Why we don't "predict" exam papers

Jan 21, 2026 4:45:00 PM

Colleagues, I need to make a very clear statement: We do not predict exam papers. We refuse to.

And here's what puzzles me: I've been thanked for predicting them hundreds of times. Teachers have written to say, "Your infographics helped us predict the topics, thank you." Students have asked, "Are you going to predict Paper 1 this year?" Parents have said, "We appreciate that you predict the papers so our child can focus." And I think: colleagues, you're giving us credit for something we fundamentally do not do.

So today, I want to clarify what we actually do—because the distinction matters enormously. For your students. For your integrity as educators. And for their exam preparation.

The title is deliberate

Let me be candid: the title sounds like a selling point turned into a disadvantage. "Why we don't predict"—wouldn't most providers flip that and say "Why we DO predict"? Perhaps. But here's the thing: claiming to predict exam content is, in my view, pedagogically irresponsible. It's overpromising certainty you cannot possibly have to young people whose futures depend on proper preparation.

I know this is provocative. I know some of you reading this use providers who advertise predictions, and I'm not here to judge that choice. But I am here to ask you to think carefully about what "prediction" actually is—and what it isn't.

Let me confess something first

Over the past ten years, I've watched The EverLearner grow from a teaching resource repository into what we hope is a serious PE learning and revision support system. We've always published infographics. We've always highlighted Hot Topics. We've always provided analysis of past papers. And we've always been clear: this is not prediction; this is analysis.

But I've also watched teachers interpret our infographics as predictions. I've watched parents believe we can foresee the future of exam boards. I've watched students use our Hot Topics as a shortcut: "Mr Simms, if the infographic says somatotype is a Hot Topic, does that mean it'll definitely come up?"

And every time I've had to say: “No. It doesn't mean that. Here's what it actually means…”

Which brings me to the real problem. I think many providers—intentionally or not—blur this line. They market "predictions" or "predicted papers" because it sounds powerful. It promises certainty. It appeals to the anxiety that sits at the heart of exam season: What if we've missed something? What if we've prepared for the wrong content?

I get the appeal. I really do. But I will not make a promise I cannot keep to a young person preparing for their future.

Here's what prediction actually is (and why it fails)

Prediction, in the exam revision industry, typically means this:

"Based on trends, here are the topics we think will appear on the 2026 exam papers. Focus on these. De-prioritise the others."

It sounds scientific. It sounds data-driven. It feels like wisdom.

But here's what it really is: educated guesswork.

Exam boards are deliberately unpredictable: they rotate through content, they introduce new contexts, and they ask familiar topics in unfamiliar ways. A topic that appeared heavily three years ago might appear lightly this year—or not at all. A skill that hasn't been examined in a certain way might suddenly be the focus of 12 marks across four questions.

When we tell students, "These topics will appear, so learn these deeply and skim the others," we're gambling with their exam preparation. And when that prediction is wrong—when a "hot" topic doesn't appear, or a supposedly "safe" topic becomes central—students face one of two outcomes:

They've studied irrelevant content deeply and missed relevant content entirely.
They feel betrayed: "I was told to focus here, and it wasn't even on the exam."

I've seen this happen. I've spoken to teachers who've used prediction-based resources and watched their students arrive at exams having studied the "wrong" topics. It's heartbreaking. And it's why I refuse to do this, no matter how commercially attractive it might be.

Here's what we can—and cannot—reliably predict

Let me be precise, because precision matters here.

We CANNOT Reliably Predict	We CAN Reliably Predict
Which specific topics will appear in summer 2026	The command words and question types students will face
The exact sporting, movement or health contexts examiners will use	The assessment structure and marks allocation
Whether a topic will appear as a one-mark question or an extended-writing question	The skills students need to access marks (AO1, AO2, AO3)
The exact wording of extended-response questions	Historical patterns of paper structure and timing demands
Which exam boards will prioritise which content	What “Analyse”, “Evaluate”, “Justify”, etc. mean in mark-scheme terms

Do you see the difference?
The left side is guesswork, however educated. The right side is pattern recognition from forensic analysis of past papers.

Here's the thing: we've analysed every PE or Sport paper since 2017. We've coded command words. We've mapped assessment objectives. We've tracked which skills appear most frequently. We've examined mark schemes to see where students lose marks. And from that analysis, we can say with near-certainty: students will need to analyse processes, evaluate multiple perspectives, justify their reasoning, and structure extended responses.

We cannot say: “Somatotype will appear on Paper 2.”

But we can say: ‘Students must be able to explain, analyse and evaluate somatotype if it appears, or any other content.”

So what do we actually do?

This is where I want to reframe entirely. The EverLearner's revision system (and the thinking behind it) is built on a completely different foundation. It's not "predict the future." It's "prepare for anything."

Layer 1: Forensic analysis (our infographics)
We've analysed past papers exhaustively. Our infographics show:

✅ Paper structure: How many marks, how much time, what types of questions
✅ Command-word breakdown: Which command words appear most, in which contexts
✅ Assessment-objective distribution: What percentage of marks are AO1 vs AO2 vs AO3
✅ Content-frequency analysis: Topics examined over five or 10 years, showing patterns and rotations

(You can download our 2026 infographics here - customers, they are available via your revision pages when logged in.)

This is a transparent methodology. Teachers can see exactly what we've analysed and how. They can replicate it. They can disagree with our conclusions. It's not a black box; it's a glass box.

And here's the crucial part: this is NOT a prediction. It's an invitation to prepare comprehensively because you cannot predict which parts examiners will emphasise next.

Layer 2: Strategic depth (our Hot Topics)
Here's where I think we've been misunderstood.

When we highlight Hot Topics, we are NOT saying: “These will appear, so focus here and skip the others.”

We're saying: “These topics have historically been heavily examined, OR they demand extended-writing responses, OR they require deep analytical thinking, OR they involve multiple assessment objectives. Go deep on these—not because they'll definitely appear, but because IF they appear (and they very well might), you'll be ready with confident, articulate, well-evidenced responses.”

The selection logic is straightforward:

Frequency: Topics that appear across multiple past papers warrant deep understanding
Mark weight: Topics that carry 6, 7, 9 or more marks need extended response fluency
Difficulty: Topics that commonly confuse students need extra explanation and practice
Recency: Topics recently introduced or recently absent are worth monitoring

And here's the pragmatic truth I shared in our webinar, 'Raising PE results in 2026: High-impact revision strategies for your PE and Sport students': 10 topics is a reasonable amount for a 90-minute revision session.

We're not asking students to choose between studying and not studying; we're saying: “Here's what to overlearn so you're unshakeable when it appears.”

Layer 3: The critical piece (exam technique – The Roadmap)
But here's where most revision providers fall apart—and where we've deliberately invested.

Prediction-based providers focus almost entirely on content. "Study these topics. Learn these facts. Remember these examples." And then students arrive at the exam and freeze because they don't know what “Analyse” actually means in an exam context, or how to structure a nine-, six- or 15-mark response, or which question to answer first.

The EverLearner's Gold tier includes PE Exam Technique—Powered by The Roadmap. It's a foundation layer that teaches students:
✅ Command words decoded: What does “Analyse" mean? How is it different from "Evaluate"? What evidence do examiners expect?
✅ Question architecture: How are papers structured? What does Paper 2 demand that Paper 1 doesn't?
✅ Strategic time management: How to approach an exam paper, which questions to tackle first, and how long to spend on each section.
✅ Answer scaffolding: How to build short-form, medium, and extended responses that access all marks available.
✅ Paper processing: How to read a question, identify the command word, spot the assessment objective, and deploy the right skill.

This is the prediction that matters. We can predict with absolute certainty that students will face command words. We can predict they'll need to write extended responses. We can predict that strategic time management will cost or gain them marks. And we can prepare them for this systematically—not hope they figure it out in the exam hall.

Why this distinction matters (beyond philosophy)

Let me ground this in outcomes.

I've worked with schools that used prediction-based revision systems. I've watched students study one topic for three months because it was predicted—and then it didn't appear. I've watched students struggle with evaluation questions because their revision focused on content, not command words. I've watched Year 11s sit down in May and realise they don't actually understand how to structure an extended response, despite knowing the content well.

And I've worked with schools using our analysis-based, skills-centred approach. Their students arrive at exams ready for any content because they've:

Studied comprehensively (not just predicted topics)
Developed deep fluency with high-leverage content (via Hot Topics)
Learned the exam architecture and skills required (via Exam Technique)

The grade difference? Significant.

The uncomfortable truth about prediction

Here's something I need to say directly to colleagues: prediction is tempting because it promises to reduce anxiety. For teachers, it feels like a solution: "If I focus on predicted topics, I'm doing something." For students, it feels like permission to narrow focus: "If these 10 topics are predicted, I don't have to learn the others as well."

But it's a false comfort. It's trading one anxiety (the breadth of the specification) for another (the anxiety of preparing for the wrong content).

And here's the commercial reality: providers market predictions because they sell well. They appeal to that anxiety. They promise certainty. They look like they offer a shortcut. And because schools are under massive pressure to raise results, predictions feel like a viable strategy.

I understand the temptation. But I also understand what we'd be sacrificing: our integrity and students' genuine preparation.

What we're asking you to do instead

If you work with The EverLearner—or if you're considering it—here's what we're asking:

1. Use our infographics for what they are: forensic analysis.
Don't treat them as predictions. Treat them as a map of the terrain. They tell you: "Here's what exams typically ask. Here's how marks are distributed. Here's which skills appear most." Armed with that knowledge, prepare your students for all of it, not a predicted subset.

2. Use Hot Topics as strategic depth, not lottery tickets.
Don't tell students, "These 10 topics will probably appear." Tell them, "These 10 topics have historically been significant OR demand deep analytical thinking. Master these so thoroughly that whenever they appear—and many will—you answer with confident, well-structured, evidence-rich responses."

3. Invest in exam technique systematically.
Stop leaving command words, answer scaffolding and paper processing to chance or last-minute intervention. Build it into your revision calendar. If you're a Gold-tier customer, The PE Exam Technique course does this for you. If you're not yet, join us.

4. Teach students to handle any question, not guess which questions will appear.
This is the real shift. Instead of saying, "We've predicted X will appear, so focus here," say, "We cannot predict which specific questions will appear. So we're preparing you to answer any question on any topic with confident, well-structured, evidence-based responses."

This is harder than prediction. It requires comprehensive preparation. But it's also infinitely more honest—and infinitely more effective.

The practical framework

Here's what this looks like in action:

Prediction approach	Analysis + skills approach
"Study these 10 predicted topics deeply; skim the others."	"Study all topics comprehensively; go deeper on high-leverage topics."
Content knowledge is the goal.	Content knowledge PLUS exam technique is the goal.
Revision is about memorising more.	Revision is about fluency, retrieval, and strategic thinking.
Students hope their predicted topics appear.	Students are ready for any topics that appear.
Anxiety remains: "What if my predictions were wrong?"	Confidence builds: "I can handle whatever's on this paper."
Results are contingent on prediction accuracy.	Results are contingent on preparation quality.

An invitation (not a demand)

Now, I'm fully aware that some of you will read this and think I'm being naive or precious. Some of you will say, "But analysis IS a form of prediction." Some will argue that narrowing focus is a practical necessity given workload and time constraints. Some will say that successful exam boards do publish patterns, and it's logical to prepare for those patterns.

You might be right about some of it. I'm genuinely open to that debate.

But here's what I'm asking: think carefully about the distinction between analysis (which we can share transparently) and prediction (which we cannot responsibly make). And think about what message you're sending to your students when you ask them to prepare for a narrowed set of topics rather than preparing them to handle any topic that appears.

I've chosen to refuse prediction because I believe it's the more honest path. It's harder to market. It's more demanding on students. But it's also more reliable, more ethical, and more aligned with what students actually need.

If you disagree, I'd genuinely value hearing why. Email me at james@theeverlearner.com with your perspective. Tell me where I'm wrong. Tell me where analysis and prediction are indistinguishable. Tell me why narrowing focus is necessary. I'm listening.

Here's what actually changes in 2026

If you're working with The EverLearner this revision season, here's what to expect:

🔥 January: We’ve released forensic analysis infographics showing paper structure, command words, AO distribution and historical patterns. Use these to prepare comprehensively, not to predict narrowly. For customers, these infographics also include 10 Hot Topics.

🔥 February: National Mock Exams (covering all content, not just Hot Topics) help students practise under exam conditions. We publish the papers and the mark schemes.

🔥 February–April: Hot Topics resources go deep on high-leverage content. Students engage with these not as predictions, but as opportunities to build fluency and confidence.

🔥 April–June: Live revision shows and teacher/student notes support breadth AND depth.

🔥 Throughout: Exam Technique foundations (if you're Gold tier) give students the skills to access marks from any content they encounter.

The message is consistent: prepare comprehensively. Go deeper on high-leverage areas. Master exam technique. And when exam day arrives, you'll be ready for anything the examiner throws at you.

That's not prediction. That's preparation.

Why this matters for your integrity

Colleagues, I think we're at a moment in the education sector where we need to be clearer about what we're selling and what we're claiming.

Prediction is tempting because it looks like expertise. It looks like we've cracked some code. But in reality, we haven't. Exam boards are deliberately unpredictable. They test skills as much as content.

When we claim to predict, we're overpromising. And when students arrive at exams having prepared for predictions that didn't manifest, they've lost marks not because of their understanding, but because of our irresponsibility.

I refuse to do that. And I'm asking you to consider refusing it too.

Instead, let's be transparent about what we can know: the exam structure, the command words, the skills required and the high-leverage content. Let's prepare students comprehensively for all of it. Let's teach them exam technique so they can handle any question. And let's send them into exams with genuine confidence, not contingent hopes.

That's the approach The EverLearner is committed to. And I think it's the approach education deserves.

The Gold tier difference

One final note, because I want to be transparent about the commercial angle here (because there is one). Most revision providers compete on content: more infographics, more mock papers, more notes, more resources… They're all valuable, but they lean towards content.

The EverLearner's Gold tier is different because it includes PE Exam Technique—Powered by The Roadmap. This isn't just revision content, but a systematic foundation layer that teaches students how to use revision content to access marks. It teaches command words. It teaches paper architecture. It teaches strategic thinking.

Bronze and Silver tiers give you excellent revision content. Gold gives you that, plus the skills layer that most PE departments either skip or improvise.

If your students are losing marks despite knowing the content—if they're struggling with extended writing, command words or paper processing—Gold tier closes that gap. Because you've now got structured, systematic, video-based teaching on exam technique as well as tiered quizzing on the same ideas.

For Bronze or Silver customers, if this resonates, reach out to your account manager. We're offering 15% off upgrading to Gold throughout January 2026.

Closing

Teaching is complex. Exam preparation is demanding. And the pressure to find shortcuts—to predict, to narrow focus, to guarantee results—is very real.

But here's the thing: when we refuse those shortcuts and instead commit to comprehensive, skills-centred, analytically-grounded preparation, students do better. And they also learn something deeper: that excellence comes from breadth, depth, and mastery of foundational skills—not from predicting the future.

That's the future The EverLearner is building. And I hope you'll join us in refusing to predict and instead commit to genuinely preparing the young people in our care.

Thank you for reading. I'd be grateful if you'd share your perspective, especially if you disagree.

Have a wonderful week.

James

Why we don't "predict" exam papers

Leave a Comment

Related Posts