Italy's education system is classified as centralized: the Ministry of Education in Rome governs the schools, dictates the rules under which they function, allocates funds, and selects teachers and principals, who apply nationally prescribed curriculum for every level and kind of school. In such a system, one would expect to find standardization and uniformity.
Yet “irregularity,” as a colleague of mine put it, seems to be a defining characteristic of Italian education. (Irregularity also characterizes other aspects of Italian life, as tourists well know!) In reality, the Italian school system can be better described by such words as paradox or anomaly than by order or homogeneity.
How did such a situation develop?
Of Politics and Change
Historically, the Italian system of education was built on the Napoleonic and Prussian models, with considerable power vested in the central government and many formal and legal controls. This model remained essentially untouched by all of Italy's constitutional and political tribulations (the move from a monarchy to a republic, the defeat of the fascist regime, and the advent of democracy).
The first important general change came in 1974, when the Parliament passed a law that created a complex system of collegial bodies, or councils, to govern schools. These councils—which were introduced at the national, provincial, district, and school levels—consisted of elected representatives of teachers, principals, administrators, and social agencies. The councils had some limited planning and decision-making powers, but central authorities retained decisions about funding, prescription of curriculums, and selection of school personnel.
- Government authorities in Rome continued to make all of the strategic decisions; the decisions made by the collegial bodies were generally rather —al.
- Instead of simplifying the functioning of the system, the new administrative structures made the bureaucratic chain even more complex and slow.
- The complicated system of electing representatives was demoralizing to many. Organized groups (parties, associations, unions) prevailed upon the representatives so that the reform became very political, which, in turn, made many parents and teachers reluctant to seek a seat on the council.
But, if councils were not the answer, it was equally apparent that more rigid centralization was impossible. Decentralization and autonomy have become watchwords in the western world, and our new understanding of the schools as educating communities leaves less and less room for a traditionally bureaucratic school administration.
So in 1994, the Minister of Education proposed reforms based on notions of autonomy, a concept less formal than decentralization but more concrete than participation. The idea was that schools should become autonomous places, able to make their own decisions and plan their own projects regarding learning and teaching methods, research and development activities (experimentations), and the raising of funds. A newly created national assessment agency would spell out the rules for controlling the processes and outcomes.
Under the proposal, the schools would not be peripheral parts of a centrally determined bureaucracy, but relatively independent self-supporting institutions, each allowed to produced its own educational plan instead of being required to apply externally prescribed curriculums and regulations. Every school would become a “personalized community,” reflecting the needs and interests of local stakeholders.
The Debate Continues
As usually happens in an “irregular” country, the government that proposed this idea collapsed, and the proposal has been on hold for more than a year. But the popularity of the idea made it impossible to ignore. The new Minister has included autonomy as one of the core points of his program, even though his own position on this issue differed. If the existing government lasts at least until spring 1996, odds are good that these reforms will finally be approved.
- Will it really be possible to abandon the traditional system in order to go toward a new one, or will the result be a compromise no more satisfactory than the present ineffectual combination of centralized and decentralized powers?
- Who will have the authority to select teachers? Some professional groups, especially principals, think that autonomy will greatly strengthen their role, but they object that hiring will not be their responsibility.
- Does this reform, by reducing the authority of the state to an extremely low level, involve a serious risk of dissolving the state system and public instruction itself, as many ideological groups fear?
- Will the reforms create a market approach that will deepen the existing social inequalities instead of reducing them?
It is difficult to predict what will happen, but we are likely to see a prudent, rather than a radical, approach toward autonomy. The big question is whether it will reduce our “irregularities” or give rise to new ones.
