though to key stage 4. Do we actually know if this is a good idea?

David Colley, associate lecturer in special educational needs and inclusion at Oxford Brookes University, says that while the evidence for the effectiveness of nurture groups in primary schools is well established, there is less research into their functioning in secondary settings.

He explains that the studies that have been carried out, however, suggest “commensurate improvements in socioemotional functioning are being recorded in secondary-aged pupils”. He highlights an initiative in Glasgow, named Towards the Nurturing City, which established “nurture bases” in some of the city’s secondary schools.

“It had a significant impact on both the outcomes for young people and the wellbeing of staff,” he says. “School exclusion has dropped a massive 74 per cent since 2007 and staff attendance at work is at 97 per cent.”

‘A safe base’

Colley’s own research into secondary-school nurture groups (2009) found that, in addition to improving the socioemotional functioning of students who attended them around mainstream classes, they could offer a “safe base” for students seeking to return to school after a period of absence or refusal.

And he found that they can be effective beyond Year 7 - a conclusion that has also been reached by others. In 2014, the Welsh schools inspectorate, Estyn, recommended that secondary schools explore nurture groups as a way to boost attendance among vulnerable groups, as they “have enabled pupils to attend school more often”.

“Headteachers confirmed that the nurture group significantly extended the capacity of the school to manage a range of complex emotional needs, and was particularly helpful for students managing unexpected trauma or loss,” says Colley.

But his research also highlights some of the challenges for secondary nurture groups. The size and complexity of the schools can create “immediate barriers” in terms of timetabling enough nurture group access for it to be “meaningful and effective”, he has found. Other researchers (including Hilton, 2014) have highlighted issues around possible stigmatisation, and even bullying, as a result of older students’ association with a nurture group.

And research carried out in secondary schools in the London Borough of Bexley (Garner, 2011) found that while nurture groups can be effective in secondary settings - particularly for students with social, emotional and behavioural difficulties (SEBD) - the practices typically applied in primary nurture groups may not be right for older children.

These are often “largely directed by the adult, with the child being treated as a much younger toddler”, which, obviously, would be less well received by a teenager.

“This research highlighted that nurture groups can be implemented into a secondary setting and provide beneficial support for children with SEBD,” Garner’s report states.

“However, it also identifies core differences between the current primary model…highlighting that careful preparation and thought is needed to translate current nurture group theory into an intervention.”

Translating the model

According to Nurtureuk, a charity that promotes the use of nurture groups in schools, current primary models tend to establish a class of between six and 12 children, run by two members of staff. There is generally a “great emphasis on language development and communication”, the charity says, with “nothing taken for granted”.

The theory is that, as the children learn academically and socially, they “develop confidence, become responsive to others, learn self-respect and take pride in behaving well and in achieving”.

So, how do you translate this model into practice with older students? Colley has just completed a joint research project that seeks to offer an evidence-based guide to share best practice in establishing secondary school nurture groups.

He is working with Ruth Seymour, an educational psychologist at The Mulberry Bush in Oxfordshire, a charity that works to meet the needs of emotionally troubled and traumatised children.

Their work has identified a clear set of prerequisites, operational features and challenges to anticipate when setting up a nurture group in a secondary school.

For instance, Colley says, the way that the group is presented is “vital”. This needs to be “in a well-equipped and well-presented room that is clearly part of the school”.

If schools can get this right, nurture groups can offer valuable socialisation, he continues.

“Nurture groups are always part-time and students will typically attend registration with their mainstream tutor group and attend the group for regular sessions each week. Our experience is that, over time, pupils actually build close peer relationships within the nurture group and have positive experiences of friendships that they may not get otherwise in school.”

But, Seymour says, it’s important to be aware of isolation from the rest of the school as a possible issue.

“This is linked to more general issues around inclusive practice in the school,” she says. “Special educational needs issues can invite stigma and isolation.”

Colley’s and Seymour’s research, which will be published in the International Journal of Nurture in Education later this year, suggests that this stigma can unwittingly be perpetuated by staff, but that this can be overcome with “a whole-school philosophy that is nurturing”.

“Our paper advocates that before a nurture group opens, a six-month period of preparation is required, where all staff are introduced to attachment theory, the six principles of nurture and the Boxall Profile,” she explains.

The six principles, developed by Boxall, include acknowledging that all behaviour is a form of communication, that nurture is important for the development of wellbeing, and that children’s learning should be understood developmentally.

Colley continues: “The prerequisite training for staff is important to ensure that they know that the purpose of nurture is to allow students to revisit and consolidate experiences they may have missed in their early years or at primary school, and to enable them to succeed at secondary school.

“Nurture groups are about learning, but all learning is emotionally based. If we get the support right for all students, then learning will naturally follow.”

It is also important to challenge “the perception that these students are ‘naughty’ or ‘bad’ when, in fact, their behaviour is typically communicating an unmet need,” Seymour adds.

“They need support to feel safe and they need strong relationships to succeed. It should be perceived as additional support for those that need it, in the context of an understanding that everyone needs support from time to time.”

The report’s findings confirm that, to be successful, a secondary school nurture group needs to be embedded in a school community that understands the principles of nurture.

“The senior leaders have to be prepared to prioritise and drive the nurturing philosophy and ensure that the nurture group is protected and not undermined,” Seymour says.

“But a nurture group that is located within a nurturing school can provide this vital support for students struggling with their mental health.”

Chris Parr is a freelance journalist

This article originally appeared in the 2 April 2021 issue