Nurture Groups: Linking Theory with Practice

In a study by Kourmoulaki (2013, p. 65), it is stated that nurture groups were used to ease transition in children, as well as to physically and emotionally prepare them to learn; and the classroom provided a safe refuge. With regard to Bronfenbrenner’s systems theory, I feel that schools tend to be places where some children find it difficult to fit in. However, I also believe that a nurture group can establish links between home and school for the child. From my experiences both as a classroom and nurture group teacher, I tend to agree with Abraham Maslow’s hierarchy of needs because I believe that for a child to be ready to learn, they require that having certain needs met. A nurture group could provide certain needs for these children. Such experiences can give a sense of security: the child would know that they are in a safe place within the school. Another example would be the need for nutrition, which a nurture group, can provide through breakfast and lunch clubs, especially if the child is undernourished.

I also feel that a child within a small unit such as a nurture group, owing to a number of factors such as the size of the group and the character of the educators, a child can feel a sense of belonging. With regard to attachment theory, this study aligns with Frosh’s (2012) statement that human beings want to seek closeness with others because of the dangers of the external world. In the context of a nurture group, children tend to seek closeness with their educators as sometimes they feel a lack of safety within different groups such as the classroom, during break and other groups outside of school. Frosh (2012)’s argument greatly relates to the story which motivated me to carry out this research, as narrated in the first chapter.

Samuel felt attached to the nurture group team because he felt safe, and his sense of security stemmed from the bond he had built with us. Samuel had built trust in my colleague and myself because he knew that we were not only available physically on school premises when he needed to talk, but that we sought to offer support and strategies for him to try and make the right choices. The only difference between my colleague and I and other educators was that we were differentiating between Samuel and his behaviour, while the others were seeing the behaviour before considering the child. Samuel, on the other hand, could sense and observe the way he was being treated by the nurture group team in contrast with the other educators’ treatment. While he felt a sense of safety within the nurture group because of us, he did not feel the same in the presence of other educators.

With regard to Fonagy’s mentalisation theory, this can work in a nurture group context through activities such as journaling. Such activities can help the children to open up more and speak about things which are implicit. Journaling is the first step to make these implicit things explicit. The following table summarises the links which this thesis makes between these four theoretical frameworks and nurture groups:

Table 1: Table summarising links between study and four theoretical frameworks

Step 1: Schools are shaped by individuals, and the system itself determines whether the child will be able to fulfil his/her potential as suggested by the systems theory.

Step 2: The nurture group is the link between home and school, and it sees that certain needs of the child are met, as suggested by the hierarchy of needs.

Step 3: The nurture group educator builds a bond with the child, and the child becomes attached to the educator as implied by the attachment theory process.

Step 4: The nurture group educator tries to find a way to understand the internal workings of the child’s mind through the process of mentalisation.

There are a number of links between schools, nurture groups and the relationships made between children and nurture group educators. Systems Theory suggests that social systems such as the school are key systems that have an important influence on regulating how a child functions. From my experiences as a nurture group teacher, I used to observe that many children who were referred to the nurture group had struggles within one or more of the social systems they were part of, for example at school they could not understand and follow certain school routines. Due to these difficulties, certain needs of these learners were not usually met. Since the needs at the bottom of the triangle, illustrated by Maslow (see page 28), were not met, the upper needs of that same triangle could not be met and that in itself could result in learners being unable to engage in their learning. In this study’s context, children who lacked basic needs such as security, did not have friends and generally saw themselves in a negative way, were usually the ones who were referred to the nurture group.

The nurture group setting was constructed to provide children with the necessary experiences that they had missed out on, or not had enough of in their lives. A nurture group is different from a classroom as the latter caters for the learner’s curricular needs whilst the former supports children in their social and emotional learning needs. Whilst I acknowledge that there are teachers who teach a mainstream classroom who have made it a goal for themselves to build a trusting bond with the children, the nurture group setting in itself and the activities within the nurture group make the bond easier to establish. One way of setting up this secure bond is for the nurture group educator to understand better what is going on in the child’s mind and to make what is implicit and unknown to others, explicit and acknowledged to the educator, so that the latter can work on strategies to support the child in a better manner.