If there ever was a time the economics colleagues need to raise a questioning eyebrow, now might be the time. A colleague returned recently from an IB workshop having been told that Internal Assessment (IA) portfolios were to be graded differently for HL – e.g. that HL students were expected to utilise concepts from HL Extensions in the syllabus.

This was apparently quite explicitly stated during the workshop and created quite a stir amongst the colleagues attending. No wonder. The economics syllabus states quite clearly that:


It would be very disturbing if there was some sort of ‘unwritten’ or ‘implied’ rule that HL portfolios should have a focus on HL Extension topics. I am hoping that it’s a case where a recommendation has been garbled via the grapevine and become a ‘rule’. For example, a few years ago I heard from several experienced IB teachers that definitions in data response questions were to contain a valid example in order to earn full marks. This turned out to be untrue (instead it is a weak definition WITH a valid example that can earn full marks) but didn’t hinder fretful teachers around the world from passing on this advice to students as though it were carved in stone.

I would be very grateful if anyone out there has heard the above!