Whole-School Assessment Policy

What is changing in 2026–2027

The shift is about how we assess, not just when. In short:

• Feedback comes first. Timely, usable feedback — returned while it can still be acted on — is the engine of progress, not an add-on to a grade.
• Quality of assessment over quantity. Fewer, better-designed assessments that genuinely evidence learning, rather than many that crowd it out.
• Every grade can be evidenced. Grades rest on a clear body of evidence against the criteria; students and parents have every right to ask how a grade was reached , and teachers can show them.
• Reflection and ownership built in. In Grades 9–12 , where final and examination-style assessment has its place, time for reflection and target-setting is built in just as with every other assessment — students at this stage are best placed to take ownership of their learning.
• Developmentally appropriate change lower down. End-of-semester final examinations are removed in Grades 6, 7 and 8 ; examinations in Grades 9–10 focus on Mathematics, Sciences and Languages, with other subjects assessed through authentic MYP tasks.
• Windows, not a published calendar. The MYP moves to internal assessment windows for summative assessment (§15) — formative assessment and feedback continue regularly throughout; departments map assessments and agree common departmental agreements; communication with parents continues to strengthen.

See §9A — What Is Changing in Our Assessment for the detail. The AI section is also streamlined to plain guidance (§20), and best-fit, cumulative assessment is reaffirmed throughout.

At Advanced Learning Schools (ALS), assessment is an integral part of learning, teaching and curriculum design. It is planned from the beginning of each unit, aligned with International Baccalaureate (IB) expectations and Saudi national requirements, and used to generate meaningful evidence of student understanding.

Teachers use formative assessment to provide timely, specific and actionable feedback to students. Summative assessment provides reliable evidence of achievement against agreed criteria. Assessment practices are standardised and moderated regularly to ensure consistency across classes, sections and programmes.

Grades are professional judgements based on evidence of learning. Students are expected to understand the criteria, act on feedback, and take increasing ownership of their progress as they move through the PYP, MYP and DP continuum.

This policy exists for three reasons:

• Improvement of learning: to embed assessment practices that have the strongest evidence of improving student learning, including formative assessment, high-quality feedback, criterion-referenced judgement, and the use of evidence to adjust teaching.
• Coherence and consistency: to provide a single, shared framework that aligns assessment expectations across the PYP, MYP and DP, across the boys' and girls' sections, and across subject teams.
• Regulatory and accreditation alignment: to ensure ALS meets IB Programme Standards and Practices and the assessment, grading, reporting and database requirements set out by the Saudi Ministry of Education (MOE) and the Education and Training Evaluation Commission (ETEC).

The policy is not intended to be philosophical only. It is intended to be practical and usable. It explains what teachers do, how feedback is given, how grades are determined, how moderation is conducted, how assessment information is recorded and reported, and how the school protects students from assessment overload.

3.1 Who must follow this policy

This policy applies to all members of the ALS community involved in teaching and learning, including teachers, IB and programme coordinators, subject lead teachers, grade level leaders, learning support staff, EAL teachers, librarians, counsellors, divisional leadership and the Senior Leadership Team. Students and parents are required to understand the parts of the policy that affect them.

3.2 When and where it applies

The policy applies across all programmes (PYP, MYP, DP), in all learning environments (classrooms, specialist spaces, remote learning), and across the academic year, including reporting periods, examinations and conferences.

3.3 When external rules take precedence

Where the IB sets specific assessment regulations (for example, DP general regulations, MYP eAssessment regulations, IB academic integrity policy), those regulations take precedence over this policy. Where the Saudi MOE or ETEC sets specific reporting, grading or database requirements (including those for Ministry subjects and national assessment), those requirements also take precedence and are met by ALS in addition to IB expectations.

3.4 Exclusions and special situations

Students with identified learning support needs or who qualify for inclusive assessment arrangements are assessed in line with the ALS Inclusion Policy and the IB Access and Inclusion Policy. Any modification to a standard assessment must be formally documented and approved by the IB Coordinator, in coordination with the Learning Support team and the Subject Lead Teacher.

The following terms appear throughout this policy. Definitions are aligned with current IB publications, in particular Assessment principles and practices — Quality assessments in a digital age (IB, 2018), the PYP, MYP and DP “From principles into practice” documents, and current Programme Standards and Practices (IB, 2020).

This policy is research-informed. The expectations set out below reflect the findings of the assessment literature most relevant to schools, alongside the IB's own assessment principles.

5.1 Formative assessment improves learning

Black and Wiliam's review of more than 250 studies found that strengthening classroom formative assessment produces substantial gains in achievement, particularly for lower-attaining pupils (Black & Wiliam, 1998a; 1998b). Their work underpins the expectation in this policy that teachers use ongoing, low-stakes assessment to guide teaching and feedback.

“The research reported here shows conclusively that formative assessment does improve learning. The gains in achievement appear to be quite considerable.” — Black & Wiliam (1998b), Phi Delta Kappan, p. 141.

5.2 Feedback is most effective when it closes the gap

Sadler (1989) sets out the foundational model of feedback: the learner must (a) possess a concept of the standard being aimed for, (b) compare their current performance against that standard, and (c) take action to close the gap. Hattie and Timperley (2007) extend this with three feedback questions — Where am I going? How am I going? Where to next? — and four levels of feedback: task, process, self-regulation and self. The ALS expectation that feedback should be specific, actionable and tied to criteria comes from this evidence.

5.3 Five strategies of formative assessment

Wiliam (2011) sets out five strategies of formative assessment that ALS teachers are expected to use across all programmes:

1. Clarifying, sharing and understanding learning intentions and success criteria with students.
2. Engineering effective classroom discussions, tasks and activities that elicit evidence of learning.
3. Providing feedback that moves learning forward.
4. Activating students as instructional resources for one another (peer assessment, peer feedback).
5. Activating students as owners of their own learning (self-assessment, reflection, goal setting).

5.4 Understanding by Design (UbD)

Wiggins and McTighe (2005) argue that assessment evidence should be designed before learning activities. ALS expects unit planning to follow this logic — the Understanding by Design (UbD) approach: identify desired learning outcomes, decide what evidence will count, then design the learning experiences. This is reinforced by IB unit planners across the three programmes.

5.5 Feedback culture, not feedback compliance

Hattie's synthesis of meta-analyses (Hattie, 2009; 2023) identifies feedback as among the most powerful influences on student achievement, with the caveat that the effect varies enormously depending on the type of feedback. Praise unrelated to the work, vague comments, or feedback given after the class has moved on can be neutral or counter-productive. ALS therefore frames feedback as a culture of dialogue, revision and improvement, not a checklist.

Assessment at ALS is grounded in the IMPACT Framework. The framework expresses the school's assessment values in a way that connects with the IB Learner Profile and the school's mission.

Fostering an assessment culture requires the development of assessment capability among all members of the learning community. The table below summarises what assessment does for each group.

ALS uses the for / as / of framework as the spine of its assessment thinking across PYP, MYP and DP. The terms are technical, so the table below also includes a student-friendly version that teachers can use with learners and parents.

9.1 Formative assessment: feedback, not just a gradebook

Formative assessment is frequent, purposeful and directly connected to teaching and learning. Formative assessment does not need to be graded. In many cases, grading formative work reduces student risk-taking and shifts the focus from improvement to performance.

However, formative assessment must still generate useful evidence. Teachers should be able to explain, when asked: what the formative assessment told them about student understanding; how it informed their teaching; how students received feedback; how students acted on that feedback; and how the formative assessment links to the learning objectives and leads towards the summative.

Examples of strong formative practice at ALS include hinge questions, exit tickets, mini-whiteboard checks, draft submissions, peer critique against shared criteria, teacher conferencing, self-assessment against task-specific criteria, structured discussion protocols, concept maps and short low-stakes quizzes.

9.2 Summative assessment: planned at the start, not added at the end

Summative assessment is planned at the beginning of a unit, not added at the end. Teachers use the Understanding by Design (UbD) approach (Wiggins & McTighe, 2005) to identify the desired learning outcomes, decide what evidence will count, and then design the learning experiences that prepare students to demonstrate that understanding.

This does not mean that every summative task must happen at exactly the same point in every unit. It means that teachers should avoid designing units where the summative is the final event before moving on, because students then have no opportunity to use the feedback.

9.3 Suggested unit assessment sequence

9.4 Range and balance

ALS teachers use a range of assessment formats across each year. Over time, students should encounter performance tasks, extended writing, oral and presentation tasks, design and creative tasks, inquiry investigations, structured tests and authentic real-world tasks. No single assessment format should dominate a course.

From 2026–2027 we are changing how we assess across the MYP, not just when. The principle underneath every change is the same: a consistent assessment philosophy delivered through a genuine variety of methods, so that students experience assessment as a coherent, cumulative part of learning rather than a series of disconnected, high-stakes hurdles.

1. Feedback is the priority

Timely, specific, usable feedback — returned promptly, while it can still be acted on — is the main driver of progress. Lesson time is built in for students to act on it. A grade with no usable feedback is a record; timely feedback is a learning event. (The specific working turnaround window is set out in the Teacher Guide.)

2. Quality of assessment over quantity

We are deliberately reducing the volume of summative assessment and raising its quality. Fewer, better-designed tasks that genuinely evidence learning are worth more than many that crowd out teaching, feedback and reflection.

3. Every grade can be evidenced

Grades are professional, best-fit judgements resting on a clear body of evidence against the criteria. Students and parents have every right to ask how a grade was reached , and teachers are able to show the evidence and the criteria behind it. Transparency of this kind is an expectation, not a courtesy.

4. Reflection, target-setting and ownership — for every grade

Time for reflection and target-setting is built into assessment for all year groups , KG to Grade 12 — and crucially it is built into semester summative assessment , not reserved for end-of-term final examinations. Reflection is part of how students learn from a summative, not an afterthought once results are in. As students move up the school they become increasingly independent, so in the senior years they are best placed to take ownership of their own learning ; assessment at ALS is framed to develop that ownership, not simply to measure it.

5. Developmentally appropriate change in the lower MYP

• End-of-semester final examinations are removed in Grades 6, 7 and 8 . In their place, assessment is cumulative and any end-of-semester summative is developmentally appropriate rather than high-stakes.
• Traditional finals are replaced with meaningful summative opportunities to reflect, improve and demonstrate growth against selected criteria.
• In Grades 9–10 , examinations focus on Mathematics, Sciences and Languages ; Individuals & Societies, Design, Arts and Physical & Health Education continue with authentic, performance-based MYP assessment where more appropriate.
• Across 6–8 especially, assessment is cumulative : each criterion is assessed more than once, so a dip on one task is recoverable and the final picture reflects the trajectory and the most consistent, most recent evidence.

6. Planning, windows and shared agreements

• Departments map their summative assessments before the year begins — type, assessment window , and criteria.
• The published MYP assessment calendar is replaced by internal assessment windows (§15): a teacher-planning tool that prevents congestion and is not published to students or parents.
• Each department develops common departmental assessment agreements aligned with this policy, and communication with parents about assessment and learning continues to strengthen.

Professional development supports all of this, particularly in Grades 6–8 where high-quality, timely feedback is the key driver of growth. Programme-level detail sits in the MYP Assessment Annex, and the guidance for secondary Subject Leads and Grade Level Leaders is set out there.

Feedback is the practice most strongly associated with improvement in student learning (Hattie & Timperley, 2007; Wiliam, 2011). At ALS, feedback is treated as a professional skill that all teachers continue to develop. Students are placed at the centre of assessment and feedback: quality feedback matters above all because it helps the learner move forward — it is not a compliance record of teacher marking.

10.1 Definition of quality feedback

Drawing on Sadler (1989) and Hattie and Timperley (2007), high-quality feedback at ALS is timely (given while it can still influence learning); specific (linked to the learning intention, success criterion or IB criterion descriptor); actionable (clear next steps the student can use); manageable (focused on the most important next steps, not every error); focused on learning (about the task, process or self-regulation, not personal praise); connected to criteria (especially in MYP and DP); used by students (with time to respond, revise, reflect or apply it); and constructive, not judgemental — it describes the work and the next step, never the person.

For feedback to improve learning, three things must be true: it must be actionable, understood by the student, and used by the student. Teachers therefore build in dedicated lesson time for students to respond to feedback while it can still influence learning, consistent with the expectation that feedback is timely (the working window is set out in the Teacher Guide).

10.2 Hattie's three feedback questions

1. Where am I going? (Clarify the learning goal and success criteria.)
2. How am I going? (Compare current performance to the goal.)
3. Where to next? (Identify specific actions to close the gap.)

10.3 What feedback is not

Feedback at ALS is not: a grade or percentage on its own; ticks, crosses or smiley faces without comment; vague encouragement such as “good work” or “try harder”; long written comments that students do not read or use; correction of every error without prioritising the most important next step; or comments given after the class has already moved on. A grade may tell a student where they are; feedback helps them understand how to improve.

10.4 Turnaround: timely feedback

Feedback is most powerful when students can still use it, so ALS expects feedback to be timely, predictable and useful — returned while it can still influence learning and clearly connected to the student's progress. The right timing depends on the nature, length and complexity of the task: short, formative work warrants a quick turnaround, while longer, criterion-rich or moderated tasks reasonably take a little longer. Where full written feedback will take time, teachers give interim feedback — whole-class notes, common strengths and misconceptions, annotated exemplars or verbal feedback — so students are never left with nothing to act on.

The specific working window (and a decision guide for how quickly to return different task types) is set out in the Teacher Guide, Guide 3 — so that the main policy states the principle and the guidance holds the detail.

10.5 Examples of effective feedback strategies

• Live, in-the-moment feedback during a lesson based on circulating and questioning.
• Whole-class feedback sheets that capture common strengths, common errors and one focused improvement task.
• Coded feedback where consistent marks (e.g. C = clarify, E = evidence, V = vocabulary) point students to specific revisions.
• Annotated exemplars at three levels of achievement, used as a teaching tool before students revise.
• Criteria-highlighted feedback that shows the level descriptor reached, the next descriptor up, and one concrete next step.
• Structured peer critique using Berger's three rules: kind, specific, helpful (Berger, 2003).
• Student reflection prompts that require students to summarise the feedback in their own words and identify how they will use it.

10.6 The feedback cycle at ALS

The loop is continuous — step 6 feeds back into step 1. Feedback is only meaningful when it is used, so lesson time is allocated for students to act on it, reflect and set targets.

10.7 Quality feedback across the continuum

PYP — Feedback is descriptive, developmental and linked to learning intentions. Because the PYP does not grade in the same way as the MYP or DP, feedback helps students understand what they are learning, what they are doing well and their next step. It may be verbal, visual, written, peer-based or teacher-guided.

MYP — Feedback connects clearly to the relevant assessment criteria and task-specific criteria (TSCs). Students should understand how their work relates to the criteria and what they need to do to improve. Feedback supports reflection, revision and future performance.

DP — Feedback supports students in understanding the demands of DP assessment, including command terms, subject-specific expectations, internal assessment requirements and external examination standards. It helps students improve the quality, precision and independence of their work.

All three IB programmes are criterion-referenced. At ALS, criterion-referenced assessment means that students are assessed against clearly defined criteria, descriptors or standards. It does not mean comparing students against each other; grading on a curve; rewarding effort instead of achievement; averaging every task mathematically without professional judgement; or converting everything automatically into a percentage.

Good criterion-referenced assessment at ALS includes clear learning intentions; clear success criteria; use of IB assessment criteria and task-specific criteria (TSCs) aligned with IB expectations; student access to criteria before the task; opportunities to examine exemplars; teacher standardisation before assessment where possible; moderation after assessment where needed; and feedback linked directly to the criteria.

Task-specific criteria (TSCs) are not only teacher-facing documents. Students actively use TSCs to understand expectations, guide their work, reflect on their progress and identify next steps for improvement.

Standardisation and moderation are essential to fairness and consistency at ALS, especially in a school with parallel boys' and girls' sections. They are not limited to end-of-semester or end-of-year examinations — they are part of ongoing collaborative practice.

12.1 Standardisation: agreeing expectations before assessment

Before students complete a common assessment, teachers review the task together; clarify the learning outcomes and criteria; agree what strong, secure and developing performance might look like; review sample responses or exemplars where available; check that the task is accessible and aligned with what has been taught; and confirm expectations across boys' and girls' sections.

12.2 Moderation: comparing judgements after assessment

After assessment, teachers compare samples of student work across classes and sections; review borderline judgements; check consistency in the use of task-specific criteria and descriptors; discuss any significant variation in results and adjust where needed; identify teaching implications; and adjust future planning if needed.

12.3 Moderation flow

Before assessment Standardisation — agree the standard together

Agree expectations

Review task-specific criteria

Check the task

Align judgement

↓ Students complete the assessment ↓

After assessment Moderation — check judgements are consistent

Compare samples across classes & sections

Discuss judgements

Adjust where needed

Record the evidence

12.4 What is moderated and how often

12.5 What good standardisation and moderation look like

ALS treats standardisation and moderation as two linked quality-assurance processes. Standardisation is quality assurance of the assessment itself: it makes sure a task is checked, agreed and fit for purpose before it is carried out, and that teachers share a common understanding of the standard expected. Moderation is quality assurance of judgements: it makes sure grading and feedback are of consistent quality across teachers, classes, departments and sections.

Standardisation is working well when no common summative task is sat before it has been reviewed by at least one other teacher and checked against the criteria and taught content; when teams can articulate, before marking, what strong, secure and developing responses look like; and when expectations, timing and access arrangements are confirmed across sections beforehand.

Moderation is working well when any two teachers, in either section, would award the same achievement level for the same work; when feedback sampled across classes is of comparable quality, linked to the TSCs and usable by students; when variation is discussed openly and resolved with reference to the descriptors; and when moderation produces teaching implications, not just a check of grades.

12.6 Documenting and monitoring moderation

Every standardisation and moderation activity is briefly documented using the moderation record template (Appendix D). The record captures the task and date, participants, samples reviewed, judgements compared, adjustments agreed, observations about feedback quality, and teaching implications. Completed records are stored in the shared programme assessment folder. Standardisation precedes every common summative task; team-level moderation follows the schedule in 12.4; and cross-department, cross-sectional moderation takes place at least once per semester, organised by the Coordinators. Coordinators sample records each semester and report to SLT annually. A completed record should normally take no more than ten minutes.

13.1 Recording achievement

All summative assessments are recorded on Toddle (PYP and MYP) and on the agreed DP gradebook. Formative assessments inform teaching and are recorded where useful, but are not all entered formally. Teachers retain assessment evidence (work samples, annotated TSCs, conference notes) for at least one academic year for moderation and reporting purposes.

13.2 Grading principles

• Formative assessment is normally unweighted. It is used for feedback, diagnosis and improvement.
• Summative assessment provides the main evidence for reported achievement.
• Classwork and homework may inform teacher judgement but do not distort achievement grades.
• Behaviour, effort, punctuality and participation are reported separately where appropriate and do not inflate or reduce academic achievement grades.
• No single task determines a final grade in isolation. Final judgements are based on the body of evidence.

13.3 Reporting cycle

ALS issues formal written reports at the end of each semester (twice per year), with a mid-semester progress report in each semester for Secondary, in line with MOE expectations for three reporting points across the year. Reports include achievement levels based on the relevant programme criteria; progress indicators; targeted feedback for improvement; approaches to learning / learner profile indicators where applicable; and Ministry-subject percentage grades where required by MOE.

13.4 Reporting cycle

Term 1 — mid-term progress check

Semester 1 report (formal)

Three-way / student-led conferences

Term 2 — mid-term progress check

Semester 2 report (formal)

End-of-year review

Continuum transition (PYP→MYP→DP→post-school)

13.5 Conferences and student-led conferences

Three-way and student-led conferences are organised once per semester in the PYP and at key reporting points in the MYP and DP. They are opportunities for students to share evidence of learning, reflect on progress and set goals. Conferences are not graded events; they are part of the assessment-as-learning cycle.

DP2 — Semester 1

DP2 — Semester 2

ALS operates under both IB and Saudi regulatory frameworks. The Saudi MOE expects schools to report data into the national database (Noor), in the percentage format required by the Ministry, and to deliver and assess Ministry subjects (Arabic, Islamic Studies, Saudi Social Studies of the Arab World). The IB expects assessment to be criterion-referenced, with grades based on professional judgement against published descriptors. These frameworks are reconcilable but require active management. ALS uses a single, centrally-approved conversion model; individual teachers do not create their own conversion tables.

14.1 Principles for reconciliation

• IB criterion-referenced grades remain the primary professional judgement for IB programme subjects.
• Conversion to a percentage for Noor reporting is an administrative step, not a re-assessment.
• Ministry subjects are assessed against MOE expectations using the percentage system required by the Ministry.
• Where percentage grades are required on internal reports for IB programme subjects, the same centrally-approved conversion is used.
• Teachers report both the IB grade (1–7 for MYP/DP; descriptor for PYP) and the converted percentage where required.

14.2 Converting IB grades for Noor reporting

Where a percentage is required for the Noor system, ALS applies a single, centrally-approved conversion from the IB 1–7 scale (and the PYP descriptors). The conversion is maintained by the SLT in consultation with the IB Coordinators and the MOE liaison, applied consistently across the school, and communicated to teachers, students and parents at the start of each year. The specific conversion table in force is held centrally by the registrar and the Coordinators rather than reproduced here, so that it can be reviewed and updated against MOE / ETEC requirements without re-issuing this policy.

14.3 Ministry subjects

Ministry subjects — Arabic Language, Islamic Studies, Saudi Social Studies / National Studies and Defence of the Homeland — are taught from MOE-approved curriculum and assessed against Ministry standards. They are reported in the percentage format required by Noor. Where these subjects also sit within an IB programme framework (for example, Arabic A in the DP), teachers report both the IB grade and the Ministry percentage. In the MYP, Islamic Studies and Social Studies of the Arab World sit within Individuals and Societies, and Arabic within Language and Literature. As a Ministry school, all required end-of-year grades and relevant summative outcomes are entered into the Noor platform as a compliance requirement.

14.4 Promotion and the 50% MOE pass mark

The MOE pass mark of 50% applies to Ministry subjects for Saudi national students. The school applies IB promotion criteria for the IB programme subjects, alongside MOE expectations for Saudi national students in Ministry subjects. The Promotion and Retention procedure (held by the registrar and divisional leadership) sets out the full process.

If a student is below 50% in a Ministry subject. A mark below the MOE pass mark is not left as a dead end. In line with Ministry rules, the student is normally given a further, supported opportunity to reach the required standard — for example remedial work and a re-sit or make-up assessment at the point the MOE prescribes — and teaching support is put in place in the meantime. Where a subject remains below the pass mark after that opportunity, the Promotion and Retention procedure determines what follows (for example a compensatory arrangement, or repeating the relevant work). Parents are informed early, told the specific next steps for their child, and kept updated through to resolution.

Assessment scheduling is a shared responsibility. From 2026–2027, the MYP moves away from a published assessment calendar and instead works with internal assessment windows agreed for staff planning. The IB Coordinators (PYPC, MYPC, DPC) oversee scheduling in collaboration with Subject Lead Teachers, Grade Level Leaders and divisional leadership. The DP continues to use a published internal calendar, because DP scheduling is anchored to fixed external IB examination dates and milestones; the PYP plans within its programme of inquiry.

15.1 What a window is, and who sees it

• Windows are an internal planning tool for teachers only . They are shared so departments can coordinate; they are not published to parents or students.
• A window does not need to specify topic or method at the point it is set. Departments retain the flexibility to choose the most appropriate unit or inquiry through which students demonstrate their learning.
• Windows are mapped before the start of the year (type, window, criteria) and recorded where the relevant programme team can see the whole picture across subjects, alongside planning in Toddle.

15.2 Workload protection

Windows exist first to protect students from assessment congestion. As a planning guide, students should not normally have more than three summative assessments within any one week or defined assessment period . Where windows cluster, the relevant Coordinator and Subject Leads adjust them so that major tasks are balanced across subjects rather than stacked together. Coordinators have the authority to ask teachers to move deadlines to protect student workload. Subject Leads should build the wider picture into their windows and task design and flag clashes early.

15.3 Purpose

The move to windows is intended to improve coordination across subjects and sections and to protect the quality of student preparation, performance and reflection, while removing the pressure and rigidity that a published, fixed calendar can create. The central question remains whether the structure is manageable for students and supports quality learning, rather than mere compliance with deadlines. (This revision resolves the “for consideration” review action raised on 4 June 2026 regarding the MYP assessment calendar.)

16.1 MAP Growth

MAP Growth is a computer-adaptive standardised assessment of achievement and growth in reading, language usage and mathematics. ALS uses it as a diagnostic and growth measure, not as the primary source of evidence for individual student achievement grades. MAP data is used to identify trends across cohorts and grade levels, support targeted intervention, inform differentiation, monitor growth over time, support curriculum review, and triangulate with classroom evidence and IB assessment. MAP results do not replace teacher judgement or IB criterion-referenced assessment.

16.2 NAFS

NAFS (نافس) is the Saudi national assessment programme run by ETEC. It measures performance against Saudi national learning standards, primarily in Arabic, Mathematics and Science, in Grades 3, 6 and 9, and is administered in line with ETEC instructions. NAFS data supports national compliance, school self-evaluation, identification of curriculum strengths and gaps, trend tracking, and the school's contribution to Vision 2030 / Human Capability Development Program goals. NAFS is not used as the sole basis for individual student achievement grades.

16.3 International benchmarks

Where ALS participates in PISA, TIMSS or PIRLS sampling, the school engages constructively with ETEC, follows the relevant protocols, and uses any returned data alongside classroom evidence to inform curriculum review. ALS also participates in NSMO2 and other approved standardised or international assessments where required. MAP, NAFS, NSMO2 and any other standardised data are never viewed in isolation; they are interpreted alongside internal assessment data, teacher professional judgement, classroom evidence and report-card grades.

ALS is committed to inclusive assessment. All students have the right to demonstrate their learning fairly. Inclusive assessment is operationalised in close coordination with the ALS Inclusion Policy.

17.1 Access arrangements

Approved access arrangements for students with identified learning support needs may include additional time; rest breaks; a separate venue with reduced distractions; approved assistive technology; modified format (enlarged print, screen reader); colour-vision-deficiency accommodations (materials that do not rely on colour coding alone, alternative palettes, or clear labelling in addition to colour); a reader or scribe where appropriate; and alternative response modes (oral, recorded) where the construct allows. Arrangements must be agreed in advance, documented in the student's learning support file, and applied consistently in classroom and external assessments. For DP, access arrangements must additionally comply with the IB Access and Inclusion Policy and be requested through the formal IB process.

17.2 Differentiated tasks

In some cases, students may complete differentiated assessment tasks that target the same learning outcomes through an accessible format. Differentiation is a curriculum design decision, not a lowering of expectations.

17.3 EAL learners

For students learning in English as an additional language, teachers consider language demand alongside the construct being assessed. Where the construct is not language itself, language scaffolds, glossaries and visual supports may be provided. Inclusive assessment extends to EAL and English language learners, and to any student requiring additional access arrangements, so that language demand does not obscure what is being assessed. The ALS Language Policy sets out the wider principles.

Language is central to assessment. ALS expects teachers to use clear, jargon-free instructions, especially in the early stages of a programme; teach the academic language of the discipline explicitly; identify and address language barriers to demonstrating knowledge and understanding; use bilingual scaffolds where appropriate; treat command terms (analyse, evaluate, justify, etc.) as taught content, not assumed background knowledge; and share student-friendly versions of success criteria alongside formal TSC language. These principles apply equally to assessment in Arabic, English and other languages of instruction.

Academic integrity is essential to valid assessment. The detailed expectations, processes and consequences sit in the ALS Academic Integrity Policy. The relevant assessment-specific expectations are summarised here: all work submitted for assessment must be the student's own; sources used must be acknowledged using the citation conventions agreed in each programme and reinforced from the upper PYP onwards; collaboration is permitted where the teacher has authorised it for that task, with clear boundaries; cheating, plagiarism, collusion, duplication of work and the unacknowledged use of AI tools are forms of academic misconduct; and concerns are investigated under the Academic Integrity Policy, with sanctions that are educative as well as restorative, especially in the PYP and lower MYP.

ALS recognises that artificial intelligence is part of the learning landscape. Students need to learn to use it ethically, critically and appropriately. We do not treat AI only as a threat to academic integrity; used well, it can support inquiry, feedback, language development, organisation and reflection. The IB does not ban AI but expects its use to align with academic integrity (Glanville, 2023). AI must never replace the student's own thinking, voice, skill development or responsibility for the work submitted. This section deals with AI in assessment only; the wider ALS AI Policy and the ALS Academic Integrity Policy cover approved tools, data protection, and investigation and consequences, and take precedence in their own domains.

20.1 Setting expectations for each task

For every summative task, the teacher makes clear — in plain language on the task itself — whether and how AI may be used . This ranges from “not used for this task” (for example, work completed under direct supervision) through to “used openly for specified purposes such as brainstorming or feedback on a draft.” The expectation is communicated as part of the task instructions, not policed after the fact.

20.2 Designing assessment in an AI-rich environment

The most reliable response to AI is good assessment design rather than surveillance. Where it matters that the work is the student's own, teachers foreground process and in-class evidence : drafts and planning, oral explanation or defence of reasoning, in-class writing, observation, checkpoints during longer tasks, comparison of draft and final submission, and tasks anchored in the specific context of the unit. These also strengthen the cumulative, criterion-referenced picture this policy is built on.

20.3 AI and feedback

Teachers may use AI to help generate or sharpen feedback, exemplars, practice questions or differentiated explanations, but the professional judgement and the final assessment decision remain the teacher's . AI-generated comments are checked, edited and owned by the teacher before they reach students. Teachers do not input personally identifiable student information, sensitive data, or confidential assessment material into public AI tools.

20.4 If you suspect AI has been misused

Concerns about authenticity are handled through the Academic Integrity Policy , using the same professional, evidence-based approach as any other integrity concern — a conversation with the student, attention to process evidence (drafts, plans, prior work), and professional judgement. AI-detection tools are not reliable and are not used as proof ; at most they are a prompt to investigate through the normal pathway.

20.5 Teaching students to use AI well, across the continuum

We teach students to use AI as a learning partner: to question its output, check it against sources, and remain responsible for their own understanding. Expectations are age-appropriate: in the PYP , AI use is highly guided and students do not use AI independently to produce assessed work; in the MYP , students are taught explicitly how to use AI ethically and transparently, with assessment increasingly requiring process evidence and student explanation; in the DP , students receive formal guidance because of the higher-stakes nature of internal assessment and externally assessed work, use AI transparently where permitted, and remain responsible for the accuracy, originality and integrity of submitted work.

21.1 Homework and out-of-class learning

Homework supports learning by providing purposeful practice, consolidation and preparation. It is not used as a substitute for in-class teaching. Where homework is assessed formatively, it is used to inform teaching and feedback. Where it contributes to summative judgement (mainly in MYP and DP), the contribution is transparent to students and parents.

21.2 Late and missing work

Submission deadlines are part of professional learning. When work is late or missing, ALS uses an educative and proportionate process rather than automatic grade reductions for IB assessment work:

1. Teacher logs the missed deadline and contacts the student.
2. Student is given a defined extension where the reason is legitimate, with an adjusted deadline.
3. If the work remains missing, the teacher refers to the Subject Lead / Grade Level Leader.
4. Coordinator and Counsellor are notified where there is a pattern; parents are informed.
5. Where evidence is insufficient to make a valid judgement, the report indicates “NA / Not Assessed (insufficient evidence)” rather than a fabricated grade.

Requesting an alternative assessment is not a student's choice: the administration verifies the reason for any absence and decides whether an alternative is granted, and any approved alternative is a different task to protect assessment validity. For an end-of-year grade, teachers must have assessed each relevant criterion at least twice before a final grade is awarded.

21.3 Chances to improve

Chances to improve are not automatic; they are a professional decision based on learning evidence, structured and connected to learning. Students are told clearly what they may improve, what evidence they must provide, what timeline applies, and how the opportunity connects to the original TSCs. In Secondary, a chance to improve may be considered where the original assessment did not provide reliable evidence; where there were legitimate absence, wellbeing or access issues; where the student has completed additional learning or correction work; where the teacher believes a reassessment would provide better evidence; and where the reassessment is manageable and fair to other students. Approval is required from the teacher, the Subject Lead Teacher, and where appropriate the Coordinator. In Primary, the language of “redos” is generally avoided; teachers provide ongoing opportunities to revisit, practise and improve as part of the normal learning cycle.

Assessment data is used at ALS to inform teaching, learning, intervention and school improvement, interpreted alongside professional judgement and qualitative evidence. Teachers use formative and summative evidence to adjust teaching, identify misconceptions and plan intervention, and should be able to produce evidence of how assessment information is informing teaching. Subject teams review unit design, task quality and TSC usefulness; grade-level and subject teams review assessment data at least once per semester and develop a clear improvement plan. Coordinators monitor programme implementation and trends; SLT uses aggregated data for school improvement planning and professional learning; counsellors and Learning Support identify students who may benefit from targeted support. Data is not used to make high-stakes decisions about individual teachers in isolation.

23.1 Use of data across the continuum

ALS operates a whole-school data-review cycle across four moments — MAP Growth window analysis, end-of-unit moderation, semester reporting review and annual programme review — each with defined participants, core questions and decisions. PYP data is used to understand growth, identify needs, inform planning and support differentiation; MYP data to monitor achievement against criteria, identify patterns across subjects, support intervention and inform workload conversations; DP data to monitor readiness for internal and external assessment, track predicted and actual performance and support pathway planning. Through the school assessment portal, teachers and leaders triangulate MAP data, internal grades, report-card grades, standardised data (NAFS, NSMO2), IB results, professional judgement, and evidence of wellbeing and engagement. The social-emotional counsellor uses data to identify wellbeing trends; the college/careers counsellor uses it for transcripts, applications and pathway planning.

Where assessment evidence suggests that a student is at risk of not meeting expectations, the school follows a graduated response. The pathway is also used by parents and teachers raising concerns.

Teacher identifies the concern and meets with the student.

Teacher contacts parents; targeted classroom strategies begin.

Subject Lead / Grade Level Leader joins; support is coordinated.

Coordinator + Learning Support / Counsellor convene; a support plan is made.

Divisional leadership reviews; access arrangements agreed if needed.

Reviewed at the next reporting point; closed when resolved.

24.1 Assessment at programme transition points

Assessment information is shared carefully at key transition points — particularly Grade 5 to Grade 6 and Grade 10 to Grade 11 — to support continuity and the early identification of concerns. This is an assessment-readiness responsibility (how students develop criterion literacy, examination composure and assessment vocabulary), distinct from curriculum articulation, and required by IB Programme Standards and Practices. Grade 5 to 6 (PYP to MYP): shared information may include the learner profile, ATL, literacy and numeracy development, learning-support needs and readiness for MYP criterion-referenced structures. Grade 10 to 11 (MYP to DP): subject choices, readiness for DP study, academic habits, predicted areas of challenge and any support needed.

This policy operates alongside the ALS Academic Integrity Policy, the ALS AI Policy, and policies for inclusion, language, promotion and retention, reporting, counselling and student support, safeguarding and wellbeing, digital learning, and data protection, as well as Ministry-compliance procedures.

26.1 Implementation

This policy comes into effect on 1 August 2026. The Coordinators work collaboratively with school leadership, teachers and support teams to support consistent implementation, review and development of assessment practices. Professional learning is provided in August 2026 and during the autumn term.

26.2 Monitoring

The policy is monitored termly through Coordinator audits of assessment windows/calendars and reported feedback timeliness; samples of teacher feedback reviewed at moderation meetings; student voice surveys on the clarity, usefulness and timeliness of feedback; parent feedback through conferences and surveys; and review of reported grades and Noor reporting consistency.

26.3 Review

The policy is formally reviewed every two years (next review May 2028), or earlier if there are significant changes to IB guidance, Saudi MOE or ETEC requirements, or school practice. The 2026–2027 changes to MYP assessment will be evaluated within this cycle. The review is led by the Coordinators, with consultation across teachers, students, parents and leaders.

This policy was developed through a collaborative and inclusive process led by the school leadership team. An Assessment Task Force, composed of IB coordinators and representatives from each programme division and from the boys' and girls' sections, drafted and revised the document. Faculty input was gathered through working groups focused on formative assessment, summative practices, inclusion, reporting and evidence collection. Subject Lead Teachers, Grade Level Leaders and the SEN and Learning Support teams reviewed sections relating to their areas. Student voice was incorporated through surveys and focus groups, and parent perspectives through consultation sessions. The revised draft was reviewed and approved by the Senior Leadership Team and presented to the School Board.

The working templates for everyday use live in the Teacher Guide (Guide 8 — Templates), so they sit where teachers actually use them and can be updated without re-issuing this policy. The set is:

• Assessment task header — placed on every major task (subject, criteria, success criteria, window, feedback turnaround, AI expectations, access).
• Whole-class feedback sheet — strengths, common misconceptions, one focused improvement task.
• Chance-to-improve request — the form used when a reassessment is proposed.
• Moderation record — completed at the end of each standardisation or moderation meeting (see §12.6).

The former student AI declaration form has been removed in this version, in line with the streamlined §20.

References are provided in approximate APA style. Where IB documents are cited, the most recent publicly available version is referenced; schools should verify document versions through My IB before publication.

Berger, R. (2003). An ethic of excellence . Heinemann. · Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (1998a). Assessment and classroom learning. Assessment in Education, 5 (1), 7–74. · Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (1998b). Inside the black box. Phi Delta Kappan, 80 (2), 139–148. · Dweck, C. S. (2006). Mindset . Random House. · ETEC. (n.d.). About ETEC. · Glanville, M. (2023). Statement from the IB about ChatGPT and AI in assessment and education. IBO. · Hattie, J. (2009). Visible learning . Routledge. · Hattie, J. (2023). Visible learning: The sequel . Routledge. · Hattie, J., & Timperley, H. (2007). The power of feedback. Review of Educational Research, 77 (1), 81–112. · IBO (2018). Assessment principles and practices — Quality assessments in a digital age . · IBO (2018, ongoing). PYP: From principles into practice . · IBO (2020). Programme standards and practices . · IBO. MYP: From principles into practice . · IBO. DP assessment: Principles and practice . · IBO (2023). Artificial intelligence in learning, teaching and assessment. · Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. Noor system; NAFS national assessment programme. · NWEA. MAP Growth. · Sadler, D. R. (1989). Formative assessment and the design of instructional systems. Instructional Science, 18 (2), 119–144. · Vision 2030. Human Capability Development Program. · Wiggins, G., & McTighe, J. (2005). Understanding by design (2nd ed.). ASCD. · Wiliam, D. (2011). Embedded formative assessment . Solution Tree. · Wiliam, D., & Thompson, M. (2008). Integrating assessment with learning. In C. A. Dwyer (Ed.), The future of assessment (pp. 53–82). Erlbaum.

Benchmark IB continuum policies consulted: International School of Hellerup (Denmark); Aspengrove School (Canada); Mahindra International School (India).

assessment; formative assessment; summative assessment; assessment for/as/of learning; feedback; quality feedback; Hattie; Black and Wiliam; Sadler; Wiggins and McTighe; Understanding by Design (UbD); criterion-referenced; best-fit; cumulative assessment; standardisation; moderation; task-specific criteria; success criteria; assessment windows; PYP; MYP; DP; IB continuum; reporting; conferences; portfolio; MAP Growth; NAFS; NSMO2; ETEC; Saudi Ministry of Education; Noor; Ministry subjects; conversion table; workload; chances to improve; late work; AI; artificial intelligence; academic integrity; learner profile.