Christabel Shepherd, NACE Challenge and Curriculum Development Director, introduces the new NACE Essentials guide on this topic.

There is strong evidence that an educational equity gap exists across all phases of the English educational system and that the effects of disadvantage are cumulative, so that the gap tends to increase as children grow older, especially during secondary schooling. 

Concerns about disadvantaged pupils have never been as acute as they are currently, nor felt as keenly following the coronavirus pandemic and related lockdowns. According to studies collated by the Education Endowment Foundation (EEF) in its online collection Best evidence on impact of Covid-19 on pupil attainment, primary pupils from disadvantaged backgrounds have experienced 0.5 months more learning loss in reading and 0.7 months more in mathematics compared to their non-disadvantaged peers. Secondary pupils from disadvantaged backgrounds experienced two months more learning loss in reading than their non-disadvantaged peers. 

Information from the Education Policy Institute’s Annual Report (2020) points to the fact that the attainment gap between disadvantaged pupils and their peers has stopped closing for the first time in a decade. Disadvantaged pupils in England are 18.1 months of learning behind their peers by the time they finish their GCSEs – the same gap as five years ago. The gap at primary school increased for the first time since 2007 – which may signal that the gap is set to widen in the future.

The stalling of the gap occurred even before the Covid-19 pandemic had impacted the education system – as shown in reports commissioned for the Social Mobility and Child Poverty Commission (2014), briefings published by the DfE for school leaders (2015), and research from the Sutton Trust (2015 and 2018). 

Despite this worrying picture over many years, the plight of disadvantaged more able pupils continues to have been largely overlooked by schools. This may be based on an assumption that disadvantaged more able pupils will “be fine” and the misconception that, compared to less academically able learners, their needs are not as important or urgent. 

However, evidence shows that academically able pupils from disadvantaged backgrounds are most at risk of under-performing (Sutton Trust, 2018). 

The DfE’s most recent guidance for school leaders on the use of the pupil premium (November 2021) demonstrates increased expectations in terms of the identification of the specific challenges facing disadvantaged learners, and the planning of focused, evidence-based approaches to address those challenges effectively. Although reference to more able disadvantaged learners has been made in previous iterations of the pupil premium guidance for schools, it is now far more explicit: these pupils should receive just as much focus as less academically able pupils.

This is a welcome change, which should help to narrow the widening gap between these learners and their non-disadvantaged peers, and address the “levelling up” agenda. Like any group of pupils, more able disadvantaged leaners have a right to have their needs met and it is our moral responsibility as educators to ensure that this is happening so that these young people have the same life chances as their peers.  

This month NACE has published a new NACE Essentials guide on the topic “Pupil premium and the more able”. Based on an in-depth review of education research evidence and literature, the guide provides support for school leaders to ensure that their school’s pupil premium funding can be used to maximise the opportunities for, and the achievement of, disadvantaged more able pupils. The key factors in developing a culture which will support the development and implementation of an effective pupil premium strategy are explored, and a range of specific evidence-based approaches aimed at meeting the needs of more able disadvantaged learners are exemplified. 

The guide is available free for all NACE member schools, along with the full NACE Essentials collection. Read now (login required).

Not yet a member? Join our mailing list to access our free sample resources.

Read more:

• Lessons learned from the teacher assessed grades process of summer 2021
• Cause for celebration, not criticism: reflections on the GCSE class of 2021

A year like no other… yet much the same

Opportunities to thrive – not just survive 

“Just waiting to get out there and take our place in the world”

Roles and responsibilities

The wider impact of a focus on more able

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)