Can an IB coordinator move an IA deadline after it has been published?

An IB coordinator can often move a school-created IA deadline, but cannot simply alter an IB-facing requirement. Before approving a change, the coordinator should confirm how much time teachers still need for feedback, marking, standardization, authentication, and administration. The effect on other subjects and later weeks must also be checked so that the collision is not merely relocated. Changes should be documented and communicated through the school's official calendar rather than agreed informally. Current IB procedures, subject requirements, and school assessment policy remain authoritative.

How many major IA deadlines should students have in one week?

The IB does not publish a universal maximum number of IA deadlines per week. A sensible local limit depends on the components involved, because an oral, a practical investigation, and a short checkpoint create different demands. Coordinators should consider estimated remaining hours, required feedback, practical access, and competing TOK, EE, examination, or application commitments. As a planning rule, two substantial final submissions within five school days should trigger a student-level workload review. The purpose of a cap is to identify dangerous concentration early, not to suggest that every task has identical weight.

Should the whole cohort receive an extension when only some students have a collision?

Not necessarily, because subject combinations can create serious conflicts for only part of a cohort. A whole-cohort change is appropriate when the schedule itself is broadly unreasonable or when changing the date improves programme operations. If the collision affects a smaller group, coordinators should use the school's published extension or exceptional-circumstances procedure. Decisions must rely on consistent criteria and should not become private arrangements between individual teachers and students. The revised plan must still preserve fairness, authentication, and sufficient processing time.

What should coordinators prioritize when several IA deadlines cannot move?

When dates cannot move, coordinators should prioritize completion planning, access to essential resources, and clear communication. Each at-risk student needs a task-level schedule identifying the next required product, such as a completed dataset, analysis section, or oral outline. Teachers should coordinate check-ins so the student does not receive conflicting instructions from several departments. Cosmetic editing should not displace substantive analysis, evaluation, or required components, although all final work must remain compliant. The plan should also protect sleep, attendance, and a minimum level of ongoing preparation in other subjects.

How can coordinators protect academic integrity during a deadline pile-up?

Coordinators should require visible evidence of development, including notes, raw data, source records, drafts, version histories, and teacher feedback. Students must receive a concise reminder about permitted collaboration, outside editing, citation, and the school's rules for AI tools. Extensions should include check-ins rather than creating an unsupervised period in which an entirely new submission suddenly appears. Teachers must be able to authenticate work before it is submitted, and uncertainty should be addressed through the school's academic integrity procedure. Deadline pressure may explain poor judgment, but it does not make unacknowledged assistance or fabricated work acceptable.

What should an IB coord fall term calendar include beyond IA deadlines?

An IB coord fall term calendar should include IA proposals, drafts, feedback cutoffs, final submissions, orals, performances, and practical sessions. It should also show TOK and EE milestones, school examinations, reporting dates, university application peaks, holidays, trips, and relevant administrative dates. Every entry should identify whether it is a flexible checkpoint, a final school deadline, or an IB-facing requirement. Coordinators should test the calendar against real student subject combinations rather than viewing one department at a time. A weekly review of progress and exceptions keeps the published calendar operational instead of allowing it to become a static document.

Back to all posts

When Multiple Subjects' IA Deadlines Collide

IB Coordinators Seasonal Planning IB IA

• 24 Sept 2026•10

When Multiple Subjects' IA Deadlines Collide

Join 650k+ students breezing through the IBReady to breeze through the IB?

When Multiple Subjects' IA Deadlines Collide | RevisionDojo

Back to all posts

When Multiple Subjects' IA Deadlines Collide

IB Coordinators Seasonal Planning IB IA

• 24 Sept 2026•10

When multiple subjects' IA deadlines collide, the DP coordinator should respond at programme level. Identify which dates are genuinely fixed, assess workload by student rather than subject, move suitable school-created deadlines, and publish one authoritative revised calendar.

This is particularly important from September through November, when IAs compete with TOK, the extended essay, examinations, university applications, and programme administration. The aim is not to remove academic pressure, but to prevent avoidable congestion from damaging student work, teacher marking, authentication, and wellbeing.

Distinguish fixed and movable deadlines

Not every date called an "IA deadline" has the same status. Coordinators should classify each date before negotiating changes.

Deadline type	Meaning	Usually movable?
IB-facing deadline	A submission or administrative requirement communicated by the IB	No, except through an applicable official procedure
School final deadline	Authenticated work reaches teachers for marking and processing	Sometimes, if operational buffer remains
Department deadline	A date created by a subject team	Usually, after consultation
Draft checkpoint	A milestone for plans, data, drafts, or feedback	Usually
Student target	A personal completion goal	Yes

The IB does not publish one universal student-facing IA date for every subject. Schools set internal deadlines so teachers can authenticate work, mark it, standardize judgments where required, and complete administration. Coordinators must check current Diploma Programme Assessment Procedures, subject guidance, IBIS communications, and the Programme Resource Centre rather than copying dates from previous cohorts.

The IB assessment overview explains the relationship between teacher assessment and IB moderation. Moving a school deadline too close to an IB-facing requirement can remove essential quality-assurance time.

Run a student-level collision audit

A departmental calendar may look manageable while creating an impossible week for particular subject combinations. Export all deadlines and checkpoints into one spreadsheet, using one row for each student-component pairing.

Record:

the subject, component, and submission type;
estimated remaining student hours;
feedback, marking, and standardization time;
laboratory, recording, fieldwork, or equipment constraints;
TOK, EE, examinations, applications, trips, and holidays;
approved access arrangements or documented adverse circumstances.

Flag students facing two or more substantial submissions within five school days. However, do not rely on a simple count. An oral requiring final preparation is not equivalent to an unfinished investigation that still needs data processing, analysis, and evaluation.

Estimate effort using remaining hours, required feedback, and dependence on scheduled resources. This is a local planning method, not an IB formula, but it produces better decisions than counting deadlines alone.

Decide what should move

Do not extend every deadline automatically. A poorly planned extension merely transfers the collision to another week and may reduce time for marking or authentication.

A date is a strong candidate for movement when:

it is a school-created checkpoint rather than an IB-facing requirement;
affected students have several high-effort submissions;
the receiving week has demonstrably lower demand;
curriculum sequencing and practical access remain workable;
teachers retain enough processing and standardization time;
the decision can be applied consistently or individually justified.

Protect dates connected to scheduled orals, performances, fieldwork, laboratories, external visitors, or limited rooms. A written investigation deadline may be easier to move than a recording timetable involving equipment and staff cover.

If only certain subject combinations produce the collision, a cohort-wide extension may be unnecessary. Use the school's documented extension or exceptional-circumstances procedure instead of allowing private teacher-student agreements.

Use a September-November triage plan

September: establish visibility

Collect every DP2 IA milestone alongside TOK, EE, mock examination, reporting, university, and school administration dates. Departments should identify both their preferred date and the latest safe date that preserves marking and processing time.

Hold a calendar meeting with subject leaders, then publish the agreed schedule in one location. Label entries clearly as checkpoint, feedback cutoff, final school submission, or IB-facing requirement.

October: monitor evidence of progress

Replace statements such as "nearly finished" with observable milestones. These might include an approved focus, completed data collection, drafted analysis, submitted full draft, returned feedback, or authenticated final version.

Review high-risk students weekly through one shared reporting system. If many students are behind in the same subject, investigate whether the cause is weak organization, unclear instructions, restricted resources, or an unrealistic departmental schedule.

November: protect completion and quality

Avoid major calendar changes unless they resolve a documented conflict without disrupting later processes. Reserve time for marking, internal standardization, authentication, and submission preparation.

Give each at-risk student a completion plan containing named tasks, check-in dates, and one staff contact. "Finish the IA" is too vague. "Submit the processed data table and first analysis section by Thursday" creates an observable next step.

Communicate one authoritative decision

Issue one written update to students, teachers, and relevant families. State which date changed, whether it concerns a draft or final submission, why the adjustment was made, what feedback remains permitted, and where the definitive calendar is stored.

Do not call a revised school date an "IB deadline" unless it genuinely is one. Students must understand that school deadlines are binding without being misled about their source. RevisionDojo's guide to supporting IA work also helps families distinguish supporting the process from producing assessed work.

Preserve academic integrity

Deadline congestion can increase inappropriate collaboration, outsourced editing, fabricated data, or misuse of generative AI. Coordinators should respond with visible evidence of development rather than indiscriminate suspicion.

Students should retain planning notes, raw data, source records, dated drafts, version histories, teacher feedback, and records of permitted collaboration. The IB academic integrity policy emphasizes that teachers must be able to authenticate submitted work.

An extension should therefore preserve supervised development and scheduled check-ins. RevisionDojo's IA feedback and moderation guidance can support criterion-based revision, but teachers remain responsible for permitted feedback and authentication. Jojo AI should support understanding and reflection, not produce submission-ready IA content.

Prevent future collisions

After the immediate problem is controlled, compare planned dates with actual submission patterns. For the next cycle:

maintain one two-year DP assessment calendar;
limit major submissions within any five-school-day period;
separate full-draft and final deadlines across subjects;
include TOK, EE, examinations, trips, reports, and application peaks;
test dates against common student subject combinations;
preserve buffers for marking, authentication, and technical problems.

The IB Programme standards and practices supports collaborative planning and schedules that allow programme requirements to be met. A coordinated assessment calendar is therefore part of reliable programme implementation, not merely an administrative convenience.

Common mistakes to avoid

Moving the nearest deadline without checking later weeks.
Treating all components as equally demanding.
Allowing undocumented individual arrangements.
Removing teachers' marking and authentication buffer.
changing dates repeatedly and weakening confidence in the calendar.
Giving time-management advice when the programme schedule is the underlying problem.

Conclusion

When multiple subjects' IA deadlines collide, coordinators should separate fixed requirements from movable school dates, audit individual workload, and adjust only dates that can move without compromising fairness or assessment quality. Early visibility, measurable milestones, consistent extension procedures, and protected processing time are more effective than emergency extensions.

RevisionDojo can supplement this plan through IA Feedback, Coursework Review, Study Notes, and Jojo AI. Students should use these tools within school rules while keeping their teachers, official calendar, and current IB documentation authoritative.

Sources and referenced URLs

Add as a preferred source on Google