How to write IB report comments that reference the criteria, not just the grade

IB is criterion-related by design, so the report comment has a job the grade cannot do: say which criteria the student is strong and developing in, and what moves them up the next band. Here is how to write that without it reading like a rubric read aloud.

Written by the Markpilot team, practising teachers · July 2026 · for MYP and DP, all student names invented

Reporting in an IB school is a different task from reporting in a norm-referenced system. The grade is already criterion-referenced, so restating it in words ("Amara achieved a 6") tells the family nothing new. The comment earns its place by doing what a single number can't: locating the student within the criteria, in plain language a parent understands, and naming the one thing that would lift the next piece. The structure below works for MYP subject comments and DP, and it is the same three-part shape good report comments use everywhere, tuned to IB's criterion-related world.

Anchor to the criteria, in words a parent can read

IB criteria are the substance of the comment, but a parent does not know what "Criterion C" is. Translate. Instead of "strong in Criterion A, developing in Criterion C", write what those criteria mean in this subject: "Amara analyses sources with real insight; the developing area is communicating that analysis in a clear, structured line of argument." The criterion is doing the work underneath; the sentence a parent reads is human. This is the single move that separates an IB comment that helps from one that reads like the assessment grid pasted into a report.

Use the command terms as your verbs

IB assessment lives on command terms: analyse, evaluate, synthesise, justify, explain, describe. They are also the most precise way to name where a student sits. "Describes the process accurately but does not yet evaluate its limitations" is worth more than "good understanding", because it names the exact cognitive step to climb and the student knows precisely what evaluating would look like. Command terms turn a vague comment into a targeted one, and they map directly onto the criteria the grade came from.

Name the ATL skill, not just the content

The approaches to learning are where much of the movement between bands actually happens, and they are often the honest explanation of a result. A student whose content is secure but whose grade sits lower is frequently losing marks to self-management (unfinished under time), research (thin or unreferenced evidence), or communication (structure). Naming the ATL skill gives the family and the student something concrete and improvable that content revision alone would not fix: "The next step for Kai is a research skill, gathering and referencing evidence before drafting, rather than more reading of the topic."

The three-part shape, IB-tuned

1. Evidence. A concrete criterion or task the student handled well, translated into plain language.
2. Judgment. Where they sit against the criteria, stated honestly. Kind and clear are not opposites; a parent reads past euphemism.
3. Next step. One criterion or ATL skill to target, specific enough to act on before the next task. One, not four.

What to avoid

• Restating the criterion band in words. The grade is already criterion-referenced. Say what it means and what is next, not the number again.
• Rubric-speak. "Meets the descriptors for the 5 to 6 band" is not a sentence a parent can use. Translate every criterion into plain meaning.
• Praise inflation. IB families are attentive and comparing; thirty warm, interchangeable comments read as exactly what they are.
• The copy-paste tells. A wrong name or a stray pronoun undoes a careful report. Do a final pass on names and pronouns alone.