Learning Together
A whole-school program that aims to improve the school environment to reduce bullying and aggression, and promote student health and wellbeing.
Program Outcomes
- Alcohol
- Bullying
- Conduct Problems
- Delinquency and Criminal Behavior
- Illicit Drugs
- Mental Health - Other
- Tobacco
Program Type
- Bullying Prevention
- Restorative Justice
- School - Environmental Strategies
- Social Emotional Learning
Program Setting
- School
Continuum of Intervention
- Universal Prevention
Age
- Early Adolescence (12-14) - Middle School
Gender
- Both
Race/Ethnicity
- All
Endorsements
Blueprints: Promising
Program Information Contact
Chris Bonell, Ph.D.
London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine
Keppel Street, Bloomsbury
London
WC1E 7HT
U.K.
Phone: +44 (0)20 7612 7918
Email: Chris.Bonell@lshtm.ac.uk
Program Developer/Owner
Chris Bonell, Ph.D.
London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine
Brief Description of the Program
Learning Together is a school-based intervention grounded in schoolwide policies and systems, restorative practices, and social and emotional education with adolescents to reduce bullying and aggression and promote various dimensions of health and wellbeing. The program includes all-school staff trainings, restorative practices delivered by staff, specialized restorative practices for more serious behavior problems, action group meetings comprised of students and staff, and teacher-delivered lessons on social and emotional skills. The program lasts three years, during grades 8-10.
Learning Together is a school-based intervention grounded in schoolwide policies and systems, restorative practices, and social and emotional education with adolescents to reduce bullying and aggression and promote various dimensions of health and wellbeing. The program includes all-school staff trainings, restorative practices delivered by staff and specialized restorative practices for more serious behavior problems, action group meetings comprised of students and staff, and teacher-delivered lessons on social and emotional skills. The program lasts three years, during grades 8-10.
Whole-school interventions are aimed at modifying overall school policies and systems to enhance student engagement; restorative practices aim to prevent or resolve conflicts between students or between school staff and students; and social and emotional education lessons aim to teach students needed skills to regulate their emotions and relationships.
Outcomes
Primary Evidence Base for Certification
Study 1
Bonell et al. (2018) found that, compared to the control group, schools in the intervention group showed significantly improved
- Bullying victimization
- Overall quality of life
- Total difficulties
- Total well-being
- Smoking habits
- Alcohol habits
- Illicit drug habits and contact
- Contact with police.
Brief Evaluation Methodology
Primary Evidence Base for Certification
The one study Blueprints has reviewed (Study 1) meets Blueprints evidentiary standards (specificity, evaluation quality, impact, dissemination readiness). The study was done by the developer.
Study 1
Bonell et al. (2018) used a clustered experimental design to examine 7,121 students in 40 secondary schools. Schools were randomly assigned to either the intervention group or the control group. Students were pretested in the spring of year seven, with a 24-month follow-up in the spring of year nine, and a 36-month follow-up in spring of year ten. The primary outcome measures included self-reported bullying and aggression, while a diverse set of secondary outcome measures included self-reported well-being, conduct problems, substance use, and police contacts.
Study 1
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. Lancet, 392(10163), 2452-2464. doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(18)31782-3
Risk Factors
Individual: Antisocial/aggressive behavior, Bullies others, Early initiation of antisocial behavior, Early initiation of drug use, Favorable attitudes towards antisocial behavior, Favorable attitudes towards drug use, Physical violence, Stress, Substance use*, Victim of bullying*
Peer: Interaction with antisocial peers, Peer rewards for antisocial behavior, Peer substance use
School: Low school commitment and attachment
Protective Factors
Individual: Academic self-efficacy, Clear standards for behavior, Coping Skills, Prosocial behavior, Prosocial involvement, Skills for social interaction
School: Opportunities for prosocial involvement in education
*
Risk/Protective Factor was significantly impacted by the program
See also: Learning Together Logic Model (PDF)
Gender Specific Findings
- Male
Subgroup Analysis Details
Subgroup differences in program effects by race, ethnicity, or gender (coded in binary terms as male/female) or program effects for a sample of a specific racial, ethnic, or gender group:
Study 1 (Bonell et al., 2018) tested for subgroup effects by gender and economic disadvantage and found stronger benefits for boys than girls but equal benefits for families scoring lower and higher on a socioeconomic affluence measure.
Sample demographics including race, ethnicity, and gender for Blueprints-certified studies:
For the Study 1 sample (Bonell et al., 2018), 47.3% were male, 39.7% were White-British, 8.6% were White-other, 25.0% were Asian or Asian British, 14.0% were Black or Black British, 0.7% were Chinese or Chinese British, 7.0% were Mixed ethnicity, and 5.1% were other ethnicities.
Accredited trainers provide a basic 2-hour training for all teaching staff and an in-depth 3-day training to staff identified as those who will lead on restorative practice sessions. A trainer also provides a 3-hour training in facilitation of action groups.
Source: Washington State Institute for Public Policy
All benefit-cost ratios are the most recent estimates published by The Washington State Institute for Public Policy for Blueprint programs implemented in Washington State. These ratios are based on a) meta-analysis estimates of effect size and b) monetized benefits and calculated costs for programs as delivered in the State of Washington. Caution is recommended in applying these estimates of the benefit-cost ratio to any other state or local area. They are provided as an illustration of the benefit-cost ratio found in one specific state. When feasible, local costs and monetized benefits should be used to calculate expected local benefit-cost ratios. The formula for this calculation can be found on the WSIPP website.
Start-Up Costs
Initial Training and Technical Assistance
Accredited trainers provide a basic 2-hour training to all teaching staff and an in-depth 3-day training to staff identified as those who will lead on restorative practice sessions. The expense is $4,500 exclusive of trainer travel expenses. An additional 3-hour training for the external facilitator of the action groups is $600 and may be accomplished via Skype or phone.
Curriculum and Materials
The curriculum and materials are provided at no expense via email.
Licensing
NA
Other Start-Up Costs
Schools need to identify an external person with school management experience (e.g. a staff member from another local school or an education board member) who is prepared to attend action group meetings to act as a facilitator of student participation. Full guidance for this role is included in the manual.
Schools need to survey students in one year group (or grade level) per year using the anonymous INCLUSIVE baseline survey which is freely available.
Schools need to dedicate administrative time to data entry (approximate 5 minutes per student) and to dedicate a math teacher to run basic frequency statistics to produce a summary report (approximately 1 day per year) for the action group to discuss.
Basic training requires a room on school premises for all staff being trained for two hours. In-depth training requires a room on school premises for 5 staff being trained for 3 consecutive days.
Surveys can be undertaken in classrooms (one per class making up the year group/grade level) or in an examination hall (bringing together all the students in the year group/grade level) for 1 hour.
Intervention Implementation Costs
Ongoing Curriculum and Materials
NA
Staffing
Action groups require the attendance of approximately 6 school staff including one senior staff and one administrator to record actions.
Action groups also require the attendance of one external facilitator (e.g. a local school board member or other local school staff member) trained in facilitation methods.
Classroom lessons require 1 qualified teacher per 1 hour lesson for 5-10 lessons per year. Curriculum materials are self-explanatory and no training is required.
Restorative practice sessions require the involvement of one trained staff member for approximately one hour per session. Sessions are as required by the school determined by incidents at the school.
Other Implementation Costs
Action group meetings require a meeting room for 2-hour meetings 6 times per school year.
Curriculum requires classrooms for students for 5-10 1-hour lessons per year.
Restorative practice sessions typically require 1 private office for 1 hour per session.
Implementation Support and Fidelity Monitoring Costs
Ongoing Training and Technical Assistance
Other than the training specified above, no training or external technical assistance is required and intervention materials are self-explanatory.
Fidelity Monitoring and Evaluation
Fidelity monitoring materials are freely available via email and require no training. Fidelity can be assessed manually using pen and paper records.
Ongoing License Fees
NA
Other Implementation Support and Fidelity Monitoring Costs
No information is available
Other Cost Considerations
No information is available
Year One Cost Example
In this example, a middle school adopts the Learning Together program. The only expense for the program is that of training. This example excludes trainer travel expenses, as those will be quite variable depending upon location.
| Initial Training for School Staff | $4,500.00 |
| Training for External Facilitator | $600.00 |
| Total One Year Cost | $5,100.00 |
Exclusive of trainer travel expenses, the cost for one school to implement the Learning Together program in Year One would be $5,100. The per school expense may potentially be reduced if multiple schools within a district adopt the program, and thus share the expense of trainer travel.
Funding Overview
Learning Together is a low-cost schoolwide intervention for which schools will likely purchase training (the only cost item) from school core training budgets.
Program Developer/Owner
Chris Bonell, Ph.D.ProfessorLondon School of Hygiene & Tropical MedicineKeppel Street, BloomsburyLondonWC1E 7HTUK+44 (0)20 7612 7918Chris.Bonell@lshtm.ac.uk
Program Outcomes
- Alcohol
- Bullying
- Conduct Problems
- Delinquency and Criminal Behavior
- Illicit Drugs
- Mental Health - Other
- Tobacco
Program Specifics
Program Type
- Bullying Prevention
- Restorative Justice
- School - Environmental Strategies
- Social Emotional Learning
Program Setting
- School
Continuum of Intervention
- Universal Prevention
Program Goals
A whole-school program that aims to improve the school environment to reduce bullying and aggression, and promote student health and wellbeing.
Population Demographics
Students ages 11-12 years in mainstream secondary schools with the intervention occurring over a 3-year period (grades 8-10 in the England; equating roughly to grades 6-8 or 7-9 in the United States).
Target Population
Age
- Early Adolescence (12-14) - Middle School
Gender
- Both
Gender Specific Findings
- Male
Race/Ethnicity
- All
Subgroup Analysis Details
Subgroup differences in program effects by race, ethnicity, or gender (coded in binary terms as male/female) or program effects for a sample of a specific racial, ethnic, or gender group:
Study 1 (Bonell et al., 2018) tested for subgroup effects by gender and economic disadvantage and found stronger benefits for boys than girls but equal benefits for families scoring lower and higher on a socioeconomic affluence measure.
Sample demographics including race, ethnicity, and gender for Blueprints-certified studies:
For the Study 1 sample (Bonell et al., 2018), 47.3% were male, 39.7% were White-British, 8.6% were White-other, 25.0% were Asian or Asian British, 14.0% were Black or Black British, 0.7% were Chinese or Chinese British, 7.0% were Mixed ethnicity, and 5.1% were other ethnicities.
Other Risk and Protective Factors
Limited attention of schools and teachers to promoting socio-emotional learning, improving communication among students, and devising ways to settle conflicts without aggression and bullying.
Risk/Protective Factor Domain
- Individual
- School
Risk/Protective Factors
Risk Factors
Individual: Antisocial/aggressive behavior, Bullies others, Early initiation of antisocial behavior, Early initiation of drug use, Favorable attitudes towards antisocial behavior, Favorable attitudes towards drug use, Physical violence, Stress, Substance use*, Victim of bullying*
Peer: Interaction with antisocial peers, Peer rewards for antisocial behavior, Peer substance use
School: Low school commitment and attachment
Protective Factors
Individual: Academic self-efficacy, Clear standards for behavior, Coping Skills, Prosocial behavior, Prosocial involvement, Skills for social interaction
School: Opportunities for prosocial involvement in education
*Risk/Protective Factor was significantly impacted by the program
See also: Learning Together Logic Model (PDF)
Brief Description of the Program
Learning Together is a school-based intervention grounded in schoolwide policies and systems, restorative practices, and social and emotional education with adolescents to reduce bullying and aggression and promote various dimensions of health and wellbeing. The program includes all-school staff trainings, restorative practices delivered by staff, specialized restorative practices for more serious behavior problems, action group meetings comprised of students and staff, and teacher-delivered lessons on social and emotional skills. The program lasts three years, during grades 8-10.
Description of the Program
Learning Together is a school-based intervention grounded in schoolwide policies and systems, restorative practices, and social and emotional education with adolescents to reduce bullying and aggression and promote various dimensions of health and wellbeing. The program includes all-school staff trainings, restorative practices delivered by staff and specialized restorative practices for more serious behavior problems, action group meetings comprised of students and staff, and teacher-delivered lessons on social and emotional skills. The program lasts three years, during grades 8-10.
Whole-school interventions are aimed at modifying overall school policies and systems to enhance student engagement; restorative practices aim to prevent or resolve conflicts between students or between school staff and students; and social and emotional education lessons aim to teach students needed skills to regulate their emotions and relationships.
Theoretical Rationale
By promoting young people's commitment to school and through this, their autonomy, motivation, and reasoning ability in ways that reduce bullying and aggression, adolescents can choose healthier behaviors that promote health and wellbeing.
Theoretical Orientation
- Restorative Justice
- Person - Environment
Brief Evaluation Methodology
Primary Evidence Base for Certification
The one study Blueprints has reviewed (Study 1) meets Blueprints evidentiary standards (specificity, evaluation quality, impact, dissemination readiness). The study was done by the developer.
Study 1
Bonell et al. (2018) used a clustered experimental design to examine 7,121 students in 40 secondary schools. Schools were randomly assigned to either the intervention group or the control group. Students were pretested in the spring of year seven, with a 24-month follow-up in the spring of year nine, and a 36-month follow-up in spring of year ten. The primary outcome measures included self-reported bullying and aggression, while a diverse set of secondary outcome measures included self-reported well-being, conduct problems, substance use, and police contacts.
Outcomes (Brief, over all studies)
Primary Evidence Base for Certification
Study 1
Bonell et al. (2018) found the intervention students reported a significant reduction in self-reported bullying victimization after 36 months compared to control students. There was no change in overall student reports of perceptions of aggression at 36 months. The program also significantly improved several secondary outcomes such as overall quality of life, total difficulties, total well-being, ever smoked, ever drank alcohol, number of times drunk, offered illicit drugs, and contact with police.
Outcomes
Primary Evidence Base for Certification
Study 1
Bonell et al. (2018) found that, compared to the control group, schools in the intervention group showed significantly improved
- Bullying victimization
- Overall quality of life
- Total difficulties
- Total well-being
- Smoking habits
- Alcohol habits
- Illicit drug habits and contact
- Contact with police.
Effect Size
In Study 1, Bonell et al. (2018) reported a very small significant adjusted effect size = -0.08 for the primary outcome of bullying.
Generalizability
One study meets Blueprints standards for high-quality methods with strong evidence of program impact (i.e., "certified" by Blueprints): Study 1 (Bonell et al., 2018). The study sample included secondary school students. The study took place in schools in Southeast England and compared the treatment group to a business-as-usual control group.
Notes
As an upstream preventive intervention, this program targets and reduces problem behaviors that are associated with increased risk of developing substance use disorder or opioid use disorder later in life.
Endorsements
Blueprints: Promising
Program Information Contact
Chris Bonell, Ph.D.
London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine
Keppel Street, Bloomsbury
London
WC1E 7HT
U.K.
Phone: +44 (0)20 7612 7918
Email: Chris.Bonell@lshtm.ac.uk
References
Study 1
Certified 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. Lancet, 392(10163), 2452-2464. doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(18)31782-3
Study 1
Summary
Bonell et al. (2018) used a clustered experimental design to examine 7,121 students in 40 secondary schools. Schools were randomly assigned to either the intervention group or the control group. Students were pretested in the spring of year seven, with a 24-month follow-up in the spring of year nine, and a 36-month follow-up in spring of year ten. The primary outcome measures included self-reported bullying and aggression, while a diverse set of secondary outcome measures included self-reported well-being, conduct problems, substance use, and police contacts.
Bonell et al. (2018) found that, compared to the control group, schools in the intervention group showed significantly improved
- Bullying victimization
- Overall quality of life
- Total difficulties
- Total well-being
- Smoking habits
- Alcohol habits
- Illicit drug habits and contact
- Contact with police.
Evaluation Methodology
Design:
Recruitment: Participants were students aged 11-12 years in secondary schools in Southeast England. Out of the 490 unique schools invited to participate, 40 (8.2%) schools with 7,121 students joined the study. It is unclear how many parents refused to give consent for their child to participate in the intervention program, but 6,667 (93.6%) of students provided baseline data. The sample excluded schools that the UK national education inspectorate rated as poor/inadequate.
Assignment: After obtaining consent from head teachers and individual students, students were given the baseline survey, after which schools were assigned through stratified randomization to either the intervention group (school n = 20, student n = 3,605) or control group (school n = 20; student n = 3,516) based on key school-level determinants of violence. The control schools continued their programs as usual, with some having their own anti-bullying programs.
Assessments/Attrition: The baseline (pre-treatment) assessment occurred in spring 2014, when students neared the end of year 7. Follow-ups were administered at 24 months (the end of year 9) and 36 months (the end of year 10). The study added new students to the follow-ups but lost students leaving the schools or who were absent. Tables 2 and 3 show analysis samples of 6,290 at 24 months (88.3% of the randomized students) and 5,960 at 36 months (83.7% of the randomized students). In addition, the supplement (p. 35) shows missing data for particular outcomes ranging from about 1% to 19%.
Sample:
Across all schools, the mean school size was 1,084 students, an average of 35.5% of students were eligible for free school meals, 17.5% admitted only girls, 7.5% admitted only boys, and 75.0% admitted both girls and boys. The schools included a mix of private and public types and a mix of quality (with 62.5% having a quality rating of "good").
Across all student participants, the average age was 12 years, 47.3% were male, 39.7% were White-British, 8.6% were White-other, 25.0% were Asian or Asian British, 14.0% were Black or Black British, 0.7% were Chinese or Chinese British, 7.0% were Mixed ethnicity, and 5.1% were other ethnicities. Regarding family structure, 72.0% of students had two parents, 18.6% had single mothers, 1.4% had single fathers, 6.8% had a reconstituted (blended) family structure, and 1.2% had other family structures.
Measures:
The primary outcome measures in this study were self-reported experience of bullying victimization measured at 36 months, which used the Gatehouse Bullying Scale, and self-reported perception of aggression measured at 36 months, which used the Edinburgh Study of Youth Transitions and Crime school misbehavior subscale. The Gatehouse Bullying Scale is a validated scale that contains 12 items measuring teasing, name-calling, rumors, being left out of things, and physical threats or actual violence from other students within the past 3 months. The Edinburgh Study of Youth Transitions and Crime school misbehavior subscale includes 13 items that measure self-reported aggression towards other students and teachers. No estimates of reliability or validity for the sample were reported. The research team collecting the data was masked to condition and independent of the intervention team.
In addition to the primary measures, the study included 15 secondary measures. Of most importance, the bullying and aggression scales that were designated as primary measures at 36 months were treated as secondary measures at 24 months. Other secondary measures came at 36 months. These measures, all self-reported by subjects, included quality of life, strengths and difficulties, well-being, sexual behavior, smoking, alcohol use, illicit drug use, visits to health services, and contact with police. The study provided no details on validity or reliability.
Analysis: The effect of the intervention was tested using separate mixed models with the outcomes from each timepoint (including the baseline) treated as a repeated measure. The two primary outcomes were analyzed using mixed linear regression models with random effects at both the school and student levels. Continuous outcomes were tested using unadjusted and adjusted mean differences; binary and ordinal outcomes were tested using unadjusted and adjusted odds ratios. The key tests came from comparing the condition differences in predicted outcomes at 24 months and 36 months.
Intent-to-Treat: The primary analyses followed an intent-to-treat approach by using all students with available data, including those with data for only one or two of the three time points.
Outcomes
Implementation Fidelity: Implementation fidelity in the first two years was measured out of eight points for each school; in the third year, fidelity was measured out of four points. Implementation fidelity varied between schools and over time, and there was a reduction in the fidelity of formal intervention activities in the third year. In the first and second years, the median fidelity score was 6 out of 8, whereas for the third year the median was 1 out of 4.
Baseline Equivalence: The study presented baseline condition means for both school and student characteristics in Table 1 and the supplement (pp. 6-9). The figures used all 40 schools and about 94% of the randomized student sample with baseline data. The tables did not present significance tests, but the authors stated, "Student and school characteristics and outcomes at baseline were well balanced across arms." Blueprints calculations tested for significant differences and the standardized size of the differences (using figures in Table 1 and page 8 of the supplement) and found baseline differences to be minimal. For student-level data, the large sample size of over 6,000 meant many of the condition differences were significant. However, the standardized differences never exceeded .16 and exceeded .10 only five times in more than 70 comparisons.
Differential Attrition: The supplement (pp. 6-7) examined differential attrition by listing condition means for demographic characteristics - but not baseline outcomes - across three samples: the baseline sample (94% of the randomized sample), the 24-month sample (88% of the randomized sample), and the 36-month sample (84%). The tables present no significance tests, but the study states that "the numbers of students who completed the questionnaires at baseline, 24 months, and 36 months were similar in each group." Blueprints calculations tested for significant condition differences and the standardized size of the differences for the sociodemographic measures using the baseline, 24-month, and 36-month samples. Differences were found to be minimal. Although the large sample size meant many of the condition differences were significant, Cohen's d values were uniformly small, never exceeding .14, and differed little across the three assessments.
Posttest: The analyses showed significant condition differences at 36 months (conclusion of the intervention) for one of two primary outcomes: bullying victimization but not aggression. Out of the fifteen secondary outcomes, eight were significantly improved by the intervention: overall quality of life, total difficulties, total well-being, ever smoked, ever drank alcohol, time drunk, ever offered or tried illicit drugs, and contact with police.
Tests for moderation showed stronger effects for boys than girls and for those with higher rather than lower baseline bullying experience, but these differences applied to only a few secondary outcomes.
Long-Term: Although students were followed for three years, the program was ongoing during the study period.