The participants at this national roundtable vehemently challenged the veracity of a popular – now verging on hackneyed – belief that the Italian education system only churns out mediocrity. Nothing – it was felt – could be further from the truth. The tenor of education and training at an international level leans favorably towards the traditional system adopted in Italy which is based, in its essentials, on the Giovanni Gentile model. Young Italian graduates are retained abroad – at a rate of 51% versus 30% for other countries – because they are more erudite, have the ability to approach issues from all angles, and are known for their capacity to solve complex problems.
It was stressed, however, that in an age of digitalization and globalization, some changes to the Italian system are definitely needed. While acknowledging that the system has produced high-achievers who have gone on to make a splash both in Italy and abroad, as well as the great attention devoted to the needs of all legally protected groups (namely, those with disabilities or otherwise at risk of exclusion from employment), it was nevertheless observed that the education system does not focus sufficient efforts on students who are average performers. It was also viewed as not adequately cultivating a typically prominent Italian attribute, namely: creativity. If – the participants posited – art is “Italy’s answer to oil”, then it is necessary to attract professionals from abroad that are in search of creativity, and, at the same time, to offer appropriate courses without waiting for American universities to do so.
Schools and universities in Italy were moreover described as no longer representing the social elevator they once did, and, in so failing to facilitate social mobility, education is not fulfilling one of its primary objectives. This was seen as giving rise to an ever increasing need for some serious debate aimed at identifying critical issues – so as to resolve them – and highlighting the best practices and strengths of the system, such as the country’s kindergarten and primary school models, which have long received very positive appraisals, including from abroad.
The situation concerning the country’s secondary school system was, however, regarded as quite different, hamstrung as it is between a raising of the school-leaving age and a progressive loss of identity. It was noted that there is a widespread push to reduce post-primary school education from thirteen down to twelve years. Experiments in this vein, such as those conducted at the Collegio San Carlo in Milan, have focused not only on duration but also on improved education standards, the introduction of English language teaching, and the use of an effective tutoring system.
Another ongoing problem area of the Italian system highlighted by the participants was that of vocational schools, which – while very efficient and well-functioning in some regions, but less so in others – continue to be considered niche. It was remarked that vocational schools in Italy still suffer from ingrained prejudice as they are perceived as a fallback and usually a refuge for weaker students. In diametric opposition to the German system, Italian vocational training institutes also demonstrate problems of coordination and vision.
Yet a further critical issue singled out for attention related to the lack of regulation in Italy on educational content standards. Indeed, it was observed that the many platforms in existence are no guarantee at all of certified content. In this regard, the participants cited the Treccani Scuola initiative, which – through new investment and resources – provides a cutting-edge and very effective service. One aspect of the current education system urged as needing to be addressed is the increasing obsolescence of knowledge and the now archaic Fordist and Napoleonic approaches to the organization of education. This was seen as necessitating the introduction of a coding system, akin to those in the US and Finland, as well as a procedure for setting standard costs for public education. This in turn led into an extensive discussion on state education spending. Some argued that the university system in Italy suffers from a paucity of funding, coming in at below the OECD average, that is, 1% of GDP compared to an average of 2%. Others, on the other hand, pointed to the spending review report, which characterizes Italian expenditure as in line with that of other European countries.
Another area cited as evidencing difficulties, albeit with some laudable exceptions, was that of study/work rotation programs. While these were hailed as representing a significant – and not just structural – change in approach and content, they were nevertheless viewed as requiring further improvement. Workplace-university relations were however acknowledged as functioning better, as witnessed by the various agreements reached between large firms and banking institutions on the one hand and the country’s major universities on the other.
There was a perceived need, however, to direct efforts first and foremost at preserving the country’s university degree culture, which currently does not enjoy a great reputation, in part because graduate figures are not outstanding: 25% compared to an OECD average of 45%. Statistics were cited which confirm that university graduates still have a greater chance (42%) of finding a job and with better pay than senior high school graduates. Although it was conceded that high youth unemployment remains a serious problem in Italy, according to many in attendance this is not primarily attributable to the education system, but a failure to steer people towards suitable educational choices. There were those who proposed reforming the system by introducing entry and exit exams, to determine from the outset whether a student actually has an aptitude for given subjects.
The participants were at pains to stress that, over the years, the three-year bachelor degree system has proven ineffective and the entire so-called “three + two” reform has not yielded the desired results. It was suggested that although industry pushed hard for this reform, the way it was conceived by the university system was flawed. The link with internships was not properly or systematically fleshed out, with the result that it was perceived as tantamount to a lesser form of degree. Its failure was thus undoubtedly attributable to a problem of communication, though not solely. Overall, the consensus was that the education system works well for top achievers and in providing assistance for students with even major difficulties, but there is a lack of attention paid to those falling somewhere in the middle.
In conclusion, it was submitted that, in this digital age, the possibility for students to combine the high level of specialization demanded by new technologies with the pivotal humanistic and erudite grounding that comes from an age-old historico-cultural legacy remains strategic from an educational standpoint. It was felt that the necessary groundwork for ensuring this has already been laid: it is necessary to combine ars interrogandi with ars respondendi and essentially return to the Renaissance, back to the figure of the Renaissance engineer. Leonardo da Vinci and Steve Jobs, as well as Machiavelli and the artificial intelligence of the IBM Watson machine can all contribute equally to the cultural education of today’s adolescents, though it would be well to pay heed to Tim Cook’s words of caution: “I’m not worried about artificial intelligence giving computers the ability to think like humans. I’m more concerned about people thinking like computers”.