Conference Program

International and national educational policies recognize teacher education as a strategic lever for promoting inclusive schooling. Nevertheless, a substantial body of research highlights a persistent gap between the normative discourse on inclusion and everyday educational practices. This gap can be attributed, at least in part, to the endurance of social representations of disability grounded in deficit-oriented and ableist paradigms, which continue to implicitly shape teachers’ attitudes, educational expectations, and instructional choices. This contribution offers a theoretical and methodological reflection on teacher education as a privileged space for the deconstruction of perceptions and attitudes toward disability, positioning professional reflexivity as a central formative device. Drawing on the theoretical framework of social representations and the concept of professional habitus, the paper examines how tacit cognitive schemes, doxic beliefs, and embodied dispositions orient educational action – often below the threshold of conscious awareness – thereby reproducing practices that contradict the principles of inclusive education. From this perspective, teacher education cannot be reduced to the transmission of technical or methodological competencies, but must be understood as a transformative process aimed at critically interrogating the dominant educational imaginary surrounding disability. Particular attention is devoted to reflexivity as a practice capable of making visible the cultural assumptions underpinning teaching practices and of activating processes of critical reworking of professional experience. The contribution discusses a range of reflective training devices – including the narration of practices, professional and autobiographical writing, the analysis of instructional planning, professional journaling, and dialogic peer exchange – conceived as tools for bringing to the surface stereotypes, automatisms, and implicit attitudes toward disability. These devices enable teachers to critically examine the distance between inclusive discourses and enacted practices, fostering a transformation of professional habitus toward greater awareness, critical engagement, and inclusivity. The aim of the paper is to offer theoretical and methodological insights for rethinking teacher education as an ethical and political practice, capable of supporting the development of a reflective teaching professionalism oriented toward educational justice and the construction of genuinely inclusive educational practices.

This contribution presents and discusses a Philosophy for Children (P4C) project implemented in a primary school within a comprehensive institute in Rome. The project is designed as an innovative and inclusive pedagogical practice aimed at fostering democratic schooling through dialogical inquiry, critical thinking, and participatory learning processes. In a contemporary educational context increasingly shaped by standardization and homogenizing curricular models, the teaching of philosophy is conceived as a form of pedagogical resistance, capable of preserving plurality, subjectivity, and critical reflection within schooling.

Grounded in the theoretical framework of Philosophy for Children, as developed by Matthew Lipman and later expanded by international scholarship, the project is carried out over one academic year with students aged 8–10. Philosophical inquiry sessions are integrated into the regular curriculum and structured around the Community of Inquiry model. Through shared reading of philosophical stimuli, collective question generation, and dialogical discussion, pupils are encouraged to express their viewpoints, listen to others, justify their reasoning, and collaboratively construct meaning. This process supports inclusive participation by valuing diverse cognitive styles, linguistic repertoires, and lived experiences, thus challenging normative and deficit-based conceptions of learning.

The project explicitly addresses the democratic and inclusive dimension of schooling by positioning students as active participants in knowledge construction. Classroom dialogue functions as a micro-democratic space in which rules of discussion are co-constructed, authority is shared, and differences are recognized as epistemic resources. In this sense, philosophical inquiry counters the logic of standardization by resisting the reduction of students to measurable performances and instead affirming their voices as singular, relational, and socially situated.

Curriculum teachers work alongside trained P4C experts, who co-facilitate inquiry sessions, model philosophical dialogue, and support teachers in adopting a facilitative rather than transmissive role. This collaborative approach contributes to the creation of an inclusive learning environment in which all students, including those at risk of marginalization, can participate meaningfully. By fostering critical questioning and reflexivity, P4C offers children conceptual tools to recognize and challenge stereotypes, implicit biases, and taken-for-granted assumptions that often underpin processes of exclusion, oppression, and discrimination.

Qualitative data are collected through classroom observations, students’ reflective journals, audio recordings of discussions, and teachers’ field notes. The analysis highlights developments in students’ argumentative skills, dialogical dispositions, and openness to plural perspectives. Moreover, the P4C approach contributes to reshaping classroom relationships, promoting mutual respect, cooperation, and a stronger sense of belonging within the learning community.

This paper argues that Philosophy for Children represents a powerful pedagogical innovation capable of strengthening democratic and inclusive practices in primary education. By embedding philosophical inquiry into everyday school life and by proposing the project on a yearly basis, the initiative demonstrates how democratic schooling can be cultivated from an early age, not merely as a curricular topic but as a lived educational experience. The contribution concludes by reflecting on the implications for teacher education and on the sustainability of P4C practices within comprehensive school systems committed to resisting standardization and promoting social justice through education.

In un panorama educativo italiano che storicamente si dichiara inclusivo, le politiche scolastiche recenti sembrano orientarsi verso una "pseudo-inclusione" che maschera—sotto la retorica del talento e della personalizzazione—un ritorno a logiche neoliberiste e abiliste. Questo contributo propone un'analisi critica delle "Linee Guida Nazionali 2025" (Indicazioni Nazionali 2025) attraverso la lente degli Studi Critici sulla Disabilità (CDS), con l'obiettivo di smascherare come il sistema educativo continui a funzionare come strumento di normalizzazione.

The analysis focuses on three main problematic nodes identified within the ministerial text. First, the construction of the notion of "talent" is examined: although presented as a universal potential, it is framed as the "active and situated expression of cognitive resources," effectively establishing a value parameter based on performance. This approach transforms merit into an "ableist realm" where success is the individual's responsibility, marginalizing anyone with non-conforming functioning or divergent processing speeds.
Secondly, the study analyzes the persistence of normative bodily and cognitive standards in the areas of physical and digital competence. The pursuit of "precision," "finalization of movement," and "speed" in developmental milestones reflects a view of the body and mind as machines to be optimized, ignoring disability epistemologies and the concepts of interdependence.
Finally, the intervention highlights how the language of "deficit compensation," despite attempts at terminological updates, maintains a firm medical and individual perspective on disability. This paradigm prevents genuine cultural transformation, reducing inclusion to a technical management of "diversity" so as not to disturb the pace of the "normal" classroom.
The objective of this presentation is to demonstrate how these guidelines, by promoting rigid autonomy and an exclusionary meritocracy, act as disabling practices. In conclusion, trajectories of resistance based on critical pedagogy and disability justice will be proposed, shifting the focus from "subject performance" to the "transformation of contexts" for an authentically constitutional and equitable educational system.

The Italian school system was a pioneer in the deinstitutionalization of education, being the first to welcome all students into the regular education system and establishing inclusive education as its current guiding principle. However, the practical implementation of this principle remains fraught with challenges. Within the Italian academic landscape, research informed by the Disability Studies perspective has exposed systemic flaws in the inclusive process, which often culminate in practices of exclusion and discrimination. Specifically, since the early 2000s, processes of micro-exclusion have been brought to light.

In line with this theoretical framework, an observational study was conducted across two primary schools in the Tuscany region to identify contemporary phenomena of micro-exclusion within school contexts. The findings revealed that such practices persist across seven key domains: language, physical spaces, temporal organization, interpersonal relationships, instructional design, educational provision, and assessment.

This contribution aims to analyze these phenomena through the lens of Critical Disability Studies to understand which elements, typical of ableism, drive their manifestation.

From the analysis of the observed phenomena, it emerges that the school system remains deeply rooted in an ableist paradigm. Firstly, there is a noticeable “pollution” of language, resulting from both implicit and explicit categorization processes that reflect a marked prevalence of the individual-medical model. Secondly, the constant reference to the norm triggers separation at multiple levels. Processes of instructional design and assessment, alongside the organization of educational provision, all based on the concept of homogeneity and the ideal of the “average student”, render those who do not fit this canon victims of normalization, adaptation, compensation, and simplification, at best. At worst, these students face exclusion from learning and socialization, leading to the creation of parallel tracks delegated solely to the support teacher. Furthermore, this phenomenon of delegation is reflected in the interpersonal dynamics within the class group. Finally, the normative organization of space induces push-out phenomena toward environments constructed for specific categories of students based on their impairment, thereby shifting the focus back onto the individual rather than the context.

The school has struggled to embrace the challenge of being transformed by diversity, which continues to be interpreted as a deviation from a norm, a condition to be reduced to facilitate assimilation. The necessary shift toward inclusive education, understood as a radical transformation of the system, has yet to be fully realized. It is, therefore, essential to reclaim an authentically inclusive perspective: one that shifts the focus away from the “non-normative” student to examine the disabling context and deconstruct the dominant ableist ideologies from which exclusionary and discriminatory practices derive.

The research is based on a year of ethnographic observation of three groups of students at different stages of their education in four schools in Bologna: two second-year classes in lower secondary school; two classes in the first two years of upper secondary school; and a group of young adult activists with disabilities. Integrating socio-anthropological literature and Disability Studies, the study focused on how guidance practices contribute to the construction of a representation of disabled people by teachers and help to propose to young disabled people an identity to internalise and an educational trajectory to adhere to, producing a looping effect specific to the school field. These representations correspond to imaginaries and educational opportunities that privilege medical-functional needs over personal aspirations. Secondly, through a socio-material analysis of guidance practices, it observed in action some guidance devices - teaching materials, “consigli di orientamento” and differentiation of the PEI - which contribute to the over-representation of students with disabilities in technical and vocational education. This streaming is facilitated by a process of “platformisation” of guidance (Unica) which centralises the collection of information and reduces the complex educational process of choice to a predetermined future to adhere to. The school life stories of the group of young adult activists have served as a tool to shed light on the material and cultural barriers in the students' experiences and their strategies of resistance and rebellion against the destinies offered to them. Can the human being be a project? A project of whom and for whom?

Achievement is not a neutral educational category but historically and politically framed and produced within “discourse-practice formations” (Ricken & Reh 2018). Since decades it is furthermore a crucial element of educational scientific research (Black & Wiliam, 1998; Agrusti, 2021; Piscozzo & Stefanel, 2022). Referring to Foucault’s concept of dispositif (2002), achievement can be understood as part of a complex ensemble of discourses which powerfully structure social practices within school as an institution (Seitz et al., 2024a).

Starting from here, this contribution addresses the question of which ideas of achievement and achievement differences are conveyed through educational policy documents in the Italian inclusive educational system. In a sub-study of a cross-national research project, discourse analyses on educational policy documents (2001-2020) on primary education from Italy and Germany were conducted (APrA: “Achievement: A social practice in Primary School. An International Comparative Analysis on Germany and Italy” DFG-JOINT, 2025–2027; Free University of Bozen-Bolzano; Carl von Ossietzky University Oldenburg).

In this context and based on the sociology-of-knowledge approach to discourse (SKAD; Keller 2013), we problematize the phenomenon “achievement” as a discursive construct that is historically shaped within intertwined complexes of power and knowledge (Foucault, 2002). The sampling process of the discourse analysis combined deductive and inductive procedures, that led to a data corpus of 20 analyzed documents regarding primary education in Italy (and the Autonomous Province of Bozen-Bolzano), valid or issued between 2001-2020. The analysis was conducted by adapting coding strategies of Grounded Theory (Glaser & Strauss, 2017) to the requirements of SKAD and the specific knowledge interests of this study (Keller, 2013).

The reconstruction of the discourse related to Italy uncovered a strong focus on individualized acquisition of competences being embedded into tensions between logics of meritocracy and educational equity (Boarelli, 2019; Seitz, Baroni & Schwermann, 2026 in press). As assessment translates learning processes into visible and measurable forms, achievement functions as a societal contribution of each. This manifests itself in the subjectification of all students as autonomous achieving subjects and future contributors to society, while the institutional structures foster personality development by valuing, on the one hand diversity and on the other hand, deserving behavior and merit.

In our presentation, we critically reflect on the derived concepts of autonomy of the individual and relate it to implicit hegemonial concepts of ability and their close connection to normalcy (Stojanov, 2018; Migliarini, D’Alessio & Bocci, 2018; Seitz et al., 2024b) which change meaning in the light of meritocratic dynamics of achievement enhancement – even within an inclusively structured educational system. This study therefore contributes to the internationally oriented, inequality-critical reflection on achievement-related discourses and their significance for the (re-)production of normality, difference, and educational inequality at the level of (inclusive) primary education.

In contemporary educational discourse, meritocracy is frequently presented as a neutral principle meant to reward talent, effort, and individual commitment. Yet a growing body of critical scholarship has shown how meritocratic systems are embedded in normative assumptions about productivity, autonomy, and performance. These assumptions reflect broader socio-economic structures shaped by neoliberal capitalism, which tends to evaluate human worth according to the capacity to perform efficiently within competitive environments.

This paper approaches meritocratic ideology through a crip lens, engaging with the emerging field of Crip Studies, a transdisciplinary framework that extends Crip Theory by integrating multiple epistemological and methodological perspectives. Building on the insights of Disability Studies and Queer Theory, Crip Studies interrogate the normative systems that regulate bodies, identities, and ways of living, making visible how different structures of oppression operate together and reinforce one another (Centrone, 2025).

From this perspective, meritocratic ideology can be understood as structurally ableist. As Robert McRuer argues, modern societies operate through the implicit expectation of compulsory able-bodiedness, a normative standard that assumes bodies should be autonomous, efficient, and constantly capable of performing within capitalist temporalities (McRuer, 2006). Educational institutions play a key role in reproducing these expectations, evaluating students according to standardized criteria of performance, discipline, and developmental normality.

Seen through a crip perspective, ableism does not only affect disabled people, it organizes a broader hierarchy of bodies based on their capacity to conform to socially sanctioned norms: bodies that interrupt expectations of productivity, autonomy, or linear development—such as disabled, chronically ill, or neurodivergent bodies—are often positioned as deviant within meritocratic frameworks. At the same time, bodies that destabilize dominant gender norms and reproductive expectations, including trans and queer subjects, can similarly challenge the normative order that meritocratic ideology seeks to stabilize (Butler, 1990).

These dynamics are also connected to dominant relational norms. Recent work on mononormativity has highlighted how capitalist societies tend to naturalize the monogamous couple as the legitimate form of affective and sexual life, shaping expectations around intimacy, care, and social reproduction (Vasallo, 2022). When examined from a crip perspective, these norms appear closely tied to broader systems of normalization that privilege stable, productive, and socially recognizable forms of life. Within this framework, meritocracy functions not simply as a mechanism of evaluation but as a technology of normalization that contributes to producing hierarchies among bodies and identities. In the Italian education system, such dynamics often coexist with discourses that formally promote inclusion. The result is a configuration that can be described as pseudo-inclusion: institutional practices that appear inclusive while continuing to reproduce normative expectations about bodies, abilities, and identities.

Mobilizing the analytical tools offered by Crip Studies, this paper argues that addressing ableist meritocracy requires more than expanding access to existing educational structures. It requires a critical examination of the normative assumptions that underpin educational institutions and a rethinking of educational practices in ways that foreground interdependence, collective responsibility, and epistemic plurality.

The workshop introduces the crucial role played by Disability Studies for the development of a democratic school. It analyses the importance of Disability Studies as a critical theoretical framework against which to analyze and investigate processes and policies that can contribute to the development of inclusive education in schools and in society as a whole. Inclusive education is addressed as a key factor for the development of a just, equitable and democratic school.

Drawing upon an analysis of the theoretical premises that have supported the development of Disability Studies both at national and international levels, the workshop will provide an opportunity of presenting the results from a research study conducted in a comprehensive school located in the outskirts of the city of Rome, investigating intersectionality focusing, in particular, at disability and migration issues. The final purpose is to engage teachers and school practitioners, in general, to reflect upon their practices and to adopt a Disability Studies perspective to unmask potentially discriminatory practices that can prevent the creation of a democratic school systems despite our intentions of doing otherwise.

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.

Can we consider intermediate leadership as a potential promoter of real change in inclusive practices in Italian schools?

This paper aims to answer this question from the perspective of Disability Studies, which emphasizes that:

-in Italian schools, exclusionary practices still exist that refer to paradigms that are considered obsolete (D'Alessio, 2011; Ferri, 2015);

-everyone's actions are guided by their own value framework, and understanding it allows them to recognize existing limitations (Travaglini, 2020);

-there are ethical issues in the approach to disability that must be considered first (Piccioli, 2020).

Intermediate leadership is made up of teachers who support the Headmaster by filling specific roles in areas that each school identifies as significant to its needs. The focus is on teachers with Instrumental Function for Inclusion, who manage all organizational, educational, and teaching aspects related to students with SEN. Specifically, for students with disabilities, they also support special education teachers in designing the Individualized Educational Plan and in defining pathways and experiences related to the Life Project.

These two aspects emerged significantly in the results of an exploratory study conducted in the Specialization Course for Support Teachers at the University of Parma (IX edition). Trainee support teachers, asked in a specific structured Workshop, shared their views on the role of the Instrumental Function, describing them as "expert" and capable of sharing a "culture of inclusion" with the professional community, which they recognized as specific to each school.

This “culture of inclusion”, considered in conjunction with the lack of a unified regulatory profile and the absence of a specific training program, highlights the urgent need to further investigate this role, which remains defined only in each “Piano dell’Offerta Formativa” (in which each school discloses its organizational choices based on identified needs).

Specific training programs, based on the Disability Studies perspective, would:

-direct interest in the true potential of the Instrumental Function role;

-accompany those in the role towards an informed reflection on the implications of their choices;

-overcome the disparities that still represent an obstacle to the development of a quality school (D'Alessio, 2015);

-support the attention of teachers who hold these roles to their own framework of values.

A training program would promote a vision of the role of the Instrumental Function teacher as an "ally" (Oliver, 1990) of people with disabilities, who can therefore act according to specific beliefs (Barton, 2011), making choices and promoting practices capable of transforming cultures (Booth & Ainscow, 2014), and developing inclusive education from a Disability Studies perspective (Piccioli, 2020).

The research, though conducted in a limited context, confirmed that teachers share the idea that this role is a strategic for inclusion, for example in supporting planning for students with disabilities.

Recognizing the potential of intermediate leadership in improving inclusion means reaffirming that change is a process that must be supported. Incorporating Disability Studies into educational programs would enable this change to be supported anchoring it in pedagogical thinking grounded in solid values ​​and culture (Piccioli, 2025).