We’ve talked about CEFR for years. It’s in our DSKP, our lesson plans, our PLCs. But ask any teacher — what does CEFR really look like in your classroom? For many of us, it’s still something abstract. And when it comes to assessment, the gap is even bigger. We have tools like PBD and UASA, but let’s be honest — do these assessments clearly show if a student is at A1 or A2? Do they tell us if a child is ready to write a proper paragraph, or only able to copy and fill in blanks? We may be working hard, but if our assessments don’t match the CEFR goals, we’ll always be stuck in the same loop — teaching without direction.

This is why it’s time for us to explore a new dimension of assessment: one that truly reflects what CEFR stands for. The Common European Framework of Reference isn’t just about banding students for fun. It’s about identifying what learners can do in each language skill: reading, listening, speaking, and writing. But in Malaysia, we tend to focus more on teaching than diagnosing. We focus more on finishing the syllabus than understanding where our students are in their language journey. And when students move on to secondary school, many of us are left guessing: “Can this student actually read at A2 level?” “Are they able to write basic sentences independently?” That’s not how it should be.

I was personally inspired by TOCFL: the Test of Chinese as a Foreign Language from Taiwan. It’s one of the few language tests that really makes sense to me. Students sit for Band A, B, or C, depending on their level. Each band is linked to CEFR, and each test is skill specific. It’s not about age — it’s about ability. And the best part? The results are meaningful. Teachers know which band the student belongs to, and that helps them plan what to teach next. It’s not perfect, of course — the basic level of TOCFL doesn’t test speaking or writing — but the structure is something we can learn from. Imagine a similar system in our schools — one where we can confidently say, “This Year 6 pupil reads at A1 and listens at A2.”

Right now, our current assessments treat English as one big paper. But we know that language doesn’t work that way. A child might be great at listening but shy when speaking. Another might do well in writing but struggle to understand reading texts. Without proper skill-based assessments, we’re left with vague comments and general marks. And the problem isn’t just for primary school. It continues in Form 1, where teachers receive pupils of mixed ability — without a clear idea of who needs help, and in what area.

This is where a proper CEFR-aligned diagnostic test could change everything. Not to burden teachers, but to help them. Not to pressure students, but to guide them. With just one glance, we can see who’s at pre-A1, A1, or A2 — and plan accordingly. The data becomes meaningful. It’s no longer just about passing or failing. It’s about placing students on the right path. This kind of diagnostic assessment would also help school leaders and JPN/PPD officers make better decisions about support programs and teacher training. It’s not about pointing fingers — it’s about being proactive.

To be clear, this isn’t about replacing UASA or creating another heavy system. It’s about building a tool that complements what we already have — but gives it meaning. A reading test that’s tied to CEFR. A writing task that uses real descriptors. A speaking checklist that makes oral work more consistent. This is not a dream — it’s doable. We just need the right mindset, and the will to try.

So, to all my fellow teachers, SISC+, PPD officers, and education planners — let’s reflect. Have we forgotten the real purpose of CEFR? Have we focused so much on implementation that we’ve left out understanding? It’s time to bring CEFR back, not just as a box to tick, but as a guide to help our students grow — skill by skill, level by level. And maybe, just maybe, it starts with us.

Written by Muhammad Naufal bin Abbas