In March 2020 all schools in Italy were closed due to the Covid‐19 pandemic, and the novelty of distance learning was introduced. During the 2020–2021 school year, pre‐primary and primary schooling was carried out in situ, while secondary education was re‐organized into a mixed system, with students spending 50% of their time attending classes from home, in distance learning. This reconfiguration was a challenge to students, teachers, and parents, affecting the learning experience of the most vulnerable students and students with disabilities, particularly. It necessarily brought into question Italy’s “progressive” legal framework for “school inclusion.” The scope of the present article is to analyze the teaching activities carried out with students with disabilities in Italy during the first wave of the emergency lockdown and their consequent challenges for school inclusiveness. An overview of the Italian inclusive model in education and the national measures adopted to guarantee the right to education during times of school closure/restriction is outlined. We have sought to test the hypothesis that distance learning may introduce many risks for inclusion (resulting in a “downgrading inclusion,” that is, a decline of the level of inclusion already reached for students with disabilities), but it may also present an improvement in how teachers address these students and their needs. To this end, after reporting data from the available studies on this target, we provide insights from a web questionnaire submitted to a non‐probabilistic sample of nearly 150 primary and (lower and upper) secondary school teachers. Results showcase that, though with a general worsening of school inclusion, in some cases, teachers were actually able to support students with disabilities and their families in a new, customized, empathetic, and more attentive manner.
Nel 2013 la presenza di minori stranieri in Italia ha raggiunto quote numeriche importanti, soprattutto per la presenza di seconde generazioni (44%). Famiglie e giovani stranieri puntano sull'istruzione anche a compensazione di diritti sociali che sentono negati (ius sanguinis); i livelli formativi degli immigrati stanno aumentando gradatamente, ma si segnalano alcune criticità: a) la persistenza di un gap negativo tra i risultati scolastici degli alunni di nazionalità italiana e straniera; b) in certi istituti la maggiore visibilità delle diverse provenienze etniche in alcune aree sembra provocare disagi nelle interazioni tra autoctoni e immigrati; c) in alcune sezioni scolastiche ad elevata incidenza di stranieri, la concentrazione di problematiche sociali mette in allarme la concezione anti-discriminatoria e liberale della scuola. Tuttavia anche in tali sezioni ci sono risorse educative che non vanno sottovalutate.
In this essay I set out the current situation of Early School Leaving (ESL) in Italy by considering both data provided by institutional sources (national and international) and a review of the most recent contributions from the educational work that have been done intensively to fight against ESL over the last 20 years. I will argue that the way followed so far will not lead to surprising results, due to deep and structural persisting factors of inequality. After a short overview on the position of Italy in the European rankings, the article recalls the main interventions that took place in the country by different investors (public and non-public), setting up a multiplicity of fragmented macro-politics. Then I will look at the mechanisms of differentiation and unequal distribution of educational opportunities and I will conclude with suggestions on how to make the fight against ESL more efficient and forward-looking.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.