Discussing predicted grades with students requires accuracy about the evidence and confidence that improvement remains possible. A predicted grade should not be presented as a reward, threat, or judgement of potential. It is a professional estimate made at a particular point, based on the student’s work and the teacher’s understanding of IB standards.
Constructive conversations explain what the number means, identify the evidence behind it, and give the student a realistic next step. Teachers should be honest about limitations without turning an estimate into a verdict.
Start with the official meaning of a predicted grade
The IB defines a predicted grade as the teacher’s prediction of the grade a candidate is expected to achieve, based on all available evidence and knowledge of IB standards. Predictions should be as accurate as possible, without deliberate over-prediction or under-prediction.
Subject predictions use the 1-7 scale, while Theory of Knowledge and the Extended Essay use the A-E scale. The official IB Diploma Programme grade descriptors describe the characteristics associated with different levels of performance.
Schools submit predicted grades to the IB for assessment administration, but they may also produce predictions for university applications. Timing, disclosure, evidence weighting, and review procedures therefore depend partly on school policy and national admissions systems. Before meeting a student, establish which prediction is being discussed, whether it is provisional, what evidence may be considered, and whether a review process exists.
For UCAS applications, current UCAS predicted grade guidance recommends predictions that are achievable, evidence-based, objective, and informed by professional judgement. This is admissions guidance, not an IB regulation.
Prepare the evidence before the conversation
Students are more likely to understand an unwelcome prediction when the reasoning is visible and consistent. Use several relevant sources rather than allowing one unusually strong or weak assessment to dominate.
Evidence may include:
- Timed mock examinations or paper sections
- Topic tests and formal classroom assessments
- Performance against subject criteria and grade descriptors
- Completed or substantially developed coursework
- Consistency and direction of performance over time
- Independent application of feedback
Effort, punctuality, and participation matter educationally, but they are not automatically evidence of a particular final grade. Keep assessed attainment, learning habits, and future potential conceptually separate.
Departmental moderation should happen before difficult conversations whenever possible. Comparing scripts, applying common mark schemes, and reviewing borderline cases makes the judgement more consistent and defensible.
Structure the predicted grade conversation
A productive meeting can follow four stages: acknowledge, explain, locate the gap, and plan.
| Stage | Teacher purpose | Example language |
|---|---|---|
| Acknowledge | Recognize the grade’s significance | “I know this matters, particularly because of your application plans.” |
| Explain | State the grade and evidence | “This is my current evidence-based estimate, not a limit on what you can achieve.” |
| Locate the gap | Identify observable weaknesses | “Your knowledge is strong, but evaluation and timing are not yet consistent across a full paper.” |
| Plan | Set actions and checkpoints | “We will review two timed responses after focused evaluation practice.” |
State the grade plainly rather than building suspense. Then explain the evidence through performance, not identity. Instead of saying, “You are not a 6,” explain that recent timed work most consistently matches grade 5 characteristics because analysis becomes descriptive under pressure.
Be honest without removing hope
Use language that reflects the prediction’s status as an estimate:
- “Based on the evidence currently available, the most defensible prediction is a 5.”
- “A 6 remains possible, but I do not yet have consistent evidence to predict it.”
- “Your latest result is encouraging, although it needs to be repeated under comparable conditions.”
Avoid promises such as, “Complete these tasks and I will raise the grade.” Practice creates opportunities to produce stronger evidence, but it should not purchase a prediction. Explain that targeted tasks address the weaknesses preventing performance from matching the next descriptor and that any review will follow school policy.
Hope is credible when connected to controllable actions. Identify one or two priorities, the evidence that would demonstrate improvement, and the next review point.
Respond when a student disagrees
Disagreement is not necessarily disrespect. Ask which evidence the student believes has been overlooked, then check for missing marks, access arrangements, recorded absences, or documented adverse circumstances.
If a student says a university requires a higher grade, acknowledge the consequence but return to academic evidence. An entry requirement cannot independently justify changing a professional estimate. Inflating predictions can encourage unsuitable applications and undermine fairness across the cohort.
If the evidence supports the existing grade, explain the school’s review procedure calmly. Students should understand who can review the decision, which grounds are valid, and what deadlines apply.
Create a practical improvement plan
End the meeting with a short written plan containing:
- The current prediction and evidence considered
- The principal gap between current and next-grade performance
- One targeted practice activity
- One independent, timed opportunity to demonstrate transfer
- A review date, if school policy allows reconsideration
A student might repair a weak topic through guided study, complete focused questions, analyse errors, and then attempt an unfamiliar timed task. RevisionDojo’s IB Questionbank supports targeted practice, while its mock exam guidance explains how to progress from isolated questions to timed performance. Jojo AI can identify missing reasoning or mark-scheme requirements, but it should support learning rather than replace teacher judgement.
The RevisionDojo IB Grade Calculator can translate representative practice marks into an indicative grade using relevant boundaries. It is a planning tool, not an official prediction or guaranteed result.
Common mistakes to avoid
Do not compare students with named classmates. Grade descriptors and assessed evidence provide a fairer basis for discussion.
Do not describe a genuinely provisional grade as fixed, but do not imply that revision will certainly change it. State exactly what school policy allows. Replace vague advice such as “work harder” with a specific priority, such as improving evaluation, reducing calculation errors, or finishing extended responses within the allocated time.
Sensitive discussions should not take place hurriedly in corridors or immediately after a disappointing assessment. A private, scheduled meeting allows both teacher and student to respond thoughtfully.
Conclusion
Effective predicted grade conversations are transparent, evidence-based, and future-focused. State the grade clearly, explain the evidence, separate present attainment from personal potential, and identify a small number of actions that could produce stronger performance.
RevisionDojo can support this process through the Questionbank, Mock Exams, Grade Calculator, and Jojo AI. These tools work best alongside departmental moderation, school policy, and informed teacher judgement.
Sources and referenced URLs
- IB student assessment and predicted grade definition
- IB Diploma Programme grade descriptors
- UCAS guidance on predicted grades
- RevisionDojo guide to how IB predicted grades work
- RevisionDojo guidance on asking about predicted grades
- RevisionDojo IB Questionbank
- RevisionDojo mock exam guidance
- RevisionDojo IB Grade Calculator