cabbage patch nurture group annual self ……cabbage patch nurture group annual self-evaluation of...

Cabbage Patch Nurture Group Annual Self-evaluation of Performance and Progress: June 2016

Cabbage Patch Nurture Group

Annual Self-evaluation of

Performance and Progress:

June 2016

Chase Bridge Primary School

Kneller Road,

Twickenham, TW2 7DE

020 8892 1242

fax: 020 8744 3888

e-mail: [email protected]

Headteacher: Andrew King

Deputy Headteacher: Brian Ostro

Assistant Headteachers: Kate Gauvain, Iris Klever

Chair of Governing Body: John Justice

Line Manager: Laura Jeffery

Lead Teacher: Fiona Yard

C H A S E . B R I D G E . P R I M A R Y . S C H O O L

Kneller Road, Twickenham TW2 7DE 020 8892 1242 e-mail: [email protected]

mailto:[email protected]


- 2 -

Annual Self-evaluation of

Performance and Progress: June 2016

Contents

1. Introduction p.3

2. Contextual overview p.5

3. Summary evaluation with reference to Nurture Group Network criteria p.6

Outcomes

Provision

Management

4. Surveys: children, parents and schools p.16

5. Continuing Professional Development p.20

6. Summary, conclusions and emerging priorities p.21

7. Appendices


- 3 -

1. Introduction

Schools in the Whitton and West Twickenham locality have established a key stage one nurture group this year.

The Cabbage Patch Nurture Group, based at Chase Bridge Primary School, has been open to locality children

since September 2015. In addition to the SEMH (social, emotional and mental health) provision itself, the

nurture group staff have also provided a range of outreach support for the locality schools with infant-aged

children.

The nurture group is intended to be a short-term intervention (between two and four terms) providing a

caring, stable and supportive home/school environment for children exhibiting social and emotional difficulties.

The provision aims to help children, aged 5 – 7 years, develop a positive self-image and improve their social

skills so that they can access learning more successfully in their mainstream school setting.

As anticipated, this first year has been a steep learning curve for all involved. However, staff and schools are

continually reviewing and reflecting on the effectiveness of the provisions across all aspects, from day-to-day

operation to admissions and funding. The annual review evaluates the progress of the nurture group over the

year. It begins with a review of some of the contextual information and then evaluates the provision,

management and outcomes for the children. The evaluation also draws upon surveys from schools, parents and

the children themselves. The document concludes with an evaluation of areas of strength as well as ways that

the provision might be improved.

Staffing roles

Name Role Hours

Laura Jeffery NG Line Manager

Y4 class teacher/Inclusion team

½ day per week

Fiona Yard NG Teacher

36 hours per week

Laura Fox NG Teaching Assistant

32.5 hours per week

Melissa Glanville NG Cover Teaching Assistant

Young Carers lead

1:1 Learning Support Assistant

11 hours per week

Beckie Dowden NG Supply Teaching Assistant Flexible (cover for teaching

assistants)


- 4 -


- 5 -

2. Contextual overview

The table below shows some key contextual information for the Cabbage Patch Nurture Group. The

information is based on the data provided at the time of referral for the children who have accessed the

provision.

Indicator 2015 - 2016

Filled places total 7

Girls 2

Boys 5

Pupil Premium Grant (PPG) 5

English as an Additional Language (EAL) 1

Education Health Care Plan (EHCP) 0

Looked After Child (LAC) 0

Child under Residency Order 1

Adopted from Care 1

Vulnerable 4

Common Assessment Framework (CAF) 1

Child In Need (CIN) 1

Child Protection (CP) 0

The data indicates that the Cabbage Patch has a large number of vulnerable children, as well as those who access

PPG. There are no statemented children, though evidence has been sought from the nurture group in order to

begin applying for an EHCP in at least two cases. Currently there is one child that is ‘adopted from care’ and the

nurture group has provided observations and assessment data to support the parents’ application for support

from social services.

Initially, there were three unsuccessful referrals. A decision was made, at the admissions panel, that the

provision would not meet the needs of the referred children.

There have been six new referrals alongside the planned gradual reintegration of five children. We are reflecting

on the reasons for the low number of referrals and have sought feedback from locality schools. To ensure that

that the nurture group continues to provide value for money, we have considered extending the catchment area

to within a 1-mile radius of Chase Bridge Primary School. Staff meetings have also been offered to schools in

order to promote the work of the NG, we hope that this will lead to an increased number of referrals in the

future.


- 6 -

3. Summary evaluation

Outcomes – Social, Emotional and Mental Health

The main assessment tool used at the nurture group is the Boxall Profile which is initially completed by a child’s

class teacher at the point of referral. Throughout a child’s placement at the nurture group, the staff regularly

update their Boxall Profiles in order to inform staff practice, including the development of reintegration plans.

See charts of data in the appendices.

Key observations:

Children have made progress in the vast majority of strands.

The group have all made progress in strands B (participating constructively – group target), C (connects

up experiences) and J (maintains internalised standards).

The group have made the least progress in strand F (is emotionally secure).

Most children have made progress in each strand.

Some children have regressed slightly or scored the same in a few strands.

All children are operating within the range of a competently functioning child in at least two strands.

Most children are operating with the range of a competently functioning child in at least four strands.

Children have made progress in the vast majority of strands.

The group have all made progress in strands R (self-negating), W (insecure sense of self) and Z (wants

grabs, disregarding others).

The group has had the most success in strands V (avoids/rejects attachment) and Y (negativism towards

others) where more children are working with the range of a competently functioning child.

The group need more support in dealing with strands R (self-negating) and S (undifferentiated

attachments).

Most children have made progress in each strand.

Some children have regressed slightly or scored the same in a few strands.

All, except one child with additional needs, are operating within the range of a competently functioning

child in at least two strands.

This data has been gathered from assessments of all children accessing the provision, regardless of how long

they have attended. Most of the children have been supported in the nurture group for three terms.

Where data shows regression or no progress in some areas, this is largely in relation to:

a child who has recently begun seeing other professionals for support;

a child who left the provision prematurely; and

a child who has, in his time at the nurture group, been given a formal diagnosis of additional needs.


- 7 -

It should also be taken into account that the limited progress of child 7 (see appendices) may be a result of other

additional needs.

Although the children are making sufficient progress to reintegrate to their mainstream setting, we consider that

better progress could be made by amending the structure of the week in the provision. Currently the

opportunities for children to develop their social and emotional skills in their home school are limited. There is

a gap of five whole days each week before the children have another opportunity to interact with their

classmates. Without frequent contact with the other children in their class, parents are finding that their

children miss out on key social occasions, such as birthday parties. Under the current model, children also

experience inconsistent teaching in the core curriculum areas. By changing the operation of the provision to five

afternoons, children would regularly interact with both their classmates and the teaching staff ensuring a strong

relationship. They would also receive a consistant approach to the core subjects. This would enable nurture

group staff to follow up on any issues that have arisen in the morning (socially, emotionally and academically).

Communication between the nurture group and schools would also improve, through daily contact.

Since the development of the outdoor area, the children have shown great interest and curiosity about the

world around them. They have enjoyed their forest school experience, as well as gardening with other adults.

They are also learning about how to take care of other living things, for example giving sugar water to an

undernourished bee and replanting shrubs from our garden.


- 8 -

Communication is a vital part of the work of the nurture group and this is an area in which there has been

definite improvements. For child 5, having been newly arrived from another country due to changes in his family

circumstances, expressing himself, making connections in his experiences and understanding rules were things

that he found incredibly challenging. Now child 5 is consistently demonstrating improved communication and

socialises with a range of other children at Chase Bridge. Although he still finds some rules hard to accept, he

understands why we have rules and he verbally reinforces them to the other children. Instead of running off or

having an emotional outburst, he can identify and express how he is feeling and why. He has developed an

understanding that he will receive adult help when he asks for it.

When playing games, the children are learning to abide by the rules, persevere with an activity to the end, as

well as accept the disappointment of losing. One of the most significant improvements observed in most of the

children has been the acceptance of failure or losing. Previously reactions would range from walking away to

emotional outbursts, the children have now learned to manage these emotions more effectively. We have also

observed improved fine-motor skills and concentration in others.


- 9 -

Summary of academic progress

Typically, children accessing the nurture group find it challenging to access the taught curriculum in their

mainstream class and there may be contrasting differences between their chronological age and developmental

age.

Although the primary focus of the nurture group is the social and emotional well-being of the children, there

are opportunities to develop reading, writing and mathematical skills. Children receive daily phonics in small

groups from an adult trained in the ‘Read, Write, Inc.’ programme and, as a result, the average number of

sounds the children can now use has almost doubled. Adults listen to the children read approximately twice

each week; a number of children have made good progress in this area, with some class teachers noting that

this has become an area of strength for the child.

Opportunities to apply mathematical skills are built into the daily life of the nurture group from counting their

reward cabbages and swapping them for tens and units, to cutting their toast in two (halving) and sharing the

slices of apple between us.


- 10 -

Provision

The day-to-day organisation of the nurture group is continuously reviewed to meet the needs of the children.

Consequently, the daily timetable has been refined over the course of the year to ensure that the children

benefit from a range of carefully planned activities. The nurture group curriculum incorporates all areas of

learning and similar activities to those in the mainstream class, however it is delivered in a slightly different way.

It addresses each child’s needs and presents learning in small, attainable steps. Teaching is delivered through

carefully structured topics, play and practical activities based on the children’s interests, as well as key festivals

and celebrations within the community. The children are developing many skills such as talking and listening to

each other, co-operation, team work, feelings, healthy lifestyles, respect for others and much more.


- 11 -

Daily snack times are one of the most effective and enjoyable parts of the day for the children. It is an important

time for sharing news, taking turns, listening to each other and reinforcing good behaviour, including table

manners.

There are a number of behaviour management systems in place that help children see both the short and long-

term effects of making good choices. They can earn cabbages, for following instructions and making good

choices. The cabbages are then swapped for marbles in order to fill our marble jar and earn a treat for the

group. The children are given specific ‘Toucan Targets’, related to their Boxall Profile assessments or

observations from staff, and work their way up the ‘Toucan (You Can) Tree’ to earn an individual reward. In

addition to this, children operate on a ‘zone board’ which promotes good behaviour and encourages the

children to make good choices and remain on ‘the sun’ (the top of the zone board).


- 12 -

The development of the outdoor space and the expansion of the premises has had a hugely positive impact on

the running of the nurture group. There are clearly defined areas, as well as more space for the children to

work in. We have found this to be particularly effective when a child has an emotional outburst, as it allows us

to manage the other children in a calm and constructive manner.

Initially the structure of the day was largely based on theoretical research, as well as advice from other nurture

group practitioners. The daily timetable has been adapted in a way that flows naturally allowing children the

time to complete activities and move through each transition in good time. However, there have been difficulties

ensuring adequate coverage of both the national curriculum, as well as the nurture curriculum. Consistency

across the core curriculum areas has also been an area of difficulty. This is largely due to the weekly structure of

the nurture group and it has been suggested that another model (see below) would be more beneficial for the

children.

Current Model

Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday

am Outreach

PPA NG in session NG in session NG in session

pm Outreach Outreach/

Meetings

NG in session NG in session NG in session

Pros

Already established model.

Intensive – whole day provision.

NG staff able to observe interaction with

mainstream at lunchtime.

Simple transition from home to NG.

Ease of transportation.

Increased opportunity for 1:1 reading and

maximum 1:3 phonics

Cons

Schools and parents have raised concerns about

the continuity and consistency of ‘core learning’

in literacy and maths.

A long day under close-supervision (less

‘downtime’).

Parents have raised concerns about the NG

children not seeing their school friends enough,

to socialise or to apply the skills being taught in

the NG.

Over half of the week where they do not see

their class teacher, therefore have a weaker

attachment to this key adult.

Not able to attend extra-curricular clubs.

Child-care at the start and end of the day has

been an issue for more than one parent. In some

cases this has resulted in the child attending their

‘home school’ on a NG day.

Some children find Mondays and Tuesdays

challenging at their ‘home schools’.

Staff sickness is very difficult to cover, which has

meant increased closures and which has resulted in disruption in the children/parents’ routines.


- 13 -

Proposed Model

Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday

am Outreach

Outreach Outreach/

Meetings PPA Outreach

pm NG in session

NG in session NG in session NG in session NG in session

Pros

More opportunities for children to apply the NG

skills in a mainstream setting.

Improved continuity and consistency of ‘core

learning’ in literacy and maths, which in turn will

help teachers when having to assess children’s

progress and achievement in these areas.

Increased opportunities to follow-up difficulties

that may have occurred in the morning, with

suggestions on how it could be approached for

the next morning.

Nurture curriculum is given a more central focus

with curriculum activities to supplement practice.

Children develop a more secure attachment to

the key adults in their ‘home school’.

Transition back into school on a Monday should

be less challenging.

NG staff can provide more outreach to schools.

Sickness cover is easier to organise.

Lower staffing costs, as one teaching assistant

would be needed instead of two.

Would still be able to build in time for 1:1

reading.

Cons

Increased transitions.

Transportation from ‘home school’ to NG.

Children coping with the academic challenges of

the morning curriculum.

New model for schools to adopt.

Less hours in NG, but outreach time is increased.

Management

The Service Level Agreement (SLA) provided by Simon James, Associate Director for SEN and Disability at

Achieving for Children, provided a starting point from which the provision could be developed. In consultation

with members of the locality, as well as Simon James, the SLA has been carefully adapted to reflect the vision of

the nurture group staff. This document now forms part of the appendices within the nurture group policy

which is frequently reviewed.

It is imperative that we continue to have high expectations of both staff and pupil conduct and behaviour due to

the nature of the provision. Staff constantly look for opportunities to model desired behaviours, such as

positive attitudes, clear speech and active listening, healthy eating, managing our feelings and respect for others.

The ‘hidden nurture curriculum’ is deeply embedded into everything the staff do on a daily basis.


- 14 -

This self-evaluation highlights many of the changes that have taken place in this first year and we continue to

review and adapt the provision to ensure that it is providing best practice. The nurture group has undergone an

enormous amount of change as the staff gain experience and adapt to the needs of the children. For example, at

the start of the year, the children wore their ‘home school’ jumpers when attending the provision. After

discussions between staff and parents, it was felt that children would feel a deeper sense of belonging from

wearing a Chase Bridge jumper on nurture days. To some this may seem an insignificant change but, when trying

to form attachments with the children, this was incredibly important in how the children viewed themselves as

individuals, as well as a group, in their school lives.

What is apparent is that any change, no matter how small, affects the children. Reinforcement of positive

behaviour is an effective technique but sometimes children need help taking responsibility for their behaviour

and facing the consequences of their actions. In September we introduced a behaviour management system (of

which there are many) that consisted of a sun and three clouds in ascending order – each was related to a

specific reward or sanction. Children’s photographs were moved down the board for poor behavioural choices,

such as continuous disruptive behaviour. Although this provided a good visual representation of the effect of

their behavioural choices, we felt that it did not indicate how unacceptable it was. In April we introduced an

amended version called a ‘zone board’. Each distinct zone has a specific colour and size which provides a better

visual aid. The colour and size of each zone implies to the children where they should aim to be, i.e. the

majority of children should be placed on the large, gold sun rather than the small, red cloud.

In order to track the children’s progress, schools complete a Boxall Profile assessment termly (including at the

point of referral). The nurture group staff also complete a Boxall Profile assessment on a half-termly basis. In

addition to tracking a child’s progress, this helps staff to identify areas of need as well as to understand what lies

behind the behaviour and adapt their practice as necessary. For schools, this process can be quite time-

consuming and we are looking into how this can be streamlined whilst remaining effective in monitoring

progress.

There are a number of ways in which we communicate with various stakeholders. Staff handover to parents at

the beginning and end of each day, as well as texting key information, which has a better response than sending

letters home. It has been found that communicating through schools via newsletters and locality meetings can

often be more effective than emailing colleagues. Both schools and parents can now access a child’s learning

through Tapestry (online learning journal). This can be useful in maintaining relationships between the children

and their peers, as well as school staff and parents.

In terms of improving the governence of the provision, it would be beneficial to have more involvement from

the locality schools. Oversight of the nurture group is currently provided through half-termly locality meetings

and it would be useful to engage the schools in a more active way. One suggestion would be to set up a

programme, on a rotating basis, whereby a representative from each locality school takes responsibility in


- 15 -

overseeing the nurture group for a year. Not only would this be an invaluable resource for the nurture group

staff, it would also give schools a better insight into the management of the provision.


4. Surveys: children, parents and schools

Children surveys: April 2016

Children completed surveys in April 2016. Almost all of the children said they enjoyed playing outside, with

many also agreeing that activities involving food, for example snack time and cooking, were enjoyable too.

Overall the children liked participating in exciting, adult-led activities, such as gardening, baking, parachute games

and Theraplay activities.

The children suggested that the provision could be improved by developing the outside area to incorporate a

treehouse and a slide, as well as being able to make other foods, like popcorn and cookies.

From surveys of the Chase Bridge children accessing the early morning nurture group, it was found that they

liked playing games and drawing. Having a snack also proved to be enjoyable for them.

One child said ‘Mrs Yard helps me with writing because she knows her letters! I feel happy because she makes

me smile ‘, March 2016.

Parent surveys: June 2016

Surveys of parents are conducted when children reintegrate into the mainstream school, therefore the

responses rates are quite low at this time. In the future, we aim to gain parental feedback prior to reintegration.

From the small number of surveys returned, parents felt that the nurture group staff were approachable and

that communication was effective. The extent to which the children have benefited from the group at home


- 17 -

and at school varies and this is partly due to the unplanned, early reintegration of a particular child. However,

the response from this child’s school is that he is coping better than reflected in the parent survey.

Parents also felt that termly progress meetings have provided a good insight into the effectiveness of the

provision. In many cases parents have noticed that their child’s confidence has increased and that they are able

to communicate with others more effectively. Class teachers have confirmed this is the case for many of the

children when at school too; there is also increased engagement with their learning. One parent commented,

“Thank you for all you have done ... He's come a long way.”

School surveys: May 2016

In May 2016, locality schools were asked to complete an evaluation. Seven out of ten schools responded to the

survey. It should also be noted that some results may be skewed as the questionnaire should take into account

referrals made since Summer 2015, however some data has only been provided from Autumn 2015.

Six out of seven schools, with infant-aged children, had made referrals to the nurture group. Since June 2015,

there have been a total of fifteen children referred to the provision – seven of which were successfully placed;

three were not successful and five are due to be considered at the admissions panel at the end of this month.

Overall, the consensus is that the work of the nurture group is having a positive impact on the infant-aged

children in the locality. The biggest improvements can be seen in children’s self-esteem, communication skills,

ability to deal with change and their engagement in learning. The areas of the curriculum that schools felt had

improved were phonics, reading, writing and number.

With regards to outreach work, the most common type of support received by schools was advice/strategies

and one-to-one work with a child. Some schools have also had access to small-group interventions, as well as

small school-based nurture groups. It was suggested that children, not offered a place, could be provided with

support on more of a long-term basis. There could also be more opportunities for staff, with children placed at

the nurture group, to visit the provision to observe some good practice. A priority for next year will be to

provide outreach for all locality schools.

When reviewing the referral criteria, two schools provided some appropriate amendments which will be taken

into consideration upon re-drafting the nurture group policy:

“Issues relating to emotional security, attachment and sense of self-worth.”

“Under developed social interaction skills, for example turn-taking, active listening and participation in a range of

social situations.”

“Disengaged with learning and lacks resilience.”

“Lack of awareness and skills in managing and expressing feelings.”

“Difficulties engaging with learning.”


- 18 -

Effective communication has been difficult to manage this year and schools have suggested a few ways in which

this could be improved, including attending the Richmond SENCo meetings and locality Head Teacher and

SENCo meetings. The recent introduction of a fortnightly newsletter was seen as a step forward. A couple of

schools also apologised for the difficulties in communication due to workload or staff changeover.

Further comments from schools indicated a preference for placements to attend five half-days, as opposed to

the current model of three full days. Some schools felt that the child had really benefitted from their

experience at the nurture group, though perhaps transitions could be managed quicker and more effectively.

One school said, “You have been very flexible and adaptable. You have understood the needs of the child and adapted

the support to meet the various needs.”

Another school confirmed that both groups of children, attending the school-based nurture group, enjoyed

going to the group. One particular child is “becoming more confident talking” and the Reception class teacher is

“already thinking of children who would benefit from a group in year 1.”

Currently two children have been reintegrated into their mainstream schools on a full-time basis. When asked

to evaluate the success of those children, both class teachers disagreed that children had made “good” progress

at school. Although, both teachers commented that they had seen improvements in specific areas that the

children had previously found difficult, such as reading and phonics, as well as getting changed and participating

in P.E. In one particular case, the child had received a diagnosis of an additional need since joining the nurture

group and the class teacher noted that the child’s ability to concentrate “impacts on his ability to complete tasks

independently”. They also stated that because the child “has particular learning and behavioural issues… it makes it

hard to judge how much the nurture group helped”. Though they were pleased that the child had made good

progress in reading and phonics “due to his support at the Cabbage Patch”. Another teacher commented that

“there was emotional upheaval due to inconsistencies with routine” and this supports the proposed model of

afternoon placements as the children would receive a consistent approach to their core learning.

Teachers found the nurture group staff approachable and schools were kept informed about the child’s

progress. They also felt they had a better understanding of the purpose of nurture groups and how the children

are supported. Although one teacher would have liked more opportunities to visit the nurture group whilst

their pupil was being supported.


- 19 -


- 20 -

5. Continuing Professional Development

Continuing professional development (CPD) for the nurture group staff has been given a high priority over the

year as the provision becomes established. In addition to CPD undertaken through the weekly staff meeting for

teachers and termly INSET day sessions led by senior and middle leaders, the nurture group staff have sought

training from other nurture groups and external agencies.

The content and style of training is determined in the following ways:

To meet emerging priorities as identified in this document

To meet performance management objectives

To respond to the needs of children

To respond to the professional development needs of teaching staff

All staff are encouraged and entitled to develop their knowledge and understanding, and this first year has seen

significant developments in our practice. Staff are proactive in seeking out relevant CPD for their own

professional development and in response to the needs of the children. They are also directed to relevant

training by others. There have been a number of courses that the staff have accessed, including Team Teach

(positive handling), LEGO Build To Express, Theraplay, ‘Mindfulness in the Classroom, Auditory Processing and

Safeguarding. The strategies developed through these training programmes have been adopted as daily practice

within the nurture group and the children respond to them well. Where appropriate, these techniques have

also been implemented within the outreach support offered to locality schools.

It is anticipated that children accessing the provision are more likely to experience issues around safeguarding.

The lead teacher has received level 2 training from the borough and communicates any incidents to the

designated child protection officers from the locality schools, as stated in the nurture group policy. All staff have

received safeguarding updates with regard to FGM.

A network of local nurture groups is in the process of being developed, however this provides limited

opportunities for sharing good practice due to timetable constraints. The staff have been proactive in

networking with similar nurture groups and in some cases have been able to observe good practice.


6. Summary, conclusions and emerging priorities

In summary, after a year of supporting locality schools and their children we are now reflecting on the current

provision and our priorities for the future. As the first locality nurture group in Richmond, we have aimed to

balance meeting the needs of some of the most vulnerable children with ensuring that schools feel confident

that the financial commitment they have made is providing good value for money. The following table outlines

the nurture group’s successes and the areas identified as needing improvement.

Areas of success Possible aspects for improvement

The nurture group is established with a clear

rationale and ways of operating.

Changes to the timetabling of the day.

Staff have rapidly developed specific skills to meet the

children’s needs.

The curriculum to be more closely linked to the

children’s interests.

Children have made progress not only socially and

emotionally but also in some key academic areas.

More advice and support from other locality head

teachers.

The provision itself is fit for purpose and is a

welcoming learning environment.

Ensuring that the nurture group benefits as many

children as possible, through filled places and

effective outreach.

Links with the mainstream school are positive and

constructive.

Practice is shared with locality schools.

Outreach provision has been beneficial to locality

schools.

Moving forwards, our key priorities for 2016/17 are as follows:

To ensure that there is a full uptake of places.

To further develop outreach and the sharing of nurture group practice.

To further develop the provision and curriculum.


- 22 -

7. Appendices


- 24 -

Cabbage Patch Nurture Group

C H A S E . B R I D G E . P R I M A R Y . S C H O O L

Kneller Road, Twickenham TW2 7DE 020 8892 1242 e-mail: [email protected]

mailto:info%40chasebridge.richmond.sch.uk

cabbage patch nurture group annual self ……cabbage patch nurture group annual self-evaluation of...

Documents