Rome, March 3, 2026 – The Administrative Regional Court (TAR) has twice ruled against the Argan artistic institute in Rome, compelling the school to promote a student with a personalized educational plan to the fourth year of high school. The student, referred to as Sara (a fictitious name), had a special therapeutic and rehabilitative pathway defined by the ASL Roma 2, which prevented her from attending school on Tuesdays and Thursdays and required an early departure on Mondays.
TAR Overrules School’s Decision on Fragile Student’s Promotion
Despite Sara’s adherence to her personalized plan during the 2024-2025 school year and achieving satisfactory academic results, the Argan artistic institute denied her admission to the fourth year, citing “insufficient attendance” during the second semester. Sara’s family, represented by lawyer Alberto Branzanti, successfully appealed to the TAR.
The administrative judges highlighted that “the absences incurred as a result of the communicated therapeutic plan were duly justified to the school by the Department of Mental Health; the student participated in school activities with profit, regularly attending on days not affected by therapeutic commitments and achieving a normal number of evaluations, moreover with an overall more than sufficient performance. No communication was received from the school during the entire second semester.”
The Court’s Rationale: Prioritizing Educational Development
In its ruling on August 27, 2025, the TAR cited established jurisprudence, stating that “the annual attendance limit can be exceeded in the presence of two requirements: extraordinary and documented justifications for absences; and the possibility, even if the limit is exceeded, of evaluating academic performance.” This was reinforced by a similar ruling by the Sardinia TAR in 2022, which prioritized positive academic results and the achievement of educational objectives. The court emphasized that “the correct personal and educational development of the student” must prevail.
Following this, the Lazio TAR definitively upheld the parents’ appeal, obliging “the resistant administration to re-evaluate the minor’s position by the class council.”
School’s Continued Resistance and a Second TAR Intervention
The issue remained unresolved when the Argan class council, in a subsequent meeting, again decided against the student’s promotion. This prompted the family to file another appeal. On December 3, 2025, the TAR once more annulled the Argan council’s decision of non-admission, ordering “the admission of the student to the fourth class of the artistic institute attended.” The court mandated compliance within 15 days, threatening to report non-compliance to the General Directorate for Students, Inclusion, Orientation, and Combating School Dropout of the Ministry of Education and Merit.
School’s Defense and the Broader Debate
Exhausted by the dispute, the family transferred their daughter to another institute. However, the case highlights the ongoing challenges faced by public schools in managing students with fragilities, whose numbers are increasing, often with certified difficulties. The Argan institute defended its autonomy and adherence to internal regulations, citing the student’s exceeding the maximum absence limit, the submission of “post-dated medical certificates several months after the absences,” and a lack of sufficient evaluations (fewer than three for several subjects and only one for physics). The school also stated that it had offered alternative educational methods (home schooling, home-based education, or hospital schooling), all of which were refused.
Principal Nicola Armignacca argued that the TAR had overstepped its administrative competencies by addressing technical issues that are “the exclusive competence of the class council, thereby disregarding State Law no. 122 of June 22, 2009.” He believes the administrative court has established a principle “that for some, it is possible to obtain a qualification, opting for compulsory attendance, only to then disregard it, even with an inadequate number of evaluations to verify the real acquisition of the content of the disciplines to consciously face the topics of the following year.”
The Challenge of “Interrupted Adolescents”
This case fuels a broader debate extending beyond jurisprudence, touching on themes such as inclusion and the school’s capacity to meet the needs of a new generation of disoriented and “interrupted” adolescents, as described by Stefano Vicari, Professor of Child Neuropsychiatry at the Catholic University and Head of Child Neuropsychiatry at the Bambino Gesù Hospital in Rome.
Similar cases have emerged across Italy, emphasizing the complex interplay between legal mandates, educational policies, and the individual needs of students. These include instances where gifted students were initially failed but later promoted by TAR rulings due to “illogical evaluations” or where students were readmitted after excessive absences, with courts prioritizing the students’ overall educational development.
