Language Policy Division
Division des Politiques linguistiques« The Common European Framework of Reference
for Languages (CEFR) and the development oflanguage policies: challenges and responsibilities»

Intergovernmental Language Policy Forum
Strasbourg, 6-8 February 2007

REPORT

Language Policy Division – www.coe.int/langDivision des Politiques linguistiques – www.coe.int/lang/fr

Intergovernmental Language Policy Forum« The Common European Framework of Reference
for Languages (CEFR) and the development oflanguage policies: challenges and responsibilities»
Strasbourg, 6-8 February 2007

ReportbyFrancis Goullier

Language Policy Division – www.coe.int/langDivision des Politiques linguistiques – www.coe.int/lang/fr

The opinions expressed in this report and in the following texts are those of theauthors and do not necessarily reflect the official policy of the Council of Europe.
All correspondence concerning this publication or the reproduction or translationof all or part of the document should be addressed to the Director of School, Out
of School and Higher Education of the Council of Europe (F-67075 Strasbourg
Cedex).
The reproduction of extracts is authorised, except for commercial purposes, on
condition that the source is quoted.

Language Policy Division
DG IV – Directorate of School, Out-of-School and Higher Education
Council of Europe, F-67075 Strasbourg Cedex

ContentsI.

The Forum's concerns and consequences...................................................................7II.

The Forum's main lessons .............................................................................................8

III.

Follow-up action to the Forum ....................................................................................14IV.

Conclusion .....................................................................................................................17

TEXT OF SOME MAJOR PRESENTATIONS ............................................................................19
The CEFR Common Reference Levels: validated reference points and local strategies Brian North .................................................................................................................................. 21
Impact of the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages and the Council ofEurope’s work on the new European educational area - Francis Goullier ..................................31
Contextualising uses of the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages Daniel Coste ................................................................................................................................ 40
CEFR in relation to the policy aim of the Council of Europe - John L. M. Trim ...........................50

APPENDICES ............................................................................................................................. 53
Appendix 1: Programme of the Forum ....................................................................................54
Appendix 2: List of participants...............................................................................................57

Council of Europe

5

I.

The Forum's concerns and consequences

In assessing the lessons that can be learned from the Forum, and the principal directions in which
its conclusions seem to point, the reasons and the objectives that led the Council of Europe's
Language Policy Division to organise this event must be borne in mind.
The Forum was held in honour of Professor John Trim, one of the leading figures behind the
CEFR. He played a significant role in the event's success both through his contributions to theproceedings and through the fact that he was constantly present to remind participants of theCouncil of Europe's values and the reasoning followed in developing the CEFR. Like thedocument's other authors, Daniel Coste, Brian North and Joseph Sheils, he was able to refer backto the key ideas underlying the project, its aims and the background to it.
However, the aim of the Forum was not to add another event to the series of seminars, colloquies
and conferences on the theme of the Common European Framework and the potential it offers
for a new approach to language assessment, learning and teaching.
The objective was to offer the member states a forum for discussion and debate on anumber of policy issues raised by the very speedy adoption of the CEFR in Europe and theincreasingly widespread use of its scales of proficiency levels.
This is because the clear success of the CEFR has significantly changed the context inwhich language teaching and assessment of language learning outcomes now take place inEurope. It was accordingly important to take stock of this new situation and to identify the key
concepts behind the resulting dynamic.
This dynamic naturally generates new, often disparate, needs: it was necessary to determine
priorities among the requirements voiced, to consider the most effective means of meeting them,to link the questions raised to the broader issues at stake and indeed to consider them in the lightof the Council of Europe's founding principles and values.
These various challenges entail many kinds of responsibilities for the Council of Europe's
Language Policy Division. Exercising these responsibilities in turn raises many questions
regarding the future use of the language policy instruments. The time had come to hold aforum at which the ideas being debated within certain Council of Europe bodies and a number ofexpert groups could be pooled and discussed.
From these three standpoints the Forum was an unquestionable success.
This report accordingly attempts to sum up the wealth of its proceedings in three ways:- first, setting out the lessons to be learned from the Forum regarding the importance of the role
played by the CEFR in the definition of language education policies, and determining conditionsof implementation consistent with the key values of the Council of Europe and in keepingwith this instrument's purpose through real consideration of the context in which it is utilised;- second, analysing the needs brought to light by experience of use of the CEFR in the fields ofassessment, teacher training and curriculum and teaching materials development, as discussed
during the Forum or the run-up to it;- third, elaborating the possible main lines of the follow-up action that must necessarily be given
to this event: the roles to be assigned to the member states and the Council of Europe, sharing of
responsibilities concerning use of the CEFR between states, regions and non-governmental
or professional organisations, the means of action to be used by each player, etc.
Lastly, the report will discuss the outlook regarding the Council of Europe's specific activities in
the context of the dynamic initiated or triggered by this Forum, and the needs expressed will beanalysed in the light of the criteria sketched out during the proceedings.

Council of Europe

7

II.

The Forum's main lessons

II.1. The Forum confirmed the consistently established findings regarding the major role
played by the CEFR in:

the shaping of member states' language policies,

the action of institutions and organisations involved in teaching, assessment or teacher
training,and European-level initiatives in the modern languages sphere, as illustrated by thepresentation on the European Commission's future European Indicator of Language
Competence.

Prior to the Forum the Language Policy Division had conducted two surveys on use of the CEFR
at national level, targeting the various players concerned and the member states' education
ministries. The most recent, carried out in 2006, scored a good response rate (30 member states).
The replies bear out the importance attached to the instrument:- The CEFR is currently available in 36 different languages.
- It is referred to in a very large number of official documents issued by the member states.
- 90% of the respondent ministries regard the CEFR as "very" or "fairly" useful for curriculum
development, 87% for planning and development of exams, tests or certifications, and 78% forplanning and development of teachers' initial and further training.
"In general, the CEFR seems to have a major impact on language education. It is used often as the exclusive neutral reference - in all educational sectors. Its value as a reference
tool to coordinate the objectives of education at all levels is widely appreciated."1
The results of this survey were substantiated by reactions to the holding of this Forum. The
considerable support given to the event by France and the Netherlands, the very high level ofparticipation by representatives of Council of Europe member states, non-governmentalorganisations and professional organisations and the presence of delegations from Canada,
China, the United States and Japan, not forgetting the participation of the Australian
representative of an international association of language teachers, show the huge level ofinterest in the issues raised by the CEFR, both in Europe and beyond Europe's borders.
From the very start of the proceedings, the opening statements by the Secretary General of theCouncil of Europe, the Minister of National Education and Vocational Training of the Grand
Duchy of Luxembourg and the representatives of France's Minister of National Education andthe European Commission highlighted the political dimension of the Forum's subject-matter.
They provided an opportunity to reiterate the values common to the member states of theCouncil of Europe, as reasserted in the Action Plan adopted at the most recent Summit of Heads
of State and Government, held in Warsaw: promoting linguistic and cultural diversity, fostering
plurilingualism, developing democratic citizenship and intercultural dialogue, transparency andmutual recognition of qualifications to help make people mobile and facilitate access toemployment.
This was followed by presentations of projects making use of the CEFR in some very different
educational and socio-linguistic contexts, all backed by firm political resolve at the very highest
level. From the outset, these examples made it possible to rule out the idea that the issues
surrounding use of the CEFR are primarily technical in nature; they showed convincingly

1 Waldemar Martyniuk and José Noijons, "Executive summary of results of a survey on the use of the CEFR at
national level in Council of Europe member states", page 7

8Council of Europe

that the Council of Europe's language policy instruments are levers that can and must be
utilised to serve carefully considered, committed policy objectives.
The breadth and the diversity of the case studies presented confirmed two intuitive conclusions:firstly, that the innovations permitted by the CEFR's methods and tools vary greatly dependingon the situation, the field of action and the objectives being pursued in a given context and,secondly, that the intrinsic value of each successful project in fact lies in the adaptation of the
CEFR for use in a specific educational, socio-linguistic and policy context.
A good number of case studies were presented, and details can be found on the Council ofEurope web-site (www.coe.int/lang). A few examples can be cited as an illustration of theirdiversity:


The Luxembourg authorities have developed a language education action plan on thebasis of the self-evaluation exercise conducted, with the assistance of Council of Europe
experts, as part of the Language Policy Profile development process; the objective is to
use the possibilities offered by the CEFR's definition of plurilingual competence toovercome the difficulties encountered with the Grand Duchy's language education policy.
The opening statement by the minister showed that, here, social cohesion was just as
important an aim as the preservation of a very high general level of language proficiency.

The presentation of the plan for a renewal of language education by the Director ofEuropean and International Relations and Co-operation of the French ministry in turnshowed that the proactive use being made of the CEFR reflects a desire to improve theeffectiveness of language education, to promote plurilingualism and language diversity
among learners and to remove inhibitions that might hamper personal implication in thelearning process.



The distinctive feature of the case study on use of the CEFR in the Netherlands was theemphasis laid, firstly, on implementation of the CEFR as a teaching tool and, secondly,on comparability of the results attained by different schools, made possible by a global
reform of language testing and examinations.



Other case studies demonstrated certain effects of the tool's use on the players
themselves. For example, in Catalonia the decision to rethink language examinations inorder to give them a more international base led to some very fruitful international cooperation and made it possible to correct certain misunderstandings concerning the CEFR
levels. To sum up the progress made by this region of Spain, the initial question "Is my
B1 equivalent to your B1?" was replaced by "This is my B1. What's your B1 like?".

These few examples, among all those given at the Forum, illustrate one of the event's main
inputs to the ongoing debate on language education in Europe, which can be summarised asfollows: the discussions during the Forum, and even on its sidelines, a number of the statements
made during the plenary sessions and the wide range of implementation examples described
during the group work made it possible, in a very mutually-enhancing manner, to clarify thestatus and the purpose of the CEFR - as a descriptive rather than a standard-setting
document it allows all users to analyse their own situation and to make the choices which
they deem most appropriate to their circumstances, while adhering to certain key values.
There is therefore no need for consternation about some of the tool's limitations, as pointed out
from time to time by some technically-minded commentators; quite the contrary, it is necessary
to grasp and to foster awareness of all the possibilities it offers for developing plurilingualism
and intercultural understanding in Europe.
The vast majority of the case studies presented at the Forum, whether concerned with national,
regional or local situations, focused on showing that use of the CEFR in each of the fields

Council of Europe

9concerned did indeed bring to light additional problems, needs or expectations. For instance, its
implementation in a teacher training context in Poland had inter alia shown the need for texts
accessible by all concerned and for clarification of certain concepts, in particular plurilingualism.
The speakers were also keen to underline the importance of keeping the CEFR intact, in all its
diversity; it should unquestionably be added to and other accompanying tools should be
developed, but under no circumstances should it be watered down or depleted.
II. 2. The Forum revealed a virtual consensus regarding the needs that must necessarily
be satisfied at the local, regional or European level.
The working groups' discussions of the needs highlighted by experience of implementation of the
CEFR were preceded by a presentation of some of the results of the survey conducted in 2006 by
the Language Policy Division (see above).
From the initial preparatory work on the questionnaires for this survey it was deemed essential
that, when discussing needs, a distinction should be drawn between language competenceassessment issues, on one hand, and other aspects linked to teaching, training and teachingmaterials, on the other hand. This distinction was only partly borne out by the responses to thesurvey itself and the outcome of the group work at the Forum. Indeed, disregarding theparticipants' own specific interest in one or another of these fields, which justified their separate
treatment, there is a striking similarity in the results of the different groups' work.
A more precise list of the needs expressed by the member states or the Forum participants will be
set out below but it is clear that in these two spheres the Forum's results very closely
converge and must be taken very seriously.
There is a common demand for:- distribution of guides, training kits, material illustrating levels of language proficiency in theform of sample performances by different target groups, and good practice examples;- formulation of additional competence descriptors, inter alia to take into account the language
use situations encountered in EMILE/CLIL projects;- development of areas of the CEFR (in particular Chapter 8 "Linguistic diversification and thecurriculum"), acknowledged to be of interest but in which the existing tools do not yet lendthemselves to direct use;
- provision of expert assistance and creation of discussion forums on subjects linked to use of the
CEFR.
The discussions showed that the emergence of these needs is linked to the expectations vested in
the CEFR and to its very speedy adoption within education systems. A number of understandable
obstacles have been identified, the greatest of which seems to be the difficulty inherent inmaking the CEFR's content accessible by all language teachers and a significant number ofdecision-makers, as its complexity and diversity may hamper its more widespread dissemination.
However, beyond this consensus regarding the needs, a slight divergence is perceptible in
the proposals put forward in these different fields in response to the question: How and bywhom should the answers to these needs be sought? This is quite understandable. The
possibilities opened up by the CEFR for transparent assessment, allowing comparability between
different languages and different countries, were very quickly realised. This led to quality
requirements, which in turn fuelled a Europe-wide debate, pursued inter alia through thedevelopment of a "Manual for relating language examinations to the CEFR" and thedissemination of samples of written and oral performances by non-natives in certain languages
and of items and tasks for testing reading and listening comprehension skills, linked to thedifferent levels. It is true that the situation undoubtedly differs depending on whether an

10

Council of Europe

assessment is being organised by certification bodies or implemented within the education
systems themselves, and the case studies showed that not all states have endowed themselveswith the same tools.
Nonetheless, it is interesting to note that it is in this very field - doubtless due to the lead gained
here on account of the heightened expectations and interests - that the needs for further
development of some of the CEFR's assets, in particular its concept of plurilingualism, are mostforcibly expressed: reflecting a learner's linguistic profile rather than a somewhat meaninglessoverall level of proficiency in a language; giving an insight into the complementarity of skills inseveral languages; assessing the degree of mastery of language-related activities such as
mediation; and so on.
It was also on the basis of the experience acquired in this field that the implications of the second
fundamental question posed during the Forum - Who is responsible for what? - could more easily
be grasped.
II. 3. The Forum very quickly focused on the issue of responsibilities for appropriate useof the CEFR.
This is not a new issue and has already been discussed. The Steering Committee for Education,for example, gave its views on the subject at a meeting held on 19 October 2005, during which it
clearly stated that it was not the role of the Council of Europe to verify and validate the qualityof the link between language examinations and the CEFR's proficiency levels and that themember states were responsible for guaranteeing the quality and fairness of testing andassessment on the basis of the joint guidelines issued by the Council of Europe, UNESCO andthe OECD.
Yet, the substance of the discussions and the participants' reactions show that a generalconsensus has not yet been reached on this matter, and expectations and needs are still regularly
addressed by the Council of Europe. This is not in the least surprising, as the various problems
linked to use of the CEFR have often been broached from the standpoint of the possible tensions
between the local/regional/national level and the European level. Even the key question of thestatus of the CEFR - a standard-setting instrument or a tool that needs to be contextualised - mayhave indirectly helped to focus attention on the vertical relationship between the Council ofEurope and each member state.
II. 3. 1.
One of the objectives of the Forum was to heighten awareness of theimportance of another relationship, here horizontal, between the various member states
and between institutions.
More often than not, when local needs linked to implementation of the CEFR are expressed there
is an underlying expectation that a solution should be found by the Council itself or that somemeasures should be taken by this intergovernmental organisation. The dynamic given to theForum's proceedings was designed gradually to change attitudes, consisting in asking, firstly,
which own means and resources a state could rely on and, secondly, whether networks and formsof co-operation between states and institutions could help to overcome the difficulties
encountered. This hoped-for change of approach is also based on the idea that, rather than visà-vis the Council of Europe, it is towards one's own learners and one's European partners
that one has a responsibility for making coherent, realistic use of the CEFR.
From this standpoint, significant advances could be noted in the course of the Forum, since theparticipants increasingly began to speak in terms of "sharing", “co-responsibility" or "horizontal
co-operation".

Council of Europe

11The contributions to the Forum showed that there is a continuum in the sharing of
responsibilities and that, depending on the circumstances and the needs, different, possibly
mixed, solutions could be found.
Nonetheless, on considering the list of needs voiced, it is fairly easy to see that for many of thesolutions exist, at least in part, at the local, regional or national level: informing education
policy decision-makers, teachers and those in charge of assessment of the CEFR's diversity, its
pedagogic potential and the instrument's natural limits, notably in order to facilitate its
appropriation; contextualising use of parts of the CEFR in given educational/learning situations
and considering the specific choices to be made; in the teacher training field attachingimportance to developing learner autonomy, intercultural education and plurilingualism;
developing supplementary tools specific to the main language or languages spoken in the country
or region (such as reference level descriptions or sample performances in the language(s),illustrating the levels of the CEFR proficiency scales), etc.
This last point naturally brings to mind the benefits to be derived from promoting cooperation,
taking various forms, between states, regions or organisations in order to develop these tools(for example co-operation between countries or regions sharing the same language) or in order totake advantage of tools developed elsewhere (for example, for assessing proficiency in a foreign
language or for teaching this language with the CEFR resources). Similarly, the desire,
frequently reiterated in the course of the Forum, to be able to benefit from the assistance of othercountries' or other sectors' experts could quite easily find the beginnings of an answer if networks
were established among the parties concerned.
One very striking illustration was offered by the presentation of the work being carried out at theinitiative of the CITO in the Netherlands, which, in co-operation with seven partner institutes inother countries, is building a bank of items for assessing proficiency in a foreign language(EBAFLS).
Another example lay in the proposal by the CIEP (Sèvres, France) to hold an inter-language
seminar on calibration of samples of spoken performances.
The Forum's spotlighting of the need for the member states themselves to respond to many of therequirements linked to successful use of the CEFR in no way means that the Council of Europe's
own responsibilities have been underestimated.
Many requests submitted to the Council of Europe are met already, or at least in part, by existing
documents (the Guide for Users, the guide to "Language examining and test development", thecase studies), distribution of which could usefully be reactivated, by certain workshops organisedby the European Centre for Modern Languages (ECML) in Graz, by Lingua projects and by the
new policy objectives espoused by the ECML in its recent call for project proposals, which canbe seen to coincide very closely with the member states' expectations.
In the wake of the Forum it can be argued that the role of the Council of Europe has become
more focused and, accordingly, remains as important as ever.
II. 3. 2.
The Language Policy Division indisputably has an essential role to play inpromoting coherent, realistic, responsible use of the CEFR. Its future part in this process
might be summed up in three words: guidance, mobilisation and co-ordination.
a)
The Forum was a perfect opportunity for the Language Policy Division to implement thefirst of these tenets, the need for clear guidance. A number of key points were underlined during
the plenary sessions:12the link between the CEFR and the values and modus operandi of the Council of Europe,the CEFR's place in future work on language education in Europe,

Council of Europe

the fact that the need for contextualisation is part and parcel of the CEFR approach,the genuine flexibility of the tools proposed by the CEFR,the diversity of this document, which is not solely confined to the scale of proficiency
levels,

the need to take the objective of plurilingual education and training fully into account,the benefits of planning the CEFR's use in combination with the Council of Europe's
other language policy instruments and the recommendation that the approach underlying
the CEFR be given concrete form through promotion of the European Language
Portfolio.

These elements of guidance, instilled throughout the Forum, were all the more necessary in that
there are consistent signs that the CEFR is susceptible to being misused in a number of ways: animbalance in the implementation of the CEFR's various components, entailing a significant riskthat their substance will be depleted; misunderstandings regarding the CEFR's status, which,where no contextualisation takes place, may result in a homogeneity contrary to this instrument's
goals; shortcomings in the training process and in the explanations given to players and users,
which may result in superficial use and even poor understanding of the tool, sometimes leading
to its rejection.
The discussions during the Forum showed that these guidance efforts must be pursued, inparticular to encourage adhesion to the Council of Europe's values in all uses of the CEFR, suchas integration of migrants, and to pave the way for future developments in language education, as
the Language Policy Division has done with its Languages of School Education project.
b)
The latter initiative affords an illustration of how the Language Policy Division can playits mobilising role through initial and follow-up action likely to offer solutions to thedeficiencies brought to light. In this project's specific case the aim is to encourage work making
it possible to extend the CEFR concept to all the languages that contribute to individual
plurilingualism, including a person's mother tongue and/or language(s) of schooling, and help
ensure a successful outcome for all learners, not least migrant pupils for whom the language ofschooling is rarely their mother tongue.
Only the Council of Europe can have this mobilising effect through its efforts to prompt people
to do other necessary work in fields such as intercultural competence, the language-related
activity of mediation or consideration of plurilingual profiles in competence assessments, as
already mentioned.
Another example was cited during the Forum: the need to raise teaching material publishers'
awareness of the issues surrounding use of the CEFR.
Lastly, the Council of Europe should also take action, inter alia, to combat the risk of animbalance between languages in the supply of the tools necessary to proper use of the CEFR.
This "watchdog" function could take the form of helping certain countries obtain the assistanceof other countries with greater expertise in a given field.
c)
In keeping with a longstanding tradition in the Council of Europe's activities in themodern languages field, one of the tasks of the Language Policy Division will consist in helping
to co-ordinate work, sometimes at the member states' request. For instance, it can continue toprovide the member states with experts which it has chosen for their fields of competence andpotential to contribute in a given context. This catalyst function has already extensively proved
its worth and is clearly indispensable in order to satisfy some of the requirements voiced at theForum. An example that springs to mind is the formulation of additional competence descriptors
to take account of certain situations or specific needs.

Council of Europe

13Another simple form of co-ordination, albeit very much in demand, consists in setting up a
discussion forum on the CEFR and its uses on one of the Council of Europe web-sites.
d)These guidance, mobilisation and co-ordination tasks are often complementary innature. It gradually became apparent during the Forum that there is already a good model for
performance of these roles by the Council of Europe: the model developed in connection withthe elaboration of the Language Education Policy Profiles, the effectiveness of which was
acknowledged on several occasions during the proceedings. On the basis of a guide drawn up
under the responsibility of the Language Policy Division,2 the country, region or city concerned
conducts a self-evaluation of its language education policy, with the assistance of experts chosen
by the Council of Europe for their specific expertise in the fields ranked as a priority by theeducation authorities concerned. The outcome of combining the local players' findings with theforeign experts' analyses and recommendations is a joint document, the country (or region orcity) profile.
The same model could therefore quite conceivably be applied to the drafting of guides
concerning some of the problem areas identified during the Forum. Examples which spring tomind include developing curricula incorporating plurilingual education and training; reflecting
the CEFR's pedagogic potential in teaching materials; taking plurilingual competence into
account in the assessment of language skills; and finally the link between assessment and selfassessment.
Such guides could be tested on a large scale within networks of players particularly concerned
about these issues, which might then constitute a pool of experts that could be drawn upon, on
request, to assist member states or their education authorities in implementing the concepts in amanner adapted to their own specific context.
From the above brief description it can be seen that this process has already been used in part todraw up the "Manual for relating language examinations to the CEFR".
III.

Follow-up action to the Forum

To be successful, this sharing of responsibilities between the member states, non-governmentalorganisations, professional organisations and the Council of Europe, as broached during theForum, will no doubt necessitate a number of initiatives by the Steering Committee for
Education.
III.1. Firstly, the discussions before and during the Forum clearly showed the need forcoherency in this sharing of responsibilities. As the Steering Committee decided, verifying andvalidating links between language examinations and the proficiency levels of the CEFR is not atask that falls within the Council of Europe mandate. It follows that the role of the Validation
Committee of the "European Language Portfolio" should be reviewed. Portfolio model
developers have indeed been given a guide and clear instructions, and it has been plainly statedthat the model must be adapted to the educational context. Despite all this, the Council of Europe
supervises, through the Validation Committee, the quality of the documents drawn up at national
level. It is true that some very useful work has been done to promote this new tool and explain
the implementation and quality assurance approaches. However, the time has perhaps come togive the Validation Committee's work a much sharper focus on mechanisms aimed at deriving
joint benefits from the progress made with certain models.

2 J-C. Beacco and M. Byram, "Guide for the development of language education policies in Europe"

14

Council of Europe

III. 2. Secondly, the desirable new balance between the member states' initiatives and theaction taken by the Council of Europe will undoubtedly require a very proactive approachvis-à-vis the member states in order to clarify the aims and objectives of this sharing of
responsibilities. This encouragement to assume their full role should nonetheless go hand inhand with a reminder of a number of principles discussed at length in the course of the Forum,
which many of the participants consider that the Council of Europe cannot disregard.
The question what form this encouragement might take was not discussed at the Forum. It may
be that the Forum's findings and conclusions constitute a sufficient foundation for issuingrecommendations from the Committee of Ministers to the member states.
It is possible to identify four complementary directions in which the member states should workto establish conditions conducive to coherent, appropriate use of the CEFR.
III. 2. 1. First and foremost, through such use of the CEFR the aim is to seek to respond to theneeds observed and the effective possibilities offered by the education systems or thelearning arrangements concerned without placing the education system in the false situation of
having to "apply" the CEFR as an inflexible, binding standard-setting instrument.
Realistic, coherent use of the CEFR naturally entails that the tool should be fully adapted to thecontext based on knowledge of the actual learning and teaching situations concerned.
The example of the levels of language proficiency was frequently cited. Choosing a level on thescale at which to set learners' skills development objectives at a given point in their learning
process cannot be done in a despotic or arbitrary manner or by referring to a level dictated by the
CEFR. This choice of a target level entails a precise prior diagnosis of learners' real skills in therelevant context and of the real possibilities afforded by the arrangements made.
It is of course possible to conceive that these levels might be used as levers to enhance theeffectiveness of the existing arrangements. However, even in that case it is only realistic andlogical to take into consideration the differences that will inevitably emerge between productive
and receptive language activities. The proficiency levels to be aimed for should accordingly
differ for, spoken and written, comprehension and expression.
III. 2. 2.
Then, to achieve coherent implementation of the CEFR, it is necessary to do
everything possible to ensure that all the players concerned understand the full possibilities
offered by this tool, distinguishing between the individual responsibilities of these education
system players.
- Those in charge of determining language education policy and of organising this branchof education must be capable of verifying that the language proficiency levels are set in a
coherent manner. It falls to them to establish conditions conducive to more transparent, better
quality evaluation of language skills and to foster mutual recognition of language qualifications
by ensuring that learning results are reliably linked to the CEFR common reference levels.
- The quality of teaching and assessment also naturally depends on syllabus and curriculum
developers, teaching material authors, examiners, teachers and trainers. In every member
state each individual in this chain should be encouraged to make learners' needs the key criterion
on which they base their decisions, with the aim of enhancing learners' skills through activities
organised around communicative tasks, while taking account of the fact that different groups oflearners may have specific needs. It is therefore essential to ensure that all these players in theteaching and assessment processes are perfectly informed so they can take advantage of the
CEFR and determine where they stand in relation to this document's contents in full knowledge
thereof.
III. 2. 3
The action required, as it transpired from the Forum, does not solely concern themere question whether language examinations and the proficiency levels are validly linked. The

Council of Europe

15

Framework is not confined to the scale of reference levels and their descriptors. Appropriate,
coherent use of the CEFR therefore cannot solely consist in applying these levels in order toeither set objectives or evaluate learners' skills.
Consideration of learners' needs should naturally lead to the concept of plurilingualism, which,indeed, gradually emerged as a key focus of the Forum's proceedings.
Plurilingualism must become the goal of language teaching and learning. It may also
govern the very design of the assessment process. The objective is then no longer simply todevelop and assess competence in a given language but rather to build plurilingual profiles that
truly reflect the complementarity of learners' skills in all the languages with which they arefamiliar and the necessarily imbalanced, changing nature of these skills. From this standpoint, it
can be considered that, in the long run, coherent use of the proficiency scales should aim
primarily to reflect this natural imbalance between the proficiency levels attained in the
different language-related activities and no longer seek to determine an overall level ofcompetence.
III. 2. 4.
Of course, the above considerations in no way detract from the need, forcefully
reasserted during the three days of proceedings, to pay particular care when using the
proficiency levels for assessing language skills.
If the framework's reference levels are referred to in its education system or byorganisations subordinate to it in order to assess learners' skills, each member state must
be aware of its responsibility for ensuring that all the conditions are met for proper
reference to be made to the framework.
Everything must be done to guarantee that the good practices identified at the international levelfor developing fair, transparent, valid, reliable examinations are adhered to. National or local
authorities must take action to ensure that the levels of competence certified by their language
examinations and the CEFR reference levels are linked in a transparent, reliable manner. The
measures implemented may vary considerably, although the idea of establishing a national
agency was cited on several occasions during the Forum.
Preserving the proficiency scales' value as an international standard is a must, and is the
responsibility of each individual user. Those taking the floor during the Forum frequently
referred to the benefits to be derived from applying a quality assurance approach to theiruse, an area where integration of various networks, with their differing expertise, can playa very positive role.
III. 3 The member states and the participants were asked to pinpoint, and discuss, those needs
which they rank as priorities. Precise information will have to be given on the fields in which
the Language Policy Division intends to propose solutions, in keeping with the principles
set out above.
Some of the needs expressed obviously concern matters to be dealt with on a local level and/or
through international co-operation:- teacher training to allow better use of the CEFR (for example, through the supply of training
kits or the publication of case studies);- distribution of documents making the CEFR more accessible for all teachers, while avoiding
any depletion of its substance;- distribution of material illustrating the proficiency levels' implications in different contexts, fordifferent age groups and for different languages;

16

Council of Europe

- continuing or intensifying the holding of national or international seminars in order to linkexamples of written and spoken performances to the CEFR scales of competence and to allow
calibration of performances in different languages;- development of curricula taking account of the CEFR and of teaching materials illustrating thelink with the framework;- formulation of additional competence descriptors for specific groups (for example, children
from an immigrant background), for language skills or activities not described in great depth in
the CEFR (intercultural competence, mediation, etc.) or for intermediate levels between the six
already existing;- development of calibrated assessment tools based on the CEFR levels (items, tasks, tests, andso on), even though the demand does not seem to be for finished, ready-made tests, but rather forcomponents for use in test development;- establishing a quality requirement for assessments claiming to refer to the CEFR involving
verification of the link with the relevant proficiency level(s), identification of good, or less good,practices, or the formation of teams of experts available to assist those responsible forassessments.
Other needs fall, at least in part, within the Council of Europe's sphere of responsibility andcompetence:- setting up a discussion forum;- further development of certain parts of the CEFR, notably those concerning the links between
the curriculum and diversification of languages learned, the relation between results ofassessments and of self-assessments, a suitable approach for assessing plurilingual competence
and, lastly, consideration of cultural factors' influence on results;- preparation of an equivalent of the CEFR for languages of school education.
IV.

Conclusion

This Forum had extremely wide-ranging objectives, and its subject-matter was very broad. It
must moreover be acknowledged that the large number of papers and case studies presented had
one regrettable consequence, which was that the desirable balance between these presentations
and the discussions within the working groups could not be struck, no doubt to the detriment of
the comments, observations and questions the presentations would inevitably have raised.
It can nonetheless be said that this shortcoming was to a large extent offset by the possibility theparticipants were given of acquainting themselves with the extremely wide range of uses of the
CEFR, fully realising what was at stake and thus participating in the gradual decision-making
process.
The Forum proceedings followed a well-identified course:
We began by pooling and comparing the needs emerging from use of the CEFR in the member
states and the various non-governmental and professional organisations.
We then went on to review the solutions proposed by the European institutions: the European
Commission, the Council of Europe Language Policy Division and the European Centre forModern Languages. Some developments plainly meet identified needs. Other needs were raised
repeatedly and should form a basis for discussion and action in the coming months and years,
while sharing the roles among the various bodies concerned.

Council of Europe

17The second part of the proceedings was moreover chiefly concerned with the question exactly
who is responsible for what. The three days of discussions made it possible to arrive at the
beginnings of a reply, which is doubtless the Forum's most significant conclusion and the mostweighty in terms of its implications: it is primarily the member states themselves whichshould seek solutions to the needs identified in order to promote good practice in making
use of the framework. Everyone's responsibility towards their partners is at least as great
as their responsibility towards the Council of Europe, and better use must be made of thepossibilities offered by a joint approach and by international co-operation. The Council ofEurope's own responsibility is enhanced as regards its guidance, mobilisation and coordination roles, in short serving as a catalyst to promote the desirable developments in thefields of education and assessment. The Council must remain a facilitator and continue toserve as an intermediary between all its partners.
This joint responsibility also concerns the necessary link between use of the CEFR for modern
languages education and the Council of Europe's policy objectives, which formed a sort of threadrunning through our proceedings. The ways in which the CEFR is used have implications forsocial cohesion, access to employment, citizenship, mobility and mutual understanding inEurope. Adopting the CEFR as an instrument for analysing and improving learning, teaching andassessment arrangements also entails identifying means of avoiding a number of deficiencies
referred to during the proceedings, which would distance us from our goals. Ensuringconsistency between the uses made of the CEFR and the policy objectives set in the key
documents adopted by the political decision-makers involves guaranteeing that the
instruments proposed by the CEFR are effectively harnessed to promoting plurilingual
education, democratic citizenship, social cohesion and intercultural dialogue, which rulesout any use of the CEFR for purposes of exclusion and segregation or even as a tool for
simply developing an exclusive competence in any given language.
Many of those taking the floor testified to the fact that this consistency is more achievable when
the CEFR is used not as an isolated document, but as part of an overall approach incorporatingother language policy instruments developed by the Council of Europe, whether the European
Language Portfolio, the Guide for the Development of Language Education Policies or the
Manual for relating Language Examinations to the CEFR. Such an approach will be all the easier
when a larger number of countries and regions have prepared their own Language Education
Policy Profiles and when languages of school education also benefit from tools similar to thoseexisting in the modern languages sphere.

18

Council of Europe

TEXTS OF SOME MAJOR PRESENTATIONS

Council of Europe

19

The CEFR Common Reference Levels: validated reference points and local
strategies
Brian NORTH

This paper briefly addresses the following questions:
What is the purpose of the CEFR? The CEFR is a concertina-like reference tool that provides
categories and levels that educational professionals can expand or contract, elaborate orsummarise, according to the needs of their context. The aim is for users to adopt activities,
competences and proficiency stepping-stones that are appropriate to their local context, yet canbe related to the greater scheme of things and thus communicated more easily to colleagues andstakeholders.
What are the Common Reference Levels and where do they come from? The CEFR levels
are based on the Council’s work on objectives and are the result of process of deliberate
convergence from the mid 1970s. The Swiss research project (1993-7) that produced theillustrative descriptors is briefly outlined and the salient characteristics of levels themselves
explained.
What claim to validity have the illustrative descriptors? The reason why these particular
descriptors have greater validity than those that preceded them is pointed out. The question
whether a common framework can have validity both as a generic reference point and as a
specific application in a local context will be addressed, together with the issue of use for the
language of schooling.
How can we ensure consistent interpretation of the levels? Finally the draft Manual, intended
to assist examination providers in relating their examinations to the CEFR, is briefly presented.
The CEFR Common Reference Levels: validated reference points and local strategies
What is the Purpose of the CEFR?
The “Common European Framework of Reference for languages: learning, teaching,assessment:” CEFR (Council of Europe 2001) was developed between 1993 and 1996 by aCouncil of Europe international working party following the recommendation of anintergovernmental Symposium “Transparency and Coherence in Language Learning in Europe”
held at Rüschlikon, near Zurich in November 1991. The CEFR was written with three mainaims:
To establish a metalanguage common across educational sectors, national and linguistic
boundaries that could be used to talk about objectives and language levels. It was hoped that
this would make it easier for practitioners to tell each other and their clientele what they
wished to help learners to achieve and how they attempted to do so.



To encourage practitioners in the language field to reflect on their current practice,particularly in relation to learners’ practical language learning needs, the setting of suitableobjectives and the tracking of learner progress.

To agree common reference points based on the work on objectives that had taken place in
the Council of Europe’s Modern Languages projects since the 1970s.

Council of Europe

21In time, the existence of such a common reference framework would, it was hoped, help to relatecourses and examinations to each other and thus achieve the “transparency and coherence” that
had been the subject of the Rüschlikon Symposium.
The approach taken was to provide a conceptual framework made up of: A taxonomic descriptive scheme, summarised in Chapter 2 covering such issues as
domains of language use, communicative language activities and strategies (in Chapter4) plus the competences of the learner/user (In Chapter 5). The scheme can be seen as afurther development of approach to objectives taken in Waystage, Threshold Level,
Vantage Level and their equivalences for other languages.


A set of common reference levels, defining proficiency in as many of these categories as
possible at six levels (A1, A2, B1, B2, C1, C2) in empirically developed scales ofillustrative descriptors (North 2000, North and Schneider 1998). This work madeavailable a descriptor bank, validated and calibrated like an item bank, building on
research with descriptor scales and item-banking in Eurocentres and elsewhere.

The CEFR is not a harmonisation projects. The aim of the CEFR is to provide a mental
framework that enables people to say where they were, not a specification telling them where
they ought to be. Right at the very beginning of the CEFR, the authors emphasise:“We have NOT set out to tell practitioners what to do or how to do it. We
are raising questions not answering them. It is not the function of the
CEF to lay down the objectives that users should pursue or the methods
they should employ.” (Council of Europe 2001: xi Note to the User).
There is no need for there to be a conflict between on the one hand a common frameworkdesirable to organise education and encourage productive networking, and on the other hand the
local strategies and decisions necessary to facilitate successful learning in any given context. The
aim of the CEFR is to facilitate reflection, communication and networking. The aim of any local
strategy ought to be to meet needs in context. The key to linking the two into a coherent system
is flexibility. The CEFR is a concertina-like reference tool that provides categories, levels anddescriptors that educational professionals can merge or sub-divide, elaborate or summarise,adopt or adapt according to the needs of their context - whilst still relating to the common
hierarchical structure.
The idea is for users to adopt activities, competences and proficiency stepping-stones that areappropriate to their local context, yet can be related to the greater scheme of things and thus
communicated more easily to colleagues in other educational institutions and to otherstakeholders like learners, parents and employers. For example in Finland, A1 is split into threelevels to provide initial motivation. One might illustrate an approach like the Finnish one as a setof stepping stones towards independent language use, as shown in Figure 1.
A

B

Basic User/

Independent User

\

/

A1
/ | \

22

A2
6

/ \

A1.1

A1.2 A1.3

A2.1

1

2

5

3

4

B1
A2.2

Council of Europe

Whilst the concept of “level” is useful for curriculum organisation and for giving a quick answer
to the question “What level am I?” the rich descriptive framework provided by the CEFR
illustrative descriptors is intended to facilitate profiling not levelling. In addition to the threesummary scales introduced in Chapter 3, the CEFR offers a total of 54 sub-scales for different
communicative language activities and strategies and for different aspects of communicative
language competence. It is not the intention that anyone should use these 54 sub-scales
operationally. Rather, their purpose is to help the user to consider the coverage of the learning
programme or examination with which they are concerned: what are the priority areas and whatlevel of proficiency is appropriate in each area? In setting such priorities, it is sensible to exploit
the profiling possibilities by considering the setting of higher target levels for certain skills (e.g.
receptive skills) – encouraging “partial competences.”
What are the Common Reference Levels and where do they come from?
The CEFR levels (A1-C2) did not suddenly appear from nowhere. They have emerged in a
gradual, collective process that started in 1913 with the Cambridge Proficiency exam (CPE) thatdefines a practical mastery of the language as a non-native speaker. This level has become C2.
Just before the last war, Cambridge introduced the First Certificate (FCE) – still widely seen as
the first level of proficiency of interest for office work, now associated with B2. In the 1970s theCouncil of Europe defined a lower level called “The Threshold Level” (now B1), originally to
specify what kind of language an immigrant or visitor needed to operate effectively in society.
Threshold was quickly followed by “Waystage” (now A2), a staging point half way toThreshold.
The first time all these concepts were described as a possible set of “Council of Europe levels”
was in a presentation by David Wilkins (author of “The Functional Approach”) at the 1977
Ludwighaven Symposium (Trim 1978). This symposium had represented the first - unsuccessful- attempt to move towards a common European framework in the form of a unit-credit scheme
linked to common levels.
In 1992 the Council of Europe’s “Common Framework Working Party” adopted the following
six “Common Reference Levels” for the future CEFR:Breakthrough(later A1),



Waystage(later A2),

Threshold(later B1),



Vantage(later B2),



“Effective Operational (later C1)
Proficiency”

exemplified by the new DALF (Diplôme Approndide Langue Française) from the CIEP,“Mastery”

exemplified by the Cambridge CPE (Certificate ofProficiency in English).

(later C2)

These six levels corresponded both to the seven levels that have been suggested by Wilkins in
1977 (minus the top level) and to the five levels adopted by ALTE: the Association of Language
Testers in Europe (founded by Cambridge in 1991) – with the addition of A1.
In 1993-6, two Swiss members of the Working Party then used both qualitative and quantitative
methodologies to develop illustrative descriptors for these six levels (North 2000, North andSchneider 1998, Schneider and North 2000). In a series of 32 workshops, teachers were given
descriptors to sort into categories. This tested not only the clarity of the descriptors, but also thefeasibility of the categories proposed for the sub-scales. The clearest, most relevant descriptors

Council of Europe

23

were then presented in descriptor-checklists that were used by some 300 teachers to assesslearners in some 500 classes at the end of the school years 1994 and 1995. A statistical analysisof this data produced a scale on which each descriptor had a difficulty value (e.g. 176 or 053).
The final step was to “cut” this continuous scale of descriptors to match the set of CEFR levels.
The Swiss research project actually identified 10 rather than 6 bands of proficiency. Between thecriterion level for A2 and the criterion level for B1 there was found to be what came to be
described as a “plus level.” The same was the case for between B1 and B2 (B1+) and between
B2 and C1 (B2+). These “plus levels” were characterised by a stronger performance in relation
to the same features found at the criterion level, plus hints of features that become salient at thenext level. The “plus level” concept can be very useful in relation to school assessment because
narrower levels allow learners to see more progress.
It is perhaps worth emphasising the salient features of the levels, as illustrated by the empiricallycalibrated descriptors:
Level A1 is the point at which the learner can:interact in a simple way, ask and answer simple questions about themselves, where they
live, people they know, and things they have, initiate and respond to simple statements inareas of immediate need or on very familiar topics,
rather than relying purely on a rehearsed repertoire of (tourist) phrases.

Level A2 reflects the Waystage specification with:

the majority of descriptors stating social functions: greet people, ask how they are and react
to news; handle very short social exchanges; ask and answer questions about what they do atwork and in free time; make and respond to invitations; discuss what to do, where to go andmake arrangements to meet; make and accept offers,

plus descriptors on getting out and about: make simple transactions in shops, post offices orbanks; get simple information about travel; ask for and provide everyday goods and services.

Level B1 reflects The Threshold Level, with two particular features:

maintaining interaction and getting across what you want to: give or seek personal views andopinions in an informal discussion with friends; express the main point he/she wants to makecomprehensibly; keep going comprehensibly, even though pausing for grammatical andlexical planning and repair is very evident, especially in longer stretches of free production,plus coping flexibly with problems in everyday life: deal with most situations likely to arise
when making travel arrangements through an agent or when actually travelling; enter
unprepared into conversations on familiar topics; make a complaint.

Level B2 reflects three new emphases:effective argument: account for and sustain opinions in discussion by providing relevant
explanations, arguments and comments; explain a viewpoint on a topical issue giving theadvantages and disadvantages of various option,



holding your own in social discourse: interact with a degree of fluency and spontaneity thatmakes regular interaction with native speakers quite possible without imposing strain on
either party; adjust to the changes of direction, style and emphasis normally found inconversation,plus a new degree of language awareness: correct mistakes if they have led tomisunderstandings; make a note of "favourite mistakes" and consciously monitor speech for
them.

24

Council of Europe

Level C1 is characterised by access to a broad range of language that results in fluent,spontaneous communication:

express him/herself fluently and spontaneously, almost effortlessly; has a good command of abroad lexical repertoire allowing gaps to be readily overcome with circumlocutions; there islittle obvious searching for expressions or avoidance strategies - only a conceptually difficult
subject can hinder a natural, smooth flow of language,

produce clear, smoothly-flowing, well-structured speech, showing controlled use oforganisational patterns, connectors and cohesive devices.

Level C2 represents the degree of precision and ease with the language of highly successful
learners:convey finer shades of meaning precisely by using, with reasonable accuracy, a wide rangeof modification devices,

and a good command of idiomatic expressions and colloquialisms with awareness ofconnotative level of meaning.

The illustrative descriptor scales in the CEFR make up a “descriptor bank.” In addition, the ELP
Validation Committee has encouraged ELP developers to elaborate, extend and paraphrase theoriginal illustrative descriptors. Experience suggests that this can be done in many ways, forexample:

editing the generic descriptor lightly to better suit the domain in question (academic
study; professional areas, primary/secondary school classroom tasks);

unzipping the tightly packed descriptors more typical of the CEFR into a more general
header descriptor plus several sub-descriptors, which then sometimes take on a more
specific orientation to the domain in question;

adding new descriptors that mirror the concrete formulation style of the illustrativedescriptors and exploit elements that appear in other descriptors at the level concerned.

A bank of CEFR-based descriptors for different age groups and educational sectors that weredeveloped in these ways for different ELPs is provided on the www.coe.int/portfolio website.
What claim to validity have the illustrative descriptors?
The illustrative descriptors address fundamental criticisms of previous descriptor scales in thatthey:


cover a communicative descriptive scheme:o language activities and strategies (reception, interaction production)o language competences (linguistic, pragmatic, socio-linguistic)are each worded in positive terms, even for lower levels (Trim 1978)each present an independent, stand-alone criterion, defined independently from otherdescriptors (Skehan 1984: 217).

The descriptors are relatively unique in that they were not just written by an expert or committee,
but were developed scientifically:from a comprehensive documentation of existing expertise in the area, with documented
references to descriptors shared with pre-existing scales,

in relation to both what learners do (communicative activities and strategies) and how
well they do it (aspects of communicative competence),

Council of Europe

25with a qualitative methodology that checked that teachers could relate to the categories
used and that each descriptor employed was an unambiguous, stand-alone criterion,

employing a sophisticated statistical methodology that enabled the descriptors to bescaled on the same mathematical scale as learners, (for some of whom video samples
were also available),

as a result of the use of the descriptors in a real, end-of-year assessment by practisingteachers,in four educational sectors,

in a multi-lingual environment,in relation to three foreign languages (English, French, German).

As a result, replication of the rank ordering of the descriptors has been high – with correlations
between 0.92 and 0.97 to the original ordering:

ALTE: 0.97 in conjunction with ALTE Can Do statements (Jones 2002:176),

DIALANG: 0.96 in relation to listening and reading descriptors; 0.92 for writing(Kaftandjieva and Takala 2002: 114-121), This data is significant as it was for Swedishlearners of Finnish, a non-Indo-European language.

Two fundamental questions remain, however, regarding limits to the validity of the descriptors:a) whether a framework can have validity both as a generic reference point and also as a
specific application in a local context;
whether a common framework developed for the teaching of foreign or second languages inmainstream education and the adult sector can be applied in primary school to the teaching of
the language of schooling (the mother tongue of the indigenous population).
Generic validity and specific application: There are three sub-questions to this point:the practical application of theoretical concepts with generic validity;the common difficulty level of learning elements placed at different levels on a set oflevels;the selection of a certain level to be a compulsory standard in a specific context.

Practical application of theoretical concepts: North (2000: 29) suggested that a framework
scale ideally needs to be context-free in order to accommodate generalisable results fromdifferent specific contexts, yet at the same time the descriptors on the scale need to be contextrelevant, relatable or translatable into each and every relevant context, and appropriate for thefunction they are used for in that context. In practical terms, this means that the descriptive
scheme of the framework needs to:a) relate to the categorisation in theories of language competence, although the available
theory and research is inadequate to provide a basis for it;b) be relevant to the contexts of the learning population concerned, though these cannot be
predicted with any certainty;c) remain user-friendly and accessible to practitioners.
The CEFR illustrative descriptors attempt to do this; but it is a tall order. It would perhaps to befairer to say that the illustrative descriptors taken together with their further elaboration andamendment to specific contexts in the ELP descriptor bank discussed above meet this aim.

26

Council of Europe

Common difficulty level: With regard to this issue, Spolsky considered:“A functional set of goals exists in a social context.…. Where this isconsistent and common as in the Foreign Service, or in the Council ofEurope notion of the Threshold Level for tourists and occasional visitors,
it is not unreasonable to develop a scale that proceeds through the skills.
.…If it cannot be based on a single social goal, a single set of guidelines,
a single scale could only be justified if there were evidence of anempirically provable necessary learning order, and we have clearly had
difficulty in showing this to be so even for structural items.” (Spolsky
1986: 154; 1989: 65)
A common, empirically proven learning order can probably never be demonstrated; second
language acquisition research shows no signs of confirming such an order, despite what for atime appeared promising signs (e.g: Meisel et al 1981; Pienemann 1985). However, in the case of
the bank of CEFR illustrative descriptors, an empirically proven interpretation of difficulty (i.e.
the “Level” of a descriptor) can be claimed to be common across foreign languages, language
regions, educational sectors (secondary, tertiary, and adult) and the learner/teacher divide. The“DIF” (differential item functioning) of the CEFR illustrative descriptors was extremely limited
where it did occur it could easily be explained by not-necessarily-desirable curriculum practice(North 2000: 255-260).
Selection of a certain level to be a compulsory local standard: Educational standards must
always take account of the needs and abilities of the learners in the context concerned.
Unfortunately, educational standards often give the impression that they have been “plucked outof the air on the basis of intuition, which is frequently shown on closer examination to be
wrongly conceived” (Clark 1987: 44). Norms of performance need to be definitions of
performance that can realistically be expected, rather than relating standards to “some neat andtidy intuitive ideal” (Clark 1987: 46). This posits an empirical basis to the definition ofstandards.
The CEFR descriptors were in fact produced empirically in classroom contexts, relating learnerachievement in the context (Switzerland) to the levels on the scale, as mentioned above. The
European Language Portfolio (ELP) – with CEFR descriptors in adapted and elaborated forms
appropriate to the educational context concerned as described above - provides an ideal
exploratory tool to discover what level would be a realistic standard for any specific context. Yet
unfortunately, in many contexts a CEFR level (e.g. “B1”) continues to be “plucked out of theair” without an assessment of the realism of the objective or a consideration of the investmentthat would be necessary to achieve it.
That is not a limitation in the validity of the CEFR as such, but rather an unfortunately naïve useof it.
Language of schooling: As regards the second question, there is currently a lot of interest in thelanguage of schooling. There are clearly areas of convergence between frameworks for the two
purposes – for example the categories of the descriptive scheme itself would continue to be
relevant. However, there will also be points where a framework to describe emerging
competence in the language of schooling will put a different emphasis. For example, the CEFR
illustrative descriptors define behavioural outcomes (results of learning), whereas a framework
for the language of schooling may be more interested in describing emerging abilities andcompetences and in relating their development to the kind of educational scaffolding thatencourages that development. Secondly, foreign language learners transfer to the foreign
language competences they have already acquired in relation to the mother tongue and languageof schooling. A framework for the latter would need to situate the development of language
competences within the overall cognitive and social development of the children concerned.
Council of Europe

27Many CEFR illustrative descriptors may thus prove unsuitable as they assume the cognitive andsocial competences of young adults at age 16 and above (e.g. the many descriptors at B2
emphasising the ability to develop and justify arguments).
These and other points of convergence and divergence are being considered by a new Working
Party for a framework for the language of schooling that is expected to report in 2009.
How can we ensure consistent interpretation of the levels?
North and Schneider (1998:243) emphasised that the production of a scale was only the first stepin the implementation of a common framework, and that ensuring a common interpretation
through standardised performance samples and monitoring data from tests was necessary.
The process of standardising the interpretation of the levels has been supported by thedevelopment of the draft manual “Relating Language Examinations to the Common European
Framework of Reference for Languages: Learning, Teaching, Assessment (CEFR)” (Council ofEurope 2003; Figueras et al 2005). The Manual proposes methodologies for relating the resultsfrom local assessments to the CEFR that do necessarily involve complex statistics or large-scale
projects. Procedures are presented in three sets:Specification of the coverage of the examination in relation to the CEFR descriptor
framework (categories described at different levels) in addition to a general description of
the examination concerned.

Standardisation of the interpretation of the levels through training with examples of
performances calibrated with common criteria (CEFR Table 3) followed bybenchmarking local performance samples to the framework levels. DVDs ofperformances illustrating the CEFR levels are available for the two official languages of
the Council of Europe (English and French) and are almost completed for German and
Italian.



Empirical Validation of the results reported by tests through an independent
corroboration of the linking claimed on the basis of specification and standardisation. To
achieve this, one demonstrates a high correlation to an external criterion, which can beeither a test already calibrated to the CEFR or judgements (by teachers or learners) with
CEFR descriptors.

This scheme was adopted (a) because these categories are a good way of grouping linking
methodologies found in the literature, (b) because they reflect the classic three stages of quality
management (design, implementation, evaluation) and (c) because such broad concepts could
thus be applied equally to formal, high-stakes assessment situations (examinations) and to lowerstakes school and teacher assessments.
The Manual has been piloted in some 20 case studies throughout Europe. Feedback considered at
the start of the revision process (November 2006) indicates that the structure (specification,
standardisation, validation) works well. The Manual appears to be a good way to criticallyreview and evaluate the content and the statistical characteristics of an exam – and many stressedthat the process is as important as the outcome. The Manual was felt to be a very effective way tomediate the CEFR, though several users reported on the difficulty of following the suggested
procedures without a full set of calibrated performance samples and test items. In this respect theneed for cross-language benchmarking during development was also stressed. Various
suggestions have also been made to make the Manual more user-friendly and straightforward.
The definitive version of the Manual is expected to be available in January 2008. The
documentation to the existing DVDs, plus writing performance samples are available on thewebsite www.coe.int/portfolio. Sample reading and listening items that are considered by theinstitutes they originate from to represent the CEFR levels have also been provided, and it is28

Council of Europe

hoped that the actual case studies will produce a broader range of performance samples and test
items that are calibrated to the levels.
The existence of sets of performance samples calibrated to the CEFR levels will also offer at
least the possibility of further enriching the bank of illustrative descriptors. Techniques exist to
identify salient features that appear to distinguish between levels; these techniques could be
employed to double-check the content of the current descriptors and to elaborate areas that are
currently under-defined (e.g. socio-linguistic competence; Level C2).
Conclusion
Provided the descriptors in a common framework have a theoretically motivated development
and provided that the framework presents a flexible structure, there is no need for a conflict
between the desire to have a central framework to provide transparency and coherence and theneed to have local strategies that provide learning goals specific to particular contexts. The main
danger with regard to all common frameworks is a simplistic interpretation of them. The key tosuccess is for users to appreciate that a common framework is a descriptive metasystem that is
intended as a reference point, not as a tool to be implemented without further elaboration andadaptation to local circumstances.

References
Alderson, J.C. (ed.) (2002): Case studies in the use of the Common European Framework.
Strasbourg, Council of Europe, ISBN 92-871-4983-6.
Clark, John L. (1987): Curriculum Renewal in School Foreign Language Learning. Oxford:
University Press.
Council of Europe (2001): Common European Framework of Reference for Languages:
learning, teaching, assessment. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
Council of Europe (2003): “Relating Language Examinations to the Common European
Framework of Reference for Languages: Learning, Teaching, Assessment (CEFR)”
DGIV/EDU/LANG (2003) 5, Strasbourg, Council of Europe.
Figueras, N., North, B., Takala, S., Verhelst, N. and Van Avermaet, P. (2005): Relating
Examinations to the Common European Framework: a Manual. Language Testing, 22, 3, 1-19.
Jones, N. (2002): Relating the ALTE Framework to the Common European Framework ofReference. In Alderson (ed.): 167-183.
Kaftandjieva, F. and Takala, S. (2002): Council of Europe Scales of Language Proficiency: avalidation study. In Alderson (ed.): 106-129.
Meisel, J.H., Clahsen, H and Pienemann M (1981): On determining developmental stages in second language acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 3/2, 109–135.
North, B. (2000): The Development of a common framework scale of language proficiency. New
York, Peter Lang.
North, B. and Schneider, G. (1998): Scaling Descriptors for Language Proficiency Scales. In:
Language Testing 15/2: 217–262.
Pienemann, Manfred (1985): Learnability and syllabus construction. In: Hyltenstam K. and
Pienemann M. (ed.) (1985): Modelling and assessing second language development.
Multilingual Matters, 23–75.

Council of Europe

29

Schneider, G and North, B. 2000: Fremdsprachen können - was heisst das? Skalen zur
Beschreibung,
Beurteilung
undSelbsteinschätzungderfremdsprachlichen
Kommunikationsfähigkeit. Chur/Zürich:
Skehan, Peter (1984): Issues in the Testing of English for Specific Purposes. In: Language
Testing 1/2, 202–220.
Spolsky, B. (1986): A multiple choice for language testers. Language Testing 3, 147-158.
Spolsky, B. (1989): Conditions for second language learning. Introduction to a general theory.
Oxford, Oxford University Press.
Stern, H.H. (1989): Seeing the wood AND the trees: Some thoughts on language teaching
analysis. In: Johnson, R.K. (ed.): The Second Language Curriculum. Cambridge: University
Press, 207–221.
Trim, J. L.M. (1978): Some Possible Lines of Development of an Overall Structure for aEuropean Unit / Credit Scheme for Foreign Language Learning by Adults. Strasbourg: Councilof Europe, Appendix B.
Wilkins, D. A. (1978): Proposal for Levels Definition. In: Trim 1978, 71–78, Appendix C.

30

Council of Europe

Impact of the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages andthe Council of Europe’s work on the new European educational area
Francis Goullier
This presentation deals with some of the implications of the success of the Common
European Framework of Reference for Languages. It has been noted a number of times
during our discussions that the Framework’s subtitle is a threefold one: learning, teaching,assessment. Consideration of the Framework’s impact on language policies and language
teaching practices in Europe must therefore take into account all the aspects covered by this
text: curricula, syllabi, teacher training, teaching materials and assessment.
The purpose of this presentation is not to provide another overview of the implementation of
the CEFR in member states, however. Rather, it will look at the effects of the Framework’s
introduction on the emergence of a new European educational area and on the relationshipsthat exist, or ought to exist, between the various players within that area.
I shall start by reviewing the first day of this Forum. Our discussions on the effective
calibration of language proficiency examinations and certification to the reference levels set
out in the Common European Framework of Reference illustrate the way in which many of
those concerned perceive the nature of the relationship between the member states and theCouncil of Europe. The debate that has been initiated concerns the respective responsibilityof each state and of the Council: should the quality of such examinations and certification beassured by the Council of Europe inspecting the documents produced with reference to the
Framework, and should the Council even introduce a form of quality control? Or, on thecontrary, is this a sphere in which each state enjoys complete sovereignty – with the
responsibilities that entails – including over institutions and bodies which adopt these
proficiency levels and which operate at the national level or represent a country or region
internationally?
It has been stated by the Steering Committee for Education of the Council of Europe that it
is not the Council of Europe’s mission to validate linking claims to the reference levels. I am
bringing it up again merely to illustrate what, to my mind, still characterises our thinking
about the relationship between the member states and the Council of Europe. Although theterm is not appropriate in this connection, we are dealing with an approach influenced by theconcept of subsidiarity, which also governs relationships between the European Union andits member states.
As I shall argue in my presentation, however, it is clear that in practice, particularly in themodern languages field, this vertical relationship between states and the Council has beensuperseded by a relationship of an entirely different kind, encompassing the Council ofEurope and all its member states: a relationship characterised by shared responsibility. It
does not replace the vertical state-Council relationship with horizontal relationships between
countries, but introduces a multi-faceted, mutually supportive environment that enriches thestate-Council relationship by adding a third dimension consisting of the various
relationships between member states.
The fact is that the rapid emergence of a European educational area for languages is“dealing a new hand” to the different players in this area.
The first, and simplest, illustration relates to the future of our languages. If we subscribe to
the principle – set forth and upheld by the Council of Europe – of the overriding need for
linguistic and cultural diversity, all the member states have a responsibility to promote one
another’s languages. Indeed, this is what Article 2 of the European Cultural Convention

Council of Europe

31

advocates. The European Year of Languages, the Guide for the Development of Language
Education Policies in Europe and the European Language Portfolio – in short, the Council ofEurope in all its expressions – reaffirm the need to promote all languages without exception,
naturally including European languages. Subscribing to the Council of Europe’s strategy forpromoting diversity means engaging in dialogue, not so much with the Council itself as withother European states and regions. Agreements concluded between countries or regions on agiven minority language or teaching of the partner’s language are to be welcomed.
Consideration must also be given to languages not covered by such agreements, including
national languages, if only by reiterating the relevant principles.
Consensus on the emergence of a European educational area for the teaching of modern
languages
A European educational area has been talked about for a long time, sometimes with aquestion mark over it. It is clear that this educational area is taking shape rapidly andconvincingly, particularly in the modern languages field.
One of the driving forces behind this development is the very evident synergy between theCouncil of Europe and the European Commission. The two bodies’ work in the language
field is generally regarded as being complementary, reflecting their respective roles andpriorities. Without going back to the European Year of Languages, the initiatives taken are
clearly helping to generate awareness of the need and scope for collaborative work in
Europe with a view to achieving goals such as improving language proficiency, developing
transparent language qualifications and protecting diversity. Languages are naturally part of
the wider “Education and Training 2010” work programme, but have also given rise to
specific initiatives. Commissioner Jan Figel’s December 2005 communication on
multilingualism sends a strong political signal. The European Commission’s 2004-2006
Action Plan for Linguistic Diversity was equally significant. It pointed out, inter alia, that
the Commission cannot bear sole responsibility for taking action in this area and thatmember states must take up the issues raised and help to achieve the goals set. It is worth
noting that in September 2006 each EU member state was asked to submit a national reporton its contribution to the Action Plan.
We are all aware that the issue of languages within education systems can no longer betreated just like any other issue. For obvious reasons, the very essence of this kind oflearning means that the European educational area is rapidly becoming the natural arena forthinking out and effecting the necessary adjustments.
Another recent illustration of this approach is afforded by the conclusions of the Council of
the European Union, published in the Official Journal of the European Union of 25 July
2006, concerning the European Indicator of Language Competence. The idea is to develop
an instrument for measuring and comparing the actual language proficiency of young
Europeans at the end of their compulsory schooling.
In these conclusions, the Council of the European Union affirms that foreign language skills,
as well as helping to foster mutual understanding between peoples, are a prerequisite for amobile workforce and thus contribute to the competitivity of the European Union economy.
In the same text, it also affirms that periodic monitoring of performance through the use of
indicators and benchmarks is an essential part of the Lisbon process, allowing good practice
to be identified with a view to providing strategic guidance and steering for both short- andlong-term measures of the “Education and Training 2010” work programme. Naturally, as
these conclusions point out, the indicator of language competence should be linked to thelevels of the Common European Framework.
This example, among others, shows that a dual process is at work:32

Council of Europe-on the one hand, the sovereignty of each member state is respected (the Council of
the European Union stresses that “the development of the Indicator should fully
respect the responsibility of Member states for the organisation of their education
systems (…)”;-

on the other hand, however, the very idea of a European indicator makes states
responsible to one another for achieving objectives set at the European level,necessitating more intensive dialogue on the methods used to achieve them.

This dual approach is not specific to modern languages, but the operative nature of themeasures introduced in this field and the emphasis at all levels on the issue of languages,
both in member states and at the European level, are striking. I am sure this phenomenon
cannot be put down to the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages
alone; rather, it has come about because the realisation of the pressing need for educational
instruments better geared to the variety of language skills required in Europe coincided
chronologically with the CEFR providing the basic elements of a solution. In my view, thiscoincidence accounts for the Framework’s rapid success. Conversely, its success clearlyheightens awareness of the needs, insofar as it makes certain solutions technically possible.
This specific dynamic is confirmed by the quantitative and qualitative success of the processof preparing country Profiles, initiated by the Council of Europe. Every stage in the
preparation of each Language Education Policy Profile (including the Country Reports andthe Experts’ Reports as well as the final Profiles themselves) encourages an analysis
comparing the specific needs of a region or state and the Council’s policy instruments. It is
fascinating to read the various Profiles published and to see how effective the Council’s
guidelines and documents are when put to the test in specific situations.
It is clear from reading these Profiles that the European educational area is taking shape bothby respecting the specific situations and needs of each of its components and by doing its
utmost to ensure that the progress made possible by discussion at the European level – andformalised, inter alia, in Council of Europe documents – contributes to the developments
under way in every European Region and state.
Example of the Validation Committee for the European Language Portfolio
The rapid development, thanks to the CEFR, of the European educational area for languages
is sparking another change, one that is less visible but equally important: the rapid,
widespread uptake of the CEFR in Europe is significantly altering each player’s position in
the new European educational area for language teaching and learning. The direct,
unambiguous relationship between states and the Council of Europe is gradually dissolving
into a network of mutual responsibility.
Nevertheless, an apparent counter-example to this development is often put forward: theEuropean Validation Committee for the European Language Portfolio. May I remind youthat this validation body, set up by the Steering Committee for Education in 2000, has thetask of examining each European Language Portfolio model developed by a state or a public
or private institution and verifying its conformity with the letter and spirit of the Principles
and Guidelines adopted by the Steering Committee. It is a case of verifying that the model
incorporates the specific features common to all the portfolios and possesses the necessary
qualities to fulfil its role in promoting plurilingualism, developing learner autonomy,
developing acceptance of linguistic and cultural diversity and ensuring transparent
qualifications by referring explicitly to the Common European Framework of Reference.
Only models validated by this Committee may be known as European Language Portfolios,
bear the Council of Europe logo and constitute an integral part of the momentum createdaround this tool in Europe.

Council of Europe

33

We are indeed talking about a vertical approach, to go back to the image used earlier. The
Council, through this Committee, validates references to Council of Europe tools of which a
ministry or institution wishes to make use.
This is the reality, and although about eighty portfolios have been validated to date, others
could not be validated on the first attempt; many designers have had to make significant
adjustments to their models in order to obtain such validation.
That aspect aside, however, observation of the Validation Committee’s modus operandi
since its inception shows that, while abiding by its terms of reference, the Committee
members soon incorporated into their work another element of current European
developments in relation to the Framework. It could even be argued that one of the mostimportant roles played by the Committee has been to encourage all the designers of
portfolios to share the advances made as a result of adjustments to the various models overtime. Indeed, there has been alarm in some quarters that the Committee’s criteria have
evolved since its inception and that model portfolios validated at its early meetings would
probably no longer be accepted in the same form today, even though the Principles andGuidelines have not changed. The “case law” established by the Validation Committee,
which is clarified and explained through regular updating of the reference documents, is infact one instance of the polymorphic relationships between the various member states andthe Council of Europe. A state’s relationship with the Council of Europe can no longer beconsidered in isolation from what other states are doing.
Similarly, it is obvious that the Council can no longer carry out its work in the modern
languages field without taking account of European Union initiatives. Since we are talking
here about the European Language Portfolio, it is crucial, for example, to look at thedevelopment of such portfolios for adult learners and vocational training in relation toEuropass introduced by the European Commission in 2005. Likewise, the European
Language Portfolio’s short-term future clearly can no longer be envisaged in isolation fromthe work and discussions of the Commission and the Union in relation to basic
competencies for young Europeans and the documents that could or should accompany
learners in the acquisition and validation of those competencies.
Who is responsible to whom?
It is generally considered that each state and institution is responsible for the quality of its
own procedures concerning the assessment of language proficiency levels. But responsible
to whom? To the Council of Europe? No, not just the Council! The very nature of the issues
involved in the proper calibration of certification tests shows that this question has an impact
on the benefit the various states and institutions can hope to gain from using these
proficiency levels. If a state allows the proficiency levels to be used inappropriately, itjeopardises the work being done in other countries, undermining their value as Europe-wide
benchmarks. It also deprives learners of the benefits of reliable certification of language
proficiency, making international recognition less certain and reducing the value of what is asignificant asset in the context of European mobility.
An institution or state that puts the guidelines and recommendations set out in the Manual
for Relating Language Examinations to the CEFR to good use, equipping itself to ensure theproper linking of such examinations or certification by means of a quality assurance process
or a national or regional validation institution, does so as much because it recognises its
responsibility towards its learners and its European partners as out of a concern to comply
with the recommendations of the Council of Europe’s Steering Committee for Education.
Such local, regional and national initiatives can only be encouraged. However, the Council
cannot ignore the potential – and even foreseeable – inconsistencies between the various

34

Council of Europe

countries, regions and languages when it comes to implementing these quality assurance
mechanisms. It is important not to overlook the danger that the very high stakes associatedwith internationally recognised certification and assessment may quickly result in certain
languages or countries striding ahead of other languages. The danger is even greater for
languages represented by social groups or linguistic minorities that do not enjoy the same
institutional or private support as that accorded to other languages. Although the Steering
Committee for Education does not consider the Council of Europe responsible for verifying
the quality of examinations and certification linked to the Framework levels, it does have
responsibilities in another area: it must closely monitor developments in Europe, issue
warnings when a certain degree of balance between languages comes under threat and takethe necessary action – within its field of competence, of course.
Let us now take a broader view by asking exactly what is happening in the various states inrelation to the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages.
A growing number of states have supported the translation of the Framework into theirnational language(s). This is consistent with the usual approach of making tools developedby the Council of Europe available to stakeholders in each country, thereby involving a“vertical” process.
The decision by some groups of countries sharing the same language to draw up
specifications defining the linguistic and cultural content corresponding to different levels of
the Framework has more serious implications for our discussions. This has been done forGerman (levels A1 to C2) and French (levels A1 and B2), and is in the process of being
done for other languages such as Greek, Portuguese, Spanish and English; it will probably
be extended to other languages. It is not an entirely new approach: the series of thresholdlevels developed in the 1980s set out, for each foreign language, those elements regarded as
essential in order to communicate with its speakers. The situation has completely changed,
however, owing to the adoption of these reference levels as learning targets in a growing
number of countries.
This implicitly raises the following question: what implications does the existence ofreference level descriptions describing the language content to be acquired at different levelsof proficiency have for the development of national curricula? Should, or can, the authors ofsuch curricula review the language content to be taught at year levels whose learning targets
correspond to one of the levels of the CEFR, when reference descriptions will be available
that specify precisely which content allows a particular language proficiency to be attained
at level A1, B1 or B2? Does a state have the wherewithal to create the right conditions, foreach language taught, for the same kind of research as that conducted, in order to develop
the specifications, by those countries considering themselves to be in charge of a particularlanguage? Is it not preferable to take advantage of the help thereby provided by partnercountries? It is true that the ground a learner has to cover in studying a language depends agreat deal on the languages he or she already knows, and the specifications provided foreach language have nothing to say about the practicalities of achieving different levels of
proficiency in the language in question. In practice, however, whether or not the content tobe learned includes a verbal mood or a particular form, where the learning target
corresponds to one of the levels of the CEFR, may be determined by specifications
developed by others. The practical implications of this situation are not significant, although
they may have a major impact on the teaching of the languages in question. On the other
hand, this is an interesting example in that it raises, albeit anecdotally, the issue of the
responsibility of those concerned. A ministry or state can agree to share responsibility fordefining teaching content in this way only if it explicitly subscribes to the new concept of aEuropean educational area for languages.

Council of Europe

35Naturally, it may do so without necessarily claiming to support this development, defending
its decision on technical grounds. However, this will undoubtedly mean it loses an importantresource when it comes to explaining and justifying changes in course content.
Another example highlights the political willingness to take advantage of the European
educational area in other ways. It concerns the application, in some countries, of theprinciple of mutual confidence in the assessment of pupils’ linguistic proficiency andintercultural competence. It is clearly essential for language learning, the discovery ofcultural aspects of the partner country and intercultural education to take into account the
linguistic, educational and cultural situation of learners. The approach adopted here,
however, consists in separating such learning from the assessment of its outcomes, making
partner countries responsible for the certification of proficiency in their languages or, at thevery least, seeking to engage in close co-operation with those countries in connection withthe certification process. It is a very different approach to that adopted by other stateswishing to develop their own certification systems for proficiency in foreign languages,
sometimes out of a concern to take full responsibility for the teaching of those languages intheir country, which is a very legitimate concern in some cases.
These two examples of explicit reliance on partner countries when it comes to defining
course content and implementing forms of proficiency assessment raise, in very different
ways, a new issue in the area of language teaching and assessment in Europe, namely: whois responsible for what?
Initially, we have seen that the issues around the calibration of language examinations andcertification significantly broaden the scope of the debate, which is no longer confined todialogue between member states and the Council of Europe. It is clear from these new
examples that the momentum generated by the CEFR in Europe is starting to bring about a
new balance in terms of responsibilities, placing increasing weight on horizontal
relationships between member states and thus raising the issue of responsibility from a newperspective.
Inevitable diversification of ways of dealing with the different components of the CEFR
This development applies to all the issues connected with the CEFR.
The forum is intended to serve as a forceful reminder that the Common European
Framework of Reference for Languages is not confined to the proficiency level scales. Witha view to the future Europe we hope to see, that is, a Europe respecting and deriving
strength from its diversity, it is even more important to explore the full potential of all theother components of the CEFR: real efforts to promote plurilingualism, an action-oriented
approach to language learning, taking into account learners’ needs and the development oflearner autonomy.
Although these aspects are also developed in other Council of Europe instruments, such as
the Guide for the Development of Language Education Policies in Europe and the European
Language Portfolio, it has to be said that they do not receive political recognition throughthe same channels, in the same form or at the same pace as the issues of assessment andlinking of language examinations and certification. With some exceptions, they are notincluded among the priorities set at the highest level.
This significant disparity in the recognition accorded to the various components of the
CEFR can only be a cause for concern. As we know, all of these components arecomplementary and it is difficult to see how one can make the most of part of the
Framework without getting to grips with the rest. Little is to be gained, for example, by

36

Council of Europe

trying to use the scales and proficiency levels without analysing them in detail andattempting to promote an action-oriented approach to teaching and learning in conjunction
with their introduction, without taking all the necessary measures to develop learnerautonomy, for instance through self-assessment, and above all without accepting the full
implications of the concept of plurilingualism underpinning the levels. The main advantageof the scales is that it is no longer necessary to refer to native-speaker standard in order to
set learning targets and assess proficiency levels. Stopping at this point, however, is to stop
halfway. The rationale behind the scales is that such targets should be designed inaccordance with learners’ needs, accepting the importance and potential advantages ofattaining complementary levels in different languages and thereby adopting a positive
approach to the concept of partial or specific competences. This is wholly bound up with theissue of responsibility. Allowing the CEFR to be interpreted and used in a piecemeal fashionis liable to result in a simplistic, standardising view of this tool, compromising much of the
CEFR’s contribution to the collective development of language teaching and assessment inEurope.
Moreover, this danger is starting to become apparent here and there with the reduction of the
Framework to purely operational aspects of language learning and a focus oncommunication skills. In some, if not many, cases, this is coupled with disregard for theimportance of familiarising pupils with the European cultural area and neglect of the culturaland intercultural components necessary for genuine communication, which also one of thejustifications of the need for plurilingualism. We must pay attention to any expressions ofunease that may emerge. They are a warning signal of deficiencies or imbalances in theimplementation of the CEFR and the discourse associated with it.
Naturally, this does not mean nothing is being done in member states. However, the lower
profile enjoyed at the European level by initiatives in these areas undoubtedly arises fromthe fact that they mainly involve specific measures taken in different countries and withincertain education systems.
An innovative solution has been found to the problems of linking language examinations
and certification in the form of a Manual and the publication of samples of learnerproductions intended to illustrate the different levels of proficiency. The question also arises
as to whether there might be a case for the Council of Europe using this approach as a model
for promoting the preparation of recommendations or even a guide to help member states
make the most of what the CEFR has to offer in terms of curricula, teaching materials andteacher education.
Raising the issue of the impact of measures taken in countries or regions, in connection with
the CEFR, on the European educational area comes down to considering the most effective
strategies for ensuring that such measures make the greatest possible contribution to positive
developments in all of these fields at the European level.
In this connection, I would like to turn around the question I asked at the beginning of mypresentation in order to define the Council of Europe’s responsibility in relation to themomentum generated by new developments in a given country. Although a negative
response has been given to the question of whether the Council of Europe should monitor
the linking of language examinations offered in the various states, it seems to me that it isboth possible and desirable to ask the Council of Europe how it can draw on measures
introduced in different places in order to help pool the necessary resources and expertisewith a view to addressing the issues that will undoubtedly arise in respect of theimplementation of key aspects of the CEFR. A perusal of the Language Education Policy
Profiles already produced highlights numerous examples of such issues.

Council of Europe

37

The Council of Europe has demonstrated its ability to respond appropriately to issues arisingfrom the practices or needs of certain countries or from new developments. The way theCouncil grappled with the issue of languages of instruction, raised by many countries
following the introduction of the CEFR, is an outstanding example. The Council responded
rapidly because this is a highly political issue. However, it is also important to respond in asimilar manner to issues of a less political nature, obviously in appropriate ways. Anotherexample is the shift in emphasis since the last European seminar on the European Languages
Portfolio, held in Lithuania in September 2006, where the Language Policy Division and the
Validation Committee wished the discussions and exchanges to focus on the implementationof this document rather than its content. This is a development geared to the needs observed
at local level in relation to the implementation of Council of Europe instruments.
In the new geography of the European educational area for languages, it seems to me thatthe relationship between member states and the Council must be two-way. The Council
makes a decisive contribution to shaping this new educational area by developing language
policy instruments and offering training in their use. By paying close attention to the needsof member states, it can probably do more to help them introduce new ideas in theimplementation of plurilingual education and accept the educational implications of theconcepts underpinning the CEFR.
In conclusion, the CEFR and the Council of Europe’s various language policy tools haveclearly had a very significant impact in Europe. For many, the rapid and widespread uptakeof the CEFR – taking advantage of the need to revitalise language teaching – was anopportunity to ensure that recognition of the importance of making such teaching more
effective and achieving greater transparency led to practical action. It is equally clear,
however, that the use of these Council tools has given a particular shape to the process set inmotion over the last few years. While responding to the needs identified and expressed for
greater transparency, a common scale of proficiency levels and a more communicative
approach to language teaching, the CEFR also introduces other elements of language policythat go together as a package.
This has numerous implications for the modus operandi of a European educational area thatis both strengthened and profoundly transformed by them. In this new landscape, it is nolonger a question of “What can the Council of Europe do for us?”, but rather of “Who doeswhat”? and “Who is responsible for what”?
Three key areas for development may be identified:38-

Each member state has at least as great a responsibility to all its partners as to theCouncil, and each, in accordance with the specific nature of its education system,
will surely have to work out the best possible way of shouldering its responsibilities.

-

While the various spheres of development all complement one another, they do not
move at the same pace; some of them are carried along by political priorities, whileothers still require efforts of explanation and persuasion. It is logical, therefore, that
not all aspects of the CEFR will take the same route. As a result, the Council’s
responsibilities may differ from those it has in areas such as assessment.

-

The issue of the Council’s responsibility is gradually being displaced by the rapid
uptake of the CEFR. During this presentation I discussed two examples of issues
that, to my mind, reflect this shift: how can the Council alert its partners and warn
them about the possibility of growing imbalances between languages in relation to
the introduction of quality assurance mechanisms for assessment processes? How
can it watch out for, and warn against, a counter-productive imbalance in theimplementation of the various components of the CEFR?

Council of Europe

Lastly, in relation to the latter point, our discussions would be incomplete if they wereconfined solely to the responsibilities of states and of the Council of Europe. Indeed, one of
the key aspects of the CEFR involves a much broader range of players. I am talking about
plurilingual education. There is a fundamental difference between plurilingual andintercultural education, as defined by the CEFR, and the most common approaches tolanguage teaching. Plurilingual and intercultural education cannot be seen solely as theoutcome of the language learning and teaching process, but changes the way we think about,develop and provide language education: it is an education in values as much as theacquisition of language skills; it is designed to enable each individual to develop andenhance his or her own plurilingual profile; it is geared to life-long learning thanks to thedevelopment of individual competencies, the acquisition of appropriate behaviours andstrategies and the promotion and recognition of linguistic and cultural diversity. It takes as
its starting-point and end-goal the knowledge, abilities and competencies of individuals intheir actual situation and social environment rather than the issues associated with teaching
one or more languages. This fundamental challenge raised by the CEFR can be met only bymeans of responsible, concerted action by all those involved in the education process:curriculum designers, trainers, authors of teaching materials, those in charge of
examinations and assessment, head teachers and language teachers, not to mention, ofcourse, the crucial task of explaining this approach to employers and end users of education
systems. We are well aware that these changes are the slowest to implement and willencounter the greatest resistance. Yet it is perhaps for this very reason that we must makethem an urgent focus. The manifold players involved in such a wide-ranging transformation
may give the impression that responsibilities are dispersed, leading to lack of action. Suchdispersal is not inevitable. It can be avoided if all those in positions of responsibility, atwhatever level, sincerely wish to understand and emphasise the fact that this approach goes
hand in hand with all the other components of the CEFR.
The division of responsibilities has clearly changed a great deal, but it is continuing toundergo major changes. It must be the subject of discussion and careful monitoring. This is
my belief, and the very purpose of my presentation. It is essential to take a realistic view of
how the CEFR has changed the European educational area and to watch for the danger ofaberrations or distortions of the potential of this tool, not only with a view to adapting to theneeds in Europe, but also – and I shall finish by looking to the future – out of a
responsibility to parts of the world and non-European countries that are taking a closeinterest in the CEFR. It is probably too soon to talk about this in detail, but it is not too soon
to consider the benefit these countries will also derive from the responsible use of the CEFR
on our own continent.

Council of Europe

39

Contextualising uses of the Common European Framework of Reference for
Languages
Daniel Coste
Numerous people were involved in designing and preparing the Framework of Reference.
We must not underestimate the contribution made by our colleagues in Switzerland, who did
so much to get the project off the ground before, during and after the symposium, held in
Rüschlikon in 1991. The first mention must, however, go to the decisive part played by John
Trim, Director of the “Modern Language” projects, in making the fundamental, andundeniably political, choices which transformed a project which was, in a sense, technical tostart with, into something vastly more ambitious and far-reaching. In fact, at the beginning,
the proposed reference instrument’s sole focus was to be the comparability of language
certificates, the aim being to help various categories of user by bringing a minimum level oftransparency and consistency into a complex and sometimes opaque panorama.
-

The first change made at John Trim’s instigation involved extending the
Framework’s reach to cover, not just assessment, but also teaching and learning and cover them in a very open spirit, with no methodological dogmatism.

-

The second extension reflected a desire, at a time when the Berlin Wall had
recently come down, and new European countries were preparing to join theCouncil, to make the Framework of Reference an instrument for dialogue and cooperation with those countries, whose different educational and teaching traditions
it would also have to allow for.

These were major challenges, on various levels, for a language education policy which was
not concerned solely with either languages or education, and which involved acceptance ofserious responsibilities.
I am mentioning these three and, as it were, interlocking aims now, as the end of thismeeting in Professor Trim’s honour approaches, not just because I am anxious to render
unto John the things that are John’s, and highlight the political considerations which sparked
the project, but also because I believe that these three rather disparate aims (comparing
certificates, gaining an overall picture of teaching and learning facilities and resources,
contributing to dialogue between different teaching cultures) have a bearing on projected incontext uses of this reference instrument, and on the rather varied uses already made of it inpractice.
So? Contextual uses of the Framework of Reference? In many ways, this may seem aparadox, when one remembers that, in some of its potential applications, the Framework
functions as a clearly defined standard, a stable yardstick, a central and single system forscaling language competences.
A glaring paradox indeed! As a reference instrument, the Framework was intended – not justin its repeated use of such phrases as “Users of the Framework may wish to consider andwhere appropriate state …” “Les utilisateurs du Cadre de référence envisageront etexpliciteront selon le cas …” (and John Trim was the one who insisted on constantly leaving
the ball in the user’s court), but in its essence and structure - to be flexible and contextamenable. It is modulable, malleable and multi-referential. It contains numerous adjustableparameters, and it is in context that each of them is assigned a value, that a profile isconstructed, and that standards and indicative thresholds may be determined.
What the Framework primarily gives its users is a common language and a common
instrument, which they can use to compare different options - national, regional or other.

40

Council of EuropeDifferent these options may be, but comparing them is possible, and one reason for doing so
is to give individuals (workers, students, migrants, and also pupils at school) optimum
support as they move from one context to another.
However, and this is one of the chief reasons for the present forum, this was not exactly
what happened. In many cases, indeed, the reverse: the Framework was seen as a European
standard, a kind of prescription or injunction, with contexts being forced, willy-nilly, to fit it- because it came from a European institution, and because other countries, regions,educational establishments, textbook publishers or authors, curriculum planners and testdevelopers took its B2 or C1 as their target and benchmark.
This created (still creates?) a danger of the Framework’s becoming a closed instrument - a
top-down procedure. In these circumstances, it is not surprising that people should turn tothe body which supposedly laid down this single standard, the Council of Europe’s
Language Policy Division, and ask it to confirm that they are applying it correctly – to givethem a certificate of approval and conformity, like that attaching to European technicalstandards, which are universally binding and leave no room for subsidiarity.
We all know that there are a few problems in practice, particularly with national
examinations. But we all must recognise - and hopefully have recognised - that issuingcertificates of conformity of this kind is no part of the Council of Europe’s job.
One of the things we must now try to do is ascertain the reasons for these aberrations.
Several explanations are possible – economic or organisational factors, or practical defects
in the Framework itself. I think it likelier that the product (the Framework) has failed tomatch customer requirements – or that those requirements have themselves shifted groundand changed.
Let us look first at the problems involved in defining levels of proficiency. On theassumption that, as I have said, users originally wanted an instrument they could use tocompare and rank existing diplomas and certificates, two things are now happening: firstly,
the Framework is doing more than it was asked to do, since its uses extend beyond
comparing things as they are; secondly, requirements are expanding very rapidly to include
a measuring instrument which can define proficiency levels exactly, calibrating them as
precisely as the graduations on a medical thermometer or the bar-setting marks in a polevaulting contest. What users want is not a differentiated profile of unevenly developed
skills, but a single line running through speaking and writing, reception and production, andinteraction - something which embodies objective convergence between the people who
devise international tests and certification procedures, the people who determine the aims ofeducation systems, and the people who write textbooks. The result of all this is that A2 or
B2 rapidly become global, summary labels, signifying that an A2 or B2 learner has attainedthat level, across the board, in all the skills to which descriptors are attached.
However, the Framework’s scales and descriptors are designed to serve a diametrically
opposite purpose: as Brian North has again reminded us here, the most general descriptors
certainly describe progression in levels of general competence, but they cannot determine
points on any one scale precisely. It is the most specific descriptors which make finedistinctions and employ several scales, assigning values to a number of parameters and fully
exploiting the multi-referentiality which is the Framework’s distinctive feature. This indeed
is the price of genuine contextualisation, which is “made to measure” and certainly costs
more, but provides a better fit than any “off-the-peg” item.
All of this has two problematic effects, which the present forum has considered: Firstly, use of the Framework can become approximate and haphazard (“How do I
know that your B2 is my B2?”). For example, when people say “In our school
Council of Europe

41

system, pupils reach B2 for the first foreign language, and A2 for the second”, it israther hard to know exactly what this means in a given context or contexts. And
going into more detail and saying, for example, “B2 for speaking and B1 for writing”
does not really give a better picture - though it does mark a move towards a certain
profiling of aims.
 Secondly, experts on testing techniques, and the people who devise tests anddetermine success thresholds, can easily argue, in these circumstances, that the
Framework, as yardstick, is too approximate.
Approaching the question from another angle, and coming back to the Framework’s
intended purpose, it must be emphasised that it can be used in many ways, and embodies a
number of strong options.
Firstly, it is, in several respects, multi-functional:
 It does not propose strict levels, but zones or bands, for which parameters must be set
locally, if precise standards and thresholds are wanted.
 The descriptors attached to its many scales give considerable scope for variation,
depending on how they are combined and on which parameters are used, in
determining or assessing differentiated profiles, inter alia for various skills, and inusing specific selected criteria (socio-linguistic, grammatical, etc.) for each of thoseskills.
 It offers a broad range of options concerning methods, types of task, and practical
approaches to learning.
 Its proposals on curricula (curriculum scenarios, modularity, personalised learning
paths and aims, etc.) are very flexible.
Secondly, it embodies a number of strong options, which are themselves ranked:
 Its descriptions of language use and learning are competence based and actionoriented (“Can do …’’ in a given domain).
 It affirms and promotes plurilingualism and introduces the concept of plurilingualand pluricultural competence.
 It includes plurilingualism among more general principles and values, relating todemocracy, citizenship and intercultural understanding (social cohesion is lessexplicitly present, as an educational aim, in the Framework than in later instruments,
such as the Guide, and indeed the European Language Portfolio).
There is certainly no incompatibility between these various dimensions, but there may besome interplay, and even friction, between the openness which is central to the Framework,and the strong options which it also proposes. It can also be read and used in different ways,
depending on the “level” of strong options the user chooses to emphasise.
 Not using the various parameters and profiling possibilities offered by the
Framework, and sticking to “A2”-type horizontal macro-definitions (for all skills andwithout indicating the parameters employed) is tantamount to imposing what seems
a single, common standard, without defining it clearly – thus leaving it open tovarious interpretations.
 Following only the first (competence based and action-oriented) option meansinterpreting the Framework in a way which may be seen, in many contexts, as

42

Council of Europe

technocratic and restricting the aims of education. Unless due care is taken, this may
boomerang.
These, however, are precisely the directions in which uses of the Framework have generally
been moving, since it was first applied in specific contexts.
In various settings and on various levels of discourse - this may have struck you in some of
the things said here – people who talk about the Framework are actually referring only to its
scales of proficiency and their descriptors. This is a kind of reverse metonymy: instead of apart’s denoting the whole (like the old use of “a sail” to mean “a ship”), the whole
designates a part: “the ship” means ”the sail”, and “the framework” means “the levels of
proficiency”.
It is worth spending a few moments on this example of everyday metonymy. If people say“sail” when they mean “ship”, the reason may be that the sail is the thing they see first froma distance, and the thing which propels the whole by responding to the wind. In the
Framework’s case, the six levels are clearly the most eye-catching feature, and the part most
responsive to the trends of the moment. At the same time (sticking with this simple
metaphor), the sail, though it may provide propulsion, is nothing without the hull and its
contents: the people it carries, who regulate the course.
The sail and the wind. We know which wind is blowing on the language scene in Europe
today: the wind of assessment – a good wind and a healthy one.
 It is actually quite natural that those who use, and benefit from, languages on aEuropean labour market, in a European knowledge society - employers and workers,
students and universities – should expect language learning systems, not only todevelop certain practical skills, but also to provide reliable, recognised means ofmeasuring those skills, and so making them useable in the various parts of Europe towhich individuals’ careers and lives may take them. We know about the recently
introduced Europass, which details the holder’s qualifications and professional
experience – and also his/her levels of language proficiency.
 There is nothing inherently surprising in the fact that, in many European countries,
decisions to admit or reject migrants, to award or refuse nationality, are taken on thebasis of (among other things, and with great variations in the level of proficiency
required) tests of the applicant’s ability to function in the language of the country
where he/she wishes to work and/or settle down.
 It is reasonable that society should expect education systems to be accountable, andthat the national or regional authorities in charge of those systems should today be
anxious to set measurable targets and guarantee the acquisition of key competences,including language skills.
 And it is certainly a good thing that the European Union authorities, as part of adeliberate and incentive policy to compare school systems’ performance bymeasuring them against agreed benchmarks, should now have an indicator of thiskind for modern languages.
In all these contexts, where the stakes are particularly high, we find that the Council ofEurope’s Framework is tending to become the reference point. This is an area where theresponsibilities - political (nationality), economic (employment), social, and also cultural,
humanitarian and, obviously, educational - are considerable. It also involves languagepolicy issues, relations between languages being one of them.
In these circumstances, it is hardly surprising that the long and well established language
training market should now be joined by a language assessment market, on which major
Council of Europe

43

assessment and validation agencies – and also small start-up businesses and freelance
consultants - are trying to gain, or are gaining, a foothold.
The importance of the issues is precisely one of the reasons why there are (at least) three
clearly perceptible types of tendency and tension.
 1.: A tendency to simplify, for reasons connected with the cost of processing data
relating to vast numbers of people. Operators accordingly work with all, or only
some, of the Framework’s six levels, but avoid going into too much detail, sincecovering differentiated profiles, nuances and variants would be too complex andcostly (in terms of manpower, time and money). Clearly, however, this tendency tosimplify carries some risk of homogenisation. For one thing, it falls far short of
exploiting the Framework’s scales fully; for another, it limits possibilities fordifferentiated contextualisation.
 2.: A questioning of the Framework’s scientific rigour, on the ground that it has notbeen sufficiently validated in empirical and statistical terms, outside the original
Swiss groups. Such criticisms are easily understood, since the Framework – giventhat many of its uses have obvious political and/or economic implications - must
offer minimum guarantees of validity and reliability. And, unsurprisingly, this debate
involves both moderates, whose views on what can be measured are realistic, andfundamentalists, who want to quantify everything.
 3.: A desire for a single, shared validating agency to guarantee conformity – aninstitution whose special scientific expertise or well-established international
authority rule out any possibility of its verdicts’ being contested. This gives rise, inturn, to two sub-tendencies: a tendency to use the Manual to defend and illustrate theFramework, and to lay down detailed procedures on linking examinations (present,
projected or in process of change) to the Framework’s levels and descriptors; and atendency to argue that the Framework should itself be refashioned, or even replacedwith a more strictly graduated measuring instrument.
Let me make one thing clear: I am neither condemning nor promoting any of thesetendencies. In their own terms, they are all undoubtedly justified and legitimate. But, if thisForum is genuinely useful and timely, that is because we now need to look squarely at thevarious demands people make on the Framework, and the many things it has done for them,and accept that its considerable, and largely unexpected success, has now brought us to apoint where the various user authorities need co-ordinated, and ideally convergent, policy
guidelines.
Before coming a little closer to the central question of contextualisation, I should like tomake a brief, parenthetical point, which will not – I hope – seem entirely digressive. We allknow (although some of the Framework’s users tend to forget this) that its various levels are
not equidistant in terms of the effort and time needed to progress from one to the next: alearner has to work longer and harder to advance from B2 to C1, than from B1 to B2. But a
more basic question is whether, in terms of learning and using languages, our assumptionthat the same types of descriptor are valid for all levels is, if not founded, at least adequate
as a working hypothesis.
Even without in any way questioning the descriptors’ validity and diagnostic value for
specific levels of proficiency, we may still consider that their applicability to the skills
implied by any given level becomes more limited as the learner’s mastery of a language andits uses increases. In principle, there is no incompatibility here with the descriptors’
diagnostic value. Without “covering” everything (how could they?), they can still function
as adequate and serviceable indicators of the various levels.

44

Council of Europe

This rather summary analysis could also be linked to the fact that the Reference Level
Descriptions used to make levels in different languages more detailed are not identical forthe same level. Here, it would be interesting, and revealing, to compare Profile B2 forGerman, Référentiel B2 for French and Vantage B2 for English. But this question ofReference Level Descriptions and their possible variations actually brings us back to one
aspect of in-context uses of the Framework.
In his paper, Francis Goullier confronted one of the big issues at this forum: determining
who does what, which levels of subsidiarity apply when it is a question, not of deciding
whether a given use of the Framework is orthodox and complies with a specific standard(since openness to multiple uses and variations in references to descriptors and levels arebasic to the Framework’s design and structure), but whether that the use made of reference
to the Framework is transparent and consistent enough to make comparisons possible. The
question is not “How do I know that your B2 is my B2?”, but “How can I compare my B2
with your B2?” Or, more directly, “What’s your B2 like?”
One of the ambiguities attaching to various uses of the Framework’s scales is due to the fact
that, although people are happy to continue assuming that C2 means “near-nativecompetence” (implying that there is something higher and better), most of them agree thatthe overwhelming majority of native speakers – not ideal ones, but real ones – are unlikely
to possess uniform C2 skills, i.e. to operate at C2 level across the board on all the
Framework’s scales. The question is: have the implications of this been fully grasped,particularly with regard to non-native speakers and the other Framework levels?
Taking Francis Goullier’s realistic and politically important points a little further, we mightthus consider replacing the frequently asked question “What authority validates my B2 andgives me the certainty that it is the right one?”, with two basic questions, “How can I
compare your B2 and mine?” and “How can I validate differentiated skill profiles?” We canalso assume that the answers should not come from the Council of Europe, but emerge from“horizontal” discussion within the European education area. Indeed, this point has been
grasped and applied by the major language validation agencies, such as those within ALTE it being understood that the rule they all follow within the consortium is that their reasons
for referring to A2 or B2 must be clearly explained, and that simply citing them is notenough.
It is true that other institutions, and particularly national school systems, are less concerned
than the major “testers” with external language policy and commercial viability, but, on theother hand, national, social and identity issues are more sensitive and more contextdependent for schools. Hence the necessarily complex and delicate nature of theharmonisation, comparison and mutual recognition which most of them now want at
European level - but which must not be mere window-dressing or clash with education
cultures shaped by a specific country’s past.
It is in connection with education systems alone, or primarily, that I should now like to saysomething about contextualisation, referring both to the various types of contextualisationand the agencies and protagonists involved, and assuming that the Framework comes in only
when the context in which it is to be used is being considered beforehand or along the way.
For purposes of analysis, I shall distinguish five types of contextualisation which, althoughdifferent, can combine in various ways. I shall also assume that contextualisation of the
Framework, whatever form it takes, is meaningful only when it is part of a plan for change
and development, i.e. when it is not a mere re-labelling exercise. No contextualisation
without action. Or, putting it in other, only seemingly paradoxical, terms: omitting tocontextualise always means accepting an external instrument as it stands, without anythingelse changing.
Council of Europe

45

First type: taking account of the multi-referentiality of the proficiency scales
In a given context, this involves setting, for different languages, learning objectives which
are more detailed (and possibly, for some languages, more diversified) than the “horizontal”
levels normally taken as a reference point. Examples: for one language, a broad range ofcommunication skills will be the aim while, for another, a particular skill will beemphasised; for one language, socio-linguistic competence will be considered more
important than for others, etc. Diversification, not just of the languages offered, but also of
the languages actually chosen, in school systems, also depends – assuming that effective
diversification always presupposes some differentiation of objectives – on contextual
decisions of this kind. There is no pretending that this kind of contextualisation is always
problem-free in practice, since it does not accord with the usual approaches. Attention must
thus be paid to political sensitivities and education cultures. The main thing is to take themedium-term view and assume, for example, that different objectives, at different levels,
can be set for the various language skills at an intermediate stage, depending on needs. Be
this as it may, it must be emphasised that this first type of contextualisation involves using
the resources offered by the Framework in its present form more effectively than at present
and, in that sense, going into it more deeply.
Second type: exploiting methodological and pedagogical avenues and openings
Obviously, the Framework’s bridge-building function between cultures does not limit
teaching and learning to a communicative-type approach that has not been renewed. Taking
just one small example, I might mention mediation, which is fully recognised and covers abroad range of pedagogical practices (including translation between languages) and note thatthe chapters concerned – again largely due to John Trim, and also Joe Sheils – list numerous
teaching approaches and methods, which can be varied and mixed in different ways,
depending on contexts, and on the margins for initiative and change available in each. It isalso worth recalling that the Framework’s approach to curriculum objectives and scenarios
is based on flexible modules.
In this type of contextualisation, as in the first, all that is required is to go deeper into the
Framework and choose, from among the resources and practices it suggests, those whichanswer local needs. To borrow a colleague’s culinary metaphor, the scales and levels haveobviously been the main course for consumers of the Framework so far, and the rest a mereside dish - indeed hors d’oeuvre or appetiser. People may thus have assumed too readily thatthe action-oriented vision of language use and learning implies exclusive use of teaching
methods focused on communication in too narrow a sense of that term.
Third type: supplementing and extending the reference tools in certain directions
Requirements and options in specific contexts can obviously go beyond the things which the
Framework offers users. The following are two examples:46Bilingual education, in which knowledge is conveyed through a non-first language,certainly requires suitable descriptors of existing bilingual systems, covering – among
other things - the disciplines where this method is used, and the types of discourse or thecommunication activities which those disciplines employ.



The Framework says little about the various aspects of intercultural competence, which
also requires, in many contexts, descriptors, or types of descriptor, different from those
we have at present. Specifically, this question has been raised in connection with theEuropean Language Portfolio, and some of the reference level descriptions, such as B2
for French.

Council of Europe

Other situations, which call for some extension of the Framework, might be mentioned.
Eventually, extension may bring us to a point where we have to ask how far we can gowithout leaving the present Framework behind or needing a new “framework”. This isprecisely the kind of question raised by the current emphasis on languages of education,
including mother tongue/national language(s)/languages of instruction. This brings us to thefourth type of contextualisation I want to consider.
Fourth type: full commitment to plurilingual education
I said just now that the Framework’s strong options included, not just a description of
language use and learning based on skills and practice (“Can do …’’ in a given domain), butalso affirmation and promotion of plurilingualism, and introduction of the concept ofplurilingual and pluricultural competence. Contextualising this second option means asking
ourselves how, in a given context, the Framework can serve a language teaching policy
which effectively develops plurilingual competence and, as Jean-Claude Beacco andMichael Byram urge in the Guide for the Development of Language Education Policies in
Europe, educates learners for plurilingualism. Plurilingualism can be understood in various
ways here, but is usually taken to mean that all teaching of (and through) languages requires
a global approach, which covers first, classroom, foreign, regional, minority andimmigration languages, and includes the development of individual plurilingualism among
the aims of education.
Pursuers of this ambitious goal can find useful material in the Framework’s various sections
but, first, they will have to reread it through the Guide for the Development of Language
Education Policies in Europe, and, secondly, the contextualisation they effect will be close
to the work required by a Language Education Policy Profile. In other words, theFramework itself is reframed (recadré) or appropriated within a larger framework (encadré)- no longer a multi-purpose toolbox, but an instrument completely focused on one broad
objective. The third type of contextualisation involved enlarging and extending the
Framework. The fourth essentially involves tying it to a set of options which certainly
embody general principles, but can be implemented only in a national, regional or local
context, depending on the languages at issue and the methods adopted to promoteplurilingualism.
Fifth type: plurilingualism, social cohesion and participatory democracy
The Council of Europe sees promoting plurilingualism as one aspect of promoting moregeneral values, relating to democracy, citizenship, intercultural understanding and social
cohesion. As it stands, the Framework has little to say about those values, although - as wehave seen – some of its uses have political effects and implications. Human rights,
protection of minorities and education for citizenship are not at odds with the Framework
but, although action to promote these values is the subject of international appeals andrecommendations, and is part of the European institutions’ brief, it is usually taken inpractice on the ground and in specific contexts.
In terms of these contexts, the issues they raise and their practical details, the Framework isjust one small instrument among others, but making it a definite part of this process isimportant. Not because this is the politically correct thing to do in a European area where
domestic and international tensions are not lacking, but because the democratic building of aplural Europe demands a plural language policy too, and because unity based on a single
language is not – far from it – the best path to social cohesion in a nation or politicalcohesion in Europe today. Obviously - and there is nothing wrong with this - the fact
remains that the Framework belongs and has meaning in this context only in terms of a far
broader set of analyses and strategies, mobilising the responsibilities of numerous players
and authorities, in addition to those active in the education system.
Council of Europe

47

The time has now come to highlight a few findings and conclusions, of which some may
seem self-evident, others provocative.
 The Framework, with all the ways in which it is presented and used, must recover its
true function, and not be treated as sacred (or indeed nefarious!). It is an instrumentof reference, not an object of reverence. The six levels must not be confused with theten commandments. And there is, fortunately, life outside the Framework.
 We should not be surprised that most users of the Framework have so far focused on
its levels and scales, with a view to assessment: the demand was strong, the issues
were important, and the instances involved were particularly powerful. Moreover,
the resultant European process was spectacularly useful and consensual.
 But these widespread uses must be treated with caution: we must be wary of an overscrupulous attention to psychometric technicity just as much as we must guard
against a laxity which invokes the Framework’s levels a little too readily.
 The Framework has far more to offer (all of it useful) than most of its users have so
far taken from it – even admitting that it is complex, sometimes proliferous and notentirely consistent, in spite of the immense effort which John Trim put into polishing
the published version.
 Above all, whenever it is used for purposes of language policy and educational
planning, the Framework is just one instrument among others, and should be usedwith others, taking careful account of the contextual dimensions. Any context inwhich it is used must be analysed from other angles too, angles which the
Framework on its own does not cover: needs analysis, and perceptions of certain
languages, must be examined - and non-standard conclusions will inevitably bereached.
 The Framework becomes fully meaningful and useful only when it is accepted as ashared point of reference (not a standard), which can be used to compare contextual
choices, including those made in using its levels and scales.
 Even though the concept of plurilingual competence obviously includes the first
language (the so-called mother tongue), the Framework remains limited, in most of
its conclusions and proposals, to foreign languages, and this is no longer sufficient
today – at least for the fourth and fifth types of contextualisation which I havementioned. This is another reason why the time has now come to start working on
new and more ambitious projects, in terms of which we shall certainly have, in due
course, to reposition and adjust the Framework.
We must guard against a Europe which would, in our specific area, sacrifice diversity tounity or, conversely, take respect for diversity as a reason for rejecting any move towards
unity. With all its limitations, the Framework is, like the other instruments the Council ofEurope has developed in the past, and will elaborate in the future, a fair example of what weneed: tools for analysis and catalysis which we all share, but can use in diverse ways bycontextualising them carefully.
I lay no claim to breaking new ground, but I have tried to show that these contextual uses,
seen as deliberate intervention in a given environment, can take various forms, apply on
different levels, have different aims, and involve different types of player. All of these many
contextual applications are legitimate and meaningful but, just as the Framework itself
offers a range of (as it were) built-in options, so some of the contextual applications exploit
it more fully, while others extend or transcend it.

48

Council of Europe

There may be tensions, and even contradictions, between these various levels of use. The
only way of resolving them is probably to adopt a position outside and above theFramework, and focus on the fundamental values of democratic citizenship, social cohesion,and intercultural understanding and co-operation – not as a platform for bandying facileslogans and mouthing pious platitudes, but as an inspiration and point of reference forpractical action in specific contexts.

Council of Europe

49

CEFR in relation to the policy aim of the Council of Europe
John L. M. Trim
May I first express my gratitude for the great and unexpected honour bestowed upon me by
the Council of Europe in associating this important occasion with my name. This gesture, as
I see it, is less concerned with the work of one single individual, as it is a recognition andcelebration of the coherence and continuity of effort by literally thousands of language
professionals, educational administrators and most significantly, of language learners, forwhich the modern language projects of the Council have provided a focus over the last thirdof the last century, and still do. Beyond this, it recognises that as we attempt to define andtackle the issues of our own time, we build on the insights and achievement of past
generations, many of which we take for granted and pass unnoticed. Some names stand out:
Quintillian, Comenius, Otto Jespersen, Harold Palmer, Leonard Bloomfield, and more could
be mentioned than there is time to cite.
Our work arose from the Council’s major project on modern languages in the 1960s,
animated by Sven Nord. It is a cause for regret that some valued colleagues, notably Jan van
Ek and Denis Girard, are no longer with us, and that others, particularly Antonietta deVigili, for long the driving force of the projects, though present in spirit, are unable toattend. It is a particular pleasure that so many others are still active and creative such as
Daniel Coste, whose brilliant paper on the contextualisation of the Common European
Framework of Reference, elegantly expresses the aims and values he has brought to ourwork since the conception of un niveau – seuil in the 1970s, and Brian North, who joined us
as fellow member of the authoring group of the CEFR, bringing new experience, energy andinsight in the 1990s.
In his paper, Daniel Coste drew attention to some of the wider concerns of the Council ofEurope: ‘La promotion du plurilinguisme se situe elle-même, pour le Conseil de l’Europe,
sous l’égide des valeurs plus générales, touchant à la démocratie, à la citoyenneté, à lacompréhension interculturelle, à la cohésion sociale’. He points out that there are few
references to these values in the CEFR itself. I should like to develop this a little further.
I have always held that the continuing language programme within the Council of Europe
must be rooted in the nature, aims, values and modi operandi of the Council of Europe itself.
The Council of Europe is an intergovernmental organisation, based essentially on thevoluntary cooperation of member states, with limited human and material resources. Workin the language field, as in any other, must therefore commend itself to member states by thepractical usefulness of its products in relation to national needs and policies. It is not anacademic institution or a foundation for conducting or funding research. Thus the CEFR
cannot be imposed on member governments unless they all agree to its use, nor can that use
be more strongly disciplined than they are all willing to accept, given the principle ofsubsidiarity, often jealously guarded in matters of the national education system. The work
may, of course, appeal directly to the field through publications and meetings such as this,though there again, success depends on major institutions seeing its use as in their own(enlightened) self-interest. If they are so convinced, they are more likely to be willing toinvest their own resources, human and material, in participation in projects which promise
useful outcomes. The CEFR, as other Council of Europe projects, relies heavily on suchinvestment of time, effort and material resources. The unforced cooperation of language
professionals and educational administrators of all kinds, at all levels, was an outstanding
feature of our projects and the excellent personal and working relations among them havebeen the greatest source of personal satisfaction in my professional career.

50

Council of Europe

It is, I think, proper that work sponsored by the Council of Europe should serve the longterm aims and interests of the organisation. These include:-

the promotion of international understanding and cooperation not only by the
mediation of translators and interpreters, indispensable though that is, but by the
direct interaction of whole peoples. The role of language in this respect is selfevident but the action-oriented approach of the T-level series and the CEFR is basedon this consideration. The Council of Europe has promoted language learning not for
its own sake, as a mental discipline or as an aspect of elite personal culture, but as atool for everyday social interaction among fellow Europeans, promoting andfacilitating vocational and educational mobility. Much of the enthusiastic take-up of
the CEFR has been due to its perceived value as a basis for the comparability oflanguage qualifications to make mobility easier.

-Another basic CoE aim is the strengthening of democratic structures and procedures.
In this respect, modern language projects have set out to strengthen the selfawareness of learners and their effective freedom of thought and action, with social
responsibility. The CEFR is conceived as one tool that will give all those working in
the language field greater autonomy based on knowledge, understanding and skill
and as a basis for the negotiation of objectives and methods between teachers andlearners. It is also intended to facilitate communication and interaction among
independent agents while increasing rather than limiting their freedom of action.

The maintenance and development of linguistic and cultural diversity is a Council ofEurope aim, enshrined in the Convention on Minority languages in a typically cautious
fashion. There has been some backlash recently against societal multiculturalism as
divisive, reinforcing separatism and blocking the integration of immigrants andencouraging ghetto formation. Here the concepts of plurilingualism and pluriculturalism,
largely developed by Daniel Coste, are of real value, since they take a holistic view of
linguistic and cultural competence, to which all linguistic and cultural experience
contribute. Both at individual and societal levels the concept is dynamic, since thecomponents from the experience of different language and cultures interpenetrate andinteract, forming something new, enriched and in continual development. This approachmeets better the realities of globalisation than various forms of purism which regard
each language and culture as a separate entity, to be preserved and protected against thethreat offered by alien forces. Most users of the CEFR have applied it only to a single
language but its descriptive apparatus for communicative action and competences,
together with the ‘can-do’ descriptors of levels of competence, are a good basis for aplurilinguistic approach to language across the curriculum, which awaits development.
This Forum has shown the dynamism of the Council’s work in the language field as, inany view, a necessary ongoing aspect of its major policy objectives and I wish mysuccessors – and yours – every success in the years ahead, as, through your teaching andexample, you make your own distinctive contribution to the realisation of our common
vision for Europe – a space in which ordinary people can meet, get to know and likeeach other, and work together harmoniously and effectively. Good luck!

Council of Europe

51

APPENDICES

Council of Europe

53Appendix 1: Programme of the Forum
Tuesday 6 February 2007
8.00 – 9.45

Registration: Main entrance of the Palais de l’Europe

PLENARY – Assembly Chamber
10.00

Official opening: Terry Davis, Secretary General of the Council of Europe
Mady Delvaux-Stehres, Minister of National Education and of Vocational
Training, Luxembourg
Marc Foucault, Director of European and International Relations and Cooperation, Representative of the Minister of National Education, Higher
Education and Research, France
Gabriele Mazza, Director of School, Out-of-School and Higher Education,
DG IV, Council of Europe
The multilingualism policy of the EU: new perspectives: H. Hartung, Headof Unit ‘Multilingualism Policy’ of the European Commission
Introduction to the aims and objectives of the Forum: J. Sheils, Head of
the Language Policy Division and J. Panthier, Administrator, Council ofEurope

11.15

Break (Refreshments offered by the Ministry of National Education, Higher Education andResearch, France)

Chair: M.
Byram

12.00

PLENARY - Assembly Chamber
Council of Europe Language Education Policy and the CEFR: J.C. Beacco
Using the Common European Framework of Reference

12.30

13.30



The CEFR in the Netherlands: E. Van HestThe CEFR in Catalonia in adult language teaching: adaptation of
curricula and certification: N. Figueras



From the CEFR to the European Language Portfolio: D. Little

Lunch

Tuesday 6 February (afternoon)
Chair: W.
Martyniuk

PLENARY - Assembly Chamber

15.30

The CEFR and the common reference levels: validated reference points andlocal strategies: B. North

15.50

Results of a survey on the use and impact of the CEFR: J. Noijons and
W. Martyniuk
Introduction to Group Work

16.20

Break (Refreshments offered by CITO, the Netherlands)

54

Council of Europe

GROUP WORK - SESSION 1 on needs in using the CEFR – introduced by case studies

16.50

Group 1 and 2: Evaluation

Room 6o Links between tests and diplomas in French as a foreign language and the
CEFR: C. Taglianteo Mapping the Dutch foreign-language examinations onto the CEFR:
Kuijper and J. NoijonsH.

o Using the CEFR for assessing language competences in Finland: S. Takala
Presentation of case studies to both groups together in Room 6; the groups thenseparate:
Group 1: Room 6Group 2: Room 7Groups 3 and 4: Curricula and Teacher Training

Room 3o The scenario: a tool for language education policies – Aosta Valley, Italy:
M. Cavallio Revision of modern languages programmes in the light of the CEFR in
France: G. Gaillard
o Use of the CEFR in teacher training in the Netherlands: D. Meijer
o Use of the CEFR in teacher training in Poland: H. Komorowska
Presentation of case studies to both groups together in Room 3; the groups then separate:
Group 3: Room 3Group 4: Room 2

19.00

RECEPTION hosted by the Permanent Representation of France to theCouncil of Europe – Salon bleu

Wednesday 7 February 2007– Assembly Chamber
Chair: J. Sheils

PLENARY - Assembly Chamber

10.00

Reports on Group Work
Discussion

10.45

The European Indicator of Language Competence: O. Bjerkestrand, European
Commission

11.00

The promotion of the CEFR in the activities of the European Centre for Modern
Languages (ECML), Graz (Austria): S. Slivensky

11.20

Language Policies for Democratic Citizenship and Social Inclusion: J. Sheils

11.30

Break (Refreshments offered by CITO, the Netherlands)

Chair: J. Noijons

PLENARY - Assembly Chamber

12.00

The impact of the CEFR and the work of the Council of Europe on the newEuropean education area: F. Goullier

12.20

Reactions and Discussion
Introduction to Group Work: F. Goullier

13.15

Lunch

Council of Europe5515.15

GROUP WORK – SESSION 2 on mutual responsibilities in defining and implementing
language policies based on the CEFR
Group 1 and 2: Evaluation

Group 1: Room 6Group 2: Room 7Groups 3 and 4: Curricula and Teacher Training Group 3: Room 3Group 4: Room 2
16.45

Break (Refreshments offered by CITO, the Netherlands)

Chair: J. Panthier

PLENARY - Assembly Chamber

17.15

The CEFR in a national context: D. Charbonnier (France)
The CEFR in a global context: K. Kakazu (Japan), J. Bott Van Houten (UnitedStates of America) and L. Vandergrift / J. MacDonald (Canada)

18.00 – 18.45

Panel: Language Education Policy Profiles: the CEFR and related Council of Europe
instruments applied to the analysis of language policies
Ch. Berg (Luxembourg), S. Skapiene (Lithuania), G. Langé (Lombardy)
J. Berntzen (Norway), D. Coste (Council of Europe Rapporteur for Profiles)
Moderator: M. Byram

Thursday 8 February 2007
Chair: J.C. Beacco

PLENARY – Assembly Chamber

9.00

Reports on Group Work
Discussion

9.45

Contextualising the use of the CEFR: D. Coste

10.15

The CEFR in relation to the policy objectives of the Council of Europe:
Trim

10.30

Break

Chair: J. Panthier

PLENARY – Assembly Chamber

11.00

Panel: Beyond levels towards plurilingual education
N. Figueras, L. King, H.J. Krumm, D. Little, H. Mulder, H. Vollmer

J.L.M.

Moderator: J.C. Beacco

Forum Conclusions: F. Goullier, Rapporteur

12.00

Closing
12.45

G. Battaini-Dragoni, Director General of DG IV - Education, Culture and Heritage,
Youth and Sport

13.00

Departure of participants

56

Council of Europe

Appendix 2: List of participants
NATIONAL REPRESENTATIVES / REPRESENTANTS NATIONAUXALBANIA / ALBANIE
Mrs Tatjana VUCANI, Ministry of Education and Science, Department for Curriculum Development,
Rruga e Durrrësit N.23, TIRANA
Tel: +355 42 25678 / 422 707ext 246 / Fax: +355 42 320 02 /355 4 225 678 / e-mail:vucanit@mash.gov.al / Vucanit@hotmail.com
Mme Andromaqi HALOÇI, Rue. M.Tutulani, P.7/1, Ap. 7, TIRANA
Tel: +355 4 252748 / e-mail: handromaqi@yahoo.fr
ANDORRA / ANDORRE
Ms Maria Teresa BONET CABALLERO, Pedagogic technical, Ministeri d'Educació i Formació
Professional, Avinguda Rocafort n° 21-23, Edifici El Moli, AD 600 SANT JULIÀ DE LÒRIA
Tel: +376 74 33 00 / Fax: +376 74 33 11 / e-mail:maite_bonet@govern.ad
Ms Estefania DIAZ GROLLIER, Inspector of high schools, profesional formation and adult's
formation, Ministeri d'Educació i Formació Professional, Avinguda Rocafort n° 21-23, Edifici El
Moli, AD 600 SANT JULIÀ DE LÒRIA
Tel: +376 74 33 00 / Fax: +376 74 33 11 / e-mail:
ARMENIA / ARMENIEMr Suren ZOLYAN, Rector of the Yerevan State Linguistic University after V. Brusov, Toumanyan
Str. 42, 375002 YEREVAN
Tel: +374 1 0530552 / Fax: +374 1 0585554 / e-mail: zolyan@brusov.am
Ms Melanya ASVATSATRYAN, Chairholder of Pedagogy and Foreign Language Methodology, Yerevan
State Linguistic University after V. Brusov, Toumanyan Str. 42, 375002 YEREVAN
Tel: +374 1 0530552 / Fax: +374 1 0585554 / e-mail: eltyerevanhub@brusov.am /method@brusov.am
AUSTRIA / AUTRICHEMr Gunther ABUJA, stv. Direktor des Österreichischen Sprachen-Kompetenz-Zentrum, Hans-Sachs
Gasse 3, A-8010 GRAZ
Tel: +43/316 /824150-18 / e-mail: abuja@sprachen.ac.at
Mr Guenther SIGOTT, Associate Professor, English Department, University of Klagenfurt, A-9020
KLAGENFURT
Tel: +43 463 2700 2522 or 2532 / Fax: +43 463 2700 2599 / e-mail: guenther.sigott@uni-klu.ac.at
Ms Belinda STEINHUBER, CEBS, c/o HLW Leopold-Werndl-Straße 7, 4400 STEYR
Tel: Tel: +43 7252 54379 22 / e-mail: belinda.steinhuber@cebs.at
Independent participant / Participant indépendant
Mr Hans-Jürgen KRUMM, Vizestudiendekan der Geistes- und kulturwissenschaftlichen Fakultät,
Institut für Germanistik, Deutsch als Fremdsprache, Universität Wien, Karl Lueger-Ring 1, A - 1010
WIEN
Tel: +43 1 42 77 42107 / Fax: +43 1 4277 42180 / e-mail: hans-juergen.krumm@univie.ac.atCouncil of Europe

57

AZERBAIJAN / AZERBAIDJAN
Mr Azad MAMMADOV, Chair, General Linguistics Department, Azerbaijan University of Languages,
Rashid Behbudov str. 60, BAKU
Tel: +994124412279 /e-mail: azad19622003@yahoo.com
Mr Vugar AHMADOV, General Secretary of Azerbaijani-EU Youth Organization (NGO)
Tel: + 994 12 432 23 07 / Mobile: + 994 50 343 53 02 /e-mail: vugarahmedovassociation@hotmail.com
BELGIUM / BELGIQUE
French Community / Communauté française
Mme Nadine FRANÇOIS, Inspectrice des cours de langues germaniques, Avenue de Koekelberg, 56,1082 BRUXELLES
Tel/Fax: + 32 2 468.06.59 /e-mail: nadine.francois@skynet.be
Flemish Community / Communauté flammande
Ms Nicole RAES, Entiteit Curriculum (DVO), H. Consciencegebouw, Koning Albert II-laan 15, 1210
BRUSSEL
Tel: +32 2/553 88 26 / e-mail: nicole.raes@ond.vlaanderen.be / www.ond.vlaanderen.be/dvo
BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA / BOSNIE-HERZÉGOVINE
Ms Lejla KADUSIC, Coordinator for financing and managing in education, Vilsonovo Setaliste 10,71000 SARAJEVO
Tel: +387 33 713 925 / Fax: +387 33 713 956 / e-mail lejlak@mcp.gov.ba
BULGARIA / BULGARIE
Ms Evguenia KOSTADINOVA, directeur de la Direction « Politique dans l`enseignement secondaire
général », Ministère de l`Education et de la Science, 2A, boul. Dondoukov, SOFIA 1000
Tel: +359 2 9217 446 / Fax: +359 2 9217 598 / e-mail: e.kostadinova@minedu.government.bg
Ms Irina VASEVA-DUSHEVA, expert à la Direction « Politique dans l`enseignement secondaire
général », responsable de la langue anglaise, Ministère de l`Education et de la Science, 2A, boul.
Dondoukov, SOFIA 1000
Tel: +359 2 9217 539/ Fax: +359 2 9217 598 / e-mail: i.vasseva@minedu.government.bg
Mme Veselina GANEVA, expert d’Etat à la Direction « Politique dans l’enseignement secondaire
général », responsable des langues française et espagnole ; coordinateur national pour le PEL,
Ministère de l`Education et de la Science, 2A, boul. Dondoukov, SOFIA 1000
Tel: +359 2 9217 438 / Fax: +359 2 9217 598 / +359 2 988 24 85 /e-mail: v.popova@minedu.government.bg
CROATIA / CROATIEMr Srećko LISTEŠ, Education and Teacher Training Agency, Tolstojeva 32, 21 000 SPLIT
Tel: +385 21 340 995 / e-mail: srecko.listes@zzs.hr
Mr Goran SIROVATKA, Director, CEO, National Centre for External Evaluation of Education,
Marulićev trg 19, 10 000 ZAGREB
Tel: +385 99 551 9393 / e-mail: ravnatelj@ncvvo.hr
Ms Cvjetanka BOŽANIČ, X.gymnasium, Klaićeva 7, 10 000 ZAGREB
Tel: +385 1 3771 879 / e-mail: cvjetanka@hotmail.com
Ms Nataša NIKPALJ JURAIĆ, Senior Adviser for English and French, EFA (UNESCO) Coordinator,
Pestalozzi programme liaison officer, Agency for Education into Education and Teacher Training
Agency, Badaliceva 24, 10 000 ZAGREB
Tel: +385 1 3652 871 / Fax: +385 1 3652 801 / e-mail: natasa.nikpalj-juraic@zzs.hr

58

Council of Europe

CYPRUS / CHYPRE
Ms Stella KONTI-THEOCHAROUS, Advisor for teachers of English as a foreign language, Department
of Secondary Education, Ministry of Education and Culture, P.O. Box 50477, 3608 LIMASSOL
Tel.: +357 99441659 / Fax.: +357 22800862 / e-mail: stellat@cytanet.com.cy
Ms Androniki PAPADOPOULOU-PAPA, Inspectrice de Français, Département de l’éducation
secondaire, Ministère de l'Education et de la Culture, Philippou Constantinidi 5, 3020 LIMASSOL
Tel: +357 99662888 / Fax: +357 22800862 / e-mail: papanikh@spidernet.com.cy
Ms Efrosyni TOFARIDOU, Advisor for teachers of French as a foreign language, Department ofSecondary Education, Ministry of Education and Culture, Killinis 5, 2039 NICOSIA
Tel.: +357 99477705 / +357 22800826 / e-mail: frossot@synthesis.com.cy
CZECH REPUBLIC / REPUBLIQUE TCHEQUE
Ms Irena MASKOVA, Department for EU and International Affairs, Ministry of Education, Youth andSports, 7, Karmelitska, 118 12 PRAHA 1
Tel: +420 257 193 611/ e-mail: maskova@msmt.cz
Ms Gabriela BALADOVÁ, The Research Institute of Education, Novodvorská 1010/14, 140 00 PRAHA 4
Tel: +420 261 341 461 / e-mail: baladova@vuppraha.cz
Ms Olga MOKREJSOVA, Národní institut pro další vzdělávání, Centrální pracovišt, Učňovská 100/1,
190 00 PRAHA 9 - JAROV
Tel: + 420 266 106 391 / Fax: +420 224 228 334 / e-mail: mokrejsova@nidv.cz
Ms Lydie RIHOVA, Department for Upper-secondary and Tertiary Professional Education, Ministryof Education, Youth and Sports, 7, Karmelitska, 118 12 PRAHA 1
Tel: +420 257 193 682 / e-mail: lydie.rihova@msmt.cz
Ms Jitka TUMOVA, Department for Pre-school, Primary and Lower-secondary Education, Ministry of
Education, Youth and Sports, 7, Karmelitska, 118 12 PRAHA 1
Tel: +420 257 193 785 / e-mail: tumovaj@msmt.cz
Independent participants / Participants indépendants
Mr Pavel CINK (former Chair of the European Language Portolio Validation Committee),
Diamantova 746, CZ-154 00 PRAGUE 5 - SLIVENEC
Tel: +420 25 18 17 465 / +420 736 52 40 44 / e-mail: Pavel.Cink@rwe.cz
Ms Marie HADKOVA, Ph.D., Vyzkumne a testovaci centrum CJC, UJOP, Univerzita Karlova,
Vratislavova 10, 128 00 PRAHA 2
Tel: +420 724 579 724 / e-mail: Marie.Hadkova@seznam.cz
DENMARK / DANEMARK
Ms Bettina BRANDT-NILSSON, Educational Adviser, Ministry of Education, National Education,
fdelingen for grundskole og folkeoplysning, Kontor for fagenes mål og indhold, Frederiksholms
Kanal 26, DK-1220 KØBENHAVN K.
Tel: +45 4581 1644 / Mobil.: 2092 1853 / e-mail: Bettina.Brandt-Nilsson@uvm.dk
ESTONIA / ESTONIEMr Tõnu TENDER – Adviser, Language Policy Department, Ministry of Education and Research,
Munga 18, 50088 TARTU
Tel: +372 7350 223 / Mob: +372 51 54 365 / Fax: +372 7350 220 / e-mail: tonu.tender@hm.ee
Ms Maie SOLL – Adviser, Language Policy Department, Ministry of Education and Research, Munga
18, 50088 TARTU
Tel: +372 7350 229/ Fax: +372 7350 220/ e-mail: maie.soll@hm.ee

Council of Europe59

Ms Kristi MERE – Coordinator for Modern FL, Department of Languages, National Examination andQualification Centre, Sakala 21, 10141 TALLINN
Tel: +372 7 350 681 / Fax: +372 6 281 390 / e-mail: kristi.mere@hm.ee/ kristi.mere@ekk.edu.ee
FINLAND / FINLANDEMr Kalevi POHJALA, Counsellor of Education, National Board of Education, PO Box 380,
Hakanienmenkatu 2, FIN - 00531 HELSINKI
Tel: +358 9 774 775 / Fax: +358 9 7747 73 35 / e-mail: kalevi.pohjala@oph.fi
Mr Sauli TAKALA, Professor (Emeritus), Póikkikuja 6 A17, 65100 VAASA
Tel: +358 40 7265 453 / e-mail: sjtakala@hotmail.com
FranceMinistère de l’éducation nationale, de l’enseignement supérieur et de la recherche :Direction des Relations Européennes et Internationales et de la Coopération (DREIC): 1, rue
Descartes – 75 731 PARIS Cedex 05
M. Marc FOUCAULT, Directeur des relations européennes et internationales et de la coopération,
représentant du ministre de l'éducation nationale, de l'enseignement supérieur et de la recherche
Tel: (secrétariat) 01 55 55 75 30
M. François GORGET, Chef du bureau des institutions multilatérales et de la francophonieTel: 01 55 55 65 87/ e-mail: francois.gorget@education.gouv.fr
Mme Marie-Josée GRIESEMANN de FORNEL, Chargée de mission pour le Conseil de l’Europe
Tel: 01 55 55 66 89 / e-mail: marie-josee.de-fornel@education.gouv.fr
M. Gérard LINKS, Chargé de mission, Bureau des Affaires communautaires
Tel: 01 55 55 66 16 / e-mail: gerard.links@education.gouv.fr
Direction générale de l’enseignement scolaire : 107, rue de Grenelle 75 007 PARIS
M. Jean-Luc BENEFICE, Sous-directeur des écoles, des collèges et des lycées généraux ettechnologiques
Tel: 01 55 55 10 32 / e-mail: jean-luc.benefice@education.gouv.fr
Inspection générale de l’éducation nationale : 107, rue de Grenelle – 75 007 PARIS
Téléphone du secrétariat du groupe «langues vivantes » : 01 55 55 21 93 / ou 01 55 55 25 30
Fax: 01 55 55 06 46
M. Daniel CHARBONNIER, Doyen du groupe langues vivantes de l’inspection générale del’éducatione-mail: daniel.charbonnier@education.gouv.fr
M. Francis GOULLIER, Inspecteur général de l’éducation nationale, Rapporteur général du Forum /General Rapporteur of the Forum, Président du Comité de validation du Portfolio européen deslangues / Chair of the ELP Council of Europe Validation Committee
e-mail: francis.goullier@education.gouv.fr
M. Joël BEL LASSEN, Inspecteur général de chinois
Ministère de l'éducation nationale, de l'enseignement supérieur et de la recherche
e-mail: joel.bel-lassen@education.gouv.fr
Mme Geneviève GAILLARD, Inspectrice générale de l’éducation nationale
e-mail: genevieve.gaillard@education.gouv.fr

60

Council of Europe

Centre international d’études pédagogiques : 1, avenue Léon Journault – 92 310 SÈVRES
Téléphone : 01 45 07 60 24
M. Roger PILHION, Directeur adjoint
e-mail: pilhion@ciep.fr
Mme Catherine CLEMENT, Responsable du pôle langues étrangères au département des langues
e-mail: clement@ciep.fr
Mme Christine TAGLIANTE, Responsable du pôle évaluation et certifications au département deslanguese-mail: tagliante@ciep.fr
Ministère des Affaires étrangères
244, Boulevard Saint germain – 75303 PARIS 07 SP
Direction générale de la coopération internationale et du développement (DGCID)
M. Yannick RASCOUET, Chef du bureau du plurilinguisme
Tel: 01 43 17 90 05 / Fax: 01 43 17 90 05 / e-mail : yannick.rascouet@diplomatie.gouv.fr
Ministère de la Culture et Communication, Délégation générale à la langue française et aux
langues de France (DGLFLF) - 6, rue des Pyramides, 75001 PARIS
M. Xavier NORTH, Délégué général
Mme Claire EXTRAMIANA
Tel: 01 40 15 35 47 / Fax: 01 40 15 36 76 / e-mail: claire.extramiana@culture.gouv.fr
Experts
M. Jean-Claude BEACCO, Conseilller auprès de la Division des Politiques linguistiques, Universitéde la Sorbonne nouvelle-Paris III, 46 rue Saint Jacques, 75230 PARIS Cedex
Tel: +33 (0)1 40 46 29 25/29 28/29 29 / Fax: +33 (0)1 40 46 29 30 /e-mail: Jean-Claude.Beacco@univ-paris3.fr
M. Daniel COSTE, Professeur émérite de l’Ecole normale supérieure Lettres et Sciences humaines
de Lyon, 17 rue Plumet, 75015 PARIS
Tel: +33 (0)1 56 58 18 60 / Fax: +33 (0)1 56 58 18 60 / e-mail: dlcoste2@wanadoo.fr
Independent participants / Participants indépendants
Mme Marcella DI GIURA, Spécialiste de didactique des langues, 34 rue Rodier, 75009 PARIS
Tel: +33 (0) 1 40 16 06 90 / E6mail: jcb.mdg@wanadoo.fr
M. Jean-Marie GAUTHEROT, 21, rue Jacob Mayer, F 67200 STRASBOURG
Tel: +33 3 88 27 34 71 / e-mail: jmgautherot@noos.fr
Mme Nicole POTEAUX, Université Louis Pasteur - Strasbourg I, Faculte de Psychologie et desSciences de l'Education, 7, rue de l'Université - F 67000 STRASBOURG
Tel: +33 (0)3 90 24 06 19 / Fax: +33 (0)3 90 24 06 23 / e-mail: nicole.poteaux@lse-ulp.u-strasbg.fr
Mme Robin RATAJCZAK, Chef du Service des Langues, ENA, 1, rue Sainte-Marguerite, 67080
STRASBOURG CEDEX
Tel: 03 88 21 44 80 / 06 77 04 47 86 / e-mail: robin.ratajczak@ena.fr
M. Claude SPRINGER, Université Marc Bloch, Directeur du département de didactique deslangues/FLES, 22 rue Descartes, 67085 STRASBOURG
Tel: + 33 3 88 41 73 85 / e-mail: springer@dladlv.u-strabg.fr

Council of Europe61

M. Christian TREMBLAY, président de l'Observatoire européen du plurlinguisme (OEP), 4, rue Léon
Séché, 75015 PARIS
Portable 0610386890 / e-mail: christian.tremblay@neuf.fr
M. Claude TRUCHOT, Groupe d'étude sur le plurilinguisme européen, université Marc Bloch, 22,
rue Descartes, 67000 STRASBOURG
e-mail: Claude.Truchot@umb.u-strasbg.fr
Publishers / Maisons d’édition
Mme Isabelle LOUVIOT, Directrice des Editions Didier, 13, rue de l’Odéon, 75006 PARIS
e-mail: ILouviot@editions-didier.fr
Mme Dominique RICHARD, Editions Didier, 13, rue de l'Odéon, 75006 PARIS
Tel: 01 44 41 31 24 / Fax: 01 44 41 31 48 / e-mail: drichard@editions-didier.fr
Mme Anne REBÉRIOUX, Directeur, Hachette Education, Département Langues/ FLE, 43 quai deGrenelle, 75906 PARIS CEDEX 15
Tel: +33 1 43 92 39 21 / e-mail: areberioux@hachette-livre.fr
GEORGIA / GEORGIE
Ms Marika ODZELI, Ministry of Education and Science, Ivane Javakhishvili State University, Tbilisi
52, Dimitri Uznadze St, TBILISI 0102
Tel: +995 32 23 37 96 / Fax: +995 32 98 75 67 / e-mail: makodzeli@hotmail.com /irelation@nplg.gov.ge
Ms Tinatin BOLKVADZE, The State Language Division, Ministry of Education and Science, 52,
Dimitry Uznadze street, TBILISI 0102
Tel: +995 99 97 79 36 / Fax: +995 24 15 03 72 / e-mail: tinatin5b@hotmail.com
GERMANY / ALLEMAGNE
Ms Birgit BERGMANN, Regierungsdirektorin, Fremdsprachenreferentin im Nds., Niedersächsisches
Kultusministerium, Ref 33, Schiffgraben 12, D – 30159 HANNOVER
Tel: +49 511 1207282 / e-mail: Birgit.bergmann@mk.niedersachsen.de
Ms Karin ENDE, Goethe-Institut Zentrale, Bereich 313, Dachauer Str. 122,b 80637 MÜNCHEN
Tel: +49 89 15921 469 / e-mail: ende@goethe.de
Mr Holgar KOLLEY, The Foreign Office, Division Promotion of German as a foreign language,
Werterschermarkt 1, D - 10117 BERLIN
Tel: +49-1888-17 – 3715 / Fax: +49-1888-17 – 53715 / e-mail: 603-0@diplo.de
Ms Michaela PERLMANN-BALME, Goethe-Institut Zentrale, Bereich 311, Dachauer Str. 122, 80637
MÜNCHEN
Tel: +49 89 15921 382 / e-mail: perlmann-balme@goethe.de
Mr Eike THÜRMANN, Landesinstitut für Schule und Weiterbildung, Paradieserweg 64, 59494 SOEST(former member of the European Language Portfolio Validation Committee)
Tel: +49 2921/ 683 256 : Fax: +49 2921/ 683 236 / e-mail: eike.thuermann@mail.lfs.nrw.de
Independent participants / Participants indépendants
Mr Rudolf CAMERER, European Language Competence, Beethovenplatz 1-3, D-60325 FRANKFURT
AM MAIN
Tel: +49 69 53 05 59 67 / e-mail: j.mohr@bildung.saarland.de62

Council of Europe

Mr Anthony FITZPATRICK, Hohemarkstr. 196B, D-61440 OBERURSEL
Tel: +49 617126137 / Fax: +49 6171 25268 / e-mail: Tony.Fitzpatrick@t-online.de
Mr Heinrich RUEBELING, WBT Weiterbildungs-Testsysteme GmbH, Wächtersbacher Str. 83, D-60386
FRANKFURT
Tel: +49-69-956246-0 / Fax: +49-69-956246-62 / e-mail: H.Ruebeling@wbtests.de
Mr Helmut VOLLMER, Universität Osnabrück, FB 7: Sprach-u.Lit.wiss, Leiter der Forschungsstelle,
Bilingualismus und Mehrsprachigkeit, Neuer Graben 40, D-49069 OSNABRÜCK, GERMANY
Tel: +49 541 9694260 / Fax: +49 541 969 4886 / E-mail: hvollmer@uni-osnabrueck.de
GREECE / GRECE
Ms Catherine KIYITSIOGLOU-VLACHOU, School Advisor of French, 35 E. Venizelou Str, PIRAEUS
18532
Tel: +30 210 64 43 013 / Fax: +30 210 41 79 780 / e-mail: rvlachos@otenet.gr
Mr Joseph CHRYSHOCHOOS, Educational Consultant at the Pedagogic Institute, Athens, 94 Pindou
Street, MOSCHATO 18345, PIRAEUS
Tel: +30 210 48 35 821 / Fax: +30 210 48 35 821 / e-mail: jchrys@mail.kapatel.gr
Mr Ioannis KAZAZIS, Professor of Classical Philology, Aristotle University, Thessaloniki, 1
Karamaouna, Skra Square, KALAMARIA 55132, THESSALONIKI
Tel: +30 2310 45 91 01 / Fax: +30 2310 45 91 07 / e-mail: centre@komvos.edu.gr
HUNGARY / HONGRIE
M. Gábor BOLDIZSÁR, (président du Comité de direction du CELV), Ministère de l'Éducation et de laCulture, Département de la coopération européenne Szalay u. 10-14, H - 1055 BUDAPEST
Tel: +36 1 473 7264 / Fax: +36 1 331 0599 / e-mail: gabor.boldizsar@okm.gov.hu
Mme Zsuzsanna DARABOS, coordinatrice nationale du PEL, Kútvölgyi út 11, H-1125 BUDAPEST
Tel: +36 30 601 2169 / e-mail: darabos.zsuzsanna@t-online.hu
Mme Ágnes EINHORN, Institut National de l'Éducation, responsable pour les programmes et les
examens / National Institute for Public Education, Centre for Standards and Examination
Development, Dorottya u. 8, H-1051 BUDAPEST
e-mail: einhorna@oki.hu
Mme Márta FAZEKAS, directrice du Centre d'accréditation des examens de langues, PH yelvvizsgáztatási Akkreditációs Központ , Ajtósi Dürer sor 19-21. IV. em. 401, H-1146 BUDAPEST
e-mail: fazekas@nyak.hu
Mme Márta FISCHER, Ministère de l'Éducation et de la Culture, représentante hongroise dans legroupe d'experts à la Commission européenne, Szalay u. 10-14, H - 1055 BUDAPEST
e-mail: marta.fischer@okm.gov.hu
Mme Judit SÁRVÁRI DOBOS, Ministère de l'Éducation et de la Culture, Départment del'enseignement supérieur, Szalay u. 10-14, H - 1055 BUDAPEST
e-mail: judit.sarvari@okm.gov.hu
ICELAND / ISLANDE
Apologised for absence / Excusé
IRELAND / IRLANDEMr Paul CAFFREY, Senior Inspector, R19, Ground Floor, Block 3, Department of Education andScience, Marlborough Street, DUBLIN 1
Tel: +353 (0) 1 889 2034 / e-mail: paul_caffrey@education.gov.ie

Council of Europe63Mr David LITTLE (Vice-Chair, European Language Portfolio Validation Committee) Centre for
Language and Communication Studies, Trinity College, IRL-DUBLIN 2,
Tel: +353 1 896 1505 / Fax: +353 1 608 2941 / e-mail: dlittle@tcd.ie
Mr John HAMMOND, Deputy Chief Executive, National Council for Curriculum and Assessment, 24
Merrion Square, DUBLIN 1
Tel: +353 (0) 661 7177 / Fax: +353 (0) 661 7180 / e-mail: john.hammond@ncca.ie
Ms Fiona MURRAY, Examination and Assessment Manager, State Examinations Commission, Irish
Life Building, 1A South Mall, CORK
Tel: +353 (0) 21 4906019 / Fax: +353 (0) 21 4275445 /e-mail: fiona.murray@examinations.ie
Ms Barbara LAZENBY SIMPSON, Centre of Language & Communications Studies, Trinity College,
DUBLIN
Tel: +353 (0) 1 608 1560 / Fax: +353 (0) 1 664 3726 / e-mail: bsimpson@tcd.ie
Independent participants / Participants indépendants
Mr Edwin MERNAGH, National Qualifications Authority of Ireland, 5th Floor, Jervis House, Jervis
Street, DUBLIN 1
Tel: +353 1 887 1500 / Fax: +353 1 887 1595 / e-mail: emernagh@nqai.ie / www.nqai.ie.
Ms Anne GALLAGHER, Director, Language Centre, NUI Maynooth, CO KILDARE
Tel: +353 17083682 / Fax: +353 17086499 / e-mail: an.gallagher@nuim.ie
ITALY / ITALIE
Ms Gisella LANGÉ, Member of European Language Portfolio Validation Committee, Delegate ofGeneral Directorate of International Relations, Ministero della Pubblica Istruzione, Ufficio
Scolastico Regionale per la Lombardia, Piazza Diaz, 6, I-20123 MILANO
Tel: +39 335 8448449 / Fax: +39 02 7201 3084 / e-mail: gislang@tin.it
Independent participants / Participants indépendants
Mme Marisa CAVALLI, Représentant de l'IRRE-VDA, Institut Régional de Recherche Educative pourle Val d'Aoste, Département de la Recherche Educative, 24, Avenue du Bataillon "Aosta", I - 11100
AOSTE
Tel: (standard): +39 0165 367 111 / (appel direct): +39 0165 367 115 / Fax: +39 0165 23 52 23 /e-mail: m.cavalli@irre-vda.org
Ms Gabriella VERNETTO, Chargée de mission au Service de soutien à l'autonomie scolaire de laSurintendance aux études de la Vallée d'Aoste pour les projets européens, 250 rue de Saint-Martinde Corléans, I-11100 AOSTE
Tel: +39 0165 275878 / Fax: + 390165275888 / e-mail: g.vernetto@regione.vda.it
Ms Giuliana GREGO BOLLI, Università per Stanieri di Perugia, Piazza Fortebraccio, I – 06123
PERUGIA
Tel: +390755746467 / Fax: +390755746456 / e-mail: giulianabolli@libero.it
Ms Francesca PARIZZI, CVCL - Universita' per Stranieri di Perugia, Piazza Fortebraccio 4, I - 06123
PERUGIA
Tel: +39 075 5178189 / e-mail: francesca.parizzi@libero.it
Ms Barbara SPINELLI, CVCL - Universita' per Stranieri di Perugia, Piazza Fortebraccio 4, 06123
PERUGIA
Tel. +39 075 5178189 / e-mail: bs2165@columbia.edu]

64

Council of Europe

LATVIA / LETTONIE
Ms Evija PAPULE, Director of the State Agency for Quality Assesment in General Education,
Lāčplēša iela 35–14, LV – 1011 RIGA
Tel: +371 7229033/371 9128937 / Fax: +371 7221195 / e-mail: evija.papule@viknva.ml.lv
Mr Leonīds MANKOVS, Head of the State Language Department, Ministry of Education and Science(IZGLĪTĪBAS UN ZINĀTNES MINISTRIJA), Vaļņu iela 2, LV – 1050 RIGA
Tel: +37129106574 / e-mail: leonids.mankovs@izm.gov.lv
Ms Rita KURSĪTE, Centre for Curriculum Development and Examination, ), Vaļņu iela 2, LV-1050
RIGA
Tel: +3717216500 / e-mail: rita.kursite@nelss.lv / rita.kursite@isec.gov.lv
Ms Inita VĪTOLA, Head of Project Department of the State Language Agency (VALSTS VALODASAĢENTŪRA), Lāčplēša iela 35–5, LV – 1011 RIGA
Tel: +371 7201685 / Mob: 9123167 / Fax: +371 7201683 / e-mail: projekti@valoda.lv
Ms Dace DALBINA, Director, The National Agency of Latvian Language Training, Merkela iela 11,
4.fl, LV – 1050 RIGA
Tel: +371 728 7228/ Fax: + 71 722 0700 / e-mail: dace.dalbina@lvava.lv /dacedalbina@inbox.lv /lvava@lvava.lv
LIECHTENSTEIN / LIECHTENSTEIN
Apologised for absence / Excusé
LITHUANIA / LITUANIE
Ms Loreta ŽADEIKAITĖ, Head of Basic and Secondary Education Division, Ministry of Education andScience of the Republic of Lithuania, A.Volano str. 2/7, LT – 01516 VILNIUS
Tel: +370 52743148 / Fax: +3705 261 20 77 / e-mail loreta.zadeikaite@smm.lt
Ms Stasė SKAPIENĖ, Chief Officer of Basic and Secondary Education Division, Ministry of Educationand Science of the Republic of Lithuania, A.Volano str. 2/7, LT – 01516 VILNIUS
Tel: +370 52743146 / Fax +3705 261 20 77 / e-mail stase.skapiene@smm.lt
Mr Mindaugas BRIEDIS, Ministry of Education and Science of the Republic of Lithuania, Head of
Initial and In–service Teacher Training Division, A.Volano str. 2/7, LT-01516 ,VILNIUS
Tel: +3705 274 30 96 / Fax: +3705 261 20 77 / Mob: +370 682 54216 / e-mail:mindaugas.briedis@smm.lt
Mr Pranas GUDYNAS, Director of Education Development Centre, M. Katkaus str. 44, LT - 09217,
VILNIUS
Tel: +370 5 2752362 / Fax: +370 2724315 / e-mail/ pranas.gudynas@spc.smm.lt
Ms Zita MAŽUOLIENĖ, Institute of Foreign Languages, Head of Department of English for Physicaland Biomedical Sciences, Vilnius University, Universiteto str. 5, LT-2734 VILNIUS
Tel: +370 5 268 72 68 / e-mail: zmaz@takas.lt
LUXEMBOURG
M. Charles BERG, assistant professeur à l’université de Luxembourg, Faculté des Lettres, desSciences Humaines, des Arts et des Sciences de l’Education, Campus Walferdange (Route deDiekirch) , BP 2, L-7201 WALFERDANGE
Tel: +352 333420 361 (Office) / +352 2684631 (CESIJE) / +352 251979 (Home) / Fax: +352 251335/
e-mail: Charles.Berg@education.lu / charles.berg@uni.lu
Mme Edmée BESCH, professeur-attachée, Ministère de l'éducation nationale et de la Formation
professionnelle, 29, rue Aldringen, L - 2926 LUXEMBOURG
Tel: +352 478-5107 / Fax: +352 478-5130 / e-mail : edmee.besch@men.lu

Council of Europe

65Mme Gaby KUNSCH, Directrice adjointe du Service de la Formation des Adultes, Chargée de la
direction du Centre de Langues Luxembourg, 21, boulevard de la Foire, L - 1528 LUXEMBOURG
Tel: + 352 26443033 / Fax: + 352 26443030 / e-mail: direction@cll.lu
M. Marc WEYDERT, Coordinateur pour l'enseignement par compétences (enseignement primaire),
Service de la Coordination de la Recherche et de l'Innovation pédagogiques et technologiques,
Ministère de l'Education nationale et de la Formation professionnelle, MENFP/SCRIPT, Bureau 220,29, rue Aldringen, L-2926 LUXEMBOURG
Tel: +352 478-5148 / Fax: +352 478-5137 / e-mail: marc.weydert@men.lu
MOLDOVA
M. Adrian GHICOV, Conseiller du Ministre de l’Education, Ministère de l’Education et de laJeunesse, Piaţa Marii Adunări Naţ. Nr .1, 2033 CHIŞINĂU
Tel: +373 22232402 / Fax: +373 22233515 / email: consilier@edu.md
Mme Eugénie BRINZǍ, Spécialiste principale, Ministère de l’Education et de la Jeunesse, Piaţa
Marii Adunări Naţ. Nr .1, 2033 CHIŞINĂU
Tel: +373 22 23 35 45 / Fax: +373 22 23 35 15 / 23 32 83 / e-mail: ebrinza@yahoo.com
MONTENEGROMr Dragan BOGOJEVIC, Directeur, Zavod za skolstvo, Institut de l’Enseignement, Marka Miljanova
17, 81 000 PODGORICA
Tel: +381 81 40 89 01 / Mob: +381 67 61 73 25 / Fax: +381 81 40 89 27 / e-mail: draganb@mn.yu
Mr Igor LAKIC, Institut za strane jezike, University of Montenegro, Institute for Foreign Languages,
Jovana Tomasevica 37, 81000 PODGORICA
Tel: +381 81 242 453 / Fax: +381 81 243 516 / e-mail: igorlakic@yahoo.com
Ms Divna PALJEVIC-STURM, Ispitni centar, Examination Center, Novaka Miloseva 10, 81 000
PODGORICA
Tel/Fax: +381 81 231 961 / e-mail: divnap@mn.yu
Ms Dusanka POPOVIC, Zavod za skolstvo, Bureau for educational services, Marka Miljanova 17, 81
000 PODGORICA
Tel: +381 81 408 931 / Fax: +381 81 408 927 / e-mail: dusana@cg.yu
Mr Zeljko JACIMOVIC, Director, Ispitni centar, Examination Center, Novaka Miloseva 10, 81 000
PODGORICA
Tel/Fax: +381 81 231 961 / e-mail: zeljkoj@cg.ac.yu
Ms Slavica RAICEVIC, Centar za strucno obrazovanje, Center for Vocational Education, Rimski trg
45, 81000 PODGORICA
Tel/Fax: +381 81 234 659 / e-mail slavica.r@cg.yu / slavica.r@gmail.com
Ms Natasa ZIVKOVIC, Editorial Director, Zavod za udžbenike i nastavna sredstva, Department for
Textbooks and Teaching Aids, Novaka Miloseva 36, 81 000 PODGORICA
Tel/fax: +381 81 230 539 / e-mail: natasaz@zuns.cg.yu
NETHERLANDS / PAYS-BAS
Ms Marja BEUK, Senior Policy Advisor, Ministry of Education, Culture and Science, Department ofSecondary Education, Rijnstraat 50, Postbus 16375, NL - 2500 BJ DEN HAAG
Tel: +31 70 4124608 / Fax:+31 70 4124608 / e-mail: m.j.e.beuk@minocw.nl
Mr Peter MOLENAAR, Parelgrijs 52, NL - 2718 NV ZOETERMEER
Tel: +31 793612263 / Fax: +31 793611358 / e-mail: pjn.molenaar@gmail.com
Ms Erna VAN HEST, CITO, Nieuwe Oeverstraat 50, P.O. Box 1034, NL - 6801 MG ARNHEM
Tel: +31 26 352 11 11 / Fax: +31 26 352 13 56 / e-mail: Erna.vanHest@cito.nl

66

Council of Europe

Mr José NOIJONS, CITO, Nieuwe Oeverstraat 50, P.O. Box 1034, NL - 6801 MG ARNHEM
Tel: +31 26 352 1447 / Fax: +31 26 352 1190 / e-mail: jose.noijons@cito.nl
Mr Henk KUIJPER, CITO, Nieuwe Oeverstraat 50, P.O. Box 1034, NL - 6801 MG ARNHEM
Fax: +31 26 352 1190 / e-mail: Henk.kuijper@cito.nl
Ms Alma VAN TIL, CITO, Nieuwe Oeverstraat 50, P.O. Box 1034, NL - 6801 MG ARNHEM
e-mail: Alma.vantil@cito.nl
Mme Marianne DRIESSEN, CINOP (Centrum voor Innovatie van Opleidingen), Postbus 1585,
5200 BP DEN BOSCH
Tel: +31 73 6800 625 / Mobiel: 06-10970957 / Fax: +31 73 6123 425 / e-mail: mdriessen@cinop.nl
Ms Hetty MULDER – SLO, P.O. Box 2041, NL 7500 CA ENSCHEDE
TEL: 31 53 48 40 613 / e-mail: h.mulder@slo.nl
Mr Dick MEIJER, SLO, (Member of European Language Portfolio Validation Committee),
Meijboomstraat 28, NL - 7981 DC DIEVER
Tel: +31 521 591609 / e-mail: d.meijer1@hetnet.nl
Independent participants / Participants indépendants
Mr John H.A.L. DE JONG, Director Test Development, Pearson Language Assessments, Oranjestraat
70, NL-6881SG VELP GLD
Tel: +31 (0)26 3639 220 / Fax: +31 (0)26 3639 221 / e-mail: john.dejong@pearson.com
M. Wim MULDER, Hofkamp 105, 7582 GN LOSSER
e-mail: scola.losser@wxs.nl
NORWAY / NORVEGE
Ms Jorunn BERNTZEN, Senior Adviser, Norwegian Ministry of Education and Research, P.O.Box 8119
Dep., N-0032 OSLO
Tel: +47 22 24 73 95 / Fax: +47 22 24 27 31 / e-mail: jorunn.berntzen@ufd.dep.no
Ms Kari BERG, Senior Adviser, Nowegian Ministry of Education and Research, P.O.Box 8119 Dep.,
N-0032 OSLO
Tel: +47 27 77 94 / Fax: +47 22 24 27 31 /e-mail: kbe@kd.dep.no
Ms Johanne OSTAD, Director, Norwegian Centre for Foreign Languages in Education, Ostfold
University College, N-1757 HALDEN
Tel: +47 6921 5000 / Fax: +47 6921 5831 / e-mail: johanne.ostad@fremmedspraksenteret.no
Ms Inger Lise STIENG, Adviser, Norwegian Directorate for Education and Training, Kolstadgata 1,
P.O.Box 2924 Toyen, N-0608 OSLO
Tel: +47 2330 1401 / Fax: +47 2330 1385 / e-mail: inger.lise.stieng@utdanningsdirektoratet.no
POLAND / POLOGNE
Ms Barbara SKACZKOWSKA, Advisor to the Minister, Ministry of National Education, al. Szucha 25,00-918 WARSAW
Tel: +48 22 34.74.629 / Fax: +48 22 34.74 253 / e-mail barbara.skaczkowska@men.gov.pl
Mrs Junona NOWAK-ROGUSKA – chief specialist, Department for International Cooperation, Ministryof Science and Higher Education, ul. Wspólna 1/3, 0-529 WARSZAWA 53
Tel: +48 22 628 67 76 / e-mail: junona.nowak-roguska@mnisw.gov.pl
Ms Barbara CZARNECKA-CICHA, Chief of Baccalaurate Division, Central Board of Examinations,ul. Łucka 11, 00-842 WARSAW
Tel: +48 22 656 37 18 / Fax: +48 22 656 37 57 / e-mail egzamin4@cke.edu.pl

Council of Europe67

Ms Maria GORZELAK, National In-service Training Centre, responsible for ELP, Al. Ujazdowskie 28,00-478 WARSAW
Tel: +48 22 345.37.41 / e-mail: Maria.Gorzelak@codn.edu.pl
Mr Pawel POSZYTEK, Foundation for the Development of the Education System, Polish National
Agency for SOCRATES, Ul. Mokotowska 43, 00-551 WARSAW
Tel: +48 22 622 37 12 / Fax: 48226223710 / e-mail/ pawel.poszytek@socrates.org.pl
Independent participants / Participants indépendants
Mr Waldemar MARTYNIUK, Jagiellonian University, Center for Polish Language and Culture,ul. Grodzka 64, PL-31-044 KRAKOW / Seconded to the Language Policy Division (2005-2206)
Tel: +48-12-2620163 / Fax:+48-12-6631815 / e-mail: wmartyniuk@hotmail.com
Ms Hanna KOMOROWSKA, University of Warsaw, Institute of English, English Language Teacher
Training College, Ul. Nowy Swiat 4, PL - 00 - 497 WARZAWA
Tel: +48 22 625 28 32 / e-mail: hannakomo@data.pl
Mme Anna KOENIG-WISNIEWSKA, Professeur de français au Lycée I Naklo/Notec – Pologne
Tel: +0698151189 / e-mail: mel ankowi@gmail.com
PORTUGAL
Ms Anália GOMES, Direcção Geral da Inovação e Desenvolvimento Curricular (ME), Av. 24 de Julho,
140, P - 1399-025 LISBOA
Tel: +351 21 393 45 81 / Fax: +351 21 393 46 85 / e-mail: analia.gomes@dgidc.min-edu.pt
Independent participants / Participants indépendants
Mr. João MALACA CASTELEIRO, CAPLE - Faculdade de Letras de Lisboa, Alameda da Universidade,P - 1600-214 LISBOA
Tel: +351 21 7920098 / e-mail: jcasteleiro@fl.ul.pt
Mr José PASCOAL, CAPLE, Faculdade de Letras de Lisboa, Alameda da Universidade, 1600-214
LISBOA
Tel: +351 -21 792 00 98 / Fax: +351 21 792 00 97 / e-mail: jpascoal@fl.ul.pt
ROMANIA / ROUMANIE
Mme Liliana PREOTEASA, Directrice Générale de la Direction Générale de l'Enseignement
Préuniversitaire, Ministère de l'Education Nationale, 30, G-ral Berthelot, BUCAREST
Tel: +40 21 314 3665 / Fax: +40 21 31 35547 / e-mail: liliana.preoteasa@medc.edu.ro
M. Dan Ion NASTA, Directeur de Recherche en Didactiques des Langues Vivantes, Institut desSciences de l'Education, Str. Stirbei Voda nr. 37, 70732 BUCAREST SECTOR 3
Tel: +40 21 313 64 91 / Fax: +40 2 1 312 14 47 / e-mail: danion_na@yahoo.fr
Independent participant / Participant indépendant
Ms Mariana BARA, The Aromanian Community from Romania, DRUMUL TABEREI 59A, ap.19, sector
6, BUCAREST
Tel: +40-722-291998 / e-mail: mariana_bara@yahoo.com
RUSSIAN FEDERATION / FEDERATION DE RUSSIE
Moscow State Linguistic University (MSLU), Ostozhenka 38, 119 992 MOSCOW
Tel/Fax: +7 (495) 246 28 07 / e-mail: shleg@linguanet.ru
Ms Irina KHALEEVA (Member of European Language Portfolio Validation Committee), Rector,
Moscow State Linguistic University
Mr Vladimir MINKEVICH, Head of the International Relations Office68

Council of Europe

Ms Zinaida BURNATSEVA, Dean of the Translation and Interpreting Faculty
Ms Natalia KORIAKOVTSEVA, Professor of the Foreign Language Teaching Department
Mr Igor MATYUSHIN, Assistant Professor of the MSLUSERBIA / SERBIE
Mme Tasevska GOLUBOVIC, Ministère de l’Education et du Sport, 22-26 rue Nemanjina, 11000
BELGRADE
Tel: +381 11 36 16 293 / 381 63 59 23 08 / Fax: +381 11 36 16 293 /e-mail: milicag.tasevska@mps.sr.gov.yu
SLOVAK REPUBLIC / REPUBLIQUE SLOVAQUE
Ms Danica BAKOSSOVA, Counsellor, Regional Education Division, Ministry of Education of the Slovak
republic, Stromova 1, 813 30 BRATISLAVA
Tel: +421 2 59374330 / Fax: +421 2 593 74 229 / e-mail: danica.bakossova@minedu.sk
Mr Lubomir PAJTINKA, Director, State Pedagogical Institute, Statny pedagogicky ustav, Pluhová 8,
P.O.Box 26, SK - 830 00 BRATISLAVA
Tel: +421249276323 / Fax: +421249276195 / e-mail: lubomir.pajtinka@statpedu.sk
Independent participant / Participant indépendant
Mme Anna BUTASOVA, Chef du Département de Langues romanes, Pedagogicka fakulta - Univerzita
Komenskeho, Racianska 59, 831 01 BRATISLAVA
Tel: +421 905 399 134 / 421 2 43424034/ Fax: +421 2 44 254 956 / +421 2 44 37 11 87 /e-mail:anna.butasova@fedu.uniba.sk
Mr Rastislav VARTIK, L’Institut National de Pédagogie, Pluhova 8, 830 00, Bratislava, SlovaquieTel: +421/2/49276307 / E-mail: rastislav.vartik@statpedu.sk
SLOVENIA / SLOVENIE
Ms Karmen PIZORN, Faculty of Education, Pedagoska fakulteta Ljubljana , University of Ljubljana,
Kardeljeva ploscad 16, 1000 LJUBLJANA
Tel (mobile): +38641516244 / e-mail: karmen.pizorn@guest.arnes.si
Ms Alenka TRATNIK, National Examination Center, DRZAVNI IZPITNI CENTER, OB ZELEZNICI 16,
1000 LJUBLJANA
Tel: +386 1 548 46 79 / Fax: +386 1 548 46 01 / e-mail: alenka.tratnik@ric.si
SPAIN / ESPAGNE
Ms Isabel ALABAU, Ministerio de Educación y Ciencia, Secretaría General Técnica. Gabinete
Técnico, C/Alcalá 34, 5ª planta, Despacho 508, MADRID 28014
Tel: +34 917018261 / e-mail: isabel.alabau@mec.es
Ms Ángeles ORTEGA, Asesora Técnica Docente de Idiomas, Subdirección General de Ordenación
Académica, Ministerio de Educación y Ciencia, C/ Los Madrazo 15-17, 2ª Planta, Despacho 202,
28014 MADRID
Tel: +34 91 701 80 70 / Fax: +34 91 701 86 62 / e-mail: angeles.ortega@mec.es
Ms Neus FIGUERAS CASANOVAS, Departament d'Educació, Generalitat de Catalunya, Via Augusta
202 1° B, 08021 BARCELONA
Tel: +34 33 400 69 16 / Fax: +34 93 400 69 84 / e-mail: nfiguera@xtec.cat
Ms Neus LORENZO GALÉS, Subdirecció General de la Inspecció d'Educació, Departamentd'Educació, DNI: 36966180-M, Via Augusta 202 1° B, SP -08021 BARCELONA
Tel: +34 33 400 69 16 / Fax: +34 93 400 69 84 / e-mail: nlorenzo@xtec.net

Council of Europe69

Ms Elia VILA, Dirección General de Ordenación y Evaluación Educativa, Consejería de Educación dela Junta de Andalucía, Avda Juan Antonio de Vizarrón s/n, SEVILLA 41071
Tel: +34 955065489 / e-mail: elia.vila.ext@juntadeandalucia.es
SWEDEN / SUEDE
Ms Eva ENGDELL, Director of Education, Swedish National Agency for School Improvement /Myndigheten för skolutveckling, Avdelning för pedagogiskt utvecklingsarbete, Karlbergsvägen 7781, 113 55 STOCKHOLM
Tel: +46 (0)8 52 77 81 51 / 80 00/ e-mail: Eva.Engdell@skolutveckling.se
Ms Gudrun ERICKSON, Göteborgs universitet, IPD/SoL, Box 300, SE 405 30 GÖTEBORG
Tel: +46 31 786 2453 / e-mail.: gudrun.erickson@ped.gu.se
Ms Suzanne MEHRENS, Skolverket, 106 20 STOCKHOLM
Tel: 46 8 5273 3181 / e-mail.: suzanne.mehrens@skolverket.se
SWITZERLAND / SUISSE
M. Alexandre ETIENNE, Responsable national du secteur Formation, Directeur régional – Lausanne,
IFFP Institut fédéral des hautes études en formation professionnelle, Avenue de Provence 82, Case
postale 192, CH-1000 LAUSANNE 16 MALLEY
Tel: +41 21 621 82 00 / 21 621 82 18 / Fax: +41 21 626 09 30 /e-mail: alexandre.etienne@iffp-suisse.ch
Mme Mirjam EGLI CUÉNAT, Collaboratrice scientifique, CDIP, Chargée du dossier Langues,
Zähringerstrasse 25, case postale 5975, CH – 3001 BERNE
e-mail: egli@edk.ch
Mr Günther SCHNEIDER, Directeur, Lern- und Forschungszentrum Fremdsprachen, Université deFribourg, Criblet 13, CH - 1700 FRIBOURG
Tel: +41 26 300 7961/64 / Fax: +41 26 300 97 17 / e-mail: guenther.schneider@unifr.ch
Mme Marianne STÄUBLI, collaboratrice scientifique auprès de l'Office fédéral de la formation
professionnelle et de la technologie (OFFT), Effingerstrasse 27, 3003 BERNE
e-mail: mariannestaeubli@yahoo.de
Independent participants / Participants indépendants
Mr Hans Ulrich BOSSHARD, Coordinateur du projet "IMPEL" du CELV, Regionalsekretariat EDK-Ost,
Erziehungsdepartement SG, Davidstrasse 31, CH-9001 ST.GALLEN
Tel: +41 71 229 34 32 / Fax +41 71 229 44 99 / e-mail: h.bosshard@sg.ch
Mr Rolf SCHÄRER (General Rapporteur, European Language Portfolio Validation Committee),
Gottlieb Binderstrasse 45, CH - 8802 KILCHBERG
Tel: +41 1 715 32 90 / Fax: +41 1 715 32 72 / e-mail: info@rolfschaerer.ch"THE FORMER YUGOSLAV REPUBLIC OF MACEDONIA" / "L'EX-REPUBLIQUE YOUGOSLAVE DE
MACÉDOINE"
Ms Jelena JOVANOSKA, Ministry of Education and Science, Bureau for development of education,
Dimitria cupovski Nr 9, 1000 SKOPJE
Tel: +38970425259
Ms Arijeta XHEMAILI, Ministry of Education and Science, Dimitrie Cupovski nr. 9, 1000 SKOPJE
Tel: +38971537900 / e-mail: arijeta_x@yahoo.com
TURKEY / TURQUIEMr Özcan DEMIREL, Hacettepe University, Faculty of Education / Eğitim Fakültesi, BEYTEPE, TR06532 ANKARA
Tel: +90 312 297 85 50 / Fax: +90 312 299 20 27 /e-mail: demirel@hacettepe.edu.tr

70

Council of Europe

Mr Irfan ERDOGAN, Head of Board of Education, Talim ve Terbiye Kurulu Baskanligi, Teknikokullar,
06330 ANKARA
Tel: +90 312 - 223 0809 / Fax: +90 312 - 213 7836 / e-mail: irfanerdogan@meb.gov.tr
UKRAINE
Ms Oksana KOVALENKO, Department of General and Pre-school, Social Humanity Division,
Pr Peremohy. 10, 01135 KYIV
Tel: +380444862481 / Fax: +4862481 / e-mail: o_kovalenko@mon.gov.ua
Ms Alla BASINA, National Academy of science, 52 Artema str., KIEV
Tel: +380443320843 / e-mail art_basin@hotmail.com
UNITED KINGDOM / ROYAUME-UNI
Mr Lid KING, National Director for Languages, Department for Education and Skills, Sanctuary
Buildings, Area 4D, Great Smith Street, LONDON SW1P 3BT
Tel: +44 (0)20 7925 6367 / e-mail: Lid.King@dfes.gsi.gov.uk
Ms Kate GREEN, Project Director, The Languages Ladder, Department for Education and Skills,
Sanctuary Buildings, Area 4D, Great Smith Street, LONDON SW1P 3BT
Tel: +44 (0)20 7925 7355 / e-mail: Kate.Green@dfes.gsi.gov.uk
Ms Julie McCALLUM, Policy Officer for Modern Languages, Scottish Executive Education
Department, Area 2A South, Victoria Quay, EDINBURGH EH6 6QQ
Tel: +44 (0)131 244 7015 / e-mail: julie.mccallum@scotland.gsi.gov.uk
Mr Sean WARD, Inspector, Education and Training Inspectorate, Department of Education,
Rathgael House, Balloo Road, BANGOR, CO. DOWN BT19 7PR, NORTHERN IRELAND
Tel: +44 (0)28 91279726 / e-mail: sean.ward@deni.gov.uk
Mr Brian TEMPLETON, Head of Curriculum Studies, Principal Assessor of French for the Scottish
Qualifications Authority (SQA),.University of Glasgow, St Andrews Building, Room 333, 11 Eldon
Street, GLASGOW G3 6NH
Tel: +44 (0)141 330 3013 / e-mail: b.templeton@educ.gla.ac.uk
Independent participants / Participants indépendants
Mr Michael BYRAM, Adviser to the Language Policy Division, University of Durham, School of
Education, Leazes Road, UK - DURHAM DH1 1TA
Tel: +44 191 374 35 30/35 05 / Fax: +44 191 374 35 06 / E-mail: m.s.byram@durham.ac.uk
Mr Alan DOBSON, 13 Harbord Road, UK - OXFORD OX2 8LH
Tel: +44 (1865) 310670 / e-mail: alandobson02@btopenworld.com
Mr Barrie HUNT, Director, Asset Languages, 1 Hills Road, CAMBRIDGE CB1 2EU
Tel: +44 (0) 1223 553103 / Mobile: 07793 671 097 / Fax: +44 (0) 1223 553005 /e-mail Barrie.Hunt@ocr.org.uk
EUROPEAN COMMISSION / COMMISSION EUROPEENNE
Mr Harald HARTUNG, Head of Unit A5, Multilingualism Policy, European Commission - Directorate
General for Education and Culture, Directorate, Place Madou 1, B - 1210 BRUXELLES
Tél: +32-2-296.54.50 / e-mail: harald.hartung@ec.europa.eu
Mr Oyvind BJERKSTRAND, European Commission - Directorate General for Education and Culture,
Directorate – A, Unit A5, Analyses, statistic and indicators, Place Madou 1, B - 1210 BRUXELLES
Tél: +32-2-296.40.98 / Fax +32-2-299.22.31 / e-mail: oyvind.bjerkestrand@ec.europa.eu

Council of Europe

71

NON EUROPEAN COUNTRIES / PAYS NON EUROPEENSNON EUROPEAN COUNTRIES HAVING OBERVER STATUS WITH THE COUNCIL OF EUROPE / PAYS NON EUROPÉENSDOTÉS D’UN STATUT D’OBSERVATEUR AUPRÈS DU CONSEIL DE L’EUROPE
CANADA
Public Service Commission / Commission de la fonction publique
Ms Jennifer MACDONALD, Psychologist/Psychologue, Personnel Psychology Centre/Centre depsychologie du personnel, 300 Laurier Avenue West, 17th floor, OTTAWA, ONTARIO, CANADA K1A
0M7
Tel: (613) 992-9739 / Fax: (613) 947-0496 / e-mail: jennifer.macdonald@psc-cfp.gc.ca
Official Languages Support Program Branch of the Department of Canadian Heritage /Ministère du Patrimoine canadien, Direction des programmes d’appui aux langues officielles
Mr Larry VANDERGRIFT, Second Language Institute, University of Ottawa, 600 King Edward,
OTTAWA ON CANADA K1N 6N5
Tel: 613-562-5800 x3464 / e-mail: lvdgrift@uottawa.ca
Mr Hilaire LEMOINE, Cadre en résidence/Executive in Residence, Université d'Ottawa/University ofOttawa, 70 Laurier E. (504) OTTAWA ON K1N 6N5 CANADA
Tel.: 613-562-5800 (1575) / Fax: 613-562-5141 / e-mail: hlemoine@uottawa.ca
JAPAN / JAPONJapan Foundation / Fondation du Japon
Mme Mariko OKA-FUKUROI, Vice-Présidente, Maison de la Culture du Japon à Paris, (Fondation duJapon), 101 bis, quai Branly, 75740 PARIS CEDEX 15
Tel: + 33 1-44-37-95-16 / Fax: + 33 01-44-37-95-15
e-mail: m.oka-fukuroi@mcjp.asso.fr
Mr Katsumi KAKAZU, Managing Director of the Japanese-Language Department, Japan Foundation,
Ark Mori Bldg. 21F 1-12-32 AKASAKA, Minato-ku, TOKYO 107-6021 JAPANe-mail: katsumi_kakazu@jpf.go.jp
Ms Yoko ABE, Lecturer, The Japan Foundation, Japanese-Language Institute, 5-6-36 Kita-urawa,
Urawa-ku, Saitama-shi, SAITAMA 330-0074 JAPAN
Tel: 81 48 834 1186 / Fax: 81 48 834 1170 / e-mail: Yoko_Abe@jpf.go.jp
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA / ETATS-UNIS d’AMERIQUE
National Council of State Supervisors of Foreign Languages (NCSSFL)
Ms Jacqueline BOTT VAN HOUTEN, National Council of State Supervisors of Foreign Languages(NCSSFL), World Language & International Education Consultant, Kentucky Department of
Education, 500 Mero Street, Frankfort, KY 40601, USA
Tel: +502 564 2106 / Fax: +502 564 9848 / E-mail: Jacqueline.VanHouten@education.ky.gov
National Association of District Supervisors of Foreign Languages (NADSFL)
Mr Gregory FULKERSON, National Association of District Supervisors of Foreign Languages(NADSFL),World Languages and International Education Associate, Delaware Department of
Education, 401 Federal St., Suite 2, Dover, DE 19901/ USA
Tel: + 302 735 4180 / Fax: + 302 739 3744 / e-mail: Gregory.Fulkerson@fcps.edu
American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages (ACTFL)
Mr Bret LOVEJOY, Executive Director, 700 South Washington Street, Suite 210, ALEXANDRIA, VA
22314 USAe-mail: blovejoy@ACTFL.ORG

72

Council of Europe

Ms Marty ABBOTT, Director of Education, 700 South Washington Street, Suite 210, ALEXANDRIA, VA
22314
Tel: +(703) 894-2900, ext. 110 / Fax: + (703) 894-2905
Ms Elvira SWENDER, Director of Professional Programs, 6 Executive Plaza, YONKERS, NY 10701
e-mail: eswender@ACTFL.org
Universities / Universités
Ms Heidi BYRNES, German Department, Intercultural Center 469, Georgetown University,
Washington, DC 20057 USA
e-mail: byrnesh@georgetown.edu
Ms Patricia CUMMINS (AATF), Professor of French and International Studies, School of World
Studies, P.O. Box 842021, Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, VIRGINIA 23284-2021,
USA
Tel: +804 827 0958 / Fax: +804 828 0127 / E-mail: pcummins@vcu.edu
Mr Carl FALSGRAF (CASLS), Director, Center for Applied Second Language Studies, 5290 Universityof Oregon, Eugene, OR 97403, USA
Tel: +541-346-5715 / E-mail: falsgraf@uoregon.edu
OTHER GUEST COUNTRY / AUTRE PAYS INVITÉCHINA / CHINE
Ministry of Education – Office of Chinese Language Council International, 17th floor, Fangyuan
Mansion B56, Zhongguancun South Str., Beijing 100044
Mr Jun LIU, Professor, Shantou University, 243 Da Xue Road, Shantou, Guangdong, 515063 CHINA
e-mail: junliu@u.arizona.edu
Mr Han BAOCHENG, Professor, Beijing Foreign Studies University, 2 North Xisanhuan Avenue
Beijing, 100089 CHINANON-GOVERNMENTAL
INTERNATIONALORGANISATIONSINTERNATIONALES NON-GOUVENEMENTALES (ONG)(NGOS)/ORGANISATIONSRegroupement Education et Culture / Education and Culture Grouping (CSEE/ETUCE)
Education and Culture regrouping of the INGO's enjoying participatory Status with the Council ofEuropeRegroupement "Education et Culture" des OING dotées du Statut participatif auprès du Conseil del'Europe
European Trade Union Committee for Education (ETUCE) / Comité Syndical Européen pourl'Education (CSEE)
M. Alain MOUCHOUX, Président, 11 rue Louis Rolland, F-92120 MONTROUGE
Tel: +32 2 224 06 91 / e-mail: secretariat@csee-etuce.org
EUROCENTRES FOUNDATION / FONDATION EUROCENTRESMr Brian NORTH, Head of Academic Development and Franchise Schools, Foundation for European
Language and Educational Centres, Seestrasse 247, CH-8038 ZURICH
Tel: +41.44.485 52 45 (direct) / Fax: +41.44.485 52 90 / e-mail: bjnorth@eurocentres.com
FIPLV (Fédération Internationale des Professeurs de Langues vivantes)
Mr Denis CUNNINGHAM, President, PO Box 216, BELGRAVE 3160 / AUSTRALIA
e-mail: djc@netspace.net.au

Council of Europe73

ALTE (Association of Language Testers in Europe / Association des Centre d’Evaluation en
Langues en Europe)
Mr Nick SAVILLE, Director, Research and Validation, c/o University of Cambridge ESOL
Examinations, 1 Hills Road, UK - CAMBRIDGE CB1 2EU
Tel: +44 1223 553777 / Fax: +44 1223 460278 / e-mail: Saville.N@cambridgeesol.org
EAQUALS (The European Association for Quality Language Services)
Mr Brian NORTH, Chair of EAQUALS, c/o Eurocentres, Head of Academic Development andFranchise Schools, Foundation for European Language and Educational Centres, Seestrasse 247,
CH-8038 ZURICH
Tel: +41.44.485 52 45 (direct) / Fax: +41.44.485 52 90 / e-mail: bjnorth@eurocentres.com
Mr Peter BROWN, Founder Chair of EAQUALS, The European Association for Quality Language
Services, c/o The British School of Trieste, Via Torrebianca 18, I - 34132 TRIESTE /ITALY
Tel: +39 040 369 369 / Fax: +39 040 76 000 75 / e-mail: pbrown@eaquals.org /Peter.Brown@British-FVG.net
Mr Frank HEYWORTH, EAQUALS Special Advisor, European Association of Quality Language Services(EAQUALS), 5 chemin de Maggenberg, CH- 1700 FRIBOURG
Tel: +41 1 720 5481 / Fax: 41 26 481 46 65 / e-mail: fheyworth@eaquals.org
BRITISH COUNCIL
Mr Tony BUCKBY, Deputy Director English Language, British Council, 10 Spring Gardens, LONDONSW1A 2BN
Tel: +44 (0)20 7389 4103 / e-mail: tony.buckby@britishcouncil.org
Federation of Migros Cooperatives / Fédération des coopératives Migros
Mr Mike MAKOSCH, Federation of Migros Cooperatives, Coordination Office of the Club Schools,
Habsburgstrasse 9, PO Box, 8031 ZÜRICH
Tel: +41 44 277 20 32 / Fax: +41 44 277 20 14 / e-mail: mike.makosch@mgb.ch
ICC – The European Language Network
Mr Jack LONERGAN, President, 47 Dalton Street, UK-ST ALBANS AL3 5QH
Tel: +44 1727 752263 / Fax: +44 1727 831255 / e-mail: jack.lonergan@icc-languages.eu
Mr Gareth HUGHES, Project Manager, c/o Federation of Migros Cooperatives, Coordination Officeof the Club Schools , Habsburgstrasse 9, PO Box, 8031 ZÜRICH; consultant to European Language
Portfolio Validation Committee
Tel: +41 (0)44 277 2035 / Fax: +41 (0)44 277 2014 / e-mail: gareth.hughes@mgb.ch
Association universelle d'Esperanto (UEA) / Universal Esperanto Association (UEA)
Mme Márta KOVÁCS, professeur au lycée Berzsenyi Dániel Gimnázium, Kárpát u. 49. H-1133
BUDAPEST
Tél.: +36-1-226-36-02 / Fax: +36-1-359-16-13 / e-mail: bdg.kovacs.marta@gmail.com
UNIVERSITY NETWORKS / RESEAUX UNIVERSITAIRES
CercleS (European Confederation of Language Centres in Higher Education) / Confédération
Européenne des Centres de Langues de l'Enseignement Supérieur
Ms Carol TAYLOR, President of CercleS, Dipartimento di Lingue e Letterature Anglo-Germaniche e
Slave, Università di Padova, Via Beato Pellegrino 26, 35137 PADOVA, Italy
Tel: +39 049 8274951, direct 4981 / Fax: +39 049 8274955 / e-mail:carol.taylor@unipd.it

74

Council of Europe

Ms Fiona DALZIEL, Dipartimento di Lingue e Letterature Anglo-Germaniche e Slave, Università di
Padova, Via Beato Pellegrino 26, 35137 PADOVA / ITALY
Tel: +39 049 8274951 / Fax: + 39 049 8274955 / e-mail: fiona_dalziel@fc.cla.unipd.it /fionaclare.dalziel@unipd.it
Ms Mary RUANE, Director, UCD Applied Language Centre (ALC), University College Dublin, Daedalus
Building Belfield, DUBLIN 4, IRELAND
Tel: +353 1 716 7900, direct: 7951 / Fax: +353 1 716 1188 /mobile phone: +353 (0)872243010 /e-mail.: mary.ruane@alc.ucd.ie
ELC (European Language Council) / CEL (Conseil européen des langues)
Mr Wolfgang MACKIEWICZ, CEL/ELC President, c/o Freie Universität Berlin, ZE Sprachenzentrum,
Habelschwerdter Allee 45, 14195 BERLIN, GERMANY ; consultant to European Language Portfolio
Validation Committee
Tel: +49-30-838 54501 / Fax: +49-30-838 53717 / URL: www.celelc.org
Brussels Office, c/o European University Association (EUA), Rue d'Egmont, 13, 1000 BRUSSELS,BELGIUM
Tel: + 32-(0)2-788.53.02/ Fax: + 32-(0)2-230.57.51/ e-mail: erasmspr@zedat.fu-berlin.de
Ms Brigitte FORSTER VOSICKI, Leader of the CEL/ELC ELP Project, Université de Lausanne, Centre
de langues, Quartier UNIL-Dorigny, Bâtiment Anthropole 1128.2, CH – 1015 LAUSANNE
Tel: +41 21 692 29 21 / Fax: +41 21 692 29 17 / e-mail: Brigitte.ForsterVosicki@unil.ch
Mme Anne Claude BERTHOUD, CEL/ELC Vice President/Vice-président, Université de Lausanne,
Faculté des lettres, Section de linguistique, Quartier UNIL-Dorigny, Bâtiment Anthropole 4068, CH– 1015 LAUSANNE
Tél: +41 21 692 30 08 / e-mail: Anne-Claude.Berthoud@unil.ch

Council of Europe

75

Coordinating Committee of the Forum / Comité de Coordination du Forum
M. Francis GOULLIER, General Rapporteur of the Forum, France / Rapporteur général du Forum
Mr Jose NOIJONS, the Netherlands / Pays-Bas
M. Jean-Claude BEACCO, France
Mr Michael BYRAM, United Kingdom / Royaume-Uni
M. Daniel COSTE, France
Ms Neus FIGUERAS CASANOVAS, Spain / Espagne
Mr Waldemar MARTYNIUK, Poland / Pologne
Presenters and Chair persons in chronological order / Intervenants et Président(e)s, par ordre
chronologique
Mr Harald Hartung, European Commission / Commission européenne
M. Jean-Claude Beacco, France
Mr Michael BYRAM, United Kingdom / Royaume-Uni
Ms Erna VAN HEST, the Netherlands /Pays-Bas
Ms Neus FIGUEIRAS CASANOVAS, Spain / Espagne
Mr David LITTLE, Ireland / Irlande
Mr Waldemar MARTYNIUK, Poland /Pologne
Mr Brian NORTH, Switzerland / Suisse
Mr Jose NOIJONS, the Netherlands /Pays-Bas
Mme Christine TAGLIANTE, France
Mr Henk KUIJPER, the Netherlands /Pays-Bas
Mr Sauli TAKALA, Finland / Finlande
Mme Marisa CAVALLI, Aosta Valley (Italy) / Val d’Aoste (Italie)
Mme Geneviève GAILLARD, France
Mr Dick MEIJER, the Netherlands /Pays-Bas
Ms Hanna KOMOROWSKA, Poland / Pologne
Mr Oyvind BJERKSTRAND, European Commission / Commission européenne
Ms Susanna SLIVENSKY, European Centre for Modern Languages/Centre européen pour les langues
vivantes
Mr Katsumi KAKAZU, Japan /Japon
Ms Jacqueline BOTT VAN HOUTEN United States of America / Etats-Unis d’Amérique
Ms Jennifer MACDONALD, Canada
Mr Larry VANDERGRIFT, Canada
M. Charles BERG, Luxembourg
Ms Stase SKAPIENE, Lithuania / Lituanie
Ms Gisella LANGÉ, Lombardy (Italy) / Lombardie (Italie)
Ms Jorunn BERNZTEN, Norway / Norvège
M. Daniel COSTE, France
Mr John TRIM, United Kingdom / Royaume-Uni
Mr Lid KING, United Kingdom / Royaume-Uni
Mr Hans-Jürgen KRUMM, Austria / Autriche
Ms Hettie MULDER, the Netherlands /Pays-Bas
Mr Helmut VOLLMER, Germany / Allemagne
Group Work : Chair Persons & Rapporteurs / Groupes de travail : Président(e)s et Rapporteurs
Evaluation :Group 1 / Groupe 1: Ms Neus FIGUERAS / Mr José NOIJONSGroup 2 / Groupe 2: Mr Waldek MARTYNIUK / Ms Gudrun ERICKSONCurricula and Teacher training / Curricula et Formation des enseignants
Group 3 / Groupe 3: Mr Alan DOBSON / Mme Liliana PREOTEASA
Group 2 / Groupe 4: Mr Eike THÜRMANN / Ms Jorunn BERNTZEN

76

Council of Europe

COUNCIL OF EUROPE / CONSEIL DE L'EUROPE – www.coe.int
DIRECTORATE GENERAL IV – EDUCATION, CULTURE AND HERITAGE, YOUTH AND SPORT / DIRECTION GÉNÉRALE IVEDUCATION, CULTURE ET PATRIMOINE, JEUNESSE ET SPORT
Gabriella BATTAINI-DRAGONI, Director General / Directrice Général
DIRECTORATE OF SCHOOL, OUT-OF-SCHOOL AND HIGHER EDUCATION / DIRECTION DE L’EDUCATION SCOLAIRE,EXTRA-SCOLAIRE ET DE L’ENSEIGNEMENT SUPERIEUR
Gabriele MAZZA, Director / Directeur
DEPARTMENT OF LANGUAGE EDUCATION AND POLICY / SERVICE DES POLITIQUES LINGUISTIQUES ET DE LA
FORMATION EN LANGUES

Language Policy Division – www.coe.int/lang / Division des politiques linguistiques www.coe.int/lang/fr
Joseph SHEILSHead of the Language Policy Division / Chef de la Division des Politiques linguistiques
Tel: + 33 (0)3 88 41 20 79 / e-mail: joseph.sheils@coe.int
Johanna PANTHIER
Administratrice / Administrator
Tel: + 33 (0)3 88 41 23 84 / e-mail: johanna.panthier@coe.int
Philia THALGOTT
Administratrice / Administrator
Tel: + 33 (0)3 88 41 26 25 / e-mail: philia.thalgott@coe.int
Christopher REYNOLDS
Administrative Assistant / Assistant Administratif
Tel: + 33 (0) 88 41 46 86 / e-mail: christopher.reynolds@coe.int
Corinne COLIN
Secretariat / Secrétariat
Tel: + 33 (0) 3 88 41 35 33 / e-mail: corinne.colin@coe.int
Jodie CLIFFORD
Secretariat / Secrétariat
Tel: + 33 (0)3 88 41 32 48 / e-mail: jodie.clifford@coe.int
European Centre for Modern Languages (ECML) / Centre européen pour les langues vivantes(CELV) - Nikolaiplatz 4, A-8020 Graz – www.ecml.at
Tel +43 316 323554 / Fax +43 316 323554-4 / e-mail information@ecml.at
Adrian BUTLER, Executive Director/Directeur exécutif, e-mail adrian.butler@ecml.at
Susanna SLIVENSKY, Head of Programmes/Directrice des programmes
e-mail susanna.slivensky@ecml@at

Council of Europe

77