Teacher leadership is at the centre of numerous researches in European and international contexts (Hunzicker, 2017; Pan et al., 2023), focusing on their pedagogical action in the classroom (Warren, 2021) and their role in the institutional dimension of the school (Frost, 2008; Muijs & Harris, 2003). Indeed, the figure of the teacher as a middle leader is becoming indispensable in increasingly complex school contexts (De Nobile, 2018). A middle leader, who acts as a link between the school leadership and the teaching staff in relation to specific areas, is useful to improve the functioning of educational institutions in terms of student experience, professional development of all teachers and the administrative area (Lipscombe et al., 2023).

The middle leader is a teacher who holds a middle leadership role within a school (Harris et al., 2019). This figure plays an important coordination and management role, coordinating the relationships between the different components of the school community from a horizontal perspective (Willis et al., 2019). This figure plays a crucial role in improving the quality of education and creating a positive school climate.

This idea of the teacher as a middle leader is central in decentralised school systems characterised by school autonomy, such as the Estonian, Finnish, English, Italian, Latvian, Lithuanian, Dutch, Polish, Scottish and Swedish school systems (Eurydice, 2019). A decentralised school system with school autonomy gives individual schools considerable freedom to make decisions (Gamage & Zajda, 2005; Keddie, 2015). These institutions autonomously manage resources, educational programmes and pedagogical strategies to promote local adaptability, stimulate innovation and strengthen schools. This model aims to create dynamic learning centres and promote tailored approaches to improve the quality of education. Of course, the degree of autonomy is not the same in all school systems. In any case, in these contexts, the presence of middle leaders is crucial for the development of educational policies that are consistent with a clearly defined school vision: These teachers address specific areas of planning in collaboration with teachers and leaders, and management in collaboration with administrative staff (Hashim et al., 2023).

This theoretical-conceptual contribution focuses on the teacher as a middle leader in Italian schools; our discourse may prove useful for those school systems that have similar characteristics and problems to the Italian system. Here, since the year 2000, school autonomy has allowed schools to make organisational, administrative, financial and pedagogical decisions in order to achieve the general objectives of the educational system set by the central administration. Thus, teachers play a key role not only in pedagogical action in the classroom, but also at the management level (Agasisti et al., 2013).

In particular, we would like to answer the following questions:

• What is the nature of teachers' engagement as middle leaders in the Italian context?
• Why and how does their engagement in the processes of school autonomy work or not?
• What strategies can be implemented to strengthen teachers' engagement as middle leaders and improve the use of school autonomy by individual schools?

This theoretical-conceptual paper examines the role of middle leadership in the Italian school system based on a traditional literature review (Rozas & Klein, 2010). The aim is to understand how crucial their action is in a context characterised by school autonomy and whether or not their involvement is useful for improving the quality of schools; we also aim to identify which elements could better support the action of middle leaders in schools and thus improve the use of school autonomy. The traditional literature review was conducted by searching scientific databases (ERIC, Scopus, Web of Science and Google Scholar). The search terms were as follows: "school" OR "school system" AND "school autonomy" AND "school leadership" AND "teachers" AND "middle leaders" AND "teacher leadership" AND "Italy" OR "Italian school" OR "Italian school system". The results of the literature search were first skimmed by reading the title and abstract; the remaining studies were then analysed in more detail by reading the entire text. The data collected were subjected to a thematic analysis (Braun & Clarke, 2006), which led to the identification of three thematic strands: (1) the profile of the middle leader teacher; (2) school autonomy as a resource or constraint; (3) perspectives for the enhancement of the middle leader teacher. The data is read critically using the theoretical frame of reference in order to understand the particularities of the Italian situation and the correspondence with what is happening at European and international level.

The traditional literature review highlights the resources and constraints related to middle leaders in the Italian context. In general, the Italian system is characterised by the so-called Southern European governance (Ferrera, 1996; Landri, 2021): a strong autonomy of teachers in terms of pedagogical action in the classroom corresponds to a weak autonomy at school level. This structure is an obstacle to the action of middle management: they are usually involved in bureaucratic activities to support the principal and administrative staff without having any significant influence on educational policy. Only a few schools have developed a "culture of autonomy" in which the principal applies a distributed leadership model with strategic use of middle management: In this case, middle leaders are responsible for developing specific areas of intervention and monitor the extent to which the educational policies implemented achieve the results identified in the planning phase to continuously improve the school. The commitment of middle leaders is effective in the context of school autonomy when they are involved in the processes of strategic decision-making and in initiatives that respond to the specific needs of the school, also in relation to the territory. Their role is fundamental when it comes to ensuring the participatory nature of the school policy. Strengthening the commitment of teachers as middle leaders is crucial for improving the quality of schools: first, it is desirable to include this aspect in the initial training of teachers in order to place an emphasis on the institutional dimension of schools from the outset. At the contractual level, it would be necessary to provide for professional development in terms of career development for those teachers who are committed beyond the pedagogical activity in the classroom. Furthermore, involving middle management in meaningful decision-making processes can give them a sense of belonging and responsibility.

Agasisti, T., Catalano, G., & Sibiano, P. (2013). Can schools be autonomous in a centralised educational system? On formal and actual school autonomy in the Italian context. International Journal of Educational Management, 27(3), 292-310. Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative research in psychology, 3(2), 77-101. De Nobile, J. (2018). Towards a theoretical model of middle leadership in schools. School Leadership & Management, 38(4), 395-416. Eurydice (2019). European education systems at the 2020 milestone. Florence: Eurydice. Ferrera, M. (1996). The “Southern model” of welfare in social Europe. Journal of European social policy, 6(1), 17-37. Frost, D. (2008). ‘Teacher leadership’: Values and voice. School Leadership and Management, 28(4), 337-352. Gamage, D., & Zajda, J. (2005). Decentralisation and school-based management: A comparative study of self-governing schools models. Educational Practice and Theory, 27(2), 35-58. Hunzicker, J. (2017). From teacher to teacher leader: A conceptual model. International journal of teacher leadership, 8(2), 1-27. Harris, A., Jones, M., Ismail, N., & Nguyen, D. (2019). Middle leaders and middle leadership in schools: Exploring the knowledge base (2003–2017). School Leadership & Management, 39(3-4), 255-277. Hashim, A.K., Torres, C., & Kumar, J.M. (2023). Is more autonomy better? How school actors perceive school autonomy and effectiveness in context. Journal of Educational change, 24(2), 183-212. Keddie, A. (2015). School autonomy, accountability and collaboration: a critical review. Journal of educational administration and history, 47(1), 1-17. Landri, P. (2021). The Permanence of Distinctiveness: Performances and Changing Schooling Governance in the Southern European Welfare States. In Educational Scholarship across the Mediterranean (pp. 68-85). Leida: Brill. Lipscombe, K., Tindall-Ford, S., & Lamanna, J. (2023). School middle leadership: A systematic review. Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 51(2), 270-288. Muijs, D., & Harris, A. (2003). Teacher leadership—Improvement through empowerment? An overview of the literature. Educational management & administration, 31(4), 437-448. Pan, H. L. W., Wiens, P. D., & Moyal, A. (2023). A bibliometric analysis of the teacher leadership scholarship. Teaching and Teacher Education, 121, 103936. Rozas, L. W., & Klein, W. C. (2010). The value and purpose of the traditional qualitative literature review. Journal of evidence-based social work, 7(5), 387-399. Warren, L. L. (2021). The importance of teacher leadership skills in the classroom. Education Journal, 10(1), 8-15. Willis, J., Churchward, P., Beutel, D., Spooner-Lane, R., Crosswell, L., & Curtis, E. (2019). Mentors for beginning teachers as middle leaders: the messy work of recontextualising. School Leadership & Management, 39(3-4), 334-351.