An IB assessment policy should give teachers clear answers about assessment design, grading, feedback, standardisation, predicted grades, access arrangements and deadlines. It should not exist simply to satisfy authorization or evaluation requirements.
For Diploma Programme coordinators, the aim is to create a working system in which the policy, operational procedures, assessment calendar and staff training reinforce one another. The most effective approach combines concise school-wide principles with procedures staff can locate quickly.
What the IB expects from an assessment policy
The IB's Programme standards and practices expects schools to implement, communicate and regularly review an assessment policy consistent with IB philosophy. It should identify relevant IB and local requirements and explain how the school follows them.
Assessment should be administered consistently, fairly, inclusively and transparently. DP assessment is criterion-related, meaning performance is judged against defined standards, criteria, markschemes and grade descriptors rather than against classmates. The programme uses external and internal assessment, with teacher-marked internal components normally subject to IB moderation.
The assessment policy should align with the school's academic integrity, inclusion, language and admissions policies, as well as local reporting and safeguarding requirements. It should also address school procedures for artificial intelligence and student data where relevant.
Do not copy entire IB publications into the policy. Requirements and procedures change, creating a risk that copied material becomes outdated. Instead, identify the controlling publication, define the school's procedure and assign responsibility for checking updates.
Build the policy in two layers
Staff often ignore policies that combine philosophy, examination regulations, platform instructions and administrative forms in one long document. A two-layer model is easier to maintain and use.
| Layer | Purpose |
|---|---|
| Core policy | Defines principles, responsibilities, entitlements and non-negotiable school-wide practices |
| Operational handbook | Contains calendars, workflows, forms, platform instructions and departmental protocols |
The core policy should remain relatively stable. The handbook can change when deadlines, platforms, subject guides or responsibilities change. Both should display an owner, version number, approval date and next review date.
A one-page reference sheet can direct staff to procedures for late work, missed assessments, predicted grades, access arrangements, misconduct concerns and internal moderation.
A practical framework for drafting the policy
Define purpose and assessment evidence
Begin by explaining that assessment gathers evidence of learning, informs teaching, supports feedback and records achievement. Distinguish formative assessment, which helps students and teachers decide what to do next, from summative assessment, which records achievement at a defined point.
List the evidence teachers may use, including tests, essays, oral tasks, practical work, performances, investigations and coursework completed under specified conditions. Explain that percentages do not automatically produce the same 1-7 grade in every subject. Departments should use current subject criteria, markschemes, grade descriptors and appropriate evidence.
If the school uses a local reporting scale, clarify how it relates to IB judgements. A locally awarded report grade should not be presented as an official IB result.
Establish realistic feedback expectations
Define a minimum feedback entitlement without requiring detailed comments on every task. Effective feedback normally identifies:
- The criterion or objective assessed
- Evidence of successful performance
- One or two priority improvements
- An opportunity to apply the advice
- A reasonable return timeframe
Departments can decide when to use written comments, conferencing, whole-class feedback, peer assessment or automated diagnostic information. This preserves teacher workload while keeping feedback purposeful.
Specify standardisation and quality assurance
Standardisation helps teachers develop a shared interpretation of assessment standards. Moderation checks whether judgements have been applied appropriately. Because schools sometimes use these terms differently, define the local meaning of each.
For common assessments and internally assessed components, departments should review current requirements, mark anonymised samples, compare judgements, agree anchor examples and check a proportion of marking. Important conclusions should be recorded for the next assessment cycle.
RevisionDojo's guide to standardising internal assessments across departments provides a practical model. External tools can support this process, but they cannot replace current subject guides or teacher professional judgement.
Make predicted grades defensible
State who proposes, reviews, approves and submits predicted grades. Explain what evidence is considered, when predictions are finalised and how students can request a procedural review.
Predicted grades are professional forecasts based on available evidence and IB standards. They are not rewards for effort, guarantees of final results or figures adjusted to meet university offers. The IB does not impose one universal school formula, so schools should establish a consistent evidence model while preserving subject-specific judgement. A transparent predicted-grade process for coordinators can also reduce disputes with families.
Integrate inclusion and academic integrity
The IB's Access and inclusion policy explains that arrangements remove barriers without changing what is assessed or lowering expectations. Applications must meet current eligibility, evidence and deadline requirements, and arrangements should normally reflect the student's usual way of working.
Teachers need procedures for confirming approved arrangements, applying them during routine and mock assessments, documenting their use and protecting confidential information.
The policy should also direct staff to the school's academic integrity procedures. The IB's Academic integrity policy distinguishes student academic misconduct from school maladministration. Teachers require a reporting route rather than being expected to investigate serious concerns independently.
Assign responsibilities and review points
Assign responsibilities by role so staffing changes do not immediately date the document.
| Role | Core responsibility |
|---|---|
| School leadership | Approves policy, provides resources and oversees local compliance |
| DP coordinator | Maintains IB alignment, coordinates deadlines and monitors implementation |
| Heads of department | Lead standardisation and check assessment consistency |
| Teachers | Apply current criteria, provide feedback and maintain records |
| Students | Complete authentic work, meet deadlines and use feedback |
| Parents or guardians | Follow published reporting and communication procedures |
Conduct an annual check of links, roles and terminology, with a fuller review every 2-3 years if appropriate to school governance. Review sooner following major IB guidance changes, curriculum revisions, evaluation findings or repeated implementation problems.
Turn policy into practice
Staff understanding develops through use, not a single presentation. Use scenarios involving a missed mock examination, disagreement over a borderline mark, a challenged prediction or an access arrangement that has not been applied.
Embed procedures into existing systems by linking them from calendars, adding standardisation records to meeting templates and including key routines in new-teacher induction. Keep version-controlled forms in one location and provide students with a shorter summary.
The RevisionDojo coordinator guide and guide to connecting IB policy with examination preparation explain how common tasks and review cycles can support coordinated practice.
Audit what departments actually do by examining assessment plans, feedback samples, standardisation notes, workload calendars and reporting records. If practice varies, determine whether the cause is unclear wording, inaccessible documentation, conflicting systems, insufficient training or unrealistic workload before adding another rule. The overview of teacher and department implementation can support this review.
Common mistakes to avoid
- Copying another school's policy without adapting it to local requirements
- Burying stable principles beneath dates and technical instructions
- Requiring one grading formula across different DP subjects
- Excluding students from explanations of criteria and review routes
- Treating access arrangements as examination-only measures
- Reviewing the policy only before programme evaluation
- Allowing AI output to replace verified IB guidance or professional judgement
Conclusion
An effective IB assessment policy is concise enough to navigate and detailed enough to resolve recurring questions. Pair it with an operational handbook, clear responsibilities, regular standardisation and evidence-based review.
RevisionDojo can support implementation through Questionbank tasks, Mock Exams, coursework feedback and department review. Official IB documentation and teacher professional judgement, however, remain controlling.
Sources and referenced URLs
- IB Programme standards and practices
- IB Diploma Programme assessment and examinations
- IB Access and inclusion policy
- IB Academic integrity policy
- IB Diploma Programme general regulations
- RevisionDojo guide to standardising internal assessments
- RevisionDojo predicted-grade guide for coordinators
- RevisionDojo for IB coordinators
- Connecting IB policy with examination preparation
- RevisionDojo for IB teachers and departments