The term 'bilingual' has been an ongoing puzzle for the IB for many years, because it bears on the distinction between the subjects Group 1: Language & Literature and Group 2: Language Acquisition. The assumption is that Group 1 is for native speakers, and Group 2 is for those who are learning a language ... but in the case of students considered 'bilingual', the distinction is not that clear. Is a given student equally competent in both languages, or does a 'bilingual' student still need to acquire elements of the language?

The IB recognised this grey area in the placement of students more than 30 years ago. First of all, it was dealt with by the A2 course, placed in Group 2 as a program + assessment aimed at very advanced language learners. This was then replaced by the present Language & Literature course, placed in Group 1, which combined literary criticism with language analysis - it is not aimed at learning the language but rather learning about language.

However, schools are still faced with the problem of deciding what 'bilingual' means in the precise case of each student, and how to decide which language courses a student should take in order to deliver a level of "appropriate challenge".

This page aims to review and comment on the various arguments that may be applied to such cases. You may also wish to read the blog  To B or Not to B?  , which develops various arguments in more detail.

Ongoing debate

Language competence runs across a wide range - some students can evidently not handle Lang & Lit, whereas some students can obviously handle such a course with ease. But the solution is not always that obvious - there is still argument about whether near-bilingual users of a language should be put in Group 1 or Group 2.

Where you place such students, what is best for them, rests on a number of value-judgements. The problem is that such value judgements certainly raise issues, and are at least questionable. Here is a rapid survey of such issues.

The definition of 'bilingual'

What does 'bilingual' actually mean ? Is a student defined as 'bilingual' if, for example, he or she ...

... has a (perfect?) native accent

... speaks at (articulate?) native-speaker speed

... understands easily a wide range of native accents, at native speeds

... reads sophisticated literature rapidly and easily

... has a sufficient? / wide? / very wide? passive vocabulary

... in writing, handles a sufficient? / wide? / very wide? range of text-types

I would argue that (i) oral competence (i.e. the first three above) is more easily observed than command of the written language (i.e. the last three above); but that (ii) command of the written language is much more significant than oral competence with regard to Lang & Lit - both in handling course-work, and in the assessment procedures.

I would recommend profiling all 'bilingual' students according to something like the categories above - say, on a 1-7, or 1-10, scale for each category / descriptor. Only those who scored highly on the last three should be considered for Group 1.

The workload problem

Both Group 1 subjects demand quite a heavy workload in reading the texts - although there is some range (compare number of books for Literature HL with Lang & Lit SL). If some heavy workload inevitably exists given that each student has to do a 'native-language' Group 1 subject, why double it ? Especially since, by definition, the student should be covering the same conceptual core - i.e. the analysis of literature and culture, even if the specific authors / works / styles will be different.

Can it be claimed that "the heavier the workload, the better", as being more character-forming? Surely not - indeed the opposite can be claimed: excessive workload may be damaging for effective study and personal development.

The 'easy ride' accusation

It is said that students should not be allowed to enter for subjects where it is assumed that they will achieve high scores without having to work very hard.

The problem is that 'easy rides' are inherent in the structure of the Diploma. A very able student has to be entered for some SL subjects - where, self-evidently, they will have an 'easy ride', since they are capable of doing very well in those subjects at HL.

And anyway, IB assessment is about performance, not effort - it is about what skills and knowledge they have, not about how they have achieved these. (Yes, yes, I know that for most students, good effort results in good performance ... but that is not what the exams actually test. A brilliant lazy bastard may do better that than an earnest but dim swot ... morally regretable, but there we are.)

The goal of intellectual challenge

'Challenge' can be viewed as some kind of academic absolute, but in practical terms it is always relative to the individual student concerned.

It may be convenient for institutions to have a policy of 'maximum challenge at all times' (i.e. "enter everyone for the most difficult courses") - but this does not fit easily with the IB's oft-repeated instructions about 'differentiation' (i.e. "enter each student for the courses which are appropriate for that individual").

This latter judgement leaves us still with the problem of defining 'appropriate'. In terms of challenge, 'appropriate challenge' must mean something like 'realistically achievable progress during the course', and should not mean 'stressful and despairing effort for two years'.

Anyway, the level of 'challenge' depends on how each individual course is actually taught. You can teach Literature HL in simplistic and unchallenging ways, and you can teach Language B in conceptually complex and challenging ways. I recently spent significant time helping an 'elite' school in Kazakhstan select elements of the Lang & Lit programme for insertion in their Language B syllabus - so I know that 'high-challenge' can be done in Language B.

The standard final objection here is that "the exams in Language B are less demanding than in Group 1". Well, yes and no. Yes, the testing mechanisms in Language B are more about basic performance than about complex analysis (e.g. about producing a text type rather than analysing how such a text type works); but no, this does not mean that analysis is not taught in Language B: in order to produce a text type skilfully, you need to have analysed in class how it works.

And anyway, as a Principal Examiner for English B HL, I promise you that the standards for getting a grade 7 are pretty high. Here are the percentages of 7s awarded in large-entry Languages B in May 2013 :

German B: HL = 27.08%; SL = 11.39% French B: HL = 16.18%; SL = 5.83%

Spanish B: HL = 21.03%; SL = 7.09% Chinese B: HL = 40.10%; SL = 43.90%

In English B in May 2013, the percentages were: HL = 13.60% SL = 26.02% ... and we should always bear in mind that English B is a rather special case, since English is the language of instruction in 87% of Diploma schools, so students are likely to have a lot of exposure to the language.

Finally, while the level of challenge of the final exams is a significant factor, surely one does not think that 'challenge' in the Diploma simply consists of 'teaching for the exam' ?

The 'unfair advantage' / 'unfair disadvantage' dilemma

Two opposed arguments are involved:

(i) "a student entered for Language B will get a better final grade than a student entered for a more 'appropriate' course (i.e. a Group 1 course) - this is not fair to the student who has accepted the more difficult option"

(ii) "a student who is entered for a Group 1 course will get a worse grade than the many students around the world who are not entered for such a highly demanding course - which leaves them at an unfair disadvantage in terms of university entry"

Both of these statements can at least be argued credibly. However, it must be true that (i) is based on fairness within the institution, while (ii) is based on fairness in relation to the outside world as a whole. I would suggest that (ii), therefore, carries more weight - and see also the 'life-choice' section below.

The personal needs & aims issue

Each individual student has personal tastes and abilities in relation to the various subjects - e.g. "loves Biology and finds Literature boring". This is completely natural, and will have direct bearing on that student's choice of future university course and career. And so, students' preferences should be given a high priority.

Ah but, it is claimed, the Diploma insists that students should study across the full spectrum of academic subjects. Well, yes ... but also no. The full pattern of academic subjects is represented in the Groups, but (i) student priorities are also recognised in the HL/SL distinction, and (ii) the Diploma's rules clearly do not insist on the duplication of Group 1.

Just as a student who gives a low priority to Mathematics still has to study Maths but does not have to study Maths HL, equally a student has to study a second language but does not have to study that language at the highest level available.

The 'life-choice' effect

It is inarguable that part of the service a school offers to parents and students is to create the best possible openings for the student's future. This is an approach that sees a Diploma education as a means, not just as an end in itself. To require a student to take a highly-demanding course (i.e. the 'double Group 1' option) may be desirable from the 'end in itself' point of view, but it may be damaging from the 'means' standpoint - the student fails to get into the university course desired. Given that the 'double Group 1' option's educational value is at least debateable, being a duplication of content (see comments under the 'workload' section) - is it worth damaging the benefit in terms of means ?

The overall view

All of the above issues need to be weighed in deciding whether 'near-bilingual' students should be entered for Group 1 Language & Literature, or Group 2 Language B. It has to be said that with the disappearance of A2, there is no course which perfectly fits the needs of such students ... so we have to think in terms of a 'best fit' compromise.

Fundamentally, this debate will be intimately connected to a major statement of principle by the institution as a whole. Which of the following slogans does the school wish to convey to parents ?

A. "We insist on all students following courses of the most demanding academic standard."

B. "We choose courses for students which will enable them to get the best scores in final exams."

C. "We recommend courses according to each individual student's potential abilities and needs."

I suggest that [C] is the approach which would be (a) most attractive to parents, and (b) most in accord with the IB's approach to differentiated education.

A practical suggestion... It may help to clarify the situation if the English department were to :

(i) devise and agree a 'profiling of bilinguals' system (see 'definition of bilinguals' section ) in order to monitor and guide the selection of students for courses

(ii) integrate significant and usefully-relevant elements of the Lang & Lit Subject Guide into the English B programme (e.g. studying 3 literary texts for carefully-chosen reasons, and incorporating key elements of the Lang & Lit approach to 'Language in cultural context, and language and mass communication')