The transmission of cultural content and its evaluation among the ends of the education system: An analysis of the LOMLOE

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

José Luis Gaviria and David Reyero

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

* Organic Law 3/2020, of 29 December, which amends Organic Law 2/2006, of 3 May, on Education.

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, 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.

 


 

Please, cite this article as follows: Gaviria, J. L., & Reyero, D. (2022). La transmisión de los contenidos culturales y su evaluación entre los fines del sistema educativo, según la LOMLOE | The transmission of cultural content and its evaluation among the ends of the education system: An analysis of the LOMLOE. Revista Española de Pedagogía, 80 (281), 31-53. https://doi.org/10.22550/REP80-1-2022-06

Bellamy, F. X. (2018). Los desheredados: por qué es urgente transmitir la cultura [The disinherited: why it is urgent to transmit culture]. Encuen­tro.

Biesta, G. (2004). Against learning: Reclaiming a Language for education in an age of learning. Nordisk Pedagogik, 23 (1), 70-82.

Biesta, G. (2009). Good education in an age of meas-urement: On the need to reconnect with the question of purpose in education. 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 learn-ing. 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. Educational Philosophy and Theory, 54 (3), 221-223. https://doi.org/10.1080/00131857.202 0.1792612

Biesta, G. (2020b). Risking ourselves in education: Qualification, socialization, and subjectifica­tion revisited. Educational Theory, 70 (1), 89- 104.

Bloom, B. S., Madaus, G. F., & Hastings, J. T. (1971). Handbook on formative and summative evaluation of student learning. McGraw-Hill.

Campbell, D. T. (1976). Assessing the impact of planned social change. The Public Affairs Cen­ter, Dartmouth College.

Cronbach, L. J. (1963). Course improvement through evaluation. Teachers College Record, 64, 612-683.

Emler, T. E., Zhao, Y., Deng, J., & Yin, D. (2019). Side Effects of Large-Scale Assessments in Education. ECNU Review of Education, 2 (3), 279-296.

Espeland, W. N., & Sauder, M. (2007). Rankings and reactivity: How public measures recreate social worlds. 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. Oxford University Press.

Franch, S. (2020). Global citizenship education be­tween qualification, socialization, and subjec­tification. In 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 [Circumstances and rea­sons for the current anti-pedagogism]. 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. Papers in Mon-etary Economics. Reserve Bank of Australia.

INEE (2020). PISA 2018 Competencia Global. In­forme español [PISA 2018 Global Competence. Spanish report]. Ministerio de Educación y For­mación Profesional.

Jones, K. L., Tymms, P., Kemethofer, D., O’Hara, J., McNamara, G., Huber, S., Myrberg, E., Skeds­mo, G., & 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. Oxford Re­view of Education, 43 (6), 805-822. https://doi. org/10.1080/03054985.2017.1352499

Larrosa, J., & Venceslao, M. (Coords.) (2021). De estudiosos y estudiantes [From scholars and students]. Ediciones Universitat de Barcelona

Larrosa, J. (2021). La escuela y la mímesis atencio­nal [The school and the attentional mimesis]. Revista Interdisciplinar de Teoría Mimética. Xiphias Gladius, 4, 67-76.

Lochner, L. (2020). Education and crime. In S. Bradley & C. Green (Ed.), The Economics of Education (pp. 109-117). Academic Press.

Luri, G. (2020). La escuela no es un parque de atracciones [School is not an amusement park]. Ariel.

MacIntyre, A. (1990). The privatization of good: An inaugural lecture. The Review of Politics, 52 (3), 344-361.

Martínez Rizo, F. (2013). Dificultades para imple­mentar la evaluación formativa. Revisión de literatura [Difficulties to implement the for­mative assessment. A state of affairs]. Perfiles Educativos, 35 (139).

OECD (2019). PISA 2018 assessment and analyti­cal framework. OECD Publishing. https://dx. doi.org/10.1787/b25efab8-en

Oliverio, S. (2021). Subjetivación y existencialis­mo en la Teoría de la Educación contempo­ránea [Subjectification and existentialism in contemporary Educational Theory]. 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 [Assessment and quality: analysis of a model]. ESE: Estudios Sobre Edu­cación, 16, 17-36.

Organic Law 3/2020 of 29 December 2020, which amends Organic Law 2/2006 of 3 May on Education (LOMLOE). Spanish Official Sta­te Gazette, 340, of 30 December 2020, pages 122868 to 122953. https://bit.ly/3ra9FIr

Popham, W. J. (1999). Classroom assessment: What teachers need to know. Allyn & Bacon.

Pozo-Armentia, A. D., Reyero, D., & Gil Cantero, F. (2020). The pedagogical limitations of inclu­sive education. Educational Philosophy and Theory, 52 (10), 1064-1076.

Resnick, L. B., & Resnick, D. P. (1992). Assessing the thinking curriculum: New tools for educa­tional reform. In B. R. Gifford & 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. In M. Scriven (Ed.), Perspectives of Curricu­lum Evaluation (pp. 39-83). Rand McNally and Company.

José Luis Gaviria 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 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 edu-cation, new technologies, civic education, the politics and economics of education and the moral aims of education.

 https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9047-532X

Data collected by PlumX Metrics.

This article has been read 656 times