Language Placements & Pathways in the IB

With IB Diploma Programme (DP) language course options, coordinators often have a tough time balancing academic integrity and ethical considerations to ensure learning is happening at DP level, with the pressure to allow students to 'pitch low' and take a 'soft' language B or ab initio course to go for the 'easy 7'. Robust language and academic integrity policies, clear thresholds for determining placement in phases, levels or DP courses, and pathways that make sense from Primary or school admission right the way through secondary school and into DP options are must-haves.

Today's webinar, in partnership with Ibicus, focused on the factors that come into play when determining DP language course placement; defining appropriate challenge; establishing accurate language proficiency in students; and using proficiency, mapped through a standard like the CEFR framework, to determine the most appropriate placement and avoid accusations or perceptions of school maladministration. I centre my advice around the foundational principle of,

The student chooses the language, the school chooses the level.

When we move from the mindset of asking students which language level they would like, to simply asking which language they would like to study, we lift the burden of high-stakes ethical decision-making from the person in the high-pressure situation. This, in turn, places the responsibility for ensuring that the school follows IB rules where it should be: on the school leadership. With consequences of misrepresenting language proficiency including the removal of authorisation as an IB school, or the annulment of grades for whole cohorts of students, it is only right that school leaders have clear procedures for placing students in the most appropriate level, and cannot afford the risk of allowing students the 'pass' of a foreign language study at a level they have already exceeded.

Questions around what to do with those students who may be fluent in speaking and listening, but weaker in reading and writing; students fluent in character-based languages; and students who are 'too good' or 'too experienced' for one level, but not 'good enough' for the next, were all discussed in the call.

I shared some really helpful clarifications from IB staff around defining 'appropriate challenge' and 'very limited exposure', and signposted some useful research from IB that maps grade outcomes to CEFR, which in turn allows us to map student language proficiency to clear thresholds for placing in Language B SL, HL or Language A.

The slides from the webinar are here:

IB DP Language Pathways & Placements slides.pdf

Download PDF • 2.57MB

I also covered some tips for 'backwashing' the DP placement ramifications down the school into G6-10 and possibly even lower. We discussed how important it is to ensure that all students have the possibility of structured learning, exposure to text work in potential Language As, and the chance to build confidence with their personal or best language in an academic setting, long before they have to choose their DP languages. We also looked at the common gaps that students could fall into, and how to structure the pre-DP secondary curriculum in a way that prevents these gaps from emerging.

I developed a crosswalk between some common language and (I)GCSE qualifications and DP entry thresholds, for you to use as a starting point in your schools for establishing clear language proficiency thresholds for placing students into DP courses. For example, we can see that a student who is already using a language at B2 level is already beyond the scope of the Language B HL course and so should be placed into A - but what does B2 mean in terms of their MYP phase, IGCSE grade, or DELF/HSK certificate? This crosswalk establishes some parity between various systems.

DP Languages Entry Thresholds Crosswalk

Languages are so intertwined with identity. They cause a lot of emotional tension in programmes because the DP is so rigid, yet languages provide so many grey areas. With the stakes of getting it wrong so high, it's so important for all DP schools to really understand:

• What is the language proficiency of each student, in each language in play (school-taught languages plus the student's own personal/home language), upon entry to the school?

• What is the progress and attainment of each language throughout the secondary years?

• How and when will we monitor and intervene for students who are making little progress, or who may have a gap emerging?

• How do we accurately assess each student's language proficiency, in each language in play, at the point of placing into DP classes?

• What mechanisms do we have for ensuring our teachers are skilled in accurate assessment of proficiency, and for standardising across whole cohorts?

If we get this right, not only do we avoid the prospect of school maladministration and the consequences that go with that, but we really are serving every student - who are provided with genuine learning experiences, and others who are not intimidated into silence by fluent speakers in the foreign language class with them. This is about removing barriers to learning, whether they be curriculum misalignment barriers, or the ethical barriers of unfair advantage.

Image by Gemini AI: A school leader, holding a miniature student in her hand, wonders where to place her. She looks up into the sky at 4 massive boxes labelled, "Language A", "Language B HL", "Language B SL" and "Ab Initio". Is your placement policy clear enough to avoid this headscratching over every student?