Critical analysis of assumptions that lead to questions such as "what is science, what is theory" may be relegated to higher education. (I personally resisted that, as I recall, already in kindergarten when I began the analyzing the problems in my thinking produced by the practical necessity of adopting assumptions uncritically).
Still, benchmarks or outcomes are not simply pedagogical decisions. A political aspect becomes apparent when we see how the simple skill of reading has taken second place in elementary education. It is another example that somebody might hesitate to call education.
Odd thing, the methodology of criticism itself will eventually come under scrutiny when anybody is pressed to seriously decide what consitutes a legitimate challenge. Post-modern criticism of modernism has not been kind to the natural progress of anything. It negates. Not good for education. Of course, the idea that a quantitative benchmark such as the MOST evidence does have a practical, demotic appeal. With it the singular occurence is given short-rift--and easily relegated to the un-natural.
And beyond. Critical analysis is something that scientists engage in when doing science. This does not mean that it's something elementary educators and their students must do. Educating and learning at this level is not doing science, nor should it be.
One can always go deeper and question why we ever had the scientific revolution with its assumptions about what we can know about nature and wonder "Why not something else?" Possibly because it has led to such immediate successes in the gain of useful knowledge. Who knows? But there is always the opportunity for someone with completely different assumptions to start their own field.