Updated on
March 13, 2026
|
March 13, 2026
Discover how nurture groups build emotional security and reduce cognitive load. Learn the six principles, the Boxall Profile, and practical classroom strategies.
Nurture groups provide targeted, short-term interventions for children who struggle with the social, emotional and behavioural demands of school. These groups typically consist of six to ten pupils working with two dedicated staff members. The environment is designed to blend the structure of a classroom with the security of a home.
Marjorie Boxall developed the concept in London in the late 1960s to support children arriving at school with severe emotional needs (Boxall, 2002). Boxall recognised that children who lacked early nurturing experiences could not access the standard curriculum. They needed a specific environment that replicated early childhood learning stages to help them build secure attachments and self-regulation skills.
The entire framework is based on the six principles of nurture. These principles guide every interaction, routine and environmental choice within the setting. Understanding these six concepts is essential for any educator looking to implement this provision effectively.
The first principle states that children's learning is understood developmentally. Teachers must respond to the child's developmental age rather than their chronological age. A ten-year-old child might display the emotional regulation of a toddler during moments of distress.
The second principle establishes that the classroom offers a safe base. Predictability, clear boundaries and reliable routines create an environment where anxiety decreases. When children know what to expect, they feel secure enough to take academic and social risks.
The third principle highlights the importance of nurture for the development of wellbeing. Staff must provide unconditional positive regard, validating the child's worth even when challenging behaviour occurs. This builds the self-esteem required for long-term resilience.
The fourth principle treats language as a vital means of communication. Many children in these settings lack the vocabulary to express complex emotions. Staff must actively teach emotional literacy, helping children move from acting out their feelings to talking about them.
The fifth principle asserts that all behaviour is communication. Rather than viewing outbursts purely as disruption, staff must interpret them as signals of unmet needs. This shift in perspective moves the focus from punitive discipline to supportive intervention.
The final principle addresses the importance of transition in children's lives. Changes in routine, moving between classrooms or returning home can trigger intense anxiety. Staff must explicitly teach and scaffold the skills needed to navigate these transitions successfully.
For a concrete classroom example, a teacher sets up a designated nurture space with soft seating, a dining table and clear visual boundaries. This physical layout provides a safe base that helps anxious pupils regulate their emotions before formal academic instruction begins. The pupils then produce artwork to decorate the space, personalising it and reinforcing their sense of belonging.
These groups are designed for children who face significant barriers to learning due to social, emotional or mental health difficulties. These pupils often present with attachment issues, trauma backgrounds or severe anxiety that prevents them from engaging in a mainstream classroom of thirty peers. They may display highly disruptive externalising behaviours or become completely withdrawn and silent.
Schools use the Boxall Profile to identify which children will benefit most from this intervention. This tool evaluates the child's cognitive, social and behavioural development. It helps staff look past the presenting behaviour to understand the underlying developmental gaps.
The Boxall Profile is divided into two main sections. The first section measures developmental strands, looking at how the child organises their experience and internalises controls. The second section creates a diagnostic profile, identifying self-limiting features, undeveloped behaviour and unsupported development.
By completing this profile, the Special Educational Needs Coordinator (SENCO) can pinpoint which early developmental experiences the child missed. This data allows the team to group children with complementary needs and design specific interventions. The assessment is then repeated termly to track progress and adjust the provision.
In a practical classroom example, a SENCO uses the Boxall Profile to evaluate a Year 3 pupil who frequently hides under tables during maths. The assessment reveals gaps in early developmental strands, prompting the team to use dual-coding and physical scaffolding to support these specific missing skills. The pupil then produces a "safe space" plan, drawing pictures of calming strategies they can use when feeling overwhelmed.
A typical nurture group runs for a substantial part of the school week, often covering the morning sessions. Pupils remain on the roll of their mainstream class and usually return to their primary teacher for afternoon sessions. This dual-registration ensures they maintain a connection with their peers while receiving intensive support.
The daily routine is highly structured and predictable. Sessions often begin with a breakfast or welcome circle. This creates a low-stakes environment where staff can assess the emotional temperature of each child as they arrive. Visual timetables are prominently displayed and referred to constantly to reduce anxiety about what comes next.
Academic learning is integrated into the provision, but it is delivered through a developmental lens. Teachers adapt the national curriculum to match the cognitive and emotional readiness of the pupils. Tasks are heavily scaffolded, and instructions are broken down into micro-steps to guarantee success and build academic confidence.
Food sharing is a foundational element of the daily routine. Staff and pupils sit together around a table to share a meal, replicating a supportive family environment. This activity is not just about nutrition; it is a pedagogical tool for teaching social skills.
During a structured toast time classroom example, the teacher explicitly models spreading butter and passing the plate while prompting pupils to make eye contact. This structured snack time explicitly models social communication and turn-taking in a safe environment, allowing pupils to practice peer interactions. The pupils then produce a collaborative placemat, illustrating the steps of making toast and the associated social rules.
The effectiveness of this provision is supported by decades of educational psychology and neurological research. Studies consistently show that well-run groups significantly improve social and emotional functioning. Children who complete a successful cycle of intervention show improvements in attendance, academic engagement and peer relationships (Bennathan & Boxall, 2018).
Research indicates that the benefits extend beyond the individual pupils. Schools that adopt these principles report a reduction in overall exclusions and improved staff morale (Cooper & Whitebread, 2007). The approach shifts the school culture from reactive behaviour management to proactive emotional support.
There is a connection between emotional security and cognitive science. According to Cognitive Load Theory, working memory has a limited capacity for processing new information (Sweller, 1988). When a child is experiencing trauma or high anxiety, their amygdala is constantly scanning the environment for threats.
This state of hyper-vigilance acts as an extraneous cognitive load. The child's working memory is consumed by emotional regulation and threat detection. Consequently, they have no cognitive capacity left to process academic instructions, decode text or solve mathematical problems.
The predictable routines and safe base of the nurture setting reduce this threat response. By establishing psychological safety, the intervention directly reduces extraneous cognitive load. This frees up the working memory, enabling the child to engage with the academic curriculum.
In a typical classroom example, a teacher notices a pupil staring blankly at a complex phonics worksheet. Instead of repeating the instructions, the teacher uses a structured breathing exercise to lower the child's anxiety, which reduces extraneous cognitive load and allows the pupil to process the academic task. The pupil then produces a simplified version of the worksheet, breaking down the task into smaller, manageable steps.
Implementing this provision requires a strategic commitment from the entire school leadership team. It cannot exist as an isolated room operating independently from the rest of the school. The most successful implementations occur when the six principles inform the universal provision across all mainstream classrooms.
Setting up a dedicated room requires careful environmental design. The space needs distinct areas for different types of activity. This usually includes a soft seating area for emotional check-ins, a traditional table for group work and dining, and individual workstations for focused academic tasks.
Applying these principles in the mainstream classroom ensures that the approach benefits all pupils. Mainstream teachers can adopt the concept of the safe base by creating a quiet corner in their room. They can also implement the language principle by using emotion coaching scripts during moments of high tension.
Managing the transition back to the mainstream classroom is the most delicate phase of the intervention. This process must be planned from the first day a child enters the group. Reintegration is gradual, starting with the child attending a single favourite subject in the mainstream class and slowly increasing the time spent there.
During this reintegration phase, communication between the nurture staff and the mainstream teacher is critical. The mainstream teacher must be fully briefed on the specific triggers and successful de-escalation strategies for that pupil. Without this shared knowledge, the pupil is likely to experience a rapid regression in their behaviour.
For a classroom example of this transition, before moving a pupil from maths to PE, the teacher uses a familiar emotion coaching script, saying "I can see you feel worried about the loud hall, and it is okay to feel worried." This helps the student articulate feelings using the vocabulary learned in the group before a behavioural outburst occurs. The pupil then produces a visual checklist of steps to take when feeling anxious in the hall, such as "take three deep breaths" or "ask a teacher for help".
The 'safe base' concept aligns with Universal Design for Learning (UDL) by providing multiple means of engagement, representation, and action and expression (Rose & Meyer, 2002).
Schools have access to several different emotional and behavioural interventions. Understanding the distinctions between them helps SENCOs allocate resources effectively. The table below outlines how this specific provision compares to other common school-based approaches.
| Feature | Nurture Groups | ELSA (Emotional Literacy) | Play Therapy | Zones of Regulation |
| :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- |
| Group Size | 6 to 10 pupils | 1:1 or very small groups (2-3) | 1:1 | Whole class (Universal) |
| Duration | 2 to 4 terms (substantial weekly hours) | 6 to 12 weeks (weekly sessions) | Variable (weekly sessions) | Ongoing daily curriculum |
| Primary Focus | Replicating early developmental stages | Identifying and expressing specific emotions | Processing trauma through play | Teaching self-regulation states |
| Delivery Model | Dual-registration (withdrawal and mainstream) | Withdrawal for a specific 30-minute session | Withdrawal to a clinical space | Integrated into standard lessons |
| Staffing | Two dedicated, trained practitioners | One trained teaching assistant | External qualified therapist | Class teacher |
In a comparative classroom example, while an ELSA session might involve a pupil completing a 1:1 emotional literacy worksheet, a Nurture Group session involves six pupils sitting around a table sharing a structured meal to practice live peer interactions. The ELSA pupil produces a feelings diary; the Nurture Group pupils produce a collaborative menu for the following week, negotiating food choices and practicing social skills.
The nurture group model was designed in primary schools, but the need for relational, attachment-informed support does not disappear at age eleven. Secondary school nurture groups adapt the classic model to meet the developmental demands of adolescence, the structural realities of subject-specialist timetabling, and the social complexity of large comprehensive schools. Cooper and Whitebread (2007) found that nurture provision can be effective at secondary level when adapted to the specific needs of older pupils, noting improvements in social competence and engagement with learning.
The main structural challenge is timetabling. In a secondary school, a pupil missing four mornings a week from a mixed timetable of subjects creates significant logistical friction. Most secondary settings therefore adopt a variant model: shorter daily sessions (typically one period per day), lunchtime groups, or a concentrated morning block two or three times a week. The important principle is consistency (the same space, the same two adults, the same predictable routines) rather than an exact replication of the primary model's hours.
Content also shifts. Secondary nurture groups address the specific challenges of early adolescence: identity formation, peer relationships, managing transitions between lessons and social spaces, and the heightened emotional volatility associated with puberty. Role-play scenarios focus on assertiveness, conflict resolution, and reading social cues in complex peer dynamics. Shared meals remain central: food, informality, and adult attunement create a psychological safety net that is often absent elsewhere in a secondary pupil's day.
Staffing presents a further consideration. Secondary nurture practitioners need to be credible to older pupils, which may mean drawing on subject knowledge as a hook for engagement. A nurture room that incorporates elements of art, cooking, or technology keeps adolescent learners cognitively engaged while the relational work proceeds. Transition planning (preparing pupils for a return to full timetable participation) is particularly important at secondary level, where the gap between nurture group norms and mainstream classroom culture can feel stark. Clear exit criteria, named pastoral contacts, and a named peer mentor support sustainable reintegration.
Practitioners new to nurture provision sometimes assume there is a single, prescribed model. In reality, Nurtureuk recognises both a classic nurture group and a range of variant models, each suited to different school contexts, staffing configurations, and pupil needs.
The classic model, as described by Boxall (2002), involves a small group of six to ten pupils who attend a dedicated nurture room for four full mornings each week, staffed by two adults (typically a teacher and a teaching assistant). Pupils remain on the roll of their mainstream class and return to it each afternoon, maintaining peer relationships and curriculum continuity. The classic model typically runs for two to four terms, with the Boxall Profile reviewed termly to monitor progress and plan reintegration.
Variant models include:
Choosing the right model depends on a school's capacity, the cohort's needs, and whether the goal is intensive repair work (classic model) or maintenance and prevention (variant). Both models should be underpinned by the Six Principles of Nurture, the Boxall Profile, and a clear reintegration plan.
School inspectors increasingly scrutinise how schools identify and meet the needs of pupils with special educational needs and those who are socially, emotionally, or behaviourally vulnerable. Nurture provision sits squarely within this scrutiny. Understanding what inspectors look for helps SENCOs and headteachers evidence their provision confidently.
Ofsted's inspection framework (England) evaluates the quality of education and personal development for all pupils, including those with SEMH needs. Inspectors will want to see: clear identification of pupils who need nurture support (typically through the Boxall Profile alongside other assessment evidence); a rationale for the intervention that links to individual pupil need; records of progress reviewed at regular intervals; and evidence that the provision improves pupil outcomes across academic engagement, attendance, behaviour, and wellbeing.
The Boxall Quality Mark Award (discussed below) is not a formal Ofsted requirement, but holding it signals to inspectors that a school's nurture provision meets a nationally recognised standard. Schools in Wales may also be asked to evidence nurture provision against Estyn's inspection framework, which similarly emphasises the quality of support for learners with additional learning needs.
Good evidence for inspection includes: Boxall Profile data showing a trajectory of improvement; case studies (anonymised) illustrating individual pupil progress; attendance and exclusion data before and after nurture group placement; and parent/carer feedback. Schools with provision maps that explicitly record nurture group placements alongside other interventions demonstrate the kind of systematic, evidence-led approach inspectors expect. If a school offers nurture provision as part of its ordinarily available provision, this should be clearly documented so that pupils with SEMH needs can access it without requiring an Education, Health and Care Plan.
The relational principles at the heart of nurture group practice do not stop at the classroom door. Parent and carer engagement is a recognised component of effective nurture provision, and Nurtureuk's quality standards explicitly include family involvement. Engaging families respectfully and consistently strengthens the impact of the intervention and helps to extend nurturing approaches into the home environment.
In practice, this means establishing clear, regular communication from the outset. Before a pupil begins a nurture group, their parent or carer should receive an explanation of what the group involves, why their child has been identified, and what progress will look like. This conversation should be conducted with warmth and without stigma: attending a nurture group is not a sanction or a reflection of failure; it is additional, tailored support.
Many schools use a home-school nurture book, a simple notebook that travels with the pupil and records small moments of progress, positive observations, and activities completed. This creates a bridge between school and home that reinforces the pupil's developing sense of security and invites parents to contribute their own observations. Where families are facing their own adversity, this shared record can also help practitioners understand the wider context shaping a pupil's behaviour.
Parent workshops that introduce the Six Principles of Nurture can be particularly powerful. When a parent understands why the breakfast routine matters, or why a key adult's consistent response to distress is more helpful than a consequence-based approach, they are better placed to offer congruent support at home. It is also important to set realistic expectations: nurture groups typically support pupils over two to four terms rather than weeks, and honest communication about this timeline reduces anxiety and builds trust in the school's approach.
The effectiveness of nurture groups is not merely anecdotal. It is grounded in contemporary neuroscience. Early brain development is shaped profoundly by relational experience: the quality of attachment relationships in the first years of life literally structures the neural circuits that regulate emotion, attention, and social behaviour (Hughes et al., 2015). When early experiences are neglectful, chaotic, or traumatic, the stress-response systems of the brain (particularly the amygdala and the hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis) can become dysregulated, making it harder for a child to feel safe, sustain attention, or read social cues accurately.
Boxall's original insight, developed through her work at the Inner London Education Authority in the 1960s and 1970s, was that many children presenting with challenging behaviour were not wilfully disruptive but were re-enacting early relational deprivation in the classroom. What they needed was not more behavioural management but a corrective relational experience: a safe base from which to explore and learn (Bennathan and Boxall, 2018).
Modern neuroscience corroborates this. The prefrontal cortex (responsible for executive function, impulse control, and flexible thinking) continues developing into a person's mid-twenties, and its development is highly sensitive to the quality of early caregiving. When the stress system is chronically activated, prefrontal development is compromised. The predictable, warm, low-threat environment of a nurture group helps to regulate the stress system, creating the neurological conditions in which learning becomes possible. Shared meals, consistent routines, and attuned adult responses are not merely pastoral kindness; they are evidence-informed neurological interventions.
For pupils with special educational needs, including those with autism, ADHD, or developmental trauma, the sensory and relational predictability of a well-run nurture group can reduce sensory overload and improve co-regulation (the process by which a regulated adult helps a dysregulated child return to a state of calm). Schools introducing complementary approaches such as sensory circuits alongside nurture group provision may find that the two interventions reinforce each other, addressing both the sensory and relational dimensions of a pupil's difficulty.
The concept of Adverse Childhood Experiences (ACEs), first described by Felitti et al. (1998) in a landmark study of over 17,000 adults, refers to traumatic events in childhood including abuse, neglect, household substance misuse, domestic violence, and parental mental illness. The original ACE study demonstrated a dose-response relationship: the more ACEs a child experiences, the greater the risk of poor outcomes across physical health, mental health, education, and employment. In educational settings, pupils with high ACE scores are more likely to present with SEMH difficulties, school avoidance, and persistent behavioural challenges.
Trauma-informed practice recognises that many challenging behaviours in school are not choices but survival responses rooted in early adversity. A child who is hypervigilant, avoidant, or explosively reactive in the classroom may be responding to triggers that activate a trauma memory rather than simply refusing to comply. Trauma-informed schools shift the question from "what is wrong with this child?" to "what has happened to this child?" This reframing is entirely consistent with the nurture group philosophy.
Nurture groups are one of the most coherent school-based responses to the legacy of ACEs. The predictable daily structure reduces environmental uncertainty, which is the primary trigger for trauma responses. The small group size means that key adults can attune to individual pupils and respond sensitively to early signs of dysregulation. The emphasis on emotional literacy and naming feelings (central to nurture group sessions) builds the internal resources that trauma erodes. Cooper and Whitebread (2007) found that nurture group pupils showed significant improvements in emotional regulation and social skills, outcomes that align directly with the neurological healing that trauma-informed approaches aim to support.
Schools implementing nurture groups as part of a broader trauma-informed approach may also wish to consult resources on inclusive education and whole-school SEND strategy to ensure that their response to ACEs is systemic rather than confined to a single room.
For headteachers and governors making resource allocation decisions, the question of cost-effectiveness is legitimate and important. Nurture groups require dedicated space, two trained members of staff, and sustained commitment over at least one academic year. Understanding the return on that investment (in pupil outcomes, reduced demand on other services, and long-term savings) is essential for making the case to leadership teams and governors.
The direct costs vary by school, but a rough estimate for a classic nurture group running for one academic year (including staff time, training, materials, and Boxall Profile licences) typically ranges from £15,000 to £25,000 per year, depending on staff salary bands. With six to ten pupils in the group, the cost per pupil is broadly comparable to other specialist interventions such as ELSA programmes or individual therapeutic input, and substantially cheaper than out-of-school provision or managed moves.
The savings are harder to quantify but substantial. Research consistently shows that nurture group pupils experience reductions in fixed-term exclusions, improved attendance, and more sustained mainstream classroom participation. Given that a single permanent exclusion costs local authorities an estimated £15,000 to £20,000 in alternative provision, preventing two or three exclusions per year through a nurture group more than covers the cost of the provision. Improved attendance translates directly into pupil premium funding retention. Reduced demand on SENCO time, educational psychologist referrals, and social care involvement adds further value that does not appear on a simple budget line.
Hughes et al. (2015) reviewed the economic case for early intervention in social-emotional development and concluded that investing in attachment-informed approaches at primary school level generates long-term savings across health, justice, and welfare budgets. For schools operating under financial pressure, framing nurture groups as a strategic investment in long-term outcomes (and as a mechanism for managing exclusion risk) strengthens the governance case considerably. Provision mapping that tracks cost per pupil alongside outcome data makes this case visible and auditable.
The Boxall Quality Mark Award is a nationally recognised accreditation for schools and settings that demonstrate high-quality nurture provision. Administered by Nurtureuk (formerly the Nurture Group Network), the award provides an external validation that a school's nurture group meets the standards set by the organisation that has championed this approach for over five decades.
To apply, a school submits evidence against a framework that covers: the physical environment (the nurture room as a safe base); staff training and ongoing professional development; the use of the Boxall Profile for assessment, planning, and review; the Six Principles of Nurture as the underpinning philosophy; parent and carer engagement; and reintegration planning. The award is reviewed periodically, ensuring that schools maintain quality rather than simply achieving a one-off accreditation.
Beyond its inspection value, the Quality Mark serves as an internal quality assurance tool: the process of preparing the evidence portfolio often prompts schools to tighten systems, refresh training, and articulate their provision more clearly. Schools holding the award can also access the Nurtureuk professional community, connecting with other practitioners, attending training events, and contributing to the growing evidence base for nurture practice. For SENCOs seeking to strengthen their provision mapping and demonstrate impact to governors, the Quality Mark provides a credible external reference point that goes beyond in-school self-evaluation.
Running a successful intervention requires rigorous administration and staff support. SENCOs must protect the integrity of the model to ensure it remains effective. Here are clear, actionable strategies for managing this provision.
For a practical classroom example of these tips, a SENCO creates a one-page transition passport for a pupil returning to the mainstream classroom. It lists the child's specific sensory triggers and provides the mainstream teacher with the exact emotion coaching scripts the child recognises and responds to. The pupil then helps to design their own passport, choosing images and phrases that resonate with them.
How long do pupils usually stay in the intervention?
Children typically remain in the setting for two to four terms. The duration depends on the severity of their developmental gaps and their progress on the Boxall Profile. Reintegration is a phased process rather than a sudden cutoff.
Will children fall behind on their academic learning?
No, academic learning remains a core part of the daily routine. More importantly, children who cannot regulate their emotions are already failing to access the curriculum. By improving their psychological safety, the intervention increases their cognitive readiness for academic work.
Can secondary schools use this approach?
Yes, the principles are effective in secondary settings, though the physical environment looks different. Secondary models often focus on managing the complex transitions between multiple classrooms and teachers. The core focus on attachment and communication remains identical.
How do schools fund this provision?
Schools typically utilise their SEN budget and Pupil Premium funding to staff and resource the room. While the initial setup cost is high, headteachers often find it reduces the long-term costs associated with permanent exclusions and 1:1 crisis support.
How do we measure the impact of the intervention?
The Boxall Profile provides quantifiable data on emotional and behavioural growth. Schools also track secondary metrics such as attendance rates, reduction in behavioural incidents and academic progress in mainstream lessons.
For a final classroom example addressing parent queries, when parents ask if their child is missing out on phonics, the teacher shares a portfolio showing how phonics is embedded into the group's baking activity through reading and decoding recipe cards. The pupils then produce their own simplified recipe book, using pictures and keywords to demonstrate their understanding.
Take ten minutes today to review the Boxall Profile of your most challenging pupil to identify their specific developmental gaps before planning their next intervention.
These peer-reviewed studies provide the evidence base for the strategies discussed above.
Different Sides of University Life: An Exploratory Study Investigating How Multiple Visits to a Campus Nurture a Rounded View of the Setting and Strengthen Intentions Towards Higher Education Progression View study ↗
Canovan et al. (2025)
This study examines how repeated university visits help primary students develop comprehensive understanding of higher education settings and strengthen their intentions to progress. Teachers can use these findings to design multi-visit programmes that provide students with deeper, more nuanced exposure to university environments.
Effective online large-group teaching in health professions education View study ↗
Fong et al. (2022)
This research explores effective methods for online large-group teaching in health professions education, addressing challenges of reaching many learners remotely. Teachers can apply these findings to improve their own large-group online delivery, particularly regarding engagement strategies and resource-efficient educational approaches.
Meeting the educational needs of a gifted child: A parent’s narrative View study ↗
13 citations
Manasawala et al. (2019)
This case study follows parents navigating educational provision for their gifted 7-year-old child in India's education system. Teachers can gain insights into recognising and supporting gifted students' unique needs, particularly when standard educational provision may not adequately challenge highly able learners.
Fuerza en la Solidaridad: Co-Creation of Racial Affinity Groups with Aspiring and Practicing BIPoC Teachers Resisting in White Spaces View study ↗
Morales et al. (2025)
This study examines the creation of racial affinity groups supporting Black, Indigenous, and People of Colour teachers in predominantly white educational spaces. Teachers can learn about building supportive communities that affirm marginalised educators and students, promoting retention and engagement across educational levels.
Parental Support and Coach Influence towards Career Decision Making Self-Efficacy among National Student Athletes in Malaysia View study ↗
Retnam et al. (2018)
This research investigates how parental support and coach influence affect career decision-making confidence among Malaysian student athletes. Teachers working with student athletes can understand the importance of collaborative support systems in helping students navigate academic and athletic career pathways.
Essential resources for educators to understand and implement effective Nurture Group principles that foster emotional and cognitive readiness.
Fill in your details below and we'll send the resource pack straight to your inbox.
We've also sent a copy to your email. Check your inbox.
Nurture groups provide targeted, short-term interventions for children who struggle with the social, emotional and behavioural demands of school. These groups typically consist of six to ten pupils working with two dedicated staff members. The environment is designed to blend the structure of a classroom with the security of a home.
Marjorie Boxall developed the concept in London in the late 1960s to support children arriving at school with severe emotional needs (Boxall, 2002). Boxall recognised that children who lacked early nurturing experiences could not access the standard curriculum. They needed a specific environment that replicated early childhood learning stages to help them build secure attachments and self-regulation skills.
The entire framework is based on the six principles of nurture. These principles guide every interaction, routine and environmental choice within the setting. Understanding these six concepts is essential for any educator looking to implement this provision effectively.
The first principle states that children's learning is understood developmentally. Teachers must respond to the child's developmental age rather than their chronological age. A ten-year-old child might display the emotional regulation of a toddler during moments of distress.
The second principle establishes that the classroom offers a safe base. Predictability, clear boundaries and reliable routines create an environment where anxiety decreases. When children know what to expect, they feel secure enough to take academic and social risks.
The third principle highlights the importance of nurture for the development of wellbeing. Staff must provide unconditional positive regard, validating the child's worth even when challenging behaviour occurs. This builds the self-esteem required for long-term resilience.
The fourth principle treats language as a vital means of communication. Many children in these settings lack the vocabulary to express complex emotions. Staff must actively teach emotional literacy, helping children move from acting out their feelings to talking about them.
The fifth principle asserts that all behaviour is communication. Rather than viewing outbursts purely as disruption, staff must interpret them as signals of unmet needs. This shift in perspective moves the focus from punitive discipline to supportive intervention.
The final principle addresses the importance of transition in children's lives. Changes in routine, moving between classrooms or returning home can trigger intense anxiety. Staff must explicitly teach and scaffold the skills needed to navigate these transitions successfully.
For a concrete classroom example, a teacher sets up a designated nurture space with soft seating, a dining table and clear visual boundaries. This physical layout provides a safe base that helps anxious pupils regulate their emotions before formal academic instruction begins. The pupils then produce artwork to decorate the space, personalising it and reinforcing their sense of belonging.
These groups are designed for children who face significant barriers to learning due to social, emotional or mental health difficulties. These pupils often present with attachment issues, trauma backgrounds or severe anxiety that prevents them from engaging in a mainstream classroom of thirty peers. They may display highly disruptive externalising behaviours or become completely withdrawn and silent.
Schools use the Boxall Profile to identify which children will benefit most from this intervention. This tool evaluates the child's cognitive, social and behavioural development. It helps staff look past the presenting behaviour to understand the underlying developmental gaps.
The Boxall Profile is divided into two main sections. The first section measures developmental strands, looking at how the child organises their experience and internalises controls. The second section creates a diagnostic profile, identifying self-limiting features, undeveloped behaviour and unsupported development.
By completing this profile, the Special Educational Needs Coordinator (SENCO) can pinpoint which early developmental experiences the child missed. This data allows the team to group children with complementary needs and design specific interventions. The assessment is then repeated termly to track progress and adjust the provision.
In a practical classroom example, a SENCO uses the Boxall Profile to evaluate a Year 3 pupil who frequently hides under tables during maths. The assessment reveals gaps in early developmental strands, prompting the team to use dual-coding and physical scaffolding to support these specific missing skills. The pupil then produces a "safe space" plan, drawing pictures of calming strategies they can use when feeling overwhelmed.
A typical nurture group runs for a substantial part of the school week, often covering the morning sessions. Pupils remain on the roll of their mainstream class and usually return to their primary teacher for afternoon sessions. This dual-registration ensures they maintain a connection with their peers while receiving intensive support.
The daily routine is highly structured and predictable. Sessions often begin with a breakfast or welcome circle. This creates a low-stakes environment where staff can assess the emotional temperature of each child as they arrive. Visual timetables are prominently displayed and referred to constantly to reduce anxiety about what comes next.
Academic learning is integrated into the provision, but it is delivered through a developmental lens. Teachers adapt the national curriculum to match the cognitive and emotional readiness of the pupils. Tasks are heavily scaffolded, and instructions are broken down into micro-steps to guarantee success and build academic confidence.
Food sharing is a foundational element of the daily routine. Staff and pupils sit together around a table to share a meal, replicating a supportive family environment. This activity is not just about nutrition; it is a pedagogical tool for teaching social skills.
During a structured toast time classroom example, the teacher explicitly models spreading butter and passing the plate while prompting pupils to make eye contact. This structured snack time explicitly models social communication and turn-taking in a safe environment, allowing pupils to practice peer interactions. The pupils then produce a collaborative placemat, illustrating the steps of making toast and the associated social rules.
The effectiveness of this provision is supported by decades of educational psychology and neurological research. Studies consistently show that well-run groups significantly improve social and emotional functioning. Children who complete a successful cycle of intervention show improvements in attendance, academic engagement and peer relationships (Bennathan & Boxall, 2018).
Research indicates that the benefits extend beyond the individual pupils. Schools that adopt these principles report a reduction in overall exclusions and improved staff morale (Cooper & Whitebread, 2007). The approach shifts the school culture from reactive behaviour management to proactive emotional support.
There is a connection between emotional security and cognitive science. According to Cognitive Load Theory, working memory has a limited capacity for processing new information (Sweller, 1988). When a child is experiencing trauma or high anxiety, their amygdala is constantly scanning the environment for threats.
This state of hyper-vigilance acts as an extraneous cognitive load. The child's working memory is consumed by emotional regulation and threat detection. Consequently, they have no cognitive capacity left to process academic instructions, decode text or solve mathematical problems.
The predictable routines and safe base of the nurture setting reduce this threat response. By establishing psychological safety, the intervention directly reduces extraneous cognitive load. This frees up the working memory, enabling the child to engage with the academic curriculum.
In a typical classroom example, a teacher notices a pupil staring blankly at a complex phonics worksheet. Instead of repeating the instructions, the teacher uses a structured breathing exercise to lower the child's anxiety, which reduces extraneous cognitive load and allows the pupil to process the academic task. The pupil then produces a simplified version of the worksheet, breaking down the task into smaller, manageable steps.
Implementing this provision requires a strategic commitment from the entire school leadership team. It cannot exist as an isolated room operating independently from the rest of the school. The most successful implementations occur when the six principles inform the universal provision across all mainstream classrooms.
Setting up a dedicated room requires careful environmental design. The space needs distinct areas for different types of activity. This usually includes a soft seating area for emotional check-ins, a traditional table for group work and dining, and individual workstations for focused academic tasks.
Applying these principles in the mainstream classroom ensures that the approach benefits all pupils. Mainstream teachers can adopt the concept of the safe base by creating a quiet corner in their room. They can also implement the language principle by using emotion coaching scripts during moments of high tension.
Managing the transition back to the mainstream classroom is the most delicate phase of the intervention. This process must be planned from the first day a child enters the group. Reintegration is gradual, starting with the child attending a single favourite subject in the mainstream class and slowly increasing the time spent there.
During this reintegration phase, communication between the nurture staff and the mainstream teacher is critical. The mainstream teacher must be fully briefed on the specific triggers and successful de-escalation strategies for that pupil. Without this shared knowledge, the pupil is likely to experience a rapid regression in their behaviour.
For a classroom example of this transition, before moving a pupil from maths to PE, the teacher uses a familiar emotion coaching script, saying "I can see you feel worried about the loud hall, and it is okay to feel worried." This helps the student articulate feelings using the vocabulary learned in the group before a behavioural outburst occurs. The pupil then produces a visual checklist of steps to take when feeling anxious in the hall, such as "take three deep breaths" or "ask a teacher for help".
The 'safe base' concept aligns with Universal Design for Learning (UDL) by providing multiple means of engagement, representation, and action and expression (Rose & Meyer, 2002).
Schools have access to several different emotional and behavioural interventions. Understanding the distinctions between them helps SENCOs allocate resources effectively. The table below outlines how this specific provision compares to other common school-based approaches.
| Feature | Nurture Groups | ELSA (Emotional Literacy) | Play Therapy | Zones of Regulation |
| :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- |
| Group Size | 6 to 10 pupils | 1:1 or very small groups (2-3) | 1:1 | Whole class (Universal) |
| Duration | 2 to 4 terms (substantial weekly hours) | 6 to 12 weeks (weekly sessions) | Variable (weekly sessions) | Ongoing daily curriculum |
| Primary Focus | Replicating early developmental stages | Identifying and expressing specific emotions | Processing trauma through play | Teaching self-regulation states |
| Delivery Model | Dual-registration (withdrawal and mainstream) | Withdrawal for a specific 30-minute session | Withdrawal to a clinical space | Integrated into standard lessons |
| Staffing | Two dedicated, trained practitioners | One trained teaching assistant | External qualified therapist | Class teacher |
In a comparative classroom example, while an ELSA session might involve a pupil completing a 1:1 emotional literacy worksheet, a Nurture Group session involves six pupils sitting around a table sharing a structured meal to practice live peer interactions. The ELSA pupil produces a feelings diary; the Nurture Group pupils produce a collaborative menu for the following week, negotiating food choices and practicing social skills.
The nurture group model was designed in primary schools, but the need for relational, attachment-informed support does not disappear at age eleven. Secondary school nurture groups adapt the classic model to meet the developmental demands of adolescence, the structural realities of subject-specialist timetabling, and the social complexity of large comprehensive schools. Cooper and Whitebread (2007) found that nurture provision can be effective at secondary level when adapted to the specific needs of older pupils, noting improvements in social competence and engagement with learning.
The main structural challenge is timetabling. In a secondary school, a pupil missing four mornings a week from a mixed timetable of subjects creates significant logistical friction. Most secondary settings therefore adopt a variant model: shorter daily sessions (typically one period per day), lunchtime groups, or a concentrated morning block two or three times a week. The important principle is consistency (the same space, the same two adults, the same predictable routines) rather than an exact replication of the primary model's hours.
Content also shifts. Secondary nurture groups address the specific challenges of early adolescence: identity formation, peer relationships, managing transitions between lessons and social spaces, and the heightened emotional volatility associated with puberty. Role-play scenarios focus on assertiveness, conflict resolution, and reading social cues in complex peer dynamics. Shared meals remain central: food, informality, and adult attunement create a psychological safety net that is often absent elsewhere in a secondary pupil's day.
Staffing presents a further consideration. Secondary nurture practitioners need to be credible to older pupils, which may mean drawing on subject knowledge as a hook for engagement. A nurture room that incorporates elements of art, cooking, or technology keeps adolescent learners cognitively engaged while the relational work proceeds. Transition planning (preparing pupils for a return to full timetable participation) is particularly important at secondary level, where the gap between nurture group norms and mainstream classroom culture can feel stark. Clear exit criteria, named pastoral contacts, and a named peer mentor support sustainable reintegration.
Practitioners new to nurture provision sometimes assume there is a single, prescribed model. In reality, Nurtureuk recognises both a classic nurture group and a range of variant models, each suited to different school contexts, staffing configurations, and pupil needs.
The classic model, as described by Boxall (2002), involves a small group of six to ten pupils who attend a dedicated nurture room for four full mornings each week, staffed by two adults (typically a teacher and a teaching assistant). Pupils remain on the roll of their mainstream class and return to it each afternoon, maintaining peer relationships and curriculum continuity. The classic model typically runs for two to four terms, with the Boxall Profile reviewed termly to monitor progress and plan reintegration.
Variant models include:
Choosing the right model depends on a school's capacity, the cohort's needs, and whether the goal is intensive repair work (classic model) or maintenance and prevention (variant). Both models should be underpinned by the Six Principles of Nurture, the Boxall Profile, and a clear reintegration plan.
School inspectors increasingly scrutinise how schools identify and meet the needs of pupils with special educational needs and those who are socially, emotionally, or behaviourally vulnerable. Nurture provision sits squarely within this scrutiny. Understanding what inspectors look for helps SENCOs and headteachers evidence their provision confidently.
Ofsted's inspection framework (England) evaluates the quality of education and personal development for all pupils, including those with SEMH needs. Inspectors will want to see: clear identification of pupils who need nurture support (typically through the Boxall Profile alongside other assessment evidence); a rationale for the intervention that links to individual pupil need; records of progress reviewed at regular intervals; and evidence that the provision improves pupil outcomes across academic engagement, attendance, behaviour, and wellbeing.
The Boxall Quality Mark Award (discussed below) is not a formal Ofsted requirement, but holding it signals to inspectors that a school's nurture provision meets a nationally recognised standard. Schools in Wales may also be asked to evidence nurture provision against Estyn's inspection framework, which similarly emphasises the quality of support for learners with additional learning needs.
Good evidence for inspection includes: Boxall Profile data showing a trajectory of improvement; case studies (anonymised) illustrating individual pupil progress; attendance and exclusion data before and after nurture group placement; and parent/carer feedback. Schools with provision maps that explicitly record nurture group placements alongside other interventions demonstrate the kind of systematic, evidence-led approach inspectors expect. If a school offers nurture provision as part of its ordinarily available provision, this should be clearly documented so that pupils with SEMH needs can access it without requiring an Education, Health and Care Plan.
The relational principles at the heart of nurture group practice do not stop at the classroom door. Parent and carer engagement is a recognised component of effective nurture provision, and Nurtureuk's quality standards explicitly include family involvement. Engaging families respectfully and consistently strengthens the impact of the intervention and helps to extend nurturing approaches into the home environment.
In practice, this means establishing clear, regular communication from the outset. Before a pupil begins a nurture group, their parent or carer should receive an explanation of what the group involves, why their child has been identified, and what progress will look like. This conversation should be conducted with warmth and without stigma: attending a nurture group is not a sanction or a reflection of failure; it is additional, tailored support.
Many schools use a home-school nurture book, a simple notebook that travels with the pupil and records small moments of progress, positive observations, and activities completed. This creates a bridge between school and home that reinforces the pupil's developing sense of security and invites parents to contribute their own observations. Where families are facing their own adversity, this shared record can also help practitioners understand the wider context shaping a pupil's behaviour.
Parent workshops that introduce the Six Principles of Nurture can be particularly powerful. When a parent understands why the breakfast routine matters, or why a key adult's consistent response to distress is more helpful than a consequence-based approach, they are better placed to offer congruent support at home. It is also important to set realistic expectations: nurture groups typically support pupils over two to four terms rather than weeks, and honest communication about this timeline reduces anxiety and builds trust in the school's approach.
The effectiveness of nurture groups is not merely anecdotal. It is grounded in contemporary neuroscience. Early brain development is shaped profoundly by relational experience: the quality of attachment relationships in the first years of life literally structures the neural circuits that regulate emotion, attention, and social behaviour (Hughes et al., 2015). When early experiences are neglectful, chaotic, or traumatic, the stress-response systems of the brain (particularly the amygdala and the hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis) can become dysregulated, making it harder for a child to feel safe, sustain attention, or read social cues accurately.
Boxall's original insight, developed through her work at the Inner London Education Authority in the 1960s and 1970s, was that many children presenting with challenging behaviour were not wilfully disruptive but were re-enacting early relational deprivation in the classroom. What they needed was not more behavioural management but a corrective relational experience: a safe base from which to explore and learn (Bennathan and Boxall, 2018).
Modern neuroscience corroborates this. The prefrontal cortex (responsible for executive function, impulse control, and flexible thinking) continues developing into a person's mid-twenties, and its development is highly sensitive to the quality of early caregiving. When the stress system is chronically activated, prefrontal development is compromised. The predictable, warm, low-threat environment of a nurture group helps to regulate the stress system, creating the neurological conditions in which learning becomes possible. Shared meals, consistent routines, and attuned adult responses are not merely pastoral kindness; they are evidence-informed neurological interventions.
For pupils with special educational needs, including those with autism, ADHD, or developmental trauma, the sensory and relational predictability of a well-run nurture group can reduce sensory overload and improve co-regulation (the process by which a regulated adult helps a dysregulated child return to a state of calm). Schools introducing complementary approaches such as sensory circuits alongside nurture group provision may find that the two interventions reinforce each other, addressing both the sensory and relational dimensions of a pupil's difficulty.
The concept of Adverse Childhood Experiences (ACEs), first described by Felitti et al. (1998) in a landmark study of over 17,000 adults, refers to traumatic events in childhood including abuse, neglect, household substance misuse, domestic violence, and parental mental illness. The original ACE study demonstrated a dose-response relationship: the more ACEs a child experiences, the greater the risk of poor outcomes across physical health, mental health, education, and employment. In educational settings, pupils with high ACE scores are more likely to present with SEMH difficulties, school avoidance, and persistent behavioural challenges.
Trauma-informed practice recognises that many challenging behaviours in school are not choices but survival responses rooted in early adversity. A child who is hypervigilant, avoidant, or explosively reactive in the classroom may be responding to triggers that activate a trauma memory rather than simply refusing to comply. Trauma-informed schools shift the question from "what is wrong with this child?" to "what has happened to this child?" This reframing is entirely consistent with the nurture group philosophy.
Nurture groups are one of the most coherent school-based responses to the legacy of ACEs. The predictable daily structure reduces environmental uncertainty, which is the primary trigger for trauma responses. The small group size means that key adults can attune to individual pupils and respond sensitively to early signs of dysregulation. The emphasis on emotional literacy and naming feelings (central to nurture group sessions) builds the internal resources that trauma erodes. Cooper and Whitebread (2007) found that nurture group pupils showed significant improvements in emotional regulation and social skills, outcomes that align directly with the neurological healing that trauma-informed approaches aim to support.
Schools implementing nurture groups as part of a broader trauma-informed approach may also wish to consult resources on inclusive education and whole-school SEND strategy to ensure that their response to ACEs is systemic rather than confined to a single room.
For headteachers and governors making resource allocation decisions, the question of cost-effectiveness is legitimate and important. Nurture groups require dedicated space, two trained members of staff, and sustained commitment over at least one academic year. Understanding the return on that investment (in pupil outcomes, reduced demand on other services, and long-term savings) is essential for making the case to leadership teams and governors.
The direct costs vary by school, but a rough estimate for a classic nurture group running for one academic year (including staff time, training, materials, and Boxall Profile licences) typically ranges from £15,000 to £25,000 per year, depending on staff salary bands. With six to ten pupils in the group, the cost per pupil is broadly comparable to other specialist interventions such as ELSA programmes or individual therapeutic input, and substantially cheaper than out-of-school provision or managed moves.
The savings are harder to quantify but substantial. Research consistently shows that nurture group pupils experience reductions in fixed-term exclusions, improved attendance, and more sustained mainstream classroom participation. Given that a single permanent exclusion costs local authorities an estimated £15,000 to £20,000 in alternative provision, preventing two or three exclusions per year through a nurture group more than covers the cost of the provision. Improved attendance translates directly into pupil premium funding retention. Reduced demand on SENCO time, educational psychologist referrals, and social care involvement adds further value that does not appear on a simple budget line.
Hughes et al. (2015) reviewed the economic case for early intervention in social-emotional development and concluded that investing in attachment-informed approaches at primary school level generates long-term savings across health, justice, and welfare budgets. For schools operating under financial pressure, framing nurture groups as a strategic investment in long-term outcomes (and as a mechanism for managing exclusion risk) strengthens the governance case considerably. Provision mapping that tracks cost per pupil alongside outcome data makes this case visible and auditable.
The Boxall Quality Mark Award is a nationally recognised accreditation for schools and settings that demonstrate high-quality nurture provision. Administered by Nurtureuk (formerly the Nurture Group Network), the award provides an external validation that a school's nurture group meets the standards set by the organisation that has championed this approach for over five decades.
To apply, a school submits evidence against a framework that covers: the physical environment (the nurture room as a safe base); staff training and ongoing professional development; the use of the Boxall Profile for assessment, planning, and review; the Six Principles of Nurture as the underpinning philosophy; parent and carer engagement; and reintegration planning. The award is reviewed periodically, ensuring that schools maintain quality rather than simply achieving a one-off accreditation.
Beyond its inspection value, the Quality Mark serves as an internal quality assurance tool: the process of preparing the evidence portfolio often prompts schools to tighten systems, refresh training, and articulate their provision more clearly. Schools holding the award can also access the Nurtureuk professional community, connecting with other practitioners, attending training events, and contributing to the growing evidence base for nurture practice. For SENCOs seeking to strengthen their provision mapping and demonstrate impact to governors, the Quality Mark provides a credible external reference point that goes beyond in-school self-evaluation.
Running a successful intervention requires rigorous administration and staff support. SENCOs must protect the integrity of the model to ensure it remains effective. Here are clear, actionable strategies for managing this provision.
For a practical classroom example of these tips, a SENCO creates a one-page transition passport for a pupil returning to the mainstream classroom. It lists the child's specific sensory triggers and provides the mainstream teacher with the exact emotion coaching scripts the child recognises and responds to. The pupil then helps to design their own passport, choosing images and phrases that resonate with them.
How long do pupils usually stay in the intervention?
Children typically remain in the setting for two to four terms. The duration depends on the severity of their developmental gaps and their progress on the Boxall Profile. Reintegration is a phased process rather than a sudden cutoff.
Will children fall behind on their academic learning?
No, academic learning remains a core part of the daily routine. More importantly, children who cannot regulate their emotions are already failing to access the curriculum. By improving their psychological safety, the intervention increases their cognitive readiness for academic work.
Can secondary schools use this approach?
Yes, the principles are effective in secondary settings, though the physical environment looks different. Secondary models often focus on managing the complex transitions between multiple classrooms and teachers. The core focus on attachment and communication remains identical.
How do schools fund this provision?
Schools typically utilise their SEN budget and Pupil Premium funding to staff and resource the room. While the initial setup cost is high, headteachers often find it reduces the long-term costs associated with permanent exclusions and 1:1 crisis support.
How do we measure the impact of the intervention?
The Boxall Profile provides quantifiable data on emotional and behavioural growth. Schools also track secondary metrics such as attendance rates, reduction in behavioural incidents and academic progress in mainstream lessons.
For a final classroom example addressing parent queries, when parents ask if their child is missing out on phonics, the teacher shares a portfolio showing how phonics is embedded into the group's baking activity through reading and decoding recipe cards. The pupils then produce their own simplified recipe book, using pictures and keywords to demonstrate their understanding.
Take ten minutes today to review the Boxall Profile of your most challenging pupil to identify their specific developmental gaps before planning their next intervention.
These peer-reviewed studies provide the evidence base for the strategies discussed above.
Different Sides of University Life: An Exploratory Study Investigating How Multiple Visits to a Campus Nurture a Rounded View of the Setting and Strengthen Intentions Towards Higher Education Progression View study ↗
Canovan et al. (2025)
This study examines how repeated university visits help primary students develop comprehensive understanding of higher education settings and strengthen their intentions to progress. Teachers can use these findings to design multi-visit programmes that provide students with deeper, more nuanced exposure to university environments.
Effective online large-group teaching in health professions education View study ↗
Fong et al. (2022)
This research explores effective methods for online large-group teaching in health professions education, addressing challenges of reaching many learners remotely. Teachers can apply these findings to improve their own large-group online delivery, particularly regarding engagement strategies and resource-efficient educational approaches.
Meeting the educational needs of a gifted child: A parent’s narrative View study ↗
13 citations
Manasawala et al. (2019)
This case study follows parents navigating educational provision for their gifted 7-year-old child in India's education system. Teachers can gain insights into recognising and supporting gifted students' unique needs, particularly when standard educational provision may not adequately challenge highly able learners.
Fuerza en la Solidaridad: Co-Creation of Racial Affinity Groups with Aspiring and Practicing BIPoC Teachers Resisting in White Spaces View study ↗
Morales et al. (2025)
This study examines the creation of racial affinity groups supporting Black, Indigenous, and People of Colour teachers in predominantly white educational spaces. Teachers can learn about building supportive communities that affirm marginalised educators and students, promoting retention and engagement across educational levels.
Parental Support and Coach Influence towards Career Decision Making Self-Efficacy among National Student Athletes in Malaysia View study ↗
Retnam et al. (2018)
This research investigates how parental support and coach influence affect career decision-making confidence among Malaysian student athletes. Teachers working with student athletes can understand the importance of collaborative support systems in helping students navigate academic and athletic career pathways.
Essential resources for educators to understand and implement effective Nurture Group principles that foster emotional and cognitive readiness.
Fill in your details below and we'll send the resource pack straight to your inbox.
We've also sent a copy to your email. Check your inbox.
{"@context":"https://schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https://www.structural-learning.com/#org","name":"Structural Learning","url":"https://www.structural-learning.com/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","url":"https://cdn.prod.website-files.com/5b69a01ba2e409501de055d1/5b69a01ba2e40996a5e055f4_structural-learning-logo.png"}},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https://www.structural-learning.com/team/paul-main/#person","name":"Paul Main","url":"https://www.structural-learning.com/team/paul-main","jobTitle":"Founder","affiliation":{"@id":"https://www.structural-learning.com/#org"}},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https://www.structural-learning.com/post/nurture-groups-teachers-guide-emotional#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https://www.structural-learning.com/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Blog","item":"https://www.structural-learning.com/blog"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":3,"name":"Nurture Groups: A Teacher's Guide to Emotional and Cognitive Readiness","item":"https://www.structural-learning.com/post/nurture-groups-teachers-guide-emotional"}]},{"@type":"BlogPosting","@id":"https://www.structural-learning.com/post/nurture-groups-teachers-guide-emotional#article","headline":"Nurture Groups: A Teacher's Guide to Emotional and Cognitive Readiness","description":"Discover how nurture groups build emotional security and reduce cognitive load. Learn the six principles, the Boxall Profile, and practical classroom strategies.","author":{"@id":"https://www.structural-learning.com/team/paul-main/#person"},"publisher":{"@id":"https://www.structural-learning.com/#org"},"datePublished":"2026-03-13","dateModified":"2026-03-13","inLanguage":"en-GB"}]}
