Assessment? Criteria

When there are more questions than answers

License Creative Commons

Miguel Ángel Tirado

Assessment criteria (AC), along with content, serve as a cornerstone of the educational system, defining what students are expected to learn in a given course and subject. When thoughtfully crafted, they offer teachers clear guidance on what to assess and how, fostering coherence and equity within the system. However, the AC in current curricula are often plagued by issues of clarity, feasibility, and consistency, making their effective application difficult and generating uncertainty for both teachers and students.

Criterion-based assessment was introduced with the LOGSE (1990) (1) and has since been a central element in educational curricula. With the LOMLOE (2020), assessment criteria have gained crucial theoretical importance, as their positive evaluation activates a network of connections feeding into the operational descriptors of the “Exit Profile,” which now serves as the backbone of basic education. Despite their significance, many AC suffer from practical flaws: they are ambiguous, unmeasurable, detached from specific learning outcomes, and open to subjective interpretations — all of which hinder their consistent application in the classroom.

One of the most pressing issues is the difficulty of linking AC to specific content. For example, the criterion “Verify the mathematical correctness of the solutions to a problem” (2) does not guarantee that a student who succeeds with geometry problems can apply the same criterion to algebra or probability. Are we assuming that students will transfer knowledge without having first acquired it?

A recurring problem is that the growing complexity of AC often manifests through the use of vague and subjective terms. For instance, in Year 3 of primary school, students are expected to “work in a team actively and respectfully, communicating appropriately, respecting group diversity, and establishing healthy relationships based on equality and peaceful conflict resolution” (3). By Year 5, the same criterion appears with slight tweaks: “showing initiative”, “communicating effectively” (instead of appropriately), “valuing diversity” (rather than merely respecting it), and “showing empathy” (4). Can a teacher genuinely assess these nuances with precision? Moreover, should empathy itself be subject to evaluation? Would a teacher with limited empathy be able to identify empathy in a student? Ultimately, isn’t it paradoxical to penalise a lack of empathy when doing so could, in itself, be considered a lack of empathy?

Another troubling aspect is the inclusion of AC that push teachers to assess private and family behaviours, many of which fall beyond the school’s influence. For example, the criterion “Adopt healthy lifestyles by valuing the importance of a varied, balanced, and sustainable diet, physical exercise, contact with nature, rest, hygiene, disease prevention, and the appropriate use of new technologies” (5) implies evaluating habits largely shaped by a student’s family, socioeconomic, and cultural context. This raises a crucial question: is it realistic — or fair — to assess behaviours influenced by factors outside the school’s control? Does this not risk punishing students for circumstances they cannot change, thereby deepening inequalities rather than addressing them?

The excessive breadth of some AC adds yet another layer of complexity. To assess them fairly and objectively, they must be broken down into a series of more concrete indicators, complicating their practical application. An illustrative example is the criterion “Begin to incorporate with increasing autonomy processes of body activation, effort regulation, healthy eating, postural education, relaxation, and hygiene during motor activities, internalising routines associated with healthy and responsible physical practices” (6). Such phrasing not only muddies assessment but also poses a difficult question: is it genuinely meaningful to assess whether a student has “begun” to incorporate something? The vagueness of these criteria leaves too much room for subjective interpretation, risking inconsistency in teaching practice.

One of the most glaring contradictions of AC is that many demand the evaluation of behaviours occurring outside the classroom — beyond the teacher’s direct control and observation. A clear example is the criterion “Adopt an active and committed role towards the environment, according to one’s own aptitudes, aspirations, interests, and values, based on critical analysis of the economic reality, the distribution and management of work, and the adoption of responsible, healthy, sustainable habits that respect human dignity and that of other living beings, as well as ethical reflection on the uses of technology and the management of free time” (7). How can a teacher fairly and objectively assess something that happens outside the classroom and beyond their direct oversight? Does this not risk encroaching on a student’s privacy or basing evaluations on assumptions rather than observable facts?

Another serious shortcoming of AC is the absence of fundamental learning objectives, complicating both teaching and the early detection of difficulties. A striking example is the acquisition of phonological awareness in the second cycle of early childhood education — a key process for learning to read and write. Despite its critical importance, this learning outcome lacks a specific AC to guide its evaluation and development. This gap leaves teachers without a clear reference point to assess and strengthen these essential skills, potentially hampering the development of basic abilities at crucial stages. How can teachers identify and address these learning gaps in time if fundamental learning is not reflected in the assessment criteria?

A further problem emerges from AC whose negative evaluation may obstruct, rather than foster, learning. Consider the criterion “Manage one’s own emotions, develop mathematical self-concept as a tool, generating positive expectations when faced with new mathematical challenges” (8). Negatively assessing a student’s emotional management in mathematics might exacerbate their anxiety and erode their self-confidence — the very opposite of what the criterion intends. How can such a subjective and sensitive aspect be assessed without jeopardising the student’s well-being? Shouldn’t AC focus on nurturing learning rather than penalising emotional struggles?

Lastly, some AC seem more reflective of the legislator’s ideals than of concrete, assessable behaviours, knowledge, or skills. A striking example is the criterion “Promote the exercise of active and democratic citizenship through knowledge of associative movements and respectful, constructive participation in group activities that involve collective decision-making, coordinated action planning, and problem-solving by applying explicit civic, ethical, and democratic procedures and principles” (9). How can one measure whether a student “promotes” something? Evaluating intentions or aspirations, rather than concrete learning, is not only unfeasible but also distorts the fundamental purpose of AC as a tool for gauging student progress.

Ultimately, the AC outlined in the royal decrees on minimum educational requirements fall short of being useful tools for teachers, students, and families. Rather than offering practical guidance for teaching and assessment, they generate more confusion than clarity. Should an educational system not inspire confidence and provide transparency instead of sowing doubt and ambiguity?

References:

1 The assessment criteria in the curricula developed under the LOGSE (1990) can be consulted in the following Royal Decrees: Royal Decree 1006/1991, of 14 June, establishing the minimum teachings corresponding to Primary Education (https://www.boe.es/boe/dias/1991/06/26/pdfs/C00003-00033.pdf) and Royal Decree 1007/1991, of 14 June, establishing the minimum teachings corresponding to Compulsory Secondary Education (https://www.boe.es/boe/dias/1991/06/26/pdfs/C00035-00077.pdf)

(2) Assessment criterion number 2.1, Mathematics, Years 1 to 3, Annex 1, Royal Decree 217/2022, of 29 March, establishing the organisation and minimum teachings of Compulsory Secondary Education. https://www.boe.es/buscar/act.php?id=BOE-A-2022-4975

(3) Assessment criterion number 8.1, Second cycle, Mathematics, Annex II, Royal Decree 157/2022, of 1 March, establishing the organisation and minimum teachings of Primary Education. https://www.boe.es/buscar/act.php?id=BOE-A-2022-3296

(4) Assessment criterion number 8.1, Third cycle, Mathematics, Annex II, Royal Decree 157/2022.

(5) Assessment criterion 4.2, Natural, Social and Cultural Environment, Primary Education, Third cycle, Royal Decree 157/2022.

(6) Assessment criterion 1.2, Physical Education, Years 1 and 2 of ESO, Royal Decree 217/2022. (7) Assessment criterion 8.1, Geography and History, Years 3 and 4 of ESO, Royal Decree 217/2022.

(8) Assessment criterion 9.1, Mathematics, Years 1 to 3 of ESO, Royal Decree 217/2022.

(9) Assessment criterion 2.2, Education in Civic and Ethical Values, ESO, Royal Decree 217/2022.

Source: educational EVIDENCE

Rights: Creative Commons