Highly Able Learners and their Education

This MESHGuide provides an overview of key issues in education for those learners deemed to have advanced abilities in one or more domains of the school curriculum and/or demonstrate high ability in areas beyond the normal school curriculum. The Guide provides insights from research and practice into:

Policy and practice in the UK and international contexts

Identification and characteristics of highly able learners

Teaching and learning to meet the needs of high ability learners

Socio-emotional support

The Guide takes as axiomatic the existence of such learners in all cultural and socio-economic groups and that within that group there is heterogeneity in development and in learning needs and the extent to which potential is realised. The education system should allow all young people to achieve to the best of their ability, including those with high learning potential. These young people need to realise their potential both for personal fulfilment and because they represent a considerable social and economic asset. We know however that there are still too many highly able pupils who face substantial barriers to the achievement of which they are capable (Sutton Trust, 2015; Potential Plus, 2020; House of Commons Library Briefing Paper, 2020).

The field of research on giftedness and gifted education (the terms mostly used in the literature) is lacking in coherence and stringency. ‘Gifted studies’ are a loosely organized field of research rather than a discipline, with researchers coming from different  backgrounds, with  different  theoretical  and  practical  interests. Consequently, truly evidence-based policy and practice are scarce.

From a survey of 1,234 empirical studies on giftedness, gifted education, and creativity during 1998 –2010 (Dai et al 2018) four main research topics emerged: creativity/creatively gifted, achievement/underachievement, identification, and talent development. The authors identified several prominent trends, including the emergent qualitative studies (accounting for a quarter of the total studies) and the dominance of descriptive (comparative and correlational) research. They concluded however that whilst ‘rich and broad conceptual spaces linking these four categories to their psychological underpinnings and educational implications have been explored by this body of research, … the conceptual spaces are still too loosely organized to be seen as paradigmatic ’ and that  ‘although most psychosocial studies are conducted in  the  context  of  gifted  education,  there  still  seems  to  be  a  gap  between  theory  and  practice,  between  psychological understanding  of  gifted  development  and  promoting  such  development  through  education.  More systematic, sustainable programmes of research and more coordination among researchers are warranted to move the field forward (p.136).’

The survey authors also concluded that: ‘the field needs more research  that  is  use-inspired, based on current understandings of the nature and development  of  giftedness,  developing  innovative  theories of practice through programming and intervention research situated in practical settings (p.137).’

The relatively few studies undertaken in the UK (e.g. NFER, 2003; NAGTY, 2005, EPPI, 2008;) either draw similar conclusions about the paucity of an evidence base or whilst purporting to look at ‘what works in gifted education’ rarely interrogate specific pedagogical approaches or school wide provision beyond the usual suspects of enrichment, acceleration and mentoring.  Even when ‘differentiation’ as a principle of practice for very able learners is a research focus there is scant evidence about the substance of approaches taken or their impact.

‘A principal conclusion from the review is that research into gifted and talented education has focused on structures and organisational arrangements and largely ignored the well- established field of teacher effectiveness, which is more directly related to pedagogy. There is a small number of robustly conducted studies which can be used to inform policy.’ (NAGTY, 2005)

The most recent UK review of ‘gifted and talented’ research (CREE, 2018) concluded:

• Most research is not sufficiently rigorous for the purposes of drawing policy conclusions regarding the characteristics of successful gifted education programmes…we were not able to unearth a single rigorous study of the effectiveness or otherwise of specific strategies focused on helping talented pupils in practical areas, such as music.
• The rigorous evidence that does exist tends to find that neither gifted education programmes, nor streaming, as currently carried out, on average make much difference in terms of generating higher performance among gifted children.
• A couple of rigorous studies suggest that enrichment programmes, combined with self-directed/targeted instruction, have positive effects. This is supported by cognitive research, which suggests that already high performing individuals perform better using discovery-based pedagogy. Research also suggests gifted children tend to have the characteristics required to benefit from such pedagogy.
• This is an important contrast to the situation for most non-gifted children, among whom structured curriculum and pedagogy have strong positive effects in most settings. In that there is little rigorous evidence that these methods are superior for very able children, there appears little contradiction between these findings.
• Enrichment models predicated on self-directed/ individualised instruction thus appear most promising for realising the performance of gifted children. Accordingly, specific countries that have implemented models including these characteristics, such as Singapore, may be worth investigating in future research.

In 2018 The Sutton Trust provided teachers with guidance on identification and support for highly able students drawing on the existing literature and case studies. They too however recognised that further work was still needed in this area of research.

Maximising the potential of highly able young people poses three main challenges in schools: identifying the right students, offering them the right programmes and interventions, and managing the process organisationally in a sustainable way. While highly able students from certain backgrounds, in certain parts of the country, and attending certain types of schools face substantial barriers, what schools actually do for such students can be crucial for success.

There is currently little evidence on how best to support highly able students, and even less on how to support students capable of high attainment who are from disadvantaged backgrounds.

(Research brief: Missing Talent  The Sutton Trust, June 2015)

The National Association for Able Children in Education (NACE*) undertook in 2020 a small scale research project into successful approaches to learning for the more able in its Challenge Award** schools.  The aim of the project was to look beyond identification, intervention and additional support programmes for more able learners and to identify aspects of practice which enrich and deepen learning for very able young people, focussing on what it termed ‘cognitive challenge’. The ensuing publication (NACE, 2021***) reported the findings of that project through examples of strong practice in cognitive challenge and through drawing together related common themes and conceptual frameworks.

This MESHGuide has noted the following caveats in interrogating the relevant literature regarding high ability and the education of highly able learners and evaluating contributions to our understanding of that field:

• Curriculum models and concepts of appropriate provision for the highly able differ widely between countries and education systems; a lack of consistency and clarity therefore clouds the research base
• The focus of educational ‘provision’ and by extension the research reflect conceptions of ability, ‘giftedness’ and intelligence in different cultures
• There is an inconsistency of terminology across the literature and amongst researchers
• There is a paucity of research documenting and evaluating programmes, interventions and pedagogy for highly able learners
• Research into ‘challenge’, ‘expertise development’ goes beyond the field of ‘gifted and talented/more able’ into wider pedagogical domains and even multi-disciplinary investigations (eg Renzulli, 1993, 2005 ; Reis, 2010; Hattie, 2009; Willingham, 2010; Bjork, 2017; Ripley, 2013)
• The research base is international, with an emphasis on the US, Far East and Australasia

The MESHGuide therefore draws on a diverse, multi-perspective and comprehensive literature base in attempting to give a coherent account of evidence and best practice in key areas pertaining to high ability and the education of high ability learners.

References

As we pointed out in the beginning of this article, gifted studies are a loosely organized field of research rather than a discipline,  with  researchers  coming  from  different  backgrounds,  with  different  theoretical  and  practical  interests. The  most  stringent  definition  of  research  “paradigm” includes a set of canonical research topics as well as conceptual tools, methodological procedures, and criteria agreed on by a research community as  the standard  or norm  for conducting  research  in  the  field  (Kuhn,  1962).  The  field  of research on giftedness and gifted education simply does not have such  coherence  and stringency.

*NACE is an independent UK organisation which has worked for over 35 years in the field of education for high ability learners

** The Challenge Award is a ‘quality mark’ given in recognition of high quality provision for more able learners in primary and secondary settings

*** Making Space for Able Learners, NACE,  2020

Centre for Education Economics (UK) What works in gifted education? A literature review. Heller-Sahlgren, Gabriel  2018

Gifted Child Quarterly 55(2) 126 –138 2011 National Association for Gifted Children State of Research on Giftedness and Gifted Education: A Survey of Empirical Studies Published During 1998–2010 David Yun Dai, Joan Ann Swanson, and Hongyu Cheng

A Baseline Review of the Literature on Effective Pedagogies for Gifted and Talented Students. (NAGTY, Occasional Paper 5).  Hewston et al 2005

Research brief: Missing Talent   The Sutton Trust, June 2015

Research brief: Potential for Success The Sutton Trust, 2018

A Literature Review on the Policy Approaches and Initiatives for the Inclusion of Gifted Students in OECD Countries  2020

House of Commons Library Briefing Paper  Support for more able and talented children in schools (UK) 2020

In order to have a better understanding of how education for more able learners has arrived at its present state, we as authors feel it is important to look at the field through a historical lens. For over a century, scholars have sought to understand and measure the idea. Theories and empirical investigations developed, complementing and sometimes contesting the nature of giftedness and talent development.

Throughout history, cultures have recognized and encouraged what they understood by ability. This was largely based on what was important in a particular epoch. The Spartans valued military prowess. The Athenians valued physical fitness and Roman society placed value on engineering skills. The Greeks saw high ability as being able to move through different levels of knowledge to achieve deeper understanding. In early China child prodigies were recognised and nurtured their gifts as much as possible, believing that children from all social classes had the right to be educated. Learning was differentiated for students based on their abilities. In the Renaissance and post-Renaissance periods, a common approach to fostering talent in art, music and dance was through the apprentice model, with support from the nobility or aristocracy.

There was renewed interest in the 19^th century with research into individual differences. Eyre (2011) describes how, the mid-20th century saw a shift towards the ‘cohort paradigm’, under which gifted education selected a group of students from the general school population, mostly through IQ tests. Studies of giftedness in the 1920s and 30s evolved from research into mental inheritance, low ability and the construction of instruments to measure this, along with the realization that schools could not adequately meet the needs of all children. Towards the end of the 20^th century and in the beginning of the 21st century, the focus in some countries shifted from identification towards creating educational conditions in which high ability might best be developed.

The assessment of individual differences

Modern studies commonly relate to the psychology of individual differences. Psychological constructs of intelligence, creativity, and motivation (from research in the 18-20th centuries) provided much of the foundation for our understanding today.  In 1884, Francis Galton established a psychometric lab in London, where he began testing individuals’ mental abilities. Galton’s publication of Hereditary Genius in 1892, a study of English families has been regarded as the first ever study on human ability. Galton concluded that heredity is the determinant factor in intelligence. In France, Binet, Henri, and Simon began developing methods to study higher mental processes. They argued that intelligence was best measured by looking at higher mental processes rather than the simple sensory functions that had been studied in the past and in 1905, the Binet-Simon scale was developed. Early definitions of ability were based on Intelligence Quotient (IQ) or general intelligence, known as g factor. Although such early work brought more empirical and scientific credibility to the field of gifted education and IQ tests do serve some purpose, their exclusive use at identifying high ability is now questioned by many, showing a limited view of ability that does not take into consideration an individualised or even whole child approach.

Equity issues

Education for very able learners is caught between excellence and equity. Critics of different highly able educational experiences contend that these services or programmes are unfair to other children (a view challenged by many individuals and organisations nowadays). From the mid-1960s to 1970s, public attention and the attention of educators, particularly in the USA shifted to issues of student equity. There continued to be interest in the education of gifted students, largely due to the recognition of the need for continuing the supply of highly talented individuals to maintain U.S.A. leadership in science, industry and academia. This was paralleled with considerable ambivalence to higher achieving individuals, with the common charge of being exclusive and elitist. The conflict between the public interest and personal feelings is mirrored in many societies and does remain a barrier to the education of gifted and talented students. Ford (2012) alerts us to a number of ongoing and unresolved controversies and questions in the field. Among them are identification, placement (programming, services, curriculum), and underrepresentation (of Black and Hispanic students). These issues play a significant role in contributing to the charges of elitism and inequity, and they are a significant factor reflecting the lack of commitment in legislation for the more able that exists in the USA. The Marland Report in 1972 was a significant milestone in gifted and talented education and it remains a touchstone even today. Subsequent legislation and reports, including A Nation at Risk: The Imperative for Educational Reform (1983) and National Excellence: A Case for Developing America’s Talent (1993), have reawakened the rally cries for more equitable allocation of resources and funding for gifted education and reiterated the neglect given to this nation’s most able students.

Highly able education in England

The existence of official policy statements reflects an incremental development in England for the last half century where the terms ‘highly able’, ‘gifted’ or ‘talented’ are often used synonymously. In the United Kingdom (and England specifically) we can trace its origins back to 1944, when a new School Act provided possibilities for children to study at newly created Grammar Schools. These schools were later viewed as elitist and local authorities were encouraged to close them down and replace them by comprehensive schools, which were to provide equal opportunities for everybody. In the 1950s in a ‘cohort’ perspective (described by Eyre earlier), the challenge was to identify the limited number of ‘gifted’ students who were different to mainstream students. In some ways, this was an improvement on what had gone before, as it recognised for the first time that there were large numbers of students capable of high levels of achievement and who required a differed form of education.

Her Majesty’s Inspectorate (HMI 1978, 1979) reported concerns that work in schools was not appropriately matched for very able pupils. Years later, Her Majesty’s Inspectorate (HMI,1992) voiced that very able students in state-maintained primary and secondary schools were not being sufficiently challenged by the curriculum; a view that still exists today. The first recorded government commitment to making effective provision for higher ability pupils is to be found in the government White Paper (DfEE, 1997). A formal action plan and associated funding were provided to develop strategies to meet the needs of able children within the Excellence in Cities initiative (DfEE,1999). Following a general election in 1997, this Labour Government policy was initially intended to raise educational achievement of higher ability students in secondary schools in socially deprived urban areas and subsequently extended to all age groups and schools in England. Schools were required to:

• identify 5 to 10% of their students as gifted and talented and place them on a register

• appoint a co-ordinator to be responsible for the education of gifted and talented students

• implement a distinct teaching and learning programme for gifted and talented students.

The initiative attempted to address social inclusion and boost education standards in inner-city state schools. It was intended to create inclusive schooling that recognised the different abilities of all learners. Several educationalists, including Radnor, Koshy and Taylor (2007) have suggested that underpinning the introduction of the gifted and talented education policy was a need to retain middle-class children in state comprehensive schools and to stop their leakage into schools in more affluent areas as well as into the independent sector.   That said, the English landscape of gifted education changed from here. Although not mandatory, this was the first time in the history of UK education, where teachers were expected to select gifted and talented pupils and make appropriate educational provision for them. It was also the first time that the topic of improved provision for these students had been placed firmly within the national agenda.

Although there was significant funding attached the EiC programme and it did serve to put the education of the more able on the educational map, latent tensions with terminology soon became apparent. This was due to people’s interpretation that gifted meant exceptional in some way and was no longer taken from a set percentage of a cohort of students. The term ‘gifted and talented’ tended to create a resistance amongst the teaching profession for this reason and it also raised questions about teachers’ knowledge to judge this accurately in their students. In response, the Department for Children, Schools and Families (DCSF, 2008) provided specific guidance for schools:

Gifted: the top 5-10% of students per school as measure by actual or potential achievement in English, Maths, Science, History Geography, Modern Foreign Languages, RE, ICT or Design and Technology.

Talented: the top 5-10% of students per school as measured by actual or potential achievement in the subjects of Art, Music, PE or the Performing Arts.

The problems of identification remained with many teachers morally opposed to labelling children as ‘gifted’. They preferred to use the term ‘more able’ instead (Koshy & Pinheiro-Jones, 2013) and indeed the term used in this Guide is ‘highly able’. The term ‘gifted and talented’ was perceived by many as confusing and elitist. An earlier Select Committee (1999) adopted the term ‘highly able’, justifying this by saying that the Department for Education and Employment used the term synonymously with a range of terms from ‘very able’ to ‘exceptionally able’. It also raised practical problems about the keeping of separate registers for both categories of ability. Could both categories also be possible?  The governmental response to these and other inconsistencies concluded that schools themselves should manage their implementation of the G&T policy.

In 2002, a funded National Academy for Gifted and Talented Youth (NAGTY) was set up at the University of Warwick. This provided summer schools and other support for ‘gifted’ pupils in the secondary sector. However, despite the positive evaluation of the NAGTY by the Department of Education, and more than 200,000 children receiving support, thousands of teachers being trained, the NAGTY was closed down in 2010.  It was followed by the Young Gifted and Talented Learner Academy (YG&T) for 4- to 19-year-olds, set up and run by the Centre for British Teachers (CfBT) Education Trust.  It was significant that local authority advisers were not involved or consulted in the process of setting up of either the NAGTY or YG&T. In 2007, the National Strategy for Gifted and Talented pupils was introduced. Local authority advisers had a key role in implementation here, and yet there was no funding attached. Local authorities and schools which had not been involved previously in gifted and talented initiatives were now required to document and demonstrate their provision for their most able learners. Evaluations of impact of the national gifted and talented programme were ‘inconsistent and incoherent’ and stated that ‘the impact in classrooms generally with regard to provision was patchy’ (Evans 2010).

Since 2010, a national framework for Gifted & Talented in England no longer exists. The previous national register is closed and much of the previous material produced by the National Strategies is available only as on-line archives. The National Academy is disbanded and regional partnerships and Excellence Hubs are closed. Ofsted (Office for Standards in Education) inspections continue to highlight that provision for able pupils in state-funded schools is far from satisfactory.  The Government priority is on raising achievement in schools. There is now more regionalisation. Orientation is towards school-based provision. Organisations such as the National Association for Able Children in Education (NACE) and Potential Plus fill this gap and provide much needed professional development for teachers in all sectors in terms of support materials, challenge awards and conferences (more of the current status in the next section). The twenty-first century represents a new era where the possibilities augur that the future for highly able children might again be a national priority.

References

Evans, L. (2010). G&T policy inconsistent [editorial]. G&T Update

Eyre, D. (2011).  Room at the top: inclusive education for high performance, Policy Exchange, London

Ford, D. Y. (2012). Gifted and talented education: History, issues, and recommendations. In K. R. Harris, S. Graham, T. Urdan, S. Graham, J. M. Royer, & M. Zeidner (Eds.), APA educational psychology handbook, Vol. 2. Individual differences and cultural and contextual factors (pp. 83–110). American Psychological Association

Koshy, V. & Pinheiro-Torres, C. (2013) ‘Are we being de-gifted, Miss?’ Primary schools gifted and talented co-ordinators’ responses to the Gifted and Talented Education Policy in England. British

Radnor, H., Koshy, V. & Taylor, A., (2007). Gifts, talents and meritocracy. Journal of Education Policy, 22(3), pp.283-287

Education policies for more able students vary considerably from country to country, with programmes and the protocols that underpin them being far from being universally embraced. In countries with strong national cultures of egalitarianism, education policies are often geared towards avoiding interventions that could be regarded as forms of intellectual elitism. Some systems, often cite compelling empirical evidence for their positions, and strongly reject any notions that students should be stratified by ability. In contrast, in cultures and systems that embrace differentiated education for their academically very able students, diversity of programmes is offered. Such programmes may differ some are structured as enrichment to the mainstream school curriculum while others are separate systems that operates in tandem to mainstream schooling. What is consistent is their policies and practices generally show a commitment to engaging learners from all ability levels with appropriately challenging curricula and instruction.

Perceptions of high ability are largely culturally determined, inseparable from values, and beliefs, as well as from the socio-historical and socio-political realities of a country or region (Davis, Rimm, & Siegle, 2010).  Some developed countries have well established programmes, and others are early on their journey to recognise and foster such educational provision. According to Touron and Freeman (2018), most European countries seem to be aware that very able children need special provision to reach their potential. Their concerns are evident in directives to schools where children with gifts and talents are valued, but not always obvious in terms of actual official legislation. Because there is no international consensus, there is a great variation in how high ability is conceptualised between and also within countries.  This impacts on how countries design and implement their education programmes: from identification to the types of programmes implemented, distribution of resources, and teachers’ professional development. What can be said with some certainty is that most education international systems recognise high ability as a distinctive educational area of focus and a source of valuable human capital.

Meanings attached to the education of students of high ability reflect a dominant Western European worldview and value system. This is because the field has been developed mainly in Western European and the United States. At the same time, it has been well argued that the strongest current advancement is presently outside of these Western contexts (Ibata-Arens, 2012). With a growing body of evidence from international policy and legislation, we are able to observe some consistencies and inconsistencies among perceptions, policies, and practices related to the education of high ability learners across nations.

Different nations’ policies on gifted education

China

In the last three decades China has achieved rapid modernisation. In 2011, China was the second largest economy in the world, with a population of 1.3 billion.  In 2022 the figure rose to 1.4 billion inhabitants. In this era of rapid growth in economic, social and educational development, talent was regarded a primary driver for China to be a successful nation in the international arena. Cultural conceptions and traditions had a profound influence upon who is identified as being highly able, and on how to nurture their talents in the education system. Beliefs and attitudes complement Chinese society well.  As the high performers and achievers of the society, they make a large contribution to the human capital of the nation. Though the scale of such education in China is small, in respect to the huge population base as well as compared to other countries it is a significant part of their culture and image on the world stage.

Hungary

In Hungarian education, two approaches are evident: the first favours separate provision for very able young people in education (and is subject to much criticism for being elitist). The second, aims to reform education and promote the inclusion education through a more personal and individual approach.  The Hungarian system of specialised schools for mathematically able is believed to be original and this model was adopted by Russia and also the United States. The first school started in Budapest in 1962 and there are now 11 schools around the country.  Schools and teachers are responsible for identifying and recognising individual differences and talents in their students. Enrichment is the preferred format of advancing this in schools. Acceleration, grade skipping and sharing classes with higher grades is uncommon. Highly able students can be offered a special curriculum, special classes, workshops and extra-curricular activities and there are special schools in different areas of talent, from intellectual, music, arts and sport.

Singapore

Singapore has a long history of provision for high ability students. Beliefs about ability and talent development are strongly influenced by the view that environmental factors are dominant in their development. Early identification is not stressed and working hard is emphasized at home and school. Like many other countries, Singapore has been broadening its conceptions of ability and diversifying its talent development efforts in recent years. The government recently announced its vision to achieve global recognition and leadership for outstanding accomplishment in the arts and sports. The main aim of Singapore policy is to develop intellectual depth and high-level thinking and to nurture creativity and innovation. The nation has seen considerable expansion and diversification of its programmes and provision for a range of gifts and talents in the last decade in particular. Talent in non-academic domains like dance, theatre studies, music, visual arts, and sport are now identified and enhanced through talent development programmes. All programmes for high ability young people offer a differentiated curriculum aimed at developing targeted cognitive and social-emotional abilities and character traits.

Austria

Education for the more able in Austria dates back to the mid-1960s.  More recently, the education of highly able children has received increased public awareness and social acceptance. The last 15 years can be declared as the “golden age” in Austria, where it established and implemented a variety of measures regarding talent promotion and gifted education. The provision of special programmes is closely linked to the general structure of the Austrian school system.

Supporting children with special educational needs has a long tradition in the country. Integrated education was a part of Austrian compulsory education. Very able young people are recognized as learners with specific needs, interests, abilities and modes of thinking. Austrian legislation emphasises a general idea of individualized education, acceleration and enrichment within regular schools as well as within specific schools. School legislation specifies that able children can skip classes, can be released from compulsory education, attend classes at universities and attend universities from the age of 15. The more common education of highly able students is within mainstream classes, where they receive special attention through enrichment, workshops, allocation of individual mentors and various programmes of language, maths, science, music or sport.

United Arab Emirates

Although the UAE does not possess a long history and experience in general education, the country has recently embarked on educational reforms that emphasize the provision of quality education for all.  The nation has been paying attention to the education of its younger generation in order to guarantee equal opportunities for all students, and at the same time make sure that students with special needs and talented learners are provided with the right support and sufficiently challenged to reach their full potential.

The absence of a committed policy for gifted and more able education may disrupt existing efforts and slow down the steady progress that the country has already maintained.

India

Education provision for very able learners is yet to be part of a formal educational policy in the country. Research on giftedness lacks systematic and empirical grounding. The actual term “gifted” in the Indian context was used till very recently and most research has focused on creativity. Formal identification and nurture of ability is sporadic and mostly dependent upon whether the child has been selected for enrichment programmes.  Due to a lack of dedicated policies and without an overarching national framework for able children and their education, many talented children are left unrecognized.

Finland

Finland has been acclaimed around the world as an education success story with high-quality teacher education. In PISA studies, it has regularly scored among the top countries in mathematics, reading, and science. Giftedness has been long debated amongst different interest groups, for example, politicians, teachers, and researchers and a consensus has not yet been reached.  Opposing views have either advocated it or labelled it as elitist, unnecessary, and against egalitarian politics.  In the egalitarian Finnish school system, the educational principle has been to maintain equality by taking care of the weakest students, such as those with learning difficulties. Culturally, discussing high ability or calling oneself or someone else gifted may feel uncomfortable in a society reluctant to elevate one person over others. This may have led to a situation in which high ability is discussed in a way that conveys the idea that all students are gifted or that those who are extremely gifted can take care of themselves.

Most teachers report the use of some differentiation practices with able students. This result might indicate that Finnish elementary school teachers mostly see such students as a group needing differentiated teaching.  Many teachers believe that these students need more challenge, which they address with more sophisticated assignments. Amongst the teaching profession challenge is deemed to be important for gifted students as additional, unrewarded work and unplanned activities are deemed inappropriate challenges for these students.

The USA

The No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) (2002) reauthorized the 1965 Elementary and Secondary Education Act and provided the federal definition of gifted and talented. There is, however, no federal mandate to identify or serve students of high ability in the United States. It is for individual states and local education agencies (LEAs) to determine and provide education services in public schools across the nation. This means there is substantial variation in the quantity and quality of services across and in the United States. Most frequently mentioned aspects of ability in state definitions include advanced intellectual ability, creativity or creative thinking, and academic ability/performance. Most states have a universal screening process for referral and/or identification is determined by LEAs. The majority of states have personnel assigned to education at the state education agency level. These personnel responsible for education typically provide technical assistance, responding to family questions, providing professional development, and developing state policies and/or guidelines. Some notable changes in 2022 were observed relating to a more nuanced understanding regarding issues of access and equity, as well as policies and initiatives underway across states to address issues of access and equity, and a new theme related to the Influence of the COVID-19 pandemic on educational policies and funding related to high ability education across all states.

Summary

Progress in advancing education for high ability learners appears to require the inclusion of shared definitions into education policies that are both educationally accurate and socially responsive to the various national contexts. Doing this also requires consistent alignments between the formation of education policies and the implementation of programmes that respond directly to the pedagogical needs of able learners.

For a more in-depth analysis on international policies on giftedness we recommend Global dimensions of gifted and talented education: The influence of national perceptions on policies and practices by Brian Heuser and colleagues. (See reference list below).

References

Davis, G. A., Rimm, S. B., & Siegle, D. (2010). Education of the gifted and talented (6th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall

Heuser, B. L., Wang, K, & Shahid, S. (2017). Global dimensions of gifted and talented education: The influence of national perceptions on policies and practices. Global Education Review, 4(1) pp. 4-21.

Ibata-Arens, K. (2012). Race to the future: Innovations in gifted and enrichment education in Asia, and implications for the United States. Administrative Sciences, 2(1), pp.1–25

Rutigliano, A. & Quarshie, N. (2021) Policy Approaches and Initiatives for the Inclusion of Gifted Students in OECD Countries. OECD Education Working Paper No. 262.

Tourón, J., & Freeman, J. (2018). Gifted education in Europe: Implications for policymakers and educators. In S. I. Pfeiffer, E. Shaunessy-Dedrick, & M. Foley-Nicpon (Eds.), APA handbook of giftedness and talent (pp. 55–70). American Psychological Association

Each of the jurisdictions that make up the United Kingdom differ in their policies for the more able.

Wales

In Wales the term ‘more able and talented’ is commonly used to describe learners who require enriched and extended opportunities to develop their abilities in one or more domains.  There have been many initiatives over the years intended to encourage schools to recognise more able learners and to support them in making appropriate provision for them. Meeting the Challenge: Quality Standards in Education for MAT Pupils (Circular 006/2008, May 2008), was seminal in providing a foundation for such developments, with the intention of supporting schools and local authorities in meeting the needs of more able and talented pupils, to develop a supportive ethos to meet the needs of all students regardless of emotional, social, linguistic, cultural, physical or intellectual differences.

Estyn, the Welsh Inspectorate, was also instrumental in keeping more able and talented on the agenda, both through its inspection framework and its research and publications.

Since 2022 a new Curriculum for Wales has been in operation in Wales. The new curriculum does not address ‘more able and talented’ as a specific group but the vision and ambition behind the new curriculum is intended to be wholly inclusive of all learners. The ‘principles of progression’ for example are intended to be a continuum and allow children to progress in line with their ability – without the boundaries which can suppress progress. Achievement outcomes are not tied into the traditional key phases. Enrichment and experiences which are an integral part of the new curriculum are meant to allow learners to have a greater voice in how they design, guide, investigate and lead their own learning: a tantalising thought for more able learners. Further detailed information about the curriculum itself is available here.

In addition to the new curriculum there is a national SEREN programme funded by Welsh Government.  The initiative is ‘dedicated to helping Wales’ brightest state educated learners achieve their full academic potential and support their education pathway into leading universities in Wales, the UK, and overseas.’ It is a collaboration between the Welsh Government, schools, colleges, leading universities, Seren Graduates, local authorities, education partners and third sector organisations to provide extensive national and regional activities. Support includes subject-specific masterclasses to stretch and challenge, workshops, tutorials, study guides, higher education advice and guidance, and mentoring.

Scotland

Staff in Scottish schools are expected to support learners in a way that takes account of wellbeing, inclusion, equity and fairness (Education Scotland, online). This has become known as Universal Support and should be available for every Scottish student. Legislative and curricular framework in Scotland provides a strong structure for meeting the needs of highly able learners. Alongside this, the staged intervention process adopted in Education Authorities allows schools to consider the needs of this group of learners in the same way as any other group of pupils requiring additional support. For more information see the We count too document. 

There is no statutory definition or single term to describe “particularly able or talented” students in Scotland. 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.

Legislation places the education of able pupils into the special education arena. Non-statutory guidelines consistent with the aims and objectives of Curriculum for Excellence are available from the Scottish Network for Able Pupils. The term 'highly able' is adopted referring to learners who are working ahead of their age peers, and to students who have the potential to work ahead of their age peers. Scotland has also established six national centres of excellence, located in comprehensive schools, which enable talented students to maximise their potential whilst receiving additional specialist study in music, dance or sport.

For further information visit Education Scotland. 

Northern Ireland

The country defines learning for students of high ability in the following terms:

'Gifted and talented' describes 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.  

In Northern Ireland, the Council for Curriculum, Examinations and Assessment (CCEA) uses the term ‘gifted and talented’ to describe learners who are achieving, or who have the potential to achieve, a level substantially beyond the rest of their peer group in their particular school. Those learners who demonstrate or have the potential to demonstrate extremely high levels of ability, compared to their peers across the entire population, are referred to as Exceptionally Able. Non-statutory guidelines are provided for teachers to support the teaching and learning of gifted learners.

Schools themselves have responsibility to meet the educational needs of all their pupils, and teachers set tasks that take account of the varying abilities of children. Guidance was published by the Council for the Curriculum, Examinations and Assessment (CCEA) to support the identification and teaching of gifted and talented learners. This is no longer on the CCEA’s website, but an archived version can be found at CCEA, Gifted and Talented.

The CCEA’s current curriculum guidance for pre-school education states that, “when planning, staff should also take account of any gifted children”. The NI Executive currently has a range of programmes designed to support children from deprived backgrounds to reach their full potential.

See Every child deserves a real chance in life: A renewed government focus on solving educational underachievement in Northern Ireland?

Ireland/Eire

In Ireland, very few schools have any direct policy relating to very able children, and under the existing system, there is no requirement for them to make special provision for such students. The only provision for these students comes in the form of out-of-school programmes. There is no specific teacher training for teachers of high-ability students in the form of a specialized postgraduate qualification, and it is often a neglected area in terms of general teacher training programmes. High ability must be recognized as a special need within the Irish education system for this to change. It is important that these students are provided the services they need within and outside of school (O’Reilly, 2012). There has been little attention paid to the provision of special services for students with gifts and talents. With its historical emphasis on creating similar outcomes for all Irish students (O’Reilly, 2013), educators in Ireland are likely to have had little or no experience with providing special services to gifted students, including curriculum differentiation and acceleration. The Department of Education and Science has recommended differentiation for students with special educational needs (SEN), but the emphasis has been on serving the needs of students who cannot achieve without support, not those who are exceptionally able.

England

In England, the term 'gifted and talented' was used, and yet the term “high ability” is seen to be more common parlance and the one adopted in the writing of this Guide. The definition provided is ‘children and young people with one or more abilities developed significantly ahead of their year group or with the potential to develop these abilities.’ There is no agreed national definition or national support programme since the Young Gifted and Talented Programme closed in 2010. The idea of specialist knowledge was taken forward by the Government by the establishment of the specialist schools programme (SSP), first launched as the Technology Colleges programme and also known as the specialist schools initiative in the mid-1990s, but which was later dissolved. Department for Education (DfE) scholarships for students who are promising to become specialists in dance or music up to the age of 19 exists, offering help with fees at schools and Centres for Advanced Training (CATs) in England.

Currently, the school Inspections body Ofsted, evaluates whether schools “nurture, develop and stretch pupils’ talents and interests”. In two evaluative inspection reports, published in 2013 and 2015, Ofsted was critical of the support provided to “more able” pupils, and called upon schools to improve their curricula, the transition between primary and secondary school, and their work with families to support higher aspirations. Ofsted’s School Inspection Handbook (May 2019) does not include explicit reference to “most able” students. It states “outstanding” and “good” schools should promote the personal development of all students and provide opportunities to “nurture, develop and stretch pupils’ talents and interests.”

The Handbook also states schools should ensure “high academic/vocational/technical ambition for all students.

The DfE states that the introduction of Grade 9 at GCSE and Progress 8 as an accountability measure allows schools to be held to account in how well they support “more able” students. The DfE says Pupil Premium funds allow schools to provide support to highly able students, including those from disadvantaged backgrounds. The Opportunity Areas scheme also seeks to raise standards and support available.

Reports by the Sutton Trust and Potential Plus UK have argued that Ofsted should strengthen its inspection of provision for disadvantaged highly able students and called upon the DfE to invest in programme to evaluate the effectiveness of the support provided (Loft & Danechi, 2020).

A detailed account of the above is available here.

References

Loft, P. & Danechi, S. (2020) Support for more able and talented children in schools (UK). House of Commons Library Briefing Paper, Number 9065. HOC.

O’Reilly, C. (2012) Gifted Education in Ireland. Journal for the Education of the Gifted 36(1). pp.97–118

(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

• Resource collection: Leading on more able
• Blog post: Common myths and misconceptions about more able learners
• NACE Essentials: Breaking down barriers to achievement
• NACE Essentials: Identifying and responding to the needs of exceptionally able learners
• On-demand course: Identification of more able learners

 

Those learners deemed to have exceptional abilities and talents deserve attention and consideration of their particular needs and how to meet them in school. Exceptionally able learners– whether younger or older – may be at risk of being neglected as they are such a diverse group.  So called exceptionality may go unrecognised, perhaps because too difficult to deal with, perhaps because schools have many other priorities or feel that the needs of the exceptionally able cannot be provided in a normal school setting. Moreover, exceptionality is by definition scarce, which may make it even less of a priority in a busy school. There may also be a perception that learners deemed to be exceptionally able are blessed with special qualities and advantages that will help them to succeed and thus don’t need additional consideration or provision. A lack of understanding and planning for this particular group of children however risks losing a precious resource and, more importantly leaving such children unfulfilled and their talents unrealised, storing up potential challenges for teachers, for the learners themselves both when they are in school and also for their future lives. 

There is however a growing recognition in a number of schools that learners with exceptional ability are just as much in need of support as their peers for their academic needs and for the social and emotional challenges exceptionality can bring with it.

Who are the exceptionally able and how do we know?

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 term ‘exceptionally able’ is used to describe learners whose needs go beyond those already deemed to require opportunities for enrichment and extension in the normal curriculum.

There are different schools of thought about what characterises exceptional ability. For some it is characterised in young children by precocity in achievements, emphasising quantitative aspects of ability. It is certainly the case that many exceptional young children reach developmental milestones earlier than their peers, including those for reading, talking and writing. Some stress exceptional ability as developmental potential, with cognitive ability outstripping physical and emotional development i.e. a so-called ‘developmental asynchrony.’ The evidence suggests that exceptional ability may comprise quantitative and qualitative aspects, but will certainly include high abstract reasoning ability and complexity of thinking. Other observed characteristics are indicated below.

One picture of the exceptionally able student is of a hard-working student who diligently completes work and is perceived by peers as the best in the class. The student may achieve outstanding success, recognised perhaps by winning competitions or displaying his/her abilities in one or many arenas. In reality the picture is much more complex than that. Learners classified as exceptionally able belong on a continuum of learners with specific educational requirements. Many have the skills to adjust to their educational and social environment with relative ease, while others may manifest a range of emotional problems and adjustment issues. For example, an exceptionally able student may be aged seven chronologically but at the emotional age of five and be working intellectually at a post-primary level but without the life experiences to temper their thoughts.

Exceptional ability in a student may also go unnoticed because of an accompanying physical, intellectual, or learning disability. Within a cohort of exceptionally able learners are those who despite their exceptionality may persistently underachieve due to boredom, lack of interest, or extreme perfectionism. There are also students whose exceptional ability may be masked by the fact that they are not being educated in their first language. Some students from diverse backgrounds may not show ‘traditional’ signs of exceptionality, as different values and skills are prized differently in different cultures, and teachers may not be attuned to signs of exceptionality beyond the cultural norm. Schools should also take into account that exceptionality may emerge later in an individual’s school career or that the simply be spotted later. No wonder that it is not uncommon for the exceptionally able to go unrecognised in school.

Assessment and Identification

Early identification of exceptionally able learners is important. However, assessment and identification procedures for the exceptionally able are not as clearly delineated as in other areas of education.  While there are many different approaches to the identification and assessment of exceptionally able, it is important to note that the most holistic approach is the best one, using a combination of methods. A multi-level definition recognises the frequent centrality of atypical development in exceptionally able learners and implies the need to go beyond traditional, psychometrically-based findings to explore their educational, emotional and psychological needs.

The following checklist is indicative of some of the characteristics but should be used critically and carefully, taking particular account of age, developmental milestones and the wider profile of the individual pupil.

Exceptionally able learners may:

• possess extensive general knowledge, often knowing more than the teacher in particular areas
• show good insight into cause-effect relationships
• easily grasp underlying principles and need the minimum of explanation
• quickly make generalisations and extract the relevant points from complex material
• have mental speeds faster than physical capabilities
• show exceptional short and long term memory
• have reading ability well beyond their chronological age.

Some of the most observed characteristics of exceptionally able individuals, taken from the literature, also include the following:

• rapid and thorough comprehension of the whole idea or concept

• unusual ability to perceive essential elements and underlying structures and patterns in relationships and ideas

• need for precision in thinking and expression, resulting in need to correct errors and argue extensively

• ability to relate a broad range of ideas and synthesize commonalities among them

• a high degree of ability to think abstractly that develops early

• appreciation of complexity; finding myriad alternative meanings in even the simplest issues or problems

• ability to learn in an integrative, intuitively non-linear manner

• extraordinary degree of intellectual curiosity

• argumentativeness

• ability from an early age to think in metaphors and symbols and a preference for doing so

• ability to learn in great intuitive leaps

• awareness of detail

• unusual intensity and depth of feeling

• extraordinarily high energy level

• need for the world to be logical and fair

• conviction of correctness of personal ideas and belief

The implications of some of these characteristics do not necessarily make for an easy time for teachers or parents so schools should consider how to work with and mitigate some of the more challenging aspects of exceptional abilities.

The phenomenon of exceptional ability is usually associated with high-level outcomes, whether on a measure of general ability, responses to achievement task, a performance or a production. Important though to recognising and providing for exceptionally able students is the thinking and learning–teaching interactions that lead to these high level outcomes.

During teaching episodes exceptionally able learners differ in the extent of elaboration and differentiation of the meaning networks they form. They also differ in the quality of the links, amount of knowledge they can think about at once and extent of their inferences or extensions and syntheses. There are several other ways in which the thinking of highly able students differs. These include their attitudes and dispositions towards particular topics and to themselves as learners and thinkers, their motivation orientation, the influence of cultures to which they belong on their thinking, their concept of being a learner and their self and social identities (for example, Munro, 2013a).

It is often in particular disciplinary contexts and engagement in high level cognitive tasks that we observe how exceptionality is manifested.  Observations of young highly able mathematicians conclude that such children often:

• have a liking for numbers and use them in stories and rhymes
• have an ability to argue, question and reason using logical connectives
• like pattern-making, revealing balance or symmetry
• set out their toys with precision
• use sophisticated criteria for sorting
• take pleasure in jigsaws and other constructional toys.

Observations of older students working on problem solving noted their ability to:

• grasp the structure of a problem
• generalise
• develop chains of reasoning
• use symbols and language accurately and effectively
• think flexibly - backwards and forwards and switching strategies
• leave out steps and thinking in abbreviated mathematical forms
• remember generalised relationships, problem types, ways of approaching problems, and patterns of reasoning
• persevere in problem solving.

The message here then is that in order to discover or confirm that a student is highly able we need to offer opportunities for that student to grasp the structure of a problem, generalise, develop chains of reasoning ... and so on.

Why we may miss some exceptionally able children

Work reported by the organisation Profound and Exceptionally Gifted Youth (PEGY) suggests that the following features may hinder easy identification of exceptional ability.

Speed of learning

A child who is truly exceptional is likely to be invisible to teachers if they are never given material from the curriculum with which to demonstrate their speed of learning.

A very few such children will seek out opportunities on their own, but many more will not, and will not have the facilities to do so. Such a child may race through material at a high speed if permitted and motivated to do so, but if kept to the pace of a typical class is very likely to become alienated and disengaged.

When the child learns extremely quickly, she may find it hard to pay attention when the teacher goes over and over the same concept and may miss instructions on a set task, leading to mistakes. These mistakes may make the teacher think that the child does not know how to do the task.

Intellectual opportunity

Some exceptionally gifted children should be easy to spot. For example, how could you miss the 7 year old who, at home, enjoys Stephen Hawking's "Brief History of Time" and analyses the evolution of the steam engine and its impact on industrial development? He or she should be very obvious - or so you might think.

But schools do not present this level of intellectual activity to a 7 year old, nor do teachers have the time to develop a relationship with each pupil that would enable them to discover each child’s true potential.

Culture and socio-economic group

A child not given access to books and resources, or whose culture values different kinds of knowledge, is likely to be even less visible to teachers than the example above. If such a child comes from a lower socio-economic group or a minority culture they may also be adversely affected by preconceived ideas of their ability level.

Disability / Special Needs / Specific Learning Difficulties

A "twice exceptional" or 2E child is one who is intellectually very able, but also has difficulties such as dyslexia, dysgraphia, ADHD, dyspraxia, hearing (especially auditory processing disorder) or vision problems or other difficulties which prevent them from demonstrating what they know.

Blending in

On beginning pre-school or Reception the exceptionally able child will notice the behaviour of the other children and may very quickly start to act and perform as they do so as to fit in. An exceptionally socially aware child will even alter their language to speak like the other children in preschool. This extreme ‘blending in’ is more common in girls, but can affect boys too, and the urge to blend in can strike at any age. A child who is proficient at blending in is unlikely to be recognised as highly able by his teachers.

Full marks

Identification is made more contentious because adults often believe the exceptionally able child should always be getting 100% on school tasks which are well within their capabilities. However, they may not achieve to this standard. This may be explained by e.g.:

- inability to comply correctly with instructions

The child’s idea is too big for the task.

For example, an eight year old who reads complex fiction at home is asked to write a story about “Going to the moon,” but simply cannot condense the novel he can imagine into the page of writing the teacher requires. He may end up refusing to write anything, or turning out a meagre paragraph.

- creativity with non-challenging tasks.

For example, doodling on a reception class worksheet which requires the drawing of two objects. The worksheet ends up with two objects, and then many more! The teacher believes that the child doodled because she didn’t understand the task and so was unable to comply, not that the task was so well within her capabilities and completed so quickly that she sought to entertain herself with extra activity.

- lack of co-operation

Unwillingness to complete tasks which were well within his capability several years ago and which teach him nothing day after day after month after year.

- “I don’t know”

 An inability to answer the question with the correct amount of detail because the child has already gone beyond the level currently being taught and sees connections, relationships and depths which make it very difficult to give the answer the teacher is expecting.  

For instance, the teacher asks, “What makes leaves green?,” expecting the answer ‘chlorophyll’, but the child has known for years that it’s chlorophyll. She assumes everyone else in the class also knows, and that the teacher is asking ‘how does a leaf absorb a full spectrum of sunlight and reflect only green, and why?’ She knows that this is something to do with how the chlorophyll molecule within a plant cell absorbs light but doesn’t know the details of exactly how this happens – which chemical bond or combination of atoms is responsible – so when called on by the teacher answers “I don’t know.”

- inability to control his attention sufficiently to complete tasks he finds simple and repetitive.

Thus it may be impossible for an exceptionally able child to achieve full marks on tests of material which is too simple for them. For an accurate assessment of the child’s level of knowledge and ability, more advanced material must be presented, and knowledge of simple concepts either incorporated within it, or tested in a complex way.   

In summary, teachers need to have a holistic picture of a child thought to have exceptional ability. Such a picture may comprise:

• Outcomes e.g. performance on tests and tasks
• Cognitive Ability Tests
• Personal profile of interests and strengths, including outside school
• Independent learning behaviours
• Learning and thinking interactions in the classroom and in other learning contexts.

For the very reason that these pupils are exceptional, teachers need to be alert to the exceptional response, the unusual, the unorthodox and the unexpected.

The needs of the exceptionally able

Exceptionally able pupils are first and foremost children, young adults and individuals. They will therefore bring to school and to learning their own personality, background, interests - and sometimes areas of challenge/barriers to learning.  These may include additional learning needs, issues of motivation and engagement, an uneven profile of ability.  A frequent characteristic of an exceptionally able pupil – and often with younger ones - is the ‘gap’ between their exceptional abilities and other abilities, the gap between their social and emotional development and their intellectual maturity and prowess.  At times other gaps may also be at play, for example between self-image and the perceptions and expectations of others, especially teachers and family.

The needs of exceptionally able pupils are therefore by definition complex and sometimes challenging. They include:

• Having their abilities and talents recognised and valued
• Understanding of them as individuals
• Access to and mastery of broad and balanced learning opportunities as well as specialist support where needed
• Well planned and differentiated learning in the everyday classroom complemented by enrichment and experiences beyond
• Longer term planning for their needs in areas of the curriculum where they excel.

It is of course essential that opportunities in school and beyond allow such abilities to be displayed – and that teachers are also in touch with information about children’s strengths and passions from a variety of sources, including parents and children themselves. Strong communication between all involved in the child’s education is key to successful provision and support for exceptionally able children.

What should teachers and schools do?

Within the more able group there may be only one exceptionally able pupil in a subject or talent area, so personalising learning needs to be at an individual level. An individual learning plan, drawn up and reviewed jointly by pupils, their parents and teachers, can be used to give a clear direction and structure to the provision for each exceptionally able pupil. The focus of this plan should be to identify opportunities when exceptional abilities can be expressed and developed. This would include provision not only from within the school but also from beyond the school, and include ways of ensuring that the social and emotional needs of the exceptionally able pupil are met. Alongside wider school arrangements it is the learning opportunities provided in everyday classrooms which can make the most difference to exceptionally able pupils.

Approaches to teaching and learning for these learners often resembles those used with the broader range of very able learners, the major differences typically being the extent of complexity and pace and greater personalisation.

The strategies cited by many schools making good provision for the exceptionally able include:

• setting high-challenge independent research tasks
• higher-order questioning, dialogue and technical/disciplinary language
• giving pupils information about additional study materials and guidance on how to use them
• providing more challenging homework and independent learning assignments
• giving differentiated success criteria
• setting creative open-ended tasks
• incorporating e.g. AS level units into GCSE
• using feedback and marking to allow for progress in accordance with ability.

Teaching strategies should take account of the need for:

• Pace of learning commensurate with rapidity of learning in some areas (with implications for classroom management and learning focus in class)
• Conceptual learning to feature highly, with tasks which prioritise problem solving, enquiry, high level analysis, application and synthesising of learning; bigger picture  thinking
• Advanced material and resources; sources taken from contemporary developments and research
• Cross-curricular links (‘interconnectedness’) and real life exemplification
• Development of independent learning and research
• Flexibility to allow for the pursuit of individual interests and aptitudes.

Effective approaches to managing differentiation often cited may include e.g.:

• giving challenging (in depth/beyond mastery) tasks that are related to the class activity - this is a good option as it keeps the pupil working in the same context as the rest of the class and supports the classroom community.
• giving material from later in the key stage - usually done alone and with little support as the teacher has the rest of the class to cope with. Able students are entitled to teaching as much as all the others so use this selectively.
• organising for the pupil to move to work with older students – different forms of acceleration, organised properly, can be an effective way of meeting highly able students' needs. The conditions for this to happen are that:

a) the student should have absolute mastery of the current content and capable of getting a top grade in any assessment at the level (i.e. in the English system should be capable of getting an A* or equivalent in any assessment in KS4)

b) that they are emotionally and socially able to cope with working with older students and

c) most importantly - that there is a long term plan for the child's education. In the English system, it is no use accelerating a 14 year old if, once they have have got their GCSE top grade, they have to tread water for a year or so before pursuing more maths.  Or making a 9 year old work though the Key Stage 3 material if, when they get to secondary school, they have to do it all over again.

Table 1. Examples of school wide provision for the highly able

School wide provision	Examples
Ethos and culture	Acceptance of difference; flexibility; celebration of high achievement; willingness to work in partnership; high aspirations for all pupils
Policy, organisation, systems, structures	Exceptionally able policy and guidance; flexible timetable, curriculum and groupings; secure transition arrangements; excellent communication systems
Professional development /recruitment	Staff specialisms; dedicated professional development; named teacher with more able responsibility
IAG	Personalised & appropriate to ability; access to HE advice; exposure to high level careers
Support/mentoring	Focussed on socio-emotional needs; ‘expert’ mentoring/tutoring
Enrichment	Enrichment in class and beyond subjects; experience with exceptionally able peers
Networks, partners	Other schools, HEIs,  specialist organisations (eg STEM focus)
Resources	Teaching/learning resource; online sources; appropriate reading age materials

Recommendations

The key to meeting the needs of exceptionally able pupils is through school and classroom flexibility and attention to planning and practice which reflects the individual profile of the student.  It is important to have a shared view about this across a school, enshrined in  policy and guidance but also to recognise that how the school shapes provision may change from year to year according to the needs of the child and the make-up of the wider school population.   

Providing an engaging and challenging curriculum and other opportunities for learning and personal development are central but these should sit alongside ensuring that a highly able child feels acceptance and belonging, enjoys the normal and joyful experiences of childhood and growing up and has opportunities for autonomy as well as at times the company of their intellectual peers.

References and Resources

Barbara Clark, Growing Up Gifted: Developing the Potential of Children at Home and at School, 2007, Prentice Hall

Miraca Gross, Exceptionally Gifted Children, 2003, Routledge

Hilary Lowe, Identifying and Responding to the Needs of Exceptionally Able Learners,  NACE Essential

John Munro, High-Ability Learning and Brain Processes: How Neuroscience Can Help us to Understand How Gifted and Talented Students Learn and the Implications for Teaching, 2013, Australian Council for Educational Research Conference

Joseph M. Renzulli and Sally M. Reis, The Schoolwide Enrichment Model: A How-to Guide for Talent Development(3rd ed.), 2014, Prufrock Press

Department for Children, Schools and Families (DCSF), Gifted and Talented Education Guidance on Preventing Underachievement: A Focus on Exceptionally Able Pupils, 2008

Nrich

PEGY

NACE CPD and resources and NACE Challenge Award

Inclusion is about addressing and responding to the diversity of needs of all learners and a conviction that it is the responsibility of any mainstream system to educate every child. UNESCO views inclusion as “a dynamic approach of responding positively to pupil diversity and of seeing individual differences not as problems, but as opportunities for enriching learning.” Therefore, inclusion is not merely a technical or organisational change but a movement with a clear philosophy. Education systems’ policies can create equitable and inclusive frameworks, but implementation at the school level is what determines students’ daily experiences in classrooms. It is in schools where policies take the form of specific resources, teaching practices and instructional and non-instructional support mechanisms.

The OECD’s Strength through Diversity project (2022) (and an important read on the subject of inclusion for this Guide), has identified five categories of school-level interventions that can be leveraged to foster equity among and the inclusion of all students:

• Matching resources within schools to individual student learning needs
• School climate
• Learning strategies to address diversity
• Non-instructional support and services
• Engagement with parents and communities

See Equity and Inclusion in Education: Finding Strength through Diversity | OECD Library

In order for inclusion to be implemented all countries needs to define a set of inclusive principles and practical ideas to steer towards policies addressing inclusion in education and adapted to meet context-specific needs. The principles of inclusion that are set out in various international declarations can act as a solid foundational base.

Four elements feature in the conceptualisation of inclusion according to UNESCO. These are:

1. Inclusion is a process. It is a continuous search to find better ways of responding to diversity. It is about learning how to live with differences and learning how to learn from differences.
2. Inclusion is concerned with the identification and removal of barriers. It involves collecting, collating and evaluating information from a variety of sources to plan improvements in policy and practice.
3. Inclusion is about the presence, participation and achievement of all students. Here “presence” is concerned with where children are educated, and how reliably they attend; “participation” relates to the quality of their experiences whilst they are there and incorporates the views of the learners themselves; and “achievement” is about the outcomes of learning across the curriculum.
4. Inclusion involves a particular emphasis on those groups of learners who may be at risk of marginalization, exclusion or underachievement. This indicates the moral responsibility to ensure that those groups that are most “at risk” are carefully monitored, and where necessary, steps are taken to ensure their presence, participation and achievement in the education system.

Guidelines for inclusion: ensuring access to education for all

At the core of inclusion is the human right to education, pronounced in Article 26 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in 1948 which states,“Everyone has the right to education... Education shall be directed to the full development of human personality and to the strengthening of respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms…“ Also important are Provisions of the Convention on the Rights of the Child, articles 2 and 3. (UN, 1989). Article 29, “Aims of education,” expresses that the educational development of the individual is central and that education should allow children to reach their fullest potential in terms of cognitive, emotional and creative capacities. A logical consequence is that all children have the right to receive the kind of education that does not discriminate on any grounds such as caste, ethnicity, religion, economic status, refugee status, language, gender, disability, ability and that measures be taken to implement these rights in all learning environments.

A rights-based approach to education4 is founded upon three principles:

• Access to free and compulsory education
• Equality, inclusion and non-discrimination
• The right to quality education, content and processes

The Salamanca Statement and Framework for Action (1994) asserts that: “regular schools with inclusive orientation are the most effective means of combating discrimination, creating welcoming communities, building an inclusive society and achieving education for all.” (Salamanca Statement, Art. 2).  Expressed with even more clarity, UNESCO states that All children and young people of the world, with their individual strengths and weaknesses, with their hopes and expectations, have the right to education. It is not our education systems that have a right to certain types of children. Therefore, it is the school system of a country that must be adjusted to meet the needs of all children.” (B. Lindqvist, UN-Rapporteur, 1994). The 2005 Global Monitoring Report we read that, “education should allow children to reach their fullest potential in terms of cognitive, emotional and creative capacities.”

Inclusive education

Inclusive education is where all children and young people are engaged and achieve through being present, participating, learning and belonging (Unicef Inclusive Education).

Inclusive education provides learners with opportunities to:

• foster a learning culture of respect and belonging
• positively affect understandings and expectations about inclusion in their community and in wider society
• learn about and accept individual differences, lessening the impact of harassment and bullying
• be both teacher and learner
• experience diversity as a source of strength and a catalyst for innovation
• develop wide-ranging friendships
• develop strengths and gifts, with high expectations for each child beyond formalised assessments
• work on individual goals and pathways while participating in the life of the learning community alongside their peers (Hehir et al., 2016)

Inclusive education works to identify barriers to education and remove them. It incorporates everything from the curriculum to pedagogy and teaching. Rather than being an issue on the periphery on how some learners can be integrated in mainstream education, inclusive education is an approach that looks into how to transform education systems and other learning environments to respond to the diversity of learners. It aims to enable teachers and learners to feel comfortable with diversity and to see it as a challenge and enrichment, rather than a problem (UNESCO Inclusion in Education).

An inclusive approach to education is one that also strives to promote quality in the classroom. For highly able students, inclusive education means that these students would be adequately supported and their individual needs met. It needs to recognise that these students are not a homogeneous group. Importantly, an inclusive education can benefit all students. In many countries, education for the more able is mainly provided in mainstream schools and/or classrooms. School-level strategies such as mentoring, counselling, differentiated pedagogies, the use of digital technologies and student collaboration have proven to be particularly effective in increasing the education and well-being outcomes of high ability students and, often, the whole class.

Creating inclusive schools

An inclusive school is a school where everyone feels they belong, is accepted and is supported by peers and other members of the school community in the course of having their educational needs met. Stainback and Stainback (1990) define an inclusive school as one that educates all students in the mainstream ... providing [them with] appropriate educational programs that are challenging yet geared to their capabilities and needs as well as any support and assistance they and/or their teachers may need to be successful in the mainstream.

It goes even further. It means 1) establishing and maintaining warm, accepting classroom communities that embrace diversity and respect differences. 2) implementing a multilevel, multimodality curriculum. Teaching a purposefully heterogeneous classroom involves changes in the nature of the curriculum. Teachers consistently move away from rigid, textbook- front of classroom teaching towards cooperative learning, whole language, thematic instruction, critical thinking, problem solving, and authentic assessments. 3) preparing and supporting teachers to teach interactively. The classroom model of one teacher trying to meet the needs of an entire class of children single-handedly is being replaced by structures in which students work together, teach one another, and actively participate in their own and their peers’ learning. 4) providing ongoing support for teachers and breaking down barriers of professional isolation. Hallmarks of inclusion include team teaching, collaboration and consultation, and other ways of accessing the skills, knowledge, and support of the many individuals charged with educating a group of children. 5) involving parents in the planning process in meaningful ways. Inclusive education programs have relied heavily on the input of parents into their child's education. (Source: Maria Sapon-Shevin. Why Gifted Students Belong in Inclusive Schools )

Conclusion

Despite many examples of good practice, there remain significant gaps in the field of inclusive education. Improving the evaluation and monitoring of the inclusion of high ability students in education systems will help policy makers better understand their needs. This is an important step towards designing more inclusive education policies for all. (Read How to support gifted students to reach their full potential - OECD Education and Skills Today).

References

Hehir, T. et al., (2016) A Summary of the Evidence on Inclusive Education. Alana. abt Associates.

Jomtien World Conference on Education for All (1990). B. Lindqvist, UN-Rapporteur, 1994).

Sapon-Shevin, M. (1994) Why gifted children belong in Inclusive Schools. ASCD, Vol 52. No. 4.

Stainback, W. &  Stainback, S. (1990). Support Networks for Inclusive Schooling: Interdependent Integrated Education. Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes Publishing Co.

United Nations (1989) The United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. UN.

UNESCO (2005) Guidelines for Inclusion: Ensuring Access to Education for All. UNESCO.

UNESCO (2017) A guide for ensuring inclusion and equity in education. UNESCO.

UNESCO (2020), Global Education Monitoring Report 2020: Inclusion and education: All means all. UNESCO.

There have been relatively few empirical studies of ‘gifted and talented’ education (the prevailing term used in the literature) and, consequently, evidence-based policy and practice are scarce. Much of the literature reflects practitioner experience rather than research based findings. The relatively few studies undertaken in the UK (eg NFER, 2003; NAGTY, 2005, EPPI, 2008; Heller-Sahlgren, 2018) either draw similar conclusions about the paucity of an evidence base or whilst purporting to look at ‘what works’ for more able learners rarely interrogate specific pedagogical approaches or school wide provision beyond the usual suspects of ‘differentiation’, enrichment, acceleration and mentoring. Even when ‘differentiation’ as a principle of practice for very able learners is a research focus there is even now scant evidence about the substance of approaches taken or their impact. The National Academy for Gifted and Talented Youth (NAGTY) findings for example still ring true:

‘A principal conclusion from the review is that research into gifted and talented education has focused on structures and organisational arrangements and largely ignored the well established field of teacher effectiveness, which is more directly related to pedagogy. There is a small number of robustly conducted studies which can be used to inform policy.’ (NAGTY, 2005)

The security of the evidence base regarding teaching/learning approaches is also mitigated by the following factors:

• The focus of proposed educational provision and frequently of the research reflects conceptions of giftedness and intelligence in different cultures
• There is inconsistency of terminology and language used across the literature and amongst researchers
• Curriculum models and concepts of differentiation differ widely between countries and education systems
• The research base is international but with a particular emphasis on the US, Far East and Australasia – and relatively few extended contemporary studies
• Research into ‘challenge’, and ‘expertise development’ goes beyond the field of ‘gifted and talented/more able’ into wider pedagogical domains and even multi-disciplinary investigations, giving a complex and wide-angled perspective.

Despite the paucity and diversity of the research literature specifically related to highly able learners and the above complexity an interrogation of the broader research base into effective pedagogies and effective learning alongside is very fruitful. When we talk about teaching and learning for more able learners we often use the word ‘challenge’ in isolation, both in terms of the nature of the activities proposed and the learners targeted.  Whilst there are times when discrete and distinct learning opportunities may be appropriate for more able learners we will serve neither the needs of those already identified as high achievers nor those whose talents are as yet uncovered if teaching is disconnected from the repertoire of approaches which optimise learning for all. What NACE (2020) terms ‘cognitive challenge’ comprises approaches to curriculum and pedagogy which optimise engagement, learning and achievement for the most able learners and also for a much wider group beyond.     The most effective classrooms are those where planned, consistent and embedded high cognitive challenge approaches are available for all, tailored to suit different groups of learners. The research also indicates that there is additional positive impact on learning in classrooms which are language rich, where teachers model high level cognitive discourse and where students are given every opportunity to extend and develop their own language skills.

The educational needs of highly able learners

Earlier in this MESHGuide, we looked at the characteristics of high ability young learners. These characteristics imply a range of learning needs to be met if learners are to achieve to the best of their ability. These learning needs derive from both the demands of the curriculum and the specific learning attributes, as varied as they are, of more able learners.

Johnson (2000) held that highly able learners differed from their classmates in both the pace at which they learn and the depth of their conceptual understanding. Other research finds that highly able learners process great amounts of information over a shorter period of time, think in an abstract and complex manner, learn information quickly, seek and enjoy intellectual challenges, and often know a high percentage of the curriculum (Bleske-Rechek et al., 2004; Reis & Purcell, 1993; Rogers, 2004; Stepanek, 1999 cited in Resvisiting gifted education).

A further characteristic examined in some intriguing recent research is that of the Need for Cognition (NCF), which is a tendency among ‘gifted’ (sic) learners to “engage in and enjoy effortful, cognitive endeavors” (Meier, Vogel & Preckel, 2014 p. 39). Such students seek out challenging cognitive work and may even be mildly distressed by work perceived to be too easy.

Research into cognitive load theory (Kirshner, Sweller & Clark, 2006) has also improved our understanding of how ‘gifted’ students learn. As working memory plays a critical part in learning new information, the greater processing capacity of students with advanced abilities can help them progress faster and with greater complexity (de Jong, 2010; Baddeley, 2010). Higher working memory capacity leads to advanced intellectual functioning (Rodriguez - Naveiras et al, 2019). Cognitive load-oriented teaching strategies, such as explicit instruction and worked examples, are just as necessary for highly able students to learn new skills and content as for all students (Carroll, 1994). However, high ability students may be able to move through heavily structured learning more quickly and can then go broader and deeper into concepts and topics. A learning effect known as the ‘expertise reversal effect’ shows us that over-scaffolding can be counterproductive once students have gained expertise. Once the basics have been mastered, research suggests that it is better to transition to more independent problem-solving tasks in order to further learning (eg Pachman, Sweller & Kalyuga, 2013). 

Drawing on models of expert knowledge and performance (Ericsson & Lehmann, 1996; Farrington-Darby & Wilson, 2006), various researchers including Ericsson and colleagues (Ericsson, Nandagopa & Roring, 2005, 2007; Shavinina, 2007; Sternberg, 2005) have proposed the use of the expert performance framework as a conceptual model for describing gifted knowing and thinking. This perspective provides a means for unpacking and analysing how gifted and talented students know and learn (Munro, 2010). By identifying the thinking that underpins the knowledge transformation in the transition from  novice to expert, it is possible for teachers to infer how gifted and talented students might interpret and construct an understanding of  curriculum topics.

An understanding of the attributes of high ability learners and what constitutes high achievement helps us to formulate approaches to their learning.  These approaches should acknowledge the importance of mastery of core knowledge and skills whilst prioritising pedagogies and learning opportunities which both reflect and reveal qualitative differences in the learning capacity of highly able young people.

Meeting the needs of highly able learners: cognitive challenge and curriculum to optimise learning

Cognitive research indicates that learning takes place when students’ interest and abilities are stimulated by tasks at the appropriate level of challenge (Caine & Caine, 1991). It is suggested that if tasks are not sufficiently challenging the brain does not release required amounts of the chemicals needed for learning: dopamine, noradrenalin, serotonin, and other neurochemicals (Schultz, Dayan, & Montague, 1997; Stepanek, 1999).  Kotulak’s (1996) research on the brain found that unless it was continuously challenged, it lost some of the connections that were formed from previous educational experiences. This suggests that tasks must be sufficiently challenging for all learners, including those identified as highly able, in order to enable the proper brain functioning needed for learning to occur. “When [sic] gifted students are not presented with learning experiences that are appropriate for their abilities, they lose motivation and in time can lose interest in school” (McAllister & Plourde, 2008). Brain development research suggests that the current level of intellectual development would not be maintained if students are not challenged. Sousa (2009) explained the educational needs of gifted learners based on brain functioning as unique because: they make connections faster, work well with abstractions, and generally have the deep interests found in older individuals. Consequently, they need to work with the curriculum at a more advanced level, at a faster pace, and using a variety of materials appropriate for their learning needs.

Such examples of cognitive research clearly support the need for teaching and learning adapted to students’ readiness levels, interests, and learning profiles (Tomlinson & Kalbfleisch, 1998).  Alongside wider research into effective learning for all some key principles can be elicited for learning and assessment opportunities needed to move learners into their optimal zone of academic development.

The need for differentiation/adaptation of curriculum, learning objectives, content, approaches and resources is a central tenet of much of the international ‘gifted’ research of the last twenty years - notwithstanding the paucity of detail in the literature (and research itself) of what that really looks like in the classroom (Rogers, 2007; Van Tassel-Baska, 2003). For highly able students, curriculum differentiation strategies aim to meet their learning needs by increasing the level of challenge, complexity, depth and pace (Kaplan 2009). Van Tassel-Baska’s research (2004) demonstrated that so-called gifted learners need opportunities for creative and critical thinking, problem solving and research coupled with the appropriate level of suitably challenging and complex content. The field of gifted education more widely promotes practices such as inquiry learning, critical and creative thinking skills, higher-order questioning, metacognition and the use of rich and varied curriculum materials (Tomlinson & Callahan, 1992).

Rogers’ meta-analysis of decades of research in the field of gifted and talented education, identifies five key “lessons” describing what are consistently known and understood to be key strategies for gifted students.

1. Ongoing challenge in their specific areas of talent/ability.
2. Opportunities on a regular basis for such learners to demonstrate their uniqueness individuality and to work independently in their areas of passion and ability.
3. Various forms of  ‘acceleration’  as their educational needs require (sic).
4. Opportunities for learners to socialise and to learn with like-ability peers.
5. For specific curriculum areas, delivery must be ‘differentiated’ in pace, amount of review and practice, & organisation of content presentation.

Munro (2012) provides a particularly cogent conceptualisation of ‘differentiated instruction’ for the highly able:

‘Differentiating instruction involves responding constructively to what students know. It means providing multiple learning pathways so that students can have access to the most appropriate learning opportunities commensurate with their capacity to learn. It involves matching students’ approach to learning with the most appropriate pedagogy, curriculum goals and opportunities for displaying knowledge gained (Anderson, 2007; Ellis, Gable, Gregg, & Rock, 2008). This requires the differentiation of regular curriculum.')

Teachers can differentiate their teaching more effectively when they:

• understand how their students learn and think
• are familiar with and can apply a range of teaching strategies for adapting their teaching
• can read and respond to the culture and climate in their school and classroom regarding principles and practices to meet the needs of different learners

(Munro, 2010; 2012)

More recent UK based considerations of ‘differentiation’ (eg Didau, 2017, 2020; Sherrington, 2017) look critically at more traditional models of differentiation (eg of the ‘must/should/could variety).  There is an increasing number of advocates of ‘a teach to/from the top’ approach (e.g. Mansworth, 2021) alongside ‘adaptive teaching’, a much more nuanced and flexible form of ‘differentiation’. Such approaches have the potential to minimise the ‘Pygmalion/Hawthorn’ effect, to maximise the notion of individual ‘Zones of Proximal Development’ and hence the beneficial impact on the achievement of many learners of high challenge supported by appropriate scaffolding (‘high challenge, low threshold/low threat’).

The questioning of traditional models of differentiation has gathered momentum and substance through the expansion of pedagogies such as those informed by the notions of ‘desirable difficulties’ (Bjork, 2017); the application of knowledge schema (Bartlett; Nuthall et al); principles such as liminal /threshold concepts (eg Meyer & Land) and the pervasive exploration and use of so-called metacognitive strategies (Willingham, 2010; EEF, 2021). Approaches such as the Fischer-Frey (2013) ‘gradual release of responsibility’ aim to provide frameworks allowing for devolving responsibility from the teacher to the eventual independence of the learner, a framework purporting to allow for individual differences in ability but with the aim of equipping a greater number of learners with the wherewithal to maximise their abilities. In the wider use of ‘evidence based’ approaches in schools we are seeing pedagogical and assessment repertoires for all learners germane to many of those effective in ‘gifted and talented’ provision.

Learning opportunities which provide cognitive challenge will prompt and stimulate extended and strategic thinking, analytical and evaluative processes, the means by which learners become able to understand and form complex and abstract ideas and to solve problems.

Cognitive challenge is therefore a sine qua non of providing for all learners capable of high achievement. Cognitive challenge which is distinctive, embedded and consistent is exhibited in:

• The learning opportunities in everyday classroom practice
• Curriculum organisation and design and institutional culture

Research by NACE (NACE, 2020) highlighted a third feature which could be said to be an inherent part of the curriculum delivery and teaching and learning process, what it termed ‘rich and extended talk and cognitive discourse’.

Figure 1.  Elements of cognitive challenge

Understanding cognitive challenge

Bloom (1956) described the cognitive domain using the terms knowledge, comprehension, application, analysis, synthesis and evaluation. These descriptors have been useful to teachers in understanding the notions of different cognitive levels but they do not necessarily provide links between different levels or provide an insight into the depth of understanding needed to respond to questions. The Bloom taxonomy was later revised (Anderson, Krathwohl et al, 2001) to include both cognitive process and knowledge: remember; understand; apply; analyse; evaluate; create. This refinement created an important link between content and thought processes. These models indicate the importance of developing the cognitive skills needed to perform a task and describe the nature of the thinking processes involved at increasing levels of complexity. Three discrete skills involved are:

Attention – pupils can work on a task for a sustained period, ignore distractions and remember information while doing two things at once.

Memory – pupils can recall information from the past and remember current information while processing it.

Auditory and visual processing skills - processes of recognising and interpreting information taken in through the senses of sight and sound.

Learners will develop these skills more rapidly and learn more effectively when cognitive challenge is distinctive, embedded and consistent (NACE, 2020).

Webb (1997, 1999) used ‘depth of knowledge’ as an alternative perspective on cognitive complexity. This model builds from recall and reproduction, to basic application of skills or concepts, on to strategic thinking and finally extended thinking, as depth of knowledge becomes more sophisticated. This model relates to the depth of understanding of both the content and the scope of the activity,

The principles of ‘deep /profound learning’ elaborated by e.g. West-Burnham & Ireson (2006) and Fullan (2017) can also underpin an understanding of what constitutes cognitive challenge.

Deep learning: focused on the creation of knowledge through the demonstration of understanding; the analysis and synthesis of facts to create conceptual models and frameworks; integrating prior learning and cross-referencing to other themes and subjects; learning is active and based in relationships; emphasis on depth; assessment is formative and negotiated; content is remembered and codified. Deep learning is controlled by learner, who understands the learning process with the teacher as facilitator, mentor and co-constructor of knowledge.

Profound learning: the situation where knowledge becomes wisdom, i.e. intuitive and fundamental to the identity of the person; the capacity to create new meaning in changing situations and contexts; developing a holistic awareness of the relationship between themes, subjects, principles and practice; assessment is through personal authenticity and integrity. The teacher becomes the guide, inspiration, friend and counsellor. Profound learning has many manifestations, from learning to talk in childhood to the artistry of the concert pianist; from the skills and compassion of the nurse to the great scientific discovery; from the skill of the joiner to the creativity of the painter.

Learning involves:

1. A qualitative increase in information.

2. Learning as memorising.

3. Learning as developing skills and techniques.

4. Learning as creating understanding, seeing relationships and being aware of the processes involved.

5. Learning as creating new realities, developing wisdom and re-creating knowledge.

1, 2 and 3 may be characterised as shallow learning which can be defined as managing and memorising information. The fourth and fifth categories apply to deep and profound learning in which knowledge is created and understood through the use of higher order cognitive skills, e.g. analysis, synthesis and application. Profound learning is the extension of deep learning so that it becomes personal to the learner.

The above frameworks narrow the gap between approaches promoted in the ‘gifted’ literature and those deemed appropriate for effective learning more generally – and together provide a basis for powerful pedagogies to optimise the learning of all, including those capable of the highest achievement.

Good teachers will always exploit opportunities to adapt their teaching in response to the different needs of students. It is however through the deliberate and embedded design of cognitively challenging learning opportunities that learners will develop skills and knowledge commensurate with their abilities.

Sullivan and Mornane (2013) describe challenging  tasks as complex and absorbing problems with multiple solution pathways. An initial interesting and challenging problem can provide learners time in a “zone of confusion” (Sullivan et al, 2014:11) when they are unsure of the solution but learn to become more persistent and resilient as learners. The teacher plans “enabling prompts”  which reduce intrinsic cognitive load for those who have difficulty in responding to this initial problem. This means the problem is not simplified but may be presented differently at a lower level of complexity. Some underlying learning such as: literacy skills; semantics; contextual information, background skills or concepts may be needed to enable pupils to connect with the problem.  Once pupils develop strategies to solve the initial problems they can use extending prompts to take on greater challenge and develop greater control of their own learning. By building pupils’ problem solving skills they can solve other similar but more challenging problems if they use the same reasoning, conceptualisations and representations as the main task. Sullivan  and  Mornane go on to show that pupils learn to use multiple solution pathways with multiple steps and potentially multiple solutions. Of course ‘zones of confusion’ and problems to be solved will play out differently in different disciplines.

Myatt (2016) recognises the need for high challenge in order to develop these complex and abstract thoughts.

It is important that it is one big thing at a time, that we are prepared to go in deep to discover the gems, sifting out from the coal dust and irrelevance to distil this element of improvement.

Winstanley (2004) identified 6 ingredients of challenge.

1. Identifying the individual’s zone of proximal development (ZPD) (Vygotsky) and creating cognitive dissonance (Piaget)

2. Injecting elements of novelty and variety into the learning experience.

3. Encouraging metacognition

4. Offering opportunities for independence and self-direction.

5. Encouraging risk-taking.

6. Providing opportunities to work with like-minded peers

Collaborative learning and problem-solving can also increase cognitive demand in the classroom. We call on higher-order thinking when solving complex problems, and it takes great metacognitive skill to work in a collaborative environment. These methods mimic how adults interact with knowledge and each other in authentic environments. We often learn because we have a question we want to answer or a skill or concept that engages our thinking, we are regularly tasked with solving problems and have to collaborate to solve those problems.

The kinds of learning activities which enable fluid movement through different levels of cognitive hierarchies include enquiry based learning and managed discussions represented by for example ‘socratic seminars/dialogues’ of which there are various models used by teachers. Shore & Chichekian (2014) throw some interesting light on enquiry as a particular and important form of cognitive challenge.

Gifted learners seek and thrive in inquiry environments, so it is especially important to examine the cognitive processes that are drawn upon in inquiry (Aulls & Shore, 2008; Clark & Shore, 2004; Robinson, Shore, & Enersen, 2006).

An inquiry model means that the traditional lists of discrete skills are no longer sufficient. We need a multidimensional array of cognitive abilities that underlie success in inquiry schools. Inquiry also varies across domains: historians, philosophers, biologists, and astrophysicists collect different kinds of evidence using very different tools to advance knowledge. Inquiry closely integrates cognition and motivation: asking good questions is a large jump in both competence and confidence beyond simply being interested in or curious about a topic ... 

Cognitive challenge was well described by Vygotsky in terms of the ‘zone of proximal development’ and by Piaget and other developmentalists in terms of ‘cognitive dissonance’. Dissonance in this sense describes sufficient challenge to ensure optimum learning.

James Nottingham's work (2007) on the 'learning pit' outlines how you create cognitive conflict or cognitive 'wobble' for learners to grapple with, encouraging deeper thinking and a sense of achievement when a solution is reached.

Figure 2.  Creating cognitive conflict

Elements of cognitive challenge (NACE, 2020)

Cognitive ability and cognitive challenge will have different features in different disciplines (and will evolve according to age and stage of learning). Research into mathematical giftedness (Nolte, 2019) provides some indications of the character of high level learning processes in mathematics. One important aspect is the so called ‘efficiency in information processing’ meaning that that the complexity of information which can be handled is an important aspect of high mathematical potential. Another aspect is speed in learning. It should be considered that students who grasp new ideas quickly do not necessarily work quickly: thinking ideas through thoroughly and reflectively needs time. In constructing challenging mathematical learning environments these aspects should be complemented by components of mathematical thinking processes.

It follows therefore that cognitive challenge in mathematics will include for example:

• problematising tasks by inserting obstacles to the solution, limiting problem information or    requiring students to use particular representations or solution strategies
• implementing mathematical investigations to encourage students to apply and create mathematical knowledge in posing and solving novel problems
• extending manipulative use to capitalise on eg visual-spatial representations and to  support higher-level thinking.

In the field of second language learning we see in the work of Cummins (1984) another example of how cognitive challenge is conceptualised. In his ‘cognitive continuum’ model he splits the kind of learning processes and activities typically at play in the acquisition of another language into four quadrants of activity within two dimensions of degree of context and degree of cognitive demand.

Cummins’ quadrants framework is a model for thinking which can be used by teachers in many subjects to think about relevance and challenge. The vertical scale moves from cognitively un-demanding tasks, those which the learners find easy, to cognitively demanding tasks, which they will find hard. The horizontal moves from tasks with a high context, for instance using material or content the learners will find familiar and relate to, to abstract concepts which are much more challenging to relate to real experience but are often the ‘Objectives’ that have been defined for them to learn.

Figure 3. Cummins’ quadrants framework

There is a strong case for unpicking the distinctive cognitive demands of different disciplines and fields of knowledge as these will inform how we design and appropriate pedagogies and learning opportunities to enable all learners, including the most able, to acquire the related skills and knowledge necessary for high level performance in those disciplines. This is a relatively unexplored area in the educational research literature but one gaining wider exposure and exploration with the advent for example in the UK of the so-called ‘knowledge rich curriculum’. Very able learners will benefit from teaching approaches underpinned by teachers’ deeper knowledge of the concepts, skills and processes inherent in gaining expertise in the disciplines of the school curriculum and necessary for designing and assessing high cognitive challenge.

Challenging language to support challenging learning

Research points to the critical role of language in high achievement. This seems self-evident but in the NACE research project (NACE, 2020) the schools in the project demonstrating consistent excellent practice and high achievement with their most able learners had a systematic and systemic approach to the development and use of high level language skills.

Language holds a pivotal role in the executive functions which are involved in advanced expertise and academic and creative achievement:

• High order cognitive abilities and processes

• Attentional control and shifting

• Inhibition

• Working memory

• Fundamental components

• Goal Selection

• Planning/Organising

• Initiation/persistence

• Flexibility/shifting

• Self-monitoring/regulation

Higher level language processes are involved in higher order cognitive activities such as inference and comprehension and indeed wider expressive communication skills. In the classroom attention therefore needs to be given to the development of higher level language processes as explicitly as to substantive subject skills and knowledge.

Vygotsky viewed intelligence as the capacity to benefit from instruction, with language having a powerful developmental role. Language is a tool for learning and an aid to understanding. It acts as a vehicle for educational development and is therefore vital for the apprehension and acquisition of knowledge.

Teachers and students use spoken and written language to communicate with each other – to present tasks, engage in learning processes, present academic content, assess learning, display knowledge and skill, and build classroom life. In addition, much of what students learn is language. In the educational context, language is paramount for comprehension, making use of knowledge and negotiating meaning.

Cognitive discourse prioritises explanatory, exploratory and cumulative talk in relation to the substantive learning focus. In the classroom teachers ask big questions and reframe those questions to encourage reflection and deeper learning. This enables pupils to use a range of learning techniques which include independent research and the use of trial and improvement methods. Myatt (2021) recognises the importance of reducing the threat often associated with high challenge. The careful choice of rich, open and high level questions and the establishment of a low threat environment opens up cognitive dialogue.

Figure 4.  Curriculum design for cognitive challenge (NACE, 2020)

The following curriculum design principles and features were observed or elicited from the research schools’ curriculum intentions, planning and practice:

(i) Advanced and complex content for the more able but not excluding those learners who

could engage and benefit. School leaders make sure they can enhance the curriculum while also addressing external expectations, statutory curriculum, and examination requirements. The topics, schemata, sequencing, and progression are overseen at a senior leadership level so that day to day management of learning provided meaningful experiences to pupils.

(ii) Leaders direct the strategies leading to organisation of learning with underlying principles directing the grouping, setting and differentiation practices seen at classroom level.

(iii) In all the project schools teaching and learning is good or better but in the best schools specific training for the education of more able and highly able pupils is in place. The schools provide a high-quality learning experience using agreed teaching strategies and a whole school model for teaching and learning. Teachers are aware of key features relating to learning approaches, knowledge acquisition and memory.

(iv) Strategies to develop metacognition sit within the planned curriculum and exist within all practice rather than as a separate facet of teaching. By planning for this through the curriculum learning can be made visible with shared criteria, pupils can develop the skills for learning and a whole school model reflects the organisational philosophy.

(v) Assessment is often viewed in isolation but when included as a part of the curriculum it can be used more effectively for the benefit of more able learners. If the curriculum begins with what pupils already know, need to know, should know, and have the potential to learn given greater freedoms. The assessment process will inform planning and practice. The use of low stakes testing reduces cognitive load and aids memory. The shared understanding of what can be learnt independently or together and what can be achieved helps pupils to regulate their learning. Pupils have the potential to move beyond the planned programme of study with support of the teacher as a learning activator. Assessment is therefore shared with pupils and used by them to give them greater autonomy.

(vi) Finally, enrichment and enhancement are planned within and beyond lessons so that potential can be uncovered, intellectual interests developed and opportunities created. The challenge for school leaders is to widen the experience of more able pupils so that they have both breadth and depth and can excel beyond the traditional classroom experience.

Curriculum design and delivery should mirror principled intentions and facilitate cognitively challenging learning opportunities at classroom and individual level for all learners and for the most able. These can be supplemented and complemented by tailored opportunities and experiences to enable learners to achieve at the highest levels. At the heart of any curriculum model is the desire to meet the needs of all learners, including the most able, and which must be matched by a pedagogical repertoire which releases potential and lifts the horizons of expectation and aspiration.

Conclusion

A contemporary account of provision to meet the needs of highly able learners would indicate that challenge for highly able learners comprises a constellation of the following factors:

• Learning activities and assessment which are motivating, engaging and intellectually demanding, promoting breadth, depth and autonomy
• Rich language environments and interactions
• Planning and curriculum approaches which prioritise high challenge, low threat and appropriate levels of access
• High expectations, understanding of barriers to learning and how to minimise them

Figure 5. Design and management of cognitively challenging learning opportunities (NACE, 2020)

Teachers who consistently provide cognitively challenging learning opportunities do so from the starting point of the learner.  It sounds obvious to say so but it is not always obvious in practice that planning for a very able learner should start from what that learner knows and can do and what the optimal learning outcome should be for a learner who can go well beyond mastery onto the upward slopes of cognitive taxonomies.  Thinking like a very able learner needs to inform the teaching of very able learners.

References /bibliography

Anderson, L. W., & Krathwohl, D. R. (2001) A taxonomy for learning, teaching, and assessing:

A revision of Bloom's taxonomy of educational objectives. New York: Longman

Baddeley, A. (2010)  Working Memory in Current Biology Volume 20, Issue 4, 23 February 2010, Pages R136-R140

Bailey R., Pearce G., Winstanley C., Sutherland M., Smith C., Stack N., Dickenson, M. (2008) A systematic review of interventions aimed at improving the educational achievement of pupils identified as gifted and talented. Technical report. In: Research Evidence in Education Library. London: EPPI Centre, Social Science Research Unit, Institute of Education, University of London.

Bartlett, F. C. (1932). Remembering: A study in experimental and social psychology Cambridge University Press

Bjork, R. A .(2017)  Creating desirable difficulties to enhance learning in Wallace I & Kirkman, L (eds), Best of the Best: Progress (pp. 81-85). Carmarthen: Crown House Publishing.

Bloom, B. (1956) Taxonomy of Educational Objectives. Book I: Cognitive Domain. New York: David Mckay.

Caine, R. N, & Caine, G. (1991) Making connections: Teaching and the human brain. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Carroll, J. 2003, ‘The higher-stratum structure of cognitive abilities: Current evidence supports g and about ten broad factors’, in H Nyborg (ed.), The scientific study of general intelligence: Tribute to Arthur R. Jensen (pp. 5–22), Pergamon, San Diego, CA.

Centre for Education Statistics and Evaluation (2019), Revisiting Gifted Education, NSW Department of Education, 

Cummins, J. (1984) Bilingualism and Special Education: Issues in Assessment and Pedagogy. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.

De Jong, T. (2010)  Cognitive load theory, educational research, and instructional design: Some food for thought. Instructional Science 38(2):105-134

Didau, D. (2017) A Novice - Expert Model of Learning 

EEF (2021) Metacognition and Self-Regulated Learning 

Ericsson, K. A. & Lehmann, A. C. (1996). Expert and exceptional performance: Evidence of maximal adaptation to task. Annual Review of Psychology, 47, 273-305.

Anders Ericsson, K.,  Nandagopal, K. &  Roring R. W. ( 2005 ) Giftedness Viewed from the Expert-Performance Perspective Journal for the Education of the Gifted Volume 28, Issue 3-4 

Ericsson, K. A., Roring, R. W., & Nandagopal, K. (2013). Giftedness and evidence for reproducibly superior performance: An account based on the expert-performance framework. In S. B. Kaufman (Ed.), The complexity of greatness: Beyond talent or practice (pp. 137–190). Oxford University Press. 

Farrington-Darby, T. & Wilson, J. (2006) The nature of expertise: A review. Applied ergonomics. 37. 17-32. 10.1016/j.apergo.2005.09.001.

Fisher, D. & Frey, N. (2013) Better learning through structured teaching: A framework for the gradual release of responsibility (2nd ed.). Alexandria, VA: ASCD.

Fullan, M. Hill, P. & Rincón-Gallardo, S. (2017). Deep Learning: Shaking the Foundation. Ontario, Canada: Fullan, M., Quinn, J., & McEachen, J.

Groves M. & West-Burnham, J. (2022) So What Now? Time for learning in your school to face the future, John Catt Educational 

Heller-Sahlgren, G. (2018) What works in Gifted Education? A literature review Centre for Education Economics

Hewston, Ruth, Campbell, R J, Eyre, D, Muijs, R D, Neelands, J G A and Robinson, W (2005) A Baseline Review of the Literature on Effective Pedagogies for Gifted and Talented Students. (Occasional Paper 5). National Academy for Gifted and Talented Youth, Coventry.

Johnson, D.T., (2000) Teaching mathematics to gifted students in a mixed-ability classroom. Reston, VA: ERIC Clearinghouse on Disabilities and Gifted Education.

Kalyuga, S. and Sweller, J. (2018) “Cognitive Load and Expertise Reversal,” in Ericsson, K. A., Hoffman, R. R., Kozbelt, A., and Williams, A. M. (eds) The Cambridge Handbook of Expertise and Expert Performance. 2nd edn. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press (Cambridge Handbooks in Psychology), pp. 793–811. doi: 10.1017/9781316480748.040.

Kaplan, S. N. (2009). Myth 9: There Is a Single Curriculum for the Gifted. Gifted Child Quarterly, 53(4), 257–258.

Kirshner, P. A . Sweller, J. &  Clark, R. E. (2006) Why minimal guidance during instruction does not work  Educational Psychologist 41 (2) pp75-86

Kotulak, R. (1998)  Inside the brain: revolutionary discoveries of how the mind works. Prev Med. 1998 Mar-Apr;27(2):246-7. doi: 10.1006/pmed.1998.0281. PMID: 9579003.

Mansworth, M. (2021) Teach to the Top: Aiming High  John Catt

McAllister, B. & Plourde, L. (2008). Enrichment Curriculum: Essential for Mathematically Gifted Students. Education.

Meier, E. Vogel, K. & Preckel, F. (2014)  Motivational characteristics of students in gifted classes: The pivotal role of need for cognition. Learning and Individual Differences, 33, 39-46.

Meyer, J.H.F. & Land, R. (2003). Threshold concepts and troublesome knowledge: Linkages to ways of thinking and practising within the disciplines. Improving Student Learning - Ten Years on. 412-424.

Munro, J. (2012) Effective strategies for implementing differentiated instruction 

Munro, J. (2012) How to identify, understand and teach gifted children in

Fullan, M., Hill, P., & Rincón-Gallardo, S. (2017). Deep Learning: Shaking the Foundation. Ontario, Canada:

Fullan, M., Quinn, J., & McEachen, J. Retrieved from http://npdl.global/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/npdl-case_st

Fullan (2017) Fullan, M., Hill, P., & Rincón-Gallardo, S. (2017). Deep Learning: Shaking the Foundation. Ontario, Canada:

Fullan, M., Quinn, J., & McEachen, J. Retrieved from http://npdl.global/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/npdl-caShore, B 2 https://theconversation.com/how-to-identify-understand-and-teach-gifted-...

Myatt, M. (2016) High Challenge, Low Threat: How the Best Leaders Find the Balance

Myatt, M. (2021)   Death by Differentiation Mary Myatt Learning

NACE (2020) Making Space for More Able Learners NACE publications

Nolte, M. (Editor): Including the Highly Gifted and Creative Students – Current Ideas and Future Directions. Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on Mathematical Creativity and Giftedness (MCG 11)

Münster 2019

Nottingham, J. A. (2007) Exploring the Learning Pit. Teaching Thinking and Creativity, 8:2(23), 64–68. Birmingham, UK: Imaginative Minds

Nuthall, G. (2000). The Anatomy of Memory in the Classroom: Understanding How Students  Acquire Memory Processes in Classroom Activities in Science and Social Studies Units. American Educational Research Journal, 37(1), 247 304.

Reis, S.M., Renzulli, S.J. &  Renzulli, J.S. (2021.)Enrichment and Gifted Education Pedagogy to Develop Talents, Gifts, and Creative Productivity. Education Sciences, [online] 11(10), p.615. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci11100615.

Rock, M. & Gregg, & Ellis, Edwin & Gable, Robert. (2008). REACH: A framework for differentiating instruction. Preventing School Failure. 52. 31-47. 10.3200/PSFL.52.2.31-47.

Ripley, A. (2013) The Smartest Kids in the World, and How They Got that Way Simon and Schuster

Rodriguez - Naveiras et al (2019) Differences in working memory between gifted or talented students and community samples: A meta-analysis August Psicothema 31(3):255-262

Rogers, K B (2007) Lessons Learned about Educating the Gifted and Talented, a Synthesis of the Research on Educational Practice. Pp382-396 Gifted Child Quarterly 5.

https://aea11gt.pbworks.com/f/LessonsLrnd-Rogers.pdf

Schultz, W., Dayan, P. &  Montague, P. R. (1997) A neural substrate of prediction and reward. pp.1593-1599.Science, 275

V. Shavinina L. V. (2007) What Is the Essence of Giftedness? An Individual’s Unique Point of View in  Gifted and Talented International, 22:2, 35-44, DOI: 10.1080/15332276.2007.11673493

Shavinina, L. V. (2009). Innovation Education for the Gifted: A New Direction in Gifted Education. In L.V. Shavinina, (ed) International Handbook on Giftedness. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-6162-2_65

Sherrington, T. (2017)  Teaching to the Top https://teacherhead.com/2017/05/28/teaching-to-the-top-attitudes-and-str...

Shore, B. & Chichekian, T. (2014) Cognitive Characteristics of the Gifted:  reconceptualized in the Context of Inquiry Learning and Teaching in Critical Issues and Practices in Gifted Education pp 117-129 Prufrock Press

Sousa, D. A. (2009) How the Gifted Brain Learns ed 2. Corwin Press

Stepanek, J. M. (1999) The Inclusive Classroom. Meeting the Needs of Gifted Students: Differentiating Mathematics and Science Instruction in It's Just Good Teaching Series

Sternberg, R. J. (2005) Intelligence, competence, and expertise pp. 15—30 in Andrew J. Elliot A J & Dweck C S (eds.), Handbook of Competence and Motivation. The Guilford Press.

Sullivan, P. & Mornane, A .(2013) Exploring teachers' use of, and students' reactions to, challenging mathematics tasks. Mathematics Education Research Journal. 26. 10.1007/s13394-013-0089-0.

Sullivan, P. Askew, M. Cheeseman, J. Clarke, D, Mornane, A, Roche, A, Walker, N (2014). Supporting teachers in structuring mathematics lessons involving challenging tasks. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education. 18. 10.1007/s10857-014-9279-2.

Sweller, J. (2010) Element interactivity and intrinsic, extraneous and germane cognitive load. Educational Psychology Review, 22, 123–138.

Tomlinson, C. A. & Kalbfleisch, M. L. (1998) Teach Me, Teach My Brain: A Call for Differentiated Classrooms. Pp52-55 Educational Leadership, 56
https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ575232

Tomlinson, C. A.  & Callahan, C. M. (1992) Contributions of gifted education to general education in a time of change. Gifted Child Quarterly, 36(4), 183–189.

https://doi.org/10.1177/001698629203600403(Rogers, K.B., Gifted Child Quarterly. Fall, 2007) .https://aea11gt.pbworks.com/f/LessonsLrnd-Rogers.pdf

Van Tassel-Baska, J (2003) Curriculum Planning and Instructional Design for Gifted Learners. Denver, CO: Love Publishing Co.

Webb, N. (1997) Research Monograph Number 6: Criteria for alignment of expectations and assessments on mathematics and science education. Washington, D.C.: CCSSO.

Webb, N. (1999) Research Monograph No. 18: Alignment of science and mathematics standards and assessments in four states. Washington, D.C.: CCSSO.

West-Burnham, J. & Ireson, J. (2006) Leadership Development & Personal Effectiveness. National College for School Leadership.

White, K. Fletcher-Campbell, F. &  Ridley, K. (2003) What works for gifted and talented pupils 

Willingham, D. T. (2010) Why don't students like school?: a cognitive scientist answers questions about how the mind works and what it means for your classroom  San Francisco, CA : Jossey-Bass

Winstanley, C. (2004) Too Clever By Half: A fair deal for gifted children . 1st edn, Trentham Books.

Why a focus on the early years? The years from birth to 5 are crucial for young children’s development. Typically, huge strides in all aspects of development are made during this period. Development, however, is not a linear process, with children developing quickly in one aspect and less quickly in another. What is to be protected is the value of each ‘stage’ on the developmental journey and to recognise and support each development phase (Langston & Doherty, 2012). Firm foundations are laid in the early years that can have a profound effect on future choices, achievement, wellbeing, happiness and resilience. This is a time when the brain’s neural pathways are built on a daily basis and new connections are formed from new lived experiences. Practitioners working with young children have a responsibility to create environments in which young children’s learning and development flourishes and their gifts and talents can be recognised, nurtured and extended (Doherty, 2022). All children, including the more able, have a right to high-quality education that meets their needs, helps them achieve their best possible outcomes and fulfils their potential. They have an entitlement to inclusive high-quality experiences in early years settings and schools that allows them to develop their unique strengths and gifts with high expectations for each child and to work on individual goals while participating in the life of the classroom with pupils of the same age. It is about practice which ensures children and parents, staff and anyone connected with a setting or school feels a part of. Under the umbrella of inclusion, this is no less the case for more able children than it is for any other group.  

Identifying high ability in young children

All children are entitled to provision that reflects their unique characteristics, fascinations and enthusiasms. It is important for teachers and practitioners to identify children’s strengths and interests at every stage in their development to ensure that this entitlement is met. In the early years, skills and talents are more likely to be revealed when educators and parents work in close partnership, sharing observations and information about the children at home and at their setting or school. Observing and listening carefully to the voices of children will reveal insights into their learning and development that could never be captured through more formal assessment or tests (National Strategies, 2010). 

Young children display particular personal traits, such as curiosity, agile thinking and motivation. They have an ability to learn well and enjoy learning new ideas and concepts easily and quickly. They may display atypical learning styles, such as dislike of repetition, showing interest beyond their years, and are inclined to choose unusual ways of working. They display specific academic abilities, for example understanding and using advanced vocabulary, have advanced mathematical reasoning, or well-developed motor skills. Development is individualistic. Account must be taken as to how and when individuals reach these developmental milestones as well as where gaps are.  One of the main tools in coming to a view about the rate and quality of children’s learning is observation. This will give great insights into a child’s individual development and progress. Teachers and practitioners know the children in their class and use this knowledge and their professional judgement to support and identify those who may be more able.  Signs of high ability in the early years include:

• Great curiosity about the world, desire to explore and discover its meaning
• Marked interest in the whys and wheres, as well as the hows and whys, and constant questioning
• Working well above age level in ability, possibly even self-taught
• Extensive vocabulary and early reading ability
• Walking and talking earlier than average
• Showing special abilities in areas such as problem-solving, art, music or mathematics
• Unusually attentive and able to concentrate
• Advanced motor and coordination skills

(Source: Renwood, Firth & Lowe, 2018)

When identifying more able learners, practitioners should have knowledge of the ways in which young children learn. This means considering each child’s strengths and interests at each stage of their development will be enhanced by working closely with parents.  It is about implementing a pedagogy of listening and observing, rather than formal assessment, so that adults who support learning can tune into these unique strengths and talents.  

The Early Years Foundation Stage in England 

The statutory framework for early years in England from 2021 is the Early Years Foundation Stage Framework (EYFS). This applies to all early years providers in England; maintained schools; non-maintained schools; independent schools (including free schools and academies); all providers on the Early Years Register; and all providers registered with an early years childminder agency. In this, there are seven areas of learning and development that shape educational programmes in early years settings. It acknowledges that all areas of learning and development are important and inter-connected.

The Prime areas are particularly important for building a foundation for igniting children’s curiosity and enthusiasm for learning, forming relationships and thriving. 

• Communication and language -the development of children’s spoken language underpins all seven areas of learning and development. Children’s interactions from an early age form the foundations for language and cognitive development

• Physical development- gross and fine motor experiences develop incrementally throughout early childhood, starting with sensory explorations and the development of a child’s strength, co-ordination and positional awareness.

 •Personal, social and emotional development - is crucial for children to lead healthy and happy lives and is fundamental to their cognitive development. Strong, warm and supportive relationships with adults enable children to learn how to understand their own feelings and those of others.

Schools and early years settings must also support children in four specific areas, through which the three prime areas are strengthened and applied. The specific areas are:

 • Literacy - Reading consists of two dimensions: language comprehension and word reading. Language comprehension (necessary for both reading and writing) starts from birth. Writing involves transcription (e.g. spelling and handwriting) and composition (e.g. articulating ideas and structuring them in speech, before writing).

• Mathematics- developing a strong grounding in number is essential so that all children develop the necessary building blocks to excel mathematically. Through opportunities to build and apply this understanding, children will develop a secure base of knowledge and vocabulary from which mastery of mathematics is built. In addition, it is important that the curriculum includes rich opportunities for children to develop their spatial reasoning skills across all areas of mathematics including shape, space and measures.

 • Understanding the world - understanding the world involves guiding children to make sense of their physical world and their community. Listening to stories, non-fiction, rhymes and poems fosters understanding of our culturally, socially, technologically and ecologically diverse world. As well as building important knowledge, this extends their familiarity with words that support understanding across domains.

• Expressive arts and design- the development of children’s artistic and cultural awareness supports imagination and creativity. The frequency, repetition and depth of their experiences are fundamental to their progress in interpreting and appreciating what they hear, respond to and observe.

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/974907/EYFS_framework_-_March_2021.pdf

In the context of developing knowledge, skills and understanding across the EYFS areas of learning, the tables below provide guidance.

Table 2. Supporting high ability in the Prime Areas of the EYFS

Communication and language	Physical development	Personal, social and emotional development
Following a range of instructions and asking for clarification   Asking and answering questions about why things happen   Transferring knowledge through conversation   Using a wide range of vocabulary in the correct context	Displaying advanced fine motor skills       Discussing choices and reasons for healthy eating	Changing plans and strategies   Identifying activities that may be a challenge and still undertaking them nonetheless   Working with peers to develop ideas and plans without adult support or intervention   Understanding that people have different views and being able to discuss this

Table 3. Supporting high ability in the Specific Areas of the EYFS

Literacy	Mathematics	Understanding  the world	Expressive arts and design
Using a range of strategies to read unfamiliar words. Children sometimes enter school being able to read but may have learned this from memory.   Writing independently across different genres   Using rich story language	Solving practical problems and describing how they have done this   Using the correct terminology and applying it in everyday situations   Finding their own way of recording things	Discussing and understanding basic scientific concepts   Understanding the similarities and differences between people and in the wider world   Understanding the purpose of using appropriate technology and explaining this	Independently using and developing concepts through a range of materials   Talking about the processes they have used and how they differ from what others have done

 

            (Source: Renwood, Firth & Lowe, 2018)

Effective and supportive learning environments

Learning environments are an essential element of provision to ensure that all young children learn effectively, be challenged and develop appropriate independence. Well-planned, high-quality learning environments indoors and out, together with secure emotional environments are key for the development of the dispositions that enable children to make progress and achieve (Tibbetts, 2021).

The physical learning environment should promote active independent learning. This should be set up in such a way that children can access resources independently and take a lead in their own learning enquires. Resources should be added to encourage children to deepen their learning and conditions for rich play provided. Having a safe and secure learning environment with clear boundaries, where everyone is valued and respected, will scaffold learning in the right direction. A strong emotional learning environment is crucial for all children, including more able children, helping them to build resilience and self-esteem, become confident and independent learners, make decisions, engage in new and unfamiliar experiences, and feel safe enough to take risks in their learning (Renwood, Firth, & Lowe, 2018).

An EYFS Learning Environment Audit to support leaders and practitioners review and develop their learning environments plus practical tips and examples to enhance provision through additional opportunities for challenge for more able young children can be accessed here.

Partnerships with parents and carers

Parents want the best for their children. Parents and carers play a crucial role in the early identification of high ability. They are a young child’s first educator and an integral part of his/her initial development and learning experiences. The case for engaging parents in their children’s learning is widely reported. Research by Goodall et al. (2011) found that the more engaged parents are in their child’s learning, the more likely they are to succeed. Fostering strong relationships with parents and carers helps to create a broader understanding of each child’s individual learning. Effective partnerships with parents must be focused on the learning of the child and not on the interaction between the parent and the school (Harris & Goodall, 2008). Effective partnerships should be based on trust, defined expectations and a two- way dialogue. Parents’ belief in their own ability to be of support to their children’s learning is crucial since parents need to feel that they can affect change.

Through strong home-school partnerships, parents and carers will be able to add to a child’s learning and provide further evidence of a child’s advanced skills through their insights.  This view was supported more recently by Lowe (2017) who reported that parental support is one of the most important factors in a child’s success in school. The author writes that being the parent or carer of a more able child can be both a delight and a challenge. Living with a more able child can raise many questions for parents and family. A parent’s responses to a child’s exceptional needs will, to a large extent, depend on the parent’s values, their own experiences of education, and what they believe about their own abilities. She advocates how important it is that parents and carers think through their responses, in order to support their child to develop and express their ability, to find balance, emotional harmony and personal fulfilment and to live life fully as a child. 

Conclusion

Children are developing more rapidly during the earliest years than at any other time in their lives, and gifts and talents may be transient at this stage. However, by tuning in early to the range of strengths, interests and passions of children as they begin to emerge, practitioners can gain an insight into their potential and plan opportunities that enable this to be celebrated and nurtured. Young children with particular gifts and talents deserve to have their needs met.  The years from birth -5 are pivotal for learning and development. The characteristics of the more able are identifiable and observable and recognising these can form the basis of discussions between supporting adults as to exactly how to meet these individual needs. In the EYFS this does not require alternative arrangements to be made or specialist input, but pedagogy that begins by observing and listening to this group of learners. Adding the ingredient of cognitive challenge will extend learning and thinking and inform “next steps” in the classroom and outdoor contexts too where learning takes place so that their unique skills and talents can flourish.

For further reading see the report Highly Able Children in the Early Years from the Scottish Network for Able Pupils (SNAP).

References

Doherty, J. (2022) Meeting the needs of high-ability learners in the Early Years. Early Childhood Hub, Chartered College of Teaching.

Goodall, J. et al. (2011) Review of Best Practice in Parental Engagement: Research Report DFE-RR156. London: DfE

Harris, A. & J. Goodall, J. (2008) Do parents know they matter? Engaging all parents in learning. Educational Research 50, No. 3: pp.277-89.

Langston, A. & Doherty, J. (2012) The Revised EYFS in Practice. London: Bloomsbury

Lowe, H. (2017) Guidance for Parents and Carers. Supporting your child with high ability. National Association for Able Children in Education. Abingdon, Oxon: NACE

National Strategies Early Years (2010) Finding and exploring young children’s fascinations. Strengthening the quality of gifted and talented provision in the early years. Nottingham: DCSF Publications

Renwood, C., Firth, B. & Lowe, H. (2018) High Ability in the Early Years. National Association for Able Children in Education. Abingdon, Oxon: NACE

Tibbetts, E. (2021) EYFS Toolkit. A visual guide to creating a challenging learning environment. National Association for Able Children in Education. Abingdon, Oxon: NACE

In the UK, the number of children with emotional and mental health issues is increasing. The organisation Potential Plus UK believes that many of these cases are amongst children with high learning potential, particularly those who find it difficult to cope with:

• increased stress levels exacerbated by their perfectionist traits
• isolation and loneliness caused by lack of friends and understanding within the classroom and beyond
• rigid structures within some school environments which do not address their needs.

The UK organisation Potential Plus has concluded that a growing number of high learning potential children at a younger age are facing more serious emotional and mental health issues, perhaps than ever before. Some of the issues from a wider trawl of research identifies some significant issues facing more able young people to be confidence and self-esteem; positive mindset; feedback and praise; striving to be perfect.

 Confidence and self-esteem

“Confidence means feeling sure of yourself and your abilities — not in an arrogant way, but in a realistic, secure way. Confidence isn’t about feeling superior to others. It’s a quiet inner knowledge that you’re capable.” (kidshealth.org)

Self-esteem is an overall sense of self-value and people with low self-confidence tend to have low self-esteem. Associated symptoms are anxiety, depression and academic stress (Nguyen et al., (2019).  Self-esteem is reported to have a significant impact on important life outcomes including health and social outcomes during adolescence and adulthood.  In contrast, high self-esteem is reported as an important predictive factor for students’ academic achievement (Mak et al., 2013). Young people with low self-esteem or who lack confidence often hide from social situations. They stop trying new things and avoid things that are challenging because by doing so, they feel safe. Self-esteem relies heavily on “social comparison” of one’s capabilities compared to ones’ peers. Beyond adolescence, there may be less dependence on feedback from others as individuals strive to create their own criteria for success and self-efficacy. Motivation and adjusting ones’ mindset are key to improving self-image and confidence.

Anxiety is the body’s way of preparing for some form of danger. Children with high learning potential are prone to feelings of anxiety. They feel things intensely, vividly, and are often aware of how different they are from their school friends, how they don’t fit in, that they are bored all of the time or struggle to concentrate. While most people will experience anxiety in certain situations, like preparing for an exam or taking part in a competitive game, for some children anxiety can become so intense that it has devastating consequences on their feelings of self-worth.

Social anxiety is fear related to being judged negatively or being embarrassed in social situations.  In school situations, gifted learners may experience social anxiety when asked to speak in front of the class, when expressing their opinions to others or even as part of peer interactions like group texts. Visible symptoms include difficulties concentrating, not talking or talking incessantly. They report headaches, stomach pains or sleep issues. They appear to worry constantly.

There are strategies for parents and teachers to help improve social self-esteem, that include reinforcing how much they are loved and their contributions are always valued. In school reinforce that their contributions influence outcomes. Academic challenge must be appropriate but acknowledge that some things may be difficult but express confidence that they will succeed. Parents and teachers should be role models.

Read the strategies by the Davidson Institute here. 

Useful Websites:

• Anxiety UK – A UK based charity supporting children and adults with anxiety disorders.
• Have I Got a Problem – Videos and Resources on mental health and addiction issues. 
• Youth Wellbeing Directory – Helps locate help for young people up to the age of 25 in the UK.
• Young Minds – a UK based charity supporting children and young adults with mental health issues. 

References

Mak K.K, et al., (2013) Body esteem in Chinese adolescents: effect of gender, age, and weight. Journal of Health Psychology 18(1): pp. 46–54.

Nguyen, D.T. et al., (2019) Low Self-Esteem and its association with anxiety, depression, and suicidal ideation in Vietnamese Secondary school students: A Cross-Sectional Study. Frontiers in Psychiatry 10: 698.

Positive mindset

A mindset is way of thinking: a disposition or a frame of mind. Mindsets shape attitudes and attitudes reinforce mindsets. Cherry (2022) believes three components are involved.

1. An emotional component: how the object, person, issue or event affects feelings
2. A cognitive component: one’s thoughts and beliefs about the subject
3. A behavioural component: how attitude influences behaviour

Mindsets exist on a continuum from fixed to growth. Research by Stanford University psychologist Carol Dweck, first presented a research-based model to show the impact of mindsets in the late 1990s. She showed how a person’s mindset sets the stage for either performance goals or learning goals. A student with a performance goal might be worried about how they look to others and avoid challenging work. On the other hand, a student with a learning goal will pursue interesting and challenging tasks in order to learn more. In later studies, Dweck found that people’s theories about their own intelligence had a significant impact on their motivation, effort and general approach to challenges. Those who believe their abilities are able to be changed are more likely to embrace challenges and persist despite failure. This model of the fixed vs. growth mindset shows how cognitive, affective and behavioural features are linked to one’s beliefs about the malleability of their intelligence (Dweck & Leggett, 1988).

A growth mindset is the belief that one can boost intelligence and develop new skills through effort, tenacity and learning from others. Talent alone is not enough. Fulfilling one’s individual potential requires perseverance and hard work.

In her book, Mindset: The New Psychology of Success: How We Can Learn to Fulfill Our Potential, Dweck describes two different mindsets:  a fixed-mindset and a growth mindset.

• In a fixed mindset, people erroneously believe their basic qualities, like intelligence or talent, are simply fixed traits. They spend their time documenting their intelligence or talent instead of developing them. They also believe that talent alone creates success without effort.
• In a growth mindset, people believe that their most basic abilities can be developed through dedication and hard work and that their brain and talent are just the starting point. This view creates a love of learning and a resilience that is essential for great accomplishment. Virtually all great people possess these qualities.

Her research and that of others, have important implications for gifted learners. Findings argue, firstly, that a growth mindset is understanding that personal qualities and abilities can and do change. This can lead individuals to taking on challenges, persevering in the face of setbacks and becoming more effective learners. Telling children that they are very intelligent and implying that their success depends on this alone, fosters a fixed mindset. When these students inevitably later struggle, they tend to conclude that their ability is not high enough, and as a result they lose confidence and give up. Secondly, students may not understand or appreciate that working hard involves thinking hard. It involves reflecting on and implementing deep learning strategies to become more effective learners over time. Teachers and parents have important roles here in guiding gifted students to understand this. 

Mindset interventions complement and do not replace other traditional educational reforms. They do not teach students academic content or skills, restructure schools, or improve teacher training. Instead, they allow students to take better advantage of learning opportunities that are present in schools and tap into existing recursive processes to generate long-lasting effects . . . Indeed, [Mindset] interventions may make the effects of high-quality educational reforms such as improved instruction or curricula more apparent (Yeager & Walton, 2011).

Further resources on developing mindset are available at:  Resources for Teaching Growth Mindset | Edutopia.

Take the free mindset test from mindset works.

References

Dweck, C.S. & Leggett, E.L. (1988). A Social-Cognitive Approach to Motivation and Personality. Psychological Review, American Psychological Association. Vol. 95, No. 2, pp. 256-273

Dweck, C.S. (2016) Mindset: The New Psychology of Success. New York: Random House

Yeager, D. S., & Walton, G. M. (2011). Social-Psychological Interventions in Education: They’re Not Magic. Review of Educational Research, 81(2), pp. 267–301. 

Feedback and praise

Research has demonstrated that positive feedback and affirmation has benefits to children’s academic outcomes. Much has been written about it and its role in knowledge and skill enhancement and on motivation to learn. When effective feedback is combined with effective teaching, it can be very powerful in facilitating learning. Educationalist John Hattie (2007) placed it in the top ten influences for student achievement.

Feedback is “the process in which learners make sense of information about their performance and use it to enhance the quality of their work or learning strategies" (Henderson et al., 2018, p. 16). This definition of feedback goes beyond just providing comments about pupils’ work. It describes the process of using information resulting from a task to make improvement.  Feedback is most powerful when it helps learners negotiate the gap between where they are and where they need to be. It should address three fundamental questions:

• Where am I going? 
• How am I doing? 
• Where to next?

Doherty (2021) provides 10 essentials for effective feedback-  

1. Feedback resides in what is received and interpreted by a student, rather than what a teacher believes has taken place.
2. Feedback is only successful if pupils use it to improve their performance.
3. Feedback is more effective when the criteria for success are known in advance and where the goal to achieve success is shared by pupil(s) and teacher.
4. The purpose(s) of the feedback should be made clear and be specific.
5. It should be timely and given as soon as possible. 
6. It must assure learners that meeting cognitive challenge is part of learning.
7. It should be elaborative, i.e. telling the learner something about their work that they were not able to see for themselves.
8. It works best in a positive, affirming climate (including online classrooms).
9. It should help to teach more able learners to answer their own questions and develop self-regulation skills.
10. Feedback must challenge pupils to invest effort in moving forwards.

Praise is a complex social communication with the potential to either enhance or undermine children’s intrinsic motivation (Corpus & Good, 2021). Research has found associations between (parent and teacher) use of praise and school-aged children’s academic outcomes. Henderlong and Lepper (2002), found praise is positively associated with various outcomes for school-aged children, including self-perceptions of ability, interest in and motivation for completing the task and the development of wider academic skills. In agreement, Bąk and Leśniak (2020) found that praise following failure resulted in increased self-perceptions of intelligence for high school students. Parental praise was found to positively predict the learning goals of young children (Gunderson et al., 2013).

Not all praise is beneficial. Praise that comments on a child’s abilities based on their performance known as person praise is repeatedly shown to have negative effects, particularly for children with low self-esteem (Brummelman et al., 2016). After receiving person praise, children may interpret their performance as indicative of ability and develop ability attributions for successes and failures, increasing their vulnerability to a helpless response to failure. When giving praise, adults need to be mindful that praise may have the opposite effect of what was intended. On the other hand, praising hard work or strategies used, things that children control, has been shown to support a growth mindset. But simply praising children for working hard is not enough. Exhorting students to work hard would be an attempt to directly change behaviours without changing the underlying belief about the nature of abilities. Praising effort alone that is not linked to progress or, telling learners they can do ‘anything’, fails to create a growth mindset culture.

For example, a novice teacher who sees a student trying hard but not making progress may think “well, at least she’s working hard, so I’ll praise her effort”. This strategy is unlikely to lead to success. Instead, the teacher should coach the student to try different approaches to working, studying, and learning, so that she is thinking more deeply (i.e. mentally working harder) to become a better learner, e.g. “It’s not just about effort. You also need to learn skills that let you use your brain in a smarter way... to get better at something” (Yeager & Dweck, 2012).

An interesting piece of research from Gunderson et al. (2013) showed that boys receive more than twice the amount of process praise about learning skills than girls, who are more likely to be praised as a person (outcomes praise).

For further information see Dweck explaining the effects of praise.

References

Bąk, O. & Leśniak, M.M. (2020) Can praise undo the unfavourable effects of earlier failures?, Educational Psychology, 40:10, pp. 1287-1305,

Brummelman, E., Crocker, J., & Bushman, B. J. (2016). The praise paradox: When and why

praise backfires in children with low self-esteem. Child Development Perspectives, 10, pp. 111–115.

Corpus, J. H., & Good, K. A. (2021). The effects of praise on children’s intrinsic motivation revisited. In E. Brummelman (ed.), Psychological Perspectives on Praise. Abington, UK: Routledge.

Gunderson, E. et al., (2013). Parental praise to 1-3 year olds predicts children’s motivation. Child Development, pp. 1-16

Hattie, J. & Timperley, H. (2007) The Power of Feedback. Review of Educational Research. Vol. 77, No. 1, pp. 81–112 

Henderlong, J., & Lepper, M. R. (2002). The effects of praise on children’s intrinsic motivation: A review and synthesis. Psychological Bulletin, 128, pp. 774-795.

Henderson, M. et al., (2018). Feedback for learning: closing the assessment loop. Australian Government Department of Education and Training.

Yeager, D.S. & Dweck, C.S (2012) Mindsets That Promote Resilience: When Students Believe that Personal Characteristics Can Be Developed. Educational Psychologist, 47 (4) pp.302-314

Striving to be perfect

Many children with high learning potential suffer from the negative aspects of perfectionism. Perfectionism in children with high learning potential is caused by their advanced perception. They understand what carrying out a task as well as expected looks like. Their perfectionism is compounded by almost always being able to fulfil that expectation and not experiencing a degree of failure or falling short of expectation very often. Some children, partly because of perfectionism and partly due to their intense emotions, suffer with extreme self-criticism and are never able to live up the high standards they set for themselves.

Perfectionism can result in depression, anxiety and other mental health problems. The energy behind perfectionism comes largely from a desire to avoid failure. Fear of failure is a function of their unrealistically high standards and their desire to do things well. Their fear is that if they don’t do it perfectly, they expose some inner weakness or vulnerability. They need to be guided to understand that there are better goals for them than perfectionism, such as perseverance, flexibility, and diligence. In adopting such high standards, those with higher levels of perfectionism set themselves up for the failure that is damaging for their self-esteem. These individuals need help recognizing what is realistically achievable and require guidance on setting appropriate goals.

Perfectionism is recognised as a psychological factor that can enhance or interfere with the healthy adjustment of students who are academically gifted (Grugan et al., 2021). Whilst it might motivate some gifted learners to work hard and strive for success, perfectionism can also hinder healthy adjustment in learning environments. Learners who are perfectionistic, often report greater negative reactions to mistakes and tend to respond more adversely to failure. The two main dimensions of perfectionism are perfectionistic strivings and perfectionistic concerns:

• Perfectionistic strivings capture the extent to which individuals set and strive for unrealistically high personal standards. 
• Perfectionistic concerns capture the extent to which individuals are excessively concerned about mistakes, fear negative evaluation, and worry that their performance is never good enough. 

These two dimensions can be exhibited to different degrees in students. Research suggests that perfectionistic concern is the most problematic dimension in the classroom and generally have the biggest influence on learners. Hill argues that schools need to ensure that they have appropriate policies and referral mechanisms to provide support for more able learners who develop some of the extreme consequences of perfectionism such as burnout and depression. While perfectionism may not lead to these types of outcomes for all learners, it is conceivable that teachers need to be prepared for and be able to help recognise early signs.

According to researchers Andrew Hill and colleagues at York St. John University (UK), classroom environments can actually promote perfectionism. Some classrooms have perfectionistic qualities that can increase levels of perfectionism among those in the environment as well as having a detrimental impact on everyone else. This is concerning as perfectionistic environments are likely to hinder learners’ capacity to thrive and contribute to a range of negative outcomes, such as greater stress and poorer wellbeing. A key message is that it is likely that learners will know what is expected of them in terms of behaviours and grades. However, what is most important about these targets and expectations is that they are realistic and adaptable for each learner. Standards that are personally challenging and lie within reach with concerted effort are the most motivating and offer the greatest development opportunity for (all) students.  How perfectionistic is your classroom? - NACE

Further information from Andrew Hill is available on YouTube here. 

Reference

Grugan, M.C., Hill, A.P., Madigan, D.J. et al. (2021) Perfectionism in Academically Gifted Students: A Systematic Review. Educational Psychology Review 33, pp. 1631–1673

Social and emotional skills (SES) have been shown to influence many important life outcomes, but also to influence the development and use of cognitive skills and have attracted renewed interest from policy makers and researchers. These skills determine how well people adjust to their environment and how much they achieve in their lives (oecd.org). The quality of people’s social and emotional skills has value for overall wellbeing and happiness. The skills are connected to a range of long-term health and employment outcomes. For example, they help buffer the impact of adverse life experiences, protecting against poor mental health and providing young people with the tools to manage issues such as anxiety.

Overall evidence shows that having strong social and emotional skills enables students to create the foundations to become successful learners and this leads to improved academic gains. In 2021 a review by the Education Endowment Foundation suggested that successful SES interventions in schools may drive, on average, up to four months of progress in academic outcomes. The academic attainment gap between socio-economically disadvantaged pupils and their peers is mirrored in part, by an SES disadvantage gap (EEF, 2021).

Social and emotional learning (SEL) refers to the lifelong process of developing social, emotional and behavioural skills which allow individuals to manage their internal emotional states and navigate the social world. The Chicago based Collaborative for Academic, Social and Emotional Learning (CASEL) defines SEL as:

“The process through which all young people and adults acquire and apply the knowledge, skills, and attitudes to develop healthy identities, manage emotions and achieve personal and collective goals, feel and show empathy for others, establish and maintain supportive relationships, and make responsible and caring decisions” (CASEL, 2020)

CASEL groups social and emotional skills into five categories:

● Self-awareness: To know and understand oneself

● Self-management: To regulate, manage and motivate one’s actions and emotions

● Social awareness: To understand those around us

● Relationship skills: To interact with others in a positive and effective way

● Responsible decision-making: To make decisions and take actions as a member of society with rights and responsibilities

Similarly, Doherty (2020) identified the skills of SEL as life skills and important for:

• Being able to regulate emotions
• Managing stress
• Cooperating with others
• Self-awareness
• Building self-confidence
• Impulse control
• Responsible decision-making

Very able students have extra layers of social and emotional complexity to negotiate in their home life as well as in schools. An idea at the core of many philosophies is that the child identified as gifted is measurably different from age peers on one or more traits (e.g., intelligence, achievement, creativity, or task commitment). Gifted children vary in their abilities and often their patterns of growth differ from their age peers.  Research shows that some gifted and talented children develop asynchronously. That is to say, when their social, emotional, physical, intellectual or creative aspects develop on a trajectory that is outside of norms and at an uneven rate. An example is the young gifted child may cognitively understand difficult concepts such as social justice, but may not have the life experience to manage such a concept.  Or the 5 year old with a 12 year old’ s cognitive capacity wants to draw and write like a 12-year-old, but their motor skills are undeveloped.

A related factor to the experience of gifted students are the responses of those around them, both to their abilities and to any label such as gifted. There is substantial literature to suggest that students who are identified as gifted are disproportionately prone to a list of socio-emotional concerns (Mendaglio & Peterson, 2006). Gifted students can have a more difficult time finding and making friends. Far from conclusive, there are reported high incidences of depression in gifted populations. Very able students can succumb to unhealthy perfectionism through a combination of external labelling and their own sense of identity.

Other findings on the social and emotional traits of gifted students have shown a greater perceived amplitude of experience among these students, often described as ‘overexcitability’. Unsurprisingly, underachievement is a dominant thread of recent research in gifted education and there is some indication that achievement in the gifted responds predominantly to personal factors, such as motivation, emotion, and perception of the school (White, Graham, & Blaas, 2018).

Conclusion

Social and emotional learning (SEL) involves gifted students having opportunities to learn and practice important social skills such as: cooperation. managing conflict and recognising and managing their own feelings.  It helps students regulate their emotions, communicate with others, use compassion and empathy to understand the needs of other people, build relationships and make good decisions. Social and emotional learning provides a foundation for safe learning and enhances students' ability to succeed in school, their careers and in life.

References

CASEL (2020) Fundamentals of SEL overview. Refocus on the SEL roadmap. Actions for a successful second semester.

Doherty, J. (2020) How can Edtech support the vital field of social and emotional learning (SEL) in schools? Steve Wright polls five SEL experts. Roundtable: the social network

Education Endowment Foundation. (2021). Social and emotional learning toolkit. Moderate impact for very low cost based on very limited evidence. Education Endowment Foundation.

Granada, G., Hallgarten, J. & Hasset, A. (2022) Catalysing social and emotional learning in schools in England. A policy and practice review. London:  Centre for Education and Youth

Mendaglio, S., & Peterson, J. (2006). Models of counselling gifted children, adolescents, and young adults. Waco, TX: Prufrock Press.

White, S. L., Graham, L. J., & Blaas, S. (2018). Why do we know so little about the factors associated with gifted underachievement? A systematic literature review. Educational Research Review, 24, pp. 55–66.

Parents and carers have a lasting impact on their children’s lives. They can have a significant  influence on their children’s achievement by providing early experiences which encourage children to enjoy and develop their learning. By exposing their children to new experiences, by engaging with them through talk and discussion, by giving them encouragement and support, parents enhance their children’s ability to think creatively and critically and stimulate their curiosity about the world (Lowe, 2022).

Children learn first from their parents. They are their first educators. Parents who spend time with their able child are more able to attune to their child's interests and respond by offering appropriate enrichment opportunities. Parenting today is a challenge and being a parent or carer of a child of high ability presents even more challenges in today’s world.  Sadly, some parents feel a sense of isolation and have more anxieties about raising children than perhaps previous generations did. The role of parents continues to evolve as a result of factors such as care-giving arrangements, an increased number of parents in employment and a growing culturally diverse population. Fast paced modern living, reduced community networks to rely on for support and less extended family involvement in child rearing, contribute to isolated families. Whilst it might be argued that schools provide greater support for parents and much more information on what to do at home to support academic learning in school than ever before, many parents of very able children are still in need of information and support.

Research is clear that parents’ attitudes and behaviours significantly shape a child’s feelings of confidence, self-concept and resilience. The aspirations they have for their child’s success are linked to the development of personal fulfilment, educational achievement and good citizenship (Weiss, H. B., Caspe, M. & Lopez, M. E. (2006). Parents and families have been described as “the most critical component in the translation of talent, ability and promise into achievement for gifted individuals”. (Olszewski, Kulieke, & Buescher, 1987, p. 6). Yet parental involvement has not been defined well in the literature. It has been associated with parents’ behaviours; aspirations for their child’s academic achievement; communication with their children about school; participation in school activities; communication with teachers and rules at home which are considered to be education-related (Harris & Goodall, 2007). Parental involvement takes many forms including good parenting in the home. Essentially this means the provision of a secure and stable environment, intellectual stimulation, discussion, good modelling of social and educational values and high aspirations. 

The majority of parents are willing to work in partnership with their children’s schools and other education services.  A 2021 report by Parentkind showed that 85% of parents want to play an active role in their child’s education. This figure suggests parents’ interest in meaningful participation with their child’s schooling is near universal. The extent of parental involvement, however, diminishes as children get older and progress through school. The challenge is how to optimise this partnership to provide more support to enable able young people to realise their potential.

The impact of parental involvement and family support on student achievement

A review of international evidence confirms that ‘parental involvement in the form of at-home good parenting has a significant and positive effect on children’s achievement and adjustment even after all other factors shaping attainment have been taken out of the equation…the scale of the impact is evident across all social classes and all ethnic groups’ (Desforges & Abouchaar, 2003, p.80).

According to Harris and Goodall (2007), parental engagement means parental engagement in learning, rather than parental involvement in schooling. This distinction separates involvement in school life (e.g. attending Parents evenings or school fetes, which is being reactive to school), with engagement in their children’s learning which is viewed as proactive). Parental engagement is supported by discussions between parents/practitioners and focuses on how families can build on what they already do to help their children’s learning. Goodall and Montgomery (2014) also confirm parental engagement as active and meaningful involvement in children’s learning. Strong links between school or early years setting and home are vital to promoting parental engagement in children’s learning. Such learning takes place in a variety of settings including childcare settings, schools and in the community through family learning and learning at home.

When parents are involved in their child’s education or engaged in their learning, they make a positive difference to their lives. Children do better on a wide range of measures. These include:

• Better behaviour
• More confidence and greater self-esteem
• Higher attendance rates
• A lower risk of exclusion
• More enthusiasm about learning

The scale of the effect of parental involvement on achievement is significant (Dufur, Parcel, & Troutman, 2013). It has been shown that whilst school and family involvement are important, the role of the family is stronger when it comes to academic success. Hattie (2008), for example, estimated that the effect of parental engagement is equivalent to two to three additional years of learning over a pupil’s school career. 

Research (Social Market Foundation, 2016) suggests that there are key areas where parental engagement makes the most difference to children’s attainment. They are:

• talking with children at home, at all ages
• reading to children in the first five years
• showing an interest in schoolwork
• being in control – feeling able to insist on routines such as homework before screen-time and regular bedtimes.

What works well for highly able young people and their parents

In the gifted education literature, Keirouz (1990) identified six concerns of parents of gifted children and suggested that these areas should be used as the basis for future research. The concerns included family roles and adaptations, sibling relationships, parental self-concept, neighbourhood and community issues, educational issues and the development of the child. Similarly, Reichenberg & Landau (2009) stressed the families’ influence on the child’s cognitive development, especially in the early childhood years.

In terms of what might be effective frameworks for parents of gifted children, Bronfenbrenner’s (2005) Ecological Systems Theory offers potential.  In this, microsystems are the setting in which an individual lives, made up of family, peers, school and neighbourhood. Mesosystems are the relationship between microsystems such as family experiences to peers or school. Exosystems are social settings which are not as immediate but still have relevance for the individual and include policies and positions taken by organizations supporting the needs of gifted children. Macrosystems are larger cultural principles that impact on the individual, such as societal attitudes to and understanding of gifted children and lastly, chronosystems which are the environmental events that affect the individual over their life span.

Another potentially rich theoretical framework is Achievement Goal Theory (Ames, 1992). This theory examines the motivational climate that parents create at home and provides a structure for explaining and predicting gifted students’ academic engagement and behaviours. According to Ames, the motivational climate includes situational factors created by significant others (i.e., parents, teachers) that influence how children define competence. Situational factors emphasize self-referenced competence (e.g., rewarding personal effort and improvement) to create a mastery climate, whereas situational factors that emphasize normative competence (e.g., rewarding high ability over effort, or assigning tasks that promote academic competition and social comparison) are conceptualized as a performance climate. Stressing a mastery climate has been linked to many positive outcomes, including enhanced intrinsic motivation, whereas emphasis on a performance climate has been associated with increased academic anxiety and lost confidence (Elliot, 2005).

Schools should feel optimistic about working with parents and have a willingness to do so. Schools and parents have a shared priority to deliver the best outcomes for their children. Evidence suggests that three areas are particularly worth schools focusing on:

• supporting parents to have high academic expectations for their children

• developing and maintaining communication with parents about school activities and schoolwork

• promoting the development of reading habits

Evidence suggests that delivering parental engagement initiatives effectively can be challenging, partly due to demands made on parents’ time. Schools therefore need to plan, support, and monitor how they work with parents particularly carefully (Education Endowment Foundation).  Examples of practical ways to engage parents include: contact in the playground, at the gate or out in the community; breakfast or after school clubs; fundraising and/or events; sports day, concerts, assemblies, community activities or family learning opportunities.

Positive partnerships between school and home are crucial. Weston (2023) highlights the importance of trust and shared values in such partnerships. It is important that everyone understands their role in achieving this. She says that parents’ must believe in their own abilities to support their children’s learning. They might feel motivated to help their children but might not be confident. They need to feel they can effect change. Highly engaged parents want assurance and value being given strategies to support their children.

Two-way communication is also vital. Language used in all communications with parents should be free of educational jargon, easy to read and understand, using pictures where appropriate and possible. Suggested ways to enhance communication with parents and families include: sharing ‘good news’ stories about what children and young people are learning or involved in; using local media channels e.g. radio, newspapers, magazines, posters etc, to let parents know what is happening in the setting or school; using electronic methods such as text messages, emails, blogs or social media; use of parent-to-parent contacts such as ‘snowballing’ (where one parent agrees to bring along or introduce another), meeting at the gate, parents' nights, information sessions led by parents; one-to-one direct conversations and communications with parents; sharing key facts such as the research findings on the difference parents make and knowing your local community and adapt communications accordingly.

Well-being for parents and carers

There is no doubt that parenting very able children has many rewards, but it also has its own challenges. Such children can exhaust parents with their mental and physical energy and parents need to understand a child’s individual traits and have the patience to support them. It is common for parents to become ‘peacekeepers’ due to their child’s high sensitivities, clumsiness, emotional immaturity or outspoken sense of fairness. Many parents have no idea their child is more able and presume all children are similar and meet the same milestones. It is worth realising that many ‘gifted’ young people actually lag behind their peers in some areas, for example, poor physical coordination, lack of organisational skills or weak academic achievements in some subjects. The organisation Potential Plus UK recommends parents learn about the nature of high ability so that parents can prepare the family accordingly. They highly recommend that parents nurture themselves and their friendships.  In order for parents to be better able to support their more able child, they advise:

• Prioritising emotional and physical health
• Taking breaks
• Eating and sleeping well
• Finding friends and family members who will understand and support without seeing things as a competition or criticism
• Building wider parent-support network within a gifted home education forum, school community or through membership of organisations and support groups
• Taking care of their own needs, not (just) the complex needs of the child

(High Learning Potential Parenting: Understand Your Challenges - Potential Plus UK)

Consistently, research confirms that supportive, effective parental education improves children’s self-esteem, attitudes to learning and achievement. As partners in learning, this enhances children’s wellbeing, especially mental health, and reduces anxiety and helps children to reflect on their strengths, talents, passions and future careers.

References

Ames, C. (1992). Classrooms: Goal, structures, and student motivation. Journal of Educational Psychology, 84, pp. 261-271.

Bronfenbrenner, U. (Ed.). (2005). Making human beings human. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Castro, M., Exposito-Casas, E., Lopez-Martin, E., Lizasoain, L., Navarro-Asencio, E. and Gaviria, J. J. (2015) ‘Parental involvement on student academic achievement: A meta-analysis’, Educational Research Review, 14, pp. 33–46.

Desforges, C. & Abouchaar, A. (2003) The impact of parental involvement, parental support and family education on pupil achievement and adjustment: a literature review.  Research report. Department for Education and Skills, No. 433

Dufur, M. J., Parcel, T.L. & Troutman, K.P. (2013) Does capital at home matter more than capital at school? Social capital effects on academic achievement. Research in Social Stratification and Mobility 31: pp.1–21.

Elliot, A. J. (2005). A conceptual history of the achievement goal construct. In A. J. Elliot & C. S. Dweck (Eds.), Handbook of competence and motivation (pp. 52-73). New York, NY: Guilford.

Goodall, J. & Montgomery, C. (2014) Parental Involvement to Parental Engagement: A Continuum. Educational Review, Vol. 66, No. 4, 2 October 2014, pp399-410(12). Routledge.

Goodall, J. & Vorhaus, J. (2011) Review of best practice in parental engagement. London: Department for Education.

Harris, A. & Goodall, J. (2007) Engaging Parents in Raising Achievement: Do Parents Know They Matter? Research Report DCSF-RW004. University of Warwick. Department for Children, Schools and Families.

Hattie, J. (2008) Visible Learning. Abingdon: Routledge.

Lowe, H. (2022) Supporting your child with high ability: guidance for parents and carers. NACE blog. April. National Association for Able Children in Education

Keirouz, K. S. (1990). Concerns of parents of gifted children: A research review. Gifted Child Quarterly, 34, pp.56-63.

Olszewski, P., Kulieke, M. J., & Buescher, T. (1987). The influence of the family environment on the development of talent: A literature review. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 11(1), pp. 6–28.

O'Mara, A., Jamal, F. et al. (2010). Improving Children’s and Young People’s Outcomes through Support for Mothers, Fathers, and Carers, C4EO.

Purdy, N., Harris, J., Dunn, J., Gibson, K., Jones, S., McKee, B., McMullen, J., Walsh, G., and Ballentine, M. (2021) Northern Ireland Survey of Parents/Carers on Home-Schooling during the Covid-19 Crisis: 2021, Belfast: Centre for Research in Educational Underachievement

Reichenberg, A., & Landau, E. (2009). Families of gifted children. In L. V. Shavinina (Ed.), International handbook on giftedness [Part Two] (pp. 873-883). Heidelberg, Germany: Springer.

Sammons, P., Toth, K., Sylva, K., Melhuish, E., Sirah, I. & Taggart, B. (2015) ‘The long-term role of the home learning environment in shaping students’ academic attainment in secondary school’, Journal of Children’s Services, 10 (3), pp. 189–201.

Social Market Foundation (2016) Family matters: The role of parents in children’s educational attainment. Available at: www.smf.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/Social-Market-Foundation-SMF-Fa...

Weiss, H. B., Caspe, M. & Lopez, M. E. (2006). Family involvement in early childhood education, Cambridge, MA: Harvard Family Research Project.

Weston, K. (2023). “Effective partnerships with parents.: What does ‘great’ look like and how might schools evaluate success?” NACE Webinar, January 2023. National Association for Able Children in Education

Organisations

National Association for Able Children in Education (NACE)

An independent charity working with schools, education leaders and practitioners to improve provision for more able learners. Has a focus on meeting the needs of more able learners and embedding an ethos and culture of high expectations for all, schools can ensure all young people have opportunities to flourish through its webinars, coaching, training, CPD and networking opportunities to share best practice and guidance. 

Potential Plus UK

Formerly known as the National Association for Gifted Children, is a charity based in the United Kingdom. It provides support for families and schools, including advice sheets, resources, newsletters, workshops and webinars.   

The Davidson Institute

Works with gifted young people under 18. The mission of the Davidson Institute is to recognise, nurture and support profoundly intelligent young people and to provide opportunities for them to develop their talents to make a positive difference. 

MENSA

Mensa has members of all ages in around 90 countries worldwide. The society provides its members with diverse and exciting opportunities for social, cultural, and intellectual interaction. It has  approximately 145,000 Mensans in roughly 90 countries throughout the world.  

National Society for the Gifted and Talented

An organization from Stanford University in the USA to encourage gifted and more able children and youth. It is committed to acknowledging and supporting the needs of these children by providing recognition of their significant academic and artistic accomplishments and access to educational resources and advanced learning opportunities directly related to their interests and talent areas.

The goal of the NSGT is to provide a structure where gifted and talented children and youth are identified, and as members, can expect to find information and opportunities that directly relate to, and cultivate, their abilities and desires to achieve at a high level.

World Council for Gifted and Talented Children

The World Council for Gifted and Talented Children is a worldwide non-profit organization that provides advocacy and support for gifted children. The WCGTC is a diverse organization networking the globe with an active membership of educators, scholars, researchers, parents, and others interested in the development and education of gifted and talented children of all ages.

The National Association for Gifted children

An organization in the US focused on the needs of gifted and talented children. Dedicated to uplifting and empowering those who support children with advanced abilities, NAGC provides energizing professional learning, impactful research, and inspiring advocacy to ensure all children have equitable opportunities and support to develop their gifts and talents.  Scottish Network for Able Pupils (SNAP)

From the University of Glasgow,  offering support and advice relating to the Scottish education system in three main areas: publications, staff development and national conferences. SNAP has specialised in teaching and learning for highly able pupils for over 20 years.  Working in the field of both Special Educational Needs/ Additional Support Needs and Gifted and Talented Education, SNAP have an interest and considerable experience of working with teachers as they support children of high ability. University of Glasgow - Research - Research units A-Z - Scottish Network for Able Pupils (SNAP) - About SNAP

On-line and other support

Hoagies' Gifted Education is a site of resources, articles, books and links to help and support parents, teachers, and gifted children alike.

The Royal Society's website contains curriculum-linked science teaching resources. http://invigorate.royalsociety.org/

IGGY Juniors is an online programme for creative young people aged 7 upwards from the University of Warwick, UK. IGGY Junior Commission: Education and the Internet report (warwick.ac.uk)

IGGY (International Gateway for Gifted Youth) is a network for gifted teenagers in the UK and Internationally, based at the University of Warwick.

Backyard Brains gives open source science experiments to try.  

Nrich Maths is a free online support for enriching mathematics for all stages http://nrich.maths.org/public 

Neuroscience for Kids has games by the University of Washington. 

Tomorrow’s Achievers run day courses for gifted and talented children in London, the South East, Liverpool and the West Midlands, UK.  

Gift Courses is an organization that runs both residential and non-residential courses for gifted and talented children.

Sutton Trust funds University Summer School (UK) places for children from disadvantaged backgrounds http://www.suttontrust.com/summer-schools/ 

Debate Chamber offers 3-day summer schools for young people (Young Thinkers, Young Doctors and Young Lawyers) aged 11-14, as well as 3- and 5-day summer schools for 15-18 year olds in a variety of subjects.

The Davidson Institute (USA) Gifted Summer Programmes offer three unique options for gifted youths ages 8 - 16 to engage them academically and foster community connections. 

Exquisite Minds. Gifted and Creative Children.  Free Gifted Resources and Curriculum

Books for Parents

1. A Parent’s Guide to Gifted Children Barry Teare

2. How to Raise a Bright Child: Practical Ways to Encourage Your Child’s Talents from 0-5 Years Dr Joan Freeman

3.The Highly Sensitive Child: Helping Our Children Thrive When the World Overwhelms Them by Elaine N. Aron

4. Brilliant Activities for Gifted Children: That Other Children Love Too by Ashley McCabe Mowat

5. Gifted Children: A Guide for Parents and Professionals edited by Kate Distin

6. Stand Up for Your Gifted Child by Joan Franklin Smutney

Books for Children: younger age range

Wonderwise series by Mick Manning and Brita Granstrom – a non-fiction series, related to a young child’s world, with lovely artwork. Titles include ‘What’s Under My Bed?’, ‘What’s Up?’ and ‘Is A Blue Whale The Biggest Thing There Is?’

I Wonder Why series published by Kingfisher is full of information presented in a young child friendly format.

Hubert Horatio Bartle Bobton-Trent by Lauren Child is a complex picture book about a child-genius.

The Gentle Giant by Michael Morpurgo is a picture book format with complex language.

Barefoot Books produces a variety of storybooks, many with stories from different cultures.

The Puffin Book of Utterly Brilliant Poetry by Brian Patten.

 

Books for Children: Primary age range +

National Geographic Kids is a monthly magazine available at newsagents or by subscription.

Dorling Kindersley First Reference series of seven books with titles such as Nature Encyclopedia, Dinosaur Encyclopedia and Science Encyclopedia. Great visual appeal.

Horrible Histories by Terry Deary is a collection of factual books about history ‘with the gory bits left in’. Includes titles such as Stormin’ Normans, Awesome Egyptians and Groovy Greeks.

Farm Boy, Toro!Toro!, Conker, Mr Skip and Billy The Kid by Michael Morpurgo are suitable for this age group and tackle issues from a young child’s point of view.

The Diamond Brothers Detective Agency Series by Anthony Horowitz, tells of the adventures of the world's worst private detective, Tim Diamond, and his little brother, Nick Diamond, who is considerably more intelligent.

The Week Junior. A weekly current affairs magazine for ages 8-14.

BBC Focus. A monthly science and technology magazine

Philosophy for Kids: 40 Fun Questions That Help You to Wonder by David White. Inspire animated discussions of questions that concern all of us with this interactive book.

13 Photos Children Should Know by Brad Finger. Some of the world's most renowned pictures. Other books in this series include 13 Paintings Children Should Know, 13 Sculptures Children Should Know and 13 Buildings Children Should Know.

Shakespeare Stories Collection by Andrew Matthews and Tony Ross is a great early introduction to Shakespeare.

The Wonderful Story of Henry Sugar by Roald Dahl

The Suitcase Kid by Jacqueline Wilson

A Series of Unfortunate Events by Lemony Snicket

Harry Potter series by J.K. Rowling

The Spiderwick Chronicles by Tony DiTerlizzi and Holly Black

Ruby Redfort series by Lauren Child

Inkheart series and Dragonrider by Cornelia Funke