The cefr document is the result of a need for a common international framework for language learning facilitated co­ operation among educational institutions in different countries

Why is CEFR needed?
This section summarises the reasons why, in all the above respects, it will be of practical use for all those concerned with language learning and its outcomes to be able to set their efforts in a general European framework such as that provided by the Common European Framework of Reference for Language Learning, Teaching and Assessment (CEF). It quotes the conclusions reached by the Intergovernmental Symposium held in Rüschlikon, Switzerland, which recommended the development of a common European framework of reference for language learning, teaching and assessment of all kinds and at all levels.

For what uses is CEF intended?
This section emphasises the use of CEF as a planning instrument and as such is self-explanatory. There are, of course, further uses. It is valuable as a means of raising awareness, particularly in higher education and in initial and in-service teacher education and training. Many institutions have welcomed CEF as a calibrating instrument for the equation of examinations and qualifications.
What criteria must CEF meet?
The Rüschlikon Symposium laid down criteria for CEF to meet. Participants agreed that CEF should be descriptive, not prescriptive. Practitioners should reflect upon their current practice, take decisions which they believe to be right in their circumstances and then share their decisions, objectives and methods with others. While the Committee of Ministers wants practitioners to find its policy recommendations convincing, and to follow them in their decision- making, it is not the function of CEF to tell them what to do. The Council of Europe’s point of view, however well-founded, should not determine, or distort, the descriptive framework. This point, which is fundamental, has not always been understood.
CEF aims to be comprehensive, not selective. Many different kinds of learning and teaching exist. All should find a place and be able to describe their provision within the Framework. On the other hand, it cannot be exhaustive. It should, however, try to be transparent so that users – both those who describe their objectives and methods and those who receive the descriptions – should be able to see clearly what is on offer, avoiding vagueness and obscurity. It should be coherent – avoiding internal contradictions and equivocations, multi-purpose – capable of being used in different ways according to user needs, open and dynamic – capable of further development by its users as they discover the inevitable gaps and deficiencies. It must be non- dogmatic, welcoming all approaches and viewpoints, rather than insisting upon conformity to some current orthodoxy. It should be user-friendly, avoiding excessive complication and jargon,
– though over-simplification is a complementary danger. Communication by means of language is a complex phenomenon, no part of which is irrelevant or a matter of course for all learners. The structure of linguistic interaction must be fully represented and some use of technical languages is unavoidable, though idiosyncratic terms should be explained.
Users may also find it helpful to consider how far the criteria apply to their own description of their aims, objectives and methods by reference to CEFR. Is it, for instance, comprehensive? We do not mean that every user should try to include everything that is presented in CEFR. The Framework attempts to be comprehensive in the sense that it must accommodate everything any of its users wish to specify. If CEFR users find that there are things they wish to specify which have been overlooked, CEFR fails the criterion of comprehensiveness. In that case, users should provide their own specification and let us know, so that CEFR can be further developed. This is what is meant by saying that the Framework should be open and dynamic. On the other hand, particular users may well decide that much that is contained in CEFR is inapplicable to them, perhaps because they feel that it is irrelevant to the needs of the learners they have in mind, or that it is inappropriate to those learners, or that it can be taken for granted, or is not of high enough priority where resources or time are limited. In relation to descriptions produced by users in terms of CEFR, comprehensive has a different meaning. Has the user, before taking decisions, taken all options into consideration? Has everything been included that someone using the description would need to know, in an appropriate degree of detail?
As regards transparency and coherence, the criteria for CEF and for the description are the same: has the writer been sufficiently explicit for the user to have a clear picture of what is being presented, using language the user can understand (perhaps, if need be, with the aid of a standard dictionary), avoiding vagueness and ambiguity? Does the description hang together? Is it consistent, avoiding the contradiction in one place of what is said in another? Is it flexible, taking account of the different circumstances under which it may be used?
A final word, to avoid all misunderstanding: as a framework of reference, the aim is to be descriptive, not prescriptive. CEFR exists not to promote, let alone impose, uniformity but toimprove communication whilst maintaining and encouraging diversity. The historical background gives a picture of the values, beliefs and attitudes which have informed the Council of Europe in its work in the modern languages field. Users are invited to reflect upon them and to bear them in mind as they use CEFR, as indeed in all their work. However, it is for the users to decide whether to adopt them as their own. CEFR is itself non-dogmatic, enabling all users to tell others of their decisions, rather than telling them what their decisions should be.
It must be recognised that the very act of developing a common framework is itself a political act. In the nineteenth century and later, many nation states set out to create or reinforce national unity in an authoritarian, sometimes oppressive, manner by imposing uniform national curricula, qualifications, textbooks, and classroom methods, while overriding the diverse provisions (if any) which marked the heterogeneous elements from which they were created. Today, there is greater respect for the identity of minorities and a more general recognition of the need to diversify educational provision. However, there is anxiety in some quarters that European unity will cause a loss of national identity. To promote continental unity whilst respecting and even increasing diversity, with democratic decision-making brought closer to the point of learning, by facilitating mutual information and promoting a common approach among the many professionals involved – that is an act of faith! In this spirit we invite the user to consider CEFR further.