La transmisión de los contenidos culturales y su evaluación entre los fines del sistema educativo, según la LOMLOE.

José Luis Gaviria Soto; David Reyero

doi:10.22550/REP80-1-2022-06

Authors

José Luis Gaviria Soto Universidad Complutense de Madrid.
David Reyero Universidad Complutense de Madrid.

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.22550/REP80-1-2022-06

Keywords:

educational legislation, curriculum, performance evaluation, cultural transmission

Abstract

This article seeks to reflect on the place that school results or outcomes have among the rest of the education system’s objectives, on the understanding that alongside its traditional qualification function, an education system also has a socialisation and subjectification function. Yet, none of these three functions can be considered independent of the other two. If the qualification function is centred exclusively on certain areas and chooses to neglect all others, the consequences of this will be reflected in the other two domains. If we drain the socialisation and subjectification functions of any relationship with the transmission of cultural knowledge or if this knowledge is unrelated to either of these two functions, it will gradually lose all meaning and we will find ourselves left with a certain type of disinherited citizen, equipped with no other arms to interpret the world than that of a decontextualized, dominant way of thinking. In recent years, we have been witnesses to the progressive deterioration of the role that the transmission of knowledge plays in school. This transmission is the education system’s particular way of contributing to the social and subjective training of citizens, and the crisis it is undergoing opens the door to a change in the system’s objectives. This change in the consideration of the role to be played by content is reflected in Spain’s new education law, the LOMLOE (Organic Law 3/2020, of 29 December, which amends Organic Law 2/2006, of 3 May, on Education), in which the way teachers teach is given more importance than what they teach. This shift in direction is also reflected in the way this Law considers the evaluation of performance and in the increasing weight it assigns to other different criteria when determining whether a student can move up to the next grade. Here, we argue for a return to the measurement of school results and student performance in their most basic summative sense, in order that we might once more value the knowledge accumulated over the centuries as the best source of socialisation, subjectification and qualification.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Author Biographies

José Luis Gaviria Soto, Universidad Complutense de Madrid.

is Professor of Research Methods in Education at the Universidad Complutense de Madrid. He is co-director of the research group Medida y Evaluación de Sistemas Educativos (Grupo M.E.S.E.) at UCM. He was president of the Spanish Society of Pedagogy from September 2008 to September 2016. He is Editor-in-Chief of the Revista de Educación. He specialises in the Evaluation of Educational Systems, with special emphasis on the problems of measurement and data analysis specific to such evaluations. https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7398-9943

David Reyero, Universidad Complutense de Madrid.

holds a PhD in Educational Sciences from the Universidad Complutense de Madrid and is Associate Professor at the same university. He is currently Co-Director of the Research Group in Anthropology and Philosophy of Education (GIAFE) and Deputy Editor of the Revista de Educación. His publications deal with aspects related to the epistemology of pedagogical knowledge, the anthropology of education, new technologies, civic education, the politics and economics of education and the moral aims of education. https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9047-532X

References

Bellamy, F. X. (2018). Los desheredados: por qué es urgente transmitir la cultura. Encuentro.

Biesta, G. (2004). Against Learning: Reclaiming a Language for Education in an Age of Learning [Contra el aprendizaje: Reclamando un lenguaje para la educación en la era del aprendizaje]. Nordisk Pedagogik, 23 (1), 70-82.

Biesta, G. (2009). Good education in an age of measurement: On the need to reconnect with the question of purpose in education [La buena educación en la era de la medición: sobre la necesidad de volver a conectar con la cuestión de la finalidad de la educación]. Educational Assessment, Evaluation and Accountability (formerly: Journal of Personnel Evaluation in Education), 21, 33-46. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11092-008-9064-9

Biesta, G. (2013). Interrupting the politics of learning [Interrumpir la política de aprendizaje]. Power and Education, 5 (1), 4-15. https://doi.org/10.2304/power.2013.5.1.4

Biesta, G. (2020a) Have we been paying attention? Educational anaesthetics in a time of crises [¿Hemos prestado atención? La anestesia educativa en tiempos de crisis]. Educational Philosophy and Theory, 54 (3), 221-223. https://doi.org/10.1080/00131857.2020.1792612

Biesta, G. (2020b). Risking ourselves in education: Qualification, socialization, and subjectification revisited [Arriesgarnos en la educación: cualificación, socialización y subjetivación revisadas]. Educational Theory, 70 (1), 89-104.

Bloom, B. S., Madaus, G. F. y Hastings, J. T. (1971). Handbook on formative and summative evaluation of student learning [Manual sobre la evaluación formativa y sumativa del aprendizaje de los Estudiantes]. McGraw-Hill.

Campbell, D. T. (1976). Assessing the Impact of planned social change [Evaluación del impacto del cambio social planificado]. The Public Affairs Center, Dartmouth College.

Cronbach, L. J. (1963). Course improvement through evaluation [Mejora del curso mediante la evaluación]. Teachers College Record, 64, 612-683.

Emler, T. E., Zhao, Y., Deng, J. y Yin, D. (2019). Side effects of large-scale assessment in education [Efectos secundarios de la evaluación a gran escala en la educación]. ECNU Review of Education, 2 (3), 279-296.

Espeland, W. N. y Sauder, M. (2007). Rankings and reactivity: How public measures recreate social worlds [Clasificaciones y reactividad: cómo las medidas públicas recrean los mundos sociales]. American Journal of Sociology, 113 (1), 1-40. https://doi.org/10.1086/517897

Feinberg, J. (1986). The moral limits of the criminal law: Harm to self [Los límites morales del derecho penal: el daño a sí mismo]. Oxford University Press.

Franch, S. (2020). Global citizenship education between qualification, socialization, and subjectification [La educación para la ciudadanía global entre la cualificación, la socialización y la subjetivación]. En A. Peterson, G. Stahl, H. Soong (Eds.), The Palgrave Handbook of Citizenship and Education (pp. 665-678). Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-67905-1_68-1

Gil Cantero, F. (2018). Escenarios y razones del antipedagogismo actual. Teoría De La Educación. Revista Interuniversitaria, 30 (1), 29-51. https://doi.org/10.14201/teoredu3012951

Goodhart, C. A. E. (1975). Monetary relationships: A view from Threadneedle street [Relaciones monetarias: una visión desde la calle Threadneedle]. Papers in Monetary Economics. Reserve Bank of Australia.

INEE (2020). PISA 2018 Competencia Global. Informe español. Ministerio de Educación y Formación Profesional.

Jones, K. L., Tymms, P., Kemethofer, D., O’Hara, J., McNamara, G., Huber, S., Myrberg, E., Skedsmo, G. y Greger, D. (2017). The unintended consequences of school inspection: The prevalence of inspection side-effects in Austria, the Czech Republic, England, Ireland, the Netherlands, Sweden, and Switzerland [Las consecuencias no deseadas de la inspección escolar: la prevalencia de los efectos secundarios de la inspección en Austria, la República Checa, Inglaterra, Irlanda, los Países Bajos, Suecia y Suiza]. Oxford Review of Education, 43 (6), 805-822. https://doi.org/10.1080/03054985.2017.1352499

Larrosa, J. y Venceslao, M. (Coords.) (2021). De estudiosos y estudiantes. Ediciones Universitat de Barcelona.

Larrosa, J. (2021). La escuela y la mímesis atencional. Revista Interdisciplinar de Teoría Mimética. Xiphias Gladius, 4, 67-76.

Ley Orgánica 3/2020, de 29 de diciembre, por la que se modifica la Ley Orgánica 2/2006, de 3 de mayo, de Educación (LOMLOE). Boletín Oficial del Estado, 340, de 30 de diciembre de 2020, páginas 122868 a 122953 https://www.boe.es/eli/es/lo/2020/12/29/3

Lochner, L. (2020). Education and crime [Educación y delincuencia]. En S. Bradley y C. Green (Ed.), The Economics of Education (pp. 109- 117). Academic Press.

Luri, G. (2020). La escuela no es un parque de atracciones. Ariel.

MacIntyre, A. C. (1996). La privatización del bien. En C. Ignacio y M. Correas (Coord.), El iusnaturalismo actual (pp. 215-236). Abeledo-Perrot.

Martínez Rizo, F. (2013). Dificultades para implementar la evaluación formativa. Revisión de literatura. Perfiles Educativos, 35 (139).

OECD (2019). PISA 2018 assessment and analytical framework [Evaluación y marco analítico de PISA 2018]. OECD Publishing. https://dx.doi.org/10.1787/b25efab8-en

Oliverio, S. (2021). Subjetivación y existencialismo en la Teoría de la Educación contemporánea. Teoría de la Educación. Revista Interuniversitaria, 34 (1), 11-32. https://doi.org/10.14201/teri.26668

Orden, A. de la (2009). Evaluación y calidad: análisis de un modelo. ESE: Estudios Sobre Educación, 16, 17-36.

Popham, W. J. (1999). Classroom assessment: What teachers need to know [Evaluación en el aula: lo que los profesores deben saber]. Allyn & Bacon.

Pozo-Armentia, A. D., Reyero, D. y Gil Cantero, F. (2020). The pedagogical limitations of inclusive education [Las limitaciones pedagógicas de la educación inclusiva]. Educational Philosophy and Theory, 52 (10), 1064-1076.

Resnick, L. B. y Resnick, D. P. (1992). Assessing the thinking curriculum: New tools for educational reform [La evaluación del currículo del pensamiento: nuevas herramientas para la reforma educativa]. En B. R. Gifford y M. C. O’Connor (Eds.), Changing assessments: Alternative views of aptitude, achievement and instruction (pp. 37- 75). Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-011-2968-8_3

Scriven, M. (1967). The methodology of evaluation [La metodología de la evaluación]. En M. Scriven (Ed.), Perspectives of Curriculum Evaluation (pp. 39-83). Rand McNally and Company.