The Common European Framework in its political and educational context What is the Common European Framework?

3.7
How to 
read the scales of illustrative descriptors
The levels used are the six main levels introduced in Chapter 3: A1 (Breakthrough), A2
(Waystage), B1 (Threshold), B2 (Vantage), C1 (Effective Operational Proficiency) and C2 (Mastery).
The levels in the middle part of the scale – Waystage, Threshold and Vantage – often have a
subdivision represented by a thin line, as mentioned above. Where this is the case,
descriptors below the thin line represent the criterion level concerned. Descriptors
placed above the line define a level of proficiency which is significantly higher than that
represented by the criterion level, but which does not achieve the standard for the fol-
lowing level. The basis for this distinction is the empirical calibration. Where there is no
subdivision of A2 (Waystage), B1 (Threshold) or B2 (Vantage), the descriptor represents the
criterion level. In those cases no formulation was found to fall between the two criterion
levels concerned.
Some people prefer to read a scale of descriptors from the lowest to the highest levels;
some prefer the reverse. For consistency all scales are presented with C2 (Mastery) at the
top, and A1 (Breakthrough) at the bottom. 
Each level should be taken to subsume the levels below it on the scale. That is to say,
someone at B1 (Threshold) is considered also to be able to do whatever is stated at A2
Common European Framework of Reference for Languages: learning, teaching, assessment
36

---

(Waystage), to be better than what is stated at A2 (Waystage). That means that provisos
attached to a performance placed at A2 (Waystage) for example ‘provided speech is clearly
and slowly articulated’ will have less force, or be non-applicable to a performance at B1
(Threshold).
Not every element or aspect in a descriptor is repeated at the following level. That is to
say that entries at each level describe selectively what is seen as salient or new at that
level. They do not systematically repeat all the elements mentioned at the level below
with a minor change of formulation to indicate increased difficulty. 
Not every level is described on all scales. It is difficult to draw conclusions from the
absence of a particular area at a particular level, since this could be due to one of several
different reasons, or to a combination of them:
•
The area exists at this level: some descriptors were included in the research project,
but were dropped in quality control;
•
The area probably exists at this level: descriptors could presumably be written, but
haven’t been;
•
The area may exist at this level: but formulation seems to be very difficult if not
impossible;
•
The area doesn’t exist or isn’t relevant at this level; a distinction cannot be made here.
If users of the Framework wish to exploit the descriptor bank they will need to take a
view on the question of what to do about gaps in the descriptors provided. It may well be
the case that gaps can be plugged by further elaboration in the context concerned,
and/or by merging material from the user’s own system. On the other hand some gaps
may still – rightly – remain. It might be the case that a particular category is not relevant
towards the top or bottom of the set of levels. A gap in the middle of a scale may, on the
other hand, indicate that a meaningful distinction cannot easily be formulated.