Traditionally, the Italian system of education is of a centralised type, but contrary to the French model, it lacks the typical characteristic of centralisation, a school inspection mechanism. A de facto full autonomy of the teaching profession, linked to a culture of individualism, as well as a push towards diversification through short-lived local school experiments from 1977 to the mid ‘90s, render this system quite unique. It does follow a centralised pattern regarding aspects of staffing policies and school management, but shows significant elements of internal diversification (Semeraro 1998, p. 221). Moreover, concrete steps towards partial deregulation were set in motion at the beginning of the ‘90s, and were further intensified by the school autonomy reform launched in 1997. The Italian education model has been effectively described as a harlequin-type system. Since 2001, with a change in its Fundamental Law, Italy has entered a new phase of federalisation of education, involving financial and institutional decentralisation at the regional level (Bordignon and Fontana 2010). This trend towards increased deregulation, over a period of persistent economic decline, was and remains an explicit strategy, following years of indecision. Deregulation also went hand in hand with the disarticulation of one of the major welfarist institutions, the lower secondary school (or ‘middle school’), once a key component of a partly comprehensive school system (Mincu 2015) but no longer central to the system.
Overcoming fragmented professionalism? Accountability for improvement in teacher preparation in Italy
Monica Elena Mincu
2018-01-01
Abstract
Traditionally, the Italian system of education is of a centralised type, but contrary to the French model, it lacks the typical characteristic of centralisation, a school inspection mechanism. A de facto full autonomy of the teaching profession, linked to a culture of individualism, as well as a push towards diversification through short-lived local school experiments from 1977 to the mid ‘90s, render this system quite unique. It does follow a centralised pattern regarding aspects of staffing policies and school management, but shows significant elements of internal diversification (Semeraro 1998, p. 221). Moreover, concrete steps towards partial deregulation were set in motion at the beginning of the ‘90s, and were further intensified by the school autonomy reform launched in 1997. The Italian education model has been effectively described as a harlequin-type system. Since 2001, with a change in its Fundamental Law, Italy has entered a new phase of federalisation of education, involving financial and institutional decentralisation at the regional level (Bordignon and Fontana 2010). This trend towards increased deregulation, over a period of persistent economic decline, was and remains an explicit strategy, following years of indecision. Deregulation also went hand in hand with the disarticulation of one of the major welfarist institutions, the lower secondary school (or ‘middle school’), once a key component of a partly comprehensive school system (Mincu 2015) but no longer central to the system.
I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.
