SCHOOL/ We don't need "more Europe", but the best one (and the Indications tell us which one it is)
Draghi's slam on the EU also concerns schools, particularly STEM subjects. The new National Guidelines are useful.
Mario Draghi 's interesting speech at the Rimini Meeting, which the national press interpreted (and it couldn't have been otherwise) as a slam dunk to Europe to regain its political influence, also has important implications for Italian schools, although nothing has been said about this aspect (at least so far).
More Europe or less Europe in schools? That is the question. Where Europe doesn't just mean the environments, climates, and historical-political events that, upon closer inspection, have played a fundamental role in the development of the entire world system throughout modern history.
But above all, that series of indicators and related evaluation indices that Europe has coined, most recently consisting of the eight key competences for lifelong learning (functional literacy; multilingualism; mathematics and basic competence in science and technology; digital; personal, social and learning to learn; social and civic citizenship; entrepreneurship; cultural awareness and expression) accompanied by the Council Recommendations (May 2018).
Draghi's Report for Europe, produced in September 2024 ( The Future of European Competitiveness ), also addresses education, highlighting how the Old Continent is lagging behind the United States in this field. Indeed, while Europe should aim to match the United States in terms of innovation—as the Report reflects—we should aim to surpass it in offering education and adult learning opportunities.
Europe, the report continues, is entering an unprecedented period in its history, in which rapid technological change and sectoral transitions will combine with a declining working-age population. In this context, Europe must ensure the best use of available skills while maintaining the integrity of its social fabric. Regarding these objectives, the report notes, there are still significant discrepancies.
Europe, in fact, produces high-quality talent in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) fields, but its supply is limited. Europe produces approximately 850 STEM graduates per million inhabitants annually, compared to over 1,100 in the United States. Furthermore, Europe's talent pool is being depleted by the brain drain abroad due to more and better job opportunities elsewhere. It also lacks the skills needed to more rapidly diffuse digital technologies throughout the economy and to enable workers to adapt to the changes these technologies will bring.
The 2024 Draghi Report delivers a merciless verdict on the state of education in Europe when it warns that "Europe's skills shortage is due to the decline of education and training systems, which fail to prepare the workforce for technological change." A look at the Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) systems reveals that educational attainment in the European Union is declining. The top positions in recent PISA reports are dominated by Asian countries, while Europe has experienced an unprecedented decline.
This downward trend affects both average figures and top results: in 2022, only 8% of students in the European Union achieved a high level of proficiency in mathematics and 7% in reading and science.
Although the number of STEM graduates is increasing, the pace is insufficient to keep pace with the growing demand for STEM jobs, and wide gender disparities are evident: men outnumber women by almost twice as many. To reach the goal of at least 60% of adults participating in training each year, approximately 50 million additional workers would need to receive training.
How do these data and warnings relate to the current government's education policy?
On multiple levels, one might say. It's no coincidence that the New National Guidelines for preschool and primary school were recently issued, and new curricula for secondary school are being developed. Europe and the Report's recommendations are clearly present. The strategic position of STEM subjects is reiterated repeatedly ("Mathematical, scientific, and technological education, enriched by an integrated and interdisciplinary approach, represent a strategic resource for pursuing the goal of developing citizens capable of understanding and navigating complexity and planning for the future").
The New Guidelines, however, do not embrace Europe as such, but (rightly) preserve the "holistic" specificity that has enriched our culture by orienting teaching toward "an approach that connects mathematics, science, technology, art, and the humanities." This approach, the Guidelines argue, overcomes the fragmentation of knowledge and supports an organic unity capable of fostering the development of creativity and innovation.
From the perspective of a participatory and collaborative vision of the learner (even during recurrent instruction, why not!), the Guidelines suggest "presenting students with an integrated cultural vision of the humanities, mathematics, science, and technology" in order to "allow them, on the one hand, to project themselves confidently and consciously into the world and, on the other, to orient themselves and observe themselves as subjects immersed in the culture of reference."
In conclusion, it can be observed that if Europe needs to bridge gaps and advance the education of young people and adults, the historical contextualization of subject content suggested by the Guidelines could be an interesting course correction worth keeping in mind. More Europe or less Europe? The better Europe, one might say. Provided we understand it from its roots.
— — — —
We need your help to continue providing you with quality, independent information.
İl sussidiario
