During the last decades, international policy on inclusion has been developing supported by remarkable efforts in transforming education towards a more equal, just and inclusive perspective (Armstrong et al., 2009; UNESCO, 2009; EASDNE, 2009). In this respect, the Italian policy of integrazione scolastica is globally recognised to be a model of inclusivity (Kanter et al. 2014). Since the early seventies, the Italian legislation gradually introduced the integration of students with disabilities in regular classrooms and schools, through some important laws (Law n. 118/71; Law n.517/77; Law n. 104/92) that eventually contributed to establish the policy of the integrazione scolastica. Italy is one of the first countries with the highest percentages of students with disabilities in ‘regular’ schools and classrooms (OECD 2004, Santi, 2014). However, after almost forty years of integrazione scolastica this system appears not so inclusive as it is claimed to be (D’alessio, 2011), perpetuating some forms of intra-exclusion (Camedda, Santi, 2016). Moreover, the terms inclusion and integration are now interchangeably used in school contexts, as well as in policy documents, without a clear distinction between the two, and often reiterating a paradigm that is more related to special education and ability/disability approaches. The transition from integrazione scolastica to inclusion in Italy needs to be meticulously investigated (Canevaro, Malaguti, 2015), especially after the recent school reform called Buona Scuola (Law n. 107/15).

Addressing these issues, this paper will discuss some critical aspects of the Italian policy in determining a perpetuation of intra-exclusion. The argumentation will be supported by research on teachers’ inclusive attitudes and the relationships between values and practice conducted in Italy (Camedda, Santi, 2016). This qualitative study explored teachers’ inclusive attitudes and their understanding of inclusion through the investigation of the relationships between values and practice.The exploratory intention of this study sought to understand if there was a correspondence between teachers’ attitudes and what they experience in their real practice in schools, trying to point out critical factors that substantially facilitate or impede the transferability of inclusive values into practice. The concept of inclusion is thus interpreted as a right-based process in order to guarantee a basic quality lifelong education for all the people, independently from any individual, social or economical disadvantage (i.e. disability, cultural diversity, socio-economic status). Reducing and eliminating barriers to participation is a key principle for an inclusive teaching approach, as well as putting inclusive values into action against every kind of exclusion within the classroom or within the school (Booth and Ainscow, 2011). Underpinning a theoretical framework of inclusive education that concerns every person involved in an educational process and not a matter of some students or teachers (Florian, 2015), the main questions of this research were focused on critical elements involved into the development of inclusive attitudes, exploring the relationship between values, teacher education and practice (Forlin et al., 2011). 

Armstrong, A. C., Armstrong, D., & Spandagou, I. (2009). Inclusive education: International policy & practice. Sage. Booth, T., Ainscow, M. (2000, 2002, 2011) Index for Inclusion, developing learning and participation in school, CSIE, UK. Canevaro, A., & Malaguti, E. (2015). Inclusione ed educazione: sfide contemporanee nel dibattito intorno alla pedagogia speciale. Italian Journal Of Special Education For Inclusion, 2(2), 97-108. Camedda, D., Santi, M. (2016). Essere inseganti di tutti. Atteggiamenti inclusivi e formazione per il sostegno. Integrazione Scolastica e Sociale (15) 2. Erickson. D'Alessio, S. (2011). Inclusive education in Italy a critical analysis of the policy of Integrazione Scolastica (Studies in inclusive education; v.10). Rotterdam: Sense Publishers. European Agency for Development in Special Needs Education, EADSNE (2009). Profile of inclusive teachers. Teacher Education for Inclusion (TE4I). Brussels. Florian, L. (2015). Inclusive pedagogy: A transformative approach to individual differences. Scottish Educational Review, vol 47, no. 1, pp. 5-14. Forlin, C., Earle, C., Loreman, T., Sharma, U. (2011). The Sentiments, Attitudes, and Concerns about Inclusive Education Revised (SACIE-R) Scale for Measuring Pre-Service Teachers' Perceptions about Inclusion. Exceptionality Education International, 21(3), 50-65. Kanter, A., Damiani, M., Ferri, B. (2014). The Right to Inclusive Education Under International Law: Following Italy's Lead. Journal of International Special Needs Education, 17(1), 21-32. OECD/CERI (2004). Equity in Education: students with disabilities, difficulties, disadvantages. Paris: OECD. Oskamp, S., Schultz, P.W. (2005), Attitudes and Opinions, Psychology Press. Santi, M. (2014). Se l’inclusione sfida il sostegno: note a margine di un percorso formativo, Italian Journal Of Special Education For Inclusion, 2(2), 191-210. UNESCO (2003). Overcoming exclusion through inclusive approaches in education: a challenge and a vision. Paris, UNESCO. UNESCO (2009). Policy Guidelines on Inclusion in Education. Paris, UNESCO. Wiggins, G. P., McTighe, J. (2005). Understanding by design. Alexandria: Ascd.