In international schools, conversations about inclusion often reveal something deeper than differences in curriculum. They reveal different educational cultures.
At La Scuola d’Italia Guglielmo Marconi in New York, where Italian and American educational systems coexist daily, this becomes especially visible when supporting students with learning differences and special educational needs.
As Assistant Head of School for Italian Educational Regulation, I work closely with the implementation of Italian educational policies while teaching high school mathematics and physics and coordinating the school’s STEM department. One of the most interesting aspects of this role has been observing how differently Italy and the United States approach personalized learning support.
One of the central tools in the Italian system is the Piano Didattico Personalizzato (PDP), or Personalized Learning Plan. Introduced through Italian Law 170/2010 for students with specific learning disorders and later extended to broader special educational needs, the PDP is designed to help teachers adapt instruction, assessment, and classroom expectations to individual students.
At first glance, American educators may recognize similarities with IEPs, 504 Plans, or MTSS frameworks. Students may receive accommodations such as extended time, reduced workload, assistive technology, oral assessments, or graphic organizers. But after working within both educational cultures, I have come to believe that the most significant difference lies less in the accommodations themselves and more in the philosophy behind them.
In many American schools, support systems understandably revolve around compliance, eligibility, and formal documentation. The Italian approach, while also grounded in legal requirements, tends to place stronger emphasis on the everyday pedagogical relationship between teachers and students.
The PDP, for example, is not simply a checklist of accommodations. It includes structured classroom observations written directly by teachers: reading fluency, written production, attention span, organization, fatigue, motivation, participation, and self-esteem. Teachers are encouraged to identify not only areas of difficulty, but also students’ strengths and effective learning strategies.
That distinction matters because it pushes educators to reflect on how a student learns, not only on which diagnosis the student may have received.
Another aspect that international educators may find interesting is that the PDP is not reserved exclusively for students with certified learning disorders. Italian regulations also allow schools to activate personalized support measures for students experiencing linguistic challenges, socio-economic disadvantage, emotional difficulties, or temporary learning obstacles.
This creates a more flexible framework for intervention. Schools do not necessarily wait for a formal diagnosis before adapting instruction. In some situations, teacher observation and collegial discussion are considered sufficient to justify temporary support measures.
Like any educational system, the Italian model has its own limitations. Schools still face challenges related to paperwork, consistency, teacher preparation, and implementation. There is always the risk that personalized plans become procedural obligations rather than meaningful instructional tools.
Still, several features of the Italian approach deserve attention, especially at a time when many schools are rethinking inclusive education and personalized learning support.
One example is the central role of the teaching team. The PDP is developed collaboratively by the Consiglio di Classe, roughly comparable to a teaching team or grade-level faculty group. Classroom teachers, school leadership, specialists, and families all contribute to the process. Inclusion is viewed less as the responsibility of a single department and more as a shared instructional commitment.
Another interesting element is the explicit focus on teaching strategies within the plan itself. Alongside accommodations, the PDP may include:
- cooperative learning activities,
- peer tutoring,
- small-group instruction,
- multimodal materials,
- organizational supports,
- and strategies aimed at improving confidence and participation.
In other words, the document does not focus only on removing barriers. It also encourages teachers to rethink classroom methodology.
Working in an international school environment has made these differences particularly meaningful for me. Students move across languages, educational traditions, and assessment systems. Families often bring different expectations about learning support, grading, and inclusion. Having experience with both Italian and American frameworks can help schools build more balanced approaches.
In recent years, conversations in education have increasingly focused on neurodiversity, differentiated instruction, and student-centered learning. In that context, international comparisons can be useful—not because one system is necessarily better than another, but because each system highlights priorities that the other sometimes overlooks.
The American system offers strong procedural protections and structured support pathways. The Italian model, meanwhile, often places stronger emphasis on pedagogical flexibility, teacher observation, and collaborative adaptation inside everyday classroom practice.
For schools working in multilingual and multicultural environments, both perspectives have value.
Perhaps the most important lesson is that personalized learning support works best when it becomes part of school culture rather than simply a compliance process. Documents and regulations matter, but meaningful inclusion still depends largely on relationships, professional collaboration, and teachers’ ability to adapt instruction thoughtfully and consistently.
As international education continues to grow, these cross-cultural conversations may become increasingly important—not only for supporting students with learning differences, but for improving teaching practices more broadly.