DE LOS DERECHOS Y OBLIGACIONES QUE RESULTAN DE LA NAVEGACION

Cooper and Lovey (1999), working for two universities, intended to survey the views of practitioners with specific expertise in relation to nurture groups. Their survey was implemented at a national meeting regarding nurture groups. 35 delegates were presented with a questionnaire containing four questions:

1. How do nurture groups differ from other support for children with special needs? 2. How would you describe the child who would most benefit from time in a nurture

group?

3. What would you expect this child to gain from the group?

4. How do you think the school is affected by having a nurture group?

86

Findings demonstrated that nurture groups provided support that was possible at the level of the individual child, which sought to address the child’s early nurturing needs alongside the curriculum. Nurture groups were also seen to foster opportunities for developing relationships between staff, pupils and parents. In describing the type of children who would benefit from nurture group provision, respondents tended to refer to developmental factors and the mis-match between the level of development of some children and the demands of school. There was wide consensus amongst respondents regarding nurture groups providing effective provision, which respondents indicated was reflected in a more positive school ethos. Cooper and Lovey (1999) extol the benefits of nurture groups, stating:

Without this experience, some children, unable to cope with the demands of the classroom, suffer constant negative feedback from their teachers and peers and experience on-going problems as they progress through school. p130

However, it must be taken into account that all of the participants who took part in the study were delegates at a conference linked to nurture groups and therefore may have a positive vested interest in their success.

A more detailed, positivist empirical study is reported by Cooper and Whitebread (2007). Here 546 children (359 from nurture groups) were included in a study which analysed nurture group effectiveness in a much more systematic and detailed way. The study lasted for two years and used both Boxall Profiles and Goodman’s Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire (SDQ) (Goodman, 1997) to provide measures of progress over time. Data from the 359 pupils who attended a nurture group were compared with comparison groups of children without access to a nurture group. These children were from five groups, 95 with reported social, emotional and behavioural difficulties and 89 with no reported social, emotional and behavioural difficulties from schools with and without a nurture group provision. Pupils were matched for age, gender and perceived academic ability. In addition, interpretive data were provided using staff and parent reports. Findings demonstrated that the longer established

87

nurture groups tended to be more effective and the time spent in nurture groups had an impact, with the greatest impact derived from the first two terms.

Cooper and Whitebread (2007) state that:

This study suggests that nurture groups are a highly promising form of provision for young children with a range of social,

emotional and behavioural difficulties. p171

Compared to the children who had not experienced the nurture group provision, the study showed children with the nurture group experience achieved greater improvement in terms of Boxall Profile scores and on the SDQ measures.

It would be useful to have longitudinal follow-up data showing whether or not children remained in mainstream education beyond the two year study and how they progressed both socially and academically. The researchers in this study are not neutral parties, but nurture group advocates, seeking evidence of efficacy and cost-effectiveness in order to convince prospective commissioners and funders, and have a vested interest in showing how effective nurture groups are and how they are able to provide value for money support to the Local Authority in which they are employed.

The dynamic relationship between the adult and child posited by attachment theory (Bowlby, 2003), was the basis of a study by Iszatt and Wasilewska (1997), educational psychologists in Enfield. Comparison of school SEN data over time for those who had experienced nurture group support and those who had not, demonstrated that nurture groups did provide a successful preventative approach, Data on 308 children from six nurture groups showed that in less than one year 87% of the children who attended nurture groups were able to return to mainstream classes. Follow-up several years later demonstrated that 83% of the original sample children were still in mainstream school, with only 4% needing additional provision.

88

From the control group, of 20 children identified as having similar needs, 45% were receiving additional support. Pen portraits of a number of children within the study are provided from teacher accounts. Ofsted feedback on schools that had been inspected with nurture groups within the evaluation time frame, where two of the schools with nurture groups both received favourable reports with regard to the groups.

This study provides evidence for the effectiveness of nurture groups as a support mechanism for vulnerable children. However, data are, in large part subjective, in that it is the judgement of individual staff within schools which is used to define the support required for children. Iszatt and Wasilewska (1997) conclude that the nurture group was an efficient and effective use of Local Authority resources and was also found to be an effective means for increased work with parents. Information regarding how and why this improved parental partnership might have occurred is, however, limited.

Cooper and Tiknaz (2005) took a more in-depth look at nurture groups in an attempt to establish their affective dynamics and key variables, using both quantitative and qualitative data alongside findings from previous studies of nurture groups. The study took place over three years across three schools, two infant and one primary, in a city in the Midlands. Along with Goodman Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire (Goodman, 1997) and Boxall Profile (Bennathan and Boxall, 1998) data, there was an in-depth focus on qualitative explanations of the effectiveness of nurture groups. Nine nurture group staff, nine mainstream teachers and three head teachers were interviewed throughout the study using semi-structured interviews. In this way the study provides rich data regarding what makes nurture groups effective from an insider’s perspective. According to Cooper and Tiknaz, success factors included:

 School-related factors, such as staffing stability and the general quality of teaching across the school;

89

 class composition and structure, ensuring a balance of children’s needs within the group to enable all children to benefit from the experience;

 child-related factors, such as attainment levels and fluency of English prior to joining the group; and

 organisational factors: for example, how long the nurture group had been established and the time that children have access to the nurture group.

Also identified as important was the way in which staff conceptualised progress made by the children. Benefits to the whole school were noted in this study, and, in turn, key to the success the communication between nurture group and mainstream staff was considered critical to the success of a nurture group.

Cooper and Tiknaz’s (2005) longitudinal study over three years provides clear strategic pointers and highlights the need for an awareness of what can make a nurture group work well. However, findings from the three case studies cannot be generalised to all nurture groups. Boxall Profiles and Goodman’s SDQ were used as quantitative measures within the study, yet the outcomes are only reported via accounts of interviews with key staff. Evidence is not demonstrated regarding the quantitative findings and how these fit with the qualitative data.

Sanders (2007) in a more recent in-depth study of the effectiveness of nurture groups looked in detail at three pilot groups, again using Boxall Profile (Bennathan and Boxall, 1998) data along with interviews and questionnaires for staff, students and parents. The Boxall Profile was completed at the beginning and end of the academic year for 17 attending the nurture group over three terms, in a pilot study in an infant school. The Boxall Profile was also completed at the beginning and end of an academic year for nine Reception and Year 1 children in a comparison primary school without a nurture group.

90

Findings showed that most children who had spent time in a nurture group were able to remain in mainstream schools. These were children reported to be not fully accessing the curriculum and, in some cases, at risk of exclusion. Teachers reported, in interviews, that these children had made greater academic progress than those in a control group over the same period and were perceived to be more accepting of adult requests and able to concentrate better on learning tasks.

Boxall Profile data demonstrated that nurture group children were more able to manage their anger and emotions better post-intervention. Staff noted that there appeared to be a calmer atmosphere in the school in general after a time of having a nurture group. Parents were said to have improved links and contact with the schools and to have noticed an increase in in their children’s confidence. Quantitative measures across the three schools demonstrated that children who had attended the nurture group made significant gains in social and emotional skills, which were recognised by the children themselves and their parents.

Sanders (2007) used a range of qualitative and quantitative measures in three differing schools which combined to provide a comprehensive evaluation of the groups. However, criteria used for selection of sample of children in the study were not made explicit, nor is it clear how control groups were matched. The controls had higher entry scores, therefore the validity of the comparison in the study was limited. The aim of the research was to provide evidence of the effectiveness of nurture groups within the local authority in which Sanders was employed. As was the case with the Cooper and Tiknaz (2005) study, Sander’s insider status and commitment toward nurture group may have influenced the structure and design of the study, compromising reliability of its findings.

91

In Glasgow, Gerrard (2005) also reviewed a nurture group pilot scheme from his/her perspective as an employee of the educational psychology service. A study of two nurture groups was carried out, using matched control groups for comparison. Gerrard provides evidence for improved behaviour and emotional and social skills for most of the children who attended the nurture groups, as shown by Boxall Profile data. In the control schools there was little change noted for the children studied. Interestingly Gerrard notes that changes appeared to happen quite quickly, becoming more swiftly apparent than over the 18 months in a nurture group suggested by much of the then extant literature.

Gerrard (2005) does not provide an in-depth evaluation, merely an overview of findings. While again, affirming the value of nurture groups, the study provides limited information regarding why, where and how the groups were selected and set up. There is limited evidence of how the control groups were matched or of the support that these children were given. What is useful from this pilot study is the suggestion of the relatively short time it takes to see changes, although whether or not improvements were sustained is not evident. This ties in with findings of Cooper et al. (2001) who had reported that it took two terms for the benefits of nurture group attendance to be evident, and the observations of Iszatt and Wasilewski (2007), who also suggested progress could be seen early on in the intervention.

Colwell and O’Connor (2003), the former a University lecturer, the latter a teacher in a school in Enfield, studied the longer-term effects of nurture groups in a positivist experimental study, aiming to test for statistically significant improvement on Boxall Profile (Bennathan and Boxall, 1998) data after exit from the nurture group back into the mainstream classroom. From an initial group of 68 children who had attended a nurture group in five schools, data were followed up for only 12 of these children. Significant improvement was seen to have been sustained for this group in 10 of the Boxall sub-strands. Colwell and O’Connor (2003) suggest that long-term significant improvement can be evidenced for children who have been

92

supported via a nurture group after reintegration, in their development profiles, although not in all areas assessed.

They suggest a need for a whole-school nurturing approach in order better to support generalisation of the work of nurture groups, concluding:

Evidence supports conceptual explanations of the effectiveness of nurture groups and we propose that mainstream schools could become more inclusive if whole-school nurturing approaches

were adopted. p119

There was no control group to provide comparison of progress or to separate nurture groups effects from time effects; however, the study highlights the need for further data regarding the effectiveness of nurture group for children beyond their support in the group. Colwell and O’Connor (2003) were easily able to provide evidence suggesting the short-term effectiveness of nurture group provision, and comment that they clearly facilitate ‘developmental catch-up’; however, whether this is sustained is not fully evident due to the limited number of children in the follow-up.

A more recent large scale controlled study into the effectiveness of nurture groups was carried out by Reynolds et al. (2009). This took place across 32 schools in Glasgow, 16 with nurture groups and 16 control schools, and again used Boxall Profile Data alongside basic literacy scores, the Goodman’s Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaires and observational schedules before and after the period of nurture group attendance. The study, in addition, used the Behavioural Index of Self-Esteem (BIOS) and literacy skills measures. 221 primary-aged pupils accessing a nurture group, demonstrated overall positive effects of the nurture group approach. Children who attended the nurture groups showed significant gains in academic attainment measures, greater than those of the control group. Boxall Profile

93

data, SDQ and observations also showed improvements, although not all at a level of statistical significance. Reynolds et al. (2009) suggest that:

This is the first study to report quantitative gains in academic achievement when the progress of pupils in nurture groups is compared with that of matched children in the mainstream

classroom. p204

Reynolds et al.’s (2009) study has methodological limitations, however: it was the influence from schools as to whether to set up a nurture group, it was not possible to conduct random control trials, absenteeism affected overall results and other potentially confounding variables such as educational and teaching factors were not taken account of across the schools. It could also be argued that using a positivist approach to evidence children’s emotional and behavioural development is in itself inappropriate in light of the fundamental subjectivity of the phenomenon. Reynolds et al. note the need for further investigation into nurture groups, in order more fully to capture the range of models in operation, the different effects of which not accounted for within this study.

A range of practices of nurture groups has continued to develop within schools, including in secondary school. The most recent research reflects this, as summarised in Table 3.5.

The breadth of research into nurture groups has widened in recent years, and now includes investigations into their effectiveness as a supportive intervention within secondary school settings, and how nurture groups can promote links with parents to provide consistency of approach across settings, within the child’s closest relationships, within school and family and family microsystems (Bronfenbrenner, 1995).

94