Unraveling the Impact of Predicted Grades and Early University Admissions on the DP Ethos

As a psychologist and educator, I have observed a profound ripple effect within the educational system stemming from the use of Predicted Grades and early university admissions, particularly impacting the fundamental ethos of the Diploma Programme (DP). Of greater concern is the discernible toll on the mental well-being of both teachers and students. In this article, my aim is to delve into the various layers at which the very essence of the Diploma Programme (DP) is influenced by the imperative for Predicted Grades and early university admissions within the educational system.

The Systemic Greed: Why Predicted Grades, in the first place?

Who needs the hassle of, you know, actually waiting for students to finish their internal assignments and final exams? Let's just ask their teachers to predict the future. Easy, right? So here's to the glorious journey of PGs (premature gray hairs, perhaps?), The University system's insistence on predicted grades (PGs) for early university admissions raises serious questions about its motives. In the case of programs like the DP (Diploma Program), where students are only halfway through, the demand for PGs seems driven by systemic greed. With just one year completed out of 2, students have barely undergone two semesters and a few formatives. While understanding a student's potential is an ongoing process, universities, seemingly motivated by a desire to cherry-pick the best candidates, impose the burden on teachers. This premature judgment not only jeopardizes students' futures but also reveals a system more focused on self interest than on fostering fair and comprehensive evaluations.

Are Teachers supposed to be the Fortune Tellers?

One of the inherent flaws in the current system is the assumption that teachers possess clairvoyant abilities to accurately predict a student's academic trajectory. Teachers, dedicated to cultivating learning, are not fortune tellers capable of foreseeing a student's performance months in advance. Until comprehensive assessments like mock exams cover the entire syllabus, and students finish their IAs, teachers cannot fully predict how a student's potential will translate into grades.

Although teachers may glean some understanding of a student's intellectual capacity, the true demonstration of that potential unfolds in standardized assessments—an entirely distinct arena. These assessments are characterized by stringent structures and encompass factors like memory recall, the student's physical and mental condition during multiple daily papers, performance anxiety, rhetorical proficiency and time management. A student might possess profound conceptual acumen and significant potential, but their aptitude to navigate a comprehensive curriculum under the constraints of time and the pressure of standardized paper-and-pen assessments is an altogether different challenge.

Expecting teachers to foresee and predict the outcomes of all these variables, especially when only half a year has passed and extensive syllabus-based exams have not been conducted, is neither fair nor realistic. Universities should acknowledge the limitations of expecting clairvoyant insights from educators and recognize the multifaceted nature of student capabilities, which may not be fully captured by early assessments. The pressure on teachers to act as fortune tellers, predicting a future performance laden with uncertainties, is an unfair imposition on their professional role.

It fundamentally contradicts the philosophy of educators to impose an upper limit on a student's ability. Each educator is expected to believe in the infinite potential of a child. However, requesting teachers to assess and declare the maximum potential of a child is entirely unnecessary and goes against the essence of their role. Teachers are meant to foster and nurture a student's capabilities without placing restrictive caps on what they can achieve. The idea of determining a student's absolute upper limit is both unwarranted and counterproductive to the ethos of education.

Why Aren't Past and Present Grades Enough? - Let Universities Make the Call

If universities seek the best students, they should rely on past and present records rather than imposing predicted grades. Reframing PGs as Current Essential Grade would allow universities to make judgments based on existing achievements. The audacity of universities to question and gaslight schools and teachers if PGs do not align with final grades places undue pressure on educators who are, in essence, coerced into a speculative exercise. Allowing universities to evaluate students based on their current and past grades rather than predicting future performance would be a fairer and more just approach.

Instead, let's redefine the term "Predicted grade" to "Current Essential Grade." While it reflects the present status, acknowledging that the future holds countless possibilities remains crucial.

Why Put Teachers in a Dilemma and Psychological Stress? - Implications on Teachers Mental Health

The psychological and emotional stress that teachers undergo when forced to predict a student's future performance is considerable. Teachers find themselves caught between the fear of being questioned if predictions prove inaccurate and the dilemma of potentially shattering a student's dreams by setting premature limits on their potential. It's an untenable situation that places unnecessary strain on educators, affecting both their professional well-being and the dynamics of their relationship with students.

Imagine a student oscillating between the lukewarm realms of 5 and 6 in these bite-sized assessments. Now, picture a teacher, armed with their mystical powers of clairvoyance , deftly pinpointing the student as a steadfast 5. The teacher is left pondering, caught in the contemplative swirls of academia, wondering if this budding intellect might ascend to the lofty heights of a potential 6 in the months that lie ahead. But amidst all this educational clairvoyance, a lingering question refuses to fade: why on earth burden a teacher with this mystical crystal ball responsibility?

Navigating the Complexity of Multiple Variables

Now, let's delve into the mental acrobatics a teacher endures. Imagine the emotional stress and guilt as they break the news to the eager learner, "Hey, you're destined for a 5, my deterministic crystal ball says so." Sure, statistically, it's a safe bet. But hold on —there's a slim chance this kid might burn out with larger content and score a 4, or, dare I say, soar to a majestic 6, when they decide to unleash their full potential in the coming moths of DP. Amidst these musings, there exists the delicate possibility that the student might veer towards a less stellar 4, succumbing to the perils of burning out or spiraling downward amid the weight of larger content assessments and a potential lack of motivation to endure the impending onslaught of EE, TOK essays, and IAs. In this tangled web of uncertainties, there's also the wildcard scenario: picture the day of exams, where the unfortunate student faces the Herculean task of tackling three exams back-to-back. In the third exam, the child, overwhelmed, goes blank and lands a less-than-impressive 4. Now, one must ponder: is a teacher meant to juggle these myriad variables, playing the omnipotent puppeteer in the drama of academic fate? It's almost as if we expect them to be the masters of time, motivation, and unforeseen exam day curveballs. Quite the Herculean task, isn't it?

The Teacher Caught Between Student, School, and University

Regardless of how the future unfolds, here's the kicker: why ask a teacher to slap an upper cap on a kid's potential? How does that teacher maintain eye contact with the student for the rest of the academic year, having essentially penned in their potential to a mediocre 5? Even when the teacher may generously bestows a 6, there's that lingering worry—what if the student tanks to a 4 later? Cue the hypothetical gaslighting inquiry: "Why did you unleash a 6 on this unsuspecting child?" Now, let's dissect the teacher's existential dilemma. They're sandwiched between three juggernauts: the student, the school, and the university. The student scowls at the teacher for stifling their dreams of an elite university. The university grills the teacher for 'inflating' grades, insinuating a lack of professional judgment. Meanwhile, the school, caught in the crossfire, juggles the complaints from both ends, desperately trying to appease everyone. Is this really what a teacher's professional prowess boils down to? A circus act orchestrated by systemic demands, rooted in what can only be described as greed? The teacher, it seems, is trapped in a quagmire of expectations, questioning the very essence of their professional worth. Quite the spectacle, isn't it?

The ramifications of this systemic nuisance on the ongoing two-year academic course of the Diploma Programme (DP)

The ramifications of this systemic nuisance on the ongoing two-year academic journey of the DP are far-reaching. With Predicted Grades (PGs) becoming a prerequisite for university applications expected by October, students find themselves forcibly diverting their focus to early applications, inadvertently disrupting the natural flow of the DP. This premature fixation on the outcome stands as a paradox, defeating the very purpose of the DP process, which is designed to unfold organically. There's a rationale behind placing final assessments at the end of the DP—they are strategically positioned to align with the natural progression and flow of the coursework. Yet, the relentless push from universities for early PGs injects an unwarranted urgency, unsettling the harmony of the academic journey.

Shifting Assessment Ethos : PG-Informed Assessments

To substantiate the Predicted Grade (PG), educators meticulously design assessments, encompassing both formative and summative evaluations, as well as semester-end examinations, ensuring they accurately mirror the expected PG. to prevent a student from achieving a 7 or 6 prematurely. Teachers express concerns about the potential scenario wherein a student excels in smaller assessments, leading them to anticipate a PG of 6 or 7.

To preempt such expectations and establish the PG mathematically, even early assessments are strategically planned to address this systemic nuisance. Internally, as part of the DP coursework, the intricacies should not be driven by such pressures built by universities. Universities should solely rely on the DP final grades as the authentic indicator of a student's potential. The challenge with the current system extends to schools deciding whether to disclose the Predicted Grades (PG) to students.

Picture a scenario where every formative and summative assessment is influenced by the apprehension of having to explain and defend the PG assigned to a student, ensuring fairness and avoiding the disappointment of shattering someone's aspirations. While the 7-pointer scale is well-suited for comprehensive assessments like mock exams and the final DP exams, it may seem less meaningful for smaller, bite-sized assessments. Nevertheless, the persistent issue of predicted grades (PG) has pressured schools to align their assessments with the 7-pointer scale.

Disclosing the PG – Transparency vs. Preserving Hope?

Career counselors find it tough as they navigate telling a student, for instance, to reconsider applying to top-tier universities due to average PGs. Schools grapple with choices— share the exact PG, give a general range, or keep the student unaware. Regardless, it's a tricky situation.

Imagine the impact on a student when told, "You've reached the halfway point, and your potential max is a 5, do whatever you can!" It's disheartening, and it can crush a student's motivation. Additionally, think about a student who receives a 7, gets an unconditional offer, and then may lose interest in studying further. These scenarios disrupt the natural progression of the DP. It's a challenging aspect of the education system, impacting students in various ways. If universities can't resist the urge to rush the process, they may resort to relying solely on past and current grades, bypassing the need for these disruptive mid-course predictions. After all, creating such a nuisance amidst the ongoing academic course hardly seems conducive to fostering a genuine and enriching educational experience.

PGs as the Ultimate Motivator

Crucially, Predicted Grades (PGs) have evolved into the singular motivator shaping student behavior within the Diploma Programme. The dichotomy of rewards and consequences associated with PGs has become the predominant catalyst driving student engagement, influencing their commitment to learning, completion of assignments, and performance in assessments. The question that arises is whether the motivation to enroll in a two-year program such as the DP can be exclusively tethered to the allure of PGs, particularly when these grades are disclosed well in advance of the actual DP assessments.

DP 2 - Ample Time for Students to Catch Up

Allowing students the opportunity to demonstrate improvement over the next months of the DP 2 would be a more reasonable approach. Students, motivated by the prospect of university admission, can work hard and catch up on any perceived shortcomings. This approach values the potential for growth and development, providing a more realistic and compassionate perspective that aligns with the true essence of education. Providing predicted grades midway through the coursework goes against the core principles of education.

Conclusion

I urge universities to embrace an organic approach to the Diploma Programme (DP) and refrain from asking for Predicted Grades (PGs) and wait until the final grades of the IB assessments are released. The current trend of premature cherry-picking is disrupting the authentic educational culture of the DP Highschool education. The capitalistic university admission process is permeating down from DP to MYP, turning education into a mere exercise of portfolio building, focusing on PGs, and promoting a grade-oriented mindset. This shift is undermining the very essence of the finest educational philosophies.

Students, teachers, and schools are paying a hefty price, sacrificing their mental health, educational philosophy, and overall sanity to meet the demands of this systemic greed. I implore you to consider the long-term well-being of the educational system and advocate for a more patient and genuine approach to evaluating students. Let the true spirit of education prevail over the pressures of a profit-driven system.

Imagine if high school teachers worldwide collectively decided to withhold Predicted Grades (PGs). Universities heavily rely on us, the educators. Without our cooperation, they would need to reevaluate their admission processes.

It's a simple truth: they need students more than we need their current approach.

If we unite and refuse to participate in this system, universities would be compelled to find alternative ways to assess applicants, perhaps relying more on current grades and historical data. It's time for us to reclaim some agency in this process. By no longer complying with this disruptive practice, we can push for a more reasonable and student-centric approach to university admissions. It's a small but significant step toward reshaping the dynamics of this system.