Open Letter to :

Le Conseil de L’Europe

Avenue de l’Europe

67075 Strasbourg Cedex

France

Dear Members of the Council of Europe,

We, the undersigned stakeholders in the language learning industry, are writing to express our growing concern about the misuse of the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages (CEFR) in the hiring practices of many educational institutions and employers, everywhere in the world.

The CEFR was established by the Council of Europe to provide a transparent and objective framework for assessing language proficiency. However, in recent years, its original purpose has been undermined by its widespread misrepresentation in language teaching job advertisements across both the private and public sectors.

More specifically, we have observed an increasing trend where employers and recruiters inaccurately equate CEFR levels—particularly C2—with “native-level”, “near-native level” or “native speaker-level” proficiency. This is not only misleading but also detrimental to educators, students, and the integrity of the CEFR itself.

It is now common to find job listings and other published documents that reference CEFR descriptors inappropriately, for example:

“Native pace” in reference to C2 proficiency.

“A well-educated native English speaker is technically at a C2 level.”

“A C2 level of English is essentially a native level.” (EFSET)

“C2 is considered near-native proficiency.”

“C2 is similar to an educated native speaker (25+ years old).” (ESL Lounge)

“A person at C2 can function in the language to the same ability as an educated native speaker.” (CEFR Levels)

These misleading descriptions have serious consequences. The term “native” is not defined in any official CEFR documentation, yet it is frequently associated with the framework, particularly in reference to advanced levels. The assumption that native speakers automatically correspond to C2 level —or that C2 is synonymous with native-like proficiency—is both inaccurate and damaging for the following reasons:

It distorts language proficiency assessment.

The CEFR was designed as a structured scale to assess communicative competence, not identity. Proficiency is achieved through study, exposure, and practice—not through birthplace or upbringing. Conflating “native” with advanced CEFR levels misrepresents how language skills develop and devalues the effort required to reach high levels of proficiency.

It creates confusion for both job applicants and students.

Many proficient non-native English teachers are unfairly excluded from participating in the profession on equal terms as their native counterparts, because they do not meet the arbitrary requirement of being a “native speaker. Meanwhile, students are led to believe that language proficiency is inherently tied to being born into a language rather than being developed through education.

It disregards the diversity and non-homogeneity of CEFR levels among native speakers.

The “native speaker” label is not an adequate measure of proficiency. It assumes homogeneity among individuals who learned a language from birth, yet proficiency varies widely among native speakers as well. In every linguistic and cultural context, individuals strive to master formal communication—both spoken and written—through education and continued effort. This pursuit is not determined by one’s place of birth or national origin. Yet, there remains a persistent assumption that individuals who grew up speaking a language (often labeled ‘native speakers’) naturally possess uniform and superior levels of literacy and formal proficiency.

This belief is not only inaccurate but also undermines the value of education itself. If such assumptions are allowed to shape our academic or institutional standards, we risk eroding the very foundations of equitable and meaningful learning.

It reinforces exclusionary hiring practices.

Employers requiring “native-level” proficiency—without specifying an actual CEFR level (e.g., C2) often exclude highly qualified multilingual teachers, even those with proven C2+ proficiency —this reinforces and perpetuates systemic bias and contradicts the principles of fairness and inclusivity in education.

As language professionals, we strongly oppose the misrepresentation of CEFR levels and call for:

A clear distinction between language proficiency (CEFR) and linguistic identity (“native” or “non-native”). As a global lingua franca, English is primarily a tool for international communication and should not be narrowly associated with any specific cultural, national or linguistic identity.

Responsible and precise job descriptions that specify actual language requirements based on CEFR levels rather than vague, arbitrary, and discriminatory labels.

Awareness campaigns and employer guidelines to eliminate the misuse of CEFR references in hiring practices.

We acknowledge that the CEFR is a valuable tool for language education, but its credibility is at risk when descriptors are manipulated or misinterpreted and/or misused. We urge the Council of Europe and relevant educational bodies to address this growing issue and uphold the original intent of the CEFR as a neutral, evidence-based framework for language proficiency.

We look forward to your response and to working together toward a more accurate and inclusive approach to language assessment, which would help foster transparency, equity and inclusivity in the language teaching industry.

Sincerely,