: Prioritised, Not Categorised Rethinking How We Talk About Pupil Potential

Prioritised, Not Categorised: Rethinking How We Talk About Pupil Potential

We talk a lot in schools about closing the attainment gap, but we don’t always pay enough attention to the subtle signals we send while doing it. As highlighted by the EEF Research School Network, if we want disadvantaged pupils to thrive, we have to stop talking about them through the lens of what they lack.

Deficit thinking happens almost by accident, slipping quietly into our professional vocabulary until it shapes our culture. It often begins in informal staff room conversations, where discussion naturally drifts toward a child’s tough home background, their low baseline scores, or their perceived developmental limits. While usually rooted in empathy, this focus on external obstacles subtly shifts the narrative away from high-quality teaching and what we can actually control in the classroom. When we define pupils by what they lack rather than what they are capable of achieving, we risk creating subconscious ceilings on their potential before the lesson has even begun.

At Front Lawn Primary Academy, we decided to take a hard look at our day-to-day vocabulary. One phrase kept coming up in data meetings and progress reviews: the ​“bottom 10%.“

On paper, it’s just a statistical benchmark. But in reality, it carries baggage. It defines a child by where they currently rank rather than where they could go. It creates a subtle, unintended ceiling on what we expect from them.

So, we scrapped it. We now refer to this group as the Priority 10%. It sounds like a small tweak, but the shift in mindset has been massive.

When a teacher hears ​“bottom 10%,” it describes a passive state of low achievement. It feels fixed. ​“Priority 10%,” on the other hand, demands action. It signals high agency, urgent support, and deliberate attention.

In our planning sessions, the conversation has transformed completely. Instead of dwelling on passive questions like ​“Why is this group so far behind?”, staff now lead with action-driven solutions: ​“What specific scaffolding, adaptive teaching strategies, and targeted interventions are we prioritising for them this term?” This reframing stops us from simply measuring the gap and places teacher agency back at the center – turning unintended low expectations into collective responsibility and meaningful progress.

And children notice. They pick up on how we group them, how we talk to them, and what we expect from them. When pupils realize they are seen as a priority rather than a low-performing statistic, their self-belief stays intact. They don’t internalise a label that says they are falling short; they see themselves as capable learners receiving the right boost at the right time.

The EEF is clear that great teaching, backed by targeted support, is the single most powerful lever we have for disadvantaged pupils. Reframing our language costs nothing, but it ensures our resources, energy, and expectations are pointed in the right direction. Every child is capable of remarkable progress. We just need to make sure our words don’t get in the way.