Guidebook

Learning Together

Learning Together is a school-based social and emotional learning intervention for children aged between 11 to 16 years old. It is delivered by teachers to groups of children on an ongoing basis.

The information above is as offered/supported by the intervention provider.

Population characteristics as evaluated

11 to 12 years old

Level of need: Universal
Race and ethnicities: Asian or Asian British, Black or Black British, Mixed ethnic background, White British, White Other.

Model characteristics

Individual, Group

Setting: Secondary school
Workforce: Teachers
Full evidence description (PDF)
View programme website
Evidence rating:
Cost rating:

Child outcomes:

  • Enhancing school achievement & employment
    • Improved school attendance
    • Reduced involvement in school discipline actions
  • Preventing crime, violence and antisocial behaviour
    • Reduced antisocial behaviour
    • Reduced contact with police
  • Preventing substance abuse
    • Reduced alcohol use
    • Reduced smoking
    • Reduced substance misuse
  • Supporting children’s mental health and wellbeing
    • Improved emotional wellbeing
    • Reduced bullying victimisation

UK available

UK tested

Published: April 2025
Last reviewed: January 2021

Model description

Learning Together is a school-based social and emotional learning intervention using restorative practices. It is a universal intervention for children between the ages of 11 and 16 years old. It is delivered in schools and aims to improve students’ commitment to school, promote students’ mental wellbeing and health, and reduce involvement in risk behaviours, such as violence, antisocial behaviours and bullying.

This intervention uses a whole-school approach and is delivered by teachers with input from students and other school staff members.

The intervention aims to improve the school environment via restorative practice and improved school decision-making, improving – in turn – students’ commitment to school and non-involvement with anti-school peer groups. Ultimately, the intervention aims to reduce instances of bullying, antisocial behaviour, and poor health outcomes.

The intervention consists of three core components:

  • Use of restorative practice embedded in normal classes. This includes circle time, use of restorative language, and use of an enhanced SEL curriculum
  • Secondary restorative practice involving restorative conferences, lasting anywhere from 30 minutes to 2 hours, to resolve more serious instances of conflict between pupils in a face-to-face setting
  • Action groups involving a mix of students, senior management, teachers, and support staff. This group reviews school policies to ensure these support restorative approaches and enact other local actions to increase student commitment to school.

Age of child

11 to 16 years old

Target population

Children in secondary school classrooms.

Disclaimer: The information in this section is as offered/supported by the intervention provider.

Why?

Science-based assumption

Students who are disengaged from school or involved with anti-school peer groups are at higher risk for negative behaviours such as bullying, substance use, and poor mental health outcomes. Strong commitment to school and involvement in positive peer groups can protect against these risks and promote better psychological functioning.

Science-based assumption

Enhancing students’ commitment to school, their involvement in positive peer groups, and fostering strong relationships between students and staff can improve students’ mental wellbeing, reduce risky behaviours, and promote overall health-related quality of life.

Who?

Science-based assumption

School students, particularly those at risk of disengagement, involvement in anti-school peer groups, bullying, substance use, and other negative behaviours.

How?

Intervention

The intervention aims to increase students’ commitment to school and non-involvement with anti-school peer groups by enhancing relationships between and among school students and staff, and student involvement in decision-making through involving students in school decision-making and by addressing conflict at school through restorative practice.

What?

Short-term

Increased student commitment to school and reduced involvement with anti-school peer groups

Improved relationships between students and staff

Enhanced student participation in school decision-making processes.

Medium-term

Decreased involvement in bullying and other disruptive behaviours

Reduction in smoking, alcohol use, and drug use among students

Improved student mental wellbeing and psychological functioning.

Long-term

Sustained positive behaviour and school engagement

Long-term reduction in risk behaviours (e.g. bullying, substance abuse)

Improved overall health-related quality of life and mental wellbeing for students.

Who is eligible?

Children 11 to 16 years old in secondary school classrooms.

How is it delivered?

Learning Together is delivered via a whole-school approach on an ongoing basis by classroom teachers to children.

What happens during the intervention?

Schools adopt a whole-school approach focusing on restorative practice. This involves three core components:

  • The first component sees restorative practice woven into the normal, classroom-based curriculum and involves enhanced social and emotional learning material to be taught in PSHE lessons alongside the use of circle time to allow students to informally discuss relationships. This also sees wider school changes such as the use of restorative language by staff
  • The second component involves the use of restorative conferences to resolve serious instances of conflict between students. This involves a facilitated face-to-face meeting to discuss the incident and its impact on the victim and for the perpetrator to take responsibility for their actions and avoid further harms
  • The third component is an ‘Action Group’ involving a mix of senior staff, teachers, pastoral, and support staff as well as a minimum of six students who meet to review school policy and rules and how students perceive the school environment. This group also reviews the implementation of restorative practice as well as recommending tailed actions to address local priorities as well as the SEL curriculum.

Who can deliver it?

The practitioners who deliver this intervention are teachers:

  • One teacher is responsible for leading preventative restorative practices (e.g. classroom-based)
  • One teacher is responsible for leading responsive restorative practices (e.g. conflict conferences)
  • One teacher (among other staff) sits on the action group
  • One teacher is responsible for delivering the intervention’s social and emotional learning curriculum.

What are the training requirements?

Teachers delivering preventative restorative practice receive two hours of training. Teachers responsible for leading responsive restorative practice receive 24 hours of training. Teachers and staff on the action group and delivering the curriculum do not require specific training. Booster training of practitioners is not required.

How are the practitioners supervised?

It is recommended that practitioners are supervised by one external facilitator supervisor, with 24 hours of intervention training.

What are the systems for maintaining fidelity?

Intervention fidelity is maintained through the following processes:

  • Training manual
  • Other printed material
  • Face-to-face training
  • Fidelity monitoring.

Is there a licensing requirement?

No

Contact details*

Contact person: Dr Chris Bonell
Organisation: London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine
Email address: chris.bonell@lshtm.ac.uk
Website: https://www.ucl.ac.uk/child-health/research/population-policy-and-practice-research-and-teaching-department/champp/learning-together#Home

*Please note that this information may not be up to date. In this case, please visit the listed intervention website for up to date contact details.

Learning Together’s most rigorous evidence comes from an RCT which was conducted in the UK.

This study identified statistically significant improvements in quality of life and wellbeing, and reductions in psychological problems, truancy, bullying victimisation, contact with the police, cyberbullying perpetration, perpetration of antisocial behaviours, participation in school disciplinary procedures, e-cigarette use, illicit drugs use, smoking, and alcohol use.

Learning Together can be described as evidence-based: it has evidence from at least one rigorously conducted RCT or QED demonstrating a statistically significant positive impact on at least one child outcome.

Child outcomes

mproved quality of life

Immediately after the intervention

Improvement index

+6

Interpretation

1.44-point improvement on the Paediatric Quality of Life Inventory

Study

1

Improved wellbeing

Immediately after the intervention

Improvement index

+3

Interpretation

0.33-point improvement on the Short Warwick-Edinburgh Mental Well-Being Scale

Study

1

Reduced psychological problems

Immediately after the intervention

Improvement index

+6

Interpretation

0.54-point improvement on the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire

Study

1

Reduced truancy

Immediately after the intervention

Improvement index

+11

Interpretation

3.60-percentage point decrease in truancy (measured using the Ripple measure of Truancy)

Study

1

Reduced bullying victimisation

Immediately after the intervention

Improvement index

+3

Interpretation

0.03-point improvement on the Gatehouse Bullying Scale

Study

1

Reduced contact with police

Immediately after the intervention

Improvement index

+7

Interpretation

1.91-percentage point decrease in the proportion of participants experiencing contact with the police (measured using National Survey Questions)

Study

1

Reduced cyberbullying perpetration

Immediately after the intervention

Improvement index

+10

Interpretation

2.50-percentage point decrease in cyberbullying perpetration (measured using the Daphne measure of Cyberbullying)

Study

1

Reduced perpetration of anti-social behaviours in or outside of school

Immediately after the intervention

Improvement index

+3

Interpretation

0.03-point reduction on the Edinburgh Study of Youth Transitions and Crime measure of antisocial behaviours

Study

1

Reduced participation in school disciplinary procedures

Immediately after the intervention

Improvement index

+7

Interpretation

0.32-point reduction on the Edinburgh Study of Youth Transitions and Crime measure of school discipline

Study

1

Reduced e-cigarette use

Immediately after the intervention

Improvement index

+13

Interpretation

6.80-percentage point decrease in proportion of participants using E-cigarettes (measured using National Survey Questions)

Study

1

Reduced illicit drugs use

Immediately after the intervention

Improvement index

+16

Interpretation

3.67-percentage point decrease in proportion of participants using illicit drugs (measured using National Survey Questions)

Study

1

Reduced smoking

Immediately after the intervention

Improvement index

+13

Interpretation

6.47-percentage point decrease in proportion of participants smoking (measured using National Survey Questions)

Study

1

Reduced alcohol use

Immediately after the intervention

Improvement index

+8

Interpretation

6.00-percentage point decrease in proportion of participants using alcohol (measured using National Survey Questions)

Study

1

Search and review

Identified in search7
Studies reviewed1
Meeting the L2 threshold0
Meeting the L3 threshold1
Contributing to the L4 threshold0
Ineligible6

Study 1

Study designRCT
CountryUK
Sample characteristics

40 schools, with 7,121 students aged between 11 and 12 years old.

Race, ethnicities, and nationalities
  • 39.7% White British
  • 25% Asian or Asian British
  • 14% Black or Black British
  • 8.6% White Other
  • 7% Mixed ethnic background
  • 5.1% Other
  • 0.7% Chinese or Chinese British.
Population risk factors

The sample included students from diverse socioeconomic backgrounds, with approximately 36% eligible for free school meals. High incidences of bullying and aggression were reported in the school environment.

Timing
  • Baseline
  • 24-month follow-up
  • 36-month follow-up.
Child outcomes
  • Improved quality of life (Child report)
  • Improved wellbeing (Child report)
  • Reduced psychological problems (Child report)
  • Reduced bullying victimisation (Child report)
  • Reduced contact with police (Child report)
  • Reduced illicit drugs use (Child report)
  • Reduced smoking (Child report)
  • Reduced alcohol use (Child report)
  • Reduced truancy (Child report)
  • Reduced cyberbullying perpetration (Child report)
  • Reduced cyberbullying victimisation (Child report)
  • Reduced participation in school disciplinary procedures (Child report)
  • Reduced perpetration of antisocial behaviour in or outside school (Child report)
  • Reduced E-cigarette use (Child report).
Other outcomes

None

Study rating3
Citations

Study 1a: Bonell, C., Allen, E., Warren, E., McGowan, J., Bevilacqua, L., Jamal, F., … & Viner, R.M. (2018) Effects of the Learning Together intervention on bullying and aggression in English secondary schools (INCLUSIVE): A cluster randomised controlled trial. The Lancet. 392 (10163), 2452–2464.

Study 1b: Bonell, C., Dodd, M., Allen, E., Bevilacqua, L., McGowan, J., Opondo, C., … & Viner, R. M. (2020) Broader impacts of an intervention to transform school environments on student behaviour and school functioning: Post hoc analyses from the INCLUSIVE cluster randomised controlled trial. BMJ Open. 10 (5), e031589.

The following studies were identified for this intervention but did not count towards the intervention’s overall evidence rating. An intervention receives the same rating as its most robust study or studies.

Bonell, C., Allen, E., Opondo, C., Warren, E., Elbourne, D. R., Sturgess, J., … & Viner, R. M. (2019) Examining intervention mechanisms of action using mediation analysis within a randomised trial of a whole-school health intervention. Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health. 73 (5), 455–464. This reference refers to a randomised control trial, conducted in the UK.

Bonell, C., Allen, E., Warren, E., McGowan, J., Bevilacqua, L., Jamal, F., … & Mathiot, A. (2019) Modifying the secondary school environment to reduce bullying and aggression: The INCLUSIVE cluster RCT. Public Health Research. 7 (18), 1–164. This reference refers to a randomised control trial, conducted in the UK.

Bonell, C., Allen, E., Christie, D., Elbourne, D., Fletcher, A., Grieve, R., … & Viner, R. M. (2014) Initiating change locally in bullying and aggression through the school environment (INCLUSIVE): Study protocol for a cluster randomised controlled trial. Trials. 15 (1), 1–14. This reference refers to a randomised control trial, conducted in the UK.

Bonell, C., Beaumont, E., Dodd, M., Elbourne, D. R., Bevilacqua, L., Mathiot, A., … & Allen, E. (2019) Effects of school environments on student risk-behaviours: Evidence from a longitudinal study of secondary schools in England. Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health. 73 (6), 502–508. This reference refers to a randomised control trial, conducted in the UK.

Warren, E., Bevilacqua, L., Opondo, C., Allen, E., Mathiot, A., West, G., … & Bonell, C. (2019) Action groups as a participative strategy for leading whole‐school health promotion: Results on implementation from the INCLUSIVE trial in English secondary schools. British Educational Research Journal. 45 (5), 979–1000. This reference refers to a randomised control trial, conducted in the UK.

Note on provider involvement: This provider has agreed to Foundations’ terms of reference (or the Early Intervention Foundation's terms of reference), and the assessment has been conducted and published with the full cooperation of the intervention provider.

Alliance House
Third Floor
12 Caxton Street
Westminster
London
SW1H 0QS
Linkedin
About Us
Our Strategy
Priority Areas
Our Team
Join our team
EDIE
Our Partners
Our Work
Publications
Tools
Current Projects
Opportunities
Funding
Other Opportunities
News & Blogs
Events & Webinars
Press
Contact
Terms & Conditions
Privacy Policy
Data Archive
Foundations 2023. Foundations, the national What Works Centre for Children & Families is a company limited by guarantee registered in England and Wales with company number 12136703 and charity number 1188350.

Cost ratings:

Rated 1: Set up and delivery is low cost, equivalent to an estimated unit cost of less than £100.

Rated 2: Set up and delivery is medium-low cost, equivalent to an estimated unit cost of £100–£499.

Rated 3: Set up and delivery is medium cost, equivalent to an estimated unit cost of £500–£999.

Rated 4: Set up and delivery is medium-high cost, equivalent to an estimated unit cost of £1,000–£2,000.

Rating 5: Set up and delivery is high cost. Equivalent to an estimated unit cost of more than £2,000.

Set up and delivery cost is not applicable, not available, or has not been calculated.

Click here for more information.

Child Outcomes:

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetuer adipiscing elit. Aenean commodo ligula eget dolor. Aenean massa. Cum sociis natoque penatibus et magnis dis parturient montes, nascetur ridiculus mus.

Supporting children’s mental health and wellbeing: Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetuer adipiscing elit. Aenean commodo ligula eget dolor. Aenean massa. Cum sociis natoque penatibus et magnis dis parturient.

Preventing child maltreatment: Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetuer adipiscing elit. Aenean commodo ligula eget dolor. Aenean massa. Cum sociis natoque penatibus et magnis dis parturient.

Enhancing school achievement & employment: Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetuer adipiscing elit. Aenean commodo ligula eget dolor. Aenean massa. Cum sociis natoque penatibus et magnis dis parturient.

Preventing crime, violence and antisocial behaviour: Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetuer adipiscing elit. Aenean commodo ligula eget dolor. Aenean massa. Cum sociis natoque penatibus et magnis dis parturient.

Preventing substance abuse: Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetuer adipiscing elit. Aenean commodo ligula eget dolor. Aenean massa. Cum sociis natoque penatibus et magnis dis parturient.

Preventing risky sexual behaviour & teen pregnancy: Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetuer adipiscing elit. Aenean commodo ligula eget dolor. Aenean massa. Cum sociis natoque penatibus et magnis dis parturient.

Preventing obesity and promoting healthy physical development: Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetuer adipiscing elit. Aenean commodo ligula eget dolor. Aenean massa. Cum sociis natoque penatibus et magnis dis parturient.

Evidence ratings:

Rated 2: Has preliminary evidence of improving a child outcome from a quantitative impact study, but there is not yet evidence of causal impact.

Rated 2+: Meets the level 2 rating and the best available evidence is based on a study which is more rigorous than a level 2 standard but does not meet the level 3 standard.

Rated 3: Has evidence of a short-term positive impact from at least one rigorous study.

Rated 3+: Meets the level 3 rating and has evidence from other studies with a comparison group at level 2 or higher.

Rated 4: Has evidence of a long-term positive impact through at least two rigorous studies.

Rated 4+: Meets the level 4 rating and has at least a third study contributing to the Level 4 rating, with at least one of the studies conducted independently of the intervention provider.

Rating has a *: The evidence base includes mixed findings i.e., studies suggesting positive impact alongside studies, which on balance, indicate no effect or negative impact.

Click here for more information.