The 4+2 pathway and the future of hospitality schools

The debate on the new technology-vocational pathway, the so-called 4+2 model, cannot be reduced to a mere exercise in timetable engineering or a scramble for funding from the NRRP. On the contrary, it requires a profound reflection on the very nature of public education in our country. It is necessary to clearly explain the reasons why RE.NA.I.A. (National Network of Hotel Management Schools) has serious reservations and does not support the current ministerial proposal.

Ours is not a preconceived resistance to innovation or to greater collaboration with ITS Academies and the business world – areas in which our institutions have been operating successfully for decades. Rather, it is a staunch defence of an educational model that has proven its extraordinary effectiveness in practice. Italia’s state-run hospitality schools are not mere ‘training factories’ aimed solely at addressing short-term labour market mismatches; they are schools of the Republic that award a five-year State Diploma, capable of combining a solid and essential general education with the highest levels of technical and professional skills in their respective fields.

Shortening the school curriculum to four years, as set out in the ministerial proposal, carries with it an unacceptable systemic risk: the undermining of students’ cultural education and critical thinking skills. Compressing the curriculum by sacrificing general education to make way for early vocational training does not mean modernising the school system, but penalising the most vulnerable groups.

The flexibility and adaptability demanded by today’s labour market are not achieved by bringing forward the start of employment, but by equipping young people with structured critical thinking – the only real antidote to the obsolescence of technical skills. Furthermore, the 4+2 structure, as it is currently conceived, risks exacerbating a fundamental systemic misunderstanding, reducing State Vocational Education to the parameters of Regional Vocational Training (IeFP).

As RE.NA.I.A., we reiterate that these are two distinct pathways, each with its own legitimacy, regulatory framework and mission. Any attempt to surreptitiously merge them into a single, shortened pathway ultimately undermines the State’s pivotal role in technical and vocational education. If families are increasingly choosing not to follow these pathways, the answer cannot be to reduce school hours or promise a shortcut to employment. Disaffection must be tackled by restoring social dignity, resources and centrality to vocational colleges, not by diluting their educational provision.