COMMON FRAMEWORK (CECRL) WITH FAMILY PHOTO (ERT, CCE, OECD …)

Even though the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages — developed by the Council for Cultural Cooperation of the Council of Europe in 2000 within the division of lan

In the case of living languages, where it is argued that there is a need for understanding between peoples, for meeting others, for individual development, for the needs of learners and teachers, and even for cultural diversity, it appears that the aim is to make language a tool for the development of the individual. This is atool that is much more in line with the needs of the market, which requires a mobile, flexible workforce with practical, standardized skills and know-how, rather than knowledge. It is less a question of training a plurilingual individual open to cultural diversity than of training, or even formatting, a worker capable of carrying out simple tasks in a foreign language. The action-oriented approach claimed by the designers of the Framework covers a strongly ideological conception of language and social relations. Far from being isolated in the discourse of the CEFR, this ideological charge circulates just as much in other documents from the same family of thought. The present work will attempt to highlight some of these links. 

EUROPEAN FRAMEWORK AND… 

« Teaching languages [est] a challenge for Europe ». This is the title of a dossier published on the subject by the CIEP (Centre International d’Études Pédagogiques, based in Sèvres, France). Roger Pilhion, one of the editors and one of the actors of this challenge, explains in his contribution that we will  » towards a European policy for language teaching « .(1) for  » openness to the world, intercultural dialogue, tolerance, mobility during training and on the job market, to build the knowledge society, to achieve a good level of competitiveness ». These same values, which are perfectly heterogeneous and whose articulation seems to be self-evident to their promoters, are mobilized in the centerpiece of this policy, namely the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages (CEFR).

However, as presented, the Framework’s proposals seem to be limited to the field of languages and do not explicitly acknowledge any direct relationship with other frameworks or other educational schemes advocated by European or global institutions. Even if it sometimes refers to the European values we have just listed, it is above all, it is explained, an efficient instrument at the service of professional teachers, called users .

In short, its transversality would remain circumscribed to the field of languages and would only aim at allowing specialists to speak a common language. The latter, moreover, are said to be pleased with this, since, says the Framework,  » It isclear that a set of common reference levels as calibration tools is particularly welcomed by the practitioner community, who, as in many other areas, find it beneficial to work with stable and recognized measures and standards.  »

However, with the terms « tools », « measures » and « standards » we can see, as in the words of Roger Pilhion, another transversality emerging, that which links the world of production, of the company, and the « quality approach » which evaluates, with its indicators, products and performances. But this should not be surprising, since the CEFR, developed by the Council for Cultural Cooperation of the Council of Europe, within the Modern Languages Division, is obviously part of the European policy and takes into account, as it says itself, but without elaborating,  » of the Recommendations of the Committeeof Ministers ». However, this policy does not hesitate to link the economy and knowledge and, consequently, training and education. Indeed, having assigned to the European Union, in March 2000, the strategic objective for 2010 « to become the most competitive and dynamic knowledge-based economy in the world « , the Lisbon European Council tends to reduce knowledge and its subject to an economy and to the state of a commodity. There is a whole analysis to be carried out on the migration of terminology from business to language teaching and didactics, and another, corollary, on the ideological charge that this terminological drift covers. 

But before we go any further on this, let’s go back to the Framework’s opening statements in more detail. To justify the universal application of this Framework, the Council of Europe invokes the need(Recommendations R (82) 18 and R (98) 6) to safeguard the linguistic heritage of Europe in all its richness and diversity. We also invoke the understanding of peoples and we invoke again, this time in the CEFR, the development of individuals since  » an essential goal of language teaching is to foster the harmonious development of the learner’s personality and identity in response to the enriching experience of otherness in language and culture. »

Then it is argued that the Common European Framework of Reference contributes to the achievement of the general objective of the Council of Europe as defined in Recommendations R (82) 18 and R (98) 6 of the Committee of Ministers, namely:  » toachieve greater unity among its members  » and this « is a by adopting a common approach in the cultural field.  »

These concerns, which are therefore also those of the Framework, are effectively summed up unsurprisingly in its warning: 

« You will see that the Council is concerned with improving communication between Europeans of different languages and cultures because communication facilitates mobility and exchanges and, in so doing, promotes mutual understanding and strengthens cooperation. The Council also supports teaching and learning methods that help young and old alike to develop the knowledge, skills and attitudes they need to become more independent thinkers and doers, and to be more responsible and cooperative in their relationships with others. In this sense, this work contributes to the promotion of a democratic citizenship ».

But this formulation deserves, in my opinion, that we question in passing some of the terms used: 

- What kind of « mobility » are we talking about? Is it simply a matter of meeting, exchanging and understanding each other or of cooperating in the brotherhood of peoples, or rather in the constraints of the Market which demands the mobility of the employable? 

-The young and the not so young »: the Framework thus seems to target both the school and the working public, initial training — and therefore education — and lifelong training. 

-Knowledge, know-how and attitudes »: we can already see the prolegomena of a competency-based approach. 

- « Independence in thought and action « . That’s autonomy. But which one? Is it, according to the etymology, that of an educated subject who is able to give himself his own rules? Or is it the resourcefulness expected of the worker in solving the problems posed by a new labor situation? We specify in « reflection » but perhaps especially in « action ». And, as a result, the « action approach » advocated by the framework is not far off. We’ll come back to that. 

- Be more « responsible and cooperative « . What responsibility? What cooperation? These are some of the eight key competences promoted by another European framework, the Key Competences for Lifelong Learning — A European Reference Framework. These are Interpersonal, Intercultural, Social and Civic Competencies and Entrepreneurship. If we capitalize Enterprise, and if we think of the Entrepreneurs’ Round Table (ERT) which, as we will see, inspires its orientations in Europe, we understand quite quickly what « responsibility » and « cooperation » we are dealing with. Similarly, the « citizenship » thus promoted seems rather ambiguous. The citizen thus defined, aka the « learning subject » of the CEFR, is singularly subjugated. Indeed, the Framework appears to be clearly in line with the concerns of the Council, which states in one of its Recommendations, what cooperation it is about, since it is about « equipping all Europeans for the challenges of increased international mobility and closer cooperation with each other and this not only in education, culture and science but also for trade and industry ». 

Thus, behind the (linguistic) « needs » that we want to present as being those of the individual, the needs of the economy and the market will, in fact, very quickly take shape. To adapt to it, in that consists perhaps the « cooperation » and the « citizenship » advocated, which is then not really « democratic » any more since any debate disappeared for the benefit of a technocratic — thus unquestionable — « expert » speech. 

From this perspective, it appears that the aim is to make language a tool that serves the needs of market competitiveness, which requires a mobile, flexible workforce with practical and standardized skills and know-how, rather than knowledge. The aim is not so much to train a multilingual individual open to cultural diversity as to train a relatively autonomous worker capable of carrying out simple tasks in a foreign language. 

It is not surprising, then, that the linguistic perspective adopted by the Framework is an « actional perspective » mobilizing « general and communicative competencies », competencies that are extensively detailed in chapter 5 of the CEFR. 

This « actional perspective », which articulates communication and practical action, is directly inspired by Anglo-Saxon task-based learning. Language is thus reduced to a means of accomplishing tasks or solving problems. But we will soon understand that these tasks and various problems to be solved find their natural framework in a labor and mercantile environment. The revealing examples chosen by the Framework (CEFR, 2000, p. 99) provide a context for speech acts in a business environment. 

Linguistic performance is thus conceived, as we can see, as a means of accomplishing tasks, as a tool for solving problems, and this in the service of economic performance. It is a way of reducing languages, not to a unique language, but to the monovalence of a tool whose same uses can be listed in the same referentials. 

Through the actional approach, mobilizing skills to solve a problem, as Bernard Berthelot explains(2),  » it is indeed a way of considering education that is taking shape. To educate is to produce a behavior. And again, the term « behavior » must be understood in its most technical and narrow sense of « observable behavior », as understood by behaviourist conceptions. « What’s more, for a task to be done or a problem to be solved, there is always a solution. In this actional perspective, therefore, no conflict, no antagonism can be expressed in a language-tool oriented towards the consensus of the solution to be found, necessarily good for all. Differences of interest, the idea of exploitation of some by others, a fortiori the class struggle, are unthinkable, as is the subject’s own desire. 

… FAMILY PHOTO 

These behaviors, these skills  » for the single market to be effective « , and for « the the Union [puisse] The need for a more mobile workforce  » (Com, 2005) with the expected skills must therefore be found not only at the language level but at all levels of education, from kindergarten to university. Indeed, just as speakers are called upon to say the same thing in a foreign language in the same enunciative frameworks that program their speech, so it is assumed, as a corollary, that they do the same things in it and, consequently, that they have the same competences, initial and then acquired « throughout their lives ». 

This convergence of the business and education worlds has long been called for by the ERT, by the OECD and then by Europe, which then imposes it on the Member States. But first, what is the ERT or European Round Table? In short, it is a cartel that brings together 47 of the most important European industrial leaders, including the heads of Suez, Lyonnaise des Eaux, Renault, Air Liquide, Rhône-Poulenc, St. Louis and others. Gobin, and the chairman of its Education Committee is François Cornélius de Petrofina. In his 1989 report, Education and Competence in Europe (ERT, 1999), we can already read 

« The technical and industrial development of European enterprises clearly requires an accelerated renovation of educational systems and their programs […] ».

On the occasion of the G7 in Brussels in 1995, ERT published a new report (ERT, 1995): A European education — towards a learning society . It reads: 

« The responsibility for training must ultimately be assumed by industry […] Education must be conceived as a service to the business community . »

The ERT has been heard, since the Maastricht Treaty (article 149), and especially since the Lisbon Summit and its strategy for 2010, which tends to break the monopoly of the European States in the field of education and which sets up the method of « open coordination ». Thus, the response to this insistent demand from employers, the OECD, the World Bank and Europe has been the introduction of competency frameworks in education, on the one hand in compulsory education with the « competency bases » that the States have adopted and which format students according to the needs of the labor market, and on the other hand with the key references for education and lifelong learning that constitute a new educational market. 

On the one hand, it is a question of refocusing basic education on the needs of companies, and on the other hand, it is a question of making lifelong learning necessary through the blackmail of employability through perpetual training, at the expense of employees, which opens up a formidable market and which is regulated only by it, since it escapes, unlike compulsory education, from the reserved domain of the States by being open to free competition. This does not prevent public institutions from being called upon to function on the basis of competition through their « autonomy » (e.g., the LRU in France), their poles of excellence, their institutional projects, etc. But the competency-based approach is the rule for the entire curriculum, in a longitudinal manner, so that the competencies acquired through compulsory education will be complemented by those obtained or validated through « lifelong » training. It is not surprising that we no longer speak of teaching but of training. Moreover, « initial training » is no longer fundamentally distinguished from « continuing education »; moreover, the former is now conceived on the model of the latter, which is itself conceived on the model of vocational training and technical education with its « referentials » of which the various « frameworks » are only avatars. 

The confirmation of the universal character which must be given throughout Europe to the « bases of competences » for compulsory schooling is brought by the Report of the Council « Education » to the European Council on the concrete future objectives of the systems of education and training (2001); it is about: 

- Develop the skills needed in the knowledge-based society. 

- Improve literacy and numeracy skills. 

Ensuring that all citizens are truly literate is a prerequisite for quality education and training. These skills condition all subsequent learning abilities just as they condition employability. (…) 

And with the « Socle » come the superstructures; after compulsory schooling, lifelong learning: it is this same standardizing aim that is simultaneously expressed, in more or less the same terms, by the « Proposal for a Recommendation of the European Parliament and of the Council on key competences for lifelong learning » (2006). There is, in fact, a whole detailed analysis to be carried out on the historical and functional links that articulate the promotion of skills with the interests of the neo-liberal market(3).

In conclusion, we can see that the CEFR is not an isolated element. In the field of foreign languages, it provides a minimal and functional background that will be useful for adaptation and « savoir-être » at work. It is one of the links, one of the frameworks that aim to frame the subject and subject him to the labor market, even if we continue to talk about his « needs », his « fulfillment » and his encounter with the other. « The essential objective of language teaching « , contrary to what the CEFR says, is probably not fundamentally  » to foster the harmonious development of the learner’s personality and identity in response to the enriching experience of otherness in language and culture ».

The mobility that is advocated by the Council under humanistic appearances, far from taking into account the social and cultural difference induced by the language-cultures to allow an encounter, far from taking into account the difference of the subjects that allows the dialogue — because to have something to say to each other one must be at the same time close enough but also different enough — tends on the contrary to neutralize them. Indeed, the frameworks that the Commission promotes through its advice and that it puts in place under pressure from the ERT and the OECD tend to standardize a subject redefined by and for the Market. And this is based on skills and competences that are defined within these frameworks and that cross all human activities that are redefined, instrumentalized and « referentialized » according to the market economy. 

François MIGEOT

Writer, teacher of French as a foreign language at the CLA of Besançon, teacher-researcher in Japan (1984–1987), then in France (Paris, Besançon). 

Notes et références
  1. « Vers une politique européenne de l’enseignement des langues », in Revue internationale d’éducation, CIEP, Sèvres, n° 47, avril 2008. Téléchageable sur le site Internet du CIEP. 
  2. «L’imposture pédagogique », site web de Sauver les Lettres (1999).
  3. Pour traiter de manière pertinente et circonstanciée cette question qui touche à l’analyse économique, on renverra le lecteur au dossier serré et très documenté réalisé par Nico Hirtt dans le n° 39 de l’École démocratique, Bruxelles, 2009. 

Espace membre

Member area