Nurture approaches

• Approach type: Practice approach; some named applications are specified programmes.
• Primary purpose: Relationships.
• Other intended purposes: Regulation, emotional development, participation, learning access and wellbeing.
• Scope: Targeted small group; classroom and whole-school practice; individual relational support as an adaptation.
• Tier: Universal practice and targeted provision; an individual plan may contribute to more intensive support.
• Mode: Relational, environmental, developmental and preventative.
• Disciplinary roots: Education, developmental psychology, attachment-informed practice and therapeutic education. These describe influences, not an identified cause of a pupil's difficulty.
• Roles: Trained teachers, teaching assistants, pastoral teams and relevant specialists. Roles are separate from topic tags and do not establish programme competence.

nurtureuk's March 2026 description proposes groups of 6–12 pupils with two staff, part-time membership and continuing class connection, with full return usually within four terms. This is a current developer description, not a guarantee or a universal tested dose.¹ The developer's National Nurturing Schools Programme is described separately as an 18-month whole-school programme.² Neither should be retrospectively assumed to be the exact version delivered in an older study.

An Emotional Literacy Support Assistant (ELSA) intervention, counselling, a breakfast club or a transition group may share some activities. None is automatically an alias for a defined nurture group. A room is not a reward, a sanction destination, unstructured holding provision or justification for permanently restricting a pupil's curriculum.

Consider the approach when a pupil and the adults around them identify a need for more dependable relationships, accessible communication, supported transitions or a manageable small-group experience. The original fit examples—difficulty relying on adults, repeated relational rupture, overwhelming classroom conditions and substantial co-regulation needs—remain prompts for enquiry.

They are not selection rules. First establish what is happening in the ordinary setting, which changes are possible there, and what the pupil wants help with. Bullying, pain, sensory overload, inaccessible teaching, discrimination or unreliable adult behaviour cannot be resolved by assigning the pupil an attachment explanation. Reluctance to trust may be reasonable.

For a targeted group, explain the offer in an accessible way, seek the pupil's assent and family contribution, identify alternatives and agree review points. Not wanting to join should lead to further understanding of the offer and barriers, not loss of support. A high screening score is one piece of information; it does not establish diagnosis, consent, treatment need or likely benefit.

Start with a small number of observable commitments. These may include a consistent welcome, a named backup when the usual adult is absent, predictable transitions, accessible instructions, a way to pause or ask for help, and a clear response when adults make mistakes.

Within a group, planned routines, practical activities, shared play and opportunities to communicate can provide a context for support. Activities should have a stated purpose and remain accessible to the pupils involved. Meals and snacks require attention to allergies, eating and sensory needs, culture and privacy; food and adult warmth must not depend on compliance.

The group teacher and class teacher need a shared plan for learning, peer contact, communication and transitions. The pupil should know what happens in both places. Staff should document what was actually available and received, including absences, staffing changes and shortened sessions, rather than recording only the timetable that was intended.

The retained practice principles are reliable relationships, physical and psychological safety, predictable routines, co-regulation, opportunities for competence and belonging, and deliberate links to wider participation. They are implementation commitments, not separately proven active ingredients.

“Developmentally informed” should mean adjusting support to the person and task while preserving age, identity and dignity. It should not mean treating an older pupil as an infant or inferring inadequate parenting. Attachment theory can inform questions about continuity and security without proving that disrupted attachment explains an individual presentation.

Communication may involve speech, signs, writing, pictures, augmentative and alternative communication (AAC), gesture or choosing not to answer. Staff should not infer that increased emotion vocabulary demonstrates regulation in difficult situations. A pupil can participate without eye contact, touch, public emotional disclosure or a prescribed style of sociability.

Adaptations can include a key adult, a supported arrival, a quieter place for part of the day or nurture-informed classroom routines. Record them as adaptations. If staffing, dose, activities or age range differ from an evaluated package, explain the difference instead of presenting the local version as the tested intervention.

The detailed profile separates seven material sources by role, model and reporter. The findings need source-specific interpretation; no formal certainty grade is assigned.

A 2025 review synthesised 14 quantitative nurture-group studies found by a January 2023 search. Findings were encouraging but designs and outcomes varied, no randomised trial was included, and teacher reports predominated. It does not establish that all variants work equally, that effects endure after exit, or that the literature was searched through 2025.³

The Northern Ireland study by Sloan and colleagues reported positive adjusted results on the teacher-rated Boxall Profile and Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire (SDQ), plus an advantage on child-reported school enjoyment. These teacher measures address social, emotional and behavioural development and difficulties. Its matched, non-randomised comparison found no statistically significant attendance, literacy or numeracy advantage. Selection differences, changing outcome denominators and adult expectations limit causal interpretation.⁴

Whole-school evidence needs its own reading. Nolan and colleagues' controlled study found an advantage on teachers' ratings, while parent ratings and children's wellbeing reports showed no between-group advantage.⁶ A 2026 evaluation combined nurture groups, staff development and wider relational changes; its uncontrolled design cannot isolate any component, and school suspension trajectories differed.⁷

These findings support careful evaluation of specified provision. They do not justify a blanket claim that nurture improves attainment, prevents exclusion, repairs attachment or benefits every selected pupil.

A planned relational setting can make adult commitments and adjustments visible. It gives a school a concrete way to organise continuity, protected time and coordination. Those are practical opportunities; whether a particular pupil experiences benefit needs to be established with them.

The principal limitation is that a separate group can become the only accessible place while ordinary classes remain unchanged. A comfortable room may conceal lost teaching, reduced peer contact or a narrowing timetable. A pupil should not have to become more compliant to regain learning opportunities.

Evidence about younger primary pupils cannot automatically be extended to adolescents, specialist settings, autistic pupils, pupils with intellectual disabilities or those with substantial communication access needs. A local plan should describe these differences and how participation will be made accessible. Neither a theory nor a screening tool fills an evidence gap.

Vincent's small qualitative study included pupils' direct accounts alongside staff and parent views. It offers useful information about a particular part-time provision and supported transitions; it cannot establish comparative effectiveness or represent every child's experience.⁵

Ask separately whether the pupil wants to attend, feels heard, can refuse an activity, understands why they are there and retains valued friendships and learning. Offer private and accessible ways to give feedback to someone outside the immediate group. Staff interpretations and family reports should accompany, rather than overwrite, the pupil's account.

Review the costs of participation: missed subjects, effort involved in moving between settings, stigma, travel within school, emotional disclosure, repeated assessments and dependence on a fragile staffing arrangement. Record worsening distress, avoidance of the group, reduced choice, fatigue or loss of educational access. Unreported harms in a study do not show that a local offer is harmless.

Boxall scores may contribute to planning and progress review, but a score change alone cannot establish an intervention effect. Record who rated the pupil, where and when, and whether the rater changed. Keep attendance, participation, task performance, wellbeing and the pupil's experience distinct. Agreement between adults is useful information; it does not substitute for an independent comparison or recipient report.

Plan connection with ordinary school life from the outset. Specify the learning that remains accessible, peer relationships to preserve, class adaptations, adult handovers and the pupil's preferred pace. Review both whether the group remains useful and whether the receiving environment has become accessible.

Avoid indefinite withdrawal, but also avoid removing necessary relational support to meet an arbitrary exit date. Continued support is not automatically dependency. A transition may require continuity in the classroom, a gradual timetable change or another agreed arrangement. If the wider setting remains unsafe or inaccessible, revise the setting and plan rather than requiring the pupil to tolerate it.

The implementation question is: What have adults changed, and does the pupil now have more choice, connection and access to learning? A record of fewer incidents or more hours on site cannot answer that alone.

Staff need more than a comfortable room or a general interest in nurture. Specify model training where applicable, communication access, safeguarding and professional boundaries, reflective support, curriculum coordination and cover arrangements. A named award or completed training course is not evidence of recipient benefit.

Leadership should make time for planning with class staff, supervision, family communication and supported transitions. Clarify which specialist concerns require additional expertise. Whole-school training, group delivery and individual therapy are separate responsibilities. Do not ask unqualified staff to treat trauma or infer attachment diagnoses from classroom behaviour.

This is a fictional planning example, not a reported case or an observed outcome.

A pupil describes the busy arrival corridor and public questions about lateness as the hardest parts of the morning. The school offers a choice of an adjusted class arrival or a short small-group welcome. The pupil chooses to try the welcome but wants to keep the first science lesson and does not want to discuss feelings in front of peers.

Adults agree a quieter route, a reliable welcome and backup adult, an option to communicate by writing, and a handover to science. They record whether these commitments happen. At review, the pupil can continue, change or decline the arrangement without losing help. The review considers missed learning, effort, friendships and the pupil's account, alongside attendance. Whether a defined nurture group is needed remains an open decision; the local arrival plan is not relabelled as a tested programme.

Relationship and trust building, co-regulation, emotion coaching, environmental adaptation and restorative practice may contribute distinct elements to a local plan. Describe which element is used and why. Combining them does not make their evidence interchangeable or establish that the combination is a tested nurture package.

1. 1.

   nurtureuk (13 March 2026). Nurture groups: the original inclusion base. Developer identity and intended provision.

   ↩1
2. 2.

   nurtureuk. Whole-school approach to nurture. Current developer programme description, accessed 12 September 2026.

   ↩1
3. 3.

   Jones, B., Wood-Downie, H., & Golm, D. (2025). The effectiveness of Nurture Groups at supporting social and emotional outcomes: a systematic review. Original indexed text consulted; direct PDF retrieval was blocked.

   ↩1
4. 4.

   Sloan, S., Winter, K., Connolly, P., & Gildea, A. (2020). Northern Ireland nurture-group evaluation. Children and Youth Services Review, 108, 104619.

   ↩1
5. 5.

   Vincent, K. (2017). “It's small steps, but that leads to bigger changes”: evaluation of a nurture group intervention. Author manuscript; doi:10.1080/13632752.2017.1290882.

   ↩1
6. 6.

   Nolan, A. D., Hannah, E. F. S., Lakin, E., & Topping, K. J. (2023). The impact of an elementary whole-school nurturing approach. Published issue 21(59), pp. 5–28; PDF footer carries 2022.

   ↩1
7. 7.

   Colley, D., et al. (2026). The impact of introducing relational approaches into four primary schools. Mixed package evaluation, phase 2, 2023–2025.

   ↩1

The research retains the findings and limits of the September 2026 source review. This is a targeted review, not an exhaustive systematic review, a formal evidence grade or completed specialist consultation. Research findings do not determine which support is right for an individual young person.

Direct focus: 01 Emotional life & regulation; 03 Communication & connection. These describe the article's content, not evidence of effectiveness.

Conditional focus: 04 Learning & making meaning where the plan specifies learning access or learning goals; 06 Agency, safety & participation where it addresses attendance, reintegration or sustained participation. A room's location in school does not by itself warrant every category. Professional roles remain separate metadata.

• E093 — Difficulty trusting or relying on adults: read when relational reliability is an identified concern. Its distinction between trust and obedience is essential; the link does not prescribe a group or an attachment explanation.
• E001 — Difficulty regulating emotions: read when co-regulation and recovery form part of the agreed purpose. Adult and environmental changes matter; calmer behaviour alone is not proof of regulation.
• E007 — Difficulty attending school: read only when attendance or reintegration is part of the formulation. Address the barriers to sustainable participation; no attendance benefit or suitability is implied.

These are contextual reading links, not treatment recommendations or evidence that the Encyclopaedia pages prescribe nurture provision.