For this reason, among others, the committee has broken with tradition by presenting this version of the Speaking Guidelines in descending rather than ascending order. This top-down approach has two advantages. First, it emphasizes that the High levels are more closely related to the level above than to the one below, and represents a considerable step towards accomplishing the functions at the level above, not just excellence in the functions of the level itself. Second, it allows for fewer negatives and less redundancy in the descriptions when they refer, as they must, to the inability of a speaker to function consistently at a higher level.

Another significant change to the 1986 version of the Guidelines is found in the division of the Advanced level into the High, Mid, and Low sublevels. This decision reflects the growing need in both the academic and commercial communities to more finely delineate a speaker's progress through the Advanced level of proficiency. The new descriptors for Advanced Mid and Advanced Low are based on hundreds of Advanced-level language samples from OPI testing across a variety of languages.

The committee has also taken a slightly different approach to the presentation of these Guidelines from previous versions. The full prose descriptions of each level (and, when applicable, its sub-levels) are preceded by clearly delineated thumb-nail sketches that are intended to alert the reader to the major features of the levels and to serve as a quick reference, but not in any way to replace the full picture presented in the descriptions themselves. Indeed, at the lower levels they refer to the Mid rather than to the baseline proficiency, since they would otherwise describe a very limited profile and misrepresent the general expectations for the level.

This revision of the ACTFL Proficiency Guidelines - Speaking (1999) is presented as an additional step toward more adequately describing speaking proficiency. Whereas this effort reflects a broad spectrum of experience in characterizing speaker abilities and includes a wide range of insights as a result of on-going discussions and research within the language teaching profession, the revision committee is aware that there remain a number of issues requiring further clarification and specification. It is the hope of the committee that this revision will enhance the Guidelines' utility to the language teaching and testing community in the years to come.