IBDP RESULTS · MAY 2026
Strong outcomes.
Sharper questions.
A transparent look at attainment, prediction accuracy and seven years of subject performance across Biology, Chemistry, Physics and Environmental Systems & Societies.
Faculty mean0.00+0.49 vs weighted world benchmark
THE 2026 PICTURE
Performance at a glance
Final results only. Filters recalculate the headline measures and course cards.
Subject
Level
INTERACTIVE COMPARISONCompare two coursesMean, benchmarks, predictions, distributions, components and moderationOpen comparison +
versus
Biology HL
n = 40Mean5.13
vs world+0.63
vs predicted-0.40
Components
Paper 1A4.60
Paper 1B5.20
Paper 25.15
IA5.50
IA moderation16.4 → 16.40.00
Grade distribution
Grade 10%
Grade 20%
Grade 310%
Grade 418%
Grade 528%
Grade 640%
Grade 75%
Chemistry HL
n = 37Mean5.05
vs world+0.15
vs predicted-0.27
Components
Paper 1A5.49
Paper 1B4.62
Paper 24.78
IA5.14
IA moderation17.7 → 15.1-2.59
Grade distribution
Grade 10%
Grade 20%
Grade 311%
Grade 424%
Grade 522%
Grade 635%
Grade 78%
Distribution display
WHAT THE DATA SAYS
Success worth celebrating.
Variation worth exploring.
78 grades at 6 or 7
High attainment is distributed across all four subject areas, not concentrated in a single course.
Seven of eight above benchmark
Biology SL sits slightly below the world mean, in a cohort of only five students whose average matched baseline.
Prediction remains a live question
Across courses, awarded grades averaged around 0.13 below teacher predictions, with meaningful variation by course.
COMPONENT ANALYSIS
Where performance was strongest, and where it dipped
Mean component grades make differences within each course visible. ESS uses Paper 1, Paper 2 and the IA; the other sciences use Papers 1A, 1B and 2 plus the IA.
Biology HL
StrongestIA at 5.50
Priority questionPaper 1A at 4.60
IA moderation
16.4→16.4
0.00 marksBiology SL
StrongestIA at 4.40
Priority questionPaper 1B at 3.00
IA moderation
13.2→13.2
0.00 marksChemistry HL
StrongestPaper 1A at 5.49
Priority questionPaper 1B at 4.62
IA moderation
17.7→15.1
-2.59 marksChemistry SL
StrongestPaper 1A at 6.20
Priority questionPaper 1B at 5.00
IA moderation
19.6→16.6
-3.00 marksESS HL
StrongestIA at 4.71
Priority questionPaper 2 at 4.61
IA moderation
17.3→17.5
+0.25 marksESS SL
StrongestIA at 5.44
Priority questionPaper 1 at 4.42
IA moderation
19.9→20.1
+0.20 marksPhysics HL
StrongestIA at 5.50
Priority questionPaper 2 at 4.88
IA moderation
16.9→16.8
-0.08 marksPhysics SL
StrongestPaper 1A at 6.00
Priority questionPaper 2 at 4.40
IA moderation
16.8→16.6
-0.20 marksComponent means are grade-equivalent scores from the workbook. IA moderation compares average raw and moderated marks, so it is shown separately from the grade-scale bars.
COURSE DETAIL
Eight cohorts, one improvement cycle
Each card compares the 2026 mean with the global benchmark, shows grade distribution and traces historical performance.
Biology HL
BSJ mean5.13
World4.5
Difference+0.63
2026 grade distribution
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Seven-year comparison
Hover, tap or use year buttons2026BSJ 5.13World 4.5Predicted 5.53Joint-lowest BSJ mean in this seven-year series.
Prediction history is unavailable; the predicted marker is shown for 2026 only.
Consistently above the world average, although the advantage has narrowed in recent years.
Biology SL
BSJ mean4.00
World4.3
Difference-0.30
2026 grade distribution
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Seven-year comparison
Hover, tap or use year buttons2026BSJ 4.00World 4.3Predicted 3.40BSJ was below the world mean by 0.30.
Prediction history is unavailable; the predicted marker is shown for 2026 only.
A very small cohort of five. Outcomes matched the cohort baseline average of 4.0.
Chemistry HL
BSJ mean5.05
World4.9
Difference+0.15
2026 grade distribution
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Seven-year comparison
Hover, tap or use year buttons2026BSJ 5.05World 4.9Predicted 5.32BSJ was above the world mean by 0.15.
Prediction history is unavailable; the predicted marker is shown for 2026 only.
At or above the world average in every year shown, demonstrating sustained achievement.
Chemistry SL
BSJ mean6.00
World4.5
Difference+1.50
2026 grade distribution
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Seven-year comparison
Hover, tap or use year buttons2026BSJ 6.00World 4.5Predicted 6.00BSJ was above the world mean by 1.50.
Prediction history is unavailable; the predicted marker is shown for 2026 only.
Exceptional 2026 outcomes, with four of five students achieving a grade 6 or 7.
ESS HL
BSJ mean4.61
World4.5
Difference+0.11
2026 grade distribution
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
NEW COURSE MILESTONEFirst ESS HL cohort
There is no valid HL trend to compare yet. These 2026 results establish the baseline for future cohorts.
The first examined HL cohort finished just above the world average.
ESS SL
BSJ mean5.19
World4.3
Difference+0.89
2026 grade distribution
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Seven-year comparison
Hover, tap or use year buttons2026BSJ 5.19World 4.3Predicted 4.77Joint-lowest BSJ mean in this seven-year series.
Prediction history is unavailable; the predicted marker is shown for 2026 only.
Strong performance continued, with almost half of the cohort achieving a grade 6 or 7.
Physics HL
BSJ mean5.17
World5.0
Difference+0.17
2026 grade distribution
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Seven-year comparison
Hover, tap or use year buttons2026BSJ 5.17World 5.0Predicted 5.42BSJ was above the world mean by 0.17.
Prediction history is unavailable; the predicted marker is shown for 2026 only.
A modest recovery from 2025, returning above the global benchmark.
Physics SL
BSJ mean5.20
World4.4
Difference+0.80
2026 grade distribution
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Seven-year comparison
Hover, tap or use year buttons2026BSJ 5.20World 4.4Predicted 5.40BSJ was above the world mean by 0.80.
Prediction history is unavailable; the predicted marker is shown for 2026 only.
All students achieved grade 4 or above, with the cohort comfortably above the world average.
FROM RESULTS TO ACTION
Data is the start of the conversation.
Notice
Identify patterns in attainment, components, moderation, predictions and baseline comparisons.
Interrogate
Test explanations against cohort size, curriculum experience and the evidence in student work.
Act
Choose a small number of teaching or assessment responses that teams can implement and monitor.
Review
Return to the evidence, evaluate impact and refine the next improvement cycle.
SUBJECT IMPROVEMENT COMMITMENTS
Evidence into action.
Subject teams reviewed their results, identified one meaningful priority and agreed a practical change to implement and evaluate during the year.
BIOLOGY · TEAM REVIEW
Improving reasoning in multiple-choice questions
Evidence worth celebrating
Strong, accurately moderated HL internal assessment
Twenty-one of 40 HL students achieved an IA component grade of 6 or 7, including 13 grade 7 outcomes. The cohort mean remained unchanged through moderation at 16.4 marks.
13IA grade 7s
21IA grades 6–7
0.0moderation change
Evidence
Paper 1A requires attention
At HL, Paper 1A was the lowest mean component at 4.60, compared with 5.20 for Paper 1B, 5.15 for Paper 2 and 5.50 for the IA. The SL cohort was very small, with Paper 1A at 3.20 and Paper 1B at 3.00.
Priority
Strengthen MCQ decision-making
Develop students’ deductive reasoning, interpretation of command wording and ability to discriminate between plausible answer choices.
Action
Frequent, purposeful practice
Use short Paper 1A tasks as lesson starters and at the end of units. Build a shared unit-by-unit quiz bank and assign targeted Kognity multiple-choice practice.
Review
Track accuracy and error patterns
Establish a common baseline, review performance each term and categorise errors by question type to decide whether the approach is improving outcomes.
CoordinationKSA
Share and maintain the unit quiz bank.
ImplementationBiology team
Use common practice routinely across classes.
Review pointEnd of each term
Compare results with the shared baseline.
CHEMISTRY · TEAM REVIEW
Building confidence in data analysis
Evidence worth celebrating
Strong Paper 1A performance and excellent SL outcomes
HL Paper 1A was the strongest examined component, with a mean grade of 5.49. The SL cohort achieved an overall mean of 6.00, while the HL mean rose from the previous year and most outcomes were close to or above predictions.
5.49HL Paper 1A mean
6.00SL overall mean
+0.15HL versus world
Evidence
Paper 1B is the clearest opportunity
The HL Paper 1B component mean was 4.62, the lowest of the four HL components. IA marks were also moderated down by an average of 2.59 marks, an unusual change compared with the team’s recent experience.
Interpretation
Students need more data-analysis practice
The team identified limited rehearsal of Paper 1B-style data interpretation as a plausible factor. The new syllabus and its IA expectations will also be reviewed carefully before firm conclusions are drawn.
Action
Practise, diagnose and revisit
Build regular Paper 1B data-analysis questions into teaching using Kognity, InThinking and other shared resources. Re-scrutinise the 2026 internal assessments alongside examiner feedback to sharpen future guidance and marking.
Review
Track skill growth and moderation accuracy
Use common data-analysis tasks during the year, compare error patterns across classes and review internal-assessment marking against agreed standards before final submission.
ImplementationChemistry team
Embed regular Paper 1B practice across the course.
Quality assuranceShared IA review
Use examiner feedback to refine marking decisions.
Evidence of impactPaper 1B and IA
Compare common-task outcomes and moderation with the 2026 baseline.
ESS · TEAM REVIEW
Securing HL knowledge and attendance
What the team will build on
Excellent SL outcomes and reliable IA moderation
SL achieved a mean of 5.19, 0.89 above the world mean, with 20 of 43 students achieving grade 6 or 7. The first HL cohort also finished above the world mean. IA moderation was stable at both levels.
+0.89SL versus world
20SL grades 6 or 7
+0.11HL versus world
Evidence
HL Paper 2 is the priority
The first HL cohort included more grade 3 outcomes than expected and only two grade 7s. Paper 2 was slightly below Paper 1, pointing towards factual knowledge and extended-response performance as areas to strengthen.
Interpretation
Attendance affected continuity
The team review identified substantial Term 3 attendance concerns among several lower-attaining students. Strong SL Paper 2 outcomes suggest essay teaching alone does not explain the HL pattern.
Action
Protect revision and retrieval time
Continue weekly study classes from February, complete course content by early March, and use the remaining lessons for structured knowledge retrieval, Paper 2 essays and targeted feedback.
Review
Intervene earlier on attendance
Monitor Year 13 attendance closely, escalate concerns promptly with the IB team, and review Paper 2 performance during the year to identify students needing additional support.
ImplementationESS team
Deliver study classes and shared Paper 2 practice.
Shared responsibilityESS and IB teams
Respond early to sustained attendance concerns.
Evidence of impactPaper 2 performance
Compare knowledge, essays and grade 3 outcomes with the 2026 baseline.
PHYSICS · TEAM REVIEW
Strengthening investigative skills
Evidence worth celebrating
Strong HL outcomes and performance above global benchmarks
The HL cohort achieved a mean of 5.17, above the world mean of 5.0, with 11 of 24 students earning a final grade of 6 or 7. The small SL cohort achieved a mean of 5.20, 0.80 above its world benchmark.
11HL final grades 6–7
+0.17HL vs world
+0.80SL vs world
Evidence
Investigative outcomes need attention
The team identified Paper 1B as an improvement opportunity. Although the HL IA component mean was 5.50, no students achieved an IA component grade of 7. This refers specifically to the IA, not the final Physics grade.
Priority
Develop investigative skill and independence
Give students more structured opportunities to practise the planning, analysis and evaluation demanded by Paper 1B and the internal assessment.
Action
More practice and sharper moderation
Increase purposeful Kognity homework, devote more teaching time to investigative skills and strengthen IA moderation, particularly at the upper and lower performance boundaries.
Review
Look for stronger investigative outcomes
Review Paper 1B performance and the IA component distribution during the year, using common moderation discussions to identify whether students are demonstrating greater independence and precision.
ImplementationPhysics team
Build investigative practice into teaching and homework.
Quality assuranceShared moderation
Examine work at the upper and lower boundaries.
Evidence of impactPaper 1B and IA
Compare subsequent outcomes with the 2026 component pattern.
Select a completed subject review to see the evidence, response and planned evaluation.