Self-Organised Schools

Front matter

Routledge Advances in Management Learning and Education

SELF-ORGANISED SCHOOLS

EDUCATIONAL LEADERSHIP AND INNOVATIVE

PART ONE Learning Environments 1 The Nature of Learning and the Categories of Learning

1.1 The Nature of Learning 7

1.2 The Concept of a Learning Environment 8

1.3 Self-Directed, Emerging, Self-Organized Learning 11 Concluding Remarks 12

2.2 The Dynamics of the Systems for Collaborative Learning: Milrad’s Model (2002) 15

2.3 Simulation and Integrated Learning Environments: The EnterTech Project (2004) 17

2.4 Innovative Learning Environments: The Study of Ramboll Management (2004) 19

2.5 Self-Organized Networks of Lifelong Learning: Koper’s Model (2005) 22

2.6 Sugata Mitra’s Self-Organized Learning Environments (2005) 23

2.7 Social Inclusion and Skills Development: The TENCompetence Project by Louys (2009) 26 viil

2.8 Self-Organized Online Peer Learning: Scott’s Prolearn Network of Excellence (2009) 28 2.9 A 2.0 Approach to Peer Tutoring: Westera’s Model (2009) 29 2.10 The i+ Future Learning Environment by Chang and Lee (2010) 31 2.11 Emerging Learning in the 2.0 Network: The Williams’s Model (2011) 33 2.12 A Learning Environment Based on Social Networks: Casey and Evans’s Research (2011) 36 2.13 An International Network Among Classes for the Construction of Knowledge: Laferriére’s Study (2012) 38 2.14 The OECDs International Project of Innovative Learning Environments (2013) 40 2.15 ICTs in Formal, Non-formal and Informal Learning: The Creative Classroom Framework (2014) 42 2.16 Construction of Student Communities for Learning in Nonformal Contexts: Boersma’s Model (2016) 44 2.17 International Case Studies of Innovative Learning Environments 49 The Homeschooling/Home Education Movement (Since 1977) 49 The Self-managed High School in Paris — Lycée Autogéré de Paris (Since 1982) 51 The Blended Learning Model of the Clayton Christensen Institute in San Francisco (Since 2007) 52 The Institute of Play and the Quest to Learn in New York and Chicago (Since 2007) 54 The School of One Project in New York (Since 2009) 56 2.18 The Construction of a Framework for Measuring the Innovativeness of Learning Environments 59 A Focus on Learning and Teaching 62 An Example of the Application of the Framework 63 Concluding Remarks 65

PART TWO Self-Organization in Schools School: Scenarios, Complexity and Change

3.1 The Future Scenarios of Schools 69

Contents ix

3.2 The School as a Complex System 74

3.3 School Organization as an Engine of Change 78

3.4 The Autonomy of Schools Within the Italian School System as a Premise for Change: The Legislative Stages 81

3.5 School Autonomy: As Imagined and as Achieved 83

Self-Organization: The Most Fascinating Future of Organizations 87

4.1 Introduction 87 4.2 Self-Organization 87 4.3 The Experience of the “Heroic” Self-Leadership of the Jesuits 88 Emerging Bottom-Up Strategy 88 Vision and Example 90 Self-Leadership 90 Invariance to Personal Results 92 Motivation as Self-motivation 92 The Construction of Self-leadership 92 4.4 The Experience of Self-Leadership as Applied in Toyota 95 From Fordism to Toyotism: Evolution of the Principles of Industrial Organization 95 The Involvement of the Workforce Versus Antagonism: The Principle of Self-activation 96 4.5 Styles of Leadership 98 4.6 What Self-Organization Is Not 99 4.7 Organizational Capabilities for Self-Organization 101 4.8 Self-Organization as a Continuum of Solutions 103 4.9 Is Hierarchy Inevitable? 103 4.10 Can Targeted Organizations Be Self-Organizations? 105 4.11 Can Self-Organization Be Planned? 106 4.12 Resistance to Self-Organization 107 4.13 The Coexistence of Hierarchical Models and Models of Self-Organization 108 Concluding Remarks 110

The Self-Organized School: An Organization With Multiple Minds 111

5.2 The Self-Organized School According to Bower 111 5.3 The Self-Organized School According to Bain 113 5.4 The Capabilities of Self-Organization 117

X

5.5 The Proposed Framework of Self-Organizational Capabilities in Schools 118

5.6 The Capabilities of Self-Organization in School

Literature 124

Interconnection 124 Redundancy 126 Sharing 126 Restructuring 127

5.7 The Actors in Self-Organized Schools 128 5.8 Styles of Leadership in Self-Organized Schools 128 Concluding Remarks 131

PART THREE Field Research Learning Environments and Self-Organization: Results of the Research

6.1 6.2 6.3

6.4

6.5

6.6

6.7

6.8

Introduction 135 The “Majorana” State High School in Brindisi 137 The “Fermi” State High School in Mantua 144 Learning Environment 144 Capabilities 147 The “Gioia” State High School in Piacenza 149 Learning Environment 149 Capabilities 152

Collegio del Mondo Unito (The United World College) of the

Adriatic in Duino (Tiieste) 153 Learning Environment 153 Capabilities 155 The “Russell” State High School in Cles (Trento) 156 Learning Environment 156 Capabilities 157 The “Piazzi Lena Perpenti” State High School in Sondrio 157 Learning Environment 158 Capabilities 158 The “Barsanti” State Technological Institute in Castelfranco Veneto (Treviso) 159 Learning Environment 159 Capabilities 160

6.9

6.10

6.11

6.12

6.13

6.14

6.15

6.16

6.17

6.18

6.19 6.20

The “Randi” Comprehensive Institute in Ravenna 161 Learning Environment 161 Capabilities 165 The Comprehensive Institute in Montespertoli (Florence) 165 Learning Environment 166 Capabilities 167 The “Centro Educativo Italo Svizzero” (Italian-Swiss Educational Center) in Rimini 167 Learning Environment 168 Capabilities 169 The “eSpazia” Comprehensive Institute in Monterotondo (Rome) 170 Learning Environment 170 Capabilities 172 The “Marconi” Junior High School in Modena 172 Learning Environment 173 Capabilities 174 The “Giovanni XXII” Comprehensive Institute in Tricesimo (Udine) 174 Learning Environment 174 Capabilities 175 The “Ristori” Comprehensive Institute in Naples 175 Learning Environment 175 Capabilities 176 An Overall Analysis of the 14 Schools 176 Innovative Learning Environments 179 Organizational Capabilities 181 The “Quartieri Spagnoli” (Spanish Neighborhood) Association in Naples 182 The “Maestri di Strada” (Street Teachers) Association in Naples 183 Who Promotes Self-Organization in the 14 Schools? 184 The Limits to and the Prospects for the Research 187

Epilogue Afterword by Arduino Salatin xi

193 195 xii

Appendices Appendix A: Stages of the Analysis of the Literature Regarding Learning Environments and Organizational Capabilities 203 Appendix B: Framework for Measuring the Innovativeness of Learning Environments 205 Appendix C: Learning as a Process of Knowledge-Building 221 Appendix D: Questionnaire for Measuring the Innovativeness of the Learning Environments 225 Appendix E: Legislation Regarding Scholastic Autonomy 230 Appendix F: Questionnaire for Measuring Organizational Capabilities 238 Appendix G: Organizational Structure of the Research: Questions, Project and Methodology 242 Appendix H: Measurement of the Learning Environment and of the Capabilities for Each of the 14 Schools 249 Appendix I: Comparison of the Measurements of the Learning Environments in the 14 Schools 263 Appendix J: Comparison of the Measurements of the Organizational Capabilities of the 14 Schools 271 Appendix K: The Movement of the Educational Avant-gardes 277 Bibliography Index

281 291

About the Authors

Alberto E De Toni is President of the Conference of Italian University Rectors (CRUI) Foundation, Scientific Director of University Center for Business Organization (CUOA) Business School, Scientific Coordinator of the School of Complexity of Feltrinelli Education and President of the Steering Committee of the National High School of Defence and Security. He is a member of the Strategic Steering Committee of the European University Institute (EUI) and Academia Europzea. He is a full professor of management engineering and teaches management of complex systems. He was Rector of the University of Udine from 2013 till 2019, President of the Italian Association of Management Engineering and Scientific Director of the project “The telescope of Galileo”, promoted by the Ministry of Education, University and Research (MIUR) and entrusted to the public agency Indire — National Institute of Documentation, Innovation and Educational Research — from 2012 to 2014; the project involved the definition and testing of new methodologies related to laboratory teaching and integration of the sciences. He published more than 300 scientific national and international publications. The main areas of his research are operations management, innovation and complexity management.

Stefano De Marchi is a principal and teacher of philosophy and history at the “Madonna del Grappa” Canossian Institute in Treviso. He received his bachelor’s degree in international business studies at the European Business School in London, a degree in philosophy from the “Ca’ Foscari” University of Venice and a Ph.D. in management engineering from the University of Padua. He taught philosophy, history and geography at the “Collegio Vescovile Pio X” in Treviso, where he was vice-principal. He carries out research in the field of organization and learning processes at the Management Engineering laboratory of the University of Udine.

Foreword

First of all, I have to say: “Excellent idea”. Alberto F De Toni and Stefano De Marchi have thrown themselves headlong into innovation, into the true search for the new. The book is a bit of research on the feasibility of self-organization in schools. It is both a cultural and an empirical self-organization, given that numerous schools have been concretely examined in their effort to introduce a radicalness — such a decisive change self-organization is! It is no coincidence that the authors use words such as “heroes”, “courage”, “creating new learning environments from the bottom-up”; not by chance: aware as they were, and are even more so now after their research, that to introduce such a radical change in the organization of Italian schools, a good dose of courage is needed. It is not by chance that the protagonists are prefigured as real “heroes”, that is, they challenge the static nature of the situation, regardless of the danger, and yet they are extremely confident of the need for a result. Excellent, then; excellent the idea, above all because it is one of the first times in which educational research, especially with respect to the function of schools, radically shifts onto learning.

The watchword of the forces of progress in this field is precisely that of the centrality of learning. The right watchword, correct, even if incomprehensible to most people. With it we want to grasp the sense of a mission, of a new path to venture down, focusing precisely on learning, making the whole school organization, and not just its function, rotate around learning. And with this we try to better understand what it is, what learning consists of, to overcome a biological vision that we have of it. It is in fact natural that every human being has a vocation for learning, inasmuch as the human being exists, precisely because it naturally grows, and not only that, indeed, it exists with its growth. Its existence is not only ontological, it is above all functional, or rather it is inseparably a function of growth itself, it also reveals itself through that function, which is precisely that of growing. Learning is growing.

Any human being, even later on in life, grows, he/she never ceases to grow, that is, he/she develops; and growth is not only a biological, physiological fact, it is also a strongly characterizing fact; and every human being is conditioned by education, that is by the fact that it is possible if it is accompanied by an investigation of that growth itself, by an analysis of the ways in which

Foreword xv one grows. Growing up means above all learning, growing intellectually. Even physical, biological, physiological growth is intimately linked to and conditioned by the impulse of an essential component: curiosity, with respect to knowledge, to a new knowledge, crossing that path of access essential to formation, to enrich oneself intellectually. So that growing, learning and developing end up converging.

In this book, there is an awareness that the centrality of learning is not just a new educational line, it is a real revolution. In the past, the school was always a transmission of knowledge, it has always focused on the teaching function and it has always dedicated all of the physical and temporal space of the school organization to teaching, to transmitting knowledge. Until the singular, perhaps grotesque, point that the student’s studying does not take place at school. It takes place at home; his main cerebral effort is not to listen and to record the knowledge transmitted to him but to “study” in order to learn, that is to say to test himself on the acquisition of new knowledge through “learning”, and unlike listening, this takes place alone, at home, outside the school and its organization. If we do not understand this difference, we cannot understand the reason for our opposition to the schoolas it is constructed, organized and therefore functional to transmission, that is, to teaching. In it, the central figure is not the student but the teacher; the student studies at home, studies alone, studies outside the school, out of the economic efforts that are produced for a school, out of its organizational efforts, out of its mechanisms. These efforts, on the contrary, in a school based on the centrality of learning, should be aimed mainly at learning, rather than transmitting.

The teacher’s function should instead intertwine with that of the student by means of a radical leap, modifying the two actual functions, significantly reducing that of listening, which still remains the student’s main function, instead increasing that of each person’s first-person participation in the construction of their own path. The first change must come about within the school organized from high up, rigidly disciplined in rigorously planned procedures, with identical time arrangements, always, everywhere, with a discipline of school organization entirely top-down and all substantially authoritarian (not always in the negative sense of the term, but yet authoritarian). We want to contrast this type of school with another one, in which we want to use completely new and even “blasphemous” terms with respect to the past. The students are the main actors; they are in a sense “heroes”, not common beings, and therefore the abnegation typical of the “hero” should be solicited in them, not the typical obedience of the bureaucratic and authoritarian relationship.

We therefore call attention to the fact, which is very important, that we are talking about self-organization. The school today is not self-organized at all, it is hetero-organized, it is regulated, governed from high, in procedures that refer to those in command. We do not start from the enhancement of diversity among the various students, and we should tend to avoid xvi Foreword homologation, starting from the fact that the differences among students are a wealth, a heritage, a resource; they are not at all an obstacle to be overcome through homologation. The logo-centric school is entirely founded on the logos, on the severity of reasoning, on the almost exclusive care of the mind in the classic and traditional sense of the term — which is a correct and necessary goal — and no care being given to the artistic-creative stimulus (which is equally necessary). Not the solicitation of creativity but merely the solicitation of diligence alone.

The revolution — precisely — that is necessary today must focus on self-organization, even on the stimulation that derives from the analysis and correction of the errors that are encountered in the school activity itself. This is the great novelty of the objectives and also of the intuition, of the severe elaboration, even in the details, which is at the base of this book: self-organization. Mind you: we are not speaking of self-management but more properly of self-regulation, because this is simpler, it is more radical, it can also exist in a school which is in other senses authoritarian. Self-organization is much more because it means that autonomy, which is the basis of this process, maximizes even in its etymology, the term that consists not only of auton, referring to the subject, but also of nomos, and that is “rule”. Autonomy not only self-organizes its own methods, its own discipline, but it produces its own rules (nomos), maximizes the term, its true conceptual content.

In the past, the school has always experienced autonomy reluctantly, due to a widespread mood among the teaching staff, and today it seeks somehow to navigate through the thrust of the State, which tends to remove oxygen from autonomy, to suffocate it, and the thrust of a part of the teachers, who tend toward the defense of hyper-disciplinarity, especially in secondary schools. Here the need prevails to cultivate the individual subjects, each one on its own, and thus to preserve the fragmentation of knowledge in different disciplines, rather than making an effort to re-consolidate knowledge, as should be necessary.

This dialectical point of contrast against autonomy has not allowed the full affirmation of autonomy, the acceptance of an extraordinary revolution of the idea of school, inherent in the invention of school autonomy, in having introduced it with such energy into the school system and now in having pushed further efforts for it to take its first steps. The real revolution is autonomy: the whole which is autos and nomos. The real revolution is that every single school must give itself a proper form of organization: therefore, self-organization as a necessary premise and temperament of the risk of the single autonomies remaining isolated and alone — an effort to give value to the network and to forms of solidarity among autonomies, to produce effective results. All this must be based on what is called the “capabilities”, the professional quality and the construction of the new, both in the teaching staff and in the students’ willingness to compete with themselves. It is an answer,

Foreword xvii perhaps it is the only answer, to what today is emerging on the one hand with an increasing attention to the network, but on the other especially to the risk of what is called homeschooling, that is to the idea that the orientation among individual schools and single families to organize a home school, home-made, set up to satisfy peculiarities and differences, both organizational and even social, of the different families. A solution that could seriously threaten to accentuate the social inequities that are within our society.

On the contrary, the response of self-organization is a strong response, forward-looking, with respect to the defects of the traditionally bureaucratic structure — an answer that could meet real needs and that is feasible. We must therefore convince ourselves that this path is possible; we must treasure the novelty of the Epilogue on the circus elephant tied to a rope, which despite being substantially free fears that it is not so and therefore is afraid of trying to move freely. So, even the school elephant must feel free, and it can only do so on condition that the extraordinary novelty represented by self-organization is discovered, especially if this means development of learning environments, as stated in the message of Sugata Mitra and the great intellectuals who have understood the meaning of all this: discovering, encouraging one’s own soul in school, one’s dream of building something new in society — and that is self-determination, which is then the true substance of freedom.

At this point I want to add a consideration on a theme that is perhaps less developed in this book: the enrichment of the curriculum, the disciplinary horizon, the extension of knowledge; the cognitive aspect is not the only factor of intellectual growth. It is also necessary to deal with the enrichment of the experiences that everyone has to live during their own lives and that are also part of learning. It is precisely for this purpose that that part of the brain, of intellectual potential, which is also a component of the natural propensity of the human being, is to be solicited: to engage with art, and especially with music. In other words, to feel, to be intellectual not only by producing logos, developing reason, but also by producing art, living artistic experiences.

And here it is quite urgent to modify the school structure that has existed even since before the birth of the unitary State, in the 19th century, and confirmed so far in the Italian school system (one of the great blasphemies of our history): art and music are not culture. This is an unworthy blasphemy, which has sacrificed generations and generations of young people, depriving them of an essential part of their education, the artistic one. A measure which is not only intellectually stupid but also socially backward: that is, making it impossible for the individual student to engage in his own creativity and become a permanent subject of innovation and individual and social growth, through what the stimuli of artistic production represent in the growth of a human being. Correcting this insane direction and instead giving full educational dignity to the artistic experience is necessarily part xviii Foreword of the structural modification of the system, and therefore also of self-organization — of a hope, that is, that the “heroes” of the school can create an education that is totally different from the current one.

We must realize it: school today does not need reforms, which I fear will be of little use. The school needs a real revolution, a scholastic revolution that puts learning at the center, and that therefore supports learning itself in a different manner, and which supports it both in a logical and artistic context and presents the students with what society will be like right from the time in which they begin to study. I allude to the culture of work. To the great educational value of the idea of work, of the culture of work, in which the human being deals with himself, in the crucial moment in which he is expected to become a social being, to place himself in this new dimension. All these elements, largely missing in the current structure of the school, must instead be found along the path of autonomy. In other words, we propose another kind of school, not the one managed so far by the apparatus in Viale Trastevere (the seat of the Italian Ministry of Education): a truly autonomous, self-organized school, the true school of autonomy, which is able to understand and value the contribution of artistic experience, creativity, work culture, their full formative nature for the cultural and social formation of the citizen, in a truly democratic country.

by Luigi Berlinguer Minister of Education from 1996 to 2000

Acknowledgments

The writing of this book is the result of a long journey over several years, during which we met many people who gave us a significant contribution. The time has come to thank them for coming with us on this journey through self-organization in schools and innovative learning environments.

First of all our thanks go to Prof. Luigi Berlinguer, Minister of Education from 1996 to 2000, who agreed to write the Foreword with the same enthusiasm with which he leads the National Committee for the Development of Scientific and Technological Culture of the MIUR.

A second sincere thanks goes to Arduino Salatin, principal of the Salesian University Institute of Venice (IUSVE), board member of the National Institute for the Evaluation of Education Systems (Invalsi) and expert consultant for the MIUR, for at least three reasons. The first one because regarding the subject of innovative learning environments, he put us in contact with some of the most experienced people in the sector; the second reason is because he was available for a constant exchange of ideas on all of the aspects of our research; and the third reason because he agreed to write the Afterword, thus giving a greater value to our contribution in a broader context.

A third heartfelt thanks goes to Giuseppe Cosentino, former head of the education department, chief technical secretary of the minister and special commissioner of Invalsi, for the fruitful interactions and discussions on the topic of scholastic autonomy.

Among the experts with whom we had the opportunity to interact and whom we thank here for their willingness to discuss and suggest some relevant case studies, we mention Marco Rossi Doria, former undersecretary of the MIUR: Anna Maria Aiello, president of Invalsi and full professor of developmental and educational psychology at “La Sapienza University” of Rome; Dino Cristanini, former director of Invalsi; Walter Moro, president of the Center for the Democratic Initiative of Teachers (Cidi) of Milan; Michele Pellerey, former rector of the Salesian Pontifical University of Rome; Mario Fierli, former director of the MIUR; Lucio Guasti, former full professor of general education at the Catholic University of Milan; Silvano Tagliagambe, full professor of philosophy of science at the xx Acknowledgments

University of Cagliari; Corrado Petrucco, associate professor of experimental pedagogy at the University of Padua; Maurizio Gentile, assistant professor of special education and pedagogy at the University of Verona; Franco Azzali, president of “Studio Pegaso”, professor of general pedagogy at the IUSVE.

Thanks also to David Perkins, professor of teaching and learning at the Harvard Graduate School of Education, for a discussion on learning environments held in Padua in March 2013 on the occasion of the International Education Gala titled “At School With Love”.

We are grateful to Antonella Zuccaro, the chief researcher at Indire (a research institution of the Ministry of Education), for helping to improve the focus of some aspects of our research and for having indicated some notable case studies to us. We remember the stimulating seminar meetings in Fiesole between 2012 and 2014 on the occasion of the research project “The Integration of the Sciences and Workshop Teaching”.

Thanks to Ivana Summa, a former principal and an adjunct professor of education sciences at the University of Bologna, for the opening words of our research and for having dealt with us on school organizational models. We especially remember a meeting at the High School of Public Administration in the snow of a freezing Bologna.

A heartfelt thanks to Cinzia Mion, a former principal, vice-president of the National Association of Principals and member of the Educational Cooperation Movement, for the enthusiasm with which she discussed the objectives of our research and for having indicated relevant experiences and conferences.

A heartfelt thanks to all the principals, teachers and non-teaching staff of the 14 schools involved in the case studies.

A sincere gratitude goes to Salvatore Giuliano, principal of the famous “Majorana” school in Brindisi, for believing in change and for having managed to start from small innovations and arrive at revolutionizing a school, where technology is not an end in itself but a means to making learning more effective. We remember Salvatore and the teachers Gioacchino Margarito and Salvatore Tiralongo for the welcome they gave us and the hospitality they showed us in Brindisi. We thank them for the fruitful interviews and memorable business dinners at the marina.

A heartfelt thanks goes to the teachers of the “Gioia” high school in Piacenza, to the teachers Elena Gabbiani, Cristina Bonelli and Franco Marzaroli for having testified to us how to benefit from the territorial communities of practice for educational purposes and how to develop the didactics of the product and, finally, for having met us at school during a scalding August.

We are grateful to Cristina Bonaglia, principal of the “Fermi” school in Mantua, for the passion shown to us during the numerous interactions. We congratulate her on succeeding in giving an international scope to her school and on having created innovative spaces for learning environments. We remember the numerous meetings both at school and at conferences of

Acknowledgments xxi the Italian Teachers Association and the Skype videoconferences with her from Boston while she was looking for more original ideas for her school.

We are grateful to Mike Price, rector of the Collegio del Mondo Unito (United World College) in Duino, for having introduced us to this reality, unique in the Italian panorama, of a border school, open to the territory, with an international program rich in community activities and volunteer work, including the participation in the international peace movement. The sea view from the Karst hills is unforgettable.

We are grateful to Maria Grazia Carnazzola, principal of the “Piazzi Lena Perpenti” school in Sondrio, for showing us how to best use the resources present on the territory and for having strengthened the creativity of teachers and students in the face of a shortage of teaching equipment.

A special thanks goes to Franca Zappini, former principal of the “Russell” high school in Cles, for having explained to us how to motivate students with a flexible schedule, how one can simultaneously retrieve and enhance excellences throughout the year. We apologize for interrupting her summer bike rides among the Trentino valleys.

We want to thank Maria Bernardi, former principal of the “Barsanti” school in Castelfranco Veneto, for testifying to us that, in addition to welcoming students, there is also a need for welcoming parents and that peer teaching can be used to help new students. Regarding our summer meeting, we remember the professionalism with which a school is directed.

We thank Anna Morrone, former principal of the “Randi” school in Ravenna, for showing us what it means to develop and carry on a shared culture needed to face the daily educational challenges, to believe in teachers and to enhance experimental teaching methodologies, to be able to cope with problems by investing in education. We thank her for her willing help during the sultry days of August inside an empty school.

A mention of merit goes to Margherita Carloni, principal of the Comprehensive Institute in Montespertoli, for letting us become acquainted with the Global Curriculum Approach, the famous Without a Backpack didactic structure and the ecological paradigm in the planning of teaching methodologies. We remember this principal’s love of and passion for school, as well as for having accompanied us to the station through the splendid landscape of the Tuscan hills.

A heartfelt thanks to Giovanni Sapucci, principal of the “CEIS” in Rimini, for having introduced us to a real educational village, where people, the inspiring spirit of the school and the spaces, create a learning environment that is unique in its kind, open to diversity.

A further thanks goes to Caterina Manco, former principal of the “eSpazia” Comprehensive Institute in Monterotondo for having introduced us to, among other things, teacher coaching, to teacher caretaking and to the open-plan classrooms. We also thank her for having welcomed us while she was waiting anxiously for the birth of her grandson.

xxii Acknowledgments

Gratitude must be expressed to Enrico Sitta, teacher and vice-principal at the “Marconi” school in Modena, for having granted us a fruitful interview in August when the school was closed while sitting outdoors in a cafe.

A sincere thanks to Tiziana Cavedoni, principal of the “Giovanni XXIII” in Tricesimo, for having introduced us to the teaching workshop; to Fernanda Tucillo, former principal of the “Ristori” school in Naples, for introducing us to a community school, open from 8.00 a.m. to 8.00 p.m., which addresses the social needs of parents and students in the well-known Forcella district of Naples. We remember the arrival at the station in Naples and the unusual transportation to school by scooter, the only way to move around easily in the traffic of the city.