The exit profile and the pedagogical labyrinth

Can the right to education be guaranteed within a system built on uncertainty?

License Creative Commons

Miguel Ángel Tirado

The Exit Profile, a cornerstone of the LOMLOE, defines the “competence-based performance” that, according to the legislator, should shape the thinking and behaviour of 21st-century citizens (1). Within this regulatory framework, teachers, students, and families attempt to navigate a network of assessment criteria, specific competences, operational descriptors, and key competences, forming a genuine pedagogical labyrinth.

In this context, obtaining the ESO Graduation Certificate no longer depends on passing subjects and demonstrating concrete knowledge but rather on achieving the competences set out in the Exit Profile (2). However, this approach raises fundamental questions: how is the attainment of these competences genuinely assessed? More importantly, on what pedagogical foundations has such a complex system been built—one seemingly brimming with lofty aspirations and intentions rather than grounded in actual learning?

The mechanism appears straightforward: each teacher evaluates the assessment criteria established in their subject’s curriculum, thus activating a network of connections between curricular elements. Consequently, by meeting a criterion, the student develops a specific competence, which in turn allows them to reach operational descriptors from various key competences outlined in the Exit Profile. Just as flipping a switch lights a bulb via hidden wiring within the walls, the positive evaluation of assessment criteria illuminates the path towards the Exit Profile of the future citizen.

An example illustrates the workings of this colossal pedagogical structure. A physical education teacher favourably evaluates a student for meeting the following criterion:

“Participate in physical-sport activities in natural terrestrial or aquatic environments, enjoying the surroundings sustainably, minimising the environmental impact these activities may produce, being aware of their ecological footprint, and developing intentional actions aimed at conserving and improving the conditions of the spaces where these activities take place” (3).

Thanks to this positive evaluation, the student develops the specific competence:

“Adopt a sustainable and eco-socially responsible lifestyle by applying individual and collective safety measures in physical-sport practice according to the environment and collaboratively carrying out community service actions linked to physical activity and sport, contributing actively to the conservation of the natural and urban environment” (4).

This specific competence, in turn, activates four operational descriptors from three different key competences in the Exit Profile: Mathematical Competence and Competence in Science, Technology, and Engineering (STEM5), Citizenship Competence (CC4), and Entrepreneurial Competence (CE1 and CE3). As a result of this process, the student, for instance:

“Develops the process of creating valuable ideas and solutions and makes reasoned decisions using agile planning and management strategies, reflecting on the process undertaken and the outcome obtained to carry out the creation of innovative and valuable prototypes, considering the experience as an opportunity to learn” (CE3) (5).

Beyond questioning the content of these elements, one might ask: who established the relationship between specific competences and operational descriptors, and how? What research underpins these correlations? Or were they simply drawn at random?

To guide teachers through this pedagogical labyrinth, a key instrument is introduced: learning situations — a euphemism for project-based, challenge-based, or problem-based learning — through which teachers are supposedly expected to achieve the desired competences (6).

However, one crucial element is missing: the basic knowledge that must be integrated into these situations. The use of language in this instance is revealing: although the LOMLOE establishes in Article 6 that contents form part of the curriculum, the royal decrees on minimum education standards replace this term with “basic knowledge.” The objective seems clear: to eliminate the word “contents” from terminology and teaching practices, shifting the focus towards developing competences through globalised learning situations rather than concentrating on teaching concepts, facts, or skills inherent to each area of knowledge.

It is striking that none of these concepts — Exit Profile, key competences, specific competences, operational descriptors, basic knowledge, or learning situations — appear in the text of the LOMLOE itself. This pyramid-like pedagogical structure is not developed within the law but in the royal decrees regulating basic education. In other words, the pillar supporting the educational system is not enshrined in the law that governs it. It is as if a traffic law failed to mention road rules, speed limits, or the requirement to wear seat belts, leaving such matters to subsequent regulations that could redefine the rules of the game at will.

In conclusion, we face a regulatory framework that, paradoxically, rests on a foundation unacknowledged by the very law it derives from. This curricular design, far from offering clarity and direction, fosters confusion and ambiguity. Meanwhile, the system moves forward, with teachers compelled to adapt to a nebulous set of rules where political aspirations outweigh pedagogical certainties.

Therefore, one must ask: can the right to education be guaranteed within a system built on uncertainty? How does this ambiguity impact educational equity? And beyond competences and descriptors, have we forgotten to ask what essential knowledge schools must impart in a democratic society to nurture critically-thinking citizens?

References:

1. Article 11.2 of Royal Decree 217/2022, of 29 March, establishing the organisation and minimum education standards for Compulsory Secondary Education, states that “The Exit Profile (…) constitutes the ultimate reference for competence-based performance, both in the assessment of the various stages and modalities of basic training, and for the awarding of the Compulsory Secondary Education Graduation Certificate”.
2. Article 17.1 of Royal Decree 217/2022, establishes that “Students will obtain the Compulsory Secondary Education Graduation Certificate if, upon completing this stage, they have acquired, in the judgement of the teaching staff, the key competences set out in the Exit Profile and achieved the stage objectives”.
3. Assessment criterion 5.1 of Physical Education, third to fourth years, Annex II, Royal Decree 217/2022.
4. Specific competence 5 of Physical Education, third to fourth years, Annex II, Royal Decree 217/2022.
5. Operational descriptor 3 of Entrepreneurial Competence, Annex I, Royal Decree 217/2022.
6. Learning situations, understood as project-based, challenge-based, or problem-based learning, are described in Annex III of the royal decrees on minimum education standards, which do not have a binding nature for the autonomous communities.

Source: educational EVIDENCE

Rights: Creative Commons