Page 74 - Šolsko polje, XXXI, 2020, 3-4: Convention on the Rights of the Child: Educational Opportunities and Social Justice, eds. Zdenko Kodelja and Urška Štremfel
P. 74
šolsko polje, letnik xxxi, številka 3–4
the empowerment of pupils which goes with it, is less emphasised: ‘As
an empowerment right, education is the primary vehicle by which eco-
nomically and socially marginalized adults and children can lift them-
selves out of poverty and obtain the means to participate fully in their
communities.’9
Statistically speaking, general academic success in Slovenian pri-
mary schools used to be, on-the-whole normally distributed. This means
that the-majority-of pupils were C-students, while there were less D- and
B-students and a few F- and A-students. Those times are gone. Less than
a decade ago, more than one third of pupils finished primary school as
A-students. How could have such a big difference occurred? There are at
least three possible explanations. First, children have much better knowl-
edge today, secondly, the learning content is less demanding, and thirdly,
the marking criteria has changed. The first explanation would be convinc-
ing if we could prove that the complexity of learning content or strict-
ness of marking have not changed significantly; the second would be con-
vincing if it was true that neither the knowledge children possess nor the
strictness of marking have not changed significantly; and the third, if
the knowledge children possess and the complexity of learning content
have stayed largely the same. Such thinking might seem simplified, as it is
not necessarily true that only one of the three explanations is correct. All
three can be correct. Even so, this does not eliminate the underlying prob-
lem, i.e. how to explain the cause of this change. The only difference is that
in this case, we would need to show how much each of these explanations
contributes towards the explanation of this change. Therefore, we can say
that the increase in the number of A-students would be good if the first ex-
planation was correct; and bad if the second or the third explanation was
true. The increased number of A-students is not bad. It is bad only, if it is
a result of the decreased complexity of the learning content or lower cri-
teria for marking. In the past, school authorities obviously perceived the
first explanation to be wrong, as their arguments for eliminating overall
achievement which came into force with the change of Basic School Act in
the school year 2008/09 included a great increase in the A-student num-
bers. Since they omitted to mention a decrease in learning content com-
plexity as a possible cause and stressed upon the pressure parents exerted
on teachers to round the marks upwards at the end of the school year, we
could surmise that they saw the cause for the increase in the A-student
numbers in a lacking in the strictness of marking. However, even if a
9 Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. General Comment 13, The right to
education.
72
the empowerment of pupils which goes with it, is less emphasised: ‘As
an empowerment right, education is the primary vehicle by which eco-
nomically and socially marginalized adults and children can lift them-
selves out of poverty and obtain the means to participate fully in their
communities.’9
Statistically speaking, general academic success in Slovenian pri-
mary schools used to be, on-the-whole normally distributed. This means
that the-majority-of pupils were C-students, while there were less D- and
B-students and a few F- and A-students. Those times are gone. Less than
a decade ago, more than one third of pupils finished primary school as
A-students. How could have such a big difference occurred? There are at
least three possible explanations. First, children have much better knowl-
edge today, secondly, the learning content is less demanding, and thirdly,
the marking criteria has changed. The first explanation would be convinc-
ing if we could prove that the complexity of learning content or strict-
ness of marking have not changed significantly; the second would be con-
vincing if it was true that neither the knowledge children possess nor the
strictness of marking have not changed significantly; and the third, if
the knowledge children possess and the complexity of learning content
have stayed largely the same. Such thinking might seem simplified, as it is
not necessarily true that only one of the three explanations is correct. All
three can be correct. Even so, this does not eliminate the underlying prob-
lem, i.e. how to explain the cause of this change. The only difference is that
in this case, we would need to show how much each of these explanations
contributes towards the explanation of this change. Therefore, we can say
that the increase in the number of A-students would be good if the first ex-
planation was correct; and bad if the second or the third explanation was
true. The increased number of A-students is not bad. It is bad only, if it is
a result of the decreased complexity of the learning content or lower cri-
teria for marking. In the past, school authorities obviously perceived the
first explanation to be wrong, as their arguments for eliminating overall
achievement which came into force with the change of Basic School Act in
the school year 2008/09 included a great increase in the A-student num-
bers. Since they omitted to mention a decrease in learning content com-
plexity as a possible cause and stressed upon the pressure parents exerted
on teachers to round the marks upwards at the end of the school year, we
could surmise that they saw the cause for the increase in the A-student
numbers in a lacking in the strictness of marking. However, even if a
9 Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. General Comment 13, The right to
education.
72
