Conference Program

In contemporary educational debates, inclusive policies are increasingly framed as a potential threat to meritocratic ideals such as competition, performance, and individual achievement. This tension can be understood within the broader framework of ableism, defined as a system of beliefs and practices that constructs able-bodiedness and able-mindedness as the normative standard of what is considered “normal,” competent, and fully human (Campbell, 2009; Goodley, 2014; Wolbring, 2014). Within educational systems, these norms are often embedded in meritocratic discourses that frame achievement as the outcome of individual effort and ability, while obscuring the structural conditions that shape students’ opportunities to succeed. As a result, accommodations and support measures intended to promote equity may be perceived as unfair advantages that undermine the principle of merit (Littler, 2017; Mitchell & Snyder, 2015; Bellacicco et al., 2022). Such perceptions reflect what scholars describe as the normalization of ableist expectations within schooling, where curricula, assessment practices, and institutional routines implicitly privilege certain forms of cognitive, behavioral, and bodily performance (Broderick & Lalvani, 2017; Bolt, 2017; Parekh, 2023). Importantly, ableism does not operate only through overt hostility or explicit discrimination. It also takes more subtle and socially normalized forms, such as paternalism, pity, or overprotective attitudes, which may contribute to the marginalization of students perceived as less able to meet normative expectations of performance (Nario-Redmond, 2020). As Parekh (2023) argues, educational systems often reproduce ableism through apparently neutral mechanisms such as evaluation practices, curricular pacing, and resource allocation, which can systematically position some students as less capable or less deserving of full participation. In this sense, meritocratic logics may function as a powerful cultural framework that legitimizes exclusion while maintaining the appearance of fairness.The study relies on a factorial survey experiment administered to a representative sample of approximately 2,000 individuals in Italy. Two vignette experiments examine how respondents evaluate educational decisions involving students in difficulty. The first vignette (3×2 design) assesses whether interrupting the regular curriculum to support students with different types of difficulties is considered appropriate. The experiment varies the school track (lower secondary school, vocational hospitality institute, scientific high school) and the reason for interruption (COVID-19 learning loss vs. special educational needs). Results show that respondents are more likely to consider pandemic-related disruptions legitimate, while special educational needs are perceived as a weaker justification for modifying the curriculum. The second vignette (3×3 design) explores teachers’ decisions to reassign a role in a school play from a student with different types of difficulties to another. The student’s condition (anxiety, disability, or no specific reason) and the decision-making context (demanding parents, precarious employment contract, or neutral context) are experimentally manipulated. Risk-laden contexts significantly increase the likelihood of marginalizing the struggling student. Overall, the findings highlight how meritocratic beliefs and institutional pressures may legitimize subtle forms of ableism, revealing the tensions between inclusion and meritocracy within contemporary schooling. These results contribute to ongoing debates on the contradictions of merit-based educational systems and the challenges of building genuinely inclusive schools.