Weighted percentages and a missing criterion
In the individuals and societies department of an MYP school, year 4 reports are calculated as homework 20%, quizzes 30%, final exam 50%, then converted to a 1–7 level using fixed cut-offs (90% = 7, 80% = 6, 70% = 5, and so on). Criterion C (thinking critically) has not been assessed this year. Criterion D (communicating) was assessed once, through a group presentation in which all four group members received the same mark. Amara has 88% overall and has been awarded a 6; her parents have appealed, noting she achieved the top mark in the class on the final exam and that her presentation mark was "carried" by a weaker group member. A new student joined from a non-MYP system in January, has had the same tasks with no adjustment, and has scored 55%. The next reporting cycle closes in six weeks.
1. Identify and justify the assessment errors in this department's practice.
Read the worked answer
Category error: percentages instead of criteria. MYP levels are criterion-referenced. The four criteria (A knowing and understanding, B investigating, C thinking critically, D communicating) are equally weighted, each marked out of 8, and a student's level reflects achievement against those objectives - not a weighted average of task types. Homework and quizzes reward compliance and frequency as much as learning, and the 50% exam weighting lets one performance dominate.
Invalid evidence. Criterion C has not been assessed at all this year, so a level has been reported on incomplete evidence. Criterion D rests on a single group task with a shared mark, which tells you nothing about an individual's communication: the criterion is about what each student does.
Imposed cut-offs. Applying 90/80/70 converts the MYP to an unrelated scale. MYP levels are derived from the sum of the four criteria (maximum 32) against the published boundaries - 28–32 for a 7, 24–27 for a 6, 19–23 for a 5, 15–18 for a 4, 10–14 for a 3, 6–9 for a 2, 0–5 for a 1 - with teachers using best-fit professional judgement.
The combined effect is that the reported level cannot be defended if challenged, and the department has no evidence trail to justify either Amara's 6 or the new student's 4.
2. Show how a defensible MYP level should be determined for Amara, and what the department should do before the reporting deadline.
Read the worked answer
The correct method. Collect the most recent, most consistent evidence for each of A, B, C and D; reach a best-fit level out of 8 for each criterion; sum the four for a total out of 32; convert using the boundaries. Do not weight, average across criteria, or convert percentages.
Amara specifically.
- Rebuild the evidence profile. What does her work show for A, B, C and D separately? A strong exam may indicate criterion A; it does not by itself indicate C.
- Repair the D evidence. If the group presentation was the only D task, that evidence is compromised. Replace or supplement it with an individual communication task in the next two weeks - a short written argument or an individual oral defence - so D rests on her own performance.
- Generate C evidence. With six weeks left, a single well-designed task can produce evidence for C and D simultaneously (for example, an individual written evaluation of sources plus a justified conclusion).
- Apply best fit honestly. She may still be a 6. The point is that the 6 must come from criteria and evidence, not from 88% against an invented scale.
Before reporting. Map which criteria already have sufficient evidence and which do not; design one task to close the gap; moderate as a department against shared samples; and document the evidence used per student. If C evidence proves impossible before the deadline, that gap is an adult failure, not a student one, and the level should be reported with that limitation recorded.
3. Advise the department on the transfer student and on assessment design for the remaining six weeks.
Read the worked answer
The transfer student. The 55% is meaningless in MYP terms because it compares her to a scale she has never been taught. Do a diagnostic against MYP objectives - what she knows, and what she can do in investigating, thinking critically and communicating - and start reporting on criteria from that baseline. Access and inclusion are the ordinary business of the programme, not an exception: consider whether language support or inclusive assessment arrangements are needed, and whether an individual learning plan is appropriate. Her previous system's results should inform support, not be used as a deficit label, and her first MYP report should be understood as a baseline with the school communicating that clearly to her family.
Assessment design for six weeks.
- Audit evidence per criterion per student; identify C and D as the gaps.
- Design two tasks that each yield evidence for more than one criterion: a source-based investigation (B and C) and an individual structured argument (C and D).
- Keep the end-of-unit test but weight it as evidence for A only, and use it formatively first.
- Introduce a moderation meeting with anchor samples so that levels are consistent across teachers.
- Communicate to all parents what an MYP level means before reports are issued, so the appeal does not become a dispute about percentages.