Prospects (2020) 49:249–263

https://doi.org/10.1007/s11125-020-09509-7

CASES/TRENDS

Inclusive education in Italy: Historical steps, positive

developments, and challenges

Dario Ianes1 · Heidrun Demo2 · Silvia Dell’Anna1

Accepted: 29 August 2020 / Published online: 8 October 2020

© The Author(s) 2020

Abstract The Italian school system has a long tradition of inclusive education, starting
in the 1970s with the first experiences of integrating students with disabilities into regu-
lar schools. Since then, legislation has developed to guarantee students with disabilities
and other special educational needs the right to individualization and personalization. This
article presents the main developments in Italian inclusive education, documenting both
positive outcomes and ongoing challenges, especially those which could be of interest for
international readers. The article is structured around three relevant themes: the persistent
influence of an individual-medical model of disability on school practices; support oppor-
tunities and additional resources for inclusion; and monitoring and evaluation mechanisms
and their role in the improvement of the quality of inclusion.

Keywords Inclusive education · Italy · Disability · Teacher competences

In this article, we investigate the main developments and challenges of inclusive education
in the Italian school system, utilizing the available research data to present positive innova-
tions, critical challenges, and potential developments. Specifically, we highlight issues of
both national and potential international interest, based on the main trends emerging in
legislation, research, and practice. In each section of the article, we consider the continuous
interplay of innovative and systemically inclusive policies and practices with a traditional
(and narrower) understanding of inclusion, one based on the medical model of disability in
entitlement and special education perspective in provisions.

* Dario Ianes
[email protected]
1
Faculty of Education, Free University of Bozen-Bolzano, Viale Ratisbona, 16, 39042 Bressanone,
BZ, Italy
2
Competence Centre of School Inclusion, Free University of Bozen-Bolzano, Viale Ratisbona, 16,
39042 Bressanone, BZ, Italy

13
Vol.:(0123456789)
250 D. Ianes et al.

Research data and evidence on the benefits of Italian inclusive school

system

The normative foundations of the Italian school system are based on its Constitution,
which attributes great importance to the role of the public state in removing all barriers
that may limit personal development or the opportunity to participate in social activities
(Art. 3). The Italian school system was conceived of as free and compulsory for everyone
(Art. 34). Up until the 1970s, students with disabilities were excluded from this “school for
all”, but in conjunction with the development of the Basaglia de-institutionalization move-
ment (Basaglia 1968), schools began to welcome pupils with disabilities. Legislatively, this
development was supported by laws on “Integrazione Scolastica” (school integration) (Law
118/1971; Law 517/1977).
Being included in school for all had a strong impact on persons with disabilities.
A survey conducted in 2007 and 2008, which compared different age groups in a sam-
ple of 1877 persons with disabilities, revealed that their school careers are gradually get-
ting longer (Canevaro, D’Alonzo, and Ianes 2009). For example, only 38.9% of the cohort
born 1970–1974 reached upper secondary school, while this was the case for 70.8% of the
cohort born 1985–1989. Moreover, the research highlighted a connection between school
career length and the perceived quality of adult life. Specifically, respondents (persons with
disabilities or their families) were asked to evaluate (on a scale of 1–10) their workplace
satisfaction, confidence in the future, and perceived normality of their social life. Find-
ings showed a significant association between longer school careers and higher values for
all three variables of life quality (Canevaro, D’Alonzo, and Ianes 2009; Ianes, Demo, and
Zambotti 2014).
The long experience of “Integrazione Scolastica” has also produced some benefits on
teachers’ attitudes. One of the first relevant studies, conducted in 2000 with 560 teachers,
revealed positive attitudes towards the integration of students with intellectual disabilities
in the majority of the considered variables (Balboni and Pedrabissi 2000). More recently, a
survey of 7,700 newly hired teachers showed that the large majority of them saw the pres-
ence of students with disabilities as enriching the class climate and as an opportunity for
their own professional development (TreeLLLe Association, Caritas, and Agnelli Founda-
tion 2011).
Finally, the presence of students with disabilities in Italian schools seems to have led to
some positive developments for all students in terms of teaching methods. In one of our
studies (Ianes, Demo, and Zambotti 2014) we asked more than 3,000 teachers from all
school grades to describe their everyday work with classes that include students with dis-
abilities. The results showed that the presence of students with disabilities seems to be con-
nected to a pluralization of teaching methods. Teachers were asked to complete an online
questionnaire focusing on one class they worked with and, in that class, on one student
with a disability. By means of multiple choice questions, they described the way teach-
ing and learning was organized in the class and indicated if the pupil with a disability (a)
attended all school hours in the class together with his/her classmates, (b) did so partially,
or (c) was always outside of the class, for example in a specific support room.
The respondents reported different teaching methods for classes where pupils with dis-
abilities were always in class and those where they were not. In fully inclusive classes, a
larger variety of teaching methods were used with greater frequency. Even when the most
widely used methods were teacher-centered, as in the other classes, student-centered meth-
ods such as cooperative learning or active laboratory settings were used more frequently in

13
Inclusive education in Italy: Historical steps, positive… 251

the weekly routine of these classes. This result suggests that the presence of a student with
a disability supports the use of a variety of teaching and learning settings. While this vari-
ety is often crucial to create a setting that allows students with a disability to participate,
the pluralization of learning situations can also be seen as a quality criterion for universal
learning and teaching for all (Hall, Meyer, and Rose 2012).
Interestingly, other results from the same survey cautiously indicate that learning and
socialization results were better in classes where the enrolled student with a disability was
always in class with their classmates, regardless of the seriousness of the disability (Ianes,
Demo, and Zambotti 2014). In fact, based on teachers’ evaluations of learning and sociali-
zation outcomes, both for the students with disabilities and for their other classmates, fully
inclusive classes obtain significantly higher results than classes where students with dis-
abilities are pushed out for some or even all school hours. Even though these results are
based on teachers’ self-evaluations and not on observed performance, the larger variety of
teaching and learning methods seem to correlate with positive outcomes for all.
Other research projects show how the presence of students with disabilities in inclusive
learning environments has led to the use of instruments, methods, and approaches devel-
oped in the field of special education or even in therapeutic settings. For example, a recent
project by Agrillo, Zappalà, and Aiello (2020) reframed the Denver Model for children
with Autism Spectrum Disorders within the Italian inclusive system. The research out-
lines the importance of both support and classroom teacher training for putting the Denver
Model into practice, as well as the importance of rooting that training in teachers’ every-
day school practices (for example, using counselling for practice instead of classical les-
sons). This kind of research contributes to the development of an inclusive school culture,
in which students with disabilities have both the opportunity to share their learning settings
with all classmates and at the same time receive the specific support they need. Further-
more, the use of a range of special education methods and instruments seems to have inter-
esting potential for all students. A project that investigated the efficacy of Augmentative
and Alternative Communication (AAC) interventions, for example, has demonstrated that
using books with AAC symbols produces interesting language learning effects, not only for
children with complex communicative needs, but also for other children (Vago 2014).

Eradicating the influence and pervasiveness of the individual‑medical

model of disability

The Integrazione Scolastica policy developed in the 70s has doubtlessly positively affected
some aspects of the Italian school system. Nevertheless, the way entitlement and provision
were designed was strongly rooted in an individual-medical model of disability that still
remains visible, even in recent legislation, and slows down innovation in this field.

From disability category to a large SEN macrocategory: Equity and/or labeling?

The initial school integration laws of the 70s granted two important preconditions for an
inclusive school system: the placement of students with disabilities in mainstream educa-
tion and the right for all students to attend the same school under the same roof. As soon
as everybody’s presence was ensured, the spotlight turned to the quality of all students’
school careers, both in terms of learning and participation. Ultimately, this led to legisla-
tion that aimed to protect some categories of students who seemed more exposed to risks

13
252 D. Ianes et al.

of exclusion and underachievement. First, Individualized Educational Plans (IEPs) were

granted for all students with a certified disability. From 2010 onwards, other regulations
were approved in order to support other categories of pupils by means of an IEP: first those
with specific learning disabilities (Law 170/2010) and later those with other Special Edu-
cational Needs (SENs). This included pupils with sociocultural disadvantages (Ministerial
Directive of 27 December 2012; and Ministerial Circular no. 8 of 6 March 2013).
In national pedagogy circles, enlarging the group of specially “protected students”
beyond students with disabilities has been discussed animatedly. The expansion of the
SEN category seems to have a twofold meaning. If on one hand this choice seems to grant
accommodations to all students who need them on an equity basis (Ianes 2005), on the
other hand, making a difference in the classroom becomes “reserved” for students with
SENs and risks labeling them, as is well known in the debate around labelling and special
education (Algraigray and Boyle 2017). The debate ended with an ambiguous note, pub-
lished in May 2018 (Note 1143, 17.05.2018) by the Ministry of Education’s University
and Research division, that promoted the idea of overcoming categorization and moving
towards differentiated learning for all. At the same time, however, no SEN category was
abolished and thus no concrete structural change was made.
Recent research on teachers’ opinions about the enlargement of the SEN category show
that they are mixed or critical. For example, findings from 3,087 Italian schools (37% pri-
mary, 28% lower secondary, and 35% upper secondary), collected by means of an online
questionnaire filled out by the school’s inclusion coordinator—a position held mainly by
teachers—offers an insight into these mixed opinions. A positive view seems to prevail:
57.9% of respondents completely agreed that “[t]he SEN legislation is making progress
towards a more inclusive school for all” and 53.9% totally disagreed that “[i]n general,
the SEN legislation has produced more negative than positive effects”. At the same time,
however, more than 40% of the sample recognized the responsibility of the SEN legislation
for strengthening labelling dynamics and, in any case, almost 20% of respondents tended to
see more negative than positive effects (Bellacicco et al. 2019).
A further qualitative research project centered around semi-structured interviews with
41 inclusion coordinators, support teachers, and headmasters in four Italian regions: Ligu-
ria, Lombardia, Piemonte, and Sicilia (Dovigo and Pedone 2019). The critical perspective
of this study highlighted the risk of enlarging the SEN category from two points of view.
Firstly, if teaching and learning are conceived as standard processes with some accom-
modation made for students with certain difficulties labelled as SEN, then diversity does
not lead to system changes, but merely to special interventions and resources for specific
groups of students. Secondly, interventions are based on a recognition of difficulties and
needs, but this deficit-based point of view reduces the intervention to “help”. This idea
implies a passive view of students with SEN, reducing them to recipients of adjustments,
instead of imagining forms of empowerment that engender “agency” (Dovigo and Pedone
2019). Research findings seem to confirm this emerging thesis. Missing methodological
information, however, makes an evaluation of their reliability difficult.

Entitlement mechanisms for individualized provision

As discussed in the previous section, school legislation recognizes three main categories of
SENs entitled to an IEP: disabilities, specific learning disabilities, and other special edu-
cational needs. The identification of students belonging to these three categories and the
subsequent allocation of provisions follow different paths. Unfortunately, they seem to be

13
Inclusive education in Italy: Historical steps, positive… 253

associated with a common negative cultural influence, pervasive and difficult to eradicate:
the individual-medical model and its deficit view of individual functioning, which recurs
to categorization and is likely to produce social labeling and stigmatization of some pupils.
The mechanisms for entitlement and provisions for students with a disability are defined
by national laws. According to Law 104/1992, identification is mainly based on medical
statements. Classes also attended by students with disabilities are assigned some hours of
assistance from support teachers, specialized teachers who work along with class teachers.
The number of support teacher hours depends on the severity of the diagnosed disabil-
ity. The whole process of provision allocation is strongly medically oriented; in fact, it’s
the medical statement that establishes the individual right for an IEP and for the attended
class to receive additional personnel resources. The strong connection between the medi-
cal statement and resource allocation might be one of the reasons for the constant growth
(in the last thirty years) of the group of students recognized as having a disability, which is
now between 3 and 4% in various school grades (ISTAT 2020).
Only recently, decrees D. Lgs. 66/2017 and D. Lgs. 96/2019 have introduced an innova-
tive move towards a more relational model of intervention for students with a disability
(Shakespeare 2013), by means of the adoption of the International Classification of Func-
tioning, Disability, and Health ICF), as a reference model, both for assessment and for
intervention (WHO 2007). This potentially weakens the impact of the individual-medical
perspective. Indeed, the ICF approach allows detailed descriptions of the complexity and
uniqueness of each disability condition and introduces a relational vision of disability, seen
as the result of the interaction of individual characteristics and contextual aspects. This
could lead to interventions that take into account all aspects of the student’s school and
extra-school life (i.e., relations, environments, attitudes, etc.), in order to develop interven-
tions in a systemically planned IEP.
Likewise, in the case of students with specific learning disabilities, the individual-med-
ical model is the basis of the entitlement procedure, based on a psychological diagnosis.
The diagnostic procedure is defined at national level but applied differently at each regional
level. In some cases, assessments carried out by private psychologists are recognized and
in others not. This is one of the reasons why statistical data show a high variability in the
percentage of students belonging to this category, from 4.5% in the Northwest to 1.4% in
the South and Islands (MIUR 2018). Moreover, the percentages grow significantly from
primary school (1.95%) to lower secondary education (5.4%). As described earlier, the
assessment of a specific learning disability entitles students to differentiated learning meth-
ods, but no extra human resources are assigned to classes also attended by students who
belong to this category.
Regarding the last category of “other SEN”, it was conceived of as a sort of “residual
category” for other diagnosable disorders that are not recognized by the other two catego-
ries (attention deficit disorders, hyperactivity, language disorders, etc.), but also for dif-
ferent forms of social disadvantage. For the latter, no formal diagnosis is needed: the law
makes it the responsibility of the teaching team to decide whether the student has needs
that require the activation of differentiation measures formalized in an individual learning
plan. Also, in this case no extra human resources are assigned. The introduction of a non-
medical category could have led to innovative practices, allowing teachers to assign the
pedagogical point of view a crucial role in the identification of SEN. However, teachers’
opinions regarding this issue are controversial, as shown in the research data presented in
the previous section.
Based on Meijer’s (2003) definitions of funding models for special education measures,
Italy adopts an individual model of provisioning, through which provisions are allocated to

13
254 D. Ianes et al.

entitled students and the amount of resources depends on the student’s type of SEN or the
severity of their needs, almost always based on a diagnosis. The main risks of this model
are well known. Firstly, it locates the problem within the child (labelling), with the risk of
promoting the segregation of students with SEN. In Italy, for example, research has shown
how students with disabilities in mainstream classes sometimes experience the phenom-
enon of micro-exclusion (D’Alessio 2011; Ianes, Demo, and Zambotti 2014; Nes, Demo,
and Ianes 2018). Furthermore, the disability category may contain an overrepresentation of
minority groups or students with socio-cultural, linguistic, or economic disadvantages, as
shown widely in other countries (e.g., Walby, Armstrong, and Strid 2012). For Italy, data
on students without Italian citizenship and with a disability statement confirm this concern
(MIUR 2019). More research on this topic is therefore needed, particularly with reference
to the overrepresentation of male students among all categories of needs recognized by
Italian law.
Additionally, this kind of provision allocation produces incentives to formulate needs
(Pijl 2014). Italian data seem to confirm this trend in the constantly growing numbers of
students diagnosed as having a disability or a learning disability (TreeLLLe Association,
Caritas, and Agnelli Foundation 2011). Lastly, there is an economic issue, as the growing
number of learners with disabilities or SEN requires additional funding. In fact, the annual
expenditure in education at a national level is constantly rising, even doubling with refer-
ence to support teachers (EASNIE 2019b).
To conclude, the latest expansion of Italian legislation in favor of different types of
needs guarantees access to further resources and implements indispensable measures to
guarantee the educational success of some students. Even if the system is acting more and
more within a rights-based approach, trying to adopt a bio-psycho-social and relational
perspective, the strong link between medical statements and allocation of provisions raises
many issues and challenges, some of which deserve further attention in research.

Support mechanisms and additional resources for inclusion

Parallel to contradictions arising from the entitlement and provision processes, ambiguous
trends in the way resources for inclusion are conceived also need to be discussed. These
include some systemic, whole school development measures as well as very individual spe-
cial provisions, such the specialized support teacher.

Teacher competences and roles: A special teacher for a special child?

In the Italian school system, for all levels of education there is a clear distinction between
two main types of teachers: classroom/subject teachers and support teachers. As mentioned
above, support teachers are assigned to classes that include students with a “certified” dis-
ability. By law, these two groups of teachers have different tasks but are considered equal
in their responsibility for all the students in the class. Nevertheless, due to social and cul-
tural mechanisms embedded in the pedagogical tradition, class or subject teachers are fre-
quently given a higher status than support teachers (TreeLLLe Association, Caritas, and
Agnelli Foundation 2011). But the number of support teachers continues to grow: as of AY
2017–2018, there were around 156,000 support teachers, representing 17.9% of all teachers
(MIUR 2019).

13
Inclusive education in Italy: Historical steps, positive… 255

In addition to critical legislative aspects, such as the previously discussed influence

of the medical-individual model of disability, it is necessary to consider two main top-
ics of debate at the national level: (1) the competences of the teachers and consequently
their training, and (2) the collaboration and integration of roles and competences. The
first issue is particularly broad and arises as an international challenge. In fact, many
researchers still debate the relationship between general teaching competences and spe-
cific or “specialist” competences when it comes to teaching students with a disability.
There has been much reflection on the way methods and strategies conceived and struc-
tured for special and separate contexts could or should be adapted to mainstream classes
(e.g., Cottini and Morganti 2015; Ravet 2015; Norwich and Lewis 2007). In particular,
those approaches belonging to the field of Evidence-Based Education (Mitchell 2014),
which are recognized as being effective for specific disabilities such as Autism Spec-
trum Disorders, rarely offer evidence in relation to inclusive settings. Furthermore, the
non-critical application of “special pedagogies” to the inclusive context could reproduce
stigmatization and exclusion mechanisms (Rix 2015; Ravet 2011).
Despite its long history of including students with disabilities in mainstream schools,
the Italian context is characterized by a peculiar debate around the issue of teacher com-
petences. Due to strong criticism of the quality of special schools in the 1970s, the spe-
cial and separate system was quickly dismantled. This led to the choice of training sup-
port teachers for mainstream schools in a broader way, with no specialization for certain
types of disability (e.g., sensory disabilities or intellectual disabilities). These teachers
were primarily seen as a support for organizing teaching in a way that made the integra-
tion of students with disabilities possible (de Anna 2015). The choice of unspecialized
initial training for support teachers has been criticized by both scholars and advocates
for people with disabilities. It raises doubts about the ability to guarantee adequate sup-
port for pupils with disabilities, especially in the last decade (Anastasiou, Kauffman,
and Di Nuovo 2015).
Secondly, a difference in the status of support and class teacher roles led to some chal-
lenges for collaboration. Italian support teachers, unlike those in other countries, currently
receive the same initial training that a class or subject teacher might receive, plus a 1-year
specialization training on teaching in “integrated” classes. Theoretically, this choice could
grant equal status of class/subject teachers and support teachers. In practice, however, the
support teacher profession enjoys limited social recognition, being interpreted—even by
the support teachers themselves—as a secondary role compared to that carried out by the
class teacher. This in turn generates a lack of retention within the profession, as support
teachers rapidly opt for the role of class teacher as these opportunities become available
(TreeLLLe Association, Caritas, and Agnelli Foundation 2011).
The poor professional recognition of support teachers is also due to the fact that the
resources made available are directly linked to student statements of disability. This car-
ries the risk of support being mistakenly considered as an individual rather than a class
resource. As a result, class teachers often delegate all the needs of those pupils with dis-
abilities to the support teacher, as seen in other countries (Devecchi et al. 2012). To counter
the reduction of the support teacher’s role to that of a personal tutor for students with dis-
abilities, in the last ten years a movement in favor of a mixed professional role has been
developing: some promote the transformation of support teachers into part-time class
teachers, with a mixed role, or into external support experts (Ianes 2015, 2016). This role
development could improve collaboration on class planning between subject teachers and
supports teacher, which seems to be limited in school practice, even if the law strongly sup-
ports it (Canevaro et al. 2011).

13
256 D. Ianes et al.

Given these challenges, the limits of the actual legislation become evident. Clear con-
tradictions exist. On one side, the equal responsibility of all teachers for all students is
emphasized, even to the extent of shared teacher training. On the other side, however, the
fact that support teachers are assigned to a certain class because of the presence of a for-
mally identified student with a disability generates challenges for a positive collaboration
between teachers.

Specialist provision for inclusion

EASNIE (2019a) distinguished between in-school and external provision for pupils and
students with disabilities. The first type of provision concerns the adaptation of curricula,
conditions for evaluation, and learning materials, with additional access to supportive
equipment and/or adult support. External provision refers instead to training or support
offered by other professionals outside of the school, for example on assessment procedures
or educational planning. The Italian school system, in both compulsory and non-compul-
sory education, offers both in-school provision and external provision to support students
with disabilities, specific learning disabilities, or other special educational needs. The
resources deployed are primarily human.
On a class level, the support teacher represents one of the main forms of support within
classes where pupils with disabilities are present. In some cases of particularly complex
disabilities, alongside with the support teachers, other professionals are also employed, the
so-called “educatori” (educators) or “facilitatori all’autonomia e comunicazione” (auton-
omy and communication facilitators). They are typically financed by local authorities and
constitute around 60,000 employees in Italian schools. Together with teachers, these pro-
fessionals are involved in lesson planning, such as adaptation of curricula, learning materi-
als, and student assessments. They are all part of the Operative Working Group (“Gruppo
di Lavoro Operativo”), together with the family of the student with a disability and pro-
fessionals in the health system. The major task for this group is planning the IEP. At the
broader school level, one or more people coordinate aspects of support for pupils with Spe-
cial Educational Needs and foster collaborations (e.g., the inclusion coordinator “referente
inclusione” or SEN-Co. “referente BES”). These coordinators also lead the school’s Work-
ing Group for Inclusion (“Gruppo di Lavoro per l’Inclusione”) that is responsible for devel-
oping actions that promote inclusive culture and practices transversally across all school
classes.
Schools are also part of networks, interacting with other consulting services, external to
school institutions, which are expected to provide psycho-pedagogical advice and guidance
to families, teachers, and schools (e.g., “Centri territoriali di supporto” or CTS; “Centri
territoriali per l’inclusione” or CTI, as defined in C.M. 8/2013 and, more recently, Legisla-
tive Decree no. 66/2017). These services are, unfortunately, not consistent throughout the
national territory, as they are also dependent on regional and local funding. In recent years,
these types of provision have expanded in some territories, for example the consultancy
services around Autism Spectrum Disorders (“Sportello Autismo”), which offer training
and consultancy programs, especially for teachers, using a peer-to-peer approach (Munaro
and Cervellin 2016). Lastly, the legislation fosters the creation of networks of collabora-
tion between school institutions and external professionals, establishing multi-professional
teams at a local level (i.e., “Gruppi per l’inclusione territoriale” or GIT) to support schools
and teachers in inclusive planning.

13
Inclusive education in Italy: Historical steps, positive… 257

Networks within the health system are less fragmented. The “Unità di Valutazione Mul-
tidisciplinare (UVM)”—a multidisciplinary evaluation unit—of the Local Health Districts
(“Azienda Sanitaria Locale” or ASL) is a multi-professional team in charge of carrying out
assessment procedures. Later on, some students with disabilities are regularly monitored
by health professionals for specific rehabilitation programs (e.g., speech therapy, physi-
otherapy, etc.). Differently than in other countries with a longer special school tradition,
only a few institutions for specific disabilities (particularly those for blind and deaf people)
are still in operation and constitute resource centers for mainstream education.
Summing up, the opportunities for co-operation and collaboration between differ-
ent stakeholders and the support resources provided by law are numerous, and they could
allow for the implementation of adequate and multi-level provision for students with dis-
abilities. Moreover, theoretically the different working groups established for the develop-
ment of inclusive practices do not only act on behalf of single students with SEN in their
classes. Many groups, such as the school working group for inclusion, are conceived of
as places for the development of inclusion in a more systemic way. Rather than focusing
solely on how to accommodate the needs of single students, they should look instead at
school development as a whole.
There are still some debates, however, relating to the type of support offered (e.g., con-
sultancy, in-service training for teachers, support for parents, etc.), professionalism, and
specialized forms of support needed. An outstanding issue concerns the coordination
and collaboration between different services and administrators, both public and private:
among them are the Ministry of Education (MIUR), regional local authorities, public
health system, non-profit organizations, and other private entities. Moreover, these inter-
twined relations strongly differ from one region to the other: territorial disparities exist
regarding access to human resources, provision, and services, both within and outside of
schools, due to the fact that 9.01% of funds are allocated at the regional level and 10.27%
at the local level (EASNIE 2019b). Moreover, some services are the result of initiatives
led by individual institutions and bodies affiliated with the public, and are available only in
some territories.

Monitoring, evaluation, and research

As discussed by other authors (e.g., Ferri 2017), Italian legislation shows a significant
commitment to school inclusion and contains ambitious and innovative proposals, espe-
cially with reference to students with disabilities. Despite the principles established at a
legal level, the implementation is subject to criticism, particularly on the quality of the pro-
vision for students with disabilities and the effective application of a systemic approach to
intervention. The available research data show that the quality of implementation is highly
fragmented and patchy.
In line with international trends towards intra- and international evaluation of educa-
tional systems, starting around 2000, Italy also introduced monitoring and evaluation
mechanisms for the quality of its education system. In addition to traditional assess-
ment mechanisms regarding students’ learning outcomes (e.g., PISA at the international
level), further monitoring procedures were introduced, expanding the work of the main
research and evaluation public bodies, including the “Istituto nazionale di documentazi-
one, innovazione e ricerca educative” (INDIRE) and “Istituto nazionale per la valutazi-
one del sistema educativo di istruzione e di formazione” (INVALSI) (European Com-
mission/EACEA/Eurydice 2017). New monitoring mechanisms have been introduced

13
258 D. Ianes et al.

by recent legislation (Decree 66/2017, Law 107/2015, C.M. 8/2013), which requires not
only that documentation is produced on pedagogical-didactic planning for pupils with dis-
abilities (“Piano Educativo Individualizzato”) or with special educational needs (“Piano
Didattico Personalizzato”), but also establishes institutional objectives in favor of school
inclusion and the related self-assessment (“Piano Annuale per l’Inclusione”). Regarding
monitoring mechanisms, the legislation also requires other documentation on pedagogical-
didactic planning and self-assessment of the general education system (“Piano Triennale
dell’Offerta Formativa”, “Rapporto di Autovalutazione”, “Piano di Miglioramento”, etc.).
In these documents, there are specific sections dedicated to the monitoring and improve-
ment of inclusion, but – with reference to Kinsella’s model (2018) – only indicators about
structural and procedural aspects are considered.
In addition to a significant expansion of monitoring mechanisms around structural,
organizational, and educational processes, two recent decrees (66/2017 and 96/2019)
require the development and introduction of quality assurance mechanisms, to verify the
effectiveness of the system in relation to the outcomes of all students. INVALSI is now
committed to the development of indicators and descriptors for the outcomes of students
with disabilities, both in terms of learning and social participation. However, the task is
challenging because of the enormous variety of individualized learning goals defined in the
IEPs.
Another separate but related issue concerns the production of research evidence and the
relationship between research, policies, and consequent innovation of praxis. Research data
on the outcomes of school inclusion and evidence on the effectiveness of the model are still
too limited (Cottini and Morganti 2015; Begeny and Martens 2007), potentially leaving
ample room for spreading skepticism (Ianes and Augello 2019). Although a certain level of
satisfaction, especially regarding the inclusion of students with disabilities, was expressed
by both teachers (Ianes, Demo, and Zambotti 2014; Reversi et al. 2007) and parents (Zano-
bini et al. 2018), the available results are still limited and raise some concerns, for example
about social participation (Nepi et al. 2013, 2015). In order to evaluate the quality of the
system, further research on students’ outcomes and social inclusion are needed, both for
students with and without disabilities and other special educational needs.
Indeed, the tendency in empirical research, as in national monitoring and evalua-
tion mechanisms, is to focus on structural and process aspects, with a clear prevalence of
descriptive studies that provide information on current practices or attitudinal ones that
investigate the perspectives of teachers, pupils, and parents on disability and inclusion.
Other approaches are less common, particularly research about the academic and social
outcomes of students with and without disabilities or other special education needs, and
about the efficacy and effectiveness of current practices and interventions (Cottini and
Morganti 2015). This national shortcoming is, unfortunately, in line with some interna-
tional trends in research on inclusive education (e.g., Amor et al. 2019). At both European
and international levels (e.g., European Commission/EACEA/Eurydice 2017), the debate
around evidence-based policy is widening. Research on the effectiveness of implementa-
tion and the gathering of evidence should support current policy appraisals and inform
future policies as well, thereby affecting decision-making and implementation.
The strengthening of the interconnection between research, policies, and practices—
using both top-down and bottom-up processes—is also an opportunity to allow greater
involvement and active participation of different stakeholders, and to improve the dia-
logue between the multiple levels that characterize any education system (school, local,
regional, national). Within the Italian school system, a first attempt towards this objec-
tive has been made by Law 107/2015, the formulation of which was based on a national

13
Inclusive education in Italy: Historical steps, positive… 259

consultation involving different stakeholders. Currently, however, data from the above-
mentioned research and education public bodies, together with university research and
national statistical offices like ISTAT (which constitute the main source of statistical data
and information on the functioning of the national school system), as well as the data col-
lected through monitoring and quality assurance mechanisms, do not necessarily have an
impact on policy and innovation.
Within this context, it seems necessary to foresee and implement further evaluation
mechanisms, which create a circular link between research, policies, and practices. Firstly,
this would verify the effectiveness of current implementation models and make known any
good practices while also intervening in the critical aspects of the system. Secondly, this
approach would increase the possibility of integrating knowledge and evidence derived
from national and international research, not to mention the skills developed by profession-
als in the field, within policy-making processes and future implementation strategies.

Concluding remarks

The Italian school legislation has established the basis for a genuinely inclusive school sys-
tem. Research data clearly shows the positive impact of this policy on the quality of life for
persons with disabilities, on teachers’ attitudes, and on the variety of teaching and learning
methods for all students. Nevertheless, in this article we also highlighted three main issues
of concern in the implementation of school inclusion in the Italian context, which are also
particularly relevant at the international level. Specifically, the medical/individual model
strongly influences both policies and practices (Shakespeare 2013), the contradictory pro-
vision system risks micro-exclusions and labelling, especially with reference to support
teachers (Schleicher 2014; EASNIE 2011), and it is difficult to produce reliable research
evidence and quality monitoring of school inclusion, which has significant consequences
for future practice (Rocha Menocal 2020).
The Italian experience showcases a series of contradictions around disability-related
issues. On one hand, the model seems to move towards a human rights approach, which
addresses all human differences, and a bio-psycho-social model of disability (ICF) which
takes into account the global functioning of the pupil with disability, considering both indi-
vidual and social factors. On the other, the main reference for disability identification still
remains medical. Moreover, the enlargement of the SEN categories, also mainly based on
medical diagnoses, risks amplifying the phenomena of stigmatization and exclusion to jus-
tify the allocation of additional resources. These issues are underlined by teachers’ mixed
opinions on recent legislative developments (Bellacicco et al. 2019) and the coexistence
of inclusive and exclusive experiences for students with disabilities (e.g., Nes, Demo, and
Ianes 2018; Zanobini et al. 2018; Nepi et al 2013, 2015). For example, some phenomena
such as push and pull-out from mainstream classes need to be further studied in order to
understand their impact (Ianes, Demo, and Zambotti 2014; Nes, Demo, and Ianes 2018).
Another relevant topic concerns teachers’ roles and competences, in particular the
professionalism of support teachers. Research shows that half of support teachers do not
feel like or are not perceived as “proper” teachers (TreeLLLe Association, Caritas, and
Agnelli Foundation 2011). The debate is divided between those who want to strengthen the
separation between careers and make the professionalism of the support teacher more and
more specialized, and others who tend to promote more uniformity in the role of teachers
while significantly expanding all teachers’ inclusive skills. Both options, however, could be
risky: the multiplication of delegation mechanisms towards specialist roles and consequent

13
260 D. Ianes et al.

phenomena of micro-exclusion on one side, or a tendency towards a constant increase in

teacher training expectations on the other. Among these unsolved aspects, the fragmenta-
tion of the support system—both internal and external to school institutions—challenges
collaboration and coordination. This suggests that research around organizing provisions
in an alternative way is needed, from identification mechanisms to allocation of provisions
and support opportunities.
Finally, the topic of quality assurance plays an important role. An investment in this
direction could support a more even development of inclusion in Italy as a whole. The con-
nection between inclusive processes and inclusive outcomes (Rocha Menocal 2020) should
be strengthened, creating a link between research evidence, monitoring, and evaluation
mechanisms, with specific reference to students’ outcomes, both in terms of achievement
and social participation.

Funding Open access funding provided by Libera Università di Bolzano within the CRUI-CARE
Agreement.

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License,
which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long
as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Com-
mons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article
are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the
material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not
permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly
from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creat​iveco​mmons​.org/licen​ses/by/4.0/.

References
Agrillo, F., Zappalà, E., & Aiello, P. (2020). Il Group-based Early Start Denver Model nel contesto educa-
tivo italiano: Uno studio di caso [The Group-based Early Start Denver Model in the Italian educational
context: A case study]. In Sezione SIPeS (Eds.), Ricerca, scenari, emergenze sull’inclusione. Tomo 2.
Atti del Convegno Internazionale SIRD. Roma 26-27 settembre 2019 (pp. 19–26). Lecce: Lecce Pensa
Multimedia Editore.
Algraigray, H., & Boyle, C. (2017). The SEN label and its effect on special education. The Educational and
Child Psychologist, 34(4), 70–79.
Amor, A. M., Hagiwara, M., Shogren, K. A., Thompson, J. R., Verdugo, M. A., Burke, K. M., et al.
(2019). International perspectives and trends in research on inclusive education: A systematic review.
International Journal of Inclusive Education, 23(12), 1277–1295. https​://doi.org/10.1080/13603​
116.2018.14453​04.
Anastasiou, D., Kauffman, J. M., & Di Nuovo, S. (2015). Inclusive education in Italy: Description and
reflections on full inclusion. European Journal of Special Needs Education, 30(4), 429–443. https​://
doi.org/10.1080/08856​257.2015.10600​75.
Balboni, G., & Pedrabissi, L. (2000). Attitudes of Italian teachers and parents toward school inclusion of
students with mental retardation. Education and Training in Mental Retardation and Developmental
Disabilities, 35(2), 148–159.
Basaglia, F. (1968). L’istituzione negata [The institution denied]. Milano: Baldini Castoldi Dalai.
Begeny, J. C., & Martens, B. K. (2007). Inclusionary education in Italy: A literature review and call for
more empirical research. Remedial & Special Education, 28(2), 80–94. https​://doi.org/10.1177/07419​
32507​02800​20701​.
Bellacicco, R., Cappello, S., Demo, H., & Ianes, D. (2019). L’inclusione scolastica fra push-e pull-out, tran-
sizioni e BES: Una indagine nazionale [School inclusion between push- and pull-out, transitions and
SEN: a national survey]. Milano: FrancoAngeli.
Canevaro, A., D’Alonzo, L., Ianes, D., & Caldin, R. (2011). L’integrazione scolastica nella percezione degli
insegnanti [School integration in the perception of teachers]. Trento: Erickson.

13
Inclusive education in Italy: Historical steps, positive… 261

Canevaro, A., D’Alonzo, L., & Ianes, D. (Eds.) (2009). L’integrazione scolastica di alunni con disabilità dal
1977 al 2007. Risultati di una ricerca attraverso lo sguardo delle persone con disabilità e delle loro
famiglie [The school integration of pupils with disabilities from 1977 to 2007. Results of a research
through the perspective of people with disabilities and their families.]. Bolzano: Bozen-Bolzano Uni-
versity Press.
Cottini, L., & Morganti, A. (2015). Evidence-based education e pedagogia speciale. Principi e modelli per
l’inclusione [Evidence-based education and special pedagogy. Principles and models for inclusion].
Roma: Carocci.
D’Alessio, S. (2011). Inclusive education in Italy [Inclusive Education in Italy: A critical analysis of the
policy of integrazione scolastica]. Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.
de Anna, L. (2015). I percorsi della formazione [The paths of education]. In A. Mura, L. de Anna, & G.
Patrizia (Eds.), L’insegnante specializzato (pp. 44–60). Milano: FrancoAngeli.
Devecchi, C., Dettori, F., Doveston, M., Sedgwick, P., & Jament, J. (2012). Inclusive classrooms in Italy
and England: The role of support teachers and teaching assistants. European Journal of Special Needs
Education, 27(2), 171–184. https​://doi.org/10.1080/08856​257.2011.64558​7.
Dovigo, F., & Pedone, F. (2019). I bisogni educativi speciali [Special educational needs]. Roma:
Carocci.
EASNIE [European Agency for Special Needs and Inclusive Education] (2011). Teacher education for
inclusion across Europe: Challenges and opportunities. Odense: EASNIE.
EASNIE (2019a). Changing role of specialist provision in supporting inclusive education: Mapping spe-
cialist provision approaches in European countries (S. Ebersold, M. Kyriazopoulou, A. Kefallinou,
& E. Rebollo Píriz, Eds.). Odense: EASNIE.
EASNIE (2019b). Legislation updates 2019 (E. Óskarsdóttir, Ed.). Odense: EASNIE.
European Commission/EACEA/Eurydice (2017). Support mechanisms for evidence-based policy-mak-
ing in education: Eurydice report. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union.
Ferri, D. (2017). Inclusive education in Italy: A legal appraisal 10 years after the signature of the UN
convention on the rights of persons with disabilities. Ricerche di Pedagogia e Didattica Journal of
Theories and Research in Education, 12(2), 1–21.
Hall, T. E., Meyer, A., & Rose, D. H. (Eds.) (2012). Universal design for learning in the classroom:
Practical applications. New York, NY: Guilford Press.
Ianes, D. (2016). Evolvere il sostegno si può (e si deve) [Support can (and must) evolve]. Trento: Erickson.
Ianes, D. (2015). L’evoluzione dell’insegnante di sostegno [The evolution of the support teacher].
Trento: Erickson.
Ianes, D. (2005). Bisogni educativi speciali e inclusione: valutare le reali necessità e attivare tutte
le risorse [Special educational needs and inclusion: How to assess real needs and activate all
resources]. Trento: Erickson.
Ianes, D., & Augello, G. (2019). Gli inclusio-scettici. Gli argomenti di chi non crede in una scuola
inclusiva e le proposte di chi si sbatte tutti i giorni per realizzarla [The inclusio-skeptics. The argu-
ments of those who do not believe in an inclusive school and the proposals of those who struggle
every day to make it happen]. Trento: Erickson.
Ianes, D., Demo, H., & Zambotti, F. (2014). Integration in Italian schools: teachers’ perceptions regard-
ing day-to-day practice and its effectiveness. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 18(6),
626–653. https​://doi.org/10.1080/13603​116.2013.80203​0.
ISTAT [Italian National Institute of Statistics] (2020). L’inclusione scolastica degli alunni con disabilità.
Anno scolastico 2018–2019 [The school inclusion of pupils with disabilities. School year 2018–2019].
https​://www.istat​.it/it/files​//2020/02/Alunn​i-con-disab​ilita​-2018-19.pdf.
Kinsella, W. (2018). Organising inclusive schools. International Journal of Inclusive Education. https​://
doi.org/10.1080/13603​116.2018.15168​20.
Meijer, C. J. W. (2003). Special education across Europe in 2003. Middelfart: EADSNE.
Mitchell, D. (2014). What really works in special and inclusive education: Using evidence-based teach-
ing strategies (2nd ed.). London: Routledge.
MIUR (2018). Gli alunni con disturbi specifici dell’apprendimento [Pupils with specific learning disa-
bilities]. http://www.miur.gov.it/docum​ents/20182​/99146​7/FOCUS​_Alunn​i+con+DSA_a.s.+2016_
2017_def.pdf/9af58​72b-4404-4d56-8ac1-8ffdb​ee61e​f4?versi​on=1.0.
MIUR (2019). I principali dati relativi agli alunni con disabilità. Anno scolastico 2017/2018 [The
main data relating to pupils with disabilities. School year 2017/2018]. http://www.condi​cio.it/alleg​
ati/378/Focus​_Integ​razio​ne_scola​stica​_AS201​7_18.pdf.
Munaro, C., & Cervellin, I. (Eds.) (2016). Peer teaching e inclusione. Da insegnante a insegnante: Sup-
porto di rete per la condivisione di competenze educative [Peer teaching and inclusion. Teacher to
teacher: Network support for sharing educational skills]. Trento: Erickson.

13
262 D. Ianes et al.

Nepi, L. D., Facondini, R., Nucci, F., & Peru, A. (2013). Evidence from full-inclusion model: The social
position and sense of belonging of students with special educational needs and their peers in Italian
primary school. European Journal of Special Needs Education, 28, 319–332.
Nepi, L. D., Fioravanti, J., Nannini, P., & Peru, A. (2015). Social acceptance and the choosing of favour-
ite classmates: A comparison between students with special educational needs and typically devel-
oping students in a context of full inclusion. British Journal of Special Education, 42(3), 319–337.
https​://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8578.12096​.
Nes, K., Demo, H., & Ianes, D. (2018). Inclusion at risk? Push- and pull-out phenomena in inclusive
school systems: The Italian and Norwegian experiences. International Journal of Inclusive Educa-
tion, 22(2), 111–129. https​://doi.org/10.1080/13603​116.2017.13620​45.
Norwich, B., & Lewis, A. (2007). How specialized is teaching children with disabilities and difficulties?
Journal of Curriculum Studies, 39(2), 125–150. https​://doi.org/10.1080/00220​27060​11616​67.
Pijl, S. J. (2014). Funding. In L. Florian (Ed.), The SAGE handbook of special education (pp. 251–261).
London: Sage.
Ravet, J. (2015). Supporting change in autism services: Bridging the gap between theory and practice.
Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge.
Ravet, J. (2011). Inclusive/exclusive? Contradictory perspectives on autism and inclusion: The case for
an integrative position. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 15(6), 667–682. https​://doi.
org/10.1080/13603​01109​03294​347.
Reversi, S., Langher, V., Crisafulli, V., & Ferri, R. (2007). The quality of disabled students’ school integra-
tion: A research experience in the Italian state school system. School Psychology International, 28(4),
403–418.
Rix, J. (2015). Must inclusion be special? Rethinking educational support within a community of provision.
London: Routledge.
Rocha Menocal, A. (2020). Why does inclusion matter? Assessing the links between inclusive processes and
inclusive outcomes. Paris: OECD.
Schleicher, A. (2014). Equity, excellence and inclusiveness in education: Policy lessons from around the
world, international summit on the teaching profession. Paris: OECD. https​://doi.org/10.1787/97892​
64214​033-en.
Shakespeare, T. (2013). Disability rights and wrongs revisited. London: Routledge.
TreeLLLe Association, Caritas, & Agnelli Foundation (2013). Gli alunni con disabilità nella scuola itali-
ana: Bilancio e proposte [Pupils with disabilities in Italian schools: Financial report and proposals].
Trento: Erickson.
Vago, V. (2014). Studio prospettico sugli effetti della lettura degli IN-Book sulla produzione lessicale di
bambini in età prescolare [Prospective study on the effects of reading IN-Books on the lexical produc-
tion of preschool children]. Unpublished thesis. University of Milan.
Walby, S., Armstrong, J., & Strid, S. (2012). Intersectionality: Multiple inequalities in social theory. Sociol-
ogy, 46(2), 224–240. https​://doi.org/10.1177/00380​38511​41616​4.
WHO [World Health Organization] (2007). International classification of functioning, disability and health:
Children & youth version (ICF-CY). Geneva: WHO. https​://apps.who.int/iris/handl​e/10665​/43737​
Zanobini, M., Viterbori, P., Garello, V., & Camba, R. (2018). Parental satisfaction with disabled children’s
school inclusion in Italy. European Journal of Special Needs Education, 33(5), 597–614. https​://doi.
org/10.1080/08856​257.2017.13863​18.

Publisher’s Note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps
and institutional affiliations.

Dario Ianes is professor of special and inclusive education at the Free University of Bozen-Bolzano and
co-founder of the publishing house Centro Studi Erickson of Trento (Italy). His field of expertise primarily
comprises identification and support mechanisms for students with disabilities, effective teaching strategies
in inclusive education, and inclusive school leadership.

Heidrun Demo is associate professor of inclusive education at the Faculty of Education and director of
the Competence Centre for School Inclusion at the Free University of Bolzano-Bozen. Her research work
addresses mainly two issues: inclusive teaching and learning in schools and kindergarten and inclusive
school development.

13
Inclusive education in Italy: Historical steps, positive… 263

Silvia Dell’Anna is a postdoctoral researcher at the Faculty of Education of the Free University of Bozen-
Bolzano. Her work and publications mainly focus on the effective implementation of inclusive education
and on the evaluation of the quality of inclusive school systems.

13