How far before an October deadline should an IB school freeze predicted grades?

A practical target is to freeze predictions 5-7 working days before the application must be submitted. This gives the coordinator time to moderate anomalies, complete references, check qualification entries, and correct transcription errors. Schools with large cohorts or several approval layers may need a longer interval. The freeze date is an internal school decision, not a universal IB requirement. It should be published at the start of the fall term so teachers, students, counselors, and families understand when new evidence will stop being considered.

Can a university-facing prediction differ from the grade later submitted to the IB?

Yes, because the two figures may be prepared at different points in the academic year and for different administrative purposes. A university forecast prepared in October may rely on evidence available at that time, while a later IB submission may include additional assessments and completed coursework. A difference is not automatically evidence of inconsistency or error. The school should retain dated records showing the evidence used for each decision. Coordinators should also explain this distinction clearly because schools and families often use the term predicted grade for both figures.

Should every IB department use the same predicted-grade formula?

No universal IB rule requires every department to apply one numerical formula. Subject assessment structures differ, so the most relevant evidence in Mathematics may not be identical to the evidence used in Visual Arts or Language A. A whole-school policy should instead establish shared principles such as accuracy, sufficient evidence, use of IB standards, moderation, and documentation. Departments can then define subject-appropriate evidence and weighting within that framework. Coordinators should intervene when differences reflect inconsistent standards rather than legitimate subject requirements.

Can a UCAS predicted grade be changed after the application is submitted?

UCAS states that predicted grades cannot be changed in the submitted application through the adviser portal. If the school discovers a material error afterward, it may need to contact the universities or colleges concerned directly and ask whether they will accept a correction. That possibility should not be treated as a normal revision process because institutions control how they respond. A second-person check before submission is therefore essential. The school should compare every portal entry against its locked master record before approving the application.

Should students be allowed to see their predicted grades?

The IB does not create one universal school disclosure policy for university-facing predictions, so local practice and application-system rules matter. Schools should decide in advance whether predictions are disclosed and apply that decision consistently. Transparency can help students construct realistic application lists and identify subject-specific entry requirements. However, disclosure should not imply that grades are negotiable or that students can select their own prediction. Coordinators should also note that UCAS applicants do not see the reference or predicted grades through the standard adviser process.

What should an IB coordinator do when a parent challenges a predicted grade?

The coordinator should first refer the concern to the subject teacher, who can explain the evidence and relevant IB standard. If the concern involves inconsistent marking, the head of department should review comparable work and departmental moderation records. The coordinator should become directly involved when the issue concerns policy, process, deadlines, or inconsistency across departments. Only relevant academic evidence or a demonstrable error should justify changing the forecast. The decision and rationale should be recorded so the school can show that the same process was applied fairly to all students.

Back to all posts

Preparing Predicted Grades Ahead of October Deadlines

IB Coordinators Seasonal Planning IB Study Guides

• 24 Sept 2026•10

Preparing Predicted Grades Ahead of October Deadlines

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

Preparing Predicted Grades Ahead of October… | RevisionDojo

Back to all posts

Preparing Predicted Grades Ahead of October Deadlines

IB Coordinators Seasonal Planning IB Study Guides

• 24 Sept 2026•10

Preparing predicted grades ahead of October deadlines requires more than collecting numbers from subject teachers. An IB coordinator needs a shared evidence policy, moderation procedures, accurate application data, and enough time to resolve anomalies before school documents are submitted.

For the 2027 entry cycle, the main UCAS early deadline is 15 October 2026 at 18:00 UK time for Oxford, Cambridge, and most medicine, dentistry, and veterinary medicine or science courses. US early deadlines vary by institution. Schools should work backward from each external deadline and freeze predictions several working days earlier.

What an IB predicted grade represents

The IB definition of a predicted grade is the teacher's prediction of the grade a candidate is expected to achieve, based on available evidence and knowledge of IB standards. Predictions should be as accurate as possible, without systematic over-prediction or under-prediction.

Diploma Programme subjects use the 1-7 scale. Schools may also forecast Theory of Knowledge and Extended Essay outcomes to estimate core points and an overall Diploma total out of 45.

A prediction is not:

A reward for effort, attendance, or conduct
A target chosen to satisfy university entry requirements
The result of one unusually strong or weak assessment
A guaranteed minimum result
A grade awarded by the IB

University-facing forecasts and predictions submitted later through IB administrative processes may be produced at different times. They are distinct data snapshots, and additional evidence can legitimately change the later figure.

Build the process backward from deadlines

The UCAS dates and deadlines guidance confirms the 15 October 2026 equal-consideration deadline for relevant 2027 entry applications. Because the reference must be completed before a linked application is sent, schools cannot leave predictions until deadline day.

Common App has no universal early deadline. Its international applicant guidance explains that colleges set their own plans and dates.

Period	Coordinator action	Required output
Early September	Confirm applicants, destinations, and courses	Central deadline register
Mid-September	Publish the evidence policy and cut-off	Shared departmental instructions
Late September	Collect subject and core forecasts	Complete provisional record
Early October	Moderate departments and borderline cases	Approved predictions
5-7 working days before submission	Freeze grades and check applications	Locked master record
Before each deadline	Approve references and submit documents	Completed applications

The internal freeze date is a school decision, not an IB requirement. It should leave enough time to check qualification entries, subject levels, references, permissions, and portal status.

Establish a defensible evidence policy

The IB does not prescribe one universal prediction formula. Departments should use evidence consistently and interpret it through current subject criteria and the official DP grade descriptors.

Relevant evidence can include:

Timed examinations or substantial paper sections
End-of-DP1 and beginning-of-DP2 assessments
Internal Assessment work completed by the cut-off
Essays, practical work, oral tasks, and problem sets
Recent performance trends
Performance under independent conditions

No source is decisive by itself. A mock examination may reveal examination readiness but be affected by illness or incomplete syllabus coverage. An IA draft can demonstrate criterion-specific achievement, but it is not a final moderated mark.

Avoid imposing one percentage formula across every subject. Mathematics and Language A may require different evidence models, although both departments must explain how their forecasts match IB standards.

Moderate for consistency, not uniformity

The coordinator should not replace subject-teacher judgement. Moderation tests whether that judgement is evidence-based, consistent, and accurately documented.

Departments should ask:

Is there enough recent evidence?
Was it interpreted against appropriate IB standards?
Are parallel classes applying comparable expectations?
Is the forecast credible alongside broader performance and historical patterns?

Historical predicted-versus-achieved data can reveal persistent optimism or caution, but coordinators should not apply an automatic adjustment to every student. Repeated over-prediction should lead to review of assessment design, marking, and standardization.

Prioritize borderline grades, unexplained jumps, identical predictions across a class, and inconsistencies between subjects and the total Diploma forecast. The RevisionDojo guide to how IB predicted grades are set can help schools explain this process to families.

Define ownership and maintain an audit trail

A clear responsibility map prevents last-minute confusion. Subject teachers propose grades and retain evidence; heads of department standardize judgement; counselors check course choices and application requirements; the coordinator approves the process and controls the master record. Only named staff should be able to edit final figures.

Use a version-controlled spreadsheet or secure student information system that records the student, subject, level, proposed grade, approver, date, and reason for any change. Access should follow the school's data-protection rules because predictions are confidential educational records. Never circulate editable copies through informal messaging channels.

Schedule a short final sign-off meeting for unresolved cases. The purpose is not to negotiate grades, but to confirm that evidence has been reviewed and every change is authorized. After the freeze, edits should require a documented exception, such as a transcription error or previously unavailable assessment evidence. This audit trail allows the coordinator to answer later questions without relying on memory and makes annual evaluation of prediction accuracy more reliable.

Separate judgement from application strategy

A predicted grade answers, “What is this student expected to achieve?” It should not answer, “What does this student need to apply?” Adjusting forecasts to match entry requirements undermines fairness and may expose students to unrealistic conditional offers.

Once predictions are approved, counselors can compare them with published requirements, typical competitive profiles, subject-specific HL conditions, and total Diploma offers. They can then help students balance aspirational, realistic, and safer choices without influencing academic judgement.

Control application data carefully

UCAS guidance on managing references and predicted grades states that predicted grades cannot be changed through UCAS after submission. Returning an application for amended education details may also remove predictions already entered.

Before approval, verify that:

The qualification, examination session, subjects, and levels are correct
Pending qualifications appear properly
Portal grades match the locked school record
The reference is complete and consistent
A second authorized staff member has checked the application

For US applications, verify each college's requirements for transcripts, counselor recommendations, School Reports, and midyear reports. Common App's school-form guidance advises submitting documents by the institution's listed deadline.

Manage reviews and digital evidence

Publish the review procedure before releasing predictions. A student should first ask the teacher to explain the evidence, followed where necessary by departmental review and coordinator consideration of procedural concerns. Changes should correct errors or account for material academic evidence, not respond to university ambitions or parental pressure.

The RevisionDojo guide to parent conversations provides a framework for keeping discussions evidence-focused. Decisions and rationales should be recorded consistently.

Digital practice can support improvement before the evidence cut-off, but platform scores are not official predictions. RevisionDojo Mock Exams, Questionbank, IA Feedback, and Jojo AI can help students identify weaknesses, while teachers retain responsibility for authentic assessment and professional judgement. Families may also benefit from the predicted-grade submission timeline guide, which distinguishes university, school, and IB timelines.

Conclusion

Preparing predicted grades ahead of October deadlines is an academic quality-assurance task. A backward-planned calendar, defensible evidence policy, documented moderation, controlled review process, and second-person application check protect students and the school. RevisionDojo can support evidence-building through Questionbank, Mock Exams, IA Feedback, and Jojo AI, while the school remains responsible for every official prediction.