What makes an MYP gradebook different
A general-purpose gradebook is built around points: a task is worth so many marks, categories carry weights, and a percentage falls out at the end. The MYP works differently. In each subject group, teachers assess against four criteria, each judged on a scale of 0 to 8, and the four levels are combined into a total that is converted to a final grade from 1 to 7.
A gradebook can store those numbers and still get the practice wrong. What matters is whether it treats a criterion level as a judgement about a description of quality, or as a mark to be averaged and weighted. The mechanics of the scale, best fit and the boundaries are set out in our guide to MYP assessment criteria; this page is about what to demand from the software.
The features to test
Use the table as a demonstration script. Ask the vendor to show each row on a real class, not describe it.
| Feature | What to check |
|---|---|
| Criteria by subject group | The four criteria for each subject group are present, and you can tell which year's descriptors apply |
| Levels, not marks | A teacher can record a 0 to 8 level per criterion without a percentage in the way |
| Several criteria per task | One task can assess more than one criterion, and a criterion can be seen on many tasks |
| Best fit at the end | The final level for a criterion is the teacher's decision, and the software does not force an average |
| The 1 to 7 grade | The total and the boundary used are visible, and the grade follows from them |
| Task-specific descriptors | A rubric or clarification can be attached to a task and used when marking |
| Evidence and feedback | Work, comments and links sit with the judgement, and feedback can name the strand |
| Standardisation | Teachers can record independent judgements on the same sample and see where they differ |
| History | A changed level leaves a trail showing who changed it and when |
| Reports | Families see criterion levels beside the grade, with a plain explanation of the scale |
| Analytics | Results can be read by student, class and criterion, and over time |
| Getting data in and out | Existing records can come in, and a whole gradebook can be taken out |
The averaging trap
The commonest failure in a gradebook adapted to the MYP is that it averages. Enter levels of 2, 8 and 8 for one criterion across a year and an averaging system reports a 6, when the evidence may say the student now works at the top band. Averaging is not what the programme asks for, and a system that can only average will nudge every teacher toward it.
The test is quick. Put those three levels in and see what the software offers. It should let the teacher choose the final level, and show the evidence on which the choice rests.
Evidence and feedback belong in the same place
A judgement with nothing behind it is hard to defend in a moderation meeting or to a parent. Look for a gradebook where the student's work, the descriptor the teacher used and the feedback are held with the level, so that anyone reviewing the judgement can see how it was reached.
Check who sees what and when. Feedback that reaches a student the moment it is saved is a different workflow from feedback released with a report, and neither is wrong, but the school should choose deliberately.
Standardisation is a feature, not a meeting
MYP schools are expected to keep judgements consistent between teachers, which happens when colleagues mark the same samples and compare. Software can make that cheaper by collecting independent judgements before the discussion and showing the spread, so the meeting begins with the disagreements rather than with finding them. How to run the meeting is in our guide to MYP standardisation.
Where skodle fits
This section names our own product, so weigh it accordingly. Everything above holds whichever tool you choose, and a well-kept spreadsheet is a legitimate MYP gradebook.
skodle's MYP grading records a level from 0 to 8 for each of up to four criteria on a task, one student at a time, and derives a 1 to 7 grade for that task from the four levels using the IB's published boundaries. The criteria library starts with criterion titles rather than the IB's descriptor wording, which a school enters for itself, and a school can edit the library and add a variant for a particular year. A grade stays a draft until a teacher releases it, and report cards and the student's record show only released work; publishing a report card is limited to management and administrators. MYP standardisation is a separate tool in which several teachers record their judgements, a spread of three levels or more is flagged, and the agreed level is written down. Grading actions are written to the audit log. See assessments and gradebook and the IB Engine.
The limits, measured against the table above, and they are real. The 1 to 7 grade is worked out per task, and there is no end-of-year best-fit level: a report card headlines each subject with the grade from its most recent task, above a table of every task's levels, totals and grades, which is neither an average nor a best-fit judgement across the year, and a criterion with no recorded level simply adds nothing to the total. Saving a grade again replaces its levels, and the audit log records that a grade was saved but not what it was before, so there is no history of changes, and any teacher can overwrite another's grade. A task's descriptors are free text in four bands attached to the unit, separate from the reusable rubric library, which does not serve the MYP, and they are not shown while marking. A task grade carries a written comment but no attached work. There is no bulk entry. Standardisation is not blind, is not linked to real student work and does not write back to a grade. The screen does not update live for other people, and there is no MYP import or export. Families see criterion levels only inside a downloaded report card. There is no AI in the MYP grading screen. skodle does not carry the official IB route for registration and coursework submission, which stays in the IB's own systems.
Pricing is per user, per month: $2 per user for up to 150 users, $3 from 151 to 500 users and a custom plan above 500, with parents at half the rate and every feature in every plan. Every new school starts with a free 30-day trial, so the fair test is your own class, using the table above as the script. See pricing.
Reporting to families without the percentage habit
Parents used to percentages will read a 4 out of 8 as half marks unless told otherwise. The report should carry the criterion levels, the final grade and a sentence on what the scale means. If a school needs a percentage for a local transcript, it should publish its own conversion in its assessment policy and label it a school convention, since the IB does not define one. The IB assessment policy guide covers what that policy should hold.
Questions to put to any vendor
Ask these of every supplier, including us, and ask for the answers in writing.
- Can a teacher record a level for one criterion on one task without touching a percentage?
- Does anything in the system average criterion levels, and can that be turned off?
- Where does the 1 to 7 boundary table live, who can see it, and what happens when the IB revises it?
- What does a changed judgement leave behind, and who can read it?
- Can a coordinator see several teachers' independent judgements on one piece of work?
- What do families see, and when do they see it?
- What can be imported from our current gradebook, and what has to be entered again?
- Can we export every record, not only a report?
- Does it carry the IB's own registration and coursework submission route, or is that separate?
How to pilot a gradebook
Pilot with one subject group in one year across a full unit, not a demonstration with invented data. Have the teachers mark a real task in the new system and in the spreadsheet they use now, then compare the results and the effort. Run one standardisation session on the pilot marks, and produce one report for a family to read.
Finish by trying to leave. Ask for an export of everything the pilot created. A vendor that cannot show you that before you buy will not do it gracefully afterwards.
Mistakes schools make when choosing
Most regret comes from a short list of choices.
- Choosing on the report template and discovering the daily marking is slow
- Accepting a percentage conversion as if it were the assessment model
- Assuming the software applies the current boundaries without checking against the IB's documentation
- Buying for one programme when the school also runs another
- Skipping the export test
