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, Universidad Complutense de Madrid
David Reyero, Universidad Complutense de Madrid

DOI

10.22550/REP80-1-2022-06

Abstract

* 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. 10.22550/REP80-1-2022-06

Referencias | References

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 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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.

Author Biography

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

Citación recomendada | Recommended citation

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. 10.22550/REP80-1-2022-06