Technical school reform starts but too cautiously

For the year 2026-27, 10,500 students will enrol for the first time in the technical and professional institutes that have joined the 4+2 reform, Minister Valditara's 'flagship' measure: this is a new six-year course, with four (instead of five) years of secondary education, followed by two in the Its Academy. Compared to the previous year, the increase was 5,000. This is a positive result, but still unsatisfactory, since it represents no more than 4% of the newly enrolled students in all technical and vocational courses.

On paper the reform (i) strengthens the link between schools and the production system in the various territories and sectors, (ii) enhances the value of technical and vocational secondary school courses, which the public currently perceives as second-class, and (iii) gives the Its a critical mass comparable, in terms of numbers, to that of similar non-academic tertiary education institutions in the rest of Europe (Germany, but also France and Spain). This would bring Italia closer to the EU target of at least 45% of 25-34 year olds with a tertiary degree by 2030. It also contains other shareable aspects, although often ignored or misrepresented by its many critics. For example, it is not a compulsory pathway. The transition from a technical or professional pathway in four years to an ITS Academy seems the most 'natural' in terms of the consistency of knowledge and skills to be acquired, reinforced and specialised. But there is nothing to prevent the four-year graduate from enrolling in a university, especially those offering vocational courses

Of course, there is no shortage of critical points. The main one is that, without a radical rethinking of teaching, to which no attention has been paid so far, there is a risk of making the four-year course a sort of Bignami that would compress the contents of the traditional five-year course to the bone, weakening the quality of learning. This is not an abstract risk: for example, a focus by the Agnelli Foundation on the first four-year graduates of a previous experimentation, starting from the data of the last Eduscopio, shows that their university outcomes were lower than those of the five-year graduates. A probable indication of a less solid preparation. In any case, the pros of 4+2 seem to outweigh the cons.

So how do we explain the reform's modest appeal? A rejection by families and students? We do not think so. If anything, families and students have not had enough time so far to get to know and appreciate the new proposal. Is it the fault of the schools, the school managers, the teachers, the unions who do not share it or who oppose the minister for political reasons? Perhaps, in some cases. The real reason, however, seems to lie in the Ministry's own incomprehensible delays in giving the institutes time to apply to start the four-year courses, to organise them, and above all to communicate them to students and families at the time when the choice of high school is made. Instead, in the first three years, the Ministry issued directives regulating the institutes' candidatures in late November or December, too close to the enrolment period in January. Applications that then have to be screened and approved by the centre. Only then, when, moreover, the open days have ended, can schools flesh out their 4+2 education offer and communicate it to potential applicants. The experience of the past three years tells us that it is too late: the educational offer of an institute must be fully defined well in advance of the families' choices, which are typically formed before Christmas, if not before. If the 4+2 reform is to take off, the ministerial timetable must be made quicker and more compatible with family decisions.

Director Agnelli Foundation