This conceptual contribution focuses on the Italian school system, delving into the role of school autonomy in counteracting non-traditional factors of inequality and acting in the name of equity: therefore, our aim is to map these dynamics and then focus on school autonomy policy as protective tool. The theoretical framework examines the equity construct, defines what is meant by non-traditional factors of inequality and delves into school autonomy policy in the Italian context, grasping its link with equity, to provide the key to understanding the findings of a traditional literature review

Equity in education is an internationally supported urgency, concerning educational practices and models of leadership and governance (Lash & Sanchez, 2022; Withaker, 2022). Only an equity-based education can make it possible to achieve an ever-higher degree of social justice (Bhatti et al., 2007; Bell, 2007; Hackman, 2005): it is a never fully realized ideal which requires a constant effort to include every person in democratic participatory processes and to exercise self-determination despite the interdependence that binds human beings; access to knowledge and acquisition of capabilities to critically analyze what is happening are essential elements for being actors in history, identifying and opposing forms of injustice and oppression.

By positioning ourselves among those strands of equity that value equality of opportunity (Rawls, 1971; Roemer, 2000), capabilities (Nussbaum, 2013; Sen, 2009) and social inclusion (Kanor, 2021; Taket et al, 2013), the risk of a compensatory pedagogy is averted by affirming the need to ensure excellence in education for all in terms of efficiency and effectiveness and the acquisition of the capabilities to exercise citizenship as active participation in political, cultural, social, economic life on the local and global levels. It is a way of institutionalizing pluralism as a daily experience, not reading diversity as a factor of disadvantage and not setting standards and norms to which to adhere.

However, equity is threatened by dynamics that create inequalities between students. To the classical causes (socio-economic and socio-cultural status of families) that generate social reproduction, non-traditional factors of inequality are now added (Ferrer-Esteban, 2011; Granata & Ferrero, 2022). They are caused by the school itself due to its organizational choices and functioning: everyday educational practice, organization of individual institutions and national education policies generate dynamics of inequality.

In the Italian context, despite a legislative framework consistent with the principles outlined above, school equity remains a chimera (OECD, 2022; INVALSI, 2022) due to multiple dynamics that differ from one school to another and for which specific lenses of investigation and actions are needed (Crescenza & Riva, 2021; Gavosto, 2022).

Given the heterogeneity of the forms of inequality (Benadusi & Giancola, 2020; Gentili & Pignataro, 2020) and the need to find specific solutions, in 2000 the organizational framework of the Italian school system was reformed according to the principle of school autonomy: schools make autonomous choices in the organizational, managerial, financial and didactic spheres in coherence with the general aims of the education system to respond specifically to the educational needs of their students (Bianchi, 2020; Morzenti Pellegrini, 2011). The idea is to improve the national education system's equity degree by acting at the local level to counteract individual contexts' inequality dynamics and to make school organization non-generative of inequity, synergistically with the territory (Benadusi et al., 2020; Mulè et al., 2019), with a key role played by school leaders (Gümüs & Beycioglu, 2020; Mincu, 2022).

This conceptual contribution investigates (1) what non-traditional factors of inequality weigh on the Italian school system and what they depend on and (2) whether and how school autonomy can be configured as a protective tool for these dynamics.

The conceptual analysis consists of two parts: the first is dedicated to understanding the non-traditional factors of inequality present in the Italian context, the second focuses on the use of school autonomy and its effects in terms of equity to counter non-traditional dynamics of inequality. To map the non-traditional factors of inequality acting in the Italian context, an analysis tool based on the ecological model of Brofenbrenner (2009) will be proposed. These dynamics of inequality take place at different levels but still have effects on the students’ school experience: at a micro-level we have almost unconscious actions that take shape in classroom life creating inequality; at a meso-level there are institute policies and organisational praxises that, although not in contradiction with the regulations, create inequality and should be reformulated; at a macro-level we see national education policies thatproduce distorting effects in terms of equity. The proposed tool (pyramid of inequity) will be useful to order the outcomes of a traditional literature review (Jesson et al., 2011; Rozas & Klein, 2010) whose focus is the dynamics of inequality created by the school itself. The second part of the study will consist of a traditional literature review of the uses of school autonomy to counteract the non-traditional factors of inequality highlighted in the first part of the analysis. In both cases, the literature review was conducted through a search of scientific databases (ERIC, Scopus, Web of Science and Google Scholar). The literature review concerning the non-traditional factors of inequality was carried out through the following search query: “school” OR “education” OR “school system” AND “Italy” AND “equity” OR “social justice” AND “inequalities” OR “inequity” AND “educational policies” OR “education policy”. As far as school autonomy is concerned, the search query was as follows: “school” OR “education” OR “school system” AND “Italy” AND “school autonomy” OR “autonomous school” AND “school governance” OR “school leadership” AND “equity” OR “social justice” AND “inequalities” OR “inequity”. The results of literature search were initially skimmed through a reading of the title and abstract; the remaining studies were then subjected to a more in-depth analysis through a reading of the entire text.

This contribution allows us to understand (1) which non-traditional factors of inequality characterize the Italian school system, whether their origin depends on classroom life, on the individual institutions’ organization or on national education policies and (2) if and how school autonomy is a useful policy to counteract them and act towards equity (Ferrero, forthcoming). In the first case, thanks to the tool based on Brofenbrenner’s (2009) ecological model we can sort the traditional literature review findings according to the origin of non-traditional factors of inequality. At the micro-level we find teachers’ unconscious practices that hide stereotypes and prejudices (assessment practices, choices regarding inclusion, homework). At the meso-level we have dynamics attributable to the organization of individual institutions and governance choices that have direct effects on the school experience of students in terms of quality (demand for financial contribution, internal school segregation, use of professional resources). At the macro-level, we have national education policies that impact on the organization of institutions and everyday school life (teacher education, recruitment), being responsible for micro and meso dynamics. As far as school autonomy is concerned, although Italian schools continue to have a rather centralized set-up because of its cautious and prudential use, it can be a protective tool in coping with these non-traditional dynamics and acting for equity, as long as it is used creatively according to contextual requirements: good practices concern various aspects, such as strategies to make the implicit curriculum explicit, self-evaluation for improvement, reasoned use of extra staff to strengthen school organization, participation in calls for tenders to obtain funds to expand the educational offer without resorting to parents’ wallets, design of teacher education initiatives. School leaders play a key role in making the school a community that identifies with precise educational ideals through distributed leadership with transformative effects for equity.

Bell, L.A. (2007). Theoretical foundations for social justice education. In M. Adams, L.A. Bell & P. Griffin (eds.), Teaching for diversity and social justice (pp. 1-14). New York: Routledge. Benadusi, L., & Giancola, O. (2020). Equità e merito nella scuola. Teoria, indagini empiriche, politiche. Milano: FrancoAngeli. Bhatti, G., Gaine, C., Gobbo, F., & Leeman, Y. (2007). Social Justice and Intercultural Education. Sterling: Trentham Books. Brofenbrenner U. (2009). The Ecology of Human Development. Experiments by Nature and Design. Harvard: Harvard University Press. Crescenza, G., & Riva, M.G. (2021). Riflessioni pedagogiche di una scuola al bivio. Pedagogia più Didattica, 7(2), 32-45. Ferrer-Esteban, G. (2011). Beyond the Traditional Territorial Divide in the Italian Education System. Aspects of System Management Factors on Performance in Lower Secondary Education. FGA Working Paper, 42(12). Ferrero, V. (forthcoming). La scuola è aperta a tutti? Una riflessione pedagogica su equità in educazione, disuguaglianze e autonomia scolastica. Civitas Educationis. Gentili, A., & Pignataro, G. (eds.) (2020), Disuguaglianze e istruzione in Italia. Dalla scuola primaria all’università. Roma: Carocci. Granata, A., & Ferrero, V. (2022). Nelle tasche della scuola. Coinvolgimento finanziario-organizzativo delle famiglie come fattore non tradizionale di disuguaglianza scolastica. Scuola Democratica, 10(2), 363-384. Hackman, H.W. (2005). Five Essential Components for Social Justice Education. EEE, 38(2), 103-109. INVALSI (2022). Rapporto INVALSI 2022. Roma: INVALSI. Jesson, J., Matheson, L., & Lacey, F.M. (2011). Doing your literature review: Traditional and systematic techniques. London: Sage. Kanor, K. (2021). L’inclusion sociale. Une utopie réalisable. Paris: L’Harmanattan. Lash, C.L., & Sanchez, J.E. (2022). Leading for Equity with Critical Consciousness: How School Leaders Can Cultivate Awareness, Efficacy, and Critical Action. The Clearing House: A Journal of Educational Strategies, Issues and Ideas, 95(1), 1-6. Nussbaum, M. (2013). Creating Capabilities: The Human Development Approach. Harvard: Harvard University Press. OECD (2022). Education at a Glance 2022: OECD Indicators. Parigi: OECD. Rawls, J. (1971). Una teoria della giustizia. Milano: Feltrinelli. Roemer, J.K. (2000). Equality of Opportunity. In K. Arrow, S. Bowles & S.N. Durlauf (eds.), Meritocracy and Economic Inequality (pp. 17-32). Princeton: Princeton University Press. Sen, A. (2009). The idea of Justice. London: Penguin Books. Taket, A., Crisp, B.R., Graham, M., Hanna, L., Goldingay, S., & Wilson, L. (2013). Practising Social Inclusion. New York: Routledge. Werkmeister Rozas, L., & Klein W.C. (2010). The Value and Purpose of the Traditional Qualitative Literature Review. Journal of Evidence-Based Social Work, 7(5), 387-399. Withaker, M.C. (2022). Public School Equity: Educational Leadership for Justice. New York: Norton.