Christabel Shepherd, NACE Curriculum Development Director and Vice-Chair

Definitions are important. If schools are going to ensure consistency of approach and provision, their definitions around more able learners must be clear, flexible, shared, and understood by all staff and stakeholders.

Definition is inextricably linked – in fact, essential – to the accurate identification of more and exceptionally able learners and their individual learning behaviours and needs. Accurate identification, in turn, is vital to ensuring that teachers effectively plan and provide for these learners in the classroom. 

Clear definitions will also support parents of more and exceptionally able pupils, helping them to understand and distinguish between different descriptors and degrees of ability (such as ‘more’ and ‘exceptionally’ able) and the provision they might expect to be in place for these different groups. 

Providing unambiguous definitions helps to prevent misconceptions. Agreed definitions will also help to avoid excessive labelling or perceived elitist descriptions.

Recommendations for schools

• To ensure that all staff take responsibility and are accountable for the identification of and provision for more and exceptionally able learners, develop or adopt your definitions together, ensuring a shared understanding of all the terminology used. 
• Limit the number of definitions you use with regards to your more able learners. A suggestion is to use three as a maximum, clearly separating the different groups to which you are referring. For example, more able, exceptionally able and higher attaining. Using too many terms to describe groups of learners is likely to involve overlap within definitions and lead to confusion.
• Encompass within each definition the elements suggested below, so that there is no chance of any more or exceptionally able learners being missed.
• Beware of purely outcome-driven definitions. Those that are purely about the data omit consideration of performance in terms of many learning behaviours, skills and aptitudes which must be afforded equal importance. Such definitions also overlook underachievers or those who are potentially highly able.
• Rigidity in definition (especially in terms of numbers or percentages of pupils) should not be mistaken for clarity and can lead to issues by creating a glass ceiling, potentially missing those children who are more able but are not captured within the definition.
• Avoid imprecise language such as “significantly above their peers”. If this is used, define what that means in your context.
• Ensure that the definitions you use are clearly shown in your policy for the more able, and that all stakeholders, including parents and carers, understand them.

Developing clear and useful definitions

More able / most able / highly able

Due to their inherently similar meanings, it is easiest if the terms more able, most able and highly able are defined in the same way or encompassed within one “more able” definition which includes the following elements:

• Learners who have the potential or capacity for high attainment;
• Learners who demonstrate high levels of performance in an academic area;
• Learners who are more able relative to their peers in their own year group, class and school/college;
• Ability in all areas of the curriculum or in a specific subject/curriculum area, including the arts and physical activities.

Each of these elements is vital if the definition of “more able” is to be clear and encompass the breadth and flexibility needed to ensure outstanding provision. 

Higher attaining

Whilst it is sensible to accept the terms more able, highly able and most able as having a shared definition, the term “higher attaining” has a distinct meaning and requires a separate definition. 

This is an outcome-driven term and any definition adopted or developed for it must reflect this. If using this term, schools should ensure that it is simply a way of identifying learners based purely on their performance. Its use does allow schools to differentiate clearly between the more able, as defined above, and those who attain the highest standards. There is overlap between the two groups but, importantly, they can also be distinct. 

So while this term can be useful, it should not be used interchangeably with or instead of “more able”; it means something entirely different. 

Gifted

The important element of any definition of giftedness must include the term “exceptional”. According to an article on gifted children by Ireland’s Special Education Support Service, the definition of “gifted” which is accepted worldwide in educational and psychological circles is: “a child who shows exceptional ability in one or more areas such as mathematical, verbal, spatial awareness, musical, or artistic ability.”

As this term is often considered elitist and is certainly very emotive, its use has been largely abandoned by schools and replaced by the term “exceptionally able”.

Exceptionally able 

The abilities and needs of the exceptionally able exceed those of the more able.

Within any definition of the exceptionally able it is important to:

• Distinguish between these and other more able learners in two ways: (1) By the use of the qualifying adjective “extremely”; (2) By the comparison with peers in all schools/across the entire population, as opposed to those within each particular school.
• Include reference to learners who have as yet unrealised potential for exceptional ability.
• Describe the needs of these pupils as going beyond those of students already deemed to require opportunities for enrichment and extension in the normal curriculum.
• Explain that exceptional ability may comprise both quantitative and qualitative aspects, but will certainly include high abstract reasoning ability and complexity of thinking.

In many schools the terms “gifted” and “exceptionally able” are used interchangeably as they share meaning and can be defined similarly. However, “exceptionally able” may be an easier term to understand, helping to define what is meant more clearly. It is also a much less controversial and emotive descriptor.  

Talented

In the early years of the “more able” agenda, “talented” learners were defined by the DfES as those with particular abilities in sport, music, design or creative and performing arts. This group included those who were “vocationally gifted”, “those with an innate ability, who present a natural, outstanding aptitude or competence for exceptional performance.”

This definition was adopted by the majority of schools. In a nutshell, it was a way of labelling learners who were highly able in what were considered the non-academic subjects or spheres of learning.  

In most schools today, there is little or no distinction made between the terms “more able” and “talented”. They share the same meaning. 

Underachieving more able learners

In attempting to arrive at a useful definition for underachieving more able learners, schools should consider including the following criteria: 

• Learners whose prior attainment demonstrates high levels of ability, but whose current performance fails to demonstrate this. Underachievement may be the result of barriers to pupils’ learning, including socio-economic factors, SEMH needs, language and communication issues, etc.
• Learners whose contributions, responses and learning behaviours suggest that they are more able, although this is not reflected in their written work or assessments. This may include those learners with “dual” or “multiple exceptionality”. 
• Those who haven’t yet been identified due to too narrow a curriculum or limited learning opportunities. These are potentially more able learners.

Dual and multiple exceptionality

These terms describe learners who are more or exceptionally able and who also have additional learning needs e.g. dyslexia, autistic spectrum disorders, developmental coordination disorder, developmental language disorder, emotional and behavioural difficulties, physical and sensory differences. These additional learning needs or a disability can make it difficult to identify their high intellectual ability. 

It is important to include this definition in more able policies as these pupils may otherwise be overlooked. 

Achievement and attainment

When developing definitions and shared approaches for more able learners, it is also useful to have a clear understanding of these two key terms. In the NACE Essentials guide Breaking down barriers, Professor Carrie Winstanley defines them as follows:

• Attainment refers to the level or standard of a learner’s work as demonstrated by some kind of test, examination or in relation to a predetermined expected level. In UK schools, the common measures for attainment are Standard Attainment Tests (SATs) and public examinations such as GCSEs. The emphasis here is on how learners perform when tested. 
• Achievement also refers to the success of a learner, but also takes into account the progress made and improvements demonstrated across time. The notion of added value over a term, year or key stage is part of the equation here, not merely the summative test scores. 

Potential pitfalls to avoid

Beware of: 

• Adopting too wide a range of “more able” terminology. This will mean more chance of definitions overlapping, resulting in confusion for staff and parents.
• Using definitions which include the use of vague or imprecise language. This could lead to definitions being interpreted differently by individual staff members or groups of stakeholders.
• Using purely outcome-driven definitions. This can lead schools to become over-reliant on data to support the identification of more able learners, carrying the risk of overlooking the many highly able young people who may, for a range of reasons, be underachieving.
• Including percentages within definitions. As well as potentially causing confusion, this is ultimately likely to limit the identification of many more able learners – particularly those who are potentially more able or underachieving more able.
• Using the term “gifted”. This can be very emotive and tends to be associated with individuals who have produced great works, or who demonstrate abilities far beyond those expected for their age, for example, a child who achieves a place to study at Oxford University at the age of 12. This term is often considered elitist. 

Continuing to strive for clarity and a shared understanding of “more able” definitions should be an expectation of our practice and will help to shape improved provision for all more able learners. 

References

• Department for Children, Schools and Families (DCSF), Identifying gifted and talented learners – getting started (May 2008)
• Department for Children, Schools and Families (DCSF), Gifted and Talented Education Guidance on Preventing Underachievement: A Focus on Exceptionally Able Pupils (2008)
• GiftedKids.ie, The "Gifted" Label - Help or Hindrance? (accessed February 2021)
• School Governing Blogspot.com, Understanding Attainment, Achievement and Statistics Commonly used (April 2011; accessed February 2021)
• Sutton Trust, Potential for success: Fulfilling the promise of highly able students in secondary schools (July 2018) 
  

---

NACE Associate Tracy Goodyear, BA (Hons), FCCT

The title of NACE’s recent research report, Making space for able learners – Cognitive challenge: principles into practice, is very apt indeed – the age-old question remains: do we truly make enough space in our schools for all of our learners to flourish or not? But what does it really mean to ‘make space’ to allow the highest levels of cognitive challenge in our classrooms? 

For me, ‘making space’ is about ensuring that schools have the tools and expertise to allow all pupils to thrive beyond the restrictions of examination rubrics or mark schemes; for too long, these have been limiting factors in the education of our young people and in the planning and execution of a truly effective curriculum.  

Our real challenge is to work hard to remove the barriers and ceilings where learning has been hemmed in and to allow flexibility of thought and dexterity of expression. That task isn’t easy, given the various accountability measures that feel at times as though they work in opposition to this. It’s imperative that we create and sustain school climates where intellectual curiosity beats the rationing of difficult or challenging work (Mary Myatt put this brilliantly at ResearchEdBrum when she said ‘you don’t give difficult work to get great results, the great results follow the difficult work’).  

This NACE report gives school leaders at all levels an accessible toolkit for putting some principles of cognitive challenge into practice in their classrooms. It acts as a ‘one-stop-shop' for neat summaries of key educational research and gives models for how this has been implemented in different settings. The four areas of focus – cognitive challenge, rich and extended talk, design of challenging learning opportunities, and curriculum organisation and design – highlight the interconnectedness of these factors in a successful education. Each section usefully includes graphics that highlight aspects of key research and there is also a useful summary at the end of each chapter. What’s useful about the write-up is that it considers how schools could/do go wrong in their implementation of some of these models and effectively warns against common ‘traps’ when trying to make improvements. 

This report is an ideal text to dip into when instigating school improvement or when considering reviewing current practice. It is a useful compendium of educational research – Vygotsky's zones of proximal development rightly get a mention, as does the Fisher and Frey model and Rosenshine, alongside graphics of findings from NACE’s own research. 

Perhaps most useful are the examples from NACE Challenge Award schools, which show some of the principles being applied in various contexts. Whilst these may not be for everyone, seeing how these elements have been applied in a range of ways is useful and may give ideas for practical implementation in your own settings. At the back of the book, there’s a list of the schools mentioned and it would be a mistake not to follow up and contact those schools if you felt there was more to be learned about a specific focus. Likewise, readers could extend some of these contacts through the NACE Research and Development Hubs. 

As useful as this text is, the action by school leaders following the reading of this report is what will have the greatest impact. We know there is still so much more to do to address the gaps in research in this area, and schools can certainly contribute to building a more coherent picture by supporting the ongoing research work that NACE is undertaking. 

I would recommend the following actions for school leaders who are considering using this research report as a springboard for school improvement:  
 

• Find out where the need is first: will this work for your school, now? It’s no good introducing an initiative if it doesn’t solve a problem that you have (and that you can prove that you have!). NACE offers a series of useful self-evaluation frameworks if you are looking for a way to identify the needs of your pupils and staff (including the NACE Challenge Framework and Curriculum Audit Tool); these will support you in checking your assumptions and working on improving a real problem.
  
  
• Use a framework for implementation which will support the adaptations that are taking place. The EEF’s School’s Guide to Implementation is a great tool to support any level of school improvement and supports planning for long-term, sustainable change.

• Be ambitious for all learners and use the models highlighted in this report to support the implementation of positive change in your school. But use the models critically: there’s a necessity to adapt some of these to suit your purpose and school context.
  
  
• Find strength in the struggle! Whilst it may now feel like a time to pause developmental work in school, this is the time where this work and thinking will be most valuable. Educational sands are shifting rapidly as a result of Covid-19 and our educational landscape could look very different this time next year. Be proactive about what you’d like to see in your classrooms (face-to-face or online!) as we edge into very new and unfamiliar teaching territory.

In summary, this text works hard at bringing key cognitive research into focus and supports schools in filling in the missing gaps in research into improving outcomes for all pupils. It’s an essential guide for anybody working to improve the quality of teaching and learning in a school setting. 
 
Find out more
NACE’s research publication “Making space for able learners – Cognitive challenge: principles into practice” is available to preview online, with copies available to order for £12 (UK mailing) / £16 (outside UK). To explore the report findings in more depth, join our new three-part online course, Creating cognitively challenging classrooms – offering guidance and support to apply the research findings in your own context. 

Additional reading:

• How to “foresee” cognitive challenge in the classroom
• Three key ingredients for cognitive challenge

Share your own review… Have you read a good book lately with relevance to provision for more able learners? Share it with the NACE community by submitting a review.

Sue Riley, NACE CEO

Many of you will have seen the open letter to the Sunday Times from the recently formed Rethinking Assessment group. Born from issues raised this summer, Rethinking Assessment is a broad coalition of state and independent schools, universities, academics, employers and other stakeholders, which aims to value the strengths of every child. At its heart lies four fundamental principles:

1. Many young people find the way our exam system works increasingly stressful and not a true reflection of what they are good at.
2. Many employers complain that exams do not provide them with good enough clues as to who they are employing.
3. Many headteachers feel that high-stakes exams distort priorities and stop them from providing a well-rounded education for their pupils.
4. Many who are passionate about social mobility believe that any system that dooms a third to fail is a system with little sense of social justice.

We want to add our members’ voice and our research to this debate. There are immediate questions to be answered and longer-term opportunities to recalibrate the assessment system so that all learners have their full range of strengths recognised. As a membership organisation we can share and build on the decisions school leaders are taking now and over time provide perspectives that will inform longer-term changes.

Assessment is of course an integral part of learning and teaching. It facilitates daily ongoing review of individual progress and impacts on planning and target-setting. It supports personal learning targets. But we must not let the tail wag the dog. Not everything needs to be assessed, or indeed can be assessed, or needs to be independently assessed. We must consider too the timing of assessment – even more pressing as schools focus on tier 2 rota planning. 

Whilst a decision over summer exams has been made in principle, “fall-back” detail remains unclear and learners are picking up on this, increasingly questioning the reasoning behind assignments, and the part they will play in assessment. All of this detracts from the richness of a subject.  

The Early Career Framework and Teachers’ Standards have done much to support the teaching profession’s development in recent years. We must trust teachers with assessment, but teachers must be clear on what they are assessing and why.

What can we therefore now do in our schools to readdress this balance? One response lies in thinking about what we assess on a day-to-day basis in classrooms, how we build on low-stakes testing, and how we position effective challenge. How effectively do your teachers use retrieval practice for example? Deliberately recalling information forces us to pull knowledge “out” and examine what we know. The “struggle” or challenge to recall information improves memory and learning – by trying to recall information, we exercise or strengthen our memory, and we can also identify gaps in our learning. 

NACE has recently undertaken a literature review of retrieval practice – looking at the theoretical framework and considering emergent related classroom practices and practical amendments and applications for more able learners. To access this review, click here. 

Beyond the here and now of assessment, we need to return to the longer-term focus of the Rethinking Assessment coalition. Against the current backdrop, what could we do to improve the assessment system more broadly? How would we do it differently, allowing us to show non-traditional talents – making assessment more effective for employers, individuals and supporting the practising teacher? Fundamentally, how can we assess the child in front of us?

Contribute to the debate:

• What approach is your school taking? What would you like to see happen, this term/year and in the longer term? Contact NACE CEO Sue Riley to share your views. 
• The Chartered College of Teaching is hosting a webinar discussion with Rethinking Assessment at 6-7pm on 5 November. Find out more and book a free ticket.

Read more:

• Information sheet: recall and retrieval practice
• Making the grade...time for change? 
• The future of education and data: 3 key questions 
• Lockdown learning: the good, the bad, and the shape of things to come? 
• Beyond the “recovery curriculum”: rebuild, reconnect, reignite 

NACE Challenge Award Adviser Elaine Ricks-Neal reviews emerging trends from the first round of Ofsted reports under the new education inspection framework (EIF).

There’s certainly a very different feel to the new Ofsted reports. Whilst they are clearly written with parents in mind – reflected in the use of accessible terminology and avoidance of too much detail in the published reports – there is no doubt that schools’ curriculum design and delivery is under forensic scrutiny. And although there is little explicit reference to more able learners, the importance of high-quality provision for this group is implicit in the strong focus on curriculum planning, subject-level provision, and breadth and depth of learning.

Style and structure of the new reports

The reports are written in a surprisingly simple style which Ofsted has said is intended to be parent-friendly, getting right to the point and largely steering clear of education jargon – for example, “The school is not a results factory.”

Both section 8 and section 5 reports look very similar, each opening with a short paragraph addressing the question “What is it like to attend this school?” – summing up the school ethos, behaviour, attendance and day-to-day opportunities. In most cases, the report’s opening statements are positive, but any issue linked with behaviour or low standards will be simply – even bluntly – highlighted; for example, “Pupils enjoy school, but they should be doing much better.”

The reports then move on to the main section: “What does the school do well and what does it need to do better?” – bundling together judgements for the quality of education, personal development, and leadership and management. This can make it quite hard to tease out the reasons for any difference in section 5 judgements of any of these strands.

Finally, there is a paragraph on safeguarding, followed by improvement points.

What key themes are emerging?

·         Focus on curriculum design and subject plans

The reports may have a simple style, but it’s clear that curriculum plans and schemes of work have really been unpicked to check how well “subject leaders plan the curriculum so that pupils build on their knowledge so that they know and remember more”. If your curriculum is not coherent and well thought-through, there is no hiding place. Not surprisingly, a very frequent weakness is that subject planning is not “precisely planned and sequenced.” In primary schools this is often in foundation subjects. There is also real drilling down into phonics, the reading curriculum, mathematics and the quality of SEND provision.

If standards are referred to, which is not the case in all reports, it is usually a simple broad comment – for example, “pupils achieve well” – and linked back to how well subjects are planned and taught. This doesn’t mean results are not deemed important, and schools which have dropped a grade will usually have a critical comment about standards, but the emphasis is on the impact of curriculum and the way it is planned and taught in bringing about those outcomes.

·         Warnings against curriculum narrowing

In secondary schools, there is the same focus on sequential planning, but also criticism of any perceived curriculum narrowing or lack of entitlement, especially for SEND and disadvantaged pupils. Also under scrutiny are the two-year KS3, low EBacc uptake and sixth-formers who are not accessing work experience. This may be unsettling for many secondary schools who might feel they will now need a curriculum rethink to avoid Ofsted disapproval.

In primary schools, if pupils miss lessons for intervention sessions, a judgement may be made as to whether they are missing out too much on the full curriculum.

What about more able learners?

Cliciwch yma i ddarllen yn y Gymraeg.

Estyn’s Mark Campion HMI shares key findings from the inspectorate’s recent report “Healthy and happy – school impact on pupils’ health and wellbeing”.

Tackling issues that affect children and young people, such as bullying, obesity and poverty isn’t easy for teachers. In school, it is the everyday experiences of pupils that have the greatest impact – positive or negative – on their health and wellbeing. In a new report, Estyn highlights the importance of giving consistently positive messages across all aspects of school life. Here, the inspectorate explores what it takes to help pupils be healthy and happy.

Pupils’ wellbeing has always been an area at the heart of our inspections. And as schools develop their areas of learning experience in readiness for the new curriculum, the focus on wellbeing will be even stronger. The new curriculum recognises that good physical, mental and emotional health and wellbeing underpins successful learning.

Our report brings together insights from a range of different sources, making for stark reading in parts about pupils’ own experiences including smoking, drinking and sexual health.

We found that in the best schools, messages about health and wellbeing in lessons, assemblies and in policies are consistent with pupils’ everyday experience.

Space to socialise, a nurturing culture, enjoyable opportunities to be physically active, timely pastoral care and positive work with parents are just some of the approaches that collectively support pupils to be healthy, confident individuals, ready to lead fulfilling lives.

A nurturing culture, where positive relationships enable pupils to thrive is essential to strengthen young people’s health and wellbeing. The little things that good teachers do like smiling and greeting pupils by name at the start of the day or an individual lesson should not be underestimated. They help pupils feel valued and encourage a positive mindset.

Consider whether the approach of your school is consistent across all aspects of its work. Does the school have:

• Policies and practices that ensure pupils make good progress in their learning?
• Leaders who ‘walk the talk’ about supporting pupils’ health and wellbeing?
• A nurturing culture, where positive relationships allow pupils to thrive?
• An inclusive community and ethos?
• Detailed knowledge about pupils’ health and wellbeing that influence policies and actions?
• An environment and facilities that promote good health and wellbeing, such as space to play, socialise and relax at break times?
• A broad and balanced curriculum that includes discrete, evidence-based learning experiences that promote health and wellbeing?
• Supportive pastoral care and targeted interventions for pupils that need additional support?
• Effective links with external agencies?
• Close partnerships with parents and carers?
• Continuing professional learning for all staff that enables them to support pupils’ health and wellbeing?

Inspiring good practice is highlighted through case studies in the report. In secondary schools, in particular, pupils’ day-to-day experience of health and wellbeing does not always match school leaders’ stated aims. But Eastern High School in Cardiff successfully improved the leadership of the school which had a notably positive effect on the culture and support for pupils’ wellbeing. Their culture recognises that young people are still developing physically, mentally and emotionally and that teachers have a responsibility to address the developmental needs of the whole child. The school also identifies that a teacher’s expertise lies in their understanding of how young people learn rather than simply their subject knowledge.

At Gilwern Primary School, Monmouthshire (a longstanding NACE member), the school’s approach to supporting vulnerable pupils has helped staff to better understand the reasons behind poor self-esteem or undesirable behaviour.

Health and wellbeing is an important feature in achieving the four purposes of the new curriculum in schools. Schools have the opportunity now more than ever to provide lifelong benefits to the children and young people in Wales.

The full report is available at estyn.gov.wales and recommends ways that schools, local authorities, regional consortia, initial teacher education providers and government can improve pupils’ health and wellbeing. Teachers and leaders can use the report’s case studies to inspire changes in their own schools.