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) 
  

---

Ahead of his keynote speech at this year’s NACE National Conference, NACE patron Dr Chris Yapp offers an aspirational yet realistic vision of how artificial intelligence (AI) could help solve current challenges in education.

It is easy to be overwhelmed with both the scope and pace of change in the modern world. Faced with educating children for a world that does not yet exist, for jobs that we don’t yet understand, it is easy to close one’s ears, put heads down and hope it will all go away. Be it as a government minister, as parents, school leaders, teachers or governors, the lack of clarity on the world we are preparing children and young adults for can cause us to become risk-averse and confine our efforts to the areas we feel most confident about.

My experience over a lifetime working in the public, private and third sectors is that this is a mistake. I have seen sectors and companies fail because they clung to a world view that was past its sell-by date.

Adapting to a fast-changing world

When I first became engaged with educational reform nearly 30 years ago, it was common to hear the argument that teaching was inherently a conservative profession and resistant to change.

On the contrary, in my work I have found health professionals, lawyers, accountants, various built environment professions to face the same challenges in shifting professional practice to adapt to a changing world. In all sectors, including education, there are people who thrive on change and others who prefer a comfortable silo.

I have often argued that it is our attitude to change that needs to be rethought, not change itself.

My experience is that in general people do not resist change, they resist being changed. If people feel that change is being thrust on them without their acceptance, engagement and understanding, they will resist. Yet if they feel engaged in and responsible for delivering change, the same changes can feel far less stressful, indeed liberating.

During my time at school and university, the best teachers embraced change and encouraged that in me. The teachers I meet who I find inspiring are constant innovators.

That said, I would argue that society and the economy are facing levels of change over the next few decades – from climate change, technological change and societal and demographic challenges – that require systemic responses that cannot be delivered by individual teachers, educational institutions, advisers and consultants simply “doing their best”.

An aspirational but realistic approach to AI

In this post, I want to illustrate just one strand, the impact of artificial intelligence (AI). Each week I see yet another claim around AI developments in health, education, law, autonomous vehicles and so on. There is a lot of hype around, as ever, but the potential is real, and the possibilities will grow over next few decades.

So, instead of throwing AI tools and techniques at teachers, schools and colleges and hoping something will stick, can we enable students and teachers to become masters, not victims, of AI-enabled change?

I’d like to commend a recent report from Nesta on AI in education which is grounded in the real world yet is aspirational about a more effective, human system of education.

Let’s start by hitting the hype on the head. AI will not replace teachers. While progress in a variety of technologies under the banner of AI is genuinely impressive, we are a long way from the full AI vision. Artificial general intelligence (AGI) is a long-term goal for many in AI research and industry. AGI is about building systems and machines that have a broad range of capabilities that match the breadth of human skillsets.

What we can do now and for the foreseeable future is use AI on specific tasks. The narrower the task, the easier it is to build an AI system that can match a human at that task. We can build AI systems that beat champions at Go, but also outperform doctors in diagnostics.

What existing challenges can AI be used to address?

So, let’s put AI in its proper place, starting with the problems and challenges currently faced by schools:

1. What are the biggest impediments to improving learning at individual, class, institution and national levels?
2. How can we free up teachers’ time to enable them to develop the skills to become masters of change?
3. What tasks can AI perform to support education at all levels from individual to the UK and beyond?

Too often, we have tried to answer the third question without being clear on the first two. Of course, more funding would always help, but it is not a panacea if it acts as a sticking plaster to old ways.

This leads to the next important step…

4. How can education stakeholders engage with developments in AI to shape the capability to address the real challenges and opportunities that AI presents?

Practical and ethical implications

Let me illustrate this with two examples.

The first is in assessment. Imagine you have two pupils who are “B” standard at the end of the year. Based on your experience, Pupil 1 is strong in X and weak in Y, and Pupil 2 the reverse. Understanding next year’s curriculum, you might believe that Pupil 1 might get an A but 2 might move towards a C.

That insight would be very helpful to next year’s teacher but your workload to give far more detailed assessments on each pupil would be unacceptable.

This is precisely the type of task AI is well suited to. Reform of assessment is a perennial bugbear in my experience. We have the technology now to do what many have aspired to for decades, which is to build a more learning-focused, rich assessment framework that supports teachers and learners without adding to the burden and stress on teachers. That is easier to say than do, of course. If we follow the model of building technology and imposing it on schools the potential will be missed, and we will all feel the loss.

The second example is around the ethical implications of developments in AI. We already have examples of AI developments where the systems can be shown to discriminate on gender, race and other grounds. This has profound importance for curriculum developments in teaching AI within schools, but also for the ethical frameworks within which teachers and schools operate. AI, like all technologies, does not exist in a vacuum.

Indeed, I would argue that climate change is an ethical issue as much as it is a scientific discourse. I’ll leave this as an open question here: “Is a grounding in ethics part of the 21st century core curriculum?”

Throughout my years engaged with education at all levels, there has been an aspiration for education to become more evidence-based and research-led. I think we will only deliver on that goal if education professionals are developed and recognised as masters of change. Only then can we thrive on change rather than implement stress-reducing coping strategies. If we are to prepare this generation of young people for the world to come, we owe it to them and ourselves to work together and build an ambitious vision of the teaching workforce.