The evaluation is a recurring theme that runs through today in all fields of education. Teachers assess their students' learning, educational psychologists assess children and adolescents with difficult to diagnose, teachers evaluate their practice ... Educational administration, with diagnostic tests, scale the level of our students and compares with other communities and countries.
If this were not enough, the horizon of European convergence in education, see the control of educational quality, a quality control system extrapolated to the universe of business education. The damn ISO, with its proposed internal mechanisms of self-evaluation and external evaluations conducted by rating agencies, formed for these purposes. In this process I can give a good account, as the center where I work has already begun this process and have spent two years of my professional life and personal almost from trying to survive various processes, inventory, non-compliance, compliance values, objectives improvement, dashboards and so on. Fortunately we have the stamp of quality and a high note, but this is not sufficient because the process continues and now we must try to keep it.
Anna Aromi few years ago, in 2004, wrote an article called "Empire of the number and death instinct," it spoke of how the ideology of the evaluation is held in the idea of disciplines that work with people have to be "scientific", ie, calculable, predictable. Speaks of "protocol" as sustained in an illusion, "which serves to cover everything, there are no loopholes." It is true, the protocol seeks the perfect tool for quality control. The protocol offers affordable and fast answers, marks the starting point and end point, ie, puts us all under control. So it has to allow a repeat experience was identical, immutable.
But education is incalculable, part of the unexpected, sets in motion the desire of each of those involved. Surely we would prefer that everything was stable and repeatable for not having to start each time. But this is not what we are because desire can not be imposed. The desire is embodied in every situation, in each particular relationship, and therefore can cause movements and changes. The teacher opens possibilities, given time, build situations, which ultimately made possible the emergence of the subject.
explains the difference between learning and education. Learning is something that is acquired, is a bounded time and predictable results in the possibility of evaluation. Education is a subjective effect, particular to each subject, is not quantifiable, can not be anticipated. The teacher will not know about the appropriation will be the subject, or in what time and yet we must trust and bet on their work. education requires learning but are not the same. No two students learn the same way. It is not just to democratize access to school must also democratize success, best manage the inevitable heterogeneity in the classroom.
protocol subjectivity denied in part, provides common elements and indicators that facilitate in making the position of decision making, and emerges as the only possibility to respond to situations. sealing protocol possibilities of questioning, seek guidance, make a job .... It appears this need as recurring by management (who need to regulate a homogeneous form of intervention) but also appears as a constant demand for professionals to solve multiple situations, causing great discomfort. We know that pre-established look for answers is to respond to a speech that leaves out the subject. The protocol says to do in each situation, and this reassures. But later this relief, which is only away, returns as upset by the same inability to control what initially appears as controllable.
protocol leads to talk of integration. I think the word integration is misleading. The integration of which we speak in education has more to do with "homogenization", all with an established order. The integration goes further, has to do with acceptance and respect for the particularities of each has to do with the social bond with the child's relationship with the world. In the school setting is the ideal of integration, and integrate them all together. This ambition is not only impossible but in the case of some students could be counterproductive.
The responses of the school are marked homogenization. This can be seen clearly in the attention to diversity, which includes deficits care, disability, unruly behavior, learning disabilities, absenteeism, and more. What this hides is the entry way of conceiving the subject, with a deficit (neurochemical disorder, disturbance, etc.). This way of conceiving reality takes its toll in different measures for diversity are promoted, just playing the same effect of segregation is to dissolve. There is a point of tension between what is impossible to eliminate the standard universal and the particular subject. Precisely for this reason beyond homogenizing external resources, we aim to reintroduce the unique value of the main subject resource and force for change.
We invent ways to find loopholes in the protocols and subjectivity in our daily work, open questions, questions, enigmas. We are called to accompany a subject, a boy, a teenager, only he can take the responsibility to uphold their social bond, not a subject stigmatized, sick, etc. without responsibility.
The drive, which does not work, is evidence that humans continue to have things unaffordable for mechanical, homogenizers.
M ยช Dolores Camps
Psicopedagoga
0 comments:
Post a Comment