Definitions and characteristics of more /highly able learners

(Edited version of NACE article (NACE, 2022) and our thanks to Christabel Shepherd, NACE Challenge and Curriculum Development Director).

Why focus on definitions and terminology?

If schools are going to ensure consistency of understanding, approach and provision in respect of highly able learners defining what is meant and which learners are referred to is essential. These definitions must be clear, subject to discussion and shared with staff and stakeholders.

Shared language and meanings are inextricably linked to the accurate identification of highly and exceptionally able learners and to their individual learning behaviours and needs. Without that it will be difficult to plan and provide for these learners. Without this schools are at risk of failing a significant number of children and young people, potentially impacting on their success in school and their life chances.

When these definitions vary widely within or between schools and regions, the inherent ambiguity and lack of precision can cause a number of difficulties, such as:

  • A lack of consistency in approach and provision
  • Confusion for parents/carers about their child’s abilities and related expectations
  • Distress for pupils defined as more able in one class, year group or school who then move to a different class or setting where a completely different definition is used, resulting in their “more able” label disappearing
  • Lack of accurate information noticeably at transition points leading to inappropriate provision
  • Underachievement among potentially very able pupils.

Clear definitions and the use of agreed terminology will also support parents and carers 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. Informing parents and carers that their children are more able can often be a highly emotive issue. Providing unambiguous definitions can help to prevent misconceptions.

Agreed definitions will also help to avoid excessive labelling or perceived elitist descriptions.

⇒ Read more: Common myths and misconceptions about more able learners

The context: past approaches and problems

Until 2010, ‘gifted and talented’ was the term most used in schools in relation to the more able agenda, and this term is still widely used in some countries.

Depending on its interpretation by each school, this term was used to refer to a range of learners including the more able, most able, exceptionally able, higher attaining, gifted, and talented. There appeared to be little consensus as to what the term actually meant and many different definitions were adopted or developed by schools.

For example, in England the Young Gifted and Talented programme (YGTP), run by the then Department for Children, Schools and Families (DCSF) until 2010, was targeted at “children and young people with one or more abilities developed to a level significantly ahead of their year group (or with the potential to develop those abilities).”

The then National Academy for Gifted and Talented Youth provided this definition: “Pupils who achieve, or have the ability to achieve, at a level significantly in advance of their peers. This may be in all areas of the curriculum or in a limited range.”  This definition at least provided an increased level of clarity by suggesting that these abilities could be viewed in terms of an individual subject area.

However, in both definitions above, the term “significantly” caused a problem, being vague and as a result entirely open to interpretation by schools and governments. This ultimately led to the development of outcome-driven definitions which included strict numerical measures such as “the top 10% of all learners in each class or school”. Such a definition is problematic for the following reasons:

  • Focusing on a percentage can fuel the common misconception that more able learners are “good at everything.” It raises more questions than it answers. For example: the top 10% of what?
  • It has encouraged some teachers to consider only those pupils who are more able in maths or English – particularly in primary schools – because the school has data to support this. Abilities in other subjects are therefore overlooked.
  • It is an outcomes-based definition. It makes schools reliant on data to support the identification of more able learners; this carries the risk of overlooking the many highly able young people who may, for a range of reasons, be underachieving. It may mean that we could miss, for example, more or exceptionally able pupils who are second language learners.
  • It is inflexible and likely to lead to large numbers of more able learners being missed as it doesn’t capture those with the “spark” in particular subject areas that great teachers just spot!
  • It places a glass ceiling on identification. What happens if a teacher has six or seven learners in the class who she considers more able? Does she need to limit this to three?

As the use of a measure may have initially provided clarity - and a spur to action - around the more able agenda, such definitions were widely adopted as part of school policy. Unfortunately, in some areas and schools these are still being used and may well be impacting negatively on large numbers of learners.

Another problem is that definitions have changed over time. Due to the confusion surrounding it, the term “gifted and talented” is now rarely used and has been replaced in the majority of schools by a range of terms including: more able, most able, very able, exceptionally able and higher-attaining. On one level this is positive and welcome news. Definitions that were emotive, overly restrictive or ambiguous have been refined by educators, the DfE, Ofsted and Estyn to attempt to capture what sits at the heart of the more able agenda. However, it does not help with clarity and consensus as the range, breadth and sometimes conflicting or ambiguous nature of the definitions proposed can still be confusing. The issue has been further complicated because these terms are now used almost interchangeably across the education sector and by those working with NACE in terms of policy making and research. This leads to disparity in terms of understanding and – ultimately – disparity of practice within and across schools.

This inconsistency is stark and clearly reflected in the range of “more able” terminology, particularly that used by educators and governments of the four UK nations. When there is a lack of clarity at policy-making level, it is no surprise that schools are confused and continue to seek support with the issue of definitions.

Current approaches in England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland

Until fairly recently in England and Wales, Ofsted and Estyn defined the more able in terms of “those whose progress and attainment significantly exceed age-related expectations”. For example, in Ofsted’s most recent thematic research into this area (2015), the “most able pupils” were defined as those who were “Starting secondary school in Year 7 having attained Level 5 or above in English (reading and writing) and/or mathematics at the end of Key Stage 2.”

Rather like the “top 10%” issue, this definition was far too narrow and inflexible: it neither considered other areas of the curriculum, nor did it support schools by providing a definition of more able children throughout the primary phase. Due to changes to Key Stage 2 assessments, this definition no longer stands. Thankfully, definitions have now been further developed and improved. In the Sutton Trust’s report Potential for Success (2018) “highly able” students are defined as “those with high attainment, but also those with the potential for high attainment, regardless of whether they have previously attained highly.”  The report also states that these pupils are also known by a variety of other terms including “more able”, “gifted and talented” and “very able.”

Once again, potential confusion is caused by the fact that Ofsted now tends to refer to “more able pupils” in the primary phase and “highly able” in the secondary phase, although these refer to the same groups of children. NACE believes that use of “more able” for such pupils in both phases is the simplest and most useful approach to take.

The EAS (Wales’ Education Achievement Service) 2018 Regional Strategy Document defines more able and talented learners as: “Children and young people with one or more abilities developed to a level significantly ahead of their peers, or with the potential to develop those abilities and to achieve at the highest levels through challenging learning opportunities and an enriched curriculum.”

Although, once again, the use of the term “significantly” is woolly, this definition does include the concept of “potential” and therefore opens the door to the consideration of underachieving more able learners as an important group.

In Scotland, there is no statutory definition or single term to describe “particularly able or talented” pupils. Scotland’s National Improvement Hub describes “highly able learners” as “those who are working, or have the potential to work, ahead of other learners their own age. They may be working, or have potential to work, at the higher level across the whole curriculum or in one or more curricular area.”

This description is useful as, once more, it includes “potential” and refers to ability in relation to one or more areas of the curriculum. Conversely, although open to broad interpretation, the phrase “ahead of other learners their own age” may cause schools to develop inflexible, data-driven definitions, so caution needs to be exercised in this regard.

In Northern Ireland the term “gifted and talented children” is still used and defined as “children with the ability or potential to develop significantly ahead of their peers: Gifted learners are those with abilities in one or more academic subjects, such as maths or English. Talented learners are those who have practical skills in areas such as sport, music, design or creative and performing arts. Skills and attributes such as leadership, decision-making and organisation may also be taken into account.”

Achievement Vs 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. 

Schools may, therefore, have good attainment outcomes (based on key stage or GCSE results) but less impressive achievement measures. This is because achievement includes progress measures.

Common terminology and definitions

More able

This term is currently used interchangeably with a number of terms, including: most able, highly able and higher attaining. The terms used to refer to this group of students can be highly contentious, and there is no term which is universally accepted or understood.

However, due to their inherently similar meanings, it may be easier and arguably justified  if the terms more able, most able and highly able are defined in the same way or encompassed within one “more able” definition.

In respect of the range of descriptors for each of these terms, the common elements which are most useful in supporting the development of an effective “more able” definition include reference to:

  • 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 for more able learners.

First, more able pupils include those with the potential to achieve. This ensures that the more able definition includes latent ability rather than just achievement. Many “more able” pupils are underachievers. Their abilities may not yet have been realised as these students may not currently perform well in assessments or examinations for various reasons, or they may not yet have experienced an area of learning that they will, ultimately, have great aptitude for. As NACE patron Belle Wallace stated in 2000: “While we challenge and excite the obvious high performers, we should also be mindful that there are others whom we have yet to intrigue, who might surprise us if we can engage them.”  Similarly, some learners may have previously been identified as more able due to their prior high attainment, but that may not be currently reflected in their outcomes or learning behaviours.

Characterising more able pupils as those demonstrating high levels of performance should be an important element of any more able definition. More able pupils do, for the most part, perform highly and, if they don’t already, we want them to. However, where such statements comprise the sole or main focus of the definition, it becomes far too restrictive – a definition of “higher attaining” pupils rather than “more able”. Therefore, the inclusion of such statements within the definition is vital but cannot stand alone. It is also important that schools consider what is meant by “performance” within such statements, as this should encompass performance beyond assessments and examinations. For example, the student in the classroom demonstrating an excellent understanding of chronology in history and the ability to interpret sources of information effectively must be considered as performing highly. School leaders, therefore, must ensure there is clarity around the semantics of “performance” used within their definition.

The element of relative performance is important too. For many years, as discussed above, the term “gifted” influenced the way more able learners were defined, leaving many leaders and teachers believing that this group needed to be representative of the country’s “elite” in terms of relative intelligence and attainment. Thankfully, the most useful definitions of “more able” learners now make it clear that the judgement of ability is in relation to others in their own class or year group. This means that the more able in one year group will potentially look different to those in another. Although some may argue that this may lead to disparity between schools, it is important to consider why we are defining the more able in the first place. Every teacher should know who their more able learners are (in relation to all the other learners in the class) so they can, ultimately, ensure they develop effective pedagogy for students. Every teacher should “teach to the top” regardless of what that “top” looks like in their context and, as a result, improve the achievement and attainment of every student in the class. Including this concept of relative performance within the definition is, therefore, vital.

Finally, it should be recognised that a more able learner does not need to be an all-rounder. “More able” also needs to be considered and applied within the context of each individual subject area. Although a potentially complex issue for schools – as being more able in one subject will look very different to another – it is important that the definition includes this element. Schools need to ensure they have resources in place to support staff with this. For example, more able definitions for each subject or subject-specific more able checklists. All staff need to understand and apply these definitions consistently across their subject areas.

If this is ignored and the definition applies to a purely “all-rounder” view of the more able, then many of the world’s future artists, writers, historians and mathematicians will potentially be overlooked. A school’s definition could make it possible for every child in a particular class to be identified as a more able learner.

⇒ Supporting resources:

Webinar: Identification and transition 

Identifying more able learners: general characteristics and characteristics by subject

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.

The Sutton Trust report Potential for Success (2018) suggests that this term refers to “students who are highly able and have shown high levels of attainment.”  They have also defined this cohort more narrowly as “the top 10% of performers at KS2 English and Mathematics.”

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

Once again, there are numerous definitions of the term “gifted”, many overlapping with the definitions of “more able” explored above. For example, Oxford Languages defines gifted as “having exceptional talent or natural ability” whereas the Cambridge Dictionary defines it as “having special ability in a particular subject or activity.”

Ireland’s Special Education Support Service article on Gifted & Talented Children – the definition of ‘gifted’ which is accepted worldwide in educational and psychological circles – uses similar language: “a child who shows exceptional ability in one or more areas such as mathematical, verbal, spatial awareness, musical, or artistic ability.” This group also proposes that the definition of gifted should be reserved for “those with an IQ greater than 130, i.e. the top 2% of the population.”

The term “gifted” can be very emotive as it is often associated with those 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 can be considered elitist, and, in addition to the range of definitions available, the contentious and emotive nature of the term “gifted” may have contributed to misconceptions in the whole gifted and talented agenda. This, in turn, has resulted in the use of this term being largely abandoned by schools.

Instead, many schools and organisations, NACE included, have adopted the term “exceptionally able” to provide a more explicit and less emotionally laden definition, to effectively support a very specific group of learners.

Exceptionally able

The National Strategies (2008) defined the exceptionally able as: “Learners who demonstrate or have the potential to demonstrate extremely high levels of ability compared to their peers across the entire population.”

Within the document “Guidance on preventing underachievement: a focus on exceptionally able pupils”, exceptionally able learners were distinguished from other more able learners in two ways: by the qualifying adjective “extremely” and by the comparison with peers in all schools as opposed to those within each particular school. As with the “more able”, the guidance also stated that the definition of “exceptionally able” must include learners who have as yet unrealised potential for exceptional ability. A quantitative measure which could be used as an indicator was proposed as “the top 2% nationally for one or more academic and talent areas.”

In the NACE Essentials guide to supporting exceptionally able learners, series editor Hilary Lowe describes such students in the same way, adding that they are learners “whose needs go beyond those of students already deemed to require opportunities for enrichment and extension in the normal curriculum.” However, she also explains that – as with most other terminology within the more able agenda – there is no universally agreed term for students whose ability exceeds that of even their “more able” peers. Some descriptions include “genius”, “gifted”, “very bright”, “high flyer”, “very or highly able” and “talented.”

The NACE Essentials guide also points out that “displaying high ability across multiple domains does not automatically make an individual exceptionally able.” This is an important point. Just because a learner has abilities across a number or all subjects, doesn’t mean they are exceptionally able. The evidence suggests that exceptional ability may comprise both quantitative and qualitative aspects but will certainly include high abstract reasoning ability and complexity of thinking.

In essence, the abilities and needs of the exceptionally able exceed those of the more able.

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.

⇒ Read more: NACE Essentials: Identifying and responding to the needs of exceptionally able learners

Talented

When “gifted and talented” provision first became a key priority in education, a clear distinction was made, by the DfES, between the two terms in respect of definition.

Talented learners were those with particular abilities in sport, music, design or creative and performing arts. It 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 more able in what were considered the non-academic subjects or spheres of learning.

However, this caused confusion, leading to time spent debating whether a pupil was “gifted” or “talented” so they could be correctly labelled on the register. It also led to discrepancies in the type and quality of provision for each group of learners. For example, if a child was considered “talented,” schools may seek out after-school enrichment activities for them or pass on the names of local youth sports clubs and teams to their parents. They didn’t necessarily consider how pedagogy needed to change to further develop that talent.

Use of the term “talented” – as opposed to other terms such as “more able” – may in the past have belittled certain subject disciplines or achievements. Inherent within the word “talent” is the belief that it is something born or blessed with, negating all the hard work that has to be done to develop that “innate” ability.

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

Underachieving more able

Schools tend to find this term the hardest to define. The underachieving more able can be an amorphous group – children who, during lessons, have ideas, make contributions or demonstrate knowledge that isn’t then reflected in their final pieces of work or tests, or who may behave badly. Sometimes, more able learners do not “perform” at all, so how can schools identify them as more able in the first place?

In attempting to arrive at a useful definition, schools should consider including the following criteria:

  • More able pupils whose prior attainment demonstrates high levels of ability, but whose current performance fails to demonstrate this. The underachievement may be the result of barriers to pupils’ learning. These include socio-economic factors, SEMH needs, language and communication issues, etc.
  • Pupils whose contributions, responses and learning behaviours suggest they are more able, but 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. 

⇒Read more: NACE Essentials: Breaking down barriers

Dual or multiple exceptionality

This describes 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. 

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.

  • Encompass within each definition the elements suggested above, 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 more 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.

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/carers.
  • 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 is often considered elitist. 

The issue of more able definitions is indeed highly complex. However, progress has been made in developing definitions that will ultimately lead to improved identification of, provision and outcomes for all learners considered to be more able in some respect. It is also clear that still more needs to be done in schools to continue refining and clarifying these definitions so that no child is missed and so that all teachers and stakeholders understand who these young people are and, ultimately, how to support them.

References

Department for Children, Schools and Families (DCSF), Identifying gifted and talented learners: getting started (2008)

Department for Children, Schools and Families (DCSF), Gifted and Talented Education: Guidance on preventing underachievement: a focus on exceptionally able pupils (2008)

Department for Education (DfE), Research to understand successful approaches to supporting the most academically disadvantaged pupils (November 2018)

EAS (Education Achievement Service, Wales), Regional Strategy Document (2018)

Lowe, H., NACE Essentials: Identifying and responding to the needs of exceptionally able learners (2017)

Loft, P. and Danechi, S., Support for more able and talented children in schools (House of Commons Library Briefing Paper, UK; December 2020)

National Improvement Hub (Scotland), A summary of resources relating to highly able learners (updated 21 January 2020)

NI Direct, Supporting gifted and talented children (accessed November 2020)

Ofsted, The most able: an update on progress since June 2013 (2015)

Special Education Support Service, Parenting Guide Gifted Children Ireland (giftedkids.ie) (accessed February 2021)

Sutton Trust, Potential for success: Fulfilling the promise of highly able students in secondary schools (2018)

Wallace, B., Teaching the Very Able Child: Developing a Policy and Adopting Strategies for Provision (NACE/Fulton Publication, 2000)

Winstanley, C., NACE Essentials: Breaking down barriers to achievement (2019)

Young Gifted and Talented Programme (YGTP), About YG&T (archived 10 September 2008)

Additional reading and support

 

Tags: