1. Maximising staff performance and development

2. Investing in developing all staff members

3. Regular reports at governor meetings

4. Committing to inclusive, flexible provision for all

5. Pupil premium strategy shared with all staff members

6. Regularly updated pupil premium records

7. Planning for maximum progress in an inclusive environment

8. Appropriate use of intervention groups

9. Mental health first aid

10. Increasing participation in enrichment activities

---

Read more:

• Narrowing the gap: improving the use of the pupil premium for more able disadvantaged learners
• NACE Essentials guide: more able and the pupil premium (member login required)

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) 
  

---

Following the publication of the report Approaches to Supporting Disadvantaged Pupils, the Department for Education's David Warden, Curriculum Implementation Unit: Humanities, Arts, Languages, and Most Able, shares the following update for NACE members.
 
The Department for Education is committed to unlocking the potential of every child and there is evidence that disadvantaged, highly able pupils fall behind their non-disadvantaged peers between Key Stage 2 and Key Stage 4. Many of the department's recent reforms, such as new accountability measures and more stretching tests and qualifications, will help – but more needs to be done to support highly able children at risk of underachieving.
 
In November 2018 a University of Warwick research report, Approaches to Supporting Disadvantaged Pupils, was published. This research, commissioned by the Department for Education (DfE), took place in the spring and summer terms of the 2017-18 academic year. It aimed to identify what secondary schools across England were doing to support attainment amongst the most able disadvantaged students from Key Stage 2 to Key Stage 4. It had a particular focus on schools where these pupils were making better than average progress.
 
The policy context was a focus on closing the attainment gap in schools as part of wider efforts to increase social mobility. Previous research had identified disadvantaged pupils who attained in the top 10% at the end of primary school as being much less likely than their more advantaged peers to achieve highly at the end of Key Stage 4.
 
This study has demonstrated that English secondary schools in diverse settings and with diverse pupil populations can be successful in promoting high achievement of their most able disadvantaged students across Key Stages 2 to 4. We hope that schools will view it as providing useful ideas about how they might adopt similar approaches to support their most able disadvantaged pupils to achieve their potential.
 
The full report is available here.

At the 2017 Pupil Premium Awards, NACE member Fullhurst Community College was celebrated as a regional champion for its success in raising attainment for those from disadvantaged backgrounds. Deputy principal Tom Hague, who oversees the school’s pupil premium strategy, outlines the key factors behind this success.

While innovative, our approach to pupil premium is also simple, in that it’s grounded in good teaching and learning. We believe the most important factor is what goes on in the classroom, and this is backed up by research – but we also recognise the significance of other factors, such as attendance, behaviour and wellbeing. We take a “marginal gains” approach, trying to remove as many small barriers as we can for pupils, so they can do well academically.

Over half of our students qualify for pupil premium. As the majority, this group is always at the forefront of teachers’ minds, and the expectation of these pupils has to be high, because the school’s success is based on theirs. Though typically on entry our students start below the national average in terms of attainment, they still need to reach the highest levels to have the best prospects – and our disadvantaged more able learners perform above the national average for their group.

Combining external and in-school research

We use a simple software, MINTclass, to identify and track disadvantaged students. When underperformance is identified, we intervene rapidly, giving priority to these students in classroom interactions. We also ask teachers to mark these students’ work first, to ensure they receive timely feedback, and to keep them at the fore of teachers’ minds.

The data we track is not only shared with staff, but also with learners. Visual displays in each classroom show performance against targets, focusing on progress rather than attainment, with the aim of motivating students to keep improving.

Evidence from external sources is also used to inform our pupil premium strategy, including research published by organisations such as the Education Endowment Foundation, DfE white papers, and the work of previous Pupil Premium Award winners. Such research has led us to run CPD on effective feedback, re-evaluate our use of teaching assistants, and even make changes to the way we reward students. However, external evidence is always approached with caution; we are aware that any single intervention will not necessarily work in every context.

Within school, we encourage our staff to engage in research projects, with the intention of raising standards for our students. Recent examples include a project by our Embedding Literacy Leader, evaluating the effectiveness of different reading schemes and subsequent outcomes among students. Such research is showcased in our weekly teaching and learning staff briefing, disseminated by faculty leaders, and uploaded to our staff VLE, so it informs our teaching and learning strategy going forward.

In-school research by one of our Curriculum Leaders focused on effective teaching and learning strategies for more able disadvantaged students, and identified modelling as particularly effective for this group. For example, instead of just giving students a practice paper and then marking it, we break the paper down into chunks. Students are given time to work on a section, then the teacher models the process of answering each question – showing them how the answer is arrived at, how to set it out, and so on.
 
The modelling approach has worked well in maths, English and science, and we plan to spread it across the whole school – not just for revision and exam preparation, but more widely. This will be one of our main strategies for all students, with a particularly high impact expected for the more able disadvantaged.

Removing barriers to achievement

Being a member of NACE has complemented our intention to continue to drive standards up for more able learners, both in the classroom and from an enrichment perspective. One such benefit of our NACE membership has been CPD, which has helped our more able coordinator to inform the planning and delivery of our More Able Programme. The online resources provided by NACE have been used across faculties within the school, and the research featured on the website has aided our development of teaching and learning for more able learners.

Part of our pupil premium funding goes towards CPD. The funding also covers our More Able Coordinator role, which focuses on support for more able disadvantaged learners, building cultural capital as well as academics. This includes a series of Year 7 projects which students present to parents each half term, and a Year 9 project with The Brilliant Club.

Careers guidance is another major focus in our support for disadvantaged more able learners, with the aim of raising their aspirations. Our full-time lead on enterprise and employability works with all students, with priority given to the more able disadvantaged to ensure they receive bespoke advice.

Beyond this, we try to remove as many additional barriers as we can. In the past year we’ve worked with the Education Endowment Foundation on a research project they were evaluating, running a project to educate our students on good sleep patterns and the importance of sleep. Another example involved reaching out to Specsavers after realising many of our students were reporting difficulties seeing the board; this led to Specsavers developing a free eye-screening kit which is now used by schools across the country.

Our recent success at the Pupil Premium Awards is recognition for the work we’re doing at every level in the school, involving all members of staff. It’s proof that the available research and guidance are effective, and that those marginal gains really add up.

Tom Hague is a deputy principal at Fullhurst Community College in Leicester. Tom leads on outcomes and curriculum, including the use of the pupil premium. Tom joined Fullhurst through the Teach First programme, and recently also completed the Future Leaders programme with Ambition School Leadership.