To set predicted grades fairly ahead of October deadlines, IB teachers need a documented process based on representative work, current IB standards, departmental moderation, and consistent treatment of students. A predicted grade should forecast likely final attainment. It should not reward effort, satisfy an entry requirement, or reproduce a student's highest mark.
This is particularly important during the IB teacher fall term, when early applications may be due before teachers have a complete DP2 evidence base. The aim is therefore not certainty, but the most defensible prediction available from sufficient evidence.
Clarify the grade and deadline
The IB defines a predicted grade as the teacher's prediction of the grade a candidate is expected to achieve, based on all evidence of the candidate's work and the teacher's knowledge of IB standards. Predictions should be as accurate as possible, without systematic overprediction or underprediction.
Official terminology distinguishes forecasted grades communicated to institutions from predicted grades later communicated to the IB. Schools and universities often call both predicted grades, so teachers should confirm the destination, scale, and approval process with their coordinator.
An October university deadline is not a universal IB deadline. For 2027 UK entry, UCAS lists 15 October 2026 at 18:00 UK time as the deadline for Oxford, Cambridge, and most medicine, dentistry, and veterinary medicine or science applications. Most other undergraduate applications have an equal-consideration deadline of 13 January 2027.
Schools need an earlier internal deadline for moderation, references, checks, and authorization. A workable sequence is:
| Stage | Suggested timing |
|---|---|
| Publish evidence requirements | Start of September |
| Complete final common task | Early to mid-September |
| Make provisional judgments | Mid-September |
| Moderate and review anomalies | Mid to late September |
| Communicate outcomes | Late September |
| Lock submission data | Several working days before the deadline |
Start from IB standards
DP assessment is criterion-related. Students should be judged against published subject expectations, not ranked against classmates or fitted into an informal quota for 6s and 7s.
Use the current subject guide, assessment criteria, markschemes, and official Diploma Programme grade descriptors. Descriptors characterize performance at each grade, while criteria and markschemes support judgments about particular components. Neither should be replaced by a general impression that a student is talented, diligent, or likely to improve.
Historical grade boundaries can help interpret marks from genuinely comparable assessments. However, boundaries change between sessions, so a historical boundary is a reference point rather than a guaranteed future threshold.
Build a balanced evidence basket
A defensible prediction combines evidence across time and assessment formats. The evidence should resemble the subject's final assessment model as closely as the September timetable permits.
| Evidence | Useful information | Limitation |
|---|---|---|
| Timed cumulative assessment | Application, recall, and time management | One sitting may be affected by illness or anxiety |
| Topic tests or essays | Current subject-specific performance | Coverage may be narrow |
| IA or coursework | Performance against component criteria | Drafts may be incomplete or supported by permitted feedback |
| DP1 examination | Earlier performance under controlled conditions | Later improvement may make it less representative |
| Repeated class tasks | Consistency and trajectory | Conditions and difficulty may vary |
Avoid relying automatically on a universal weighting formula. Numerical models can improve consistency, but they create false precision when tasks differ in coverage or validity. The central question remains: Which final grade is this student most likely to achieve if current performance and progress continue under normal conditions?
Recent cumulative evidence usually deserves more weight than an early DP1 quiz, but recency should not erase the wider pattern. One unusually high or low result should always be checked against other work.
Make evidence comparable and moderate it
Departments should agree on the syllabus content, assessment objectives, working conditions, markscheme, access arrangements, and treatment of missing evidence before administering a common task. Fairness does not always mean identical conditions. Students should receive approved access arrangements where applicable, while verified disruption should be managed through a consistent school procedure.
A short common assessment can strengthen a limited evidence base, but it should not be created merely to manufacture a prediction. RevisionDojo's Questionbank and assessment resources and RevisionDojo for Schools can support diagnostics and timed practice. Platform-generated scores remain supporting evidence, not official IB grades.
Moderation reduces the chance that equivalent work receives different predictions because students have different teachers. Teachers can bring anonymized samples near important thresholds, apply the same criteria, discuss differences, and revisit provisional decisions. The purpose is common standards, not identical grade distributions.
The IB's assessment principles emphasize fairness, reliability, validity, and comparability. These principles explain why professional calibration matters, particularly in essay-based subjects and departments with parallel classes.
Resolve borderline cases consistently
For a borderline student, ask whether recent work repeatedly demonstrates the higher standard, whether that performance covers several assessment objectives, and whether it was produced independently under suitable conditions. Coursework should support, qualify, or contradict the examination evidence rather than being ignored.
Potential matters only when demonstrated progress makes the higher outcome credible. Effort, participation, parental pressure, university requirements, and promises to improve are not attainment evidence. Teachers should never lower a prediction to motivate a student or increase it to meet an application threshold.
Record a concise rationale for each difficult decision. For example: “Predicted 6 because three recent timed responses meet the grade 6 standard for analysis and evaluation, supported by moderated coursework.” This is more defensible than recording only an average percentage.
Leaders should also review patterns across teachers and classes. Look for repeated rounding in one direction, excessive dependence on one assessment, inconsistent treatment of missing work, or unexplained differences between comparable groups. RevisionDojo teacher analytics may help identify patterns, but teachers must inspect the underlying work and assessment conditions.
Communicate decisions without negotiation
Students should know what evidence counts, when it will be collected, and how decisions can be reviewed. Explain the current standard, the evidence supporting it, and the academic action needed for improvement. Do not frame the conversation around the grade required by a university.
A review process should address omitted work, data-entry mistakes, inconsistent policy application, or overlooked documented circumstances. Disagreement alone does not establish unfairness. Where possible, someone other than the original decision-maker should review the evidence.
UCAS states that the registered centre is responsible for adding predicted grades and that grades cannot normally be changed after submission. Its predicted-grade guidance for advisers makes careful checking before submission essential.
Final teacher checklist
Before approval, confirm that the prediction:
-
reflects the most likely final attainment, not aspiration
-
uses several meaningful and representative pieces of evidence
-
applies current IB criteria, descriptors, and course requirements
-
considers both recent performance and longer-term consistency
-
handles access arrangements and verified circumstances consistently
-
has been moderated where appropriate
-
follows the same decision rule used for other students
-
can be justified in concise, evidence-based language
-
has been checked before submission
Conclusion
Fair predicted grades are criterion-referenced forecasts supported by representative evidence and informed professional judgment. A strong September process combines a published timeline, comparable assessment conditions, moderation, bias checks, and a limited review route.
RevisionDojo offers guidance on how schools predict IB scores and resources for IB coordinators. Questionbank, Mock Exams, and school analytics can support evidence collection, while the final prediction must remain with informed teachers.