Abstract
In the last 25 years, a number of reforms have modified the Italian school system: to make a long story short, school system has moved from a centralized, monopolistic and standardized one to a more autonomous “system of schools”. In that new form, private recognized schools (“paritarie”) have a recognized space, and regional and local authorities play a greater role. To understand how this process has been developed and fulfilled, the chapter starts from a short historical vision, describing the cultural and political processes that have determined the educational structures. Three main trends are discussed: from standardization to autonomy, from state monopoly to legitimization of private schools, from centralization to local empowerment. Then it elaborates an array of rolling reforms concerning the teachers’ qualification and career, the assessment of the system, the vocational versus general education, the changes in organizational models and so on. Finally future reform directions are projected.
A reform trajectory is… a set of trends which involves searches, discoveries, borrowing and struggles.. and not a single conscious, explicit project. (S. BALL. Education PLC, Routledge, London 2007, p. 6)
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
In this comprehensive school, anyway, there were some “special classes” for children at risk who needed specialized aid. Since some of these special classes had become, over time, a sort of ghetto for children with social problems, they were closed down in 1977 (Law 517).
- 2.
- 3.
The Lisbon Special European Council of 23–24 March 2000, aiming to transform Europe into a “knowledge society,” developed the so-called “Lisbon strategy”: one of the five educational aims for 2010 consisted in eradicating withdrawals and raising the rate of young people holding an upper secondary diploma to 80 %. Being Italy far from attaining these goals, with a rate of dropouts around 10–20 % at the age of 16, a new strategy, called “EU 2020” was launched in 2009 (see http://europa.eu/legislation_summaries/education_training_youth/general_framework/c10241_en.htm)
- 4.
The Italian “liceo” was, and is, a mainly academic form of upper secondary school, providing general education to students who are expected to continue their studies in the University.
- 5.
For more detailed information, see OECD (2011). Data refer to 2008/2009.
- 6.
As for higher education, in 2010/2011, there were 1,781,786 students, 14.8 % of which holding a high school diploma, decreasing compared to a maximum of 1,823,000 units reported in 2005/2006. 57.3 % of them were women. Freshmen were 288,286 (vs. a maximum of 301,376 units in 2006/2007), 10 % being students of a ripe age. The so-called fuori corso (students who have not passed their university exams in due time) totaled a heavy 600,000.
- 7.
The process of autonomy has been extensively studied by researchers, but unfortunately English literature in this connection is rather poor. For Italian-speaking readers, I wish to remind that the “Osservatorio sull’autonomia” of the LUISS University in Rome published three volumes of Rapporto sulla scuola dell’autonomia (2002, 2003, 2004), Armando Editori, Roma. In English, see Landri (2009).
- 8.
See “Italy” in Glenn and de Groof (2003).
- 9.
ISTAT (National Institute for Statistics) included the schools run by municipalities within the private sector until 1984.
- 10.
Concerning the impact of economic crisis on education funding, see Van Damme and Karkkainen (2011).
- 11.
Invalsi–Mipa, Aspis III. Linee di ricerca sull’analisi della spesa per l’istruzione. Roma, Nov. 2005. The Aspis research (http://www2.invalsi.it/RN/aspis3/sito/docs/Rapporto%20finale%20Invalsi%20-%20Aspis%20III.pdf) is the only systemic analysis of the expenditure for education, but it finished in 2005, and never more repeated.
- 12.
- 13.
As mentioned, these reforms bear the name of the minister who devised them and made them effective and are substantially two: Casati Law, issued in 1859, which established the characteristics of the school system in the newborn Italian state, and Gentile Law (actually a set of laws issued between 1922 and 1924), which laid the foundations of the modern school and, with many adjustments, has survived up to nowadays, as well as the set of laws I described at par. 2.1, which were formalized by Ministers Moratti and Gelmini (2003; 2008/2010).
- 14.
Bottani (1986). Bottani was the director of OECD CERI and started with the compared assessment of school systems through the indicators of Education at a Glance: OECD Indicators, first published in Sept. 1992.
- 15.
OECD affirms that PISA does not assess what is taught in schools, but rather that “the acquisition of literacy is a lifelong process taking place not just at school or through formal learning, but also through interactions with peers, colleagues and wider communities” (OECD 2004).
- 16.
Progetto Excelsior, Indagine 2012, in excelsior.unioncamere.net.
- 17.
To date (Oct. 2012), a bill was recently approved by one of the branches of the Parliament, and it is expected to be approved in the forthcoming months by the other one.
- 18.
References
Barzano, G. (2008). Leadership per l’educazione. Roma: Armando editore.
Bottani, N. (1986). La ricreazione è finita. Bologna: Il Mulino.
Cavalli, A., & Argentin, G. (2010). Gli insegnanti italiani: come cambia il modo di fare scuola (Terza indagine dell’ Istituto IARD sulle condizioni di vita e di lavoro nella scuola italiana) (p. 68). Bologna: Il Mulino.
Cocozza, A. (2012). Il sistema scuola. Milano: FrancoAngeli. Chapter v.
Coleman, J. S. (1988). Social capital in the creation of human capital. American Journal of Sociology, 94, 95–120.
Gentili, C. (2007). Umanesimo tecnologico e istruzione tecnica (p. 28). Roma: Armando Editore.
Glenn, C., & de Groof, J. (2003). Freedom, autonomy and accountability in education (Vol. 2). Utrecht: Lemma.
Grimaldi, E., & Serpieri, R. (February 2012). 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), 75–95.
Landri, P. (2009). A temporary eclipse of bureaucracy. The circulation of school autonomy in Italy. Journal of Sociology of Education. http://www.ijse.eu/index.php/ijse/article/view/31
Ministero della Pubblica Istruzione. (2008). La dispersione scolastica, Indicatori di base, Anno scolastico 2006/07. Roma: Maggio.
Novoa, A. (1998). Histoire & Comparaison. Essais sur l’éducation (p. 63, 37). Lisbon: Educa.
OECD. (2004). Learning for tomorrow’s world – First results from PISA 2003. Paris: OECD.
OECD. (2011). Education at a glance, 2011. Paris: OECD.
OECD. (2012). Education at a glance 2011. Paris: OECD.
Portes, A. (1998). Social capital: Its origins and application in modern sociology. Annual Review of Sociology, 22, 1–24.
Van Damme, D., & Karkkainen, K. (2011). Crisis survey 2010: The impact of the economic recession and fiscal crisis on education in OECD countries. OECD education working papers, No. 56. OECD Publishing. http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/5kgj1r9zk09x-en
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2013 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Ribolzi, L. (2013). Italy: From State Monopoly to Rising of a System of Schools. In: Wang, Y. (eds) Education Policy Reform Trends in G20 Members. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-38931-3_6
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-38931-3_6
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg
Print ISBN: 978-3-642-38930-6
Online ISBN: 978-3-642-38931-3
eBook Packages: Humanities, Social Sciences and LawEducation (R0)