On retested chapters
Mean improvement on a chapter between the mock that identified it and the mock that retested it, across roughly 300 students and one term. Chapters not retested are excluded.
A Standard 9–12 cohort
A mock cycle that finally moved
A cohort that had been revising everything and improving at nothing. The fix was not more practice — it was less, aimed better.
+9 pts on retested chapters
+61% practice sets completed
2 chapters issued at a time
3 hrs per week, not six
Two chapters at a time, re-tested
What they were doing,
What they were doing,
and what replaced it.
Standards 9–12 · fortnightly mocks · about 300 students. Measured across one term of fortnightly mocks, against the same cohort’s opening diagnostic.
Before
Blanket revision sheets after every mock, mostly unreturned, covering the whole syllabus including the chapters students were already secure on.
After
Twelve questions on the two chapters that actually cost marks, then the same two chapters re-tested a fortnight later to see whether it worked.
“They were revising for six hours and improving at nothing, because five of those hours were spent on chapters they already had.”
Coordinator, Standards 9–12
How it actually went
Five moments,
Five moments,
in the order they happened.
Not a plan — what they did, including the parts that were not the plan. Pick a moment.
Mock 1
The diagnostic
A full paper across the syllabus, marked to the chapter. The point was not the score — it was the ranking of chapters by marks lost, which no student in the cohort could have produced for themselves.
- Full syllabus, chapter-tagged
- Ranked by marks lost
- Not by percentage
Wk 1
Two chapters, not twelve
Each student got practice on their own top two chapters. Twelve questions, not sixty. The completion rate is the first thing that moved, and it moved before any score did.
- Two chapters per student
- Twelve questions, worked answers
- Completion moved first
Mock 2
Re-test the same two
The step most revision skips. The same two chapters, different questions, a fortnight later — which is the only way to know whether the practice did anything.
- Same chapters, new questions
- Repeats excluded
- Before against after, per chapter
Wk 5
The cohort pattern
Three chapters turned out to be costing most of the cohort marks, not just individuals. Those went back into class teaching rather than into more practice sheets.
- Individual and cohort views
- Three chapters retaught in class
- Practice for the rest
End
Nine points
Nine points on retested chapters, and practice completion up 61%. The coordinator’s reading: the completion number caused the points number, not the other way round.
- +9 pts on retested chapters
- +61% sets completed
- Three hours a week, not six
How each figure was measured
Four numbers,
Four numbers,
and where each came from.
Measured across one term of fortnightly mocks, against the same cohort’s opening diagnostic. A figure without a method is a figure you cannot check, so each one says what it counted and what it did not.
Practice sets completed
Sets marked complete, against the same cohort’s completion rate for the blanket revision sheets used the previous term.
Issued at a time
The cap the school set. Students with more than two weak chapters get the next two after a re-test, not all of them at once.
Per week, not six
Self-reported revision hours from a cohort survey at the end of term, against the same survey the previous year.
What it cost
What got worse
What got worse
before it got better.
Every rollout has one, and a case study without it is marketing. These are theirs, in their own account.
The first mock felt like a step backwardsScores went down before they went up
A diagnostic across the full syllabus, sat cold, produces lower scores than a mock on recently-taught chapters. Several students and a few parents read the first result as a decline. It was not — it was the first honest measurement — but the school had to explain that, and would send a note ahead of it if they ran it again.
Nine points is a chapter figure, not a paper figureAnd the distinction matters
It is the improvement on the specific chapters that were identified and then retested. Overall paper scores moved less, because a paper contains chapters that were never weak. Quoting the nine points as an overall improvement would be dishonest, so the school does not.
A third of the cohort ignored the practiceAnd that group did not move
Roughly one student in three did not complete their sets in the first month, and their retested chapters improved by about two points rather than nine. Nobody was chased. The honest version of this story is that the tool identifies what to do and does not make anyone do it.
If any of that would be a problem where you are, it is worth raising on the first call rather than in the second term.
Two more
Other schools,
Other schools,
other numbers.
All six are measured the same way. See all six
Questions
What coaching heads ask
What coaching heads ask
about this one.
The ones that come up almost every time.
Because a cohort revising all fourteen chapters spends most of its time on the eleven it already knows. Two chapters at a time, re-tested, is the whole change — the platform only made it obvious which two.
They did not do the targeted practice. The platform can tell a student which two chapters are costing them marks; it cannot make them sit down. Reporting the two-thirds figure without that third would be the kind of number this page exists to avoid.
Three. The first gave a snapshot, the second a direction, and the third confirmed it was not noise.
Ready when you are
Bring us last term’s results.
Book a free 30-minute demo. We’ll build the same breakdown from a paper you already ran, so the first number you see is your own.