Conference Program

Educational inequality remains one of the most persistent and structurally embedded forms of social disparity, with long-term consequences for individual life chances, social mobility, and regional development (Hanushek and Woessmann, 2008). This study aims to systematize the main determinants of educational inequality by developing an integrated analytical framework that brings together socioeconomic, demographic, and spatial dimensions. Drawing on interdisciplinary theoretical and empirical contributions, the study identifies five core drivers of unequal educational access and outcomes: socioeconomic status, parental education, ethnicity, gender, and geographical location.

Socioeconomic status emerges as a central mechanism shaping access to educational resources, school quality, and extracurricular opportunities (see Lou at al., 2022). Parental education influences not only material conditions but also cultural capital, aspirations, and educational support within households (Biagi et al., 2022). Ethnicity and gender introduce additional layers of structural disadvantage, often operating through discrimination, social norms, and differential expectations that affect both access, performance and educational trajectories (Borgna & Contini, 2014; Tsai, Smith, & Hauser 2018). Geographical location—whether defined in terms of urban–rural divides, regional disparities, or neighborhood effects—further amplifies inequalities by influencing school infrastructure, peer environments, and local labor market prospects (see, for example, Acciari, Polo, and Violante, 2022).

Rather than treating these determinants as isolated factors, the paper emphasizes their interaction and cumulative effects. Educational inequality is conceptualized as the outcome of overlapping disadvantages that reinforce one another across spatial and social contexts. Particular attention is devoted to the territorial dimension of inequality, highlighting how regional and local dynamics shape the distribution of opportunities and contribute to persistent intergenerational disparities.

By organizing and synthesizing the main explanatory mechanisms, this study provides a coherent structure for future empirical research and policy design. Understanding the multifaceted and spatially embedded nature of educational inequality is essential for developing targeted interventions aimed at promoting equal opportunities and fostering inclusive socioeconomic development.

Italy has historically experienced high levels of school dropouts, with significant social disparities persisting to this day. According to Istat (2025), in 2024 the upper secondary non-completion rate among children of low-educated parents was nearly twenty times that of children of university graduates (22.8% vs. 1.2%).

This study evaluates the effectiveness of WILL, a savings-based financial aid program for high school education. Implemented by philanthropic organizations, the program ran in four areas (Torino, Firenze, Teramo, South Sardinia) from 2019 to 2023. Inspired by Children’s Savings Accounts (CSA) and Child Development Accounts (CDA), the program drew on asset-building theory, which posits that even modest savings can foster expectations, planning, and long-term investment in education (Elliot 2024).

It targeted first-year lower-secondary school students from low-income families, offering a digital savings wallet for educational expenses, with deposits (up to €1,000) multiplied by four. Beneficiaries also received financial education, guidance, and educational support.

We run a randomized controlled trial which included 576 students (293 treated, 283 control). Outcomes were collected with survey data collected 20, 36 and 60 months after randomization. The program increased family savings without leading to greater material deprivation. On average, households saved €718 and spent €3,080 on educational expenses. Although savings and spending were lower among families with lower incomes, the program had a significant impact on these families in terms of increased educational aspirations and expectations, as well on students’ middle school final grade. Additionally, the program positively influenced students’ regular school attendance by reducing instances of skipping school days, missing classes, or arriving late. It also increased the likelihood of students being enrolled in the expected grade and not falling behind 60 months after randomization. The findings show the potential of matched savings accounts to enhance financial aid policies. However, the financial mechanism’s regressivity could be addressed through targeted program adjustments.

Public education systems are formally designed to guarantee universal access and equal educational opportunities. Yet the actual resources available to schools often depend on a plurality of funding channels. In the Italian context, one of the most debated mechanisms concerns the so-called “voluntary contributions” requested from families. Although formally optional, these contributions frequently finance activities and infrastructures that are central to everyday school life. At the same time, schools increasingly rely on project-based funding and partnerships with external actors to complement public resources.

These dynamics raise a broader question: who actually finances the everyday functioning and enrichment of public schools? If public education is formally funded by the state, the concrete availability of resources often depends on the economic capacity of families and on the ability of schools to mobilize additional funding through projects and partnerships. This leads to a second crucial question: to what extent do territorial inequalities shape the financial resources available to schools?

Constitutional principles guarantees equal access to free public education. If the availability of educational resources increasingly depends on the socio-economic conditions of local communities and on their capacity to mobilize additional financial contributions, these mechanisms may inadvertently reproduce territorial inequalities within the public school system. In such a scenario, schools located in more affluent areas may benefit from a broader set of resources, while schools operating in economically fragile contexts may face structural constraints in sustaining educational activities and opportunities.

This paper investigates these dynamics in the city of Rome by analysing the composition of school resources and their territorial distribution. The research draws on data contained in the Self-Evaluation Reports (RAV – Rapporti di Autovalutazione) produced by Italian schools within the National Evaluation System. These documents include standardized information on voluntary family contributions as well as on the broader composition of school resources, including state funding and financial resources obtained through projects and collaborations with external actors. The study reconstructs the relative weight of different funding sources and explores how schools combine public funding, family contributions and project-based resources to sustain their activities.

The analysis adopts a territorial comparative perspective, focusing on schools located in the different municipalities of Rome. Through spatial comparison and mapping, the research investigates how the balance between public funding, family contributions and project resources varies across different areas of the city. This approach makes it possible to identify patterns of territorial stratification in the economic resources available to schools and to assess whether schools located in socio-economically disadvantaged areas rely on different funding mixes compared to those operating in more affluent contexts.

A qualitative analysis is complemented by qualitative insights from a broader research project conducted in Municipio VI of Rome, one of the most socio-economically fragile districts of the city. Within this project, semi-structured interviews were conducted with school leaders, teachers and representatives of third sector organizations. These qualitative materials help to contextualize the statistical patterns and to better understand how schools operating in vulnerable contexts cope with limited family contributions and mobilize alternative forms of support.

The costs of tertiary education represent a significant barrier for many families (Elliott and Lewis, 2018). Among the many types of interventions aimed at supporting students from these families, one possible solution is asset building. Unlike measures such as scholarships or honour loans, which provide a fixed amount of resources at specific points in time, asset building promotes the habit of gradual saving among families, so that a sum for covering education expenses is accumulated in the medium to long term. Beyond facilitating the accumulation of financial resources with minimal effort, asset-building programmes - often involving participants in training on topics such as financial literacy - may also improve future outcomes by strengthening both students’ and their families’ self-efficacy and planning capacity (Dynarski and Scott-Clayton, 2013). Percorsi is a programme promoted by Fondazione Ufficio Pio. Active since 2010 in Turin, Italy, Percorsi supports low-income families by enrolling them in a saving programme one or two years before their child completes upper secondary education. The resources accumulated are then quadrupled by the programme to support education-related expenses. The impact evaluation of Percorsi is based on a randomised controlled trial, and involves about 1500 students who applied for the programme between 2014 and 2017 (Martini et al., 2021). Our study, based on students’ follow-up up to ten years after entry into the programme, shows that participation substantially increased student’s likelihood of enrolling in university. Moreover, for some categories of participants there is a significant increase in the probability of obtaining a university degree. Finally, Percorsi proves to be particularly effective for those who seem to be more likely to abandon studies after high school.

Over recent decades, studies on educational inequalities have increasingly emphasized the interplay of economic, social, cultural, and symbolic dimensions. In this context, economic constraint is not reducible to income alone: educational participation entails a total cost that includes indirect and “hidden” expenses (e.g., transport, materials, connectivity) as well as opportunity costs (time diverted from paid work, forgone income, perceived risks associated with educational investment). This perspective helps explain why predominantly redistributive, short-term policies may alleviate material deprivation without durably reshaping educational trajectories that tend to become entrenched and intergenerationally transmitted (Pfeffer 2008; Ciarini and Giancola 2016). In debates on poverty-reduction measures—including unconditional cash transfers and cash transfers with soft conditionality—the question therefore remains central: how can educational investment be made more manageable and sustainable over time when indirect costs and uncertainty persist?

The paper proposes a conceptual framework grounded in asset building, introduced by Michael Sherraden as a policy paradigm oriented toward the intentional accumulation of resources over time and discussed here with specific reference to education (Sherraden 1991; Cramer and Williams Shanks 2014). The core assumption is that participation inequalities require complementing support for immediate consumption with instruments that build stocks of resources that can be activated over time—economic, but also educational, relational, and symbolic—capable of sustaining long-term choices and absorbing shocks that would otherwise disrupt educational pathways (Sherraden 1991; Pfeffer and Waitkus 2021; Nam, Huang and Sherraden 2008; Beverly 2013).

The discussion integrates two strands. First, the institutional theory of saving: accumulation becomes more likely when policies shape access, information, incentives, facilitation (automation and procedural simplicity), expectations, use restrictions, and instrument security (Sherraden, Scanlon et al. 2005; Beverly et al. 2008). Second, asset effects capture economic, psychological, and social benefits that exceed monetary value, influencing self-efficacy, planning, and future orientation (Yadama and Sherraden 1996; Shobe and Page-Adams 2001; Scanlon and Page-Adams 2001). In particular, dedicated and restricted accounts can function as protected “containers”, activating mental accounting and a commitment device, and strengthening a college-bound identity by making educational trajectories more credible (Beverly 2013; Sherraden et al. 2013; Elliott, Chowa and Loke 2011; Oyserman and Destin 2010; Oyserman 2013).

This perspective suggests policy design implications for addressing indirect costs and access barriers: universal-but-progressive schemes combining education-dedicated accounts, initial endowments, automatic enrollment, withdrawal restrictions, and matching contributions, alongside interventions that develop financial skills and planning-oriented practices (Titmuss 1958; Kangas and Palme 2005; Schreiner and Sherraden 2007; Birkenmaier et al. 2016; Sherraden, Huang and Ansong 2017). The paper discusses key trade-offs (regressivity risks, stigma, administrative sustainability) and outlines how asset building can integrate with short-term cash-based measures in a complementary, rather than substitutive, logic (Beverly 2013; Sherraden et al. 2013; Clancy et al. 2016).

Finally, the paper notes that Italy has recently seen the emergence of educational pilots consistent with this paradigm, developed in diverse territorial and institutional settings and, in some cases, accompanied by impact evaluations. These experiences provide a useful ground for linking conceptual frameworks and policy choices in the construction of interventions capable of stabilizing educational trajectories over the long term.