Merit, ideology and the on-going disarticulation of public education in Italy

This article was written in March 2008, before the election of the new Berlusconi government.

Italy is in deep crisis. Whatever its electoral outcome PDL (Berlusconi /Fini / Lega Nord ) or PD (ex DS ex PC ) and allies or a combination of the two, the “decline” of Italy which is both real and ideologically constructed is the context which is serving all political forces in a kind of weak version of Naomi Klein’s shock thesis as the last opportunity for the implementation of “essential” and “necessary “ neo-liberal reforms ..Italian style. Alarming macroscopic economic data, low wages, high unemployment and relentless precarity in the context of increasing popular exasperation and disgust with a remote self referential political caste is thus being transformed by the latter into the “last occasion” to “modernize” the country. “Yes, we can” and “Get up Italy”. are the respective slogans for very similar products. The rhetoric of the Knowledge economy abounds, educational reforms are deemed essential, and in this area, despite electoral marketing differences, there are signs of a “bipartisan approach”. In an election where both sides are presenting themselves as new in desperate and determined efforts to distance themselves from the past , the real novelty lies in this bi-polar / bi-partisan approach whereby it would seem there is common recognition that neither side can implement the neo liberal programme alone. PD is more ideological and PDL more populist and both are aiming at hegemony and direction but not excluding collaboration in the “national interest.

Within this context Merit has taken on the form of a condensed signifier of this bi partisan programme.

Andrea Ranieri , the PD spokesman for sapere named the following areas as the central points of their project

• seriousness and merit
• autonomy
• parity
• training, recruitment , career paths for teachers.

In the same interview he stressed that evaluation was the “essential premise for a serious discussion of the reform and for all the things which have to be done”. The PDL speak of the necessity to return to the Moratti programme .also emphasizing merit, quality and “ a rigorous evaluation of teachers and head teachers”

While these are obviously intimately related aspects of the European programme and cannot be successively implemented separately, here I will focus on merit and evaluation . because of the ideological role they have assumed and also because I think the articulation of these questions is a key to the nature of the whole Italian project , both why it has stalled until now and how it is now being used as a means of overcoming that blocked situation. (In this context we should remember that the highest point of resistance to reform in Italy was in 2000 over the attempted introduction of merit pay. It failed and the scale of the contestation led to the downfall of the education minister and contributed to the fall of the government.) Success on the merit question might well serve as a breakthrough for all the rest. Thus , following the usage in the local debate and electoral propaganda I will use the term conceptually in reference to what is posed as an essential part of a long overdue system change, as a kind of shorthand or condensation for an articulated system of differentiation. Merit also has a moral charge in the current political climate which has led some (not all ) political parties to make the unprecedented “ethical stand” of “clean lists” ,of no longer advancing individuals convicted or under investigation for mafia related offences as candidates.

I think that the application of merit in the Italian context would lead as in other contexts to a greater social polarization and a narrower, impoverished education but also given the absence of a strong regulatory state and an evaluation culture in neo liberal terms, this process is unlikely to reproduce any of the formal legitimacy of the English model or any real consensus. It may be “suffered” but it is unlikely to be embraced .Thus , despite the rhetoric, the present bi partisan operation seems a calculated and cynical mode of completing the decade long disarticulation of the old system and hastening its substitution with a failed, corrupted and strongly differentiated public model alongside a range of more attractive private options for those with the wherewithal, than a credible hypothesis. of reform.

THE REFRAMING OF MERIT

Paradoxically ,the present somewhat degenerated context (the images of Napoli submerged in rubbish due to the profiteering and criminal inertia of an entire political class over a 13 year period are emblematic , bestsellers such as Gomorra and the Caste adding further evidence to this stark picture) provides political parties with an opportunity to reframe merit as being essential to the country getting back on its feet both economically and morally. Opponents of meritocratic reforms are thus constructed as conservative, corporatist and basically a weight on the nation with added urgency., as obstinate and egoistic defenders of personal interests in the face of a national emergency.. In an ideological sleight of hand whereby the role of influential power networks and structural aspects of the economy which are largely responsible for the Italian decline are glossed over , they become the real problem embodying retrogressive uniformity , lack of quality .and the failures of the education system to meet the requirements of a knowledge economy. A legion of texts such as “Neo-liberismo è di sinistra “ (Alesina,Giavazzi, 2007) , daily news and journal articles hammer this point. Consequently within this reversal of responsibility framework Italy’s failures in the global competition stakes and spectacularly low levels of productivity (along with one of the most deregulated labour markets in Europe and high levels of graduate unemployment) are attributed to a lack of quality and differentiation in education rather than to perhaps more pertinent but “untouchable “ factors which would include :the lowest levels of investment in research and innovation in Europe (including close to zero from private sources which largely explains the difference with other countries ) . or to what a recent sociological analysis of Italian elites and their chronic lack of a “sense of responsibility” termed the “individualismo amorale “ of the entrepreneurial class.

“Beyond social , historical and political explanations ... the most useful framework to understand the Italian situation is that of the power network where power is reduced to an elite which is only capable of extending its own interests at the cost of those of the nation “ (Carboni, Carlo, “ Elite e classi dirigenti in Italia” p141)

Thus at a time when public denunciation of the lack of transparency in every aspect of Italian society has become a daily affair, the political expediency of reserving the attention of the meritocratic campaign exclusively to the weaker “lower echelons “ of society and virtually ignoring the power network at the top (which of course includes the real mafias ) appears particularly cynical. and instrumental.

This, then is the climate.

EVALUATION: THE EUROPEAN VIEW

In 2002 the Trelle ( L’Europa valuta la scuola.E L’Italia?. Un sistema nazionale di valutazione per una scuola automa e responsabile) stated “ In Italy , differently from other European countries there is still no efficient evaluation system for the objective assessment of educational results and quality ” The report went on to describe current teaching practice as being too “private and discreet” with teachers nurturing a “pronounced diffidence” towards systems with an explicit recognition of merit and strong leadership roles. It concluded that any attempt to impose a European type valuation system would meet with corporatist resistance and a total lack of the “culture “ of evaluation. The recent Eurydice report (Feb.2008) on autonomy in schools also registers Italy as still being “on the periphery” in terms of evaluation., the only European country with no external system of evaluation.(p.40). However, it seems the new Italian government may still be able to make up for lost time .The report also mentions that there has recently been a new wave of school autonomy reforms because “the first suite of reforms had failed because of resistance on the ground”(p.10) It also notes the various phases of school autonomy reform :as, firstly democratic participation, then more efficient NPM and finally the present phase of quality. Not having excelled in the first two , the aspiring Italian governors are now focusing their attentions on the last.

CULTURAL ASPECTS OF EVALUATION

Italy is generally characterized by the co-existence of formal progressive/democratic /enlightened legislation on one hand and regressive/oligarchic/ clientilist practices on the other., “a land of medieval corporations, static and immobile where Bersani’s timid attempts at liberalization caused a minor revolt ”( Ferrarotti, il Messaggero , 2/03/08) Selection in education has been a part of this model. Formally open and democratic, humanist and disciplinary, mass in access but not quite so in substance, it was/is also impotent against, if not necessarily complicit with, the strong social forces which have led to low social mobility and a striking correlation between parental educational levels /class background and that of their children. (Checchi, alma laurea).

In this landscape, European systems of evaluation such as the English Ofsted, centralized, standardized, national, independent have no history or cultural affinity .They are regarded with suspicion for reasons which are complex and need to be unpacked if we are to appreciate them fully and not fall prey to the easy manipulation of only one aspect. of the widespread .resistance .to them. On one hand there is a deep concern, distrust and disdain for the type of testing that these forms of evaluation usually involve , the washback effect they have on the transformation of disciplinary knowledge into competences and skills and for their limited pedagogical perspective. On the other there is a refusal of the systemic ramifications of this type of evaluation in their implications for consequent differentiation in all sectors, selective funding, promotion. etc. It is seen as the thin end of the wedge in the introduction of a framework in which basic guarantees regarding essential principles of universal public education would be abolished. Moreover, in an Italian context the credibility factor regarding merit in such instances is close to zero. Frequent cases of tampering with marks or dumbing down courses to obtain determinate results in countries of more historically transparent practices also indicate that this is not only an Italian problem but perhaps inherent in the system.. Furthermore discussions with Italian teachers regarding the as yet limited forms of merit based differentiation within the profession indicate that merit is rarely perceived as being the real criteria of selection. Rather , as has often been the experience of other countries it is usually seen as based on adhesion to a particular “mission” or clan , or more prosaically , the furthering of private interests and clientilist networks.

EVALUATION PROPOSALS AND PROSPECTIVES

Whilst in essential continuity with the Moratti ministry, the Prodi government has made some changes in the final state examination with the political intent of offering an image of a return to seriousness. (after as we outlined in the book the exam had become a mere formality ) Not only has there been a return to a quota of external examiners (abolished by Moratti) but students are no longer permitted to carry their deficits from one year to the next as in the past. Education minister Fioroni has also proposed changing entry requirements to university to include the final exam result ( hitherto excluded from consideration) plus an average of the results of the last three years of high school.

Difficulties with this formula emerge if we examine the proposal from the point of view of its concrete application in the existing school structure. At the moment PISA tests are the only independent external form of testing in Italian schools Recent research ( Modica et al , 2007) indicates that state examinations and marks obtained in very different types of schools do not provide objective assessment. It . shows that while the PISA tests reveal significant regional ,gender and school type differences in achievement , student performance based on teacher grading and state examination results provide a much more homogenous picture (thus obscuring what in fact, everybody knows from personal experience to be true) The authors of the research attribute this false uniformity to a tendency to “compensate “ for weakness and “flatten “ excellence and thus level out results.. The five country study found this particularly pronounced in Italy, and totally absent in Australia and the US where independent testing and national standards have a long history . In Germany and Holland results were uniformly “levitated” higher than those of PISA but to a lesser degree than the Italian case.

The authors of the research conclude that there is a need for national objective forms of evaluation as a necessary first step in the implementation of a stratified system of quality. Whilst this argument assumes the framework of its conclusion in its premise , the alternative of reconciling the existing system of grading with university entrance presents problems which would have a devastating effect on student-teacher-family relationships and the school environment generally. If these results are “false” when they are not required for university entrance then they are much more likely to be even more “subjective” if this is required.

THE MISSING SCHOOL–UNIVERSITY CONNECTION

At this point it is necessary to study more closely the relationship between the school system and that of the university. There has been an apparently surprising lack of dialogue between the two parallel processes of university and school reform in the last decade and even the opposition to these reforms has rarely gone beyond the level of slogans in linking the two processes. That the PD spokesman for education is called the spokesman for “sapere” is an indication that this party will have a more organic approach to the two areas and perhaps attempt to streamline reforms in a way that was previously impossible due to the political weight of the powerful baronial lobby.

It is instructive to look more closely at the implications of Fioroni’s proposal as this first real attempt to link secondary and tertiary education In doing so clear reasons will emerge for the hitherto separate nature of these reforms.

Until now, in theory, all students with a school diploma could enrol in almost any faculty. Individual diploma scores or school types were not taken into consideration. In theory , following European guidelines only a very limited number of faculties ( medicine, architecture, dentistry ) are allowed to use entry tests , in actual fact over a third now do so in a completely unregulated way .. Last year the traditional scandals over the tests for entry to the medical faculties went beyond tolerable limits and solicited student and public outrage. Despite the formation of a special police squad for the prevention and monitoring of the worst offences and the presence on the ground of plains clothes Carabiniere posing as students in the exam rooms the results in many centres were totally unacceptable. The farse of these rituals where many brilliant students have their hopes of studying medicine dashed because of the illicit activities of other students and their families has reached a point of no return. Moreover in the face of increasing calls for their abolition the feeble protests and hesitant actions of the minister for the university were obviously inadequate.. The compromise reached in the Fioroni proposal is similarly fragile and probably transitory.: the retention of the tests as the principal component (and thus university control) with the addition of the other two factors .To my mind it is a weak attempt to necessarily link but also maintain the essential separation of these two diverse realities. whose projects of differentiation and selection converge in spirit and rhetoric but differ quite radically in substance.. Following our model above, school staff are part of the sector. necessitating meritocratic change , whereas university reform is necessarily predicated on the basis of an untouchable medieval power network which effectively precludes merit a priori as a determining criteria of permanent staff recruitment and thus caution is required .

It is interesting to note that a Cgil document (La questione dell’accesso all’università.L’università tra diritto universale all’istruzione ed esclusione “Jan. 2008) immediately expressed perplexity about some of the obvious dangers in the Fioroni proposal. to link school results to university entrance.. However while the Cgil were rightly concerned about probable corruption arising from the private “examifici”, and prescribed vigilance and their usual formula of “ resorting to the magistratura to eliminate the bad apples and thus automatically precluding systemic fault lines , I think that the scheme lends itself to far more wide reaching and destructive forms of malpractice which would radically alter student teacher relationships. and further disarticulate the existing structure.

It seems then that there are two options.1) a compromise with present evaluation methods and the consequences of probable discontent and degeneration in the public school environment. 2) application of a national system which would be extremely important in clearing the way for the rest of the reforms.

UNIVERSITY REFORM 3+2=0 ?

The 3+2 reform , following the Anglo Saxon model adopted by Europe was implemented at zero cost and with no substantial changes in teaching methodology with the initial aims of increasing graduate numbers and decreasing the time required to achieve the primary degree as well as being a first step in a process of differentiation and selection. While the first aim has been largely achieved at a huge cost in quality ( dumbing down, proliferation of absurd courses etc mirroring rather cynically the experience of other countries where results and numbers determine funding)., the second has been a downright failure. In the (model) Uk 80% of students leave after the primary degree and 20% remain to undergo post graduate study .In Italy the situation is almost reversed .with 30% leaving after the first degree and 70% electing to continue. The differences in the Uk and Italian employment opportunities and sharp differences in the costs of postgraduate study obviously are important factors in this situation. but there is also a strong “culture del titolo” whereby many Italians are reluctant to accept what is regarded socially and also by many employers as a second rate degree.., Adriano de Maio, (ex rettore of one of Italy’s most prestigious universities and the author of a coherent neo liberal reform of the university for the Moratti ministry which was completely emptied of any real content in its final version following the intervention of the baronial lobby ) uses this term in analysing the reasons for the failure of previous attempts at stratifying university education. There is a deep cultural incompatibility with overt forms of selection which must be taken into consideration by proponents of the merit agenda but also must be freed of corporatist ambiguity and valorised in the campaigns of its opponents.

SOME TENTATIVE CONCLUSIONS

There is a lot of risk and a lot at stake on both sides in this proposal to subject determinate sectors of Italian society to the disciplining practices of MERIT. The necessary selectivity of this process and the compromises with powerful elements of the power network involve a high risk of the whole operation appearing as simply the restoration and remaking of class differentials in educational opportunity . A mere re-working of the old adage “all equal but some more equal than others”. While equality has long been dèmode in neo liberal circles where it has been replaced by quality, choice and excellence this is not the case in the wider culture. Moreover in the present climate the political classes have even less credibility than usual Failure at an ideological level however, may well be countered by more cynical offers to groups within the category who would gain in the stratification agenda. An elaboration of the forces on the ground in this context is essential in informing political campaigns against it.