La rete sommersa delle presupposizioni nel modello di valutazione del sistema scolastico. Dalla razionalità procedurale alla riflessività

Author/s Paolo Sorzio
Publishing Year 2014 Issue 2013/2 Language Italian
Pages 13 P. 89-101 File size 549 KB
DOI 10.3280/ERP2013-002006
DOI is like a bar code for intellectual property: to have more infomation click here

Below, you can see the article first page

If you want to buy this article in PDF format, you can do it, following the instructions to buy download credits

Article preview

FrancoAngeli is member of Publishers International Linking Association, Inc (PILA), a not-for-profit association which run the CrossRef service enabling links to and from online scholarly content.

In this paper, the epistemology of the High-Stakes test-based accountability of schools is analysed and its consequences on practice are scrutinised. More specifically, three dimensions of the rationality incorporated in the procedural models elaborated by the National Institute for the Evaluation of the School System (Invalsi) are highlighted: the evaluation of schools through the use of students' performances on standardised tasks; the nature of the socio-economical-cultural parameters that are selected to compare the educational contexts of school provision; the proposed model to represent the learning environment of individual schools. The use of simplified parameters to describe complex socio-cultural realities and the selective focus on a limited variety of relevant evidence in the Invalsi model are examined and the risk of introducing distortions in the evaluation of the educational provision is considered. As an alternative, a perspective based on 'reflective reasonableness' (Burbules, 1991, 1995) is introduced, in order to recognise the plurality of valid descriptions of the school system, the relevance of ethnographicallygenerated evidence in understanding the quality of teaching in specific schools and the importance of valuing the voice of teachers in identifying and solving the constraints of their everyday practice

  1. Ball, S.J. (2008). The Education debate. Bristol: Policy Press.
  2. Bonotto, C. (2013). Artifacts as sources for problem-posing activities. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 83(1), pp. 37-55.
  3. Brown, A.L. (1997). Transforming schools into communities of thinking and learning about serious matters. American Psychologist, 52(4), pp. 399-413.
  4. Burbules, N.C. (1991), Rationality and reasonableness. A discussion of Harvey Siegel's relativism refuted and educating reason. Educational Theory, 41(2), pp. 235-52.
  5. Burbules, N.C. (1995). Reasonable doubt. Toward a postmodern defense of reason as an educational aim. In Kohli, W. (Eds.). Critical Conversations in Philosophy of Education (pp. 82-102). London, UK: Routledge.
  6. Dewey, J. (1916/1980). Democracy and Education. In Boydston, J.A. (Eds.). Joh Dewey: The Middle Works (Volume 9) (pp. 96-101). Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press.
  7. Elgin, C.Z. (2004). High Stakes. Theory and Research in Education, 2, pp. 271-281.
  8. Ellis, V., & Orchard, J. (2014). Learning teaching from experience. Multiple perspectives and international contexts. London: Bloomsbury.
  9. Engeström, Y. (1987). Learning by Expanding. An Activity-Theoretical approach to developmental research. Helsinki: Orienta konsultit.
  10. Erickson, F., & Gutierrez, K. (2002). Comment: culture, rigor, and science. Educational Research, 31(8), pp. 21-24.
  11. Gillborn, D., & Youdell, D. (2000). Rationing education. Policy, practice, reform, equity. Maidenhead, UK: Open University Press.
  12. Grimaldi, E., & Serpieri R. (2010). The reforming trajectory of the Italian educational system. Site-Based management and decentralisation as a challenge for democratic discourse. Journal of Educational Administration and History, 42(1), pp. 75-95.
  13. Heath, S.B. (1983). Ways with words. Language, life, and work in communities and classrooms. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  14. Herman, J.L. (2004). The effects of testing on instruction. In Fuhrman, S.H., & Elmore, R.F. (Eds.). Redesigning accountability systems for education (pp. 42-72). New York: Teachers College Press.
  15. Mattei, P. (2012). Market accountability in schools. Policy reforms in England, Germany, France and Italy. Oxford Review of Education, 38(3), pp. 247-266.
  16. Nagel, T. (1986). The View from Nowhere. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  17. Nespor, J. (1997). Tangled up in school. Politics, space, bodies, and signs in the educational process. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
  18. Simon, H.A. (1983). Reason in human affairs. Palo Alto, CA: Stanford University Press.
  19. Supovitz, J.A. (2009). Can high stakes testing leverage educational improvement? Prospects from the last decade of testing and accountability reform. Journal of Educational Change, 10(2), pp. 211-227.
  20. Tomlinson, S. (2005). Education in a Post-welfare society. Maidenhead, UK: Open University Press.
  21. Walford, G. (2002). Redefining school effectiveness. Westminster Studies in Education, 25(1), pp. 47-58.

Paolo Sorzio, La rete sommersa delle presupposizioni nel modello di valutazione del sistema scolastico. Dalla razionalità procedurale alla riflessività in "EDUCATIONAL REFLECTIVE PRACTICES" 2/2013, pp 89-101, DOI: 10.3280/ERP2013-002006